草业学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (1): 169-181.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2023144
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
张珈敏1(), 关皓1(), 李海萍2,3, 贾志锋2, 马祥2, 刘文辉2, 陈有军1, 陈仕勇1, 蒋永梅2,4, 甘丽1, 周青平1, 杨丽雪1()
收稿日期:
2023-04-29
修回日期:
2023-06-08
出版日期:
2024-01-20
发布日期:
2023-11-23
通讯作者:
关皓,杨丽雪
作者简介:
yanglixue@swun.edu.cn基金资助:
Jia-min ZHANG1(), Hao GUAN1(), Hai-ping LI2,3, Zhi-feng JIA2, Xiang MA2, Wen-hui LIU2, You-jun CHEN1, Shi-yong CHEN1, Yong-mei JIANG2,4, Li GAN1, Qing-ping ZHOU1, Li-xue YANG1()
Received:
2023-04-29
Revised:
2023-06-08
Online:
2024-01-20
Published:
2023-11-23
Contact:
Hao GUAN,Li-xue YANG
摘要:
为探究燕麦和饲用豌豆混播比例及乳酸菌剂对发酵全混合日粮(TMR)品质和瘤胃降解特性的影响,筛选出适宜制作发酵TMR的燕麦饲用豌豆混播比例,本试验将青海甜燕麦和青建一号饲用豌豆进行混播种植,混播比例为(燕麦∶饲用豌豆)0∶10,5∶5,6∶4,7∶3,8∶2,10∶0。在燕麦乳熟期和豌豆结荚期刈割后调制袋装发酵TMR,共设计12个处理,其中6个不接种乳酸菌,按照6个不同混播比例分别为C1、C2、C3、C4、C5、C6;另外6个处理在各比例基础上均匀加入混合乳酸菌(植物乳杆菌160∶短乳杆菌248∶戊糖乳杆菌260,比例为1∶1∶1,菌活:106 cfu·mL-1左右),即分别为I1、I2、I3、I4、I5、I6。所有处理按照饲草和农副7∶3的比例加入农副产品(青稞秸秆∶油菜秸秆∶油菜粕=1∶1∶1),实验室温度(20±5) ℃下发酵60 d后对其营养成分、发酵品质及瘤胃降解特性进行测定。结果表明,随原料中燕麦比例的增加,中性洗涤纤维和酸性洗涤纤维含量呈上升趋势,粗蛋白呈下降趋势,产气量呈下降趋势;添加混合乳酸菌显著降低了干物质损失(P<0.05)、pH和NH3-N/TN(P<0.05),其中C3和I3的干物质损失为0.38%和0.15%,显著低于同组其他处理(P<0.05);各混合比例的燕麦-饲用豌豆发酵TMR的粗蛋白降解率和酸性洗涤纤维降解率显著高于单一燕麦发酵TMR和单一豌豆发酵TMR(P<0.05),其中I2的瘤胃降解率最优。C3和I3的瘤胃NH3-N含量为29.65%和31.68%,显著高于同组其他处理(P<0.05)。通过隶属函数法和主成分分析对发酵TMR品质进行综合评价,得分最高的为I2(0.868),其次是I3(0.610)和C3(0.469)。因此当燕麦和饲用豌豆混播比例为6∶4或5∶5时,可将其作为主要饲草来源生产高品质发酵TMR饲料。
张珈敏, 关皓, 李海萍, 贾志锋, 马祥, 刘文辉, 陈有军, 陈仕勇, 蒋永梅, 甘丽, 周青平, 杨丽雪. 混播比例及乳酸菌剂对燕麦-饲用豌豆发酵TMR品质及瘤胃降解特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(1): 169-181.
Jia-min ZHANG, Hao GUAN, Hai-ping LI, Zhi-feng JIA, Xiang MA, Wen-hui LIU, You-jun CHEN, Shi-yong CHEN, Yong-mei JIANG, Li GAN, Qing-ping ZHOU, Li-xue YANG. Effects of oat∶feed pea sowing ratio and lactic acid bacteria addition on crop silage fermentation and ruminal degradation characteristics of the resulting total mixed ration[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(1): 169-181.
项目 Item | 编号 Number | 混播比例 Mixture ratio | 燕麦 Oat | 饲用豌豆 Feed pea | 青稞秸秆 Highland barley straw | 油菜秸秆 Rape straw | 油菜粕 Rape meal | 总计 Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
不添加 No adding | C1 | 0∶10 | 0 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
C2 | 5∶5 | 35 | 35 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
C3 | 6∶4 | 42 | 28 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
C4 | 7∶3 | 49 | 21 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
C5 | 8∶2 | 56 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
C6 | 10∶0 | 70 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
添加 Adding | I1 | 0∶10 | 0 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
I2 | 5∶5 | 35 | 35 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
I3 | 6∶4 | 42 | 28 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
I4 | 7∶3 | 49 | 21 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
I5 | 8∶2 | 56 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
I6 | 10∶0 | 70 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
表1 样品原料组成情况
Table 1 Composition of raw materials (dry matter basis, %)
项目 Item | 编号 Number | 混播比例 Mixture ratio | 燕麦 Oat | 饲用豌豆 Feed pea | 青稞秸秆 Highland barley straw | 油菜秸秆 Rape straw | 油菜粕 Rape meal | 总计 Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
不添加 No adding | C1 | 0∶10 | 0 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
C2 | 5∶5 | 35 | 35 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
C3 | 6∶4 | 42 | 28 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
C4 | 7∶3 | 49 | 21 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
C5 | 8∶2 | 56 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
C6 | 10∶0 | 70 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
添加 Adding | I1 | 0∶10 | 0 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
I2 | 5∶5 | 35 | 35 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
I3 | 6∶4 | 42 | 28 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
I4 | 7∶3 | 49 | 21 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
I5 | 8∶2 | 56 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
I6 | 10∶0 | 70 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
项目 Item | 干物质 Dry matter | 干物质损失 Dry matter loss | 粗灰分 Ash | 粗蛋白 Crude protein | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber | 淀粉 Starch | 水溶性碳水化合物Water soluble carbohydrate | 粗脂肪 Ether extract |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 40.21Ad | 0.64Ab | 5.43Aa | 21.30Aa | 29.09Bde | 18.41Bb | 9.01Ab | 2.59Bb | 3.31Ac |
C2 | 41.41Bd | 1.18Aa | 4.73Ad | 20.78Ab | 27.51Ae | 14.70Ac | 8.87Bc | 1.22Bc | 3.70Ac |
C3 | 47.90Aa | 0.38Ac | 4.37Be | 20.72Ab | 32.13Acd | 17.52Ab | 10.05Aa | 1.19Ad | 5.10Ab |
C4 | 41.47Ad | 0.40Ac | 4.83Bcd | 18.44Ad | 34.56Bbc | 18.08Bb | 9.10Ab | 0.85Be | 6.31Aa |
C5 | 44.45Bc | 0.39Ac | 4.93Ac | 19.30Ac | 36.37Aab | 19.82Bb | 8.60Ad | 0.67Bf | 5.75Aab |
C6 | 45.74Ab | 0.53Abc | 5.07Ab | 18.19Ae | 38.78Aa | 22.57Aa | 8.68Bd | 3.31Ba | 5.98Aa |
SEM | 0.57 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 1.69 | 1.09 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.35 |
I1 | 40.34Ad | 0.27Bab | 5.10Ba | 20.48Ba | 32.14Acd | 19.73Abc | 8.81Bb | 4.60Ab | 3.37Ad |
I2 | 42.77Ac | 0.32Ba | 4.80Ab | 20.22Bb | 29.33Ad | 14.91Ad | 10.25Aa | 1.58Ad | 4.91Ac |
I3 | 48.00Aa | 0.15Bc | 4.90Ab | 20.28Bb | 35.57Aab | 18.40Ac | 10.05Aa | 0.95Bf | 5.36Aab |
I4 | 43.00Ac | 0.17Bc | 5.13Aa | 18.21Ac | 41.10Aa | 23.31Aa | 9.11Ab | 1.24Ae | 5.46Aab |
I5 | 45.94Ab | 0.20Bbc | 5.10Aa | 17.66Bd | 38.40Aab | 21.44Aab | 8.87Ab | 5.07Aa | 5.78Aa |
I6 | 47.09Aa | 0.29Bab | 4.60Bc | 17.36Be | 36.00Aab | 19.03Abc | 10.03Aa | 3.81Ac | 5.77Aa |
SEM | 0.50 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 2.13 | 1.10 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.32 |
添加剂Inoculant | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | * | ** | ** | NS |
混播比例Mixture ratio | ** | ** | NS | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio | NS | ** | ** | ** | NS | ** | ** | ** | ** |
表2 燕麦-饲用豌豆发酵TMR营养成分
Table 2 Nutritional ingredient of oat-feed pea fermentation TMR (%)
项目 Item | 干物质 Dry matter | 干物质损失 Dry matter loss | 粗灰分 Ash | 粗蛋白 Crude protein | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber | 淀粉 Starch | 水溶性碳水化合物Water soluble carbohydrate | 粗脂肪 Ether extract |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 40.21Ad | 0.64Ab | 5.43Aa | 21.30Aa | 29.09Bde | 18.41Bb | 9.01Ab | 2.59Bb | 3.31Ac |
C2 | 41.41Bd | 1.18Aa | 4.73Ad | 20.78Ab | 27.51Ae | 14.70Ac | 8.87Bc | 1.22Bc | 3.70Ac |
C3 | 47.90Aa | 0.38Ac | 4.37Be | 20.72Ab | 32.13Acd | 17.52Ab | 10.05Aa | 1.19Ad | 5.10Ab |
C4 | 41.47Ad | 0.40Ac | 4.83Bcd | 18.44Ad | 34.56Bbc | 18.08Bb | 9.10Ab | 0.85Be | 6.31Aa |
C5 | 44.45Bc | 0.39Ac | 4.93Ac | 19.30Ac | 36.37Aab | 19.82Bb | 8.60Ad | 0.67Bf | 5.75Aab |
C6 | 45.74Ab | 0.53Abc | 5.07Ab | 18.19Ae | 38.78Aa | 22.57Aa | 8.68Bd | 3.31Ba | 5.98Aa |
SEM | 0.57 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 1.69 | 1.09 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.35 |
I1 | 40.34Ad | 0.27Bab | 5.10Ba | 20.48Ba | 32.14Acd | 19.73Abc | 8.81Bb | 4.60Ab | 3.37Ad |
I2 | 42.77Ac | 0.32Ba | 4.80Ab | 20.22Bb | 29.33Ad | 14.91Ad | 10.25Aa | 1.58Ad | 4.91Ac |
I3 | 48.00Aa | 0.15Bc | 4.90Ab | 20.28Bb | 35.57Aab | 18.40Ac | 10.05Aa | 0.95Bf | 5.36Aab |
I4 | 43.00Ac | 0.17Bc | 5.13Aa | 18.21Ac | 41.10Aa | 23.31Aa | 9.11Ab | 1.24Ae | 5.46Aab |
I5 | 45.94Ab | 0.20Bbc | 5.10Aa | 17.66Bd | 38.40Aab | 21.44Aab | 8.87Ab | 5.07Aa | 5.78Aa |
I6 | 47.09Aa | 0.29Bab | 4.60Bc | 17.36Be | 36.00Aab | 19.03Abc | 10.03Aa | 3.81Ac | 5.77Aa |
SEM | 0.50 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 2.13 | 1.10 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.32 |
添加剂Inoculant | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | * | ** | ** | NS |
混播比例Mixture ratio | ** | ** | NS | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio | NS | ** | ** | ** | NS | ** | ** | ** | ** |
项目 Item | pH | 乳酸 Lactic acid | 乙酸 Acetic acid | 丙酸 Propionic acid | 丁酸 Butyric acid | 氨态氮/总氮 NH3-N/TN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 4.93Aa | 1.82Bb | 1.05Bf | ND | ND | 11.43Aa |
C2 | 4.19Ab | 2.68Aab | 1.87Be | ND | ND | 4.19Ac |
C3 | 4.10Ac | 2.77Bab | 2.45Bb | ND | ND | 2.83Ad |
C4 | 4.02Ad | 2.69Aab | 2.63Aa | ND | ND | 2.85Ad |
C5 | 4.05Ad | 3.33Aa | 2.34Bc | ND | ND | 5.47Ab |
C6 | 4.15Ab | 2.05Aab | 2.01Bd | ND | ND | 2.57Ae |
SEM | 0.02 | 0.61 | 0.04 | ND | ND | 0.03 |
I1 | 4.26Ba | 1.94Af | 2.09Ac | ND | ND | 4.79Ba |
I2 | 4.06Bb | 2.29Be | 2.66Ab | ND | ND | 1.82Bf |
I3 | 4.04Bb | 3.00Ab | 2.66Ab | ND | ND | 2.35Bc |
I4 | 4.06Ab | 2.67Bd | 2.10Bc | ND | ND | 2.39Bb |
I5 | 4.06Ab | 3.53Aa | 2.95Aa | ND | ND | 2.26Bd |
I6 | 4.04Bb | 2.89Ac | 2.67Ab | ND | ND | 1.97Be |
SEM | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ND | ND | 0.00 |
添加剂Inoculant | ** | NS | ** | ND | ND | ** |
混播比例Mixture ratio | ** | ** | ** | ND | ND | ** |
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio | ** | NS | ** | ND | ND | ** |
表3 燕麦-饲用豌豆发酵TMR发酵品质
Table 3 Fermentation quality of oat-feed pea fermentation TMR (%)
项目 Item | pH | 乳酸 Lactic acid | 乙酸 Acetic acid | 丙酸 Propionic acid | 丁酸 Butyric acid | 氨态氮/总氮 NH3-N/TN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 4.93Aa | 1.82Bb | 1.05Bf | ND | ND | 11.43Aa |
C2 | 4.19Ab | 2.68Aab | 1.87Be | ND | ND | 4.19Ac |
C3 | 4.10Ac | 2.77Bab | 2.45Bb | ND | ND | 2.83Ad |
C4 | 4.02Ad | 2.69Aab | 2.63Aa | ND | ND | 2.85Ad |
C5 | 4.05Ad | 3.33Aa | 2.34Bc | ND | ND | 5.47Ab |
C6 | 4.15Ab | 2.05Aab | 2.01Bd | ND | ND | 2.57Ae |
SEM | 0.02 | 0.61 | 0.04 | ND | ND | 0.03 |
I1 | 4.26Ba | 1.94Af | 2.09Ac | ND | ND | 4.79Ba |
I2 | 4.06Bb | 2.29Be | 2.66Ab | ND | ND | 1.82Bf |
I3 | 4.04Bb | 3.00Ab | 2.66Ab | ND | ND | 2.35Bc |
I4 | 4.06Ab | 2.67Bd | 2.10Bc | ND | ND | 2.39Bb |
I5 | 4.06Ab | 3.53Aa | 2.95Aa | ND | ND | 2.26Bd |
I6 | 4.04Bb | 2.89Ac | 2.67Ab | ND | ND | 1.97Be |
SEM | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ND | ND | 0.00 |
添加剂Inoculant | ** | NS | ** | ND | ND | ** |
混播比例Mixture ratio | ** | ** | ** | ND | ND | ** |
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio | ** | NS | ** | ND | ND | ** |
项目 Item | 粗蛋白降解率 Crude protein degradation rate | 中性洗涤纤维降解率 Neutral detergent fiber degradation rate | 酸性洗涤纤维降解率 Acid detergent fiber degradation rate | 干物质降解率 Dry matter degradation rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 29.44Bc | 40.52Bc | 37.73Bd | 77.29Bc |
C2 | 38.82Bab | 55.99Bab | 44.92Bc | 83.65Ba |
C3 | 40.64Aa | 56.26Aab | 46.17Aab | 81.89Ab |
C4 | 37.15Ab | 60.16Aa | 51.16Aa | 82.39Aab |
C5 | 36.65Ab | 53.85Aab | 47.80Aab | 78.39Ac |
C6 | 31.76Ac | 51.65Ab | 44.32Ac | 75.21Bd |
SEM | 1.15 | 3.25 | 2.27 | 0.75 |
I1 | 33.11Ac | 49.48Ac | 49.25Ab | 79.03Ac |
I2 | 44.80Aa | 67.69Aa | 60.25Aa | 89.55Aa |
I3 | 38.59Ab | 59.36Ab | 50.19Ab | 81.59Ab |
I4 | 36.41Ab | 54.16Ac | 49.11Ab | 75.83Bd |
I5 | 38.28Ab | 49.34Bc | 45.11Ab | 75.71Bd |
I6 | 33.05Ac | 53.62Ac | 43.96Ab | 78.22Ac |
SEM | 1.01 | 2.31 | 2.67 | 1.14 |
添加剂Inoculant | ** | NS | NS | NS |
混播比例Mixture ratio | ** | ** | ** | ** |
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio | ** | * | ** | * |
表4 燕麦-饲用豌豆发酵TMR体外降解率
Table 4 In vitro degradation of oat-feed pea fermentation TMR (%)
项目 Item | 粗蛋白降解率 Crude protein degradation rate | 中性洗涤纤维降解率 Neutral detergent fiber degradation rate | 酸性洗涤纤维降解率 Acid detergent fiber degradation rate | 干物质降解率 Dry matter degradation rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 29.44Bc | 40.52Bc | 37.73Bd | 77.29Bc |
C2 | 38.82Bab | 55.99Bab | 44.92Bc | 83.65Ba |
C3 | 40.64Aa | 56.26Aab | 46.17Aab | 81.89Ab |
C4 | 37.15Ab | 60.16Aa | 51.16Aa | 82.39Aab |
C5 | 36.65Ab | 53.85Aab | 47.80Aab | 78.39Ac |
C6 | 31.76Ac | 51.65Ab | 44.32Ac | 75.21Bd |
SEM | 1.15 | 3.25 | 2.27 | 0.75 |
I1 | 33.11Ac | 49.48Ac | 49.25Ab | 79.03Ac |
I2 | 44.80Aa | 67.69Aa | 60.25Aa | 89.55Aa |
I3 | 38.59Ab | 59.36Ab | 50.19Ab | 81.59Ab |
I4 | 36.41Ab | 54.16Ac | 49.11Ab | 75.83Bd |
I5 | 38.28Ab | 49.34Bc | 45.11Ab | 75.71Bd |
I6 | 33.05Ac | 53.62Ac | 43.96Ab | 78.22Ac |
SEM | 1.01 | 2.31 | 2.67 | 1.14 |
添加剂Inoculant | ** | NS | NS | NS |
混播比例Mixture ratio | ** | ** | ** | ** |
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio | ** | * | ** | * |
项目Item | 氨态氮NH3-N (mg·dL-1) | pH |
---|---|---|
C1 | 27.47Aabc | 5.92Ab |
C2 | 28.93Aab | 6.04Aa |
C3 | 29.65Aa | 5.99Aa |
C4 | 26.48Abc | 6.00Ba |
C5 | 29.15Aab | 6.01Ba |
C6 | 26.19Bc | 6.02Aa |
SEM | 1.14 | 0.03 |
I1 | 27.75Abc | 5.92Ab |
I2 | 30.32Aab | 5.94Bb |
I3 | 31.68Aa | 5.96Ab |
I4 | 28.12Abc | 6.06Aa |
I5 | 26.07Ac | 6.13Aa |
I6 | 28.71Aabc | 6.08Aa |
SEM | 1.35 | 0.03 |
添加剂Inoculant | NS | NS |
混播比例Mixture ratio | ** | ** |
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio | * | ** |
表5 燕麦-饲用豌豆发酵TMR体外发酵参数
Table 5 In vitro fermentation parameters of oat-feed pea fermentation TMR
项目Item | 氨态氮NH3-N (mg·dL-1) | pH |
---|---|---|
C1 | 27.47Aabc | 5.92Ab |
C2 | 28.93Aab | 6.04Aa |
C3 | 29.65Aa | 5.99Aa |
C4 | 26.48Abc | 6.00Ba |
C5 | 29.15Aab | 6.01Ba |
C6 | 26.19Bc | 6.02Aa |
SEM | 1.14 | 0.03 |
I1 | 27.75Abc | 5.92Ab |
I2 | 30.32Aab | 5.94Bb |
I3 | 31.68Aa | 5.96Ab |
I4 | 28.12Abc | 6.06Aa |
I5 | 26.07Ac | 6.13Aa |
I6 | 28.71Aabc | 6.08Aa |
SEM | 1.35 | 0.03 |
添加剂Inoculant | NS | NS |
混播比例Mixture ratio | ** | ** |
添加剂×混播比例Inoculant×mixture ratio | * | ** |
项目 Items | 主成分特征向量Principal component eigenvector | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Z1 | Z2 | Z3 | Z4 | Z5 | |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber | -0.192 | 0.299 | -0.223 | -0.093 | 0.221 |
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber | -0.044 | 0.360 | -0.267 | -0.110 | 0.125 |
粗脂肪Ether extract | 0.292 | -0.133 | 0.051 | -0.046 | -0.249 |
粗蛋白Crude protein | -0.230 | 0.270 | 0.006 | 0.173 | -0.071 |
干物质损失Dry matter loss | 0.183 | -0.098 | 0.524 | 0.287 | 0.157 |
干物质Dry matter | 0.248 | -0.037 | -0.125 | 0.517 | -0.008 |
淀粉 Starch | 0.154 | 0.254 | 0.079 | 0.378 | 0.272 |
水溶性碳水化合物Water soluble carbohydrate | -0.030 | -0.224 | -0.003 | -0.007 | 0.747 |
粗灰分Ash | 0.209 | 0.213 | -0.314 | 0.095 | 0.038 |
氨态氮/总氮NH3-N/TN | 0.322 | 0.030 | 0.063 | -0.141 | 0.102 |
pH | 0.329 | 0.031 | 0.030 | -0.168 | -0.107 |
乳酸Lactic acid | 0.251 | -0.061 | -0.287 | 0.113 | -0.234 |
乙酸Acetic acid | -0.333 | -0.032 | -0.045 | 0.044 | -0.170 |
干物质降解率Dry matter degradation rate | 0.050 | 0.382 | 0.013 | -0.208 | 0.077 |
中性洗涤纤维降解率Neutral detergent fiber degradation rate | 0.230 | 0.269 | 0.135 | -0.234 | -0.118 |
酸性洗涤纤维降解率Acid detergent fiber degradation rate | 0.177 | 0.226 | 0.413 | -0.306 | 0.008 |
粗蛋白降解率Crude protein degradation rate | 0.264 | 0.220 | -0.158 | 0.004 | 0.198 |
瘤胃pH Rumen pH | -0.210 | 0.222 | 0.391 | 0.078 | 0.002 |
瘤胃氨态氮Rumen NH3-N | 0.073 | 0.307 | 0.062 | 0.406 | -0.164 |
72 h产气量72 h gas production | -0.192 | 0.299 | -0.223 | -0.093 | 0.221 |
特征值Eigenvalue | 7.860 | 6.098 | 1.650 | 1.427 | 1.148 |
方差百分比Variance percentage (%) | 39.298 | 30.491 | 8.248 | 7.133 | 5.741 |
累积百分比Cumulative percentage (%) | 39.298 | 69.789 | 78.037 | 85.170 | 90.911 |
表6 燕麦-饲用豌豆发酵TMR主成分特征向量、特征值、方差百分比及累积百分比
Table 6 Principal component eigenvector, eigenvalue, variance percentage and cumulative percentage of oat-feed pea fermentation TMR
项目 Items | 主成分特征向量Principal component eigenvector | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Z1 | Z2 | Z3 | Z4 | Z5 | |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber | -0.192 | 0.299 | -0.223 | -0.093 | 0.221 |
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber | -0.044 | 0.360 | -0.267 | -0.110 | 0.125 |
粗脂肪Ether extract | 0.292 | -0.133 | 0.051 | -0.046 | -0.249 |
粗蛋白Crude protein | -0.230 | 0.270 | 0.006 | 0.173 | -0.071 |
干物质损失Dry matter loss | 0.183 | -0.098 | 0.524 | 0.287 | 0.157 |
干物质Dry matter | 0.248 | -0.037 | -0.125 | 0.517 | -0.008 |
淀粉 Starch | 0.154 | 0.254 | 0.079 | 0.378 | 0.272 |
水溶性碳水化合物Water soluble carbohydrate | -0.030 | -0.224 | -0.003 | -0.007 | 0.747 |
粗灰分Ash | 0.209 | 0.213 | -0.314 | 0.095 | 0.038 |
氨态氮/总氮NH3-N/TN | 0.322 | 0.030 | 0.063 | -0.141 | 0.102 |
pH | 0.329 | 0.031 | 0.030 | -0.168 | -0.107 |
乳酸Lactic acid | 0.251 | -0.061 | -0.287 | 0.113 | -0.234 |
乙酸Acetic acid | -0.333 | -0.032 | -0.045 | 0.044 | -0.170 |
干物质降解率Dry matter degradation rate | 0.050 | 0.382 | 0.013 | -0.208 | 0.077 |
中性洗涤纤维降解率Neutral detergent fiber degradation rate | 0.230 | 0.269 | 0.135 | -0.234 | -0.118 |
酸性洗涤纤维降解率Acid detergent fiber degradation rate | 0.177 | 0.226 | 0.413 | -0.306 | 0.008 |
粗蛋白降解率Crude protein degradation rate | 0.264 | 0.220 | -0.158 | 0.004 | 0.198 |
瘤胃pH Rumen pH | -0.210 | 0.222 | 0.391 | 0.078 | 0.002 |
瘤胃氨态氮Rumen NH3-N | 0.073 | 0.307 | 0.062 | 0.406 | -0.164 |
72 h产气量72 h gas production | -0.192 | 0.299 | -0.223 | -0.093 | 0.221 |
特征值Eigenvalue | 7.860 | 6.098 | 1.650 | 1.427 | 1.148 |
方差百分比Variance percentage (%) | 39.298 | 30.491 | 8.248 | 7.133 | 5.741 |
累积百分比Cumulative percentage (%) | 39.298 | 69.789 | 78.037 | 85.170 | 90.911 |
编号 Number | 得分Score | 综合分值 Composite score | 排序 Order | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | |||
C1 | -2.539 | -0.276 | -0.086 | 0.862 | 0.145 | -1.019 | 12 |
C2 | -0.703 | 0.980 | -2.149 | -1.129 | -0.461 | -0.262 | 9 |
C3 | 0.390 | 0.898 | -0.675 | 1.400 | -0.043 | 0.469 | 3 |
C4 | 0.445 | 0.074 | 0.268 | -1.635 | -0.641 | 0.066 | 5 |
C5 | 0.193 | -0.259 | -0.164 | 0.081 | -1.732 | -0.110 | 6 |
C6 | -0.080 | -1.276 | 0.301 | -0.410 | -0.168 | -0.435 | 11 |
I1 | -1.052 | -0.052 | 1.258 | -0.398 | 1.327 | -0.278 | 10 |
I2 | 0.529 | 1.912 | 1.051 | -0.868 | 0.916 | 0.868 | 1 |
I3 | 0.615 | 0.751 | 0.769 | 1.606 | -0.672 | 0.610 | 2 |
I4 | 0.307 | -0.848 | 1.048 | -0.061 | -1.120 | -0.120 | 7 |
I5 | 0.872 | -1.545 | -0.671 | -0.239 | 1.126 | -0.136 | 8 |
I6 | 1.023 | -0.359 | -0.949 | 0.790 | 1.323 | 0.347 | 4 |
表7 燕麦-饲用豌豆发酵TMR主成分综合分值
Table 7 Principal component composite score of oat-feed pea fermentation TMR
编号 Number | 得分Score | 综合分值 Composite score | 排序 Order | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | |||
C1 | -2.539 | -0.276 | -0.086 | 0.862 | 0.145 | -1.019 | 12 |
C2 | -0.703 | 0.980 | -2.149 | -1.129 | -0.461 | -0.262 | 9 |
C3 | 0.390 | 0.898 | -0.675 | 1.400 | -0.043 | 0.469 | 3 |
C4 | 0.445 | 0.074 | 0.268 | -1.635 | -0.641 | 0.066 | 5 |
C5 | 0.193 | -0.259 | -0.164 | 0.081 | -1.732 | -0.110 | 6 |
C6 | -0.080 | -1.276 | 0.301 | -0.410 | -0.168 | -0.435 | 11 |
I1 | -1.052 | -0.052 | 1.258 | -0.398 | 1.327 | -0.278 | 10 |
I2 | 0.529 | 1.912 | 1.051 | -0.868 | 0.916 | 0.868 | 1 |
I3 | 0.615 | 0.751 | 0.769 | 1.606 | -0.672 | 0.610 | 2 |
I4 | 0.307 | -0.848 | 1.048 | -0.061 | -1.120 | -0.120 | 7 |
I5 | 0.872 | -1.545 | -0.671 | -0.239 | 1.126 | -0.136 | 8 |
I6 | 1.023 | -0.359 | -0.949 | 0.790 | 1.323 | 0.347 | 4 |
1 | Xie K Y, Zhao Y, Li X L, et al. Relationships between grasses and legumes in mixed grassland: a review. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(3): 284-296. |
谢开云, 赵云, 李向林, 等. 豆-禾混播草地种间关系研究进展. 草业学报, 2013, 22(3): 284-296. | |
2 | Wang W, Xu C T, De K J, et al. Preliminary study on introduction experimental of oats and triticale in Chengduo. Chinese Qinghai Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 2015, 45(5): 4-6. |
王伟, 徐成体, 德科加, 等. 称多县燕麦与小黑麦引种试验初步研究. 青海畜牧兽医杂志, 2015, 45(5): 4-6. | |
3 | Nazar M, Wang S, Zhao J, et al. The feasibility and effects of exogenous epiphytic microbiota on the fermentation quality and microbial community dynamics of whole crop corn. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 306: 123106. |
4 | Qu H Z, Gao M Y, Qi J Y, et al. The effect of sowing rate on the yield of fresh pea grass in high cold regions. Animal Industry and Environment, 2020, 19(3): 55. |
屈海珠, 高明艳, 祁军英, 等. 播种量对高寒地区饲用豌豆鲜草产量的影响. 畜牧业环境, 2020, 19(3): 55. | |
5 | Zhang J, Yuan X J, Guo G, et al. Effect of additive on fermentation quality of mixed silages of oat (Avena sativa) and common vetch (Vicia sativa) in Tibet. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(5): 359-364. |
张洁, 原现军, 郭刚, 等. 添加剂对西藏燕麦和箭筈豌豆混合青贮发酵品质的影响. 草业学报, 2014, 23(5): 359-364. | |
6 | Kennelly J J, Weinberg Z G. Small grain silage. Silage Science and Technology, 2003, 42: 749-779. |
7 | Liu Q H, Li X Y, Desta S T, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum and fibrolytic enzyme on the fermentation quality and in vitro digestibility of total mixed rations silage including rape straw. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2016, 15(9): 2087-2096. |
8 | Huang K L, Chen H W, Liu Y L, et al. Lactic acid bacteria strains selected from fermented total mixed rations improve ensiling and in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics of corn stover silage. Animal Bioscience, 2022, 35(9): 1379-1389. |
9 | Tagawa S, Horiguchi K, Yoshida N, et al. Changes in vitamin A added to a fermented total mixed ration prepared with reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). Animal Science Journal, 2014, 85(7): 787-791. |
10 | Yang H, Wang B, Zhang Q, et al. Improvement of fermentation quality in the fermented total mixed ration with oat silage. Microorganisms, 2021, 9(2): 420. |
11 | Yuan X J, Guo G, Wen A Y, et al. The effect of different additives on the fermentation quality, in vitro digestibility and aerobic stability of a total mixed ration silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2015, 207: 41-50. |
12 | Dong Z H, Tao X X, Bao Y H, et al. Effect of applying different additives on the fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage prepared with local feed resources in Tibet. Grassland Science, 2022, 68(1): 78-87. |
13 | George W L. Official methods of analysis of AOAC international. New York: Oxford University Press, 2023. |
14 | Van Soest P J, Robertson J B, Lewis B A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 1991, 74(10): 3583-3597. |
15 | Broderick G A, Kang J H. Determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science, 1980, 63(1): 64-75. |
16 | Guan H, Yan Y H, Li X L, et al. Microbial communities and natural fermentation of corn silages prepared with farm bunker-silo in Southwest China. Bioresource Technology, 2018, 265: 282-290. |
17 | Menke K H, Raab L, Salewski A, et al. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 1979, 93(1): 217-222. |
18 | Menci R, Coppa M, Torrent A, et al. Effects of two tannin extracts at different doses in interaction with a green or dry forage substrate on in vitro rumen fermentation and biohydrogenation. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2021, 278: 114977. |
19 | Feng Z C, Gao M. Improvement of colorimetric method for determination of ammonia nitrogen in rumen fluid. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2010, 31(Z1): 37. |
冯宗慈, 高民. 通过比色测定瘤胃液氨氮含量方法的改进. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2010, 31(Z1): 37. | |
20 | Ribeiro S S, Vasconcelos J T, Morais M G, et al. Effects of ruminal infusion of a slow-release polymer-coated urea or conventional urea on apparent nutrient digestibility, in situ degradability, and rumen parameters in cattle fed low-quality hay. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2011, 164(1): 53-61. |
21 | Zhao M Q E, Wang Z J, Bao J, et al. Analysis and evaluation of forage millet quality under different fertility and storage times using the membership function method. Pratacultural Science, 2023, 40(1): 200-207. |
赵牧其尔, 王志军, 包健, 等. 利用隶属函数法分析和评价不同生育期和贮藏时间的饲用谷子品质. 草业科学, 2023, 40(1): 200-207. | |
22 | Li L L, Hua D F, Zheng X W, et al. Effects of moisture content and sowing-mix ratio on the quality of baled oat and common vetch/hairy vetch silage mixtures in the pastoral area of southern Qinghai. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(7): 166-174. |
李蕾蕾, 花登峰, 郑兴卫, 等. 含水量和混播比例对青南牧区燕麦-箭筈豌豆/毛苕子混播青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2018, 27(7): 166-174. | |
23 | Liu W, Chen Y K, Zhao L S, et al. Evaluation of the fermentation quality of oat and pea mixed silage with different mixing proportion based on principal component analysis and membership function analysis. China Feed. (2023-04-11)[2023-04-28]. https://kns.cnki.net/kns8/defaultresult/index. |
刘温, 陈雅坤, 赵连生, 等. 基于主成分和隶属度函数分析评价不同混播比例的燕麦和豌豆混合青贮的发酵品质. 中国饲料. (2023-04-11)[2023-04-28]. https://kns.cnki.net/kns8/defaultresult/index. | |
24 | Li F H, Ke W C, Ding Z T, et al. Pretreatment of Pennisetum sinese silages with ferulic acid esterase-producing lactic acid bacteria and cellulase at two dry matter contents: Fermentation characteristics, carbohydrates composition and enzymatic saccharification. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 295: 122261. |
25 | Wang G H, Yang L Y, Wang D, et al. Effects of compound probiotics-fermentation on quality of total mixed ration. China Feed, 2023, 721(5): 115-120. |
王光辉, 杨连玉, 王丹, 等. 复合益生菌发酵对全混合日粮品质的影响. 中国饲料, 2023, 721(5): 115-120. | |
26 | Fu W, Chen W, Zhou L, et al. Effects of mixing ratio of Lactobacillus plantarum and L. brevis on sorghum hybrid sudan grass silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(3): 758-763. |
付薇, 陈伟, 周丽, 等. 植物乳杆菌和短乳杆菌复合添加对高丹草青贮效果的影响. 草地学报, 2022, 30(3): 758-763. | |
27 | Catchpoole V R, Henzell E F. Silage and silage-making from tropical herbage species. Herbage Abstract, 1971, 41(3): 213-221. |
28 | Xu C C, Zhang X Y, Jiang D, et al. Effect of mixing whole oats with whole crop corn at different ratios on fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of TMR silage. Feed Industry, 2020, 41(4): 1-6. |
徐春城, 张鑫垚, 江迪, 等. 燕麦和全株玉米不同配比对TMR发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响. 饲料工业, 2020, 41(4): 1-6. | |
29 | Garde A, Jonsson G, Schmidt A S, et al. Lactic acid production from wheat straw hemicellulose hydrolysate by Lactobacillus pentosus and Lactobacillus brevis. Bioresource Technology, 2002, 81(3): 217-223. |
30 | Qiu X Y. The study of improving fermentation quality and aerobic stability of total mixed ration. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2014. |
邱小燕. 提高青稞秸秆替代燕麦的TMR发酵品质及有氧稳定性研究. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2014. | |
31 | Holzer M, Mayrhuber E, Danner H, et al. The role of Lactobacillus buchneri in forage preservation. Trends in Biotechnology, 2003, 21(6): 282-287. |
32 | Zhang H, Cheng X, Elsabagh M, et al. Effects of formic acid and corn flour supplementation of banana pseudostem silages on nutritional quality of silage, growth, digestion, rumen fermentation and cellulolytic bacterial community of Nubian black goats. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2021, 20(8): 2214-2226. |
33 | Wei J. Effect of different additives on quality and in vitro digestibility of oat grass silage. Feed Research, 2023, 46(5): 113-117. |
魏杰. 不同添加剂对燕麦草青贮品质和体外消化率的影响. 饲料研究, 2023, 46(5): 113-117. | |
34 | You Y J, Zhou H Z, Liu Y, et al. Comparison of nutritional value of oat hay, oat silage and Sichuan pasture for yaks. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8): 99-110. |
游茵洁, 周浩珍, 刘垚, 等. 燕麦干草、青贮燕麦与天然牧草饲喂牦牛的营养价值比较研究. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8): 99-110. | |
35 | King K J, Bergen W G, Sniffen C J, et al. An assessment of absorbable lysine requirements in lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 1991, 74(8): 2530-2539. |
36 | Liu S, Zheng J, Jiang X, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus on silage quality and rumen degradation rate of whole plant corn. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 55(7): 111-116. |
刘帅, 郑健, 姜鑫, 等. 鼠李糖乳杆菌对全株玉米青贮品质及瘤胃降解率的影响. 中国畜牧杂志, 2019, 55(7): 111-116. | |
37 | Wang T, Song L, Wang X Z, et al. Effect of compound Lactobacillus and mixture ratio on fermentation quality and rumen degradability of mixed tomato pomace and alfalfa silage mixed storage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(10): 167-177. |
王挺, 宋磊, 王旭哲, 等. 复合乳酸菌对番茄皮渣与苜蓿混合青贮发酵品质及瘤胃降解率的影响. 草业学报, 2022, 31(10): 167-177. | |
38 | Hong N T T, Wanapat M, Wachirapakorn C, et al. Effects of timing of initial cutting and subsequent cutting on yields and chemical compositions of cassava hay and its supplementation on lactating dairy cows. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2003, 16(12): 1763-1769. |
39 | Cui Z H, Hao L Z, Liu S J, et al. Evaluation of the fermentation characteristics of mixed oat green hay and native pastures in the Qinghai plateau using an in vitro gas production technique. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21(3): 250-257. |
崔占鸿, 郝力壮, 刘书杰,等. 体外产气法评价青海高原燕麦青干草与天然牧草组合效应. 草业学报, 2012, 21(3): 250-257. | |
40 | Jin L P. Comparation of nutritionnal value evaluation method in common roughage for ruminants. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2013. |
靳玲品. 反刍动物常用粗饲料营养价值评定方法的比较研究. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2013. | |
41 | Zheng Y H, Du W, Huang W M, et al. The rumen degradation characteristics of whole sugarcane for dairy cows and its application in substituting alfalfa, oat hay and concentrate in dairy cows’ diets. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2020, 51(11): 2743-2756. |
郑宇慧, 都文, 黄文明, 等. 全株甘蔗的奶牛瘤胃降解特性及其替代奶牛饲粮苜蓿、燕麦草及精料的应用研究. 畜牧兽医学报, 2020, 51(11): 2743-2756. | |
42 | Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, Devant M. Effects of pH and pH fluctuations on microbial fermentation and nutrient flow from a dual-flow continuous culture system. Journal of Dairy Science, 2002, 85(3): 574-579. |
43 | Zhou J J, Bai M G W, Wei W, et al. The effects of grass-legume mixing farming on forage nutritional quality and soil nutrient in alpine zone of Tibet. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2021, 39(2): 143-149. |
周娟娟, 白玛嘎翁, 魏巍, 等. 西藏高寒区禾-豆混播对牧草营养品质及土壤养分的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2021, 39(2): 143-149. | |
44 | Feng T X, De K J, Xiang X M, et al. Effects of different mixtures and proportions of Avena sativa and pea on forage yield and quality in alpine cold region. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(2): 487-494. |
冯廷旭, 德科加, 向雪梅, 等. 高寒地区燕麦与豌豆不同混播组合和比例对饲草产量及品质的影响. 草地学报, 2022, 30(2): 487-494. |
[1] | 李文龙, 李峰, 张仲鹃, 王殿清, 王欢, 靳慧卿, 特木热, 胡志玲, 陶雅. 鄂尔多斯高原北部一年两季燕麦种植模式生产性能评价[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(1): 159-168. |
[2] | 任春燕, 梁国玲, 刘文辉, 刘凯强, 段嘉蕾. 青藏高原高寒地区早熟燕麦资源筛选和适应性评价[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(9): 116-129. |
[3] | 石永红, 高鹏, 方志红, 赵祥, 韩伟, 魏江铭, 刘琳, 李锦臻. 15个进口饲用燕麦品种炭疽病的抗病性评价及损失分析[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(9): 130-142. |
[4] | 康燕霞, 姜渊博, 齐广平, 银敏华, 马彦麟, 汪精海, 贾琼, 唐仲霞, 汪爱霞. 红豆草与无芒雀麦混播草地生产力提升的水分调控模式研究[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(8): 115-128. |
[5] | 赵杰, 尹雪敬, 王思然, 董志浩, 李君风, 贾玉山, 邵涛. 贮藏时间对甜高粱青贮发酵品质、微生物群落组成和功能的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(8): 164-175. |
[6] | 凌文卿, 张磊, 李珏, 冯启贤, 李妍, 周燚, 刘一佳, 阳伏林, 周晶. 布氏乳杆菌和不同糖类联用对紫花苜蓿青贮营养成分、发酵品质、瘤胃降解率及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7): 122-134. |
[7] | 党浩千, 覃娟清, 郭宇康, 张富, 王迎港, 刘庆华. 不同添加剂发酵笋壳对湖羊生产性能及瘤胃发酵的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7): 135-148. |
[8] | 蒋丛泽, 受娜, 高玮, 马仁诗, 沈禹颖, 杨宪龙. 陇东旱塬区不同青贮玉米品种生产性能和营养品质综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7): 216-228. |
[9] | 张振粉, 黄荣, 李向阳, 姚博, 赵桂琴. 基于Illumina MiSeq高通量测序的燕麦种带细菌多样性及功能分析[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7): 96-108. |
[10] | 叶婷, 吴晓娟, 芦奕晓, 刘生娟, 姜卓慧, 杨惠敏. 混播比例对两种苜蓿混播草地产量和种群密度稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 127-137. |
[11] | 王梓凡, 张晓庆, 钟志明, 权欣. 燕麦草捆和草块对彭波半细毛羊采食行为及生产性能的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 171-179. |
[12] | 梁梦琪, 武齐丰, 邵涛, 吴艾丽, 刘秦华. 添加剂对多花黑麦草青贮发酵品质、α-生育酚和β-胡萝卜素含量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 180-189. |
[13] | 曹玉莹, 苏雪萌, 周正朝, 郑群威, 岳佳辉. 黄土高原典型草本植物根-土复合体抗剪性能的空间差异性及其影响因素研究[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 94-105. |
[14] | 严翊丹, 聂莹莹, 徐丽君, 高兴发, 饶彦章, 饶雄, 张洪志, 赵查书, 竺艳萍, 朱玉波. 西南山区冬闲田功能型燕麦品种潜力挖掘评价[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(4): 42-53. |
[15] | 朱丽丽, 张业猛, 李万才, 赵亚利, 李想, 陈志国. 39个我国不同生态区培育的青贮玉米品种在青海高原适应性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(4): 68-78. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||