Cited by 266Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyBiofuel production and bioconversion

Effects of ensiling, silage additives and storage period on methane formation of biogas crops

Herrmann, Christiane, Heiermann, Monika, Idler, Christine·2011·Bioresource Technology

Abstract

Effects of the ensiling process, storage periods of up to 1 year and several chemical and biological silage additives on biomethanation were assessed for maize, sorghum, forage rye and triticale with the aim to identify optimised conditions for silage production of crops used as feedstock in biogas plants. Ensiling, prolonged storage and biological silage additives showed positive effects on methane yield of up to 11%. These could be attributed to increases in organic acids and alcohols during ensiling. A regression model including acetic acid, butyric acid and ethanol accounts for 75-96% of the variation in methane yield. Storage periods of up to 1 year for properly ensiled crops could be possible without losses in methane production, considering the increase in methane yield and the losses of dry matter during this period. However, taking storage losses into account silage additives showed little effect on methane production.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.01.012

Cites

24 of 24 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?

  • Forages with insufficient fermentable substrate or too low dry matter content have a fermentation coefficient of less than 35, which indicates difficulty in preserving the biomass as silage.

    “According to Herrmann et al. [36] forages with insufficient fermentable substrate or too low dry matter content have a FC of < 35, which indicate difficulty in the preservation of the biomass as silage.”
  • Chemical additives were found to predominantly decrease the methane yield of maize silage under anaerobic conditions in the range of 3-15%.

    “Chemical additives were found to predominantly decrease the methane yield of maize silage under anaerobic conditions in the range of 3-15% (Herrmann et al., 2011;Plöchl et al., 2009).”
  • Changes in chemical composition during ensiling can compensate or partly compensate for storage losses.

    “Hence, changes in chemical composition during ensiling can compensate or partly compensate for storage losses (Herrmann et al., 2011;Pakarinen et al., 2008).”
  • Products of silage fermentation, such as alcohols, with higher methane production potential than substrates of silage fermentation, such as glucose, increase the methane yield when storage losses are not taken into account.

    “It is suggested that products of silage fermentation, such as alcohols, with higher methane production potential than substrates of silage fermentation, such as glucose, increase the methane yield when storage losses are not taken into account (Herrmann et al., 2011).”
  • Loss of organic acids, alcohols and easily degradable carbohydrates in aerobically deteriorating silages can be expected to considerably decrease methane yields.

    “The loss of organic acids, alcohols and easily degradable carbohydrates in aerobically deteriorating silages which are valuable substrates for the biomethanation process with high methane production potential (Herrmann et al., 2011) can be expected to considerably decrease methane yields.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herrmann, C., Heiermann, M., & Idler, C.
Affiliations
Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (DE)
Corresponding author
Herrmann, Christiane
Venue
Bioresource Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
102
Issue
8
Pages
5153-5161
ISSN
0960-8524 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2019115417
Cited by
266
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 18
FWCI
42.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bioresource Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection of Germany (FKZ 2200-2305/-2405/-2505/-2605/-2705/-2805)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
Keywords
silage fermentation, silage additives, methane yield, biomethanation, biogas feedstock, maize, sorghum, forage rye, triticale, organic acids, acetic acid, butyrate, ethanol, dry matter loss
MeSH terms
Methane, Crops, Agricultural, Biofuels

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