Research article Special Issues

Investigation of the effect of different additives on the qualities, in vitro degradation, and rumen fermentation profile of indigo waste silage

  • Natural indigo dye production produces indigo waste as a by-product. Our purpose of this study was to examine the effects of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), cellulase (CE), molasses (MO), and their combinations on the silage quality, in vitro degradability, and rumen fermentation parameters of indigo waste silage. A completely randomized design (CRD) was used for the experiment. Indigo waste was chopped and ensiled in a small-scale silo with no additive (control), Ca(OH)2, MO, CE, Ca(OH)2:MO, Ca(OH)2:CE, MO:CE, and MO:CE:Ca(OH)2. After 30 days of storage, the silages were tested for quality and chemical composition, as well as an in vitro fermentation. The ruminal fluid inoculum was collected from two beef cattle with a body weight (BW) of 200±10 kg, and the inoculum had been pre-heated before being transported to the laboratory. Silage with MO, CE, or their combination increased the amount of lactic acid (p < 0.01). The silage pH was lowest in MO:CE (4.5) and was highest in Ca(OH)2:CE (10.6) in indigo waste (p < 0.01). In comparison to the control (19.5% CP), the CP content of all additives increased by 20.7% to 21.5% (p = 0.02). The addition of Ca(OH)2:MO and Ca(OH)2:CE resulted in a reduction of NDF content by 60.7% and 59.4%, respectively, in comparison to the control group (72.4%) (p < 0.01). Silage with additives had no effect on the cumulative gas production or gas kinetics, except that the constant rate of gas production for the insoluble fraction (c) was higher in MO (p = 0.03). In vitro dry matter degradability (IVDMD) was higher in CE and MO and highest in MO:CE-treated silage (p < 0.01). The in vitro organic matter degradability (IVOMD) increased in Ca(OH)2:MO compared with the control (p = 0.03). The additives alone or in their two combinations in silage reduced the ruminal ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) concentration (28.0 to 31.5 mg/dL) when compared to the control (32.7 mg/dL) (p < 0.01). In addition, the highest total volatile fatty acid (VFA) level was found in the silage of the MO (92.9 mmol/L) compared with the control (71.3 mmol/l) (p < 0.01). The proportion of propionic acid and butyric acid increased (p < 0.01) whereas acetic acid decreased (p < 0.01) in the rumen of silage with MO and CE. In summary, the addition of MO and CE has the potential to be used in the silage of indigo waste.

    Citation: Nirawan Gunun, Chatchai Kaewpila, Waroon Khota, Pongsatorn Gunun. Investigation of the effect of different additives on the qualities, in vitro degradation, and rumen fermentation profile of indigo waste silage[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(1): 169-182. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024010

    Related Papers:

    [1] Nirawan Gunun, Chatchai Kaewpila, Waroon Khota, Pongsatorn Gunun . Investigation of the effect of different additives on the qualities, in vitro degradation, and rumen fermentation profile of indigo waste silage. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(1): 169-182. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024010
    [2] Ki A. Sarwono, Rohmatussolihat Rohmatussolihat, Muh Watman, Shanti Ratnakomala, Wulansih D. Astuti, Rusli Fidriyanto, Roni Ridwan, Yantyati Widyastuti . Characteristics of fresh rice straw silage quality prepared with addition of lactic acid bacteria and crude cellulase. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(3): 481-499. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022030
    [3] Richard Anthony Scuderi, Pascal Drouin, Emmanuelle Apper . Inoculation with heterofermentative strains Lentilactobacillus buchneri CNCM 40788 and Lentilactobacillus hilgardii CNCM I-4785 either alone or combined improves fermentation and aerobic stability of ensiled triticale (X-triticosecale). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(3): 914-931. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023048
    [4] Ariana Macieira, Helena Albano, Miguel Pinto, Raquel Linheiro, Joana Barbosa, Paula Teixeira . Evaluation of a bacteriocinogenic Lactobacillus plantarum strain on the microbiological characteristics of “Alheira de Vitela”. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(2): 223-236. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.223
    [5] Ardiansyah, Fauziyyah Ariffa, Rizki Maryam Astuti, Wahyudi David, Dody Dwi Handoko, Slamet Budijanto, Hitoshi Shirakawa . Non-volatile compounds and blood pressure-lowering activity of Inpari 30 and Cempo Ireng fermented and non-fermented rice bran. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 337-359. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021021
    [6] Sapta Raharja, Yogi Purna Rahardjo, Samsudin, Khaswar Syamsu . Aroma precursor enhancing in dried cocoa beans fermentation using enzyme and heat addition. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(2): 674-686. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023037
    [7] Pattarabhorn Pakaweerachat, Worasaung Klinthong, Kazuhisa Ohtaguchi, Teerin Chysirichote . Simultaneous isoquercitin and gallic acid production of Aspergillus niger on Triphala byproduct under solid state fermentation in packed-bed bioreactor. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(2): 359-373. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023020
    [8] Thornthan Sawangwan, Chompoonuth Porncharoennop, Harit Nimraksa . Antioxidant compounds from rice bran fermentation by lactic acid bacteria. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(2): 578-587. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021034
    [9] Diana Lo, Andreas Romulo, Jia-Ying Lin, Yuh-Tai Wang, Christofora Hanny Wijaya, Ming-Chang Wu . Effect of different fermentation conditions on antioxidant capacity and isoflavones content of soy tempeh. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(3): 567-579. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022035
    [10] John Samelis, Athanasia Kakouri . Major technological differences between an industrial-type and five artisan-type Greek PDO Galotyri market cheeses as revealed by great variations in their lactic acid microbiota. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 685-710. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.685
  • Natural indigo dye production produces indigo waste as a by-product. Our purpose of this study was to examine the effects of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), cellulase (CE), molasses (MO), and their combinations on the silage quality, in vitro degradability, and rumen fermentation parameters of indigo waste silage. A completely randomized design (CRD) was used for the experiment. Indigo waste was chopped and ensiled in a small-scale silo with no additive (control), Ca(OH)2, MO, CE, Ca(OH)2:MO, Ca(OH)2:CE, MO:CE, and MO:CE:Ca(OH)2. After 30 days of storage, the silages were tested for quality and chemical composition, as well as an in vitro fermentation. The ruminal fluid inoculum was collected from two beef cattle with a body weight (BW) of 200±10 kg, and the inoculum had been pre-heated before being transported to the laboratory. Silage with MO, CE, or their combination increased the amount of lactic acid (p < 0.01). The silage pH was lowest in MO:CE (4.5) and was highest in Ca(OH)2:CE (10.6) in indigo waste (p < 0.01). In comparison to the control (19.5% CP), the CP content of all additives increased by 20.7% to 21.5% (p = 0.02). The addition of Ca(OH)2:MO and Ca(OH)2:CE resulted in a reduction of NDF content by 60.7% and 59.4%, respectively, in comparison to the control group (72.4%) (p < 0.01). Silage with additives had no effect on the cumulative gas production or gas kinetics, except that the constant rate of gas production for the insoluble fraction (c) was higher in MO (p = 0.03). In vitro dry matter degradability (IVDMD) was higher in CE and MO and highest in MO:CE-treated silage (p < 0.01). The in vitro organic matter degradability (IVOMD) increased in Ca(OH)2:MO compared with the control (p = 0.03). The additives alone or in their two combinations in silage reduced the ruminal ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) concentration (28.0 to 31.5 mg/dL) when compared to the control (32.7 mg/dL) (p < 0.01). In addition, the highest total volatile fatty acid (VFA) level was found in the silage of the MO (92.9 mmol/L) compared with the control (71.3 mmol/l) (p < 0.01). The proportion of propionic acid and butyric acid increased (p < 0.01) whereas acetic acid decreased (p < 0.01) in the rumen of silage with MO and CE. In summary, the addition of MO and CE has the potential to be used in the silage of indigo waste.



    Recent research on lactic acid bacteria (LAB) has enhanced our understanding of their many advantageous properties; they can be used as biopreservatives, feed grade enzymes, veterinary medicines, health care products and, especially, food and beverage additives [1,2,3,4]. Lactobacilli are a fermentative, facultative anaerobe that is one of the first-evolving groups of bacteria to have beneficial effects for both humans and animals. LAB have been used as bio-additives in ensiling forage to improve fermentation and preserve nutritional content. Silage results from fermentation of a green chopped forage crop and storage of the product with removal of O2 in a silo (ensiling). Ensiled forages contribute 40–60% of all nutrients for livestock animals. The process involves a wide range of factors, including plant cultivation, harvesting and storage practices [5,6]. Lactobacilli play a critical role in preservation of silage nutrient quality through production of organic acids and inhibition of deleterious spoilage from the remaining microbial community. Also, LAB effectively controls secondary fermentation within inoculated forages [7]. In silage, secondary fermentation is an undesirable acidification that is carried out mainly by Enterobacteria, Clostridia (butyric acid producer), and yeasts (ethanol producer).

    LAB utilize water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC) and convert them into mixtures of organic acids. The use of LAB in starter cultures can enhance feed quality while minimizing the loss of nutrients (such as carbohydrates, crude proteins, volatile free fatty acids and minerals). The use of selected LAB additives enhances the fermentation process, leading to control of dry matter (DM) loss and pathogenic activity [8]. In silage production, homofermentative LAB are used most broadly due to the high amounts of lactic acid production that occur during fermentation (by e.g: Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, Streptococcus spp., and Enterococcus). Currently, many researchers are using heterofermentative LAB (e.g: Leuconostoc spp. and some Lactobacillus strains) as silage additives with a view towards production of acetic acid and butanol for fuel production [9,10,11].

    Silage microflora can be categorized into two main groups, desirable and undesirable organisms. LAB are desirable microbes, while undesirable microorganisms (Enterococcus, yeast and molds) can cause anaerobic or aerobic spoilage during silage fermentation. These undesirable epiphytic microorganisms can decrease the nutritional quality of the silage and also affect animal health and/or milk production [12,13]. Silage additives can be classified into six main groups: homofermentative LAB (hoLAB), heterofermentative LAB (heLAB), customized inoculants (such as hoLAB + heLAB), chemicals, and enzymes. The hoLAB quickly decrease pH and increase lactic acid production in corn, sorghum, and sugarcane silages [14]. Also, the LAB suppresses the growth of undesirable microorganisms and thus reduce proteolysis and DM loss in early fermentation [15]. Blajman et al. [16] reported that LAB inoculation reduces undesirable yeast and mold growth in treated silage, and improves aerobic stability and LAB count in corn silage. However, the effect is highly dependent on the types of inoculants (hoLAB or heLAB) used during silage fermentation. Also, Oliveira et al. [17] explored meta- analysis using silage, LAB species, and silo scale (laboratory or farm-scale) as important factors that determine silage quality.

    In recent decades, silage research has driven novel innovations by private companies, which have experimented with silage inoculums, forage harvesters and plastic films for making in silos [5,18]. In addition, recent silage research has addressed the different parameters of the process, including biochemical, microbiological, agronomical and nutritional aspects. The purpose of silage production is to preserve the nutritional value and original energy content of the forage. Energy loss may occur as a result of many factors, such as field loss, harvesting-related loss, secondary metabolism during fermentation of ensilage material, aerobic spoilage and oxidation when the silage is unwrapped to serve to ruminants [19]. Aerobic spoilage is mainly associated with penetration of O2 into the silage during the storage or feeding period. The nutritional composition and feed value of the silage is dependent on the effectiveness of the silage inoculums in the fermentation process. Proper production and management of silage is very important since contaminated or poorly prepared silage can host undesirable organisms, such as Listeria monocytogenes, Bacillus spp., Clostridium spp., Salmonella, Lactococcus and molds [5]. Growth of pathogenic organisms in silage may reduce the safety and quality of the feed and decrease dairy cattle performance, in particular milk and meat production [20,21]. Some concepts necessary to consider when inoculating a silage ball/pack with LAB are exclusion of air, availability of adequate water-soluble carbohydrates, suitable moisture content and the initiation of an early and prompt fermentation [22]. Under appropriate conditions, silage fermentation should preserve over 90% of the harvested energy, sugar, crude protein and metabolites over long storage periods [5]. In this review, we summarize recent information about the functions of LAB strains in silage fermentation as well as their primary fermented products and methods of improving the quality of silage and its shelf life.

    LAB is gram-positive, microaerophilic, non-spore forming, cocci- or rod-shaped bacteria. They consist of different genera, such as Lactobacillus, Leuconostoc, Pediococcus, Streptococcus, Enterococcus and Lactococcus [23]. Classification of LAB into different genera is largely dependent on morphology, action of fermentable carbohydrates, growth at different temperatures, ability to survive under acid or alkaline conditions and production of various organic acids. Though the majority of silage LAB can grow under mesophilic conditions, including different temperatures (20–50 ℃), the optimum temperature for growth is between 25 and 40 ℃. LAB strains are naturally present in various resources, including fermented foods (yogurt, kimchi, meat), forage crops (Italian rye grass, alfalfa, rye, sorghum, corn and triticale), animal manure, dairy products, rumen juice and infant feces [24,25,26]. Some LAB are facultative aerobes, but some have a preference for anaerobic conditions. LAB are able to reduce silage pH to between 3–5 depending on the selected strains and the type of forage crop [27]. The main function of LAB is to ferment WSC to organic substances as their major end product. LAB generally belong to the genera Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, which are most widely recognized and used as probiotics in feed development, including dairy foods and beverages. Also, the consumption of probiotics is associated with a wide range of health benefits in humans and livestock animals [28].

    In order to improve the quality of silage fermentation, different silage additives have been developed. Recently, biological additives (inoculants) are becoming more widely used as silage preservatives; these can be added to forage in order to increase organic acid production and rapidly decrease silage pH from 6.5 to 3.5. The most important inoculants consist of preferred strains of hoLAB, for example, Lactobacillus spp. (L. plantarum, L. acidophilus, L. lactis, L. bulgaricus), Enterococcus faecium and Pediococcus spp. (P. pentosaceus, P. acidilactici, P. cellicola); these can produce precise quantities of lactic acid in a short fermentation period and so stabilize the silage with minimal nutritional and DM losses [29,30]. Various factors reduce DM and quality loss during the ensiling steps, including the field and pre-ensiling conditions, temperature, fermentation patterns, moisture content during ensiling, methods and materials used to pack the silage and aerobic deterioration during the feed out phases [31].

    In recent years, customized bacterial inoculants have been introduced to enhance organic acid production in silage [32,33]. The primary purpose of these customized inoculants, which include hoLAB strains, is to encourage early fermentation in order to increase the efficiency of fermentation and quickly reduce silage pH. Driehuis et al. [34] LAB inoculated perennial ryegrass with three treatments, L. buch neri alone; L. buchneri with L. plantarum, and P. pentosaceus and non-inoculated silage served as control. The combination inoculants exhibited similar fermentation to the homofermentative L. plantarum and P. pentosaceus treatment over the first 14 days. However, the combination of inoculants and L. buchneri alone resulted in reduced yeast colony counts and improved aerobic stability of treated silage compared with the untreated control during a 90-day fermentation period. Aerobic stability is defined as the length of storage time the silage remains as well‐preserved dry matter content with the lowest amount of yeast and mold spores, even after it is exposed to air. Reports of the use of combination inoculants in various types of silage have been published, with successful outcomes [35].

    The production of organic acids by LAB depends on the amount of WSC present in the fresh crop and the precise nature of the bacterial strains used [30,36]. The carbohydrates in the fresh crop are catabolized to produce organic acids and other substances. Table 1 illustrates the effect of LAB inoculation on organic acid production in silage fermentation. Different types of fermentation may take place in the silo environment, mainly depending on the concentration of WSC, volatile free fatty acids, crude proteins, minerals, and moisture in the forage crop and the microbial community present during the ensiling period [17,31].

    Table 1.  Organic acid production by LAB during silage fermentation.
    Species Type of silages Fermentation products Functions Cited
    Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactococcus lactis, and Lactobacillus buchneri Lollium perenne Lactic acid and other organic acids Productivity of Holstein Friesian dairy cattle [37]
    Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococcus pentosaceus Soybean Enhance the lactic acid, and crude protein content Inhibit the growth of undesirable microbes [38]
    Lactobacillus plantarum Rice straw Improve lactic acid/ acetic acid ratios Hemicellulose degradation and inhibition of clostridia fermentation [39]
    Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus buchneri, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus Maize and Amaranthus Production of lactic acid and a specific methane yield Organic juice into biogas production [40]
    Lactobacillus plantarum Alfalfa Enhance LA content and LA/AA Non-irradiated or irradiated alfalfa forage [41]
    Lactobacillus buchneri Sugarcane Improve the WSC, lactic acid, acetic acid and ethanol concentration Improvement on aerobic stability [39]
    L. plantarum Rice straw silage Enhance its fermentation quality, nutritive characteristics and in vitro digestibility In vitro gas production of rice straw silage [32]
    Bacillus megaterium, Pediococcus acidilactici and Lactobacillus plantarum Medicago sativa Improve the of γ -aminobutyric acid, and 4-hyroxy benzoic acid and phenyl lactic acid production. Regulating the organic acid and toxin contents [42]
    Lactobacillus amylovorus, Lactobacillus mucosae Cattle feed Improve the lactic acid production Inhibition of Salmonella spp. [43]
    L. parafarraginis, Lactobacillus brevis Corn stover Improve the lactic acid and acetic acid contents Improving the corn stover silage quality [44]
    L. buchneri, Leuconostoc mesenteroides Corn silage Production of organic acids Control the E.coli growth [45]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Silage microflora ferment carbohydrates to obtain energy for growth and survival and produce organic acids and other metabolites as end products. In general, silage fermentation utilizes hexoses as the primary substrate. Hexoses are degraded by a different class of silage bacteria and produce organic acids as metabolic end products [46,47,48]. The concentrations of these carbohydrates may vary depending on the type of forage, the time of harvest and environmental conditions [49]. The main pathway used by LAB is glycolysis (Embden-Meyerhoff), in which glucose-containing substrates are catabolized to pyruvate, and acetyl coA is formed as an intermediate product of the Krebs cycle [50,51]. During the ensiling process, both homofermentative and heterofermentative LAB partially hydrolyze hemicellulose to yield pentoses, such as xylose and arabinose, which are fermented into organic acids by the phosphoketolase pathway [52].

    There are three main metabolic pathways found in LAB, the homofermentation, heterofermentation and bifidum pathways. Homofermentation converts glucose to lactic acid at a rate that exceeds 80% of the theoretical efficiency. The most abundant organic acid produced by homofermentation is lactic acid. Many LAB strains, such as Lactobacillus, Lactococcus and some Streptococci, carry out homolactic acid fermentation. Very small quantities of formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid and tartaric acid are also produced as fermentation products (Figure 1). The concentration of other organic acids formed is lower, and negligible for our purposes [53]. LAB uses the EMP (glycolysis) pathway to oxidize one glucose molecule into 2 pyruvate molecules, along with 2 ATP and 2 NADH. Both pyruvates are reduced to lactate by the oxidation of NADH to NAD+ [54,55]. Some LAB strains (e.g: Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium) utilize the heterolactic acid pathway, in which a phosphoketolase enzyme breaks down a pentose sugar molecule into a 3-carbon phosphate and a 2-carbon phosphate molecule [56,57,58]. As a heterolactic acid fermentation pathway, is mainly initiated by the heLAB, which include Lactobacillus and Leuconostoc sp. The hetero lactic fermentation major end product is ethanol and CO2 in addition to lactic acid. The precursor glucose molecules are first metabolized to pyruvate, acetic acid and CO2 by Pentose phosphate pathway. In addition, heLAB and yeasts use the EMP pathway to synthesize ethanol and CO2, and also to produce diverse gases, fatty acids and alcohols. In LAB, the primary form of reduced coenzymes nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH) and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) greatly affect decomposition of carbon sources and trends of metabolic synthesis, respectively. NADPH is required to provide the reducing power and to promote synthesize cellular components such as amino acids, nucleotides and lipids, among others, which have glucose intermediates, thereby providing the raw materials for further production of lactic acid [54].

    Figure 1.  Schematic representation of organic acid metabolic pathways during silage fermentation [54] (C6: 6-carbon molecule; ATP: adenosine triphosphate; ADP: adenosine diphosphate; NAD+: Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide; NADH: Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (reduced form); HCO3: bicarbonate; CO2: Carbon dioxide).

    Normally, ensiled forage crops contain different organic acids, with the quantity and variety of these acids varying depending on LAB species [22,59]. Jones and Barnes [60] compared several forage varieties and found mostly organic acids, such as malic, citric, and succinic acids, with minor concentrations of fumaric and shikimic acids. Figure 1 schematically illustrates the metabolism of organic acids by LAB during silage fermentation. On the other hand, undesirable microbial fermentation in the silo can produce various end products that alter the nutritive value of the forage. LAB produce high-quality silage and control the formation of undesirable compounds from secondary fermentation which can negatively affect animal performance, the environment, and net farm income [61].

    The scientific community has recently been focused on finding novel drugs to inhibit the colonization of multidrug-resistant pathogenic organisms. Some LAB strains can be used as probiotics for ruminants, not only because of the production of lactic acid, but also because they synthesize bacteriocins, bacteriocin-like substances (BLS) and exo-polysaccharides, all of which improve the health of livestock [62,63,64]. Generally, LAB produce different types of antimicrobial compounds that they are safe substances for animal and human. These metabolites which are synthesized from bacterial ribosomes and inactivated by digestive proteases [65,66]. The most common pathogenic microorganisms found in silage are E. coli, Salmonella spp., L. monocytogenes, Clostridium spp. and Bacillus spp. [20]. LAB inoculation of silage rapidly reduces the pH to below 4 and has also been shown to prevent E.coli multiplication in fermented silage [67]. Similarly, Pedroso et al. [68] reported the effectiveness of three combined LAB commercial inoculants at controlling E. coli O157: H7 in corn silages. LAB silage inoculation suppressed pathogen activity within 3 d of ensiling, when the pH dropped below 4.0. The growth inhibition of pathogens in silage was considered to be due to lower pH, and presence of antimicrobial compounds such as organic acids, bacteriocin and BLS in the preserved silages. These metabolites may eliminate the activity of unwanted food-borne pathogens [69]. Similarly, the production of microbial secondary metabolites at lower pH level may also directly reduce the growth of pathogens. Furthermore, pure cultures of L. buchneri and L. plantarum have shown pH-independent antibacterial activity against E. coli O157: H7 [70]. All of these biological additives should be uniformly distributed in the silage for maximum efficiency. It is apparent that to inhibit aerobic spoilage, one must inhibit the growth and activity of microorganisms that cause silage deterioration (i.e. Clostridia, Enterobacteria, molds and yeasts). In addition, the bacteriocin did not affect the other bacterial communities involved in silage fermentation [71]. These were L. lactis CECT 539 and P. acidilactici NRRL B-5627, both of which are bacteriocinogenic strains that have shown antilisterial activity in vitro, and effectiveness for controlling L. monocytogenes in the silo [72]. Figure 2 shows the livestock applications of LAB inoculants in silage production. Gavrilova et al. [73] reported that new LAB strains isolated from clover silage were able to control biofilm formation and inhibit bacterial growth originating from biofilm. In addition, these strains exhibit high organic acid production that completely suppresses the growth of E. coli and S. aureus.

    Figure 2.  Biological activity of LAB in silage production and development.

    Silage additives contain specific LAB strains, such as L. plantarum, P. acidilacti, P. pentosaceous, and E. faecium, which enhance homolactic fermentation by inhibiting undesirable bacteria or dominating the normal flora and increasing the rate of acidification in preserved forage. The antibacterial effect of LAB cell-free supernatant (CFS) against pathogens increased with lower pH levels, and no antibacterial activity was identified at pH 6.0. The CFS of the LAB strains showed moderate antibacterial effects against pathogenic bacteria, except S. aureus and L. monocytogenes, at pH below 5. [74]. Previously, Ogunade et al. [75] demonstrated that E. coli O157: H7 growth was suppressed in silage extract when the pH was below 4. The low pH in silage was achieved due to rapid production of organic acids by the inoculants. When the pH of the silage falls below 4, lactic acid and acetic acid are primarily in their undissociated form. The cell membranes of yeasts and filamentous fungi are more permeable to the acids in this form. The acid is dissociated (carboxyl cation and hydrogen ion) within the cell, due to the high pH (>6.0), releasing H+ ions, which reduce proliferation and survival of pathogenic microorganisms in the silage [76,77].

    When ryegrass was inoculated with L. plantarum, alone and in combination with either L. lactis or P. acidilactici, the DNA band for the spoilage microorganism disappeared after the 5th day of silage fermentation, indicating a synergistic effect of bacteriocin-producing bacteria. This synergistic effect can be attributed to the low pH achieved (<4.0) within 2 d of fermentation when the combination strains were used in the forage [19]. Low pH values stimulate the release of nisin and pediocin from the cell surfaces of L. lactis and P. acidilactici, respectively, and both bacteriocin metabolites exhibit strong antibacterial activity against spoilage bacteria [78]. Amado et al. [72] evaluated the effect of pediocin alone or in combination with a mixture of L. plantarum, E. faecium, and L. buchneri strains against L. monocytogenes. The LAB strains effectively suppressed growth of L. monocytogenes in corn silage via production of pediocin metabolites. Broberg et al. [79] reported that 3-hydroxydecanoic acid (100 µg/mL) inhibited P. roqueforti, Pichia anomala and Aspergillus fumigatus. Also, antifungal activity was seen at pH 4 in the presence of lactic acid (100 mM), 3-hydroxydecanoic acid, 2-hydroxy-4-methylpentanoic acid, benzoic acid and catechol in LAB-inoculated grass silage.

    Although some forages are deficient in essential dietary nutrients for ruminants, a wide range of forages crops has been cultivated for livestock animal feeds. The nutritional value of these crops, including crude protein, VFA (volatile free fatty acids), ADF (Acid detergent fiber), NDF (neutral detergent fiber), and DM, can be enhanced by addition of LAB additives at the time of ensiling. Furthermore, biological additives have beneficial effects on silage fermentation due to improvements in the aerobic stability of silage and via control of the growth of pathogenic bacteria [20]. Some crops, like corn and sorghum, have better nutritional value to begin with and good ensiling characteristics. However, high-quality silage production often requires extensive processing, involving harvesting, crop wilting, selection of additives and ensiling steps, which can make production more expensive [80,81]. In general, hoLAB strains are preferable to the heLAB for preserving. However, some heLAB strains are also quite efficient because of their weaker acids production and possibly their higher pKa in heLAB contribute to aerobic stability effect of silage. [82]. Figure 3 shows the various factors which influence silage production. Importantly, Tanizawa et al. [52] clarified silage fermentation mechanisms from a genomic point of view, especially in cold conditions. Several genes were inactive in the cold condition, but some of the L. vaccinostercus strains, clearly demonstrating the ability to adapt to specific ecological niches. Also, Doi et al. [83] reported that LABs grown at room temperature have a significant capacity to improve the quality of silage. On the other hand, it is not clear whether strains showing strong lactic acid production can dominate butyric acid bacteria or coliform bacteria at higher temperatures (>37 ℃). Different processes have been established to improve the fermentation quality and reduce dry matter losses of whole-crop silages of paddy rice, legumes and grasses [84,85]. Overall, biological silage additive-induced hoLAB fermentation is more suitable to crop silage than other types of fermentation because it leads to greater dry matter recovery and improved fermentation end products [86]. LAB inoculated forages did not alter biochemical and nutritional components and it could preserve its quality of silage in terms of crude protein (CP) content, ADF (acid detergent fiber), NDF (neutral detergent fiber), and TDF (total detergent fiber). In addition, the nutrient values are nothing but the quality of the silage such as organic acids, crude protein content, ADF (acid detergent fiber), NDF (neutral detergent fiber), and TDF (total detergent fiber). Although, the organic acids levels and pH can reflect quality of fermentation and silage mass stability. The low pH shows the silage is stable and cannot further develop undesirable microbes too in the in-silo.

    Figure 3.  Different factors influencing silage metabolism.

    The diversity and function of LAB microbes present in a wide range of fermented foods that improve the nutritional value of fermented foods is now well‐appreciated [87]. The fermented functional foods have presence of live microorganisms inclusing different bioactive molecules, vitamins other constituents during the fermentation that enhanced safety, functionality, sensory, and nutritional properties of silage product [88]. Table 2 shows the merits of LAB inoculants in silage production. Also, the lactic acid bacteria ensiling benefits and uses of chemical additives were discussed.

    Table 2.  Comparison of LAB and Chemical additives in silage fermentation.
    Particulars LAB additives Chemical additives
    Fermentation efficiency Addition of homofermentative LAB speed up fermentative process and inhibit the growth of pathogenic microbes via production of organic acid Formic acid, mineral acid, sulphuric acid could also be effective silage additives to control pathogenic microbes and enhance the fermentation process. However they are hazardous and can damage ensiling materials like equipment and polyethylene wrappers etc. Also, undesirable odors.
    Economic value Effective on a wide range of forage crops and economic Expensive and inefficient on some crop forages
    Aerobic stability Enhances aerobic stability and controls DM loss, on the other hand enhances the nutritive value Though aerobic stability is high it can sometimes damage the silage cover
    Dry matter content Elimination of fermentation losses is not possible, but the use of silage additives may help minimize them Fermentation dry matter loss high
    Different environment condition LAB is more tolerant to low moisture conditions (low water activity) than another undesirable anaerobic microorganisms Low moisture fermentation is less active than other additives

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Ruminal microbiota plays a vital role in the conversion of lignocellulose-rich plants into nutrients for ruminants. It has been proposed that different genera, such as bacteria, fungi, and protozoa, hydrolyze complex flavonoid glycosides to the corresponding less polar aglycones prior to gastrointestinal absorption [89].There is a direct relationship between rumen pH and bacterial community, with significant reductions in bacteria at pH values around 6.8. Table 3 shows the degradation of different plant secondary metabolites by LAB in rumen fluid. In LAB-inoculated potato with wheat straw silage, the chemical composition, silage fermentation characteristics, and in vitro gas production were improved after anaerobic storage for 90 d, compared to untreated silage [90]. Contreras-Govea et al. [7] found that, in ruminal in vitro fermentation, gas and VFA production were not significantly different between non-inoculated and inoculated silage, although the L. plantarum MTD/1-inoculated model produced greater microbial populations than were seen in non-inoculated silage.

    Table 3.  Degradation of secondary plant metabolites by LAB in rumen.
    Name of the LAB Silage used Method evaluated Rumen metabolite degradation Cited
    Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (ATCC 53013) Highly contaminated feed Male Holstein calves Reduced the release of toxins into plasma [91]
    LAB or a combination. Lactobacillus buchneri Lactobacillus plantarum Propionibacterium acidipropionici Potato-wheat straw mixture In-vivo study Enhanced VFA production [90]
    E. faecalis and ruminal microbiota Acacia nilotica In-vitro rumen liquor used for analysis Improved tannin degradation [92]
    Rumen microbiota Eucalyptus globulus Sheep rumen liquor Enhances rutin breakdown [93]
    Ruminal bacteria Cinnamomum zeylanicum, Eugenia caryophyllata In-vitro rumen inoculum Improved essential oil degradation [94]
    Complex lactic acid bacteria Corn crops Crossbred bulls Improved daily dry matter intake [32]
    Lactic acid bacteria Corn stover silage In vitro fermentation In vitro digestibility improved [95]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Those authors suggested that enhanced protein preservation during ensiling with a silage inoculant could be one of the reasons behind disturbances in ruminal fermentation. Zhang et al. [32] evaluated the effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on growth performance and hepatotoxicity in calves fed a single dose of aflatoxin B1 (AFB1). L. rhamnosus GG administration reduced the concentrations of free AFB1 and AFM1 in rumen fluid and reduced the release of toxins into plasma and urine. Also, Goel et al. [92] reported that even typical hydrolysable tannins are toxic to both ruminants and monogastrics, particularly when present in the forage of such animals in excessive amounts. However, ruminants have developed an adaptation that allows degradation of tannins to simple isomers via the microbial ecosystem and subsequent excretion in feces.

    LAB inoculants improve silage quality and reduce DM losses under long-term storage. LAB is one of best organic additives that allow for precise control over undesirable bacterial growth in silage. LAB inoculants utilize water-soluble carbohydrates and complex secondary metabolites in forage crops into organic acids and mineral acids, which effectively control pathogenic growth and enhance the nutritional quality of silage for livestock animals. However, organic acid production and its associated biochemical mechanisms differ depending on the moisture content of forage crops and the storage period. Many studies have been done to investigate the effect of different temperature conditions, harvesting times, moisture levels on forage ensiling quality. In addition, further investigation into the optimal fermentation duration for various kinds of forage crops must be considered, and the effect of LAB additives on fermentation must be investigated, with the overall goal being to save time and cost and to minimize nutrient losses.

    Glossary

    Forage

    Forage is defined as feed for domestic and/or livestock animals.

    Silage

    Silage is feedstuff prepared from grass or other green crops (such as corn, wheat, sorghum, legumes, grass and triticale) that has been cut and preserved through fermentation under anaerobic conditions in a silo. Purpose, to provide winter feed for livestock animals.

    Ensiling

    Ensiling is the name given to the process of preparing and storing forage in order to induce conversion to silage in a packed enclosure (silo).

    Silage additives (inoculums)

    The purpose of using silage additives is to enhance feed quality by encouraging lactic acid fermentation and inhibiting pathogenic microbial growth and by improving its nutritional value. The silage additives may include bacterial cultures, inhibitors of aerobic damage, acids, and nutrients.

    Homofermentative and heterofermentative

    LAB can be classified into two main groups. Homofermentative LAB catabolize glucose into lactic acid, while heterofermentative LAB convert glucose into ethanol and CO2 as well as organic acids.

    Dry matter

    Dry matter refers to foodstuff that remains after removal of water, and the moisture content reflects the amount of water present in the feed ingredient.

    Livestock

    Livestock commonly refers to animals, such as cattle, pigs, sheep, horses and goats that are kept on a farm for commodity and profit.

    Fermented feedstuff

    Fermented feedstuff is formed by probiotic microorganisms and mainly encompasses agricultural end products. Fermented feedstuffs contain essential nutrition and gut microbiota because they contain inoculating microorganisms.

    Buffering capacity

    Silage resistance to pH lowering is called buffering capacity.

    Plant respiration

    The immediate stage of ensiling involves plant cell respiration and oxidation of WSC (hexose). This is also called the aerobic phase because it can only take place when O2 is present in a silo. For example, the biochemical reaction that occurs when plant respiration happens in a silo is:

    C6H12O6 + 6O2→6CO2 + 6H2O + heat energy

    We acknowledged Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development supported funds for this research work (Project No. PJ01358902). The project titled "technique development for manufacture of high-quality legume silage" sponsored by RDA, Korea. This study was also supported by the Postdoctoral Fellowship Program of the National Institute of Animal Science funded by RDA, Korea.

    We declare no conflicts in this work.



    [1] Senasri N, Sriyasak P, Suwanpakdee S, et al. (2022) Toxicity of indigo dye-contaminated water on silver barbs (Barbonymus gonionotus) and pathology in the gills. EnvironmentAsia 15: 106–115. https://doi.org/10.14456/ea.2022.52 doi: 10.14456/ea.2022.52
    [2] Srisamran J, Wimolsujarit B, Supuma Y, et al. (2015) Research and development on indigo in sakonnakhon province. Available from: https://www.doa.go.th/research/attachment.php?aid = 2190.
    [3] Pattanaik L, Padhi SK, Hariprasad P, et al. (2020) Life cycle cost analysis of natural indigo dye production from Indigofera tinctoria L. plant biomass: A case study of India. Clean Technol Environ Policy 22: 1639–1654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01914-y doi: 10.1007/s10098-020-01914-y
    [4] Pattanaik L, Naik SN, Hariprasad P (2019) Valorization of waste Indigofera tinctoria L. biomass generated from indigo dye extraction process-potential towards biofuels and compost. Biomass Convers Biorefin 9: 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-018-0354-2 doi: 10.1007/s13399-018-0354-2
    [5] Gunun N, Kaewpila C, Khota W, et al. (2023) The effect of indigo (Indigofera tinctoria L.) waste on growth performance, digestibility, rumen fermentation, hematology and immune response in growing beef cattle. Animals 13: 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13010084 doi: 10.3390/ani13010084
    [6] Kaewpila C, Khota W, Gunun P, et al. (2020) Strategic addition of different additives to improve silage fermentation, aerobic stability and in vitro digestibility of Napier grasses at late maturity stage. Agriculture 10: 262. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10070262 doi: 10.3390/agriculture10070262
    [7] Gunun N, Gunun P, Wanapat M, et al. (2017) Improving the quality of sugarcane bagasse by urea and calcium hydroxide on gas production, degradability and rumen fermentation characteristics. J Anim Plant Sci 27: 1758–1765.
    [8] So S, Cherdthong A, Wanapat M (2020) Improving sugarcane bagasse quality as ruminant feed with Lactobacillus, cellulase, and molasses. J Anim Sci Technol 62: 648. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2020.62.5.648 doi: 10.5187/jast.2020.62.5.648
    [9] Gunun N, Wanapat M, Gunun P, et al. (2016) Effect of treating sugarcane bagasse with urea and calcium hydroxide on feed intake, digestibility, and rumen fermentation in beef cattle. Trop Anim Health Prod 48: 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-016-1061-2 doi: 10.1007/s11250-016-1061-2
    [10] Zhang YC, Wang XK, Li DX, et al. (2020) Impact of wilting and additives on fermentation quality and carbohydrate composition of mulberry silage. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 33: 254–263. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0925 doi: 10.5713/ajas.18.0925
    [11] Irawan A, Sofyan A, Ridwan R, et al. (2021) Effects of different lactic acid bacteria groups and fibrolytic enzymes as additives on silage quality: A meta-analysis. Bioresour Technol Reports 14: 100654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2021.100654 doi: 10.1016/j.biteb.2021.100654
    [12] Lynch JP, Baah J, Beauchemin KA. (2015) Conservation, fiber digestibility, and nutritive value of corn harvested at 2 cutting heights and ensiled with fibrolytic enzymes, either alone or with a ferulic acid esterase-producing inoculant. J Dairy Sci 98: 1214–1224. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8768 doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-8768
    [13] Chen L, Guo G, Yuan X, et al. (2016) Effects of applying molasses, lactic acid bacteria and propionic acid on fermentation quality, aerobic stability and in vitro gas production of total mixed ration silage prepared with oat-common vetch intercrop on the Tibetan Plateau. J Sci Food Agric 96: 1678–1685. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7271 doi: 10.1002/jsfa.7271
    [14] So S, Cherdthong A, Wanapat M, et al. (2020) Fermented sugarcane bagasse with Lactobacillus combined with cellulase and molasses promotes in vitro gas kinetics, degradability, and ruminal fermentation patterns compared to rice straw. Anim Biotechnol 33: 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2020.1781146 doi: 10.1080/10495398.2020.1781146
    [15] Kaewpila C, Khota W, Gunun P, et al. (2022) Characterization of green manure sunn hemp crop silage prepared with additives: aerobic instability, nitrogen value, and in vitro rumen methane production. Fermentation 8: 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8030104 doi: 10.3390/fermentation8030104
    [16] Khota W, Panyakaew P, Kesorn P, et al. (2023) In vitro rumen fermentation of coconut, sugar palm, and durian peel silages, prepared with selected additives. Fermentation 9: 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9060567 doi: 10.3390/fermentation9060567
    [17] Wanapat M, Polyorach S, Boonnop K, et al. (2009) Effects of treating rice straw with urea or urea and calcium hydroxide upon intake, digestibility, rumen fermentation and milk yield of dairy cows. Livest Sci 125: 238–243.
    [18] Trach N, Mo M, Dan C (2001) Effects of treatment of rice straw with lime and/or urea on its chemical composition, in-vitro gas production and in-sacco degradation characteristics. Livest Res Rural Dev 13: 5–12.
    [19] Cai Y, Benno Y, Ogawa M, et al. (1999) Effect of applying lactic acid bacteria isolated from forage crops on fermentation characteristics and aerobic deterioration of silage. J Dairy Sci 82: 520–526. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75263-X doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75263-X
    [20] Darwin, WipaCharles, Cord-Ruwisch R (2018) Concurrent lactic and volatile fatty acid analysis of microbial fermentation samples by gas chromatography with heat pre-treatment. J Chromatogr Sci 56: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/bmx086 doi: 10.1093/chromsci/bmx086
    [21] AOAC (2016) Official Method of Analysis, 20th Ed., Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
    [22] Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74: 3583–3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
    [23] Menke KH, Steingass H (1988) Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and gas production using rumen fluid. Anim Res Dev 28: 7–55.
    [24] Ørskov ER, McDonald I (1979) The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J Agric Sci 92: 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600063048 doi: 10.1017/S0021859600063048
    [25] Tilley J, Terry R (1963) A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass Forage Sci 18: 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x
    [26] AOAC (1995) Official methods of analysis, 16th Ed., Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
    [27] Cai Y (2004) Analysis method for silage Japanese Society of Grassland Science Field and Laboratory Methods for Grassland Science, Tokyo: Tosho Printing Co. Ltd., Tokyo, 279–282.
    [28] Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (2013) User's guide: Statistic (Version 9), 4th Ed., Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.
    [29] Álvarez S, Méndez P, Martí-Fernández A (2015) Fermentative and nutritive quality of banana by-product silage for goats. J Appl Anim Res 43: 396–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2014.978782 doi: 10.1080/09712119.2014.978782
    [30] Cook DE, Bender RW, Shinners KJ, et al. (2016) The effects of calcium hydroxide—treated whole-plant and fractionated corn silage on intake, digestion, and lactation performance in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 99: 5385–5393. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10402 doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-10402
    [31] Pahlow G, Muck RE, Driehuis F, et al. (2003) Microbiology of ensiling. In: Buxton DR, Muck DR, Harrison JH, Silage Science and Technology, Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, 31–93.
    [32] Kung Jr L, Shaver RD, Grant RJ, et al. (2018) Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. J Dairy Sci 101: 4020–4033. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13909 doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13909
    [33] Xia C, Liang Y, Bai S, et al. (2018) Effects of harvest time and added molasses on nutritional content, ensiling characteristics and in vitro degradation of whole crop wheat. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 31: 354–362. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0542 doi: 10.5713/ajas.17.0542
    [34] Dahlke GR, Euken RM (2013) Calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide treatment of corn silage. Iowa State University Animal Industry Report 2013.
    [35] Zhang Z (2021) Chapter 5—Waste pretreatment technologies for hydrogen production. In: Zhang Q, He C, Ren J, et al. (Eds.), Waste to Renewable Biohydrogen: Volume 1: Advances in Theory and Experiments, Academic Press, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821659-0.00004-6
    [36] Lunsin R, Duanyai S, Pilajun R, et al. (2018) Effect of urea-and molasses-treated sugarcane bagasse on nutrient composition and in vitro rumen fermentation in dairy cows. Agric Nat Resour 52: 622–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anres.2018.11.010 doi: 10.1016/j.anres.2018.11.010
    [37] Xu J, Zhang K, Lin Y, et al. (2022) Effect of cellulase and lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation quality, carbohydrate conversion, and microbial community of ensiling oat with different moisture contents. Front Microbiol 13: 1013258. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1013258 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1013258
    [38] Santos MC, Nussio LG, Mourão GB, et al. (2009) Nutritive value of sugarcane silage treated with chemical additives. Sci Agric (Piracicaba, Braz) 66: 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162009000200003 doi: 10.1590/S0103-90162009000200003
    [39] Li M, Zhou H, Zi X, et al. (2017) Silage fermentation and ruminal degradation of stylo prepared with lactic acid bacteria and cellulase. Anim Sci J 88: 1531–1537. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12795 doi: 10.1111/asj.12795
    [40] Mu L, Wang Q, Wang Y, et al. (2023) Effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentative profile, bacterial diversity, and in vitro degradation of mixed silage of agro-residue and alfalfa. Chem Biol Technol Agric 10: 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-023-00409-4 doi: 10.1186/s40538-023-00409-4
    [41] Sutaryono YA, Putra RA, Mardiansyah M, et al. (2023) Mixed Leucaena and molasses can increase the nutritional quality and rumen degradation of corn stover silage. J Adv Vet Anim Res 10: 118.
    [42] Cherdthong A, Suntara C, Khota W, Wanapat M. 2021. Feed utilization and rumen fermentation characteristics of Thai-indigenous beef cattle fed ensiled rice straw with Lactobacillus casei TH14, molasses, and cellulase enzymes. Livest Sci 245: 104405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104405 doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104405
    [43] Carrillo-Díaz MI, Miranda-Romero LA, Chávez-Aguilar, G, et al. (2022) Improvement of ruminal neutral detergent fiber degradability by obtaining and using exogenous fibrolytic enzymes from white-rot fungi. Animals 12: 843. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070843 doi: 10.3390/ani12070843
    [44] Gunun N, Wanapat M, Kaewpila, C, et al. (2023) Effect of heat processing of rubber seed kernel on in vitro rumen biohydrogenation of fatty acids and fermentation. Fermentation 9: 143. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9020143 doi: 10.3390/fermentation9020143
    [45] Satter LD, Slyter LL. (1974) Effect of ammonia concentration of rumen microbial protein production in vitro. Br J Nutr 32: 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19740073 doi: 10.1079/BJN19740073
    [46] Guo G, Shen C, Liu Q, et al. (2020) The effect of lactic acid bacteria inoculums on in vitro rumen fermentation, methane production, ruminal cellulolytic bacteria populations and cellulase activities of corn stover silage. J Integr Agric 19: 838–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62707-3 doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62707-3
    [47] Suntara S, Cherdthong A, Uriyapongson S, et al. (2020) Comparison effects of ruminal crabtree-negative yeasts and crabtree-positive yeasts for improving ensiled rice straw quality and ruminal digestion using in vitro gas production. J Fungi 6: 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6030109. doi: 10.3390/jof6030109
    [48] Wang Q, Wang R, Wang C, et al. (2022) Effects of cellulase and Lactobacillus plantarum on fermentation quality, chemical composition, and microbial community of mixed silage of whole-plant corn and peanut vines. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 194: 2465–2480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-022-03821-y doi: 10.1007/s12010-022-03821-y
    [49] Morvay Y, Bannink A, France J, et al. (2011) Evaluation of models to predict the stoichiometry of volatile fatty acid profiles in rumen fluid of lactating Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 94: 3063–3080. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3995 doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3995
    [50] Ungerfeld EM (2020) Metabolic hydrogen flows in rumen fermentation: principles and possibilities of interventions. Front Microbiol 11: 589. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00589 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00589
    [51] Børsting CF, Brask M, Hellwing, ALF, et al. (2020) Enteric methane emission and digestion in dairy cows fed wheat or molasses. J Dairy Sci 103: 1448–1462. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-16655 doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16655
    [52] Gunun P, Wanapat M, Anantasook N (2013) Rumen fermentation and performance of lactating dairy cows affected by physical forms and urea treatment of rice straw. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 26: 1295–1303. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13094 doi: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13094
    [53] So S, Wanapat M, Cherdthong A (2021) Effect of sugarcane bagasse as industrial by-products treated with Lactobacillus casei TH14, cellulase and molasses on feed utilization, ruminal ecology and milk production of mid-lactating Holstein Friesian cows. J Sci Food Agric 101: 4481–4489. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11087 doi: 10.1002/jsfa.11087
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Narongrit Jaipolsaen, Siwat Sangsritavong, Tanaporn Uengwetwanit, Pacharaporn Angthong, Vethachai Plengvidhya, Wanilada Rungrassamee, Saowaluck Yammuenart, Comparison of the Effects of Microbial Inoculants on Fermentation Quality and Microbiota in Napier Grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and Corn (Zea mays L.) Silage, 2022, 12, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2021.784535
    2. Sunisa Pongsub, Chanon Suntara, Waroon Khota, Waewaree Boontiam, Anusorn Cherdthong, The Chemical Composition, Fermentation End-Product of Silage, and Aerobic Stability of Cassava Pulp Fermented with Lactobacillus casei TH14 and Additives, 2022, 9, 2306-7381, 617, 10.3390/vetsci9110617
    3. Lin Li, Hongwen Zhao, Wenlong Gou, Guangrou Lu, Bingxue Xiao, Chao Chen, Ping Li, Effects of Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculants and Stage-Increased Storage Temperature on Silage Fermentation of Oat on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, 2022, 8, 2311-5637, 631, 10.3390/fermentation8110631
    4. Mária Kalúzová, Miroslava Kačániová, Daniel Bíro, Milan Šimko, Branislav Gálik, Michal Rolinec, Ondrej Hanušovský, Soňa Felšöciová, Miroslav Juráček, The Change in Microbial Diversity and Mycotoxins Concentration in Corn Silage after Addition of Silage Additives, 2022, 14, 1424-2818, 592, 10.3390/d14080592
    5. Cintia Adácsi, Szilvia Kovács, István Pócsi, Zoltán Győri, Zsuzsanna Dombrádi, Tünde Pusztahelyi, Microbiological and Toxicological Evaluation of Fermented Forages, 2022, 12, 2077-0472, 421, 10.3390/agriculture12030421
    6. Charles Obinwanne Okoye, Yongli Wang, Lu Gao, Yanfang Wu, Xia Li, Jianzhong Sun, Jianxiong Jiang, The performance of lactic acid bacteria in silage production: A review of modern biotechnology for silage improvement, 2023, 266, 09445013, 127212, 10.1016/j.micres.2022.127212
    7. Charles Obinwanne Okoye, Yanfang Wu, Yongli Wang, Lu Gao, Xia Li, Jianxiong Jiang, Fermentation profile, aerobic stability, and microbial community dynamics of corn straw ensiled with Lactobacillus buchneri PC-C1 and Lactobacillus plantarum PC1-1, 2023, 270, 09445013, 127329, 10.1016/j.micres.2023.127329
    8. Cintia Adácsi, Szilvia Kovács, István Pócsi, Tünde Pusztahelyi, Elimination of Deoxynivalenol, Aflatoxin B1, and Zearalenone by Gram-Positive Microbes (Firmicutes), 2022, 14, 2072-6651, 591, 10.3390/toxins14090591
    9. Xusheng Guo, Dongmei Xu, Fuhou Li, Jie Bai, Rina Su, Current approaches on the roles of lactic acid bacteria in crop silage, 2023, 16, 1751-7915, 67, 10.1111/1751-7915.14184
    10. Ziqian Li, Fuhou Li, Dongmei Xie, Baibing Zhang, Zohreh Akhavan Kharazian, Xusheng Guo, Effects of Bacteriocin-Producing Lactiplantibacillus plantarum on Fermentation, Dynamics of Bacterial Community, and Their Functional Shifts of Alfalfa Silage with Different Dry Matters, 2022, 8, 2311-5637, 690, 10.3390/fermentation8120690
    11. Elena Bartkiene, Romas Gruzauskas, Modestas Ruzauskas, Egle Zokaityte, Vytaute Starkute, Dovile Klupsaite, Laurynas Vadopalas, Sarunas Badaras, Fatih Özogul, Changes in the Microbial Community and Biogenic Amine Content in Rapeseed Meal during Fermentation with an Antimicrobial Combination of Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains, 2022, 8, 2311-5637, 136, 10.3390/fermentation8040136
    12. A.U.C. Ohanaka, J.N. Ohanaka, N.O. Aladi, I.P. Ogbuewu, I.F. Etuk, I.C. Okoli, Potentials of Palm Wine as Probiotics and Organic Acids Source in Animal Nutrition, 2023, 18, 16839919, 44, 10.3923/ajava.2023.44.56
    13. Lin Sun, Yanlin Xue, Yanzi Xiao, Rigele Te, Xiaoguang Wu, Na Na, Nier Wu, Moge Qili, Yi Zhao, Yimin Cai, Luca Cocolin, Community Synergy of Lactic Acid Bacteria and Cleaner Fermentation of Oat Silage Prepared with a Multispecies Microbial Inoculant, 2023, 11, 2165-0497, 10.1128/spectrum.00705-23
    14. Tolcha Techane Alemu, Chala G. Kuyu, A review of the production, quality, and safety of traditionally fermented cereal‐based alcoholic beverages in Ethiopia, 2024, 12, 2048-7177, 3125, 10.1002/fsn3.4012
    15. Dereba Workineh Seboka, Abay Tabor Bejiga, Debela Jufar Turunesh, Andualem Arimo Turito, Abayeneh Girma, Giuseppe Comi, Microbial and Physicochemical Dynamics of Kocho, Fermented Food from Enset, 2023, 2023, 1687-9198, 1, 10.1155/2023/6645989
    16. Fuhou Li, Mengya Jia, Hu Chen, Mengyan Chen, Rina Su, Samaila Usman, Zitong Ding, Lizhuang Hao, Marcia Franco, Xusheng Guo, Haruyuki Atomi, Responses of microbial community composition and CAZymes encoding gene enrichment in ensiled Elymus nutans to altitudinal gradients in alpine region , 2024, 90, 0099-2240, 10.1128/aem.00986-24
    17. Zohreh Akhavan Kharazian, Dongmei Xu, Rina Su, Xusheng Guo, Effects of inoculation and dry matter content on microbiome dynamics and metabolome profiling of sorghum silage, 2024, 108, 0175-7598, 10.1007/s00253-024-13096-4
    18. Meng Yu, Peng Wang, Fuhou Li, Jiarui Du, Yitong Jin, Tianyue Zhao, Qixuan Yi, Hongyu Tang, Bao Yuan, Fermentation Quality and In Vitro Digestibility of Sweet Corn Processing Byproducts Silage Mixed with Millet Hull or Wheat Bran and Inoculated with a Lactic Acid Bacteria, 2024, 10, 2311-5637, 254, 10.3390/fermentation10050254
    19. Dini Dwi Ludfiani, Widya Asmara, Forita Dyah Arianti, Enzyme characterization of lactic acid bacteria isolated from duck excreta, 2024, 22310916, 143, 10.14202/vetworld.2024.143-149
    20. Jatin Sharma, Shubham Sharma, Krishna Sai Karnatam, Om Prakash Raigar, Chayanika Lahkar, Dinesh Kumar Saini, Sushil Kumar, Alla Singh, Abhijit Kumar Das, Priti Sharma, Ramesh Kumar, Surveying the genomic landscape of silage-quality traits in maize (Zea mays L.), 2023, 11, 22145141, 1893, 10.1016/j.cj.2023.10.007
    21. D. Febrina, S. Sadarman, I. Mirdhayati, T. Adelina, T. Hidayat, A. Al Afid, R. R. Nasution, N. Qomariyah, R. Pazla, Effect of microbial growth precursor supplementation on chemical composition and fermentation characteristics of palm stem pith silage, 2024, 1230-1388, 10.22358/jafs/189933/2024
    22. Eleftherios Bonos, Ioannis Skoufos, Konstantinos Petrotos, Ioannis Giavasis, Chrysanthi Mitsagga, Konstantina Fotou, Konstantina Vasilopoulou, Ilias Giannenas, Evangelia Gouva, Anastasios Tsinas, Angela Gabriella D’Alessandro, Angela Cardinali, Athina Tzora, Innovative Use of Olive, Winery and Cheese Waste By-Products as Functional Ingredients in Broiler Nutrition, 2022, 9, 2306-7381, 290, 10.3390/vetsci9060290
    23. Maria Paula Cardeal Volpi, Oscar Fernando Herrera Adarme, Michelle Fernandes Araújo, Thiago Ribas Bella, Paula Fontoura Procópio, Luís Guilherme Furlan de Abreu, Marcelo Falsarella Carazzolle, Gonçalo Amarante Guimarães Pereira, Gustavo Mockaitis, Biohydrogen and methane production via silage-based dark co-fermentation using vinasse and filter cake, 2024, 27, 2589014X, 101927, 10.1016/j.biteb.2024.101927
    24. Huifang Jiang, Charles Obinwanne Okoye, Yanfang Wu, Lu Gao, Xia Li, Yongli Wang, Jianxiong Jiang, Silage pathogens and biological control agents: effects, action mechanisms, challenges and prospects, 2024, 1386-6141, 10.1007/s10526-023-10236-z
    25. Sadık Serkan AYDIN, Nihat DENEK, Mehmet AVCI, Nurcan KIRAR, Şermin TOP, The effect of fermented natural lactic acid bacteria liquid and water-soluble carbohydrate admixture on alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) silage fermentation quality, in vitro digestibility and methane production, 2023, 8, 2148-6239, 172, 10.24880/maeuvfd.1291961
    26. Dengte Li, Huade Xie, Fanquan Zeng, Xianqing Luo, Lijuan Peng, Xinwen Sun, Xinfeng Wang, Chengjian Yang, An Assessment on the Fermentation Quality and Bacterial Community of Corn Straw Silage with Pineapple Residue, 2024, 10, 2311-5637, 242, 10.3390/fermentation10050242
    27. Wenbo Wang, Hua Tian, Yuwei Zhao, Yanshun Nie, Zibing Li, Junjie Gong, Wenjie Jiang, Yanjing Yin, Ramon Santos Bermudez, Wenxing He, Formation of high-quality mixed silage from paper mulberry and wheat bran driven by the characteristics of the microbial community, 2024, 15, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1476067
    28. Carmelo Mastroeni, Erica Fiorbelli, Samantha Sigolo, Valentina Novara, Eliana Carboni, Ivan Eisner, Paolo Fantinati, Antonio Gallo, Improving the quality of whole-plant corn silage in the top layer of a silo by using an inoculant in combination with sodium benzoate, 2025, 319, 03778401, 116176, 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2024.116176
    29. Sunisa Pongsub, Chaichana Suriyapha, Waewaree Boontiam, Anusorn Cherdthong, Effect of cassava pulp treated with Lactobacillus casei TH14, urea, and molasses on gas kinetics, rumen fermentation, and degradability using the in vitro gas technique, 2024, 10, 24058440, e29973, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29973
    30. S. Vipin Krishnan, P. A. Anaswara, K. Madhavan Nampoothiri, Szilvia Kovács, Cintia Adácsi, Pál Szarvas, Szabina Király, István Pócsi, Tünde Pusztahelyi, Biocontrol Activity of New Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolates Against Fusaria and Fusarium Mycotoxins, 2025, 17, 2072-6651, 68, 10.3390/toxins17020068
    31. Yuyan Ma, Chengmei Xu, Gang Lin, Yajiao Zhao, Jiahong Xiang, Tao Wu, The Influence of Different Oat–Pea Mixed Cropping Ratios in a Corral Coupled with Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculation on Silage Quality, 2025, 11, 2311-5637, 81, 10.3390/fermentation11020081
    32. Pamela Oliveira de Souza de Azevedo, Martin Gierus, Lactic Acid Bacteria and Bacteriocins in Feed Preservation: Mechanisms and Antifungal Properties, 2025, 80, 0142-5242, 10.1111/gfs.12711
    33. W.C. Ke, R. Su, M. Franco, M. Rinne, D.M. Xu, G.J. Zhang, X.S. Guo, Impact of inoculants on alfalfa silage: a multi-omics analysis reveals microbial community and metabolic shifts despite undesirable fermentation quality, 2025, 03778401, 116329, 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2025.116329
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1545) PDF downloads(141) Cited by(1)

Figures and Tables

Tables(5)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog