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

doi:10.11686/cyxb2019070

Abstract

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

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.

References

[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.