本文選題：駱駝刺　切入點(diǎn)：混合青貯　出處：《中國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)》2017年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：本研究從不同物候期駱駝刺的青貯,最適青貯物候期駱駝刺與紫花苜�；旌锨噘A,混貯飼料的體外發(fā)酵特性,及其對(duì)多浪羊適口性等參數(shù)的影響,用4個(gè)試驗(yàn)系統(tǒng)探討了駱駝刺作為一種有待開(kāi)發(fā)飼料的飼用價(jià)值和應(yīng)用前景。其中,試驗(yàn)1通過(guò)分析不同物候期對(duì)駱駝刺青貯品質(zhì)的影響,以確定最適青貯刈割期;試驗(yàn)2通過(guò)分析盛花期駱駝刺與紫花苜�；旌锨噘A品質(zhì)和微生物變化,確定二者適宜的混貯比例;試驗(yàn)3通過(guò)分析駱駝刺及其與紫花苜�；旌锨郤貯飼料的體外降解特性,確定駱駝刺和苜�；熨A的組合效應(yīng),初步判斷駱駝刺及其與苜�；旌锨噘A飼料可被動(dòng)物的利用程度;試驗(yàn)4就混合青貯飼料的適口性、瘤胃發(fā)酵參數(shù)、血常規(guī)、血液生化指標(biāo)、降解率和平均日增重等進(jìn)行綜合評(píng)價(jià),為駱駝刺資源的合理利用提供客觀的依據(jù)。試驗(yàn)一將分枝期、初花期、盛花期及結(jié)實(shí)期的駱駝刺進(jìn)行青貯,分析青貯飼料和青貯原料的化學(xué)成分,鑒定青貯飼料的感官品質(zhì)和發(fā)酵品質(zhì),研究不同物候期對(duì)駱駝刺青貯品質(zhì)的影響,以確定駱駝刺的最適青貯刈割期。結(jié)果表明,不同物候期駱駝刺及其青貯飼料的化學(xué)成分差異極顯著(P0.01),其發(fā)酵品質(zhì)差異也顯著(P0.05)。在4個(gè)物候期中,盛花期駱駝刺的水溶性碳水化合物(WSC,12.73%),粗蛋白(CP)含量(16.88%)最高,其青貯的pH值(3.65)和氨態(tài)氮/總氮(1.03%)最低。盛花期和結(jié)實(shí)期駱駝刺的乳酸含量分別為6.06%和6.23%,兩者間差異不顯著(P0.05),卻顯著高于分枝期(2.59%)和初花期(3.19%)的乳酸含量(P0.05),以分枝期的乳酸含量最低。不同物候期駱駝刺青貯的乙酸含量存在極顯著差異(P0.01),初花期駱駝刺青貯的乙酸含量(2.04%)顯著高于其他處理,結(jié)實(shí)期駱駝刺青貯的乙酸含量(0.71%)顯著低于其他處理(P0.01),所有處理青貯飼料的丁酸、異丁酸、戊酸和異戊酸含量均未檢出或僅為微量。綜合評(píng)價(jià)盛花期效果最好,將盛花期做為駱駝刺的最適青貯刈割期。試驗(yàn)二以100%苜蓿(M),100%駱駝刺(LS) , 30%駱駝刺+70%苜蓿(LS3),50%駱駝刺+50%苜蓿(LS5) , 70%駱駝刺+30%苜蓿(LS7)為青貯原料,共5個(gè)處理,每個(gè)處理3個(gè)重復(fù)。通過(guò)分析青貯前和青貯后化學(xué)成分,青貯品質(zhì),判斷二者混合青貯效果,結(jié)果表明,駱駝刺與苜�；旌虾�,提高DM、WSC含量;青貯90d后,混合青貯處理LS3、LS5、LS7的乳酸含量分別為3.86、5.64和6.75%, LS5、LS7的乳酸含量著高于(P0.05) 100%苜蓿青貯的乳酸含量(3.54%);混合青貯處理LS3、LS5、LS7的乙酸含量分別為1.90、1.68和1.60%,顯著高于(P0.05) 100%駱駝刺青貯的乙酸含量(1.32%);混合青貯處理LS3、LS5、LS7的NH3-N/TN 為 9.26、2.19 和 1.35%, pH 值分別為 3.84、3.80 和 3.72,顯著低于(P0.05) 100%苜蓿青貯的NH3-N/TN (11.38%)和pH值(4.35);混合青貯處理LS3、LS5、LS7的丙酸、丁酸、戊酸、乙酸和乙醇含量也顯著低于(P0.05)苜蓿青貯。處理LS3、LS5、LS7的乳酸菌總數(shù)分別為7.56、8.62和9.65 log cfu/g,枯草芽孢桿菌數(shù)量分別為3.02、4.09、4.45 log cfu/g,膠紅酵母數(shù)量分別為0.8、1.15、1.45 log cfu/g,均顯著高于100%苜蓿青貯的乳酸菌總數(shù)(5.76 log cfu/g),枯草芽孢桿菌數(shù)量(2.30logcfu/g)和膠紅酵母菌數(shù)(0.03logcfu/g)。通過(guò)對(duì)感官得分,乳酸含量、丁酸含量、NH3-N/TN、乳酸菌數(shù)和酵母菌數(shù)的綜合評(píng)價(jià),70%駱駝刺+30%苜蓿為合適混合青貯比例。試驗(yàn)三采用苜蓿干草(Ⅰ ), 100%駱駝刺青P貯(Ⅱ), 30%駱駝刺+70%苜蓿青貯(Ⅲ),50%駱駝刺+50%苜蓿青貯(Ⅳ) , 70%駱駝刺+30%苜蓿青貯(V)進(jìn)行體外發(fā)酵比較,分別記錄培養(yǎng)2、4、8、12、24、36、48、72和96小時(shí)的產(chǎn)氣量;測(cè)定發(fā)酵24小時(shí)的發(fā)酵參數(shù)、降解率及其組合效應(yīng),初步判斷駱駝刺及其與苜�；旌锨噘A可被動(dòng)物的利用程度。結(jié)果表明,混貯飼料處理Ⅲ、Ⅳ、Ⅴ的體外發(fā)酵24h產(chǎn)氣量分別為10.00、20.00和23.00ml,均顯著低于苜蓿干草(28ml)和100%駱駝刺青貯(24.00ml)的產(chǎn)氣量�；旌锨噘A體外發(fā)酵液處理Ⅲ、Ⅳ、Ⅴ的pH值分別為6.47、6.53和6.57,均在瘤胃正常pH值范圍內(nèi),且都高于6.2,其NH3-N濃度分別為20.41、19.47和18.65mg/dL,均在瘤胃液氨態(tài)氮最佳濃度(85～300mg/L)范圍內(nèi),不會(huì)對(duì)纖維降解菌的蛋白質(zhì)的利用產(chǎn)生不利影響。處理Ⅲ、Ⅳ、V的體外DM降解率分別為31.53、32.56和33.75%,均低于苜蓿(35.23%)和100%駱駝刺青貯飼料(34.79%)的體外降解率;其TVFA 分別為 61.30、60.50 和 57.10 mmol/L,均顯著高于(P0.05)苜蓿干草(52.00 mmol/L)和100%駱駝刺青貯(50.00mmol/L)的TVFA。經(jīng)綜合評(píng)價(jià),混合青貯中,70%駱駝刺+30%苜�；旌锨噘A的體外降解效果優(yōu)于50%駱駝刺+50%苜�；旌锨噘A優(yōu)于30%駱駝刺+70%苜蓿青貯。試驗(yàn)四本試驗(yàn)用基礎(chǔ)日糧與苜蓿干草(Ⅰ),100%駱駝刺(Ⅱ) , 30%駱駝刺+70%苜蓿(Ⅲ) , 50%駱駝刺+50%苜蓿(Ⅳ),70%駱駝刺+30%苜蓿(V)青貯飼喂多浪羊,分析其適口性、表觀消化率、日增重、瘤胃發(fā)酵參數(shù)、血常規(guī)和血液生化指標(biāo)的變化,為生產(chǎn)實(shí)踐提供理論依據(jù)。結(jié)果表明,多浪羊?qū)旌锨噘A飼料處理Ⅲ、Ⅳ、Ⅴ的采食速率分別為15.82、19.24和11.66g/min,顯著高于駱駝刺青貯飼料(9.86g/min),混合青貯改善了駱駝刺的適口性(P0.05)。DM、OM、CP、NDF、ADF的消化率在處理Ⅱ與混合青貯飼料處理Ⅲ、Ⅳ、Ⅴ間不存在顯著差異,表明混貯不影響駱駝刺的消化率。所有處理組的瘤胃pH值和瘤胃液氨態(tài)氮均在瘤胃正常范圍內(nèi)。各處理組的瘤胃液乙酸含量存在極顯著差異(P0.01),以50%駱駝刺+50%苜蓿組乙酸含量最高(75.70 mmol/L);飼喂混合青貯飼料處理Ⅲ、Ⅳ、Ⅴ的丙酸含量分別為49.30、38.10和35.70mmol/L顯著高于駱駝刺青貯(31.90 mmol/L)和苜蓿干草組(33.00mmol/L)的丙酸含量;其丁酸含量分別為18.30、21.40和18.80mmol/L,顯著高于(P0.05)苜蓿干草組(17.10mmol/L);處理Ⅳ的 TVFA (135.40mmol/L)顯著高于(P0.05)其他 4 組處理。多浪羊的血常規(guī)值除處理Ⅱ的淋巴細(xì)胞數(shù)量(240.50)顯著高于處理Ⅰ (160.22)外,其他處理間的全部血常規(guī)指標(biāo)不存在顯著性差異(P0.05),且均在血常規(guī)額正常范圍內(nèi)。血液生化指標(biāo)表明,處理Ⅰ的肌酐含量(94.60 umol/L)顯著高于處理Ⅲ (77.00 umol/L),處理Ⅰ的谷丙轉(zhuǎn)氨酶(28.40 U/L),谷草/谷丙(3.78)顯著低于處理Ⅲ的谷丙轉(zhuǎn)氨酶(20.60 U/L)和谷草/谷丙(6.64);血液中總蛋白含量處理V (81.90 g/L)顯著高于處理Ⅲ (64.28 g/L);處理Ⅱ的血液間接膽紅素(2.56umol/L)顯著高于(P0.05)處理V (1.50umol/L)。血糖、尿素、尿酸、肌酐、谷丙轉(zhuǎn)氨酶、谷草轉(zhuǎn)氨酶、堿性磷酸酶、谷氨酰轉(zhuǎn)氨酶含量、血液白蛋白、球蛋白、白球比、總膽紅素和間接膽紅素均在正常值范圍內(nèi),且無(wú)顯著性差異(P0.05)。表明混合青貯飼料對(duì)多浪羊肝臟、腎臟、心臟、能量和蛋白代謝無(wú)不利影響。經(jīng)綜合評(píng)價(jià),50%駱駝刺+50%苜蓿組在3組混合青貯中,飼喂效果最好。
[Abstract]:This study from the different phenological periods of Alhagi silage, the optimum silage phenology of a.sparsifolia and alfalfa silage and Mixed Silage Fermentation Characteristics in vitro, and its effect on Duolang sheep palatability parameters, 4 test system of a.sparsifolia as a developing feed forage value and application future. Among them, 1 test through the analysis of the influence of different phenological periods on the quality of the camel's tattoo storage, in order to determine the most suitable silage cutting period; 2 test by analyzing the flowering of a.sparsifolia and alfalfa silage quality and microbiological changes, determines the two appropriate proportion of mixed storage; through the analysis of 3 test a.sparsifolia and in vitro the degradation characteristics of Alfalfa and S mixed with green fodder, determine the combined effect of a.sparsifolia and Mixed Silage of alfalfa, alfalfa and preliminary a.sparsifolia silage can be used in animal experiments of 4 degree judgment; mixed green The palatability of silage, rumen fermentation, blood routine, blood biochemical index, the degradation rate and the average daily gain of a comprehensive evaluation, provide objective basis for rational use of resources for the camels. Sting test will be a branching period, flowering period, flowering period and fruiting period a.sparsifolia silage, silage chemical composition analysis forage and silage materials, identification of silage fermentation quality and sensory quality in different phenological periods, study effect of storage on the quality of camel tattoo, in order to determine the most suitable silage harvest time of camel thorn. The results showed that the difference of chemical composition in different phenological periods and a.sparsifolia silage significantly (P0.01), the differences of fermentation quality also significant (P0.05). In 4 the phenological period, flowering period of a.sparsifolia water soluble carbohydrate (WSC, 12.73%), crude protein (CP) content (16.88%) the highest, the silage pH value (3.65) and ammonia nitrogen / total nitrogen (1.03%) minimum. The content of lactic acid in flowering stage and fruiting stage a.sparsifolia were 6.06% and 6.23%, no significant difference between them (P0.05), was significantly higher than that of the branching stage and flowering stage (2.59%) (3.19%) the content of lactic acid (P0.05), with the lowest content of lactic acid during branching. There were significant differences in the content of acetic acid in different phenological periods a.sparsifolia silage (P0.01), flowering period of camel tattoo acetic acid content storage (2.04%) was significantly higher than other treatments, seed storage of the camel tattoo acetic acid (0.71%) was significantly lower than other treatment (P0.01), all treated silage butyric acid, isobutyric acid, valeric acid and isovaleric acid content were not detected or only trace. Comprehensive evaluation of the flowering effect is the best, the most suitable for the flowering of silage was two. The test of Alhagi in 100% alfalfa (M), 100% (LS, 30%) a.sparsifolia a.sparsifolia +70% alfalfa (LS3), 50% camel thorn +50% alfalfa (LS5), 70% +30% (camel thorn of Alfalfa LS7) for the youth Storage of raw materials, a total of 5 treatments, 3 replicates per treatment. Through the analysis of the quality of silage and silage before chemical composition, two Mixed Silage silage, determine the effect, the results show that the mixture of a.sparsifolia and M.sativa, increased DM and WSC content; silage 90d, Mixed Silage processing LS3, LS5, LS7 of lactic acid were 3.86,5.64 and 6.75%, LS5, LS7 were higher than that of lactic acid (P0.05) lactic acid content of 100% alfalfa silage (3.54%); Mixed Silage treatment LS3, LS5, LS7 content of acetic acid were 1.90,1.68 and 1.60%, significantly higher than that of (P0.05) 100% camel tattoo acetic acid content storage (1.32%); Mixed Silage processing LS3, LS5, LS7 and NH3-N/TN were 9.26,2.19 and 1.35%, pH values were 3.84,3.80 and 3.72 respectively, significantly lower than 100% (P0.05) of alfalfa silage NH3-N/TN (11.38%) and pH (4.35); Mixed Silage treatment LS3, LS5, LS7, propionic acid, butyric acid, valeric acid, acetic acid and ethanol content was also significantly Below (P0.05) of Alfalfa silages. LS3, LS5, the total number of lactic acid bacteria LS7 were 7.56,8.62 and 9.65 log cfu/g, the number of Bacillus subtilis were 3.02,4.09,4.45 log cfu/g, the number of Rhodotorula mucilaginosa were 0.8,1.15,1.45 log cfu/g, the total number of lactic acid bacteria were significantly higher than that of the 100% alfalfa silage (5.76 log cfu/g), the number of Bacillus subtilis coli (2.30logcfu/g) and red gum yeast (0.03logcfu/g). Based on the sensory score, lactic acid, butyric acid, NH3-N/TN, comprehensive evaluation of lactic acid bacteria and yeast, 70% camel thorn +30% alfalfa appropriate Mixed Silage ratio. Experiment three using alfalfa hay (I), 100% P (II) a camel tattoo 30%, Alhagi +70% (III), 50% alfalfa silage Alhagi +50% alfalfa silage (IV), 70% Alhagi +30% alfalfa silage (V) were compared in vitro fermentation, biogas production and 2,4,8,12,24,36,48,72 training were recorded 96 hours of testing; Set the fermentation parameters fermentation for 24 hours, and the degradation rate of combined effects, and preliminary Alhagi and alfalfa Mixed Silage can be used to judge the extent of the animal. The results showed that the Mixed Silage treatment III, IV, V and 24h gas production in vitro fermentation were 10.00,20.00 and 23.00ml, were significantly lower than alfalfa hay (28ml) and the 100% camel tattoo storage (24.00ml) gas production. The mixed silage fermentation liquid treatment III, IV, V and pH value were 6.47,6.53 and 6.57, were in the rumen pH value of normal range, and higher than 6.2, the concentration of NH3-N were 20.41,19.47 and 18.65mg/dL, both in the rumen ammonia nitrogen concentration (the best 85 ~ 300mg/L) range, will not produce adverse effects on fiber degrading bacteria using protein. Treatment III, IV in vitro, DM degradation rate of V were 31.53,32.56 and 33.75%, were lower than alfalfa (35.23%) and 100% (34.79%) camel tattoo silage reduced in vitro The rate of TVFA; were 61.30,60.50 and 57.10 mmol/L, were significantly higher than that of alfalfa hay (P0.05) (52 mmol/L) and 100% (50.00mmol/L) of the camel tattoo storage by TVFA. comprehensive evaluation, Mixed Silage, 70% alfalfa silage Alhagi +30% degradation in vitro is better than 50% Alhagi +50% alfalfa Mixed Silage is better than 30% camels thorn +70% of Alfalfa silages. In this experiment, four test diets with alfalfa hay (I), 100% (II), 30% a.sparsifolia a.sparsifolia +70% alfalfa (III), 50% a.sparsifolia +50% alfalfa (IV), 70% +30% (V) a.sparsifolia alfalfa silage Duolang sheep, analyze its palatability. The apparent digestibility, ADG, rumen fermentation parameters, the change of blood routine and blood biochemical indexes, provide theoretical basis for production practice. The results show that the Duolang sheep of Mixed Silage treatment III, IV, V and feeding rate were 15.82,19.24 and 11.66g/min, was significantly higher than that of Luo The camel thorn silage (9.86g/min), Mixed Silage improves the palatability of Alhagi (P0.05).DM, OM, CP, NDF, ADF in the digestibility of silage processing processing II and III, IV, and there was no significant difference between V, that mixed storage does not affect a.sparsifolia digestibility. The treatment group of ruminal pH and ruminal ammonia nitrogen in rumen were in normal range. There were significant differences in ruminal acetate content of each treatment group (P0.01), with 50% a.sparsifolia +50% alfalfa group acetic acid was the highest (75.70 mmol/L); feeding silage treatment III, IV and V respectively propionic acid content 49.30,38.10 and 35.70mmol/L were significantly higher than that of the camel tattoo storage (31.90 mmol/L) and alfalfa hay group (33.00mmol/L) propionic acid content; the content of butyric acid were 18.30,21.40 and 18.80mmol/L, was significantly higher than that of alfalfa hay (P0.05) group (17.10mmol/L); treatment IV TVFA (135.40mmol/L) was significantly higher In the other 4 groups (P0.05). Duolang sheep blood value in treatment of lymphocyte numbers (240.50) was significantly higher than that of treatment 1 (160.22), other treatments all the blood routine index does not exist significant differences (P0.05), and were in the normal range. The amount of blood that blood biochemical index, creatinine the content of treatment (94.60 umol/L) was significantly higher than that of treatment III (77 umol/L), treatment of alanine aminotransferase (28.40 U/L), aspartate / alanine (3.78) was significantly lower than that of treatment with alanine aminotransferase (20.60 U/L) and aspartate / alanine (6.64); V (total protein content in blood 81.90 g/L) was significantly higher than that of treatment III (64.28 g/L); blood bilirubin treatment II (2.56umol/L) was significantly higher than that of (P0.05) V (1.50umol/L). Blood glucose, urea, uric acid, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, glutamyl aminotransferase levels, blood albumin, ball Protein, globulin ratio, total bilirubin and indirect bilirubin were in the normal range, and no significant difference (P0.05). Show that the Mixed Silage of Duolang sheep liver, kidney, heart, no adverse effect on the energy and protein metabolism. Through comprehensive evaluation, 50% Alhagi +50% group in the 3 groups of Mixed Silage of alfalfa in the best feeding effect.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：S816.53

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張勇;夏天嬋;常譽(yù);黃文明;郭海明;葉均安;;體外產(chǎn)氣法評(píng)價(jià)油菜稈與玉米、豆粕的組合效應(yīng)[J];草業(yè)學(xué)報(bào);2016年11期

2 孟梅娟;涂遠(yuǎn)璐;白云峰;嚴(yán)少華;高立鵬;劉萍;劉建;;小麥秸與非常規(guī)飼料組合效應(yīng)的研究[J];動(dòng)物營(yíng)養(yǎng)學(xué)報(bào);2016年09期

3 蔣建新;柴益民;王韜;沈谷豐;虞申;黃琪仁;;膝骨關(guān)節(jié)疼痛患者血液尿酸水平研究[J];海軍醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2016年04期

4 汪清海;羅開(kāi)忠;田沂;;膽紅素吸附治療慢性重型乙型肝炎的效果及安全性評(píng)估[J];臨床肝膽病雜志;2016年07期

5 李雅婷;應(yīng)璐;蘇勇華;蔣慧;;駱駝刺源產(chǎn)乳酸的枯草芽孢桿菌分離鑒定和菌株特性研究[J];黑龍江畜牧獸醫(yī);2016年13期

6 高歡歡;曾凡江;李嘗君;郭自春;;疏葉駱駝刺根系的田間離體繁殖[J];草業(yè)科學(xué);2016年05期

7 羅瀚林;曾凡江;郭自春;趙生龍;劉波;張波;;春季與秋季刈割對(duì)疏葉駱駝刺葉片功能性狀的影響[J];草業(yè)科學(xué);2016年04期

8 馬建江;張萍;薛根生;;新疆巴州庫(kù)爾勒香梨發(fā)展分析與建議[J];北方園藝;2016年05期

9 郭自春;曾凡江;劉波;李嘗君;張波;;不同地理種群疏葉駱駝刺光合和水分代謝特性的差異[J];干旱區(qū)研究;2016年02期

10 鄭麗金;;關(guān)于阿克蘇地區(qū)發(fā)展特色林果業(yè)的思考[J];中國(guó)管理信息化;2016年04期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條

1 吾買爾江·牙合甫;艾力·艾爾肯;迪麗努爾;張曉紅;劉玉英;姚剛;米克熱木·沙衣布扎提;;維藥刺糖對(duì)小鼠急性腎損傷的保護(hù)作用初探[A];全國(guó)動(dòng)物生理生化第七屆全國(guó)代表大會(huì)暨第十三次學(xué)術(shù)交流會(huì)論文摘要匯編[C];2014年

2 賈曉光;熊元君;波拉提·馬卡比力;;駱駝刺化學(xué)成分及藥理作用研究[A];全國(guó)第9屆天然藥物資源學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)論文集[C];2010年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 岳會(huì);新疆棉花價(jià)格波動(dòng)影響因素及其傳遞效應(yīng)研究[D];石河子大學(xué);2015年

2 王野;開(kāi)放條件下新疆農(nóng)產(chǎn)品國(guó)際貿(mào)易研究[D];中國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)科學(xué)院;2015年

3 張彥虎;新疆草地農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展模式研究[D];石河子大學(xué);2015年

4 田雨佳;苜蓿干草與苜蓿青貯對(duì)奶牛瘤胃蛋白質(zhì)利用的影響及作用機(jī)制的研究[D];中國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2014年

5 尹強(qiáng);苜蓿干草調(diào)制貯藏技術(shù)時(shí)空異質(zhì)性研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2013年

6 韓吉雨;青貯發(fā)酵體系中乳酸菌多樣性的研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2009年

7 陳偉健;蛋白能量平衡對(duì)反芻動(dòng)物飼料組合效應(yīng)的影響及其機(jī)理研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2008年

8 孫攀峰;粗飼料組合對(duì)瘤胃發(fā)酵及乳脂肪酸組成的影響及其機(jī)理研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2007年

9 李菊娣;鳳眼蓮的營(yíng)養(yǎng)性評(píng)定與優(yōu)化利用研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2006年

10 許慶方;影響苜蓿青貯品質(zhì)的主要因素及苜蓿青貯在奶牛日糧中應(yīng)用效果的研究[D];中國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 林宇;丁酸對(duì)山羊血液理化指標(biāo)、真胃組織結(jié)構(gòu)及M_2、M_3基因表達(dá)的影響[D];揚(yáng)州大學(xué);2015年

2 樊國(guó)全;不同梨品種在南疆梨區(qū)的生長(zhǎng)表現(xiàn)及果實(shí)性狀評(píng)價(jià)[D];新疆農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2014年

3 李光耀;鹽酶混合添加劑對(duì)苜蓿青貯品質(zhì)的影響[D];內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2014年

4 祁世梅;“庫(kù)爾勒香梨”區(qū)域品牌戰(zhàn)略研究[D];新疆農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2014年

5 劉運(yùn)超;新疆紅棗產(chǎn)業(yè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分析與預(yù)警研究[D];新疆農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2014年

6 李樹成;白花草木樨混貯與混播對(duì)其飼用品質(zhì)和適口性的影響[D];蘭州大學(xué);2014年

7 李冰;新疆林果產(chǎn)品營(yíng)銷策略研究[D];新疆財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2014年

8 李強(qiáng)誼;新疆人口、資源環(huán)境與經(jīng)濟(jì)協(xié)調(diào)測(cè)度分析[D];新疆大學(xué);2013年

9 陸銀;黃芪與山楂復(fù)合物對(duì)苜蓿青貯的品質(zhì)和有氧穩(wěn)定性的影響[D];揚(yáng)州大學(xué);2013年

10 劉敏;大蒜素對(duì)綿羊瘤胃發(fā)酵、血清生化指標(biāo)和對(duì)奶牛生產(chǎn)性能的影響[D];新疆農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1556850