Edited by: Eugenio Aprea, University of Trento, Italy
Reviewed by: Shwet Kamal, ICAR-Directorate of Mushroom Research, India
Amita Kumari, Patanjali Research Foundation, India
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
As the scale of
Different ratios of
Compared with the control, yields increased by 14.86% (QS-MPP), 8.1% (QS-VVP), 18.92% (QS-ZJP), and 22.97% (QS-MAP). The MAP group had 21.21% higher ash content, while the QS-MAP group exhibited the highest crude protein content (10.84% increase). The QS-MPP group showed the highest crude fiber content (1.72 g/100 g). Crude polysaccharide and fat contents in the ZJP group increased by 110.77% and 10.15%, respectively. Mineral content varied, with QS-MPP showing the highest calcium, potassium, manganese, and magnesium levels, and VVP exhibiting the highest iron and copper levels. Amino acid analysis revealed QS-MPP had the highest levels of threonine, valine, isoleucine, serine, cysteine, glycine, and histidine, while QS-VVP had the highest leucine, aspartate, glutamate, and arginine levels. The best formulation was determined as 40% QS, 40% MPP, 17% bran, 1% sucrose, 1% CaCO3, and 1% gypsum.
These results highlight the potential of fruit tree pruning residues as a sustainable substrate for
Shiitake mushrooms (
Annually, ~200 billion tons of organic matter are produced via photosynthesis, with a significant portion classified as agro-industrial waste (
The pruning residue from fruit trees is rich in cellulose, lignin, and mineral elements. The nutrient content of such pruning residues is higher than that of corn stalks and many herbaceous plants, making them suitable substrates for cultivating edible fungi (
With the continuous expansion of fruit orchard planting areas in China, the quantity of discarded fruit from tree pruning is increasing. Fruit tree pruning residues contain abundant minerals and are valuable biological resources. However, current improper utilization methods have led to substantial waste of these resources (
The
A sterile technique was used to obtain a pure culture by transferring a small piece of the
The pure cultures were stored at 4°C for short-term use. For long-term preservation, the strain was sub-cultured on PDA and stored at −80°C in a cryoprotectant (15% glycerol) or preserved in a lyophilized form.
The study took place at Shaanxi Sanqin Forest and Fungi Industry Ltd. from March 2022 to May 2023. The pruning residues of the following orchard fruit trees were evaluated and compared as potential substrates for
The experiment comprised a total of 11 treatments (
Design table for different sawdust addition ratios.
| T1 (CK) | 80 | - | - | - | - | - | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| T2 | - | 80 | - | - | - | - | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| T3 | 40 | 40 | - | - | - | - | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| T4 | - | - | 80 | - | - | - | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| T5 | 40 | - | 40 | - | - | - | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| T6 | - | - | - | 80 | - | - | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| T7 | 40 | - | - | 40 | - | - | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| T8 | - | - | - | - | 80 | - | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| T9 | 40 | - | - | - | 40 | - | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| T10 | - | - | - | - | - | 80 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| T11 | 40 | - | - | - | - | 40 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
QS,
T1 stand for QS; T2 stand for MPP; T3 stand for QS-MPP: 1:1; T4 stand for VVP; T5 stand for QS-VVP: 1:1; T6 stand for ADP; T7 stand for QS-ADP: 1:1; T8 stand for ZJP; T9 stand for QS-ZJP: 1:1; T10 stand for MAP; T11 stand for QS-MAP: 1:1.
Detachments, the practice of gently separating the substrate from bag walls without opening them, occurred every 15 days starting the first week after inoculation. To induce fruiting, the opened blocks were flushed, which involved rinsing with water to remove exudates. The blocks were then maintained in a climate-controlled chamber at 18 ± 1°C with 85–90% relative humidity. Following the first flush, blocks were submerged in water for 8 h to promote a second flush according to the methodology of Kobayashi et al. (
Mushroom growth was monitored daily, and mature fruiting bodies (white with upturned caps) were harvested by cutting the base just above the substrate using a sharp blade. Three harvest rounds were conducted for all substrate types throughout the experiment. During the growth process, several metrics were recorded: germination time measured as time from inoculation to the appearance of aerial hyphae, feeding time measured as time until hyphae extend into the medium, growth rate measured as daily mycelium extension, incubation period measured as time from inoculation to complete hyphae coverage, yield (measured as the fruiting body weight per kilogram of dry substrate), and pollution rate measured as percentage of contaminated bags.
The nutrient analysis of the raw material involved evaluation of the moisture content, carbohydrates, ash, crude protein, crude fat, fiber, and crude polysaccharides. These findings can indicate the nutrient richness of fruit tree branches as a measure of their potential suitability to serve as substrates for edible fungi cultivation.
Moisture content determination was performed according to the Chinese standard GB 5009.3-2016 (National Food Safety Standard: Determination of Moisture in Foods) (
In brief, a flat aluminum was placed in a drying oven at 101–105°C for 1 h with the cap tilted and was then weighed after cooling for 30 min. This step was repeated until the weight stabilized within 2 mg. The sample was ground to <2 mm, and 2–10 mg of the sample was placed in the weighing bottle up to a thickness of 5 mm (10 mm for loose samples). The sample was dried in the oven at 101–105°C for 2–4 h, cooled, and weighed; these steps were repeated until the weight difference was within 2 mg, indicating a constant weight. The moisture content (g/100 mg) of the sample (
where
Ash content determination was based on the Chinese standard GB 5009.4-2016 (National Food Safety Standard: Determination of Ash content in Foods) (
After weighing the sample, 1 mL of 240 g/L magnesium acetate solution was added to fully wet the sample. After 10 min, the sample was dried in a water bath and then heated gently on an electric plate until fully carbonized. The sample was then burned in a high-temperature furnace at 550 ± 25°C for 4 h to obtain the ash. After cooling to ~200°C, the ash was placed on a desiccator for 30 min before weighing. If carbon particles were present, the sample was moistened and redried as above until no carbon remained. The ashing process was repeated until consecutive weight measurements differed by no more than 0.5 mg. The ash content (g/100 g) in the sample (
where
Crude protein content determination was based on the Chinese standard GB 5009.5-2016 (National Food Safety Standard: Determination of Protein in Foods) (
In brief, 0.2 g of thoroughly mixed solid samples, 2 g of semi-solid samples, or 10 g of liquid samples was weighed to an accuracy of 0.001 g and placed in a digestion tube to which 0.4 g of copper sulfate, 6 g of potassium sulfate, and 20 mL of sulfuric acid were added. The mixture was digested in a digestion furnace. Once the furnace temperature reached 420°C, the digestion was continued for 1 h. Once the liquid in the digestion tube became green and transparent, the tube was removed from the furnace, cooled, and mixed with 50 mL of water. Automatic liquid addition, distillation, titration, and recording of titration data were performed with an automatic Kjeldahl nitrogen analyzer. The protein content (g/100 g) in the sample (
Where
Crude fat content determination was based on the Chinese standard GB 5009.6-2016 (National Food Safety Standard: Determination of Fat in Foods) (
The mixed sample was weighed to 2–5 g (with accuracy to 0.001 g) and transferred into a filter paper cylinder that was placed in a Soxhlet extractor connected to a pre-weighed receiving flask. Anhydrous ether was added to the flask and heated in a water bath for continuous reflux extraction (6–8 times per hour) for 6–10 h. Extract completion was confirmed based on a lack of oil stains on a frosted glass rod. The solvent was removed from the flask and the remaining evaporate (1–2 mL) was placed in a water bath. The residue was dried at 100 ± 5°C for 1 h, cooled in a desiccator for 30 min, and weighed; the above steps were repeated until a constant weight was achieved. The fat content (g/100 g) in the sample (
where
Crude fiber content determination was based on the Chinese standard GB 5009.10-2016 (Determination of Crude Fiber in Plant-based Foods) (
The crushed sample (20 g) was transferred to a 500-mL Erlenmeyer flask with 200 mL of boiling 1.25% sulfuric acid. The sample was boiled gently for 30 min with shaking every 5 min to maintain a constant volume. The sample was then filtered through a linen cloth and washed until the liquid became pH of 7. The residue was then washed with 200 mL of boiling 1.25% potassium hydroxide solution, boiled for 30 min, and filtered again. The obtained residue was transferred to a pre-dried and weighed G2 crucible and washed thoroughly with hot water, followed by a wash with ethanol and ether. The crude fiber content of the sample (
Where G is mass of the residue (or the mass lost during the high-temperature ashing process) in grams (g) and
Crude polysaccharides content determination was based on the Chinese standard NY/T 1676-2023 (Determination of Crude Polysaccharides in Edible Mushrooms Using Spectrophotometry) (
The sample (0.2–0.5 g) was placed in a microwave digestion vessel with 20 mL of water, mixed thoroughly, and refrigerated overnight at 4°C. The solution was mixed again and microwave extraction was performed at 140°C for 2 h. The obtained extract was transferred to a 250-mL beaker, the vessel was washed with additional water, and the washings were combined. The beaker was heated on a hot plate until no liquid was moving, followed by the addition of 5 mL of water. After stirring the sample and cooling to room temperature, 75 mL of anhydrous ethanol was slowly added, stirred, and the sample was refrigerated at 4°C for 12 h. The mixture was centrifuged at 5,000 rpm for 10 min, the supernatant was discarded, and the precipitate was combined with the pooled washings. The mixture was stirred, heated, and transferred to a volumetric flask. After dilution and filtering, the first 10–15 mL of the filtrate was discarded and the remaining 20–30 mL was collected for measurement. The glucose standard curve was constructed using various volumes of glucose solution and measuring the absorbance at 490 nm after reacting with phenol and sulfuric acid. The crude polysaccharide content (g/100 mg;
where
Calcium, iron, potassium, zinc, copper, sodium, magnesium, and manganese contents of the samples were measured according to the Chinese standard GB 5009.268-2016 (National Food Safety Standard: Determination of Multiple Elements in Food) (
In brief, 0.2 g of solid sample was placed in a microwave digestion vessel. The samples were preheated with ethanol or CO2; to remove these substances, 5 mL of nitric acid was added and left to react for 1 h or overnight. The sample was digested using standard microwave conditions, cooled, and then the vessel was opened to release the gas. After rinsing the lid, the mixture was heated or ultrasonically degassed and the volume was adjusted to 25 mL with water. The blank solution and sample solution were injected into the inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICP-MS) to measure the signal response values of the target element and the internal standard element. The concentration of the target element in the digestion solution was determined based on the standard curve. The element content (mg/kg or mg/L) in the sample (
Where ρ is the element's mass concentration in the sample solution (μg/L), ρ0 is the concentration in the blank solution (μg/L),
Selenium was tested according to the Chinese standard GB 5009.93-2017 (National Food Safety Standard: Determination of Selenium in Food) (
Similarly, 0.2 g of solid sample (weighed to an accuracy of 0.001 g) was placed in a digestion tube to which 10 mL of nitric acid and 2 mL of hydrogen peroxide were added. The sample was mixed and digested in a microwave system according to recommended conditions. After digestion, the digest was cooled and transferred to a flask containing glass beads and heated until nearly dry. Subsequently, 5 mL of 6 mol/L hydrochloric acid was added, and the sample was heated until turning clear with white smoke. After cooling, the sample was transferred to a 10-mL volumetric flask with 2.5 mL of 100 g/L potassium ferricyanide solution, diluted to the mark, and mixed. A reagent blank was established. Using hydrochloric acid (5+95) as the carrier and sodium borohydride (8 g/L) as the reductant, standard samples were introduced into the instrument to stabilize readings, followed by the measurement of selenium standards. The standard curve of concentration vs. fluorescence intensity was plotted and the fluorescence intensities of blank and sample solutions were measured for quantification. The selenium content (mg/kg or mg/L) in the sample (
where ρ is the selenium concentration in the sample solution (μg/L), ρ0 is the selenium concentration in the blank solution (μg/L),
Amino acid content determination was based on the Chinese standard GB 5009.124-2016 (National Food Safety Standard: Determination of Amino Acids in Foods) (
Two grams of a ground sample was placed in a hydrolysis tube, mixed with an equal volume of hydrochloric acid, and adjusted to a volume of ~10 mL with 6 mol/L hydrochloric acid. Subsequently, three to four drops of phenol were added, and the tube was frozen for 3–5 min, evacuated under vacuum, filled with nitrogen, and sealed. The sample was then hydrolyzed at 110 ± 1°C for 22 h. The hydrolysate was cooled and filtered into a 50-mL volumetric flask while rinsing the tube with water. The sample was diluted to 50 mL and mixed. One milliliter of the filtrate was transferred to a test tube, concentrated under reduced pressure at 40–50°C, and the residue was dissolved in 1–2 mL of water. The sampled was dried again and evaporated to dryness. After adding 1–2 mL of pH 2.2 sodium citrate buffer, the sample was mixed, filtered through a 0.22-μm membrane, and amino acid contents were measured with an amino acid analyzer. The sample concentrations were compared to those of mixed amino acid standard solutions using the external standard method based on the peak areas. The amino acid content (g/100 g) in the sample (
where
Using the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) 1973 revised pattern for essential amino acids (EAAs) in ideal proteins, the amino acid score (AAS) and chemical score (CS) of the samples were calculated with the following formulas:
where
The essential amino acid index (EAAI) was calculated as follows:
where
Finally, the biological value (BV) of the sample was calculated as follows:
The data were subjected to significance analysis and principal component analysis (PCA) using SPSS 22.0 software.
The basic nutrient composition varied among different sawdust samples derived from
Nutritional components in branches of fruit trees.
| QS | 84.8 ± 0.02 ab | 10.3 ± 0.07 d | 3.1 ± 0.06 d | 1.27 ± 0.08 e | 0.5 ± 0.06 c | 49.2 ± 0.04 a | 0.65 ± 0.05 c |
| MPP | 78.3 ± 0.09 c | 8.75 ± 0.09 e | 4.4 ± 0.03 a | 7.79 ± 0.09 a | 0.8 ± 0.02 a | 27.3 ± 0.44 d | 0.75 ± 0.07 b |
| VVP | 77.3 ± 0.06 cd | 13.5 ± 0.07 a | 2.7 ± 0.09 e | 5.9 ± 0.06 b | 0.6 ± 0.15 b | 44.6 ± 0.29 bc | 0.67 ± 0.08 c |
| ADP | 81.7 ± 0.08 b | 11.1 ± 0.05 c | 4.2 ± 0.05 ab | 2.64 ± 0.05 d | 0.4 ± 0.04 d | 19.6 ± 0.21 e | 0.65 ± 0.05 c |
| ZJP | 81.5 ± 0.04 b | 12.3 ± 0.06 ab | 3.3 ± 0.09 c | 3.3 ± 0.01 c | 0.5 ± 0.11 c | 43.2 ± 0.35 bc | 0.93 ± 0.06 a |
| MAP | 82.7 ± 0.03 a | 12.9 ± 0.05 ab | 2.7 ± 0.07 e | 1.31 ± 0.03 e | 0.4 ± 0.16 d | 46.6 ± 0.17 b | 0.44 ± 0.09 d |
The data in the table are average and standard deviation (Mean ± SE). Multiple comparison was caried out by using Ducan method. The data with different small letters in column means significant difference (p <0.05). The data with same small letters in column means unsignificant different (P > 0.05).
The pruning residues of different fruit trees had significant impacts on the growth and development of
Effects of different fruit branches on growth and yield of
| CK | 1.08 ± 0.54 g | 4.70 ± 0.89 cd | 3.05 ± 0.12 cd | 35.17 ± 0.56 de | 0.74 ± 0.01 ef | 1.61 ± 0.04 d |
| T2 | 1.23 ± 0.29 cd | 5.43 ± 0.92 a | 3.07 ± 0.09 cd | 38.12 ± 0.86 fg | 0.59 ± 0.03 fg | 0.98 ± 0.12 a |
| T3 | 1.26 ± 0.81 c | 4.73 ± 0.35 cd | 3.24 ± 0.08 b | 34.25 ± 0.98 cd | 0.85 ± 0.01 c | 1.71 ± 0.19 d |
| T4 | 1.15 ± 0.21 f | 5.10 ± 0.88 b | 2.93 ± 0.05 de | 42.15 ± 1.25 h | 0.66 ± 0.02 h | 1.83 ± 0.23 de |
| T5 | 1.37 ± 0.83 b | 4.91 ± 0.70 bc | 3.16 ± 0.05 bc | 37.25 ± 0.87 fg | 0.8 ± 0.03 d | 1.32 ± 0.09 bc |
| T6 | 1.57 ± 0.72 a | 4.44 ± 0.53 de | 2.58 ± 0.05 f | 48.52 ± 1.21 i | 0.53 ± 0.01 i | 1.91 ± 0.17 fg |
| T7 | 1.34 ± 0.29 bc | 4.92 ± 0.72 bc | 2.92 ± 0.04 de | 38.42 ± 0.19 fg | 0.7 ± 0.02 f g | 1.81 ± 0.06 ef |
| T8 | 1.01 ± 0.19 hi | 5.00 ± 0.06 bc | 3.32 ± 0.02 b | 32.09 ± 1.24 b | 0.77 ± 0.03 e | 1.22 ± 0.05 b |
| T9 | 1.06 ± 0.21 gh | 4.70 ± 0.96 cd | 3.64 ± 0.02 a | 30.14 ± 1.41 a | 0.88 ± 0.01 b | 1.68 ± 0.17 d |
| T10 | 1.21 ± 0.35 de | 4.92 ± 0.64 bc | 3.18 ± 0.05 bc | 33.09 ± 1.16 bc | 0.78 ± 0.03 de | 2.69 ± 0.11 h |
| T11 | 1.27 ± 0.62 c | 5.10 ± 0.26 b | 3.19 ± 0.04 bc | 33.21 ± 0.48 bc | 0.91 ± 0.02 a | 1.92 ± 0.09 fg |
The data in the table are average and standard deviation (Mean ± SE). Multiple comparison was caried out by using Ducan method. The data with different small letters in column means significant difference (p <0.05). The data with same small letters in column means unsignificant different (P > 0.05).
Cultivating
Effect of different fruit tree branches on routine nutrition components of
| CK | 9.22 ± 0.02 d | 5.42 ± 0.01 bc | 27.21 ± 0.02 c | 19.81 ± 0.02 c | 0.72 ± 0.07 e | 0.65 ± 0.01 f |
| T2 | 7.93 ± 0.04 f | 5.53 ± 0.02 bc | 28.9 ± 0.05 b | 17.92 ± 0.03 d | 0.92 ± 0.06 cd | 0.93 ± 0.03 d |
| T3 | 8.41 ± 0.03 e | 5.72 ± 0.03 b | 29.51 ± 0.02 b | 15.67 ± 0.04 e | 1.72 ± 0.04 a | 1.28 ± 0.04 b |
| T4 | 11.5 ± 0.01 b | 5.84 ± 0.08 b | 27.85 ± 0.06 c | 20.14 ± 0.06 ab | 1.05 ± 0.08 bc | 1.24 ± 0.01 b |
| T5 | 7.87 ± 0.04 f | 5.52 ± 0.03 bc | 29.11 ± 0.04 b | 18.33 ± 0.05 d | 1.02 ± 0.03 bc | 1.07 ± 0.07 c |
| T6 | 12.99 ± 0.05 a | 6.15 ± 0.06 ab | 26.96 ± 0.02 cd | 18.68 ± 0.08 d | 0.26 ± 0.09 h | 0.95 ± 0.02 d |
| T7 | 9.24 ± 0.01 d | 5.59 ± 0.04 bc | 27.41 ± 0.03 c | 20.95 ± 0.07 ab | 0.96 ± 0.01 cd | 1.08 ± 0.03 c |
| T8 | 10.72 ± 0.02 c | 5.76 ± 0.07 b | 24.86 ± 0.09 e | 21.82 ± 0.02 a | 0.48 ± 0.02 g | 1.37 ± 0.04 a |
| T9 | 10.06 ± 0.07 c | 6.11 ± 0.09 ab | 28.91 ± 0.06 b | 19.37 ± 0.05 c | 0.62 ± 0.05 f | 1.03 ± 0.08 c |
| T10 | 10.86 ± 0.09 c | 6.57 ± 0.11 a | 29.75 ± 0.08 b | 20.51 ± 0.04 ab | 0.96 ± 0.03 cd | 0.82 ± 0.07 e |
| T11 | 10.21 ± 0.02 c | 6.32 ± 0.01 a | 30.16 ± 0.09 a | 19.36 ± 0.01 c | 1.19 ± 0.06 b | 0.93 ± 0.04 d |
The data in the table are average and standard deviation (Mean ± SE). Multiple comparison was caried out by using Ducan method. The data with different small letters in column means significant difference (p <0.05). The data with same small letters in column means unsignificant different (P > 0.05).
The mineral content in
Effects of different fruit branches on mineral elements of
| CK | 156 ± 1.23 g | 2.36 × 104 ± 0.04 × 104 g | 33.0 ± 1.36 f | 53.4 ± 1.24 c | 0.504 ± 0.03 i | 4.06 ± 1.21 c | 73.8 ± 3.52 g | 15.7 ± 0.23 bc | 1.22 × 103 ± 0.09 × 104 e |
| T2 | 217 ± 0.97 b | 2.72 × 104 ± 0.36 × 104 e | 65.4 ± 0.93 b | 72.6 ± 0.95 b | 0.967 ± 0.12 g | 5.68 ± 0.94 ab | 124 ± 2.93 a | 16.8 ± 0.21 b | 1.48 × 103 ± 0.01 × 104 b |
| T3 | 250 ± 0.24 a | 3.10 × 104 ± 0.12 × 104 a | 63.2 ± 0.92 b | 76.4 ± 1.46 b | 0.739 ± 0.04 h | 6.06 ± 0.19 a | 99.6 ± 1.37 c | 20.4 ± 0.19 a | 1.64 × 103 ± 0.04 × 104 d |
| T4 | 143 ± 1.42 h | 2.81 × 104 ± 0.09 × 104 d | 92.1 ± 1.21 a | 86.6 ± 0.46 a | 1.38 ± 0.28 d | 6.71 ± 0.72 a | 95.6 ± 0.99 cd | 12.4 ± 0.28 d | 1.22 × 103 ± 0.05 × 104 e |
| T5 | 210 ± 1.86 c | 2.69 × 104 ± 0.14 × 104 ef | 60.4 ± 2.56 b | 88.7 ± 1.63 a | 0.527 ± 0.03 i | 5.6 ± 0.35 ab | 99 ± 3.72 c | 16.4 ± 0.63 b | 1.40 × 103 ± 0.04 × 104 bc |
| T6 | 130 ± 0.92 I | 2.78 × 104 ± 0.06 × 104 de | 60.8 ± 0.96 b | 75.9 ± 0.97 b | 1.54 ± 0.12 c | 5.46 ± 0.29 ab | 91.5 ± 4.15 cd | 11.8 ± 1.02 de | 1.34 × 103 ± 0.03 × 104 cd |
| T7 | 144 ± 1.73 h | 2.91 × 104 ± 0.21 × 104 Cc | 35.2 ± 4.24 f | 77.3 ± 1.52 b | 1.23 ± 0.03 f | 5.75 ± 0.48 ab | 87.8 ± 2.18 e | 12.9 ± 0.9 d | 1.40 × 103 ± 0.11 × 104 bc |
| T8 | 158 ± 2.19 g | 2.54 × 104 ± 0.04 × 104 f | 45.4 ± 2.16 e | 50.5 ± 1.78 c | 4.58 ± 0.27 a | 4.68 ± 0.62 c | 83 ± 2.84 f | 12.4 ± 0.04 d | 1.18 × 103 ± 0.01 × 104 e |
| T9 | 198 ± 2.55 cd | 2.98 × 104 ± 0.12 × 104 b | 52.4 ± 1.72 cd | 69.6 ± 0.92 b | 2.16 ± 0.97 b | 6.1 ± 0.26 a | 90.3 ± 1.65 cd | 16.2 ± 0.09 b | 1.42 × 103 ± 0.09 × 104 bc |
| T10 | 168 ± 3.82 f | 2.59 × 104 ± 0.08 × 104 f | 59.2 ± 1.36 c | 70.2 ± 1.58 b | 1.36 ± 0.46 e | 5.92 ± 0.52 a | 102.8 ± 2.25 b | 14.7 ± 0.11 c | 1.26 × 103 ± 0.04 × 104 e |
| T11 | 175 ± 0.97 e | 2.82 × 104 ± 0.05 × 104 d | 64.9 ± 4.21 b | 75.5 ± 2.64 b | 1.29 ± 0.72 f | 5.19 ± 0.47 bc | 98.4 ± 1.56 bc | 16.8 ± 0.31 b | 1.37 × 103 ± 0.05 × 104 cd |
The data in the table are average and standard deviation (Mean ± SE). Multiple comparison was caried out by using Ducan method. The data with different small letters in column means significant difference (p <0.05). The data with same small letters in column means unsignificant different (P > 0.05).
The highest manganese content was found in the QS-MPP (1-1) treatment group at 16.8 mg/kg, which was 6.5% higher than that of the control. QS-MPP (1-1) also resulted in the highest magnesium content at 1.64 × 103 mg/kg, which was 25.6% above that of the control. The mixtures of QS-ZJP and QS-MAP increased both magnesium and manganese levels, whereas
The substrates derived from various fruit tree branches contained 17 amino acids at different concentrations (
Effects of different fruit branches on amino acid composition of
| Essential amino acid | Threonine | 1.08 ± 0.002 ab | 1.02 ± 0.013 bc | 1.12 ± 0.001 a | 1.04 ± 0.004 ab | 1.11 ± 0.012 a | 0.99 ± 0.002 c | 1.08 ± 0.004 ab | 1.01 ± 0.009 bc | 1.08 ± 0.008 ab | 1.05 ± 0.009 bc | 1.12 ± 0.003 a |
| Valine | 1.25 ± 0.011 ab | 1.17 ± 0.015 cd | 1.29 ± 0.012 a | 1.17 ± 0.009 cd | 1.29 ± 0.017 a | 1.14 ± 0.007 cd | 1.18 ± 0.017 cd | 1.1 ± 0.012 de | 1.21 ± 0.009 bc | 1.24 ± 0.024 ab | 1.28 ± 0.036 a | |
| Isoleucine | 1.26 ± 0.025 b | 1.24 ± 0.016 b | 1.34 ± 0.067 a | 1.08 ± 0.021 cd | 1.17 ± 0.052 bc | 1.15 ± 0.019 bc | 1.14 ± 0.026 bc | 1.24 ± 0.026 b | 1.28 ± 0.038 ab | 1.19 ± 0.029 bc | 1.21 ± 0.019 b | |
| Methionine | 0.44 ± 0.015 a | 0.39 ± 0.011 ab | 0.42 ± 0.009 a | 0.37 ± 0.004 ab | 0.41 ± 0.002 a | 0.4 ± 0.001 a | 0.37 ± 0.004 ab | 0.38 ± 0.012 ab | 0.43 ± 0.016 a | 0.35 ± 0.018 ab | 0.42 ± 0.024 a | |
| Leucine | 1.42 ± 0.001 b | 1.38 ± 0.016 bc | 1.47 ± 0.019 b | 1.36 ± 0.023 bc | 1.51 ± 0.028 a | 1.32 ± 0.035 bc | 1.38 ± 0.024 bc | 1.25 ± 0.027 d | 1.39 ± 0.018 bc | 1.36 ± 0.032 bc | 1.39 ± 0.019 bc | |
| Phenylalanine | 1.05 ± 0.025 ab | 0.99 ± 0.052 bc | 1.07 ± 0.062 a | 0.93 ± 0.018 bc | 1.07 ± 0.032 a | 0.94 ± 0.054 bc | 0.98 ± 0.027 bc | 0.89 ± 0.073 cd | 0.99 ± 0.027 bc | 1.02 ± 0.083 ab | 1.05 ± 0.023 ab | |
| Lysine | 0.97 ± 0.019 ab | 0.95 ± 0.061 ab | 1.02 ± 0.041 a | 0.97 ± 0.069 ab | 1.02 ± 0.017 a | 0.94 ± 0.072 ab | 0.99 ± 0.036 ab | 0.87 ± 0.047 bc | 0.96 ± 0.049 ab | 0.93 ± 0.027 ab | 0.92 ± 0.063 ab | |
| Noessential amino acid | Aspartate | 1.97 ± 0.014 ab | 1.92 ± 0.027 ab | 2.06 ± 0.038 a | 1.9 ± 0.019 ab | 2.09 ± 0.052 a | 1.83 ± 0.016 bc | 1.95 ± 0.052 ab | 1.81 ± 0.018 bc | 1.93 ± 0.019 ab | 1.95 ± 0.036 ab | 2.01 ± 0.027 a |
| Serine | 1.04 ± 0.016 a | 1.01 ± 0.051 a | 1.1 ± 0.013 a | 1.01 ± 0.015 a | 1.08 ± 0.024 a | 0.96 ± 0.029 ab | 1.05 ± 0.046 a | 0.99 ± 0.024 ab | 1.05 ± 0.015 a | 0.95 ± 0.026 ab | 1.02 ± 0.063 a | |
| Cysteine | 0.11 ± 0.015 a | 0.13 ± 0.063 a | 0.15 ± 0.027 a | 0.13 ± 0.028 a | 0.14 ± 0.039 a | 0.12 ± 0.017 a | 0.16 ± 0.003 a | 0.14 ± 0.013 a | 0.13 ± 0.017 a | 0.14 ± 0.021 a | 0.12 ± 0.042 a | |
| Glutamate | 6.31 ± 0.072 ab | 6.0 ± 0.092 bc | 6.6 ± 0.018 ab | 6.05 ± 0.025 bc | 6.91 ± 0.036 a | 5.62 ± 0.032 cd | 6.38 ± 0.057 ab | 5.34 ± 0.028 cd | 6.15 ± 0.024 ab | 6.05 ± 0.036 bc | 5.89 ± 0.025 cd | |
| Glycine | 0.99 ± 0.062 ab | 0.96 ± 0.015 ab | 1.03 ± 0.063 a | 0.93 ± 0.084 ab | 1.02 ± 0.027 a | 0.91 ± 0.038 ab | 0.93 ± 0.084 ab | 0.89 ± 0.038 ab | 0.96 ± 0.036 ab | 0.94 ± 0.012 ab | 0.92 ± 0.017 ab | |
| Alanine | 1.03 ± 0.016 ab | 1.05 ± 0.012 ab | 1.1 ± 0.061 a | 1.02 ± 0.081 ab | 1.13 ± 0.019 a | 1.14 ± 0.016 a | 1.18 ± 0.063 a | 0.95 ± 0.058 ab | 1.01 ± 0.048 ab | 1.02 ± 0.027 ab | 1.09 ± 0.083 ab | |
| Tyrosine | 0.18 ± 0.017 c | 0.25 ± 0.013 ab | 0.26 ± 0.061 ab | 0.29 ± 0.081 a | 0.29 ± 0.028 a | 0.26 ± 0.083 a | 0.3 ± 0.025 a | 0.25 ± 0.016 ab | 0.27 ± 0.037 a | 0.23 ± 0.083 ab | 0.27 ± 0.024 a | |
| Histidine | 0.42 ± 0.016 a | 0.41 ± 0.012 a | 0.45 ± 0.019 a | 0.4 ± 0.012 a | 0.44 ± 0.031 a | 0.39 ± 0.021 ab | 0.42 ± 0.018 a | 0.36 ± 0.037 ab | 0.4 ± 0.029 a | 0.41 ± 0.016 a | 0.39 ± 0.026 ab | |
| Arginine | 1.38 ± 0.037 c | 1.34 ± 0.036 c | 1.45 ± 0.029 ab | 1.38 ± 0.024 c | 1.50 ± 0.026 a | 1.22 ± 0.084 d | 1.37 ± 0.027 c | 1.16 ± 0.035 d | 1.31 ± 0.033 c | 1.32 ± 0.043 c | 1.41 ± 0.018 ab | |
| Proline | 1.07 ± 0.016 a | 1.01 ± 0.013 ab | 1.06 ± 0.018 ab | 1.01 ± 0.013 ab | 1.06 ± 0.042 ab | 1.02 ± 0.052 ab | 1.03 ± 0.026 ab | 1.0 ± 0.019 ab | 1.09 ± 0.027 a | 1.02 ± 0.043 ab | 1.05 ± 0.026 ab | |
| Total essential amino acid | 7.47 ± 0.128 bc | 7.14 ± 0.262 d | 7.73 ± 0.262 a | 6.92 ± 0.182 e | 7.58 ± 0.236 b | 6.88 ± 0.235 ef | 7.12 ± 0.236 d | 6.74 ± 0.244 g | 7.34 ± 0.199 bc | 7.14 ± 0.284 d | 7.39 ± 0.277 bc | |
| Total noessential amino acid | 14.5 ± 0.241 b | 14.08 ± 0.256 b | 15.26 ± 0.296 a | 14.12 ± 0.348 b | 15.66 ± 0.248 a | 13.47 ± 0.343 c | 14.77 ± 0.303 b | 12.89 ± 0.244 | 14.3 ± 0.251 b | 14.03 ± 0.281 b | 14.17 ± 0.261 b | |
| Total amino acids | 21.97 ± 0.369 ab | 21.22 ± 0.581 ab | 22.99 ± 0.558 a | 21.04 ± 0.530 ab | 23.24 ± 0.484 a | 20.35 ± 0.578 bc | 21.89 ± 0.539 ab | 19.63 ± 0.488 bc | 21.64 ± 0.45 ab | 21.17 ± 0.565 ab | 21.56 ± 0.538 ab | |
| EAA/TAA | 34.00 a | 33.65 ab | 33.62 ab | 32.89 bc | 32.62 bc | 33.81 ab | 32.53 bc | 34.34 a | 33.92 ab | 33.73 bc | 34.28 a | |
| EAA/NEAA | 51.52 b | 50.71 bc | 50.66 bc | 49.01 d | 48.4 e | 51.08 b | 48.21 e | 52.29 a | 51.33 b | 50.89 bc | 52.15 a | |
The data in the table are average and standard deviation (Mean ± SE). Multiple comparison was caried out by using Ducan method. The data with different small letters in column means significant difference (p <0.05). The data with same small letters in column means unsignificant different (P > 0.05).
The levels of valine, isoleucine, and threonine in all tested samples exceeded the corresponding values in the FAO/WHO model, whereas the levels of leucine, tyrosine-phenylalanine (Tyr-Phe), lysine, and methionine-cysteine (Met-Cys) were lower than those of the FAO/WHO model (
Comparison of essential amino acids and amino acid patterns.
| CK | 56.9 | 57.35 | 64.64 | 44.15 | 25.03 | 55.99 | 49.16 |
| T2 | 55.14 | 58.44 | 65.03 | 44.77 | 24.51 | 58.44 | 48.07 |
| T3 | 56.11 | 58.29 | 63.94 | 44.37 | 24.79 | 57.85 | 48.72 |
| T4 | 55.61 | 51.33 | 64.64 | 46.1 | 23.77 | 57.99 | 49.43 |
| T5 | 55.51 | 50.34 | 64.97 | 43.89 | 23.67 | 58.52 | 47.76 |
| T6 | 56.02 | 56.51 | 64.87 | 46.19 | 25.55 | 58.97 | 48.65 |
| T7 | 53.91 | 52.08 | 63.04 | 45.23 | 24.21 | 58.47 | 49.34 |
| T8 | 56.04 | 63.17 | 63.68 | 44.32 | 26.49 | 58.07 | 51.45 |
| T9 | 55.92 | 59.15 | 64.23 | 44.36 | 25.88 | 58.23 | 49.91 |
| T10 | 58.57 | 56.21 | 64.24 | 43.93 | 23.15 | 59.05 | 49.6 |
| T11 | 59.37 | 56.12 | 64.47 | 42.67 | 25.05 | 61.22 | 51.95 |
| FAO/WHO model | 50 | 40 | 70 | 55 | 35 | 60 | 40 |
| All-egg model | 73 | 66 | 88 | 64 | 55 | 100 | 51 |
The amino acid content was ranked in the samples from the highest to lowest as follows: medicinal amino acids (MAAs), umami amino acids (UAAs), bitter-tasting amino acids (BAAs), and sweet-tasting amino acids (SAAs). Glutamic acid was the most abundant and predominant UAA in all formulations. The proportion of UAAs to TAAs was notably high, exceeding 35%, with the highest level of 38.73% observed in the QS-VVP (1-1) group. The SAA content ranged from 18.56 to 19.80%, with the ADP group showing the highest percentage. The BAA content varied from 32.53 to 34.34%, with the ZJP group having the highest amount. UAA levels were 1.621–1.758 times >BAA levels, indicating relatively high proportions of UAAs and SAAs than other amino acid types, which can contribute to a better taste and thus offer greater development potential. The highest proportions of UAAs, SAAs, and BAAs were found in the QS-VVP (1-1), ADP, and ZJP groups, respectively, underscoring their significance in flavor profile development (
Effects of different fruit branches on flavor amino acids of
| MAA | 14.7 b | 14.18 bc | 15.38 a | 14.18 bc | 15.82 a | 13.44 d | 14.65 b | 12.84 d | 14.39 bc | 14.15 bc | 14.28 bc |
| UAA | 8.28 ab | 7.92 ab | 8.66 ab | 7.95 ab | 9.0 a | 7.45 bc | 8.33 ab | 7.1 bc | 8.08 ab | 8.0 ab | 7.9 ab |
| SAA | 4.13 ab | 4.03 ab | 4.29 a | 3.97 bc | 4.29 a | 4.03 ab | 4.19 ab | 3.83 bc | 4.11 ab | 3.93 bc | 4.08 ab |
| BAA | 7.47 a | 7.14 b | 7.73 a | 6.92 c | 7.58 a | 6.88 c | 7.12 b | 6.74 c | 7.34 a | 7.14 b | 7.39 a |
| UAA/TAA (%) | 37.69 ab | 37.32 ab | 37.67 ab | 37.79 ab | 38.73 a | 36.61 bc | 38.05 a | 36.42 bc | 37.34 ab | 37.79 ab | 36.64 bc |
| SAA/TAA (%) | 18.80 ab | 18.99 ab | 18.66 bc | 18.87 ab | 18.46 bc | 19.80 a | 19.14 ab | 19.51 a | 18.99 ab | 18.56 bc | 18.92 ab |
| BAA/TAA (%) | 34.00 a | 33.65 ab | 33.62 ab | 32.89 bc | 32.62 bc | 33.81 ab | 32.53 bc | 34.34 a | 33.92 ab | 33.73 ab | 34.28 a |
| (UAA+SAA)/BAA (%) | 1.661 ab | 1.674 ab | 1.675 ab | 1.723 a | 1.753 a | 1.669 ab | 1.758 a | 1.629 ab | 1.661 ab | 1.671 ab | 1.621 ab |
MAA crucial for maintaining body nitrogen balance, include Glu, Asp, Arg, Gly, Phe, Tyr, Met, Leu, and Lys. UAA consist of Glu and Asp, while SAA include Ser, Gly, Ala, and Pro. BAA comprise essential amino acids.
Both protein quality assessment scores highlighted amino acid imbalances in various formulations of
AAS, CS, EAAI, and BV of amino acids in
| CK | 1.138 | 0.779 | 1.434 | 0.869 | 0.923 | 0.735 | 0.803 | 0.999 | 0.715 | 0.455 | 0.933 | 0.560 | 1.229 | 0.964 | 99.88 | 70.23 | 97.17 | 64.85 |
| T2 | 1.103 | 0.755 | 1.461 | 0.885 | 0.929 | 0.739 | 0.814 | 1.000 | 0.700 | 0.446 | 0.974 | 0.584 | 1.202 | 0.943 | 99.98 | 70.30 | 97.28 | 64.93 |
| T3 | 1.122 | 0.769 | 1.458 | 0.883 | 0.913 | 0.727 | 0.807 | 100.03 | 0.708 | 0.451 | 0.964 | 0.579 | 1.218 | 0.955 | 100.03 | 70.34 | 97.34 | 64.97 |
| T4 | 1.112 | 0.762 | 1.283 | 0.778 | 0.923 | 0.735 | 0.838 | 98.44 | 0.679 | 0.432 | 0.967 | 0.580 | 1.236 | 0.969 | 98.44 | 69.22 | 95.60 | 63.75 |
| T5 | 1.110 | 0.760 | 1.259 | 0.763 | 0.928 | 0.738 | 0.798 | 97.12 | 0.676 | 0.430 | 0.975 | 0.585 | 1.194 | 0.936 | 97.12 | 68.29 | 94.16 | 62.74 |
| T6 | 1.120 | 0.767 | 1.413 | 0.856 | 0.927 | 0.737 | 0.840 | 101.04 | 0.730 | 0.465 | 0.983 | 0.590 | 1.216 | 0.954 | 101.04 | 71.04 | 98.43 | 65.74 |
| T7 | 1.078 | 0.738 | 1.302 | 0.789 | 0.901 | 0.716 | 0.822 | 97.94 | 0.692 | 0.440 | 0.975 | 0.585 | 1.234 | 0.967 | 97.94 | 68.87 | 95.06 | 63.36 |
| T8 | 1.121 | 0.768 | 1.579 | 0.957 | 0.910 | 0.724 | 0.806 | 102.91 | 0.757 | 0.482 | 0.968 | 0.581 | 1.286 | 1.009 | 102.91 | 72.36 | 100.47 | 67.17 |
| T9 | 1.118 | 0.766 | 1.479 | 0.896 | 0.918 | 0.730 | 0.807 | 101.32 | 0.739 | 0.471 | 0.971 | 0.582 | 1.248 | 0.979 | 101.32 | 71.24 | 98.74 | 65.95 |
| T10 | 1.171 | 0.802 | 1.405 | 0.852 | 0.918 | 0.730 | 0.799 | 99.62 | 0.661 | 0.421 | 0.984 | 0.591 | 1.240 | 0.973 | 99.62 | 70.05 | 96.89 | 64.65 |
| T11 | 1.187 | 0.813 | 1.403 | 0.850 | 0.921 | 0.733 | 0.776 | 101.75 | 0.716 | 0.455 | 1.020 | 0.612 | 1.299 | 1.019 | 101.75 | 71.54 | 99.21 | 66.28 |
The EAAI of
The BV of the protein, which measures the efficiency of protein utilization after digestion, ranged from 94.16 to 100.47% based on FAO/WHO standards, and from 62.74 to 67.17% when compared to the whole-egg model. A higher BV indicates superior nutritional quality. The ZJP group had the highest BV of 100.47%, suggesting that using
To more comprehensively evaluate the impact of varying proportions of fruit tree pruning residues on the growth and development of
The eigenvalues of the first two principal components both exceeded 1, with variance explained ratios of 64.09 and 21.83%, respectively. The cumulative variance explained reached 85.92%, demonstrating that the first two principal components effectively captured the differences across group indicators. PC1 primarily represented the variation in factors such as BAA, TAA, UAA, SAA, MAA (medicinal amino acids), and crude protein, with BAA having the strongest positive influence on this component. PC2 mainly captured the variation in growth rate, biological efficiency, yield, and calcium, with growth rate exerting the strongest positive influence on this component (
Short array of component loadings after principal component analysis rotation.
| Mycelial growth rate | 0.19 | 0.5514 |
| Yield | 0.2669 | 0.4357 |
| Biological efficiency | 0.2829 | 0.4563 |
| Crude protein | 0.2849 | 0.0115 |
| Ca | 0.3049 | 0.1197 |
| TAA | 0.3708 | −0.2222 |
| TMAA | 0.3595 | −0.2557 |
| UAA | 0.3507 | −0.261 |
| SAA | 0.3252 | −0.3112 |
| BAA | 0.3782 | −0.0605 |
| Eigenvalues | 6.409 | 2.183 |
| Variance explained ratio/% | 64.093 | 21.827 |
| Cumulative explained ratio/% | 64.093 | 85.92 |
By combining the variance explained by the first two principal components and applying the proportion of each component's eigenvalue to the total eigenvalue of the extracted components as weights, the integrated evaluation model was derived as follows:
where
Based on the constructed model, the comprehensive scores of
Composite scores and ranking of
| T1 | 0.4282 | −0.7445 | 0.1303 | 5 |
| T2 | −0.5407 | −0.3803 | −0.4999 | 7 |
| T3 | 3.8749 | −0.2088 | 2.8375 | 1 |
| T4 | −1.8748 | −0.69398 | −1.5748 | 9 |
| T5 | 3.5083 | −1.2304 | 2.3045 | 2 |
| T6 | −3.8991 | −2.0552 | −3.4307 | 11 |
| T7 | −0.2403 | −1.4276 | −0.5419 | 8 |
| T8 | −3.6799 | 2.4485 | −2.1230 | 10 |
| T9 | 1.5443 | 2.0023 | 1.6606 | 3 |
| T10 | −0.3367 | 0.8273 | −0.0409 | 6 |
| T11 | 1.2158 | 1.4626 | 1.2785 | 4 |
Orchard waste has the potential to be used as edible mushroom cultivation material. Through our experiments, we found that
This study evaluated the impact of various fruit tree pruning residues on the growth and yield of
MPP emerged as an outstanding substrate for the accumulation of crude protein in
The use of fruit tree pruning as a cultivation substrate also affected trace element accumulation. The addition of pruning improved the contents of potassium, iron, zinc, copper, sodium, manganese, and magnesium (
Utilizing fruit tree pruning residues for mushroom cultivation not only addresses the issue of large quantities of pruning residues ending up as waste without suitable storage but also fully capitalizes on their value, converting waste into a resource, enhancing crop quality, and achieving both ecological and economic benefits (
An appropriate substrate formulation is a prerequisite for obtaining high yields of
Fruit tree pruning used as a raw material for cultivating
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
YZ: Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. QL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LD: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JD: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. YL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. YW: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HX: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BQ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by Agricultural Collaborative Innovation and Extension Alliance Project of Shaanxi Province (LM202209), Science and Technology Research and Development Program Project of Ankang City (AK2023-NYZC-01), and Qinghai Provincial Natural Science Youth Fund Project (2023-ZJ-968Q). This work was part of Yuanyuan Zhang Ph. D. dissertation co-supervised by HX and BQ.
We would like to thank the life science research core services (LSRCS) of Northwest A&F University for the support provided to this research.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.