## 3 Results
### Microbial Profile of Sweet Sorghum and Napier Grass Silage
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatments**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Days**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**ESM**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Significance**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **5** & **30** & **90** & & **Day** & **Treat** & **Day *Treat** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{DM g/kg} & C & 289\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 280\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 257\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & & & & \\  & MTD/1 & 288\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 263\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 269\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & & & & \\  & HY1 & 264\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 281\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 252\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 3.73 & 0.346 & 0.01 & 0.254 \\  & HY2 & 286\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 299\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 316\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & & & & \\  & HY3 & 305\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 293\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 281\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & & & & \\  & C & 30.2\({}^{\rm ABb}\) & 48.9\({}^{\rm Aba}\) & 89.9 Aa & & & & \\  & MTD/1 & 35.3\({}^{\rm Ab}\) & 50.2\({}^{\rm BAa}\) & 63.9\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & & & & \\  & HY1 & 33.1\({}^{\rm ABb}\) & 46.9\({}^{\rm ABb}\) & 60.2\({}^{\rm Ba}\) & 4.58 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.0001 & 0.0041 \\  & HY2 & 30.1\({}^{\rm Ab}\) & 57.3\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 63.9\({}^{\rm Ba}\) & & & & \\  & HY3 & 23.3\({}^{\rm BB}\) & 33.2\({}^{\rm BBa}\) & 54.3\({}^{\rm Ba}\) & & & & \\  & C & 3.90\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 6.08\({}^{\rm Ab}\) & 6.35 Aba & & & & \\  & MTD/1 & 3.99\({}^{\rm Ab}\) & 3.05\({}^{\rm Ab}\) & 6.03\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & & & & \\  & HY1 & 6.52\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 5.52\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 6.39\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 0.22 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.128 & 0.12 \\  & HY2 & 6.56\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 6.34\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 6.35\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & & & & \\  & HY3 & 6.39\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 3.58\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 6.18\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & & & & \\  & C & 3.27\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 5.31\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 4.88\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & & & & \\ Aerobic bacteria & MTD/1 & 4.08\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 2.30\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 5.15\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & & & & \\ (log10 cfu/g) & HY1 & 5.47\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 4.19\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 4.83\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 0.28 & 0.153 & 0.01 & 0.175 \\  & HY2 & 5.46\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 3.14\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 1.66\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & & & & \\  & HY3 & 5.32\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 4.73\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 1.42\({}^{\rm Ab}\) & & & & \\  & C & 4.72\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 4.66\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & ND & & & & \\  & MTD/1 & 4.17\({}^{\rm Ba}\) & 3.91\({}^{\rm ABa}\) & ND & & & & \\ yeast (log10 cfu/g) & HY1 & 4.07\({}^{\rm ABa}\) & 2.97\({}^{\rm ABa}\) & ND & 0.32 & \(<\)0.0001 & 0.007 & 0.004 \\  & HY2 & 4.62\({}^{\rm Aa}\) & 2.73\({}^{\rm ABb}\) & ND & & & & \\  & HY3 & 3.90\({}^{\rm Ba}\) & ND & ND & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{l}{Values with different superscripts differ significantly (\(p<0.05\)), values with the same superscripts means no significant difference (\(p<0.05\)). 1 DM, dry matter; 2 C, no additive control; MTD/1, \(L\) plantarum, Ecosyl; HY1 _Lactobacillus plantarum;_ HY2 _Pediococcusacidlactici;_ HY3, _Pediococcusalussenii;_ 3 SEM, standard error of means; 4 ND not detected.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Effects of LAB inoculant on DM, Ammonia-N and microbial counting of Napier grass ensiling for 90 days. During the ensiling process, according to Table 5, the NDF and ADF content showed no significant difference in treated and untreated.