<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.1/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.1" specific-use="sps-1.9" xml:lang="en" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
	<front>
		<journal-meta>
			<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">rbz</journal-id>
			<journal-title-group>
				<journal-title>Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia</journal-title>
				<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">R. Bras. Zootec.</abbrev-journal-title>
			</journal-title-group>
			<issn pub-type="ppub">1516-3598</issn>
			<issn pub-type="epub">1806-9290</issn>
			<publisher>
				<publisher-name>Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia</publisher-name>
			</publisher>
		</journal-meta>
		<article-meta>
			<article-id pub-id-type="other">01808</article-id>
			<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.37496/rbz5520260048</article-id>
			<article-categories>
				<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
					<subject>Forage crops</subject>
				</subj-group>
			</article-categories>
			<title-group>
				<article-title>Fermentative profile and nutritional composition of tropical grass silages from Brazilian beef farms</article-title>
			</title-group>
			<contrib-group>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0003-1589-2892</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Bragatto</surname>
						<given-names>Janaina Macieiro</given-names>
					</name>
					<role>Formal analysis</role>
					<role>Investigation</role>
					<role>Methodology</role>
					<role>Writing – original draft</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0009-0009-1517-1826</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Silva</surname>
						<given-names>Ariane de Freitas</given-names>
					</name>
					<role>Formal analysis</role>
					<role>Investigation</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0009-0001-5730-5337</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Silva</surname>
						<given-names>Nailah Grunndemann da</given-names>
					</name>
					<role>Investigation</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0009-0007-9015-1484</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Zapponi</surname>
						<given-names>Giovanna Hamera</given-names>
					</name>
					<role>Formal analysis</role>
					<role>Investigation</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0003-1534-0270</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Campanili</surname>
						<given-names>Pedro Ricardo Ballavenuto</given-names>
					</name>
					<role>Investigation</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0003-3303-8147</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Bánkuti</surname>
						<given-names>Ferenc Istvan</given-names>
					</name>
					<role>Methodology</role>
					<role>Visualization</role>
					<role>Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-2479-922X</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Bernardes</surname>
						<given-names>Thiago Fernandes</given-names>
					</name>
					<role>Visualization</role>
					<role>Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0003-2604-9227</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Nussio</surname>
						<given-names>Luiz Gustavo</given-names>
					</name>
					<role>Visualization</role>
					<role>Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0003-0569-899X</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Daniel</surname>
						<given-names>João Luiz Pratti</given-names>
					</name>
					<role>Conceptualization</role>
					<role>Formal analysis</role>
					<role>Funding acquisition</role>
					<role>Methodology</role>
					<role>Project administration</role>
					<role>Resources</role>
					<role>Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
					<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c01"><sup>*</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
			</contrib-group>
			<aff id="aff1">
				<label>1</label>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Universidade Estadual de Maringá</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv1">Departamento de Zootecnia</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<named-content content-type="city">Maringá</named-content>
					<named-content content-type="state">PR</named-content>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="BR">Brasil</country>
				<institution content-type="original"> Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Departamento de Zootecnia, Maringá, PR, Brasil.</institution>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff2">
				<label>2</label>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Nutripura Animal Nutrition</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<named-content content-type="city">Rondonópolis</named-content>
					<named-content content-type="state">MT</named-content>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="BR">Brasil</country>
				<institution content-type="original"> Nutripura Animal Nutrition, Rondonópolis, MT, Brasil.</institution>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff3">
				<label>3</label>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Universidade Federal de Lavras</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv1">Departamento de Zootecnia</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<named-content content-type="city">Lavras</named-content>
					<named-content content-type="state">MG</named-content>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="BR">Brasil</country>
				<institution content-type="original"> Universidade Federal de Lavras, Departamento de Zootecnia, Lavras, MG, Brasil. </institution>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff4">
				<label>4</label>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Universidade de São Paulo</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv1">Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv2">Departamento de Zootecnia</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<named-content content-type="city">Piracicaba</named-content>
					<named-content content-type="state">SP</named-content>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="BR">Brasil</country>
				<institution content-type="original"> Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Departamento de Zootecnia, Piracicaba, SP, Brasil.</institution>
			</aff>
			<author-notes>
				<corresp id="c01">
					<label>*Corresponding author:</label>
					<email>jlpdaniel@uem.br</email>
				</corresp>
				<fn fn-type="edited-by">
					<label>Editors:</label>
					<p> Gustavo José Braga</p>
					<p>Ozana de Fátima Zacaroni</p>
				</fn>
				<fn fn-type="coi-statement">
					<label>Conflict of interest:</label>
					<p> The authors declare no conflict of interest.</p>
				</fn>
			</author-notes>
			<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
				<day>11</day>
				<month>09</month>
				<year>2026</year>
			</pub-date>
			<pub-date date-type="collection" publication-format="electronic">
				<year>2026</year>
			</pub-date>
			<volume>55</volume>
			<elocation-id>e20260048</elocation-id>
			<history>
				<date date-type="received">
					<day>21</day>
					<month>03</month>
					<year>2026</year>
				</date>
				<date date-type="accepted">
					<day>04</day>
					<month>08</month>
					<year>2026</year>
				</date>
			</history>
			<permissions>
				<license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xml:lang="en">
					<license-p> This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</license-p>
				</license>
			</permissions>
			<abstract>
				<title>ABSTRACT</title>
				<p>This survey was conducted to assess the fermentation profile and nutritional composition of tropical grass silages on beef farms. Grass silage samples were collected from 51 beef cattle operations located in four Brazilian states (MT, MS, SP, and PR). Additionally, a questionnaire about silage production and utilization was completed. The lack of correlation between the concentration of n-butyric acid and the IVDMD (P = 0.368) indicated that fermentation pattern and nutritional value were independent and therefore required separate grouping analyses. A cluster analysis based on the IVDMD data identified two groups (high and low IVDMD). Of the total, 43% and 57% of the samples were clustered into the high (508 to 709 g/kg DM) and low IVDMD (314 to 499 g/kg DM) groups, respectively. The IVDMD was negatively correlated with the indigestible neutral detergent fiber content (r = −0.875; P&lt;0.001). A second grouping was performed based on an a priori n-butyric acid threshold: ≤ 3 g/kg DM (low) or &gt; 3 g/kg DM (high). Most samples (86%) had n-butyric acid concentration &gt; 3 g/kg DM, and the database revealed that silages with DM &gt; 370 g/kg had a lower risk of clostridial fermentation (risk difference = −0.956). Silage samples with a low concentration of n-butyric acid had less particles retained on the 19-mm sieve. Collectively, the results from this survey indicate that most tropical grass silage produced in beef operations had low digestibility and poor fermentation quality. These findings suggest the need to develop, transfer, and apply techniques that contribute to improving tropical grass silage conservation and quality, particularly when greater forage inclusion in the diet can enhance production efficiency (e.g., for growing cattle and breeding cows).</p>
			</abstract>
			<kwd-group xml:lang="en">
				<title>Keywords</title>
				<kwd>Clostridium</kwd>
				<kwd>digestibility</kwd>
				<kwd>Megathyrsus</kwd>
				<kwd>Urochloa</kwd>
				<kwd>survey</kwd>
			</kwd-group>
			<funding-group>
				<award-group>
					<funding-source>CAPES</funding-source>
				</award-group>
				<award-group>
					<funding-source>CNPq</funding-source>
				</award-group>
				<funding-statement>We thank all the farmers visited, and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brasília-DF, Brazil, for the scholarships provided to the authors.</funding-statement>
			</funding-group>
			<counts>
				<fig-count count="4"/>
				<table-count count="6"/>
				<equation-count count="0"/>
				<ref-count count="43"/>
			</counts>
		</article-meta>
	</front>
	<body>
		<sec sec-type="intro">
			<title>1. Introduction</title>
			<p>The lower agronomic risk associated with tropical grasses compared with annual forage crops, particularly their lower vulnerability to pest and disease pressures and climatic adversities (e.g., drought, irregular rainfall, and heat stress), and the inclusion of tropical grasses in integrated crop-livestock systems for no-tillage crop rotation have led to renewed interest in tropical grass silages as a complementary forage to annual crops (e.g., corn silage). This trend has been further supported by the increased adoption of self-propelled forage harvesters, which enable more precise forage chopping and improved harvest efficiency. Recently, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Monsalve and Millen (2025)</xref> reported an increase in the use of tropical grass silage utilization in Brazilian feedlots from 8.3% in 2019 to 24% in 2024.</p>
			<p>In finishing diets, tropical grass silage is a source of physically effective fiber, with low inclusion rates (&lt;20% DM). However, in rations for growing cattle, tropical grass silage enables nutritionists to formulate diets that balance energy intake, preventing cattle from gaining weight too quickly, which may negatively impact carcass weight as animals approach their mature size (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">Owens et al., 1995</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Blom et al., 2022)</xref>. Also, beef cows may be supplemented with tropical grass silage during periods of pasture shortage (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Nascimento et al., 2025)</xref>. However, tropical grasses are considered difficult to ensile (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Nussio, 2005)</xref>. A low dry matter (DM) content (often &lt;280 g/kg) in combination with a usually low ratio (&lt;1) of soluble carbohydrate concentration (SC) to buffering capacity (BC) creates a high risk of butyric acid-producing clostridia development, leading to high nutrient losses during storage (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Carvalho et al., 2024)</xref>.</p>
			<p>Field observations suggest that directly ensiled tropical grass silages are often associated with high storage losses and low feeding value. However, there are no reports on the fermentation profile and nutritional composition of tropical grass silages produced on commercial farms. A survey characterizing tropical grass silage production and utilization may reveal opportunities for improving production efficiency and guiding further research. We therefore hypothesized that (1) appropriate management practices are associated with improved nutritional composition and fermentation quality, (2) silage digestibility is primarily determined by fiber concentration and digestibility, and (3) fermentation pattern is mainly influenced by DM content. The objective of this study was to characterize the fermentation profile and nutritional composition of tropical grass silages and to identify their relationships with production practices on beef cattle farms.</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="materials|methods">
			<title>2. Material and methods</title>
			<sec>
				<title>2.1. Data collection and survey design</title>
				<p>Beef operations in four Brazilian states [Mato Grosso (35), Mato Grosso do Sul (5), São Paulo (2), and Paraná (9)] were visited from September to November 2023. The farms were identified through consultant networks (i.e., snowball sampling). The greater representation of farms from MT, currently the Brazilian state with the largest cattle herd, might reflect its strong tradition of tropical grass silage production and utilization. One silo was sampled at each farm (n = 51), as sampling was restricted to silos that were being used for feeding at the time of the visit.</p>
				<p>For bunkers and piles, silage samples were collected at 12 points distributed across four columns and three rows on the silo panel, avoiding the first 50 cm from the top, base, and sides. For bags, 12 subsamples were collected across the exposed silage surface. For bale silages, sampling was performed after the bales were unpacked. When present, visibly spoiled areas were discarded, and 12 subsamples were collected from different locations within the remaining silage mass. The 12 subsamples from each silo were homogenized to form one composite sample of approximately 1 kg. The samples were then identified and frozen for at least 24 h before being transported to the laboratory in a cooler with ice. In the laboratory, the samples were thawed and analyzed for chemical composition, <italic>in vitro</italic> digestibility, fermentation end products, and particle size distribution.</p>
				<p>During farm visits, a questionnaire was applied to document practices associated with the production and utilization of tropical grass silage. Confidentiality was assured to all participants. The questionnaire included items addressing grass production, conservation, and silage feeding practices, encompassing information on the following: technical consultancy for silage production, grass genus, fertilization, sward management (semi-perennial, crop-livestock integration, or pasture surplus), sward age, number of cuts/yr, grass maturity at harvest, type of forage harvester, grass management at ensiling (direct ensiling or wilting), use of silage additives, type of silo, animal category fed with grass silage, and proportion of grass silage in the diet (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="suppl01">Supplementary material S1</xref>).</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>2.2. Laboratory analyses</title>
				<p>Immediately after thawing, an aqueous extract was obtained by mixing 25 g of silage with 225 mL of distilled water in a blender for 1 min. The extract was filtered through a funnel with two layers of gauze, and the pH was measured with a digital pH meter (Tec5, Tecnal<sup>®</sup>, Piracicaba, Brazil). A portion of the aqueous extract was centrifuged at 12,000 × <italic>g</italic> for 20 min, and the supernatant was used to analyze the fermentation products. The concentrations of lactic acid (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">Pryce, 1969</xref>) and ammonia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">Chaney and Marbach, 1962</xref>) were determined by colorimetric methods. Other fermentation products, including volatile fatty acids (VFA), alcohols, esters, and acetone, were analyzed by gas chromatography (Nexis GC-2030 with AOC-20i Plus autoinjector, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) using a capillary column (Stabilwax 60 m, 0.25 mm Ø, 0.25 μm; Restek, Bellefonte, PA). Compounds were identified based on retention times and quantified using external standards. The sum of n-butyric, i-butyric, i-valeric, and n-valeric acids (sumBVA), the sum of methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, 2-butanodiol, 1-propanodiol, acetic acid, propionic acid, 2,3-butanediol, i-butyric acid, 1,2-propanediol, n-butyric, i-valeric, and n-valeric acids (sumVFAal), and the sum of total non-nitrogenous fermentation products (sumFP) were calculated.</p>
				<p>Another silage subsample was dried for 72 h in a forced ventilation oven at 60 °C. The DM concentration of the silage was corrected for the loss of volatiles during oven drying (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B41">Weissbach and Strubelt, 2008</xref>). Subsequently, dried samples were ground in a Willey mill (Marconi MA340, Piracicaba, Brazil) through a 1-mm sieve to determine the DM at 105 °C (method 930.15; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">AOAC, 1990</xref>), ash (method 942.05; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">AOAC, 1990</xref>) and crude protein (CP; method 984.13; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">AOAC, 1990</xref>). Organic matter (OM) was calculated as 1000 – ash. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) was determined using filter bags (F57, Ankom Technology, Macedon, USA) with a neutral detergent solution containing thermostable amylase and sodium sulfite (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Mertens, 2002</xref>; method 2002.04). Acid detergent fiber (ADF) and acid detergent lignin were analyzed sequentially according to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B39">Van Soest (1973</xref>; method 973.18). Neutral detergent soluble (NDS) was calculated as OM – NDF. <italic>In vitro</italic> digestibility of DM (IVDMD), NDF (IVNDFD), and potentially digestible NDF (IVpdNDFD) were determined using a Daisy II incubator (Ankom Technology, Macedon, USA) for 48 h with buffer solutions prepared as described by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Holden (1999)</xref>. Ruminal fluid was obtained from two cannulated Holstein cows grazing stargrass, 1 h after supplementation with 2 kg/day of concentrate based on ground corn grain, soybean meal, and a mineral-vitamin mixture. A dried sample ground in a Willey mill (Marconi MA340, Piracicaba, Brazil) through a 2-mm sieve was used to determine the concentration of indigestible NDF (iNDF) concentration by <italic>in situ</italic> incubation for 288 h in the same rumen-cannulated cows (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B38">Valente et al., 2011</xref>). Potentially digestible NDF (pdNDF) was computed as NDF – iNDF. Animal care and handling procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee for Animal Use of the Universidade Estadual de Maringá (protocol number 8208090218).</p>
				<p>Silage particle size distribution was determined using the Penn State Particle Separator (PSPS; 3-sieve model with a 4-mm sieve), adapted by adding a 40-mm sieve to the top of the assembly (total of four sieves and a bottom pan). This additional sieve was built in 20-mm thick plastic and contained thirty-three 40-mm holes, with the perforated area representing 32.1% of the sieve surface. The rationale for adapting the PSPS by including the top sieve for particle size analysis of tropical grass silages was described by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Mari (2003)</xref>.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>2.3. Statistical analysis of data</title>
				<p>Descriptive statistics (mean, median, minimum, maximum, standard deviation, kurtosis, and asymmetry) were used to characterize the database. The independence of the fermentation profile and nutritional value of the silages was confirmed by a Pearson correlation test between n-butyric acid concentration and IVDMD using the PROC CORR of SAS (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f01">Figure 1</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<fig id="f01">
						<label>Figure 1</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Relationship between n-butyric acid content and <italic>in vitro</italic> dry matter digestibility in tropical grass silage samples (P = 0.368 for Pearson correlation).</title>
						</caption>
						<graphic xlink:href="1806-9290-rbz-55-e20260048-gf01.tif"/>
					</fig>
				</p>
				<p>A first grouping analysis based on the IVDMD was performed with PROC CLUSTER of SAS using Ward’s minimum-variance method. Visual inspection of the dendrogram, considering the relative increases in branch heights between successive fusion levels, indicated that the silages were separated into two distinct groups: high IVDMD (HD) and low IVDMD (LD) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f02">Figure 2</xref>). The separation between groups was evaluated with PROC GLM of SAS using Wilks’ Lambda test (α = 0.01). Subsequently, the group means were compared. Continuously distributed variables were compared using the PROC MIXED of SAS with a model that included the fixed effect of group, and the Kenward-Roger method used to calculate the degrees of freedom of the denominator for the F test. Discrete distribution variables were compared using Fisher’s exact test, and the group means were compared using the Chi-square test (χ<sup>2</sup>) adjusted for Bonferroni, using the PROC FREQ of SAS.</p>
				<p>
					<fig id="f02">
						<label>Figure 2</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Dendrogram with grouping of tropical grass silages based on <italic>in vitro</italic> dry matter digestibility (IVDMD).</title>
						</caption>
						<graphic xlink:href="1806-9290-rbz-55-e20260048-gf02.tif"/>
						<attrib>HD - high IVDMD; LD - low IVDMD.</attrib>
					</fig>
				</p>
				<p>A second grouping was defined <italic>a priori</italic> based on n-butyric acid concentration (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Kaiser et al., 2002</xref>), with concentrations ≤3 g/kg DM classified as low (LB) and those &gt;3 g/kg DM classified as high (HB). Continuously distributed variables were compared using the PROC MIXED of SAS, whereas discrete variables were compared using the PROC FREQ of SAS, as described above.</p>
				<p>Regression analyses were performed using the PROC REG of SAS to explore relationships between characteristics associated with IVDMD or n-butyric acid production. When a quadratic trend was observed, the response was modeled with segmented regression with PROC NLMIXED in SAS. Root mean square error (RMSE) and adjusted R<sup>2</sup> were reported as indicators of goodness of fit. As all samples with DM greater than 370 g/kg had an n-butyric acid concentration ≤ 3 g/kg DM, a risk difference (RD) analysis was performed using the PROC FREQ of SAS.</p>
			</sec>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="results">
			<title>3. Results</title>
			<sec>
				<title>3.1. Description of variables with continuous distribution</title>
				<p>Among farms that used fertilizers, the average application rates were 156 kg/ha of N, 38.1 kg/ha of P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub>, and 64.6 kg/ha of K<sub>2</sub>O. (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">Table 1</xref>) Sward age averaged 2.83 yr with 2.16 cuts/yr (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">Table 1</xref>). Grass maturity at harvest averaged 98.9 d, with a range of 50 to 365 d. The reported DM productivity per harvest averaged 7.06 t DM/ha (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">Table 1</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t1">
						<label>Table 1</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Description of the database with variables with continuous distribution</title>
						</caption>
						<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="left" style="font-weight:normal">Item</th>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">Mean</th>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">Med</th>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">Min</th>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">Max</th>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">SD</th>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">Kurtosis</th>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">Skewness</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td>Applied fertilizer<sup>1</sup></td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>N rate (kg/ha)</td>
									<td>156</td>
									<td>109</td>
									<td>30.0</td>
									<td>280</td>
									<td>104</td>
									<td>−1.81</td>
									<td>0.254</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub> rate (kg/ha)</td>
									<td>38.1</td>
									<td>30.0</td>
									<td>10.0</td>
									<td>104</td>
									<td>25.1</td>
									<td>3.13</td>
									<td>1.81</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>K<sub>2</sub>O rate (kg/ha)</td>
									<td>64.6</td>
									<td>63.2</td>
									<td>30.0</td>
									<td>126</td>
									<td>24.7</td>
									<td>2.11</td>
									<td>1.21</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Plot management</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Sward age (yr)</td>
									<td>2.83</td>
									<td>2.00</td>
									<td>1.00</td>
									<td>5.00</td>
									<td>1.65</td>
									<td>−1.58</td>
									<td>0.331</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Harvest frequency (cuts/yr)</td>
									<td>2.16</td>
									<td>2.00</td>
									<td>1.00</td>
									<td>4.00</td>
									<td>0.928</td>
									<td>−0.014</td>
									<td>0.761</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Grass maturity at harvest (d)</td>
									<td>98.9</td>
									<td>90.0</td>
									<td>50.0</td>
									<td>365</td>
									<td>46.9</td>
									<td>24.7</td>
									<td>4.40</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Reported yield</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Fresh matter yield (t as fed/ha/cut)</td>
									<td>26.4</td>
									<td>27.0</td>
									<td>4.00</td>
									<td>85.1</td>
									<td>12.9</td>
									<td>8.32</td>
									<td>1.83</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Dry matter yield (t DM/ha/cut)</td>
									<td>7.06</td>
									<td>6.47</td>
									<td>0.831</td>
									<td>24.0</td>
									<td>3.59</td>
									<td>9.84</td>
									<td>2.12</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Reported ensiling practices</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Theoretical length of cut (mm)</td>
									<td>13.1</td>
									<td>12.0</td>
									<td>10.0</td>
									<td>18.0</td>
									<td>2.40</td>
									<td>−0.712</td>
									<td>0.730</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Dose of moisture absorbent (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td>151</td>
									<td>100</td>
									<td>39.0</td>
									<td>300</td>
									<td>112</td>
									<td>−1.66</td>
									<td>0.676</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Inclusion of grass silage in diets</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Breeding cows (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>553</td>
									<td>500</td>
									<td>460</td>
									<td>700</td>
									<td>129</td>
									<td>1.52</td>
									<td>1.55</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Growing cattle (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>530</td>
									<td>500</td>
									<td>250</td>
									<td>750</td>
									<td>190</td>
									<td>−1.65</td>
									<td>−0.041</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Finishing cattle (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>162</td>
									<td>140</td>
									<td>80.0</td>
									<td>460</td>
									<td>69.1</td>
									<td>10.0</td>
									<td>2.83</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Chemical composition of grass silages</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>DM<sup>2</sup> (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td align="center">287</td>
									<td align="center">276</td>
									<td align="center">168</td>
									<td align="center">466</td>
									<td align="center">78.1</td>
									<td align="center">0.169</td>
									<td align="center">0.725</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Ash (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">82.8</td>
									<td align="center">83.1</td>
									<td align="center">54.3</td>
									<td align="center">125</td>
									<td align="center">17.8</td>
									<td align="center">−0.759</td>
									<td align="center">0.330</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Crude protein (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">64.3</td>
									<td align="center">59.5</td>
									<td align="center">29.4</td>
									<td align="center">141</td>
									<td align="center">23.9</td>
									<td align="center">1.44</td>
									<td align="center">1.18</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Neutral detergent fiber (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">727</td>
									<td align="center">733</td>
									<td align="center">563</td>
									<td align="center">851</td>
									<td align="center">54.8</td>
									<td align="center">1.61</td>
									<td align="center">−0.756</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Acid detergent fiber (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">449</td>
									<td align="center">452</td>
									<td align="center">295</td>
									<td align="center">561</td>
									<td align="center">53.7</td>
									<td align="center">0.210</td>
									<td align="center">−0.348</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Lignin(sa) (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">68.6</td>
									<td align="center">68.5</td>
									<td align="center">38.2</td>
									<td align="center">119</td>
									<td align="center">22.3</td>
									<td align="center">−0.173</td>
									<td align="center">0.683</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>iNDF (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">318</td>
									<td align="center">324</td>
									<td align="center">150</td>
									<td align="center">460</td>
									<td align="center">73.4</td>
									<td align="center">−0.474</td>
									<td align="center">−0.319</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>pdNDF (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">409</td>
									<td align="center">420</td>
									<td align="center">216</td>
									<td align="center">596</td>
									<td align="center">66.2</td>
									<td align="center">1.09</td>
									<td align="center">−0.284</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>ADF (g/kg NDF)</td>
									<td align="center">616</td>
									<td align="center">621</td>
									<td align="center">516</td>
									<td align="center">709</td>
									<td align="center">38.4</td>
									<td align="center">0.450</td>
									<td align="center">−0.233</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>iNDF (g/kg NDF)</td>
									<td align="center">436</td>
									<td align="center">425</td>
									<td align="center">228</td>
									<td align="center">663</td>
									<td align="center">92.0</td>
									<td align="center">0.066</td>
									<td align="center">−0.003</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>iNDF:Lignin ratio</td>
									<td align="center">4.96</td>
									<td align="center">4.75</td>
									<td align="center">2.59</td>
									<td align="center">9.25</td>
									<td align="center">1.56</td>
									<td align="center">0.600</td>
									<td align="center">0.929</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Neutral detergent solubles (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">190</td>
									<td align="center">182</td>
									<td align="center">92.5</td>
									<td align="center">373</td>
									<td align="center">55.8</td>
									<td align="center">1.64</td>
									<td align="center">0.97</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td><italic>In vitro</italic> digestibility of DM 48 h (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">501</td>
									<td align="center">483</td>
									<td align="center">314</td>
									<td align="center">709</td>
									<td align="center">89.0</td>
									<td align="center">−0.107</td>
									<td align="center">0.357</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td><italic>In vitro</italic> digestibility of NDF 48 h (g/kg NDF)</td>
									<td align="center">435</td>
									<td align="center">417</td>
									<td align="center">214</td>
									<td align="center">672</td>
									<td align="center">111</td>
									<td align="center">−0.297</td>
									<td align="center">0.212</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td><italic>In vitro</italic> digestibility of pdNDF 48 h (g/kg pdNDF)</td>
									<td align="center">768</td>
									<td align="center">792</td>
									<td align="center">462</td>
									<td align="center">1083</td>
									<td align="center">126</td>
									<td align="center">0.568</td>
									<td align="center">−0.105</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Fermentation profile of grass silages</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>pH</td>
									<td align="center">4.93</td>
									<td align="center">4.87</td>
									<td align="center">4.17</td>
									<td align="center">8.05</td>
									<td align="center">0.625</td>
									<td align="center">12.1</td>
									<td align="center">2.85</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>NH<sub>3</sub>-N (g/kg N)</td>
									<td align="center">299</td>
									<td align="center">260</td>
									<td align="center">23.5</td>
									<td align="center">762</td>
									<td align="center">211</td>
									<td align="center">−0.745</td>
									<td align="center">0.651</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Lactic acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">9.9</td>
									<td align="center">4.15</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
									<td align="center">46.1</td>
									<td align="center">12.2</td>
									<td align="center">1.34</td>
									<td align="center">1.47</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Acetic acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">20.1</td>
									<td align="center">19.4</td>
									<td align="center">2.24</td>
									<td align="center">55.1</td>
									<td align="center">9.28</td>
									<td align="center">2.90</td>
									<td align="center">0.95</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>n-Butyric acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">10.7</td>
									<td align="center">8.83</td>
									<td align="center">0.57</td>
									<td align="center">30.5</td>
									<td align="center">8.03</td>
									<td align="center">−0.229</td>
									<td align="center">0.870</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Ethanol (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">3.39</td>
									<td align="center">1.50</td>
									<td align="center">0.02</td>
									<td align="center">26.6</td>
									<td align="center">5.61</td>
									<td align="center">8.81</td>
									<td align="center">3.01</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Propionic acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">2.27</td>
									<td align="center">1.93</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
									<td align="center">6.27</td>
									<td align="center">1.59</td>
									<td align="center">−0.425</td>
									<td align="center">0.671</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>i-Valeric acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1.39</td>
									<td align="center">0.97</td>
									<td align="center">0.10</td>
									<td align="center">4.36</td>
									<td align="center">1.09</td>
									<td align="center">−0.396</td>
									<td align="center">0.799</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>n-Valeric acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1.25</td>
									<td align="center">1.06</td>
									<td align="center">0.11</td>
									<td align="center">3.53</td>
									<td align="center">0.91</td>
									<td align="center">−0.390</td>
									<td align="center">0.635</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>i-Butyric acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1.04</td>
									<td align="center">0.85</td>
									<td align="center">0.09</td>
									<td align="center">2.83</td>
									<td align="center">0.72</td>
									<td align="center">0.010</td>
									<td align="center">0.868</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>2,3-Butanediol (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">0.52</td>
									<td align="center">0.11</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
									<td align="center">5.53</td>
									<td align="center">1.13</td>
									<td align="center">9.44</td>
									<td align="center">3.06</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>1-Propanol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">594</td>
									<td align="center">226</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">3753</td>
									<td align="center">838</td>
									<td align="center">3.88</td>
									<td align="center">2.00</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>1,2-Propanediol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">550</td>
									<td align="center">89.1</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">6995</td>
									<td align="center">1228</td>
									<td align="center">15.9</td>
									<td align="center">3.72</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Methanol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">208</td>
									<td align="center">106</td>
									<td align="center">6.02</td>
									<td align="center">1665</td>
									<td align="center">345</td>
									<td align="center">8.50</td>
									<td align="center">3.00</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Isopropanol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">84.3</td>
									<td align="center">31.6</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">702</td>
									<td align="center">154</td>
									<td align="center">9.52</td>
									<td align="center">3.12</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>2-Butanol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">45.5</td>
									<td align="center">31.0</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">181</td>
									<td align="center">45.3</td>
									<td align="center">1.36</td>
									<td align="center">1.40</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Acetone (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">26.8</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">301</td>
									<td align="center">64.6</td>
									<td align="center">10.9</td>
									<td align="center">3.35</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Propyl acetate (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">2.09</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">37.9</td>
									<td align="center">6.56</td>
									<td align="center">18.7</td>
									<td align="center">4.08</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Ethyl lactate (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1.52</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">22.7</td>
									<td align="center">5.38</td>
									<td align="center">10.5</td>
									<td align="center">3.42</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Ethyl acetate (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1.49</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">24.5</td>
									<td align="center">4.72</td>
									<td align="center">13.6</td>
									<td align="center">3.63</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>SumBVA<sup>3</sup> (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">14.4</td>
									<td align="center">11.7</td>
									<td align="center">0.94</td>
									<td align="center">36.7</td>
									<td align="center">10.2</td>
									<td align="center">−0.831</td>
									<td align="center">0.629</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>SumVFAal<sup>4</sup> (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">42.1</td>
									<td align="center">37.6</td>
									<td align="center">5.43</td>
									<td align="center">102</td>
									<td align="center">20.7</td>
									<td align="center">0.123</td>
									<td align="center">0.635</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>SumFP<sup>5</sup> (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">52.0</td>
									<td align="center">50.6</td>
									<td align="center">10.1</td>
									<td align="center">124</td>
									<td align="center">22.4</td>
									<td align="center">1.32</td>
									<td align="center">0.762</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Particle distribution</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>40 mm (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td align="center">90.6</td>
									<td align="center">63.1</td>
									<td align="center">3.26</td>
									<td align="center">290</td>
									<td align="center">73.6</td>
									<td align="center">2.26</td>
									<td align="center">1.74</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>19-40 mm (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td align="center">369</td>
									<td align="center">334</td>
									<td align="center">92.4</td>
									<td align="center">668</td>
									<td align="center">177</td>
									<td align="center">−1.09</td>
									<td align="center">0.191</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>8-19 mm (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td align="center">443</td>
									<td align="center">475</td>
									<td align="center">28.3</td>
									<td align="center">699</td>
									<td align="center">182</td>
									<td align="center">0.029</td>
									<td align="center">−0.751</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>4-8 mm (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td align="center">62.5</td>
									<td align="center">58.8</td>
									<td align="center">8.50</td>
									<td align="center">161</td>
									<td align="center">40.5</td>
									<td align="center">−0.250</td>
									<td align="center">0.657</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Pan (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td align="center">34.7</td>
									<td align="center">16.0</td>
									<td align="center">0.000</td>
									<td align="center">120</td>
									<td align="center">35.4</td>
									<td align="center">−0.311</td>
									<td align="center">1.05</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>&gt; 8 mm (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td align="center">903</td>
									<td align="center">927</td>
									<td align="center">723</td>
									<td align="center">986</td>
									<td align="center">71.3</td>
									<td align="center">−0.232</td>
									<td align="center">−0.851</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>&gt; 4 mm (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td align="center">965</td>
									<td align="center">984</td>
									<td align="center">880</td>
									<td align="center">1000</td>
									<td align="center">35.4</td>
									<td align="center">−0.311</td>
									<td align="center">−1.05</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN1">
								<p>Med - median; Min - minimum; Max - maximum; SD - standard deviation; iNDF - indigestible neutral detergent fiber; pdNDF - potentially digestible neutral detergent fiber.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN2">
								<p><sup>1</sup> Application rate among farms that reported fertilizer use.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN3">
								<p><sup>2</sup> DM - dry matter corrected for volatile compounds.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN4">
								<p><sup>3</sup> SumBVA - sum of i-butyric, n-butyric, i-valeric and n-valeric acids.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN5">
								<p><sup>4</sup> SumVFAal - sum of volatile fatty acids and alcohols (methanol, isopropanol, ethanol, 2-butanol, 1-propanol, acetic acid, propionic acid, 2,3-butanediol, 1,2-propanediol, i-butyric acid, n-butyric acid, i-valeric acid, n-valeric acid).</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN6">
								<p><sup>5</sup> SumFP - sum of all non-nitrogenous fermentation products.</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>The reported theoretical length of cut was on average 13.1 mm. Farmers using moisture absorbent applied on average 151 g/kg as fed of chopped forage mass. Average dietary inclusion of grass silage was 553 g/kg DM for breeding cows, 530 g/kg DM for growing cattle, and 162 g/kg DM in finishing rations (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">Table 1</xref>).</p>
				<p>Analysis of silage composition indicated the following ranges: DM from 166 to 466 g/kg as-fed, CP from 29.4 to 141 g/kg DM, NDF from 563 to 851 g/kg DM, ADF from 295 to 561 g/kg DM, lignin from 38.2 to 119 g/kg DM, and iNDF from 150 to 460 g/kg DM (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">Table 1</xref>). The iNDF:lignin ratio averaged 4.96. The IVDMD averaged 501 g/kg DM, whereas the IVNDFD and IVpdNDFD averaged 435 g/kg NDF and 768 g/kg pdNDF, respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">Table 1</xref>).</p>
				<p>The fermentation profile of the silages revealed the following average values: pH 4.93, NH<sub>3</sub>-N 299 g/kg N, lactic acid 9.90 g/kg DM, and acetic acid 20.1 g/kg DM (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">Table 1</xref>). The n-butyric acid concentration ranged from 0.57 to 30.5 g/kg, with an average of 10.7 g/kg DM. The average concentration of propionic acid was 2.27 g/kg DM, i-valeric acid was 1.39 g/kg DM, n-valeric acid was 1.25 g/kg DM, and i-butyric acid was 1.04 g/kg DM. The average concentration of ethanol was 3.39 g/kg DM, and 2,3-butanediol was 0.52 g/kg DM. Other fermentation products were found at average concentrations below 600 mg/kg DM (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">Table 1</xref>).</p>
				<p>Silage particle size distribution (as-fed basis) ranged from 3.26 to 290 g/kg on the 40-mm sieve, 92.4 to 668 g/kg on the 19-mm sieve, 28.3 to 699 g/kg on the 8-mm sieve, 8.50 to 161 g/kg on the 4-mm sieve, and 0 to 120 g/kg in the pan.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>3.2. Description of variables with discrete distribution</title>
				<p>Most farmers hired technical consultancy (67%) for grass silage production. Two-thirds (67%) of the silage was produced from grasses that had received fertilization (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t2">Table 2</xref>). <italic>Megathyrsus</italic> genus predominated (71%), followed by <italic>Urochloa</italic> (25%), with a small proportion of silage produced from a mixture of genera <italic>Megathyrsus</italic> + <italic>Urochloa</italic> (4%; <xref ref-type="table" rid="t2">Table 2</xref>). The grass used for silage production mostly came from specific semi-perennial areas (71%), followed by crop-livestock integration systems (24%) and a small portion of silage produced from pasture surplus (6%; <xref ref-type="table" rid="t2">Table 2</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t2">
						<label>Table 2</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Description of the database with variables with discrete distribution</title>
						</caption>
						<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="left" style="font-weight:normal">Item</th>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">Description and frequency</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td>Sample origin</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Brazilian state</td>
									<td align="center">MT (69%), MS (10%), SP (4%) and PR (18%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Grass silage production</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Consultancy</td>
									<td align="center">Yes (67%) and No (33%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Grass genera</td>
									<td align="center"><italic>Megathyrsus</italic> (71%), <italic>Urochloa</italic> (25%) and Mixed (4%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Fertilization</td>
									<td align="center">Yes (67%) and No (33%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Grass production area</td>
									<td align="center">Semi-perennial (71%), Crop-livestock integration (24%) and Pasture surplus (6%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Harvester</td>
									<td align="center">Own (37%) and Outsourced (63%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Harvester type</td>
									<td align="center">Pull-type (24%) and Self-propelled (76%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Forage wilting</td>
									<td align="center">Yes (2%) and No (98%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Silage additives</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Microbial inoculant</td>
									<td align="center">Yes (82%) and No (18%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Inoculant type</td>
									<td align="center">Homolactic (19%) and Combo<sup>1</sup> (81%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Moisture absorbent use</td>
									<td align="center">Yes (27%) and No (73%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Moisture absorbent type</td>
									<td align="center">SR (38%), SH (46%) and DDG (15%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Silo type</td>
									<td align="center">Bunker (49%), Drive-over (45%), Bag (2%) and Bale (4%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Grass silage usage</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Breeding cows</td>
									<td align="center">Yes (12%) and No (88%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Growing cattle</td>
									<td align="center">Yes (52%) and No (48%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Finishing cattle</td>
									<td align="center">Yes (86%) and No (14%)</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Fermentation course</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Butyric fermentation<sup>2</sup></td>
									<td align="center">Negative (14%) and Positive (86%)</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN7">
								<p>SR - soybean residue; SH - soybean hulls; DDG - dried distillers grains.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN8">
								<p><sup>1</sup> Combination of homo and heterolactic bacteria.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN9">
								<p><sup>2</sup> Silages with &gt; 3 g/kg DM of n-butyric acid.</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>Most producers (63%) used outsourced services to harvest the grass with self-propelled harvesters (76%). Only one farm produced wilted silage. The use of microbial inoculants was reported in 82% of the farms surveyed, with 81% of the inoculants containing combinations of homo- and heterolactic bacteria. Moisture absorbents were applied at ensiling by 27% of the farmers. Among these farmers, 46% used soybean hulls, 38% used soybean residue, and 15% used dried distillers grains as moisture absorbent. Furthermore, 49% of the farmers reported storing silage in bunker silos, 45% in drive-over piles, 4% in bales, and 2% in bags. A small proportion of farmers fed tropical grass silage for breeding cows (12%), while 52% fed it to growing cattle and the majority fed tropical grass silage for finishing cattle (86%).</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>3.3. Comparison between silage groups (HD and LD) for IVDMD</title>
				<p>In this survey, 43% (n = 22) and 57% (n = 29) of the samples were clustered into the high and low IVDMD groups, respectively. The mean values of IVDMD were 584 and 438 g/kg DM for the HD (508 to 709 g/kg DM) and LD (314 to 499 g/kg DM) groups, respectively. The nitrogen dose was higher in HD than in LD (224 and 106 kg/ha; P = 0.010; <xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">Table 3</xref>). A greater harvest frequency was observed in HD than in LD (3.00 and 1.85 cuts/yr; P&lt;0.001). Grass maturity at harvest was higher in LD than in HD (112 and 83.8 d; P = 0.050). Forage yield at the current cut was similar between HD and LD (23.2 and 28.8 t fresh matter/ha, P = 0.146; 6.15 and 7.73 t DM/ha, P = 0.138, respectively; <xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">Table 3</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t3">
						<label>Table 3</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Comparison between silage groups with high (HD, 508 ─ 709 g/kg DM) and low <italic>in vitro</italic> dry matter digestibility (LD, 314 ─ 499 g/kg DM), variables with continuous distribution</title>
						</caption>
						<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="left" rowspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">Item</th>
									<th colspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">Group</th>
									<th rowspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">SEM</th>
									<th rowspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">P-value</th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">HD</th>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">LD</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td>Applied fertilizer</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>N rate (kg/ha)</td>
									<td>224</td>
									<td>106</td>
									<td>28.7</td>
									<td>0.010</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub> rate (kg/ha)</td>
									<td>26.3</td>
									<td>40.4</td>
									<td>9.41</td>
									<td>0.306</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>K<sub>2</sub>O rate (kg/ha)</td>
									<td>59.1</td>
									<td>69.5</td>
									<td>8.57</td>
									<td>0.404</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Plot management</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Sward age (yr)</td>
									<td>2.30</td>
									<td>3.04</td>
									<td>0.424</td>
									<td>0.237</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Harvest frequency (cuts/yr)</td>
									<td>3.00</td>
									<td>1.85</td>
									<td>0.199</td>
									<td>&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Grass maturity at harvest (d)</td>
									<td>83.8</td>
									<td>112</td>
									<td>9.69</td>
									<td>0.050</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Reported yield</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Fresh matter yield (t as fed/ha/cut)</td>
									<td>23.2</td>
									<td>28.8</td>
									<td>2.65</td>
									<td>0.146</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Dry matter yield (t DM/ha/cut)</td>
									<td>6.15</td>
									<td>7.73</td>
									<td>0.738</td>
									<td>0.138</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Reported ensiling practices</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Theoretical length of cut (mm)</td>
									<td>12.5</td>
									<td>13.6</td>
									<td>0.61</td>
									<td>0.252</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Dose of moisture absorbent (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td>126</td>
									<td>169</td>
									<td>42.7</td>
									<td>0.540</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Inclusion of grass silage in diets</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Breeding cows (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>460</td>
									<td>600</td>
									<td>121</td>
									<td>0.567</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Growing cattle (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>585</td>
									<td>479</td>
									<td>55.1</td>
									<td>0.187</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Finishing cattle (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>169</td>
									<td>155</td>
									<td>16.7</td>
									<td>0.569</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Chemical composition of grass silages</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>DM<sup>1</sup> (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td align="center">285</td>
									<td align="center">288</td>
									<td align="center">15.7</td>
									<td align="center">0.915</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Ash (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">85.8</td>
									<td align="center">80.5</td>
									<td align="center">0.36</td>
									<td align="center">0.294</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Crude protein (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">74.0</td>
									<td align="center">56.8</td>
									<td align="center">4.49</td>
									<td align="center">0.009</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Neutral detergent fiber (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">696</td>
									<td align="center">751</td>
									<td align="center">9.5</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Acid detergent fiber (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">419</td>
									<td align="center">472</td>
									<td align="center">9.4</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Lignin(sa) (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">56.5</td>
									<td align="center">77.8</td>
									<td align="center">3.65</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>iNDF (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">256</td>
									<td align="center">365</td>
									<td align="center">9.9</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>pdNDF (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">439</td>
									<td align="center">385</td>
									<td align="center">12.2</td>
									<td align="center">0.003</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>ADF (g/kg NDF)</td>
									<td align="center">601</td>
									<td align="center">627</td>
									<td align="center">7.35</td>
									<td align="center">0.015</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>iNDF (g/kg NDF)</td>
									<td align="center">368</td>
									<td align="center">488</td>
									<td align="center">14.0</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>iNDF:Lignin(sa) ratio</td>
									<td align="center">4.87</td>
									<td align="center">5.02</td>
									<td align="center">0.314</td>
									<td align="center">0.731</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Neutral detergent solubles (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">219</td>
									<td align="center">169</td>
									<td align="center">10.1</td>
									<td align="center">0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td><italic>In vitro</italic> digestibility of DM 48 h (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">584</td>
									<td align="center">438</td>
									<td align="center">10.2</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td><italic>In vitro</italic> digestibility of NDF 48 h (g/kg NDF)</td>
									<td align="center">532</td>
									<td align="center">362</td>
									<td align="center">14.3</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td><italic>In vitro</italic> digestibility of pdNDF 48 h (g/kg pdNDF)</td>
									<td align="center">846</td>
									<td align="center">709</td>
									<td align="center">21.3</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Fermentation profile of grass silages</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>pH</td>
									<td align="center">4.75</td>
									<td align="center">5.07</td>
									<td align="center">0.122</td>
									<td align="center">0.071</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>NH<sub>3</sub>-N (g/kg N)</td>
									<td align="center">285</td>
									<td align="center">310</td>
									<td align="center">4.2</td>
									<td align="center">0.678</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Lactic acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">13.3</td>
									<td align="center">7.3</td>
									<td align="center">2.39</td>
									<td align="center">0.083</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Acetic acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">24.1</td>
									<td align="center">17.0</td>
									<td align="center">1.73</td>
									<td align="center">0.006</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>n-Butyric acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">12.2</td>
									<td align="center">9.55</td>
									<td align="center">1.60</td>
									<td align="center">0.240</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Ethanol (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">4.61</td>
									<td align="center">2.46</td>
									<td align="center">1.109</td>
									<td align="center">0.176</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Propionic acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">2.65</td>
									<td align="center">1.97</td>
									<td align="center">0.314</td>
									<td align="center">0.135</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>i-Valeric acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1.54</td>
									<td align="center">1.27</td>
									<td align="center">0.219</td>
									<td align="center">0.395</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>n-Valeric acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1.06</td>
									<td align="center">1.40</td>
									<td align="center">0.180</td>
									<td align="center">0.196</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>i-Butyric acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">0.963</td>
									<td align="center">1.09</td>
									<td align="center">0.145</td>
									<td align="center">0.528</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>2,3-Butanediol (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">0.711</td>
									<td align="center">0.371</td>
									<td align="center">0.541</td>
									<td align="center">0.292</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>1-Propanol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">709</td>
									<td align="center">507</td>
									<td align="center">167.7</td>
									<td align="center">0.401</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>1,2-Propanediol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">894</td>
									<td align="center">289</td>
									<td align="center">239.8</td>
									<td align="center">0.082</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Methanol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">262</td>
									<td align="center">167</td>
									<td align="center">68.9</td>
									<td align="center">0.337</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Isopropanol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">130</td>
									<td align="center">49.9</td>
									<td align="center">29.99</td>
									<td align="center">0.066</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>2-Butanol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">56.8</td>
									<td align="center">36.9</td>
									<td align="center">8.89</td>
									<td align="center">0.121</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Acetone (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">30.5</td>
									<td align="center">24.1</td>
									<td align="center">12.99</td>
									<td align="center">0.731</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Propyl acetate (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1.52</td>
									<td align="center">2.53</td>
									<td align="center">1.318</td>
									<td align="center">0.593</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Ethyl lactate (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">3.53</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;1</td>
									<td align="center">1.0234</td>
									<td align="center">0.019</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Ethyl acetate (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">2.08</td>
									<td align="center">1.03</td>
									<td align="center">0.943</td>
									<td align="center">0.437</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Sum BVA<sup>2</sup> (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">15.8</td>
									<td align="center">13.3</td>
									<td align="center">2.05</td>
									<td align="center">0.395</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Sum VFAal<sup>3</sup> (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">49.9</td>
									<td align="center">36.2</td>
									<td align="center">3.93</td>
									<td align="center">0.017</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Sum FP<sup>4</sup> (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">63.3</td>
									<td align="center">43.5</td>
									<td align="center">4.04</td>
									<td align="center">0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Particle distribution (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>40 mm</td>
									<td align="center">111</td>
									<td align="center">75.3</td>
									<td align="center">14.39</td>
									<td align="center">0.088</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>19-40 mm</td>
									<td align="center">384</td>
									<td align="center">357</td>
									<td align="center">35.5</td>
									<td align="center">0.602</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>8-19 mm</td>
									<td align="center">403</td>
									<td align="center">474</td>
									<td align="center">36.1</td>
									<td align="center">0.174</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>4-8 mm</td>
									<td align="center">67.1</td>
									<td align="center">59.0</td>
									<td align="center">8.12</td>
									<td align="center">0.486</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Pan</td>
									<td align="center">35.0</td>
									<td align="center">34.5</td>
									<td align="center">7.14</td>
									<td align="center">0.966</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>&gt; 8 mm</td>
									<td align="center">898</td>
									<td align="center">906</td>
									<td align="center">14.3</td>
									<td align="center">0.677</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>&gt; 4 mm</td>
									<td align="center">965</td>
									<td align="center">965</td>
									<td align="center">7.1</td>
									<td align="center">0.966</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN10">
								<p>iNDF - indigestible neutral detergent fiber; pdNDF - potentially digestible neutral detergent fiber; SEM - standard error of the mean.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN11">
								<p><sup>1</sup> DM - dry matter corrected for volatile compounds.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN12">
								<p><sup>2</sup> Sum BVA - sum of i-butyric, n-butyric, i-valeric and n-valeric acids.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN13">
								<p><sup>3</sup> SumVFAal - sum of volatile fatty acids and alcohols (methanol, isopropanol, ethanol, 2-butanol, 1-propanol, acetic acid, propionic acid, 2,3-butanediol, 1,2-propanediol, i-butyric acid, n-butyric acid, i-valeric acid, n-valeric acid).</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN14">
								<p><sup>4</sup> Sum FP - sum of all non-nitrogenous fermentation products.</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>The HD presented higher CP content (74.0 g/kg CP) than LD group (56.8 g/kg; P&lt;0.009; <xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">Table 3</xref>). The LD presented higher contents of NDF, ADF, lignin, and iNDF (751, 472, 77.8, and 365 g/kg DM) than HD (696, 419, 56.5, and 256 g/kg DM), respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">Table 3</xref>). A higher content of pdNDF was observed in HD (439 g/kg DM) than in LD (385 g/kg DM; P = 0.003). The concentration of NDS was higher in HD than in LD (219 and 169 g/kg DM). The HD showed greater (P&lt;0.001) IVDMD (584 and 438 g/kg DM), IVNDFD (532 and 362 g/kg NDF), and IVpdNDFD (846 and 709 g/kg pdNDF) than LD, respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">Table 3</xref>).</p>
				<p>The acetic acid concentration was higher (P = 0.006) in HD (24.1 g/kg DM) than in LD (17.0 g/kg DM; <xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">Table 3</xref>). A higher concentration of ethyl lactate was observed in HD (35.3 g/kg DM) than in LD (&lt;1 g/kg DM; P = 0.019). The sumVFAal was higher (P = 0.017) in HD (49.9 g/kg DM) compared to LD (36.2 g/kg DM), as well as the sumFP (63.3 and 43.5 g/kg DM, respectively; <xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">Table 3</xref>).</p>
				<p>The genus <italic>Megathyrsus</italic> occurred in 86% of the samples in LD against 50% in HD, whereas the genus <italic>Urochloa</italic> occurred in 46% of the samples in HD against 10% in LD (P = 0.006; <xref ref-type="table" rid="t4">Table 4</xref>). Higher frequency of fertilizer application (P = 0.007) was observed in LD (83%) than in HD (46%). The use of a specific area for grass production occurred in 90% of farms in LD, but 45% in HD (P&lt;0.001). Grass production in crop-livestock integration systems occurred in 50% of farms in HD and 3% in LD (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t4">Table 4</xref>). A small proportion of farms produced silage from pasture surplus (7% in LD and 5% in HD).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t4">
						<label>Table 4</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Comparison between silage groups with high (HD, 508 ─ 709 g/kg DM) and low <italic>in vitro</italic> dry matter digestibility (LD, 314 ─ 499 g/kg DM), variables with discrete distribution</title>
						</caption>
						<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="left" rowspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">Item</th>
									<th rowspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">Class</th>
									<th colspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">Group</th>
									<th rowspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">Fisher test<sup>1</sup></th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">HD</th>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">LD</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td>Consultancy</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">59%</td>
									<td align="center">72%</td>
									<td align="center">0.377</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">41%</td>
									<td align="center">28%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Grass genera</td>
									<td align="center"><italic>Megathyrsus</italic></td>
									<td align="center">50%b</td>
									<td align="center">86%a</td>
									<td align="center">0.006</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center"><italic>Urochloa</italic></td>
									<td align="center">46%a</td>
									<td align="center">10%b</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Mixed</td>
									<td align="center">4%a</td>
									<td align="center">4%a</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Fertilization</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">46%b</td>
									<td align="center">83%a</td>
									<td align="center">0.007</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">54%a</td>
									<td align="center">17%b</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Grass production area</td>
									<td align="center">Semi-perennial</td>
									<td align="center">45%b</td>
									<td align="center">90%a</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Crop-livestock integration</td>
									<td align="center">50%a</td>
									<td align="center">3%b</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Pasture surplus</td>
									<td align="center">5%a</td>
									<td align="center">7%a</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Harvester</td>
									<td align="center">Own</td>
									<td align="center">36%</td>
									<td align="center">38%</td>
									<td align="center">0.999</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Outsourced</td>
									<td align="center">64%</td>
									<td align="center">62%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Harvester type</td>
									<td align="center">Pull-type</td>
									<td align="center">32%</td>
									<td align="center">17%</td>
									<td align="center">0.320</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Self-propelled</td>
									<td align="center">68%</td>
									<td align="center">83%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Inoculant</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">73%</td>
									<td align="center">90%</td>
									<td align="center">0.150</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">27%</td>
									<td align="center">10%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Inoculant type<sup>2</sup></td>
									<td align="center">Bal Homo</td>
									<td align="center">19%</td>
									<td align="center">19%</td>
									<td align="center">0.999</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Combo</td>
									<td align="center">81%</td>
									<td align="center">81%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Moisture absorbent</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">27%</td>
									<td align="center">28%</td>
									<td align="center">0.999</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">73%</td>
									<td align="center">72%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Moisture absorbent type</td>
									<td align="center">SR</td>
									<td align="center">20%</td>
									<td align="center">50%</td>
									<td align="center">0.246</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">SH</td>
									<td align="center">80%</td>
									<td align="center">25%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">DDG</td>
									<td align="center">0%</td>
									<td align="center">25%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Silo type</td>
									<td align="center">Bunker</td>
									<td align="center">50%</td>
									<td align="center">48%</td>
									<td align="center">0.999</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Pile</td>
									<td align="center">45%</td>
									<td align="center">45%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Bag</td>
									<td align="center">0%</td>
									<td align="center">3%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Bale</td>
									<td align="center">5%</td>
									<td align="center">3%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Breeding cows feeding</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">6%</td>
									<td align="center">16%</td>
									<td align="center">0.632</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">94%</td>
									<td align="center">84%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Growing cattle feeding</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">50%</td>
									<td align="center">54%</td>
									<td align="center">0.999</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">50%</td>
									<td align="center">46%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Finishing cattle feeding</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">100%</td>
									<td align="center">77%</td>
									<td align="center">0.067</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">0%</td>
									<td align="center">23%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN15">
								<p>SR - soybean residue; SH - soybean hulls; DDG - dried distillers grains.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN16">
								<p><sup>1</sup> Fisher's exact test.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN17">
								<p><sup>2</sup> Combination of homo- and hetero-lactic bacteria.</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>3.4. Comparison between silage groups (LB and HB) for n-butyric acid concentration</title>
				<p>Upon grouping silages by butyric fermentation, 86% (n = 44) of the samples were classified as HB (&gt;3 g n-butyric acid/kg DM), and only 14% (n = 7) were classified as having low n-butyric acid concentration (LB, ≤ 3 g/kg DM). The LB group showed greater values for grass maturity at harvest (P&lt;0.001), DM (P&lt;0.001), NDS (P = 0.023), particles retained on the 4-mm sieve (P&lt;0.001), and particles retained on the pan of the PSPS (P&lt;0.001), and lower values of harvest frequency (P = 0.036), NDF (P = 0.035), NH<sub>3</sub>-N (P&lt;0.001), acetic acid (P = 0.012), n-butyric acid (P&lt;0.001), propionic acid (P = 0.020), i-valeric acid (P&lt;0.001), n-valeric acid (P&lt;0.001), i-butyric acid (P&lt;0.001), 2-butanol (P = 0.024), sumBVA (P&lt;0.001), sumVFAal (P&lt;0.001), sumFP (P = 0.023), particles retained on the 19-mm sieve (P = 0.013), particles &gt;8 mm (P&lt; 0.001), and particles &gt;4 mm (P&lt;0.001) compared with the group HB. Other variables did not show differences between groups (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t5">Table 5</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t5">
						<label>Table 5</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Comparison between silage groups with low (LB, ≤ 3 g/kg DM) and high n-butyric concentration (HB, &gt; 3 g/kg DM), variables with continuous distribution</title>
						</caption>
						<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="left" rowspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">Item</th>
									<th colspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">Group</th>
									<th rowspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">SEM</th>
									<th rowspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">P-value</th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">LB</th>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">HB</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td>Applied fertilizer</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>N rate (kg/ha)</td>
									<td>30.0</td>
									<td>163</td>
									<td>63.14</td>
									<td>0.224</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub> rate (kg/ha)</td>
									<td>30.0</td>
									<td>33.5</td>
									<td>17.39</td>
									<td>0.903</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>K<sub>2</sub>O rate (kg/ha)</td>
									<td>30.0</td>
									<td>66.7</td>
									<td>14.90</td>
									<td>0.156</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Plot management</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Sward age (yr)</td>
									<td>1.33</td>
									<td>2.97</td>
									<td>0.607</td>
									<td>0.102</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Harvest frequency (cuts/yr)</td>
									<td>1.25</td>
									<td>2.27</td>
									<td>0.298</td>
									<td>0.036</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Grass maturity at harvest (d)</td>
									<td>152</td>
									<td>90.5</td>
									<td>12.07</td>
									<td>&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Reported yield</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Fresh matter yield (t as fed/ha/cut)</td>
									<td>18.5</td>
									<td>27.8</td>
									<td>3.38</td>
									<td>0.078</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Dry matter yield (t DM/ha/cut)</td>
									<td>7.10</td>
									<td>7.05</td>
									<td>0.98</td>
									<td>0.971</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Reported ensiling practices</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Theoretical length of cut (mm)</td>
									<td>12.8</td>
									<td>13.2</td>
									<td>0.79</td>
									<td>0.745</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Dose of moisture absorbent (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td>59.0</td>
									<td>159</td>
									<td>74.1</td>
									<td>0.419</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Inclusion of grass silage in diets (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Breeding cows</td>
									<td>700</td>
									<td>480</td>
									<td>24.1</td>
									<td>0.099</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Growing cattle</td>
									<td>440</td>
									<td>539</td>
									<td>89.1</td>
									<td>0.497</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Finishing cattle</td>
									<td>186</td>
									<td>157</td>
									<td>20.6</td>
									<td>0.355</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Chemical composition of grass silages</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>DM<sup>1</sup> (g/kg as fed)</td>
									<td>410</td>
									<td>267</td>
									<td>16.1</td>
									<td>&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Ash (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>79.1</td>
									<td>83.4</td>
									<td>4.80</td>
									<td>0.557</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Crude protein (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>71.9</td>
									<td>63.0</td>
									<td>36.04</td>
									<td>0.365</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Neutral detergent fiber (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>687</td>
									<td>733</td>
									<td>14.0</td>
									<td>0.035</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Acid detergent fiber (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>420</td>
									<td>454</td>
									<td>14.0</td>
									<td>0.118</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Lignin(sa) (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>74.9</td>
									<td>67.6</td>
									<td>5.90</td>
									<td>0.425</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>iNDF (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>274</td>
									<td>325</td>
									<td>19.0</td>
									<td>0.084</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>pdNDF (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>413</td>
									<td>408</td>
									<td>17.7</td>
									<td>0.854</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>ADF (g/kg NDF)</td>
									<td>610</td>
									<td>617</td>
									<td>10.2</td>
									<td>0.644</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>iNDF (g/kg NDF)</td>
									<td>399</td>
									<td>442</td>
									<td>24.2</td>
									<td>0.254</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>iNDF:Lignin(sa) ratio</td>
									<td>3.94</td>
									<td>5.12</td>
									<td>0.40</td>
									<td>0.061</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Neutral detergent solubles (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>234</td>
									<td>183</td>
									<td>14.1</td>
									<td>0.023</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td><italic>In vitro</italic> DM digestibility 48 h (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td>531</td>
									<td>496</td>
									<td>23.5</td>
									<td>0.341</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td><italic>In vitr</italic>o NDF digestibility 48 h (g/kg NDF)</td>
									<td>442</td>
									<td>434</td>
									<td>29.7</td>
									<td>0.863</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td><italic>In vitro</italic> pdNDF digestibility 48 h (g/kg pdNDF)</td>
									<td>731</td>
									<td>774</td>
									<td>33.4</td>
									<td>0.417</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Fermentation profile of grass silages</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>pH</td>
									<td align="center">5.06</td>
									<td align="center">4.91</td>
									<td align="center">0.166</td>
									<td align="center">0.565</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>NH<sub>3</sub>-N (g/kg N)</td>
									<td align="center">89.4</td>
									<td align="center">332</td>
									<td align="center">51.7</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Lactic acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">15.3</td>
									<td align="center">9.03</td>
									<td align="center">3.22</td>
									<td align="center">0.212</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Acetic acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">12.1</td>
									<td align="center">21.3</td>
									<td align="center">2.32</td>
									<td align="center">0.012</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>n-Butyric acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1.79</td>
									<td align="center">12.1</td>
									<td align="center">1.92</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Ethanol (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1.00</td>
									<td align="center">3.67</td>
									<td align="center">1.470</td>
									<td align="center">0.229</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Propionic acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">0.98</td>
									<td align="center">2.47</td>
									<td align="center">0.402</td>
									<td align="center">0.020</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>i-Valeric acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">0.250</td>
									<td align="center">1.57</td>
									<td align="center">0.270</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>n-Valeric acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">0.254</td>
									<td align="center">1.41</td>
									<td align="center">0.220</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>i-Butyric acid (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">0.022</td>
									<td align="center">0.117</td>
									<td align="center">0.0172</td>
									<td align="center">&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>2,3-Butanediol (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">0.70</td>
									<td align="center">0.49</td>
									<td align="center">0.301</td>
									<td align="center">0.646</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>1-Propanol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">510</td>
									<td align="center">608</td>
									<td align="center">224</td>
									<td align="center">0.777</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>1,2-Propanediol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1131</td>
									<td align="center">458</td>
									<td align="center">321.9</td>
									<td align="center">0.180</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Methanol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">68.2</td>
									<td align="center">231</td>
									<td align="center">90.99</td>
									<td align="center">0.252</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Isopropanol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">114</td>
									<td align="center">79.6</td>
									<td align="center">40.98</td>
									<td align="center">0.588</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>2-Butanol (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">10.1</td>
									<td align="center">51.1</td>
									<td align="center">11.47</td>
									<td align="center">0.024</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Acetone (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">2.34</td>
									<td align="center">30.7</td>
									<td align="center">17.04</td>
									<td align="center">0.284</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Propyl acetate (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1.16</td>
									<td align="center">2.24</td>
									<td>1.749</td>
									<td>0.688</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Ethyl lactate (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">1.90</td>
									<td align="center">1.46</td>
									<td>1.436</td>
									<td>0.844</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Ethyl acetate (mg/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">0.00</td>
									<td align="center">1.72</td>
									<td>1.248</td>
									<td>0.374</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>SumBVA<sup>2</sup> (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">2.52</td>
									<td align="center">16.3</td>
									<td>2.42</td>
									<td>&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>SumVFAal<sup>3</sup> (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">19.1</td>
									<td align="center">45.8</td>
									<td>4.94</td>
									<td>&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>SumFP<sup>4</sup> (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td align="center">34.4</td>
									<td align="center">54.8</td>
									<td>5.66</td>
									<td>0.023</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Particle size distribution (g/kg DM)</td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>&gt;40 mm</td>
									<td align="center">78.5</td>
									<td align="center">92.5</td>
									<td>19.61</td>
									<td>0.646</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>19-40 mm</td>
									<td align="center">221</td>
									<td align="center">392</td>
									<td>44.5</td>
									<td>0.016</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>8-19 mm</td>
									<td align="center">522</td>
									<td align="center">431</td>
									<td>48.0</td>
									<td>0.222</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>4-8 mm</td>
									<td align="center">104</td>
									<td align="center">55.9</td>
									<td>9.85</td>
									<td>&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Pan</td>
									<td align="center">74.2</td>
									<td align="center">28.4</td>
									<td>8.46</td>
									<td>&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>&gt; 8 mm</td>
									<td align="center">822</td>
									<td align="center">916</td>
									<td>16.9</td>
									<td>&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>&gt; 4 mm</td>
									<td align="center">926</td>
									<td align="center">972</td>
									<td>8.5</td>
									<td>&lt;0.001</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN18">
								<p>iNDF - indigestible neutral detergent fiber; pdNDF - potentially digestible neutral detergent fiber; SEM - standard error of the mean.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN19">
								<p><sup>1</sup> DM - dry matter corrected for volatile compounds.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN20">
								<p><sup>2</sup> SumBVA - sum of i-butyric, butyric, i-valeric and n-valeric acids.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN21">
								<p><sup>3</sup> SumVFAal - sum of volatile fatty acids and alcohols sum of volatile fatty acids and alcohols (methanol, isopropanol, ethanol, 2-butanol, 1-propanol, acetic acid, propionic acid, 2,3-butanediol, 1,2-propanediol, i-butyric acid, n-butyric acid, i-valeric acid, n-valeric acid).</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN22">
								<p><sup>4</sup> SumFP - sum of all non-nitrogenous fermentation products.</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>The Chi-square test (χ<sup>2</sup>) applied to variables with discrete distribution revealed that outsourced harvest service was used in 100% of cases in group LB. Other discrete variables showed no difference between groups (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t6">Table 6</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t6">
						<label>Table 6</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Comparison between silage groups with low (LB, ≤ 3 g/kg DM) and high n-butyric concentration (HB, &gt; 3 g/kg DM), variables with discrete distribution</title>
						</caption>
						<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="left" rowspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">Item</th>
									<th rowspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">Class</th>
									<th colspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">Group</th>
									<th rowspan="2" style="font-weight:normal">Fisher test<sup>1</sup></th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">LB</th>
									<th style="font-weight:normal">HB</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td>Consultancy</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">86%</td>
									<td align="center">64%</td>
									<td align="center">0.401</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">14%</td>
									<td align="center">36%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Grass genera</td>
									<td align="center"><italic>Megathyrsus</italic></td>
									<td align="center">57%</td>
									<td align="center">73%</td>
									<td align="center">0.527</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center"><italic>Urochloa</italic></td>
									<td align="center">43%</td>
									<td align="center">23%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Mixed</td>
									<td align="center">0%</td>
									<td align="center">5%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Fertilization</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">57%</td>
									<td align="center">68%</td>
									<td align="center">0.673</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">43%</td>
									<td align="center">32%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Grass production area</td>
									<td align="center">Semi-perennial</td>
									<td align="center">57%</td>
									<td align="center">73%</td>
									<td align="center">0.354</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Crop-livestock integration</td>
									<td align="center">29%</td>
									<td align="center">23%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Pasture surplus</td>
									<td align="center">14%</td>
									<td align="center">5%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Harvester</td>
									<td align="center">Own</td>
									<td align="center">0%b</td>
									<td align="center">43%a</td>
									<td align="center">0.037</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Outsourced</td>
									<td align="center">100%a</td>
									<td align="center">57%b</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Harvester type</td>
									<td align="center">Pull-type</td>
									<td align="center">0%</td>
									<td align="center">27%</td>
									<td align="center">0.177</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Self-propelled</td>
									<td align="center">100%</td>
									<td align="center">73%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Inoculant</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">100%</td>
									<td align="center">80%</td>
									<td align="center">0.328</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">0%</td>
									<td align="center">20%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Inoculant type<sup>2</sup></td>
									<td align="center">BAL homo</td>
									<td align="center">14%</td>
									<td align="center">20%</td>
									<td align="center">0.999</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Combo</td>
									<td align="center">86%</td>
									<td align="center">80%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Moisture absorbent</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">14%</td>
									<td align="center">30%</td>
									<td align="center">0.657</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">86%</td>
									<td align="center">70%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Moisture absorbent type</td>
									<td align="center">SR</td>
									<td align="center">100%</td>
									<td align="center">33%</td>
									<td align="center">0.539</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">SH</td>
									<td align="center">0%</td>
									<td align="center">50%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">DDG</td>
									<td align="center">0%</td>
									<td align="center">17%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Silo type</td>
									<td align="center">Bunker</td>
									<td align="center">29%</td>
									<td align="center">52%</td>
									<td align="center">0.515</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Drive-over</td>
									<td align="center">71%</td>
									<td align="center">41%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Bag</td>
									<td align="center">0%</td>
									<td align="center">2%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">Bale</td>
									<td align="center">0%</td>
									<td align="center">5%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Breeding cows feeding</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">14%</td>
									<td align="center">12%</td>
									<td align="center">0.999</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">86%</td>
									<td align="center">88%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Growing cattle feeding</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">29%</td>
									<td align="center">56%</td>
									<td align="center">0.237</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">71%</td>
									<td align="center">44%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td>Finishing cattle feeding</td>
									<td align="center">Yes</td>
									<td align="center">86%</td>
									<td align="center">86%</td>
									<td align="center">0.999</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td> </td>
									<td align="center">No</td>
									<td align="center">14%</td>
									<td align="center">14%</td>
									<td> </td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN23">
								<p>SR - soybean residue; SH - soybean hulls; DDG - dried distillers grains.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN24">
								<p><sup>1</sup> Fisher's exact test.</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN25">
								<p><sup>2</sup> Combination of homo- and hetero-lactic bacteria.</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>3.5. Relationships between silage characteristics</title>
				<p>The iNDF concentration had a negative correlation with IVDMD (P&lt;0.001; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.766; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f03">Figure 3</xref>). There was a linear and positive correlation between the concentrations of n-butyric acid and propionic acid (P&lt;0.001; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.693; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f04">Figure 4A</xref>). The concentration of n-butyric acid showed a linear and positive correlation with NH<sub>3</sub>-N (P&lt;0.001; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.523; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f04">Figure 4B</xref>). The concentration of lactic acid was inversely correlated with n-butyric acid, and a broken-line regression model indicated a negative linear segment, followed by a plateau, after the break point (P&lt;0.001; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.456; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f04">Figure 4C</xref>). Silages with DM content higher than 370 g/kg present a lower risk of clostridial fermentation (risk difference = −0.956; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f04">Figure 4D</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<fig id="f03">
						<label>Figure 3</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Relationship between indigestible neutral detergent fiber (iNDF) content and <italic>in vitro</italic> dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) in tropical grass silage samples.</title>
						</caption>
						<graphic xlink:href="1806-9290-rbz-55-e20260048-gf03.tif"/>
						<attrib>IVDMD (g/kg DM) = 839 – 1.06 × iNDF (g/kg DM); RMSE = 43.5; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.766; P&lt;0.001.</attrib>
					</fig>
				</p>
				<p>
					<fig id="f04">
						<label>Figure 4</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Relationship between n-butyric acid (ButAc) and propionic acid (PropAc; A), NH3-N (Ammonia; B), lactic acid (LatAc; C), and dry matter (DM; D) in tropical grass silage samples.</title>
						</caption>
						<graphic xlink:href="1806-9290-rbz-55-e20260048-gf04.tif"/>
						<attrib>A: ButAc (g/kg DM) = 1.20 + 4.19 × PropAc (g/kg DM); RMSE = 4.49; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.693; P&lt;0.001. B: ButAc (g/kg DM) = 2.50 + 0.028 × Ammonia (g/kg N); RMSE = 5.60; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.523; P&lt;0.001. C: If LatAc &lt; 7.51 g/kg DM, ButAc = 4.69 + 1.81 × (7.51 – LatAc); If LatAc ≥ 7.51, then ButAc = 4.69 g/kg DM. RMSE = 5.86; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.456; P&lt;0.001. D: Silages with DM &gt; 370 g/kg had a lower risk of butyric fermentation (Risk difference = −0.956; exact 95% confidence interval −0.996 to −0.526).</attrib>
					</fig>
				</p>
			</sec>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="discussion">
			<title>4. Discussion</title>
			<p>While the use of tropical grass silage in beef production systems is expanding (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Monsalve and Millen, 2025</xref>), field observations suggest high storage losses and low feeding value. However, the fermentation pattern and nutritional composition of tropical grass silages produced on commercial farms have not been characterized. In this survey, we demonstrated that most tropical grass silage produced in commercial beef farms in central Brazil has low feeding value and high variability in forage yield. The wide range of DM yield (0.8 to 24 t DM/ha/cut) highlights the substantial variability in production conditions across these operations.</p>
			<p>The composition of tropical grass silages also showed substantial variability, indicating the broad range of conditions represented in the data set. For example, DM content ranged from extremely low (168 g/kg) to high (466 g/kg), while IVDMD (314 to 709 g/kg DM) and n-butyric acid concentration from 0.6 to 31 g/kg DM, likely reflecting differences in agronomic and ensiling conditions among fields. The absence of correlation between n-butyric acid concentration and IVDMD indicated that fermentation pattern and nutritional value were not directly associated. These findings indicate that complementary strategies are needed to produce highly digestible, well-fermented silage.</p>
			<sec>
				<title>4.1. Nutritional value of silages</title>
				<p>In this study, silages with the highest digestibility were obtained from production systems that adopted greater doses of nitrogen fertilization, greater cutting frequency, and lower regrowth age at harvest, which together may contribute to greater annual productivity. More frequent cutting usually allows forage production with a higher leaf:stem ratio and, consequently, better nutritional value at harvest. This intensive management, when soil nutrient availability is adequate, promotes faster growth and efficient plant recovery, maximizing the biomass produced. In addition, this practice helps to maintain plants in the vegetative phase, with greater nutritional quality (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Mari, 2003</xref>). On the other hand, the application of greater doses of N allows faster plant growth while maintaining desirable leaf:stem ratio (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B31">Pinto et al., 1994</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">Oliveira et al., 2020</xref>).</p>
				<p>An intriguing finding was the dichotomy in fertilization practices. While a higher proportion of farmers in the low in LD applied fertilizer, the actual nitrogen dose was significantly lower than that in HD group. This may suggest that in the LD group, fertilization is done as a standard practice but at suboptimal rates, which might be insufficient to maintain high proportion of leaves and delay stem elongation. Lower application rates of fertilizers combined with a longer regrowth interval observed in LD likely resulted in poorer forage quality. This underscores that the dose of fertilizer is critical for affecting grass productivity and nutritive value.</p>
				<p>As the plant matures, the proportion of highly digestible components (i.e., NDS) tends to decrease. On the other hand, the proportions of fibrous fractions increase, resulting in lower digestibility (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">Moser, 1995</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Jung and Allen, 1995</xref>). This pattern was evidenced in the present study by the lower concentrations of NDS and higher concentrations of fibrous fractions in the group with lower IVDMD, as well as by the negative correlation between iNDF and IVDMD. Therefore, forage harvested at a more advanced stage of maturity was associated with higher iNDF and lower IVDMD of the silages, as cell wall lignification hinders fiber digestibility by rumen microorganisms (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B40">Van Soest, 1994</xref>). In this survey, the average grass maturity at harvest was nearly 100 days, consistent with the high iNDF (318 g/kg DM) and low IVDMD (501 g/kg DM) observed. A high proportion of concentrate was reported even in diets for breeding cows and growing cattle, likely to compensate for the low feeding value of the silage.</p>
				<p>In grasses from <italic>Urochloa</italic> and <italic>Megathyrsus</italic> genus, the IVDMD decreases with maturity, with a more pronounced decline after approximately two months of regrowth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Mari, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B37">Tomaz et al., 2018</xref>). The high iNDF:lignin(sa) ratio (averaging 4.96) corroborates that lignification has a greater negative effect on fiber digestibility in tropical grasses than in corn silage and temperate grasses (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Daniel et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B33">Raffrenato et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Moraes et al., 2023</xref>). The strong negative correlation between iNDF and IVDMD confirms that, for tropical grass silages, the indigestible fiber fraction is a major driver of overall DM digestibility. Therefore, iNDF may be more informative than total NDF for benchmarking the nutritive value of tropical grass silages.</p>
				<p>The association between the <italic>Megathyrsus</italic> genus and the low IVDMD group (LD) is noteworthy. While both genera are tropical, their morphological and agronomic traits differ. It is plausible that <italic>Megathyrsus</italic> grasses on these farms were managed more extensively (e.g., lower N fertilization, longer regrowth intervals), leading to more lignified fiber at harvest. This aligns with the lower N application and numerically greater maturity at harvest observed in LD, where <italic>Megathyrsus</italic> predominated. Conversely, the higher prevalence of <italic>Urochloa</italic> in HD suggests that, under the management practices adopted on these farms, it may have been harvested at a less mature stage, preserving its nutritive value. This highlights the importance of on-farm management in determining the expression of the genetic potential of these grasses. The HD had 3.00 cuts/yr compared with 1.85 cuts/yr in LD, while regrowth age was lower in HD (83.8 vs 112 d). Such differences reflect not only botanical differences but also potentially distinct forage production systems.</p>
				<p>Crop-livestock integration areas accounted for 50% of HD but only 3% of LD, whereas semi-perennial systems predominated in LD (90%). These results suggest that integrated systems may substantially enhance soil fertility, nitrogen cycling, and overall crop productivity (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Lemaire et al., 2014</xref>), facilitate harvesting at earlier phenological stages, thereby indirectly contributing to higher digestibility.</p>
				<p>The concentration of several fermentation products, either considered individually (e.g., acetic acid) or as the sum of compounds (sumFP) were higher for the group with greater IVDMD, indicating a greater extent of fermentation, which must have occurred due to the greater availability of soluble substrates for microorganisms in the younger better-fertilized plants. Despite the difference in maturity, the DM content was similar between silage groups. Previous studies have shown that maturity advancement is not an exclusive factor determining the moisture content of tropical grasses (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B43">Wilkinson, 1983</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B36">Santos et al., 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B37">Tomaz et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Moraes et al., 2023</xref>).</p>
				<p>Although no differences were observed for the use of moisture absorbent (27 and 28% in HD and LD, respectively), the dose of absorbent (126 and 169 g/kg in HD and LD, respectively), and the type of absorbent between digestibility groups, the results from this clustering based on digestibility should be interpreted with caution as the mixture of those ingredients with the grass can modify the silage digestibility.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>4.2. Silage fermentation pattern</title>
				<p>In this study, most tropical grass silage samples (86%) were considered poorly fermented, with n-butyric acid concentrations &gt; 3 g/kg DM (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Kaiser et al., 2002</xref>). The relationship between DM content and n-butyric acid concentration indicated that silages with DM contents below 370 g/kg DM were at a high risk of clostridial development, whereas silages with more than 370 g/kg DM had lower risk of butyric fermentation. Recently, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Carvalho et al. (2024)</xref> confirmed that the FC model proposed by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B42">Weissbach et al. (1974)</xref> is applicable to tropical grasses, including the <italic>Megathyrsus</italic> and <italic>Urochloa</italic> genus. The authors observed that, on average, the minimum DM content necessary to reduce the risk of butyric fermentation was approximately 350 g/kg DM, which is very similar to the value found in the present study. Thus, it can be concluded that the minimum DM value of 250 g/kg mentioned by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">McDonald et al. (1991)</xref> or even the value of 300 g/kg commonly adopted in practice may not be sufficient to restrict butyric fermentation and minimize nutrient losses in tropical grass silages, especially those from the genera <italic>Megathyrsus</italic> and <italic>Urochloa</italic>. This finding, derived from an on-farm survey, provides field-based support for the controlled experimental data reported by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Carvalho et al. (2024)</xref> and suggests a practical benchmark for farmers and consultants. For <italic>Megathyrsus</italic> and <italic>Urochloa</italic> grasses, wilting or blending moisture absorbents to achieve a DM concentration above 370 g/kg represents the single most critical factor for mitigating the risk of clostridial fermentation. As the availability of harvesting and forage conservation machinery increases, the production of wilted tropical grass silage is expected to become more widespread.</p>
				<p>Although no significant differences in pH were observed between the fermentation quality groups (LB vs. HB) or between the digestibility groups (HD vs. LD), the pH value alone was not a reliable indicator of fermentation quality in this study. Silage pH is influenced by multiple factors, including the concentration of buffering compounds (either originating from the forage or formed during fermentation), the presence of other organic acids, the use of additives, and moisture level. Notably, silages with higher DM content tend to exhibit relatively high pH values even under good fermentation conditions (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">Muck, 1988</xref>). Therefore, relying on pH alone, without profiling fermentation products can be misleading.</p>
				<p>The correlation between n-butyric acid and lactic acid concentrations was inverse. The segmented regression model suggests a threshold of approximately 7.5 g/kg DM of lactic acid. Below this level, butyric acid concentration increased sharply. When enough lactic acid is produced in the fermentation process, microbial activity is reduced, mainly due to the effect of the acidic environment, allowing the silage to be stored aerobically (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">McDonald et al., 1991</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">Pahlow et al., 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B35">Rooke and Hatfield, 2003</xref>). On the other hand, the lactic acid produced at the beginning of fermentation may have been degraded by the activity of undesirable microorganisms in silages classified as poorly fermented, especially by bacteria of the genus <italic>Clostridium</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">McDonald et al., 1991</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">Pahlow et al., 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B35">Rooke and Hatfield, 2003</xref>). Both mechanisms may have occurred and the real cause of the low lactic acid concentration in silages with high concentration of n-butyric acid cannot be established in this study. Nevertheless, these findings suggest that achieving and maintaining an adequate lactic acid concentration during fermentation may help inhibit clostridial activity. Management strategies, as the use of efficient silage additives, must therefore help promote adequate lactic acid production and favorable fermentation.</p>
				<p>In addition to n-butyric acid, several fermentation products can be associated with the development of clostridia in silages, such as i-valeric acid, n-valeric acid, i-butyric acid, 2,3-butanediol, isopropanol, 2-butanol, ethanol, acetic acid, ammonia, and biogenic amines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">McDonald et al., 1991</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B35">Rooke and Hatfield, 2003</xref>). Several of these compounds are also associated with DM losses and reduced feeding value. In this study, n-butyric acid content was positively correlated with propionic acid, NH<sub>3</sub>-N, and other fermentation products typically produced by clostridia. Furthermore, silages classified as HB had higher concentrations of NH<sub>3</sub>-N, acetic acid, propionic acid, i-butyric acid, n-valeric acid, i-valeric acid, and 2-butanol.</p>
				<p>High concentrations of NH<sub>3</sub>-N, i-butyric acid, i-valeric acid, and n-valeric acid indicate severe proteolysis and deamination triggered by proteolytic microorganisms (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">McDonald et al., 1991</xref>). The observed differences in NH<sub>3</sub>-N concentration suggest marked degradation of true protein and a potential reduction in nitrogen-use efficiency in HB silages. Moreover, a higher NH<sub>3</sub>-N concentration (and likely other hypophagic metabolites) in grass silage has been reported to be inversely related to feed intake in cattle (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Krizsan and Randby, 2007</xref>), further reducing silage feeding value. These nutritional and economic consequences warrant further investigation in future research. Although propionic acid does not contribute significantly to pH reduction high concentrations of this acid in moist silages typically indicates poor fermentation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Kung et al., 2018</xref>).</p>
				<p>The development of undesirable microorganisms in tropical grass silages generally results in the degradation of readily available soluble nutrients and decreased digestibility (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Gomes et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Moraes et al., 2023</xref>). In fact, in the present study, poorly fermented silages had lower levels of SDN and higher levels of NDF, but the difference of IVDMD between LB and HB was only numerical (531 to 496 g/kg DM), as delayed harvest was associated with less n-butyric acid primarily through higher DM in the LB group. However, this does not imply that delayed harvest is an appropriate management strategy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B37">Tomaz et al., 2018</xref>), because late harvest reduces nutritive value. Therefore, plant composition and cell wall digestibility at harvest likely had a stronger effect on silage IVDMD than did fermentation pattern, supporting the distinction between these two quality attributes in tropical grass silages.</p>
				<p>In addition to plant composition, silage management can also influence the conservation process. In our dataset, the group of well-preserved silages showed better physical processing of the forage, as indicated by the lower proportion of particles retained on the 19- and 40-mm sieves. The association between finer particle size and reduced butyric fermentation in the LB group reinforces the importance of mechanical processing. Effective chopping serves a dual purpose: (1) it releases more soluble carbohydrates needed for the growth of lactic acid bacteria (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">McDonald et al., 1991</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">Pahlow et al., 2003</xref>), promoting rapid lactic acid production and pH drop; and (2) it facilitates better compaction, reducing porosity and creating the anaerobic conditions necessary to inhibit undesirable microorganisms. Hence, particle size seems more relevant to fermentation pattern than to silage digestibility and this dataset supports the concept of independence between fermentation pattern and bromatological composition. In future surveys, silage density and its relationship with particle size and fermentation pattern warrant further characterization.</p>
				<p>In the current survey, more than 80% of producers used bacterial inoculants, with a predominance of products containing a combination of homolactic and heterolactic bacteria (81%). Under favorable growth conditions, homolactic bacteria can accelerate the pH decline at the onset of fermentation, inhibiting undesirable microorganisms such as enterobacteria and clostridia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">Pahlow et al., 2003</xref>). However, in this study, the use of inoculants was not associated with improved fermentation or nutritional value. The effects of bacterial inoculants applied to wet tropical grass silages have been inconsistent (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Mühlbach, 2000</xref>; Coan, 2005; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B37">Tomaz et al., 2018</xref>). The high moisture and low soluble carbohydrate content of these forages create an environment in which even inoculated LAB may fail to dominate the epiphytic microbiota. Furthermore, the predominance of inoculants containing a combination of homo- and heterolactic bacteria may not be an optimal strategy for direct-cut wet forages, as heterofermentative bacteria prioritize acetic acid production rather than rapid acidification, potentially delaying pH decline and increasing the risk of clostridial activity (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">Arriola et al., 2021</xref>). This suggests that current commercial inoculant strategies, as applied by farmers, are insufficient to overcome the fundamental ensiling challenges posed by these tropical grasses, highlighting the need for more robust technological interventions.</p>
				<p>The use of moisture-absorbing additives (e.g., soybean hulls, soybean residue, and by-products from corn ethanol production), as an alternative to wilting, was adopted by a relatively small proportion of farmers and did not differ between the LB and HB groups. Although some studies have demonstrated positive effect on the fermentation profile of grass silages (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Igarasi, 2002</xref>; Ribeiro et al., 2007; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Avila et al., 2022</xref>), the addition of moderate levels of moisture absorbents as the only management strategy does not necessarily ensure adequate fermentation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B37">Tomaz et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Gouvêa et al., 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Gomes et al., 2021</xref>) and can increase the complexity of the ensiling process in large operations. In this study, the lack of efficacy noted for the use of absorbents might be due to the dose, type of absorbent or either initial forage DM.</p>
			</sec>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="conclusions">
			<title>5. Conclusions</title>
			<p>Most of the surveyed silages exhibited low IVDMD (&lt; 500 g/kg DM) and high concentrations of n-butyric acid (&gt; 3 g/kg DM). Moreover, the results confirmed the independence between fermentation dynamics and the bromatological composition of tropical grass silages, suggesting that complementary management strategies are required to produce highly digestible, well-fermented silage. Even on farms where grass silage is used primarily as a source of physically effective fiber, strategies such as wilting and/or the application of proven silage additives are necessary to improve preservation. Collectively, our findings highlight the need to develop, transfer, and implement techniques that enhance the conservation and quality of tropical grass silage on Brazilian beef farms, particularly in systems where greater forage inclusion in the diet can improve production efficiency (e.g., for growing cattle and breeding cows).</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="supplementary-material">
			<title>Supplementary material</title>
			<supplementary-material id="suppl01">
				<label>Supplementary material 1</label>
				<p>The supplementary material of this article can be found online at:<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.rbz.org.br/wp-content/uploads/articles_xml/1806-9290-rbz-55-e20260048/1806-9290-rbz-55-e20260048-suppl01.pdf">https://www.rbz.org.br/wp-content/uploads/articles_xml/1806-9290-rbz-55-e20260048/1806-9290-rbz-55-e20260048-suppl01.pdf</ext-link>
				</p>
				<media mime-subtype="pdf" mimetype="application" xlink:href="1806-9290-rbz-55-e20260048-suppl01.pdf"/>
			</supplementary-material>
		</sec>
	</body>
	<back>
		<ack>
			<title>Acknowledgments</title>
			<p>We thank all the farmers visited, and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brasília-DF, Brazil, for the scholarships provided to the authors.</p>
		</ack>
		<ref-list>
			<title>References</title>
			<ref id="B1">
				<mixed-citation>AOAC - Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. AOAC, Arlington, VA.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="report">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>AOAC - Association of Official Analytical Chemists</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>1990</year>
					<source>Official methods of analysis</source>
					<edition>15th</edition>
					<publisher-name>AOAC</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>Arlington, VA</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B2">
				<mixed-citation>Arriola, K. G.; Oliveira, A. S.; Jiang, Y.; Kim, D.; Silva, H. M.; Kim, S. C.; Amaro, F. X.; Ogunade, I. M.; Sultana, H.; Pech Cervantes, A. A.; Ferraretto, L. F.; Vyas. D. and Adesogan, A. T. 2021. Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with <italic>Lactobacillus buchneri</italic>, with or without other bacteria, on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and performance of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 104:7653-7670. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19647">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19647</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Arriola</surname>
							<given-names>K. G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Oliveira</surname>
							<given-names>A. S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Jiang</surname>
							<given-names>Y.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kim</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Silva</surname>
							<given-names>H. M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kim</surname>
							<given-names>S. C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Amaro</surname>
							<given-names>F. X.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ogunade</surname>
							<given-names>I. M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Sultana</surname>
							<given-names>H.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pech Cervantes</surname>
							<given-names>A. A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ferraretto</surname>
							<given-names>L. F.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Vyas.</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Adesogan</surname>
							<given-names>A. T.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2021</year>
					<article-title>Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with Lactobacillus buchneri, with or without other bacteria, on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and performance of dairy cows</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Dairy Science</source>
					<volume>104</volume>
					<fpage>7653</fpage>
					<lpage>7670</lpage>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19647">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19647</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B3">
				<mixed-citation>Avila, A. S.; Zambom, M. A.; Faccenda, A.; Neres, M. A.; Muxfeldt, L.; Schneider, C. R.; Stum, M. M.; Dri, R. and Schneider, P. R. 2022. Effects of adding agro-industrial by-products and bacterial inoculant at ensiling on nutritional quality and bacterial colonization of Tifton 85 [ <italic>Cynodon dactylon</italic> (L.) Pers.] silages. Tropical Grasslands- Forrajes Tropicales 10:204-213. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.17138/tgft (10)204-213">https://doi.org/10.17138/tgft (10)204-213</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Avila</surname>
							<given-names>A. S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Zambom</surname>
							<given-names>M. A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Faccenda</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Neres</surname>
							<given-names>M. A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Muxfeldt</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Schneider</surname>
							<given-names>C. R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Stum</surname>
							<given-names>M. M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Dri</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Schneider</surname>
							<given-names>P. R.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2022</year>
					<article-title>Effects of adding agro-industrial by-products and bacterial inoculant at ensiling on nutritional quality and bacterial colonization of Tifton 85 [ Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] silages</article-title>
					<source>Tropical Grasslands- Forrajes Tropicales</source>
					<volume>10</volume>
					<fpage>204</fpage>
					<lpage>213</lpage>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.17138/tgft (10)204-213">https://doi.org/10.17138/tgft (10)204-213</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B4">
				<mixed-citation>Blom, E. J.; Gentry, W. W.; Pritchard, R. H. and Hales, K. E. 2022. Effects of backgrounding-phase rate of gain on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers. Applied Animal Science 38:279-284. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2022-02274">https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2022-02274</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Blom</surname>
							<given-names>E. J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gentry</surname>
							<given-names>W. W.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pritchard</surname>
							<given-names>R. H.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hales</surname>
							<given-names>K. E.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2022</year>
					<article-title>Effects of backgrounding-phase rate of gain on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers</article-title>
					<source>Applied Animal Science</source>
					<volume>38</volume>
					<fpage>279</fpage>
					<lpage>284</lpage>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2022-02274">https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2022-02274</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B5">
				<mixed-citation>Carvalho, M. G. M.; Bragatto, J. M.; Buttow, S. C.; Silva, A. F.; Sales, L. S.; Silva, N. G.; Auerbach, H. U.; Nussio, L. G. and Daniel, J. L. P. 2024. Applying the fermentability coefficient concept in tropical grass silages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 314:115995. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2024.115995">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2024.115995</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Carvalho</surname>
							<given-names>M. G. M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Bragatto</surname>
							<given-names>J. M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Buttow</surname>
							<given-names>S. C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Silva</surname>
							<given-names>A. F.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Sales</surname>
							<given-names>L. S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Silva</surname>
							<given-names>N. G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Auerbach</surname>
							<given-names>H. U.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Nussio</surname>
							<given-names>L. G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Daniel</surname>
							<given-names>J. L. P.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2024</year>
					<article-title>Applying the fermentability coefficient concept in tropical grass silages</article-title>
					<source>Animal Feed Science and Technology</source>
					<volume>314</volume>
					<size units="pages">115995</size>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2024.115995">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2024.115995</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B6">
				<mixed-citation>Chaney, A. L. and Marbach, E. P. 1962. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clinical Chemistry 8:130-132. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/8.2.130">https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/8.2.130</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Chaney</surname>
							<given-names>A. L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Marbach</surname>
							<given-names>E. P.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1962</year>
					<article-title>Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia</article-title>
					<source>Clinical Chemistry</source>
					<volume>8</volume>
					<fpage>130</fpage>
					<lpage>132</lpage>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/8.2.130">https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/8.2.130</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B7">
				<mixed-citation>Coan, R. M.; Vieira, P. F.; Silveira, R. N.; Reis, R. A.; Malheiros, E. B. and Pedreira, M. S. 2005. Inoculante enzimático-bacteriano, composição química e parâmetros fermentativos das silagens dos capins Tanzânia e Mombaça. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 34:416-424. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982005000200008">https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982005000200008</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Coan</surname>
							<given-names>R. M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Vieira</surname>
							<given-names>P. F.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Silveira</surname>
							<given-names>R. N.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Reis</surname>
							<given-names>R. A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Malheiros</surname>
							<given-names>E. B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pedreira</surname>
							<given-names>M. S.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2005</year>
					<article-title>Inoculante enzimático-bacteriano, composição química e parâmetros fermentativos das silagens dos capins Tanzânia e Mombaça</article-title>
					<source>Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia</source>
					<volume>34</volume>
					<fpage>416</fpage>
					<lpage>424</lpage>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982005000200008">https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982005000200008</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B8">
				<mixed-citation>Daniel, J. L. P.; Jacovaci, F. A.; Junges, D.; Santos, M.; Lima, J. R.; Anjos, I. A.; Landell, M. G. A.; Huhtanen, P. and Nussio, L. G. 2017. Fibre digestibility and its relationships with chemical and morphological traits in thirty-two sugarcane varieties. Grass and Forage Science 72:545-555. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12254">https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12254</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Daniel</surname>
							<given-names>J. L. P.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Jacovaci</surname>
							<given-names>F. A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Junges</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Santos</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Lima</surname>
							<given-names>J. R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Anjos</surname>
							<given-names>I. A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Landell</surname>
							<given-names>M. G. A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Huhtanen</surname>
							<given-names>P.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Nussio</surname>
							<given-names>L. G.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Fibre digestibility and its relationships with chemical and morphological traits in thirty-two sugarcane varieties</article-title>
					<source>Grass and Forage Science</source>
					<volume>72</volume>
					<fpage>545</fpage>
					<lpage>555</lpage>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12254">https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12254</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B9">
				<mixed-citation>Gomes, A. L. M.; Auerbach, H. U.; Lazzari, G.; Moraes, A.; Nussio, L. G.; Jobim, C. C. and Daniel, J. L. P. 2021. Sodium nitrite-based additives improve the conservation and the nutritive value of guinea grass silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 279:115033. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.115033">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.115033</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Gomes</surname>
							<given-names>A. L. M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Auerbach</surname>
							<given-names>H. U.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Lazzari</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Moraes</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Nussio</surname>
							<given-names>L. G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Jobim</surname>
							<given-names>C. C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Daniel</surname>
							<given-names>J. L. P.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2021</year>
					<article-title>Sodium nitrite-based additives improve the conservation and the nutritive value of guinea grass silage</article-title>
					<source>Animal Feed Science and Technology</source>
					<volume>279</volume>
					<size units="pages">115033</size>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.115033">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.115033</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B10">
				<mixed-citation>Gouvêa, V. N.; Vendramini, J. M. B.; Sollenberger, L. E.; Oliveira, F. C. L.; Dubeux, J. C. B.; Moriel, P.; Cecato, U.; Soares Filho, C. V.; Sanchez, J. M. D.; Yarborough, J. K. and Kuhawara, F. 2020. Inoculant effects on fermentation characteristics, nutritive value, and mycotoxin concentrations of bermudagrass silage. Crop, Forage &amp; Turfgrass Management 6:e20054. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.20054">https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.20054</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Gouvêa</surname>
							<given-names>V. N.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Vendramini</surname>
							<given-names>J. M. B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Sollenberger</surname>
							<given-names>L. E.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Oliveira</surname>
							<given-names>F. C. L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Dubeux</surname>
							<given-names>J. C. B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Moriel</surname>
							<given-names>P.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Cecato</surname>
							<given-names>U.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Soares</surname>
							<given-names>C. V.</given-names>
							<suffix>Filho</suffix>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Sanchez</surname>
							<given-names>J. M. D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Yarborough</surname>
							<given-names>J. K.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kuhawara</surname>
							<given-names>F.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>Inoculant effects on fermentation characteristics, nutritive value, and mycotoxin concentrations of bermudagrass silage</article-title>
					<source>Crop, Forage &amp; Turfgrass Management</source>
					<volume>6</volume>
					<elocation-id>e20054</elocation-id>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.20054">https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.20054</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B11">
				<mixed-citation>Holden, L. A. 1999. Comparison of methods of in vitro dry matter digestibility for ten feeds. Journal of Dairy Science 82:1791-1794. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (99)75409-3">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (99)75409-3</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Holden</surname>
							<given-names>L. A.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1999</year>
					<article-title>Comparison of methods of in vitro dry matter digestibility for ten feeds</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Dairy Science</source>
					<volume>82</volume>
					<fpage>1791</fpage>
					<lpage>1794</lpage>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (99)75409-3">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (99)75409-3</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B12">
				<mixed-citation>Igarasi, M. S. 2002. Controle de perdas na ensilagem de capim Tanzânia ( <italic>Panicum maximum</italic> Jacq. cv. Tanzânia) sob os efeitos do teor de matéria seca, do tamanho de partícula, da estação do ano e da presença do inoculante bacteriano. Dissertação (M.Sc.). Universidade de São Paulo, ESALQ, Piracicaba.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="thesis">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Igarasi</surname>
							<given-names>M. S.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2002</year>
					<source>Controle de perdas na ensilagem de capim Tanzânia ( Panicum maximum Jacq. cv. Tanzânia) sob os efeitos do teor de matéria seca, do tamanho de partícula, da estação do ano e da presença do inoculante bacteriano</source>
					<comment>Dissertação (M.Sc.)</comment>
					<publisher-name>Universidade de São Paulo, ESALQ</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>Piracicaba</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B13">
				<mixed-citation>Jung, H. G. and Allen, M. S. 1995. Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and digestibility of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 73:2774-2790. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7392774x">https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7392774x</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Jung</surname>
							<given-names>H. G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Allen</surname>
							<given-names>M. S.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1995</year>
					<article-title>Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and digestibility of forages by ruminants</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Animal Science</source>
					<volume>73</volume>
					<fpage>2774</fpage>
					<lpage>2790</lpage>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7392774x">https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7392774x</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B14">
				<mixed-citation>Kaiser, E.; Weiss, K. and Polip, I. 2002. A new concept for the estimation of the ensiling potential of forages. p.344-358. In: Proceedings of the XIII International Silage Conference, Auchincruive, Scotland.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="confproc">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Kaiser</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Weiss</surname>
							<given-names>K.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Polip</surname>
							<given-names>I.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2002</year>
					<source>A new concept for the estimation of the ensiling potential of forages</source>
					<fpage>344</fpage>
					<lpage>358</lpage>
					<comment>Proceedings of the</comment>
					<conf-name>XIII International Silage Conference</conf-name>
					<conf-loc>Auchincruive, Scotland</conf-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B15">
				<mixed-citation>Krizsan, S. J. and Randby, A. T. 2007. The effect of fermentation quality on the voluntary intake of grass silage by growing cattle fed silage as the sole feed. Journal of Animal Science 85:984-996. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-587">https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-587</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Krizsan</surname>
							<given-names>S. J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Randby</surname>
							<given-names>A. T.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2007</year>
					<article-title>The effect of fermentation quality on the voluntary intake of grass silage by growing cattle fed silage as the sole feed</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Animal Science</source>
					<volume>85</volume>
					<fpage>984</fpage>
					<lpage>996</lpage>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-587">https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-587</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B16">
				<mixed-citation>Kung, L.; Shaver, R. D.; Grant, R. J. and Schmidt, R. J. 2018. Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. Journal of Dairy Science 101:4020-4033. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13909">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13909</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Kung</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Shaver</surname>
							<given-names>R. D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Grant</surname>
							<given-names>R. J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Schmidt</surname>
							<given-names>R. J.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Dairy Science</source>
					<volume>101</volume>
					<fpage>4020</fpage>
					<lpage>4033</lpage>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13909">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13909</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B17">
				<mixed-citation>Lemaire, G.; Franzluebbers, A.; Carvalho, P. C. F. and Dedieu, B. 2014. Integrated crop–livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems &amp; Environment 190:4-8. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.009">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.009</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Lemaire</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Franzluebbers</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Carvalho</surname>
							<given-names>P. C. F.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Dedieu</surname>
							<given-names>B</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>Integrated crop–livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality</article-title>
					<source>Agriculture, Ecosystems &amp; Environment</source>
					<issue>190</issue>
					<fpage>4</fpage>
					<lpage>8</lpage>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.009">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.009</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B18">
				<mixed-citation>Mari, L. J. 2003. Intervalo entre cortes em capim-marandu ( Brachiaria brizantha (Hochst ex. A. Rich.) Stapf cv. Marandu): produção valor nutritivo e perdas associadas à fermentação da silagem. Dissertação (M.Sc.). Universidade de São Paulo, ESALQ, Piracicaba.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="thesis">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Mari</surname>
							<given-names>L. J.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2003</year>
					<source>Intervalo entre cortes em capim-marandu ( Brachiaria brizantha (Hochst ex. A. Rich.) Stapf cv. Marandu): produção valor nutritivo e perdas associadas à fermentação da silagem</source>
					<comment>Dissertação (M.Sc.)</comment>
					<publisher-name>Universidade de São Paulo, ESALQ</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>Piracicaba</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B19">
				<mixed-citation>McDonald, P. J.; Henderson, A. R. and Heron, S. J. E. 1991. The biochemistry of silage. 2nd ed. Chalcombe Publications, Mallow.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>McDonald</surname>
							<given-names>P. J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Henderson</surname>
							<given-names>A. R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Heron</surname>
							<given-names>S. J. E.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1991</year>
					<source>The biochemistry of silage</source>
					<edition>2nd</edition>
					<publisher-name>Chalcombe Publications</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>Mallow</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B20">
				<mixed-citation>Mertens, D. R. 2002. Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beakers or crucibles: collaborative study. Journal of the Association of the Official Analytical Chemists International 85:1217-1240. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/85.6.1217">https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/85.6.1217</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Mertens</surname>
							<given-names>D. R.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2002</year>
					<article-title>Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beakers or crucibles: collaborative study</article-title>
					<source>Journal of the Association of the Official Analytical Chemists International</source>
					<volume>85</volume>
					<fpage>1217</fpage>
					<lpage>1240</lpage>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/85.6.1217">https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/85.6.1217</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B21">
				<mixed-citation>Monsalve, J. G. and Millen, D. D. 2025. A snapshot of nutritional recommendations and management practices adopted by feedlot cattle nutritionists in Brazil in 2023. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 12:1518571. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1518571">https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1518571</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Monsalve</surname>
							<given-names>J. G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Millen</surname>
							<given-names>D. D.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2025</year>
					<article-title>A snapshot of nutritional recommendations and management practices adopted by feedlot cattle nutritionists in Brazil in 2023</article-title>
					<source>Frontiers in Veterinary Science</source>
					<volume>12</volume>
					<size units="pages">1518571</size>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1518571">https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1518571</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B22">
				<mixed-citation>Moraes, A.; Auerbach, H. U.; Bragatto, J. M.; Piran Filho, F. A.; Silva, S. M. S.; Nussio, L. G.; Jobim, C. C. and Daniel, J. L. P. 2023. Effect of application rate of sodium nitrite and hexamine on the fermentation and the chemical composition of guinea grass silage harvested at different stages of maturity. Animal Feed Science and Technology 302:115667. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2023.115667">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2023.115667</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Moraes</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Auerbach</surname>
							<given-names>H. U.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Bragatto</surname>
							<given-names>J. M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Piran</surname>
							<given-names>F. A.</given-names>
							<suffix>Filho</suffix>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Silva</surname>
							<given-names>S. M. S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Nussio</surname>
							<given-names>L. G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Jobim</surname>
							<given-names>C. C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Daniel</surname>
							<given-names>J. L. P.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2023</year>
					<article-title>Effect of application rate of sodium nitrite and hexamine on the fermentation and the chemical composition of guinea grass silage harvested at different stages of maturity</article-title>
					<source>Animal Feed Science and Technology</source>
					<volume>302</volume>
					<size units="pages">115667</size>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2023.115667">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2023.115667</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B23">
				<mixed-citation>Moser, L. E. 1995. Post-harvest physiological changes in forage plants. p.1-19. In: Post-harvest physiology and preservation of forages. Moore, K. J.; Peterson, M. A.; Kral, D. M. and Viney, M. K., eds. CSSA and ASA, Madison, WI.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Moser</surname>
							<given-names>L. E.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1995</year>
					<chapter-title>Post-harvest physiological changes in forage plants</chapter-title>
					<fpage>1</fpage>
					<lpage>19</lpage>
					<source>Post-harvest physiology and preservation of forages</source>
					<person-group person-group-type="editor">
						<name>
							<surname>Moore</surname>
							<given-names>K. J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Peterson</surname>
							<given-names>M. A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kral</surname>
							<given-names>D. M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Viney</surname>
							<given-names>M. K.</given-names>
						</name>
						<role>eds</role>
					</person-group>
					<publisher-name>CSSA and ASA</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>Madison, WI</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B24">
				<mixed-citation>Muck, R. E. 1988. Factors influencing silage quality and their implications for management. Journal of Dairy Science 71:2992-3002. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (88)79897-5">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (88)79897-5</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Muck</surname>
							<given-names>R. E.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1988</year>
					<article-title>Factors influencing silage quality and their implications for management</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Dairy Science</source>
					<volume>71</volume>
					<fpage>2992</fpage>
					<lpage>3002</lpage>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (88)79897-5">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (88)79897-5</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B25">
				<mixed-citation>Mühlbach, P. R. F. 2000. Additives to improve the silage making process of tropical forages. p.1-30. In: Proceedings of the FAO Electronic Conference on Tropical Silage, Rome, Italy.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="confproc">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Mühlbach</surname>
							<given-names>P. R. F.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2000</year>
					<source>Additives to improve the silage making process of tropical forages</source>
					<fpage>1</fpage>
					<lpage>30</lpage>
					<conf-name>Proceedings of the FAO Electronic Conference on Tropical Silage</conf-name>
					<publisher-loc>Rome, Italy</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B26">
				<mixed-citation>Nascimento, K. B.; Ferreira, R. L.; Vaz, V. D.; Meneses, J. A. M.; Casagrande, D. R.; Gionbelli, M. P. and Bernardes, T. F. 2025. Effects of mid-gestation supplementation with dried distillers' grains and soybean hull-based total mixed ration silages on maternal metabolism, uteroplacental hemodynamics, and offspring development in beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 103:skaf430. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf430">https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf430</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Nascimento</surname>
							<given-names>K. B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ferreira</surname>
							<given-names>R. L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Vaz</surname>
							<given-names>V. D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Meneses</surname>
							<given-names>J. A. M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Casagrande</surname>
							<given-names>D. R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gionbelli</surname>
							<given-names>M. P.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Bernardes</surname>
							<given-names>T. F.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2025</year>
					<article-title>Effects of mid-gestation supplementation with dried distillers' grains and soybean hull-based total mixed ration silages on maternal metabolism, uteroplacental hemodynamics, and offspring development in beef cows</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Animal Science</source>
					<volume>103</volume>
					<fpage>skaf430</fpage>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf430">https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf430</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B27">
				<mixed-citation>Nussio, L. G. 2005. Silage production from tropical forages. p.97-107. In: Proceedings of the XIV International Silage Conference, a satellite workshop of the XX International Grassland Congress, Belfast, Northern Ireland.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="confproc">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Nussio</surname>
							<given-names>L. G.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2005</year>
					<source>Silage production from tropical forages</source>
					<fpage>97</fpage>
					<lpage>107</lpage>
					<conf-name>Proceedings of the XIV International Silage Conference, a satellite workshop of the XX International Grassland Congress</conf-name>
					<conf-loc>Belfast, Northern Ireland</conf-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B28">
				<mixed-citation>Oliveira, J. K. S.; Corrêa, D. C. C.; Cunha, A. M. Q.; Rêgo, A. C.; Faturi, C.; Silva, W. L. and Domingues, F. N. 2020. Effect of nitrogen fertilization on production, chemical composition and morphogenesis of guinea grass in the humid tropics. Agronomy 10:1840. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111840">https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111840</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Oliveira</surname>
							<given-names>J. K. S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Corrêa</surname>
							<given-names>D. C. C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Cunha</surname>
							<given-names>A. M. Q.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Rêgo</surname>
							<given-names>A. C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Faturi</surname>
							<given-names>C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Silva</surname>
							<given-names>W. L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Domingues</surname>
							<given-names>F. N.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>Effect of nitrogen fertilization on production, chemical composition and morphogenesis of guinea grass in the humid tropics</article-title>
					<source>Agronomy</source>
					<volume>10</volume>
					<size units="pages">1840</size>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111840">https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111840</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B29">
				<mixed-citation>Owens, F. N.; Gill, D. R.; Secrist, D. S. and Coleman, S. W. 1995. Review of some aspects of growth and development of feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73:3152-3172.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Owens</surname>
							<given-names>F. N.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gill</surname>
							<given-names>D. R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Secrist</surname>
							<given-names>D. S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Coleman</surname>
							<given-names>S. W.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1995</year>
					<article-title>Review of some aspects of growth and development of feedlot cattle</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Animal Science</source>
					<volume>73</volume>
					<fpage>3152</fpage>
					<lpage>3172</lpage>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B30">
				<mixed-citation>Pahlow, G.; Muck, R. E.; Driehuis, F.; Oude Elferink, S. J. W. H. and Spoelstra, S. F. 2003. Microbiology of ensiling. p.31-93. In: Silage science and technology. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Pahlow</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Muck</surname>
							<given-names>R. E.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Driehuis</surname>
							<given-names>F.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Oude Elferink</surname>
							<given-names>S. J. W. H.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Spoelstra</surname>
							<given-names>S. F.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2003</year>
					<chapter-title>Microbiology of ensiling</chapter-title>
					<fpage>31</fpage>
					<lpage>93</lpage>
					<source>Silage science and technology</source>
					<publisher-name>American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>Madison</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B31">
				<mixed-citation>Pinto, J. C.; Gomide, J. A. and Maestri, M. 1994. Produção de matéria seca e relação folha/caule de gramíneas forrageiras tropicais, cultivadsa em vasos, com duas doses de nitrogênio. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia 23:313-326.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Pinto</surname>
							<given-names>J. C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gomide</surname>
							<given-names>J. A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Maestri</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1994</year>
					<article-title>Produção de matéria seca e relação folha/caule de gramíneas forrageiras tropicais, cultivadsa em vasos, com duas doses de nitrogênio</article-title>
					<source>Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia</source>
					<volume>23</volume>
					<fpage>313</fpage>
					<lpage>326</lpage>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B32">
				<mixed-citation>Pryce, J. D. 1969. A modification of Barker-Summerson method for the determination of lactic acid. Analyst 94:1151-1152. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1039/an9699401151">https://doi.org/10.1039/an9699401151</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Pryce</surname>
							<given-names>J. D.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1969</year>
					<article-title>A modification of Barker-Summerson method for the determination of lactic acid</article-title>
					<source>Analyst</source>
					<volume>94</volume>
					<fpage>1151</fpage>
					<lpage>1152</lpage>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1039/an9699401151">https://doi.org/10.1039/an9699401151</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B33">
				<mixed-citation>Raffrenato, E.; Nicholson, C. F. and Van Amburgh, M. E. 2019. Development of a mathematical model to predict pool sizes and rates of digestion of 2 pools of digestible neutral detergent fiber and an undigested neutral detergent fiber fraction within various forages. Journal of Dairy Science 102:351-364. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15102">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15102</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Raffrenato</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Nicholson</surname>
							<given-names>C. F.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Van Amburgh</surname>
							<given-names>M. E.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<article-title>Development of a mathematical model to predict pool sizes and rates of digestion of 2 pools of digestible neutral detergent fiber and an undigested neutral detergent fiber fraction within various forages</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Dairy Science</source>
					<volume>102</volume>
					<fpage>351</fpage>
					<lpage>364</lpage>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15102">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15102</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B34">
				<mixed-citation>Ribeiro, J. L. 2007. Silagens de capins Marandu e Tanzânia avaliadas quanto às perdas de conservação, perfil fermentativo, valor nutritivo e desempenho de animais, na presença de aditivos químicos, microbianos e fontes absorventes de umidade. Tese (D.Sc.). Universidade de São Paulo, ESALQ, Piracicaba.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="thesis">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Ribeiro</surname>
							<given-names>J. L.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2007</year>
					<source>Silagens de capins Marandu e Tanzânia avaliadas quanto às perdas de conservação, perfil fermentativo, valor nutritivo e desempenho de animais, na presença de aditivos químicos, microbianos e fontes absorventes de umidade</source>
					<comment>Tese (D.Sc.)</comment>
					<publisher-name>Universidade de São Paulo, ESALQ</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>Piracicaba</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B35">
				<mixed-citation>Rooke, J. A. and Hatfield, R. D. 2003. Biochemistry of ensiling. p.95-139. In: Silage science and technology. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Rooke</surname>
							<given-names>J. A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hatfield</surname>
							<given-names>R. D.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2003</year>
					<chapter-title>Biochemistry of ensiling</chapter-title>
					<fpage>95</fpage>
					<lpage>139</lpage>
					<source>Silage science and technology</source>
					<publisher-name>American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>Madison</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B36">
				<mixed-citation>Santos, E. M.; Pereira, O. G.; Garcia, R.; Ferreira, C. L. L. F.; Oliveira, J. S. and Silva, T. C. 2014. Effect of regrowth interval and a microbial inoculant on the fermentation profile and dry matter recovery of guinea grass silages. Journal of Dairy Science 97:4423-4432. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7634">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7634</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Santos</surname>
							<given-names>E. M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pereira</surname>
							<given-names>O. G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Garcia</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ferreira</surname>
							<given-names>C. L. L. F.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Oliveira</surname>
							<given-names>J. S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Silva</surname>
							<given-names>T. C.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>Effect of regrowth interval and a microbial inoculant on the fermentation profile and dry matter recovery of guinea grass silages</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Dairy Science</source>
					<volume>97</volume>
					<fpage>4423</fpage>
					<lpage>4432</lpage>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7634">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7634</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B37">
				<mixed-citation>Tomaz, P. K.; Araujo, L. C.; Sanches, L. A.; Santos-Araujo, S. N.; Lima, T. O.; Lino, A. A. and Ferreira, E. M. 2018. Effect of sward height on the fermentability coefficient and chemical composition of guinea grass silage. Grass and Forage Science 73:588-598. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12349">https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12349</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Tomaz</surname>
							<given-names>P. K.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Araujo</surname>
							<given-names>L. C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Sanches</surname>
							<given-names>L. A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Santos-Araujo</surname>
							<given-names>S. N.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Lima</surname>
							<given-names>T. O.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Lino</surname>
							<given-names>A. A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ferreira</surname>
							<given-names>E. M.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Effect of sward height on the fermentability coefficient and chemical composition of guinea grass silage</article-title>
					<source>Grass and Forage Science</source>
					<volume>73</volume>
					<fpage>588</fpage>
					<lpage>598</lpage>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12349">https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12349</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B38">
				<mixed-citation>Valente, T. N. P.; Detmann, E.; Valadares Filho, S. C.; Cunha, M.; Queiroz, A. C. and Sampaio, C. B. 2011. In situ estimation of indigestible compounds contents in cattle feed and feces using bags made from different textiles. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 40:666-675. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982011000300027">https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982011000300027</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Valente</surname>
							<given-names>T. N. P.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Detmann</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Valadares</surname>
							<given-names>S. C.</given-names>
							<suffix>Filho</suffix>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Cunha</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Queiroz</surname>
							<given-names>A. C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Sampaio</surname>
							<given-names>C. B.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2011</year>
					<article-title>In situ estimation of indigestible compounds contents in cattle feed and feces using bags made from different textiles</article-title>
					<source>Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia</source>
					<volume>40</volume>
					<fpage>666</fpage>
					<lpage>675</lpage>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982011000300027">https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982011000300027</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B39">
				<mixed-citation>Van Soest, P. J. 1973. Collaborative study of acid-detergent fiber and lignin. Journal of the Association of the Official Analytical Chemists 56:781-784. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/56.4.781">https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/56.4.781</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Van Soest</surname>
							<given-names>P. J.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1973</year>
					<article-title>Collaborative study of acid-detergent fiber and lignin</article-title>
					<source>Journal of the Association of the Official Analytical Chemists</source>
					<volume>56</volume>
					<fpage>781</fpage>
					<lpage>784</lpage>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/56.4.781">https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/56.4.781</ext-link>
					</comment>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B40">
				<mixed-citation>Van Soest, P. J. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Van Soest</surname>
							<given-names>P. J.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1994</year>
					<source>Nutritional ecology of the ruminant</source>
					<publisher-name>Cornell University Press</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>Ithaca, NY, USA</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B41">
				<mixed-citation>Weissbach, F. and Strubelt, C. 2008. Correcting the dry matter content of grass silages as a substrate for biogas production. Landtechnik 63:210-211.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Weissbach</surname>
							<given-names>F.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Strubelt</surname>
							<given-names>C.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2008</year>
					<article-title>Correcting the dry matter content of grass silages as a substrate for biogas production</article-title>
					<source>Landtechnik</source>
					<volume>63</volume>
					<fpage>210</fpage>
					<lpage>211</lpage>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B42">
				<mixed-citation>Weissbach, F.; Schmidt, L. and Hein, E. 1974. Method of anticipation of the run of fermentation in silage making based on the chemical composition of the green fodder. p.663-673. In: Proceedings of the XII International Grassland Congress, Moscow, Russia.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="confproc">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Weissbach</surname>
							<given-names>F.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Schmidt</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hein</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1974</year>
					<source>Method of anticipation of the run of fermentation in silage making based on the chemical composition of the green fodder</source>
					<fpage>663</fpage>
					<lpage>673</lpage>
					<comment>Proceedings of the</comment>
					<conf-name>XII International Grassland Congress</conf-name>
					<conf-loc>Moscow, Russia</conf-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B43">
				<mixed-citation>Wilkinson, J. M. 1983. Silages made from tropical and temperate crops. 2. Techniques for improving the nutritive value of silage. World Animal Review 45:35-40.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Wilkinson</surname>
							<given-names>J. M.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1983</year>
					<article-title>Silages made from tropical and temperate crops. 2. Techniques for improving the nutritive value of silage</article-title>
					<source>World Animal Review</source>
					<volume>45</volume>
					<fpage>35</fpage>
					<lpage>40</lpage>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
		</ref-list>
		<fn-group>
			<fn fn-type="data-availability" specific-use="data-available-upon-request">
				<label>Data availability:</label>
				<p> The datasets supporting the results of this study is available upon request to João Daniel <email>(jlpdaniel@uem.br).</email>
				</p>
			</fn>
		</fn-group>
	</back>
</article>