Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (7): 1767-1775.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.07.024
• Soil Fertilizer·Agricultural Equipment Engineering and Mechanization·Animal Husbandry Veterinarian·Prataculture • Previous Articles Next Articles
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:
通讯作者:
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:
CLC Number:
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.
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.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.xjnykx.com/EN/10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.07.024
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 |
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 |
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 | ** | ** | * | * | ** | ** | ** |
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 |
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 |
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] | WANG Ting, ZHANG Li, ZHANG Fanfan, HUANG Rongzheng, LI Xiao, ZHANG Yulin, CHEN Yongcheng, ZHAO Jiantao, MA Chunhui. Poduction performance screening and nutritional value evaluation of corn varieties suitable for silage [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(7): 1596-1605. |
[2] | YANG Hanjun, HUANG Xingyu, WANG Xuzhe, ZHANG Fenghua, LUWeihua , ZHANG Fanfan. Effect of drying time in the field on the quality of fermentation of Brassica napus [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(6): 1433-1441. |
[3] | XU Pengfei, WANG Xuzhe, YANG Hanjun, HUANG Xingyu, FU Dongqing, $\boxed{\hbox{LU Weihua}}$, SUN Xinwen. Effects of Adding Molasses on the Micro-Storage Quality and Aerobic Stability of Cotton Stalks [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(3): 715-726. |
[4] | YUE Li, WANG Hui, Shanqimike , Zaituniguli Kuerban, TU Zhendong. Microbial diversity analysis of sweet sorghum silage using High-Throughput sequencing [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(11): 2742-2750. |
[5] | WANG Ting, ZHANG Fanfan, HUANG Hua, YANG Guangwei, CHENG Weiguo, ZHANG Li, MA Chunhui. Evaluation of the Whole-Plant Corn Silage Quality of Large-Scale Pastures Based on Fuzzy Similarity Priority Ratio Method [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(1): 215-225. |
[6] | HE Wanrong, SUN Qiang, XI Linqiao, DUAN Zhenyu. Variety Comparison Test of Silage Corn in Aral Area [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(12): 2948-2956. |
[7] | Xinxin HUANG, Jiahao LI, Xiaobin LI, Hongkun LI, Yiqi JIA, Lixin MA, Chao LI, Linjiao HE. Effects of Lactobacillus rhamnoides on the Diversity of Fecal Flora in Late Pregnant Mice [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(10): 1947-1953. |
[8] | LIU Kang-yong, JIAO Yang, ZHAO Fu-xiang, LIU Na, CHEN Quan-jia, GAO Wen-wei, QU Yan-ying. Effects of Spraying TDZ on Leaf Loss Rate and Leaf Enzyme Activity of Cotton [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 56(6): 981-991. |
[9] | Zaoreguli Reheman, Yeerlan Duishanbieke, WAN Jiang-chun, Aibibula Yimamu. Effects of Defect Fragrant Pear Juice Residue on Fermentation Quality of Alfalfa Silage [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 56(6): 1136-1141. |
[10] | WEN Wen, LI Xin, LI Lu-hua, WANG Jiang-li. Effects of Nitrogen Application Rate on NUE and Soil Nitrate Content of Spring Wheat-Silage Maize in Northern Xinjiang [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 56(4): 610-623. |
[11] | YUE Li,Shanqimike, Zaituniguli Kuerban, WANG Hui, YE Kai, MAO Jun, TU Zhen-dong. Effects of Cutting Time and Additives on Fermentation Quality of Sweet Sorghum Silage [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 55(8): 1428-1435. |
[12] | GUO Kai, HOU Min, BAO Hui-fang, WANG Ning, ZHAN Fa-qiang, YANG Rong, YANG Wen-qi, LONG Xuan-qi, CUI Wei-dong. Study on Optimizing Liquid Fermentation Conditions of Aspergillus niger and Its Degradation Effect on Cotton Stalk with Double Indexes [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 55(11): 2122-2133. |
[13] | ZHANG Zheng;ZHANG Ge;YANG Rong;LONG Xuan-qi. Effects of Different Nutritional Levels on the Growth and Preservation of a Strain Medium:Lactobacillus plantarum [J]. , 2017, 54(6): 1108-1113. |
[14] | LEI Zhi-gang;WANG Ye-jian;XI Hao-jiang;LI Ming-dong;LI Zhao-feng;ZHAO Hai-ju;HAN Deng-xu;YANG Jie;Abulaiti Abula;LIANG Xiao-ling. Correlation Analysis of Agronomic Characteristics and Quality Traits of Different Silage Maize Varieties [J]. , 2017, 54(4): 694-699. |
[15] | YUE Li, YE Kai, Zaituniguli Kuerban, WANG Hui, Shanqimike, TU Zhen-dong. Effects of Silage Inoculants on Quality of Sweet Sorghum Straw and Distiller's Grains [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 54(10): 1856-1862. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||