| Literature DB >> 34991191 |
Kailang Huang1, Hongwei Chen1, Yalu Liu1, Qihua Hong2, Bin Yang1, Jiakun Wang1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study identified the major lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strains from different fermented total mixed rations (FTMRs) via metataxonomic analysis and evaluated the ability of their standard strain as ensiling inoculants for corn stover silage.Entities:
Keywords: Corn Stover Silage; Ensiling Characteristics; In vitro Rumen Fermentation; Lactobacillus; Metataxonomic Analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 34991191 PMCID: PMC9449406 DOI: 10.5713/ab.21.0461
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anim Biosci ISSN: 2765-0189
Figure 1Taxonomic profiles of different silage microbial communities at different taxonomic ranks. Chi1, Chi2, Chi3, Chi4, Chi5, and Chi6 represent the different FTMRs collected from Nbdg YOYOU Company, China. Jap1 and Jap2 represent the different FTMRs collected from Japan. (a), (b) Represents bacterial relative abundance at genus (top 10), and species levels of Lactobacillus (top 10), respectively.
The pH values of each treatment during the ensiling period
| Time (d) | Treatment[ | SEM | p-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Cont | CSI |
|
|
|
| |||
| 0 | 6.33[ | 6.26[ | 6.29[ | 6.44[ | 6.01[ | 5.85[ | 0.14 | <0.01 |
| 1 | 5.30[ | 4.45[ | 5.38[ | 5.54[ | 5.26[ | 4.28[ | 0.07 | <0.01 |
| 3 | 4.23[ | 3.91[ | 4.30[ | 4.32[ | 4.14[ | 3.79[ | 0.06 | <0.01 |
| 7 | 3.90[ | 3.62[ | 3.98[ | 3.91[ | 3.84[ | 3.67[ | 0.03 | <0.01 |
| 14 | 3.75[ | 3.54[ | 3.89[ | 3.76[ | 3.68[ | 3.55[ | 0.05 | <0.01 |
| 28 | 3.95 | 3.78 | 3.83 | 3.98 | 3.91 | 3.85 | 0.07 | 0.21 |
| 56 | 4.35[ | 4.22[ | 4.57[ | 4.37[ | 4.30[ | 4.31[ | 0.07 | <0.01 |
SEM, standard error of the mean.
Cont, control; CSI, commercial silage inoculant silage; L. vag, L. vaginalis silage; L. reu, L. reuteri silage; L. hel, L. helveticus silage; L. par, L. paralimentarius silage.
Means in the same row with different superscripted letters differ (p<0.05).
Lactic acid concentrations of each treatment during the ensiling period (g/kg dry matter)
| Time (d) | Treatment[ | SEM | p-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Cont | CSI |
|
|
|
| |||
| 0 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.14 |
| 1 | 0.42[ | 1.26[ | 0.37[ | 0.31[ | 0.67[ | 2.77[ | 0.16 | <0.01 |
| 3 | 1.23[ | 1.85[ | 1.14[ | 1.05[ | 1.46[ | 2.17[ | 0.20 | <0.01 |
| 7 | 1.85[ | 2.34[ | 1.60[ | 1.44[ | 1.79[ | 2.36[ | 0.13 | <0.01 |
| 14 | 2.40[ | 3.19[ | 1.67[ | 2.03[ | 2.25[ | 3.08[ | 0.26 | <0.01 |
| 28 | 2.68[ | 3.15[ | 1.53[ | 2.32[ | 2.66[ | 2.85[ | 0.24 | <0.01 |
| 56 | 1.86[ | 2.14[ | 2.29[ | 2.33[ | 3.08[ | 1.88[ | 0.26 | <0.01 |
SEM, standard error of the mean.
Cont, control; CSI, commercial silage inoculant silage; L. vag, L. vaginalis silage; L. reu, L. reuteri silage; L. hel, L. helveticus silage; L. par, L. paralimentarius silage.
Means in the same row with different superscripted letters differ (p<0.05).
Acetic acid concentrations of each treatment during the ensiling period (g/kg dry matter)
| Time (d) | Treatment[ | SEM | p-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Cont | CSI |
|
|
|
| |||
| 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | - | - |
| 1 | 1.20[ | 1.22[ | 1.18[ | 1.15[ | 1.11[ | 0.24[ | 0.11 | <0.01 |
| 3 | 1.80[ | 1.53[ | 2.13[ | 2.11[ | 1.79[ | 1.22[ | 0.12 | <0.01 |
| 7 | 3.78[ | 3.18[ | 3.58[ | 3.44[ | 3.25[ | 2.74[ | 0.16 | <0.01 |
| 14 | 4.22[ | 3.57[ | 3.73[ | 3.97[ | 3.57[ | 3.11[ | 0.18 | <0.01 |
| 28 | 4.12[ | 3.66[ | 3.67[ | 4.16[ | 3.91[ | 3.03[ | 0.20 | <0.01 |
| 56 | 5.04[ | 3.90[ | 4.07[ | 4.65[ | 4.14[ | 3.06[ | 0.40 | <0.01 |
SEM, standard error of the mean.
Cont, control; CSI, commercial silage inoculant silage; L. vag, L. vaginalis silage; L. reu, L. reuteri silage; L. hel, L. helveticus silage; L. par, L. paralimentarius silage.
Means in the same row with different superscripted letters differ (p<0.05).
Figure 2Butyric acid concentration in each treatment during the ensiling period. Cont, control; CSI, commercial silage inoculant silage; L. vag, L. vaginalis silage; L. reu, L. reuteri silage; L. hel, L. helveticus silage; L. par, L. paralimentarius silage.
NH3-N production of each treatment during the ensiling period (mg/g dry matter)
| Time (d) | Treatment[ | SEM | p-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Cont | CSI |
|
|
|
| |||
| 0 | 0.81 | 0.92 | 0.74 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.84 | 0.22 | 0.4 |
| 1 | 1.26[ | 1.09[ | 1.20[ | 1.18[ | 1.10[ | 0.94[ | 0.13 | <0.01 |
| 3 | 1.39 | 1.30 | 1.35 | 1.40 | 1.29 | 1.15 | 0.21 | 0.31 |
| 7 | 1.58[ | 1.23[ | 1.25[ | 1.14[ | 1.25[ | 1.19[ | 0.21 | 0.02 |
| 14 | 2.04 | 2.07 | 2.05 | 1.81 | 2.07 | 2.16 | 0.39 | 0.67 |
| 28 | 3.14 | 2.84 | 2.54 | 2.92 | 2.92 | 2.76 | 0.35 | 0.12 |
| 56 | 1.83 | 1.69 | 1.96 | 1.76 | 1.84 | 1.75 | 0.25 | 0.47 |
SEM, standard error of the mean.
Cont, control; CSI, commercial silage inoculant silage; L. vag, L. vaginalis silage; L. reu, L. reuteri silage; L. hel, L. helveticus silage; L. par, L. paralimentarius silage.
Means in the same row with different superscripted letters differ (p<0.05).
In vitro rumen fermentation characteristics
| Item | Treatment[ | SEM | p-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Cont | CSI |
|
|
|
| |||
| Cumulative GP72h (mL/g DM) | 84.49[ | 104.37[ | 94.91[ | 100.16[ | 118.19[ | 91.21[ | 3.52 | 0.06 |
| Potential GP (mL/g DM) | 94.79[ | 112.08[ | 105.59[ | 112.75[ | 127.21[ | 125.63[ | 3.23 | <0.01 |
| Rate of GP (mL/h/g DM) | 0.032[ | 0.038[ | 0.031[ | 0.031[ | 0.036[ | 0.020[ | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Lag time (h) | 4.35[ | 3.55[ | 4.37[ | 5.32[ | 4.74[ | 5.20[ | 0.22 | 0.17 |
| pH72h | 7.02[ | 7.14[ | 7.06[ | 6.99[ | 7.03[ | 7.06[ | 0.01 | <0.01 |
| NH3-N (mg/g DM) | 14.40[ | 17.89[ | 16.59[ | 15.55[ | 15.96[ | 15.99[ | 0.34 | 0.06 |
| MCP (mg/g DM) | 18.69 | 20.52 | 18.77 | 18.46 | 18.36 | 18.75 | 0.31 | 0.38 |
| Acetic acid (mmol/L) | 13.15 | 14.18 | 13.59 | 14.26 | 15.85 | 12.60 | 0.46 | 0.46 |
| Propionic acid (mmol/L) | 5.46 | 6.48 | 5.37 | 5.34 | 6.63 | 4.82 | 0.26 | 0.29 |
| Butyric acid (mmol/L) | 1.57[ | 2.21[ | 1.63[ | 1.54[ | 2.08[ | 1.53[ | 0.10 | 0.31 |
| Isobutyric acid (mmol/L) | 0.23[ | 0.29[ | 0.27[ | 0.24[ | 0.27[ | 0.25[ | 0.01 | 0.13 |
| Valeric acid (mmol/L) | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.01 | 0.15 |
| Isovaleric acid (mmol/L) | 0.28[ | 0.37[ | 0.33[ | 0.29[ | 0.37[ | 0.3[ | 0.01 | 0.46 |
| Total VFA (mmol/L) | 20.92 | 23.79 | 21.43 | 21.89 | 25.46 | 19.75 | 0.79 | 0.40 |
| Acetic acid:propionic acid molar ratio | 2.46[ | 2.19[ | 2.55[ | 2.72[ | 2.39[ | 2.62[ | 0.06 | 0.06 |
SEM, standard error of the mean; GP, gas production; DM, dry matter; MCP, microbial crude protein; VFA, volatile fatty acids.
Cont, control; CSI, commercial silage inoculant silage; L. vag, L. vaginalis silage; L. reu, L. reuteri silage; L. hel, L. helveticus silage; L. par, L. paralimentarius silage.
Means in the same row with different superscripted letters differ (p<0.05).
Figure 3Neighbor-joining tree showing the phylogenetic tree of the lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strains studied as inoculants for silage using 16S rRNA gene sequences retrieved from the GeneBank database. Sequences were aligned with ClustalW, and the phylogenetic tree was constructed using the MEGA-X program. Δ Homofermentative; * Obligately heterofermentative; # Facultatively heterofermentative; ● LAB strains in the current study.