基于主成分分析的精料、构树和全株玉米青贮的组合效应评价

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.07.034

草地学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (7): 1909-1917.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.07.034

• 技术研发 • 上一篇

基于主成分分析的精料、构树和全株玉米青贮的组合效应评价

张丹丹¹, 张元庆¹, 梁圆², 程景¹, 王栋才¹, 李博¹, 孙锐锋¹, 靳光¹, 徐芳¹

1. 山西农业大学动物科学学院, 山西太原 030032;
2. 山西农业大学动物医学学院, 山西太原 030031

收稿日期:2021-12-27 修回日期:2022-03-07 发布日期:2022-08-02
通讯作者: 张元庆,E-mail：yuanqing_zhang@163.com
作者简介:张丹丹(1991-)，女，汉族，山西阳城人，研究实习员，硕士，主要从事动物营养与饲料科学研究，E-mail：zhusha1991520@126.com
基金资助:
谷子高粱产业技术体系(CARS-06-13.5-A30)；山西省农业科学院畜牧兽医研究所所项目(Xms202001)资助

Evaluation of the Associative Effects of Concentrate、Broussonetia papyrifera and Whole Plant Corn Silage based on Principal Component Analysis

ZHANG Dan-dan¹, ZHANG Yuan-qing¹, LIANG Yuan², CHENG Jing¹, WANG Dong-cai¹, LI Bo¹, SUN Rui-feng¹, JIN Guang¹, XU Fang¹

1. College of Animal Science, Shanxi agricultural university, Taiyuan, Shanxi Province 030032, China;
2. College of Veterinary Medicine, Shanxi agricultural university, Taiyuan, Shanxi Province 030031, China

Received:2021-12-27 Revised:2022-03-07 Published:2022-08-02

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本试验旨在利用主成分分析评价精料、构树和全株玉米青贮以不同比例组合后的组合效应，筛选最佳组合比例。试验设计3个精粗比(40∶60，50∶50，60∶40)，15种日粮组合比例，利用体外模拟瘤胃发酵测定15个组合的瘤胃发酵指标，通过主成分分析法对其进行综合评价。精粗比40∶60时，40∶60∶0和40∶45∶15组的氨态氮(NH₃-N)含量较高；精粗比50∶50时，50∶0∶50，50∶12.5∶37.5和50∶25∶25组的72 h产气量(GP₇₂)较高(P>0.05)，50∶25∶25组的NH₃-N含量最高；精粗比60∶40时，60∶10∶30组的乙酸(AA)、丙酸(PA)和总挥发性脂肪酸(TVFA)浓度显著高于其他各组(P<0.05)。精料∶构树∶全株玉米青贮比例为60∶10∶30，综合主成分值最大。在本试验条件下，日粮中添加构树可以改善肉牛体外瘤胃发酵性能，当精料∶构树∶全株玉米青贮比例为60∶10∶30时，组合效果最佳。

关键词: 构树, 精粗比, 体外产气法, 主成分分析

Abstract: The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the associative effects of different feed combinations based on principal component analysis. The experiment set 3 concentrate to forage ratios (40:60,50:50 and 60:40) and a total of 15 feed combinations with concentrate,Broussonetia papyrifera and whole plant corn silage. Rumen fermentation characteristics were measured using in vitro gas production method and comprehensively evaluated by principal component analysis. The NH₃-N in 40:60:0 and 40:45:15 groups were higher (P>0.05) when the ratio of concentrate to forage was 40:60. When the ratio of concentrate to forage was 50:50,the GP₇₂ in the groups 50:0:50,50:12.5:37.5 and 50:25:25 were higher (P>0.05),and the NH₃-N in 50:25:25 group was the highest. When the ratio of concentrate to forage was 60:40,the concentrations of acetic acid,propionic acid and TVFA in the 60:10:30 group were significantly higher than the other groups (P<0.05). The comprehensive combination effect value is the largest when the concentrate:Broussonetia papyrifera:whole plant corn silage was 60:10:30. In conclusion,the supplemental of Broussonetia papyrifera can improve the in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics of cattles. It was the best combination effect when the concentrate:Broussonetia papyrifera:whole plant corn silage was 60:10:30 based on principal component analysis.

Key words: Broussonetia papyrifera, The concentrate to forage ratio, In vitro rumen fermentation, Principal component analysis

中图分类号:

S816

张丹丹, 张元庆, 梁圆, 程景, 王栋才, 李博, 孙锐锋, 靳光, 徐芳. 基于主成分分析的精料、构树和全株玉米青贮的组合效应评价[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(7): 1909-1917.

ZHANG Dan-dan, ZHANG Yuan-qing, LIANG Yuan, CHENG Jing, WANG Dong-cai, LI Bo, SUN Rui-feng, JIN Guang, XU Fang. Evaluation of the Associative Effects of Concentrate、Broussonetia papyrifera and Whole Plant Corn Silage based on Principal Component Analysis[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(7): 1909-1917.

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.1007-0435.2022.07.034

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2022/V30/I7/1909

参考文献

[1] 农业农村部.全国节粮型畜牧业发展规划(2011-2020年)[EB/OL].http://www.moa.gov.cn/gk/tzgg_1/tfw/201201/t20120105_2451041.htm,2011-12-21
[2] 陈鑫珠,刘景,陈炳钿,等.非常规饲料资源的开发利用成效分析与发展对策[J].中国草食动物科学,2020,40(01):56-60
[3] 黄强,朱秋凤,张卫辉,等.猪用非粮型饲料资源开发利用的研究进展[J].中国畜牧杂志,2020,56(04):35-40
[4] DONG L F,ZHANG H S,GAO Y H,et al.Dynamic profiles of fermentation characteristics and bacterial community composition of Broussonetia papyrifera ensiled with perennial ryegrass[J].Bioresour Technology,2020,310:123396
[5] MILAN M,JAKUB T,VERONIKA L,et al.Anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties of chemical constituents of Broussonetia papyrifera[J].Bioorganic Chemistry,2020,104:104298
[6] 宋博,郑昌炳,仲银召,等.低蛋白质饲粮中添加构树全株发酵饲料对育肥猪生长性能、胴体性状和肉品质的影响[J].动物营养学报,2020,32(10):4841-4851
[7] TAO H,SI B,XU W,et al.Effect of Broussonetia papyrifera L.silage on blood biochemical parameters,growth performance,meat amino acids and fatty acids compositions in beef cattle[J].Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science,2020,33(5):732-741
[8] SI B,TAO H,ZHANG X,et al.Effect of Broussonetia papyrifera L.(paper mulberry) silage on dry matter intake,milk composition,antioxidant capacity and milk fatty acid profile in dairy cows[J].Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science,2018,31(8):1259-1266
[9] 孔凡林,刁其玉,渠建江,等.构树在肉牛瘤胃中降解特性的研究[J].草业学报,2020,29(03):179-189
[10] 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,2007
[11] 中华人民共和国农业部.NY/T 815-2004肉牛饲养标准[S].2004
[12] MENKE K H,RAAB L,SALEWSKI A,et al.The estimation oolizable energy content of ruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro[J].Journal of Agricultural Science,1979,93:217-222
[13] 董晓玲.玉米品种及缓冲型丙酸和丙酸添加剂对青贮发酵品质的影响[D].北京:中国农业大学,2006
[14] 涂瑞,苗建军,彭忠利,等.不同精粗比日粮中添加小肽对牦牛瘤胃体外发酵特性的影响[J].草业学报,2020,29(3):78-88
[15] LI R,ZHENG M,JIANG D,et al.Replacing Alfalfa with Paper Mulberry in Total Mixed Ration Silages:Effects on Ensiling Characteristics,Protein Degradation,and In Vitro Digestibility[J].Animals (Basel),2021,11(5):1273
[16] 张生伟,王小平,张展海,等.青贮杂交构树对杜湖杂交肉羊生长性能、血清生化指标和肉品质的影响[J].草业学报,2021,30(03):89-99
[17] 王小平,张保军,张展海,等.青贮杂交构树对育肥肉羊生长性能、屠宰性能及器官指数的影响[J].中国饲料,2021(03):117-121
[18] HAN Q,WU Z,HUANG B,et al.Extraction,antioxidant and antibacterial activities of Broussonetia papyrifera fruits polysaccharides[J].International Journal of Biological Macromolecules,2016,92:116-124
[19] HAGA S,NAKANO M,NAKAO S,et al.Seasonal foraging patterns of forest-grazing Japanese Black heifers with increased plasma total antioxidant capacity[J].Animal Science Journal,2016,87(2):209-216
[20] PAL K,PATRA A K,SAHOO A.Evaluation of feeds from tropical origin for in vitro methane production potential and rumen fermentation in vitro[J].Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research,2015,13(3):e608
[21] UNNAWONG N,CHERDTHONG A,SO S.Crude saponin extract from Sesbania grandiflora (L.) Pers pod meal could modulate ruminal fermentation,and protein utilization,as well as mitigate methane production[J].Tropical Animal Health and Production,2021,53(2):196
[22] DA SILVA L D,PEREIRA O G,DA SILVA T C,et al.Effects of silage crop and dietary crude protein levels on digestibility,ruminal fermentation,nitrogen use efficiency,and performance of finishing beef cattle[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2016,220:22-33
[23] WANG Y,YU S,LI Y,et al.Pilot study of the effects of polyphenols from chestnut involucre on methane production,volatile fatty acids,and ammonia concentration during in vitro rumen fermentation[J].Animals,2021,11(1):108
[24] 曾钰,谢昕廷,彭忠利,等.不同精粗比饲粮中添加酵母培养物对牦牛瘤胃体外发酵参数的影响[J].动物营养学报,2019,31(12):5582-5594
[25] CHEN L,DONG Z,LI J,et al.Ensiling characteristics,in vitro rumen fermentation,microbial communities and aerobic stability of low-dry matter silages produced with sweet sorghum and alfalfa mixtures[J].Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,2019,99(5):2140-2151
[26] WANAPAT M,PIMPA O.Effect of ruminal NH₃-N levels on ruminal fermentation,purine derivatives,digestibility and rice straw intake in Swamp Buffaloes[J].Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences,1999,12(6):904-907
[27] BLVMMEL M,CONE J W,VAN GELDER A H,et al.Prediction of forage intake using in vitro gas production methods:Comparison of multiphase fermentation kinetics measured in an automated gas test,and combined gas volume and substrate degradability measurements in a manual syringe system[J].Animal Feed Science&Technology,2005,123(part-P1):517-526
[28] 路平乐,魏玉明,杨发荣,等.体外产气法评价全株藜麦与全株玉米混合青贮饲料饲用价值[J].草地学报,2021,29(11):2391-2398
[29] CASTRO M,CARDOSO M A,DETMANN E,et al.In vitro ruminal fermentation and enteric methane production of tropical forage added nitrogen or nitrogen plus starch[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2021,275:114878
[30] 王勇生,唐楚,王明宇,等.构树提取物的营养生理功能及构树营养价值研究进展[J].饲料工业,2021,42(12):31-37
[31] 杨艳,欧阳克蕙,甘兴华,等.不同精粗比日粮中添加烟酸对牛瘤胃体外发酵功能的影响[J].江西农业学报2021,33(05):76-82
[32] YANG C J,MAO S Y,LONG L M,et al.Effect of disodium fumarate on microbial abundance,ruminal fermentation and methane emission in goats under different forage:concentrate ratios[J].Animal,2012,6(11):1788-1794
[33] GOIRI I,OREGUI L M,GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ A.Dose-response effects of chitosans on in vitro rumen digestion and fermentation of mixtures differing in forage-to-concentrate ratios[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2009,151:215-227
[34] 吴海艳,曲珍,刘昭明,等.基于主成分分析的燕麦品种生产性能的比较研究[J].草地学报,2021,29(9):1967-1973

基于主成分分析的精料、构树和全株玉米青贮的组合效应评价

Evaluation of the Associative Effects of Concentrate、Broussonetia papyrifera and Whole Plant Corn Silage based on Principal Component Analysis

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]	郑成卓, 曹宁, 傅晓意, 安加吉才让, 刘长仲, 钱秀娟. 肃南6种草地蝗虫雄性外生殖器比较[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(4): 1000-1006.
[2]	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.
[3]	杨冲, 王文颖, 刘攀, 毛旭峰, 董世魁, 周华坤, 陈哲, 索南吉, 靳磊, 马华清. 黄河源区高寒草地植物营养成分含量特征及营养价值评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(S1): 72-79.
[4]	张荟荟, 梁维维, 张学洲, 阿斯娅·曼力克, 朱昊, 魏鹏, 康帅, 李学森. 新疆野生老芒麦种质资源形态及生长特性分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 701-708.
[5]	李波, 李晨阳, 李红, 杨曌. 短期低温胁迫对‘龙牧807’苜蓿幼苗生理代谢的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(3): 515-521.
[6]	张琦, 魏臻武, 闫天芳, 耿小丽. 燕麦种质资源农艺性状遗传多样性的鉴定评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(2): 309-316.
[7]	路平乐, 魏玉明, 杨发荣, 江小帆, 李倩, 赵生国, 蔡原, 焦婷. 体外产气法评价全株藜麦与全株玉米混合青贮饲料饲用价值[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(11): 2391-2398.
[8]	李佳欢, 刘希强, 吕进英, 任成, 王开丽, 黄顶, 邓波, 王堃. 基于植株各器官生理响应对12种苜蓿抗旱性的综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1319-1328.
[9]	李佩佩, 李毅, 苏世平, 种培芳, 李珍. 18个红砂家系的抗旱指标筛选与分析[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(2): 412-419.
[10]	张则宇, 李雪, 王焱, 常巍, 高雪芹, 伏兵哲. 59份苜蓿种质材料苗期耐盐性评价及耐盐指标筛选[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(1): 112-121.
[11]	王英成, 芦光新, 邓晖, 蒋汉元, 姚世庭, 党宁, 李欣, 黄彩霞, 赵丽蓉, 王志慧. 基于主成分分析的青贮玉米品种农艺性状评价及筛选研究[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(6): 1725-1732.
[12]	耿小丽, 韩天虎, 张少平, 李德明, 刘乾, 武慧娟. 30个燕麦品种(品系)在甘肃天祝地区的适应性评价[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(6): 1743-1750.
[13]	李波, 方志坚, 张英俊, 李红, 刘璎辉, 王玉珏, 张延琦. 龙牧苜蓿种质资源耐混合苏打盐碱能力综合分析[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(1): 141-147.
[14]	肖亮, 易自力. 中国四种芒属植物的地理分布及气候模式研究[J]. 草地学报, 2017, 25(4): 685-690.
[15]	余卫, 张莉, 王启兰. 青藏高原金露梅灌丛草甸土壤质量的微生物学特征[J]. 草地学报, 2016, 24(6): 1248-1253.