Bacterial and fungal core microbiomes associated with small grain silages during ensiling and aerobic spoilage
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Describing the microbial populations present in small grain silage and understanding their changes during ensiling is of interest for improving the nutrient value of these important forage crops. Barley, oat and triticale forages as well as an intercropped mixture of the 3 crops were harvested and ensiled in mini silos for a period of 90 days, followed by 14 days of aerobic exposure. Changes in fermentation characteristics and nutritive value were assessed in terminal silages and bacterial and fungal communities during ensiling and aerobic exposure were described using 16S and 18S rDNA sequencing, respectively. RESULTS: All small grain silages exhibited chemical traits that were associated with well ensiled forages, such as low pH value (4.09 ± 0.28) and high levels of lactic acid (59.8 ± 14.59 mg/g DM). The number of microbial core genome operational taxonomic units (OTUs) decreased with time of ensiling. Taxonomic bacterial community profiles were dominated by the Lactobacillales after fermentation, with a notable increase in Bacillales as a result of aerobic exposure. Diversity of the fungal core microbiome was shown to also be reduced during ensiling. Operational taxonomic units assigned to filamentous fungi were found in the core microbiome at ensiling and after aerobic exposure, whereas the Saccharomycetales were the dominate yeast population after 90 days of ensiling and aerobic exposure. Bacterial and fungal orders typically associated with silage spoilage were identified in the core microbiome after aerobic exposure. CONCLUSION: Next Generation Sequencing was successfully used to describe bacterial communities and the first record of fungal communities throughout the process of ensiling and utilization. Adequately describing the microbial ecology of silages could lead to improved ensiling practices and the selection of silage inoculants that act synergistically with the natural forage microbiome.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Our results for fresh forage do not corroborate those of Gharechahi et al. in maize silage, but are more in line with the diversity observed in fresh small grains or oats, as well as with data published by McGarvey et al. on alfalfa.
“Our results for fresh forage do not corroborate those of Gharechahi et al. in maize silage [35], but are more in line with the diversity observed in fresh small grains [33] or oats [15], as well as with data published by McGarvey et al. [36] on alfalfa.”
Differences in key yeast genera between published reports and this study are likely partly due to different methods of identification.
“The differences in key genera between published reports, and also from our study, are likely partly due to the different methods of identification used, as pointed out by Dunière et al. [33] in the case of fungal populations.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 74 · Cited by 138
- Authors
- Duniere, L., Xu, S., Long, J., Elekwachi, C., Wang, Y., Turkington, K., Forster, R., & McAllister, T. A.
- Affiliations
- Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA)
- Corresponding author
- McAllister, Tim A.
- Venue
- BMC Microbiology
- Published
- 2017-03-03
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 50-50
- ISSN
- 1471-2180 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5335695
- OpenAlex
- W2594718762
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 21.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- BMC Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Federal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Barley Cluster of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
- Keywords
- silage fermentation, aerobic spoilage, barley, oat, triticale, Lactobacillales, Bacillales, filamentous fungi, Saccharomycetales, silage inoculants, forage quality
- MeSH terms
- Triticale, Aerobiosis, Bacteria, Hordeum, Base Sequence, Edible Grain, DNA, Bacterial, DNA, Fungal, Ecology, Fermentation, Food Analysis, Fungi, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, RNA, Ribosomal, 18S, Silage, Temperature, Avena, Lactic Acid, Biodiversity, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Microbiota
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