草业学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (10): 167-177.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2021411
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
王挺1(), 宋磊1,2, 王旭哲1, 马春晖1, 杜保军3, 张凡凡1()
收稿日期:
2021-11-10
修回日期:
2021-12-21
出版日期:
2022-10-20
发布日期:
2022-09-14
通讯作者:
张凡凡
作者简介:
E-mail: zhangfanfan@shzu.edu.cn基金资助:
Ting WANG1(), Lei SONG1,2, Xu-zhe WANG1, Chun-hui MA1, Bao-jun DU3, Fan-fan ZHANG1()
Received:
2021-11-10
Revised:
2021-12-21
Online:
2022-10-20
Published:
2022-09-14
Contact:
Fan-fan ZHANG
摘要:
本研究旨在探究接种复合乳酸菌对番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮品质的影响,通过分析营养品质、发酵品质及瘤胃降解率,明确最优发酵条件,为提高资源利用率,拓宽本地区饲草料资源提供理论基础。试验采用真空袋法调制混合青贮,设计10个处理,其中5个处理不接种复合乳酸菌,混合比例(质量比)为:番茄皮渣∶苜蓿=3∶7(T1),4∶6(T2),5∶5(T3),6∶4(T4),7∶3(T5);另外5个处理在各混合青贮比例基础上均匀加入复合乳酸菌(布氏乳杆菌+植物乳杆菌,比例为1∶1,1×106 CFU·g-1),即分别为JT1、JT2、JT3、JT4、JT5。发酵60 d后开袋进行感官评定,分析营养品质、发酵品质、瘤胃降解率,采用隶属函数分析法评价最优处理。结果表明:接种复合乳酸菌可改善番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮的气味及质地,T1、JT1、T2及JT2处理的混合青贮感官评定为优等。接种复合乳酸菌显著提升了番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮的干物质(DM)、粗蛋白(CP)、乳酸(LA)、乙酸(AA)(P<0.05),显著降低了水溶性碳水化合物(WSC)、中性洗涤纤维(NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)、pH、丙酸(PA)、丁酸(BA)、氨态氮/总氮(NH3-N/TN)(P<0.05)。各混合青贮中,JT2处理的DM、CP含量最高,T2处理的WSC含量最高,JT2处理的NDF、ADF含量最低,JT1、JT2处理的pH较低,JT1、JT2处理的LA含量较高,T1、T2处理的AA含量较低,JT1、JT2的PA、BA含量及NH3-N/TN较低。瘤胃降解24 h时,接种复合乳酸菌显著提升了番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮的干物质降解率(DMD)、中性洗涤纤维降解率(NDFD)、酸性洗涤纤维降解率(ADFD)(P<0.05),JT1和JT2处理的DMD、NDFD较高,JT2处理的ADFD最高。综上,接种复合乳酸菌对番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮营养品质、发酵品质及瘤胃降解率均有显著改善;将各混合青贮的14项核心指标进行隶属函数分析得出,JT2处理最优,即在番茄皮渣添加量为40%(番茄皮渣∶苜蓿=4∶6,干物质含量为30.64%)的混合青贮中接种复合乳酸菌最具推广意义。
王挺, 宋磊, 王旭哲, 马春晖, 杜保军, 张凡凡. 复合乳酸菌对番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮发酵品质及瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(10): 167-177.
Ting WANG, Lei SONG, Xu-zhe WANG, Chun-hui MA, Bao-jun DU, Fan-fan ZHANG. Effect of compound Lactobacillus and mixture ratio on fermentation quality and rumen degradability of mixed tomato pomace and alfalfa silage mixed storage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(10): 167-177.
原料 Material | 干物质 Dry matter (DM) | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (CP) | 可溶性碳水化合物 Water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (ADF) | 粗灰分 Ash | 粗脂肪 Ether extract (EE) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
番茄皮渣Tomato pomace | 13.86 | 14.25 | 32.15 | 56.30 | 44.33 | 6.24 | 4.56 |
苜蓿Alfalfa | 42.83 | 18.56 | 7.78 | 54.59 | 43.03 | 10.15 | 4.39 |
表1 番茄皮渣与苜蓿原料营养品质概况(干物质基础)
Table 1 Material nutrition parameters of tomato pomace and alfalfa (dry matter basis, %)
原料 Material | 干物质 Dry matter (DM) | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (CP) | 可溶性碳水化合物 Water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (ADF) | 粗灰分 Ash | 粗脂肪 Ether extract (EE) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
番茄皮渣Tomato pomace | 13.86 | 14.25 | 32.15 | 56.30 | 44.33 | 6.24 | 4.56 |
苜蓿Alfalfa | 42.83 | 18.56 | 7.78 | 54.59 | 43.03 | 10.15 | 4.39 |
处理 Treatments | 比例 Ratio | 颜色 Colour | 气味 Odour | 酸味 Sour | 质地 Texture | 感官综合评定 Comprehensive sensory evaluation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
不接种 Non-vaccination | T1 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 浓郁 Strong | 松散不粘手,无霉变 Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 优等 Excellent |
T2 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 浓郁 Strong | 松散不粘手,无霉变 Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 优等 Excellent | |
T3 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 浓郁 Strong | 轻微粘手,无霉变 Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 良好 Good | |
T4 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 中等 Middle | 轻微粘手,无霉变 Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 良好 Good | |
T5 | 橙色 Orange | 丁酸气味 Butyric acid smell | 中等 Middle | 发黏结块,霉变 Sticky and mildew | 差 Bad | |
接种 Vaccination | JT1 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 浓郁 Strong | 松散不粘手,无霉变 Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 优等 Excellent |
JT2 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 浓郁 Strong | 松散不粘手,无霉变 Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 优等 Excellent | |
JT3 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 浓郁 Strong | 轻微粘手,无霉变 Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 良好 Good | |
JT4 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 中等 Middle | 轻微粘手,无霉变 Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 良好 Good | |
JT5 | 橙色 Orange | 轻微丁酸气味 Slight butyric acid smell | 中等 Middle | 轻微粘手,无霉变 Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 一般 Ordinary |
表2 复合乳酸菌对番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮感官品质的影响
Table 2 Effect of compound Lactobacillus on sensory quality of tomato pomace and alfalfa mixed storage
处理 Treatments | 比例 Ratio | 颜色 Colour | 气味 Odour | 酸味 Sour | 质地 Texture | 感官综合评定 Comprehensive sensory evaluation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
不接种 Non-vaccination | T1 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 浓郁 Strong | 松散不粘手,无霉变 Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 优等 Excellent |
T2 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 浓郁 Strong | 松散不粘手,无霉变 Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 优等 Excellent | |
T3 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 浓郁 Strong | 轻微粘手,无霉变 Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 良好 Good | |
T4 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 中等 Middle | 轻微粘手,无霉变 Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 良好 Good | |
T5 | 橙色 Orange | 丁酸气味 Butyric acid smell | 中等 Middle | 发黏结块,霉变 Sticky and mildew | 差 Bad | |
接种 Vaccination | JT1 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 浓郁 Strong | 松散不粘手,无霉变 Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 优等 Excellent |
JT2 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 浓郁 Strong | 松散不粘手,无霉变 Loose texture, no sticky hands, no mildew | 优等 Excellent | |
JT3 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 浓郁 Strong | 轻微粘手,无霉变 Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 良好 Good | |
JT4 | 黄绿色 Yellow-green | 乳酸气味 Lactic acid smell | 中等 Middle | 轻微粘手,无霉变 Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 良好 Good | |
JT5 | 橙色 Orange | 轻微丁酸气味 Slight butyric acid smell | 中等 Middle | 轻微粘手,无霉变 Slightly sticky hands, no mildew | 一般 Ordinary |
处理 Treatments | 比例 Ratio | DM (%FM) | CP (%DM) | WSC (%DM) | NDF (%DM) | ADF (%DM) | pH | LA (%FM) | AA (%FM) | PA (%FM) | BA (%FM) | NH3-N/TN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
不接种 Non- Vaccination | T1 | 29.03Bb | 11.83Bb | 7.47Ab | 41.26Ac | 32.18Ad | 4.67Ad | 3.46Bb | 0.89Bd | 0.78Ae | 0.92Ad | 11.22Ad |
T2 | 31.82Ba | 13.97Ba | 8.10Aa | 40.32Ac | 32.98Ac | 4.61Ad | 3.70Ba | 0.82Bd | 0.92Ad | 0.95Ad | 10.84Ad | |
T3 | 22.99Bc | 11.39Ab | 6.13Ac | 45.62Aa | 34.79Ab | 5.21Ac | 2.84Bc | 1.27Bc | 1.57Ac | 1.67Ac | 12.87Ac | |
T4 | 20.41Bc | 9.21Ac | 7.53Ab | 46.07Aa | 37.81Aa | 6.02Ab | 2.24Bd | 2.86Ba | 2.25Ab | 2.72Ab | 15.59Ab | |
T5 | 17.05Bd | 4.54Bd | 4.63Ad | 45.41Ab | 37.82Aa | 6.81Aa | 1.36Be | 1.77Bb | 2.98Aa | 6.84Aa | 33.58Aa | |
均值标准误差SEM | 0.55 | 0.43 | 0.25 | 0.87 | 0.63 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.67 | |
接种 Vaccination | JT1 | 30.91Ab | 13.93Ab | 5.59Ba | 38.37Bc | 29.84Bb | 4.17Bd | 4.65Aa | 1.25Ad | 0.38Bd | 0.54Bd | 9.95Bc |
JT2 | 33.63Aa | 16.25Aa | 4.90Bb | 36.76Bd | 26.90Bc | 4.19Bd | 4.82Aa | 1.31Ad | 0.38Bd | 0.43Bd | 9.74Bc | |
JT3 | 24.65Ac | 11.05Ac | 4.78Bb | 39.75Bc | 29.65Bb | 4.45Bc | 3.44Ab | 1.81Ac | 1.20Bc | 1.05Bc | 12.94Ab | |
JT4 | 22.56Ac | 9.26Ad | 4.65Bc | 42.73Ba | 32.77Ba | 5.06Bb | 2.86Ac | 3.24Aa | 1.68Bb | 1.87Bb | 13.38Bb | |
JT5 | 18.95Ad | 7.92Ae | 4.42Ac | 40.49Bb | 32.12Ba | 5.79Ba | 2.30Ad | 2.35Ab | 1.90Ba | 4.91Ba | 23.79Ba | |
均值标准误差SEM | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.38 | 0.98 | 1.19 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.39 | |
处理 Treatments | 0.032 | 0.027 | 0.035 | 0.042 | 0.030 | 0.016 | 0.032 | 0.025 | 0.018 | 0.040 | 0.021 | |
比例 Ratio | 0.011 | 0.008 | 0.012 | 0.005 | 0.014 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.008 | 0.006 | 0.011 | |
处理×比例Treatments×ratio | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.003 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
表3 复合乳酸菌对番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮营养品质及发酵品质的影响
Table 3 Effects of compound Lactobacillus on nutritional quality and fermentation quality of tomato pomace and alfalfa mixed storage
处理 Treatments | 比例 Ratio | DM (%FM) | CP (%DM) | WSC (%DM) | NDF (%DM) | ADF (%DM) | pH | LA (%FM) | AA (%FM) | PA (%FM) | BA (%FM) | NH3-N/TN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
不接种 Non- Vaccination | T1 | 29.03Bb | 11.83Bb | 7.47Ab | 41.26Ac | 32.18Ad | 4.67Ad | 3.46Bb | 0.89Bd | 0.78Ae | 0.92Ad | 11.22Ad |
T2 | 31.82Ba | 13.97Ba | 8.10Aa | 40.32Ac | 32.98Ac | 4.61Ad | 3.70Ba | 0.82Bd | 0.92Ad | 0.95Ad | 10.84Ad | |
T3 | 22.99Bc | 11.39Ab | 6.13Ac | 45.62Aa | 34.79Ab | 5.21Ac | 2.84Bc | 1.27Bc | 1.57Ac | 1.67Ac | 12.87Ac | |
T4 | 20.41Bc | 9.21Ac | 7.53Ab | 46.07Aa | 37.81Aa | 6.02Ab | 2.24Bd | 2.86Ba | 2.25Ab | 2.72Ab | 15.59Ab | |
T5 | 17.05Bd | 4.54Bd | 4.63Ad | 45.41Ab | 37.82Aa | 6.81Aa | 1.36Be | 1.77Bb | 2.98Aa | 6.84Aa | 33.58Aa | |
均值标准误差SEM | 0.55 | 0.43 | 0.25 | 0.87 | 0.63 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.67 | |
接种 Vaccination | JT1 | 30.91Ab | 13.93Ab | 5.59Ba | 38.37Bc | 29.84Bb | 4.17Bd | 4.65Aa | 1.25Ad | 0.38Bd | 0.54Bd | 9.95Bc |
JT2 | 33.63Aa | 16.25Aa | 4.90Bb | 36.76Bd | 26.90Bc | 4.19Bd | 4.82Aa | 1.31Ad | 0.38Bd | 0.43Bd | 9.74Bc | |
JT3 | 24.65Ac | 11.05Ac | 4.78Bb | 39.75Bc | 29.65Bb | 4.45Bc | 3.44Ab | 1.81Ac | 1.20Bc | 1.05Bc | 12.94Ab | |
JT4 | 22.56Ac | 9.26Ad | 4.65Bc | 42.73Ba | 32.77Ba | 5.06Bb | 2.86Ac | 3.24Aa | 1.68Bb | 1.87Bb | 13.38Bb | |
JT5 | 18.95Ad | 7.92Ae | 4.42Ac | 40.49Bb | 32.12Ba | 5.79Ba | 2.30Ad | 2.35Ab | 1.90Ba | 4.91Ba | 23.79Ba | |
均值标准误差SEM | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.38 | 0.98 | 1.19 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.39 | |
处理 Treatments | 0.032 | 0.027 | 0.035 | 0.042 | 0.030 | 0.016 | 0.032 | 0.025 | 0.018 | 0.040 | 0.021 | |
比例 Ratio | 0.011 | 0.008 | 0.012 | 0.005 | 0.014 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.008 | 0.006 | 0.011 | |
处理×比例Treatments×ratio | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.003 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
瘤胃降解时间 Rumen degradation time | 处理 Treatments | 比例 Ratio | DMD | NDFD | ADFD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
24 h | 不接种Non-vaccination | T1 | 43.80Ba | 40.73Ba | 41.70Ba |
T2 | 43.46Ba | 38.73Bb | 40.92Ba | ||
T3 | 41.27Bb | 35.45Bc | 36.55Bc | ||
T4 | 38.85Bc | 34.83Bc | 35.71Bc | ||
T5 | 32.70Bd | 34.24Bc | 39.11Bb | ||
均值标准误差SEM | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.86 | ||
接种Vaccination | JT1 | 45.81Aa | 41.98Aa | 44.98Ab | |
JT2 | 45.84Aa | 42.36Aa | 45.20Aa | ||
JT3 | 42.61Ab | 38.88Ab | 38.24Ad | ||
JT4 | 40.35Ac | 37.94Ac | 38.03Ad | ||
JT5 | 36.14Ad | 37.92Ac | 41.94Ac | ||
均值标准误差SEM | 0.42 | 0.51 | 0.22 | ||
处理 Treatments | 0.022 | 0.025 | 0.018 | ||
比例 Ratio | 0.012 | 0.009 | 0.005 | ||
处理×比例Treatments×ratio | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
表4 复合乳酸菌对番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮瘤胃降解率的影响
Table 4 Effect of compound Lactobacillus on rumen degradation rate of tomato pomace and alfalfa mixed storage (%DM)
瘤胃降解时间 Rumen degradation time | 处理 Treatments | 比例 Ratio | DMD | NDFD | ADFD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
24 h | 不接种Non-vaccination | T1 | 43.80Ba | 40.73Ba | 41.70Ba |
T2 | 43.46Ba | 38.73Bb | 40.92Ba | ||
T3 | 41.27Bb | 35.45Bc | 36.55Bc | ||
T4 | 38.85Bc | 34.83Bc | 35.71Bc | ||
T5 | 32.70Bd | 34.24Bc | 39.11Bb | ||
均值标准误差SEM | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.86 | ||
接种Vaccination | JT1 | 45.81Aa | 41.98Aa | 44.98Ab | |
JT2 | 45.84Aa | 42.36Aa | 45.20Aa | ||
JT3 | 42.61Ab | 38.88Ab | 38.24Ad | ||
JT4 | 40.35Ac | 37.94Ac | 38.03Ad | ||
JT5 | 36.14Ad | 37.92Ac | 41.94Ac | ||
均值标准误差SEM | 0.42 | 0.51 | 0.22 | ||
处理 Treatments | 0.022 | 0.025 | 0.018 | ||
比例 Ratio | 0.012 | 0.009 | 0.005 | ||
处理×比例Treatments×ratio | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
指标 Item | 处理 Treatments | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | JT1 | JT2 | JT3 | JT4 | JT5 | |
干物质 DM (%FM) | 0.72 | 0.89 | 0.36 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.84 | 1.00 | 0.46 | 0.33 | 0.11 |
粗蛋白 CP (%DM) | 0.62 | 0.81 | 0.58 | 0.40 | 0.00 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 0.56 | 0.40 | 0.29 |
可溶性碳水化合物 WSC (%DM) | 0.86 | 1.00 | 0.55 | 0.87 | 0.21 | 0.43 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.17 |
中性洗涤纤维 NDF (%DM) | 0.62 | 0.70 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.27 | 0.86 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.49 | 0.68 |
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF (%DM) | 0.56 | 0.49 | 0.34 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.77 | 0.51 | 0.56 |
pH值 pH value | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.61 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.89 | 0.66 | 0.39 |
乳酸 LA (%FM) | 0.61 | 0.68 | 0.43 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.60 | 0.43 | 0.27 |
乙酸 AA (%FM) | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.85 | 0.31 | 0.68 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.66 | 0.18 | 0.48 |
丙酸 PA (%FM) | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.54 | 0.28 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.68 | 0.50 | 0.42 |
丁酸 BA (%FM) | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.81 | 0.64 | 0.00 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.78 | 0.30 |
氨态氮/总氮 NH3-N/TN | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.41 |
24 h干物质降解率 24 h DMD (%DM) | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.65 | 0.47 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.58 | 0.26 |
24 h中性洗涤纤维降解率 24 h NDFD (%DM) | 0.81 | 0.57 | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.59 | 0.48 | 0.47 |
24 h酸性洗涤纤维降解率 24 h ADFD (%DM) | 0.82 | 0.78 | 0.55 | 0.51 | 0.68 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.83 |
总隶属度 Total membership | 10.95 | 11.22 | 7.57 | 5.39 | 1.96 | 12.41 | 13.10 | 9.37 | 7.04 | 5.65 |
排序 Rank | 4 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 8 |
表5 复合乳酸菌对番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮效果影响的综合价值评定及排序
Table 5 Comprehensive value evaluation and ranking of the effects of compound Lactobacillus on tomato pomace and alfalfa mixed storage
指标 Item | 处理 Treatments | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | JT1 | JT2 | JT3 | JT4 | JT5 | |
干物质 DM (%FM) | 0.72 | 0.89 | 0.36 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.84 | 1.00 | 0.46 | 0.33 | 0.11 |
粗蛋白 CP (%DM) | 0.62 | 0.81 | 0.58 | 0.40 | 0.00 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 0.56 | 0.40 | 0.29 |
可溶性碳水化合物 WSC (%DM) | 0.86 | 1.00 | 0.55 | 0.87 | 0.21 | 0.43 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.17 |
中性洗涤纤维 NDF (%DM) | 0.62 | 0.70 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.27 | 0.86 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.49 | 0.68 |
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF (%DM) | 0.56 | 0.49 | 0.34 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.77 | 0.51 | 0.56 |
pH值 pH value | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.61 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.89 | 0.66 | 0.39 |
乳酸 LA (%FM) | 0.61 | 0.68 | 0.43 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.60 | 0.43 | 0.27 |
乙酸 AA (%FM) | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.85 | 0.31 | 0.68 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.66 | 0.18 | 0.48 |
丙酸 PA (%FM) | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.54 | 0.28 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.68 | 0.50 | 0.42 |
丁酸 BA (%FM) | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.81 | 0.64 | 0.00 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.78 | 0.30 |
氨态氮/总氮 NH3-N/TN | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.41 |
24 h干物质降解率 24 h DMD (%DM) | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.65 | 0.47 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.58 | 0.26 |
24 h中性洗涤纤维降解率 24 h NDFD (%DM) | 0.81 | 0.57 | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.59 | 0.48 | 0.47 |
24 h酸性洗涤纤维降解率 24 h ADFD (%DM) | 0.82 | 0.78 | 0.55 | 0.51 | 0.68 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.83 |
总隶属度 Total membership | 10.95 | 11.22 | 7.57 | 5.39 | 1.96 | 12.41 | 13.10 | 9.37 | 7.04 | 5.65 |
排序 Rank | 4 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 8 |
1 | General Office of the State Council. Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on promoting the high-quality development of the animal husbandry. Communique of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2020(29): 20-24. |
国务院办公厅. 国务院办公厅关于促进畜牧业高质量发展的意见. 中华人民共和国国务院公报, 2020(29): 20-24. | |
2 | Gao W H, Han R. Xinjiang statistical yearbook (Chapter 12 Agriculture). Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2019: 287-346. |
高卫红, 韩嵘. 新疆统计年鉴(第十二篇 农业). 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2019: 287-346. | |
3 | Mustafa A F, Christensen D A, Mckinnon J J. Effects of pea, barley, and alfalfa silage on ruminal nutrient degradability and performance of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2000, 83(12): 2859-2865. |
4 | Liu L L, Bing X H, Development and utilization of the feeding value of tomato pomace. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2014, 50(24): 78-81. |
刘利林, 秉学红. 番茄渣饲用价值的开发利用进展. 中国畜牧杂志, 2014, 50(24): 78-81. | |
5 | Yang P, Fan Y F, Yang Y 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, 杨彧渊, 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. | |
6 | Zhao Y J, Guo J Q, Zhang Y, et al. Effects of tomato pomace fermentation feed on growth performance, milk composition and blood cell parameters for Xinjiang brown cows. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 49(8): 1546-1551. |
赵芸君, 郭俊清, 张杨, 等. 番茄渣发酵饲料对新疆褐牛生产性能、乳成分及血细胞参数的影响. 新疆农业科学, 2012, 49(8): 1546-1551. | |
7 | Abdel-baset N, Ali M A. Evaluation of dried tomato pomace as feedstuff in the diets of growing rabbits. International Journal for Agro-Veterinary and Medical Sciences, 2009, 3(1): 13-18. |
8 | Valenti B, Luciano G, Lanza M. Dried tomato pomace supplementation to reduce lamb concentrate intake: Effects on growth performance and meat quality. Meat Science, 2018(145): 63-70. |
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 | Abdollahzadeh F, Piromhannadi R. Effect of feeding ensiled mixed tomato and apple pomace on performance of Holstein dairy cows. Slovak Journal Animal Science, 2010, 43(1): 31-35. |
11 | Sang J R, Guo T J, Jiang C X, et al. Effect of mixed storage of tomato pomace and cotton seed husk in different proportions on silage quality. Feed Research, 2016(19): 1-4. |
桑吉惹, 郭同军, 蒋超祥, 等. 不同比例番茄渣与棉籽壳混贮对青贮品质的影响. 饲料研究, 2016(19): 1-4. | |
12 | Wang H Y, Guo T J, Wang W Q, et al. Study on the effect of mixed storage of tomato pomace and whole corn in different mixing proportions. Feed Research, 2015(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(17): 67-71. | |
13 | Ma Y F, Liu M, Tang H J, et al. Study on quality evaluation of tomato pomace signal and mixed silage. Feed Industry, 2013, 34(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, 34(19): 35-39. | |
14 | Davies D R, Merry R J, Williams A P, et al. Proteolysis during ensilage of forages varying in soluble sugar content. Journal of Dairy Science, 1998, 81(2): 444-453. |
15 | 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. | |
16 | Reich L J, Kung L. Effects of combining Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 with various lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2010, 159(3): 105-109. |
17 | 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. |
18 | Liu J X, Yang Z H, Ye J A, et al. Reasonable preparation and quality evaluation standard of silage. Feed Industry, 1999(3): 4-7. |
刘建新, 杨振海, 叶均安, 等. 青贮饲料的合理调制与质量评定标准. 饲料工业, 1999(3): 4-7. | |
19 | National Bureau of Technical Supervision. Determination of conventional nutritional components of compound feed for laboratory animals, GB/T 14924.9. Beijing: China Standard Press, 2001. |
国家技术监督局. 实验动物配合饲料常规营养成分的测定, GB/T 14924.9. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2001. | |
20 | Broderick G A, Kang J H. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science, 1980, 63(1): 64-75. |
21 | Xu Q F, Zhou H, Yu Z, et al. The effect of different storage time and dilution previous fermented juice on bagged alfalfa silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2006, 14(2): 129-133. |
许庆方, 周禾, 玉柱, 等. 贮藏期和添加绿汁发酵液对袋装苜蓿青贮的影响. 草地学报, 2006, 14(2): 129-133. | |
22 | 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. |
23 | Wang X Z, Zhang F F, Ma C H, et al. Corn silage fermentation quality and microbial populations as influenced by adding homo- and hetero-fermentative bacteria after silos opened. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2018, 34(10): 296-304. |
王旭哲, 张凡凡, 马春晖, 等. 同/异型乳酸菌对青贮玉米开窖后品质及微生物的影响. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(10): 296-304. | |
24 | Borreain G, Piano S, Tabacoo E, et al. Aerobic stability of maize silage stored under plastic films with different oxygen permeability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2014, 94(13): 2684-2690. |
25 | Miao F, Zhang F F, Tang K T, et al. Effects of homo- and hetero-fermentative lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation characteristics,nutritional quality,and aerobic stability of whole corn silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(9): 167-175. |
苗芳, 张凡凡, 唐开婷, 等. 同/异质型乳酸菌添加对全株玉米青贮发酵特性、营养品质及有氧稳定性的影响. 草业学报, 2017, 26(9): 167-175. | |
26 | Feng T, Tang H Y, Yang W Y, 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. | |
27 | Meeske R, Vander Mewe G D, Greying J F, et al. The effect of adding an enzyme containing lactic acid bacteria inoculant to big round bale oat silage on intake, milk production and milk composition of Jersey cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2002, 97(3/4): 159-167. |
28 | Yuan X J, Yu C Q, Li Z H, et al. A study on fermentation quality of mixed silages of hulless barley straw and perennial ryegrass in Tibet. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21(4): 325-330. |
原现军, 余成群, 李志华, 等. 西藏青稞秸秆与多年生黑麦草混合青贮发酵品质的研究. 草业学报, 2012, 21(4): 325-330. | |
29 | Filya l, Sucu E. The effects of lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation, aerobic stability and nutritive value of maize silage. Grass and Forage Science, 2010, 65(4): 446-455. |
30 | Chen L. Study on the fermentation quality, aerobic stability and in vitro ruminal fermentation characteristics of sweet sorgum-alfalfa silages.Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2018. |
陈雷. 甜高粱和紫花苜蓿混合青贮发酵品质、有氧稳定性和体外瘤胃发酵特性的研究.南京: 南京农业大学, 2018. | |
31 | Zhao C, Ma G M, Lv J Y, et al. Effects of adding lactic acid bacteria and cellulase on quality of mixed silage of soybean residue and mulberry leaves and rumen fermentation characteristics in vitro. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(4): 2168-2177. |
赵超, 马广明, 吕静怡, 等. 添加乳酸菌和纤维素酶对豆渣与桑叶混贮品质及体外瘤胃发酵特性的影响. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(4): 2168-2177. | |
32 | Nisereko V L, Smiley B K, Rutherurt W M, et al. Influence of inoculating forage withlactic acid bacterial strains that produce ferulate esterase on ensilage and ruminal degradation of fiber. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2008, 145(1): 122-135. |
33 | Cheng F F, Yang J H, Xia M L, et al. Effect of different raw materials moisture and additives on the quality of alfalfa silage. Feed Research, 2020, 43(12): 106-109. |
程方方, 杨君辉, 夏茂林, 等. 不同原料水分含量和添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 饲料研究, 2020, 43(12): 106-109. | |
34 | Muck R E. Recent advances in silage microbiology. Agricultural and Food Science, 2013, 22(1): 3-15. |
35 | King K J, Bergen W G, Sniffen C J, et al. An assessment of absorbable lysine requirements in lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 1991, 74(8): 2530-2539. |
36 | Lin M, Zhang J G, Huang Z W, et al. Degradation characteristics of four common forages in the rumen of Huyang. Feed Research, 2015(1): 35-39. |
37 | Mu Y X, Lin Y F, Zhang G J. Application and research progress of indigestible neutral detergent fiber in ruminant production. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(11): 5069-5074. |
牟怡晓, 林语梵, 张桂杰. 不可消化中性洗涤纤维在反刍动物生产中的应用及研究进展. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(11): 5069-5074. | |
38 | Ma Z H. Study on degradation rate of lignin from different roughage in buffalo rumen. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2015. |
马振华. 水牛瘤胃对不同粗饲料木质素降解率的研究. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2015. | |
39 | Liu S, Zheng J, Jiang X, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus on silage quality and rumen degradation rate of whole plant corn. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 55(7): 111-116. |
刘帅, 郑健, 姜鑫, 等. 鼠李糖乳杆菌对全株玉米青贮品质及瘤胃降解率的影响. 中国畜牧杂志, 2019, 55(7): 111-116. |
[1] | 苗阳阳, 张艳蕊, 宋标, 刘旭桐, 张安琪, 吕金泽, 张浩, 张小华, 欧阳佳慧, 李旺, 曲善民. 碱蓬根际和内生细菌菌株对盐碱胁迫下苜蓿生长的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(9): 107-117. |
[2] | 赵俊威, 李生仪, 孙延亮, 刘选帅, 马春晖, 张前兵. 不同氮磷水平下不同土层中紫花苜蓿细根周转特征[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(9): 118-128. |
[3] | 陈卫东, 张玉霞, 张庆昕, 刘庭玉, 王显国, 王东儒. 末次刈割时间对苜蓿根颈抗氧化系统及抗寒性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(9): 129-138. |
[4] | 银敏华, 马彦麟, 康燕霞, 贾琼, 齐广平, 汪精海. 氮素添加对中国苜蓿产量与品质效应的Meta分析[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(9): 36-49. |
[5] | 孙延亮, 赵俊威, 刘选帅, 李生仪, 马春晖, 王旭哲, 张前兵. 施氮对苜蓿初花期光合日变化、叶片形态及干物质产量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(9): 63-75. |
[6] | 王星, 黄薇, 余淑艳, 李小云, 高雪芹, 伏兵哲. 宁夏地区地下滴灌水肥耦合对紫花苜蓿种子产量及构成因素的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(9): 76-85. |
[7] | 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. |
[8] | 李影正, 程榆林, 徐璐璐, 李万松, 严旭, 李晓锋, 何如钰, 周阳, 郑军军, 汪星宇, 张德龙, 程明军, 夏运红, 何建美, 唐祈林. 不同玉米品种(系)的全株、果穗与秸秆青贮特性比较[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8): 144-156. |
[9] | 吴永杰, 丁浩, 邵涛, 赵杰, 董东, 代童童, 尹雪敬, 宗成, 李君风. 酶制剂对水稻秸秆青贮发酵品质及体外消化特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8): 167-177. |
[10] | 赵建涛, 岳亚飞, 张前兵, 马春晖. 不同秋眠级紫花苜蓿品种抗寒性对新疆北疆地区覆雪厚度的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8): 24-34. |
[11] | 田骄阳, 王秋霞, 郑淑文, 刘文献. 全基因组水平蒺藜苜蓿CPP基因家族的鉴定及表达模式分析[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(7): 111-121. |
[12] | 刘彩婷, 毛丽萍, 阿依谢木, 于应文, 沈禹颖. 紫花苜蓿与垂穗披碱草混播比例对其抗寒生长生理特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(7): 133-143. |
[13] | 王雪萌, 何欣, 张涵, 宋瑞, 毛培胜, 贾善刚. 基于多光谱成像技术快速无损检测紫花苜蓿人工老化种子[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(7): 197-208. |
[14] | 李君风, 赵杰, 唐小月, 代童童, 董东, 宗成, 邵涛. 瘤胃纤维素降解菌系对灭菌水稻秸秆结构性碳水化合物降解的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(7): 85-95. |
[15] | 郭香, 吴硕, 郑明扬, 陈德奎, 邹璇, 陈晓阳, 周玮, 张庆. 添加黄梁木叶和壳寡糖对甘蔗梢青贮饲料发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(6): 202-210. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||