## 3 Results
### Bunker Silage  
In the last trial, the silage scale was expanded from 400-kg silo bales to a 40-t bunker silo. Among all the parameters, no significant difference was observed between treatments (Table 3). However, there was a trend toward increased acetic acid levels (3.79 vs. 4.73, \(p\) = 0.065) and decreased LA-AA ratio (0.40 vs. 0.30, \(p\) = 0.087) in DPI silage after 45 d of conservation. In 105-d ensiled forages, the lactic acid level (3.28 vs. 2.90, \(p\) = 0.095) seemed to be lower in DPI silage. Besides that, a tendency was observed to double the aerobic stability time in DPI silage (53 vs. 113 h, \(p\) = 0.062). Responses to inoculation were more remarkable at feed-out. To compare the change rate of pH value and lactic acid level between treatments, scatter plots were graphed using either of the two indicators against aerobic exposure time. The slopes of the linear regression lines from each treatment were compared, showing that both the pH value (\(p\) = 0.031) (Figure 3a) and lactic acid level (\(p\) = 0.002) (Figure 3b) changed significantly rapidly in the control silage upon aerobic exposure. Compared with the control, yeast and mold growth tended to be slower in DPI silage (Figure 4). The daily temperature of the silo face was recorded with an infrared thermography camera to further understand the heat accumulation in silage under field conditions. The surface temperature image captured by an infrared thermography camera is demonstrated in Figure 5 as an example. Two-way ANOVA was performed to compare the main effects of the treatment and silage layer as well as their interaction effects on the ASI. The results indicated significant differences in ASI by both treatment and silage layer (Table 4), and the relationship between ASI and treatment was dependent upon the silage layer (treatment \(\times\) layer interaction, \(p\) < 0.001). Figure 3: Changes in (**a**) pH, and (**b**) lactic acid concentration of 105-d ensiled bunker forages during aerobic exposure. Corn silage was treated without (\(\bullet\), \(n\) = 3) or with (\(\blacktriangle\), \(n\) = 3) DPI. Asterisk (\(\bullet\)) indicated that the slopes of linear regression lines differed significantly (\(p\) < 0.05). Data were presented as mean \(\pm\) SEM. SEYX: standard error of regression coefficient. Figure 2: Changes in yeast and mold counts (YMC) of 90-d ensiled baled forages during aerobic exposure. Corn silage was treated without (\(\bullet\), \(n\)=3) or with (\(\blacktriangle\), \(n\)=3) DPI. Data were presented as mean \(\pm\) SEM. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Hours of Aerobic Exposure**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DPI**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SEM**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**_p_ Value**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **Upper** & **Lower** & **Upper** & **Lower** & **Treatment** & **Layer** & **Treatment** \(\times\)** **Layer** \\ \hline
24h & 693 & 678 & 691 & 680 & 0.065 & 0.003 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\
48h & 1352 & 1332 & 1346 & 1332 & 0.115 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\
72h & 2021 & 1998 & 2010 & 1997 & 0.199 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\
96h & 2721 & 2684 & 2702 & 2684 & 0.311 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Control (_n_ = 7738) = no inoculant added; DPI (_n_ = 7738) = 2.5 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\) cfu/g of _Lactobacillus plantarum_ and 5.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\) cfu/g of _Lactobacillus plantarum_.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Effects of inoculant application 1 on heat accumulation in different layers of bunker silage during feed-out at field situation. Figure 4: Changes in yeast and mold counts (YMC) of 105-d ensiled bunker forages during aerobic exposure. Corn silage was treated without (\(\blacklozenge\), \(n\) = 3) or with (\(\blacklozenge\), \(n\) = 3) DPI. Values with asterisk (*) within the same aerobic exposure time differed significantly (_p_ < 0.05). Data were presented as mean \(\pm\) SEM.