Acta Prataculturae Sinica ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (10): 169-179.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020379
Chang-rong WU(), Sheng DAI, Long-fei LIANG, Wen-tao SUN, Chao PENG, Chao CHEN, Jun HAO()
Received:
2020-08-04
Revised:
2020-09-27
Online:
2021-09-16
Published:
2021-09-16
Contact:
Jun HAO
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.
项目 Item | 晾晒1.5 h Airing 1.5 h |
---|---|
含水量Water content (% FM) | 69.82 |
粗灰分Crude ash (% DM, Ash) | 8.28 |
粗蛋白质Crude protein (% DM, CP) | 19.72 |
粗脂肪Ether extract (% DM, EE) | 3.56 |
粗纤维Crude fiber (% DM, CF) | 17.27 |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (% DM, NDF) | 38.92 |
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber (% DM, ADF) | 20.46 |
可溶性碳水化合物Soluble carbohydrates (% DM, WSC) | 6.29 |
Table 1 Nutritional components of paper mulberry silage
项目 Item | 晾晒1.5 h Airing 1.5 h |
---|---|
含水量Water content (% FM) | 69.82 |
粗灰分Crude ash (% DM, Ash) | 8.28 |
粗蛋白质Crude protein (% DM, CP) | 19.72 |
粗脂肪Ether extract (% DM, EE) | 3.56 |
粗纤维Crude fiber (% DM, CF) | 17.27 |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (% DM, NDF) | 38.92 |
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber (% DM, ADF) | 20.46 |
可溶性碳水化合物Soluble carbohydrates (% DM, WSC) | 6.29 |
处理 Treatment | 干物质 DM (%FW) | 粗蛋白 CP (%DM) | 粗脂肪 EE (%DM) | 可溶性碳水化合物 WSC (%DM) | 粗灰分 Ash (%DM) | 粗纤维 CF (%DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维 ADF (%DM) | 中性洗涤纤维 NDF (%DM) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 26.43±0.38b | 17.66±0.22b | 3.18±0.01c | 1.70±0.02b | 8.50±0.10ab | 17.25±0.17a | 19.89±0.10a | 31.61±0.42a |
FA | 28.26±0.24a | 19.20±0.13a | 3.67±0.04b | 2.80±0.02a | 8.20±0.14b | 15.56±0.41b | 18.73±0.15b | 30.83±0.88a |
LB | 27.06±0.57ab | 19.57±0.59a | 3.14±0.22c | 1.25±0.03c | 8.74±0.11a | 15.49±0.39b | 19.77±0.04a | 32.70±0.63a |
CE | 27.15±0.63ab | 18.86±0.18a | 4.34±0.20a | 1.71±0.03b | 8.69±0.03a | 14.77±0.12b | 18.97±0.22b | 28.74±0.19b |
Table 2 Effects of different additives on nutrient quality of paper mulberry silage
处理 Treatment | 干物质 DM (%FW) | 粗蛋白 CP (%DM) | 粗脂肪 EE (%DM) | 可溶性碳水化合物 WSC (%DM) | 粗灰分 Ash (%DM) | 粗纤维 CF (%DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维 ADF (%DM) | 中性洗涤纤维 NDF (%DM) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 26.43±0.38b | 17.66±0.22b | 3.18±0.01c | 1.70±0.02b | 8.50±0.10ab | 17.25±0.17a | 19.89±0.10a | 31.61±0.42a |
FA | 28.26±0.24a | 19.20±0.13a | 3.67±0.04b | 2.80±0.02a | 8.20±0.14b | 15.56±0.41b | 18.73±0.15b | 30.83±0.88a |
LB | 27.06±0.57ab | 19.57±0.59a | 3.14±0.22c | 1.25±0.03c | 8.74±0.11a | 15.49±0.39b | 19.77±0.04a | 32.70±0.63a |
CE | 27.15±0.63ab | 18.86±0.18a | 4.34±0.20a | 1.71±0.03b | 8.69±0.03a | 14.77±0.12b | 18.97±0.22b | 28.74±0.19b |
处理 Treatment | pH | 乳酸 LA (%DM) | 乙酸 AA (%DM) | 丙酸 PA (%DM) | 丁酸 BA (%DM) | 氨态氮/全氮 AN/TN (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 4.15±0.01a | 4.12±0.07d | 0.49±0.01d | 0.21±0.01a | ND | 9.75±0.05a |
FA | 4.08±0.01b | 4.73±0.07b | 0.67±0.01a | 0.13±0.02b | ND | 8.40±0.44c |
LB | 4.07±0.01b | 5.41±0.06a | 0.53±0.02c | 0.02±0.00d | ND | 8.02±0.37c |
CE | 4.10±0.02b | 4.47±0.06c | 0.57±0.01b | 0.09±0.02bc | ND | 8.86±0.29b |
Table 3 Effects of different additives on fermentation quality of paper mulberry silage
处理 Treatment | pH | 乳酸 LA (%DM) | 乙酸 AA (%DM) | 丙酸 PA (%DM) | 丁酸 BA (%DM) | 氨态氮/全氮 AN/TN (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 4.15±0.01a | 4.12±0.07d | 0.49±0.01d | 0.21±0.01a | ND | 9.75±0.05a |
FA | 4.08±0.01b | 4.73±0.07b | 0.67±0.01a | 0.13±0.02b | ND | 8.40±0.44c |
LB | 4.07±0.01b | 5.41±0.06a | 0.53±0.02c | 0.02±0.00d | ND | 8.02±0.37c |
CE | 4.10±0.02b | 4.47±0.06c | 0.57±0.01b | 0.09±0.02bc | ND | 8.86±0.29b |
蛋白酶 Protease | 时间处理 Time treatment (d) | 添加剂处理 Additive treatment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | FA | CE | LB | ||
酸性蛋白酶 Acid protease (U·mL-1) | 0 | 150.25±0.00Aa | 150.25±0.00Aa | 150.25±0.00Aa | 150.25±0.00Aa |
1 | 126.15±0.87Ab | 104.78±0.50Cb | 114.25±0.63Bb | 97.30±0.72Db | |
3 | 100.84±0.79Ac | 79.96±0.30Cc | 92.19±0.72Bc | 80.92±0.23Cc | |
7 | 86.03±0.31Ad | 62.06±0.45Cd | 74.05±0.89Bd | 63.36±0.21Cd | |
15 | 72.15±0.37Ae | 54.25±0.63Ce | 64.78±0.50Be | 50.98±0.31De | |
30 | 55.84±0.79Af | 43.52±0.49Bf | 54.25±0.63Af | 38.47±0.46Cf | |
45 | 53.69±0.23Ag | 35.80±0.25Cg | 43.48±0.50Bg | 29.15±0.54Dg | |
羧基肽酶 Carboxypeptidase (U·mL-1) | 0 | 78.03±0.00Aa | 78.03±0.00Aa | 78.03±0.00Aa | 78.03±0.00Aa |
1 | 71.30±0.85Ab | 56.50±0.58Cb | 62.46±0.64Bb | 58.14±0.83Cb | |
3 | 66.44±0.61Ac | 47.50±0.62Dc | 54.40±0.67Bc | 51.16±0.64Cc | |
7 | 59.05±0.83Ad | 43.23±0.75Cd | 47.58±0.64Bd | 44.76±0.34Cd | |
15 | 56.37±0.71Ae | 37.68±0.72Ce | 43.41±0.71Be | 38.12±1.29Ce | |
30 | 51.46±0.67Af | 33.00±0.43Cf | 36.69±0.19Bf | 30.23±0.52Df | |
45 | 48.94±0.96Ag | 26.12±0.45Cg | 31.88±0.17Bg | 23.67±0.10Dg | |
氨基肽酶 Aminopeptidase (U·mL-1) | 0 | 46.86±0.00Aa | 46.86±0.00Aa | 46.86±0.00Aa | 46.86±0.00Aa |
1 | 28.40±0.54Ab | 15.96±0.45Db | 25.61±1.25Bb | 21.62±0.45Cb | |
3 | 19.41±0.50Ac | 6.60±0.22Dc | 14.33±0.60Bc | 9.63±0.21Cc | |
7 | 11.58±0.62Ad | 0.00±0.00Cd | 9.39±0.46Bd | 0.00±0.00Cd | |
15 | 0.00±0.00Ae | 0.00±0.00Ad | 0.00±0.00Ae | 0.00±0.00Ad | |
30 | 0.00±0.00Ae | 0.00±0.00Ad | 0.00±0.00Ae | 0.00±0.00Ad | |
45 | 0.00±0.00Ae | 0.00±0.00Ad | 0.00±0.00Ae | 0.00±0.00Ad |
Table 4 Dynamic effects of different additives on the protease of paper mulberry silage
蛋白酶 Protease | 时间处理 Time treatment (d) | 添加剂处理 Additive treatment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | FA | CE | LB | ||
酸性蛋白酶 Acid protease (U·mL-1) | 0 | 150.25±0.00Aa | 150.25±0.00Aa | 150.25±0.00Aa | 150.25±0.00Aa |
1 | 126.15±0.87Ab | 104.78±0.50Cb | 114.25±0.63Bb | 97.30±0.72Db | |
3 | 100.84±0.79Ac | 79.96±0.30Cc | 92.19±0.72Bc | 80.92±0.23Cc | |
7 | 86.03±0.31Ad | 62.06±0.45Cd | 74.05±0.89Bd | 63.36±0.21Cd | |
15 | 72.15±0.37Ae | 54.25±0.63Ce | 64.78±0.50Be | 50.98±0.31De | |
30 | 55.84±0.79Af | 43.52±0.49Bf | 54.25±0.63Af | 38.47±0.46Cf | |
45 | 53.69±0.23Ag | 35.80±0.25Cg | 43.48±0.50Bg | 29.15±0.54Dg | |
羧基肽酶 Carboxypeptidase (U·mL-1) | 0 | 78.03±0.00Aa | 78.03±0.00Aa | 78.03±0.00Aa | 78.03±0.00Aa |
1 | 71.30±0.85Ab | 56.50±0.58Cb | 62.46±0.64Bb | 58.14±0.83Cb | |
3 | 66.44±0.61Ac | 47.50±0.62Dc | 54.40±0.67Bc | 51.16±0.64Cc | |
7 | 59.05±0.83Ad | 43.23±0.75Cd | 47.58±0.64Bd | 44.76±0.34Cd | |
15 | 56.37±0.71Ae | 37.68±0.72Ce | 43.41±0.71Be | 38.12±1.29Ce | |
30 | 51.46±0.67Af | 33.00±0.43Cf | 36.69±0.19Bf | 30.23±0.52Df | |
45 | 48.94±0.96Ag | 26.12±0.45Cg | 31.88±0.17Bg | 23.67±0.10Dg | |
氨基肽酶 Aminopeptidase (U·mL-1) | 0 | 46.86±0.00Aa | 46.86±0.00Aa | 46.86±0.00Aa | 46.86±0.00Aa |
1 | 28.40±0.54Ab | 15.96±0.45Db | 25.61±1.25Bb | 21.62±0.45Cb | |
3 | 19.41±0.50Ac | 6.60±0.22Dc | 14.33±0.60Bc | 9.63±0.21Cc | |
7 | 11.58±0.62Ad | 0.00±0.00Cd | 9.39±0.46Bd | 0.00±0.00Cd | |
15 | 0.00±0.00Ae | 0.00±0.00Ad | 0.00±0.00Ae | 0.00±0.00Ad | |
30 | 0.00±0.00Ae | 0.00±0.00Ad | 0.00±0.00Ae | 0.00±0.00Ad | |
45 | 0.00±0.00Ae | 0.00±0.00Ad | 0.00±0.00Ae | 0.00±0.00Ad |
项目 Item | 指标 Index | 添加剂处理 Additive treatment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | FA | LB | CE | ||
营养品质 Nutritional quality | 干物质DM | 0.365 | 0.662 | 0.359 | 0.417 |
粗蛋白CP | 0.380 | 0.537 | 0.578 | 0.539 | |
粗灰分Ash | 0.559 | 0.528 | 0.573 | 0.567 | |
粗脂肪EE | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.496 | |
粗纤维CF | 0.483 | 0.357 | 0.624 | 0.400 | |
中性洗涤纤维NDF | 0.367 | 0.440 | 0.405 | 0.547 | |
酸性洗涤纤维ADF | 0.615 | 0.516 | 0.635 | 0.461 | |
可溶性碳水化合物WSC | 0.408 | 0.341 | 0.563 | 0.449 | |
发酵品质Fermentation quality | pH | 0.444 | 0.333 | 0.667 | 0.583 |
乳酸LA | 0.630 | 0.513 | 0.525 | 0.336 | |
乙酸AA | 0.407 | 0.665 | 0.405 | 0.643 | |
丙酸PA | 0.541 | 0.472 | 0.419 | 0.451 | |
氨态氮/全氮AN/TN | 0.611 | 0.388 | 0.545 | 0.566 | |
非蛋白氮Non-protein nitrogen (NPN) | 0.455 | 0.648 | 0.537 | 0.607 | |
酸性蛋白酶Acid protease | 0.421 | 0.516 | 0.592 | 0.359 | |
羧基肽酶Carboxypeptidase | 0.404 | 0.403 | 0.521 | 0.636 | |
综合评价值Comprehensive evaluation | 0.474 | 0.489 | 0.528 | 0.504 | |
排名 Ranking | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
Table 5 Membership function analysis of different additives on nutritional value, fermentation quality and protein degradation of paper mulberry silage
项目 Item | 指标 Index | 添加剂处理 Additive treatment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | FA | LB | CE | ||
营养品质 Nutritional quality | 干物质DM | 0.365 | 0.662 | 0.359 | 0.417 |
粗蛋白CP | 0.380 | 0.537 | 0.578 | 0.539 | |
粗灰分Ash | 0.559 | 0.528 | 0.573 | 0.567 | |
粗脂肪EE | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.496 | |
粗纤维CF | 0.483 | 0.357 | 0.624 | 0.400 | |
中性洗涤纤维NDF | 0.367 | 0.440 | 0.405 | 0.547 | |
酸性洗涤纤维ADF | 0.615 | 0.516 | 0.635 | 0.461 | |
可溶性碳水化合物WSC | 0.408 | 0.341 | 0.563 | 0.449 | |
发酵品质Fermentation quality | pH | 0.444 | 0.333 | 0.667 | 0.583 |
乳酸LA | 0.630 | 0.513 | 0.525 | 0.336 | |
乙酸AA | 0.407 | 0.665 | 0.405 | 0.643 | |
丙酸PA | 0.541 | 0.472 | 0.419 | 0.451 | |
氨态氮/全氮AN/TN | 0.611 | 0.388 | 0.545 | 0.566 | |
非蛋白氮Non-protein nitrogen (NPN) | 0.455 | 0.648 | 0.537 | 0.607 | |
酸性蛋白酶Acid protease | 0.421 | 0.516 | 0.592 | 0.359 | |
羧基肽酶Carboxypeptidase | 0.404 | 0.403 | 0.521 | 0.636 | |
综合评价值Comprehensive evaluation | 0.474 | 0.489 | 0.528 | 0.504 | |
排名 Ranking | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
1 | Tan G H, Liu Z Q, Xiao H, et al. The feed value and application of Broussonetia papyrifera. China Feed, 2017(20): 32-35. |
谭桂华, 刘子琦, 肖华, 等. 构树的饲用价值及应用. 中国饲料, 2017(20): 32-35. | |
2 | Tu Y, Diao Q Y, Zhang R, et al. Analysis on the feed nutritive value of hybrid Broussonetia papyrifera leaf. Pratacultural Science, 2009, 26(6): 136-139. |
屠焰, 刁其玉, 张蓉, 等. 杂交构树叶的饲用营养价值分析. 草业科学, 2009, 26(6): 136-139. | |
3 | Xiong L Y, Li H X, Zhong Y C, et al. Effect of fermented Broussonetia papyrifera on metabolic performance of Sanhuang chicken. Feed Research, 2010(5): 77-79. |
熊罗英, 李海新, 钟玉禅, 等. 发酵构树叶对三黄鸡代谢性能的影响. 饲料研究, 2010(5): 77-79. | |
4 | Song B, Zheng C B, Zhong Y Z, et al. Effects of low-protein diet supplemented with fermented Broussonetia papyrifera on growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality of finishing pigs. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(12): 1-11. |
宋博, 郑昌炳, 仲银召, 等. 低蛋白质饲粮中添加构树全株发酵饲料对育肥猪生长性能、胴体性状和肉品质的影响. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(12): 1-11. | |
5 | Wang Y S, Jiang H, Xie X Z. The effect of feeding Bama Xiang pig with mulberry leaves. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2016(20): 194-195. |
王永树, 江浩, 谢先中. 构树叶饲喂巴马香猪的效果试验. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2016(20): 194-195. | |
6 | Si B W, Xu W C, Guo J P, et al. Effect of Broussonetia papyrifera L. (paper mulberry) silage on growth performance, biochemical indexes of serum and fatty acid composition in the longissimus dorsi muscle in dorper×Thin-tailed Han crossbred sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 2019, 50(7): 1424-1432. |
司丙文, 徐文财, 郭江鹏, 等. 杂交构树青贮对杜寒杂交肉羊生产性能、血清指标及背最长肌脂肪酸组成的影响. 畜牧兽医学报, 2019, 50(7): 1424-1432. | |
7 | 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. | |
8 | Liang C Y, Wu Z H, Ouyang J L, et al. Effects of paper mulberry silage on performance, nutrient apparent digestibility and serum biochemical indexes of early lactating dairy cows. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(8): 1-9. |
梁春宇, 吴兆海, 欧阳佳良, 等. 杂交构树青贮对泌乳前期奶牛生产性能、养分表观消化率和血清生化指标的影响. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(8): 1-9. | |
9 | Liu K L. Effects of different water content and additives on quality of hybrid paper mulberry silage. Taiyuan: Shanxi Agricultural University, 2019. |
刘凯丽. 不同含水量及添加剂对杂交构树青贮饲料品质的影响. 太原: 山西农业大学, 2019. | |
10 | Sophie H, Virginie D, Yves B, et al. Silage additives to reduce protein degradation during ensiling and evaluation of in vitro ruminal nitrogen degradability. Grass and Forage Science, 2019, 74(1): 86-96. |
11 | Ke W C. Studies on the characteristics of them lipolysis and proteolysis in ensiled alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) treated with different additives. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2015. |
柯文灿. 不同种类添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮脂肪酸和蛋白质降解的影响. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2015. | |
12 | Cui X. Fermentation characters and nutritional value of alfalfa silages ensiled with formic acid or Italian ryegrass. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural College, 2015. |
崔鑫. 添加甲酸及混合青贮对紫花苜蓿发酵特性和营养品质的影响. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2015. | |
13 | Zhang L Y. Feed analysis and feed quality inspection technology. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2016. |
张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2016. | |
14 | Wang R R, Wang H L, Liu X, et al. Effects of different additives on fermentation characteristics and protein degradation of green tea grounds silage. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2011, 24(5): 616-622. |
15 | Gao H J, Liu Z D, Sun R, et al. The effects of different storage time on alfalfa silage quality. China Feed, 2019(23): 95-98. |
高海娟, 刘泽东, 孙蕊, 等. 不同贮藏时间对苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 中国饲料, 2019(23): 95-98. | |
16 | Licitra G, Hernandez T M, Van Soest P J. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1996, 57(4): 347-358. |
17 | Cheng W, Guo X S. Characterization of serine endopeptidases in alfalfa and its role on protein degradation of silage. Pratacultural Science, 2011, 28(5): 855-860. |
程巍, 郭旭生. 苜蓿丝氨酸蛋白水解酶及青贮时对蛋白降解作用的研究. 草业科学, 2011, 28(5): 855-860. | |
18 | Broderick G A, Kang-Meznarich J H, Craig W M. Total and individual amino acids in strained ruminal liquor from cows fed graded amounts of urea. Journal of Dairy Science, 1981, 64(8): 1731-1734. |
19 | Yang M Z, Wang Q, Qu S M, et al. Study on three kinds of enzymatic activity in the process of alfalfa ensiling. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2012, 34(1): 113-116. |
杨智明, 王琴, 曲善民, 等. 苜蓿青贮过程中三种酶活性动态研究. 中国草地学报, 2012, 34(1): 113-116. | |
20 | Wang Y F, Jiang F G, Cheng H J, et al. Effects of different silage additives on nutritional value, fermentation quality and rumen degradability of whole corn silage. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(6): 2765-2774. |
王亚芳, 姜富贵, 成海建, 等. 不同青贮添加剂对全株玉米青贮营养价值、发酵品质和瘤胃降解率的影响. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(6): 2765-2774. | |
21 | Yin G L, Shi J, Zhang Z M, et al. Effects of additives on the quality of alfalfa silage. Feed Research, 2017(6): 1-4. |
尹国丽, 史静, 张贞明, 等. 添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 饲料研究, 2017(6): 1-4. | |
22 | Yu H R, Ge G T, Wang Z J, et al. Effects of formic acid additives and ensiling time on the quality of alfalfa silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(3): 89-95. |
于浩然, 格根图, 王志军, 等. 甲酸添加剂及青贮时间对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 89-95. | |
23 | Masuko T, Kodama I, Ohta N. Effects of addition of formic acid or mixture of bacterial inoculant and enzyme on fermentation of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), timothy (Phleum pratense L.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) silages. Japanese Journal of Grassland Science, 2017, 42: 13-19. |
24 | Mingli Z, Dongze N, Sasa Z, 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): 1-11. |
25 | Dong Z H, Yuan X J, Wen A Y, et al. Effect of lactic acid bacteria and fermentation substrates on the quality of mulberry (Morus alba) leaf silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(6): 167-174. |
董志浩, 原现军, 闻爱友, 等. 添加乳酸菌和发酵底物对桑叶青贮发酵品质的影响. 草业学报, 2016, 25(6): 167-174. | |
26 | Wang X P, Wang X Q, Li B, et al. Testing the performance of compound microbial additives in silage maize nutrients and the effect of feeding Tan sheep. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2020, 28(8): 1258-1264. |
王小平, 王小琪, 李标, 等. 复合菌剂对青贮玉米营养成分及其饲喂滩羊效果的研究. 中国生态农业学报, 2020, 28(8): 1258-1264. | |
27 | Chen G J, Wu J H, Shang Y S, et al. Dynamic effects of exogenous fibrolytic enzyme supplementation on nutritive value, fermentation quality and enzyme activities of fermentation total mixed ration. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(9): 123-134. |
陈光吉, 吴佳海, 尚以顺, 等. 外源纤维素酶对发酵全混合日粮营养价值、发酵品质和酶活性的动态影响. 草业学报, 2019, 28(9): 123-134. | |
28 | He L W, Zhou W, Wang C, et al. Effect of cellulase and Lactobacillus casei on ensiling characteristics, chemical composition, antioxidant activity, and digestibility of mulberry leaf silage. Journal of Dairy Science, 2019, 102(11): 9919-9931. |
29 | Shao T, Zhang Z X, Shimojo M, et al. Comparison of fermentation characteristics of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) and Guineagrass (Panicum maximum Jacq.) during the early stage of ensiling. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2005, 18(12): 1727-1734. |
30 | Wang J F, Li T Z. Animal nutrition. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2007. |
王久峰, 李同洲. 动物营养学. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2007. | |
31 | Yuan X, Yu C, Shimojo M, et al. Improvement of fermentation and nutritive quality of straw-grass silage by inclusion of wet hulless-barley distillers’ grains in Tibet. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2012, 25(4): 479-485. |
32 | Dai H L, Tian X H, Du W H, et al. Effects of silage additives on nutritional quality and silage quality of triticale and rye. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(12): 211-219. |
代寒凌, 田新会, 杜文华, 等. 不同添加剂处理对小黑麦和黑麦青贮营养品质和发酵品质的影响. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 211-219. | |
33 | Liu H, Bu D P, Lv Z W, et al. Effects of wilting and additives on fermentation quality of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(5): 126-133. |
刘辉,卜登攀, 吕中旺, 等. 凋萎和不同添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2015, 24(5): 126-133. | |
34 | Li D X, Ni K K, Zhang Y C, et al. Influence of lactic acid bacteria, cellulase, cellulase-producing Bacillus pumilus and their combinations on alfalfa silage quality. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2018, 17(12): 172-186. |
35 | Xu W, Shi S L, Zhang W Y, et al. Effect of different additives on quality of low moisture alfalfa silage. Grassland and Turf, 2014, 34(1): 49-54. |
徐炜, 师尚礼, 张文渝, 等. 不同添加剂对低水分紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 草原与草坪, 2014, 34(1): 49-54. | |
36 | Hristov A N. Effect of a commercial enzyme preparation on alfalfa silage fermentation and protein degradability. Elsevier, 1993, 42(3/4): 273-282. |
37 | 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. |
38 | Hao W. Mechanism of protein degradation by microbial proteinase during fermentation of total mixed ration. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2005. |
郝薇. TMR发酵过程中微生物及其蛋白酶对蛋白降解的作用机理研究. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2015. | |
39 | Rooke J A, Armstrong D G. The importance of the form of nitrogen on microbial protein synthesis in the rumen of cattle receiving grass silage and continuous intrarumen infusions of sucrose. The British Journal of Nutrition, 1989, 61(1): 113-121. |
40 | Sullivan M L, Zeller W E. Efficacy of various naturally occurring caffeic acid derivatives in preventing post-harvest protein losses in forages. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2013, 93(2): 219-226. |
41 | Mitsuaki O, Peter M. A review of the changes in nitrogenous compounds of herbage during ensilage. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1978, 29(6): 497-505. |
42 | Yuan X J, Wen A Y, Desta S T, et al. Effects of four short-chain fatty acids or salts on the dynamics of nitrogen transformations and intrinsic protease activity of alfalfa silage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2017, 97(9): 2759-2766. |
43 | Yang H, Zhang Q, Hou J J, et al. Effect of biological additives on ultras structure and fiber content of Leymus chinenses silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(12): 94-101. |
杨红, 张庆, 侯建建, 等. 生物添加剂对羊草青贮饲料超微结构和纤维变化的影响. 草业学报, 2016, 25(12): 94-101. | |
44 | Waroon K, Suradej P, David H, et al. Natural lactic acid bacteria population of tropical grasses and their fermentation factor analysis of silage prepared with cellulase and inoculant. Journal of Dairy Science, 2016, 99(12): 9768-9781. |
45 | Dai Y. Effect of different additives on digestive characteristics of ensiled alfalfa in vitro. Changchun: Jilin Agricultural University, 2008. |
代艳. 不同添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮过程中蛋白降解特性的影响. 长春: 吉林农业大学, 2008. | |
46 | Tian J P, Li Z Z, Yu Z, et al. Interactive effect of inoculant and dried jujube powder on the fermentation quality and nitrogen fraction of alfalfa silage. Animal Science Journal, 2017, 88(4): 633-642. |
47 | Nagel S A, Broderick G A. Effect of formic acid or formaldehyde treatment of alfalfa silage on nutrient utilization by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 1992, 75(1): 140-154. |
48 | Zhang F, Cai H Y, Wang Z G, et al. Study on the dynamic changes of fermentation quality and nutritional components of whole-plant barley silage of different varieties. China Dairy Cattle, 2014(Z4): 1-8. |
张放, 蔡海莹, 王志耕, 等. 不同品种全株饲用大麦青贮发酵品质及其营养成分动态变化研究. 中国奶牛, 2014(Z4): 1-8. | |
49 | Zhao M M, Yu Z. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and cellulase on napier grass silages. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2015, 23(1): 205-210. |
赵苗苗, 玉柱. 添加乳酸菌及纤维素酶对象草青贮品质的改善效果. 草地学报, 2015, 23(1): 205-210. | |
50 | Li X J. Research on mechanism and modification of protein degradation in alfalfa silage. Beijing: China Agrcultural University, 2018. |
李旭娇. 紫花苜蓿青贮饲料蛋白降解机制与调控研究. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2018. | |
51 | Ding W R, Yang F Y, Guo X S, et al. Effects of lactobacillus and cellulase on fermentation quality of ensiled Lespedeza bicolor. Journal of Northwest A & F University (Natural Science Edition), 2008(4): 8-14. |
丁武蓉, 杨富裕, 郭旭生, 等. 添加乳酸菌和纤维素酶对二色胡枝子青贮品质的影响. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2008(4): 8-14. | |
52 | Fijalkowska M, Pysera B, Lipinski K, et al. Changes of nitrogen compounds during ensiling of high protein herbages-A review. Annals of Animal Science, 2015, 15(2): 289-305. |
53 | Ge J, Yang C J, Liu G H, et al. Effect of additives on quality of mixed silages of Medicago sativa and Avena nuda. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2016, 24(4): 919-922. |
葛剑, 杨翠军, 刘贵河, 等. 添加剂对紫花苜蓿和裸燕麦混合青贮品质的影响. 草地学报, 2016, 24(4): 919-922. | |
54 | Tao L, Zhou H, Guo X S, et al. Contribution of exopeptidases to formation of non-protein nitrogen during ensiling of alfalfa. Journal of Dairy Science, 2011, 94(8): 3928-3935. |
[1] | Juan-shan ZHENG, KAO Ren-qing DING, Xin-pu LI, Ze-yi LIANG, Jian-bo ZHANG, Mei DU, Xue-zhi DING. Research progress on rumen microorganisms in the utilization of lignocellulose as an energy resource [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(9): 182-192. |
[2] | 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. |
[3] | 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. |
[4] | Shi-yu ZOU, Si-kui CHEN, Qi-yuan TANG, Dong CHEN, Yuan-wei CHEN, Pan DENG, Xu-lai HUANG, Fu-qiang LI. Effects of silage additives on quality and in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics of first season ratoon rice whole silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(7): 122-132. |
[5] | 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. |
[6] | 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. |
[7] | ZHOU En-guang, WANG Hu-cheng, SHANG Zhan-huan. Nutritional value of forage sweet sorghum and its gas production performance evaluated using incubation with sheep rumen fluid in vitro [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(5): 43-49. |
[8] | FU Bing-zhe, ZHOU Yan-fei, LI Xue, NI Biao, GAO Xue-qin. Effect of water and fertilizer coupling on Leymus chinensis in the Ningxia irrigation area [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(5): 98-108. |
[9] | DONG Wen-cheng, LIN Yu-fan, ZHU Hong-fu, ZHANG Huan, ZHANG Gui-jie. Effects of different grape variety on proteolysis and aerobic stability of alfalfa silage made with added grape pomace [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(4): 129-137. |
[10] | YU Hao-ran, GE Gen-tu, WANG Zhi-jun, JIA Yu-shan, LIAN Zhi, JIA Peng-fei. Effects of formic acid additives and ensiling time on the quality of alfalfa silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(3): 89-95. |
[11] | REN Yu-xin, DAI Han-ling, TIAN Xin-hui, DU Wen-hua. Effects of different additives and cutting dates on nutritional and silage fermentation quality of Triticale silage in an alpine pastoral area of Gansu Province [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(3): 197-206. |
[12] | LI Yan-fen, CHENG Jin-hua, TIAN Chuan-yao, TIAN Yu-jia, LU Dong-ya, ZHANG Jian-bin. Effects of sodium diacetate on the quality, nutrient composition and protein molecular structure of alfalfa silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(2): 163-171. |
[13] | Cheng ZONG, Jian ZHANG, Tao SHAO, Zhi-hao DONG, Jun-feng LI, Lu TANG, Qi-fan RAN, Qin-hua LIU. Effects of additives on fermentation quality of alfalfa silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(12): 180-187. |
[14] | MAO Cui, LIU Fang-yuan, SONG En-liang, WANG Ya-fang, WANG Yong-jun, ZHAN Xiang, LI Yuan, CHENG Hai-jian, JIANG Fu-gui. Effects of lactic acid bacteria inoculant level and ensiling time on nutritional value and fermentation quality of whole-crop maize silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(10): 172-181. |
[15] | JU Ze-liang, ZHAO Gui-qin, CHAI Ji-kuan, JIA Zhi-feng, LIANG Guo-ling. Comprehensive evaluation of nutritional value and silage fermentation quality of different oat varieties in central Gansu Province [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(9): 77-86. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||