Optimization of fermentation technology for production of quinoa straw feed using response surface methodology

doi:10.11686/cyxb2020203

Abstract

Abstract:

Microbial fermentation can improve the nutritional value of straw， including quinoa straw. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of lactic acid bacteria alone and in combination with yeast， compared with the effect of Aspergillus niger， on the quality of fermented quinoa straw feed. The overall aim of this research was to provide a reference for the development and utilization of quinoa straw in feed. In the single fermentation with lactic acid bacteria， the three variable factors were fermentation time， water content， and amount of inoculant added. In the fermentations with lactic acid bacteria and yeast， the three variable factors were fermentation time， water content， and ratio of inoculants to quinoa straw. All experiments were designed using the L₉（3⁴） orthogonal principle， and the response surface method was used to analyze the four nutritional indicators crude fiber， crude protein， crude fat， and soluble sugar contents. At the same time， a comparative test of the effect of fermenting quinoa straw with A. niger was conducted. The results showed that： 1） Under the same fermentation conditions， cellulose degradation was greater in the mixed fermentations than in those with lactic acid bacteria alone. 2） The average crude protein content was 2.7% higher in fermented quinoa straw than in unfermented quinoa straw. 3） During the fermentation process， the crude fat content showed little change， ranging from 0.24% to 0.31%. 4） After fermentation， the soluble sugar content of quinoa straw was increased by about 3%； 5） A. niger degraded cellulose and increased the soluble sugar content， but the sensory quality of the feed was poor. Our results confirm that microbial fermentation can improve the quality of quinoa straw feed， and show that the synergistic fermentation with mixed inoculants is better than fermentation with a single strain.

Key words: quinoa straw, microbial fermented feed, lactic acid bacteria, yeast, Aspergillus niger

Xiao-fei YU, Xiao-nong GUO, Yan ZHANG, Zi-wei LIU, Xi-wen ZHANG, Ke-xin XU, Zhi-yong Wu. Optimization of fermentation technology for production of quinoa straw feed using response surface methodology[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(5): 155-164.

Figures/Tables 10

References 29

1	Koziol M J. Chemical composition and nutritional evaluation of quinoa （Chenopodium quinoa Willd）. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis， 1992， 5（1）： 35.
2	Schilick G， Bubenheim D L. Quinoa： An emerging new crop with potential for Celss. Washington： National Aeronautics and Space Administration， Ames Research Center， 1993.
3	Li J K， Wang J L， Shang C， et al. Adaptability of different quinoa materials in Harbin. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2019， 28（9）： 202-208.
	李佶恺，王建丽，尚晨，等. 不同藜麦材料在哈尔滨地区的适应性研究. 草业学报， 2019， 28（9）： 202-208.
4	Zhang W J. Study and application of the rational and chemical properties of quinoa whole powder and starch. Zhengzhou ： Zhengzhou Institute of Light Industry， 2016.
	张文杰. 藜麦全粉与淀粉的理化性质与结构研究及应用. 郑州：郑州轻工业学院， 2016.
5	Kang Z Q， Chen Q. 2017 quinoa industry market development status report. China Reporting Network， 2017.
	康智琪，陈权. 2017年藜麦行业市场发展现状报告. 中国报告网， 2017.
6	Gongbu Z X， Wang M， Zhang C X， et al. Studies on the biological characteristics of quinoa in Tibet. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica， 1994， 3（4）： 81.
	贡布扎西，旺姆，张崇玺，等. 南美藜在西藏的生物学特性研究. 西北农业学报， 1994， 3（4）： 81.
7	Ren G X. The status and development prospects of quinoa industry in China. Shanghai： Institute of Crop Science， Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences， 2019.
	任贵兴. 中国藜麦产业现状与发展前景. 上海：中国农业科学院作物科学研究所， 2019.
8	Ding Y S， Zeng Y W， Min K， et al. Comprehensive study and utilization of functional components of quinoa. Current Biotechnology， 2015， 5（5）： 340-346.
	丁云双，曾亚文，闵康，等. 藜麦功能成分综合研究与利用. 生物技术进展， 2015， 5（5）： 340-346.
9	Wei A C， Yang X S， Me Y， et al. Advances in the study of the nutritional function of quinoa and biological activity. Food Science， 2015， 36（15）： 272-276.
	魏爱春，杨修仕，么杨，等. 藜麦营养功能成分及生物活性研究进展. 食品科学， 2015， 36（15）： 272-276.
10	Xu X M. Extraction， separation purification and biological activity of quinoa saponlygin. Hohhot： Inner Mongolia Agricultural University， 2017.
	徐晓敏. 藜麦皂苷的提取、分离纯化及生物活性研究. 呼和浩特：内蒙古农业大学， 2017.
11	Hou Z H， Fu M R， Zhang W Y， et al. Advances in the study of quinoa saponin. Journal of Food Safety & Quality， 2018， 9（19）： 5146-5152.
	侯召华，傅茂润，张威毅，等. 藜麦皂苷研究进展. 食品安全质量检测学报， 2018， 9（19）： 5146-5152.
12	Hu Y C， Zhao G， Qin P Y， et al. Advances in the study of quinoa active ingredients. Acta Agronomica Sinica， 2018， 44（11）： 1579-1591.
	胡一晨，赵钢，秦培友，等. 藜麦活性成分研究进展. 作物学报， 2018， 44（11）： 1579-1591.
13	Yang F R. The current situation of quinoa research and development and industrial development proposal steamin in Gansu. Lanzhou： Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences， 2019.
	杨发荣. 甘肃藜麦研发现状与产业发展建议. 兰州：甘肃省农业科学院， 2019.
14	Liu J J. Effect and mechanism of biological additives on switchgrass silage. Beijing： China Agricultural University， 2015.
	刘晶晶. 生物添加剂对柳枝稷青贮的作用及机理研究. 北京：中国农业大学， 2015.
15	Nie Q， Dai J J， Hu J P， et al. The strains and functions of yeast-derived biological feed. China Feed， 2018（11）： 89-93.
	聂琴，戴晋军，胡骏鹏，等. 酵母源生物饲料的菌种与功能. 中国饲料， 2018（11）： 89-93.
16	Weinberg Z G， Muck R E. New trends and opportunities in the development and use of inoculants for silage. Femsm Icrobiology Reviews， 1996， 19： 53-68.
17	Chen G， Sun Y， Wang G， et al. Comprehensive utilization and development prospect of quinoa. Journal of Jilin Agricultural University， 2018， 40（1）： 1-6.
	陈光，孙旸，王刚，等. 藜麦全植株的综合利用及开发前景. 吉林农业大学学报， 2018， 40（1）： 1-6.
18	Li F L， Fan M X， Bian C Z. Characteristics of Aspergillus niger producing enzyme and its application in animal production. Modern Animal Husbandry， 2018， 2（4）： 47-49.
	李凤玲，范明夏，边传周. 黑曲霉菌的产酶特性及在动物生产中的应用. 现代牧业， 2018， 2（4）： 47-49.
19	Li W G， Zhou S Y， Bi J， et al. GB 12316-1990， Sensory analysis “a” is not “a” test. Beijing： Standards Press of China，1990.
	李伟格，周苏玉，毕健，等. GB 12316-1990，感官分析“a”非“a”检验. 北京：中国标准出版社， 1990.
20	Bi Y Y. Research on the evaluation and utilization of straw resources. Beijing： Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences， 2010.
	毕于运. 秸秆资源评价与利用研究. 北京：中国农业科学院， 2010.
21	Wang R H， Yu X H. On the application of coarse fiber in animal production. Jiangxi Feed， 2015（2）： 7-8.
	王仁华，于学红. 浅谈粗纤维在动物生产中的应用. 江西饲料， 2015（2）： 7-8.
22	Ge D J. Effect of dietary fiber on the nutritional physiological effect and reproductive performance of producing sows. Fuzhou： Fujian Agricultural and Forestry University， 2009.
	葛德军. 日粮纤维对经产母猪的营养生理作用及繁殖性能的影响. 福州：福建农林大学， 2009.
23	Yang Y F. Study on the digestive physiology and production performance of pig in different stages of growth. Hohhot： Inner Mongolia Agricultural University， 2001.
	杨玉芬. 日粮纤维对于猪不同生长阶段消化生理和生产性能的研究. 呼和浩特：内蒙古农业大学， 2001.
24	Guo D S. Effect of ruminant diet combination on rumen fermentation and available crude protein. Beijing： China Agricultural University， 2004.
	郭冬生. 反刍动物日粮组合效应对瘤胃发酵和可利用粗蛋白的影响研究. 北京：中国农业大学， 2004.
25	Huang K W. Effect of protein source and composition on growth and immune index of pre weaning calves. Alaer： Tarim University， 2016.
	黄开武. 蛋白质来源和组成对断奶前犊牛生长发育及免疫指标的影响. 阿拉尔：塔里木大学， 2016.
26	Li L， Gu L Q， He H， et al. Some problems in the determination of crude protein in feed by Kjeldahl method. Guizhou Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine， 2010， 34（5）： 43.
	李雷，顾丽群，何虎，等. 凯氏定氮法测定饲料中粗蛋白质应注意的几个问题. 贵州畜牧兽医， 2010， 34（5）：43.
27	Han H W， Sun L N， Yao T， et al. Effects of different combinations of growth promoting strains on yield and quality of alfalfa. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2013， 22（5）： 104-112.
	韩华雯，孙丽娜，姚拓，等. 不同促生菌株组合对紫花苜蓿产量和品质的影响. 草业学报， 2013， 22（5）： 104-112.
28	Tao X W. Fermentation processes and equipment. Beijing： Chemical Industry Press， 2011： 84-85.
	陶兴无. 发酵工艺与设备. 北京：化学工业出版社， 2011： 84-85.
29	Wang J B， Fan S J， Liu J B， et al. Application of bacterial inoculants and enzyme preparations in straw silage. Feed Review， 1999， 11（4）： 17-20.
	王建兵，范石军，刘静波，等. 细菌接种剂和酶制剂在秸秆类饲料青贮中的应用. 饲料博览， 1999， 11（4）： 17-20.

试验组别Pilot group	菌剂添加量Amount of bacteria added （g）		含水量 Moisture content （%）	发酵时间 Fermentation time （h）	黑曲霉添加量 Amount of A.niger （g）	酵母菌∶乳酸菌 Saccharomycetes∶ Lactobacillus
试验组别Pilot group	乳酸菌 Saccharomycetes	酵母菌 Lactobacillus	含水量 Moisture content （%）	发酵时间 Fermentation time （h）	黑曲霉添加量 Amount of A.niger （g）	酵母菌∶乳酸菌 Saccharomycetes∶ Lactobacillus
1	0.75	-	60	120	-	-
2	0.75	-	70	168	-	-
3	1.25	-	50	168	-	-
4	1.00	-	70	72	-	-
5	1.25	-	70	120	-	-
6	1.00	-	60	168	-	-
7	1.00	-	50	120	-	-
8	1.25	-	60	72	-	-
9	0.75	-	50	72	-	-
10	1.00	1.00	60	120	-	1∶1
11	1.00	1.00	70	168	-	1∶1
12	1.00	2.00	50	168	-	2∶1
13	1.00	0.50	70	72	-	1∶2
14	1.00	2.00	70	120	-	2∶1
15	1.00	0.50	60	168	-	1∶2
16	1.00	0.50	50	120	-	1∶2
17	1.00	2.00	60	72	-	2∶1
18	1.00	1.00	50	72	-	1∶1
19	1.00	-	70	72	0.075	-

试验组别Pilot group	菌剂添加量Amount of bacteria added （g）		含水量 Moisture content （%）	发酵时间 Fermentation time （h）	黑曲霉添加量 Amount of A.niger （g）	酵母菌∶乳酸菌 Saccharomycetes∶ Lactobacillus
试验组别Pilot group	乳酸菌 Saccharomycetes	酵母菌 Lactobacillus	含水量 Moisture content （%）	发酵时间 Fermentation time （h）	黑曲霉添加量 Amount of A.niger （g）	酵母菌∶乳酸菌 Saccharomycetes∶ Lactobacillus
1	0.75	-	60	120	-	-
2	0.75	-	70	168	-	-
3	1.25	-	50	168	-	-
4	1.00	-	70	72	-	-
5	1.25	-	70	120	-	-
6	1.00	-	60	168	-	-
7	1.00	-	50	120	-	-
8	1.25	-	60	72	-	-
9	0.75	-	50	72	-	-
10	1.00	1.00	60	120	-	1∶1
11	1.00	1.00	70	168	-	1∶1
12	1.00	2.00	50	168	-	2∶1
13	1.00	0.50	70	72	-	1∶2
14	1.00	2.00	70	120	-	2∶1
15	1.00	0.50	60	168	-	1∶2
16	1.00	0.50	50	120	-	1∶2
17	1.00	2.00	60	72	-	2∶1
18	1.00	1.00	50	72	-	1∶1
19	1.00	-	70	72	0.075	-

感官指标 Sensory indicators	总配分 Total distribution	感官指标及评分值Sensory indicators and scoring values
感官指标 Sensory indicators	总配分 Total distribution	优等Top	良好Good	一般General	劣等Inferior
气味Smell	3.0	甘酸香味Sweet sour flavor （2.5~3.0）	酒酸香味Fragrant wine sour （2.0~2.5）	刺鼻酸味Pungent sour （1.0~2.0）	腐败味Decayed （0~1.0）
色泽Color	3.0	亮黄色Bright yellow （2.5~3.0）	暗黄色Dark yellow (2.0~2.5)	黄褐色Tawny (1.0~2.0)	暗褐色Dun (0~1.0)
质地Texture	3.0	质地松软Floppy (2.5~3.0)	略带粘性Slightly sticky (2.0~2.5)	发粘Sticky (1.0~2.0)	结块Cake-shaped (0~1.0)
总评分Total rating	9.0	7.5~9.0	6.0~7.5	3.0~6.0	0~3.0

感官指标 Sensory indicators	总配分 Total distribution	感官指标及评分值Sensory indicators and scoring values
感官指标 Sensory indicators	总配分 Total distribution	优等Top	良好Good	一般General	劣等Inferior
气味Smell	3.0	甘酸香味Sweet sour flavor （2.5~3.0）	酒酸香味Fragrant wine sour （2.0~2.5）	刺鼻酸味Pungent sour （1.0~2.0）	腐败味Decayed （0~1.0）
色泽Color	3.0	亮黄色Bright yellow （2.5~3.0）	暗黄色Dark yellow (2.0~2.5)	黄褐色Tawny (1.0~2.0)	暗褐色Dun (0~1.0)
质地Texture	3.0	质地松软Floppy (2.5~3.0)	略带粘性Slightly sticky (2.0~2.5)	发粘Sticky (1.0~2.0)	结块Cake-shaped (0~1.0)
总评分Total rating	9.0	7.5~9.0	6.0~7.5	3.0~6.0	0~3.0

[1]	Zhan XIE, Lin MU, Zhi-fei ZHANG, Gui-hua CHEN, Yang LIU, Shuai GAO, Zhong-shan WEI. Effects on fermentation in alfalfa mixed silage of added lactic acid bacteria or organic acid salt combined with urea [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(5): 165-173.
[2]	Hong-jian LV, Xiang GUO, De-kui CHEN, Xiao-yang CHEN, Qing ZHANG. Effect of lactic acid bacteria and storage temperature on the quality of Moringa oleifera leaf silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(3): 121-128.
[3]	Xin-zhu CHEN, Jian-guo ZHANG. Effects of cutting time and plant height of ‘Reyan No.4’ king grass on distribution of lactic acid bacteria and silage fermentation quality [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(1): 150-158.
[4]	FU Jin-tao, WANG Xue-kai, NI Kui-kui, YANG Fu-yu. The effects of adding lactic acid bacteria and molasses on fermentation of Broussonetia papyrifera and rice straw mixed silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(4): 121-128.
[5]	WAN Xue-rui, DOU Si-yuan, LI Yu, HE Yi-qun, WANG Chuan, ZHANG Xiao-li, LEI Zhao-min. Effect of lactic acid bacteria preparations on microbial population counts and silage quality in maize silage during fermentation and on aerobic exposure [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(11): 83-90.
[6]	MAO Cui, LIU Fang-yuan, SONG En-liang, WANG Ya-fang, WANG Yong-jun, ZHAN Xiang, LI Yuan, CHENG Hai-jian, JIANG Fu-gui. Effects of lactic acid bacteria inoculant level and ensiling time on nutritional value and fermentation quality of whole-crop maize silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(10): 172-181.
[7]	JU Ze-liang, ZHAO Gui-qin, CHAI Ji-kuan, JIA Zhi-feng, LIANG Guo-ling. Comprehensive evaluation of nutritional value and silage fermentation quality of different oat varieties in central Gansu Province [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(9): 77-86.
[8]	WANG Cheng, WANG Yi, ZHOU Wei, PIAN Rui-qi, ZHANG Qing, CHEN Xiao-yang. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum (LP) and moisture on feed quality and tannin content of Moringa oleifera leaf silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(6): 109-118.
[9]	LI Fei-fei, ZHANG Fan-fan, WANG Xu-zhe, MIAO Fang, MA Chun-hui. Effects of homo-and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on the nutritional quality and ruminal degradation rate of the whole plant maize silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(6): 128-136.
[10]	YANG Da-sheng, WANG Shui-ping, HAN Xue-feng, TANG Shao-xun, TAN Zhi-liang, YIN Meng-jie, LUO Dong-mei. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and alkyl polyglycoside on yellow corn stover silage quality and fermentation in vitro [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(5): 109-120.
[11]	WANG Jian-fu, LEI Zhao-min, WAN Xue-rui, JIANG Hui, LI Jie, WU Jian-ping. Effects on the quality of corn silage, of 5 strains of lactic acid bacteria with different combinations of added CaCO₃, enzyme and urea [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(3): 90-97.
[12]	WANG Hong-Mei, SUN Qi-Zhong, TU Yan, SI Bing-Wen, SA Ru-La, NA Ya, DIAO Qi-Yu. Isolation and identification of high-quality lactic acid bacteria from wild forage silages on the Hulunbuir prairie [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(8): 189-196.
[13]	WANG Xiao-Cheng, LIU Jun-Hua, ZHU Wei-Yun, MAO Sheng-Yong. Isolation and characterization of rumen yeast and an evaluation of its effect on ruminal fermentation with different types of substrate [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(5): 141-148.
[14]	REN Hai-Wei, ZHAO Tuo, LI Jin-Ping, LI Xue-Yan, XU Na, WANG Yong-Gang, WANG Xiao-Li, GAO Xiao-Hang. Quality and lactic acid bacteria of mixed corn stalk and cabbage waste silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(1): 197-206.
[15]	YANG Xiao-Dan, YUAN Xian-Jun, GUO Gang, CUI Zhao-Ming, LI Jun-Feng, BAI Xi, BA Sang, SHAO Tao. Isolation and identification of low temperature-tolerant lactic acid bacteria from legume silages in Tibet [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(6): 99-107.