不同乳酸菌添加剂对苦荬菜青贮品质的影响

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.12.030

草地学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (12): 3433-3438.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.12.030

• 技术研发 • 上一篇

不同乳酸菌添加剂对苦荬菜青贮品质的影响

张嘉懿¹, 格根图¹, 贾玉山¹, 王志军¹, 张佳伟¹, 闫星全¹, 司强¹, 赵牧其尔¹, 孙林²

1. 内蒙古农业大学草原与资源环境学院, 农业农村部饲草栽培、加工与高效利用重点实验室, 内蒙古呼和浩特 010019;
2. 内蒙古自治区农牧业科学院, 内蒙古呼和浩特 010031

收稿日期:2022-07-03 修回日期:2022-09-04 发布日期:2023-01-04
通讯作者: 格根图,E-mail:gegentu@163.com
作者简介:张嘉懿(1997-),女,汉族,内蒙古锡林郭勒盟人,硕士研究生,主要从事牧草加工与利用研究,E-mail:578662273@qq.com
基金资助:
财政部和农业农村部:国家现代农业产业技术体系资助;内蒙古自治区自然科学基金(2021MS03095)资助

Effect of Different Lactic Acid Bacteria Additives on the Silage Quality of Lactuca indica

ZHANG Jia-yi¹, GE Gen-tu¹, JIA Yu-shan¹, WANG Zhi-jun¹, ZHANG Jia-wei¹, YAN Xing-quan¹, SI Qiang¹, ZHAO Mu-qier¹, SUN Lin²

1. College of Grassland Resources and Environment, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Key Laboratory of Forage Cultivation and High Efficient Utilization of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia 010019, China;
2. Inner Mongolia Academy of Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Sciences, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia 010031, China

Received:2022-07-03 Revised:2022-09-04 Published:2023-01-04

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为探究不同乳酸菌添加剂对苦荬菜(Lactuca indica)青贮品质的影响，本试验以‘蒙早’苦荬菜为原料，设置对照(CK组)、单独添加植物乳杆菌(LP组)、单独添加布氏乳杆菌(LB组)和混合添加植物乳杆菌和布氏乳杆菌(LP＋LB组)4个处理，青贮60天后，进行营养成分、发酵品质和微生物数量的测定。结果表明：不同乳酸菌添加剂对苦荬菜青贮饲料的粗蛋白质和可溶性碳水化合物含量有显著影响(P<0.05)；加入乳酸菌添加剂后苦荬菜青贮饲料的pH值显著低于CK组(P<0.05)，乳酸菌数量均有所增加(P<0.05)；LB组的酵母菌数量最少(P<0.05)；LP组和LP＋LB组的乳酸含量显著高于CK组和LB组(P<0.05)；LB组的乙酸含量最高(P<0.05)。采用隶属函数法综合评价表明，LP组的青贮品质最好。综上所述，单独或混合添加不同发酵类型乳酸菌均能改善苦荬菜青贮饲料的发酵品质，其中植物乳杆菌更适宜用作添加剂调制苦荬菜青贮饲料。

关键词: 苦荬菜, 青贮品质, 植物乳杆菌, 布氏乳杆菌

Abstract: In order to explore the effect of different lactic acid bacteria additives on the silage quality of Lactuca indica,Lactuca indica ‘Mengzao’ was used as raw material in this experiment. Four treatments were set up,the control (CK group),Lactobacillus plantarum (LP group),Lactobacillus buchneri (LB group),and Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus buchneri (LP＋LB group). After 60 days of silage,the nutritional components,fermentation quality,and microbial quality of silage were determined. The results showed that different lactic acid bacteria additives had significant effects on crude protein and water-soluble carbohydrate content of Lactuca indica silage (P<0.05). After adding lactic acid bacteria additives,the pH value of the silage was significantly lower than that of the CK group (P<0.05),and the number of lactic acid bacteria increased (P<0.05). The number of yeasts in the LB group was the least (P<0.05). The lactic acid content in the LP group and LP＋LB group was significantly higher than in the CK group and LB group (P<0.05). The content of acetic acid in the LB group was the highest (P<0.05). The silage quality of the LP group was the best by using the membership function method. In summary,the fermentation quality of Lactuca indica silage could be improved by adding different fermentation types of lactic acid bacteria alone or in combination,among which Lactobacillus plantarum was more suitable as an additive to modulate Lactuca indica silage.

Key words: Lactuca indica, Silage quality, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus buchneri

中图分类号:

Q939.11+7

张嘉懿, 格根图, 贾玉山, 王志军, 张佳伟, 闫星全, 司强, 赵牧其尔, 孙林. 不同乳酸菌添加剂对苦荬菜青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(12): 3433-3438.

ZHANG Jia-yi, GE Gen-tu, JIA Yu-shan, WANG Zhi-jun, ZHANG Jia-wei, YAN Xing-quan, SI Qiang, ZHAO Mu-qier, SUN Lin. Effect of Different Lactic Acid Bacteria Additives on the Silage Quality of Lactuca indica[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(12): 3433-3438.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.12.030

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2022/V30/I12/3433

参考文献

[1] 朱琳,李红梅,王海龙. 苦荬菜的栽培技术[J]. 内蒙古农业科技,2009(5):122
[2] 梁小玉,胡远彬,季杨,等. 川畜1号苦荬菜新品种比较试验[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医,2019(19):116-121
[3] 王保平,董晓燕,许庆方,等. 不同添加剂对苦荬菜青贮品质的影响[J]. 中国草食动物科学,2012,32(2):35-38
[4] 寇江涛,雷佳星,张海波,等. 不同添加剂对皇竹草青贮品质的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志,2021,57(10):178-182
[5] 黄丽娟. 苦荬菜越年生长现象剖析及青贮技术研究[D]. 呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2017:6-7
[6] MUCK R E,NADEAU E M G,MCALLISTER T A,et al. Silage review:Recent advances and future uses of silage additives[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2018,101(5):3980-4000
[7] 谢晓华,陈广仁,杨保田. 植物乳杆菌和EM菌剂对青贮大麦营养成分和发酵特性的影响[J]. 中国饲料,2021(6):37-40
[8] PARVIN S,WANG C,LI Y,et al. Effects of inoculation with lactic acid bacteria on the bacterial communities of Italian ryegrass,whole crop maize,guinea grass and rhodes grass silages[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology,2010,160(3-4):160-166
[9] 王磊,包锦泽,田逢博,等. 布氏乳杆菌对高湿玉米青贮饲料品质的影响[J]. 饲料工业,2022,43(2):35-39
[10] GANDRA J R,OLIVEIRA E R,GANDRA E R D S,et al. Inoculation of Lactobacillus buchneri alone or with Bacillus subtilis and total losses,aerobic stability,and microbiological quality of sunflower silage[J]. Journal of Applied Animal Research,2016,45(1):609-614
[11] 贾玉山,玉柱,李存福. 草产品质量检测学[M]. 北京:中国农业大学出版社,2011:39-40,94
[12] 郭望山,孟庆翔. 杜马斯燃烧法与凯氏法测定饲料含氮量的比较研究[J]. 畜牧兽医学报,2006(5):464-468
[13] 陆永祥,赵嫚,陈良寅,等. 布氏乳杆菌和甲酸对青藏高原不同物候期燕麦青贮饲料发酵品质和细菌群落的影响[J]. 草地学报,2020,28(6):1736-1743
[14] THOMAS T A. An automated procedure for the determination of soluble carbohydrates in herbage[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,2010,28(7):639-642
[15] 许庆方. 影响苜蓿青贮品质的主要因素及苜蓿青贮在奶牛日粮中应用效果的研究[D]. 北京:中国农业大学,2005:24-25
[16] 付志慧,格根图,贾玉山,等. 添加剂对黑麦草青贮品质及微生物数量的影响[J]. 草地学报,2022,30(5):1296-1301
[17] 付超,周雪玲,朱春林. 应用隶属函数法综合评价高酸苹果抗寒性及果实品质[J]. 北方园艺,2017(2):11-15
[18] 赵小雪,郭凤根,罗富成. 贮藏时间及纤维素酶对台湾红藜青贮品质的影响[J]. 饲料研究,2022(10):76-80
[19] 唐振华,杨承剑,李孟伟,等. 植物乳杆菌、布氏乳杆菌对甘蔗尾青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医,2018,45(7):1824-1832
[20] 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[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology,2010,159(3-4):105-109
[21] HOLZER M,MAYRHUBER E,DANNER H,et al. The role of Lactobacillus buchneri in forage preservation[J]. Trends in Biotechnology,2003,21(6):282-287
[22] 塔拉. 牧草青贮中蛋白质降解的抑制试验报告[J]. 当代畜牧,2017(11):124-125
[23] CONTRERAS-GOVEA F E,MUCK R E,BRODERICK G A,et al. Lactobacillus plantarum effects on silage fermentation and in vitro microbial yield[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology,2013,179(1-4):61-68
[24] 侯建建,白春生,张庆,等. 单一和复合乳酸菌添加水平对苜蓿青贮营养品质及蛋白组分的影响[J]. 草业科学,2016,33(10):2119-2125
[25] 刘辉,李金鑫,鹿瑶,等. 布氏乳杆菌和纤维素酶对青贮玉米秸秆品质影响研究[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学,2021,42(1):34-39
[26] WINTERS A L,COCKBURN J E,DHANOA M S,et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria in inoculants on changes in amino acid composition during ensilage of sterile and non-sterile ryegrass[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology,2010,89(3):442-451
[27] 司华哲,刘晗璐,南韦肖,等. 不同发酵类型乳酸菌对低水分粳稻秸秆青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草地学报,2017,25(6):1294-1299
[28] 王诚,何荣彦,翟桂玉,等. 单一和复合乳酸菌制剂对苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J]. 中国畜禽种业,2022,18(3):63-64
[29] 王建福,雷赵民,万学瑞,等. 5株乳酸菌复合物与CaCO₃、酶及尿素不同组合对全株玉米青贮品质影响[J]. 草业学报,2018,27(3):90-97
[30] 陈梦言,白洁,柯文灿,等. 青贮饲料微生物群落组成与功能研究进展[J]. 生物技术通报,2021,37(9):11-23
[31] CAI Y M,BENNO Y,OGAWA M,et al. Influence of Lactobacillus spp. from an inoculant and of Weissella and Leuconostoc spp. from forage crops on silage fermentation[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,1998,64(8):2982-2987
[32] YUAN,XJ,WEN,et al. Effects of four short-chain fatty acids or salts on fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) silage[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,2018,98(1):328-335
[33] ZHANG Q,ZHAO M,WANG X,et al. Ensiling alfalfa with whole crop corn improves the silage quality and invitro digestibility of the silage mixtures[J]. Grassland Science,2017,63(4):211-217
[34] 谢婉,杨喜珍,杨利,等. 添加物料和菌剂对日喀则地区马铃薯茎叶青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业科学,2017,34(1):173-185
[35] 赵牧其尔,王志军,包健,等. 不同青贮添加剂对饲用谷子青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报,2022,30(4):1021-1026

不同乳酸菌添加剂对苦荬菜青贮品质的影响

Effect of Different Lactic Acid Bacteria Additives on the Silage Quality of Lactuca indica

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	郝俊峰, 于浩然, 贾玉山, 王志军, 格根图, 李宇宇, 孙林. 青贮密度和青贮时间对紫花苜蓿发酵品质及营养成分的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(9): 2492-2496.
[2]	付志慧, 格根图, 贾玉山, 王志军, 孙林, 南丁罕, 岳正山, 闫峰, 任秀珍. 添加剂对黑麦草青贮品质及微生物数量的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(5): 1296-1301.
[3]	王黎, 王传杰, 潘旻, 程志强, 魏元浩, 华鹤良, 印志同, 赵国琦, 黄倩倩. 4个青贮玉米品种的青贮发酵品质及瘤胃降解特性的比较[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(3): 568-574.
[4]	付薇, 陈伟, 周丽, 蔡璐, 王小利, 韩永芬, 孟军江. 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[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(3): 758-763.
[5]	赵小雪, 郭凤根, 罗富成. 添加纤维素酶与藜麦麸皮及小麦麸皮对台湾红藜青贮的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(3): 764-770.
[6]	马冉冉, 袁洁, 张文洁, 许能祥, 顾洪如. 堆放时间对西兰花尾菜青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 2107-2114.
[7]	杜昭昌, 王红, 闫艳红, Muhammad Tahir, 韦潇, 曾泰儒, 李洪亮. 稻壳和麦麸对鲜玉米秸秆青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1549-1554.
[8]	吴硕, 邹璇, 王明亚, 张庆. 陈皮柑汁对柱花草和水稻秸秆青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1565-1570.
[9]	秦伟娜, 焦婷, 师尚礼, 李雄雄, 高雪梅, 赵生国, 祁娟, 王正文. 不同水热资源条件下10个青饲玉米品种的青贮品质评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 1070-1079.
[10]	郑明扬, 吴硕, 郭香, 陈晓阳, 张庆. 添加乳酸菌和纤维素酶对砂仁叶青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 1113-1117.
[11]	陈德奎, 郭香, 郑明扬, 陈晓阳, 周玮, 张庆. 砂仁精油对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 855-860.
[12]	寇江涛, 程钰, 张海波, 郭冬生, 雷佳星, 孟佳琪, 刘鑫, 李乐. 不同酶制剂对水稻秸秆和白酒糟混合青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(2): 396-401.
[13]	白春生, 佟明昊, 赵萌萌, 孙娟娟, 薛艳林, 玉柱. 施氮量和留茬高度对高丹草青贮发酵品质及饲用价值的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1421-1426.
[14]	徐生阳, 高润, 康长清, 玉柱. 不同添加剂及贮藏温度对发酵全混合日粮品质和真菌数量的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(3): 822-827.
[15]	周瑞, 刘立山, 郎侠, 王彩莲, 宋淑珍, 吴建平. 甜菜块根和玉米秸秆混贮营养品质及有氧暴露期微生物数量分析[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(1): 192-198.