田间晾晒时间对饲用油菜发酵品质的影响

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.06.016

新疆农业科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (6): 1433-1441.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.06.016

• 微生物·园艺特产·贮藏保鲜加工 • 上一篇下一篇

田间晾晒时间对饲用油菜发酵品质的影响

杨寒珺¹(), 黄星宇¹, 王旭哲¹, 张凤华², 鲁为华¹(), 张凡凡¹()

1.石河子大学动物科技学院,新疆石河子 832003
2.石河子大学农学院,新疆石河子 832003

收稿日期:2022-08-20 出版日期:2023-06-20 发布日期:2023-06-20
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,研究方向为饲草生产与加工,(E-mail)zhangfanfan@shzu.edu.cn;
鲁为华(1976-2021),男,新疆奇台人,教授,博士,博士生导师,研究方向为草地资源与生态,(E-mail)winnerlwh@sina.com
作者简介:杨寒珺(1996-),女,吉林四平人,硕士研究生,研究方向为牧草生产与加工,(E-mail)515706436@qq.com
基金资助:
兵团重大科技项目“南疆沙区盐碱地饲用油菜产业化关键技术研究与集成示范”(2018AA005-3);财政部和农业农村部:国家现代农业产业技术体系项目(CARS)

Effect of drying time in the field on the quality of fermentation of Brassica napus

YANG Hanjun¹(), HUANG Xingyu¹, WANG Xuzhe¹, ZHANG Fenghua², LUWeihua ¹(), ZHANG Fanfan¹()

1. College of Animal Science &Technology, Shihezi University, Shihezi Xinjiang 832003, China
2. College of Agronomy, Shihezi University, Shihezi Xinjiang 832003, China

Received:2022-08-20 Published:2023-06-20 Online:2023-06-20
Supported by:
The Major R&D Program Project of XPCC “Research and Integrated Demonstration of Key Technology of Saline-alkali Forage Rapeseed Industrialization in Sandy Area of Southern Xinjiang”(2018AA005-3);China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA(CARS)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】研究田间晾晒对饲用油菜含水率的影响,分析含水率对青贮饲用油菜营养品质、发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响,为饲用油菜青贮实际利用提供理论基础。【方法】采用罐装青贮法,设计6个晾晒时间处理,分别为晾晒0 h(A₁处理)、12 h(A₂处理)、24 h(A₃处理)、36 h(A₄处理)、48 h(A₅处理)、60 h(A₆处理),将晾晒后的原料直接青贮,青贮60 d后开罐,进行感官评价,分析营养品质、发酵品质和有氧稳定性。【结果】饲用油菜随晾晒时间的延长,干物质含量(DM)、铵态氮含量(NH₃-N)均显著增加(P<0.05),pH值、乳酸含量(LA)、乙酸含量(AA)均增加不显著(P>0.05),粗蛋白含量(CP)、粗脂肪含量(EE)、中性洗涤纤维含量(NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维含量(ADF)、可溶性碳水化合物含量(WSC)均下降;对比不同晾晒时间饲用油菜青贮发酵60 d后青贮饲料品质,晾晒12 h(含水率73.53%)蛋白质含量(CP)和可溶性碳水化合物含量(WSC)最高(分别为11.04%和12.39%),酸性洗涤纤维含量(ADF)最低为(16.80%),pH值显著低于其他各处理(P<0.05),乳酸含量(LA)、乙酸含量(AA)均显著高于其他各处理(P<0.05),丙酸含量(PA)最低(0.04%)。【结论】发酵后晾晒12 h的饲用油菜青贮营养品质、发酵品质和有氧稳定性最好,在南疆麦后饲用油菜收获时田间晾晒时间12 h左右,综合价值最优。

关键词: 饲用油菜; 青贮饲料; 含水率; 发酵品质; 营养品质

Abstract:

【Objective】 This study aims to control the moisture content of Brassica napus by drying in the field, so as to clarify the influence of moisture content on the nutritional quality, fermentation quality and aerobic stability of the silage, in the hope of providing a theoretical basis for the actual utilization of silage of the feed.【Methods】 The canned silage method was adopted, and 6 drying time treatments were designed, namely drying 0 h (Treatment A₁), 12 h (Treatment A₂), 24 h (Treatment A₃), 36 h (Treatment A₄), 48 h (Treatment A₅), 60 h (Treatment A₆), the drying raw materials were directly silaged, and the silage time was opened after 60 d, sensory evaluation was carried out, and the nutritional quality, fermentation quality and aerobic stability were analyzed.【Results】 With the prolongation of the drying time, the dry matter content (DM) and ammonium nitrogen content (NH₃-N) of Brassica napus increased significantly (P<0.05), the pH value, lactate content (LA), and acetic acid content (AA) all increased, and the difference was not significant (P>0.05), crude protein content (CP), crude fat content (EE), neutral washing fiber content (NDF), acid washing fiber content (ADF), and soluble carbohydrate content (WSC) decreased. Compared with the quality of silage after 60 days of fermentation of Brassica napus for different drying times, the protein content (CP) and soluble carbohydrate content (WSC) were the highest (11.04% and 12.39%, respectively), the acid washing fiber content (ADF) was the lowest (16.80%), the pH value was significantly lower than those of other treatments (P<0.05). The lactate content (LA) and the acetic acid content (AA) was significantly higher than those of the other treatments (P<0.05), and the propionic acid content (PA) was the lowest (0.04%).【Conclusion】 Through comprehensive evaluation, the nutritional quality, fermentation quality and aerobic stability of Brassica napus silage dried for 12 h after fermentation are the best, showing that the drying time in the field is about 12 h when harvesting Brassica napus after wheat in southern Xinjiang, and the comprehensive value is the best.

Key words: Brassica napus; silage; moisture content; fermentation characteristic; aerobic stability

中图分类号:

S544

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.

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.

图/表 5

参考文献 35

[1]	杨祁峰, 滕怀渊, 牛菊兰, 等. 饲用双低油菜华协1号营养成分含量动态及营养价值研究[J]. 草业学报, 2003, (2):87-92.
	YANG Qifeng, TENG Huaiyuan, NIU Julan, et al. Studies on nutrient content dynamics and nutritive value of Huaxie 1 forage rape[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2003,(2):87-92.
[2]	乌兰, 马伟杰, 义如格勒图, 等. 油菜秸秆饲用价值分析及其开发利用[J]. 内蒙古草业, 2007,(1):41-42.
	WU Lan, MA Weijie, YI Rugeletu, et al. Analysis on the feeding value and the development and utilization of rapeseed straw[J]. Grass Industry, Inner Mongolia, 2007, (1): 41-42.
[3]	杨明超, 杨涛, 白德尔丁. 春麦茬地膜复播玉米栽培试验[J]. 塔里木农垦大学学报, 1999, 11(2):40-41.
	YANG Mingchao, YANG Tao, WHITE elding. Cultivation experiment of spring wheat stubble[J]. Journal of Tarim Agricultural Reclamation University, 1999, 11(2): 40-41.
[4]	牟海日, 王春朋, 胡立艳. 辽宁地区种植国外饲用油菜的试验报告[J]. 中国奶牛, 2012, (3):9-11.
	MOU Hairi, WANG Chunpeng, HU Liyan. Test report planting foreign feed rapeseed in Liaoning[J]. China Dairy Cattle, 2012, (3): 9-11.
[5]	李士磊, 金以龙, 熊明军, 等. 油菜华油杂62高产高效栽培集成技术[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2017, 56(1):29-31.
	LI Shilei, JIN Yilong, XIONG Mingjun, et al. High Yield and High Efficiency Cultivation Techniques of Rapeseed Huayouza 62[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 56(1):29-31.
[6]	严中琪, 朱家骝, 吴国泉. 5个油菜品种耐盐性试验及盐碱地改良应用[J/OL]. 浙江农业科学:1-3[2021-11-18].
	YAN Zhongqi, ZHU Jialiu, WU Guoquan. Salt tolerance test and saline application of five rapeseed varieties[J/OL]. Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences: 1-3 [2021-11-18].
[7]	刘辉, 卜登攀, 吕中旺, 等. 凋萎和不同添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2015, 24(5):126-133. DOI
	LIU Hui, BU Dengpan, LV Zhongwang, et al. Effects of wilting and additives on fermentation quality of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(25):126-133.
[8]	赵娜, 杨雪海, 魏金涛, 等. 不同生长期饲用油菜的营养价值和青贮发酵品质[J]. 草业科学, 2020, 37(5):933-941.
	ZHAO Na, YANG Xuehai, WEI Jintao, et al. Nutritional value and quality of forage cole in different growth periods[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2020, 37(5):933-941.
[9]	阴法庭, 张凤华. 饲用油菜与玉米秸秆混合青贮营养品质[J]. 草业科学, 2018, 35(7):1790-1796.
	YIN Fating, ZHANG Fenghua. Nutritional quality of silage made with different ratios of forage rape and corn stalks[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(7):1790-1796.
[10]	刁志成, 曲扬华, 刘策, 等. 饲用油菜混合青贮对湖羊屠宰性能及肉品质的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2018, 45(6):1564-1570
	DIAO Zhicheng, QU Yanghua, LIU Ce, et al. Effects of Forage Canola Mixed Silage on Slaughter Performance and Meat Quality in Hu Sheep[J]. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2018, 45(6):1564-1570.
[11]	王亚犁. 饲用油菜与枯黄玉米秸秆复合青贮饲喂滩羊试验[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2005, 41(2):59.
	WANG Yali. Combined silage and feeding of rapeseed with dead yellow corn straw[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2005, 41(2): 59.
[12]	孙蕊, 贾鹏禹, 武瑞, 等. 高效液相色谱法快速测定青贮饲料中种有机酸的含量[J]. 饲料研究, 2019, 42(4):77-80.
	SUN Rui, JIA Pengyu, WU Rui, et al. Fast determination of four kinds of organic acids in silage by high performance liquid chromatography[J]. Feed Research, 2019, 42(4):77-80.
[13]	刘彦培, 黄必志, 刘建勇, 等. 结实期全株油菜及油菜秸秆青贮技术研究[J]. 草食家畜, 2017, (6):22-26.
	LIU Yanpei, HUANG Bizhi, LIU Jianyong, et al. The Research on Nutrients Value and Silage Technology of Whole Rape Plant at Fruiting Stage[J]. Grass- feeding Livestock, 2017,(6):22-26.
[14]	杨胜. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 1999:19-61.
	YANG Sheng. Feed Analysis and Feed Quality Testing Technology[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 1999: 19-61.
[15]	张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2003:46-75.
	ZHANG Liying. Feed Analysis and Feed Quality Testing Technology[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2003: 46-75.
[16]	Diao Z C, Qu Y H, Liu C, et al. Effects of Forage Canola Mixed Silage on Slaughter Performance and Meat Quality in Hu Sheep[J]. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2018, 45(6):1564-1570.
[17]	Ferraretto L F, Shaver R D, Luck B D. Silage review: Recent advances and future technologies for whole-plant and fractionated corn silage harvesting[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(5):3937-3951. DOI PMID
[18]	GB/T 14924—2001. 实验动物配合饲料常规营养成分的测定[S].
	GB/T 14924-2001. Determination of conventional nutrient diet in experimental animals[S].
[19]	王旭哲, 岳亚飞, 张凡凡, 等. 全株玉米青贮营养品质的紧实度效应[J]. 草业科学, 2016, 33(9):1893-1900.
	WANG Xuzhe, YUE Yafei, ZHANG Fanfan, et al. The compaction effect of nutritional quality of whole plant corn silage[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2016, 33(9):1893-1900.
[20]	Gordon F J, Patterson D C, Porter M G, et al. The effect of degree of grass wilting prior to ensiling on performance and energy utilization by lactating dairy cattle[J]. Livestock Production Science, 2000, 64(2-3):291-294. DOI URL
[21]	Musen Wang, Chunhua Yang, Lujie Jia, et al. Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and Lactobacillus plantarum on the fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of whipgrass silage in laboratory silos[J]. Grassland Science, 2014, 60(4):233-239. DOI URL
[22]	程银华, 雷雪芹, 徐廷生, 等. 玉米秸秆揉丝微贮与传统青贮饲料发酵过程中和微生物的变化[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2014, 42(5):17-21.
	CHENG Yinhua, LEI Xueqin, XU Tingsheng, et al. Changes of pH and microorganism during the fermentation of microbial and traditional silages with corn straw knead wire[J]. Journal of Northwest A & F University (Natural Science Ed.), 2014, 42(5):17-21.
[23]	徐春城. 现代青贮理论与技术[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013.
	XU Chuncheng. Modern Silage Theory and Technology[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2013.
[24]	黎咏蜀. 饲用油菜栽培技术及营养价值研究[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2014.
	LI Yongshu. Research on Cultivation Techniques and Nutritional Value of Forage Oilseed[D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2014.
[25]	张庆, 张万军, 田吉鹏, 等. 乳酸菌青贮技术研究进展[J]. 草业科学, 2014, 31(2):328-333.
	ZHANG Qing, ZHANG Wanjun, TIAN Jipeng, et al. Advances in lactic acid bacteria silage technology research[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2014, 31(2):328-333.
[26]	许宇薇. 不同微生物制剂及其组合处理对微贮稻草营养价值的影响评定[D]. 南昌: 江西农业大学, 2012.
	XU Yuwei. Study on effect of three microbial preparations and their combinations on nutritive value of Micro-storage rice straw[D]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Agricultural University, 2012.
[27]	Hu Wu, Schmidt R J, McDonell E E, et al. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 or Lactobacillus plantarum MTD-1 on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silages ensiled at two dry matter contents[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2009, 92(8):3907-3914. DOI PMID
[28]	李向林, 张新跃, 唐一国, 等. 日粮中精料和牧草比例对舍饲山羊增重的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2008, (2):85-91.
	LI Xianglin, ZHANG Xinyue, TANG Yiguo, et al. Effect of concentrate-forage ration in diet on live weight gain of stall-fed goats[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2008,(2):85-91.
[29]	张相伦, 游伟, 赵红波, 等. 乳酸菌制剂对全株玉米青贮品质及营养成分的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2018, 30(1):336-342.
	ZHANG Xianglun, YOU Wei, ZHAO Hongbo, et al. Effect of Lactic Acid Bacteria Preparation on Quality and Nutrient Composition of Whole Corn Silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2018, 30(1):336-342.
[30]	詹发强, 包慧芳, 崔卫东, 等. 玉米青贮过程中乳酸菌动态变化[J]. 微生物学通报, 2010, 37(6):834-838.
	ZHAN Faqiang, BAO Huifang, CUI Weidong, et al. Dynamic Changes of Lactic Acid Bacteria during a 15-Day Ensilage of Corn[J]. Microbiology China, 2010, 37(6):834-838.
[31]	Schmidt R J, Hu W,. Mills J A, et al. The development of lactic acid bacteria and Lactobacillus buchneri and their effects on the fermentation of alfalfa silage[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2009, 92(10):5005-5010. DOI PMID
[32]	Tao Z, Lei L, Wang X F, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus buchneri and Lactobacillus plantarum on fermentation,aerobic stability, bacteria diversity and ruminal degradability of alfalfa silage[J]. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology, 2009, 25(6):965-971. DOI URL
[33]	张增欣, 邵涛. 丙酸对多花黑麦草青贮发酵动态变化的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2009, 18(2):102-107.
	ZHANG Zengxin, SHAO Tao. The effect of propionic acid addition on the dynamic fermentation changes of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2009, 18(2):102-107.
[34]	张养东, 杨军香, 王宗伟, 等. 青贮饲料理化品质评定研究进展[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2016, 52(12): 37-42.
	ZHANG Yandong, YANG Junxiang, WANG Zongwei, et al. Progress in the assessment of physical and chemical quality of silage[J]. Chinese Animal Husbandry Journal, 2016, 52(12): 37-42.
[35]	Hashemzadeh-Cigari F, Khorvash M, Ghorbani G R, et al. Interactive effects of molasses byhomofermentative and heterofermentative inoculants on fermentation quality, nitrogen fractionation,nutritive value and aerobic stability of wilted alfalfa (Medicago sativa L) silage[J]. Journal of Animal Physiology & Animal Nutrition, 2013, 98(2):290-299.

编辑推荐 0

Metrics

阅读次数

全文

HTML			PDF

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版	最新录用	在线预览	正式出版
0	0	5	0	0	52

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	37	20
比例	65%	35%

摘要

224

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版

0	0	224

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	74	150
比例	33%	67%

处理 Theatment	气味 Scent	色泽 Color	质地 Texture	等级 Grade
A₁	略带酸味	黄绿色	茎叶结构完整,质地不疏松,黏手、舒适感一般	一般
A₂	强酸味	黄绿色	茎叶结构完整,质地疏松不黏手、舒适感佳	优质
A₃	强酸味	黄绿色	茎叶结构完整,质地疏松不黏手、舒适感佳	优质
A₄	清酸味	黄绿色	茎叶结构完整,质地疏松不黏手、舒适感良好	良好
A₅	清酸味	黄色	茎叶结构完整,质地疏松不黏手、舒适感一般	一般
A₆	略带酸味	暗黄色	茎叶结构完整,质地疏松,黏手、舒适感较差	较差

处理 Theatment	气味 Scent	色泽 Color	质地 Texture	等级 Grade
A₁	略带酸味	黄绿色	茎叶结构完整,质地不疏松,黏手、舒适感一般	一般
A₂	强酸味	黄绿色	茎叶结构完整,质地疏松不黏手、舒适感佳	优质
A₃	强酸味	黄绿色	茎叶结构完整,质地疏松不黏手、舒适感佳	优质
A₄	清酸味	黄绿色	茎叶结构完整,质地疏松不黏手、舒适感良好	良好
A₅	清酸味	黄色	茎叶结构完整,质地疏松不黏手、舒适感一般	一般
A₆	略带酸味	暗黄色	茎叶结构完整,质地疏松,黏手、舒适感较差	较差

发酵时间 Fermentation time (d)	处理 Theatment	干物质 Dry matter (%DM)	粗蛋白 Crude protein CP (%DM)	粗脂肪 Ether extractt EE(%DM)	中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber NDF (%DM)	酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber ADF (%DM)	可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates WSC(%DM)
0	A₁	17.76±1.053^Af	12.38±0.972^Aa	8.89±0.521^Aa	51.75±2.142^Aa	23.43±1.268^Aa	21.86±0.523^Aa
	A₂	26.47±1.327^Ae	12.25±1.659^Aab	8.68±0.656^Aab	50.24±1.235^Aa	23.21±0.956^Aa	21.28±0.459^Aab
	A₃	31.38±1.566^Ad	12.11±1.224^Aab	8.47±0.266^Abc	48.72±1.976^Aa	22.98±1.039^Aa	20.29±0.986^Aabc
	A₄	39.81±2.031^Ac	11.98±1.037^Aab	8.27±0.771^Acd	48.21±1.822^Aa	22.76±1.028^Aa	18.01±0.479^Abcd
	A₅	44.54±2.556^Ab	11.84±1.563^Aab	8.06±0.803^Ade	47.69±2.013^Aa	22.53±0.825^Aa	17.71±0.423^Acd
	A₆	52.49±1.977^Aa	11.71±1.322^Ab	7.85±0.228^Ae	45.17±1.544^Aa	22.31±0.991^Aa	17.43±0.368^Acd
60	A₁	14.82±0.975^Bf	10.51±0.953^Bab	5.67±0.563^Ba	46.94±01.253^Aa	20.92±0.985^Aa	9.35±0.256^Bc
	A₂	25.31±1.256^Be	11.04±1.033^Ba	5.56±0.298^Bab	41.84±2.045^Abc	16.80±0.752^Ba	12.39±0.387^Ba
	A₃	29.3±2.557^Bd	10.95±1.213^Ba	5.31±287^Bbc	41.90±1.982^Abc	17.49±0.792^Ba	12.05±0.422^Ba
	A₄	36.85±1.759^Bc	10.74±1.199^Bab	5.02±0.355^Bbc	44.52±2.928^Ab	17.72±0.635^Aa	10.37±0.0.419^Bb
	A₅	41.61±2.988^Bb	10.45±0.886^Bab	4.82±0.361^Bc	43.53±2.195^Ab	18.01±0.566^Aa	9.49±0.326^Bc
	A₆	47.73±3.012^Ba	10.13±1.262^Bb	4.52±0.572^Bd	40.98±1.955^Ac	19.03±0.855^Ba	9.19±0.475^Bc

发酵时间 Fermentation time (d)	处理 Theatment	干物质 Dry matter (%DM)	粗蛋白 Crude protein CP (%DM)	粗脂肪 Ether extractt EE(%DM)	中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber NDF (%DM)	酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber ADF (%DM)	可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates WSC(%DM)
0	A₁	17.76±1.053^Af	12.38±0.972^Aa	8.89±0.521^Aa	51.75±2.142^Aa	23.43±1.268^Aa	21.86±0.523^Aa
	A₂	26.47±1.327^Ae	12.25±1.659^Aab	8.68±0.656^Aab	50.24±1.235^Aa	23.21±0.956^Aa	21.28±0.459^Aab
	A₃	31.38±1.566^Ad	12.11±1.224^Aab	8.47±0.266^Abc	48.72±1.976^Aa	22.98±1.039^Aa	20.29±0.986^Aabc
	A₄	39.81±2.031^Ac	11.98±1.037^Aab	8.27±0.771^Acd	48.21±1.822^Aa	22.76±1.028^Aa	18.01±0.479^Abcd
	A₅	44.54±2.556^Ab	11.84±1.563^Aab	8.06±0.803^Ade	47.69±2.013^Aa	22.53±0.825^Aa	17.71±0.423^Acd
	A₆	52.49±1.977^Aa	11.71±1.322^Ab	7.85±0.228^Ae	45.17±1.544^Aa	22.31±0.991^Aa	17.43±0.368^Acd
60	A₁	14.82±0.975^Bf	10.51±0.953^Bab	5.67±0.563^Ba	46.94±01.253^Aa	20.92±0.985^Aa	9.35±0.256^Bc
	A₂	25.31±1.256^Be	11.04±1.033^Ba	5.56±0.298^Bab	41.84±2.045^Abc	16.80±0.752^Ba	12.39±0.387^Ba
	A₃	29.3±2.557^Bd	10.95±1.213^Ba	5.31±287^Bbc	41.90±1.982^Abc	17.49±0.792^Ba	12.05±0.422^Ba
	A₄	36.85±1.759^Bc	10.74±1.199^Bab	5.02±0.355^Bbc	44.52±2.928^Ab	17.72±0.635^Aa	10.37±0.0.419^Bb
	A₅	41.61±2.988^Bb	10.45±0.886^Bab	4.82±0.361^Bc	43.53±2.195^Ab	18.01±0.566^Aa	9.49±0.326^Bc
	A₆	47.73±3.012^Ba	10.13±1.262^Bb	4.52±0.572^Bd	40.98±1.955^Ac	19.03±0.855^Ba	9.19±0.475^Bc

发酵时间 Fermentation time (d)	处理 Theatment	pH值 pH value	乳酸 LA (%FM)	乙酸 AA (%FM)	丙酸 PA (%FM)	丁酸 BA (%FM)	氨态氮/总氮 NH₃-N/TN (%)
0	A₁	6.01±0.05^Aa	0.51±0.03^Aa	0.08±0.01^Aa	-	-	0.21±0.01^Af
	A₂	6.07±0.12^Aa	0.48±0.07^Aa	0.07±0.01^Aa	-	-	0.25±0.01^Ae
	A₃	6.10±0.11^Aa	0.49±0.02^Aa	0.08±0.02^Aa	-	-	0.37±0.04^Ad
	A₄	6.13±0.1^Aa	0.53±0.05^Aa	0.06±0.01^Aa	-	-	0.40±0.05^Ac
	A₅	6.12±0.22^Aa	0.51±0.04^Aa	0.08±0.05^Aa	-	-	0.42±0.04^Ab
	A₆	6.28±0.14^Aa	0.48±0.02^Aa	0.07±0.03^Aa	0.01±0^A	0.01±0^A	0.46±0.06^Aa
60	A₁	4.65±0.12^Bf	4.49±0.13^Bb	1.44±0.011^Bc	0.86±0.12^a	0.49±0.11^a	6.58±0.29^Ba
	A₂	3.85±0.08^Ba	4.71±0.25^Ba	1.59±0^Ba	0.04±0.02^d	0.01±0.01^c	4.59±0.13^Bb
	A₃	3.98±0.06^Bb	4.55±0.31^Bc	1.52±0.02^Bb	0.06±0.01^cd	0.01±0.01^c	4.33±0.29^Bb
	A₄	4.21±0.13^Bd	3.72±0.17^Bf	1.27±0.01^Be	0.08±0.04^c	0.01±0^c	5.24±0.76^Bab
	A₅	4.23±0.07^Bc	3.77±0.26^Be	1.21±0.01^Bf	0.72±0.02^a	0.39±0.01^b	6.14±1.73^Ba
	A₆	4.49±0.08^Be	4.04±0.22^Bd	1.32±0.02^Bd	0.35±0.06^Bb	0.47±0.09^Ba	5.87±0.42^Bab

田间晾晒时间对饲用油菜发酵品质的影响

Effect of drying time in the field on the quality of fermentation of Brassica napus

在线阅读

PDF下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 35

相关文章 15

编辑推荐 0

Metrics

项目 Item	A₁	A₂	A₃	A₄	A₅	A₆
干物质 Dry matterDM (g)	0.00	0.29	0.44	0.67	0.81	1.00
粗蛋白Crude protein CP (%DM)	0.42	1.00	0.90	0.67	0.35	0.00
粗脂肪 Ether extract EE (%DM)	1.00	0.90	0.69	0.43	0.26	0.00
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber NDF (%DM)	0.00	0.86	0.85	0.41	0.57	1.00
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber ADF (%DM)	0.00	1.00	0.83	0.78	0.71	0.46
可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates WSC (%DM)	0.28	1.00	0.92	0.52	0.31	0.00
氨态氮(占总氮) NH₃-N/TN (%)	0.00	0.88	1.00	0.60	0.20	0.32
有氧稳定性 Aerobic stability (h)	0.77	0.85	1.00	0.99	0.36	0.00
平均值 Average	0.31	0.85	0.83	0.63	0.45	0.35
排序 Rank	6	1	2	3	4	5

[1]	刘晶, 杜明川, 张文婷, 鲍海娟, 景美玲, 杜文华. 青海不同地区小黑麦种质的筛选[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(9): 2183-2190.
[2]	马勇, 刘慧, 高红梅, 康雪, 马春晖. 不同氮素水平下紫花苜蓿与多年生黑麦草混播对其产量和营养品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(7): 1793-1804.
[3]	鲜欧洋, 李肖, 陈永成, 王旭哲, 张凡凡, 侯国庆. 植物乳杆菌和糖蜜接种对串叶松香草青贮的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(6): 1505-1511.
[4]	孙萌, 颜安, 李靖言, 卢前成, 范君, 孙哲, 袁以琳. 不同水氮处理对紫花苜蓿生长发育、品质及水肥利用效率的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(6): 1512-1526.
[5]	聂芳, 琚艳君, 陈卓雅, 刘敏, 刘河疆, 刘志虎, 开建荣, 苟春林, 赵多勇. 枸杞营养品质时空变化规律及特征分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(3): 642-651.
[6]	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.
[7]	卢红琴, 白云岗, 柴仲平, 卢震林, 刘洪波, 郑明, 肖军. 拱棚环境下“干播湿出”棉田保苗技术效果评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(12): 2872-2882.
[8]	刘晨阳, 张立萍, 郑威强, 罗豪威. 不同含水率对罗布麻力学特性及剥麻效果的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(11): 2797-2806.
[9]	杨川, 张凯, 陈冰, 张慧, 柳萍, 常松, 盛建东. 棉花植株形态特征对不同水分状况的响应[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2120-2127.
[10]	李雪玲, 郭俊先, 陈莉, 宋鹤岭, 张众. 不同覆膜宽度对棉花农田环境的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1840-1847.
[11]	孙小惠, 李静, 玛尔哈巴·帕尔哈提, 王贤, 马玉娥, 汪晖, 朱靖蓉. 不同等级阿克苏冰糖心苹果在低温贮藏条件下营养成分变化[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1181-1189.
[12]	徐鹏飞, 王旭哲, 杨寒珺, 黄星宇, 付东青, $鲁为华$ , 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.
[13]	黄星宇, 孙海荣, 杨寒珺, 张凡凡, $鲁为华$ . 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.
[14]	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.
[15]	忠智博, 何帅, 张万恒, 周建伟, 郑国玉, 马军勇, 程鸿, 石聪, 张欣. 盐渍化条件下棉花成苗及水盐分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(10): 2390-2395.