Cited by 69Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

Comparative assessment of bacterial inoculation and propionic acid treatment of aerobic stability and microbial populations of ensiled high-moisture ear corn.

Sebastian, S, Phillip, L E, Fellner, V, Idziak, E S·1996·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

High-moisture ear corn (HMEC) was untreated, treated with propionic acid (PA), or inoculated with a mixture of Lactobacillus plantarum and Enterococcus faecium and allowed to ensile in laboratory silos for 0, 7, 21, 42, 138, or 202 d. The silages were evaluated for fermentation quality, microbial populations, and aerobic stability. In all treatments, silage pH declined rapidly within 7 d, but the rate of decline seemed greatest with the inoculum. The lactic acid content of inoculated HMEC was higher (P < .05) than that of control of PA-treated HMEC. Regardless of treatment, the population of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) increased (P < .1) up to 7 to 21 d of fermentation then declined; LAB counts decreased (P < .05) up to 42 d in control and PA-treated silage but continued to decline until 138 d for inoculated silage. Yeast and mold counts tended to decrease up to 42 d of ensiling then decreased (P < .05) as fermentation progressed. Between 138 and 202 d of ensiling, the control silage showed a marked increase (P < .10) in pH and yeast and mold populations, providing evidence of secondary fermentation; PA treatment and bacterial inoculation prevented secondary fermentation. Inoculation tended to reduce estimates of sample temperature for silage stored for 138 d and exposed to air, but not for the corresponding silage stored for 202 d. Treatment with PA prevented the loss (P > .05) of acetic acid and the rise (P > .05) in pH during air exposure of the 138-d silage; both control and PA-treated silage showed an increase (P < .05) in yeast and mold populations, but the increments were 38% and 23%, respectively. Compared with PA, the relative efficacy of inoculation in improving aerobic spoilage of HMEC depended on the period of silo storage and the criterion used to assess aerobic stability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2527/1996.742447x

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sebastian, S., Phillip, L. E., Fellner, V, & Idziak, E. S.
Affiliations
Collège MacDonald (CA)
Corresponding author
Phillip, L E
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
1996
Volume
74
Issue
2
Pages
447
ISSN
0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2411681910
Cited by
69
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Plant Science › Mycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Keywords
silage inoculation, aerobic stability, Lactobacillus plantarum, Enterococcus faecium, lactic acid bacteria, secondary fermentation, silage fermentation quality, silage storage duration, silage spoilage
MeSH terms
Acetates, Aerobiosis, Animal Feed, Zea mays, Fermentation, Food Handling, Food Microbiology, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Lactobacillus, Propionates, Temperature, Time Factors, Enterococcus faecium, Acetic Acid

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