Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria (LAB), on the fermentation, aerobic stability and ruminal degradability of whole-crop maize silages under laboratory conditions. Two homofermentative LAB were tested for the purpose of comparison. METHODS AND RESULTS: Maize was harvested at early dent [290 g kg(-1) dry matter (DM)] and one-half milk line (355 g kg(-1) DM) stages. Both homofermentative LAB were applied at 1 x 10(5) CFU g(-1) of fresh forage. Lactobacillus buchneri was applied at 1 x 10(5), 5 x 10(5) and 1 x 10(6) CFU g(-1) of fresh forage. Silages with no additives served as control. After treatment, the chopped forages were ensiled in 1.5-l anaerobic jars. Three jars per treatment were sampled on day 60. After 60 days of storage, silages were subjected to an aerobic stability test lasting for 5 days, in which CO(2) production, as well as chemical and microbiological parameters, was measured to determine the extent of aerobic deterioration. Both homofermentative LAB increased the concentration of lactic acid and the numbers of yeasts, and decreased the concentration of acetic acid and impaired the aerobic stability of silages. In contrast, applying L. buchneri decreased the concentration of lactic acid and increased the concentration of acetic acid of the silages. Under aerobic conditions, silages treated with 5 x 10(5) and 1 x 10(6) CFU g(-1) of L. buchneri, had lower pH, CO(2) production and the numbers of yeasts than the silages treated with 1 x 10(5) CFU g(-1) of L. buchneri (P < 0.05). However, all doses of L. buchneri and both homofermentative LAB did not affect in situ rumen DM, organic matter and neutral detergent fibre degradability of the silages. CONCLUSIONS: Lactobacillus buchneri was very effective in protecting maize silages exposed to air under laboratory conditions. All doses of L. buchneri, especially 5 x 10(5) CFU g(-1) or more, markedly decreased the numbers of yeasts and improved the aerobic stability of silages. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The use of L. buchneri, as a silage inoculant, can improve the aerobic stability of maize silages by inhibition of yeast activity.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Homofermentative LAB increased the concentration of lactic acid in maize silage relative to silages with no additives.
- Treatment
- homofermentative LABe1
- Interactor
- homofermentative LABe1other
- Outcome
- concentration of lactic acide1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- Silages with no additivese2
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Both homofermentative LAB increased the concentration of lactic acid and the numbers of yeasts, and decreased the concentration of acetic acid and impaired the aerobic stability of silages”
e2“Silages with no additives served as control”
t0“maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
Homofermentative LAB increased the numbers of yeasts in maize silage relative to silages with no additives.
- Treatment
- homofermentative LABe1
- Interactor
- homofermentative LABe1other
- Outcome
- numbers of yeastse1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- Silages with no additivese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Both homofermentative LAB increased the concentration of lactic acid and the numbers of yeasts, and decreased the concentration of acetic acid and impaired the aerobic stability of silages”
e2“Silages with no additives served as control”
t0“maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
Homofermentative LAB decreased the concentration of acetic acid in maize silage relative to silages with no additives.
- Treatment
- homofermentative LABe1
- Interactor
- homofermentative LABe1other
- Outcome
- concentration of acetic acide1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Comparator
- Silages with no additivese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Both homofermentative LAB increased the concentration of lactic acid and the numbers of yeasts, and decreased the concentration of acetic acid and impaired the aerobic stability of silages”
e2“Silages with no additives served as control”
t0“maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
Homofermentative LAB impaired the aerobic stability of maize silage relative to silages with no additives.
- Treatment
- homofermentative LABe1
- Interactor
- homofermentative LABe1other
- Outcome
- aerobic stabilitye1
- Direction
- impairede1
- Comparator
- Silages with no additivese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Both homofermentative LAB increased the concentration of lactic acid and the numbers of yeasts, and decreased the concentration of acetic acid and impaired the aerobic stability of silages”
e2“Silages with no additives served as control”
t0“maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
Lactobacillus buchneri decreased the concentration of lactic acid in maize silage relative to silages with no additives.
- Treatment
- L. buchnerie1
- Interactor
- L. buchnerie1other
- Outcome
- concentration of lactic acide1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Comparator
- Silages with no additivese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In contrast, applying L. buchneri decreased the concentration of lactic acid and increased the concentration of acetic acid of the silages”
e2“Silages with no additives served as control”
t0“maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
Lactobacillus buchneri increased the concentration of acetic acid in maize silage relative to silages with no additives.
- Treatment
- L. buchnerie1
- Interactor
- L. buchnerie1other
- Outcome
- concentration of acetic acide1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- Silages with no additivese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In contrast, applying L. buchneri decreased the concentration of lactic acid and increased the concentration of acetic acid of the silages”
e2“Silages with no additives served as control”
t0“maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
Under aerobic conditions, 5 x 10(5) and 1 x 10(6) CFU g(-1) of L. buchneri gave lower pH, CO(2) production and yeast numbers in maize silage than 1 x 10(5) CFU g(-1) (P < 0.05).
- Treatment
- 5 x 10(5) and 1 x 10(6) CFU g(-1) of L. buchnerie1
- Interactor
- L. buchnerie1other
- Outcome
- pH, CO(2) production and the numbers of yeastse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Qualifier
- Under aerobic conditionse1
- Comparator
- 1 x 10(5) CFU g(-1) of L. buchnerie1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Under aerobic conditions, silages treated with 5 x 10(5) and 1 x 10(6) CFU g(-1) of L. buchneri, had lower pH, CO(2) production and the numbers of yeasts than the silages treated with 1 x 10(5) CFU g(-1) of L. buchneri (P < 0.05)”
t0“maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
All doses of L. buchneri and both homofermentative LAB did not affect in situ rumen degradability of maize silage relative to silages with no additives.
- Treatment
- all doses of L. buchneri and both homofermentative LABe1
- Interactor
- L. buchnerie1other
- Outcome
- in situ rumen DM, organic matter and neutral detergent fibre degradabilitye1
- Direction
- did not affecte1
- Comparator
- Silages with no additivese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“However, all doses of L. buchneri and both homofermentative LAB did not affect in situ rumen DM, organic matter and neutral detergent fibre degradability of the silages”
e2“Silages with no additives served as control”
t0“maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
All doses of L. buchneri, especially 5 x 10(5) CFU g(-1) or more, markedly decreased yeast numbers in maize silage relative to silages with no additives.
- Treatment
- All doses of L. buchnerie1
- Interactor
- L. buchnerie1other
- Outcome
- numbers of yeastse1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Qualifier
- especially 5 x 10(5) CFU g(-1) or moree1
- Comparator
- Silages with no additivese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All doses of L. buchneri, especially 5 x 10(5) CFU g(-1) or more, markedly decreased the numbers of yeasts and improved the aerobic stability of silages”
e2“Silages with no additives served as control”
t0“maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
All doses of L. buchneri improved the aerobic stability of maize silage relative to silages with no additives.
- Treatment
- All doses of L. buchnerie1
- Interactor
- L. buchnerie1other
- Outcome
- aerobic stabilitye1
- Direction
- improvede1
- Comparator
- Silages with no additivese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All doses of L. buchneri, especially 5 x 10(5) CFU g(-1) or more, markedly decreased the numbers of yeasts and improved the aerobic stability of silages”
e2“Silages with no additives served as control”
t0“maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend L. buchneri as a silage inoculant to improve the aerobic stability of maize silages.
Verbatim
e1“The use of L. buchneri, as a silage inoculant, can improve the aerobic stability of maize silages by inhibition of yeast activity”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · quality: postharvest · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →inoculation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
63 papers in the same direction as this paper · 635 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
695 papers more in this group
See all 699 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.