草业学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (10): 194-202.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2023422
• 研究简报 • 上一篇
郭田心(), 阮诗诗, 郭香, 詹佳琦, 梁秋雨, 陈晓阳, 周玮(
), 张庆(
)
收稿日期:
2023-11-14
修回日期:
2024-01-03
出版日期:
2024-10-20
发布日期:
2024-07-15
通讯作者:
周玮,张庆
作者简介:
wzhou@scau.edu.cn基金资助:
Tian-xin GUO(), Shi-shi RUAN, Xiang GUO, Jia-qi ZHAN, Qiu-yu LIANG, Xiao-yang CHEN, Wei ZHOU(
), Qing ZHANG(
)
Received:
2023-11-14
Revised:
2024-01-03
Online:
2024-10-20
Published:
2024-07-15
Contact:
Wei ZHOU,Qing ZHANG
摘要:
为了探究不同酶制剂和植物乳杆菌(LP)复合添加对中药渣青贮发酵品质动态变化的影响,以中药渣(黄芪、山药、茯苓与柴胡)为原料, LP与酶[纤维素酶(CE)、果胶酶(PE)、木聚糖酶(XY)]分别组合添加处理,并设置空白对照(CK),青贮3、7、15、34 d后分析其青贮发酵品质。结果表明:所有处理组在青贮34 d后,pH值、酸性洗涤纤维、中性洗涤纤维相比对照组均显著降低(P<0.05),可溶性碳水化合物含量相比对照组显著提高(P<0.05)。综上所述,添加菌酶复合添加剂可显著降低中药渣青贮后中性洗涤纤维、酸性洗涤纤维含量。随着青贮时间的延长,LP+CE处理组能够增加可溶性碳水化合物含量,且LP+CE和LP+PE处理组能够减少氨态氮含量,有效减少蛋白降解,使中药渣青贮品质得到有效改善。
郭田心, 阮诗诗, 郭香, 詹佳琦, 梁秋雨, 陈晓阳, 周玮, 张庆. 不同复合菌酶添加对中药渣青贮饲料的营养价值及发酵品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(10): 194-202.
Tian-xin GUO, Shi-shi RUAN, Xiang GUO, Jia-qi ZHAN, Qiu-yu LIANG, Xiao-yang CHEN, Wei ZHOU, Qing ZHANG. Effect of bacterial enzyme complexes on the quality of silage made from Chinese medicine crop residues[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(10): 194-202.
项目Items | 含量Content |
---|---|
干物质 Dry matter (DM,%) | 33.92±1.42 |
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (NDF,%DM) | 59.57±3.05 |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (ADF,%DM) | 42.35±2.08 |
可溶性碳水化合物 Water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC,%DM) | 7.05±1.64 |
粗蛋白质 Crude protein (CP,%DM) | 7.43±0.62 |
乳酸菌 Lactic acid bacteria (LAB,log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | <2.00 |
酵母菌 Yeast (log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | <2.00 |
霉菌 Molds (log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | <2.00 |
大肠杆菌 Coliform bacteria (log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | <2.00 |
表1 中药渣原料特性
Table 1 Characteristics of raw materials of traditional Chinese medicine residues (mean±SD, n=3)
项目Items | 含量Content |
---|---|
干物质 Dry matter (DM,%) | 33.92±1.42 |
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (NDF,%DM) | 59.57±3.05 |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (ADF,%DM) | 42.35±2.08 |
可溶性碳水化合物 Water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC,%DM) | 7.05±1.64 |
粗蛋白质 Crude protein (CP,%DM) | 7.43±0.62 |
乳酸菌 Lactic acid bacteria (LAB,log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | <2.00 |
酵母菌 Yeast (log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | <2.00 |
霉菌 Molds (log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | <2.00 |
大肠杆菌 Coliform bacteria (log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | <2.00 |
项目 Items | 处理 Treatments | 青贮天数Silage days (D, d) | 平均值 Mean | 标准误 SEM | 显著性 Significance | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 7 | 15 | 34 | D | T | D×T | ||||
干物质 Dry matter (DM,%) | CK | 32.12AB | 32.42AB | 33.38A | 32.71A | 32.66 | 0.23 | NS | ** | NS |
LP+CE | 33.54A | 33.79A | 33.35A | 33.65A | 33.58 | 0.23 | ||||
LP+PE | 31.46B | 32.53AB | 32.42A | 32.79A | 32.30 | 0.29 | ||||
LP+XY | 31.05B | 31.61B | 30.89B | 29.52B | 30.77 | 0.35 | ||||
pH | CK | 5.35aA | 4.65bA | 4.71bA | 4.20cA | 4.73 | 0.13 | ** | ** | ** |
LP+CE | 4.06aC | 3.86bBC | 3.87bB | 3.73cBC | 3.88 | 0.04 | ||||
LP+PE | 3.86aD | 3.70cC | 3.74bB | 3.65dC | 3.74 | 0.02 | ||||
LP+XY | 4.14aB | 3.91bB | 3.89bB | 3.80cB | 3.93 | 0.04 | ||||
乳酸菌 Lactic acid bacteria (LAB,log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | CK | 6.86bC | 8.41aB | 8.17aA | 8.48aA | 7.98 | 0.20 | ** | ** | ** |
LP+CE | 8.48aB | 8.32aBC | 7.47bB | 5.93cB | 7.48 | 0.33 | ||||
LP+PE | 8.61aAB | 8.52aA | 7.12bB | 5.54cB | 7.62 | 0.37 | ||||
LP+XY | 8.74aA | 8.23aC | 7.21bB | 6.02cB | 7.55 | 0.33 | ||||
酵母菌 Yeast (log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | CK | <2.00 | 4.19 | 4.63 | 3.51 | 4.11 | 0.25 | NS | NS | NS |
LP+CE | <2.00 | 3.15 | 3.55 | 4.11 | 3.66 | 0.19 | ||||
LP+PE | <2.00 | <2.00 | 3.38 | 3.82 | 3.60 | 0.42 | ||||
LP+XY | <2.00 | 2.77b | 3.99a | 4.61a | 3.92 | 0.31 | ||||
霉菌 Molds (log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | CK | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
LP+CE | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ||||
LP+PE | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ||||
LP+XY | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ||||
大肠杆菌 Coliform bacteria (log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | CK | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
LP+CE | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ||||
LP+PE | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ||||
LP+XY | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ||||
乳酸 Lactic acid (LA,%DM) | CK | ND | 0.27 | 0.77 | 0.65 | 0.57 | 0.18 | NS | NS | NS |
LP+CE | 0.45 | 1.31 | 0.96 | 0.36 | 0.77 | 0.19 | ||||
LP+PE | 0.58 | 0.56 | 0.39 | 0.63 | 0.54 | 0.09 | ||||
LP+XY | 0.85 | 0.55 | 0.12 | 0.77 | 0.57 | 0.18 | ||||
乙酸 Acetic acid (AA,%DM) | CK | ND | 0.27 | 0.16AB | 0.33 | 0.26 | 0.09 | NS | NS | NS |
LP+CE | 0.15 | 0.29 | 0.24A | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.05 | ||||
LP+PE | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.10AB | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.02 | ||||
LP+XY | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.03B | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.05 |
表2 添加植物乳杆菌和3种不同酶对中药渣青贮发酵品质的影响
Table 2 Effects of adding L. plantarum (LP) and three different enzymes on fermentation quality of traditional Chinese medicine residue silage
项目 Items | 处理 Treatments | 青贮天数Silage days (D, d) | 平均值 Mean | 标准误 SEM | 显著性 Significance | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 7 | 15 | 34 | D | T | D×T | ||||
干物质 Dry matter (DM,%) | CK | 32.12AB | 32.42AB | 33.38A | 32.71A | 32.66 | 0.23 | NS | ** | NS |
LP+CE | 33.54A | 33.79A | 33.35A | 33.65A | 33.58 | 0.23 | ||||
LP+PE | 31.46B | 32.53AB | 32.42A | 32.79A | 32.30 | 0.29 | ||||
LP+XY | 31.05B | 31.61B | 30.89B | 29.52B | 30.77 | 0.35 | ||||
pH | CK | 5.35aA | 4.65bA | 4.71bA | 4.20cA | 4.73 | 0.13 | ** | ** | ** |
LP+CE | 4.06aC | 3.86bBC | 3.87bB | 3.73cBC | 3.88 | 0.04 | ||||
LP+PE | 3.86aD | 3.70cC | 3.74bB | 3.65dC | 3.74 | 0.02 | ||||
LP+XY | 4.14aB | 3.91bB | 3.89bB | 3.80cB | 3.93 | 0.04 | ||||
乳酸菌 Lactic acid bacteria (LAB,log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | CK | 6.86bC | 8.41aB | 8.17aA | 8.48aA | 7.98 | 0.20 | ** | ** | ** |
LP+CE | 8.48aB | 8.32aBC | 7.47bB | 5.93cB | 7.48 | 0.33 | ||||
LP+PE | 8.61aAB | 8.52aA | 7.12bB | 5.54cB | 7.62 | 0.37 | ||||
LP+XY | 8.74aA | 8.23aC | 7.21bB | 6.02cB | 7.55 | 0.33 | ||||
酵母菌 Yeast (log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | CK | <2.00 | 4.19 | 4.63 | 3.51 | 4.11 | 0.25 | NS | NS | NS |
LP+CE | <2.00 | 3.15 | 3.55 | 4.11 | 3.66 | 0.19 | ||||
LP+PE | <2.00 | <2.00 | 3.38 | 3.82 | 3.60 | 0.42 | ||||
LP+XY | <2.00 | 2.77b | 3.99a | 4.61a | 3.92 | 0.31 | ||||
霉菌 Molds (log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | CK | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
LP+CE | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ||||
LP+PE | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ||||
LP+XY | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ||||
大肠杆菌 Coliform bacteria (log10 cfu·g-1 FM) | CK | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
LP+CE | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ||||
LP+PE | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ||||
LP+XY | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | ND | ND | ||||
乳酸 Lactic acid (LA,%DM) | CK | ND | 0.27 | 0.77 | 0.65 | 0.57 | 0.18 | NS | NS | NS |
LP+CE | 0.45 | 1.31 | 0.96 | 0.36 | 0.77 | 0.19 | ||||
LP+PE | 0.58 | 0.56 | 0.39 | 0.63 | 0.54 | 0.09 | ||||
LP+XY | 0.85 | 0.55 | 0.12 | 0.77 | 0.57 | 0.18 | ||||
乙酸 Acetic acid (AA,%DM) | CK | ND | 0.27 | 0.16AB | 0.33 | 0.26 | 0.09 | NS | NS | NS |
LP+CE | 0.15 | 0.29 | 0.24A | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.05 | ||||
LP+PE | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.10AB | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.02 | ||||
LP+XY | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.03B | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.05 |
项目 Items | 处理 Treatments | 青贮天数Silage days (D, d) | 平均值 Mean | 标准误 SEM | 显著性 Significance | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 7 | 15 | 34 | D | T | D×T | ||||
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (NDF,%DM) | CK | 60.75A | 61.11A | 62.93A | 62.54A | 61.83 | 0.54 | NS | ** | NS |
LP+CE | 53.28B | 52.04B | 50.21C | 52.17C | 51.93 | 0.66 | ||||
LP+PE | 54.63B | 54.59B | 54.05BC | 52.85BC | 54.03 | 0.52 | ||||
LP+XY | 57.11AB | 57.97A | 55.51B | 56.31B | 56.72 | 0.57 | ||||
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (ADF,%DM) | CK | 45.20 | 44.30 | 48.15A | 47.10A | 46.19 | 0.70 | NS | ** | NS |
LP+CE | 41.21 | 41.30 | 39.56B | 41.84B | 40.98 | 0.59 | ||||
LP+PE | 42.70 | 43.27 | 44.00AB | 42.99B | 43.24 | 0.48 | ||||
LP+XY | 42.55 | 44.13 | 42.97B | 44.66AB | 43.58 | 0.51 | ||||
可溶性碳水化合物 Water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC,%DM) | CK | 5.36aB | 5.88aC | 3.67bC | 2.61bC | 4.54 | 0.42 | * | ** | ** |
LP+CE | 12.83bA | 12.04bA | 16.91aA | 14.54abA | 14.08 | 0.74 | ||||
LP+PE | 11.72aA | 11.03abA | 11.27aB | 9.80bB | 10.96 | 0.27 | ||||
LP+XY | 8.42bcB | 7.57cB | 10.33aB | 9.62abB | 8.98 | 0.39 | ||||
粗蛋白 Crude protein (CP,%DM) | CK | 7.47B | 8.00B | 7.64B | 7.60B | 7.68 | 0.15 | NS | ** | NS |
LP+CE | 9.29A | 9.10A | 9.09A | 9.13A | 9.15 | 0.21 | ||||
LP+PE | 7.82AB | 7.49B | 8.26AB | 7.75B | 7.83 | 0.18 | ||||
LP+XY | 6.98B | 7.14B | 7.43B | 7.42B | 7.24 | 0.08 | ||||
氨态氮 Ammonium nitrogen (NH3-N,%TN) | CK | ND | 0.69 | 0.96 | 1.29B | 0.98 | 0.18 | ** | ** | * |
LP+CE | 0.37b | 0.81ab | 0.59ab | 1.06aB | 0.67 | 0.12 | ||||
LP+PE | 0.25b | 0.56ab | 0.52ab | 0.95aB | 0.57 | 0.10 | ||||
LP+XY | 0.29b | 0.80b | 0.98b | 2.44aA | 1.13 | 0.26 |
表3 添加植物乳杆菌和3种不同酶对中药渣青贮纤维和蛋白含量的影响
Table 3 Effects of adding L. plantarum (LP) and three different enzymes on fiber and protein content of traditional Chinese medicine residue silage
项目 Items | 处理 Treatments | 青贮天数Silage days (D, d) | 平均值 Mean | 标准误 SEM | 显著性 Significance | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 7 | 15 | 34 | D | T | D×T | ||||
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (NDF,%DM) | CK | 60.75A | 61.11A | 62.93A | 62.54A | 61.83 | 0.54 | NS | ** | NS |
LP+CE | 53.28B | 52.04B | 50.21C | 52.17C | 51.93 | 0.66 | ||||
LP+PE | 54.63B | 54.59B | 54.05BC | 52.85BC | 54.03 | 0.52 | ||||
LP+XY | 57.11AB | 57.97A | 55.51B | 56.31B | 56.72 | 0.57 | ||||
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (ADF,%DM) | CK | 45.20 | 44.30 | 48.15A | 47.10A | 46.19 | 0.70 | NS | ** | NS |
LP+CE | 41.21 | 41.30 | 39.56B | 41.84B | 40.98 | 0.59 | ||||
LP+PE | 42.70 | 43.27 | 44.00AB | 42.99B | 43.24 | 0.48 | ||||
LP+XY | 42.55 | 44.13 | 42.97B | 44.66AB | 43.58 | 0.51 | ||||
可溶性碳水化合物 Water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC,%DM) | CK | 5.36aB | 5.88aC | 3.67bC | 2.61bC | 4.54 | 0.42 | * | ** | ** |
LP+CE | 12.83bA | 12.04bA | 16.91aA | 14.54abA | 14.08 | 0.74 | ||||
LP+PE | 11.72aA | 11.03abA | 11.27aB | 9.80bB | 10.96 | 0.27 | ||||
LP+XY | 8.42bcB | 7.57cB | 10.33aB | 9.62abB | 8.98 | 0.39 | ||||
粗蛋白 Crude protein (CP,%DM) | CK | 7.47B | 8.00B | 7.64B | 7.60B | 7.68 | 0.15 | NS | ** | NS |
LP+CE | 9.29A | 9.10A | 9.09A | 9.13A | 9.15 | 0.21 | ||||
LP+PE | 7.82AB | 7.49B | 8.26AB | 7.75B | 7.83 | 0.18 | ||||
LP+XY | 6.98B | 7.14B | 7.43B | 7.42B | 7.24 | 0.08 | ||||
氨态氮 Ammonium nitrogen (NH3-N,%TN) | CK | ND | 0.69 | 0.96 | 1.29B | 0.98 | 0.18 | ** | ** | * |
LP+CE | 0.37b | 0.81ab | 0.59ab | 1.06aB | 0.67 | 0.12 | ||||
LP+PE | 0.25b | 0.56ab | 0.52ab | 0.95aB | 0.57 | 0.10 | ||||
LP+XY | 0.29b | 0.80b | 0.98b | 2.44aA | 1.13 | 0.26 |
1 | Wang H Y, Li J Z, Pan J S, et al. The effect of Astragali and Angelica on nephrotic syndrome and its mechanisms of action. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2002, 34(5): 542-552. |
王海燕, 李惊子, 潘缉圣, 等. 中药黄芪当归合剂对肾病综合征肾损伤的保护作用及对代谢紊乱的影响. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2002, 34(5): 542-552. | |
2 | Sun X S, Xie B. Research progress in pharmacological action of Chinese yam. Traditional Chinese Drug Research and Clinical Pharmacology, 2011, 22(3): 353-355. |
孙晓生, 谢波. 山药药理作用的研究进展. 中药新药与临床药理, 2011, 22(3): 353-355. | |
3 | Cui H R, Wang R L, Guo W B, et al. Research advances in chemical components, pharmacological activities and clinical application of Poria cocos. Northwest Pharmaceutical Journal, 2019, 34(5): 694-700. |
崔鹤蓉, 王睿林, 郭文博, 等. 茯苓的化学成分、药理作用及临床应用研究进展. 西北药学杂志, 2019, 34(5): 694-700. | |
4 | Xin G, Zhao X T, Huang X W. Research progress on chemical constituents and pharmacological effects of Bupleurum. Jilin Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2018, 38(10): 1196-1198. |
辛国, 赵昕彤, 黄晓巍. 柴胡化学成分及药理作用研究进展. 吉林中医药, 2018, 38(10): 1196-1198. | |
5 | Liu Q, Zhao Q, Shen H J. Research on fermentation process of traditional Chinese medicine residue and its application in feed production. Feed Research, 2021, 44(18): 147-149. |
刘倩, 赵茜, 申海进. 中药渣发酵工艺研究及其在饲料生产上的应用. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(18): 147-149. | |
6 | Zhang W L, Tie J X. Resource recovery of traditional Chinese medicine residue. Journal of Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University, 2020, 30(3): 80-83. |
张威龙, 帖靖玺. 中药渣资源化利用研究进展. 信阳农林学院学报, 2020, 30(3): 80-83. | |
7 | Liu W W, Liu Y X, Zhao Y, et al. Review on the recycle of traditional Chinese medicine slag. Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 2013, 32(1): 49-50. |
刘文伟, 刘玉璇, 赵宇, 等. 中药渣综合利用研究进展. 药学研究, 2013, 32(1): 49-50. | |
8 | Li X P, Wang K, Su Q. Application of Chinese medicine residue in major economic livestock and poultry production. Jiangxi Agriculture, 2019(12): 132. |
李雪平, 王宽, 苏茜. 中药渣在主要经济畜禽生产中的应用. 江西农业, 2019(12): 132. | |
9 | Feng Y J, Wang E Y, Zhang Z J, et al. The nutrition value of Chinese medicine residue and its application in livestock and poultry production. China Feed, 2018(4): 19-22. |
冯亚杰, 王二耀, 张子敬, 等. 中药渣的营养价值及其在畜禽生产中的应用进展. 中国饲料, 2018(4): 19-22. | |
10 | He X Y, Luo J, Li Y L. Effects of fermented dregs of Schisandra chinensis on intestinal morphology and mucosal immunity of weaned piglets. Journal of Hunan Agricultural University (Natural Sciences), 2014, 40(2): 196-201. |
贺晓玉, 罗杰, 李英伦. 发酵五味子药渣对断奶仔猪小肠黏膜的形态及免疫的影响. 湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2014, 40(2): 196-201. | |
11 | Zhu T, Wang Y L, He J W, et al. Effects of fermented traditional Chinese medicine residues in feed on manure emission reduction of different pig herds. The Chinese Livestock and Poultry Breeding, 2021, 17(11): 64-65. |
朱彤, 王亚犁, 何继武, 等. 发酵中药渣添加饲料对不同猪群粪污减排效果的影响. 中国畜禽种业, 2021, 17(11): 64-65. | |
12 | Liu Y B, Ge Y Z, Sun X Y, et al. Application of feeding fermented Chinese medicine residue on antibiotic-free breeding of pigs. Food and Nutrition in China, 2018, 24(4): 19-22. |
刘瑜彬, 葛亚中, 孙晓燕, 等. 发酵中药渣在生猪无抗养殖中的应用. 中国食物与营养, 2018, 24(4): 19-22. | |
13 | Tan X D, Wang X D, Yang P, et al. Solid-state fermentation of herb residues to produce protein feedstuff by Trichoderma koningii. Journal of Sichuan University: Engineering Science Editions, 2008, 40(4): 71-76. |
谭显东, 王向东, 杨平, 等. 康宁木霉固态发酵中药渣制备蛋白饲料. 四川大学学报(工程科学版), 2008, 40(4): 71-76. | |
14 | Liu Q, Luo G L, Guo L, et al. Screening of the type and proportion of enzyme preparation used in fermentation of Chinese medicinal residue. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2023, 66(20): 111-115, 123. |
刘倩, 罗国良, 郭利, 等. 发酵中药渣的酶制剂种类及比例筛选研究. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2023, 66(20): 111-115, 123. | |
15 | Lewis G E, Profa V A. Effect of direct-fed fibrolytic enzymes on the lactational performance of dairy cows. Journal of Daily Science, 1999, 82(3): 611-617. |
16 | Yang S, Gao S Z, Lu H, et al. Plant cell wall development and its function in abiotic stress. Plant Physiology Journal, 2023, 59(7): 1251-1264. |
杨帅, 高尚珠, 卢晗, 等. 植物细胞壁形成及在非生物胁迫中的作用. 植物生理学报, 2023, 59(7): 1251-1264. | |
17 | Ding H, Wu Y J, Shao T, et al. Effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation quality and in vitro digestibility coefficient of napier grass. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(11): 2600-2608. |
丁浩, 吴永杰, 邵涛, 等. 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶对象草青贮发酵品质及体外消化率的影响. 草地学报, 2021, 29(11): 2600-2608. | |
18 | Li M J, Jiang J J, Luo F C, et al. Effects of mixing ratio and cellulase on silage quality of corn stalks mixed with sugarcane tip. Feed Research, 2023, 46(12): 1-18. |
黎梅杰, 蒋金娟, 罗富成, 等. 混合比例和纤维素酶对甘蔗梢玉米秆混合青贮品质的影响. 饲料研究, 2023, 46(12): 1-18. | |
19 | Gao L, Xiang X. Application of straw silage technology in cattle and sheep breeding. The Chinese Livestock and Poultry Breeding, 2022, 18(4): 122-123. |
高亮, 向雪. 秸秆青贮技术在牛羊养殖中的应用. 中国畜禽种业, 2022, 18(4): 122-123. | |
20 | Wang Y, Wang C, Zhou W, et al. Effects of wilting and Lactobacillus plantarum addition on the fermentation quality and microbial community of Moringa oleifera leaf silage. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2018, 9(8): 1817. |
21 | Dehghani M R, Weisbjerg M R, Hvelplund T, et al. Effect of enzyme addition to forage at ensiling on silage chemical composition and NDF degradation characteristics. Livestock Science, 2012, 150(1/2/3): 51-58. |
22 | Guo X, Chen D K, Chen N, et al. Effect of moisture content and additives on the fermentation quality of Neolamarckia cadamba leaf silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(8): 199-205. |
郭香, 陈德奎, 陈娜, 等. 含水量和添加剂对黄梁木叶青贮发酵品质的影响. 草业学报, 2021, 30(8): 199-205. | |
23 | Wang Y R, Tao L, Ma T, et al. Effect of different enzymes and their combinations on microstructure of rice straw silage. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2017, 29(4): 1401-1408. |
王玉荣, 陶莲, 马涛, 等. 不同酶及组合处理对青贮水稻秸秆微观结构的影响. 动物营养学报, 2017, 29(4): 1401-1408. | |
24 | Feng P, Wu H D, Meng F K, et al. Effect of different compatibility biological agents on silage quality and feeding value of rice stalk. China Feed, 2021, 1(17): 122-128. |
冯鹏, 吴宏达, 孟凡坤, 等. 不同配伍生物制剂对水稻秸秆青贮品质及饲喂价值的影响. 中国饲料, 2021, 1(17): 122-128. | |
25 | Lv H J, Zou X, Wu S, et al. The effect of adding Moringa oleifera leaves and Lactobacillus farciminis on quality of corn stover silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(6): 1343-1349. |
吕竑建, 邹璇, 吴硕, 等. 添加辣木叶和香肠乳杆菌对玉米秸秆青贮品质的影响. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1343-1349. | |
26 | Wang C, Wang Y, Zhou W, et al. Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum (LP) and moisture on feed quality and tannin content of Moringa oleifera leaf silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(6): 109-118. |
王成, 王益, 周玮, 等. 植物乳杆菌和含水量对辣木叶青贮品质和单宁含量的影响. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 109-118. | |
27 | Murphy R P, Murphy R P. A method for the extraction of plant samples and the determination of total soluble carbohy-drates. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 1958, 9(11): 714-717. |
28 | Shu S M, Yang C H, Tang Z S, et al. Effects of different moisture contents with previously fermented juice on the quality of whipgrass (Hemarthria compressa) silage. Grass-feeding Livestock, 2011(4): 41-43. |
舒思敏, 杨春华, 唐智松, 等. 添加绿汁发酵液对不同含水量扁穗牛鞭草青贮料品质的影响. 草食家畜, 2011(4): 41-43. | |
29 | Xu Q F, Yu Z, Han J G, et al. Determining organic acid in alfalfa silage by HPLC. Grassland and Turf, 2007(2): 63-65, 67. |
许庆方, 玉柱, 韩建国, 等. 高效液相色谱法测定紫花苜蓿青贮中的有机酸. 草原与草坪, 2007(2): 63-65, 67. | |
30 | Bolsen K K, Lin C, Brent B E, et al. Effect of silage additives on the microbial succession and fermentation process of alfalfa and corn silages. Journal of Dairy Science, 1992, 75(11): 3066-3083. |
31 | Zhang L Y. Feed analysis and quality detection technology (Third Edition). Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2007: 49-75. |
张丽英. 饲料分析及质量检测技术(第3版). 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2007: 49-75. | |
32 | Guo L H, Yang S K. Study on gallic acid preparation by using immobilized tannase from Aspergillus niger. Chinese Journal of Biotechnology, 2000, 16(5): 614-617. |
郭鲁宏, 杨顺楷. 利用固定化黑曲霉单宁酶制备没食子酸的研究. 生物工程学报, 2000, 16(5): 614-617. | |
33 | Jessie G, Vern S B, Karen A B. Corn forage yield and quality for silage in short growing season areas of the Canadian prairies. Agronomy, 2018, 8(9): 164. |
34 | Wang C M, Wang M C, Liang H W, et al. Determination of the main feed nutrients of seven kinds of traditional Chinese medicine residues. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2019(2): 111-113. |
王春梅, 王美晨, 梁海伟, 等. 七种中药渣主要饲用营养成分的测定. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2019(2): 111-113. | |
35 | Li Z H, Zhu Q, Ji Y J, et al. Nutrient content in six Chinese herbal residues. Natural Product Research and Development, 2017, 29(1): 91-95. |
黎智华, 祝倩, 姬玉娇, 等. 六种中药渣的营养成分. 天然产物研究与开发, 2017, 29(1): 91-95. | |
36 | Chen D D, Huang P S, Zhang C, et al. The effects of Lactobacillus plantarum on fermentation quality and invitro digestion characteristics of litchi leaves silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(7): 2232-2240. |
陈丹丹, 黄佩珊, 张超, 等. 植物乳杆菌对荔枝叶青贮品质及体外降解特性的影响. 草地学报, 2023, 31(7): 2232-2240. | |
37 | Zhang Q. Studies on screening, mechanism of action of lactic acid bacteria for forage ensiling. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2016. |
张庆. 饲草青贮用乳酸菌的筛选及作用机理. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2016. | |
38 | Cai Y, Benno Y, Ogawa M, et al. Influence of Lactobacillus spp. from an inoculant and of Weissella and Leuconostoc spp. from forage crops on silage fermentation. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1998, 64(8): 2982-2987. |
39 | Muck R E. Silage microbiology and its control through additives. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 2010, 39 (suppl spe): 183-191. |
40 | McDonald P. The biochemistry of silage. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981: 1-226. |
41 | Ohmomo S, Tanaka O, Kitamoto H K, et al. Silage and microbial performance, old story but new problems. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, 2002, 36(2): 59-71. |
42 | Parvin S, Nishino N. Bacterial community associated with ensilage process of wilted guinea grass. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2009, 107(6): 2029-2036. |
43 | Lv H J, Guo X, Chen D K, et al. Effect of lactic acid bacteria and storage temperature on the quality of Moringa oleifera leaf silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(3): 121-128. |
吕竑建, 郭香, 陈德奎, 等. 植物乳酸菌和贮藏温度对辣木叶青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3): 121-128. | |
44 | Wei H J. Studies on improving the fermentation quality of mixed silages of alfalfa with perennial ryegrass or tall fescue. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2011. |
魏化敬. 提高紫花苜蓿与多年生黑麦草、苇状羊茅混合青贮发酵品质的研究. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2011. | |
45 | Zhao G Q, Ding J, Jia Y H, et al. Effect of cellulase on the quality of Panicum maximum silage. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2003, 39(2): 9-11. |
赵国琦, 丁健, 贾亚红, 等. 纤维素酶对大黍青贮饲料品质的影响. 中国畜牧杂志, 2003, 39(2): 9-11. | |
46 | Wang C, Liu D J, He R Y, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus brucei on fermentation quality of whole corn silage. Shandong Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2022, 43(1): 15-18. |
王诚, 刘德娟, 何荣彦, 等. 植物乳杆菌和布氏乳杆菌对全株玉米青贮发酵品质影响. 山东畜牧兽医, 2022, 43(1): 15-18. |
[1] | 王一凡, 卓兴良, 王磊, 张洪瑞, 陈雪, 吉方财, 玉柱. 收割时间与加工方式对天然牧草产品品质和体外消化率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(6): 145-154. |
[2] | 岳海旺, 魏建伟, 王广才, 刘朋程, 陈淑萍, 卜俊周. 基于环境型鉴定技术划分生态区综合评价黄淮海青贮玉米品种[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(3): 120-138. |
[3] | 孟超楠, 赵玉洁, 陈佳欣, 张旖璐, 王彦佳, 冯丽荣, 孙玉刚, 郭长虹. 2株青贮玉米根际固氮菌的筛选鉴定及促生作用研究[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(3): 174-185. |
[4] | 唐璎, 刘晓静, 赵雅姣, 董霖. 甘肃不同区域青贮紫花苜蓿乳酸菌群落特征及其驱动因子研究[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(2): 112-124. |
[5] | 黄佩珊, 臧美琪, 张炜灵, 陈俊戬, 刘立轩, 张庆. 黄梁木叶多酚提取工艺优化及其对柱花草青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(10): 159-170. |
[6] | 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. |
[7] | 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. |
[8] | 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. |
[9] | 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. |
[10] | 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. |
[11] | 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. |
[12] | 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. |
[13] | 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. |
[14] | 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. |
[15] | 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. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||