Cited by 175Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyAgricultural Engineering and Mechanization

The effect of preservatives based on propionic acid on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage and a total mixed ration

Open access
Kung, L., Sheperd, A.C., Smagala, A.M., Endres, K.M., Bessett, C.A., Ranjit, N.K., Glancey, J.L.·1998·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

For 3 successive yr, whole-plant corn was ensiled in laboratory silos with low percentages of silage preservatives, the primary active ingredient of which was propionic acid. Preservatives were added to forage just prior to ensiling at rates of 0.1 to 0.2% of the fresh forage weight. In all 3 yr, treatments had minor effects on fermentation end products, except that the concentration of propionic acid was greater because of its addition. The mean low and high percentages of preservatives increased aerobic stability of the treated silages by 19 and 57 h, respectively, in Experiment 1 and by 17 and 38 h, respectively, in Experiment 2. In Experiment 3, aerobic stability was improved by > 90 h by preservatives (0.2% addition). In a lactation study, a total mixed ration (46% dry matter) was mixed without or with (0.2 or 0.3%) a stabilizer that was designed to prevent spoilage in the feed bunk. The high dose resulted in orts with a lower pH and temperature after 24 h in the feed bunk. However, dry matter intake and milk production were unaffected by treatments. Chemical preservatives based on propionic acid added at low rates did not affect fermentation but were effective in the reduction of heating in corn silage and in a total mixed ration.

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(98)75695-4

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • Spoiling or spoiled silage can cause indirect losses due to lower nutritive value, reduced palatability, and risk of negative effects on animal performance and health.

    “In addition to the direct economic loss of DM and nutrients, spoiling or spoiled silage can also cause indirect losses, due to the lower nutritive value, reduced palatability, and the risk of negative effects on animal performance and health (Kung et al., 1998).”

    From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Kung et al., 1998

    The Introduction (page not available) says spoiled silage loses nutrients and may negatively affect animal performance; the Conclusions also identify reduced performance as a reason to prevent spoilage. The Discussion reports lower feed intake in sheep fed spoiled silage, which is consistent with reduced acceptability, but the paper does not establish reduced palatability or risks to animal health. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a previous study from the authors' laboratory, similar amounts of Storage-Mate (0.1%) improved the aerobic stability of corn silage from 12 to 24 h depending on the experiment.

    “In a previous study from our lab (11), similar amounts of SM (0.1%) improved the aerobic stability of corn silage from 12 to 24 h depending on the experiment.”

    From The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage (2000) · cites this paper as [11]

    Table 7 shows that 0.1% Storage-Mate II-liquid increased aerobic stability by 15 h in Experiment 1 and 12 h in Experiment 2; the dry formulation increased it by 24 h in Experiment 2. But 0.1% Storage-Mate II-dry reduced stability from 65 to 52 h in Experiment 1, so the claim that 0.1% Storage-Mate improved stability across experiments omits a contrary result. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In general, the chemical and microbiological composition of the untreated silage was within the expected range.

    “In general, the chemical and microbiological composition of the untreated silage was within the expected range (11,12).”

    From The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage (2000) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Silage Composition section (page unavailable) says the pH of the silages, including the untreated control, was typical of normal corn silage. Tables 4–7 report chemical measurements and yeast counts for the controls, but the paper does not establish that their overall chemical and microbiological composition was within an expected range. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Applying propionic acid-based additives has enhanced the aerobic stability of corn silage.

    “For example, applying propionic acid-based additives have enhanced the aerobic stability of corn silage (11).”
  • 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.”

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. [11]11. Moran, J. P., Z. G. Weinberg, G. Ashbell, Y. Hen, and T. R. Owen. 1966. A comparison of two methods for the evaluation of the aerobic stability of whole crop wheat silage. Pages 162-163 in Proc. XI Int. Silage Conf. Aberystwyth, UK. Univ. Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, England.
  2. [15]15. SAS ® User's Guide, Version 6 Edition. 1988. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.
  3. [22]22. Woolford, M. K. 1984. Managing aerobic deterioration in silage. Pages 42-75 in Silage Management. Natl. Feed Ingredient Assoc., Silage Technol. Div., West Des Moines, IA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kung, L., Sheperd, A. C., Smagala, A. M., Endres, K. M., Bessett, C. A., Ranjit, N. K., & Glancey, J. L.
Affiliations
University of Delaware (US)
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
1998-05
Volume
81
Issue
5
Pages
1322-1330
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2090363281
Cited by
175
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Cargill
  • University of Delaware
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
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
Keywords
propionic acid, silage preservatives, corn silage, aerobic stability, silage fermentation, total mixed ration, dairy cattle, dry matter intake, milk production
MeSH terms
Aerobiosis, Animals, Cattle, Zea mays, Eating, Female, Fermentation, Food Preservatives, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Lactation, Propionates, Silage

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