Silage inoculants, crucial in modern silage production, comprise beneficial microorganisms, primarily lactic acid bacteria (LAB), strategically applied to forage material during ensiling. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of various inoculants produced by different companies. Five treatments were evaluated, including a control group: T1 (Lactobacillus plantarum), T2 (Lactobacillus plantarum + Pediococcus pentosaceus), T3 (Lactobacillus plantarum + Pediococcus pentosaceus + Lactobacillus buchneri), T4 (Lactobacillus plantarum + Lactobacillus acidophilus + Lactobacillus bulgaricus), and T5 (Lactobacillus plantarum + Pediococcus pentosaceus + Enterococcus faecium). Italian ryegrass was harvested at the heading stage and treated with these silage inoculants. Samples were collected over a 60-day ensiling period. Co-inoculation with L. plantarum and P. pentosaceus (T2) resulted in significantly higher CP compared to the control group co-inoculation exhibited with resulted in Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococcus pentosaceus in the T2 treatment exhibited higher CP content of 106.35 g/kg dry matter (DM). The T3 treatment, which included heterofermentative bacterial strains such as Lactobacillus buchneri, exhibited an increase in acetic acid concentration (11.15 g/kg DM). In the T4 treatment group, which utilized a mixed culture of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus, the NH3-N/TN content was observed to be the lowest (20.52 g/kg DM). The T5 containing Enterococcus faecium had the highest RFV (123) after 60 days. Expanding upon these findings, the study underscores not only the beneficial effects of particular inoculant treatments on silage quality but also underscores the potential of customized inoculation strategies in maximizing nutrient retention and overall silage preservation.

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION
Ⅱ. MATERIALS AND METHODS
    1. Experimental design
    2. Laboratory analyses
    3. Statistical analysis
Ⅲ. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    1. Effect of inoculant on silage quality
    2. Effects of inoculant on fermentation quality
Ⅳ. CONCLUSIONS
Ⅴ. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ⅵ. REFERENCES

• Young Sang Yu(Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, SNU, Pyeongchang, 25354, Korea)
• Yan Fen Li(Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, SNU, Pyeongchang, 25354, Korea)
• Xaysana Panyavong(Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, SNU, Pyeongchang, 25354, Korea)
• Li Zhunang Wu(Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, SNU, Pyeongchang, 25354, Korea)
• Jeong Ung Hwang(Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, SNU, Pyeongchang, 25354, Korea)
• Li Li Wang(Research Institute of Eco-Friendly Livestock Science, GreenBio Science and Technology, SNU, Pyeongchang, 25354, Korea)
• Hak Jin Kim(Research Institute of Eco-Friendly Livestock Science, GreenBio Science and Technology, SNU, Pyeongchang, 25354, Korea)
• Won Jin Lee(Research Institute of Eco-Friendly Livestock Science, GreenBio Science and Technology, SNU, Pyeongchang, 25354, Korea)
• Jong Geun Kim(Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, SNU, Pyeongchang, 25354, Korea, Research Institute of Eco-Friendly Livestock Science, GreenBio Science and Technology, SNU, Pyeongchang, 25354, Korea) Corresponding author