## 3 Results and Discussion
### Chemical Composition and Characteristics of Silages
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Silage Treatment**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**Item** & **CON** & **FA** & **UM** & **FAUM** & **SEM 2** & \(p\) = \\ \hline Fresh matter (g/bag) & 410 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 404 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 440 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 442 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.4 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Recovery of dry matter (DM, \%) & 87.7 & 96.8 & 88.9 & 94.1 & 2.43 & 0.089 \\ DM (\%) & 30.4 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 34.6 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 32.6 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 34.6 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.98 & 0.046 \\ pH & 5.39 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.75 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.50 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 7.70 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.114 & \textless{}0.001 \\ NH\({}_{3}\)-N (g/kg DM) \({}^{\text{3}}\) & 0.221 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 9.06 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 7.22 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.156 & \textless{}0.001 \\ VFA \({}^{\text{4}}\) (g/kg DM) & 16.6 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 8.86 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 46.1 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 13.7 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 1.15 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Propionic & 3.84 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.22 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.99 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.88 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.603 & 0.012 \\ Butyric & 17.2 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.76 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 11.8 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 4.84 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 2.34 & 0.005 \\ Isobutyric & 1.42 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.19 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.62 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.262 & 0.0214 \\ Isovaleric & 0.32 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.69 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.0207 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Valeric & 2.73 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.144 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Total VFA & 42.0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 10.0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 60.2 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 19.4 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.78 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Lactic acid (g/kg DM) & 4.89 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 14.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 19.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 17.0 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 2.15 & 0.028 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} a. b. c. d Within each parameter, means in the same row with different superscripts are different (\(p<0.05\)). \({}^{\text{1}}\) FA: 4 mL of formic acid/kg UM: 19 g of urea and 34 g of molasses/kg FAUM: formic acid, urea, and molasses at previous concentrations; \({}^{\text{2}}\) SEM: standard error of the mean (n = 3),\({}^{\text{3}}\) NH\({}_{3}\)-N: ammonia nitrogen; \({}^{\text{4}}\) VFA: volatile fatty acids.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Characteristics of typha silages treated with no additive (CON); with formic acid (FA); with urea and molasses (UM); and with formic acid, urea, and molasses (FAUM) \({}^{\text{1}}\). grass silages with 25-35% DM [8]. In contrast, the values for UM and FAUM silages (37.3 and 20.3%, respectively) were above this value. In agreement with our results, [PERSON] et al. [26] reported that the NH\({}_{3}\)-N content accounted for 17.4 to 20.8% of the total N for the sorghum silages treated with urea at similar concentrations (18 g of urea/kg), whereas in the untreated silages the NH\({}_{3}\)-N content was lower than 5% of the total N. In our study, the addition of formic acid to the silages containing urea and molasses failed to reduce the pH to adequate levels in the FAUM silage, and urea was extensively degraded, as indicated by the high NH\({}_{3}\)-N concentrations. The concentrations of acetic acid in silages usually range from 10 to 30 g per kg DM [8]. In our study, the CON, FA, and FAUM silages were within this range, but the UM silage showed much greater concentrations (Table 1). As pointed out by [PERSON] et al. [8], moderate concentrations of acetic acid (30-40 g/kg DM) can be beneficial because this acid is a potent antifungal agent. Moreover, when silage is consumed by animals, the acetic acid can be absorbed from the rumen and used either as an energy source or for the synthesis of fatty acids [27]. However, the amount of acetic acid in UM silage can be considered excessive (>40 g/kg DM), and it could indicate unwanted fermentations dominated by clostridia or enterobacteria [28].