Study on the Quality of Oat Silage in Different Harvest Periods

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2021.10.022

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 To select the best silage oat varieties suitable for planting and the best harvest time in Shihezi area by studying the nutritional quality and silage fermentation quality of five oat varieties (Souris, Qingyin 1, Longyan 2, Longyan 3 and charm) at two cutting stages (heading stage and milk stage) in experimental forage site of Shihezi University in Xinjiang. 【Methods】 Five oat varieties were mowed at heading stage and milk stage. After analyzing the indexes of fresh grass, the bags were opened after 60 days of silage at room temperature.【Results】 The contents of YF, DM and WSC in milk stage were significantly higher than those at heading stage (P< 0.05), and CP content was significantly lower than that at the heading stage (P< 0.05). There were significant differences in NDF and ADF contents in all cultivars except for NDF content of Qingyin No.1 (P< 0.05). The pH value of Qingyin 1, Longyan 2 and Longyan 3 were significantly different in two harvest periods (P< 0.05). Meanwhile, there were significant differences in the content of LA in Souris, Longyan 3 and Charm period (P< 0.05), and there were significant differences in NH₃- N content (P< 0.05). The DM content at milk stage was significantly higher than that at the heading stage (P< 0.05), and the contents of NDF, ADF and CP at the heading stage were significantly higher than those at milk stage (P< 0.05). After 60 days of silage fermentation, the contents of DM, NDF, ADF and WSC decreased significantly (P< 0.05), CP content increased significantly (P< 0.05), pH value decreased significantly (P< 0.05), and LA, AA, PA contents increased significantly (P< 0.05). 【Conclusion】 In this study, the quality of all kinds of oat silage at milk stage was better than that at the heading stage. Among the five varieties, the fresh grass yield, nutritional quality and silage quality of Souris were the best whether harvested at the heading stage or milk stage, so it is strongly suggested that planting this variety at milk stage was the main mode of local oat silage production.

Key words: oat; nutritional quality; fermentation quality; growth period

摘要：

【目的】筛选适宜新疆石河子地区种植的优质青贮燕麦品种及其最佳收获期,5个燕麦品种的营养品质及青贮发酵品质。【方法】分析鲜草的各项指标并青贮,60 d开袋测定其各项指标。【结果】对比2收获期燕麦原料品质,乳熟期YF、DM和WSC均显著高于抽穗期(P<0.05),CP显著低于抽穗期(P<0.05);NDF和ADF除青引1号NDF无显著差异外,其余品种均存在显著差异(P<0.05),其中青引1号、陇燕2号和陇燕3号2收获期pH值存在显著差异的(P<0.05);领袖、陇燕3号和魅力2个收获期LA存在显著差异(P<0.05);NH₃-N/TN均存在显著差异(P<0.05)。对比2个收获期燕麦青贮品质,乳熟期DM显著高于抽穗期(P<0.05);抽穗期NDF、ADF及CP均显著高于乳熟期(P<0.05)。经60 d青贮发酵,供试燕麦的DM、NDF、ADF及WSC均显著下降(P<0.05),CP显著上升(P<0.05),pH显著下降(P<0.05);LA、AA、PA显著上升(P<0.05)。【结论】各品种燕麦青贮品质乳熟期均优于抽穗期;5个品种中领袖(Souris)综合评价最高;以乳熟期收获为燕麦青贮生产的主要方式。

关键词: 燕麦, 营养品质, 发酵品质, 生育期

CLC Number:

S541.9

Lei SONG, Yanchao WANG, Fanfan ZHANG, Xuzhe WANG, Jian ZHANG, Chunhui MA. Study on the Quality of Oat Silage in Different Harvest Periods[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(10): 1938-1946.

宋磊, 王彦超, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 张建, 马春晖. 不同收获期燕麦青贮品质分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(10): 1938-1946.

Figures/Tables 5

References 35

[1]	王彦超, 宋磊, 马春晖, 等. 不同燕麦品种生育期农艺性状、生产性能及品质的比较[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(2):254-263.
	WANG Yanchao, SONG Lei, MA Chunhui, et al. Comparison of agronomic characters, productivity and quality of oat varieties during their growth period[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 57(2):254-263.
[2]	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[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12):137-148.
	LI Feifei, ZHANG Fanfan, WANG Xuzhe, et al. Effects of cutting date and crop growth stage on alfalfa silage quality[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(12):137-148.
[3]	王茜, 李志坚, 李晶, 等. 不同类型燕麦农艺和饲草品质性状分析[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12):149-158.
	WANG Xi, LI Zhijian, LI Jing, et al. Analysis of Agronomic and forage quality characters of different types of oats[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(12):149-158.
[4]	赵继丽, 李长慧, 徐世晓, 等. 三江源区燕麦种植模式和收获期对青贮品质的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2019, 28(5):703-712.
	ZHAO Jili, LI Changhui, XU Shixiao, et al. Effects of oat planting pattern and harvest time on silage quality in Sanjiangyuan district[J]. Acta agriculturae northwest China, 2019, 28(5):703-712.
[5]	黄文明, 陈红跃, 殷丽, 等. 样品前处理方法对全株玉米青贮pH和氨态氮测定值的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2019, 55(2):90-93.
	HUANG Wenming, CHEN Hongyue, YIN Li, et al. Effect of sample pretreatment methods on the determination of pH and ammonia nitrogen in whole - plant maize silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 55(2):90-93.
[6]	张光雨, 沈振西, 邵小明, 等. 西藏当雄10个引进燕麦品种的生产性能和营养品质比较[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(4):1083-1089.
	ZHANG Guangyu, SHEN Zhenxi, SHAO Xiaoming, et al. Comparison of production performance and nutritional quality of 10 introduced oat varieties from Dangxiong, Xizang[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(4):1083-1089.
[7]	柴继宽, 慕平, 赵桂琴. 8个燕麦品种在甘肃的产量稳定性及试点代表性研究[J]. 草地学报, 2016, 24(5):1100-1107.
	CHAI Jikuan, MU Ping, ZHAO Guiqin. Study on the yield stability and pilot representativeness of 8 oat varieties in Gansu[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2016, 24(5):1100-1107.
[8]	赵继丽, 李长慧, 徐世晓, 等. 三江源区燕麦种植模式和收获期对青贮品质的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2019, 28(5):703-712.
	ZHAO Jili, LI Changhui, XU Shixiao, et al. Effects of different harvest time and oats planting patterns on the quality of forage silage in Sanjiangyuan area[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali - occidentalis Sinica, 2019, 28(5):703-712.
[9]	王巍. 吉林省西部地区21个燕麦品种生产性能和营养价值评价[D]. 长春:东北师范大学, 2016.
	WANG Wei. Evaluation of Production Performance and Nutritional Value of 21 Oat Varieties in Western Jilin Province[D]. Changchun: Northeast Normal University, 2016.
[10]	琚泽亮, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 等. 不同燕麦品种在甘肃中部的营养价值及青贮发酵品质综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(9):77-86.
	JU Zeliang, ZHAO Guiqin, CHAI Jikuan, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of nutritional value and silage fermentation quality of different oat varieties in central Gansu province[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(9):77-86.
[11]	王学峰, 武俊英, 郭来春, 等. 内蒙古盐碱地不同饲用燕麦品种生长及产量性状研究[J]. 种子, 2020, 39(1):78-82.
	WANG Xuefeng, WU Junying, GUO Laichun, et al. Study on Growth and Yield Traits of Different Forage Oat Varieties in Salt - alkali Land of Inner Mongolia[J]. Seed, 2020, 39(1):78-82.
[12]	耿小丽, 韩天虎, 张少平, 等. 30个燕麦品种在甘肃天祝地区的适应性评价[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(6):1743-1750.
	GENG Xiaoli, HAN Tianhu, ZHANG Shaoping, et al. Abaptability Evaluation of 30 Oat Germplasm in Tianzhu[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(6):1743-1750.
[13]	黄晓辉. 苦豆子和玉米秸秆的混合青贮及其品质评价[D]兰州: 兰州大学, 2014.
	HUANG Xiaohui. Mixed silage of bitter bean and corn straw and its quality evaluation[D]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2014.
[14]	杜灵敏, 张显耻, 聂青平. 高寒牧区豌豆与燕麦混播组合的研究[J]. 青海畜牧兽医杂志, 1991, 21(6):18-19.
	DU Lingming, ZHANG Xianchi, NIE Qingping. Study on the Mixed Seeding Combination of Pea and Oat in Alpine Pastoral Areas[J]. Qinghai Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 1991, 21(6):18-19.
[15]	Tiwanai M S, Puri K P. Forage production potential of oats barley and triticale varieties[J]. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 1980, 25(1):149-150.
[16]	杨云贵, 程天亮, 杨雪娇, 等. 3个燕麦品种不同收获期对青贮饲草营养价值的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2013, 21(4):683-688.
	YANG Yungui, CHENG Tianliang, YANG Xuejiao, et al. Effects of different growth stages of three oat cultivars on the nutritive value of silage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2013, 21(4):683-688.
[17]	孙小凡. 麦类作物青贮饲料营养价值研究[D]. 杨凌:西北农林科技大学, 2003.
	SUN Xiaofan. Study on the Nutritional Value of Wheat Silage[D]. Yangling: Northwest University of Agriculture and Forestry, 2003.
[18]	刘琳, 张文敬, 郝林凤, 等. 河套地区向日葵播前填闲种植不同饲草燕麦品种最佳刈割期的研究[J]. 中国奶牛, 2018,(6):58-62.
	LIU Lin, ZHANG Wenjing, HAO Linfeng, et al. Study on the Optimum Cutting Period of Oat Varieties with Different Forage Grasses in Hetao Area before Sunflower Sowing[J]. China Dairy Cattle, 2018, (6):58-62.
[19]	张光雨, 马和平, 沈振西, 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[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(5):121-131.
	ZHANG Guangyu, MA Heping, SHEN Zhenxi, et al. A comparative study of yield and nutritive value of nine imported oat varieties in the Valley region of Tibet China[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(5):121-131.
[20]	张莹, 陈志飞, 张晓娜, 等. 不同刈割期对春播、秋播燕麦干草产量和品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(11):124-135.
	ZHANG Ying, CHEN Zhifei, ZHANG Xiaona, et al. Effects of different mowing stages on the yield and quality of oat hay in spring and autumn[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(11):124-135.
[21]	赵世锋, 田长叶, 陈淑萍, 等. 草用燕麦品种适宜刈割期的确定[J]. 华北农学报, 2005, 20(S1):132-134.
	ZHAO Shifeng, TIAN Changye, CHEN Shuping, et al. Study on appropriate mowing stages of naked oatsvariety as grass[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2005, 20(S1):132-134.
[22]	LI J, Shen Y, Cai Y. Improvement of Fermentation Quality of Rice Straw Silage by Application of a Bacterial Inoculant and Glucose[J]. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2010, 23(7):901-906. DOI URL
[23]	田静, 谢昭良, 刘家杏, 等. 冬闲田种植大麦不同生育期的营养价值和青贮品质[J]. 草业科学, 2017, 34(4):753-760.
	TIAN Jing, XIE Zhaoliang, LIU Jiaxing, et al. Nutritive value and silage quality of barley grown in winter fallow fields and harvested at different growth stages[J]. Grassland Science, 2017, 34(4):753-760.
[24]	唐开婷, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 等. 北疆10个不同秋眠级紫花苜蓿引进品种产量与营养品质研究[J]. 中国草地学报, 2018, 40(3):43-48.
	TANG Kaiting, ZHANG Fanfan, WANG Xuzhe, et al. Study on Yield and nutritional quality of 10 Alfalfa Varieties of different fall dormancy grades in Northern Xinjiang[J]. Chinese Pratacultural Science, 2018, 40(3):43-48.
[25]	周青平, 苟小林, 田莉华, 等. 寒冷区早晚熟燕麦品种的生产性能分析[J]. 科学通报, 2018, 63(17):1722-1730.
	ZHOU Qingping, GOU Xiaolin, TIAN Lihua, et al. Performance analysis of early and late ripening oat varieties in cold region[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2012, 63(17):1722-1730.
[26]	GB/T 14924. 9 - 2001. 实验动物配合饲料常规营养成分的测定[S].
	GB/T 14924. 9 - 2001. The measure of conventional nutrients for experimental animal feeds[S].
[27]	王旭哲, 张凡凡, 马春晖, 等. 压实度对玉米青贮开窖后营养品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(6):300-306.
	WANG Xuzhe, ZHANG Fanfan, MA Chunhui, et al. Effects of compact degree on nutritional quality and aerobic stability of maize after silage opening[J]. Journal of Agriculture and Industry Engineering, 2008, 34(6):300-306.
[28]	郭金桂, 宋灵峰, 玉柱, 等. 混合比例对紫花苜蓿与燕麦混贮品质的动态影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2018, 40(1):73-79.
	GUO Jinggui, SONG Lingfeng, YU Zhu, et al. Dynamic effects of mixing ratio on mixed storage quality of alfalfa and oat[J]. Chinese Pratacultural Science, 2008, 40(1):73-79.
[29]	张莹, 陈志飞, 张晓娜, 等. 不同刈割期对春播、秋播燕麦干草产量和品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(11):124-135.
	ZHANG Ying, CHEN Zhifei, ZHANG Xiaona, et al. Effects of different mowing stages on the yield and quality of oat hay in spring and autumn[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(11):124-135.
[30]	丰明, 李韬, 王英杰, 等. 5种燕麦饲草品种在沈阳地区的评价与筛选[J]. 辽宁农业科学, 2017,(5):11-15.
	FENG Ming, LI Tao, WANG Yingjie, et al. Evaluation and screening of five oat forage grass varieties in Shenyang region[J]. Liaoning Agricultural Science, 2017,(5):11-15.
[31]	LI X L, ZHANG X Y, Tang Y, et al. Effects of dietary concentrate and forage ratio on weight gain of forage goats[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2008,(2):85-91.
[32]	王桃, 徐长林, 姜文清, 等. 36个燕麦品种不同部位养分分布格局[J]. 草业科学, 2010, 27(8):107-113.
	WANG Tao, XU Changlin, JIANG Wenqing, et al. Nutrient distribution pattern in different parts of 36 oat varieties[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2010, 27(8):107-113.
[33]	王林, 孙启忠, 张慧杰. 苜蓿与玉米混贮质量研究[J]. 草业学报, 2011, 20(4):202-209.
	WANG Lin, SUN Qizhong, ZHANG Huijie. Study on mixed storage quality of alfalfa and maize[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(4):202-209.
[34]	靳思玉, 王立超, 李苗苗, 等. 添加糖蜜对油莎草青贮发酵品质及黄酮的影响[J]. 中国乳品工业, 2020, 48(3):31-37.
	JIN Siyu, WANG Lichao, LI Miaomiao, et al. Effect of Adding Molasses on Fermentation Quality and Flavone ofOil Sedge Silage[J]. China Dairy Industry, 2020, 48(3):31-37.
[35]	Meeske R, Basson H M. The effect of a lactic acid bacterial inoculant on maize silage[J]. Animal Feed Science & Technology, 1998, 70(3):247.

品种 Variety	品种特点 Variety characteristics	生育期 Growth period (d)	抽穗期收获日期/时间 Date / time of heading stage (d)	乳熟期收获日期/时间 Harvest date / time of milk maturity (d)
领袖 Souris	早熟	84	6月22日/49	7月6日/63
青引1号 Qingyin 1	早熟	83	6月22日/49	7月6日/63
陇燕2号 Longyan 2	早中熟	88	6月24日/51	7月7日/64
陇燕3号 Longyan 3	中熟	88	6月26日/53	7月9日/66
魅力 Charisma	中熟	88	6月26日/53	7月9日/66

品种 Variety	品种特点 Variety characteristics	生育期 Growth period (d)	抽穗期收获日期/时间 Date / time of heading stage (d)	乳熟期收获日期/时间 Harvest date / time of milk maturity (d)
领袖 Souris	早熟	84	6月22日/49	7月6日/63
青引1号 Qingyin 1	早熟	83	6月22日/49	7月6日/63
陇燕2号 Longyan 2	早中熟	88	6月24日/51	7月7日/64
陇燕3号 Longyan 3	中熟	88	6月26日/53	7月9日/66
魅力 Charisma	中熟	88	6月26日/53	7月9日/66

品种 Variety	生育期 Growth period	气味 Scent	质地 Texture	色泽 Color	合计 Summation	感官评价 Sensory analysis
领袖 Souris	抽穗期	芳香味弱10分	叶子结构保存较差2分	与原料接近2分	14分	尚好
领袖 Souris	乳熟期	芳香味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良
青引1号 Qingyin 1	抽穗期	芳香味弱10分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	16分	优良
青引1号 Qingyin 1	乳熟期	芳香果味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良
陇燕2号 Longyan 2	抽穗期	芳香味或芳香果味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良
陇燕2号 Longyan 2	乳熟期	芳香果味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良
陇燕3号 Longyan 3	抽穗期	芳香味弱10分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	16分	优良
陇燕3号 Longyan 3	乳熟期	芳香果味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良
魅力 Charisma	抽穗期	芳香味或芳香果味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良
魅力 Charisma	乳熟期	芳香果味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良

品种 Variety	生育期 Growth period	气味 Scent	质地 Texture	色泽 Color	合计 Summation	感官评价 Sensory analysis
领袖 Souris	抽穗期	芳香味弱10分	叶子结构保存较差2分	与原料接近2分	14分	尚好
领袖 Souris	乳熟期	芳香味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良
青引1号 Qingyin 1	抽穗期	芳香味弱10分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	16分	优良
青引1号 Qingyin 1	乳熟期	芳香果味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良
陇燕2号 Longyan 2	抽穗期	芳香味或芳香果味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良
陇燕2号 Longyan 2	乳熟期	芳香果味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良
陇燕3号 Longyan 3	抽穗期	芳香味弱10分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	16分	优良
陇燕3号 Longyan 3	乳熟期	芳香果味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良
魅力 Charisma	抽穗期	芳香味或芳香果味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良
魅力 Charisma	乳熟期	芳香果味14分	茎叶结构保持良好4分	与原料接近2分	20分	优良

生育期 Growth period	品种 Variety	鲜草产量 Fresh grass yield (t/hm²)	干物质 Dry matter (%)	中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (%DM)	酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%DM)	粗蛋白 Crude protein (%DM)	水溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrate (%DM)	pH值 pH value	乳酸 Lacticacid (%DM)	丙酸、乙酸 Aceticacid, Propionicacid (%DM)	氨态氮 Ammonia nitrogen (%TN)
抽穗期 (HS)	领袖	28.63±0.10^Ba	22.08±0.34^Bd	57.24±0.30^Bc	29.44±0.92^Be	12.87±0.05^Ab	11.91±1.06^Bbc	6.98±0.09^Aa	3.20±0.24^Aa	—	1.58±0.03^Bc
	青引1号	24.84±0.50^Bb	23.37±0.87^Bc	58.87±0.65^Ab	33.21±0.51^Ab	13.29±0.18^Aa	12.64±1.21^Bab	7.06±0.04^Aa	1.37±0.19^Ac	—	2.10±0.07^Ab
	陇燕2号	22.13±0.22^Bd	24.61±0.43^Bab	55.33±0.24^Bd	37.21±1.04^Aa	11.52±0.09^Ad	11.75±1.50^Bc	6.63±0.05^Ab	0.51±0.20^Ad	—	1.38±0.07^Ac
	陇燕3号	23.75±0.39^Bc	23.95±0.57^Bbc	59.55±0.61^Aa	30.44±0.36^Ad	12.75±0.21^Abc	13.22±0.82^Ba	6.34±0.13^Bc	1.84±0.10^Ab	—	0.74±0.07^Bd
	魅力	22.36±0.35^Bd	25.09±0.45^Ba	60.14±0.86^Aa	31.04±0.70^Ac	12.52±0.38^Ac	13.19±0.74^Ba	6.57±0.04^Ab	1.22±0.26^Ac	—	2.71±0.08^Aa
乳熟期 (MS)	领袖	46.29±0.17^Aa	34.99±0.73^Ac	62.09±0.25^Aa	30.59±0.70^Aa	9.46±0.31^Bb	18.62±0.22^Aa	6.92±0.10^Aa	1.24±0.28^Ba	—	2.66±0.10^Aa
	青引1号	25.73±0.45^Ae	37.74±0.55^Aa	58.03±0.99^Ab	29.72±0.18^Bb	9.46±0.48^Bb	18.72±0.45^Aa	6.40±0.04^Bb	1.39±0.45^Aa	—	1.76±0.03^Bb
	陇燕2号	34.16±0.37^Ac	34.31±0.51^Ad	58.46±0.7^Ab	27.60±0.48^Bd	9.44±0.35^Bb	19.20±1.07^Aa	6.17±0.03^Bc	0.42±0.24^Ab	—	0.67±0.07^Bc
	陇燕3号	37.60±0.26^Ab	31.60±0.43^Ae	54.08±0.18^Bc	26.83±0.71^Be	9.86±0.73^Ba	18.66±0.86^Aa	6.53±0.21^Ab	0.34±0.25^Bc	—	2.65±0.07^Aa
	魅力	28.29±0.18^Ad	36.77±0.49^Aab	51.38±0.65^Bd	29.03±0.48^Bc	9.70±0.31^Bab	17.42±0.59^Ab	6.49±0.27^Ab	0.55±0.39^Bb	—	1.87±0.05^Bb