不同晾晒时间对菊芋青贮品质的影响
|
摘要
为研究不同晾晒时间(0h,2h,4h,6h)对菊芋青贮品质的影响,分别在不同时间(8∶00,10∶00,12∶00,14∶00)取样,在相同的条件下常规青贮50d后,对不同的处理从感官评定与发酵指标测定两个方面来分析评价不同晾晒时间的菊芋青贮饲料品质。结果表明,晾晒2h的菊芋茎叶青贮后,芳香味较浓,色泽与原料色较接近,茎叶结构保存尚好,感官评定得分较高;晾晒2h的菊芋茎叶青贮pH值最低,为4.27,显著低于对照(P<0.05),更有利于青贮长时间贮存;青贮饲料的营养成分表明,晾晒2h的饲料粗蛋白(CP)保存尚好,粗脂肪(EE)含量最高,为8.61%,显著高于对照组(P<0.05),粗灰分(CA)含量最低,为13.58%,酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)与中性洗涤纤维(NDF)含量均最低。综上所述,晾晒2h的菊芋茎叶青贮饲料品质较好。
To study the different drying time〔specific drying time written on.〕The effects of(0 h,2 h,4 h,6 h)on the quality of Jerusalem artichoke silage were sampled at different time(8∶00,10∶00,12∶00,14∶00).After 50 days of conventional silage under the same conditions,the quality of Jerusalem artichoke silage atdifferent drying time was analyzed and evaluated from two aspects:sensory evaluation and nutritional index determination.The results showed that the aroma of Jerusalem artichoke stalk and Leaf Silage after 2 hours of air-drying was stronger,the color was close to the raw material color,the structure of stem and leaf was well preserved,and the score of sensory evaluation was higher.The pH value of Jerusalem artichoke stalk and Leaf Silage after 2 hours of air-drying was the lowest(4.27),significantly lower than that of the control(P<0.05),which was more conducive to long-term silage.The nutrient composition of silage showed that the crude protein(CP)of feed after 2 hours of air-drying was better preserved.The content of crude fat(EE)was the highest(8.61%),significantly higher than that of the control group(P< 0.05),crude ash(CA)was the lowest(13.58%),acid detergent fiber(ADF)and neutral detergent fiber(NDF)were the lowest(nutritional indicators in Chinese and English).This is the case.In conclusion,the quality of Jerusalem artichoke stalk and Leaf Silage dried for 2 hours was better.
To study the different drying time〔specific drying time written on.〕The effects of(0 h,2 h,4 h,6 h)on the quality of Jerusalem artichoke silage were sampled at different time(8∶00,10∶00,12∶00,14∶00).After 50 days of conventional silage under the same conditions,the quality of Jerusalem artichoke silage atdifferent drying time was analyzed and evaluated from two aspects:sensory evaluation and nutritional index determination.The results showed that the aroma of Jerusalem artichoke stalk and Leaf Silage after 2 hours of air-drying was stronger,the color was close to the raw material color,the structure of stem and leaf was well preserved,and the score of sensory evaluation was higher.The pH value of Jerusalem artichoke stalk and Leaf Silage after 2 hours of air-drying was the lowest(4.27),significantly lower than that of the control(P<0.05),which was more conducive to long-term silage.The nutrient composition of silage showed that the crude protein(CP)of feed after 2 hours of air-drying was better preserved.The content of crude fat(EE)was the highest(8.61%),significantly higher than that of the control group(P< 0.05),crude ash(CA)was the lowest(13.58%),acid detergent fiber(ADF)and neutral detergent fiber(NDF)were the lowest(nutritional indicators in Chinese and English).This is the case.In conclusion,the quality of Jerusalem artichoke stalk and Leaf Silage dried for 2 hours was better.
引文
[1]侯美玲.草甸草原天然牧草青贮乳酸菌筛选及品质调控研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2017.
[2]郭利亚,王彦华,陶刚等.发展草牧业背景下从示范点看河南青贮玉米推广应用做法与经验[J].中国饲料,2015,(20):33-36+43.
[3]苑忠央,姜淑贞.优质青贮饲料的制作及其在畜牧生产中的应用[J].饲料加工工艺研究,2015(5):22-24.
[4]王晓娜,孙启忠,韩海波,等.内蒙古青贮饲料质量研究[J].草业学报,2011,(3):149-155.
[5]赵晓川,王卓龙,孙金艳.菊芋在畜牧生产中的应用[J].黑龙江农业科学,2006,(6):39-40.
[6]M.Meneses,黄彪,李雁.作为反刍动物饲料---青贮菊芋副产品的植物卫生学、发酵、营养参数评价[J].饲料与畜牧,2009,(05):13-15.
[7]张秀芬.饲草饲料加工与贮藏[M].北京农业出版社,1992,32-33.
[8]杨胜.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].北京:中国农业大学出版社,1999,16-63.
[9]胡书浩,赵建国.白糖影响柱花草青贮品质的初步研究[J].饲料加工,2013,32(8):51-53.
[10]侯鑫狄,侯美玲,贾玉山,等.添加乳酸菌和纤维素酶对黄花苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J].中国草地学报,2017,39(6):95-96.
[11]郭旭生,丁武蓉,玉柱.青贮饲料发酵品质评定体系及其最新进展[J].中国草地学报,2008,9(4):100-106.
[12]刘迪,孟艳.青贮饲料技术[J].饲料与加工,2016,(1):38.
[13]吕喜贵.青贮饲料的十大好处[J].饲料园地,2001(12):131-133.
[14]三智才旦.饲料作物青贮过程中的养分损失分析[J].湖南农业科学,2009,(7):143-144.
[15]雷艳芳,王仪明,常伟,等.不同刈割时间对青贮玉米生物量和品质的影响[J].上海农业学报,2016,32(4):45-49.
[16]刘海燕,王秀飞,王彦靖,等.玉米秸秆和菊芋秸秆混合青贮的研究[J].中国奶牛饲料饲养,2017,(12):15-17.
[17]马春晖,夏艳军,韩军,钱文熙,张玲,席琳乔,方雷.不同青贮添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J].草业学报,2010,19(01):128-133.
[18]闫琦,张世挺,赵长明,等.高寒牧区不同菊芋品种茎叶青贮的饲用价值[J].草业科学,2018,35(06):1568-1573.
[19]薛艳林,孙林,殷国梅,等.生物添加剂和填装密度对菊芋青贮饲料品质的影响[J].畜牧与饲料科学,2017,38(1):39-43.
[20]余汝华,莫放,赵丽华,张晓明,陈瑶.不同玉米品种青贮饲料营养成分比较分析[J].中国农学通报,2007(08):17-20.
[2]郭利亚,王彦华,陶刚等.发展草牧业背景下从示范点看河南青贮玉米推广应用做法与经验[J].中国饲料,2015,(20):33-36+43.
[3]苑忠央,姜淑贞.优质青贮饲料的制作及其在畜牧生产中的应用[J].饲料加工工艺研究,2015(5):22-24.
[4]王晓娜,孙启忠,韩海波,等.内蒙古青贮饲料质量研究[J].草业学报,2011,(3):149-155.
[5]赵晓川,王卓龙,孙金艳.菊芋在畜牧生产中的应用[J].黑龙江农业科学,2006,(6):39-40.
[6]M.Meneses,黄彪,李雁.作为反刍动物饲料---青贮菊芋副产品的植物卫生学、发酵、营养参数评价[J].饲料与畜牧,2009,(05):13-15.
[7]张秀芬.饲草饲料加工与贮藏[M].北京农业出版社,1992,32-33.
[8]杨胜.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].北京:中国农业大学出版社,1999,16-63.
[9]胡书浩,赵建国.白糖影响柱花草青贮品质的初步研究[J].饲料加工,2013,32(8):51-53.
[10]侯鑫狄,侯美玲,贾玉山,等.添加乳酸菌和纤维素酶对黄花苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J].中国草地学报,2017,39(6):95-96.
[11]郭旭生,丁武蓉,玉柱.青贮饲料发酵品质评定体系及其最新进展[J].中国草地学报,2008,9(4):100-106.
[12]刘迪,孟艳.青贮饲料技术[J].饲料与加工,2016,(1):38.
[13]吕喜贵.青贮饲料的十大好处[J].饲料园地,2001(12):131-133.
[14]三智才旦.饲料作物青贮过程中的养分损失分析[J].湖南农业科学,2009,(7):143-144.
[15]雷艳芳,王仪明,常伟,等.不同刈割时间对青贮玉米生物量和品质的影响[J].上海农业学报,2016,32(4):45-49.
[16]刘海燕,王秀飞,王彦靖,等.玉米秸秆和菊芋秸秆混合青贮的研究[J].中国奶牛饲料饲养,2017,(12):15-17.
[17]马春晖,夏艳军,韩军,钱文熙,张玲,席琳乔,方雷.不同青贮添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J].草业学报,2010,19(01):128-133.
[18]闫琦,张世挺,赵长明,等.高寒牧区不同菊芋品种茎叶青贮的饲用价值[J].草业科学,2018,35(06):1568-1573.
[19]薛艳林,孙林,殷国梅,等.生物添加剂和填装密度对菊芋青贮饲料品质的影响[J].畜牧与饲料科学,2017,38(1):39-43.
[20]余汝华,莫放,赵丽华,张晓明,陈瑶.不同玉米品种青贮饲料营养成分比较分析[J].中国农学通报,2007(08):17-20.