Changes in non-structural carbohydrates of rice straw between before and after ensiling and additive effects on ensilage fermentation and microbial community structure

doi:10.11686/cyxb2025289

Abstract

Abstract:

Modern breeding techniques have developed rice varieties with straw rich in non-structural carbohydrates （NSC）， including glucose， fructose， sucrose， and starch. However， in the high temperature and humidity conditions of southern China， such straw decomposes rapidly， leading to significant loss of available sugars. Ensiling offers a solution by converting NSC into organic acids. Nevertheless， direct ensiling of rice straw proves ineffective due to dominant Clostridium fermentation. This experiment investigated the changes in NSC of rice straw between before and after ensiling and evaluated the impacts of additives on fermentation quality， nutritive value， microbial community composition and mycotoxin load after 90 d of ensiling. Four treatments were used in this experiment： 1） Control group （CK）； 2） Lactic acid bacteria inoculants mixed with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Lacticaseibacillus paracasei （HLAB）； 3） Calcium propionate （PACA）； 4） Mixture of two additives （HLAB_PACA）. Three replicates per treatment. The addition rates of HLAB and PACA groups were 5×10⁵ CFU·g^-1 and 4 g·kg^-1 of fresh materials， respectively. After 90 days of fermentation， all groups exhibited significant reductions in glucose， fructose， and starch （P<0.05）. HLAB， PACA and HLAB_PACA groups preserved higher （P<0.05） residual glucose levels than the control group. These three additive groups also had significantly lowered pH， acetic acid， butyric acid， and ammonia nitrogen （P<0.05）， with increased lactic acid production （P<0.05）. Neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber contents were notably decreased by additives （P<0.05）. PACA and HLAB_PACA groups had increased bacterial community diversity as measured by Ace and Chao1 indices （P<0.05）. The HLAB and HLAB_PACA groups comprised natural fermentative lactic acid bacteria， initially composed of 8 zero-radius operational taxonomic units （ZOTU） belonging to Ligilactobacillus， Lactiplantibacillus and Lacticaseibacillus， which evolved into a Lacticaseibacillus-dominant bacterial community （ZOTU1/ZOTU318）. All additives suppressed the relative abundance of Clostridium. Fungal diversity metrics showed elevated Simpson and reduced Shannon indices （P<0.05） in HLAB_PACA group versus HLAB and PACA groups. Although the use of additives significantly increased the relative abundance of Aspergillaceae and total mould counts （P<0.05） compared to the CK， it did not cause a significant increase in mycotoxin levels， such as aflatoxin and zearalenone， which remained extremely low. Therefore， the use of lactic acid bacteria and calcium propionate additives plays an important role in improving the NSC structure， fermentation quality， and microbial community structure of rice straw silage. These data provide scientific information relevant to the efficient production of rice straw silage.

Key words: non-structural carbohydrates, additive, rice straw silage, microbial community, mycotoxin

Ji-peng TIAN, Xin WANG, Mudasir NAZAR, Bei-yi LIU, Si-ran WANG, Cheng-long DING, Yun-hui CHENG, Jie LI. Changes in non-structural carbohydrates of rice straw between before and after ensiling and additive effects on ensilage fermentation and microbial community structure[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2026, 35(6): 131-144.

Figures/Tables 9

References 36

[1]	Li N S， Cheng Y F. Potential and current status of feed utilization of rice straw. Feed Industry， 2025， 46（8）： 157-162.
	李年顺，成艳芬. 水稻秸秆饲料化利用的潜力与现状. 饲料工业， 2025， 46（8）： 157-162.
[2]	Yu Z， Sun Q Z. Silage technology of grass and forage. Beijing： China Agricultural University Press， 2011.
	玉柱，孙启忠. 饲草青贮技术. 北京：中国农业大学出版社， 2011.
[3]	Li P， Zhang Y， Gou W L， et al. Silage fermentation and bacterial community of bur clover， annual ryegrass and their mixtures prepared with microbial inoculant and chemical additive. Anim Feed Science and Technology， 2019， 247： 285-293.
[4]	Dong C F， Xu N X， Zhang W J， et al. Content and distribution of nonstructural carbohydrates compositions in different parts of rice （Oryza sativa L.） straw. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences， 2022， 38（1）： 165-171.
	董臣飞，许能祥，张文洁，等. 稻草中非结构性碳水化合物不同组分的含量与分布. 江苏农业学报， 2022， 38（1）： 165-171.
[5]	Tian J P， Xu N X， Liu B Y， et al. Interaction effect of silo density and additives on the fermentation quality， microbial counts， chemical composition and in vitro degradability of rice straw silage. Bioresource Technology， 2020， 297： 122412.
[6]	Chen X Z， Dong C X， Zhang J G. Silage carbon sources preferred by epiphytic lactic acid bacteria. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences， 2024， 39（5）： 512-521.
	陈鑫珠，董朝霞，张建国. 饲草附生乳酸菌对碳源的选择性. 福建农业学报， 2024， 39（5）： 512-521.
[7]	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.
[8]	Wang S R， Ding C L， Tian J P， et al. Evaluation of growth stage and storage time on fermentation characteristics， microbial community structure， co-occurrence networks， and their functional shifts and pathogenic risk of fermented italian ryegrass. LWT-Food Science and Technology， 2025， 215： 117272.
[9]	Tian J P， Liu B Y， Gu H R， et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and calcium propionate on fermentation quality and mycotoxin contents of whole plant maize and oat silages. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2022， 31（8）： 157-166.
	田吉鹏，刘蓓一，顾洪如，等. 乳酸菌及丙酸钙对全株玉米和燕麦青贮饲料发酵品质和霉菌毒素含量的影响. 草业学报， 2022， 31（8）： 157-166.
[10]	Kaewpila C， Thip-uten S， Cherdthong A， et al. Impact of cellulase and lactic acid bacteria inoculant to modify ensiling characteristics and in vitro digestibility of sweet corn stover and cassava pulp silage. Agriculture-Basel， 2021， 11（1）： 66.
[11]	Wang Y， Yu J， Li Q， et al. Screening the carbon source type in solid-state fermentation with Phanerochaete chrysosporium to improve the forage value of corn straw and rice straw. Animals， 2023， 13（5）： 888.
[12]	Dong C F， Xu N X， Ding C L， et al. Rapid evaluation method for rice （Oryza sativa L.） straw feeding quality. Field Crops Research， 2018， 228： 204-209.
[13]	Dong C F， Xu N X， Ding C L， et al. Developing ratoon rice as forage in subtropical and temperate areas. Field Crops Research， 2020， 245： 107660.
[14]	Zhao J， Wang S R， Dong Z H， et al. Effect of storage time and the level of formic acid on fermentation characteristics， epiphytic microflora， carbohydrate components and in vitro digestibility of rice straw silage. Animal Bioscience， 2021， 34（6）： 1038-1048.
[15]	Saylor B A， McCary C L， Diepersloot E C， et al. Effect of forage processor roll gap width and storage length on fermentation profile， nutrient composition， kernel processing score， and starch disappearance of whole-plant maize silage harvested at three different maturities. Agriculture-Basel， 2021， 11（7）： 574.
[16]	Sushkova V I， Zhukovskii S V， Berezina O V， et al. Biosynthesis of butyric acid from cabbage stem and molasses by the strain Clostridium butyricum VKPM B-9619. Russian Journal of Bioorganic Chemistry， 2013， 39（7）： 771-776.
[17]	Usman·Daguti， Li J. Prevention and treatment of butyric acid-induced diarrhea in cattle and sheep. China Animal Health， 2025， 27（3）： 58-59.
	吾斯曼·达古提，李晶. 牛羊丁酸所致腹泻的预防与治疗. 中国动物保健， 2025， 27（3）： 58-59.
[18]	Sun H， Liao C S， Lu G R， et al. Role of Lactiplantibacillus paraplantarum during anaerobic storage of ear-removed corn on biogas production. Bioresource Technology， 2022， 364： 128061.
[19]	Xu G F， Li X B， Hu J F， et al. An evaluation of the effectiveness of four chemical additives on the fermentation characteristics， in vitro digestibility and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage based on soy sauce residue. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition， 2025， 109（1）： 130-139.
[20]	Wang C， Han H Y， Gu X Y， et al. A survey of fermentation products and bacterial communities in corn silage produced in a bunker silo in China. Animal Science Journal， 2014， 85（1）： 32-36.
[21]	Li D X， Ni K K， Pang H L， et al. Identification and antimicrobial activity detection of lactic acid bacteria isolated from corn stover silage. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences， 2015， 28（5）： 620-631.
[22]	Yao Z H， Zhu Y， Wu Q， et al. Challenges and perspectives of quantitative microbiome profiling in food fermentations. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition， 2024， 64（15）： 4995-5015.
[23]	Edgar R. SINTAX： A simple non-Bayesian taxonomy classifier for 16S and ITS sequences. bioRxiv， 2016： 074161， doi： https：//doi.org/10.1101/074161.
[24]	Dong C， Liu P， Wang X， et al. Effects of phenyllactic acid on fermentation parameters， nitrogen fractions and bacterial community of high-moisture stylo silage. Fermentation， 2023， 9（6）： 572.
[25]	Assohoun-Djeni N M C， Djeni N T， Messaoudi S， et al. Biodiversity， dynamics and antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria involved in the fermentation of maize flour for doklu production in Côte d’Ivoire. Food Control， 2016， 62： 397-404.
[26]	Squara S， Ferrero F， Tabacco E， et al. Effect of inoculation with Lentilactobacillus buchneri and Lacticaseibacillus paracasei on the maize silage volatilome： The advantages of advanced 2D-chromatographic fingerprinting approaches. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry， 2022， 70（38）： 12232-12248.
[27]	Liang Y C， Zhang X W， Shao T， et al. Effects of different lactic acid bacteria strains on fermentation quality and mycotoxin contents of whole-plant corn silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2025， 34（3）： 123-133.
	梁宇成，张晓雯，邵涛，等. 乳酸菌对全株玉米青贮发酵品质和霉菌毒素含量的影响. 草业学报， 2025， 34（3）： 123-133.
[28]	Banati H， Darvas B， Feher-Toth S， et al. Determination of mycotoxin production of fusarium species in genetically modified maize varieties by quantitative flow immunocytometry. Toxins， 2017， 9（2）： 70.
[29]	Ferrara M， Haidukowski M， D’Imperio M， et al. New insight into microbial degradation of mycotoxins during anaerobic digestion. Waste Management， 2021， 119： 215-225.
[30]	Garnier L， Penland M， Thierry A， et al. Antifungal activity of fermented dairy ingredients： Identification of antifungal compounds. International Journal of Food Microbiology， 2020， 322： 108574.
[31]	Haegeman B， Hamelin J， Moriarty J， et al. Robust estimation of microbial diversity in theory and in practice. ISME Journal， 2013， 7（6）： 1092-1101.
[32]	Zhang M， Pei L， Zhang X. Effects of different kinds of probiotics on performance， nutrient digestibility and intestinal flora of laying hens. Feed Industry， 2017， 38（3）： 28-32.
	张敏，裴蕾，张鑫. 不同微生态制剂对蛋鸡生产性能、养分消化率和肠道菌群影响. 饲料工业， 2017， 38（3）： 28-32.
[33]	Abbaszadeh S， Tavakoli R， Sharifzadeh A， et al. Lactic acid bacteria as functional probiotic isolates for inhibiting the growth of Aspergillus flavus， A. parasiticus， A. niger and Penicillium chrysogenum. Journal de Mycologie Medicale， 2015， 25（4）： 263-267.
[34]	Han R， Tang T， Zhang M N， et al. Analysis of mycotoxin contamination of green roughage in some sheep farms. Anhui Agricultural Science Bulletin， 2023， 29（Z1）： 151-155.
	韩睿，唐涛，张孟恩，等. 部分羊场青储饲料霉菌毒素污染状况分析. 安徽农学通报， 2023， 29（Z1）： 151-155.
[35]	Moon Y S， Kim H M， Chun H S， et al. Organic acids suppress aflatoxin production via lowering expression of aflatoxin biosynthesis-related genes in Aspergillus flavus. Food Control， 2018， 88： 207-216.
[36]	General Administration of Quality Supervision， Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China， Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Hygienical standard for feeds： GB 13078-2017. Beijing： Standards Press of China， 2017.
	中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局，中国国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料卫生标准： GB 13078-2017. 北京：中国标准出版社， 2017.

项目 Item	处理组 Treatment group					标准误 SEM	显著性 P-value
项目 Item	Y	CK	HLAB	PACA	HLAB_PACA	标准误 SEM	显著性 P-value
蔗糖Sucrose	3.35±1.290a	1.16±0.338a	1.05±0.061a	0.91±0.037a	1.14±0.121a	0.33	NS
葡萄糖Glucose	24.70±1.690a	1.52±0.425d	4.80±0.438cd	10.70±0.901b	6.65±0.681c	2.19	***
果糖Fructose	31.80±1.750a	4.04±0.196b	3.87±0.190b	5.24±0.577b	5.08±0.372b	2.94	***
淀粉Starch	88.9±7.62a	51.8±8.76b	73.9±8.44ab	48.2±4.83b	50.3±3.28b	5.03	**
非结构性碳水化合物NSC	149.0±10.40a	58.6±8.51b	83.6±8.10b	65.1±4.85b	63.2±4.11b	9.41	***

项目 Item	处理组 Treatment group					标准误 SEM	显著性 P-value
项目 Item	Y	CK	HLAB	PACA	HLAB_PACA	标准误 SEM	显著性 P-value
蔗糖Sucrose	3.35±1.290a	1.16±0.338a	1.05±0.061a	0.91±0.037a	1.14±0.121a	0.33	NS
葡萄糖Glucose	24.70±1.690a	1.52±0.425d	4.80±0.438cd	10.70±0.901b	6.65±0.681c	2.19	***
果糖Fructose	31.80±1.750a	4.04±0.196b	3.87±0.190b	5.24±0.577b	5.08±0.372b	2.94	***
淀粉Starch	88.9±7.62a	51.8±8.76b	73.9±8.44ab	48.2±4.83b	50.3±3.28b	5.03	**
非结构性碳水化合物NSC	149.0±10.40a	58.6±8.51b	83.6±8.10b	65.1±4.85b	63.2±4.11b	9.41	***

项目 Item	处理组Treatment group				标准误 SEM	显著性 P-value
项目 Item	CK	HLAB	PACA	HLAB_PACA	标准误 SEM	显著性 P-value
pH	4.96±0.0260a	4.04±0.0029bc	4.07±0.0058b	4.01±0.0058c	0.12	***
乳酸Lactic acid （g·kg^-1 DM）	7.66±0.78c	44.20±2.19b	61.70±1.79a	65.90±2.94a	6.98	***
乙酸Acetic acid （g·kg^-1 DM）	6.10±0.635a	2.13±0.433c	3.63±0.267bc	4.07±0.088b	0.46	**
丙酸Propionic acid （g·kg^-1 DM）	0.185±0.185b	ND	10.300±0.514a	8.170±1.190a	1.43	***
丁酸Butyric acid （g·kg^-1 DM）	21.80±1.20a	3.99±2.31b	ND	ND	2.77	***
氨态氮Ammonia Nitrogen （g·kg^-1 TN）	208.0±9.020a	51.5±0.373b	55.1±1.540b	54.3±0.472b	20.30	***
1，2-丙二醇1，2-Propanediol （g·kg^-1 DM）	ND	0.358±0.0348	ND	ND	0.05	NS
乙醇Ethanol （g·kg^-1 DM）	18.0±4.22a	11.8±1.75a	8.22±0.82a	8.01±1.39a	1.59	NS

项目 Item	处理组Treatment group				标准误 SEM	显著性 P-value
项目 Item	CK	HLAB	PACA	HLAB_PACA	标准误 SEM	显著性 P-value
pH	4.96±0.0260a	4.04±0.0029bc	4.07±0.0058b	4.01±0.0058c	0.12	***
乳酸Lactic acid （g·kg^-1 DM）	7.66±0.78c	44.20±2.19b	61.70±1.79a	65.90±2.94a	6.98	***
乙酸Acetic acid （g·kg^-1 DM）	6.10±0.635a	2.13±0.433c	3.63±0.267bc	4.07±0.088b	0.46	**
丙酸Propionic acid （g·kg^-1 DM）	0.185±0.185b	ND	10.300±0.514a	8.170±1.190a	1.43	***
丁酸Butyric acid （g·kg^-1 DM）	21.80±1.20a	3.99±2.31b	ND	ND	2.77	***
氨态氮Ammonia Nitrogen （g·kg^-1 TN）	208.0±9.020a	51.5±0.373b	55.1±1.540b	54.3±0.472b	20.30	***
1，2-丙二醇1，2-Propanediol （g·kg^-1 DM）	ND	0.358±0.0348	ND	ND	0.05	NS
乙醇Ethanol （g·kg^-1 DM）	18.0±4.22a	11.8±1.75a	8.22±0.82a	8.01±1.39a	1.59	NS

项目Item	处理组 Treatment group				标准误 SEM	显著性 P-value
项目Item	CK	HLAB	PACA	HLAB_PACA	标准误 SEM	显著性 P-value
干物质Dry matter （g·kg^-1）	295±3.23c	311±0.33b	327±1.84a	328±3.74a	4.18	***
粗蛋白Crude protein （g·kg^-1 DM）	69.5±0.159a	71.5±0.506a	72.2±0.820a	70.4±0.727a	0.40	NS
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber （g·kg^-1 DM）	636±5.04a	601±4.54b	561±1.33c	571±5.87c	9.06	***
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber （g·kg^-1 DM）	407±0.77a	372±3.30b	338±5.48c	348±4.86c	8.20	***