Effects of Addition Amount of Lactobacillus plantarum on Quality of Broussonetia papyrifera Leaves Silage

ZHAO Na; FAN Qiwen; WEI Jintao; GUO Wanzheng; HUANG Shaowen; DU Encun; CHEN Fang; ZHANG Wei; TAN Zhiping

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.05.039

Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2020 , Vol. 32 >Issue 5: 2298 - 2305

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.05.039

RUMINANT AND HERBIVORE NUTRITION AND FEED

Effects of Addition Amount of Lactobacillus plantarum on Quality of Broussonetia papyrifera Leaves Silage

ZHAO Na ,
FAN Qiwen ,
WEI Jintao ,
GUO Wanzheng ,
HUANG Shaowen ,
DU Encun ,
CHEN Fang ,
ZHANG Wei ,
TAN Zhiping

Expand

1. Hubei Key Laboratory of Animal Embryo Engineering and Molecular Breeding, Institute of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Wuhan 430064, China;
2. Badong County Xinling Town Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Service Center, Enshi 444399, China

Received date: 2019-11-21

Online published: 2020-05-15

Fold

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of addition amount of Lactobacillus plantarum on the fermentation quality and nutritional value of high-moisture Broussonetia papyrifera leaves silage. In this experiment, 7 groups were set up, which were the control group (CK group, directly silage of Broussonetia papyrifera leaves after drying) and the test groups 1 to 6 (the amount of Lactobacillus plantarum in the fresh Broussonetia papyrifera leaves were 0, 1.00×10⁵, 5.00×10⁵, 2.50×10⁶, 1.25×10⁷ and 6.25×10⁷ CFU/g). Silage lasted for 60 d. The results showed as follows:1) at silage 30 d, the leaves of each group had acidity and aroma. The sensory score of group 6 was significantly higher than that of other groups (P<0.05). The pH of the CK group and group 1 was significantly higher than that of other groups (P<0.05), but the lactic acid content was significantly lower than that of other groups (P<0.05). With the increase of the amount of Lactobacillus plantarum, the lactic acid content of groups 1 to 6 gradually increased, and the pH gradually decreased; except for group 1, no butyric acid was detected; the relative feeding value (RVF) of the CK group was lower than that of other groups (P<0.05). 2) At silage 60 d, there was no significant difference in sensory scores among groups (P>0.05), and slight odor appeared in group 1. The pH of the leaves of the Lactobacillus plantarum high addition groups (groups 5 and 6) after silage was lower than that of the non-added groups (CK group and group 1) (P<0.05); the lactic acid content of CK group and group 1 was significantly lower than that of the other groups (P<0.05); the content of butyric acid of group 1 was 0.19 mg/kg, which was significantly higher than that of the other groups (P<0.05). With the increase of the amount of Lactobacillus plantarum, the content of butyric acid gradually decreased after silage. Compared with silage 30 d, the pH of each group did not decrease significantly, and the RFV was decreased at silage 60 d. In summary, the addition of Lactobacillus plantarum can promote the silage maturation of the Broussonetia papyrifera leaves and improve the silage quality; the Broussonetia papyrifera leaves silage can be fermented and matured in 30 days.

Key words： Lactobacillus plantarum; high moisture; Broussonetia papyrifera leaves; silage quality

Cite this article

ZHAO Na , FAN Qiwen , WEI Jintao , GUO Wanzheng , HUANG Shaowen , DU Encun , CHEN Fang , ZHANG Wei , TAN Zhiping . Effects of Addition Amount of Lactobacillus plantarum on Quality of Broussonetia papyrifera Leaves Silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020 , 32(5) : 2298 -2305 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.05.039

References

[1] 杨富裕.木本草概念与产业发展[J].草学,2017(增刊):1-4.
[2] 沈世华.揭秘杂交构树的身世[J].生命世界,2018(10):4-5.
[3] 左鑫,陈哲,谢强,等.不同产地构树叶粉和构树枝叶粉营养成分及其鹅代谢能的测定[J].动物营养学报,2018,30(7):2823-2830.
[4] 侯改凤,李瑞,陈达图,等.构树叶的生物学功能及其在畜禽生产中的应用[J].中国饲料,2013(12):11-13,17.
[5] 屠焰,刁其玉,张蓉,等.杂交构树叶的饲用营养价值分析[J].草业科学,2009,26(6):136-139.
[6] 姜富贵,成海建,刘栋,等.山东省杂交构树生产与应用现状的调查分析[J].山东农业科学,2019,51(8):138-142.
[7] 彭皓,赵婉雨.杂交构树产业技术分析报告[J].高科技与产业化,2019(4):48-66.
[8] 陶兴无,柳志杰,张求学,等.构树叶发酵工艺及饲喂生长猪试验[J].武汉工业学院学报,2006,25(3):5-7.
[9] 邳植,沈世华.构树作为新兴的蛋白饲料原料的研究[J].饲料工业,2018,39(11):23-28.
[10] 成启明,贾玉山,李平,等.构树加工利用研究进展[J].草学,2018(1):1-6.
[11] 司丙文,徐文财,郭江鹏,等.杂交构树青贮对杜寒杂交肉羊生产性能、血清指标及背最长肌脂肪酸组成的影响[J].畜牧兽医学报,2019,50(7):1424-1432.
[12] 苏应玉,陈国顺,武宏斌,等.构树发酵饲料对荷斯坦奶牛产奶性能的影响[J].中国草食动物科学,2018,38(1):71-73.
[13] 杨旸,杨嘉麟.构树作为青贮饲料投喂黑山羊的应用效果研究[J].畜禽业,2019,30(5):19.
[14] 林萌萌,郑爱华,刘玉,等.青贮杂交构树替代蛋白饲料对肉羊粪污排放和表观消化率的影响[J].中国草食动物科学,2018,38(6):33-35.
[15] 司丙文,徐文财,张小利,等.不同添加剂对杂交构树青贮发酵品质的影响[J].动物营养学报,2018,30(11):4670-4675.
[16] 付锦涛,倪奎奎,杨富裕.添加不同比例稻草对构树青贮品质的影响[J].草学,2019(4):28-33.
[17] 张子仪.中国饲料学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000.
[18] 张丽英.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].4版.北京:中国农业大学出版社,2016.
[19] 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.

[20] 和立文.全株玉米青贮品质评价及其对肉牛育肥性能和牛肉品质的影响[D].博士学位论文.北京:中国农业大学,2017.
[21] 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.

[22] 崔棹茗.农作物秸秆青贮饲料中耐低温乳酸菌的筛选、鉴定及验证研究[D].硕士学位论文.南京:南京农业大学,2015.
[23] CHARMLEY E,WINTER K A,MCRAE K B,et al.Effect of inoculation on silage quality and performance of steers fed grass and cereal silages either alone or in combination[J].Canadian Journal of Animal Science,1996,76(4):571-577.

[24] 白史且,李平.中国南方牧草青贮进展[J].草学,2017(增刊):5-17,22.
[25] 刘秦华,张建国,卢小良.乳酸菌添加剂对王草青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J].草业学报,2009,18(4):131-137.
[26] 史卉玲,刘慧,马春晖.晾晒时间对初花期紫花苜蓿青贮发酵品质的影响[J].草业科学,2013,30(8):1278-1283.
[27] 董宽虎,王常慧,牧原.干燥方法对苜蓿草粉营养价值的影响[J].草地学报,2003(4):334-337.
[28] 杨苏茂,熊康宁,刘兴宜,等.晾晒方式对构树失水速率及饲用价值的影响[J].草业科学,2018,35(5):1170-1178.
[29] COBLENTZ W K,COFFEY K P,YOUNG A N,et al.Storage characteristics,nutritive value,energy content,and in vivo digestibility of moist,large rectangular bales of alfalfa-orchardgrass hay treated with a propionic acid-based preservative[J].Journal of Dairy Science,2013,96(4):2521-2535.

[30] XU W,SHI S L,QI J,et al.Effect of different processing methods on the quality of alfalfa hay[J].Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances,2013,12(6):689-693.
[31] SCHMIDT R J,EMARA M G,KUNG L,Jr.The use of a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for identification and enumeration of Lactobacillus buchneri in silage[J].Journal of Applied Microbiology,2008,105(3):920-929.

[32] 司华哲,刘晗璐,南韦肖,等.不同发酵类型乳酸菌对低水分粳稻秸秆青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J].草地学报,2017,25(6):1294-1299.
[33] 关皓,郭旭生,干友民,等.添加剂对不同含水量多花黑麦草青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J].草地学报,2016,24(3):669-675.
[34] 刘晓婧,张颖超,杨富裕.乳酸菌添加剂对3种典型木本饲料青贮效果的影响[J].饲料工业,2019,40(2):16-21.
[35] 司华哲,李志鹏,南韦肖,等.添加植物乳杆菌对低水分稻秸青贮微生物组成影响研究[J].草业学报,2019,28(3):184-192.
[36] 陶兴无.接种乳酸菌对构树叶青贮品质的影响[J].饲料研究,2005(12):25-27.
[37] 庄益芬,安宅一夫,张文昌.生物添加剂和含水率对紫花苜蓿和猫尾草青贮发酵品质的影响[J].畜牧兽医学报,2007,38(12):1394-1400.
[38] 蔡义民,熊井清雄,廖芷,等.乳酸菌剂对青贮饲料发酵品质的改善效果[J].中国农业科学,1995,28(2):73-82.
[39] 李君临,张新全,玉柱,等.含水量和乳酸菌添加剂对多花黑麦草青贮品质的影响[J].草业学报,2014,23(6):342-348.

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References