草业学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (11): 181-190.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020421
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
胡鸿姣1,2(), 刘新平1(), 张铜会1, 何玉惠3, 王明明1,2, 张腊梅4, 孙姗姗1,2, 程莉1,2
收稿日期:
2020-09-21
修回日期:
2020-11-18
出版日期:
2021-10-19
发布日期:
2021-10-19
通讯作者:
刘新平
作者简介:
Corresponding author. E-mail: liuxinping@lzb.ac.cn基金资助:
Hong-jiao HU1,2(), Xin-ping LIU1(), Tong-hui ZHANG1, Yu-hui HE3, Ming-ming WANG1,2, La-mei ZHANG4, Shan-shan SUN1,2, Li CHENG1,2
Received:
2020-09-21
Revised:
2020-11-18
Online:
2021-10-19
Published:
2021-10-19
Contact:
Xin-ping LIU
摘要:
小叶锦鸡儿是内蒙古自治区重点开发利用的非竞争性饲料资源之一,目前其产业化利用仍处于瓶颈期,探寻其适宜饲用加工技术已成为当务之急。因此本研究以科尔沁沙地区花期(A1)、果期(A2)和生长季末期(A3)小叶锦鸡儿为原材料,添加糖蜜[不添加 (C0)、10 g·kg-1 (C1)]和菌剂[不添加(B0)、0.02 g·kg-1 (B1)、0.04 g·kg-1 (B2)、0.06 g·kg-1 (B3)],分期进行青贮加工,以青贮前各生育期样品作为对照(CK1、CK2、CK3)。通过评价不同青贮小叶锦鸡儿营养价值的高低筛选出其最佳青贮加工技术。研究结果表明:除磷(P)含量外,小叶锦鸡儿青贮前的各营养成分含量均随生育期推移而变化显著;各生育期小叶锦鸡儿青贮前的营养价值大小排序为:生长季末期>花期>果期。菌剂在果期和生长季末期对青贮小叶锦鸡儿的营养成分影响较大,而糖蜜在花期影响较大,两者几乎不存在交互作用;小叶锦鸡儿青贮后的各营养成分含量在不同生育期之间无明显变化规律。最佳青贮加工技术为A2+B1+C0(果期、添加菌剂0.02 g·kg-1,但不添加糖蜜),各项营养成分指标的权重大小顺序为粗蛋白(CP)>粗纤维(CF)>粗灰分(Ash)>酸性洗涤木质素(ADL)>磷(P)>无氮浸出物(NFE)>粗脂肪(EE)>钙(Ca);经A2+B1+C0处理后,小叶锦鸡儿CP、EE、NFE和Ash含量较3个对照均有提高,分别为15.70%、1.79%、28.16%和5.59%,CF和ADL含量均有下降,分别为40.65%和11.83%。本研究可为我国北方干旱和半干旱地区锦鸡儿属非常规粗饲料的饲用青贮加工提供技术支持,对促进区域固沙植物资源化利用和养殖业的精致发展具有重要意义。
胡鸿姣, 刘新平, 张铜会, 何玉惠, 王明明, 张腊梅, 孙姗姗, 程莉. 小叶锦鸡儿饲用营养价值及青贮加工[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(11): 181-190.
Hong-jiao HU, Xin-ping LIU, Tong-hui ZHANG, Yu-hui HE, Ming-ming WANG, La-mei ZHANG, Shan-shan SUN, Li CHENG. Feed nutritional value and silage processing properties of Caragana microphylla[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(11): 181-190.
图1 不同生育期小叶锦鸡儿青贮前的营养成分CF:粗纤维Crude fiber;NFE:无氮浸出物Nitrogen free extract;ADL:酸性洗涤木质素Acid detergent lignin;CP:粗蛋白Crude protein; Ash:粗灰分Crude ash;EE:粗脂肪Ether extract; Ca:钙Calcium; P:磷Phosphorus.不同小写字母表示同一营养成分在不同生育期差异显著(P<0.05)。Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference among different growth stages of the same nutrient at the P<0.05 level.
Fig. 1 Nutrient content of C. microphylla at different growth periods before silage
生育期 Growth period | 加权关联度 Weighting association | 排序 Order |
---|---|---|
花期 Florescence | 0.7543 | 2 |
果期Fruit stage | 0.6459 | 3 |
生长季末期End of growing season | 0.9092 | 1 |
表1 各生育期的加权关联度及其排序
Table 1 Weighting association and its order of each growth period
生育期 Growth period | 加权关联度 Weighting association | 排序 Order |
---|---|---|
花期 Florescence | 0.7543 | 2 |
果期Fruit stage | 0.6459 | 3 |
生长季末期End of growing season | 0.9092 | 1 |
生育期 Growth period | 变异来源 Variation source | 粗脂肪 Ether extract (EE) | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (CP) | 粗纤维 Crude fiber (CF) | 酸性洗涤木质素Acid detergent lignin (ADL) | 粗灰分 Crude ash (Ash) | 无氮浸出物 Nitrogen free extract (NFE) | 磷 Phosphorus (P) | 钙 Calcium (Ca) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
花期 Florescence | 菌剂Silage inoculants bacteria | 1.41 | 1.25 | 1.34 | 0.95 | 2.35 | 2.12 | 4.75* | 8.71** |
糖蜜Molasses | 4.56* | 0.29 | 19.31** | 1.62 | 12.40** | 20.04** | 16.49** | 0.01 | |
菌剂×糖蜜Silage inoculants bacteria×Molasses | 6.94** | 1.53 | 1.36 | 3.06 | 0.05 | 1.53 | 5.11* | 2.35 | |
果期 Fruit stage | 菌剂Silage inoculants bacteria | 3.39* | 1.10 | 3.68* | 0.58 | 1.51 | 3.73* | 1.15 | 0.97 |
糖蜜Molasses | 22.77** | 0.44 | 0.75 | 0.08 | 3.81 | 4.68* | 0.17 | 1.41 | |
菌剂×糖蜜Silage inoculants bacteria×Molasses | 1.10 | 0.17 | 0.73 | 3.23 | 0.21 | 0.75 | 1.92 | 0.49 | |
生长季末期 End of growing season | 菌剂Silage inoculants bacteria | 6.52 ** | 0.38 | 0.25 | 1.37 | 0.44 | 0.95 | 4.75* | 8.71** |
糖蜜Molasses | 3.74 | 4.76* | 3.58 | 0.27 | 0.01 | 2.79 | 16.49** | 0.01 | |
菌剂×糖蜜Silage inoculants bacteria×Molasses | 0.24 | 0.71 | 0.89 | 0.30 | 0.43 | 0.56 | 5.11* | 2.35 |
表2 菌剂和糖蜜的方差分析
Table 2 Variance analysis of silage inoculants bacteria and molasses (F value)
生育期 Growth period | 变异来源 Variation source | 粗脂肪 Ether extract (EE) | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (CP) | 粗纤维 Crude fiber (CF) | 酸性洗涤木质素Acid detergent lignin (ADL) | 粗灰分 Crude ash (Ash) | 无氮浸出物 Nitrogen free extract (NFE) | 磷 Phosphorus (P) | 钙 Calcium (Ca) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
花期 Florescence | 菌剂Silage inoculants bacteria | 1.41 | 1.25 | 1.34 | 0.95 | 2.35 | 2.12 | 4.75* | 8.71** |
糖蜜Molasses | 4.56* | 0.29 | 19.31** | 1.62 | 12.40** | 20.04** | 16.49** | 0.01 | |
菌剂×糖蜜Silage inoculants bacteria×Molasses | 6.94** | 1.53 | 1.36 | 3.06 | 0.05 | 1.53 | 5.11* | 2.35 | |
果期 Fruit stage | 菌剂Silage inoculants bacteria | 3.39* | 1.10 | 3.68* | 0.58 | 1.51 | 3.73* | 1.15 | 0.97 |
糖蜜Molasses | 22.77** | 0.44 | 0.75 | 0.08 | 3.81 | 4.68* | 0.17 | 1.41 | |
菌剂×糖蜜Silage inoculants bacteria×Molasses | 1.10 | 0.17 | 0.73 | 3.23 | 0.21 | 0.75 | 1.92 | 0.49 | |
生长季末期 End of growing season | 菌剂Silage inoculants bacteria | 6.52 ** | 0.38 | 0.25 | 1.37 | 0.44 | 0.95 | 4.75* | 8.71** |
糖蜜Molasses | 3.74 | 4.76* | 3.58 | 0.27 | 0.01 | 2.79 | 16.49** | 0.01 | |
菌剂×糖蜜Silage inoculants bacteria×Molasses | 0.24 | 0.71 | 0.89 | 0.30 | 0.43 | 0.56 | 5.11* | 2.35 |
处理Treatment | 加权关联度Weighting association | 排序Order | 处理Treatment | 加权关联度Weighting association | 排序Order |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A2+B1+C0 | 0.8155 | 1 | A2+B1+C1 | 0.7227 | 15 |
A3+B3+C1 | 0.7872 | 2 | CK3 | 0.7099 | 16 |
A3+B0+C1 | 0.7801 | 3 | A2+B0+C0 | 0.7059 | 17 |
A2+B2+C0 | 0.7783 | 4 | A1+B3+C1 | 0.6359 | 18 |
A3+B2+C1 | 0.7671 | 5 | A1+B2+C1 | 0.6108 | 19 |
A3+B2+C0 | 0.7655 | 6 | A1+B1+C1 | 0.6067 | 20 |
A3+B1+C0 | 0.7578 | 7 | A1+B2+C0 | 0.5947 | 21 |
A3+B0+C0 | 0.7520 | 8 | A1+B0+C1 | 0.5928 | 22 |
A3+B3+C0 | 0.7503 | 9 | CK1 | 0.5922 | 23 |
A2+B3+C0 | 0.7492 | 10 | A1+B0+C0 | 0.5826 | 24 |
A2+B2+C1 | 0.7423 | 11 | A1+B3+C0 | 0.5810 | 25 |
A3+B1+C1 | 0.7384 | 12 | A1+B1+C0 | 0.5744 | 26 |
A2+B0+C1 | 0.7360 | 13 | CK2 | 0.5501 | 27 |
A2+B3+C1 | 0.7277 | 14 |
表3 各参试处理的加权关联度及其排序
Table 3 Weighting association and its order of each treatment
处理Treatment | 加权关联度Weighting association | 排序Order | 处理Treatment | 加权关联度Weighting association | 排序Order |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A2+B1+C0 | 0.8155 | 1 | A2+B1+C1 | 0.7227 | 15 |
A3+B3+C1 | 0.7872 | 2 | CK3 | 0.7099 | 16 |
A3+B0+C1 | 0.7801 | 3 | A2+B0+C0 | 0.7059 | 17 |
A2+B2+C0 | 0.7783 | 4 | A1+B3+C1 | 0.6359 | 18 |
A3+B2+C1 | 0.7671 | 5 | A1+B2+C1 | 0.6108 | 19 |
A3+B2+C0 | 0.7655 | 6 | A1+B1+C1 | 0.6067 | 20 |
A3+B1+C0 | 0.7578 | 7 | A1+B2+C0 | 0.5947 | 21 |
A3+B0+C0 | 0.7520 | 8 | A1+B0+C1 | 0.5928 | 22 |
A3+B3+C0 | 0.7503 | 9 | CK1 | 0.5922 | 23 |
A2+B3+C0 | 0.7492 | 10 | A1+B0+C0 | 0.5826 | 24 |
A2+B2+C1 | 0.7423 | 11 | A1+B3+C0 | 0.5810 | 25 |
A3+B1+C1 | 0.7384 | 12 | A1+B1+C0 | 0.5744 | 26 |
A2+B0+C1 | 0.7360 | 13 | CK2 | 0.5501 | 27 |
A2+B3+C1 | 0.7277 | 14 |
图2 不同青贮处理后小叶锦鸡儿营养成分对照CK1、CK2、CK3分别为青贮前花期、果期和生长季末期样品;B0、B1、B2和B3分别为不添加菌剂和添加菌剂0.02 g·kg-1、0.04 g·kg-1和0.06 g·kg-1;C0和C1分别为不添加糖蜜和添加糖蜜10 g·kg-1;不同小写字母表示同一营养成分在不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。CK1, CK2 and CK3 were respectively florescence, fruit stage and end of growing season samples before silage; B0 was no added silage inoculants bacteria, B1, B2 and B3 were 0.02 g·kg-1, 0.04 g·kg-1, 0.06 g·kg-1 added silage inoculants bacteria, respectively; C0 and C1 were no added molasses and 10 g·kg-1 added molasses, respectively; Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatments of the same nutrient at the P<0.05 level.
Fig. 2 Nutrients contents of C. microphylla under different silage treatments
1 | Wang H X, Xu J L, Liu X J, et al. Study on the pollution status and control measures for the livestock and poultry breeding industry in northeastern China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2018, 25(5): 4435-4445. |
2 | Rad E B, Mesdaghi M, Ahmad N, et al. Nutritional quality and quantity of available forages relative to emand: A case study of the goitered gazelles of the golestan national ark, Iran. Rangelands, 2015, 37(2): 68-80. |
3 | Shang W, Li Y Q, Zhao X Y, et al. Effects of Caragana microphylla plantations on organic carbon sequestration in total and labile soil organic carbon fractions in Horqin Sandy Land, northern China. Journal of Arid Land, 2017, 9(5): 688-700. |
4 | Wang F, Zuo Z, Zhang H, et al. Study on Caragana microphylla feed process and its related problem. Pratacultural Science, 2005(3): 30-35. |
王峰, 左忠, 张浩, 等. 柠条饲料加工相关问题的探讨. 草业科学, 2005(3): 30-35. | |
5 | Su Y Z, Zhao H L, Zhang T H, et al. Characteristics of plant community and soil properties in the plantation chronosequence of Caragana microphylla in Horqin Sandy Land. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 2004, 28(1): 93-100. |
苏永中, 赵哈林, 张铜会, 等. 科尔沁沙地不同年代小叶锦鸡儿人工林植物群落特征及其土壤特性. 植物生态学报, 2004, 28(1): 93-100. | |
6 | Yang Y S, Bu C F, Gao G X. Effect of pruning measure on physiology character and soil waters of Caragana korshinskii. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2012, 32(4): 1327-1336. |
杨永胜, 卜崇峰, 高国雄.平茬措施对柠条生理特征及土壤水分的影响. 生态学报, 2012, 32(4): 1327-1336. | |
7 | Weinberg Z G, Muck R E. New trends and opportunities in the development and use of inoculants for silage. Fems Microbiology Reviews, 1996, 19(1): 53-68. |
8 | Randby A T, Nadeau E, Karlsson L, et al. Effect of maturity stage at harvest and kernel processing of whole crop wheat silage on digestibility by dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2019(4): 141-152. |
9 | Agarussi M C N, Silva V P, Paula E M, et al. Effects of ensiling of whole-plant corn on silage processing score and fermentation and long-chain fatty acid profiles. Applied Animal Science, 2020, 36(2): 167-171. |
10 | Ren Y X, Dai H L, Tian X H, et al. Effects of additives and cutting dates on nutritional and silage fermentation quality of Triticale silage in alpine pastoral areas of Gansu Province. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020(3): 197-206. |
任昱鑫, 代寒凌, 田新会, 等. 添加剂对甘肃省高寒牧区不同刈割期小黑麦青贮饲料营养价值和青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2020(3): 197-206. | |
11 | Yang F Y, Zhou H, Han J G, et al. Effect of sugar addition on sweet clover silage quality. Pratacultural Science, 2004(3): 35-38. |
杨富裕, 周禾, 韩建国, 等. 添加糖蜜对草木樨青贮品质的影响. 草业科学, 2004(3): 35-38. | |
12 | Gao W J, Xu Q F, Yu Z, et al. The effect of different additives on Caragana korshinskii silage. Pratacultural Science, 2011, 28(2): 323-326. |
高文俊, 许庆方, 玉柱, 等. 添加剂对柠条青贮影响的研究. 草业科学, 2011, 28(2): 323-326. | |
13 | Zhang T, Li L, Zhang Y Z, et al. The application effect of adding silage inoculants bacteria in Medicago sativa silages. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2007, 16(1): 100-104. |
张涛, 李蕾, 张燕忠, 等. 青贮菌剂在苜蓿裹包青贮中的应用效果. 草业学报, 2007, 16(1): 100-104. | |
14 | Wang B P, Dong X Y, Dong K H. Effects of different additives on the quality of Caragana korshinskii silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2014, 22(5): 1096-1102. |
王保平, 董晓燕, 董宽虎. 不同添加剂对柠条嫩枝叶青贮品质的影响. 草地学报, 2014, 22(5): 1096-1102. | |
15 | Thoetkiattikul H, Mhuantong W, Laothanachareon T, et al. Comparative analysis of microbial profiles in cow rumen fed with different dietary fiber by tagged 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing. Current Microbiology, 2013, 67(2): 130-137. |
16 | Liu G Q, Zhang J B, Liu D Q. The technology of Caragana korshinskii powder processing and feeding. Pratacultural Science, 2003(7): 26-32. |
刘国谦, 张俊宝, 刘东庆. 柠条的开发利用及草粉加工饲喂技术. 草业科学, 2003(7): 26-32. | |
17 | Chelmeg, Liu X P, He Y H, et al. Response of herbaceous community characteristics to short-term precipitation change in semi-arid sandy land. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(4): 19-28. |
车力木格, 刘新平, 何玉惠, 等. 半干旱沙地草本植物群落特征对短期降水变化的响应. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 19-28. | |
18 | Liu X P, He Y H, Wei S L, et al. Growth response of Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica to precipitation and air temperature in the Horqin Sandy Land. Journal of Desert Research, 2016(1): 57-63. |
刘新平, 何玉惠, 魏水莲, 等. 科尔沁沙地樟子松(Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica)生长对降水和温度的响应. 中国沙漠, 2016(1): 57-63. | |
19 | Ning Z Y, Li Y L, Yang H L, et al. Stoichiometry and effects of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in soil of desertified grasslands on community productivity and species diversity. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(10): 3537-3546. |
宁志英, 李玉霖, 杨红玲, 等. 沙化草地土壤碳氮磷化学计量特征及其对植被生产力和多样性的影响. 生态学报, 2019,39(10): 3537-3546. | |
20 | Ni K K, Wang F F, Zhu B G, et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses additives on the microbial community and fermentation quality of soybean silage. Bioresource Technology, 2017, 238: 706-715. |
21 | Dai H L, Tian X H, Du W H, et al. Effects of silage additives on nutritional quality and silage quality of tritical rye and rye. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(12): 211-219. |
代寒凌, 田新会, 杜文华, 等. 不同添加剂处理对小黑麦和黑麦青贮营养价值和发酵品质的影响. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 211-219. | |
22 | Mugabe P H, Nyashanu R, Ncube S, et al. Storage quality and marketability potential of bagged silage for smallholder dairy farmers in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 2016, 33(3): 173-180. |
23 | Yuan C L, Yu Z Y, Wang W D, et al. Evaluation of the nutritional value of goat forages in Shandong Province. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015(6): 220-226. |
袁翠林, 于子洋, 王文丹, 等. 山东省羊常用粗饲料营养价值评定. 草业学报, 2015(6): 220-226. | |
24 | Wang X T, Wang S Z. Effects of different pre-treatments on the determination of calcium and phosphorus contents in feed. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2015(9): 259-261. |
王晓彤, 王思珍. 不同前处理对饲料中钙、磷含量测定的影响. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2015(9): 259-261. | |
25 | Zhang G Y, Ma H P, Shao X M, et al. A comparative study of yield and nutritive value of nine imported oat varieties in the valley region of Tibet, China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(5): 121-131. |
张光雨, 马和平, 邵小明, 等. 西藏河谷区9个引进燕麦品种的生产性能和营养品质比较研究. 草业学报, 2019, 28(5): 121-131. | |
26 | Yang X F, Chen L L, Wu Y H, et al. A comprehensive evaluation of the growth performance of 26 silage maize genotypes using grey correlative degree analysis. Pratacultural Science, 2012, 29(1): 105-111. |
杨秀芳, 陈玲玲, 乌艳红, 等. 应用灰色关联度综合评价26个青贮玉米的生产性能. 草业科学, 2012, 29(1): 105-111. | |
27 | An S Q, Fang T Z, Zhao H Q, et al. Seasonal variation of nutrients in five species of shrubs. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 1996(3): 69-74. |
安守芹, 方天纵, 赵怀青, 等. 五种固沙饲用灌木营养成分生长期的动态. 干旱区资源与环境, 1996(3): 69-74. | |
28 | Xu D M, Cui W X, Guo S J. Caragana among shrub of sandy land. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2004(4): 51-52. |
许冬梅, 崔慰贤, 郭思加. 沙地优良饲料灌木中间锦鸡儿. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2004(4): 51-52. | |
29 | Liu G D, Chen Y H, He X X, et al. Seasonal changes of mineral nutrients in the fruit of navel orange plants grafted on trifoliate orange and citrange. Scientia Horticulturae, 2020, 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.109156. |
30 | Yu F, Wang M J, Gao L, et al. A study on seasonal dynamics of qualititive characters of five plant species in Kubqi sandy land. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2010, 19(4): 230-235. |
于凤, 王明玖, 高丽, 等. 库布齐沙地五种植物主要品质性状季节性变化研究. 草业学报, 2010, 19(4): 230-235. | |
31 | Zhu S G, Liu J H, Cheng J H, et al. Accumulation and distribution of sliage maize crude ash and nitrogen free extract in different harvest stages. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2008(2): 110-114. |
朱树国, 刘景辉, 成建宏, 等. 不同收获期青贮玉米品种粗灰分和无氮浸出物的积累与分配. 玉米科学, 2008(2): 110-114. | |
32 | Ren Y Y, Wang Z G, Zhang W J. Research on feeding value of pea tree as silage. Feed Industry Magzine, 2014, 35(17): 24-26. |
任余艳, 王志刚, 张文娟. 柠条作为青贮饲料的饲用价值研究. 饲料工业, 2014, 35(17): 24-26. | |
33 | Ozyurt C E, Boga E K, Ozkutuk A S, et al. Bioconversion of discard fish (Equulites klunzingeri and Carassius gibelio) fermented with natural lactic acid bacteria: The chemical and microbiological quality of ensilage. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 2020, 11(4): 1-8. |
34 | Wang S, Zhao J, Dong Z H, et al. Sequencing and microbiota transplantation to determine the role of microbiota on the fermentation type of oat silage. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 309: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123371. |
35 | Fu J T, Wang X K, Ni K K, et al. The effects of adding lactic acid bacteria and molasses fermentation of Broussonetia papyrifera and rice straw mixed silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(4): 121-128. |
付锦涛, 王学凯, 倪奎奎, 等. 添加乳酸菌和糖蜜对全株构树和稻草混合青贮的影响. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 121-128. | |
36 | Wan L Q, Li X L, Zhang X P, et al. The effect of different water contents and additive mixtures on Medicago sativa silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2007(2): 40-45. |
万里强, 李向林, 张新平, 等. 苜蓿含水量与添加剂组分浓度对青贮效果的影响研究. 草业学报, 2007(2): 40-45. | |
37 | Yu H R, Ge G T, Wang Z J, et al. Effect of formic acid additives and ensiling time on the quality of alfalfa silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(3): 89-95. |
于浩然, 格根图, 王志军, 等. 甲酸添加剂及青贮时间对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 89-95. | |
38 | Li F F, Zhang F F, Wang X Z, et al. Effects of cutting stubble and growth period on the quality of alfalfa silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(12): 137-148. |
李菲菲, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 等. 刈割茬次和生育期对苜蓿青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 137-148. | |
39 | Wang Y K, Yan Y X, An S Q. Nutrition of the forage-used psammophyte shrubs in Wlan Buh Desert. Journal of Desert Research, 1999(3): 83-87. |
王玉魁, 闫艳霞, 安守芹. 乌兰布和沙漠沙生灌木饲用营养成分的研究. 中国沙漠, 1999(3): 83-87. | |
40 | Wang L. Study on regeneration characteristics of two species of Caragana and its application. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2017. |
王亮. 锦鸡儿属两种植物再生特性的研究及应用. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2017. |
[1] | 吴长荣, 代胜, 梁龙飞, 孙文涛, 彭超, 陈超, 郝俊. 不同添加剂对构树青贮饲料发酵品质和蛋白质降解的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(10): 169-179. |
[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] | 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. |
[5] | 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. |
[6] | 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. |
[7] | 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. |
[8] | 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. |
[9] | 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. |
[10] | 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. |
[11] | 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. |
[12] | 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. |
[13] | 付青云, 刘小燕, 刘廷玺, 段利民, 王冠丽, 曹文梅, 黄天宇. 不同树龄小叶锦鸡儿干旱降水过渡时期用水策略研究[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(8): 67-77. |
[14] | 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. |
[15] | 于铁峰, 刘晓静, 郝凤. 施用磷肥对紫花苜蓿营养价值和氮磷利用效率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(3): 154-163. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||