Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Xylanase and lactic acid bacteria mediated bioconversion of rice straw co-ensiled with pea waste and wet brewers’ grains as potential livestock feed

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

Abstract

Ensiling straw for livestock feeding is an emerging technique for addressing the fodder shortage in the country, as it optimizes nutrient storage and utilization. In this study, rice straw was mixed with pea waste (pods) and brewer’s grains in the ratio of 35:50:15 respectively, and ensiled in triplicate, with mini-silos opened and sampled at intervals of 30, 40, and 50 days.. These ingredients were mixed with exogenous fibrolytic enzyme (EFE, xylanase; X derived from Trichoderma citrinoviride, 1500 IU/kg), coupled with either a solitary homofermentative inoculant (Pediococcus acidilactici NCDC 609; PA), heterofermentative inoculant (Leuconostoc mesenteroides NCDC 421; LM), or a combination of both. Ensiling of peapods, brewer’s grain, and additives reduced (p<0.05) pH from 4.4 to 3.9 (control vs combination of xylanase with homo and heterofermentative bacteria (X+PA+LM group), ammonia-N from 0.20 to 0.18% of DM (control vs X+PA+LM group), butyric acid (0.0114 to 0.0110% of DM), and fiber content from 39.91 to 37.20% of DM (control vs X+PA+LM group) in the treatment groups in which ingredients were supplemented with a combination of homofermentative and heterofermentative bacteria with the exogenous enzyme at all time intervals, i.e., 30th, 40th, and 50th days. However, the best quality silage in terms of pH, lactic acid content, and NH3-N was formed after 50 days of fermentation. The addition of enzymes solubilized the fiber-bound nitrogen fraction of ingredients and made it available to LAB, hence enhancing (p<0.05) its crude protein content. Therefore, it is advisable to ensile the rice straw with peapods and brewer’s grain in the suggested ratio to meet the feed demands of livestock and address environmental issues.

Graphical Abstract

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data underlying the results are part of the manuscript and no additional source data are required.

Abbreviations

NFC:

non-fibrous carbohydrates

NDF:

neutral Detergent Fiber

ADF:

acid detergent fiber

TDN:

total digestible nutrients

ME:

metabolizable energy

LAB:

lactic acid bacteria

PCA:

principal component analysis

NDICP:

neutral detergent insoluble crude protein

ADICP:

acid detergent insoluble crude protein

LP:

Lactobacillus plantarum

LF:

Lactobacillus fermenum

LM:

Leuconostoc mesenteriodes

PA:

Pediococcus acidilactici

CP:

crude protein

EFE:

exogenous fibrolytic enzyme

References

  1. Gandhi VP, Zhou Z (2014) Food demand and the food security challenge with rapid economic growth in the emerging economies of India and China. Food Res Int 63:108–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Singh DN, Bohra JS, Tyagi V, Singh T, Banjara TR, Gupta G (2022) A review of India’s fodder production status and opportunities. Grass Forage Sci 77(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shit N (2019) Hydroponic fodder production: an alternative technology for sustainable livestock production in India. Explorat Anim Med Res 9(2)

  4. Mengqi Z, Shi A, Ajmal M et al (2023) Comprehensive review on agricultural waste utilization and high-temperature fermentation and composting. Biomass Conv Bioref 13:5445–5468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01438-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Abid K, Boudagga S, Abid O et al (2023) Bioconversion of grape pomace waste into suitable alternative feed for ruminants with Pleurotus cornucopiae and Ganoderma resinaceum via solid-state fermentation bioprocess. Biomass Conv Bioref. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-04771-z

  6. Aro SO, Dominic SO, Kehinde-Olayanju OA et al (2022) Microbial conversion and biovalorization of fermented cassava waste biomass into livestock-based diets. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery: 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02601-2

  7. Jabri J, Abid K, Yaich H, Malek A, Rekhis J, Kamoun M (2023) Enzymatic valorization of alkali-treated chickpea straw and sunflower stalks as high fibrous agricultural wastes for sustainable ruminant nutrition. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-04659-y

  8. Yafetto L, Odamtten GT, Wiafe-Kwagyan M (2023) Valorization of agro-industrial wastes into animal feed through microbial fermentation: a review of the global and Ghanaian case. Heliyon 9(23). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14814

  9. Bhuvaneshwari S, Hettiarachchi H, Meegoda JN (2019) Crop residue burning in India: policy challenges and potential solutions. Int j environ res public health 16(5):832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kogo T, Yoshida Y, Koganei K, Matsumoto H, Watanabe T, Ogihara J, Kasumi T (2017) Production of rice straw hydrolysis enzymes by the fungi Trichoderma reesei and Humicola insolens using rice straw as a carbon source. Biores technol 233:67–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hao W, Tian P, Zheng M, Wang H, Xu C (2020) Characteristics of proteolytic microorganisms and their effects on proteolysis in total mixed ration silages of soybean curd residue. Asian-Austral j anim sci 33(1):100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Thavasiappan V, Nanjappan K, Visha P, Napolean RE, Selvaraj P, Doraisamy KA (2020) In vitro rumen degradability study of wet brewer’s spent grain by modified rumen simulation technique (TANUVAS-RUSITEC TM). Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 9(5):1118–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Woodman HE, Evans RE (1944) The chemical composition and nutritive value of the pea-canning by-products (Green pea pods, pea-pod meal, pea-pod silage and molassed silage from pea haulms with pods). J Agricult Sci 34(3):155–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bakshi MPS, Wadhwa M, Makkar HP (2016) Waste to worth: vegetable wastes as animal feed. CABI Rev 2016:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sakai T (2017) Studies on utilization of by-products for ruminant feeds in tropical Asia. https://doi.org/10.14989/doctor.k20446

  16. Rajčáková L (2013) Possibilities of pea waste conservation. In: In 15th International Conference, Forage Conservation, High Tatras, Slovakia, 24-26 September 2013. Animal Production Research Centre Nitra, pp 103–104

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang Q, Yu Z, Wang X, Tian J (2018) Effects of inoculants and environmental temperature on fermentation quality and bacterial diversity of alfalfa silage. Anim Sci J 89(8):1085–1092

  18. Liu Y, Chen T, Sun R, Zi X, Li M (2022) Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum on silage fermentation and bacterial community of three tropical forages. Front Anim Sci 3:878909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ali N, Wang S, Zhao J, Dong Z, Li J, Nazar M, Shao T (2020) Microbial diversity and fermentation profile of red clover silage inoculated with reconstituted indigenous and exogenous epiphytic microbiota. Biores Technol 314:123606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Huys, G., Leisner, J., & Björkroth, J. (2012). The lesser LAB gods: Pediococcus, Leuconostoc, Weissella, Carnobacterium, and affiliated genera. Lactic Acid Bacteria: Microbiological and Functional Aspectspp, 93–121.

  21. Kung L Jr, Shaver RD, Grant RJ, Schmidt RJ (2018) Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. J dairy Sci 101(5):4020–4033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Arriola KG, Oliveira AS, Jiang Y, Kim D, Silva HM, Kim SC, Adesogan AT (2021) Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with Lactobacillus buchneri, with or without other bacteria, on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and performance of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 104(7):7653–7670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Taye D, Etefa M (2020) Review on improving nutritive value of forage by applying exogenous enzymes. Int J Veterin Sci Anim Husband 5:72–79

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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(1):771–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Beauchemin KA, Colombatto D, Morgavi DP, Yang WZ, Rode LM (2004) Mode of action of exogenous cell wall degrading enzymes for ruminants. Canad J Anim Sci 84(1):13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yang L, Yuan X, Li J, Dong Z, Shao T (2019) Dynamics of microbial community and fermentation quality during ensiling of sterile and nonsterile alfalfa with or without Lactobacillus plantarum inoculant. Biores technol 275:280–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Irawan A, Sofyan A, Ridwan R, Hassim HA, Respati AN, Wardani WW et al (2021) Effects of different lactic acid bacteria groups and fibrolytic enzymes as additives on silage quality: a meta-analysis. Biores Technol Rep 14:100654

    Google Scholar 

  28. Singh D, Johnson TA, Tyagi N, Malhotra R, Behare PV, Kumar S, Tyagi AK (2023) Synergistic effect of LAB strains (Lb. fermentum and Pediococcus acidilactisci) with exogenous fibrolytic enzymes on quality and fermentation characteristics of sugarcane tops silage. Sugar Tech 25(1):141–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chauhan N, Kumari N, Mishra DB, Mani V, Tyagi N (2023) Dynamic changes in microbial succession and fermentation profiles of sugarcane tops silage treated with exogenous enzymes and lactic acid bacteria following various duration of ensiling. Sugar Tech 25(3):592–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chauhan N, Kumari N, Mani V, Pradhan D, Gowane GR, Kumar S, Tyagi N (2023) Effects of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, Limosilactobacillus fermentum, and Propionic Acid on the fermentation process of sugarcane tops silages along with variations in ph, yeast and mould count after aerobic exposure. Waste Biomass Valori: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-023-02280-8

  31. Kung L Jr, Ranjit NK (2001) The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and other additives on the fermentation and aerobic stability of barley silage. J Dairy Sci 84(5):1149–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Barker SB, Summerson WH (1941) The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material. J Biolog Chem 138(2):535–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Moselhy MA, Borba JP, Borba AE (2015) Improving the nutritive value, in vitro digestibility and aerobic stability of Hedychium gardnerianum silage through application of additives at ensiling time. Anim Feed Sci Technol 206:8–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  35. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fibre neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. National Research Council (2001) Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th revised, 451st edn. National Academic Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tabacco E, Piano S, Cavallarin L, Bernardes TF, Borreani G (2009) Clostridia spore formation during aerobic deterioration of maize and sorghum silages as influenced by Lactobacillus buchneri and Lactobacillus plantarum inoculants. J appl microbiol 107(5):1632–1641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Snedecor GWC, William G (1989) Statistical methods/george w. Snedecor and william g. Cochran: 84–86

  39. Lee MRF, Scott MB, Tweed JKS, Minchin FR, Davies DR (2008) Effects of polyphenol oxidase on lipolysis and proteolysis of red clover silage with and without a silage inoculant (Lactobacillus plantarum L54). Anim Feed Sci Technol 144(1-2):125–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Khota W, Pholsen S, Higgs D, Cai Y (2017) Fermentation quality and in vitro methane production of sorghum silage prepared with cellulase and lactic acid bacteria. Asian-Australas j anim sci 30(11):1568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bilal MO (2008) Effect of molasses and corn as silage additives on cell wall fractions of Mott grass silage with different fermentation periods. J Anim Plant Sci 18(4):102–106

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kung L Jr, Taylor CC, Lynch MP, Neylon JM (2003) The effect of treating alfalfa with Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and nutritive value for lactating dairy cows. J dairy sci 86(1):336–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yan Y, Li X, Guan H, Huang L, Ma X, Peng Y et al (2019) Microbial community and fermentation characteristic of Italian ryegrass silage prepared with corn stover and lactic acid bacteria. Bioresource technol 279:166–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Chen L, Dong Z, Li J, Shao T (2019) Ensiling characteristics, in vitro rumen fermentation, microbial communities and aerobic stability of low-dry matter silages produced with sweet sorghum and alfalfa mixtures. J Sci Food Agricult 99(5):2140–2151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Zielińska K, Fabiszewska A, Stefańska I (2015) Different aspects of Lactobacillus inoculants on the improvement of quality and safety of alfalfa silage. Chilean j agricult res 75(3):298–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kleinschmit DH, Kung L Jr (2006) A meta-analysis of the effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn and grass and small-grain silages. J dairy Sci 89(10):4005–4013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Blajman JE, Vinderola G, Paez RB, Signorini ML (2020) The role of homofermentative and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria for alfalfa silage: a meta-analysis. J Agricult Sci 158(1-2):107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Li R, Jiang D, Zheng M, Tian P, Zheng M, Xu C (2020) Microbial community dynamics during alfalfa silage with or without clostridial fermentation. Scie rep 10(1):17782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Li J, Shen Y, Cai Y (2010) Improvement of fermentation quality of rice straw silage by application of a bacterial inoculant and glucose. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 23(7):901–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Yadav, S. K. (2018). The effect of lactic acid bacterial inoculants and exogenous enzymes on maize silage quality and nutrient utilisation in buffalo calves (Doctoral dissertation ICAR-NDRI KARNAL).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Oladosu Y, Rafii MY, Abdullah N, Magaji U, Hussin G, Ramli A, Miah G (2016) Fermentation quality and additives: a case of rice straw silage. BioMed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7985167

  52. Zhao J, Dong Z, Li J, Chen L, Bai Y, Jia Y, Shao T (2019) Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses on fermentation dynamics, structural and nonstructural carbohydrate composition and in vitro ruminal fermentation of rice straw silage. Asian-Australas j anim sci 32(6):783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. He L, Zhou W, Xing Y, Pian R, Chen X, Zhang Q (2020) Improving the quality of rice straw silage with Moringa oleifera leaves and propionic acid: fermentation, nutrition, aerobic stability and microbial communities. Bioresource technol 299:122579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Guo XS, Ding WR, Han JG, Zhou H (2008) Characterization of protein fractions and amino acids in ensiled alfalfa treated with different chemical additives. Anim feed sci technol 142(1-2):89–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Du W, Hou F, Tsunekawa A, Kobayashi N, Ichinohe T, Peng F (2019) Effects of the diet inclusion of common vetch hay versus alfalfa hay on the body weight gain, nitrogen utilization efficiency, energy balance, and enteric methane emissions of crossbred Simmental cattle. Animals 9(11):983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Coblentz WK, Abdelgadir IEO, Cochran RC, Fritz JO, Fick WH, Olson KC, Turner JE (1999) Degradability of forage proteins by in situ and in vitro enzymatic methods. J dairy sci 82(2):343–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJE (1991) The biochemistry of silage. Chalcombe Publications

  58. Buxton DR (2003) In: Muck RE, Harrison JH (eds) Silage science and technology. American Society of Agronomy, Madison WI USA

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  59. Tao L, Zhou H, Zhang NF, Si BW, Tu Y, Ma T, Diao QY (2016) Changes in carbohydrate and protein fractions during ensiling of alfalfa treated with previously fermented alfalfa juice or lactic acid bacteria inoculants. Anim Product Sci 58(3):577–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kour M, Lamba JS, Grewal RS, Chahal US, Malhotra P, Nayyar S (2023) Effect of urea, biological inoculant, molasses and fiber degrading enzymes on in vitro ruminal fermentation of paddy straw silage. J Anim Res 13(01):63–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Heinl S, Grabherr R (2017) Systems biology of robustness and flexibility: Lactobacillus buchneri—a show case. J Biotechnol 257:61–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Zhang Y, Wang M, Usman S, Li F, Bai J, Zhang J, Guo X (2023) Lignocellulose conversion of ensiled Caragana korshinskii Kom. facilitated by Pediococcus acidilactici and cellulases. Microbial Biotechnol 16(2):432–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Mu L, Wang Q, Wang Y, Zhang Z (2023) Effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentative profile, bacterial diversity, and in vitro degradation of mixed silage of agro-residue and alfalfa. Chem Biolog Technol Agricult 10(1):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  64. Gao R, Yuan X, Zhu W, Wang X, Chen S, Cheng X, Cui Z (2012) Methane yield through anaerobic digestion for various maize varieties in China. Bioresource Technol 118:611–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Kung L Jr ((2010)) Aerobic stability of silage. In: Proc. 2010 California Alfalfa and Forage Symposium and Crop/cereal Conference, vol 2, Visalia CA USA

  66. Liu Q, Zhang J, Shi S, Sun Q (2011) The effects of wilting and storage temperatures on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of stylo silage. Animal Sci J 82(4):549–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Gerlach K, Roß F, Weiß K, Büscher W, Südekum KH (2013) Changes in maize silage fermentation products during aerobic deterioration and effects on dry matter intake by goats. Agricult Food Sci 22(1):168–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Kleinschmit DH, Kung L Jr (2006) The effects of Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 and Pediococcus pentosaceus R1094 on the fermentation of corn silage. J Dairy Sci 89(10):3999–4004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Pedroso ADF, Rodrigues ADA, Barioni Júnior W, Souza GBD (2011) Fermentation parameters, quality and losses in sugarcane silages treated with chemical additives and a bacterial inoculant. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 40:2318–2322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ren F, He R, Zhou X, Gu Q, Xia Z, Liang M et al (2019) Dynamic changes in fermentation profiles and bacterial community composition during sugarcane top silage fermentation: a preliminary study. Bioresource technol 285:121315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Koc F, Coskuntuna L, Ozduven L (2008) The effect of bacteria+ enzyme mixture silage inoculant on the fermentation characteristic, cell wall contents and aerobic stabilities of maize silage. Pakist J Nutr 7(2):222–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Kilic U (2010) Nutritive values of whole-crop wheat hay and silage and effect of microbial inoculants on in vitro gas production. J Appl Animal Res 37(1):67–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Weinberg ZG, Muck RE, Weimer PJ, Chen Y, Gamburg M (2004) Lactic acid bacteria used in inoculants for silage as probiotics for ruminants. Appl biochem biotechnol 118:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Zhang F, Wang X, Lu W, Li F, Ma C (2019) Improved quality of corn silage when combining cellulose-decomposing bacteria and Lactobacillus buchneri during silage fermentation. BioMed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4361358

  75. Gallo A et al (2016) Use of principal factor analysis to generate a corn silage fermentative quality index to rank well-or poorly preserved forages. J Sci Food Agricult 96(5):1686–1696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Tahir M, Li J, Xin Y, Wang T, Chen C, Zhong Y, Zhang L, Liu H, He Y, Wen X, Yan Y (2023) Response of fermentation quality and microbial community of oat silage to homofermentative lactic acid bacteria inoculation. Front Microbiol 13:1091394. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1091394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Santos AO, Ávila CDS, Schwan RF (2013) Selection of tropical lactic acid bacteria for enhancing the quality of maize silage. J Dairy Sci 96(12):7777–7789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Gordon FJ, Porter MG, Mayne CS, Unsworth EF, Kilpatrick DJ (1995) Effect of forage digestibility and type of concentrate on nutrient utilization by lactating dairy cattle. J Dairy Res 62(1):15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the Director, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana, for providing the facility to conduct the research work and the financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Animal Nutrition Division, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, -132001, Karnal, Haryana, India

    Vishal Gohar, Rashika Srivastava, Deepesh Mishra, Nutan Chauhan, Sachin Kumar & Nitin Tyagi

  2. Dairy Microbiology Division ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, -132001, Karnal, Haryana, India

    Pradip V. Behare

  3. Animal Genetics and Breeding Division, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, -132001, Karnal, Haryana, India

    Gopal Gowane

Authors
  1. Vishal Gohar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rashika Srivastava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deepesh Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nutan Chauhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sachin Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pradip V. Behare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gopal Gowane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nitin Tyagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Vishal Goher: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, validation, writing – original draft. Rashika Srivastava and Deepesh Mishra: visualization, graph development, review & editing of manuscript. Sachin Kumar and Nutan Chauhan: laboratory work, review & editing of the manuscript. Pradip Behare and Gopal Gowane: laboratory work, formal analysis, software. Nitin Tyagi: conceptualization, data curation, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nitin Tyagi.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

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

Gohar, V., Srivastava, R., Mishra, D. et al. Xylanase and lactic acid bacteria mediated bioconversion of rice straw co-ensiled with pea waste and wet brewers’ grains as potential livestock feed. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-024-05491-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-024-05491-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation