0678 The effect of two microbial inoculants on the aerobic stability of high-moisture corn
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of two microbial inoculants on the fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of high-moisture corn (HMC). High-moisture corn (71% DM) was 1) untreated (control) or 2) treated with Lactobacillus hilgardii (LH) (600,000 cfu/g of fresh material), 3) treated with Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 (600,000 cfu/g), or 4) treated with L. hilgardii + L. buchneri 40788 (LH+LB) (300,000 cfu/g). Inoculants were supplied by Lallemand Animal Nutrition, Milwaukee, WI. Five individually replicated lab silos (7.5 L) for each treatment were packed (packing density of 669 kg DM/m3) and ensiled for 10, 30, and 92 d between 21 and 23°C. Data were analyzed using the Fit Model in JMP (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) as a 4 × 3 factorial arrangement of treatments with the main effects of treatment, day, and their interaction. The numbers of lactic acid bacteria were greater for LH (8.91 log cfu/g) than the control (8.41 log cfu/g) at 30 d, whereas all inoculated treatments had higher numbers (7.91 to 8.03 log cfu/g) than the control (7.18 log cfu/g) at 92 d (P < 0.01). At 10 d, all treated HMC had lower numbers of yeasts (3.53 to 4.18 log cfu/g) than the control (5.68 log cfu/g). The same occurred at 30 d (<2.00 to 2.26 vs. 5.18 log cfu/g) (P < 0.01). At 92 d, LH (4.30 log cfu/g) was numerically lower than the control (4.91 log cfu/g) and LH+LB and LB (both < 2.00 log cfu/g) had lower numbers of yeasts (P < 0.01). There were lower (P < 0.01) concentrations of lactic acid for treated HMC compared with the control at both 30 (0.74 to 0.80 vs. 1.04%) and 92 d (0.68 to 1.15 vs. 1.45%). All treated HMC had higher (P < 0.01) concentrations of acetic acid than the control at 30 (0.47 to 0.57 vs. 0.13%) and 92 d (0.98 to 1.16 vs. 0.23%). Concentrations of ethanol for treated HMC were lower (P < 0.01) than the control at 92 d (0.39 to 0.48 vs. 0.73%). All inoculated HMC were more (P < 0.01) aerobically stable than the control at 10 (42 to 56 vs. 22 h), 30 (>250 vs. 31 h), and 92 d (>250 vs. 49 h). The inoculants used in this study altered the fermentation characteristics and improved the aerobic stability of HMC.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
After 10 d of fermentation, aerobic stability was 22 h for untreated silage, 42 h with Lb. buchneri, and 56 h with Lb. hilgardii.
“After 10 d of fermentation the aerobic stability was 22 h for untreated silage, whereas it increased to 42 h with Lb. buchneri and to 56 h with Lb. hilgardii.”
From Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives (2018) · cites this paper as Polukis et al., 2016
Both Lb. hilgardii and Lb. buchneri resulted in silages that were stable for more than 250 h after 30 and 90 d of fermentation compared with 31 to 49 h of stability for untreated silage.
“Both organisms resulted in silages that were stable for more than 250 h after 30 and 90 d of fermentation compared with 31 to 49 h of stability for untreated silage.”
From Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives (2018) · cites this paper as Polukis et al., 2016
Addition of Lb. hilgardii CNCM I-4785 or Lb. buchneri 40788 to high-moisture corn resulted in similar increases in production of acetic acid and 1,2-propanediol and lower numbers of yeasts compared with untreated corn silage.
“Polukis et al. (2016) added Lb. hilgardii CNCM I-4785 or Lb.buchneri 40788 to high-moisture corn at a final application rate of 6 × 10 5 cfu/g of fresh high-moisture corn.They reported that both organisms resulted in similar increases in production of acetic acid and 1,2-propanediol and lower numbers of yeasts when compared with untreated corn silage.”
From Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives (2018) · cites this paper as Polukis et al., 2016
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives
Muck, R. E., Nadeau, E. M. G., McAllister, T. A., Contreras-Govea, F. E., Santos, M. C., & Kung, L. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13839 · Cited by 1,038 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Polukis, S. A., Smith, M. L., Savage, R. M., Benjamim da Silva, E., Laubach, A. E., Gray, A. M., & Kung, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Delaware (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-10-01
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- suppl_5
- Pages
- 324-324
- ISSN
- 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-3163
- OpenAlex
- W2555376394
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 2 · 2018: 1
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Animal Science (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
- high-moisture corn, microbial inoculants, aerobic stability, Lactobacillus hilgardii, Lactobacillus buchneri, silage fermentation, lactic acid bacteria, yeast count, silage quality, corn silage, volatile fatty acids, ammonia nitrogen, lactic acid, 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
