Screening low-nutrient-tolerant lactic acid bacteria and their effects on the fermentation quality of silages from poor materials

doi:10.11686/cyxb2022395

Abstract

Abstract:

Herbage with low water-soluble carbohydrate （WSC） content or low counts of lactic acid bacteria （LAB） is difficult to ensile. Sugars or LAB are usually added to improve the fermentation quality of silage， but the cost is relatively high. In this study， low-nutrient and acid-tolerant LAB were screened by adjusting the glucose content （0.002， 0.02， 0.2， 2 and 20 g·L^-1） and pH （4.0 and 4.5） of the medium， and inoculating them to stylo （Stylosanthes guianensis） and sudan grass （Sorghum sudanense） with poor ensiling conditions to investigate the silage fermentation quality. Ten low-nutrient-tolerant LAB strains were obtained. Low-nutrient and acid-tolerant strains SCLN₁ and HT₁， and an acid-tolerant strain LM₁ with relatively weak tolerance to low nutrient conditions were also obtained. SCLN₁ was identified Lactobacillus plantarum by 16S rDNA and physiological and biochemical characteristics， and LM₁ and HT₁ stored in the laboratory were identified as Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Lactobacillus rhamnosus， respectively. After ensiling for 60 days， uninoculated stylo and sudan grass silages had poor fermentation quality， with pH higher than 5.0， lactic acid less than 2% DM， and ammonia nitrogen （NH₃-N） reached up to 30.50% TN and 29.01% TN， respectively. Inoculation with LAB significantly improved the fermentation quality of silages of the two tested forage species， especially inoculation with SCLN₁. For stylo and sudan grass silages， inoculation with SCLN₁ alone significantly decreased pH values （from 5.36 and 5.19 to 4.67 and 4.10， respectively） and NH₃-N content （from 30.50% TN and 29.01% TN to 11.24% TN and 12.69% TN， respectively） and increased lactic acid content （from 2.00% DM and 1.82% DM to 4.16% DM and 8.29% DM， respectively）. The effect of inoculation with SCLN₁ alone was significantly better than that of inoculation with LM₁ and HT₁ alone or mixed with SCLN₁.

Key words: low-nutrient-tolerant lactic acid bacteria, stylo, sudan grass, silage

Jing TIAN, Cai-xia CAO, Li-ying HUANG, Juan-yan WU, Jian-guo ZHANG. Screening low-nutrient-tolerant lactic acid bacteria and their effects on the fermentation quality of silages from poor materials[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(9): 222-230.

Figures/Tables 8

References 35

1	McDonald P， Henderson A R， Heron S J E. The biochemistry of silage. London： Chalcombe Publications， 1991.
2	Kung L M， Shaver R D， Grant R J， et al. Silage review： Interpretation of chemical， microbial， and organoleptic components of silages. Journal of Dairy Science， 2018， 101（5）： 4020-4033.
3	Muck R E， Nadeau E M G， McAllister T A， et al. Silage review： Recent advances and future uses of silage additives. Journal of Dairy Science， 2018， 101（5）： 3980-4000.
4	Duniere L， Sindou J， Chaucheyras-Durand F， et al. Silage processing and strategies to prevent persistence of undesirable microorganisms. Animal Feed Science and Technology， 2013， 182： 1-15.
5	Puntillo M， Peralta G H， Burgi M D M， et al. Metaprofiling of the bacterial community in sorghum silages inoculated with lactic acid bacteria. Journal of Applied Microbiology， 2022， 133（4）： 2375-2389.
6	Wu B Y L， Hu Z F， Wei M L， et al. Effects of inoculation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Lentilactobacillus buchneri on fermentation quality， aerobic stability， and microbial community dynamics of wilted Leymus chinensis silage. Frontiers in Microbiology， 2022， 13： 928731.
7	Drouin P， Tremblay J， Silva E B D， et al. Changes to the microbiome of alfalfa during the growing season and after ensiling with Lentilactobacillus buchneri and Lentilactobacillus hilgardii inoculant. Journal of Applied Microbiology， 2022， 133（4）： 2331-2347.
8	Li M， Zhou H L， Zi X J， et al. Silage fermentation and ruminal degradation of stylo prepared with lactic acid bacteria and cellulase. Animal Science Journal， 2017， 88（10）： 1531-1537.
9	Zhang J G， Kawamoto H， Cai Y M. Relationships between the addition rates of cellulase or glucose and silage fermentation at different temperatures. Animal Science Journal， 2011， 81（3）： 325-330.
10	Saarisalo E， Skytta E， Haikara A， et al. Screening and selection of lactic acid bacteria strains suitable for ensiling grass. Journal of Applied Microbiology， 2007， 102（2）： 327-336.
11	Peng C， Sun W T， Dong X， et al. Isolation， identification and utilization of lactic acid bacteria from silage in a warm and humid climate area. Scientific Reports， 2021， 11（1）： 12586.
12	Liu Q H， Zhang J G， Shi S L， et al. The effects of wilting and storage temperatures on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of stylo silage. Animal Science Journal， 2011， 82（4）： 549-553.
13	Silva V P， Pereira O G， Leandro E S， et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria with bacteriocinogenic potential on the fermentation profile and chemical composition of alfalfa silage in tropical conditions. Journal of Dairy Science， 2016， 99： 1895-1902.
14	Pitiwittayakul N， Bureenok S， Schonewille J T. Selective thermotolerant lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented juice of epiphytic lactic acid bacteria and their effects on fermentation quality of stylo silages. Frontiers in Microbiology， 2021， 12： 673946.
15	Zhu Y， Wang X， Huang L， et al. Transcriptomic identification of drought-related genes and SSR markers in sudan grass based on RNA-Seq. Frontiers in Plant Science， 2017， 8： 687.
16	Nazar M， Wang S， Zhao J， et al. Abundance and diversity of epiphytic microbiota on forage crops and their fermentation characteristic during the ensiling of sterile sudan grass. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology， 2021， 37： 27.
17	Saitou N， Nei M. The neighbor-joining method： a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution， 1987， 4（4）： 406-425.
18	Kozaki M， Uchimura T， Okada S. Experimental manual of lactic acid bacteria. Tokyo： Asakurasyoten Press， 1992： 34-37.
19	Association of Official Analytical Chemistry. Official methods of analysis （15th edtion）. Arlington （VA）： Association of Official Analytical Chemists， 1990.
20	Van S P J， Robertsom 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.
21	Murphy R P. A method for the extraction of plant samples and the determination of total soluble carbohydrates. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture， 1958， 9： 714-717.
22	Nishino N， Miyase K， Ohshima M. Effects of extraction and reconstitution of ryegrass juice on fermentation， digestion and in situ degradation of pressed cake silage. Journal of the Science of Food & Agriculture， 1997， 75： 161-166.
23	The Evaluation Council of Self-Feed Quality. The evaluation manual of crude feed. Tokyo： The Association of Grassland and Livestock Products in Japan， 2001： 82-87.
24	Wilson M， Lindow S E. Ecological similarity and coexistence of epiphytic ice-nucleating （ice） Pseudomonas syringae strains and a non-ice-nucleating （ice） biological control agent. Applied Environmental Microbiology， 1994， 60（9）： 3128-3137.
25	Mercier J， Lindow S E. Role of leaf surface sugars in colonization of plants by bacterial epiphytes. Applied Environmental Microbiology， 2000， 66（1）： 369-374.
26	Kuppusamy P， Kim D， Soundharrajan I， et al. Low-carbohydrate tolerant LAB strains identified from rumen fluid： Investigation of probiotic activity and legume silage fermentation. Microorganisms， 2020， 8（7）： 1044.
27	Schiessl J， Kosciow K， Garschagen L S， et al. Degradation of the low-calorie sugar substitute 5-ketofructose by different bacteria. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology， 2021， 105（6）： 2441-2453.
28	Silva J S D， Ribeiro K G， Pereira O G， et al. Nutritive value and fermentation quality of palisadegrass and stylo mixed silages. Animal Science Journal， 2018， 89（1）： 72-78.
29	Li M， Lv R L， Zhang L D， et al. Melatonin is a promising silage additive： Evidence from microbiota and metabolites. Frontiers in Microbiology， 2021， 12： 670764.
30	Zou X， Chen D， Lv H， et al. Effect of ellagic acid on fermentation quality and bacterial community of stylo silage. Fermentation， 2021， 7（4）： 256.
31	Van S P J， Mertens D R， Deinum B. Preharvest factors influencing quality of conserved forage. Journal of Animal Science， 1978， 47（3）： 712-720.
32	Stojanovic B， Dordevic N， Simic A， et al. The in vitro protein degradability of legume and sudan grass forage types and ensiled mixtures. Ankara Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi， 2020， 67（4）： 419-425.
33	Chen M M， Liu Q H， Xin G R， et al. Characteristics of lactic acid bacteria isolates and their inoculating effects on the silage fermentation at high temperature. Letters in Applied Microbiology， 2013， 56（1）： 71-78.
34	Liu Q H， Li J F， Zhao J， et al. Enhancement of lignocellulosic degradation in high-moisture alfalfa via anaerobic bioprocess of engineered Lactococcus lactis with the function of secreting cellulase. Biotechnology for Biofuels， 2019， 12： 8.
35	Zhang T， Li L， Wang X F， et al. Effects of Lactobacillus buchneri and Lactobacillus plantarum on fermentation， aerobic stability， bacteria diversity and ruminal degradability of alfalfa silage. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology， 2009， 25（6）： 965-971.

菌株 Strain	葡萄糖浓度Glucose concentration （g·L^-1）
菌株 Strain	0.002	0.02	0.2	2	20
SCLN₁	0.726±0.01a	0.728±0.01a	0.704±0.01b	0.902±0.01bc	2.157±0.01d
LA₁	0.709±0.01a	0.780±0.00a	0.765±0.01a	1.052±0.07ab	1.645±0.01f
LA₂	0.083±0.00f	0.087±0.00e	0.206±0.01g	0.599±0.02de	2.521±0.01a
LA₃	0.297±0.01c	0.433±0.05c	0.473±0.01c	0.473±0.20e	2.483±0.01a
LA₄	0.260±0.01d	0.285±0.01d	0.317±0.00e	0.821±0.02bcd	1.959±0.01e
LA₅	0.135±0.00e	0.167±0.02e	0.260±0.02f	0.721±0.15cde	2.117±0.00d
LA₆	0.095±0.01f	0.132±0.01e	0.373±0.01d	0.937±0.01bc	2.325±0.09bc
LM₁	0.154±0.00e	0.153±0.00e	0.203±0.00g	0.654±0.00de	2.119±0.00d
CCZZ₁	0.306±0.01c	0.459±0.09c	0.765±0.02a	0.912±0.01bc	2.236±0.00cd
HT₁	0.585±0.02b	0.590±0.01b	0.688±0.01b	1.231±0.03a	2.416±0.05ab

菌株 Strain	葡萄糖浓度Glucose concentration （g·L^-1）
菌株 Strain	0.002	0.02	0.2	2	20
SCLN₁	0.726±0.01a	0.728±0.01a	0.704±0.01b	0.902±0.01bc	2.157±0.01d
LA₁	0.709±0.01a	0.780±0.00a	0.765±0.01a	1.052±0.07ab	1.645±0.01f
LA₂	0.083±0.00f	0.087±0.00e	0.206±0.01g	0.599±0.02de	2.521±0.01a
LA₃	0.297±0.01c	0.433±0.05c	0.473±0.01c	0.473±0.20e	2.483±0.01a
LA₄	0.260±0.01d	0.285±0.01d	0.317±0.00e	0.821±0.02bcd	1.959±0.01e
LA₅	0.135±0.00e	0.167±0.02e	0.260±0.02f	0.721±0.15cde	2.117±0.00d
LA₆	0.095±0.01f	0.132±0.01e	0.373±0.01d	0.937±0.01bc	2.325±0.09bc
LM₁	0.154±0.00e	0.153±0.00e	0.203±0.00g	0.654±0.00de	2.119±0.00d
CCZZ₁	0.306±0.01c	0.459±0.09c	0.765±0.02a	0.912±0.01bc	2.236±0.00cd
HT₁	0.585±0.02b	0.590±0.01b	0.688±0.01b	1.231±0.03a	2.416±0.05ab

特性Characteristics	生长状况Growth situation	特性Characteristics	生长状况Growth situation
形状Shape	杆状Rod	NaCl生长Growth in NaCl
革兰氏染色Gram stain	+	3.0%	+
过氧化氢酶反应Catalase reaction	-	6.5%	±
发酵类型Type of fermentation	同型Homo	10.0%	-
生长温度Growth temperature		pH生长Growth at pH
10 ℃	±	3.5	±
15 ℃	+	4.0	++
45 ℃	+	4.5	++
50 ℃	±	7.5	+
		8.0	±

特性Characteristics	生长状况Growth situation	特性Characteristics	生长状况Growth situation
形状Shape	杆状Rod	NaCl生长Growth in NaCl
革兰氏染色Gram stain	+	3.0%	+
过氧化氢酶反应Catalase reaction	-	6.5%	±
发酵类型Type of fermentation	同型Homo	10.0%	-
生长温度Growth temperature		pH生长Growth at pH
10 ℃	±	3.5	±
15 ℃	+	4.0	++
45 ℃	+	4.5	++
50 ℃	±	7.5	+
		8.0	±

可利用的糖Available sugar	生长状况Growth situation	可利用的糖Available sugar	生长状况Growth situation
D/L-阿拉伯糖Arabinose	±	七叶灵Esculin	+
D-木糖Xylose	±	水杨苷Salicin	+
甲基-βD吡喃木糖苷Methyl-βD xylopyranoside	±	D-纤维二糖Cellobiose	+
D-葡萄糖Glucose	+	D-麦芽糖Maltose	+
D-果糖Fructose	+	D-蔗糖Sucrose	+
D-甘露糖Mannose	+	菊粉Inulin	±
L-鼠李糖Rhamnose	+	糖原Glycogen	±
肌醇Inositol	±	D-龙胆二糖Gentian disaccharide	+
甘露醇Mannitol	±	D-松二糖Turanose	±
N-乙酰葡萄糖苷Acetyl-glucosamine	+	D-塔格糖Tagatose	+
苦杏仁苷Amygdalin	+	葡萄糖酸盐Potassium gluconate	±
ARBULIN	+