豆粕添加和发酵时间对甜象草青贮营养品质与细菌多样性的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.10.10

浙江农业学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (10): 2160-2171.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.10.10

豆粕添加和发酵时间对甜象草青贮营养品质与细菌多样性的影响

何秀¹^,²(), 徐美余¹^,², 辛维岗¹^,², 张棋麟¹^,², 王峰¹^,², 林连兵¹^,²^,^*()

1.昆明理工大学生命科学与技术学院,云南昆明 650500
2.云南省高校饲用抗生素替代技术工程研究中心,云南昆明 650500

收稿日期:2022-02-11 出版日期:2022-10-25 发布日期:2022-10-26
通讯作者: 林连兵
作者简介:*林连兵,E-mail: linlb@kmust.edu.cn
何秀(1996—),女,云南曲靖人,硕士研究生,研究方向为抗生素替代。E-mail: 913012629@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(31760042)

Effects of soybean meal addition and fermentation time on nutritional quality and bacterial diversity of Pennisetum purpureum silage

HE Xiu¹^,²(), XU Meiyu¹^,², XIN Weigang¹^,², ZHANG Qilin¹^,², WANG Feng¹^,², LIN Lianbing¹^,²^,^*()

1. Faculty of Life Science and Technology, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming 650500, China
2. Engineering Research Center for Replacement Technology of Feed Antibiotics of Yunnan College, Kunming 650500, China

Received:2022-02-11 Online:2022-10-25 Published:2022-10-26
Contact: LIN Lianbing

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为研究添加豆粕和不同发酵时间对甜象草青贮品质和细菌多样性的影响,以甜象草为研究对象,设置无豆粕添加甜象草青贮(LSL饲料)和添加20%豆粕甜象草青贮(HSL饲料),在青贮袋中发酵10 d、30 d和60 d,分别对发酵料进行感官评价,测定pH值、含水量、养分含量和菌群结构。结果表明:两组饲料在发酵期间的感官评价均为优质。发酵30 d,感官评价已达到优良等级,粗蛋白质、氨态氮/总氮、乳酸和乙酸含量均显著增加(P<0.05),60 d有所降低;发酵期间HSL的粗蛋白质含量显著高于LSL(P<0.05)。发酵30 d,厚壁菌门和乳杆菌属在两组饲料中的相对丰度最高,60 d有所降低,其在HSL饲料中的相对丰度高于LSL饲料,变形菌门和肠杆菌属在HSL饲料中的相对丰度低于LSL。综上,添加20%豆粕能有效改善甜象草的青贮品质,促进乳杆菌属细菌生长,抑制有害细菌增殖。推荐甜象草青贮饲料的适宜发酵时间为30 d。

关键词: 豆粕, 甜象草, 发酵时间, 饲料品质, 细菌多样性

Abstract:

To study the effect of adding soybean meal silage and different fermentation time on quality and bacterial diversity of Pennisetum purpureum, P. purpureum was used as the research object, control design was adopted in the experiment, with no soybean meal added P. purpureum silage (LSL feed) and 20% soybean meal added P. purpureum silage (HSL feed). Fermented in silage bag for 10 d, 30 d and 60 d, the sensory evaluation, pH value, water content, nutrient content and flora structure were measured. The results showed that the sensory evaluation of both groups of feed during fermentation was high quality. After 30 days fermentation, the sensory evaluation had reached the excellent grade, and the contents of crude protein, ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen, lactic acid and acetic acid increased significantly (P<0.05). The contents of nutrients decreased at 60 days; the crude protein content in HSL was significantly higher (P<0.05) than that in LSL during silage. After 30 days fermentation, the abundance values of Firmicutes and Lactobacillus in both groups were the highest, but decreased at 60 days, their abundance in HSL feed were higher than those in LSL feed, while the abundance values of Proteobacteria and Enterobacter in HSL feed were lower than those in LSL feed. In conclusion, the addition of 20% soybean meal could effectively improve the silage quality of P. purpureum, promote the growth of Lactobacillus and inhibit the proliferation of harmful bacteria. The suitable silage time of P. purpureum was 30 days.

Key words: soybean meal, Pennisetum purpureum, fermentation time, feed quality, bacterial diversity

中图分类号:

S963.5

何秀, 徐美余, 辛维岗, 张棋麟, 王峰, 林连兵. 豆粕添加和发酵时间对甜象草青贮营养品质与细菌多样性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(10): 2160-2171.

HE Xiu, XU Meiyu, XIN Weigang, ZHANG Qilin, WANG Feng, LIN Lianbing. Effects of soybean meal addition and fermentation time on nutritional quality and bacterial diversity of Pennisetum purpureum silage[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(10): 2160-2171.

图/表 10

参考文献 39

[1]	DUNIÈRE L, SINDOU J, CHAUCHEYRAS-DURAND F, et al. Silage processing and strategies to prevent persistence of undesirable microorganisms[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2013, 182(1/2/3/4): 1-15. DOI URL
[2]	CAI Y M, DU Z M, YAMASAKI S, et al. Community of natural lactic acid bacteria and silage fermentation of corn stover and sugarcane tops in Africa[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2020, 33(8): 1252-1264. DOI PMID
[3]	钟晨, 姜世光, 王修启, 等. 微生物发酵饲料在畜禽生产中的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(8): 3516-3525.
	ZHONG C, JIANG S G, WANG X Q, et al. Research progress of microbial fermentation feed in livestock and poultry production[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(8): 3516-3525. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[4]	徐生祥. 山毛豆和甜象草混合青贮饲料品质的研究[D]. 南宁: 广西大学, 2017.
	XU S X. A research on quality of mixed silage of Tephrosia candida and sweet Pennisetum purpureum[D]. Nanning: Guangxi University, 2017. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[5]	广东养猪场用甜象草养猪[N]. 北方牧业, 2013(24): 11.
	Guangdong pig farm raises pigs with sweet elephant grass[N]. Northern Animal Husbandry, 2013(24): 11. (in Chinese)
[6]	赖大伟, 滕少花, 姚娜, 等. 台湾甜象草对肉牛的饲用价值研究[J]. 当代畜牧, 2014(32): 83-85.
	LAI D W, TENG S H, YAO N, et al. Study on feeding value of Taiwan sweet elephant grass to beef cattle[J]. Contemporary Animal Husbandry, 2014(32): 83-85. (in Chinese)
[7]	王玉麒, 张斌文. 甜象草饲喂奶牛试验研究[J]. 畜牧兽医科技信息, 2016(5): 13-14.
	WANG Y Q, ZHANG B W. Experimental study on feeding dairy cows with sweet elephant grass[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2016(5): 13-14. (in Chinese)
[8]	付浩, 金晶, 朱欣, 等. 复合乳酸菌制剂对全株玉米青贮饲料品质的影响[J]. 现代农业科技, 2021(9): 221-224.
	FU H, JIN J, ZHU X, et al. Effect of compound Lactobacillus preparation on quality of whole corn silage[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021(9): 221-224. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	WEINBERG Z G, ASHBELL G, HEN Y, et al. The effect of applying lactic acid bacteria at ensiling on the aerobic stability of silages[J]. Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 1993, 75(6): 512-518. DOI URL
[10]	钱仲仓, 杨泉灿. 添加乳酸菌对茭白叶青贮品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2015, 27(9): 1541-1544.
	QIAN Z C, YANG Q C. Effect of lactic acid bacteria on fermentation quality of water bamboo leaves silage[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2015, 27(9): 1541-1544. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[11]	苗芳, 张凡凡, 唐开婷, 等. 同/异质型乳酸菌添加对全株玉米青贮发酵特性、营养品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(9): 167-175.
	MIAO F, ZHANG F F, TANG K T, et al. Effects of homo-and hetero-fermentative lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation characteristics, nutritional quality, and aerobic stability of whole corn silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(9): 167-175. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[12]	FERRARETTO L F, TAYSOM K, TAYSOM D M, et al. Relationships between dry matter content, ensiling, ammonia-nitrogen, and ruminal in vitro starch digestibility in high-moisture corn samples[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2014, 97(5): 3221-3227. DOI URL
[13]	JONES R, JONES D I H. The effect of in-silo effluent absorbents on effluent production and silage quality[J]. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 1996, 64(3): 173-186. DOI URL
[14]	高庚渠, 郭杰. 微生物发酵豆粕在养殖生产中的应用研究进展[J]. 广东畜牧兽医科技, 2020, 45(1): 10-13.
	GAO G Q, GUO J. Research progress in application of microbial fermented soybean meal in animal production[J]. Guangdong Journal of Animal and Veterinary Science, 2020, 45(1): 10-13. (in Chinese)
[15]	LIU B Y, HUAN H L, GU H R, et al. Dynamics of a microbial community during ensiling and upon aerobic exposure in lactic acid bacteria inoculation-treated and untreated barley silages[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 273: 212-219. DOI PMID
[16]	高晓梅, 杨会宁, 林波, 等. 不同类型饲料原料混合青贮对象草青贮品质的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2021(15): 90-93.
	GAO X M, YANG H N, LIN B, et al. Effect of different types of feed materials mixed silage on silage quality of grass[J]. China Feed, 2021(15): 90-93. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	李欣苗, 王浩杰, 李艳, 等. 不同秸秆添加量对尾菜裹包青贮饲料品质的影响[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2021(5): 75-78.
	LI X M, WANG H J, LI Y, et al. Effect of different straw addition on quality of wrapped silage in discarded vegetables[J]. China Vegetables, 2021(5): 75-78. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[18]	BOLSEN K K, LIN C, BRENT B E, et al. Effect of silage additives on the microbial succession and fermentation process of alfalfa and corn silages[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1992, 75(11): 3066-3083. DOI URL
[19]	吴昊, 宋亚伟. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术探析[J]. 中国畜禽种业, 2020, 16(2): 60.
	WU H, SONG Y W. Feed analysis and feed quality detection technology[J]. The Chinese Livestock and Poultry Breeding, 2020, 16(2): 60. (in Chinese)
[20]	VAN SOEST P J, ROBERTSON J B, LEWIS B A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1991, 74(10): 3583-3597. PMID
[21]	王冰, 余晶晶, 蔡君兰, 等. GC-MS/MS法同时分析烟叶中42种有机酸[J]. 烟草科技, 2020, 53(11): 49-58.
	WANG B, YU J J, CAI J L, et al. Simultaneous determination of forty-two organic acids in tobacco leaves with gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry[J]. Tobacco Science & Technology, 2020, 53(11): 49-58. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	冯骁骋, 曾洁, 李伟军, 等. 天然草原牧草青贮饲料评级体系进展研究[J]. 草原与草业, 2016, 28(1): 48-52.
	FENG X C, ZENG J, LI W J, et al. Research progress of forage silage rating system in natural grassland[J]. Grassland and Prataculture, 2016, 28(1): 48-52. (in Chinese)
[23]	娄芬, 李小冬, 尚以顺, 等. 毕节地区适宜青贮玉米品种(系)筛选及营养价值评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 214-224.
	LOU F, LI X D, SHANG Y S, et al. Selection of suitable silage maize varieties in the Bijie region based on yield, agronomic and nutritional evaluation[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(6): 214-224. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	刘辉, 卜登攀, 吕中旺, 等. 凋萎和不同添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2015, 24(5): 126-133.
	LIU H, BU D P, LV Z W, et al. Effects of wilting and additives on fermentation quality of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(5): 126-133. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	王超, 王利, 田丰, 等. 优质青贮饲料的加工技术[J]. 当代畜禽养殖业, 2021(2): 63-64.
	WANG C, WANG L, TIAN F, et al. Processing technology of high quality silage[J]. Modern Animal Husbandry, 2021(2): 63-64. (in Chinese)
[26]	杨云贵, 张越利, 杜欣, 等. 2种玉米青贮饲料青贮过程中主要微生物的变化规律研究[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2012, 43(3): 397-403.
	YANG Y G, ZHANG Y L, DU X, et al. Study on the major microorganism changes during the silage processing of two kinds of corn silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 2012, 43(3): 397-403. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	姜俊芳, 柳俊超, 吴建良, 等. 笋壳与稻壳混合青贮品质动态变化研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(10): 1757-1763. DOI
	JIANG J F, LIU J C, WU J L, et al. Study on dynamic change of fermentation quality in mixed silages of bamboo shoot shell and rice husk[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2020, 32(10): 1757-1763. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
[28]	吴晓杰, 韩鲁佳, 刘贤. 不同切碎方式对全株玉米青贮饲料品质影响的试验研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2006, 22(5): 215-217.
	WU X J, HAN L J, LIU X. Effects of different mechanical processes on the quality of whole-plant corn silage[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2006, 22(5): 215-217. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[29]	徐生阳, 玉柱. 不同添加剂对天然牧草青贮品质的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2021, 57(2): 148-152.
	XU S Y, YU Z. Effects of different additives on silage quality of natural forage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2021, 57(2): 148-152. (in Chinese)
[30]	吴鹏昊, 王成林, 徐晓明, 等. 添加复合乳酸菌制剂对全株玉米青贮品质的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2020, 43(10): 89-93.
	WU P H, WANG C L, XU X M, et al. Effect of compound Lactobacillus preparation on the quality of whole corn silage[J]. Feed Research, 2020, 43(10): 89-93. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[31]	SHAO T, OHBA N, SHIMOJO M, et al. Dynamics of early fermentation of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) silage[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2002, 15(11): 1606-1610. DOI URL
[32]	NI K K, MINH T T, TU T T M, et al. Comparative microbiota assessment of wilted Italian ryegrass, whole crop corn, and wilted alfalfa silage using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and next-generation sequencing[J]. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2017, 101(4): 1385-1394. DOI PMID
[33]	尹德才, 刘玉平, 孙宝国, 等. 食用羧酸类香料概况[J]. 中国调味品, 2010, 35(10): 24-26.
	YIN D C, LIU Y P, SUN B G, et al. The general situation of carboxylic acid flavor compounds[J]. China Condiment, 2010, 35(10): 24-26. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[34]	MUCK R. Recent advances in silage microbiology[J]. Agricultural and Food Science, 2013, 22(1): 3-15. DOI URL
[35]	MCGARVEY J A, FRANCO R B, PALUMBO J D, et al. Bacterial population dynamics during the ensiling of Medicago sativa(alfalfa) and subsequent exposure to air[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2013, 114(6): 1661-1670. DOI URL
[36]	刘蓓一, 宦海琳, 顾洪如, 等. 不同发酵时期大麦青贮品质和微生物多样性变化[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2019, 35(3): 653-660.
	LIU B Y, HUAN H L, GU H R, et al. Changes of silage quality and microbial diversity in barley during different fermentation periods[J]. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 35(3): 653-660. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[37]	ROMERO J J, ZHAO Y, BALSECA-PAREDES M A, et al. Laboratory silo type and inoculation effects on nutritional composition, fermentation, and bacterial and fungal communities of oat silage[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2017, 100(3): 1812-1828. DOI PMID
[38]	闫绍鹏, 杨瑞华, 冷淑娇, 等. 高通量测序技术及其在农业科学研究中的应用[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(30): 171-176.
	YAN S P, YANG R H, LENG S J, et al. High-fluxed DNA sequencing technology and its application in agricultural science research[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2012, 28(30): 171-176. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[39]	STOKES M R. Effects of an enzyme mixture, an inoculant, and their interaction on silage fermentation and dairy production[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1992, 75(3): 764-773. PMID

处理 Treatment	时间 Time/d	质地 Texture	颜色 Colour	气味 Smell	评分 Score	等级 Grade
HSL	0	贴实Solid	黄绿色Yellowish green	青草香味Grass fragrance	15	优Excellent
	10	松软Soft	黄绿色Yellowish green	淡酸草香味Light sour grass flavor	16	较优Better
	20	较松软Relatively soft	黄绿色Yellowish green	淡酸草香味Light sour grass flavor	17	较优Better
	30	较松软Relatively soft	黄绿色Yellowish green	酸草香味Sour grass fragrance	18	优良Good
	40	松软Soft	黄色Yellow	酸草香味Sour grass fragrance	19	优等Fine
	50	松软Soft	黄色Yellow	面包酸香味Sour smell of bread	22	优等Fine
	60	松软Soft	黄色Yellow	面包酸香味Sour smell of bread	22	优等Fine
LSL	0	贴实Solid	青绿色Turquoise	青草香味Grass fragrance	15	优Excellent
	10	松软Soft	青绿色Turquoise	青草香味Grass fragrance	16	优Excellent
	20	松软Soft	青绿色Turquoise	青草淡酸香味Grass light acid flavor	17	较优Better
	30	较松软Relatively soft	褐绿色Brownish green	青草淡酸香味Grass light acid flavor	17	优良Good
	40	较松软Relatively soft	黄绿色Yellowish green	酸香味Sour aroma	18	优良Good
	50	松软Soft	黄绿色Yellowish green	酸香味Sour aroma	20	优等Fine
	60	松软Soft	黄绿色Yellowish green	酸香味Sour aroma	20	优等Fine

处理 Treatment	时间 Time/d	质地 Texture	颜色 Colour	气味 Smell	评分 Score	等级 Grade
HSL	0	贴实Solid	黄绿色Yellowish green	青草香味Grass fragrance	15	优Excellent
	10	松软Soft	黄绿色Yellowish green	淡酸草香味Light sour grass flavor	16	较优Better
	20	较松软Relatively soft	黄绿色Yellowish green	淡酸草香味Light sour grass flavor	17	较优Better
	30	较松软Relatively soft	黄绿色Yellowish green	酸草香味Sour grass fragrance	18	优良Good
	40	松软Soft	黄色Yellow	酸草香味Sour grass fragrance	19	优等Fine
	50	松软Soft	黄色Yellow	面包酸香味Sour smell of bread	22	优等Fine
	60	松软Soft	黄色Yellow	面包酸香味Sour smell of bread	22	优等Fine
LSL	0	贴实Solid	青绿色Turquoise	青草香味Grass fragrance	15	优Excellent
	10	松软Soft	青绿色Turquoise	青草香味Grass fragrance	16	优Excellent
	20	松软Soft	青绿色Turquoise	青草淡酸香味Grass light acid flavor	17	较优Better
	30	较松软Relatively soft	褐绿色Brownish green	青草淡酸香味Grass light acid flavor	17	优良Good
	40	较松软Relatively soft	黄绿色Yellowish green	酸香味Sour aroma	18	优良Good
	50	松软Soft	黄绿色Yellowish green	酸香味Sour aroma	20	优等Fine
	60	松软Soft	黄绿色Yellowish green	酸香味Sour aroma	20	优等Fine

测定项目 Items	处理 Treatment	不同发酵时间(d)的养分含量Nutrient content at different fermentation time(d)
测定项目 Items	处理 Treatment	10	30	60
粗蛋白质Crude protein	HSL	7.86±0.80 Aa	6.63±0.45 Ba	6.51±0.40 Ba
	LSL	6.88±0.83 Ab	5.61±0.20 Bb	5.29±0.35 Bb
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber	HSL	53.23±0.86 Ab	49.77±0.76 Bb	47.90±0.55 Ca
	LSL	55.96±0.79 Aa	52.67±0.74 Ba	48.30±1.15 Ca
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber	HSL	44.17±0.51 Ab	41.13±0.97 Bb	38.59±0.88 Ca
	LSL	47.80±0.61 Aa	44.16±0.63 Ba	39.50±1.15 Ca
粗灰分Ash	HSL	7.24±0.36 Aa	7.16±0.26 Aa	7.08±0.40 Aa
	LSL	7.16±0.40 Aa	7.06±0.15 Aa	6.98±0.76 Aa
氨态氮/总氮AN/TN	HSL	3.25±0.70 Bb	6.23±0.54 Ab	7.24±0.47 Ab
	LSL	4.15±0.87 Ba	7.87±0.52 Aa	8.39±0.31 Aa

测定项目 Items	处理 Treatment	不同发酵时间(d)的养分含量Nutrient content at different fermentation time(d)
测定项目 Items	处理 Treatment	10	30	60
粗蛋白质Crude protein	HSL	7.86±0.80 Aa	6.63±0.45 Ba	6.51±0.40 Ba
	LSL	6.88±0.83 Ab	5.61±0.20 Bb	5.29±0.35 Bb
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber	HSL	53.23±0.86 Ab	49.77±0.76 Bb	47.90±0.55 Ca
	LSL	55.96±0.79 Aa	52.67±0.74 Ba	48.30±1.15 Ca
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber	HSL	44.17±0.51 Ab	41.13±0.97 Bb	38.59±0.88 Ca
	LSL	47.80±0.61 Aa	44.16±0.63 Ba	39.50±1.15 Ca
粗灰分Ash	HSL	7.24±0.36 Aa	7.16±0.26 Aa	7.08±0.40 Aa
	LSL	7.16±0.40 Aa	7.06±0.15 Aa	6.98±0.76 Aa
氨态氮/总氮AN/TN	HSL	3.25±0.70 Bb	6.23±0.54 Ab	7.24±0.47 Ab
	LSL	4.15±0.87 Ba	7.87±0.52 Aa	8.39±0.31 Aa

测定项目 Items	处理 Treatment	不同发酵时间(d)有机酸含量Organic acid content at different fermentation time(d)
测定项目 Items	处理 Treatment	10	30	60
乳酸lactic acid	HSL	3.54±0.08 Ba	6.43±0.16 Aa	6.34±0.10 Aa
	LSL	3.34±0.10 Ba	5.63±0.13 Ab	5.84±0.07 Ab
乙酸Acetic Acid	HSL	0.32±0.03 Bb	1.13±0.09 Ab	1.28±0.12 Ab
	LSL	0.57±0.12 Ca	1.72±0.05 Ba	2.66±0.15 Aa
丙酸Propanoic Acid	HSL	—	0.12±0.07 Ba	0.38±0.11 Aa
	LSL	—	0.10±0.03 Ba	0.33±0.08 Aa
丁酸Butyric acid	HSL	—	—	0.04 Aa
	LSL	—	—	0.06 Aa

豆粕添加和发酵时间对甜象草青贮营养品质与细菌多样性的影响

Effects of soybean meal addition and fermentation time on nutritional quality and bacterial diversity of Pennisetum purpureum silage

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 39

相关文章 4

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

Alpha多样性指数 Alpha diversity indexes	处理 Treatment	不同发酵时间(d)的Alpha多样性Alpha diversityat different fermentation time(d)
Alpha多样性指数 Alpha diversity indexes	处理 Treatment	10	30	60
有效序列数Taxon tags	HSL	286 714	315 926	284 224
	LSL	308 024	350 551	372 889
覆盖度Coverage	HSL	0.99	0.99	0.99
	LSL	0.99	0.99	0.99
Chao指数Chao index	HSL	487.44±123.12 Ab	456.58±106.87 Aa	502.62±33.34 Aa
	LSL	645.91±78.99 Aa	419.75±67.95 Ba	579.80±45.59 Aa
Ace指数Ace index	HSL	485.56±100.81 Ab	480.84±103.97 Aa	516.52±63.68 Ab
	LSL	642.94±83.41 Aa	499.23±68.70 Ba	641.95±60.52 Aa
Shannon指数Shannon index	HSL	2.05±0.45 Ab	2.01±0.17 Aa	2.18±0.08 Aa
	LSL	2.97±0.13 Aa	2.02±0.06 Ca	2.41±0.22 Ba
Simpson指数Simpson index	HSL	0.30±0.09 Aa	0.24±0.02 Ba	0.24±0.02 Ba
	LSL	0.14±0.02 Bb	0.23±0.01 Aa	0.18±0.03 Bb

[1]	田秀, 童炳丽, 谢元贵, 廖小锋, 吴婷婷, 刘济明. 米槁根际细菌对果实药用活性成分的影响及其PICRUST功能预测分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(9): 1837-1848.
[2]	沈璐, 李勤超, 田中贵, 稻村达也, 伊日布斯. 太阳热处理对小白菜根肿病防治效果的研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(1): 98-107.
[3]	赵燕，吴春琴，孙思维，金俊杰*. 辐照豆粕对肉鸡生产性能、免疫及抗氧化功能的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2015, 27(6): 939-.
[4]	曹汝琼1，应迪文2，王亚林1，贾金平1，*. 低电压下电生物膜脱氮体系中细菌多样性研究 [J]. 浙江农业学报, 2015, 27(5): 830-.