Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2023 , Vol. 35 >Issue 1: 460 - 468

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2023.01.045

RESEARCH PAPER

Study on Effects of Mixed Silage of Reed and Licorice Stems & Leaves with Different Proportions

  • CHEN Yafei , 1, 2 ,
  • YU Wanrui 1, 2 ,
  • WANG Fangfang 1, 2 ,
  • LI Mingyang 1, 2 ,
  • JIANG Tao , 1, 2, 3, * ,
  • JIANG Hui , 1, 2, *
Expand
  • 1 College of Animal Science and Technology, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China
  • 2 Key Laboratory of Tarim Animal Husbandry Science and Technology Corps, Alar 843300, China
  • 3 Tarim University-Xinjiang Tianshan Jinyu Herding Co. Livestock Expert Workstation, Alar 843300, China
* JIANG Tao, professor, E-mail: ;
JIANG Hui, professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2022-06-17

  Online published: 2023-01-11

Fold

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of mixed silage of reed and licorice stems & leaves and their appropriate mixing proportion. The reed and licorice stems & leaves were divided into 5 groups according to the weight ratios of 100∶0 (group L1), 60∶40 (group L2), 50∶50 (group L3), 40∶60 (group L4) and 0∶100 (group L5), respectively, and each group had 5 replicates. After 90 days of ensiling, the nutrient composition before and after ensiling was measured, and the sensory quality, fermentation quality, and microbial number at days 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, and 15 after aerobic exposure were identified. The results showed as follows: 1) with the increase of the proportion of licorice stems and leaves, the crude protein (CP) content of mixed silage in each group was gradually increased (P<0.05), and the contents of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were gradually decreased (P<0.05); meanwhile, the NDF content in group L5 was significantly lower than that in the other groups (P<0.05), and the ADF content in groups L4 and L5 was significantly lower than that in groups L1, L2 and L3 (P<0.05). 2) The sensory scores of mixed silages in groups L2, L3 and L4 were higher with excellent grade rated, and the sensory score in group L4 was the highest. 3) The pH and butyric acid content of mixed silage in group L4 were the lowest, which were significantly lower than those in the other groups (P<0.05); the contents of lactic acid and acetic acid in groups L2, L3 and L4 were significantly higher than those in groups L1 and L5 (P<0.05), and the acetic acid content in group L4 was the highest; the ammonia nitrogen to total nitrogen ratio in group L4 was significantly lower than that in the other groups (P<0.05); and the total scores of mixed silages in groups L2, L3 and L4 were 83, 82 and 81, respectively, with excellent grades. 4) On the day 15 after aerobic exposure, the number of yeast and mold and pH of mixed silage in group L4 were the lowest, and significantly lower than those in the other groups (P<0.05); the number of lactic acid bacteria in group L4 was the highest and significantly higher than that in the other groups (P<0.05). In conclusion, the mixed of reed and licorice stems & leaves can improve the quality of silage, and the proportion of 40∶60 is better.

Key words： reed; licorice stems & leaves; nutritional value; fermentation quality

Cite this article

CHEN Yafei , YU Wanrui , WANG Fangfang , LI Mingyang , JIANG Tao , JIANG Hui . Study on Effects of Mixed Silage of Reed and Licorice Stems & Leaves with Different Proportions[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023 , 35(1) : 460 -468 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2023.01.045

近年来,我国畜牧产业规模迅速扩大,牛、羊等草食家畜产业发展不断提升。据统计,2020年我国仅牛肉、羊肉产量分别为672万和492万t,同比增长5万t;但与此同时,随着牛、羊等草食家畜产业的不断发展,饲草资源的消耗量也不断增长,饲草资源短缺问题日益突出[1-2]。据报道,2021年我国草产品进口总量为204.5万t,仅苜蓿干草进口就达178万t,同比增长了31%[3]。因此,开发非常规饲料资源尤为重要。
芦苇(Phragmites australis)是一种多年生的禾本科植物,具有很强的环境适应性,且分布广泛,在河流、湖泊、沼泽和荒漠地区均有生长;同时,我国芦苇资源丰富,拥有14个主要分布区,生长面积达1.3×106 hm2左右[4-5]。除此之外,芦苇还是优质的饲草资源,研究表明,芦苇对草食家畜的适口性强,可以增加肉质嫩度,提高羔羊的肉品质,是一种良好的饲料资源[6]。目前,芦苇作为饲料的研究主要集中在芦苇笋或单独青贮等方面[7-8],与甘草茎叶混合青贮的研究较少。Asano等[9]研究发现,芦苇单独青贮效果不佳,但添加葡萄糖和乳酸菌进行发酵处理,效果较好;Wang等[10]研究表明,将禾本科的全株玉米与豆科的紫花苜蓿进行混合青贮,能获得优良的青贮品质。因此,禾本科的芦苇与豆科的紫花苜蓿混合青贮也可能获得良好的青贮饲料。
甘草(Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch)是一种抗盐碱、耐干旱的豆科多年生草本植物。我国是甘草资源最丰富的国家,其主要分布在东北、华北和西北等干旱、半干旱地区,尤其在新疆分布最多[11]。据报道,自新疆北疆的额尔齐斯河流域向东及向南、直至青海等地均有大量甘草分布[12]。甘草还是良好的饲料资源,研究表明,甘草茎叶含的粗蛋白质(CP)、粗脂肪(EE)含量较高,粗纤维(CF)含量较低,同时还含有多种微量元素、常量元素等[13]。研究发现,将豆科的紫花苜蓿、豌豆与禾本科的玉米秸秆、高丹草、甜高粱等进行混合青贮后,均能提高发酵品质,改善单一青贮效果较差的问题[14⇓⇓-17]。因此,豆科牧草的甘草茎叶与禾本科牧草的芦苇混合也可能获得优质的青贮饲料。
目前关于禾本科牧草与豆科牧草混合青贮的研究主要集中在玉米秸秆、甜高粱与苜蓿等原料上[14⇓⇓-17],关于芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮的报道较少。鉴于此,本研究旨在探讨芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮能否获得优良的青贮饲料及其适宜的混合比例,为芦苇和甘草茎叶资源的合理利用提供理论依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验材料

本试验的芦苇和甘草茎叶分别处于抽穗期和开花期,均在塔里木大学及周边团场采集。

1.2 试验设计

将采集后的芦苇和甘草茎叶粉碎至2~3 cm,分别按100∶0(L1组)、60∶40(L2组)、50∶50(L3组)、40∶60(L4组)和0∶100(L5组)的重量比例分为5个组进行混合,每组5个重复,分别装填至1 L[(700±50) g]的广口玻璃瓶中压实,使用胶带和医用凡士林进行密封,发酵90 d后测定其营养价值、发酵品质以及有氧暴露下乳酸菌、酵母菌和霉菌的数量。

1.3 测定指标及方法

1.3.1 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮的营养价值测定

将青贮前、后的饲料进行取样,经65 ℃烘干、回潮、恒重、粉碎和过筛(40目)后制成风干样品备用,采用张丽英[18]的方法测定样品中干物质(DM)、CP、EE、粗灰分(Ash)、中性洗涤纤维(NDF)和酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)的含量,采用蒽酮比色法测定样品中可溶性碳水化合物(WSC)的含量[19]。

1.3.2 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮的感官和发酵品质测定

发酵90 d后,按德国农业协会(DLG)评分法对混合青贮的气味、色泽和质地进行感官品质测定[20]。
称取各组50 g青贮分别放入装有450 mL蒸馏水的三角瓶中,在4 ℃下充分浸提,浸提液过滤,所得滤液分为4份,分别用于pH及氨态氮(NH3-N)、乳酸和挥发性脂肪酸含量的测定。使用pH计(艾沃斯AS-PH8)测定pH;采用苯酚-次氯酸钠比色法测定NH3-N含量;将另2份滤液在1 500 r/min下离心,并与25%的偏磷酸溶液按5∶1进行混合,采用Thermo Scientific UltiMate 3000型高效液相色谱仪[UltiMate XB-C18型色谱柱;柱温:35 ℃;流动相:0.1 mol/L磷酸二氢钾(KH2PO4);流速:1 mL/min]测定乳酸含量;采用Thermo Scientific TRACE 1310型气相色谱仪(Agilent HP-INNOWax色谱柱;进样口温度:250 ℃;载气流速:1 mL/min;分流比:75∶1;升温程序:60 ℃,保持时间2 min,然后以10 ℃/min的速率升温至220 ℃,保持时间1 min;检测器温度250 ℃)测定乙酸、丙酸、丁酸、异丁酸、戊酸和异戊酸含量[21]。

1.3.3 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮发酵品质评分

青贮饲料发酵品质的评分按赵小雪等[22]的方法进行,对乳酸/总酸、乙酸/总酸、丁酸/总酸及NH3-N/总氮的值进行综合评价,其中,有机酸的总分为100分,NH3-N占总氮的比值为50分,综合评价得分=(有机酸得分)/2+(NH3-N占总氮的比值得分)。按照综合评价得分将青贮发酵品质等级分为:极差(0~20分)、差(21~40分)、可(41~60分)、良(61~80分)和优(81~100分)5个等级。

1.3.4 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮有氧暴露下微生物数量变化

参照艾琪等[23]的方法,在青贮成功后有氧暴露的第0、1、3、7和15天进行取样并浸提,测定pH,采用倍比稀释法将浸提液稀释至10-6~10-1 g/mL,分别取不同稀释倍数的稀释液各1 mL,分别涂布在马铃薯葡萄糖琼脂(PDA)培养基、高盐察氏培养和MRS培养基上,并分别在28、28和37 ℃的培养箱培养48 h后,进行酵母菌、霉菌和乳酸菌计数,每个稀释倍数3个重复,适宜稀释倍数的菌落计数平均值乘以稀释倍数计为该暴露时间的微生物数量(CFU/g FM),结果用lg(CFU/g)表示。

1.4 数据统计及分析

试验数据通过Excel 2019进行预处理,然后采用SPSS 24.0软件进行单因素方差分析,并采用Duncan氏法进行多重比较,P<0.05表示差异显著。

2 结果与分析

2.1 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮的营养价值

从表1可以看出,发酵前,各组之间混合青贮DM含量无显著差异(P>0.05);L5组混合青贮CP含量显著高于L1组、L2组和L3组(P<0.05),各组混合青贮CP含量随着甘草茎叶所占比例的提高而逐渐提高(P<0.05);各组混合青贮NDF、ADF和WSC含量随着甘草茎叶所占比例的提高而逐渐降低(P<0.05);L1组混合青贮Ash含量显著高于其他4个组(P<0.05);各组之间混合青贮EE含量不显著差异(P>0.05)。
表1 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮的营养价值(干物质基础)

Table 1 Nutritional value of mixed silage of reed and licorice stems & leaves (DM basis)%

项目
Items		 组别
Groups		 干物质
DM		 粗蛋白质
CP		 粗脂肪
EE		 中性洗
涤纤维
NDF		 酸性洗
涤纤维
ADF		 粗灰分
Ash		 可溶性碳
水化合物
WSC
发酵前
Before
fermentation		 L1 27.98±0.24 8.48±1.71c 2.21±0.12 69.01±0.13a 36.02±0.90a 9.23±0.08a 7.87±0.10a
L2 27.11±0.12 11.04±0.83b 2.24±0.10 57.11±0.94b 34.30±0.64b 8.08±0.64b 7.08±0.13b
L3 26.82±0.09 11.20±1.15b 2.20±0.28 56.06±0.66c 32.83±1.17bc 8.05±0.20b 6.89±0.14bc
L4 26.53±0.09 11.77±0.72ab 2.22±0.21 55.37±0.48c 31.39±0.61c 7.98±0.19b 6.69±0.15c
L5 25.11±0.11 13.79±1.13a 2.23±0.21 51.36±0.29d 29.32±0.93d 7.75±0.43b 5.37±0.17d
P值P-value 0.073 0.004 0.099 <0.001 <0.001 0.005 <0.001
发酵后
After
fermentation		 L1 28.14±1.44a 8.58±0.25d 2.42±1.03 60.25±3.26a 32.80±0.65a 9.18±0.13a 0.60±0.00b
L2 29.56±3.74a 11.10±0.10c 2.67±0.09 51.70±2.12b 33.53±3.88a 8.05±0.09b 0.91±0.00a
L3 30.31±0.57a 11.87±0.16b 2.85±0.05 52.26±2.66b 32.37±2.43a 7.27±0.05d 0.51±0.00c
L4 28.79±0.91a 12.12±0.09b 2.61±0.15 51.04±3.70b 26.90±0.56b 7.61±0.37c 0.30±0.00d
L5 26.49±0.01b 14.18±0.14a 2.39±0.23 45.91±0.88c 26.69±1.28b 5.89±0.10e 0.63±0.00b
P值P-value 0.003 <0.001 0.076 0.001 0.005 <0.001 <0.001

同列数据肩标无字母或相同字母表示差异不显著(P>0.05),不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。

In the same column, values with no letter or the same letter superscripts mean no significant difference (P>0.05), while with different small letter superscripts mean significant difference (P<0.05).

发酵后,L5组混合青贮DM含量显著低于其他4个组(P<0.05),且其他4个组之间差异不显著(P>0.05);随着甘草茎叶所占比例的提高,各组混合青贮CP含量逐渐提高(P<0.05),NDF、ADF和Ash含量逐渐降低(P<0.05),且L5组NDF含量显著低于其他组(P<0.05),L4组和L5组ADF含量显著低于L1组、L2组和L3组(P<0.05);各组混合青贮EE含量差异不显著(P>0.05);各组混合青贮WSC含量较青贮前明显降低,其中,L4组WSC含量最低,显著低于其他组(P<0.05)。

2.2 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮的感官品质

从表2可以看出,将芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮后,各组混合青贮感官品质较好,其中L2组、L3组和L4组感官评分较高,等级评为优;单一的甘草茎叶青贮(L5组)感官评分较低,等级评为尚可。
表2 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮的感官品质

Table 2 Sensory quality of mixed silage of reed and licorice stems & leaves

组别Groups 气味Smell 色泽Color 质地Texture 等级Rating
L1 有较轻的酸味和
芳香味(10)		 与原料相似,烘干后
呈淡黄色(2)		 结构保持良好,
无污染或腐烂(4)		 优(16)
L2 有酸味和芳香味(12) 与原料相似,烘干后
呈淡黄色(2)		 结构保持良好,
无污染或腐烂(4)		 优(18)
L3 有酸味和芳香味(12) 与原料相似,烘干后
呈淡黄色(2)		 结构保持良好,
无污染或腐烂(4)		 优(18)
L4 有较浓的芳香味(14) 与原料相似,烘干后
呈淡黄色(2)		 结构保持良好,
无污染或腐烂(4)		 优(20)
L5 有较轻的酸
味和芳香味(10)		 略有变色呈淡褐色(1) 结构保持较差有轻微结块(2) 尚好(13)

括号内数值为得分。表3同。

Values in parentheses were scores. The same as Table 3.

2.3 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮的发酵品质及评分

从表3可以看出,L1组和L5组混合青贮pH和丁酸含量显著高于L2组、L3组和L4组(P<0.05),且L4组pH和丁酸含量最低,显著低于其他组(P<0.05);L4组和L5组异丁酸含量最低,显著低于其他组(P<0.05);L2组、L3组和L4组乳酸和乙酸含量显著高于L1组和L5组(P<0.05),L2组和L3组丙酸含量显著高于L1组(P<0.05),且L2组乳酸含量最高,L4组乙酸含量最高,L3组丙酸含量最高;各组之间戊酸和异戊酸含量差异不显著(P>0.05);混合青贮NH3-N/总氮值随甘草茎叶所占比例的提高而逐渐降低(P<0.05),且L4组NH3-N/总氮值显著低于其他组(P<0.05)。
表3 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮的发酵品质及评分

Table 3 Fermentation quality and score of mixed silage of reed and licorice stems & leaves

项目
Items		 组别Groups P值
P-value
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5
pH 4.39±0.06b 4.28±0.01c 4.25±0.01c 4.16±0.02d 4.50±0.01a <0.001
乳酸Lactate acid/% FM 0.35±0.01d 0.83±0.20a 0.71±0.11b 0.62±0.10c 0.35±0.01d <0.001
乙酸Acetic acid/% FM 0.27±0.01c 0.53±0.01ab 0.52±0.02b 0.55±0.01a 0.29±0.01c <0.001
丙酸Propionic acid/% FM 0.06±0.01c 0.08±0.01b 0.12±0.01a 0.07±0.01bc 0.07±0.01bc <0.001
丁酸Butyric acid/% FM 0.19±0.01a 0.13±0.00b 0.11±0.01c 0.09±0.01d 0.19±0.01a <0.001
异丁酸Isobutyric acid/% FM 0.09±0.01c 0.10±0.01b 0.13±0.01a 0.07±0.00d 0.07±0.00d <0.001
戊酸Valeric acid/% FM 0.05±0.01 0.06±0.01 0.06±0.00 0.06±0.00 0.04±0.02 0.072
异戊酸Isovaleric acid/% FM 0.03±0.01 0.03±0.01 0.03±0.01 0.03±0.01 0.03±0.01 0.086
氨态氮/总氮
Ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen/%		 5.57±0.45a
(48)		 4.77±0.63b
(50)		 3.67±0.01c
(50)		 2.83±0.06d
(50)		 3.12±0.14c
(50)		 <0.001
乳酸/总酸Lactate acid/total acid/% 33.70
(7)		 47.16
(14)		 42.56
(12)		 41.78
(11)		 34.08
(7)
乙酸/总酸Acetic acid/total acid/% 25.95
(22)		 30.55
(19)		 31.09
(19)		 37.05
(16)		 27.49
(21)
丁酸/总酸Butyric acid/total acid/% 18.21
(20)		 7.32
(32)		 6.58
(33)		 6.05
(34)		 18.62
(20)
总评分Overall score 73 83 82 81 74
等级Rating 良 优 优 优 良

同行数据肩标无字母或相同字母表示差异不显著(P>0.05),不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。

In the same row, values with no letter or the same letter superscripts mean no significant difference (P>0.05), while with different small letter superscripts mean significant difference (P<0.05).

综合评分后发现,L2组、L3组和L4组混合青贮的总评分分别为83、82和81分,等级为优;L1组和L5组混合青贮的总评分较低,分别为73和74分,等级评为良。

2.4 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮有氧暴露下pH和微生物数量变化

从图1可以看出,随着有氧暴露天数的增加,各组混合青贮中酵母菌和霉菌的数量及pH不断提高;第15天时,L1组和L5组酵母菌和霉菌数量及pH显著高于其他组(P<0.05),且L4组酵母菌和霉菌数量及pH最低,并显著低于其他组(P<0.05)。各组混合青贮中乳酸菌的数量随着有氧暴露天数的增加而逐渐减少;第15天时,L4组乳酸菌数量最高,显著高于其他组(P<0.05)。
图1 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮有氧暴露下pH和微生物数量变化

图中标注不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。

Fig.1 Changes in pH and microbial population of mixed silage of reed and licorice stems & leaves under aerobic exposure

Different small letters in the figure indicated significant differences (P<0.05).

3 讨论

3.1 不同比例芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮对营养价值的影响

青贮发酵过程中,原料中的DM和WSC含量是影响青贮品质的关键指标。WSC是青贮饲料发酵的底物,乳酸菌通过发酵原料中的WSC产生乳酸、乙酸和丙酸等其他有机酸,降低pH,抑制其他腐败菌的生长,从而减少营养价值损失,使饲料能够长期保存;研究表明,豆科牧草中原料的水分在60%~70%为宜,WSC含量占DM的6%~7%以上才容易青贮成功[24-25]。在本试验中,除甘草茎叶单独青贮处理的WSC含量为5.37%以外,其他处理均在6%以上,将芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮后,显著提升了甘草的DM和WSC含量,增加了青贮饲料发酵的底物,这可能是二者混合青贮成功的原因,这与胡远彬等[24]的研究结果相似。
青贮饲料中的CP、NDF和ADF含量是影响青贮营养价值和草食家畜消化、吸收情况的关键性指标[15]。本研究中,随着甘草所占比例的提高,混合青贮CP含量显著提高,NDF和ADF含量显著降低,这表明芦苇与甘草茎叶二者混合青贮可以提高营养价值。在混合青贮的L2组、L3组和L4组中,L3组和L4组CP含量较高,NDF和ADF含量较低,表明在芦苇和甘草茎叶混贮中,当甘草所占比例达到50%~60%时,混合青贮饲料的营养价值较高。

3.2 不同比例芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮对感官品质的影响

感官品质评定方便快捷,能直观反映饲料品质的优劣[26]。本试验中,混合青贮处理的感官评分均高于单一青贮处理,其中混合青贮的L4组感官评分最高,表明将芦苇与甘草茎叶进行混合青贮后,提高了甘草茎叶的感官评分,这与胡远彬等[24]的研究结果相似。

3.3 不同比例芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮对发酵品质的影响

青贮饲料的pH越低,说明发酵品质越好[27]。本试验中,混合青贮处理的pH低于单一青贮处理,表明混合青贮能改善青贮品质,发酵后品质好,这与Chen等[28]的研究结果一致。
NH3-N是微生物和植物蛋白酶分解蛋白质的产物,NH3-N/总氮值越高,说明被分解的氨基酸和蛋白质就越多,青贮品质就越差[29-30]。本研究中,随着甘草茎叶占比的提高,各组NH3-N/总氮值逐渐降低,这说明混合青贮改善了青贮品质。
有机酸是发酵过程中微生物的代谢产物,其含量能反映微生物发酵类型及发酵品质的好坏[31]。其中,乳酸含量越高,发酵物的pH越低,营养物质损失越少,发酵效果越好[32]。本试验中,随着甘草茎叶所占比例的提高,混合青贮的乳酸含量逐渐降低,这可能是由于甘草茎叶中WSC含量较少引起的,这也与段艳珍等[15]关于豌豆与玉米秸秆混合青贮的研究结果一致。乙酸和丙酸能抑制好氧型微生物的活性,防止青贮饲料腐败,提高青贮饲料的有氧稳定性[33-34]。在本试验中,L4组乙酸含量最高,L3组丙酸含量最高,说明当甘草茎叶所占比例为50%~60%时,能获有氧稳定性较好的青贮饲料。丁酸是腐败菌分解蛋白质、糖类和乳酸的产物,丁酸含量越高青贮品质越差[35]。本试验中,混合青贮处理的丁酸含量显著低于单一青贮,且L4组的丁酸含量最低,说明芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮能提高青贮品质,且甘草茎叶占比在60%时青贮品质较好。此外,混合青贮的L2组、L3组和L4组的综合评分等级均为优,表明甘草茎叶所占比例在40%~60%时青贮效果较好。

3.4 不同比例芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮对有氧暴露下pH及微生物数量的影响

青贮饲料在有氧暴露后,乳酸及WSC能增强酵母菌和霉菌等有害微生物的活动,引起二次发酵,使青贮饲料败坏[36-37]。本试验中,有氧暴露后,混合青贮3个组的乳酸菌数量下降的速度以及酵母菌、霉菌数量和pH上升的速度均较慢,表明将禾本科牧草的芦苇与豆科牧草甘草茎叶混合青贮能延长腐败时间,有较好的有氧稳定性;同时,第15天时,L4组乳酸菌数量最多,霉菌数量最少,表明L4组的有氧稳定性更高,表明甘草茎叶所占比例为60%时青贮效果较好。

4 结论

① 芦苇与甘草茎叶混合青贮处理的发酵效果优于单一青贮处理,混合青贮能获得优良的青贮品质。
② 芦苇与甘草茎叶混贮比例为40∶60时青贮效果较好。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
熊学振, 杨春. 2020年牛羊产业发展状况、未来趋势及对策建议[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2021, 57(4):232-236,240.

XIONG X Z, YANG C. 2020 development status of cattle and sheep industry,future trends and countermeasure suggestions[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science,2021, 57(4):232-236,240. (in Chinese)

[2]
王蕾, 李文科. 高质量发展背景下我国畜牧业提质增效制约因素分析及对策探讨[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2021(22):1-5, 25,145-146.

WANG L, LI W K. Analysis of restrictive factors and countermeasures for improving quality and efficiency of animal husbandry under the background of high quality development in China[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary, 2021(22):1-5, 25,145-146. (in Chinese)

[3]
农业农村部畜牧业监测预警专家组. 2021年奶业发展形势及2022年展望[J]. 中国畜牧业, 2022(3):47-49.

Animal Husbandry Monitoring and Early Warning Expert Group of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. The development situation of the dairy industry in 2021 and the outlook for 2022[J]. China Animal Industry, 2022(3):47-49. (in Chinese)

[4]
刘鑫, 焦健, 王婷, 等. 巴丹吉林沙漠南缘沙地芦苇种群生态特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(1):220-229.

LIU X, JIAO J, WANG T, et al. Population ecological features of Phragmites australis in sandy habitats on the southern edge of Badain Jaran desert[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2022, 39(1):220-229. (in Chinese)

[5]
张茜, 裘天航, 王安安, 等. 北京地区芦苇资源状态及其多样性[J]. 植物学报, 2020, 55(6):693-704.

ZHANG Q, QIU T H, WANG A A, et al. Morphology and genetic diversity of Phragmites australis in Beijing[J]. Bulletin of Botany, 2020, 55(6):693-704. (in Chinese)

[6]
FARGHALY M M, YOUSSEF I M I, RADWAN M A, et al. Effect of feeding Sesbania sesban and reed grass on growth performance,blood parameters,and meat quality of growing lambs[J]. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 2021, 54(1):3.

DOI

[7]
HUSSIAN M, SAEED A A. Effect of ensiling and Urea treatment on nutritive value of wild reed (Phragmites communis) in Awassi lambs feeding on 3-ruminal fermentation characters[J]. Journal of University of Babylon for Pure and Applied Sciences, 2019, 27(2):244-251.

DOI

[8]
WANG Q Y, ZENG X L, ZENG Y T, et al. Effects of Phragmites australis shoot remainder silage on growth performance,blood biochemical parameters,and rumen microbiota of beef cattle[J]. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2022, 9:778654.

DOI

[9]
ASANO K, ISHIKAWA T, ARAIE A, et al. Improving quality of common reed (Phragmites communis Trin.) silage with additives[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2018, 31(11):1747-1755.

DOI

[10]
WANG M S, FRANCO M, CAI Y M, et al. Dynamics of fermentation profile and bacterial community of silage prepared with alfalfa,whole-plant corn and their mixture[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2020, 270:114702.

DOI

[11]
马驰. 我国甘草资源退化状况分析和保护恢复对策[D]. 硕士学位论文. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2019:3-4.

MA C. Analysis on the degradation status of Glycyrrhiza uralensis fisch in China and countermeasures for protection and restoration[D]. Master’s Thesis. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2019:3-4. (in Chinese)

[12]
李娜, 张晨, 钟赣生, 等. 不同品种甘草化学成分、药理作用的研究进展及质量标志物(Q-Marker)预测分析[J]. 中草药, 2021, 52(24):7680-7692.

LI N, ZHANG C, ZHONG G S, et al. Research progress on chemical constituents and pharmacological effects of different varieties of Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma and predictive analysis of quality markers[J]. Chinese Traditional and Herbal Drugs, 2021, 52(24):7680-7692. (in Chinese)

[13]
张继, 刘阿萍, 曾家豫, 等. 胀果甘草茎叶营养成分的分析研究[J]. 草业学报, 2003, 12(2):93-96.

ZHANG J, LIU A P, ZENG J Y, et al. Analysis of nutrients from acerial parts of Glycyrrhiza inflata[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2003, 12(2):93-96. (in Chinese)

[14]
李龙兴, 雷会义, 龚正发, 等. 玉米秸秆与紫花苜蓿混合青贮研究[J]. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(7):87-90.

LI L X, LEI H Y, GONG Z F, et al. Research on mixed silage of corn stalk and alfalfa[J]. Feed Research, 2022, 45(7):87-90. (in Chinese)

[15]
段艳珍, 商振达, 谭占坤, 等. 西藏地区玉米与豌豆混合青贮发酵品质及体外降解效果的研究[J]. 饲料工业, 2022, 43(6):39-44.

DUAN Y Z, SHANG Z D, TAN Z K, et al. Effects of mixed silage on fermentation quality and degradation in vitro of corn and pea in Tibet[J]. Feed Industry, 2022, 43(6):39-44. (in Chinese)

[16]
佟明昊, 潘港, 孙娟娟, 等. 混合比例对苜蓿和高丹草混合青贮品质及CNCPS蛋白组分的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(2):75-81.

TONG M H, PAN G, SUN J J, et al. Effects of mixing ratio on the silage quality and CNCPS protein components of mixed silage of alfalfa and sorghum-sudangrass hybrids[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2022, 44(2):75-81. (in Chinese)

[17]
ZHANG S J, CHAUDHRY A S, OSMAN A, et al. Associative effects of ensiling mixtures of sweet sorghum and alfalfa on nutritive value,fermentation and methane characteristics[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2015, 206:29-38.

DOI

[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.

ZHANG L Y. Feed analysis and feed quality testing technology[M]. 4th ed. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2016. (in Chinese)

[19]
丁雪梅, 张晓君, 赵云, 等. 蒽酮比色法测定可溶性糖含量的试验方法改进[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2014(23):230-233.

DING X M, ZHANG X J, ZHAO Y, et al. Improvement of the experimental method for the determination of soluble sugar content by anthrone colorimetric method[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2014(23):230-233. (in Chinese)

[20]
吴春会, 王明亚, 郭郁频, 等. 青贮添加剂对天然草地牧草青贮品质的影响[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2022(4):90-95.

WU C H, WANG M Y, GUO Y P, et al. Effect of silage additives on silage quality of natural grass pastures[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2022(4):90-95. (in Chinese)

[21]
郭睿, 艾琪, 陈亚飞, 等. 添加残次苹果发酵物对玉米秸秆青贮品质的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(7):3970-3979.

GUO R, AI Q, CHEN Y F, et al. Effects of adding defective apple fermentation on quality of corn straw silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(7):3970-3979. (in Chinese)

[22]
赵小雪, 郭凤根, 罗富成. 添加纤维素酶与藜麦麸皮及小麦麸皮对台湾红藜青贮的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(3):764-770.

DOI

ZHAO X X, GUO F G, LUO F C. Effects of adding cellulase,quinoa bran,and wheat bran on the silage of Chenopodium formosanum koidz[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(3):764-770. (in Chinese)

[23]
艾琪, 蒋慧, 郭睿, 等. 添加残次苹果发酵物对稻草青贮品质及其微生物数量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(22):316-323.

AI Q, JIANG H, GUO R, et al. Effects of adding defective apple fermentation in rice straw on quality and microbial numbers of mixed silage[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2020, 36(22):316-323. (in Chinese)

[24]
胡远彬, 梁小玉, 易军, 等. 混合比例和添加剂对象草和全株玉米混合青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2022, 39(4):778-786.

HU Y B, LIANG X Y, YI J, et al. Effects of mixing ratio and additives on the quality of napier grass and whole-plant corn mixed silage[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2022, 39(4):778-786. (in Chinese)

[25]
徐进益, 那彬彬, 刘顺, 等. 青贮饲料的优良乳酸菌及其应用[J]. 生物技术通报, 2021, 37(9):39-47.

DOI

XU J Y, NA B B, LIU S, et al. Excellent lactic acid bacteria for silage and their application[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2021, 37(9):39-47. (in Chinese)

[26]
刘娜, 王俊, 屠焰, 等. 玉米青贮饲料质量评定及其营养成分快速检测方法的建立[J]. 家畜生态学报, 2019, 40(10):1-7.

LIU N, WANG J, TU Y, et al. The quality evaluation and the development of rapid detection method for nutrient components of corn silage[J]. Acta Ecologae Animalis Domastici, 2019, 40(10):1-7. (in Chinese)

[27]
张颖超, 王一炜, 王学凯, 等. 黄梁木与饲料桑混合青贮品质的研究[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(3):98-104.

ZHANG Y C, WANG Y W, WANG X K, et al. The study on the quality of mixed silage of Neolamarckia cadamba and mulberry leaves[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2022, 44(3):98-104. (in Chinese)

[28]
CHEN L, CAI Y, LI P, et al. Inoculation of exogenous lactic acid bacteria exerted a limited influence on the silage fermentation and bacterial community compositions of reed canary grass straw on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2020, 129(5):1163-1172.

DOI

[29]
ZENG T R, LI X L, GUAN H, et al. Dynamic microbial diversity and fermentation quality of the mixed silage of corn and soybean grown in strip intercropping system[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 313:123655.

DOI

[30]
TAO X X, WANG S R, ZHAO J, et al. Effect of ensiling alfalfa with citric acid residue on fermentation quality and aerobic stability[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2020, 269:114622.

DOI

[31]
罗润博. 糖蜜添加量对苜蓿青贮品质及微生物群落的影响研究[D]. 硕士学位论文. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2021:5-12.

LUO R B. Effect of molasses supplemental amount on alfalfa silage quality and microbial community[D]. Master’s Thesis. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2021:5-12. (in Chinese)

[32]
崔彪, 王继彤, 张晓峰, 等. 影响全株玉米青贮饲料质量的因素及质量评价方法[J]. 中国饲料, 2022(7):116-121.

CUI B, WANG J T, ZHANG X F, et al. Effects of the quality of whole corn silage and its evaluation method[J]. China Feed, 2022(7):116-121. (in Chinese)

[33]
李俊峰, 成启明, 卢强, 等. 乙酸添加量及青贮时间对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2021(8):114-118.

LI J F, CHENG Q M, LU Q, et al. Effect of acetic acid addition and silage time on silage quality of alfalfa[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2021(8):114-118. (in Chinese)

[34]
李茂, 字学娟, 刁其玉, 等. 添加有机酸改善木薯叶青贮品质和营养成分[J]. 热带作物学报, 2019, 40(7):1312-1316.

LI M, ZI X J, DIAO Q Y, et al. Organic acids improve the fermentation quality and nutrient value of cassava foliage[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2019, 40(7):1312-1316. (in Chinese)

[35]
黄媛, 代胜, 梁龙飞, 等. 不同添加剂对构树青贮饲料发酵品质及微生物多样性的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(3):1607-1617.

HUANG Y, DAI S, LIANG L F, et al. Effects of different additives on fermentation quality and microbial diversity of paper mulberry silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(3):1607-1617. (in Chinese)

[36]
XIE Y X, WANG L, LI W Q, et al. Fermentation quality,in vitro digestibility,and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage in response to varying proportion alfalfa silage[J]. Animals, 2022, 12(8):1039.

DOI

[37]
张欢, 雷晓青, 朱鸿福, 等. 宁夏黄灌区紫花苜蓿与高丹草适宜混贮比例研究[J]. 中国草地学报, 2020, 42(5):136-142.

ZHANG H, LEI X Q, ZHU H F, et al. Study on quality of mixed silage of alfalfa and sorghum-sudangrass hybrid silage in Yellow River irrigation region of Ningxia[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2020, 42(5):136-142. (in Chinese)

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

京ICP备17050989号-2
Copyright © Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, All Rights Reserved.
Tel: 010－62817823　E-mail: cjan@vip.163.com
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co., Ltd.