草业学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (9): 169-179.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2025399
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
雷燕1,2(
), 贺海洋1,2, 汤鲜丽1,2, 张志飞1,2, 穆麟1,2(
)
收稿日期:2025-09-30
修回日期:2025-11-13
出版日期:2026-09-20
发布日期:2026-07-27
通讯作者:
穆麟
作者简介:Corresponding author. E-mail: linmu331@outlook.com基金资助:
Yan LEI1,2(
), Hai-yang HE1,2, Xian-li TANG1,2, Zhi-fei ZHANG1,2, Lin MU1,2(
)
Received:2025-09-30
Revised:2025-11-13
Online:2026-09-20
Published:2026-07-27
Contact:
Lin MU
摘要:
加拿大一枝黄花为菊科的多年生草本植物,不仅生物量大、粗蛋白与可溶性碳水化合物含量较高,还富含多酚、黄酮等活性成分,具有开发为功能型饲料的潜力。本研究以加拿大一枝黄花为青贮原料,探究植物乳杆菌与糖蜜添加对加拿大一枝黄花青贮品质的影响。试验采用双因素完全随机设计,设置4个糖蜜添加梯度(0、0.5%、1.0%、2.0%)和2个植物乳杆菌接种水平(0、106 cfu·g-1),青贮30 d后测定其发酵品质、营养品质及抗氧化指标。结果表明,仅添加糖蜜处理中,2.0%糖蜜组(M2L0)pH较M0L0、M0.5L0、M1L0显著降低(P<0.01);同一糖蜜添加水平下,接种植物乳杆菌降低青贮pH,同时显著降低氨态氮/总氮比值。糖蜜与植物乳杆菌互作显著降低了青贮饲料中中性洗涤纤维、酸性洗涤纤维的含量,增加了乳酸和水溶性碳水化合物的含量。此外,青贮30 d后加拿大一枝黄花的抗氧化活性与未青贮原料相比显著提升,而2.0%糖蜜和植物乳杆菌复配处理与对照组相比抗氧化活性进一步增强。综合分析表明,添加2.0%糖蜜并接种植物乳杆菌可显著提升青贮饲料的品质与抗氧化活性。本试验为实现加拿大一枝黄花的饲料化利用,解决入侵植物的生态治理提供了新思路。
雷燕, 贺海洋, 汤鲜丽, 张志飞, 穆麟. 乳酸菌和糖蜜对加拿大一枝黄花青贮品质及抗氧化活性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(9): 169-179.
Yan LEI, Hai-yang HE, Xian-li TANG, Zhi-fei ZHANG, Lin MU. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses on the quality and antioxidant activity of Solidago canadensis silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2026, 35(9): 169-179.
干物质 Dry matter (%FW) | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (%DM) | 可溶性碳水化合物Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | 酸性洗涤木质素 Acid detergent lignin (%DM) | 半纤维素 Hemicellulase (%DM) | 粗脂肪 Ether extract (%DM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36.83±0.57 | 11.64±0.15 | 7.45±0.18 | 64.03±0.45 | 46.74±0.45 | 9.08±0.48 | 16.85±0.03 | 6.02±0.10 |
表1 加拿大一枝黄花原料的营养成分
Table 1 The nutritional composition of S. canadensis raw materials
干物质 Dry matter (%FW) | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (%DM) | 可溶性碳水化合物Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | 酸性洗涤木质素 Acid detergent lignin (%DM) | 半纤维素 Hemicellulase (%DM) | 粗脂肪 Ether extract (%DM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36.83±0.57 | 11.64±0.15 | 7.45±0.18 | 64.03±0.45 | 46.74±0.45 | 9.08±0.48 | 16.85±0.03 | 6.02±0.10 |
指标 Index | 处理 Treatment | M0 | M0.5 | M1 | M2 | P值P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L | M | L×M | ||||||
| pH | L0 | 4.18±0.03a* | 4.05±0.06b | 4.12±0.02ab*** | 3.90±0.01c* | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.08 |
| LP | 4.08±0.02a | 3.92±0.03b | 3.87±0.01bc | 3.82±0.04c | ||||
| 乳酸Lactic acid (%DM) | L0 | 3.68±0.11b | 4.17±0.04b*** | 4.15±0.30b | 5.03±0.33a | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.27 |
| LP | 3.92±0.09c | 4.91±0.06b | 4.65±0.09b | 5.73±0.24a | ||||
| 乙酸Acetic acid (%DM) | L0 | 0.82±0.07a** | 0.74±0.14a* | 0.67±0.03a*** | 0.65±0.02a*** | <0.05 | <0.01 | 0.59 |
| LP | 0.54±0.01a | 0.37±0.03bc | 0.32±0.02c | 0.38±0.02b | ||||
| 丙酸Propionic acid (%DM) | L0 | 0.13±0.01b*** | 0.12±0.01b** | 0.15±0.01b | 0.25±0.01a | <0.05 | <0.01 | 0.18 |
| LP | 0.09±0.01b | 0.09±0.01b | 0.10±0.05b | 0.26±0.01a | ||||
| 丁酸Butyric acid (%DM) | L0 | ND | ND | ND | ND | - | - | - |
| LP | ND | ND | ND | ND | ||||
| 氨态氮/总氮Ammonia-N/total-N | L0 | 2.80±0.15ab*** | 2.70±0.25ab** | 3.07±0.21a*** | 2.34±0.17b*** | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.06 |
| LP | 1.42±0.15a | 0.61±0.02c | 0.89±0.05b | 0.75±0.10bc | ||||
表2 加拿大一枝黄花青贮饲料的发酵品质
Table 2 The fermentation quality of S. canadensis silage
指标 Index | 处理 Treatment | M0 | M0.5 | M1 | M2 | P值P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L | M | L×M | ||||||
| pH | L0 | 4.18±0.03a* | 4.05±0.06b | 4.12±0.02ab*** | 3.90±0.01c* | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.08 |
| LP | 4.08±0.02a | 3.92±0.03b | 3.87±0.01bc | 3.82±0.04c | ||||
| 乳酸Lactic acid (%DM) | L0 | 3.68±0.11b | 4.17±0.04b*** | 4.15±0.30b | 5.03±0.33a | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.27 |
| LP | 3.92±0.09c | 4.91±0.06b | 4.65±0.09b | 5.73±0.24a | ||||
| 乙酸Acetic acid (%DM) | L0 | 0.82±0.07a** | 0.74±0.14a* | 0.67±0.03a*** | 0.65±0.02a*** | <0.05 | <0.01 | 0.59 |
| LP | 0.54±0.01a | 0.37±0.03bc | 0.32±0.02c | 0.38±0.02b | ||||
| 丙酸Propionic acid (%DM) | L0 | 0.13±0.01b*** | 0.12±0.01b** | 0.15±0.01b | 0.25±0.01a | <0.05 | <0.01 | 0.18 |
| LP | 0.09±0.01b | 0.09±0.01b | 0.10±0.05b | 0.26±0.01a | ||||
| 丁酸Butyric acid (%DM) | L0 | ND | ND | ND | ND | - | - | - |
| LP | ND | ND | ND | ND | ||||
| 氨态氮/总氮Ammonia-N/total-N | L0 | 2.80±0.15ab*** | 2.70±0.25ab** | 3.07±0.21a*** | 2.34±0.17b*** | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.06 |
| LP | 1.42±0.15a | 0.61±0.02c | 0.89±0.05b | 0.75±0.10bc | ||||
指标 Index | 处理 Treatment | M0 | M0.5 | M1 | M2 | P值P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L | M | L×M | ||||||
| 干物质Dry matter (%FW) | L0 | 33.36±0.53c | 33.69±0.34bc | 35.09±1.19ab | 35.58±0.50a | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
| LP | 34.96±1.85a | 35.39±1.90a | 36.37±1.62a | 36.31±0.65a | ||||
| 粗蛋白Crude protein (%DM) | L0 | 12.11±0.03c*** | 12.80±0.06b*** | 13.19±0.03a*** | 12.18±0.18c | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| LP | 13.18±0.12a | 11.75±0.09c | 12.04±0.06b | 12.18±0.05b | ||||
| 水溶性碳水化合物Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM) | L0 | 1.30±0.07c** | 1.66±0.02b* | 1.62±0.07b*** | 2.00±0.04a** | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| LP | 1.86±0.08c | 2.23±0.13b | 2.37±0.10b | 2.65±0.14a | ||||
| 粗脂肪Ether extract (%DM) | L0 | 5.81±0.02b | 6.08±0.11a | 6.15±0.02a | 5.70±0.11b | >0.05 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| LP | 6.28±0.12a | 5.68±0.06b | 5.78±0.09b | 5.59±0.14b | ||||
| 中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | L0 | 65.02±0.39a*** | 53.55±1.05b*** | 50.52±1.76b** | 54.00±0.42b** | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| LP | 63.78±1.20a | 61.77±0.68b | 59.30±0.46c | 56.40±0.41d | ||||
| 酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | L0 | 49.04±0.54a*** | 40.05±0.77bc*** | 37.08±1.36c** | 40.66±0.56b | <0.05 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| LP | 49.54±1.28a | 46.43±0.69b | 44.18±0.47c | 42.22±0.07d | ||||
| 酸性洗涤木质素Acid detergent lignin (%DM) | L0 | 10.21±1.05a | 7.18±1.10c | 8.13±0.10bc* | 9.15±0.27ab | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
| LP | 9.35±0.07a | 8.76±2.24a | 10.87±1.20a | 9.64±1.27a | ||||
半纤维素Hemicellulase (%DM) | L0 | 15.40±0.10a*** | 13.08±0.29b** | 12.88±0.58b* | 12.91±0.35b | <0.05 | <0.01 | < 0.01 |
| LP | 13.80±0.24b | 14.78±0.13a | 14.41±0.26ab | 13.71±0.46b | ||||
表3 加拿大一枝黄花青贮饲料的营养品质
Table 3 The nutritional quality of S. canadensis silage
指标 Index | 处理 Treatment | M0 | M0.5 | M1 | M2 | P值P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L | M | L×M | ||||||
| 干物质Dry matter (%FW) | L0 | 33.36±0.53c | 33.69±0.34bc | 35.09±1.19ab | 35.58±0.50a | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
| LP | 34.96±1.85a | 35.39±1.90a | 36.37±1.62a | 36.31±0.65a | ||||
| 粗蛋白Crude protein (%DM) | L0 | 12.11±0.03c*** | 12.80±0.06b*** | 13.19±0.03a*** | 12.18±0.18c | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| LP | 13.18±0.12a | 11.75±0.09c | 12.04±0.06b | 12.18±0.05b | ||||
| 水溶性碳水化合物Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM) | L0 | 1.30±0.07c** | 1.66±0.02b* | 1.62±0.07b*** | 2.00±0.04a** | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| LP | 1.86±0.08c | 2.23±0.13b | 2.37±0.10b | 2.65±0.14a | ||||
| 粗脂肪Ether extract (%DM) | L0 | 5.81±0.02b | 6.08±0.11a | 6.15±0.02a | 5.70±0.11b | >0.05 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| LP | 6.28±0.12a | 5.68±0.06b | 5.78±0.09b | 5.59±0.14b | ||||
| 中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | L0 | 65.02±0.39a*** | 53.55±1.05b*** | 50.52±1.76b** | 54.00±0.42b** | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| LP | 63.78±1.20a | 61.77±0.68b | 59.30±0.46c | 56.40±0.41d | ||||
| 酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | L0 | 49.04±0.54a*** | 40.05±0.77bc*** | 37.08±1.36c** | 40.66±0.56b | <0.05 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| LP | 49.54±1.28a | 46.43±0.69b | 44.18±0.47c | 42.22±0.07d | ||||
| 酸性洗涤木质素Acid detergent lignin (%DM) | L0 | 10.21±1.05a | 7.18±1.10c | 8.13±0.10bc* | 9.15±0.27ab | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
| LP | 9.35±0.07a | 8.76±2.24a | 10.87±1.20a | 9.64±1.27a | ||||
半纤维素Hemicellulase (%DM) | L0 | 15.40±0.10a*** | 13.08±0.29b** | 12.88±0.58b* | 12.91±0.35b | <0.05 | <0.01 | < 0.01 |
| LP | 13.80±0.24b | 14.78±0.13a | 14.41±0.26ab | 13.71±0.46b | ||||
处理 Treatment | 加权关联度 Weighted correlation degree | 排名 Ranking |
|---|---|---|
| M2LP | 0.872 | 1 |
| M1LP | 0.859 | 2 |
| M1L0 | 0.843 | 3 |
| M0LP | 0.826 | 4 |
| M0L0 | 0.801 | 5 |
| M2L0 | 0.785 | 6 |
| M0.5LP | 0.763 | 7 |
| M0.5L0 | 0.741 | 8 |
表4 各处理加权关联度及其排名
Table 4 Weighted correlation degree and ranking of each treatment group
处理 Treatment | 加权关联度 Weighted correlation degree | 排名 Ranking |
|---|---|---|
| M2LP | 0.872 | 1 |
| M1LP | 0.859 | 2 |
| M1L0 | 0.843 | 3 |
| M0LP | 0.826 | 4 |
| M0L0 | 0.801 | 5 |
| M2L0 | 0.785 | 6 |
| M0.5LP | 0.763 | 7 |
| M0.5L0 | 0.741 | 8 |
| 指标Index | 原料Raw material | M0L0 | M2LP |
|---|---|---|---|
| 铁离子还原能力Ferric reducing antioxidant power (g trolox·kg-1 DM) | 13.52±0.70c | 59.34±4.77b | 67.61±0.74a |
| DPPH清除率Scavenging rate of DPPH (g trolox·kg-1 DM) | 4.98±0.48c | 10.06±0.28b | 23.86±0.82a |
| ABTS清除率Scavenging rate of ABTS (g trolox·kg-1 DM) | 16.77±1.62c | 51.68±0.59a | 46.31±0.89b |
表5 加拿大一枝黄花青贮前后的抗氧化活性分析
Table 5 Analysis of antioxidant activity before and after silage of S. canadensis
| 指标Index | 原料Raw material | M0L0 | M2LP |
|---|---|---|---|
| 铁离子还原能力Ferric reducing antioxidant power (g trolox·kg-1 DM) | 13.52±0.70c | 59.34±4.77b | 67.61±0.74a |
| DPPH清除率Scavenging rate of DPPH (g trolox·kg-1 DM) | 4.98±0.48c | 10.06±0.28b | 23.86±0.82a |
| ABTS清除率Scavenging rate of ABTS (g trolox·kg-1 DM) | 16.77±1.62c | 51.68±0.59a | 46.31±0.89b |
| [1] | Wang J T, Sa D W, Shao L H, et al. Optimizing agricultural structure and accelerating the development of the forage industry. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2025, 34(2): 211-220. |
| 王加亭, 撒多文, 邵麟惠, 等. 调整优化农业结构, 加快饲草产业发展. 草业学报, 2025, 34(2): 211-220. | |
| [2] | Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. Announcement No.1773 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2012-06-01)[2025-08-26]. https://www.moa.gov.cn/govpublic/XMYS/201206/t20120614_2758749.htm. |
| 中华人民共和国农业农村部. 中华人民共和国农业农村部公告第1773号. (2012-06-01)[2025-08-26]. https://www.moa.gov.cn/govpublic/XMYS/201206/t20120614_2758749.htm. | |
| [3] | Tian L L. Breeding characteristics and allelopathy of Solidago canadensis after being introduced to arid area in Xinjiang. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2013. |
| 田丽丽. 加拿大一枝黄花引种新疆干旱区后繁殖习性与化感潜力的研究. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2013. | |
| [4] | Zhang T, Du W, Lu Z J, et al. Analysis of the suitable habitat of Solidago canadensis L. based on different geospatial and temporal distribution data. Plant Quarantine, 2024, 38(6): 48-54. |
| 张婷, 杜伟, 陆占军, 等. 基于不同时空的地理分布数据对加拿大一枝黄花的适生区分析研究. 植物检疫, 2024, 38(6): 48-54. | |
| [5] | Wei D D, Liu J Y, Xu M M, et al. Research progress and resource utilization strategy of invasive alien plant of Solidago canadensis. Modern Chinese Medicine, 2023, 25(9): 1853-1865. |
| 魏丹丹, 刘嘉艺, 徐明明, 等. 外来入侵植物加拿大一枝黄花的研究进展与资源化利用策略. 中国现代中药, 2023, 25(9): 1853-1865. | |
| [6] | Xu J W, Chen S F, Jiang Y Q, et al. Effect experiment of Solidago canadensis as feed for long-haired rabbits. Zhejiang Journal Animal Science and Veterinary, 2009, 34(6): 3-5. |
| 许建伟, 陈世芳, 蒋永清, 等. 加拿大一枝黄花饲喂长毛兔的效果试验. 浙江畜牧兽医, 2009, 34(6): 3-5. | |
| [7] | Chen Y G, Zhou H G, Wang S L. Brief report on the experiment of feeding Solidago canadensis L. to Hu sheep. Shanghai Agricultural Science and Technology, 2011(2): 76. |
| 陈益乖, 周华光, 王仕伦. 加拿大一枝黄花喂养湖羊试验简报. 上海农业科技, 2011(2): 76. | |
| [8] | Ju H X. Study on feeding nutrient composition of Solidago canadensis L. in different periods. Feed Research, 2019, 42(8): 37-39. |
| 居瀚寻. 不同时期加拿大一枝黄花饲用营养成分研究. 饲料研究, 2019, 42(8): 37-39. | |
| [9] | Liang Z J, Huang Y Z, Zhang P Z, et al. Impact of fermentation on the structure and antioxidant activity of selective phenolic compounds. Food Bioscience, 2023, 56: 103147. |
| [10] | Queiroz O C M, Arriola K G, Daniel J L P, et al. Effects of 8 chemical and bacterial additives on the quality of corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science, 2013, 96(9): 5836-5843. |
| [11] | Nie A Z. Effects of fermented Artemisia argyi on the growth performance and intestinal health of Hongyu roosters. Zhengzhou: Henan University of Technology, 2025. |
| 聂阿真. 发酵艾草对红玉公鸡生长性能与肠道健康的影响. 郑州: 河南工业大学, 2025. | |
| [12] | Wu L J, Ou X, Cao X H, et al. Effects of mixed ratio of forage mulberry and stevia residue on silage quality and microbial diversity. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2024, 60(12): 276-281. |
| 吴丽娟, 欧翔, 操贤洪, 等. 饲料桑与甜叶菊渣混合比例对青贮饲料品质及微生物多样性的影响. 中国畜牧杂志, 2024, 60(12): 276-281. | |
| [13] | Guo Y Z. Effects of different additives on quality of millet straw silage. Jinzhong: Shanxi Agricultural University, 2021. |
| 郭媛珍. 不同添加剂对谷子秸秆青贮品质的影响. 晋中: 山西农业大学, 2021. | |
| [14] | 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. |
| [15] | Liu J C, Jiang J F, Song X M, et al. Separation and analysis of main organic acids in silage by high performance liquid chromatography. Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2015, 47 (10): 47-52. |
| 柳俊超, 姜俊芳, 宋雪梅, 等. 青贮饲料中主要有机酸的高效液相色谱分离分析. 畜牧与兽医, 2015, 47(10): 47-52. | |
| [16] | Yoshida S, Forno D A, Cock J H, et al. Laboratory manual for physiological studies of rice. Los Baños: International Rice Research Institute, 1971: 61. |
| [17] | Zhang L Y. Feed analysis and feed quality detection technology (the second edition). Beijing: China Agriculture University Press, 2007. |
| 张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术(第2版). 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2007. | |
| [18] | Aloo S O, Ofosu F K, Oh D H. Effect of germination on alfalfa and buckwheat: phytochemical profiling by UHPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS/MS, bioactive compounds, and in-vitro studies of their diabetes and obesity-related functions. Antioxidants, 2021, 10(10): 1613. |
| [19] | Zhang J F, Han H L, Shen M M, et al. In vitro antioxidant activity of curcuminoids and their protective effects against oxidative stress-induced damage of chicken erythrocytes. Food Science, 2020, 41(13): 96-105. |
| 张婧菲, 韩红丽, 沈明明, 等. 姜黄素类化合物的体外抗氧化活性及其对鸡红细胞氧化损伤的保护作用. 食品科学, 2020, 41(13): 96-105. | |
| [20] | Wang Y W. Hunan launches general survey of invasive alien species. Forestry and Ecology, 2022(5): 48. |
| 王亚文. 湖南启动外来入侵物种普查. 林业与生态, 2022(5): 48. | |
| [21] | Zhang J L, Shi A, Liang X J, et al. Evaluation on nutrition and feeding value of sorghum-sudangrass hybrid, forage sorghum and silage corn under relay cropping after wheat in the Yellow River irrigation area of Ningxia. Feed Research, 2021, 44(4): 83-87. |
| 张俊丽, 施安, 梁小军, 等. 宁夏引黄灌区麦后复种高丹草、饲用高粱、青贮玉米营养及饲用价值评定. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(4): 83-87. | |
| [22] | Hei M Q, Cao Z Y, Wang Z Y, et al. Effects of adding compound Lactobacillus and molasses on the quality of alfalfa silage with different moisture contents. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2024, 32(5): 1601-1609. |
| 黑梦琴, 曹正宇, 王志远, 等. 添加复合乳酸菌和糖蜜对不同水分含量苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 草地学报, 2024, 32(5): 1601-1609. | |
| [23] | Zhou X D, Ma C Y, Zhang J Q, et al. Effects of leaf extracts of caragana on silage quality and antioxidant activity of alfalfa. Pratacultural Science, 2024, 41(4): 995-1006. |
| 周小栋, 马成艳, 张嘉琦, 等. 柠条叶提取物对苜蓿青贮品质及抗氧化活性的影响. 草业科学, 2024, 41(4): 995-1006. | |
| [24] | Yan X Q, Bao J, Zhao M, et al. High-moisture alfalfa silage fermentation: a comparative study on the impact of additives including formic acid, Lactobacillus plantarum, cinnamon essential oil, and wood vinegar. Microbiology Spectrum, 2025, 13(9): e0000325. |
| [25] | Xu J Z, Ma J F, Sa R L, et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria inoculants on the nutrient composition, fermentation quality, and microbial diversity of whole-plant soybean-corn mixed silage. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2024, 15: 1347293. |
| [26] | Xian O Y, Li X, Chen Y C, et al. Effects of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and molasses on the silage of Silphium perfoliatum. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(6): 1505-1511. |
| 鲜欧洋, 李肖, 陈永成, 等. 植物乳杆菌和糖蜜接种对串叶松香草青贮的影响. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(6): 1505-1511. | |
| [27] | Huo Z W. Effect of L. plantarum and cellulase on the silage quality of grape branches and mulberry leaves. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2024. |
| 霍志伟. 植物乳杆菌与纤维素酶对葡萄枝叶和桑枝叶青贮品质的影响. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2024. | |
| [28] | Li L X, Gong Z F, Li J, et al. The effects of molasses and lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation quality of ear-removed corn straws silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018, 26(4): 1026-1029. |
| 李龙兴, 龚正发, 黎俊, 等. 糖蜜和乳酸菌对去穗玉米秸秆青贮发酵品质的影响. 草地学报, 2018, 26(4): 1026-1029. | |
| [29] | Kuang Z Y, Mu L, Wei L, et al. Effects of different mixing ratios and lactic acid bacteria additions on the quality and aerobic stability of mixed silage of maize and soybean. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2025, 34(6): 227-238. |
| 匡宗洋, 穆麟, 魏岚, 等. 不同混合比例和乳酸菌添加对全株玉米和大豆混合青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响. 草业学报, 2025, 34(6): 227-238. | |
| [30] | Jin X P, Chen C, Ma T L, et al. Lactobacillus plantarum and cellulase improve fermentation quality by regulating bacterial community in hybrid Pennisetum purpureum silage. Pratacultural Science. (2025-06-26) [2025-8-29]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/62.1069.S.20250626.1332.004. |
| 金鑫萍, 陈晨, 麻天丽, 等. 植物乳杆菌与纤维素酶调控杂交象草青贮细菌群落提升发酵品质. 草业科学. (2025-06-26) [2025-8-29]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/62.1069.S.20250626.1332.004. | |
| [31] | Mao K, Xu Y, Wang X M, et al. Effect of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and molasses on the fermentation quality, biogenic amines contents and bacterial community of peanut vine silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2025, 34(5): 146-158. |
| 毛开, 许艺, 王学梅, 等. 植物乳植杆菌与糖蜜对花生秧青贮饲料发酵品质、生物胺含量及细菌群落的影响. 草业学报, 2025, 34(5): 146-158. | |
| [32] | Zheng M L, Niu D Z, Jiang D, et al. Dynamics of microbial community during ensiling direct-cut alfalfa with and without LAB inoculant and sugar. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2017, 122(6): 1456-1470. |
| [33] | Li R R, Jiang D, Zheng M L, et al. Microbial community dynamics during alfalfa silage with or without clostridial fermentation. Scientific Reports, 2020, 10(1): 17782. |
| [34] | Yao M L, Wang H B, Lin X W, et al. Effects of different levels of molasses and complex bacterial enzyme preparations on nutritional value and fermentation quality of fresh corn stalk silage. China Feed, 2024(21): 137-141. |
| 姚美玲, 王洪宝, 林秀蔚, 等. 添加不同水平糖蜜和复合菌酶制剂对鲜食玉米秸秆青贮营养价值及发酵品质的影响. 中国饲料, 2024(21): 137-141. | |
| [35] | He L W, Wang C, Xing Y Q, et al. Dynamics of proteolysis, protease activity and bacterial community of Neolamarckia cadamba leaves silage and the effects of formic acid and Lactobacillus farciminis. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 294: 122127. |
| [36] | Jia T T, Wu Z, Yu Z. Effect of different lactic acid bacteria additives on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of oat silage. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(5): 1266-1272. |
| 贾婷婷, 吴哲, 玉柱. 不同类型乳酸菌添加剂对燕麦青贮品质和有氧稳定性的影响. 草业科学, 2018, 35(5): 1266-1272. | |
| [37] | Xian O Y, Li X, Chen Y C, et al. Effects of molasses and Lactobacillus plantarum on silage quality, microbial quantity and rumen degradation rate of hop branches and leaves. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(3): 719-726. |
| 鲜欧洋, 李肖, 陈永成, 等. 糖蜜和植物乳杆菌对啤酒花枝叶青贮品质、微生物数量及瘤胃降解率的影响. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(3): 719-726. | |
| [38] | Fu J T, Wang X K, Ni K K, et al. The effects of adding lactic acid bacteria and molasses on fermentation of Broussonetia papyrifera and rice straw mixed silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(4): 121-128. |
| 付锦涛, 王学凯, 倪奎奎, 等. 添加乳酸菌和糖蜜对全株构树和稻草混合青贮的影响. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 121-128. | |
| [39] | Zhao J, Li J F, Dong Z H, et al. Study on various degradation mechanisms of lignocellulose during spontaneous ensiling and their contributions to 2G bioethanol production. Industrial Crops and Products, 2025, 229: 121020. |
| [40] | Zong C, Zhang J, Shao T, et al. Effects of additives on fermentation quality of alfalfa silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(12): 180-187. |
| 宗成, 张健, 邵涛, 等.添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮饲料发酵品质的影响. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 180-187. | |
| [41] | Qiao Y, Sun J, Ding Y Y, et al. Alterations of the gut microbiota in high-fat diet mice is strongly linked to oxidative stress. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2013, 97(4): 1689-1697. |
| [42] | Shen X, Zou Z R. Review on research progress of chemical constituents and bioactivities of Solidago. China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica, 2016, 41(23): 4303-4313. |
| 沈校, 邹峥嵘. 一枝黄花属植物的化学成分和生物活性研究进展. 中国中药杂志, 2016, 41(23): 4303-4313. | |
| [43] | Wang W K. Effects of antioxidant lactic acid bacteria and fruit peel residues on antioxidant characteristics and fermentation quality of alfalfa and whole-plant corn silage. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2023. |
| 王文康. 抗氧化活性乳酸菌和果渣对紫花苜蓿和全株玉米青贮饲料抗氧化特性和发酵品质的影响. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2023. | |
| [44] | Mu L, Cao X, Wang Y T, et al. Inclusion of Lonicerae flos improved anaerobic fermentation and antioxidant activity of mixed silage (agro-residue and alfalfa). Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2024, 315: 116007. |
| [45] | Wang S Y, Huang Y S, Chen L H, et al. Effects of solid fermentation of Aspergillus niger on release of bound phenols and antioxidant activity of by-products of Pueraria thomsonii. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2025, 46(5): 136-144. |
| 王胜宇, 黄优生, 陈丽华, 等. 黑曲霉固态发酵对粉葛副产物中结合态酚类物质释放及抗氧化活性的影响. 食品工业科技, 2025, 46(5): 136-144. | |
| [46] | Lin D F, Yi Z H, Lan X M, et al. Changes of main nutrients and antioxidant activities of leaves of Apocynum venetum L. after fermentation. Plant Fiber Sciences in China, 2025, 47(2): 107-116. |
| 林登蕃, 易著虎, 兰小明, 等. 罗布麻叶发酵前后主要营养物质变化及抗氧化活性研究. 中国麻业科学, 2025, 47(2): 107-116. | |
| [47] | Zhang B. Effects of lactic acid bacteria fermentation on antioxidant activity of luteolin in honeysuckle and cellular oxidative damage. Xinxiang: Henan Institute of Science and Technology, 2025. |
| 张博. 乳酸菌发酵对金银花木犀草素抗氧化活性及细胞氧化损伤的影响. 新乡: 河南科技学院, 2025. |
| [1] | 彭诗雨, 莫启顺, 刘琼波, 冉艳琳, 杨丰, 牛丽丽, 杨廷韬, 陈志红, 何胜江, 陈超, 李舟. 基于灰色关联与DTOPSIS框架的贵州多生态区青贮玉米品种综合评价与筛选[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(9): 113-128. |
| [2] | 林平冬, 缪伏荣, 刘景, 岳稳, 陈鑫珠. 不同添加剂对茶渣青贮品质和微生物多样性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(8): 123-133. |
| [3] | 黄德锋, 李珂珂, 赖可, 班洁, 王硕, 齐博康, 张晓雯, 钟志强, 邓孝琛, 原现军. 18个燕麦品种在日喀则的生产性能和青贮品质评价[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(8): 84-96. |
| [4] | 王涛, 李静, 卢强, 柯文灿, 黄帅. 蒲公英黄酮和枯草芽孢杆菌对燕麦青贮品质、抗氧化活性及微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(6): 108-121. |
| [5] | 田吉鹏, 王欣, Mudasir Nazar, 刘蓓一, 王思然, 丁成龙, 程云辉, 李捷. 青贮前后水稻秸秆非结构性碳水化合物的变化及添加剂对发酵和微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(6): 131-144. |
| [6] | 刘志昊, 李文龙, 张晨, 刘美英, 陶雅. 养殖废水灌溉下青贮添加剂对全株玉米青贮饲料品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(6): 60-72. |
| [7] | 李磊, 马勇宽, 蒋鹏, 朱志明, 纪立东, 李龙, 许兴. “六位一体”模式对宁夏盐碱地土壤水盐动态、质量等级及青贮玉米产能的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(3): 68-82. |
| [8] | 臧家艺, 徐明杰, 谢济骋, 沈禹颖, 来兴发. 有机肥等氮替代化肥对旱作区青贮玉米/饲用大豆间作系统饲草产量和水分利用效率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(3): 83-95. |
| [9] | 尹含雪, 黄海贝, 钟文锐, 张庆, 姚旋. 不同乳酸菌对象草青贮品质及四环素抗性基因的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(1): 170-178. |
| [10] | 袁玖. 绿豆衣、大蒜皮、茄子皮与玉米秸秆青贮料、精料间饲料组合效应研究[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(9): 173-184. |
| [11] | 李荣荣, 蔡瑞, 徐曦, 田蕊. 添加乳酸菌对柑桔劣果和玉米秸混合青贮发酵特性和气味特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(8): 191-198. |
| [12] | 吴娟燕, 田静, 郭香, 黄莉莹, 张建国. 籽实青贮的研究与利用进展[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(8): 211-220. |
| [13] | 毛海龙, 邰继承, 杨恒山, 张玉芹, 张瑞富, 王真真. 带型配置对青贮玉米-大豆复合种植体冠层特性、产量和品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(8): 30-42. |
| [14] | 孔天赐, 马学青, 贺晨帮, 樊泰延, 芦光新, 祁鹤兴. 青贮玉米真菌性病害对青贮发酵微生物多样性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(7): 95-106. |
| [15] | 匡宗洋, 穆麟, 魏岚, 郭阳, 胥贵, 陈瑶, 石雪云, 魏仲珊, 张志飞. 不同混合比例和乳酸菌添加对全株玉米和大豆混合青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(6): 227-238. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||