新疆农业科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (7): 1767-1775.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.07.024
• 土壤肥料·农业装备工程·畜牧兽医·草业 • 上一篇 下一篇
收稿日期:
2020-10-25
出版日期:
2022-07-20
发布日期:
2022-08-04
通信作者:
马春晖
作者简介:
贺婷婷(1996-),女,四川广安人,硕士研究生,研究方向为饲草生产与加工,(E-mail) 2247528953@qq.com
基金资助:
HE Tingting(), WANG Xuzhe, SONG Lei, MA Chunhui()
Received:
2020-10-25
Online:
2022-07-20
Published:
2022-08-04
Correspondence author:
MA Chunhui
Supported by:
摘要:
【目的】分析不同添加剂对油莎豆(Cyperus esculentus)青贮品质变化的影响,筛选出适宜的青贮添加剂。【方法】设计3个不同添加剂处理,分别为0.2%植物乳杆菌(W1 处理)、0.5%纤维素酶(W2处理)、0.2%植物乳杆菌+ 0.5%纤维素酶(W3处理),以不添加为对照处理(CK),添加至粉碎的油莎豆中,共发酵60 d,检测发酵期间各处理的第 0、7、15、30、45和60 d的干物质(DM)、粗蛋白(CP)、中性洗涤纤维(NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)、水溶性碳水化合物(WSC)、氨态氮(NH3-N)和pH值的变化,并动态监测开窖后各处理青贮内部温度变化规律,对比开袋前后的相对饲喂价值(RFV)。【结果】青贮发酵时间和3个添加剂处理在油莎豆青贮pH 、DM、CP、WSC、NH3-N均表现出极显著的交互作用(P<0.01),对 NDF、ADF有显著影响(P<0.05)。处理W3的pH、NH3-N、NDF和ADF最低,且CP、WSC、RFV含量最高;处理W3有氧稳定时间显著高于其它处理(P<0.05),达到115 h。综合评价排序W3处理>W1处理>W2处理>CK处理。【结论】3种添加剂均能有效改善油莎豆青贮品质,提高其营养价值,延长青贮有氧稳定性的时间,其中添加植物乳杆菌(0.2%)+纤维素酶(0.5%)的处理青贮效果最好。
中图分类号:
贺婷婷, 王旭哲, 宋磊, 马春晖. 不同添加剂对油莎豆青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(7): 1767-1775.
HE Tingting, WANG Xuzhe, SONG Lei, MA Chunhui. Effects of Different Additives on Quality and Aerobic Stability of Cyperus esculentus Silage[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(7): 1767-1775.
指标 Index | 青贮原料 Ensiling material |
---|---|
pH值 pH value | 6.72 |
干物质 Dry matter DM (%) | 36.71 |
粗蛋白 Crude protein CP (%) | 10.63 |
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber NDF (%) | 52.10 |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber ADF (%) | 33.52 |
水溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates WSC (%) | 17.73 |
表1 油莎豆草青贮原料营养成分
Table 1 Nutritional components of Cyperus esculentus silage of ensiling material
指标 Index | 青贮原料 Ensiling material |
---|---|
pH值 pH value | 6.72 |
干物质 Dry matter DM (%) | 36.71 |
粗蛋白 Crude protein CP (%) | 10.63 |
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber NDF (%) | 52.10 |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber ADF (%) | 33.52 |
水溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates WSC (%) | 17.73 |
发酵时间 (d) | 处理 Treatment | 干物质 DM(%) | 粗蛋白 CP(%) | 中性洗涤纤维 NDF(%) | 酸性洗涤纤维 ADF(%) | 可溶性糖 WSC(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | CK | 34.74±0.13a | 10.14±0.01b | 51.97±0.93a | 32.84±0.93a | 12.35±0.03c |
W1 | 34.67±0.06ab | 10.76±0.06a | 51.73±1.06a | 32.61±1.06a | 12.56±0.02b | |
W2 | 34.56±0.05b | 10.74±0.02a | 51.65±0.94a | 32.53±0.95a | 12.36±0.09c | |
W3 | 34.60±0.06ab | 10.74±0.01a | 51.46±0.38a | 32.33±0.39a | 12.74±0.04a | |
SE | 0.023 | 0.009 | 0.251 | 0.251 | 0.015 | |
7 | CK | 30.24±0.09d | 9.96±0.05b | 51.47±0.40a | 32.35±0.40a | 9.26±0.14a |
W1 | 33.84±0.12a | 10.72±0.02a | 50.42±0.34bc | 31.29±0.33bc | 8.72±0.02b | |
W2 | 31.83±0.14b | 10.68±0.03a | 50.70±0.14b | 31.58±0.14b | 8.52±0.03c | |
W3 | 31.38±0.27c | 10.70±0.01a | 49.76±0.56c | 30.63±0.55c | 8.62±0.02ab | |
SE | 0.049 | 0.008 | 0.112 | 0.112 | 0.021 | |
15 | CK | 30.15±0.05c | 9.73±0.02d | 50.82±0.80a | 31.69±0.80a | 8.82±0.03a |
W1 | 32.73±0.30a | 10.58±0.03a | 50.05±0.70ab | 30.92±0.70ab | 7.83±0.01c | |
W2 | 31.21±0.06b | 9.86±0.04c | 48.92±0.57bc | 29.79±0.57bc | 7.66±0.02d | |
W3 | 31.06±0.77b | 10.16±0.05b | 47.95±0.51c | 28.83±0.51c | 7.88±0.01b | |
SE | 0.120 | 0.010 | 0.189 | 0.190 | 0.002 | |
30 | CK | 29.53±0.08c | 8.66±0.04ab | 49.80±0.51a | 30.67±0.51a | 5.34±0.11c |
W1 | 31.85±0.60a | 8.59±0.03b | 48.52±0.61b | 29.39±0.61b | 6.32±0.02a | |
W2 | 31.23±0.15b | 9.20±0.59a | 47.94±0.52bc | 28.82±0.53bc | 5.94±0.02b | |
W3 | 31.16±0.18b | 8.75±0.03ab | 47.30±0.16c | 28.14±0.10c | 6.27±0.05a | |
SE | 0.094 | 0.085 | 0.139 | 0.138 | 0.018 | |
45 | CK | 28.74±0.51b | 7.85±0.10c | 49.26±0.27a | 30.14±0.27a | 4.88±0.44b |
W1 | 32.13±0.41a | 8.40±0.04a | 47.87±0.69b | 28.75±0.68b | 6.05±0.04a | |
W2 | 30.44±1.36a | 8.05±0.04b | 47.74±0.97b | 28.62±0.97b | 5.34±0.31b | |
W3 | 30.85±0.96a | 8.10±0.02b | 46.59±0.73b | 27.46±0.73b | 6.09±0.03a | |
SE | 0.258 | 0.017 | 0.205 | 0.205 | 0.078 | |
60 | CK | 28.70±0.77c | 7.13±0.06c | 48.48±0.27a | 29.35±0.27a | 4.07±0.03d |
W1 | 31.05±0.01a | 7.61±0.06a | 46.93±0.31b | 27.80±0.31b | 4.94±0.05b | |
W2 | 30.18±0.13b | 7.25±0.07b | 46.85±0.21b | 27.73±0.21b | 4.21±0.06c | |
W3 | 31.09±0.32a | 7.64±0.04a | 46.23±0.45c | 27.11±0.45c | 5.37±0.02a | |
SE | 0.122 | 0.017 | 0.093 | 0.093 | 0.011 |
表2 青贮过程中不同添加剂下油莎豆青贮营养品质变化
Table 2 Change of nutritional quality of Cyperus esculentus silage with different additives during fermentation process
发酵时间 (d) | 处理 Treatment | 干物质 DM(%) | 粗蛋白 CP(%) | 中性洗涤纤维 NDF(%) | 酸性洗涤纤维 ADF(%) | 可溶性糖 WSC(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | CK | 34.74±0.13a | 10.14±0.01b | 51.97±0.93a | 32.84±0.93a | 12.35±0.03c |
W1 | 34.67±0.06ab | 10.76±0.06a | 51.73±1.06a | 32.61±1.06a | 12.56±0.02b | |
W2 | 34.56±0.05b | 10.74±0.02a | 51.65±0.94a | 32.53±0.95a | 12.36±0.09c | |
W3 | 34.60±0.06ab | 10.74±0.01a | 51.46±0.38a | 32.33±0.39a | 12.74±0.04a | |
SE | 0.023 | 0.009 | 0.251 | 0.251 | 0.015 | |
7 | CK | 30.24±0.09d | 9.96±0.05b | 51.47±0.40a | 32.35±0.40a | 9.26±0.14a |
W1 | 33.84±0.12a | 10.72±0.02a | 50.42±0.34bc | 31.29±0.33bc | 8.72±0.02b | |
W2 | 31.83±0.14b | 10.68±0.03a | 50.70±0.14b | 31.58±0.14b | 8.52±0.03c | |
W3 | 31.38±0.27c | 10.70±0.01a | 49.76±0.56c | 30.63±0.55c | 8.62±0.02ab | |
SE | 0.049 | 0.008 | 0.112 | 0.112 | 0.021 | |
15 | CK | 30.15±0.05c | 9.73±0.02d | 50.82±0.80a | 31.69±0.80a | 8.82±0.03a |
W1 | 32.73±0.30a | 10.58±0.03a | 50.05±0.70ab | 30.92±0.70ab | 7.83±0.01c | |
W2 | 31.21±0.06b | 9.86±0.04c | 48.92±0.57bc | 29.79±0.57bc | 7.66±0.02d | |
W3 | 31.06±0.77b | 10.16±0.05b | 47.95±0.51c | 28.83±0.51c | 7.88±0.01b | |
SE | 0.120 | 0.010 | 0.189 | 0.190 | 0.002 | |
30 | CK | 29.53±0.08c | 8.66±0.04ab | 49.80±0.51a | 30.67±0.51a | 5.34±0.11c |
W1 | 31.85±0.60a | 8.59±0.03b | 48.52±0.61b | 29.39±0.61b | 6.32±0.02a | |
W2 | 31.23±0.15b | 9.20±0.59a | 47.94±0.52bc | 28.82±0.53bc | 5.94±0.02b | |
W3 | 31.16±0.18b | 8.75±0.03ab | 47.30±0.16c | 28.14±0.10c | 6.27±0.05a | |
SE | 0.094 | 0.085 | 0.139 | 0.138 | 0.018 | |
45 | CK | 28.74±0.51b | 7.85±0.10c | 49.26±0.27a | 30.14±0.27a | 4.88±0.44b |
W1 | 32.13±0.41a | 8.40±0.04a | 47.87±0.69b | 28.75±0.68b | 6.05±0.04a | |
W2 | 30.44±1.36a | 8.05±0.04b | 47.74±0.97b | 28.62±0.97b | 5.34±0.31b | |
W3 | 30.85±0.96a | 8.10±0.02b | 46.59±0.73b | 27.46±0.73b | 6.09±0.03a | |
SE | 0.258 | 0.017 | 0.205 | 0.205 | 0.078 | |
60 | CK | 28.70±0.77c | 7.13±0.06c | 48.48±0.27a | 29.35±0.27a | 4.07±0.03d |
W1 | 31.05±0.01a | 7.61±0.06a | 46.93±0.31b | 27.80±0.31b | 4.94±0.05b | |
W2 | 30.18±0.13b | 7.25±0.07b | 46.85±0.21b | 27.73±0.21b | 4.21±0.06c | |
W3 | 31.09±0.32a | 7.64±0.04a | 46.23±0.45c | 27.11±0.45c | 5.37±0.02a | |
SE | 0.122 | 0.017 | 0.093 | 0.093 | 0.011 |
变异来源Variation source | DM | CP | NDF | ADF | WSC | NH3-N | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
青贮时间Silage time | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
添加剂种类 Additive type | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
青贮时间×添加剂种类 Silage time×Additive type | ** | ** | * | * | ** | ** | ** |
表3 不同青贮时间和添加剂下油莎豆青贮营养品质变化
Table 3 Effects of Silage Time and Additives on Nutritional Quality of Cyperus esculentus Silage
变异来源Variation source | DM | CP | NDF | ADF | WSC | NH3-N | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
青贮时间Silage time | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
添加剂种类 Additive type | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
青贮时间×添加剂种类 Silage time×Additive type | ** | ** | * | * | ** | ** | ** |
指标 Index | 青贮原料 Ensiling materia | 处理 Treatment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | W1 | W2 | W3 | ||
DM/% | 34.74±0.13a | 28.70±0.77c | 31.09±0.01b | 30.18±0.13c | 31.09±0.32b |
CP(%DM) | 10.14±0.01a | 7.13±0.06d | 7.61±0.06b | 7.25±0.07c | 7.64±0.04b |
NDF(%DM) | 51.97±0.93a | 48.48±0.27b | 46.93±0.31c | 46.85±0.21c | 46.23±0.45c |
ADF(%DM) | 32.84±0.93a | 29.35±0.27b | 27.80±0.31c | 27.73±0.21c | 27.11±0.45c |
WSC(%DM) | 12.35±0.03a | 4.07±0.03e | 4.94±0.05c | 4.21±0.06d | 5.37±0.02b |
NH3-N(%) | 0.05±0.02d | 0.22±0.02a | 0.17±0.01c | 0.19±0.02b | 0.17±0.01c |
pH | 6.70±0.02a | 6.44±0.02b | 6.07±0.01d | 6.30±0.01c | 5.97±0.01e |
RFV | 111.73±0.43d | 126.72±1.10c | 133.29±1.36b | 133.62±0.93b | 136.41±2.02a |
表4 青贮前后油莎豆营养品质对比
Table 4 Analysis of nutritional quality of Cyperus esculentus befor and after the silage
指标 Index | 青贮原料 Ensiling materia | 处理 Treatment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | W1 | W2 | W3 | ||
DM/% | 34.74±0.13a | 28.70±0.77c | 31.09±0.01b | 30.18±0.13c | 31.09±0.32b |
CP(%DM) | 10.14±0.01a | 7.13±0.06d | 7.61±0.06b | 7.25±0.07c | 7.64±0.04b |
NDF(%DM) | 51.97±0.93a | 48.48±0.27b | 46.93±0.31c | 46.85±0.21c | 46.23±0.45c |
ADF(%DM) | 32.84±0.93a | 29.35±0.27b | 27.80±0.31c | 27.73±0.21c | 27.11±0.45c |
WSC(%DM) | 12.35±0.03a | 4.07±0.03e | 4.94±0.05c | 4.21±0.06d | 5.37±0.02b |
NH3-N(%) | 0.05±0.02d | 0.22±0.02a | 0.17±0.01c | 0.19±0.02b | 0.17±0.01c |
pH | 6.70±0.02a | 6.44±0.02b | 6.07±0.01d | 6.30±0.01c | 5.97±0.01e |
RFV | 111.73±0.43d | 126.72±1.10c | 133.29±1.36b | 133.62±0.93b | 136.41±2.02a |
指标 Index | 处理 Treatment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
CK | W1 | W2 | W3 | |
pH值pH value | 0.01 | 0.78 | 0.30 | 0.98 |
氨态氮NH3-N | 0.22 | 0.9 | 0.64 | 0.97 |
水溶性碳水化合物WSC | 0.01 | 0.67 | 0.12 | 0.95 |
干物质DM | 0.20 | 0.89 | 0.63 | 0.89 |
粗蛋白CP | 0.17 | 0.9 | 0.25 | 0.95 |
中性洗涤纤维 NDF | 0.44 | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.89 |
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF | 0.44 | 0.64 | 0.67 | 0.89 |
相对饲用价值 RFV | 0.15 | 0.6 | 0.66 | 0.88 |
有氧稳定性Aerobic stability | 0.03 | 0.66 | 0.33 | 0.96 |
平均值Average | 0.19 | 0.74 | 0.47 | 0.93 |
表5 不同添加剂对油莎豆青贮品质及有氧稳定性隶属函数
Table 5 Membership function analysis of different additives on quality and aerobic stability of Cyperus esculentus silage
指标 Index | 处理 Treatment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
CK | W1 | W2 | W3 | |
pH值pH value | 0.01 | 0.78 | 0.30 | 0.98 |
氨态氮NH3-N | 0.22 | 0.9 | 0.64 | 0.97 |
水溶性碳水化合物WSC | 0.01 | 0.67 | 0.12 | 0.95 |
干物质DM | 0.20 | 0.89 | 0.63 | 0.89 |
粗蛋白CP | 0.17 | 0.9 | 0.25 | 0.95 |
中性洗涤纤维 NDF | 0.44 | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.89 |
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF | 0.44 | 0.64 | 0.67 | 0.89 |
相对饲用价值 RFV | 0.15 | 0.6 | 0.66 | 0.88 |
有氧稳定性Aerobic stability | 0.03 | 0.66 | 0.33 | 0.96 |
平均值Average | 0.19 | 0.74 | 0.47 | 0.93 |
[1] | 王瑞元, 王晓松, 相海. 一种多用途的新兴油料作物-油莎豆[J]. 中国油脂, 2019, 44(1):1-4. |
WANG Ruiyuan, WANG Xiaosong, XIANG Hai. A new multipurpose oil crop - Cyperus esculentus[J]. Chinese grease, 2019, 44(1):1-4. | |
[2] | 瞿萍梅, 程治英, 龙春林, 等. 油莎豆资源的综合开发利用[J]. 中国油脂, 2007,(9):61-63. |
QU Pingmei, CHENG zhiying, LONG Chunlin, et al. Comprehensive development of chufa (Cyperus esculentus L. var. sativus)[J]. Chinese Grease, 2007,(9):61-63. | |
[3] | 杨敏. 新疆干旱气候区油莎豆对不同氮磷钾配施响应的研究[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2013. |
YANG Ming. Study on the Responses of Chufa under Different Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Application in arid climate region of Xinjiang[D]. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2013. | |
[4] | Agarussi M, Pereira O G, Paula R, et al. Novel lactic acid bacteria strains as inoculants on alfalfa silage fermentation[J]. Scientific Reports, 2019, 9(1):. |
[5] | Alhaag H, Yuan X, Mala A, et al. Fermentation Characteristics of Lactobacillus Plantarum and Pediococcus Species Isolated from Sweet Sorghum Silage and Their Application as Silage Inoculants[J]. Applied Sciences, 2019, 9(6):. |
[6] | Srigopalram S, Park H S, Ilavenil S, et al. Isolation, In Vitro Probiotic Characterization of Lactobacillus plantarum and its Role on Italian ryegrass Silage Quality Enhancement[J]. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 2016, 19(1):. |
[7] | 王媛, 王雁萍, 赵珊珊, 等. 植物乳杆菌对苜蓿青贮发酵品质和细菌菌群的影响[J/OL]. 郑州大学学报(理学版):1-6[2021-01-09]. |
WANG Yuan, WANG Yanping, ZHAO Shanshan, et al. Effect ofLactobacillus plantarum on fermentation quality and bacterial flora of alfalfa silage[J/OL]. Journal of Zhengzhou University (Science Ed.) : 1- 6[2021-01-09]. | |
[8] | 张适. 乳酸菌和外源酶制剂对全株玉米青贮品质影响的研究[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古民族大学, 2020. |
ZHANG Shi. Study on the Effect of Lactic Acid Bacteria and Exogenous Enzyme Preparations on the Quality of Whole Corn Silage[D]. Huhhot: Inner Mongolia University for Nationalities, 2020. | |
[9] | 李苗苗, 靳思玉, 王立超, 等. 不同温度下添加乳酸菌对油莎草青贮品质及体外干物质消失率的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(2):827-835. |
LI Miaomiao, JIN Siyu, WANG Lichao, et al. Effects of Lactic acid Bacteria Addition on Fermentation Quality and Dry Matter Digestibility of Cyperus esculentus Silage undef Different Temperatures[J]. Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(2):827-835. | |
[10] | 张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M]. (第2版)北京: 中国农业出版社, 2002. |
ZHANG Liying. Forage Analysis and Forage Quality Detection Technology[M]. (2nd Ed.) Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2002. | |
[11] | 高俊凤. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006. |
GAO Junfeng. Plant Physiology Experimental Guidance[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2006. | |
[12] | 贾春旺, 原现军, 肖慎华, 等. 青稞秸秆替代苇状羊茅对全混合日粮青贮早期发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(4):179-187. |
JIA Chunwang, YUAN Xianjun, XIAO Shenhua, et al. The Effect of Substituting Hulless Barley Straw for Tall fescue on Early Fermentation Quality and Aerobic Stability of Total Mixed Ration Silage in Tibet[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(4):179-187. | |
[13] | 红敏, 高民, 卢德勋, 等. 粗饲料品质评定指数新一代分级指数的建立及与分级指数(GI_(2001)) 和饲料相对值(RFV)的比较研究[J]. 动物营养学报,2011, 23(8):1296-1302. |
HONG Min, GAO min, LU Dexun, et al. Establishment of a new generation grading index of roughage quality evaluation index and its comparison with grading index (GI_(2001)) and feed relative value (RFV)[J]. Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2011, 23(8):1296-1302. | |
[14] | 王旭哲, 张凡凡, 马春晖, 等. 同/异型乳酸菌对青贮玉米开窖后品质及微生物的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(10):296-304. |
WANG Xuzhe,. ZHANG Fanfan, MA Chunhui, et al. Corn silage fermentation quality and microbial populations as influenced by adding homo- and hetero-fermentative bacteria after silos opened[J]. Nongye Gongcheng Xuebao/Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2018, 34(10):296-304. | |
[15] | Borreani G, Tabacco E, Schmidt R J, et al. Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages.[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(5):. |
[16] | Wang S, Li J, Dong Z, et al. Effect of microbial inoculants on the fermentation characteristics, nutritive value, and in vitro digestibility of various forages[J]. Animal Science Journal, 2018, 90(2):. |
[17] | 王目森. 植物乳杆菌与布氏乳杆菌对多花黑麦草青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[D]. 成都: 四川农业大学, 2015. |
WANG Museng. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus brucei on silage quality and aerobic stability of Lolium multiflorum[D]. Chengdou: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2015. | |
[18] | 张平, 赵琳琳. 纤维素酶和乳酸菌同时糖化发酵麦麸制乳酸[J]. 食品研究与开发, 2012, 33(3):175-177. |
ZHANG Ping, ZHAO Linlin. Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of wheat bran with cellulase and lactic acid bacteria to produce lactic acid[J]. Food research and Development, 2012, 33(3):175-177. | |
[19] | 唐振华, 杨承剑, 李孟伟, 等. 植物乳杆菌、布氏乳杆菌对甘蔗尾青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2018, 45(7):1824-1832. |
TANG Zhenhua, YANG Chengjian, LI Mengwei, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus brucei on the quality and aerobic stability of sugarcane tail silage[J]. China Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2018, 45(7):1824-1832. | |
[20] | 黄媛, 代胜, 梁龙飞, 等. 不同添加剂对构树青贮饲料发酵品质及微生物多样性的影响[J/OL]. 动物营养学报:1-11[2021-01-05]. |
HUANG Yuan, DAI Sheng, LIANG Longfei, et al. Effects of Different Additives on Fermentation Quality and Microbial Diversity of Broussonetia papyrifera Silage[J/OL]. Journal of Animal Nutrition:1-11[2021-01-05]. | |
[21] |
Ding W R, Long R J, Guo X S. Effects of plant enzyme inactivation or sterilization on lipolysis and proteolysis in alfalfa silage[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2013, 96(4):2536-2543.
DOI URL PMID |
[22] | Tomaz P K, Araujo L D, Sanches L A, et al. Effect of sward height on the fermentability coefficient and chemical composition of Guinea grass silage[J]. Grass and Forage Science, 2018, 73(3):. |
[23] | Tao X, Chen S, Zhao J, et al. Effects of citric acid residue and lactic acid bacteria on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of alfalfa silage[J]. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 2020. |
[24] |
张玲, 席琳乔, 张凡凡, 等. 残次枣粉添加青贮苜蓿中微生物、发酵和营养品质动态规律[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(10):1929-1938.
DOI |
ZHANG Ling, XI Linqiao, ZHANG Fanfan, et al. Dynamic law of microorganism, fermentation and nutritional quality in silage alfalfa added with defective jujube powder[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 56(10):1929-1938.
DOI |
|
[25] | 王亚芳, 姜富贵, 成海建, 等. 不同青贮添加剂对全株玉米青贮营养价值、发酵品质和瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(6):2765-2774. |
WANG Yafang, JIANG Fugui, CHENG Jianhai, et al. Effects of Different Silage Additives on Nutritional Value, Fermentation Quality and Rumen Degradation Rate of Whole Corn Silage[J]. Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(6):2765-2774. | |
[26] | 刘梦洁, 尹清强, 常娟, 等. 植物乳杆菌和纤维素酶对玉米秸秆降解及糖化效果的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2020,(23):34-39. |
LIU Mengjie, YIN Qingqiang, CHANG Juan, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum and Cellulase on Degradation and Saccharification of Corn Stalk[J]. Chinese Feed, 2020,(23):34-39. | |
[27] | 江春, 于辉, 张延辉, 等. 纤维素酶及乳酸菌对棉花秸秆青贮饲料发酵品质及体外消化率的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2019, 55(4):101-106. |
JIANG Chun, YU Hui, ZHANG Tinghui, et al. Effects of Chinese feed cellulase and lactic acid bacteria on fermentation quality and in vitro digestibility of cotton straw silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Husbandry, 2019, 55(4):101-106. | |
[28] | Strom K, Sjogren J, Broberg A, et al. Lactobacillus plantarum MiLAB 393 Produces the Antifungal Cyclic Dipeptides Cyclo(L-Phe-L-Pro) and Cyclo (L-Phe-trans-4-OH-L-Pro) and 3-Phenyllactic Acid[J]. Applied & Environmental Microbiology, 2002, 68(9):4322-4322. |
[29] | Sj gren, J rgen, Magnusson , et al. Antifungal 3-Hydroxy Fatty Acids from Lactobacillus plantarum MiLAB 14.[J]. Applied & Environmental Microbiology, 2003. |
[30] | Li M, Zhou H, Zi X, et al. Silage fermentation and ruminal degradation of stylo prepared with lactic acid bacteria and cellulose[J]. Animal Science Journal, 2017. |
[1] | 何齐, 冯倩, 李雪, 易鸳鸯, 顾美英, 朱静, 孙建, 张志东. 赛里木酸奶中乳酸菌的分离鉴定及特性分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2323-2330. |
[2] | 王挺, 张力, 张凡凡, 黄嵘峥, 李肖, 张玉琳, 陈永成, 赵建涛, 马春晖. 适合青贮的玉米品种生产性能筛选及营养价值评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(7): 1596-1605. |
[3] | 杨寒珺, 黄星宇, 王旭哲, 张凤华, 鲁为华, 张凡凡. 田间晾晒时间对饲用油菜发酵品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(6): 1433-1441. |
[4] | 徐鹏飞, 王旭哲, 杨寒珺, 黄星宇, 付东青, $\boxed{\hbox{鲁为华}}$, 孙新文. 添加糖蜜对棉秆微贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(3): 715-726. |
[5] | 岳丽, 王卉, 山其米克, 再吐尼古丽·库尔班, 涂振东. 基于高通量测序的甜高粱青贮饲料中微生物群落分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(11): 2742-2750. |
[6] | 王挺, 张凡凡, 黄华, 杨光维, 陈卫国, 张力, 马春晖. 基于模糊相似优先比法评价规模化牧场全株玉米青贮饲料品质[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(1): 215-225. |
[7] | 伊力夏提·艾热提, 李伟, 徐杨林, 严宏孟, 戴志伟, 周建中. 传统发酵酸凝硬质奶酪中乳酸菌的分离鉴定及其体外益生特性[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(6): 1491-1501. |
[8] | 何万荣, 孙强, 席琳乔, 段震宇. 9个青贮玉米品种灰色关联综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(12): 2948-2956. |
[9] | 刘康永, 焦玚, 赵福相, 刘娜, 陈全家, 高文伟, 曲延英. TDZ处理对棉花叶片脱落率及酶活性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(6): 981-991. |
[10] | 早热古丽·热合曼, 叶尔兰·对山别克, 万江春, 艾比布拉·伊马木. 添加香梨残次果汁渣对苜蓿青贮发酵品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(6): 1136-1141. |
[11] | 文雯, 李鑫, 李鲁华 , 王江丽. 施氮量对北疆滴灌春小麦-青贮玉米氮素利用率及土壤硝态氮的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(4): 610-623. |
[12] | 岳丽,山其米克,再吐尼古丽·库尔班,王卉,叶凯,茆军,涂振东. 刈割期及添加剂对甜高粱青贮发酵品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2018, 55(8): 1428-1435. |
[13] | 郭凯, 侯敏, 包慧芳, 王宁, 詹发强, 杨蓉, 杨文绮, 龙宣杞, 崔卫东. 双指标优化黑曲霉液态发酵条件及降解棉秆效果[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2018, 55(11): 2122-2133. |
[14] | 雷志刚;王业建;郗浩江;李铭东;李召锋;赵海菊;韩登旭;杨杰;阿布来提·阿布拉;梁晓玲. 不同青贮玉米品种品质性状与农艺性状的相关分析[J]. , 2017, 54(4): 694-699. |
[15] | 岳丽, 叶凯, 再吐尼古丽·库尔班, 王卉, 山其米克, 涂振东. 青贮菌剂对甜高粱秸秆与酒糟青贮品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2017, 54(10): 1856-1862. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||