甘蔗梢饲料调制技术及其对湖羊生产性能研究

发布时间：2018-03-25 19:19

  本文选题：甘蔗梢　切入点：添加剂青贮　出处：《贵州大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：我省地热河谷地区甘蔗(Saccharum officinarum)梢资源丰富,但仅有18%左右的被用作饲料直接饲喂草食畜,而采用青贮技术加工调制的饲养户不足1%,其余的被就地焚烧掉,既造成饲料资源的浪费又污染环境。本试验选用甘蔗梢作为原料进行不同的添加剂青贮,并将青贮料替代部分日粮进行饲喂试验。该研究旨在分析不同添加剂对甘蔗梢青贮料发酵品质和营养价值的影响,探讨不同比例青贮料的饲喂效果,最终确定甘蔗梢青贮利用时最适宜的添加剂及饲喂的适宜添加量。本试验分为二部分。试验一为青贮料营养成分分析,试验二为饲喂湖羊试验。试验一:为提高甘蔗叶梢青贮饲料品质,采用单因子完全随机设计,分析比较了纤维素酶(2 g·kg-1)、NaCl(0.5%)、尿素(0.6%)、复合微生物(2 mL·kg-1)、甲酸(0.6%)以及玉米(Zea mays)秸秆+米糠混合物(10%+10%)共6种添加物对甘蔗叶梢青贮饲料品质的影响。结果表明:甘蔗叶梢直接青贮品质稍差;添加2 mL·kg-1复合微生物对甘蔗叶梢青贮饲料的发酵品质和营养价值与对照相比差异不显著(P0.05);0.6%甲酸、2 g·kg-1纤维素酶和0.5%NaCl提高了发酵品质和营养价值;0.6%尿素和10%玉米秸秆+10%米糠青贮饲料的发酵品质和营养价值效果最好。6种添加物对甘蔗叶梢青贮发酵效果的影响依次为:0.6%尿素10%玉米秸秆+10%米糠0.6%甲酸0.5%NaCl2 g·kg-1纤维素酶2 mL·kg-1 EM。试验二:采用随机区组试验设计,选用6-8月龄湖羊135只(平均体重为22.64kg±1.73kg)作为试验家畜,每27只羊为一组。饲喂青贮料为试验一中营养成分较好的4个添加剂处理组:尿素(0.6%)、秸秆+米糠(10%+10%)、甲酸(0.6%)、NaCl(0.5%)。将青贮料和精料按以下三种比例进行饲喂试验:A组(50%精料+50%青贮料)、B组(35%精料+65%青贮料)、C组(20%精料+80%青贮料)。结果表明:(1)4种添加剂甘蔗稍青贮料饲喂湖羊对其日增重和饲料转化率的影响效果效依次为0.6%尿素10%玉米秸秆+10%米糠0.6%甲酸0.5%NaCl直接青贮;而在日采食量方面的影响效果依次为0.5%NaCl直接青贮0.6%甲酸0.6%尿素10%玉米秸秆+10%米糠。其中0.6%尿素处理组中B组(35%精料+65%青贮料)饲喂效果最好,显著高于A、C组(P0.05);10%玉米秸秆+10%米糠中B组(35%精料+65%青贮料)饲喂效果最好,显著高于A、C组(P0.05);0.6%甲酸处理组中C组(20%精料+80%青贮料)的饲喂效果最好,显著高于A、B组(P0.05);0.5%NaCl处理组中A组(50%精料+50%青贮料)的效果显著高于B、C组(P0.05)。(2)4种添加剂甘蔗稍青贮饲料饲喂湖羊对其生产经济效益的影响效果依次为0.5%NaCl0.6%尿素10%玉米秸秆+10%米糠直接青贮0.6%甲酸。其中尿素处理组中B、C组和NaCl处理组中A、B、C组分别极显著高于对照组C组(P0.01),分别高出20.6%、18.4%、18.6%、21.78%、30.28%。综合生产性能和经济效益两方面的效益评价这四种添加剂对甘蔗梢青贮饲料的推广应用价值,在生产中可以进行推广应用添加尿素、NaCl进行甘蔗梢青贮养羊可提高其生产性能,降低饲料成本,增加养羊经济效益,且用尿素、NaCl添加剂青贮甘蔗梢技术简单,操作方便,投资小,易于推广。
[Abstract]:Our province geothermal valley area of Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) were rich in resources, but only about 18% are used as feed directly by feeding ruminant, silage processing technology modulated farms of less than 1%, the rest were burned out, not only cause feed waste of resources and environmental pollution. The sugarcane tip as raw material additive different silage silage, and will replace part of the diet of the feeding experiment. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different additives on Silage Fermentation of sugarcane shoot quality and nutritional value, feeding effect of different proportion of silage, and ultimately determine the appropriate amount of additives and feeding sugar silage when using the most suitable. This test the test is divided into two parts. One is analysis of nutritional components of silage for feeding sheep, test test. A test: to improve Sugarcane Leaf Silage quality, the Single factor completely randomized design, analysis and comparison of the cellulase (2 g kg-1), NaCl (0.5%), urea (0.6%), compound microorganism (2 mL kg-1), formic acid (0.6%) and maize (Zea mays) straw and rice bran mixture (10%+10%) effect of 6 additives on Sugarcane Leaf Silage Quality. The results showed that the sugarcane leaf direct silage quality is poor; adding 2 mL / kg-1 composite microbial fermentation quality and nutrition value of Sugarcane Leaf Silage had no significant difference compared with control (P0.05); 0.6% formic acid, 2 G - 0.5% NaCl kg-1 cellulase and improve the fermentation quality and nutrition value; influence the fermentation quality and nutrition value of 0.6% urea and 10% +10% maize straw rice bran silage best.6 additives on fermentation effect of Sugarcane Leaf Silage were: 0.6% urea 10% +10% maize straw rice bran 0.5% NaCl2 g kg-1 0.6% formic acid and 2 mL - kg-1 EM. cellulase Experiment two: using randomized block design, the 6-8 month old in 135 (the average weight was 22.64kg + 1.73kg) as test animals, each for a group of 27 sheep. Feeding green Silage Nutritional Components for a good test in 4 treatment groups: urea additive (0.6%), straw (rice bran + 10%+10%), formic acid (0.6%), NaCl (0.5%). The silage and concentrate on the following three kinds of proportion of feeding experiment: A group (50% +50% silage concentrate), B group (35% +65% silage concentrate), C group (20% +80% feed silage). The results showed that: (1) 4 kinds of additives in cane silage fed sheep slightly on the weight gain and feed conversion rate influence effects were 0.6% urea 10% +10% maize straw rice bran 0.6% formic acid 0.5%NaCl in direct silage; daily feed intake effect were 0.6% formic acid and 0.6% 0.5%NaCl direct silage corn straw urea 10% +10% rice bran 0.6%. Urea treatment group B 缁，

本文编号：1664493