Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2023 , Vol. 35 >Issue 6: 3843 - 3855

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2023.357

RESEARCH PAPER

Rumen Fermentation Parameters and Degradation Characteristics of Different Varieties of Forage Triticale Silages

  • WANG Siwei , 1, 2 ,
  • LIU Tingting 1, 2 ,
  • WANG Yajing 3 ,
  • SHI Shaoqing 1, 2 ,
  • YOU Yongliang 4 ,
  • PENG Peng 1, 2 ,
  • LIANG Shuang 1, 2 ,
  • WANG Kun , 1, 2, **
Expand
  • 1 Institute of Cereal and Oil Crops, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang 050035, China
  • 2 Key Laboratory of Crop Cultivation Physiology and Green Production in Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang 050035, China
  • 3 State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
  • 4 Institute of Dryland Agriculture, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Hengshui 053000, China
**professor, E-mail:

*Contributed equally

Received date: 2022-12-30

  Online published: 2023-06-08

Fold

Abstract

This study was designed to investigate the nutritional quality, fermentation quality and rumen degradation characteristics of different varieties of forage triticale silages. Three varieties of forage triticale including Zhongsi 1048 (ZS1048), Jisi 2nd(JS2) and Jisi 3rd(JS3) harvested at milky stage, and made into silage for 60 d. The conventional nutritional indexes and fermentation quality indexes were assessed to evaluate the nutritional quality and fermentation quality of different varieties of forage triticale silages. The nylon bag method was carried out to measure the ruminal degradation rates and degradation parameters of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF). Lastly, the forage value of different varieties of forage triticale silage was evaluated comprehensively by the subordinate function method. The results revealed as follows: 1) the content of DM in the JS3 silage was significantly higher than that in the ZS1048 and JS2 silages (P<0.05); the content of ash in the ZS1048 silage was significantly higher than in the JS2 and JS3 silages (P<0.05); the contents of NDF and ADF in the JS3 silage were significantly lower than those in the ZS1048 silage (P<0.05). 2) The pH and the content of ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3-N) in the ZS1048 silage were significantly higher than those in the JS2 and JS3 silages (P<0.05); the contents of lactate and acetate in the JS2 silage were significantly higher than those in the ZS1048 silage (P<0.05), but there were no significant differences between JS2 and JS3 silages (P>0.05). 3) The ruminal degradation rates of DM, CP, NDF and ADF in the ZS1048, JS2 and JS3 silages increased with the digestion time increasing, and the ruminal degradation rates of DM, CP, NDF and ADF in the JS2 and JS3 silages were higher at all time points than those in the ZS1048 silage. 4) The effective digestibility (ED) of DM, CP, NDF, ADF in the ZS1048 silage were lower than those in the JS2 and JS3 silages; the rapidly degraded fraction of DM, the ED of CP in the ZS1048 silage were significantly lower than those in the JS2 and JS3 silages (P<0.05), the rapidly degraded fraction of NDF in the ZS1048 silage was significantly lower than that in the JS3 silage (P<0.05), and the slowly degraded fraction of NDF in the ZS1048 silage was significantly higher than that in the JS3 silage (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the ruminal degradation parameters of ADF in the different varieties of forage triticale silages (P>0.05). Comprehensive analysis indicates that there are some differences in the rumen fermentation parameters and degradation characteristics of different varieties of forage triticale silages, and the overall forage value is ranked as: JS3 silage>JS2 silage>ZS1048 silage.

Key words： forage triticale; silage; nutritional quality; rumen fermentation parameters; rumen degradation characteristics

Cite this article

WANG Siwei , LIU Tingting , WANG Yajing , SHI Shaoqing , YOU Yongliang , PENG Peng , LIANG Shuang , WANG Kun . Rumen Fermentation Parameters and Degradation Characteristics of Different Varieties of Forage Triticale Silages[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023 , 35(6) : 3843 -3855 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2023.357

随着畜牧养殖行业的快速发展,反刍动物养殖数量不断增加,对优质饲草需求量也越来越大,开发优质饲草资源迫在眉睫。饲用小黑麦是以饲草利用性状为主要选育目标培育的新型小黑麦品种,其植株粗壮高大,生物产量高,粗蛋白质、糖分含量显著高于小麦和燕麦,氨基酸、维生素等营养成分构成均衡,基本可以满足反刍动物生长需要[1-2],且饲用小黑麦适合低温生长,在冬季依然保持青绿,收获期在春季,可以有效解决春季饲草短缺问题。张晗等[3]报道,不同品种小黑麦的粗蛋白质(CP)含量均高于羊草等牧草;孙宇等[4]通过比较苜蓿、燕麦和小黑麦的瘤胃降解特性发现,小黑麦的干物质(DM)、CP和酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)有效降解率均显著高于燕麦草,认为小黑麦的饲用价值优于燕麦,具有作为优质粗饲料的潜力;代寒凌等[5]研究发现,小黑麦青贮的营养品质和发酵品质均优于黑麦青贮,更适于调制青贮饲料。研究表明,饲喂小黑麦干草可以有效提高奶牛产奶量和氮的利用效率,促进营养物质消化[6-7];饲粮中添加小黑麦干草可以显著降低围产期奶牛产后瘫痪和乳房炎的发病率,有利于产后奶牛疾病的提前预防[8];还有研究认为,小黑麦青贮后营养损失减少,粗纤维等不易消化的物质的含量降低,适口性好[9⇓-11],相较于干草优势更为明显;刘洁等[12]研究发现,饲粮添加小黑麦青贮可以提高绵羊饲粮中氮的利用效率,促进营养物质消化;Harper等[13]在奶牛饲粮中添加小黑麦青贮,发现奶牛二氧化碳排放量显著降低。由于饲用小黑麦青贮是新型粗饲料,对其饲用价值进行系统评定至关重要。青贮饲料营养品质评定方法主要有感官评定、实验室化学评定以及饲料消化性能评定[14],其中消化性能评定最有效的方法为瘤胃尼龙袋法,该方法属于半体内法。与体外法相比,瘤胃尼龙袋法实现了饲料营养品质评定与瘤胃代谢的结合,能够更真实准确地反映反刍动物瘤胃生理特点和饲料营养品质,虽然不如体内法能够体现全消化道消化性能,但比起体内法更加省时省力,节约试验成本,因此是目前最常用的饲料消化性能评定方法[15-16]。饲用小黑麦在瘤胃消化吸收规律对其在奶牛饲粮中的精准应用具有重要作用,关于小黑麦青贮品质及其在瘤胃中降解特性的研究较少。因此,本试验以饲用小黑麦青贮为研究对象,比较不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的营养品质、发酵品质及其在瘤胃中的降解规律,综合评价饲用小黑麦青贮的饲用价值,为其在奶牛饲料配方中科学应用提供数据支撑。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验材料

中饲1048(ZS1048)、冀饲2号(JS2)、冀饲3号(JS3)小黑麦由河北省农林科学院旱业作物研究所提供。中饲1048小黑麦主要营养成分含量(DM基础):CP 9.54%、NDF 61.14%、ADF 37.43%;冀饲2号小黑麦主要营养成分含量(DM基础):CP 8.95%、NDF 62.47%、ADF 38.81%;冀饲3号小黑麦主要营养成分含量(DM基础):CP 9.16%、NDF 58.02%、ADF 35.34%。

1.2 试验方法

3种小黑麦的收割时期均为乳熟后期,采集新鲜样品,铡短至2~3 cm,放入30 L的青贮桶中,压实后密封(压实密度约为676 kg/m3),每个样品3个重复。青贮60 d后开盖去掉上层5 cm,将青贮混匀后用四分法取样。取10 g新鲜样品于无菌的样品管中,-20 ℃保存,用于青贮发酵品质的测定;剩余部分记录样品鲜重,放入烘箱中65 ℃烘48 h,回潮24 h,粉碎后过筛用于测定青贮营养品质和瘤胃降解特性。

1.3 测定指标

1.3.1 营养品质检测

DM含量采用烘干法测定,Ash含量采用高温灼烧法测定,CP含量采用凯氏定氮法测定,粗脂肪(EE)含量采用索氏提取法测定,NDF、ADF含量采用范氏(Van-Soest)洗涤法测定,可溶性糖(WSC)含量采用蒽酮-硫酸比色法测定,钙(Ca)含量使用高锰酸钾滴定法测定,磷(P)含量采用钒钼酸铵比色法测定,具体操作参照《饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术》[17]。

1.3.2 发酵品质检测

按照《青贮饲料质量评定标准(试行)》[18]制取浸提液,采用pH计测定pH,采用苯酚-次氯酸比色法测定氨态氮(NH3-N)含量,使用高效液相色谱仪(Agilent 1200)测定乳酸(LA)、乙酸(AA)和丙酸(PA)含量。

1.3.3 瘤胃降解特性检测

1.3.3.1 试验动物及饲养管理

本试验在中国农业科学院北京畜牧兽医研究所昌平试验基地进行。选取3头平均年龄2.5岁、体重580 kg左右且健康状况良好且装有永久性瘤胃瘘管的泌乳期荷斯坦奶牛作为试验动物,每天饲喂和挤奶2次(07:00和18:00),自由采食和饮水。试验动物所喂饲粮组成及营养水平见表1。
表1 饲粮组成及营养水平(干物质基础)

Table 1 Composition and nutrient levels of the diet (DM basis)%

项目 Items 含量 Content
原料 Ingredients
豆粕 Soybean meal 10.420
棉籽粕 Cottonseed meal 5.030
菜籽粕 Rapeseed meal 2.180
玉米青贮 Corn silage 28.770
苜蓿干草 Alfalfa hay 17.990
干酒糟及其可溶物 DDGS 5.450
喷浆玉米皮 Sprayed corn husks 1.150
玉米粉 Corn flour 23.990
石粉 Limestone 0.905
食盐 NaCl 0.545
氧化镁 MgO 0.360
磷酸氢钙 CaHPO4 0.420
脂肪粉 Fatty powder 1.150
小苏打 NaHCO3 0.970
预混料Premix1) 0.670
合计 Total 100.000
营养水平 Nutrient levels2)
中性洗涤纤维 NDF 27.69
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF 18.57
粗蛋白质 CP 15.31
粗灰分 Ash 7.88
有机物 OM 92.12
粗脂肪 EE 2.10
泌乳净能NEL/(MJ/kg) 7.07

1)每千克预混料提供 One premix provided the following:VA 250 000 IU,VD 65 000 IU,VE 2 100 IU,Fe (as ferric sulfate) 400 mg,Cu (as copper sulfate) 540 mg,Zn (as zinc sulfate) 2 100 mg,Mn (as manganese sulfate) 560 mg,Se (as sodium sulfate) 15 mg,I 35 mg,Co 68 mg。

2)泌乳净能为计算值,其余为实测值。NEL was a calculated value, while the others were measured values.

1.3.3.2 瘤胃降解率与降解参数测定

准确称取5 g样品装入已知重量的尼龙袋(12 cm×17 cm)中,在晨饲前将尼龙袋投入瘘管牛瘤胃中,每头瘘管牛每个时间点设6个重复,分别在投入6、12、24、36、48、72 h后取出,洗净后将尼龙袋放入65 ℃烘箱烘至恒重,取样品残渣测定DM、CP、NDF、ADF含量,计算其瘤胃降解率、降解参数及有效降解率。
瘤胃降解率的计算公式:
A=[(B-C)/B]×100。
式中:A为待测饲料某成分的瘤胃降解率(%);B为待测饲料中某成分质量(g);C为残渣中某成分质量(g)。
利用SAS 9.4 NLIN程序计算小黑麦青贮的瘤胃降解参数及有效降解率[19]:
Dp=a+b×(1-e-ct);
ED=a+b×c/(k+c)。
式中:Dp为某成分在瘤胃内停留t小时的降解率(%);a为快速降解部分(%);b为慢速降解部分(%);c为b部分的降解速率(%/h);ED为某成分的瘤胃有效降解率(%);k为待测饲料的瘤胃外流速率常数(%/h),k=0.025%/h[20]。

1.3.4 隶属函数值计算

选择14项核心指标[DM、CP、NDF、ADF、WSC、NH3-N、LA、AA、PA含量与pH、干物质有效降解率(EDDM)、粗蛋白质有效降解率(EDCP)、中性洗涤纤维有效降解率(EDNDF)、酸性洗涤纤维有效降解率(EDADF)]进行隶属函数分析,其中DM、CP、WSC、LA含量与EDDM、EDCP、EDNDF、EDADF为正向指标,NDF、ADF、NH3-N、AA、PA含量与pH为负向指标[21],得出各指标的隶属度,从而计算各品种小黑麦青贮的总隶属度,以总隶属度的数值大小为依据对各品种小黑麦青贮的综合价值进行排序(总隶属度数值越大,综合价值越高)。计算公式如下:
Uij(x)= X i j - X i m i n X i m a x - X i m i n;
Uij(x)反=1- X i j - X i m i n X i m a x - X i m i n。
式中:Uij(x)和Uij(x)反为品种i的指标j的隶属值;Xij为品种i的指标j的测定值;Ximin和Ximax分别为j指标的最小值和最大值。

1.4 数据处理与分析

采用Excel 2010对数据进行初步计算,再用SPSS 20.0软件对数据进行均值比较和差异性检验,用one-way ANOVA程序检验各组数据间差异是否显著,用LSD法进行多重比较,结果表示为平均值±标准差,以P<0.05为差异显著。

2 结果与分析

2.1 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的营养品质

由表2可知,冀饲3号青贮DM含量显著高于中饲1048和冀饲2号青贮(P<0.05); Ash含量在不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮间均差异显著(P<0.05),其中中饲1048青贮最高,冀饲3号青贮最低。中饲1048青贮NDF和ADF含量最高,与中饲1048青贮相比,冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮NDF含量分别降低了2.36%(P>0.05)和8.74%(P<0.05),ADF含量分别降低了18.49%(P<0.05)和25.73%(P<0.05);中饲1048青贮Ca含量显著低于冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮(P<0.05);不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮CP、EE、WSC和P含量均无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表2 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮营养品质(干物质基础)

Table 2 Nutritional quality of different varieties of forage triticale silages (DM basis)

项目
Items		 中饲1048青贮
Silage of ZS1048		 冀饲2号青贮
Silage of JS2		 冀饲3号青贮
Silage of JS3		 P值
P-value
干物质(鲜样基础) DM (fresh sample basis)/% 37.49±0.48b 30.62±0.84c 43.25±1.04a <0.000 1
粗灰分 Ash/% 8.60±0.31a 7.14±0.38b 6.12±0.15c 0.000 1
粗蛋白质 CP/% 9.80±0.63 9.92±0.60 10.33±0.55 0.548 0
粗脂肪 EE/% 2.53±0.32 2.53±0.13 2.20±0.07 0.147 1
中性洗涤纤维NDF/% 58.79±1.52a 57.40±1.39a 53.65±0.73b 0.006 2
酸性洗涤纤维ADF/% 39.87±1.11a 32.50±0.92b 29.61±0.49c <0.000 1
可溶性糖 WSC/(g/kg) 10.33±0.75 9.53±1.47 9.83±1.72 0.779 5
钙 Ca/% 0.10±0.02b 0.17±0.02a 0.17±0.02a 0.008 2
磷 P/% 0.31±0.07 0.28±0.02 0.28±0.02 0.568 6

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

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

2.2 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的发酵品质

由表3可知,中饲1048青贮pH和NH3-N含量显著高于冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮(P<0.05);冀饲2号青贮LA和AA含量最高,与冀饲2号青贮相比,中饲1048和冀饲3号青贮LA含量分别降低了38.60%(P<0.05)和24.95%(P<0.05),AA含量分别降低了20.94%(P<0.05)和5.90%(P>0.05);不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮PA含量无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表3 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮发酵品质

Table 3 Fermentation quality of different varieties of forage triticale silages

项目
Items		 中饲1048青贮
Silage of ZS1048		 冀饲2号青贮
Silage of JS2		 冀饲3号青贮
Silage of JS3		 P值
P-value
pH 4.43±0.04a 3.90±0.04c 4.17±0.10b 0.000 2
氨态氮 NH3-N/(g/kg) 0.12±0.00a 0.10±0.01b 0.10±0.01b 0.012 7
乳酸 LA/% 3.15±0.87b 5.13±0.59a 3.85±0.30b 0.022 3
乙酸 AA/% 2.68±0.17b 3.39±0.17a 3.19±0.38ab 0.037 0
丙酸 PA/% 0.41±0.10 0.38±0.10 0.45±0.09 0.696 5

2.3 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的瘤胃降解率与降解参数

2.3.1 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的DM瘤胃降解率与降解参数

由表4可知,在6~48 h时,冀饲3号青贮的DM瘤胃降解率均高于中饲1048和冀饲2号青贮,且在6、12和24 h均显著高于中饲1048青贮(P<0.05);在72 h时,冀饲2号青贮的DM瘤胃降解率显著高于中饲1048青贮(P<0.05),与冀饲3号青贮的DM瘤胃降解率无显著差异(P>0.05)。中饲1048青贮的DM快速降解部分显著低于冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮(P<0.05),冀饲3号和中饲1048青贮的DM慢速降解部分显著低于冀饲2号青贮(P<0.05),DM慢速降解部分的降解速率显著高于冀饲2号青贮(P<0.05);EDDM以中饲1048青贮最低。
表4 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的DM瘤胃降解率与降解参数

Table 4 Ruminal degradation rate and degradation parameters of DM of different varieties of forage triticale silages

项目
Items		 中饲1048青贮
Silage of ZS1048		 冀饲2号青贮
Silage of JS2		 冀饲3号青贮
Silage of JS3		 P值
P-value
瘤胃降解率 Ruminal degradation rate/%
6 h 36.93±0.93c 39.98±1.21b 43.15±1.36a 0.000 1
12 h 42.30±2.21b 45.14±1.02a 46.91±0.89a 0.005 7
24 h 50.68±3.32c 54.38±1.68b 58.01±1.36a 0.004 2
36 h 57.82±3.88 58.12±1.81 59.66±1.28 0.575 1
48 h 63.62±4.37 64.32±1.49 64.17±1.33 0.933 7
72 h 67.30±2.57b 71.01±0.75a 70.29±1.04a 0.026 0
瘤胃降解参数 Ruminal degradation parameters
a/% 30.78±1.79b 37.74±1.41a 37.37±3.44a 0.004 1
b/% 40.85±1.91b 50.54±8.67a 36.21±4.67b 0.018 9
c/(%/h) 0.033±0.005a 0.015±0.005b 0.029±0.012a 0.025 7
ED/% 53.92±2.96 56.13±4.36 56.07±7.87 0.813 5

a:快速降解部分;b:慢速降解部分;c:慢速降解部分的降解速率;ED:有效降解率。下表同。

a: rapidly degraded fraction; b: slowly degraded fraction; c: the degradation rate of slow degraded fraction; ED: effective degradability. The same as below.

2.3.2 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的CP瘤胃降解率与降解参数

由表5可知,在6~12 h时,不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的CP瘤胃降解率无显著差异(P>0.05),但冀饲2号青贮略高于中饲1048和冀饲3号青贮;在24~48 h时,冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮的CP瘤胃降解率均显著高于中饲1048青贮(P<0.05);不同饲用小黑麦青贮的CP瘤胃降解率在72 h均达到最高,与中饲1048青贮相比,冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮CP瘤胃降解率分别提高了3.17%(P>0.05)和2.81%(P>0.05)。冀饲2号青贮的CP快速降解部分低于中饲1048和冀饲3号青贮(P>0.05),冀饲2号青贮的CP慢速降解部分及慢速降解部分的降解速率均显著高于中饲1048青贮(P<0.05);EDCP以中饲1048青贮最低,与中饲1048青贮相比,冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮分别提高了11.15%(P<0.05)和9.45%(P<0.05)。
表5 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的CP瘤胃降解率与降解参数

Table 5 Ruminal degradation rate and degradation parameters of CP of different varieties of forage triticale silages

项目
Items		 中饲1048青贮
Silage of ZS1048		 冀饲2号青贮
Silage of JS2		 冀饲3号青贮
Silage of JS3		 P值
P-value
瘤胃降解率 Ruminal degradation rate/%
6 h 31.88±1.64 34.70±1.18 34.14±1.53 0.116 9
12 h 43.24±1.40 45.76±0.87 44.70±1.30 0.108 5
24 h 51.29±0.53b 58.64±0.99a 57.34±0.88a 0.000 1
36 h 61.73±1.07b 69.98±2.45a 67.45±2.01a 0.005 2
48 h 65.68±0.94b 73.13±0.49a 72.13±1.58a 0.000 3
72 h 72.22±1.36 74.51±1.35 74.25±0.99 0.122 2
瘤胃降解参数 Ruminal degradation parameters
a/% 19.55±1.41 18.89±1.73 20.93±1.67 0.351 3
b/% 53.29±2.88b 58.82±1.23a 55.53±1.04ab 0.032 6
c/(%/h) 0.043±0.004b 0.054±0.006a 0.051±0.002ab 0.043 8
ED/% 53.10±2.04b 59.02±2.82a 58.12±2.00a 0.041 2

2.3.3 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的NDF瘤胃降解率与降解参数

由表6可知,冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮的NDF瘤胃降解率在各时间点均高于中饲1048青贮;在6~12 h时,冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮的NDF瘤胃降解率均显著高于中饲1048青贮(P<0.05);在48 h时,冀饲2号青贮的NDF瘤胃降解率显著高于中饲1048青贮(P<0.05),与冀饲3号青贮无显著差异(P>0.05)。NDF快速降解部分以中饲1048青贮最低,冀饲3号青贮最高,但冀饲3号青贮的NDF慢速降解部分显著低于中饲1048和冀饲2号青贮(P<0.05),且中饲1048青贮的NDF慢速降解部分的降解速率和EDNDF略低于冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮(P>0.05);与中饲1048青贮相比,冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮的NDF快速降解部分分别提高了13.19%(P>0.05)和22.72%(P<0.05),EDNDF分别提高了5.26%(P>0.05)和4.19%(P>0.05)。
表6 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的NDF瘤胃降解率与降解参数

Table 6 Ruminal degradation rate and degradation parameters of NDF of different varieties of forage triticale silages

项目
Items		 中饲1048青贮
Silage of ZS1048		 冀饲2号青贮
Silage of JS2		 冀饲3号青贮
Silage of JS3		 P值
P-value
瘤胃降解率 Ruminal degradation rate/%
6 h 21.71±0.92b 25.25±0.48a 25.86±0.75a 0.000 9
12 h 31.70±1.47b 35.17±0.67a 34.60±1.05a 0.018 2
24 h 39.66±1.23 41.64±0.53 40.99±1.70 0.222 3
36 h 48.99±1.49 52.27±0.55 51.18±1.65 0.056 6
48 h 53.20±1.11b 56.67±1.12a 54.73±1.44ab 0.037 5
72 h 60.74±1.32 63.44±1.22 62.12±1.01 0.082 8
瘤胃降解参数 Ruminal degradation parameters
a/% 15.01±0.72b 16.99±1.36ab 18.42±1.56a 0.044 3
b/% 53.16±1.08a 51.84±1.31a 46.60±1.75b 0.002 8
c/(%/h) 0.028±0.002 0.031±0.007 0.033±0.003 0.437 2
>ED/% 43.19±1.33 45.46±3.74 45.00±0.79 0.494 4

2.3.4 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的ADF瘤胃降解率与降解参数

由表7可知,冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮的ADF瘤胃降解率在各时间点均高于中饲1048青贮;在48 h时,冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮的ADF瘤胃降解率显著高于中饲1048青贮(P<0.05),与冀饲2号青贮相比,中饲1048和冀饲3号青贮在48 h时的ADF瘤胃降解率分别降低了7.13%(P<0.05)和1.47%(P>0.05)。不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的ADF瘤胃降解参数均无显著差异(P>0.05),EDADF以冀饲3号青贮最高,中饲1048青贮最低,与中饲1048青贮相比,冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮的EDADF分别提高了2.00%(P>0.05)和7.19%(P>0.05)。
表7 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的ADF瘤胃降解率与降解参数

Table 7 Ruminal degradation rate and degradation parameters of ADF of different varieties of forage triticale silages

项目
Items		 中饲1048青贮
Silage of ZS1048		 冀饲2号青贮
Silage of JS2		 冀饲3号青贮
Silage of JS3		 P值
P-value
瘤胃降解率 Ruminal degradation rate/%
6 h 16.94±1.68 16.97±1.70 17.38±0.87 0.920 3
12 h 22.71±0.60 23.50±1.18 24.42±2.07 0.394 3
24 h 32.30±1.25 33.07±1.28 32.89±1.67 0.793 7
36 h 43.80±1.15 45.01±1.22 44.97±1.83 0.538 2
48 h 45.62±1.16b 49.12±1.07a 48.40±1.83a 0.017 3
72 h 49.60±1.23 51.65±1.40 50.56±2.17 0.376 5
瘤胃降解参数 Ruminal degradation parameters
a/% 5.61±1.34 4.70±1.29 6.97±0.50 0.114 9
b/% 50.02±1.34 50.80±1.69 49.45±1.82 0.616 9
c/(%/h) 0.034±0.004 0.038±0.004 0.039±0.002 0.324 1
ED/% 34.47±0.59 35.16±2.24 36.95±1.73 0.249 3

2.4 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的隶属函数分析及综合价值排序

将饲用小黑麦青贮的14项核心指标进行隶属函数分析,结果(表8)显示,不同饲用小黑麦青贮综合价值排序为:冀饲3号青贮(9.50)>冀饲2号青贮(8.49)>中饲1048青贮(3.12),即冀饲3号青贮综合价值最高。
表8 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的隶属函数分析及综合价值排序

Table 8 Subordinate function analysis and comprehensive value ranking of different varieties of forage triticale silages

项目
Items		 中饲1048青贮
Silage of ZS1048		 冀饲2号青贮
Silage of JS2		 冀饲3号青贮
Silage of JS3
干物质 DM 0.54 0.00 1.00
粗蛋白质 CP 0.00 0.23 1.00
中性洗涤纤维 NDF 0.00 0.27 1.00
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF 0.00 0.72 1.00
可溶性糖 WSC 1.00 0.00 0.38
pH 0.00 1.00 0.49
氨态氮 NH3-N 0.00 1.00 0.38
乳酸 LA 0.00 1.00 0.35
乙酸 AA 1.00 0.00 0.28
丙酸 PA 0.57 1.00 0.00
干物质有效降解率 EDDM 0.00 1.00 0.97
粗蛋白有效降解率 EDCP 0.00 1.00 0.85
中性洗涤纤维有效降解率 EDNDF 0.00 1.00 0.80
酸性洗涤纤维有效降解率 EDADF 0.00 0.28 1.00
总隶属值 Total subordinate value 3.12 8.49 9.50
综合价值排序 Comprehensive value ranking 3 2 1

3 讨论

3.1 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的营养品质

营养成分含量是评价青贮营养特性的重要指标[22]。研究表明,青贮原料中DM含量高于30%可以有效避免梭菌发酵,保证青贮品质[23]。本试验中,3种饲用小黑麦青贮的DM含量均在30%~44%,青贮DM品质基本达标。CP含量可以反映青贮饲料的饲用价值,CP含量越高表明饲用价值越大;NDF是青贮饲料中主要的结构性碳水化合物的象征,NDF含量的高低会直接影响到反刍动物的采食量,进而影响唾液的分泌量、反刍时间、瘤胃环境、产奶量以及乳品质等指标[24-25];ADF主要包括纤维素、硅酸盐和酸性洗涤木质素,难以被瘤胃消化分解[26]。据报道,燕麦青贮(乳熟期收获)的CP含量为6.37%~9.71%,NDF含量为53.90%~70.36%,ADF含量为32.86%~39.36%[27⇓⇓⇓-31],黑麦青贮(乳熟期收获)的CP含量为5.69%~8.43%,NDF含量为59.07%~67.14%,ADF含量为36.29%~45.04%[5,32]。本试验中,3种饲用小黑麦青贮的CP含量为9.80%~10.33%,NDF含量为53.65%~58.79%,ADF含量为29.61%~39.87%。经比较可知,饲用小黑麦青贮的CP含量普遍高于燕麦青贮和黑麦青贮,NDF含量普遍低于燕麦青贮和黑麦青贮,ADF含量与燕麦青贮差别不大,但略低于黑麦青贮,由此认为饲用小黑麦青贮的营养品质优于燕麦青贮和黑麦青贮。本试验中,小黑麦青贮的NDF和ADF含量均为中饲1048青贮>冀饲2号青贮>冀饲3号青贮,与冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮相比,中饲1048青贮的NDF和ADF含量最高,饲用价值和营养品质较低,较难被反刍动物消化吸收[33]。综合营养品质各项指标认为,饲用小黑麦的营养品质优于燕麦青贮和黑麦青贮,且3种饲用小黑麦青贮的营养品质排序为冀饲3号青贮>冀饲2号青贮>中饲1048青贮。

3.2 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的发酵品质

青贮饲料主要依靠乳酸菌发酵将WSC快速地转化为有机酸,降低青贮饲料的pH,从而延长青贮饲料的储藏时间[34]。研究表明,酸性条件有利于抑制青贮过程中丁酸梭菌等有害微生物的繁殖,减少蛋白质的降解[35],一般青贮饲料pH在4.4~5.0[14],优质青贮饲料pH在4.2以下[36]。据报道,燕麦青贮的pH在4.14~4.73不等[29⇓-31,37⇓⇓-40]。本试验结果显示,中饲1048青贮pH显著高于冀饲2号与冀饲3号青贮,且中饲1048、冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮pH分别为4.43、3.90和4.17,从pH水平来看,饲用小黑麦青贮的pH略低于相同青贮条件的燕麦青贮,且本试验中冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮均达到优质青贮水平。青贮中NH3-N含量是反映青贮过程中CP降解程度重要指标[41-42],高NH3-N含量会减缓青贮pH的下降速度和氮的转化效率[43]。本试验结果表明,3种饲用小黑麦青贮NH3-N含量为中饲1048青贮>冀饲3号青贮>冀饲2号青贮,产生这一结果的原因可能是中饲1048青贮pH的下降速度缓慢,导致pH偏高,氨的转换效率降低,从而导致NH3-N含量升高,青贮品质降低。LA是青贮饲料青贮成功的标志,适宜的LA含量有助于延长青贮饲料的储存时间[44];AA是青贮过程中导致青贮饲料pH下降的重要因素之一,且AA与青贮过程中的有氧稳定性相关[45]。本试验中,3种饲用小黑麦青贮LA和AA含量均为冀饲2号青贮>冀饲3号青贮>中饲1048青贮,由此认为冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮的稳定性优于中饲1048青贮。结合pH、NH3-N和有机酸含量结果,认为冀饲2号青贮品质最佳,冀饲3号青贮次之,中饲1048青贮相对较差。

3.3 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮的瘤胃降解特性

瘤胃降解率和降解参数能够反映粗饲料在瘤胃中的消化特性[46],DM瘤胃降解率是反映干物质采食量的重要指标,其数值高表明饲料在瘤胃内易消化[47];CP瘤胃降解率主要受饲料CP含量、组成以及在瘤胃中滞留时间的影响,随着饲料在瘤胃中滞留时间的增加,CP瘤胃降解率也逐渐升高[48]。本试验结果表明,3种饲用小黑麦青贮的DM和CP瘤胃降解率均随消化时间的增加而升高,在72 h时达到最高,且冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮的DM和CP瘤胃降解率在各时间点均高于中饲1048青贮,EDDM和EDCP均以中饲1048青贮最低。研究表明,纤维素含量是影响DM瘤胃降解率的重要因素,饲料纤维素含量越高,其DM瘤胃降解率越低[49]。本试验中,中饲1048青贮DM快速降解部分显著低于冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮,冀饲3号青贮的DM慢速降解部分低于中饲1048和冀饲2号青贮,且DM慢速降解部分的降解速率显著高于冀饲2号青贮,这可能是由于冀饲3号青贮中CP等易降解物质含量高于中饲1048和冀饲2号青贮,而纤维等不易降解部分含量略低,导致冀饲3号DM快速降解部分高,慢速降解部分低,从而提高EDDM。
NDF和ADF瘤胃降解率的大小能够反映粗饲料消化的难易程度,NDF和ADF瘤胃降解率高,表明青饲料中纤维物质容易被瘤胃微生物分解利用[50]。本试验结果表明,3种饲用小黑麦青贮的NDF和ADF瘤胃降解率均随消化时间的增加而升高,在72 h时中饲1048、冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮的NDF瘤胃降解率分别为60.74%、63.44%和62.12%,略高于孙宇等[4]报道的小黑麦干草的72 h NDF瘤胃降解率(58.93%),这可能是由于饲用小黑麦纤维的紧密结构在青贮过程中被乳酸菌发酵分解,使其更容易被瘤胃微生物降解,从而导致饲用小黑麦青贮NDF瘤胃降解率高于小黑麦干草。本试验中,NDF快速降解部分以中饲1048青贮最低,冀饲3号青贮最高,且中饲1048和冀饲2号青贮NDF慢速降解部分高于冀饲3号青贮,且中饲1048青贮NDF慢速降解部分的降解速率和EDNDF低于冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮。研究表明,当粗饲料快速降解部分占比较小的时候,决定其NDF瘤胃降解率高低的因素主要是饲料的瘤胃外流速度和慢速降解部分的占比,而慢速降解部分占比高可以提高EDNDF[51],与本试验中冀饲3号青贮NDF的快速降部分最高,慢速降解部分较低,且慢速降解部分的降解速率和EDNDF高于中饲1048青贮的结果一致。此外,3种饲用小黑麦青贮的ADF有效降解率以冀饲3号青贮最高,中饲1048青贮最低,且不同饲用小黑麦青贮EDADF均在35%左右,这是由于ADF的主要组成部分是纤维素、木质素和二氧化硅等,木质素几乎不能被瘤胃微生物降解利用[37],因此3种饲用小黑麦青贮的EDADF均处于34.47%~36.95%;并且,在本试验中,中饲1048青贮的EDADF低于冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮,说明中饲1048青贮纤维中的木质素占比较冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮略高,在瘤胃内难降解,导致其EDADF较低[34]。

4 结论

不同品种饲用小黑麦(中饲1048、冀饲2号和冀饲3号)青贮的营养品质和瘤胃降解规律基本相同,以冀饲2号和冀饲3号青贮的营养品质及瘤胃降解特性较好;3种饲用小黑麦青贮综合饲用价值排序为冀饲3号青贮>冀饲2号青贮>中饲1048青贮;综合分析认为,这3种饲用小黑麦青贮均可以作为优质粗饲料用于奶牛生产,冀饲3号和冀饲2号青贮的饲用价值优于中饲1048青贮。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
张玉洁, 赵亥山, 薛瑞林, 等. 小黑麦干草对羔羊生产性能及采食行为的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2020, 37(2):355-362.

ZHANG Y J, ZHAO H S, XUE R L, et al. Effects of feeding triticale hay on the production performance and feeding behavior of lamb[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2020, 37(2):355-362. (in Chinese)

[2]
刘晶, 赵明月, 郭宏玉, 等. 高寒牧区小黑麦研究进展[J]. 青海科技, 2021, 28(4):23-26.

LIU J, ZHAO M Y, GUO H Y, et al. Advances in research on triticale in alpine rangelands[J]. Qinghai Science and Technology, 2021, 28(4):23-26. (in Chinese)

[3]
张晗, 盛子阳, 赵新钢, 等. 饲用小黑麦在动物生产中的应用研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(8):4867-4875.

DOI

ZHANG H, SHENG Z Y, ZHAO X G, et al. Research progress on application of forage triticale in animal production[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(8):4867-4875. (in Chinese)

DOI

[4]
孙宇, 杨燕燕, 吴春会, 等. 尼龙袋法评价4种粗饲料的饲用价值[J]. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(17):5-8.

SUN Y, YANG Y Y, WU C H, et al. Evaluation of forage value of four kinds of roughage by nylon bag method[J]. Feed Research, 2022, 45(17):5-8. (in Chinese)

[5]
代寒凌, 田新会, 杜文华, 等. 不同添加剂处理对小黑麦和黑麦青贮营养品质和发酵品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12):211-219.

DOI

DAI H L, TIAN X H, DU W H, et al. Effects of silage additives on nutritional quality and silage quality of triticale and rye[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(12):211-219. (in Chinese)

[6]
SANTANA O I, OLMOS-COLMENERO J J, WATTIAUX M A. Replacing alfalfa hay with triticale hay has minimal effects on lactation performance and nitrogen utilization of dairy cows in a semi-arid region of Mexico[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2019, 102(9):8546-8558.

DOI PMID

[7]
张文娟, 贺淼, 马向明, 等. 小黑麦干草饲喂高产奶牛效果研究[J]. 山东畜牧兽医, 2019, 40(5):7-8.

ZHANG W J, HE M, MA X M, et al. Effects of feeding triticale to high yielding dairy cows[J]. Shandong Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2019, 40(5):7-8. (in Chinese)

[8]
张文娟, 马向明, 张英伟, 等. 小黑麦干草在奶牛围产期应用效果研究[J]. 山东畜牧兽医, 2019, 40(4):5-6.

ZHANG W J, MA X M, ZHANG Y W, et al. Effect of triticale in the periparturient period of dairy cows[J]. Shandong Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2019, 40(4):5-6. (in Chinese)

[9]
刘汉成, 田新会, 杜文华. 小黑麦与黑麦花序结构和籽粒特性比较[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(7):120-132.

DOI

LIU H C, TIAN X H, DU W H. Structural characteristics of the inflorescence and grain traits of triticale and rye corn[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(7):120-132. (in Chinese)

[10]
贾龙, 王敬宽, 王艳, 等. 刈割期及青贮时长对饲草青贮品质的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2021, 53(3):116-121.

JIA L, WANG J K, WANG Y, et al. Effects of mowing period and silage duration on quality of forage silage[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 53(3):116-121. (in Chinese)

[11]
孙建勇, 刘萍. 小黑麦综合利用概述[J]. 大麦与谷类科学, 2015(4):12-13.

SUN J Y, LIU P. Overview on triticale comprehensive utiliazation[J]. Barley and Cereal Sciences, 2015(4):12-13. (in Chinese)

[12]
刘洁, 李伟, 王武兵, 等. 不同牧草青贮对绵羊生长性能和消化代谢的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2019, 42(10):18-21.

LIU J, LI W, WANG W B, et al. Effect of different forage silage on growth performance,digestion and metabolism in sheep[J]. Feed Research, 2019, 42(10):18-21. (in Chinese)

[13]
HARPER M T, OH J, GIALLONGO F, et al. Inclusion of wheat and triticale silage in the diet of lactating dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2017, 100(8):6151-6163.

DOI PMID

[14]
张凯. 四种豆科植物青贮营养价值评价[D]. 硕士学位论文. 阿拉尔: 塔里木大学, 2022.

ZHANG K. Evaluation of nutritional value of silage of four leguminous plants[D]. Master’s Thesis. Alaer: Tarim University, 2022. (in Chinese)

[15]
赵天章, 李慧英, 闫素梅. 反刍动物饲料纤维物质瘤胃降解规律研究进展[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2011, 32(9/10):158-160,164.

ZHAO T Z, LI H Y, YAN S M. Progress in the study of rumen degradation of fibrous material in ruminant feeds[J]. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2011, 32(9/10):158-160,164. (in Chinese)

[16]
赵广永. 反刍动物营养[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2012.

ZHAO G Y. Ruminant nutrition[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2012. (in Chinese)

[17]
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 quality test technology[M]. 4th ed. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2016. (in Chinese)

[18]
佚名. 青贮饲料质量评定标准 (试行)[J]. 中国饲料, 1996(21):5-7.

Anon. Quality assessment criteria for silage[J]. China Feed, 1996(21):5-7. (in Chinese)

[19]
SIDDONS R C, PARADINE J, GALE D L, et al. Estimation of the degradability of dietary protein in the sheep rumen by in vivo and in vitro procedures[J]. British Journal of Nutrition, 1985, 54(2):545-561.

DOI

[20]
冯仰廉, 陆治年. 奶牛营养需要和饲料成分[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2007.

FENG Y L, LU Z N. Nutritional requirements and feed composition for dairy cattle[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2007. (in Chinese)

[21]
王挺, 宋磊, 王旭哲, 等. 复合乳酸菌对番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮发酵品质及瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(10):167-177.

DOI

WANG T, SONG L, WANG X Z, et al. Effect of compound Lactobacillus and mixture ratio on fermentation quality and rumen degradability of mixed tomato pomace and alfalfa silage mixed storage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(10):167-177. (in Chinese)

[22]
赵雅丽, 曹艳红, 杨膺白, 等. 不同发酵菌剂处理的青贮甘蔗尾叶对水牛生产性能、血清生化指标及瘤胃发酵参数的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2020, 43(6):1-5.

ZHAO Y L, CAO Y H, YANG Y B, et al. Effect of silage sugarcane tail leaves treated with different fermentation agents on buffalo production performance,serum biochemical indexes and rumen fermentation parameters[J]. Feed Research, 2020, 43(6):1-5. (in Chinese)

[23]
赵梦迪, 唐泽宇, 李明超, 等. 不同比例紫花苜蓿与玉米秸秆的混合青贮对发酵品质的影响[J]. 延边大学农学学报, 2018, 40(2):35-41.

ZHAO M D, TANG Z Y, LI M C, et al. The effect of mixed silage ratios of alfalfa and corn straw on fermentation quality[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science Yanbian University, 2018, 40(2):35-41. (in Chinese)

[24]
MILLER M D, KOKKO C, BALLARD C S, et al. Influence of fiber degradability of corn silage in diets with lower and higher fiber content on lactational performance,nutrient digestibility,and ruminal characteristics in lactating Holstein cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2021, 104(2):1728-1743.

DOI

[25]
LI F H, ZHANG B B, ZHANG Y X, et al. Probiotic effect of ferulic acid esterase-producing Lactobacillus plantarum inoculated alfalfa silage on digestion,antioxidant,and immunity status of lactating dairy goats[J]. Animal Nutrition, 2022, 11:38-47.

DOI

[26]
NAIR J, XU S W, SMILEY B, et al. Effects of inoculation of corn silage with Lactobacillus spp. or Saccharomyces cerevisiae alone or in combination on silage fermentation characteristics,nutrient digestibility,and growth performance of growing beef cattle[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 97(12):4974-4986.

DOI

[27]
游茵洁, 周浩珍, 刘垚, 等. 燕麦干草、青贮燕麦与天然牧草饲喂牦牛的营养价值比较研究[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8):99-110.

DOI

YOU Y J, ZHOU H Z, LIU Y, et al. Comparison of nutritional value of oat hay,oat silage and Sichuan pasture for yaks[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8):99-110. (in Chinese)

[28]
朱九刚, 张健, 邵涛, 等. 添加剂对全株燕麦青贮饲料发酵品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(6):1756-1761.

DOI

ZHU J G, ZHANG J, SHAO T, et al. The effects of additives on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of whole-plant oat silage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(6):1756-1761. (in Chinese)

[29]
田吉鹏, 刘蓓一, 顾洪如, 等. 乳酸菌及丙酸钙对全株玉米和燕麦青贮饲料发酵品质和霉菌毒素含量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8):157-166.

DOI

TIAN J P, LIU B Y, GU H R, et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and calcium propionate on fermentation quality and mycotoxin contents of whole plant maize and oat silages[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8):157-166. (in Chinese)

[30]
胡炜东, 曹晓娟, 武俊英, 等. 发酵时间对燕麦青贮发酵品质和微生物群落的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(17):106-110.

HU W D, CAO X J, WU J Y, et al. Effects of fermentation time on fermentation quality and microbial community of oat silage[J]. Feed Research, 2022, 45(17):106-110. (in Chinese)

[31]
陆永祥, 成启明, 陈良寅, 等. 不同海拔的燕麦青贮饲料发酵品质和细菌群落特征[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(2):350-357.

DOI

LU Y X, CHENG Q M, CHEN L Y, et al. Fermentation quality and bacterial community characteristics of oat silage at different altitudes[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(2):350-357. (in Chinese)

[32]
李伟. 收获期对小麦、黑麦及多年生黑麦草青贮品质的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2019.

LI W. Effects of harvest period on the silage quality of wheat,rye and perennial ryegrass[D]. Master’s Thesis. Yangling: Northwest A & F University, 2019. (in Chinese)

[33]
王建丽, 刘杰淋, 朱瑞芬, 等. 7个羊草新品种 (系) 生产性能和营养价值综合评价[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2021(9):116-122.

WANG J L, LIU J L, ZHU R F, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of productivity and nutritional value of 7 new varieties (strains) of Leymus chinensis[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2021(9):116-122. (in Chinese)

[34]
RAN T, TANG S X, YU X, et al. Diets varying in ratio of sweet sorghum silage to corn silage for lactating dairy cows:feed intake,milk production,blood biochemistry,ruminal fermentation,and ruminal microbial community[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2021, 104(12):12600-12615.

DOI

[35]
梁小玉, 季杨, 易军, 等. 混合比例和添加剂对菊苣与青贮玉米混合青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(2):173-181.

DOI

LIANG X Y, JI Y, YI J, et al. Effects of mixing ratio and additives on ensilage efficiency of mixed chicory and silage maize[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(2):173-181. (in Chinese)

[36]
李连任. 青贮饲料的加工调制技术[J]. 中国乳业, 2021(8):19-23.

LI L R. Processing and modulation technology of silage[J]. China Dairy, 2021(8):19-23. (in Chinese)

[37]
琚泽亮, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽. 温度和乳酸菌添加剂对燕麦青贮发酵品质及氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草原与草坪, 2021, 41(2):53-59,69.

JU Z L, ZHAO G Q, CHAI J K. Effects of temperature and lactic acid bacteria additives on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of oat silage[J]. Grassland and Turf, 2021, 41(2):53-59,69. (in Chinese)

[38]
张晴晴, 梁庆伟, 杨秀芳, 等. 添加有机酸对燕麦青贮发酵和营养品质的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2019, 42(4):84-86.

ZHANG Q Q, LIANG Q W, YANG X F, et al. Effect of adding organic acids on fermentation and nutritional quality of oat silage[J]. Feed Research, 2019, 42(4):84-86. (in Chinese)

[39]
肖燕子, 辛晓平, 徐丽君, 等. 呼伦贝尔地区不同添加剂对燕麦青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2022, 39(7):1487-1493.

XIAO Y Z, XIN X P, XU L J, et al. Effect of different additives on the quality of oat silage in Hulunbuir area[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2022, 39(7):1487-1493. (in Chinese)

[40]
曹晓娟, 武俊英, 李文旭, 等. 不同添加剂对青贮燕麦发酵品质和营养成分的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2022(21):60-65.

CAO X J, WU J Y, LI W X, et al. Effects of different additives on fermentation quality and nutritional components of oat silage[J]. China Feed, 2022(21):60-65. (in Chinese)

[41]
冼振宇, 李苏敏, 池宙, 等. 葡萄糖和苹果酸对杂交狼尾草青贮发酵品质和营养成分的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(2):116-120.

XIAN Z Y, LI S M, CHI Z, et al. Effects of glucose and malic acid on fermentation quality and nutrients of hybrid Pennisetum silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2022, 44(2):116-120. (in Chinese)

[42]
LI X J, TIAN J P, ZHANG Q, et al. Effects of mixing red clover with alfalfa at different ratios on dynamics of proteolysis and protease activities during ensiling[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(10):8954-8964.

DOI PMID

[43]
HE L W, LV H J, CHEN N, et al. Improving fermentation, protein preservation and antioxidant activity of Moringa oleifera leaves silage with gallic acid and tannin acid[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 297:122390.

DOI

[44]
郑美. 青贮时间对不同品种玉米饲用品质及微生物多样性的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古大学, 2021.

ZHENG M. Effects of silage time on feeding quality and microbial diversity of different maize varieties[D]. Master’s Thesis. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia University, 2021. (in Chinese)

[45]
曹雨莉, 刘瑞芳, 苏利红. 应用高效液相色谱法测定青贮饲料中有机酸含量的研究[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2013(21):86-87,91.

CAO Y L, LIU R F, SU L H. Application of high-performance liquid chromatography for the determination of organic acids in silage[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2013(21):86-87,91. (in Chinese)

[46]
郭太情, 和少英, 王荣蛟, 等. 尼龙袋法评价奶水牛常用粗饲料的瘤胃降解特性[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(6):3699-3709.

DOI

GUO T Q, HE S Y, WANG R J, et al. Evaluation of rumen degradation characteristics of common roughages for dairy buffaloes by nylon bag method[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(6):3699-3709. (in Chinese)

DOI

[47]
侯玉洁. 不同粗饲料降解特性及对奶牛生产性能和血液生化指标的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2014.

HOU Y J. Rumen degradation characteristics of forages and NDF sources on dairy cows performance and blood biochemical parameters[D]. Master’s Thesis. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2014. (in Chinese)

[48]
施安, 李聚才, 张俊丽, 等. 不同青贮、粗饲料在育成羊瘤胃中的降解特性[J]. 中国饲料, 2018(21):12-16.

SHI A, LI J C, ZHANG J L, et al. Ruminal degradation characteristics of silages and roughages for growing ram[J]. China Feed, 2018(21):12-16. (in Chinese)

[49]
张颖, 刘艳春. 不同粗饲料对科尔沁肉牛瘤胃降解率及营养物质消化率的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2019, 42(5):15-19.

ZHANG Y, LIU Y C. Effect of different roughages on rumen degradation and nutrient digestibility in Khorchin beef cattle[J]. Feed Research, 2019, 42(5):15-19. (in Chinese)

[50]
李平, 王富伟, 邵大富, 等. 生姜茎叶营养价值及其在奶牛瘤胃中的降解特性研究[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(10):5701-5707.

DOI

LI P, WANG F W, SHAO D F, et al. Nutritional value and ruminal degradation characteristics of ginger stems and leaves in dairy cows[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(10):5701-5707. (in Chinese)

[51]
DA SILVA L G, SAMPAIO C B, DE PAULA E M, et al. Nutritional evaluation and ruminal fermentation patterns of kochia compared with alfalfa and orchardgrass hays and ephedra and cheatgrass compared with orchardgrass hay as alternative arid-land forages for beef cattle in two dual-flow continuous culture system experiments[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2018, 96(2):705-714.

DOI PMID

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.