Next Article in Journal
An UAV Direct Seeding Device for Rice Based on EDEM
Next Article in Special Issue
Isolation of Cellulose-Degrading Bacteria from Cenchrus fungigraminus and Their Effects on Silage Quality
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Analysis of Image Binarization Algorithms for UAV-Based Soybean Canopy Extraction Across Growth Stages for Image Labelling
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimisation of Whole-Plant Corn Silage Harvesting Methods Based on Silage Quality in Northeast China: Interaction of Latitude, Harvesting Time, and Stubble Height
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/agriculture16050583
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Different Inoculant Types on the Fermentation Characteristics of Silages from Various Forage Crops

by
Jonas Jatkauskas
1,*,
Anouk Lanckriet
2,
Marianna Gentilini
2 and
Vilma Vrotniakiene
1
1
Institute of Animal Science, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, R. Žebenkos 12, 82317 Baisogala, Lithuania
2
DeLaval Inc., Madison, WI 53597, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2026, 16(5), 583; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16050583
Submission received: 23 January 2026 / Revised: 27 February 2026 / Accepted: 28 February 2026 / Published: 3 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Silage Preparation, Processing and Efficient Utilization—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Silage additives formulated with lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are commonly applied to enhance fermentation efficiency and aerobic stability. However, comparative evaluations across different forage species are still scarce. This in vitro experiment assessed the influence of eleven commercial silage inoculants containing various combinations of homo- and heterofermentative LAB on fermentation dynamics, nutrient conservation, and aerobic stability of medium-wilted alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), and red clover/perennial ryegrass silages. Experimental silages were prepared in 3 L laboratory silos and stored for 90 days. All inoculated treatments exhibited significantly lower pH values at both 3 and 90 days of ensiling compared with the untreated control (p < 0.05). LAB application increased the concentration of total fermentation acids and lactic acid in all forage types, although responses varied depending on inoculant composition. Inoculants containing Lentilactobacilllus buchneri produced the greatest acetic acid concentrations and resulted in a marked enhancement of aerobic stability. Compared with the control, silage inoculation significantly decreased dry matter losses by 35–64% and ammonia-N proportion by 20–37%, leading to an additional dry matter recovery of 1.29–2.87%. Control silages showed the lowest aerobic stability (97.2 h), while inoculated silages ranged from 126.0 to 200.4 h, with the extent of improvement differing among forage species and LAB formulations. In conclusion, commercial silage inoculants incorporating diverse LAB strains effectively improve fermentation quality, limit nutrient degradation, and enhance aerobic stability of legume and grass silages under controlled experimental conditions.

1. Introduction

Silage-based feeding strategies play a central role in contemporary cattle production systems worldwide. A broad variety of plant materials, including grasses, legumes, cereal crops, and agricultural by-products, can be preserved as silage. Improving forage conservation practices contributes not only to greater feed-use efficiency but also to reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with livestock production. Nevertheless, despite ongoing technological progress, consistent production of high-quality silage remains difficult, while the demand for preserved forages continues to increase [1,2]. The final quality of silage is determined by numerous interacting factors, such as botanical composition, stage of maturity at harvest, weather conditions during harvesting, dry matter (DM) concentration, levels of water-soluble carbohydrates (WSCs) and crude protein (CP), and the composition of epiphytic microorganisms present on the crop at ensiling [3,4,5]. Because many forage crops do not naturally meet the optimal conditions required for efficient fermentation, adjustments prior to ensiling or the application of silage additives are frequently required to support desirable fermentation and minimize nutrient losses [6,7]. Among available additives, microbial silage inoculants are widely recommended as fermentation starters. Among available additives, microbial silage inoculants are widely recommended as fermentation starters. LAB are classified as homofermentative or heterofermentative according to their metabolic pathways. Homofermentative LAB mainly produce lactic acid from sugars, promoting a rapid pH decline and efficient preservation. In contrast, heterofermentative LAB produce lactic and acetic acids, as well as other metabolites, which may enhance aerobic stability. Species also differ in growth characteristics, substrate utilization, and tolerance to environmental conditions; therefore, inoculant selection should consider the desired fermentation profile and ensiled material properties.
Evidence from recent reviews, meta-analyses, and experimental studies indicates that inoculation with LAB generally enhances fermentation outcomes and aerobic stability; however, the extent and consistency of these benefits are highly dependent on the characteristics of individual strains and the composition of inoculant products [8,9,10,11]. During ensiling, LAB converts WSC into lactic acid, leading to a rapid decline in pH that inhibits the growth of undesirable and spoilage-associated microorganisms [12]. Although the effects of individual inoculants on specific forage types have been extensively reported in the literature and in product documentation, direct comparisons among multiple commercial formulations conducted under identical experimental conditions remain scarce. Commercial inoculants vary considerably in terms of bacterial species and strains, strain combinations, application rates, carrier substances, and proposed mechanisms of action, which may result in differing responses depending on forage type, DM content, and ensiling conditions [13]. Xylanase enzymes can be added to some silage inoculants to hydrolyze hemicellulosic components of the plant cell wall, thereby increasing the release of fermentable sugars available for lactic acid bacteria [14]. Evaluating multiple inoculants simultaneously within a single experimental design reduces inter-study variability and allows for a more robust comparison of fermentation characteristics, nutrient preservation, and aerobic stability. Such an approach addresses an important gap in current knowledge and provides more practical information regarding inoculant performance under standardized conditions. It was hypothesized that the silage inoculants examined in this study would exhibit distinct effects on fermentation dynamics, nutrient retention, and aerobic stability as a result of their differing microbial compositions and functional properties. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of eleven commercial silage inoculant formulations in improving fermentation quality and aerobic stability of three forage types: grass, alfalfa, and a grass/clover mixture using an in vitro mini-silo system.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Crop Material, Microbial Inoculants, and Silage Preparation

Mini-silos were prepared using three forage materials: alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), and a mixed sward of red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) at a ratio of 65:35 (Table 1). All crops were harvested using a mower conditioner (Kverneland Taarup 347; Kverneland Group, Klepp Stasjon Norway) and subsequently wilted in the field. The wilted forages were then collected and chopped with a precision forage harvester (Massey Ferguson 5130; Claas Group, Harsewinkel, Germany) set to a theoretical cutting length of 20 mm.
Following chopping, the forage materials were ensiled under laboratory conditions in airtight glass containers with volumes of 3.0 L and 0.7 L. The larger silos (3.0 L) were designated for chemical composition analyses and aerobic stability assessment, while the smaller silos (0.7 L) were used exclusively for pH measurement three days after ensiling. For all treatments, the target packing density was 0.2 kg DM L−1. Each forage type was assigned to twelve experimental treatments, including one untreated control and eleven inoculant-treated variants, with five replicate mini-silos prepared per treatment. All microbial additives were commercially available silage inoculants and were applied according to the manufacturer-recommended application rates (Table 2).
Prior to ensiling, the freshly harvested and chopped forage was transported to the laboratory. Upon arrival, the forage was weighed separately for each treatment. Each inoculant was diluted in distilled, chlorine-free water to achieve the target concentration for the respective treatment (Table 2). The prepared inoculant suspensions were sprayed onto the chopped forage at a rate of 1 mL kg−1 fresh matter using handheld sprayers. An additional 3 mL kg−1 distilled water was applied to facilitate uniform distribution. Control samples received an equivalent total volume of water (4 mL kg−1 fresh matter) without inoculant. After application, the treated forage was thoroughly mixed by hand to ensure even distribution of the solution and then manually packed into glass silos, with intermittent compaction to achieve uniform density. To achieve the targeted packing density of 0.2 kg DM L−1 [15], the 3.0 L silos contained 1.49–1.55 kg of alfalfa forage (DM concentration: 397.9 g kg−1), 1.67–1.70 kg of perennial ryegrass forage (DM concentration: 349.7 g kg−1), and 1.83–1.87 kg of red clover/perennial ryegrass mixture (DM concentration: 327.1 g kg−1). All tools and surfaces in contact with the forage were cleaned and disinfected with ethanol between treatments to minimize the risk of cross-contamination.
During silo filling, five representative samples of untreated chopped forage were collected for determination of initial chemical composition and microbiological status. In addition, all inoculant suspensions were analyzed for viable LAB counts using de Man–Rogosa–Sharpe (MRS) agar following ISO 15214:1998 (Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs—Horizontal method for the enumeration of mesophilic lactic acid bacteria—Colony count technique at 30 °C) [16]. Measured LAB concentrations in the inoculant solutions were consistent with the target concentrations specified for each treatment (Table 3).
After sealing, all silos were stored at ambient laboratory temperature (approximately 22 °C) for 90 days. Upon opening, each mini-silo was weighed to quantify dry matter losses prior to sample collection for subsequent analyses.

2.2. Sampling, Chemical Analysis, and Aerobic Stability Evaluation of the Silages

Fresh forage and silage samples from each treatment were collected during silo filling at the beginning of the study and after 90 days of ensiling, respectively. Samples were homogenized and oven-dried prior to analysis. Dry matter (DM) was determined by drying at 60 °C to constant weight. Crude protein (CP) was analyzed by the Kjeldahl method (nitrogen × 6.25). Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined according to the Van Soest method, with NDF analyzed using heat-stable amylase and expressed exclusive of residual ash. Chemical analyses and DM loss calculations were carried out as described previously by Stoskus et al. [17]. Calculations of corrected dry matter (DMc) concentration were performed according to Weissbach and Strubelt [18]. Aerobic stability of the silages was determined using the temperature monitoring method described by Honig [19] and described previously by Stoskus et al. [17].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Silage composition data were analyzed separately for each forage type by one-way ANOVA, considering 11 additive treatments within a randomized complete block design. Data were processed using the PROC GLM procedure in SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Aerobic stability for each crop type was analyzed separately using a randomized complete block design with temperature treated as a repeated measurement. Treatment means were compared using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test, with significance declared at p < 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Chemical Composition of Herbage at Harvest

Variations in ensiling behavior between grass and legume forages are primarily related to their chemical composition, particularly buffering capacity. The quantity of acid required to reduce forage pH from approximately 6.0 to a stable level near 4.0 is influenced by DM content, WSC concentration, and CP levels [20]. In addition, higher DM concentrations can slow fermentation due to reduced water availability for microbial activity [21]. Distinct differences in chemical composition were observed among the forage types evaluated in this study (Table 4). Based on pre-ensiling WSC and CP concentrations, alfalfa was classified as difficult to ensile, as its WSC content (1.94% of fresh matter) was below the threshold indicated in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) guidelines for silage additives [22]. In contrast, perennial ryegrass and the red clover/perennial ryegrass mixture contained higher WSC concentrations (3.15% of fresh matter) and were, therefore, considered moderately easy to ensile. Buffering capacity and fermentation coefficient values were consistent with those typically reported for these forage species when evaluated relative to their DM concentrations. In alfalfa, the combination of high buffering capacity and CP content with limited WSC availability resulted in less favorable ensiling characteristics, in agreement with previous findings reported by Muck [23].

3.2. Nutritional Composition, Fermentation Characteristics, and Aerobic Stability of the Silages

The nutritional composition and fermentation parameters of untreated and inoculated alfalfa silages are presented in Table 5 and Table 6. The magnitude of inoculant responses varied numerically among forage types. Alfalfa silages showed particularly pronounced responses to inoculation, which may be related to the inherently high buffering capacity of alfalfa and its greater susceptibility to inefficient fermentation [1,13,24]. Across most treatments, inoculated silages showed higher DM and corrected DM values compared with the control, indicating improved fermentation efficiency. Treatments containing the selected LAB strains resulted in improved preservation of silage nutrients, which is consistent with their previously reported fermentation-modifying properties [25]. Crude protein concentrations were increased in several inoculated silages, particularly in PLE and PLX treatments, suggesting reduced proteolysis during ensiling. Correspondingly, ammonia-N levels were significantly lower in inoculated silages, with reductions ranging from 29% to 36% (p < 0.05). The largest decreases were observed in PLX, LPE, and LPELXS treatments (p < 0.05), indicating improved preservation of crude protein. Similar reductions in ammonia-N have been reported in additive-treated silages as a consequence of faster acidification and suppression of proteolytic activity [26,27]. Residual WSC concentrations were higher in several inoculated treatments, reflecting improved conservation of fermentable substrates. Inoculant application resulted in significant increases in lactic acid concentration, ranging from 35% to 76% relative to the control (p < 0.05). The highest lactic acid concentration was observed in LPELXS silage, exceeding the control by 2.59% kg−1 DM (p < 0.05). Increased lactic acid production contributes to a more rapid pH decline, thereby enhancing fermentation quality and limiting nutrient losses [28,29]. Dry matter losses were significantly reduced by inoculant application, with decreases of 35–56% compared with the control (p < 0.05). Among the tested formulations, PLX produced the greatest reduction in DM loss, whereas LBP, LEL, LEP, and BLL showed smaller effects (Figure 1). These differences are likely related to LAB metabolic pathways, as homofermentative LAB predominantly produce lactic acid with minimal DM loss, while obligate heterofermentative LAB generate additional fermentation products associated with greater DM losses [30,31]. Aerobic stability was significantly improved in all inoculated silages (p < 0.05), with increases ranging from 15% to 89% compared with the control. The greatest improvements were recorded in LPELXS and BLL treatments, where aerobic stability nearly doubled (Figure 2). Enhanced stability may be linked to the production of inhibitory metabolites during fermentation, including bacteriocins produced by Pediococcus spp. [32]. In addition, inoculants containing Len. buchneri are known to increase acetic acid and 1,2-propanediol concentrations, which suppress yeast activity and reduce heating and spoilage upon air exposure [33].
Inoculation significantly influenced fermentation, nutrient composition, and fiber characteristics of perennial ryegrass silages, while overall chemical composition remained largely unchanged (Table 5 and Table 7). DM content increased by 2–4% (p < 0.05) in most inoculated silages, with PLE, PLX, LPELXS, and LPEL showing the largest gains (3.4–3.7%). DM losses were reduced by 40–64% relative to the control, with LPELXS achieving the greatest reduction (64%; Figure 3). Corrected DM followed a similar trend, with most treatments increasing ~3%, while LEP and LELX showed smaller increases (1.8–2.0%). These results suggest that inoculants effectively mitigated DM loss, reflecting differences in microbial metabolism. Crude protein content was minimally affected (0.4–2.6% change), indicating protein was largely preserved under control conditions. The lowest WSC concentration was observed in BLL (−32.0% compared to control). In contrast, PLX and LELX showed the highest WSC concentrations, representing increases of 64.0% and 60.0%, respectively. Moderate increases were observed in LPELXS (+50.0%), LPEL (+30.0%), LPE (+26.0%), LEL (+22.0%), LLPE (+18.0%), LBP (+24.0%), and LEP (+10.0%). However, values were not significantly different from either the highest or the lowest WSC concentrations. These results indicate that BLL promoted greater sugar utilization during fermentation, whereas PLX and LELX treatments retained higher residual WSC levels [34,35]. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) ranged from 36.01 to 38.01% DM. However, PLX showed the greatest numerical reduction (−4.79% vs. control). Acid detergent fiber (ADF) was reduced in all treated silages compared with the control. The largest decreases were observed in LPELXS (−10.18%), LELX (−9.20%), PLX (−9.10%), and BLL (−8.47). Differences were small relative to the SE (0.939 and 0.723) and were not significant. These patterns reflect the impact of inoculant composition and possible enzyme activity [36,37,38,39]. Fermentation profiles mirrored inoculant effects. Lactic acid increased from 3.48% DM in the control to 7.55% DM in LPELXS (117% increase, p < 0.05), while most treatments showed 60–90% higher lactic acid than the control [40]. Acetic acid peaked in BLL (3.75% DM, 90% increase), typical of heterofermentative LAB. Butyric acid was nearly eliminated (90–100% reduction), and ethanol decreased by 30–51%, indicating suppression of undesirable fermentation. Early acidification reduced pH by 7–8% at day 3, and the final pH after 90 days was 10–12% lower than the control [41]. Ammonia-N declined by 20–44% across treatments, with LPE achieving the greatest reduction (44%; p < 0.05), consistent with improved protein preservation [13,42]. Aerobic stability increased in all inoculated silages (Figure 4), ranging from 43 to 114% relative to the control (p < 0.05). Moderate improvements occurred in LELX and LEL (43.3% and 55.6%), while PLE, PLX, LPELXS, LPEL, LPE, LBP, and LEP increased stability by 61–100%. BLL showed the highest increase (114.4%), likely due to elevated acetic acid and 1,2-propanediol inhibiting yeast growth during air exposure [43].
The effects of inoculation on red clover/perennial ryegrass silages are summarized in Table 5 and Table 8. Dry matter content in inoculated silages was 1.3–3.1% higher than the control, with LPEL showing the highest value, although differences were not statistically significant. Corrected DM followed a similar trend, increasing 2.2–2.8% in treated silages. These findings are consistent with previous reports where inoculated silages show numerically higher DM but without significant treatment effects [44]. Crude protein increased by 9.1–20.7% in inoculated silages, with the highest values observed in LPE (20.7%), LPELXS (18.5%), LEP (17.3%), and LPEL (17.1%) relative to the control (p < 0.05). Differences among inoculant treatments were not statistically significant. Water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC) concentrations ranged from 0.38 to 0.48% DM after 90 days of ensiling. The highest values were observed in PLE and LBP (+20% compared with control), whereas LELX showed the greatest reduction (−5%). However, considering the standard error (SE = 0.052), differences among treatments were small and likely not statistically significant. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) ranged from 40.38 to 42.78% DM. All treatments showed lower numerical values than the control (42.78%), with the greatest reduction observed in PLX (−5.61%). Acid detergent fiber (ADF) was markedly reduced in all treated silages compared with the control (37.77%). The largest decreases were observed in PLX (−25.45%), LPELXS (−23.72%), and BLL (−22.82%). However, considering the SE (0.875 and 0.762), differences were small and likely not statistically significant. Overall, inoculation had limited effects on silage nutrient composition, with the most notable numerical changes seen in CP content [45]. Fermentation quality differed significantly among treatments (p < 0.05). All inoculated silages showed increased lactic acid compared with the control, with LPELXS achieving the largest increase (46%, 9.01 vs. 6.18% DM). These results confirm that LAB inoculation promotes homofermentative lactic acid production, improving silage pH and overall fermentation quality [46]. Acetic acid was generally reduced by inoculation; PLX decreased acetic acid by 21% relative to the control (1.78 vs. 2.26% DM, p < 0.05). Butyric acid, a marker of poor fermentation, decreased by 81–88% in treated silages (0.03–0.04 vs. 0.16% DM, p < 0.05). Ethanol concentrations were also substantially reduced, with PLX and LPE lowering levels by 60–61% (p < 0.05). Propionic acid remained low across treatments, although LBP and BLL showed 76–77% higher concentrations than the control (0.03 vs. 0.017% DM, p < 0.05). Notably, 1,2-propanediol increased sharply in LBP and BLL silages (588% and 525%, p < 0.05), indicating strong activity of heterofermentative LAB pathways [47,48]. Silage acidification was accelerated in treated groups. At day 3, LPE and PLE reduced pH by 9% compared with the control (4.51–4.58 vs. 4.94, p < 0.05). By day 90, LPELXS had the lowest pH (4.21), an 8% reduction relative to the control (p < 0.05). Ammonia-N decreased in inoculated silages, with LPEL lowering N–NH3 by 37% compared with the control (3.03 vs. 4.83% of total N, p < 0.05), indicating improved protein preservation. Dry matter losses were highest in the control and significantly greater than in all inoculated treatments (Figure 5). The lowest DM losses were observed in PLX and PLE (56% and 53%, respectively, p < 0.05), followed closely by LPELXS, LPEL, and LELX (51–53%, p < 0.05). Xylanase can promote a faster decline in pH, improve lactic acid production, enhance fiber degradation, and potentially improve nutrient preservation and aerobic stability during ensiling [13]. LBP and LEL had the highest DM losses among inoculated silages but remained 35–36% lower than the control (p < 0.05). These results align with previous findings showing that heterofermentative LAB tend to cause greater DM loss than homofermentative LAB due to differences in acidification speed [49]. Aerobic stability improved significantly with inoculation (Figure 6). Control silages exhibited the lowest stability (97.2 h), while most inoculated silages ranged from 126.0 to 154.8 h. LPEL, LEL, and BLL showed the greatest increases (166.8–200.4 h, p < 0.05). Enhanced aerobic stability is likely due to heterofermentative LAB, such as Len. buchneri, producing acetic acid and 1,2-propanediol, which inhibit spoilage organisms and delay deterioration [50,51].

4. Conclusions

The effectiveness of biological inoculants depended on forage type and inoculant composition. In alfalfa silage, inoculants containing homofermentative LAB were most effective in accelerating lactic acid production, reducing proteolysis, and minimizing DM losses, making them the preferred option for legume-based forages with high buffering capacity. In perennial ryegrass silage, treatments containing Lentilactobaccillus buchneri (heterofermentative LAB) were particularly effective in improving aerobic stability and suppressing butyric fermentation and are, therefore, recommended when aerobic stability is a priority. Combined inoculant formulations containing both homo- and heterofermentative strains provided the most consistent overall performance across forage types and may be recommended where forage composition varies or when both fermentation quality and aerobic stability are equally important. In contrast, treatments lacking strains associated with improved aerobic stability showed comparatively weaker performance in controlling aerobic deterioration.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.J., V.V. and A.L.; methodology, J.J., V.V. and A.L.; software, V.V. and A.L.; formal analysis, V.V., J.J. and M.G.; investigation, J.J. and V.V.; resources, J.J. and A.L.; data curation, J.J., V.V., M.G. and A.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.J. and V.V.; writing—review and editing, A.L., M.G. and A.L.; visualization, V.V. and M.G.; supervision J.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable, as this study did not involve humans or animals.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors Anouk Lanckriet and Marianna Gentilini were employed by the company DeLaval. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
LABLactic acid bacteria
DMDry matter
GHGGreenhouse gas
WSCWater-soluble carbohydrate
CPCrude protein
Ccontrol
PLEPediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74
PLXPediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase
LPELXSLactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate
LPELLactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393
LPELactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74
LLPELactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74
LBPLactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3
LEPLactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3
LELXLactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase
LELLactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354
BLLLentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677
CFUcolony-forming units
MRSde Man–Rogosa–Sharpe
DMcCorrected Dry Matter
ADFAcid detergent fiber
NDFNeutral detergent fiber
OMDOrganic matter digestibility
BCBuffering capacity
FCFermentation coefficient
H2OWater
CO2Carbon dioxide
SEStandard error
N-NH3Ammonia N

References

  1. McDonald, P.; Henderson, A.R.; Heron, S.J.E. The Biochemistry of Silage, 2nd ed.; Chalcombe Publications: Marlow, UK, 1991; 340p, Available online: http://books.google.com/books?id=oUcjAQAAMAAJ (accessed on 15 March 2015).
  2. Wilkinson, J.M.; Muck, R.E. Ensiling in 2050: Some challenges and opportunities. Grass Forage Sci. 2019, 74, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Downing, T.W.; Buyserie, A.; Gamroth, M.; French, P. Effect of water soluble carbohydrates on fermentation characteristics of ensiled perennial ryegrass. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2008, 24, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pauly, T.; Wyss, U. Efficacy testing of silage additives—Methodology and existing schemes. Grass Forage Sci. 2019, 74, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Windle, M.C.; Walker, N.; Kung, L., Jr. Effects of exogenous protease on the fermentation and nutritive value of corn silage harvested at different dry matter contents and ensiled for various lengths of times. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 3053–3060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ridwan, R.; Abdelbagi, M.; Sofyan, A.; Fidriyanto, R.; Astuti, W.D.; Fitri, A.; Sholikin, M.M.; Rohmatussolihat; Sarwono, K.A.; Jayanegara, A.; et al. A meta-analysis to observe silage microbiome differentiated by the use of inoculant and type of raw material. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1063333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, S. Silage Preparation, Processing and Efficient Utilization. Agriculture 2025, 15, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zielińska, K.; Fabiszewska, A.; Stefańska, I. Different aspects of Lactobacillus inoculants on the improvement of quality and safety of alfalfa silage. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 75, 298–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gonda, H.; Nikodinoska, I.; Le Cocq, K.; Moran, C.A. Efficacy of six lactic acid bacteria strains as silage inoculants in forages with different dry matter and water-soluble carbohydrate content. Grass Forage Sci. 2023, 78, 636–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Akhtar, M.F.; Wenqiong, C.; Umar, M.; Changfa, W. Biochemical properties of lactic acid bacteria for efficient silage production: An update. Front. Microbiol. 2025, 16, 1581430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Marques, B.d.S.; Costa, K.A.d.P.; Silva, L.M.d.; Costa, A.C.; Ferrari, G.C.; de Lima, J.F.; da Silva, A.F.; Matos, W.P.; Gonçalves, L.F.; Lima, D.A.S.; et al. Use of Bacterial-Enzymatic Inoculant Improves Silage Quality and Reduces Fermentation Losses in Intercropped Systems. Agriculture 2025, 15, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yan, Y.; Zhao, M.; Sun, P.; Zhu, L.; Yan, X.; Hao, J.; Si, Q.; Wang, Z.; Jia, Y.; Wang, M.; et al. Effects of different additives on fermentation characteristics, nutrient composition and microbial communities of Leymus chinensis silage. BMC Microbiol. 2025, 25, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Muck, R.E.; Nadeau, E.M.G.; McAllister, T.A.; Contreras-Govea, F.E.; Santos, M.C.; Kung, L., Jr. Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3980–4000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kung, L., Jr.; Taylor, C.C.; Lynch, M.P.; Neylon, J.M. The effect of treating alfalfa with Lactobacillus buchneri and/or fibrolytic enzymes on silage fermentation and aerobic stability. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 336–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. DLG Testing Guidelines for the Award und Use of the Dlg Quality Mark for Ensiling Agents; Prepared Under the Auspices of the DLG Commission for Ensiling Agents; Schwarz, F.J., München, T.U., Thalmann, A., Eds.; German Agricultural Society: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2018; p. 60. Available online: https://www.dlg-testservice.com/en/agricultural-technology-farm-inputs/farm-inputs/certification-of-silage-additives-and-feed-preservatives (accessed on 19 September 2024).
  16. Leuschner, R.G.K.; Bew, J.; Simson, P.J.; Ross, P.R.; Stanton, C. Enumeration of probiotic pediococci in animal feed: Interlaboratory study. J. AOAC Int. 2003, 86, 791–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Stoskus, R.; Jatkauskas, J.; Vrotniakiene, V.; Juozaitiene, V. The effect of mixed bacterial inoculant on the microbial population and aerobic stability of lucerne and maize balage. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2019, 28, 383–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Weissbach, F.E.; Strubelt, C. Correcting the dry matter content of maize silages as a substrate for biogas production. Landtech. Net63 2008, 2, 82–83. [Google Scholar]
  19. Honig, H. Evaluation of aerobic stability. In Proceedings of the EUROBAC Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, 12–16 August 1986; Lindgren, S., Pettersson, K.L., Eds.; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Uppsala, Sweden, 1990; pp. 76–82. [Google Scholar]
  20. Playne, M.J.; McDonald, P. The buffering constituent of herbage and of silage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1966, 17, 264–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rizk, C.; Mustafa, A.F.; Phillip, L.E. Effects of inoculation of high dry matter alfalfa silage on ensiling characteristics, ruminal nutrient degradability and dairy cow performance. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2005, 85, 743–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 429/2008 of 25 April 2008 On Detailed Rules for the Implementation of Regulation (EC) No. 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as Regards the Preparation and the Presentation of Applications and the Assessment and the Authorisation of Feed Additives. Official Journal of the European Union L 133, 22 May 2008; pp. 1–65. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2008:133:TOC (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  23. Muck, R. Microbiology of ensiling. In Proceedings of the 16th International Silage Conference, Hämeenlinna, Finland, 2–4 July 2012; Kuoppala, K., Rinne, M., Vanhatalo, A., Eds.; MTT Agrifood Research Finland and University of Helsinki: Helsinki, Finland, 2012; pp. 75–86. Available online: https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-487-385-7 (accessed on 22 October 2024).
  24. Xie, Y.; Wang, L.; Li, W.; Xu, S.; Bao, J.; Deng, J.; Wu, Z.; Yu, Z. Fermentation Quality, In Vitro Digestibility, and Aerobic Stability of Total Mixed Ration Silage in Response to Varying Proportion Alfalfa Silage. Animals 2022, 12, 1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zheng, M.; Li, Q.; Mao, P.; Tian, X.; Guo, Y.; Meng, L. Identification and Correlation Analysis of Key Clostridia and LAB Species in Alfalfa Silages Prepared with Different Cultivars and Additives. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Borsuk-Stanulewicz, M.; Białobrzewski, I.; Przemieniecki, S.W.; Purwin, C. Effect of dry ice addition and wilting on the rates of fermentation and proteolysis in ensiled alfalfa. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 23375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kung, L., Jr.; Shaver, R.D.; Grant, R.J.; Schmidt, R.J. Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 4020–4033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Zhao, J.; Li, X.; Liu, H.; Jing, Z.; Yin, X.; Li, J.; Dong, Z.; Shao, T. Ensilage using Leuconostoc lactis and Weissella confusa reduces microbial risk and enhances hygienic quality of whole-crop corn. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2024, 11, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, S.; Ding, C.; Tian, J.; Cheng, Y.; Xu, N.; Zhang, W.; Wang, X.; Nazar, M.; Liu, B. An evaluation of storage length on ensiling characteristics, bacterial community compositions, co-occurrence networks, and their functional shifts and pathogenic risk in high-moisture oat silage. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2024, 11, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Borreani, G.; Tabacco, E.; Schmidt, R.J.; Holmes, B.J.; Muck, R.E. Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3952–3979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Carvalho, B.F.; Sales, G.F.C.; Schwan, R.F.; Ávila, C.S. Criteria for lactic acid bacteria screening to enhance silage quality. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 130, 341–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jiang, D.; Li, B.; Zheng, M.; Niu, D.; Zuo, S.; Xu, C. Effects of Pediococcus pentosaceus on fermentation, aerobic stability and microbial communities during ensiling and aerobic spoilage of total mixed ration silage containing alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Grassl. Sci. 2020, 66, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Huang, Z.; Wang, M.; Ke, W.; Guo, X. Screening of High 1,2-Propanediol Production by Lactobacillus buchneri Strains and Their Effects on Fermentation Characteristics and Aerobic Stability of Whole-Plant Corn Silage. Agriculture 2021, 11, 590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Si, Q.; Wang, Z.; Liu, W.; Liu, M.; Ge, G.; Jia, Y.; Du, S. Influence of Cellulase or Lactiplantibacillus plantarum on the Ensiling Performance and Bacterial Community in Mixed Silage of Alfalfa and Leymus chinensis. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nkosi, B.D.; Malebana, I.M.M.; Rios, S.Á.; Nkukwana, T.T.; Meeske, R. Ensiling of High-Moisture Plant By-Products: Fermentation Quality, Nutritional Values, and Animal Performance. Fermentation 2024, 10, 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Campana, M.; de Morais, J.P.G.; Capucho, E.; Garcia, T.M.; Pedrini, C.A.; Gandra, J.R.; Valle, T.A.D. Fibrolytic enzymes increase fermentation losses and reduce fiber content of sorghum silage. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2023, 23, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, S.; Wang, H.; Luo, M.; Wu, B.; Duan, H.; Ma, X.; Ren, J. Effects of cellulase and xylanase additives on fermentation quality and nutrient composition of silage maize. Circ. Agric. Syst. 2023, 3, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jiang, H.; Wang, H.; Bao, B.; Qu, H.; Wang, J.; Sun, L.; Liu, B.; Gao, F. Effect of compound additives on nutritional composition, fermentation quality, and bacterial community of high-moisture alfalfa silage. Fermentation 2023, 9, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, X.; Wang, A.; Zhu, L.; Guo, W.; Guo, X.; Zhu, B.; Yang, M. Effect of additive cellulase on fermentation quality of whole-plant corn silage ensiling by a Bacillus inoculant and dynamic microbial community analysis. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1330538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Soundharrajan, I.; Muthusamy, K.; Han, O.-K.; Lee, H.J.; Purushothaman, S.; Kim, D.; Choi, K.C. Effects of Microbial Inoculants on the Fermentation and Preservation of Triticale Silages at High and Low Moisture Levels. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Irawan, A.; Sofyan, A.; Ridwan, R.; Hassim, H.A.; Respati, A.N.; Wardani, W.W.; Sadarman; Astuti, W.D.; Jayanegara, A. Effects of different lactic acid bacteria groups and fibrolytic enzymes as additives on silage quality: A meta-analysis. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2021, 14, 100654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Adesogan, A.T.; Arriola, K.G. Bacterial Inoculants for Optimizing Silage Quality and Preservation and Enhancing Animal Performance. In Proceedings of the 82nd Meeting on Cornell Nutrition Conference, October 19–22, Cornell CALS (held virtually); Harvatine, K.J., Jenkins, T., McGee, D., Place, S., Ballou, M., Davis, E.M., Adesogan, A.T., Arriola, K.G., Eds.; Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 42–57. Available online: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/f52be84f-3c95-4797-ae21-f2b83d2f9099/content (accessed on 8 October 2025).
  43. Muck, R.E. Silage microbiology and its control through additives. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2010, 39, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Queiroz, O.C.M.; Adesogan, A.T.; Arriola, K.G.; Queiroz, M.F.S. Effect of a dual-purpose inoculant on the quality and nutrient losses from corn silage produced in farm-scale silos. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 3354–3362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Reich, L.J.; Kung, L., Jr. Effects of combining Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 with various lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2010, 159, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sun, L.; Jiang, Y.; Ling, Q.; Na, N.; Xu, H.; Vyas, D.; Adesogan, A.T.; Xue, Y. Effects of Adding Pre-Fermented Fluid Prepared from Red Clover or Lucerne on Fermentation Quality and In Vitro Digestibility of Red Clover and Lucerne Silages. Agriculture 2021, 11, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Auerbach, H.; Nadeau, E. Effects of Additive Type on Fermentation and Aerobic Stability and Its Interaction with Air Exposure on Silage Nutritive Value. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Franco, M.; Rinne, M. Dry Matter Content and Additives with Different Modes of Action Modify the Preservation Characteristics of Grass Silage. Fermentation 2023, 9, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Xia, G.H.; Wu, C.R.; Zhang, M.Z.; Yang, F.; Chen, C.; Hao, J. The metabolome and bacterial composition of high-moisture Italian ryegrass silage inoculated with lactic acid bacteria during ensiling. Biotechnol. Biofuels Bioprod. 2023, 16, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wambacq, E.; Latré, J.P.; Haesaert, G. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri inoculation on the aerobic stability and fermentation characteristics of alfalfa-ryegrass, red clover and maize silage. Agric. Food Sci. 2013, 22, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jatkauskas, J.; Vrotniakiene, V.; Ohlsson, C.; Lund, B. The effects of three silage inoculants on aerobic stability in grass, clover-grass, lucerne and maize silages. Agric. Food Sci. 2013, 22, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 16 00583 g001
Figure 1. DM loss of the alfalfa silage, % kg−1 DM. Different lowercase letters, in the columns, differ significantly (p < 0.05) from each other. C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Figure 1. DM loss of the alfalfa silage, % kg−1 DM. Different lowercase letters, in the columns, differ significantly (p < 0.05) from each other. C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Agriculture 16 00583 g001
Agriculture 16 00583 g002
Figure 2. Aerobic stability of the alfalfa silage, h. Different lowercase letters, in the columns, differ significantly (p < 0.05) from each other. C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Figure 2. Aerobic stability of the alfalfa silage, h. Different lowercase letters, in the columns, differ significantly (p < 0.05) from each other. C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Agriculture 16 00583 g002
Agriculture 16 00583 g003
Figure 3. DM loss of the perennial ryegrass silage, % kg−1 DM. Different lowercase letters, in the columns, differ significantly (p < 0.05) from each other. C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Figure 3. DM loss of the perennial ryegrass silage, % kg−1 DM. Different lowercase letters, in the columns, differ significantly (p < 0.05) from each other. C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Agriculture 16 00583 g003
Agriculture 16 00583 g004
Figure 4. Aerobic stability of the perennial ryegrass silage, h. Different lowercase letters, in the columns, differ significantly (p < 0.05) from each other. C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Figure 4. Aerobic stability of the perennial ryegrass silage, h. Different lowercase letters, in the columns, differ significantly (p < 0.05) from each other. C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Agriculture 16 00583 g004
Agriculture 16 00583 g005
Figure 5. DM loss of the red clover/perennial ryegrass silage, % kg−1 DM. Different lowercase letters, in the columns, differ significantly (p < 0.05) from each other. C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Figure 5. DM loss of the red clover/perennial ryegrass silage, % kg−1 DM. Different lowercase letters, in the columns, differ significantly (p < 0.05) from each other. C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Agriculture 16 00583 g005
Agriculture 16 00583 g006
Figure 6. Aerobic stability of the red clover/perennial ryegrass silage, h. Different lowercase letters, in the columns, differ significantly (p < 0.05) from each other. C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Figure 6. Aerobic stability of the red clover/perennial ryegrass silage, h. Different lowercase letters, in the columns, differ significantly (p < 0.05) from each other. C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Agriculture 16 00583 g006
Table 1. Crop material.
Table 1. Crop material.
CropVariety (cv)Characteristics at HarvestWeather Conditions 2 Days Before Harvest and at Day of the Harvest.
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Laukiai3-year-old, first harvest, early bud maturity stagePrevailed sunny, rainless weather
with an average daily temperature of 14 °C
Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.)Elena DS2-year-old, first harvest, boot maturity stagePrevailed sunny, rainless weather
with an average daily temperature of 17 °C
Red clover (Trifolium pretense L.)
Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.)		Vyciai
Merlinda		2-year-old, first harvest, early bloom maturity stage of red cloverPrevailed sunny, rainless weather
with an average daily temperature of 20 °C
Table 2. Inoculants used in the trial.
Table 2. Inoculants used in the trial.
# Brand NameAbbreviationContentApplication,
cfu g−1 Forage
C (control)Without active ingredient
Feedtech Silage F10* PLEPediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74100,000
Feedtech Silage F18PLXPediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase100,000
Feedtech Silage F22LPELXSLactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate450,000
Feedtech Silage F3000LPELLactococcus lactis SR 354, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393500,000
Feedtech Silage Custom Chop F20LPELactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentosaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74200,000
Feedtech Silage Custom Chop PLUSLLPELactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentosaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74200,000
Feedtech Silage M25ASLBPLactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3200,000
Feedtech Silage M60LEPLactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3200,000
Feedtech Silage M20XCELELXLactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase200,000
Feedtech Silage M20XCLELLactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354200,000
Feedtech Silage F600BLLLentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677200,000
# All inoculant additives were sourced from DeLaval, Tumba, Sweden. Most formulations are dominated by coccoid LAB; Lactiplantibacillus plantarum is present in all tested products; 9 products are predominantly homofermentative; 2 products (LBP and BLL) contain Lentilactobacillus buchneri and are heterofermentative; xylanase is included in three products (PLX, LPELXS, LELX); sodium benzoate is present only in LPELXS. Cfu, colony-forming units; *, the product abbreviations are not manufacturer-defined and not independent of taxonomic genus abbreviations.
Table 3. The analyzed LAB bacteria count in water and inoculant suspension (cfu 1 mL−1 suspension ×108 unless otherwise stated).
Table 3. The analyzed LAB bacteria count in water and inoculant suspension (cfu 1 mL−1 suspension ×108 unless otherwise stated).
CPLEPLXLPELXSLPELLPELLPELBPLEPLELXLELBLL
1>1.0 × 1021.11.24.65.11.92.02.22.12.32.12.3
2>1.0 × 1021.11.04.84.91.91.91.91.92.02.12.2
3>1.0 × 1021.21.14.35.11.82.12.02.22.21.92.2
1, alfalfa; 2, perennial ryegrass; 3, red clover/perennial ryegrass; cfu, colony forming units; C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677.
Table 4. Mean chemical composition % of DM (unless otherwise stated) of forage crops prior to ensiling (n = 5).
Table 4. Mean chemical composition % of DM (unless otherwise stated) of forage crops prior to ensiling (n = 5).
AlfalfaPerennial RyegrassRed Clover/Perennial Ryegrass
MeanStandard DeviationMeanStandard
Deviation		MeanStandard Deviation
Dry matter, %39.790.90034.970.51132.710.944
Crude protein22.840.58618.190.93720.820.950
Crude fat2.290.0892.690.1742.150.154
Crude fiber22.650.61021.931.47321.371.109
Crude ash6.530.4218.060.2608.220.327
WSC4.890.19411.800.69810.920.669
ADF32.792.55528.363.44630.071.749
NDF42.782.44438.084.85641.502.343
pH6.100.0406.040.0186.240.033
Nitrate, mg kg−1 DM425.266.40754.00155.35550.2143.611
BC, mEq 100 g−1 DM37.481.48226.040.1826.500.925
FC40,831.63238.591.33236.000.873
WSC, water-soluble carbohydrates; ADF, acid detergent fiber; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; BC, buffering capacity; FC, fermentation coefficient.
Table 5. Nutritional composition of the silages 90 days after ensiling (% of DM unless otherwise stated).
Table 5. Nutritional composition of the silages 90 days after ensiling (% of DM unless otherwise stated).
CPLEPLXLPELXSLPELLPELLPELBPLEPLELXLELBLLSE
Alfalfa Silages
DM37.29 b38.49 a38.64 a38.45 a38.43 a38.41 a38.38 a37.81 ab38.21 ab38.46 a37.99 ab38.15 ab0.214
DM*38.46 b39.60 a39.68 a39.60 a39.60 a39.50 a39.48 a39.14 ab39.32 ab39.57 a39.10 ab39.49 a0.212
CP19.02 c20.54 a20.66 a19.97 abc19.61 abc20.33 ab19.35 bc19.11 c19.18 c19.41 bc19.07 c19.09 c0.276
WSC0.59 d0.72 cd1.37 a1.06 abc0.79 bcd0.96 abcd1.42 a0.93 abcd1.21 abc1.26 a1.01 abcd1.10 abc0.112
NDF43.3642.5142.0542.2542.8543.3042.9043.4142.8743.3443.1443.260.948
ADF32.7132.2031.6330.8932.0932.1531.4532.0732.2032.1031.9732.070.984
Perennial ryegrass silages
DM32.15 c33.33 a33.25 a33.33 a33.33 a33.00 ab33.03 ab33.10 a32.84 ab32.81 abc32.97 ab32.39 bc0.179
DM*33.19 b34.21 a34.15 a34.43 a34.32 a34.01 a34.03 a34.09 a33.85 ab33.80 ab33.95 a33.99 a0.185
CP17.8118.1418.1517.8918.0118.2818.0218.0518.0918.2518.1118.020.232
WSC0.50 ab0.51 ab0.82 a0.75 ab0.65 ab0.63 ab0.59 ab0.62 ab0.55 ab0.80 a0.61 ab0.34 b0.124
NDF37.8238.0136.0136.4437.5537.2837.9137.1037.4836.6637.8937.970.939
ADF28.6928.0226.0825.7726.9927.0927.2426.7426.8326.0527.4126.260.723
Red clover/Perennial ryegrass silages
DM30.2731.1331.2031.1431.2231.1531.1730.6530.9130.9331.0730.440.484
DM*31.3532.1432.0932.1232.2232.0732.0431.8031.8731.8632.0131.750.478
CP16.04 b17.50 ab18.19 ab19.01 ab18.78 a19.37 a17.87 ab18.52 a18.81 a18.53 a18.58 a17.46 ab0.535
WSC0.400.480.390.410.430.470.470.480.440.380.390.400.052
NDF42.7841.7140.3840.7840.7240.9040.8241.5040.9941.1842.0541.150.875
ADF37.7729.9528.1628.8129.8329.6630.0129.7929.8129.6329.6029.150.762
DM, dry matter; DM*, dry matter corrected for volatiles; CP, crude protein; WSC, water-soluble carbohydrates; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677. Means in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p < 0.05). For each inoculant, below the number of the nutritional parameter over 5 repeats, it is indicated from which other inoculants (number instead of name) the nutritional parameter mean differs significantly (p < 0.05).
Table 6. Fermentation characteristics of the alfalfa silage (% of DM unless otherwise stated).
Table 6. Fermentation characteristics of the alfalfa silage (% of DM unless otherwise stated).
CPLEPLXLPELXSLPELLPELLPELBPLEPLELXLELBLLSE
Lactic acid 3.40 c5.49 ab5.31 ab5.99 a5.65 a5.54 ab5.39 ab4.60 b5.41 ab5.63 ab5.30 ab4.94 ab0.289
Acetic acid 1.96 bc2.03 bc1.79 c2.04 bc2.14 b1.94 bc1.90 bc2.59 a2.15 b2.06 bc2.11 b2.70 a0.070
Butyric acid 0.182 d0.050 ab0.046 ab0.048 ab0.054 b0.028 a0.056 bc0.079 c0.056 bc0.047 ab0.051 ab0.060 b0.006
Propionic acid 0.072 bcd0.085 bcd0.067 c0.091 bc0.073 bcd0.064 d0.074 bcd0.094 b0.085 bcd0.089 bc0.075 bcd0.138 a0.005
Alcohols1.17 d0.76 ab0.77 ab0.79 ab0.80 ab0.79 ab0.84 bc1.08 c0.69 e0.75 ab0.77 ab0.88 bc0.019
Ehanol 0.57 d0.23 ab0.22 ab0.21 a0.22 ab0.27 bc0.27 bc0.29 c0.22 ab0.22 ab0.24 abc0.25 abc0.013
1,2 propanediol0.21 a0.19 b0.16 c0.19 b0.19 b0.16 c0.18 b0.31 d0.14 c0.16 c0.17 c0.33 d0.008
pH at day 35.31 e4.88 ab4.85 a4.87 a4.92 ab4.94 abc5.12 d4.98 b5.04 cd5.11 d5.03 cd5.14 d0.030
pH at day 905.03 e4.68 c4.61 b4.60 ab4.58 ab4.56 a4.60 ab4.71 c4.78 d4.81 d4.76 d4.68 c0.010
N-NH3, % kg−1 total N 8.34 c5.5 ab5.37 a5.40 a5.74 a5.38 a5.89 ab6.55 b6.17 ab6.07 ab6.44 ab6.52 b0.212
N-NH3, ammonia N; C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677. Means in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p < 0.05). For each inoculant, below the number of the nutritional parameter over 5 repeats, it is indicated from which other inoculants (number instead of name) the nutritional parameter mean differs significantly (p < 0.05).
Table 7. Fermentation characteristics of the perennial ryegrass silage (% of DM unless otherwise stated).
Table 7. Fermentation characteristics of the perennial ryegrass silage (% of DM unless otherwise stated).
CPLEPLXLPELXSLPELLPELLPELBPLEPLELXLELBLLSE
Lactic acid 3.48 e5.97 bc6.45 ab7.55 a6.52 c6.38 bc5.76 bcd5.59 bcd6.14 bc5.87 bcd5.58 bcd4.74 d0.004
Acetic acid 1.97 bc1.73 c1.75 c2.28 b2.02 bc2.14 b2.12 b2.10 b2.16 b2.10 b2.04 bc3.75 a0.065
Butyric acid 0.164 b0.005 a0.001 a0.004 a0.002 a0.000 a0.003 a0.004 a0.013 a0.009 a0.007 a0.015 a0.011
Propionic acid 0.0150.0140.0130.0200.0230.0200.0180.0150.0170.0130.0120.0290.007
Alcohols1.20 b0.74 a0.73 a0.76 a0.72 a0.75 a0.79 a0.79 a0.80 a0.78 a0.83 a1.45 b0.029
Ehanol 0.94 d0.49 ab0.48 ab0.46 a0.47 ab0.46 a0.52 ab0.52 ab0.51 ab0.53 ab0.56 b0.71 c0.018
1,2 propanediol0.19 b0.18 b0.16 c0.21 b0.18 b0.21 b0.20 b0.20 b0.21 b0.18 b0.18 b0.65 a0.017
pH at day 34.82 d4.56 abc4.45 a4.66 c4.62 bc4.47 a4.50 ab4.54 ab4.61 bc4.64 c4.56 abc4.64 c0.025
pH at day 904.54 f4.12 bc4.08 abc4.02 a4.01 a4.04 ab4.14 cde4.13 cde4.19 de4.17 de4.18 de4.22 e0.025
N-NH3, % kg −1 total N7.48 g4.45 bc4.32 ab5.00 abcdef4.78 abcd4.16 a4.89 abcde5.70 cdef5.57 bcdef5.80 def6.30 fg6.16 efg0.330
N-NH3, ammonia N; C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677. Means in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p < 0.05). For each inoculant, below the number of the nutritional parameter over 5 repeats, it is indicated from which other inoculants (number instead of name) the nutritional parameter mean differs significantly (p < 0.05).
Table 8. Fermentation characteristics of the red clover/perennial ryegrass silage (% of DM unless otherwise stated).
Table 8. Fermentation characteristics of the red clover/perennial ryegrass silage (% of DM unless otherwise stated).
CPLEPLXLPELXSLPELLPELLPELBPLEPLELXLELBLLSE
Lactic acid 6.18 c8.95 a8.63 a9.01 a8.83 a8.51 a8.31 ab6.05 c7.51 abc8.12 abc7.86 abc6.41 bc0.410
Acetic acid 2.26 b1.96 c1.78 d1.95 cd1.87 cd1.87 cd1.73 d2.47 b2.06 c1.87 cd1.92 cd3.10 a0.050
Butyric acid 0.16 b0.03 a0.03 a0.03 a0.03 a0.02 a0.04 a0.04 a0.03 a0.07 a0.03 a0.03 a0.017
Propionic acid 0.017 ab0.018 ab0.019 ab0.021 ab0.031 b0.016 ab0.014 a0.03 b0.013 a0.009 a0.010 a0.03 b0.002
Alcohols1.02 b0.84 d0.58 c0.68 c0.86 d0.64 c0.59 c1.21 a0.72 dc0.69 dc0.76 d1.22 a0.029
Ehanol 0.649 e0.338 d0.256 a0.298 abcd0.326 cd0.257 a0.266 a0.310 b0.264 ab0.269 abc0.255 a0.328 d0.014
1,2 propanediol0.08 b0.17 c0.07 b0.07 b0.19 c0.10 c0.06 c0.55 a0.11 c0.09 b0.13 b0.50 a0.022
pH at day 34.94 e4.58 ab4.62 bcd4.57 ab4.58 abc4.51 a4.66 d4.65 cd4.60 bc4.68 d4.64 bcd4.69 d0.015
pH at day 904.59 e4.25 abcd4.30 abc4.21 a4.28 bc4.26 ab4.33 c4.30 bc4.31 bc4.26 ab4.30 bc4.44 d0.011
N-NH3, % kg−1 total N4.83 d3.29 ab3.50 abc3.54 abc3.03 a3.26 ab3.85 abc4.02 abc3.79 abc3.44 abc3.44 abc4.27 cd0.208
N-NH3, ammonia N; C, control; PLE, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, Enterococcus faecium M74; PLX, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase; LPELXS, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LSI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum L-256, xylanase, sodium benzoate; LPEL, Lactococcus lactis SR 3.54, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-11, Pediococcus acidilactici 33-06, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MiLab 393; LPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactococcus lactis SR354, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LLPE, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP256, Pediococcus pentocaceus P6, Enterococcus faecium M74; LBP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri 1819, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LEP, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Pediococcus pentosaceus PC3; LELX, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354, xylanase; LEL, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Milab 393, Enterococcus faecium M74, Lactococcus lactis SR354; BLL, Lentilactobacilllus buchneri DSM 13573, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677. Means in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p < 0.05). For each inoculant, below the number of the nutritional parameter over 5 repeats, it is indicated from which other inoculants (number instead of name) the nutritional parameter mean differs significantly (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jatkauskas, J.; Lanckriet, A.; Gentilini, M.; Vrotniakiene, V. Effects of Different Inoculant Types on the Fermentation Characteristics of Silages from Various Forage Crops. Agriculture 2026, 16, 583. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16050583

AMA Style

Jatkauskas J, Lanckriet A, Gentilini M, Vrotniakiene V. Effects of Different Inoculant Types on the Fermentation Characteristics of Silages from Various Forage Crops. Agriculture. 2026; 16(5):583. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16050583

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jatkauskas, Jonas, Anouk Lanckriet, Marianna Gentilini, and Vilma Vrotniakiene. 2026. "Effects of Different Inoculant Types on the Fermentation Characteristics of Silages from Various Forage Crops" Agriculture 16, no. 5: 583. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16050583

APA Style

Jatkauskas, J., Lanckriet, A., Gentilini, M., & Vrotniakiene, V. (2026). Effects of Different Inoculant Types on the Fermentation Characteristics of Silages from Various Forage Crops. Agriculture, 16(5), 583. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16050583

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop