Xianjun Jiang^1,2

1 Zhejiang Bainiangzi Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Lishui, 323000, Zhejiang, China
2 Zhejiang Agronomist College, Hangzhou, 310021, Zhejiang, China
Author    Correspondence author
Biological Evidence, 2026, Vol. 16, No. 5   
Received: 02 Sep., 2026    Accepted: 05 Oct., 2026    Published: 12 Oct., 2026

This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Log cultivation and substrate cultivation of Ganoderma lucidum differ markedly in substrate source, nutrient supply, growth cycle, environmental regulation, and production management, and these differences may influence fruiting body appearance, marketability, and the accumulation of bioactive compounds. This study compares the two cultivation systems in terms of production characteristics, fruiting body morphology and color, drying performance, yield and marketable yield, as well as polysaccharides, triterpenoids, proteins, and mineral elements, and further analyzes the effects of strain, cultivation materials, temperature and humidity, light conditions, harvest stage, drying, and storage. Log cultivation shows certain advantages in traditional market perception and some quality indicators, whereas substrate cultivation offers greater flexibility in substrate formulation, standardization, and large-scale production. However, quality differences between the two systems are not consistent across all indicators. The quality of G. lucidum should therefore be evaluated comprehensively by integrating biochemical quality, commercial quality, production performance, economic performance, and safety, rather than being judged solely on the basis of cultivation method or a single component. This study provides a reference for cultivation system selection, product grading, and quality control of G. lucidum.

Ganoderma lucidum; Log cultivation; Substrate cultivation; Quality differences; Bioactive compounds; Commercial quality; Cultivation selection