不同添加剂对薯渣与玉米秸秆混贮饲料发酵品质及牛瘤胃降解率的影响

doi:10.11686/cyxb2017510

草业学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (11): 200-208.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2017510

• 研究简报 • 上一篇

不同添加剂对薯渣与玉米秸秆混贮饲料发酵品质及牛瘤胃降解率的影响

申瑞瑞¹, 李秋凤^{1, 2}, 李运起¹, 孙晓玉³, 曹玉凤^{1, 2, *}, 岳康宁¹, 王勇胜¹, 王美美¹, 高艳霞^{1, 2}, 李建国^{1, 2}

1.河北农业大学动物科技学院,河北保定 071000;
2.河北农业大学养牛科学研究所,河北保定 071001;
3.黑龙江省农垦科学院畜牧研究所,黑龙江哈尔滨154007

收稿日期:2017-12-14 修回日期:2018-03-19 出版日期:2018-11-20 发布日期:2018-11-20
通讯作者: cyf278@126.com
作者简介:申瑞瑞(1991-),女,河北邯郸人,在读硕士。E-mail: rr_shen888@qq.com
基金资助:
国家肉牛牦牛产业技术体系建设项目(CARS-37),公益性行业(农业)科研专项(201503134)和河北省科技计划项目(16226604D)资助

Effect of additives on fermentation quality and cattle rumen degradability of mixed potato pulp and corn straw silage

SHEN Rui-rui¹, LI Qiu-feng^{1, 2}, LI Yun-qi¹, SUN Xiao-yu³, CAO Yu-feng^{1, 2, *}, YUE Kang-ning¹, WANG Yong-sheng¹, WANG Mei-mei¹, GAO Yan-xia^{1, 2}, LI Jian-guo^{1, 2}

1.College of Animal Science and Technology, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding 071000, China;
2.Institute of Cattle Science, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding 071001, China;
3.Institute of Animal Husbandry, Heilongjiang Academy of Land Reclamation Sciences, Harbin 154007, China

Received:2017-12-14 Revised:2018-03-19 Online:2018-11-20 Published:2018-11-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 研究4种不同添加剂对薯渣与玉米秸秆混贮饲料发酵品质以及牛瘤胃降解率的影响,并筛选出适宜的添加剂。试验采用密封塑料桶进行混贮,薯渣和玉米秸秆混贮水分含量控制在70%(混贮比例为1∶2),设置了对照组(CK)、微贮博士组(处理1)、青贮邦组(处理2)、拉巴克思复合添加剂组(处理3)以及亚芯组(处理4)5个处理,每个处理3个重复,贮存期60 d。采用实验室化学分析法及半体内试验测定第60天发酵品质、有氧稳定性、瘤胃降解率。结果表明各处理组和对照组(CK组)的感官评定结果无明显差异;经过发酵品质分析测定,4种添加剂处理均改善了薯渣饲料的发酵品质,其中处理4组的乳酸含量最高(P<0.01),pH和氨态氮含量最低(P<0.05);各添加剂处理均提高了薯渣混贮饲料的有氧稳定性,其中以处理4组效果最佳(P<0.01),有氧稳定时间为162 h,比CK组延长50 h,其次是处理2组(P<0.01)、处理3组(P<0.01),处理1组改善效果不明显;在瘤胃中培养48 h后,处理组干物质(DM)瘤胃降解率显著高于CK组(P<0.05),粗蛋白质(CP)瘤胃降解率极显著高于CK组(P<0.01);处理4组的NDF瘤胃降解率最高,显著高于处理3(P<0.05),但与其他处理组的NDF瘤胃降解率差异不显著(P>0.05);处理4组的ADF瘤胃降解率显著高于3组和CK组(P<0.05),与处理1组和处理2组差异不显著(P>0.05)。处理1组的淀粉瘤胃降解率比CK提高2.83%(P<0.01),其他各处理组间淀粉的牛瘤胃降解率无显著差异(P>0.05)。综上,添加剂处理对薯渣与玉米秸秆混贮饲料的发酵品质、有氧稳定性、瘤胃降解率等均有改善作用,其中以亚芯组处理效果最好。

关键词: 薯渣, 玉米秸秆, 添加剂, 发酵品质, 48 h降解率

Abstract: The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the effect of different additives on fermentation quality and cattle rumen degradability of a mixed silage made with potato pulp and corn straw, and to screen for suitable additives. The sealed bucket storage method was used in the experiment. The mixed storage ratio of sweet potato pulp and corn straw was 1∶2 and the moisture content was 70%. Five different treatments were assessed: a control (CK), Weizhu group (treatment 1), silage-help group (treatment 2), LaBaX composite additive group (treatment 3) and Yaxin group (treatment 4); each treatment was replicated 3 times and the storage period was 60 days. Laboratory chemical analysis and in situ technology were used to determine the fermentation quality, aerobic stability and rumen degradation rate on the 60th day.There were no differences between treatments in the sensory evaluation; fermentation quality of the missed silage was improved by the additive treatments; lactic acid content in treatment 4 was the highest (P<0.01) whereas the pH and ammonia nitrogen content in treatment 4 were the lowest (P<0.05). Aerobic stability was increased by all additive treatments with treatment 4 (162 hours) again the best (P<0.01). Rumen degradability of dry matter (DM) in the treatment groups was significantly higher than that the CK group (P<0.05); crude protein (CP) rumen degradation rate was also significantly higher than that in the CK group (P<0.01).The neutral detergent fiber (NDF) rumen degradation rate in treatment 4 was the highest, significantly higher than that of treatment 3 (P<0.05), but was not different to other treatment groups (P>0.05).The acid detergent fiber (ADF) rumen degradation rate of treatment 4 was significantly higher than that of treatment 3 and CK (P<0.05), but was not different from treatment 1 and treatment 2 (P>0.05).The rumen degradability of starch in treatment 1 was 2.83% (P<0.01) higher than that of CK. The rumen degradation rate of starch in other treatment groups were not different (P>0.05). In conclusion, the additives used in this study improved fermentation quality, aerobic stability and rumen degradability of mixed potato pulp and corn straw but the Yaxin treament produced the best quality silage.

Key words: potato pulp, corn straw, additive, fermentation quality, 48 h degradation rate

申瑞瑞, 李秋凤, 李运起, 孙晓玉, 曹玉凤, 岳康宁, 王勇胜, 王美美, 高艳霞, 李建国. 不同添加剂对薯渣与玉米秸秆混贮饲料发酵品质及牛瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(11): 200-208.

SHEN Rui-rui, LI Qiu-feng, LI Yun-qi, SUN Xiao-yu, CAO Yu-feng, YUE Kang-ning, WANG Yong-sheng, WANG Mei-mei, GAO Yan-xia, LI Jian-guo. Effect of additives on fermentation quality and cattle rumen degradability of mixed potato pulp and corn straw silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(11): 200-208.

参考文献

[1] Li F R, Han L M, Wang Y, et al. Advances and trends in utilization of potato pulp from potato starch processing. Chinese Potato Journal, 2015, 29(3): 175-181.
李芳蓉, 韩黎明, 王英, 等. 马铃薯渣综合利用研究现状及发展趋势. 中国马铃薯, 2015, 29(3): 175-181.
[2] Okine A, Hanada M, Aibibula Y, et al. Ensiling of potato pulp with or without bacterial inoculants and its effect on fermentation quality, nutrient composition and nutritive value. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2005, 121: 329-343.
[3] Zunong M, Tuerxun T, Okamoto M, et al. Effects of a potato pulp silage supplement on the composition of milk fatty acids when fed to grazing dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2009, 152: 81-91.
[4] Wang L.Study on quality regulation technology of alfalfa silage. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2011: 11.
王林. 苜蓿青贮饲料质量调控技术研究. 北京:中国农业科学院, 2011: 11.
[5] Yan X B.Effects of mixed silage from potato residues and corn stalks on performance of dairy cows. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2010: 6.
闫晓波. 马铃薯渣和秸秆混合青贮对奶牛生产性能的影响. 兰州:甘肃农业大学, 2010: 6.
[6] Chen L, Hong L, Zhang L Q, et al. Study on the effect of mixed storage of potato starch residue and corn stalk on beef cattle. Feed Research, 2014, 9: 45-48.
陈亮, 洪龙, 张凌青, 等. 马铃薯淀粉渣与玉米秸秆混贮饲喂肉牛效果的研究. 饲料研究, 2014, 9: 45-48.
[7] Li J N.Degradability of potato residues and sweet potato residues silage in rumen and study on their assosiative effect with corn silage. Hebei: Journal of Agricultural University of Heibei, 2015: 4.
李剑楠. 薯渣青贮的瘤胃降解规律及其与玉米青贮的组合效应研究. 河北农业大学, 2015: 4.
[8] Xia Y.Different absorbers and fermentation juice impact on the fermented quality of potato residue and sweet potato waste. Hebei: Journal of Agricultural University of Heibei, 2014: 3.
夏宇. 不同吸收剂和发酵液对马铃薯渣和红薯渣青贮饲料发酵品质的影响. 河北农业大学, 2014: 3.
[9] Feng Y L.Ruminant nutrition. Beijing: Science Press, 2004: 8.
冯仰廉.反刍动物营养学. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004: 8.
[10] Feng Y L.Beef cattle nutritional requirements and feeding standards. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2000.
冯仰廉. 肉牛营养需要和饲养标准. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2000.
[11] Broderick G A, Kang J H.Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and amino acids in ruminal fluids and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science, 1980, 33: 64-75.
[12] Yang S.Feed analysis and feed quality detection and detection technology. Beijing: Beijing Agricultural University Press, 1993.
杨胜. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测检测技术. 北京: 北京农业大学出版社, 1993.
[13] Lin X.The evaluation of nutritional value of sugar beet pulp silage and its application to dairy cattle production. Haerbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2011: 5.
林曦. 甜菜渣青贮营养价值的评定及其在奶牛生产中应用的研究. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2011: 5.
[14] Zhang Z Y.China forage. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000.
张子仪. 中国饲料学. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[15] Guo H M, Xia T C, Zhu W, et al. Effect of additives on the quality and aerobic stability of rice straw silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(2): 190-196.
郭海明,夏天婵,朱雯,等. 青贮添加剂对稻草青贮品质和有氧稳定性的影响. 草业学报, 2017, 26(2): 190-196.
[16] Guan H.Effect of inoculants on fermentation quality and microbial population of ryegrass silage with different water. Chengdu: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2016.
关皓. 添加剂对不同含水量多花黑麦草青贮发酵品质及微生物种群的影响. 成都: 四川农业大学, 2016.
[17] Henderson N.Silage additives. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1993, 45(1): 35-36.
[18] Wang A, Zhang S F, Zhong Y M, et al. Study on cellulosic compound enzyme as a silage additive. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University, 1997(4): 47-54.
王安,张淑芳,钟一民,等. 纤维素复合酶作为青贮饲料添加剂的研究. 东北农业大学学报, 1997(4): 47-54.
[19] Shao X Q, Liu Y H, Liu T Y, et al. Effects of different lactic acid bacteria additives on the silage quality of the native grass. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2014, 22(6): 1348-1352.
邵新庆, 刘月华, 刘庭玉, 等. 不同乳酸菌添加剂对天然牧草青贮品质的影响. 草地学报, 2014, 22(6): 1348-1352.
[20] Jiang H, Fang L, Jiang T, et al. Effect of mixed storage of camel spines and alfalfa during seed setting. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2014, 26(12): 3765-3771.
蒋慧, 方雷, 蒋涛, 等. 结实期骆驼刺与紫花苜蓿混贮效果的研究. 动物营养学报, 2014, 26(12): 3765-3771.
[21] Ren H W, Dou J W, Zhao T, et al. Effect of additives on mixed silage quality of corn stalk and leaf lettuce. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(10): 142-152.
任海伟, 窦俊伟, 赵拓, 等. 添加剂对玉米秸秆和莴笋叶混贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2016, 25(10): 142-152.
[22] Jiang H, Fang L, Zhou X L, et al. Improve alfalfa silage quality by adding Alhagi sparsifolia Shap in initial bloom stage. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2014, 30(17): 328-335.
蒋慧, 方雷, 周小玲, 等. 添加初花期骆驼刺改善苜蓿青贮品质. 农业工程学报, 2014, 30(17): 328-335.
[23] Xu Q F, Zhou H, Yu Z, et al. The effect of different storage time and dilution previous fermented juice on bagged alfalfa silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2006, 15(2): 129-133.
许庆方, 周禾, 玉柱, 等. 贮藏期和添加绿汁发酵液对袋装苜蓿青贮的影响. 草地学报, 2006, 15(2): 129-133.
[24] Wei R H.Isolation and screening of hetero fermentative lactic bacteria from gramineas and the effect of adding it on silage fermentation quality and aerobic stability. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2010.
魏日华. 禾本科牧草异型发酵乳酸菌的分离鉴定及对青贮发酵品质和有氧稳定性的影响. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2010.
[25] Kung L J R,Ranjit N K. The effect of L actobaci l l us buchneri and other additives on the fermentation and aerobic stability of barley silage. Journal of Dairy Science, 2001, 84: 1149-1155.
[26] Danner H, Holzer M, Mayrhuber E, et al. Acetic acid increases stability of silage under aerobic conditions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2003, 69(1): 562-567.
[27] Weinberg Z G, Ashbell G, Hen Y, et al. English whole crop wheat and corn in large containers with Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus buchneri. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2002, 28(1): 7-11.
[28] Diao Q Y, Tu Y.Degradabilities of crude protein in feedstuffs for dairy cow in rumen. Journal of Dairy Science and Technology, 2005, 2: 70-74.
刁其玉, 屠焰. 奶牛常用饲料蛋白质在瘤胃的降解参数. 乳业科学与技术, 2005, 2: 70-74.
[29] Lu D X.The combination effect of feed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000.
卢德勋. 饲料的组合效应. 北京:中国农业出版社, 2000.
[30] Xing L.Study on the effects of lactobacillus and cellulase additives on the quality of different silages. Beijing: China of Agricultural University, 2005: 3.
兴丽. 乳酸菌与纤维素酶制剂对不同青贮饲料质量影响的实验研究. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2005: 3.
[31] Herrera-Saldana R, Gomez-Alarcon R, Torabi M, et al. Influence of synchronizing protein and starch degradation in the rumen on nutrient utilization and microbial protein synthesis. Journal of Dairy Science, 1990, 73(1): 142-148.

不同添加剂对薯渣与玉米秸秆混贮饲料发酵品质及牛瘤胃降解率的影响

Effect of additives on fermentation quality and cattle rumen degradability of mixed potato pulp and corn straw silage

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	董文成, 林语梵, 朱鸿福, 张欢, 张桂杰. 不同品种葡萄渣对苜蓿青贮品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 129-137.
[2]	于浩然, 格根图, 王志军, 贾玉山, 连植, 贾鹏飞. 甲酸添加剂及青贮时间对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 89-95.
[3]	任昱鑫, 代寒凌, 田新会, 杜文华. 添加剂对甘肃省高寒牧区不同刈割期小黑麦青贮饲料营养品质和青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 197-206.
[4]	李艳芬, 程金花, 田川尧, 田雨佳, 卢冬亚, 张建斌. 双乙酸钠对苜蓿青贮品质、营养成分及蛋白分子结构的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(2): 163-171.
[5]	毛翠, 刘方圆, 宋恩亮, 王亚芳, 王永军, 战翔, 李原, 成海建, 姜富贵. 不同乳酸菌添加量和发酵时间对全株玉米青贮营养价值及发酵品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(10): 172-181.
[6]	琚泽亮, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 贾志峰, 梁国玲. 不同燕麦品种在甘肃中部的营养价值及青贮发酵品质综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(9): 77-86.
[7]	任海伟, 孙安琪, 任军乐, 李志忠, 范文广, 王昱, 刘菲菲, 沈佳莉, 孙文斌. 添加白菜尾菜和甲酸对干玉米秸秆贮存品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(8): 61-71.
[8]	李小铃, 关皓, 帅杨, 李小梅, 彭安琪, 李昌华, 蒲棋, 闫艳红, 张新全. 单一和复合乳酸菌添加剂对扁穗牛鞭草青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 119-127.
[9]	刘月, 王国艮, 吴浩, 孟庆翔, 宋恩亮, 成海建, 周振明. 全株青贮玉米品种对其发酵品质及营养价值的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 148-156.
[10]	杨大盛, 汪水平, 韩雪峰, 汤少勋, 谭支良, 尹梦洁, 骆东梅. 乳酸菌和烷基多糖苷对玉米秸秆黄贮品质及其体外发酵特性影响研究[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(5): 109-120.
[11]	罗颖洁, 陈桂华, 穆麟, 胡龙兴, 张志飞, 高帅, 魏仲珊. 不同稻秸添加比例对紫花苜蓿和麦麸混合青贮的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(5): 178-184.
[12]	商振达, 谭占坤, 李家奎, 卓嘎, 王宏辉, 巴桑, 谢国平, 刘锁珠. 西藏地区荞麦与玉米混合青贮对发酵品质和微生物多样性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(4): 95-105.
[13]	李菲菲, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 唐开婷, 马春晖. 刈割茬次和生育期对苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 137-148.
[14]	李顺, 穆麟, 曾宁波, 陈东, 张志飞, 叶志刚. 添加剂对籽粒苋与豆粕混合青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 205-210.
[15]	代寒凌, 田新会, 杜文华, 吴建平. 不同添加剂处理对小黑麦和黑麦青贮营养品质和发酵品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 211-219.