饲草玉米不同生育期的产量、品质和青贮利用研究

doi:10.11686/cyxb2019070

草业学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (7): 82-91.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2019070

饲草玉米不同生育期的产量、品质和青贮利用研究

李影正¹, 严旭^{1, 2}, 吴子周¹, 杨春燕^{1, 3}, 李晓锋¹, 何如钰¹, 张萍¹, EBENEZERKofiSam¹, 周阳¹, 张磊¹, 荣廷昭¹, 何建美¹, 唐祈林^{1, *}

1.四川农业大学玉米研究所,四川温江 611130;
2.四川省农业科学院牧业研究中心,四川南充 637000;
3.贵州省草业研究所,贵州贵阳 550006

收稿日期:2019-01-23 修回日期:2019-04-01 出版日期:2019-07-20 发布日期:2019-07-20
通讯作者: tangqilin71@163.com
作者简介:李影正(1995-),男,甘肃定西人,在读硕士。E-mail: yzli95@163.com
基金资助:
973国家重点基础研究计划课题(2014CB138705),四川省重大科技专项(2018NZDZX0001),国家自然科学基金项目(31371640)和四川省“十三五”饲草育种攻关(2016NZ0098-1103)资助

Forage maize type and growth stage effects on biomass yield and silage quality

LI Ying-zheng¹, YAN Xu^{1, 2}, WU Zi-zhou¹, YANG Chun-yan^{1, 3}, LI Xiao-feng¹, HE Ru-yu¹, ZHANG Ping¹, EBENEZER Kofi Sam¹, ZHOU Yang¹, ZHANG Lei¹, RONG Ting-zhao¹, HE Jian-mei¹, TANG Qi-lin^{1, *}

1.Maize Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Wenjiang 611130, China;
2.Animal Husbandry Research Center, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanchong 637000, China;
3.Guizhou Prataculture Institute, Guiyang 550006, China

Received:2019-01-23 Revised:2019-04-01 Online:2019-07-20 Published:2019-07-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 对墨西哥大刍草、玉草3号和玉草6号3种不同类型饲草玉米在孕穗期、抽雄期和吐丝期的产量、青贮品质及其营养价值进行了分析。结果表明:品种和生育期对鲜、干草产量有显著影响,而二者之间的交互作用对鲜、干草产量影响不显著;3个品种鲜、干草产量均在吐丝期最高,其中,玉草6号鲜、干草产量极显著高于玉草3号和墨西哥大刍草。从抽雄期及以后,所有饲草玉米干物质(DM)含量均达20%以上,符合青贮对水分的要求。粗蛋白(CP)含量从孕穗期到吐丝期逐渐降低,变幅为8.19%DM~12.80%DM;各时期CP含量均以玉草6号最高,玉草3号和墨西哥大刍草CP含量差异较小。可溶性糖(WSC)含量在孕穗期最高,纤维含量随生育期延长均呈上升趋势。青贮发酵品质在不同生育期差异显著,孕穗期pH值为3.69,乳酸(LA)含量为7.00%DM,发酵品质最优。品种主效应分析表明,玉草6号发酵品质最好,玉草3号和墨西哥大刍草差异不显著。综合分析品种和生育期对青贮发酵品质和营养成分的影响,玉草6号在孕穗期青贮,相对饲用价值达103.28,发酵品质和营养价值最好;玉草3号和墨西哥大刍草在抽雄期青贮发酵品质和营养价值最佳。

关键词: 饲草玉米, 生育期, 青贮品质, 营养价值

Abstract: In this study, biomass yield and silage quality of three different varieties of forage maize (Zea mexicana, Yucao No.3 and Yucao No.6) were measured at the booting, tasseling and silking stage. Yields differed significantly, both between varieties and growth stages, but no variety by growth stage interaction was observed for yield. The fresh and dry matter (DM) yields of the three varieties were highest at the silking stage of crop development. Among the varieties, Yucao No.6 had significantly higher fresh and DM yield than Yucao No.3 and Z. mexicana. From the tasseling stage onward, the DM content of the varieties tested was greater than 20%, which meets the moisture requirement for silage making. The crude protein (CP) content ranged between 8.19% DM-12.80% DM and decreased gradually from the booting stage to the silking stage. Yucao No.6 had the highest CP content at every growth stage tested, while the CP difference between Yucao No.3 and Z. mexicana was not significant. Water soluble carbohydrate content was highest at the booting stage, and the content of acid detergent fiber and neutral detergent fiber increased progressively at successive crop development stages. The fermentation quality of silage differed significantly between maize varieties and growth stages, with a significant interaction between variety and growth stage. Silages from all the tested forage maize varieties, made in laboratory silos, had the lowest pH value (3.69) and the highest lactic acid content (7.00% DM) when harvested at the booting stage. Silage made at the booting stage performed better in fermentation analysis than silage made at tasseling or booting. Hence, the booting stage is recommended as the best stage for harvesting forage maize for silage production, where quality is required. With regard to variety differences in fermentation analysis, Yucao No.6 performed better than Yucao No.3 and Z. mexicana in almost all parameters studied. Based on the interaction between variety and growth stage for silage fermentation and nutrient composition, Yucao No.6 at booting stage was identified as best for silage due to its high forage fermentation quality and nutritional value compared to the two other varieties and their respective growth stages. However, Yucao No.3 and Z. mexicana were better for production of silage with good fermentation characterisitics, when harvested at the tasseling stage.

Key words: forage maize, growth stage, silage quality, nutritional value

李影正, 严旭, 吴子周, 杨春燕, 李晓锋, 何如钰, 张萍, EBENEZERKofiSam, 周阳, 张磊, 荣廷昭, 何建美, 唐祈林. 饲草玉米不同生育期的产量、品质和青贮利用研究[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(7): 82-91.

LI Ying-zheng, YAN Xu, WU Zi-zhou, YANG Chun-yan, LI Xiao-feng, HE Ru-yu, ZHANG Ping, EBENEZER Kofi Sam, ZHOU Yang, ZHANG Lei, RONG Ting-zhao, HE Jian-mei, TANG Qi-lin. Forage maize type and growth stage effects on biomass yield and silage quality[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(7): 82-91.

参考文献

[1] Tang Q L, Su Y G, Rong T Z.Maize and the taxonomy of its wild relative materials. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2009, 17(1): 1-5.
唐祈林, 苏月贵, 荣廷昭. 玉米及其野生近缘材料的分类. 玉米科学, 2009, 17(1): 1-5.
[2] Tang Y, Zeng L P, Yang W, et al. Characteristics and high-yield cultivation techniques of forage maize Yucao No.3. Rural Science & Technology, 2016, (10): 61-62.
唐勇, 曾丽萍, 杨伟, 等. 饲草玉米玉草3号特征特性及高产栽培技术. 农村科技, 2016, (10): 61-62.
[3] Wen J G, Tang P, Yang Y D, et al. Introduction and screening of forage maize in Panzhihua dry river valley. Journal of Grassland and Forage Science, 2015, (3): 21-23, 41.
文建国, 唐平, 杨应东, 等. 攀枝花干热河谷地区饲草玉米引种筛选. 草业与畜牧, 2015, (3): 21-23, 41.
[4] Zhou Z B, Luo Y H, Ou Z G.Perennial forage maize variety introduction and cultivation test of SAUMZ1. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2011, 24(6): 2439-2442.
周正邦, 罗亚红, 欧珍贵. 多年生饲草玉米品种SAUMZ1号引种栽培试验. 西南农业学报, 2011, 24(6): 2439-2442.
[5] Gao H K, Cao X Q, Liu L, et al. Comparative experiment on introduction of forage maize varieties. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2008, (6): 214-215.
高和坤, 曹秀芹, 柳丽, 等. 饲草玉米品种的引进比较试验. 江苏农业科学, 2008, (6): 214-215.
[6] Rong T Z, Tang Q L.Breeding and utilization of SAUMZ1, a new forage maize variety with good quality and higher yield. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 2007, (1): 7-9.
荣廷昭, 唐祈林. 优质高产新型饲草玉米SAUMZ 1号的选育与利用. 贵州农业科学, 2007, (1): 7-9.
[7] Ren Y, Tang Q L, Cao M J, et al. Studies on forage nutritive value of forage maize. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2005, 6(4): 444-447, 452.
任勇, 唐祈林, 曹墨菊, 等. 新选育饲草玉米品系饲用营养价值初步研究. 植物遗传资源学报, 2005, 6(4): 444-447, 452.
[8] Li H X, Jiang W M, Wu Z Z, et al. Growth dynamics and optimum harvest period of the forage grass Yucao No.5. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(6): 34-42.
李华雄, 蒋维明, 吴子周, 等. 新型多年生饲草玉草5号的生长动态及刈割期的研究. 草业学报, 2018, 27(6): 34-42.
[9] Zhang W J, Dong C F, Ding C L, et al. Effects of harvest stage on nutrients and silage quality of different cultivars of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2016, 38(5): 32-37.
张文洁, 董臣飞, 丁成龙, 等. 收获期对多花黑麦草营养成分和青贮品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2016, 38(5): 32-37.
[10] Qin F C, Zhao G Q, Jiao T, et al. Effects of different moisture contents and additives on the quality of baled oat silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(6): 119-125.
覃方锉, 赵桂琴, 焦婷, 等. 含水量及添加剂对燕麦捆裹青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2014, 23(6): 119-125.
[11] Broderick G A, Kang J H.Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science, 1980, 63(1): 64-75.
[12] Xu Q F, Yu Z, Han J G, et al. Determining organic acid in alfalfa silage by HPLC. Grassland & Turf, 2007, (2): 63-65, 67.
许庆方, 玉柱, 韩建国, 等. 高效液相色谱法测定紫花苜蓿青贮中的有机酸. 草原与草坪, 2007, (2): 63-65, 67.
[13] Yang S.Feed analysis and forage quality detection technology. Beijing: Beijing Agricultural University Press, 1996: 16-35.
杨胜. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 北京: 北京农业大学出版社, 1996: 16-35.
[14] Xie Z L, Zhang T F, Chen X Z, et al. A study on the nutrient value of oat and its influences on soil fertility of winter fallow fields. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(2): 47-53.
谢昭良, 张腾飞, 陈鑫珠, 等. 冬闲田种植2种燕麦的营养价值及土壤肥力研究. 草业学报, 2013, 22(2): 47-53.
[15] Rohweder D A, Barnes R F, Neal J.Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, 1978, 47(3): 747-759.
[16] Liu L, Chen X, Li Z, et al. Effects of moisture content and additives on the quality of Agropyron elongatum silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(6): 203-207.
刘玲, 陈新, 李振, 等. 含水量及添加剂对高冰草青贮饲料品质的影响. 草业学报, 2011, 20(6): 203-207.
[17] Liu J N, Shi Y H, Wang Y Q, et al. Growth dynamics and optimum harvest period of sorghum hybrid sudangrass. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(1): 31-37.
刘建宁, 石永红, 王运琦, 等. 高丹草生长动态及收割期的研究. 草业学报, 2011, 20(1): 31-37.
[18] Li M L, Gao Z W.Fresh grass yield and nutritive value of Descurainia sophia in different growth stages. Acta Pratacultural Science, 2004, 13(5): 66-69.
李孟良, 高志炜. 播娘蒿不同生育期鲜草产量与营养价值. 草业学报, 2004, 13(5): 66-69.
[19] Ren Y, Chen R Y, Tang Q L, et al. Growth dynamics and optimum harvest period of a novel forage maize. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2007, 33(8): 1360-1365.
任勇, 陈柔屹, 唐祈林, 等. 新型饲草玉米生长动态及收割期的研究. 作物学报, 2007, 33(8): 1360-1365.
[20] Zhu L F, Jiang H D, Gao Y, et al. The effects of different preceding crops on yield and forage quality of Pennisetum hybrid. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2006, 15(1): 76-83.
朱练峰, 江海东, 高雅, 等. 不同前作对杂交狼尾草产量和品质的影响. 草业学报, 2006, 15(1): 76-83.
[21] Zhang X Y, Dong S T, Wang K J, et al. Comparison of nutritive composition in different types of forage crops. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2005, 31(10): 1344-1348.
张晓艳, 董树亭, 王空军, 等. 不同类型饲用作物营养成分的比较研究. 作物学报, 2005, 31(10): 1344-1348.
[22] Zhao Y M, Zhong H, Cui Z W, et al. Nutritional properties of different varieties and harvest periods of alfalfa. Prataculture & Animal Husbandry, 2015, (1): 17-22.
赵燕梅, 钟华, 崔志文, 等. 不同品种、刈割时期苜蓿的营养特性. 草业与畜牧, 2015, (1): 17-22.
[23] Zhang B C, Zhou Y H.Plant cell wall formation and regulation. Scientia Sinica, 2015, 45(6): 544-556.
张保才, 周奕华. 植物细胞壁形成机制的新进展. 中国科学: 生命科学, 2015, 45(6): 544-556.
[24] Zhao Y S.The research on the relationship between the changes of maize stem structural compounds and lodging resistance strength. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2015.
赵英善. 玉米茎秆结构性化合物变化与抗倒伏强度关系的研究. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2015.
[25] Dong K H, Shen Y X.Forage production. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2003: 115, 243.
董宽虎, 沈益新. 饲草生产学. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003: 115, 243.
[26] Jia T T, Wang M C, Wu Z, et al. The effects of three factors on silage quality and its interaction of whole-crop corn. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2018, 54(1): 79-84.
贾婷婷, 王木川, 吴哲, 等. 3个因素对全株玉米青贮品质的影响及互作效应分析. 中国畜牧杂志, 2018, 54(1): 79-84.
[27] Rong H.Studies on fermentation quality of Napiergrass silages harvested at different days of age. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2009.
荣辉. 不同刈割时期象草青贮发酵品质的研究. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2009.
[28] Haigh P M, Parker J W.Effect of silage additives and wilting on silage fermentation, digestibility and intake, and on liveweight change of young cattle. Grass and Forage Science, 1985, 40(4): 429-436.
[29] Yuan X, Yu C, Shimojo M, et al. Improvement of fermentation and nutritive quality of straw-grass silage by inclusion of wet hulless-barley distillers' grains in Tibet. Asian-australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2012, 25(4): 479-485.

饲草玉米不同生育期的产量、品质和青贮利用研究

Forage maize type and growth stage effects on biomass yield and silage quality

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	严旭, 吴子周, 李影正, 李晓锋, 何如钰, 杨春燕, 李杨, 周阳, 石建忠, EBENEZER Kofi Sam, 何建美, 荣廷昭, 唐祈林. 借助抽雄期长茎段育苗释放多年生饲草玉米茎节扩繁潜力[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 204-213.
[2]	周恩光, 王虎成, 尚占环. 甜高粱的饲用价值及其绵羊体外瘤胃发酵产气性能研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 43-49.
[3]	伏兵哲, 周燕飞, 李雪, 倪彪, 高雪芹. 宁夏引黄灌区羊草水肥耦合效应研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 98-108.
[4]	于浩然, 格根图, 王志军, 贾玉山, 连植, 贾鹏飞. 甲酸添加剂及青贮时间对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 89-95.
[5]	万学瑞, 豆思远, 李玉, 何轶群, 王川, 张小丽, 雷赵民. 复合乳酸菌对全株玉米青贮及有氧暴露后微生物及饲料品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(11): 83-90.
[6]	姜妍, 薛恩玉, 鹿文成, 崔国文, 李远明, 韩天富, 王绍东. Kunitz型胰蛋白酶抑制剂缺失大豆新品系培育及其饲草价值分析[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(10): 91-98.
[7]	方彦杰, 张绪成, 于显枫, 侯慧芝, 王红丽, 马一凡, 张国平, 雷康宁. 立式深旋松耕对半干旱区饲草玉米水分利用和产量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(10): 161-171.
[8]	毛翠, 刘方圆, 宋恩亮, 王亚芳, 王永军, 战翔, 李原, 成海建, 姜富贵. 不同乳酸菌添加量和发酵时间对全株玉米青贮营养价值及发酵品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(10): 172-181.
[9]	王晓龙, 李红, 米福贵, 于洁, 王雪婷, 孟凯, 贾振宇, 王佺珍. 不同秋眠级苜蓿生产性能及越冬率评价[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 82-92.
[10]	刘月, 王国艮, 吴浩, 孟庆翔, 宋恩亮, 成海建, 周振明. 全株青贮玉米品种对其发酵品质及营养价值的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 148-156.
[11]	田春丽, 李斌, 刘芳, 赵颖, 刘世亮, 介晓磊, 胡华锋. 硒、锌元素配施对紫花苜蓿产量、植株体内硒锌积累和氨基酸含量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(3): 142-153.
[12]	赵巧芩, 徐永清, 周晶, 冯珊珊, 蔡振学, 冯哲, 冯旭, 彭丽娜, 董佳敏, 姚树宽, 李凤兰, 胡宝忠. 黑龙江4个地区鲁梅克斯新品种不同生长年限营养价值分析[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(3): 175-183.
[13]	李菲菲, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 唐开婷, 马春晖. 刈割茬次和生育期对苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 137-148.
[14]	朱娟娟, 喻春明, 陈继康, 王延周, 陈平, 熊和平. 外源硒对饲用苎麻草产量和营养价值的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(10): 144-155.
[15]	李华雄, 蒋维明, 吴子周, 李影正, 程明军, 杨世鹏, 孙汝龙, 严旭, 张红芬, 杨敏, 荣廷昭, 周树峰, 吴元奇, 曹墨菊, 唐祈林. 新型多年生饲草玉草5号的生长动态及刈割期的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(6): 34-42.