Quality analysis of whole-plant silage corn in Xinjiang

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2025.04.008

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 In order to guide the ruminant livestock farms in Xinjiang to scientifically suppress whole-plant silage corn. 【Methods】 A total of 103 silage samples were collected from 9 prefectures(city) from 2019 to 2021, and 13 indicators such as dry matter, crude protein and ash in the samples were determined by near-infrared detection method, and the net maintenance net energy (NE_m), net energy for lactating cows (NE_L) and net energy for weight gain (NE_g) were calculated. According to the evaluation method of whole plant silage corn grade, the production level and optimized process of whole plant silage corn in Xinjiang were analyzed. 【Results】 (1) The pH value of the whole plant silage corn was controlled below 4, the content of lactic acid (LA) accounted for a high proportion of DM, and the anaerobic fermentation was sufficient to achieve the purpose of long-term preservation. (2) 33.33%, 44.44% and 22.22% of the whole-plant silage corn in different prefectures had good, medium and pass nutrient rating, respectively. The content of DM in silage was low, and the contents of CP, NDF and ADF were high. (3) There was no significant difference in Ca and P content, NE_m, NE_L and NE_g in silages from different areas. 【Conclusion】 The pH value of whole-plant corn silage pressed in various prefectures (city) of Xinjiang is below 4.0, and anaerobic fermentation fully achieve the purpose of long-term preservation. However, according to the evaluation criteria of silage corn, it is not excellent. Considering the dry matter content of silage corn, it is recommended to delay the harvest of silage corn for 5-10 days.

Key words: plant corn silage; nutritional value; fermentation index; silage quality

摘要：

【目的】研究新疆反刍家畜养殖场科学压制全株玉米青贮的评估及工艺优化。【方法】2019~2021年期间采集新疆9个地州(市)的103份青贮样品,利用近红外检测法测定样品中干物质(DM)、粗蛋白(CP)和灰分(Ash)等13项指标,并计算维持净能(NE_m)、泌乳净能(NE_L)和增重净能(NE_g),参照全株玉米青贮等级评估方法,分析新疆全株玉米青贮的制作水平及可优化工艺。【结果】(1)9个地州(市)压制好的全株玉米青贮pH值均控制在4以下,乳酸(LA)含量占干物质(DM)比例高,厌氧发酵充分,可长期保存;(2)各地州全株玉米样品营养物质评级良好占33.33%,中等占44.44%,及格占22.22%,青贮中DM含量低,CP、NDF和ADF含量高;(3)不同区域青贮中Ca和P含量、NE_m、NE_L和NE_g无显著差异性。【结论】新疆9个地州(市)压制的全株玉米青贮pH值均在4.0以下,厌氧发酵充分可长期保存,但按照青贮玉米评定标准均未达到优秀,结合青贮玉米中干物质含量宜适当延迟青贮玉米收割5~10 d。

关键词: 全株玉米青贮, 营养价值, 发酵指标, 青贮品质

CLC Number:

S512

HOU Liangzhong, TAN Rui, DU Baojun, GUO Tongjun, CAO Hongbin, Guzailinuer Aimaiti. Quality analysis of whole-plant silage corn in Xinjiang[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 62(4): 850-857.

侯良忠, 谈锐, 杜保军, 郭同军, 曹宏斌, 古再丽努尔·艾麦提. 新疆全株玉米青贮质量评估及工艺优化分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(4): 850-857.

Figures/Tables 8

References 21

[1]	张晓娜. 刈割期、品种及青贮方式对苜蓿品质的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2016.
	ZHANG Xiaona. Effects of cutting time, varieties and silage methods on alfalfa quality[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University, 2016.
[2]	田雨佳. 苜蓿干草与苜蓿青贮对奶牛瘤胃蛋白质利用的影响及作用机制的研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2014.
	TIAN Yujia. Effect of alfalfa hay and alfalfa silage on rumen protein utilization of dairy cows and its mechanism[D]. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2014.
[3]	Allen MS. Physical constrains on voluntary intake of forageby ruminants[J]. Dairy Science, 1996, 74:3063-3075
[4]	Fahey G C, Mertens D R. Regulation of Forage Intake[M]. Blackwell Science Ltd, 1994.
[5]	GB/T 14699.1-2005.饲料采样[S].
	GB/T 14699.1-2005.Animal Feeding Stuffs-Sampling[S].
[6]	杨永生, 杨大明. 全株玉米青贮饲料评价标准的制定及其应用研究[J]. 甘肃科技, 2022, 38(3): 122-126.
	YANG Yongsheng, YANG Daming. Development and Applicationo of Evaluation Criteria for Whole Plant Corn Silage Feed[J]. Gansu Science and Technology, 2022, 38(3): 122-126.
[7]	刘建新, 杨振海, 叶均安, 等. 青贮饲料的合理调制与质量评定标准(续)[J]. 饲料工业, 1999, 20(4): 3-5.
	LIU Jianxin, YANG Zhenhai, YE Junan, et al. Reasonable preparation and quality evaluation standard of silage (continued)[J]. Feed Industry, 1999, 20(4): 3-5.
[8]	UNDERSANDER D J, METTENS D R, THIEX N J. Forage analyses procedures[Z]. Omaha, NE: National Forage Testing Association (USA), 1993.
[9]	姜富贵, 成海建, 刘栋, 等. 不同收获期对全株玉米青贮营养价值、发酵品质和瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2019, 31(6): 2807-2815.
	JIANG Fugui, CHENG Haijian, LIU Dong, et al. Effects of different harvest stages on nutritional value, fermentation quality and rumen degradability of whole corn silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2019, 31(6): 2807-2815.
[10]	张瑞霞, 刘景辉, 牛敏, 等. 不同收获期青贮玉米品种营养成分的积累与分配[J]. 玉米科学, 2006, 14(6): 108-112, 116.
	ZHANG Ruixia, LIU Jinghui, NIU Min, et al. Accumulation and distribution of nutrients of silage maize in different harvest periods[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2006, 14(6): 108-112, 116.
[11]	朱慧森, 邹新平, 玉柱, 等. 青贮玉米生产性能对收获期的响应及收获指数的探讨[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2015, 46(8): 1375-1382.
	ZHU Huisen, ZOU Xinping, YU Zhu, et al. Response of productive qualities of corn silage to harvest time and exploration of harvest index of corn silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 2015, 46(8): 1375-1382.
[12]	刘建新, 杨振海, 叶均安, 等. 青贮饲料的合理调制与质量评定标准[J]. 饲料工业, 1999, 20(3): 4-7.
	LIU Jianxin, YANG Zhenhai, YE Jun’an, et al. Reasonable preparation and quality evaluation standard of silage[J]. Feed Industry, 1999, 20(3): 4-7.
[13]	李金平, 许哲, 任海伟, 等. 乙酸添加量对玉米秸秆青贮品质及其产甲烷性能的影响[J]. 太阳能学报, 2019, 40(1): 157-164.
	LI Jinping, XU Zhe, REN Haiwei, et al. Effect of acetic acid additive on quality of maize straw silage and performance of methane production[J]. Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica, 2019, 40(1): 157-164.
[14]	Kung L, Robinson J R, Ranjit N K, et al. Microbial populations, fermentation end-products, and aerobic stability of corn silage treated with ammonia or a propionic acid-based preservative 1[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2000, 83(7): 1479-1486. PMID
[15]	尉小强, 吴兵. 丙酸类防霉保鲜添加剂在青贮饲料上的应用研究进展[J]. 草学, 2017,(S1): 84-86.
	YU Xiaoqiang, WU Bing. Research progress on the application of propionic acid mildew-proof and fresh-keeping additives in silage[J]. Journal of Grassland and Forage Science, 2017,(S1): 84-86.
[16]	刘佳. 钙离子对植物生长发育的研究概况[J]. 现代盐化工, 2021, 48(5): 137-138.
	LIU Jia. Research survey of calcium ions on plant growth and development[J]. Modern Salt and Chemical Industry, 2021, 48(5): 137-138.
[17]	林郑和, 陈荣冰, 郭少平. 植物对缺磷的生理适应机制研究进展[J]. 作物杂志, 2010,(5): 5-9.
	LIN Zhenghe, CHEN Rongbing, GUO Shaoping. Research progress on physiological adaptability of plants to phosphorus deficiency[J]. Crops, 2010,(5): 5-9.
[18]	梁德印, 徐美德. 钾在植物生理中的作用[J]. 农业科技通讯, 1986,(9): 31.
	LIANG Deyin, XU Meide. The role of potassium in plant physiology[J]. Bulletin of Agricultural Science and Technology, 1986,(9): 31.
[19]	魏勇, 解津刚, 宋洁, 等. 新疆不同地区全株玉米青贮品质对比研究[J]. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(6): 99-103.
	WEI Yong, XIE Jingang, SONG Jie, et al. Comparative study on silage quality of whole plant maize in different regions of Xinjiang[J]. Feed Research, 2022, 45(6): 99-103.
[20]	林语梵, 朱鸿福, 王丽慧, 等. 宁夏黄灌区专用青贮玉米品种生产性能和营养价值研究[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(8).
	LIN Yufan, ZHU Hongfu, WANG Lihui, et al. Yield and nutritional value of silage maize varieties in Ningxia Yellow River irrigation area[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(8).
[21]	李胜开, 肖玲, 张倩云, 等. 2015—2016年中国青贮玉米品质分析[J]. 中国奶牛, 2017,(11): 49-55.
	LI Shengkai, XIAO Ling, ZHANG Qianyun, et al. The quality analysis of corn silage in China tested by dairy one China affiliated laboratory from 2015 to 2016[J]. China Dairy Cattle, 2017,(11): 49-5.

序号 Number	地州(市) Prefecture(city)	数量 Quantity	占比 Proportion (%)
1	博尔塔拉蒙古自治州	12	11.65
2	伊犁哈萨克自治州	43	41.75
3	昌吉回族自治州	10	9.71
4	阿克苏地区	7	6.80
5	乌鲁木齐市	5	4.85
6	巴音郭楞蒙古自治州	12	11.65
7	阿勒泰地区	6	5.83
8	塔城地区	3	2.91
9	五家渠市、阿拉尔市、克拉玛依市	5	4.85
	合计 Total	103	100

序号 Number	地州(市) Prefecture(city)	数量 Quantity	占比 Proportion (%)
1	博尔塔拉蒙古自治州	12	11.65
2	伊犁哈萨克自治州	43	41.75
3	昌吉回族自治州	10	9.71
4	阿克苏地区	7	6.80
5	乌鲁木齐市	5	4.85
6	巴音郭楞蒙古自治州	12	11.65
7	阿勒泰地区	6	5.83
8	塔城地区	3	2.91
9	五家渠市、阿拉尔市、克拉玛依市	5	4.85
	合计 Total	103	100

项目 Items	DM/鲜重 DM / Fresh Weight (%,25)	Starch/DM (%,25)	ADF/DM (%,15)	NDF/DM (%,15)	CP/DM (%,10)	Ash/鲜重 Ash / Fresh Weight (%,10)
指标占比 (%,得分) Proportion of Indicators (%,Score)	35.1~36(24)	32.1~33(24)	27~27.9(14)	40~41.9(14)	7.6~8(9)	7~7.5(9)
	34.1~35(23)	31.1~32(23)	28~28.9(13)	42~43.9(13)	7.1~7.5(8)	7.6~8(8)
	33.1~34(22)	30.1~31(22)	29~29.9(12)	44~45.9(12)	6.6~7(7)	8.1~8.5(7)
	32.1~33(21)	29.1~30(21)	30~30.9(11)	46~47.9(11)	6.1~6.5(6)	8.6-9(6)
	31.1~32(20)	28.1~29(20)	31~31.9(10)	48~49.9(10)	5.6~6(5)	9.1~9.5(5)
	30.1~31(19)	27.1~28(19)	>32(9)	50~51.9(9)	5.1~5.5(4)	9.6~10(4)
	29.1~30(18)	26.1~27(18)		52~53.9(8)	<5(3)	>10(3)
	28.1~29(17)	25.1~26(17)		54~55.9(7)
	27.1~28(16)	24.1~25(16)		>56(6)
	26.1~27(15)	23.1~24(14)

项目 Items	DM/鲜重 DM / Fresh Weight (%,25)	Starch/DM (%,25)	ADF/DM (%,15)	NDF/DM (%,15)	CP/DM (%,10)	Ash/鲜重 Ash / Fresh Weight (%,10)
指标占比 (%,得分) Proportion of Indicators (%,Score)	35.1~36(24)	32.1~33(24)	27~27.9(14)	40~41.9(14)	7.6~8(9)	7~7.5(9)
	34.1~35(23)	31.1~32(23)	28~28.9(13)	42~43.9(13)	7.1~7.5(8)	7.6~8(8)
	33.1~34(22)	30.1~31(22)	29~29.9(12)	44~45.9(12)	6.6~7(7)	8.1~8.5(7)
	32.1~33(21)	29.1~30(21)	30~30.9(11)	46~47.9(11)	6.1~6.5(6)	8.6-9(6)
	31.1~32(20)	28.1~29(20)	31~31.9(10)	48~49.9(10)	5.6~6(5)	9.1~9.5(5)
	30.1~31(19)	27.1~28(19)	>32(9)	50~51.9(9)	5.1~5.5(4)	9.6~10(4)
	29.1~30(18)	26.1~27(18)		52~53.9(8)	<5(3)	>10(3)
	28.1~29(17)	25.1~26(17)		54~55.9(7)
	27.1~28(16)	24.1~25(16)		>56(6)
	26.1~27(15)	23.1~24(14)

占总酸比例 Proportion of Total Acid (%)	得点 Get a Point		占总酸比例 Proportion of Total Acid (%)	得点 Get Point
占总酸比例 Proportion of Total Acid (%)	乳酸 (LA)	乙酸 (AA)	占总酸比例 Proportion of Total Acid (%)	乳酸 (LA)	乙酸 (AA)
<0.1	0	50	30.1~35.0	14	38
0.1~1.0	0	50	35.1~40.0	18	32
1.1~2.0	0	50	40.1~45.0	24	28
2.1~5.0	0	50	45.1~50.0	28	22
5.1~10.0	0	50	50.1~55.0	34	18
10.1~15.0	0	50	55.1~60.0	38	12
15.1~20.0	0	50	60.1~65.0	44	0
20.1~25.0	4	46	65.1~70.0	48	0
25.1~30.0	8	42	> 70.0	50	0