The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of lactic acid bacteria with bacteriocinogenic potential on the fermentation profile and chemical composition of alfalfa silage in tropical conditions
Open accessAbstract
The fermentation profile, chemical composition, and microbial populations of alfalfa silages treated with microbial inoculants (MI) at different fermentation periods (T) were evaluated in tropical conditions. A 4×6 factorial arrangement was used in a randomized design with 3 replicates. Fresh alfalfa was treated with (1) no treatment (CTRL), (2) commercial inoculant (CIN), (3) Pediococcus acidilactici (strain 10.6, S1), and (4) Pediococcus pentosaceus (strain 6.16, S2). An inoculant application rate of 10(6) cfu/g of fresh forage was used. The fermentation periods were 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, and 56 d. Alfalfa was harvested 82 d after sowing at the early flowering stage, chopped into 1.5-cm particle size, and ensiled in 25 × 35 cm vacuum-sealed plastic bags. The numbers of lactic acid bacteria, enterobacteria, mold, and yeast in alfalfa before ensiling were 5.42, 5.58, 4.82, and 4.8 log cfu/g, respectively. Silage chemical composition was evaluated only at 56 d. All parameters were affected by the interaction MI × T, except the concentrations of lactic and propionic acids. Alfalfa silage treated with S1 or S2 had lower pH values than CTRL from the first day until 28 d. However, the inoculants resulted in similar pH after 56 d, and these values were lower than the CTRL. The highest concentration of lactic acid was observed in the silage treated with S1 and S2 at 7 and 14 d of ensiling. The concentration of acetic acid was lower in the silages treated with S1 and S2 than the CTRL and CIN at 3 and 28 d of fermentation. There was no effect of MI or MI × T interaction on the microbial populations. However, the number of enterobacteria decreased over the fermentation period until 14 d and increased slightly after this time point. The chemical composition of alfalfa silage was not affected by MI at 56 d of ensiling. The strain P. pentosaceus 6.16 was the most efficient in dominating the fermentation process by decreasing the pH more quickly and increasing the concentration of lactic acid, suggesting its potential use as a silage inoculant.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“This phenomenon was also observed in alfalfa silages treated with P. acidilactici or P. pentosaceus 33.”
Citations
Cites
Official Methods of Analysis of
Helrick, K. (1980) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac50052a726 · Cited by 59,351
Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds
Licitra, G., Hernández, T., & Soest, P. J. V. (1996) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3 · Cited by 2,631
Mertens, D. R., Collaborators:, Allen, M. S., Carmany, J., Clegg, J., Davidowicz, A., Drouches, M., Frank, K., Gambin, D., Garkie, M., et al. (2002) · Journal of AOAC International · doi:10.1093/jaoac/85.6.1217 · Cited by 2,630
Anaerobic Conversion of Lactic Acid to Acetic Acid and 1,2-Propanediol by Lactobacillus buchneri
Oude Elferink, S. J. W. H., Krooneman, J., Gottschal, J. C., Spoelstra, S. F., Faber, F., & Driehuis, F. (2001) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.67.1.125-132.2001 · Cited by 685
Silage microbiology and its control through additives
Muck, R. E. (2010) · Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia · doi:10.1590/s1516-35982010001300021 · Cited by 543
Factors Influencing Silage Quality and Their Implications for Management.
Muck, R. E. (1988) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(88)79897-5 · Cited by 419
On the estimation of non-fibrous carbohydrates in feeds and diets
Detmann, E., & Filho, S. D. C. V. (2010) · Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia · doi:10.1590/s0102-09352010000400030 · Cited by 329
Dewhurst, R. J., Fisher, W. J., Tweed, J. K. S., & Wilkins, R. J. (2003) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(03)73855-7 · Cited by 324
Bolsen, K. K., Lin, C., Brent, B. E., Feyerherm, A. M., Urban, J. E., & Aimutis, W. R. (1992) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(92)78070-9 · Cited by 277
Routine analysis of carbohydrates and lignin in herbage
Deriaz, R. E. (1961) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740120210 · Cited by 252
Flagged first, then by citations
4 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Pahlow, 2003, Microbiology of ensiling. Silage science and technology, Proc. Madison: ASCSSA-SSSA Agron., 42, 31
- Seale, 1986, Bacterial inoculants as silage additives, J. Appl. Bact. Symp. Supplement., 61, 9S
- Silva, 2012, Screening of bacteriocinogenic lactic acid bacteria from tropical legume silage, Joint Annual Meeting ASAS ADSA, 2012, Phoenix, AZ. J. Anim. Sci., 90, 540
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–119 of 119
Çetin, M., & Apaydin, M. C. (2025) · Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science · doi:10.1590/1806-9061-2024-1960 · Cited by 1
Evalution of Silage Characteristics of Some Forage of Vicia faba Genotypes
SandAbadi, M., Ghoorchi, T., Sheikh, F., & Ghahari, N. (2019) · Research on Animal Production · doi:10.29252/rap.10.26.30 · Cited by 1
Farklı Katkı Maddelerinin Lenox Silajının Fermantasyon ve Fiziksel Özellikleri Üzerine Etkileri
Gümüş, H., Oguz, F. K., OĞUZ, M. N., Buğdaycı, K. E., & Kuter, E. (2020) · Erciyes Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi · doi:10.32707/ercivet.697756 · Cited by 1
Chen, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J.-G., Huang, X., Qinlou, H., Liu, J., & Yue, W. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3031010/v1 · Cited by 1
Application of Liquid Chromatography in Food Analysis
(2020) · MDPI eBooks · doi:10.3390/books978-3-03943-363-6
Polat, C., GÜRSOY, S., & Okuyucu, B. (2022) · Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi · doi:10.33462/jotaf.1104096
Pan, J. (2023) · The Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences · doi:10.21162/pakjas/23.225 · Cited by 1
Mao, T., Ye, Z., Niu, Y., Zheng, Q., Yang, T., & Wang, Z. (2025) · Microbiology Research · doi:10.3390/microbiolres16020052
Cordeiro, A. A. D. S., Antunes, L. F. D. S., dos Santos, G. D. C. R., Guerra, J. G. M., Berbara, R. L. L., Araújo, E. D. S., & Espíndola, J. A. A. (2025) · Organic Agriculture · doi:10.1007/s13165-025-00506-8
Faraji, P., Paya, H., Taghziadeh, A., & Mohammadzadeh, H. (2025) · Research on Animal Production · doi:10.61882/rap.2024.1461
Plant density and bacterial inoculants on Canavalia brasiliensis yield and silage quality1
Ramírez, L. F. G., Burbano‐Erazo, E., Mojica-Rodríguez, J. E., Ayola, S. C. P., & Ortiz, J. R. Z. (2025) · Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical · doi:10.1590/1983-40632025v5582830
Ren, H., Du, Y., Dou, J., Guo, X., Zhao, Y., Li, J., Wang, Y., Lu, D., & Zheng, Y. (2026) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2025.108908
Mu, L., Zhuang, X., Zhang, D., Liu, J., Han, W., Di, G., Shen, Z., & Wang, J. (2026) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture16020189
Wang, L., Han, J., Chen, L., Yan, J., & Wenjuan, H. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6359179
Wang, S., Zhang, W., Ding, C., Xu, N., Cheng, Y., Tian, J., Shen, Q., Qiu, G., & Liu, B. (2026) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2026.119748
Metadata
- Authors
- Silva, V. P., Pereira, O. G., Leandro, E. S., Da Silva, T. C., Ribeiro, K. G., Mantovani, H. C., & Santos, S. A.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Federal de Viçosa (BR)
- Universidade Federal da Bahia (BR)
- Corresponding author
- Pereira, O.G.
- Venue
- Journal of Dairy Science
- Publisher
- American Dairy Science Association
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1895-1902
- ISSN
- 0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2237919669
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 22.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Americanae (AECID Library) (publishedVersion)
- Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- the FAPEMIG
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › 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
- alfalfa silage, lactic acid bacteria, Pediococcus acidilactici, Pediococcus pentosaceus, microbial inoculants, silage fermentation, silage chemical composition, silage pH, lactic acid, propionic acid, acetic acid, Enterobacteriaceae, tropical conditions, silage quality
- MeSH terms
- Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Medicago sativa, Animals, Bacteriocins, Fermentation, Pediococcus, Silage, Lactic 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
