Exploring the Effects of Different Bacteria Additives on Fermentation Quality, Microbial Community and In Vitro Gas Production of Forage Oat Silage
Bacterial inoculants are considered as a good choice for successful ensiling, playing a key role in improving the silage quality. However, the potential of different bacteria, especially the propionic acid bacteria, in forage oat ensiling is yet to be explored. Therefore, the purpose of this study w...
Saved in:
Published in | Animals (Basel) Vol. 12; no. 9; p. 1122 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Switzerland
MDPI AG
27.04.2022
MDPI |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | Bacterial inoculants are considered as a good choice for successful ensiling, playing a key role in improving the silage quality. However, the potential of different bacteria, especially the propionic acid bacteria, in forage oat ensiling is yet to be explored. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the regulation effects of different bacterial additives on the fermentation quality of forage oat silage. Four additives (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum F1, LP; Lacticaseibacillus 0rhamnosus XJJ01, LR; Lacticaseibacillus paracasei XJJ02, LC; and Propionibacterium acidipropionici 1.1161, PP; without additives, CK) were inoculated in forage oat silage, and the fermentation quality and organic compounds were determined after 60 days of ensiling. Notably, LR showed higher dry matter preservation compared to other additives and CK. In addition, LP and LR showed strong lactic acid synthesis capacity, resulting in lower pH compared to other additives and CK. The treatments of PP and LC increased the bacterial diversity in silage, while the bacterial community in the LR group was different from that in other groups. In addition, the PP- and LC-treated oat silage showed significantly lower total in vitro gas production and a lower methane content. These results suggest that LP is more favorable for producing high-quality oat silage than LR, LC, or PP. Both the PP- and LC- treated oat silage may reduce rumen greenhouse gas emissions. |
---|---|
AbstractList | Bacterial inoculants are considered as a good choice for successful ensiling, playing a key role in improving the silage quality. However, the potential of different bacteria, especially the propionic acid bacteria, in forage oat ensiling is yet to be explored. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the regulation effects of different bacterial additives on the fermentation quality of forage oat silage. Four additives (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum F1, LP; Lacticaseibacillus 0rhamnosus XJJ01, LR; Lacticaseibacillus paracasei XJJ02, LC; and Propionibacterium acidipropionici 1.1161, PP; without additives, CK) were inoculated in forage oat silage, and the fermentation quality and organic compounds were determined after 60 days of ensiling. Notably, LR showed higher dry matter preservation compared to other additives and CK. In addition, LP and LR showed strong lactic acid synthesis capacity, resulting in lower pH compared to other additives and CK. The treatments of PP and LC increased the bacterial diversity in silage, while the bacterial community in the LR group was different from that in other groups. In addition, the PP- and LC-treated oat silage showed significantly lower total in vitro gas production and a lower methane content. These results suggest that LP is more favorable for producing high-quality oat silage than LR, LC, or PP. Both the PP- and LC- treated oat silage may reduce rumen greenhouse gas emissions.Bacterial inoculants are considered as a good choice for successful ensiling, playing a key role in improving the silage quality. However, the potential of different bacteria, especially the propionic acid bacteria, in forage oat ensiling is yet to be explored. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the regulation effects of different bacterial additives on the fermentation quality of forage oat silage. Four additives (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum F1, LP; Lacticaseibacillus 0rhamnosus XJJ01, LR; Lacticaseibacillus paracasei XJJ02, LC; and Propionibacterium acidipropionici 1.1161, PP; without additives, CK) were inoculated in forage oat silage, and the fermentation quality and organic compounds were determined after 60 days of ensiling. Notably, LR showed higher dry matter preservation compared to other additives and CK. In addition, LP and LR showed strong lactic acid synthesis capacity, resulting in lower pH compared to other additives and CK. The treatments of PP and LC increased the bacterial diversity in silage, while the bacterial community in the LR group was different from that in other groups. In addition, the PP- and LC-treated oat silage showed significantly lower total in vitro gas production and a lower methane content. These results suggest that LP is more favorable for producing high-quality oat silage than LR, LC, or PP. Both the PP- and LC- treated oat silage may reduce rumen greenhouse gas emissions. Bacterial inoculants are considered as a good choice for successful ensiling, playing a key role in improving the silage quality. However, the potential of different bacteria, especially the propionic acid bacteria, in forage oat ensiling is yet to be explored. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the regulation effects of different bacterial additives on the fermentation quality of forage oat silage. Four additives (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum F1, LP; Lacticaseibacillus 0rhamnosus XJJ01, LR; Lacticaseibacillus paracasei XJJ02, LC; and Propionibacterium acidipropionici 1.1161, PP; without additives, CK) were inoculated in forage oat silage, and the fermentation quality and organic compounds were determined after 60 days of ensiling. Notably, LR showed higher dry matter preservation compared to other additives and CK. In addition, LP and LR showed strong lactic acid synthesis capacity, resulting in lower pH compared to other additives and CK. The treatments of PP and LC increased the bacterial diversity in silage, while the bacterial community in the LR group was different from that in other groups. In addition, the PP- and LC-treated oat silage showed significantly lower total in vitro gas production and a lower methane content. These results suggest that LP is more favorable for producing high-quality oat silage than LR, LC, or PP. Both the PP- and LC- treated oat silage may reduce rumen greenhouse gas emissions. Simple SummaryForage oat is an important feed resource in the world. Few studies on the application of different bacterial additives in forage oat silage have been found, which limits the utilization and promotion of oat silage in animal husbandry. In this study, we compared the fermentation quality and in vitro gas production of oat silage treated with four additives (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum F1,LP; Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus XJJ01, LR; Lacticaseibacillus paracasei XJJ02, LC; and Propionibacterium acidipropionici 1.1161, PP). The results show that compared to the CK group (without additives), the LR group had a higher dry matter content, while the LP group showed an improvement in fermentation quality. At the same time, the bacterial community in the LR group was also different from that in other groups. The treatments of PP and LC had no significant effects on fermentation quality, but the in vitro gas production was significantly reduced in the treated oat silage. These results could help us to optimize the utilization of forage oat silage in balanced ruminant diets.AbstractBacterial inoculants are considered as a good choice for successful ensiling, playing a key role in improving the silage quality. However, the potential of different bacteria, especially the propionic acid bacteria, in forage oat ensiling is yet to be explored. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the regulation effects of different bacterial additives on the fermentation quality of forage oat silage. Four additives (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum F1, LP; Lacticaseibacillus 0rhamnosus XJJ01, LR; Lacticaseibacillus paracasei XJJ02, LC; and Propionibacterium acidipropionici 1.1161, PP; without additives, CK) were inoculated in forage oat silage, and the fermentation quality and organic compounds were determined after 60 days of ensiling. Notably, LR showed higher dry matter preservation compared to other additives and CK. In addition, LP and LR showed strong lactic acid synthesis capacity, resulting in lower pH compared to other additives and CK. The treatments of PP and LC increased the bacterial diversity in silage, while the bacterial community in the LR group was different from that in other groups. In addition, the PP- and LC-treated oat silage showed significantly lower total in vitro gas production and a lower methane content. These results suggest that LP is more favorable for producing high-quality oat silage than LR, LC, or PP. Both the PP- and LC- treated oat silage may reduce rumen greenhouse gas emissions. Bacterial inoculants are considered as a good choice for successful ensiling, playing a key role in improving the silage quality. However, the potential of different bacteria, especially the propionic acid bacteria, in forage oat ensiling is yet to be explored. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the regulation effects of different bacterial additives on the fermentation quality of forage oat silage. Four additives ( F1, LP; XJJ01, LR; XJJ02, LC; and 1.1161, PP; without additives, CK) were inoculated in forage oat silage, and the fermentation quality and organic compounds were determined after 60 days of ensiling. Notably, LR showed higher dry matter preservation compared to other additives and CK. In addition, LP and LR showed strong lactic acid synthesis capacity, resulting in lower pH compared to other additives and CK. The treatments of PP and LC increased the bacterial diversity in silage, while the bacterial community in the LR group was different from that in other groups. In addition, the PP- and LC-treated oat silage showed significantly lower total in vitro gas production and a lower methane content. These results suggest that LP is more favorable for producing high-quality oat silage than LR, LC, or PP. Both the PP- and LC- treated oat silage may reduce rumen greenhouse gas emissions. |
Author | Xiong, Yi Chen, Fei Yang, Fuyu Guo, Chunze Ni, Kuikui Li, Xiaomei Xu, Jingjing Guo, Linna Jiang, Dedai Chen, Yunrong Lin, Yanli |
AuthorAffiliation | 1 College of Grassland Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China; xiongleslie@126.com (Y.X.); xucau@outlook.com (J.X.); linnam921@163.com (L.G.); 17683267025@189.cn (F.C.); sy20203243207@cau.edu.cn (D.J.); guocz19970404@163.com (C.G.); b20193040360@cau.edu.cn (X.L.); nikk@cau.edu.cn (K.N.) 3 Donghan Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Station of Fuqing City, Fujian 350300, China; 15005959791@163.com 2 Beijing Sure Academy of Biosciences, Beijing 100193, China; lyl161@126.com |
AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: 3 Donghan Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Station of Fuqing City, Fujian 350300, China; 15005959791@163.com – name: 2 Beijing Sure Academy of Biosciences, Beijing 100193, China; lyl161@126.com – name: 1 College of Grassland Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China; xiongleslie@126.com (Y.X.); xucau@outlook.com (J.X.); linnam921@163.com (L.G.); 17683267025@189.cn (F.C.); sy20203243207@cau.edu.cn (D.J.); guocz19970404@163.com (C.G.); b20193040360@cau.edu.cn (X.L.); nikk@cau.edu.cn (K.N.) |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Yi orcidid: 0000-0002-7133-1558 surname: Xiong fullname: Xiong, Yi – sequence: 2 givenname: Jingjing surname: Xu fullname: Xu, Jingjing – sequence: 3 givenname: Linna surname: Guo fullname: Guo, Linna – sequence: 4 givenname: Fei surname: Chen fullname: Chen, Fei – sequence: 5 givenname: Dedai surname: Jiang fullname: Jiang, Dedai – sequence: 6 givenname: Yanli surname: Lin fullname: Lin, Yanli – sequence: 7 givenname: Chunze surname: Guo fullname: Guo, Chunze – sequence: 8 givenname: Xiaomei surname: Li fullname: Li, Xiaomei – sequence: 9 givenname: Yunrong surname: Chen fullname: Chen, Yunrong – sequence: 10 givenname: Kuikui orcidid: 0000-0003-3620-0074 surname: Ni fullname: Ni, Kuikui – sequence: 11 givenname: Fuyu surname: Yang fullname: Yang, Fuyu |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35565552$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNptkk1v1DAQhiNURD_oiTuyxAWpLHicTJK9IJVlt6xUVBAfV2vi2FuvEntxnIr-Dv4wbrdF2wpfPJ555_FoZg6zPeedzrIXwN_m-ZS_I2dB8CmAEE-yA8GrciJKwL0dez87HoY1T6fCHBCeZfs5YomI4iD7M_-96XywbsXipWZzY7SKA_OGfbTJDtpF9oFU1MESO21bG-2VTnHHFjr0KUrRpsfXkTobr9-wz1YF31jq2Mz3_eiSk5Fr2dKxnzYGz85oYF-Cb0d1m5g-WvhAK80uKLJvtkvm8-ypoW7Qx3f3UfZjMf8--zQ5vzhbzk7PJ6qoME6MyrE0gGVTFYqQCtVWjWmats5FZQSHQvG8Ak5UA2hu2rISSEaALkWj8zI_ypZbbutpLTfB9hSupScrbx0-rCSFaFWnJUfCeqpqBFDFFFsCRFNgAqLSSrWJ9X7L2oxNr1uVOhOoewB9GHH2Uq78lZwC51AVCfD6DhD8r1EPUfZ2ULrryGk_DlKUZVFzAKyS9NUj6dqPwaVW3ahEKrLmeVK93K3oXyn3s08C2ArSxIYhaCOV3Y4zFWg7CVzerJjcWbGUc_Io5x77P_VfpIzSPw |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1128_spectrum_00705_23 crossref_primary_10_1128_spectrum_02228_23 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10681_024_03435_x crossref_primary_10_1111_1751_7915_14184 crossref_primary_10_1111_1751_7915_70118 crossref_primary_10_3390_agriculture14122275 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40538_024_00702_w crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms11020513 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2022_1076499 crossref_primary_10_3390_fermentation11020081 crossref_primary_10_3390_agriculture14111953 crossref_primary_10_3390_fermentation8120707 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40643_024_00806_z crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2022_1108890 crossref_primary_10_3389_frfst_2022_1108043 crossref_primary_10_1360_TB_2024_0209 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2023_1063333 |
Cites_doi | 10.3168/jds.2017-13909 10.1186/s40104-021-00645-4 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.114998 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114669 10.1006/jcrs.2000.0349 10.3389/fbioe.2021.612285 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(75)84603-0 10.1051/animres:2000119 10.1016/S2095-3119(18)62060-X 10.1021/jf071775v 10.3389/fmicb.2021.750920 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.04.055 10.3390/agriculture11070672 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02998 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114370 10.1111/jam.15236 10.1017/S002185960003611X 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.03000.x 10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00197-8 10.1111/1462-2920.15428 10.3389/fmicb.2021.689174 10.1111/lam.12018 10.1002/jsfa.2740371005 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122255 10.3168/jds.2019-16995 10.3390/microorganisms9020274 10.1007/s00253-016-7900-2 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122336 10.1038/s41579-018-0041-0 10.1017/S1751731112000419 10.1111/grs.12285 10.3389/fmicb.2021.690801 10.1111/asj.13134 10.2527/jas.2013-6583 10.1186/s40104-019-0342-9 10.3168/jds.2017-13837 10.3389/fmicb.2021.701434 10.1071/AN16062 10.3389/fmicb.2020.586412 10.3168/jds.2021-20155 10.3390/fermentation7040286 10.1155/2010/945785 10.3168/jds.2017-13839 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123371 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.04.006 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. 2022 by the authors. 2022 |
Copyright_xml | – notice: 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. – notice: 2022 by the authors. 2022 |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION NPM ABUWG AFKRA AZQEC BENPR CCPQU COVID DWQXO PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PKEHL PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM DOA |
DOI | 10.3390/ani12091122 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef PubMed ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central ProQuest One Community College Coronavirus Research Database ProQuest Central Korea ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef PubMed Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition Coronavirus Research Database ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central China ProQuest Central ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central Korea ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic Publicly Available Content Database CrossRef PubMed |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: BENPR name: ProQuest Central url: https://www.proquest.com/central sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Zoology |
EISSN | 2076-2615 |
ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_05a589c8511c495da155f457255ceccd PMC9100174 35565552 10_3390_ani12091122 |
Genre | Journal Article |
GeographicLocations | United States--US China |
GeographicLocations_xml | – name: China – name: United States--US |
GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: National Key Research & Development Program of China grantid: 2021YFD1300300 – fundername: Modern Agro-industry Technology Research System of China grantid: CARS-07-E-3 |
GroupedDBID | 5VS 7XC 8FE 8FH AAFWJ AAHBH AAYXX ABDBF ACUHS AFKRA AFPKN ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS APEBS BENPR CCPQU CITATION DIK EAD EAP EPL ESX GROUPED_DOAJ HYE IAO ITC LK8 M48 MODMG M~E OK1 OZF PGMZT PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PROAC RPM TUS ZBA NPM ABUWG AZQEC COVID DWQXO PKEHL PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM PUEGO |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-fc356f156b74ca5a4cd7bfbbd8327f2014c03710aa811e0fd6725af21e62be363 |
IEDL.DBID | M48 |
ISSN | 2076-2615 |
IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 01:24:37 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 18:06:09 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 16:06:22 EDT 2025 Mon Jun 30 11:17:39 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 05:46:34 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:04:30 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 01:55:52 EDT 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 9 |
Keywords | Propionibacterium fermentation quality forage oat lactic acid bacteria greenhouse gas |
Language | English |
License | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c475t-fc356f156b74ca5a4cd7bfbbd8327f2014c03710aa811e0fd6725af21e62be363 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 These authors contributed equally to this work. |
ORCID | 0000-0002-7133-1558 0000-0003-3620-0074 |
OpenAccessLink | http://journals.scholarsportal.info/openUrl.xqy?doi=10.3390/ani12091122 |
PMID | 35565552 |
PQID | 2662851803 |
PQPubID | 2032438 |
ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_05a589c8511c495da155f457255ceccd pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9100174 proquest_miscellaneous_2664801157 proquest_journals_2662851803 pubmed_primary_35565552 crossref_citationtrail_10_3390_ani12091122 crossref_primary_10_3390_ani12091122 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 20220427 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2022-04-27 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 4 year: 2022 text: 20220427 day: 27 |
PublicationDecade | 2020 |
PublicationPlace | Switzerland |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Switzerland – name: Basel |
PublicationTitle | Animals (Basel) |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Animals (Basel) |
PublicationYear | 2022 |
Publisher | MDPI AG MDPI |
Publisher_xml | – name: MDPI AG – name: MDPI |
References | Lagier (ref_39) 2018; 16 Muck (ref_9) 2018; 101 ref_14 Wang (ref_22) 2019; 90 ref_19 ref_18 Ni (ref_16) 2017; 101 ref_15 Jia (ref_21) 2020; 67 Fant (ref_43) 2020; 103 Heron (ref_25) 1986; 37 Ni (ref_20) 2017; 238 Morgavi (ref_11) 2013; 7 Li (ref_40) 2011; 52 Monteiro (ref_10) 2021; 104 Sindou (ref_30) 2013; 182 Kung (ref_24) 2018; 101 Britt (ref_27) 1975; 58 Hristov (ref_13) 2013; 91 Nicholson (ref_1) 1957; 49 Li (ref_17) 2018; 17 Muraro (ref_38) 2021; 23 ref_36 ref_35 ref_34 Moss (ref_12) 2000; 49 ref_33 ref_32 ref_31 ref_37 Borreani (ref_7) 2018; 101 Salimei (ref_26) 2007; 55 Peterson (ref_48) 2001; 33 ref_47 ref_46 ref_45 ref_44 Chen (ref_29) 2021; 132 ref_41 ref_3 ref_2 Nagadi (ref_42) 2000; 87 ref_49 ref_8 ref_5 ref_4 Chen (ref_23) 2013; 56 ref_6 Flieg (ref_28) 1938; 1 |
References_xml | – volume: 101 start-page: 4020 year: 2018 ident: ref_24 article-title: Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages publication-title: J. Dairy Sci. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13909 – ident: ref_45 doi: 10.1186/s40104-021-00645-4 – ident: ref_37 doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.114998 – ident: ref_5 doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114669 – volume: 33 start-page: 115 year: 2001 ident: ref_48 article-title: Oat Antioxidants publication-title: J. Cereal Sci. doi: 10.1006/jcrs.2000.0349 – ident: ref_18 doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.612285 – volume: 58 start-page: 532 year: 1975 ident: ref_27 article-title: Fungal Growth and Acid Production During Fermentation and Refermentation of Organic Acid Treated Corn Silages1 publication-title: J. Dairy Sci. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(75)84603-0 – volume: 49 start-page: 231 year: 2000 ident: ref_12 article-title: Methane production by ruminants: Its contribution to global warming publication-title: Ann. De Zootech. doi: 10.1051/animres:2000119 – volume: 17 start-page: 2768 year: 2018 ident: ref_17 article-title: Influence of lactic acid bacteria, cellulase, cellulase-producing Bacillus pumilus and their combinations on alfalfa silage quality publication-title: J. Integr. Agric. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(18)62060-X – volume: 55 start-page: 9600 year: 2007 ident: ref_26 article-title: Lactobacillus rhamnosus as additive for maize and sorghum ensiling publication-title: J. Agric. Food Chem. doi: 10.1021/jf071775v – ident: ref_8 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.750920 – volume: 238 start-page: 706 year: 2017 ident: ref_20 article-title: Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses additives on the microbial community and fermentation quality of soybean silage publication-title: Bioresour. Technol. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.04.055 – volume: 1 start-page: 112 year: 1938 ident: ref_28 article-title: A key for the evaluation of silage samples publication-title: Futterb. Giirfutterbereitung – ident: ref_31 doi: 10.3390/agriculture11070672 – ident: ref_15 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02998 – ident: ref_47 doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114370 – volume: 132 start-page: 189 year: 2021 ident: ref_29 article-title: Effect of citric acid residue and short-chain fatty acids on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of lucerne ensiled with lactic acid bacteria inoculants publication-title: J. Appl. Microbiol. doi: 10.1111/jam.15236 – volume: 49 start-page: 129 year: 1957 ident: ref_1 article-title: The effect of stage of maturity on the yield and chemical composition of oats for haymaking publication-title: J. Agric. Sci. doi: 10.1017/S002185960003611X – volume: 52 start-page: 314 year: 2011 ident: ref_40 article-title: Bacterial and fungal communities of wilted Italian ryegrass silage inoculated with and without Lactobacillus rhamnosus or Lactobacillus buchneri publication-title: Lett. Appl. Microbiol. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.03000.x – volume: 87 start-page: 231 year: 2000 ident: ref_42 article-title: The influence of diet of the donor animal on the initial bacterial concentration of ruminal fluid and in vitro gas production degradability parameters publication-title: Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. doi: 10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00197-8 – volume: 23 start-page: 5979 year: 2021 ident: ref_38 article-title: Bacterial dynamics of sugarcane silage in the tropics publication-title: Environ. Microbiol. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.15428 – ident: ref_49 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.689174 – volume: 56 start-page: 71 year: 2013 ident: ref_23 article-title: Characteristics of lactic acid bacteria isolates and their inoculating effects on the silage fermentation at high temperature publication-title: Lett. Appl. Microbiol. doi: 10.1111/lam.12018 – volume: 37 start-page: 979 year: 1986 ident: ref_25 article-title: Changes in the nitrogenous components of gamma-irradiated and inoculated ensiled ryegrass publication-title: J. Sci. Food Agric. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2740371005 – ident: ref_32 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122255 – volume: 103 start-page: 1404 year: 2020 ident: ref_43 article-title: Effects of different barley and oat varieties on methane production, digestibility, and fermentation pattern in vitro publication-title: J. Dairy Sci. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16995 – ident: ref_44 – ident: ref_4 doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9020274 – volume: 101 start-page: 1385 year: 2017 ident: ref_16 article-title: Comparative microbiota assessment of wilted Italian ryegrass, whole crop corn, and wilted alfalfa silage using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and next-generation sequencing publication-title: Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. doi: 10.1007/s00253-016-7900-2 – ident: ref_34 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122336 – volume: 16 start-page: 540 year: 2018 ident: ref_39 article-title: Culturing the human microbiota and culturomics publication-title: Nat. Rev. Microbiol. doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0041-0 – volume: 7 start-page: 184 year: 2013 ident: ref_11 article-title: Rumen microbial (meta)genomics and its application to ruminant production publication-title: Animal doi: 10.1017/S1751731112000419 – volume: 67 start-page: 55 year: 2020 ident: ref_21 article-title: The effects of stage of maturity and lactic acid bacteria inoculants on the ensiling characteristics, aerobic stability and in vitro digestibility of whole-crop oat silages publication-title: Grassl. Sci. doi: 10.1111/grs.12285 – ident: ref_35 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.690801 – volume: 90 start-page: 178 year: 2019 ident: ref_22 article-title: Effect of microbial inoculants on the fermentation characteristics, nutritive value, and in vitro digestibility of various forages publication-title: Anim. Sci. J. doi: 10.1111/asj.13134 – volume: 91 start-page: 5045 year: 2013 ident: ref_13 article-title: Special Topics—Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options1 publication-title: J. Anim. Sci. doi: 10.2527/jas.2013-6583 – ident: ref_14 doi: 10.1186/s40104-019-0342-9 – volume: 101 start-page: 3952 year: 2018 ident: ref_7 article-title: Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages publication-title: J. Dairy Sci. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13837 – ident: ref_2 – ident: ref_33 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.701434 – ident: ref_41 doi: 10.1071/AN16062 – ident: ref_36 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.586412 – volume: 104 start-page: 8826 year: 2021 ident: ref_10 article-title: Effects of lactic acid bacteria in a silage inoculant on ruminal nutrient digestibility, nitrogen metabolism, and lactation performance of high-producing dairy cows publication-title: J. Dairy Sci. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-20155 – ident: ref_19 – ident: ref_3 doi: 10.3390/fermentation7040286 – ident: ref_46 doi: 10.1155/2010/945785 – volume: 101 start-page: 3980 year: 2018 ident: ref_9 article-title: Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives publication-title: J. Dairy Sci. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13839 – ident: ref_6 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123371 – volume: 182 start-page: 1 year: 2013 ident: ref_30 article-title: Silage processing and strategies to prevent persistence of undesirable microorganisms publication-title: Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.04.006 |
SSID | ssj0000753151 |
Score | 2.3201537 |
Snippet | Bacterial inoculants are considered as a good choice for successful ensiling, playing a key role in improving the silage quality. However, the potential of... Simple SummaryForage oat is an important feed resource in the world. Few studies on the application of different bacterial additives in forage oat silage have... |
SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref |
SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source |
StartPage | 1122 |
SubjectTerms | Acids Additives Bacteria Carbon dioxide Chromatography COVID-19 Fermentation fermentation quality forage oat greenhouse gas Laboratories lactic acid bacteria Microorganisms Polyethylene Propionibacterium Variance analysis |
SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lb9QwELZQJSQuiDeBggaJEyKqk9hxcmyBpSAVkKCo4hKNXxBUOVU3PfR38Ic7jrOrXVSJC7coHsuOPfZ8E3u-YeylwbYsLPJcW0UOSq2qvMXK5IKwfKu9587E2OGjT_Xhsfh4Ik82Un3FO2GJHjgN3B6XKJvWRGBgCMxbJAPohVQEhQ01b-PuSzZvw5n6nY7nKrJlKSCvIr9-D0Mfw0QJXpRbJmhi6r8OXv59S3LD7CzusNszXoT91M-77IYL99jNH8P0N_w--7O-QweE5CBxES9h8PB2znwywkEiZEbYt3a6KUTlARa0Jc9xRwESk8blazjqJ2ImanGOHBkvAYOFDwG-9-P5AO9xCV8SS2ysSA0tSIl-OviMI3ztT-nxATtevPv25jCf8yzkRig55t5UsvbkyGklDEoUxirttba02pUnhCBMJPbjiE1ROO5tTaOPvixcXWpX1dVDthOG4B4zcKpB23ijpCxFUxdYtj6mQuJaca-8ztir1dB3ZiYhj7kwTjtyRuI8dRvzlJEqrYTPEvfG9WIHcQ7XIpEwe3pBatTNatT9S40ytrvSgG5excuOwEtJNRpeZezFupjWXzxUweCGi0kmMvAUUmXsUVKYdU8Iy9WSRiJjakuVtrq6XRL6XxPHdxu5sZR48j--7Sm7VcagDS7yUu2ynfH8wj0jKDXq59OquQJTNR5R priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: ProQuest Central dbid: BENPR link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Lb9QwELZgKyQuiDeBgozECRE1cew4OaEudClILRVQVHGJxq8SqXLKbnro7-APM068oYsqblHsyI494_nG9nxDyCsNNcsNZKkyEh2UUhZpDYVOOWL5WjmXWR1ihw8Oy_1j_ulEnMQNt1W8VrleE4eF2nQ67JHvoCFhiA6qrHh7_isNWaPC6WpMoXGTbOESXFUzsjXfOzz6Mu2yoEEs0KaNgXkF-vc74NsQLoowg22YooGx_zqY-e9tySvmZ3GX3Im4ke6OE32P3LD-Prn1oxt2xR-Q39NdOoqIjo6cxCvaOfo-ZkDp6XwkZga6a8xwYwjLPV3g0hzjjzwdGTUu39CDdiBowhZjBEl_ScEb-tHT722_7OgHWNGjkS02fIgNLVCYTi39DD392p7h40NyvNj79m4_jfkWUs2l6FOnC1E6dOiU5BoEcG2kckoZ1HrpEClwHQj-MoAqz23mTCmZAMdyWzJli7J4RGa-8_YJoVZWYCqnpRCMV2UOrHYhJVKmZOakUwl5vR76Rkcy8pAT46xBpyTMU3NlnhIUqXXl85GD4_pq8zCHU5VAnD286JanTdTDJhMgqloHnKnRNzSAeMpxgT8iNEqzScj2WgKaqM2r5q_sJeTlVIx6GA5XwNvuYqgTmHhyIRPyeBSYqSeI6UqBI5EQuSFKG13dLPHtz4Hruw4cWZI__X-3npHbLIRlZDxlcpvM-uWFfY5gqVcvokb8ARoVF3M priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest |
Title | Exploring the Effects of Different Bacteria Additives on Fermentation Quality, Microbial Community and In Vitro Gas Production of Forage Oat Silage |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35565552 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2662851803 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2664801157 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC9100174 https://doaj.org/article/05a589c8511c495da155f457255ceccd |
Volume | 12 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Lb9QwELaqVkhcEG8CZWUkTohAHnacHBDqQpeCtKUCFlVcIj_boJXT7qYS-zv4w4wdZ9WtVtyieKw49oz9je35BqGXkldZqngSC8XAQSlYHlc8lzEBLF8JYxItXezw9Lg4mpEvp_R0Bw3JOEMHLre6di6f1Gwxf_PncvUeDP6d8zjBZX_LbeMiQAE5wFy8B0sSc6kMpgHn_-5P63JY2vr4vJt1NlYkT9y_DW3evDR5bRWa3EV3AnzEB_1430M72t5Ht361fnP8Afq7vlKHAdjhnpp4iVuDP4ZEKB0e9_zMHB8o5S8OQbnFE5ihQxiSxT2xxuo1njaepwm-GAJJuhXmVuHPFv9sukWLP_ElPulJY11F-NAEdOpM46-8w9-bOTw-RLPJ4Y8PR3FIuxBLwmgXG5nTwoBfJxiRnHIiFRNGCAXGzwwABiIdz1_CeZmmOjGqYBnlJkt1kQmdF_kjtGtbq58grFnJVWkkozQjZZHyrDIuM1IiWGKYERF6NXR9LQMnuUuNMa_BN3HjVF8bpwg0axC-6Kk4touN3RiuRRx_tn_RLs7qYI51QjktK-ngpgQXUXGAVYZQ-BEqQalVhPYHDagHnawBy2RQo0zyCL1YF4M5ujMWbnV75WUcIU9KWYQe9wqzbglAu4JCT0SIbajSRlM3S2xz7im_K0eVxcjT_zfrGbqdueiMhMQZ20e73eJKPwfM1IkR2hsfHp98G_k9h5G3jn852xrD |
linkProvider | Scholars Portal |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1Lb9QwELbKVgguiDeBAkaCCyKq49hxckCoS7vs0u5SQVtVXILjR4lUJWU3Fdrfwf_gNzLOiy6quPUWxU7iZGY83ziebxB6qWRCAy2Jn2kBAUokQj-RofIZYPkks5YY5XKHp7NofMg-HvPjNfS7y4Vx2yq7ObGeqHWp3Br5JjgSCuggJuG7sx--qxrl_q52JTQatdg1y58Qsi3eTrZBvq8oHe0cvB_7bVUBXzHBK9-qkEcWwpZMMCW5ZEqLzGaZBt0WFvwhU47GjkgZB4EhVkeCcmlpYCKamTAK4b7X0DoLI0IHaH24M9v_3K_qgAMOwYc2iYBhmJBNWeQuPRVgDV1xfXWFgMtg7b-7My-4u9FtdKvFqXirUaw7aM0Ud9H1r2W9Cn8P_er37mFAkLjhQF7g0uLttuJKhYcNEbTEW1rXO5SgvcAjcAVtvlOBGwaP5Rs8zWtCKHhim7FSLbEsNJ4U-Civ5iX-IBd4v2GndRfCg0agvCcGf5IV_pKfwuF9dHglkniABkVZmEcIGxFLHVslOKcsjgJJE-tKMJFMECts5qHX3adPVUt-7mpwnKYQBDk5pRfk5IEKd53PGs6Py7sNnQz7Lo6ouz5Rzk_S1u5TwiWPE-VwrYJYVEvAb5ZxeBGuwHq0hzY6DUjb2WOR_tV1D73om8Hu3c8cWZjyvO7jmH8CLjz0sFGYfiSAISMOX8JDYkWVVoa62lLk32tu8cRxcgn2-P_Deo5ujA-me-neZLb7BN2kLiWEMJ-KDTSo5ufmKQC1KnvWWgdG367aIP8AdrtUog |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1Lb9NAEB6VVCAuiDeGAosEF4QVe-312geEGlLTUBoioFXFxaz3USxVdklcofwO_g2_jlk_QoMqbr1F2U289szOfLOe-QbguRQJ9ZXw3FxxDFAiHriJCKQbIpZPcmM8LW3t8P402j0I3x-xow343dfC2LTK3iY2hlpV0p6RD9GRUEQHsRcMTZcWMRunb05_uLaDlH3T2rfTaFVkTy9_Yvi2eD0Zo6xfUJrufHm763YdBlwZcla7RgYsMhjC5DyUgolQKp6bPFeo59ygbwylpbTzhIh9X3tGRZwyYaivI5rrIArwf6_AJrdR0QA2RzvT2afVCQ864wD9aVsUGASJNxRlYUtVEeLQNTfYdAu4COL-m6l5zvWlN-FGh1nJdqtkt2BDl7fh6teqOZG_A79WeXwE0SRp-ZAXpDJk3HVfqcmoJYUWZFupJlsJx0uSolvoap9K0rJ5LF-R_aIhh8IrdtUr9ZKIUpFJSQ6Lel6Rd2JBZi1Trf0hXihFRT7W5KOoyefiBD_ehYNLkcQ9GJRVqR8A0TwWKjaSM0bDOPIFTYxtx-Tl3DPc5A687B99JjsidNuP4yTDgMjKKTsnJwfVuZ982vJ_XDxtZGW4mmJJu5svqvlx1tmAzGOCxYm0GFdiXKoEYjkTMrwRJnEnKQe2eg3IOkuyyP7qvQPPVsNoA-yLHVHq6qyZY1mAfMYduN8qzGoliCcjhk_CAb6mSmtLXR8pi-8Nz3hi-bl4-PD_y3oK13AjZh8m071HcJ3a6hAvdCnfgkE9P9OPEbPV-ZNucxD4dtn78Q8egFjX |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Exploring+the+Effects+of+Different+Bacteria+Additives+on+Fermentation+Quality%2C+Microbial+Community+and+In+Vitro+Gas+Production+of+Forage+Oat+Silage&rft.jtitle=Animals+%28Basel%29&rft.au=Xiong%2C+Yi&rft.au=Xu%2C+Jingjing&rft.au=Guo%2C+Linna&rft.au=Chen%2C+Fei&rft.date=2022-04-27&rft.pub=MDPI+AG&rft.eissn=2076-2615&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1122&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390%2Fani12091122&rft.externalDBID=HAS_PDF_LINK |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2076-2615&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2076-2615&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2076-2615&client=summon |