## 3 Results and Discussions  
### Effect of Lactic Acid Bacteria on Maize Silage  
The chemical composition of maize silage after the different ensiling periods is presented in Table 1. After the three days ensiling period, there was no significant difference in the chemical compositions among treatments. However, at 40 days, the LAB treatments showed a significant difference (\(p<0.05\)in DM and OM. The highest DM contents were for the PC, LPL and LA treatments, 32.61%, 33.51% and 33.42%, respectively. The low DM content of the LPA treatment may be a consequence of the fermentation process, which causes DM losses whose magnitude is dependent on the inoculation level and the ensiling period [32]. The consumption of carbohydrates by LAB metabolism may be responsible for the DM loss seen in the study [5]. The observed DM loss in this study differed from the observations made by [PERSON] et al. [11] which showed that DM content was not affected by LAB inoculation of maize silage. However, it was found that the utilization of additives was effective in reducing DM losses in only 35% of the studies [11]. DM content was highest in maize subjected to the PC, LPL, and LA treatments. This was expected as _L. plantarum_ and _L. acidophilus_ are commonly isolated from silage and are also preferred as silage additives [33]. The LPL treatment resulted in a numerically higher CP content in the maize silage compared to the other treatments after 40 days of ensiling (\(p=0.081\)). In contrast, several studies have indicated that CP content is not affected by the addition of bacterial inoculant in the silage-making process [11; 14; 34]. The NDF and ADF contents showed a similar pattern across treatments being low in both the PC and LA treatments. The neutral detergent fiber in the LAB treatments was also not different from the NC treatment. This finding is similar to that reported by [PERSON] et al. [9], where no differences  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Days of Ensiling** & **Treatment (\(n\) = 3)** & **DM** & **OM** & **CP** & **NDF** & **ADF** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{3} & NC 1  & NC & 31.01 & 93.35 & 8.25 & 58.18 & 36.76 \\  & PC & 31.40 & 93.99 & 8.23 & 54.43 & 32.45 \\  & LPL & 31.92 & 93.27 & 8.24 & 57.31 & 36.32 \\  & LPA & 32.01 & 93.67 & 8.33 & 56.86 & 35.68 \\  & LA & 34.59 & 94.68 & 8.54 & 51.97 & 30.05 \\  & SEM & 0.292 & 0.172 & 0.119 & 0.972 & 0.858 \\  & \(p\) & 0.103 & 0.140 & 0.913 & 0.317 & 0.133 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{7} & NC & 30.77 & 92.67 & 8.63 & 59.14 & 37.82 \\  & PC & 27.72 & 93.25 & 8.68 & 54.76 & 33.13 \\  & LPL & 30.61 & 93.98 & 8.72 & 52.71 & 31.73 \\  & LPA & 30.27 & 93.35 & 8.75 & 56.73 & 35.69 \\  & LA & 28.89 & 93.27 & 8.58 & 57.27 & 35.54 \\  & SEM & 0.480 & 0.338 & 0.116 & 1.657 & 1.404 \\  & \(p\) & 0.585 & 0.191 & 0.844 & 0.141 & 0.080 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{20} & NC & 31.28  & NC & 31.28  & NC & 32.61  & N(2.54  & N(2.54  & N(2.54  & N(2.54  & N(2.54  & N(2.54  & N(2.54  & N(2.54  & N(2.54  & N(2.54  & N(2.54  & N(2.54 [FOOTNOTE:1]Footnote 1: NC: Negative control (maize silage without any additives); PC: Positive control (maize silage treated with commercial silage additives); LPL: maize silage treated with _L. paracosi;_ LA: maize silage treated with _L. were observed between the control and LAB treated silages. Other studies are in agreement with the present finding, reporting no effect of bacterial inoculants on NDF and ADF [10; 34; 35; 36]. However, there was an observable decrease in NDF, which can be attributed to the degradation of hemicellulose, which is relatively abundant in maize silage, under the acidic conditions of the ensiling process [37; 38]. The pH of silage extracts at the end of the ensiling (40 days) was not affected by the inoculants used (Table 2). [PERSON] and [PERSON] [39] and [PERSON] et al. [40] concluded that the addition of homofermentative bacteria results in a rapid drop in pH due to the increased production of lactic acid during fermentation.