Suppr超能文献

青贮添加剂和品种对燕麦青贮发酵品质、有氧稳定性和营养价值的影响。

Effects of silage additives and varieties on fermentation quality, aerobic stability, and nutritive value of oat silage.

机构信息

Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, China.

Qinghai Academy of Animal and Veterinary Science, Xining, China.

出版信息

J Anim Sci. 2018 Jul 28;96(8):3151-3160. doi: 10.1093/jas/sky207.

Abstract

Oat is a main feed crop in high- altitude areas of western China, but few studies have been done on its silage making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of silage additives on fermentation, aerobic stability, and nutritive value of different oat varieties (OV) grown in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau of China. Two OV (Avena sativa L. cv. Longyan No.1 (OVL1) and Avena sativa L. cv. Longyan No.3 (OVL3)) were planted in a randomized complete block design, harvested at early dough stage with 32.6% and 34.1% DM, respectively. The fresh material was chopped to 2-cm length and treated with additives (0, Sila-Mix (MIX), Sila-Max (MAX) in a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement of treatments with three replicates. Both additives contained a mixture of lactic acid bacteria and supplied a final application rate of 2.5 × 108 of lactic acid bacteria per kg of fresh forage weight. After 60 d of ensiling, the number of lactic acid bacteria in treated silages was about 10-fold greater than the control and generally resulted in a lower pH and ammonia-nitrogen (P < 0.001), greater total acids and ratios of lactic acid/acetic acid (P < 0.001), and DM recovery (P = 0.028). Treatment with additives also decreased (P < 0.001) the number of yeasts, which resulted in marked (P < 0.001) improvements in aerobic stability with the effect being greatest with MAX. Both additives improved (P ≤ 0.036) the 48-h in situ DM digestion in OVL1, but not in OVL3 (P ≥ 0.052). Treatment with both additives also increased (P ≤ 0.003) NDF digestion in OVL1 while it was improved (P < 0.001) only by MAX in OVL3. In contrast, the additives did not affect (P ≥ 0.088) in situ hemicellulose digestion in OVL1, but it was improved (P = 0.048) by MIX and further improved (P = 0.002) by MAX in OVL3. Treatment with MAX improved yields of digestible DM and digestible NDF in both varieties. Dry matter recovery was not affected (P = 0.121) by variety. Compared to CTRL, silage treated with MAX had a greater (P = 0.015) DM recovery (96.7% vs. 93.9%). Inoculation improved (P < 0.001) aerobic stability. The MAX was the most effective for both varieties, while MIX was intermediate and was more effective in OVL3 than OVL1 silage. The results also showed that in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, compared to OVL1, OVL3 resulted in greater (P ≤ 0.002) yields of digestible nutrients; specifically, treated with MAX improved silage fermentation efficiency, DM recovery, and provided excellent aerobic stability for feeding to ruminants.

摘要

燕麦是中国西部高海拔地区的主要饲料作物,但对其青贮的研究较少。本研究旨在评估青贮添加剂对不同燕麦品种(中国青藏高原种植的燕麦品种)青贮发酵、有氧稳定性和营养价值的影响。在随机完全区组设计中种植了 2 种燕麦品种(燕麦品种 1(OVL1)和燕麦品种 3(OVL3)),分别在早期面团阶段收获,DM 含量分别为 32.6%和 34.1%。新鲜材料切成 2 厘米长,并添加添加剂(0、Sila-Mix(MIX)、Sila-Max(MAX),以 2×3 因子处理排列,每个处理重复 3 次。两种添加剂均含有乳酸菌混合物,并最终以每公斤鲜草重量 2.5×108 的乳酸菌用量添加。青贮 60d 后,处理青贮料中的乳酸菌数量比对照增加了约 10 倍,通常导致 pH 和氨态氮降低(P <0.001),总酸和乳酸/乙酸比增加(P <0.001),DM 回收率增加(P = 0.028)。添加剂处理还降低了(P <0.001)酵母数量,从而显著提高了有氧稳定性(P <0.001),MAX 的效果最大。两种添加剂都提高了(P ≤ 0.036)OVL1 的 48h 原位 DM 消化率,但对 OVL3 没有影响(P ≥ 0.052)。两种添加剂处理还提高了 OVL1 中的 NDF 消化率(P ≤ 0.003),但仅 MAX 提高了 OVL3 中的 NDF 消化率(P <0.001)。相比之下,添加剂处理不会影响 OVL1 中的原位半纤维素消化率(P ≥ 0.088),但 MIX 和 MAX 分别提高了 OVL3 中的半纤维素消化率(P = 0.048 和 P = 0.002)。MAX 处理提高了两种品种的可消化 DM 和可消化 NDF 的产量。DM 回收率不受品种影响(P = 0.121)。与对照相比,用 MAX 处理的青贮料 DM 回收率更高(P = 0.015)(96.7%比 93.9%)。接种提高了有氧稳定性(P <0.001)。MAX 对两种品种都最有效,而 MIX 则是中间的,对 OVL3 青贮料比 OVL1 青贮料更有效。结果还表明,与 OVL1 相比,OVL3 产生了更高的(P ≤ 0.002)可消化养分产量;特别是,用 MAX 处理提高了青贮发酵效率、DM 回收率,并为反刍动物提供了极好的有氧稳定性。

相似文献

9
Effects of 8 chemical and bacterial additives on the quality of corn silage.
J Dairy Sci. 2013 Sep;96(9):5836-43. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-6691. Epub 2013 Jun 28.

引用本文的文献

1
Producing high-quality and safe whole-plant quinoa silage through selecting variety and harvest time.
BMC Plant Biol. 2025 Mar 14;25(1):333. doi: 10.1186/s12870-025-06326-y.
3
as potential antimicrobial modifier to against forage oat silage spoilage.
Front Microbiol. 2022 Dec 20;13:1053933. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1053933. eCollection 2022.
4
Effects of different cutting methods and additives on the fermentation quality and microbial community of silage.
Front Microbiol. 2022 Sep 23;13:999881. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.999881. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

3
Effects of microbial additives on chemical composition and fermentation characteristics of barley silage.
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2014 Apr;27(4):511-7. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13617.
6
7
Antifungal 3-hydroxy fatty acids from Lactobacillus plantarum MiLAB 14.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Dec;69(12):7554-7. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.12.7554-7557.2003.
10
Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media.
J Dairy Sci. 1980 Jan;63(1):64-75. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(80)82888-8.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验