CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 130Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effect of inoculant and sucrose addition on the silage quality of tropical forage legumes with varying ensilability

Heinritz, Sonja N., Martens, Siriwan D., Avila, Patricia, Hoedtke, Sandra·2012·Animal Feed Science and Technology
DOI 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.03.017
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The ensiling potential of 10 tropical forage legumes and one Brachiaria grass hybrid with dry matter (DM) ranging from 260 to 540g/kg fresh matter (FM), and the effect of 4 treatments (Control, 20g/kgFM sucrose, native Lactobacillus plantarum inoculant, L. plantarum +20g/kgFM sucrose) on the fermentation quality of their silages after 92d storage were assessed at laboratory scale. Best silage qualities were achieved with high DM Clitoria ternatea (542g/kgFM), while worst silages resulted from Centrosema brasilianum (259gDM/kgFM), especially without sugar addition. In general, both additives increased lactic acid production while dropping the pH (P<0.001). High acidification was also correlated with restricted NH₃-N formation (14 to 68g/kg of total N in the combined treatment). Butyric acid concentrations ranged from 0 to 18g/kgDM except for C. brasilianum silages (30g/kgDM in Control, 25g/kgDM in L. plantarum only treatment). No clear effect of treatment could be observed for this parameter. The fermentability coefficient predicted quite well the silage quality for a couple of materials, but not consistently overall. As nitrate was scarce in all plant materials (<2.1g/kg DM), some clostridial activity was probably favored. Acetic acid concentrations were very low (acetic+propionic acid 0 to 18g/kg DM) except for Vigna unguiculata silages (22 to 53g/kg DM). All silages were regarded as aerobically stable during the 4-d period of temperature measurement, except for the Lablab purpureus silages treated with the combined additive. Further research is needed on suitable native lactic acid bacteria strains for tropical forage silages to select the most suitable inoculants for differing forage species and conditions, for improving silage quality. Legume silages in particular can provide a valuable source of protein for improved animal production, which represents a livelihood of many smallholders in the tropical belt.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.03.017

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Kaiser, 2007, Nitrate content in green forage – importance for fermentation quality and ensiling technological measures, Übersichten zur Tierernährung, 35, 13
  2. Kaiser, 1999, Investigations on the fermentation quality of silage from low-nitrate green forage, Arch. Anim. Nutr., 52, 75
  3. Kishan, 1982, Note on the effect of inoculum and additive on hybrid Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum×Pennisetum americanum) silage, Indian J. Anim. Sci., 52, 685
  4. Seyfarth, 1989, Changes in the N fraction of green fodder during wilting and ensiling 2. Changes in the N fraction during ensiling, Arch. Anim. Nutr., 39, 763
  5. Siegfried, 1984, An HPLC method for determining organic acids in silage, Landwirt. Forsch., 37, 298
  6. Wyss, 2006, Ensilability and silage quality of different grasses and legumes, Rev. Suisse Agric., 38, 303
  7. Wyss, 1994, 1993 test results on silage additives, Agrarforschung, 1, 136

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 130

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Heinritz, S. N., Martens, S. D., Avila, P., & Hoedtke, S.
Affiliations
  • International Center for Tropical Agriculture (KE)
  • University of Rostock (DE)
Corresponding author
Martens, Siriwan D.
ORCID
Venue
Animal Feed Science and Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-06
Volume
174
Issue
3-4
Pages
201-210
ISSN
0377-8401 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.03.017
OpenAlex
W2027438110
Cited by
125
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
12.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Animal Feed Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › 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 quality, tropical forage legumes, sucrose addition, silage fermentation, lactic acid production, ammonia nitrogen, butyrate, acetic acid, aerobic stability, Clitoria ternatea, Centrosema brasilianum, Lablab purpureus, cowpea, Brachiaria grass, silage additives

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