The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 17 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The Effect of Delayed Ensiling and Application of a Propionic Acid-Based Additive on the Fermentation of Barley Silage
Open accessAbstract
Prolonged exposure to air can adversely affect the silage fermentation process. To investigate a possible method to overcome this problem, we determined if a buffered propionic acid-based additive, applied to chopped, whole-plant barley exposed to air before ensiling, would affect the subsequent fermentation. Wilted forage was chopped and treated with nothing, or with 0.1% (wt/wt wet forage) of a buffered propionic acid-based additive and ensiled immediately in quadruplicate 20-L laboratory silos. Portions of the chopped forage, untreated and treated, were left in loose piles in a barn for 24 h before ensiling. Another portion of the untreated silage exposed to air for 24 h was also treated with 0.1% of the additive just before ensiling. Prolonged exposure to air before ensiling increased the numbers of yeasts on forages by more than 1,000-fold. The concentrations of water-soluble carbohydrates decreased by more than 50%; the ammonia-N concentrations increased 40%, and pH increased by more than 1 unit as a result of exposure to air. These changes were less in forage that was treated with the additive at chopping. After 60 d, silages of forages that were exposed to air before ensiling had a higher pH, higher concentrations of ammonia-N and butyric acid, and lower concentrations of lactic and acetic acids than silages of forage that had been ensiled immediately after harvest. In situ DM digestibility was lowest in untreated silages that had been exposed to air before ensiling. In contrast, treatment with the additive, applied before or after exposure to air, prevented the reduction in in vitro digestion.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Delaying ensiling of chopped barley forage by 24 h increased yeasts, reduced water-soluble carbohydrates, and shifted fermentation toward clostridial end-products, lowering in situ DM digestibility. A buffered propionic acid-based additive applied before or after air exposure prevented the digestibility loss and improved some fermentation indices, but did not fully prevent the clostridial shift.
Key findings
- Air exposure before ensiling increased yeast numbers by more than 1000-fold, decreased water-soluble carbohydrates by more than 50%, increased ammonia-N by 40%, and raised pH by more than 1 unit; treating with the additive at chopping lessened these changes.
- After 60 d, air-exposed silages had pH values of 4.5 or more, ammonia-N of 0.199 to 0.250% versus 0.169% (C) and 0.159% (KI), butyric acid above 1.6% versus less than 0.05% for C and KI, and lower lactic acid (average 3.03% vs. 5.17 to 5.71%) and acetic acid.
- In situ DM digestibility was lowest in untreated air-exposed silage (64.7% vs. 71.7% for C); additive applied before or after exposure prevented this reduction. C and KI silages were aerobically stable for more than 130 h, while air-exposed silages were stable throughout monitoring, likely due to high butyric acid, propionic acid, and ammonia-N.
- The additive increased propionic acid in KI (0.27%) and KI-D24 (0.33%) versus undetectable in C; KI-DO had lower propionic acid (0.10%), suggesting some added acid was metabolized or volatilized during air exposure.
Methods
- Spring barley cut at early dough, wilted approximately 8 h, chopped to 0.95 cm, and treated with nothing or 0.1% buffered propionic acid-based additive (KI-112); treated and untreated portions were ensiled immediately in quadruplicate 20-L macro silos, while other portions were left in loose piles in a barn for 24 h before ensiling, with one untreated air-exposed portion treated just before ensiling. Silos were opened after 60 d.
- Analyses included DM, NDF, ADF, CP, starch, water-soluble carbohydrates, ammonia-N, organic acids, ethanol, pH, DM recovery, yeast and mold counts, aerobic stability by temperature, and in situ ruminal DM digestibility using Dacron bags in a fistulated steer. Statistical analysis used a completely randomized design with GLM, log10-transformed microbial data, nonlinear regression for digestion kinetics, and Tukey’s test (P < 0.05).
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: DM losses caused by delayed ensiling were not measured; reasons for higher DM content in additive-treated silages were unknown; and future experiments were recommended to determine factors affecting propionic acid degradation during ensiling and storage.
- Evident from the text: the study used laboratory-scale 20-L silos and one fistulated steer, so farm-scale and in vivo inference is limited; only one additive dose and one forage type (barley) were tested; digestibility was measured in situ rather than in vivo; and aerobic stability was monitored for 400 h.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 17 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingnone given
Immediate addition of the buffered propionic acid-based additive to chopped forage (KI and KI-DO) resulted in silage with higher DM content compared with other treatments.
“Immediate addition of the buffered propionic acid-based additive to chopped forage (KI and KI-DO) resulted in silage with a higher DM content compared with other treatments, but the reasons for this finding are unknown.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
CDF and KI-D24 had lower acetic acid concentrations (1.59 to 1.85%) than C (P<0.05).
“The CDF and KI-D24 had lower concentrations (P < 0.05) of acetic acid (1.59 to 1.85%) than C, but silage treated with KI-DO had the lowest (P < 0.05) concentration of acetic acid (0.94%) of all of the silages.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Silages chopped and immediately ensiled (C and KI) were stable when exposed to air for more than 130 h.
“Silages that were chopped and immediately ensiled (C and KI) were stable when exposed to air for a relatively prolonged period of time (>130 h, Figure 2) because numbers of yeasts and molds were less than 2 log 10 cfu/g (data not shown).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
C and KI silages had butyric acid concentrations of less than 0.05% of DM.
“The C and KI silages had concentrations of butyric acid of less than 0.05% of DM, which is an indicator of good fermentation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Exposure to air resulted in forages with greater ADF concentrations than fresh forages (C and KI) (P<0.05).
“Exposure to air also resulted in forages with greater (P < 0.05) concentrations of ADF and NDF but lower concentrations of starch than in fresh forages (C and KI).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Findingown data
C and KI silages had yeast and mold numbers less than 2 log10 cfu/g.
“Silages that were chopped and immediately ensiled (C and KI) were stable when exposed to air for a relatively prolonged period of time (>130 h, Figure 2) because numbers of yeasts and molds were less than 2 log 10 cfu/g (data not shown).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Silages from forage exposed to air before ensiling (CDF, KI-DO, and KI-D24) were stable throughout the entire monitoring period.
“Silages from forage exposed to air before ensiling (CDF, KI-DO, and KI-D24) were stable throughout the entire monitoring period, probably because of the combined effects of high concentrations of butyric acid, propionic acid, and ammonia-N in these silages.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
KI-DO had the lowest acetic acid concentration (0.94%) of all silages (P<0.05).
“The CDF and KI-D24 had lower concentrations (P < 0.05) of acetic acid (1.59 to 1.85%) than C, but silage treated with KI-DO had the lowest (P < 0.05) concentration of acetic acid (0.94%) of all of the silages.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Exposure to air resulted in forages with greater NDF concentrations than fresh forages (C and KI) (P<0.05).
“Exposure to air also resulted in forages with greater (P < 0.05) concentrations of ADF and NDF but lower concentrations of starch than in fresh forages (C and KI).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Adding the additive after exposure to air and then ensiling resulted in the highest propionic acid concentration.
“Leaving C and KI-DO forage in piles exposed to air for 24 h contributed to higher (P < 0.05) concentrations of propionic acid, but adding the additive after exposure to air and then ensiling resulted in the highest concentration of propionic acid.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In silage made from forage immediately ensiled, application of the additive (KI) had no effect on fermentation end-products compared with C.
“In the silage made from forage immediately ensiled, application of the additive (KI) had no effect on fermentation end-products compared with C.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
Silages from forages exposed to air before ensiling had higher NDF and ADF concentrations than C.
“Silages from forages that had been exposed to air before ensiling had higher concentrations of NDF and ADF than did C because of a greater loss of the more readily degradable components such as WSC and some proteins.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Residual WSC concentrations were not different among treatments.
“The residual concentrations of WSC were not different among the treatments.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Leaving C and KI-DO forage in piles exposed to air for 24 h contributed to higher propionic acid concentrations (P<0.05).
“Leaving C and KI-DO forage in piles exposed to air for 24 h contributed to higher (P < 0.05) concentrations of propionic acid, but adding the additive after exposure to air and then ensiling resulted in the highest concentration of propionic acid.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Addition of the buffered propionic acid-based additive had no effect on in situ DM digestion of silage that was immediately ensiled.
“Addition of the buffered propionic acid-based additive had no effect on in situ DM digestion of silage that was immediately ensiled.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
C and KI treatments had an average lactic acid concentration of 5.44% of DM.
“The C and KI treatments had an average concentration (P < 0.05) of lactic acid of 5.44% of DM, which is similar to values reported by McAllister et al. (1995) and Ranjit et al. (1999) in barley silages.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Lag time was longer for CDF compared with other silages (P<0.05).
“The lag time was also longer (P < 0.05) for CDF compared with other silages.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Acetic acid concentration was greatest in C and KI treatments (2.65 and 2.47%, respectively) (P<0.05).
“Concentration of acetic acid was greatest (P < 0.05) in C and KI treatments (2.65 and 2.47%, respectively).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Exposing forage to air before ensiling increased ammonia-N concentration (0.052%) by more than 40% compared with C.
“Exposing forage to air before ensiling increased the concentration of ammonia-N (0.052%) more than 40% compared with C.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Ethanol concentration was higher in CDF and KI-D24 compared with C and KI.
“The concentration of ethanol was higher in CDF and KI-D24 compared with C and KI.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
CDF contained the lowest starch concentration (7.9%).
“However, CDF contained the lowest concentration (7.9%) of starch, which may have been because of metabolism by aerobic microorganisms, specifically fungi.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Among forages exposed to air for 24 h before ensiling, KI-DO had more yeasts and molds than CDF and KI-D24 (P<0.05).
“Of the forages that were exposed to air for 24 h before ensiling, KI-DO had more (P < 0.05) yeasts and molds than CDF and KI-D24.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The KI treatment had more ammonia-N than C.
“The KI treatment had more ammonia-N than did C.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Timing of treatment with buffered propionic acid (at chopping vs after exposure) made no difference in forage content of ADF, NDF, or starch.
“The timing of treatment with buffered propionic acid either at chopping (KI-DO) or after exposure to air (KI-D24) made no difference in forage content of these components.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Exposure to air resulted in forages with lower starch concentrations than fresh forages (C and KI) (P<0.05).
“Exposure to air also resulted in forages with greater (P < 0.05) concentrations of ADF and NDF but lower concentrations of starch than in fresh forages (C and KI).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
Acetic acid concentration was increased in CDF, KI-DO, and KI-D24 compared with C and KI.
“The concentration of acetic acid was increased in CDF, KI-DO, and KI-D24 compared with C and KI and may have been caused by metabolism by enterobacteria in aerated silage.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The buffered propionic acid additive increased propionic acid concentration in KI (0.27%) and KI-D24 (0.33%) compared with C (undetectable).
“As expected, the buffered propionic acid additive increased the concentration of propionic acid in KI (0.27%) and KI-D24 (0.33%) compared with C (undetectable).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The WSC concentration of C was approximately 3%.
“The WSC concentration of C was approximately 3% and was low compared with concentrations reported in other studies with barley forages (McAllister et al., 1995;Ranjit et al., 1999).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Exposure to air before ensiling increased forage pH by more than 1 unit.
“pH increased by more than 1 unit as a result of exposure to air.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS AND DISCUSSION · plain
“Exposure to air before ensiling also increased (P < 0.05) the pH of forages (Table 1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § RESULTS AND DISCUSSION · plain
- Findingown data
Untreated forage (C) had the lowest ammonia-N concentration (0.029%) compared with other treatments.
“The untreated forage (C) had the lowest concentration (P < 0.05) of ammonia-N (0.029%) compared with other treatments.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Among air-exposed silages, CDF and KI-D24 had higher pH than KI-DO (P<0.05).
“Of these silages, CDF and KI-D24 had higher (P < 0.05) pH than did KI-DO.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Exposure to air for 24 h before ensiling increased yeast and mold numbers in forage (P<0.05).
“However, forages that were exposed to air for 24 h had increased fungal numbers (P < 0.05).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Treating forage with the additive at chopping (KI-DO) resulted in the smallest pH increase among air-exposed forages.
“However, treating forage with the additive at the time of chopping (KI-DO) resulted in the smallest increase in pH, which suggests that the buffered propionic acidbased additive partially reduced the metabolism of some aerobic microorganisms.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Ammonia-N content of KI-DO and KI-D24 were not different from KI.
“The ammonia-N content of KI-DO and KI-D24, forages exposed to air and treated with buffered propionic acid, were not different from KI.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Ammonia-N concentration was higher in silages made from forage exposed to air before ensiling (0.199 to 0.250%) than for C (0.169%) and KI (0.159%) (P<0.05).
“The concentration of ammonia-N was higher (P < 0.05) in the silages made from forage exposed to air before ensiling ranging from 0.199 to 0.250% than for C (0.169%) and KI (0.159%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Silages from forages exposed to air for 24 h before ensiling had more than 1.6% butyric acid.
“However, silages from forages exposed to air for 24 h before ensiling had more than 1.6% butyric acid.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Starch concentration was not different among C (12.0%), KI (12.4%), KI-DO (11.4%), and KI-D24 (10.3%).
“Concentration of starch was not different among C (12.0%), KI (12.4%),KI-DO (11.4%), and KI-D24 (10.3%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
After exposure to air, WSC concentration decreased by more than 50% in CDF, KI-DO, and KI-D24 compared with C (P<0.05).
“After the exposure to air, the WSC concentration decreased (P < 0.05) by more than 50% in treatments CDF, KI-DO, and KI-D24 compared with C.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Prolonged exposure to air before ensiling increased yeast numbers on forages by more than 1000-fold.
“Prolonged exposure to air before ensiling increased the numbers of yeasts on forages by more than 1000-fold.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Exposure to air before ensiling resulted in lower in situ DM digestibility (64.7% for CDF vs. 71.7% for C) (P<0.05).
“However, exposure to air, before ensiling, resulted in a lower (P < 0.05) DM digestibility (64.7% for CDF vs. 71.7%for C).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Barley and other high-moisture grain silages are prone to rapid spoilage when exposed to air.
“Barley and other high moisture grain silages are prone to spoil rapidly when exposed to air (McAllister et al., 1995;Woolford, 1985).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites McAllister et al., 1995 source
- cites Woolford, 1985
- Premisecitation
Air during storage and feedout stimulates yeasts that metabolize lactic acid, causing nutrient loss.
“Air is also detrimental during storage and feedout because it stimulates the growth of yeasts that metabolize lactic acid, which results in loss of nutrients (Woolford, 1990).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Woolford, 1990 source
- Interpretationnone given
Higher ethanol concentrations are indicative of greater metabolic activity of yeasts.
“Higher concentrations of ethanol are indicative of greater metabolic activity of yeasts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Higher ethanol concentrations indicate greater metabolic activity of yeasts.
- Premisecitation
In one unpublished study from the authors' laboratory, a propionic acid-based additive did not improve aerobic stability of corn silage because initial propionic acid concentrations were not detectable after ensiling.
“However, in one study (J.Neylon and L. Kung, Jr., unpublished data, University of Delaware, 2000) from our laboratory, a propionic acid-based additive did not improve the aerobic stability of corn silage because initial concentrations of propionic acid were not detectable after the ensiling period.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites J.Neylon and L. Kung, Jr., unpublished data, University of Delaware, 2000
- Interpretationreasoning
The buffered propionic acid-based additive partially reduced the metabolism of some aerobic microorganisms.
“However, treating forage with the additive at the time of chopping (KI-DO) resulted in the smallest increase in pH, which suggests that the buffered propionic acidbased additive partially reduced the metabolism of some aerobic microorganisms.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The higher NDF and ADF in air-exposed silages were due to greater loss of readily degradable components such as WSC and some proteins.
“Silages from forages that had been exposed to air before ensiling had higher concentrations of NDF and ADF than did C because of a greater loss of the more readily degradable components such as WSC and some proteins.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The efficacy of propionic acid preservatives may be partially dependent on their stability during the ensiling process.
“These data suggest that the efficacy of propionic acid preservatives may be partially dependent on their stability during the ensiling process.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Treatment with the buffered propionic acid additive prevented the negative effects that exposure to air before ensiling had on in situ DM digestibility.
“Thus, treatment with the buffered propionic acid additive prevented the negative effects that exposure to air before ensiling had on in situ DM digestibility.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Increases in ammonia-N due to treatment with buffered propionic acid are a common finding.
“Increases in ammonia-N because of treatment with buffered propionic acid are a common finding (Kung et al., 1998) because ammonia is usually the principal buffering agent.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kung et al., 1998 source
- Interpretationown data
The nutritive value of silage can be markedly reduced when the ensiling process is adversely affected by exposure to air.
“These data suggest that the nutritive value of silage can be markedly reduced when the ensiling process is adversely affected by exposure to air.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The buffered propionic acid-based additive was unable to stop the shift toward a clostridial fermentation.
“The application of a buffered propionic acid-based additive was unable to stop the shift toward a clostridial fermentation, but if forage was treated before exposure to air, some indices of fermentation quality were not as negatively affected by the exposure to air.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
In a previous study, silages treated with buffered propionic acid-based preservatives had final propionic acid concentrations similar to initial applied concentrations.
“In a previous study (Kung et al., 1998), silages treated with buffered propionic acid-based preservatives had final concentrations of propionic acid that were similar to initial applied concentrations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kung et al., 1998 source
- Interpretationreasoning
Use of a buffered propionic acid-based additive can partially, but not totally, compensate for poor silo management practices.
“These results show that use of a buffered propionic acidbased additive can partially, but not totally, compensate for poor silo management practices.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Silages with high butyric acid concentrations were stable when exposed to air.
“Ohyama et al. (1975) also reported that silages with high concentrations of butyric acid were stable when exposed to air and Woolford (1975) reported that this acid had a greater antifungal effect than acetic or propionic acids.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ohyama et al., 1975 source
- Interpretationcitation
Higher ammonia-N concentrations in silages treated with buffered propionic acid should not be mistaken for excessive proteolysis and deamination.
“Thus, higher concentrations of ammonia-N in silages treated with buffered propionic acid should not be mistaken for excessive proteolysis and deamination.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Ammonia is usually the principal buffering agent in silage.
- Premisecitation
Prolonged exposure to air before ensiling has also resulted in high concentrations of butyric acid.
“Prolonged exposure to air before ensiling has also resulted in high concentrations of butyric acid (McDonald et al., 1991).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites McDonald et al., 1991
- Premisecitation
Increasing propionic acid concentration in silages has been studied to improve aerobic stability because of its antifungal properties.
“To improve the aerobic stability of these grains, methods to increase the concentration of propionic acid (because of its antifungal properties) in silages have been studied (Woolford, 1975).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Woolford, 1975 source
- Interpretationreasoning
The stability of air-exposed silages was probably due to combined effects of high butyric acid, propionic acid, and ammonia-N concentrations.
“Silages from forage exposed to air before ensiling (CDF, KI-DO, and KI-D24) were stable throughout the entire monitoring period, probably because of the combined effects of high concentrations of butyric acid, propionic acid, and ammonia-N in these silages.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
If forage was treated with the additive before exposure to air, some indices of fermentation quality were less negatively affected by the exposure to air.
“The application of a buffered propionic acid-based additive was unable to stop the shift toward a clostridial fermentation, but if forage was treated before exposure to air, some indices of fermentation quality were not as negatively affected by the exposure to air.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Direct addition of propionic acid to silages has resulted in more consistent improvements in aerobic stability than biological approaches.
“The direct method of adding propionic acid to silages has resulted in more consistent improvements in aerobic stability (Kung et al., 1998(Kung et al., , 2000)), but the effects of adding this acid to forage that is or has been exposed to excessive amounts of air before ensiling has not been well studied.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- Rests on an assumption: The effects of adding propionic acid to forage that is or has been exposed to excessive air before ensiling have not been well studied.
- Interpretationown data
Treatment with propionic acid at time of chopping reduces the negative effects of prolonged exposure to air on the resulting ammonia-N concentration in silage.
“The lower ammonia-N for KI-DO than for CDF or KI-D24 suggests that treatment with propionic acid at time of chopping reduces the negative effects of prolonged exposure to air on the resulting concentration of ammonia-N in silage.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
- Probably not a substantial claim. 5
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone givenDM recovery was not different among treatments but was numerically greater in silages treated with the additive than in untreated silages.
“DM recovery was not different among treatments but was numerically greater in silages treated with the additive than in untreated silages.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataThere were no differences in CP concentration among treatments, ranging from 9.1 to 9.6%.
“There were no differences in the concentration of CP among treatments and ranged from 9.1 to 9.6%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone givenWhen chopped barley forage is exposed to air for a prolonged period before ensiling, detrimental microorganisms increase and fermentable substrate decreases.
“When chopped barley forage is exposed to air for a prolonged period of time before ensiling, the number of detrimental microorganisms increases whereas the concentration of fermentable substrate decreases.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationAir in a forage mass after chopping delays fermentation onset and promotes undesirable microbial growth, negatively affecting the ensuing fermentation.
“After chopping, the presence of air in a forage mass delays the onset of fermentation and encourages the growth of undesirable microbes, which results in negative effects on the ensuing fermentation (McDonald et al., 1991).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites McDonald et al., 1991
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Interpretationnone givenThe increased acetic acid in aerated silage may have been caused by metabolism by enterobacteria.
“The concentration of acetic acid was increased in CDF, KI-DO, and KI-D24 compared with C and KI and may have been caused by metabolism by enterobacteria in aerated silage.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningA lack of substrate and high pH resulted in growth of clostridia, which caused excessive production of butyric acid.
“A lack of substrate and high pH resulted in growth of clostridia, which caused excessive production of butyric acid.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
PremisecitationLow levels of buffered propionic acid generally have no effect on silage fermentation.
“Ranjit and Kung (2000) reported similar findings in that low levels of buffered propionic acid generally had no effect on silage fermentation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ranjit and Kung, 2000 source
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
PremisecitationMarked reductions in in vivo nutrient digestion occur when steers are fed diets containing various amounts of surface-spoiled silage.
“Whitlock et al. (2000) reported marked reductions in in vivo nutrient digestion when steers were fed diets that contained various amounts of surface-spoiled silage.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Whitlock et al., 2000
It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationYeasts from deteriorating silage are tolerant to lactic acid but not butyric acid.
“Cai et al. (1999) reported that yeasts from deteriorating silage were tolerant to lactic but not butyric acid.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Cai et al., 1999 source
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
PremisecitationButyric acid has a greater antifungal effect than acetic or propionic acids.
“Ohyama et al. (1975) also reported that silages with high concentrations of butyric acid were stable when exposed to air and Woolford (1975) reported that this acid had a greater antifungal effect than acetic or propionic acids.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Woolford, 1975 source
It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningCollectively, exposure to air before ensiling results in a fermentation dominated by clostridia and high concentrations of butyric acid and ammonia-N in the resulting silage.
“Collectively, this results in a fermentation that is dominated by clostridia and results in high concentrations of butyric acid and ammonia-N in the resulting silage.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
InterpretationreasoningThe low starch in CDF may have been due to metabolism by aerobic microorganisms, specifically fungi.
“However, CDF contained the lowest concentration (7.9%) of starch, which may have been because of metabolism by aerobic microorganisms, specifically fungi.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationIn previous studies from the authors' laboratory, untreated corn silage spoiled within 30 to 60 h after exposure to air, with residual yeast numbers between 4 and 5 log10 cfu/g.
“In previous studies from our laboratory, untreated corn silage spoiled within 30 to 60 h after exposure to air, but numbers of residual yeast in those studies were between 4 and 5 log 10 cfu/ g (Ranjit and Kung, 2000).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ranjit and Kung, 2000 source
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown dataExposure to air before ensiling reduced in situ DM digestion, but not if silage was treated with the buffered propionic acid additive regardless of timing of application.
“Exposure to air before ensiling also reduced in situ DM digestion, but not if silage was treated with a buffered propionic acid additive regardless of timing of the application.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
Poor management decisions, such as leaving chopped forage in wagons or piles, can cause substantial delays in filling silos, exposing forages to air for prolonged periods.
“However, poor management decisions, such as leaving chopped forage in wagons or piles, can result in substantial delays in filling silos; thus, forages may be exposed to air for prolonged periods of time.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Large bunk or trench silos sometimes require weeks to fill, exposing forages to excessive air.
“In addition, large bunk or trench silos sometimes require weeks to fill, which exposes forages to excessive amounts of air.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The effects of adding propionic acid to forage that is or has been exposed to excessive air before ensiling have not been well studied.
“but the effects of adding this acid to forage that is or has been exposed to excessive amounts of air before ensiling has not been well studied.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Ammonia is usually the principal buffering agent in silage.
“because ammonia is usually the principal buffering agent.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Propionibacteria have difficulty surviving the ensiling process.
“However, these bacteria have difficulty surviving the ensiling process.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Higher ethanol concentrations indicate greater metabolic activity of yeasts.
“Higher concentrations of ethanol are indicative of greater metabolic activity of yeasts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Butyric acid concentrations below 0.05% of DM indicate good fermentation.
“which is an indicator of good fermentation.”
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?
Slow silo filling and delayed sealing negatively affect silage quality because dry matter losses and quality changes occur during these phases.
“The slow silo filling and delayed sealing negatively affect the silage quality once dry matter (DM) losses and quality changes occur during these phases [10][11][12][13]”
From The Effects of Short-Time Delayed Sealing on Fermentation, Aerobic Stability and Chemical Composition on Maize Silages (2023) · cites this paper as [12]
Similar findings on delayed sealing increasing NDF and ADF and reducing starch were previously described.
“Similar findings were previously described [10,12,41,42].”
From The Effects of Short-Time Delayed Sealing on Fermentation, Aerobic Stability and Chemical Composition on Maize Silages (2023) · cites this paper as [12]
The reduction in starch content may have also been caused by metabolism of aerobic microorganisms, specifically fungi.
“The reduction in starch content may have also been caused by the metabolism of aerobic microorganisms, specifically fungi [12].”
From The Effects of Short-Time Delayed Sealing on Fermentation, Aerobic Stability and Chemical Composition on Maize Silages (2023) · cites this paper as [12]
In the present study, the increase in GProd with delayed sealing can be associated with an increased aerobic microbial population due to extended air exposure.
“In the present study, GProd increase with delay sealing can be associated with increased aerobic microbial population due to the extended air exposure [10,12].”
From The Effects of Short-Time Delayed Sealing on Fermentation, Aerobic Stability and Chemical Composition on Maize Silages (2023) · cites this paper as [12]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Digestion outcome is called both in vitro and in situ
MinorThe abstract describes the additive's effect as preventing a reduction in in vitro digestion, but the results identify the measured outcome as in situ DM digestibility.
“In contrast, treatment with the additive, applied before or after exposure to air, prevented the reduction in in vitro digestion.”
“Thus, treatment with the buffered propionic acid additive prevented the negative effects that exposure to air before ensiling had on in situ DM digestibility.”
Immediately ensiled C forage is described as left in a pile
MinorC is defined as untreated forage ensiled immediately, so it could not also have been left in a pile exposed to air for 24 hours.
“Leaving C and KI-DO forage in piles exposed to air for 24 h contributed to higher (P < 0.05) concentrations of propionic acid”
“1 Untreated forage, chopped and immediately ensiled.”
Citations
Cites
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(91)78551-2 · Cited by 28,658
A PHOTOMETRIC ADAPTATION OF THE SOMOGYI METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF GLUCOSE
Nelson, N. (1944) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1016/s0021-9258(18)71980-7 · Cited by 10,376
Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1967) · Cited by 6,573
Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia
Weatherburn, M. W. (1967) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac60252a045 · Cited by 4,099
The Analysis of dietary fiber in food
James, W. P. T., & Theander, O. (1981) · Marcel Dekker eBooks · Cited by 986
Ranjit, N. K., & Kung, L. (2000) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(00)74912-5 · Cited by 429
Self-citationWoolford, M. K., & Pahlow, G. (1998) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0309-1_3 · Cited by 400
The detrimental effects of air on silage
Woolford, M. K. (1990) · Journal of Applied Bacteriology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.1990.tb02554.x · Cited by 392
Kung, L., & Ranjit, N. K. (2001) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(01)74575-4 · Cited by 339
Self-citationCai, Y., Benno, Y., Ogawa, M., & Kumai, S. (1999) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(99)75263-x · Cited by 328
Microbiological screening of the straight chain fatty acids (c1‐c12) as potential silage additives
Woolford, M. K. (1975) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740260213 · Cited by 259
Kung, 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-citationKung, L., Sheperd, A. C., Smagala, A. M., Endres, K. M., Bessett, C. A., Ranjit, N. K., & Glancey, J. L. (1998) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(98)75695-4 · Cited by 175 · cited 2×
“In a previous study (Kung et al., 1998), silages treated with buffered propionic acid-based preservatives had final concentrations of propionic acid that were similar to initial applied concentrations.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationPoore, M. H., Moore, J. A., Eck, T. P., & Theurer, C. B. (1993) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(93)77561-x · Cited by 120
Ohyama, Y., Masaki, S., & Hara, S. (1975) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740260811 · Cited by 83
Higginbotham, G. E., Mueller, S. C., Bolsen, K. K., & DePeters, E. J. (1998) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(98)75797-2 · Cited by 79
McAllister, T. A., Selinger, L. B., McMahon, L. R., Bae, H. D., Lysyk, T. J., Oosting, S. J., & Cheng, K.-J. (1995) · Canadian Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.4141/cjas95-062 · Cited by 79
The effect of delayed sealing on fermentation and losses during ensilage
Henderson, A. R., & McDonald, P. (1975) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740260511 · Cited by 34
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Ranjit, 1999, Inoculation with Lactobacillus buchneri increases the acetate and propionate content of barley silage resulting in improved aerobic stability, J. Anim. Sci., 77, 253
- Whitlock, 2000, Effect of level of surface-spoiled silage on the nutritive value of corn silage diets, J. Dairy Sci., 83, 110
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages
Kung, L., Shaver, R. D., Grant, R. J., & Schmidt, R. J. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13909 · Cited by 1,316
Self-citationSilage 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
Kim, S. C., & Adesogan, A. T. (2006) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(06)72586-3 · Cited by 136
Weiss, K., Kroschewski, B., & Auerbach, H. (2016) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10323 · Cited by 124
Ke, W., Ding, W. R., Xu, D. M., Ding, L., Zhang, P., Li, F., & Guo, X. (2017) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-12875 · Cited by 116
Kung, L., Stokes, M. R., & Lin, C. J. (2003) · Agronomy Monographs · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr42.c7 · Cited by 85
Self-citationBrüning, D., Gerlach, K., Weiß, K., & Südekum, K. ‐. (2018) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/gfs.12288 · Cited by 60
Wen, A., Yuan, X., Wang, J., Desta, S. T., & Shao, T. (2017) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.11.017 · Cited by 59
Li, P., Ji, S., Hou, C., Tang, H., Wang, Q., & Shen, Y. (2016) · Animal Science Journal · doi:10.1111/asj.12600 · Cited by 43
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
Ke, W., Ding, W., Xu, D., Shah, M. N., Zhang, P., & Guo, X. (2018) · Archives of Animal Nutrition · doi:10.1080/1745039x.2018.1510156 · Cited by 27
Sorghum silage quality as determined by chemical–nutritional factors
Rodrigues, P. H. M., Pinedo, L. A., Meyer, P. M., da Silva, T. H., & Guimarães, I. C. D. S. B. (2020) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/gfs.12495 · Cited by 26
Potential factors that may limit the effectiveness of silage additives
Kung, L. (2009) · Cited by 25
Self-citationLevital, 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
Jiang, H., Wang, H., Bao, B.-H., Qu, H., Wang, J., Sun, L., Liu, B., & Gao, F. (2023) · Fermentation · doi:10.3390/fermentation9050453 · Cited by 21
Brüning, D., Gerlach, K., Weiß, K., & Südekum, K. ‐. (2018) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/gfs.12345 · Cited by 20
Gomes, A. L. M., Auerbach, H., Lazzari, G., Moraes, A., Nussio, L. G., Jobim, C. C., & Daniel, J. L. P. (2021) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.115033 · Cited by 20
Weiß, K., Kroschewski, B., & Auerbach, H. (2019) · Archives of Animal Nutrition · doi:10.1080/1745039x.2019.1694357 · Cited by 20
Effects of biological and chemical additives on fermentation progress in maize silage
Tyrolová, Y., Bartoň, L., & Loucka, R. (2017) · Czech Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.17221/67/2016-cjas · Cited by 22
Weiß, K., Kroschewski, B., & Auerbach, H. U. (2022) · Fermentation · doi:10.3390/fermentation8020048 · Cited by 18
Selwet, M. (2008) · PubMed · Cited by 17
Kim, D. H., Amanullah, S. M., Lee, H., Joo, Y. H., & Kim, S. C. (2015) · Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences · doi:10.5713/ajas.15.0106 · Cited by 16
de Melo, N. N., Carvalho-Estrada, P. D. A., Tavares, Q. G., Pereira, L. D. M., Delai Vigne, G. L., Camargo Rezende, D. M. L., & Schmidt, P. (2023) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy13010223 · Cited by 15
Wang, S., Zhang, G., Zhao, J., Dong, Z., Li, J., & Shao, T. (2023) · Italian Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.1080/1828051x.2023.2206422 · Cited by 15
Tian, J., Huang, L., Tian, R., Wu, J., Tang, R., & Zhang, J. (2023) · Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture · doi:10.1186/s40538-023-00423-6 · Cited by 12
Hatungimana, E., & Erickson, P. S. (2019) · Applied Animal Science · doi:10.15232/aas.2019-01857 · Cited by 13
Arbabi, S., & Ghoorchi, T. (2008) · Asian Journal of Animal Sciences · doi:10.3923/ajas.2008.43.50 · Cited by 12
Serva, L., Andrighetto, I., Marchesini, G., Contiero, B., Grandis, D., & Magrin, L. (2021) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.115116 · Cited by 11
Serva, L., Magrin, L., Marchesini, G., & Andrighetto, I. (2022) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy12040774 · Cited by 11
Wang, S., Liu, H., Zhao, J., Dong, Z., Li, J., & Shao, T. (2023) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy13030672 · Cited by 11
ENSILING SWEET SORGHUM AND MAIZE STALKS AS FEEDSTOCK FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION
Trulea, A., Vintilă, T., Pop, G., Sumalan, R. L., & Gaşpar, S. (2013) · Research Journal of Agricultural Science · Cited by 9
Jatkauskas, J., Vrotniakiene, V., Amaral, R. C. D., Witt, K. L., & Cappellozza, B. L. (2024) · Plants · doi:10.3390/plants13202894 · Cited by 8
“[26].”
DORSZEWSKI, P. (2009) · Digital Repository of UTP in Bydgoszcz (Uniwersytet Technologiczno-Przyrodniczy) · Cited by 8
Jiao, T., Lei, Z., JianPing, W., Li, F., Casper, D. P., Wang, J., & Jiao, J. (2021) · Animal Bioscience · doi:10.5713/ab.20.0804 · Cited by 8
Calidad composicional del ensilaje de tres cultivares de maíz (Zea mays) del trópico alto colombiano
Muñoz, E. M., Sierra, J. C., Vargas, J., & Avellaneda, Y. A. (2022) · Agronomía Mesoamericana · doi:10.15517/am.v33i2.46412 · Cited by 5
Preston, N., Nair, J., Yu, P., Christensen, D. A., McKinnon, J. J., & McAllister, T. A. (2016) · Canadian Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.1139/cjas-2016-0106 · Cited by 5
Kim, S. B., Kim, D. H., Lee, H., Amanullah, S. M., & Kim, S. C. (2012) · Animal Science Journal · doi:10.1111/asj.12023 · Cited by 5
Supapong, C., & Cherdthong, A. (2023) · Animal Biotechnology · doi:10.1080/10495398.2023.2206864 · Cited by 4
Leon-Tinoco, A. Y., Guimarães, B. C., de Almeida, S. T. R., Reyes, D. C., Rivera, S. A., Killerby, M. A., Wu, C., Perkins, B., Knight, C. W., & Romero, J. J. (2022) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115346 · Cited by 4
Whole-plant corn silage harvesting modalities: energy efficiency and operational performance
Kmiecik, L. L., Zimmermann, G. G., Jasper, S. P., Savi, D., Neto, L. S., & Sobenko, L. R. (2023) · Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências · doi:10.1590/0001-3765202320220312 · Cited by 4
Effects of Bacterial Inoculants and Organic Acids on Silage Quality : Meta-analysis
Cho, S., Kwon, C. H., & Kim, E. J. (2014) · Han-guk choji josaryo hakoeji · doi:10.5333/kgfs.2014.34.2.94 · Cited by 4
Factores que afectan la calidad del ensilaje de pasto Kikuyo (Cenchrus clandestinus)
Avellaneda, Y. A., Sierra, J. C., Muñoz, E. M., & Vargas, J. (2023) · Agronomía Mesoamericana · doi:10.15517/am.2023.53394 · Cited by 3
Valle, T. A. D., Júnior, R. C., de Azevedo, E. B., dos Santos, R. M., Facco, F. B., Garcia, T. M., Capucho, E., Campana, M., & de Morais, J. P. G. (2022) · The Journal of Agricultural Science · doi:10.1017/s0021859622000636 · Cited by 3
Liao, J., Liu, S., Yang, F., Fu, Y., Duan, H., Bao, X., Huo, J., & Zhao, Z. (2025) · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · doi:10.3389/fvets.2025.1635386 · Cited by 2
Vivekanand, V., Kumar, M., Kumar, V., Kushwaha, R., Vaswani, S., Kumar, A., Shukla, P. K., & Singh, Y. (2021) · Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology · doi:10.5958/0974-181x.2021.00039.1 · Cited by 2
Piloting locally made micro-silos to monitor the quality of ensiled forages in Rwanda
Mukamuhirwa, M. L., Hatungimana, E., Latré, J., Goossens, E., & Ntawubizi, M. (2025) · Tropical Animal Health and Production · doi:10.1007/s11250-025-04431-6 · Cited by 2
Arbabi, S., Ghoorchi, T., & Hasani, S. (2008) · Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences · doi:10.3923/pjbs.2008.2646.2652 · Cited by 2
MODIFYING A THRESHER FOR ENSILING THE GREEN RICE STRAW BY SHREDDING
Basiouny, M. A., & Ghanem, G. (2010) · Misr journal of agricultural engineering · doi:10.21608/mjae.2010.105836 · Cited by 2
Yu, Y. S., Li, Y. F., Panyavong, X., Wu, L. Z., Hwang, J. U., Wang, L. L., & Kim, J. G. (2024) · Han-guk choji josaryo hakoeji · doi:10.5333/kgfs.2024.44.4.226 · Cited by 1
Quality of Maize Silage After Using Meat Bone Meal as a Phosphorus Fertilizer in a Field Experiment
Nogalska, A., Borsuk-Stanulewicz, M., Purwin, C., & Nogalski, Z. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15116129 · Cited by 1
Silva, M. I. M., da Silva, B. B., Vieira, J. M. P., Bittencourt, C. C., Rodrigues, J. V. C., Amorim, W. P. F., Ribeiro, A. C. O., Rotta, P. P., Homem, B. G. C., & da Silva, A. L. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app152212001 · Cited by 1
da Silva, H. M. S., Vendramini, J. M. B., Moriel, P., Garzon, J., Miranda, V. F. B., & Ferraretto, L. F. (2026) · Applied Animal Science · doi:10.15232/aas.2025-02743 · Cited by 1
Jatkauskas, J., Vrotniakienė, V., Eisner, I., Witt, K. L., & Copani, G. (2023) · Zemdirbyste-Agriculture · doi:10.13080/z-a.2023.110.022 · Cited by 1
Microbial and nutritional changes of wet brewers grains inoculated with a commercial preservative
Marston, S. P. (2007) · University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester) · Cited by 1
Vatandoost, M., Mesgaran, M. D., Mou, A. H., & Vakili, A. (2010) · Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances · doi:10.3923/javaa.2010.1452.1457 · Cited by 1
Occurrence of polyploidy in the weevil Odoiporous longicollis Olivier (Coleoptera : Curculionidae)
Tripathi, N. K., & Jamwal, P. (2010) · Asian Journal of Animal Sciences
Carvalho, B. F. (2013) · Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)
Carvalho, P. H. V., Meteer, W. T., Schroeder, A., DiCostanzo, A., & Felix, T. L. (2017) · The Professional Animal Scientist · doi:10.15232/pas.2017-01632 · Cited by 1
Brain, C. K. (2019) · Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter)
Estratégias de conservação do coproduto úmido da destilação do milho
Andrade, A. V. (2024) · Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Universidade de São Paulo) · doi:10.11606/d.11.2024.tde-10052024-093754
Vatandoost, M., & didarkhah, M. (2023) · Annual report. · doi:10.61186/rap.14.41.80
Ferrero, F., Caratti, A., Tabacco, E., Prencipe, S., Ferrocino, I., Garello, M., Spadaro, D., Cordero, C. E. I., & Borreani, G. (2026) · Journal of Agriculture and Food Research · doi:10.1016/j.jafr.2026.103236
Marques, J. D. D. C., Pozada, T. N., Rediss, W. B., Falson, J. P. S., da Silva, N. C., Schafhäuser, J., & Rabêlo, C. H. S. (2026) · Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal · doi:10.1590/20250035
Metadata
- Authors
- Mills, J. A., & Kung, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Delaware (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kung, L.
- ORCID
- Kung, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Dairy Science
- Publisher
- American Dairy Science Association
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1969-1975
- ISSN
- 0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1976753391
- Semantic Scholar
- 824763fd183d37f8528c931dd51854bd07e9f2d0
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Delaware
- 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
- barley silage, silage fermentation, wilted forage, yeast, water-soluble carbohydrates, ammonia-N, silage pH, butyrate, in situ digestibility, in vitro digestibility, silage additives
- MeSH terms
- Air, Ammonia, Hordeum, Buffers, Carbohydrates, Fermentation, Food Handling, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Nitrogen, Propionates, Silage, Time Factors, Acetic Acid, Lactic Acid, Butyric Acid
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 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
