Whole-crop maize forage was ensiled without inoculant (control), inoculated with Lactobacillus buchneri and L. plantarum at a rate of 1 × 105 cfu/g fresh forage per bacterium (LBLP), or inoculated with Bacillus subtilis and L. plantarum at a rate 1 × 105 cfu/g fresh forage per bacterium (BSLP) with the goal to investigate the growth performance of finishing feedlot lambs. Thirty Dorper × Santa Ines lambs (29 ± 3.5 kg initial body weight) were used in the feedlot programme and assigned (n = 10) to one of three diets containing control, LBLP or BSLP silages in a 60:40 forage:concentrate ratio. Inoculation of maize silage did not alter dry matter intake (overall mean = 1.16 kg/day) and average daily gain (overall mean = 0.217 kg/day) of lambs. Consequently, feed efficiency remained unchanged. Inoculation of maize silage did not alter carcass and meat traits of lambs, with the exception of meat colour, wherein yellowness (b*) decreased by feeding LBLP and BSLP diets compared with the untreated diet. Regarding ruminal fermentation, there was an interaction between diets and the interval at which ruminal fluid was sampled for determining total volatile fatty acid concentration, but inoculation yielded no obvious results. In conclusion, the use of diets based on maize silage inoculated with L. plantarum combined with either L. buchneri or B. subtilis did not display relevant effects on growth performance of lambs; this response might be related to the limited impact of these bacterial inoculants on silage composition.

As lack of forage resource, alternative roughage sources have been developed for ruminant production and their inclusion would exert a great effect on the dietary nutrition, consequently affecting animal performance. Four silages (corn silage (CS), corn stalk silage (SS), inoculated CS and inoculated SS) were separately offered to 60 Bohai Black cattle (15 cattle/group) during a 24-week finishing period, in which the growth performance, carcass trait, beef quality and oxidative stability of steers were determined. Neither silage material nor silage inoculant exerted a significant effect on the growth performance, carcass trait and oxidative stability of beef cattle (P>0.05). As to beef quality, cattle offered CS had higher (P<0.05) contents of intramuscular fat than those offered SS along with a lower moisture content (P<0.05). The contents (mg/g muscle) of C10 : 0, C12 : 0, C14 : 1, C16 : 0, C16 : 1, C18 : 1n9c, C18 : 2n6c, C18 : 3n3, C20 : 1n9, C20 : 2, C20 : 3n6, saturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids and n-6 fatty acids were higher (P<0.05) in the beef muscle of animals offered CS than those offered SS, whereas inoculated treatment made no difference (P>0.05) on the proximate components and fatty acids profile of beef muscle. There was neither an interaction (P>0.05) between inoculated treatment and silage material. There were no differences (P>0.05) in cholesterol content and meat quality traits in animals fed alternative silages. The collective findings suggest that it is not economical to substitute high-quality forage for relative low-quality forage in a high-concentrate finishing ration of beef cattle and silage inoculant inclusion would not exert a direct effect on animal performance.