草业学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (8): 154-163.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020313
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
温媛媛1(), 张美琦1, 刘桃桃1, 沈宜钊1, 高艳霞1,2, 李秋凤1,2(), 曹玉凤1,2(), 李建国1,2()
收稿日期:
2020-07-06
修回日期:
2020-08-10
出版日期:
2021-07-09
发布日期:
2021-07-09
通讯作者:
李秋凤,曹玉凤,李建国
作者简介:
Corresponding author. E-mail: cyf278@126.com, lqf582@126.com, jgliauh@126.com基金资助:
Yuan-yuan WEN1(), Mei-qi ZHANG1, Tao-tao LIU1, Yi-zhao SHEN1, Yan-xia GAO1,2, Qiu-feng LI1,2(), Yu-feng CAO1,2(), Jian-guo LI1,2()
Received:
2020-07-06
Revised:
2020-08-10
Online:
2021-07-09
Published:
2021-07-09
Contact:
Qiu-feng LI,Yu-feng CAO,Jian-guo LI
摘要:
旨在探究生薯条加工副产品-稻草混贮(以下简称“薯稻混贮”)与全株玉米青贮间的组合效应。“薯稻混贮”是按照1∶2混合(混贮后的干物质含量为35%)、添加青贮添加剂、用搅拌机混匀、打捆裹包机裹包、发酵60 d制成。根据“薯稻混贮”与全株玉米青贮的不同比例分为7个组合,分别为T0组(0∶100)、T20组(20∶80)、T40组(40∶60)、T50组(50∶50)、T60组(60∶40)、T80组(80∶20)、T100组(100∶0),每个组合3个重复。通过体外产气法,测定各组合发酵48 h干物质降解率(DMD)、pH、氨态氮(NH3-N)浓度、微生物蛋白(MCP)产量以及挥发性脂肪酸(VFA)浓度等指标,测定各组合在发酵2、4、6、8、10、12、24、36和48 h的产气量(GP)。并计算每个单项组合效应指数(SFAEI)及综合效应指数(MFAEI)。结果表明:1)GP和DMD随“薯稻混贮”比例增加显著或极显著降低(P<0.05或P<0.01)。SFAEI中T50和T80组的GP和DMD最低,GP和DMD最高值均出现在T20组。2)不同组合发酵后的pH值为6.46~6.59,其中T80组pH最高,显著或极显著高于除T100组外的其他组别(P<0.05或P<0.01),SFAEI在T80组最高。3)各组合间NH3-N浓度、MCP产量无显著差异(P>0.05),但均以T40组最高,而SFAEI分别以T40和T80组最高。4)乙酸、丙酸、戊酸和TVFA浓度均以T0组最高,T100组最低,且两组间差异极显著(P<0.01);丁酸也以T0组浓度最高,但以T80组浓度最低。SFAEI指标中,乙、丙、丁酸分别以T80、T20和T60组最高。通过MFAEI指数评定得出,两种饲料组合均产生正组合效应,其中T40组(40∶60)最优,其次是T50组(50∶50)。
温媛媛, 张美琦, 刘桃桃, 沈宜钊, 高艳霞, 李秋凤, 曹玉凤, 李建国. 体外产气法评价生薯条加工副产品-稻草混贮与全株玉米青贮组合效应的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(8): 154-163.
Yuan-yuan WEN, Mei-qi ZHANG, Tao-tao LIU, Yi-zhao SHEN, Yan-xia GAO, Qiu-feng LI, Yu-feng CAO, Jian-guo LI. Associative effects between whole crop maize silage and mixed silage made from raw potato crisp processing by-product and rice straw as determined using an in vitro gas production technique[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(8): 154-163.
项目 Items | 薯稻混贮 Mixed silage | 全株玉米青贮 Whole corn silage |
---|---|---|
粗蛋白CP | 8.90 | 7.00 |
粗脂肪EE | 1.69 | 3.02 |
淀粉Starch | 13.24 | 31.65 |
中性洗涤纤维NDF | 57.12 | 48.61 |
酸性洗涤纤维ADF | 35.53 | 26.31 |
Ca | 0.42 | 0.28 |
P | 0.21 | 0.19 |
表1 “薯稻混贮”和全株玉米青贮营养成分
Table 1 Nutritional components of the mixed silage of raw potato crisp processing by-product with rice straw and whole corn silage (dry matter basis, %)
项目 Items | 薯稻混贮 Mixed silage | 全株玉米青贮 Whole corn silage |
---|---|---|
粗蛋白CP | 8.90 | 7.00 |
粗脂肪EE | 1.69 | 3.02 |
淀粉Starch | 13.24 | 31.65 |
中性洗涤纤维NDF | 57.12 | 48.61 |
酸性洗涤纤维ADF | 35.53 | 26.31 |
Ca | 0.42 | 0.28 |
P | 0.21 | 0.19 |
原料Ingredient | 含量Content (%) | 2)营养水平Nutrient levels | 含量Content |
---|---|---|---|
玉米Corn | 20.50 | 综合净能NEmf (MJ·kg-1) | 6.50 |
豆粕Soybean meal | 4.36 | 粗蛋白CP (%) | 13.93 |
棉粕Cottonseed meal | 9.36 | 中性洗涤纤维NDF (%) | 36.80 |
干酒糟及其可溶物DDGS | 3.69 | 酸性洗涤纤维ADF (%) | 17.10 |
石粉Limestone | 0.49 | Ca (%) | 0.65 |
1)预混料Premix | 0.50 | P (%) | 0.40 |
小苏打NaHCO3 | 0.70 | ||
食盐NaCl | 0.40 | ||
全株玉米青贮Whole corn silage | 40.00 | ||
羊草L. chinensis | 20.00 | ||
合计Total | 100.00 |
表2 瘘管牛饲粮配方及营养水平
Table 2 Diet composition and nutritional levels of cattle with permanent rumen fistula(dry matter basis)
原料Ingredient | 含量Content (%) | 2)营养水平Nutrient levels | 含量Content |
---|---|---|---|
玉米Corn | 20.50 | 综合净能NEmf (MJ·kg-1) | 6.50 |
豆粕Soybean meal | 4.36 | 粗蛋白CP (%) | 13.93 |
棉粕Cottonseed meal | 9.36 | 中性洗涤纤维NDF (%) | 36.80 |
干酒糟及其可溶物DDGS | 3.69 | 酸性洗涤纤维ADF (%) | 17.10 |
石粉Limestone | 0.49 | Ca (%) | 0.65 |
1)预混料Premix | 0.50 | P (%) | 0.40 |
小苏打NaHCO3 | 0.70 | ||
食盐NaCl | 0.40 | ||
全株玉米青贮Whole corn silage | 40.00 | ||
羊草L. chinensis | 20.00 | ||
合计Total | 100.00 |
组别 Groups | 发酵时间Fermentation time | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 h | 4 h | 6 h | 8 h | 10 h | 12 h | 24 h | 36 h | 48 h | |
T0 | 11.59±0.24Aa | 20.78±0.13Aa | 32.10±0.23Aa | 47.30±0.49Aa | 60.09±0.74Aa | 71.40±1.00Aa | 106.35±1.41Aa | 129.59±1.80Aa | 146.46±2.33Aa |
T20 | 11.32±0.14ABa | 19.69±0.23Bb | 30.32±0.36Bb | 44.38±0.48Bb | 56.04±0.50Bb | 66.80±0.70Bb | 100.25±0.75Bb | 123.64±1.04Bb | 140.51±1.27Bb |
T40 | 10.90±0.14BCb | 19.55±0.27BCbc | 28.53±0.36Cc | 43.89±0.50Cc | 50.90±0.77Cc | 60.56±1.12Cc | 93.02±1.26Cc | 114.89±1.49Cc | 130.31±2.15Cc |
T50 | 10.49±0.14CDbc | 18.73±0.49CDcd | 27.17±0.41Dd | 38.55±0.47Dd | 47.74±0.83Dd | 56.73±1.19Dd | 87.88±1.26Dd | 109.59±0.95Dd | 123.86±0.88Dd |
T60 | 10.35±0.01DEc | 18.45±0.23Dd | 25.96±0.46Ee | 36.10±0.62Ee | 44.78±1.06Ee | 52.92±1.54Ee | 81.98±2.53Ee | 102.33±2.48Ee | 116.04±2.79Ee |
T80 | 10.07±0.14DEce | 18.58±0.14Dd | 25.69±0.14Ee | 35.01±0.36Ee | 42.98±0.24Ee | 50.75±1.39Ee | 79.32±0.73Ee | 98.63±0.59Ee | 112.04±0.46Ee |
T100 | 9.66±0.14Ee | 17.37±0.35Ee | 23.54±0.61Ff | 31.52±0.74Ff | 38.15±1.05Ff | 45.39±1.56Ff | 74.44±1.44Ff | 92.85±1.27Ff | 105.71±1.05Ff |
SEM | 0.21 | 0.41 | 0.56 | 0.76 | 1.12 | 1.50 | 2.05 | 2.11 | 2.48 |
P值P-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
表3 “薯稻混贮”与全株玉米青贮不同组合对体外发酵产气量的影响
Table 3 Effects of different proportions of the mixed silage of raw potato chips processing by-product with rice straw and whole corn silage on gas production in vitro fermentation(mL·g-1)
组别 Groups | 发酵时间Fermentation time | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 h | 4 h | 6 h | 8 h | 10 h | 12 h | 24 h | 36 h | 48 h | |
T0 | 11.59±0.24Aa | 20.78±0.13Aa | 32.10±0.23Aa | 47.30±0.49Aa | 60.09±0.74Aa | 71.40±1.00Aa | 106.35±1.41Aa | 129.59±1.80Aa | 146.46±2.33Aa |
T20 | 11.32±0.14ABa | 19.69±0.23Bb | 30.32±0.36Bb | 44.38±0.48Bb | 56.04±0.50Bb | 66.80±0.70Bb | 100.25±0.75Bb | 123.64±1.04Bb | 140.51±1.27Bb |
T40 | 10.90±0.14BCb | 19.55±0.27BCbc | 28.53±0.36Cc | 43.89±0.50Cc | 50.90±0.77Cc | 60.56±1.12Cc | 93.02±1.26Cc | 114.89±1.49Cc | 130.31±2.15Cc |
T50 | 10.49±0.14CDbc | 18.73±0.49CDcd | 27.17±0.41Dd | 38.55±0.47Dd | 47.74±0.83Dd | 56.73±1.19Dd | 87.88±1.26Dd | 109.59±0.95Dd | 123.86±0.88Dd |
T60 | 10.35±0.01DEc | 18.45±0.23Dd | 25.96±0.46Ee | 36.10±0.62Ee | 44.78±1.06Ee | 52.92±1.54Ee | 81.98±2.53Ee | 102.33±2.48Ee | 116.04±2.79Ee |
T80 | 10.07±0.14DEce | 18.58±0.14Dd | 25.69±0.14Ee | 35.01±0.36Ee | 42.98±0.24Ee | 50.75±1.39Ee | 79.32±0.73Ee | 98.63±0.59Ee | 112.04±0.46Ee |
T100 | 9.66±0.14Ee | 17.37±0.35Ee | 23.54±0.61Ff | 31.52±0.74Ff | 38.15±1.05Ff | 45.39±1.56Ff | 74.44±1.44Ff | 92.85±1.27Ff | 105.71±1.05Ff |
SEM | 0.21 | 0.41 | 0.56 | 0.76 | 1.12 | 1.50 | 2.05 | 2.11 | 2.48 |
P值P-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
组合 Groups | 干物质降解率 Dry matter degradation (DMD, %) | pH | 氨态氮 Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N, mg·dL-1) | 微生物蛋白Microbial protein (MCP, mg·mL-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|
T0 | 71.10±1.48Aa | 6.46±0.02Bd | 8.60±0.43Aa | 2.77±0.05Aa |
T20 | 70.70±1.10Aa | 6.47±0.01Bd | 8.50±0.65Aa | 2.71±0.71Aa |
T40 | 68.00±0.32ABab | 6.52±0.01ABcd | 8.69±0.07Aa | 2.93±0.11Aa |
T50 | 66.65±0.79ABCabc | 6.51±0.01ABcd | 8.60±0.09Aa | 2.88±0.07Aa |
T60 | 65.58±2.33ABCbc | 6.53±0.02ABbc | 8.59±0.09Aa | 2.84±0.08Aa |
T80 | 63.05±1.93BCcd | 6.59±0.03Aa | 8.47±0.31Aa | 2.72±0.02Aa |
T100 | 60.54±1.66Cd | 6.58±0.01Aab | 7.96±0.27Aa | 2.71±0.32Aa |
SEM | 2.20 | 0.03 | 0.59 | 0.23 |
P值P-value | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.910 | 0.200 |
表4 “薯稻混贮”与全株玉米青贮不同组合对体外发酵参数的影响
Table 4 Effects of different proportions of the mixed silage of raw potato chips processing by-product with rice straw and whole corn silage on fermentation parameters in vitro
组合 Groups | 干物质降解率 Dry matter degradation (DMD, %) | pH | 氨态氮 Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N, mg·dL-1) | 微生物蛋白Microbial protein (MCP, mg·mL-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|
T0 | 71.10±1.48Aa | 6.46±0.02Bd | 8.60±0.43Aa | 2.77±0.05Aa |
T20 | 70.70±1.10Aa | 6.47±0.01Bd | 8.50±0.65Aa | 2.71±0.71Aa |
T40 | 68.00±0.32ABab | 6.52±0.01ABcd | 8.69±0.07Aa | 2.93±0.11Aa |
T50 | 66.65±0.79ABCabc | 6.51±0.01ABcd | 8.60±0.09Aa | 2.88±0.07Aa |
T60 | 65.58±2.33ABCbc | 6.53±0.02ABbc | 8.59±0.09Aa | 2.84±0.08Aa |
T80 | 63.05±1.93BCcd | 6.59±0.03Aa | 8.47±0.31Aa | 2.72±0.02Aa |
T100 | 60.54±1.66Cd | 6.58±0.01Aab | 7.96±0.27Aa | 2.71±0.32Aa |
SEM | 2.20 | 0.03 | 0.59 | 0.23 |
P值P-value | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.910 | 0.200 |
组别 Groups | 乙酸 Acetic acid (AA) | 丙酸 Propionic acid (PA) | 异丁酸 Isobutyric acid | 丁酸 Butyric acid | 异戊酸 Isovaleric acid | 戊酸 Valeric acid | 总挥发性脂肪酸 Total volatile fatty acid | 乙酸/丙酸 AA/PA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T0 | 49.92±0.75Aa | 27.73±0.26Aa | 0.54±0.01a | 9.03±0.10Aa | 0.69±0.01a | 0.97±0.01Aa | 88.88±1.08Aa | 1.80±0.01Gg |
T20 | 49.14±0.44ABab | 26.64±0.21Aa | 0.55±0.01a | 9.00±0.13Aa | 0.70±0.01a | 0.85±0.01Bb | 86.88±0.74Baa | 1.84±0.01Ff |
T40 | 46.23±0.76Bc | 24.20±0.45Bb | 0.54±0.01a | 8.69±0.09Ab | 0.70±0.01a | 0.92±0.01ABa | 81.27±1.28BCbc | 1.91±0.01Ee |
T50 | 47.08±1.06ABbc | 24.11±0.57Bb | 0.55±0.01a | 8.67±0.10Ab | 0.70±0.01a | 0.81±0.02Cbc | 81.93±1.74BCb | 1.95±0.01Dd |
T60 | 45.45±1.23BCc | 22.50±0.65BCc | 0.55±0.01a | 8.62±0.06Ab | 0.69±0.01a | 0.77±0.03CDc | 78.02±1.96Cbc | 2.02±0.01Cc |
T80 | 45.67±0.87BCc | 21.85±0.38Cc | 0.55±0.01a | 7.94±0.08Bc | 0.70±0.01a | 0.68±0.02Dd | 77.39±1.18CDc | 2.09±0.01Bb |
T100 | 42.32±0.77Cd | 19.75±0.46Dd | 0.54±0.01a | 8.08±0.15Bc | 0.68±0.01a | 0.68±0.04Dd | 72.06±1.34Dd | 2.14±0.01Aa |
SEM | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.98 | 0.02 |
P值P-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.723 | <0.001 | 0.951 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
表5 “薯稻混贮”与全株玉米青贮不同组合对体外发酵挥发性脂肪酸浓度的影响
Table 5 Effects of different proportions of the mixed silage of raw potato chips processing by-product with rice straw and whole corn silage on the concentration of volatile fatty acids in vitro fermentation (mmol·L-1)
组别 Groups | 乙酸 Acetic acid (AA) | 丙酸 Propionic acid (PA) | 异丁酸 Isobutyric acid | 丁酸 Butyric acid | 异戊酸 Isovaleric acid | 戊酸 Valeric acid | 总挥发性脂肪酸 Total volatile fatty acid | 乙酸/丙酸 AA/PA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T0 | 49.92±0.75Aa | 27.73±0.26Aa | 0.54±0.01a | 9.03±0.10Aa | 0.69±0.01a | 0.97±0.01Aa | 88.88±1.08Aa | 1.80±0.01Gg |
T20 | 49.14±0.44ABab | 26.64±0.21Aa | 0.55±0.01a | 9.00±0.13Aa | 0.70±0.01a | 0.85±0.01Bb | 86.88±0.74Baa | 1.84±0.01Ff |
T40 | 46.23±0.76Bc | 24.20±0.45Bb | 0.54±0.01a | 8.69±0.09Ab | 0.70±0.01a | 0.92±0.01ABa | 81.27±1.28BCbc | 1.91±0.01Ee |
T50 | 47.08±1.06ABbc | 24.11±0.57Bb | 0.55±0.01a | 8.67±0.10Ab | 0.70±0.01a | 0.81±0.02Cbc | 81.93±1.74BCb | 1.95±0.01Dd |
T60 | 45.45±1.23BCc | 22.50±0.65BCc | 0.55±0.01a | 8.62±0.06Ab | 0.69±0.01a | 0.77±0.03CDc | 78.02±1.96Cbc | 2.02±0.01Cc |
T80 | 45.67±0.87BCc | 21.85±0.38Cc | 0.55±0.01a | 7.94±0.08Bc | 0.70±0.01a | 0.68±0.02Dd | 77.39±1.18CDc | 2.09±0.01Bb |
T100 | 42.32±0.77Cd | 19.75±0.46Dd | 0.54±0.01a | 8.08±0.15Bc | 0.68±0.01a | 0.68±0.04Dd | 72.06±1.34Dd | 2.14±0.01Aa |
SEM | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.98 | 0.02 |
P值P-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.723 | <0.001 | 0.951 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
项目Items | T20 | T40 | T50 | T60 | T80 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
48 h产气量Gas production (GP48 h) | 0.0159 | 0.0011 | -0.0176 | -0.0490 | -0.0159 |
干物质降解率Dry matter degradation (DMD) | 0.0247 | 0.0168 | 0.0127 | 0.0125 | 0.0063 |
pH | -0.0026 | 0.0015 | -0.0013 | -0.0005 | 0.0051 |
氨态氮Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) | 0.0037 | 0.0420 | 0.0387 | 0.0458 | 0.0469 |
微生物蛋白Microbial protein (MCP) | -0.0192 | 0.0647 | 0.0507 | 0.0423 | -0.0007 |
乙酸Acetic acid | 0.0152 | -0.0135 | 0.0211 | 0.0022 | 0.0418 |
丙酸Propionic acid | 0.0191 | -0.0140 | 0.0154 | -0.0191 | 0.0234 |
丁酸Butyric acid | 0.0179 | 0.0037 | 0.0135 | 0.0190 | -0.0399 |
综合效应指数Multiple-factors associative effects index (MFAEI) | 0.0462 | 0.1942 | 0.1648 | 0.0450 | 0.0401 |
表6 “薯稻混贮”与全株玉米青贮不同组合对体外发酵组合效应指数的影响
Table 6 Effects of different proportions of the mixed silage of raw potato chips processing by-product with rice straw and whole corn silage on the associative effect index in vitro fermentation
项目Items | T20 | T40 | T50 | T60 | T80 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
48 h产气量Gas production (GP48 h) | 0.0159 | 0.0011 | -0.0176 | -0.0490 | -0.0159 |
干物质降解率Dry matter degradation (DMD) | 0.0247 | 0.0168 | 0.0127 | 0.0125 | 0.0063 |
pH | -0.0026 | 0.0015 | -0.0013 | -0.0005 | 0.0051 |
氨态氮Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) | 0.0037 | 0.0420 | 0.0387 | 0.0458 | 0.0469 |
微生物蛋白Microbial protein (MCP) | -0.0192 | 0.0647 | 0.0507 | 0.0423 | -0.0007 |
乙酸Acetic acid | 0.0152 | -0.0135 | 0.0211 | 0.0022 | 0.0418 |
丙酸Propionic acid | 0.0191 | -0.0140 | 0.0154 | -0.0191 | 0.0234 |
丁酸Butyric acid | 0.0179 | 0.0037 | 0.0135 | 0.0190 | -0.0399 |
综合效应指数Multiple-factors associative effects index (MFAEI) | 0.0462 | 0.1942 | 0.1648 | 0.0450 | 0.0401 |
1 | Wang H L, Niu J B. Current situation and countermeasures of potato industry development in Changzhi City. Seed Science and Technology, 2015, 33(9): 35-36. |
王海亮, 牛军兵. 长治市马铃薯产业发展现状与对策. 种子科技, 2015, 33(9): 35-36. | |
2 | Wang Z, Gu Z B, Hong Y. Review: Exploitation and utilization of potato pulp. Journal of the Chinese Cereals and Oils Association, 2007, 22(2): 133-136. |
王卓, 顾正彪, 洪雁. 马铃薯渣的开发与利用. 中国粮油学报, 2007, 22(2): 133-136. | |
3 | Gu Z B, Cheng L, Hong Y, et al. Effective utilization technology of potato pulp produced from potato starch industry. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2013, 31(1): 64-69. |
顾正彪, 程力, 洪雁, 等. 马铃薯淀粉生产过程中薯渣的有效利用技术.食品科学技术学报, 2013, 31(1): 64-69. | |
4 | Lei H, Cao B H, Yang F Y, et al. Potato starch residue as a substrate for microbial fermentation. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2011, 23(11): 1891-1897. |
雷恒, 曹兵海, 杨富裕, 等. 利用微生物发酵马铃薯淀粉渣的研究进展. 动物营养学报, 2011, 23(11): 1891-1897. | |
5 | Yun J, Liu L, An Z, et al. Technology of single cell protein feed production from raw potato starch residue by multi-strains solid fermentation.Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2010, 26(S2): 399-404. |
6 | Li S S, Dong H R, Li X, et al. Analysis on the current situation and influencing factors of crop straw utilization in Hebei Province. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2015(3): 6-8. |
李珊珊, 董海荣, 李霞, 等. 河北省农作物秸秆利用现状及其影响因素分析. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2015(3): 6-8. | |
7 | Ouyang K H, Yi Z H, Qu M R, et al. New technology of straw feed resource development and utilization. Feed Research, 2010(4): 72-74. |
欧阳克蕙, 易中华, 瞿明仁, 等. 稻草饲料资源开发利用新技术. 饲料研究, 2010(4): 72-74. | |
8 | Wu X J. Effects of different treatments on fermentation quality of silage. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2005. |
吴晓杰. 不同处理方式对青贮饲料质量影响的试验研究. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2005. | |
9 | Wang H Z, Peng Q H, Kang K, et al. Effects of mixing ratio on quality of sweet potato vines, distilled grains and rice straw mixed silage. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2014, 26(12): 3868-3876. |
王鸿泽, 彭全辉, 康坤, 等. 不同混合比例对甘薯蔓、酒糟及稻草混合青贮品质的影响. 动物营养学报, 2014, 26(12): 3868-3876. | |
10 | Wang Y J, Guo H, Tian X E. Technical route and key technology of crop straws as feed application. Acta Ecologiae Animalis Domastici, 2015, 36(12): 6-11. |
王永军, 郭航, 田秀娥. 农作物秸秆饲料化的技术路线与关键技术.家畜生态学报, 2015, 36(12): 6-11. | |
11 | Sun G Q, Lv Y Y, Zhang J J. A study on the associative effect of whole corn silage-peanut vine and Leymus chinensis by rumen fermentation in vitro. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(3): 224-231. |
孙国强, 吕永艳, 张杰杰. 利用体外瘤胃发酵法研究全株玉米青贮与花生蔓和羊草间的组合效应. 草业学报, 2014, 23(3): 224-231. | |
12 | Zhang Y W, Sun S H, Zhao G X, et al. Study on the associated effect of apple pomace silage and corn silage. China Feed, 2015(17):28-30, 35. |
张一为, 孙少华, 赵国先, 等. 苹果渣青贮与全株玉米青贮组合效应研究. 中国饲料, 2015(17): 28-30, 35. | |
13 | General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of China. Determination of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) in feds. GB/T 20806-2006. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2007. |
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中中性洗涤纤维(NDF) 的测定. GB/T 20806-2006. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2007. | |
14 | The Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China. Determination of acid detergent fiber in feed. NY/T 1459-2007. Beijing: Agricultural Press, 2008. |
中华人民共和国农业农村部. 饲料中酸性洗涤纤维的测定. NY/T1459-2007. 北京: 农业出版社, 2008. | |
15 | State Bureau of Technical Supervision of China (CSBTS). Determination of crude protein in feed. GB/T6432-1994. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 1994. |
国家技术监督局. 饲料中粗蛋白测定方法. GB/T6432-1994. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1994. | |
16 | General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of China. Determination of crude fat in feeds. GB/T 6433-2006. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2006. |
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中粗脂肪的测定. GB/T 6433-2006. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2006. | |
17 | General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China. Determination of calcium in feed. GB/T 6436-2002. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2002. |
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局. 饲料中钙的测定. GB/T 6436-2002. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2002. | |
18 | General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China. Determination of total phosphorus in feed by spectrophotometry. GB/T 6437-2002. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2002. |
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局. 饲料中磷的测定分光光度计法. GB/T 6437-2002. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2002. | |
19 | Menke K H, Raab L, Salewski A, et al. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 1979, 93(1): 217-222. |
20 | Mauricio R M, Mould F L, Dhanoa M S, et al. A semi-automated in vitro gas production technique for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1999, 79(4): 321-330. |
21 | Ørskov E R, Mcdonald I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 1979, 92(2): 499-503. |
22 | Feng Z C, Gao M. Improvement of colorimetric method for determination of ammonia nitrogen in rumen fluid. Inner Mongolian Journal of Animal Science and Production, 1993(4): 40-41. |
冯宗慈, 高民. 通过比色测定瘤胃液氨氮含量方法的改进. 内蒙古畜牧科学, 1993(4): 40-41. | |
23 | Su H Y. Study on associative effects between mulberry leaves (Morus alba) and oil-seed meals in ruminants. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2002. |
苏海涯. 反刍动物日粮中桑叶与饼粕类饲料间组合效应的研究. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2002. | |
24 | Erwin E S, Marco G J, Emery E M. Volatile fatty acid analyses of blood and rumen fluid by gas chromatography. Journal of Dairy Science, 1961, 44(9): 1768-1771. |
25 | Wang X. A technique for formulation of mixed forages by grading index and systematic optimization of sheep ration based on the technique. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2003. |
王旭. 利用GI技术对粗饲料进行科学搭配及绵羊日粮配方系统优化技术的研究. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2003. | |
26 | Gao L P, Meng M J, Bai Y F, et al. Effects of different roughage combinations on dietary nutrient apparent digestibility and nitrogen balance of goats. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2016, 28(8): 2396-2403. |
高立鹏, 孟梅娟, 白云峰, 等. 不同粗饲料组合对山羊饲粮养分表观消化率及氮平衡的影响. 动物营养学报, 2016, 28(8): 2396-2403. | |
27 | Cone J W, Van Gelder A H. Influence of protein fermentation on gas production profiles. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1999, 76(3/4): 251-264. |
28 | Groot J C, Cone J W, Williams B A, et al. Multiphasic analysis of gas production kinetics for in vitro fermentation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1996, 64(1): 77-89. |
29 | Lei D Z, Jin S G, Ulintana. Evaluation of the associative effects of same concentration and different forages by gas production method in vitro. Feed Industry, 2009, 30(3): 30-33. |
雷冬至, 金曙光, 乌仁塔娜. 用体外产气法评价不同粗饲料与相同精料间的组合效应.饲料工业, 2009, 30(3): 30-33. | |
30 | Ma S N, Xu G S, Wang X H, et al. Correlation analysis between in vitro gas production and effective degradation rate of common concentrates for mutton sheep in Southern Xinjiang. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2018, 30(3): 1052-1062. |
马绍楠, 许贵善, 王晓慧, 等. 新疆南疆地区肉羊常用精饲料体外产气量与有效降解率的相关性分析.动物营养学报, 2018, 30(3): 1052-1062. | |
31 | Blümmel M, Makkar H P S, Becker K. In vitro gas production: A technique revisited. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 1997, 77(1/2/3/4/5): 24-34. |
32 | Feng Y L. Nutrition of ruminant animals. Beijing: Science Press, 2004. |
冯仰廉. 反刍动物营养学. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004. | |
33 | Stritzler N P, Wolstrup J, Eggum B O. Factors affecting degradation of barley straw in sacco and microbial activity in the rumen of cows fed fibre-rich dietsⅡ: The level of supplemental fishmeal. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1998, 70(1/2): 11-22. |
34 | Assoumani M B, Vedeau F, Jacquot L, et al. Refinement of an enzymatic method for estimating the theoretical degradability of proteins in feedstuffs for ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1992, 39(3/4): 357-368. |
35 | Liu Z, Zhang C J, Hao Z L, et al. Effects of total pellet feed diet with different straws on the rumen and blood metabolism parameters for sheep. China Feed, 2005(11): 12-14. |
刘哲, 张昌吉, 郝正里, 等. 饲喂含不同秸秆的全日粮颗粒料对绵羊瘤胃及血液代谢参数的影响. 中国饲料, 2005(11): 12-14. | |
36 | McDonald P, Edwards R A. The influence of conservation methods on digestion and utilization of forages by ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 1976, 35(2): 201-211. |
37 | Guo D S, Peng X L. Study on the utilization of urea in ruminant. Hunan Feed, 2001(4): 24-25. |
郭冬生, 彭小兰. 反刍动物尿素利用情况的探讨. 湖南饲料, 2001(4): 24-25. | |
38 | Nocek J E, Russell J B. Protein and energy as an integrated system. Relationship of ruminal protein and carbohydrate availability to microbial synthesis and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science, 1988, 71(8): 2070-2107. |
39 | Whitelaw F G, Eadie J M, Bruce L A, et al. Methane formation in faunated and ciliate-free cattle and its relationship with rumen volatile fatty acid proportions. British Journal of Nutrition, 1984, 52(2): 261-275. |
40 | Hao Z M, Wang J, Zhu L J, et al. Effect of acetic acid/propionic acid ratio on rumen microbial fermentation in vitro and protein production. Guangdong Feed, 2011, 20(8): 20-24. |
郝志敏, 王景, 朱靓婧, 等. 乙酸/丙酸比例对瘤胃微生物体外发酵和蛋白产量的影响. 广东饲料, 2011, 20(8): 20-24. | |
41 | Penner G B, Oba M, Gäbel G, et al. A single mild episode of subacute ruminal acidosis does not affect ruminal barrier function in the short term. Journal of Dairy Science, 2010, 93(10): 4838-4845. |
42 | Leng R A. Factors affecting the utilization of ‘poor-quality’forages by ruminants particularly under tropical conditions. Nutrition Research Reviews, 1990, 3(1): 277-303. |
43 | Bu T L. In vitro gas test to evaluate associative effects between corn silage, Chinese wild hay and alfalfa. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2006. |
布同良. 体外产气法评定青贮玉米、羊草和苜蓿草之间的组合效应. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2006. | |
44 | Tan Z L, Lu D X. The research progress of systematic combined nutrition technology and its combined effect to improve the utilization efficiency of roughage. Feed Review, 1999, 11(7): 6-10. |
谭支良, 卢德勋. 提高粗饲料利用效率的系统组合营养技术及其组合效应的研究进展. 饲料博览, 1999, 11(7): 6-10. | |
45 | Meng M J, Tu Y L, Bai Y F, et al. Study of associative effects of wheat straw mixed with rice bran meal on in vitro fermentation parameters. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(9): 161-172. |
孟梅娟, 涂远璐, 白云峰, 等. 小麦秸秆与米糠粕瘤胃体外发酵组合效应研究. 草业学报, 2016, 25(9): 161-172. |
[1] | 张丹丹, 张元庆, 程景, 靳光, 李博, 王栋才, 徐芳, 孙锐锋. 不同粗饲料组合对晋南牛瘤胃体外发酵特性的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(7): 93-100. |
[2] | 黄丽琴, 李松桥, 袁振中, 唐晶, 闫景彩, 唐启源. 全株水稻与平菇菌糠共发酵料对浏阳黑山羊屠宰性能、肉品质和器官指数的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(6): 133-140. |
[3] | 周恩光, 王虎成, 尚占环. 甜高粱的饲用价值及其绵羊体外瘤胃发酵产气性能研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 43-49. |
[4] | 付锦涛, 王学凯, 倪奎奎, 杨富裕. 添加乳酸菌和糖蜜对全株构树和稻草混合青贮的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 121-128. |
[5] | 涂瑞, 苗建军, 彭忠利, 高彦华, 柏雪, 谢昕廷. 不同精粗比日粮中添加小肽对牦牛瘤胃体外发酵特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 78-88. |
[6] | 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. |
[7] | 张霞, 李妙善, 周恩光, 王虎成. 西北地区4种优质饲草的肉牛体外瘤胃发酵性能研究[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(9): 135-145. |
[8] | 唐德富, 袁玖, 王彦乾, 王燕娜, 王娟丽, 刘自强, 寇伟, 崔仲勇, 张泽岩, 赵祥民, 万欣杰. 玉米芯与苜蓿、精料配比对饲粮组合效应的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 137-147. |
[9] | 梁婷玉, 郞侠, 吴建平, 王彩莲, 刘立山, 张瑞, 韦胜. 燕麦与苜蓿不同比例组合对驴盲肠体外发酵的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 185-195. |
[10] | 周瑞, 刘立山, 吴建平, 韦胜, 郎侠, 王彩莲. 牛至精油对绵羊瘤胃体外养分降解率、发酵特性及CH4产量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(11): 168-176. |
[11] | 袁玖, 唐德富, 万欣杰, 朱宝珍, 何天乐, 俞海山, 王军军. 不同精粗比下柚子皮与苜蓿配比对绵羊饲粮组合效应影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(6): 188-196. |
[12] | 庄二林, 王慧娟, 田秀娥, 万美娇, 张阳, 王永军. 尼龙袋法评定苜蓿和谷草的组合效应评估[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(5): 201-209. |
[13] | 吴征敏, 王志敬, 吴浩浩, 李政, 李文威, 庄桂锋, 尹福泉, 赵志辉. 象草与皇竹草组合效应的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(2): 135-145. |
[14] | 袁玖, 万欣杰. 茴香、向日葵、棉花副产品配比苜蓿对饲粮组合效应研究[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(2): 163-172. |
[15] | 张毕阳, 赵桂琴, 焦婷, 柴继宽, 苟智强, 许兴泽, 闫车太. 饲粮中添加燕麦干草对绵羊体外发酵的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(2): 182-191. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||