首页> 外文期刊>Journal of dairy science >Laboratory silo type and inoculation effects on nutritional composition, fermentation, and bacterial and fungal communities of oat silage
【24h】

Laboratory silo type and inoculation effects on nutritional composition, fermentation, and bacterial and fungal communities of oat silage

机译:实验室筒仓类型及其接种对燕麦青贮饲料营养成分,发酵以及细菌和真菌群落的影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The objectives were to evaluate (1) the use of 2 types of experimental silos (S) to characterize whole-crop oat (Avena sativa L.) silage with or without addition of an inoculant (I), and (2) the effect of inoculation on the microbial community structure of oats ensiled using only plastic bucket silos (BKT). Prom each of 6 sections in a field, oats were harvested, treated (INO) or not (CON) with inoculant, packed into 19-L BKT or vacuum bags (BG), and ensiled for 217 d. The in-oculant added contained Lactobacillus buchneri and Pediococcus pentosaceus (4 × 10~5 and 1 × 10~5 cfu/g of fresh oats, respectively). The experimental design was a complete randomized design replicated 6 times. Treat-ment design was the factorial combination of 2 S × 2 I. Some differences existed between BG versus BKT at silo opening (217 d), including a decreased CP (7.73 vs. 7.04 ± 0.247% of DM) and ethanol (1.93 vs. 1.55 ± 0.155) and increased lactic acid (4.28 vs. 3.65 ± 0.241), respectively. Also, WSC and mold counts were reduced in BG versus BKT for CON (1.78 vs. 2.70 ± 0.162% of DM and 0.8 vs. 2.82 ± 0.409 log cfu/fresh g) but not for INO (~1.53 and 1.55), respectively. Application of INO increased DM recovery (96.1 vs. 92.9 ± 0.63%), aerobic stability (565 vs. 133 ± 29.2 h), acetic acid (2.38 vs. 1.22 ± 0.116% of DM), and reduced NDF (65.0 vs. 67.0 ± 0.57), ADF (36.7 vs. 38.1 ± 0.60), ethanol (0.63 vs. 2.85 ± 0.155), and yeast counts (1.10 vs. 4.13 ± 0.484 log cfu/fresh g) in INO versus CON, respectively. At d 0, no differences were found for S and I on the nutritional composition and background microbial counts. Leuconostocaceae (82.9 ± 4.27%) and Enterobacteriaceae (15.2 ± 3.52) were the predominant bacterial families and unidentified sequences were pre-dominant for fungi. A higher relative abundance of the Davidiellaceae fungal family (34.3 vs. 19.6 ± 4.47) was observed in INO versus CON. At opening (217 d), INO had a lower relative abundance of Leuconostocaceae (42.3 vs. 95.8 ± 4.64) and higher Lactobacillaceae (57.4 vs. 3.9 ± 4.65) versus CON. Despite several differences were found between BKT and BG, both techniques can be comparable for characterizing effects of INO on the most basic measures used in silage evaluation. The use of inoculant improved oat silage quality partially by a shift in the bacterial community composition during ensiling, which mainly consisted of an increased relative abundance of Lactobacillaceae and reduction of Leuco-nostocaceae relative to CON.
机译:目的是评估(1)使用两种类型的实验筒仓(S)来表征有或没有添加接种剂的全谷类燕麦(Avena sativa L.)青贮饲料(I),以及(2)接种仅用塑料桶料仓(BKT)包裹的燕麦的微生物群落结构。在田间的6个部分中的每一个上舞会,收获燕麦,用接种剂处理(INO)或不处理(CON)燕麦,装入19-L BKT或真空袋(BG)中,并压实217 d。添加的孕育剂包含布氏乳杆菌和戊糖小球菌(分别为4×10〜5和1×10〜5 cfu / g新鲜燕麦)。实验设计是重复6次的完全随机设计。处理设计是2 S×2 I的因子组合。在筒仓开口(217 d)时BG与BKT之间存在一些差异,包括CP降低(7.73 vs. 7.04±0.247%DM)和乙醇(1.93vs。 1.55±0.155)和增加的乳酸(4.28对3.65±0.241)。另外,CON的BG与BKT的WSC和霉菌数分别降低(DM的1.87 vs. 2.70±0.162%和DM的0.8 vs. 2.82±0.409 log cfu /新鲜克),而INO则没有(分别为1.53和1.55)。 INO的使用增加了DM的回收率(96.1比92.9±0.63%),有氧稳定性(565比133±29.2 h),乙酸(DM的2.38比1.22±0.116%)和降低的NDF(65.0比67.0) ±0.57),ADF(36.7 vs.38.1±0.60),乙醇(0.63 vs.2.85±0.155)和INO(相对于CON)的酵母计数(1.10 vs.4.13±0.484 log cfu /新鲜g)。在d 0时,在营养成分和本底微生物数量方面,S和I没有差异。白带菌科(82.9±4.27%)和肠杆菌科(15.2±3.52)是主要的细菌家族,未鉴定的序列主要是真菌。在INO和CON中观察到the桐科真菌家族的相对丰度较高(34.3 vs. 19.6±4.47)。在开放(217天)时,INO的白带菌科的相对丰度较低(42.3对95.8±4.64),而乳杆菌科的相对丰度较高(57.4对3.9±4.65)。尽管在BKT和BG之间发现了一些差异,但是这两种技术在表征INO对青贮饲料评估中使用的最基本指标的影响方面可以媲美。接种过程中,接种菌剂的使用可部分改善燕麦青贮饲料的品质,这主要是由乳酸菌科的相对丰度增加和白菜鼻菌科相对于CON的减少组成。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of dairy science》 |2017年第3期|1812-1828|共17页
  • 作者单位

    Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695;

    Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100093, China;

    Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695;

    Department of Animal Science North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695;

    Department of Food, Bioprocessing and Nutrition Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695;

    Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《生物学医学文摘》(MEDLINE);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    silage; inoculant; mini-silo type; 16S and ITS1 sequencing;

    机译:青贮饲料孕育剂迷你筒型16S和ITS1排序;
  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 23:22:51

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号