Cited by 82Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyProbiotics and Fermented Foods

A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of homofermentative and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria for corn silage.

Open access
Blajman, J.E., Páez, R.B., Vinderola, C.G., Lingua, M.S., Signorini, M.L.·2018·Journal of Applied Microbiology

Abstract

This meta‐analysis aims to assess the effect of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) inoculation on fermentation parameters, microbiological composition and aerobic stability of corn silage. Databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect and Scopus) were searched from 1980 to 2017. The criteria for inclusion were: randomized and controlled experiments using corn silage and published in peer‐reviewed journals. The meta‐analysis showed that LAB supplementation increased pH, acetate and propionate concentrations, and decreased acid detergent fibre, water‐soluble carbohydrates and ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3‐N) compared to controls in the pooled raw mean difference random effect model. In addition, inoculation reduced counts of yeasts and moulds, increased LAB counts and markedly improved aerobic stability in corn silage. However, results indicated that the effect of inoculants may differ depending on the administration of homofermentative or heterofermentative LAB. For the development of functional bacterial inoculants, both types of LAB should be used. To our knowledge, this is the first meta‐analysis to compare the application of homofermentative and heterofermentative LAB for corn silage.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jam.14084

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Conditions such as forage type, DM at harvest, application rate, temperature and length of conservation can influence LAB activity and their ability to alter silage quality.

    “different conditions can influence the activity of LAB and their ability to alter silage quality (Muck et al., 2018), and heterofermentative LAB inoculants have not been consistently effective in improving aerobic stability as a result of the type of forage, the dry matter (DM) of the forage at harvest, variations in the application rate, and the temperature and length of conservation (Kleinschm”

    From Lentilactobacillus hilgardii Inoculum, Dry Matter Contents at Harvest and Length of Conservation Affect Fermentation Characteristics and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage (2021) · cites this paper as Blajman et al., 2018

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says crop moisture and other ensiling conditions may affect whether LAB additives work, and discusses application rate. The Corn silage parameters section (page unavailable) reports differences by experiment duration. The paper examines corn silage only and does not establish forage type or temperature as influences, so it does not support the full list of conditions. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Kung, L. Jr (2009) Effects of microbial additives in silages: facts and perspectives. In International Symposium on Forage Quality and Conservation ed. Zopollatto, M., Muraro, G.B., Nussio, L.G. pp. 7-22. Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
  2. Muck, R.E. and Kung, L. Jr (1997) Effects of silage additives on ensiling. In Proceedings from the Silage: Field to Feedbunk North American Conference, Hershey, 11-13 February 1997, NRAES-99, pp. 187-199.
  3. Buxton, D.R., Muck, R.E. and Harrison, J.H. pp. 95-140. Madison, WI: Am. Soc. Agron. Crop Sci. Soc. Am., Soil Sci. Soc. Am.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blajman, J. E., Páez, R. B., Vinderola, C. G., Lingua, M. S., & Signorini, M. L.
Affiliations
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • National Agricultural Technology Institute (AR)
Corresponding author
Blajman, J.E.
Venue
Journal of Applied Microbiology
Published
2018-09-27
Volume
125
Issue
6
Pages
1655-1669
ISSN
1364-5072 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2888677018
Cited by
82
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Conicet (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
National Institute of Agricultural Technology (1130034, PICT-2016-0256)
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 › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
Keywords
lactic acid bacteria, corn silage, homofermentative lactic acid bacteria, heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria, silage inoculants, aerobic stability, silage fermentation, silage pH, volatile fatty acids, acid detergent fiber, water-soluble carbohydrates, ammonia nitrogen, molds and yeasts, silage microbiology

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