复合添加剂对花生秧青贮品质的影响

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.02.026

草地学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (2): 464-470.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.02.026

• 技术研发 • 上一篇

复合添加剂对花生秧青贮品质的影响

田吉鹏, 韦青, 刘蓓一, 许能祥, 丁成龙, 顾洪如

江苏省农业科学院畜牧研究所, 农业农村部种养结合重点实验室, 江苏南京 210014

收稿日期:2021-08-20 修回日期:2021-09-19 发布日期:2022-03-10
通讯作者: 丁成龙,E-mail:dingcl@jaas.ac.cn
作者简介:田吉鹏(1987-),男,汉族,山东烟台人,博士,助理研究员,主要从事牧草青贮饲料加工研究,E-mail:tianjipeng2231@163.com
基金资助:
扬州市现代农业项目(YZ2020051)；农业农村部农牧交错带优质青粗饲料资源开发利用技术集成示范项目(16200157)资助

Effects of Compound Additives on Silage Quality of Peanut Vine

TIAN Ji-peng, WEI Qing, LIU Bei-yi, XU Neng-xiang, DING Cheng-long, GU Hong-ru

Institute of Animal Science, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Science, Key Laboratory of Crop and Animal Integrated Farming, Ministry of Agriculture, Nangjing, Jiangsu Province 210014, China

Received:2021-08-20 Revised:2021-09-19 Published:2022-03-10

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为评价乳酸菌、玉米芯和稻壳粉对花生(Arachis hypogaea Linn.)秧青贮品质的影响，本试验分别将乳酸菌(LAB)、乳酸菌和5%玉米芯混合(LAB+C)、乳酸菌和5%稻壳粉混合(LAB+R)添加进两个品种(H1和H2)的花生秧中进行青贮并测定其发酵品质、微生物数量、营养品质和体外消化率。结果表明，LAB+C的使用能够显著降低青贮饲料的pH值和氨态氮含量，提高乳酸/乙酸的比值。在H1品种中，LAB和LAB+R对于提高青贮饲料的发酵品质效果显著。H1比H2品种制作的青贮饲料具有更高的粗蛋白含量和更低的纤维组分含量。LAB+C处理的H1品种制作的花生秧青贮饲料具有最低的酸性洗涤木质素含量及最高的体外干物质消化率。因此，建议在花生秧青贮饲料中添加乳酸菌与5%玉米芯的复合添加剂以提高其青贮品质。

关键词: 花生秧, 乳酸菌, 稻壳粉, 玉米芯, 青贮

Abstract: To evaluate the effects of lactic acid bacteria,corn cob and rice husk powder on the quality of peanut (Arachis hypogaea Linn.) vines silage,two varieties (H1 and H2) of peanut vine were ensiled with no additive control (CK),the lactic acid bacteria (LAB),the mixture of LAB and 5% rice husk powder (LAB+R), the mixture of LAB and 5% corn cob (LAB+C) respectively for 1 year,and the fermentation quality,microbial quantity,nutrient quantity and in vitro digestibility of these silages were determined after storage. The results showed that LAB+C could significantly reduce the pH value and ammonia nitrogen content and increase the lactic acid/acetic acid ratio of the silage. LAB and LAB+R had certain effect on improving fermentation quality in silage of H1 varieties. Compared with H2,silage of H1 varieties had higher crude protein content and lower fiber function content. Silage of H1 variety treatmented with LAB+C in had the lowest content of acid detergent lignin and the highest in vitro dry matter digestibility. Therefore,it is suggested to add the mixture of lactic acid bacteria and 5% corn cob (LAB+C) to peanut vine silage to improve silage quality.

Key words: Peanut vine, Lactic acid bacteria, Rice husk powder, Corn cob, Silage

中图分类号:

S152.6

田吉鹏, 韦青, 刘蓓一, 许能祥, 丁成龙, 顾洪如. 复合添加剂对花生秧青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(2): 464-470.

TIAN Ji-peng, WEI Qing, LIU Bei-yi, XU Neng-xiang, DING Cheng-long, GU Hong-ru. Effects of Compound Additives on Silage Quality of Peanut Vine[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(2): 464-470.

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.1007-0435.2022.02.026

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2022/V30/I2/464

参考文献

[1] 魏晨,刘桂芬,游伟,等. 6种反刍动物常用粗饲料在肉牛瘤胃中的降解规律比较[J]. 动物营养学报,2019,31(4):1666-1675
[2] 金敉娜. 花生秧的饲料化利用及其对经济效益的影响[J]. 饲料研究,2021,44(6):157-160
[3] 唐梦琪,侯沛君,丁丽,等. 不同花生品种花生秧产量及营养价值的比较[J]. 家畜生态学报,2020,41(12):56-60
[4] CARVALHO W G,DE PINHO COSTA K A,EPIFANIO P S,et al. Silage quality of corn and sorghum added with forage peanuts[J]. Revista Caatinga,2016,29(2):465-472
[5] 黄秀声,冯德庆,黄小云,等. 不同添加剂对狼尾草和花生秧混合青贮效果的影响[J]. 草学,2017(S1):61-63
[6] 王思伟,李魁英,张海娜,等. 花生秧、全株玉米不同混合比例及添加剂对青贮发酵品质和营养价值的影响[J]. 草业科学,2019,36(9):2413-2422
[7] TIAN J P,NA R S,YU Z,et al. Inoculant Effects on the Fermentation Quality,Chemical Composition and Saponin Content of Lucerne Silage in a Mixture with Wheat Bran or Corn Husk[J]. Animal Production Science,2018,58(12):2249-2257
[8] QIN M Z,SHEN Y X. Effect of Application of a Bacteria Inoculant and Wheat Bran on Fermentation Quality of Peanut Vine Ensiled Alone or with Corn Stover[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture,2013,12(3):556-560
[9] 郁积鹏. 花椰菜茎叶—玉米芯混合青贮料对肉牛生长性能、屠体品质和血清生化指标的影响[J]. 甘肃科技纵横,2017,46(10):78-82
[10] 杜昭昌,王红,闫艳红,等. 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
[11] 解佑志. 发酵稻壳粉对经产母猪生产性能的影响及机理研究[D]. 保定:河北农业大学,2018:1-50
[12] 许庆方,玉柱,韩建国,等. 高效液相色谱法测定紫花苜蓿青贮中的有机酸[J]. 草原与草坪,2007(2):63-65,67
[13] 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
[14] AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis[M]. 15th ed Artington:Association of Official Analytical Chemists,1990:70-83
[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] GOTO I,MINSON D J. Prediction of the Day Matter Digestibility of Tropical Grasses Using a Pepsin-Cellulase Assay[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology,1977,2(3):247-253
[17] WOOLFORD M K,PAHLOW G. The Silage Fermentation[A]. In:B.J.B.Wood. Microbiology of Fermented Foods[M]. Boston:Springer,1998:73-102
[18] 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
[19] BLAJMAN J E,PAEZ R B,VINDEROLA C G,et al. A Meta-Analysis on the Effectiveness of Homofermentative and Heterofermentative Lactic acid Bacteria for Corn Silage[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology,2018,125(6):1655-1669
[20] LIU B Y,HUAN H L,GU H R,et al. Dynamics of a Microbial Community During Ensiling and Upon Aerobic Exposure in Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculation-Treated and Untreated Barley Silages[J]. Bioresource Technology,2019,273:212-219
[21] 吕竑建,邹璇,吴硕,等. 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
[22] WEINBERG Z G,MUCK R E. New Trends and Opportunities in the Development and Use of Inoculants for Silage[J]. Fems Microbiology Reviews,1996,19(1):53-68
[23] 姜俊芳,柳俊超,吴建良,等. 笋壳与稻壳混合青贮品质动态变化研究[J]. 浙江农业学报,2020,32(10):1757-1763
[24] 吕仁龙,胡海超,李茂,等. 不同比例稻壳对发酵型全混合日粮品质的影响[J]. 家畜生态学报,2019,40(11):39-44
[25] VALADARES N R,DE ANDRADE JUNIOR V C,PEREIRA R C,et al. Effect of Different Additives on the Silage Quality of Sweet Potato Branches[J]. Revista Caatinga,2019,32(2):506-513
[26] 侯红雁,申晨,霍文婕,等. 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(责任编辑闵芝智)第30卷第2期 Vol.30 No. 2草地学报 ACTAAGRESTIASINICA 2022年 2月

复合添加剂对花生秧青贮品质的影响

Effects of Compound Additives on Silage Quality of Peanut Vine

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]	张玉琳, 杨寒珺, 李超程, 张凡凡, 马春晖. 杂交构树青贮饲料中优良乳酸菌的分离与鉴定[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(1): 38-45.
[2]	卢家顶, 杨旭, 朱晓艳, 崔亚垒, 王成章, 李德锋, 史莹华. 河南地区21个粮饲兼用型青贮玉米品种综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 1950-1958.
[3]	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.
[4]	陈雷, 暴雪艳, 郭刚, 霍文婕, 李清宏, 许庆方, 王聪, 刘强. 单宁酸和乳酸菌对紫花苜蓿青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1853-1858.
[5]	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.
[6]	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.
[7]	韩学琴, 邓红山, 普天磊, 罗会英, 赵琼玲, 廖承飞, 薛世明, 范建成, 金杰. 金沙江干热河谷区青贮玉米品种农艺性状分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1327-1335.
[8]	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.
[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]	李雯, 马琳峰, 曹熙敏, 俞凤芳, 佘智慧, 徐占云, 刘贵河, 吕爱枝. 播期对冀西北坝上农牧交错区青贮玉米产量和品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 1080-1086.
[11]	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.
[12]	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.
[13]	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.
[14]	王斌, 董秀, 李满有, 杨雨琦, 兰剑. 不同播量拉巴豆与青贮玉米混播对草地生产性能及牧草品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 828-834.
[15]	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.