不同吸收剂对甜菜渣青贮的发酵品质与有氧稳定性的影响
摘要
本试验研究高水分甜菜渣添加吸收剂对于青贮发酵品质和有氧稳定性的影响,从而寻找一种来源广泛、价格低廉和容易获得的吸收剂,以期改善高水分甜菜渣青贮的发酵品质和营养价值。
试验1:甜菜渣原料的碳水化合物组分的测定
甜菜渣的碳水化合物存在细胞内容物和细胞壁中,通过测定,得出细胞内容物中含有机酸0.48%、糖4.82%、淀粉2.98%,而细胞壁由中性洗涤纤维(NDF)组成,达49.62%,间质部分如果胶(14.17%),与细胞内容物中的果聚糖一起组成中洗可溶性纤维(达30.28%)。由此可以看出,甜菜渣中非淀粉多糖含量极高,达到79.90%。
试验2:添加不同来源吸收剂的甜菜渣青贮
本试验采用单因素设计,一共五个处理组,每个处理18个重复(其中15个重复用于青贮过程中的5个阶段的品质测定)。将豆荚、稻秸、玉米秸和麸皮按照4:1比例分别和甜菜渣混合,使得其水分调节到70%左右。对照组甜菜渣不添加任何的辅料,然后按照正常的青贮方法进行青贮。
试验结果表明:在发酵过程中,各处理组pH值的变化不是很大。氨态氮一直处于增长状态,尤其是甜菜渣组,增长迅速,且和其它处理组差异显著(P<0.05)。发酵完成后,从青贮的发酵品质方面来看:往甜菜渣添加吸收剂之后,可以减缓蛋白的降解速度,且与甜菜渣组间差异显著(P<0.05),其中麸皮组氨态氮占总氮(VBN/TN)的比例最小。各处理组间的乳酸(LA)和乙酸(AA)的含量差异显著(P<0.05)。丙酸(PA)含量各个处理组间差异不显著(P>0.05),甜菜渣组与玉米秸组和麸皮组的丁酸(BA)含量差异不显著(P>0.05),其中稻秸组和豆荚组没有检测到丁酸。
另一方面从青贮的流失损失来看:添加吸收剂之后,各处理组的干物质损失率(DML)差异极显著(P<0.01),甜菜渣组干物质损失率达到20.76%,而麸皮处理组只有1.59%。同时甜菜渣直接青贮组可溶性碳水化合物损失率最为严重,高达92%,且处理组间差异显著(P<0.05)。
试验3:添加不同来源吸收剂的甜菜渣青贮的有氧稳定性
青贮70天后进行有氧稳定性试验,结果表明,直接青贮的甜菜渣组暴露在空气中的第2天就开始升温,在第4天,即96小时就处于不稳定状态。玉米秸组延迟一天。豆荚组的有氧稳定性是最高的,达216小时。
试验4:添加不同来源吸收剂的甜菜渣青贮不同时间点的瘤胃DM、CP、NDF的降解率的测定
本试验用尼龙袋法测定了这5种不同处理的甜菜渣青贮的瘤胃DM、CP和NDF的降解率。试验结果表明:甜菜渣组DM的有效降解率最高,为65%,其次是麸皮组(58.27%);甜菜渣组的NDF的有效降解率仍旧处于最高,为55.82%,其次是麸皮组(44.59%),稻秸组、玉米秸组和豆荚组的降解率依次为19.87%、33.03%、20.70%;而CP的有效降解率,麸皮组的为最高,达到了74.30%。甜菜渣组和豆荚组的蛋白降解率依次为55.86%和57.66%。
本试验得出以下结论:
(1)从原料甜菜渣的碳水化合物组分可以得出甜菜渣的营养特点:纤维含量高,但是大部分是可溶性纤维,同时从甜菜渣青贮的瘤胃降解试验可以得出甜菜渣是易降解物质。
(2)从甜菜渣青贮来看,甜菜渣直接青贮发酵品质不佳,而且青贮渗出液比较多。添加不同来源吸收剂(稻秸、玉米秸、豆荚和麸皮)之后,能更好的提高青贮品质。在一定程度上降低了氨态氮的产生,保留DM和CP的含量,减少WSC随着汁液的流失。在另一方面来说,吸收剂的添加延缓了青贮料的二次发酵。
(3)从发酵品质、营养成分、二次发酵和吸收剂的来源与经济方面综合考虑,本研究以添加20%的粉碎干稻秸的甜菜渣青贮为最佳,其次是添加20%干豆荚。
The study was to evaluate the effect of adding different absorbents on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of beet silage. The purpose is to find a suitable absorbent,which is too low and easy to get , to improve the beet silage fermentation quality and nutrition value.
Test 1 Carbohydrate composition of the fresh beet pulp
The carbohydrate contents of the beet pulp are consisted of cell wall and cell contents. Among the cell contents, the organic acids accouted for 0.48%, sugar was 4.82% and starch was 2.98%. In the cell wall, which was consisted of the NDF, was 49.62%, and the rest such as the pectic substances, which was 14.17%, and fructans were composed as neutral detergent soluble fiber (up to 30.28%). It can be seen that beet pulp was rich in the non starch polysaccharide, up to 79.90%.
Test 2 The beet pulp silages with different absorbents
This study was adopted by Single factor design. There were five treatments, and each of them had 18 repeats (15 of them repeats were for the 5 stages to quality testing during silage.). The pods, rice straw, corn stovers and wheat bran were in accordance with the 4:1 ratio to beet pulp, making its water 70%. The control did not add anything to silage.
The results showed that: duiring the silage, all the treatments had not a big change in pH value. But the NH_3-N was always increasing, especially the control, which was significant difference between treatments (P < 0.05). After silage, adding the absorbents could slow down the degradation rate of protein, and were significant with the control (P < 0.05). Ammonia nitrogen in the bran was the smallest proportion. Among all these, the content of lactic acid and acetic acid were significant seperatly (P < 0.05). Acid content in each treatment was not significant (P > 0.05). The rice straw and pods were not detected in acid, and others were not significant (P > 0.05).
On the other hand, adding the absorbents to the beet pulp silage could reduce the dry matter loss. The dry matter loss were significantly different (P < 0.01), when the dry matter loss in control loss was 20.76%, the bran treatment was only 1.59%. Similarly, the five treatments could have a significantly different in the loss rate of WSC (P < 0.05). The control was the most serious, up to 92%.
Test 3 The aerobic stability of the beet pulp silage with different absorbents
After 70 days, all the treatments were exposed to the air. It was shown that the control was in the unaerobic stability state after three days, that was to say, it was only 96 hours. The corn stalks delayed one day. The aerobic stability of the pod was the highest, up to 216 hours.
Test 4 Determination of the degradation rate of DM, CP, NDF at different time points in the rumen
This study was to determination these five different beet silages in the rumen DM, CPand NDF degradation rate by nylon bag method. The results showed that, the controlhad ahighest effective degradation of DM at 65%, followed by wheat bran (58.27%); the control of NDF degradation rate was still at the highestwhich was 55.82%, followed by wheat bran (44.59%). And the rate were 19.87%, 33.03%, 20.70% in turn in rice straw, corn stalks and the pod; the CP degradation in the bran was the highest(74.30%).
This experiment showed the following conclusions:
(1)The nutritional characteristics of the beet pulp: the high soluble fiber. From the rumen degradation, it also could be thought as a easily degradable substance.
(2)It showen that beet pulp which was at low dry matter was in poor fermentation quality and had more effluents. Adding absorbents (such as rice straw, corn stover, pods and wheat bran) to the beet pulp silage couls better improve the quality. It can to some extent reduce NH3-N and the loss of WSC and reserve the dry matter and CP content. In the other hand, it also delayed absorbent secondary fermentation of silage.
(3)Considing all the aspects, especially the econoimy, this study pointed out that the beet pulp silage with 20% dry rice straw as the best, followed by adding 20% dry pods.
试验1:甜菜渣原料的碳水化合物组分的测定
甜菜渣的碳水化合物存在细胞内容物和细胞壁中,通过测定,得出细胞内容物中含有机酸0.48%、糖4.82%、淀粉2.98%,而细胞壁由中性洗涤纤维(NDF)组成,达49.62%,间质部分如果胶(14.17%),与细胞内容物中的果聚糖一起组成中洗可溶性纤维(达30.28%)。由此可以看出,甜菜渣中非淀粉多糖含量极高,达到79.90%。
试验2:添加不同来源吸收剂的甜菜渣青贮
本试验采用单因素设计,一共五个处理组,每个处理18个重复(其中15个重复用于青贮过程中的5个阶段的品质测定)。将豆荚、稻秸、玉米秸和麸皮按照4:1比例分别和甜菜渣混合,使得其水分调节到70%左右。对照组甜菜渣不添加任何的辅料,然后按照正常的青贮方法进行青贮。
试验结果表明:在发酵过程中,各处理组pH值的变化不是很大。氨态氮一直处于增长状态,尤其是甜菜渣组,增长迅速,且和其它处理组差异显著(P<0.05)。发酵完成后,从青贮的发酵品质方面来看:往甜菜渣添加吸收剂之后,可以减缓蛋白的降解速度,且与甜菜渣组间差异显著(P<0.05),其中麸皮组氨态氮占总氮(VBN/TN)的比例最小。各处理组间的乳酸(LA)和乙酸(AA)的含量差异显著(P<0.05)。丙酸(PA)含量各个处理组间差异不显著(P>0.05),甜菜渣组与玉米秸组和麸皮组的丁酸(BA)含量差异不显著(P>0.05),其中稻秸组和豆荚组没有检测到丁酸。
另一方面从青贮的流失损失来看:添加吸收剂之后,各处理组的干物质损失率(DML)差异极显著(P<0.01),甜菜渣组干物质损失率达到20.76%,而麸皮处理组只有1.59%。同时甜菜渣直接青贮组可溶性碳水化合物损失率最为严重,高达92%,且处理组间差异显著(P<0.05)。
试验3:添加不同来源吸收剂的甜菜渣青贮的有氧稳定性
青贮70天后进行有氧稳定性试验,结果表明,直接青贮的甜菜渣组暴露在空气中的第2天就开始升温,在第4天,即96小时就处于不稳定状态。玉米秸组延迟一天。豆荚组的有氧稳定性是最高的,达216小时。
试验4:添加不同来源吸收剂的甜菜渣青贮不同时间点的瘤胃DM、CP、NDF的降解率的测定
本试验用尼龙袋法测定了这5种不同处理的甜菜渣青贮的瘤胃DM、CP和NDF的降解率。试验结果表明:甜菜渣组DM的有效降解率最高,为65%,其次是麸皮组(58.27%);甜菜渣组的NDF的有效降解率仍旧处于最高,为55.82%,其次是麸皮组(44.59%),稻秸组、玉米秸组和豆荚组的降解率依次为19.87%、33.03%、20.70%;而CP的有效降解率,麸皮组的为最高,达到了74.30%。甜菜渣组和豆荚组的蛋白降解率依次为55.86%和57.66%。
本试验得出以下结论:
(1)从原料甜菜渣的碳水化合物组分可以得出甜菜渣的营养特点:纤维含量高,但是大部分是可溶性纤维,同时从甜菜渣青贮的瘤胃降解试验可以得出甜菜渣是易降解物质。
(2)从甜菜渣青贮来看,甜菜渣直接青贮发酵品质不佳,而且青贮渗出液比较多。添加不同来源吸收剂(稻秸、玉米秸、豆荚和麸皮)之后,能更好的提高青贮品质。在一定程度上降低了氨态氮的产生,保留DM和CP的含量,减少WSC随着汁液的流失。在另一方面来说,吸收剂的添加延缓了青贮料的二次发酵。
(3)从发酵品质、营养成分、二次发酵和吸收剂的来源与经济方面综合考虑,本研究以添加20%的粉碎干稻秸的甜菜渣青贮为最佳,其次是添加20%干豆荚。
The study was to evaluate the effect of adding different absorbents on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of beet silage. The purpose is to find a suitable absorbent,which is too low and easy to get , to improve the beet silage fermentation quality and nutrition value.
Test 1 Carbohydrate composition of the fresh beet pulp
The carbohydrate contents of the beet pulp are consisted of cell wall and cell contents. Among the cell contents, the organic acids accouted for 0.48%, sugar was 4.82% and starch was 2.98%. In the cell wall, which was consisted of the NDF, was 49.62%, and the rest such as the pectic substances, which was 14.17%, and fructans were composed as neutral detergent soluble fiber (up to 30.28%). It can be seen that beet pulp was rich in the non starch polysaccharide, up to 79.90%.
Test 2 The beet pulp silages with different absorbents
This study was adopted by Single factor design. There were five treatments, and each of them had 18 repeats (15 of them repeats were for the 5 stages to quality testing during silage.). The pods, rice straw, corn stovers and wheat bran were in accordance with the 4:1 ratio to beet pulp, making its water 70%. The control did not add anything to silage.
The results showed that: duiring the silage, all the treatments had not a big change in pH value. But the NH_3-N was always increasing, especially the control, which was significant difference between treatments (P < 0.05). After silage, adding the absorbents could slow down the degradation rate of protein, and were significant with the control (P < 0.05). Ammonia nitrogen in the bran was the smallest proportion. Among all these, the content of lactic acid and acetic acid were significant seperatly (P < 0.05). Acid content in each treatment was not significant (P > 0.05). The rice straw and pods were not detected in acid, and others were not significant (P > 0.05).
On the other hand, adding the absorbents to the beet pulp silage could reduce the dry matter loss. The dry matter loss were significantly different (P < 0.01), when the dry matter loss in control loss was 20.76%, the bran treatment was only 1.59%. Similarly, the five treatments could have a significantly different in the loss rate of WSC (P < 0.05). The control was the most serious, up to 92%.
Test 3 The aerobic stability of the beet pulp silage with different absorbents
After 70 days, all the treatments were exposed to the air. It was shown that the control was in the unaerobic stability state after three days, that was to say, it was only 96 hours. The corn stalks delayed one day. The aerobic stability of the pod was the highest, up to 216 hours.
Test 4 Determination of the degradation rate of DM, CP, NDF at different time points in the rumen
This study was to determination these five different beet silages in the rumen DM, CPand NDF degradation rate by nylon bag method. The results showed that, the controlhad ahighest effective degradation of DM at 65%, followed by wheat bran (58.27%); the control of NDF degradation rate was still at the highestwhich was 55.82%, followed by wheat bran (44.59%). And the rate were 19.87%, 33.03%, 20.70% in turn in rice straw, corn stalks and the pod; the CP degradation in the bran was the highest(74.30%).
This experiment showed the following conclusions:
(1)The nutritional characteristics of the beet pulp: the high soluble fiber. From the rumen degradation, it also could be thought as a easily degradable substance.
(2)It showen that beet pulp which was at low dry matter was in poor fermentation quality and had more effluents. Adding absorbents (such as rice straw, corn stover, pods and wheat bran) to the beet pulp silage couls better improve the quality. It can to some extent reduce NH3-N and the loss of WSC and reserve the dry matter and CP content. In the other hand, it also delayed absorbent secondary fermentation of silage.
(3)Considing all the aspects, especially the econoimy, this study pointed out that the beet pulp silage with 20% dry rice straw as the best, followed by adding 20% dry pods.
引文
安晓宁,卢得仁. 1991.饲草含水量对青贮饲料发酵品质和营养价值的营养..牧草与饲料. 2:25～26.
陈海燕,史占全,刘建新. 1998.添加稻草对大头菜青贮料发酵品质和瘤胃降解的效果[J].浙江农业学报. 10(4):215～219.
董世魁等. 1998.用尼龙袋法测定几种牧草在托牛瘤胃内的消失率[J].草业科学,15(2):35～39.
方热军等. 2003.尼龙袋技术评定饲料营养价值研究进展[J].饲料工业. 24(12):47～53.
高祥照,马文奇,马常宝. 2002.中国作物秸杆资源利用现状分析.华中农业大学学报[J]. (3):242-247.
管武太, G.Ashbell,Y.Heng. 2002.微生物添加剂对青贮高粱发酵品质和稳定性的影响[J].中国农业科学. 35(11):1401～1405.
郭金. 1998,不同青贮添加剂对青贮品质的影响[D].中国农业大学硕士学位论文.
郭庭双,赵广永,玛仰廉. 2000.甲酸对大麦青贮品质集中性洗涤纤维瘤胃降解率的影响[J]..中国畜牧杂志. 36(6):21～22.
郭庭双,赵广永. 1999.添加乳酸菌对大麦青贮品质及中、酸性洗涤纤维的瘤胃降解率的影响[J].中国畜牧杂志. 35(4):27～28.
郭庭双. 1998.不同青贮添加剂对青贮品质的影响[D].中国农业大学硕士学位论. 30～35.
郭旭生,周禾,玉柱. 2006.不同添加剂对青贮饲料有氧稳定性的影响[J].中国奶牛. 9:18～21.
孔凡德. 2002.高水分黑麦草添加吸收剂或凋姜青贮对青贮发酵品质和营养价值的影响[D].浙江大学硕士学位论文.
李改英,高腾云,傅彤,孙宇. 2008.糖蜜和农副产品复合添加物对首稽青贮品质的影响[J].中国奶牛. 2:20～22.
李平. 1997.青贮饲料添加剂的种类及用法[J].当代农业. (10):25～26.
李守东,温云,陈学俊. 2004.玉米秸秆和甜菜渣混合黄贮饲料试验报告[J].当代畜牧. (2).
刘春龙,李忠秋,孙海霞,等. 2006.影响青贮饲料品质的因素[J].中国牛业科学. 32(5):63～66.
刘丹丹. 2008.不同浓度绿汁发酵液和脱氢乙酸钠对青贮水稻秸品质和有氧稳定性的影响[D].东北农业大学硕士论文..
刘洪亮等. 2006.羊草和牧草产品营养物质瘤胃降解特性的研究[J].中国草地学报. 28(6):47～52.
刘建新,杨振海,叶均安,等. 1999.青贮饲料的合理调制与质量评定标准[J].饲料工业.
刘建新. 2003.干草秸秆青贮饲料加工技术[M].中国农业出版社. 15～143.
刘科. 2001.秸杆饲料加工与应用技术[Ml.金盾出版社.
刘贤,韩鲁佳,原慎一郎,野中和久. 2004.不同添加剂对苜蓿青贮饲料品质的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报. 9(3):25～30.
刘贤. 2003.不同添加剂对青贮饲料质量影响的实验研究[D].中国农业大学硕士学位论文.
卢定强,徐蓓,李晖,等. 2007.反相高效液相色谱法同时测定乳酸及乳酸甲酯[J].精细化工. 2.
马建华等. 1985.利用甜菜粕生产固体发酵饲料[J].微生物学通报. 12(2):62～64.
日本草地畜产品种子协会粗饲料的品质评价[A].自给饲料品质评价研究会编[C]. 2001. 93～94.
闰晓波.韩向敏. 2009.马铃薯渣和玉米秸秆混合青贮料对奶牛生产性能的影响[J].广东农业科学. (5):144～146.
时建青. 2006.苜蓿、统糠和稻草分别与啤酒糟混合发酵饲料品质研究[D].新疆农业大学硕士论文.
时建青等. 2005.尼龙袋法评价啤酒糟和麦芽根发酵饲料[J].当代畜牧. (8):25～26.
田允波. 1996.青贮饲料添加剂.内蒙古畜牧科学. (2):32～34.
田允波. 1998.生物性青贮添加剂.中国饲料. (5):25～26.
王金娥. 2005.不同添加剂对紫花简楷青贮品质的影响[D].中国农业大学硕士学位论文.
小山.彼得. 2008. SBP & Healthy Rumen.黑龙江省甜菜粕利用技术培训班.
许丽等. 2002.不同处理方法对玉米秸干物质和粗纤维瘤胃降解率的影响[J].黑龙江畜牧兽医. (5):15～16.
许庆方,韩建国,玉柱. 2005.青贮渗出液的研究进展[J].草业科学. 22(11):90～95.
杨胜. 1991.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].北京:北京农业人学出版社.
姚爱兴,玛家保. 1990.秸秆与甜莱渣混贮技术及饲喂奶牛效果[J].饲料工业. (12).
于苏甫﹒热西提. 2009.番茄渣分别与芦苇、首蓓和玉米秸混合发酵效果研究[D].新疆农业大学硕士论文..
余汝华,赵丽华,莫放,张晓明. 2003.玉米秸秆青贮饲料中水溶性碳水化合物测定方法研究[J].饲料工业. 3(24):9.
玉柱,孙启忠,邓波,等. 2008.老芒麦青贮研究[J].中国农业科技导报. 10(1):93～102.
玉柱,杨富裕,周禾. 2003.饲草加工与贮藏技术[M].北京:中国农业出版社. 1～14.
张浩等. 2000.不同处理稻草纤维类物质瘤胃的降解特性[J].福建农业大学学报. 29(1):81～86.
张静. 2008.添加剂对多花黑麦草青贮发酵品质和有氧稳定性的影响[D].南京农业大学硕士论文.
张丽娜,章世元,佟建明. 2008.甜菜渣的增值加工工艺研究[J].饲料工业. (13):52～54.
张宁. 1990.青贮饲料品质的鉴定法[J].国外畜牧学饲料. (1):34～35.
张增欣,邵涛. 2006.青贮添加剂研究进展[J].草业科学.3(4):61.
张子仪.2000.中国饲料学[M].北京:中国农业出版社.
赵国琦,丁健,刘大林,贾业红,小莲,陈燕凌.2002.添加剂对稻草调节水分的大黍青贮饲料品质影响. 23(1):31.
赵海云,于文,戴春明.2007.吸收剂对青贮发酵品质的影响.新饲料.(12):50～51.
钟荣珍,房义.2010.糟渣类饲料的开发现状和在动物生产中的应用.饲料工业, 31(1):45～46.
周人纲,樊志,李晓芝,等.1993.利用甜菜粕生产固体发酵饲料.微生物学通报,20(1):6～9.
周人纲,类志,李晓芝,王占斌,韩炜.1992.利用甜菜粕生产单细胞蛋白饲料.中国饲料, (4):12～15.
Alli. 1984. The effect of molasses on the fermentation Lucerne. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 35(3): 285~289.
Arosemena A, DePeters E J, Fadel J G.. 1995. Extent of variability in nutrient composition within selected by-product feedstuffs [J]. Anim. Feed Sci. Tec; hnol, 54:103-120.
Broderica G A, J H Kang. 1980. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media [J]. J.Dairy Sci, 33:64~75.
Denek N, Can A. 2005. Feeding value of wet tomato pomace ensiled with wheat straw and wheat grain for Awassi sheep[C]. Science Direct-Small Ruminant Research 2 September, 2:60~ 265.
Denek N, Can A. 2007. Effect of wheat straw and different additives on silage quality and In vitro dry matter digestibility of wet orange pulp [J]. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 6 (2): 217~219.
Fadel J G, DePeters, Arosemena A. 2000. Composition and igestibility of beet pulp with and without molasses and dried using three methods [J]. Anim. Feed Sci. Tec; hnol, 85:121~129.
Fransen S C, Strubi F J. 2006. Among absorbents on the reduction of grass silage effluent and silage quality[J]. J Dairy Sci, 89(8): 3122～3132.
Fransen S. C, Strubif. J. 1998. Relationships among absorbents of grass silage effluent and silage the reduction quality [J]. J Dairy Sci, 81:2633~2644.
Gordon F.J. 1992.Improving the feeding value of silage through biological controls proceeings of the all-tech. European Lecture Tour [C]. Bmmmgham, All-tech UK, 2～17.
Haaksma J. 1994. Sugar beet pulp in livestock nutrition: A review [J]. Institute for Rational Sugar Production (IRS), Bergen op Zoom, NL, 24.
Henderson, A.R, Mcdonld, P, Woolford, M.K. 1972. Chemical changes and losses during the ensilage of wilted grass Treated with Formic Acid.Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 23:1079~1087.
Higginbotham,G.E, Mueller,S.C, Bolsen K.K, DePeters, E.J. 1998. Effects of inoculants containing propionic acid bacteria on fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage[J]. J. Dairy Sci, 81:2185~2192.
Jakhmola R.C, Greenhalgh I.F.D, Weddell J.R.1987. Proceedings of the 8th silage conference[M].Hueley: 79~80.
Jones D.I.H, Jones R. 1987. Effect of absorbents on effluent production and silage quality [C]. Proceedings of the 8th silage conference, Hurley: 137~138.
Kalscheur KF (Kalscheur, K. F.),Garcia AD (Garcia, A. D.),Hippen AR (Hippen, A. R.),et al.2004. Fermentation characteristics of ensiling wet corn distillers grains in combination with wet beet pulp [J]. J Dairy Sci, 87:53～53.
Mavne C S, SteenR W J. 1990.Recent research on silage additives for milk and beef production[C]. 63rd Annual Report, Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, 31~42.
Mcdonald, P., Henderson A. R, MacGregor A.W. 1968. Chemical changes and losses during the ensilage of wilted grass.J.Sci.Food Agric, 19:125.
McDouald, P, Henderson, A.R, Herou, S.J.E. 1991. The Biochemistrv of Silage[M]. Marlow,U K: Chalconhe Publications, 184~236.
Niga M, Poona M, et al,. 1988. The influence of some external factors on the growth of hyphal body of hiypsycus marmoreus[C]. Biorecbnology lecture, 10:755~758.
Ranjit, N. K., L. Kung, Jr. 2000. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, lactobacillus plantarum, or a chemical preservative on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage [J]. J. Dairy Sci, 83:526~535.
S. Arbabi, T. Ghoorchi A, Naserian A. 2008. The effect of dried citrus pulp, dried beet sugar pulp and wheat straw as silage additives on by-products of orange silage [J]. Asian Journal of Animal Sciences , 2 (2): 35~42.
Sahin K, Cerci IH, Guler T, et al.1999. The effects of different silage additives on the quality of sugar beet pulp silage [J]. Turkish Jouranl of Veterinary & Animal Sciences , 23(3): 285～292.
Shbell G.A. 2001. Examination of a technology for silage making in plastic bags [J]. Animal Feed Science Technology, 91:213～222.
Whiterm, A.G., Kung, L.Jr. 2001.The Effect of a Dry or Liquid Application of Lactobacillus plantarum MTD1 on the Fermentation of Alfalfa Silage .J.Dairy Sci.,84:2195–2202.
Whitlock, L. A., Wistuba T. J, Seifers M. K, Pope R. V, Bolsen K. K. 2000. Effect of level of surface-spoiled silage on the nutritive value of corn silage diets[J]. J. Dairy Sci. 83~110.
Wilkinson J W, Stark B. 1987. Silage in Western Europen [C]. A survey of 17 Countries. Marlow, UK: Chalcomne Publications.
Wohlt J E. 1989. Use of silage inoculant to improve feeding stability and intake of a corn dilaegain diet [J]. J Dairy Sci, 72:545～551.
Woodford J.A., Jorgensen N.A.,and Barrington G.P.1986.Impact of dietary fiber and pHysical form on performance of lactating dairy cows.J.Dairy Sci.69:1035–1047
Zhang Yi Fen,No E.,Oba Y.,Ataku K.1998.Effects of temperature,lactic acid bacteria and cellulase on fermentation quality and carbohydrate composition of alfalfa silage.Journal of Rakuno Gakuen University,Natural science,23(1):17~22
陈海燕,史占全,刘建新. 1998.添加稻草对大头菜青贮料发酵品质和瘤胃降解的效果[J].浙江农业学报. 10(4):215～219.
董世魁等. 1998.用尼龙袋法测定几种牧草在托牛瘤胃内的消失率[J].草业科学,15(2):35～39.
方热军等. 2003.尼龙袋技术评定饲料营养价值研究进展[J].饲料工业. 24(12):47～53.
高祥照,马文奇,马常宝. 2002.中国作物秸杆资源利用现状分析.华中农业大学学报[J]. (3):242-247.
管武太, G.Ashbell,Y.Heng. 2002.微生物添加剂对青贮高粱发酵品质和稳定性的影响[J].中国农业科学. 35(11):1401～1405.
郭金. 1998,不同青贮添加剂对青贮品质的影响[D].中国农业大学硕士学位论文.
郭庭双,赵广永,玛仰廉. 2000.甲酸对大麦青贮品质集中性洗涤纤维瘤胃降解率的影响[J]..中国畜牧杂志. 36(6):21～22.
郭庭双,赵广永. 1999.添加乳酸菌对大麦青贮品质及中、酸性洗涤纤维的瘤胃降解率的影响[J].中国畜牧杂志. 35(4):27～28.
郭庭双. 1998.不同青贮添加剂对青贮品质的影响[D].中国农业大学硕士学位论. 30～35.
郭旭生,周禾,玉柱. 2006.不同添加剂对青贮饲料有氧稳定性的影响[J].中国奶牛. 9:18～21.
孔凡德. 2002.高水分黑麦草添加吸收剂或凋姜青贮对青贮发酵品质和营养价值的影响[D].浙江大学硕士学位论文.
李改英,高腾云,傅彤,孙宇. 2008.糖蜜和农副产品复合添加物对首稽青贮品质的影响[J].中国奶牛. 2:20～22.
李平. 1997.青贮饲料添加剂的种类及用法[J].当代农业. (10):25～26.
李守东,温云,陈学俊. 2004.玉米秸秆和甜菜渣混合黄贮饲料试验报告[J].当代畜牧. (2).
刘春龙,李忠秋,孙海霞,等. 2006.影响青贮饲料品质的因素[J].中国牛业科学. 32(5):63～66.
刘丹丹. 2008.不同浓度绿汁发酵液和脱氢乙酸钠对青贮水稻秸品质和有氧稳定性的影响[D].东北农业大学硕士论文..
刘洪亮等. 2006.羊草和牧草产品营养物质瘤胃降解特性的研究[J].中国草地学报. 28(6):47～52.
刘建新,杨振海,叶均安,等. 1999.青贮饲料的合理调制与质量评定标准[J].饲料工业.
刘建新. 2003.干草秸秆青贮饲料加工技术[M].中国农业出版社. 15～143.
刘科. 2001.秸杆饲料加工与应用技术[Ml.金盾出版社.
刘贤,韩鲁佳,原慎一郎,野中和久. 2004.不同添加剂对苜蓿青贮饲料品质的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报. 9(3):25～30.
刘贤. 2003.不同添加剂对青贮饲料质量影响的实验研究[D].中国农业大学硕士学位论文.
卢定强,徐蓓,李晖,等. 2007.反相高效液相色谱法同时测定乳酸及乳酸甲酯[J].精细化工. 2.
马建华等. 1985.利用甜菜粕生产固体发酵饲料[J].微生物学通报. 12(2):62～64.
日本草地畜产品种子协会粗饲料的品质评价[A].自给饲料品质评价研究会编[C]. 2001. 93～94.
闰晓波.韩向敏. 2009.马铃薯渣和玉米秸秆混合青贮料对奶牛生产性能的影响[J].广东农业科学. (5):144～146.
时建青. 2006.苜蓿、统糠和稻草分别与啤酒糟混合发酵饲料品质研究[D].新疆农业大学硕士论文.
时建青等. 2005.尼龙袋法评价啤酒糟和麦芽根发酵饲料[J].当代畜牧. (8):25～26.
田允波. 1996.青贮饲料添加剂.内蒙古畜牧科学. (2):32～34.
田允波. 1998.生物性青贮添加剂.中国饲料. (5):25～26.
王金娥. 2005.不同添加剂对紫花简楷青贮品质的影响[D].中国农业大学硕士学位论文.
小山.彼得. 2008. SBP & Healthy Rumen.黑龙江省甜菜粕利用技术培训班.
许丽等. 2002.不同处理方法对玉米秸干物质和粗纤维瘤胃降解率的影响[J].黑龙江畜牧兽医. (5):15～16.
许庆方,韩建国,玉柱. 2005.青贮渗出液的研究进展[J].草业科学. 22(11):90～95.
杨胜. 1991.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].北京:北京农业人学出版社.
姚爱兴,玛家保. 1990.秸秆与甜莱渣混贮技术及饲喂奶牛效果[J].饲料工业. (12).
于苏甫﹒热西提. 2009.番茄渣分别与芦苇、首蓓和玉米秸混合发酵效果研究[D].新疆农业大学硕士论文..
余汝华,赵丽华,莫放,张晓明. 2003.玉米秸秆青贮饲料中水溶性碳水化合物测定方法研究[J].饲料工业. 3(24):9.
玉柱,孙启忠,邓波,等. 2008.老芒麦青贮研究[J].中国农业科技导报. 10(1):93～102.
玉柱,杨富裕,周禾. 2003.饲草加工与贮藏技术[M].北京:中国农业出版社. 1～14.
张浩等. 2000.不同处理稻草纤维类物质瘤胃的降解特性[J].福建农业大学学报. 29(1):81～86.
张静. 2008.添加剂对多花黑麦草青贮发酵品质和有氧稳定性的影响[D].南京农业大学硕士论文.
张丽娜,章世元,佟建明. 2008.甜菜渣的增值加工工艺研究[J].饲料工业. (13):52～54.
张宁. 1990.青贮饲料品质的鉴定法[J].国外畜牧学饲料. (1):34～35.
张增欣,邵涛. 2006.青贮添加剂研究进展[J].草业科学.3(4):61.
张子仪.2000.中国饲料学[M].北京:中国农业出版社.
赵国琦,丁健,刘大林,贾业红,小莲,陈燕凌.2002.添加剂对稻草调节水分的大黍青贮饲料品质影响. 23(1):31.
赵海云,于文,戴春明.2007.吸收剂对青贮发酵品质的影响.新饲料.(12):50～51.
钟荣珍,房义.2010.糟渣类饲料的开发现状和在动物生产中的应用.饲料工业, 31(1):45～46.
周人纲,樊志,李晓芝,等.1993.利用甜菜粕生产固体发酵饲料.微生物学通报,20(1):6～9.
周人纲,类志,李晓芝,王占斌,韩炜.1992.利用甜菜粕生产单细胞蛋白饲料.中国饲料, (4):12～15.
Alli. 1984. The effect of molasses on the fermentation Lucerne. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 35(3): 285~289.
Arosemena A, DePeters E J, Fadel J G.. 1995. Extent of variability in nutrient composition within selected by-product feedstuffs [J]. Anim. Feed Sci. Tec; hnol, 54:103-120.
Broderica G A, J H Kang. 1980. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media [J]. J.Dairy Sci, 33:64~75.
Denek N, Can A. 2005. Feeding value of wet tomato pomace ensiled with wheat straw and wheat grain for Awassi sheep[C]. Science Direct-Small Ruminant Research 2 September, 2:60~ 265.
Denek N, Can A. 2007. Effect of wheat straw and different additives on silage quality and In vitro dry matter digestibility of wet orange pulp [J]. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 6 (2): 217~219.
Fadel J G, DePeters, Arosemena A. 2000. Composition and igestibility of beet pulp with and without molasses and dried using three methods [J]. Anim. Feed Sci. Tec; hnol, 85:121~129.
Fransen S C, Strubi F J. 2006. Among absorbents on the reduction of grass silage effluent and silage quality[J]. J Dairy Sci, 89(8): 3122～3132.
Fransen S. C, Strubif. J. 1998. Relationships among absorbents of grass silage effluent and silage the reduction quality [J]. J Dairy Sci, 81:2633~2644.
Gordon F.J. 1992.Improving the feeding value of silage through biological controls proceeings of the all-tech. European Lecture Tour [C]. Bmmmgham, All-tech UK, 2～17.
Haaksma J. 1994. Sugar beet pulp in livestock nutrition: A review [J]. Institute for Rational Sugar Production (IRS), Bergen op Zoom, NL, 24.
Henderson, A.R, Mcdonld, P, Woolford, M.K. 1972. Chemical changes and losses during the ensilage of wilted grass Treated with Formic Acid.Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 23:1079~1087.
Higginbotham,G.E, Mueller,S.C, Bolsen K.K, DePeters, E.J. 1998. Effects of inoculants containing propionic acid bacteria on fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage[J]. J. Dairy Sci, 81:2185~2192.
Jakhmola R.C, Greenhalgh I.F.D, Weddell J.R.1987. Proceedings of the 8th silage conference[M].Hueley: 79~80.
Jones D.I.H, Jones R. 1987. Effect of absorbents on effluent production and silage quality [C]. Proceedings of the 8th silage conference, Hurley: 137~138.
Kalscheur KF (Kalscheur, K. F.),Garcia AD (Garcia, A. D.),Hippen AR (Hippen, A. R.),et al.2004. Fermentation characteristics of ensiling wet corn distillers grains in combination with wet beet pulp [J]. J Dairy Sci, 87:53～53.
Mavne C S, SteenR W J. 1990.Recent research on silage additives for milk and beef production[C]. 63rd Annual Report, Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, 31~42.
Mcdonald, P., Henderson A. R, MacGregor A.W. 1968. Chemical changes and losses during the ensilage of wilted grass.J.Sci.Food Agric, 19:125.
McDouald, P, Henderson, A.R, Herou, S.J.E. 1991. The Biochemistrv of Silage[M]. Marlow,U K: Chalconhe Publications, 184~236.
Niga M, Poona M, et al,. 1988. The influence of some external factors on the growth of hyphal body of hiypsycus marmoreus[C]. Biorecbnology lecture, 10:755~758.
Ranjit, N. K., L. Kung, Jr. 2000. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, lactobacillus plantarum, or a chemical preservative on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage [J]. J. Dairy Sci, 83:526~535.
S. Arbabi, T. Ghoorchi A, Naserian A. 2008. The effect of dried citrus pulp, dried beet sugar pulp and wheat straw as silage additives on by-products of orange silage [J]. Asian Journal of Animal Sciences , 2 (2): 35~42.
Sahin K, Cerci IH, Guler T, et al.1999. The effects of different silage additives on the quality of sugar beet pulp silage [J]. Turkish Jouranl of Veterinary & Animal Sciences , 23(3): 285～292.
Shbell G.A. 2001. Examination of a technology for silage making in plastic bags [J]. Animal Feed Science Technology, 91:213～222.
Whiterm, A.G., Kung, L.Jr. 2001.The Effect of a Dry or Liquid Application of Lactobacillus plantarum MTD1 on the Fermentation of Alfalfa Silage .J.Dairy Sci.,84:2195–2202.
Whitlock, L. A., Wistuba T. J, Seifers M. K, Pope R. V, Bolsen K. K. 2000. Effect of level of surface-spoiled silage on the nutritive value of corn silage diets[J]. J. Dairy Sci. 83~110.
Wilkinson J W, Stark B. 1987. Silage in Western Europen [C]. A survey of 17 Countries. Marlow, UK: Chalcomne Publications.
Wohlt J E. 1989. Use of silage inoculant to improve feeding stability and intake of a corn dilaegain diet [J]. J Dairy Sci, 72:545～551.
Woodford J.A., Jorgensen N.A.,and Barrington G.P.1986.Impact of dietary fiber and pHysical form on performance of lactating dairy cows.J.Dairy Sci.69:1035–1047
Zhang Yi Fen,No E.,Oba Y.,Ataku K.1998.Effects of temperature,lactic acid bacteria and cellulase on fermentation quality and carbohydrate composition of alfalfa silage.Journal of Rakuno Gakuen University,Natural science,23(1):17~22
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |