添加劑對麻葉蕁麻青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的影響

第18卷第2期草地學(xué)報2010年3 月Vol,18 No. 2ACTA AGRESTIA SINICAMar.2010添加劑對麻葉蕁麻青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的影響張曉慶'，金艷梅”，孫啟忠"，王林’， 張慧杰3(1.中國農業(yè)科學(xué)院草原研究所，內蒙古呼和浩特010010; 2.山東大學(xué)威海分校海洋學(xué)院，山東威海264209; 3. 中國農業(yè)科學(xué)院研究生院，北京100081)摘要:麻葉蕁麻(Urtica cannabina L. )資源豐富,具有較高的營(yíng)養價(jià)值。由于水分、灰分、蛋白質(zhì)含量和緩沖能值較高,可溶性碳水化合物含量低,難以單獨成功青貯。為探討添加劑對其青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的影響，以MicromanagerH/M(MH)、LalilFresh(LF).青寶II號(FS)、LalilDry(LD)4種添加劑,每種設3個(gè)添加梯度,以不使用添加劑處理作為對照(Control) ,共13個(gè)處理,每個(gè)處理3次重復,室溫袋貯60 d后取樣分析。結果表明:添加MH、LF和FS不能快速降低pH,沒(méi)有改善發(fā)酵品質(zhì);添加LD極顯著(zhù)降低了pH,能夠明顯促進(jìn)乳酸發(fā)酵(P<0.01):所使用的添加劑均不能抑制蛋白質(zhì)分解;添加不同劑量MH、LF和FS的青貯品質(zhì)分別為5級、4級和4級，發(fā)酵品質(zhì)較差;忝加不同劑址的LD能夠改善發(fā)酵品質(zhì),其中添加0.5g/kgLD的效果最好。故乳酸菌制劑與纖維索酶或糖聯(lián)合使用,可改善麻葉尊麻的青貯品質(zhì)。關(guān)鍵詞:麻葉蕁麻;青貯;添加劑;乳酸菌中圖分類(lèi)號:S379.9文獻標識碼:A文章編號:1007-0435(2010)02-0291-06Effect of Additives on Fermentation Quality of HempleafNettle (Urtica cannabina L. ) SilageZHANG Xiao-qing' ，JIN Yan-mei? , SUN Qirzhong"，WANG Lin' , ZHANG Huirjie'(1I. Grasland Reserch Instute, CAAS, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia Autoomous Region 010010, China; 2. Facuty of Marine Sudies, Shandong Universityat Weihai, Weihai, Shandong Province 264209. China; 3. Graduate School, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science, Beijing 100081, China)Abstract: Hempleaf nettle (Urtica cannabina L.) is a kind of plant with high nutritive value and wide re-sources. It can be the supplement to the protein deficiency in gramineous forages and a good alternative inwinter and spring. But hempleaf nettle is hard to ensile ? essfully due to relatively high contents of water,ash, and crude protein and high buffering capacity as well as low water soluble carbohydrate content. So,this trail was conducted to improve the silage quality using different additives including Micromanager H/M(MH), Lalsil Fresh (LF)，Qingbao I (FS)，and Lalsil Dry (LD). Each additive was divided into 3adding levels, and without additive as the control; total 13 treatments and 3 replications of each treatmentincubated at room temperature for 60 days in the plastic bag. The results show that: (1) pH value was notdeclined rapidly using MH, LF or FS, indicating no improvement of the fermentation. But pH value withLD was significantly lower (P<0. 01) and fermentation was obviously promoted. (2) The protein degra-dation was not kept down by all additives used. (3) The silage quality was poor with different addition lev-els of MH, LF and FS and the silage grades were5, 4, and 4, respectively. The fermentation quality wasimproved by LD, especially with the addition level at 0.5 gLD. kg~'. In conclusion, lactic acid bacteriacombined with cellulase or sugars could efficiently improve the silage quality of hempleaf nettle. .Key words: Hempleaf nettle (Urtica cannabina L. ); Silage; Additive; Lactic acid bacteria麻葉蕁麻(Urtica cannabina L. )是多年生草本高,是一種優(yōu)良飼用植物。利用蕁麻資源作飼料,可.植物，資源豐富,產(chǎn)草量高,返青早,耐瘠薄,使用壽補充禾本科牧草蛋白質(zhì)含量的不足,豐富冬春季輪命長(cháng)。麻葉蕁麻營(yíng)養豐富,蛋白質(zhì)(營(yíng)養期35.39%)、供飼草的來(lái)源。近幾年，隨著(zhù)俄羅斯成功開(kāi)發(fā)尊麻胡蘿卜素、礦物質(zhì),不飽和脂肪酸和必需氨基酸含量干粉料和青貯飼料,蕁麻的加工、貯藏和利用也逐漸收稿日期2009-09-04:修回日期209-11-2中國煤化工基金項目:中央級公益性科研院所基本科研業(yè)務(wù)費專(zhuān)項資金(中國農業(yè)科學(xué):MHCNMHG作者簡(jiǎn)介:張曉慶(1978-).女,甘肅水昌人，助理研究員,主要從事反芻動(dòng)物售orm的上i一的的九山mnail; zhangxq137 @ sina.com;*通訊作者Author for correspondence, E mail: sunqz@ 126. com292草地學(xué)報第18卷受到關(guān)注。麻葉蕁麻風(fēng)干后莖葉易破碎,曬制干草表1試驗設計營(yíng)養物質(zhì)損失較大,而青貯既可以很好地保存養分，Table 1 Experiment design又能消除莖葉密生的蜇毛(含有乙酰膽堿和組胺,具處理添加劑名稱(chēng)添加量有刺激性),從而提高適口性。但國內外有關(guān)蕁麻青TreatmentAdditive nameAdition Level(g.kg-)Contr無(wú)No adding (CK)0. 00貯的研究尚少,本試驗試圖通過(guò)添加劑青貯,探討添MH1Micromanager H/M (MH)0.50加劑對其發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的影響,從而為成功青貯蕁麻及MH21.00與之特性類(lèi)似植物提供參考。MH32.00LF1Lalsil Fresh (LF)0.25LF20. 501材料與方法LF3s1青寶1號Qingbao I (FS)0. 0025FS20. 0051.1 試驗時(shí)間與地點(diǎn)FS30.025試驗于2008年7月在內蒙古正藍旗桑根達來(lái)LDILalsil Dry (LD)鎮進(jìn)行,試驗地位于東經(jīng)115*57' ,北緯42*40'.LD2LD31.2供試材料麻葉蕁麻(Urtica cannabina L. )為鮮刈的開(kāi)花.沖能;同時(shí)稱(chēng)取20 g樣品放人塑料瓶中,加入180mL蒸餾水,攪拌均勻,蓋緊瓶蓋,置于4C冰箱,間初期(7月份)植株。斷搖動(dòng),浸提24 h后取出,立即測定浸提液的pH.另取原料樣,68"C烘干至恒重(測定初水分)，粉碎，1.3添加劑Micromanager H/M可用于青貯干物質(zhì)10%過(guò)40目篩,測定DM.CP、NDF.ADF、灰分和可溶~20%的原料，主要含乳酸菌(Lactobacillus)、腸球性碳水化合物(WSC)。pH用日本產(chǎn)YORIBA菌(Enterococcus)和小球菌(Pediococcus),約2Xtwin pH B-212測定,緩沖能用Playne等[方法測10" CFU/kg;青寶I號主要為植物乳桿菌(Lacto-定, WSC用蒽酮法測定2,DM、CP、NDF、ADF、灰bacillus plantarum)、乳酸乳桿菌( Lactobacillus分用概略養分分析法測定。lactis).梭狀芽孢桿菌噬菌體(Clostridium phage);1.6.2青貯樣品的測定與原料樣 品一樣制備青LalsilFresh主要含乳酸菌.純發(fā)酵型乳酸菌(Mi-貯料浸提液,測定pH之后,將浸提液用4層紗布過(guò)crobials)、乳酸菌接種劑( SBM);Lalsil Dry主要為濾,濾液12000 rpm離心10 min,取 上清液于一乳酸菌(Lactobacillus, >6X 100 CFU/g)、小球菌20C冷凍保存， 備測有機酸(乳酸、乙酸、丙酸、丁(Pediococcus, >2X 1010 CFU/g)、纖維素酶和半纖酸)、總氮和氨態(tài)氮含量。有機酸含量用SHI-維素酶(酶活力>20000 Ul/g)。MADZE-10A型HPLC測定[;氨態(tài)氮含量用苯酚-次氯酸鈉比色法測定[1;總氮用島津TOC H-1.4試驗設計Control分析儀測定。試驗使用MH、LF、FS.LD4種添加劑，每種添1.6.3青貯料發(fā)酵品質(zhì)評價(jià) 采用 Kaiser 和加劑設3個(gè)添加梯度,以不使用添加劑處理作為對Weis的評價(jià)方法。照(Control),共13個(gè)處理,每個(gè)處理3次重復(表1)。各處理的第2個(gè)添加梯度分別于貯藏后第3、1.7數據統計5.15.20和60 d開(kāi)封取樣。采用SPSS 11. 5對試驗數據進(jìn)行方差分析,差異顯著(zhù)時(shí)用LSD法做多重比較。1.5青貯料的制作將麻葉蕁麻切成2~3 cm,按表2添加量加人2結果與分析添加劑,混合均勻后裝人聚乙烯袋,每袋約150 g,用真空包裝機抽成真空并封口。對照組除不加添加劑外,其他操作相同。室溫貯藏60 d.中國煤化工，分、灰分含量很高，1.6取樣 與測定方法蛋白"TCHCNMH G炭水化合物含量很1.6.1原料取樣與測定 青貯時(shí)取 原料樣,測定緩低。這些特性都不利于青貯發(fā)酵。第2期張曉慶等:舔加劑對麻葉尊麻青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的影響2931麻葉蕁麻的化學(xué)成分及緩沖能Table 1 Chemical composition and buffering capacity of hempleaf nettle水分粗蛋白質(zhì)CP酸性洗錄纖維中性洗許纖維水溶性碳水化合物 灰分pH值緩沖能ADFNDFwscAshBuffering capacity%% DMg.kg-' DMpH valuemE.kg 'DM80. 98，18.5428. 9832. 966.6819. 028. 85415. 282.2添加劑對麻葉蕁麻青貯發(fā)酵過(guò)程的影響(圖3),各添加劑處理乳酸含量均高于對照,15 d后2.2.1發(fā)酵過(guò)程中 pH的動(dòng)態(tài)變化在整個(gè)青貯(除MH)乳酸累積量加大,乳酸含量明顯升高、第過(guò)程中,各處理pH總體上呈降低趨勢(圖1),但FS60d達到最大,LD、FS處理組為4. 91%、4.01%,和LD處理組下降速度較對照快,LF和MH較慢;極顯著(zhù)高于對照(表3),LF、MH處理組發(fā)酵較弱、第60dLF、MH、FS.LD和Con的pH分別為與對照差異不顯著(zhù);在青貯第3 d有乙酸產(chǎn)生(除7. 03.7.07.6. 50、6.30和6. 83 ,依次較青貯前降低LF外),前15 d幾乎沒(méi)有丙酸和丁酸或含量很低了1.77.1.74.2.28、2.50和2.02,FS和LD處理組(圖4、圖5和圖6),之后迅速增加,第60 d升至最的降低幅度較對照大,LF和MH變化較小。高,說(shuō)明丁酸菌的活動(dòng)未被抑制,它利用氨基酸和糖2.2.2氨態(tài)氮含量的動(dòng)態(tài)變化隨著(zhù) 發(fā)酵時(shí)間的分產(chǎn)生氨態(tài)氮和丁酸。延長(cháng),MH、FS,LF、LD和Control處理組的氨態(tài)氮+Comrol女LF+-MH含量均明顯升高,整個(gè)發(fā)酵期間都不斷產(chǎn)生氨態(tài)氮。4.8第15 d后氨態(tài)氮生成速度加快,迅速蓄積至第60 d4.0達到最大、依次為35. 00. 28. 40、22. 75.21.98和3.223.44mg/L浸提液,MH和FS處理組明顯較高，2.4LD和LF與對照接近。1.69.0 r0.80.8.5 |3d5dI5d 20d 60 d8.0天敷day .舌7.5圍3發(fā)酵過(guò)程 中乳酸含的動(dòng)態(tài)變化7.0Fig. 3 Dynamic change of LA content during ensiling6.52.3添加量 對青貯發(fā)酵參數的影響6.00d3d5dl5d20d60d如表3,LD2處理的pH最低(P<0. 01)，天數dayMH1.MH3和LF1、LF3的最高(P<0.01),其余圈1發(fā)酵過(guò)程中 pH值的動(dòng)態(tài)變化各處理與對照差異不顯著(zhù);LD1、LD3處理組氨態(tài)氮,Fig. 1 Dynamic change of pH value during ensiling濃度最低(P<0.01),MH1、MH2、MH3處理組最高(P<0.01),LD2處理組與對照差異不顯著(zhù);各處37.0r +Cotrol +LF 士MH→-FS +LD理氨態(tài)氮與總氮的百分比均小于10%,LD1、LD232.027.0顯著(zhù)或極顯著(zhù)低于其余各處理; FS2、LD2、LD3的乳酸含量最高(P<0.01),MH1、LF3最低(P< <22.00.01),其余與對照差異不顯著(zhù)。MH1、MH3處理12.0組的乙酸含量最高(P<0.01),LD1、LD3的丙酸含量最高(P<0.01)。對照的丁酸含量顯著(zhù)或極顯著(zhù)2.0高于MH2和其余各處理, LD1、LD2、FS2、FS3的0d3d5dI5d20d60d.最低(P<0.01)。.中國煤化工圈2發(fā)酵過(guò)程中 氨態(tài)氮的動(dòng)態(tài)變化Fig.2 Dynamic change of NH2-N content during ensilingCHCNMHG青貯品質(zhì)與對照2.2.3有機酸含量的動(dòng)態(tài)變化 發(fā)酵第3~15d - -樣,為5級;LF和FS均為4級;添加3個(gè)水平294草地學(xué)報第18卷LD的品質(zhì)分別為3級、2級和3級,其中添加量為0.5 g/kg的效果最好。表3添加量對發(fā)酵參數的影響Table 3 Effect of different additive amounts on fermentation parameters of silage氨態(tài)氮/總氦乳酸各種揮發(fā)性脂肪酸的含量處理NH;-NHNH-N/TNLacie acidIndividual volatility ftty acid ( %DM)Treatmentsmg/L%%DM乙酸Acetic丙 酸Propionic丁 酸ButyricControl6. 83士0.06824. 44士0. 90C 3. 55士0. 48幽3. 13土0. 09日3. 34土0. 26B0. 12士0. 03D2. 14土0. 03A#LF17.23士0.29^ 30. 52士2.41AB 4. 97土0. 28^2.64+0.158 3. 13士0.06張0. 06士0.00D1. 03土0. 04BLF27.03士0. 25823. 83+1.90C3. 55士0.0783.20士0, 358 3. 02士0.1680. 11+0.02D1. 21士0.02BLF37. 33士0. 14^28. 32士2.3484. 52士0. 67^1. 26士0.163. 18士0. 15幽1. 76士0. 98Ab1. 12+0.018MH17.50士0.10^ 33. 28士0.66Am 4. 79+0. 78^0.95士0. 06C 3. 75士0. 55^0.44士0. 03C1. 37士0.158MH26. 90士0. 14835. 63土1. 10^u 5. 10士1. 29^3.36士0.518 3. 52+1. 94陽(yáng)0. 42士0. 06C1.89士0.08Ab7.43士0.15A 34. 58士0. 73M05. 28士0. 02^3.53士0.06B 4. 90士0. 30^0. 95士0. 0981. 45土0. 02BFS16.75士0.07B 30. 23土2. 48Ab 3. 98士0.99日2.23+0.06B3.03士0.17日0. 24土0.01C1.07土0. 058FS26. 50士0.10830. 60士3. 83Ab 4. 51士0. 19A4.01士0.10A 3. 59士0. 3980. 25士0. 08C0. 79士0. 01CFS37.00+0.178 27. 38士0.68B 4. 440.39^2.56士1.828 3. 66士0.8180. 79士0.18跳0.73士0. 06CLD16. 70士0. 17824. 06+1.50D 2. 78士0. 13幽2. 65+0. 04B3. 05士0. 93的2. 43士0. 49Au0.71+0. 02CLD26. 30士0.30C 21. 38士3.96C 2. 78士0.13幽4.91士0.02A 2. 91士0.00M0. 93士0.0180. 66士0.01CLD36.97士0.15B 24. 77土0. 67D3. 01士0.06B5. 10士0.11^2. 62士0.37B3. 08士0.67M1.02士0.01日P值<0.001 _<0. 0010. 0020. 027注:同一列數字肩注有不同大寫(xiě)(P<0.01)或小寫(xiě)字母(P<0.05)表示差異顯薯Note: Means with diferent superscript capital or small letters within a column are significantly different at the 0. 01 level or at the 0. 05level, respectively3.6r3.0-1.62.4 t1..8-1.0.2-0.6 |0.60.33d5d15d20d60d0.03d 5d 15d20d 60d天數day天敷day圈4發(fā)酵過(guò)程中乙酸含量的動(dòng)態(tài)變化圜6發(fā)酵過(guò)程中 丁酸含量的動(dòng)態(tài)變化Fig.4 Dynamic change of AA content during ensilingFig. 6 Dynamic change of BA content during ensiling十Comrol+LF士MI→FS+LD0.9 [3討論與結論0.83.1麻葉蕁麻的青 貯特性0.5水分含量是決定牧草青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的重要因素,適宜青貯的含水量應為60%~67%,大于72%0.則發(fā)酵品質(zhì)變差;發(fā)酵所需的最低含糖量為6%~ .d5d15d20d60d12%,緩沖能低于550mE/kgDM(每千克干物質(zhì)中的毫中國煤化工(> 15%/DM)與CP青貯料pH較高。圈5發(fā)酵過(guò)程 中丙酸含的動(dòng)態(tài)查化對麻:YHCN MH G達8.8,較高的灰Fig.5 Dynamic change of PA content during ensiling分(19.02%/DM)、CP(18. 54%/DM)和緩沖能值第2期張曉慶等;乘加劑對麻葉蕁麻青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的影響295表4麻葉尊麻青貯發(fā)酵 品質(zhì)的評分Table 4 Score evaluation of hempleaf nettle silage quality處理丁酸( % DM)得分乙酸( % DM)去分總分TreatmentButyric acidScoreAcetic acidDiscountTotal scoreGradeControl2.143.34-1201. 033.13-105CLF2, 226(3. 02一15LF31. 126C3.185cMHI1. 3503.75-2030MH21. 89403.52MH31. 454. 902(FS11.07603. 03FS20.70703. 59FS30. 733.66LD10.717c3. 05LD20.66802.918CLD31. 012.626(415. 28 mE/kg DM)(表1)也阻止青貯后pH的降稻進(jìn)行的試驗結果表明,添加乳酸菌對pH值的降低,影響發(fā)酵速度;另外,麻葉蕁麻水分含量高達低作用不明顯(添加組和無(wú)乳酸菌添加組的pH值81%,容易導致丁酸發(fā)酵,發(fā)生梭菌腐敗;而且,其可分別為4.70和4.76),認為可能與水稻中可利用糖溶性碳水化合含量?jì)H為6. 68 g/kg DM,遠遠低于生水平較低有關(guān)(2.51 %~2. 76 %)。產(chǎn)優(yōu)質(zhì)青貯的需要量,不能滿(mǎn)足乳酸菌繁殖對底物高水分和高pH青貯原料可加速有害細菌,如的需求,發(fā)酵產(chǎn)生的乳酸含量低,pH很難迅速降低梭狀芽孢桿菌的生長(cháng)。這類(lèi)細菌能夠產(chǎn)生丁酸、氨到5.0以下,最終不能徹底抑制有害微生物的生長(cháng)。和胺(如尸胺、組胺、腐胺、色胺、酪胺)。本試驗的最眾所周知，成功青貯苜蓿是比較困難的,初花期至現終pH維持在6.30~7.07,所以丁酸含量較高。因蕾期苜蓿的水分含量為60%~85%, WSC含量為為梭菌生長(cháng)最適pH為7. 0~7.4,梭菌控制了發(fā)酵3.07%~4.56%[7.8],緩沖能值414~ 580 mE/kg導致乳酸分解,pH升高,從而破壞了養分的保存。DM[9] ,原植株的pH值一般在5.9~6.6之間。與梭菌發(fā)酵大部分形成的是丁酸,但有時(shí)也經(jīng)常存在苜蓿相比,麻葉蕁麻的可青貯性較差。大量乙酸, McDonald稱(chēng)這種發(fā)酵產(chǎn)物為“不良青貯”或“梭菌青貯”。榮輝等(1]在青貯含水84. 6%的3.2添加劑對麻葉蕁麻發(fā)酵過(guò)程的影響象草時(shí)發(fā)現,pH降低到3. 94的情況下丁酸菌仍有大量研究結果表明,添加乳酸菌制劑能促進(jìn)乳活性。Lindgren等[18]指出, WSC含量較低或沒(méi)有酸發(fā)酵，使青貯pH迅速降低[10~1]。本試驗添加足夠的碳水化合物時(shí),乳酸菌將乳酸轉變成乙酸。LAB在一定程度上降低了pH,但并不能加快發(fā)酵這也是本試驗在青貯第3 d開(kāi)始就有乙酸產(chǎn)生,發(fā)速度(pH從最初的8.8降至7.5需要20 d,而對照酵結束時(shí)乙酸含量較高(2.59% ~4.9%/DM)的另也需要20 d);在MH添加組中,青貯效果與對照一一個(gè)原因。綜上所述,本試驗各處理組(除了LD2樣,發(fā)酵被梭菌控制、形成大量丁酸;添加LD時(shí)pH和LD3)中揮發(fā)性脂肪酸的量多于乳酸含量,乳酸下降的最快，發(fā)酵結束時(shí)降至6.3。這一方面可能發(fā)酵不理想,說(shuō)明即使添加乳酸菌也未能有效改善是由于添加劑中乳酸菌成分與牧草原料中的不同而麻葉蕁麻青貯料的發(fā)酵品質(zhì)。引起的。Cai等l5]指出刈割后直接青貯的作物中含有少量的異型發(fā)酵乳酸菌。原料中乳酸菌的數量不3.3添加劑對 氨態(tài)氮含I的影響足,并可能存有異型發(fā)酵乳酸菌,減弱了接種的乳酸青貯過(guò)程中蛋白質(zhì)會(huì )被蛋白酶水解大量降解為菌的作用。這另一方面也說(shuō)明,麻葉蕁麻中供給乳非蛋白氮。低pH值可以有效地抑制蛋白酶活酸菌發(fā)發(fā)酵的底物不足。添加的LD在增加乳酸菌中國煤化工的活性最強,低于數量的同時(shí),其中的半纖維素酶和纖維素酶可增加5.JMH等[21]報道，加入可溶性糖的量,從而增強了乳酸菌的活動(dòng),產(chǎn)生大量LAL.CNMH G占總氮百分比下降乳酸,促進(jìn)pH的降低。范傳廣等l06)對6個(gè)品種水32%.即使用只含植物乳桿菌的LAB添加劑也可296草地學(xué)報第18卷以降低青貯中氨態(tài)氮的生成2]。本試驗各處理雖[9] Jones B A, Satter L D. Muck R E. Influence of bacterial inoc-然氨態(tài)氮占總氮的比例都不高,但所用的添加劑均ulant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at dfferent drymatter contents [J]. Grass and Forage Science, 1992, 47: 19-未能抑制發(fā)酵過(guò)程中蛋白質(zhì)的降解。發(fā)酵第15 d27后氨生成量迅速升高、第60d達到氨峰，添加劑處[10]劉晗璐,桂榮,塔娜.乳酸菌添加劑對禾本科混合牧草青貯發(fā)酵理組與對照接近,有的甚至高于對照(P<0.01)。特性的影響[J].畜牧獸醫學(xué)報2008,39(6):739-745這主要是因為青貯的高濕環(huán)境和高pH值,造成梭[11] ZhangJG, Cai Y M, Kobayashir R, et al. Characteristic of菌蛋白質(zhì)水解性活動(dòng)在整個(gè)發(fā)酵過(guò)程中都較強。lactic acid bacteria isolated from forage crops and their efectson silage frrmentation [J]. Journal of the Science of Food andAgriculture, 2000, 80; 1455-14603.4麻葉蕁麻青貯發(fā)酵品質(zhì)評價(jià)[12] Drieehuis F, Van Wikselaar P G, The occurrenee and preven-品質(zhì)好的鮮草青貯料pH低于4. 2,若低于4.5tion of ethanol fermentation in high dry matter grass silage則為中等,高于4.8則發(fā)酵品質(zhì)差,丁酸含量應低于[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2000, 8:0.1%,氨態(tài)氮占總氮的比例應低于10%[23]。本試711-718[13] Vaitiekunas w, Abel H. Impact of lactic acid bacteria as a si-驗中添加不同量的MH和LF、FS均不能使青貯料lage additive on the feedig value of grass silage for dairy cows的pH快速降低,發(fā)酵品質(zhì)分別為5級和4級.4級，[J]. Agribiol Research, 1993, 46; 4588-4601都沒(méi)有表現出提高發(fā)酵品質(zhì)的作用;添加3個(gè)濃度[14] Cai Y M, Benni Y, Ogawa M, et al. Effect of applying lactic的LD均改善了發(fā)酵品質(zhì),青貯料質(zhì)量為3級、2級bacteria isolated from forage crops on fermentation and charac-和3級,其中0.5 g/kg LD青貯的效果最好?？梢?jiàn)，teristics and aerobic deterioration of silage [J]. Journal ofDairy Science, 1999, 82; 520-526乳酸菌制劑與纖維素酶或糖聯(lián)合使用,其青貯品質(zhì)[15] Cai Y M, Kumai s. The proportion of lactate isomers in farm會(huì )更好。silage and the influence of inculation with lacticactic acid bacteria on參考文獻the proportion of Llactate in silage [J]. Japanese Journal ofZootechny Science, 1994, 65; 788-795[1] Playne M J, McDonald P. The buffering constituents of herb-[16]范傳廣.劉秦華,張建國.六個(gè)水稻品種飼用價(jià)值及青貯特性研age and silage UJ]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agricul-究[].草地學(xué)報，2009,17(4) :495 499ture, 1966, 17: 264-26[2] 張治安,張美善,蔚榮海.植物生理學(xué)實(shí)驗指導[M].北京;中國[17]榮輝,徐安凱,下條雅敬,等.初次刈割象草青貯發(fā)醇品質(zhì)動(dòng)態(tài)[J].草地學(xué)報，2009,17(4):537-539農業(yè)科學(xué)技術(shù)出版杜.011111[18] Lindgren, s E, Axelsson L T, Mceeters R F. Anaerobic L[3]玉柱.白春生 ,孫啟忠不同黍加劑對無(wú)芒雀發(fā)青貯品質(zhì)的影響lactate degradation by Lactobacillus Plantarum [J]. FEMS[].中國農業(yè)科技導報,2008, 10(4); 76-81Microbiol Letters, 1990，66 : 209-214[4] Broderica G A. Kang J H. Automated simultaneous determi-[19] McDonald P. Henderson A R, Herson SJ E, The biochemis-nation of ammonia and amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitrotry of silage. 2nd edition [ M]. Marlow: Chalcombe Publ, ，media [J]. Journal of Dairy Science. 1980，33; 64-751991[5] KaiserE, Wei K. A new system for the evaluation of the fe-[20] Fairbairn R, Alli I, Baker B E. Proteolysis ascated with thementation quality of silages [A]. In; Park R s, Stronge M D.ensiling of chopped alfalfa [J]. Journal of Diary Science,eds. Proceedings of the XIV International Silage Conference. a1998，71(1): 152-158Satellite Workshop of the XXth International Grasland Con-[21] Weinters A L, Cockburn J E, Dhanoa M S. Efects of lacticgress [C]. Bllast, Northern Ireland, 2005. 275acid bacteria in inoculants on changes in amino acid composi-[6] Smith L H. Theoretical cearbohydrate requirement for alfalfation during ensilage of sterile and nonsterile ryegrass [J].silage production [J]. Agronomy Journal, 1962. 54; 291-293Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2000, 89: 442-451[7] Phillip L E, Underhill L, Garino H. Efcts of treating 1u-[2] Davies DR, Merry RJ, Wlliams A P. et al. Proteolysis dur-cerne with an inoculum of lactic acid bacteria or formic acid up-ing ensilge of forages varying in soluble sugar content [J].on chemical changes during fermentation, and upon the nutri-Journal of Dairy Science, 1998, 81: 44-453tive value of the silage for lambs [J]. Grass and Forage Sci-[23] Evaluating Silage Quality. htp:/www1. agric. gov. ab. ca/ence, 1990, 45; 337-344$ department/ deptdocs. nsf/ all/l for4909[8] Kung LJr, Taylor CC, Lynch MP, etal. The efet of tre-ting alfalfa with Lactobacillus bunchneri 40788 on silage fer-mentation, aerobic stability, and nutitive value for lactating中國煤化王杰李揚〉dairy cows [J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2003, 86(1); 336-MHCNMHG34: