Acta Prataculturae Sinica ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (8): 144-156.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2021479
Ying-zheng LI1(), Yu-lin CHENG1, Lu-lu XU1, Wan-song LI1, Xu YAN2, Xiao-feng LI1, Ru-yu HE1, Yang ZHOU1, Jun-jun ZHENG1, Xing-yu WANG1, De-long ZHANG1, Ming-jun CHENG3, Yun-hong XIA4, Jian-mei HE1, Qi-lin TANG1()
Received:
2021-12-23
Revised:
2022-03-03
Online:
2022-08-20
Published:
2022-07-01
Contact:
Qi-lin TANG
Ying-zheng LI, Yu-lin CHENG, Lu-lu XU, Wan-song LI, Xu YAN, Xiao-feng LI, Ru-yu HE, Yang ZHOU, Jun-jun ZHENG, Xing-yu WANG, De-long ZHANG, Ming-jun CHENG, Yun-hong XIA, Jian-mei HE, Qi-lin TANG. A comparative study of silage quality characteristics of whole-plant, whole-ear and whole-straw silage of different maize varieties (lines)[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8): 144-156.
项目Item | 雅玉青贮8号Yayu No.8 | MTP-044 | MTP-080 | MTP-082 |
---|---|---|---|---|
生育期Growing days (d) | 120 | 121 | 123 | 120 |
株高Plant height (cm) | 276.40±2.21b | 303.80±3.37a | 302.50±2.91a | 282.30±2.15b |
穗位高Ear height (cm) | 120.80±3.55a | 121.10±2.86a | 123.90±2.69a | 115.10±2.06a |
叶长Leaf length (cm) | 97.60±1.01a | 88.30±2.44b | 94.90±1.23a | 93.30±1.11a |
叶宽Leaf width (mm) | 11.77±0.25a | 9.93±0.21c | 10.25±0.16c | 10.98±0.22b |
叶片数Number of leaves | 18.60±0.22c | 19.50±0.22b | 20.60±0.27a | 20.40±0.22a |
绿叶数Green leaf number | 10.80±0.33c | 11.20±0.39c | 15.70±0.15a | 14.10±0.10b |
绿叶比Green leaf proportion (%) | 58.10±1.76c | 57.32±1.46c | 76.31±1.14a | 69.20±0.95b |
茎粗Stem diameter (mm) | 25.92±0.84a | 25.50±0.84a | 25.37±1.32a | 28.73±0.82a |
穗行数Number of kernel rows (line) | 15.60±0.58b | 17.80±0.47a | 17.40±0.31a | 17.40±0.31a |
行粒数Kernel numbers per row (pcs) | 39.10±1.66a | 39.60±1.15a | 38.40±1.18a | 41.80±1.36a |
穗粗Ear diameter (mm) | 53.08±0.79b | 56.80±0.68a | 56.88±0.52a | 55.74±0.80a |
全株鲜产量Fresh yield of whole plant (t·hm-2) | 51.21±0.43c | 53.78±0.89b | 59.85±0.81a | 62.00±0.78a |
全株干产量Dry yield of whole plant (t·hm-2) | 18.71±0.16b | 19.12±0.32b | 17.78±0.24c | 20.32±0.26a |
果穗鲜产量Fresh yield of ear (t·hm-2) | 16.14±0.22c | 18.40±0.18b | 18.50±0.36b | 20.72±0.31a |
果穗干产量Dry yield of ear (t·hm-2) | 8.95±0.06c | 9.88±0.27b | 9.60±0.07b | 10.58±0.10a |
果穗收获指数Ear harvest index (%) | 47.85±0.61b | 51.75±2.15ab | 54.74±0.45a | 52.08±1.15ab |
籽粒产量Grain yield (t·hm-2) | 7.65±0.06b | 7.85±0.23b | 7.73±0.22b | 8.48±0.11a |
籽粒收获指数Grain harvest index (%) | 40.87±0.49b | 41.04±0.19b | 43.48±0.43a | 41.74±0.28b |
Table 1 Agronomic and yield traits in different varieties
项目Item | 雅玉青贮8号Yayu No.8 | MTP-044 | MTP-080 | MTP-082 |
---|---|---|---|---|
生育期Growing days (d) | 120 | 121 | 123 | 120 |
株高Plant height (cm) | 276.40±2.21b | 303.80±3.37a | 302.50±2.91a | 282.30±2.15b |
穗位高Ear height (cm) | 120.80±3.55a | 121.10±2.86a | 123.90±2.69a | 115.10±2.06a |
叶长Leaf length (cm) | 97.60±1.01a | 88.30±2.44b | 94.90±1.23a | 93.30±1.11a |
叶宽Leaf width (mm) | 11.77±0.25a | 9.93±0.21c | 10.25±0.16c | 10.98±0.22b |
叶片数Number of leaves | 18.60±0.22c | 19.50±0.22b | 20.60±0.27a | 20.40±0.22a |
绿叶数Green leaf number | 10.80±0.33c | 11.20±0.39c | 15.70±0.15a | 14.10±0.10b |
绿叶比Green leaf proportion (%) | 58.10±1.76c | 57.32±1.46c | 76.31±1.14a | 69.20±0.95b |
茎粗Stem diameter (mm) | 25.92±0.84a | 25.50±0.84a | 25.37±1.32a | 28.73±0.82a |
穗行数Number of kernel rows (line) | 15.60±0.58b | 17.80±0.47a | 17.40±0.31a | 17.40±0.31a |
行粒数Kernel numbers per row (pcs) | 39.10±1.66a | 39.60±1.15a | 38.40±1.18a | 41.80±1.36a |
穗粗Ear diameter (mm) | 53.08±0.79b | 56.80±0.68a | 56.88±0.52a | 55.74±0.80a |
全株鲜产量Fresh yield of whole plant (t·hm-2) | 51.21±0.43c | 53.78±0.89b | 59.85±0.81a | 62.00±0.78a |
全株干产量Dry yield of whole plant (t·hm-2) | 18.71±0.16b | 19.12±0.32b | 17.78±0.24c | 20.32±0.26a |
果穗鲜产量Fresh yield of ear (t·hm-2) | 16.14±0.22c | 18.40±0.18b | 18.50±0.36b | 20.72±0.31a |
果穗干产量Dry yield of ear (t·hm-2) | 8.95±0.06c | 9.88±0.27b | 9.60±0.07b | 10.58±0.10a |
果穗收获指数Ear harvest index (%) | 47.85±0.61b | 51.75±2.15ab | 54.74±0.45a | 52.08±1.15ab |
籽粒产量Grain yield (t·hm-2) | 7.65±0.06b | 7.85±0.23b | 7.73±0.22b | 8.48±0.11a |
籽粒收获指数Grain harvest index (%) | 40.87±0.49b | 41.04±0.19b | 43.48±0.43a | 41.74±0.28b |
项目 Item | 雅玉青贮8号Yayu No.8 | MTP-044 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | 全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | |
DM (%FM) | 32.21±0.42a | 48.57±0.90A | 33.22±0.44a | 41.93±1.36B |
CP (%DM) | 8.17±0.15b | 7.93±0.39A | 8.13±0.03b | 6.33±0.44B |
EE (%DM) | 4.17±0.38a | 5.53±0.17A | 3.87±0.15a | 4.10±0.32B |
CA (%DM) | 4.73±0.41a | 1.33±0.39A | 4.39±0.11a | 2.24±0.11A |
NDF (%DM) | 44.20±0.75a | 22.73±0.23BC | 41.50±0.25b | 26.87±0.41A |
ADF (%DM) | 27.82±1.14a | 13.07±0.43B | 24.37±0.49b | 16.97±0.41A |
ADL (%DM) | 2.40±0.25a | 0.77±0.07B | 2.33±0.67a | 1.57±0.32A |
Non-NDF (%DM) | 38.74±1.19b | 62.47±0.55AB | 42.11±0.20a | 60.46±0.75C |
CC (%DM) | 5.76±0.60a | 1.84±0.16B | 5.60±0.16a | 3.76±0.45A |
CB3 (%DM) | 38.44±1.35a | 20.89±0.39B | 35.90±0.37a | 23.11±0.62A |
Starch (%DM) | 28.84±0.42b | 57.71±1.27A | 26.74±0.63b | 49.37±2.62B |
WSC (%DM) | 2.10±0.06b | 0.30±0.00A | 1.80±0.18b | 0.77±0.26A |
Ca (%DM) | 0.20±0.02ab | 0.02±0.01A | 0.18±0.02b | 0.03±0.02A |
P (%DM) | 0.19±0.02b | 0.26±0.02A | 0.18±0.01b | 0.24±0.03A |
RFV | 141.54±2.05b | 322.21±4.60AB | 156.73±1.74a | 262.18±4.48C |
项目 Item | MTP-080 | MTP-082 | ||
全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | 全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | |
DM (%FM) | 28.37±0.16c | 42.97±1.50B | 30.77±0.07b | 44.33±0.76B |
CP (%DM) | 8.83±0.22a | 6.67±0.17B | 8.97±0.15a | 7.40±0.35A |
EE (%DM) | 3.97±0.15a | 4.37±0.20B | 3.83±0.19a | 4.23±0.19B |
CA (%DM) | 5.21±0.56a | 1.42±0.17A | 4.44±0.24a | 1.44±0.54A |
NDF (%DM) | 43.01±0.49a | 23.60±0.62B | 42.00±0.40b | 21.47±0.32C |
ADF (%DM) | 27.53±0.49a | 13.93±0.57B | 23.33±0.17b | 13.10±0.21B |
ADL (%DM) | 2.27±0.18a | 0.90±0.20B | 1.73±0.27a | 1.00±0.06B |
Non-NDF (%DM) | 38.93±0.49b | 63.95±0.40AB | 40.76±0.94ab | 65.46±0.65A |
CC (%DM) | 5.44±0.42a | 2.16±0.28B | 4.16±0.65a | 2.40±0.14B |
CB3 (%DM) | 37.63±0.88a | 21.44±0.61B | 37.84±0.31a | 19.07±0.36C |
Starch (%DM) | 28.66±0.94b | 55.51±2.49AB | 33.98±1.07a | 54.46±1.59AB |
WSC (%DM) | 2.72±0.18a | 0.60±0.25A | 2.73±0.23a | 0.80±0.25A |
Ca (%DM) | 0.25±0.02a | 0.01±0.00A | 0.22±0.01ab | 0.02±0.01A |
P (%DM) | 0.21±0.01ab | 0.28±0.04A | 0.24±0.01a | 0.27±0.04A |
RFV | 145.71±0.85b | 308.00±8.16B | 156.67±1.44a | 341.18±5.55A |
Table 2 Nutritional quality of whole-plant silage (WPS) and whole-ear silage (WES) in different maize varieties
项目 Item | 雅玉青贮8号Yayu No.8 | MTP-044 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | 全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | |
DM (%FM) | 32.21±0.42a | 48.57±0.90A | 33.22±0.44a | 41.93±1.36B |
CP (%DM) | 8.17±0.15b | 7.93±0.39A | 8.13±0.03b | 6.33±0.44B |
EE (%DM) | 4.17±0.38a | 5.53±0.17A | 3.87±0.15a | 4.10±0.32B |
CA (%DM) | 4.73±0.41a | 1.33±0.39A | 4.39±0.11a | 2.24±0.11A |
NDF (%DM) | 44.20±0.75a | 22.73±0.23BC | 41.50±0.25b | 26.87±0.41A |
ADF (%DM) | 27.82±1.14a | 13.07±0.43B | 24.37±0.49b | 16.97±0.41A |
ADL (%DM) | 2.40±0.25a | 0.77±0.07B | 2.33±0.67a | 1.57±0.32A |
Non-NDF (%DM) | 38.74±1.19b | 62.47±0.55AB | 42.11±0.20a | 60.46±0.75C |
CC (%DM) | 5.76±0.60a | 1.84±0.16B | 5.60±0.16a | 3.76±0.45A |
CB3 (%DM) | 38.44±1.35a | 20.89±0.39B | 35.90±0.37a | 23.11±0.62A |
Starch (%DM) | 28.84±0.42b | 57.71±1.27A | 26.74±0.63b | 49.37±2.62B |
WSC (%DM) | 2.10±0.06b | 0.30±0.00A | 1.80±0.18b | 0.77±0.26A |
Ca (%DM) | 0.20±0.02ab | 0.02±0.01A | 0.18±0.02b | 0.03±0.02A |
P (%DM) | 0.19±0.02b | 0.26±0.02A | 0.18±0.01b | 0.24±0.03A |
RFV | 141.54±2.05b | 322.21±4.60AB | 156.73±1.74a | 262.18±4.48C |
项目 Item | MTP-080 | MTP-082 | ||
全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | 全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | |
DM (%FM) | 28.37±0.16c | 42.97±1.50B | 30.77±0.07b | 44.33±0.76B |
CP (%DM) | 8.83±0.22a | 6.67±0.17B | 8.97±0.15a | 7.40±0.35A |
EE (%DM) | 3.97±0.15a | 4.37±0.20B | 3.83±0.19a | 4.23±0.19B |
CA (%DM) | 5.21±0.56a | 1.42±0.17A | 4.44±0.24a | 1.44±0.54A |
NDF (%DM) | 43.01±0.49a | 23.60±0.62B | 42.00±0.40b | 21.47±0.32C |
ADF (%DM) | 27.53±0.49a | 13.93±0.57B | 23.33±0.17b | 13.10±0.21B |
ADL (%DM) | 2.27±0.18a | 0.90±0.20B | 1.73±0.27a | 1.00±0.06B |
Non-NDF (%DM) | 38.93±0.49b | 63.95±0.40AB | 40.76±0.94ab | 65.46±0.65A |
CC (%DM) | 5.44±0.42a | 2.16±0.28B | 4.16±0.65a | 2.40±0.14B |
CB3 (%DM) | 37.63±0.88a | 21.44±0.61B | 37.84±0.31a | 19.07±0.36C |
Starch (%DM) | 28.66±0.94b | 55.51±2.49AB | 33.98±1.07a | 54.46±1.59AB |
WSC (%DM) | 2.72±0.18a | 0.60±0.25A | 2.73±0.23a | 0.80±0.25A |
Ca (%DM) | 0.25±0.02a | 0.01±0.00A | 0.22±0.01ab | 0.02±0.01A |
P (%DM) | 0.21±0.01ab | 0.28±0.04A | 0.24±0.01a | 0.27±0.04A |
RFV | 145.71±0.85b | 308.00±8.16B | 156.67±1.44a | 341.18±5.55A |
项目 Item | 雅玉青贮8号Yayu No.8 | MTP-044 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | 全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | |
总能General energy (MJ·kg-1) | 18.17±0.12a | 19.05±0.09A | 18.16±0.05a | 18.47±0.08B |
单位面积总能General energy unit area (×105 MJ·hm-2) | 3.40±0.03b | 1.71±0.02C | 3.47±0.06b | 1.82±0.05B |
总可消化养分Total digestible nutrient (%) | 71.11±0.59b | 84.26±0.29A | 72.85±0.39a | 80.22±0.13C |
单位面积总可消化养分Total digestible nutrient unit area (×105·hm-2) | 13.31±0.11c | 7.54±0.05C | 13.93±0.23b | 7.92±0.22BC |
消化能 Digestible energy (MJ·kg-1) | 13.12±0.11b | 15.54±0.05A | 13.44±0.07a | 14.80±0.02C |
代谢能Metabolic energy (MJ·kg-1) | 10.76±0.09b | 12.75±0.04A | 11.02±0.06a | 12.13±0.02C |
维持净能Net energy for maintenance (MJ·kg-1) | 10.72±0.18b | 15.66±0.13A | 11.27±0.12a | 13.94±0.05C |
增重净能Net energy for gain (MJ·kg-1) | 8.68±0.17b | 13.44±0.13A | 9.19±0.12a | 11.76±0.05C |
泌乳净能Net energy for lactation (MJ·kg-1) | 6.05±0.11b | 7.59±0.03A | 6.36±0.05a | 7.30±0.03B |
项目 Item | MTP-080 | MTP-082 | ||
全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | 全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | |
总能General energy (MJ·kg-1) | 18.08±0.11a | 18.70±0.08B | 18.20±0.02a | 18.71±0.11B |
单位面积总能General energy unit area (×105 MJ·hm-2) | 3.21±0.04c | 1.82±0.01B | 3.70±0.05a | 1.98±0.02A |
总可消化养分Total digestible nutrient (%) | 71.04±0.64b | 82.80±0.44B | 72.56±0.35ab | 83.47±0.48AB |
单位面积总可消化养分Total digestible nutrient unit area (×105·hm-2) | 12.63±0.17d | 8.06±0.06B | 14.74±0.19a | 8.83±0.08A |
消化能 Digestible energy (MJ·kg-1) | 13.10±0.12b | 15.27±0.08B | 13.38±0.06ab | 15.40±0.09AB |
代谢能Metabolic energy (MJ·kg-1) | 10.75±0.09b | 12.52±0.07B | 10.98±0.05ab | 12.63±0.07AB |
维持净能Net energy for maintenance (MJ·kg-1) | 10.70±0.19b | 15.02±0.19B | 11.18±0.11ab | 15.31±0.21AB |
增重净能Net energy for gain (MJ·kg-1) | 8.66±0.18b | 12.81±0.19B | 9.11±0.11ab | 13.10±0.21AB |
泌乳净能Net energy for lactation (MJ·kg-1) | 6.07±0.04b | 7.53±0.04A | 6.45±0.01a | 7.59±0.02A |
Table 3 Energy value of whole-plant silage (WPS) and whole-ear silage (WES) in different maize varieties
项目 Item | 雅玉青贮8号Yayu No.8 | MTP-044 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | 全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | |
总能General energy (MJ·kg-1) | 18.17±0.12a | 19.05±0.09A | 18.16±0.05a | 18.47±0.08B |
单位面积总能General energy unit area (×105 MJ·hm-2) | 3.40±0.03b | 1.71±0.02C | 3.47±0.06b | 1.82±0.05B |
总可消化养分Total digestible nutrient (%) | 71.11±0.59b | 84.26±0.29A | 72.85±0.39a | 80.22±0.13C |
单位面积总可消化养分Total digestible nutrient unit area (×105·hm-2) | 13.31±0.11c | 7.54±0.05C | 13.93±0.23b | 7.92±0.22BC |
消化能 Digestible energy (MJ·kg-1) | 13.12±0.11b | 15.54±0.05A | 13.44±0.07a | 14.80±0.02C |
代谢能Metabolic energy (MJ·kg-1) | 10.76±0.09b | 12.75±0.04A | 11.02±0.06a | 12.13±0.02C |
维持净能Net energy for maintenance (MJ·kg-1) | 10.72±0.18b | 15.66±0.13A | 11.27±0.12a | 13.94±0.05C |
增重净能Net energy for gain (MJ·kg-1) | 8.68±0.17b | 13.44±0.13A | 9.19±0.12a | 11.76±0.05C |
泌乳净能Net energy for lactation (MJ·kg-1) | 6.05±0.11b | 7.59±0.03A | 6.36±0.05a | 7.30±0.03B |
项目 Item | MTP-080 | MTP-082 | ||
全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | 全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | |
总能General energy (MJ·kg-1) | 18.08±0.11a | 18.70±0.08B | 18.20±0.02a | 18.71±0.11B |
单位面积总能General energy unit area (×105 MJ·hm-2) | 3.21±0.04c | 1.82±0.01B | 3.70±0.05a | 1.98±0.02A |
总可消化养分Total digestible nutrient (%) | 71.04±0.64b | 82.80±0.44B | 72.56±0.35ab | 83.47±0.48AB |
单位面积总可消化养分Total digestible nutrient unit area (×105·hm-2) | 12.63±0.17d | 8.06±0.06B | 14.74±0.19a | 8.83±0.08A |
消化能 Digestible energy (MJ·kg-1) | 13.10±0.12b | 15.27±0.08B | 13.38±0.06ab | 15.40±0.09AB |
代谢能Metabolic energy (MJ·kg-1) | 10.75±0.09b | 12.52±0.07B | 10.98±0.05ab | 12.63±0.07AB |
维持净能Net energy for maintenance (MJ·kg-1) | 10.70±0.19b | 15.02±0.19B | 11.18±0.11ab | 15.31±0.21AB |
增重净能Net energy for gain (MJ·kg-1) | 8.66±0.18b | 12.81±0.19B | 9.11±0.11ab | 13.10±0.21AB |
泌乳净能Net energy for lactation (MJ·kg-1) | 6.07±0.04b | 7.53±0.04A | 6.45±0.01a | 7.59±0.02A |
项目 Item | 雅玉青贮8号Yayu No.8 | MTP-044 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | 全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | |
pH | 3.80±0.06a | 3.80±0.05B | 3.73±0.07a | 4.07±0.03A |
乳酸 Lactic acid (LA, %DM) | 4.91±0.34b | 1.69±0.11B | 5.76±0.21b | 2.89±0.17A |
乙酸 Acetic acid (AA, %DM) | 1.36±0.11b | 1.29±0.08A | 1.80±0.15ab | 0.97±0.02B |
LA∶AA | 3.63±0.14a | 1.31±0.03C | 3.25±0.35a | 2.97±0.15B |
丁酸 Butyric acid (%DM) | 0.06±0.02a | 0.11±0.02A | 0.07±0.01a | 0.04±0.03B |
氨态氮/总氮 NH3-N/TN (%) | 4.82±0.31a | 1.33±0.27A | 5.90±1.05a | 0.60±0.21AB |
费氏评分 Flieg score (FS) | 117.42±1.63a | 150.13±3.70A | 122.11±2.05a | 126.20±1.71C |
项目 Item | MTP-080 | MTP-082 | ||
全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | 全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | |
pH | 3.53±0.03b | 3.73±0.09B | 3.73±0.03a | 3.56±0.09B |
乳酸 Lactic acid (LA, %DM) | 6.98±0.38a | 2.96±0.11A | 5.26±0.36b | 2.84±0.06A |
乙酸 Acetic acid (AA, %DM) | 2.29±0.04a | 0.83±0.07BC | 1.63±0.24b | 1.11±0.06AB |
LA∶AA | 3.04±0.14a | 3.62±0.26A | 3.40±0.66a | 2.56±0.10B |
丁酸 Butyric acid (%DM) | 0.11±0.02a | 0.01±0.02B | 0.10±0.01a | 0.06±0.02AB |
氨态氮/总氮 NH3-N/TN (%) | 6.16±0.26a | 0.14±0.10B | 6.18±0.59a | 0.87±0.27AB |
费氏评分 Flieg score (FS) | 120.41±1.17a | 141.60±0.75AB | 117.21±1.40a | 151.00±3.62A |
Table 4 Fermentation quality of whole-plant silage (WPS) and whole-ear silage (WES) in different maize varieties
项目 Item | 雅玉青贮8号Yayu No.8 | MTP-044 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | 全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | |
pH | 3.80±0.06a | 3.80±0.05B | 3.73±0.07a | 4.07±0.03A |
乳酸 Lactic acid (LA, %DM) | 4.91±0.34b | 1.69±0.11B | 5.76±0.21b | 2.89±0.17A |
乙酸 Acetic acid (AA, %DM) | 1.36±0.11b | 1.29±0.08A | 1.80±0.15ab | 0.97±0.02B |
LA∶AA | 3.63±0.14a | 1.31±0.03C | 3.25±0.35a | 2.97±0.15B |
丁酸 Butyric acid (%DM) | 0.06±0.02a | 0.11±0.02A | 0.07±0.01a | 0.04±0.03B |
氨态氮/总氮 NH3-N/TN (%) | 4.82±0.31a | 1.33±0.27A | 5.90±1.05a | 0.60±0.21AB |
费氏评分 Flieg score (FS) | 117.42±1.63a | 150.13±3.70A | 122.11±2.05a | 126.20±1.71C |
项目 Item | MTP-080 | MTP-082 | ||
全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | 全株青贮WPS | 果穗青贮WES | |
pH | 3.53±0.03b | 3.73±0.09B | 3.73±0.03a | 3.56±0.09B |
乳酸 Lactic acid (LA, %DM) | 6.98±0.38a | 2.96±0.11A | 5.26±0.36b | 2.84±0.06A |
乙酸 Acetic acid (AA, %DM) | 2.29±0.04a | 0.83±0.07BC | 1.63±0.24b | 1.11±0.06AB |
LA∶AA | 3.04±0.14a | 3.62±0.26A | 3.40±0.66a | 2.56±0.10B |
丁酸 Butyric acid (%DM) | 0.11±0.02a | 0.01±0.02B | 0.10±0.01a | 0.06±0.02AB |
氨态氮/总氮 NH3-N/TN (%) | 6.16±0.26a | 0.14±0.10B | 6.18±0.59a | 0.87±0.27AB |
费氏评分 Flieg score (FS) | 120.41±1.17a | 141.60±0.75AB | 117.21±1.40a | 151.00±3.62A |
项目 Item | 果穗青贮 Whole-ear silage | 全株青贮 Whole-plant silage | 秸秆青贮 Whole-straw silage |
---|---|---|---|
总能General energy (MJ·kg-1) | 18.74±0.07a | 18.15±0.04b | 17.26±0.03c |
单位面积总能General energy unit area (×105 MJ·hm-2) | 1.83±0.01b | 3.45±0.01a | 1.59±0.00c |
总可消化养分Total digestible nutrient (%) | 82.69±0.48a | 71.89±0.33b | 59.72±0.60c |
单位面积总可消化养分Total digestible nutrient unit area (×105·hm-2) | 8.06±0.05b | 13.65±0.06a | 5.51±0.06c |
消化能Digestible energy (MJ·kg-1) | 15.25±0.09a | 13.26±0.06b | 11.01±0.11c |
代谢能Metabolic energy (MJ·kg-1) | 12.50±0.07a | 10.87±0.05b | 9.03±0.09c |
维持净能Net energy for maintenance (MJ·kg-1) | 14.99±0.21a | 10.97±0.10b | 7.74±0.14c |
增重净能Net energy for gain (MJ·kg-1) | 12.78±0.20a | 8.91±0.10b | 5.98±0.12c |
泌乳净能Net energy for lactation (MJ·kg-1) | 7.50±0.04a | 6.23±0.06b | 5.60±0.05c |
相对饲用价值Relative feeding value | 308.41±9.14a | 150.17±2.13b | 91.65±2.40c |
Table 5 Comparison of energy value of different silage type
项目 Item | 果穗青贮 Whole-ear silage | 全株青贮 Whole-plant silage | 秸秆青贮 Whole-straw silage |
---|---|---|---|
总能General energy (MJ·kg-1) | 18.74±0.07a | 18.15±0.04b | 17.26±0.03c |
单位面积总能General energy unit area (×105 MJ·hm-2) | 1.83±0.01b | 3.45±0.01a | 1.59±0.00c |
总可消化养分Total digestible nutrient (%) | 82.69±0.48a | 71.89±0.33b | 59.72±0.60c |
单位面积总可消化养分Total digestible nutrient unit area (×105·hm-2) | 8.06±0.05b | 13.65±0.06a | 5.51±0.06c |
消化能Digestible energy (MJ·kg-1) | 15.25±0.09a | 13.26±0.06b | 11.01±0.11c |
代谢能Metabolic energy (MJ·kg-1) | 12.50±0.07a | 10.87±0.05b | 9.03±0.09c |
维持净能Net energy for maintenance (MJ·kg-1) | 14.99±0.21a | 10.97±0.10b | 7.74±0.14c |
增重净能Net energy for gain (MJ·kg-1) | 12.78±0.20a | 8.91±0.10b | 5.98±0.12c |
泌乳净能Net energy for lactation (MJ·kg-1) | 7.50±0.04a | 6.23±0.06b | 5.60±0.05c |
相对饲用价值Relative feeding value | 308.41±9.14a | 150.17±2.13b | 91.65±2.40c |
项目Item | PH | EH | NL | GLN | SD | FYWP | DYWP | FYE | DYE | pH | CP | ADF | NDF | WSC | Starch |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EH | 0.40 | ||||||||||||||
NL | 0.28 | -0.37 | |||||||||||||
GLN | 0.49 | -0.11 | 0.64* | ||||||||||||
SD | -0.07 | -0.15 | 0.55 | 0.02 | |||||||||||
FYWP | 0.28 | -0.31 | 0.59* | 0.81* | 0.24 | ||||||||||
DYWP | -0.46 | -0.38 | 0.24 | -0.15 | 0.46 | 0.33 | |||||||||
FYE | -0.16 | -0.30 | 0.34 | 0.17 | 0.51 | 0.53 | 0.78* | ||||||||
DYE | 0.29 | -0.17 | 0.44 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.71* | 0.50 | 0.87* | |||||||
pH | -0.75* | -0.16 | -0.37 | -0.65* | 0.20 | -0.45 | 0.47 | 0.18 | -0.18 | ||||||
CP | 0.11 | -0.45 | 0.41 | 0.81* | -0.17 | 0.80* | 0.13 | 0.37 | 0.48 | -0.35 | |||||
ADF | 0.09 | 0.45 | -0.33 | 0.07 | -0.50 | -0.41 | -0.79* | -0.83* | -0.69* | -0.27 | -0.16 | ||||
NDF | -0.25 | -0.07 | -0.16 | -0.05 | -0.18 | -0.27 | -0.31 | -0.63 | -0.61* | 0.19 | -0.06 | 0.53 | |||
WSC | 1.16 | -0.28 | 0.52 | 0.77* | -0.20 | 0.77* | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.30 | -0.56 | 0.84* | 0.04 | -0.21 | ||
Starch | -0.36 | -0.47 | 0.28 | 0.42 | 0.51 | 0.56 | 0.50 | 0.64* | 0.60* | 0.06 | 0.54 | -0.34 | 0.04 | 0.48 | |
LA | 0.81* | 0.31 | 0.18 | 0.60* | -0.34 | 0.31 | -0.60* | -0.25 | 0.14 | -0.73* | 0.37 | 0.35 | -0.22 | 0.40 | -0.19 |
Table 6 Correlation between important agronomic traits, nutritional value and fermentation quality of silage
项目Item | PH | EH | NL | GLN | SD | FYWP | DYWP | FYE | DYE | pH | CP | ADF | NDF | WSC | Starch |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EH | 0.40 | ||||||||||||||
NL | 0.28 | -0.37 | |||||||||||||
GLN | 0.49 | -0.11 | 0.64* | ||||||||||||
SD | -0.07 | -0.15 | 0.55 | 0.02 | |||||||||||
FYWP | 0.28 | -0.31 | 0.59* | 0.81* | 0.24 | ||||||||||
DYWP | -0.46 | -0.38 | 0.24 | -0.15 | 0.46 | 0.33 | |||||||||
FYE | -0.16 | -0.30 | 0.34 | 0.17 | 0.51 | 0.53 | 0.78* | ||||||||
DYE | 0.29 | -0.17 | 0.44 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.71* | 0.50 | 0.87* | |||||||
pH | -0.75* | -0.16 | -0.37 | -0.65* | 0.20 | -0.45 | 0.47 | 0.18 | -0.18 | ||||||
CP | 0.11 | -0.45 | 0.41 | 0.81* | -0.17 | 0.80* | 0.13 | 0.37 | 0.48 | -0.35 | |||||
ADF | 0.09 | 0.45 | -0.33 | 0.07 | -0.50 | -0.41 | -0.79* | -0.83* | -0.69* | -0.27 | -0.16 | ||||
NDF | -0.25 | -0.07 | -0.16 | -0.05 | -0.18 | -0.27 | -0.31 | -0.63 | -0.61* | 0.19 | -0.06 | 0.53 | |||
WSC | 1.16 | -0.28 | 0.52 | 0.77* | -0.20 | 0.77* | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.30 | -0.56 | 0.84* | 0.04 | -0.21 | ||
Starch | -0.36 | -0.47 | 0.28 | 0.42 | 0.51 | 0.56 | 0.50 | 0.64* | 0.60* | 0.06 | 0.54 | -0.34 | 0.04 | 0.48 | |
LA | 0.81* | 0.31 | 0.18 | 0.60* | -0.34 | 0.31 | -0.60* | -0.25 | 0.14 | -0.73* | 0.37 | 0.35 | -0.22 | 0.40 | -0.19 |
1 | Rabelo C, Rezende A, Rabelo F, et al. Chemical composition, digestibility and aerobic stability of corn silages harvested at different maturity stages. Revista Caatinga, 2015, 28(2): 107-116. |
2 | Ding G S. Investigation report on silage maize planting in the United States. China Dairy, 2019(1): 17-22. |
丁光省. 美国青贮玉米种植情况的调研报告. 中国乳业, 2019(1): 17-22. | |
3 | Shi S Q. How to pricing corn silage in China. China Dairy Cattle, 2017(8): 7-13. |
史枢卿. 青贮玉米的定价机制. 中国奶牛, 2017(8): 7-13. | |
4 | Du X H, Jin S Y, Zhuang H T, et al. The effects of different ratio of whole corn silage in roughage on breeding efficiency of beef cows. Modern Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2017(1): 9-14. |
杜学海, 金双勇, 庄洪廷, 等. 日粮粗饲料中不同比例全株玉米青贮对肉牛能繁母牛养殖效益的影响. 现代畜牧兽医, 2017(1): 9-14. | |
5 | Yao S M, Zhuang H T, Cao Z G, et al. Effects of whole crop corn silage on the production performance of the beef cattle. Modern Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2017(1): 15-20. |
姚思名, 庄洪廷, 曹治国, 等. 饲喂全株玉米青贮对肉牛育肥性能的影响研究. 现代畜牧兽医, 2017(1): 15-20. | |
6 | Zhang J H, Lu Q F, Mao H M. Influence of feeding benefit whole-plant corn silage and corn straw silage on cow’s. Sichuan Animal & Veterinary Sciences, 2017, 44(7): 25-26. |
张继宏, 鲁琼芬, 毛华明. 饲喂全株玉米青贮与玉米秸秆青贮日粮对奶牛养殖效益的影响对比. 四川畜牧兽医, 2017, 44(7): 25-26. | |
7 | He L W. Quality evaluation of corn silage and its effect on the growth performance and beef quality of finishing cattle. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2017. |
和立文. 全株玉米青贮品质评价及其对肉牛育肥性能和牛肉品质的影响. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2017. | |
8 | Wang T W, Zhong J. Creating modern technological system for grass product processing to guarantee macroscopic food security. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2021, 36(6): 675-684. |
王天威, 钟瑾. 创制现代草产品加工科技体系保障大粮食安全. 中国科学院院刊, 2021, 36(6): 675-684. | |
9 | Zhang H M, Liu T J, Li X, et al. Research of the corn ear package silage. China Dairy Cattle, 2020(3): 11-13. |
张红梅, 刘铁军, 李霞, 等. 玉米果穗裹包青贮饲料研究. 中国奶牛, 2020(3): 11-13. | |
10 | Grant R J, Ferraretto L F. Silage review: Silage feeding management: Silage characteristics and dairy cow feeding behavior. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(5): 4111-4121. |
11 | Asada M, Sugiyama A, Yamashita C, et al. Effect of ear-corn silage feeding on growth and meat productive performances in Japanese black steers. Nihon Chikusan Gakkaiho, 2017, 88(2): 121-130. |
12 | Mitani T, Asakuma S, Shinoda Y, et al. Effects of ear corn silage supplementation on milk production and milk fatty acid profiles in grazing dairy farms. Animal Science Journal, 2020, 91(1): e13454. |
13 | Zanfi C, Spanghero M. Digestibility of diets containing whole ear corn silage for heavy pigs. Livestock Science, 2012, 145(1/3): 287-291. |
14 | Mason F, Pascotto E, Zanfi C, et al. Effect of dietary inclusion of whole ear corn silage on stomach development and gastric mucosa integrity of heavy pigs at slaughter. The Veterinary Journal, 2013, 198(3): 717-719. |
15 | Capraro D, Zanfi C, Bassi M, et al. Effect of physical form of whole ear corn silage (coarse vs wet milled) included at high dietary levels (30% vs 40% dry matter) on performance of heavy finishing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2014, 198: 271-278. |
16 | Fang J Y, Jing H C, Zhang W H, et al. The concept of “Grass-based Livestock Husbandry”and its practice in Hulun Buir, Inner Mongolia. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2018, 63(17): 1619-1631. |
方精云, 景海春, 张文浩, 等. 论草牧业的理论体系及其实践. 科学通报, 2018, 63(17): 1619-1631. | |
17 | Gong Y X, Li H M, Zhang H X, et al. Talking about corn ear silage technology. China Cattle Science, 2019, 45(2): 60-61. |
宫玉霞, 李红梅, 张红霞, 等. 浅谈玉米果穗青贮技术. 中国牛业科学, 2019, 45(2): 60-61. | |
18 | Iqbal M Z, Cheng M J, Su Y G, et al. Allopolyploidization facilitates gene flow and speciation among corn, Zea perennis and Tripsacum dactyloides. Planta, 2019, 249(6): 1949-1962. |
19 | Yang S. Feed analysis and forage quality detection technology. Beijing: Beijing Agricultural University Press, 1993. |
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, 1993. | |
20 | 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. |
21 | Dubois M, Gilles K A, Hamilton J K, et al. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry, 1956, 28(3): 350-356. |
22 | Guo D S. Influence of associated effects on utilizable crude protein of feeds for ruminants and rumen fermentation in vitro. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2004. |
郭冬生. 反刍动物日粮组合效应对瘤胃发酵和可利用粗蛋白的影响研究. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2004. | |
23 | National Reserch Council. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle (8th Version). Washington D C: National Academy Press, 2016. |
24 | Sniffen C J, O'Connor J D, Van soest P J, et al. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: Ⅱ. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science, 1992, 70(11): 3562-3577. |
25 | Rohweder D A, Barnes R F, Jorgensen N. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality.Journal of Animal Science, 1978, 47(3): 747-759. |
26 | Ren J Z. Research methods of grassland science. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1998. |
任继周. 草业科学研究方法. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1998. | |
27 | Li X K, Lu J W, Liu X W, et al. Effect of fertilization on the yield and forage quality of annual ryegrass. Pratacultural Science, 2011, 28(9): 1666-1670. |
李小坤, 鲁剑巍, 刘晓伟, 等. 配方施肥对一年生黑麦草产草量及品质的影响. 草业科学, 2011, 28(9): 1666-1670. | |
28 | Wang F. Establishment and evaluation of effective energy prediction model in feeds of beef cattle. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2016. |
王菲. 肉牛饲料有效能值预测模型的建立与评价. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2016. | |
29 | Undersander D J, Mertens D R, Thiex N J. Forage analyses procedures. Omaha NE: National Forage Testing Association, 1993. |
30 | 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 Sinice, 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. | |
31 | Wang J, Chen L, Yuan X, et al. Effects of molasses on the fermentation characteristics of mixed silage prepared with rice straw, local vegetable by-products and alfalfa in Southeast China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2017, 16(3): 664-670. |
32 | 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. |
33 | Xu Q F, Yu Z, Han J G, et al. Determining organic acid in alfalfa silage by HPLC. Grassland and Turf, 2007(2): 63-65. |
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. | |
34 | Liu X, Wang B, Zhu X Y, et al. A comparison of 21 varieties of silage maize in Henan Province. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(8): 49-60. |
刘晓, 王博, 朱晓艳, 等. 21个粮饲兼用型青贮玉米在河南的品种比较试验. 草业学报, 2019, 28(8): 49-60. | |
35 | Yu M, Li C F, Yu Z, et al. Quality grading for silage maize, GB/T 25882-2010. Beijing: General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China, 2011. |
余鸣, 李存福, 玉柱, 等. 青贮玉米品质分级, GB/T 25882-2010. 北京: 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会, 2011. | |
36 | Li Y Z, Yan X, Wu Z Z, et al. Forage maize type and growth stage effects on biomass yield and silage quality. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(7): 82-91. |
李影正, 严旭, 吴子周, 等. 饲草玉米不同生育期的产量、品质和青贮利用研究. 草业学报, 2019, 28(7): 82-91. | |
37 | Zhao Q G. Selection and utilization of forage in pasture. China Dairy, 2019(4): 53-59. |
赵全刚. 牧场粗饲料的选择和利用. 中国乳业, 2019(4): 53-59. | |
38 | Bekavac G, Stojakovic M, Jockovic D, et al. Path analysis of stay-green trait in maize. Cereal Research Communications, 1998, 26(2): 161-167. |
39 | Howard T, Howarth C J. Five ways to stay green. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2000, 51(1): 329-337. |
40 | Mi G H, Liu J A, Chen F J, et al. Nitrogen uptake and remobilization in maize hybrids differing in leaf senescence. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2003, 26(1): 237-247. |
41 | Tian H, Xiong H Q, Xiong J B, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of the production performance of 14 silage maize varieties by principal component analysis and subordinate function method. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis, 2015, 37(2): 249-259. |
田宏, 熊海谦, 熊军波, 等. 采用主成分分析和隶属函数法综合评价14份青贮玉米品种的生产性能. 江西农业大学学报, 2015, 37(2): 249-259. | |
42 | Li B, Chen X C, Gao Y, et al. Correlation study on the main agronomic characters of plant and organism yield of silage maize. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2005, 13(2): 76-78. |
李波, 陈喜昌, 高云, 等. 青贮玉米生物产量与植株主要农艺性状相关的研究. 玉米科学, 2005, 13(2): 76-78. | |
43 | Sun Z Q, Xu F, Zhang Y Q, et al. Comparison and correlation of agronomic characteristics and fermentation quality of different types of hybrid corn. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(1): 250-256. |
孙志强, 徐芳, 张元庆, 等. 不同品种玉米农艺性状及青贮发酵品质的比较及相关性研究. 草地学报, 2019, 27(1): 250-256. | |
44 | Zhang Y J, Wang C Z, Yan X B, et al. Introduction experiment of silage maize in Zhengzhou. Pratacultural Science, 2009, 26(10): 114-121. |
张亚军, 王成章, 严学兵, 等. 郑州地区青贮玉米引种试验. 草业科学, 2009, 26(10): 114-121. | |
45 | Sun F C, Feng Y, Yu Z, et al. Grey relativity analysis on main agronomic characters of 12 maize populations with their yields and traits. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2012, 27(1): 102-105. |
孙峰成, 冯勇, 于卓, 等. 12个玉米群体的主要农艺性状与产量、品质的灰色关联度分析. 华北农学报, 2012, 27(1): 102-105. | |
46 | Qiao Y H, Gao X F, Wang H T, et al. Technology and application prospect of corn wrapped wet storage. Xiandai Nongcun Keji, 2019(6): 105-107. |
乔艳辉, 高秀芬, 王洪涛, 等. 玉米裹包湿贮技术及其应用前景. 现代农村科技, 2019(6): 105-107. |
[1] | Dong-qing FU, Chun-ying JIA, Li ZHANG, Fan-fan ZHANG, Chun-hui MA. Agronomic traits and fermentation quality of maize silage harvested at different grain-development stages in irrigated drought areas of southern Xinjiang [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8): 111-125. |
[2] | Jun-feng LI, Jie ZHAO, Xiao-yue TANG, Tong-tong DAI, Dong DONG, Cheng ZONG, Tao SHAO. Effect of a rumen cellulolytic microbial consortium on the degradation of structural carbohydrate in sterile rice straw silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(7): 85-95. |
[3] | Yi-yan CUI, Jia-zhou LI, Zhi-mei TIAN, Dun DENG, Hui-jie LU, Zhi-chang LIU, Ting RONG, Xian-yong MA. Solid-state fermentation with Trichoderma koningii improves nutritional value of tea dregs [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(7): 96-110. |
[4] | Xiang GUO, Shuo WU, Ming-yang ZHENG, De-kui CHEN, Xuan ZOU, Xiao-yang CHEN, Wei ZHOU, Qing ZHANG. Effects of addition of Neolamarckia cadamba leaves and chitosan oligosaccharides on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of sugarcane top silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(6): 202-210. |
[5] | Huan ZHANG, Yi-xiao MU, Gui-jie ZHANG. Effects of Lycium barbarum by-products on fermentation quality and microbial diversity of alfalfa silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(4): 136-144. |
[6] | Xin-ming WU, Zhi-hong FANG, Hui-wu CHI, Hui-li JIA, Jian-ning LIU, Yong-hong SHI, Xue-min WANG. Comparison of 30 maize (Zea mays) varieties for food and feed in the Yanmenguan area [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(1): 205-216. |
[7] | Dong-mei YANG, Jun-nian LI, Shuang-lun TAO. Effects of tannic acid addition on the aerobic stability and mycotoxin content of kudzu vine silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(8): 164-170. |
[8] | Xiang GUO, De-kui CHEN, Na CHEN, Yun LI, Xiao-yang CHEN, Qing ZHANG. Effect of moisture content and additives on the fermentation quality of Neolamarckia cadamba leaf silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(8): 199-205. |
[9] | Xiang YIN, Yong-qi WANG, Xin-qin LI, Jing TIAN, Xiao-ya WANG, Jian-guo ZHANG. Effects of various moisture-absorbing roughages on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of napier grass silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(7): 133-138. |
[10] | He-xing QI, Guang-xin LU, Zong-ren LI, Cheng-ti XU, Ke-jia DE, Xiao-juan ZHOU, Ying-cheng WANG, Gui-hua MA. Identification and pathogenicity of Alternaria leaf blight strains in silage maize in Qinghai Province [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(6): 94-105. |
[11] | 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. |
[12] | Xiong-xiong LI, Ting JIAO, Sheng-guo ZHAO, Wei-na QIN, Xue-mei GAO, Zheng-wen WANG, Jian-ping WU, Zhao-min LEI. Synergistic effect of oregano essential oil and organic cobalt on degradation characteristics of silage maize stalks and rumen fermentation of sheep [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(11): 191-202. |
[13] | Hong-lin WANG, Yan-chun ZUO, Xu YAN, Xiao-kang ZHOU, Jing KOU, Xi-zhi YANG, Jun-ying GUO, Jun PU, Hao-ren ZHANG, Zhou-he DU. Effect of cutting height and nitrogen fertilizer rate on yield and nutritive value of whole-plant mulberry (Morus alba) [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(11): 203-211. |
[14] | Dong-qing FU, Chun-ying JIA, Xiao-chun LIAN, Li ZHANG, Fan-fan ZHANG, Chun-hui MA. Fermentation quality and in rumen degradability of mixed silage from maize stalk and tomato pomace in varying proportions [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(10): 147-158. |
[15] | Chang-rong WU, Sheng DAI, Long-fei LIANG, Wen-tao SUN, Chao PENG, Chao CHEN, Jun HAO. Effects of different additives on fermentation quality and protein degradation of Broussonetia papyrifera silage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(10): 169-179. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||