Cited by 30Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAgricultural Engineering and MechanizationAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

Storage of small bale silage and haylage–influence of storage period on fermentation variables and microbial composition

Müller, C. E., Pauly, T. M., Udén, P.·2007·Grass and Forage Science

Abstract

Abstract An experiment investigating changes in fermentation variables and microbial composition during storage of small‐bale silage and haylage was performed. Haylage was defined as silage with a dry‐matter (DM) content exceeding 500 g kg−1. Grass was wilted to three different DM contents, and baled into silage (350 g DM kg−1), haylage with a low DM content (550 g kg−1) and haylage with high DM content (700 g kg−1) in small rectangular‐shaped bales (0·80 m × 0·48 m × 0·36 m) that were individually wrapped. Bales were stored for short (2 months) or long (14 months) periods before opening and sampling. Silage had higher concentrations of fermentation products and a lower pH than either of the two haylage types. In general, long‐term storage influenced all fermentation variables except concentrations of butyric acid and succinic acid, and yeast counts were higher after 14 months than 2 months of storage. However, silage changed in more fermentation variables during storage than the two haylage types. Although differences between short‐ and long‐term stored silage were found, linear correlations between short‐ and long‐term stored bales were present for all chemical variables. Pearson's correlation coefficients were highest for lactic acid, followed by pH.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2007.00580.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?

  • Successful ensiling results in reduced storage loss, preservation of substantial nutrients and edible silage with ideal dry matter content, whereas unsuccessful ensiling produces bad silage containing undesirable microorganisms such as yeasts, moulds, mycotoxins and pathogenic bacteria.

    “Successful ensiling process, resulted in a reduced storage loss, preserve substantial amount of nutrients and produced edible silage with an ideal dry matter content but unsuccessful ensiling process produced bad silage that contains undesirable microorganisms like yeasts, moulds, mycotoxins, pathogenic bacteria [7,8].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 47 · Cited by 30

Authors
Müller, C. E., Pauly, T. M., & Udén, P.
Affiliations
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
Corresponding author
Müller, C. E.
Venue
Grass and Forage Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-08
Volume
62
Issue
3
Pages
274-283
ISSN
  • 0142-5242 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2494
OpenAlex
W1974489815
Cited by
30
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.06
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
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
haylage, microbial community composition, dry matter content, lactic acid, silage pH, yeast count, butyrate, succinic acid, silage 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