草业学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (12): 150-159.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2023066
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
徐远志1,2(), 刘新平1(), 王立龙1, 胡鸿姣1,2, 何玉惠3, 张铜会1, 景家琪1,2
收稿日期:
2023-03-03
修回日期:
2023-05-10
出版日期:
2023-12-20
发布日期:
2023-10-18
通讯作者:
刘新平
作者简介:
Corresponding author. E-mail: liuxinping@lzb.ac.cn基金资助:
Yuan-zhi XU1,2(), Xin-ping LIU1(), Li-long WANG1, Hong-jiao HU1,2, Yu-hui HE3, Tong-hui ZHANG1, Jia-qi JING1,2
Received:
2023-03-03
Revised:
2023-05-10
Online:
2023-12-20
Published:
2023-10-18
Contact:
Xin-ping LIU
摘要:
华北驼绒藜是一种品质优良的饲用半灌木,通过青贮可以提高其营养价值,但其最佳青贮工艺尚不明确。本研究采用3×4双因素试验设计,探究原料不同含水量(45%、55%、65%)和益生菌剂添加量(0、0.02、0.04、0.06 g·kg-1)对华北驼绒藜青贮品质的影响。结果表明,含水量和益生菌剂显著影响华北驼绒藜青贮的营养成分(P<0.05);含水量显著影响粗蛋白、粗纤维和灰分含量(P<0.01);益生菌剂添加量显著影响灰分含量(P<0.05);在含水量65% 以下,随着含水量的增加,营养价值增大;随着益生菌剂添加量的增加,营养价值呈先增大后减小的趋势;华北驼绒藜的最优青贮条件为:原料含水量65%、添加益生菌剂0.02 g·kg-1。本研究可为华北驼绒藜青贮饲料的高效生产提供科学支持及理论依据,对促进草牧业的发展、解决饲料资源短缺问题具有重要意义。
徐远志, 刘新平, 王立龙, 胡鸿姣, 何玉惠, 张铜会, 景家琪. 华北驼绒藜青贮加工及营养价值评价[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(12): 150-159.
Yuan-zhi XU, Xin-ping LIU, Li-long WANG, Hong-jiao HU, Yu-hui HE, Tong-hui ZHANG, Jia-qi JING. Processing and nutritional values of silage made from Ceratoides arborescens[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(12): 150-159.
图1 华北驼绒藜[27]、玉米秸秆、紫花苜蓿青贮后营养成分变化[22]CP: 粗蛋白Crude protein; CF: 粗纤维Crude fiber; EE: 粗脂肪Ether extract; Ash: 粗灰分Crude ash; NFE: 无氮浸出物Nitrogen free extract; P: 磷Phosphorus; Ca: 钙Calcium.
Fig.1 Changes of nutrient composition after C. arborescens,corn straw and alfalfasilage
图2 不同处理间营养成分含量不同大写字母表示相同菌剂添加量不同含水量处理间差异显著(P<0.05);不同小写字母表示相同含水量不同菌剂添加量之间差异显著(P<0.05)。Different capital letters indicate significant differences among the different water content for the same amount of probiotics at the 0.05 level; and different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different amount of probiotics for the same water content at the 0.05 level.
Fig.2 Nutrient content in different treatments
变异来源 Variation source | 粗蛋白 Crude protein | 粗纤维 Crude fiber | 粗脂肪 Ether extract | 粗灰分 Crude ash | 无氮浸出物 Nitrogen free extract | 钙 Calcium | 磷 Phosphorus |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
含水量Water content (W) | 6.447** | 7.820** | 1.514 | 61.953** | 0.131 | 7.206** | 3.277 |
菌剂Probiotics (P) | 0.513 | 0.150 | 0.672 | 3.557* | 0.057 | 2.133 | 8.496** |
含水量×菌剂W×P | 0.742 | 0.322 | 1.320 | 1.777 | 0.167 | 0.917 | 5.533** |
表1 样品营养成分方差分析
Table 1 Variation analysis of sample nutrient composition (F value)
变异来源 Variation source | 粗蛋白 Crude protein | 粗纤维 Crude fiber | 粗脂肪 Ether extract | 粗灰分 Crude ash | 无氮浸出物 Nitrogen free extract | 钙 Calcium | 磷 Phosphorus |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
含水量Water content (W) | 6.447** | 7.820** | 1.514 | 61.953** | 0.131 | 7.206** | 3.277 |
菌剂Probiotics (P) | 0.513 | 0.150 | 0.672 | 3.557* | 0.057 | 2.133 | 8.496** |
含水量×菌剂W×P | 0.742 | 0.322 | 1.320 | 1.777 | 0.167 | 0.917 | 5.533** |
含水量 Water content (%) | 菌剂添加量 Probiotics (g·kg-1) | 加权关联度 Weighted grey correlative degrees | 加权排序 Weighted ordering |
---|---|---|---|
65 | 0.02 | 0.8775 | 1 |
65 | 0.00 | 0.8652 | 2 |
65 | 0.06 | 0.8502 | 3 |
55 | 0.00 | 0.8428 | 4 |
65 | 0.04 | 0.8113 | 5 |
45 | 0.02 | 0.7916 | 6 |
55 | 0.04 | 0.7484 | 7 |
55 | 0.06 | 0.7477 | 8 |
45 | 0.04 | 0.7246 | 9 |
55 | 0.02 | 0.7083 | 10 |
45 | 0.06 | 0.7031 | 11 |
45 | 0.00 | 0.6864 | 12 |
表2 不同处理样品的加权关联度及排序
Table 2 Weighted grey correlative degrees and ordering of different treatment samples
含水量 Water content (%) | 菌剂添加量 Probiotics (g·kg-1) | 加权关联度 Weighted grey correlative degrees | 加权排序 Weighted ordering |
---|---|---|---|
65 | 0.02 | 0.8775 | 1 |
65 | 0.00 | 0.8652 | 2 |
65 | 0.06 | 0.8502 | 3 |
55 | 0.00 | 0.8428 | 4 |
65 | 0.04 | 0.8113 | 5 |
45 | 0.02 | 0.7916 | 6 |
55 | 0.04 | 0.7484 | 7 |
55 | 0.06 | 0.7477 | 8 |
45 | 0.04 | 0.7246 | 9 |
55 | 0.02 | 0.7083 | 10 |
45 | 0.06 | 0.7031 | 11 |
45 | 0.00 | 0.6864 | 12 |
1 | Zhang Y C, Wang X K, Li D X, et al. Impact of wilting and additives on fermentation quality and carbohydrate composition of mulberry silage. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2020, 33(2): 254-263. |
2 | Tao L, Yu Z. The dynamics of Ceratoides arborescens fermentation quality in the process of ensiling. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2009, 18(6): 122-127. |
陶莲, 玉柱. 华北驼绒藜青贮贮藏过程中发酵品质的动态变化. 草业学报, 2009, 18(6): 122-127. | |
3 | Yin F Y, Alata, Wang H M, et al. Research report on Ceratoides arborescens from Chahar. Grassland and Prataculture, 2019, 31(4): 53-59. |
伊风艳, 阿拉塔, 王海明, 等. 察哈尔华北驼绒藜研究报告. 草原与草业, 2019, 31(4): 53-59. | |
4 | Wang P C, Yi J, Zhao L L, et al. Study on the relationship between Ceratoides arborescens population spatial pattern and environment factors. Seed, 2009, 28(3): 5-9. |
王普昶, 易津, 赵丽丽, 等. 华北驼绒藜种群空间分布格局及其环境依赖性研究. 种子, 2009, 28(3): 5-9. | |
5 | Li J, Tao L, Yu Z. Effect of different additives on fermentation quality and in vitro digestibility of Ceratoides arborescens (Losinsk) Tsien et C. G. Ma silages. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2010, 18(1): 93-96. |
李静, 陶莲, 玉柱. 添加剂对华北驼绒藜青贮发酵品质和体外消化率的影响. 草地学报, 2010, 18(1): 93-96. | |
6 | Lu L N, He J J, He X, et al. Study on the present situation of Ceratoides (Tourn. Gagnebin). Seed, 2015, 34(4): 43-47. |
卢立娜, 何金军, 贺晓, 等. 驼绒藜属植物的研究现状. 种子, 2015, 34(4): 43-47. | |
7 | Grant R J, Ferraretto L F. Silage review: Silage feeding management: Silage characteristics and dairy cow feeding behavior. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(5): 4111-4121. |
8 | 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. | |
9 | Jiang H, Zhang L, Ma J P, et al. The effect of withered Alhagi sparsifolia and rice straw mix-ensiling on silage quality. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(2): 109-116. |
蒋慧, 张玲, 马金萍, 等. 枯黄期骆驼刺与稻草混贮对青贮饲料品质的影响. 草业学报, 2011, 20(2): 109-116. | |
10 | Bao X, Feng H, Guo G, et al. Effects of laccase and lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation quality, nutrient composition, enzymatic hydrolysis, and bacterial community of alfalfa silage. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2022, 13: 1035942. |
11 | Li Y, Du S, Sun L, et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses additives on dynamic fermentation quality and microbial community of native grass silage. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2022, 13: 830121. |
12 | Driehuis F. Silage and the safety and quality of dairy foods: a review. Agricultural and Food Science, 2013, 22(1): 16-34. |
13 | Xie W B, Chen J J, Tian B, et al. Effect of Lactobacillus brucelli on quality and in vitro digestibility of corn straw silage. Feed Research, 2022, 45(21): 122-126. |
谢文斌, 陈娟娟, 田斌, 等. 布氏乳杆菌对玉米秸秆青贮品质和体外消化率的影响. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(21): 122-126. | |
14 | Zong C, Zhang J, Shao T, et al. Effects of additives on fermentation quality of alfalfa silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(12): 180-187. |
宗成, 张健, 邵涛, 等. 添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮饲料发酵品质的影响. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 180-187. | |
15 | Zhuang Y F, Chen X Z, Liao H Z, et al. Use of mixed silage of water hyacinth and corn straw as feed sources. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2011, 23(9): 1615-1621. |
庄益芬, 陈鑫珠, 廖惠珍, 等. 水葫芦与玉米秸秆混合青贮的研究. 动物营养学报, 2011, 23(9): 1615-1621. | |
16 | Zhang L, Li X, Wang S, et al. Effect of sorbic acid, ethanol, molasses, previously fermented juice and combined additives on ensiling characteristics and nutritive value of napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum) silage. Fermentation, 2022, 8(10): 528. |
17 | Dong M Y, Wang S Y, Jiang B L, et al. Effects of different silage inoculants on silage quality of sweet sorghum silage. Feed Industry, 2016, 37(1): 28-31. |
董妙音, 王曙阳, 姜伯玲, 等. 添加不同的青贮菌剂对甜高粱青贮品质的影响. 饲料工业, 2016, 37(1): 28-31. | |
18 | Ma C H, Xia Y J, Han J, et al. Effects of different additives on the quality of Medicago sativa silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2010, 19(1): 128-133. |
马春晖, 夏艳军, 韩军, 等. 不同青贮添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2010, 19(1): 128-133. | |
19 | Liu X P, He Y H, Zhao X Y, et al. Characteristics of precipitation in Naiman region of Horqin sandy land. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2011, 18(2): 155-158. |
刘新平, 何玉惠, 赵学勇, 等. 科尔沁沙地奈曼地区降水变化特征分析. 水土保持研究, 2011, 18(2): 155-158. | |
20 | Xie Y, Bao J, Li W, et al. Effects of applying lactic acid bacteria and molasses on the fermentation quality, protein fractions and in vitro digestibility of baled alfalfa silage. Agronomy, 2021, 11(1): 91. |
21 | Hou M, Gentu G, Liu T, et al. Silage preparation and fermentation quality of natural grasses treated with lactic acid bacteria and cellulase in meadow steppe and typical steppe. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2016, 30(6): 788-796. |
22 | Yang S. Feed analysis and feed quality monitoring technology. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 1998: 330-338. |
杨胜. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 1998: 330-338. | |
23 | Tables of feed composition and nutritive values in China (2022 Thirty-third Edition).China Feed, 2022(24): 63-68. |
中国饲料成分及营养价值表(2022年第33版). 中国饲料, 2022(24): 63-68. | |
24 | Zhu J Z. Practical teaching guidance of pratacultural science. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2008. |
朱进忠. 草业科学实践教学指导. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2008. | |
25 | Larson S R, Mayland H F. Comparative mapping of fiber, protein, and mineral content QTLs in two interspecific Leymus wildrye full-sib families. Molecular Breeding, 2007, 20(4): 331-347. |
26 | Tian B, Ran X Q, Xue H, et al. Evaluation of the nutritive value of 42 kinds of forage in Guizhou Province by grey relational grade analysis. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(1): 92-103. |
田兵, 冉雪琴, 薛红, 等. 贵州42种野生牧草营养价值灰色关联度分析. 草业学报, 2014, 23(1): 92-103. | |
27 | Zhao S Y, Alata, Li J Z. Ceratoides arborescens and the evaluation of its feeding value. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2012, 33(Z2): 103, 107. |
赵书元, 阿拉塔, 李敬忠. 华北驼绒藜及其饲用价值的评价. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2012, 33(Z2): 103, 107. | |
28 | Liu J X, Yang Z H, Ye J A, et al. Reasonable preparation and quality evaluation standard of silage. Feed Industry, 1999(3): 4-7. |
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. 饲料工业, 1999(3): 4-7. | |
29 | Cheng F F, Yang J H, Xia M L, et al. Effect of different raw materials moisture and additives on the quality of alfalfa silage. Feed Research, 2020, 43(12): 106-109. |
程方方, 杨君辉, 夏茂林, 等. 不同原料水分含量和添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 饲料研究, 2020, 43(12): 106-109. | |
30 | Chen P F, Bai S Q, Yang F Y, et al. Effects of additive and moisture content on fermentation quality of smooth vetch silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(2): 80-86. |
陈鹏飞, 白史且, 杨富裕, 等. 添加剂和水分对光叶紫花苕青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2013, 22(2): 80-86. | |
31 | Liu L, Chen X, Li Z, et al. Effects of moisture content and additives on the quality of Agropyron elongatum silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(6): 203-207. |
刘玲, 陈新, 李振, 等. 含水量及添加剂对高冰草青贮饲料品质的影响. 草业学报, 2011, 20(6): 203-207. | |
32 | Chen X Z, Zou C L, Zhang W C, et al. The effects of cellulase on silage quality of rice straw with normal and low moisture contents. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018, 26(2): 453-458. |
陈鑫珠, 邹长连, 张文昌, 等. 纤维素酶对常规水分和低水分稻草青贮品质的影响. 草地学报, 2018, 26(2): 453-458. | |
33 | Zhou J J, Wei W, Qin A Q, et al. Effects of moisture and additives on the quality of pepper straw silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(2): 231-239. |
周娟娟, 魏巍, 秦爱琼, 等. 水分和添加剂对辣椒秸秆青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2016, 25(2): 231-239. | |
34 | Wan L Q, Li X L, Zhang X P, et al. The effect of different water contents and additive mixtures on Medicago sativa silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2007, 16(2): 40-45. |
万里强, 李向林, 张新平, 等. 苜蓿含水量与添加剂组分浓度对青贮效果的影响研究. 草业学报, 2007, 16(2): 40-45. | |
35 | Kung J L, Stokes M R. Silage fermentation and preservation. Journal of Animal Science, 2018, 96(4): 1353-1369. |
36 | Kung L, Shaver R. Interpretation and use of silage fermentation analysis reports. Focus on Forage, 2001, 3(13): 1-5. |
37 | Wang X L, Zhu R S, Zhao H B, et al. Effects of moisture contents and inoculants on quality of wrapped alfalfa silage. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 47(11): 106-110. |
王星凌, 朱荣生, 赵红波, 等. 不同含水量和菌剂对紫花苜蓿裹包青贮质量的影响. 山东农业科学, 2015, 47(11): 106-110. | |
38 | Diepersloot E C, Pupo M R, Ghizzi L G, et al. Effects of microbial inoculation and storage length on fermentation profile and nutrient composition of whole-plant Sorghum silage of different varieties. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2021, 12: 660567. |
39 | Yue L, Ye K, Zaituniguli K E B, et al. Effects of silage inoculants on quality of sweet sorghum straw and distiller’s grains. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 54(10): 1856-1862. |
岳丽, 叶凯, 再吐尼古丽·库尔班, 等. 青贮菌剂对甜高粱秸秆与酒糟青贮品质的影响. 新疆农业科学, 2017, 54(10): 1856-1862. | |
40 | Zhang T, Li L, Zhang Y Z, et al. The application effect of adding silage inoculants bacteria in Medicago sativa silages. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2007, 16(1): 100-104. |
张涛, 李蕾, 张燕忠, 等. 青贮菌剂在苜蓿裹包青贮中的应用效果. 草业学报, 2007, 16(1): 100-104. | |
41 | Zhang J X, Qiao H X, Liu Y T. Effects of moisture and additives on feed quality of alfalfa silage. Pratacultural Science, 2014, 31(4): 766-770. |
张金霞, 乔红霞, 刘雨田. 水分和添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 草业科学, 2014, 31(4): 766-770. | |
42 | Li M C, Ren A, Du Z Y, et al. Effects of silage inoculum level on the quality of sweet sorghum silage and in vitro fermentation characteristics of different varieties of sorghum silage. China Feed, 2023(3): 131-136. |
李茂春, 任傲, 杜志艳, 等. 青贮菌剂对甜高粱青贮品质影响及不同品种甜高粱青贮体外发酵特性研究.中国饲料, 2023(3): 131-136. | |
43 | Hu H J, Liu X P, Zhang T H, et al. Feed nutritional value and silage processing properties of Caragana microphylla. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(11): 181-190. |
胡鸿姣, 刘新平, 张铜会, 等. 小叶锦鸡儿饲用营养价值及青贮加工. 草业学报, 2021, 30(11): 181-190. | |
44 | Ni K, Wang F, Zhu B, et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses additives on the microbial community and fermentation quality of soybean silage. Bioresource Technology, 2017, 238: 706-715. |
45 | Wang Y, Xu D, Wang Z, et al. Effects of water content and inoculant on silage quality and microbial diversity of Pennisetum sinese Roxb. Microbial Biotechnology, 2018, 11(1): 210-220. |
46 | Zhang Y C, Yin S L, Wang Y W, et al. Research progress in woody forage silage. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2021, 37(9): 48-57. |
张颖超, 尹守亮, 王一炜, 等. 木本饲料青贮研究进展. 生物技术通报, 2021, 37(9): 48-57. |
[1] | 田静, 曹彩霞, 黄莉莹, 吴娟燕, 张建国. 耐低营养乳酸菌筛选及对难青贮牧草发酵品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(9): 222-230. |
[2] | 赵杰, 尹雪敬, 王思然, 董志浩, 李君风, 贾玉山, 邵涛. 贮藏时间对甜高粱青贮发酵品质、微生物群落组成和功能的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(8): 164-175. |
[3] | 凌文卿, 张磊, 李珏, 冯启贤, 李妍, 周燚, 刘一佳, 阳伏林, 周晶. 布氏乳杆菌和不同糖类联用对紫花苜蓿青贮营养成分、发酵品质、瘤胃降解率及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7): 122-134. |
[4] | 党浩千, 覃娟清, 郭宇康, 张富, 王迎港, 刘庆华. 不同添加剂发酵笋壳对湖羊生产性能及瘤胃发酵的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7): 135-148. |
[5] | 蒋丛泽, 受娜, 高玮, 马仁诗, 沈禹颖, 杨宪龙. 陇东旱塬区不同青贮玉米品种生产性能和营养品质综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7): 216-228. |
[6] | 梁梦琪, 武齐丰, 邵涛, 吴艾丽, 刘秦华. 添加剂对多花黑麦草青贮发酵品质、α-生育酚和β-胡萝卜素含量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 180-189. |
[7] | 朱丽丽, 张业猛, 李万才, 赵亚利, 李想, 陈志国. 39个我国不同生态区培育的青贮玉米品种在青海高原适应性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(4): 68-78. |
[8] | 覃娟清, 党浩千, 金华云, 郭宇康, 张富, 刘庆华. 不同添加剂处理笋壳对其发酵品质及湖羊瘤胃微生物的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(11): 155-167. |
[9] | 付东青, 贾春英, 张力, 张凡凡, 马春晖. 南疆干旱灌溉区青贮玉米农艺性状和发酵品质动态分析及评价[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8): 111-125. |
[10] | 李影正, 程榆林, 徐璐璐, 李万松, 严旭, 李晓锋, 何如钰, 周阳, 郑军军, 汪星宇, 张德龙, 程明军, 夏运红, 何建美, 唐祈林. 不同玉米品种(系)的全株、果穗与秸秆青贮特性比较[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8): 144-156. |
[11] | 田吉鹏, 刘蓓一, 顾洪如, 丁成龙, 程云辉, 玉柱. 乳酸菌及丙酸钙对全株玉米和燕麦青贮饲料发酵品质和霉菌毒素含量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8): 157-166. |
[12] | 吴永杰, 丁浩, 邵涛, 赵杰, 董东, 代童童, 尹雪敬, 宗成, 李君风. 酶制剂对水稻秸秆青贮发酵品质及体外消化特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8): 167-177. |
[13] | 蒋紫薇, 刘桂宇, 安昊云, 石薇, 常生华, 张程, 贾倩民, 侯扶江. 种植密度与施氮对玉米/秣食豆间作系统饲草产量、品质和氮肥利用的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(7): 157-171. |
[14] | 戈建珍, 傅文慧, 张露, 蔺宝珺, 赵帅, 白玛噶翁, 寇建村. 多菌灵在果园白三叶青贮中的降解及其对微生物群落的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(7): 64-75. |
[15] | 田静, 尹祥, 樊杨, 李鑫琴, 张建国. 晾晒、添加物及不同温度对象草青贮发酵品质和微生物的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(7): 76-84. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||