首页 > 分享 > 添加乳酸菌对全株玉米与滇红花茎叶混合青贮品质的影响

添加乳酸菌对全株玉米与滇红花茎叶混合青贮品质的影响

花匠小妙招
2025-05-19 17:36

图 1 混合青贮饲料微生物在门水平上的分布

Figure 1. Distribution of mixed dilage microorganisms at the phylum level

图 2 混合青贮饲料微生物在属水平上的分布

Figure 2. Distribution of mixed dilage microorganisms at the genus level

表 1 全株玉米与滇红花茎叶青贮混合比例

Table 1 Ratios of whole-plant corn mixed with yunnan safflower straw chaff for silage %

处理
Treatment全株玉米
Whole plant maize滇红花茎叶
Yunnan safflower stems and leaves CK1000T09010T18020T27030

表 2 德国农业协会(DLG)青贮质量感官评分标准

Table 2 Sensory scoring standard for silage quality by the German Agricultural Society

评分指标
Scoring index 评分标准
Grading 分数
Score 气味
Odor 有明显芬芳果味或面包香味 Aromatic fruit or obvious bread-like fragrance 14 稍有丁酸味，酸味很浓重，芬芳味较淡 Slight butyric acid odor, strong sourness, weak aroma 10 有明显的丁酸味，常常伴有臭味或发霉
Noticeable butyric acid odor, often accompanied by a foul or moldy smell 4 有强烈的丁酸味或氨味，或没有一丝酸香味
Strong butyric acid or ammoniacal odor, or almost no acidic aroma 2 质地结构
Texture structure 茎叶结构保持良好 Good stem and leaf structure 4 茎叶结构保持较差 Poor stem and leaf structure 2 茎叶结构保持极差或伴随轻度污染
Extremely poor stem and leaf structures or slight mold contamination 1 茎叶腐烂或污染严重 Severe stem and leaf decay or significant contamination 0 色泽
Color 与原料相似，烘干后呈淡褐色 Similar to raw materials; light brown after drying 2 颜色稍有改变，呈淡黄色或带褐色 Slight discoloration; pale yellow or slightly brownish 1 变色严重，深绿色或严重褪色，有很重的霉味
Severe discoloration; dark green or brownish-yellow with strong mildew smell 0

表 4 全株玉米与滇红花茎叶混合青贮饲料感官评定

Table 4 Sensory evaluation of silage blended with whole-plant corn and yunnan safflower stalk bran

处理
Treatment 气味
Odor 质地结构
Texture Structure 色泽
Color 评分
Total Score 等级
Grade CK 13 4 2 19 优良 Good T0 13 4 2 19 优良 Good T1 13 4 2 19 优良 Good T2 14 4 2 20 优良 Good

表 5 全株玉米与滇红花茎叶混合饲料发酵品质的影响

Table 5 Effects of fermentation quality on whole-plant corn mixed with yunnan safflower straw bran

处理
Treatment pH 氨态氮
NH3-N/% 乳酸
Lactic acid/% 乙酸
Acetic acid/% 丙酸
Propionic acid/% 丁酸
Butyric acid/% CK 3.65 ± 0.01a 0.012 ± 0.001b 3.08 ± 0.21a 0.39 ± 0.02a 0.12 ± 0.02b 0.33 ± 0.02c T0 3.65 ± 0.01a 0.015 ± 0.002a 2.96 ± 0.09a 0.39 ± 0.04a 0.17 ± 0.03a 0.48 ± 0.6ab T1 3.63 ± 0.03a 0.016 ± 0.001a 2.87 ± 0.05a 0.33 ± 0.01b 0.10 ± 0.01b 0.36 ± 0.09bc T2 3.65 ± 0.01a 0.015 ± 0.002a 2.59 ± 0.02b 0.24 ± 0.02c 0.09 ± 0.01b 0.57 ± 0.07a 　各指标均根据样品鲜重计算；同列数据不同小写字母表示差异显著(P < 0.05)，下同。
　The indicators were calculated based on the fresh weight of the samples. Data in the same column with different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference ( P < 0.05); This is applicable for the following figures and tables as well.

表 6 全株玉米与滇红花茎叶混合饲料营养成分的影响

Table 6 Effect of nutrient composition on whole-plant corn mixed with yunnan safflower straw chaff %

处理
Treatment 干物质
Dry
matter 粗蛋白
Crude
protein 粗脂肪
Crude
fat 粗灰分
Crude
ash 中性洗涤纤维
Neutral detergent
fiber 酸性洗涤纤维
Acid detergent
fiber Ca P CK 32.03 ± 0.17c 7.46 ± 0.50a 2.40 ± 0.06a 3.18 ± 0.07b 40.62 ± 0.65c 22.97 ± 0.41c 0.37 ± 0.08b 0.14 ± 0.00a T0 32.50 ± 0.19bc 7.53 ± 0.16a 2.16 ± 0.04b 4.14 ± 0.04a 45.72 ± 1.33b 28.57 ± 0.60b 0.69 ± 0.13a 0.14 ± 0.00a T1 33.91 ± 0.91a 6.90 ± 0.24b 2.00 ± 0.05c 4.18 ± 0.05a 46.90 ± 1.29b 29.85 ± 1.54b 0.73 ± 0.02a 0.13 ± 0.00b T2 33.36 ± 0.30ab 6.40 ± 0.90b 1.81 ± 0.06d 4.23 ± 0.06a 49.55 ± 0.83a 32.59 ± 0.92a 0.82 ± 0.05a 0.12 ± 0.00c 　各指标均根据样品干重计算。
　All indicators were calculated based on the dry weight of the samples.

表 7 青贮饲料综合价值评价及排名

Table 7 Comprehensive evaluation and ranking of silage

项目
ItemT0T1T2 干物质 Dry matter0.250.711.00 粗蛋白 Crude protein1.000.440.00 粗脂肪 Crude fat0.590.320.00 粗灰分 Crude ash0.910.951.00 酸性洗涤纤维
Neutral detergent fiber (NDF)0.420.280.00 中性洗涤纤维
Acid detergent fiber (ADF)0.430.300.00 Ca0.710.801.00 P1.000.500.00 乳酸 Lactic acid0.760.620.00 乙酸 Acetic acid1.000.600.00 丙酸 Propionic acid1.000.130.00 丁酸 Butyric acid0.380.880.00 氨态氮 NH3-N0.250.000.25 总隶属度 Average value
(total membership degree)8.706.533.25 排序 Rank123

表 8 全株玉米与滇红花茎叶混合青贮饲料Alpha多样性分析

Table 8 Alpha diversity analysis of silage mixes of whole-plant corn and yunnan safflower straw chaff

处理
Treatment Shanon指数
Shanon Index Simpson指数
Simpson Index Ace指数
ACE Index Chao指数
Chao Index 覆盖率
Coverage CK 2.20 ± 0.52b 0.39 ± 0.14a 1 316.78 ± 149.60b 1 214.82 ± 146.29b 0.99 ± 0.00 T0 2.99 ± 0.10a 0.15 ± 0.02bc 1 602.07 ± 84.39a 1 478.93 ± 83.62a 0.99 ± 0.00 T1 3.08 ± 0.10a 0.11 ± 0.02c 1 469.03 ± 54.02ab 1 369.37 ± 49.27ab 0.99 ± 0.00 T2 2.42 ± 0.16b 0.25 ± 0.03b 1 400.13 ± 81.15b 1 294.91 ± 62.66b 0.99 ± 0.00 [1]

ZHOU X D, TANG L Y, XU Y L, ZHOU G H, WANG Z J. Towards a better understanding of medicinal uses of carthamus tinctorius L. in traditional chinese medicine: A phytochemical and pharmacological review. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 2014, 151(1): 27-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2013.10.050

[2] 陈梦, 赵丕文, 孙艳玲, 孙丽萍. 红花及其主要成分的药理作用研究进展. 环球中医药, 2012, 5(7): 556-560.

CHEN M, ZHAO P W, SUN Y L, SUN L P. Advances in pharmacological function of Carthamus tinctorius and its essential constitutes. Global Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2012, 5(7): 556-560.

[3] 胡学礼, 胡尊红, 杨谨, 王沛琦, 郭丽芬, 刘旭云, 李建增. 云南红花的研究进展. 农学学报, 2018, 8(5): 25-30.

HU X L, HU Z H, YANG J, WANG P Q, GUO L F, LIU X Y, LI J Z. Safflowers in Yunnan: Research Progress. Journal of Agriculture, 2018, 8(5): 25-30.

[4]

LU J X, ZHANG C X, HU Y, ZHANG M H, WANG Y N, QIAN Y X, YANG J, YANG W Z, JIANG M M, GUO D A. Application of multiple chemical and biological approaches for quality assessment of carthamus tinctorius L. (Safflower) by determining both the primary and secondary metabolites. Phytomedicine, 2019, 58(5): 152826.

[5] 吴晶, 杨怀镜, 周萍. 滇产红花的高效液相指纹图谱研究. 食品研究与开发, 2020, 41(4): 170-178. doi: 10.12161/j.issn.1005-6521.2020.04.028

WU J, YANG H J, ZHOU P. Study on high performance liquid chromatography fingerprint of aafflower from Yunnan Province. Food Research and Development, 2020, 41(4): 170-178. doi: 10.12161/j.issn.1005-6521.2020.04.028

[6] 刘淑玲, 蔡海荣, 蔡鑫桂, 张烈元, 张为章, 黄秋萍, 陈伯钧. 红花黄色素对高脂血症家兔抗动脉硬化的作用. 国际药学研究杂志, 2018, 45(8): 603-610.

LIU S L, CAI H R, CAI X G, ZHANG L Y, ZHANG W Z, HUANG Q P, CHEN B J. Effect of safflower yellow on atherosclerosis in rabbits with hyperlipidemia. Journal of International Pharmaceutical Research, 2018, 45(8): 603-610.

[7] 王中华, 赵香菊. 红花黄色素对蛋鸡产蛋性能的影响. 中国家禽, 2012, 34 (16): 63, 66.

WANG Z H, ZHAO X J. Effect of safflower yellow pigment on laying performance of laying hens. China Poultry, 2012, 34 (16): 63, 66.

[8] 张俊丽, 岳彩娟, 李明, 梁小军. 不同处理方式对红花秸秆发酵品质与营养价值的影响. 饲料研究, 2023, 46(12): 99-104.

ZHANG J L, YUE C J, LI M, LIANG X J. Effect of different treatment methods on fermentation quality and nutritional value of safflower straw. Feed Research, 2023, 46(12): 99-104.

[9] 寇江涛, 张甲雄. 同/异型乳酸菌添加对水稻秸秆青贮饲料营养价值的影响. 草地学报, 2024, 32(12): 3980-3987.

KOU J T, ZHANG J X. Effects of adding homo- and hetero-fermentative lactic acid bacteria on nutritional value of rice straw silage feed. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2024, 32(12): 3980-3987.

[10] 龙仕和, 李雪枫, 潘俊歆, 常晔, 史孟丽, 黄乃馨, 崔智海, 王坚. 不同生长天数‘热研4号’王草青贮品质和微生物群落多样性研究. 草地学报, 2022, 30(7): 1900-1908.

LONG S H, LI X F, PAN J X, CHANG Y, SHI M L, HUANG N X, CUI Z H, WANG J. Study on the Silage Quality and microbial community diversity of ‘Reyan No. 4’ king grass harvested at different growth days. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(7): 1900-1908.

[11] 陆永祥, 严显明, 周朝相, 朱会先, 苟文龙, 游明鸿, 李达旭, 陈仕勇, 李平, 白史且. 不同添加剂对高水分全株玉米青贮饲料发酵品质和细菌群落的影响. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 842-847.

LU Y X, YAN X M, ZHOU Z X, ZHU X H, GOU W L, YOU M H, LI D X, CHEN S Y, LI P, BAI S Q. Effects of different additives on fermentation quality and bacterial community of high-moisture whole-plant corn silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(4): 842-847.

[12] 张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2016.

ZHANG L Y. Feed Analysis and Feed Quality Test Techniques. China Agricultural University Press. 2016.

[13] 周燚, 张娟, 刘一佳, 凌文卿, 李珏, 阳伏林, 周晶. 丙酸对杂交狼尾草青贮品质及微生物区系的影响. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(8): 5404-5417.

ZHOU Y, ZHANG J, LIU Y J, LING W Q, LI J, YANG F L, ZHOU J. Effects of propionic acid on silage quality and microbial community of hybrid pennisetum silage. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(8): 5404-5417.

[14] 唐文浩, 张养东, 郑楠, 王加启. 苜蓿青贮品质评价研究进展. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(7): 4165-4173.

TANG W H, ZHANG Y D, ZHENG N, WANG J Q. Advances in quality evaluation of alfalfa silage. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(7): 4165-4173.

[15]

FILYA I. The effect of lactobacillus buchneri and lactobacillus plantarum on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and ruminal degradability of low dry matter corn and sorghum silages. J Dairy Sci, 2003, 86(11): 3575-3581. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73963-0

[16]

WANG M S, FRANCO M, CAI Y M, YU Z. Dynamics of fermentation profile and bacterial community of silage prepared with alfalfa, whole-plant corn and their mixture. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2020, 270(12): 114702.

[17] 苏嘉琪, 辛杭书, 张广宁, 刘春龙. 国内外青贮饲料原料来源、品质评价及影响因素的研究进展. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(12): 7585-7594.

SU J Q, XIN H S, ZHANG G N, LIU C L. Research progress on silage raw material sources, quality evaluation and influencing factors at home and abroad. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(12): 7585-7594.

[18] 郑林峰, 任红阳, 王红亮, 王自立. 全株玉米混合青贮对其营养品质的影响. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(8): 4827-4839. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.448

ZHENG L F, REN H Y, WANG H L, WANG Z L. Effects of mixed ensiling on nutritional quality of whole plant maize silage. Chinese Jounal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(8): 4827-4839. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.448

[19] 马淑敏, 焦婷, 师尚礼, 秦伟娜, 王正文, 赵生国, 祁娟. 混合型乳酸菌制剂对不同品种青饲玉米青贮品质的影响. 草地学报, 2022, 30(6): 1558-1568.

MA S M, JIAO T, SHI S L, QIN W N, WANG Z W, ZHAO S G, QI J. Effects of mixed lactic acid bacteria preparation on silage quality of different green corns. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(6): 1558-1568.

[20] 胡梦洁, 肖燕子, 姜超, 罗俊杰, 卢娜, 纳钦, 郎宇, 张健, 刘建民, 何立超, 唐佳新. 添加剂对紫花苜蓿和高丹草混合青贮品质及维生素含量的影响. 草地学报, 2024, 32(5): 1642-1649.

HU M J, XIAO Y Z, JIANG C, LUO J J, LU N, NA Q, LANG Y, ZHANG J, LIU J M, HE LC, TANG J X. Effects of additives on the quality and vitamin content of mixed alfalfa and gaodan grass silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2024, 32(5): 1642-1649.

[21] 蒋媛媛, 田逢博, 字学娟, 李茂, 唐军, 周汉林, 侯冠彧. 添加乳酸菌和糖蜜对王草青贮饲料发酵品质的影响. 家畜生态学报, 2022, 43(10): 67-70.

JIANG Y Y, TIAN F B, ZI X J, LI M, TANG J, ZHOU H L, HOU G Y. Effect of lactic acid bacteria and molasses on fermentation quality of king grass silage. Acta Ecologae Animalis Domastici, 2022, 43(10): 67-70.

[22] 张强, 雷小文, 连海, 施小生, 黄志文, 钟云平. 白酒糟与脐橙渣混合青贮品质与微生物多样性的研究. 中国畜牧兽医, 2024, 51(4): 1456-1465.

ZHANG Q, LEI X W, LIAN H, SHI X S, HUANG Z W, ZHONG Y P. Study on the quality and microbial diversity of mixed silage between distillers grains and navel orange residue. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2024, 51(4): 1456-1465.

[23] 张霞, 焦婷, 马淑敏, 陈鑫, 王正文, 牧仁, 赵生国. 甜叶菊秆与玉米秸秆混合青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵特性. 草业科学, 2023, 40(2): 539-550. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2021-0555

ZHANG X, JIAO T, MA S M, CHEN X, WANG Z W, MU R, ZHAO S G. Silage quality and in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics of stevia and corn stalks. Pratacultural Science, 2023, 40(2): 539-550. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2021-0555

[24] 冀红芹, 孟令楠, 于明, 杨荣芳, 温萍, 曲强, 瞿健萍, 孙亚波. 青贮饲料的质量评价. 现代畜牧兽医, 2021(6): 92-96.

JI H Q, MENG L N, YU M, YANG R F, WEN P, QU Q, QU J P, SUN Y B. Quality evaluation of silages. Modern Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2021(6): 92-96.

[25] 韩学琴, 李莲红, 邓红山, 罗会英, 范建成, 刘进娣, 金杰. 辣木与高丹草混合青贮效果的研究. 草业科学, 2024, 41(07): 1747-1756. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2023-0194

HAN X Q, LI L H, DENG H S, LUO H Y, FAN J C, LIU J D, JIE J. Effect of Moringa oleifera Lam mixed with sorghum-sudangrass hybrids. Pratacultural Science, 2024, 41(07): 1747-1756. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2023-0194

[26] 魏岚, 汪雅婷, 穆麟, 胥贵, 魏仲珊, 张志飞. 添加比例及青贮天数对统糠和紫花苜蓿混合青贮品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2024, 46(5): 71-81.

WEI L, WANG Y T, MU L, XU G, WEI Z S. Effects of addition ratio and ensiling days on the silage quality of mixed chaff and alfalfa. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2024, 46(5): 71-81.

[27] 郑立文, 田健帆, 杨蔚, 许文花, 任健, 罗富成, 单贵莲, 李启娇, 马向丽. 品种和生育期对玉米青贮发酵品质的影响. 草业科学, 2023, 40(4): 1105-1114.

ZHENG L W, TIAN J F, YANG W, XU W H, REN J, LUO F C, SHAN G L, LI Q J, MA X L. Effect of cultivar and growth stage on fermentation quality of maize silage. Pratacultural Science, 2023, 40(4): 1105-1114.

[28] 侯燕红, 张一桦, 周凯, 杨庆然, 杨维林, 刘琼花, 姜华, 何承刚. 不同青贮玉米品种农艺性状及营养价值评价. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2022, 37(4): 604-610.

HOU Y H, ZHANG Y H, ZHOU K, YANG Q R, YANG W L, LIU Q H, JIANG H, HE C G. Evaluation of agronomic traits and nutritional value of different silage maize varieties. Journal of Yunnan Agricultural University, 2022, 37(4): 604-610.

[29] 张勇, 朱宇旌. 反刍动物瘤胃微生物对粗饲料的利用. 中国奶牛, 2003(6): 31-33. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4264.2003.06.014

ZHANG Y, ZHU Y J. Utilization of roughage by rumen microorganisms in antipodean animals. China Dairy Cattle, 2003(6): 31-33. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4264.2003.06.014

[30] 张家华, 王永必, 杨庆然, 杨维林, 杨光周, 李清. 龙陵县不同青贮玉米品种农艺性状及营养成分分析. 中国奶牛, 2019(9): 47-52.

ZHANG J H, WANG Y B, YANG Q R, YANG W L, YANG Z G, LI Q. Analysis of qgronomic traits and nutritional components of different silage maize varieties in Longling County. China Dairy Cattle, 2019(9): 47-52.

[31] 王昊然, 蒋恒, 刘斌, 朱晖, 马宇莎, 王娇, 孙乐, 高凤芹. 添加玉米粉对盐碱地和非盐碱地紫花苜蓿青贮品质和微生物多样性的影响. 中国草地学报, 2023, 45(7): 110-119.

WANG H R, JIANG H, LIU B, ZHU H, MA Y S, WANG J, SUN L, GAO F Q. Effects of corn flour addition on the quality alfalfa silage and microbial diversity in saline-alkali and non-saline-alkali lands. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2023, 45(7): 110-119.

[32]

WU P W, LI L H, JIANG J F, SUN Y M, YUAN Z H, FENG X D, GUO Y F. Effects of fermentative and non-fermentative additives on silage quality and anaerobic digestion performance of Pennisetum purpureum. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 297(2): 122425.

[33] 王佳楚函, 朱欣, 樊雪莹, 陈玉连, 李茂雅, 雷耀, 赵圆圆, 何湘江, 王志军, 陈超, 成启明. 不同比例花生秧与茅台酒糟混合青贮对饲料养分含量、发酵品质及微生物群落的影响. 中国畜牧杂志, 2024, 60(06): 247-252.

WANG J C H, ZHU X, FAN X Y, CHEN Y L, LI M Y, LEI Y, ZHAO Y Y, HE X J, WANG Z J, CHEN C, CHENG Q M. Effects of mixed silage of peanut seedlings and moutai lees at different ratios on forage nutrient content, fermentation quality and microbial community. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2024, 60(06): 247-252.

[34] 陶莲, 刁其玉. 利用MiSeq高通量测序技术分析风干处理及青贮发酵对玉米秸秆菌群构成及丰度的影响. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(S1): 94-103.

TAO L, DIAO Q Y. Effects of ensiling and natural drying on composition and abundance of bacterium of corn stalk analyzed by MiSeq sequencing technology. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2015, 48(S1): 94-103.

[35] 巨纪, 魏曼琳, 于萍, 吴白乙拉, 牛化欣, 张丽媛, 晓明. 植物乳杆菌对柠条青贮发酵品质和微生物多样性的影响. 中国草地学报, 2023, 45(2): 113-120.

JU J, WEI M L, YU P, WU B Y L, NIU H X, ZHANG L Y, XIAO M. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum on fermentation quality and microbial diversity of caragana silage. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2023, 45(2): 113-120.

[36] 程志泽, 伊斯拉依·达吾提, 万江春, 乃比·阿不来提, 艾比布拉·伊马木. 不同添加剂对辣椒秸秆青贮品质及细菌多样性的影响. 草地学报, 2024, 32(7): 2330-2336.

CHENG Z Z, DAWUTI Y S L Y, WAN J C, ABULAITI N B, YIMAMU A B B L. Effects of different additives on the quality and bacterial diversity of pepper straw silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2024, 32(7): 2330-2336.

[37] 武祎, 赵红玉, 唐云梦, 李青洋, 曹雅楠, 孙庆龙, 孙泽威, 孙海霞. 添加短乳杆菌对紫花苜蓿半干青贮品质及微生物群落组成的影响. 中国畜牧杂志, 2024, 60(2): 328-333.

WU Y, ZHAO H Y, TANG Y M, LI Q Y, CAO Y N, SUN Q L, SUN Z W, SUN H X. Effect of the addition of Lactobacillus shortum on the quality and microbial community composition of semidry silage of alfalfa. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2024, 60(2): 328-333.

[38] 周雨歆, 杨丹, 杨伟涛, 陈丹丹, 陈晓阳, 张庆. 黄梁木叶精油对柱花草和秸秆发酵品质及细菌群落的影响. 草地学报, 2024, 32(10): 3326-3334.

ZHOU Y X, YANG D, YANG W T, CHEN D D, CHEN X Y, ZHANG Q. Effect of Neolamarckia cadamba leaf essential oil on fermentation quality and bacterial community of stylo and rice straw silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2024, 32(10): 3326-3334.

[39] 黄乃馨, 李雪枫, 展小霞, 崔智海, 毛开, 柴欢, 王目森, 王坚. 含水量对柱花草青贮品质和微生物群落动态的影响. 草地学报, 2024, 32(8): 2648-2658.

HUANG N X, LI X F, ZHAN X X, CUI Z H, MAO K, CHAI H, WANG M S, WANG J. Effects of moisture content on the fermentation quality and microbial community diversity of stylo silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2024, 32(8): 2648-2658.