草业学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (5): 165-173.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020372
谢展1(), 穆麟1, 张志飞1(), 陈桂华1, 刘洋2, 高帅2, 魏仲珊2
收稿日期:
2020-08-03
修回日期:
2020-10-10
出版日期:
2021-05-20
发布日期:
2021-04-16
通讯作者:
张志飞
作者简介:
Corresponding author. E-mail: zhangzf@hunau.edu.cn基金资助:
Zhan XIE1(), Lin MU1, Zhi-fei ZHANG1(), Gui-hua CHEN1, Yang LIU2, Shuai GAO2, Zhong-shan WEI2
Received:
2020-08-03
Revised:
2020-10-10
Online:
2021-05-20
Published:
2021-04-16
Contact:
Zhi-fei ZHANG
摘要:
以紫花苜蓿、稻秸和麦麸按质量比8∶1∶1为混合青贮原料,设计双因素试验,因素A:乳酸菌(LA)和有机酸盐(AS),因素B:尿素添加量分别为1.5(U1)、3.0(U2)和4.5(U3)g·kg-1FW和未添加组(U0)。青贮45 d后分析发酵品质、营养品质和有氧稳定性,结果表明:乳酸菌处理组的pH值、粗蛋白含量、中性洗涤纤维含量、酸性洗涤纤维含量和相对饲料价值等指标均显著优于有机酸盐处理组(P<0.05),乳酸菌处理组的乙酸、丙酸、丁酸含量和氨态氮/总氮显著低于有机酸盐处理组(P<0.05)。U3处理组的pH值、乙酸、丙酸和丁酸含量和氨态氮/总氮显著高于其他3组;U0处理组的中性洗涤纤维、酸性洗涤纤维和可溶性碳水化合物含量均高于其他3组,U0处理组的粗蛋白质含量显著低于其他3组(P<0.05)。添加乳酸菌的同时添加1.5或3.0 g·kg-1FW的尿素,混合青贮效果最佳。
谢展, 穆麟, 张志飞, 陈桂华, 刘洋, 高帅, 魏仲珊. 乳酸菌或有机酸盐与尿素复配添加对紫花苜蓿混合青贮的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(5): 165-173.
Zhan XIE, Lin MU, Zhi-fei ZHANG, Gui-hua CHEN, Yang LIU, Shuai GAO, Zhong-shan WEI. Effects on fermentation in alfalfa mixed silage of added lactic acid bacteria or organic acid salt combined with urea[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(5): 165-173.
青贮材料 Ensilage materials | 干物质 Dry matter (%FW) | 粗蛋白质 Crude protein (%DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | 可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
紫花苜蓿Alfalfa | 26.64±0.45 | 22.00±0.35 | 28.46±0.23 | 42.92±0.18 | 4.12±0.05 |
水稻秸秆Rice straw | 89.30±0.00 | 4.13±0.15 | 39.84±0.75 | 70.98±0.23 | 1.64±0.08 |
麦麸Wheat bran | 89.70±0.10 | 15.68±0.05 | 18.88±0.57 | 39.08±9.17 | 4.99±0.04 |
表1 青贮原料化学成分
Table 1 Chemical composition of ensilage materials
青贮材料 Ensilage materials | 干物质 Dry matter (%FW) | 粗蛋白质 Crude protein (%DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | 可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
紫花苜蓿Alfalfa | 26.64±0.45 | 22.00±0.35 | 28.46±0.23 | 42.92±0.18 | 4.12±0.05 |
水稻秸秆Rice straw | 89.30±0.00 | 4.13±0.15 | 39.84±0.75 | 70.98±0.23 | 1.64±0.08 |
麦麸Wheat bran | 89.70±0.10 | 15.68±0.05 | 18.88±0.57 | 39.08±9.17 | 4.99±0.04 |
项目 Item | 指标 Index | 菌酸添加剂 Microbial acid additive | 尿素添加量Urea addition | 交互作用 Interaction |
---|---|---|---|---|
发酵品质Fermentation quality | pH值 pH value | * | NS | ** |
乳酸 Lactic acid | NS | NS | NS | |
乙酸 Acetic acid | ** | ** | * | |
丙酸 Propionic acid | NS | NS | ** | |
丁酸 Butyric acid | NS | NS | ** | |
氨态氮/总氮NH3-N/TN | * | ** | NS | |
营养成分Nutrient quality | 干物质Dry matter | NS | * | NS |
粗蛋白质 Crude protein | NS | NS | ** | |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber | NS | NS | ** | |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber | NS | NS | ** | |
可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate | NS | NS | NS | |
相对饲料价值 Relative feed value | NS | NS | ** |
表2 添加剂种类和尿素添加量对紫花苜蓿混合青贮的影响
Table 2 Effects of additive types and different urea addition on alfalfa mixed silage
项目 Item | 指标 Index | 菌酸添加剂 Microbial acid additive | 尿素添加量Urea addition | 交互作用 Interaction |
---|---|---|---|---|
发酵品质Fermentation quality | pH值 pH value | * | NS | ** |
乳酸 Lactic acid | NS | NS | NS | |
乙酸 Acetic acid | ** | ** | * | |
丙酸 Propionic acid | NS | NS | ** | |
丁酸 Butyric acid | NS | NS | ** | |
氨态氮/总氮NH3-N/TN | * | ** | NS | |
营养成分Nutrient quality | 干物质Dry matter | NS | * | NS |
粗蛋白质 Crude protein | NS | NS | ** | |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber | NS | NS | ** | |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber | NS | NS | ** | |
可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate | NS | NS | NS | |
相对饲料价值 Relative feed value | NS | NS | ** |
项目 Item | 指标Index | LA | AS |
---|---|---|---|
发酵品质Fermentation quality | pH值 pH value | 4.44±0.22b | 4.75±0.25a |
乳酸 Lactic acid (%DM) | 6.50±0.71a | 5.53±1.11a | |
乙酸 Acetic acid (%DM) | 0.96±0.08b | 1.16±0.33a | |
丙酸 Propionic acid (%DM) | 0.04±0.01b | 0.08±0.08a | |
丁酸 Butyric acid (%DM) | 0.01±0.02b | 0.08±0.08a | |
氨态氮/总氮NH3-N/TN (%) | 8.91±3.60b | 10.06±3.12a | |
营养成分Nutrient quality | 干物质Dry matter (%FW) | 39.00±1.88a | 38.87±1.65a |
粗蛋白质 Crude protein (%DM) | 17.03±0.57a | 16.79±0.66b | |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | 37.58±1.55b | 41.35±2.66a | |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | 21.46±1.79b | 22.23±1.53a | |
可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM) | 0.88±0.16b | 1.05±0.11a | |
相对饲料价值 Relative feed value | 179.06±10.02a | 161.81±13.03b |
表3 菌酸添加剂对紫花苜蓿混合青贮营养品质和发酵品质的影响
Table 3 Effects of different additives on fermentation quality and nutrient quality of the alfalfa mixed silage
项目 Item | 指标Index | LA | AS |
---|---|---|---|
发酵品质Fermentation quality | pH值 pH value | 4.44±0.22b | 4.75±0.25a |
乳酸 Lactic acid (%DM) | 6.50±0.71a | 5.53±1.11a | |
乙酸 Acetic acid (%DM) | 0.96±0.08b | 1.16±0.33a | |
丙酸 Propionic acid (%DM) | 0.04±0.01b | 0.08±0.08a | |
丁酸 Butyric acid (%DM) | 0.01±0.02b | 0.08±0.08a | |
氨态氮/总氮NH3-N/TN (%) | 8.91±3.60b | 10.06±3.12a | |
营养成分Nutrient quality | 干物质Dry matter (%FW) | 39.00±1.88a | 38.87±1.65a |
粗蛋白质 Crude protein (%DM) | 17.03±0.57a | 16.79±0.66b | |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | 37.58±1.55b | 41.35±2.66a | |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | 21.46±1.79b | 22.23±1.53a | |
可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM) | 0.88±0.16b | 1.05±0.11a | |
相对饲料价值 Relative feed value | 179.06±10.02a | 161.81±13.03b |
项目 Item | 指标Index | U0 | U1 | U2 | U3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
发酵品质 Fermentation quality | pH值 pH value | 4.44±0.15c | 4.38±0.12d | 4.67±0.32b | 4.90±0.13a |
乳酸 Lactic acid (%DM) | 6.34±0.85a | 6.34±0.38a | 5.94±1.03a | 5.45±1.64a | |
乙酸 Acetic acid (%DM) | 0.95±0.09b | 0.93±0.03b | 1.01±0.02b | 1.37±0.38a | |
丙酸 Propionic acid (%DM) | 0.03±0.00b | 0.03±0.00b | 0.04±0.01b | 0.12±0.10a | |
丁酸 Butyric acid (%DM) | 0.02±0.02c | 0.00±0.00d | 0.03±0.03b | 0.12±0.10a | |
氨态氮/总氮NH3-N/TN (%) | 6.93±1.04c | 7.25±1.12c | 9.05±1.19b | 14.72±0.96a | |
营养成分 Nutrient quality | 干物质Dry matter (%FW) | 38.97±1.11b | 41.27±0.65a | 38.12±1.09bc | 37.38±0.84c |
粗蛋白质 Crude protein (%DM) | 16.17±0.09d | 16.76±0.30c | 17.52±0.32a | 17.19±0.55b | |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | 41.65±2.78a | 37.40±1.78c | 38.70±1.03c | 40.11±3.73b | |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | 23.47±0.65a | 21.10±0.60b | 21.46±0.81b | 21.33±2.67b | |
可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM) | 0.93±0.15a | 1.06±0.12ab | 0.98±0.22ab | 0.90±0.09b | |
相对饲料价值 Relative feed value | 158.32±10.83c | 180.56±8.45a | 173.62±5.05b | 169.24±20.61b |
表4 不同尿素添加量对紫花苜蓿混合青贮发酵品质和营养品质的影响
Table 4 Effects of different urea dosage on fermentation quality and nutrient quality of the alfalfa mixed silage
项目 Item | 指标Index | U0 | U1 | U2 | U3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
发酵品质 Fermentation quality | pH值 pH value | 4.44±0.15c | 4.38±0.12d | 4.67±0.32b | 4.90±0.13a |
乳酸 Lactic acid (%DM) | 6.34±0.85a | 6.34±0.38a | 5.94±1.03a | 5.45±1.64a | |
乙酸 Acetic acid (%DM) | 0.95±0.09b | 0.93±0.03b | 1.01±0.02b | 1.37±0.38a | |
丙酸 Propionic acid (%DM) | 0.03±0.00b | 0.03±0.00b | 0.04±0.01b | 0.12±0.10a | |
丁酸 Butyric acid (%DM) | 0.02±0.02c | 0.00±0.00d | 0.03±0.03b | 0.12±0.10a | |
氨态氮/总氮NH3-N/TN (%) | 6.93±1.04c | 7.25±1.12c | 9.05±1.19b | 14.72±0.96a | |
营养成分 Nutrient quality | 干物质Dry matter (%FW) | 38.97±1.11b | 41.27±0.65a | 38.12±1.09bc | 37.38±0.84c |
粗蛋白质 Crude protein (%DM) | 16.17±0.09d | 16.76±0.30c | 17.52±0.32a | 17.19±0.55b | |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | 41.65±2.78a | 37.40±1.78c | 38.70±1.03c | 40.11±3.73b | |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | 23.47±0.65a | 21.10±0.60b | 21.46±0.81b | 21.33±2.67b | |
可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM) | 0.93±0.15a | 1.06±0.12ab | 0.98±0.22ab | 0.90±0.09b | |
相对饲料价值 Relative feed value | 158.32±10.83c | 180.56±8.45a | 173.62±5.05b | 169.24±20.61b |
菌酸添加剂 Bacteroic acid additive | 尿素添加量 Urea addition | 干物质 Dry matter (%FW) | pH值 pH value | 氨态氮/总氮 NH3-N/TN (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
LA | U0 | 38.60±1.10b | 4.31±0.00c | 6.10±0.77c |
U1 | 41.77±0.50a | 4.27±0.00d | 6.49±0.36c | |
U2 | 38.27±0.50b | 4.40±0.01b | 8.55±1.48b | |
U3 | 37.37±1.10b | 4.79±0.00a | 14.51±0.79a | |
AS | U0 | 39.33±1.21ab | 4.57±0.01c | 7.77±0.21c |
U1 | 40.77±0.25a | 4.48±0.01d | 8.02±1.12bc | |
U2 | 37.97±1.63b | 4.95±0.01b | 9.55±0.78b | |
U3 | 37.40±0.76b | 5.01±0.00a | 14.93±1.24a |
表5 尿素对不同添加剂组紫花苜蓿混合青贮pH、干物质和氨态氮/总氮的影响
Table 5 Effects of additives and urea on fermentation quality of the alfalfa mixed silage
菌酸添加剂 Bacteroic acid additive | 尿素添加量 Urea addition | 干物质 Dry matter (%FW) | pH值 pH value | 氨态氮/总氮 NH3-N/TN (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
LA | U0 | 38.60±1.10b | 4.31±0.00c | 6.10±0.77c |
U1 | 41.77±0.50a | 4.27±0.00d | 6.49±0.36c | |
U2 | 38.27±0.50b | 4.40±0.01b | 8.55±1.48b | |
U3 | 37.37±1.10b | 4.79±0.00a | 14.51±0.79a | |
AS | U0 | 39.33±1.21ab | 4.57±0.01c | 7.77±0.21c |
U1 | 40.77±0.25a | 4.48±0.01d | 8.02±1.12bc | |
U2 | 37.97±1.63b | 4.95±0.01b | 9.55±0.78b | |
U3 | 37.40±0.76b | 5.01±0.00a | 14.93±1.24a |
菌酸添加剂 Bacteroic acid additive | 尿素添加量Urea addition | 乳酸 Lactic acid (%DM) | 乙酸 Acetic acid (%DM) | 丙酸 Propionic acid (%DM) | 丁酸 Butyric acid (%DM) | V-score值 V-score value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LA | U0 | 6.48±0.02a | 0.90±0.00a | 0.03±0.01a | ND | 96.45 |
U1 | 6.19±0.58a | 0.91±0.02a | 0.03±0.00a | ND | 95.45 | |
U2 | 6.75±0.49a | 1.00±0.00a | 0.05±0.02a | ND | 91.25 | |
U3 | 6.60±1.63a | 1.05±0.12a | 0.03±0.01a | 0.04±0.01a | 69.29 | |
AS | U0 | 6.20±1.45a | 1.00±0.12b | 0.03±0.00bc | 0.04±0.01c | 91.74 |
U1 | 6.48±0.10a | 0.95±0.02b | 0.03±0.00c | ND | 92.29 | |
U2 | 5.13±0.60a | 1.02±0.02b | 0.04±0.00b | 0.06±0.00b | 87.67 | |
U3 | 4.30±0.40a | 1.69±0.02a | 0.21±0.00a | 0.21±0.00a | 60.19 |
表6 添加剂和尿素对紫花苜蓿混合青贮有机酸的影响
Table 6 Effects of additives and urea on organic acid of the alfalfa mixed silage
菌酸添加剂 Bacteroic acid additive | 尿素添加量Urea addition | 乳酸 Lactic acid (%DM) | 乙酸 Acetic acid (%DM) | 丙酸 Propionic acid (%DM) | 丁酸 Butyric acid (%DM) | V-score值 V-score value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LA | U0 | 6.48±0.02a | 0.90±0.00a | 0.03±0.01a | ND | 96.45 |
U1 | 6.19±0.58a | 0.91±0.02a | 0.03±0.00a | ND | 95.45 | |
U2 | 6.75±0.49a | 1.00±0.00a | 0.05±0.02a | ND | 91.25 | |
U3 | 6.60±1.63a | 1.05±0.12a | 0.03±0.01a | 0.04±0.01a | 69.29 | |
AS | U0 | 6.20±1.45a | 1.00±0.12b | 0.03±0.00bc | 0.04±0.01c | 91.74 |
U1 | 6.48±0.10a | 0.95±0.02b | 0.03±0.00c | ND | 92.29 | |
U2 | 5.13±0.60a | 1.02±0.02b | 0.04±0.00b | 0.06±0.00b | 87.67 | |
U3 | 4.30±0.40a | 1.69±0.02a | 0.21±0.00a | 0.21±0.00a | 60.19 |
菌酸添加剂Bacteroic acid additive | 尿素添加量Urea addition | 可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM) | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (%DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | 相对饲料价值 Relative feed value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LA | U0 | 0.86±0.21a | 16.20±0.10d | 23.54±0.58a | 39.41±1.03a | 166.64±5.38b |
U1 | 1.02±0.13a | 17.03±0.01c | 21.35±0.23b | 35.94±0.28c | 187.06±1.79a | |
U2 | 0.79±0.12a | 17.25±0.01b | 22.02±0.58b | 38.18±0.81ab | 174.87±4.80b | |
U3 | 0.87±0.13a | 17.66±0.02a | 18.91±0.41c | 36.78±0.96bc | 187.68±5.62a | |
AS | U0 | 1.00±0.03bc | 16.14±0.09d | 23.40±0.85a | 43.89±1.80a | 150.01±7.52b |
U1 | 1.10±0.12ab | 16.50±0.04c | 20.86±0.81b | 38.86±1.19b | 174.06±6.95a | |
U2 | 1.17±0.02a | 17.79±0.05a | 20.90±0.60b | 39.21±1.10b | 172.38±6.00a | |
U3 | 0.93±0.06c | 16.71±0.06b | 23.74±0.28a | 43.44±0.78a | 150.80±3.12b |
表7 添加剂和尿素对紫花苜蓿混合青贮营养品质的影响
Table 7 Effects of additives and urea on nutritional quality of the alfalfa mixed silage
菌酸添加剂Bacteroic acid additive | 尿素添加量Urea addition | 可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM) | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (%DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | 相对饲料价值 Relative feed value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LA | U0 | 0.86±0.21a | 16.20±0.10d | 23.54±0.58a | 39.41±1.03a | 166.64±5.38b |
U1 | 1.02±0.13a | 17.03±0.01c | 21.35±0.23b | 35.94±0.28c | 187.06±1.79a | |
U2 | 0.79±0.12a | 17.25±0.01b | 22.02±0.58b | 38.18±0.81ab | 174.87±4.80b | |
U3 | 0.87±0.13a | 17.66±0.02a | 18.91±0.41c | 36.78±0.96bc | 187.68±5.62a | |
AS | U0 | 1.00±0.03bc | 16.14±0.09d | 23.40±0.85a | 43.89±1.80a | 150.01±7.52b |
U1 | 1.10±0.12ab | 16.50±0.04c | 20.86±0.81b | 38.86±1.19b | 174.06±6.95a | |
U2 | 1.17±0.02a | 17.79±0.05a | 20.90±0.60b | 39.21±1.10b | 172.38±6.00a | |
U3 | 0.93±0.06c | 16.71±0.06b | 23.74±0.28a | 43.44±0.78a | 150.80±3.12b |
处理 Treatment | pH值pH value | 排序RpH | 乳酸 Lactic acid(%DM) | 排序RLA | V-score值V-score value | 排序RV-score | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (%DM) | 排序RCP | 相对饲料价值Relative feed value | 排序RRFV | RSR值RSR value | 排序RRSR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LAU0 | 4.31 | 7 | 6.48 | 5 | 96.45 | 8 | 16.20 | 2 | 166.64 | 3 | 0.625 | 4 |
LAU1 | 4.27 | 8 | 6.19 | 3 | 95.45 | 7 | 17.03 | 5 | 187.06 | 7 | 0.750 | 1 |
LAU2 | 4.40 | 6 | 6.75 | 8 | 91.25 | 4 | 17.25 | 6 | 174.87 | 6 | 0.750 | 2 |
LAU3 | 4.79 | 3 | 6.60 | 7 | 69.29 | 2 | 17.66 | 7 | 187.68 | 8 | 0.675 | 3 |
ASU0 | 4.57 | 4 | 6.20 | 4 | 91.74 | 5 | 16.14 | 1 | 150.01 | 1 | 0.375 | 7 |
ASU1 | 4.48 | 5 | 6.48 | 6 | 92.29 | 6 | 16.50 | 3 | 174.06 | 5 | 0.625 | 5 |
ASU2 | 4.95 | 2 | 5.13 | 2 | 87.67 | 3 | 17.79 | 8 | 172.38 | 4 | 0.475 | 6 |
ASU3 | 5.01 | 1 | 4.30 | 1 | 60.19 | 1 | 16.71 | 4 | 150.80 | 2 | 0.225 | 8 |
表8 混合青贮各项指标值及其RSR排序
Table 8 The index values of mixed silage and RSR sequence
处理 Treatment | pH值pH value | 排序RpH | 乳酸 Lactic acid(%DM) | 排序RLA | V-score值V-score value | 排序RV-score | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (%DM) | 排序RCP | 相对饲料价值Relative feed value | 排序RRFV | RSR值RSR value | 排序RRSR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LAU0 | 4.31 | 7 | 6.48 | 5 | 96.45 | 8 | 16.20 | 2 | 166.64 | 3 | 0.625 | 4 |
LAU1 | 4.27 | 8 | 6.19 | 3 | 95.45 | 7 | 17.03 | 5 | 187.06 | 7 | 0.750 | 1 |
LAU2 | 4.40 | 6 | 6.75 | 8 | 91.25 | 4 | 17.25 | 6 | 174.87 | 6 | 0.750 | 2 |
LAU3 | 4.79 | 3 | 6.60 | 7 | 69.29 | 2 | 17.66 | 7 | 187.68 | 8 | 0.675 | 3 |
ASU0 | 4.57 | 4 | 6.20 | 4 | 91.74 | 5 | 16.14 | 1 | 150.01 | 1 | 0.375 | 7 |
ASU1 | 4.48 | 5 | 6.48 | 6 | 92.29 | 6 | 16.50 | 3 | 174.06 | 5 | 0.625 | 5 |
ASU2 | 4.95 | 2 | 5.13 | 2 | 87.67 | 3 | 17.79 | 8 | 172.38 | 4 | 0.475 | 6 |
ASU3 | 5.01 | 1 | 4.30 | 1 | 60.19 | 1 | 16.71 | 4 | 150.80 | 2 | 0.225 | 8 |
1 | Zhang J R. Alfalfa industry development countermeasure research in China based on the SWOT model. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2017. |
张经荣. 基于SWOT模型的我国苜蓿产业发展对策研究. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2017. | |
2 | Luo Y J, Chen G H, Mu L, et al. Effects on silage quality of mixing different ratios of rice straw with alfalfa and wheat bran. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(5): 178-184. |
罗颖洁, 陈桂华, 穆麟, 等. 不同稻秸添加比例对紫花苜蓿和麦麸混合青贮的影响. 草业学报, 2019, 28(5): 178-184. | |
3 | Muck R E, Nadeau E M G, McAllister T A, et al. Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(5): 3980-4000. |
4 | Li Y F, Cheng J H, Tian C Y, et al. Effects of sodium diacetate on the quality, nutrient composition and protein molecular structure of alfalfa silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(2): 163-171. |
李艳芬, 程金花, 田川尧, 等. 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. 草业学报, 2020, 29(2): 163-171. | |
5 | Mcdonald P. The biochemistry of silage. Society for animal nutrition (Translate). Beijing: Agricultural University Press, 1981. |
Mcdonald P. 青贮饲料的生物化学. 动物营养研究会译. 北京: 农业大学出版社, 1981. | |
6 | 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. |
7 | Zang Y Y, Wang Y, Gu X Y, et al. Effects of propionic acid and urea on the quality of whole-crop corn silage. Pratacultural Science, 2012, 29(1): 156-159. |
臧艳运, 王雁, 顾雪莹, 等. 添加丙酸和尿素对玉米青贮品质的影响. 草业科学, 2012, 29(1): 156-159. | |
8 | Wang J F, Lei Z M, Wan X R, et al. Effects on the quality of corn silage, of 5 strains of lactic acid bacteria with different combinations of added CaCO3, enzyme and urea. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(3): 90-97. |
王建福, 雷赵民, 万学瑞, 等. 5株乳酸菌复合物与CaCO3, 酶及尿素不同组合对全株玉米青贮品质影响. 草业学报, 2018, 27(3): 90-97. | |
9 | Tian H C, Chen Y Y, Deng M, et al. Effect of different additives on the nutritive value of Pennisetum hydridum silage. Feed Research, 2019, 42(8): 40-42. |
田汉晨, 陈奕业, 邓铭, 等. 不同添加剂对皇竹草青贮营养价值的影响. 饲料研究, 2019, 42(8): 40-42. | |
10 | Mu L, Li S, Zeng N B, et al. Effect of adding molasses or lactic acid bacteria on quality of mixed silage of amaranth and rice straw. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(2): 207-212. |
穆麟, 李顺, 曾宁波, 等. 添加糖蜜、乳酸菌制剂对籽粒苋与稻秸混合青贮品质的影响. 草地学报, 2019, 27(2): 207-212. | |
11 | Broderick G A, Kang J H. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and amino acids in ruminal fluids and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science, 1980, 63(1): 64-75. |
12 | Zhang L Y. Feed analysis and quality test technology. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2007. |
张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2007. | |
13 | Chen J X, Wang X F. Phytophysiology experiment. Guangzhou: South China University of Technology Press, 2015. |
陈建勋, 王晓峰. 植物生理学试验. 广州: 华南理工大学出版社, 2015. | |
14 | Dong D K. Relative feed value of forage. China Dairy Cattle, 1994(4): 28-29. |
董德宽. 饲草的相对饲料值. 中国奶牛, 1990(4): 28-29. | |
15 | The evaluation council of self-feed quality. The evaluation manual of crude feed. Tokyo: The Association of Grassland and Livestock Products in Japan, 2001: 82-87. |
自给饲料品质评价研究会. 粗饲料品质评价手册. 东京: 日本草地畜产种子协会, 2001: 82-87. | |
16 | Ding L, Yuan X J, Wei A Y, et al. Effects of additives on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage containing wet brewers’ grains in Tibet. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(7): 112-120. |
丁良, 原现军, 闻爱友, 等. 添加剂对西藏啤酒糟全混合日粮青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响. 草业学报, 2016, 25(7): 112-120. | |
17 | Yu Z, Wu Z, Bai C S, et al. Silage and haylage alfalfa. Feed and Husbandry, 2018-04-16. |
玉柱, 吴哲, 白春生, 等. 青贮和半干青贮饲料紫花苜蓿. 饲料与畜牧, 2018-04-16. | |
18 | 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. | |
19 | Rong H, Yu C Q, Li Z H, et al. Effects of adding molasses and urea on fermentation quality of napier grass silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2012, 20(5): 940-946. |
荣辉, 余成群, 李志华, 等. 添加糖蜜和尿素对象草青贮发酵品质的影响. 草地学报, 2012, 20(5): 940-946. | |
20 | Qin F C, Zhao G Q, Jiao T, et al. Effects of different moisture contents and additives on the quality of baled oat silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(6): 119-125. |
覃方锉, 赵桂琴, 焦婷, 等. 含水量及添加剂对燕麦捆裹青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2014, 23(6): 119-125. | |
21 | Kung J L, Taylor C C, Lynch M P, et al. The effect of treating alfalfa with Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and nutritive value for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2003, 86: 336-343. |
22 | Kung J 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. |
23 | Ju Z L, Zhao G Q, Qin F C, et al. Effects of fermentation interval and additives on the quality of baled oat and common vetch mixture silage in an alpine area. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(6): 148-157. |
琚泽亮, 赵桂琴, 覃方锉, 等. 青贮时间及添加剂对高寒牧区燕麦-箭筈豌豆混播捆裹青贮发酵品质的影响. 草业学报, 2016, 25(6): 148-157. | |
24 | Yunus M, Ohba N, Shimojo M, et al. Effects of adding urea and molasses on napier grass silage quality. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 2000, 13(11): 1542-1547. |
25 | Dos Santos A P M, Santos E M, Deoliveira J S, et al. Effects of urea addition on the fermentation of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) silage. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 2018, 35(1): 55-62. |
[1] | 臧真凤, 白婕, 刘丛, 昝看卓, 龙明秀, 何树斌. 紫花苜蓿形态和生理指标响应干旱胁迫的品种特异性[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(6): 73-81. |
[2] | 余肖飞, 郭晓农, 张妍, 刘子威, 张喜闻, 徐可新, 吴治勇. 响应面法优化藜麦秸秆饲料发酵工艺的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(5): 155-164. |
[3] | 王吉祥, 宫焕宇, 屠祥建, 郭侲洐, 赵嘉楠, 沈健, 栗振义, 孙娟. 耐亚磷酸盐紫花苜蓿品种筛选及评价指标的鉴定[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(5): 186-199. |
[4] | 张小芳, 魏小红, 刘放, 朱雪妹. PEG胁迫下紫花苜蓿幼苗内源激素对NO的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 160-169. |
[5] | 候怡谣, 李霄, 龙瑞才, 杨青川, 康俊梅, 郭长虹. 过量表达紫花苜蓿MsHB7基因对拟南芥耐旱性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 170-179. |
[6] | 吕竑建, 郭香, 陈德奎, 陈晓阳, 张庆. 植物乳酸菌和贮藏温度对辣木叶青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3): 121-128. |
[7] | 马欣, 罗珠珠, 张耀全, 刘家鹤, 牛伊宁, 蔡立群. 黄土高原雨养区不同种植年限紫花苜蓿土壤细菌群落特征与生态功能预测[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3): 54-67. |
[8] | 沙栢平, 谢应忠, 高雪芹, 蔡伟, 伏兵哲. 地下滴灌水肥耦合对紫花苜蓿草产量及品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(2): 102-114. |
[9] | 陈鑫珠, 张建国. 不同茬次和高度热研四号王草的乳酸菌分布及青贮发酵品质[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(1): 150-158. |
[10] | 李振松, 万里强, 李硕, 李向林. 苜蓿根系构型及生理特性对干旱复水的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(1): 189-196. |
[11] | 郭家萌, 何灵芝, 闫东良, 李卓, 王泳超, 邵瑞鑫, 杨青华. 控释氮肥和尿素配比对不同品种夏玉米氮素累积、转移及其利用效率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(1): 81-95. |
[12] | 吴勇, 刘晓静, 蔺芳, 童长春. 河西荒漠灌区紫花苜蓿施肥效应及其基于数据包络分析法的经济效益研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(9): 94-105. |
[13] | 邢易梅, 蕫理, 战力峰, 才华, 杨圣秋, 孙娜. 混合接种摩西球囊霉和根瘤菌对紫花苜蓿耐碱能力的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(9): 136-145. |
[14] | 覃凤飞, 李志华, 刘信宝, 渠晖, 平措卓玛, 洛松群措, 苏梦涵. 外源2,4表油菜素内酯对越夏期高温与弱光胁迫下紫花苜蓿生长和光合性能的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(9): 146-160. |
[15] | 童长春, 刘晓静, 蔺芳, 于铁峰. 基于平衡施肥的紫花苜蓿光合特性及光合因子的产量效应研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8): 70-80. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||