糖蜜和植物乳杆菌对啤酒花枝叶青贮品质、微生物数量及瘤胃降解率的影响

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2024.03.022

新疆农业科学 ›› 2024, Vol. 61 ›› Issue (3): 719-726.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2024.03.022

糖蜜和植物乳杆菌对啤酒花枝叶青贮品质、微生物数量及瘤胃降解率的影响

鲜欧洋¹(), 李肖¹^,², 陈永成¹, 王挺¹^,³, 王旭哲¹, 张凡凡¹(), 马春晖¹()

1.石河子大学动物科技学院,新疆石河子 832000
2.新疆伊犁哈萨克自治州畜牧总站,新疆伊宁 835000
3.伟林贸易有限公司,湖南衡阳 421000

收稿日期:2023-07-23 出版日期:2024-03-20 发布日期:2024-04-19
通信作者: 张凡凡(1989-),男,新疆乌鲁木齐人,副教授,博士,硕士生导师,研究方向为饲草加工与生产,(E-mail)zhangfanfan@shzu.edu.cn;马春晖(1966-),男,新疆哈密人,教授,博士,硕士生/博士生导师,研究方向为饲草加工与生产,(E-mail)chunhuima@126.com
作者简介:鲜欧洋(1996-),男,新疆乌鲁木齐人,硕士研究生,研究方向为饲草加工与生产,(E-mail)709542017@qq.com
基金资助:
农业农村部:国家现代农业产业技术体系项目(CARS);新疆维吾尔自治区优质饲草产业技术体系项目(2022XJSC-Z-02);新疆维吾尔自治区创新环境(人才、基地)建设专项(2021D14008);昌吉州适度规模化肉牛育肥的技术集成与示范推广项目(2021Z02)

Effects of molasses and Lactobacillus plantarum on silage quality,microbial quantity and rumen degradation rate of hop branches and leaves

XIAN Ouyang¹(), LI Xiao¹^,², CHEN Yongcheng¹, WANG Ting¹^,³, WANG Xuze¹, ZHANG Fanfan¹(), MA Chunhui¹()

1. College of Animal Science and Technology,Shihezi University,Shihezi Xinjiang 832000,China
2. Animal Husbandry General Station of Yili Prefecture,Yining Xinjiang 835000,China
3. Weiling Trading Co.,Ltd.,Hengyang Hunan 421000,China

Received:2023-07-23 Online:2024-03-20 Published:2024-04-19
Correspondence author: ZHANG Fanfan(1989-),male,from Urumqi,Xinjiang,Ph.D,associate professor,master tutor,research direction:forage production and processing,(E-mail)zhangfanfan@shzu.edu.cn;MA Chunhui(1966-),male,from Hami,Xinjiang,Ph.D,professor,doctoral supervisor,research direction:forage production and processing,(E-mail)chunhuima@126.com
Supported by:
China Agriculture Research System(CARS);High-Quality Forage Industry Technology System Project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region(2022XJSC-Z-02);Innovation Environment(Talent,Base) Construction Project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region(2021D14008);Moderate Scale Beef Cattle Fattening Technology Integration and Demonstration Promotion Project Changji Prefecture(2021Z02)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】 研究糖蜜和植物乳杆菌对啤酒花枝叶青贮品质、微生物数量及瘤胃降解率的影响。【方法】 以啤酒花枝叶为原料,研究添加糖蜜与植物乳杆菌对啤酒花枝叶青贮发酵特征及绵羊瘤胃降解率的影响,设置处理无添加剂处理(CK)、5%糖蜜(Molasses,M₀处理)、5%糖蜜+10⁵ CFU/g FM植物乳杆菌的组合(Molasses and Lactobacillus plantarum,M₁)3个处理。均在室温(19~23℃)下贮藏90 d后评价感官质量,测定分析青贮品质、微生物数量和瘤胃降解率。【结果】 (1)M₀、M₁处理的感官质量评价优于对照处理,M₁处理的DM显著高于CK和M₀处理(P<0.05),M₁处理的CP显著高于CK处理(P<0.05),M₀、M₁处理的WSC显著高于CK处理(P<0.05)。M₁处理的NDF显著低于CK和M₀处理(P<0.05),M₀、M₁处理的ADF显著低于CK处理(P<0.05),M₁处理的LA显著高于CK、M₀处理(P<0.05),M₁处理的AA显著高于CK处理(P<0.05),M₀、M₁处理的pH、NH₃-N/TN均显著低于CK处理(P<0.05);(2)M₁处理的乳酸菌显著高于CK、M₀处理(P<0.05),M₀、M₁处理的酵母菌显著低于CK处理(P<0.05);(3)瘤胃降解12 h时,各处理之间DMD差异不显著,M₀、M₁处理的OMD、ADFD、NDFD显著高于CK处理(P<0.05);瘤胃降解24 h时,M₁处理的DMD显著高于CK处理,M₀、M₁处理的OMD、ADFD、NDFD显著高于CK处理(P<0.05);瘤胃降解48 h时,M₁处理的DMD、ADFD显著高于CK、M₀处理(P<0.05),M₀、M₁处理的OMD、DNFD显著高于CK处理(P<0.05)。【结论】 糖蜜和植物乳杆菌在啤酒花枝叶青贮发酵中起到了良好的协同作用,有效地改善了青贮品质,抑制了啤酒花枝叶青贮过程中有害微生物的生长,促进了瘤胃微生物的活动。

关键词: 啤酒花枝叶; 植物乳杆菌; 青贮; 发酵品质; 瘤胃降解率

Abstract:

【Objective】 Effects of molasses and Lactobacillus plantarum on silage quality,microbial quantity and rumen degradation rate of hop branches and leaves.【Methods】 In this experiment,hop branches and leaves were used as raw materials to study the effects of adding molasses and Lactobacillus plantarum on fermentation characteristics of hop branches and leaves silage and rumen degradation rate of sheep.The treatments were no additive treatment(CK treatment),5% molasses(Molasses,M₀ treatment),5% molasses+10⁵ CFU/g FM Lactobacillus plantarum combination(Molasses and Lactobacillus plantarum,M₁ treatment).After 90 days of storage at room temperature(19-23℃),the sensory quality was evaluated,the silage quality and microbial quantity were analyzed,and after that,the rumen degradation rate was determined.【Results】 (1) The sensory quality evaluation of M₀ and M₁ treatments was better than that of the control treatment.The DM of M₁ treatment was significantly higher than that of CK and M₀ treatments(P<0.05).The CP of M₁ treatment was significantly higher than that of CK treatment(P<0.05).The NDF of M₁ treatment was significantly lower than that of CK and M₀ treatments(P<0.05).The ADF of M₀ and M₁ treatments was significantly lower than that of CK treatment(P<0.05).The LA of M₁ treatment was significantly higher than that of CK and M₀ treatments(P<0.05).The AA of M₁ treatment was significantly higher than that of CK treatment(P<0.05).The pH and NH3-N / TN of M₀ and M₁ treatments were significantly lower than those of CK treatment(P<0.05).(2) The lactic acid bacteria of M₁ treatment was significantly higher than that of CK and M₀ treatment(P<0.05),and the yeast of M₀ and M₁ treatment was significantly lower than that of CK treatment(P<0.05).(3) At 12 h of rumen degradation,there was no significant difference in DMD among the treatments.The OMD,ADFD and NDFD of M₀ and M₁ treatments were significantly higher than those of CK treatment(P<0.05).At 24 h of rumen degradation,DMD of M₁ treatment was significantly higher than that of CK treatment,OMD,ADFD and NDFD of M₀ and M₁ treatments were significantly higher than those of CK treatment(P<0.05).At 48 h of rumen degradation,DMD and ADFD of M₁ treatment were significantly higher than those of CK and M₀ treatments(P<0.05),OMD and DNFD of M₀ and M₁ treatments were significantly higher than those of CK treatment(P<0.05).【Conclusion】 Molasses and Lactobacillus plantarum plays a good synergistic effect in the fermentation of hop branches and leaves silage,can effectively improve the quality of silage,inhibit the growth of harmful microorganisms during hop branches and leaves silage,and promote the activity of rumen microorganisms.

Key words: hop branches and leaves; Lactobacillus plantarum; silage; fermentation quality; rumen degradation rate

中图分类号:

S182

鲜欧洋, 李肖, 陈永成, 王挺, 王旭哲, 张凡凡, 马春晖. 糖蜜和植物乳杆菌对啤酒花枝叶青贮品质、微生物数量及瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(3): 719-726.

XIAN Ouyang, LI Xiao, CHEN Yongcheng, WANG Ting, WANG Xuze, ZHANG Fanfan, MA Chunhui. Effects of molasses and Lactobacillus plantarum on silage quality,microbial quantity and rumen degradation rate of hop branches and leaves[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(3): 719-726.

图/表 3

参考文献 36

[1]	董志敏, 许月明, 闻俊, 等. 啤酒花HPLC指纹图谱研究[J]. 药学实践杂志, 2019, 37(1):42-45,54.
	DONG Zhimin, XU Yueming, WEN Jun, et al. Study on fingerprint of Hupulus lupulus by HPLC[J]. Journal of Pharmaceutical Practice, 2019, 37(1):42-45,54.
[2]	中国科学院中国植物志编委会. 中国植物志[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010:221.
	Editorial Committee of Chinese Flora,Chinese Academy of Sciences. Flora of China[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2010:221.
[3]	白姗姗, 张莹莹, 赵强, 等. 啤酒花废弃枝叶多酚、黄酮含量与抗氧化活性的相关性分析[J]. 食品科学, 2018, 39(3):41-48. DOI
	BAI Shanshan, ZHANG Yingying, ZHAO Qiang, et al. Correlation of Antioxidant Properties with Contents of Total Polyphenols and Total Flavonoids in Successive Solvent Extracts of Abandoned Hop Branches and Leaves[J]. Food Science, 2018, 39(3):41-48. DOI
[4]	Michalczuk M, Holl E, Möddel A, et al. Phytogenic Ingredients from Hops and Organic Acids Improve Selected Indices of Welfare,Health Status Markers,and Bacteria Composition in the Caeca of Broiler Chickens[J]. Animals, 2021, 11(11):3249. DOI URL
[5]	Blaxland J A, Watkins A J, Baillie L W J. The Ability of Hop Extracts to Reduce the Methane Production of Methanobrevibacter ruminantium[J]. Archaea, 2021:5510063.
[6]	李鑫琴, 樊杨, 田静, 等. 中国南方青贮饲料研究进展[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(6):106-114.
	LI Xinqin, FAN Yang, TIAN Jing, et al. Research Progress on Silage in Southern China[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2022, 44(6):106-114.
[7]	刘泽畅, 刘玉梅. 啤酒苦味与啤酒花苦味物质[J]. 中国酿造, 2019, 38(1):13-19.
	LIU Zechang, LIU Yumei. Bitterness of beer and bitterness substance in hops[J]. China Brewing, 2019, 38(1):13-19.
[8]	王小娟, 吴海庆. 糖蜜在反刍动物生产及青贮饲料中的应用研究进展[J]. 广东饲料, 2020, 29(4):31-33.
	WANG Xiaojuan, WU Haiqing. Application of Molasses in Ruminant Production and Silage[J]. Guangdong Feed, 2020, 29(4):31-33.
[9]	刘逸超, 贾玉山, 降晓伟, 等. 纤维素酶和糖蜜对天然牧草青贮品质和微生物组成的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(12):64-72.
	LIU Yichao, JIA Yushan, JIANG Xiaowei, et al. Effects of Cellulase and Molasses on Quality and Microbial Composition of Natural Forage Silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2022, 44(12):64-72.
[10]	Liu Q H, Shao T, Bai Y F. The effect of fibrolytic enzyme,Lactobacillus plantarum and two food antioxidants on the fermentation quality,alpha-tocopherol and beta-carotene of high moisture napier grass silage ensiled at different temperatures[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2016, 221:1-11. DOI URL
[11]	刘建新, 杨振海, 叶均安, 等. 青贮饲料的合理调制与质量评定标准[J]. 饲料工业, 1999,(3):4-7.
	LIU Jianxin, YANG Zhenhai, YE Junan, et al. Reasonable modulation and quality evaluation standard of silage[J]. Feed Industry, 1999,(3):4-7.
[12]	GB/T 14924.9-2001.实验动物配合饲料常规营养成分的测定[S].
	GB/T 14924.9-2001.Determination of conventional nutrients in laboratory animal compound feed of State Technical Supervision Bureau[S].
[13]	Van Soest P J, Robertson J B, Lewis B A. Methods for dietary fiber,neutral detergent fiber,and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1991, 74(10):3583-3597. DOI PMID
[14]	高俊凤. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版, 2006.
	GAO Junfeng. Experimental Guidance of Plant Physiology[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2006.
[15]	Broderick G A, Kang J H. Automated Simultaneous Determination of Ammonia and Total Amino Acids in Ruminal Fluid and In Vitro Media[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1980, 63(1):64-75. DOI PMID
[16]	张英, 周汉林, 刘国道, 等. 利用HPLC法测定王草青贮饲料中的有机酸[J]. 热带作物学报, 2013, 34(2):377-381.
	ZHANG Ying, ZHOU Hanlin, LIU Guodao, et al. Determination of Organic Acids in King Grass Silage by HPLC[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2013, 34(2):377-381.
[17]	Ni K K, Zhao J Y, Zhu B G, et al. Assessing the fermentation quality and microbial community of the mixed silage of forage soybean with crop corn or sorghum[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2018, 265:563- 567. DOI PMID
[18]	代胜, 王飞, 董祥, 等. 紫花苜蓿与甜高粱混合比例对发酵全混合日粮营养品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(5):2306-2315. DOI
	DAI Sheng, WANG Fei, DONG Xiang, et al. Effects of Mixing Ratio of Alfalfa and Sweet Sorghum on Nutritional Quality and Aerobic Stability of Total Mixed Ration Silage[J]. Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(5):2306-2315.
[19]	Ribeiro S S, Vasconcelos J T, Morais M G, et al. Effects of ruminal infusion of a slow-release polymer-coated urea or conventional urea on apparent nutrient digestibility,in situ degradability,and rumen parameters in cattle fed low-quality hay[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2011, 164(1/2):53-61. DOI URL
[20]	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),3952-3979. DOI PMID
[21]	Coblentz W K, Akins M S. Silage review:Recent advances and future technologies for baled silages[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(5):4075-4092. DOI PMID
[22]	Dong J N, Li S E, Chen X, et al. Effects of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum inoculation on the quality and bacterial community of whole-crop corn silage at different harvest stages[J]. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 2022, 9(1):57. DOI
[23]	张玉雯, 蔡明, 王福军, 等. 植物乳杆菌对辣木茎叶青贮品质的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(17):89-93.
	ZHANG Yuwen, CAI Ming, WANG Fujun, et al. Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum on quality of Moringa oleifera stem and leaf silage[J]. Feed Research, 2022, 45(17):89-93.
[24]	Wang S R, Guo G, Li J F, et al. Improvement of fermentation profile and structural carbohydrate compositions in mixed silages ensiled with fibrolytic enzymes,molasses and Lactobacillus plantarum MTD-1[J]. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 18(1),328-335. DOI URL
[25]	贾婷婷, 吴哲, 玉柱. 不同类型乳酸菌添加剂对燕麦青贮品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2018, 35(5):1266-1272.
	JIA Tingting, WU Zhe, YU Zhu. Effect of different lactic acid bacteria additives on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of oat silage[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(5):1266-1272.
[26]	Wang X K, Liu H, Xie Y X, et al. Effect of Sucrose and Lactic Acid Bacteria Additives on Fermentation Quality,Chemical Composition and Protein Fractions of Two Typical Woody Forage Silages[J]. Agriculture, 2021, 11(3):256. DOI URL
[27]	陈鑫珠, 高承芳, 刘景, 等. 绿汁发酵液中的微生物多样性及其对菌糠发酵品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(1):199-210. DOI
	CHEN Xinzhu, GAO Chengfang, LIU Jing, et al. Microbial Diversity of Fermented Juice Using Epiphytic Lactic Acid Bacteria and Their Effects of on the Fermentation Quality of Fungus Chaff Silage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(1):199-210. DOI
[28]	司华哲, 刘晗璐, 南韦肖, 等. 不同发酵类型乳酸菌对低水分粳稻秸秆青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2017, 25(6):1294-1299. DOI
	SI Huazhe, LIU Hanlu, NAN Weixiao, et al. Effects of Different Lactic Acid Bacteria on Fermentation Characteristics and Aerobic Stability of Low Moisture Rice Stalk Silage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2017, 25(6):1294-1299. DOI
[29]	Prencipe F P, Brighenti V, Rodolfi M, et al. Development of a new high-performance liquid chromatography method with diode array and electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry detection for the metabolite fingerprinting of bioactive compounds in Humulus lupulus L.[J]. Journal of Chromatography A, 2014, 1349:50-59. DOI URL
[30]	Li Y Y, Du S, Sun L, et al. Effects of Lactic Acid Bacteria and Molasses Additives on Dynamic Fermentation Quality and Microbial Community of Native Grass Silage[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2022, 13:830121. DOI URL
[31]	杨宇为, 马吉锋, 于洋, 等. 三种马铃薯秧饲料在肉牛瘤胃中降解规律的比较[J]. 饲料工业, 2020, 41(11):11-18.
	YANG Yuwei, MA Jifeng, YU Yang, et al. Comparison on degradation rule of three kinds of potato vines fodder in rumen of beef cattle[J]. Feed Industry, 2020, 41(11):11-18.
[32]	王挺, 宋磊, 王旭哲, 等. 复合乳酸菌对番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮发酵品质及瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(10):167-177. DOI
	WANG Ting, SONG Lei, WANG Xuzhe, et al. Effect of compound Lactobacillus and mixture ratio on fermentation quality and rumen degradability of mixed tomato pomace and alfalfa silage mixed storage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(10):167-177. DOI
[33]	牟怡晓, 林语梵, 张桂杰. 不可消化中性洗涤纤维在反刍动物生产中的应用及研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(11):5069-5074. DOI
	MU Yixiao, LIN Yufan, ZHANG Guijie. Application and Research Progress of Indigestible Neutral Detergent Fiber in Ruminant Production[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(11):5069-5074.
[34]	渠晖, 沈益新. 甜高粱用作青贮作物的潜力评价[J]. 草地学报, 2011, 19(5):808-812. DOI
	QU Hui, SHEN Yixin. Evaluation the Potential of Sweet Sorghum Grown for Silage Crop[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2011, 19(5):808-812. DOI
[35]	Comino L, Tabacco E, Righi F, et al. Effects of an inoculant containing a Lactobacillus buchneri that produces ferulate-esterase on fermentation products,aerobic stability,and fibre digestibility of maize silage harvested at different stages of maturity[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2014, 198:94-106. DOI URL
[36]	魏晨, 游伟, 谭秀文, 等. 薰衣草秸秆和薰衣草秸秆青贮的瘤胃降解规律比较[J]. 动物营养学报, 2018, 30(7):2799-2806.
	WEI Chen, YOU Wei, TAN Xiuwen, et al. Comparison on Rule of Rumen Degradation between Lavender Straw and Lavender Straw Silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2018, 30(7):2799-2806.

指标 Index	处理Treatment
指标 Index	CK	M₀	M₁
颜色 Colour	褐绿色	黄褐色	黄褐色
气味 Smell	芳香味不明显, 乳酸气味较弱	明显芳香味, 较强乳酸气味	明显芳香味, 较强乳酸气味
质地 Texture	轻微结块, 略黏手	松散, 茎叶结构良好	松散, 茎叶结构良好
等级 Grades	一般	良好	良好

指标 Index	处理Treatment
指标 Index	CK	M₀	M₁
颜色 Colour	褐绿色	黄褐色	黄褐色
气味 Smell	芳香味不明显, 乳酸气味较弱	明显芳香味, 较强乳酸气味	明显芳香味, 较强乳酸气味
质地 Texture	轻微结块, 略黏手	松散, 茎叶结构良好	松散, 茎叶结构良好
等级 Grades	一般	良好	良好

指标 Items	处理Treatments				P值 P-value
	第0天 0 day	第90天90 day
	第0天 0 day	CK	M₀	M₁
干物质DM(%)	22.58±0.08^a	20.57±0.27^c	21.09±0.19^c	21.83±0.24^b	<0.001
粗蛋白CP(%DM)	14.83±0.20^a	13.44±0.18^c	13.57±0.12^bc	14.09±0.17^b	0.001
中性洗涤纤维NDF(%DM)	58.72±0.15^a	56.43±0.17^b	56.01±0.19^b	54.22±0.29^c	<0.001
酸性洗涤纤维ADF(%DM)	34.53±0.20^a	32.87±0.19^b	31.97±0.16^c	31.62±0.21^c	<0.001
可溶性碳水化合物WSC(%DM)	3.29±0.06^a	2..51±0.17^b	3.44±0.19^a	3.16±0.16^a	0.011
pH值pH value	6.29±0.17^a	4.82±0.06^b	4.28±0.14^c	4.17±0.10^c	<0.001
氨态氮/总氮NH₃-N/TN	0.62±0.05^c	3.14±0.27^a	2.47±0.13^b	2.18±0.18^b	<0.001
乳酸LA(%DM)	1.27±0.15^d	3.44±0.22^c	6.87±0.17^b	7.54±0.21^a	<0.001
乙酸AA(%DM)	0.41±0.09^c	0.97±0.13^b	1.13±0.18^ab	1.57±0.20^a	0.006
丙酸PA(%DM)	0.24±0.04	0.46±0.09	0.31±0.12	0.27±0.04	0.257
丁酸BA(%DM)	ND	ND	ND	ND	-
乳酸菌LAB(log CFU/g FM)	2.79±0.20^d	4.61±0.30^c	5.87±0.19^b	6.44±0.31^a	<0.001
酵母菌Yeast(log CFU/g FM)	8.21±0.23^a	7.46±0.14^b	5.44±0.18^c	5.13±0.18^c	<0.001
霉菌Mold(log CFU/g FM)	3.47±0.34	2.62±0.23	<2.00	<2.00	0.104
好氧细菌AB(log CFU/g FM)	6.54±0.31^a	4.87±0.19^b	4.61±0.17^b	4.57±0.13^b	<0.001

指标 Items	处理Treatments				P值 P-value
	第0天 0 day	第90天90 day
	第0天 0 day	CK	M₀	M₁
干物质DM(%)	22.58±0.08^a	20.57±0.27^c	21.09±0.19^c	21.83±0.24^b	<0.001
粗蛋白CP(%DM)	14.83±0.20^a	13.44±0.18^c	13.57±0.12^bc	14.09±0.17^b	0.001
中性洗涤纤维NDF(%DM)	58.72±0.15^a	56.43±0.17^b	56.01±0.19^b	54.22±0.29^c	<0.001
酸性洗涤纤维ADF(%DM)	34.53±0.20^a	32.87±0.19^b	31.97±0.16^c	31.62±0.21^c	<0.001
可溶性碳水化合物WSC(%DM)	3.29±0.06^a	2..51±0.17^b	3.44±0.19^a	3.16±0.16^a	0.011
pH值pH value	6.29±0.17^a	4.82±0.06^b	4.28±0.14^c	4.17±0.10^c	<0.001
氨态氮/总氮NH₃-N/TN	0.62±0.05^c	3.14±0.27^a	2.47±0.13^b	2.18±0.18^b	<0.001
乳酸LA(%DM)	1.27±0.15^d	3.44±0.22^c	6.87±0.17^b	7.54±0.21^a	<0.001
乙酸AA(%DM)	0.41±0.09^c	0.97±0.13^b	1.13±0.18^ab	1.57±0.20^a	0.006
丙酸PA(%DM)	0.24±0.04	0.46±0.09	0.31±0.12	0.27±0.04	0.257
丁酸BA(%DM)	ND	ND	ND	ND	-
乳酸菌LAB(log CFU/g FM)	2.79±0.20^d	4.61±0.30^c	5.87±0.19^b	6.44±0.31^a	<0.001
酵母菌Yeast(log CFU/g FM)	8.21±0.23^a	7.46±0.14^b	5.44±0.18^c	5.13±0.18^c	<0.001
霉菌Mold(log CFU/g FM)	3.47±0.34	2.62±0.23	<2.00	<2.00	0.104
好氧细菌AB(log CFU/g FM)	6.54±0.31^a	4.87±0.19^b	4.61±0.17^b	4.57±0.13^b	<0.001

时间 Time (h)	处理 Treatments	干物质降解率 DMD(%DM)	中性洗涤纤维降解率 NDFD(%DM)	酸性洗涤纤维降解率 ADFD(%DM)	有机物降解率 OMD(%DM)
12	CK	29.44±0.20^C	40.17±0.48^bC	25.46±0.38^bC	52.18±0.64^bC
	M₀	29.89±0.85^C	42.87±0.27^aC	27.17±0.40^aC	54.55±0.31^aC
	M₁	30.14±1.48^C	43.14±0.58^aC	27.44±0.54^aC	54.87±0.23^aC
	P值	0.208	0.007	0.039	0.009
24	CK	34.18±0.99^bB	43.15±0.53^bB	31.47±0.53^bB	58.12±0.60^bB
	M₀	35.66±0.45^abB	45.48±0.65^aB	35.44±0.50^aB	60.27±0.34^aB
	M₁	37.14±1.05^aB	45.74±0.26^aB	35.83±0.29^aB	61.17±0.38^aB
	P值	0.017	0.02	0.001	0.008
48	CK	39.47±0.60^cA	47.15±0.55^bA	39.46±0.41^cA	64.41±0.37^bA
	M₀	42.14±0.63^bA	51.24±0.47^aA	42.14±0.37^bA	68.19±0.52^aA
	M₁	44.59±0.56^aA	52.77±0.42^aA	43.67±0.33^aA	69.22±0.28^aA
	P值	<0.001	<0.001	0.001	<0.001

糖蜜和植物乳杆菌对啤酒花枝叶青贮品质、微生物数量及瘤胃降解率的影响

Effects of molasses and Lactobacillus plantarum on silage quality,microbial quantity and rumen degradation rate of hop branches and leaves

在线阅读

PDF下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 3

参考文献 36

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	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.
[2]	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.
[3]	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.
[4]	黄星宇, 孙海荣, 杨寒珺, 张凡凡, $\boxed{\hbox{鲁为华}}$. 添加甜叶菊渣对绢蒿青贮发酵品质及苦味掩盖(去除)的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(3): 742-749.
[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]	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.
[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]	宋磊, 王彦超, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 张建, 马春晖. 不同收获期燕麦青贮品质分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(10): 1938-1946.
[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]	张峥;张戈;杨蓉;龙宣杞. 培养基不同营养水平对一株植物乳杆菌发酵生长及保存的影响[J]. , 2017, 54(6): 1108-1113.
[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.