Effects of various moisture-absorbing roughages on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of napier grass silage

doi:10.11686/cyxb2020257

Abstract

Abstract:

In south China， napier grass often has a high moisture content at harvest and as a result the fermentation quality of direct-cut silage is poor. In order to improve the quality of napier grass silage， the effects of various moisture-absorbing roughage materials on the silage fermentation quality and aerobic stability were studied. There were five silage treatments； four of these being napier grass with an added roughage material at 10% fresh grass weight and the fifth a Control （napier grass with no additive）. Roughages tested were rice bran， wheat flour， dried soybean curd residue and wheat bran. The fermentation quality and aerobic stability of the silages were analyzed 60 d after ensiling. It was found that all additive treatments significantly increased the dry matter （DM） content （P<0.01）， reduced the buffering capacity （P<0.05）， and increased the lactic acid content （P<0.01） of the respective silages， compared with the control. The addition of wheat flour significantly increased the concentrations of butyric acid （0.81% DM） and NH₃-N （14.40% TN， P<0.05）； the other roughage additives had no significant effect （P>0.05） on silage quality. The butyric acid and NH₃-N contents of silage with added dried soybean curd residue were only 0.04% DM and 9.75% TN， respectively. After the silage was exposed to the air， the aerobic stabilities of the silages with added wheat flour and dried soybean curd residue were better than the others. Based on multivariate analysis of nutritional characteristics， silage fermentation quality and aerobic stability， the addition of dried soybean curd residue produced the best silage.

Key words: moisture-absorbing material, napier grass, silage, fermentation quality, aerobic stability

Xiang YIN, Yong-qi WANG, Xin-qin LI, Jing TIAN, Xiao-ya WANG, Jian-guo ZHANG. Effects of various moisture-absorbing roughages on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of napier grass silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(7): 133-138.

Figures/Tables 4

References 20

1	Patrlzl W， Madrugacrf M T， Nogueira M M. Effect of commercial biological additives on elephant grass （Pennisetum purpureum Schum.） silage. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinaria e Zootecnia， 2004， 56（3）： 392-397.
2	Gollop N， Zakin V， Weinberg Z G. Antibacterial activity of lactic acid bacteria included in inoculants for silage and in silages treated with these inoculants. Journal Applied Microbiology， 2005， 98（3）： 662-666.
3	McDonald P， Henderson A R， Heron S J E. The biochemistry of silage （2nd Edition）. Marlow， UK： Chalcombe Publications， 1991.
4	Ferraretto L F， Taysom K， Taysom D M， et al. Relationships between dry matter content， ensiling， ammonia-nitrogen， and ruminal in vitro starch digestibility in high-moisture corn samples. Journal of Dairy Science， 2014， 97（5）： 3221-3227.
5	Jones R， Jones D I H. The effect of in-silo effluent absorbents on effluent production and silage quality. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research， 1996， 64（3）： 173-186.
6	Ferris C P， Mayne C S. The effects of incorporating sugar-beet pulp with herbage at ensiling on silage fermentation， effluent output and in-silo losses. Grass and Forage Science， 1994， 49（2）： 216-228.
7	Pan S G. Feasibility study on production of biological protein feed from waste soybean dregs. Modern Animal Husbandry Science & Technology， 2017（10）： 8-9.
	潘树国. 废豆渣生产生物蛋白饲料可行性研究. 现代畜牧科技， 2017（10）： 8-9.
8	Cai H Y， Yu J Y， Liu S J， et al. Feed with liquid feeding on growth performance for growing finishing pigs. Feed Industry， 2018（16）： 1-5.
	蔡辉益，于继英，刘世杰，等. 发酵豆渣替代部分颗粒饲料液体饲喂生长育肥猪效果. 饲料工业， 2018（16）： 1-5.
9	Zhang L Y. Feed analysis and feed quality detection technology. Beijing： China Agricultural Science and Technology Press， 2003： 46-75.
	张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 北京：中国农业科技出版社， 2003： 46-75.
10	Han Y S. Food chemistry experiment guide. Beijing： Beijing Agricultural University Press， 1996： 19-22.
	韩雅珊. 食品化学实验指导. 北京：北京农业大学出版社， 1996： 19-22.
11	McDoland P， Playne M J. The buffering constituents of herbage and of silage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture， 1966， 17： 264-265.
12	Lv W L， Diao Q Y， Yan G L. Effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of green corn-straw silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2011， 20（3）： 143-148.
	吕文龙，刁其玉，闫贵龙. 布氏乳杆菌对青玉米秸青贮发酵品质和有氧稳定性的影响. 草业学报， 2011， 20（3）： 143-148.
13	Fu T. Effects of microbial inoculants on the fermentation process and quality of corn silage. Beijing： Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences， 2005.
	傅彤. 微生物接种剂对玉米青贮饲料发酵进程及其品质的影响. 北京：中国农业科学院， 2005.
14	Cheng H Q， Zhang W W， Chen Z P， et al. Effect of overshadow on the nutritional components in Desmodium intortum. Journal of South China Normal University， 2000， 8（3）： 88-91.
	程惠青，张文文，陈兆平，等. 遮荫对旋扭山绿豆的营养成分的影响. 华南师范大学学报， 2000， 8（3）： 88-91.
15	Zheng M， Niu D， Zuo S， et al. The effect of cultivar， wilting and storage period on fermentation and the clostridial community of alfalfa silage. Italian Journal of Animal Science， 2018， 17（2）： 336-346.
16	Wang C Z， Wang T. Feed science. Beijing： China Agricultural University Press， 2003： 122-140.
	王成章，王恬. 饲料学. 北京：中国农业大学出版社， 2003： 122-140.
17	He Y P， Guo Y L， Qin S Z， et al. Effect of adding rice bran and wheat bran on silage quality of different cultivars of potato vines. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition， 2015， 27（10）： 3311-3318.
	何玉鹏，郭艳丽，秦士贞，等. 添加米糠和小麦麸对不同品种马铃薯茎叶青贮品质的影响. 动物营养学报， 2015， 27（10）： 3311-3318.
18	Zhou M. Chemical composition， nutrition value and feed technology of wheat. Feed and Animal Husbandry， 2006（10）： 28-31.
	周明. 小麦的营养价值与饲用技术. 饲料与畜牧， 2006（10）： 28-31.
19	Liu Q H， Fan C G， Zhang J G， et al. The effects of chopping and additives on the silage quality of Brachial decumbens cv. Reyan No. 3. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2009， 18（1）： 51-56.
	刘秦华，范传广，张建国，等. 切短与添加物对臂形草青贮品质的影响. 草业学报， 2009， 18（1）： 51-56.
20	Liu Q H， Zhang J G， Lu X L. The effects of lactic acid bacteria inoculation on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of king grass silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2009， 18（4）： 133-139.
	刘秦华，张建国，卢小良. 乳酸菌添加剂对王草青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响. 草业学报， 2009， 18（4）： 133-139.

项目 Items	CK	MK	XM	DZ	MF	显著性 Significance
干物质Dry matter (DM，% FM)	15.44±0.31b	21.65±0.88a	20.86±0.11a	22.53±0.35a	22.18±0.77a	**
粗蛋白Crude protein (CP, % DM)	9.78±0.32c	7.90±0.40d	12.38±0.00b	13.03±0.07b	14.51±0.06a	**
粗纤维Crude fiber (CF, % DM)	39.30±0.32b	43.37±1.46a	29.77±1.14c	36.59±1.13b	30.33±0.36c	**
粗灰分Crude ash (CA, % DM)	14.97±0.25a	14.34±0.11a	10.18±0.10c	10.52±0.21c	12.37±0.30b	**
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (NDF, % DM)	64.47±0.86	63.21±2.03	62.92±0.30	61.11±0.10	60.92±0.38	NS
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber (ADF, % DM)	41.69±0.17a	43.19±0.87a	28.22±0.72c	43.02±0.68a	35.36±0.58b	**
可溶性碳水化合物Water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC, % DM)	6.72±0.71	6.71±0.88	10.17±0.39	7.63±0.37	7.42±1.36	NS
pH	5.89±0.05c	6.15±0.02b	6.55±0.05a	5.97±0.05c	6.59±0.02a	**
缓冲能Buffer capacity (mEq·kg^-1 DM)	203.90±0.39a	136.75±6.13bc	126.46±6.27c	137.24±3.93bc	171.43±23.84ab	*
乳酸菌Lactic acid bacteria (log₁₀ cfu·g^-1 FM)	3.42±0.25c	3.97±0.06bc	3.84±0.11bc	4.43±0.12a	4.07±0.14ab	**
好氧细菌Aerobic bacteria (log₁₀ cfu·g^-1 FM)	5.99±0.01bc	6.06±0.23bc	6.28±0.01b	6.19±0.04bc	6.79±0.07a	**
酵母Yeast (log₁₀ cfu·g^-1 FM)	4.48±0.10a	4.34±0.08a	4.49±0.01a	4.43±0.03a	4.07±0.07b	*
霉菌Mold (log₁₀ cfu·g^-1 FM)	3.41±0.15	3.39±0.22	3.51±0.31	3.47±0.08	3.21±0.06	NS

项目 Items	CK	MK	XM	DZ	MF	显著性 Significance
干物质Dry matter (DM，% FM)	15.44±0.31b	21.65±0.88a	20.86±0.11a	22.53±0.35a	22.18±0.77a	**
粗蛋白Crude protein (CP, % DM)	9.78±0.32c	7.90±0.40d	12.38±0.00b	13.03±0.07b	14.51±0.06a	**
粗纤维Crude fiber (CF, % DM)	39.30±0.32b	43.37±1.46a	29.77±1.14c	36.59±1.13b	30.33±0.36c	**
粗灰分Crude ash (CA, % DM)	14.97±0.25a	14.34±0.11a	10.18±0.10c	10.52±0.21c	12.37±0.30b	**
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (NDF, % DM)	64.47±0.86	63.21±2.03	62.92±0.30	61.11±0.10	60.92±0.38	NS
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber (ADF, % DM)	41.69±0.17a	43.19±0.87a	28.22±0.72c	43.02±0.68a	35.36±0.58b	**
可溶性碳水化合物Water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC, % DM)	6.72±0.71	6.71±0.88	10.17±0.39	7.63±0.37	7.42±1.36	NS
pH	5.89±0.05c	6.15±0.02b	6.55±0.05a	5.97±0.05c	6.59±0.02a	**
缓冲能Buffer capacity (mEq·kg^-1 DM)	203.90±0.39a	136.75±6.13bc	126.46±6.27c	137.24±3.93bc	171.43±23.84ab	*
乳酸菌Lactic acid bacteria (log₁₀ cfu·g^-1 FM)	3.42±0.25c	3.97±0.06bc	3.84±0.11bc	4.43±0.12a	4.07±0.14ab	**
好氧细菌Aerobic bacteria (log₁₀ cfu·g^-1 FM)	5.99±0.01bc	6.06±0.23bc	6.28±0.01b	6.19±0.04bc	6.79±0.07a	**
酵母Yeast (log₁₀ cfu·g^-1 FM)	4.48±0.10a	4.34±0.08a	4.49±0.01a	4.43±0.03a	4.07±0.07b	*
霉菌Mold (log₁₀ cfu·g^-1 FM)	3.41±0.15	3.39±0.22	3.51±0.31	3.47±0.08	3.21±0.06	NS

处理 Treatment	DM (% FM)	pH	乳酸 Lactic acid （% DM）	乙酸 Acetic acid （% DM）	丙酸 Propionic acid （% DM）	丁酸 Butyric acid （% DM）	NH₃-N （% TN）
CK	13.68±0.47b	4.47±0.15	4.95±1.65b	1.51±0.11	0.35±0.17	0.17±0.09b	11.30±1.78b
MK	20.51±0.50a	4.55±0.11	7.81±0.11a	1.71±0.16	0.15±0.15	0.11±0.04b	9.94±0.23b
XM	20.18±0.15a	4.61±0.02	7.65±1.22a	2.92±0.72	0.61±0.07	0.81±0.14a	14.40±0.40a
DZ	20.04±0.27a	4.69±0.04	7.74±0.76a	2.59±0.65	0.40±0.11	0.04±0.02b	9.75±0.23b
MF	21.43±0.72a	4.46±0.03	6.55±0.67a	1.25±0.10	0.30±0.03	0.21±0.04b	11.63±0.89b
显著性Significance	**	NS	**	NS	NS	*	*

处理 Treatment	DM (% FM)	pH	乳酸 Lactic acid （% DM）	乙酸 Acetic acid （% DM）	丙酸 Propionic acid （% DM）	丁酸 Butyric acid （% DM）	NH₃-N （% TN）
CK	13.68±0.47b	4.47±0.15	4.95±1.65b	1.51±0.11	0.35±0.17	0.17±0.09b	11.30±1.78b
MK	20.51±0.50a	4.55±0.11	7.81±0.11a	1.71±0.16	0.15±0.15	0.11±0.04b	9.94±0.23b
XM	20.18±0.15a	4.61±0.02	7.65±1.22a	2.92±0.72	0.61±0.07	0.81±0.14a	14.40±0.40a
DZ	20.04±0.27a	4.69±0.04	7.74±0.76a	2.59±0.65	0.40±0.11	0.04±0.02b	9.75±0.23b
MF	21.43±0.72a	4.46±0.03	6.55±0.67a	1.25±0.10	0.30±0.03	0.21±0.04b	11.63±0.89b
显著性Significance	**	NS	**	NS	NS	*	*

处理Treatment	乳酸菌Lactic acid bacteria	好氧细菌Aerobic bacteria	酵母Yeast	霉菌Mold
CK	4.65±0.25ab	4.10±0.16	ND	ND
MK	5.11±0.13a	4.45±0.31	ND	ND
XM	4.20±0.23b	3.99±0.26	ND	ND
DZ	4.52±0.22b	3.99±0.08	ND	ND
MF	4.39±0.11b	4.19±0.15	ND	ND
显著性Significance	*	NS	-	-