| Literature DB >> 36118219 |
Yichao Liu1,2, Yuyu Li1,2, Qiang Lu1,2, Lin Sun3, Shuai Du4, Tingyu Liu5, Meiling Hou5, Gentu Ge1,2, Zhijun Wang1,2, Yushan Jia1,2.
Abstract
Silage exposed to air is prone to deterioration and production of unpleasant volatile chemicals that can seriously affect livestock intake and health. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of Lactobacillus plantarum (LP), Lactobacillus buchneri (LB), and a combination of LP and LB (PB) on the quality, microbial community and volatile chemicals of Leymus chinensis silage at 0, 4, and 8 days after aerobic exposure. During aerobic exposure, LP had higher WSC and LA contents but had the least aerobic stability, with more harmful microorganisms such as Penicillium and Monascus and produced more volatile chemicals such as Isospathulenol and 2-Furancarbinol. LB slowed down the rise in pH, produced more acetic acid and effectively improved aerobic stability, while the effect of these two additives combined was intermediate between that of each additive alone. Correlation analysis showed that Actinomyces, Sphingomonas, Penicillium, and Monascus were associated with aerobic deterioration, and Weissella, Pediococcus, Botryosphaeria, and Monascus were associated with volatile chemicals. In conclusion, LB preserved the quality of L. chinensis silage during aerobic exposure, while LP accelerated aerobic deterioration.Entities:
Keywords: aerobic stability; lactic acid bacteria; microbial community; silage; volatile chemicals
Year: 2022 PMID: 36118219 PMCID: PMC9478463 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.938153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Chemical and microbial compositions of fresh Leymus chinensis.
| Items | Sample | SEM | |
| Chemical composition | DM (g/kg FM) | 333.10 | 2.51 |
| CP (g/kg DM) | 119.15 | 0.41 | |
| WSC (g/kg DM) | 50.37 | 0.61 | |
| NDF (g/kg DM) | 735.50 | 1.14 | |
| ADF (g/kg DM) | 404.73 | 11.32 | |
| EE (g/kg DM) | 26.21 | 1.60 | |
| Microbial counts | Lactic acid bacteria (lg cfu/g FM) | 1.59 | 0.06 |
| Aerobic bacteria (lg cfu/g FM) | 2.57 | 0.42 | |
| Coliform bacteria (lg cfu/g FM) | 2.62 | 0.15 | |
| Yeasts (lg cfu/g FM) | 1.77 | 0.67 | |
| Molds (lg cfu/g FM) | ND | ND |
FM, fresh material; DM, dry matter; CP, crude protein; WSC, water soluble carbohydrates; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; EE, crude fat; ND, not detected; SEM, standard error of the mean.
FIGURE 1Time required to exceed room temperature 2°C during aerobic exposure of Leymus chinensis silage. CK, no additive control; LP, Lactobacillus plantarum; LB, Lactobacillus buchneri; PB, Lactobacillus plantarum + Lactobacillus buchneri. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatment (P < 0.05).
Effects of additives and days of aerobic exposure on chemical composition of Leymus chinensis silage.
| Items | Treatments | Days | Significance | |||||||
| 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | SEM |
|
| T × D | ||
| DM (g/kg FM) | CK | 434.77Ba | 372.30Ab | 361.17Bb | 325.50Bc | 307.83Ac | 10.03 | * | ** | NS |
| LP | 454.83Aa | 401.77Ab | 376.37ABc | 334.07ABd | 313.37Ae | |||||
| LB | 438.83ABa | 395.47Aab | 391.33Ab | 353.73Ab | 347.23Ab | |||||
| PB | 444.73ABa | 382.27Ab | 370.53Bb | 337.97ABc | 323.47Ac | |||||
| CP (g/kg DM) | CK | 149.99Ba | 144.36Bab | 142.88Cab | 139.18Bb | 130.15Ac | 2.08 | ** | ** | NS |
| LP | 167.44Aa | 163.92Aab | 158.86Aab | 156.32Ab | 138.57Ac | |||||
| LB | 151.60Ba | 149.55Ba | 149.18Ba | 145.80Ba | 134.34Ab | |||||
| PB | 153.88Ba | 153.33ABab | 151.37Bab | 146.16Bab | 144.05Ab | |||||
| WSC (g/kg DM) | CK | 15.97Ca | 12.37Cb | 11.63Cbc | 10.93Bbc | 9.87Ac | 0.77 | ** | ** | ** |
| LP | 22.27Aa | 19.43Ab | 16.57Ac | 13.97Ad | 11.93Ae | |||||
| LB | 17.13BCa | 15.27Bb | 14.67Bb | 12.53ABc | 11.77Ac | |||||
| PB | 18.93Ba | 18.30Aa | 14.00Bb | 1.1.33Bc | 10.40Ac | |||||
| NDF (g/kg DM) | CK | 635.10 | 637.40 | 639.90 | 642.77 | 655.97 | 1.64 | NS | NS | NS |
| LP | 623.33 | 630.37 | 641.70 | 644.77 | 651.70 | |||||
| LB | 634.23 | 636.00 | 636.20 | 637.47 | 642.53 | |||||
| PB | 630.57 | 635.60 | 634.80 | 640.57 | 643.80 | |||||
| ADF (g/kg DM) | CK | 379.33 | 381.10 | 386.00 | 389.20 | 388.20 | 1.40 | NS | NS | NS |
| LP | 363.40 | 369.03 | 370.37 | 376.00 | 378.27 | |||||
| LB | 372.80 | 373.70 | 374.40 | 374.87 | 375.13 | |||||
| PB | 374.80 | 375.23 | 377.83 | 379.83 | 380.57 | |||||
| EE (g/kg DM) | CK | 36.03Aa | 29.20ABab | 27.83Ab | 26.93Ab | 16.00Bc | 1.38 | * | ** | NS |
| LP | 40.67Aa | 27.576Bb | 25.87Ab | 25.07Ab | 22.80ABb | |||||
| LB | 39.17Aa | 31.93ABab | 31.60Aab | 28.33Aab | 24.77ABb | |||||
| PB | 39.93Aa | 35.90Aab | 32.37Aab | 32.07Aab | 28.37Ab | |||||
FM, fresh material; DM, dry matter; CP, crude protein; WSC, water soluble carbohydrates; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; EE, crude fat; CK, no additive control; LP, Lactobacillus plantarum; LB, Lactobacillus buchneri; PB, Lactobacillus plantarum + Lactobacillus buchneri. Different capital letters indicate significant differences among different treatments under the same silage days (P < 0.05); different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different silage days under the same treatment (P < 0.05); no or same letter indicate not significant (P > 0.05). SEM, standard error of the mean; T, treatments; D, aerobic exposure days; T × D, interaction between treatments and Aerobic exposure days. *Significant at 0.05. **Significant at 0.01.
Effects of additives and days of aerobic exposure on fermentation quality of Leymus chinensis silage.
| Items | Treatments | Days | Significance | |||||||
| 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | SEM |
|
| T × D | ||
| pH value | CK | 4.60Ae | 4.76Ad | 4.95Ac | 5.24Ab | 5.47Aa | 0.04 | ** | ** | ** |
| LP | 4.18Ce | 4.37Cd | 4.69Bc | 4.91Bb | 5.256Ba | |||||
| LB | 4.38Bd | 4.49Bc | 4.68Bb | 4.88Ba | 4.93Da | |||||
| PB | 4.32Be | 4.45BCd | 4.68Bc | 4.93Bb | 5.03Ca | |||||
| LA (g/kg DM) | CK | 26.57Ca | 23.92Ba | 12.65Ab | 12.03Ab | 7.62Bc | 1.61 | ** | ** | ** |
| LP | 53.44Aa | 47.92Ab | 14.54Ac | 14.11Ac | 10.14Ad | |||||
| LB | 29.77Ba | 22.90Bb | 13.80Ac | 11.71Acd | 9.92Ad | |||||
| PB | 32.43Ba | 21.97Bb | 14.39Ac | 13.70Acd | 10.73Ad | |||||
| AA (g/kg DM) | CK | 15.95Ca | 15.78Ba | 13.36Bb | 8.32Cc | 7.25Cc | 1.01 | ** | ** | ** |
| LP | 27.81Ba | 25.48Aa | 14.27Bb | 10.35Bc | 8.75Bc | |||||
| LB | 30.13Aa | 27.00Ab | 22.50Ac | 13.87Ad | 9.68Ae | |||||
| PB | 28.82ABa | 25.96Ab | 15.24Bc | 10.59Bd | 9.07ABe | |||||
| PA (g/kg DM) | CK | 0.32Ca | 0.32Ba | 0.27Bb | 0.17Cc | 0.14Cc | 0.02 | ** | ** | ** |
| LP | 0.56Ba | 0.51Aa | 0.29Bb | 0.20Bc | 0.17Bc | |||||
| LB | 0.60Aa | 0.54Aa | 0.45Ab | 0.28Ac | 0.20Ad | |||||
| PB | 0.58ABa | 0.52Ab | 0.31Bc | 0.21Bd | 0.18Bd | |||||
| BA (g/kg DM) | CK | 0.22Ac | 0.22Ac | 0.3Ab | 0.33Aab | 0.36Aa | 0.01 | ** | ** | ** |
| LP | 0.21Ab | 0.21Ab | 0.22Bb | 0.34Aa | 0.35Aa | |||||
| LB | 0.15Bb | 0.15Bb | 0.20Ba | 0.22Ba | 0.21Ba | |||||
| PB | 0.17Bc | 0.17Bc | 0.21Bb | 0.34Aa | 0.34Aa | |||||
| NH3-N (g/kg DM) | CK | 0.17Ad | 0.31Acd | 0.48Abc | 0.66Ab | 0.98Ba | 0.08 | ** | ** | ** |
| LP | 0.15ABd | 0.21Ad | 0.49Ac | 0.84Ab | 1.45Aa | |||||
| LB | 0.07Be | 0.18Ad | 0.31Ac | 0.59Ab | 0.81Ba | |||||
| PB | 0.13ABd | 0.20Ad | 0.41Ac | 0.66Ab | 0.89Ba | |||||
pH, potential of hydrogen; LA, lactic acid; AA, acetic acid; PA, propionic acid; BA, butyric acid; NH
Effects of additives and days of aerobic exposure on bacterial alpha diversity of Leymus chinensis silage.
| Items | Treatments | Time (d) | Significance | |||||
| 0 | 4 | 8 | SEM |
|
| T × D | ||
| OTUs | CK | 183.67Ab | 192.00Ab | 378.33Aa | 12.82 | NS | ** | NS |
| LP | 184.00Aa | 199.33Aa | 262.67Aa | |||||
| LB | 170.67Aa | 215.67Aa | 260.67Aa | |||||
| PB | 166.00Aa | 184.00Aa | 218.00Aa | |||||
| Chao1 | CK | 183.97Ab | 192.07Ab | 378.82Aa | 12.83 | NS | ** | NS |
| LP | 184.00Aa | 199.51Aa | 263.21Aa | |||||
| LB | 170.81Aa | 215.67Aa | 260.83Aa | |||||
| PB | 166.41Aa | 184.03Aa | 218.05Aa | |||||
| Shannon | CK | 2.41Aa | 2.56Aa | 4.27Aa | 0.13 | NS | * | NS |
| LP | 2.14Aa | 2.18Aa | 2.84Ba | |||||
| LB | 2.49Aa | 2.82Aa | 3.03ABa | |||||
| PB | 2.28Aa | 2.59Aa | 2.75Ba | |||||
| Simpson | CK | 0.61Aa | 0.62Aa | 0.84Aa | 0.02 | NS | * | NS |
| LP | 0.59Aa | 0.56Aa | 0.67Ba | |||||
| LB | 0.66Aa | 0.67Aa | 0.76ABa | |||||
| PB | 0.60Ab | 0.67Aab | 0.72ABa | |||||
| Coverage | CK | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.00 | NS | NS | NS |
| LP | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | |||||
| LB | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | |||||
| PB | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | |||||
CK, no additive control; LP, Lactobacillus plantarum; LB, Lactobacillus buchneri; PB, Lactobacillus plantarum + Lactobacillus buchneri. Different capital letters indicate significant differences among different treatments under the same silage days (P < 0.05); different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different silage days under the same treatment (P < 0.05); no or same letter indicate not significant (P > 0.05). SEM, standard error of the mean; T, treatments; D, aerobic exposure days; T × D, interaction between treatments and Aerobic exposure days. *Significant at 0.05. **Significant at 0.01.
Effects of additives and days of aerobic exposure on fungal alpha diversity of Leymus chinensis silage.
| Items | Treatments | Time (d) | Significance | |||||
| 0 | 4 | 8 | SEM |
|
| T × D | ||
| OTUs | CK | 148.00Aa | 127.33Aa | 125.00Aa | 5.85 | * | NS | NS |
| LP | 109.33Ba | 92.33Aa | 94.00Aa | |||||
| LB | 106.00Ba | 153.33Aa | 126.90Aa | |||||
| PB | 171.33Aa | 127.54Aa | 96.70Aa | |||||
| Chao1 | CK | 112.10Aa | 92.62Aa | 102.83Aa | 5.86 | * | NS | NS |
| LP | 106.08Ba | 155.37Aa | 109.65Aa | |||||
| LB | 171.50Ba | 146.32Aa | 260.83Aa | |||||
| PB | 166.41Aa | 184.03Aa | 218.05Aa | |||||
| Shannon | CK | 3.95Aa | 3.67Aa | 3.21Aa | 0.16 | NS | ** | NS |
| LP | 4.35Aa | 4.17Aa | 2.6Ab | |||||
| LB | 4.16Aa | 3.75Aab | 2.59Ab | |||||
| PB | 4.33Aa | 3.83Aa | 1.97Ab | |||||
| Simpson | CK | 0.85Aa | 0.85Aa | 0.72Aa | 0.03 | NS | ** | NS |
| LP | 0.91Aa | 0.89Aa | 0.63Ab | |||||
| LB | 0.89Aa | 0.83Aa | 0.59Aa | |||||
| PB | 0.89Aa | 0.83Aa | 0.47Ab | |||||
| Coverage | CK | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.00 | NS | NS | NS |
| LP | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | |||||
| LB | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | |||||
| PB | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | |||||
CK, no additive control; LP, Lactobacillus plantarum; LB, Lactobacillus buchneri; PB, Lactobacillus plantarum + Lactobacillus buchneri. Different capital letters indicate significant differences among different treatments under the same silage days (P < 0.05); different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different silage days under the same treatment (P < 0.05); no or same letter indicate not significant (P > 0.05). SEM, standard error of the mean; T, treatments; D, aerobic exposure days; T × D, interaction between treatments and Aerobic exposure days. *Significant at 0.05. **Significant at 0.01.
FIGURE 2Microbial community at the phylum-level (A,C) and genus-level (B,D) abundance changes during aerobic exposure of silage. CK, no additive control; LP, Lactobacillus plantarum; LB, Lactobacillus buchneri; PB, Lactobacillus plantarum + Lactobacillus buchneri; X, fresh sample.
FIGURE 3Changes in the abundance of volatile chemicals during aerobic exposure of silage. CK, no additive control; LP, Lactobacillus plantarum; LB, Lactobacillus buchneri; PB, Lactobacillus plantarum + Lactobacillus buchneri; X, fresh sample.
FIGURE 4Differences in volatile chemicals between silages treated with LP (A), LB (B), and PB (C) compared to silage treated with CK. Volatile chemicals with VIP > 1.0 and P < 0.05 were marked as red.
FIGURE 5Correlation of bacterial genera level (A) and fungal genera level (B) with silage quality during aerobic exposure of silage (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01).
FIGURE 6Correlation of bacterial (A) and fungal (B) genus levels with volatile chemicals during aerobic exposure of silage (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01).