Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Sep 5;20(9):e0331467. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331467

Formulation of silages from spent mushroom substrates of Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes: Organoleptic properties, phenolic content, in vitro digestibility, gas production and ruminal kinetics

Angélica Valeria Lorenzana-Moreno 1,#, Diana Victoria Valdés-Meléndez 2,#, Hermilo Leal Lara 3, José Moisés Talamantes-Gómez 2, Augusto César Lizarazo-Chaparro 1, Claudia C Márquez-Mota 2,*
Editor: Agung Irawan4
PMCID: PMC12412943  PMID: 40911565

Abstract

To fulfill the global demand for sustainable livestock production and the implementation of circular economy models, the search for alternative feed sources to lower production cost has increased significantly. The use of agro-industrial waste has proven to be a low-cost strategy for animal feed. The present study evaluates the use of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) from Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) and Lentinula edodes (strain L5) as an ingredient for silage. A total of eight micro-silages were formulated using SMS and ground yellow corn in the following proportions (%SMS: % corn): 100:0, 90:10, 80:20 and 70:30. Differences in the nutritional composition, secondary metabolite content, in vitro digestibility (IVDMD), and fermentation parameters were evaluated. Organoleptic analysis showed that silages with 70% SMS had better color and odor profile compared with silages with 80, 90 and 100% SMS. Lentinula edodes silages had the highest content of phenolic compounds (8.2–9.0 mg GAE/g DM) compared with Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) silages. Silages with 70% SMS inclusion had higher IVDMD. Silages with 70% Lentinula edodes (strain L5) SMS had the highest gas production and Silages with 70% Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) SMS showed a shorter lag phase. Overall, the results obtained in the present study indicate that the formulation of silages with 70% of SMS had good organoleptic characteristics and nutritional qualities that improves IVDMD, and fermentative parameters and they therefore could be used as animal feed. Further, in vivo studies are recommended to fully evaluate the possible health effects of these silages on animal health and to evaluate its impact on production cost.

Introduction

Recently, global interest in economic development and circular economy has increased significantly to enhance sustainable food production and manage agro-industrial waste more effectively. Circular economy models focus on reducing waste generation and enhancing the use of resources by repurposing by-products into valuable inputs for other systems [1]. For instance, in animal feed. By-products such as citrus pulp, grape pomace, olive leaves, mango and avocado residues have been successfully used in the animal feed of pigs, poultry and ruminants [24].

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development states that actions must be taken to battle climate change, promote health and education, reduce poverty, and boost economic growth [5,6]. One strategy used to increase economic growth following circular economy principles is the production of edible mushrooms. Edible mushrooms like Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes can grow on several agro-industrial waste, such as corn stover [7], crop residues, cotton stalks [8], paper scraps and spent coffee grounds [9], etc. These characteristics make mushroom cultivation not only environmentally sustainable but also economically feasible.

It is predicted that the global market for mushrooms will grow exponentially over the next five years [10]. However, the increase in mushroom production will lead to a rise in the generation of by-products, specifically spent mushroom substrate (SMS) [11]. It is estimated that for every kilogram of produce mushroom, a total of 5 kg of SMS is generated [12]. This by-product is a mixture of modified lignin and mycelium residues, rich in protein, cellulose, chitin, and bioactive compounds [13]. SMS has been successfully used as fertilizer, for substrate in the cultivation of other edible mushrooms, as a biosorbent, and, due to its nutritional properties, as animal feed [1416]. The use of SMS in livestock feeding may reduce production expenses and decrease the use of conventional feed ingredients.

Several studies have demonstrated the SMS could be used as a feed source for livestock [12]. Previous in vitro studies in sheep demonstrated that SMS from Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes significantly enhances the in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) up to 47.7% [7]. However, to efficiently use SMS as animal feed, it is necessary to preserve it. SMS is a residue with a 60% moisture content; therefore, ensiling the material might enhance its shelf life and preserve its nutritional quality. Fermentation of SMS with cellulolytic bacteria such as Enterobacter spp. and Bacillus spp improved growth performance and carcass trait of Hanwoo steers [14], indicating that the fermentation of the SMS does not affect its nutritional value and that it could be used as a replacement for conventional roughage.

It has been well documented that fruiting bodies of fungi are an important source of secondary metabolites (SM) with several biological activities such as antioxidant, anti-cancer, anti- inflammatory among others [17]. However, less studies have been published bout the presence of SM in SMS, recent studies of these compounds in SMS are mainly focused on its antibacterial, antifungal and antiparasitic activity [18,19] yet their potential effects on digestibility and fermentative parameters in ruminants should be further explored.

The benefits of fungal treatment of lignocellulosic biomass have been documented in recent studies. For instance, Vorlaphim et al [20] demonstrated that rice stubble treated with Pleurotus ostreatus and urea enhances the nutrient digestibility and growth in slow-growing goats. Similarly, a study performed on Awassi Lambs showed that the SMS could replace up to 15% of barley without changes in carcass characteristics [21]. In a study conducted in Berari Goats it was observed that the inclusion of 10% of SMS in a concentrated mixture improved body condition score, blood glucose, and hemoglobin levels indicating its potential to enhance animal growth performance [22]. Even though the effectiveness of SMS on animal nutrition has been well documented, less studies have focused on the silage of dried residues. As previously stated, due to its high moisture content, ensiling SMS is recommended to improve preservation and feeding safety. It has been demonstrated that ensiling high moisture content biomass enhances fermentation quality and nutrient retention [23].

We hypothesized that preservation of SMS through ensiling will increase its nutritional quality and would not affect the SM content, improving its digestibility. In the present study the SMS from Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) and Lentinula edodes (strain L5) were used due to its capacity to grow on substrates formulated with corn stover, as well, for their nutritional value, and documented bioactive properties, making their residues particularly suitable for valorization in animal nutrition. Thus, in the present study we evaluated the nutritional quality, SM content, in vitro digestibility and fermentative parameters of different SMS silages from Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) and Lentinula edodes (strain L5).

Materials and methods

Animal management and treatments

The research protocol (711) used in the present study was reviewed and approved by the Internal Committee for the Care and Use of Animals (CICUA) of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, National Autonomous University of Mexico (FMVZ, UNAM). Experiments were carried out at the Center for Practical Teaching and Research in Animal Production and Health (CEPIPSA).

Collection of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) and silage formulation

For the preparation of silages, residual substrates from the production of the mushrooms Lentinula edodes (strain L5) and Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) were used. The cultivation substrate comprised 80% corn stover, 6% ground sorghum, 4% wheat bran, 5% corn gluten, 4% CaCO3 and 1% CaSO4, which were prepared, sterilized and inoculated in the facilities of a commercial company (Hongos Leben, State of Mexico, Mexico). Once inoculated, the substrates were taken to the Department of Food Science and Biotechnology, Faculty of Chemistry (UNAM) and placed in the fruiting room as previously reported [7].

After fructification, the SMS were taken to the Center for Practical Teaching and Research in Animal Production and Health (CEPIPSA, FMVZ-UNAM) where a total of eight silages were formulated (Table 1). The silages were mixed on a smooth, clean concrete surface measuring approximately 2 x 2 meters, using a shovel. The mixture was based on SMS, to which the appropriate amount of ground yellow corn was gradually added. Once a completely homogeneous mixture was achieved, it was placed into white plastic containers with an approximate capacity of 2.2 kg per silage. The containers were filled in layers of approximately 5 cm in thickness, with each layer being compacted before adding the next. Once the container was full, the maximum amount of air was removed using a vacuum pump, and the lid was sealed with hot silicone.

Table 1. Silage formulation.

Treatment SMS Ground yellow corn
Lentinula edodes (strain L5) Pleurotus ostreatus
(strain Po-IAP)
Composition (%)
L100 100 0
L90 90 10
L80 80 20
L70 70 30
P100 100 0
P90 90 10
P80 80 20
P70 70 30

The inclusion of the ingredients was established on a wet basis, with a total of 32 micro- silages of approximately 3 kg where elaborated (4 replicates for each treatment). All micro-silages were kept in the shade, in a dry place, and at room temperature until they were opened after 35 days.

Analysis of the micro-silages

Organoleptic characteristics and pH of the micro-silages.

The organoleptic characteristics and pH of the micro-silages were evaluated immediately upon opening. The organoleptic characteristics of micro-silages were evaluated through a qualitative/ quantitative criterion. For such purposes, a score system is proposed based on the presence or absence of certain characteristics of the sample. Six variables were evaluated: moisture (M), fungal spots (FS), color (C), particle size (PS), odor (O) and spots between layers (SBL) each variable was scored as 0.5 (inadequate), 0.75 (regular) and 1.0 (adequate). According to the criteria established in Table 2.

Table 2. Organoleptic analysis of silage.
Variable Inadequate
(0.5)
Regular
(0.75)
Adequate
(1.0)
Fungal Spots (FS) Thick layer on the entire surface Light layer in certain parts Absence
Color (C) Black or dark brown Tobacco brown Light brown
Particle Size (PS) Greater than 5 cm or less than 1 cm Greater than 2.5 cm or less than 5 cm Between 1–2.5 cm
Odor (O) Acidic and irritating Musty smell Slightly acidic fermentation, sweet and fermented
Spots between layers (SBL) More than 30% Less than 20% Absence

For pH measurement, 10g of silage mixed with 90 mL of deionized water and incubated 30 min at room temperature, after which the sample was filtered in a 1 mm mesh and pH was measured with OAKTON® potentiometer [24].

Chemical analysis of micro-silages.

The chemical composition of the micro-silages was analyzed according to the protocols from the AOAC [25]. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose contents were also analyzed [26].

Determination of mycotoxin by thin layer chromatography (TLC).

Mycotoxin determination was performed according to the protocol from Hyde, W et al., 1977, with slight modifications [27]. Briefly, for mycotoxin extraction, 25g of silage samples were homogenized during 5 minutes with 100 mL extraction buffer of acetonitrile and potassium chloride (9:1 ratio) (acetonitrile: Sigma-Aldrich, cat-34988; potassium chloride: Sigma-Aldrich, cat-P80911). After homogenization the samples were filtered using separatory funnel. To recover the aqueous phase (extract), two consecutive washes with 50mL of petroleum ether (Sigma-Aldrich, cat-673838) were performed.

A decolorizing gel was prepared using 100 mL of deionized water, 10 mL of iron chloride (10%) (Sigma-Aldrich, cat-157740) adjusted to pH 4.2–4.6 with sodium hydroxide (4%) (Sigma-Aldrich, cat-221465). The complete aqueous phase and decolorizing gel were mixed in a beaker and placed in an orbital shaker (Heathrow Scientific-Digital Orbital Shaker) for 3 minutes. The mixture was then filtered through filter paper.

A final purification was carried out using separatory funnel by adding 50 mL of chloroform (Sigma-Aldrich, cat-319988) to the decolorized sample. After mixing, the chloroform phase was discarded. This step was repeated twice. The residual water was removed by adding sodium sulfate (Sigma-Aldrich, cat-238597). The remaining chloroform was evaporated in a water bath at 36°C while applying nitrogen at a fixed and constant pressure. Finally, the dry samples were resuspended in 500 μL of an acetonitrile and benzene mixture (2:98%) (acetonitrile: Sigma-Aldrich, cat-34988; benzene: Sigma-Aldrich, cat-319953).

For the TLC analysis, a silica plate (Macherey-Nagel ®) was spotted with 30 µL of each extract and standard solutions for Aflatoxin B1 (Sigma-Aldrich, cat-A6636), Zearalenone (Sigma-Aldrich, cat-Z2125), and Ochratoxin A (Sigma-Aldrich, cat-CRM46912). The presence of mycotoxins was observed by UV light after TLC development.

Quantification of total phenolic compounds tannins of micro-silages

Sample preparation.

200 mg of defatted sample was suspended in 10 mL acetone (70%) (J.T. Baker ®), the suspension was sonicated (CS-UB100) for 20 min at room temperature. After sonication, the sample was centrifuged (Thermo Scientific – Sorval Biofuge PrimoR) at 3000 g for 10 min at 4°C. The supernatant was collected in an amber bottle, while the pellet was resuspended in 10 mL of 70% ethanol, and the extraction process was repeated. The supernatant of both extractions was combined in the same amber bottle and stored at 4°C for further analysis [28].

Measurement of total phenolic compounds.

Total phenolic compounds were determined by spectrophotometry using a modified Folin-Ciocalteu assay [29]. Briefly, 150 μL of extract was mixed with 150 μL of 1:1 Folin-Ciocalteu reagent (Sigma-Aldrich, cat 47641) and incubated in the dark for 5 minutes. After incubation 1.2 mL of sodium bicarbonate (Sigma-Aldrich, cat S8875) was added, samples were mixed and incubated for 45 min in the dark. The quantification was performed using a standard curve of gallic acid (Sigma-Aldrich, cat 398225) at concentrations of 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50 and 100 ug/mL. Absorbance was measured at 760nm using a spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific G10 UV-vis Bio) at 760 nm. Phenolic content is expressed as a mg gallic acid equivalent per gram of dry matter (mg GAE/gDM).

Measurement of total tannins.

For tannin measurement, 1 mL extract was mixed with 100 mg of polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP) (Sigma-Aldrich, cat-77627) and incubated for 15 min at 4°C. After incubation, the samples were centrifuged (Thermo Scientific – Sorval Biofuge PrimoR) at 3000 g for 15 min at 4°C and the supernatant was collected and analyzed as previously described by the Folin-Ciocalteu assay. The quantification was performed using a standard curve of tannic acid (Sigma-Aldrich, cat-403040) at concentrations of 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50 and 100 ug/mL. Absorbance was measured at 760nm using a spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific G10 UV-vis Bio) at 760 nm. Tannin content is expressed as a mg tannic acid equivalent per gram of dry matter (mg TAE/gDM) [28].

In vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), gas production and fermentation profile of SMS micro-silages

Sample preparation.

Samples from each micro-silages were dried (50°C) and milled to pass through a 1 mm sieve and stored until analysis.

In vitro dry matter digestibility procedure.

The IVDMD was performed according to the technique proposed by Theodorou et al. (1994) [30] with slight modifications by Molho et al., (2022). Briefly, ruminal fluid was collected from five French Alpine goats (50–55 kg, 4 years old), previously conditioned for one week to a diet of SMS silage [31]. The sample was obtained using an esophageal [32] tube after a 12 hour fast, filtered through eight layers of cheesecloth, and then stored under anaerobic conditions at 39°C. To obtain rumen inoculum, rumen fluid was mixed with reduced and mineral solutions [33] in a ratio of 1:9 v/v. For incubation, 500 mg of dry sample was added to polyester bags with 67 μM pore size [34] and placed in 125 mL amber glass bottles (experimental unit), subsequently 60 mL of rumen inoculum was added under CO2 to maintain anaerobic conditions. A total of four bottles per treatment were used. Bottles with rumen inoculum and blank controls were hermetically sealed with rubber stoppers and aluminum caps and then placed in a water bath with lateral oscillation (30/min) at 39°C. Gas pressure (kg/cm2) was recorded at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48, 60, 72 hours using a digital manometer (Traceable®, Fisher Scientific, USA) [31].

At the end of the incubation stage, the bottles were opened for pH measurement (pH Tester model 30 Double Function®). Subsequently, 8 mL of the medium was taken from each flask and mixed with 2 mL of 25% (w/v) metaphosphoric acid (Sigma-Aldrich, cat-239275). The samples were stored at −20°C until analysis for volatile fatty acids (VFAs).

For IVDMD calculation, the polyester bags were washed with distilled water, dried at 55°C for 24 h, and weighed. IVDMD was calculated according to Equation 1.

IVDMD (%)= (DMinitial)(DMresidual) DMinitial×100                            (1)

Ruminal kinetics.

The gas pressure readings (kg/cm2) were transformed into volume with the linear regression equation) proposed by Ørskov and McDonald (1979), shown in Equation 2 [35].

GasVol= Pressure 0.109; R2=0.988                             (2)

The variables of the gas production kinetics: maximum volume of gas produced (Vmax), lag phase (L) and gas production rate (S), were obtained by means of a logistic model [36].

Determination of ammoniacal nitrogen and volatile fatty acid (VFA).

Samples preserved in metaphosphoric acid were thawed and centrifuged (Thermo Scientific – Sorval Biofuge PrimoR) at 3000 g for 25 min at 4°C, then decanted into amber glass bottles and kept refrigerated at 4°C until analysis. Ammoniacal nitrogen was determined using the modified McCollough technique (1967) [37], each sample was read at 630 nm (Thermo Scientific G10 UV-vis Bio) and analyzed in triplicate.

Volatile fatty acids were determined by gas chromatography using a Perkin Elmer AutoSystem XL with autoinjector, analyzing each sample in triplicate as previously reported [31].

Statistical analysis

The data from the organoleptic analysis were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test to assess differences among treatments, revealing a significant effect (p ≤ 0.05). Dunn’s test with Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons, identifying significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) between treatments. Statistical analyses were conducted using the dunn.test function in R (version 4.3.2).

The data from the chemical analysis, total phenolic compounds and total tannins content were analyzed with the agricolae package in R (version 4.3.2). Values were compared by a one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05), according to the following model:

Yij = μi +ιi + ϵij

Where Yij = response variable, μ = general mean, ιi = effect of SMS silage at level i, j, and εij = effect of random error.

The data from the in vitro dry matter digestibility, gas production and fermentation profile of SMS micro-silage were analyzed as a 4 x 2 factorial experimental design in a completely randomized design. A two-way ANOVA was performed using the MIXED procedure of SAS (version), the comparison of means was performed using the Tukey test [38]. According to the following model:

Yij= μ + Ai + Bj + (AB)ij + Eijk

Where: Yijk = response variable in repetition k, i = 1,2, …a Level J of b, level i of A. j = 1,2, …b, µ = Overall mean, Ai = Effect of factor A at level I, Bj = Effect of factor B at level j, (AB)ij = Effect of the interaction AB at level i,j and Eijk = Random error

Results

Organoleptic characteristics and pH of the micro-silages

ThConclusionse physical and organoleptic characteristics of the silage, such as color, odor, and the presence or absence of fungi, are key indicators for determining its physical quality, which is closely related to the fermentation process. All the formulations used in this study were effective for ensiling SMS, however they showed different organoleptic characteristics (Table 3), all the treatment showed a light layer fungal spots in certain parts, the best color (p < 0.05) was observed in the Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) micro-silages (P100-P70), there was no difference in particle size among the micro-silages, the micro-silages formulated with Lentinula edodes (strain L5) showed the most acidic (p < 0.05) and irritating odor of all the treatments. Treatments L90, L80, L70, P80 and P70 did not show spots between layers, meanwhile L100, P100 and P80 showed less than 20% of spots between layers. The micro-silages with the highest score were P80 and P70. pH is also one of the most important indicators of silage quality, as a low pH reflects efficient fermentation and is associated with the inhibition of undesirable microorganisms. The highest pH was observed in L100 and P100 treatments and the lowest pH was observed in L70 and P70 treatments.

Table 3. Organoleptic characteristics of micro-silages from SMS of Lentinula edodes (strain L5) and Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP).

Treatment Organoleptic characteristics pH
FS C PS O SBL
L100 0.75 1a 0.88 0.5d 0.88ab 5.1b
L90 0.88 0.94a 0.88 0.5d 1a 4.1c
L80 0.94 0.75b 1 0.5d 1a 4.0d
L70 0.88 0.94a 1 0.5d 1a 3.9e
P100 0.75 1a 1 0.75c 0.75b 5.3a
P90 0.88 1a 1 0.75c 0.88ab 4.1c
P80 0.81 1a 1 0.88b 1a 4.0d
P70 0.75 1a 1 1a 1a 3.9e
P-value 0.115 0.001 0.0715 0.001 0.001 0.001
SEM 0.02 0.017 0.014 0.034 0.019 0.093

L100–L70: Lentinula edodes (strain L5), with 100%–70% mushroom and 0%–30% ground yellow corn. P100–P70: Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP), with 100%–70% mushroom and 0%–30% ground yellow corn. FS: fungal spots; C: color; PS: Particle size; O: odor; SBL: spots between layers. The values are the mean, n = 4. SEM: standard error of the mean. Means in a column without a common letter differ from each other, p < 0.05. Chemical analysis of micro-silages.

The chemical composition of micro-silages formulated with different levels of SMS from Lentinula edodes (strain L5) and Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) is shown in Table 4. The highest ash content (P = 0.001) was observed in P100 (22.1%) and the lowest (P = 0.001) in L70 (9.6%). Crude protein content is in a range of 8.3% (L70) to 12.0% (P100). In the case of fiber fractions, the highest (P = 0.001) NDF level was observed in L80 (53.7%), and lowest level (P = 0.001) was observed in P70 (32.1%). ADF was 2.4-fold higher (P = 0.001) in L100 in comparison with L70, which had the lowest (P = 0.001) ADF content. Silage with 100% SMS (L100 and P100) had the highest cellulose content (P = 0.001) (21.4 and 18.9%, respectively) in comparison with silage with the lower (P = 0.001) content of SMS (L70 and P70). The highest (P = 0.001) hemicellulose content was observed in L80 (30.7%). The highest lignin (P = 0.001) content was observed in L100 and P100 (13.3 and 13.5%, respectively) and the lowest (P = 0.001) level in P70 (7.9%).

Table 4. Chemical composition of micro-silages from SMS of Lentinula edodes (strain L5) and Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP).

Treatment Composition (g/100g DM)
Ash CP NDF ADF Cel H L
L100 19.2b 11.6ab 50.4ab 41.5a 21.4a 9.0d 13.3a
L90 16.5c 11.4b 53.1a 39.6a 16.1c 13.5 cd 9.3bc
L80 13.4d 9.8c 53.7a 22.9 cd 12.7d 30.7a 7.1c
L70 9.6f 7.8e 43.1b 17.14 7.6e 25.9ab 7.0c
P100 22.1a 12.0a 44.6ab 37.3a 18.9b 7.2d 13.5a
P90 16.6c 11.1b 43.1b 32.1b 17.0c 11.0d 11.6ab
P80 13.1d 10.1c 47.7ab 27.7bc 15.8c 20.0bc 11.5ab
P70 10.6e 9.1d 32.1c 21.4de 11.6d 10.8d 7.9c
P-value 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
SEM 0.72 0.25 1.54 1.61 0.76 1.72 0.52

L100–L70: Lentinula edodes (strain L5), with 100%–70% mushroom and 0%–30% ground yellow corn. P100–P70: Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP), with 100%–70% mushroom and 0%–30% ground yellow corn CP: crude protein; DF: acid detergent fiber, NDF: neutral detergent fiber; ADF: acid detergent fiber; Cel: cellulose, H: hemicellulose, L: lignin. The values are the mean, n = 8. SEM: standard error of the mean. Means in a column without a common letter differ from each other, p < 0.05. Differences were determined by one-way ANOVA; Tukey’s test was used as a post-hoc test.

Determination of mycotoxin by thin layer chromatography (TLC)

The analysis of mycotoxin by thin layer chromatography demonstrated that none of the micro silages presentd contamination by Aflatoxin B1, Zearalenone and Ochratoxin A (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Mycotoxin determination by thin layer chromatography (TLC).

Fig 1

Lane A: standard of Aflatoxin B1, lane B: standard of Zearalenone, lane C Ochratoxin A, lane 1: corn stover, lane 2: non inoculated mushroom substrate, lane 3: SMS of Lentinula edodes (strain L5), lane 4: SMS of Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP), lane 5: P100, lane 6: P90, lane 7: P80, lane 8: P70, lane 9: L100, lane 10: L90, lane 11: L80, lane 12 L70.

Quantification of total phenolic compounds and tannins of micro-silages

The phenolic content of micro-silages formulated with different levels of SMS from Lentinula edodes (strain L5) and Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) is shown in Fig 2A. The highest concentration of polyphenols (P = 0.001) was in L100 (9.0 mg GAE/ g DM), followed by L90, L80 and L70 (8.6, 8.2 and 8.2 mg GAE/ g DM, respectively); meanwhile the lowest concentration of polyphenols (P = 0.001) was observed in all the Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) silage P100 (6.5 mg GAE/ g DM), P90 (6.4 mg GAE/ g DM), P80 (6.3 mg GAE/ g DM) and P70 (6.1 mg GAE/ g DM). No difference (P = 0.642) was observed in the tannin content (Fig 2B).

Fig 2. (A) Phenolic and (B) tannin content of micro-silage from SMS of Lentinula edodes (strain L5) and Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP). Values are means ± SEM, n = 3. Labeled means without a common letter differ, P <0.05, a > b > c.

Fig 2

In vitro rumen fermentation

A significant difference (P = 0.0096) was observed in the in vitro digestibility of dry matter (IVDMD) due to the interaction between the inclusion level and the SMS (Fig 3). Silages containing 70% inclusion of SMS (L70 and P70) exhibited higher digestibility in comparison to those made with 100% SMS (L100 and P100), showing a percentage difference of up to 20.6% between the two formulations. The main effect of inclusion level and SMS strain, as well as their interaction, are reported in S2 Table. Inclusion level had a significant effect on IVDMD (P < 0.0001), with lower inclusion (70%) resulted in higher IVDMD, while the main effect of fungal strain was not significant (P = 0.4642).

Fig 3. In vitro digestibility of dry matter of micro-silage from SMS of Lentinula edodes (strain L5) and Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP).

Fig 3

Values are means ± SEM, n = 60 Labeled means without a common letter differ, P <0.05, a > b > c.

Determination of ammoniacal nitrogen and pH

No differences in the pH level were observed after in vitro fermentation due to the interaction between the inclusion level and the SMS (P = 0.8954). However, a significant pH decrease (P < 0.0001) was observed in treatments with SMS of Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) in comparison with treatments with Lentinula edodes (strain L5). Additionally, treatments with higher inclusion of SMS showed the lower (P < 0.0001) pH concentration (S2 Table). The pH range after IVDMD varied from 6.72 for the formulation containing 70% SMS of Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) (P70) to 7.08 in the 100% SMS of Lentinula edodes (strain L5) formulation (Fig 4A).

Fig 4. (A) pH value and (B) ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3-N) after in vitro fermentation of micro-silages from SMS of Lentinula edodes (strain L5) and Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP). Values are means ± SEM, n = 60.

Fig 4

Similarly, the interaction between SMS strain and inclusion level, had not significant effects (P = 0.2924) on NH₃-N (Fig 4B), with the lowest (30.5 mg/dL) and highest (32.9 mg/dL) values recorded in P70 and L100, respectively. No effect was observed for the SMS (P = 0.3785). A significant decrease (P < 0.0001) was observed as the inclusion level diminished (S2 Table).

Ruminal kinetics

As observed in Fig 5B and 5D, there was an interaction between SMS strain and inclusion for maximum gas production (Vmax) and lag phase (L) (P < 0.001). Independently the strain, Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) or Lentinula edodes (strain L5), the silage formulated with 100% SMS inclusion produced a lower Vmax (P100: 113.3 mL/g DM; L100: 140.8 mL/g DM) than those made with 70% SMS (P70:274.4 mL/g DM; L70: 306.5 mL/g DM). The formulation that presented the highest Vmax was L70 (Fig 5B), corresponding to the silage made with 70% SMS of the Lentinula edodes (strain L5). It can also be observed that the Lentinula edodes (strain L5) SMS silages produced more gas (P< 0.05) than those made with Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-AIP) SMS. The main effects of Vmax and L are shown in S3 Table.

Fig 5. (A) Gas production, (B) maximum volume of gas produced (Vmax), (C) gas production rate (S), (D) lag phase (L) after in vitro fermentation of micro-silages from SMS of Lentinula edodes (strain L5) and Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP).

Fig 5

Values are means ± SEM, n = 60. Labeled means without a common letter differ, P  < 0.05, a > b > c.

No statistically significant differences (P = 0.1726) were observed in the gas production rate (S), for the interaction between SMS strain and inclusion level (Fig 5C). However, as the inclusion level increased a lower (P < 0.0001) gas production rate (S) was observed. In the same way, there was an effect due to SMS strain used, silages formulated with SMS from Lentinula edodes (strain L5) showed a higher (P = 0.0116) gas production rate (S) in comparison with silages of SMS from Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) (S3 Table).

Determination of volatile fatty acid (VFA)

In the case of VFA production, no significant differences (P= 0.2645) were due to the interaction between SMS strain and inclusion level observed between treatments (Fig 6A). However, there is a difference (P < 0.001) due to the inclusion level, where silages prepared with lower level of inclusion (70%) showed the higher VFA production (S3 Table). No differences (P = 0.3126) were observed due to the SMS strain (S4 Table).

Fig 6. (A) Total volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration, (B) acetic acid (%), (C) propionic acid (%) and (D) butyric acid (%) after in vitro fermentation of micro-silage from SMS of Lentinula edodes (strain L5) and Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP).

Fig 6

Values are means ± SEM, n = 20. Labeled means without a common letter differ, P < 0.05, a > b > c.

There were no significant differences in the production of acetic (Fig 6B) (P = 0.0655) and butyric acid (Fig 6D) (P = 0.1879) production for the interaction of SMS strain and inclusion level. In the case of acetic acid and butyric acid, it was observed that decreasing the inclusion level caused a reduction in its concentration (P < 0.0001 for both acids) (S4 Table). No significant differences were observed due to SMS strain on the production of acetic acid (P = 0.3126) or butyric acid P = 0.0638) (S4 Table).

Meanwhile, in the case of propionic acid production (Fig 6C), significantly higher (P = 0.0414) production was shown by treatments L90, L80 and P80, reaching 25.01%, 24.95%, and 24.87%, respectively. The main effects of propionic acid are shown in S4 Table.

Discussion

The present study demonstrated that ensiling of SMS from Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) and Lentinula edodes (strain L5) with an adequate carbohydrate source such as ground yellow corn is a viable alternative for the use of this agro-industrial waste as an animal feed, because it yields good quality silage with acceptable organoleptic characteristics and good nutritional quality with better in vitro digestibility and fermentation kinetics. Further in vivo studies are encouraged to validate the in vitro results and evaluate their impact on animal performance and metabolism.

The ever-growing demand for meat and dairy products has increased the demand of conventional forage crops for animal feed. As previously stated, one common practice of preserving these crops is through ensilaging. For instance, a widely used crop is the maize; however, its production is associated with intensive land use, biodiversity loss, and significant environmental impacts such as soil erosion [39]. Therefore, it has been an increase in the study of non-conventional sources of silage that not only enhances animal nutrition but also encourages circular economy. In this regard, a residue that has gained importance is the SMS, a residue generated from the cultivation of edible mushrooms.

When using non-conventional sources of silage, factors such as organoleptic characteristics should be considered, as they serve as a qualitative indicator of its quality. In the present study we considered the color, odor, the presence of fungal spots, particle size and spots between layers as parameters of the quality of the silages. It has been well stablished that the color of silage is mainly determined by factors such as, the color of the material to be ensilated [40] and the fermentation process. During the fermentation process, temperature increases as microorganisms break down carbohydrates releasing energy in the form of heat, as well as H₂O and CO₂ [41]. Prolonged respiration causes a greater temperature increase, which damages the color of the final product, mainly causing dark coloring [42]. In the present study most of the silages presented an acceptable light brown color (Table 3) suggesting good fermentation and an adequate compaction process of the material in the silo [40].

The silage particle size is an important factor in silage quality, because excessively long particles increase the chewing required to swallow the feed bolus, leading to longer rumination time, but shorter consumption time [43], which reduce dry matter intake (DMI). Kononoff et al. (2003) observed that as particle size decreased, DMI increased linearly [44]. Similarly, Kononoff and Heinrichs (2003) compared the effects of alfalfa with a mean geometric length ranging from 4.1 to 6.8 mm and found that daily feeding time increased by 36 min per day as silage particle size increased [45]. At the same time, DMI decreased by 3.3 kg/day. In the present study, the homogeneous particle size (1–2.5 cm; Table 3) obtained indicates that the silage could be used as an animal feed without affecting DMI, it is however necessary to perform further studies to evaluate its impact on animal performance.

The odor of the ensiled product is an indicator of physical quality and is closely related to the fermentation process [40]. In this study, the odor of the micro-silages was rated as adequate for those made with the Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP), while those made with Lentinula edodes (strain L5) received an inadequate rating (Table 3). Good silage has an acidic but not spicy aroma. This is because the bacteria that develop during an adequate fermentation process produce lactic acid [46]. In addition, a distinct aroma is a well-known characteristic of mushrooms from the Lentinula spp., family [47], suggesting that the odor detected in this silage was primarily associated with the fungal strain rather than an improper ensiling process.

Muck et al. (2018) emphasize that a low pH in silages is crucial for their stability and conservation, as it indicates efficient fermentation [48]. They explain that lactic acid production is the main factor responsible for the reduction of pH, which inhibits the growth of undesirable microorganisms that could deteriorate the silage. Additionally, a lower pH extends silage shelf life by preserving nutrients [49]. In the present study, the treatments that presented the lowest pH were L70 and P70 (3.9; Table 3), which is below that reported by various authors for silages made from alternative raw materials to corn [40,50,51], while the L100 and P100 formulations presented a higher pH (5.1 and 5.3, respectively; Table 3) than those reported by the same authors. Tahuk et al. (2020) consider silages with a pH lower than 4.4 to be of good quality, whereas those with a pH of 4.8 or higher are classified as poor quality [40]. They also associate high pH with the low content of soluble carbohydrates in the material to be ensiled. Another factor influencing pH is the availability of lactic acid-producing bacteria in the silage [49]. Lactic acid has the highest acidity compared to other organic acids formed during fermentation [48].

Finally, the absence of fungi indicates that the fermentation process was optimal. As previously stated, the acidic pH produced by lactic acid bacteria can prevent the growth of undesirable fungi [40,42]. In this regard, based on the SBL, the micro-silages demonstrated adequate quality, except for formulation P100, which was rated as average quality. This finding is consistent with P100 being the formulation with the highest pH.

Even though it has been demonstrated that SMS is a suitable substrate for silage [52,53], the present study is among the few that assessed their organoleptic characteristics. To fully demonstrate that silage from SMS has good characteristics it is highly recommended to include a larger number of trained judges and standardized organoleptic analysis. However, taking notice of the odor detected in the L. edodes silage, it is necessary to perform palatability trials in ruminants to evaluate feed intake, animal preference and impact on animal performance.

In addition to the organoleptic characteristics, it is necessary to have good nutritional properties to ensure good use by animals. In the present study, there was a decrease in CP content as the inclusion percentage of SMS was reduced for both strains (Table 4). This indicates that SMS was the primary protein source in silage. This behavior can be explained by that the spent substrates used for production of fungal fruit bodies were colonized by mycelium, which contributes a significant amount of protein [7].

However, the CP content reported for this type of SMS by different authors [7,54] is not as high as the values obtained in this study. These variations may be attributed to differences in mushroom cultivation processes, environmental conditions during the mycelium invasion and fruiting stages, and the degree to which the substrates were colonized and depleted.

One advantage of SMS silages is that most of them exceed the CP content provided by corn silage (7.86%), which is the most widely used ingredient in ruminant nutrition worldwide and is obtained through lactic fermentation [55].

On the other hand, ash values decrease as the SMS inclusion percentage is reduced with both strains (Table 4). Additionally, silages made with Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) SMS showed higher values than those made with Lentinula edodes (strain L5) SMS. In this regard, Lorenzana et al. (2023) reported a significant increase (p < 0.05) in the mineral content of spent substrate from three different strains of white-rot fungi compared to non-colonized substrate, including Lentinula edodes (strain L5) [7]. Based on these findings, we can infer that the increase is also a consequence of substrate colonization by fungal mycelium.

The content of NDF, CP, digestibility, and particle size, along with fermentation end-products, influence feeding behavior, ruminal passage rate, dry matter intake (DMI), and consequently, milk production efficiency [56,57]. Numerous studies indicate that diets with higher NDF content, forages with lower NDF digestibility, and larger particle sizes increase the time required for feed consumption. Increased chewing time during feeding and rumination can be a major limiting factor for dry matter intake in high-producing dairy cows [43]. Additionally, relatively high ADF content in forage could reduce dry matter digestibility [56].

In this context, a decrease in NDF, ADF, cellulose, and lignin content is observed as SMS inclusion is reduced in the micro-silages, with the lowest values recorded in formulations containing 70% SMS for both strains (Table 4). Lorenzana et al. (2023) reported values of 45.4% NDF and 38.1% ADF for unensiled Lentinula edodes (strain L5) SMS and 62.1% NDF and 41.9% ADF for Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) SMS [7], all of which are higher than those found in this study for silages with 70% SMS. This could be explained by the fact that the ensiling process partially degrades the fibrous structures of forages, thereby increasing nutrient digestibility [48]. For example, Pleurotus ostreatus produces enzymes such as endoglucanase that degrade cellulose into glucose and oligosaccharides. This cellulolytic enzyme may degrade cellulose during storage and consequently reduce NDF and ADF and increase non-fibrous carbohydrates (NFC) concentration [58]. This aligns with the findings of this study, as the L70 and P70 formulations exhibited the highest IVDMD.

The decrease in ADF for both strains is also associated with the reduction in cellulose and lignin values as SMS inclusion decreases in the formulations. Additionally, it is influenced by the low lignin content contributed by corn, which is in range 1.24–2.33% [59], compared to the lignin content of spent substrates 15.3% in Lentinula edodes (strain L5) and 12.1% in Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) [7].

Therefore, silages formulated with 70% SMS, due to its nutritional value, could promote higher feed intake and greater digestibility compared to unensiled SMS and the other silage formulations evaluated in this study. However, further studies are needed to fully elucidate the effect of this formulation and animal performance.

A potential disadvantage of silages elaborated with agro – industrial residues, which involves a certain storage time in humid conditions at room temperature, is the presence of mycotoxins. However, none of the micro-silages made in this experiment showed contamination by Aflatoxin B1, Zearalenone and Ochratoxin A (Fig 1). In this sense, García et al. (2024) reported levels of mycotoxins in fruit and vegetable silages below the corresponding detection limits, despite having observed molds in some fruits and vegetables during processing, they mention that this is because the proper silage fermentation process controlled their development [50]. It has been reported that some lactic acid bacteria and propionic acid-producing bacteria can sequester various mycotoxins and have the potential to degrade these compounds [60]. Indicating that good silage conditions are critical in the control of mycotoxins.

Another characteristic that has gained increased interest in recent years is the presence of bioactive compounds in animals feed, it has been demonstrated the agro-industrial residues have important levels of bioactive compounds, such as polyphenols, that might improve animal health, fermentative parameters and improve the quality of both milk and meat [4,61].

Our results showed that the concentration of polyphenols was higher in the Lentinula edodes (strain L5) (8.2–9.0 mg GAE/ g DM) silages in comparison to Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) silages (6.1–6.5 mg GAE/ g DM), which is consistent with previous studies that demonstrate that Lentinula edodes have a higher content of phenolic compounds in comparison to other edible mushrooms [62]. For instance, it has been reported that aqueous extracts from the fruiting body of Lentinula edodes (strain L5) contain 24.14 mg GAE/g extract, whereas extracts from Pleurotus ostreatus (strain Po-IAP) have 19.37 mg GAE/g extract [63].

The difference in phenolic content between these strains of mushrooms may be associated with the ability of Lentinula edodes to metabolize lignin. It has been shown that a content of 0.10% of lignin in the substrate for the growth of Lentinula edodes enhances mycelia growth and promote the accumulation of phenolic compounds [64]. In the present study, the substrate used for the mushroom production was formulated with 80% corn stover [7], which is rich in lignin. This could explain the higher content of these compounds in the silage from Lentinula edodes (strain L5).

Polyphenolic compounds, which are secondary metabolites of plants, have been extensively studied and shown to exert a wide range of beneficial effects in animals, including improved performance, modulation of gut microflora, enhancement of the immune system, stress mitigation, and regulation of gene expression through nutrigenomics. These compounds possess notable antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, anti-allergic, antimutagenic, and immunomodulatory properties [65,66]. In this regard, Safari et al. (2018) [67] reported an improvement in milk yield and composition (3.5% fat-corrected milk, fat content, and total solids) when using pomegranate seed pulp, which contained higher levels of polyphenols compared to pomegranate seed (25.5 vs. 1.61 g/kg, respectively). These findings suggest that higher polyphenol content, as observed in the silages of the present study, particularly those made with SMS from Lentinula edodes, could improve productive performance or certain characteristics of the final product in animal feed. Similarly, Bonanno et al. (2019) [68] reported a higher antioxidant capacity in sheep fed with 20% mushroom myceliated grains (MMGs), reaching 17.83 mmol Trolox equivalents/kg dry matter (DM), compared to 9.97 and 9.18 mmol Trolox equivalents/kg DM in animals fed with 10% and 0% MMGs, respectively (P < 0.001). This increase suggests greater oxidative stability of cheese fat and a potential enrichment of the cheese with antioxidant compounds, an effect attributed to the bioactive compounds, such as polyphenols, present in the MMGs.

On the other hand, mushroom tannin content is very low. For instance, in Pleurotus ostreatus, it has been reported to a range between 6.31–25.12 mg/100g [69], which is relatively low in comparison to other feed products. Pleurotus ostreatus SMS have ligninolytic enzymes like laccase, lignin peroxidase and manganese peroxidase, which are capable of degrading phenolic and non-phenolic compounds [70]. Therefore, it was expected that the silage from SMS would have a low content of tannins and would not have a detrimental effect on the animal health.

The digestibility of forage is one of the most crucial indexes which could directly reflect the quality of silage. The IVDMD observed in the silages with the highest digestibility (P70 = 74%, L70 = 73.5%; Fig 3) was comparable to the value reported by Pozo et al. (2021) for corn silage (73.8% IVDMD) [71], which is considered high quality when the ensiling process is performed optimally [71]. Moreover, these values exceed those reported by Jančík et al. (2022), indicating that silages formulated with 70% SMS and 30% corn can be classified as high-quality forages [72].

Guerrero et al. (2023) reported a minimum IVDMD of 47.3% for corn stover [73], while González et al. (2017) recorded 67.51% for ground corn [74]. These findings support the hypothesis that increasing the proportion of corn in silage formulations enhances in vitro digestibility. Similarly, the P70, L70, and P80 treatments exhibited higher IVDMD percentages compared to the values reported for both untreated corn and stover. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the ensiling process improves forage digestibility by partially breaking down fiber through effective fermentation, which optimizes feed quality, preserves nutritional properties, and increases nutrient availability [48].

IVDMD was similar for both strains; however, Lorenzana et al. (2023) reported a higher digestibility in the SMS of Lentinula spp., compared to the SMS of Pleurotus spp [7]. This difference may be attributed to modifications induced by the ensiling process, as noted by Muck et al. (2018), who emphasized the role of fermentation in enhancing the digestibility of substrates used in animal feed [48].

The improvement in digestibility is attributed to the reduction in the percentage of spent mushroom substrates (SMS) in the silages and the increase in corn concentration. This notable difference underscores the importance of incorporating a source of soluble carbohydrates in the formulation of these silages to enhance their nutritional quality and digestibility.

According to Dijkstra et al. (2012), the optimal pH of the rumen ranges from 6.0 to 7.0, within which the ruminal microbiota functions efficiently, promoting fiber digestion [75]. In addition, they point out that a drastic drop in pH can indicate a high acidogenic potential, which can cause ruminal acidosis, a condition that negatively affects the animal’s health and compromises nutrient digestibility. In this context, the pH values observed in the in vitro fermentation ranged from 6.72 to 7.08 across the different formulations (Fig 3A and 3B), suggesting that the silages in this study create conditions conducive to maintaining an optimal ruminal pH.

In the rumen, protein and non-protein nitrogen are broken down into ammonia-N, which microbes can utilize along with peptides and amino acids to synthesize microbial proteins. Therefore, ammonia-N could somewhat reflect the growth rate and population of microbial cells [76]. Rodríguez et al. (2007) mention that feeding diets should maintain NH3-N concentrations between 4 and 10.0 mg of NH3-N/100 mL of rumen fluid [76,77], for microbial protein synthesis, as well as for providing available energy to the ruminal ecosystem. Ammonia values from all formulations exceed 30.5 mg/dL, which is higher than the levels mentioned by Rodriguez et al. (2007) [77]. These results are also greater than those reported by Paula et al. (2017) for soybean meal (15.7 mg/dL of NH3-N), a protein source considered highly degradable [78]. This suggests a high protein degradation of the SMS silages used in this study. A possible explanation is that the ensiling process improves nitrogen utilization efficiency in ruminants, increasing NH3-N availability and promoting microbial protein synthesis in the rumen [49].

Knowles et al. (2017) mention that the secondary metabolites present in certain forages, such as legumes, can influence protein degradation and synthesis in the rumen [79]. This effect can occur either by directly impacting ruminal microorganisms or by interacting with nutrients, depending on the type and quantity of the metabolite. In this study, the lower presence of secondary metabolites due to the ensiling process did not affect the in vitro protein degradation.

The in vitro gas production technique can be used to assess the nutritive value of roughages and to identify differences in their potential digestibility and energy content. Chemical composition and in vitro digestibility are useful indicators for the preliminary evaluation of the potential nutritive value of previously uninvestigated ingredients [80,81]. The formulations that achieved the highest Vmax were L70 and P70 (306.5 and 274.4 mL/g DM, respectively), which is directly related to IVDMD, as these formulations also exhibited the highest digestibility. In this context, some authors have reported gas production values at 72 hours ranging from 226.82 to 360 mL/g DM for corn silage, which is considered the most used silage product worldwide. The values obtained in this study for treatments P80, L80, P70, and L70 (248.73, 295.20, 302.92, and 337.62 mL/g, respectively) fall within that range, indicating that SMS silage in these mixtures produces an in vitro fermentation pattern very similar to that of corn silage, and therefore, is suitable for animal feeding [82,83].

Similarly, the treatments with the lowest digestibility also had the lowest Vmax (P100 = 113.3 and L100 = 140.8 mL/g DM; Fig 3). In this regard, Velásquez et al. (2013) mention that gas volume production and dry matter degradability have a positive correlation, meaning that as feed digestibility increases, gas production also rises [84].

This could be attributed to the increased supply of NFC from ground corn, as these were the treatments with the highest inclusion levels. A higher energy density promotes rapid bacterial growth, increasing volatile fatty acid production and, consequently, gas volume [85]. Additionally, ground corn has a much larger surface area compared to SMS, allowing ruminal microorganisms greater access to starch molecules, leading to faster fermentation of these carbohydrates and, therefore, higher gas production volumes [84].

VFAs are the predominant end products of the rumen and are the main metabolizable energy for ruminants. Production and the proportions of VFA can somewhat reflect the metabolism status of rumen microorganisms to let us estimate whether the microbiota in the rumen is predominantly fibrolytic or predominantly amylolytic [43,86] generally, a greater extent of substrate degradation was accompanied by more VFA production. This is consistent with the findings of this study, as some of the formulations with higher digestibility also showed higher propionic acid production (Fig 4B). In addition, a higher concentration of NFC is rapidly assimilated by ruminal microorganisms and has a positive correlation with VFA syntheses [58], what could be happening in silages with lower SMS inclusion. The total VFAs concentration in this study is lower (Fig 6) than that reported by Baek et al. (2017) for SMS silages of Pleurotus ostreatus (77.2 mM – 103.7mM) [54]. However, this difference is not due to lower digestibility but rather to differences in sampling times during fermentation, as well as the use of fermentation in their study. Similar to what was reported in this work (supp Table 3), Zhang et al. (2024) report a higher amount of VFAs for Lentinula edodes (7219 mg/L) compared to Pleurotus ostreatus (6358 mg/L) and associate it with changes in the ruminal microbiota, however, they mention that more research is needed [87]. The increase in the total VFA concentration is due to the higher NFC content provided by the ground corn in the L70 and P70 formulations [78].

The higher proportion of propionic acid in formulations with a grater inclusion of ground corn (Fig 6) may be an indicator of adequate lactic acid production during ensiling. Kung et al. (2018) reported that a higher lactate content in silages leads to a greater proportion of ruminal propionic acid [49]. Likewise, this may also suggest an increase in the populations of Genus Prevotella. Chen et al. (2019) mention that propionate is the main fermentation product of this bacterial genus and associate the increase in the molar proportion of propionic acid with a rise in Prevotella populations [86].

Propionic acid is the only major gluconeogenic VFA in the rumen. It can help to improve the energy balance and decrease the risk for metabolic disorders of cows in early lactation [86]. An important consideration when increasing propionic acid in ruminal fermentation is that silage starch content and fermentability may influence ruminal propionate production and thereby exert substantial control over meal patterns and feed consumption [43]. Allen et al. (2009) mention that one mechanism by which ruminants DMI is through high-starch diets, which increase propionic acid production in the rumen [88]. This leads to a rise in VFA concentrations in the bloodstream, particularly propionate, which is converted into glucose and enters circulation. As a result, this triggers a satiety effect, potentially reducing DMI.

Lu et al. (2022), indicated that the synthesis of acetate resulted in a greater volume of gas production than propionate synthesis. In the present study, no significant difference was observed in acetic acid [80]. However, we observed a tendency to present a higher proportion of acetic acid in the formulations with 100% SMS (p = 0.06 inclusion*strain interaction, Fig 6), this coincides with the micro-silages with a higher amount of NDF, ADF, Cel and L. Acetic acid formation mainly results from structural carbohydrate fermentation by cellulolytic bacteria (R. flavefaciens, R. albus, F. succinogenes and B. fibrisolvens) in the rumen [Chen et al., 2019]. Moderate concentrations of acetic acid silage can be beneficial because they inhibit yeasts, resulting in improve stability when silage is exposed to air [49].

Overall, the results of the present study indicate that silage formulated with 70% SMS, might be beneficial in different feeding systems. Furthermore, their use align with models of circular economy, in which, one of the main objectives is reducing waste generation and enhancing the use of resources by repurposing by-products into valuable inputs for other systems [1]. Silages formulated with SMS form Pleurotus ostreatus, showed better organoleptic characteristics and had fermentation parameters comparable to high quality silages. Therefore, silage from SMS of Pleurotus ostreatus are nutritionally viable but also applicable and could be used as a sustainable alternative to waste management.

Conclusions

Of the eight silage formulations evaluated in the present study, those formulated with 70% inclusion of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) showed higher IVDMD and fermentative parameters. However, the silage formulated with Lentinula edodes (strain L5) exhibited an undesirable odor that could affect animal acceptance in vivo. Our results demonstrate that SMS silage is a viable option for using a by-product generated from a growing industry. Further research is recommended to evaluate the impact of in vivo use of SMS silage on animal health, intake behavior and productive parameters.

Supporting information

S1 Raw image. Mycotoxin determination by thin layer chromatography (TLC).

Picture was taken using a cellphone camera (iPhone model 14) with a handheld Mineralight® Multi-D Lamp, UVSL-25, corresponding to Fig 2.

(PDF)

pone.0331467.s001.pdf (100.8KB, pdf)
S2 Table. In vitro digestibility of dry matter of micro-silages, pH value and ammoniacal nitrogen (NH₃-N) from spent mushroom substrates (SMS) of Lentinula edodes L5 and Pleurotus ostreatus IAP.

(DOCX)

pone.0331467.s002.docx (17.4KB, docx)
S3 Table. Maximum volume of gas produced (Vmax), gas production rate (S), and lag phase (L) after in vitro fermentation of micro-silages from SMS of Lentinula edodes L5 and Pleurotus ostreatus IAP.

(DOCX)

pone.0331467.s003.docx (16.9KB, docx)
S4 Table. Total volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration, acetic acid (%), propionic acid (%), and butyric acid (%) after in vitro fermentation of micro-silages from SMS of Lentinula edodes L5 and Pleurotus ostreatus IAP.

(DOCX)

pone.0331467.s004.docx (17.7KB, docx)

Data Availability

All data are in the paper and supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This research was financially supported by grant: PAPIIT IN212822, from the Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico (DGAPA)- UNAM. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Gasparini M, Brambilla G, Menotta S, Albrici G, Avezzù V, Vitali R, et al. Sustainable dairy farming and fipronil risk in circular feeds: insights from an Italian case study. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2024;41(12):1582–93. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2024.2414954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jalal H, Sucu E, Cavallini D, Giammarco M, Akram MZ, Karkar B, et al. Rumen fermentation profile and methane mitigation potential of mango and avocado byproducts as feed ingredients and supplements. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):16164. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-00675-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vastolo A, Serrapica F, Cavallini D, Fusaro I, Atzori AS, Todaro M. Editorial: Alternative and novel livestock feed: reducing environmental impact. Front Vet Sci. 2024;11:1441905. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1441905 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Avila-Nava A, Medina-Vera I, Toledo-Alvarado H, Corona L, Márquez-Mota CC. Supplementation with antioxidants and phenolic compounds in ruminant feeding and its effect on dairy products: a systematic review. J Dairy Res. 2023;90(3):216–26. doi: 10.1017/S0022029923000511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.De Cianni R, Varese GC, Mancuso T. A Further Step toward Sustainable Development: The Case of the Edible Mushroom Supply Chain. Foods. 2023;12(18):3433. doi: 10.3390/foods12183433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nations U. Sustainable Development Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals. Accessed 2025 January 21.
  • 7.Lorenzana-Moreno AV, Leal Lara H, Corona L, Granados O, Márquez-Mota CC. Production of 17 strains of edible mushroom grown on corn stover and its effect on the chemical composition and ruminal in vitro digestibility of the residual substrate. PLoS One. 2023;18(5):e0286514. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sardar H, Ali MA, Anjum MA, Nawaz F, Hussain S, Naz S, et al. Agro-industrial residues influence mineral elements accumulation and nutritional composition of king oyster mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii). Scientia Horticulturae. 2017;225:327–34. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2017.07.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Costa AFP, Steffen GPK, Steffen RB, Portela VO, Santana NA, dos Santos Richards NSP, et al. The use of rice husk in the substrate composition increases Pleurotus ostreatus mushroom production and quality. Scientia Horticulturae. 2023;321:112372. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112372 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sharma E, Bairwa R, Lal P, Pattanayak S, Chakrapani K, Poorvasandhya R, et al. Edible mushrooms trending in food: Nutrigenomics, bibliometric, from bench to valuable applications. Heliyon. 2024;10(17):e36963. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36963 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dorr E, Koegler M, Gabrielle B, Aubry C. Life cycle assessment of a circular, urban mushroom farm. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021;288:125668. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125668 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Baptista F, Almeida M, Paié-Ribeiro J, Barros AN, Rodrigues M. Unlocking the Potential of Spent Mushroom Substrate (SMS) for Enhanced Agricultural Sustainability: From Environmental Benefits to Poultry Nutrition. Life (Basel). 2023;13(10):1948. doi: 10.3390/life13101948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Palangi V, Kaya A, Kaya A, Giannenas I. Ecofriendly Usability of Mushroom Cultivation Substrate as a Ruminant Feed: Anaerobic Digestion Using Gas Production Techniques. Animals (Basel). 2022;12(12):1583. doi: 10.3390/ani12121583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kim YI, Lee YH, Kim KH, Oh YK, Moon YH, Kwak WS. Effects of Supplementing Microbially-fermented Spent Mushroom Substrates on Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Hanwoo Steers (a Field Study). Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2012;25(11):1575–81. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2012.12251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Li T-H, Che P-F, Zhang C-R, Zhang B, Ali A, Zang L-S. Recycling of spent mushroom substrate: Utilization as feed material for the larvae of the yellow mealworm Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0237259. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Oh Y-N, Kim H-Y. Exploring Sustainable Future Protein Sources. Food Sci Anim Resour. 2025;45(1):81–108. doi: 10.5851/kosfa.2024.e111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bhambri A, Srivastava M, Mahale VG, Mahale S, Karn SK. Mushrooms as Potential Sources of Active Metabolites and Medicines. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:837266. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.837266 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kwak AM, Min KJ, Lee SY, Kang HW. Water Extract from Spent Mushroom Substrate of Hericium erinaceus Suppresses Bacterial Wilt Disease of Tomato. Mycobiology. 2015;43(3):311–8. doi: 10.5941/MYCO.2015.43.3.311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Soares FE de F, Silva AT da, Souza DC de, Souza Castro CR de, Ferreira CB, Genier HLA, et al. Mycochemistry: Natural products obtained from spent mushroom substrates in the control of agricultural pests and diseases. Studies in Natural Products Chemistry. Elsevier. 2024. p. 347–65. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-443-15756-1.00016-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vorlaphim T, Paengkoum P, Purba RAP, Yuangklang C, Paengkoum S, Schonewille JT. Treatment of Rice Stubble with Pleurotus ostreatus and Urea Improves the Growth Performance in Slow-Growing Goats. Animals (Basel). 2021;11(4):1053. doi: 10.3390/ani11041053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Aldoori ZT, Al-Obaidi ASA, Abdulkareem AH, Abdullah MK. Effect of Dietary Replacement of Barley with Mushroom Cultivation on Carcass Characteristics of Awassi Lambs. J Anim Health Prod. 2015;3(4):94–8. doi: 10.14737/journal.jahp/2015/3.4.94.98 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mandale NR, Deshpande KY, Thakare SO, Morkhade SJ, Panchbhai GJ, Deshmukh SG. Effect of dietary inclusion of mushroom waste on growth, nutrient digestibility, blood metabolites and economics in growing Berari goats. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology. 2023;23(2):261–77. doi: 10.5958/0974-181x.2023.00023.9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Suong N, Paengkoum S, Purba R, Paengkoum P. Optimizing Anthocyanin-Rich Black Cane (Saccharum sinensis Robx.) Silage for Ruminants Using Molasses and Iron Sulphate: A Sustainable Alternative. Fermentation. 2022;8(6):248. doi: 10.3390/fermentation8060248 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tejada Hernández I, Berruecos JM, Merino H. Análisis bromatológico de alimentos empleados como ingredientes en nutrición animal. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias. 1980;31–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.A O A C. Official method of analysis. 18th Edition ed. Washington DC: Association of Officiating Analytical Chemists. 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991;74(10):3583–97. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hyde W, Kiesey J, Ross P, Stahr H. Cyanide, Analytical Toxicology Methods Manual. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 1977. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Makkar HP. Quantification of tannins in tree and shrub foliage: a laboratory manual. Springer Science & Business Media. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Singleton VL, Orthofer R, Lamuela-Raventós RM. Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. Method Enzymol. 1999;299:152–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Theodorou MK, Williams BA, Dhanoa MS, McAllan AB, France J. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 1994;48(3–4):185–97. doi: 10.1016/0377-8401(94)90171-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Molho-Ortiz AA, Romero-Pérez A, Ramírez-Bribiesca E, Márquez-Mota CC, Castrejón-Pineda FA, Corona L. Effect of essential oils and aqueous extracts of plants on <em>in vitro</em> rumen fermentation and methane production. J Anim Behav Biometeorol. 2022;10(2):2210. doi: 10.31893/jabb.22010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.de Assis Lage CF, Räisänen SE, Melgar A, Nedelkov K, Chen X, Oh J, et al. Comparison of Two Sampling Techniques for Evaluating Ruminal Fermentation and Microbiota in the Planktonic Phase of Rumen Digesta in Dairy Cows. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:618032. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.618032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Menke KH, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J Agric Sci. 1979;93(1):217–22. doi: 10.1017/s0021859600086305 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.García EH, Pérez AR, Corona L, Gómez JMT. Rumen fermentation of feed samples incubated in filter bags made from different textiles or dispersed in the medium using an in vitro gas production system. Cienc Rural. 2024;54(2). doi: 10.1590/0103-8478cr20220462 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ørskov ER, McDonald I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J Agric Sci. 1979;92(2):499–503. doi: 10.1017/s0021859600063048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pitt RE, Cross TL, Pell AN, Schofield P, Doane PH. Use of in vitro gas production models in ruminal kinetics. Math Biosci. 1999;159(2):145–63. doi: 10.1016/s0025-5564(99)00020-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.McCullough H. The determination of ammonia in whole blood by a direct colorimetric method. Clin Chim Acta. 1967;17(2):297–304. doi: 10.1016/0009-8981(67)90133-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Steel RG, Torrie JH, Dickey DA. Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach. 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bernas J, Bernasová T, Gerstberger P, Moudrý J, Konvalina P, Moudrý J Jr. Cup plant, an alternative to conventional silage from a LCA perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2021;26(2):311–26. doi: 10.1007/s11367-020-01858-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tahuk PK, Bira GF, Taga H. Physical characteristics analysis of complete silage made of sorghum forage, king grass and natural grass. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pahlow G, Muck RE, Driehuis F, Elferink SJO, Spoelstra SF. Microbiology of ensiling. Silage science and technology. 2003. p. 31–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sio S, Bira GF, Batu MS, Pardosi L, Mau RJ, Klau MO. Organoleptic Quality and Nutrition of Rice Straw Silage Utilizing Local Microorganisms (MOL) of Cattle Rumen Fluid at Different Inoculum Levels. Journal of Advanced Veterinary Research. 2022;12(1):36–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Grant RJ, Ferraretto LF. Silage review: Silage feeding management: Silage characteristics and dairy cow feeding behavior. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101(5):4111–21. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13729 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kononoff PJ, Heinrichs AJ, Lehman HA. The effect of corn silage particle size on eating behavior, chewing activities, and rumen fermentation in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2003;86(10):3343–53. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73937-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kononoff PJ, Heinrichs AJ. The effect of reducing alfalfa haylage particle size on cows in early lactation. J Dairy Sci. 2003;86(4):1445–57. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73728-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Oladosu Y, Rafii MY, Abdullah N, Magaji U, Hussin G, Ramli A, et al. Fermentation Quality and Additives: A Case of Rice Straw Silage. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:7985167. doi: 10.1155/2016/7985167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Chen L, Gong Y, Cai Y, Liu W, Zhou Y, Xiao Y, et al. Genome Sequence of the Edible Cultivated Mushroom Lentinula edodes (Shiitake) Reveals Insights into Lignocellulose Degradation. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0160336. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Muck RE, Nadeau EMG, McAllister TA, Contreras-Govea FE, Santos MC, Kung L Jr. Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101(5):3980–4000. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13839 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kung L Jr, Shaver RD, Grant RJ, Schmidt RJ. Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101(5):4020–33. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13909 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Garcia Rodriguez V, Vandestroet L, Abeysekara VC, Ominski K, Bumunang EW, McAllister T, et al. Optimizing Silage Strategies for Sustainable Livestock Feed: Preserving Retail Food Waste. Agriculture. 2024;14(1):122. doi: 10.3390/agriculture14010122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Caicedo W, Vargas J, Uvidia H, Samaniego E, Valle S, Flores L. Physicochemical, biological and organoleptic indicators in banana silage (Musa sapientum) for pig feeding. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science. 2017;51(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kwak WS, Kim YI, Seok JS, Oh YK, Lee SM. Molasses and microbial inoculants improve fermentability and silage quality of cotton waste-based spent mushroom substrate. Bioresour Technol. 2009;100(3):1471–3. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.07.066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Yi Q, Wang P, Tang H, Yu M, Zhao T, Sheng Z, et al. Fermentation Quality, In Vitro Digestibility, and Aerobic Stability of Ensiling Spent Mushroom Substrate with Microbial Additives. Animals (Basel). 2023;13(5):920. doi: 10.3390/ani13050920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Chang Baek Y, Seok Kim M, Reddy KE, Kyoon Oh Y, Hun Jung Y, Mo Yeo J, et al. Rumen fermentation and digestibility of spent mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus) substrate inoculated with Lactobacillus brevis for Hanwoo steers. Rev Colomb Cienc Pecu. 2017;30(4):267–77. doi: 10.17533/udea.rccp.v30n4a02 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Zhao M, Feng Y, Shi Y, Shen H, Hu H, Luo Y, et al. Yield and quality properties of silage maize and their influencing factors in China. Sci China Life Sci. 2022;65(8):1655–66. doi: 10.1007/s11427-020-2023-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Oba M, Allen MS. Effects of brown midrib 3 mutation in corn silage on productivity of dairy cows fed two concentrations of dietary neutral detergent fiber: 3. Digestibility and microbial efficiency. J Dairy Sci. 2000;83(6):1350–8. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)75002-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Oliveira AS, Weinberg ZG, Ogunade IM, Cervantes AAP, Arriola KG, Jiang Y, et al. Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with homofermentative and facultative heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and the performance of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2017;100(6):4587–603. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Agustinho BC, Daniel JLP, Zeoula LM, Alcalde CR, Machado E, Bragatto JM, et al. Enzymatic effects of Pleurotus ostreatus spent substrate on whole-plant corn silage and performance of lactating goats. J Dairy Sci. 2021;104(11):11660–72. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-20775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kabir SH, Das AK, Rahman MS, Singh MS, Morshed M, Marma ASH. Effect of genotype on proximate composition and biological yield of maize (Zea mays L.). Arch Agri Environ Sci. 2019;4(2):185–9. doi: 10.26832/24566632.2019.040209 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wambacq E, Vanhoutte I, Audenaert K, De Gelder L, Haesaert G. Occurrence, prevention and remediation of toxigenic fungi and mycotoxins in silage: a review. J Sci Food Agric. 2016;96(7):2284–302. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.7565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Correddu F, Lunesu MF, Buffa G, Atzori AS, Nudda A, Battacone G, et al. Can Agro-Industrial By-Products Rich in Polyphenols be Advantageously Used in the Feeding and Nutrition of Dairy Small Ruminants?. Animals (Basel). 2020;10(1):131. doi: 10.3390/ani10010131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Abdelshafy AM, Belwal T, Liang Z, Wang L, Li D, Luo Z, et al. A comprehensive review on phenolic compounds from edible mushrooms: Occurrence, biological activity, application and future prospective. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2022;62(22):6204–24. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2021.1898335 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Elhusseiny SM, El-Mahdy TS, Awad MF, Elleboudy NS, Farag MMS, Yassein MA, et al. Proteome Analysis and In Vitro Antiviral, Anticancer and Antioxidant Capacities of the Aqueous Extracts of Lentinula edodes and Pleurotus ostreatus Edible Mushrooms. Molecules. 2021;26(15):4623. doi: 10.3390/molecules26154623 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Wu F, Wang H, Chen Q, Pang X, Jing H, Yin L, et al. Lignin Promotes Mycelial Growth and Accumulation of Polyphenols and Ergosterol in Lentinula edodes. J Fungi (Basel). 2023;9(2):237. doi: 10.3390/jof9020237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Bešlo D, Došlić G, Agić D, Rastija V, Šperanda M, Gantner V, et al. Polyphenols in Ruminant Nutrition and Their Effects on Reproduction. Antioxidants (Basel). 2022;11(5):970. doi: 10.3390/antiox11050970 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Waqas M, Salman M, Sharif MS. Application of polyphenolic compounds in animal nutrition and their promising effects. J Anim Feed Sci. 2023;32(3):233–56. doi: 10.22358/jafs/159718/2023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Safari M, Ghasemi E, Alikhani M, Ansari-Mahyari S. Supplementation effects of pomegranate by-products on oxidative status, metabolic profile, and performance in transition dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101(12):11297–309. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-14506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Bonanno A, Di Grigoli A, Vitale F, Di Miceli G, Todaro M, Alabiso M, et al. Effects of Diets Supplemented with Medicinal Mushroom Myceliated Grains on Some Production, Health, and Oxidation Traits of Dairy Ewes. Int J Med Mushrooms. 2019;21(1):89–103. doi: 10.1615/IntJMedMushrooms.2018029327 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Effiong ME, Umeokwochi CP, Afolabi IS, Chinedu SN. Comparative antioxidant activity and phytochemical content of five extracts of Pleurotus ostreatus (oyster mushroom). Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):3794. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-54201-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Wong DWS. Structure and action mechanism of ligninolytic enzymes. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2009;157(2):174–209. doi: 10.1007/s12010-008-8279-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Pozo-Leyva D, Chay-Canul A, López-González F, Cruz-Tamayo AA, Piñeiro-Vázquez Á, Casanova-Lugo F. Análisis productivo de la suplementación con ensilado de maíz en sistemas ganaderos de doble propósito. Ecosist Recur Agropec. 2022;8(3). doi: 10.19136/era.a8n3.3092 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Jančík F, Kubelková P, Loučka R, Jambor V, Kumprechtová D, Homolka P, et al. Shredlage Processing Affects the Digestibility of Maize Silage. Agronomy. 2022;12(5):1164. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12051164 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Guerrero-Rodríguez J d D, Muñoz-Tlahuiz F, López PA, López-Sánchez H, Hernández Guzmán JA, Gil-Muñoz A. Digestibilidad del rastrojo de variedades locales de maíz en el altiplano Poblano-Tlaxcalteca. Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas. 2023;14(SPE29). [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Gonzalez Garcia UA, Corona-Gochi L, Estrada Flores JG, Amesquita A, Gonzalez Ronquillo M. Digestión ruminal e intestinal del maíz (zea mays) y sorgo (Sorghum Bicolor l. Moench) utilizando diferentes técnicas de digestibilidad (in vivo, in vitro e in sacco). Trop Subtrop Agroecosyst. 2017;20(2). doi: 10.56369/tsaes.1664 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Dijkstra J, Ellis JL, Kebreab E, Strathe AB, López S, France J, et al. Ruminal pH regulation and nutritional consequences of low pH. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2012;172(1–2):22–33. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.12.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Chen YY, Wang YL, Wang WK, Zhang ZW, Si XM, Cao ZJ, et al. Beneficial effect of Rhodopseudomonas palustris on in vitro rumen digestion and fermentation. Benef Microbes. 2020;11(1):91–9. doi: 10.3920/BM2019.0044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Rodríguez R, Sosa A, Rodríguez Y. Microbial protein synthesis in rumen and its importance to ruminants. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science. 2007;41(4):287–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Paula EM, Monteiro HF, Silva LG, Benedeti PDB, Daniel JLP, Shenkoru T, et al. Effects of replacing soybean meal with canola meal differing in rumen-undegradable protein content on ruminal fermentation and gas production kinetics using 2 in vitro systems. J Dairy Sci. 2017;100(7):5281–92. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-12301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Knowles M, Pabón M, Hess H, Carulla J. Changes in in vitro ruminal and post‐ruminal degradation of tropical tannin‐rich legumes due to varying levels of polyethylene glycol. Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition. 2017;101(4):641–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Wang Y-L, Wang W-K, Wu Q-C, Zhang F, Li W-J, Yang Z-M, et al. The Effect of Different Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculants on Silage Quality, Phenolic Acid Profiles, Bacterial Community and In Vitro Rumen Fermentation Characteristic of Whole Corn Silage. Fermentation. 2022;8(6):285. doi: 10.3390/fermentation8060285 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Sallam S, Nasser M, El-Waziry A, Bueno IC d S, Abdalla AL. Use of an in vitro rumen gas production technique to evaluate some ruminant feedstuffs. J Appl Sci Res. 2007;3(1):34–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Bayatkouhsar J, Tahmasbi AM, Naserian AA. Effects of microbial inoculant on composition, aerobic stability, in situ ruminal degradability and in vitro gas production of corn silage. 2012.
  • 83.De Boever JL, Aerts JM, Vanacker JM, De Brabander DL. Evaluation of the nutritive value of maize silages using a gas production technique. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2005;123–124:255–65. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.04.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Velásquez V R, Noguera RR, Posada O S. Procesamiento del grano de maíz sobre la cinética de degradación de la materia seca in vitro. Rev MVZ Córdoba. 2013;18(3):3877–85. doi: 10.21897/rmvz.160 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Noguera R, Ramírez I, Bolivar D. Efecto de la inclusión de papa (Solanum tuberosum) en la cinética de fermentación in vitro del pasto kikuyo (Pennisetum clandestinum). Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2006;18(5):1. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Chen L, Li J, Dong Z, Shao T. Effects of lactic acid bacteria inoculants and fibrolytic enzymes on the fermentation quality, in vitro degradability, ruminal variables and microbial communities of high‐moisture alfalfa silage. Grassland Science. 2019;65(4):216–25. doi: 10.1111/grs.12240 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Zhang G, Du Z, Liu S, Zhang J, Lv L, Sun L, et al. Anaerobic fermentation of spent mushroom substrate with rumen microbiota for volatile fatty acid production: Performance, community, and metabolic pathway. Journal of Water Process Engineering. 2024;67:106133. doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2024.106133 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Allen MS, Bradford BJ, Oba M. Board Invited Review: The hepatic oxidation theory of the control of feed intake and its application to ruminants. J Anim Sci. 2009;87(10):3317–34. doi: 10.2527/jas.2009-1779 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Agung Irawan

15 May 2025

PONE-D-25-12392Formulation of silages from spent mushroom substrates of Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes: organoleptic properties, phenolic content, in vitro digestibility, gas production and ruminal kineticsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Márquez-Mota,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 29 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Agung Irawan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This research was financially supported by grant: PAPIIT IN212822, from the Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico (DGAPA)- UNAM.]. 

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [This research was financially supported by grant: PAPIIT IN212822, from the Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico (DGAPA)- UNAM.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: [This research was financially supported by grant: PAPIIT IN212822, from the Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico (DGAPA)- UNAM.]. 

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

6. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

Additional Editor Comments:

I agree with 2 reviewers that this manuscript requires substantial revisions before can be re-considered for publication. Please carefully address the issues raised by the reviewers by following journal's instruction. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper, rather grandly titled “Formulation of silages from spent mushroom substrates of Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes: organoleptic properties, phenolic content, in vitro digestibility, gas production and ruminal kinetics,” tackles what I reckon is a pretty crucial and timely area. I mean, sustainable livestock feed? Definitely something we need to be thinking about, isn't it? So, yeah, the whole subject matter really grabbed my attention, and I settled in to read the manuscript with genuine interest. It certainly seems to snuggly fit within the journal's usual scope, which is a plus.

However – and you knew there was a 'however' coming, right? – I must say that in its present iteration, the paper does seem to have a few... shall we say, areas that could do with a bit more polish. Nothing major, mind you, but a few things that sort of stuck out.

Abstract

• is generally clear and concise, providing a good overview of the study. However, the phrase "lower production cost has increased significantly" sounds a little awkward. Perhaps rephrasing it to something like "the search for alternative feed sources to lower production costs has increased significantly" would flow better.

• It might be helpful to briefly mention the specific percentages of SMS and corn used in the formulations within the abstract to give the reader a quicker grasp of the experimental design.

Introduction

• While does a decent job of setting the stage by discussing the importance of sustainable food production and the potential of spent mushroom substrate (SMS), it feels a bit... rushed, perhaps? It might benefit from a slightly more in-depth exploration of the existing challenges in livestock feed and how SMS can really address them. For instance, elaborating on the environmental and economic benefits a bit more could strengthen the intro. Also, the flow could be smoother; at times, it jumps a bit abruptly between ideas.

• hypothesis is clearly stated, which is good! However, the justification for focusing on Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes specifically could be stronger. Why these two? Are they particularly promising, or were they simply the ones available for the study? Clarifying this would add more context.

• when discussing circular economy models, it might be beneficial to briefly explain what these models entail for readers who may not be familiar with the concept in this context. Just a sentence or two could suffice.

• use of "(strain Po-IAP)" and "(strain L5)" after mentioning Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes is good for clarity. Ensure this consistent throughout the manuscript.

• Line 45 I suggest citing 10.1080/19440049.2024.2414954; 10.1038/s41598-025-00675-2 and 10.3389/fvets.2024.1441905 to strength the circular feed sentence

Materials and Methods

• description of the animal management and treatments is adequate, and it's good to see the ethics approval mentioned. However, I'm a little curious about the "one week to a diet of SMS silage" bit. Was this SMS silage the same as the experimental silages, or a sort of general SMS silage? If it's the latter, could that have introduced any bias?

• In "Collection of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) and silage formulation" section, the authors provide a decent overview of the silage preparation. Table 1 is clear and helpful. One minor thing: perhaps a bit more detail on how the ingredients were mixed to create the micro-silages would be useful. It's probably standard practice, but just to be crystal clear.

• organoleptic characteristics assessment is interesting, and Table 2 is well-defined. My main question here is about the subjectivity of this method. While the scoring system helps, could there be variations in how different people would score the same silage? If so, was any attempt made to minimize this, like having multiple assessors or providing very detailed scoring guidelines?

• chemical analysis section seems pretty standard, which is reassuring. I just wonder if there's a reason why the mycotoxin determination method was "slightly" modified. What were these modifications, and why were they necessary?

• For the in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) procedure, the authors provide a good level of detail. The go with the flow is good and easy to read.

• In "Collection of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) and silage formulation" section, the units in Table 1 are generally clear. However, for "Ground yellow corn," the unit is "% DM." While technically correct, perhaps just "%" would be more immediately understandable in the context of a formulation percentage. Consistency in unit presentation across the table would be ideal.

• When describing organoleptic characteristics assessment, it might be worth a quick mention of scale used for scoring (e.g., a 1-5 scale, or similar) for readers to better interpret the subsequent results.

• "In vitro digestibility, gas production, and ruminal fermentation kinetics" section, the abbreviation "IVDMD" is used. While it's defined later, might be helpful to spell it out at its first mention in this section for immediate clarity.

Results

• is generally well-organized, presenting the findings clearly and systematically. The use of tables and figures is effective, although Figure 1 could be improved – it's a bit hard to read the labels on the x-axis.

• In "Organoleptic characteristics and pH of the micro-silages" subsection, the authors adequately describe the results from the organoleptic analysis and pH measurements. However, it might be beneficial to include a brief discussion of why these characteristics are important indicators of silage quality. This would provide a bit more context for the reader.

• "Chemical composition of micro-silages" subsection presents the data on nutrient content effectively. One minor point: in some instances, the authors state "no significant differences were observed," which is perfectly fine, but perhaps adding the actual p-values in a few key instances would give the reader a clearer sense of the statistical significance (or lack thereof).

• presentation of the IVDMD, gas production, and VFA results is comprehensive. The authors do a good job of highlighting the key findings and trends.

• Figure 1, as noted in the major comments, the x-axis labels are indeed quite small and difficult to read. Increasing font size or adjusting the layout could improve readability significantly.

• use of "Table" and "Figure" should be consistently capitalized (e.g., "Table 2 shows..." rather than "table 2 shows...").

• When reporting statistical significance (e.g., "P < 0.05"), ensure that the 'P' consistently capitalized and italicized.

Discussion

• is generally well-written and provides a good interpretation of the results. The authors effectively relate their findings to previous research and offer plausible explanations for the observed outcomes.

• However, at some points, the discussion feels a bit repetitive of the Results section. While some reiteration is necessary, the authors should ensure that the Discussion truly expands on the Results by providing more in-depth analysis and interpretation, rather than just summarizing the findings again.

• discussion of the organoleptic properties is quite thorough, which is commendable. The point about the odor of Lentinula edodes being characteristic of the fungi is well-taken.

• authors adequately discuss the implications of their findings for animal feed. but, the discussion could be strengthened by addressing the limitations of the study more explicitly. as example, the authors acknowledge the need for in vivo studies, but they could also discuss any limitations related to the in vitro design itself, or the specific conditions under which the silages were prepared and analyzed.

• When discussing previous research, ensure that citations are placed correctly and consistently. There are a few instances where they appear slightly detached from the text they are supporting.

• language used in the Discussion is generally clear and academic. Just minor point: occasionally, a slightly more concise phrasing could be used to enhance readability. For example, instead of "the fact that...", perhaps just "that..." would suffice.

Conclusion

• is concise and, summarizes the main findings of the study. However, it's a tad too brief. Perhaps a slightly more detailed conclusion that reiterates the significance of the findings and their potential impact would be more impactful.

• is brief, which is acceptable for a conclusion. However, ensure that the key abbreviations used in the paper are consistently used here as well (e.g., SMS).

Figures & Tables

• Ensure all figures and tables are numbered sequentially and are referred to correctly in the main text.

• Check all axes labels in the figures are clear, legible, and include units where appropriate.

• For tables, ensure column headings are clear and that any abbreviations used are defined in the footnotes.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I have thoroughly examined manuscript PONE-D-25-12392 entitled "Formulation of silages from spent mushroom substrates of Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes: organoleptic properties, phenolic content, in vitro digestibility, gas production and ruminal kinetics". The manuscript investigates the potential utilisation of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) as a silage component for ruminant feeding systems. Whilst the topic is certainly meritorious and addresses important questions of agricultural sustainability, I regret to inform you that the manuscript requires substantial revision before it may be considered suitable for publication.

1. The experimental approach suffers from several critical deficiencies. Foremost among these is the absence of appropriate control treatments (lines 94-100). A conventional silage comparator would have provided essential context for evaluating the nutritional and fermentative characteristics of the SMS formulations. The selection of inclusion proportions (70-100% SMS) appears arbitrary and lacks adequate theoretical justification.

2. The organoleptic assessment protocol (lines 105-109) employs a scoring system that has not been validated against established silage quality parameters. Most problematically, the in vitro digestibility assay utilises rumen fluid from goats previously adapted to SMS silage diets (lines 181-183), introducing potential circular bias that may substantially inflate digestibility estimates through prior microbial adaptation.

3. The statistical approach fails to properly account for the factorial structure of the experimental design. The manuscript clearly employs a 4×2 factorial arrangement (four inclusion levels, two fungal species), yet the analysis treats these as eight independent treatments in several instances. No power analysis is presented to justify the selected replication numbers, raising questions about statistical robustness.

4. The authors do not adequately contextualise their findings against established nutritional benchmarks for ruminants. Discussions of phenolic compounds (lines 425-457) and fermentation kinetics (lines 510-547) remain largely descriptive rather than analytical, failing to adequately address the biological significance for rumen function or animal performance. The conclusion overstates the practical applicability based solely on in vitro evidence.

5. The manuscript would benefit from engagement with recent relevant literature, try to synthesize the gap in literatures in particular in lines 48-71. In vitro study may be opportune to be conducted but references below making logic to your current hypothesis especially in tropical country. Particularly, the authors should consider:

1) https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/4/1053; on "Treatment of Rice Stubble with Pleurotus ostreatus and Urea Improves the Growth Performance in Slow-Growing Goats", which provides valuable in vivo context for fungal treatment applications.

2) Recent work https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/8/6/248 on "Optimizing Anthocyanin-Rich Black Cane (Saccharum sinensis Robx.) Silage for Ruminants Using Molasses and Iron Sulphate", which demonstrates a more systematic approach to silage additive optimisation than presented in the current manuscript.

6. Minor recommendations:

1) Include conventional silage control treatments for contextual comparison.

2) Revise the statistical approach to properly account for factorial design.

3) Obtain rumen inoculum from animals not previously exposed to experimental substrates.

4) Strengthen interpretation of findings within the context of practical feeding systems.

5) Consider in vivo palatability trials to address the concerning organoleptic findings, particularly regarding the undesirable odour of L. edodes silages.

Whilst the manuscript presents potentially valuable preliminary data on SMS utilisation in silage production, the aforementioned methodological limitations and interpretative weaknesses substantially undermine its current contribution. I therefore recommend major revision before the manuscript can be considered suitable for publication.

Yours faithfully,

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Sep 5;20(9):e0331467. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331467.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


30 Jun 2025

Response to Reviewers

We thank the reviewers and the editor for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Formulation of silages from spent mushroom substrates of Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes: organoleptic properties, phenolic content, in vitro digestibility, gas production and ruminal kinetics.” We appreciate the constructive comments and helpful suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our work.

Below, we provide a detailed response to each comment. All changes made in the revised manuscript are clearly marked, and specific line numbers are provided where applicable.

Reviewer #1

We thank the reviewer for the time and effort dedicated to evaluating our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. In the following section, we address the corrections and suggestions made.

Abstract

1. Is generally clear and concise, providing a good overview of the study. However, the phrase "lower production cost has increased significantly" sounds a little awkward. Perhaps rephrasing it to something like "the search for alternative feed sources to lower production costs has increased significantly" would flow better.

Thank you for the suggestion, we rephrase it (line 22-23).

2. It might be helpful to briefly mention the specific percentages of SMS and corn used in the formulations within the abstract to give the reader a quicker grasp of the experimental design.

We added a better explanation of the silage formulations (lines 26-28).

Introduction

1. While does a decent job of setting the stage by discussing the importance of sustainable food production and the potential of spent mushroom substrate (SMS), it feels a bit... rushed, perhaps? It might benefit from a slightly more in-depth exploration of the existing challenges in livestock feed and how SMS can really address them. For instance, elaborating on the environmental and economic benefits a bit more could strengthen the intro. Also, the flow could be smoother; at times, it jumps a bit abruptly between ideas.

R. Thank you for the comment, we included a further explanation of the potential of spent mushroom substrate (SMS)

2. Hypothesis is clearly stated, which is good! However, the justification for focusing on Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes specifically could be stronger. Why these two? Are they particularly promising, or were they simply the ones available for the study? Clarifying this would add more context.

R. We added a better explanation for the use of Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes

3. When discussing circular economy models, it might be beneficial to briefly explain what these models entail for readers who may not be familiar with the concept in this context. Just a sentence or two could suffice.

R. We explained what these model entail (line 46-48)

4. Use of "(strain Po-IAP)" and "(strain L5)" after mentioning Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes is good for clarity. Ensure this consistent throughout the manuscript.

R. We specified the strain after mentioning Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes throughout the manuscript.

5. Line 45 I suggest citing 10.1080/19440049.2024.2414954; 10.1038/s41598-025-00675-2 and 10.3389/fvets.2024.1441905 to strength the circular feed sentence

R. Thank you for your suggestions, we improved the introduction and provided more information. We included the suggested citations.

Materials and Methods

1. Description of the animal management and treatments is adequate, and it's good to see the ethics approval mentioned. However, I'm a little curious about the "one week to a diet of SMS silage" bit. Was this SMS silage the same as the experimental silages, or a sort of general SMS silage? If it's the latter, could that have introduced any bias?

R: The silage used for animal adaptation was prepared using the same SMS and following the same methodology used in the experimental silages. Therefore, we believe that no bias was introduced, as the main objective was to promote the adaptation of ruminal microorganisms to the degradation of this ingredient, which is not a regular part of their diet.

2. In "Collection of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) and silage formulation" section, the authors provide a decent overview of the silage preparation. Table 1 is clear and helpful. One minor thing: perhaps a bit more detail on how the ingredients were mixed to create the micro-silages would be useful. It's probably standard practice, but just to be crystal clear.

R: We added a better explanation of the silage formulations (lines 125-132).

3. Organoleptic characteristics assessment is interesting, and Table 2 is well-defined. My main question here is about the subjectivity of this method. While the scoring system helps, could there be variations in how different people would score the same silage? If so, was any attempt made to minimize this, like having multiple assessors or providing very detailed scoring guidelines?

R: We acknowledge that the sensory evaluation method may involve a degree of subjectivity. Therefore, the assessment was carried out by a panel of nine individuals who reached a consensus on each characteristic evaluated for each silage, following an approach like that proposed by Tahuk et al. (2020) and Anas et al. (2024). However, individual evaluations were not documented separately, which is why they are not presented in that form in the manuscript.

Additionally, in vivo testing is planned, during which a more robust sensory analysis will be implemented. Consequently, this phase was considered primarily as an exploratory study.

Anas S, Natsir A, Syahrir. Organoleptic test characteristics of corn stover silage added with several legumes. Hasanuddin J. Anim. Sci. 2024; 6(2):104-113.

Tahuk PK, Bira GF, Taga H, editors. Physical characteristics analysis of complete silage made of sorghum forage, king grass and natural grass. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; 2020: IOP Publishing.

4. Chemical analysis section seems pretty standard, which is reassuring. I just wonder if there's a reason why the mycotoxin determination method was "slightly" modified. What were these modifications, and why were they necessary?

R. Thank you for your observation. To modification were necessary to adapt the method to SMS silage samples. We increased the homogenization time from 1 minute to 5 minutes to ensure complete homogenization of the sample.

5. For the in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) procedure, the authors provide a good level of detail. The go with the flow is good and easy to read.

R: Thanks for your comment

6. In "Collection of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) and silage formulation" section, the units in Table 1 are generally clear. However, for "Ground yellow corn," the unit is "% DM." While technically correct, perhaps just "%" would be more immediately understandable in the context of a formulation percentage. Consistency in unit presentation across the table would be ideal.

R. The units in table 1 are reported in % for SMS and the ground yellow corn.

7. When describing organoleptic characteristics assessment, it might be worth a quick mention of scale used for scoring (e.g., a 1-5 scale, or similar) for readers to better interpret the subsequent results.

R: Table 2 presents the scale used for the evaluation of organoleptic characteristics. A three-point scale was employed, with values of 0.5, 0.75, and 1, used as a rating system. We considered that, in this case, the use of a five-point scale would have increased the subjectivity of the evaluation, since the main objective was simply to determine whether the characteristics assessed were adequate, fair, or inadequate. This three-point scale is also used by Tahuk et al. (2020), supporting its applicability in this type of assessment.

Tahuk PK, Bira GF, Taga H, editors. Physical characteristics analysis of complete silage made of sorghum forage, king grass and natural grass. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; 2020: IOP Publishing.

8. "In vitro digestibility, gas production, and ruminal fermentation kinetics" section, the abbreviation "IVDMD" is used. While it's defined later, might be helpful to spell it out at its first mention in this section for immediate clarity.

R. We described the meaning of IVDMD at the beginning of the section

Results

1. Is generally well-organized, presenting the findings clearly and systematically. The use of tables and figures is effective, although Figure 1 could be improved – it's a bit hard to read the labels on the x-axis.

R. Thank you for the suggestion, we increased the font size on the x and y axis.

2. In "Organoleptic characteristics and pH of the micro-silages" subsection, the authors adequately describe the results from the organoleptic analysis and pH measurements. However, it might be beneficial to include a brief discussion of why these characteristics are important indicators of silage quality. This would provide a bit more context for the reader.

R: A brief explanation of the relevance of these characteristics was added in line 282-254. However, it is important to note that each of these aspects is addressed in detail in the discussion section; therefore, they were not elaborated upon again in the results to avoid redundancy in the text.

3. "Chemical composition of micro-silages" subsection presents the data on nutrient content effectively. One minor point: in some instances, the authors state "no significant differences were observed," which is perfectly fine, but perhaps adding the actual p-values in a few key instances would give the reader a clearer sense of the statistical significance (or lack thereof).

R. Thank you for the suggestion, we included the p value of all the results.

4. presentation of the IVDMD, gas production, and VFA results is comprehensive. The authors do a good job of highlighting the key findings and trends.

R: Thanks for your comment

5. Figure 1, as noted in the major comments, the x-axis labels are indeed quite small and difficult to read. Increasing font size or adjusting the layout could improve readability significantly.

R. Thank you for the suggestion, we increased the font size on the x and y axis in the figures

6. use of "Table" and "Figure" should be consistently capitalized (e.g., "Table 2 shows..." rather than "table 2 shows...").

R. All Tables and Figures are capitalized.

7. When reporting statistical significance (e.g., "P < 0.05"), ensure that the 'P' consistently capitalized and italicized.

Discussion

1. is generally well-written and provides a good interpretation of the results. The authors effectively relate their findings to previous research and offer plausible explanations for the observed outcomes.

2. However, at some points, the discussion feels a bit repetitive of the Results section. While some reiteration is necessary, the authors should ensure that the Discussion truly expands on the Results by providing more in-depth analysis and interpretation, rather than just summarizing the findings again.

3. discussion of the organoleptic properties is quite thorough, which is commendable. The point about the odor of Lentinula edodes being characteristic of the fungi is well-taken.

4. authors adequately discuss the implications of their findings for animal feed. but, the discussion could be strengthened by addressing the limitations of the study more explicitly. as example, the authors acknowledge the need for in vivo studies, but they could also discuss any limitations related to the in vitro design itself, or the specific conditions under which the silages were prepared and analyzed.

5. When discussing previous research, ensure that citations are placed correctly and consistently. There are a few instances where they appear slightly detached from the text they are supporting.

6. language used in the Discussion is generally clear and academic. Just minor point: occasionally, a slightly more concise phrasing could be used to enhance readability. For example, instead of "the fact that...", perhaps just "that..." would suffice.

We thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback on the Discussion section. In response:

• We reduced redundancy by avoiding direct repetition of Results and instead emphasized interpretive and comparative analysis.

• The discussion was reorganized to enhance thematic coherence and biological

• We reviewed and corrected all citation placements to ensure consistency and clarity.

• Finally, we revised phrasing throughout the section to improve conciseness and readability, following the reviewer’s suggestions.

Conclusion

1. is concise and, summarizes the main findings of the study. However, it's a tad too brief. Perhaps a slightly more detailed conclusion that reiterates the significance of the findings and their potential impact would be more impactful.

R. Thank you for your observation. We have revised the conclusion to include a more detailed summary of the key findings and to emphasize the potential significance of SMS silage as a sustainable feed resource.

2. is brief, which is acceptable for a conclusion. However, ensure that the key abbreviations used in the paper are consistently used here as well (e.g., SMS).

R. Thank you for pointing this out. We have ensured that all key abbreviations used throughout the manuscript, including SMS, are consistently applied in the conclusion.

Figures & Tables

1. Ensure all figures and tables are numbered sequentially and are referred to correctly in the main text.

R. We appreciate this comment. All figure axes have been checked to confirm that labels are clear and legible, and units have been included where applicable.

2. Check all axes labels in the figures are clear, legible, and include units where appropriate

3. R. Thank you for the suggestion. We have reviewed the entire manuscript to ensure that all figures and tables are numbered sequentially and are correctly cited in the main text.

4. For tables, ensure column headings are clear and that any abbreviations used are defined in the footnotes.

R. Thank you for your observation. We have revised all tables to ensure that column headings are unambiguous, and all abbreviations used have been defined in the corresponding table footnotes. 

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I have thoroughly examined manuscript PONE-D-25-12392 entitled "Formulation of silages from spent mushroom substrates of Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes: organoleptic properties, phenolic content, in vitro digestibility, gas production and ruminal kinetics". The manuscript investigates the potential utilization of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) as a silage component for ruminant feeding systems. Whilst the topic is certainly meritorious and addresses important questions of agricultural sustainability, I regret to inform you that the manuscript requires substantial revision before it may be considered suitable for publication.

1. The experimental approach suffers from several critical deficiencies. Foremost among these is the absence of appropriate control treatments (lines 94-100). A conventional silage comparator would have provided essential context for evaluating the nutritional and fermentative characteristics of the SMS formulations. The selection of inclusion proportions (70-100% SMS) appears arbitrary and lacks adequate theoretical justification.

R: Thank you for this insightful comment. Maize silage is widely recognized as the most used silage worldwide due to its high yield potential and favorable fermentation characteristics. However, it also presents certain limitations, as noted in lines 404-406, which have prompted the search for alternative silage materials. In this context, the use of non-maize silages has gained increasing relevance, leading to numerous studies in which maize silage is no longer necessarily used as a conventional comparator (Barbosa et al., 2025; Jalil et al., 2024; Yi et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2020). This shift is partly because the characteristics of maize silage have been extensively documented in scientific literature, making them a suitable reference rather than a direct point of comparison. Moreover, the primary objective of silages produced from alternative feedstocks is not to replicate the fermenta

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

pone.0331467.s006.docx (31.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Agung Irawan

14 Jul 2025

<div>PONE-D-25-12392R1Formulation of silages from spent mushroom substrates of Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes: organoleptic properties, phenolic content, in vitro digestibility, gas production and ruminal kineticsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Márquez-Mota,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 28 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Agung Irawan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors, 

Please consider the comments from reviewer 1. In addition, why the chemical composition of the silage and in vitro gas production data were analyzed differently and separately? By design, they appear to be similar and should be treated/ analyzed at the same way. 

Please also check thoroughly for language/ grammar accuracy and typos in your manuscript when resubmitting your revision. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors addressed all the points, I have some minor comments left:

Materials and Methods

Include conventional silage control treatments for contextual comparison. This could help provide a better baseline for how your SMS formulations perform.

You should revise the statistical approach to properly account for the factorial design. It seems like in some parts, the analysis might be treating things as separate when they are part of a larger experimental setup.

When getting rumen inoculum, it would be good to obtain it from animals that haven't been exposed to the experimental substrates before. This could help avoid any potential biases in the results.

Discussion

Try to strengthen the interpretation of your findings within the context of practical feeding systems. Making it clearer how this research applies to real-world scenarios would be beneficial.

You might want to consider in vivo palatability trials to address the concerning organoleptic findings, especially regarding the undesirable odor of

L. edodes silages. This could provide valuable insights into how animals actually perceive the feed.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

I notice your big effort in this revision, making the current manuscript appropriately acceptance.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Sep 5;20(9):e0331467. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331467.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


13 Aug 2025

PLOS ONE editor

Thank you for your feedback and revision of the manuscript titled "Formulation of silages from spent mushroom substrates of Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes: organoleptic properties, phenolic content, in vitro digestibility, gas production and ruminal kinetics" (PONE-D-25-12392).

As you indicated, the data on in vitro gas production and chemical composition come from a single experiment. However, because of their disparate data structures and research goals, the data could not be examined using the same statistical model:

• Since each analysis aimed to look at the nutritional profile of each silage treatment on its own, we used one-way ANOVA to study the chemical composition and phenolic content. Since treatment was the primary factor and we were interested in the properties of the formulated silages, we did not consider the impact of the interaction between the levels of inclusion or the type of SMS.

• On the other hand, data on ruminal kinetics, digestibility, and in vitro gas production were gathered over time and necessitated a factorial approach (4 levels of SMS inclusion × 2 mushroom species). To consider the main effects as well as the interaction effects of species and inclusion levels on dynamic fermentative outcomes, these variables were examined using a 2-way ANOVA under a 4 × 2 factorial design.

Response to Reviewers

We thank the reviewer and the editor for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Formulation of silages from spent mushroom substrates of Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes: organoleptic properties, phenolic content, in vitro digestibility, gas production and ruminal kinetics.” We appreciate the constructive comments and helpful suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our work.

Below, we provide a detailed response to each comment. All changes made in the revised manuscript are clearly marked, and specific line numbers are provided where applicable.

Reviewer #1

We thank the reviewer for the time and effort dedicated to evaluating our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. In the following section, we address the corrections and suggestions made.

Materials and Methods

1. Include conventional silage control treatments for contextual comparison. This could help provide a better baseline for how your SMS formulations perform.

R: Thank you for your suggestion. Maize silage is widely recognized as the most used silage worldwide due to its high yield potential and favorable fermentation characteristics. However, it also presents certain limitations, as noted in lines 404-406, which have prompted the search for alternative silage materials. In this context, the use of non-maize silages has gained increasing relevance, leading to numerous studies in which maize silage is no longer necessarily used as a conventional comparator (Barbosa et al., 2025; Jalil et al., 2024; Yi et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2020). This shift is partly because the characteristics of maize silage have been extensively documented in scientific literature, making them a suitable reference rather than a direct point of comparison. Moreover, the primary objective of silage produced from alternative feedstocks is not to replicate the fermentation profile of maize silage, but rather to achieve a product with adequate fermentation quality, that preserves its nutritional attributes and is suitable for animal feeding.

Reference added:

Barbosa CR, Santos MM, Meirelles PR, et al. (2025). Elephant grass silage with pelleted citrus pulp: Chemical composition, disgestibility, and feedlot costs. Tropical Animal Science Journal, 48(2):148-155.

Jalili M, Mohammadzadeh H, Hosseinkhani A, Taghizadeh A. (2024). Effect of bacterial, enzymatic and molasses additive on fermentation and nutrient composition of Lime (Citrus aurantifolia) Pulp Silage. Animal Science Research, ():-. doi: 10.22034/as.2023.50768.1653

Yi Q, Wang P, Tang H, et al. (2023). Fermentation quality, in vitro digestibility, and aerobic stability of ensiling spent mushroom substrate with microbial additives. Animals, 13(5),920. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13050920

Wu P, Li L, Jiang J, et al. (2020). Effects of fermentative and non-fermentative additives on silage quality and anaerobic digestion performance of Pennisetum purpureum. Bioresource Technology, 297, 122425.

2. You should revise the statistical approach to properly account for the factorial design. It seems like in some parts, the analysis might be treating things as separate when they are part of a larger experimental setup.

R. As you indicated, the data on in vitro gas production and chemical composition come from a single experiment. However, because of their disparate data structures and research goals, the data could not be examined using the same statistical model:

• Since each analysis sought to characterize the nutritional profile of each silage treatment separately and independently, one-way ANOVA was used to analyze the chemical composition and phenolic content. Since treatment was the primary factor and we were interested in the properties of the formulated silages, we did not consider the impact of the interaction between the levels of inclusion or the type of SMS.

• On the other hand, data on ruminal kinetics, digestibility, and in vitro gas production were gathered over time and necessitated a factorial approach (4 levels of SMS inclusion × 2 mushroom species). To take into consideration the main effects as well as the interaction effects of species and inclusion levels on dynamic fermentative outcomes, these variables were examined using a 2-way ANOVA under a 4 × 2 factorial design.

3. When getting rumen inoculum, it would be good to obtain it from animals that haven't been exposed to the experimental substrates before. This could help avoid any potential biases in the results.

R. Thank you for the comment. We recognize the potential concern regarding microbial adaptation bias. However, the use of rumen fluid from animals adapted to the test feed is consistent with standard protocols in in vitro digestibility assays, as established by Goering and Van Soest (1970) and Tilley and Terry (1963). This practice ensures that the microbial population is metabolically active and relevant to the substrate under study, thereby improving the biological relevance and repeatability of the assay.

Importantly, the goal of our assay was to compare the relative digestibility of different SMS-based formulations, not to generalize absolute digestibility values to all feeding conditions. The use of adapted rumen fluid helps standardize conditions across treatments.

References Cited:

• Tilley JMA, Terry RA. (1963). A two‐stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society, 18(2), 104–111.

• Goering HK, Van Soest PJ. (1970). Forage Fiber Analyses (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures, and Some Applications). USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 379.

Discussion

4. Try to strengthen the interpretation of your findings within the context of practical feeding systems. Making it clearer how this research applies to real-world scenarios would be beneficial.

R. Thank you for your suggestion to strengthen the interpretation of our findings within practical feeding systems. We included a paragraph in the discussion section to ensure the applicability of our research to real-world animal production contexts (Line 681-688).

5. You might want to consider in vivo palatability trials to address the concerning organoleptic findings, especially regarding the undesirable odor of L. edodes silages. This could provide valuable insights into how animals actually perceive the feed.

R. We appreciate this comment. The present study is an in vitro study the provided a first approach of the possible use of silage formulated with SMS from L. edodes and P. ostreatus. The organoleptic evaluation indicated an undesirable and potentially unpalatable odor in the L. edodes silages, which may negatively influence animal acceptance

We addressed this limitation and included in the discussion section the necessity of in vivo palatability trials to evaluate the animal response and feed intake behavior (Line 453-455).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0331467.s007.docx (22.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Agung Irawan

17 Aug 2025

Formulation of silages from spent mushroom substrates of Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes: organoleptic properties, phenolic content, in vitro digestibility, gas production and ruminal kinetics

PONE-D-25-12392R2

Dear Dr. Márquez-Mota,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Agung Irawan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Agung Irawan

PONE-D-25-12392R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Márquez-Mota,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Agung Irawan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Raw image. Mycotoxin determination by thin layer chromatography (TLC).

    Picture was taken using a cellphone camera (iPhone model 14) with a handheld Mineralight® Multi-D Lamp, UVSL-25, corresponding to Fig 2.

    (PDF)

    pone.0331467.s001.pdf (100.8KB, pdf)
    S2 Table. In vitro digestibility of dry matter of micro-silages, pH value and ammoniacal nitrogen (NH₃-N) from spent mushroom substrates (SMS) of Lentinula edodes L5 and Pleurotus ostreatus IAP.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0331467.s002.docx (17.4KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Maximum volume of gas produced (Vmax), gas production rate (S), and lag phase (L) after in vitro fermentation of micro-silages from SMS of Lentinula edodes L5 and Pleurotus ostreatus IAP.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0331467.s003.docx (16.9KB, docx)
    S4 Table. Total volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration, acetic acid (%), propionic acid (%), and butyric acid (%) after in vitro fermentation of micro-silages from SMS of Lentinula edodes L5 and Pleurotus ostreatus IAP.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0331467.s004.docx (17.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    pone.0331467.s006.docx (31.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0331467.s007.docx (22.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data are in the paper and supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES