CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAgricultural Engineering and MechanizationCrop Yield and Soil Fertility

Lining bunker walls with oxygen barrier film reduces nutrient losses in corn silages

Open access
Lima, L.M., Dos Santos, J.P., Casagrande, D.R., Ávila, C.L.S., Lara, M.S., Bernardes, T.F.·2017·Journal of Dairy Science
DOI 10.3168/jds.2016-12129
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate 2 systems for covering corn silage in bunker silos. The first system consisted of a sheet of 45-μm-thick oxygen barrier film (OB, polyethylene + ethylene-vinyl alcohol) placed along the length of the sidewall before filling. After filling, the excess film was pulled over the wall on top of the silage, and a sheet of polyethylene was placed on top. The second system involved using a standard sheet (ST) of 180-μm-thick polyethylene film. Eight commercial bunker silos were divided into 2 parts lengthwise so that one-half of the silo was covered with OB and the other half with a ST system. During the filling, 3 net bags with chopped corn were buried in the central part (halfway between the top and bottom of the silo) of the bunkers (CCOR) in 3 sections 10 m apart. After filling, 18 net bags (9 per covering system) were buried 40 cm below the top surface of the 3 sections. These bags were placed at 3 distances from the bunker walls (0 to 50 cm, 51 to 100 cm, and 101 to 150 cm). During unloading, the bags were removed from the silos to determine the dry matter (DM) losses, fermentation end products, and nutritive value. The Milk2006 spreadsheet was used to estimate milk per tonne of DM. The model included the fixed effect of treatment (7 different locations in the bunker) and the random effect of the silo. Two contrasts were tested to compare silages in the top laterals (shoulders) with that in the CCOR (CCOR vs. OB and CCOR vs. ST). Three contrasts compared the corresponding distances of the silage covered by the 2 systems (OB50 vs. ST50, OB100 vs. ST100 and OB150 vs. ST150). Variables were analyzed with the PROC MIXED procedure of the SAS at the 5% level. The OB method produced well-fermented silages, which were similar to CCOR, whereas the OB system showed less lactic acid and greater pH and mold counts compared with CCOR. The ST method had 116.2 kg of milk/t less than the CCOR, as the OB system and the CCOR were similar (1,258.3 and 1,294.0 kg/t, respectively). Regarding the distances from the walls, the effects were more pronounced from 0 to 101 cm. The OB50 and OB100 silages had better quality and lower mold counts and DM losses than ST50 and ST100. The OB system reduced DM and nutrient losses at the shoulders in farm bunker corn silages compared with no sidewall plastic. The OB film should lap onto the crop for at least 200 cm so that 150 cm are covered outward from the wall.

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.2016-12129

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • Shoulder silage under an OB film on the walls was similar to that in the central core of the silo and significantly better than shoulder silage under the standard covering system, with lower counts of spoilage microorganisms, lower DM loss, and greater estimated milk per tonne of silage.

    “The shoulder silage under the OB film was similar to that in the central core of the silo (positive control) and significantly better than the shoulder silage under the standard covering system, with lower counts of spoilage microorganisms, lower DM loss, and greater estimated milk per tonne of silage.”

    From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Lima et al., 2017

    The Central Core of the Silo vs. Top Laterals section reports that OB shoulder silage was similar to core silage on most measured parameters, though it differed in lactic acid and yeast counts. The Corresponding Distances from the Wall section reports lower spoilage microorganisms and DM loss for OB silage at positions near the wall, and greater predicted milk at OB50 than ST50. The claim overgeneralizes these significant advantages to shoulder silage as a whole: most parameters did not differ at the farthest position, and greater predicted milk was significant only at OB50. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

2 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bernardes, T. F., R. A. Reis, M. K. Miyazaki, and A. P. T. P. Roth. 2009. Aerobic deterioration in corn silage covered with oxygen bar- rier film in stack silos. Pages 215-216 in Proc. 15th Int. Silage. Conf., Madison. U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, USDA-Ag- ricultural Research Service and University of Wisconsin-Madison, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences.
  2. Holmes, B. J. 2009. Software applications for sizing silos to maxi- mize silage quality. International Symposium on Forage Quality and Conservation, Piracicaba, Brazil.
  3. Muck, R. E. 2011. The art and science of making silage. Accessed Aug. 8, 2016. http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposium/ proceedings/2011/11-36.pdf
  4. Savoie, P., and J. C. Jofriet. 2003. Silage storage. Pages 405-468 in Silage Science and Technology. Vol. 42. D. R. Buxton, R. E. Muck, and J. H. Harrison, ed. Am. Soc. Agron., Crop Sci. Soc. Am., and Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lima, L. M., Dos Santos, J. P., Casagrande, D. R., Ávila, C. L. S., Lara, M. S., & Bernardes, T. F.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal de Lavras (BR)
Corresponding author
Bernardes, T.F.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Publisher
American Dairy Science Association
Published
2017-06
Volume
100
Issue
6
Pages
4565-4573
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3168/jds.2016-12129
OpenAlex
W2604510745
Cited by
15
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Crop Yield and Soil Fertility
Keywords
oxygen barrier films, ethylene vinyl alcohol, polyethylene film, nutrient loss, dry matter loss, silage fermentation, lactic acid, mold count, silage nutritive value, milk yield, corn silage, silage additives
MeSH terms
Ethanol, Animals, Animal Husbandry, Zea mays, Fermentation, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Nutritive Value, Oxygen, Plastics, Silage, Vinyl Compounds, Lactic Acid, Polyethylene, Food Storage

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