The DOI matches its Crossref record; 138 of the 145 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 65 of the 233 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives
Open accessAbstract
Additives have been available for enhancing silage preservation for decades. This review covers research studies published since 2000 that have investigated the efficacy of silage additives. The review has been divided into 6 categories of additives: homofermentative lactic acid bacteria (LAB), obligate heterofermentative LAB, combination inoculants containing obligate heterofermentative LAB plus homofermentative LAB, other inoculants, chemicals, and enzymes. The homofermentative LAB rapidly decrease pH and increase lactic acid relative to other fermentation products, although a meta-analysis indicated no reduction in pH in corn, sorghum, and sugarcane silages relative to untreated silages. These additives resulted in higher milk production according to the meta-analysis by mechanisms that are still unclear. Lactobacillus buchneri is the dominant species used in obligate heterofermentative LAB silage additives. It slowly converts lactic acid to acetic acid and 1,2-propanediol during silo storage, improving aerobic stability while having no effect on animal productivity. Current research is focused on finding other species in the Lb. buchneri group capable of producing more rapid improvements in aerobic stability. Combination inoculants aim to provide the aerobic stability benefits of Lb. buchneri with the silage fermentation efficiency and animal productivity benefits of homofermentative LAB. Research indicates that these products are improving aerobic stability, but feeding studies are not yet sufficient to make conclusions about effects on animal performance. Novel non-LAB species have been studied as potential silage inoculants. Streptococcus bovis is a potential starter species within a homofermentative LAB inoculant. Propionibacterium and Bacillus species offer improved aerobic stability in some cases. Some yeast research has focused on inhibiting molds and other detrimental silage microorganisms, whereas other yeast research suggests that it may be possible to apply a direct-fed microbial strain at ensiling, have it survive ensiling, and multiply during feed out. Chemical additives traditionally have fallen in 2 groups. Formic acid causes direct acidification, suppressing clostridia and other undesired bacteria and improving protein preservation during ensiling. On the other hand, sorbic, benzoic, propionic, and acetic acids improve silage aerobic stability at feed out through direct inhibition of yeasts and molds. Current research has focused on various combinations of these chemicals to improve both aerobic stability and animal productivity. Enzyme additives have been added to forage primarily to breakdown plant cell walls at ensiling to improve silage fermentation by providing sugars for the LAB and to enhance the nutritive value of silage by increasing the digestibility of cell walls. Cellulase or hemicellulase mixtures have been more successful at the former than the latter. A new approach focused on Lb. buchneri producing ferulic acid esterase has also had mixed success in improving the efficiency of silage digestion. Another new enzyme approach is the application of proteases to corn silage to improve starch digestibility, but more research is needed to determine the feasibility. Future silage additives are expected to directly inhibit clostridia and other detrimental microorganisms, mitigate high mycotoxin levels on harvested forages during ensiling, enhance aerobic stability, improve cell wall digestibility, increase the efficiency of utilization of silage nitrogen by cattle, and increase the availability of starch to cattle.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
91 No full text of the sources · 47 Sources not found · 29 Supported · 29 Own interpretation · 25 No basis given · 24 Partly supported · 5 Not checked yet · 4 Supported so far · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Assis et al. (2014) added 1 × 10 6 cfu of Lb. hilgardii per gram of corn forage, and this resulted in improved aerobic stability when compared with untreated silage after 90 but not 30 d of ensiling.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Other Obligate Heterofermentative LAB as Silage Additives
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Assis et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page unavailable) state that neither inoculant nor dose significantly changed aerobic stability; stability was greater at 90 than at 30 days because of ensiling period. Thus the paper does not report the claimed improvement from L. hilgardii compared with untreated silage at 90 days, although it did test the stated inoculation rate. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“although a meta-analysis indicated no reduction in pH in corn, sorghum, and sugarcane silages relative to untreated silages.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Oliveira et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Silage Quality results (page not supplied) report no pH effect for corn and sorghum silages, supporting that part of the claim. They also report that inoculation significantly reduced pH in sugarcane silage, contrary to the claim for sugarcane. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“These additives resulted in higher milk production according to the meta-analysis by mechanisms that are still unclear.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Oliveira et al., 2017 source
The Performance of Dairy Cows section reports that silage LAB inoculation increased milk yield by 0.37 kg/day (P < 0.01). The Conclusions specify homofermentative or facultative heterofermentative LAB and call for further study of how the inoculants increase dairy-cow performance, consistent with the citing sentence’s uncertainty about the mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In contrast, the reduction in butyric acid and ammonia-N and the increase in lactic acid from inoculation were unaffected by forage type.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Oliveira et al., 2017 source
In Silage Quality (page unavailable), the paper reports that inoculation increased lactate and reduced butyrate and NH₃-N. Its meta-regression identifies outcomes whose responses varied with forage type; these three are not among them, supporting the claim that their responses were unaffected by forage type. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Trends were observed for increased milk fat and milk protein concentrations for cows fed inoculated silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Oliveira et al., 2017 source
The Performance of Dairy Cows section reports that inoculation tended to increase milk fat concentration (P = 0.08) and milk protein concentration (P = 0.06). The Conclusions likewise describe a tendency toward higher concentrations of both. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The reduction in acetic acid by inoculation was significant for all crops except for alfalfa and other legumes.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Oliveira et al., 2017 source
The Silage Quality section states that LAB inoculation reduced acetate (acetic acid) concentrations in all forages except legume silages, with P < 0.05 for the reductions. This supports the stated exception for alfalfa and other legumes; no page number is provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A recent metaanalysis of 31 lactating dairy cattle studies indicated that inoculation with homofermentative or facultative heterofermentative LAB increased raw milk production (0.37 kg/d; P < 0.01)”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Oliveira et al., 2017 source
The Performance of Dairy Cows section reports that silage LAB inoculation increased milk yield by 0.37 kg/d (P < 0.01). The paper also identifies the inoculants as homofermentative or facultative heterofermentative LAB and states that 31 articles investigated dairy cow performance responses. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A recent meta-analysis of 130 articles revealed that the effects of these inoculants varied by crop”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Oliveira et al., 2017 source
The Abstract states that the meta-analysis included 130 articles on silage quality. The Silage Quality section identifies forage type as the most consistent factor affecting the response to inoculation and reports improved fermentation in grasses and legumes but not in corn, sorghum, or sugarcane. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Several organisms, including Lb. diolivorans (Krooneman et al., 2002) and Lb.reuteri (Sriramulu et al., 2008), have this capability”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Lactobacillus buchneri as a Silage Additive
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Krooneman et al., 2002 source
- Supportedcites Sriramulu et al., 2008 source
The Introduction reports that L. reuteri DSM 20016 utilizes 1,2-propanediol and converts it to propionate and propanol. The Discussion also reports the observed conversion. The cited paper therefore supports the part of the sentence attributed to Sriramulu et al.; page numbers were not supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“recently, Zielinska et al. (2017) reported that the novel strain Lb. buchneri A KKP 2047p was also able to metabolize 1,2-propanediol to propionic acid, and that this was facilitated in the presence of glucose and cobalamin.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Lactobacillus buchneri as a Silage Additive
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Zielinska et al., 2017 source
The Abstract identifies L. buchneri A KKP 2047p as able to metabolize 1,2-propanediol and says glucose facilitated its use for propionic acid synthesis. It also reports that cobalamin promoted the reaction yield in all tested strains; Section 3.2 reports that efficient propionic acid synthesis depended on cobalamin. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
- It may state two separate claims as one. 113
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
- Probably not a substantial claim. 18
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The recent meta-analysis, Oliveira et al. (2017) found that aerobic stability was not affected by inoculation nor was there any effect by crop.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Aerobic Stability
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Oliveira et al., 2017 source
The Silage Quality section reports that LAB inoculation did not affect aerobic stability (P = 0.27). Table 2 reports no significant effect of forage type on the inoculation-related difference in aerobic stability (P = 0.62). Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“with only a trend for increased DMI and no effect on feed efficiency”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Oliveira et al., 2017 source
The Performance of Dairy Cows section reports that LAB silage inoculation tended to increase dry matter intake (DMI; P = 0.08) but did not affect feed efficiency (P = 0.18). The paper identifies the inoculants studied as homofermentative or facultative heterofermentative LAB. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Inoculation reduced the pH of silages in temperate and tropical grasses and in alfalfa and other legumes, but not in corn, sorghum, and sugarcane.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Oliveira et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Silage Quality results report reduced pH in temperate and tropical grasses and alfalfa, and no pH effect in corn and sorghum. But they also explicitly report reduced pH in sugarcane silage, contrary to that part of the claim. The broader discussion says sugarcane fermentation was not improved; that does not establish that its pH was unchanged. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Santos et al. (2013) observed that corn silage inoculated with 1 strain of Lb. plantarum originally isolated from sugarcane silage lacked Listeria spp., whereas the untreated control and corn silages inoculated with other Lb.plantarum strains had Listeria spp.present.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Santos et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Maize Ensilage in Experimental Silos section reports Listeria spp. in control silage and silages inoculated with L. plantarum strains UFLA SLM41, SLM46, and SLM105. But the Discussion reports no Listeria in silages inoculated with two other L. plantarum strains, UFLA SLM08 and SLM45—not just one. The strain-selection section says the LAB strains originated from sugarcane silage. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Milk production increases by inoculation were not affected by forage type, inoculant species, or level of milk production.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Oliveira et al., 2017 source
The Performance of Dairy Cows section reports that LAB silage inoculation increased milk yield and that the response was independent of forage type, LAB species, and the control cows’ milk-yield level. Table 4 likewise reports no significant association of those factors with the milk-yield response. The finding is bounded by the forage types, LAB categories, and milk-yield groups examined in the meta-analysis. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Animal trials have also revealed that these bacteria have not only enhanced silage fermentation but also have improved milk production, daily gain, or feed efficiency”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Weinberg and Muck, 1996 source
Section 2.2 reports animal trials in which LAB inoculants significantly improved liveweight gain, milk production, and feed efficiency, while noting that these responses occurred less often than improvements in fermentation. Section 2.1 summarizes trials showing improvements in fermentation or animal performance. The claim describes findings from some trials, not a benefit in every trial. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Dry matter recovery was 2.8 percentage units higher in grass silages compared with untreated, unaffected corn and sorghum silages, and reduced by 2.4 percentage units in sugarcane silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Oliveira et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Silage Quality section reports that LAB inoculation increased dry matter recovery in temperate and tropical grass silages, had no effect in corn and sorghum silages, and reduced it in sugarcane silage. The passages available from our copy do not give the claimed forage-specific magnitudes of 2.8 and 2.4 percentage units; they refer instead to Figure 3 (page not provided). (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Ganzorig et al. (2016) isolated Lb. hilgardii and Lb.diolivorans strains that had antifungal activity that was deactivated after protease treatment, suggesting that the activity was associated with peptides.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Modes of Action of Obligate Heterofermentative Bacteria in Improving Aerobic Stability
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Ganzorig et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 'Isolation of LAB in Airag samples' section reports that L. hilgardii and L. diolivorans supernatants lost activity after protease treatment, suggesting peptide involvement. But the activity tested was antibacterial activity against E. coli, not antifungal activity; the paper does not support that part of the claim. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“however, the effects are strain-specific (Muck, 2004;Kleinschmit et al., 2005) and dose-dependent (Ranjit and Kung, 2000;Taylor and Kung, 2002;Filya et al., 2006).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Lactobacillus buchneri as a Silage Additive
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muck, 2004 source
- Supportedcites Kleinschmit et al., 2005 source
The citation to Kleinschmit et al. is attached to the strain-specific part of the sentence; other sources are cited for dose dependence. The Discussion reports different aerobic-stability outcomes for the two L. buchneri strains in year 1, and the Conclusions describe different results across the two years. Page numbers are not provided in our copy's passages. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites Ranjit and Kung, 2000 source
Ranjit and Kung (2000) is cited for the dose-dependent part of the sentence, not the strain-specific part. The Conclusions report a small improvement in aerobic stability at 1 × 10^5 cfu/g and a marked improvement at 1 × 10^6 cfu/g of L. buchneri in corn silage. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In a field summary involving 39 farms in Denmark, Kristensen et al. (2010) reported no detrimental effect of silage inoculated with Lb. buchneri 40788 on the intake, milk production, health, or reproduction of dairy cows.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Lactobacillus buchneri as a Silage Additive
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kristensen et al., 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Experimental Design section describes 39 Danish dairy farms and identifies the inoculant as L. buchneri NCIMB 40788. The Conclusions report no effect on milk production compared with the control, but the paper does not report corresponding findings for feed intake, cow health, or reproduction. The dietary-ration data do not establish an effect on intake. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Danner et al. (2003) reported that addition of Lb. brevis slightly improved aerobic stability (72 h until heating) when compared with untreated silage (40 h), but they added a very high dose (7 × 10 8 cfu/g of fresh forage), and improvements in stability were markedly better with Lb. buchneri (274 h).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Other Obligate Heterofermentative LAB as Silage Additives
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Danner et al., 2003 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report 40 h of aerobic stability for the untreated control and an inoculation dose of 7.0 × 10^8 CFU per gram of fresh forage. The Discussion reports 72 h for L. brevis and says L. buchneri produced the greatest stability. The retrieved passages do not establish the claimed 274 h value for L. buchneri. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“in 2 of the 4 cultivars the inoculated silage had a more homofermentative fermentation profile compared with the control; not surprisingly, this inoculant did not improve aerobic stability in any of the cultivars.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Aerobic Stability
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Thomas et al. (2013) source
In Fermentation Indices and Aerobic Stability (page unavailable), the paper reports that bacterial inoculant PRO lowered pH relative to control in two of the four cultivars, DBMR and MMR. Its fermentation measurements are consistent with a more lactate-oriented profile, and the same section explicitly says PRO did not improve aerobic stability compared with control. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Aerobic stabilities in the B. subtilis and combination treatments were more than 3-fold longer and twice as long, respectively, than in the untreated silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Bacillus Species
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Lara et al. (2016) source
In Experiment 2, the paper reports aerobic stability of 79 hours for B. subtilis silage, 54 hours for the combination, and 23 hours for untreated control silage. These are approximately 3.4 and 2.3 times the control value, respectively, matching the claim. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“After 96 d of ensiling, yeast counts were lowest in the B. subtilis treatment, whereas counts were similar in the other 2 treatments.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Bacillus Species
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Lara et al. (2016) source
Experiment 2 reports that the mini-silos were opened after 96 days and that yeast counts were lowest in the B. subtilis silage at opening (Day 0 of aerobic exposure). Table 2 shows counts of 1.6 for B. subtilis, versus 4.0 for untreated silage and 3.5 for the combined treatment; the latter two share the same significance letter. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In vitro ruminal digestion over 48 h measured by gas production was greatest for the Lb.plantarum treatment and intermediate for Lb.plantarum plus Sac.cerevisiae treatment.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Yeast
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sofyan et al. (2011) source
The Gas Production Kinetics section reports gas production during 48 hours of incubation and ranks L. plantarum highest (50.0 ml), followed by L. plantarum plus S. cerevisiae (48.2 ml). The Fermentability Evaluation section confirms that the in vitro test used rumen fluid and measured gas production. Page numbers are not provided in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Some failures may be due to competition from members within the epiphytic population; however, other failures suggest that the pairings of strains in some inoculants may need to be further refined (e.g., Thomas et al., 2013).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Thomas et al. (2013) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Forage Production and Ensiling section identifies PRO as a bacterial inoculant containing five species, and the Conclusions report that it did not improve aerobic stability. The paper therefore provides an example of a combination inoculant with a limited result, but it does not attribute failures to competition from epiphytic microbes or suggest refining strain pairings. The Fermentation Indices and Aerobic Stability section instead suggests lower acetate concentrations as a possible explanation for PRO’s failure to improve aerobic stability; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The combination inoculant produced the highest DM recovery, highest in vitro DM digestibility, and lowest ethanol concentrations, whereas Lb. buchneri alone produced similar characteristics to the untreated silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Sousa et al. (2008) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“After 21 d of ensiling, the Lb.plantarum plus Sac.cerevisiae treatment had the highest yeast counts and lowest clostridial counts.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Yeast
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sofyan et al. (2011) source
The Treatment section says the king grass silage was incubated for 21 days. Table 2 shows that the L. plantarum plus S. cerevisiae group had the highest average yeast count (5.7 × 10^6 cfu/g) and the lowest average clostridial count (1.8 × 10^5 cfu/g) among the inoculant groups. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Use of additives containing sorbate, benzoate, and mixtures thereof at sufficient dosages decrease ethanol concentrations of corn silage, thereby decreasing the formation of ethyl esters (Weiss et al., 2016).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Weiss et al. (2016) source
The discussion of ethyl ester formation reports that additives containing salts of benzoic and sorbic acids reduced ethanol concentrations, accompanied by lower ethyl ester levels. The Conclusions likewise state that reducing ethanol restricts ester formation and identify these additives or their mixtures, at sufficient quantities, as promising for corn silage. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“When a buffered propionic acid-based additive was applied to barley silage at 2 g/kg of fresh weight, levels of butyric acid declined (Kung and Ranjit, 2001;Kung et al., 2004), with a numerical decrease in ethanol content and improved aerobic stability of 244 h as compared with untreated silage (Kung and Ranjit, 2001).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kung and Ranjit (2001) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report negligible butyric acid in treated silage versus 0.64% in untreated silage. They say BP had no effect on ethanol concentration, rather than reporting a numerical decrease. The Discussion gives the application rate as 0.2% of fresh forage weight (2 g/kg) and says BP-treated silage remained stable for about 240 h longer, not 244 h; the improvement was not statistically significant. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites Kung et al. (2004) source
The Barley Silage methods describe a 0.2% fresh-weight treatment, equivalent to 2 g/kg. The Results and Discussion report less butyric acid with that treatment than in untreated silage. The ethanol and 244-hour stability claims are attributed to Kung and Ranjit (2001), not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Buffered propionic acidbased additives and ammonium hydroxide decreased ethanol concentration and improved aerobic stability of corn silage in a dose-dependent manner from 1 to 3 g/ kg of fresh weight, with the highest concentration resulting in significantly higher aerobic stability than the untreated silage (Kung et al., 2000).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kung et al. (2000) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Application of formic acid-based additives in mixtures with ammonium formate at 3 to 6 L/t to direct cut or wilted grass silages causes a drop in the pH by direct acidification, restricts fermentation of water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC), and reduces acetic acid concentration and proteolysis (e.g., Saarisalo et al., 2006;Conaghan et al., 2011;Seppälä et al., 2016).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Formic Acid-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Saarisalo et al. (2006) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Conaghan et al. (2011) source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Seppälä et al. (2016) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Addition of a product containing sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and sodium nitrite in the proportions of 200, 100, and 50 g/kg, respectively, decreased yeast count and ethanol content resulting in improved aerobic stability after 90 d of storage when applied at 2 L/t to high-moisture corn (i.e., 0.4, 0.2, and 0.1 g/kg of fresh matter of sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and sodium nitrite,”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Da Silva et al., 2015 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In contrast, addition of 1.0 g of potassium sorbate/kg of fresh matter has inhibited yeast growth, resulting in decreased ethanol content (Hafner et al., 2014) and improved aerobic stability of corn silage (Teller et al., 2012;Bernardes et al., 2014).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hafner et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports that 1 g of potassium sorbate/kg of wet forage reduced ethanol in corn silage by 58%. The Results say yeast counts in that treatment were generally below detection, but could not establish that they differed from the control; the claim that it inhibited yeast growth is therefore stronger than the evidence. The citing sentence attributes improved aerobic stability to Teller et al. and Bernardes et al., not to Hafner et al. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites Teller et al., 2012 source
The citing sentence attributes improved aerobic stability of corn silage to Teller et al.; its yeast-growth and ethanol claims are attached to Hafner et al. Experiment 2 specifies potassium sorbate at 0.1% of fresh forage weight, equivalent to 1.0 g/kg, and the Abstract reports improved aerobic stability compared with untreated silage. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bernardes et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Content and yield of milk true protein and nitrogen efficiency in milk N per unit of N intake were also increased (Broderick et al., 2007); however, this production response was not observed in a second trial.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Formic/Propionic Acid-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Broderick et al., 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In Trial 1, Table 3 reports higher milk true-protein yield and milk N per unit of N intake with ammonium tetraformate-treated alfalfa silage than with untreated alfalfa silage. Milk true-protein content was not significantly higher: both diets have the same significance letter in the table. The Conclusions also limit the production increase to one of two trials. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Likewise, compared with untreated alfalfa silage, Broderick et al. (2007) reported decreased proteolysis and, thereby, lower contents of soluble NPN, ammonia-N, and free AA-N in alfalfa silage treated with ammonium tetraformate (7 L/t).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Formic/Propionic Acid-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Broderick et al. (2007) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Forage Composition section (page unavailable) reports that alfalfa silage treated with 7 L/t of ammonium tetraformate had less NPN than control silage, principally because of reduced free amino acids, and estimates less protein breakdown. Our copy describes measuring ammonia but the available passages do not report that ammonia-N was lower in the treated silage. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“When fed to dairy cows, the daily DMI increased by 1.0 kg and the 3.5% FCM increased by 2.1 kg.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Formic/Propionic Acid-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Broderick et al. (2007) source
Table 3 (trial 1; page not provided) reports DMI of 24.0 kg/d for cows fed control alfalfa silage and 25.0 kg/d for those fed ammonium tetraformate-treated alfalfa silage. It reports 3.5% fat-corrected milk yields of 30.3 and 32.4 kg/d, respectively—an increase of 2.1 kg/d. These figures describe trial 1, not trial 2. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Several studies (Young et al., 2012;Windle et al., 2014) have shown that acidic proteases applied at ensiling are able to increase proteolytic activity and improve ruminal starch digestion.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Improving Animal Performance
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Young et al., 2012 source
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that adding proteases at ensiling increased soluble nitrogen, indicating additional proteolysis, and improved in vitro ruminal starch digestibility relative to untreated silage. The Conclusions (page unavailable) report increases in soluble protein, ammonia nitrogen, and starch digestibility; the enzyme-activity figure describes proteolytic activity at pH 3, consistent with activity under acidic conditions. The study tested corn silage under laboratory conditions, and the improvements depended on treatment and dose. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites Windle et al., 2014 source
The Conclusions report that applying an exogenous acid protease to whole-plant corn at ensiling increased proteolysis and improved in vitro ruminal starch digestibility compared with untreated silage. The Introduction also reports a similar earlier finding by Young et al. (2012). The measured improvement was in vitro digestibility, not digestion measured in animals. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, the enzyme-treated silage also exhibited decreased DM recovery and higher yeast counts, with no indication that the nutritive value of corn silage was improved.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Exogenous Enzymes
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Lynch et al. (2015) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Fermentation–Additive Treatment section reports higher yeast counts for both enzyme-only (ENZ) and enzyme-plus-inoculant (ENZ+FAEI) silages. The Conclusions report no improvement in nutritive value. But Table 5 shows significantly greater DM loss only for ENZ+FAEI, not ENZ alone, so decreased DM recovery is not established for enzyme treatment alone. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In other studies, less well-defined enzyme cocktails added in conjunction with a complex mixture of inoculants accelerated the post-ensiling decline in pH but failed to improve the growth performance of steers (Addah et al., 2016).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Exogenous Enzymes
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Addah et al., 2016 source
The Abstract reports that the enzyme-containing inoculant accelerated the decline in pH during ensiling but did not improve steers’ growth performance. The Conclusions identify a cocktail of four enzymes combined with three bacterial inoculants and report no growth-performance benefit. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Proteolysis occurs naturally during ensiling (Hoffman et al., 2011), but it requires as much as 10 mo for the protein matrix to be hydrolyzed to an extent that optimizes starch availability in corn silage (Ferraretto et al., 2014).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Exogenous Enzymes
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hoffman et al., 2011 source
The Hoffman et al. citation attaches only to the statement that proteolysis occurs naturally during ensiling. The Discussion calls proteolysis an intrinsic mechanism of high-moisture corn fermentation. The separate 10-month claim is attributed to Ferraretto et al., not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Partly supportedcites Ferraretto et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Discussion (page not available in our copy) report that in vitro starch digestibility of high-moisture corn increased from October to the following August and say this was likely related to disruption of the starch–protein matrix during ensiling. They do not establish that 10 months are required for hydrolysis to optimize starch availability, or that the finding applies to corn silage generally rather than high-moisture corn. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, improvements were observed when fibrolytic enzymes were added to mixtures of low-WSC barley straw and corn silage at ensiling (Guo et al., 2014), as well as to high-moisture, low-WSC tropical forages (Khota et al., 2016).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Exogenous Enzymes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Guo et al., 2014 source
- Supportedcites Khota et al., 2016 source
The Khota et al. citation applies to the tropical-forage clause, not the barley-straw and corn-silage clause. The Introduction (p. 4) describes tropical grasses as typically high in moisture, and the Discussion (p. 14) identifies low WSC in Guinea grass. The Fermentation Quality of Silages results (p. 11) report improved fermentation in fresh and wilted Guinea grass treated with cellulase. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The homofermentative LAB rapidly decrease pH and increase lactic acid relative to other fermentation products”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Formic acid causes direct acidification, suppressing clostridia and other undesired bacteria and improving protein preservation during ensiling.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Silages treated with one or more of these bacteria are often lower in pH, acetic acid, butyric acid, and ammonia-N but higher in lactic acid content and exhibit better DM recovery compared with untreated silages”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Muck and Kung, 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Those authors also observed that the combination of this strain with Lb. plantarum proved to be highly effective in ryegrass silages, as this treatment was able to eliminate Listeria DNA during ensiling.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Amado et al., 2012 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“That summary showed that treating sugarcane silage with obligate heterolactic acid bacteria resulted in higher concentrations of acetic acid, decreased numbers of yeasts, and improved aerobic stability compared with untreated silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Lactobacillus buchneri as a Silage Additive
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rabelo et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Silages treated with the Lb.hilgardii strains also had lower DM losses and lower concentrations of ethanol and butyric acid as compared with other treatments.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Other Obligate Heterofermentative LAB as Silage Additives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ávila et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Addition of Lb. brevis (strain DSM23231) alone or in combination with Lb. kefiri (strain DSM19455; application rates of 2 × 10 5 cfu/g) did not affect the concentration of acetic acid, surprisingly increased the numbers of yeasts, and had no effect on aerobic stability compared with untreated sugarcane silage”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Other Obligate Heterofermentative LAB as Silage Additives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Daniel et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Liu et al. (2014) reported that Lb. parafarraginis ZH1 and a commercial silage inoculant containing Lb. buchneri improved aerobic stability equally in oat silage stored at 30°C, but Lb. parafarraginis ZH1 provided better stability than Lb.buchneri in silage stored at 15°C.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Other Obligate Heterofermentative LAB as Silage Additives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Liu et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Concerns relative to large losses of DM from a heterolactic acid fermentation and negative effects on DMI due to high levels of acetic acid have generally been proven to be unwarranted.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Lactobacillus buchneri as a Silage Additive
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“At 14 d, no differences were present in concentrations of lactic and acetic acids between treated and untreated control, but at 28 d acetic acid was increasing and lactic acid was beginning to decrease in the Lb.buchneri treatment.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Other Obligate Heterofermentative LAB as Silage Additives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Driehuis et al., 1999 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Kleinschmit and Kung (2006b) did not detect 1,2-propanediol in corn silage treated with Lb. buchneri after 28 d of fermentation, but it was present at 42 d.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Other Obligate Heterofermentative LAB as Silage Additives
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kleinschmit and Kung, 2006b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“After 10 d of fermentation the aerobic stability was 22 h for untreated silage, whereas it increased to 42 h with Lb. buchneri and to 56 h with Lb. hilgardii.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Other Obligate Heterofermentative LAB as Silage Additives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Polukis et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“All treatments with P. pentosaceus and Lb.plantarum, including the mixtures with Lb. buchneri, had the most rapid drop in pH and the lowest DM losses.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Driehuis et al., 2001 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Polukis et al. (2016) added Lb. hilgardii CNCM I-4785 or Lb.buchneri 40788 to high-moisture corn at a final application rate of 6 × 10 5 cfu/g of fresh high-moisture corn.They reported that both organisms resulted in similar increases in production of acetic acid and 1,2-propanediol and lower numbers of yeasts when compared with untreated corn silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Other Obligate Heterofermentative LAB as Silage Additives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Polukis et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Oude Elferink et al. (2001) reported that this did not take place until glucose was depleted from growing medium.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Other Obligate Heterofermentative LAB as Silage Additives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Oude Elferink et al., 2001 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Schmidt et al. (2009) reported that when Lb. buchneri 40788 was added to alfalfa, 1,2-propanediol (as an indicator of lactic acid to acetic conversion) was not detectable after 5 d of fermentation but was present at 45 d.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Other Obligate Heterofermentative LAB as Silage Additives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schmidt et al., 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The meta-analysis by Kleinschmit and Kung (2006a) reports that aerobic stability of untreated corn silage was 25 h, whereas it was 35 h for corn silage treated with ≤100,000 cfu of Lb. buchneri/g of fresh forage, but 503 h for corn silage treated with >100,000 cfu of Lb. buchneri/g of fresh forage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Lactobacillus buchneri as a Silage Additive
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kleinschmit and Kung, 2006a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In 2 subsequent experiments, results similar to the first experiment were observed for the combination inoculant mixtures: more rapid pH declines and increased aerobic stability relative to the control.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Driehuis et al., 2001 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the published studies have investigated combinations with Lb. buchneri even though there are combination products where Lb. brevis is the obligate heterofermenter in the marketplace.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Yeast counts were decreased and aerobic stability was increased in all treatments containing Lb. buchneri, whereas P. pentosaceus and Lb.plantarum alone decreased aerobic stability.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Driehuis et al., 2001 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Relative to the control, all treatments containing P. pentosaceus and Lb.plantarum had higher lactic acid contents, whereas Lb. buchneri alone had lower lactic acid concentrations.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Driehuis et al., 2001 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Since Driehuis et al. (2001), more than two dozen peer-reviewed reports have been published using combination inoculants in various crops.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Driehuis et al., 2001 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Treatments with Lb. buchneri alone had a pH decline similar to the untreated control and DM losses similar to or greater than the untreated control.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Driehuis et al., 2001 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“With longer storage (120 d), a greater conversion of lactic acid to acetic acid occurred compared with the first experiment so that fermentation profiles with the combination inoculants were more similar to Lb. buchneri alone.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Driehuis et al., 2001 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“After 21 d of fermentation, DM losses in the Lb.buchneri alone treatments were always greater than those in the untreated control, whereas DM losses in the mixed inoculant treatments were intermediate between those of the untreated control and the positive control, P. pentosaceus and Lb.plantarum.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Driehuis et al., 2001 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the 90-d bag silos used for aerobic stability measurements, elevated acetic acid concentrations occurred only in the Lb.buchneri-alone treatments, whereas the mixtures had levels similar to the control; concentrations in the P. pentosaceus and Lb.plantarum treatment were lower than in control.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Driehuis et al., 2001 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Streptococcus bovis is a potential starter species within a homofermentative LAB inoculant.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another new enzyme approach is the application of proteases to corn silage to improve starch digestibility, but more research is needed to determine the feasibility.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Silage additives generally fall into one or more of 4 cat-egories based on their effects on silage preservation: (1) fermentation stimulants, (2) fermentation inhibitors, (3) aerobic deterioration inhibitors, and (4) nutrients and absorbents”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites McDonald et al., 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Kung et al., 2003a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lactobacillus buchneri is the dominant species used in obligate heterofermentative LAB silage additives.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“feeding studies are not yet sufficient to make conclusions about effects on animal performance.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is in contrast to obligate heterofermenters that produce other compounds from hexoses in addition to lactic acid.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Silage additives can have more than 1 mode of action based on the 4 categories above.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > INTRODUCTION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The genus Lactobacillus is divided into 4 groups known as the Lactobacillus buchneri group, the Lb.plantarum group, the Lactobacillus reuteri group, and the Lb.casei group”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > OBLIGATE HETEROFERMENTATIVE LAB
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hammes and Hertel, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the Lb.buchneri and Lb.reuteri groups contain obligate heterofermenters, but the former has been the sole source of obligate heterofermentative strains studied as potential silage inoculants.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > OBLIGATE HETEROFERMENTATIVE LAB
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lactobacillus buchneri was initially thought to be unable to further metabolize 1,2-propanediol to propanol and propionic acid.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Lactobacillus buchneri as a Silage Additive
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Heterofermentative (facultative and obligate) LAB belong to the Lactobacillaceae family and are from the genera Lactobacillus, Oenococcus, Leuconostoc, and Weissella”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > OBLIGATE HETEROFERMENTATIVE LAB
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hammes and Hertel, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Cobalamin is a cofactor of diol dehydratase, needed for the metabolism of glycerol to 1,3-propanediol and 1,2-propanediol to propionic acid”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Lactobacillus buchneri as a Silage Additive
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lee and Abeles, 1963 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This enzyme allows facultative heterofermenters to ferment pentoses, producing primarily lactic and acetic acids.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The facultative het-erofermenters differ from obligate homofermenters by possessing phosphoketolase.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, the production of acetic acid has been the most accepted explanation of how organisms from the Lb.buchneri group of bacteria increase the aerobic stability of silages; however, other modes of action may exist.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Modes of Action of Obligate Heterofermentative Bacteria in Improving Aerobic Stability
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The pH over the first 5 d was higher with Lb. buchneri inoculation compared with the untreated silage, whereas the combination inoculant produced a faster pH decline than untreated silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schmidt et al. (2009) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In both untreated silages, acetic acid was high (42 and 26 g/kg of DM) and the combination inoculant failed to increase acetic acid relative to untreated silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Aerobic Stability
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Adesogan and Salawu (2004) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The combination inoculant reduced aerobic stability (276 h) and had an intermediate DM recovery; it was the only treatment with a lactic-to-acetic acid ratio greater than 1.0.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Aerobic Stability
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Arriola et al. (2011) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, by using commercial strains in combination, improvements were observed in early fermentation from the P. pentosaceus and Lb.plantarum strains and improvements in aerobic stability with extended storage time from Lb. buchneri.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With such a broad spectrum of different species, with variations in relative rates of inclusion of species within inoculants, and with consideration for differences among strains of a given species, it should not be surprising that there are variations in results with combination inoculants.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It had the fastest rate of pH decline over 7 and 30 d; however, an inoculant from the same company containing P. pentosaceus and Propionibacterium freudenreichii performed similarly.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Arriola et al. (2015) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The inoculants with P. acidilactici and Lb.plantarum produced the highest DM recoveries as well as NDF digestibilities that were higher than that of the untreated silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Reich and Kung (2010) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“All 3 pairs resulted in silages with low or below detectable levels of yeasts and aerobic stabilities greater than 500 h compared with 180 h in the untreated control.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Reich and Kung (2010) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The inoculants with the Pediococcus strains produced the highest levels of acetic acid and lowest ethanol concentrations.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Silage Fermentation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Reich and Kung (2010) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The untreated control was aerobically stable (390 h); Lb. buchneri alone did not improve aerobic stability but had the highest DM recovery of all treatments.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Aerobic Stability
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Arriola et al. (2011) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Lb. buchneri population rose similarly in both inoculated treatments, achieving >10 8 cfu/g of alfalfa by d 5, whereas it remained low in the untreated silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Aerobic Stability
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schmidt et al. (2009) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“With one corn cultivar the inoculant was successful in improving aerobic stability, but in the other cultivar the inoculant reduced aerobic stability compared with untreated silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Aerobic Stability
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kang et al. (2009) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In laboratory silos at 95 d of ensiling, silage fermentation characteristics in the inoculated silage were more heterofermentative than the control, with a higher pH and lower lactic-to-acetic acid ratio.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Addah et al. (2012) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“After 60 d of ensiling, both S. bovis treatments reduced pH and ammonia-N and produced a more homofermentative fermentation relative to the other treatments.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Streptococcus bovis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ferreira et al. (2013) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“in high-moisture barley ensiled in bag silos after 5 mo of storage, the inoculated barley had higher yeast counts than untreated (by more than 100 fold), lower mold counts (4% of untreated), and below detectable levels of enterobacteria (compared with 4.4 log cfu/g in untreated; Olstorpe et al., 2010).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Yeast
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Olstorpe et al. (2010) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Yeast counts with 1 Sac.cerevisiae treatment (S1) were higher than the control, and S1 also aerobically deteriorated more rapidly than the control; the other 2 yeast treatments were similar to the control in yeast counts and aerobic stability.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Yeast
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Duniere et al. (2015) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The J121 strain isolated from high-moisture wheat has shown strong antifungal activity as well as activity against some gram-negative bacteria (Schnürer and Jonsson, 2011).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Yeast
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schnürer and Jonsson (2011) source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“intake was reduced with the diet containing the inoculated silage, but gain was similar between the 2 treatments; thus, gain per unit of intake was higher on inoculated silage (0.19 vs. 0.17; P < 0.03).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Addah et al. (2012) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The inoculated silage did not heat over 21 d of aeration, whereas the control heated at 7 d.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Addah et al. (2012) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is less clear that current combination inoculants can consistently improve animal production or production efficiency, as insufficient animal feeding studies have been published to draw a conclusion.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“some yeast species may be beneficial as inoculants in 2 different areas: inhibiting detrimental silage microorganisms and growing yeasts that are currently used as direct-fed microbials (DFM) to the cow.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Yeast
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The S. bovis strains reduced both gaseous and effluent losses, resulting in better DM recovery than from either the untreated or E. faecium-treated silages.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Streptococcus bovis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ferreira et al. (2013) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Propionibacterium acidipropionici alone increased acetic and propionic acids relative to the untreated control and produced silages with the least losses over a 5-d aerobic stability test as measured by CO 2 production.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Propionibacterium Species
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Filya et al. (2004) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, failures of combination inoculants may arise from either the natural population exhibiting significant Lb.buchneri-like activity or the Lb.buchneri strain in the inoculant failing for some reason to dominate the latter stages of fermentation.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Aerobic Stability
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“when Lb. buchneri was paired with P. acidilactici or Lb.plantarum, their in vitro NDF digestibilities were higher than that of the untreated silage, whereas the pairing of Lb. buchneri with P. pentosaceus produced silage with similar NDF digestibility to that of untreated silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Reich and Kung (2010) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The former combination reduced OM digestibility by 17 g/ kg in grass/clover silage relative to untreated, shifted VFA production toward acetate, and had no effect on methane production as a fraction of gas production.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ellis et al. (2016a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“With one corn cultivar the inoculant had no effect on in situ DM or NDF digestibility, whereas in the other cultivar the inoculant improved both DM and NDF digestibility.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kang et al. (2009) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As S. bovis is not as tolerant of low pH as lactobacilli, its population should decline after active silage fermentation, reducing the likelihood it will enter the rumen with silage.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Streptococcus bovis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In ryegrass baleage the latter inoculant increased OM digestibility by 20 g/kg relative to the untreated, with no effect on VFA production or methane as a fraction of gas production.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ellis et al. (2016a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In vitro and in situ digestibilities indicate that improvements in fiber digestion may be possible, but more work needs to be conducted to determine if similar improvements in fiber digestion occur in vivo.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Effects on Animal Production
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When the same additive was applied to silage at 22% DM, no improvement in aerobic stability occurred, as the butyric acid in the untreated silage inhibited yeast activity similarly to that of the additive in the treated silage (Knický and Spörndly, 2009).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Formic/Propionic
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Knický and Spörndly (2009) source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Various blends of benzoate, sorbate, or propionate in mixture with nitrite at 3 to 5 L/t have shown to be effective against yeast activity, resulting in decreased ethanol content and increased aerobic stability in a range of well-fermented, 30 to 45% DM silages (grass-clover, corn; Knický and Spörndly, 2009, 2011, 2015).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Knický and Spörndly (2009, 2011, 2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Nadeau et al. (2013) reported decreased DM losses and contents of ethanol and yeast by an additive containing formic/propionic/formate/benzoic/sorbic/glycerol at 3 L/t in both chopped (27 mm; forage harvester) and cut (85 mm; forage pick-up wagon) grass-clover silage in hard-pressed round bales (32-42% DM).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Formic/Propionic
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nadeau et al. (2013)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Results from these studies showed decreased numbers of clostridial spores and decreased concentrations of butyric acid and NH 3 -N.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Knický and Spörndly (2009, 2011)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Nadeau and Auerbach (2014)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Auerbach et al. (2016)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As the aerobic stability of the cut silage was much higher than in chopped silage of the control treatment (6.7 vs. 2.9 d), the additive improved aerobic stability compared with untreated only in chopped silage (11.3 vs. 2.9 d).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Formic/Propionic
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nadeau et al. (2013)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Yeasts were essentially eliminated (10 1 vs. 10 5 cfu/g) and ethanol content and DM losses decreased, whereas the aerobic stability was increased in both chopped (27 mm) and cut (85 mm) grass-clover silage stored in hard-pressed round bales and treated with an additive containing nitrite, hexamine, sorbate, benzoate, and propionate at 2 L/t (Nadeau et al., 2013).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nadeau et al. (2013)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The improved aerobic stability of the treated silages (average of 11.8 compared with 5.7 d in the untreated silages) prevented any decrease in in vitro rumen OM digestibility in the treated silages over a 14-d aeration period, whereas the digestibility of the untreated decreased from 83 at opening to 76%.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Formic/Propionic
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nadeau et al. (2011)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest that it may be possible to apply a DFM strain at ensiling, have it survive ensiling and multiply during feed out.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Yeast
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Recent research with this product applied at 2 L/t found improvements in aerobic stability of corn silage as soon as 1 d of ensiling, even though yeast counts were similar between the treated and untreated silages (Da Silva et al., 2017).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Da Silva et al., 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, compared with untreated silage, Nadeau and Arnesson (2016) reported increased live weight at birth (6.0 vs. 5.2 kg) and a tendency for increased LWG until weaning (442 vs. 409 g/d) in lambs suckling ewes fed grass-clover silage treated with an additive, containing sodium nitrite, hexamine, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and sodium propionate applied at 2 L/t.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nadeau and Arnesson (2016)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Carcass conformation and fat grade were also higher in steers fed the treated silage (Agnew and Carson, 2000).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Agnew and Carson, 2000 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“when potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate were applied separately at higher rates (1,000 and 2,000 g/t of fresh matter), their effects on aerobic stability in corn silage were similar, although potassium sorbate was more effective against yeast and mold activity during air exposure (Bernardes et al., 2014).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bernardes et al. (2014) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The additive decreased milk urea content (230 vs. 240 mg/L; P < 0.001) and tended to increase the excretions of purine derivatives in urine (115 vs. 95 g/d), suggesting an increase in the microbial protein flow to the duodenum.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nadeau et al., 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“When direct-cut formic acid-treated grass silage (3.3 L/t) was fed to 400-kg Charolais × Friesian steers, DMI increased from 7.4 to 8.4 kg/d and daily live weight gain (LWG) from 0.67 to 0.94 kg, resulting in an improved feed efficiency (kg of LWG/kg of DMI) by 26% (Winters et al., 2001).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Formic/Propionic Acid-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Winters et al., 2001 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Compared with untreated sugarcane silage, studies have shown decreased ethanol content and increased aerobic stability from calcium oxide treatment, but it increased concentrations of NH 3 -N and butyric acid, making it less desirable as a silage additive (Custódio et al., 2016;Jacovaci et al., 2017).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The additive increased silage intake, which resulted in an increased carcass gain from 0.17 to 0.35 kg/d when no concentrate was fed, but the benefits of the additive on DMI decreased as concentrate levels increased.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Agnew and Carson (2000) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similarly, the addition of this fibrolytic mixture with FAE to alfalfa at ensiling had minimal effects on ensiling and did not improve the nutritive value of alfalfa silage (Lynch et al., 2014).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Exogenous Enzymes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lynch et al., 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although fibrolytic enzymes can increase silage digestibility under some circumstances, excessive release of WSC can also decrease aerobic stability, as released sugars are rapidly used by spoilage yeasts and molds (Kung and Muck, 2015).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Exogenous Enzymes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kung and Muck, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The high-RUP diet had higher milk yield than the low-RUP diet (29.4 vs. 27.9kg), but DMI was not affected by RUP or silage treatment.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Salt-Based Additives.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nadeau et al., 2015b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Levels of ferulic acid activity during ensiling with FAE Lb. buchneri are low (T. A. McAllister, unpublished data), but long-term exposure to even low levels of enzymes that overcome the limitations of plant cell wall digestion could improve NDF digestibility.”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Bacterial Production of Enzymes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites T. A. McAllister, unpublished data
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, this same inoculant did not improve the feed efficiency of steers fed a finishing diet containing barley silage, possibly because barley silage comprised a much smaller portion of the diet (Addah et al., 2014).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Bacterial Production of Enzymes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Addah et al., 2014 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Inoculation of silage with an FAE-producing strain of Lb. buchneri increased the cell wall digestibility of corn silage (Kang et al., 2009) and improved the feed efficiency of growing steers fed barley silage (Addah et al., 2012).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Bacterial Production of Enzymes
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In studies that enable differentiation, the addition of fibrolytic enzymes to bacterial inoculants has had a positive effect on silage quality, increasing in saccosoluble NDF and improving feed efficiency in feedlot cattle (Zahiroddini et al., 2004).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Exogenous Enzymes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zahiroddini et al., 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Emerging tools in the fields of metatranscriptomics and metaproteomics may have the potential to measure and quantify these responses to enable selection of bacteria with these desirable properties and result in more consistent and predictable improvements in silage quality (McAllister et al., 2018).”
§ Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives 1 > Bacterial Production of Enzymes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McAllister et al., 2018 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Enzymatic profiles and activity of mixed enzyme preparations are often unpredictable, contributing to variable responses observed with these additives.
The paper relies on this without support.
The effects of silage additives on livestock are often more important to the producer to merit their use.
“the effects of these additives on livestock are often more important to the producer to merit their use”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Potassium sorbate possesses twice the antifungal activity of sodium benzoate.
“assuming potassium sorbate possessed twice the antifungal activity of sodium benzoate (Auerbach, 1996)”
The paper relies on this without support.
Enzymatic profiles and activity of mixed enzyme preparations are often unpredictable, contributing to variable responses observed with these additives.
“Enzymatic profiles and activity of mixed enzyme preparations are often unpredictable, further contributing to the variable responses observed with these additives.”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“the presence of undesirable microorganisms such as Clostridium perfringens can inhibit the growth of LAB, promote the production of butyric acid, and cause a deviation in the lactic acid fermentation route, which leads to protein degradation into NH3-N and consequently the loss of feed nutrients [34].”
From Cellulase Interacts with Lactic Acid Bacteria to Affect Fermentation Quality, Microbial Community, and Ruminal Degradability in Mixed Silage of Soybean Residue and Corn Stover (2021) · cites this paper as [34]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The goal of the initial stages of fermentation is to create an anaerobic (oxygen-free) environment to promote the growth of lactic acid bacteria, which are beneficial for preserving forage [1].”
From Influence of Ensiling Timing and Inoculation on Whole Plant Maize Silage Fermentation and Aerobic Stability (Preliminary Research) (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“and this is likely to be related to the observed increase in organic acids and the resulting decrease in pH value compared to the uninoculated ones [1].”
From Influence of Ensiling Timing and Inoculation on Whole Plant Maize Silage Fermentation and Aerobic Stability (Preliminary Research) (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In general, LAB competes with undesirable aerobic microbes for the water-soluble carbohydrates, and when their development prevails, it results in a drop in pH, limiting the occurrence of aerobic and basophilic microbes [6].”
From The Effects of Short-Time Delayed Sealing on Fermentation, Aerobic Stability and Chemical Composition on Maize Silages (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, their effects are not always consistent, probably because the success of the inoculants depends on biological processes that are affected by their interaction with the environment (Muck et al., 2018).”
From Effect of dry matter content on the microbial community and on the effectiveness of a microbial inoculant to improve the aerobic stability of corn silage (2022) · cites this paper as Muck et al., 2018
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, their effectiveness can be inconsistent.”
From Effect of dry matter content on the microbial community and on the effectiveness of a microbial inoculant to improve the aerobic stability of corn silage (2022) · cites this paper as Muck et al., 2018
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“because of their ability to produce acetic acid via the anaerobic conversion of moderate amounts of lactic acid to acetic acid and 1,2-propanediol (Oude Elferink et al., 2001; Muck et al., 2018).”
From Lentilactobacillus hilgardii Inoculum, Dry Matter Contents at Harvest and Length of Conservation Affect Fermentation Characteristics and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage (2021) · cites this paper as Muck et al., 2018
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“different conditions can influence the activity of LAB and their ability to alter silage quality (Muck et al., 2018), and heterofermentative LAB inoculants have not been consistently effective in improving aerobic stability as a result of the type of forage, the dry matter (DM) of the forage at harvest, variations in the application rate, and the temperature and length of conservation (Kleinschm”
From Lentilactobacillus hilgardii Inoculum, Dry Matter Contents at Harvest and Length of Conservation Affect Fermentation Characteristics and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage (2021) · cites this paper as Muck et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“Other molecules, including 1,2-propanediol are synthesized by certain species, the obligate heterofermentative Lactobacillus buchneri for example, and they improve aerobic stability [9].”
In the citing paper
“Indeed, the use of heterofermentative inoculant in maize silage under our experimental conditions increased the production of acetic acid and ethanol in treated silages, as previously reported [6,49].”
From The Effects of Short-Time Delayed Sealing on Fermentation, Aerobic Stability and Chemical Composition on Maize Silages (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“Reductions on lactic acid contents causes an increase in pH, triggering the degradation of the ensiled material [3,6].”
From The Effects of Short-Time Delayed Sealing on Fermentation, Aerobic Stability and Chemical Composition on Maize Silages (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“Although L. buchneri is the main species used in commercial inoculants to improve aerobic stability, some strains may produce biogenic amines, which is an undesirable characteristic (Nishino et al., 2007) that justify the research of other heterofermentative LAB (Muck et al., 2018).”
From Potential of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated From Different Forages as Silage Inoculants for Improving Fermentation Quality and Aerobic Stability (2020) · cites this paper as Muck et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“Silages that are characterized by low clostridial contamination and by low amount of yeast are aerobically stable for a longer period of time (Muck et al. 2018).”
From Trends in designing microbial silage quality by biotechnological methods using lactic acid bacteria inoculants: a minireview. (2019) · cites this paper as Muck et al. 2018
Citations
Cites
Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology
Brown, Tasker, S., Messick, J., & Neimark, H. (2010) · Springer: New York · Cited by 1,886
McDonald, P. (1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,473
(2003) · Agronomy Monographs · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr42 · Cited by 881
Pahlow, G., Muck, R. E., Driehuis, F., Elferink, S. J. W. H. O., & Spoelstra, S. F. (2003) · Agronomy Monographs · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr42.c2 · Cited by 877
Self-citationBacteriocins from lactic acid bacteria: Production, purification, and food applications
De Vuyst, L., & Leroy, F. (2007) · Microbial Physiology · doi:10.1159/000104752 · Cited by 708
Anaerobic Conversion of Lactic Acid to Acetic Acid and 1,2-Propanediol by Lactobacillus buchneri
Oude Elferink, S. J. W. H., Krooneman, J., Gottschal, J. C., Spoelstra, S. F., Faber, F., & Driehuis, F. (2001) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.67.1.125-132.2001 · Cited by 685
Ström, K., Sjögren, J., Broberg, A., & Schnürer, J. (2002) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.68.9.4322-4327.2002 · Cited by 627
Acetic acid increases stability of silage under aerobic conditions
Danner, H., Holzer, M., Mayrhuber, E., & Braun, R. (2003) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.69.1.562-567.2003 · Cited by 515
New trends and opportunities in the development and use of inoculants for silage
Weinberg, Z. G., & Muck, R. E. (1996) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.1996.tb00253.x · Cited by 509
Self-citationRanjit, N. K., & Kung, L. (2000) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(00)74912-5 · Cited by 429
Self-citationOliveira, 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., et al. (2017) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11815 · Cited by 409
Kleinschmit, D. H., & Kung, L. (2006) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(06)72444-4 · Cited by 356
Self-citationDriehuis, F., Elferink, S. J. W. H. O., & Spoelstra, S. F. (1999) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2672.1999.00856.x · Cited by 344
Kung, L., & Ranjit, N. K. (2001) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(01)74575-4 · Cited by 339
Self-citationDriehuis, F., Oude Elferink, S. J. W. H., & Van Wikselaar, P. G. (2001) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2494.2001.00282.x · Cited by 314
Valerio, F., Lavermicocca, P., Pascale, M., & Visconti, A. (2004) · FEMS Microbiology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.2004.tb09494.x · Cited by 275
Hoffman, P. C., Esser, N. M., Shaver, R. D., Coblentz, W. K., Scott, M. P., Bodnar, A. L., Schmidt, R. J., & Charley, R. C. (2011) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3562 · Cited by 249
The effects of various antifungal additives on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage
Kleinschmit, D. H., Schmidt, R. J., & Kung, L. (2005) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(05)72889-7 · Cited by 233
Self-citationKung, L., Robinson, J. R., Ranjit, N. K., Chen, J. H., Golt, C. M., & Pesek, J. D. (2000) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(00)75020-x · Cited by 226
Self-citationKrooneman, J., Faber, F., Alderkamp, A. C., Elferink, S. J. H. W. O., Driehuis, F., Cleenwerck, I., Swings, J., Gottschal, J. C., & Vancanneyt, M. (2002) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/00207713-52-2-639 · Cited by 226
Kung, L., Taylor, C. C., Lynch, M. P., & Neylon, J. M. (2003) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(03)73611-x · Cited by 209
Self-citationChallenges and advances in the heterologous expression of cellulolytic enzymes: a review
Lambertz, C., Garvey, M., Klinger, J., Heesel, D., Klose, H., Fischer, R., & Commandeur, U. (2014) · Biotechnology for Biofuels · doi:10.1186/s13068-014-0135-5 · Cited by 206
Proteolysis in ensiled forage legumes that vary in tannin concentration
Albrecht, K. A., & Muck, R. E. (1991) · Crop Science · doi:10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183x003100020048x · Cited by 199
Self-citationPurification and properties of dioldehydrase, an enzyme requiring a cobamide coenzyme
Lee, H. A., & Abeles, R. H. (1963) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1016/s0021-9258(19)67979-2 · Cited by 194
Metabolite profiles of lactic acid bacteria in grass silage
Broberg, A., Jacobsson, K., Ström, K., & Schnürer, J. (2007) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.02939-06 · Cited by 176
Sriramulu, D. D., Liang, M., Hernandez-Romero, D., Raux-Deery, E., Lünsdorf, H., Parsons, J. B., Warren, M. J., & Prentice, M. B. (2008) · Journal of Bacteriology · doi:10.1128/jb.01535-07 · Cited by 166
Reich, L. J., & Kung, L. (2010) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.06.002 · Cited by 163
Self-citationSilage review: Using molecular approaches to define the microbial ecology of silage
McAllister, T. A., Dunière, L., Drouin, P., Xu, S., Wang, Y., Munns, K., & Zaheer, R. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13704 · Cited by 162
Self-citationContreras-Govea, F. E., Muck, R. E., Mertens, D. R., & Weimer, P. J. (2011) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.09.015 · Cited by 161
Self-citationSchmidt, R. J., & Kung, L. (2010) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2555 · Cited by 151
Self-citationKristensen, N. B., Sloth, K. H., Højberg, O., Spliid, N. H., Jensen, C., & Thøgersen, R. (2010) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3136 · Cited by 147
Kleinschmit, D. H., & Kung, L. (2006) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(06)72443-2 · Cited by 140
Self-citationFilya, I. (2003) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.02081.x · Cited by 138
Taylor, C. C., Ranjit, N. J., Mills, J. A., Neylon, J. M., & Kung, L. (2002) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(02)74253-7 · Cited by 137
Self-citationTaylor, C. C., & Kung, L. (2002) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(02)74222-7 · Cited by 136
Self-citationTabacco, E., Piano, S., Revello-Chion, A., & Borreani, G. (2011) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4286 · Cited by 135
Woolford, M. K. (1975) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740260214 · Cited by 133
Schmidt, R. J., Hu, W., Mills, J. A., & Kung, L. (2009) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1701 · Cited by 132
Self-citationWeinberg, Z. G., Muck, R. E., & Weimer, P. J. (2003) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.01942.x · Cited by 131
Self-citationKhota, W., Pholsen, S., Higgs, D., & Cai, Y. (2016) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11180 · Cited by 130
Arriola, K. G., Kim, S. C., & Adesogan, A. T. (2011) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3807 · Cited by 129
The use of Lactobacillus species as starter cultures for enhancing the quality of sugar cane silage
Ávila, C. L. S., Carvalho, B. F., Pinto, J. C., Duarte, W. F., & Schwan, R. F. (2014) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6987 · Cited by 125
Nsereko, V. L., Smiley, B. K., Rutherford, W. M., Spielbauer, A., Forrester, K. J., Hettinger, G. H., Harman, E. K., & Harman, B. R. (2008) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.06.039 · Cited by 124
Weiss, K., Kroschewski, B., & Auerbach, H. (2016) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10323 · Cited by 124
Zahiroddini, H., Baah, J., Absalom, W., & McAllister, T. A. (2004) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.08.013 · Cited by 120
Self-citationRaffrenato, E., Fievisohn, R., Cotanch, K. W., Grant, R. J., Chase, L. E., & Van Amburgh, M. E. (2017) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2016-12364 · Cited by 114
Lactobacillus Molecular Biology: From Genomics to Probiotics
Ljungh, Å., & Wadström, T. (2009) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 111
Red clover extracts inhibit legume proteolysis
Jones, B. A., Muck, R. E., & Hatfleld, R. D. (1995) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740670309 · Cited by 104
Self-citationHuisden, C. M., Adesogan, A. T., Kim, S. C., & Ososanya, T. (2009) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1546 · Cited by 100
Ranjit, N. K., Taylor, C. C., & Kung Jr, L. (2002) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2494.2002.00304.x · Cited by 97
Self-citationEffects of corn silage inoculants on aerobic stability
Muck, R. E. (2004) · Transactions of the ASAE · doi:10.13031/2013.16571 · Cited by 95
Self-citationFilya, I., Sucu, E., & Karabulut, A. (2004) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02367.x · Cited by 93
Flythe, M. D., & Russell, J. B. (2004) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1016/s0168-6496(03)00259-9 · Cited by 85
Kung, L., Stokes, M. R., & Lin, C. J. (2003) · Agronomy Monographs · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr42.c7 · Cited by 85
Self-citationAddah, W., Baah, J., Okine, E. K., & McAllister, T. A. (2012) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/jas.2011-4085 · Cited by 84
Self-citationKang, T. W., Adesogan, A. T., Kim, S. C., & Lee, S. S. (2009) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0780 · Cited by 81
Weinberg, Z. G., Szakacs, G., Ashbell, G., & Hen, Y. (1999) · Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/sj.jim.2900726 · Cited by 79
Ferraretto, L. F., Taysom, K., Taysom, D. M., Shaver, R. D., & Hoffman, P. C. (2014) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7680 · Cited by 79
Filya, I., Sucu, E., & Karabulut, A. (2006) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03038.x · Cited by 79
Teller, R. S., Schmidt, R. J., Whitlow, L. W., & Kung, L. (2012) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4610 · Cited by 77
Self-citationThe effect of a chemical additive on the fermentation and aerobic stability of high-moisture corn
Da Silva, T. C., Smith, M. L., Barnard, A. M., & Kung, L. (2015) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9640 · Cited by 74
Self-citationEllis, J. L., Hindrichsen, I. K., Klop, G., Kinley, R. D., Milora, N., Bannink, A., & Dijkstra, J. (2016) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10754 · Cited by 74
Ellis, J. L., Bannink, A., Hindrichsen, I. K., Kinley, R. D., Pellikaan, W. F., Milora, N., & Dijkstra, J. (2015) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.10.016 · Cited by 72
Selection of tropical lactic acid bacteria for enhancing the quality of maize silage
Santos, A. O., Ávila, C. L. S., & Schwan, R. F. (2013) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6782 · Cited by 72
Lynch, J. P., Jin, L., Lara, E. C., Baah, J., & Beauchemin, K. A. (2014) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.03.013 · Cited by 71
Lara, E. C., Basso, F. C., de Assis, F. B., Souza, F. A., Berchielli, T. T., & Reis, R. A. (2016) · Animal Production Science · doi:10.1071/an14686 · Cited by 71
Winters, A. L., Fychan, R., & Jones, R. (2001) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2494.2001.00265.x · Cited by 70
Settanni, L., Massitti, O., Van Sinderen, D., & Corsetti, A. (2005) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02647.x · Cited by 70
Howard, C. J., Kumar, A., Malkina, I., Mitloehner, F., Green, P. G., Flocchini, R. G., & Kleeman, M. J. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es902864u · Cited by 69
Lynch, J. P., Baah, J., & Beauchemin, K. A. (2015) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8768 · Cited by 69
Nadeau, E. M., Russell, J. R., & Buxton, D. R. (2000) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/2000.78112980x · Cited by 69
Self-citationNadeau, E. (2007) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.2773 · Cited by 68
Self-citationArriola, K. G., Queiroz, O. C. M., Romero, J. J., Casper, D., Muniz, E., Hamie, J., & Adesogan, A. T. (2015) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8411 · Cited by 67
Dehghani, M. R., Weisbjerg, M. R., Hvelplund, T., & Kristensen, N. B. (2012) · Livestock Science · doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2012.07.031 · Cited by 61
Seppälä, A., Heikkilä, T., Mäki, M., & Rinne, M. (2016) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/gfs.12221 · Cited by 60
Johanningsmeier, S. D., & McFeeters, R. F. (2013) · Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.fm.2013.03.004 · Cited by 60
Kung, L., Myers, C. L., Neylon, J. M., Taylor, C. C., Lazartic, J., Mills, J. A., & Whiter, A. G. (2004) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(04)73280-4 · Cited by 60
Self-citationGandra, J. R., Oliveira, E. R., Takiya, C. S., Goes, R. H. T. B., Paiva, P. G., Oliveira, K. M. P., Gandra, E. R. S., Orbach, N. D., & Haraki, H. M. C. (2016) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.02.020 · Cited by 60
Adesogan, A. T., & Salawu, M. B. (2004) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.1745 · Cited by 58
Broderick, G. A., Brito, A. F., & Colmenero, J. J. O. (2007) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(07)71624-7 · Cited by 58
Lindqvist, H., Nadeau, E., & Jensen, S. K. (2012) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.2011.00827.x · Cited by 57
Self-citationThomas, M. E., Foster, J. L., McCuistion, K. C., Redmon, L. A., & Jessup, R. W. (2013) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6635 · Cited by 57
Expression of a fungal ferulic acid esterase in alfalfa modifies cell wall digestibility
Badhan, A., Jin, L., Wang, Y., Han, S., Kowalczys, K., Brown, D. C., Ayala, C. J., Latoszek-Green, M., Miki, B., Tsang, A., et al. (2014) · Biotechnology for Biofuels · doi:10.1186/1754-6834-7-39 · Cited by 57
Self-citationMari, L. J., Schmidt, R. J., Nussio, L. G., Hallada, C. M., & Kung, L. (2009) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1700 · Cited by 56
Self-citationWindle, M. C., Walker, N., & Kung, L. (2014) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7586 · Cited by 55
Self-citationNkosi, B. D., Meeske, R., van der Merwe, H. J., & Groenewald, I. B. (2010) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.03.008 · Cited by 54
Olstorpe, M., Borling, J., Schnürer, J., & Passoth, V. (2010) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.12.008 · Cited by 53
Bernardes, T. F., De Oliveira, I. L., Lara, M. A. S., Casagrande, D. R., Ávila, C. L. S., & Pereira, O. G. (2015) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/gfs.12133 · Cited by 52
Liu, Q. H., Yang, F. Y., Zhang, J. G., & Shao, T. (2014) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/jam.12530 · Cited by 51
Duniere, L., Jin, L., Smiley, B., Qi, M., Rutherford, W., Wang, Y., & McAllister, T. (2015) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/jas.2014-8287 · Cited by 50
Self-citationGuo, G., Yuan, X., Li, L., Wen, A., & Shao, T. (2014) · Grassland Science · doi:10.1111/grs.12060 · Cited by 49
Tian, J., Yu, Y., Yu, Z., Shao, T., Na, R., & Zhao, M. (2014) · Grassland Science · doi:10.1111/grs.12059 · Cited by 49
Ferreira, D. D. J., Lana, R. D. P., Zanine, A. D. M., Santos, E. M., Veloso, C. M., & Ribeiro, G. A. (2013) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.04.020 · Cited by 49
The ensiling capability of a mixture of sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and sodium nitrite
Knicky, M., & Spörndly, R. (2011) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3364 · Cited by 47
Wang, Y., Barbieri, L. R., Berg, B. P., & McAllister, T. A. (2007) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.07.002 · Cited by 47
Self-citationZielińska, K., Fabiszewska, A., Świątek, M., & Szymanowska-Powałowska, D. (2017) · Electronic Journal of Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.ejbt.2017.01.002 · Cited by 46
Jin, L., Duniere, L., Lynch, J. P., McAllister, T. A., Baah, J., & Wang, Y. (2015) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.06.011 · Cited by 44
Self-citationNkosi, B. D., Meeske, R., Palic, D., Langa, T., Leeuw, K.-J., & Groenewald, I. B. (2009) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.09.009 · Cited by 44
Effect of exogenous protease enzymes on the fermentation and nutritive value of corn silage
Young, K. M., Lim, J. M., Der Bedrosian, M. C., & Kung, L. (2012) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2012-5628 · Cited by 44
Self-citationProbiotic properties of Enterococcus faecium ef9296 strain isolated from silage
Marciňáková, M., Simonová, M., & Lauková, A. (2004) · Acta Veterinaria Brno · doi:10.2754/avb200473040513 · Cited by 40
Pedroso, A. D. F., Nussio, L. G., Barioni, W., Rodrigues, A. D. A., Loures, D. R. S., de Campos, F. P., Ribeiro, J. L., Mari, L. J., Zopollatto, M., Junqueira, M. C., et al. (2006) · Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira · doi:10.1590/s0100-204x2006000400015 · Cited by 40
Amado, I. R., Fuciños, C., Fajardo, P., Guerra, N. P., & Pastrana, L. (2012) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.05.006 · Cited by 35
Sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate and sodium nitrite as silage additives
Knický, M., & Spörndly, R. (2009) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.3771 · Cited by 35
Selection and application of Streptococcus bovis as a silage inoculant
Jones, B. A., Muck, R. E., & Ricke, S. C. (1991) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.57.10.3000-3005.1991 · Cited by 35
Self-citationPichia anomala J121: A 30-year overnight near success biopreservation story
Schnürer, J., & Jonsson, A. (2011) · Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · doi:10.1007/s10482-010-9509-2 · Cited by 34
Addah, W., Baah, J., Okine, E. K., Owens, F. N., & McAllister, T. A. (2014) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.07.012 · Cited by 34
Self-citationJalč, D., Lauková, A., Váradyová, Z., Homolka, P., & Koukolová, V. (2009) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2008.11.004 · Cited by 34
Phylogenesis and Evolution of Lactic Acid Bacteria
Sun, Z., Yu, J. Z., Tong, D., Zhang, W., & Zhang, H. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8841-0_1 · Cited by 31
Potassium sorbate reduces production of ethanol and 2 esters in corn silage
Hafner, S. D., Franco, R. B., Kung, L., Rotz, C. A., & Mitloehner, F. (2014) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8537 · Cited by 30
Self-citationKnický, M., & Spörndly, R. (2015) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9332 · Cited by 29
Queiroz, O. C. M., Nussio, L. G., Schmidt, P., Ribeiro, J. L., Santos, M. C., & Zopollatto, M. (2008) · Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia · doi:10.1590/s1516-35982008000200024 · Cited by 29
Self-citationShao, T., Zhang, L., Shimojo, M., & Masuda, Y. (2007) · Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences · doi:10.5713/ajas.2007.1699 · Cited by 28
Pryce, J. E., González-Recio, Ó., Thornhill, J. B., Marett, L. C., Wales, W. J., Coffey, M. P., de Haas, Y., Veerkamp, R. F., & Hayes, B. J. (2013) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7376 · Cited by 28
Jacovaci, F. A., Jobim, C. C., Schmidt, P., Nussio, L. G., & Daniel, J. L. P. (2017) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.01.005 · Cited by 25
Jin, L., Dunière, L., Lynch, J. P., Zaheer, R., Turkington, K., Blackshaw, R. E., Lupwayi, N. Z., O’Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., McAllister, T. A., et al. (2016) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/gfs.12217 · Cited by 24
Self-citationDaniel, J. L. P., Checolli, M., Zwielehner, J., Junges, D., Fernandes, J., & Nussio, L. G. (2015) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.04.015 · Cited by 23
Sousa, D. D. P., Mattos, W. R. S., Nussio, L. G., Mari, L. J., Ribeiro, J. L., & Santos, M. C. (2008) · Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia · doi:10.1590/s1516-35982008000900007 · Cited by 23
Self-citationKönig, W., Lamminen, M., Weiss, K., Tuomivirta, T. T., Sanz Muñoz, S., Fritze, H., Elo, K., Puhakka, L., Vanhatalo, A., & Jaakkola, S. (2017) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/gfs.12276 · Cited by 23
Levital, T., Mustafa, A. F., Seguin, P., & Lefebvre, G. (2009) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.03.010 · Cited by 22
New inoculants on maize silage fermentation
Assis, F. G. D. V. D., Ávila, C. L. D. S., Pinto, J. C., & Schwan, R. F. (2014) · Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia · doi:10.1590/s1516-35982014000800001 · Cited by 22
SAARISALO, E., JALAVA, T., & SKYTTÄ, E. (2008) · Agricultural and Food Science · doi:10.2137/145960606779216263 · Cited by 22
Conaghan, P., O’Kiely, P., & O’Mara, F. P. (2012) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.2011.00833.x · Cited by 19
Jalč, D., Váradyová, Z., Lauková, A., Homolka, P., & Jančík, F. (2009) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.04.019 · Cited by 19
Tetracycline Resistance Patterns of Lactobacillus buchneri Group Strains
Feichtinger, M., Mayrhofer, S., Kneifel, W., & Domig, K. J. (2016) · Journal of Food Protection · doi:10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-15-577 · Cited by 18
Addah, W., Baah, J., & McAllister, T. A. (2016) · Canadian Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.1139/cjas-2015-0079 · Cited by 16
Self-citationGanzorig, O., Sumisa, F., Batdorj, B., & Yoshida, T. (2016) · Food Science and Technology Research · doi:10.3136/fstr.22.575 · Cited by 16
Possibilities to improve silage conservation
Knický, M. (2005) · Epsilon Open Archive (Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet biblioteket (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)) · Cited by 14
Custódio, L., Morais, G., Daniel, J. L. P., Pauly, T., & Nussio, L. G. (2016) · Grassland Science · doi:10.1111/grs.12124 · Cited by 13
Sofyan, A., Yusiati, L. M., Widyastuti, Y., & Utomo, R. (2011) · Journal of the Indonesian Tropical Animal Agriculture · doi:10.14710/jitaa.36.4.265-272 · Cited by 12
The effects of silage inoculants on the fermentation and aerobic stability of legume-grass silage.
Jatkauskas, J., & Vrotniakienė, V. (2011) · Zemdirbyste-Agriculture · Cited by 11
Agnew, & Carson (2000) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2494.2000.00205.x · Cited by 9
Effect of inoculated or ammoniated high-moisture ear corn on finishing performance of steers
Diaz, E., Ouellet, D. R., Amyot, A., Berthiaume, R., & Thivierge, M. C. (2013) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.04.007 · Cited by 7
Effect of Yeast Addition in Rice Straw Silage Fermentation
;;;;;;;; (2006) · Journal of Animal Science and Technology · doi:10.5187/jast.2006.48.5.691 · Cited by 7
Silage extracts used to study the mode of action of silage inoculants in ruminants
Muck, R., Weinberg, Z. G., & Contreras-Govea, F. E. (2013) · Agricultural and Food Science · doi:10.23986/afsci.6717 · Cited by 5
Self-citationSavage, R. M. (2014) · 2014 ADSA-ASAS-CSAS Joint Annual Meeting · Cited by 5
(2010) · Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) · Cited by 4
0678 The effect of two microbial inoculants on the aerobic stability of high-moisture corn
Polukis, S. A., Smith, M. L., Savage, R. M., Benjamim da Silva, E., Laubach, A. E., Gray, A. M., & Kung, L. (2016) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/jam2016-0678 · Cited by 3
Self-citationDaughtry, K. V. (2015) · NCSU Libraries Repository (North Carolina State University Libraries) · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Auerbach, 1996, Landbauforschung Völkenrode Sonderheft, 168, 1
- Da Silva, 2017, Effectiveness of a chemical additive on improving the aerobic stability of corn silage after short periods of ensiling, J. Dairy Sci., 100, 263
- Hammes, 2009, Genus Lactobacillus beijerinck 1901, 212AL. The Firmicutes, Vol. 3, 465
- Hofherr, 2008, Effect of a microbial inoculant producing ferulic acid esterase on the fermentation and NDF digestibility of normal and BMR corn silages, J. Dairy Sci., 91, 32
- Kendall, 2002, Performance of dairy cattle fed high moisture shelled corn inoculated with Lactobacillus buchneri, J. Dairy Sci., 85, 385
- Nadeau, 2016, Intake and performance of ewes and lambs fed grass-clover silage treated with chemical additives, Grassl. Sci. Eur., 21, 479
- Nadeau, 2015, Protein quality of grass silage as affected by silage additives and its effects on dairy cow performance, J. Dairy Sci., 98, 206
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages
Borreani, G., Tabacco, E., Schmidt, R. J., Holmes, B. J., & Muck, R. E. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13837 · Cited by 802
Self-citationSilage review: Animal and human health risks from silage
Driehuis, F., Wilkinson, J. M., Jiang, Y., Ogunade, I. M., & Adesogan, A. T. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13836 · Cited by 267
Okoye, C. O., Wang, Y., Gao, L., Wu, Y., Li, X., Sun, J., & Jiang, J. (2022) · Microbiological Research · doi:10.1016/j.micres.2022.127212 · Cited by 253
Silage review: Foodborne pathogens in silage and their mitigation by silage additives
Queiroz, O. C. M., Ogunade, I. M., Weinberg, Z., & Adesogan, A. T. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13901 · Cited by 213
“Therefore, more detailed reviews on the subject, such as that of Kung et al. (2003) and Muck et al. (2018), should be consulted before choosing an additive.”
BackgroundChen, Y., Vise, A. E., Klein, W. E., Cetinbas, F. C., Myers, D. J., Smith, W. A., Deutsch, T. G., & Neyerlin, K. C. (2020) · ACS Energy Letters · doi:10.1021/acsenergylett.0c00860 · Cited by 183
Metadata
- Authors
- Muck, R. E., Nadeau, E. M. G., McAllister, T. A., Contreras-Govea, F. E., Santos, M. C., & Kung, L.
- Affiliations
- Agricultural Research Service (US)
- Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
- Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- University of Delaware (US)
- Corresponding author
- Muck, R.E.
- Venue
- Journal of Dairy Science
- Publisher
- American Dairy Science Association
- Published
- 2018-05
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 3980-4000
- ISSN
- 0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2799791651
- Cited by
- 1,038
- References
- 145
- Citations by year
- 2026: 142 · 2025: 168 · 2024: 141 · 2023: 162 · 2022: 149 · 2021: 123 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 8
- FWCI
- 10.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- silage additives, silage inoculants, homofermentative lactic acid bacteria, Lactobacillus buchneri, aerobic stability, silage fermentation, formic acid, propionic acid, acetic acid, sorbic acid, benzoic acid, enzymes, direct-fed microbials, Streptococcus bovis, Propionibacterium, Bacillus, mold inhibition, silage pH
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Feed, Animal Husbandry, Fermentation, Food Additives, Lactobacillus, Silage, Livestock
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
