Effect of the mix-ratio of corn stalk and edamame stems/leaves and added cellulase on the fermentation quality and microbial community of silage

doi:10.11686/cyxb2025007

Abstract

Abstract:

The effects of cellulase on silage quality and microbial diversity of corn （Zea mays） stalk and edamame （Glycine max） stems and leaves were investigated. The ratios of corn stalk and edamame stems and leaves by weight were 1∶0， 3∶1， and 1∶1 （10， 31， 11）. Each mixture ratio was divided into a control group （CS） and a cellulase group ［CS（c）， adding 0.1%］. The nutrient composition， fermentation quality and microbial diversity of silage was evaluated after 80 days. It was found that the 3∶1 mix-ratio of corn stalk and edamame stems and leaves resulted in better silage quality than the other two mix-ratios. As the proportion of edamame stems and leaves increased， the pH， ammonia nitrogen content， and crude protein content of the mixed silage significantly increased （P<0.05）， while the water-soluble carbohydrate， neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber （ADF） were significantly decreased （P<0.05）. The lactic acid content was higher for CS31 than for CS10 or CS11. The addition of cellulase had no significant effect on the fermentation parameters of silage at a given mix-ratio （P>0.05）， but tended to reduce the ADF content （P=0.07）. Furthermore， the addition of edamame stems and leaves increased the relative abundance of Firmicutes and Lactobacillus while reducing the relative abundance of Proteobacteria in the mixed silage. In conclusion， the mixed silage CS31， with a 3∶1 of corn stalk to edamame stems and leaves exhibited superior quality compared to other ratios， and the addition of cellulase improved the fermentation quality of the mixed silage.

Key words: corn stalk, edamame stems and leaves, cellulase, mixed silage, fermentation quality

Jun-ling WEI, Xiao-qi LIU, Wan-qing WANG, Ming DENG, Bao-li SUN, Yong-qing GUO. Effect of the mix-ratio of corn stalk and edamame stems/leaves and added cellulase on the fermentation quality and microbial community of silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2025, 34(12): 111-120.

Figures/Tables 9

References 39

[1]	Zhou X， Ouyang Z， Zhang X， et al. Sweet corn stalk treated with Saccharomyces cerevisiae alone or in combination with Lactobacillus plantarum： Nutritional composition， fermentation traits and aerobic stability. Animals， 2019， 9（9）： 598.
[2]	Wang X， Song J， Liu Z， et al. Fermentation quality and microbial community of corn stover or rice straw silage mixed with soybean curd residue. Animals， 2022， 12（7）： 919.
[3]	Zhao X Y， Li Z Y， Ma G G， et al. Study on fattening effect of adding soybean leaf powder on pigs. Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine， 2022， 41（2）： 68-70.
	赵晓阳，李宗宇，马更尕，等. 添加大豆叶粉对生猪育肥效果的研究. 畜牧兽医杂志， 2022， 41（2）： 68-70.
[4]	Meng H， Jiang Y， Wang L， et al. Effects of different soybean and maize mixed proportions in a strip intercropping system on silage fermentation quality. Fermentation， 2022， 8（12）： 696.
[5]	Zhang X， Jiao T， Ma S M， et al. Silage quality and in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics of stevia and corn stalks. Pratacultural Science， 2023， 40（2）： 539-550.
	张霞，焦婷，马淑敏，等. 甜叶菊秆与玉米秸秆混合青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵特性. 草业科学， 2023， 40（2）： 539-550.
[6]	Ma J， Fan X， Ma Z， et al. Silage additives improve fermentation quality， aerobic stability and rumen degradation in mixed silage composed of amaranth and corn straw. Frontiers in Plant Science， 2023， 14： 1189747.
[7]	Wu Q F， Chen C， Huang Q J， et al. A effects of cellulase and high-temperature tolerant lactic acid bacteria on structural carbohydrate of （Pennisetum ameri-canum×P. purpureum）×P. durpureum Schum. Acta Agrestia Sinica， 2024， 32（7）： 2314-2322.
	武齐丰，陈晨，黄沁骄，等. 纤维素酶和乳酸菌对杂交象草青贮结构性碳水化合物影响. 草地学报， 2024， 32（7）： 2314-2322.
[8]	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.
[9]	Erwin E S， Marco G J， Emery E M. Volatile fatty acid analyses of blood and rumen fluid by gas chromatography. Journal of Dairy Science， 1961， 44（9）： 1768-1771.
[10]	Madrid J， Martínez-Teruel A， Hernández F， et al. A comparative study on the determination of lactic acid in silage juice by colorimetric， high-performance liquid chromatography and enzymatic methods. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture， 1999， 79（12）： 1722-1726.
[11]	Van Soest P J， Robertson J B， Lewis B A. Methods for dietary fiber， neutral detergent fiber， and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science， 1991， 74（10）： 3583-3597.
[12]	McDonald P， Henderson A R. Determination of water-soluble carbohydrates in grass. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture， 1964， 15（6）： 395-398.
[13]	Guo M， Wu F， Hao G， et al. Bacillus subtilis improves immunity and disease resistance in rabbits. Frontiers in Immunology， 2017， 8： 354.
[14]	Hu W， Schmidt R J， McDonell E E， et al. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 or Lactobacillus plantarum MTD-1 on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silages ensiled at two dry matter contents. Journal of Dairy Science， 2009， 92（8）： 3907-3914.
[15]	Lyu R L， Jiang R K， Zhang Y S， et al. Effects of different fermentation time， moisture and additives on fermentation quality of passion fruit peels. Feed Industry， 2024， 45（18）： 106-113.
	吕仁龙，蒋睿珂，张雨书，等. 不同青贮时间、水分和添加剂对百香果果皮发酵品质的影响. 饲料工业， 2024， 45（18）： 106-113.
[16]	Zhang Z， Zhao K， Yang S， et al. Analysis on fermentation quality， chemical composition and bacterial communities of corn straw and soybean straw mixed silage. Fermentation， 2023， 9（6）： 500.
[17]	Carpici E B. Nutritive values of soybean silages ensiled with maize at different rates. Legume Research， 2016， 39（5）： 810-813.
[18]	Ni K， Zhao J， Zhu B， et al. Assessing the fermentation quality and microbial community of the mixed silage of forage soybean with crop corn or sorghum. Bioresource Technology， 2018， 265： 563-567.
[19]	Yang M， Wang F， Xu W， et al. Effects of the fermentation quality and microbial community of waxy maize mixed with fodder soybean silage. Frontiers in Microbiology， 2024， 15： 1405018.
[20]	Wang Q， Li Z J， Li J， et al. Evaluation of agronomic and forage quality traits of a range of oat cultivars. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2019， 28（12）： 149-158.
	王茜，李志坚，李晶，等. 不同类型燕麦农艺和饲草品质性状分析. 草业学报， 2019， 28（12）： 149-158.
[21]	Mao J H， Tao L， Liu R， et al. Effects of living bacteria preparation and compound enzymes preparation on chemical composition and microstructure of fibers of silage corn stover. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition， 2018， 30（7）： 2763-2771.
	毛建红，陶莲，刘融，等. 活菌制剂和复合酶制剂对青贮玉米秸秆化学组成及纤维微观结构的影响. 动物营养学报， 2018， 30（7）： 2763-2771.
[22]	Cheng F F， Yang J H， Xia M L， et al. Effect of different raw materials moisture and additives on the quality of alfalfa silage. Feed Research， 2020， 43（12）： 106-109.
	程方方，杨君辉，夏茂林，等. 不同原料水分含量和添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 饲料研究， 2020， 43（12）： 106-109.
[23]	Li F F， Zhang F F， Wang X Z， et al. Effects of homo-and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on the nutritional quality and ruminal degradation rate of the whole plant maize silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2019， 28（6）： 128-136.
	李菲菲，张凡凡，王旭哲，等. 同/异型发酵乳酸菌对全株玉米青贮营养成分和瘤胃降解特征的影响. 草业学报， 2019， 28（6）： 128-136.
[24]	Blajman J E， Paez R B， Vinderola C G， et al. A Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of homofermentative and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria for corn silage. Journal of Applied Microbiology， 2018， 125（6）： 1655-1669.
[25]	Zhao M， Wang Z， Du S， et al. Lactobacillus plantarum and propionic acid improve the fermentation quality of high-moisture amaranth silage by altering the microbial community composition. Frontiers in Microbiology， 2022， 13： 1066641.
[26]	Xu D， 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， 2021， 14（2）： 561-576.
[27]	Li M， Zi X， Sun R， et al. Co-ensiling whole-plant cassava with corn stalk for excellent silage production： Fermentation characteristics， bacterial community， function profile， and microbial ecological network features. Agronomy， 2024， 14（3）： 501.
[28]	Zhao G， Wu H， Li L， et al. Effects of applying cellulase and starch on the fermentation characteristics and microbial communities of Napier grass （Pennisetum purpureum Schum.） silage. Journal of Animal Science and Technology， 2021， 63（6）： 1301-1313.
[29]	Qiu C， Liu N， Diao X， et al. Effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation characteristics， chemical composition and bacterial community of the mixed silage of king grass and rice straw. Microorganisms， 2024， 12（3）： 561.
[30]	Mu L， Xie Z， Hu L， et al. Cellulase interacts with Lactobacillus plantarum to affect chemical composition， bacterial communities， and aerobic stability in mixed silage of high-moisture amaranth and rice straw. Bioresource Technology， 2020， 315： 123772.
[31]	Chi Z， Deng M， Tian H， et al. Effects of mulberry leaves and Pennisetum hybrid mix-silage on fermentation parameters and bacterial community. Fermentation， 2022， 8（5）： 197.
[32]	Huang R， Cai B， Chen Y， et al. Bacterial community structure and metabolites after ensiling paper mulberry mixed with corn or wheat straw. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems， 2024， 8： 1356705.
[33]	Aßhauer K P， Wemheuer B， Daniel R， et al. Tax4Fun： predicting functional profiles from metagenomic 16S rRNA data. Bioinformatics， 2015， 31（17）： 2882-2884.
[34]	Bai J， Franco M， Ding Z， et al. Effect of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Bacillus subtilis on fermentation， dynamics of bacterial community and their functional shifts of whole-plant corn silage. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology， 2022， 13： 1-14.
[35]	Bai J， Ding Z， Ke W， et al. Different lactic acid bacteria and their combinations regulated the fermentation process of ensiled alfalfa： Ensiling characteristics， dynamics of bacterial community and their functional shifts. Microbal Biotechnology， 2021， 14： 1171-1182.
[36]	Li X， Chen F， Wang X， et al. Innovative utilization of herbal residues： Exploring the diversity of mechanisms beneficial to regulate anaerobic fermentation of alfalfa. Bioresource Technology， 2022， 360： 127429.
[37]	Kilstrup M， Hammer K， Ruhdal P， et al. Nucleotide metabolism and its control in lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiology Reviews， 2005， 29（3）： 555-590.
[38]	Liu Q H， Wu J X， Shao T. Roles of microbes and lipolytic enzymes in changing the fatty acid profile， α-tocopherol and β-carotene of whole-crop oat silages during ensiling and after exposure to air. Animal Feed Science and Technology， 2019， 253： 81-92.
[39]	Wang S， Shao T， Li J， et al. A survey of fermentation parameters， bacterial community compositions and their metabolic pathways during the ensiling of sorghum. Journal of Applied Microbiology， 2022， 132（5）： 3563-3577.

化学成分 Chemical composition	玉米秸秆 Corn stalk	毛豆茎叶 Edamame stem and leave
干物质 Dry matter （DM， %）	17.52	20.95
粗蛋白质Crude protein （%DM）	11.05	21.10
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber （%DM）	66.07	53.79
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber （%DM）	34.40	29.30
可溶性碳水化合物Water soluble carbohydrates （%DM）	13.53	2.79

化学成分 Chemical composition	玉米秸秆 Corn stalk	毛豆茎叶 Edamame stem and leave
干物质 Dry matter （DM， %）	17.52	20.95
粗蛋白质Crude protein （%DM）	11.05	21.10
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber （%DM）	66.07	53.79
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber （%DM）	34.40	29.30
可溶性碳水化合物Water soluble carbohydrates （%DM）	13.53	2.79

项目 Item	处理Treatment						P值P value
项目 Item	CS10	CS31	CS11	CS10（c）	CS31（c）	CS11（c）	R	T	R×T
干物质 Dry matter （DM， %）	17.02±0.13b	17.34±0.17b	17.76±0.18a	17.09±0.07b	17.27±0.08b	18.08±0.21a	0.000	0.39	0.443
粗蛋白质Crude protein （%DM）	11.61±1.24c	14.11±0.27b	17.63±0.25a	10.70±0.19c	14.26±0.23b	17.67±0.80a	0.000	0.67	0.686
可溶性碳水化合物WSC （%DM）	1.28±0.08a	0.62±0.06b	0.35±0.01c	1.16±0.11a	0.56±0.07b	0.27±0.03c	0.000	0.21	0.941
中性洗涤纤维NDF （%DM）	66.16±0.28a	58.73±0.48b	55.60±0.75c	64.96±0.11a	58.23±0.46b	55.14±1.32c	0.000	0.25	0.853
酸性洗涤纤维ADF （%DM）	38.45±0.06a	34.78±0.25b	33.53±0.48c	36.93±0.32a	34.42±0.36b	32.84±0.95c	0.000	0.07	0.563

项目 Item	处理Treatment						P值P value
项目 Item	CS10	CS31	CS11	CS10（c）	CS31（c）	CS11（c）	R	T	R×T
干物质 Dry matter （DM， %）	17.02±0.13b	17.34±0.17b	17.76±0.18a	17.09±0.07b	17.27±0.08b	18.08±0.21a	0.000	0.39	0.443
粗蛋白质Crude protein （%DM）	11.61±1.24c	14.11±0.27b	17.63±0.25a	10.70±0.19c	14.26±0.23b	17.67±0.80a	0.000	0.67	0.686
可溶性碳水化合物WSC （%DM）	1.28±0.08a	0.62±0.06b	0.35±0.01c	1.16±0.11a	0.56±0.07b	0.27±0.03c	0.000	0.21	0.941
中性洗涤纤维NDF （%DM）	66.16±0.28a	58.73±0.48b	55.60±0.75c	64.96±0.11a	58.23±0.46b	55.14±1.32c	0.000	0.25	0.853
酸性洗涤纤维ADF （%DM）	38.45±0.06a	34.78±0.25b	33.53±0.48c	36.93±0.32a	34.42±0.36b	32.84±0.95c	0.000	0.07	0.563

项目 Item	处理Treatment						P值P value
项目 Item	CS10	CS31	CS11	CS10（c）	CS31（c）	CS11（c）	R	T	R×T
pH	3.63±0.00c	3.77±0.01b	4.28±0.00a	3.65±0.01c	3.79±0.02b	4.26±0.03a	0.000	0.709	0.395
氨态氮NH₃-N （%DM）	0.49±0.08c	0.79±0.11b	1.32±0.28a	0.52±0.07c	0.86±0.10b	1.34±0.10a	0.000	0.757	0.983
乳酸Lactic acid （%DM）	8.84±0.84a	9.81±1.01a	6.98±0.75a	9.12±0.56a	9.21±1.01a	8.51±0.20a	0.618	0.208	0.552
乙酸Acetic acid （%DM）	2.64±0.02b	2.94±0.16ab	3.85±0.08a	2.78±0.10b	2.94±0.12ab	3.36±0.23a	0.041	0.087	0.193
丙酸Propionic acid （%DM）	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
丁酸Butyric acid （%DM）	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND