草业学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (10): 147-158.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020367
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
付东青1(), 贾春英2(), 连晓春3, 张力4, 张凡凡1(), 马春晖1
收稿日期:
2020-07-29
修回日期:
2020-10-12
出版日期:
2021-09-16
发布日期:
2021-09-16
通讯作者:
贾春英,张凡凡
作者简介:
Corresponding author. E-mail: zhangfanfan@shzu.edu.cn基金资助:
Dong-qing FU1(), Chun-ying JIA2(), Xiao-chun LIAN3, Li ZHANG4, Fan-fan ZHANG1(), Chun-hui MA1
Received:
2020-07-29
Revised:
2020-10-12
Online:
2021-09-16
Published:
2021-09-16
Contact:
Chun-ying JIA,Fan-fan ZHANG
摘要:
通过化学分析和瘤胃瘘管绵羊动物模型研究南疆地区玉米秸秆与番茄皮渣裹包混贮的发酵品质和瘤胃降解特征,为南疆地区实际饲草生产和农产品废弃物高效利用提供理论基础。试验采用小型裹包机进行混合裹包发酵,共计7个混贮处理,分别为番茄皮渣∶玉米秸秆=0∶10(T1处理)、3∶7(T2处理)、4∶6(T3处理)、5∶5(T4处理)、6∶4(T5处理)、7∶3(T6处理)、10∶0(T7处理)。对裹包开包90 d时主要发酵品质指标[干物质(DM)、粗蛋白(CP)、可溶性碳水化合物(WSC)、中性洗涤纤维(NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)、粗脂肪(EE)、粗灰分(Ash)、pH、氨态氮(NH3-N)、乳酸(LA)、乙酸(AA)、丙酸(PA)、丁酸(BA)、NH3-N/总氮(TN)]和绵羊瘤胃降解特征参数[干物质降解率(DMD)、中性洗涤纤维降解率(NDFD)、酸性洗涤纤维降解率(ADFD)、有机物降解率(OMD)及有效降解率(ED)和降解参数]进行分析。结果表明,T2和T3处理的混贮DM和LA含量较高。仅T3处理的混贮CP、WSC和EE含量较高,NH3-N/TN最低。T3和T4处理的混贮NDF和ADF含量较低。T3、T4和T5处理的混贮Ash含量较高。T2、T3和T4处理的混贮pH值较低。仅T2处理的AA含量最低。T1、T2、T3和T4处理的混贮PA含量较低。T1、T2和T3处理的混贮BA和NH3-N含量较低。仅T4处理的混贮EDNDF最高。T1和T7处理的混贮EDADF最高。T3和T7处理的混贮EDOM最高。其余指标各处理间差异均不显著(P>0.05)。综上,将发酵品质和有效降解率中的15项核心指标进行模糊相似优先比综合评价,得到最佳裹包混贮比例为番茄皮渣和玉米秸秆质量比为4∶6,含水量为67.27%。
付东青, 贾春英, 连晓春, 张力, 张凡凡, 马春晖. 玉米秸秆与番茄皮渣裹包混贮发酵品质及瘤胃降解特征研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(10): 147-158.
Dong-qing FU, Chun-ying JIA, Xiao-chun LIAN, Li ZHANG, Fan-fan ZHANG, Chun-hui MA. Fermentation quality and in rumen degradability of mixed silage from maize stalk and tomato pomace in varying proportions[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(10): 147-158.
原料 Material | 干物质 Dry matter (%) | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (% DM) | 可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates (% DM) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (% DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (% DM) | 粗灰分 Crude ash (% DM) | 粗脂肪 Ether extract(% DM) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
玉米秸秆Cornstalk | 44.39 | 8.02 | 11.77 | 40.59 | 26.03 | 9.15 | 8.15 |
番茄皮渣Tomato pomace | 10.32 | 14.25 | 32.15 | 56.30 | 44.33 | 6.24 | 4.56 |
表1 玉米秸秆与番茄皮渣原料营养品质概况
Table 1 Material nutrition parameters of cornstalk and tomato pomace
原料 Material | 干物质 Dry matter (%) | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (% DM) | 可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates (% DM) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (% DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (% DM) | 粗灰分 Crude ash (% DM) | 粗脂肪 Ether extract(% DM) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
玉米秸秆Cornstalk | 44.39 | 8.02 | 11.77 | 40.59 | 26.03 | 9.15 | 8.15 |
番茄皮渣Tomato pomace | 10.32 | 14.25 | 32.15 | 56.30 | 44.33 | 6.24 | 4.56 |
指标Item | 数值 Value | 权重Weight |
---|---|---|
干物质 Dry matter (%) | 40.00 | 0.10 |
粗蛋白 Crude protein (% DM) | 11.00 | 0.05 |
可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates (% DM) | 4.00 | 0.05 |
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (% DM) | 37.00 | 0.05 |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (% DM) | 25.00 | 0.05 |
pH | 3.70 | 0.05 |
乳酸 Lactic acid (% FM) | 4.50 | 0.05 |
乙酸 Acetic acid (% FM) | 1.50 | 0.05 |
丙酸 Propionic acid (% FM) | 0.40 | 0.05 |
丁酸 Butyric acid (% FM) | 0.00 | 0.05 |
氨态氮/总氮 Ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen | 8.00 | 0.05 |
干物质有效降解率 Effective degradability of dry matter (%) | 8.00 | 0.10 |
中性洗涤纤维有效降解率 Effective degradability of neutral detergent fiber (%) | 7.00 | 0.10 |
酸性洗涤纤维有效降解率 Effective degradability of acid detergent fiber (%) | 5.00 | 0.10 |
有机物有效降解率 Effective degradability of organic matter (%) | 80.00 | 0.10 |
表2 参考品种综合品质及其权重
Table 2 Reference variety comprehensive quality and its weight
指标Item | 数值 Value | 权重Weight |
---|---|---|
干物质 Dry matter (%) | 40.00 | 0.10 |
粗蛋白 Crude protein (% DM) | 11.00 | 0.05 |
可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates (% DM) | 4.00 | 0.05 |
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (% DM) | 37.00 | 0.05 |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (% DM) | 25.00 | 0.05 |
pH | 3.70 | 0.05 |
乳酸 Lactic acid (% FM) | 4.50 | 0.05 |
乙酸 Acetic acid (% FM) | 1.50 | 0.05 |
丙酸 Propionic acid (% FM) | 0.40 | 0.05 |
丁酸 Butyric acid (% FM) | 0.00 | 0.05 |
氨态氮/总氮 Ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen | 8.00 | 0.05 |
干物质有效降解率 Effective degradability of dry matter (%) | 8.00 | 0.10 |
中性洗涤纤维有效降解率 Effective degradability of neutral detergent fiber (%) | 7.00 | 0.10 |
酸性洗涤纤维有效降解率 Effective degradability of acid detergent fiber (%) | 5.00 | 0.10 |
有机物有效降解率 Effective degradability of organic matter (%) | 80.00 | 0.10 |
处理 Treatment | 气味 Odour | 酸味 Sour | 质地 Texure | 感官综合评定 Comprehensive sensory evaluation |
---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 乳酸气味Lactic acid smell | 中等Middle | 松散不粘手,无霉变Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 一般Ordinary |
T2 | 乳酸气味Lactic acid smell | 浓Strong | 松散不粘手,无霉变Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 优等Excellent |
T3 | 乳酸气味Lactic acid smell | 浓Strong | 松散不粘手,无霉变Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 优等Excellent |
T4 | 乳酸气味Lactic acid smell | 浓Strong | 微粘手,无霉变Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 良好Good |
T5 | 乳酸气味Lactic acid smell | 中等Middle | 微粘手,无霉变Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 良好Good |
T6 | 乳酸气味Lactic acid smell | 中等Middle | 微粘手,轻微霉变Slightly sticky hands and mildew | 良好Good |
T7 | 轻微丁酸气味 Slight butyric acid smell | 轻微Slight | 发黏结块,霉变Sticky and caked, mouldy | 差Bad |
表3 玉米秸秆与番茄皮渣裹包混贮感官评定
Table 3 Comprehensive sensory evaluation of mixed silage with cornstalk and tomato pomace
处理 Treatment | 气味 Odour | 酸味 Sour | 质地 Texure | 感官综合评定 Comprehensive sensory evaluation |
---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 乳酸气味Lactic acid smell | 中等Middle | 松散不粘手,无霉变Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 一般Ordinary |
T2 | 乳酸气味Lactic acid smell | 浓Strong | 松散不粘手,无霉变Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 优等Excellent |
T3 | 乳酸气味Lactic acid smell | 浓Strong | 松散不粘手,无霉变Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 优等Excellent |
T4 | 乳酸气味Lactic acid smell | 浓Strong | 微粘手,无霉变Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 良好Good |
T5 | 乳酸气味Lactic acid smell | 中等Middle | 微粘手,无霉变Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 良好Good |
T6 | 乳酸气味Lactic acid smell | 中等Middle | 微粘手,轻微霉变Slightly sticky hands and mildew | 良好Good |
T7 | 轻微丁酸气味 Slight butyric acid smell | 轻微Slight | 发黏结块,霉变Sticky and caked, mouldy | 差Bad |
图1 玉米秸秆与番茄皮渣裹包混贮感官图番茄皮渣∶玉米秸秆=0∶10(T1处理)、3∶7(T2处理)、4∶6(T3处理)、5∶5(T4处理)、6∶4(T5处理)、7∶3(T6处理)、10∶0(T7处理),下同。The ratio of tomato pomace and cornstalk were 0∶10 (treatment T1), 3∶7 (treatment T2), 4∶6 (treatment T3), 5∶5 (treatment T4), 6∶4 (treatment T5), 7∶3 (treatment T6), 10∶0 (treatment T7). The same below.
Fig.1 Photo of mixed silage with cornstalk and tomato pomace
处理 Treatment | 干物质 Dry matter(%) | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (% DM) | 可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates (% DM) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (% DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (% DM) | 粗灰分 Crude ash (% DM) | 粗脂肪 Ether extract (% DM) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 36.14b | 7.52d | 2.01d | 42.28ab | 28.92c | 8.87b | 4.07b |
T2 | 38.28a | 8.62c | 3.46ab | 47.50ab | 32.51b | 7.98b | 4.44ab |
T3 | 38.33a | 10.01a | 3.85a | 38.26b | 25.41d | 7.11a | 4.84a |
T4 | 32.00c | 9.22b | 3.06b | 39.15b | 25.59d | 7.28a | 3.68bc |
T5 | 32.67c | 9.06b | 2.46c | 47.60ab | 38.02a | 7.03a | 3.48c |
T6 | 28.56d | 9.08b | 2.22cd | 45.27ab | 31.81b | 6.64c | 2.75d |
T7 | 22.33e | 9.21b | 2.08d | 51.33a | 39.88a | 5.84c | 2.03e |
均值标准差 Stand error of mean | 1.44 | 1.01 | 1.24 | 2.52 | 2.34 | 1.32 | 1.27 |
P值 P value | <0.001 | 0.035 | 0.029 | 0.033 | <0.001 | 0.018 | 0.042 |
处理 Treatment | pH | 乳酸 Lactic acid (% FM) | 乙酸 Acetic acid (% FM) | 丙酸 Propionic acid (% FM) | 丁酸 Butyric acid (% FM) | 氨态氮 Ammonia nitrogen (g·kg-1 FM) | 氨态氮/总氮 Ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen (NH3-N/TN) |
T1 | 4.21c | 3.40b | 1.63b | 0.48d | 0.26d | 1.52d | 12.61d |
T2 | 3.84d | 4.37a | 1.39c | 0.47d | 0.22d | 1.58d | 11.54de |
T3 | 3.87d | 4.25a | 1.52b | 0.45d | 0.23d | 1.54d | 9.68e |
T4 | 3.71d | 3.36b | 2.72a | 0.47d | 1.16c | 2.86c | 19.42c |
T5 | 4.94b | 2.61c | 2.84a | 1.21c | 1.34b | 2.87c | 19.83c |
T6 | 5.10b | 2.52c | 2.87a | 1.64b | 1.78a | 3.24b | 22.36b |
T7 | 6.21a | 1.67d | 1.56b | 1.82a | 1.81a | 4.72a | 32.04a |
均值标准差 Stand error of mean | 1.08 | 1.54 | 1.08 | 0.94 | 0.84 | 0.88 | 4.43 |
P值 P value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.014 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.021 |
表4 玉米秸秆与番茄皮渣裹包混贮发酵品质分析
Table 4 Analysis of mixed silage with cornstalk and tomato pomace on fermentation quality
处理 Treatment | 干物质 Dry matter(%) | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (% DM) | 可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates (% DM) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (% DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (% DM) | 粗灰分 Crude ash (% DM) | 粗脂肪 Ether extract (% DM) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 36.14b | 7.52d | 2.01d | 42.28ab | 28.92c | 8.87b | 4.07b |
T2 | 38.28a | 8.62c | 3.46ab | 47.50ab | 32.51b | 7.98b | 4.44ab |
T3 | 38.33a | 10.01a | 3.85a | 38.26b | 25.41d | 7.11a | 4.84a |
T4 | 32.00c | 9.22b | 3.06b | 39.15b | 25.59d | 7.28a | 3.68bc |
T5 | 32.67c | 9.06b | 2.46c | 47.60ab | 38.02a | 7.03a | 3.48c |
T6 | 28.56d | 9.08b | 2.22cd | 45.27ab | 31.81b | 6.64c | 2.75d |
T7 | 22.33e | 9.21b | 2.08d | 51.33a | 39.88a | 5.84c | 2.03e |
均值标准差 Stand error of mean | 1.44 | 1.01 | 1.24 | 2.52 | 2.34 | 1.32 | 1.27 |
P值 P value | <0.001 | 0.035 | 0.029 | 0.033 | <0.001 | 0.018 | 0.042 |
处理 Treatment | pH | 乳酸 Lactic acid (% FM) | 乙酸 Acetic acid (% FM) | 丙酸 Propionic acid (% FM) | 丁酸 Butyric acid (% FM) | 氨态氮 Ammonia nitrogen (g·kg-1 FM) | 氨态氮/总氮 Ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen (NH3-N/TN) |
T1 | 4.21c | 3.40b | 1.63b | 0.48d | 0.26d | 1.52d | 12.61d |
T2 | 3.84d | 4.37a | 1.39c | 0.47d | 0.22d | 1.58d | 11.54de |
T3 | 3.87d | 4.25a | 1.52b | 0.45d | 0.23d | 1.54d | 9.68e |
T4 | 3.71d | 3.36b | 2.72a | 0.47d | 1.16c | 2.86c | 19.42c |
T5 | 4.94b | 2.61c | 2.84a | 1.21c | 1.34b | 2.87c | 19.83c |
T6 | 5.10b | 2.52c | 2.87a | 1.64b | 1.78a | 3.24b | 22.36b |
T7 | 6.21a | 1.67d | 1.56b | 1.82a | 1.81a | 4.72a | 32.04a |
均值标准差 Stand error of mean | 1.08 | 1.54 | 1.08 | 0.94 | 0.84 | 0.88 | 4.43 |
P值 P value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.014 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.021 |
图2 玉米秸秆与番茄皮渣混贮营养物质瘤胃降解率不同小写字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。Different lowercase letters mean significant differences among differernt treatment at P<0.05 level.
Fig.2 The nutrients digestibility of mixed silage with cornstalk and tomato pomace in rumen
指标 Index | 降解特征参数 Parameters of degradability | 处理Treatment | 均值标准误差 Standard error of mean | P值 P value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | ||||
干物质 Dry matter | 基本含量Basic content (%) | 35.14b | 37.28a | 37.33a | 31.00c | 31.67c | 30.56c | 28.33d | 1.44 | 0.026 |
快速降解部分 Rapid degradation part (a,%) | 1.32e | 3.81a | 3.07b | 1.92d | 2.83bc | 2.26c | 2.18c | 1.23 | <0.001 | |
慢速降解部分 Slow speed reduction part (b,%) | 52.11a | 52.10a | 51.94a | 52.75a | 52.24a | 52.63a | 52.36a | 3.59 | 0.356 | |
潜在降解部分 Potential degradation part (a+b,%) | 53.43c | 55.91a | 55.01b | 54.67c | 55.07b | 54.89bc | 54.54c | 4.82 | 0.018 | |
b的降解速率 Degradation rate of b (c,%·h-1) | 0.17b | 0.18b | 0.24a | 0.11c | 0.17b | 0.12c | 0.13c | 0.21 | 0.011 | |
有效降解率 Effective degradability (ED,%) | 4.64c | 7.31a | 7.62a | 4.14c | 6.16b | 4.67c | 4.77c | 1.36 | <0.001 | |
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (DM basis) | 基本含量Basic content (%) | 42.28ab | 47.50ab | 38.26b | 39.15b | 47.60ab | 45.27ab | 51.33a | 2.52 | 0.033 |
快速降解部分 Rapid degradation part (a,%) | 2.43b | 1.28c | 3.06a | 3.24a | 1.43c | 1.48c | 1.18c | 0.89 | 0.014 | |
慢速降解部分 Slow speed reduction part (b,%) | 50.97c | 52.83c | 61.44b | 72.86a | 52.37c | 62.28b | 63.04b | 3.74 | 0.018 | |
潜在降解部分 Potential degradation part (a+b,%) | 53.40c | 54.11c | 64.50b | 76.10a | 53.80c | 63.76b | 64.22b | 4.63 | 0.035 | |
b的降解速率 Degradation rate of b (c,%·h-1) | 0.04a | 0.11a | 0.10a | 0.11a | 0.08a | 0.07a | 0.06a | 0.10 | 0.682 | |
有效降解率 Effective degradability (ED,%) | 3.23c | 3.51c | 5.42b | 6.31a | 3.05c | 3.18c | 2.66d | 0.65 | 0.024 | |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (DM basis) | 基本含量Basic content (%) | 28.92c | 32.51b | 25.41d | 25.59d | 38.02a | 31.81b | 39.88a | 2.34 | <0.001 |
快速降解部分 Rapid degradation part (a,%) | 0.31c | 0.86a | 0.19d | 0.11d | 0.44bc | 0.52b | 0.54b | 0.34 | 0.016 | |
慢速降解部分 Slow speed reduction part (b,%) | 50.73a | 51.96a | 51.39a | 51.25a | 53.04a | 53.61a | 52.38a | 1.86 | 0.582 | |
潜在降解部分 Potential degradation part (a+b,%) | 51.04a | 52.82a | 51.58a | 51.36a | 53.48a | 54.13a | 52.92a | 2.20 | 0.621 | |
b的降解速率 Degradation rate of b (c,%·h-1) | 0.19a | 0.11a | 0.13a | 0.13a | 0.11a | 0.14a | 0.18a | 0.02 | 0.684 | |
有效降解率 Effective degradability (ED,%) | 3.89a | 3.05b | 2.73c | 2.64c | 2.68c | 3.36b | 4.06a | 0.08 | 0.026 | |
有机物 Organic matter (DM basis) | 基本含量Basic content(%) | 91.13b | 92.02b | 92.89c | 92.72c | 92.97c | 93.36a | 94.16a | 1.32 | 0.018 |
快速降解部分 Rapid degradation part (a,%) | 40.67b | 42.25c | 48.53a | 43.81bc | 45.67b | 42.25c | 48.53a | 2.31 | 0.037 | |
慢速降解部分 Slow speed reduction part (b,%) | 45.48b | 42.17c | 45.13b | 47.49a | 42.48c | 42.03c | 42.13c | 1.34 | 0.022 | |
潜在降解部分 Potential degradation part (a+b,%) | 86.15cd | 84.42d | 93.66a | 91.30ab | 88.15c | 84.28d | 90.66b | 3.65 | 0.028 | |
b的降解速率 Degradation rate of b (c,%·h-1) | 2.39c | 3.54b | 4.23a | 2.64c | 2.47c | 3.32b | 4.13a | 1.24 | 0.031 | |
有效降解率 Effective degradability (ED,%) | 62.90d | 66.97c | 76.90a | 68.20b | 66.78c | 66.23c | 74.77a | 2.78 | 0.014 |
表5 玉米秸秆与番茄皮渣的瘤胃降解率特征参数
Table 5 Characteristic parameters of mixed silage with cornstalk and tomato pomace in rumen degradation
指标 Index | 降解特征参数 Parameters of degradability | 处理Treatment | 均值标准误差 Standard error of mean | P值 P value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | ||||
干物质 Dry matter | 基本含量Basic content (%) | 35.14b | 37.28a | 37.33a | 31.00c | 31.67c | 30.56c | 28.33d | 1.44 | 0.026 |
快速降解部分 Rapid degradation part (a,%) | 1.32e | 3.81a | 3.07b | 1.92d | 2.83bc | 2.26c | 2.18c | 1.23 | <0.001 | |
慢速降解部分 Slow speed reduction part (b,%) | 52.11a | 52.10a | 51.94a | 52.75a | 52.24a | 52.63a | 52.36a | 3.59 | 0.356 | |
潜在降解部分 Potential degradation part (a+b,%) | 53.43c | 55.91a | 55.01b | 54.67c | 55.07b | 54.89bc | 54.54c | 4.82 | 0.018 | |
b的降解速率 Degradation rate of b (c,%·h-1) | 0.17b | 0.18b | 0.24a | 0.11c | 0.17b | 0.12c | 0.13c | 0.21 | 0.011 | |
有效降解率 Effective degradability (ED,%) | 4.64c | 7.31a | 7.62a | 4.14c | 6.16b | 4.67c | 4.77c | 1.36 | <0.001 | |
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (DM basis) | 基本含量Basic content (%) | 42.28ab | 47.50ab | 38.26b | 39.15b | 47.60ab | 45.27ab | 51.33a | 2.52 | 0.033 |
快速降解部分 Rapid degradation part (a,%) | 2.43b | 1.28c | 3.06a | 3.24a | 1.43c | 1.48c | 1.18c | 0.89 | 0.014 | |
慢速降解部分 Slow speed reduction part (b,%) | 50.97c | 52.83c | 61.44b | 72.86a | 52.37c | 62.28b | 63.04b | 3.74 | 0.018 | |
潜在降解部分 Potential degradation part (a+b,%) | 53.40c | 54.11c | 64.50b | 76.10a | 53.80c | 63.76b | 64.22b | 4.63 | 0.035 | |
b的降解速率 Degradation rate of b (c,%·h-1) | 0.04a | 0.11a | 0.10a | 0.11a | 0.08a | 0.07a | 0.06a | 0.10 | 0.682 | |
有效降解率 Effective degradability (ED,%) | 3.23c | 3.51c | 5.42b | 6.31a | 3.05c | 3.18c | 2.66d | 0.65 | 0.024 | |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (DM basis) | 基本含量Basic content (%) | 28.92c | 32.51b | 25.41d | 25.59d | 38.02a | 31.81b | 39.88a | 2.34 | <0.001 |
快速降解部分 Rapid degradation part (a,%) | 0.31c | 0.86a | 0.19d | 0.11d | 0.44bc | 0.52b | 0.54b | 0.34 | 0.016 | |
慢速降解部分 Slow speed reduction part (b,%) | 50.73a | 51.96a | 51.39a | 51.25a | 53.04a | 53.61a | 52.38a | 1.86 | 0.582 | |
潜在降解部分 Potential degradation part (a+b,%) | 51.04a | 52.82a | 51.58a | 51.36a | 53.48a | 54.13a | 52.92a | 2.20 | 0.621 | |
b的降解速率 Degradation rate of b (c,%·h-1) | 0.19a | 0.11a | 0.13a | 0.13a | 0.11a | 0.14a | 0.18a | 0.02 | 0.684 | |
有效降解率 Effective degradability (ED,%) | 3.89a | 3.05b | 2.73c | 2.64c | 2.68c | 3.36b | 4.06a | 0.08 | 0.026 | |
有机物 Organic matter (DM basis) | 基本含量Basic content(%) | 91.13b | 92.02b | 92.89c | 92.72c | 92.97c | 93.36a | 94.16a | 1.32 | 0.018 |
快速降解部分 Rapid degradation part (a,%) | 40.67b | 42.25c | 48.53a | 43.81bc | 45.67b | 42.25c | 48.53a | 2.31 | 0.037 | |
慢速降解部分 Slow speed reduction part (b,%) | 45.48b | 42.17c | 45.13b | 47.49a | 42.48c | 42.03c | 42.13c | 1.34 | 0.022 | |
潜在降解部分 Potential degradation part (a+b,%) | 86.15cd | 84.42d | 93.66a | 91.30ab | 88.15c | 84.28d | 90.66b | 3.65 | 0.028 | |
b的降解速率 Degradation rate of b (c,%·h-1) | 2.39c | 3.54b | 4.23a | 2.64c | 2.47c | 3.32b | 4.13a | 1.24 | 0.031 | |
有效降解率 Effective degradability (ED,%) | 62.90d | 66.97c | 76.90a | 68.20b | 66.78c | 66.23c | 74.77a | 2.78 | 0.014 |
指标 Item | 处理 Treatments | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | |
干物质 Dry matter | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 7 |
粗蛋白 Crude protein | 7 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7 |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7 |
pH | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
乳酸 Lactic acid | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
乙酸 Acetic acid | 4 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 2 |
丙酸 Propionic acid | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
丁酸 Butyric acid | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
氨态氮/总氮 Ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
干物质有效降解率Effective degradability of dry matter | 6 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 4 |
中性洗涤纤维有效降解率Effective degradability of neutral detergent fiber | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 7 |
酸性洗涤纤维有效降解率Effective degradability of acid detergent fiber | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
有机物有效降解率Effective degradability of organic matter | 7 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 2 |
相似度 Similarity | 62 | 44 | 24 | 52 | 75 | 78 | 80 |
排序 Rank | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
表6 各处理与参考品种相似程度及综合价值排序
Table 6 The rank of each treatment and its reference variety similarity degree
指标 Item | 处理 Treatments | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | |
干物质 Dry matter | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 7 |
粗蛋白 Crude protein | 7 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7 |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7 |
pH | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
乳酸 Lactic acid | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
乙酸 Acetic acid | 4 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 2 |
丙酸 Propionic acid | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
丁酸 Butyric acid | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
氨态氮/总氮 Ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
干物质有效降解率Effective degradability of dry matter | 6 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 4 |
中性洗涤纤维有效降解率Effective degradability of neutral detergent fiber | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 7 |
酸性洗涤纤维有效降解率Effective degradability of acid detergent fiber | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
有机物有效降解率Effective degradability of organic matter | 7 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 2 |
相似度 Similarity | 62 | 44 | 24 | 52 | 75 | 78 | 80 |
排序 Rank | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
1 | Yu Z, Sun Q Z. Forage silage technology. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2011. |
玉柱, 孙启忠. 饲草青贮技术. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2011. | |
2 | Zhang S X, Pan X L, Wang Z G, et al. Research advances on feeding value of tomato pomace. Acta Ecologae Animalis Domastici, 2011, 32(1): 94-97. |
张书信, 潘晓亮, 王振国, 等. 番茄酱渣饲用价值的研究进展. 家畜生态学报, 2011, 32(1): 94-97. | |
3 | Yusufu Rexiti. Study on the efficiency of mixed fermentation of tomato pomace with reed, alfalfa and corn straw. Urumqi: Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2009. |
于苏甫·热西提. 番茄渣分别与芦苇、苜蓿和玉米秸混合发酵效果研究. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学, 2009. | |
4 | Chen L, Zhang L Q, Ma Z M, et al. Influences of adding different proportion of tomato residue silage on the fattening effect of beef cattle. Anhui Agricultural Science, 2013, 41(6): 2511-2512. |
陈亮, 张凌青, 马振敏, 等. 添加不同比例番茄渣青贮对肉牛育肥效果的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2013, 41(6): 2511-2512. | |
5 | Belibasakis N G. The effect of dried tomato pomace on milk yield and its composition, and on some blood plasma biochemical components in the cow. World Review of Animal Production, 1990, 25(3): 39-42. |
6 | Yang P, Fan Y F, Yang H Y, et al. Research progress on feeding effect and program of tomato pomace. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2017, 53(3): 9-13. |
杨攀, 范元芳, 杨或渊, 等. 番茄皮渣的饲用方式及其饲用效果的研究进展. 中国畜牧杂志, 2017, 53(3): 9-13. | |
7 | Abdollahzadeh F, Pirmohammadi R, Farhoomand P, et al. The effect of ensiled mixed tomato and apple pomace on Holstein dairy cow. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 2010, 9(2): e41. |
8 | Farzad A. The effect of tomato pomace on carcass traits, blood metabolites and fleece characteristic of growing Markhoz goat. Journal of Animal Science, 2012, 8(8): 848-852. |
9 | Wu A Q, Wang W Q, Liu Y F, et al. Effects of tomato pomace on growth performance and rumen fermentation parameters of sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2014, 26(8): 2289-2295. |
武安泉, 王文奇, 刘艳丰, 等. 番茄渣对绵羊生长性能和瘤胃发酵参数的影响. 动物营养学报, 2014, 26(8): 2289-2295. | |
10 | Denek N, Can A. Feeding value of wet tomato pomace ensiled with wheat straw and wheat grain for Awassi sheep.Small Ruminant Research, 2006, 65(3): 260-265. |
11 | Fondevila M, Guada J A, Gasa J, et al. Tomato pomace as a protein supplement for growing lambs. Small Ruminant Research, 1994, 13(2): 117-126. |
12 | Li B B, Xu Z Q, Li T, et al. Effects of tomato pomace on growth performance, antioxidant capacity and economic benefit of finishing pigs. China Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2017, 44(8): 2348-2353. |
李贝贝, 徐泽权, 李涛, 等. 番茄渣对育肥猪生长性能、抗氧化性能和经济效益的影响. 中国畜牧兽医, 2017, 44(8): 2348-2353. | |
13 | Annie J K, Gideon Z. Tomato pomace may be a good source of vitamin E in broiler diets. California Agriculture, 2004, 58(1): 59-62. |
14 | Ma Y F, Liu M, Tang H J, et al. Study on quality evaluation of tomato pomace signal and mixed silage. Feed Industry, 2013, 11(19): 35-39. |
马燕芬, 刘敏, 汤化军, 等. 番茄渣单贮与混贮品质评定. 饲料工业, 2013, 11(19): 35-39. | |
15 | Wu J, Du R, Gao M, et al. Naturally occurring lactic acid bacteria isolated from tomato pomace silage. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2014, 27(5): 648-657. |
16 | Xue R T. The quality evaluation of single and mixed silage of tomato pomace and their effects on performance in dairy cows. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2013. |
薛瑞婷. 番茄渣单贮和混贮品质评定及对奶牛生产性能影响的研究. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2013. | |
17 | Weiss W P, Frobose D L, Koch M E. Wet tomato pomace ensiled with corn plants for dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 1997, 80(11): 2896-2900. |
18 | Yu sufu Rexiti, Ainiwaer Aishan, Zhang X F, et al. Effects of different mixed ratio and fermenting period on efficiency of mixed silage of tomato pomace and corn straw. Journal of Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2009, 32(3): 49-53. |
于苏甫·热西提, 艾尼瓦尔·艾山, 张想峰, 等. 不同混合比例及时间对番茄渣与玉米秸混贮效果的影响. 新疆农业大学学报, 2009, 32(3): 49-53. | |
19 | Wang H Y, Guo T J, Wang W Q, et al. Study on the effect of mixed storage of tomato dregs and whole corn in different proportion. Feed Research, 2015, 6(17): 67-71. |
王慧媛, 郭同军, 王文奇, 等. 番茄渣和全株玉米不同混合比例混贮效果的研究. 饲料研究, 2015, 6(17): 67-71. | |
20 | Miao F, Zhang F F, Wang X Z, 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. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 2019, 22(4): 655-664. |
21 | Liu J X, Yang Z H, Ye J A, et al. Criteria for rational modulation and quality assessment of silage (continued). Feed Industry, 1999(4): 3-5. |
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(续). 饲料工业, 1999(4): 3-5. | |
22 | The State Bureau of Technical Supervision. GB/T 14924.9. Determination of conventional nutritional components in compound feed of labora-toryanimals. Beijing: China Standards Press, 2001. |
国家技术监督局. GB/T 14924.9. 实验动物配合饲料常规营养成分的测定. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2001. | |
23 | 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.Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2011, 164(1): 53-61. |
24 | Ørskov E R, McDonald I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, 1979, 92(2): 499-503. |
25 | Li F F, Zhang F F, Wang X Z, et al. Effects of homo- and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on the nutritional quality and ruminal degradation rate of the whole plant maize silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(6): 128-136. |
李菲菲, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 等. 同/异型发酵乳酸菌对全株玉米青贮营养成分和瘤胃降解特征的影响. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 128-136. | |
26 | Zhang L, Xi L Q, Zhang F F, et al. Dynamics of microorganism, fermentation and nutritional quality of alfalfa silage with inferior jujube powder.Xinjiang Agricultural Science, 2019, 56(10): 1929-1938. |
张玲, 席琳乔, 张凡凡, 等. 残次枣粉添加青贮苜蓿中微生物、发酵和营养品质动态规律.新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(10): 1929-1938. | |
27 | Feng T, Tang H Y, Yang W X, et al. Effects of wilting and mixing straws on fermentation quality and nutrients preservation of sweet sorghum silage. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 2019, 42(2): 352-357. |
冯涛, 唐海洋, 杨文祥, 等. 甜高粱凋萎青贮和混合青贮对发酵品质及营养成分保存效果的影响. 南京农业大学学报, 2019, 42(2): 352-357. | |
28 | Sun Y K, Wang L, Sun Q Z, et al. Effect of apple pomace on the quality of alfalfa silages. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2015, 37(1): 83-89. |
孙雨坤, 王林, 孙启忠, 等. 添加苹果渣对苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2015, 37(1): 83-89. | |
29 | Kung L, Robinson J R, Ranjit N K, et al. Microbial populations, fermentation end-products, and aerobic stability of corn silage treated with ammonia or a propionic acid-based preservative. Journal of Dairy Science, 2000, 83(7): 1479-1486. |
30 | Kung L, Shaver R D, Grant R J, et al. Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(5): 4020-4033. |
31 | Yang D S, Wang S P, Han X F, et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and alkyl polyglycoside on yellow corn stover silage quality and fermentation in vitro. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(5): 111-122. |
杨大盛, 汪水平, 韩雪峰, 等. 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. 草业学报, 2019, 28(5): 111-122. | |
32 | Lu D X, Xie C W. Nutrition research methods and techniques for modern ruminants. Beijing: Agricultural Press, 1991. |
卢德勋, 谢崇文. 现代反刍动物营养研究方法和技术. 北京: 农业出版社, 1991. |
[1] | 杨冬梅, 李俊年, 陶双伦. 添加单宁酸对青贮葛藤有氧稳定性和霉菌毒素含量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(8): 164-170. |
[2] | 郭香, 陈德奎, 陈娜, 李云, 陈晓阳, 张庆. 含水量和添加剂对黄梁木叶青贮发酵品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(8): 199-205. |
[3] | 尹祥, 王咏琪, 李鑫琴, 田静, 王晓亚, 张建国. 不同水分吸附材料对象草青贮发酵品质及好氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(7): 133-138. |
[4] | 赵娜, 杨雪海, 魏金涛, 郭万正, 陈芳, 周广生, 傅廷栋. 饲用油菜的营养成分分析及其在山羊瘤胃降解特性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 50-57. |
[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] | 孔凡林, 刁其玉, 渠建江, 屠焰. 构树在肉牛瘤胃中降解特性的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 179-189. |
[7] | 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. |
[8] | 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. |
[9] | 刘祥圣, 邓波波, 王阔鹏, 封丽梅, 赵国琦, 林淼. 常规与非常规粗饲料在奶牛瘤胃中的降解特性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(11): 190-197. |
[10] | 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. |
[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] | 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. |
[13] | 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. |
[14] | 李菲菲, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 苗芳, 马春晖. 同/异型发酵乳酸菌对全株玉米青贮营养成分和瘤胃降解特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 128-136. |
[15] | 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. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||