BG视讯

欢迎访问 草业科学,今天是

BG视讯shuangyisuannahetangmiduijiegantmrqingzhufajiaopinzhijiyouyangwendingxingdeyingxiang

邱小燕 姚元枝 潘润泽 李雅思 伍贤进 向孙军 邵涛 田玉桥

引用本文: 邱小燕,姚元枝,潘润泽,李雅思,伍贤进,向孙军,邵涛,田玉桥. 双乙酸钠和糖蜜对秸秆TMR青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响. 草业科学, 2019, 36(10): 2703-2711. doi: shu
Citation:  QIU X Y, YAO Y Z, PAN R Z, LI Y S, WU X J, XIANG S J, SHAO T, TIAN Y Q. Effects of sodium diacetate and molasses on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silages containing straw. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(10): 2703-2711. doi: shu

双乙酸钠和糖蜜对秸秆TMR青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响

    通讯作者: 邱小燕,
  • 基金项目:BG视讯 湖南省“双一流”学科建设经费资助;湖南省教育厅一般项目(18C0992);湖南省科技计划项目(2015SK2013)

摘要: 为探讨添加双乙酸钠和糖蜜对以水稻(Oryza sativa)秸秆、玉米(Zea mays)秸秆、全珠四棱豆(Psophocarpus tetragonolobus)和精料为原料调配的全混合日粮(TMR)发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响。试验设对照组(C,无添加)、双乙酸钠添加组(S,0.5%鲜重)、糖蜜添加组(M,3%鲜重)以及双乙酸钠 + 糖蜜组合添加组(SM,0.5% + 3%鲜重) 4个处理。在温室25 ℃下青贮发酵35 d,开袋后取样测定其发酵品质。并将所有TMR暴露在空气中,分别在第0、3、6、9、12和15天取样分析其有氧稳定性。结果表明,青贮35 d后,各组的氨态氮/总氮均低于100 g·kg–1 DM,且丙酸(1.06~1.54 g·kg–1 DM)和丁酸(1.66~4.64 g·kg–1 DM)含量较少,pH降至4.2左右,表明各组发酵TMR均具有良好的发酵品质。在有氧稳定性方面,双乙酸钠组的有氧稳定性最高(312 h),显著(P < 0.05)高于对照组(144 h)和糖蜜添加组(216 h),组合添加组(288 h)的有氧稳定性稍低于(P > 0.05)双乙酸钠添加组,且双乙酸钠添加组乙酸含量在整个有氧暴露阶段均呈较高水平,而pH、酵母菌和好氧性微生物在有氧暴露的整个阶段都呈较低水平,TMR能良好的保存15 d以上。综上所述,添加0.5%的双乙酸钠能提高TMR青贮饲料有氧稳定性且不影响发酵品质,可应用于生产中。

English

    1. [1]

      郭冬生, 黄春红.  近10年来中国农作物秸秆资源量的时空分布与利用模式[J]. 西南农业学报, 2016, 29(4): 948-954.
      GUO D S, HUANG C H.  Spatial and temporal distribution of crop straw resources in past 10 years in China and its use pattern[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Science, 2016, 29(4): 948-954.

    2. [2]

      丁良, 原现军, 闻爱友, 王坚, 郭刚, 李君风, 王思然, 白晰, 邵涛.  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.
      DING L, YUAN X J, WEN A Y, WANG J, GUO G, LI J F, WANG S R, BAI X, SHAO T.  Effects of additives on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage containing wet brewers’ grains in Tibet[J]. Acta Prataculturae SinicaBG视讯, 2016, 25(7): 112-120.

    3. [3]

      QIU X Y, YUAN X J, GUO G, SHAO T.  Effects of adding acetic acid and molasses on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage prepared with hulless barley straw in Tibet[J]. Japanese Society of Grassland Science, 2014, 60(): 206-213. doi:

    4. [4]

      原现军, 王奇, 李志华, 余成群, 下条雅敬, 邵涛.  添加糖蜜对青稞秸秆和多年生黑麦草混合青贮发酵品质及营养价值的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2013, 22(3): 116-123.
      YUAN X J, WANG Q, LI Z H, YU C C, MASATAKA S, SHAO T.  Effect of molasses addition on fermentation and nutritive quality mixed silage of hulless barley straw and perennial ryegrass in Tibet[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(3): 116-123.

    5. [5]

      陈鑫珠, 高承芳, 张晓佩, 李文杨, 翁伯琦.  糖蜜对不同比例苎麻杂交狼尾草混合青贮发酵品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2016, 24(6): 1358-1362.
      CHEN X Z, GAO C F, ZHANG X P, LI W Y, WENG B Q.  Effects of molasses on the fermentation quality of mixed silage of ramie and hybrid pennisetum[J]. Acta Agrestia Siniva, 2016, 24(6): 1358-1362.

    6. [6]

      李志春, 游向荣, 张雅媛, 李杰民, 付桂明, 孙健, 王振兴, 李明娟.  糖蜜和米糠对香蕉茎叶青贮饲料品质的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2016, 44(12): 2058-2061.
      LI Z C, YOU X R, ZHANG Y Y, LI J M, FU G M, SUN J, WANG Z X, LI M J.  Effects of molasses and rice bran on quality of banana stem and leaf silage[J]. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2016, 44(12): 2058-2061.

    7. [7]

      HOSSEIN M, YOUSEF S, ALI M, DARIUSH S, PARVIN D, JAFAR E N D.  Safety assessment of sodium acetate, sodium diacetate and potassium sorbate food additives[J]. Food ChemistryBG视讯, 2018, 257(15): 211-215.

    8. [8]

      刘振阳, 孙娟娟, 姜义宝, 玉柱, 王成章.  双乙酸钠对苜蓿与小麦混合青贮发酵品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2017, 39(2): 83-89.
      LIU Z Y, SUN J J, JIANG YI B, YU Z, WANG C Z.  Effect of sodium diacetate on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of mixed alfalfa and wheat silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2017, 39(2): 83-89.

    9. [9]

      张新慧, 张永根, 赫英飞.  添加两种乙酸钠盐对玉米青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2008, 41(6): 1810-1815.
      ZHANG X H, ZHANG Y G, HE Y F.  Effect of adding two types of sodium acetate compounds on corn silage quality and aerobic stability[J]. Scientia Agriculture SinicaBG视讯, 2008, 41(6): 1810-1815.

    10. [10]

      YUAN X J, GANG G, WEN A Y, DESTA S T, WANG J, WANG YONG UNDERSANDER D J, SHAO T.  The effect of different additives on the fermentation quality, in vitro digestibility and aerobic stability of a total mixed ration silage[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2015, 207(): 41-50. doi:

    11. [11]

      DESTA S T, YUAN X J, LI J, SHAO T.  Ensiling characteristics, structural and nonstructural carbohydrate composition and enzymatic digestibility of Napier grass ensiled with additives[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2016, 221(): 447-454. doi:

    12. [12]

      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(): 3583-3597. doi:

    13. [13]

      NKOSI B D, MEESKE R.  Effects of ensiling totally mixed potato hash ration with or without a heterofermentative bacterial inoculant on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, growth performance and digestibility in lambs[J]. Animal Feed Science and TechnologyBG视讯, 2010, 61(): 38-48.

    14. [14]

      李国栋, 申成利, 陈明霞, 陈鑫珠, 张建国, 梁克勤.  添加物对水稻青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2012, 29(4): 658-662.
      LI G D, SHEN C L, CHEN M X, CHEN X Z, ZHANG J G, LIANG K Q.  Effects of additives on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of rice silage[J]. Pratacultural ScienceBG视讯, 2012, 29(4): 658-662.

    15. [15]

      原现军, 余成群, 李志华, 下条雅敬, 邵涛.  西藏青稞秸秆与多年生黑麦草混合青贮发酵品质的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2012, 21(4): 516-522.
      YUAN X J, YU C Q, LI Z H, MASATAKA S, SHAO T.  A study on fermentation quality of mixed silages of hulless barley straw and perennial ryegrass in Tibet[J]. Acta Prataculturae SinicaBG视讯, 2012, 21(4): 516-522.

    16. [16]

      YUAN X J, WANG J, GUO G, WEN A Y, DESTA S T, SHAO T.  Effects of ethanol, molasses and Lactobacillus plantarum on fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silages[J]. Grass and Forage Science, 2016, 71(2): 328-338. doi:

    17. [17]

      LI Y, WANG F, NISHINO N.  Lactic acid bacteria in total mixed ration silage containing soybean curd residue: Their isolation, identification and ability to inhibit aerobic deterioration[J]. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2016, 29(4): 516-522. doi:

    18. [18]

      赵庆杰, 原现军, 郭刚, 闻爱友, 巴桑, 王奇, 沈振西, 余成群, 邵涛.  添加糖蜜和乳酸菌制剂对西藏青稞秸秆和多年生黑麦草混合青贮发酵品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2014, 23(4): 100-106.
      ZHAO Q J, YUAN X J, GUO G, WEN A Y, BA S, WANG Q, SHEN Z X, YU C Q, SHAO T.  Effect of adding an inoculant and molasses on fermentation quality of mixed silage of hull-lessbarley straw and perennial ryegrass in Tibet[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(4): 100-106.

    19. [19]

      邱小燕, 原现军, 郭刚, 闻爱友, 余成群, 巴桑, 邵涛.  添加糖蜜和乙酸对西藏发酵全混合日粮青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性影响[J]. 草业学报, 2014, 23(6): 111-118.
      QIU X Y, YUAN X J, GUO G, WEN A Y, YU C C, BA S, SHAO T.  Effects of molasses and acetic acid on termentation and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage in Tibet[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(6): 111-118.

    20. [20]

      国卫杰, 王加启, 王晶, 卜登攀, 张俊瑜, 宋增廷.  添加不同水平双乙酸钠对包裹TMR贮存效果的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 37(12): 45-50.
      GUO W J, WANG J Q, WANG J, BU D P, ZHANG J Y, SONG Z T.  Effect of the different levels of sodium diacetate supplementation on the storage of the baled TMR[J]. Journal of Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University (Natural Science Edition)BG视讯, 2009, 37(12): 45-50.

    21. [21]

      WEN A Y, YUAN X J, WANG J, DESTA S T, SHAO T.  Effects of four short-chain fatty acids or salts on dynamics of fermentation and microbial characteristics of alfalfa silage[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2017, 223(): 141-148. doi:

    22. [22]

      NISHINO N, HATTORI H.  Resistance to aerobic deterioration of total mixed ration silage inoculated with and without homofermentative or heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2010, 87(): 2420-2426.

    23. [23]

      DRIHUIS F, OUDE ELFERINKl S J W H, VAN WIKSELAAR P G.  Fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of grass silage inoculated with Lactobacillus buchneri, with or without homofermentative lactic acid bacteria[J]. Grass and Forage Science, 2001, 56(4): 330-343. doi:

    24. [24]

      PLEGGE S D, GOODRICH R D, HANSON S A.  SDA improving aerobic stability of corn or half-dried silage[J]. FeedstuffsBG视讯, 1992, 64(58): 19-26.

    25. [25]

      CHEN L, GUO G, YU C Q, ZHANG J, SHIMOJO M, SHAO T.  The effects of replacement of whole-plant corn with oat ad common vetch on the fermentation quality, chemical composition and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage in Tibet[J]. Animal Science, 2015, 86(): 60-76.

    26. [26]

      JOHNSON L M, HARRISON J H, DAVIDSON D, MAHANNA W C, SHINNERS K, LINDER D.  Corn silage management: effect of maturity, inoculation, and mechanical processing on pack density and aerobic stability[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2002, 85(2): 434-444. doi:

    27. [27]

      CHEN L, GUO G, YUAN X J, SHIMOJO M, YU C Q, SHAO T.  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): 349-358. doi:

    1. [1]

      李茂字学娟刁其玉胡海超唐军周汉林 . 添加单宁酸对木薯叶青贮品质和有氧稳定性的影响. 草业科学, 2019, 36(6): 1662-1667. doi: 

    2. [2]

       乳酸菌对苜蓿草粉发酵品质的影响. 草业科学, 2017, 11(8): 1741-1747. doi:  BG视讯

    3. [3]

      贾婷婷吴哲玉柱 . 不同类型乳酸菌添加剂对燕麦青贮品质和有氧稳定性的影响. 草业科学, 2018, 12(5): 1266-1272. doi: 

    4. [4]

      徐生阳闵旭东云颖玉柱 . 短乳杆菌对有氧暴露过程中不同品种全株玉米青贮品质的影响. 草业科学, 2019, 36(1): 252-260. doi: 

    5. [5]

      李树成黄晓辉王 静李东华王彦荣 . 白花草木樨与玉米秸秆混合青贮的发酵品质及有毒成分分析. 草业科学, 2014, 8(2): 321-327. doi: 

    6. [6]

      黄荣才郭子泰高胜涛卜登攀 . 不同种类有机肥对全株玉米青贮营养品质的影响. 草业科学, 2019, 36(8): 2112-2117. doi: 

    7. [7]

      蒋苏苏金丽娜敬淑燕何建文宋世斌张慧君李玩生 . 添加中药渣对全株玉米青贮感官和发酵品质及营养成分的影响. 草业科学, 2017, 11(9): 1947-1954. doi:  BG视讯

    8. [8]

      田静唐国建李国栋张建国 . 柑橘肉和小麦壳混合青贮及其饲用品质. 草业科学, 2020, 37(1): 194-200. doi: 

    9. [9]

      姚喜喜吴建平刘婷陈昊吴宁岳燕 . 全混合日粮中添加牛至精油对泌乳期荷斯坦奶牛生产性能和蹄病发生率的影响. 草业科学, 2016, 10(2): 299-304. doi: 

    10. [10]

      冯巧娟朱琳吴安琪张建国 . 青贮时间和温度对木薯块根和叶发酵品质及氢氰酸含量的影响. 草业科学, 2018, 12(5): 1293-1298. doi: 

    11. [11]

      郭鹏辉韦体刘慧霞高丹丹臧荣鑫卢建雄蔡勇杨具田 . 发酵剂对紫苏秸秆发酵饲料品质及营养成分的影响. 草业科学, 2018, 12(5): 1299-1307. doi: 

    12. [12]

      王红关皓陈明彭安琪李小梅李昌华李小铃刘卫国方萍闫艳红 . 收获期对玉米籽粒产量和秸秆青贮品质的影响. 草业科学, 2018, 12(6): 1574-1581. doi: 

    13. [13]

      李荣荣江迪田朋姣郑猛虎徐春城 . 贮藏温度和青贮时间对高水分苜蓿青贮发酵品质的影响. 草业科学, 2020, 37(): 1-9. doi: 

    14. [14]

      关皓张明均宋珊郭旭生干友民 . 添加剂对不同干物质含量的多花黑麦草青贮品质的影响. 草业科学, 2017, 11(10): 2157-2163. doi:  BG视讯

    15. [15]

      云颖赵苗苗双胡尔吴哲玉柱 . 刈割期和添加剂对苜蓿青贮发酵品质和CNCPS蛋白组分的影响. 草业科学, 2017, 11(10): 2149-2156. doi: 

    16. [16]

      万江春谢开云王玉祥赵云刘莉玉柱 . 同/异质型乳酸菌添加对苏丹草青贮酵母菌群落结构及发酵品质的影响. 草业科学, 2019, 36(2): 565-572. doi:  BG视讯

    17. [17]

      黄晓辉李树成李东华王彦荣 . 苦豆子和玉米秸秆的混合青贮. 草业科学, 2013, 7(10): 1633-1639.

    18. [18]

       tianjiawuduishuidaoqingzhufajiaopinzhijiyouyangwendingxingdeyingxiang. caoyekexue, 2012, 6(4): 658-662.

    19. [19]

      杨道兰汪建旭冯炜弘张艳尹燕王永林 . 花椰菜茎叶与玉米秸秆的混贮品质. 草业科学, 2014, 8(3): 551-557. doi: 

    20. [20]

      金莎黄世章钟毅梁梦迪陈涛王学梅 . 香蕉茎叶与柱花草混贮饲料的品质. 草业科学, 2016, 10(3): 512-518. doi: 

  • BG视讯

    图 1  青贮35 d后各添加剂对发酵全混合日粮有氧稳定性的影响

    Figure 1.  BG视讯 Effect of each additive on the aerobic stability of TMR silages after 35 d of ensiling

    表 1  发酵全混合日粮的原料构成及化学、微生物成分

    Table 1.  BG视讯 Ingredients and chemical and microbial composition of total mixed ration silages

    项目 Item成分 Composition含量 Content
    原料构成
    Ingredients/%
    水稻秸秆 Rice straw 20.00
    玉米秸秆Corn straw 20.00
    精料 Concentrate 35.00
    全株四棱豆
    Whole winged bean
    25.00
    化学成分
    Chemical
    composition
    干物质Dry matter/(g·kg–1) 562.10
    粗蛋白Crude protein/(g·kg–1) 140.55
    粗脂肪 Ether extract/(g·kg–1) 22.28
    粗灰分 Crude ash/(g·kg–1) 83.60
    水溶性碳水化合物
    WSC/(g·kg–1)
    58.45
    中性洗涤纤维
    Neutral detergent fiber/(g·kg–1)
    464.86
    酸性洗涤纤维
    Acid detergent fiber/(g·kg–1)
    248.67
    微生物成分
    Microbial populations
    乳酸菌Lactic acid bacteria/
    (lg cfu·g–1)
    4.43
    酵母菌 Yeast/(lg cfu·g–1) 5.90
    好氧性微生物
    Aerobic bacteria/(lg cfu·g–1)
    4.43
     精料 = 30%玉米粉,4%豆粕,12%菜粕,8%棉粕,15%DDGS,20%麦麸,9%预混料,2%食盐;原料构成、粗蛋白、粗脂肪、水溶性碳水化合物、粗灰分、中性洗涤纤维、酸性洗涤纤维都是以干物质为基础测定。下同。
     WSC: water soluble carbohydrates; TMR: total mixed ration; Concentrate = 30% cracked corn, 4% rapeseed meal, 8% cottonseed meal, 15% corn dry distiller grain, 20% wheat bran, 2% salt (dry matter); Ingredients, crude protein, crude fat, water soluble carbohydrates, crude ash, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber are all determined on the basis of dry matter; similarly for the following tables and figures.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表 2  发酵全混合日粮配方中全株四棱豆、玉米秸秆、水稻秸秆、精料的化学成分

    Table 2.  Chemical composition of whole bead, corn stalk, rice straw, and concentrate used in total mixed ration silages

    化学成分
    Chemical composition
    全株四棱豆
    Whole winged bean
    玉米秸秆
    Corn straw
    水稻秸秆
    Rice straw
    精料
    Concentrate
    干物质 Dry matter/(g·kg–1)149.80755.70831.87546.80
    水溶性碳水化合物 WSC/(g·kg–1) 91.8230.1610.4053.32
    粗蛋白 Crude protein/(g·kg–1)127.7340.3349.22179.05
    粗脂肪 Ether extract/(g·kg–1)35.8014.9121.2433.30
    中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber/(g·kg–1)390.78684.36758.21412.45
    酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber/(g·kg–1) 224.63386.28328.07176.93
    下载: 导出CSV

    表 3  BG视讯 不同处理发酵全混合日粮的发酵品质

    Table 3.  Fermentation quality of total mixed ration silages of different treatments

    项目 ItemCSMSM
    pH4.37 ± 0.06ab4.49 ± 0.05a4.23 ± 0.10b4.26 ± 0.01b
    缓冲能 Buffering capacity/(mE·kg–1) 712.06 ± 4.63c794.76 ± 5.47ab725.76 ± 6.32bc809.67 ± 7.10a
    乳酸 Lactic acid/(g·kg–1)22.05 ± 3.06b25.61 ± 4.40b38.86 ± 6.23a35.78 ± 5.41a
    水溶性碳水化合物 WSC/(g·kg–1) 50.60 ± 1.46a34.05 ± 4.63b42.59 ± 2.95ab36.94 ± 4.18b
    氨态氮/总氮 Ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen3.35 ± 0.21a2.78 ± 0.03ab2.39 ± 0.08bc1.75 ± 0.04c
    乙酸 Acetic acid/(g·kg–1)1.66 ± 0.06b2.04 ± 0.10b2.50 ± 0.09b4.64 ± 0.02a
    丙酸 Propionic acid/(g·kg–1) 1.06 ± 0.01a1.35 ± 0.08a1.27 ± 0.04a1.54 ± 0.07a
    丁酸 Acetic acid/(g·kg–1)0.58 ± 0.07a0.59 ± 0.06a0.62 ± 0.02a0.59 ± 0.01a
    乳酸菌 Lactic acid bacteria/(lg cfu·g–1) 4.42 ± 0.21a4.27 ± 0.15a4.47 ± 0.17a4.12 ± 0.16a
    酵母菌 Yeast/(lg cfu·g–1)5.01 ± 0.04a5.12 ± 0.06a4.98 ± 0.14a5.01 ± 0.12a
    好氧性微生物 Aerobic bacteria/(lg cfu·g–1)4.42 ± 0.23a4.27 ± 0.21a4.47 ± 0.12a4.12 ± 0.22a
     同行不同小写字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P < 0.05);C: 无添加对照组;S: 双乙酸钠添加组;M: 糖蜜添加组;SM: 双乙酸钠和糖蜜组合添加组;下同。
     Different lowercase letters within the same row indicate significant differences between different treatments at the 0.05 level. C: Control; S: sodium diacetate group; M: molasses group; SM: sodium diacetate and molasses group; similarly for the following tables and figures.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表 4  有氧暴露阶段发酵全混合日粮的pH、乳酸和碳水化合物含量的变化

    Table 4.  Changes in pH, lactic acid, and water-soluble carbohydrates content of total mixed ration silages during exposure to air

    指标
    Index
    处理
    Treatment
    有氧暴露天数 Days of exposure to air/d
    03691215
    pHC4.37 ± 0.04bA4.48 ± 0.23bA4.49 ± 0.12bA5.73 ± 0.32abA5.95 ± 0.14abA6.30 ± 0.16aA
    S4.49 ± 0.24aA4.40 ± 0.15aA4.40 ± 0.08aA4.38 ± 0.13aB4.50 ± 0.11aB4.44 ± 0.05aB
    M4.23 ± 0.08bB4.19 ± 0.03bB4.17 ± 0.16bB4.83 ± 0.15abA5.08 ± 0.17aA5.18 ± 0.24aA
    SM4.26 ± 0.23aB4.24 ± 0.14aB4.21 ± 0.23aB4.17 ± 0.08aB4.31 ± 0.26aB4.26 ± 0.07aB
    乳酸
    Lactic acid/
    (g·kg–1)
    C22.05 ± 3.06aB21.84 ± 2.04aB20.32 ± 5.04aB11.23 ± 3.18bA10.62 ± 4.24bB8.80 ± 2.07bB
    S25.61 ± 4.40aB23.94 ± 3.06aB20.57 ± 2.16aB18.35 ± 3.18aA19.68 ± 4.07aA20.39 ± 5.09aA
    M38.86 ± 6.23aA31.11 ± 4.08abA30.31 ± 2.32abA26.44 ± 4.46bA24.88 ± 3.19bA20.89 ± 2.91bA
    SM35.78 ± 5.41aA36.24 ± 5.30aA30.78 ± 2.04abA31.34 ± 4.19abA22.20 ± 3.08bA22.11 ± 5.17bA
    水溶性碳水
    化合物 WSC/
    (g·kg–1)
    C50.52 ± 1.46aA30.30 ± 2.09abB35.24 ± 5.09abAB21.44 ± 5.11bB17.38 ± 4.16bB9.41 ± 2.34cB
    S34.05 ± 4.63aB32.86 ± 6.19aAB29.10 ± 5.26aB27.28 ± 5.06aAB22.36 ± 2.31abB17.64 ± 3.54abA
    M42.59 ± 2.98abAB40.16 ± 6.03aA40.49 ± 5.27aA37.35 ± 6.30abA31.12 ± 3.89abA16.10 ± 2.08bA
    SM36.94 ± 4.18ab34.77 ± 5.06abAB36.21 ± 3.78abAB39.56 ± 6.37aA31.81 ± 5.01abA17.27 ± 2.88bA
     同一指标同列不同大写字母表示相同有氧暴露天数不同处理间差异显著 (P < 0.05);同行不同小写字母表示相同处理不同有氧暴露天数间差异显著 (P < 0.05);下同。
     Different capital letters within the same column of same index indicate significant differences between different treatments in the same exposed days at the 0.05 level,and different lowercase letters within the same row indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level; similarly for the following tables.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表 5  有氧暴露阶段发酵全混合日粮的乙酸、丙酸和丁酸含量的变化

    Table 5.  Changes in acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid content of total mixed ration silages during exposure to air

    指标 Index处理
    Treatment
    有氧暴露天数 Days of exposure to air/d
    03691215
    乙酸
    Acetic acid/(g·kg–1)
    C1.66 ± 0.05bB2.40 ± 0.56aA2.43 ± 0.03aA2.04 ± 0.08abB1.16 ± 0.26bB1.40 ± 0.16bB
    S3.03 ± 0.09bA2.51 ± 0.09bA1.91 ± 0.14bA6.03 ± 2.16aA4.28 ± 1.16abA2.12 ± 1.11bA
    M2.46 ± 1.06bAB2.29 ± 1.33bA2.34 ± 1.03bA3.67 ± 1.48aB1.39 ± 0.06cB1.49 ± 0.07cB
    SM4.04 ± 0.08aA2.12 ± 0.06bA1.79 ± 0.04cA3.43 ± 0.07abB2.35 ± 0.10bA4.25 ± 0.12aA
    丙酸
    Propionic acid/(g·kg–1)
    C1.06 ± 0.02abA1.21 ± 0.04aA1.04 ± 0.15abA0.95 ± 0.05abcA0.67 ± 0.02cA0.78 ± 0.22bcA
    S1.35 ± 0.06aA1.17 ± 0.01abA1.03 ± 0.10abA1.03 ± 0.04abA0.52 ± 0.01cA0.88 ± 0.04bA
    M1.27 ± 0.07aA1.29 ± 0.02aA0.99 ± 0.01abA0.84 ± 0.06abA0.88 ± 0.06abA0.79 ± 0.11bA
    SM1.54 ± 0.14abA1.36 ± 0.03abA0.87 ± 0.08bA1.03 ± 0.13bA0.84 ± 0.07bA0.24 ± 0.16aA
    丁酸
    Acetic acid/(g·kg–1)
    C0.58 ± 0.12aA0.57 ± 0.15aA0.53 ± 0.02aA0.46 ± 0.01aA0.55 ± 0.02aA0.59 ± 0.04aA
    S0.59 ± 0.11aAB0.57 ± 0.11aA0.54 ± 0.04abA0.46 ± 0.05bcA0.58 ± 0.04aA0.40 ± 0.01bA
    M0.62 ± 0.13 aA0.61 ± 0.04aA0.50 ± 0.08bA0.46 ± 0.10bcA0.54 ± 0.03abA0.44 ± 0.07cA
    SM0.59 ± 0.04bAB0.57 ± 0.03bA0.49 ± 0.09bA0.44 ± 0.01bA0.51 ± 0.07bA1.01 ± 0.02aA
    下载: 导出CSV

    表 6  BG视讯 有氧暴露阶段发酵全混合日粮微生物数量变化

    Table 6.  Number changes in microorganism of total mixed ration silages during exposure to air

    指标 Index处理 Treatment有氧暴露天数 Days of exposure to air/d
    03691215
    好氧性微生物
    Aerobic bacteria/
    (lg cfu·g–1)
    C5.27 ± 0.16bA5.84 ± 0.19abA6.02 ± 0.14abA6.13 ± 0.45abA5.93 ± 0.21abA6.51 ± 0.44aA
    S5.07 ± 0.07bA5.72 ± 0.24abA5.98 ± 0.23abA6.02 ± 0.22abA5.49 ± 0.33bA6.45 ± 0.47aA
    M4.90 ± 0.18bA5.88 ± 0.31abA6.01 ± 0.27abA6.01 ± 0.34aA5.76 ± 0.42abA6.63 ± 0.34aA
    SM4.88 ± 0.10bA5.47 ± 0.22abA6.03 ± 0.16abA6.03 ± 0.18abA6.09 ± 0.06abA6.62 ± 0.29aA
    酵母菌
    Yeast/(lg cfu·g–1)
    C5.20 ± 0.11bA5.51 ± 0.18bA5.74 ± 0.09abA5.59 ± 0.24abA6.28 ± 0.18aA5.69 ± 0.34abA
    S5.10 ± 0.18aA5.48 ± 0.16abA5.54 ± 0.42aA5.52 ± 0.33aA5.68 ± 0.56aA5.57 ± 0.61aA
    M5.58 ± 0.09bA5.83 ± 0.10abA6.13 ± 0.55aA5.85 ± 0.26aA5.46 ± 0.47abA5.59 ± 0.22aA
    SM5.15 ± 0.07aA5.20 ± 0.06aA5.69 ± 0.37aA5.06 ± 0.37aA5.27 ± 0.38aA5.60 ± 0.34aA
    乳酸菌
    Lactic acid bacteria/
    (lg cfu·g–1)
    C6.89 ± 0.12aA6.77 ± 0.08aA6.02 ± 0.23abA5.92 ± 0.41abAB5.61 ± 0.44abA4.78 ± 0.28bA
    S6.49 ± 0.17abA6.91 ± 0.15aA6.23 ± 0.33bcA6.31 ± 0.40bcA5.85 ± 0.50cA4.76 ± 0.42dA
    M6.07 ± 0.21aA6.20 ± 0.16aB6.19 ± 0.37aA6.07 ± 0.37aAB5.58 ± 0.46aA4.42 ± 0.37bA
    SM6.54 ± 0.22abA7.00 ± 0.14aA6.00 ± 0.44bA5.75 ± 0.28bcB5.10 ± 0.53cdA4.48 ± 0.42eA
    下载: 导出CSV
    BG视讯

                      <dfn id='e57b4'><optgroup id='e57b4'></optgroup></dfn><tfoot id='e57b4'><bdo id='e57b4'><div id='e57b4'></div><i id='e57b4'><dt id='e57b4'></dt></i></bdo></tfoot>

                      <ul id='e57b4'></ul>

                      • 加载中
                      • 图(1)表(6)
                        计量
                        • PDF下载量:  15
                        • 文章访问数:  416
                        • HTML全文浏览量:  138
                        文章相关
                        • 通讯作者:  邱小燕,
                        • 收稿日期:  2019-01-22
                        • 刊出日期:  2019-10-01
                        通讯作者: 陈斌,
                        • 1. 

                          shenyanghuagongdaxuecailiaokexueyugongchengxueyuan shenyang 110142

                        1. 本站搜索
                        2. 百度学术搜索
                        3. 万方数据库搜索
                        4. CNKI搜索

                        /

                        返回文章
                        BG视讯