草业学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (7): 135-148.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2022333
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
党浩千(), 覃娟清(), 郭宇康, 张富, 王迎港, 刘庆华()
收稿日期:
2022-08-17
修回日期:
2022-09-19
出版日期:
2023-07-20
发布日期:
2023-05-26
通讯作者:
刘庆华
作者简介:
E-mail: 83793089@163.com基金资助:
Hao-qian DANG(), Juan-qing QIN(), Yu-kang GUO, Fu ZHANG, Ying-gang WANG, Qing-hua LIU()
Received:
2022-08-17
Revised:
2022-09-19
Online:
2023-07-20
Published:
2023-05-26
Contact:
Qing-hua LIU
摘要:
旨在研究不同添加剂发酵对笋壳营养成分和发酵品质的影响,探究不同处理对湖羊生产性能、肉质氨基酸、血液生化指标、瘤胃发酵参数的影响。通过预试验筛选出FM(甲酸10 mL·kg-1+EM复合菌20 mL·kg-1)和FCM组(甲酸10 mL·kg-1+纤维素酶150 mL·kg-1+EM复合菌20 mL·kg-1)对笋壳进行为期45 d的青贮,并进行湖羊饲养试验。采用单因素随机试验设计,选取体重相近[初始体重(16.68±1.05) kg]、健康无病公湖羊30只,随机分为3组,每组10只。预饲期7 d,正饲期60 d。结果表明:1)FM、FCM组干物质(DM)、粗蛋白(CP)含量分别为35.58%,36.60%;11.27%,12.09%;均显著高于CK组(33.20%,9.75%)(P<0.05),FCM组显著高于FM组(P<0.05);FM、FCM组中性洗涤纤维(NDF)(39.46%,37.09%)均显著低于CK组(44.16%)(P<0.05),FCM组显著低于FM组(P<0.05);FM、FCM组酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)(38.09%,37.49%)均显著低于CK组(41.62%)(P<0.05)。2)FCM组宰前活重、胴体重、净肉重、眼肌面积分别为:22.11 kg,10.41 kg,9.48 kg,14.41 cm2,均显著高于对照组(20.79 kg,9.74 kg,8.71 kg,11.62 cm2)(P<0.05)。3)FCM组肝脏、瘤胃、皱胃、脾脏、小肠、大肠重量以及瘤胃器官指数分别为:332.76 g,475.32 g,85.15 g,32.55 g,434.63 g,303.48 g, 2.15%;显著高于FM(319.78 g,447.18 g,75.05 g,29.01 g,416.62 g,286.70 g, 2.04%)和CK组(297.88 g,418.76 g,60.09 g,26.05 g,399.01 g,279.36 g, 2.01%)(P<0.05);FM组肝脏和瘤胃重量显著高于CK组(P<0.05)。4)FM和FCM组超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)和高密度脂蛋白(HDL)含量分别为:27.16,30.96 U·L-1;1.72,1.77 mmol·L-1;显著高于CK组(20.69 U·L-1,1.12 mmol·L-1)(P<0.05);FM、FCM组丙二醛(MDA)含量(0.57、0.59 nmol·mL-1)显著低于CK组(1.17 nmol·mL-1)(P<0.05);FCM组谷胱甘肽过氧化物酶(GSH-PX)(328.39 U·mL-1)显著高于CK组(278.01 U·mL-1)(P<0.05)。5)FCM组背最长肌中缬氨酸 (Val)、异亮氨酸 (Ile)、苯丙氨酸 (Phe)含量分别为:2.75,8.49,7.35 g·kg-1,显著高于FM(1.92,5.19,6.17 g·kg-1)和CK组(1.66,5.96,6.03 g·kg-1)(P<0.05);组氨酸(His)、丝氨酸(Ser)含量(3.87、6.70 g·kg-1)显著高于CK组(2.20、5.43 g·kg-1)(P<0.05)。综上所述,FCM组更能明显提升笋壳营养价值、改善笋壳青贮品质,饲喂湖羊效果最好。
党浩千, 覃娟清, 郭宇康, 张富, 王迎港, 刘庆华. 不同添加剂发酵笋壳对湖羊生产性能及瘤胃发酵的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7): 135-148.
Hao-qian DANG, Juan-qing QIN, Yu-kang GUO, Fu ZHANG, Ying-gang WANG, Qing-hua LIU. Effects of different additives on fermentation quality of bamboo shoot shell and growth performance and rumen fermentation function of Hu Sheep[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(7): 135-148.
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | |
原料 Ingredients | |||
青贮笋壳 Bamboo shoot shells silage (%) | 60 | 60 | 60 |
玉米 Corn (%) | 17.4 | 17.4 | 17.4 |
麦麸 Bran (%) | 12 | 12 | 12 |
豆粕 Soybean meal (%) | 6 | 6 | 6 |
氯化钠 NaCl (%) | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
碳酸氢钙 Ca(HCO3)2 (%) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
小苏打 NaHCO3 (%) | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
预混料 Premix1) (%) | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
合计 Total (%) | 100 | 100 | 100 |
营养水平 Nutrient levels2) | |||
粗蛋白 CP (%) | 11.55 | 12.67 | 12.47 |
中性洗涤纤维 NDF (%) | 47.75 | 41.38 | 40.68 |
酸性洗涤纤维ADF (%) | 42.33 | 37.83 | 39.75 |
粗灰分Ash (%) | 8.6 | 8.6 | 8.6 |
钙 Ca (%) | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 |
磷 P (%) | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 |
代谢能Metabolic energy (ME, MJ·kg-1) | 7.89 | 8.11 | 8.43 |
表1 试验饲粮组成及营养水平
Table 1 Experimental diet composition and nutrient level (dry matter basis)
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | |
原料 Ingredients | |||
青贮笋壳 Bamboo shoot shells silage (%) | 60 | 60 | 60 |
玉米 Corn (%) | 17.4 | 17.4 | 17.4 |
麦麸 Bran (%) | 12 | 12 | 12 |
豆粕 Soybean meal (%) | 6 | 6 | 6 |
氯化钠 NaCl (%) | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
碳酸氢钙 Ca(HCO3)2 (%) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
小苏打 NaHCO3 (%) | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
预混料 Premix1) (%) | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
合计 Total (%) | 100 | 100 | 100 |
营养水平 Nutrient levels2) | |||
粗蛋白 CP (%) | 11.55 | 12.67 | 12.47 |
中性洗涤纤维 NDF (%) | 47.75 | 41.38 | 40.68 |
酸性洗涤纤维ADF (%) | 42.33 | 37.83 | 39.75 |
粗灰分Ash (%) | 8.6 | 8.6 | 8.6 |
钙 Ca (%) | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 |
磷 P (%) | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 |
代谢能Metabolic energy (ME, MJ·kg-1) | 7.89 | 8.11 | 8.43 |
组别Groups | 干物质DM | 粗蛋白CP | 中性洗涤纤维NDF | 酸性洗涤纤维ADF | 半纤维素HC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 33.20±0.28c | 9.75±0.34c | 44.16±0.82a | 41.62±0.76a | 5.54±0.68a |
FM | 35.58±0.45b | 11.27±0.20b | 39.46±0.60b | 38.09±0.87b | 5.70±0.61a |
FCM | 36.60±0.64a | 12.09±0.03a | 37.09±0.30c | 37.49±0.47b | 4.53±5.50a |
表2 两组处理青贮45 d对笋壳饲料营养成分的影响
Table 2 Effects of silage 45 days with different treatments on nutrient composition of bamboo shoot shell feed (%)
组别Groups | 干物质DM | 粗蛋白CP | 中性洗涤纤维NDF | 酸性洗涤纤维ADF | 半纤维素HC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 33.20±0.28c | 9.75±0.34c | 44.16±0.82a | 41.62±0.76a | 5.54±0.68a |
FM | 35.58±0.45b | 11.27±0.20b | 39.46±0.60b | 38.09±0.87b | 5.70±0.61a |
FCM | 36.60±0.64a | 12.09±0.03a | 37.09±0.30c | 37.49±0.47b | 4.53±5.50a |
组别Groups | pH | 乳酸LA (%) | 氨态氮/总氮AN/TN |
---|---|---|---|
CK | 5.03±0.02a | 10.06±0.30c | 0.69±0.02a |
FM | 4.08±0.06b | 11.42±0.85b | 0.13±0.01b |
FCM | 3.08±0.03c | 13.39±0.63a | 0.12±0.01b |
表3 两组处理青贮45 d对笋壳pH和青贮品质的影响
Table 3 Effects of silage treatment for 45 days on pH and silage quality of bamboo shoot shell
组别Groups | pH | 乳酸LA (%) | 氨态氮/总氮AN/TN |
---|---|---|---|
CK | 5.03±0.02a | 10.06±0.30c | 0.69±0.02a |
FM | 4.08±0.06b | 11.42±0.85b | 0.13±0.01b |
FCM | 3.08±0.03c | 13.39±0.63a | 0.12±0.01b |
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | |
始重 IBW (kg) | 16.63±0.35a | 17.08±0.30a | 16.33±0.86a |
末重 FBW (kg) | 23.80±0.30b | 25.16±0.25a | 25.03±0.77a |
净增重 NG (kg) | 7.17±0.09c | 8.08±0.08b | 8.69±0.09a |
平均日增重 ADG (g) | 119.55±1.46c | 134.72±1.27b | 144.89±1.50a |
平均日采食量ADFI (kg) | 1.26±0.02b | 1.31±0.02a | 1.33±0.01a |
料重比 F/G | 10.60±0.24a | 9.75±0.11b | 9.16±0.02c |
表4 不同添加剂裹包混贮笋壳对湖羊生长性能的影响
Table 4 Effects of bamboo shoot shells of wrapping and mixing with different additives on growth performance of Hu Sheep
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | |
始重 IBW (kg) | 16.63±0.35a | 17.08±0.30a | 16.33±0.86a |
末重 FBW (kg) | 23.80±0.30b | 25.16±0.25a | 25.03±0.77a |
净增重 NG (kg) | 7.17±0.09c | 8.08±0.08b | 8.69±0.09a |
平均日增重 ADG (g) | 119.55±1.46c | 134.72±1.27b | 144.89±1.50a |
平均日采食量ADFI (kg) | 1.26±0.02b | 1.31±0.02a | 1.33±0.01a |
料重比 F/G | 10.60±0.24a | 9.75±0.11b | 9.16±0.02c |
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | |
宰前活重LWBS (kg) | 20.79±0.34b | 21.94±0.24a | 22.11±0.79a |
胴体重Carcass weight (kg) | 9.74±0.32b | 10.08±0.34ab | 10.41±0.24a |
屠宰率Dressing percentage (%) | 46.87±2.22a | 45.94±2.03a | 47.12±2.02a |
骨重Bone weight (kg) | 2.71±0.06a | 2.71±0.02a | 2.75±0.04a |
净肉重Net meat weight (kg) | 8.71±0.45b | 9.25±0.27ab | 9.48±0.07a |
肉骨比Meat to bone ratio (%) | 31.18±1.53a | 29.62±0.61a | 28.99±0.19a |
净肉率Net meat rate (%) | 41.92±1.82a | 42.19±1.68a | 42.88±1.32a |
眼肌面积Eye muscle area (cm2) | 11.62±0.49b | 13.07±0.47ab | 14.41±1.23a |
GR值GR value (mm) | 4.40±0.53a | 3.87±0.64a | 4.40±0.53a |
表5 不同添加剂裹包混贮笋壳对湖羊屠宰性能的影响
Table 5 Effects of bamboo shoot shells of wrapping and mixing with different additives on slaughter performance of Hu Sheep
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | |
宰前活重LWBS (kg) | 20.79±0.34b | 21.94±0.24a | 22.11±0.79a |
胴体重Carcass weight (kg) | 9.74±0.32b | 10.08±0.34ab | 10.41±0.24a |
屠宰率Dressing percentage (%) | 46.87±2.22a | 45.94±2.03a | 47.12±2.02a |
骨重Bone weight (kg) | 2.71±0.06a | 2.71±0.02a | 2.75±0.04a |
净肉重Net meat weight (kg) | 8.71±0.45b | 9.25±0.27ab | 9.48±0.07a |
肉骨比Meat to bone ratio (%) | 31.18±1.53a | 29.62±0.61a | 28.99±0.19a |
净肉率Net meat rate (%) | 41.92±1.82a | 42.19±1.68a | 42.88±1.32a |
眼肌面积Eye muscle area (cm2) | 11.62±0.49b | 13.07±0.47ab | 14.41±1.23a |
GR值GR value (mm) | 4.40±0.53a | 3.87±0.64a | 4.40±0.53a |
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | ||
心脏Heart | 重量Weight (g) | 93.77±4.43b | 108.47±2.99a | 101.25±3.14ab |
心脏指数Heart index (%) | 0.46±0.01a | 0.48±0.02a | 0.47±0.01a | |
肝脏Liver | 重量Weight (g) | 297.88±7.90c | 319.78±4.69b | 332.76±4.02a |
肝脏指数Liver index (%) | 1.43±0.03a | 1.45±0.04a | 1.50±0.06a | |
脾脏Spleen | 重量Weight (g) | 26.05±2.35b | 29.01±2.75ab | 32.55±2.42a |
脾脏指数Spleen index (%) | 0.13±0.01a | 0.15±0.15a | 0.13±0.15a | |
肺脏Lung | 重量Weight (g) | 219.82±3.78b | 235.82±9.68ab | 256.12±11.31a |
肺脏指数Lung index (%) | 1.06±0.04b | 1.07±0.04ab | 1.16±0.05a | |
肾脏Kidney | 重量Weight (g) | 59.85±6.81a | 53.67±8.37a | 53.83±1.99a |
肾脏指数Kidney index (%) | 0.29±0.02a | 0.24±0.04ab | 0.25±0.01b | |
瘤胃Rumen | 重量Weight (g) | 418.76±4.75c | 447.18±4.13b | 475.32±7.07a |
瘤胃指数Rumen index (%) | 2.01±0.02b | 2.04±0.04b | 2.15±0.05a | |
网胃Reticulum | 重量Weight (g) | 47.03±14.39a | 68.80±7.73a | 60.38±16.65a |
网胃指数Reticulum index (%) | 0.23±0.08a | 0.31±0.03a | 0.29±0.07a | |
瓣胃Omasum | 重量Weight (g) | 52.48±9.24a | 66.75±4.88a | 71.37±2.76a |
瓣胃指数Omasum index (%) | 0.26±0.05b | 0.29±0.01ab | 0.33±0.02a | |
皱胃Abomasum | 重量Weight (g) | 60.09±7.49c | 75.05±3.98b | 85.15±2.10a |
皱胃指数Abomasum index (%) | 0.29±0.04b | 0.34±0.02ab | 0.39±0.02a | |
小肠Small intestine | 重量Weight (g) | 399.01±4.99c | 416.62±2.13b | 434.63±10.07a |
小肠指数Small intestine index (%) | 1.76±0.05b | 1.86±0.10b | 2.02±0.03a | |
大肠Large intestine | 重量Weight (g) | 279.36±2.27b | 286.70±7.82b | 303.48±3.56a |
大肠指数Large intestine index (%) | 1.37±0.05a | 1.28±0.10a | 1.41±0.05a |
表6 不同添加剂裹包混贮笋壳对湖羊器官发育的影响
Table 6 Effects of bamboo shoot shells of wrapping and mixing with different additives on organ development of Hu Sheep
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | ||
心脏Heart | 重量Weight (g) | 93.77±4.43b | 108.47±2.99a | 101.25±3.14ab |
心脏指数Heart index (%) | 0.46±0.01a | 0.48±0.02a | 0.47±0.01a | |
肝脏Liver | 重量Weight (g) | 297.88±7.90c | 319.78±4.69b | 332.76±4.02a |
肝脏指数Liver index (%) | 1.43±0.03a | 1.45±0.04a | 1.50±0.06a | |
脾脏Spleen | 重量Weight (g) | 26.05±2.35b | 29.01±2.75ab | 32.55±2.42a |
脾脏指数Spleen index (%) | 0.13±0.01a | 0.15±0.15a | 0.13±0.15a | |
肺脏Lung | 重量Weight (g) | 219.82±3.78b | 235.82±9.68ab | 256.12±11.31a |
肺脏指数Lung index (%) | 1.06±0.04b | 1.07±0.04ab | 1.16±0.05a | |
肾脏Kidney | 重量Weight (g) | 59.85±6.81a | 53.67±8.37a | 53.83±1.99a |
肾脏指数Kidney index (%) | 0.29±0.02a | 0.24±0.04ab | 0.25±0.01b | |
瘤胃Rumen | 重量Weight (g) | 418.76±4.75c | 447.18±4.13b | 475.32±7.07a |
瘤胃指数Rumen index (%) | 2.01±0.02b | 2.04±0.04b | 2.15±0.05a | |
网胃Reticulum | 重量Weight (g) | 47.03±14.39a | 68.80±7.73a | 60.38±16.65a |
网胃指数Reticulum index (%) | 0.23±0.08a | 0.31±0.03a | 0.29±0.07a | |
瓣胃Omasum | 重量Weight (g) | 52.48±9.24a | 66.75±4.88a | 71.37±2.76a |
瓣胃指数Omasum index (%) | 0.26±0.05b | 0.29±0.01ab | 0.33±0.02a | |
皱胃Abomasum | 重量Weight (g) | 60.09±7.49c | 75.05±3.98b | 85.15±2.10a |
皱胃指数Abomasum index (%) | 0.29±0.04b | 0.34±0.02ab | 0.39±0.02a | |
小肠Small intestine | 重量Weight (g) | 399.01±4.99c | 416.62±2.13b | 434.63±10.07a |
小肠指数Small intestine index (%) | 1.76±0.05b | 1.86±0.10b | 2.02±0.03a | |
大肠Large intestine | 重量Weight (g) | 279.36±2.27b | 286.70±7.82b | 303.48±3.56a |
大肠指数Large intestine index (%) | 1.37±0.05a | 1.28±0.10a | 1.41±0.05a |
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | |
必需氨基酸Essential amino-acid (EAA) | |||
苏氨酸Threonine (Thr) | 4.90±0.53a | 5.11±0.82a | 6.01±0.09a |
缬氨酸Valine (Val ) | 1.66±0.29b | 1.92±0.47b | 2.75±0.14a |
蛋氨酸Methionine (Met) | 3.66±0.85a | 3.89±0.54a | 4.46±0.19a |
异亮氨酸Isoleucine (Ile) | 5.96±1.56b | 5.19±1.15b | 8.49±0.38a |
亮氨酸Leucine (Leu) | 9.46±1.22a | 10.19±2.32a | 11.87±0.09a |
苯丙氨酸Phenylalanine (Phe) | 6.03±0.59b | 6.17±0.65b | 7.35±0.12a |
赖氨酸Lysine (Lys) | 7.64±1.41a | 9.40±3.92a | 9.77±0.62a |
组氨酸Histidine (His) | 2.20±0.94b | 2.69±0.41ab | 3.87±0.35a |
非必需氨基酸Non-essential amino acid (NEAA) | |||
天冬氨酸Aspartic acid (Asp) | 10.31±0.58a | 12.13±2.97a | 12.47±0.24a |
酪氨酸Tyrosine (Tyr) | 3.17±0.48a | 3.57±1.24a | 4.45±0.46a |
精氨酸Arginine (Arg) | 9.05±1.05a | 10.68±1.41a | 10.82±0.49a |
脯氨酸Proline (Pro) | 7.71±0.97a | 13.29±6.49a | 11.12±6.73a |
丝氨酸Serine (Ser) | 5.43±0.52b | 6.42±0.82ab | 6.70±0.22a |
谷氨酸Glutamic acid (Glu) | 18.23±0.66a | 21.59±4.81a | 22.96±0.19a |
甘氨酸Glycine (Gly) | 7.03±0.78a | 9.56±3.23a | 9.75±4.43a |
丙氨酸Alanine (Ala) | 12.38±3.25a | 12.09±1.85a | 10.69±0.62a |
必需氨基酸总量Total essential amino acid (TEAA) | 82.04±12.77a | 87.36±10.32a | 82.85±3.56a |
表7 不同添加剂裹包混贮笋壳对湖羊羊肉氨基酸含量的影响
Table 7 Effects of bamboo shoot shells of wrapping and mixing with different additives on amino acid content of Hu Sheep (g·kg-1)
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | |
必需氨基酸Essential amino-acid (EAA) | |||
苏氨酸Threonine (Thr) | 4.90±0.53a | 5.11±0.82a | 6.01±0.09a |
缬氨酸Valine (Val ) | 1.66±0.29b | 1.92±0.47b | 2.75±0.14a |
蛋氨酸Methionine (Met) | 3.66±0.85a | 3.89±0.54a | 4.46±0.19a |
异亮氨酸Isoleucine (Ile) | 5.96±1.56b | 5.19±1.15b | 8.49±0.38a |
亮氨酸Leucine (Leu) | 9.46±1.22a | 10.19±2.32a | 11.87±0.09a |
苯丙氨酸Phenylalanine (Phe) | 6.03±0.59b | 6.17±0.65b | 7.35±0.12a |
赖氨酸Lysine (Lys) | 7.64±1.41a | 9.40±3.92a | 9.77±0.62a |
组氨酸Histidine (His) | 2.20±0.94b | 2.69±0.41ab | 3.87±0.35a |
非必需氨基酸Non-essential amino acid (NEAA) | |||
天冬氨酸Aspartic acid (Asp) | 10.31±0.58a | 12.13±2.97a | 12.47±0.24a |
酪氨酸Tyrosine (Tyr) | 3.17±0.48a | 3.57±1.24a | 4.45±0.46a |
精氨酸Arginine (Arg) | 9.05±1.05a | 10.68±1.41a | 10.82±0.49a |
脯氨酸Proline (Pro) | 7.71±0.97a | 13.29±6.49a | 11.12±6.73a |
丝氨酸Serine (Ser) | 5.43±0.52b | 6.42±0.82ab | 6.70±0.22a |
谷氨酸Glutamic acid (Glu) | 18.23±0.66a | 21.59±4.81a | 22.96±0.19a |
甘氨酸Glycine (Gly) | 7.03±0.78a | 9.56±3.23a | 9.75±4.43a |
丙氨酸Alanine (Ala) | 12.38±3.25a | 12.09±1.85a | 10.69±0.62a |
必需氨基酸总量Total essential amino acid (TEAA) | 82.04±12.77a | 87.36±10.32a | 82.85±3.56a |
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | |
谷丙转氨酶 ALT (U·L-1) | 20.73±8.05a | 16.37±9.13a | 25.40±6.99a |
谷草转氨酶 AST (U·L-1) | 21.23±11.51a | 30.80±2.01a | 26.87±5.00a |
转氨酶比 ALT/AST | 1.39±0.56a | 0.52±0.26b | 0.93±0.09ab |
尿素氮 UN (mmol·L-1) | 4.57±0.76a | 5.23±1.50a | 4.70±2.17a |
总蛋白 TP (g·L-1) | 70.50±1.64b | 78.37±2.47a | 76.77±4.67ab |
白蛋白 ALB (g·L-1) | 41.07±3.26a | 43.07±5.61a | 42.80±3.44a |
球蛋白 GLB (g·L-1) | 25.43±0.40a | 22.70±3.67a | 23.93±4.91a |
白球比 ALB/GLB | 1.61±0.13a | 1.92±0.35a | 1.82±0.22a |
葡萄糖 GLU (mmol·L-1) | 4.52±0.87a | 4.30±0.86a | 5.17±1.33a |
甘油三酯 TG (mmol·L-1) | 1.17±0.31a | 1.09±0.29a | 1.08±0.38a |
总胆固醇 TC (mmol·L-1) | 3.45±0.37a | 3.89±0.36a | 4.08±0.77a |
高密度脂蛋白HDL (mmol·L-1) | 1.12±0.36b | 1.72±0.19a | 1.77±0.16a |
低密度脂蛋白 LDL (mmol·L-1) | 2.32±0.15a | 2.17±0.48a | 2.31±0.70a |
超氧化物歧化酶SOD (U·L-1) | 20.69±2.54b | 27.16±2.44a | 30.96±1.06a |
谷胱甘肽过氧化物酶GSH-PX (U·mL-1) | 278.01±7.76b | 302.66±7.29ab | 328.39±12.52a |
丙二醛 MDA (nmol·mL-1) | 1.17±0.27a | 0.57±0.09b | 0.59±0.06b |
表8 不同添加剂裹包混贮笋壳对湖羊血液生化指标的影响
Table 8 Effects of bamboo shoot shells of wrapping and mixing with different additives on blood biochemical indexes of Hu Sheep
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | |
谷丙转氨酶 ALT (U·L-1) | 20.73±8.05a | 16.37±9.13a | 25.40±6.99a |
谷草转氨酶 AST (U·L-1) | 21.23±11.51a | 30.80±2.01a | 26.87±5.00a |
转氨酶比 ALT/AST | 1.39±0.56a | 0.52±0.26b | 0.93±0.09ab |
尿素氮 UN (mmol·L-1) | 4.57±0.76a | 5.23±1.50a | 4.70±2.17a |
总蛋白 TP (g·L-1) | 70.50±1.64b | 78.37±2.47a | 76.77±4.67ab |
白蛋白 ALB (g·L-1) | 41.07±3.26a | 43.07±5.61a | 42.80±3.44a |
球蛋白 GLB (g·L-1) | 25.43±0.40a | 22.70±3.67a | 23.93±4.91a |
白球比 ALB/GLB | 1.61±0.13a | 1.92±0.35a | 1.82±0.22a |
葡萄糖 GLU (mmol·L-1) | 4.52±0.87a | 4.30±0.86a | 5.17±1.33a |
甘油三酯 TG (mmol·L-1) | 1.17±0.31a | 1.09±0.29a | 1.08±0.38a |
总胆固醇 TC (mmol·L-1) | 3.45±0.37a | 3.89±0.36a | 4.08±0.77a |
高密度脂蛋白HDL (mmol·L-1) | 1.12±0.36b | 1.72±0.19a | 1.77±0.16a |
低密度脂蛋白 LDL (mmol·L-1) | 2.32±0.15a | 2.17±0.48a | 2.31±0.70a |
超氧化物歧化酶SOD (U·L-1) | 20.69±2.54b | 27.16±2.44a | 30.96±1.06a |
谷胱甘肽过氧化物酶GSH-PX (U·mL-1) | 278.01±7.76b | 302.66±7.29ab | 328.39±12.52a |
丙二醛 MDA (nmol·mL-1) | 1.17±0.27a | 0.57±0.09b | 0.59±0.06b |
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | |
pH | 7.31±0.18a | 7.46±0.26a | 7.58±0.01a |
乙酸 Acetic acid (mmol·L-1) | 24.88±0.18b | 29.03±0.09ab | 36.51±1.01a |
丙酸 Propionic acid (mmol·L-1) | 9.12±0.03b | 9.76±0.08ab | 11.58±0.12a |
丁酸 Butyric acid (mmol·L-1) | 5.14±0.03c | 5.22±0.02b | 6.14±0.03a |
异丁酸 Isobutyric acid (mmol·L-1) | 3.08±0.01b | 2.92±0.03c | 3.15±0.02a |
异戊酸 Isovaleric acid (mmol·L-1) | 2.59±0.03c | 2.90±0.02a | 2.67±0.01b |
戊酸 Valeric acid (mmol·L-1) | 5.93±0.02a | 5.93±0.01a | 5.91±0.03b |
总挥发性脂肪酸 TVFA (mmol·L-1) | 39.35±0.13c | 42.24±0.03b | 49.17±0.69a |
乙丙比 A/P | 2.02±0.01b | 2.12±0.08a | 2.16±0.04a |
氨态氮 AN (mg·dL-1) | 19.71±0.15a | 17.45±0.18a | 12.41±0.10a |
表9 不同添加剂裹包混贮笋壳对湖羊瘤胃发酵参数的影响
Table 9 Effects of bamboo shoot shells of wrapping and mixing with different additives on rumen fermentation parameters of Hu Sheep
项目 Items | 组别 Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
CK | FM | FCM | |
pH | 7.31±0.18a | 7.46±0.26a | 7.58±0.01a |
乙酸 Acetic acid (mmol·L-1) | 24.88±0.18b | 29.03±0.09ab | 36.51±1.01a |
丙酸 Propionic acid (mmol·L-1) | 9.12±0.03b | 9.76±0.08ab | 11.58±0.12a |
丁酸 Butyric acid (mmol·L-1) | 5.14±0.03c | 5.22±0.02b | 6.14±0.03a |
异丁酸 Isobutyric acid (mmol·L-1) | 3.08±0.01b | 2.92±0.03c | 3.15±0.02a |
异戊酸 Isovaleric acid (mmol·L-1) | 2.59±0.03c | 2.90±0.02a | 2.67±0.01b |
戊酸 Valeric acid (mmol·L-1) | 5.93±0.02a | 5.93±0.01a | 5.91±0.03b |
总挥发性脂肪酸 TVFA (mmol·L-1) | 39.35±0.13c | 42.24±0.03b | 49.17±0.69a |
乙丙比 A/P | 2.02±0.01b | 2.12±0.08a | 2.16±0.04a |
氨态氮 AN (mg·dL-1) | 19.71±0.15a | 17.45±0.18a | 12.41±0.10a |
1 | Yu N F, Wang Y. Development of exploitation of bamboo shoots shell in China. Jiangxi Forestry Science and Technology, 2010(4): 51-53. |
余能富, 王玉. 我国笋壳开发利用进展. 江西林业科技, 2010(4): 51-53. | |
2 | Zeng J Q, Yue W F. Development prospect of efficient ecological circulation culture mode of bamboo shoot husk feed. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2015, 36(11): 31-32. |
曾俊棋, 岳万福. 笋壳饲料高效生态循环养殖模式的发展前景. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2015, 36(11): 31-32. | |
3 | Zhao J, Wang S, Dong Z, et al. Partial substitution of whole-crop corn with bamboo shoot shell improves aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage without affecting in vitro digestibility. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 2021, 105(3): 431-441. |
4 | Wang H, Li K, Tian Y, et al. Utilization status and analysis of bamboo shoot husk-taking Sichuan Province as an example. Rural Economy and Science-Technology, 2018, 29(9): 45, 57. |
王浩, 李凯, 田瑶, 等. 笋壳利用现状及其分析——以四川省为例. 农村经济与科技, 2018, 29(9): 45, 57. | |
5 | Wang J S. Research on development strategy of ecological agriculture from the perspective of rural revitalization. Agricultural Engineering Technology, 2021, 41(27): 73-74. |
王晋省. 乡村振兴视域下生态农业发展策略研究. 农业工程技术, 2021, 41(27): 73-74. | |
6 | Zhao J X. Research on development strategy of ecological agriculture from the perspective of rural revitalization. Shanxi Agricultural Economy, 2021(13): 159-160. |
赵俊霞. 乡村振兴视域下生态农业发展策略研究. 山西农经, 2021(13): 159-160. | |
7 | Wang C. Feed utilization of bamboo shoot husks is an example of China’s commercial crop by-products. Animal Agriculture, 2016(11): 1-2. |
王翀. 我国经济作物副产物的饲料化利用途径——以笋壳的饲料化利用为例. 畜牧产业, 2016(11): 1-2. | |
8 | Zheng M R. Study on the feasibility of silage with bamboo shoot husk. Biology Teaching, 2017, 42(8): 63-64. |
郑梅蓉. 笋壳青贮饲料的可行性实验探究. 生物学教学, 2017, 42(8): 63-64. | |
9 | Jiang J F, Liu J C, Wu J L, et al. Study on dynamic change of fermentation quality in mixed silages of bamboo shoot shell and rice husk. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2020, 32(10): 1757-1763. |
姜俊芳, 柳俊超, 吴建良, 等. 笋壳与稻壳混合青贮品质动态变化研究. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(10): 1757-1763. | |
10 | Lou J J, Mao H L, Wang H F, et al. Study on feed utilization of bamboo shoot by-products. Animal Agriculture, 2016(12): 37-42. |
楼俊杰, 茅慧玲, 汪海峰, 等. 笋副产物的饲料化利用研究. 畜牧产业, 2016(12): 37-42. | |
11 | Huang L P, Chen Y, Huang X X, et al. Effect of different additives on the fermentation quality and nutritional components of whole corn silage. Feed Research, 2021, 44(10): 74-78. |
黄丽萍, 陈颖, 黄杏秀, 等. 不同添加剂对全株玉米青贮发酵品质及营养成分的影响. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(10): 74-78. | |
12 | Zeng J Q. Resourceful utilization of bamboo shoot shell feedstuff and the study of its detoxication methods of cyanide glycoside. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Agriculture & Forestry University, 2015. |
曾俊棋. 笋壳饲料的资源化利用及其氰甙脱毒方法的研究. 杭州: 浙江农林大学, 2015. | |
13 | Sun J R, Zhao W H. Nutritional value of silage and its application in ruminants. China Feed, 2022(10): 5-8. |
孙炬仁, 赵武恒. 青贮饲料的营养价值及其在反刍动物中的应用. 中国饲料, 2022(10): 5-8. | |
14 | Li C Y, Yuan T, Liu Y H. Effect of corn stover prepared with biological silage on weight gain of Taohan F1 sheep. China Herbivore Science, 2014, 34(1): 77-78. |
李春佑, 袁涛, 刘严华. 生物青贮剂制作玉米秸秆饲喂陶寒F1羊增重效果. 中国草食动物科学, 2014, 34(1): 77-78. | |
15 | Tao L, Feng W X, Wang Y R, et al. Effects of microecological agents on the fermentation quality, nutrition composition and in situ ruminal degradability of corn stalk silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(9): 152-160. |
陶莲, 冯文晓, 王玉荣, 等. 微生态制剂对玉米秸秆青贮发酵品质、营养成分及瘤胃降解率的影响. 草业学报, 2016, 25(9): 152-160. | |
16 | Song J C, Niu Y B. Feed analysis and feed quality testing technology. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2012. |
宋金昌, 牛一兵. 饲料分析与饲料质量检测技术. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2012. | |
17 | Van Soest P J. Development of a comprehensive system of feed analyses and its application to forages. Journal of Animal Science, 1967, 26(1): 119-128. |
18 | Xue L P, Chang S H, Wang Y Z, et al. Effect of different additive treatments on quality of alfalfa silage. Feed Research, 2022(21): 118-121. |
薛莉萍, 常生华, 王永珍, 等. 不同添加处理对紫花苜蓿裹包青贮品质的影响. 饲料研究, 2022(21): 118-121. | |
19 | Licitra G, Hernandez T M, Van Soest P J. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1996, 57(4): 347-358. |
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): 2964-2971. |
21 | NRC. Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: sheep, goats, cervids, and new world camelids. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press, 2007. |
22 | Wang F, Shangguan M J, Zhang B Y, et al. Effect of vinegar residue on growth performance, slaughter performance and meat quality of fattening sheep. Journal of Domestic Animal Ecology, 2018, 39(6): 52-56. |
王芳, 上官明军, 张变英, 等. 醋糟对育肥羊生产性能、屠宰性能及肉质特性的影响. 家畜生态学报, 2018, 39(6): 52-56. | |
23 | Bu Z K. Effects of natural grass products on performance and rumen microorganisms of mutton sheep. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2021. |
卜振鲲. 天然牧草产品对肉羊生产性能及瘤胃微生物影响的研究. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2021. | |
24 | Zhao Y Z. Sheep production science. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1995. |
赵有璋. 羊生产学. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1995. | |
25 | Ma S M, Song Q, Yu X L, et al. Effects of different silage methods on nutritional value feed quality of triticale silage. Gansu Animal Husbandry and Veterinary, 2022, 52(2): 40-43. |
马淑梅, 宋谦, 余小亮, 等. 不同青贮方式对饲用小黑麦青贮营养价值、饲料品质的影响. 甘肃畜牧兽医, 2022, 52(2): 40-43. | |
26 | Sun G B, Chang J, Yin Q Q, et al. Effects of cellulase and compound probiotics on silage quality of whole corn. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2018, 30(11): 4738-4745. |
孙贵宾, 常娟, 尹清强, 等. 纤维素酶和复合益生菌对全株玉米青贮品质的影响. 动物营养学报, 2018, 30(11): 4738-4745. | |
27 | Jayachandran M, Xu B. An insight into the health benefits of fermented soy products. Food Chemistry, 2018(271): 362-371. |
28 | Nadeau E M G, Buxton D R, Russell J R, et al. Enzyme, bacterial inoculant, and formic acid effects on silage composition of orchardgrass and alfalfa. Journal of Dairy Science, 2000, 83(7): 1487-1502. |
29 | Ho C C, Deans B J, Just J, et al. Employing pressurized hot water extraction (PHWE) to explore natural products chemistry in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 2018(141): 1-7. |
30 | Lu Y X, Zhao M, Chen L Y, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus brucei and formic acid addition on fermentation quality and bacterial community of oat silage of different harvest stages in the Tibetan Plateau. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(6): 1736-1743. |
陆永祥, 赵嫚, 陈良寅, 等. 布氏乳杆菌和甲酸对青藏高原不同物候期燕麦青贮饲料发酵品质和细菌群落的影响. 草地学报, 2020, 28(6): 1736-1743. | |
31 | Wu Y C, Lin F.Effects of mixed silage in different proportions of Lolium perenne L. and Medicago sativa L. on fermentation quality and nutrient composition. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2022(14): 107-111. |
吴羽晨, 蔺芳. 不同比例多年生黑麦草与紫花苜蓿混合青贮对发酵品质和营养成分的影响. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2022(14): 107-111. | |
32 | Wu Z Y, Cao L, Gao J P, et al. Effects of microbial fermentation of alfalfa hay at different levels on growth performance, nutrient apparent digestibility and immune indices of mutton sheep. China Feed, 2020(11): 37-40. |
武治云, 曹莉, 高军攀, 等. 不同水平的微生物发酵苜蓿干草对肉羊生长性能、养分表观消化率及免疫指标的影响. 中国饲料, 2020(11): 37-40. | |
33 | Wang H, Zhou H L, Chen H B, et al. Effects of microbial stored bamboo shoot shell on growth performance, meat quality and blood physiological and biochemical indexes of Hu Sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2021, 57(1): 153-157. |
王华, 周华林, 陈洪博, 等. 微贮笋壳对湖羊生长性能、肉品质及血液生理生化指标的影响. 中国畜牧杂志, 2021, 57(1): 153-157. | |
34 | Wang G F, Wang Y L. Effects of silage whole corn with different silage agents on growth performance nutrient apparent digestibility blood biochemical indices and meat quality of mutton sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2022, 58(3): 142-146. |
王改芳, 王彦林. 不同青贮剂青贮全株玉米对肉羊生长性能、养分表观消化率、血液生化指标及肉品质的影响. 中国畜牧杂志, 2022, 58(3): 142-146. | |
35 | Fan Y, Huang Y C, Ma Y H, et al. Effects of hybrid Brassica silage on growth performance and blood indices of Hu Sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2022, 58(6): 204-209. |
范玥, 黄越川, 马亦珩, 等. 杂交构树青贮对湖羊生长性能和血液指标的影响. 中国畜牧杂志, 2022, 58(6): 204-209. | |
36 | Yang G X, Li G. Effect of silage maize with different silage additives on growth performance, apparent digestibility of nutrients, slaughtering performance and meat quality of beef cattle. Feed Research, 2021, 44(23): 16-19. |
杨光兴, 李刚. 不同青贮添加剂的青贮玉米对肉牛生长性能、营养物质表观消化率、屠宰性能及肉品质的影响. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(23): 16-19. | |
37 | Nkosi B D, Meeske R, Langa T, et al. Effects of bacterial silage inoculants on whole-crop maize silage fermentation and silage digestibility in rams. South African Journal of Animal Science, 2011, 41(4): 350-359. |
38 | Liu J B, Song S Z, Zhang L P. Effects of Bacillus subtilis on growth performance, slaughter performance and meat quality of weaned Hu Sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(5): 1-11. |
刘俊斌, 宋淑珍, 张利平. 枯草芽孢杆菌对断奶湖羊生长性能、屠宰性能和肉品质的影响. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(5): 1-11. | |
39 | Wang G H. Effects of different additives on the nutritive value of rice straw silage and productive performance of sheep. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2018. |
王光华. 不同添加剂处理包贮稻秸的营养价值评定及其对绵羊生产性能的影响. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2018. | |
40 | Hua J L, Guo L, Fu J W, et al. Effect of ratios of peanut straw and corn silage on rumen fermentation characteristics of Hu Sheep. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University, 2018, 49(9): 29-35. |
华金玲, 郭亮, 付佳伟, 等. 花生秸秆与青贮玉米搭配对湖羊瘤胃发酵特性的影响. 东北农业大学学报, 2018, 49(9): 29-35. | |
41 | Cui C, Shen C J, Jia G, et al. Effect of dietary Bacillus subtilis on proportion of bacteroidetes and firmicutes in swine intestine and lipid metabolism. Genetics and Molecular Research, 2013, 12(2): 1766-1776. |
42 | Wan F, Ma T, Ma C, et al. Effects of different feeding standards on growth and slaughter performance of dorper×Thin-Tailed Han crossbred meat lambs. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2016, 28(11): 3483-3492. |
万凡, 马涛, 马晨, 等. 不同饲养标准对杜寒杂交肉用绵羊生产和屠宰性能的影响. 动物营养学报, 2016, 28(11): 3483-3492. | |
43 | Yang S F, Xu J X. Comparative study of soybean isoflavone transformation based on compound probiotics and Bacillus subtilis fermentation. Feed Research, 2014(3): 1-4. |
杨守凤, 徐建雄. 基于复合益生菌和枯草芽孢杆菌发酵转化大豆异黄酮的比较研究. 饲料研究, 2014(3): 1-4. | |
44 | Wang W L, Han X M, Quan K. Slaughter performance and meat quality of Yuxi Fat-Tailed sheep. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 2018, 53(2): 37-42. |
王卫林, 韩向敏, 权凯. ‘豫西脂尾羊’屠宰性能及肉质分析. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2018, 53(2): 37-42. | |
45 | Wu P, Cao X L, Wang H C, et al. Effects of grazing on stubble sainfoin pasture on growth performance, rumen environmental parameters and microflora of Hu Sheep and Small-Tailed Han Sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(3): 1730-1742. |
吴璞, 曹旭亮, 王虎成, 等. 红豆草茬地放牧对湖羊和小尾寒羊生长性能、瘤胃内环境参数及微生物区系的影响. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(3): 1730-1742. | |
46 | Wu S. Effects of cellulase treatment of buckwheat straw on fiber structure and production performance and meat quality of Tan sheep. Yinchuan: Ningxia University, 2021. |
吴爽. 纤维素酶处理荞麦秸秆对其纤维结构以及滩羊生产性能和肉品质的影响. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2021. | |
47 | 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. | |
48 | Li M, Zi X J, Lv R L, et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and cellulase on quality and rumen degradation rate of Kinggrass silage. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 56(7): 161-165. |
李茂, 字学娟, 吕仁龙, 等. 添加乳酸菌和纤维素酶对王草青贮品质和瘤胃降解率的影响. 中国畜牧杂志, 2020, 56(7): 161-165. | |
49 | Mugabe W, Shao T, Li J, et al. Effect of hexanoic acid, Lactobacillus plantarum and their combination on the aerobic stability of napier grass silage. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2020, 129(4): 823-831. |
50 | Beauchemin K A, Colombatto D, Morgavi D P, et al. Mode of action of exogenous cell wall degrading enzymes for ruminants. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 2004, 84(1): 13-22. |
51 | Feng D Y. The functional mechanism and technical system establishment of exogenous enzymes preparation for ruminant feed. Feed Industry, 2022, 43(7): 1-8. |
冯定远. 反刍动物饲料酶制剂作用模式及其技术体系的建立. 饲料工业, 2022, 43(7): 1-8. | |
52 | Huang Y Q, Yan B P, Li F D, et al. Effect of enzyme preparation supplements in diets with different straw sources on the performance and ruminal fermentation of Hu Sheep. Pratacultural Science, 2020, 37(10): 2079-2088. |
黄右琴, 闫佰鹏, 李发弟, 等. 不同秸秆来源日粮添加酶制剂对湖羊生产性能和瘤胃发酵的影响. 草业科学, 2020, 37(10): 2079-2088. | |
53 | Li Z L, Li B G, Xu S Y, et al. Action mechanism and application of exogenous enzymes in ruminants. China Brewing, 2015, 34(11): 1-5. |
李忠玲, 李本光, 徐升运, 等. 外源酶制剂在反刍动物中的作用机理及应用. 中国酿造, 2015, 34(11): 1-5. |
[1] | 凌文卿, 张磊, 李珏, 冯启贤, 李妍, 周燚, 刘一佳, 阳伏林, 周晶. 布氏乳杆菌和不同糖类联用对紫花苜蓿青贮营养成分、发酵品质、瘤胃降解率及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7): 122-134. |
[2] | 叶婷, 吴晓娟, 芦奕晓, 刘生娟, 姜卓慧, 杨惠敏. 混播比例对两种苜蓿混播草地产量和种群密度稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 127-137. |
[3] | 王梓凡, 张晓庆, 钟志明, 权欣. 燕麦草捆和草块对彭波半细毛羊采食行为及生产性能的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 171-179. |
[4] | 梁梦琪, 武齐丰, 邵涛, 吴艾丽, 刘秦华. 添加剂对多花黑麦草青贮发酵品质、α-生育酚和β-胡萝卜素含量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 180-189. |
[5] | 刘爱瑜, 王超, 吴占军, 赵寿培, 赵俐辰, 李晓宇, 张伟涛, 王乐天, 高玉红. 热应激对断奶绵羔羊生长性能、抗氧化性能和瘤胃菌群的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(4): 173-182. |
[6] | 王腾飞, 王斌, 邓建强, 李满有, 倪旺, 冯琴, 妥昀昀, 兰剑. 宁夏干旱区滴灌条件下拉巴豆不同播种量与甜高粱混播饲草生产性能研究[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(3): 30-40. |
[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] | 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. |
[11] | 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. |
[12] | 戴东文, 庞凯悦, 王迅, 杨英魁, 柴沙驼, 王书祥. 精料补饲水平对暖季放牧牦牛瘤胃发酵和菌群结构的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(5): 169-177. |
[13] | 赵娟娟, 车大璐, 郭玮婷, 张伟涛, 刘连超, 赵俐辰, 高玉红, 孙新胜, 李雪梅, 王媛. 复方中药对热应激条件下杂交小尾寒羊生产性能、生理参数和血液理化指标的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(5): 178-189. |
[14] | 周迪, 杨帅, 张欣欣, 袁婧, 高艳霞, 李建国, 汪波, 周广生, 傅廷栋, 叶俊, 杨利国, 滑国华. 添加剂种类和组合对晾晒后全株油菜青贮效果的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(4): 124-135. |
[15] | 张欢, 牟怡晓, 张桂杰. 添加枸杞副产物对紫花苜蓿青贮发酵品质及微生物多样性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(4): 136-144. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||