Effects of Lactiplantibacillus plantarumand molasses on the silage of Silphium perfoliatum

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2024.06.025

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 This project aims to explore the effects of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and molasses inoculation on silage fermentation characteristics of Silphium perfoliatum and rumen degradation rate of sheep and guide the scientific and efficient utilization of Silphium perfoliatum. 【Methods】 Three additive treatments were designed: no additive inoculation treatment (CK treatment), inoculation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum 1×10⁵CFU/g FM (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, LP treatment ), inoculation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum 1×10⁵CFU/g FM + 2% molasses (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Molasses, LPM treatment). The vacuum bag method was used to prepare the cross-leaf rosin grass silage, which was stored at room temperature for 60 days. Afterwards, the sensory quality was evaluated and the fermentation characteristics, nutritional quality and rumen degradation rate of sheep were analyzed. 【Results】 (1) The contents of lactic acid, acetic acid, crude protein and dry matter in LPM treatment were significantly higher than those in CK and LP treatments (P<0.05). The neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, pH value, ammonia nitrogen ratio total nitrogen, yeast, mold and aerobic bacteria in LPM treatment were significantly lower than those in CK and LP treatment (P<0.05). The propionic acid content of LP and LPM treatments was significantly lower than that of CK treatment (P<0.05). (2) During the rumen degradation process (12-48 h), the acid, neutral detergent fiber degradation rate and dry matter degradation rate of LPM treatment were significantly higher than those of CK treatment (P<0.05), and the acid, neutral detergent fiber degradation rate, dry matter degradation rate and organic matter degradation rate increased significantly with time in the rumen (P<0.05). 【Conclusion】 The combined inoculation of 1×10⁵CFU/g Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and 2% molasses can promote the fermentation of Silphium perfoliatum silage and significantly improve the degradation of dry matter and fiber in the rumen of sheep.

Key words: Silphium perfoliatum; silage; fermentation quality; rumen degradation rate

摘要：

【目的】研究植物乳杆菌与糖蜜接种对串叶松香草青贮发酵特征及绵羊瘤胃降解率的影响,为串叶松香草的科学高效利用提供依据。【方法】设计3个添加剂处理,分别为无添加剂接种处理(CK处理)、接种植物乳杆菌1×10⁵ CFU/g FM(Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, LP处理)、接种植物乳杆菌1×10⁵ CFU/g FM+2%糖蜜(Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Molasses, LPM处理)。采用真空袋法调制串叶松香草青贮,室温储藏60 d,评价感官质量并分析发酵特性、营养品质及绵羊瘤胃降解率。【结果】(1)LPM处理的乳酸、乙酸、粗蛋白、干物质含量显著高于CK和LP处理(P<0.05)。LPM处理的中性、酸性洗涤纤维、pH值、氨态氮总氮、酵母菌、霉菌、好氧细菌数量显著低于CK和LP处理(P<0.05)。LP和LPM处理的丙酸含量均显著低于CK处理(P<0.05)(2)瘤胃降解过程中(12~48 h),LPM处理的酸性、中性洗涤纤维降解率、干物质降解率均显著高于CK处理(P<0.05),而且酸性、中性洗涤纤维降解率、干物质降解率、有机物降解率在瘤胃中随着时间的增加显著上升(P<0.05)。【结论】联合接种1×10⁵ CFU/g植物乳杆菌和2%糖蜜可促进串叶松香草青贮发酵,并显著提高干物质和纤维在羊瘤胃中的降解率。

关键词: 串叶松香草, 青贮, 发酵品质, 瘤胃降解率

CLC Number:

XIAN Ouyang, LI Xiao, CHEN Yongcheng, WANG Xuze, ZHANG Fanfan, HOU Guoqing. Effects of Lactiplantibacillus plantarumand molasses on the silage of Silphium perfoliatum[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(6): 1505-1511.

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.

Figures/Tables 3

References 34

[1]	邴鑫. 串叶松香草多酚和黄酮的提取纯化工艺、活性测定及其成分分析[D]. 长春: 吉林农业大学, 2018: 1-3.
	BING Xin. Extraction and Purification Process, Activity Determination and Composition Analysis of Polyphenols and Flavonoids from Cup Plant[D]. Changchun: Jilin Agricultural University, 2018: 1-3.
[2]	Han K J, Albrecht K A. Substitution value of cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.) silage in dairy cow diet[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science, 2021, 13(11): 1.
[3]	伏兵哲, 米福贵, 高雪芹, 等. 串叶松香草的研究现状及进展[J]. 农业科学研究, 2011, 32(2): 60-64.
	FU Bingzhe, MI Fugui, GAO Xueqin, et al. The research on the situation and progress of Silphium perfoliatum[J]. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2011, 32(2): 60-64.
[4]	刘福元, 尹君亮, 孟季蒙, 等. 适合新疆种植的优良牧草及栽培方法[J]. 草食家畜, 2003,(4): 45-49.
	LIU Fuyuan, YIN Junliang, MENG Jimeng, et al. Popularize fine forage grass breeding and cultivation ways suitable for Xinjiang conditions[J]. Grass-Feeding Livestock, 2003,(4): 45-49.
[5]	张志儒, 李超欣, 马骏, 等. 高蛋白饲草串叶松香草不同生长期营养成分分析[J]. 中国饲料, 2020,(21): 130-133.
	ZHANG Zhiru, LI Chaoxin, MA Jun, et al. Analysis of nutritional components of Silphium perfoliatum L. in different growth stages[J]. China Feed, 2020,(21): 130-133.
[6]	董起飞, 许庆方, 玉柱, 等. 串叶松香草青贮条件的研究[J]. 饲料工业, 2010, 31(21): 49-51.
	DONG Qifei, XU Qingfang, YU Zhu, et al. The studies of cup plant silage[J]. Feed Industry, 2010, 31(21): 49-51.
[7]	董洁, 王康, 董宽虎. 不同添加剂和凋萎程度对串叶松香草青贮品质的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2009, 31(2): 81-85.
	DONG Jie, WANG Kang, DONG Kuanhu. Effect of different additives and wilting degree on silage quality of perfoliate rosinweed(Silphium perfoliatum L.)[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2009, 31(2): 81-85.
[8]	王红霞. 兔青绿饲料的供给与牧草种植策略分析[J]. 中国养兔, 2019,(6): 44-45.
	WANG Hongxia. Analysis of rabbit green feed supply and forage planting strategy[J]. Chinese Journal of Rabbit Farming, 2019,(6): 44-45.
[9]	王秀, 夏璇, 曹伟, 等. 青饲料在猪生产中的应用及研究进展[J]. 饲料研究, 2019, 42(11): 119-121.
	WANG Xiu, XIA Xuan, CAO Wei, et al. Application and Research Progress of Green Feed in Pig Production[J]. Feed Research, 2019, 42(11): 119-121.
[10]	韩永芬, 赵明坤, 李小芳. 串叶松香草饲喂牛羊等的适口性及饲喂方法试验[J]. 贵州大学学报(农业与生物科学版), 2002, 21(5): 332-338, 390.
	HAN Yongfen, ZHAO Mingkun, LI Xiaofang. The experiments of palatability and feeding method of Silphium perfoliatumfor cattle & sheep[J]. Journal of Mountain Agriculture and Biology, 2002, 21(5): 332-338, 390.
[11]	Yang L L, Yuan X J, Li J F, et al. Dynamics of microbial community and fermentation quality during ensiling of sterile and nonsterile alfalfa with or without Lactobacillus plantarum inoculant[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 275: 280-287.
[12]	Zhang F F, Wang X Z, Lu W H, et al. Meta-analysis of the effects of combined homo- and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage[J]. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 2018, 20(8):1846-1852.
[13]	Ren H W, Feng Y P, Pei J W, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum additive and temperature on the ensiling quality and microbial community dynamics of cauliflower leaf silages[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 307: 123238.
[14]	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, 20(3): 3-5.
	LIU Jianxin, YANG Zhenhai, YE Jun’an, et al. Reasonable modulation and quality evaluation standard of silage[J]. Feed Industry, 1999, 20(3): 3-5.
[15]	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, 1993.
	YANG Sheng. Feed Analyses and Quality Test[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 1993.
[16]	陆永祥, 严显明, 周朝相, 等. 不同添加剂对高水分全株玉米青贮饲料发酵品质和细菌群落的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 842-847. DOI
	LU Yongxiang, YAN Xianming, ZHOU Zhaoxiang, et al. Effects of different additives on fermentation quality and bacterial community of high-moisture whole-plant corn silage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(4): 842-847. DOI
[17]	尤思涵, 都帅, 周忠义, 等. 高丹草与黑麦草适宜混贮比例研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 821-827. DOI
	YOU Sihan, DU Shuai, ZHOU Zhongyi, et al. Mixed silage of Sorghum hybrid Sudan grass and perennial ryegrass with different proportions[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(4): 821-827. DOI
[18]	Fang M, Fanfan Z, Xuzhe W, et al. Effect of lactobacillus plantarum, pediococcus acidilactici and lactobacillus buchneri at low doses on the fermentation, aerobic stability and ruminal digestibility of corn silage[J]. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 2019, 22(4):655-664.
[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.
[20]	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]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2018, 34(10): 296-304.
[21]	邵新庆, 刘月华, 刘庭玉, 等. 不同刈割期天然牧草青贮品质评价[J]. 草原与草坪, 2014, 34(4): 8-12.
	SHAO Xinqing, LIU Yuehua, LIU Tingyu, et al. Quality evaluation analysis of the natural grass silage in different cutting times[J]. Grassland and Turf, 2014, 34(4): 8-12.
[22]	苗芳, 张凡凡, 唐开婷, 等. 同/异质型乳酸菌添加对全株玉米青贮发酵特性、营养品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(9): 167-175. DOI
	MIAO Fang, ZHANG Fanfan, TANG Kaiting, et al. Effects of homo-and hetero-fermentative lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation characteristics, nutritional quality, and aerobic stability of whole corn silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(9): 167-175. DOI
[23]	陈东, 李顺, 曾宁波, 等. 不同添加剂对籽粒苋与油菜秸秆混合青贮品质的影响[J]. 湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 46(1): 113-118.
	CHEN Dong, LI Shun, ZENG Ningbo, et al. Effect of different additives on fermentation quality of silage with different rations of Amaranthus hypochondriacus and rape straw[J]. Journal of Hunan Agricultural University (Natural Sciences), 2020, 46(1): 113-118.
[24]	Catano G A, Villa L M. Use of whey and molasses as additive for producing silage of CubaOM-22(Cenchrus purpureus×Cenchrus glaucum)[J]. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science, 2017, 51(1):61-70
[25]	李龙兴, 龚正发, 黎俊, 等. 糖蜜和乳酸菌对去穗玉米秸秆青贮发酵品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2018, 26(4): 1026-1029. DOI
	LI Longxing, GONG Zhengfa, LI Jun, et al. The effects of molasses and lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation quality of ear-removed corn straws silage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018, 26(4): 1026-1029. DOI
[26]	陶莲, 冯文晓, 王玉荣, 等. 微生态制剂对玉米秸秆青贮发酵品质、营养成分及瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(9): 152-160. DOI
	TAO Lian, FENG Wenxiao, WANG Yurong, et al. Effects of microecological agents on the fermentation quality, nutrition composition and in situ ruminal degradability of corn stalk silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(9): 152-160. DOI
[27]	Xia C Q, Liang Y X, Bai S, et al. Effects of harvest time and added molasses on nutritional content, ensiling characteristics and in vitro degradation of whole crop wheat[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2018, 31(3): 354-362.
[28]	付锦涛, 王学凯, 倪奎奎, 等. 添加乳酸菌和糖蜜对全株构树和稻草混合青贮的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 121-128. DOI
	FU Jintao, WANG Xuekai, NI Kuikui, et al. The effects of adding lactic acid bacteria and molasses on fermentation of Broussonetia papyrifera and rice straw mixed silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(4): 121-128. DOI
[29]	Filya I. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and Lactobacillus plantarum on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and ruminal degradability of low dry matter corn and sorghum silages[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2003, 86(11): 3575-3581. PMID
[30]	KoçF, Aksoy S, Okur A A, et al. Effect of pre-fermented juice, lactobacillus plantarum and lactobacillus buchneri on the fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of high dry matter alfalfa bale silage[J]. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 2017, 27(5):1426-1431
[31]	张凡凡, 张玉琳, 王旭哲, 等. 纤维素分解菌与布氏乳杆菌联合接种对青贮玉米发酵品质、有氧稳定性和瘤胃降解参数的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(3): 1735-1746. DOI
	ZHANG Fanfan, ZHANG Yulin, WANG Xuzhe, et al. Effects of cellulose decomposing bacteria and Lactobacillus buchneri combined culture on fermentation quality, aerobic stability and rumen degradation parameters of corn silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(3): 1735-1746.
[32]	Borreani G, Piano S, Tabacco E. Aerobic stability of maize silage stored under plastic films with different oxygen permeability[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2014, 94(13): 2684-2690. DOI PMID
[33]	Spanghero M, Zanfi C. Impact of NDF content and digestibility of diets based on corn silage and alfalfa on intake and milk yield of dairy cows[J]. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 2010, 8(S2): 337.
[34]	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.

处理 Treatments	色泽 Tincture	酸味 Sour taste	质地 Texure	感官质量评价 Sensory qualityev aluation
CK	青绿	中等乳酸味	轻微黏手, 无霉变	良好
LP	青绿	中等乳酸味	轻微黏手, 无霉变	良好
LPM	黄绿	浓郁乳酸味	松散不黏手, 无霉变	优等

处理 Treatments	色泽 Tincture	酸味 Sour taste	质地 Texure	感官质量评价 Sensory qualityev aluation
CK	青绿	中等乳酸味	轻微黏手, 无霉变	良好
LP	青绿	中等乳酸味	轻微黏手, 无霉变	良好
LPM	黄绿	浓郁乳酸味	松散不黏手, 无霉变	优等

指标 Items	处理Treatments
	第0 d	第60 d
	第0 d	CK	LP	LPM
干物质DM(%)	18.37±0.10^a	16.05±0.18^d	16.86±0.24^c	17.23±0.32^b
粗蛋白CP(%DM)	16.58±0.14^a	15.14±0.35^c	15.34±0.25^c	15.96±0.24^b
中性洗涤纤维NDF(%DM)	37.64±0.22^a	36.36±0.44^b	35.44±0.40^c	34.95±0.58^d
酸性洗涤纤维ADF(%DM)	28.41±0.11^a	26.44±0.13^b	25.84±0.20^c	25.63±0.36^c
可溶性碳水化合物WSC(%DM)	6.98±0.12^a	3.65±0.08^c	3.21±0.15^d	4.15±0.18^b
pH值pH value	6.31±0.09^a	4.52±0.15^b	4.35±0.07^b	4.14±0.19^c
氨态氮/总氮NH₃-N/TN	0.47±0.03^d	2.26±0.17^a	1.96±0.08^b	1.75±0.08^c
乳酸LA(%DM)	1.76±0.08^c	4.13±0.08^b	4.24±0.07^ab	4.38±0.08^a
乙酸AA(%DM)	0.26±0.03^c	1.59±0.11^b	1.71±0.06^b	2.21±0.07^a
丙酸PA(%DM)	0.17±0.02^b	0.35±0.03^a	0.22±0.04^b	0.19±0.04^b
丁酸BA(%DM)	ND	ND	ND	ND
乳酸菌LAB (log CFU/g FM)	3.68±0.08^d	5.48±0.27^c	6.33±0.16^b	7.79±0.51^a
酵母菌Yeast (log CFU/g FM)	7.73±0.10^a	7.24±0.07^b	6.38±0.15^c	5.93±0.11^d
霉菌Mold (log CFU/g FM)	4.32±0.10^a	3.14±0.10^b	2.49±0.15^c	<2.00d
好氧细菌AB (log CFU/g FM)	7.47±0.08^a	5.68±0.12^b	5.41±0.07^c	5.23±0.07^c

指标 Items	处理Treatments
	第0 d	第60 d
	第0 d	CK	LP	LPM
干物质DM(%)	18.37±0.10^a	16.05±0.18^d	16.86±0.24^c	17.23±0.32^b
粗蛋白CP(%DM)	16.58±0.14^a	15.14±0.35^c	15.34±0.25^c	15.96±0.24^b
中性洗涤纤维NDF(%DM)	37.64±0.22^a	36.36±0.44^b	35.44±0.40^c	34.95±0.58^d
酸性洗涤纤维ADF(%DM)	28.41±0.11^a	26.44±0.13^b	25.84±0.20^c	25.63±0.36^c
可溶性碳水化合物WSC(%DM)	6.98±0.12^a	3.65±0.08^c	3.21±0.15^d	4.15±0.18^b
pH值pH value	6.31±0.09^a	4.52±0.15^b	4.35±0.07^b	4.14±0.19^c
氨态氮/总氮NH₃-N/TN	0.47±0.03^d	2.26±0.17^a	1.96±0.08^b	1.75±0.08^c
乳酸LA(%DM)	1.76±0.08^c	4.13±0.08^b	4.24±0.07^ab	4.38±0.08^a
乙酸AA(%DM)	0.26±0.03^c	1.59±0.11^b	1.71±0.06^b	2.21±0.07^a
丙酸PA(%DM)	0.17±0.02^b	0.35±0.03^a	0.22±0.04^b	0.19±0.04^b
丁酸BA(%DM)	ND	ND	ND	ND
乳酸菌LAB (log CFU/g FM)	3.68±0.08^d	5.48±0.27^c	6.33±0.16^b	7.79±0.51^a
酵母菌Yeast (log CFU/g FM)	7.73±0.10^a	7.24±0.07^b	6.38±0.15^c	5.93±0.11^d
霉菌Mold (log CFU/g FM)	4.32±0.10^a	3.14±0.10^b	2.49±0.15^c	<2.00d
好氧细菌AB (log CFU/g FM)	7.47±0.08^a	5.68±0.12^b	5.41±0.07^c	5.23±0.07^c

时间 Time (h)	处理 Treatments	中性洗涤纤维降解率 NDFD(%DM)	酸性洗涤纤维降解率 ADFD(%DM)	干物质降解率 DMD(%DM)	有机物降解率 OMD(%DM)
12	CK	30.47±1.48^bC	27.35±0.27^bC	32.55±0.34^bC	50.47±0.64^bC
	LP	33.64±0.68^aC	28.12±0.65^abC	34.22±0.89^abC	51.65±0.60^aC
	LPM	35.21±1.06^aC	28.66±0.56^aC	34.90±0.88^aC	52.14±0.16^aC
24	CK	45.87±0.57^bB	37.11±0.56^bB	40.15±0.50^bB	58.95±0.27^B
	LP	46.46±0.44^abB	38.28±0.41^aB	41.54±0.37^aB	59.44±0.75^B
	LPM	47.18±0.46^aB	38.79±0.28^aB	42.29±0.34^aB	59.59±0.70^B
48	CK	52.43±0.51^cA	41.47±0.16^cA	47.15±0.53^cA	63.77±0.99^A
	LP	54.25±0.38^bA	43.14±0.36^bA	49.43±0.84^bA	64.14±0.35^A
	LPM	55.19±0.27^aA	45.21±0.25^aA	51.89±0.30^aA	64.26±0.77^A