Effects of oat∶feed pea sowing ratio and lactic acid bacteria addition on crop silage fermentation and ruminal degradation characteristics of the resulting total mixed ration

doi:10.11686/cyxb2023144

Abstract

Abstract:

This research investigated the effects of oat∶feed pea sowing ratio and lactic acid bacteria addition on crop fermentation， total mixed ration （TMR） nutritive value and rumen degradation characteristics of the resulting silage. Qinghai sweet oat and Qingjian No.1 feed pea were mixed-planted at oat∶feed pea sowing ratios of 0∶10， 5∶5， 6∶4， 7∶3， 8∶2， 10∶0. In the oat milk-ripening stage and pea-podding stage， crops of the six abovementioned mixtures were harvested and samples of each placed in fermentation bags after inoculation with a lactic acid bacterial preparation （I₁， I₂， I₃， I₄， I₅ and I₆， respectively）_{or uninoculated （C₁， C₂， C₃， C₄， C₅， C₆， respectively）， making a total of 12 treatments. The lactic acid bacterial preparation contained Lactobacillus plantarum 160， Lactobacillus brevis 248 and Lactobacillus pentosus 260 mixed at a ratio of 1∶1∶1 （bacterial activity： about 10⁶ cfu·mL^-1）. The oat∶feed pea mixtures were combined with feed supplement （highland barley straw， rape straw， and rape meal， mixed 1∶1∶1） in a forage∶supplement of 7∶3. After fermentation at （20±5） ℃ for 60 days， the nutrient composition， fermentation quality and rumen degradation characteristics were determined. The results showed that with increase in the proportion of oats， the neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber content increased， the crude protein content decreased， and the gas production decreased. The addition of the mixed lactic acid bacterial preparation significantly reduced dry matter loss， pH and NH₃-N/TN （P<0.05）. The dry matter loss in C₃ and I₃ was 0.38% and 0.15% and both of these values were significantly lower （P<0.05） than those of other treatments in the respective control and inoculated groups. The rumen crude protein and acid detergent fiber degradation rates of the oat-feed pea ensiled TMR were significantly higher than those of the TMR of the two monocrops （P<0.05）， and the rumen degradation rate of I₂ was the best. The rumen NH₃-N content of C₃ was 29.65% and I₃ was 31.68%， and both of these values were significantly higher （P<0.05） than those of other treatments in the respective inoculated or control groups. The quality of oat-feed pea silage TMR was evaluated by the membership function and principal component analysis methods， and in these multivariate assessments the highest score was I₂ （0.868）， followed by I₃ （0.610） and C₃ （0.469）. Therefore， when using mixed oat∶feed pea crops to produce ensiled TMR， oat∶feed pea planting ratios of 6∶4 or 5∶5 are optimal for ensuring high quality ensiled TMR feed， based on these results.}

Key words: oats, feed peas, proportion of mixed sowing, fermentation TMR, quality, principal component analysis

Jia-min ZHANG, Hao GUAN, Hai-ping LI, Zhi-feng JIA, Xiang MA, Wen-hui LIU, You-jun CHEN, Shi-yong CHEN, Yong-mei JIANG, Li GAN, Qing-ping ZHOU, Li-xue YANG. Effects of oat∶feed pea sowing ratio and lactic acid bacteria addition on crop silage fermentation and ruminal degradation characteristics of the resulting total mixed ration[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(1): 169-181.

Figures/Tables 8

References 44

1	Xie K Y， Zhao Y， Li X L， et al. Relationships between grasses and legumes in mixed grassland： a review. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2013， 22（3）： 284-296.
	谢开云，赵云，李向林，等. 豆-禾混播草地种间关系研究进展. 草业学报， 2013， 22（3）： 284-296.
2	Wang W， Xu C T， De K J， et al. Preliminary study on introduction experimental of oats and triticale in Chengduo. Chinese Qinghai Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences， 2015， 45（5）： 4-6.
	王伟，徐成体，德科加，等. 称多县燕麦与小黑麦引种试验初步研究. 青海畜牧兽医杂志， 2015， 45（5）： 4-6.
3	Nazar M， Wang S， Zhao J， et al. The feasibility and effects of exogenous epiphytic microbiota on the fermentation quality and microbial community dynamics of whole crop corn. Bioresource Technology， 2020， 306： 123106.
4	Qu H Z， Gao M Y， Qi J Y， et al. The effect of sowing rate on the yield of fresh pea grass in high cold regions. Animal Industry and Environment， 2020， 19（3）： 55.
	屈海珠，高明艳，祁军英，等. 播种量对高寒地区饲用豌豆鲜草产量的影响. 畜牧业环境， 2020， 19（3）： 55.
5	Zhang J， Yuan X J， Guo G， et al. Effect of additive on fermentation quality of mixed silages of oat （Avena sativa） and common vetch （Vicia sativa） in Tibet. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2014， 23（5）： 359-364.
	张洁，原现军，郭刚，等. 添加剂对西藏燕麦和箭筈豌豆混合青贮发酵品质的影响. 草业学报， 2014， 23（5）： 359-364.
6	Kennelly J J， Weinberg Z G. Small grain silage. Silage Science and Technology， 2003， 42： 749-779.
7	Liu Q H， Li X Y， Desta S T， et al. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum and fibrolytic enzyme on the fermentation quality and in vitro digestibility of total mixed rations silage including rape straw. Journal of Integrative Agriculture， 2016， 15（9）： 2087-2096.
8	Huang K L， Chen H W， Liu Y L， et al. Lactic acid bacteria strains selected from fermented total mixed rations improve ensiling and in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics of corn stover silage. Animal Bioscience， 2022， 35（9）： 1379-1389.
9	Tagawa S， Horiguchi K， Yoshida N， et al. Changes in vitamin A added to a fermented total mixed ration prepared with reed canarygrass （Phalaris arundinacea L.）. Animal Science Journal， 2014， 85（7）： 787-791.
10	Yang H， Wang B， Zhang Q， et al. Improvement of fermentation quality in the fermented total mixed ration with oat silage. Microorganisms， 2021， 9（2）： 420.
11	Yuan X J， Guo G， Wen A Y， et al. The effect of different additives on the fermentation quality， in vitro digestibility and aerobic stability of a total mixed ration silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology， 2015， 207： 41-50.
12	Dong Z H， Tao X X， Bao Y H， et al. Effect of applying different additives on the fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage prepared with local feed resources in Tibet. Grassland Science， 2022， 68（1）： 78-87.
13	George W L. Official methods of analysis of AOAC international. New York： Oxford University Press， 2023.
14	Van Soest P J， Robertson J B， Lewis B A. Methods for dietary fiber， neutral detergent fiber， and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science， 1991， 74（10）： 3583-3597.
15	Broderick G A， Kang J H. Determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science， 1980， 63（1）： 64-75.
16	Guan H， Yan Y H， Li X L， et al. Microbial communities and natural fermentation of corn silages prepared with farm bunker-silo in Southwest China. Bioresource Technology， 2018， 265： 282-290.
17	Menke K H， Raab L， Salewski A， et al. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. The Journal of Agricultural Science， 1979， 93（1）： 217-222.
18	Menci R， Coppa M， Torrent A， et al. Effects of two tannin extracts at different doses in interaction with a green or dry forage substrate on in vitro rumen fermentation and biohydrogenation. Animal Feed Science and Technology， 2021， 278： 114977.
19	Feng Z C， Gao M. Improvement of colorimetric method for determination of ammonia nitrogen in rumen fluid. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science， 2010， 31（Z1）： 37.
	冯宗慈，高民. 通过比色测定瘤胃液氨氮含量方法的改进. 畜牧与饲料科学， 2010， 31（Z1）： 37.
20	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.
21	Zhao M Q E， Wang Z J， Bao J， et al. Analysis and evaluation of forage millet quality under different fertility and storage times using the membership function method. Pratacultural Science， 2023， 40（1）： 200-207.
	赵牧其尔，王志军，包健，等. 利用隶属函数法分析和评价不同生育期和贮藏时间的饲用谷子品质. 草业科学， 2023， 40（1）： 200-207.
22	Li L L， Hua D F， Zheng X W， et al. Effects of moisture content and sowing-mix ratio on the quality of baled oat and common vetch/hairy vetch silage mixtures in the pastoral area of southern Qinghai. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2018， 27（7）： 166-174.
	李蕾蕾，花登峰，郑兴卫，等. 含水量和混播比例对青南牧区燕麦-箭筈豌豆/毛苕子混播青贮品质的影响. 草业学报， 2018， 27（7）： 166-174.
23	Liu W， Chen Y K， Zhao L S， et al. Evaluation of the fermentation quality of oat and pea mixed silage with different mixing proportion based on principal component analysis and membership function analysis. China Feed. （2023-04-11）［2023-04-28］. https：//kns.cnki.net/kns8/defaultresult/index.
	刘温，陈雅坤，赵连生，等. 基于主成分和隶属度函数分析评价不同混播比例的燕麦和豌豆混合青贮的发酵品质. 中国饲料. （2023-04-11）［2023-04-28］. https：//kns.cnki.net/kns8/defaultresult/index.
24	Li F H， Ke W C， Ding Z T， et al. Pretreatment of Pennisetum sinese silages with ferulic acid esterase-producing lactic acid bacteria and cellulase at two dry matter contents： Fermentation characteristics， carbohydrates composition and enzymatic saccharification. Bioresource Technology， 2020， 295： 122261.
25	Wang G H， Yang L Y， Wang D， et al. Effects of compound probiotics-fermentation on quality of total mixed ration. China Feed， 2023， 721（5）： 115-120.
	王光辉，杨连玉，王丹，等. 复合益生菌发酵对全混合日粮品质的影响. 中国饲料， 2023， 721（5）： 115-120.
26	Fu W， Chen W， Zhou L， et al. Effects of mixing ratio of Lactobacillus plantarum and L. brevis on sorghum hybrid sudan grass silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica， 2022， 30（3）： 758-763.
	付薇，陈伟，周丽，等. 植物乳杆菌和短乳杆菌复合添加对高丹草青贮效果的影响. 草地学报， 2022， 30（3）： 758-763.
27	Catchpoole V R， Henzell E F. Silage and silage-making from tropical herbage species. Herbage Abstract， 1971， 41（3）： 213-221.
28	Xu C C， Zhang X Y， Jiang D， et al. Effect of mixing whole oats with whole crop corn at different ratios on fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of TMR silage. Feed Industry， 2020， 41（4）： 1-6.
	徐春城，张鑫垚，江迪，等. 燕麦和全株玉米不同配比对TMR发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响. 饲料工业， 2020， 41（4）： 1-6.
29	Garde A， Jonsson G， Schmidt A S， et al. Lactic acid production from wheat straw hemicellulose hydrolysate by Lactobacillus pentosus and Lactobacillus brevis. Bioresource Technology， 2002， 81（3）： 217-223.
30	Qiu X Y. The study of improving fermentation quality and aerobic stability of total mixed ration. Nanjing： Nanjing Agricultural University， 2014.
	邱小燕. 提高青稞秸秆替代燕麦的TMR发酵品质及有氧稳定性研究. 南京：南京农业大学， 2014.
31	Holzer M， Mayrhuber E， Danner H， et al. The role of Lactobacillus buchneri in forage preservation. Trends in Biotechnology， 2003， 21（6）： 282-287.
32	Zhang H， Cheng X， Elsabagh M， et al. Effects of formic acid and corn flour supplementation of banana pseudostem silages on nutritional quality of silage， growth， digestion， rumen fermentation and cellulolytic bacterial community of Nubian black goats. Journal of Integrative Agriculture， 2021， 20（8）： 2214-2226.
33	Wei J. Effect of different additives on quality and in vitro digestibility of oat grass silage. Feed Research， 2023， 46（5）： 113-117.
	魏杰. 不同添加剂对燕麦草青贮品质和体外消化率的影响. 饲料研究， 2023， 46（5）： 113-117.
34	You Y J， Zhou H Z， Liu Y， et al. Comparison of nutritional value of oat hay， oat silage and Sichuan pasture for yaks. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2022， 31（8）： 99-110.
	游茵洁，周浩珍，刘垚，等. 燕麦干草、青贮燕麦与天然牧草饲喂牦牛的营养价值比较研究. 草业学报， 2022， 31（8）： 99-110.
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	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.
37	Wang T， Song L， Wang X Z， et al. Effect of compound Lactobacillus and mixture ratio on fermentation quality and rumen degradability of mixed tomato pomace and alfalfa silage mixed storage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2022， 31（10）： 167-177.
	王挺，宋磊，王旭哲，等. 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. 草业学报， 2022， 31（10）： 167-177.
38	Hong N T T， Wanapat M， Wachirapakorn C， et al. Effects of timing of initial cutting and subsequent cutting on yields and chemical compositions of cassava hay and its supplementation on lactating dairy cows. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences， 2003， 16（12）： 1763-1769.
39	Cui Z H， Hao L Z， Liu S J， et al. Evaluation of the fermentation characteristics of mixed oat green hay and native pastures in the Qinghai plateau using an in vitro gas production technique. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2012， 21（3）： 250-257.
	崔占鸿，郝力壮，刘书杰，等. 体外产气法评价青海高原燕麦青干草与天然牧草组合效应. 草业学报， 2012， 21（3）： 250-257.
40	Jin L P. Comparation of nutritionnal value evaluation method in common roughage for ruminants. Beijing： Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences， 2013.
	靳玲品. 反刍动物常用粗饲料营养价值评定方法的比较研究. 北京：中国农业科学院， 2013.
41	Zheng Y H， Du W， Huang W M， et al. The rumen degradation characteristics of whole sugarcane for dairy cows and its application in substituting alfalfa， oat hay and concentrate in dairy cows’ diets. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica， 2020， 51（11）： 2743-2756.
	郑宇慧，都文，黄文明，等. 全株甘蔗的奶牛瘤胃降解特性及其替代奶牛饲粮苜蓿、燕麦草及精料的应用研究. 畜牧兽医学报， 2020， 51（11）： 2743-2756.
42	Calsamiglia S， Ferret A， Devant M. Effects of pH and pH fluctuations on microbial fermentation and nutrient flow from a dual-flow continuous culture system. Journal of Dairy Science， 2002， 85（3）： 574-579.
43	Zhou J J， Bai M G W， Wei W， et al. The effects of grass-legume mixing farming on forage nutritional quality and soil nutrient in alpine zone of Tibet. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas， 2021， 39（2）： 143-149.
	周娟娟，白玛嘎翁，魏巍，等. 西藏高寒区禾-豆混播对牧草营养品质及土壤养分的影响. 干旱地区农业研究， 2021， 39（2）： 143-149.
44	Feng T X， De K J， Xiang X M， et al. Effects of different mixtures and proportions of Avena sativa and pea on forage yield and quality in alpine cold region. Acta Agrestia Sinica， 2022， 30（2）： 487-494.
	冯廷旭，德科加，向雪梅，等. 高寒地区燕麦与豌豆不同混播组合和比例对饲草产量及品质的影响. 草地学报， 2022， 30（2）： 487-494.

项目 Item	干物质 Dry matter	干物质损失 Dry matter loss	粗灰分 Ash	粗蛋白 Crude protein	中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber	酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber	淀粉 Starch	水溶性碳水化合物Water soluble carbohydrate	粗脂肪 Ether extract
C₁	40.21Ad	0.64Ab	5.43Aa	21.30Aa	29.09Bde	18.41Bb	9.01Ab	2.59Bb	3.31Ac
C₂	41.41Bd	1.18Aa	4.73Ad	20.78Ab	27.51Ae	14.70Ac	8.87Bc	1.22Bc	3.70Ac
C₃	47.90Aa	0.38Ac	4.37Be	20.72Ab	32.13Acd	17.52Ab	10.05Aa	1.19Ad	5.10Ab
C₄	41.47Ad	0.40Ac	4.83Bcd	18.44Ad	34.56Bbc	18.08Bb	9.10Ab	0.85Be	6.31Aa
C₅	44.45Bc	0.39Ac	4.93Ac	19.30Ac	36.37Aab	19.82Bb	8.60Ad	0.67Bf	5.75Aab
C₆	45.74Ab	0.53Abc	5.07Ab	18.19Ae	38.78Aa	22.57Aa	8.68Bd	3.31Ba	5.98Aa
SEM	0.57	0.09	0.05	0.11	1.69	1.09	0.05	0.01	0.35
I₁	40.34Ad	0.27Bab	5.10Ba	20.48Ba	32.14Acd	19.73Abc	8.81Bb	4.60Ab	3.37Ad
I₂	42.77Ac	0.32Ba	4.80Ab	20.22Bb	29.33Ad	14.91Ad	10.25Aa	1.58Ad	4.91Ac
I₃	48.00Aa	0.15Bc	4.90Ab	20.28Bb	35.57Aab	18.40Ac	10.05Aa	0.95Bf	5.36Aab
I₄	43.00Ac	0.17Bc	5.13Aa	18.21Ac	41.10Aa	23.31Aa	9.11Ab	1.24Ae	5.46Aab
I₅	45.94Ab	0.20Bbc	5.10Aa	17.66Bd	38.40Aab	21.44Aab	8.87Ab	5.07Aa	5.78Aa
I₆	47.09Aa	0.29Bab	4.60Bc	17.36Be	36.00Aab	19.03Abc	10.03Aa	3.81Ac	5.77Aa
SEM	0.50	0.04	0.08	0.09	2.13	1.10	0.17	0.01	0.32
添加剂Inoculant	**	**	**	**	**	*	**	**	NS
混播比例Mixture ratio	**	**	NS	**	**	**	**	**	**
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio	NS	**	**	**	NS	**	**	**	**

项目 Item	干物质 Dry matter	干物质损失 Dry matter loss	粗灰分 Ash	粗蛋白 Crude protein	中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber	酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber	淀粉 Starch	水溶性碳水化合物Water soluble carbohydrate	粗脂肪 Ether extract
C₁	40.21Ad	0.64Ab	5.43Aa	21.30Aa	29.09Bde	18.41Bb	9.01Ab	2.59Bb	3.31Ac
C₂	41.41Bd	1.18Aa	4.73Ad	20.78Ab	27.51Ae	14.70Ac	8.87Bc	1.22Bc	3.70Ac
C₃	47.90Aa	0.38Ac	4.37Be	20.72Ab	32.13Acd	17.52Ab	10.05Aa	1.19Ad	5.10Ab
C₄	41.47Ad	0.40Ac	4.83Bcd	18.44Ad	34.56Bbc	18.08Bb	9.10Ab	0.85Be	6.31Aa
C₅	44.45Bc	0.39Ac	4.93Ac	19.30Ac	36.37Aab	19.82Bb	8.60Ad	0.67Bf	5.75Aab
C₆	45.74Ab	0.53Abc	5.07Ab	18.19Ae	38.78Aa	22.57Aa	8.68Bd	3.31Ba	5.98Aa
SEM	0.57	0.09	0.05	0.11	1.69	1.09	0.05	0.01	0.35
I₁	40.34Ad	0.27Bab	5.10Ba	20.48Ba	32.14Acd	19.73Abc	8.81Bb	4.60Ab	3.37Ad
I₂	42.77Ac	0.32Ba	4.80Ab	20.22Bb	29.33Ad	14.91Ad	10.25Aa	1.58Ad	4.91Ac
I₃	48.00Aa	0.15Bc	4.90Ab	20.28Bb	35.57Aab	18.40Ac	10.05Aa	0.95Bf	5.36Aab
I₄	43.00Ac	0.17Bc	5.13Aa	18.21Ac	41.10Aa	23.31Aa	9.11Ab	1.24Ae	5.46Aab
I₅	45.94Ab	0.20Bbc	5.10Aa	17.66Bd	38.40Aab	21.44Aab	8.87Ab	5.07Aa	5.78Aa
I₆	47.09Aa	0.29Bab	4.60Bc	17.36Be	36.00Aab	19.03Abc	10.03Aa	3.81Ac	5.77Aa
SEM	0.50	0.04	0.08	0.09	2.13	1.10	0.17	0.01	0.32
添加剂Inoculant	**	**	**	**	**	*	**	**	NS
混播比例Mixture ratio	**	**	NS	**	**	**	**	**	**
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio	NS	**	**	**	NS	**	**	**	**

项目 Item	pH	乳酸 Lactic acid	乙酸 Acetic acid	丙酸 Propionic acid	丁酸 Butyric acid	氨态氮/总氮 NH₃-N/TN
C₁	4.93Aa	1.82Bb	1.05Bf	ND	ND	11.43Aa
C₂	4.19Ab	2.68Aab	1.87Be	ND	ND	4.19Ac
C₃	4.10Ac	2.77Bab	2.45Bb	ND	ND	2.83Ad
C₄	4.02Ad	2.69Aab	2.63Aa	ND	ND	2.85Ad
C₅	4.05Ad	3.33Aa	2.34Bc	ND	ND	5.47Ab
C₆	4.15Ab	2.05Aab	2.01Bd	ND	ND	2.57Ae
SEM	0.02	0.61	0.04	ND	ND	0.03
I₁	4.26Ba	1.94Af	2.09Ac	ND	ND	4.79Ba
I₂	4.06Bb	2.29Be	2.66Ab	ND	ND	1.82Bf
I₃	4.04Bb	3.00Ab	2.66Ab	ND	ND	2.35Bc
I₄	4.06Ab	2.67Bd	2.10Bc	ND	ND	2.39Bb
I₅	4.06Ab	3.53Aa	2.95Aa	ND	ND	2.26Bd
I₆	4.04Bb	2.89Ac	2.67Ab	ND	ND	1.97Be
SEM	0.02	0.01	0.01	ND	ND	0.00
添加剂Inoculant	**	NS	**	ND	ND	**
混播比例Mixture ratio	**	**	**	ND	ND	**
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio	**	NS	**	ND	ND	**

项目 Item	pH	乳酸 Lactic acid	乙酸 Acetic acid	丙酸 Propionic acid	丁酸 Butyric acid	氨态氮/总氮 NH₃-N/TN
C₁	4.93Aa	1.82Bb	1.05Bf	ND	ND	11.43Aa
C₂	4.19Ab	2.68Aab	1.87Be	ND	ND	4.19Ac
C₃	4.10Ac	2.77Bab	2.45Bb	ND	ND	2.83Ad
C₄	4.02Ad	2.69Aab	2.63Aa	ND	ND	2.85Ad
C₅	4.05Ad	3.33Aa	2.34Bc	ND	ND	5.47Ab
C₆	4.15Ab	2.05Aab	2.01Bd	ND	ND	2.57Ae
SEM	0.02	0.61	0.04	ND	ND	0.03
I₁	4.26Ba	1.94Af	2.09Ac	ND	ND	4.79Ba
I₂	4.06Bb	2.29Be	2.66Ab	ND	ND	1.82Bf
I₃	4.04Bb	3.00Ab	2.66Ab	ND	ND	2.35Bc
I₄	4.06Ab	2.67Bd	2.10Bc	ND	ND	2.39Bb
I₅	4.06Ab	3.53Aa	2.95Aa	ND	ND	2.26Bd
I₆	4.04Bb	2.89Ac	2.67Ab	ND	ND	1.97Be
SEM	0.02	0.01	0.01	ND	ND	0.00
添加剂Inoculant	**	NS	**	ND	ND	**
混播比例Mixture ratio	**	**	**	ND	ND	**
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio	**	NS	**	ND	ND	**

项目 Item	粗蛋白降解率 Crude protein degradation rate	中性洗涤纤维降解率 Neutral detergent fiber degradation rate	酸性洗涤纤维降解率 Acid detergent fiber degradation rate	干物质降解率 Dry matter degradation rate
C₁	29.44Bc	40.52Bc	37.73Bd	77.29Bc
C₂	38.82Bab	55.99Bab	44.92Bc	83.65Ba
C₃	40.64Aa	56.26Aab	46.17Aab	81.89Ab
C₄	37.15Ab	60.16Aa	51.16Aa	82.39Aab
C₅	36.65Ab	53.85Aab	47.80Aab	78.39Ac
C₆	31.76Ac	51.65Ab	44.32Ac	75.21Bd
SEM	1.15	3.25	2.27	0.75
I₁	33.11Ac	49.48Ac	49.25Ab	79.03Ac
I₂	44.80Aa	67.69Aa	60.25Aa	89.55Aa
I₃	38.59Ab	59.36Ab	50.19Ab	81.59Ab
I₄	36.41Ab	54.16Ac	49.11Ab	75.83Bd
I₅	38.28Ab	49.34Bc	45.11Ab	75.71Bd
I₆	33.05Ac	53.62Ac	43.96Ab	78.22Ac
SEM	1.01	2.31	2.67	1.14
添加剂Inoculant	**	NS	NS	NS
混播比例Mixture ratio	**	**	**	**
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio	**	*	**	*