Cited by 25Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

Re‐ensiling and inoculant application with Lactobacillus plantarum and Propionibacterium acidipropionici on sorghum silages

Michel, P. H. F., Gonçalves, L. C., Rodrigues, J. A. S., Keller, K. M., Raposo, V. S., Lima, E. M., Santos, F. P. C., Jayme, D. G.·2017·Grass and Forage Science

Abstract

Abstract Re‐ensiling of previously ensiled forage has been a common practice in Brazil, and the use of inoculants may provide a means of reducing dry‐matter (DM) loss. This study aimed to determine the effect of re‐ensiling and the use of microbial inoculants on the quality of sorghum silage. Treatments were presence/absence of an inoculant (Lactobacillus plantarum and Propionibacterium acidipropionici) in the silage, and the re‐ensiling, or not, of the material after 24 h of exposure to air, and these were tested in a factorial 2 × 2 design. Losses due to gas, effluent and total DM were assessed, as were the fermentation characteristics, chemical composition, aerobic stability, and aerobic counts of microorganisms. Effluent loss was higher in re‐ensiled silage, and these silages had lower lactic acid content and higher levels of acetic and propionic acids. The in vitro DM digestibility was lower in the re‐ensiled sorghum silages. The re‐ensiled silage had higher aerobic stability. The inoculant only increased the acetic acid content of the silage. The re‐ensiling of sorghum silage increased effluent loss by 71·2%, and reduced DM digestibility by 5·35%. The use of inoculant did not influence the quality of sorghum silage.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gfs.12253

Cites

30 of 30 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Michel, P. H. F., Gonçalves, L. C., Rodrigues, J. A. S., Keller, K. M., Raposo, V. S., Lima, E. M., Santos, F. P. C., & Jayme, D. G.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR)
  • Embrapa (BR)
Corresponding author
Keller, K. M.
Venue
Grass and Forage Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-08-26
Volume
72
Issue
3
Pages
432-440
ISSN
  • 0142-5242 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2494
OpenAlex
W2508643158
Cited by
25
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Grass and Forage Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
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
silage inoculants, sorghum silage, Lactobacillus plantarum, Propionibacterium acidipropionici, dry matter loss, effluent losses, aerobic stability, silage fermentation, lactic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, in vitro digestibility, forage quality

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