Cited by 6Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

Comparison of the Chemical and Microbial Composition and Aerobic Stability of High-Moisture Barley Grain Ensiled with Either Chemical or Viable Lactic Acid Bacteria Application

Open access
Jatkauskas, Jonas, Vrotniakiene, Vilma, Eisner, Ivan, Witt, Kristian Lybek, do Amaral, Rafael Camargo·2024·Fermentation

Abstract

This experiment was aimed at comparing how a chemical additive or an inoculant would affect the dry matter (DM) losses, fermentation pattern, yeast and mold counts, and aerobic stability (AS) of the ensiled high-moisture barley grain (675 g kg−1 DM). Crimped barley grain was ensiled with or without chemical additive AIV Ässä Na and an inoculant SiloSolve FC, totaling three treatments (1 × 3 factorial scheme) for the fermentation periods lasting 7, 14, 28, 60, and 90 days. The application of a chemical additive showed higher pH levels, retained water-soluble carbohydrates (WSCs) better, lowered DM loss, and reduced concentrations of fermentation products. Barley grain treated with chemicals initially showed a marked reduction in yeast and fungal growth and a higher AS up to day 60 of storage but became less effective in later stages of storage, leading to decreased AS. Barley grain inoculated with homo- and heterofermentative strains had decreased silage pH; its WSC content was similar to control and had higher content of weak acids and 1,2 propanediol, reducing mold and yeast counts. With fermentation duration from 28 days and beyond (i.e., 90 days), the inoculant treatment achieved the longest AS and the lowest increase in pH and weight loss during the period of air exposure.

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 · 10.3390/fermentation10010062

Cites

26 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 1 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?

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: 10

  1. Fleurat-Lessard, F. Stored grain, physic-chemical treatment. In Encyclopedia of Grain Science, 1st ed.; Wrightley, C., Corke, H., Walker, C.E., Eds.; Elsevier Academic Press: London, UK, 2004; pp. 254-263. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Nadeau, E.; Arnesson, A.; Jakobsson, J.; Auerbach, H. Chemical additives reduce yeast count and enhance aerobic stability in high dry matter corn silage. In Proceedings of the 17th International Silage Conference, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1-3 July 2015;
  3. Schwarz, F.J.; München, T.U.; Thalmann, A. (Eds.) DLG Testing Guidelines for the Award und Use of the DLG Quality Mark for Ensiling Agents, Prepared under the Auspices of the DLG Commission for Ensiling Agents; DLG Test Service GmbH: Groß-Umstadt, Germany, 2018; p. 60.
  4. Weissbach, F.E.; Strubelt, C. Correcting the dry matter content of maize silages as a substrate for biogas production. Landtech. Net63 2008, 2, 82-83. Available online: https://www.landtechnik-online.eu/ojs-2.4.5/index.php/landtechnik/article/view/2008 -2-082-083/1237 (accessed on 19 June 2016).
  5. Moran, J.; Weinberg, Z.G.; Ashbell, G. A comparison of two methods for the evaluation of the aerobic stability of whole crop wheat silage. In Proceedings of the 11th International Silage Conference, Aberystwyth, UK, 8-11 September 1996; University of Wales: Aberystwyth, UK, 1996; pp. 162-163.
  6. Yanbing, L.; Jingchun, L.; Anshan, S. Detection and analysis of 1,2-propanediol content in whole-crop corn. Anim. Husb. Feed Sci. 2017, 9, 239-242. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Auerbach, H.; Weiss, K.; Theobald, P.; Nadeau, E. Effects of inoculant type on dry matter losses, fermentation pattern, yeast count and aerobic stability of green rye silages. In Proceedings of the 12. BOKU-Symposium Tierernährung, Vienna, Austria, 11 April 2013; University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences: Vienna, Austria, 2013; pp. 179-185. Available online: https://boku.ac.at/fileadmin/data/H03000/H97000/H97600/Symptagungsbaende/BOKU_Symposium_2013.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2023).
  8. Copani, G.; Milora, N.; Bryan, K.A.; Nielsen, N.G.; Witt, K.L. Fermentation and aerobic stability of grass and grass- legume silages ensiled for 14 days. In Proceedings of the 18th International Silage Conference, Bonn, Germany, 24-26 July 2018;
  9. Copani, G.; Bryan, K.A.; Nielsen, N.G.; Witt, K.L.; Queiroz, O.; Ghilardelli, F.; Masoero, F.; Gallo, A. The effect of bacterial inoculant and packing density on corn silage quality and safety. In Proceedings of the 18th International Silage Conference, Bonn, Germany, 24-26 July 2018; University of Bonn: Bonn, Germany, 2018; pp. 42-43. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/338740427_The_effect_of_bacterial_inoculant_and_packing_density_on_corn_silage_quality_and_safety (accessed on 1 July 2023).
  10. Copani, G.; Nielsen, N.G.; Bryan, K.A.; Vrotniakiene, V.; Jatkauskas, J.; Witt, K.L. Effects of a dual strain inoculant on alfalfa silage fermentation and aerobic stability through 32 days of ensiling. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Forage Quality and Conservation, Praccicaba, Brazil, 2017. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32222342 2_Effects_of_a_dual_strain_inoculant_on_alfalfa_silage_fermentation_and_aerobic_stability_through_32_days_of_ensiling# fullTextFileContent (accessed on 5 May 2023).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jatkauskas, J., Vrotniakiene, V., Eisner, I., Witt, K. L., & do Amaral, R. C.
Affiliations
  • Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (LT)
  • Department of Animal Nutrition and Feedstuffs, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, R. Žebenkos 12, 82317 Baisogala, Lithuania
  • Chr. Hansen (Denmark) (DK)
  • Chr. Hansen Holding A/S, Hansen Animal Health and Nutrition, 2970 Hørsholm, Denmark
Venue
Fermentation
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-01-16
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
62
ISSN
2311-5637 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390933431
Cited by
6
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 2
FWCI
3.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fermentation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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, lactic acid bacteria inoculant, aerobic stability, dry matter loss, water-soluble carbohydrates, silage pH, yeast and mold counts, homofermentative lactic acid bacteria, heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria, propylene glycol, fermentation products

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