Evaluation of Feeding Value of Different Varieties of Jerusalem Artichoke Straw Silage Feed

  • LIU Haiyan ,
  • WANG Yanjing ,
  • WANG Xiufei ,
  • LIU Peng
Expand
  • Institute of Rural Energy and Ecology, Jilin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Changchun 130033, China

Received date: 2019-04-19

  Online published: 2019-11-19

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the feeding value of different varieties of jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) straw silage feed, and to select the jerusalem artichoke variety with good fermentation quality and high nutritional value. Six different varieties of jerusalem artichoke (Jiyu No.1, Jiyu No.3, Jiyu No.4, Nanyu No.1, LY2 and Binyu No.8) were used as raw materials, each variety had 3 replicates, and the nutrient composition, in vitro digestibility, fermentation quality and energy value of jerusalem artichoke straw silage feed were evaluated by bagged silage method. The results showed as follows:1) the contents of crude protein, ether extract, ash and nitrogen free extract in jerusalem artichoke straw silage feed of Jiyu No.4 were significantly lower than those of other varieties (P<0.05), and the contents of dry matter, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber and acid detergent lignin were significantly higher than those of other varieties (P<0.05). The water soluble carbohydrate content in jerusalem artichoke straw silage feed of Jiyu No.3 and LY2 was significantly higher than that of other varieties (P<0.05), and the relative feed value in jerusalem artichoke straw silage feed of Nanyu No.1, LY2, Jiyu No.1 and Jiyu No.3 was significantly higher than that of Binyu No.8 and Jiyu No.4 (P<0.05). 2) The in vitro digestibility of dry matter in jerusalem artichoke straw silage feed of Binyu No.8 and Jiyu No.4 was significantly lower than that of other varieties (P<0.05), and the in vitro digestibility of neutral detergent fiber in jerusalem artichoke straw silage feed of LY2 was significantly higher than that of other varieties except Jiyu No.3 (P<0.05). 3) The content of lactic acid in jerusalem artichoke straw silage feed of LY2 was the highest, and the content of lactic acid of Jiyu No.4 was significantly lower than that of other varieties (P<0.05). The content of propionic acid in jerusalem artichoke straw silage feed of Jiyu No.4 was significantly higher than that of other varieties (P<0.05), the content of acetic acid in jerusalem artichoke straw silage feed of Nanyu No.1 was significantly higher than that of other varieties (P<0.05), and the ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen in jerusalem artichoke straw silage feed of LY2 and Jiyu No.3 was significantly lower than that of other varieties (P<0.05). 4) The gross energy in jerusalem artichoke straw silage feed of Jiyu No.4 was significantly higher than that of other varieties (P<0.05). In conclusion, comprehensive consideration of the nutrient composition, in vitro digestibility, fermentation quality and energy value of different varieties of jerusalem artichoke straw silage feed, LY2 shows the best fermentation quality and nutritional quality, which is suitable to be applied in practical production.

Cite this article

LIU Haiyan , WANG Yanjing , WANG Xiufei , LIU Peng . Evaluation of Feeding Value of Different Varieties of Jerusalem Artichoke Straw Silage Feed[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2019 , 31(11) : 5321 -5328 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2019.11.049

References

[1] 邱正明,丁自立,郭凤领,等.我国菊芋资源开发利用现状[J].长江蔬菜,2013(16):13-16.
[2] GE X F,QIAN H,ZHANG W G.Improvement of L-lactic acid production from Jerusalem artichoke tubers by mixed culture of Aspergillus niger and Lactobacillus sp.[J].Bioresource Technology,2009,100(5):1872-1874.  
[3] PETROPOULOS S A,PEREIRA C,NTATSI G,et al.Nutritional value and chemical composition of Greek artichoke genotypes[J].Food Chemistry,2018,267:296-302.
[4] 陈佳亿,陈凤鸣,欧淑琦,等.菊粉的生理功能及其在畜禽生产中的应用[J].动物营养学报,2018,30(12):4792-4798.
[5] 赵孟良,刘明池,钟启文,等.29份菊芋种质资源氨基酸含量和营养价值评价[J].种子,2018,37(3):55-60.
[6] 赵孟良,刘明池,钟启文,等.不同来源菊芋种质资源品质性状多样性分析[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2018,46(2):104-112.
[7] 周珠扬,朱磊,杨杰.菊芋的功能及开发利用前景[J].西藏科技,2009(6):73-75.
[8] 孔涛,张楠,林凤梅,等.不同品种菊芋块茎及茎叶营养成分分析比较[J].广东农业科学,2013,40(6):108-109,113.
[9] 吕炳起,张宁,冉梦麟,等.菊芋秸秆和葎草营养成份分析及家兔的消化试验[J].中国动物保健,2011,13(11):16-19,21.
[10] 王丽慧,李屹,赵孟良,等.刈割次数对菊芋生物量及营养价值影响研究[J].饲料工业,2015,36(3):12-15.
[11] 赵晓川,王卓龙,孙金艳.菊芋在畜牧生产中的应用[J].黑龙江农业科学,2006(6):39-40.
[12] 张琳,德科加.青藏高原特种青贮牧草的品质评定试验[J].青海畜牧兽医杂志,2007,37(1):15-16.
[13] 闫琦,张世挺,赵长明,等.高寒牧区不同菊芋品种茎叶青贮的饲用价值[J].草业科学,2018,35(6):1568-1573.
[14] 薛艳林,孙林,殷国梅,等.生物添加剂和填装密度对菊芋青贮饲料品质的影响[J].畜牧与饲料科学,2017,38(1):39-43.
[15] 闫琦,王宪举,魏海燕,等.乳酸菌添加剂对不同生育期菊芋茎叶青贮发酵品质的影响[J].草业科学,2019,36(2):540-547.
[16] 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.  
[17] 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[J].草业科学,2018,35(5):1266-1272.
[18] 余汝华,赵丽华,莫放,等.玉米秸秆青贮饲料中水溶性碳水化合物测定方法研究[J].饲料工业,2003,24(9):38-39.
[19] ROHWEDER D A,BARNES R F,JORGENSEN N.Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality[J].Journal of Animal Science,1978,47(3):747-759.  
[20] 冯仰廉.反刍动物营养学[M].北京:科学出版社,2006.
[21] TILLEY J M A,TERRY R A.A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops[J].Grass and Forage Science,1963,18(2):104-111.  
[22] 李向林,张新跃,唐一国,等.日粮中精料和牧草比例对舍饲山羊增重的影响[J].草业学报,2008,17(2):85-91.
[23] 玉柱,韩建国,胡跃高,等.绿汁发酵液对豆科牧草青贮发酵品质的影响[C]//现代草业科学进展——中国国际草业发展大会暨中国草原学会第六届代表大会论文集.北京:中国草原学会,2002:159-162.
[24] 王建福,雷赵民,成述儒,等.添加乳酸菌制剂和麸皮对去穗玉米秸秆青贮质量的影响[J].草业学报,2018,27(4):162-169.
[25] OZDUVEN M L,KURSUN ONAL Z,KOC F.The effects of bacterial inoculants and/or enzymes on the fermentation,aerobic stability and in vitro dry and organic matter digestibility characteristics of triticale silages[J].Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi,2010,16(5):751-756.  
[26] BERGEN W G,BYREM T M,GRANT A L.Ensiling characteristics of whole-crop small grains harvested at milk and dough stages[J].Journal of Animal Science,1991,69(4):1766-1774.  
[27] 时建忠.青贮接种菌的研究[J].中国饲料,2003(5):15-16,26.
[28] 程银华,雷雪芹,徐廷生,等.玉米秸秆揉丝微贮与传统青贮饲料发酵过程中pH和微生物的变化[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2014,42(5):17-21.
[29] KUNG L,Jr,SCHMIDT R J,EBLING T E,et al.The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 on the fermentation and aerobic stability of ground and whole high-moisture corn[J].Journal of Dairy Science,2007,90(5):2309-2314.  
[30] 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[J].饲料工业,1999,20(3):4-7.
[31] CHIOU P W S,CHANG S H,YU B.The effects of wet sorghum distillers' grains inclusion on napiergrass silage quality[J].Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,2000,80(8):1199-1205.  
[32] HASHEMZADEH-CIGARI F,KHORVASH M,GHORBANI G R,et al.Interactive effects of molasses by homofermentative and heterofermentative inoculants on fermentation quality,nitrogen fractionation,nutritive value and aerobic stability of wilted alfalfa (Medicago sativa L) silage[J].Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition,2014,98(2):290-299.  
[33] 邰书静,张仁和,史俊通,等.不同玉米品种秸秆饲用品质的研究[J].草业学报,2009,18(5):80-85.
[34] JOHNSON J C,Jr,GATES R N,NEWTON G L,et al.Yield,composition,and in vitro digestibility of temperate and tropical corn hybrids grown as silage crops planted in summer[J].Journal of Dairy Science,1997,80(3):550-557.  
[35] VADIVELOO J.Nutritional properties of the leaf and stem of rice straw[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2000,83(1):57-65.  
[36] OBA M,ALLEN M S.Evaluation of the importance of the digestibility of neutral detergent fiber from forage:effects on dry matter intake and milk yield of dairy cows[J].Journal of Dairy Science,1999,82(3):589-596.  
[37] XUE Y L,YIN G M,ZHAO H P,et al.Nutritive value of desert wormwood (Artemisia desertorum Spreng.) silage in mixture with high-moisture maize straw[J].Grass and Forage Science,2017,72(1):174-178.  
[38] WEISS W P,WYATT D J.Effect of corn silage hybrid and metabolizable protein supply on nitrogen metabolism of lactating dairy cows[J].Journal of Dairy Science,2006,89(5):1644-1653.  
Outlines

/