Acta Prataculturae Sinica ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (10): 167-177.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2021411
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
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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] | Yang-yang MIAO, Yan-rui ZHANG, Biao SONG, Xu-tong LIU, An-qi ZHANG, Jin-ze LV, Hao ZHANG, Xiao-hua ZHANG, Jia-hui OUYANG, Wang LI, Shan-min QU. Effects of Suaeda glauca rhizobacteria and endophytic bacterial strains on alfalfa growth under salt-alkaline stress [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(9): 107-117. |
[2] | Jun-wei ZHAO, Sheng-yi LI, Yan-liang SUN, Xuan-shuai LIU, Chun-hui MA, Qian-bing ZHANG. Fine root turnover of alfalfa in different soil horizons under different nitrogen and phosphorus levels [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(9): 118-128. |
[3] | Wei-dong CHEN, Yu-xia ZHANG, Qing-xin ZHANG, Ting-yu LIU, Xian-guo WANG, Dong-ru WANG. The effect of last cutting time on the antioxidant system and cold resistance of alfalfa root-neck [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(9): 129-138. |
[4] | Min-hua YIN, Yan-lin MA, Yan-xia KANG, Qiong JIA, Guang-ping QI, Jing-hai WANG. Effects of nitrogen application on alfalfa yield and quality in China-A Meta-analysis [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(9): 36-49. |
[5] | Yan-liang SUN, Jun-wei ZHAO, Xuan-shuai LIU, Sheng-yi LI, Chun-hui MA, Xu-zhe WANG, Qian-bing ZHANG. Effect of nitrogen application on photosynthetic daily variation, leaf morphology and dry matter yield of alfalfa at the early flowering growth stage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(9): 63-75. |
[6] | Dong-qing FU, Chun-ying JIA, Li ZHANG, Fan-fan ZHANG, Chun-hui MA. Agronomic traits and fermentation quality of maize silage harvested at different grain-development stages in irrigated drought areas of southern Xinjiang [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8): 111-125. |
[7] | Ying-zheng LI, Yu-lin CHENG, Lu-lu XU, Wan-song LI, Xu YAN, Xiao-feng LI, Ru-yu HE, Yang ZHOU, Jun-jun ZHENG, Xing-yu WANG, De-long ZHANG, Ming-jun CHENG, Yun-hong XIA, Jian-mei HE, Qi-lin TANG. A comparative study of silage quality characteristics of whole-plant, whole-ear and whole-straw silage of different maize varieties (lines) [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8): 144-156. |
[8] | Yong-jie WU, Hao DING, Tao SHAO, Jie ZHAO, Dong DONG, Tong-tong DAI, Xue-jing YIN, Cheng ZONG, Jun-feng LI. Effects of enzyme additives on fermentation quality and in vitro digestion characteristics of rice straw silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8): 167-177. |
[9] | Jian-tao ZHAO, Ya-fei YUE, Qian-bing ZHANG, Chun-hui MA. Relationship between cold resistance of alfalfa, degree of fall-dormancy and snow cover thickness in Northern Xinjiang [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8): 24-34. |
[10] | Cai-ting LIU, Li-ping MAO, Ayixiemu, Ying-wen YU, Yu-ying SHEN. Effects of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) proportion on growth and physiological characteristics of cold resistance in mixtures with Elymus nutans [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(7): 133-143. |
[11] | Xue-meng WANG, Xin HE, Han ZHANG, Rui SONG, Pei-sheng MAO, Shan-gang JIA. Non-destructive identification of artificially aged alfalfa seeds using multispectral imaging analysis [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(7): 197-208. |
[12] | Jun-feng LI, Jie ZHAO, Xiao-yue TANG, Tong-tong DAI, Dong DONG, Cheng ZONG, Tao SHAO. Effect of a rumen cellulolytic microbial consortium on the degradation of structural carbohydrate in sterile rice straw silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(7): 85-95. |
[13] | Xiang GUO, Shuo WU, Ming-yang ZHENG, De-kui CHEN, Xuan ZOU, Xiao-yang CHEN, Wei ZHOU, Qing ZHANG. Effects of addition of Neolamarckia cadamba leaves and chitosan oligosaccharides on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of sugarcane top silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(6): 202-210. |
[14] | Huan ZHANG, Yi-xiao MU, Gui-jie ZHANG. Effects of Lycium barbarum by-products on fermentation quality and microbial diversity of alfalfa silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(4): 136-144. |
[15] | Hong-ren SUN, Xian-guo WANG, Yao-jun BU, Nan QIAO, Bo REN. Preliminary study of a sufficiency index of soil N and recommended N fertilizer application rates for alfalfa in the Loess Plateau of China [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(4): 32-42. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||