Acta Prataculturae Sinica ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (8): 167-177.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2021312
Yong-jie WU(), Hao DING, Tao SHAO, Jie ZHAO, Dong DONG, Tong-tong DAI, Xue-jing YIN, Cheng ZONG, Jun-feng LI()
Received:
2021-08-19
Revised:
2021-11-22
Online:
2022-08-20
Published:
2022-07-01
Contact:
Jun-feng LI
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.
测定项目Item | 含量Content |
---|---|
干物质 Dry matter (g·kg-1 FM) | 393.25 |
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (g·kg-1 DM) | 715.12 |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (g·kg-1 DM) | 432.35 |
酸性洗涤木质素 Acid detergent lignin (g·kg-1 DM) | 65.85 |
纤维素 Cellulose (g·kg-1 DM) | 366.50 |
半纤维素 Hemicellulose (g·kg-1 DM) | 294.77 |
水溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate (g·kg-1 DM) | 46.32 |
粗蛋白 Crude protein (g·kg-1 DM) | 61.22 |
Table 1 Chemical compositions of rice straw
测定项目Item | 含量Content |
---|---|
干物质 Dry matter (g·kg-1 FM) | 393.25 |
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (g·kg-1 DM) | 715.12 |
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (g·kg-1 DM) | 432.35 |
酸性洗涤木质素 Acid detergent lignin (g·kg-1 DM) | 65.85 |
纤维素 Cellulose (g·kg-1 DM) | 366.50 |
半纤维素 Hemicellulose (g·kg-1 DM) | 294.77 |
水溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate (g·kg-1 DM) | 46.32 |
粗蛋白 Crude protein (g·kg-1 DM) | 61.22 |
项目 Item | 处理 Treatment (T) | 青贮天数 Ensiling days (D) | 平均 Mean | 标准误 SEM | P 值 P value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 d | 7 d | 14 d | 30 d | 处理 T | 天数 D | 处理×天数 T×D | ||||
乳酸 Lactic acid (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 8.67bC | 9.96cBC | 11.73cB | 16.52cA | 11.72b | 1.110 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 11.52abC | 18.93bB | 24.25bA | 26.39bA | 20.27a | |||||
XE | 12.51aD | 18.36bC | 23.97bB | 28.05bA | 20.72a | |||||
CX | 14.50aD | 21.87aC | 29.83aB | 34.13aA | 25.04a | |||||
乙酸 Acetic acid (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 5.78aC | 8.86aB | 10.06aB | 15.33aA | 10.01a | 0.456 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 5.28abC | 7.12bB | 8.09bB | 13.63bA | 8.53b | |||||
XE | 5.16bC | 7.41bB | 7.99bcB | 12.80bA | 8.34b | |||||
CX | 4.34cD | 6.11bC | 7.00cB | 10.19cA | 6.91c | |||||
丙酸 Propionic acid (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 0.72aC | 2.08aBC | 3.03aAB | 4.24aA | 2.52a | 0.155 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 0.57aC | 1.38bcB | 1.73bB | 2.94bA | 1.66b | |||||
XE | 0.53aC | 1.59bB | 1.83bB | 2.88bcA | 1.71b | |||||
CX | 0.50aD | 1.00cC | 1.48bB | 2.12cA | 1.35c | |||||
丁酸 Butyric acid (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 0.94aD | 2.60aC | 4.18aB | 8.99aA | 4.18a | 0.303 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 0.84aC | 1.49bC | 3.64aB | 4.47bA | 2.61b | |||||
XE | 1.04aD | 1.93bC | 3.28abB | 4.84bA | 2.78b | |||||
CX | 0.74aA | 1.65bA | 2.35bA | 3.29cA | 2.01c | |||||
乳酸/乙酸 Lactic acid/ acetic acid | CO | 1.51cA | 1.14cA | 1.17cA | 1.08cA | 1.22c | 0.136 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 2.18bcB | 2.66bAB | 3.01bA | 1.95bB | 2.45b | |||||
XE | 2.43bB | 2.48bB | 3.00bA | 2.19bB | 2.53b | |||||
CX | 3.34aB | 3.58aB | 4.26aA | 3.35aB | 3.66a | |||||
总挥发性脂肪酸 Total volatile fatty acids (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 7.45aD | 13.54aC | 17.27aB | 28.57aA | 16.71a | 0.891 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 6.69aD | 10.00bC | 13.47bB | 21.04bA | 12.80b | |||||
XE | 6.73aD | 10.93bC | 13.11bB | 20.52bA | 12.82b | |||||
CX | 5.58bD | 8.76cC | 10.83cB | 15.60cA | 10.61c |
Table 2 Effects of enzymes on organic acid contents of rice straw during ensiling
项目 Item | 处理 Treatment (T) | 青贮天数 Ensiling days (D) | 平均 Mean | 标准误 SEM | P 值 P value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 d | 7 d | 14 d | 30 d | 处理 T | 天数 D | 处理×天数 T×D | ||||
乳酸 Lactic acid (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 8.67bC | 9.96cBC | 11.73cB | 16.52cA | 11.72b | 1.110 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 11.52abC | 18.93bB | 24.25bA | 26.39bA | 20.27a | |||||
XE | 12.51aD | 18.36bC | 23.97bB | 28.05bA | 20.72a | |||||
CX | 14.50aD | 21.87aC | 29.83aB | 34.13aA | 25.04a | |||||
乙酸 Acetic acid (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 5.78aC | 8.86aB | 10.06aB | 15.33aA | 10.01a | 0.456 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 5.28abC | 7.12bB | 8.09bB | 13.63bA | 8.53b | |||||
XE | 5.16bC | 7.41bB | 7.99bcB | 12.80bA | 8.34b | |||||
CX | 4.34cD | 6.11bC | 7.00cB | 10.19cA | 6.91c | |||||
丙酸 Propionic acid (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 0.72aC | 2.08aBC | 3.03aAB | 4.24aA | 2.52a | 0.155 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 0.57aC | 1.38bcB | 1.73bB | 2.94bA | 1.66b | |||||
XE | 0.53aC | 1.59bB | 1.83bB | 2.88bcA | 1.71b | |||||
CX | 0.50aD | 1.00cC | 1.48bB | 2.12cA | 1.35c | |||||
丁酸 Butyric acid (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 0.94aD | 2.60aC | 4.18aB | 8.99aA | 4.18a | 0.303 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 0.84aC | 1.49bC | 3.64aB | 4.47bA | 2.61b | |||||
XE | 1.04aD | 1.93bC | 3.28abB | 4.84bA | 2.78b | |||||
CX | 0.74aA | 1.65bA | 2.35bA | 3.29cA | 2.01c | |||||
乳酸/乙酸 Lactic acid/ acetic acid | CO | 1.51cA | 1.14cA | 1.17cA | 1.08cA | 1.22c | 0.136 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 2.18bcB | 2.66bAB | 3.01bA | 1.95bB | 2.45b | |||||
XE | 2.43bB | 2.48bB | 3.00bA | 2.19bB | 2.53b | |||||
CX | 3.34aB | 3.58aB | 4.26aA | 3.35aB | 3.66a | |||||
总挥发性脂肪酸 Total volatile fatty acids (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 7.45aD | 13.54aC | 17.27aB | 28.57aA | 16.71a | 0.891 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 6.69aD | 10.00bC | 13.47bB | 21.04bA | 12.80b | |||||
XE | 6.73aD | 10.93bC | 13.11bB | 20.52bA | 12.82b | |||||
CX | 5.58bD | 8.76cC | 10.83cB | 15.60cA | 10.61c |
项目 Item | 处理 Treatment (T) | 青贮天数 Ensiling days (D) | 平均值 Mean | 标准误 SEM | P 值 P value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 d | 7 d | 14 d | 30 d | 处理 T | 天数 D | 处理×天数 T×D | ||||
pH | CO | 5.35aA | 5.21aB | 5.01aC | 4.93aD | 5.13a | 0.037 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 5.12bA | 5.08abA | 4.77bB | 4.69bB | 4.92b | |||||
XE | 5.05bA | 5.01bAB | 4.83bBC | 4.73bC | 4.91b | |||||
CX | 4.99bA | 4.77cB | 4.50cC | 4.36cC | 4.65c | |||||
干物质 Dry matter (g·kg-1 FM) | CO | 389.17aA | 383.40aA | 378.63aA | 376.00aA | 381.81a | 2.068 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.889 |
CE | 379.20aA | 370.07aAB | 366.73abAB | 355.17aB | 367.79b | |||||
XE | 382.43aA | 372.40aA | 357.07bA | 352.87aA | 366.19b | |||||
CX | 373.33aA | 369.13aAB | 355.50bAB | 351.07aB | 362.26b | |||||
氨态氮 Ammonia nitrogen (g·kg-1 TN) | CO | 23.75aB | 33.15aB | 49.08aA | 58.67aA | 41.16a | 1.778 | <0.001 | 0.0042 | 0.779 |
CE | 20.03aB | 29.85aAB | 39.22aA | 47.62aA | 34.09b | |||||
XE | 21.58aC | 30.88aBC | 37.74aB | 46.63aA | 34.20b | |||||
CX | 21.11aC | 26.29aBC | 36.80aAB | 44.04aA | 32.06b | |||||
干物质损失 Dry matter loss (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 30.40aD | 38.67aC | 64.60aB | 70.97aA | 51.17a | 2.830 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.500 |
CE | 22.50bC | 36.67abB | 59.43aA | 67.83aA | 46.60b | |||||
XE | 19.63bB | 34.27bB | 62.27aA | 67.77aA | 45.95b | |||||
CX | 11.26cD | 29.73cC | 52.16aB | 61.00bA | 38.55c |
Table 3 Effects of enzymes on pH, DM, DM loss and NH3-N contents of rice straw during ensiling
项目 Item | 处理 Treatment (T) | 青贮天数 Ensiling days (D) | 平均值 Mean | 标准误 SEM | P 值 P value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 d | 7 d | 14 d | 30 d | 处理 T | 天数 D | 处理×天数 T×D | ||||
pH | CO | 5.35aA | 5.21aB | 5.01aC | 4.93aD | 5.13a | 0.037 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CE | 5.12bA | 5.08abA | 4.77bB | 4.69bB | 4.92b | |||||
XE | 5.05bA | 5.01bAB | 4.83bBC | 4.73bC | 4.91b | |||||
CX | 4.99bA | 4.77cB | 4.50cC | 4.36cC | 4.65c | |||||
干物质 Dry matter (g·kg-1 FM) | CO | 389.17aA | 383.40aA | 378.63aA | 376.00aA | 381.81a | 2.068 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.889 |
CE | 379.20aA | 370.07aAB | 366.73abAB | 355.17aB | 367.79b | |||||
XE | 382.43aA | 372.40aA | 357.07bA | 352.87aA | 366.19b | |||||
CX | 373.33aA | 369.13aAB | 355.50bAB | 351.07aB | 362.26b | |||||
氨态氮 Ammonia nitrogen (g·kg-1 TN) | CO | 23.75aB | 33.15aB | 49.08aA | 58.67aA | 41.16a | 1.778 | <0.001 | 0.0042 | 0.779 |
CE | 20.03aB | 29.85aAB | 39.22aA | 47.62aA | 34.09b | |||||
XE | 21.58aC | 30.88aBC | 37.74aB | 46.63aA | 34.20b | |||||
CX | 21.11aC | 26.29aBC | 36.80aAB | 44.04aA | 32.06b | |||||
干物质损失 Dry matter loss (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 30.40aD | 38.67aC | 64.60aB | 70.97aA | 51.17a | 2.830 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.500 |
CE | 22.50bC | 36.67abB | 59.43aA | 67.83aA | 46.60b | |||||
XE | 19.63bB | 34.27bB | 62.27aA | 67.77aA | 45.95b | |||||
CX | 11.26cD | 29.73cC | 52.16aB | 61.00bA | 38.55c |
项目 Item | 处理 Treatment | 青贮天数 Ensiling days (D) | 平均值 Mean | 标准误 SEM | P 值 P value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 d | 7 d | 14 d | 30 d | 处理 T | 天数 D | T×D | ||||
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 712.75aA | 706.32aA | 694.38aB | 688.71aB | 700.54a | 3.133 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.012 |
CE | 694.38bA | 683.46bA | 668.34bB | 656.25bC | 675.61b | |||||
XE | 693.16bA | 681.91bB | 665.74bC | 654.41bD | 673.81b | |||||
CX | 684.61cA | 668.58cA | 648.61bB | 633.88cB | 658.92c | |||||
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 421.38aA | 417.60aA | 411.67aB | 408.00aB | 414.66a | 1.951 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.004 |
CE | 404.17bA | 396.29bAB | 391.96bBC | 384.08bcC | 394.13b | |||||
XE | 400.32bA | 396.53bAB | 392.87bBC | 389.30bC | 394.75b | |||||
CX | 404.51bA | 388.38bB | 378.45cBC | 373.58cC | 386.23c | |||||
酸性洗涤木质素 Acid detergent lignin (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 63.08aA | 63.75aA | 62.35aA | 60.38aA | 62.35a | 0.434 | 0.026 | 0.099 | 0.934 |
CE | 64.94aA | 65.02aA | 67.40aA | 67.36aA | 64.68a | |||||
XE | 65.05aA | 64.71aA | 62.98aA | 61.75aA | 63.62a | |||||
CX | 65.55aA | 66.45aA | 65.45aA | 63.26aA | 65.17a | |||||
半纤维素 Hemicelluloses (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 291.36aA | 288.72aA | 282.71aA | 280.71aB | 285.88a | 1.548 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.540 |
CE | 290.21aA | 287.17aA | 276.38abA | 272.17abA | 281.48a | |||||
XE | 292.84aA | 285.38aA | 272.87bB | 265.11bcB | 279.05ab | |||||
CX | 280.10bA | 280.20aA | 270.17bA | 260.30cA | 272.69b | |||||
纤维素 Celluloses (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 358.30aA | 353.84aA | 349.32aA | 347.63aA | 352.27a | 2.027 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.012 |
CE | 339.20bA | 331.27bAB | 324.60bB | 322.72bcB | 329.45b | |||||
XE | 335.27bA | 331.81bA | 329.89bA | 327.55bA | 331.13b | |||||
CX | 338.95bA | 321.93bB | 312.32cBC | 310.32cC | 321.05c |
Table 4 Effects of enzymes on structural carbohydrate contents of rice straw during ensiling
项目 Item | 处理 Treatment | 青贮天数 Ensiling days (D) | 平均值 Mean | 标准误 SEM | P 值 P value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 d | 7 d | 14 d | 30 d | 处理 T | 天数 D | T×D | ||||
中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 712.75aA | 706.32aA | 694.38aB | 688.71aB | 700.54a | 3.133 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.012 |
CE | 694.38bA | 683.46bA | 668.34bB | 656.25bC | 675.61b | |||||
XE | 693.16bA | 681.91bB | 665.74bC | 654.41bD | 673.81b | |||||
CX | 684.61cA | 668.58cA | 648.61bB | 633.88cB | 658.92c | |||||
酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 421.38aA | 417.60aA | 411.67aB | 408.00aB | 414.66a | 1.951 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.004 |
CE | 404.17bA | 396.29bAB | 391.96bBC | 384.08bcC | 394.13b | |||||
XE | 400.32bA | 396.53bAB | 392.87bBC | 389.30bC | 394.75b | |||||
CX | 404.51bA | 388.38bB | 378.45cBC | 373.58cC | 386.23c | |||||
酸性洗涤木质素 Acid detergent lignin (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 63.08aA | 63.75aA | 62.35aA | 60.38aA | 62.35a | 0.434 | 0.026 | 0.099 | 0.934 |
CE | 64.94aA | 65.02aA | 67.40aA | 67.36aA | 64.68a | |||||
XE | 65.05aA | 64.71aA | 62.98aA | 61.75aA | 63.62a | |||||
CX | 65.55aA | 66.45aA | 65.45aA | 63.26aA | 65.17a | |||||
半纤维素 Hemicelluloses (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 291.36aA | 288.72aA | 282.71aA | 280.71aB | 285.88a | 1.548 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.540 |
CE | 290.21aA | 287.17aA | 276.38abA | 272.17abA | 281.48a | |||||
XE | 292.84aA | 285.38aA | 272.87bB | 265.11bcB | 279.05ab | |||||
CX | 280.10bA | 280.20aA | 270.17bA | 260.30cA | 272.69b | |||||
纤维素 Celluloses (g·kg-1 DM) | CO | 358.30aA | 353.84aA | 349.32aA | 347.63aA | 352.27a | 2.027 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.012 |
CE | 339.20bA | 331.27bAB | 324.60bB | 322.72bcB | 329.45b | |||||
XE | 335.27bA | 331.81bA | 329.89bA | 327.55bA | 331.13b | |||||
CX | 338.95bA | 321.93bB | 312.32cBC | 310.32cC | 321.05c |
项目 Item | 处理 Treatment | 标准误 SEM | P 值 P value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CO | CE | XE | CX | |||
理论最大产气量 Asymptotic gas production (mL) | 44.89C | 54.57B | 57.25B | 68.27A | 2.569 | <0.001 |
产气速率常数 Rate of gas production (mL·h-1) | 0.040B | 0.047AB | 0.048AB | 0.051A | 0.001 | 0.008 |
产气延滞时间 Lag (h) | 2.73A | 2.31B | 2.68A | 2.25B | 0.069 | <0.001 |
24 h气体产量 Gas production at 24 h (mL) | 25.81C | 34.97B | 36.54B | 45.90A | 2.198 | <0.001 |
48 h气体产量 Gas production at 48 h (mL) | 37.62C | 48.23B | 50.64B | 61.71A | 2.630 | <0.001 |
72 h气体产量 Gas production at 72 h (mL) | 42.12C | 52.51B | 55.14B | 66.34A | 2.649 | <0.001 |
干物质体外消化率 IVDMD (%) | 52.84C | 57.09B | 57.57B | 61.31A | 0.966 | <0.001 |
中性洗涤纤维体外消化率 IVNDFD (%) | 47.86A | 49.24A | 49.28A | 50.95A | 0.569 | 0.322 |
酸性洗涤纤维体外消化率 IVADFD (%) | 40.87A | 42.34A | 41.70A | 44.49A | 0.539 | 0.073 |
Table 5 Effects of enzymes on in vitro digestibility and gas production profile of 30 days rice straw silage
项目 Item | 处理 Treatment | 标准误 SEM | P 值 P value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CO | CE | XE | CX | |||
理论最大产气量 Asymptotic gas production (mL) | 44.89C | 54.57B | 57.25B | 68.27A | 2.569 | <0.001 |
产气速率常数 Rate of gas production (mL·h-1) | 0.040B | 0.047AB | 0.048AB | 0.051A | 0.001 | 0.008 |
产气延滞时间 Lag (h) | 2.73A | 2.31B | 2.68A | 2.25B | 0.069 | <0.001 |
24 h气体产量 Gas production at 24 h (mL) | 25.81C | 34.97B | 36.54B | 45.90A | 2.198 | <0.001 |
48 h气体产量 Gas production at 48 h (mL) | 37.62C | 48.23B | 50.64B | 61.71A | 2.630 | <0.001 |
72 h气体产量 Gas production at 72 h (mL) | 42.12C | 52.51B | 55.14B | 66.34A | 2.649 | <0.001 |
干物质体外消化率 IVDMD (%) | 52.84C | 57.09B | 57.57B | 61.31A | 0.966 | <0.001 |
中性洗涤纤维体外消化率 IVNDFD (%) | 47.86A | 49.24A | 49.28A | 50.95A | 0.569 | 0.322 |
酸性洗涤纤维体外消化率 IVADFD (%) | 40.87A | 42.34A | 41.70A | 44.49A | 0.539 | 0.073 |
1 | Shi Z L, Jia T, Wang Y J, et al. Comprehensive utilization status of corp straw and estimation of carbon from burning in China.Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2017, 38(9): 32-37. |
石祖梁, 贾涛, 王亚静, 等. 我国农作物秸秆综合利用现状及焚烧碳排放估算. 中国农业资源与区划, 2017, 38(9): 32-37. | |
2 | Feng W X, Tao L, Chen G S, et al. Recent advance in the biodegradation technique of wheat and rice straw as ruminant feed. China Herbivore Science, 2016, 36(3): 59-62. |
冯文晓, 陶莲, 陈国顺, 等. 小麦和水稻秸秆作为反刍动物饲料资源的生物降解技术研究进展. 中国草食动物科学, 2016, 36(3): 59-62. | |
3 | Zhang L X, Diao Q Y, Li Y L, et al. Research progress in using biological agents to degrade anti-nutritional factor of straw.Feed Industry, 2013, 34(5): 21-26. |
张立霞, 刁其玉, 李艳玲, 等. 利用生物制剂破解秸秆抗营养因子的研究进展. 饲料工业, 2013, 34(5): 21-26. | |
4 | Zhao J P. Effect of additives on the fermentation quality and carbohydrate of rice straw silage. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2018. |
赵金鹏. 添加剂对水稻秸秆青贮发酵品质及碳水化合物的影响. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2018. | |
5 | Mustafa A M, Poulsen T G, Sheng K C. Fungal pretreatment of rice straw with Pleurotus ostreatus and Trichoderma reesei to enhance methane production under solid-state anaerobic digestion. Applied Energy, 2016, 180(5): 661-671. |
6 | Sharma A, Singh G, Arya S. Biofuel from rice straw. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 277(5): 124101. |
7 | Gado H M, Salem A Z M, Robinson P H, et al. Influence of exogenous enzymes on nutrient digestibility, extent of ruminal fermentation as well as milk production and composition in dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2009, 154(1): 36-46. |
8 | Zhao J, Dong Z H, Li J F, et al. Ensiling as pretreatment of rice straw: The effect of hemicellulase and Lactobacillus plantarum on hemicellulose degradation and cellulose conversion. Bioresource Technology, 2018, 266: 158-165. |
9 | Souza J M, Souza J, Sousa D O, et al. The effects of compound treatment of Aspergillus oryzae and fibrolytic enzyme on in vitro degradation, gas production and fermentative profile of maize silage and sugarcane silage. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 2021, 159(1): 147-158. |
10 | Jia Y X. The effect of enzyme additives on fermentation quality of napiergrass silages. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2008. |
贾燕霞. 酶制剂对象草青贮发酵品质的影响. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2008. | |
11 | Zhuang S. Study on fibrolytic enzymes on forage silage quality and characteristics of rumen fermentation in vitro. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2011. |
庄苏. 纤维水解酶对牧草青贮品质及体外瘤胃发酵特性的研究. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2011. | |
12 | Seare T D, Yuan X J, Li J F, et al. Ensiling characteristics, structural and nonstructural carbohydrate composition and enzymatic digestibility of Napier grass ensiled with additives. Bioresource Technology, 2016, 221: 447-454. |
13 | Li J F, Tang X Y, Chen S F, et al. Ensiling pretreatment with two novel microbial consortia enhances bioethanol production in sterile rice straw. Bioresource Technology, 2021, DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125507. |
14 | Lee S M, Guan L L, Eun J S, et al. The effect of anaerobic fungal inoculation on the fermentation characteristics of rice straw silages. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2015, 118(3): 565-573. |
15 | Colombatto D, Mould F L, Owen E. Use of fibrolytic enzymes to improve the nutritive value of ruminant diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2003, 107: 201-209. |
16 | Ding S, Oba M, Swfit M L, et al. In vitro gas production and dry matter digestibility of malting barley grain sown with different seeding and nitrogen fertilization rates in Canada. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2015, 199: 146-151. |
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 | 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. |
19 | France J, Dhanoa M S, Theodorou M K, et al. A model to interpret gas accumulation profiles associated with in vitro degradation of ruminant feeds. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1993, 163(1): 99-111. |
20 | Weinberg Z G. Preservation of forage crops by solid-state lactic acid fermentation-ensiling. New York: Springer New York, 2008. |
21 | Yuan X J, Yu C Q, Shimojo M, et al. Improvement of fermentation and nutritive quality of straw-grass silage by inclusion of wet hulless-barley distillers’ grains in Tibet. Animal Bioscience, 2012, 25(4): 479-485. |
22 | Yuan X J, Wen A Y, Guo G, et al. Effect of adding cornzyme on fermentation and nutritive quality of mixed silage of hullessbarley straw and perennial ryegrass in Tibet. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2013, 44(8): 1269-1276. |
原现军, 闻爱友, 郭刚, 等. 添加酶制剂对西藏地区青稞秸秆和黑麦草混合青贮效果的影响. 畜牧兽医学报, 2013, 44(8): 1269-1276. | |
23 | Li L, Wu H K, Xie X X, et al. Effect of adding cellulase and strach on quality of napier grass silage. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(9): 5025-5035. |
李莉, 吴汉奎, 解祥学, 等. 添加纤维素酶和淀粉对象草青贮发酵品质的影响. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(9): 5025-5035. | |
24 | Zhang L, Yu C Q, Shimojo M, et al. Effect of different rates of ethanol additive on fermentation quality of napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum). Asian-australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2011, 24(5): 636-642. |
25 | Liu Q H, Zong C, Dong Z H, et al. Effects of cellulolytic lactic acid bacteria on the lignocellulose degradation, sugar profile and lactic acid fermentation of high-moisture alfalfa ensiled in low-temperature seasons. Cellulose, 2020, 27(14): 7955-7965. |
26 | Tian J, Yu Y, Yu Z, et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria inoculants and cellulase on fermentation quality and in vitro digestibility of Leymus chinensis silage. Grassland Science, 2014, 60(4): 199-205. |
27 | Dehghani M R, Weisbjerg M R, Hvelplund T, et al. Effect of enzyme addition to forage at ensiling on silage chemical composition and NDF degradation characteristics. Livestock Science, 2012, 150(1): 51-58. |
28 | Shao T, Ohba N, Shimojo M, et al. Changes in mono-and disaccharides compositions of guineagrass (Panicum maximum Jacq.) silage during early stages of ensiling. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture Kyushu University, 2003, 47(2): 333-339. |
29 | Filya I, Muck R E, Contreras-Govea F E. Inoculant effects on alfalfa silage: Fermentation products and nutritive value. Journal of Dairy Science, 2007, 90(11): 5108-5114. |
30 | Agustinho B C, Daniel J L P, Zeoula L M, et al. Enzymatic effects of Pleurotus ostreatus spent substrate on whole-plant corn silage and performance of lactating goats. Journal of Dairy Science, 2021, 104(11): 11660-11672. |
31 | Zhou E G, Wang H C, Shang Z H. Nutritional value of forage sweet sorghum and its gas production performance evaluated using incubation with sheep rumen fluid in vitro. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(5): 43-49. |
周恩光, 王虎成, 尚占环. 甜高粱的饲用价值及其绵羊体外瘤胃发酵产气性能研究. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 43-49. | |
32 | Meng M J, Tu Y L, Bai Y F, et al. Study of associative effects of wheat straw mixed with rice bran meal on in vitro fermentation parameters. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(9): 161-172. |
孟梅娟, 涂远璐, 白云峰, 等. 小麦秸秆与米糠粕瘤胃体外发酵组合效应研究. 草业学报, 2016, 25(9): 161-172. | |
33 | Morgavi D P, Beauchemin K A, Nsereko V L, et al. Synergy between ruminal fibrolytic enzymes and enzymes from Trichoderma longibrachiatum. Journal of Dairy Science, 2000, 83(6): 1310-1321. |
34 | Chen L, Li P, Gou W, et al. Effects of inoculants on the fermentation characteristics and in vitro digestibility of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) silage on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Animal Science Journal, 2020, DOI: 10.1111/asj.13364. |
35 | Ding L. Effects of distillers grains and additives on improving the quality of total mixed ration silang in Tibet. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2016. |
丁良. 酒糟及添加剂对提高西藏发酵全混合日粮品质的影响. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2016. | |
36 | Li M, Zi X J, Zhou H L, et al. Effects of sucrose, glucose, molasses and cellulase on fermentation quality and in vitro gas production of king grass silage. Animal Feed Science & Technology, 2014, 197: 206-212. |
[1] | 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. |
[2] | 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. |
[3] | 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. |
[4] | 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. |
[5] | 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. |
[6] | Yuan-yuan WEN, Mei-qi ZHANG, Tao-tao LIU, Yi-zhao SHEN, Yan-xia GAO, Qiu-feng LI, Yu-feng CAO, Jian-guo LI. Associative effects between whole crop maize silage and mixed silage made from raw potato crisp processing by-product and rice straw as determined using an in vitro gas production technique [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(8): 154-163. |
[7] | Dong-mei YANG, Jun-nian LI, Shuang-lun TAO. Effects of tannic acid addition on the aerobic stability and mycotoxin content of kudzu vine silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(8): 164-170. |
[8] | Xiang GUO, De-kui CHEN, Na CHEN, Yun LI, Xiao-yang CHEN, Qing ZHANG. Effect of moisture content and additives on the fermentation quality of Neolamarckia cadamba leaf silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(8): 199-205. |
[9] | 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. |
[10] | Fei WANG, Cai-ling LIU, Chun-mei HE, Qing-hua LI, Yu-jie LIU, Yi-bin HUANG. Appropriate ratios of phosphate and potassium fertilizers and 50% return of rice straw enhanced yield and nutrient capture of Chinese milk vetch [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(12): 81-89. |
[11] | Dong-qing FU, Chun-ying JIA, Xiao-chun LIAN, Li ZHANG, Fan-fan ZHANG, Chun-hui MA. Fermentation quality and in rumen degradability of mixed silage from maize stalk and tomato pomace in varying proportions [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(10): 147-158. |
[12] | Chang-rong WU, Sheng DAI, Long-fei LIANG, Wen-tao SUN, Chao PENG, Chao CHEN, Jun HAO. Effects of different additives on fermentation quality and protein degradation of Broussonetia papyrifera silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(10): 169-179. |
[13] | Shuang WU, Yu-xiang ZHOU, Rou JIA, Ya-dong JIN, Wan-zong YANG. Effects of cellulase treatment of buckwheat straw on fiber structure and meat quality of Tan sheep [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(1): 170-180. |
[14] | Fan ZHANG, Qian YANG. Effects of co-utilization of Chinese milk vetch and rice straw on the potassium cycle and potassium balance in a paddy soil [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(1): 72-80. |
[15] | FU Jin-tao, WANG Xue-kai, NI Kui-kui, YANG Fu-yu. The effects of adding lactic acid bacteria and molasses on fermentation of Broussonetia papyrifera and rice straw mixed silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(4): 121-128. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||