Cited by 36Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyProbiotics and Fermented FoodsAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

Isolating and evaluating lactic acid bacteria strains for effectiveness of Leymus chinensis silage fermentation

Zhang, Q., Li, X.J., Zhao, M.M., Yu, Z.·2014·Letters in Applied Microbiology

Abstract

Five LAB strains were evaluated using the acid production ability test, morphological observation, Gram staining, physiological, biochemical and acid tolerance tests. All five strains (LP1, LP2, LP3, LC1 and LC2) grew at pH 4·0, and LP1 grew at 15°C. Strains LP1, LP2 and LP3 were identified as Lactobacillus plantarum, whereas LC1 and LC2 were classified as Lactobacillus casei by sequencing 16S rDNA. The five isolated strains and two commercial inoculants (PS and CL) were added to native grass and Leymus chinensis (Trin.) Tzvel. for ensiling. All five isolated strains decreased the pH and ammonia nitrogen content, increased the lactic acid content and LP1, LP2 and LP3 increased the acetic content and lactic/acetic acid ratio of L. chinensis silage significantly. The five isolated strains and two commercial inoculants decreased the butyric acid content of the native grass silage. LP2 treatment had lower butyric acid content and ammonia nitrogen content than the other treatments. The five isolated strains improved the quality of L. chinensis silage. The five isolated strains and the two commercial inoculants were not effective in improving the fermentation quality of the native grass silage, but LP2 performed better comparatively. Significance and impact of the study: Leymus chinensis is an important grass in China and Russia, being the primary grass of the short grassland 'steppe' regions of central Asia. However, it has been difficult to make high-quality silage of this species because of low concentration of water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC). Isolating and evaluating lactic acid bacteria strains will be helpful for improving the silage quality of this extensively grown species.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lam.12291

Cites

37 of 37 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

Authors
Zhang, Q., Li, X. J., Zhao, M. M., & Yu, Z.
Affiliations
China Agricultural University (CN)
Corresponding author
Yu, Z.
Venue
Letters in Applied Microbiology
Published
2014-07-02
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
391-397
ISSN
0266-8254 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2071474178
Cited by
36
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4
FWCI
6.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Letters in Applied Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Special Fund of National Public Welfare Industry (Agriculture) R & D Program (201303061)
  • National Key Technology R&D Programme (2011BAD17B02)
  • China Forage and Grass Research System (CARS-35)
  • Beijing Key Laboratory of Grassland Science
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
Leymus chinensis, silage fermentation, lactic acid bacteria, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus casei, silage inoculants, silage quality, ammonia nitrogen, butyrate, lactic acid, acetic acid, water-soluble carbohydrates
MeSH terms
Fermentation, Food Handling, Poaceae, Lacticaseibacillus casei, Phylogeny, Silage, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum

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