Cited by 83Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyProbiotics and Fermented FoodsBiofuel production and bioconversion

Characteristics of lactic acid bacteria isolates and their effect on silage fermentation of fruit residues

Open access
Yang, Jinsong, Tan, Haisheng, Cai, Yimin·2016·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

The natural lactic acid bacteria (LAB) population, chemical composition, and silage fermentation of fruit residues were studied. Eighty-two strains of LAB were isolated from fruit residues such as banana leaf and stem, pineapple peel, and papaya peel. All strains were gram-positive and catalase-negative bacteria, and they were divided into 7 groups (A-G) according to morphological and biochemical characters. Strains in groups A to F were rods, and group G was cocci. Group F produced gas from glucose; other groups did not. Groups A to C and F formed dl-lactic acid, whereas groups D, E, and G formed l-lactic acid. Based on the 16S rRNA gene sequence and DNA-DNA hybridization analysis, groups A to G strains were identified as Lactobacillus plantarum (54.9% of the total isolates), Lactobacillus paraplantarum (3.6%), Lactobacillus nagelii (8.5%), Lactobacillus perolens (4.9%), Lactobacillus casei (11.0%), Lactobacillus fermentum (9.8%), and Enterococcus gallinarum (7.3%), respectively. Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus casei are the most frequently isolated from fruit residues as a dominant species, and they could grow at a lower pH conditions and produce more lactic acid than other isolates. Pineapple and papaya peels contained higher crude protein (11.5-13.8%) and water-soluble carbohydrate (16.8-22.4%), but lower acid detergent fiber contents (21.2 to 26.4%) than banana stems and leaves (8.2% crude protein, 42.8% acid detergent fiber, and 5.1% water-soluble carbohydrate). Compared with banana stem and leaf silages, the pineapple and papaya peel silages were well preserved with a lower pH and higher lactate content. The study suggests that the fruit residues contain excellent LAB species and abundant feed nutrients, and that they can be preserved as silage to be potential food resources for livestock.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3168/jds.2016-10952

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • For well-preserved mixed silage, the number of lactic acid bacteria in the mixed silage must be at least 1 × 105 cfu/g.

    “For well-preserved mixed silage, the number of lactic acid bacteria in the mixed silage must be at least 1 × 105 cfu/g [41].”

    From Cellulase Interacts with Lactic Acid Bacteria to Affect Fermentation Quality, Microbial Community, and Ruminal Degradability in Mixed Silage of Soybean Residue and Corn Stover (2021) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says LAB numbers help predict silage-fermentation adequacy, and reports good-quality fruit-residue silage from material with about 10⁴ cfu/g of epiphytic LAB. It does not establish that well-preserved mixed silage must contain at least 10⁵ cfu/g; its reported counts are for fruit residues before ensiling, not the finished mixed silage. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kozaki, M., T. Uchimura, and S. Okada. 1992. Experimental Manual of Lactic Acid Bacteria. Asakurashoten, Tokyo, pp. 34-37.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, J., Tan, H., & Cai, Y.
Affiliations
  • Hainan University (CN)
  • Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science (JP)
Corresponding author
Cai, Yimin
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2016-07
Volume
99
Issue
7
Pages
5325-5334
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2341743387
Cited by
83
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
8.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31460621)
  • the National Natural Science Foundation of Hainan Province, China (314073)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
Keywords
lactic acid bacteria, silage fermentation, fruit residues, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus fermentum, Enterococcus gallinarum, Lactobacillus paraplantarum, banana peel, pineapple peel, papaya peel, silage preservation, lactic acid production, 16S rRNA identification, DNA-DNA hybridization, animal feed
MeSH terms
Animals, Fermentation, Fruit, Lactobacillus, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, 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