本文選題：甘蔗梢　切入點(diǎn)：添加劑青貯　出處：《貴州大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：我省地?zé)岷庸鹊貐^(qū)甘蔗(Saccharum officinarum)梢資源豐富,但僅有18%左右的被用作飼料直接飼喂草食畜,而采用青貯技術(shù)加工調(diào)制的飼養(yǎng)戶不足1%,其余的被就地焚燒掉,既造成飼料資源的浪費(fèi)又污染環(huán)境。本試驗(yàn)選用甘蔗梢作為原料進(jìn)行不同的添加劑青貯,并將青貯料替代部分日糧進(jìn)行飼喂試驗(yàn)。該研究旨在分析不同添加劑對甘蔗梢青貯料發(fā)酵品質(zhì)和營養(yǎng)價(jià)值的影響,探討不同比例青貯料的飼喂效果,最終確定甘蔗梢青貯利用時(shí)最適宜的添加劑及飼喂的適宜添加量。本試驗(yàn)分為二部分。試驗(yàn)一為青貯料營養(yǎng)成分分析,試驗(yàn)二為飼喂湖羊試驗(yàn)。試驗(yàn)一:為提高甘蔗葉梢青貯飼料品質(zhì),采用單因子完全隨機(jī)設(shè)計(jì),分析比較了纖維素酶(2 g·kg-1)、NaCl(0.5%)、尿素(0.6%)、復(fù)合微生物(2 mL·kg-1)、甲酸(0.6%)以及玉米(Zea mays)秸稈+米糠混合物(10%+10%)共6種添加物對甘蔗葉梢青貯飼料品質(zhì)的影響。結(jié)果表明:甘蔗葉梢直接青貯品質(zhì)稍差;添加2 mL·kg-1復(fù)合微生物對甘蔗葉梢青貯飼料的發(fā)酵品質(zhì)和營養(yǎng)價(jià)值與對照相比差異不顯著(P0.05);0.6%甲酸、2 g·kg-1纖維素酶和0.5%NaCl提高了發(fā)酵品質(zhì)和營養(yǎng)價(jià)值;0.6%尿素和10%玉米秸稈+10%米糠青貯飼料的發(fā)酵品質(zhì)和營養(yǎng)價(jià)值效果最好。6種添加物對甘蔗葉梢青貯發(fā)酵效果的影響依次為:0.6%尿素10%玉米秸稈+10%米糠0.6%甲酸0.5%NaCl2 g·kg-1纖維素酶2 mL·kg-1 EM。試驗(yàn)二:采用隨機(jī)區(qū)組試驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì),選用6-8月齡湖羊135只(平均體重為22.64kg±1.73kg)作為試驗(yàn)家畜,每27只羊?yàn)橐唤M。飼喂青貯料為試驗(yàn)一中營養(yǎng)成分較好的4個(gè)添加劑處理組:尿素(0.6%)、秸稈+米糠(10%+10%)、甲酸(0.6%)、NaCl(0.5%)。將青貯料和精料按以下三種比例進(jìn)行飼喂試驗(yàn):A組(50%精料+50%青貯料)、B組(35%精料+65%青貯料)、C組(20%精料+80%青貯料)。結(jié)果表明:(1)4種添加劑甘蔗稍青貯料飼喂湖羊?qū)ζ淙赵鲋睾惋暳限D(zhuǎn)化率的影響效果效依次為0.6%尿素10%玉米秸稈+10%米糠0.6%甲酸0.5%NaCl直接青貯;而在日采食量方面的影響效果依次為0.5%NaCl直接青貯0.6%甲酸0.6%尿素10%玉米秸稈+10%米糠。其中0.6%尿素處理組中B組(35%精料+65%青貯料)飼喂效果最好,顯著高于A、C組(P0.05);10%玉米秸稈+10%米糠中B組(35%精料+65%青貯料)飼喂效果最好,顯著高于A、C組(P0.05);0.6%甲酸處理組中C組(20%精料+80%青貯料)的飼喂效果最好,顯著高于A、B組(P0.05);0.5%NaCl處理組中A組(50%精料+50%青貯料)的效果顯著高于B、C組(P0.05)。(2)4種添加劑甘蔗稍青貯飼料飼喂湖羊?qū)ζ渖a(chǎn)經(jīng)濟(jì)效益的影響效果依次為0.5%NaCl0.6%尿素10%玉米秸稈+10%米糠直接青貯0.6%甲酸。其中尿素處理組中B、C組和NaCl處理組中A、B、C組分別極顯著高于對照組C組(P0.01),分別高出20.6%、18.4%、18.6%、21.78%、30.28%。綜合生產(chǎn)性能和經(jīng)濟(jì)效益兩方面的效益評(píng)價(jià)這四種添加劑對甘蔗梢青貯飼料的推廣應(yīng)用價(jià)值,在生產(chǎn)中可以進(jìn)行推廣應(yīng)用添加尿素、NaCl進(jìn)行甘蔗梢青貯養(yǎng)羊可提高其生產(chǎn)性能,降低飼料成本,增加養(yǎng)羊經(jīng)濟(jì)效益,且用尿素、NaCl添加劑青貯甘蔗梢技術(shù)簡單,操作方便,投資小,易于推廣。
[Abstract]:Our province geothermal valley area of Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) were rich in resources, but only about 18% are used as feed directly by feeding ruminant, silage processing technology modulated farms of less than 1%, the rest were burned out, not only cause feed waste of resources and environmental pollution. The sugarcane tip as raw material additive different silage silage, and will replace part of the diet of the feeding experiment. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different additives on Silage Fermentation of sugarcane shoot quality and nutritional value, feeding effect of different proportion of silage, and ultimately determine the appropriate amount of additives and feeding sugar silage when using the most suitable. This test the test is divided into two parts. One is analysis of nutritional components of silage for feeding sheep, test test. A test: to improve Sugarcane Leaf Silage quality, the Single factor completely randomized design, analysis and comparison of the cellulase (2 g kg-1), NaCl (0.5%), urea (0.6%), compound microorganism (2 mL kg-1), formic acid (0.6%) and maize (Zea mays) straw and rice bran mixture (10%+10%) effect of 6 additives on Sugarcane Leaf Silage Quality. The results showed that the sugarcane leaf direct silage quality is poor; adding 2 mL / kg-1 composite microbial fermentation quality and nutrition value of Sugarcane Leaf Silage had no significant difference compared with control (P0.05); 0.6% formic acid, 2 G - 0.5% NaCl kg-1 cellulase and improve the fermentation quality and nutrition value; influence the fermentation quality and nutrition value of 0.6% urea and 10% +10% maize straw rice bran silage best.6 additives on fermentation effect of Sugarcane Leaf Silage were: 0.6% urea 10% +10% maize straw rice bran 0.5% NaCl2 g kg-1 0.6% formic acid and 2 mL - kg-1 EM. cellulase Experiment two: using randomized block design, the 6-8 month old in 135 (the average weight was 22.64kg + 1.73kg) as test animals, each for a group of 27 sheep. Feeding green Silage Nutritional Components for a good test in 4 treatment groups: urea additive (0.6%), straw (rice bran + 10%+10%), formic acid (0.6%), NaCl (0.5%). The silage and concentrate on the following three kinds of proportion of feeding experiment: A group (50% +50% silage concentrate), B group (35% +65% silage concentrate), C group (20% +80% feed silage). The results showed that: (1) 4 kinds of additives in cane silage fed sheep slightly on the weight gain and feed conversion rate influence effects were 0.6% urea 10% +10% maize straw rice bran 0.6% formic acid 0.5%NaCl in direct silage; daily feed intake effect were 0.6% formic acid and 0.6% 0.5%NaCl direct silage corn straw urea 10% +10% rice bran 0.6%. Urea treatment group B 緇，

本文編號(hào)：1664493