## 3 Results  
### Laboratory-Scale Silage  
The microbial inoculant effects were first assessed with minisilos, where forages were ensiled using vacuum bags and opened after 45 d and 105 d of conservation. As indicated in Table 1, after 45 d of storage, DPI silage had higher levels of ADF (23.1 vs. 28.7, \(p\) = 0.006), NDF (42.1 vs. 50.7, \(p\) = 0.028), and propylene glycol (0.39 vs. 0.51, \(p\) = 0.04), but was lower in starch content (34.69 vs. 25.55, \(p\) = 0.025) than the control. DM seemed to be higher in 105-d DPI silage (23.9 vs. 24.9, \(p\) = 0.092) but no significant difference was found in 45 d ensiled forage. CP tended to be higher in 45-d DPI silage (6.54 vs. 6.80, \(p\) = 0.054) but no significant difference was observed after 105 d of storage. Compared to the control, the lactate-to-acetate ratio (LA-AA ratio) was significantly lower in DPI silage after 45 d of storage (2.19 vs. 1.92, \(p\) = 0.014), whereas no significant difference was found in other parameters or in 105-d ensiled forages. Despite no significant difference in YMC being detected between treatments after either 45 d or 105 d of conservation, there was a trend showing decreased YMC (4.42 vs. 4.02, \(p\) = 0.069) and ammonia nitrogen (2.54 vs. 2.30, \(p\) = 0.057) in 105 d DPI silage. Additionally, LAB seemed to be higher in 45 d DPI silage (6.1 vs. 6.7, \(p\) = 0.088) but no significant difference was detected after 105 d of conservation. The inoculant effects became significant under aerobic exposure conditions. When silages were exposed to air for a certain period of time, YMC was significantly greater in the 105-d ensiled control than in the DPI silage (1 d: 6.69 vs. 5.78 log10 cfu/g, \(p\) = 0.029; 3 d: 8.35 vs. 7.04 log10 cfu/g, \(p\) = 0.028) (Figure 1a). Additionally, control silage showed a higher pH than DPI silage after four days of aerobic exposure (5.73 vs. 4.59, \(p\) = 0.045) (Figure 1b).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Chemical Composition 2**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**45 d**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**105 d**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Control** & **DPI** & \(p\)**Value** & **Control** & **DPI** & \(p\)**Value** \\ \hline DM (\%) & 29.9 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 24.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 0.102 & 23.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 24.9 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 0.092 \\ CP (\%) & 6.54 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 6.80 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.054 & 8.19 \(\pm\) 0.16 & 9.81 \(\pm\) 1.51 & 0.17 \\ ADF (\%) & 23.1 \(\pm\) 1.1 b  & 28.7 \(\pm\) 0.6 a  & 0.006 & 25.9 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 26.7 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 0.31 \\ NDF (\%) & 42.1 \(\pm\) 3.0 b  & 50.7 \(\pm\) 1.2 a  & 0.028 & 45.7 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 47.4 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 0.11 \\ WSC (\%) & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 1.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.336 & 2.23 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 3.8 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 0.18 \\ Starch (\%) & 34.69 \(\pm\) 2.77 a  & 25.55 \(\pm\) 1.81 b  & 0.025 & 28.59 \(\pm\) 1.49 & 25.88 \(\pm\) 0.96 & 0.10 \\ Ammonia nitrogen (\% of DM) & 3.08 \(\pm\) 1.00 & 2.67 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 0.381 & 2.54 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 2.30 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.057 \\ pH & 3.71 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 3.72 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.388 & 3.72 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 3.72 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.37 \\ Lactic acid (\% of DM) & 3.58 \(\pm\) 0.36 & 3.33 \(\pm\) 0.43 & 0.337 & 3.49 \(\pm\) 0.28 & 3.56 \(\pm\) 0.41 & 0.45 \\ Acetic acid (\% of DM) & 1.63 \(\pm\) 0.15 & 1.73 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 0.358 & 1.79 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 2.05 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 0.19 \\ LA-AA ratio & 2.19 \(\pm\) 0.06 a  & 1.92 \(\pm\) 0.06 b  & 0.014 & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.24 & 1.73 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 0.18 \\ Propylene glycol (\% of DM) & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.05 b  & 0.51 \(\pm\) 0.02 a  & 0.04 & 0.58 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.63 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.31 \\ Butyrate (\% of DM) & ND & ND & ND & ND & & \\ LAB (log\({}_{10}\) cfu/g) & 6.1 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 6.7 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.088 & 6.4 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 5.9 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 0.26 \\ YMC (log\({}_{10}\) cfu/g) & 2.94 \(\pm\) 0.63 & 2.91 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 0.487 & 4.42 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 4.02 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.069 \\ Aerobic stability (h)  & 30 & 51 & & 30 & 47 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Effects of inoculant application 1 on the quality and chemical composition of laboratory minisilos at different ensiling periods.