本文選題：山毛豆 + 甜象草��； 參考：《廣西大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：本研究以山毛豆和甜象草為試驗研究對象,分別調制了兩種含水率和4種混合比例的山毛豆和甜象草混合青貯,探討不同的混合比例及含水率對其混合青貯品質的影響,以確定最佳的山毛豆和甜象草的混合比例和含水率,為畜牧業(yè)生產的發(fā)展提供理論基礎。試驗一:高水分山毛豆和甜象草混合青貯對青貯營養(yǎng)成分的影響。以含水率為70.24%的山毛豆和73.38%的甜象草為原料,使山毛豆和甜象草按 1:9(19MS)、3:7(37MS)、5:5(55MS)、7:3(73MS)的混合比例調制4種混合青貯。每個處理3次重復,用青貯袋抽吸空氣后進行青貯,于發(fā)酵第30天打開青貯袋取樣,測定PH值和粗蛋白(CP)、粗灰分(Ash)、乳酸(LA)、乙酸(AA)、中性洗滌纖維(NDF)、酸性洗滌纖維(ADF)及丁酸(PA)和氨態(tài)氮(N-NH3)等成分的含量。結果表明,19MS和37MS的水分含量分別為73.16±0.12和72.20±0.53,青貯顏色均為黃色,帶有霉味且質地很粘;55MS的水分含量為71.06±0.67,青貯顏色為淡黃綠色,帶有淡酸香味且質地處于松散與稍粘之間;73MS的水分含量為70.03±0.78,青貯顏色為淡黃色,帶有霉味且質地稍粘。55MS的CP含量與19MS、37MS相比極顯著增加(P0.01),卻顯著低于73MS(P0.05);55MS的Ash和ADF含量極顯著低于19MS和37MS(P0.01),與73MS相比無顯著差異;四種混合比例中,55MS的NDF最低,其次是73MS和37MS,而19MS最高,但差異均不顯著。55MS的PH值與73MS相比差異不顯著,與19MS和37MS相比極顯著下降(P0.01);55MS的N-NH3含量為最低值,顯著低于73MS(P0.05),極顯著低于19MS和37MS(P0.01)。55MS的LA含量極顯著高于19MS和37MS(P0.01),與73MS相比差異不顯著,而其AA含量卻極顯著低于其余三組(P0.01)。在這四種混合比例中,丙酸和丁酸的含量均幾乎檢測不到。綜合評分,55MS的得分最高,其次是73MS。綜合得出,55MS的青貯效果最佳。試驗二:低水分山毛豆和甜象草混合青貯對青貯品質的影響。以含水率為60.20%的山毛豆和63.70%的甜象草為原料,使山毛豆和甜象草按1:9(19MS)、3:7(37MS)、5:5(55MS)、7:3(73MS)的混合比例調制 4 種混合青貯。每個處理3次重復,用青貯袋抽吸空氣后進行青貯,于發(fā)酵第30天打開青貯袋取樣,測定PH值和粗蛋白(CP)、粗灰分(Ash)、乳酸(LA)、乙酸(AA)、中性洗滌纖維(NDF)、酸性洗滌纖維(ADF)及丁酸(PA)和氨態(tài)氮(N-NH3)等成分的含量。結果表明,19MS水分含量為63.30±0.01,青貯飼料的顏色為淡黃色,帶有霉味,質地稍粘;37MS和73MS的水分含量分別為62.71士0.01和60.24士0.02,青貯飼料的顏色均為淡黃綠色,有淡酸香味且質地較為松散;55MS的水分為61.13±0.02,青貯顏色黃綠色,有酸香味且質地松散。55MS的Ash、NDF和N-NH3含量均為最低值,均極顯著低于19MS和37MS(P0.01),顯著低于73MS(P0.05),而其CP含量極顯著高于19MS和37MS(P0.01),與73MS相比差異不顯著。55MS的ADF顯著低于19MS和37MS(P0.05),而與73MS 無顯著差異。19MS 的 PH 值為 4.72±0.01,37MS 為 4.45±0.03,55MS為4.26±0.02,73MS為4.31±0.01,55MS的PH值最低,顯著低于其余三組(P0.05)。55MS的LA含量極顯著高于19MS和37MS(P0.01),顯著高于73MS(P0.05),而其AA含量與其余三組相比極顯著降低(P0.01),四組均未檢測出丙酸和丁酸含量。綜合得分19MS的綜合得分為69.5 分,37MS 為 71.5 分,55MS 為 76.5 分,73MS 為 72.5 分,得知 55MS的效果最優(yōu)。綜合比較得出,55MS混合青貯效果最佳,并且適當降低含水率,青貯品質更佳。
[Abstract]:In this study, the mixed ensiling of two kinds of water content and 4 mixed proportions of Mt. pea and sweet grass was prepared in this study. The effects of different mixing ratio and water content on the quality of Mixed Silage were investigated in order to determine the optimum mixing ratio and water content of the mountain bean and sweet grass for animal husbandry. A theoretical basis is provided. Experiment 1: the effect of Mixed Silage on the silage of high moisture pea and sweet grass is influenced by silage on silage. 4 kinds of mixed silages are modulated by mixing proportion of 1:9 (19MS), 3:7 (37MS), 5:5 (55MS), 7:3 (73MS) in the mixture ratio of 1:9 (19MS), 5:5 (55MS), and 7:3 (73MS)). After pumping air in a silage bag, the silage was carried out after thirtieth days of fermentation, and the contents of pH and CP, crude ash (Ash), lactic acid (LA), acetic acid (AA), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and butyric acid (PA) and ammonia nitrogen (N-NH3) were measured. The results showed that the moisture content of 19MS and 37MS was 73.16, respectively. 0.12 and 72.20 + 0.53, the silage is yellow, with mildew and sticky texture; the moisture content of 55MS is 71.06 + 0.67, the silage color is yellowish green, with a light acid flavor and a loose and slightly sticky texture; the moisture content of 73MS is 70.03 + 0.78, the silage color is pale yellow, and the CP content with moldy taste and slightly sticky.55MS and 19M S, 37MS significantly increased (P0.01), but significantly lower than 73MS (P0.05). The Ash and ADF content of 55MS was significantly lower than 19MS and 37MS (P0.01), and there was no significant difference compared with 73MS. The four mixed ratios were the lowest, followed by the highest, but the difference was not significant. The N-NH3 content of 55MS was significantly lower than that of 73MS (P0.05), and the LA content which was significantly lower than 19MS and 37MS (P0.01).55MS was significantly higher than 19MS and 37MS (N-NH3), but the content was significantly lower than that of the other three groups. In these four mixing ratios, propionic acid and butyric acid contained a significant difference. The total score was almost not detected. The score of 55MS was the highest, followed by the 73MS. synthesis that 55MS had the best silage effect. Test two: the effect of the Mixed Silage on the silage with low moisture mountain beans and sweet grass. With the water content of 60.20% and 63.70% sweet grass as raw material, 1:9 (19MS) and 3:7 (37MS) were made by the pea and the sweet grass. 5:5 (55MS), 7:3 (73MS) mixed proportions of 4 kinds of Mixed Silage. Each treatment was repeated 3 times, and stored in a silage bag after sucking air in a silage bag. The pH value and crude protein (CP), crude ash (Ash), lactic acid (LA), acetic acid (AA), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and butyric acid (PA) and ammonia nitrogen (PA) were used for thirtieth days of fermentation. The content of N-NH3) was 63.30 + 0.01. The water content of 19MS was 63.30 + 0.01, the color of the silage was yellowish, with mildew and slightly sticky, and the water content of 37MS and 73MS were 62.71 and 60.24 and 0.02 respectively. The color of the silage was pale yellow green, with light acid and loose texture; the moisture of 55MS was 61.13 + 0.02, The silage color is yellow green, the content of Ash with acid flavor and loose texture.55MS, NDF and N-NH3 is the lowest, which is significantly lower than 19MS and 37MS (P0.01), significantly lower than 73MS (P0.05), but the CP content is significantly higher than 19MS and 37MS. The pH value of.19MS is 4.72 + 0.01,37MS and 4.45 + 0.03,55MS is 4.26 + 0.02,73MS and 4.31 + 0.01,55MS. It is significantly lower than the other three groups (P0.05).55MS, which is significantly higher than 19MS and 37MS (P0.01), significantly higher than that of 73MS, but the content of LA is significantly lower than that of the other three groups. The four groups have not detected propionic acid and the four groups. The comprehensive score of 19MS was 69.5, 37MS was 71.5, 55MS was 76.5, and 73MS was 72.5. It was found that the effect of 55MS was the best. The comprehensive comparison showed that the effect of 55MS Mixed Silage was the best, and the water content was reduced and the silage quality was better.
【學位授予單位】：廣西大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：S816.53

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 張養(yǎng)東;楊軍香;王宗偉;鄭楠;李松勵;趙圣國;文芳;王加啟;;青貯飼料理化品質評定研究進展[J];中國畜牧雜志;2016年12期

2 任海偉;王聰;竇俊偉;李志忠;李金平;孫永明;;玉米秸稈與廢棄白菜的混合青貯品質及產沼氣能力分析[J];農業(yè)工程學報;2016年12期

3 徐健;;肉牛常用飼料——青干草的調制與貯藏[J];現代畜牧科技;2016年06期

4 王玉麒;張斌文;;甜象草飼喂奶牛試驗研究[J];畜牧獸醫(yī)科技信息;2016年05期

5 柳茜;程曉;孫啟忠;劉曉波;何春;;玉米與高粱混合青貯的研究[J];中國奶牛;2016年05期

6 張亞格;字學娟;李茂;周漢林;;有機酸對柱花草青貯品質和營養(yǎng)成分的影響[J];動物營養(yǎng)學報;2016年05期

7 孫國君;何玉龍;王展鵬;;不同季節(jié)對苜蓿青貯飼料中霉菌毒素含量的影響[J];飼料研究;2016年09期

8 周娟娟;魏巍;秦愛瓊;陳本建;;水分和添加劑對辣椒秸稈青貯品質的影響[J];草業(yè)學報;2016年02期

9 楊永在;王長水;梁藝洵;姬琳堡;夏傳齊;曹兵海;;不同添加物對馬鈴薯莖葉青貯品質的影響[J];中國草食動物科學;2015年05期

10 王婷;段震宇;桑志勤;陳樹賓;;普通玉米與青貯玉米干質量積累及各器官分配規(guī)律[J];西北農業(yè)學報;2015年09期

相關會議論文 前2條

1 白春生;玉柱;薛艷林;白龍;;添加有機酸對全株玉米青貯品質和有氧穩(wěn)定性的影響[A];中國草學會飼料生產專業(yè)委員會第十六次學術研討會論文集[C];2011年

2 李改英;高騰云;傅彤;蔣士傳;;不同糖蜜添加量對紫花苜蓿青貯品質和發(fā)酵進程的影響[A];第三屆中國苜蓿發(fā)展大會論文集[C];2010年

相關碩士學位論文 前10條

1 范海瑞;青貯油菜與微貯金針菇菌糠的營養(yǎng)價值評定及飼喂奶水牛效果[D];華中農業(yè)大學;2016年

2 周娟娟;辣椒秧和馬鈴薯秧青貯調制研究[D];甘肅農業(yè)大學;2013年

3 夏宇;不同吸收劑和發(fā)酵液對馬鈴薯渣和紅薯渣青貯飼料發(fā)酵品質的影響[D];河北農業(yè)大學;2013年

4 林麗;水葫蘆與玉米秸稈混合青貯的試驗研究[D];福建農林大學;2011年

5 焉石;碳水化合物添加劑和不同收獲期對青貯玉米青貯品質的影響[D];東北農業(yè)大學;2010年

6 劉平督;不同溫度條件下紫花苜蓿青貯發(fā)酵品質的研究[D];南京農業(yè)大學;2010年

7 榮輝;不同刈割時期象草青貯發(fā)酵品質的研究[D];南京農業(yè)大學;2009年

8 李長春;混合天然牧草青貯最適條件篩選研究[D];內蒙古農業(yè)大學;2008年

9 李旭華;稻草與玉米秸稈或象草混合青貯及其對奶牛飼用價值研究[D];湖南農業(yè)大學;2007年

10 唐維新;綠汁發(fā)酵液改善紫花苜蓿青貯品質機理初探[D];中國農業(yè)大學;2004年

，

本文編號：2075174