草业学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (12): 180-187.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020158
宗成1(), 张健2, 邵涛1, 董志浩1, 李君风1, 唐露2, 冉启凡2, 刘秦华1()
收稿日期:
2020-04-07
修回日期:
2020-05-07
出版日期:
2020-12-20
发布日期:
2020-12-28
通讯作者:
刘秦华
作者简介:
Corresponding author. E-mail: liuqinhua@njau.edu.cn基金资助:
Cheng ZONG1(), Jian ZHANG2, Tao SHAO1, Zhi-hao DONG1, Jun-feng LI1, Lu TANG2, Qi-fan RAN2, Qin-hua LIU1()
Received:
2020-04-07
Revised:
2020-05-07
Online:
2020-12-20
Published:
2020-12-28
Contact:
Qin-hua LIU
摘要:
为提高紫花苜蓿青贮饲料的发酵品质,抑制不饱和脂肪酸的损失,以无添加剂为对照,研究了添加剂:苯甲酸钠、酪蛋白酸钠、十六烷酸、糖蜜和丙酸,对紫花苜蓿青贮饲料发酵品质和脂肪酸的影响。青贮65 d后开窖,检测发酵品质指标和各种脂肪酸的含量。结果表明:对照组的pH低于4.50,乳酸含量达到54.25 g·kg-1 DM,丁酸含量低于5.00 g·kg-1 DM,弗氏评分为64.33,具有良好的发酵品质。与青贮前相比,青贮后苜蓿青贮饲料中的亚油酸(C18:2n6)和亚麻酸(C18:3n3)的含量显著增加(P<0.05)。青贮后,与对照组相比,十六烷酸和酪蛋白酸钠添加组分别不显著(P>0.05)和显著地(P<0.05)降低了乳酸含量;酪蛋白酸钠添加组增加了丁酸含量(P<0.05);二者的弗氏评分低于50.00,降低了发酵品质。与此相反,苯甲酸钠、丙酸和糖蜜添加组不同程度地增加了乳酸含量,降低了pH,减少了氨态氮和酸性洗涤纤维的含量,弗氏评分分别为70.33、74.33和67.67,进一步提高了青贮发酵品质。与对照相比,苯甲酸钠和丙酸添加组不同程度地增加了C18:2n6或C18:3n3的含量,而糖蜜添加组降低了C18:2n6和C18:3n3的含量(P<0.05)。综上所述,丙酸和苯甲酸钠适宜于作为青贮添加剂生产优质紫花苜蓿青贮饲料。
宗成, 张健, 邵涛, 董志浩, 李君风, 唐露, 冉启凡, 刘秦华. 添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮饲料发酵品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 180-187.
Cheng ZONG, Jian ZHANG, Tao SHAO, Zhi-hao DONG, Jun-feng LI, Lu TANG, Qi-fan RAN, Qin-hua LIU. Effects of additives on fermentation quality of alfalfa silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(12): 180-187.
项目Items | 紫花苜蓿 Alfalfa | 标准偏差 Standard deviation |
---|---|---|
干物质 Dry matter (g·kg-1 FW) | 213.64 | 9.61 |
粗蛋白Crude protein (g·kg-1 DM) | 198.30 | 0.79 |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (g·kg-1 DM) | 358.65 | 10.02 |
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber (g·kg-1 DM) | 224.62 | 6.42 |
水溶性碳水化合物Water-soluble carbohydrates (g·kg-1 DM) | 72.60 | 3.62 |
pH | 6.01 | 0.01 |
缓冲能 Buffer capacity (mEq·kg-1 DM) | 250.13 | 16.73 |
乳酸菌Lactic acid bacteria (lg cfu·g-1 FW) | 6.70 | 0.09 |
好氧性细菌Aerobic bacteria (lg cfu·g-1 FW) | 5.35 | 0.19 |
酵母Yeasts (lg cfu·g-1 FW) | 3.49 | 0.24 |
霉菌 Mold (lg cfu·g-1 FW) | <2.00 | - |
表1 青贮前紫花苜蓿的化学和微生物特性
Table 1 Chemical and microbial characteristics of alfalfa before silage
项目Items | 紫花苜蓿 Alfalfa | 标准偏差 Standard deviation |
---|---|---|
干物质 Dry matter (g·kg-1 FW) | 213.64 | 9.61 |
粗蛋白Crude protein (g·kg-1 DM) | 198.30 | 0.79 |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (g·kg-1 DM) | 358.65 | 10.02 |
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber (g·kg-1 DM) | 224.62 | 6.42 |
水溶性碳水化合物Water-soluble carbohydrates (g·kg-1 DM) | 72.60 | 3.62 |
pH | 6.01 | 0.01 |
缓冲能 Buffer capacity (mEq·kg-1 DM) | 250.13 | 16.73 |
乳酸菌Lactic acid bacteria (lg cfu·g-1 FW) | 6.70 | 0.09 |
好氧性细菌Aerobic bacteria (lg cfu·g-1 FW) | 5.35 | 0.19 |
酵母Yeasts (lg cfu·g-1 FW) | 3.49 | 0.24 |
霉菌 Mold (lg cfu·g-1 FW) | <2.00 | - |
项目 Items | pH | 有机酸含量 Organic acid content (g·kg-1 DM) | 酒精 Alcohol (g·kg-1 DM) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
乳酸 Lactic acid | 乙酸 Acetic acid | 丙酸 Propionic acid | 丁酸 Butyric acid | |||
CON | 4.32b | 54.25bc | 49.25a | 0.00b | 1.47b | 6.78a |
SB | 4.20b | 76.33a | 51.82a | 0.00b | 1.46b | 4.13bcd |
SC | 4.79a | 30.73d | 51.21a | 0.00b | 17.36a | 3.41d |
HA | 4.35b | 43.90cd | 49.42a | 0.00b | 1.96b | 5.49abc |
M | 4.17b | 57.85bc | 44.54ab | 0.00b | 0.53b | 5.54ab |
PA | 3.89c | 64.48ab | 31.83b | 63.82a | 0.00b | 3.70cd |
标准误 Standard error of means | 0.043 | 3.544 | 3.558 | 1.792 | 0.705 | 0.385 |
显著性 Significance | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.015 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
表2 添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮饲料pH、有机酸和酒精的影响
Table 2 Effects of additives on pH, organic acid and alcohol of alfalfa silage
项目 Items | pH | 有机酸含量 Organic acid content (g·kg-1 DM) | 酒精 Alcohol (g·kg-1 DM) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
乳酸 Lactic acid | 乙酸 Acetic acid | 丙酸 Propionic acid | 丁酸 Butyric acid | |||
CON | 4.32b | 54.25bc | 49.25a | 0.00b | 1.47b | 6.78a |
SB | 4.20b | 76.33a | 51.82a | 0.00b | 1.46b | 4.13bcd |
SC | 4.79a | 30.73d | 51.21a | 0.00b | 17.36a | 3.41d |
HA | 4.35b | 43.90cd | 49.42a | 0.00b | 1.96b | 5.49abc |
M | 4.17b | 57.85bc | 44.54ab | 0.00b | 0.53b | 5.54ab |
PA | 3.89c | 64.48ab | 31.83b | 63.82a | 0.00b | 3.70cd |
标准误 Standard error of means | 0.043 | 3.544 | 3.558 | 1.792 | 0.705 | 0.385 |
显著性 Significance | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.015 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
项目 Items | 乳酸与乙酸比 LA/AA | 氨态氮 NH3-N (g·kg-1 N) | 微生物数量 Microorganism number (lg cfu·g-1 FW) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
乳酸菌 Lactic acid bacteria | 好氧细菌 Aerobic bacteria | 酵母菌 Yeasts | 霉菌 Mold | |||
CON | 1.10bc | 139.87a | 10.15 | 5.31a | <2.30 | 2.50 |
SB | 1.47ab | 133.93ab | 10.31 | 3.83bc | <2.30 | <2.30 |
SC | 0.60c | 131.30ab | 9.14 | 4.42ab | <2.30 | <2.30 |
HA | 0.90c | 141.73a | 9.08 | 4.88ab | <2.30 | <2.30 |
M | 1.30b | 125.47b | 9.61 | 5.45a | <2.30 | <2.30 |
PA | 2.09a | 111.43c | 10.19 | 3.00c | <2.30 | <2.30 |
标准误Standard error of the means | 0.137 | 2.569 | 0.550 | 0.250 | - | 0.082 |
显著性Significance | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.151 | <0.001 | - | 0.458 |
表3 添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮饲料乳酸与乙酸比、氨态氮和微生物的影响
Table 3 Effects of additives on the ratio of lactic acid to acetic acid, ammonia nitrogen and microorganism of alfalfa silage
项目 Items | 乳酸与乙酸比 LA/AA | 氨态氮 NH3-N (g·kg-1 N) | 微生物数量 Microorganism number (lg cfu·g-1 FW) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
乳酸菌 Lactic acid bacteria | 好氧细菌 Aerobic bacteria | 酵母菌 Yeasts | 霉菌 Mold | |||
CON | 1.10bc | 139.87a | 10.15 | 5.31a | <2.30 | 2.50 |
SB | 1.47ab | 133.93ab | 10.31 | 3.83bc | <2.30 | <2.30 |
SC | 0.60c | 131.30ab | 9.14 | 4.42ab | <2.30 | <2.30 |
HA | 0.90c | 141.73a | 9.08 | 4.88ab | <2.30 | <2.30 |
M | 1.30b | 125.47b | 9.61 | 5.45a | <2.30 | <2.30 |
PA | 2.09a | 111.43c | 10.19 | 3.00c | <2.30 | <2.30 |
标准误Standard error of the means | 0.137 | 2.569 | 0.550 | 0.250 | - | 0.082 |
显著性Significance | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.151 | <0.001 | - | 0.458 |
图1 添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮饲料费氏得分的影响不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。 The different letters mean significant differences at P<0.05.
Fig.1 Effects of additives on the Flieg score of alfalfa silages
项目Items | 干物质 Dry matter (g·kg-1 FW) | 营养品质 Nutrient quality (g·kg-1 DM) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
粗蛋白 Crude protein | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber | 水溶性碳水化合物 Water-soluble carbohydrates | ||
CON | 198.17 | 207.57ab | 389.40a | 275.67a | 17.38b |
SB | 204.03 | 202.70ab | 355.63b | 253.77b | 14.49bc |
SC | 216.47 | 207.75ab | 395.70a | 261.03b | 14.28bc |
HA | 215.40 | 200.30b | 387.20a | 252.93b | 12.98c |
M | 216.97 | 219.17ab | 322.07c | 227.17c | 23.05a |
PA | 199.53 | 221.73a | 379.87ab | 252.70b | 23.63a |
标准误Standard error of means | 4.905 | 4.274 | 5.465 | 2.958 | 0.879 |
显著性Significance | 0.144 | 0.020 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
表4 添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮饲料营养品质的影响
Table 4 Effects of additives on nutrient quality of alfalfa silage
项目Items | 干物质 Dry matter (g·kg-1 FW) | 营养品质 Nutrient quality (g·kg-1 DM) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
粗蛋白 Crude protein | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber | 水溶性碳水化合物 Water-soluble carbohydrates | ||
CON | 198.17 | 207.57ab | 389.40a | 275.67a | 17.38b |
SB | 204.03 | 202.70ab | 355.63b | 253.77b | 14.49bc |
SC | 216.47 | 207.75ab | 395.70a | 261.03b | 14.28bc |
HA | 215.40 | 200.30b | 387.20a | 252.93b | 12.98c |
M | 216.97 | 219.17ab | 322.07c | 227.17c | 23.05a |
PA | 199.53 | 221.73a | 379.87ab | 252.70b | 23.63a |
标准误Standard error of means | 4.905 | 4.274 | 5.465 | 2.958 | 0.879 |
显著性Significance | 0.144 | 0.020 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
项目Items | TFA | C12:0 | C13:0 | C14:0 | C14:1 | C16:0 | C18:0 | C18:1 | C18:2n6 | C18:3n3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RAM | 19.22cd | 0.08b | 0.34ab | 0.19a | 0.76a | 5.14ab | 0.70a | 0.64a | 3.41c | 5.83c |
CON | 22.11bc | 0.17ab | 0.33ab | 0.20a | 0.76a | 5.40ab | 0.72a | 0.62a | 4.99ab | 8.02b |
SB | 26.87a | 0.22a | 0.38a | 0.23a | 0.82a | 6.47a | 0.84a | 0.70a | 5.84a | 10.49a |
SC | 24.20ab | 0.22a | 0.35ab | 0.21a | 0.78a | 5.68ab | 0.74a | 0.58ab | 5.21ab | 9.37ab |
HA | 22.93abc | 0.20a | 0.37a | 0.21a | 0.81a | 5.90ab | 0.79a | 0.69a | 4.08bc | 8.68b |
M | 15.84d | 0.12ab | 0.24b | 0.14b | 0.51b | 3.94b | 0.52b | 0.46b | 2.88c | 5.78c |
PA | 24.48ab | 0.23a | 0.36a | 0.22a | 0.78a | 5.46ab | 0.72a | 0.60ab | 4.97ab | 9.74ab |
标准误 Standard error of means | 0.935 | 0.023 | 0.024 | 0.010 | 0.032 | 0.240 | 0.029 | 0.032 | 0.263 | 0.375 |
显著性 Significance | <0.001 | 0.004 | 0.018 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.002 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
表5 青贮前后紫花苜蓿青贮饲料的脂肪酸变化
Table 5 The change of fatty acids in alfalfa silage before and after ensiling (g·kg-1 DM)
项目Items | TFA | C12:0 | C13:0 | C14:0 | C14:1 | C16:0 | C18:0 | C18:1 | C18:2n6 | C18:3n3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RAM | 19.22cd | 0.08b | 0.34ab | 0.19a | 0.76a | 5.14ab | 0.70a | 0.64a | 3.41c | 5.83c |
CON | 22.11bc | 0.17ab | 0.33ab | 0.20a | 0.76a | 5.40ab | 0.72a | 0.62a | 4.99ab | 8.02b |
SB | 26.87a | 0.22a | 0.38a | 0.23a | 0.82a | 6.47a | 0.84a | 0.70a | 5.84a | 10.49a |
SC | 24.20ab | 0.22a | 0.35ab | 0.21a | 0.78a | 5.68ab | 0.74a | 0.58ab | 5.21ab | 9.37ab |
HA | 22.93abc | 0.20a | 0.37a | 0.21a | 0.81a | 5.90ab | 0.79a | 0.69a | 4.08bc | 8.68b |
M | 15.84d | 0.12ab | 0.24b | 0.14b | 0.51b | 3.94b | 0.52b | 0.46b | 2.88c | 5.78c |
PA | 24.48ab | 0.23a | 0.36a | 0.22a | 0.78a | 5.46ab | 0.72a | 0.60ab | 4.97ab | 9.74ab |
标准误 Standard error of means | 0.935 | 0.023 | 0.024 | 0.010 | 0.032 | 0.240 | 0.029 | 0.032 | 0.263 | 0.375 |
显著性 Significance | <0.001 | 0.004 | 0.018 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.002 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
1 | Shahidi F, Ambigaipalan P. Phenolics and polyphenolics in foods, beverages and spices: Antioxidant activity and health effects-A review. Journal of Functional Foods, 2015, 18: 820-897. |
2 | Simopoulos A P. N-3 fatty acids and human health: Defining strategies for public policy. Lipids, 2001, 36(1): S83-S89. |
3 | Eggersdorfer M, Wyss A. Carotenoids in human nutrition and health. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 2018, 652: 18-26. |
4 | Han L Y, Zhou H, Yu Z. Research progress of fatty acid in silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2012, 20(6): 990-994. |
韩立英, 周禾, 玉柱. 青贮饲料中脂肪酸研究进展. 草地学报, 2012, 20(6): 990-994. | |
5 | Alves S P, Cabrita A R J, Jerónimo E, et al. Effect of ensiling and silage additives on fatty acid composition of ryegrass and corn experimental silages. Journal of Animal Science, 2011, 89(8): 2537-2545. |
6 | Williams C M. Dietary fatty acids and human health. Annales De Zootechnie, 2000, 49(3): 165-180. |
7 | Warren H E, Scollan N D, Nute G R, et al. Effects of breed and a concentrate or grass silage diet on beef quality in cattle of 3 ages. II: Meat stability and flavour. Meat Science, 2008, 78(3): 270-278. |
8 | Bernes G, Turner T, Pickova J. Sheep fed only silage or silage supplemented with concentrates: 2. Effects on lamb performance and fatty acid profile of ewe milk and lamb meat. Small Ruminant Research, 2012, 102(2/3): 114-124. |
9 | Liu Q H, Dong Z H, Shao T. Effect of additives on fatty acid profile of high moisture alfalfa silage during ensiling and after exposure to air. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2018, 236: 29-38. |
10 | Arvidsson K, Gustavsson A M, Martinsson K. Effects of conservation method on fatty acid composition of silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2009, 148(2/3/4): 241-252. |
11 | Boufaïed H, Chouinard P Y, Tremblay G F, et al. Fatty acids in forages. I. Factors affecting concentrations. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 2003, 83(3): 501-511. |
12 | Elgersma A, Ellen G, Van der Horst H, et al. Comparison of the fatty acid composition of fresh and ensiled perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), affected by cultivar and regrowth interval. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2003, 108(1/2/3/4): 191-205. |
13 | Kishino S, Ogawa J, Yokozeki K, et al. Metabolic diversity in biohydrogenation of polyunsaturated fatty acids by lactic acid bacteria involving conjugated fatty acid production. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2009, 84(1): 87-97. |
14 | Ding W R, Long R J, Guo X S. Effects of plant enzyme inactivation or sterilization on lipolysis and proteolysis in alfalfa silage. Journal of Dairy Science, 2013, 96(4): 2536-2543. |
15 | Wang X J, Li W F, Tang C B, et al. Synergistic effect of sodium caseinate and sunflower oil on characteristics of emulsified sausages. Food Science, 2015, 36(3): 51-56. |
王晓娟, 李伟锋, 唐长波, 等. 酪蛋白酸钠-葵花籽油协同对乳化肠品质特性的影响. 食品科学, 2015, 36(3): 51-56. | |
16 | Liang Q. Study on founctional properties of sodium caseinate. Food Science, 2002(3): 30-33. |
梁琪. 酪蛋白酸钠功能性的研究. 食品科学, 2002(3): 30-33. | |
17 | Liu Q H, Lindow S E, Zhang J G. Lactobacillus parafarraginis ZH1 producing anti-yeast substances to improve the aerobic stability of silage. Animal Science Journal, 2018, 89(9): 1302-1309. |
18 | Liu Q H, Wu J X, Shao T. Roles of microbes and lipolytic enzymes in changing the fatty acid profile, α-tocopherol and β-carotene of whole-crop oat silages during ensiling and after exposure to air. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2019, 253: 81-92. |
19 | Chen X Z, Gao C F, Zhang X P, et al. Effects of molasses on the fermentation quality of mixed silage of ramie and hybrid pennisetum. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2016, 24(6): 1358-1362. |
陈鑫珠, 高承芳, 张晓佩, 等. 糖蜜对不同比例苎麻杂交狼尾草混合青贮发酵品质的影响. 草地学报, 2016, 24(6): 1358-1362. | |
20 | Liu Q H, Li X Y, Li J F, et al. Effect of temperature and additives on fermentation and α-tocopherol and β-carotene content of Pennisetum purpureum silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(7): 116-122. |
刘秦华, 李湘玉, 李君风, 等. 温度和添加剂对象草青贮发酵品质、α-生育酚和β-胡萝卜素的影响. 草业学报, 2015, 24(7): 116-122. | |
21 | Zhao Q J, Yuan X J, Guo G, et al. Effect of adding an inoculant and molasses on fermentation quality of mixed silage of hull-lessbarley straw and perennial ryegrass in Tibet. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(4): 100-106. |
赵庆杰, 原现军, 郭刚, 等. 添加糖蜜和乳酸菌制剂对西藏青稞秸秆和多年生黑麦草混合青贮发酵品质的影响. 草业学报, 2014, 23(4): 100-106. | |
22 | Yan Y H, Li J L, Guo X S, et al. A study on fermentation quality of Italian ryegrass and soybean straw mixed silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(4): 94-99. |
闫艳红, 李君临, 郭旭生, 等. 多花黑麦草与大豆秸秆混合青贮发酵品质的研究.草业学报, 2014, 23(4): 94-99. | |
23 | Wang C, Nishino N. Effects of storage temperature and ensiling period on fermentation products, aerobic stability and microbial communities of total mixed ration silage. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2013, 114(6): 1687-1695. |
24 | Liu Q H, Zhang J G, Lu X L. The effects of lactic acid bacteria inoculation on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of king grass silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2009, 18(4): 131-137. |
刘秦华, 张建国, 卢小良. 乳酸菌添加剂对王草青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响. 草业学报, 2009, 18(4): 131-137. | |
25 | Wang X N, Sun Q Z, Han H B, et al. The quality of silage in Inner Mongolia. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(3): 149-155. |
王晓娜, 孙启忠, 韩海波, 等. 内蒙古青贮饲料质量研究. 草业学报, 2011, 20(3): 149-155. | |
26 | Liu Q H, Wu J X, Dong Z H, et al. Effects of overnight wilting and additives on the fatty acid profile, α-tocopherol and β-carotene of whole plant oat silages. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2020, 260: DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114370. |
27 | Ennahar S, Cai Y, Fujita Y. Phylogenetic diversity of lactic acid bacteria associated with paddy rice silage as determined by 16S ribosomal DNA analysis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2003, 69(1): 444-451. |
28 | Wang J, Wang J Q, Zhou H, et al. Effects of addition of previously fermented juice prepared from alfalfa on fermentation quality and protein degradation of alfalfa silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2009, 151(3): 280-290. |
29 | Zhang Z X, Shao T. The effect of propionic acid addition on the dynamic fermentation changes of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2009, 18(2): 102-107. |
张增欣, 邵涛. 丙酸对多花黑麦草青贮发酵动态变化的影响. 草业学报, 2009, 18(2): 102-107. | |
30 | Kung Jr L, Myers C L, Neylon J M, et al. The effects of buffered propionic acid-based additives alone or combined with microbial inoculation on the fermentation of high moisture corn and whole-crop barley. Journal of Dairy Science, 2004, 87(5): 1310-1316. |
31 | Kung Jr L, Ranjit N K. The effect of lactobacillus buchneri and other additives on the fermentation and aerobic stability of barley silage. Journal of Dairy Science, 2001, 84(5): 1149-1155. |
32 | Wang J, Wang Y Q, Wen A Y, et al. Effects of molasses addition on the fermentation quality of broccoli residue, rice straw and alfalfa mixed silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(3): 248-254. |
王坚, 王亚琴, 闻爱友, 等. 糖蜜添加对西兰花茎叶稻秸苜蓿混合青贮发酵品质的影响. 草业学报, 2014, 23(3): 248-254. | |
33 | Ke W C, Yang F Y, Undersander D J, et al. Fermentation characteristics, aerobic stability, proteolysis and lipid composition of alfalfa silage ensiled with apple or grape pomace. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2015, 202: 12-19. |
34 | Van R G, Fievez V, Vandewalle M, et al. Influence of herbage species, cultivar and cutting date on fatty acid composition of herbage and lipid metabolism during ensiling. Grass and Forage Science, 2009, 64(2): 196-207. |
35 | Luna C M, Trippi V S. Membrane permeability-regulation by exogenous sugars during senescence of oat leaf in light and darkness. Plant and Cell Physiology, 1986, 27: 1051-1061. |
36 | Heimann E, Nyman M, Degerman E. Propionic acid and butyric acid inhibit lipolysis and de novo lipogenesis and increase insulin-stimulated glucose uptake in primary rat adipocytes. Adipocyte, 2015, 4(2): 81-88. |
[1] | 潘发明, 常生华, 王国栋, 郝生燕, 刘佳, 张辉元, 徐银萍. 物候期对放牧牦牛瘤胃液、牧草中脂肪酸及乳脂中共轭亚油酸组成的影响及其相关性分析[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3): 110-120. |
[2] | 张生伟, 王小平, 张展海, 马友记, 滚双宝, 杨巧丽, 高小莉, 张保军. 青贮杂交构树对杜湖杂交肉羊生长性能、血清生化指标和肉品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3): 89-99. |
[3] | 王继卿, 沈继源, 刘秀, 李少斌, 罗玉柱, 赵孟丽, 郝志云, 柯娜, 宋宜泽, 乔莉蓉. 子午岭黑山羊与辽宁绒山羊产肉性能、肉品质、肌肉营养成分和脂肪酸含量比较[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(2): 166-177. |
[4] | 王玉萍, 郜春晓, 王盛祥, 何晓童. 低温弱光胁迫下芸豆叶片光抑制与类囊体膜脂构成变化[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8): 116-125. |
[5] | 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. |
[6] | 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. |
[7] | 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. |
[8] | 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. |
[9] | 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. |
[10] | 张翔, 杨勇, 刘学勇, 向佐湘. 外源水杨酸对低温胁迫下海滨雀稗抗寒生理特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(1): 117-124. |
[11] | 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. |
[12] | 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. |
[13] | 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. |
[14] | 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. |
[15] | 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. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||