Cited by 38Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

Assessing the impact of various ensilage factors on the fermentation of grass silage using conventional culture and bacterial community analysis techniques

McEniry, J., O’Kiely, P., Clipson, N.J.W., Forristal, P.D., Doyle, E.M.·2010·Journal of Applied Microbiology

Abstract

AIMS: Grass silage is an important ruminant feedstuff on farms during winter. The ensilage of grass involves a natural lactic acid bacterial fermentation under anaerobic conditions, and numerous factors can influence the outcome of preservation. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of dry matter concentration, ensiling system, compaction and air infiltration on silage bacterial community composition. METHODS AND RESULTS: The impact of these factors was examined using conventional methods of microbial analysis and culture-independent Terminal Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (T-RFLP). Silage fermentation was restricted in herbage with a high dry matter concentration, and this was reflected in a shift in the bacterial population present. In contrast, ensiling system had little effect on bacterial community composition. Air infiltration, in the absence of compaction, altered silage bacterial community composition and silage pH. CONCLUSIONS: Dry matter concentration and the absence of compaction were the main factors affecting silage microbial community composition, and this was reflected in both the conventional culture-based and T-RFLP data. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: T-RFLP proved a useful tool to study the factors affecting ensilage. Apart from monitoring the presence or absence of members of the population, shifts in the relative presence of members could be monitored.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04557.x

Cites

24 of 24 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McEniry, J., O’Kiely, P., Clipson, N. J. W., Forristal, P. D., & Doyle, E. M.
Affiliations
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority (IE)
Corresponding author
Doyle, E.M.
Venue
Journal of Applied Microbiology
Published
2010-05
Volume
108
Issue
5
Pages
1584-1593
ISSN
  • 1364-5072 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2672
OpenAlex
W1992858063
Cited by
38
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Teagasc
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
grass silage, silage fermentation, lactic acid bacteria, bacterial community composition, dry matter content, silage compaction, air leakage, silage pH, T-RFLP, ruminant feed
MeSH terms
Air, Analysis of Variance, Bacteria, Fermentation, Poaceae, Silage, Bacterial Physiological Phenomena, Biodiversity

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