Go to Top Go to Bottom
Anim Biosci > Volume 30(6); 2017 > Article
Hou, Gentu, Liu, Jia, and Cai: Silage preparation and fermentation quality of natural grasses treated with lactic acid bacteria and cellulase in meadow steppe and typical steppe



In order to improve fermentation quality of natural grasses, their silage preparation and fermentation quality in meadow steppe (MS) and typical steppe (TS) were studied.


The small-scale silages and round bale silages of mixed natural grasses in both steppes were prepared using the commercial lactic acid bacteria (LAB) inoculants Chikuso-1 (CH, Lactobacillus plantarum) and cellulase enzyme (AC, Acremonium cellulase) as additives.


MS and TS contained 33 and 9 species of natural grasses, respectively. Stipa baicalensis in MS and Stipa grandi in TS were the dominant grasses with the highest dry matter (DM) yield. The crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber and water-soluble carbohydrate of the mixed natural grasses in both steppes were 8.02% to 9.03%, 66.75% to 69.47%, and 2.02% to 2.20% on a DM basis, respectively. All silages treated with LAB and cellulase were well preserved with lower pH, butyric acid and ammonia-N content, and higher lactic acid and CP content than those of control in four kinds of silages. Compared with CH- or AC-treated silages, the CH+ AC-treated silages had higher lactic acid content.


The results confirmed that combination with LAB and cellulase may result in beneficial effects by improving the natural grass silage fermentation in both grasslands.


Meadow steppe (MS) and typical steppe (TS) are important natural steppes that are widely distributed in temperate semi-arid continental climate region and the northern hemisphere boreal and temperate. In China, they are distributed in the northeast, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Qinghai and Tibet Plateau. These steppes play an important role in animal production. However, both steppes are limited in their hay production due to the cold, dry climate, regardless of water use [1]. They occupy about 400.02 million km2 but can only support 13.62 million tons of hay, which provides about only 42% of the animal feed needed in the winter and spring. Local farmers usually begin storing grass in mid-August. During harvest and storage, dry matter (DM) and crude protein (CP) will be lost [2]. Previously, interest has shifted toward natural grass silage as a main feed source for ruminant animals. Not only can it be prepared ahead of time, in late July to early August, which preserves nutritional value, but it can also extend the retention time, facilitating fodder provision throughout the year, regardless of the weather [3].
It is usually difficult to prepare a good silage fermentation from natural grasses because of their lower moisture, water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC) content and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) counts, as well as their higher lactate buffering capacity [4]. Some studies have tried to solve the problem of poor fermentation by using silage additives, such as LAB and cellulase [5,6], which are widely used for silage preparation. The cellulase can enhance fiber degradation and increase WSC content as a substrate for LAB [7], which can convert WSC into lactic acid [8,9]. As a result, the silage pH is reduced and the forage well preserved. However, limited information is available on the preparation and fermentation of natural grass silage treated with microbiological additives in the both grasslands. The present study examined the grassland population, DM yield, fermentation quality, and chemical composition of natural grasses in MS and TS environments. To improve fermentation quality, small-scale silages and round bale silages of mixed natural grasses in both steppes were prepared using LAB inoculant and cellulase enzyme.


Grassland population and yield analysis

Natural grasses were harvested at full-bloom stage from Hulunbuir MS (48.27°N, 119.44°E), and Xilingol TS (43.46°N, 115.13°E), Inner Mongolia, China on 24 July 2014. Grasses were harvested in three clipping grasslands with sample lines at 500 m length within the fenced exclosure. According to the specific locations, total 10 sample plots in every 50 m were set with signed global positioning system data on each sample line, we took the quadrat with 1 m×1 m to determine the grass species, and three replicated gradients were used to eliminated the random error. Species density was calculated by dividing the number of individuals in the quadrat [10]. Species cover was determined as the proportion (0% to 1%, 1% to 5%, 5% to 10%, 10% to 20%, 20% to 40%, 40% to 60%, 60% to 100%) of the quadrat covered by its canopy [11]. The biomass production of species was determined by the average weight of all quadrates, and the grasses were oven-dried at 65°C for 48 h to estimate the DM biomass [12].

Silage preparation

The grasses in both steppes were harvested at full-bloom stage. Silages were prepared using small-scale fermentation and round bale system. A commercial LAB inoculant Chikuso-1 (CH, Lactobacillus plantarum, Snow Brand Seed Co., Ltd, Sapporo, Japan) and a commercial cellulase enzyme (AC, acremonium cellulase, Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) were used as silage additives. AC is produced from Acremonium cellulolyticus, the main composition are glucanase and pectinase, carboxymethyl-cellulase activity is 7,350 U/g. The LAB were inoculated at 20 mg/kg as 1.00×105 colony forming unit (cfu)/g on a fresh matter (FM) basis. AC was added at 10 mg/kg of FM. Silage treatments were designed as control, CH, AC, and CH+AC. The LAB and cellulase were diluted with deionized water, and the additive solution was sprated using an electronic sprayer (Solo, 417, Hamburg, Germany) for addition of round bale silage. For small-scale silage preparation, a hand-held sprayer (SX-MD16E-2, Shixia Holding Co., Ltd, TaiZhou, China) was used for addition. The same amount of deionized water was sprayed on the control treatment. The small-scale silages were prepared by using polyethylene jars (1L capacity, Changgan Co., Ltd, Huizhou, China). Grasses were cut into 10 mm length by using a chopper machine (130DX, ARS Co., Ltd, Osaka, Japan), and were mixed well with or without LAB and cellulase, maximum 1 kg of grasses were packed into the jars. Round bale silages were made using a Rollant round baler (375 RC, Harsewinkel, Germany). The natural grasses in the field were cut and packed continuously into the baler, and these bales were produced with a maximum weight of 200 kg, and approximately 1.20 m diameter and 1.20 m length. These bales were transported to storage place and four layers of polypropylene films (0.03 mm, the DOW Chemical Company, Hayward, CA, USA) were immediately wrapped by using a round bale wrapper (SW5000, Vermeer Manufacturing Co., Ltd, Pella, IA, USA). These bales and jars were stored in outdoor and indoor at temperature 20°C to 26°C. Three replicates per treatments were opened at 60 days of ensiling, fermentation quality and chemical composition were analyzed.

Chemical analysis

The fermentation products of silage were analyzed by using cold-water extract as described by Cai [13]. Silage (10 g) was blended with 90 mL deionized water and kept in a refrigerator at 4°C for 24 h [14]. The pH was measured with a glass electrode pH meter (STARTER 100/B, OHAUS, Shanghai, China), the ammonia-N content was analyzed by using steam distillation of the filtrates [13], the concentration of organic acid were measured by high performance liquid chromatography methods as described by Cai [13]. The DM content of the samples were oven dried at 65°C for 48 h, CP and organic matter (OM) were analyzed by Horwitz and Latimer [15] method. The content of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined as described by Van Soest et al [16]. The WSC content was determined as described by Thomas [17].

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses of chemical composition and silage fermentation were performed by one-way analysis of variance using the general linear model procedure of SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc, 2003). The differences between means were assessed by Tukey’s multiple comparison tests at a significant level of p<0.05 [18].


Grassland population and yield of natural grasses

Grassland population and DM yield of MS and TS are shown in Table 1. Based on the DM yield, Stipa Baicalensis, Leymus chinensis, Serratula centauroides, Achnatherum sibiricum, and Cleistogenes squarrosa were the dominant grasses in MS. The DM yield at a high level of order were 163.29 kg/hm2 for Stipa Baicalensis (10.66%, proportion of total DM yields), 107.23 for Leymus chinensis (7.00%), 93.77 for Serratula centauroides (6.12%), 92.72 for Achnatherum sibiricum (6.05%), while other grasses were below 93.00 kg/hm2 in MS. On the other hand, Stipa grandi, Stipa krylovii, Cleistogenes squarrosa, Anemarrhena asphodeloides were the dominant grasses in TS, their DM yield at a high level of order were 1147.04 kg/hm2 for Stipa grandis (61.27%), 428.66 for Stipa krylovii (22.90%), 122.17 for Cleistogenes squarrosa (6.53%), 79.96 for Anemarrhena asphodeloides (4.27%), while other grasses were below 47.84 kg/hm2 in TS. The minimum DM yields were observed from Potentilla tanacetifolia (11.29%) in MS and from Artemisia scoparia (1.13%) in TS, respectively.

Chemical composition of natural grasses

Chemical composition of natural grasses in MS and TS are shown in Table 2. The DM of natural grasses were 29.45% to 67.94% in MS and were 23.09% to 47.92% in TS on a FM basis. In meadow steppe, the highest and the lowest moisture were found in Adenophora stenanthina at 65.30% and Carex tristachya at 34.37% of FM. In TS, the highest and the lowest moisture were found in Thalictrum aquilegifolium at 63.33% and Agropyron cristatum at 47.34% of FM. The OM of both steppes were similar ranging from 84.38% to 96.79% on a DM basis, their ether extract (EE) were 1.30% to 3.06% of DM. The CP of Silene conoidea was the lowest content at 3.93% in MS while other grasses were 7.12% to 12.77% of DM. The NDF and ADF were 37.04% to 69.86% of DM and 24.04% to 48.95% in MS, and were 44.79% to 73.33% and 37.64% to 52.19% of DM in TS, respectively.
Chemical composition of mixed natural grasses in MS and TS are shown in Table 3. The DM contents of mixed grasses were similar levels ranging from 52.40% to 55.07%, and their OM were also similar with 95% of DM in both steppes. The CP of mixed grasses were 8.91% to 9.03% in MS and were 8.02% to 8.13% in TS. Their NDF and ADF were 69% and 47% of DM in MS, while they were lower more than about 2% and 4% of DM in TS. The WSC contents of mixed grasses in MS (2.15% to 2.20% of DM) were higher (p<0.05) than that in TS (2.02% to 2.04% of DM).
Fermentation quality of mixed grasses silage prepared without or with LAB and cellulase in MS and TS are shown in Table 4. The grasses (G), preparation methods (P), additives (A) and their interaction (G×P, G×A, A×P, and G×A×P) influenced (p<0.001) butyric acid, in addition the additives also influenced (p<0.001) pH, lactic acid, and ammonia-N content. The small-scale and round bale silages in both steppes were showed as similar fermentation results. After 60 days of ensiling, the CH, AC, and CH+AC treatments of small-scale silages and round bale silages in MS and TS were preserved with significantly (p<0.05) lower pH and ammonia-N content, and significantly (p<0.05) higher lactic acid content than those of control. Acetic acid were produced in all silages with 0.38% to 0.57% of FM. Only the control treatment in MS had detected butyric acid (0.16% to 0.25% of FM) and propionic acid (0.11% to 0.17% of FM).
Chemical composition of mixed natural grasses silage in MS and TS were shown in Table 5. The additives influenced (p<0.001) CP, EE, NDF, and ADF. The OM contents of all silages were similar levels raging 92.89% to 95.13% of DM. The CP contents of MS silages (8.13% to 8.92% of DM) were significantly (p<0.05) higher than in the TS silages (7.22% to 7.89% of DM). The CP contents of CH+AC-treated silages were significantly higher (p<0.05) than other treatments, and MS had higher (p<0.05) CP content in the four typies of silages. AC- and CH+AC- treated silages significantly (p<0.05) decreased NDF and ADF contents compared to the control or CH-treatment.


Natural steppes, such as MS and TS, are important feed sources for livestock, and most of the local livestock in China are dependent on these environments. MS occur in the eastern part of the grassland belt, extending westward to the eastern edge of the Inner Mongolian Plateau, China [19,20]. It is reported that the structural species in MS was Sibirian filifolium, and the dominant grasses were Stipa baicalensis and Leymus chinensis. Our study found that the MS contained 33 species of natural grasses, dominated by Stipa baicalensis and Leymus chinensis. However, we did not observe the structural species Sibirian filifolium due to steppe environmental degradation [21].
TS are located west of MS in the Inner Mongolian Plateau. Previous studies have reported the structural species as Stipa grandi and the dominant grasses as Stipa grandi, Stipa krylovii, and Cleistogenes squarrosa [2224]. We found nine species of natural grasses, dominated by Stipa grandi, Stipa krylovii, Cleistogenes squarrosa, and Anemarrhena asphodeloides, which is consistent with previous studies [2527]. The structural species had shifted from Compositae to Gramineae, which may lead to easier ensiling. The TS had fewer species than the MS, and the species of Gramineae accounted for a large percentage of total grasses, which could reduce the abundance of other grass species that have an uncertain value for ensiling [28].
Yield is the dominant factor affecting the quality of ensiling [20]. The DM yield of Stipa baicalensis, Leymus chinensis, Serratula centauroides, Achnatherum sibiricum, and Cleistogenes squarrosa accounted for 35.41% of the whole DM yield in MS, whereas Stipa grandi and Stipa kryloviiin accounted for 84.17% of the whole DM yield in TS.
Generally, natural grasses do not grow during the cold season because of the low winter temperatures. Therefore, it is necessary to preserve a feed supply to continuously feed ruminants during the cold season. Silage fermentation is considered the most effective technique for addressing the cold season feed shortage [29].
Silage is now the most common preserved feed for cattle production in many countries, including China [30]. Generally, farm silage is based on natural lactic acid fermentation, in which epiphytic LAB convert WSC into organic acid during the ensiling process. The epiphytic LAB population density has become an important factor in predicting whether to apply LAB in silage [31]. LAB population densities ≥105 (cfu)/g FM usually result in silage that is well preserved [14]. WSC is also an important factor that influences the fermentation quality of silage [32]. A good silage needs a DM >5% WSC for lactic acid fermentation [33]. However, these mixed natural grasses have a relatively low WSC (Table 3). Furthermore, only a few epiphytic LAB are found on these materials [34], suggesting that silage fermentation may need to be improved using LAB inoculants or cellulase enzymes [14].
The LAB- and cellulase-treated silages in both steppes were well preserved, with significantly (p<0.05) lower pH and ammonia nitrogen content and significantly (p<0.05) higher lactic acid content than that of each control. These results are likely explained by the WSC content of the materials and by the numbers and physiological properties of epiphytic LAB. The low WSC content of the mixed grasses could hardly provide enough substrate for LAB fermentation. Added cellulase may degrade the cytoderm and increase the available sugars, thereby providing a substrate for lactic acid fermentation, which is consistent with what Sun et al. found for maize silage [35]. Furthermore, the population of epiphytic LAB is usually very low, and some lactic acid-producing cocci cannot not grow in a pH<4.5. During silage fermentation, the cocci grew rapidly only in the early stage. If the silage pH remained >4.0, then the growth of clostridia was not inhibited, and butyric acid fermentation occurred.
In MS, the control silages were of poor quality, with a high butyric acid content. These results suggest that the inoculant strain Chikuso-1 used in this study is Lactobacilli plnatarum, as it can promote lactic acid fermentation as a homofermentative lactic bacteria and may grow in a low-pH environment [36,37]. Therefore, inoculating silage with these strains may result in beneficial effects by promoting the propagation of LAB and by inhibiting the growth of clostridia, as well as by decreasing ammonia nitrogen, which is an indicator of high-quality fermentation [38,39]. The combination of LAB and cellulase had a greater effect than did treatment with either one alone, showing that these additives promote each other to improve silage fermentation.
The CP content was higher in treatment groups than in controls, and the NDF and ADF contents were lower than those in the controls reported in studies of alfalfa silages [40,41]. The CP content was greatest in the CH+AC- silage, whereas there was no difference between CH- and AC- treatments, which is consistent with previous findings [35]. The lower NDF and ADF contents in the CH+AC- and AC- treatments were probably the result of cellulose-promoted degradation of fiber, which is consistent with the results of Colonbatto [9].
Small-scale fermentation systems were developed and used for LAB screening and silage preparation, because this method can be easy to control under different fermentation conditions [14]. In this study, the silages were prepared using small-scale fermentation and round bale systems. The results showed that small-scale silage values were slightly greater than those observed in round bale silage, because round bale silage with plastic film allows some air permeability [42]. The similarities between the two kinds of silage showed that small-scale fermentation can be used to test the fermentation quality of silage.
These results confirmed that the addition of LAB, cellulase, and their combination benefited silage fermentation by increasing lactic acid, decreasing butyric acid and ammonia nitrogen contents, and improving the silage quality of natural grasses from MS and TS environments.


MS and TS contained 33 and 9 species of natural grasses, Stipa Baicalensis and Stipa grandi were the dominant grasses with the highest DM yield in each steppe. Their mixed grasses in both steppes had 8.02% to 9.03% CP and 66.75% to 69.47% NDF of DM. LAB and cellulase, especially their combination could effectively improve fermentation quality of mixed grasses silage in both steppes.



We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.


This work was supported by Project of Agriculture Research System (CARS-35), China and the Demonstration of Silage Preparation Technology, Public Interest fund (201303061) for Agro-scientific Research, China. We thank Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan for providing the commercial cellulase enzyme and Snow Brand Seed Co., Ltd, Sapporo, Japan for providing the commercial LAB inoculant.

Table 1
Dry matter yield of natural grasses in meadow steppe and typical steppe
Grass species English name Local name DM yield (kg/hm2) Proportion of total DM yield (%)
Meadow steppe
  Stipa Baicalensis Roshev Baical Needgrass Bei Jiaerzhenmao 163.29±0.02 10.66
  Leymus chinensis (Trin.) Tzvel. China Leymus Yang Cao 107.23±0.41 7.00
  Serratula centauroides L. Common Scawwort Ma Huatou 93.77±0.02 6.12
  Achnatherum sibiricum (L.) Keng Siberian Jijigrass Yu Mao 92.72±0.28 6.05
  Cleistogenes squarrosa (Trin.) Keng Scabrous Hideseedgrass Cao Yinzica 85.33±0.79 5.57
  Pulsatilla turczaninovii Kryl. et Serg. Slenderleaf Pulsatilla Xi Yebaitouweng 84.34±0.12 5.50
  Carex tristachya Thunb. Threespike Sedge Tai Cao 74.36±0.03 4.86
  Poa annua L. Annual Bluegrass Zao Shuhe 56.42±4.98 3.68
Melissilus ruthenicus (L.) Peschkova (Trigonella ruthenica L.) Ruthenia Medic Bian Xudou 52.58±0.55 3.43
Adenophora stenanthina (Ledeb.) Kitagawa Longstyle Ladybell Chang Zhushashen 52.22±0.44 3.41
  Astragalus adsurgens Pall. Erect Milkvetch Xie JingHuangqi 52.17±0.15 3.41
Thalictrum aquilegifolium L. var. sibiricum Regel et Tiling Siberia Golumbine Meadowrue Tang Songcao 49.16±0.99 3.21
  Artemisia frigida (Willd.) Bess Fringed Sagebrush Leng Hao 46.67±1.63 3.04
  Iris ventricosa Pall. Cystoidflower Swordflag Nang Huayuanwei 44.74±3.55 2.92
  Astragalus melilotoides Pall. Sweetcloverlike Milkvetch CaoMuxizhuanghuangqi 44.32±0.36 2.89
  Potentilla acaulis L. Stemless Cinquefoil Xing Maoweilingcai 38.92±0.93 2.54
  Oxytropis myriophylla (Pall.) DC. Leafy Crazyweed Duo Yejidou 38.25±1.27 2.50
Carex chinensis Retz. China Sedge Ri Yinjian 37.25±0.39 2.43
  Bupleurum scorzonerifolium Willd. Red Thorowax Hong Chaihu 35.45±0.12 2.31
  Koeleria cristata (L.) Pers. Junegrass Qia Cao 29.02±2.05 1.89
  Ixeris polycephala Cass. China Ixeris Ku Maicai 28.34±0.12 1.85
  Veronica incana L. White Speedwell Bai Popona 26.42±0.02 1.73
  Gentiana dahurica Fisch. Dahuria Gentian Da Wulilongdan 24.39±0.44 1.59
Scorzonera Subacaulis (Regel.) Lipsch. Low Serpentroot Ai yacong 23.92±3.09 1.56
  Cymbaria dahurica L. Dahur Cymabria Da Wulixinba 21.35±0.28 1.39
  Sanguisorba officinalis L. Garden Burnet Di Yu 21.33±0.27 1.39
Scutellaria scordifolia Fisch. ex Schrenk. Twinflower Skullcap Bing Touhuangqin 20.35±0.13 1.33
  Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. Wheatgrass Bing Cao 18.29±1.74 1.94
Heteropappus altaicus (Willd.) Novopokr Altal Puppyflower A Ertaigouwahua 16.33±1.36 1.07
  Galium verum L. Yellow Bedstraw Peng Zicai 15.78±0.05 1.03
  Silene conoidea L. Conical Catchfly Mai Pingcao 13.34±0.23 0.87
  Allium tenuissimum L. Thinleaf Leek Xi Yejiu 12.07±0.06 0.79
Potentilla tanacetifolia Willd. ex Schlecht. Tansyleaf Cinquefoil Ju Yeweilingcai 11.29±1.52 0.74
Typical steppe
  Stipa grandis P. Smirn. Larch Needlegrass Da Zhenmao 1,147.04±0.19 61.27
  Stipa krylovii Roshev Altai Needlegrass Ke Shizhenmao 428.66±0.76 22.90
  Cleistogenes squarrosa (Trin.) Keng Scabrous Hideseedgrass Cao Yinzicao 122.17±0.04 6.53
  Anemarrhena asphodeloides Bunge Anemarrhena Zhi Mu 79.96±1.49 4.27
  Leymus chinensis (Trin.) Tzvel. China Leymus Yang Cao 47.84±0.46 2.56
  Allium tenuissimum L. Thinleaf Leek Xi Yejiu 31.32±0.55 1.67
  Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. Wheatgrass Bing Cao 12.25±0.04 0.65
Thalictrum aquilegifolium L. var. sibiricum Regel et Tiling Siberia Golumbine Meadowrue Tang Songcao 1.62±0.37 0.09
  Artemisia scoparia Waldst. et Kit. Virgate Sagebrush Zhu Maohao 1.13±0.28 0.06

Data±standard deviation were the average of three sample lines and each line had 10 sample plots.

Table 2
Chemical composition of natural grasses in meadow and typical steppe
Grass species DM (%) OM (% DM) CP (% DM) EE (% DM) NDF (% DM) ADF (% DM)
Meadow steppe
&&Stipa Baicalensis Roshev 57.94±0.08 95.37±0.17 8.76±0.19 2.55±0.05 69.86±0.53 41.34±0.57
&&Leymus chinensis (Trin.) Tzvel. 57.80±1.42 95.97±0.27 10.09±0.06 2.64±0.11 62.19±0.17 36.92±0.64
&&Serratula centauroides L. 34.64±1.46 94.37±0.59 10.09±0.06 2.31±0.13 38.02±1.88 25.31±1.20
&Achnatherum sibiricum (L.) Keng 48.45±0.96 95.53±0.23 9.21±0.46 2.79±0.05 59.28±0.43 35.06±0.61
&Cleistogenes squarrosa (Trin.) Keng 55.39±0.54 91.77±0.02 9.54±0.12 2.40±0.03 61.34±0.32 37.29±1.18
&Pulsatilla turczaninovii Kryl. et Serg. 67.94±0.28 89.97±0.81 8.92±0.20 2.04±0.09 37.93±0.32 24.04±0.51
&&Carex tristachya Thunb. 57.61±0.27 94.17±0.29 9.73±0.09 2.74±0.03 58.03±0.15 39.17±0.60
&&Poa annua L. 52.04±0.30 92.74±0.27 7.12±0.02 1.93±0.06 58.33±0.95 35.17±0.55
&Melissilus ruthenicus (L.) Peschkova Trigonella ruthenica L.) 45.34±0.40 94.14±0.27 11.73±0.04 2.61±0.09 47.39±0.02 31.25±0.48
&Adenophora stenanthina (Ledeb.) Kitagawa 29.45±0.33 94.38±0.37 10.80±0.08 2.67±0.06 47.54±0.31 36.09±0.21
&&Astragalus melilotoides Pall. 36.51±0.05 95.91±0.17 12.08±0.02 1.87±0.02 59.73±0.17 48.95±0.29
&Thalictrum aquilegifolium L. var. sibiricum Regel et Tiling 53.27±0.47 92.43±0.14 10.35±0.18 2.11±0.03 40.12±0.24 24.59±0.66
&&Artemisia frigida (Willd.) Bess 37.03±0.62 94.74±0.17 10.77±0.19 2.56±0.07 50.17±0.68 24.69±0.79
&&Iris ventricosa Pall. 37.64±0.23 93.27±0.01 9.12±0.05 2.77±0.24 53.23±1.02 40.17±1.11
&&Astragalus adsurgens Pall. 43.78±0.40 93.24±0.18 11.33±0.08 1.99±0.02 57.34±0.40 40.59±0.28
&&Potentilla acaulis L. 50.17±0.41 85.93±0.41 9.37±0.02 3.02±0.05 54.11±0.57 34.52±0.40
&Oxytropis myriophylla (Pall.) DC. 51.19±0.21 93.52±0.20 12.77±0.40 1.78±0.01 52.09±0.21 31.27±0.36
&&Carex chinensis Retz. 39.32±0.40 93.48±0.69 8.89±0.50 2.12±0.33 57.33±0.40 48.20±0.47
&Bupleurum scorzonerifolium Willd. 38.50±0.22 94.10±0.76 11.30±0.15 2.04±0.30 42.09±0.27 28.95±0.05
&&Koeleria cristata (L.) Pers. 60.00±0.59 95.77±0.12 9.02±0.19 2.03±0.05 62.35±0.89 37.14±0.53
&&Ixeris polycephala Cass. 31.20±0.40 89.73±0.25 10.75±0.30 2.81±0.05 56.82±0.30 49.03±0.69
&&Veronica incana L. 50.33±0.25 90.17±0.24 8.82±0.11 2.09±0.02 47.05±0.10 35.39±0.40
&&Gentiana dahurica Fisch. 44.29±0.43 88.82±0.24 10.67±0.37 3.02±0.06 43.28±0.43 37.35±0.39
&Scorzonera Subacaulis (Regel.) Lipsch. 39.29±0.42 92.34±0.59 11.07±0.08 3.06±0.19 37.04±0.58 27.53±0.29
&&Cymbaria dahurica L. 41.93±0.05 88.89±1.51 9.56±0.07 1.54±0.03 43.98±0.02 31.27±0.41
&&Sanguisorba officinalis L. 33.27±0.14 89.53±0.32 9.13±0.31 2.74±0.09 52.39±3.25 37.09±0.79
&Scutellaria scordifolia Fisch. ex Schrenk. 49.38±0.36 84.38±0.28 10.89±0.07 2.28±0.02 40.17±0.08 29.33±0.39
&&Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. 56.45±0.37 95.45±0.27 9.56±0.27 2.43±0.06 62.13±0.13 37.09±0.25
&Heteropappus altaicus (Willd.) Novopokr 47.34±0.32 90.77±0.42 11.67±0.06 2.10±0.03 39.30±0.26 28.89±0.11
&&Galium verum L. 51.74±0.17 92.08±0.16 10.78±0.43 3.03±0.12 47.28±0.47 35.05±0.42
&&Silene conoidea L. 30.77±0.25 96.79±1.17 3.93±0.01 1.30±0.01 47.45±0.25 38.41±0.27
&&Allium tenuissimum L. 33.47±0.22 90.75±0.16 10.54±0.25 2.43±0.20 40.45±0.33 32.93±0.35
&Potentilla tanacetifolia Willd. ex Schlecht. 31.18±0.16 89.73±0.16 9.37±0.05 2.72±0.05 52.09±1.29 33.33±0.44
Typical steppe
&&Stipa grandis P. Smirn. 44.73±0.40 93.29±0.04 10.29±0.15 2.33±0.09 68.30±0.06 47.01±0.69
&&Stipa krylovii Roshev 47.32±0.39 92.77±0.09 9.56±0.27 2.73±0.08 73.33±0.38 52.19±0.07
&Cleistogenes squarrosa (Trin.) Keng 41.35±0.07 93.06±0.41 9.05±0.23 2.14±0.11 67.23±0.47 43.92±0.07
&Anemarrhena asphodeloides Bunge 47.92±0.42 93.23±0.03 10.12±0.05 3.05±0.29 69.92±0.06 40.35±0.16
&&Leymus chinensis (Trin.) Tzvel. 43.29±0.28 88.37±0.84 10.03±0.20 3.04±0.24 66.29±0.03 39.84±0.63
&&Allium tenuissimum L. 23.09±0.08 89.77±0.10 11.57±0.13 2.58±0.17 57.59±0.25 46.32±0.14
&&Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. 35.31±0.03 92.38±0.17 8.34±0.28 2.51±0.05 69.34±0.39 45.03±0.21
&Thalictrum aquilegifolium L. var. sibiricum Regel et Tiling 30.10±0.11 85.43±0.02 10.29±0.16 3.02±0.05 50.32±0.60 37.64±0.63
&&Artemisia scoparia Waldst. et Kit. 45.05±0.19 94.75±0.33 8.35±0.25 2.34±0.06 44.79±0.14 38.83±0.75

DM, dry matter; OM, organic matter; CP, crude protein; EE, ether extract; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber.

Data±standard deviation are the average of three grasses samples.

Table 3
Chemical composition of mixed grasses in meadow and typical steppe
Material DM (%) OM (% DM) CP (% DM) EE (% DM) NDF (% DM) ADF (% DM) WSC (% DM)
Meadow steppe
 Small-scale 52.49±0.35b 95.24±0.04b 8.91±0.02b 2.40±0.05ab 69.47±0.16a 47.29±1.27a 2.20±0.02a
 Round bale 55.07±1.14a 95.27±0.08b 9.03±0.01a 2.48±0.09a 69.09±0.61a 47.06±0.66a 2.15±0.01a
Typical steppe
 Small-scale 53.00±0.44ab 95.69±0.03a 8.02±0.06d 2.13±0.09c 67.32±0.13b 43.47±0.94b 2.02±0.01b
 Round bale 53.15±0.61ab 95.73±0.04a 8.13±0.02c 2.19±0.05bc 66.75±0.20b 43.33±0.98b 2.04±0.02b
SEM 0.70 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.33 0.99 0.02
p value 0.13 <0.001 <0.001 0.02 0.001 0.03 <0.001

DM, dry matter; OM, organic matter; CP, crude protein; EE, ether extract; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; WSC, water-soluble carbohydrate.

Data±standard deviation are means of three grasses samples.

a–d Means±standard deviation within columns with different superscript letters differ (p<0.05).

Table 4
Fermentation quality of mixed grasses silage in meadow steppe and typical steppe1)
Silage Treatment DM (%) pH Lactic acid (% FM) Acetic acid (% FM) Propionic acid (% FM) Butyric acid (% FM) Ammonia-N (g/kg of FM)
Meadow steppe
 Small scale Control 50.36±0.01 4.63±0.08a 0.56±0.01fg 0.38±0.01 0.11±0.08b 0.16±0.00 0.56±0.04a
CH 50.60±1.45 4.25±0.13cd 0.74±0.00de 0.42±0.01 ND ND 0.24±0.05c
AC 50.21±1.10 4.32±0.26c 0.66±0.08ef 0.50±0.07 ND ND 0.14±0.04cde
CH+AC 51.21±0.09 4.13±0.06de 1.11±0.03a 0.55±0.02 ND ND 0.12±0.02de
 Round bale Control 50.29±0.42 4.59±0.16ab 0.52±0.07fg 0.45±0.08 0.17±0.01a 0.25±0.01 0.54±0.03a
CH 50.27±0.34 4.20±0.22d 0.90±0.02bc 0.44±0.03 ND ND 0.19±0.03cd
AC 51.32±0.24 4.27±0.14cd 0.73±0.13de 0.51±0.03 ND ND 0.17±0.02cd
CH+AC 51.50±0.31 4.16±0.17de 1.10±0.04a 0.50±0.02 ND ND 0.14±0.01cde
Typical steppe
 Small scale Control 51.13±0.49 4.45±0.16b 0.76±0.04d 0.47±0.02 ND ND 0.40±0.04b
CH 50.64±0.69 4.17±0.08de 0.97±0.02b 0.49±0.02 ND ND 0.12±0.01de
AC 50.04±0.49 4.23±0.09d 0.82±0.08cd 0.47±0.02 ND ND 0.14±0.03cde
CH+AC 51.40±0.40 4.07±0.05e 1.17±0.31a 0.57±0.01 ND ND 0.07±0.03e
 Round bale Control 50.62±0.23 4.47±0.17b 0.51±0.05g 0.48±0.02 ND ND 0.44±0.02b
CH 50.72±0.23 4.13±0.04de 1.10±0.16a 0.55±0.01 ND ND 0.14±0.01cde
AC 50.34±0.38 4.19±0.03d 0.95±0.02b 0.50±0.07 ND ND 0.11±0.01de
CH+AC 50.92±0.26 4.08±0.04e 1.13±0.03a 0.53±0.06 ND ND 0.12±0.02de
SEM 0.5712 0.0778 0.0364 0.0391 0.0206 0.0016 0.0277
Grass means Meadow steppe 50.76±0.25a 4.36±0.05a 0.78±0.05b 0.47±0.02b 0.04±0.01 0.05±0.02 0.27±0.04a
Typical steppe 50.62±0.14b 4.21±0.21b 0.93±0.04a 0.51±0.01a 0 0 0.20±0.03b
PM means Small scale 50.57±0.23b 4.27±0.05 0.85±0.04 0.49±0.01 0.01±0.01 0.02±0.01 0.23±0.04
Round bale 50.80±0.14a 4.30±0.05 0.87±0.05 0.50±0.02 0.02±0.01 0.03±0.02 0.23±0.03
Additive means Control 50.60±0.18 4.58±0.04a 0.59±0.04d 0.45±0.02 0.07±0.02 0.10±0.03 0.50±0.02a
CH 50.56±0.36 4.19±0.05bc 0.93±0.04b 0.47±0.02 0 0 0.17±0.02b
AC 50.57±0.34 4.27±0.19b 0.79±0.04c 0.50±0.02 0 0 0.14±0.01bc
CH+AC 51.01±0.17 4.11±0.09c 1.12±0.01a 0.54±0.02 0 0 0.11±0.01c
Significance of main effects and interactions
Grass (G) 0.49 0.003 <0.001 0.07 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
PM (P) 0.39 0.46 0.44 0.55 <0.001 <0.001 0.56
Additives (A) 0.52 <0.001 <0.001 0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
G×P 0.57 0.97 0.14 0.73 <0.001 <0.001 0.88
G×A 0.23 0.09 0.01 0.29 <0.001 <0.001 0.18
A×P 0.43 0.99 <0.001 0.46 <0.001 <0.001 0.60
G×A×P 0.77 0.27 0.07 0.73 <0.001 <0.001 0.58

DM, dry matter; FM, fresh matter; CH, Chikuso-1 inoculant, Lactobacillus plantarum, Snow Brand Seed Co. Ltd, Sapporo, Japan; ND, not detected; AC, Acremonium cellulase, Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan; SEM, standard error of the mean; PM, preparation method of silage.

1) Silage was stored for 60 d; data are the average of three silage samples.

a–g Means±standard deviation within columns with different superscript letters differ (p<0.05).

Table 5
Chemical composition of mixed grasses silage in meadow and typical steppe1)
Silage Treatment Chemical composition (% of DM)

Meadow steppe
 Small-scale Control 93.56±0.04def 8.18±0.22bc 2.31±0.04a 64.58±0.02ab 43.59±0.17abc
CH 93.37±0.28ef 8.85±0.02a 2.24±0.03ab 64.28±0.02ab 42.74±0.57cde
AC 92.89±0.29f 8.71±0.10a 2.22±0.07ab 62.29±0.01abcd 40.65±0.16ef
CH+AC 92.90±0.09f 8.92±0.03a 2.19±0.07ab 60.74±0.01cd 40.12±0.05f
 Round bale Control 94.61±0.26ab 8.13±0.09bc 2.33±0.04a 64.40±0.01ab 44.95±1.94ab
CH 94.40±0.51abcd 8.16±0.01ab 2.19±0.05ab 63.76±0.01abc 42.43±0.68cde
AC 94.53±0.01abc 8.75±0.00a 2.27±0.08a 63.40±0.01abc 42.14±0.07cde
CH+AC 95.13±0.42a 8.92±0.13a 2.12±0.02bc 61.36±1.03bcd 40.77±0.05e
Typical steppe
 Small-scale Control 93.65±0.45cdef 7.22±0.64f 2.11±0.02bc 65.31±0.09a 43.35±0.72abcd
CH 94.05±0.64bcde 7.45±0.07def 2.00±0.01cd 63.18±0.19abc 43.16±0.07bcd
AC 93.92±0.03bcde 7.44±0.12def 2.03±0.02cd 61.23±0.01bcd 41.38±0.58def
CH+AC 94.38±0.09abcd 7.89±0.02cde 1.95±0.03d 61.04±0.06d 40.81±0.18e
 Round bale Control 93.83±0.32bcde 7.34±0.15ef 2.10±0.06bc 65.54±0.01a 45.35±0.24a
CH 94.47±0.33abc 7.46±0.00def 1.98±0.01cd 65.47±0.01a 43.48±0.78abcd
AC 94.10±0.56bcde 7.49±0.21def 2.04±0.03bc 63.47±0.32abc 42.64±0.23cde
CH+AC 94.59±0.38ab 7.52±0.12d 1.93±0.02e 61.88±0.01cde 41.32±0.03def
SEM 0.27 0.17 0.04 0.99 0.63
Grass means Meadow steppe 93.88±0.19b 8.59±0.09a 2.24±0.02a 63.25±0.49a 42.23±0.40b
Typical steppe 94.15±0.09a 7.60±0.09b 2.02±0.02b 63.06±0.44b 42.49±0.36a
PM means Small scale 93.59±0.14b 8.08±0.14 2.13±0.03 62.65±0.53b 41.79±0.34b
Round bale 94.46±0.10a 8.06±0.13 2.12±0.03 63.65±0.03a 42.95±0.38a
Additive means Control 93.91±0.18b 7.72±0.14b 2.21±0.13a 64.94±0.41a 44.31±0.52a
CH 94.07±0.17a 8.05±0.19ab 2.10±0.04ab 64.17±0.65a 42.95±0.97b
AC 93.86±0.19b 8.09±0.20ab 2.14±0.04ab 62.60±0.40b 41.70±0.92c
CH+AC 94.25±0.29a 8.41±0.19a 2.05±0.04b 60.90±0.43c 40.51±0.10d
Significance of main effects and interactions
Grass (G) 0.16 <0.001 <0.001 0.88 0.27
PM (P) <0.001 0.97 0.76 0.05 <0.001
Additives (A) 0.12 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
G×P <0.001 0.18 0.67 0.27 0.31
G×A 0.16 0.25 0.93 0.56 0.81
A×P 0.30 0.77 0.79 0.61 0.26
G×A×P 0.25 0.79 0.64 0.78 0.80

DM, dry matter; OM, organic matter; CP, crude protein; EE, ether extract; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; CH, Chikuso-1 inoculant, Lactobacillus plantarum, Snow Brand Seed Co. Ltd, Sapporo, Japan; AC, Acremonium cellulase, Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan; SEM, standard error of the mean; PM, preparation method of silage.

1) Silage was stored for 60 d; data are the average of three silage samples.

a–f Means±standard deviation within columns with different superscript letters differ (p<0.05).


1. Zhang J, Guo G, Chen L, et al. Effect of applying lactic acid bacteria and propionic acid on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of oats-common vetch mixed silage on the Tibetan plateau. J Anim Sci 2015; 86:595–602.
2. Scarbrough DA, Coblentz WK, Coffey KP, et al. Effects of summer management and fall harvest date on ruminal in situ degradation of crude protein in stockpiled bermudagrass. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2002; 96:119–33.
3. Kaiser AG, Curll ML. Improving the efficiency of forage conservation from pastures. Wheeler JL, Pearson CJ, Robards GE, editorsTemperate pastures: their production, use and management. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Publishing Publishing; 1987. p. 397–411.

4. King C, McEniry J, O’Kiely P. A note on the fermentation characteristics of red clover silage in response to advancing stage of maturity in the primary growth. Irish J Agric Food Res 2012; 51:79–84.

5. Filya I, Sucu E. The effects of lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation, aerobic stability and nutritive value of maize silage. Grass Forage Sci 2010; 65:446–55.
6. Li M, Zi X, Zhou H, Hou G, Cai Y. Effects of sucrose, glucose, molasses and cellulase on fermentation quality and in vitro gas production of king grass silage. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2014; 197:206–12.
7. Weinberg Z, Ashbell G, Hen Y, Azrieli A. The effect of cellulase and heicellulase plus pectinase on the aerobic stability and fiber analysis of peas and wheat silages. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1995; 55:287–93.
8. Muck RE. Initial bacteria numbers on lucerne prior to ensiling. Grass Forage Sci 1989; 44:19–25.
9. Colombatto D, Mould FL, Bhat MK, et al. Influence of fibrolytic enzymes on the hydrolysis and fermentation of pure celluloseand xylan by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro. J Anim Sci 2003; 81:1040–50.
crossref pmid
10. Liu G, Xie X, Ye D, et al. Plant functional diversity and species diversity in the Mongolian steppe. PLoS ONE 2013; 8:e77565
crossref pmid pmc
11. Munson SM, Lauenroth WK. Plant Community recovery following restoration in semiarid grasslands. Res Ecol 2012; 20:656–63.
12. Wang Z, Zhang Q, Xin X, et al. Response of the annual biomass production of a typical steppe plant community to precipitation fluctuations. Rangeland J 2014; 36:527–36.
13. Cai Y. Analysis method for silage. Japanase Society of Grassland Science. Field and laboratory methods for grassland science. Tokyo, Japan: Thsho Printing Co., Ltd.; 2004. p. 279–82.

14. Cai Y, Benno Y, Ogawa M, Kumai S. Effect of applying lactic acid bacteria isolated from forage crops on fermentation characteristics and aerobic deterioration of silage. J Dairy Sci 1999; 82:520–6.
crossref pmid
15. Horwitz W, Latimer GW. AOAC International. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 18th edGaithersburg, MD: AOAC International; 2005.

16. Soest VJP, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods fro dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991; 74:3583–97.
crossref pmid
17. Thomas T. An automated procedure for the determination of soluble carbohydrates in herbage. J Sci Food Agric 1997; 28:639–42.
18. Saidin S, Kadir MRA, Sulaiman E, Kasim NHA. Effects of different implant-abutment connections on micromotion and stress distribution: Prediction of microgap formation. J Dent 2012; 40:467–74.
crossref pmid
19. Wu X, Liu G, Butterbach-Bahl K, et al. Effects of land cover and soil properties on denitrification potential in soils of two semi-arid grasslands in Inner Mongolia, China. J Arid Environ 2013; 92:98–101.
20. Zhou TR. Analyze of bale silage manufactur technique and quality control of natural grassland herbage. master’s thesis. Hohhot, China: Inner Mongolia Agriculture University; 2015.

21. Buheaosi . Grassland resources and evaluation in Ewenke Autonomous Banner. 2th edBeijing: China Agriculture Press; 2013.

22. Li X, Li G, Wang H, Wang H, Yu J. Influence of meadow changes on net primary productivity: a case study in a typical steppe area of XilinGol of Inner Mongolia in China. Geosciences J 2015; 19:561–73.
23. Li F, Zeng Y, Luo JH, Ma RH, Wu BF. Modeling grassland aboveground biomass using a pure vegetation index. Ecol Indic 2016; 62:279–88.
24. Zhang Q, Wu B, Nishino N, Wang X, Yu Z. Fermentation and microbial population dynamics during the ensiling of native grass and subsequent exposure to air. J Anim Sci 2016; 87:389–97.
25. Zhu T. Grassland resources and development of grassland agriculture in temperate China. Rangelands 1998; 10:124–7.

26. Goomaral A, Undarmaa J, Matsumoto T, Yamato M. Effect of plant species on communities of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the Mongolian steppe. Mycoscience 2013; 54:362–7.
27. Jin YX, Yang XC, Qiu JJ, et al. Remote sensing-based biomass estimation and its spatio-temporal variations in temperate grassland, Northern China. Remote Sens 2014; 6:1496–513.
28. Cherney DJR, Alessi MA, Cherney JH. Influence of grass species and sample preparation on ensiling characteristics. Crop Sci 2006; 46:256–63.
29. Borreani G, Giaccone D, Mimosi A, Tabacco E. Comparison of hay and haylage from permanent Alpine meadows in winter dairy cow diets. J Dairy Sci 2007; 90:5643–50.
crossref pmid
30. McEniry J, Forristal PD, O’Kiely P. Factors influencing the conservation characteristics of baled and precision-chop grass silages. Irish J Agric Food Res 2011; 50:175–88.

31. Weinberg ZG, Ashbell G, Azrieli A, Brukental I. Ensiling peas, ryegrass and wheat with additives of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and cell wall degrading enzymes. Grass Forage Sci 1993; 48:70–8.
32. McDonald P, Henderson AR. Determination of water-soluble carbohydrates in grass. J Sci Food Agric 1964; 15:395–8.
33. Amer S, Hassanat F, Berthiaume R, Seguin P, Mustafa AF. Effects of water soluble carbohydrate content on ensiling characteristics, chemical composition and in vitro gas production of forage millet and forage sorghum silages. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2012; 177:23–9.
34. Cao Y, Takahashi T, Horiguchi K-i, Yoshida N, Cai Y. Methane emissions from sheep fed fermented or non-fermented total mixed ration containing whole-crop rice and rice bran. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2010; 157:72–8.
35. Sun ZH, Liu SM, Tayo GO, et al. Effects of cellulase or lactic acid bacteria on silage fermentation and in gas production of several morphological fractions of maize stover. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2009; 152:219–31.
36. Napasirth V, Napasirth P, Sulinthone T, Phommachanh K, Cai YM. Microbial population, chemical composition and silage fermentation of cassava residues. J Anim Sci 2015; 86:842–8.
37. Li DX, Ni KK, Pang HL, et al. Identification and antimicrobial activity detection of lactic acid bacteria isolated from corn stover silage. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2015; 28:620–31.
crossref pmid pmc
38. Bureenok S, Yuangklang C, Vasupen K, Schonewille JT, Kawamoto Y. The effects of additives in napier grass silages on chemical composition, feed intake, nutrient digestibility and rumen fermentation. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2012; 25:1248–54.
crossref pmid pmc
39. McEniry J, King C, O’Kiely P. Silage fermentation characteristics of three common grassland species in response to advancing stage of maturity and additive application. Grass Forage Sci 2014; 69:393–404.
40. Cao LM, Goto M, Karita S, et al. Effect of fermented juice of epiphytic lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation quality of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) silage and its energy and nitrogen utilization by dry cows. Grass Forage Sci 2002; 48:227–35.

41. Wang J, Wang JQ, Zhou H, Feng T. Effects of addition of previously fermented juice prepared from alfalfa on fermentation quality and protein degradation of alfalfa silage. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2009; 151:280–90.
42. Borreani G, Tabacco E. Improving corn silage quality in the top layer of farm bunker silos through the use of a next-generation barrier film with high impermeability to oxygen. J Dairy Sci 2014; 97:2415–26.
crossref pmid
METRICS Graph View
  • 19 Crossref
  • 24 Scopus
  • 8,494 View
  • 299 Download
Related articles

Editorial Office
Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies(AAAP)
Room 708 Sammo Sporex, 23, Sillim-ro 59-gil, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08776, Korea   
TEL : +82-2-888-6558    FAX : +82-2-888-6559   
E-mail : editor@animbiosci.org               

Copyright © 2024 by Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next