Cited by 60Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

The effects of buffered propionic acid-based additives alone or combined with microbial inoculation on the fermentation of high moisture corn and whole-crop barley

Open access
Kung, L., Myers, C.L., Neylon, J.M., Taylor, C.C., Lazartic, J., Mills, J.A., Whiter, A.G.·2004·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

Buffered propionic acid-based additives (BP) alone or in combination with a microbial inoculant containing lactic acid bacteria (MI) were mixed with ground, high moisture corn or whole-crop barley and ensiled in triplicate laboratory silos to investigate their effects on silage fermentation and aerobic stability. The inoculant and chemicals were applied separately for treatments that included both additives. The addition of MI alone had no effect on DM recovery, fermentation end products, or aerobic stability of high moisture corn. However, treatments with 0.1 and 0.2% BP (alone and the combination) had more than 10- and 100-fold fewer yeasts, respectively, and they also had greater concentrations of propionic acid than did untreated corn. Corn treated with only 0.1 (161 h) and 0.2% (218 h) BP tended to be more stable when exposed to air than untreated corn (122 h). Treatment with MI + 0.2% BP markedly improved the aerobic stability (>400 h) of high moisture corn. With whole-crop barley, the addition of MI alone, BP alone, and combinations of MI and BP prevented the production of butyric acid that was found in untreated silage (0.48%). All barley silages that had MI in their treatments underwent a more efficient fermentation than treatments without MI, as evident by a greater ratio of lactic:acetic acid and more DM recovery than in untreated silage. Increasing levels (0.1 to 0.2%) of BP added together with MI improved the aerobic stability of barley (190 and 429 h) over the addition of MI alone (50 h). These data show that buffered propionic acid-based products are compatible with microbial inoculants and, in some circumstances when used together, they can improve the fermentation and aerobic stability of silages.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(04)73280-4

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In barley silage at 2 g/kg fresh weight, a buffered propionic acid-based additive decreased butyric acid, numerically decreased ethanol, and improved aerobic stability by 244 h compared with untreated.

    “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).”

    From Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives (2018) · cites this paper as Kung et al. (2004)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Moran, J. P., Z. G. Weinberg, G. Ashbell, Y. Hen, and T. R. Owen. 1996. A comparison of two methods for the evaluation of the aerobic stability of whole crop wheat silage. Page 162 in Proc. XI Int. Silage Conf. Aberystwyth, UK. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK.
  2. Muck, R. E., and L. Kung, Jr. 1997. Effects of silage additives on ensiling. Pages 187-199 in Proc. Silage: Field to Feedbunk. NRAES-99. Ithaca, NY.
  3. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 7 Edition. 1998. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kung, L., Myers, C. L., Neylon, J. M., Taylor, C. C., Lazartic, J., Mills, J. A., & Whiter, A. G.
Affiliations
University of Delaware (US)
Corresponding author
Kung, L.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2004-05
Volume
87
Issue
5
Pages
1310-1316
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100893228
Cited by
60
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
FWCI
5.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › 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, microbial inoculants, lactic acid bacteria, high-moisture corn, whole crop barley, silage fermentation, aerobic stability, butyrate, yeast reduction, propionic acid, dry matter recovery
MeSH terms
Hordeum, Buffers, Zea mays, Fermentation, Food Additives, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Lactobacillus, Propionates, Silage, Enterococcus faecium, Acetic 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.

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