Effect of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and molasses on the fermentation quality， biogenic amines contents and bacterial community of peanut vine silage

doi:10.11686/cyxb2024224

Abstract

Abstract:

During ensiling of peanut （Arachis hypogaea） vine， a large proportion of the true protein is degraded and free amino acids are further decarboxylated to form biogenic amines by amino acid decarboxylases. The aim of this study was to identify ways to decrease the biogenic amines contents of peanut vine silage. Peanut vine silage was prepared using distilled water （control） and three different treatments consisting of 2% molasses， Lactiplantibacillus plantarum （1×10⁶ colony-forming units） and a combination of molasses and Lacti. plantarum. Each treatment had four replicates. After 28 days of fermentation， the silage was analyzed to determine the fermentation quality， biogenic amines contents and bacterial community composition. The results showed that the main biogenic amines in poorly and naturally fermented stylo silage were tyramine （1338.36 mg·kg^-1 dry matter） and cadaverine （417.58 mg·kg^-1 dry matter）. The application of molasses alone or in combination with Lacti. plantarum significantly improved fermentation quality （P<0.001） and decreased the contents of tyramine， cadaverine and total biogenic amine （P<0.05）. The bacterial community in the fresh material was dominated by Parasaccharibacter apium （17.51%）， Pseudomonas batumici （13.06%）， Pantoea dispersa （5.63%） and Curtobacterium citreum （5.53%）. After ensiling， the composition of the bacterial community in naturally fermented peanut vine silage was complex， mainly composed of Weissella paramesenteroides （22.71%）， Lacti. plantarum （10.67%）， Limosilactobacillus fermentum （10.38%）， Weissella kandleri （9.27%）， Pediococcus pentosaceus （8.34%）， Pseud. batumici （8.07%）， Lactococcus garvieae （6.74%） and Companilactobacillus ginsenosidimutans （5.10%）. Compared with the control， the molasses treatment increased the relative abundance of Lacti. plantarum and Weiss. paramesenteroides and decreased that of Pedio. pentosaceus and Weiss. kandleri. In comparison with the control， a combination of molasses and Lacti. plantarum improved the bacterial community structure of silage by increasing Lacti. plantarum and Limosilactobacillus pontis abundance. Spearman correlation analysis results indicated that tyramine and cadaverine were positively related to pH， butyric acid， ammonia nitrogen， Paras. apium， Compa. ginsenosidimutans and Weiss. kandleri （P<0.05）. In conclusion， the silages produced with molasses alone or with the combination of molasses and Lacti. plantarum showed improved quality， in terms of fermentation quality， nutritional composition and biogenic amines contents.

Key words: peanut vine, fermentation quality, bacterial community, biogenic amines, silage

Kai MAO, Yi XU, Xue-mei WANG, Huan CHAI, Shuai HUANG, Jian WANG, Shu-qian HUAN, Zhu YU, Mu-sen WANG. Effect of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and molasses on the fermentation quality， biogenic amines contents and bacterial community of peanut vine silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2025, 34(5): 146-158.

Figures/Tables 7

References 48

1	Tang M Q， Hou P J， Ding L， et al. Comparison of yield and nutritional value of different varieties of peanut. Acta Ecologiae Animalis Domastici， 2020， 41（12）： 56-60.
	唐梦琪，侯沛君，丁丽，等. 不同花生品种花生秧产量及营养价值的比较. 家畜生态学报， 2020， 41（12）： 56-60.
2	Liang F， Li B Z， Rolf D V， et al. Straw return exacerbates soil acidification in major Chinese croplands. Resources， Conservation and Recycling， 2023， 198： 107176.
3	Suo X J， Zhang N， Yang Q P， et al. Effects of peanut vine and alfalfa meal on weight gain performance， internal organ development， and blood indexes of Boer×Macheng crossbred goats. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2021， 30（5）： 146-154.
	索效军，张年，杨前平，等. 日粮添加花生秧和苜蓿草粉对波麻杂交羊增重性能、内脏器官发育及血液指标的影响. 草业学报， 2021， 30（5）： 146-154.
4	He L W， Wang Y M， Guo X， et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of screened lactic acid bacteria in improving crop residues silage： fermentation parameter， nitrogen fraction， and bacterial community. Frontiers in Microbiology， 2022， 13： 680988.
5	Li B B， Lu S L. The importance of amine-degrading enzymes on the biogenic amine degradation in ermented foods： A review. Process Biochemistry， 2020， 99： 331-339.
6	Scherer R， Gerlach K， Südekum K H. Biogenic amines and gamma-amino butyric acid in silages： Formation， occurrence and influence on dry matter intake and ruminant production. Animal Feed Science and Technology， 2015， 210： 1-16.
7	Olt A， Krt O， Kaldme H， et al. The effect of additive and dry matter content on silage protein degradability and biogenic amine content. Journal of Agricultural Science， 2005， 16（2）： 110-116.
8	Steidlová Š， Kalač P. The effects of lactic acid bacteria inoculants and formic acid on the formation of biogenic amines in grass silages. Archives of Animal Nutrition， 2004， 58（3）： 245-254.
9	Steidlová Š， Kalač P. The effects of using lactic acid bacteria inoculants in maize silage on the formation of biogenic amines. Archives of Animal Nutrition， 2003， 57（5）： 359-368.
10	Nishino N， Hattori H， Wada H， et al. Biogenic amine production in grass， maize and total mixed ration silages inoculated with Lactobacillus casei or Lactobacillus buchneri. Journal of Applied Microbiology， 2007， 103（2）： 325-332.
11	Van Os M， Van Wikselaar P G， Spoelstra S F. Formation of biogenic amines in well fermented grass silages. The Journal of Agricultural Science， 1996， 127（1）： 97-107.
12	Krizsan S J， Randby A T. The effect of fermentation quality on the voluntary intake of grass silage by growing cattle fed silage as the sole feed. Journal of Animal Science， 2007， 85（4）： 984-996.
13	Li R R， Zheng M L， Zheng M H， et al. Metagenomic analysis reveals the linkages between bacteria and the functional enzymes responsible for potential ammonia and biogenic amine production in alfalfa silage. Journal of Applied Microbiology， 2022， 132（4）： 2594-2604.
14	Mao K， Franco M， Xu Y， et al. Fermentation parameters， amino acids profile， biogenic amines formation， and bacterial community of ensiled stylo treated with formic acid or sugar. Animals， 2024， 14（16）： 2397.
15	Jia T T， Yun Y， Yu Z. Propionic acid and sodium benzoate affected biogenic amine formation， microbial community， and quality of oat silage. Frontiers in Microbiology， 2021， 12： 750920.
16	Zhang Y X， Ke W C， Bai J， et al. The effect of Pediococcus acidilactici J17 with high-antioxidant activity on antioxidant， α-tocopherol， β-carotene， fatty acids， and fermentation profiles of alfalfa silage ensiled at two different dry matter contents. Animal Feed Science and Technology， 2020， 268： 114614.
17	Broderick G A， Kang J H. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science， 1980， 63（1）： 64-75.
18	Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official methods of analysis the 15th edition. Arrington： Association of Official Analytical Chemists， 1990（2）： 22.
19	Van Soest P J， Robertson J B， Lewis B A. Methods for dietary fiber， neutral detergent fiber， and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science， 1991， 74（10）： 3583-3597.
20	Owens V N， Albrecht K A， Muck R E， et al. Protein degradation and fermentation characteristics of red clover and alfalfa silage harvested with varying levels of total nonstructural carbohydrates. Crop Science， 1999， 39（6）： 1873-1880.
21	Linn J G， Martin N P. Forage quality analyses and interpretation. Veterinary Clinics of North America： Food Animal Practice， 1991， 7（2）： 509-523.
22	Guo X S， Ding W R， Yu Z. The evaluation system of fermentation quality of ensiled forage and its improvement. Chinese Journal of Grassland， 2008， 30（4）： 100-106.
	郭旭生，丁武蓉，玉柱. 青贮饲料发酵品质评定体系及其新进展. 中国草地学报， 2008， 30（4）： 100-106.
23	Wang M S， Chen M Y， Bai J， et al. Ensiling characteristics， in vitro rumen fermentation profile， methane emission and archaeal and protozoal community of silage prepared with alfalfa， sainfoin and their mixture. Animal Feed Science and Technology， 2022， 284： 115154.
24	Ming H X， Fan J F， Liu J W， et al. Full-length 16S rRNA gene sequencing reveals spatiotemporal dynamics of bacterial community in a heavily polluted estuary， China. Environmental Pollution， 2021， 275： 116567.
25	Mosher J J， Bernberg E L， Shevchenko O， et al. Efficacy of a 3rd generation high-throughput sequencing platform for analyses of 16S rRNA genes from environmental samples. Journal of Microbiological Methods， 2013， 95（2）： 175-181.
26	Ni K K， Wang F F， Zhu B G， et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses additives on the microbial community and fermentation quality of soybean silage. Bioresource Technology， 2017， 238： 706-715.
27	Wang L B， Sun L N， Gao X J， et al. Peanut by product nutrition proprities and application in pasturage. Feed Review， 2011， 3（3）： 30-32.
	王利宾，孙利娜，郜希君，等. 花生副产品的营养特点及其在畜牧生产中的应用. 饲料博览， 2011， 3（3）： 30-32.
28	Flythe M D， Russell J B. The effect of pH and a bacteriocin （bovicin HC5） on Clostridium sporogenes MD1， a bacterium that has the ability to degrade amino acids in ensiled plant materials. FEMS Microbiology Ecology， 2004， 47（2）： 215-222.
29	Jia T T， Yu Z. Effect of temperature and fermentation time on fermentation characteristics and biogenic amine formation of oat silage. Fermentation， 2022， 8（8）： 352.
30	Wang S R， Guo G， Li J F， et al. Improvement of fermentation profile and structural carbohydrate compositions in mixed silages ensiled with fibrolytic enzymes， molasses and Lactobacillus plantarum MTD-1. Italian Journal of Animal Science， 2019， 18（1）： 328-335.
31	Jahanzad E， Sadeghpour A， Hashemi M， et al. Silage fermentation profile， chemical composition and economic evaluation of millet and soya bean grown in monocultures and as intercrops. Grass and Forage Science， 2016， 71（4）： 584-594.
32	Wang Q， Wang Z， Awasthi M K， et al. Evaluation of medical stone amendment for the reduction of nitrogen loss and bioavailability of heavy metals during pig manure composting. Bioresoure Technology， 2016， 220： 297-304.
33	Zhao J， Dong Z H， Li J F， et al. Evaluation of Lactobacillus plantarum MTD1 and waste molasses as fermentation modifier to increase silage quality and reduce ruminal greenhouse gas emissions of rice straw. Science of the Total Environment， 2019， 688： 143-152.
34	Wang F M， Zhang A Z， Jiang N， et al. GI and RFV determination and comparison study of common ruminant forage in Heilongjiang Province. Chinese Journal of Animal Science， 2014， 50（17）： 33-39.
	王法明，张爱忠，姜宁，等. 黑龙江省反刍动物常用粗饲料分级指数及饲料相对值的测定与比较研究. 中国畜牧杂志， 2014， 50（17）： 33-39.
35	Selwet M， Galbas M， Porzucek F， et al. Effects of the method of alfalfa ensiling on the content of biogenic amines and numbers of some strains of Lactobacillus spp. Medycyna Weterynaryjna， 2013， 69（6）： 358-362.
36	Scherer R， Gerlach K， Taubert J， et al. Effect of forage species and ensiling conditions on silage composition and quality and the feed choice behaviour of goats. Grass and Forage Science， 2019， 74（2）： 297-313.
37	Suzzi G， Gardini F. Biogenic amines in dry fermented sausages： a review. International Journal of Food Microbiology， 2003， 88（1）： 41-54.
38	Min J S， Lee S O， Jang A， et al. Control of microorganisms and reduction of biogenic amines in chicken breast and thigh by irradiation and organic acids. Poultry Science， 2007， 86（9）： 2034-2041.
39	Jin Y H， Lee J H， Park Y K， et al. The occurrence of biogenic amines and determination of biogenic amine-producing lactic acid bacteria in Kkakdugi and Chonggak kimchi. Foods， 2019， 8（2）： 73.
40	Xu D M， Wang N， Rinne M， et al. The bacterial community and metabolome dynamics and their interactions modulate fermentation process of whole crop corn silage prepared with or without inoculants. Microbial Biotechnology， 2020， 14（2）： 561-576.
41	Wang Y， He L W， Xing Y Q， et al. Bacterial diversity and fermentation quality of Moringa oleifera leaves silage prepared with lactic acid bacteria inoculants and stored at different temperatures. Bioresource Technology， 2019， 284： 349-358.
42	Zhao J， Yin X J， Wang S R， et al. Effects of storage time on the fermentation quality， bacterial community composition， and functional profile of sweet sorghum silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2023， 32（8）： 164-175.
	赵杰，尹雪敬，王思然，等. 贮藏时间对甜高粱青贮发酵品质、微生物群落组成和功能的影响. 草业学报， 2023， 32（8）： 164-175.
43	Zheng J S， Wittouck S， Salvetti E， et al. A taxonomic note on the genus Lactobacillus： description of 23 novel genera， emended description of the genus Lactobacillus beijerinck 1901， and union of Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology， 2020， 70（4）： 2782-2858.
44	Zhang H， Wu J W， Zhao X L， et al. Improving aerobic stability and methane production of maize stover silage with lactic acid bacteria inoculants： focus on pentose-fermentation. Industrial Crops and Products， 2023， 201： 116861.
45	Hu G Y， Wang Y J， Chen J， et al. Synergistic fermentation with functional bacteria for production of salt-reduced soy sauce with enhanced aroma and saltiness. Food Bioscience， 2024， 57： 103459.
46	Ma J J， Zhang J J， Zhang L J， et al. Systematic analysis of key fermentation parameters influencing biogenic amines production in spontaneous fermentation of soy sauce. Food Bioscience， 2023， 52： 102484.
47	Sang X， Ma X X， Hao H S， et al. Evaluation of biogenic amines and microbial composition in the Chinese traditional fermented food grasshopper sub shrimp paste. LWT-Food Science and Technology， 2020， 134： 109979.
48	Qin S， Zeng X M， Jiang M， et al. Genomic and biogenic amine-reducing characterization of Lactiplantibacillus planatraum JB1 isolated from fermented dry sausage. Food Control， 2023， 154： 109971.

氨态氮/总氮 Ammonia-N/total nitrogen （%）		乙酸+丙酸 Acetic acid and propionic acid		丁酸及其他挥发性脂肪酸 Butyric acid and other volatile fatty acids		V-score评分 V-score scoring
X_N	计算式Formula （Y_N）	X_A	计算式Formula （Y_A）	X_B	计算式Formula （Y_B）	V-score评分 V-score scoring
≤5	Y_N=50	≤0.2	Y_A=10	0~0.5	Y_B=40-80X_B	Y=Y_N+Y_A+Y_B
5~10	Y_N=60-2X_N	0.2~1.5	Y_A=（150-100X_A）/13	>0.5	0
10~20	Y_N=80-4X_N	>1.5	Y_A=0
>20	Y_N=0

氨态氮/总氮 Ammonia-N/total nitrogen （%）		乙酸+丙酸 Acetic acid and propionic acid		丁酸及其他挥发性脂肪酸 Butyric acid and other volatile fatty acids		V-score评分 V-score scoring
X_N	计算式Formula （Y_N）	X_A	计算式Formula （Y_A）	X_B	计算式Formula （Y_B）	V-score评分 V-score scoring
≤5	Y_N=50	≤0.2	Y_A=10	0~0.5	Y_B=40-80X_B	Y=Y_N+Y_A+Y_B
5~10	Y_N=60-2X_N	0.2~1.5	Y_A=（150-100X_A）/13	>0.5	0
10~20	Y_N=80-4X_N	>1.5	Y_A=0
>20	Y_N=0

项目Items	含量Content
干物质DM （g·kg^-1 FM）	292.83
粗蛋白CP （g·kg^-1 DM）	169.69
氨态氮Ammonia-N （g·kg^-1 TN）	7.02
游离氨基酸氮FAA-N （g·kg^-1 TN）	4.99
水溶性碳水化合物WSC （g·kg^-1 DM）	29.71
pH	5.90
中性洗涤纤维NDF （g·kg^-1 DM）	376.90
酸性洗涤纤维ADF （g·kg^-1 DM）	239.05
相对饲用价值RFV	173.40
组胺Histamine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	0.00
腐胺Putrescine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	9.70
尸胺Cadaverine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	10.49
亚精胺Spermidine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	28.76
酪胺Tyramine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	2.87
精胺Spermine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	15.05
苯乙胺Phenethylamine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	4.88
色胺Tryptamine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	2.41
总生物胺Total biogenic amine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	74.16

项目Items	含量Content
干物质DM （g·kg^-1 FM）	292.83
粗蛋白CP （g·kg^-1 DM）	169.69
氨态氮Ammonia-N （g·kg^-1 TN）	7.02
游离氨基酸氮FAA-N （g·kg^-1 TN）	4.99
水溶性碳水化合物WSC （g·kg^-1 DM）	29.71
pH	5.90
中性洗涤纤维NDF （g·kg^-1 DM）	376.90
酸性洗涤纤维ADF （g·kg^-1 DM）	239.05
相对饲用价值RFV	173.40
组胺Histamine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	0.00
腐胺Putrescine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	9.70
尸胺Cadaverine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	10.49
亚精胺Spermidine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	28.76
酪胺Tyramine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	2.87
精胺Spermine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	15.05
苯乙胺Phenethylamine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	4.88
色胺Tryptamine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	2.41
总生物胺Total biogenic amine （mg·kg^-1 DM）	74.16

项目 Items	处理Treatments				标准误 SEM	P值 P-value
项目 Items	CK	M	L	ML	标准误 SEM	P值 P-value
pH	5.45A	4.93B	5.55A	4.88B	0.048	<0.001
乳酸Lactic acid （g·kg^-1 DM）	23.67B	50.13A	18.20C	48.90A	2.100	<0.001
乙酸Acetic acid （g·kg^-1DM）	17.83B	22.43A	24.97A	21.00A	1.750	0.010
乳乙比Lactic acid to acetic acid	1.52B	2.37A	0.78C	2.36A	0.120	<0.001
丙酸Propionic acid （g·kg^-1 DM）	16.39B	22.12A	20.70A	20.08A	1.390	0.011
丁酸Butyric acid （g·kg^-1 DM）	10.64B	2.56C	11.72A	2.23C	0.120	<0.001
氨态氮Ammonia-N （g·kg^-1 TN）	92.78B	79.88C	107.12A	66.87D	4.420	<0.001
V-score评分V-score scoring	63.12C	81.87B	56.14D	84.29A	0.920	<0.001
干物质DM （g·kg^-1 FM）	271.87AB	276.35A	263.05B	280.18A	0.450	0.015
粗蛋白CP （g·kg^-1 DM）	158.37	161.18	152.05	157.03	3.740	0.147
游离氨基酸氮FAA-N （g·kg^-1 TN）	180.19B	189.44B	233.22A	166.04B	8.180	<0.001
水溶性碳水化合物WSC （g·kg^-1 DM）	5.89D	8.05B	6.75C	8.84A	0.290	<0.001
中性洗涤纤维NDF （g·kg^-1 DM）	388.36	352.76	363.30	363.88	20.300	0.129
酸性洗涤纤维ADF （g·kg^-1 DM）	248.85	226.13	243.65	242.28	9.820	0.053
相对饲用价值RFV	168.02	188.43	179.11	180.44	11.300	0.387