Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of additions on ensiling and microbial community of senesced wheat straw

  • Published:
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Crop residues collected during or after grain harvest are available once per year and must be stored for extended periods. The combination of air, high moisture, and high microbial loads leads to shrinkage during storage and risk of spontaneous ignition. Ensiling is a wet preservation method that could be used to store these residues stably. To economically adapt ensiling to biomass that is harvested after it has senesced, the need for nutrient, moisture, and microbial additions must be determined. We tested the ensiling of senesced wheat straw in sealed columns for 83 d. The straw was inoculated with Lactobacillus plantarum and amended with several levels of water and free sugars. The ability to stabilize the straw polysaccharides was strongly influenced by both moisture and free sugars. Without the addition of sugar, the pH increased from 5.2 to as much as 9.1, depending on moisture level, and losses of 22% of the cellulose and 21% of the hemicellulose were observed. By contrast, when sufficient sugars were added and interstitial water was maintained, a final pH of 4.0 was attainable, with correspondingly low (<5%) losses of cellulose and hemicellulose. The results show that ensiling should be considered a promising method for stable storage of wet biorefinery feedstocks.

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

Access this article

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

References

  1. Arthur D. Little, Inc. (2001), Final Report, United States Department of Energy, Reference No. 71038, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA, http://www.adltechnology.com.

  2. Energy Information Administration. (1996), DOE/EIA-0383(96), United States Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sheehan, J. and Himmel, M. (1999), Biotechnol. Prog. 15(3), 817–827.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Office of Industrial Technologies. (1999), DOE/GO-10099-706, United States Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Office of the Biomass Program. (2003), DOE/NE-ID-11129, United States Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kocsis, K. (1987), in Biomass Energy: From Harvest to Storage. Ferrero, G. L., Grassi, G., and Williams, H. E., eds., Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK, pp. 144–156.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sokhansanj, S., Cushman, J., and Wright, L. (2003), Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. Sci. Res. Dev., vol. 5 (on-line), http://cigr-ejournal.tamu.edu.

  8. Atchison, J. E. and Hettenhaus, J. R. (2003), Subcontract No. ACO-1-31042-01, NREL, Golden, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gray, B. F., Griffiths, J. F., and Hasko, S. M. (1984), J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 34A, 453–463.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Shinners, K. J., Binversie, B. N., and Savoie, P. (2003), Paper 036088 in Proceedings of the 2003 ASAE Annual Meeting, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wilkinson, J. M., Bolsen, K. K., and Lin, C. J. (2003), in Silage Science and Technology Agronomy Monograph 42, Buxton, D. R., Muck, R. E., and Harrison, J. H. eds., ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Woolford, M. K. (1985), in Microbiology of Fermented Foods, vol. 2, Wood, B. J. B., ed., Elsevier Applied Science, New York, pp. 85–112.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rotz, C. A. and Muck, R. E. (1994), in Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization, Fahey, G.C. Jr. ed., ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 828–868.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Buxton, D. R., Muck, R. E., and Harrison, J. H. (eds.). (2003), Silage Science and Technology, Agronomy Monograph 42, ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ohmomo, S., Tanaka, O., Kitamoto, H. K., and Cai, Y. (2002), JARQ 36(2), 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Roberts, C. A. (1995), in Post-Harvest Physiology and Preservation of Forages, CSSA Special Publication 22, Moore, K. J. and Peterson, M. A., eds., CSSA-ASA, Madison, WI, pp. 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Buxton, D. R. and O’Kiely, P. O. (2003), in Silage Science and Technology, Agronomy Monograph No. 42, Buxton, D. R., Muck, R. E., and Harrison, J. H. eds., ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 199–250.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Muck, R. E., Moser, L. E., and Pitt, R. E. (2003), in Silage Science and Technology. Agronomy Monograph 42, Buxton, D. R., Muck, R. E., and Harrison, J. H. eds., ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 250–304.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pahlow, G., Muck, R. E., Driehus, F., Oude Elferink, S. J. W. H., and Spoelstra, S. F. (2003), in Silage Science and Technology, Agronomy Monograph 42, Buxton, D. R., Muck, R. E., and Harrison, J. H., eds., ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 31–93.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kung L., Jr., Stokes, M. R., and Lin, C. J. (2003), in Silage Science and Technology, Agronomy Monograph 42, Buxton, D. R., Muck, R. E., and Harrison, J. H. eds., ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 305–360.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thompson, D. N., Lacey, J. A., and Shaw, P. G. (2003), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 105–108, 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Saeman, J. F., Bubl, J. L., and Harris, E. E. (1945), Ind. Eng. Chem. 17, 35–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Thompson, D. N., Chen, H.-C., and Grethlein, H. E. (1992), Bioresour. Technol. 39, 155–163.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. United States Sugar Corporation. (2001), Molasses Composition, United States Sugar Corporation, Molasses & Liquid Feeds Division, Clewiston, FL, http://www.sugalik.com/molasses/composition.html.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Moon, N. J., Ely, L. O., and Sudweeks, E. M. (1985), US patent 4,528,199.

  26. Moon, N. J., Ely, L. O., and Sudweeks, E. M. (1981), J. Dairy Sci. 64(5), 807–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jarvis, B. (1973), J. Appl. Bacteriol. 36(4), 723–727.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Weiss, W. P., Chamberlain, D. G., and Hunt, C. W. (2003), in Silage Science and Technology, Agronomy Monograph 42, Buxton, D. R., Muck, R. E., and Harrison, J. H., eds., ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI. pp. 469–504.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Holzer, M., Mayrhuber, E., Danner, H., and Braun, R. (2003), Trends Biotechnol. 21(6), 282–287.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. McDonald, P., Henderson, A. R., and Heron, S. E. (1991), The Biochemistry of Silage, Chalcombe Publications, Marlo, UK.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David N. Thompson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thompson, D.N., Barnes, J.M. & Houghton, T.P. Effect of additions on ensiling and microbial community of senesced wheat straw. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 121, 21–46 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1385/ABAB:121:1-3:0021

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1385/ABAB:121:1-3:0021

Index Entries

Navigation