Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fermentative profile and nutritional value of untreated and alkali-treated faba bean (Vicia faba L.) straw supplemented with exogenous fibrolytic enzymes derived from Trichoderma longibrachiatum, Aspergillus strains, and Neurospora intermedia

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The faba bean straw (FBS) is a faba bean plant by-product characterized by high fiber and crude protein content, and low digestibility. This study aimed to improve the nutritional value and ruminal fermentation of FBS by combining chemical and biotechnological treatments. The FBS was subject of two alkali treatments: 4% NaOH (NFBS) and 4% urea (UFBS), and exogenous fibrolytic enzyme (EFE) supplementation using two enzymatic complexes: Trichoderma longibrachiatum EFE (DCX) at 0, 1, 2, 5, and 10 μL/gDM and Aspergillus strains and Neurospora intermedia EFE (MaxFiber) at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 mg/gDM of untreated FBS (CFBS), NFBS, and UFBS. All supplemented FBS preparations were incubated with buffer solution, and fresh cows’ ruminal fluid. At the end of incubation period (96h), the in vitro ruminal fermentation parameters as the extent (A), the rate of GP (Rmax), and the digestive use parameters: organic matter digestibility (OMD), metabolizable energy (ME), and volatile fatty acids (VFA) were determined. Our results proved that EFE’s effect depended on the enzymatic dose and the alkali treatment. The DCX supplementation effect was more pronounced than the MaxFiber. The highest improvements were recorded for CFBS supplemented by DCX (5μL/gDM), by 43.6%, 60.2%, 27%, 25.9%, and 43.5% for A, Rmax, ME, OMD, and VFA, respectively, as compared to the control. However, the association between EFE and alkali decreased the efficiency of EFE. Therefore, using EFE supplementation to the CFBS could generally provide an energy-protein-rich bio-converted by-product as compared to commonly used cereal straw in ruminant nutrition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets and materials used during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Wegi T, Tolera A, Wamatu J, Animut G, Rischkowsky B (2018) Effects of feeding different varieties of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) straws with concentrate supplement on feed intake, digestibility, body weight gain and carcass characteristics of Arsi-Bale sheep. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 31:1221–1229. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Banakar PS, Anand KN, Shashank CG, Neeti L (2018) Physically effective fibre in ruminant nutrition: a review. J Pharmacogn Phytochem 7:303–308

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bruno-Soares AM, Abreu JMF, Guedes CVM, Dias-da-Silva AA (2000) Chemical composition, DM and NDF degradation kinetics in rumen of seven legume straws. Anim Feed Sci Technol 83:80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00113-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Suong NTM, Paengkoum P, Schonewille JT, Purba RAP, Paengkoum P (2022) Growth performance, blood biochemical indices, rumen bacterial community, and carcass characteristics in goats fed anthocyanin-rich black cane silage. Front Vet Sci 9:880838. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.880838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ghasemi E, Khorvash M, Ghorbani GR, Emami MR (2013) Dry chemical processing and ensiling of rice straw to improve its quality for use as ruminant feed. Trop Anim Health Prod 45:1215–1221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-012-0349-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhao X, Wang F, Fang Y, Zhou D, Wang S, Wu D, Wang L, Zhong R (2020) High-potency white-rot fungal strains and duration of fermentation to optimize corn straw as ruminant feed. Bioresour Technol 312:123512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Niu D, Zuo S, Jiang D, Tian P, Zheng M, Xu C (2018) Treatment using white rot fungi changed the chemical composition of wheat straw and enhanced digestion by rumen microbiota in vitro. Anim Feed Sci Technol 237:46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tirado-González DN, Tirado-Estrada G, Miranda-Romero L, Ramírez-Valverde R, Medina-Cuéllar S, Salem A (2021) Effects of addition of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes on digestibility and milk and meat production – a systematic review. Ann Anim Sci 21:1159–1192. https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2021-0001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yang JC, Guevara-Oquendo VH, Refat B, Yu P (2022) Effects of exogenous fibrolytic enzyme derived from Trichoderma reesei on rumen degradation characteristics and degradability of low-tannin whole plant faba bean silage in dairy cows. Dairy 3:303–313. https://doi.org/10.3390/dairy3020023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tirado-González DN, Miranda-Romero LA, Ruíz-Flores A, Medina-Cuéllar SE, Ramírez-Valverde R, Tirado-Estrada G (2018) Meta-analysis: effects of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes in ruminant diets. J Appl Anim Res 46:771–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2017.1399135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Meale SJ, Beauchemin KA, Hristov AN, Chaves AV, McAllister TA (2014) Board-invited review: Opportunities and challenges in using exogenous enzymes to improve ruminant production. J Anim Sci 92:427–442. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Aboagye IA, Lynch JP, Church JS, Baah J, Beauchemin KA (2015) Digestibility and growth performance of sheep fed alfalfa hay treated with fibrolytic enzymes and a ferulic acid esterase producing bacterial additive. Anim Feed Sci Technol 203:53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.02.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Díaz A, Ranilla MJ, Giraldo LA, Tejido ML, Carro MD (2015) Treatment of tropical forages with exogenous fibrolytic enzymes: effects on chemical composition and in vitro rumen fermentation. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 99(2):345–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mendoza GD, Loera-Corral O, Plata-Pérez FX, Hernández-García PA, Ramírez-Mella M (2014) Considerations on the use of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes to improve forage utilization. Sci World J 9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/247437

  15. Morgavi DP, Beauchemin KA, Nsereko VL, Rode LM, Iwaasa AD, Yang WZ, McAllister TA, Wang Y (2000) Synergy between ruminal fibrolytic enzymes and enzymes from Trichoderma longibrachiatum. J Dairy Sci 83(6):1310–1321. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74997-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Veeresh J, Jin CW (2012) Microbial xylanases: engineering, production and industrial applications. Biotechnol Adv 30(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.11.006

  17. Dulphy JP, Breton J, Bienaime A, Louyot JM (1982) Etude de la valeur alimentaire des pailles de céréales traitées ou non à la soude : I-Influence du traitement à la soude. Ann Zootech 31:195–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chermiti A, Nefzaoui A, Cordesse R, Amri T, Laajili M (1989) Paramètres d’uréolyse et digestibilité de la paille traitée à l’urée. Annales de Zootechnie INRA/EDP Sci 38:63–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1995) Official methods of analysis of AOAC International, 16th edn. AOAC International, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  20. VanSoest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jabri J, Abid K, Yaich H, Malek A, Rekhis J, Kamoun M (2022) Evaluation of the efficacy of varying xylanase to cellulase ratio on ruminal fermentation of untreated and alkali treated oat straw. Res Square Preprint (version 1) [accessed 2023 January 30]. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2199970/v1

  22. Wood TM, Bhat KM (1988) Biomass part A: cellulose and hemicellulose. Methods Enzymol 160:87–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bailey MJ, Biely P, Poutanen K (1992) Inter laboratory testing of methods for assay of xylanase activity. Aust J Biotechnol 23:257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1656(92)90074-J

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Menke KH, Steingass H (1988) Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. An Res Dev 28:7–55

    Google Scholar 

  25. INRA, 2007. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoins des animaux - valeurs des aliments. Tables Inra 2007. Quae éditions.

  26. Beauchemin KA, Rode L, Vincent JS (1998) Enzyme additives for ruminant feeds. United States Patent 5(720):971

    Google Scholar 

  27. Getachew G, Blummel M, Makkar HPS, Becker K (1998) In vitro gas measuring techniques for assessment of nutritional quality of feeds: a review. Anim Feed Sci Technol 72:261–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(97)00189-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Groot JCJ, Cone JW, Williams BA, Debersaques FMA, Lantinga EA (1996) Multiphasic analysis of gas production kinetics for invitro fermentation of ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol 64:77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(96)01012-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bauer E, Williams BA, Voigt C, Mosenthin R, Verstegen MWA (2001) Microbial activities of faeces from unweaned and adult pigs, in relation to selected fermentable carbohydrates. Anim Sci 73(2):313–322. https://doi.org/10.1017/s135772980005829x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Duncan DB (1955) Multiple F and multiple “F” test. Biometrics. 11:1–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001478

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Eun JS, Beauchemin KA, Schulze H (2007) Use of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes to enhance in vitro fermentation of alfalfa hay and corn silage. J Dairy Sci 90:1440–1451. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71629-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jabri J, Abid K, Yaich H, Malek A, Rekhis J, Kamoun M (2019) Effect of combining exogenous fibrolytics enzymes supplementation with alkali and acid pre-treatments on wheat straw hydrolysis and ruminal fermentation. Indian J Anim Sci 89(7):780–785. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v89i7.92051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Suksombat W (2004) Comparison of different alkali treatment of bagasse and rice straw. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 10:1430–1433. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2004.1430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Vorlaphim T, Paengkoum P, Purba RAP, Yuangklang C, Paengkoum S, Schonewille JT (2021) Treatment of rice stubble with Pleurotus ostreatus and urea improves the growth performance in slow-growing goats. Animals. 11:1053. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11041053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nayan N, Sonnenberg ASM, Hendriks WH, Cone JW (2018) Screening of white-rot fungi for bioprocessing of wheat straw into ruminant feed. J Appl Microbiol 125:468–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kung JL, Robinson JR, Ranjit NK, Chen JH, Golt CM, Pesek JD (2000) Microbial populations, fermentation end-products, and aerobic stability of corn silage treated with ammonia or a propionic acid-based preservative. J Dairy Sci 83:1479–1486. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)75020-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Yang CMJ, Huang SC, Chang T, Cheng YH, Chang CT (2004) Fermentation acids, aerobic fungal growth, and intake of napiergrass ensiled with nonfiber carbohydrates. J Dairy Sci 87:630–636. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73205-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rasool E, Gilani A (1995) Chemical composition of wheat straw as influenced by urea and alkali treatments at different moisture levels. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 8:563–566. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.1995.563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mesfin R, Ktaw G (2010) Effect of feeding urea treated wheat straw-based diet on biological performances and economic benefits of lactating Boran-Friesian crossbred dairy cows. Livest Res Rural 22

  40. Datsomor O, Gou-Qi Z, Miao L (2022) Effect of ligninolytic axenic and coculture white-rot fungi on rice straw chemical composition and in vitro fermentation characteristics. Sci Rep 12:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Abid K, Jabri J, Yaich H, Malek A, Rekhis J, Kamoun M (2022) In vitro study on the effects of exogenic fibrolytic enzymes produced from Trichoderma longibrachiatum on ruminal degradation of olive mill waste. Arch Anim Breed 65:79–88. https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-65-79-2022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kholif AE, Gouda GA, Morsy TA, Matloup OH, Fahmy M, Gomaa AS, Patra AK (2022) Dietary date palm leaves ensiled with fibrolytic enzymes decreased methane production, and improved feed degradability and fermentation kinetics in a ruminal in vitro system. Waste Biomass Valor 13:3475–3488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-022-01752-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wei M, Chui Z, Li J, Yan P (2018) Estimation of metabolisable energy and net energy of rice straw and wheat straw for beef cattle by indirect calorimetry. Arch Anim Nutr 72. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2018.1482076

  44. Lunsin R, Duanyai S, Pilajun R, Duanyai S, Sombatsri P (2018) Effect of urea- and molasses-treated sugarcane bagasse on nutrient composition and in vitro rumen fermentation in dairy cows. Agric Nat Resour. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anres.2018.11.010

  45. Sundstol F (1984) Ammonia treatment of straw: methods for treatment and feeding experience in Norway. Anim Feed Sci Technol 10:173–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(84)90007-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Carrillo-Díaz MI, Miranda-Romero LA, Chávez-Aguilar G, Zepeda-Batista JL, González-Reyes M, García-Casillas AC, Tirado-González DN, Tirado-Estrada G (2022) Improvement of ruminal neutral detergent fiber degradability by obtaining and using exogenous fibrolytic enzymes from white-rot fungi. Animals 12:843. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Morgavi DP, Beauchemin KA, Nsereko VL, Rode LM, Iwaasa AD, Yang W, Mcallister TA, Wang Y (2000) Synergy between the ruminal fibrolytic enzymes and enzymes from T. longibrachiatum. J Dairy Sci 83:1310–1321. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74997-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sakita GZ, Bompadre TFV, Dineshkumar D, Lima PMT, Filho ALA, Campioni TS, Neto PO, Neto HB, Louvandini H, Abdalla AL (2020) Fibrolytic enzymes improving in vitro rumen degradability of tropical forages. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 104:1267–1276. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Pech-Cervantes AA, Ogunade IM, Jiang Y, Irfan M, Arriola KG, Amaro FX, Gonzalez CF, DiLorenzo N, Bromfield JJ, Vyas D, Adesogan AT (2019) An expansin-like protein expands forage cell walls and synergistically increases hydrolysis, digestibility and fermentation of livestock feeds by fibrolytic enzymes. PLoS ONE 14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224381

  50. Arriola KG, Oliveira AS, Ma ZX, Lean IJ, Giurcanu MC, Adesogan AT (2017) A meta-analysis on the effect of dietary application of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes on the performance of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 100:4513–4527. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-12103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Romero JJ, Zarate MA, Adesogan AT (2015) Effect of the dose of exogenous fibrolytic enzyme preparations on preingestive fiber hydrolysis, ruminal fermentation, and in vitro digestibility of bermudagrass haylage. J Dairy Sci 98(1):406–417. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Abid K, Jabri J, Yaich H, Malek A, Rekhis J, Kamoun M (2022) Nutritional value assessments of peanut hulls and valorization with exogenous fibrolytic enzymes extracted from a mixture culture of Aspergillus strains and Neurospora intermedia. Biomass Conv Bioref. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-03681-w

  53. Lazuka A, Roland C, Barakat A, Guillon F, O’Donohue M, Hernandez-Raquet G (2017) Ecofriendly lignocellulose pretreatment to enhance the carboxylate production of a rumen-derived microbial consortium. Bioresour Technol 236:225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Jabri J, Ammar H, Abid K, Beckers Y, Yaich H, Malek A, Rekhis J, Morsy AS, Soltan YA, Soufan W, Almadani MI, Chahine M, Marti ME, Okla MK, Kamoun M (2022) Effect of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes supplementation or functional feed additives on in vitro ruminal fermentation of chemically pre-treated sunflower heads. Agriculture 12:696. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wang YB, Spratling M, ZoBell DR, Wiedmeier RD, McAllister TA (2004) Effect of alkali pretreatment of wheat straw on the efficacy of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes. J Anim Sci 82:198–208. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.821198x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. ElYassin FA, Fontenot JP, Chester-Jones H (1991) Fermentation characteristics and nutritional value of ruminal contents and blood ensiled with untreated or sodium hydroxide-treated wheat straw. J Anim Sci 69:1751–1759. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.6941751x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Seo JK, Park TS, Kwon IH, Piao MY, Lee CH, Ha JK (2013) Characterization of cellulolytic and xylanolytic enzymes of Bacillus licheniformis JK7 isolated from the rumen of a native Korean goat. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 26:50–58. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.125067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Zhai R, Hu J, Jin M (2022) Towards efficient enzymatic saccharification of pretreated lignocellulose: enzyme inhibition by lignin-derived phenolics and recent trends in mitigation strategies. Biotechnol Adv 61:108044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2022.108044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Achyuthan KE, Achyuthan AM, Adams PD, Dirk SM, Harper JC, Simmons BA, Singh AK (2010) Supramolecular self-assembled chaos: polyphenolic lignin’s barrier to cost-effective lignocellulosic biofuels. Molecules 15:8641–8688. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules15118641

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the Laboratory of Animal Nutrition: Management of the Health and Quality of Animal Production (LR14AGR03) (Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Tunisia).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Animal Nutrition Laboratory, Ecole Nationale de Médecine Vétérinaire, Université de la Manouba, 2020, Sidi Thabet, Tunisia

    Jihene Jabri, Khalil Abid, Hela Yaich, Atef Malek, Jamel Rekhis & Mohamed Kamoun

  2. Higher Institute of Biotechnology of Beja, University of Jendouba, Beja, Tunisia

    Jihene Jabri

Authors
  1. Jihene Jabri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Khalil Abid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hela Yaich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Atef Malek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jamel Rekhis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mohamed Kamoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, JJ and MK; format analyses and investigation, JJ, KA, and HY; writing draft, JJ; resource, AM, JR, and MK. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jihene Jabri.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

The article does not contain any studies with human participants. It also does not perform experiments directly on animals. So, this experience does not need ethics statement.

Consent to participate

All the authors of this article are consented to participate.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jabri, J., Abid, K., Yaich, H. et al. Fermentative profile and nutritional value of untreated and alkali-treated faba bean (Vicia faba L.) straw supplemented with exogenous fibrolytic enzymes derived from Trichoderma longibrachiatum, Aspergillus strains, and Neurospora intermedia. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-04251-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-04251-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation