Search
Submit Manuscript
Advanced Search
MAP  >  Circular Agricultural Systems
2023 Volume 3
Article Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and methods
Silage materials
Experimental design
Fermentation quality and nutritional components analysis
Data analysis
Results
Effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation quality
Chemical analyses
Interaction between cellulase and xylanase
Comprehensive evaluation
Discussion
Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of interest
Rights and permissions
References
About this article
Next Previous
ARTICLE   Open Access    

Effects of cellulase and xylanase additives on fermentation quality and nutrient composition of silage maize

  • 1.

    College of Animal Science and Technology, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, China

  • 2.

    Forestry and Grassland Bureau of Qiaojia County, Zhaotong City, Yunnan Province, Zhaotong, Yunnnan 654600, China

  • 3.

    Agricultural, Rural and Collective Economic Development Center of Chongxi Township, Qiaojia County 654600, China

  • 4.

    Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, China

More Information
  • The aim of this experiment was to determine the effects of cellulase and xylanase additives on the fermentation quality, chemical composition of silage maize. In the experiment, cellulase (0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 g·kg−1) and xylanase (0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 g·kg−1) in different concentrations were applied alone or in combination on silage materials. After 60 d ensiling at room temperature, the results showed that cellulase and xylanase have positive effects on silage quality and chemical composition of silage. Cellulase increased contents of water-soluble carbohydrate, crude protein and crude fat while decreased contents of ammonia nitrogen and total nitrogen, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber. For xylanase, it increased the crude protein and ether extract content. Interactive effects were observed in CP and organic acids. Therefore, the adding cellulase and xylanase improved fermentation quality and nutrition value of silage maize. According to the comprehensive evaluation of the membership function, the recommended adding concentration of cellulase is 0.5 g·kg−1 alone. When combined with xylanase, the concentration of both cellulase and xylanase were 0.5 g·kg−1 and 0.25 g·kg−1, respectively.

  • Introduction

    Silage maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important forages in the world, and its yield and quality properties are critical importance for livestock production[1]. Moreover, maize is widely used for silage making around the world due to its richness in sugar content that makes it easy for ensiling. Under natural conditions, microorganisms attached to silage raw materials will result in damage to the dry matter of the silage and protein. In contrast, the ensiling process is a preservation of moist forages for ruminant livestock, which converts water soluble carbohydrates into organic acids like lactic acid in an anaerobic environment[2]. Through ensiling, silage could be well-preserved and supply year-round availability of nutritious and palatable feed for livestock.

    As reported, the quality of silage is influenced by many factors such as geographical location, climate, temperature, varieties, cultivation techniques, harvest time and processing level[3]. Of these factors, silage additives are among the most extensively studied technology in ruminant feed preservation over the decades. To date, there have been continuous efforts in searching the most effective inoculants to reach better efficiency of ensiling[4]. Studies have shown that appropriate additives application can effectively improve the fermentation, reduce the consumption of nutrients, and improve the silage quality[5,6]. Interests were raised on cellulase and xylanase as they contained a variety of cell wall degrading enzymes. After degrading the cell wall of plant tissue by cellulase and xylanase, the substrate for microorganisms’ fermentation could be enhanced, which contributes to improvement of the silage quality[7]. According to the studies by Ding et al., adding 0.15% cellulase and xylanase to elephant grass silage reduced the content of cellulose and hemi-cellulose, increased the content of glucose, fructose, sucrose and total water-soluble carbohydrates, and rapidly produced lactic acid, reduced the pH value and ammoniacal nitrogen content[8]. Moreover, enzyme mixture containing cellulase, xylanase and cellobiase reduced silage pH, concentrations of xylose, total sugars and proportion of cell-wall arabinose[9]. However, there were some inconsistent results among studies. Although cellulase improved the quality of oat silage, no correlation with its added concentration was observed[10]. No significant effects on silage quality and digestibility were found when employing fibrolytic enzymes combined with LAB inoculants[11−13]. These discrepancies may be due to difference of plant materials and additive type used. Thus, quantifying the effect of incorporating enzymes on specific type of plants is important.

    To our knowledge, presently, there is limited information available about the effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation quality of silage maize. Our objectives were to determine the effects of cellulase and xylanase at different levels acting alone or combined on fermentation quality and chemical composition of silage maize.

    Materials and methods

    Silage materials

    Silage maize (variety: Quchen No. 9) were planted at the experimental farm of Yunnan Agricultural University (N 25°8'12", E 102°45'20", 1,978 m) with a row spacing of 40 cm and seedlings spacing of 25 cm from May 25 to September 15, 2021 in Kunming, Southwest China. When planted, there are three seeds per hole and the sowing depth was 2~3 cm. At the 3-leaf period, only two plants were kept in each hole. During the experiment, field management such as watering, weeding, and pest control was consistent with field production. The local area is a north subtropical monsoon climate. The rainfall is concentrated from May to September each year, and the annual average temperature is about 15.1 °C. The pH of the cultivated soil layer is 6.46, the organic carbon content is 2.06%, the organic matter content is 3.55%. Total nitrogen, the available phosphorus and potassium contents in the topsoil were 135.7 mg·kg−1, 16.2 and 98.6 mg·kg−1, respectively.

    Experimental design

    The silage maize was harvested at the stage of wax ripeness, when the grains became hardened. Then, whole plants were chopped into 1−3 cm pieces with a straw kneading machine (Mingchuan, Dalian Mingchuan Agricultural Machinery Co. Ltd, China). Through the process of squishing, cutting, kneading, stalks and leaves were easy to compress and ferment.

    Prior to ensiling, the chemical composition of the silage maize were as follows (% DM): water content 67.04, crude protein content 8.79, ether extract content 4.34, crude ash content 3.56, neutral detergent fiber content 55.6 and acid detergent fiber content 30.99.

    Different concentrations of cellulose (No.9012-54-8, 10,000 U·g−1) and xylanase (No.9025-57-4, enzyme activity 100,000 U·g−1) were applied in the experiment. The silage treatments were designed as follows: (a) no additive (CK); (b) cellulase additive at a rate of 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 g·kg−1; (c) xylanase additive at a rate of 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 g·kg−1; (d) combination of cellulase and xylanase at different rates. There are 16 treatments in the study (Table 1). For each treatment, there were three replications. After thoroughly mixing the enzyme additives with the silage maize, the material were put into a silage plastic barrel (12 cm in diameter, 18 cm in height) and pressed as tightly as possible while filling it. The total weight of each barrel is about 2 kg. In the end, barrels were sealed with polyethylene plastic bags and kept indoors avoiding sunshine. After ensiling 60 d at ambient temperature, barrels were opened and sensory evaluation, fermentation quality and nutrition determination were carried out.

    Table 1.  Cellulase and xylanase experiment design.
    TreatmentsXylanase (g·kg−1)Cellulase (g·kg−1)
    C0-X0X : 0C : 0
    C0.25-X0C : 0.25
    C0.5-X0C : 0.5
    C1.0-X0C : 1.0
    C0-X0.25X : 0.25C : 0
    C0.25-X0.25C : 0.25
    C0.5-X0.25C : 0.5
    C1.0-X0.25C : 1.0
    C0-X0.5X : 0.5C : 0
    C0.25-X0.5C:0.25
    C0.5-X0.5C : 0.5
    C1.0-X0.5C : 1.0
    C0-X1.0X : 1.0C : 0
    C0.25-X1.0C : 0.25
    C0.5-X1.0C : 0.5
    C1.0-X1.0C : 1.0
    Cellulase and xylanase were provided by Shanghai Yien Chemical Technology Co. Ltd. (Shanghai, China).
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Fermentation quality and nutritional components analysis

    The fermentation quality were evaluated by the parameters such as pH value, water soluble carbohydrates (WSC), ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen (AN/TN) and organic acids like lactic acid (LA), acetic acid (AA), propionic acid (PA), butyric acid (BA). The pH was measured with a glass electrode pH meter (Shanghai Leici Instrument Factory, China). WSC was determined using sulfuric acid anthrone colorimetric method[14]. Ammonia nitrogen content was determined using the phenol-hypochlorite sodium colorimetric method[15]. The content of organic acids (lactic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid) was analyzed via Agilent 1100 HPLC (the chromatographic column used was KC-811, 8 mm × 300 mm)[16].

    Nutritional components measured include water content (WC), crude protein (CP), Ether extract (EE), crude ash (Ash), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), Acid detergent fiber (ADF). For WC, 10 g of pulverized silage material was dried at 105 °C for 30 min, and then dried at 65 °C to constant weight. CP content was determined according to the procedure of Kjeldahl method[17]. Ash content was determined according to ignition method[12]. EE was determined according to the Soxhlet extraction method[18].

    For NDF and ADF content in the maize silage, 0.5 g samples were precisely weighted after drying, grinding and sieving (40 mesh). Then, they were put into prepared neutral detergent reagent or acidic detergent reagent, respectively following the procedure of Van soest method[19].

    Data analysis

    Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using SPSS 25.0 for windows statistical software package. Duncan's method was used for multiple comparisons within cellulase or xylanase. Two-way ANOVAs were used to separate the effects of cellulase, xylanase and their interaction. Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05 level.

    The fuzzy mathematical membership function method was used to comprehensively evaluate the effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation quality and nutritive parameters[20]. Two calculation formulas were introduced as follows:

    R(Xi)=(Xi−Xmin)/(Xmax−Xmin) (1)
    R(Xi)=1−(Xi−Xmin)/(Xmax−Xmin) (2)

    In formulas (1) and (2): R(Xi) represents the membership function value of an index, Xi is the measured value of the index, Xmax is the maximum measured value of the index, and Xmin is the minimum measured value of the index. When the measured index is positively correlated with silage quality, formula (1) is used. However, when the measured index is negatively correlated with the silage quality, formula (2) is used for calculation.

    Results

    Effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation quality

    The pH values of silages were not significantly affected by cellulase or xylanase additive, however, all pH values of silage were below 4, indicating the silage maize were well preserved (Table 2). The WSC content was affected by cellulase rather than by xylanase. When the cellulase was applied alone, the WSC content of C0.25, C0.5 treatment increased by 7.95% and 23.5%, respectively, compared with CK (p < 0.05). No interactive effect was observed between cellulase and xylanase.

    Table 2.  Effects of cellulase and xylanase on pH, water soluble content and ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen of silage maize.
    XylanaseCellulasepH valueWater soluble
    carbohydrates
    (%)    		Ammonia
    nitrogen/total
    nitrogen (%)
    X0C03.71 ± 0.10Aa3.02 ± 0.03Ab10.53 ± 0.44Aa
    C0.253.59 ± 0.00Aa3.26 ± 0.17Aab9.36 ± 0.46ABa
    C0.53.72 ± 0.06Aa3.73 ± 0.27Aa9.69 ± 0.27Aa
    C1.03.71 ± 0.09Aa3.33 ± 0.07Aab9.82 ± 0.49Aa
    X0.25C03.70 ± 0.03Aa3.32 ± 0.24Aa9.50 ± 0.48ABa
    C0.253.68 ± 0.02Aa3.33 ± 0.26Aa10.45 ± 0.46Aa
    C0.53.67 ± 0.04Aa3.39 ± 0.12Aa8.77 ± 0.57Aa
    C1.03.77 ± 0.09Aa3.42 ± 0.20Aa8.49 ± 0.73ABa
    X0.5C03.65 ± 0.01Aa3.58 ± 0.23Aa7.68 ± 0.49Cab
    C0.253.73 ± 0.08Aa3.85 ± 0.28Aa6.79 ± 0.17Cb
    C0.53.70 ± 0.02Aa3.58 ± 0.11Aa8.49 ± 0.70Aa
    C1.03.64 ± 0.01Aa3.66 ± 0.07Aa8.23 ± 0.38ABab
    X1.0C03.61 ± 0.02Aa3.40 ± 0.23Aa8.09 ± 0.43BCa
    C0.253.72 ± 0.07Aa3.78 ± 0.19Aa8.31 ± 0.44Ba
    C0.53.73 ± 0.06Aa3.66 ± 0.17Aa9.27 ± 0.48Aa
    C1.03.69 ± 0.04Aa3.79 ± 0.51Aa7.81 ± 0.56Ba
    Different lowercase letters indicate there are significant differences between cellulase concentration treatments at the same concentration of xylanase (p < 0.05); different uppercase letter indicates that there are significant difference between different xylanase concentration treatments at the same cellulase concentration (p < 0.05).
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    With regards to organic acids, different changes were observed (Table 3). The lactic acid content increased with the increase of the cellulase concentration, particularly the content of C1.0 treatment was increased by 18.9% (p < 0.05). The change of propionic acid was different to lactic acid, which decreased by 22.5%, 30.1% and 31.2% in C0.25, C0.5 and C1.0 treatment, respectively, when compared to control (p < 0.05). When xylanase was applied alone, the production of lactic acid and acetic acid was significantly inhibited (p < 0.05). Moreover, the contents of lactic acid, acetic acid and butyric acid in X0.25-C1.0 treatment were significantly reduced by 22%, 62.2% and 64.2% (p < 0.05) , respectively. In contrast, AN/TN ratio of X0.25, X0.5 and X1.0 treatment were also significantly decreased due to xylanase additive application in comparison with control (p < 0.05). It showed that the addition of xylanase is beneficial to reduce the ammoniacal nitrogen. However, such effects were not observed after cellulase application.

    Table 3.  Effects of cellulase and xylanase on organic acids of silage maize.
    Xylanase
    (g·kg−1)    		Cellulase
    (g·kg−1)    		Lactic acid
    (mg·g−1 FM)    		Acetic acid
    (mg·g−1 FM)    		Propionic acid
    (mg·g−1 FM)    		Butyric acid
    (mg·g−1 FM)
    X0C012.71 ± 0.58Ab11.99 ± 0.74Aa4.45 ± 0.08ABa1.31 ± 0.04Ab
    C0.2513.74 ± 0.82Aab11.31 ± 1.00Aa3.45 ± 0.18Bb1.01 ± 0.09Ac
    C0.514.46 ± 0.64Aab9.57 ± 1.24Aa3.11 ± 0.36Bb1.54 ± 0.02Aa
    C1.015.11 ± 0.32Aa9.83 ± 1.28Aa3.06 ± 0.31Bb1.43 ± 0.07Aab
    X0.25C013.92 ± 0.59Aa10.33 ± 0.53Ba3.18 ± 0.16Cb2.01 ± 0.39Aa
    C0.2514.12 ± 0.35Aa10.71 ± 0.20Aa3.29 ± 0.13Bb1.25 ± 0.27Aab
    C0.513.03 ± 0.77Aa7.95 ± 2.37ABa3.23 ± 0.15Bb1.10 ± 0.25Aab
    C1.010.86 ± 0.35Bb3.91 ± 0.15Bb4.19 ± 0.13Aa0.72 ± 0.11Bb
    X0.5C010.65 ± 0.06Ba4.50 ± 0.15Ca5.09 ± 0.11Aa1.19 ± 0.39Aa
    C0.2511.03 ± 0.27Ba4.30 ± 0.16Ba5.21 ± 0.33Aa1.52 ± 0.09Aa
    C0.510.47 ± 0.11Ba4.29 ± 0.06Ba5.13 ± 0.16Aa1.38 ± 0.32Aa
    C1.010.70 ± 0.27Ba4.37 ± 0.15Ba4.77 ± 0.08Aa1.43 ± 0.20Aa
    X1.0C09.47 ± 0.22Ba3.80 ± 0.25Ca4.00 ± 0.40Bab1.20 ± 0.18Aab
    C0.259.42 ± 0.08Ca3.84 ± 0.09Ba3.28 ± 0.17Bb1.02 ± 0.12Ab
    C0.59.57 ± 0.44Ba4.20 ± 0.60Ba4.63 ± 0.09Aa1.53 ± 0.09Aa
    C1.010.28 ± 0.18Ba3.95 ± 0.15Ba4.64 ± 0.24Aa1.07 ± 0.06ABb
    Different lowercase letters indicate there are significant differences between cellulase concentration treatments at the same concentration of xylanase (p < 0.05); different uppercase letter indicates that there are significant difference between different xylanase concentration treatments at the same cellulase concentration (p < 0.05).
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Chemical analyses

    Cellulase and xylanase had no significant effect on water content (p > 0.05) (Table 4). When xylanase was added at rate of 0.25 and 0.50 g·kg−1, the CP content increased by 10.02% and 14.26%, respectively (p < 0.05). For EE, its content was increased by both cellulase and xylanase. For example, EE was increased by 8.75%, 24.24% and 11.11% (p < 0.05), respectively when cellulase was added at 0.25, 0.50, 1.0 g·kg−1.

    Table 4.  Effects of cellulase and xylanase on nutritional parameters of silage maize.
    Xylanase (g·kg−1)Cellulase (g·kg−1)Water content (%)Crude protein (%)Ether extract (%)Crude ash (%)
    X0C074.33 ± 0.33Aa5.19 ± 0.14Bc2.97 ± 0.05Bb50.05 ± 2.27Aa
    C0.2574.33 ± 0.33Aa5.61 ± 0.16Ab3.23 ± 0.17Aab48.76 ± 2.38Aa
    C0.575.33 ± 0.33Aa6.11 ± 0.05Aa3.69 ± 0.27Aa45.80 ± 3.21Aa
    C1.074.67 ± 0.33Aa5.50 ± 0.11Bbc3.30 ± 0.07Aab44.74 ± 0.15Aa
    X0.25C074.67 ± 0.33Aa5.71 ± 0.04ABab3.40 ± 0.18ABa52.06 ± 1.85Aa
    C0.2575.00 ± 0.58Aa5.51 ± 0.14Abc3.46 ± 0.09Aa43.14 ± 0.39Bb
    C0.575.33 ± 0.33Aa5.39 ± 0.10Bc3.31 ± 0.08Aa42.76 ± 3.98Ab
    C1.076.00 ± 0.58Aa5.92 ± 0.07Aa3.70 ± 0.18Aa47.76 ± 1.59Aab
    X0.5C075.33 ± 0.33Aa5.93 ± 0.02Aa3.55 ± 0.22Aa50.55 ± 1.33Aa
    C0.2575.33 ± 0.33Aa5.89 ± 0.14Aab3.47 ± 0.13Aa49.51 ± 0.45Aa
    C0.574.33 ± 0.67Aa5.49 ± 0.20Bbc3.54 ± 0.11Aa45.33 ± 2.13Aa
    C1.075.33 ± 0.33Aa5.37 ± 0.03Bc3.63 ± 0.07Aa49.20 ± 2.04Aa
    X1.0C075.33 ± 0.67Aa5.38 ± 0.36ABa3.53 ± 0.11Aa50.57 ± 1.40Aa
    C0.2575.00 ± 0.00Aa5.72 ± 0.06Aa3.75 ± 0.19Aa49.73 ± 0.95Aa
    C0.575.00 ± 0.58Aa5.57 ± 0.14Ba3.62 ± 0.17Aa48.75 ± 1.08Aa
    C1.075.67 ± 0.33Aa4.63 ± 0.07Cb3.42 ± 0.17Aa49.26 ± 1.33Aa
    Different lowercase letters indicate there are significant differences between cellulase concentration treatments at the same concentration of xylanase (p < 0.05); different uppercase letter indicates that there are significant difference between different xylanase concentration treatments at the same cellulase concentration (p < 0.05).
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The NDF content in C0.25-X0.25, C0.5-X0.25 and C1.0-X0.25 treatments was significant lower than C0-X0.25 treatment (p < 0.05). When the cellulase was added at 1.0 g·kg−1, the ADF content was significantly reduced (p < 0.05). However, ADF content was not significantly affected by xylanase. The crude ash content in C0-X1.0 treatment was significantly lower than C0-X0.25 (p < 0.05) (Fig. 1).

    Figure 1.  Effects of cellulase and xylanase on ADF and NDF of silage maize.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Interaction between cellulase and xylanase

    No significant interactions in pH, EE, WC, Ash, NDF and ADF were observed between cellulase and xylanase ( p > 0.05) (Table 5). However, significant effects were on AN/TN, PA, BA, and CP (p < 0.05). The synergistic effect of cellulase and xylanase only exists on the effect on CP (p < 0.01).

    Table 5.  Interaction of cellulase and xylanase on the fermentation quality and nutritional components
    TreatmentsCellulaseXylanaseCellulase* Xylanase
    pH value0.749ns0.925 ns0.503 ns
    WSC (%)0.171ns0.028 *0.834ns
    AN/TN (%)0.826ns0.019 *0.028 *
    LA (mg·g−1)0.954ns0.001**0.000 **
    AA (mg·g−1)0.239ns0.000 **0.005 **
    PA (mg·g−1)0.780ns0.012 *0.000 **
    BA (mg·g−1)0.626ns0.904ns0.017 *
    WC (%)0.425ns0.316ns0.335 ns
    CP (%)0.638ns0.584ns0.000 **
    EE (%)0.606ns0.241ns0.152ns
    Ash (%)0.025 *0.017 *0.142ns
    NDF (%)0.044 *0.227ns0.335ns
    ADF (%)0.003 **0.128ns0.348ns
    'ns' indicates that the difference is not significant (p > 0.05); '*' indicates that the difference is significant (p < 0.05); '**' indicates that the difference is very significant (p < 0.01).
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Comprehensive evaluation

    The effects of cellulase and xylanase were comprehensively evaluated by the fuzzy mathematical membership function method (Table 6). Generally, the larger the mean value is, the better the silage quality is. After adding different concentrations of cellulase and xylanase, the membership function values of each treatment were higher than the control, and the mean value of the membership function of C0.5 was the largest, followed by C1.0; In the combined treatment, the means of membership functions of C0.5-X0.25 and C0.25-X0.25 are better than other treatments.

    Table 6.  Analysis of silage maize membership function and comprehensive value ranking.
    TreatmentsR1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9R10R11R12AverageRank
    C0.50.280.850.220.890.700.980.361.000.940.850.670.430.681
    C1.00.350.370.191.000.741.000.450.590.420.990.790.610.622
    C0.5-X0.250.570.450.470.630.510.920.710.510.440.151.000.430.573
    C0.25-X0.250.480.370.020.830.840.890.590.590.640.340.960.000.554
    C0.251.000.290.310.760.920.820.780.660.340.170.350.050.545
    C1.0-X0.50.700.780.610.220.070.200.450.500.850.690.311.000.536
    C0.25-X1.00.300.920.590.000.000.890.770.731.000.540.250.290.537
    C1.0-X0.250.000.490.550.250.010.471.000.870.940.430.460.340.488
    C1.0-X1.00.440.930.730.150.020.270.730.000.581.000.300.610.489
    C0-X1.00.890.450.650.010.000.560.630.510.730.790.160.310.4710
    C0.5-X0.50.390.680.550.180.060.040.490.580.740.570.720.540.4611
    C0-X0.50.650.680.760.220.090.060.640.880.750.240.160.210.4412
    C0.5-X1.00.240.770.340.030.050.270.370.640.850.650.360.670.4413
    C0.25-X0.50.221.001.000.280.060.000.380.850.650.280.270.230.4414
    C0-X0.250.410.360.270.790.800.940.000.730.550.000.000.220.4215
    C00.330.000.000.581.000.360.550.380.000.410.220.380.3516
    R1~R12 stand for pH, water soluble carbohydrates, ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen, lactic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, crude protein, crude extract, crude ash, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Discussion

    In recent years, animal husbandry in China has developed rapidly and faces fodder shortage. Silage maize is an important source of fodder as it has the advantages of high biomass, good fiber quality, and suitable moisture content for ruminants. In order to preserve the nutritional quality and improve the fermentation quality, additives like enzymes and lactic acid are often added to silage materials, which contribute to improvement of the fermentation process directly or indirectly[21,22]. After breaking plant cell walls during the ensiling process, silage fermentation could be improved by providing sugars for the lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and the nutritive value could be enhanced by increasing the digestibility of cell walls[23]. Therefore, interest was raised to use cellulase and xylanase during ensiling as cellulase could convert cellulose into the glucose after hydrolyzing beta-1,4 glycosidic linkages[24] and xylanases help to break down hemicelluloses[25].

    The pH value is one of the crucial indicators assessing the silage quality. Lowering pH value in ensiled forage can effectively inhibit proteolysis because plant enzymes are quickly inactivated with a decrease of pH[26]. In contrast, high pH value indicates that the frequent activities of harmful bacteria are not well inhibited. It has been well documented that the optimum pH value for stable silage is below 4.2[27]. In this study, although the pH value of all treatments was not significantly affected by cellulase or xylanase, all values were lower than 3.9, showing that addition of cellulase and xylanase had no adverse effect on the pH value of silage.

    Apart from the pH, one of the most useful indicators of silage quality is the percentage of total nitrogen in the silage which is present as ammonia nitrogen. The ammoniacal nitrogen/total nitrogen ratio reflects the degradation degree of protein in the ensiling process. Due to unfavorable microorganisms, the degradation rate of protein and amino acids accelerates, which leads to a higher ratio of ammoniacal nitrogen to total nitrogen. Extensive protein degradation during the fermentation has been documented in some studies[28]. However, in the present study, xylanase reduced the ratio of ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen by 27.1%, thus it suggests an enhancement of protein preservation after the addition of xylanase. This was further proved by the significant increased in CP in silage, which was in agreement with the study by Yang[29].

    In the process of ensiling, WSC is used as the basic substance by lactic acid bacteria and other aerobic microorganisms. Through metabolic activities, lactic acid bacteria use WSC to produce lactic acid and acetic acid, which lowers pH value[30]. As a result, decomposition of WSC by aerobic microorganisms will be inhibited. In our study, cellulase increased the water soluble carbohydrate content, which was consistent with the results reported by Albrecht & Muck[28] . The higher WSC content means the quality of silage is well maintained and related to good silage quality. Along with the increase of WSC, lactic acid content increased after cellulase addition, especially at higher adding rate in the study. LA is the most powerful organic acid capable of rapidly decreasing pH[31] as it is 10 to 12 times stronger than acetic acid and propionic acid[32]. The accumulation of lactic acid is the main reason for the pH decrease during anaerobic fermentation[33].

    According to Shao et al., cellulase promotes the degradation of fiber, releases soluble carbohydrates, provides additional fermentation substrates for lactic acid bacteria, and rapidly produces lactic acid[34]. A decrease of butyric acid content was also observed when two additives were applied together. It is believable that butyric acid is responsible for reducing silage intake, its decrease is better for fermentation quality[21]. However, the decreasing effect was closely related to the type of enzyme and dose used[35].

    NDF is the most effective indicator to reflect the quality of fiber. ADF is the key to indicate the energy of forage grass, the lower its content, the higher the digestibility of forage grass, and the greater the feeding value. In this experiment, the addition of cellulase reduced the content of NDF and ADF, which is consistent with the study of Hou et al.[36]. It suggests that the plant fibers in silage maize could be digested easier after adding additives. The mechanism behind the decrease in NDF with additive treatment may be related to the increase in WSC content because of degrading cellulose, which need further study.

    Conclusions

    Our study showed cellulase and xylanase additives have positive effects on fermentation quality and nutritive value of silage maize silage. Particularly, addition of cellulase increased the LA, WSC, CP and EE content, and decreased ammonia nitrogen and total nitrogen, NDF and ADF while xylanase inhibited the production of AA and PA, contributed to improvement of CP and EE. Interaction between cellulase and xylanase was observed in organic acids and CP. Both contribute to enhancement of CP. According to the comprehensive comparison of membership function analysis, it suggests that addition of 0.5 g·kg−1 cellulase alone or 0.5 g·kg−1 cellulase and 0.25 g·kg−1 xylanase combined could achieve better silage.

    Acknowledgments

    This work was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDA26050301), by YEFICRC project of Yunnan provincial key programs (No. 2019ZG00902) and Eryuan County Forage Industry Science and Technology Mission (No.202304BI090008).

  • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

  • [1]

    Zhao M, Feng Y, Shi Y, Shen H, Hu H, et al. 2022. Yield and quality properties of silage maize and their influencing factors in China. Science China Life Sciences 65:1655−66

    doi: 10.1007/s11427-020-2023-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2]

    Dehghani MR, Weisbjerg MR, Hvelplund T, Kristensen NB. 2012. Effect of enzyme addition to forage at ensiling on silage chemical composition and NDF degradation characteristics. Livestock Science 150:51−58

    doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2012.07.031

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3]

    Gruber L, Terler G, Knaus W. 2018. Nutrient composition, ruminal degradability and whole tract digestibility of whole crop maize silage from nine current varieties. Archives of Animal Nutrition 72(2):121−37

    doi: 10.1080/1745039X.2018.1436665

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4]

    Irawan A, Sofyan A, Ridwan R, et al. 2021. Effects of different lactic acid bacteria groups and fibrolytic enzymes as additives on silage quality: A meta-analysis. Bioresource Technology Reports 14:100654

    doi: 10.1016/j.biteb.2021.100654

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5]

    Bolsen KK, Ashbell G, Wilkinson JM. 1995. Silage additives. In Biotechnology in Animal Feeds and Animal Feeding, eds. Wallace RJ, Chesson A. Germany: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. pp. 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527615353.ch3
    [6]

    Guo X, Wu S, Zheng M, Chen D, Zou X, et al. 2022. Effects of addition of Neolamarckia cadamba leaves and chitosan oligosaccharides on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of sugarcane top silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica 31(6):202−10

    doi: 10.11686/cyxb2021176

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7]

    Colombatto D, Mould FL, Bhat MK, Phipps RH, Owen E. 2004. In vitro evaluation of fibrolytic enzymes as additives for maize (Zea mays L.) silage I. Effects of ensiling temperature, enzyme source and addition level. Animal Feed Science and Technology 111:111−28

    doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2003.08.010

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8]

    Ding H, Wu Y, Shao T, Zhao J, Dai T, et al. 2021. Effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation quality and in vitro digestibility coefficient of napier grass. Acta Agrestia Sinica 29(11):2600−8

    doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.11.027

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9]

    Stokes MR. 1992. Effects of an enzyme mixture, an inoculant, and their interaction on silage fermentation and dairy production. Journal of Dairy Science 75(3):764−73

    doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)77814-X

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10]

    Guo T. 2014. The effect of four additives on oat silage. Thesis. Northwest A&F University, Shaanxi.
    [11]

    Keles G, Demirci U. 2011. The effect of homofermentative and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on conservation characteristics of baled triticale-Hungarian vetch silage and lamb performance. Animal Feed Science and Technology 164:21−28

    doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.11.017

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12]

    Lynch JP, Baah J, Beauchemin KA. 2015. Conservation, fiber digestibility, and nutritive value of corn harvested at 2 cutting heights and ensiled with fibrolytic enzymes, either alone or with a ferulic acid esterase-producing inoculant. Journal of Dairy Science 98:1214−1224

    doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-8768

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13]

    Zhang Y, Wang X, Li D, Lin Y, Yang F, et al. 2020. Impact of wilting and additives on fermentation quality and carbohydrate composition of mulberry silage. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 33:254−63

    doi: 10.5713/ajas.18.0925

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14]

    Owens VN, Albrecht KA, Muck RE, Duke SH. 1999. Protein degradation and fermentation characteristics of red clover and alfalfa silage harvested with varying levels of total nonstructural carbohydrates. Crop Science 39:1873−80

    doi: 10.2135/cropsci1999.3961873x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15]

    Kleinschmit DH, Schmidt RJ, Kung L Jr. 2005. The effects of various antifungal additives on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science 88:2130−39

    doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72889-7

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16]

    Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision. 2018. Determination of pH, organic acid and ammonia nitrogen in silage. DB15/T 1458-2018. Beijing: China Standards Press
    [17]

    AOAC International. 2005. Official Methods of Analysis. 18th Edition. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC International.
    [18]

    Zhang L. 2003. Feed analysis and feed quality detection calculation. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press.
    [19]

    Soest PJV, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74(10):3583−3597

    doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20]

    Tian H, Xiong H, Xiong J, Zhang H, Cai H, et al. 2015. Comprehensive evaluation of the production performance of 14 silage maize varieties by principal component analysis and subordinate function method. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis 37(2):249−59

    doi: 10.13836/j.jjau.2015037

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21]

    Guo X, Undersander DJ, Combs DK. 2013. Effect of Lactobacillus inoculants and forage dry matter on the fermentation and aerobic stability of ensiled mixed-crop tall fescue and meadow fescue. Journal of Dairy Science 96:1735−44

    doi: 10.3168/jds.2045-5786

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22]

    Guo L, Lu Y, Li P, Chen L, Guo W, et al. 2021. Effects of delayed harvest and additives on fermentation quality and bacterial community of corn stalk silage. Frontiers in Microbiology 12:687481

    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.687481

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23]

    Muck RE, Nadeau EMG, McAllister TA, Contreras-Govea FE, Santos MC, et al. 2018. Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives. Journal of Dairy Science 101(5):3980−4000

    doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13839

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24]

    Kubicek CP, Mikus M, Schuster A, Schmoll M, Seiboth B. 2009. Metabolic engineering strategies for the improvement of cellulase production by Hypocrea jecorin. Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts 2:19

    doi: 10.1186/1754-6834-2-19

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25]

    Moreira LRS, Filho EXF. 2016. Insights into the mechanism of enzymatic hydrolysis of xylan. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 100(12):5205−14

    doi: 10.1007/s00253-016-7555-z

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [26]

    Kung L Jr, Bedrosian MD. 2010. How well do we really understand silage fermentation? Proceedings of the Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers, East Syracuse, New York, 2009. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. pp. 87–93.
    [27]

    Wang S, Yuan X, Dong Z, Li J, Shao T. 2017. Effect of ensiling corn stover with legume herbages in different proportions on fermentation characteristics, nutritive quality and in vitro digestibility on the Tibetan Plateau. Grassland Science 63:236−244

    doi: 10.1111/grs.12173

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28]

    Albrecht KA, Muck RE. 1991. Proteolysis in ensiled forage legumes that vary in tannin concentration. Crop Science 31:464−69

    doi: 10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100020048x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [29]

    Yang L, Hu M, Li L, Liu Y, Yuan B, et al. 2022. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and cellulase treatments on the fermentation quality of 'tifton 85' bermudagrass silage. Chinese Journal of Grassland 44(6):91−97

    doi: 10.16742/j.zgcdxb.20210257

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30]

    Zahiroddini H, Baah J, Absalom W, Mcallister TA. 2004. Effect of an inoculant and hydrolytic enzymes on fermentation and nutritive value of whole crop barley silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 117:317−30

    doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.08.013

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31]

    Ali N, Wang S, Zhao J, Dong Z, Li J, Nazar M, et al. 2020. Microbial diversity and fermentation profile of red clover silage inoculated with reconstituted indigenous and exogenous epiphytic microbiota. Bioresource Technology 314:123606

    doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123606

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [32]

    Kung L, Shaver RD, Grant RJ, Schmidt RJ. 2018. Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. Journal of Dairy Science 101:4020−33

    doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13909

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33]

    Wang C, Zheng M, Wu S, Zou X, Chen X, et al. 2021. Effects of gallic acid on fermentation parameters, protein fraction, and bacterial community of whole plant soybean silage. Frontiers in Microbiology 12:662966

    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.662966

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [34]

    Shao T, Shimojo M, Wang T, Masuda Y. 2005. Effect of additives on the fermentation quality and residual mono- and di-saccharides compositions of forage Oats (Avena sativa L.) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam. ) silages. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 18(11):1582−88

    doi: 10.5713/ajas.2005.1582

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35]

    Liu H, Feng Y, Zhao D, Jiang J. 2012. Evaluation of cellulases produced from four fungi cultured on furfural residues and microcrystalline cellulose. Biodegradation 23:465−72

    doi: 10.1007/s10532-011-9525-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [36]

    Hou M, Ge G, Sun L, Zhou T, Zhang Y, et al. 2015. Effects of formic acid, cellulose and lactic acid bacteria on silage quality of natural forage of typical steppe. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition 27(9):2977−86

    doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2015.09.039

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Li S, Wang H, Luo M, Wu B, Duan H, et al. 2023. Effects of cellulase and xylanase additives on fermentation quality and nutrient composition of silage maize. Circular Agricultural Systems 3:8 doi: 10.48130/CAS-2023-0008
    Li S, Wang H, Luo M, Wu B, Duan H, et al. 2023. Effects of cellulase and xylanase additives on fermentation quality and nutrient composition of silage maize. Circular Agricultural Systems 3:8 doi: 10.48130/CAS-2023-0008
    shu

Figures(1)  /  Tables(6)

Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(3616) PDF downloads(466)

Other Articles By Authors

ARTICLE   Open Access    

Effects of cellulase and xylanase additives on fermentation quality and nutrient composition of silage maize

  • 1.

    College of Animal Science and Technology, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, China

  • 2.

    Forestry and Grassland Bureau of Qiaojia County, Zhaotong City, Yunnan Province, Zhaotong, Yunnnan 654600, China

  • 3.

    Agricultural, Rural and Collective Economic Development Center of Chongxi Township, Qiaojia County 654600, China

  • 4.

    Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, China

  • Received: 10 March 2023
  • Accepted: 01 June 2023
  • Published online: 27 September 2023
Circular Agricultural Systems  3,  Article number: 8  (2023)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: The aim of this experiment was to determine the effects of cellulase and xylanase additives on the fermentation quality, chemical composition of silage maize. In the experiment, cellulase (0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 g·kg−1) and xylanase (0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 g·kg−1) in different concentrations were applied alone or in combination on silage materials. After 60 d ensiling at room temperature, the results showed that cellulase and xylanase have positive effects on silage quality and chemical composition of silage. Cellulase increased contents of water-soluble carbohydrate, crude protein and crude fat while decreased contents of ammonia nitrogen and total nitrogen, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber. For xylanase, it increased the crude protein and ether extract content. Interactive effects were observed in CP and organic acids. Therefore, the adding cellulase and xylanase improved fermentation quality and nutrition value of silage maize. According to the comprehensive evaluation of the membership function, the recommended adding concentration of cellulase is 0.5 g·kg−1 alone. When combined with xylanase, the concentration of both cellulase and xylanase were 0.5 g·kg−1 and 0.25 g·kg−1, respectively.

    HTML

    Introduction

    • Silage maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important forages in the world, and its yield and quality properties are critical importance for livestock production[1]. Moreover, maize is widely used for silage making around the world due to its richness in sugar content that makes it easy for ensiling. Under natural conditions, microorganisms attached to silage raw materials will result in damage to the dry matter of the silage and protein. In contrast, the ensiling process is a preservation of moist forages for ruminant livestock, which converts water soluble carbohydrates into organic acids like lactic acid in an anaerobic environment[2]. Through ensiling, silage could be well-preserved and supply year-round availability of nutritious and palatable feed for livestock.

      As reported, the quality of silage is influenced by many factors such as geographical location, climate, temperature, varieties, cultivation techniques, harvest time and processing level[3]. Of these factors, silage additives are among the most extensively studied technology in ruminant feed preservation over the decades. To date, there have been continuous efforts in searching the most effective inoculants to reach better efficiency of ensiling[4]. Studies have shown that appropriate additives application can effectively improve the fermentation, reduce the consumption of nutrients, and improve the silage quality[5,6]. Interests were raised on cellulase and xylanase as they contained a variety of cell wall degrading enzymes. After degrading the cell wall of plant tissue by cellulase and xylanase, the substrate for microorganisms’ fermentation could be enhanced, which contributes to improvement of the silage quality[7]. According to the studies by Ding et al., adding 0.15% cellulase and xylanase to elephant grass silage reduced the content of cellulose and hemi-cellulose, increased the content of glucose, fructose, sucrose and total water-soluble carbohydrates, and rapidly produced lactic acid, reduced the pH value and ammoniacal nitrogen content[8]. Moreover, enzyme mixture containing cellulase, xylanase and cellobiase reduced silage pH, concentrations of xylose, total sugars and proportion of cell-wall arabinose[9]. However, there were some inconsistent results among studies. Although cellulase improved the quality of oat silage, no correlation with its added concentration was observed[10]. No significant effects on silage quality and digestibility were found when employing fibrolytic enzymes combined with LAB inoculants[11−13]. These discrepancies may be due to difference of plant materials and additive type used. Thus, quantifying the effect of incorporating enzymes on specific type of plants is important.

      To our knowledge, presently, there is limited information available about the effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation quality of silage maize. Our objectives were to determine the effects of cellulase and xylanase at different levels acting alone or combined on fermentation quality and chemical composition of silage maize.

    Materials and methods

      Silage materials

    • Silage maize (variety: Quchen No. 9) were planted at the experimental farm of Yunnan Agricultural University (N 25°8'12", E 102°45'20", 1,978 m) with a row spacing of 40 cm and seedlings spacing of 25 cm from May 25 to September 15, 2021 in Kunming, Southwest China. When planted, there are three seeds per hole and the sowing depth was 2~3 cm. At the 3-leaf period, only two plants were kept in each hole. During the experiment, field management such as watering, weeding, and pest control was consistent with field production. The local area is a north subtropical monsoon climate. The rainfall is concentrated from May to September each year, and the annual average temperature is about 15.1 °C. The pH of the cultivated soil layer is 6.46, the organic carbon content is 2.06%, the organic matter content is 3.55%. Total nitrogen, the available phosphorus and potassium contents in the topsoil were 135.7 mg·kg−1, 16.2 and 98.6 mg·kg−1, respectively.

      Experimental design

    • The silage maize was harvested at the stage of wax ripeness, when the grains became hardened. Then, whole plants were chopped into 1−3 cm pieces with a straw kneading machine (Mingchuan, Dalian Mingchuan Agricultural Machinery Co. Ltd, China). Through the process of squishing, cutting, kneading, stalks and leaves were easy to compress and ferment.

      Prior to ensiling, the chemical composition of the silage maize were as follows (% DM): water content 67.04, crude protein content 8.79, ether extract content 4.34, crude ash content 3.56, neutral detergent fiber content 55.6 and acid detergent fiber content 30.99.

      Different concentrations of cellulose (No.9012-54-8, 10,000 U·g−1) and xylanase (No.9025-57-4, enzyme activity 100,000 U·g−1) were applied in the experiment. The silage treatments were designed as follows: (a) no additive (CK); (b) cellulase additive at a rate of 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 g·kg−1; (c) xylanase additive at a rate of 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 g·kg−1; (d) combination of cellulase and xylanase at different rates. There are 16 treatments in the study (Table 1). For each treatment, there were three replications. After thoroughly mixing the enzyme additives with the silage maize, the material were put into a silage plastic barrel (12 cm in diameter, 18 cm in height) and pressed as tightly as possible while filling it. The total weight of each barrel is about 2 kg. In the end, barrels were sealed with polyethylene plastic bags and kept indoors avoiding sunshine. After ensiling 60 d at ambient temperature, barrels were opened and sensory evaluation, fermentation quality and nutrition determination were carried out.

      Table 1.  Cellulase and xylanase experiment design.

      TreatmentsXylanase (g·kg−1)Cellulase (g·kg−1)
      C0-X0X : 0C : 0
      C0.25-X0C : 0.25
      C0.5-X0C : 0.5
      C1.0-X0C : 1.0
      C0-X0.25X : 0.25C : 0
      C0.25-X0.25C : 0.25
      C0.5-X0.25C : 0.5
      C1.0-X0.25C : 1.0
      C0-X0.5X : 0.5C : 0
      C0.25-X0.5C:0.25
      C0.5-X0.5C : 0.5
      C1.0-X0.5C : 1.0
      C0-X1.0X : 1.0C : 0
      C0.25-X1.0C : 0.25
      C0.5-X1.0C : 0.5
      C1.0-X1.0C : 1.0
      Cellulase and xylanase were provided by Shanghai Yien Chemical Technology Co. Ltd. (Shanghai, China).

      Fermentation quality and nutritional components analysis

    • The fermentation quality were evaluated by the parameters such as pH value, water soluble carbohydrates (WSC), ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen (AN/TN) and organic acids like lactic acid (LA), acetic acid (AA), propionic acid (PA), butyric acid (BA). The pH was measured with a glass electrode pH meter (Shanghai Leici Instrument Factory, China). WSC was determined using sulfuric acid anthrone colorimetric method[14]. Ammonia nitrogen content was determined using the phenol-hypochlorite sodium colorimetric method[15]. The content of organic acids (lactic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid) was analyzed via Agilent 1100 HPLC (the chromatographic column used was KC-811, 8 mm × 300 mm)[16].

      Nutritional components measured include water content (WC), crude protein (CP), Ether extract (EE), crude ash (Ash), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), Acid detergent fiber (ADF). For WC, 10 g of pulverized silage material was dried at 105 °C for 30 min, and then dried at 65 °C to constant weight. CP content was determined according to the procedure of Kjeldahl method[17]. Ash content was determined according to ignition method[12]. EE was determined according to the Soxhlet extraction method[18].

      For NDF and ADF content in the maize silage, 0.5 g samples were precisely weighted after drying, grinding and sieving (40 mesh). Then, they were put into prepared neutral detergent reagent or acidic detergent reagent, respectively following the procedure of Van soest method[19].

      Data analysis

    • Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using SPSS 25.0 for windows statistical software package. Duncan's method was used for multiple comparisons within cellulase or xylanase. Two-way ANOVAs were used to separate the effects of cellulase, xylanase and their interaction. Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05 level.

      The fuzzy mathematical membership function method was used to comprehensively evaluate the effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation quality and nutritive parameters[20]. Two calculation formulas were introduced as follows:

      R(Xi)=(Xi−Xmin)/(Xmax−Xmin) (1)
      R(Xi)=1−(Xi−Xmin)/(Xmax−Xmin) (2)

      In formulas (1) and (2): R(Xi) represents the membership function value of an index, Xi is the measured value of the index, Xmax is the maximum measured value of the index, and Xmin is the minimum measured value of the index. When the measured index is positively correlated with silage quality, formula (1) is used. However, when the measured index is negatively correlated with the silage quality, formula (2) is used for calculation.

    Results

      Effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation quality

    • The pH values of silages were not significantly affected by cellulase or xylanase additive, however, all pH values of silage were below 4, indicating the silage maize were well preserved (Table 2). The WSC content was affected by cellulase rather than by xylanase. When the cellulase was applied alone, the WSC content of C0.25, C0.5 treatment increased by 7.95% and 23.5%, respectively, compared with CK (p < 0.05). No interactive effect was observed between cellulase and xylanase.

      Table 2.  Effects of cellulase and xylanase on pH, water soluble content and ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen of silage maize.

      XylanaseCellulasepH valueWater soluble
      carbohydrates
      (%)      		Ammonia
      nitrogen/total
      nitrogen (%)
      X0C03.71 ± 0.10Aa3.02 ± 0.03Ab10.53 ± 0.44Aa
      C0.253.59 ± 0.00Aa3.26 ± 0.17Aab9.36 ± 0.46ABa
      C0.53.72 ± 0.06Aa3.73 ± 0.27Aa9.69 ± 0.27Aa
      C1.03.71 ± 0.09Aa3.33 ± 0.07Aab9.82 ± 0.49Aa
      X0.25C03.70 ± 0.03Aa3.32 ± 0.24Aa9.50 ± 0.48ABa
      C0.253.68 ± 0.02Aa3.33 ± 0.26Aa10.45 ± 0.46Aa
      C0.53.67 ± 0.04Aa3.39 ± 0.12Aa8.77 ± 0.57Aa
      C1.03.77 ± 0.09Aa3.42 ± 0.20Aa8.49 ± 0.73ABa
      X0.5C03.65 ± 0.01Aa3.58 ± 0.23Aa7.68 ± 0.49Cab
      C0.253.73 ± 0.08Aa3.85 ± 0.28Aa6.79 ± 0.17Cb
      C0.53.70 ± 0.02Aa3.58 ± 0.11Aa8.49 ± 0.70Aa
      C1.03.64 ± 0.01Aa3.66 ± 0.07Aa8.23 ± 0.38ABab
      X1.0C03.61 ± 0.02Aa3.40 ± 0.23Aa8.09 ± 0.43BCa
      C0.253.72 ± 0.07Aa3.78 ± 0.19Aa8.31 ± 0.44Ba
      C0.53.73 ± 0.06Aa3.66 ± 0.17Aa9.27 ± 0.48Aa
      C1.03.69 ± 0.04Aa3.79 ± 0.51Aa7.81 ± 0.56Ba
      Different lowercase letters indicate there are significant differences between cellulase concentration treatments at the same concentration of xylanase (p < 0.05); different uppercase letter indicates that there are significant difference between different xylanase concentration treatments at the same cellulase concentration (p < 0.05).

      With regards to organic acids, different changes were observed (Table 3). The lactic acid content increased with the increase of the cellulase concentration, particularly the content of C1.0 treatment was increased by 18.9% (p < 0.05). The change of propionic acid was different to lactic acid, which decreased by 22.5%, 30.1% and 31.2% in C0.25, C0.5 and C1.0 treatment, respectively, when compared to control (p < 0.05). When xylanase was applied alone, the production of lactic acid and acetic acid was significantly inhibited (p < 0.05). Moreover, the contents of lactic acid, acetic acid and butyric acid in X0.25-C1.0 treatment were significantly reduced by 22%, 62.2% and 64.2% (p < 0.05) , respectively. In contrast, AN/TN ratio of X0.25, X0.5 and X1.0 treatment were also significantly decreased due to xylanase additive application in comparison with control (p < 0.05). It showed that the addition of xylanase is beneficial to reduce the ammoniacal nitrogen. However, such effects were not observed after cellulase application.

      Table 3.  Effects of cellulase and xylanase on organic acids of silage maize.

      Xylanase
      (g·kg−1)      		Cellulase
      (g·kg−1)      		Lactic acid
      (mg·g−1 FM)      		Acetic acid
      (mg·g−1 FM)      		Propionic acid
      (mg·g−1 FM)      		Butyric acid
      (mg·g−1 FM)
      X0C012.71 ± 0.58Ab11.99 ± 0.74Aa4.45 ± 0.08ABa1.31 ± 0.04Ab
      C0.2513.74 ± 0.82Aab11.31 ± 1.00Aa3.45 ± 0.18Bb1.01 ± 0.09Ac
      C0.514.46 ± 0.64Aab9.57 ± 1.24Aa3.11 ± 0.36Bb1.54 ± 0.02Aa
      C1.015.11 ± 0.32Aa9.83 ± 1.28Aa3.06 ± 0.31Bb1.43 ± 0.07Aab
      X0.25C013.92 ± 0.59Aa10.33 ± 0.53Ba3.18 ± 0.16Cb2.01 ± 0.39Aa
      C0.2514.12 ± 0.35Aa10.71 ± 0.20Aa3.29 ± 0.13Bb1.25 ± 0.27Aab
      C0.513.03 ± 0.77Aa7.95 ± 2.37ABa3.23 ± 0.15Bb1.10 ± 0.25Aab
      C1.010.86 ± 0.35Bb3.91 ± 0.15Bb4.19 ± 0.13Aa0.72 ± 0.11Bb
      X0.5C010.65 ± 0.06Ba4.50 ± 0.15Ca5.09 ± 0.11Aa1.19 ± 0.39Aa
      C0.2511.03 ± 0.27Ba4.30 ± 0.16Ba5.21 ± 0.33Aa1.52 ± 0.09Aa
      C0.510.47 ± 0.11Ba4.29 ± 0.06Ba5.13 ± 0.16Aa1.38 ± 0.32Aa
      C1.010.70 ± 0.27Ba4.37 ± 0.15Ba4.77 ± 0.08Aa1.43 ± 0.20Aa
      X1.0C09.47 ± 0.22Ba3.80 ± 0.25Ca4.00 ± 0.40Bab1.20 ± 0.18Aab
      C0.259.42 ± 0.08Ca3.84 ± 0.09Ba3.28 ± 0.17Bb1.02 ± 0.12Ab
      C0.59.57 ± 0.44Ba4.20 ± 0.60Ba4.63 ± 0.09Aa1.53 ± 0.09Aa
      C1.010.28 ± 0.18Ba3.95 ± 0.15Ba4.64 ± 0.24Aa1.07 ± 0.06ABb
      Different lowercase letters indicate there are significant differences between cellulase concentration treatments at the same concentration of xylanase (p < 0.05); different uppercase letter indicates that there are significant difference between different xylanase concentration treatments at the same cellulase concentration (p < 0.05).

      Chemical analyses

    • Cellulase and xylanase had no significant effect on water content (p > 0.05) (Table 4). When xylanase was added at rate of 0.25 and 0.50 g·kg−1, the CP content increased by 10.02% and 14.26%, respectively (p < 0.05). For EE, its content was increased by both cellulase and xylanase. For example, EE was increased by 8.75%, 24.24% and 11.11% (p < 0.05), respectively when cellulase was added at 0.25, 0.50, 1.0 g·kg−1.

      Table 4.  Effects of cellulase and xylanase on nutritional parameters of silage maize.

      Xylanase (g·kg−1)Cellulase (g·kg−1)Water content (%)Crude protein (%)Ether extract (%)Crude ash (%)
      X0C074.33 ± 0.33Aa5.19 ± 0.14Bc2.97 ± 0.05Bb50.05 ± 2.27Aa
      C0.2574.33 ± 0.33Aa5.61 ± 0.16Ab3.23 ± 0.17Aab48.76 ± 2.38Aa
      C0.575.33 ± 0.33Aa6.11 ± 0.05Aa3.69 ± 0.27Aa45.80 ± 3.21Aa
      C1.074.67 ± 0.33Aa5.50 ± 0.11Bbc3.30 ± 0.07Aab44.74 ± 0.15Aa
      X0.25C074.67 ± 0.33Aa5.71 ± 0.04ABab3.40 ± 0.18ABa52.06 ± 1.85Aa
      C0.2575.00 ± 0.58Aa5.51 ± 0.14Abc3.46 ± 0.09Aa43.14 ± 0.39Bb
      C0.575.33 ± 0.33Aa5.39 ± 0.10Bc3.31 ± 0.08Aa42.76 ± 3.98Ab
      C1.076.00 ± 0.58Aa5.92 ± 0.07Aa3.70 ± 0.18Aa47.76 ± 1.59Aab
      X0.5C075.33 ± 0.33Aa5.93 ± 0.02Aa3.55 ± 0.22Aa50.55 ± 1.33Aa
      C0.2575.33 ± 0.33Aa5.89 ± 0.14Aab3.47 ± 0.13Aa49.51 ± 0.45Aa
      C0.574.33 ± 0.67Aa5.49 ± 0.20Bbc3.54 ± 0.11Aa45.33 ± 2.13Aa
      C1.075.33 ± 0.33Aa5.37 ± 0.03Bc3.63 ± 0.07Aa49.20 ± 2.04Aa
      X1.0C075.33 ± 0.67Aa5.38 ± 0.36ABa3.53 ± 0.11Aa50.57 ± 1.40Aa
      C0.2575.00 ± 0.00Aa5.72 ± 0.06Aa3.75 ± 0.19Aa49.73 ± 0.95Aa
      C0.575.00 ± 0.58Aa5.57 ± 0.14Ba3.62 ± 0.17Aa48.75 ± 1.08Aa
      C1.075.67 ± 0.33Aa4.63 ± 0.07Cb3.42 ± 0.17Aa49.26 ± 1.33Aa
      Different lowercase letters indicate there are significant differences between cellulase concentration treatments at the same concentration of xylanase (p < 0.05); different uppercase letter indicates that there are significant difference between different xylanase concentration treatments at the same cellulase concentration (p < 0.05).

      The NDF content in C0.25-X0.25, C0.5-X0.25 and C1.0-X0.25 treatments was significant lower than C0-X0.25 treatment (p < 0.05). When the cellulase was added at 1.0 g·kg−1, the ADF content was significantly reduced (p < 0.05). However, ADF content was not significantly affected by xylanase. The crude ash content in C0-X1.0 treatment was significantly lower than C0-X0.25 (p < 0.05) (Fig. 1).

      Figure 1. 

      Effects of cellulase and xylanase on ADF and NDF of silage maize.

      Interaction between cellulase and xylanase

    • No significant interactions in pH, EE, WC, Ash, NDF and ADF were observed between cellulase and xylanase ( p > 0.05) (Table 5). However, significant effects were on AN/TN, PA, BA, and CP (p < 0.05). The synergistic effect of cellulase and xylanase only exists on the effect on CP (p < 0.01).

      Table 5.  Interaction of cellulase and xylanase on the fermentation quality and nutritional components

      TreatmentsCellulaseXylanaseCellulase* Xylanase
      pH value0.749ns0.925 ns0.503 ns
      WSC (%)0.171ns0.028 *0.834ns
      AN/TN (%)0.826ns0.019 *0.028 *
      LA (mg·g−1)0.954ns0.001**0.000 **
      AA (mg·g−1)0.239ns0.000 **0.005 **
      PA (mg·g−1)0.780ns0.012 *0.000 **
      BA (mg·g−1)0.626ns0.904ns0.017 *
      WC (%)0.425ns0.316ns0.335 ns
      CP (%)0.638ns0.584ns0.000 **
      EE (%)0.606ns0.241ns0.152ns
      Ash (%)0.025 *0.017 *0.142ns
      NDF (%)0.044 *0.227ns0.335ns
      ADF (%)0.003 **0.128ns0.348ns
      'ns' indicates that the difference is not significant (p > 0.05); '*' indicates that the difference is significant (p < 0.05); '**' indicates that the difference is very significant (p < 0.01).

      Comprehensive evaluation

    • The effects of cellulase and xylanase were comprehensively evaluated by the fuzzy mathematical membership function method (Table 6). Generally, the larger the mean value is, the better the silage quality is. After adding different concentrations of cellulase and xylanase, the membership function values of each treatment were higher than the control, and the mean value of the membership function of C0.5 was the largest, followed by C1.0; In the combined treatment, the means of membership functions of C0.5-X0.25 and C0.25-X0.25 are better than other treatments.

      Table 6.  Analysis of silage maize membership function and comprehensive value ranking.

      TreatmentsR1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9R10R11R12AverageRank
      C0.50.280.850.220.890.700.980.361.000.940.850.670.430.681
      C1.00.350.370.191.000.741.000.450.590.420.990.790.610.622
      C0.5-X0.250.570.450.470.630.510.920.710.510.440.151.000.430.573
      C0.25-X0.250.480.370.020.830.840.890.590.590.640.340.960.000.554
      C0.251.000.290.310.760.920.820.780.660.340.170.350.050.545
      C1.0-X0.50.700.780.610.220.070.200.450.500.850.690.311.000.536
      C0.25-X1.00.300.920.590.000.000.890.770.731.000.540.250.290.537
      C1.0-X0.250.000.490.550.250.010.471.000.870.940.430.460.340.488
      C1.0-X1.00.440.930.730.150.020.270.730.000.581.000.300.610.489
      C0-X1.00.890.450.650.010.000.560.630.510.730.790.160.310.4710
      C0.5-X0.50.390.680.550.180.060.040.490.580.740.570.720.540.4611
      C0-X0.50.650.680.760.220.090.060.640.880.750.240.160.210.4412
      C0.5-X1.00.240.770.340.030.050.270.370.640.850.650.360.670.4413
      C0.25-X0.50.221.001.000.280.060.000.380.850.650.280.270.230.4414
      C0-X0.250.410.360.270.790.800.940.000.730.550.000.000.220.4215
      C00.330.000.000.581.000.360.550.380.000.410.220.380.3516
      R1~R12 stand for pH, water soluble carbohydrates, ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen, lactic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, crude protein, crude extract, crude ash, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber.
    Discussion

    • In recent years, animal husbandry in China has developed rapidly and faces fodder shortage. Silage maize is an important source of fodder as it has the advantages of high biomass, good fiber quality, and suitable moisture content for ruminants. In order to preserve the nutritional quality and improve the fermentation quality, additives like enzymes and lactic acid are often added to silage materials, which contribute to improvement of the fermentation process directly or indirectly[21,22]. After breaking plant cell walls during the ensiling process, silage fermentation could be improved by providing sugars for the lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and the nutritive value could be enhanced by increasing the digestibility of cell walls[23]. Therefore, interest was raised to use cellulase and xylanase during ensiling as cellulase could convert cellulose into the glucose after hydrolyzing beta-1,4 glycosidic linkages[24] and xylanases help to break down hemicelluloses[25].

      The pH value is one of the crucial indicators assessing the silage quality. Lowering pH value in ensiled forage can effectively inhibit proteolysis because plant enzymes are quickly inactivated with a decrease of pH[26]. In contrast, high pH value indicates that the frequent activities of harmful bacteria are not well inhibited. It has been well documented that the optimum pH value for stable silage is below 4.2[27]. In this study, although the pH value of all treatments was not significantly affected by cellulase or xylanase, all values were lower than 3.9, showing that addition of cellulase and xylanase had no adverse effect on the pH value of silage.

      Apart from the pH, one of the most useful indicators of silage quality is the percentage of total nitrogen in the silage which is present as ammonia nitrogen. The ammoniacal nitrogen/total nitrogen ratio reflects the degradation degree of protein in the ensiling process. Due to unfavorable microorganisms, the degradation rate of protein and amino acids accelerates, which leads to a higher ratio of ammoniacal nitrogen to total nitrogen. Extensive protein degradation during the fermentation has been documented in some studies[28]. However, in the present study, xylanase reduced the ratio of ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen by 27.1%, thus it suggests an enhancement of protein preservation after the addition of xylanase. This was further proved by the significant increased in CP in silage, which was in agreement with the study by Yang[29].

      In the process of ensiling, WSC is used as the basic substance by lactic acid bacteria and other aerobic microorganisms. Through metabolic activities, lactic acid bacteria use WSC to produce lactic acid and acetic acid, which lowers pH value[30]. As a result, decomposition of WSC by aerobic microorganisms will be inhibited. In our study, cellulase increased the water soluble carbohydrate content, which was consistent with the results reported by Albrecht & Muck[28] . The higher WSC content means the quality of silage is well maintained and related to good silage quality. Along with the increase of WSC, lactic acid content increased after cellulase addition, especially at higher adding rate in the study. LA is the most powerful organic acid capable of rapidly decreasing pH[31] as it is 10 to 12 times stronger than acetic acid and propionic acid[32]. The accumulation of lactic acid is the main reason for the pH decrease during anaerobic fermentation[33].

      According to Shao et al., cellulase promotes the degradation of fiber, releases soluble carbohydrates, provides additional fermentation substrates for lactic acid bacteria, and rapidly produces lactic acid[34]. A decrease of butyric acid content was also observed when two additives were applied together. It is believable that butyric acid is responsible for reducing silage intake, its decrease is better for fermentation quality[21]. However, the decreasing effect was closely related to the type of enzyme and dose used[35].

      NDF is the most effective indicator to reflect the quality of fiber. ADF is the key to indicate the energy of forage grass, the lower its content, the higher the digestibility of forage grass, and the greater the feeding value. In this experiment, the addition of cellulase reduced the content of NDF and ADF, which is consistent with the study of Hou et al.[36]. It suggests that the plant fibers in silage maize could be digested easier after adding additives. The mechanism behind the decrease in NDF with additive treatment may be related to the increase in WSC content because of degrading cellulose, which need further study.

    Conclusions

    • Our study showed cellulase and xylanase additives have positive effects on fermentation quality and nutritive value of silage maize silage. Particularly, addition of cellulase increased the LA, WSC, CP and EE content, and decreased ammonia nitrogen and total nitrogen, NDF and ADF while xylanase inhibited the production of AA and PA, contributed to improvement of CP and EE. Interaction between cellulase and xylanase was observed in organic acids and CP. Both contribute to enhancement of CP. According to the comprehensive comparison of membership function analysis, it suggests that addition of 0.5 g·kg−1 cellulase alone or 0.5 g·kg−1 cellulase and 0.25 g·kg−1 xylanase combined could achieve better silage.

      Acknowledgments

      • This work was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDA26050301), by YEFICRC project of Yunnan provincial key programs (No. 2019ZG00902) and Eryuan County Forage Industry Science and Technology Mission (No.202304BI090008).

      Conflict of interest

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      Rights and permissions
      • Copyright: © 2023 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (1)  Table (6) References (36)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Li S, Wang H, Luo M, Wu B, Duan H, et al. 2023. Effects of cellulase and xylanase additives on fermentation quality and nutrient composition of silage maize. Circular Agricultural Systems 3:8 doi: 10.48130/CAS-2023-0008
    Li S, Wang H, Luo M, Wu B, Duan H, et al. 2023. Effects of cellulase and xylanase additives on fermentation quality and nutrient composition of silage maize. Circular Agricultural Systems 3:8 doi: 10.48130/CAS-2023-0008
    shu

Catalog

  • HTML

  • Introduction
  • Materials and methods

  • Silage materials

  • Experimental design

  • Fermentation quality and nutritional components analysis

  • Data analysis

  • Results

  • Effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation quality

  • Chemical analyses

  • Interaction between cellulase and xylanase

  • Comprehensive evaluation

  • Discussion
  • Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Conflict of interest
  • Rights and permissions
  • About this article
logo

Contents

Policies

Services

Partnerships

© 2025 Maximum Academic Press, except Open Access articles. MAP is a member of ALPSP, COPE, CrossRef, cOAlition S, OASPA and STM.

Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Terms and Conditions

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return