Cited by 63Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

Ensiling characteristics, in vitro rumen fermentation, microbial communities and aerobic stability of low‐dry matter silages produced with sweet sorghum and alfalfa mixtures

Chen, Lei, Dong, Zhihao, Li, Junfeng, Shao, Tao·2019·Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Silages produced with grass and legume mixtures may have positive associative effects on silage quality and animal performance when ruminants are fed the silages. The present study aimed to determine the preservation characteristics, in vitro rumen fermentation profile and microbial abundance of silages, produced with mixtures of sweet sorghum (SS) and alfalfa (AF) in different ratios: 100:0 (Control), 75:25 (SA25), 50:50 (SA50), 25:75 (SA75) and 0:100 (SA100) on a fresh weight basis. RESULTS: As the proportion of AF increased in the silages, pH, acetic acid, ammonia nitrogen and crude protein (CP) concentrations, and aerobic stability increased (P < 0.05), whereas lactic acid and neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and acid detergent fibre (ADF) concentrations decreased (P < 0.05). Increasing the proportion of AF in the silages, increased (P < 0.05) the in vitro degradability of dry matter and CP, as well as the proportions of genus Prevotella, but decreased (P < 0.05) the in vitro degradability of NDF (IVNDFD) and ADF (IVADFD) and proportions of Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens. Compared to the Control silage, SA25 silage had greater (P < 0.05) proportions of Fibrobacter succinogenes and Ruminococcus flavefaciens, IVNDFD, IVADFD, ruminal short chain fatty acids and microbial protein concentrations, as well as lower (P < 0.05) methane production. CONCLUSION: The silage produced with the SS to AF ratio of 75:25 was the most suitable for ruminants use as a result of the optimal balance of fermentation quality, feed-nutritional value and aerobic stability. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jsfa.9406

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 51 · Cited by 63

Authors
Chen, L., Dong, Z., Li, J., & Shao, T.
Affiliations
Nanjing Agricultural University (CN)
Corresponding author
Shao, Tao
Venue
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-11-19
Volume
99
Issue
5
Pages
2140-2151
ISSN
  • 0022-5142 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0010
OpenAlex
W2896448681
Cited by
63
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2
FWCI
8.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (31672488)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Keywords
silage, sweet sorghum, alfalfa, grass-legume mixtures, in vitro rumen fermentation, rumen microbiota, aerobic stability, silage fermentation quality, in vitro degradation, methane production, ruminant feed, short-chain fatty acids, microbial protein
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Aerobiosis, Medicago sativa, Animals, Animal Feed, Bacteria, Cattle, Dietary Fiber, Digestion, Fatty Acids, Volatile, Fermentation, Nutritive Value, Rumen, Silage, Sorghum

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review