Evaluation of Effects of Additives on Silage Quality of Different Varieties of Oats in Alpine Regions Based on Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System

QIN Ziyang; ZHANG Hongrui; WANG Zhaoming; LI Yujia; HAO Yingchen; WANG Lei; ATAKU Kazuo; SUN Zhiqiang; YU Zhu

doi:10.12418/CJAN2025.055

2025 , Vol. 37 >Issue 1: 637 - 647

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2025.055

RESEARCH PAPER

Evaluation of Effects of Additives on Silage Quality of Different Varieties of Oats in Alpine Regions Based on Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System

QIN Ziyang ^,¹ ,
ZHANG Hongrui ¹^,² ,
WANG Zhaoming ² ,
LI Yujia ¹ ,
HAO Yingchen ¹ ,
WANG Lei ¹ ,
ATAKU Kazuo ³ ,
SUN Zhiqiang ¹^,⁴ ,
YU Zhu ^,¹^,^*

Expand

¹ College of Grassland and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
² National Grass Technology Innovation Center (Preparation), Hohhot 010070, China
³ Rakuno Gakuen University, Ebeyeong 069-8501, Japan
⁴ Key Laboratory of Forage Efficient Production Model Innovation, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, China

^* professor, E-mail: yuzhu33150@sina.com

Received date: 2024-07-05

Online published: 2025-01-10

Fold

Abstract

In order to investigate the effects of different varieties and additives on the silage quality of oats, three varieties of oats such as “Baiyan 11”, “Heimeike” and “Kaisa” were selected as the test subjects in this experiment, and four additive treatments, namely, blank control (CK), Lactobacillus plantarum (LP, inoculation dose was 1×10⁵ CFU/g FW), Lactobacillus brucei (LB,inoculation dose was 1×10⁵ CFU/g FW) and sodium benzoate (SB, added dose was 1.5% FW), were designed to analyze the fermentation quality of oat silage, nutritional quality and Cornell net carbohydrate and protein system (CNCPS) components after 45 d of silage. The results showed as follows: 1) compared with “Baiyan 11” oat silage, “Heimeike” oat silage had significantly lower pH (P<0.05) and significantly higher acetic acid (AA) content (P<0.05); compared with the CK, the addition of LP, LB and SB all significantly decreased the pH and ammoniacal nitrogen (NH₃-N) content (P<0.05), significantly increased the lactic acid (LA) content of oat silage (P<0.05), and was most prominent with LB. 2) In terms of varieties, “Heimeike” oat silage had the lowest dry matter (DM), while “Kaisa” oat silage had the highest DM and soluble carbohydrates (WSC), and its crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and acid detergent lignin (ADL) contents were significantly lower than those of the other varieties (P<0.05); in terms of additives, compared with the CK, the addition of LP, LB and SB all significantly reduced the NDF and ADF contents of oat silage (P<0.05). 3) In terms of varieties, the protein components of CNCPS of “Heimeike” oat silage had lower content of non-protein nitrogen (PA), higher content of rapidly degradable protein (PB1), slowly degradable protein (PB3), and significantly lower content of binding protein (PC) than the other varieties (P<0.05); in terms of additives, the addition of LP, LB and SB all significantly increased the contents of PB1 and medium-rate degradable protein (PB2), and significantly decreased the contents of PA and PC in oat silage compared with CK (P<0.05), and the performance of LB was the most prominent. 4) “Heimeike” oat silage had the highest carbohydrate (CHO) content, while the contents of non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) and sugar (CA) of “Kaisa” oat silage was significantly higher than those of other varieties (P<0.05), and its contents of available fiber (CB2) and unavailable fiber (CC) was significantly lower than those of other varieties (P<0.05); the addition of LP, LB and SB all significantly increased the contents of CA and starch and pectin (CB1) (P<0.05), and significantly decreased the contents of CB2 and CC in oat silage as compared with CK (P<0.05), and was most prominent in LB. In conclusion, adding LB is beneficial to improve the quality of oat silage. The oat variety with the best quality after fermentation is “Heimeike”, and the protein component of “Heimeike” is the best, and the carbohydrate component of “Kaisa” is the best. Therefore, “Heimeike” is a high-quality oat variety suitable for the silage in the Sanjiangyuan region.

Key words： oat; varieties; additives; silage quality; CNCPS

Cite this article

QIN Ziyang , ZHANG Hongrui , WANG Zhaoming , LI Yujia , HAO Yingchen , WANG Lei , ATAKU Kazuo , SUN Zhiqiang , YU Zhu . Evaluation of Effects of Additives on Silage Quality of Different Varieties of Oats in Alpine Regions Based on Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2025 , 37(1) : 637 -647 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2025.055

燕麦(Avena sativa L.)为禾本科燕麦属一年生植物,具有喜冷凉、易栽种、产量高等优点^[1],是一种适应力强的优质饲草^[2]。我国高寒地区草食畜牧业基础薄弱,民生持续改善需求矛盾突出,传统的放牧方式已无法满足当前需要。通过人工建植优质饲草,可以缓解当地冬春两季饲草短缺,提高家畜生产能力和水平。作为高寒地区人工草地建植的首选牧草,燕麦的种植面积不断扩大、利用程度不断上升已经成为必然趋势,这将在合理优化家畜饲料来源的同时,为解决高寒地区草畜不平衡问题和促进畜牧业可持续发展提供强劲的推动力^[3]。

在实际生产中,燕麦的常见加工处理方式有干草晒制和青贮调制。与晒制干草相比,调制青贮可以有效减少天气因素的限制,最大程度保持其青绿特性^[4]。与此同时,燕麦青贮饲料在反刍动物饲养方面发挥着重要作用。在饲粮中添加燕麦青贮饲料能够有效改善肉牛常规肉品质,提高肉牛免疫性能^[5]。使用燕麦青贮饲料替代燕麦干草能够提高奶牛产奶量和乳品质,替代50%燕麦干草时具有较好的经济效益^[6]。因此,针对三江源地区多变的自然条件,通过青贮可实现燕麦的安全贮藏和便捷运输,同时可以保证该地区家畜饲料稳定均衡供应^[7]。

燕麦青贮饲料的质量受到添加剂、品种和收获期等因素的影响^[8]。研究表明,乳酸菌和化学剂等青贮添加剂均能够减少燕麦青贮饲料营养成分的损失,有效改善其有氧稳定性,从而提高饲料的发酵品质^[9]。不同品种的燕麦在营养成分方面差异极大^[10],在各个地区表现出的生长特性、青贮效果和其康奈尔净碳水化合物-蛋白质体系(Cornell net carbohydrate and protein system,CNCPS)组分各不相同。与Van Soest饲料分析体系这一基础营养价值评定体系相比,CNCPS与机体本身建立起了密切联系^[11],同时划分出蛋白质和碳水化合物组分,可以客观预测饲料在反刍动物体内的消化吸收情况^[12]。因此,本试验将常规养分分析与CNCPS结合,围绕三江源地区不同品种和不同添加剂对燕麦青贮品质及CNCPS组分的影响开展试验,以期筛选出适宜调制青贮饲料的燕麦品种和较适应燕麦青贮的添加剂种类,为三江源地区草牧业的可持续健康发展提供理论依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验地概况

试验地位于青海省玉树藏族自治州杂多县,地处澜沧江扎曲河沿岸峡谷地带,地理位置为东经95°51',北纬32°59',平均海拔为4 290 m。该地区属于大陆性季风气候,无明显四季之分,年平均气温0.5 ℃,年平均降水量540 mm,年平均日照时数为2 310.3 h。

1.2 试验材料

参试燕麦品种包括“白燕11”“黑玫克”和“凯撒”。将抽穗期的全株燕麦刈割后,用铡草机切碎至2 cm左右调制成青贮饲料。选用植物乳杆菌(Lactobacillus plantarum,LP)、布氏乳杆菌(Lactobacillus brucei,LB)及苯甲酸钠(sodium benzoate,SB)作为青贮添加剂,2种乳酸菌均为中国农业大学饲草加工实验室筛选菌株,接种量均为1×10⁵ CFU/g FW,苯甲酸钠添加量为1.5%FW;以添加等量蒸馏水的试验组为空白对照(blank control,CK)。各品种燕麦原料的营养成分含量如表1所示。

表1 燕麦原料营养成分含量(干物质基础)

Table 1 Nutrient contents of raw oats (DM basis)

品种 Varieties	干物质 DM/ %FW	可溶性碳水化合物 WSC/ %DM	粗蛋白质 CP/ %DM	粗脂肪 EE/ %DM	粗灰分 Ash/ %DM	中性洗涤纤维 NDF/ %DM	酸性洗涤纤维 ADF/ %DM	酸性洗涤木质素 ADL/ %DM
白燕11 Baiyan 11	20.88	7.38	12.5	3.22	0.45	46.79	27.42	4.99
黑玫克Heimeike	21.05	8.45	9.68	3.12	0.32	45.56	26.36	4.50
凯撒Kaisa	23.76	7.28	9.19	4.16	1.00	44.12	25.14	4.86

1.3 试验设计

采用双因素试验设计,因素1为燕麦品种(3个:“白燕11”“黑玫克”和“凯撒”)和因素2为添加剂(4种:CK、LP、LB和SB),共计12个处理。将切碎的燕麦原料与添加剂混合均匀后装入真空袋,每袋400 g,抽真空后密封保存,每个处理设置3个重复,于室温条件下贮藏45 d后开袋取样分析。

1.4 测定指标与方法

1.4.1 发酵品质

燕麦青贮饲料开袋后将样品混匀,称取20 g鲜样,加入180 mL蒸馏水,使用榨汁机榨汁1 min后用4层纱布过滤得到浸提液,用于后续发酵指标的测定。使用雷磁PHS-3C精密pH计测定pH;采用SHIMADZE-10A高效液相色谱仪测定乳酸(lactic acid,LA)、乙酸(acetic acid,AA)、丙酸(propionic acid,PA)含量,色谱柱为Shodex Rspak KC-811S-DVB gel Column 30 mm×8 mm,检测器为SPD-M10AVP,流动相为3 mmol/L高氯酸,流速为1 mL/min,检测波长为210 nm,进样量为5 μL;采用苯酚-次氯酸钠比色法^[13]测定氨态氮(ammonia nitrogen,NH₃-N)含量,并计算氨态氮占总氮(total nitrogen,TN)的比例。

1.4.2 营养品质

参照AOAC(2012)^[14]测定样品的干物质(dry matter,DM)、可溶性碳水化合物(water soluble carbohydrate,WSC)、粗蛋白质(crude protein,CP)、粗灰分(crude ash,Ash)和粗脂肪(ether extract,EE)含量,采用Van Soest等^[15]的方法测定样品的中性洗涤纤维(neutral detergent fiber,NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维(acid detergent fiber,ADF)、酸性洗涤木质素(acid detergent lignin,ADL)、中性洗涤不溶性蛋白质(neutral detergent fiber insoluble protein,NDIP)和酸性洗涤不溶性蛋白质(acid detergent fiber insoluble protein,ADIP)。参照Licitra等^[16]的方法测定可溶性粗蛋白质(soluble crude protein,SOLP)和非蛋白氮(non-protein nitrogen,NPN)含量。淀粉(Starch)含量采用试剂盒(北京索莱宝科技有限公司)测定。

1.4.3 CNCPS组分

按照Sniffen等^[17]的方法计算燕麦青贮饲料的蛋白质组分和碳水化合物组分。

蛋白质组分计算公式如下:

PA(%CP)=NPN(%SCP)×SCP(%CP)×0.01;

PB1(%CP)=SOLP(%CP)-PA(%CP);

PB2(%CP)=100-PA(%CP)-PB1(%CP)-PB3(%CP)-PC(%CP);

PB3(%CP)=NDIP(%CP)-ADIP(%CP);

PC(%CP)=ADIP(%CP)。

式中:PA为NPN占CP的百分比;PB1为快速降解蛋白质占CP的百分比;PB2为中速降解蛋白质占CP的百分比;PB3为慢速降解蛋白质占CP的百分比;PC为结合蛋白质占CP的百分比。

碳水化合物组分计算公式如下:

CHO(%DM)=100-CP(%DM)-EE(%DM)-Ash(%DM);

CA(%CHO)=[100-Starch(%NSC)]×[100-CB2(%CHO)-CC(%CHO)]/100;

CC(%CHO)=[100×NDF(%DM)×0.01×ADL(%NDF)×2.4)]/CHO(%DM);

CB1(%CHO)=Starch(%NSC)×[100-CB2(%CHO)-CC(%CHO)]/100;

CB2(%CHO)=100×[NDF(%DM)-NDIP

(%CP)×0.01×CP(%DM)-NDF(%DM)×0.01×ADL(%NDF)×2.4)]/CHO(%DM);

NSC(%CHO)=100-CB2(%CHO)-CC(%CHO)。

式中:CHO为碳水化合物;CA为糖类;CC为不可利用纤维;CB1为淀粉和果胶;CB2为可利用纤维;NSC为非结构碳水化合物。

1.5 数据处理与分析

使用Excel 2021整理数据,采用SPSS 21.0软件对数据进行双因素方差分析,并采用Duncan氏法进行多重比较,以P<0.05表示差异显著。

2 结果

2.1 品种和添加剂对燕麦青贮饲料发酵品质的影响

由表2可知,品种和添加剂的互作效应对燕麦青贮饲料的pH、NH₃-N和LA含量均有显著影响(P<0.05)。从品种方面看,不同品种对燕麦青贮饲料的pH、AA含量均有显著影响(P<0.05),对NH₃-N、LA和PA含量无显著影响(P>0.05);“黑玫克”燕麦青贮饲料的pH最低,“黑玫克”和“凯撒”燕麦青贮饲料的AA含量均显著高于“白燕11”燕麦青贮饲料(P<0.05)。从添加剂方面看,不同添加剂对燕麦青贮饲料的pH、NH₃-N和LA含量有显著影响(P<0.05),对AA和PA含量无显著影响(P>0.05);与CK相比,LB的添加显著降低了燕麦青贮饲料的pH和NH₃-N含量(P<0.05),显著增加了LA含量(P<0.05)。

表2 品种和添加剂对燕麦青贮饲料发酵品质的影响

Table 2 Effects of variety and additive on fermentation quality of oat silage

项目 Items		pH	氨态氮 NH₃-N/ %TN	乳酸 LA/ %DM	乙酸 AA/ %DM	丙酸 PA/ %DM
品种Varieties	添加剂Additives
白燕11 Baiyan 11	CK	4.13^b	1.81^b	2.58^f	0.63	0.01
	LP	4.05^e	1.21^c	2.98^cde	0.51	0.02
	LB	4.02^fg	0.82^e	2.81^e	0.49	0.02
	SB	4.10^c	1.15^cd	2.93^cde	0.38	0.01
黑玫克 Heimeike	CK	4.12^bc	2.86^a	2.44^f	0.43	0.03
	LP	4.03^ef	1.83^b	3.08^c	0.55	0.01
	LB	4.00^g	1.34^c	3.34^b	0.72	0.01
	SB	4.07^d	0.94^e	2.99^cde	0.66	0.03
凯撒 Kaisa	CK	4.19^a	2.92^a	2.08^g	0.63	0.03
	LP	4.13^b	1.77^b	2.85^de	0.70	0.02
	LB	4.12^bc	1.22^c	3.53^a	0.71	0.03
	SB	4.14^b	0.98^de	3.02^cd	0.54	0.02
标准误SE		0.00	0.06	0.03	0.01	0.00
品种平均值Mean of varieties
白燕11 Baiyan 11		4.08^b	1.25	2.83	0.50^b	0.02
黑玫克Heimeike		4.06^b	1.74	2.96	0.59^a	0.02
凯撒Kaisa		4.15^a	1.72	2.87	0.64^a	0.03
添加剂平均值Mean of additives
CK		4.15^a	2.53^a	2.37^c	0.56	0.02
LP		4.07^bc	1.60^b	2.97^b	0.59	0.02
LB		4.05^c	1.13^c	3.23^a	0.64	0.02
SB		4.10^b	1.03^c	2.98^b	0.53	0.02
P值P-value
品种Variety		<0.001	0.135	0.682	0.007	0.107
添加剂Additive		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.196	0.668
品种×添加剂Variety×additive		0.019	<0.001	<0.001	0.053	0.571

	同列数据肩标不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05),相同小写字母或无字母表示差异不显著(P>0.05)。下表同。
	In the same column, values with different small letter superscripts mean significant difference (P<0.05), while with no letter or the same letter superscripts mean no significant difference (P>0.05). The same as below.

2.2 品种和添加剂对燕麦青贮饲料营养品质的影响

由表3可知,品种和添加剂的互作效应对燕麦青贮饲料营养品质的各项指标均有显著影响(P<0.05)。从品种方面看,“凯撒”燕麦青贮饲料的DM和WSC含量最高,其CP、NDF、ADF和ADL含量显著低于其他品种(P<0.05);“白燕11”燕麦青贮饲料的CP和EE含量最高,显著高于其他品种(P<0.05);“黑玫克”燕麦青贮饲料的DM含量最低。从添加剂方面看,不同添加剂对燕麦青贮饲料的WSC、NDF和ADF含量有显著影响(P<0.05),对DM、CP、EE、Ash和ADL含量无显著影响(P>0.05)。与CK相比,SB的添加显著增加了燕麦青贮饲料的WSC含量(P<0.05),添加LP、LB和SB均显著降低了燕麦青贮饲料的NDF和ADF含量(P<0.05)。

表3 品种和添加剂对燕麦青贮饲料营养品质的影响

Table 3 Effects of variety and additive on nutritional quality of oat silage

项目 Items		干物质 DM/ %FW	可溶性碳水化合物 WSC/ %DM	粗蛋白质 CP/ %DM	粗脂肪 EE/ %DM	粗灰分 Ash/ %DM	中性洗涤纤维 NDF/ %DM	酸性洗涤纤维 ADF/ %DM	酸性洗涤木质素 ADL/ %DM
品种Varieties	添加剂Additives
白燕11 Baiyan 11	CK	18.96^e	2.84^c	10.30^c	3.62^bc	0.61	43.55^b	25.18^b	3.94^a
	LP	19.21^de	1.74^f	11.88^b	3.44^c	0.78	40.64^e	24.53^c	3.68^b
	LB	19.25^d	1.49^g	12.40^a	3.61^bc	1.14	40.70^e	23.62^d	3.18^c
	SB	19.19^de	2.93^c	12.18^a	4.15^a	0.99	42.23^c	24.59^c	3.69^b
黑玫克 Heimeike	CK	17.59^g	3.31^b	8.85^f	2.86^d	1.57	44.35^a	26.53^a	3.17^c
	LP	18.55^f	2.63^d	9.15^e	1.89^f	1.39	41.69^d	24.52^c	2.81^de
	LB	18.61^f	2.49^e	9.61^d	2.02^ef	1.07	42.47^c	24.59^c	2.91^d
	SB	19.82^c	3.79^a	8.96^ef	2.26^e	0.75	41.54^d	23.67^d	3.21^c
凯撒 Kaisa	CK	21.66^b	0.59^h	7.58^h	3.67^bc	1.11	39.71^f	23.21^e	2.88^d
	LP	22.21^a	1.54^g	8.80^f	3.53^bc	3.67	37.61^h	21.28^g	2.69^e
	LB	22.18^a	1.81^f	8.95^ef	3.59^bc	1.23	36.78ⁱ	21.24^g	2.49^f
	SB	21.86^b	3.34^b	8.48^g	3.82^b	1.02	38.49^g	22.10^f	2.72^e
标准误SE		0.47	0.27	0.46	0.22	0.17	0.67	0.46	0.13
品种平均值Mean of varieties
白燕11 Baiyan 11		19.15^b	1.82^b	11.69^a	3.71^a	0.88	41.78^a	24.48^a	3.62^a
黑玫克Heimeike		18.64^c	2.25^b	9.14^b	2.26^b	1.20	42.51^a	24.83^a	3.02^b
凯撒Kaisa		21.98^a	3.05^a	8.45^c	3.65^c	1.76	38.15^b	21.96^b	2.69^c
添加剂平均值Mean of additives
CK		19.41	2.24^b	8.91	3.38	1.10	42.53^a	24.97^a	3.33
LP		19.99	1.97^b	9.94	2.95	1.95	39.97^b	23.44^b	3.06
LB		20.01	1.93^b	10.32	3.07	1.15	39.98^b	23.15^b	2.86
SB		20.29	3.35^a	9.87	3.41	0.92	40.75^ab	23.45^b	3.21
P值P-value
品种Variety		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.052	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
添加剂Additive		0.697	0.001	0.254	0.491	0.072	0.045	0.048	0.138
品种×添加剂Variety×additive		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.049	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

2.3 品种和添加剂对燕麦青贮饲料CNCPS蛋白质组分的影响

由表4可知,品种和添加剂的互作效应对燕麦青贮饲料CNCPS蛋白质组分除PB3外的其余指标均有显著影响(P<0.05)。从品种方面看,“黑玫克”燕麦青贮饲料的非蛋白氮(PA)含量较低,PB1和PB3含量较高,PC含量最低,显著低于其他品种(P<0.05);“白燕11”燕麦青贮饲料的PC含量最高,显著高于其他品种(P<0.05);“凯撒”燕麦青贮饲料的PA含量最高,而PB3含量最低,显著低于其他品种(P<0.05)。从添加剂方面看,LB的添加显著提高了燕麦青贮饲料的PB1和PB2含量,显著降低了PA和PC含量(P<0.05)。

表4 品种和添加剂对燕麦青贮饲料CNCPS蛋白质组分的影响

Table 4 Effects of varieties and additives on protein components of CNCPS in oat silage %CP

项目 Items		非蛋白氮 PA	快速降解白质 PB1	中速降解蛋白质 PB2	慢速降解蛋白质 PB3	结合蛋白质 PC
品种Varieties	添加剂Additives
白燕11 Baiyan 11	CK	31.04^d	7.15^g	37.72^e	14.95	9.14^a
	LP	26.80ⁱ	7.77^f	40.88^c	16.05	8.51^c
	LB	26.11^j	7.86^ef	42.04^b	15.73	8.26^de
	SB	27.88^h	7.65^f	39.90^d	15.81	8.77^b
黑玫克 Heimeike	CK	32.03^b	7.23^g	35.59^g	16.73	8.43^cd
	LP	28.41^g	8.96^b	37.51^e	17.56	7.56^fg
	LB	26.98ⁱ	9.89^a	37.98^e	17.81	7.34^h
	SB	29.23^f	8.53^c	36.71^f	17.82	7.72^f
凯撒 Kaisa	CK	33.46^a	6.44^h	40.51^cd	10.75	8.83^b
	LP	30.37^e	8.15^d	41.98^b	11.39	8.12^e
	LB	28.98^f	8.08^de	43.97^a	11.47	7.51^gh
	SB	31.59^c	8.04^de	40.96^c	11.35	8.06^e
标准误SE		0.36	0.13	0.72	0.89	0.11
品种平均值Mean of varieties
白燕11 Baiyan 11		27.96^b	7.61^b	40.14^b	15.63^b	8.67^a
黑玫克Heimeike		29.16^b	8.65^a	36.95^c	17.48^a	7.76^c
凯撒Kaisa		31.10^a	7.68^b	41.86^a	11.24^c	8.13^b
添加剂平均值Mean of additives
CK		32.18^a	6.94^b	37.94^b	14.14^a	8.80^a
LP		28.53^bc	8.29^a	40.12^a	15.00^a	8.06^bc
LB		27.36^c	8.61^a	41.33^a	15.00^a	7.70^c
SB		29.56^b	8.07^a	39.19^a	14.99^a	8.18^b
P值P-value
品种Variety		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
添加剂Additive		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
品种×添加剂Variety×additive		<0.001	<0.001	0.001	0.060	0.010

2.4 品种和添加剂对燕麦青贮饲料CNCPS碳水化合物组分的影响

由表5可知,品种和添加剂的互作效应对燕麦青贮饲料CNCPS碳水化合物组分的各项指标均有显著影响(P<0.05)。从品种方面看,“黑玫克”燕麦青贮饲料的CHO含量最高;“凯撒”燕麦青贮饲料的NSC和CA含量显著高于其他品种(P<0.05),CB2和CC含量显著低于其他品种(P<0.05)。从添加剂方面看,与CK相比,LB的添加显著提高了NSC、CA和CB1含量(P<0.05),显著降低了CB2和CC含量(P<0.05)。

表5 品种和添加剂对燕麦青贮饲料CNCPS碳水化合物组分的影响

Table 5 Effects of variety and additive on carbohydrate components of CNCPS in oat silage

项目 Items		碳水化合物 CHO/ %DM	非结构性碳水化合物 NSC/ %CHO	糖类 CA/ %CHO	淀粉和果胶 CB1/ %CHO	可利用纤维 CB2/ %CHO	不可利用纤维 CC/ %CHO
品种Varieties	添加剂Additives
白燕11 Baiyan 11	CK	85.47^cd	51.95^fg	47.50^f	4.45^e	36.99^cd	11.06^a
	LP	83.90^e	55.04^de	50.12^cd	4.91^d	34.44^hi	10.52^b
	LB	82.85^e	54.47^e	49.20^de	5.27^c	36.32^de	9.22^c
	SB	82.68^e	52.55^f	47.68^f	4.87^d	36.74^cd	10.71^ab
黑玫克 Heimeike	CK	86.72^abc	51.42^g	47.65^f	3.77^f	39.82^a	8.76^d
	LP	87.57^ab	55.02^de	50.14^cd	4.88^d	37.28^bc	7.71^ef
	LB	87.30^ab	54.12^e	48.41^ef	5.71^a	37.89^b	7.99^e
	SB	88.04^a	55.42^d	50.95^bc	4.47^e	35.83^ef	8.76^d
凯撒 Kaisa	CK	87.64^ab	56.39^c	51.90^b	4.49^e	35.74^efg	7.88^ef
	LP	84.00^de	57.24^bc	51.86^b	5.38^bc	35.08^fgh	7.68^ef
	LB	86.24^bc	59.32^a	53.71^a	5.61^ab	33.75ⁱ	6.94^g
	SB	86.68^abc	57.49^b	51.92^b	5.57^ab	34.99^gh	7.51^f
标准误SE		0.15	0.09	0.10	0.03	0.07	0.04
品种平均值Mean of varieties
白燕11 Baiyan 11		83.72^c	53.50^c	48.63^c	4.88^b	36.12^b	10.38^a
黑玫克Heimeike		87.41^a	54.00^b	49.29^b	4.71^c	37.70^a	8.31^b
凯撒Kaisa		86.14^b	57.61^a	52.35^a	5.26^a	34.89^c	7.50^c
添加剂平均值Mean of additives
CK		86.61^a	53.25^c	49.01^c	4.24^c	37.52^a	9.23^a
LP		85.16^b	55.77^a	50.71^a	5.06^b	35.60^b	8.64^b
LB		85.46^b	55.97^a	50.44^a	5.53^a	35.98^b	8.05^c
SB		85.80^ab	55.15^b	50.18^a	4.97^b	35.85^b	8.99^a
P值P-value
品种Variety		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
添加剂Additive		0.012	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
品种×添加剂Variety×additive		0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

3 讨论

3.1 不同品种和添加剂对燕麦青贮饲料发酵品质及营养品质的影响

pH是衡量青贮饲料发酵品质的关键指标,pH低于4.2说明禾本科青贮饲料发酵良好^[18]。本研究中,所有处理的燕麦青贮饲料pH均低于4.2,说明燕麦青贮后均有较好的发酵品质。相较于其他添加剂,添加LB的燕麦青贮饲料pH降低,LA含量升高,与彭丹等^[19]的研究结果一致。与CK相比,各添加剂处理燕麦青贮饲料的AA含量均无不显著变化,但以添加LB的处理含量最高,这可能是由于试验所选用的LB产酸能力较强,在青贮发酵过程中产生了大量LA。NH₃-N含量可以反映蛋白质的降解程度,其含量较低证明青贮饲料的品质优良^[20]。本试验中,添加LB、LP均降低了燕麦青贮饲料的NH₃-N含量,此结果与柴继宽等^[21]的研究结果相似,表明这2种微生物添加剂能有效减少蛋白质的分解。其中,LB处理的NH₃-N含量显著低于CK处理,说明添加LB的燕麦青贮饲料中的蛋白质保存良好,具有更高的利用价值。

与燕麦原料相比,各品种的燕麦青贮后营养成分含量都有不同程度的改善,3种添加剂均能够有效提升燕麦青贮饲料的营养品质。不同品种燕麦的营养成分不用,这会对青贮品质产生影响。本研究中,不同燕麦品种之间的营养成分含量差异较大,这可能是燕麦品种的遗传特性不尽相同,进而导致品种间的营养成分含量出现差异^[22]。在全部添加剂处理中,SB处理燕麦青贮饲料的DM含量最高,这是由于SB是一种发酵抑制剂,在厌氧环境中减少了乳酸菌对发酵底物的消耗^[23],同时其作为一类化学添加剂,具有抑菌作用。“黑玫克”燕麦青贮饲料的pH和WSC含量较低,其发酵情况良好,且CP含量较高,营养价值良好。NDF和ADF含量能较为准确地反映纤维质量的高低,其中ADF含量与动物消化率呈负相关关系^[24]。本研究中,添加LB、LP均显著降低了燕麦青贮饲料的ADF和NDF含量,这说明这2种乳酸菌在燕麦青贮发酵过程中对难以消化的纤维进行了有效降解^[25]。

3.2 不同品种和添加剂对燕麦青贮饲料CNCPS组分的影响

青贮饲料在反刍动物瘤胃中的降解速率和对蛋白质的利用率可以通过CNCPS蛋白质组分进行推测^[26]。PA是青贮饲料自身大部分蛋白质分解后形成的部分,与动物采食量呈负相关关系;PB1和PB2是反刍动物瘤胃中的微生物合成自身蛋白质的主要氮源;PB3与细胞壁结合后大部分经过瘤胃而进入后部消化道被吸收利用,能有效提高反刍动物的生产性能^[27]。本研究中,“黑玫克”燕麦青贮饲料的PB1和PB3含量较高,而PA含量较低,说明“黑玫克”燕麦青贮饲料中的蛋白质能够主要通过反刍家畜的瘤胃进行消化吸收,并且可能具有较好的蛋白质利用效果。“凯撒”燕麦青贮饲料的PB2含量较高,表明其能够较为有效地为瘤胃提供氮源。PC在酸性洗涤剂中无法被溶解,是难以被反刍动物或瘤胃微生物消化利用的部分,其含量越低代表蛋白质具有越高的生物学效价^[28]。“黑玫克”燕麦青贮后的PC含量最低,此品种可能具有较高的蛋白质消化率。与CK相比,添加LB的燕麦青贮饲料的蛋白质生物学效价较高,对反刍动物瘤胃微生物环境具有良好的维系作用。

饲料中的CHO是反刍动物的主要能量来源,而结构性碳水化合物(SC)和非结构性碳水化合物在瘤胃中的降解情况均会影响CHO对反刍家畜的营养价值^[29]。本研究中,CK处理的各品种燕麦青贮饲料的CHO含量均在85%以上,与张雯露等^[30]、杨燕燕等^[31]对禾本科饲草的研究结果相似。饲料中SC向NSC的转化能够提高反刍动物对SC的消化率^[31]。本研究中,与CK相比,添加各添加剂均提高了燕麦青贮饲料中NSC的占比,改变了SC与NSC的比例,说明使用添加剂可以实现SC向NSC的转化,从而提高饲料的利用效率。CA作为能够在瘤胃中快速降解的部分,可以提供足量优质的碳骨架^[32],更好地维持反刍动物瘤胃发酵。本试验中,“凯撒”燕麦青贮饲料的CA和CB1含量在所有品种中最高,且添加LB提高了燕麦青贮饲料的CA和CB1含量,说明两者可能均对反刍动物的瘤胃发酵具有促进作用。CB2是慢速降解碳水化合物,主要包括纤维素和半纤维素,其大部分进入肠道且在肠道内的利用效率较低,无法及时为家畜提供能量;CC为反刍动物瘤胃中几乎无法利用的部分^[33-34]。本试验中,“凯撒”燕麦青贮饲料的CB2和CC含量最低,LB处理的CB2和CC含量显著低于CK处理,此结果与占文源等^[34]、赖玉娇等^[35]的研究结果相似,说明添加LB能够改善燕麦青贮饲料在动物瘤胃中的利用率。

4 结论

综合分析得出,添加LB有利于提高燕麦青贮饲料品质,青贮发酵后品质较好的燕麦品种为“黑玫克”,且“黑玫克”燕麦青贮饲料的蛋白质组分最优。因此,“黑玫克”是适用于三江源地区调制青贮的优质燕麦品种。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within

[1]	刘伟, 贾玉山, 格根图, 等. 燕麦青贮研究进展[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(12):3175-3183. DOI LIU W, JIA Y S, GE G T, et al. Research advance of oat silage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(12):3175-3183. (in Chinese) DOI

[2]

贾志锋, 马祥, 琚泽亮, 等. 施氮量和播种量对燕麦光合特性、激素含量及种子产量的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(2):293-302.

DOI

JIA

Z F

, MA

, JU

Z L

, et al. Effects of nitrogen application rate and sowing rate on photosynthetic characteristics,phytohormone content and grain yield of oat[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(2):293-302. (in Chinese)

[3]	张子龙. 高寒地区施肥和混播对燕麦草产量、水肥利用及经济效益的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 兰州: 兰州大学,2018:10-11. ZHANG Z L. Effects of fertilization and mixed planting on forage oat DM yield,water and fertilizer use and economic benefits in alpine region[D]. Master’s Thesis. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University,2018:10-11. (in Chinese)

[4]	侯龙鱼, 朱泽义, 杨杰, 等. 我国饲草用燕麦现状、问题和潜力[J]. 西南民族大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 45(3):248-253. HOU L Y, ZHU Z Y, YANG J, et al. Current status,problems and potentials of forage oat in China[J]. Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities (Natrual Science Edition), 2019, 45(3):248-253. (in Chinese)

[5]

胡张涛, 陈书礼, 倪洁, 等. 青贮燕麦和发酵杂交构树对肉牛生长性能、血清生化指标、肉品质以及肌肉组织学特性的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(7):4474-4486.

DOI

Z T

, CHEN

S L

, NI

, et al. Effects of oat silage and fermented hybrid broussonetia papyrifera on growth performance,serum biochemical indices,meat quality and muscle histological characteristics of cattle[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(7):4474-4486. (in Chinese)

[6]	王思伟, 刘婷婷, 李魁英, 等. 燕麦青贮替代燕麦干草和羊草对奶牛生产性能及血清生化指标的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2023, 46(6):10-14. WANG S W, LIU T T, LI K Y, et al. Effect of oat silage replacing oat hay and Leymus chinensis on production performance and serum biochemical indices of dairy cows[J]. Feed Research, 2023, 46(6):10-14. (in Chinese)

[7]	胥贵, 汪雅婷, 穆麟, 等. 尿素添加对青贮品质影响的Meta分析研究[J]. 草地学报, 2024, 32(8):2607-2619. DOI XU G, WANG Y T, MU L, et al. Meta-analysis study of the effects of adding urea on silage quality[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2024, 32(8):2607-2619. (in Chinese) DOI

[8]	WANG C, HE L W, XING Y Q, et al. Effects of mixing Neolamarckia cadamba leaves on fermentation quality,microbial community of high moisture alfalfa and stylo silage[J]. Microbial Biotechnology, 2019, 12(5):869-878.

[9]

苏嘉琪, 辛杭书, 张广宁, 等. 国内外青贮饲料原料来源、品质评价及影响因素的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(12):7585-7594.

DOI

J Q

, XIN

H S

, ZHANG

G N

, et al. Research progress on sources,quality evaluation and influencing factors of silages feed at home and abroad[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(12):7585-7594. (in Chinese)

[10]	关皓, 许多, 李海萍, 等. 高寒地区17个燕麦品种营养品质及瘤胃降解特性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(9):185-198. DOI GUAN H, XU D, LI H P, et al. A study of nutritional quality and rumen degradation characteristics of 17 oat varieties in high cold regions[J]. Acta prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(9):185-198. (in Chinese) DOI

[11]	马小俊, 杨宇为, 马青, 等. 康奈尔净碳水化合物-蛋白质体系在反刍动物生产中的应用研究[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(6):3478-3490. DOI MA X J, YANG Y W, MA Q, et al. Applied research of Cornell net carbohydrate and protein system in ruminant production[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(6):3478-3490. (in Chinese) DOI

[12]	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)

[13]	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.

[14]	AOAC. Official methods of analysis[S]. 19th ed.Washington,D.C.:Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 2012.

[15]	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.

[16]	LICITRA G, HERNANDEZ T M, VAN SOEST P J. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1996, 57(4):347-358.

[17]	SNIFFEN C J, O’CONNOR J D, VAN SOEST P J, et al. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets:Ⅱ.Carbohydrate and protein availability[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1992, 70(11):3562-3577.

[18]	MCDONALD P, HENDERSON A R, HERON S. The biochemistry of silage[M]. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons,1991.

[19]	彭丹, 徐成体, 德科加, 等. 不同乳酸菌添加剂对高寒地区玉米与燕麦青贮品质的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2023(11):140-145. PENG D, XU C T, DE K J, et al. Effects of different lactic acid bacteria additives on the quality of maize and oat silage in alpine regions[J]. China Feed, 2023(11):140-145. (in Chinese)

[20]	SU R N, NI K K, WANG T W, et al. Effects of ferulic acid esterase-producing Lactobacillus fermentum and cellulase additives on the fermentation quality and microbial community of alfalfa silage[J]. PeerJ, 2019,7:e7712.

[21]	柴继宽, 赵桂琴, 琚泽亮. 添加不同乳酸菌对燕麦低温青贮发酵的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(3):923-928. DOI CHAI J K, ZHAO G Q, JU Z L. Effects of adding different lactic acid bacteria on oat silage fermentation at low temperatures[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(3):923-928. (in Chinese)

[22]	王润莲, 武俊英, 刘慧军, 等. 内蒙古地区10个燕麦品种生产性能及营养品质的比较研究[J]. 饲料研究, 2023, 46(10):128-133. WANG R L, WU J Y, LIU H J, et al. Comparative study on production performance and nutritional quality of ten oat varieties in Inner Mongolia[J]. Feed Research, 2023, 46(10):128-133. (in Chinese)

[23]	TAHIR M, LI J Y, XIN Y F, et al. Response of fermentation quality and microbial community of oat silage to homofermentative lactic acid bacteria inoculation[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2022,13:1091394.

[24]	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(2):85-91. LI X L, ZHANG X Y, TANG Y G, et al. Effect of concentrate-forage ratio in diet on liveweight gain of stall-fed goats[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2008(2):85-91. (in Chinese)

[25]	许冬梅. 不同气候区及乳酸菌影响玉米青贮发酵的微生物组与代谢组学机制研究[D]. 博士学位论文. 兰州: 兰州大学,2021:11-15. XU D M. Mechanisms of microbial and metabolome onfermentation of corn silage effected byclimate zones and inoculations[D]. Ph.D.Thesis. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University,2021:11-15. (in Chinese)

[26]

侯红雁, 申晨, 霍文婕, 等. 同型发酵乳杆菌对低水分紫花苜蓿青贮发酵品质及体外消化率的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4):835-841.

DOI

HOU

H Y

, SHEN

, HUO

W J

, et al. The effects of homofermentative Lactobacillus on ensiling characteristics and in vitro digestibility of low-moisture alfalfa silage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(4):835-841. (in Chinese)

[27]

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

, 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)

[28]	赵璐洁, 范华芳, 孙鑫畅, 等. 乳酸菌改善苜蓿、无芒雀麦混贮发酵品质及CNCPS蛋白组分[J]. 草业科学, 2023, 40(5):1397-1409. ZHAO L J, FAN H F, SUN X C, et al. Effects of additives on fermentation quality and CNCPS protein fractions of legume-grass silage mixture[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2023, 40(5):1397-1409. (in Chinese)

[29]	黄万里, 王建平, 刘宁, 等. 不同水培时间下大麦苗的营养价值及CNCPS组分[J]. 草业科学, 2019, 36(7):1811-1818. HUANG W L, WANG J P, LIU N, et al. Determination of nutritive value and analysis of the CNCPS contents in barley grass cultivated using a hydroponic system[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(7):1811-1818. (in Chinese)

[30]	张雯露, 黄雄杰, 李容, 等. 川西北高寒地区5种饲草产量与CNCPS组分分析[J]. 草地学报, 2024, 32(6):1672-1681. DOI ZHANG W L, HUANG X J, LI R, et al. Yield and CNCPS components analysis of five forage grasses in northwestern Sichuan plateau[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2024, 32(6):1672-1681. (in Chinese)

[31]	杨燕燕, 孙宇, 吴春会, 等. 应用CNCPS体系比较饲用小黑麦和燕麦草的营养价值组分[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(4):931-935. DOI YANG Y Y, SUN Y, WU C H, et al. Applying CNCPS system to evaluate the nutritive value of oat and forage triticale[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(4):931-935. (in Chinese)

[32]

李英齐, 史长笑, 邓嘉杰, 等. 不同加工方式葡萄酒糟对肉牛生长性能、消化代谢及经济效益的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(9):5891-5901.

DOI

Y Q

, SHI

C X

, DENG

J J

, et al. Effects of grape pomace with different processing methods on growth performance,digestion and metabolism and economic benefit of beef cattle[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(9):5891-5901. (in Chinese)

[33]	李建云, 柴贵宾, 朱晓萍, 等. 辽宁绒山羊常用饲料营养价值评定[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2012, 48(7):38-42. LI J Y, CHAI G B, ZHU X P, et al. Nutritive value evaluation of some feed for Liaoning cashmere goat[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2012, 48(7):38-42. (in Chinese)

[34]	占文源, 冯雪莹, 刘奕婷, 等. 不同乳酸菌添加剂对谷子青贮品质及CNCPS组分的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2024, 47(6):106-110. ZHAN W Y, FENG X Y, LIU Y T, et al. Effects of different lactic acid bacteria additives on quality and CNCPS components of millet silage[J]. Feed Research, 2024, 47(6):106-110. (in Chinese)

[35]	赖玉娇, 罗海玲, 王朕朕, 等. 添加不同乳酸菌剂对苜蓿青贮营养价值的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2014, 41(8):111-116. LAI Y J, LUO H L, WANG Z Z, et al. Effect of adding different lactic acid bacteria inoculants on nutrient values of alfalfa silage[J]. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2014, 41(8):111-116. (in Chinese)

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题