CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 119Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyProbiotics and Fermented FoodsAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

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 access
Silva, V.P., Pereira, O.G., Leandro, E.S., Da Silva, T.C., Ribeiro, K.G., Mantovani, H.C., Santos, S.A.·2016·Journal of Dairy Science
DOI 10.3168/jds.2015-9792
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.3168/jds.2015-9792

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

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

  1. Pahlow, 2003, Microbiology of ensiling. Silage science and technology, Proc. Madison: ASCSSA-SSSA Agron., 42, 31
  2. Seale, 1986, Bacterial inoculants as silage additives, J. Appl. Bact. Symp. Supplement., 61, 9S
  3. 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

See all 119

Related

See all

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.
ORCID
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)
DOI
10.3168/jds.2015-9792
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
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