Cited by 81Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFood and Agricultural Sciences

The chemical composition and nutritive value of grass silages prepared with no additive or with the application of additives containing either Lactobacillus plantarum or formic acid

ROOKE, J. A., MAYA, F. M., ARNOLD, J. A., ARMSTRONG, D. G.·1988·Grass and Forage Science

Abstract

Abstract A mixture of perennial and hybrid ryegrasses(234 g DM kg‐1) was forage harvested and ensiled after a 24‐h wilt in good ensiling conditions in 2‐t capacity silos with no additive application (control) or with the application of either Lactobacillus plantarum, 4 × 106 (g fresh weight of grass)‐1, or of 31 formic acid t‐1. Sufficient 2‐kg capacity laboratory silos were also filled with grass to monitor the changes in chemical composition of the ensiled grass with time. In laboratory silos, inoculation with L. plantarum resulted in a more rapid fall in silage pH (p < 0.001) and a more rapid production of lactic acid (P < 0.001) than in the control silage. At the end of the storage period (laboratory silos, 80 d; 2‐t silos, 200‐300 d), the inoculated silos had lower pH (p ammonia‐N (g kg N1) and acetic acid contents (p < 0.01) and higher water soluble carbohydrate (WSC), lactic acid (P<00.1) and ethanol (p < 0.05) contents than the control silage. The formic acid‐treated silage had significantly lower contents of ammonia‐N (g kg N‐1, p < 0.05), acetic and tactic acids (p<0.01) and higher contents of WSC and ethanol (p < 0.01) than the control silage. When fed to wether sheep, the digestibilities of DM, organic matter and gross energy were not altered by additive treatment. The digestibility of modified acid‐detergent fibre was lower for both the inoculated (P < 0.01) and formic acid‐treated silages (p < 0.05). However, N retention was improved (p < 0.05) by both additive treatments. Silage intake was improved (p < 0.01) by additive treatment from 53.4 (control) to 58.0 (inoculated) and 60.4 (formic acid) g DM (kg live weight0.75)‐1d‐1.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2494.1988.tb02144.x

Cites

19 of 19 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
ROOKE, J. A., MAYA, F. M., ARNOLD, J. A., & ARMSTRONG, D. G.
Affiliations
Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
ROOKE, J. A.
Venue
Grass and Forage Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1988-03
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
87-95
ISSN
  • 0142-5242 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2494
OpenAlex
W2143182364
Cited by
81
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
11.50
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 › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
Keywords
silage, silage additives, Lactobacillus plantarum, formic acid, ryegrass, silage inoculation, silage pH, lactic acid production, ammonia-N, water-soluble carbohydrates, ethanol, nitrogen retention, sheep digestibility, silage intake, nutritional value, silage chemical composition, acid detergent fiber, acetic acid, propionic acid

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