Silage review: Using molecular approaches to define the microbial ecology of silage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensiling of forages was recognized as a microbial-driven process as early as the late 1800s, when it was associated with the production of "sweet" or "sour" silage. Classical microbiological plating techniques defined the epiphytic microbial populations associated with fresh forage, the pivotal role of lactic acid-producing bacteria in the ensiling process, and the contribution of clostridia, bacilli, yeast, and molds to the spoilage of silage. Many of these classical studies focused on the enumeration and characterization of a limited number of microbial species that could be readily isolated on selective media. Evidence suggested that many of the members of these microbial populations were viable but unculturable, resulting in classical studies underestimating the true microbial diversity associated with ensiling. Polymerase chain reaction-based techniques, including length heterogeneity PCR, terminal RFLP, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis, and automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis, were the first molecular methods used to study silage microbial communities. Further advancements in whole comparative genomic, metagenomic, and metatranscriptomic sequencing have or are in the process of superseding these methods, enabling microbial communities during ensiling to be defined with a degree of detail that is impossible using classical microbiology. These methods have identified new microbial species in silage, as well as characterized shifts in microbial communities with forage type and composition, ensiling method, and in response to aerobic exposure. Strain- and species-specific primers have been used to track the persistence and contribution of silage inoculants to the ensiling process and the role of specific species of yeast and fungi in silage spoilage. Sampling and the methods used to isolate genetic materials for further molecular analysis can have a profound effect on results. Primer selection for PCR amplification and the presence of inhibitors can also lead to biases in the interpretation of sequence data. Bioinformatic analyses are reliant on the integrity and presence of sequence data within established databases and can be subject to low taxonomic resolution. Despite these limitations, advancements in molecular biology are poised to revolutionize our current understanding of the microbial ecology of silage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".