Cited by 40Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

Effect of applying bacterial inoculants containing different types of bacteria to corn silage on the performance of dairy cattle

Open access
Arriola, K.G., Kim, S.C., Staples, C.R., Adesogan, A.T.·2011·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

This study examined the effect of applying different bacterial inoculants to corn silage at the time of ensiling on the performance of lactating dairy cows. Corn plants were harvested at 35% dry matter (DM), chopped, and ensiled in 2.4-m-wide bags after application of (1) no inoculant (CON); (2) Biotal Plus II (B2) containing Pediococcus pentosaceus and Propionibacteria freudenreichii; (3) Buchneri 40788 (BUC) containing Lactobacillus buchneri; or (4) Buchneri 500 (B500) containing Pediococcus pentosaceus and L. buchneri. All inoculants were supplied by Lallemand Animal Nutrition (Milwaukee, WI). Each of the 4 silages was included in separate total mixed rations consisting of 44% corn silage, 50% concentrate, and 6% alfalfa hay (DM basis). Fifty-two lactating Holstein cows were stratified according to milk production and parity and randomly assigned at 22 d in milk to the 4 dietary treatments. Cows were fed for ad libitum consumption and milked twice daily for 49 d. Dietary treatment did not affect intakes (kg/d) of DM (20.0), crude protein (CP; 3.7), neutral detergent fiber (NDF; 5.7), or acid detergent fiber (ADF; 3.6), or digestibility (%) of DM (73.9) or CP (72.4). However, NDF digestibility was lower in cows fed B2 compared with those fed other diets (45.3 vs. 53.0%). Consequently, cows fed B2 had lower digestible NDF intake (kg/d) than those fed other diets (2.5 vs. 3.0 kg/d). Dietary treatment did not affect milk yield (32.3 kg/d), efficiency of milk production (1.61), concentrations of milk fat (3.18%) and protein (2.79%), or yields of milk fat (1.03 kg/d) and protein (1.26 kg/d). Inoculant application to corn silage did not affect milk yield or feed intake of cows.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3168/jds.2010-4070

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 39 · Cited by 40

Authors
Arriola, K. G., Kim, S. C., Staples, C. R., & Adesogan, A. T.
Affiliations
University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Adesogan, A.T.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2011-08
Volume
94
Issue
8
Pages
3973-3979
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2106198311
Cited by
40
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Lallemand Animal Nutrition
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
corn silage, bacterial inoculants, silage additives, lactating dairy cows, Pediococcus pentosaceus, Lactobacillus buchneri, NDF digestibility, milk yield, milk fat, milk protein, feed intake, Holstein cows
MeSH terms
Animals, Cattle, Zea mays, Dairying, Diet, Lactation, Lactobacillus, Milk, Pediococcus, Propionibacterium, Silage

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