Cited by 36Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

Effects of bacterial silage inoculants on whole-crop maize silage fermentation and silage digestibility in rams.

Open access
Nkosi, BD, Meeske, R, Langa, T, Thomas, RS·2011·South African Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

This study evaluated the effects of ensiling whole-crop maize with bacterial inoculants, Lactococcus lactis (LL) and Lactobacillus buchneri (LB), on the fermentation and nutrient digestibility in rams. Whole-crop maize (265 DM g/kg) was ensiled for 90 days in 210 L drums with no additive, or with LL or LB. After three months, the drums were opened and the silage was sampled for fermentation characteristics. Diets were produced by mixing the whole-crop maize silage with lucerne hay (90 : 10) on an “as fed” basis, and a digestibility study was conducted using five South African Mutton Merino rams (37.2 ± 2.2 kg live weight) per treatment. Inoculating maize silage with LL and LB reduced ammonia nitrogen concentration, but did not affect silage pH. The concentration of lactic acid was increased with LL compared to the other treatments. A higher concentration of acetic acid was obtained with LB inoculation compared to the other treatments. The aerobic stability of the silage was improved with LB while it was reduced with LL inoculation, as indicated by a higher CO2 production than the latter. The intake and digestibility of dry matter, organic matter, crude protein and fibre were improved by inoculation. Furthermore, inoculations resulted in improved nitrogen retention. It was concluded that the inoculants improved silage fermentation and diet digestibility. Inoculation with LB improved aerobic stability and LL inoculation reduced it.Keywords: Alfalfa, lucerne, aerobic stability, Lactococcus lactis, Lactobacillus buchneri

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 · 10.4314/sajas.v41i4.5

Cites

53 of 53 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?

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

2 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Genstat For Windows® 2005. The Guide to Genstat Release 8. Ed. Payne, R.W., VSN International Ltd., Oxford, UK.
  2. Kung Jr., L. & Shaver, R., 2001. Interpretation and use of silage fermentation analysis reports. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. Focus on Forage 3 (13), 1-5.
  3. McDonald, P., Edwards, R.A., Greenhalgh, J.F.D. & Morgan, C.A., 2002. Animal Nutrition. 6 th ed. Longman Scientific and Technical, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
  4. Muck, R.E., 2010. Silage additives and management issues. Proceedings of Idaho Alfalfa Forage Conference, Best Western Burley Inn, Burley, Idaho, USA. 16 -17 February 2010. pp. 49-55.
  5. Muck, R.E. & Kung Jr., L., 1997. Effects of silage additives on ensiling. In: Silage: Field to feedbunk. NRAES-99, Ithaca, NY, USA. pp. 187-199.
  6. Pearson, D. & Muslemuddin, M., 1968. The accurate determination of volatile nitrogen in meat and fish. J. Assoc. Publ. Anal. 6, 117-123.
  7. Pitt, R.E., 1990. Silage and hay preservation. Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service (NRAES), Bulletin No. 5. Ithaca, New York, USA.
  8. Wilkinson, J.M., 2005. In: Silage. Part 6: Assessing silage quality. Chapter 19: Analysis and clinical assessment of silage. Ed. Wilkinson, J.M., Chalcombe Publications, UK. pp. 198-208.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nkosi, B., Meeske, R., Langa, T., & Thomas, R.
Affiliations
  • Animal Production Institute (ZA)
  • Department of Agriculture, Western Cape Government (ZA)
Corresponding author
Nkosi, BD
Venue
South African Journal of Animal Science
Published
2011-11-16
Volume
41
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0375-1589 (ISSN-L)
  • 2221-4062
OpenAlex
W2156752505
Cited by
36
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
2.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
South African Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion, 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 inoculants, Lactococcus lactis, Lactobacillus buchneri, silage fermentation, silage digestibility, aerobic stability, ammonia nitrogen, lactic acid, acetic acid, nitrogen retention, alfalfa hay

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