Cited by 97Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 on the fermentation, aerobic stability and nutritive value of maize silage

Ranjit, N. K., Taylor, C. C., Kung Jr, L.·2002·Grass and Forage Science

Abstract

The effect of adding Lactobacillus buchneri 40788, a heterofermentative lactobacilli, to whole‐plant maize and its effect on fermentation and aerobic stability of the resulting silage were evaluated. Whole‐plant maize (380 g DM kg–1 fresh weight) was ensiled in laboratory silos after the following treatments: untreated, L. buchneri 40788 at 1 × 105, 2·5 × 105, 5 × 105, and 1 × 106 colony forming units g–1 of fresh forage or, a commercial inoculant containing homolactic acid bacteria, a single species of propionibacteria and enzymes. Addition of L. buchneri 40788 resulted in a decrease in lactic acid concentration but increased the concentration of acetic acid in silage and markedly decreased the numbers of yeasts present in the silage. All levels of L. buchneri 40788, increased the aerobic stability of silages but the effect was greatest for the two highest levels of inoculation. Treatment with the commercial inoculant had no effect on the fermentation or aerobic stability of silage. On‐farm treatment of maize silage with L. buchneri 40788, stored in a bag silo, resulted in changes in fermentation that were similar to those observed in laboratory silos. Treatment decreased the numbers of yeast in silage and increased aerobic stability (+25 h) of the silage when exposed to air. Treatment had no effect on the dry‐matter intake of silage fed to sheep. These results showed that treating silage with L. buchneri 40788 can increase the aerobic stability of maize silage in laboratory and farm silos.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2494.2002.00304.x

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 19 · Cited by 97

Authors
Ranjit, N. K., Taylor, C. C., & Kung Jr, L.
Affiliations
University of Delaware (US)
Venue
Grass and Forage Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-06
Volume
57
Issue
2
Pages
73-81
ISSN
  • 0142-5242 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2494
OpenAlex
W1966696517
Cited by
97
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
8.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Grass and Forage Science (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 buchneri, corn silage, silage fermentation, aerobic stability, silage inoculants, heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria, lactic acid, acetic acid, yeast reduction, dry matter intake, sheep nutrition

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