Cited by 54Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production

Effects of homofermentative and heterofermentative bacterial silage inoculants on potato hash silage fermentation and digestibility in rams

Nkosi, B.D., Meeske, R., van der Merwe, H.J., Groenewald, I.B.·2010·Animal Feed Science and Technology

Abstract

Potato hash, a by-product from the food processing industry, was mixed with wheat bran (70:30) as fed basis and ensiled in 210l drum for 3 months. Three types of potato hash silages were prepared which were: the control (no additives), bonsilage forte (BF, a homofermentative additive) and Lalsil Fresh LB (LFLB, a heterofermentative additive). After 3 months, the silos were opened and sampled for fermentation characteristics. Diets were produced by mixing potato hash silage with soybean meal (90:10) as fed basis and a digestibility study was conducted using five South African Mutton Merino rams (37.2±2.21kg live weight) per diet. Inoculating potato hash silage with BF and LFLB reduced (P<0.05) pH, WSC, butyric acid and ammonia N while increasing the concentration of lactic acid compared to the control. A higher concentration of acetic acid was obtained with LFLB inoculation compared to the other silages. The aerobic stability of the silage was improved (P<0.05) with LFLB while it was reduced with BF inoculation as indicated by higher CO₂ production from the latter. Intakes of dry (DM) and organic matter (OM) were not affected while that of gross energy and CP were improved (P<0.05) with BF and LFLB inoculations. Inoculants increased CP, energy and aNDF digestibility, but did not alter DM or OM digestibility. Inoculating silage with BF improved (P<0.05) digestibility of ether extract compared to the other treatments, and inoculations resulted in higher (P<0.05) N intake and retention. It is concluded that BF and LFLB improved silage fermentation and diet digestibility of CP, aNDF and gross energy. Inoculation with LFLB improved aerobic stability whilst BF inoculation reduced it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.03.008

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nkosi, B. D., Meeske, R., van der Merwe, H. J., & Groenewald, I. B.
Affiliations
  • Animal Production Institute (ZA)
  • Department of Agriculture, Western Cape Government (ZA)
  • University of the Free State (ZA)
Corresponding author
Nkosi, B.D.
Venue
Animal Feed Science and Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-05
Volume
157
Issue
3-4
Pages
195-200
ISSN
0377-8401 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2022367785
Cited by
54
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
8.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Animal Feed Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Keywords
silage inoculants, homofermentative bacteria, heterofermentative bacteria, silage fermentation, aerobic stability, digestibility, rams, Mutton Merino, nitrogen retention, volatile fatty acids, butyrate, ammonia nitrogen, food by-products

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