Cited by 87Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

Lactobacillus plantarum effects on silage fermentation and in vitro microbial yield

Contreras-Govea, Francisco E., Muck, Richard E., Broderick, Glen A., Weimer, Paul J.·2013·Animal Feed Science and Technology

Abstract

In four parallel experiments, herbage [three harvests of alfalfa (308 to 379g dry matter (DM)/kg), one of whole-plant corn (331g DM/kg)] was ensiled with three different treatments: no inoculant (control), Lactobacillus plantarum (LP) or formic acid (FA), in 1-L mini-silos and fermented for 60d at room temperature (22°C). Mini-silos were opened and analyzed for fermentation characteristics and soluble N fractions. A subsample of wet silage from each mini-silo was ground to 4mm and stored at −20°C. Silages were thawed and subjected to 9h ruminal in vitro incubations to measure gas production and volatile fatty acid (VFA) production as well as microbial biomass yield (MBY) and microbial non-ammonia N (MNAN) formation using 15N as a marker. In all four experiments, silage fermentation products and pH indicated good preservation across all treatments. Analysis of data showed that FA- and LP-treated silages had lower concentrations of ammonia-N and free amino acids N than control. The FA treatment was lower in soluble N, but higher in peptide-N, than control. Silage pH was lowest in FA (4.25), followed by LP (4.28), and control (4.38). Ruminal in vitro gas production and VFA concentrations were not different among treatments (P>0.05). Compared to control, FA- and LP-treated silage yielded greater MNAN and MBY. These findings suggested that L. plantarum preserved more true protein during silage fermentation than control, which in turn increased in vitro ruminal microbial growth.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.11.008

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 28 · Cited by 87

Authors
Contreras-Govea, F. E., Muck, R. E., Broderick, G. A., & Weimer, P. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
Corresponding author
Muck, Richard E.
Venue
Animal Feed Science and Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-01
Volume
179
Issue
1-4
Pages
61-68
ISSN
0377-8401 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079473314
Cited by
87
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
7.76
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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Keywords
Lactobacillus plantarum, silage fermentation, formic acid, silage inoculants, alfalfa, whole-plant corn, volatile fatty acids, ammonia-N, free amino acids, 15N tracer

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