Cited by 105Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

Laboratory silo type and inoculation effects on nutritional composition, fermentation, and bacterial and fungal communities of oat silage

Open access
Romero, J.J., Zhao, Y., Balseca-Paredes, M.A., Tiezzi, F., Gutierrez-Rodriguez, E., Castillo, M.S.·2017·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

The objectives were to evaluate (1) the use of 2 types of experimental silos (S) to characterize whole-crop oat ( Avena sativa L.) silage with or without addition of an inoculant (I), and (2) the effect of inoculation on the microbial community structure of oats ensiled using only plastic bucket silos (BKT). From each of 6 sections in a field, oats were harvested, treated (INO) or not (CON) with inoculant, packed into 19-L BKT or vacuum bags (BG), and ensiled for 217 d. The inoculant added contained Lactobacillus buchneri and Pediococcus pentosaceus (4 × 10 5 and 1 × 10 5 cfu/g of fresh oats, respectively). The experimental design was a complete randomized design replicated 6 times. Treatment design was the factorial combination of 2 S × 2 I. Some differences existed between BG versus BKT at silo opening (217 d), including a decreased CP (7.73 vs. 7.04 ± 0.247% of DM) and ethanol (1.93 vs. 1.55 ± 0.155) and increased lactic acid (4.28 vs. 3.65 ± 0.241), respectively. Also, WSC and mold counts were reduced in BG versus BKT for CON (1.78 vs. 2.70 ± 0.162% of DM and 0.8 vs. 2.82 ± 0.409 log cfu/fresh g) but not for INO (∼1.53 and 1.55), respectively. Application of INO increased DM recovery (96.1 vs. 92.9 ± 0.63%), aerobic stability (565 vs. 133 ± 29.2 h), acetic acid (2.38 vs. 1.22 ± 0.116% of DM), and reduced NDF (65.0 vs. 67.0 ± 0.57), ADF (36.7 vs. 38.1 ± 0.60), ethanol (0.63 vs. 2.85 ± 0.155), and yeast counts (1.10 vs. 4.13 ± 0.484 log cfu/fresh g) in INO versus CON, respectively. At d 0, no differences were found for S and I on the nutritional composition and background microbial counts. Leuconostocaceae (82.9 ± 4.27%) and Enterobacteriaceae (15.2 ± 3.52) were the predominant bacterial families and unidentified sequences were predominant for fungi. A higher relative abundance of the Davidiellaceae fungal family (34.3 vs. 19.6 ± 4.47) was observed in INO versus CON. At opening (217 d), INO had a lower relative abundance of Leuconostocaceae (42.3 vs. 95.8 ± 4.64) and higher Lactobacillaceae (57.4 vs. 3.9 ± 4.65) versus CON. Despite several differences were found between BKT and BG, both techniques can be comparable for characterizing effects of INO on the most basic measures used in silage evaluation. The use of inoculant improved oat silage quality partially by a shift in the bacterial community composition during ensiling, which mainly consisted of an increased relative abundance of Lactobacillaceae and reduction of Leuconostocaceae relative to CON.

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.2016-11642

Cites

61 of 61 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Hall, M. B. 2000. Neutral detergent-solubles carbohydrates nutritional relevance and analysis: A laboratory manual. University of Florida IFAS Extension Bulletin 339.
  2. Kung, L., M. R. Stokes, and C. Lin. 2003. Silage additives. Pages 305360 in Silage Science and Technology. D. R. Buxton, R. E. Muck, and H. J. Harrison, ed. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
  3. Muck, R., and L. Kung Jr. 2007. Silage production. Pages 617-633 in Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture. Vol. 2.
  4. Nishino, N. 2015. New trends in silage technology. Pages 52-65 in Proc. XVII International Silage Conference. ESALQ USP, Piracicaba, Brazil.
  5. Scudamore, K. A., and C. T. Livesey. 1998. Occurrence and significance of mycotoxins in forage crops and silage: A review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 77:1-17.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Romero, J. J., Zhao, Y., Balseca-Paredes, M. A., Tiezzi, F., Gutierrez-Rodriguez, E., & Castillo, M. S.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • China Agricultural University (CN)
Corresponding author
Castillo, M.S.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2017-03
Volume
100
Issue
3
Pages
1812-1828
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2575852002
Cited by
105
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
16.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • North Carolina State University
  • Gyeongsang National University
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
oat silage, whole crop silage, silo type, silage inoculants, Lactobacillus buchneri, Pediococcus pentosaceus, silage fermentation, aerobic stability, mold count, yeast count, microbial community structure, lactic acid, dry matter recovery
MeSH terms
Animals, Zea mays, Fermentation, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Lactobacillus, Silage, Avena, 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