Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2025 , Vol. 37 >Issue 7: 4810 - 4822

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2025.393

RESEARCH PAPER

Effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on Fermentation Quality, Microbial Population, Aerobic Stability and Ruminal Degradation Rate of Soybean and Silage Maize Mixed-Ensilage

  • DING Wan , 1 ,
  • HAO Aijing 2 ,
  • FENG Yu , 2, * ,
  • XING Baolong , 3, *
Expand
  • 1 Cash Crop Research Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taiyuan 030031, China
  • 2 Institute of High Latitude Crops, Shanxi Agricultural University, Datong 037008, China
  • 3 Social Service Department, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taiyuan 030031, China
* FENG Yu, assistant professor, E-mail: ;
XING Baolong, professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2024-09-29

  Online published: 2025-07-12

Fold

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on the fermentation quality, microbial population, aerobic stability, and ruminal degradation rate of mixed silage composed of soybean (Glycine max) and silage maize (Zea mays). Mixed silage was carried out according to the mixing ratios of soybean and silage maize at 10:0 (S10), 7:3(SM73), 5:5(SM55), 3:7(SM37), 0:10(M10), respectively. Two treatments were set under each mixing ratio: no addition (CK), added Lactobacillus buchneri (LB). There were 3 replicates for each treatment. Samples were sampled after 45 days of fermentation. The results showed as follows: 1) under the same mixing ratio, compared with the CK treatment, the contents of acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) were decreased, while the contents of dry matter (DM) and crude protein (CP) were increased of the LB treatment. With the increase of the proportion of silage maize, the contents of DM and WSC showed an increasing trend, while the contents of CP, NDF and ADF showed an decreasing trend. 2) There was no significant difference in pH among all treatments (P>0.05). Except for the sole soybean silage treatments (S10/CK and S10/LB treatments), the pH of all other treatments were below 4.0. Under the same mixing ratio, compared with the CK treatment, the addition of Lactobacillus buchneri reduced the contents of ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), acetic acid (AA) and propionic acid (PA), while increased the lactic acid (LA) content. As the proportion of silage corn increasing, the LA content rose, while the contents of AA, PA and NH3-N decreased. Among the mixed silage treatments, the SM37/LB treatment demonstrated the best fermentation effect, with the lowest pH, the highest LA content, and the lowest contents of AA and NH3-N. 3) During aerobic exposure, regardless of whether Lactobacillus buchneri was added or not, the SM37 treatment had a higher lactic acid bacteria count than the SM73 and SM55 treatments, while its pH and the counts of yeast and mold were lower than those of the SM73 and SM55 treatments. The addition of Lactobacillus buchneri further decreased the pH, increased the lactic acid bacteria count, and reduced the counts of yeast and mold. All treatments exhibited good aerobic stability, with the SM37/LB treatment showed the most outstanding performance. Its aerobic stability time reached 192 hours, which was 48% longer than that of the SM37/CK treatment. 4) Under the same mixing ratio, the dry matter degradation rate (DMD), neutral detergent fiber degradation rate (NDFD) and acid detergent fiber degradation rate (ADFD) at 24 and 48 hours of the LB treatment were all higher than those pf the CK treatment. As the proportion of silage corn increasing, the DMD, NDFD and ADFD continued to rise. From a comprehensive perspective of fermentation quality, microbial population, aerobic stability and ruminal degradation rate, the best silage effect is achieved when soybean and silage corn are mixed at a ratio of 3:7 with the addition of Lactobacillus buchneri.

Key words： Lactobacillus buchneri; soybean; silage maize; fermentation quality; microbial population; ruminal degradation rate

Cite this article

DING Wan , HAO Aijing , FENG Yu , XING Baolong . Effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on Fermentation Quality, Microbial Population, Aerobic Stability and Ruminal Degradation Rate of Soybean and Silage Maize Mixed-Ensilage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2025 , 37(7) : 4810 -4822 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2025.393

作为在饲料生产中应用最广泛的优质青贮饲料原料,青贮玉米(Zea mays)具有产量高、营养丰富等优点[1],是反刍动物的重要饲料来源之一。由于我国优质饲料资源日益短缺,制约了畜牧业可持续发展,开发新型饲料成为农业生产亟待解决的问题[2]。大豆(Glycine max)具有蛋白质和维生素含量高等优势,但因其可溶性碳水化合物(WSC)含量低,缓冲能较高,原料上附生的乳酸菌数量少,阻碍了青贮过程中pH下降到低值,导致单独青贮很难调制出高品质的青贮饲料,影响了大豆作为饲草的推广和应用[3]。研究发现,在单一饲草青贮效果不佳的情况下,可通过混合青贮的方式结合2种原料特性达到优势互补,调制成具有全面营养价值和适口性好的优质饲料[4]。Wang等[5]研究显示,紫花苜蓿(Medicago sativa)单独青贮效果不佳,但与禾本科的全株玉米进行混合青贮后可在一定程度上改善青贮品质。因此,豆科的大豆与禾本科的青贮玉米混合青贮有可能获得优良的青贮饲料。
当青贮饲料暴露于空气中会产生大量有害细菌,导致青贮饲料营养物质的损失,所以青贮品质与青贮饲料的有氧稳定性密切相关[6]。为了提高青贮饲料的有氧稳定性,有些学者建议使用乳酸菌添加剂[7-8],通过乳酸菌在青贮过程中直接酸化降低pH,调节微生物数量[9-11],抑制有害微生物的产生来提高有氧稳定性[12]。Weinberg等[13]研究发现,青贮中添加布氏乳杆菌(Lactobacillus buchneri)可以在有氧暴露阶段控制有害菌的生长,提高青贮饲料的有氧稳定性。布氏乳杆菌是一种异型发酵乳酸菌,其可能将乳酸转化成抑制真菌生长的乙酸或其他有益有机酸,能有效抑制青贮饲料的二次发酵,延长腐烂时间,因此在青贮饲料中广泛应用[14]。
目前布氏乳杆菌作为青贮添加剂的研究主要集中在玉米、紫花苜蓿等单一青贮饲料上,其对大豆和青贮玉米混合青贮品质的影响尚不明确。基于此,本研究以大豆和青贮玉米为青贮原料,探讨青贮原料中二者的比例以及青贮过程中额外添加布氏乳杆菌对青贮品质、有氧暴露后微生物变化和瘤胃降解率的影响,以期为缓解晋北农牧交错带粗饲料短缺问题提供数据支撑。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验材料

以山西农业大学高寒区作物研究所试验站种植的大豆(鼓粒期)和青贮玉米(乳熟期)为青贮原料,种植时间为2022年5月20日,收割时间为2022年9月6日。将青贮原料含水量控制在60%~70%,切割成1~2 cm的长段。试验所用大豆与青贮玉米的营养水平见表1。试验所用布氏乳杆菌活菌数为1×105 CFU/g。
表1 大豆与青贮玉米的营养水平

Table 1 Nutrient levels of soybean and silage maize

青贮原料
Ensilage materials		 干物质
DM/% FM		 粗蛋白质
CP/% DM		 中性洗涤纤维
NDF/% DM		 酸性洗涤纤维
ADF/% DM		 水溶性碳水化合物
WSC/% DM
大豆 Soybean 26.79±3.21 16.38±4.02 47.67±1.34 32.36±2.02 5.15±2.56
青贮玉米 Silage maize 36.38±5.67 8.02±6.17 42.28±2.54 24.33±3.15 10.66±2.16

1.2 试验设计

青贮原料中大豆与青贮玉米的比例(质量比)分别设定为10:0(S10)、7:3(SM73)、5:5(SM55)、3:7(SM37)、0:10(M10),各混合比例下均设置无添加剂(CK)和添加布氏乳杆菌(LB)2个处理,共计10个处理,即S10/CK、S10/LB、SM73/CK、SM73/LB、SM55/CK、SM55/LB、SM37/CK、SM37/LB、M10/CK、M10/LB处理,每个处理设3个重复。按照设定的混合比例将大豆与青贮玉米混合均匀,按照20 mL/kg的量喷洒无菌水(CK处理)或布氏乳杆菌菌悬液(活菌数为4×102 CFU/mL,LB处理),混合均匀后装入聚乙烯袋,每袋0.5 kg,每个处理装3袋,室温条件下发酵45 d后开袋取样检测各指标。

1.3 检测指标与方法

1.3.1 常规营养成分分析

大豆、青贮玉米、青贮饲料的干物质(DM)、粗蛋白质(CP)和WSC含量参照AOAC(2003)[15]中方法测定,NDF和ADF含量参照Van Soest[16]的方法测定。

1.3.2 发酵品质分析

发酵45 d后开袋取样测定发酵品质指标。pH用便携式酸度计测定,乳酸(LA)含量采用水蒸气蒸馏法[17]测定,乙酸(AA)、丙酸(PA)和丁酸(BA)含量的测定参考Erwin等[18]的报道,氨态氮(NH3-N)含量采用苯酚-次氯酸钠比色法[19]测定。

1.3.3 有氧暴露下微生物数量测定

青贮45 d后,分别在有氧暴露后第1、3、7天开袋取样测定微生物数量。分析天平称取25 g样品,装入盛有180 mL无菌盐水的容器中,充分摇匀振荡;将提取液进行梯度稀释后,分别取100 μL在培养基上均匀涂布,每个稀释倍数做3个重复,采用平板计数法[20]计数微生物数量。乳酸菌培养使用MRS培养基,乳酸菌和酵母菌、霉菌培养使用马铃薯葡萄糖琼脂培养基(PDA)。

1.3.4 有氧稳定性测定

青贮45 d时打开青贮袋,用四分法每袋取300 g左右样品置于发酵袋中,袋口用纱布覆盖,以减少交叉污染及水分损失,同时保持空气流通。在样品几何中心插入温度记录仪(HOBO Pendant Temperature/Light,美国)记录青贮饲料的温度变化情况,同时检测室内温度,每30 min记录1次温度变化,持续至样品的温度超过环境温度2 ℃,记录所需时间[21]。

1.3.5 瘤胃降解率测定

瘤胃降解率采用瘤胃瘘管尼龙袋法[22]测定。动物试验经山西农业大学动物伦理学委员会批准(批准号:SXAU-EAW-2021G0305001),试验动物为3头平均体重为(550±50) kg、体况良好的荷斯坦奶牛,安装永久性瘤胃瘘管,按照1.3倍的营养标准饲养,饲粮精粗比为1:1,正常饲喂,每日于08:00和18:00分2次饲喂,自由饮水,试验前预饲1周。精准称取3 g左右的青贮饲料样品装入孔径为40 μm、规格为12 cm×8 cm的尼龙袋中,每个时间点(24和48 h)设置3个平行,于晨饲前1 h投放。到达设定时间点后将尼龙袋取出用自来水冲洗至水清澈,烘箱设置65 ℃,烘至恒重后粉碎,测定各营养成分指标后计算干物质降解率(DMD)、酸性洗涤纤维降解率(ADFD)和中性洗涤纤维降解率(NDFD):
DMD(%)=[(待测前样品DM含量-降解后样品DM含量)/待测前样品DM含量]×100;
ADFD(%)=[(待测前样品ADF含量-降解后样品ADF含量)/待测前样品ADF含量]×100;
NDFD(%)=[(待测前样品NDF含量-降解后样品NDF含量)/待测前样品NDF含量]×100。

1.4 数据处理与分析

使用Excel 2010对试验数据进行整理和初步处理,采用SPSS 23.0软件进行单因素方差分析,并采用Duncan氏法对各处理数据进行多重比较,数据用“平均值±标准差”表示,P<0.05为差异显著。

2 结果与分析

2.1 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮营养成分含量的影响

由表2可以看出,同一混合比例下,LB处理的ADF、NDF和WSC含量低于CK处理,而DM和CP含量则高于CK处理;随着青贮玉米比例的上升,混合青贮的DM和WSC含量逐渐升高,CP、ADF和NDF含量逐渐降低。大豆单贮处理(S10/CK、S10/LB处理)的DM和WSC含量显著低于其他处理(P<0.05),CP含量则显著高于其他处理(P<0.05);同一混合比例下,LB处理与CK处理的ADF和NDF含量差异不显著(P>0.05);与青贮玉米单贮处理(M10/CK、M10/LB处理)相比,大豆和青贮玉米混合青贮的CP含量显著提高(P<0.05)。
表2 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮营养成分含量的影响

Table 2 Effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on nutrient contents of soybean and silage maize mixed-ensilage

处理
Treatments		 干物质
DM/% FM		 粗蛋白质
CP/% DM		 中性洗涤纤维
NDF/% DM		 酸性洗涤纤维
ADF/% DM		 水溶性碳水化合物
WSC/% DM
S10/CK 23.43±0.82d 14.01±0.04a 45.28±1.31a 30.27±0.44a 1.98±0.52d
S10/LB 23.59±0.62d 14.94±0.07a 44.89±0.23a 30.14±0.51a 0.80±0.34d
SM73/CK 28.95±0.91c 11.32±0.06bc 44.28±0.52a 29.15±0.46ab 2.22±0.11c
SM73/LB 30.19±0.81b 12.34±0.05b 43.85±0.77a 28.30±0.31ab 2.16±0.78c
SM55/CK 29.71±1.16b 10.75±0.06bc 43.13±0.71ab 27.91±0.32b 3.53±0.46bc
SM55/LB 30.41±0.94b 10.96±0.08bc 42.94±0.58ab 26.21±0.41b 3.42±0.45bc
SM37/CK 30.50±1.31b 8.40±0.15c 42.69±1.04b 25.84±0.54bc 4.80±0.55b
SM37/LB 30.68±1.27b 8.74±0.09c 42.39±0.63b 24.44±0.55bc 3.61±0.51bc
M10/CK 32.42±1.56ab 7.24±0.03d 40.09±0.51bc 23.76±0.60bc 5.83±0.59a
M10/LB 33.32±1.51a 7.29±0.04d 40.05±1.07bc 22.91±0.50bc 4.64±0.41b

同列数据肩标不同小写字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。表3、表4和表6同。

In the same column, values with different small letter superscripts mean significant difference between different treatments (P<0.05). The same as Table 3, Table 4 and Table 6.

2.2 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮发酵品质的影响

由表3可以看出,各处理之间pH无显著差异(P>0.05);除大豆单贮处理外,其余处理的pH均在4.0以下,且随着青贮玉米比例的增加而降低;同一混合比例下,与CK处理相比,添加布氏乳杆菌可以降低NH3-N、AA和PA含量,提高LA含量。随着青贮玉米比例的上升,LA含量增加,AA、PA和NH3-N含量减少;混合青贮处理中SM73/LB、SM55/CK、SM55/LB、SM37/CK和SM37/LB处理的LA含量与大豆单贮处理差异显著(P<0.05),SM73/CK、SM73/LB、SM55/CK、SM55/LB、SM37/CK和SM37/LB处理的AA含量与大豆单贮处理差异显著(P<0.05),SM37/LB处理的NH3-N含量与大豆单贮处理差异显著(P<0.05)。除了大豆单贮处理检测出少量的BA外,其余各处理均未检测出BA。综合对比分析,SM37/LB处理各指标的表现优于其他处理。
表3 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮发酵品质的影响

Table 3 Effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on fermentation quality of soybean and silage maize mixed-ensilage

处理
Treatment		 pH 乳酸
LA/%DM		 乙酸
AA/%DM		 丙酸
PA/%DM		 丁酸
BA/%DM		 氨态氮
NH3-N/%
S10/CK 4.25±0.01 3.35±0.06c 2.32±0.02a 0.10±0.02a 0.06±0.02 4.49±0.06a
S10/LB 4.23±0.04 3.84±0.10c 2.27±0.01a 0.08±0.02a 0.02±0.01 3.27±0.10ab
SM73/CK 3.82±0.06 4.46±0.03bc 1.33±0.01b 0.06±0.01ab ND 2.73±0.03b
SM73/LB 3.80±0.04 4.62±0.19b 1.22±0.02bc 0.05±0.01ab ND 2.70±0.19b
SM55/CK 3.79±0.02 4.61±0.05b 1.32±0.01b 0.05±0.01ab ND 2.43±0.05bc
SM55/LB 3.76±0.02 4.83±0.09b 1.22±0.01bc 0.04±0.01b ND 2.33±0.09bc
SM37/CK 3.77±0.03 5.08±0.09ab 1.24±0.01bc ND ND 1.93±0.01bc
SM37/LB 3.73±0.04 5.27±0.01ab 1.17±0.01c ND ND 1.43±0.09c
M10/CK 3.72±0.11 5.54±0.09a 1.16±0.01c ND ND 1.61±0.02c
M10/LB 3.70±0.03 5.67±0.02a 1.14±0.02c ND ND 1.03±0.09cd

ND表示未检测到。下表同

ND indicated not detected. The same as below.

2.3 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮有氧暴露下pH及微生物数量的影响

由表4可以看出,不同有氧暴露时间显著影响了大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮饲料的pH以及乳酸菌、酵母菌和霉菌数量(P<0.05)。有氧暴露后各处理的pH均有所提高,在有氧暴露前期(第1~3天),各处理的pH缓慢上升,除大豆单贮处理外,各处理的pH均稳定在4.2以下;在有氧暴露第7天时,各处理的pH出现较大幅度上升,且在各混合比例下均表现为CK处理显著高于LB处理(P<0.05)。随着有氧暴露时间的延迟,各处理的微生物数量出现了不同的变化趋势,乳酸菌数量由缓慢降低转为迅速下降,酵母菌和霉菌数量总体呈上升趋势。随着青贮玉米比例的上升,乳酸菌数量不断增加,酵母菌和霉菌数量不断减少。无论是添加还是不添加布氏乳杆菌,SM37处理的乳酸菌数量均高于SM73和SM55处理,而酵母菌和霉菌数量均低于SM73和SM55处理。
表4 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮有氧暴露下pH及微生物数量的影响

Table 4 Effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on pH and microbial quantity of soybean and silage maize mixed-ensilage during aerobic exposure

项目
Items		 处理
Treatments		 有氧暴露天数 Days of aerobic exposure/d
1 3 7
pH S10/CK 4.25±0.01aC 4.46±0.01aB 5.22±0.01aA
S10/LB 4.22±0.04abC 4.42±0.04abB 5.00±0.04bA
SM73/CK 3.82±0.06bC 4.12±0.06bB 4.80±0.06cA
SM73/LB 3.80±0.04bC 4.05±0.04bcB 4.56±0.04dA
SM55/CK 3.79±0.02bC 4.09±0.02bcB 4.79±0.02cA
SM55/LB 3.76±0.02bcC 3.96±0.02cB 4.42±0.02dA
SM37/CK 3.77±0.03bcC 4.07±0.03bcB 4.65±0.03cdA
SM37/LB 3.73±0.04cC 3.83±0.04cdB 4.30±0.04eA
M10/CK 3.72±0.11cC 3.92±0.11cB 4.51±0.11dA
M10/LB 3.70±0.03cdC 3.88±0.03cdB 4.33±0.03eA
乳酸菌
Lactic acid bacteria/[lg(CFU/g FM)]		 S10/CK 6.31±0.88fA 6.01±0.69gB 5.02±0.98bcC
S10/LB 7.24±3.57dA 6.94±3.47deB 6.04±3.67bC
SM73/CK 6.53±0.73efA 6.13±0.75fB 5.14±0.74bcC
SM73/LB 7.50±2.35cdA 7.10±2.55deB 6.10±2.45bC
SM55/CK 6.75±5.25eA 6.35±5.16eB 5.35±5.25bcC
SM55/LB 7.76±1.29cA 7.36±1.19cB 6.37±1.39bC
SM37/CK 7.48±0.54cdA 7.18±0.34dB 6.38±0.65bC
SM37/LB 8.51±1.01bA 8.21±1.12bB 7.43±1.12abC
M10/CK 7.61±3.78cdA 7.41±3.58cB 6.72±3.68bC
M10/LB 8.76±0.20aA 8.56±0.11aB 7.86±0.21aC
酵母菌
Yeast/[lg(CFU/g FM)]		 S10/CK 4.33±0.04aC 4.53±0.04aB 5.13±0.04aA
S10/LB 3.15±1.21eC 3.35±1.21dB 4.25±1.21bA
SM73/CK 4.03±1.20bC 4.23±1.20bB 4.93±1.20abA
SM73/LB 2.80±2.78fC 3.10±2.78eB 4.10±2.78bA
SM55/CK 3.81±2.21cC 4.01±2.21bcB 4.99±2.21abA
SM55/LB 2.63±2.07fC 2.93±2.07efB 3.93±2.07bA
SM37/CK 3.54±3.27dC 3.79±3.27cB 4.34±3.27bA
SM37/LB 2.32±2.77gC 2.42±2.77fB 3.02±2.77cA
M10/CK 3.01±0.04efC 3.17±0.04eB 3.71±0.04bA
M10/LB 2.12±1.21hC 2.28±1.21fB 2.92±1.21cA
霉菌
Mould/[lg(CFU/g FM)]		 S10/CK 2.46±1.00aC 2.86±1.01aB 4.66±1.01aA
S10/LB 1.91±0.01bC 2.41±0.01bB 4.11±0.01abA
SM73/CK 2.31±0.01abC 2.71±0.01abB 4.51±0.01aA
SM73/LB 1.73±0.01cC 2.23±0.01cB 4.03±0.01abA
SM55/CK ND 2.22±0.11cB 4.12±0.11abA
SM55/LB ND 1.90±0.10dB 3.90±0.10abA
SM37/CK ND ND 3.78±0.01b
SM37/LB ND ND 3.32±0.01b
M10/CK ND ND 3.41±1.01b
M10/LB ND ND 3.02±0.01c

同行数据肩标不同大写字母表示不同有氧暴露天数间差异显著(P<0.05)。

In the same row, values with different capital letter superscripts mean significant difference between different days of aerobic exposure (P<0.05).

2.4 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮有氧稳定性的影响

由表5可以看出,未添加布氏乳杆菌的各CK处理S10/CK、SM73/CK、SM55/CK、SM37/CK、M10/CK的有氧稳定时间分别为79、89、109、130和130 h;添加布氏乳杆菌的各LB处理S10/LB、SM73/LB、SM55/LB、SM37/LB、M10/LB的有氧稳定时间分别为103、133、171、192和193 h,比相应的CK处理分别提高了30%、49%、47%、48%、46%。上述结果说明,添加布氏乳杆菌能够延长大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮青贮饲料的有氧稳定性,延缓腐败变质;各混合青贮处理中,以SM37/LB处理的表现最优。
表5 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮暴露于空气下的有氧稳定性

Table 5 Aerobic stability of Lactobacillus buchneri on soybean and silage maize mixed-ensilage exposed to airh

项目
Item		 处理 Treatments
S10/CK S10/LB SM73/CK SM73/LB SM55/CK SM55/LB SM37/CK SM37/LB M10/CK M10/LB
有氧稳定时间
Aerobic stabilized
time		 79 103 89 133 109 171 130 192 132 193

2.5 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮瘤胃降解率的影响

由表6可以看出,同一混合比例下,LB处理中24和48 h的DMD、NDFD、ADFD均高于CK处理。随着青贮玉米比例的上升,DMD、NDFD、ADFD不断提升,且添加布氏乳杆菌可以进一步提高DMD、NDFD、ADFD,SM37/LB处理的24和48 h DMD分别高达60.66%和72.66%。
表6 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮瘤胃降解率的影响

Table 6 Effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on ruminal degradability of soybean and silage maize mixed-ensilage%

处理
Treatments		 24 h干物质
降解率
24 h DMD		 48 h干物质
降解率
48 h DMD		 24 h中性洗涤
纤维降解率
24 h NDFD		 48 h中性洗涤
纤维降解率
48 h NDFD		 24 h酸性洗涤
纤维降解率
24 h ADFD		 48 h酸性洗涤
纤维降解率
48 h ADFD
S10/CK 58.43±0.32b 67.43±0.32d 26.76±0.33c 38.86±0.15c 18.30±0.31d 26.31±1.24d
S10/LB 59.59±0.42ab 69.59±0.42c 29.35±1.21c 40.36±1.32c 19.15±0.46c 30.26±0.46c
SM73/CK 59.95±0.71ab 68.95±0.71cd 31.73±1.67bc 42.83±0.47c 19.21±1.41c 27.42±0.52d
SM73/LB 60.39±0.81ab 70.39±0.81c 33.35±1.32b 45.16±0.42bc 21.91±0.32bc 33.93±0.41b
SM55/CK 59.93±1.13ab 68.73±1.13cd 32.23±0.48bc 45.45±0.56bc 20.44±0.55bc 28.64±0.56d
SM55/LB 60.42±0.65ab 71.42±0.65b 34.33±1.61b 47.23±0.72b 23.64±0.54b 30.75±1.42c
SM37/CK 60.52±1.21ab 70.52±1.21c 33.67±0.62b 46.87±0.43b 22.91±0.50b 31.82±0.20c
SM37/LB 60.66±1.27ab 72.66±1.27b 35.64±1.25b 47.59±1.14b 23.76±0.60b 35.54±0.51b
M10/CK 62.22±1.41a 71.22±1.41b 41.13±1.17a 55.25±0.27a 25.14±0.51a 34.22±0.43b
M10/LB 63.41±1.32a 75.41±1.32a 42.22±0.31a 57.14±0.52a 27.27±0.44a 38.18±0.32a

3 讨论

3.1 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮营养成分含量的影响

本试验中,大豆与青贮玉米以不同比例混合青贮45 d后,大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮饲料的DM含量随着青贮玉米比例的上升而提高,其是由于混合青贮饲料中青贮玉米的DM含量较高所致。由于乳酸菌可以生产较多的乳酸,有效减少DM损失[23],使得LB处理的DM含量高于CK处理。唐振华等[24]研究表明,添加布氏乳杆菌能显著提高甘蔗尾青贮饲料的DM含量,这与本研究结果相一致。随着青贮玉米比例的上升,混合青贮饲料的DM和WSC含量逐渐升高。WSC和CP含量是体现饲料营养价值的主要指标。在本研究中,大豆WSC含量仅为5.15%,原料营养特性不佳,不利于发酵。青贮玉米WSC含量丰富(10.66% DM),故青贮玉米更利于为乳酸菌发酵提供底物,降低pH,提高青贮效率。因此,要保证混合青贮饲料的营养价值应添加适量的青贮玉米,这与张欢等[25]的研究结果相似。本研究发现,随着青贮玉米比例的上升,青贮饲料中CP含量降低,原因可能与青贮玉米的CP含量低于大豆有关。李龙兴等[26]研究发现,随着玉米秸秆比例的上升,玉米秸秆与紫花苜蓿混合青贮饲料中CP含量反而降低,与本研究结果一致。饲料中NDF和ADF含量是影响反刍动物对饲料消化和吸收的关键指标[27],ADF含量过高,说明饲料中含有较多的纤维素,不易被反刍动物消化利用[28]。本试验中,随着青贮玉米比例的上升,混合青贮饲料的NDF和ADF含量出现降低的趋势,且添加的布氏乳杆菌降低了混合青贮饲料的ADF、NDF含量。一方面,由于大豆本身的纤维素分解会产生有害微生物,抑制乳酸菌繁殖,且大豆自身WSC含量低,通过添加青贮玉米可以提高WSC含量;另一方面,由于在青贮过程中的酸性发酵条件下,布氏乳杆菌产生的酶降解了青贮原料中的纤维结构,使得NDF和ADF含量降低。谢文斌等[29]研究发现,不同剂量布氏乳杆菌对玉米秸秆的NDF和ADF含量均有不同程度影响。本研究中,LB处理的NDF和ADF含量低于CK处理,表明布氏乳杆菌可以有效降低大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮饲料的纤维素含量,改善饲料的可消化性。

3.2 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米青贮发酵品质的影响

pH是验证青贮饲料质量的直观指标之一,pH越低,表明青贮品质越好[30],为保留饲料营养价值,通常pH低于4.2时青贮品质最好。本试验中,除大豆单贮处理外,其他处理的pH均低于4.2,且LB处理的pH低于CK处理,其中混合青贮处理中的SM37/LB处理表现最优,达到3.73,符合优良饲料的要求。高龙等[31]研究发现,添加布氏乳杆菌可以提高杂交狼尾草青贮的产酸能力,快速降低pH,提高青贮饲料的营养价值。有机酸是评定青贮品质优劣的可靠指标[32],其中降低青贮饲料pH的主要是LA,LA含量越高,AA和PA含量越低,发酵效果越好[33]。本试验中,大豆与青贮玉米混贮后,随着青贮玉米比例的增加,LA含量增加,而AA含量逐渐降低,其原因可能是青贮玉米中含有丰富的WSC,WSC作为乳酸菌发酵底物,能降低pH,促进青贮较好发酵。大豆单贮处理出现少量的BA,说明大豆不易单独青贮,其余各处理均未检出BA,说明没有受到外部环境污染,发酵品质较好。因此,大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮可以提高青贮饲料的发酵品质。这与匡宗洋等[34]得出的不同混合比例对全株玉米与大豆混合青贮品质影响的研究结果相似。NH3-N是评估青贮中蛋白质的降解程度的指标,有害微生物分解蛋白质会产生NH3-N,其含量越大,越不利于反刍动物采食[35]。在大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮中,NH3-N含量随青贮玉米比例的上升而减少,且混合青贮处理中的SM37/LB处理显著低于大豆单贮处理,说明青贮玉米在青贮过程中起到调节蛋白质降解的作用。另外,LB处理的NH3-N含量低于CK处理,这说明布氏乳杆菌能较好地保存青贮饲料中的蛋白质。杨烈等[36]研究显示,添加乳酸菌能够降低狗牙根青贮饲料的pH,抑制有害微生物对青贮饲料中蛋白质的分解,从而降低NH3-N含量,这与本研究结果相似。

3.3 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮有氧暴露下pH和微生物数量的影响

青贮饲料发生有氧变质时会伴随pH的变化。本试验中,有氧暴露第1~3天,各处理的pH均逐渐升高,有氧暴露第7天时pH上升幅度变大,且CK处理的pH高于LB处理,其原因主要是青贮饲料开袋与空气接触后,使自身稳定的环境遭到严重毁坏,导致有害微生物在环境中开始蔓延,霉变会释放大量热量,使得饲料温度升高,最终导致饲料腐败。布氏乳杆菌作为生长相对缓慢的专用异型发酵乳酸菌[37],其利用LA产生成AA和二氧化碳[38],AA具有抗真菌的作用,能抑制酵母菌和霉菌繁殖生长,延长腐败变质的时间。大量研究证实,布氏乳杆菌在青贮过程中通过减少不良微生物的生长来提高有氧稳定性,被广泛应用于青贮饲料的制作[39-40]。高巧仙等[41]研究显示,添加布氏乳杆菌组的葡萄渣比对照组的有氧稳定性好,储存时间更长。青贮饲料中的主要微生物有乳酸菌、酵母菌和霉菌,其直接影响青贮有氧稳定性。制作优良青贮饲料的主要微生物是乳酸菌,而酵母菌和霉菌是引起青贮饲料有氧变质的主要原因,有害微生物不仅大量减少营养物质含量[42],还产生霉菌毒素,威胁着动物和人类健康[43]。王旭哲等[44]研究证实,当青贮饲料接触到空气时均会有不同程度的变化,乳酸菌数量随着有氧暴露时间的延长逐渐减少,酵母菌和霉菌数量均随有氧暴露时间的延长逐渐增加,本研究也得到相同的结论。另外,在混合青贮处理中,SM37/CK和SM37/LB处理的乳酸菌数量变化趋势较缓和,酵母菌数量增加较缓慢,霉菌在有氧暴露第7天才出现,说明大豆与青贮玉米在以3:7比例混合时青贮饲料的有氧稳定性较好,这与Kizilsimek等[45]研究得出的大豆与玉米混合比例为4:6和2:8时青贮品质较好的结果相近。
有氧稳定性是在饲料接触空气后,保证品质和营养价值不变的重要指标[46]。青贮饲料有氧暴露持续时间越长,二次发酵的可能性越大,品质就越差,最终导致青贮饲料腐败变质[47]。本试验中,各混合比例下LB处理的有氧稳定性均高于CK处理,说明布氏乳杆菌的添加对混合青贮饲料的有氧稳定性产生了积极影响;在混合青贮处理中,以SM37/LB处理的有氧稳定时间最长,为192 h,与凌文卿等[48]研究得出的布氏乳杆菌对紫花苜蓿有氧稳定性有积极影响的结果相一致。郑晓凯等[49]的研究显示,在饲用油菜青贮过程中接种布氏乳杆菌优化了青贮饲料的有氧稳定性,延长了贮存时间。布氏乳杆菌作为添加剂,在有氧暴露下将LA转化成AA,AA具有较强的抗真菌特性,可以延缓青贮饲料的腐烂变质。

3.4 布氏乳杆菌对大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮瘤胃降解率的影响

评价饲料消化利用率的重要指标是瘤胃降解率。DMD、NDFD和ADFD是衡量反刍动物对饲料的消化程度,评价饲料营养价值的关键指标[50]。本试验中,各混合比例下LB处理的24和48 h DMD、NDFD和ADFD均高于CK处理,说明大豆与青贮玉米混贮饲料经布氏乳杆菌发酵后,可以更好被降解利用,对提高瘤胃降解率有促进作用。刘帅等[51]的研究显示,添加鼠李糖乳酸菌能显著改善全株玉米青贮的DMD和NDFD。本研究发现,随着青贮玉米比例的上升,DMD出现增加的趋势,其中当大豆与青贮玉米混合比例为3:7且添加布氏乳杆菌时DMD较高;在混合青贮处理中,以大豆与青贮玉米混合比例为7:3的NDFD和ADFD最低,其原因是由于大豆中木质素占比较高,导致滞留在瘤胃中的木质素降低了反刍动物的采食能力,不利于饲料的消化利用[52]。许浩等[53]研究表明,木质素是制约饲料被消化降解的主要因素。

4 结论

① 布氏乳杆菌既能大幅度改善大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮的发酵品质,还能使青贮饲料的有氧稳定性达到最佳状态,同时对其在瘤胃中的降解产生积极影响。
② 大豆与青贮玉米混合青贮饲料的营养价值优于大豆单独青贮饲料,以大豆与青贮玉米混合比例为3:7时青贮效果最好。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
CHIBISA G E, BEAUCHEMIN K A. Effects of feeding corn silage form short-season hybrids and extending the back-grounding period on production performance and carcass traits of beef cattle[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2018, 96(6):2490-2503.

[2]
周梦鸽, 李永华. 基于DPSIR模型的牧草产品质量安全评价指标体系构建及应用[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(2):13-27.

DOI

ZHOU M G, LI Y H. Establishment and application of a forage product quality and safety evaluation index system based on a ‘DPSIR’ model[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(2):13-27. (in Chinese)

[3]
NI K K, ZHAO J Y, ZHU B G, et al. Assessing the fermentation quality and microbial community of the mixed silage of forage soybean with crop corn or sorghum[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2018, 265:563-567.

DOI PMID

[4]
文兴金, 杨继芝, 肖启银, 等. 川西北高原全株玉米和大豆混贮比例对青贮品质的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(8):115-120.

WEN X J, YANG J Z, XIAO Q Y, et al. Effect of mixed silage ratio of whole plant corn and soybean on silage quality in northwest Sichuan plateau[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2022, 44(8):115-120. (in Chinese)

[5]
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.

[6]
GUO J G, XIE Y X, YU Z, et al. Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum expressing multifunctional glycoside hydrolases on the characteristics of alfalfa silage[J]. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2019, 103(19):7983-7995.

[7]
XU D, DING W, KE W, et al. Modulation of metabolome and bacterial community in whole crop corn silage by inoculating homofermentative Lactobacillus plantarum and heterofermentative Lactobacillus buchneri[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2019, 9:3299.

[8]
ZHANG F F, WANG X Z, LU W H, et al. Meta-analysis of the effects of combined homo-and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage[J]. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 2018, 20(8):1846-1852.

[9]
万学瑞, 豆思远, 李玉, 等. 复合乳酸菌对全株玉米青贮及有氧暴露后微生物及饲料品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(11):83-90.

DOI

WAN X R, DOU S Y, LI Y, et al. Effect of lactic acid bacteria preparations on microbial population counts and silage quality in maize silage during fermentation and on aerobic exposure[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(11):83-90. (in Chinese)

[10]
辛亚芬, 陈晨, 曾泰儒, 等. 青贮添加剂对微生物多样性影响的研究进展[J]. 生物技术通报, 2021, 37(9):24-30.

DOI

XIN Y F, CHEN C, ZENG T R, et al. Research progress in the effects of additives to silage on microbial diversity[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2021, 37(9):24-30. (in Chinese)

[11]
KIM D, LEE K D, CHOI K C. Role of Lab in silage fermentation:effect on nutritional quality and organic acid production-an overview[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1):216-234.

[12]
CHEN L Y, QU H, BAI S Q, et al. Effect of wet sea buckthorn pomace utilized as an additive on silage fermentation profile and bacterial community composition of alfalfa[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 314:123773.

[13]
WEINBERG Z G, ASHBELL G, HEN Y, et al. Ensiling whole-crop wheat and corn in large containers with Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus buchneri[J]. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2002, 28(1):7-11.

[14]
张莓, 王昌洲, 叶兴腾, 等. 有氧暴露下全株玉米青贮饲料品质及微生物动态变化[J]. 草业科学, 2022, 39(8):1675-1685.

ZHANG M, WANG C Z, YE X T, et al. Dynamic changes in the quality and microorganisms present in whole-plant corn silage under aerobic exposure[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2022, 39(8):1675-1685. (in Chinese)

[15]
AOAC. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists[S].17th ed. Rockville: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 2003.

[16]
VAN SOEST P J. Development of a comprehensive system of feed analyses and its application to forages[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1967, 26(1):119-128.

[17]
ROBINSON P H, TAMMINGA S, VAN VUUREN A M. Influence of declining level of feed intake and varying the proportion of starch in the concentrate on rumen fermentation in dairy cows[J]. Livestock Production Science, 1986, 15(2):173-189.

[18]
ERWIN E S, MARCO G J, EMERY E M. Volatile fatty acid analyses of blood and rumen fluid by gas chromatography[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1961, 44(9):1768-1771.

[19]
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):64-65.

[20]
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中霉菌总数的测定:GB/T13092—2006[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2006.

General Administration of Quality Supervision,Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Enumeration of molds count in feed:GB/T 13092—2006[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2006. (in Chinese)

[21]
ASHBELL G, WEINBERG Z G, AZRIELI A, et al. A simple system to study the aerobic determination of silages[J]. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 1991, 33(2):391-393.

[22]
卢德勋, 谢崇文. 现代反刍动物营养研究方法和技术[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1991.

LU D X, XIE C W. Modern methods and techniques of ruminant nutrition research[M]. Beijing: Agricultural Press, 1991. (in Chinese)

[23]
KAEWPILA C, GUNUN P, KESORN P, et al. Improving ensiling characteristics by adding lactic acid bacteria modifies in vitro digestibility and methane production of forage-sorghum mixture silage[J]. Scientific Reports, 2021, 11(1):8049.

[24]
唐振华, 杨承剑, 李孟伟, 等. 植物乳杆菌、布氏乳杆菌对甘蔗尾青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2018, 45(7):1824-1832.

DOI

TANG Z H, YANG C J, LI M W, et al. Effect of applying Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus buchneri on quality and aerobic stability of sugarcane tops silage[J]. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2018, 45(7):1824-1832. (in Chinese)

[25]
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)

[26]
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)

[27]
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)

[28]
潘艺伟, 宦海琳, 许能祥, 等. 不同糖蜜及添加量对稻草饲料发酵品质的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2020, 48(1):155-159.

PAN Y W, HUAN H L, XU N X, et al. Impact of different molasses and adding amounts on fermentation quality of rice straw[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 48(1):155-159. (in Chinese)

[29]
谢文斌, 陈娟娟, 田斌, 等. 布氏乳杆菌对玉米秸秆青贮品质和体外消化率的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(21):122-126.

XIE W B, CHEN J J, TIAN B, et al. Effect of Lactobacillus brucelli on quality and in vitro digestibility of corn straw silage[J]. Feed Research, 2022, 45(21):122-126. (in Chinese)

[30]
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]. 中国草业学报, 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)

[31]
高龙, 张娟, 戈辰妍, 等. 添加植物乳杆菌、布氏乳杆菌对杂交狼尾草青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(12):3867-3875.

DOI

GAO L, ZHANG J, GE C Y, et al. Effects of adding Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus buchneri on silage fermentation quality and aerobic stability of Pennisetum glaucum×purpureum[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(12):3867-3875. (in Chinese)

[32]
秦丽萍, 柯文灿, 丁武蓉, 等. 温度对垂穗披碱草青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2013, 30(9):1433-1438.

QIN L P, KE W C, DING W R, et al. Effects of temperature on fermentation quality of Qinghai-Tibet plateau Elymus nutans silage[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2013, 30(9):1433-1438. (in Chinese)

[33]
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)

[34]
匡宗洋, 穆麟, 魏岚, 等. 不同混合比例和乳酸菌添加对全株玉米和大豆混合青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(6):227-238.

DOI

KUANG Z Y, MU L, WEI L, et al. Effects of different mixture ratios and lactic acid bacteria on the quality and aerobic stability of mixed silage made from whole maize (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) plants[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2025, 34(6):227-238. (in Chinese)

[35]
TAO X X, WANG S R, ZHAO J, et al. Effects of ensiling alfalfa with citric acid residueon fermentation quality and aerobic stability[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2020, 269:114622.

[36]
杨烈, 胡茂雷, 李玲玉, 等. 添加乳酸菌与纤维素酶对‘Tifton 85’狗牙根青贮发酵品质的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(6):91-97.

YANG L, HU M L, LI L Y, et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and cellulase treatments on the fermentation quality of ‘Tifton 85’ bermudagrass silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2022, 44(6):91-97. (in Chinese)

[37]
SCHMIDT R J, HU W, MILLS J A, et al. The development of lactic acid bacteria and Lactobacillus buchneri and their effects on the fermentation of alfalfa silage[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2009, 92(10):5005-5010.

[38]
BORREANI G, TABACCO E, SCHMIDT R J, et al. Silage review:factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(5):3952-3979.

[39]
刘辉, 李金鑫, 鹿瑶, 等. 布氏乳杆菌和纤维素酶对青贮玉米秸秆品质影响研究[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2021, 42(1):34-39.

LIU H, LI J X, LU Y, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus buchneri and cellulase on the quality of silage corn straw[J]. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2021, 42(1):34-39. (in Chinese)

[40]
吕文龙, 刁其玉, 闫贵龙. 布氏乳杆菌对青玉米秸青贮发酵品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2011, 20(3):143-148.

LV W L, DIAO Q Y, YAN G L. Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri on the quality and aerobic stability of green corn-stalk silages[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(3):143-148. (in Chinese)

[41]
高巧仙, 朱万清, 李晓梅, 等. 添加纤维素酶和布氏乳杆菌对葡萄渣全混合日粮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2022(13):28-33.

GAO Q X, ZHU W Q, LI X M, et al. Effects of adding cellulose and Lactobacillus buchneri on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of total mixed diets contatining grape pomace[J]. China Feed, 2022(13):28-33. (in Chinese)

[42]
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 C, 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)

[43]
徐泽平, 肖润, 沈诗桀, 等. 桑叶青贮中的微生物变化与青贮品质改良[J]. 草业科学, 2020, 37(9):1912-1925.

XU Z P, XIAO R, SHEN S J, et al. Microbial changes in and quality improvement of mulberry leaf silage[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2020, 37(9):1912-1925. (in Chinese)

[44]
王旭哲, 贾舒安, 张凡凡, 等. 紧实度对青贮玉米有氧稳定期发酵品质、微生物数量的效应研究[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(9):156-166.

DOI

WANG X Z, JIA S A, ZHANG F F, et al. Fermentation quality and microbial quantity during aerobic storage of corn silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(9):156-166. (in Chinese)

[45]
KIZILSIMEK M, OZTURK C, YANAR K, et al. Associative effects of ensiling soybean and corn plant as mixture on the nutritive value,fermentation and methane emission[J]. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 2017, 26:5754-5760.

[46]
YAN Y H, LI X M, GUAN H, et al. Microbial community and fermentation characteristic of Italian ryegrass silage prepared with corn stover and lactic acid bacteria[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 279:166-173.

DOI PMID

[47]
WILKINSON J M, DAVIES D R. The aerobic stability of silage:key findings and recent developments[J]. Grass and Forage Science, 2013, 68(1):1-19.

[48]
凌文卿, 张磊, 李珏, 等. 布氏乳杆菌和不同糖类联用对紫花苜蓿青贮营养成分、发酵品质、瘤胃降解率及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7):122-134.

DOI

LING W Q, ZHANG L, LI J, et al. Effects of Lentilactobacillus buchneri combined with different sugars on nutrient composition,fermentation quality,rumen degradation rate,and aerobic stability of alfalfa silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(7):122-134. (in Chinese)

[49]
郑晓凯, 付彦博, 杨寒珺, 等. 饲用油菜中优势乳酸菌的分离鉴定及其对青贮发酵品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2024, 36(8):5411-5421.

DOI

ZHENG X K, FU Y B, YANG H J, et al. Isolation and identification of dominant lactic acid bacteria from Brassica napus and their effects on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024, 36(8):5411-5421. (in Chinese)

[50]
林淼, 张建刚, 黄正旺, 等. 4种常用饲草在湖羊瘤胃中的降解特性[J]. 饲料研究, 2015(1):35-39

LIN M, ZHANG J G, HUANG Z W, et al. Degradation characteristics of four common forages in the rumen of Huyang[J]. Feed Research, 2015(1):35-39.. (in Chinese)

[51]
刘帅, 郑健, 姜鑫, 等. 鼠李糖乳杆菌对全株玉米青贮品质及瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2019, 55(7):111-116.

LIU S, ZHENG J, JIANG X, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus on silage quality and rumen degradation rate of whole plant corn[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 55(7):111-116. (in Chinese)

[52]
马振华. 水牛瘤胃对不同粗饲料木质素降解率的研究[D].硕士学位论文. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2015.

MA Z H. Study on degradation rate of lignin from different roughage in buffalo rumen[D].Master’s Thesis. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2015. (in Chinese)

[53]
许浩, 李翔. 木质素对粗纤维瘤胃降解率的影响及提高木质素瘤胃降解率方法的研究进展[J]. 中国奶牛, 2017(4):1-4.

XU H, LI X. Effects of lignin on rumen degradability of rough fibers and advances in methods to improve rumen degradability of lignin[J]. China Dairy Cattle, 2017(4):1-4. (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.