【摘要】：本研究在農(nóng)作物秸稈與黑麥草混合青貯的基礎(chǔ)上,混入豆科牧草青貯,探討不同混合比例的豆科牧草對混合青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)、體外消化率及微生物組成的影響,以便確定適宜的混合比例。本研究農(nóng)作物秸稈與黑麥草以40%:60%的鮮重比例混合,在此基礎(chǔ)上按照總鮮重的0%(對照)、10%、20%和30%的比例混入豆科牧草紫花苜蓿和箭{H豌豆,45天后開窖,以期改善青貯飼料發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的同時(shí),提高青貯飼料的粗蛋白含量。試驗(yàn)共分四部分:1.青稞秸稈、黑麥草與豆科牧草混合青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的研究。對照組和處理組pH均在4.2以上,處理組pH顯著升高(P0.05)。紫花苜蓿處理組乳酸含量明顯增加(P0.05),干物質(zhì)含量并無變化,箭{H豌豆處理組干物質(zhì)含量則顯著升高(P0.05),WSC的含量與DM含量有類似的變化趨勢。乙酸含量明顯降低,紫花苜蓿處理組粗蛋白含量顯著增加(P0.05),箭{H豌豆處理組粗蛋白含量增加不顯著(P0.05)。氨態(tài)氮/總氮的含量降低,箭{H豌豆處理組降低顯著(P0.05)。紫花苜蓿處理組乳酸菌數(shù)量和好氧細(xì)菌數(shù)量的增加較為顯著(P0.05),箭{H豌豆處理組與對照組相比沒有明顯差別。體外消化率并無顯著差異。從青貯飼料發(fā)酵品質(zhì)及營養(yǎng)品質(zhì)的角度考慮,混入30%豆科牧草混合青貯較為適宜。2.小麥秸稈、黑麥草與豆科牧草混合青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的研究。紫花苜蓿處理組與對照組并沒有表現(xiàn)出顯著的pH差異,而箭{H豌豆處理組隨著箭{H豌豆添加比例的提升,pH顯著升高(P0.05)。紫花苜蓿和箭{H豌豆處理組乳酸含量均有增加,且隨著添加比例增大,干物質(zhì)含量逐漸減少。水溶性碳水化合物含量顯著降低,無論是對照組還是處理組,水溶性碳水化合物含量均在20 g/kg DM以下。乙酸的含量顯著提高(P0.05),乳酸/乙酸均在2左右,乳酸發(fā)酵以異型發(fā)酵為主。紫花苜蓿處理組丁酸含量略有降低,與對照組相比,處理組總的揮發(fā)性脂肪酸含量有所增加,但并不顯著(P0.05)。粗蛋白含量顯著增加(P0.05)。紫花苜蓿處理組氨態(tài)氮/總氮含量明顯升高,箭{H豌豆處理組沒有較大變化。體外消化率并無明顯變化。在可發(fā)酵底物不充足,水分含量不適宜的情況下,不建議小麥秸稈、黑麥草與豆科牧草混合青貯。3.燕麥秸稈、黑麥草與豆科牧草混合青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的研究。豆科牧草處理組pH與對照組相比無顯著差異,處理組乳酸含量及乳酸菌數(shù)量均有所提升。干物質(zhì)含量下降,且無論是對照組還是處理組干物質(zhì)含量均在300 g/kgFW以下。水溶性碳水化合物含量顯著(P0.05)降低,紫花苜蓿處理組乙酸含量顯著降低(P0.05),箭菩豌豆處理組差異不顯著(P0.05)。乳酸/乙酸比值有增加的趨勢,丁酸含量均降至10g/kgDM以下。粗蛋白、中性洗滌纖維顯著的增加(P0.05),氨態(tài)氮/總氮含量都有顯著的下降(P0.05),體外消化率沒有顯著差異。建議30%紫花苜蓿與燕麥秸稈、黑麥草混合青貯較為適宜。4.油菜秸稈、黑麥草與豆科牧草混合青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的研究。豆科牧草處理組pH顯著降低(P0.05),乳酸含量顯著增加(P0.05),干物質(zhì)含量隨著豆科牧草添加比例的提高顯著降低(P0.05)。水溶性碳水化合物隨著紫花苜蓿添加比例增加顯著降低(P0.05),箭{H豌豆處理組有減少,但并不明顯(P0.05)。乙酸含量有所增加,乳酸/乙酸的比值略有升高,最高比達(dá)到5.09。粗蛋白顯著增加(P0.05),氨態(tài)氮/總氮的含量上也有類似的趨勢。中性洗滌纖維含量顯著提高,丁酸和總揮發(fā)性脂肪酸含量及體外消化率無顯著差異。從發(fā)酵品質(zhì)及營養(yǎng)品質(zhì)的角度考慮,建議以30%箭{H豌豆與油菜秸稈、黑麥草混合青貯較為適宜。
[Abstract]:Based on the Mixed Silage of crop straw and ryegrass, leguminous forage silage was mixed with leguminous forage to study the effects of different mixing ratios of leguminous forage on fermentation quality, digestibility in vitro and microbial composition of Mixed Silage in order to determine the appropriate mixing ratio. On this basis, the fermentation quality of Mixed Silage of legume forage alfalfa and arrow {H pea] was improved by adding 0% (control), 10%, 20% and 30% of total fresh weight to the silage, and the crude protein content of silage was increased after 45 days. The pH of control group and treatment group was above 4.2, and the pH of treatment group increased significantly (P 0.05). The content of lactic acid in alfalfa treatment group increased significantly (P 0.05), while the content of dry matter remained unchanged. The content of dry matter in arrow {H pea treatment group increased significantly (P 0.05), and the content of WSC and DM had a similar change trend. The content of crude protein increased significantly in alfalfa treatment group (P 0.05), but not in Arrow {H pea treatment group (P 0.05). The content of ammonia nitrogen / total nitrogen decreased significantly in Arrow {H pea treatment group (P 0.05). The number of lactic acid bacteria and aerobic bacteria increased significantly in Alfalfa treatment group (P 0.05), Arrow {H pea treatment group and control group (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in digestibility in vitro. Considering the fermentation quality and nutritional quality of silage, it was better to mix 30% legume forage with wheat straw. 2. Study on fermentation quality of wheat straw, ryegrass and legume forage. Alfalfa treatment group and control group did not show significant pH value. The content of lactic acid in alfalfa and H-pea treatments increased, and the content of dry matter decreased gradually with the increase of the ratio. The content of water-soluble carbohydrate decreased significantly, whether in control group or in treatment group. The total content of volatile fatty acids in the alfalfa treatment group was slightly lower than that in the control group, but the total content of volatile fatty acids in the treatment group was increased, but not significantly (P 0.05). Alfalfa treatment group ammonia nitrogen / total nitrogen content increased significantly, arrow {H pea treatment group has no significant change. In vitro digestibility has no significant change. In the case of insufficient fermentable substrate, water content is not appropriate, wheat straw, ryegrass and leguminous forage Mixed Silage is not recommended. 3. Oat straw, ryegrass and leguminous forage Study on fermentation quality of Mixed Silage of grass. There was no significant difference in pH value between legume grass treatment group and control group. The content of lactic acid and lactic acid bacteria in legume grass treatment group increased. The content of dry matter decreased, and the content of dry matter in both control group and treatment group was below 300 g/kg FW. The content of acetic acid in alfalfa treatment group decreased significantly (P 0.05), but the difference was not significant (P 0.05). The ratio of lactic acid to acetic acid increased, the content of butyric acid decreased to below 10 g/kg DM. Crude protein, neutral washing fiber increased significantly (P 0.05), the content of ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen decreased significantly (P 0.05), and the digestibility in vitro was not significant. It is suggested that 30% alfalfa and oat straw, ryegrass Mixed Silage is more suitable. 4. Study on fermentation quality of rape straw, ryegrass and legume mixed silage. The pH of legume treatment group decreased significantly (P 0.05), the lactic acid content increased significantly (P 0.05), and the dry matter content decreased significantly (P 0.05) with the increase of legume forage proportion. Water-soluble carbohydrates decreased significantly (P 0.05) with the increase of Alfalfa content, but not significantly (P 0.05). Acetic acid content increased, the ratio of lactic acid to acetic acid increased slightly, the highest ratio reached 5.09. Crude protein increased significantly (P 0.05), and the content of ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen also had a similar trend. The content of detergent fiber was significantly increased, while the content of butyric acid and total volatile fatty acid and digestibility in vitro were not significantly different.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：S816

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉秦華;郭剛;宋曉欣;聞愛友;榮輝;邵濤;;西藏多年生黑麥草與紫花苜�；旌锨噘A的研究[J];草地學(xué)報(bào);2013年05期

2 王敬龍;拉巴;多吉頓珠;格桑次仁;貢嘎桑布;秦愛瓊;;西藏牧草產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展存在的問題和對策[J];西藏科技;2013年03期

3 王奇;余成群;辛鵬程;李志華;下條雅敬;邵濤;;葦狀羊茅和箭{H豌豆混合青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的研究[J];草地學(xué)報(bào);2012年05期

4 原現(xiàn)軍;余成群;李志華;下條雅敬;邵濤;;西藏青稞秸稈與多年生黑麥草混合青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的研究[J];草業(yè)學(xué)報(bào);2012年04期

5 聞愛友;原現(xiàn)軍;王堅(jiān);王娟;邵濤;;紫花苜蓿與意大利黑麥草混合青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)研究[J];安徽科技學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年06期

6 王林;孫啟忠;張慧杰;;苜蓿與玉米混貯質(zhì)量研究[J];草業(yè)學(xué)報(bào);2011年04期

7 余成群;鐘華平;邵小明;郭米娟;樊江文;歐陽克蕙;;西藏拉薩河谷地區(qū)紫花苜蓿的刈割管理[J];草業(yè)學(xué)報(bào);2011年01期

8 榮輝;徐安凱;下條雅敬;邵濤;;初次刈割象草青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)動(dòng)態(tài)[J];草地學(xué)報(bào);2009年04期

9 張自和,郭正剛,吳素琴;西部高寒地區(qū)草業(yè)面臨的問題與可持續(xù)發(fā)展[J];草業(yè)學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期

10 張國勝,李林,汪青春,李希來,徐維新,董立新;青南高原氣候變化及其對高寒草甸牧草生長影響的研究[J];草業(yè)學(xué)報(bào);1999年03期

，

本文編號：2238806