The purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of different storage periods of lactic acid bacteria (LAB)-fermented low moisture fresh rice straw silage. The low moisture fresh rice straw sample was inculcated with LAB and stored for different storage periods such as 45, 90, and 365 days, respectively. The low moisture fresh rice straw (LMFRS) silage inoculated with LAB exhibited reduction in pH throughout the fermentation as compared with the control (P<0.05). The lactic acid content was increased at the late fermentation period (90 and 365 days, respectively) in LAB inoculated LMFRS silage as compared with the control (P<0.05). In contrast, the acetic acid and butyric acid concentrations were slightly reduced in the LAB inoculated LMFRS silage sample at 90 and 365 days fermentation, respectively. Meanwhile, the non-inoculated LMFRS silage showed higher amounts of acetic acid and butyric acid at an extended fermentation with low bacterial population as compared with the LAB inoculated LMFRS silage. However, lactic acid concentration was slightly high in the non-inoculated LMFRS silage at early 45 days fermentation. Additionally, the nutrient profile such as crude protein (CP), acid detergent fibre (ADF), neutral detergent fibre (NDF), and total digestibility nutrients (TDN) were not significantly different in control and LAB inculcated samples during all fermentation. Though, the microbial population was greater in the LAB inoculated LMFRS silage as compared with the control. However, the massive population was noted in the LAB inoculated LMFRS silage during all fermentation. It indicates that the inoculated LAB is the main reason for increasing fermentation quality in the sample through pH reduction by organic acids production. Overall results suggest that the LAB inoculums are the effective strain that could be a suitable for LMFRS silage fermentation at prolonged days.

ABSTRACT
Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION
Ⅱ. MATERIALS AND METHODS
    1. Sample collection and preparation of LMFRS silage
    2. Fermentation characteristics and chemical compositionof LMFRS silage samples
    3. Statistical analyses
Ⅲ. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    1. The nutritional quality of LMFRS silage among differentstorage periods
    2. The fermentation quality of LMFRS silage among differentstorage periods
Ⅳ. CONCLUSION
Ⅴ. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ⅵ. REFERENCES

• Palaniselvam Kuppusamy(Grassland and Forage Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
• Ilavenil Soundharrajan(Grassland and Forage Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
• Hyung Soo Park(Grassland and Forage Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
• Ji Hea Kim(Grassland and Forage Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
• Won Ho Kim(Grassland and Forage Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
• Jeong Sung Jung(Grassland and Forage Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
• Ki Choon Choi(Grassland and Forage Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) Corresponding author