Effect of Cultivation Measures on Forage Production and Quality of Forage Grasses in Coastal Beach Areas

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2012.02.019

›› 2012, Vol. 20 ›› Issue (2): 318-323.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2012.02.019

Previous Articles Next Articles

Effect of Cultivation Measures on Forage Production and Quality of Forage Grasses in Coastal Beach Areas

ZHANG Wen-jie^1,2, DING Cheng-long², SHEN Yi-xin¹, CHENG Yun-hui², XU Neng-xiang²

1. College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210095, China;
2. Institute of Animal Science, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210014, China

Received:2011-09-09 Revised:2011-12-06 Online:2012-04-15 Published:2012-07-05

沿海滩涂地区不同栽培措施对禾本科牧草产量及品质的影响

张文洁^1,2, 丁成龙², 沈益新¹, 程云辉², 许能祥²

1. 南京农业大学动物科技学院, 江苏南京 210095;
2. 江苏省农业科学院畜牧研究所, 江苏南京 210014

通讯作者: 丁成龙,E-mail:dingcl@jaas.ac.cn
作者简介:张文洁(1986- ),女,山东菏泽人,硕士研究生,研究方向为饲草调制与加工,E-mail: jiexiu1228@163.com
基金资助:
"十二五"国家科技支撑计划课题(2011BAD17B02)资助

Abstract

Abstract: In order to find a high-yield culture technique for producing forage grasses in coastal beach areas, four forage grasses and three cultivation measures were used for discussing the effect of different cultivations on both yield and quality of different forage grass varieties. Results showed that both forage yield and leaf/stem ratio were significantly higher in the treatments of straw mulching and water-retaining agent than that in control (P<0.05). The forage quality of straw mulching treatment was the best one compared with other treatments and water-retaining agent treatment was the second. Forage yield and quality among different varieties showed significant difference (P<0.05), in which silage maize and hybrid of sudangrass and Sorghum were better. Summarily, forage yield and quality could be significantly improved by the cultivation measures of straw mulching and water-retaining agent, but the degree of improvement differed significantly among different varieties.

Key words: Coastal beach, Cultivation measures, Forage yield, Forage quality

摘要： 为探讨沿海滩涂地区牧草高产栽培技术,以4种禾本科牧草为材料,研究了3种不同的栽培措施对不同饲草品种的饲草产量和品质的影响。结果表明: 覆秸秆与添加保水剂处理饲草的产量和叶/茎比显著高于对照(P<0.05)。同一品种,覆秸秆处理饲草的可溶性碳水化合物(WSC)、粗蛋白(CP)、干物质体外消化率(IVDMD)和体外可消化干物质产量最高,粗灰分(Ash)、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)和中性洗涤纤维(NDF)含量最低,品质最好,其次是添加保水剂处理,对照最差。不同品种之间的饲草产量和品质差异显著(P<0.05),其中青贮玉米(Zea mays L.)和高丹草(Sorghum bicolor×Sorghum sudanese)表现较好。在沿海滩涂地区,覆秸秆和添加保水剂处理可以显著提高饲草产量,改善饲草品质,但不同品种之间产量和品质差异较大。

关键词: 沿海滩涂, 栽培技术, 饲草品质, 饲草产量

CLC Number:

ZHANG Wen-jie, DING Cheng-long, SHEN Yi-xin, CHENG Yun-hui, XU Neng-xiang. Effect of Cultivation Measures on Forage Production and Quality of Forage Grasses in Coastal Beach Areas[J]. , 2012, 20(2): 318-323.

张文洁, 丁成龙, 沈益新, 程云辉, 许能祥. 沿海滩涂地区不同栽培措施对禾本科牧草产量及品质的影响[J]. , 2012, 20(2): 318-323.

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/EN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2012.02.019

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/EN/Y2012/V20/I2/318

References

[1] 唐于银,乔海龙.我国盐渍土资源及其综合利用研究进展[J].安徽农学通报,2008,14(8):19-21
[2] 谢承陶.盐渍土改良原理与作物抗性[M].北京:中国农业科技出版社,1992:116-177
[3] 陈宝书. 牧草饲料作物栽培学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2001:424-426
[4] 詹秋文,林平,李军,等.高粱-苏丹草杂交草的研究与利用前景[J].草业学报,2001,10(2):56-61
[5] 陈自胜,孙中心,徐安凯.青贮玉米及其经济效益[J].吉林农业科学,2000,25(4):41-44
[6] 邬春清,吴秉仁,郭松平,等.墨西哥饲用玉米草引种及生态气候评价[J].中国草地,1990,12(1):33-36
[7] 欧阳延生,李翔宏,叶华,等.14个牧草品种在南昌地区引种试验[J].中国草地学报,2006,28(5):18-22
[8] 武之新,刘肇清.滨海盐渍土区牧草的引种、耐盐鉴定及应用[J].草地学报,1991,1(1):177-182
[9] 董晓霞,郭洪海,孔令安.滨海盐渍地种植紫花苜蓿对土壤盐分特性和肥力的影响[J].山东农业科学,2001(1):24-25
[10] 康俊,张淑英,李牧.滨海盐碱地耐盐地被植物引种开发的研究[J].山东林业科技,2003(4):1-7
[11] Dubois M, Gilles K A, Hamilton J K, et al. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances[J]. Analytical Chemistry, 1956, 28(3):350-353
[12] 杨胜.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].北京:北京农业大学出版社,1993:36-61
[13] Goto I, Minson D J. Prediction of the dry matter digestibility of tropical grasses using a pepsin cellulase essay [J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1977, 2(3):247-253
[14] 李新举,张志国,刘勋岭,等.秸秆覆盖对土壤水盐运动的影响[J].山东农业大学学报,2000,31(1):38-40
[15] 郭宪,金玉美,连海明,等.麦秸覆盖对杂草萌发及玉米产量的影响[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(9):2584,2596
[16] 陈敏,王宝山.覆秸秆对盐碱地小麦生长及产量的效应[J].山东农业大学学报,2000,15(3):307-310
[17] 谢慧慧,樊军,郝明德,等.地表覆盖对黄土高原水蚀风蚀交错区人工草地水分利用的影响[J].草地学报,2010,18(2):172-176,182
[18] 李云开,杨培岭,刘洪禄.保水剂农业应用及其效应研究进展[J].农业工程学报,2002,18(2):182-186
[19] 曹致中.草产品学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2005:1-2
[20] 陈尚洪,刘定辉,朱钟麟,等.四川盆地秸秆还田免耕对土壤养分及碳库的影响[J].中国水土保持科学,2008,6(S1):54-56
[21] Sainju U M, Whitehead W F, Singh B P. Carbon accumulation in cotton, sorghum, and underlying soil as influenced by tillage, cover crops, and nitrogen fertilization[J]. Plant and Soil, 2005, 273:219-234
[22] Monneveux P, Quillérou E, Sanchez C, et al. Effect of zero tillage and residues conservation on continuous maize cropping in a subtropical environment(Mexico)[J]. Plant and Soil, 2006, 279:95-105
[23] Patra D D, Muni Ram, Singh D V. Influence of straw mulching on fertilizer nitrogen use efficiency, moisture conservation and herb and essential oil yield in Japanese mint (Mentha arvensis L.) [J]. Fertilizer Research, 1993, 34:135-139
[24] 张志国,徐琪.长期秸秆覆盖免耕对土壤某些理化性质及玉米产量的影响[J].土壤学报,1998,35(3):384-391
[25] 刘华,舒孝喜,赵银,等.盐胁迫对碱茅生长及碳水化合物含量的影响[J].草业科学,1997,14(1):18-19,22
[26] 史传燕,覃凤飞,钦佩. 2种盐生植物饲用价值的研究[J].草地学报,2010,18(5):698-702
[27] 张兆英,于秀俊.植物抗盐性评价生理指标的分析[J].沧州师范专科学校学报,2006,22(4):51-53
[28] 周志平,顾洪如,沈益新,等.青刈黑麦抽穗期干物质体外消化率与细胞壁结构物质的关系[J].江苏农业学报,2008,24(1):71-74

Effect of Cultivation Measures on Forage Production and Quality of Forage Grasses in Coastal Beach Areas

沿海滩涂地区不同栽培措施对禾本科牧草产量及品质的影响

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	ZHANG Feng, ZHAO Tian-qi, QIAO Ji-rong, ZHAO Meng-li, ZHANG Xin-yue, WU Jian-xin. Effects of Stubble Height on productivity and Sustainable Utilization in the Stipa grandis Steppe [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(7): 1491-1498.
[2]	DONG Zhi-xiao, HE Run-hao, KUANG Jian-yang, NIE Cong, YANG Jian, ZHANG Jian-bo, GOU Wen-long, MA Xiao. Effects of Sweet Sorghum Intercropping with Lablab Purpureus on Yield and Quality of Mixed Forage in Chengdu Plain,China [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(7): 1578-1583.
[3]	WANG Wei-qiang, LIU Jing, TIAN Xin-hui, DU Wen-hua. Adaptability Evaluation of Secale cereale ‘Gannong No.2’ in Different Regions of Qinghai Province [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(3): 504-514.
[4]	WANG Bin, YANG Yan-jun, DONG Xiu, LI Man-you, SHEN Xiao-tian, CAO Li-juan, LAN Jian. Effects of Reseeding Grass on Production Performance and Forage Quality of Degraded Alfalfa Grassland [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(3): 618-624.
[5]	WANG Yu-qin, SONG Mei-ling, WANG Hong-sheng, YIN Ya-li, MA Yu-shou. Effects of Nitrogen Addition on Vegetation and Forage Nutritional Quality of Degraded Alpine Grassland [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(12): 2742-2751.
[6]	HE Peng-liang, WANG Ya-mei, JIE Hong-dong, DENG Hui-fen, XING Hu-cheng, JIE Yu-cheng. Effects of Different Cutting Time on the Forage Yield and Nutritional Quality of Forage Triticale [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(11): 2609-2614.
[7]	YOU Yong-liang, LI Yuan, ZHAO Hai-ming, WU Rui-xin, LI Jian-ming, LIU Gui-bo, YANG Zhi-min. Effects of Sowing Date and Planting Density on Production Performance and Forage Quality of Silage Corn [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(11): 2615-2624.
[8]	ZHOU Lei, WANG Lu, ZHAO Bao-ping, MI Jun-zhen, WANG Feng-wu, LIU Jing-hui, ZHANG Dan, LIU Ye-kun. Effect of Different Sowing Date and Cutting Time on Yield and Quality of Forage Oat in Agro-pastoral Ecotone of Northern China [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(10): 2355-2363.
[9]	XIE Nan, LIU Zhen-yu, FENG Wei, ZHI Jian-fei, LI Meng, DU Zi-xuan, LIU Zhong-kuan. The Production Performance and Forage Quality of Forage Millet in Saline Alkali Dryland Around Bohai Sea [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(1): 60-71.
[10]	KANG Yong-jian, ZHAO Bao-ping, WU Jun-ying, ZOU Jun-jie, LIU Jing-hui. Effects of Different Nitrogen Topdressing Stage on the Stalk Physical and Chemical Characteristics and Lodging Resistance of Forage Oats [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(6): 1775-1783.
[11]	JIANG Cui-xia, HU Chang-sheng, WEI Hai-yan, WANG Xian-ju, DING Lu-ming. The Effect of Modulating Different Utilizing Intensity in Summer Season on Forage Quality and Soil Nutrients of Winter & Spring Pasture on Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(5): 1473-1477.
[12]	YOU Yong-liang, ZHAO Hai-ming, LI Yuan, WU Rui-xin, LIU Gui-bo. Breeding of New Forage Triticale ‘Jisi No.3’ with Stress Resistance and High Yield [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(4): 1145-1152.
[13]	SUN Ji-ying, GAO Ju-lin, WANG Zhi-gang, YU Xiao-fang, HU Shu-ping, LIU Jian, BAO Hai-zhu, HUO Xian-xian, BAI Yun-long, YAN Dong. Effect of Planting Density on Forage Yield and Nutritive Value of Different Maize Varieties [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(6): 1733-1742.
[14]	SONG Jun-xiang, LEI Xiong, YE Ming-qing, ZHANG Jing-le, YANg Ying, CAI Dong-yang, ZHA De. Effects of Bioorganic Fertilizer on Community Diversity and Production Performance of Degraded Grassland [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(5): 1355-1363.
[15]	ZHANG Yong-liang, ZHANG Li-juan, YU Tie-feng, PAN Dong. Effects of Grass-Legume Combinations and Intercropping Patterns on the Forage Yield and Yield Stability [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(5): 1410-1418.