不同复合微生物制剂对薯渣与大豆秸秆混贮发酵品质、营养成分及瘤胃降解率的影响
|
摘要
本试验旨在研究4种不同复合微生物制剂对薯渣与大豆秸秆混贮发酵效果的影响。试验采用密封塑料桶进行混贮,将薯渣与大豆秸秆按照1∶3的重量比混合,采用单因素试验设计,分别设置对照组(不含微生物制剂)及试验1、2、3和4组(分别添加微生物制剂1、2、3、4),每组3个重复。贮存60 d后取样分析,采用实验室化学分析法测定混贮饲料的发酵品质和营养成分,采用半体内法测定48 h瘤胃降解率,同时进行有氧稳定性测试。结果表明:1)各复合微生物制剂组的感官评定结果无明显差异,均为一级优良。2)经发酵品质的分析测定,各复合微生物制剂组的混贮饲料发酵品质均得到改善,以试验2组的pH最低(P<0.01),乳酸含量最高(P<0.01),氨态氮/总氮最低(P>0.05)。3)除试验4组外,各复合微生物制剂组的干物质损失率(DML)均高于对照组(P>0.05),与对照组相比,各复合微生物制剂组粗蛋白质(CP)含量提高(P>0.05),而可溶性碳水化合物(WSC)含量极显著降低(P<0.01),中性洗涤纤维(NDF)和酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)含量无显著差异(P>0.05)。4)各复合微生物制剂组的有氧稳定性较对照组均得到提高,其中以试验2组的效果最好(P<0.01),其次是试验1组(P<0.01)、试验3组(P<0.01)和试验4组(P<0.05)。5)各复合微生物制剂组的干物质(DM) 48 h瘤胃降解率极显著高于对照组(P<0.01),CP瘤胃降解率(P<0.05)、NDF瘤胃降解率(P<0.01)与对照组相比均以试验2组最高,且试验2组的ADF瘤胃降解率显著高于对照(P<0.05),但与其他组差异不显著(P>0.05),各复合微生物制剂组的淀粉瘤胃降解率较对照组均得到提高,试验2组的淀粉瘤胃降解率较对照组提高3.34%(P<0.01)。综上,在本试验条件下,经发酵处理后,薯渣混贮饲料质地松软,呈酸香味,无黏手现象,试验2组对薯渣与大豆秸秆混贮饲料的发酵品质有明显的改善作用,处理效果最好。
The study was conducted to investigate the effects of four different compound microorganism preparations on mixed silage characteristics of potato pulp and soybean straw. Potato pulp and soybean strawwere mixed with a weight ratio of 1∶3 in sealed plastic drums,the single factor test design was adopted and divided into 4 groups: control group( without compound microorganism preparations) and test groups 1,2,3 and 4( with compound microorganism preparations 1,2,3 and 4),respectively,each group contained 3 replicates.Hereafter,the mixed silage was stored for 60 days. Fermentation quality and nutritional value of mixed silage were determined by chemical analysis in laboratory,and the rumen degradation rate was determined in situ technology for 48 h. At the same time,aerobic stability test was carried out. The results showed as follows: 1)the sensory evaluation results of each group were not significantly different and all excellent at the first grade.2) After fermentation quality analysis,the fermentation quality of mixed silage in each group was improved,and the lowest pH( P<0.01),the highest content of lactic acid( P<0.01) and the lowest ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen( P>0.05) were found in the test group 2. 3) Except for test group 4,the dry matter loss rate( DML) in each group was higher than that in control group( P>0.05); compared with control group,the content of crude protein( CP) in each group was increased( P>0.05),while the contents of soluble carbohydrate( WSC) was significantly decreased( P<0.01),the contents of neutral detergent fiber( NDF) and acidic detergentfiber( ADF) had no significant difference among groups( P > 0. 0 5). 4) All groups improved the aerobic stability of the mixed silage,and the effect of the test group 2 was the best( P<0.01),followed by test groups 1( P<0.01),3( P<0.01) and 4( P<0.05). 5) After 48 h of culture in the rumen,the rumen degradability rate of DMin each group was significantly higher than that in control group( P<0.01),rumen degradation rate of CP( P<0.05) and rumen degradation rate of NDF( P<0.01) in test group 2 were the highest,and the degradation rate of ADF in test group 2 was significantly higher than that in control group( P<0.05),but there was no significant difference from the other groups( P > 0. 05),the rumen degradation rate of starch in each group was also higher than that in the control group,and in the test group 2 was 3. 34%,which higher than that in the control group( P < 0.01). In conclusion,under the conditions of this test,after fermentation treatment,the mixed silage of potato pulp and soybean strawshows soft texture,sour flavor,and no sticky hands; the test group 2 can apparently improve the quality of the mixed silage of potato pulp and soybean straw,and has the best treatment effect.[Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition,2019,31(7):3319-3329]
The study was conducted to investigate the effects of four different compound microorganism preparations on mixed silage characteristics of potato pulp and soybean straw. Potato pulp and soybean strawwere mixed with a weight ratio of 1∶3 in sealed plastic drums,the single factor test design was adopted and divided into 4 groups: control group( without compound microorganism preparations) and test groups 1,2,3 and 4( with compound microorganism preparations 1,2,3 and 4),respectively,each group contained 3 replicates.Hereafter,the mixed silage was stored for 60 days. Fermentation quality and nutritional value of mixed silage were determined by chemical analysis in laboratory,and the rumen degradation rate was determined in situ technology for 48 h. At the same time,aerobic stability test was carried out. The results showed as follows: 1)the sensory evaluation results of each group were not significantly different and all excellent at the first grade.2) After fermentation quality analysis,the fermentation quality of mixed silage in each group was improved,and the lowest pH( P<0.01),the highest content of lactic acid( P<0.01) and the lowest ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen( P>0.05) were found in the test group 2. 3) Except for test group 4,the dry matter loss rate( DML) in each group was higher than that in control group( P>0.05); compared with control group,the content of crude protein( CP) in each group was increased( P>0.05),while the contents of soluble carbohydrate( WSC) was significantly decreased( P<0.01),the contents of neutral detergent fiber( NDF) and acidic detergentfiber( ADF) had no significant difference among groups( P > 0. 0 5). 4) All groups improved the aerobic stability of the mixed silage,and the effect of the test group 2 was the best( P<0.01),followed by test groups 1( P<0.01),3( P<0.01) and 4( P<0.05). 5) After 48 h of culture in the rumen,the rumen degradability rate of DMin each group was significantly higher than that in control group( P<0.01),rumen degradation rate of CP( P<0.05) and rumen degradation rate of NDF( P<0.01) in test group 2 were the highest,and the degradation rate of ADF in test group 2 was significantly higher than that in control group( P<0.05),but there was no significant difference from the other groups( P > 0. 05),the rumen degradation rate of starch in each group was also higher than that in the control group,and in the test group 2 was 3. 34%,which higher than that in the control group( P < 0.01). In conclusion,under the conditions of this test,after fermentation treatment,the mixed silage of potato pulp and soybean strawshows soft texture,sour flavor,and no sticky hands; the test group 2 can apparently improve the quality of the mixed silage of potato pulp and soybean straw,and has the best treatment effect.[Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition,2019,31(7):3319-3329]
引文
[1]邵淑丽,徐兴军,邵会祥,等.马铃薯渣发酵饲料对兔肉质、免疫功能的影响[J].生物技术,2002,(1):24-26.
[2] OKINE A,HANANDA M,AIBIBULA Y,et al.Ensiling of potato pulp with or without bacterial inoculants and its effect on fermentation quality,nutrient composition and nutritive value[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2005,121:329-343.
[3] ZUNONG M,TUERHONG T,OKAMOTO M,et al.Effects of a potato pulp silage supplement on the composition of milk fatty acids when fed to grazing dairy cows[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology,2009,152(1/2):81-91.
[4]闫晓波.马铃薯渣和秸秆混合青贮对奶牛生产性能的影响[D].硕士学位论文.兰州:甘肃农业大学,2009.
[5]贾军.低温乳酸复合菌系的筛选及其在玉米秸秆和马铃薯渣混合发酵饲料中的应用[D].硕士学位论文.大庆:黑龙江八一农垦大学,2017.
[6] 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):2633-2644.
[7]夏宇.不同吸收剂和发酵液对马铃薯渣和红薯渣青贮饲料发酵品质的影响[D].硕士学位论文.保定:河北农业大学,2013.
[8]李光耀,陈建华,张力君.添加剂在苜蓿青贮中的应用进展[J].饲料研究,2014(7):14-16.
[9]李娟,王文丽,赵旭.马铃薯渣和玉米秸秆混合发酵产蛋白质饲料研究[J].中国饲料,2013(11):40-42.
[10]申瑞瑞,李秋凤,李运起,等.不同添加剂对薯渣与玉米秸秆混贮饲料发酵品质及牛瘤胃降解率的影响[J].草业学报,2018,27(11):200-208.
[11]张丽英.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].2版.北京:中国农业大学出版社,2003:46-55.
[12]林曦.甜菜渣青贮营养价值的评定及其在奶牛生产中应用的研究[D].硕士学位论文.哈尔滨:东北农业大学,2010:5.
[13]刘建新,杨振海,叶均安,等.青贮饲料的合理调制与质量评定标准(续)[J].饲料工业,1999,20(4):3-5.
[14]李秀花,靳玲品,李文菊.杏渣和米糠混合青贮发酵品质的测定[J].黑龙江畜牧兽医,2018(2):144-146.
[15] DONG X L,MENG Q X,XIONG Y Q.A comparison of buffered propionic acid and Propionibacterium acidipropionici as additives for high oil maize stover silage[J]. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences,2006,15(4):669-683.
[16]董妙音,王曙阳,姜伯玲,等.添加不同的青贮菌剂对甜高粱青贮品质的影响[J].饲料工业,2016,37(1):28-31.
[17]杨正德,罗爱平,施晓丽,等.青贮饲料贮藏温度变化规律探讨[J].畜牧兽医学报,1998,29(6):523-524.
[18]闫艳红,李君临,郭旭生,等.多花黑麦草与大豆秸秆混合青贮发酵品质的研究[J].草业学报,2014,23(4):94-99.
[19]尉小强,罗仕伟,哈志刚,等.不同添加剂对全株玉米青贮品质、微生物数量和有氧稳定性的影响[J].中国奶牛,2018(12):8-12.
[20] MCDONALD P,HENDERSON A R,HERON S J E.The biochemistry of silage[M]. MarlowUK:Chalcombe Publications,1991:184-236.
[21]王力生,齐永玲,陈芳,等.不同添加剂对笋壳青贮品质和营养价值的影响[J].草业学报,2013,22(5):326-332.
[22]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.
[23]邵新庆,刘月华,刘庭玉,等.不同乳酸菌添加剂对天然牧草青贮品质的影响[J].草地学报,2014,22(6):1348-1352.
[24]宁婷婷.TMR发酵过程中微生物及其酶对淀粉及半纤维素降解的作用机理研究[D].博士学位论文.北京:中国农业大学,2016.
[25] COMINO L,TABACCO E,RIGHI F,et al.Effects of an inoculant containing a Lactobacillus buchneri that produces ferulate-esterase on fermentation products,aerobic stability,and fibre digestibility of maize silage harvested at different stages of maturity[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology,2014,198:94-106.
[26] RANJIT N K,KUNG L,Jr.The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri,Lactobacillus plantarum,or a chemical preservative on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2000,83(3):526-535.
[27]何茹,郭爽,孟庆江,等.微贮发酵剂对玉米青贮制作效果的影响[C]//“第四届京津冀一体化畜牧兽医科技创新研讨会暨“瑞普杯”新思想、新方法、新观点论坛”论文集.石家庄:河北省畜牧兽医学会,北京畜牧兽医学会,天津市畜牧兽医学会,2014:40-42.
[28]刘辉,卜登攀,吕中旺,等.乳酸菌和化学保存剂对窖贮紫花苜蓿青贮品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J].畜牧兽医学报,2015,46(5):784-791.
[29] SCHMIDT R J,KUNG L,Jr.The effects of Lactobacillus buchneri with or without a homolactic bacterium on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silages made at different locations[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2010,93(4):1616-1624.
[30]刘大林,赵丹,周洋,等.不同牧草在奶牛瘤胃内的降解规律[J].草业科学,2008,25(2):128-131.
[31]张微微,何晓伟,柴新义,等.利用体外产气法对不同处理秸秆-薯渣混合料营养价值的评价研究[J].中国饲料,2017(1):18-22,35.
[32] HERRERA-SALDANA R,GOMEZ-ALARCON R,TORABI M,et al. Influence of synchronizing protein and starch degradation in the rumen on nutrient utilization and microbial protein synthesis[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,1990,73(1):142-148.
[33] O’BRIEN M,O’KIELY P,FORRISTAL P D,et al.Fungal contamination of big-bale grass silage on Irish farms:predominant mould and yeast species and features of bales and silage[J]. Grass and Forage Science,2008,63(1):121-137.
[34] GARON D,RICHARD E,SAGE L,et al. Mycoflora and multimycotoxin detection in corn silage:experimental study[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,2006,54(9):3479-3484.
[35] ECKARD S,WETTSTEIN F E,FORRER H R,et al.Incidence of Fusarium species and mycotoxins in silage maize[J].Toxins,2011,3(8):949-967.
[36] ACOSTA ARAGON Y,RODRIGUES I,HOFSTETTER U,et al. Mycotoxins in silages:occurrence and prevention[J]. Iranian Journal of Animal Science,2011,1(1):1-10.
[2] OKINE A,HANANDA M,AIBIBULA Y,et al.Ensiling of potato pulp with or without bacterial inoculants and its effect on fermentation quality,nutrient composition and nutritive value[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2005,121:329-343.
[3] ZUNONG M,TUERHONG T,OKAMOTO M,et al.Effects of a potato pulp silage supplement on the composition of milk fatty acids when fed to grazing dairy cows[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology,2009,152(1/2):81-91.
[4]闫晓波.马铃薯渣和秸秆混合青贮对奶牛生产性能的影响[D].硕士学位论文.兰州:甘肃农业大学,2009.
[5]贾军.低温乳酸复合菌系的筛选及其在玉米秸秆和马铃薯渣混合发酵饲料中的应用[D].硕士学位论文.大庆:黑龙江八一农垦大学,2017.
[6] 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):2633-2644.
[7]夏宇.不同吸收剂和发酵液对马铃薯渣和红薯渣青贮饲料发酵品质的影响[D].硕士学位论文.保定:河北农业大学,2013.
[8]李光耀,陈建华,张力君.添加剂在苜蓿青贮中的应用进展[J].饲料研究,2014(7):14-16.
[9]李娟,王文丽,赵旭.马铃薯渣和玉米秸秆混合发酵产蛋白质饲料研究[J].中国饲料,2013(11):40-42.
[10]申瑞瑞,李秋凤,李运起,等.不同添加剂对薯渣与玉米秸秆混贮饲料发酵品质及牛瘤胃降解率的影响[J].草业学报,2018,27(11):200-208.
[11]张丽英.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].2版.北京:中国农业大学出版社,2003:46-55.
[12]林曦.甜菜渣青贮营养价值的评定及其在奶牛生产中应用的研究[D].硕士学位论文.哈尔滨:东北农业大学,2010:5.
[13]刘建新,杨振海,叶均安,等.青贮饲料的合理调制与质量评定标准(续)[J].饲料工业,1999,20(4):3-5.
[14]李秀花,靳玲品,李文菊.杏渣和米糠混合青贮发酵品质的测定[J].黑龙江畜牧兽医,2018(2):144-146.
[15] DONG X L,MENG Q X,XIONG Y Q.A comparison of buffered propionic acid and Propionibacterium acidipropionici as additives for high oil maize stover silage[J]. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences,2006,15(4):669-683.
[16]董妙音,王曙阳,姜伯玲,等.添加不同的青贮菌剂对甜高粱青贮品质的影响[J].饲料工业,2016,37(1):28-31.
[17]杨正德,罗爱平,施晓丽,等.青贮饲料贮藏温度变化规律探讨[J].畜牧兽医学报,1998,29(6):523-524.
[18]闫艳红,李君临,郭旭生,等.多花黑麦草与大豆秸秆混合青贮发酵品质的研究[J].草业学报,2014,23(4):94-99.
[19]尉小强,罗仕伟,哈志刚,等.不同添加剂对全株玉米青贮品质、微生物数量和有氧稳定性的影响[J].中国奶牛,2018(12):8-12.
[20] MCDONALD P,HENDERSON A R,HERON S J E.The biochemistry of silage[M]. MarlowUK:Chalcombe Publications,1991:184-236.
[21]王力生,齐永玲,陈芳,等.不同添加剂对笋壳青贮品质和营养价值的影响[J].草业学报,2013,22(5):326-332.
[22]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.
[23]邵新庆,刘月华,刘庭玉,等.不同乳酸菌添加剂对天然牧草青贮品质的影响[J].草地学报,2014,22(6):1348-1352.
[24]宁婷婷.TMR发酵过程中微生物及其酶对淀粉及半纤维素降解的作用机理研究[D].博士学位论文.北京:中国农业大学,2016.
[25] COMINO L,TABACCO E,RIGHI F,et al.Effects of an inoculant containing a Lactobacillus buchneri that produces ferulate-esterase on fermentation products,aerobic stability,and fibre digestibility of maize silage harvested at different stages of maturity[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology,2014,198:94-106.
[26] RANJIT N K,KUNG L,Jr.The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri,Lactobacillus plantarum,or a chemical preservative on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2000,83(3):526-535.
[27]何茹,郭爽,孟庆江,等.微贮发酵剂对玉米青贮制作效果的影响[C]//“第四届京津冀一体化畜牧兽医科技创新研讨会暨“瑞普杯”新思想、新方法、新观点论坛”论文集.石家庄:河北省畜牧兽医学会,北京畜牧兽医学会,天津市畜牧兽医学会,2014:40-42.
[28]刘辉,卜登攀,吕中旺,等.乳酸菌和化学保存剂对窖贮紫花苜蓿青贮品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J].畜牧兽医学报,2015,46(5):784-791.
[29] SCHMIDT R J,KUNG L,Jr.The effects of Lactobacillus buchneri with or without a homolactic bacterium on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silages made at different locations[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2010,93(4):1616-1624.
[30]刘大林,赵丹,周洋,等.不同牧草在奶牛瘤胃内的降解规律[J].草业科学,2008,25(2):128-131.
[31]张微微,何晓伟,柴新义,等.利用体外产气法对不同处理秸秆-薯渣混合料营养价值的评价研究[J].中国饲料,2017(1):18-22,35.
[32] HERRERA-SALDANA R,GOMEZ-ALARCON R,TORABI M,et al. Influence of synchronizing protein and starch degradation in the rumen on nutrient utilization and microbial protein synthesis[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,1990,73(1):142-148.
[33] O’BRIEN M,O’KIELY P,FORRISTAL P D,et al.Fungal contamination of big-bale grass silage on Irish farms:predominant mould and yeast species and features of bales and silage[J]. Grass and Forage Science,2008,63(1):121-137.
[34] GARON D,RICHARD E,SAGE L,et al. Mycoflora and multimycotoxin detection in corn silage:experimental study[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,2006,54(9):3479-3484.
[35] ECKARD S,WETTSTEIN F E,FORRER H R,et al.Incidence of Fusarium species and mycotoxins in silage maize[J].Toxins,2011,3(8):949-967.
[36] ACOSTA ARAGON Y,RODRIGUES I,HOFSTETTER U,et al. Mycotoxins in silages:occurrence and prevention[J]. Iranian Journal of Animal Science,2011,1(1):1-10.