CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAgricultural Engineering and MechanizationPasture and Agricultural Systems

A meta‐analysis comparing standard polyethylene and oxygen barrier film in terms of losses during storage and aerobic stability of silage

Wilkinson, J. M., Fenlon, J. S.·2014·Grass and Forage Science
DOI 10.1111/gfs.12087
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A meta‐analysis was undertaken of 51 comparisons of standard polyethylene film with oxygen barrier (OB) film in covering systems for bunker silos, unwalled clamp silos and bales. Mean losses of DM or OM during storage from the top 10 to 60 cm of bunker and clamp silos were 195 g kg−1 for standard film and 114 g kg−1 for OB film systems (41 sets of data, P < 0·001), while mean total losses of DM from baled silage were 76·8 g kg−1 for standard film and 45·6 g kg−1 for OB film systems (10 sets of data, P < 0·001). Top surface silage judged subjectively to be inedible was 107 and 29·6 g kg−1 for standard film and OB film systems respectively (5 sets of data, P = 0·02). Aerobic stability was 75 h for silage stored under standard film system and 135 h for silage stored under OB film system (11 sets of data, P = 0·001). It is concluded that the OB film system reduces losses from the outer layers of silos and from bales and increases the aerobic stability of silage in the outer layers of silos.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gfs.12087

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Although the costs of new films are around 50 to 60% higher than those of commercial PE films, the cost savings in farm applications from reduced DM losses and improved microbiological silage quality are greater than the extra film cost.

    “Although the costs of the new films are around 50 to 60% higher than those of commercial PE films, the cost savings in farm applications from reduced DM losses and improved microbiological silage quality are greater than the extra film cost (Bolsen et al., 2012; Borreani and Tabacco, 2014; Wilkinson and Fenlon, 2014).”

    From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Wilkinson and Fenlon, 2014

  • Only 2 out of 41 trials showed greater losses for OB films than for PE films.

    “Only 2 out of 41 trials showed greater losses for OB films than for PE films.”

    From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Wilkinson and Fenlon (2014)

  • The analysis by Wilkinson and Fenlon (2014) found great variation in DM losses of silages stored in peripheral areas of horizontal silos, ranging from less than 50 to 700 g/kg for LDPE films and from 50 to 370 g/kg of silage for OB films.

    “The analysis made by Wilkinson and Fenlon (2014) underscore the great variation in DM losses of silages stored in peripheral areas of horizontal silos, ranging from less than 50 to 700 g/kg for LDPE films and from 50 to 370 g/kg of silage for OB films.”

    From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Wilkinson and Fenlon (2014)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilkinson, J. M., & Fenlon, J. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Wilkinson, J. M.
ORCID
Wilkinson, J. M.
Venue
Grass and Forage Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-10-09
Volume
69
Issue
3
Pages
385-392
ISSN
  • 0142-5242 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2494
DOI
10.1111/gfs.12087
OpenAlex
W2077605322
Cited by
36
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Grass and Forage Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Pasture and Agricultural Systems
Keywords
silage storage, oxygen barrier films, polyethylene film, bunker silos, baled silage, aerobic stability, dry matter loss, silage spoilage

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