Cited by 272Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

Bacterial diversity and composition of alfalfa silage as analyzed by Illumina MiSeq sequencing: Effects of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and silage additives

Open access
Ogunade, I.M., Jiang, Y., Pech Cervantes, A.A., Kim, D.H., Oliveira, A.S., Vyas, D., Weinberg, Z.G., Jeong, K.C. +1 more·2018·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

The first objective of this study was to examine effects of adding Escherichia coli O157:H7 with or without chemical or microbial additives on the bacterial diversity and composition of alfalfa silage. The second objective was to examine associations between the relative abundance of known and unknown bacterial species and indices of silage fermentation quality. Alfalfa forage was harvested at 54% dry matter, chopped to a theoretical length of cut of 19 mm, and ensiled in quadruplicate in laboratory silos for 100 d after the following treatments were applied: (1) distilled water (control); (2) 1 × 10 5 cfu/g of E. coli O157:H7 (EC); (3) EC and 1 × 10 6 cfu/g of Lactobacillus plantarum (EC+LP); (4) EC and 1 × 10 6 cfu/g of Lactobacillus buchneri (EC+LB); and (5) EC and 0.22% propionic acid (EC+PA). After 100 d of ensiling, the silage samples were analyzed for bacterial diversity and composition via the Illumina MiSeq platform (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA) and chemically characterized. Overall, Firmicutes (74.1 ± 4.86%) was the most predominant phylum followed by Proteobacteria (20.4 ± 3.80%). Relative to the control, adding E. coli O157:H7 alone at ensiling did not affect bacterial diversity or composition but adding EC+LP or EC+LB reduced the Shannon index, a measure of diversity (3.21 vs. 2.63 or 2.80, respectively). The relative abundance of Firmicutes (69.2 and 68.8%) was reduced, whereas that of Proteobacteria (24.0 and 24.9%) was increased by EC+LP and EC+PA treatments, relative to those of the control (79.5 and 16.5%) and EC+LB (77.4 and 18.5%) silages, respectively. Compared with the control, treatment with EC+LP increased the relative abundance of Lactobacillus, Sphingomonas, Pantoea, Pseudomonas , and Erwinia by 426, 157, 200, 194, and 163%, respectively, but reduced those of Pediococcus, Weissella , and Methylobacterium by 5,436, 763, and 250%, respectively. Relative abundance of Weissella (9.19%) and Methylobacterium (0.94%) were also reduced in the EC+LB silage compared with the control (29.7 and 1.50%, respectively). Application of propionic acid did not affect the relative abundance of Lactobacillus, Weissella , or Pediococcus. Lactate concentration correlated positively (r = 0.56) with relative abundance of Lactobacillus and negatively (r = −0.41) with relative abundance of Pediococcus . Negative correlations were detected between ammonia-N concentration and relative abundance of Sphingomonas (r = −0.51), Pantoea (r = −0.46), Pseudomonas (r = −0.45), and Stenotrophomonas (r = −0.38). Silage pH was negatively correlated with relative abundance of Lactobacillus (r = −0.59), Sphingomonas (r = −0.66), Pantoea (r = −0.69), Pseudomonas (r = −0.69), and Stenotrophomonas (r = −0.50). Future studies should aim to speciate, culture, and determine the functions of the unknown bacteria detected in this study to elucidate their roles in silage fermentation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3168/jds.2017-12876

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 74 · Cited by 272

Authors
Ogunade, I. M., Jiang, Y., Pech Cervantes, A. A., Kim, D. H., Oliveira, A. S., Vyas, D., Weinberg, Z. G., Jeong, K. C., & Adesogan, A. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Gyeongsang National University (KR)
  • Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (BR)
  • Agricultural Research Organization (IL)
Corresponding author
Adesogan, A.T.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2018-03
Volume
101
Issue
3
Pages
2048-2059
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2778503203
Cited by
272
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 5
FWCI
22.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
United States - Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
alfalfa silage, bacterial diversity, bacterial community composition, Escherichia coli O157:H7, silage additives, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus buchneri, propionic acid, silage fermentation quality, Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Shannon diversity index
MeSH terms
Medicago sativa, Bacteria, Fermentation, Lactobacillus, Propionates, Silage, Escherichia coli O157, Microbiota

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