The Effect of Additives on Red Clover Silages Quality
TAO Lian1,YU Zhu1﹡,CHEN Yan1,YUN Peng2
(1.Institute of Grassland Science, China Agriculture University, Beijing 100094;2 .Animal Husbandry and Veterinary terminus in Beijing,Beijing 100029)
Abstract : The experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of different silage additives on fermentation quality and chemical composition of red clover silages. The silage additives include: FAST-SILE(FS), cellulase(CE), molasses(M), formic acid(FA) . The results showed that The pH and the content of Non-protein Nitrogen in all the treatments were markedly lower than the control(p<0.05). The lactic acid content of FAST-SILE treatment and FAST-SILE - cellulase treatment were significantly higher than the control(p<0.05), and the content of the water soluble carbohydrates in the treatment of FAST-SILE - cellulase was markedly decreased(p<0.05). The content of the water soluble carbohydrates of the treatments of formic acid were significantly increased (p<0.05) , and the content of Ammonia Nitrogen and lactic acid with formic acid treatment were further decreased(p<0.05). Additives improved the fermentation quality of red clover silages and changed their chemical composition.
Key Words: Red clover; Silage; Additives; Fermentation quality; Water soluble carbohydrate
处理Treatments | 添加量Amount of additives | |||
对照 | C | 0 | ||
青宝II号 | FS | FS1 | 2.5g/t | |
FS2 | 5.0g/t | |||
FS3 | 10g/t | |||
青宝II号+纤维素酶 | FS+CE | FS+CE 1 | 2.5g/t+0.5 g/t | |
FS+CE 2 | 2.5g/t+1.0 g/t | |||
FS+CE 3 | 5.0g/t+1.0g/t | |||
糖蜜 | M | M1 | 1% | |
M2 | 2% | |||
M3 | 4% | |||
甲酸 | FA | FA1 | 5l/t | |
FA2 | 8l/t | |||
FA3 | 10l/t |
注:C:对照,control;FS:青宝II号,FAST-SILE;CE:纤维素酶,cellulase;M:糖蜜,molasses; FA:甲酸,formic acid;下表同, the same as below
处理 Treatments | pH | 乳酸 Lactic Acid (LA) %DM | 乙酸 Acetic Acid (AA) %DM | 丙酸 Propionic Acid (PA) %DM | 丁酸 Butyric Acid (BA) %DM | 氨态氮/总氮 Ammonia Nitrogen /Total Nitrogen (AN/TN)% | |
C | 5.30a | 1.38de | 0.20 | 0.34 | 0.14 | 6.17a | |
FS | FS1 | 3.75c | 5.38abc | 0.26 | 0.40 | 0.06 | 3.48c |
FS2 | 3.72c | 6.32ab | 0.40 | 0.24 | 0.08 | 4.27bc | |
FS3 | 3.72c | 7.19a | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.08 | 3.28c | |
FS+CE | FS+CE1 | 3.61c | 5.64 ab | 0.34 | 0.51 | 0.06 | 3.93c |
FS+CE2 | 3.71c | 6.79a | 0.57 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 4.82b | |
FS+CE3 | 4.09c | 6.97a | 0.50 | 0.59 | 0.07 | 5.01b | |
M | M1 | 3.98c | 3.95bcd | 1.26 | 0.28 | 0.04 | 5.35b |
M2 | 4.04c | 3.70bcd | 0.47 | 0.56 | 0.02 | 4.72b | |
M3 | 4.08c | 5.24abc | 0.55 | 0.56 | 0.07 | 5.32b | |
FA | FA1 | 2.82e | 0.00 e | 0.00 | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.31d |
FA2 | 3.15d | 0.00 e | 0.05 | 0.31 | 0.02 | 0.31d | |
FA3 | 2.98d | 0.00 e | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.06 | 0.35d | |
SE | 0.05 | 0.38 | 0.059 | 0.024 | 0.02 | 0.030 |
注:表中同列不同小写字母表示平均数差异显著(p<0.05) 下表同
Note: Different letters in the same column show significant differences at a 0.05 level,the same as below
处理 Treatments | 干物质 (DM)% | 可溶性碳 水化合物 (WSC)%DM | 中性 洗涤纤维 (NDF)%DM | 酸性 洗涤纤维 (ADF)%DM | 粗蛋白 (CP)%DM | 非蛋白氮 /总氮 (NPN/TN)% | |
CK | 26.16a | 3.23fg | 32.06abc | 18.11a | 18.27defg | 41.43a | |
FS | FS1 | 22.28b | 2.58gh | 32.54abc | 16.72abc | 17.90efg | 29.87bcde |
FS2 | 24.97b | 1.46h | 34.54a | 17.30abc | 19.00cde | 26.52cdef | |
FS3 | 24.08b | 1.50h | 34.00ab | 17.68abc | 19.09cde | 31.91bcd | |
FS+CE | FS+CE1 | 21.50b | 1.29h | 33.58abc | 17.89abc | 20.68a | 28.16cde |
FS+CE2 | 21.42b | 1.02h | 31.33abc | 17.62abc | 19.46bcd | 34.83b | |
FS+CE3 | 21.45b | 1.15h | 28.46bc | 17.24abc | 18.73def | 32.91bc | |
M | M1 | 24.82b | 2.31hg | 31.99abc | 17.22abc | 17.54fg | 18.76h |
M2 | 23.72b | 4.69e | 30.88abc | 17.10abc | 18.54def | 32.23bcd | |
M3 | 25.41b | 8.26ab | 27.31c | 15.06c | 16.47h | 30.18bcde | |
FA | FA1 | 26.04b | 9.17a | 32.03abc | 15.63bc | 20.37ab | 21.92gh |
FA2 | 25.76b | 6.37cd | 33.66abc | 16.40abc | 19.97abc | 20.10gh | |
FA3 | 23.00b | 7.34bc | 32.35abc | 16.25abc | 17.83efg | 24.43efg | |
SE | 0.97 | 0.250 | 1.060 | 0.970 | 1.29 | 0.99 |
2.4红三叶青贮综合评分方案
处理 Treatments | 乳酸 得分 Lactic Acid Score | 乙酸 得分 Acetic Acid Score | 丁酸 得分 Butyric Acid Score | 总酸 得分 Total Acid Score | 氨态氮 得分 Ammonia Nitrogen Score | 综合 得分 Total Score | 等级 Rank | |||
CK | 25 | 25 | 9 | 59 | 46 | 75.5 | 良 | |||
FS | FS2.5g/t | 25 | 25 | 45 | 95 | 50 | 97.5 | 优 | ||
FS5g/t | 25 | 25 | 45 | 95 | 50 | 97.5 | 优 | |||
FS10g/t | 25 | 25 | 45 | 95 | 50 | 97.5 | 优 | |||
FS+CE | 2.5+0.5g/t | 25 | 25 | 45 | 95 | 50 | 97.5 | 优 | ||
2.5+1g/t | 25 | 25 | 45 | 95 | 50 | 97.5 | 优 | |||
5+1g/t | 25 | 25 | 45 | 95 | 48 | 95.5 | 优 | |||
M | 1%S | 25 | 23 | 45 | 93 | 48 | 94.5 | 优 | ||
2%S | 25 | 25 | 50 | 100 | 50 | 100 | 优 | |||
4%S | 25 | 25 | 45 | 95 | 48 | 95.5 | 优 | |||
FA | FA5mL/t | 0 | 25 | 9 | 34 | 50 | 67 | 良 | ||
FA8mL/t | 0 | 25 | 35 | 60 | 50 | 80 | 良 | |||
FA10Ml/t | 0 | 8 | 32 | 40 | 50 | 70 | 良 |
3讨论
[1] 张文淑.红三叶 [J].农村养殖技术,2002 ,15:27.
[2] 杨淑玺.青贮饲料的制作技术[J].农村经济与科技,2004,15(6):48
[3] 王晶.红三叶与紫花苜蓿蛋白质利用率的比较[J].草业科学,2005,23(1):52-54
[4] Owens V N, Albrecht K A, Muck R E, Duke S H. Protein degradation and fermentation characteristics of red clover and alfalfa silage harvested with varying levels of total nonstructural carbohydrates[J]. Crop Science, 1999, 39: 1873-1880
[5] 张丽英. 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, 2002:49-73
[6] Y Zhu, N Nishino, Y Kishida, S Uchida. Ensiling characteristics and ruminal degradation of Italian ryegrass and Lucerne silages treated with cell wall-degrading enzymes[J]. Science, 1999, 79(14):1987-1992
[7] 许庆方.贮藏期和添加绿汁发酵液对袋装苜蓿青贮的影响[J].草业科学,2006,14(2):129-133
[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,1999,23-25
[9] 刘建新,杨振海,叶均安,史占全,吴跃明 .青贮饲料的合理调制与质量评定标准 [J]. 饲料工业 ,1999,20(4):3-5
[10] Gordon F J. Improving the feeding value of silage through biological control [A]. Proceedings of the All-tech European Lecture Tour [C]. Birmingham, Alltech U K, 1992. 2-17.
[11] 时建忠.青贮接种菌的研究[J].中国饲料,2003,(5):15-17
[12] 彭海兰.不同青贮添加剂对苜蓿青贮品质的影响[D]:[学位论文].北京:中国农业大学, 2003
[13] Selmer-olsen I. Enzymes as silage additives for grass-clove mixtures [J]. Grass and Forage Science, 1994,49(3):305-315
[14] Jacobs J L and Mc Allan A B. Enzymes as silage additives for Silage quality, digestion,Digestibility and performance in growing cattle[J]. Grass and Forage Science, 1991,46(1)63-68
[15] Jaakkola S, Huhtanen P. The effect of cell wall degrading enzymes or formic acid on fermentation quality and on digestion of grass silage by cattle[J]. Grass and Forage Science, 1991, 46(1):75-80
[16] Sheperd A C , Kung L. Effect of an enzyme additive on composition of corn silage ensiled at various stages of maturity [J]. Dairy Science, 1996, 79:1767-1773
[17] M De Figueiredo, JP Marais. The effect of bacterial inoculants on Kikuyu silage quality[J]. Journal of the Agricultural science, 1994,122(11)53-60
[18] 玉柱,韩建国,胡跃高等.绿汁发酵液对豆科牧草青贮发酵品质的影响[A].现代草业学进展-中国国际草业发展大会论文集[C],2002,159-162
[19] Ph illip L E. Effects treating lucerne with an inoculum of lacticacid bacteria or
formic acid upon chemical changes during fermen2tation, and upon the nutritive value of the silage fo r lambs [J ].Grass and Forage Science, 1990, (45) : 337~ 344
[20] Chamberlain D G. The rate of addition of formic acid to grass at ensilage and the subsequent digestion of the silage in the rumen and intestine of sheep [J ]. Grass and Fo rage Science, 1982, (37) :159~ 164
[21] Alexander N Hristov, Sasho G Sandev. Proteolysis and rumen degradability of protein in alfalfa preserved as silage, wilted silage or hay[J]. Animal Feed Science Technology,1998,72:175-181