Cited by 425Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with homofermentative and facultative heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and the performance of dairy cows

Open access

Abstract

Forages are usually inoculated with homofermentative and facultative heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria (LAB) to enhance lactic acid fermentation of forages, but effects of such inoculants on silage quality and the performance of dairy cows are unclear. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of LAB inoculation on silage quality and preservation and the performance of dairy cows. A second objective was to examine the factors affecting the response to silage inoculation with LAB. The studies that met the selection criteria included 130 articles that examined the effects of LAB inoculation on silage quality and 31 articles that investigated dairy cow performance responses. The magnitude of the effect (effect size) was evaluated using raw mean differences (RMD) between inoculated and uninoculated treatments. Heterogeneity was explored by meta-regression and subgroup analysis using forage type, LAB species, LAB application rate, and silo scale (laboratory or farm-scale) as covariates for the silage quality response and forage type, LAB species, diet type [total mixed ration (TMR) or non-TMR], and the level of milk yield of the control cows as covariates for the performance responses. Inoculation with LAB (≥10 5 cfu/g as fed) markedly increased silage fermentation and dry matter recovery in temperate and tropical grasses, alfalfa, and other legumes. However, inoculation did not improve the fermentation of corn, sorghum, or sugarcane silages. Inoculation with LAB reduced clostridia and mold growth, butyric acid production, and ammonia-nitrogen in all silages, but it had no effect on aerobic stability. Silage inoculation (≥10 5 cfu/g as fed) increased milk yield and the response had low heterogeneity. However, inoculation had no effect on diet digestibility and feed efficiency. Inoculation with LAB improved the fermentation of grass and legume silages and the performance of dairy cows but did not affect the fermentation of corn, sorghum, and sugar cane silages or the aerobic stability of any silage. Further research is needed to elucidate how silage inoculated with homofermentative and facultative heterofermentative LAB improves the performance of dairy cows.

Overview

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.2016-11815

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 45 references

2 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 425

Metadata

Authors
Oliveira, A. S., Weinberg, Z. G., Ogunade, I. M., Cervantes, A. A. P., Arriola, K. G., Jiang, Y., Kim, D., Li, X., Gonçalves, M. C. M., Vyas, D., & Adesogan, A. T.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (BR)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Instituto Federal Goiano (BR)
Corresponding author
Adesogan, Adegbola T.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2017-06
Volume
100
Issue
6
Pages
4587-4603
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2600083889
Cited by
409
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 2
FWCI
4.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • United States - Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund (IS-4704-14)
  • University of Florida
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (2013-1)
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Mato Grosso (483724/2011)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › 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
lactic acid bacteria inoculation, homofermentative lactic acid bacteria, silage fermentation, silage quality, aerobic stability, dairy cow performance, milk yield, dry matter recovery, mold growth, butyrate, ammonia nitrogen, grass silage, legume silage, corn silage, sorghum silage, sugarcane silage, total mixed ration, feed efficiency
MeSH terms
Aerobiosis, Medicago sativa, Animals, Cattle, Zea mays, Digestion, Female, Fermentation, Poaceae, Lactation, Lactobacillus, Fabaceae, Silage, Lactic Acid, Saccharum, Sorghum

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