饲用苎麻与稻草不同比例混合青贮品质及饲用价值评价
|
摘要
将鲜饲用苎麻与干稻草按质量比分别为90:10(R10)、80:20(R20)和60:40 (R40)贮存30、45 d和60 d后,进行感官评价、pH测定、营养成分分析以及饲用价值评价。结果表明:混合青贮产品感官评分较高,除R10组的30 d为2级尚好,其余各组均达到1级优等;处理对混合青贮pH无显著影响(P=0.462),对常规营养成分均有极显著的影响(P <0.01),处理与青贮时间对混合青贮的粗灰分有极显著的交互作用(P=0.0002);处理及青贮时间对混合青贮的相对饲用价值指数(RFV)均有极显著的影响(P <0.01),但未呈现出显著的交互作用(P> 0.05);R10组的RFV值较高,且不同青贮时间之间无显著差异(P> 0.05)。综合青贮品质及RFV,建议鲜饲用苎麻与干稻草混合青贮时适宜占比为80%～90%,青贮时间为45 d。
In this paper,the mixed silage were made of fresh forage ramie and rice straw based on mass ratio 90∶10(R10),80∶20(R20) and 60∶40(R40),and stayed for 30,45 d and 60 d,respectively.And then the sensory evaluation,pH and nutritional composition of samples were measured.The results showed that the sensory scores of the mixed silage products were high,the 30 d of the R10 group was good,and the other groups were excellent.Treatment had no significant effect on pH(P =0.462),had significant effect on routine nutrients(P < 0.01).Treatment and time had interactive influences on crude ash(P =0.0002).The treatment or time had significant effect on the relative feed value(RFV) of silage(P < 0.01),but had no interactive influences(P >0.05).The RFV of R10 group was higher than the others,and there was no significant difference among times(P> 0.05).Combined silage quality and feeding value,it was suggested that the suitable proportion of ramie was80% ～ 90%,and time was 45 d.
In this paper,the mixed silage were made of fresh forage ramie and rice straw based on mass ratio 90∶10(R10),80∶20(R20) and 60∶40(R40),and stayed for 30,45 d and 60 d,respectively.And then the sensory evaluation,pH and nutritional composition of samples were measured.The results showed that the sensory scores of the mixed silage products were high,the 30 d of the R10 group was good,and the other groups were excellent.Treatment had no significant effect on pH(P =0.462),had significant effect on routine nutrients(P < 0.01).Treatment and time had interactive influences on crude ash(P =0.0002).The treatment or time had significant effect on the relative feed value(RFV) of silage(P < 0.01),but had no interactive influences(P >0.05).The RFV of R10 group was higher than the others,and there was no significant difference among times(P> 0.05).Combined silage quality and feeding value,it was suggested that the suitable proportion of ramie was80% ～ 90%,and time was 45 d.
引文
[1]陈鑫珠,高承芳,张晓佩,等.不同混合比例对葛藤甘蔗梢混合青贮品质的影响[J].中国农学通报,2017,33(2):138~141.
[2]韩建国,贾慎修.放牧绵羊采食量及消化率的研究[J].草原牧业杂志,1987,4:35~37.
[3]红敏,高民,卢德勋,等.粗饲料品质评定指数新一代分级指数的建立及与分级指数(GI_(2001))和饲料相对值(RFV)的比较研究[J].动物营养学报,2011,23(8):1296~1302.
[4]金花,贾玉山,邢旗,等.锡林郭勒天然草地牧草TDN与土壤供氮特性的相关性研究[J].中国草地学报,2008,30(4):59~63.
[5]苗福泓,王惠,孙娟,等.鲁东南地区不同年龄紫花苜蓿营养品质的变化[J].中国草地学报,2017,39(5):46~53.
[6]王国刚,王明利,王济民,等.中国南方牧草产业发展基础、前景与建议[J].草业科学,2015,32(12):2114~2121.
[7]王郝为,戴求仲,侯振平,等.饲用苎麻青贮特性及其青贮前后营养成分与饲用价值比较[J].动物营养学报,2018,30(1):293~298.
[8]王鸿泽,彭全辉,康坤,等.不同混合比例对甘薯蔓、酒糟及稻草混合青贮品质的影响[J].动物营养学报,2014,26(12):3868~3876.
[9]王鸿泽,王之盛,康坤,等.玉米粉和乳酸菌对甘薯蔓、酒糟及稻草混合青贮品质的影响[J].草业学报,2014,23(6):103~110.
[10]王永军,郭航,田秀娥.农作物秸秆饲料化的技术路线与关键技术[J].家畜生态学报,2015,36(12):6~11.
[11]吴端钦,王郝为,侯振平,等.几种南方非常规饲料作物的营养成分及氨基酸组成[J].草业科学,2017,34(6):1332~1336.
[12]徐生祥.山毛豆和甜象草混合青贮饲料品质的研究[D].桂林:广西大学,2017.
[13]詹湉湉,叶杭,张文昌,等.纤维素酶对香蕉茎与小麦麸混合青贮效果的影响[J].中国农学通报,2014,30(11):1~5.
[14]张丽英.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术(第3版)[M].北京:北京农业大学出版社,2007.
[15]Coblentz W K,Akins M S.Silage review:Recent advances and future technologies for baled silages[J].J Dairy Sci,2018,101(5):4075~4092.
[16]Grant R J,Ferraretto L F.Silage review:Silage feeding management:Silage characteristics and dairy cow feeding behavior[J].J Dairy Sci,2018,101(5):4111~4121.
[17]Kung L,Shaver R D,Grant R J,et al.Silage review:Interpretation of chemical,microbial,and organoleptic components of silages[J].J Dairy Sci,2018,101(5):4020~4033.
[18]Lithourgidis A S,Vasilakogloub I B,Dhima K V.Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios[J].Field Crop Res,2006,99:106~113.
[19]Rohweder D A,Barnes R F,Jorgensen N.Proposed hay garding standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality[J].J An im.Sci,1987,47(3):747~759.
[2]韩建国,贾慎修.放牧绵羊采食量及消化率的研究[J].草原牧业杂志,1987,4:35~37.
[3]红敏,高民,卢德勋,等.粗饲料品质评定指数新一代分级指数的建立及与分级指数(GI_(2001))和饲料相对值(RFV)的比较研究[J].动物营养学报,2011,23(8):1296~1302.
[4]金花,贾玉山,邢旗,等.锡林郭勒天然草地牧草TDN与土壤供氮特性的相关性研究[J].中国草地学报,2008,30(4):59~63.
[5]苗福泓,王惠,孙娟,等.鲁东南地区不同年龄紫花苜蓿营养品质的变化[J].中国草地学报,2017,39(5):46~53.
[6]王国刚,王明利,王济民,等.中国南方牧草产业发展基础、前景与建议[J].草业科学,2015,32(12):2114~2121.
[7]王郝为,戴求仲,侯振平,等.饲用苎麻青贮特性及其青贮前后营养成分与饲用价值比较[J].动物营养学报,2018,30(1):293~298.
[8]王鸿泽,彭全辉,康坤,等.不同混合比例对甘薯蔓、酒糟及稻草混合青贮品质的影响[J].动物营养学报,2014,26(12):3868~3876.
[9]王鸿泽,王之盛,康坤,等.玉米粉和乳酸菌对甘薯蔓、酒糟及稻草混合青贮品质的影响[J].草业学报,2014,23(6):103~110.
[10]王永军,郭航,田秀娥.农作物秸秆饲料化的技术路线与关键技术[J].家畜生态学报,2015,36(12):6~11.
[11]吴端钦,王郝为,侯振平,等.几种南方非常规饲料作物的营养成分及氨基酸组成[J].草业科学,2017,34(6):1332~1336.
[12]徐生祥.山毛豆和甜象草混合青贮饲料品质的研究[D].桂林:广西大学,2017.
[13]詹湉湉,叶杭,张文昌,等.纤维素酶对香蕉茎与小麦麸混合青贮效果的影响[J].中国农学通报,2014,30(11):1~5.
[14]张丽英.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术(第3版)[M].北京:北京农业大学出版社,2007.
[15]Coblentz W K,Akins M S.Silage review:Recent advances and future technologies for baled silages[J].J Dairy Sci,2018,101(5):4075~4092.
[16]Grant R J,Ferraretto L F.Silage review:Silage feeding management:Silage characteristics and dairy cow feeding behavior[J].J Dairy Sci,2018,101(5):4111~4121.
[17]Kung L,Shaver R D,Grant R J,et al.Silage review:Interpretation of chemical,microbial,and organoleptic components of silages[J].J Dairy Sci,2018,101(5):4020~4033.
[18]Lithourgidis A S,Vasilakogloub I B,Dhima K V.Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios[J].Field Crop Res,2006,99:106~113.
[19]Rohweder D A,Barnes R F,Jorgensen N.Proposed hay garding standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality[J].J An im.Sci,1987,47(3):747~759.