Cited by 54Mycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyPhytase and its Applications

The capacity of silage inoculant bacteria to bind aflatoxin B1 in vitro and in artificially contaminated corn silage

Open access
Ma, Z.X., Amaro, F.X., Romero, J.J., Pereira, O.G., Jeong, K.C., Adesogan, A.T.·2017·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

The objectives were to examine the aflatoxin B 1 (AFB 1 )-binding capacity of silage bacteria and factors affecting the responses. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the effects of bacterial strain and population on the AFB 1 -binding capacity of 10 bacteria. When applied at 10 6 cfu/mL to an in vitro medium, only Lactobacillus plantarum PT5B bound the AFB 1 and the binding capacity was low (4%). When applied at 10 9 cfu/mL, all 10 bacteria bound AFB 1 , but L. plantarum R2014 ( Lp ) and EQ12, Lactobacillus buchneri R1102 ( Lb ), and Pediococcus acidilactici R2142 and EQ01 ( Pa ) had the greatest capacity (23.9 to 33%). Experiment 3 examined the AFB 1 -binding capacity of viable and nonviable (HCl-treated) forms of Lp , Lb , and Pa at different pH. Nonviable Lb and Lp , but not Pa , increased AFB 1 binding. Binding of AFB 1 was greatest at pH 2.5 and least at pH 8. As the nonviable Lb and Lp that bound AFB 1 in experiment 3 would not be effective silage inoculants, experiment 4 examined effects of benign versus severe treatments (85 vs. 100°C; pH 2.5 vs. <1) on the viability of Lp , Lb , and Pa . The population of bacteria was reduced from 9 to 4 log cfu/mL by treatment with HCl at pH 2.5 and to 2 log cfu/mL by 85 or 100°C, whereas acidification at pH <1 eliminated the bacteria. Experiment 5 determined the effect of the ensiling duration and benign treatment methods [37 (viable cells) or 85°C (heated cells) or acidification with HCl at pH 2.5 (acid-treated cells)] on binding of AFB 1 and silage quality during the fermentation of corn forage. Corn forage was ensiled after treatment with only deionized water (control), AFB 1 (30 µg/kg of fresh forage), or a mixture of AFB 1 and 10 9 cfu/g of each of the treated bacteria. Adding AFB 1 alone to corn forage reduced the pH decline during the first 3 d of ensiling and increased or tended to increase butyric acid concentration and final pH after ensiling for 21 d. Bacterial inoculation inhibited these negative effects. The fermentation profile of silage treated with Lb and Pa did not differ from those of the control silage. In all silages treated with the toxin, the AFB 1 concentration decreased linearly (from 30 to ≤0.35 µg/kg) within 3 d of ensiling. Certain silage bacteria can bind AFB 1 but the efficacy depends on several factors.

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.2016-12370

Cites

43 of 43 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: 2

  1. Muck, R. E. 1996. A lactic acid bacteria strain to improve aerobic sta- bility of silages. Pages 42-43 in Research Summaries. U.S. Dairy Forage Res. Center, Madison, WI.
  2. Whittenbury, R. 1961. An investigation of the lactic acid bacteria. PhD Thesis, Dept. of Bacteriology, University of Edinburgh, Ed- inburgh, UK.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ma, Z. X., Amaro, F. X., Romero, J. J., Pereira, O. G., Jeong, K. C., & Adesogan, A. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Universidade Federal de Viçosa (BR)
Corresponding author
Adesogan, A.T.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2017-09
Volume
100
Issue
9
Pages
7198-7210
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2735717168
Cited by
54
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3
FWCI
5.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Phytase and its Applications
Keywords
aflatoxin B1, silage inoculants, mycotoxin binding, corn silage, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus buchneri, Pediococcus acidilactici, bacterial viability, heat treatment (food and biological processing), acid treatment, pH effect, silage quality, mycotoxin reduction, feed safety
MeSH terms
Pediococcus acidilactici, Animals, Bacteria, Zea mays, Fermentation, Lactobacillus, Silage, Aflatoxin B1, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum

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