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

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.01.025

草地学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (1): 192-198.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.01.025

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

周瑞¹, 刘立山², 郎侠², 王彩莲², 宋淑珍², 吴建平¹

1. 甘肃农业大学动物科学技术学院, 甘肃兰州 730070;
2. 甘肃省农业科学院畜草与绿色农业研究所, 甘肃兰州 730070

收稿日期:2018-07-12 修回日期:2018-12-24 出版日期:2019-02-15 发布日期:2019-04-13
通讯作者: 吴建平,E-mail:wujp@gsagr.ac.cn
作者简介:周瑞(1991-),女,宁夏中卫人,博士研究生,主要从事动物遗传育种与繁殖专业,E-mail:zhour1222@163.com
基金资助:
动物遗传育种与草食畜生产体系（2017GAAS30）；农业部公益性行业科研专项（201503134）；农业部绒毛用羊产业技术体系饲养管理与圈舍环境（CRAS-39-18）资助

Analysis of Silage Quality and Microbe Quantity During Aerobic Exposure of Beet Root and Corn Stover Mixed-ensilage

ZHOU Rui¹, LIU Liu-shan², LANG Xia², WANG Cai-lian², SONG Shu-zhen², WU Jian-ping¹

1. College of animal science and technology, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province 730070, China;
2. Animal Husbandry, Pasture and Green Agriculture Institute, Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou, Gansu Province 730070, China

Received:2018-07-12 Revised:2018-12-24 Online:2019-02-15 Published:2019-04-13

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本试验旨在研究甜菜块根和玉米秸秆按照不同混合比例青贮后营养品质及有氧暴露期微生物数量的变化，筛选调制青贮饲料时二者最优的混合比例。结果表明：T2组粗蛋白、Ca和P的含量均显著高于T1、T3、T4组（P<0.05），T1、T2组水溶性碳水化合物含量均显著高于其他3组（P<0.05），而干物质损失率均显著低于其他3组（P<0.05）；T2组pH分别显著低于T0、T1组（P<0.05），乳酸含量显著高于T0、T1组，NH₃-N含量显著低于其他4组（P<0.05），T0、T1组未检测到丙酸、丁酸；在整个有氧暴露期，随着甜菜块根添加比例的增加，酵母菌和霉菌数量逐渐升高，乳酸菌数量逐渐降低，且T1组乳酸菌数量最高，酵母菌和霉菌数量最低。综合分析，二者比例为10：90时，更有利于甜菜营养品质的长期保存与利用。

关键词: 甜菜块根, 玉米秸秆, 青贮品质, 微生物数量

Abstract: This study was conducted to observe the changes of silage quality and microbe quantity during aerobic exposure for mixed-ensiling beet root and corn stover with different proportions,and screen the best ratio of beet root and corn stover for mixed silage. The results showed that the content of CP,Ca and P was significantly higher in T2 group than T1,T3,T4 group (P<0.05),the content of WSC was significantly higher in T2 group than other groups (P<0.05),and the loss ratio of dry matter was significantly lower than other groups (P<0.05). pH was significantly lower in T2 group than T0 and T1 groups (P<0.05),the content of lactic acid was significantly higher in T2 than T0 and T1 groups (P<0.05),the content of NH₃-N was significantly lower in T2 group than other groups (P<0.05). Propionic acid and Butyric acid were not detected in T0 and T1 groups. During aerobic exposure,with the increase of beet root proportion,the mold and yeast quantity showed an increasing trend,lactic acid bacteria quantity showed an decreasing trend,and in T1 group,the lactic acid bacteria quantity was highest,the mold and yeast quantity were lowest. Comprehensive analysis,when the ratio is 10:90,it is more conducive to the long-term preservation and utilization of beet nutritional quality.

Key words: beet root, corn stover, silage quality, microbe quantity

中图分类号:

S816.5+3

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.

ZHOU Rui, LIU Liu-shan, LANG Xia, WANG Cai-lian, SONG Shu-zhen, WU Jian-ping. Analysis of Silage Quality and Microbe Quantity During Aerobic Exposure of Beet Root and Corn Stover Mixed-ensilage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(1): 192-198.

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.1007-0435.2019.01.025

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2019/V27/I1/192

参考文献

[1] 谢光辉,郭兴强,王鑫,等.能源作物资源现状与发展前景[J].资源科学,2007,29(5):74-80
[2] 刘福元,宋志强,王文军,等.饲用甜菜块根混贮饲喂荷斯坦牛的试验研究[J].中国奶牛,2011(2):15-17
[3] 拱云生,周玉平,王凤,等.浅谈饲用甜菜在畜牧业发展中的利用价值[J].吉林农业科学,2007,32(1):49-50
[4] 黄晓辉,李树成,李东华,等.苦豆子和玉米秸秆的混合青贮[J].草业科学,2013,30(10):1633-1639
[5] 王林,孙启忠,张慧杰.苜蓿与玉米混贮质量研究[J].草业学报,2011,20(4):202-209
[6] Meeske R,Jf V D M G,Cruywagen C W.The effect of the addition of a lactic acid bacterial inoculant to maize at ensiling on silage composition,silage intake,milk production and milk composition[J].South African Journal of Animal Science,2002,32(4):263-270
[7] Nkosi B D,Meeske R,Langa T,et al.Effects of bacterial silage inoculants on whole-crop maize silage fermentation and silage digestibility in rams[J].South African Journal of Animal Science,2011,41(41):350-359
[8] 薛艳林,殷国梅,赵和,等.混合比例对沙蒿和玉米青贮饲料发酵品质的影响[C]//中国草学会青年工作委员会学术研讨会暨草业科技创新与草业发展大会.北京:中国草学会,2010:367-371
[9] 庄益芬,陈鑫珠,廖惠珍,等.水葫芦与玉米秸秆混合青贮的研究[J].动物营养学报,2011,23(9):1615-1621
[10] 贾春旺,原现军,肖慎华,等.青稞秸秆替代苇状羊茅对全混合日粮青贮早期发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J].草业与畜牧,2016,25(6):179-187
[11] Chen L,Guo G,Yuan X,et al.Effect of Applying Molasses and Propionic Acid on Fermentation Quality and Aerobic Stability of Total Mixed Ration Silage Prepared with Whole-plant Corn in Tibet[J].Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences,2014,27(3):349-56
[12] 关皓,郭旭生,干友民,等.添加剂对不同含水量多花黑麦草青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J].草地学报,2016,24(3):669-675
[13] 梁瑜,雷赵民,吴建平,等.不同添加剂(物)对玉米秸秆青贮有机酸含量的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2012,47(5):34-39
[14] 张丽英.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].北京:中国农业大学出版社,2003:46-75
[15] Van Soest P J,Robertson J B,Lewis B A.Methods for dietary fiber,neutral detergent fiber,and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition[J].Journal of Dairy Science,1991,74(10):3583-3597
[16] Dubois M,Gilles K A,Hamilton J K,et al.Colorimetric Method for Determination of Sugars and Related Substances[J].Analytical Chemistry,1956,28(3):350-356
[17] Broderick G A,Kang J H.Automated Simultaneous Determination of Ammonia and Total Amino Acids in Ruminal Fluid and In Vitro Media[J].Journal of Dairy Science,1980,63(1):64-75
[18] 丁良,原现军,闻爱友,等.添加剂对西藏啤酒糟全混合日粮青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J].草业学报,2016,25(7):112-120
[19] 万学瑞,吴建平,雷赵民,等.优良抑菌活性乳酸菌对玉米青贮及有氧暴露期微生物数量和pH的影响[J].草业学报,2016,25(4):204-211
[20] 周娟娟,魏巍,秦爱琼,等.水分和添加剂对辣椒秸秆青贮品质的影响[J].草业学报,2016,25(2):231-239
[21] Broderick G A,Walgenbach R P,Sterrenburg E.Performance of lactating dairy cows fed alfalfa or red clover silage as the sole forage[J].Journal of Dairy Science,2000,83(7):1543-51
[22] 李向林,张新跃,唐一国,等.日粮中精料和牧草比例对舍饲山羊增重的影响[J].草业学报,2008,17(2):43-47
[23] 田瑞霞,安渊,王光文,等.紫花苜蓿青贮过程中pH值和营养物质变化规律[J].草业学报,2005,14(3):82-86
[24] 李真真,白春生,余奕东,等.水分含量及添加剂对苜蓿青贮品质及CNCPS蛋白组分的影响[J].中国奶牛,2016,319(11):1-6
[25] 王旭哲,贾舒安,张凡凡,等.紧实度对青贮玉米有氧稳定期发酵品质,微生物数量的效应研究[J].草业学报,2017,26(9):156-166
[26] Fransen S C,Strubi F J.Relationships Among Absorbents on the Reduction of Grass Silage Effluent and Silage Quality[J].Journal of Dairy Science,1998,81(10):2633-44
[27] 张微微,张永根.不同吸收剂对甜菜渣青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J].动物营养学报,2011,23(9):1577-1583
[28] Graf K,Ulrich A,Idler C,et al.Bacterial community dynamics during ensiling of perennial ryegrass at two compaction levels monitored by terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism[J].Journal of Applied Microbiology,2016,120(6):1479-1491
[29] Yahaya M S,Kawai M.The effect of different moisture contents at ensiling on silo degradation and digestibility of structural carbohydrates of orchardgrass[J].Animal Feed Science&Technology,2002,101(1):127-133
[30] Shin J S,Cha Y H,Lee H H,et al.Effects of alfalfa silages with different wheat bran mixing levels on fermentation quality[J].Journal of Korean Society of Grassland Science,1996,16(3):173-186
[31] 杨云贵,张越利,杜欣,等.2种玉米青贮饲料青贮过程中主要微生物的变化规律研究[J].畜牧兽医学报,2012,43(3):397-403
[32] Tabacco E,Piano S,Revellochion A,et al.Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri LN4637 and Lactobacillus buchneri LN40177 on the aerobic stability,fermentation products,and microbial populations of corn silage under farm conditions[J].Journal of Dairy Science,2011,94(11):5589-5598
[33] Cavallarin L,Tabacco E,Antoniazzi S,et al.Aflatoxin accumulation in whole crop maize silage as a result of aerobic exposure[J].Journal of the Science of Food&Agriculture,2011,91(13):2419-2425
[34] Shi J.Effects of different bacterial inoculants on the fermentation and aerobic stability of whole-plant corn silage[J].African Journal of Agricultural Research,2012,7(2):164-169
[35] Spadaro D,Bustos-Lopez M P,Gullino M L,et al.Evolution of fungal populations in corn silage conserved under polyethylene or biodegradable films[J].Journal of Applied Microbiology,2015,119(2):510
[36] 王慧丽.TMR在发酵过程中及有氧状态下酵母菌群落演替规律研究[D].北京:中国农业大学,2015:25-31

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

Analysis of Silage Quality and Microbe Quantity During Aerobic Exposure of Beet Root and Corn Stover Mixed-ensilage

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]	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.
[2]	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.
[3]	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.
[4]	甄莉娜, 李侠, 李朕, 刘丽珍, 卫振华, 郭彤彤, 王润梅. 煤矸石山不同植被根际可培养微生物数量的动态变化[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1224-1233.
[5]	吕竑建, 邹璇, 吴硕, 李云, 陈晓阳, 张庆. 添加辣木叶和香肠乳杆菌对玉米秸秆青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1343-1349.
[6]	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.
[7]	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.
[8]	尤思涵, 都帅, 周忠义, 格根图, 宛涛, 贾玉山. 高丹草与黑麦草适宜混贮比例研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 821-827.
[9]	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.
[10]	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.
[11]	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.
[12]	高雪梅, 焦婷, 雷赵民, 冉福, 赵生国. 添加剂对汽爆玉米秸秆养分和发酵特性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 1129-1135.
[13]	冉福, 焦婷, 雷赵民, 赵生国, 高雪梅, 李昌宁, 秦伟娜, 李雄雄. 不同汽爆处理下玉米秸秆品质综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(3): 835-843.
[14]	孙志强, 徐芳, 张元庆, 海鸽, 杨春艳, 吴哲, 王炳, 玉柱. 不同品种玉米农艺性状及青贮发酵品质的比较及相关性研究[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(1): 250-256.
[15]	漆永红, 曹素芳, 李雪萍, 李敏权. 甘南州临潭县青稞根际土壤养分含量、酶活性和微生物数量与根腐病的关系研究[J]. 草地学报, 2018, 26(4): 877-884.