Cited by 82Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyProbiotics and Fermented Foods

Bacterial Dynamics of Wheat Silage

Open access
Keshri, Jitendra, Chen, Yaira, Pinto, Riky, Kroupitski, Yulia, Weinberg, Zwi G., Sela Saldinger, Shlomo·2019·Frontiers in Microbiology

Abstract

Knowledge regarding bacterial dynamics during crop ensiling is important for understanding of the fermentation process and may facilitate the production of nutritious and stable silage. The objective of this study was to analyze the bacterial dynamics associated with whole crop wheat silage with and without inoculants. Whole crop wheat was ensiled in laboratory silos, with and without Lactobacillus inoculants (L. plantarum, L. buchneri), for 3 months. Untreated and L. plantarum-treated silages were sampled at several times during ensiling, while L. buchneri-treated silage was sampled only at 3 months. Bacterial composition was studied using next generation sequencing approach. Dominant bacteria, before ensiling, were Pantoea (34.7%), Weissella (28.4%) and Pseudomonas (10.4%), Exiguobacterium (7.8%), and Paenibacillus (3.4%). Exogenous inoculants significantly affected bacterial composition and dynamics during ensiling. At 3 months of ensiling, Lactobacillus dominated the silage bacterial population and reached an abundance of 59.5%, 92.5%, and 98.2% in untreated, L. plantarum- and L. buchneri-treated silages, respectively. The bacterial diversity of the mature silage was lower in both treated silages compared to untreated silage. Functional profiling of the bacterial communities associated with the wheat ensiling demonstrated that the abundant pathways of membrane transporters, carbohydrate and amino acids metabolisms followed different pattern of relative abundance in untreated and L. plantarum-treated silages. Only 3 pathways, namely base-excision repair, pyruvate metabolism and transcription machinery, were significantly different between untreated and L. buchneri-treated silages upon maturation. Lactic acid content was higher in L. plantarum-treated silage compared to untreated and L. buchneri-treated silage. Still, the pH of both treated silages was lower in the two Lactobacillus-treated silages compared to untreated silage. Aerobic stability test demonstrated that L. plantarum-, but not L. buchneri-supplement, facilitated silage deterioration. The lower aerobic stability of the L. plantarum-treated silage may be attributed to lower content of acetic acid and other volatile fatty acids which inhibit aerobic yeasts and molds. Indeed, high yeast count was recorded, following exposure to air, only in L. plantarum-treated silage, supporting this notion. Analysis of bacterial community of crop silage can be used for optimization of the ensiling process and the selection of appropriate inoculants for improving aerobic stability.

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 · 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01532

Cites

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 68 · Cited by 82

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wilkins R. Wilkinson M. (2015). “ Major contributions in 45 years of International Silage Conferences,” in Proceedings of XVII International Silage Conference, (Piracicaba: University of São Paulo), 26– 51.

Authors
Keshri, J., Chen, Y., Pinto, R., Kroupitski, Y., Weinberg, Z. G., & Sela Saldinger, S.
Affiliations
Agricultural Research Organization (IL)
Corresponding author
Weinberg, Zwi G.
Venue
Frontiers in Microbiology
Published
2019-07-09
Volume
10
Pages
1532-1532
ISSN
1664-302X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2953419316
Cited by
82
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
10.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • United States - Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund (IS-4704-14)
  • Army Research Office
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 › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
Keywords
wheat silage, bacterial dynamics, silage inoculants, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus buchneri, silage fermentation, bacterial community composition, aerobic stability, lactic acid, volatile fatty acids, yeast and mold growth, silage spoilage, bacterial diversity, 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