Animal Bioscience

  • 제35권12호
  • /
  • Pages.1860-1870
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2765-0189(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2765-0235(eISSN)
아세아태평양축산학회 (Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Fermentative products and bacterial community structure of C4 forage silage in response to epiphytic microbiota from C3 forages

  • Wang, Siran (Institute of Ensiling and Processing of Grass, College of Agro-Grassland Science, Nanjing Agricultural University) ;
  • Shao, Tao (Institute of Ensiling and Processing of Grass, College of Agro-Grassland Science, Nanjing Agricultural University) ;
  • Li, Junfeng (Institute of Ensiling and Processing of Grass, College of Agro-Grassland Science, Nanjing Agricultural University) ;
  • Zhao, Jie (Institute of Ensiling and Processing of Grass, College of Agro-Grassland Science, Nanjing Agricultural University) ;
  • Dong, Zhihao (Institute of Ensiling and Processing of Grass, College of Agro-Grassland Science, Nanjing Agricultural University)
  • 투고 : 2021.12.12
  • 심사 : 2022.03.09
  • 발행 : 2022.12.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: The observation that temperate C3 and tropical C4 forage silages easily produce large amounts of ethanol or acetic acid has puzzled researchers for many years. Hence, this study aimed to assess the effects of epiphytic microbiota from C3 forages (Italian ryegrass and oat) on fermentative products and bacterial community structure in C4 forage (sorghum) silage. Methods: Through microbiota transplantation and γ-ray irradiation sterilization, the irradiated sorghum was treated: i) sterile distilled water (STSG); ii) epiphytic microbiota from sorghum (SGSG); iii) epiphytic microbiota from Italian ryegrass (SGIR); iv) epiphytic microbiota from oat (SGOT). Results: After 60 days, all the treated groups had high lactic acid (>63.0 g/kg dry matter [DM]) contents and low pH values (<3.70), acetic acid (<14.0 g/kg DM) and ammonia nitrogen (<80.0 g/kg total nitrogen) contents. Notably, SGIR (59.8 g/kg DM) and SGOT (77.6 g/kg DM) had significantly (p<0.05) higher ethanol concentrations than SGSG (14.2 g/kg DM) on day 60. After 60 days, Lactobacillus were predominant genus in three treated groups. Higher proportions of Chishuiella (12.9%) and Chryseobacterium (7.33%) were first found in silages. The ethanol contents had a positive correlation (p<0.05) with the abundances of Chishuiella, Acinetobacter, Stenotrophomonas, Chryseobacterium, and Sphingobacterium. Conclusion: The epiphytic bacteria on raw materials played important roles in influencing the silage fermentation products between temperate C3 and tropical C4 forages. The quantity and activity of hetero-fermentative Lactobacillus, Chishuiella, Acinetobacter, Stenotrophomonas, Chryseobacterium, and Sphingobacterium may be the key factors for the higher ethanol contents and DM loss in silages.

키워드

과제정보

This study was financially supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2021M691607), and Research and demonstration on the key technology of crop straw and agricultural and sideline products feeding (2019C10010).

참고문헌

  1. McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJE. The Biochemistry of silage, 2th edn. Abersytwyth, UK: Chalcombe Publications; 1991.
  2. Nayyar H, Gupta D. Differential sensitivity of C3 and C4 plants to water deficit stress: association with oxidative stress and antioxidants. Environ Exp Bot 2006;58:106-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.06.021
  3. Ward JK, Tissue DT, Thomas RB, Strain BR. Comparative responses of model C3 and C4 plants to drought in low and elevated CO2. Global Change Biol 1999;5:857-67. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00270.x
  4. Li Y, Nishino N. Changes in the bacterial community and composition of fermentation products during ensiling of wilted Italian ryegrass and wilted guinea grass silages. Anim Sci J 2013;84:607-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12046
  5. Driehuis F, van Wikselaar PG. The occurrence and prevention of ethanol fermentation in high-dry-matter grass silage. J Sci Food Agric 2000;80:711-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(20000501)80:6<711::AID-JSFA593>3.0.CO;2-6
  6. Shao T, Zhang ZX, Shimojo M, Wang T, Masuda Y. Comparison of fermentation characteristics of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) and Guineagrass (Panicum maximum Jacq.) during the early stage of ensiling. AsianAustralas J Anim Sci 2005;18:1727-34. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2005.1727
  7. Buxton DR, Muck RE, Harrison JH. Preharvest plant factors affecting ensiling. In: Buxton DR, Muck RE, Harrison JH, editors. Silage science and technology. Agronomy Monographs. ASA, CSSA, SSSA Books; 2003. vol 42:c5.
  8. Duniere L, Xu S, Long J, et al. Bacterial and fungal core microbiomes associated with small grain silages during ensiling and aerobic spoilage. BMC Microbiol 2017;17:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-017-0947-0
  9. Nazar M, Wang S, Zhao J, et al. Abundance and diversity of epiphytic microbiota on forage crops and their fermentation characteristic during the ensiling of sterile sudan grass. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 2021;37:27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-020-02991-3
  10. Wang S, Li J, Zhao J, Dong Z, Shao T. Exploring the ensiling characteristics and bacterial community of red clover inoculated with the epiphytic bacteria from temperate gramineous grasses. J Appl Microbiol 2022;132:177-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.15234
  11. Miron J, Zuckerman E, Adin G, et al. Field yield, ensiling properties and digestibility by sheep of silages from two forage sorghum varieties. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2007;136:203-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.09.001
  12. Mogodiniyai Kasmaei K, Dicksved J, Sporndly R, Uden P. Separating the effects of forage source and field microbiota on silage fermentation quality and aerobic stability. Grass Forage Sci 2016;72:281-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12238
  13. Junges D, Morais G, Spoto MHF, et al. Influence of various proteolytic sources during fermentation of reconstituted corn grain silages. J Dairy Sci 2017;100:9048-51. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12943
  14. Playne MJ, McDonald P. The buffering constituents of herbage and of silage. J Sci Food Agric 1966;17:264-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740170609
  15. Broderick GA, Kang JH. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J Dairy Sci 1980;63:64-75. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(80)82888-8
  16. Krishnamoorthy U, Muscato TV, Sniffen CJ, Van Soest PJ. Nitrogen fractions in selected feedstuffs. J Dairy Sci 1982;65:217-25. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(82)82180-2
  17. Thomas TA. An automated procedure for the determination of soluble carbohydrates in herbage. J Sci Food Agric 1977;28:639-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740280711
  18. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  19. Wang S, Zhao J, Dong Z, Li J, Shao T. Sequencing and microbiota transplantation to determine the role of microbiota on the fermentation type of oat silage. Bioresour Technol 2020; 309:123371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123371
  20. Liu B, Huan H, Gu H, Xu N, Shen Q, Ding C. Dynamics of a microbial community during ensiling and upon aerobic exposure in lactic acid bacteria inoculation-treated and untreated barley silages. Bioresour Technol 2019;273:212-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.10.041
  21. Du Z, Lin Y, Sun L, Yang F, Cai Y. Microbial community structure, co-occurrence network and fermentation characteristics of woody plant silage. J Sci Food Agric 2022;102:1193-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11457
  22. Ma SS, Fang C, Sun XX, Han LJ, He XQ, Huang GQ. Bacterial community succession during pig manure and wheat straw aerobic composting covered with a semi-permeable membrane under slight positive pressure. Bioresour Technol 2018;259: 221-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.03.054
  23. Wang S, Sun Y, Zhao J, Dong Z, Li J, Nazar M, Shao T. Assessment of inoculating various epiphytic microbiota on fermentative profile and microbial community dynamics in sterile Italian ryegrass. J Appl Microbiol 2020;129:509-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.14636
  24. Keshri J, Chen Y, Pinto R, Kroupitski Y, Weinberg ZG, Sela Saldinger S. Microbiome dynamics during ensiling of corn with and without Lactobacillus plantarum inoculant. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2018;102:4025-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-018-8903-y
  25. Graf K, Ulrich A, Idler C, Klocke M. Bacterial community dynamics during ensiling of perennial ryegrass at two compaction levels monitored by terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism. J Appl Microbiol 2016;120:1479-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13114
  26. Borreani G, Tabacco E, Schmidt RJ, Holmes BJ, Muck RE. Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:3952-79. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13837
  27. Duniere L, Sindou J, Chaucheyras-Durand F, Chevallier I, Thevenot-Sergentet D. Silage processing and strategies to prevent persistence of undesirable microorganisms. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2013;182:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.04.006
  28. Nishino N, Li Y, Wang C, Parvin S. Effects of wilting and molasses addition on fermentation and bacterial community in guinea grass silage. Lett Appl Microbiol 2012;54:175-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2011.03191.x
  29. Liu QH, Shao T, Zhang JG. Determination of aerobic deterioration of corn stalk silage caused by aerobic bacteria. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2013;183:124-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.05.012
  30. Zhang RG, Tan X, Liang Y, Meng TY, Liang HZ, Lv J. Description of Chishuiella changwenlii gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from freshwater, and transfer of Wautersiella falsenii to the genus Empedobacter as Empedobacter falsenii comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014;64:2723-8. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.063115-0
  31. Hugo C, Bernardet JF, Nicholson A, Kampfer P. Chryseobacterium. Bergey's Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria; 2019 [cited 2021 Dec 12]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/book/10.1002/9781118960608/homepage/editorscontributors.html
  32. Kung Jr L, Shaver RD, Grant RJ, Schmidt RJ. Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:4020-33. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13909
  33. Pahlow G, Muck RE, Driehuis F, Oude Elferink SJWH, Spoelstra SF. Microbiology of ensiling. In: Buxton DR, Muck RE, Harrison JH, editors. Silage science and technology. Madison, WI, USA: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA; 2003. pp. 31-93.
  34. McDonald P, Edwards RA, Greenhalgh JFD, Morgan CA. Animal nutrition. 6th edn, Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited; 2002. 693 p.
  35. Shankar K, Kulkarni NS, Jayalakshmi SK, Sreeramulu K. Saccharification of the pretreated husks of corn, peanut and coffee cherry by the lignocellulolytic enzymes secreted by Sphingobacterium sp. ksn for the production of bioethanol. Biomass Bioenergy 2019;127:105298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105298