雁北地区不同品种玉米全株青贮发酵品质及细菌群落结构分析

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.05.026

草地学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (5): 1087-1093.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.05.026

雁北地区不同品种玉米全株青贮发酵品质及细菌群落结构分析

王新宇, 申晨, 霍文婕, 刘强, 张拴林, 王聪, 陈雷, 许庆方, 王永新, 郭刚

山西农业大学动物科学学院, 山西太谷 030801

收稿日期:2020-12-11 修回日期:2021-01-11 出版日期:2021-05-15 发布日期:2021-06-02
通讯作者: 郭刚,E-mail:guosteel1984@126.com
作者简介:王新宇(1993-)，男，汉族，山西阳泉人，硕士研究生，主要从事反刍动物营养与饲料科学研究，E-mail：1781209345@qq.com
基金资助:
山西省“1331”工程畜牧学重点学科建设专项（J201711306）；山西农业大学引进人才科研启动项目（2014YJ11）；宋庆龄基金会（2018-126）资助

Analysis of Fermentation Quality and Bacterial Community Structure of Whole Corn Silage of Different Varieties in Yanbei Region

WANG Xin-yu, SHEN Chen, HUO Wen-jie, LIU Qiang, ZHANG Shuan-lin, WANG Cong, CHEN Lei, XU Qing-fang, WANG Yong-xin, GUO Gang

College of Animal Sciences, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi Province 030801, China

Received:2020-12-11 Revised:2021-01-11 Online:2021-05-15 Published:2021-06-02

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本试验以种植在雁北地区的8个玉米（Zea mays）品种为试验材料，于乳熟-蜡熟期刈割，测定产量并制作袋装青贮，发酵60 d后比较不同品种全株玉米青贮的营养价值、发酵品质、细菌群落结构和中性洗涤纤维降解率，旨在为该地区玉米品种的选择提供数据支撑。结果表明：‘强盛103’‘承玉309’和‘太育1’具有较高的鲜草产量和干草产量；‘强盛103’和‘太育1’组青贮饲料pH低于3.80；‘太育1’组青贮饲料具有最高的淀粉含量和最低的中性洗涤纤维含量（P<0.05），‘强盛103’和‘隆平207’次之；各品种青贮饲料中性洗涤纤维降解率由高及低依次为‘太育1’、‘中地103’、‘承玉309’、‘强盛103’、‘利禾1’、‘隆平207’、‘华美玉336’和‘中地88’；各品种全株玉米青贮中以厚壁菌门相对丰度最高，其中‘太育1’、‘利禾1’、‘强盛103’和‘承玉309’以乳杆菌属细菌为主。综合分析各类指标，推荐雁北地区种植玉米品种首选‘太育1’，‘强盛103’次之。

关键词: 玉米品种, 玉米青贮, 发酵品质, 细菌群落结构

Abstract: In this experiment,8 maize varieties planted in Yanbei area as materials. Plant were harvested during the milk ripening-wax ripening period to make bagged silage. Biomass yield was measured and bagged silage was made. After 60 days of fermentation,the nutritional value,fermentation quality,bacterial community structure and degradation rate of neutral detergent fiber of different varieties of whole-plant corn silage were compared to select the suitable corn varieties in this region. The results showed that:'Qiangsheng 103’,‘Chengyu 309’ and ‘Taiyu 1’ had higher fresh and hay yields. The pH of the silage for the ‘Qiangsheng 103’ and ‘Taiyu 1’ groups was lower than 3.80. ‘Taiyu 1’ group silage had the highest starch content and the lowest neutral detergent fiber content (P<0.05),followed by ‘Qiangsheng 103’ and ‘Longping 207’. The NDF degradability of each variety silage from high to low ranged as ‘Taiyu 1’,‘Zhongdi 103’,‘Chengyu 309’,‘Qiangsheng 103’,‘Lihe 1’,‘Longping 207’,‘Huamiyu 336’ and ‘Zhongdi 88’. All varieties among the corn silage plants,Firmicutes had the highest relative abundance. Among them,‘Taiyu 1’,‘Lihe 1’,‘Qiangsheng 103’ and ‘Chengyu 309’ were mainly Lactobacillus bacteria. Comprehensive analysis of various indicators,it is recommended that ‘Taiyu 1’ is the first choice for corn planting in Yanbei region,followed by ‘Qiangsheng 103’.

Key words: Corn varieties, Corn silage, Fermentation characteristics, Bacterial community structure

中图分类号:

S541.9

王新宇, 申晨, 霍文婕, 刘强, 张拴林, 王聪, 陈雷, 许庆方, 王永新, 郭刚. 雁北地区不同品种玉米全株青贮发酵品质及细菌群落结构分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 1087-1093.

WANG Xin-yu, SHEN Chen, HUO Wen-jie, LIU Qiang, ZHANG Shuan-lin, WANG Cong, CHEN Lei, XU Qing-fang, WANG Yong-xin, GUO Gang. Analysis of Fermentation Quality and Bacterial Community Structure of Whole Corn Silage of Different Varieties in Yanbei Region[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(5): 1087-1093.

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.1007-0435.2021.05.026

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2021/V29/I5/1087

参考文献

[1] 孟志兴,杨春. 山西省“粮改饲”政策实施成效和推进思路—以朔州市为例[J]. 农业展望,2017,10:36-39
[2] 张文芝,李平,纪树仁,等. 果穗率对改善玉米青贮饲料发酵品质和营养价值的作用[J]. 中国草地学报,2017,39(6):84-89
[3] 靳文仲. 全株玉米青贮主要质量指标解析[J]. 中国乳业,2020,221(5):42-43
[4] 王运涛,杨志敏,刘建成,等. 品种和收获期对全株玉米生物产量和青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报,2018,26(1):264-266
[5] Cherney D J R,Cherney J H，Cox W J. Fermentation Characteristics of Corn Forage Ensiled in Mini-Silos[J]. Journal of Dairy ence,2004,87(12):4238-4246
[6] Benefield B C,Lineiro M,Ipharraguerre I R,et al. NutriDense Corn Grain and Corn Silage for Dairy Cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2006,89(5):1571-1579
[7] Guan H,Yan Y H,Li X L,et al. Microbial communities and natural fermentation of corn silages prepared with farm bunker-silo in Southwest China[J]. Bioresource Technology,2018,265:282-290
[8] 张微,莫放. 原位尼龙袋技术在评价饲料营养价值中的应用与建议方案[J]. 动物营养学报,2019,31(1):1-14
[9] 张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M]. 第3版. 北京:中国农业大学出版社,2007:49-74
[10] Van-Soest P J,Robertson J B,Lewis B A. Methods for dietary fiber,neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,1991,74(10):3583-3597
[11] Owens V N,Albrecht K A,Muck R E,et al. Protein degradation and fermentation characteristics of red clover and alfalfa silage harvested with varying levels of total nonstructural carbohydrates[J]. Crop Science,1999,39(6):1873-1880
[12] Barker S B,Summerson W H. The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material[J]. Journal of Biological Chemistry,1941,138(2):535-554
[13] Weatherburn M W. Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia[J]. Analytical Chemistry,1967,39(8):971-974
[14] Guo G,Shen C,Liu Q,et al. Fermentation quality and in vitro digestibility of first and second cut alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) silages harvested at three stages of maturity. Animal Feed Science and Technology,2019,257:114274
[15] Ørskov E R,McDonald I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science,1979,92(2):499-503
[16] 焦晶凯,莫蓓红. Illumina MiSeq平台高覆盖率测定干酪中的细菌微生物多样性[J]. 中国酿造,2014,33(5):34-38
[17] Buxton D R,Muck R E,Harrison J H. Silage science and technology[M]. Madison,WI:ASAS,CSSA,SSSA Inc,2003:31-93
[18] Jones R J,Quattar S,Crookston R K. Thermal Environment During Endosperm Cell Division and Grain Filling in Maize:Effects on Kernel Growth and Development in Vitro 1[J]. Crop Science,1984,24(1):133-137
[19] Johnson R R,Tikam L,Balwani L,et al. Corn plant maturity. II. Effect on in vitro cellulose digestibility and soluble carbohydrate content [J]. Journal of Animal Science,1968,25:617
[20] Ni K，Minh T T，Tu T T M，et al. Comparative microbiota assessment of wilted Italian ryegrass,whole crop corn,and wilted alfalfa silage using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and next-generation sequencing[J]. Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology,2017,101(4):1-10
[21] 董宽虎,沈益新. 饲草生产学[M]. 北京:中国农业出版社,2003:115-243
[22] Guo G,Yuan X J,Wen A Y,et al. Silage fermentation characteristics of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum Sch.) harvested at various times on sunny day[J]. Crop Science,2015,55:458-464
[23] 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,2018,101:3980-4000
[24] Santos A O,ávila C L S,Schwan R F. Selection of tropical lactic acid bacteria for enhancing the quality of maize silage[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2013,96(12):7777-7789
[25] Namihira T,Shinzato N,Akamine H,et al. Influence of nitrogen fertilization on tropical-grass silage assessed by ensiling process monitoring using chemical and microbial community analyses[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology,2010,108:1954-1965
[26] St-Pierre B,Wright A G. Comparative metagenomic analysis of bacterial populations in three full-scale mesophilic anaerobic manure digesters[J]. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol,2014,98:2709-2717
[27] Cai Y M. Effect of Applying Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Forage Crops on Fermentation Characteristics and Aerobic Deterioration of Silage[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,1999,82:520-526
[28] Langston C W,Bouma Cecelia,Conner R M. Chemical and Bacteriological Changes in Grass Silage During the Early Stages of Fermentation. II. Bacteriological Changes[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,1962,45:618-624
[29] 余汝华,莫放,赵丽华,等. 不同玉米品种青贮饲料营养成分比较分析[J]. 中国农学通报,2007,23(8):17-20
[30] Thomas E D,Mandebvu P,Ballard C S,et al. Comparison of corn silage hybrids for yield,nutrient composition,in vitro digestibility,and milk yield by dairy cows.[J]. Journal of Dairy ence,2001,84(10):2217-2226
[31] 刘帅,郑健,姜鑫,等. 鼠李糖乳杆菌对全株玉米青贮品质及瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志,2019,055(7):111-116
[32] NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle[M]. 7th edition. Washington DC:National Academy Press,2001:17-19
[33] 张元庆,靳光,王栋才,等. 体外产气法和尼龙袋法评价5种全株玉米青贮的饲用价值[J]. 动物营养学报,2019,31(12):299-304
[34] 尉志霞,刘强,霍文婕,等. 不同日间刈割时间及茬次对紫花苜蓿青贮发酵质量和体外发酵参数的影响[J].草地学报,2019,1(27):235-242

雁北地区不同品种玉米全株青贮发酵品质及细菌群落结构分析

Analysis of Fermentation Quality and Bacterial Community Structure of Whole Corn Silage of Different Varieties in Yanbei Region

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]	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.
[2]	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.
[3]	侯红雁, 申晨, 霍文婕, 刘强, 张拴林, 王聪, 陈雷, 许庆方, 王永新, 王忠豪, 郭刚. 同型发酵乳杆菌对低水分紫花苜蓿青贮发酵品质及体外消化率的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 835-841.
[4]	陆永祥, 严显明, 周朝相, 朱会先, 苟文龙, 游明鸿, 李达旭, 陈仕勇, 李平, 白史且. 不同添加剂对高水分全株玉米青贮饲料发酵品质和细菌群落的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 842-847.
[5]	苏贝贝, 张英, 道日娜. 4种豆科栽培牧草根际土壤细菌群落分布特征研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(2): 250-258.
[6]	丁浩, 吴永杰, 邵涛, 赵杰, 代童童, 董东, 尹雪敬, 贾玉山, 李君风. 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶对象草青贮发酵品质及体外消化率的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(11): 2600-2608.
[7]	南丽丽, 郭全恩, 刘雪强. 荒漠灌区苜蓿后茬轮作不同作物对土壤细菌群落的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(1): 25-32.
[8]	陆永祥, 赵嫚, 陈良寅, 成启明, 游明鸿, 李达旭, 陈仕勇, 白史且, 李平. 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.
[9]	朱九刚, 张健, 邵涛, 董志浩, 李君风, 唐露, 冉启凡, 刘秦华. 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.
[10]	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.
[11]	夏洪泽, 张琳琳, 王银梦, 孙璐, 王磊, 刘书杰, 崔占鸿, 刘明莲. 体外产气法评价不同分级指数玉米青贮—苜蓿干草组合发酵特性[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 1136-1144.
[12]	梁龙飞, 王飞, 董祥, 郝俊. ‘热研4号’王草替代紫花苜蓿对TMR发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(3): 703-711.
[13]	陆永祥, 成启明, 陈良寅, 孙林, 肖冰雪, 苟文龙, 游明鸿, 白史且, 李平. 不同海拔的燕麦青贮饲料发酵品质和细菌群落特征[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(2): 350-357.
[14]	李龙兴, 汪依妮, 杨学东, 黎俊, 龚正发, 弗雷泽·乔治·哈里森, 陈秀华, 黄文琥, 梁显义. 凋萎和添加乳酸菌对大黑山薏苡青贮发酵品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(4): 1102-1106.
[15]	商振达, 谭占坤, 李家奎, 卓嘎, 王宏辉, 谢国平, 刘锁珠. 种植时间对西藏地区青贮玉米发酵品质和微生物多样性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(2): 488-496.