Effect Evaluation of Mixed Storage of Different Proportions of Seed Pumpkin Waste and Corn Straw

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.03.006

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 In this experiment, different proportions of Seed Pumpkin waste and corn straw were mixed for storage.Through sensory evaluation of mixed storage, the changes of pH value, VFA and nutrient content were determined to explore the appropriate proportion.【Methods】 The control group (DM 51.32) was treated with 0∶1 of Seed Pumpkin waste and corn straw, and the mixture ratio of 1∶1, 1∶2 and 2∶1 was used as group A (DM 40.32), group B (DM 37.56) and group C (DM 47.70), respectively.After the two were mixed in proportion, they were put into an 800 mL space cup, sealed after compaction to ensure no air circulation, and kept away from light at room temperature.Six treatment groups were set up in each group.The sensory indexes of silage were evaluated at 60 d, and the changes of pH, VFA and nutritional components of silage were determined.【Results】 The control group and group B had good micro storage, while group A and group C had excellent sensory evaluation.The pH value of control group was significantly higher than those of A, B and C groups (P<0.01); Group B was significantly higher than those of group A and group C (P<0.01).The content of acetic in control group was significantly different from those in group B and group C (P<0.05); There was significant difference among group A, group B and group C (P<0.05); There was no significant difference among other groups (P>0.05).The content of isobutyric in control group was significantly different from that those in group A and group C (P<0.05), and significantly different from that in group B (P<0.01).The TVFA in control group were significantly higher than those in group A, B and C (P<0.01); Group C was significantly higher than that of group B (P<0.05); There was no significant difference among other groups (P>0.05).The contents of DM, ADF and NDF decreased, but the content of CP increased.【Conclusion】 It is recommended that the seed be mixed with 1∶1 corn straw.

Key words: squash; corn stalk; sensory evaluation; mixed storage

摘要：

【目的】感官评价不同比例籽用西葫芦皮瓤与玉米秸秆混贮效果,测定pH值、挥发性脂肪酸(VFA)和营养成分含量变化研究适宜添加比例。【方法】籽用西葫芦皮瓤与玉米秸秆为0∶1时作为对照组(DM 51.32),两者混合比例为1∶1、1∶2和2∶1分别作为A组(DM 40.32)、B组(DM37.56)和C组(DM 47.70)。两者按比例混合均匀后装入800 mL太空杯中,压实后密封确保无空气流通,室温避光保存。每组均设置6个处理组,60 d时取样评价青贮饲料的感官指标,测定青贮饲料pH、VFA和营养成分的变化。【结果】对照组和B组混贮尚好,A组合C组感官评价优。混贮饲料中pH值对照组极显著高于A、B和C组(P<0.01);B组极显著高于A组和C组(P<0.01)。乙酸含量对照组与B组和C组差异显著(P<0.05);A组与B组、C组差异显著(P<0.05);其他各组间差异不显著(P>0.05)。各组中均未测出丁酸含量,异丁酸含量对照组与A组和C组差异显著(P<0.05),与B组差异极显著(P<0.01)。总挥发性脂肪酸(TVFA)对照组极显著高于A组、B组和C组(P<0.01);C组显著高于A组合B组(P<0.05);其他各组间差异不显著(P>0.05)。随着籽用西葫芦皮瓤比例的增加混贮中干物质(DM)含量、酸性洗涤纤维含量(ADF)和中性洗涤纤维(NDF)含量降低,但粗蛋白(CP)含量升高。【结论】籽用西葫芦皮瓤与玉米秸秆1∶1混合混贮最优。

关键词: 西葫芦, 玉米秸秆, 感官评价, 混贮

CLC Number:

S513

HOU Liangzhong, GUO Tongjun, ZHANG Junyu, SU Lingling, Guzalnur Amat, WEN Xiaoyan, ZHU Xiaofang, YANG Jianzhong, WANG Wenqi. Effect Evaluation of Mixed Storage of Different Proportions of Seed Pumpkin Waste and Corn Straw[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(3): 567-573.

侯良忠, 郭同军, 张俊瑜, 苏玲玲, 古再丽努尔·艾麦提, 温小燕, 朱晓芳, 杨建中, 王文奇. 不同比例籽用西葫芦皮瓤与玉米秸秆混贮效果评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(3): 567-573.

Figures/Tables 5

References 21

[1]	吕静仪, 李光磊, 杜鸿波, 等. 籽用南瓜副产物营养价值、瘤胃降解特性以及碳水化合物分子结构比较及其相关关系[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(5):2971-2981. DOI
	LV Jingyi, LI Guanglei, DU Hongbo, et al. Comparison of Nutritional Value, Rumen Degradation Characteristics And Their RelationshipsWith Carbohydrate Molecular Structures of Seed Pumpkin By-Products[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(5):2971-2981.
[2]	新疆维吾尔自治区统计局. 新疆统计年鉴[J]. 北京:中国统计出版社, 2018.
	Statistic Bureau of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Xinjiang Statistical Yearbook[J]. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2018.
[3]	新疆维吾尔自治区统计局. 新疆统计年鉴[J]. 北京:中国统计出版社, 2017:351-353.
	Statistic Bureau of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Xinjiang Statistical Yearbook[J]. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2017:351-353.
[4]	新疆维吾尔自治区统计局. 新疆统计年鉴[J]. 北京:中国统计出版社, 2016:369-371.
	Statistic Bureau of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Xinjiang Statistical Yearbook[J]. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2016:369-371.
[5]	新疆维吾尔自治区统计局. 新疆统计年鉴[J]. 北京:中国统计出版社, 2015:376-378.
	Statistic Bureau of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Xinjiang Statistical Yearbook[J]. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2015:376-378.
[6]	陈艳君, 马惠茹, 刘力. 葵花盘不同晾晒时间对其与籽用南瓜壳混合青贮发酵饲料品质的影响[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2018, 39(1):23-25.
	CHEN Yanjun, MA Huiru, LIU Li. Impact of Sunflower Disks Drying Time on Fermentation Quality of Mixed Silage Prepared with Seed Pumpkin Shell[J]. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2018, 39(1):23-25.
[7]	李洋, 么恩悦, 张广宁, 等. 籽用南瓜副产物用作反刍动物饲料的可行性分析[J]. 动物营养学报, 2019, 31(3):994-1000.
	LI Yang, YAO En’yue, ZHANG Guangning, et al. Feasibility Analysis of By-Products of Seed Pumpkin as a Feedstuff Source for Ruminants[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2019, 31(3): 994-1000.
[8]	郭辉, 王明闯, 董远德, 等. 籽用西葫芦和打瓜物料特性试验与对比研[J]. 农机化研究, 2021, 43(6):179-183.
	GUO Hui, WANG Mingchuang, DONG Yuande, et al. Experimental and Comparative Study on Material Characteristics of Zucchini and Seeding-watermelon[J]. Research on Agricultural Mechanization, 2021, 43(6):179-183.
[9]	蔡敦江, 周兴民, 朱廉. 苜蓿添加剂青贮,半干青贮与麦秸混贮的研究[J]. 草地学报, 1997, 5(2) :123-127. DOI
	CAI Tongjiang, ZHOU Xingmin, ZHU Lian. Study on Using Additives Silage and Wilted Silage and Mixed Silage of Alfalfa[J]. Journal of Grassland Science, 1997, 5(2):123-127.
[10]	张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术(第3版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2007:48-80.
	ZHANG Liying. Feed analysis and feed quality detection technology (3rd Edition)[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2007:48-80.
[11]	陈伯华. 青贮饲料的感官评价与利用[J]. 山西农业, 2004,(11): 34.
	CHEN Bohua. Sensory evaluation and utilization of silage[J]. Shanxi Agriculture, 2004, (11): 34.
[12]	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 preparation and quality evaluation standard of silage[J]. Feed industry, 1999,(3): 4-7.
[13]	范会兰, 姜军坡, 王世英, 等. 抗犊牛腹泻益生菌株BN-9产芽孢条件的优化[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2009, 48(2):405-409.
	FAN Huilan, JIANG Junpo, WANG Shiying, et al. Optimization of spore production conditions of probiotic strain bn-9 against calf diarrhea[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2009, 48(2):405-409.
[14]	程巍, 郭旭生. 苜蓿丝氨酸蛋白水解酶及青贮时对蛋白降解作用的研究[J]. 草业科学, 2011, 28(5):855-860.
	CHENG Wei, GU0 Xushen. Characterization of serine endopeptidases in alfalfa and its role on protein degradation of silage[J]. Grassland Science, 2011, 28(5):855-860.
[15]	侯殿明. 不同青贮添加剂对构树叶青贮发酵品质和营养成分的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2020, 43(12):110-112.
	HOU Dianming. Effects of Different Silage Additives on fermentation quality and nutrient composition of Broussonetia papyrifera silage[J]. Feed research, 2020, 43 (12): 110-112.
[16]	孙小龙. 混贮比例及添加剂对苜蓿混贮品质的影响[D]. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2006.
	Sun Xiaolong. Effects of mixed storage ratio and additives on mixed storage quality of alfalfa[D]. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2006.
[17]	于苏甫·热西提, 艾尼瓦尔·艾山, 张想峰, 等. 不同混合比例及时间对番茄渣与玉米秸混贮效果的影响[J]. 新疆农业大学学报, 2009, 32(3):49-53.
	Yusufu Rexit, Ainiwaer Aishan, ZHANG X iangfeng. Effects of Different Mixed Ratio and F erm en tin g Period on Efficiency of M ix ed Silage of Tomato Pom ace and Corn Straw[J]. Journal of Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2009, 32(3):49-53.
[18]	郭旭生, 丁武蓉, 玉柱. 青贮饲料发酵品质评定体系及其新进展[J]. 中国草地学报, 2008,(4):100-106.
	GUO Xusheng, DING Wurong, YU Zhu. The Evaluation System of Fermentation Quality of Ensiled Forage and Its Improvement[J]. Chinese Journal o f Grassland, 2008,(4):100-106.
[19]	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, 17(2):43-47.
	LI Xianglin, ZHANG Xinyue, TANG Yiguo, et al. Effect of concentrate-forage ratio in diet on live weilght gain of stall-fed goats[J]. Journal of Prataculture, 2008, 17(2):43-47.
[20]	蔡义民, 熊井涛雄, 廖芷, 等. 乳酸菌对青贮饲料发酵品质的改善效果[J]. 中国农业科学, 1995, 28(2):73-82.
	CAI Yimin, XIONG Jintaoxiong, LIAO Zhi, et al. Effect of lactic acid bacteria on fermentation quality of Silage[J]. Chinese agriculture, 1995, 28(2):73-82.
[21]	杨永明, 卢德勋. 青贮饲料调制技术[J]. 饲料博览, 2001,(4):31-32.
	YANG Yongming, LU Dexun. Silage preparation technology[J]. Feed Expo, 2001, (4): 31-32.

指标 Index	评分标准 Scoring standard	分数 Score
气味 Smell	有芳香果味或明显的面包香味有微弱丁酸臭味较轻酸味,芳香味弱丁酸味颇大有刺鼻焦糊臭霉味有较强丁酸臭味或氨味,几乎无酸味	14 10 4 2
结构 Structure	茎叶结构保持良好茎叶结构保持较差茎叶结构保持极差,有轻度霉菌污染茎叶腐烂或污染严重	4 2 1 0
色泽 Colour	与原产相似烘干后呈淡褐色略有变色呈淡黄色或淡褐色变色严重呈墨绿色或褪色为黄色,霉味较强	2 1 0
总分 Total points	16~20 10~15 5~9 0~4
等级 Class	优良(1级) 尚好(2级) 中等(3级) 腐败(4级)

指标 Index	评分标准 Scoring standard	分数 Score
气味 Smell	有芳香果味或明显的面包香味有微弱丁酸臭味较轻酸味,芳香味弱丁酸味颇大有刺鼻焦糊臭霉味有较强丁酸臭味或氨味,几乎无酸味	14 10 4 2
结构 Structure	茎叶结构保持良好茎叶结构保持较差茎叶结构保持极差,有轻度霉菌污染茎叶腐烂或污染严重	4 2 1 0
色泽 Colour	与原产相似烘干后呈淡褐色略有变色呈淡黄色或淡褐色变色严重呈墨绿色或褪色为黄色,霉味较强	2 1 0
总分 Total points	16~20 10~15 5~9 0~4
等级 Class	优良(1级) 尚好(2级) 中等(3级) 腐败(4级)

测定项目 Measuring items	西葫芦皮瓤 Skin and pit of zucchini	全株玉米 Whole corn
干物质 Dry matter	6.60	51.32
粗蛋白 Crude protein	10.58	4.75
粗脂肪 Ether extract	2.65	1.06
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent Fibre	48.22	50.94
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent Fiber	28.01	30.97
钙 Calcium	0.80	1.09
磷 Phosphorus	0.21	0.09
灰分 Ash	12.43	7.65

测定项目 Measuring items	西葫芦皮瓤 Skin and pit of zucchini	全株玉米 Whole corn
干物质 Dry matter	6.60	51.32
粗蛋白 Crude protein	10.58	4.75
粗脂肪 Ether extract	2.65	1.06
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent Fibre	48.22	50.94
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent Fiber	28.01	30.97
钙 Calcium	0.80	1.09
磷 Phosphorus	0.21	0.09
灰分 Ash	12.43	7.65

组别 Group	气味 Odour	结构 Structure	色泽 Tincture	总分 Total score	等级 Grade
对照组Control	酸香味略带轻微刺鼻气味(8)	茎叶结构保持良好(4)	黄褐色(2)	14	尚好(2级)
A组Group A	芳香味(13)	茎叶结构保持良好(4)	淡黄褐色(1)	18	优良(1级)
B组Group B	微弱芳香味(10)	茎叶结构保持良好(4)	淡黄褐色(1)	15	尚好(2级)
C组Group C	芳香味(13)	茎叶结构保持良好(4)	淡黄褐色(1)	18	优良(1级)