Cited by 46Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyProbiotics and Fermented FoodsAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

Novel lactic acid bacteria strains enhance the conservation of elephant grass silage cv. BRS Capiaçu.

Amaral, Rafael Carvalho, Carvalho, Beatriz Ferreira, Costa, Daviane Martinele, Morenz, Mirton José Frota, Schwan, Rosane Freitas, Ávila, Carla Luiza da Silva·2020·Animal Feed Science and Technology

Abstract

Abstract Elephant grass ensilage might result in high dry matter (DM) loss and a reduction in feed quality. Knowledge of microbiota and the use of specific microbial inoculants can reduce DM losses and result in better fermentations and final products. The aim of the study was to characterise lactic acid bacteria (LAB) from elephant grass silages and subsequently select the promising strains to be used as microbial inoculants. Eighty-six LAB strains isolated from silages (7 from corn, 14 from sugarcane and 65 from elephant grass silages) were characterised and evaluated. Thirteen strains that showed the highest growth, pH reduction, production of interest metabolites and the ability to inhibit undesirable microorganisms and the strain L. hilgardii CCMA 0170 were evaluated in experimental silos. The aerobic stability, fermentative profile and microbial population of elephant grass silages of BRS Capiacu cultivar were evaluated after 60 days of storage. No LAB was found in elephant grass before ensiling. The elephant grass silage fermentation was characterised by the succession of Lactobacillus sakei, L. plantarum group, Pediococcus pentosaceus and L. brevis. The silages inoculated with CCMA 0170 (L. hilgardii) CCMA 1394 and CCMA 1402 (L. plantarum), CCMA 1409 (L. brevis), CCMA 1363 and CCMA 1364 (L. farraginis) showed the smallest DM loss (mean of 38 g/kg of ensiled vs. 123 g/kg in control silage) and high aerobic stability (mean of 33.1 h vs. 21.2 h in control silage). Among the tested strains, the CCMA 1364 strain stands out as resulting in silages with low yeast populations, undetectable levels of butyric acid and high aerobic stability. Our results highlight the importance of the research and evaluation of new strains adapted to the fermentative process of each forage.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114472

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
Amaral, R. C., Carvalho, B. F., Costa, D. M., Morenz, M. J. F., Schwan, R. F., & Ávila, C. L. D. S.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal de Lavras (BR)
  • Embrapa Gado de Leite (BR)
Corresponding author
Ávila, Carla Luiza da Silva
Venue
Animal Feed Science and Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
264
Pages
114472
ISSN
0377-8401 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3009138160
Cited by
46
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4
FWCI
8.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Animal Feed Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
lactic acid bacteria, elephant grass silage, BRS Capiaçu, microbial inoculants, silage fermentation, aerobic stability, dry matter loss, Lactobacillus hilgardii, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus brevis, silage microbiota, yeast inhibition, butyrate, forage preservation

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