机构地区:[1]江西农业大学动物科学技术学院,江西南昌330045
出 处:《饲料工业》2015年第11期51-55,共5页Feed Industry
基 金:国家公益性行业(农业)科研专项[201303143];国家现代肉牛牦牛产业技术体系项目[CARS-38];江西省赣鄱英才555工程领军人才计划(赣才字[2012]1号)共同资助
摘 要:选取油菜秸秆与皇竹草混合比例为3:7,粪肠球菌复合菌剂量添加量为150、300 mg/kg和比例为4:6、粪肠球菌复合菌添加量为150 mg/kg等三种模式的混合微贮料,分别测定其在锦江黄牛瘤胃中培养4、8、16、24、36、48、72 h时的DM、OM、CP、NDF、ADF等营养物质消失率,并计算其在瘤胃降解参数及有效降解率。结果表明:1Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ组DM、OM、CP、NDF、ADF等营养物质在瘤胃中的降解率随着在瘤胃中培养时间的累积而逐渐增大,其中以Ⅰ组在72 h时的降解率最大。2各组间DM在瘤胃中的有效降解率没有显著差别(P>0.05),但Ⅲ组的快速降解部分和慢速降解部分的降解率均与Ⅰ组达到显著水平(P<0.05),而与Ⅱ组差异不显著(P>0.05)。3Ⅰ组OM在瘤胃中的有效降解率、慢速降解部分降解率和不可降解部分与Ⅱ组均达到显著水平(P<0.05),而与Ⅲ组的差异不显著(P>0.05)。4Ⅰ组CP在瘤胃中的有效降解率和快速降解部分的降解率均显著高于Ⅲ组(P<0.05);而不可降解部分则极显著低于Ⅲ组(P<0.01),但与Ⅱ组的差异不显著(P>0.05)。5Ⅰ组NDF有效降解率、不可降解部分、快速降解部分以及慢速降解部分的降解率与Ⅱ、Ⅲ组间差异均不显著(P>0.05),但以Ⅰ组的有效降解率最大、不可降解部分最小。6各组间ADF的有效降解率和不可降解部分的差异均不显著(P>0.05),但Ⅰ组的快速降解部分的降解率高于Ⅱ组(P>0.05)和Ⅲ组(P<0.05)。以上结果表明,以原料组成比例为3:7,乳酸粪肠球菌复合菌添加剂量为150 mg/kg的油菜秸秆与皇竹草混合微贮料在锦江黄牛瘤胃中的降解率最好。Three microbial ensilage were selected as follows: The ratio of rape straw and ponnisetumhydridumor was 3:7, the level of enterococcus faecalis bacteria was 150, 300 mg/kg; The ratio ofrape straw and ponnisetum hydridumor was 4:6, adding 150 mg/kg enterococcus faecalis bacteria, re-spectively. Three healthy Jinjiang cattles, with similar weight of(300±20) kg and fitted with permanentfistula, were used in this experiment. Rumen disappearance of DM、OM、CP、NDF and ADF was mea-sured at 4, 8, 16, 24, 36, 48 and 72 h by the nylon bag technique, then parameters(a, b, c) and EDwere calculated. The results were showed: 1 The rumen disappearance of DM, OM, CP, NDF andADF were gradually increasing with the accumu-lation of time in three groups, of which the big-gest degradation rate was group Ⅰ at the 72 h.2 Effective degradability of DM was not signifi-cantly different in three groups(P〈0.05). Howev-er, slow and fast degradation portion of group Ⅲwere significantly higher than group Ⅰ at 0.05 and 0.01 level,respectively. 3 Effective degrad-ability, slow degradation portion and non-biode-51grad-able portion of OM in group Ⅰ were significantly higher than group Ⅱ(P〈0.05), but were notsignificantly different compared with group Ⅲ. 4 Effective degradability and rapid degradation por-tion degradability of CP in group Ⅰ were significantly higher than group Ⅲ(P〈0.05). the non-biode-gradable portion in group Ⅰ was significantly lower than group Ⅲ(P〈0.01),while not significantly dif-ferent compared with group Ⅱ(P〉0.05). 5 Although the best effective degradability, non-biodegrad-able portion, slow degradation portion and rapid degradation portion degradability of NDF was groupⅠ,but there was no significant difference among the three groups(P〉0.05). 6 There were no signifi-cant difference in effective degradability and non-biodegradable portion of ADF in three groups(P〈0.05). the rapid degradation portion in group Ⅰ was higher than group Ⅱ(P
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...