装填密度对羊草和苜蓿青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.01.030

草地学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (1): 263-271.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.01.030

装填密度对羊草和苜蓿青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响

刘逸超¹, 司强¹, 刘明健¹, 卢轩², 闫蒙³, 格根图¹, 王志军¹, 贾玉山¹

1. 内蒙古农业大学草原与资源环境学院, 农业部饲草栽培、加工与高效利用重点实验室, 内蒙古呼和浩特 010000;
2. 通辽市科尔沁左翼中旗林业和草原局, 内蒙古保康 029300;
3. 内蒙古民族大学农学院, 内蒙古通辽 028000

收稿日期:2022-07-11 修回日期:2022-09-05 出版日期:2023-01-15 发布日期:2023-02-07
通讯作者: 贾玉山, E-mail:jys_nm@sina.com
作者简介:刘逸超(1998-)，男，汉族，内蒙古呼和浩特人，博士研究生，主要从事牧草饲料加工与贮藏研究，E-mail:liuyichao_nm@163.com
基金资助:
天然青干草产品加工与安全贮藏关键技术研究(2020GG0032)；规模化优质苜蓿草关键生产与加工利用技术研究(2021-国家乳创中心-1)资助

Effect of Filling Density on Quality and Aerobic Stability of Leymus chinensis and Alfalfa Silage

LIU Yi-chao¹, SI Qiang¹, LIU Ming-jian¹, LU Xuan², YAN Meng³, GE Gen-tu¹, WANG Zhi-jun¹, JIA Yu-shan¹

1. College of Grassland Resources and Environment, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Key Laboratory of Forage Grass Cultivation Processing and Efficient Utilization, Ministry of Agriculture, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia 010000, China;
2. Forestry and Grassland Bureau of Tongliao Horqin Left middle Banner, Baokang, Inner Mongolia 029300, China;
3. College of Agriculture, Inner Mongolia University for Nationalities, Tongliao, Inner Mongolia 028000, China

Received:2022-07-11 Revised:2022-09-05 Online:2023-01-15 Published:2023-02-07

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 青贮品质和有氧稳定性是影响青贮饲料利用效果的关键因素，本试验旨在研究装填密度对羊草(Leymus chinensis)和紫花苜蓿(Medicago sativa L.)青贮品质、有氧稳定性和微生物数量的影响。本试验以抽穗期的羊草和初花期的苜蓿为原料，青贮密度分别设置为600 kg·m^-3，700 kg·m^-3，800 kg·m^-3，每组3个重复，在青贮60天和有氧暴露8天时取样分析。结果显示，羊草青贮和苜蓿青贮在800 kg·m^-3装填密度下的pH值最低，粗蛋白质和可溶性碳水化合物含量最高，乳酸菌数量最多，青贮品质最好。羊草青贮在800 kg·m^-3装填密度下有氧稳定性最好，苜蓿青贮在700 kg·m^-3装填密度下有氧稳定性最好。有氧暴露后各处理的乳酸菌数量显著下降(P＜0.05)，酵母菌和好气性细菌数量显著上升(P＜0.05)，苜蓿青贮有氧暴露后有霉菌产生。

关键词: 羊草, 苜蓿, 密度, 青贮品质, 有氧稳定性

Abstract: Silage quality and aerobic stability are the key factors affecting the utilization of silage. The aim of this experiment was to study the effects of filling density on silage quality,aerobic stability,and microbial count of Leymus chinensis and Alfalfa silage. In this experiment,Leymus chinensis at the heading stage and Alfalfa at the early flowering stage were used as raw materials. The silage densities were set to 600 kg·m^-3,700 kg·m^-3 and 800 kg·m^-3,respectively,with 3 replicates in each group. Sampling and analysis were carried out at 60 days of silage and 8 days of aerobic exposure. The results showed that Leymus chinensis silage and alfalfa silage had the lowest pH value,the highest crude protein and soluble carbohydrate content,the highest number of lactic acid bacteria,and the best silage quality at 800 kg·m^-3 filling density. The best aerobic stability was found for Leymus chinensis silage at 800 kg·m^-3 filling density and for Alfalfa silage at 700 kg·m^-3 filling density. After aerobic exposure,the number of lactic acid bacteria in each treatment decreased significantly (P<0.05),the number of yeast and aerobic bacteria increased significantly (P<0.05),and mold produced.

Key words: Leymus chinensis, Alfalfa, Density, Silage quality, Aerobic stability

中图分类号:

S551+.7

刘逸超, 司强, 刘明健, 卢轩, 闫蒙, 格根图, 王志军, 贾玉山. 装填密度对羊草和苜蓿青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(1): 263-271.

LIU Yi-chao, SI Qiang, LIU Ming-jian, LU Xuan, YAN Meng, GE Gen-tu, WANG Zhi-jun, JIA Yu-shan. Effect of Filling Density on Quality and Aerobic Stability of Leymus chinensis and Alfalfa Silage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(1): 263-271.

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.1007-0435.2023.01.030

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2023/V31/I1/263

参考文献

[1] ZHAO P,LIU P,YUAN G,et al. New insights on drought stress response by global investigation of gene expression changes in Sheepgrass (Leymus chinensis)[J]. Frontiers in plant science,2016,7:954
[2] 周娟娟,王欣荣,吴建平,等. 调制方式对苜蓿青干草干燥特性和营养品质的影响[J]. 草业科学,2013,30(8):1272-1277
[3] NI K,WANG F,ZHU B,et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses additives on the microbial community and fermentation quality of soybean silage[J]. Bioresource Technology,2017,238:706-715
[4] KUNG L. Silage fermentation and additives[J]. Latin American Archives of Animal Production,2018,26(3-4):61-66
[5] 薛艳林. 典型草原主要植物及群落青贮特性[D]. 呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2014:1-6
[6] 周天荣,薛艳林,孙林,等. 裹包密度和添加剂对天然牧草青贮品质的影响研究[J]. 中国草地学报,2020,42(2):130-136
[7] 玉柱,费玉山,张秀芬. 牧草加工贮藏与利用[M]. 北京:化学工业出版社,2004:8-70
[8] 郝俊峰,于浩然,贾玉山,等. 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
[9] SUN L,NA N,LI X,et al. Impact of packing density on the bacterial community,fermentation,and in vitro digestibility of whole-crop barley silage[J]. Agriculture,2021,11(7):672
[10] DRIEHUIS F,ELFERRINK S O,SPOELSTRA S F. Anaerobic lactic acid degradation during ensilage of whole crop maize inoculated with Lactobacillus buchneri inhibits yeast growth and improves aerobic stability[J]. Journal of applied Microbiology,1999,87(4):583-594
[11] GEYER S,HOFFMANN T. Metrological Prerequisites for Determination of Silage Density Compacted in a Bunker silo using Gamma Rays[J]. Agricultural Engineering International:CIGR Journal,2012,14(4):134-143
[12] RIDLA M,UCHIDA S. Effects of cellulase and brewers' grains addition on the fermentation quality and nutritive value of barley straw silage[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences,1997,10(6):575-580
[13] CAI Y,BENNO Y,OGAWA M,et al. Effect of applying lactic acid bacteria isolated from forage crops on fermentation characteristics and aerobic deterioration of silage[J]. Journal of dairy science,1999,82(3):520-526
[14] ZHAO C,WANG L,MA G,et al. Cellulase interacts with lactic acid bacteria to affect fermentation quality,microbial community,and ruminal degradability in mixed silage of soybean residue and corn stover[J]. Animals,2021,11(2):334
[15] 王鹏,刘丹丽,高仲元,等. 含水量和乳酸菌制剂对狗尾草发酵品质的影响[J]. 草地学报,2006,14(3):269-273
[16] 任海伟,唐多利,康宝,等. 接种异常毕赤酵母对干玉米秸秆与废弃白菜混贮品质的动态影响及微生物组成结构分析[J]. 应用与环境生物学报,2019,25(3):710-718
[17] WILKINSON J M,DAVIES D R. The aerobic stability of silage:key findings and recent developments[J]. Grass and Forage Science,2013,68(1):1-19
[18] 丁婉,刘子瑜,董翔,等. 不同封装密度对胡萝卜苗青贮品质的影响[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学,2015(5):38-40
[19] 杨红,田吉鹏,刘贵波,等. 青贮容器不同部位高丹草青贮饲料的营养价值[J]. 草业科学,2015,32(10):1682-1686
[20] SU R,NI K,WANG T,et al. Effects of ferulic acid esterase-producing Lactobacillus fermentum and cellulase additives on the fermentation quality and microbial community of alfalfa silage[J]. PeerJ,2019,7:e7712
[21] BORREANI G,TABACCO E,SCHMIDT R J,et al. Silage review:Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2018,101(5):3952-3979
[22] 塔娜,魏日华,那日苏,等. 对禾草源同型发酵和/或异型发酵乳酸菌发酵无芒雀麦青贮有氧稳定性的评价[J]. 动物营养学报,2017,29(4):1301-1311
[23] 李菲菲,张凡凡,王旭哲,等. 同/异型发酵乳酸菌对全株玉米青贮营养成分和瘤胃降解特征的影响[J]. 草业学报,2019,28(6):128-136
[24] 高月娥,张美艳,徐驰,等. 苜蓿属拉伸膜裹包青贮品质变化规律[J]. 中国草地学报,2016,38(2):111-116
[25] GUO X,ZHOU H,YU Z,et al. Changes in the distribution of nitrogen and plant enzymatic activity during ensilage of lucerne treated with different additives[J]. Grass and Forage science,2007,62(1):35-43
[26] 王天威,曹艳红,杨果,等. 乳酸菌对青贮品质及草食家畜健康的影响[J]. 中国科学:生命科学,2020,50(9):927-938
[27] 赵娜,杨雪海,魏金涛,等. 不同碳水化合物源对饲料油菜青贮品质的影响[J]. 中国油料作物学报,2021,43(2):236-240
[28] KUNG JR L,SHAVER R D,GRANT R J,et al. Silage review:Interpretation of chemical,microbial,and organoleptic components of silages[J]. Journal of dairy Science,2018,101(5):4020-4033
[29] 朱九刚,张健,邵涛,等. 添加剂对全株燕麦青贮饲料发酵品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草地学报,2020,28(6):1756-1761
[30] DOS SANTOS W C C,DO NASCIMENTO W G,MAGALHAES A L R,et al. Nutritive value,total losses of dry matter and aerobic stability of the silage from three varieties of sugarcane treated with commercial microbial additives[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology,2015,204:1-8
[31] 周斐然,张苏江,王明,等. 甜高粱青贮有氧暴露的稳定性及微生物变化的研究[J]. 草业学报,2017,26(4):106-112
[32] 武玉珍,张乾,杨顺,等. 改性蒙脱土对霉菌毒素的吸附研究进展[J]. 化工进展,2017,36(2):618-625
[33] HU Z,CHANG J,YU J,et al. Diversity of bacterial community during ensiling and subsequent exposure to air in whole-plant maize silage[J]. Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences,2018,31(9):1464
[34] WANG T,TENG K,CAO Y,et al. Effects of Lactobacillus hilgardii 60TS-2,with or without homofermentative Lactobacillus plantarum B90,on the aerobic stability,fermentation quality and microbial community dynamics in sugarcane top silage[J]. Bioresource Technology,2020,312:123600
[35] 李宇宇,贾玉山,格根图,等. 饲用草产品主要真菌毒素污染检测,风险评估与控制研究进展[J]. 草业学报,2021,30(4):191-204

装填密度对羊草和苜蓿青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响

Effect of Filling Density on Quality and Aerobic Stability of Leymus chinensis and Alfalfa Silage

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]	李春艳, 钟华, 杜利霞, 侯向阳. 白羊草BiMYB52基因的克隆及转基因拟南芥抗旱性表达分析[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(1): 29-39.
[2]	王雅芳, 李国旗, 石云, 刘星, 谢博勋, 解盛. 贺兰山低山区土壤种子库与地上植被关系分析[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(1): 166-172.
[3]	徐新影, 张卫青, 李金霞, 赵利萌, 乌兰图雅, 万志强. 克氏针茅(Stipa krylovii)草原土壤与优势植物碳氮含量对放牧强度的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(9): 2255-2263.
[4]	徐小博, 王鑫尧, 郁伟杰, 苗一凡, 徐博. 紫花苜蓿MsJMT基因的克隆及其与育性的关联分析[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(9): 2306-2314.
[5]	孟翔, 孙伶俐, 谢开云, 刘伟, 褚皓清, 赵越. 灌溉、施磷量及AM真菌对紫花苜蓿产量和水磷利用效率的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(9): 2356-2364.
[6]	范燕闯, 王俊锋, 高嵩, 李志坚. 芽菜收获对松嫩盐碱化紫花苜蓿草地综合收益的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(9): 2460-2468.
[7]	王瑜, 代先林, 马晓颖, 韦宝, 何峰, 李向林, 仝宗永. 划区轮牧对放牧型紫花苜蓿人工草地产量与品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(9): 2477-2482.
[8]	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.
[9]	张佳伟, 贾玉山, 格根图, 王志军, 包健, 李宇宇, 彭冬, 王宇, 孙鹏波, 岳晓明. 不同丙酸浓度对天然牧草青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(9): 2522-2528.
[10]	王勃, 王聪聪, 夏方山, 陈奕霖, 赵萍, 朱慧森. 硒引发对不同品种紫花苜蓿种子抗氧化特性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(8): 2037-2044.
[11]	张辉辉, 师尚礼, 武蓓, 李自立, 李小龙, 吴芳, 康文娟, 陈新栋. 紫花苜蓿与不同生活型多年生禾本科牧草混播生长生理特征[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(8): 2144-2157.
[12]	李军, 杜俊颖, 杨莉, 宋连昭, 李鑫洋, 薛祝林, 刘贵河. 冀西北地区错期交叉混播对第3年草地生产力的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(8): 2167-2172.
[13]	徐洪雨, 李钰莹. 基于KEGG通路分析紫花苜蓿的冷适应过程[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(7): 1721-1730.
[14]	余如刚, 王雪茄, 王国良, 徐智明, 高晴晴, 杜雪玲, 张宇龙. 紫花苜蓿品种苗期耐盐性分析及评价指标筛选[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(7): 1781-1789.
[15]	曾庆飞, 韦兴迪, 韦鑫, 欧二绫, 吉玉玉, 舒健虹, 龙忠富. 贵州岩溶山区野生天蓝苜蓿根瘤菌资源发掘、固氮特性及其多样性研究[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(7): 1891-1899.