青海省共和县4种燕麦品种营养及对牦牛饲用潜力的评价

周鹏宇; 崔占鸿; 王迅; 马金秀; 孙璐; 刘书杰

doi:10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2024-0352

青海省共和县4种燕麦品种营养及对牦牛饲用潜力的评价

周鹏宇^{1, 2, 3, 4},
崔占鸿^{1, 2, 3, 4},
王迅^{1, 2, 3, 4},
马金秀⁵,
孙璐^{1, 2, 3, 4},
刘书杰^{1, 2, 3, 4}

1.
青海大学畜牧兽医科学院, 青海西宁 810016
2.
青藏高原放牧牦牛藏羊动物营养与饲草料重点实验室, 青海西宁 810016
3.
青海省牦牛工程技术研究中心, 青海西宁 810016
4.
青海省高原放牧家畜动物营养与饲料科学重点实验室, 青海西宁 810016
5.
青海雪峰牦牛乳业有限公司, 青海共和 811800

基金项目: 国家重点研发计划(2022YFD1602307)；青海省“昆仑英才·高端创新创业人才”培养拔尖人才项目(2022)、培养领军人才(2021)、培养团队项目(2022)

摘要:

牦牛(Bos grunniens) 是青藏高原重要的家畜之一，为高原地区人民提供了重要的生活物资及经济来源。燕麦(Avena sativa)作为一种重要的牧草品种，对青藏高原的畜牧业发展起到了重要作用。为了筛选饲草品质高且适宜饲喂牦牛的燕麦品种，本试验通过产量指标、常规营养指标及体外产气指标对‘青燕4号’‘青燕3号’‘陇燕1号’‘白燕7号’ 4种燕麦进行饲用价值综合评价。结果表明：鲜草产量、干草产量及单位营养物质输出量，‘青燕4号’和‘青燕3号’显著高于‘陇燕1号’和‘白燕7号’(P < 0.05)，鲜草产量和干草产量均以‘青燕4号’最高，鲜草产量较产量最低的‘陇燕1号’高了10.88%；粗蛋白、酸性洗涤纤维及粗灰分，4种燕麦之间无显著差异(P > 0.05)；粗脂肪，‘青燕4号’与‘青燕3号’显著高于‘白燕7号’，其中‘青燕4号’含量最高，较含量最低的‘白燕7号’高出14.13%；中性洗涤纤维，‘白燕7号’显著高于其他3种人工种植燕麦，含量最高的‘白燕7号’较含量最低的‘青燕3号’高出10.61%；在体外产气指标中‘陇燕1号’产气量显著高出‘白燕7号’34.19%；pH，‘白燕7号’显著高于‘青燕3号’；挥发性脂肪酸方面，异丁酸，‘青燕3号’和‘陇燕1号’显著高于‘白燕7号’；丁酸，‘青燕3号’显著高于‘青燕4号’和‘白燕7号’；异戊酸，‘陇燕1号’显著高于‘白燕7号’；戊酸，‘陇燕1号’显著高于其他3种燕麦；体外干物质消化率，‘陇燕1号’显著高于其他3组，‘陇燕1号’最高，为47.48%，‘白燕7号’最低，为35.28%；代谢能，‘陇燕1号’显著高出‘青燕3号’13.31%。综上，‘陇燕1号’的产量、常规营养指标和产气指标综合表现较佳，可以为青海省共和县地区牦牛提供优质的粗饲料来源。

关键词:

English

Nutritional evaluation of four oat varieties and their potential for yak feeding in Gonghe County, Qinghai Province

ZHOU Pengyu^{1, 2, 3, 4},
CUI Zhanhong^{1, 2, 3, 4},
WANG Xun^{1, 2, 3, 4},
MA Jinxiu⁵,
SUN Lu^{1, 2, 3, 4},
LIU Shujie^{1, 2, 3, 4}

1.
Qinghai Academy of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences in Qinghai University, Xining 810016, Qinghai, China
2.
Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Forage-Feed of Grazing Yak and Tibetan Sheep in Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, Xining 810016, Qinghai, China
3.
Key Laboratory of Plateau Grazing Animal Nutrition and Feed Science of Qinghai Province, Xining 810016, Qinghai, China
4.
Yak Engineering Technology Research Center of Qinghai Province, Xining 810016, Qinghai, China
5.
Qinghai Xuefeng Yak Dairy Industry Company Limited, Gonghe 811800, Qinghai, China

Received Date: 2024-06-03
Accepted Date: 2024-08-14
Available Online: 2024-12-05

Abstract:

The yak is an important domestic animal on the Tibetan Plateau, as it provides important living materials and an economic resource for the people in that region. As an important pasture species, oat plays an important role in the development of animal husbandry on the Tibetan Plateau. The aim of this study was to choose oat varieties with high forage quality and suitability for yak feeding. A comprehensive evaluation of the feeding value of four Avena sativa varieties (‘Qingyan No. 4’, ‘Qingyan No. 3’, ‘Longyan No. 1’, and ‘Baiyan No. 7’) was performed using yield indices, conventional nutritional indices, and in vitro gas production indices. The findings indicated that ‘Qingyan No. 4’ and ‘Qingyan No. 3’ had significantly higher fresh weight, hay weight, and nutrient output per unit than ‘Longyan No. 1’ and ‘Baiyan No. 7’, and ‘Qingyan No. 4’ showed the highest fresh grass yield and hay yield, and fresh weight of ‘Qingyan No. 4’ was 10.88% higher than that of ‘Longyan No. 1’, which had the lowest yield. There were no significant differences in crude protein, crude ash, or acid detergent fiber content among the four species of oats. Crude fat was significantly higher in ‘Qingyan No. 4’ and ‘Qingyan No. 3’ than in ‘Baiyan No. 7’, and ‘Qingyan No. 4’ had the highest content, which was 14.13% higher than that of ‘Baiyan No. 7’, which had the lowest content. ‘Baiyan No. 7’ had significantly higher neutral detergent fiber content than the other three cultivated oat species. and the content was 10.61% in ‘Baiyan No. 7’ than ‘Qingyan No. 3’, which had the lowest content. ‘Longyan No. 1’ produced significantly more gas than ‘Baiyan No. 7’ by 34.19%, while ‘Baiyan No. 7’ had a significantly higher pH than ‘Qingyan No. 3’. For volatile fatty acids, ‘Qingyan No. 3’ and ‘Longyan No. 1’ produced significantly more isobutyric acid than ‘Baiyan No. 7’; ‘Qingyan No. 3’ produced significantly more butyric acid than ‘Qingyan No. 4’ and ‘Baiyan No. 7’; ‘Longyan No. 1’ produced significantly more isovaleric acid than ‘Baiyan No. 7’; and ‘Longyan No. 1’ produced significantly more valeric acid than the other three oat varieties. ‘Longyan No. 1’ demonstrated significantly greater in vitro dry matter digestibility at 47.48% than the other three groups, while ‘Baiyan No. 7’ showed the lowest value at 35.28%. ‘Longyan No. 1’ showed significantly higher metabolic energy than ‘Qingyan No. 3’ by 13.31%. In summary, ‘Longyan No. 1’ exhibited superior performance in terms of yield, conventional nutritional indices, and gas production indices, making it a valuable roughage feed for yaks in the Gonghe County area of Qinghai Province.

Keywords:

HTML全文

甜高粱(Sorghum bicolor)是高产C₄植物，相较于C₃植物具有光合效率高、耐旱性强及生长能力强等特点，作为普通粒用高粱的一个变种，其抗逆性强、营养丰富、含糖量高，是一种优质的能源及饲料作物，在边际性土地上具有巨大的栽培潜力^[1-2]。近年来，因甜高粱饲用价值高，逐渐成为我国干旱、半干旱及盐碱化地区重要的优质饲草资源，以缓解草畜矛盾^{[1, 3]}。在降水稀少及供水受限地区，甜高粱可获得较理想的产量，具有取代饲用玉米(Zea mays)的潜力，可作为优质青贮饲料替代日粮中部分青贮玉米饲喂牛、羊^[4-6]。有研究表明，短期内饲喂高产哺乳奶牛，甜高粱青贮饲料可替代日粮中部分青贮玉米，当替代率高达50%时，对产奶量无负面影响^[7]。

在宁夏中部地区，由于降水稀少、地表蒸发量大以及土壤盐碱化严重，导致该地区的作物生长受到严重影响，从而进一步导致当地饲草资源的短缺，使得草畜矛盾日益突出。因此，挖掘甜高粱的饲用价值、发挥其饲用潜力，对于缓解草畜矛盾具有重要意义。甜高粱‘F438’在宁夏中部地区表现出较强的抗旱性^[8]，且其产量和品质较优^[9]。目前有较多关于甜高粱适时收获期的研究^{[4, 10-11]}，但主要集中于探讨甜高粱不同收获期田间产量与营养品质的表现，对于甜高粱的饲用价值而言，不同收获期可消化养分产量至关重要。因此，本研究以甜高粱‘F438’为材料，对其拔节期、抽穗期、乳熟期和蜡熟期的田间生产性能和体外消化性能进行比较，以期为宁夏中部地区甜高梁的生产与利用提供科学依据。

1. 材料与方法

1.1 试验地概况

试验地位于宁夏回族自治区吴忠市红寺堡区(105°43′～106°42′ E，37°28′～37°37′ N)，平均海拔1 345 m。该区属温带大陆性气候，常年干旱少雨，2022年降水量212 mm，较多年平均降水量下降15.2%，年均温8.7 ℃，无霜期163 d。

1.2 试验设计

供试甜高粱品种‘F438’于2022年5月15日播种，行距30 cm，株距20 cm，种植密度为166 755株·hm⁻²。种前灌水，施种肥磷酸二铵[总养分(N + P₂O₅) ≥ 64.0%] 300 kg·hm⁻²，试验期间实施常规田间管理，6月17日(苗期)追施尿素(N ≥ 46.4%) 200 kg·hm⁻²，6月25日(苗期)和8月20日(拔节期)各施硝基复合肥(总养分 ≥ 45%, N ꞉ P₂O₅ ꞉ K₂O = 26 ꞉ 6 ꞉ 6) 200 kg·hm⁻²。设计4个收获期，分别为拔节期(2022年8月29日)、抽穗期(2022年9月13日)、乳熟期(2022年9月27日)和蜡熟期(2022年10月11日)，留茬高度为15 cm。

1.3 测定指标及方法

各收获期分别随机选取3×10株甜高粱测定株高、茎粗、单株叶片数、单株黄叶数及茎节数，并随机选取3个2 m × 2 m样方进行全株刈割并称得鲜重，每个样方分别取切短后混匀的300 g鲜样和3株全株，于实验室105 ℃杀青20 min，65 ℃烘干至恒重，计算干物质(dry matter，DM)含量和干物质产量，通过分离单株茎、叶，计算茎叶比(茎叶比 = 茎干重/叶干重)。取甜高粱烘干样粉碎后过0.425 mm筛，通过凯氏定氮法测定粗蛋白质(crude protein，CP)含量，使用脂肪分析仪(Ankom XT1 Ankom Company，USA)通过索氏提取法测定脂肪(ether extract，EE)含量，通过蒽酮－硫酸比色法测定可溶性碳水化合物(water soluble carbohydrate，WSC)和淀粉(starch)含量，通过范氏洗涤纤维法测定中性洗涤纤维(neutral detergent fiber，NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维(acid detergent fiber，ADF)和酸性洗涤木质素(acid detergent lignin，ADL)含量。

1.4 体外瘤胃消化性能测定

采用王莹^[12]的方法测定体外消化率，称取0.5 g青贮饲料样品于纤维袋中(重复3次)，放入DAISY II 体外模拟培养箱消化罐中，加入1 330 mL A缓冲液、266 mL B缓冲液和400 mL于晨饲前采集的配备有永久瘤胃瘘管的安格斯牛瘤胃液，往消化罐中持续通入CO₂至厌氧条件，盖好盖子后放入体外模拟培养箱，在39 ℃下培养48 h，取出样品并用蒸馏水将纤维袋冲洗干净后烘干，称取残渣干物质重后，测定残渣NDF含量，计算体外干物质消化率(in vitro dry matter digestibility，IVDMD)和体外中性洗涤纤维消化率(in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility，IVNDFD)，并乘以干物质产量得到可消化干物质产量和可消化中性洗涤纤维产量。

体外干物质消化率 = (样品干物质重 − 残渣干物质重)/样品干物质重 × 100%；

体外中性洗涤纤维消化率 = (样品NDF含量 − 残渣NDF含量)/样品NDF含量 × 100%。

1.5 数据分析

采用Excel 2016整理数据，利用SPSS 27.0进行单因素方差分析，利用Duncan检验法进行多重比较，利用Hiplot进行相关性分析及作图。

2. 结果与分析

2.1 各收获期甜高粱农艺性状及产量比较

甜高粱蜡熟期和乳熟期的茎节数、茎叶比和干物质产量均显著高于拔节期和抽穗期(P < 0.05) (表1)。甜高粱拔节期的株高、单株黄叶数、茎节数和干物质含量均显著低于其他3个时期(P < 0.05)。乳熟期和蜡熟期甜高粱的株高、茎叶比和干物质产量间无显著差异(P > 0.05)，甜高粱株高、干物质含量和产量随收获期延后呈现上升趋势，在蜡熟期达到最大，分别为477.24 cm、39.20%和25.11 t·hm⁻²。

表 1 不同收获期甜高粱农艺性状及产量比较

Table 1. Agronomic characteristics and yield of sweet sorghum in different harvest periods

收获期 Harvest period	株高 Plant height/cm	茎粗 Stem width/mm	单株叶片数 Leaf number per plant	单株黄叶数 Yellow leaf number per plant	茎节数 Node number	茎叶比 Stem to leaf ratio	干物质含量 Dry matter content/%	干物质产量 Dry matter yield/(t·hm⁻²)
拔节期 Jointing stage	391.47b	18.80	15.70	4.20c	11.30c	1.61b	18.81d	14.34b
抽穗期 Heading stage	458.76a	17.23	15.50	5.90b	13.60b	1.83b	24.84c	19.70b
乳熟期 Milk stage	457.92a	17.06	14.60	5.50b	14.90a	3.09a	30.61b	23.69a
蜡熟期 Dough stage	477.24a	16.70	15.70	7.10a	15.20a	2.99a	39.20a	25.11a
SEM	6.59	0.45	0.28	0.23	0.32	0.23	2.31	1.51
P	< 0.001	0.374	0.454	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.008	< 0.001	0.018
SEM：均值标准误；同列不同小写字母表示不同收获期间差异显著(P < 0.05)；下表同。　SEM: standard error of the mean. Different capital letters within the same column indicate significant differences between different harvest periods at the 0.05 level. This is applicable for the following tables as well.

下载: 导出CSV

| 显示表格

2.2 不同收获期甜高粱田间营养品质比较

收获期对甜高粱营养品质(除ADL)均具有显著影响(P < 0.05) (表2)。甜高粱全株、茎和叶CP含量随收获期延后而降低；WSC含量随收获期延后总体上逐渐增加，甜高粱蜡熟期全株WSC含量最高，达17.35%，显著高于其他3个时期(P < 0.05)。收获期对甜高粱淀粉含量具有显著影响(P < 0.001)，乳熟期和蜡熟期淀粉含量显著高于拔节期和抽穗期(P < 0.05)。甜高粱NDF和ADF含量在拔节期到抽穗期上升后随收获期延后逐渐下降，在蜡熟期降至最低，分别为58.92%和35.52%，显著低于拔节期和抽穗期(P < 0.05)。

表 2 不同收获期甜高粱营养比较

Table 2. Nutritional components of sweet sorghum in different harvest periods %

收获期 Harvest period	粗蛋白质(CP) Crude protein			可溶性碳水化合物(WSC) Water soluble carbohydrates			淀粉 Starch	粗脂肪 (EE) Ether extract	中性洗涤纤维(NDF) Neutral detergent fiber	酸性洗涤纤维(ADF) Acid detergent fiber	酸性洗涤木质素(ADL) Acid detergent lignin
收获期 Harvest period	全株 Whole plant	茎 Stem	叶 Leaf	全株 Whole plant	茎 Stem	叶 Leaf	淀粉 Starch	粗脂肪 (EE) Ether extract	中性洗涤纤维(NDF) Neutral detergent fiber	酸性洗涤纤维(ADF) Acid detergent fiber	酸性洗涤木质素(ADL) Acid detergent lignin
拔节期 Jointing stage	6.57a	4.12a	9.19a	5.35c	10.13b	2.58b	5.60b	2.52a	66.45a	40.62a	6.83
抽穗期 Heading stage	4.66b	3.59ab	8.13ab	6.94c	8.95b	2.20b	5.91b	1.03c	68.57a	42.04a	6.45
乳熟期 Milk stage	4.26b	3.03b	6.94bc	14.21b	17.95a	5.34a	10.49a	1.46bc	60.28b	36.06b	6.08
蜡熟期 Dough stage	3.79b	1.84c	6.04c	17.35a	18.62a	5.51a	11.61a	1.78b	58.92b	35.52b	6.56
SEM	3.81	3.27	4.11	15.14	12.95	4.66	0.83	0.19	1.27	0.89	0.19
P	0.018	0.004	0.007	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.007	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.628

下载: 导出CSV

| 显示表格

2.3 不同收获期甜高粱体外消化性能比较

甜高粱在蜡熟期收获IVDMD最高(表3)，为53.53%，显著高于其他3个时期(P < 0.05)。随着收获期的延后，甜高粱可消化干物质产量逐渐上升，在蜡熟期达最高，为13.35 t·hm⁻²，显著高于拔节期和抽穗期(P < 0.05) ，但与乳熟期差异不显著(P > 0.05)。甜高粱在拔节期收获IVNDFD最高，为36.53%，显著高于抽穗期和乳熟期(P < 0.05)，分别高5.21%和5.54%，但与蜡熟期差异不显著(P > 0.05)。甜高粱在蜡熟期收获可消化中性洗涤纤维产量最高，为4.91 t·hm⁻²，显著高于拔节期(P < 0.05)，但与抽穗期和乳熟期差异不显著(P > 0.05)。

表 3 不同收获期甜高粱体外消化率及可消化养分产量的比较

Table 3. In vitro digestibility and digestible nutrient yield of sweet sorghum in different harvest periods

收获期 Harvest period	体外干物质消化率(IVDMD) In vitro dry matter digestibility/%	体外中性洗涤纤维消化率(IVNDFD) In vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility/%	可消化干物质 (DDMY)产量 Digestible dry matter yield/(t·hm⁻²)	可消化中性洗涤纤维 (DNDFY)产量 Digestible neutral detergent fiber yield/(t·hm⁻²)
拔节期 Jointing stage	46.99bc	36.53a	6.74b	3.46b
抽穗期 Heading stage	44.20c	31.32b	8.70b	4.22ab
乳熟期 Milk stage	49.52b	30.99b	11.71a	4.27ab
蜡熟期 Dough stage	53.53a	33.33ab	13.35a	4.91a
SEM	1.11	0.92	0.85	0.92
P	< 0.001	0.054	0.002	0.072

下载: 导出CSV

| 显示表格

2.4 甜高粱营养品质与体外消化性能的相关性分析

甜高粱干物质(DM)含量、可溶性碳水化合物(WSC)含量、可消化干物质(DDMY)产量和可消化中性洗涤纤维(DNDFY)产量显著正相关(P < 0.05) (图1)。干物质产量与CP含量显著负相关(P < 0.05)，与DDMY产量显著正相关(P < 0.05)。CP含量与DNDFY含量显著负相关(P <0.05)，WSC含量与DDMY产量显著正相关(P < 0.05)。淀粉含量与中性洗涤纤维(NDF)和酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)含量显著负相关(P < 0.05)，与DDMY产量显著正相关(P < 0.05)。

图 1 甜高粱营养品质与可消化养分产量的相关性分析

DM：干物质；DMY：干物质产量；CP：粗蛋白质；WSC：可溶性碳水化合物；Starch：淀粉；EE：脂肪；NDF：中性洗涤纤维；ADF：酸性洗涤纤维；ADL：酸性洗涤木质素；IVDMD：体外干物质消化率；IVNDFD：体外中性洗涤纤维消化率；DDMY：可消化干物质产量；DNDFY：可消化中性洗涤纤维产量。红色表示正相关，蓝色表示负相关，饼图面积越大、颜色越深表示相关性越强；*和**分别表示相关性显著(P < 0.05)和极显著(P < 0.01)。

Figure 1. Correlation analysis of nutritional components and digestible nutrient yield

DM: dry matter; DMY: dry matter yield; CP: crude protein; WSC: water soluble carbohydrate; Starch: starch; EE: ether extract; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin; IVDMD: in vitro dry matter digestibility; IVNDFD: in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility; DDMY: digestible dry matter yield; DNDFY: digestible neutral detergent fiber digestibility. Red represents a positive correlation, and blue represents a negative correlation; the larger the pie area and the deeper the color, the stronger the correlation; * and ** indicate significant correlation at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

3. 讨论

3.1 不同收获期对甜高粱农艺性状的影响

本研究中甜高粱株高、茎叶比、干物质含量和干物质产量随甜高粱收获期延后而逐渐增加，这与Atis等^[13]的研究一致，产量的变化主要来自于株高、茎粗和茎节数变化等。冯国郡等^[14]研究发现甜高粱生物产量与株高、茎粗、茎节数显著正相关，与茎秆产量相关性最强。谷健等^[15]研究表示，玉米在灌浆期茎粗低于抽穗期。本研究中甜高粱在拔节过后茎粗也逐渐降低。原因可能是甜高粱是一种单子叶植物，茎的增粗主要依靠于茎初生生长^[16]，植物拔节后逐渐从营养生长转向生殖生长，抽穗消耗大量水分和营养，初生生长缓慢或停止，使得甜高粱茎粗下降。本研究中甜高粱茎粗和干物质产量最大为18.80 mm和25.11 t·hm⁻²，均低于王太行等^[17]在雨水充沛地区种植的甜高粱的茎粗和产量。品种间差异可能导致这一现象，但有大量研究表明，缺水及盐碱条件对植物生长不利^[18-19]，干旱条件会显著降低营养生长及生殖生长期作物产量^[20]。宁夏中部地区甜高粱的产量低于供水充足地区，与其干旱及盐碱化条件密不可分。

3.2 不同收获期对甜高粱营养品质的影响

蛋白质主要集中于甜高粱的叶片中，本研究发现甜高粱全株CP含量随收获期延后逐渐下降，这是因为随生育期延后叶片占比下降且叶片逐渐衰老导致，这与Lyons等^[21]的研究结果一致。NDF和ADF含量是反映饲草营养品质的重要指标，NDF含量与家畜采食量负相关，ADF含量与消化率负相关^[22]。一般而言随着植物生育期延后，细胞壁增厚，细胞内容物减少，NDF和ADF含量升高，饲用价值也相应降低^[23]。王海莲等^[10]研究发现，随着生育期的延后，甜高粱NDF和ADF含量升高，干物质采食量、可消化干物质和相对饲喂价值逐渐降低。而在Lyons等^[21]的研究中甜高粱NDF和ADF含量随收获期延后逐渐下降。本研究中NDF和ADF含量在抽穗期上升后随生育期延后逐渐下降，可能是因为甜高粱中WSC和淀粉随生育期延后而大量积累，导致NDF和ADF含量下降。Nombekela等^[24]的研究结果表明，甜味延长了家畜59%的采食时间，提升了12%采食量。本研究中，随生育期延后甜高粱WSC含量逐渐升高且NDF含量逐渐下降，表明延迟甜高粱收获期可能有利于提高家畜的采食量。本研究发现，甜高粱的WSC和淀粉含量在抽穗期到乳熟期显著增高了7.27%和4.58%，且此时NDF、ADF含量开始逐渐下降，说明抽穗期到乳熟期是甜高粱WSC和淀粉大量积累且NDF和ADF含量下降的关键时期。

3.3 不同收获期对甜高粱体外消化性能及可消化养分产量的影响

饲草的体外消化性能是体现其饲用价值的重要指标，有研究表明，饲草的IVDMD与各种纤维组分负相关，纤维含量的下降有利于提高IVDMD ^[25-26]。本研究中，甜高粱IVDMD在抽穗期下降后逐渐上升，在蜡熟期IVDMD最高，这与其NDF和ADF含量的变化趋势相反，延迟收获有利于提高甜高粱饲草的消化性能。这与朱慧森等^[27]的研究结果相反，可能是由于延迟甜高粱收获期WSC和淀粉含量上升同时NDF和ADF含量下降有关。饲草的可消化养分产量表明家畜可从单位土地面积上获得饲草中的养分产量，直接体现饲草的饲用价值。本研究中，随甜高粱收获期的延迟可消化干物质产量和可消化中性洗涤纤维产量逐渐上升，在蜡熟期甜高粱可消化干物质产量最高，达到13.35 t·hm⁻²，这与马金慧等^[28]对全株青贮玉米收获的可消化干物质产量(13.83 t·hm⁻²)接近，说明甜高粱具有替代青贮玉米的潜力。本研究中，甜高粱可消化干物质产量的上升与干物质、干物质产量、淀粉含量和WSC含量的提高显著相关，在今后甜高粱的育种过程中，可能需要更多地关注甜高粱糖分的积累机制^[29]，同时也需要更深入地挖掘甜高粱淀粉的合成潜力，以期提升甜高粱的饲用价值。本研究发现甜高粱粗蛋白质含量较低，未来在宁夏中部地区可对甜高粱与豆科饲草混播混收混贮，以提高草地生产性能，稳定枯草季饲草供应。

4. 结论

综上所述，甜高粱在蜡熟期收获，NDF和ADF含量最低，干物质产量、WSC含量、淀粉含量、IVDMD最高，此时甜高粱的饲用价值较最高，并且在蜡熟期收获可产出最高的可消化干物质产量和可消化中性洗涤纤维产量，说明在干旱及盐碱化的宁夏中部地区，蜡熟期是甜高粱的适时收获期。同时对于甜高粱而言，单位土地面积可消化干物质产量和可消化中性洗涤纤维产量可以指导甜高粱适时收获期的选择。

参考文献

[1]	陈槐, 鞠佩君, 张江, 王元云, 朱求安, 颜亮, 康晓明, 何奕忻, 曾源, 郝彦宾, 王艳芬. 青藏高原高寒草地生态系统变化的归因分析. 科学通报, 2020, 65(22): 2406-2418. doi: 10.1360/TB-2019-0619 CHEN H, JU P J, ZHANG J, WANG Y Y, ZHU Q A, YAN L, KANG X M, HE Y X, ZENG Y, HAO Y B, WANG Y F. Attribution analyses of changes in alpine grasslands on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2020, 65(22): 2406-2418. doi: 10.1360/TB-2019-0619
[2]	董世魁, 汤琳, 张相锋, 刘世梁, 刘全儒, 苏旭坤, 张勇, 武晓宇, 赵珍珍, 李钰, 沙威. 高寒草地植物物种多样性与功能多样性的关系. 生态学报, 2017, 37(5): 1472-1483. DONG S K, TANG L, ZHANG X F, LIU S L, LIU Q R, SU X K, ZHANG Y, WU X Y, ZHAO Z Z, LI Y, SHA W. Relationship between plant species diversity and functional diversity in alpine grasslands. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(5): 1472-1483.
[3]	朴世龙, 方精云, 贺金生, 肖玉. 中国草地植被生物量及其空间分布格局. 植物生态学报, 2004(4): 491-498. PIAO S L, FANG J Y, HE J S, XIAO Y. Spatial distribution of grassland biomass in China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2004(4): 491-498.
[4]	LI W, WANG J L, ZHANG X J SHI S L, CAO W X. Effect of degradation and rebuilding of artificial grasslands on soil respiration and carbon and nitrogen pools on an alpine meadow of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Ecological Engineering, 2018, 111: 134-142. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.10.013
[5]	叶雪玲, 甘圳, 万燕, 向达兵, 邬晓勇, 吴琪, 刘长英, 范昱, 邹亮. 饲用燕麦育种研究进展与展望. 草业学报, 2023, 32(2): 160-177. YE X L, GAN Z, WAN Y, XIANG D B, WU X Y, WU Q, LIU C Y, FAN Y, ZOU L. Advances and perspectives in forage oat breeding. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(2): 160-177.
[6]	周建萍, 刘龙龙, 崔林. 山西省燕麦育种现状及资源特点. 山西农业科学, 2010, 38(11): 6-9. ZHOU J P, LIU L L, CUI L. The breeding status and resources characteristics of oats in Shanxi Province. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences, 2010, 38(11): 6-9.
[7]	卢欣石. 2020我国饲草商品生产形势分析与2021年展望. 畜牧产业, 2021(3): 31-36. LU X S. 2020 Analysis of China’s forage commodity production situation and 2021 outlook. Animal Agriculture, 2021(3): 31-36.
[8]	赵秀芳, 戎郁萍, 赵来喜. 我国燕麦种质资源的收集和评价. 草业科学, 2007(3): 36-40. ZHAO X F, RONG Y P, ZHAO L X. The collection and evaluation of oat (Avena sativa) in China. Pratacultural Science, 2007(3): 36-40.
[9]	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. 草地学报, 2016, 24(5): 1100-1107. CHAI J K, MU P, ZHAO G Q. Study on yield stability and test site representativeness of eight oat varieties in Gansu Province. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2016, 24(5): 1100-1107.
[10]	王金兰, 王小军, 刘启林, 梁国玲, 琚泽亮, 石红梅, 汪小兵, 文培, 青梅然丁, 李文. 不同燕麦品种在三江源区的生产性能和营养品质综合评价. 草业学报, 2024, 33(10): 83-95. WANG J L, WANG X J, LIU Q L, LIANG G L, JU Z L, SHI H M, WANG X B, WEN P, QING M R D, LI W. A multi-trait evaluation of production performance and nutritional quality of different oat varieties in the Sanjiangyuan area. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(10): 83-95.
[11]	张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 2版. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2007: 17-25. ZHANG L Y. Feed Analysis and Feed Quality Testing Technology. 2nd Edition. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2007: 17-25.
[12]	SOEST P J V, WINE R H. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. 4. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1967, 50(1): 50-55.
[13]	LINN J G, MARTIN N P. Forage quality analyses and interpretation. Food Animal Practice, 1991, 7(2): 509-523. doi: 10.1016/S0749-0720(15)30790-8
[14]	MENKE K H, RAAB L, SALEWSKI A, STEINGASS H, FRITZ D, SCHNEIDER W. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 1979, 93(1): 217-222. doi: 10.1017/S0021859600086305
[15]	WANG L Z, WANG Z S, XUE B, WU D, PENG Q H. Comparison of rumen archaeal diversity in adult and elderly yaks (Bos grunniens) using 16S rRNA gene high-throughput sequencing. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2017, 16(5): 1130-1137. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61454-5
[16]	许家宝, 王静, 张唯玉, 陶薪燕, 张月娇, 张丹丹, 程景, 张亚伟, 李博, 张元庆. 4种全株高粱青贮的饲用价值评定. 动物营养学报, 2024, 36(3): 1997-2009. XU J B, WANG J, ZAHNG W Y, TAO X Y, ZHANG Y J, ZHANG D D, CHENG J, ZHANG Y W, LI B, ZHANG Y Q. Evaluation of feeding value of 4 varieties of whole plant sorghum silage. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024, 36(3): 1997-2009.
[17]	冯宗慈, 高民. 通过比色测定瘤胃液氨氮含量方法的改进. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2010, 31(Z1): 37. FENG Z C, GAO M. Improvement of the method for determination of ammonia nitrogen content in rumen fluid by colorimetry. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2010, 31(Z1): 37.
[18]	KE T, JUNHUI L, YAWANG S, YONGJIANG W, JUNCAI C, RUIMING Z, TIANLE H, GOUZHONG D. Effects of dietary supplementation of inulin on rumen fermentation and bacterial microbiota, inflammatory response and growth performance in finishing beef steers fed high or low-concentrate diet. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2019, 258: 114299. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114299
[19]	MAKKAR H P S, SHARMA O P, DAWRA R K, NEGI S S. Simple determination of microbial protein in rumen liquor. Journal of Dairy Science, 1982, 65(11): 2170-2173. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(82)82477-6
[20]	MENKE K H, STElINGASS H. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in viro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research Development, 1988, 28: 7-55.
[21]	蔡宗程, 吕亮雨, 刘青青, 王琛, 雷莎清, 施建军. 不同燕麦品种在三江源区的引种适应性评价. 饲料研究, 2024(20): 135-139. CAI Z C, LYU L Y, LIU Q Q, WANG C, LEI S Q, SHI J J. Evaluation of the adaptation of different oat varieties to introduced in the Sanjiangyuan region. Feed Research, 2024(20): 135-139.
[22]	赵永刚, 刘彦, 侯国庆, 杜晶. 10个饲用燕麦品种在北疆不同生态区的生产性能评价. 种子, 2022, 41(3): 111-116, 131. ZHAO Y G, LIU Y, HOU G Q, DU J. Performance evaluation of 10 forage oat varieties in different ecological regions of northern xinjiang. seed, 2022, 41(3): 111-116, 131.
[23]	王廷艳, 周华坤, 薛万朝, 张铭, 杨学贵, 王轲, 郝力壮. 青海高原农牧交错带上7种燕麦生产性能及营养品质综合评价. 饲料研究, 2023, 46(23): 135-139. WANG T Y, ZHOU H K, XUE W C, ZHANG M, YANG X G, WANG K, HAO L Z. Comprehensive evaluation on production performance and nutritional quality of seven Avena sativa species in agro-pastoral ecotone of Qinghai Plateau. Feed Research, 2023, 46(23): 135-139.
[24]	关皓, 许多, 李海萍, 贾志锋, 马祥, 刘文辉, 陈有军, 李欣洋, 黄艳玲, 周青平, 陈仕勇. 高寒地区17个燕麦品种营养品质及瘤胃降解特性研究. 草业学报, 2024, 33(9): 185-198. GUAN H, XU D, LI H P, JIA Z F, MA X, LIU W H, CHEN Y J, LI X Y, HUANG Y L, ZHOU Q P, CHEN S Y. A study of nutritional quality and rumen degradation characteristics of 17 oat varieties in high cold regions. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(9): 185-198.
[25]	游茵洁, 周浩珍, 刘垚, 王晨曦, 彭忠利. 燕麦干草、青贮燕麦与天然牧草饲喂牦牛的营养价值比较研究. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8): 99-110. YOU Y J, ZHOU H Z, LIU Y, WANG C X, PENG Z L. Comparison of nutritional value of oat hay, oat silage and Sichuan pasture for yaks. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8): 99-110.
[26]	王茜, 李志坚, 李晶, 周帮伟. 不同类型燕麦农艺和饲草品质性状分析. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 149-158. WANG Q, LI Z J, LI J, ZHOU B W. Evaluation of agronomic and forage quality traits of a range of oat cultivars. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(12): 149-158.
[27]	刘敏国, 杨倩, 杨梅, 杨惠敏. 藜麦的饲用潜力及适应性. 草业科学, 2017, 34(6): 1264-1271. LIU M G, YANG Q, YANG M, YANG H M. Advances in the studies on feeding potential and adaptability of Quinoa. Pratacultural Science, 2017, 34(6): 1264-1271.
[28]	吴欣明, 陈智君, 池惠武, 贾会丽, 杨如达, 石永红, 王学敏. 25个饲草燕麦品种农艺性状与品质比较. 草业科学, 2023, 40(7): 1902-1912. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2022-1005 WU X M, CHEN Z J, CHI H W, JIA H L, YANG R D, SHI Y H, WANG X M. Comparative analysis of the agronomic characters and quality of 25 forage oat varieties. Pratacultural Science, 2023, 40(7): 1902-1912. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2022-1005
[29]	邓子棋, 李紫欣, 李想, 王金泽, 叶柏平, 孟庆翔, 周振明, 吴浩. 肉牛常用蛋白质饲料的饲用价值评价及粗蛋白质有效降解率预测模型建立. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(11): 7247-7259. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.660 DENG Z Q, LI Z X, LI X, WANG J Z, YE B P, MENG Q X, ZHOU Z M, WU H. Evaluation on feeding value and establishing prediction model of effective degradability of crude protein of commonly-used Protein feedstuffs for beef cattle. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(11): 7247-7259. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.660
[30]	何洪浪, 马政发, 郭子義, 杨艺, 吴文旋, 王翀, 朱雯. 体外产气法评价刺梨果渣对肉羊瘤胃体外发酵参数的影响. 饲料工业, 2024, 45(7): 68-73. HE H L, MA Z F, GUO Z Y, YANG Y, WU W X, WANG C, ZHU W. Effect of Rosa roxburghii residue on in vitro rumen fermentation parameters of goats using gas production technology. Feed Industry, 2024, 45(7): 68-73.
[31]	程鹏辉, 廖新俤, 吴银宝. 利用猪粪液为菌源体外发酵产气法评价牧草纤维品质. 草业学报, 2007, 16(5): 61-69. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1004-5759.2007.05.008 CHENG P H, LIAO X D, WU Y B. Studies on evaluation of fiber quality of fodder grass. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2007, 16(5): 61-69. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1004-5759.2007.05.008
[32]	NSAHLAI I V, SIAW D, OSUJI P O. The relationships between gas production and chemical composition of 23 browses of the genus Sesbania. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 1994, 65(1): 13-20. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2740650104
[33]	史良, 刁其玉. 体外产气法评定不同来源中性洗涤纤维与粗蛋白质间组合效应. 中国饲料, 2008(14): 18-21, 39. SHI L, DIAO Q Y. The combined effect of neutral detergent fiber and crude protein from different sources was evaluated by in vitro gas production method. China Feed, 2008(14): 18-21, 39.
[34]	芦岩, 张伶俐, 罗远琴, 魏利, 薛雪, 孙新文, 向春和, 毛胜勇, 王新峰, 张文举. 不同比例棉秆和甜菜渣混合发酵产物的体外产气特性及发酵参数的研究. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 58-66. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2019357 LU Y, ZHANG L L, LUO Y Q, WEI L, XUE X, SUN X W, XIANG C H, MAO S Y, WANG X F, ZHANG W J. In vitro gas production characteristics and fermentation parameters of feedstuffs with varying proportions of cotton stalks and beet pulp. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(5): 58-66. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2019357
[35]	YANG W Z, BEAUCHEMIN K A, RODE L M. Effects of grain processing, forage to concentrate ratio, and forage particle size on rumen pH and digestion by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2001, 84(10): 2203-2216. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74667-X
[36]	刘洁. 肉用绵羊饲料代谢能与代谢蛋白质预测模型的研究. 北京: 中国农业科学院博士学位论文, 2012. LIU J. Prediction of metabolizable energy and metabolizable protein in feeds for meat sheep. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2012.
[37]	GETACHEW G, ROBINSON P H, DEPETERS E J, TAYLOR S J. Relationships between chemical composition, dry matter degradation and in vitro gas production of several ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2004, 111(1/4): 57-71. doi: 10.1016/S0377-8401(03)00217-7
[38]	BOGUHN J, KLUTH H, RODEHUTSCORD M. Effect of total mixed ration composition on fermentation and efficiency of ruminal microbial crude protein synthesis in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science, 2006, 89(5): 1580-1591. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72225-1
[39]	郝建祥. 体外发酵法评定反刍动物饲料营养价值的研究. 南京: 南京农业大学硕士学位论文, 2011. HAO J X. Study on nutritional evaluation of feed for ruminants by in vitro. Master Thesis. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2011.
[40]	杨双鸣, 马煜斌, 田梅, 沈艳, 赵晓清, 王笠年, 王文倩, 苟姸, 徐晓锋. 体外产气法评价菌酶协同发酵对花棒瘤胃发酵特性的影响. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(11): 7472-7480. YANG S M, MA Y B, TIAN M, SHEN Y, ZHAO X Q, WANG L N, WANG W Q, GOU Y, XU X F. Evaluation of effects of cooperative fermentation by bacteria and enzymes on rumen fermentation characteristics of hedysarum scopariums by in vitro gas production method. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(11): 7472-7480.
[41]	杜云龙, 潘金石, 冯鑫, 栾嘉明, 杨东旭, 冯健, 金锡九, 耿春银. 基于体外产气法的吉林省食用菌菌糠的营养价值评定. 中国畜牧兽医, 2024, 51(4): 1520-1529. DU Y L, PAN J S, FENG X, LUAN J M, YANG D X, FENG J, JIN X J, GENG C Y. Evaluation of nutritional value of fungus bran in Jilin Province based on in vitro gas production method. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2024, 51(4): 1520-1529.
[42]	SIEGERT I, BANKS C. The effect of volatile fatty acid additions on the anaerobic digestion of cellulose and glucose in batch reactors. Process Biochemistry, 2005, 40(11): 3412-3418. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2005.01.025
[43]	张振威, 朱明霞, 王长法. 异位酸影响反刍动物瘤胃代谢和生产性能的研究进展. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(3): 1408-1415. ZHANG Z W, ZHU M X, WANG C F. Effects of isoacids on ruminal metabolism and performance in rumiants: A review. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(3): 1408-1415.
[44]	黄文明. 围产前期日粮能量水平对奶牛能量代谢和瘤胃适应性影响的研究. 北京: 中国农业大学博士学位论文, 2014. HUANG W M. Studies on different energy density of close-up diets on energy metabolism and ruminal adaption in multiparous Holstein cows. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2014.
[45]	GUILLOTEAU P, TOULLEC R, GRONGNET J F, PATUREAU-MIRAND P, PRUGNAUD J, SAUVANT D I. Digestion of milk, fish and soya-bean protein in the preruminant calf: Flow of digesta, apparent digestibility at the end of the ileum and amino acid composition of ileal digesta. British Journal of Nutrition, 1986, 55(3): 571-592. doi: 10.1079/BJN19860063
[46]	卢俊言, 王明亚, 吴春会, 李素霞, 徐宏建, 曹玉凤, 李秋凤. 体外产气法研究丁酸梭菌对瘤胃发酵特性的影响. 饲料研究, 2024, 47(9): 7-11. LU J Y, WANG M Y, WU C H, LI S X, XU H J, CAO F, LI Q F. Effect of Clostridium butyricum on rumen fermentation characteristics by gas production in vitro. Feed Research, 2024, 47(9): 7-11.
[47]	安靖, 杨艺, 吴文旋, 周传社, 陈鑫珠, 王翀, 茅慧玲, 朱雯. 体外产气法评价缓释尿素替代山羊饲粮中苜蓿蛋白的可行性. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(10): 6516-6525. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.596 AN J, YANG Y, WU W X, ZHOU C S, CHEN X Z, WANG C, MAO H L, ZHU W. Feasibility evaluation on replacing dietary alfalfa protein with slow-release urea using in vitro gas production technique for Goats. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(10): 6516-6525. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.596
[48]	SAMUEL B S, SHAITO A, MOTOIKE T, REY F E, BACKHED F, MANCHESTER J K, HAMMER R E, WILLIAMS S C, CROWLEY J, YANAGISAWA M, GORDON J I. Effects of the gut microbiota on host adiposity are modulated by the short-chain fatty-acid binding G protein-coupled receptor, Gpr41. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008, 105(43): 16767-16772. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808567105
[49]	曹旭亮. 暖季补饲对泌乳牦牛生产性能、乳品质和瘤胃微生物的影响. 兰州: 兰州大学硕士学位论文, 2021. CAO X L. Effect of supplementation in warm season on productive performance, milk quality and rumen microbiota of lactating yaks. Master Thesis. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2021.
[50]	王思伟, 刘婷婷, 王雅晶, 石少轻, 游永亮, 彭朋, 梁爽, 王昆. 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮瘤胃发酵参数和降解特性的研究. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(6): 3843-3855. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.357 WANG S W, LIU T T, WANG Y J, SHI S Q, YOU Y L, PENG P, LIANG S, WANG K. Rumen fermentation parameters and degradation characteristics of different varieties of forage triticale silages. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(6): 3843-3855. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.357
[51]	戴东文, 王书祥, 王迅, 杨英魁, 柴沙驼. 精料补饲水平对暖季放牧牦牛生长性能、血清生化指标及养殖收益的影响. 草业科学, 2020, 37(11): 2359-2365. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2020-0258 DAI D W, WANG S X, WANG X, YANG Y K, CHAI S T. Effects of different concentrate supplementation levels on growth performance, blood markers, and economic return of yaks grazing in the warm season. Pratacultural Science, 2020, 37(11): 2359-2365. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2020-0258

图 1 4种人工种植燕麦72 h产气量

Figure 1. Seventy-two-hour gas production for the four types of artificially grown oats

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 4种人工种植燕麦72 h产气速率

Figure 2. Seventy-two-hour gas production rates of four artificially grown oat varieties

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 人工瘤胃缓冲液组成

Table 1 Composition of artificial rumen buffer

项目 Item	组成 Composition
蒸馏水 Distilled water/mL	237.5	475	712.5	950
矿物质溶液 Main element solution/mL	120	240	360	480
缓冲液 Buffer solution/mL	120	240	360	480
微量元素溶液 Trace element solution/mL	0.06	0.12	0.18	0.24
刃天青 Resazurin solution/mg	0.61	1.22	1.83	2.44
蒸馏水 Distilled water/mL	23.8	47.5	71.3	95
1 mol·L⁻¹ NaOH/mL	1	2	3	4
Na₂S·9H₂O/mg	168	336	504	672
最终容积 Final volume/mL	500	1 000	1 500	2 000

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 4种人工种植燕麦生产性能

Table 2 Production performance of four types of artificially grown oat

项目 Item	青燕4号 Qingyan No.4	青燕3号 Qingyan No.3	陇燕1号 Longyan No.1	白燕7号 Baiyan No.7	P
鲜草产量 Fresh grass yield/(kg·hm⁻²)	15 179.65 ± 1 247.42a	15 047.63 ± 1 016.62a	13 689.97 ± 1 370.58c	14 193.34 ± 1 270.94b	< 0.001
干草产量 Hay yield/(kg·hm⁻²)	8 963.87 ± 703.49a	8 863.97 ± 544.52a	8 029.54 ± 741.96c	8 379.65 ± 740.81b	0.001
干鲜比 Dry to fresh ratio	0.59 ± 0.01	0.59 ± 0.01	0.59 ± 0.01	0.59 ± 0.01	0.994
同行不同小写字母表示差异显著 (P < 0.05)，无字母或相同字母表示差异不显著 (P > 0.05)；下表同。　Different lowercase letters within the same row indicate significance at the 0.05 level, whereas no letters or the same letter indicate no significant differences between different treatments. This is applicable for the following tables as well.

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 4种人工种植燕麦营养品质(风干基础)

Table 3 Nutritional quality of four types of artificially grown oats (air-dry basis)

项目 Item	青燕4号 Qingyan No.4	青燕3号 Qingyan No.3	陇燕1号 Longyan No.1	白燕7号 Baiyan No.7	P
粗蛋白(CP) Crude protein/%	8.93 ± 0.28	9.01 ± 0.22	8.61 ± 1.41	8.63 ± 0.75	0.360
粗脂肪(EE) Ether extract/%	4.12 ± 0.18a	3.93 ± 0.04ab	3.74 ± 0.16bc	3.61 ± 0.14c	0.010
中性洗涤纤维(NDF) Neutral detergent fiber/%	57.01 ± 1.14b	55.51 ± 0.69b	56.99 ± 1.65b	61.40 ± 1.21a	0.002
酸性洗涤纤维(ADF) Acid detergent fiber/%	36.19 ± 1.71	37.15 ± 0.57	36.68 ± 2.76	37.62 ± 2.18	0.831
粗灰分(Ash) Crude ash/%	12.36 ± 0.44	12.20 ± 0.72	11.32 ± 0.82	11.52 ± 0.38	0.192
相对饲喂价值 Relative feeding value (RFV)	99.09 ± 3.29a	100.49 ± 0.51a	98.59 ± 6.18a	90.33 ± 3.81b	0.049

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 4种人工种植燕麦单位面积营养物质输出量

Table 4 Nutrient output per unit area of four artificially grown oat varieties

项目 Item	青燕4号 Qingyan No.4	青燕3号 Qingyan No.3	陇燕1号 Longyan No.1	白燕7号 Baiyan No.7	P
粗蛋白(CP) Crude protein/(kg·hm⁻²)	800.47 ± 62.82a	798.64 ± 49.06a	691.34 ± 63.88b	723.16 ± 63.93b	< 0.001
粗脂肪(EE) Ether extract/(kg·hm⁻²)	369.31 ± 28.98a	348.35 ± 21.40b	300.30 ± 27.75c	302.51 ± 26.74c	< 0.001
中性洗涤纤维(NDF) Neutral detergent fiber/(kg·hm⁻²)	5 110.30 ± 401.06a	4 920.39 ± 302.26a	4 576.03 ± 422.84b	5 145.11 ± 454.86a	< 0.001
酸性洗涤纤维(ADF) Acid detergent fiber/(kg·hm⁻²)	3 244.02 ± 254.59a	3 292.96 ± 202.29a	2 945.24 ± 272.15b	3 152.42 ± 278.69a	< 0.001
粗灰分(Ash) Crude ash/(kg·hm⁻²)	1 107.93 ± 86.95a	1 081.40 ± 66.43a	908.94 ± 83.99c	965.34 ± 85.34b	< 0.001

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 4种人工种植燕麦体外发酵参数

Table 5 In vitro fermentation parameters of the four artificially grown oat varieities

项目 Item	青燕4号 Qingyan No.4	青燕3号 Qingyan No.3	陇燕1号 Longyan No.1	白燕7号 Baiyan No.7	P
pH	7.09 ± 0.01ab	6.91 ± 0.18b	7.02 ± 0.01ab	7.11 ± 0.05a	0.047
氨态氮 NH₃-N/(mg·dL⁻¹)	46.12 ± 0.78	51.68 ± 3.95	44.94 ± 5.68	45.73 ± 4.69	0.202
微生物蛋白 Microprotein (MCP)/(mg·dL⁻¹)	43.83 ± 0.78	44.45 ± 3.36	43.68 ± 5.66	44.40 ± 0.07	0.205
乙酸 Acetate (ACE)/(mmol·L⁻¹)	52.35 ± 0.63	51.27 ± 1.84	50.28 ± 0.20	51.33 ± 3.46	0.872
丙酸 Propionate (PRO)/(mmol·L⁻¹)	14.42 ± 0.61	14.35 ± 1.37	13.56 ± 1.19	14.02 ± 1.97	0.657
异丁酸 Isobutyric acid (ISOB)/(mmol·L⁻¹)	0.97 ± 0.01	1.05 ± 0.08a	1.03 ± 0.04a	0.88 ± 0.07b	0.023
丁酸 Butyric acid (BUTY)/(mmol·L⁻¹)	4.62 ± 0.19b	5.59 ± 0.01a	5.15 ± 0.26a	4.85 ± 0.44b	0.012
异戊酸 Isovaleric acid (ISOV)/(mmol·L⁻¹)	1.82 ± 0.10a	1.79 ± 0.14a	1.96 ± 0.05a	1.69 ± 0.13b	0.016
戊酸 Valerianic acid (VAL)/(mmol·L⁻¹)	0.70 ± 0.05c	0.79 ± 0.04b	0.93 ± 0.01a	0.67 ± 0.03c	< 0.001
总挥发酸 Total volatile fatty acid (VFA)/(mmol·L⁻¹)	72.89 ± 1.10	75.44 ± 3.37	72.91 ± 0.72	73.45 ± 6.03	0.788
乙酸/丙酸 Acetate / propionate	3.63 ± 0.10	3.57 ± 0.19	3.73 ± 0.34	3.69 ± 0.27	0.442

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 4种人工种植燕麦体外产气量参数、干物质消化率及代谢能

Table 6 In vitro gas production parameters, dry matter digestibility and ME of four artificially grown oat species

项目 Item	青燕4号 Qingyan No.4	青燕3号 Qingyan No.3	陇燕1号 Longyan No.1	白燕7号 Baiyan No.7	P值 P-value
理论总产气量 Theoretical total gas production B/mL	96.78 ± 11.80a	86.41 ± 16.26ab	95.06 ± 5.28a	64.79 ± 17.90b	0.021
慢速降解部分的产气速率 Rate of gas production in the slow degradation fraction c/(%·h⁻¹)	0.021 ± 0.005b	0.025 ± 0.003a	0.026 ± 0.002a	0.044 ± 0.022a	0.042
体外干物质消化率 In vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD)/%	38.80 ± 2.83b	40.00 ± 0.44b	47.48 ± 2.26a	35.28 ± 6.08b	0.017
代谢能 Metabolic energy (ME)/(MJ·kg⁻¹)	7.35 ± 0.25ab	7.06 ± 0.61b	8.00 ± 0.14a	7.41 ± 0.14ab	0.010

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(51)

[1]	陈槐, 鞠佩君, 张江, 王元云, 朱求安, 颜亮, 康晓明, 何奕忻, 曾源, 郝彦宾, 王艳芬. 青藏高原高寒草地生态系统变化的归因分析. 科学通报, 2020, 65(22): 2406-2418. doi: 10.1360/TB-2019-0619 CHEN H, JU P J, ZHANG J, WANG Y Y, ZHU Q A, YAN L, KANG X M, HE Y X, ZENG Y, HAO Y B, WANG Y F. Attribution analyses of changes in alpine grasslands on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2020, 65(22): 2406-2418. doi: 10.1360/TB-2019-0619
[2]	董世魁, 汤琳, 张相锋, 刘世梁, 刘全儒, 苏旭坤, 张勇, 武晓宇, 赵珍珍, 李钰, 沙威. 高寒草地植物物种多样性与功能多样性的关系. 生态学报, 2017, 37(5): 1472-1483. DONG S K, TANG L, ZHANG X F, LIU S L, LIU Q R, SU X K, ZHANG Y, WU X Y, ZHAO Z Z, LI Y, SHA W. Relationship between plant species diversity and functional diversity in alpine grasslands. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(5): 1472-1483.
[3]	朴世龙, 方精云, 贺金生, 肖玉. 中国草地植被生物量及其空间分布格局. 植物生态学报, 2004(4): 491-498. PIAO S L, FANG J Y, HE J S, XIAO Y. Spatial distribution of grassland biomass in China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2004(4): 491-498.
[4]	LI W, WANG J L, ZHANG X J SHI S L, CAO W X. Effect of degradation and rebuilding of artificial grasslands on soil respiration and carbon and nitrogen pools on an alpine meadow of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Ecological Engineering, 2018, 111: 134-142. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.10.013
[5]	叶雪玲, 甘圳, 万燕, 向达兵, 邬晓勇, 吴琪, 刘长英, 范昱, 邹亮. 饲用燕麦育种研究进展与展望. 草业学报, 2023, 32(2): 160-177. YE X L, GAN Z, WAN Y, XIANG D B, WU X Y, WU Q, LIU C Y, FAN Y, ZOU L. Advances and perspectives in forage oat breeding. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(2): 160-177.
[6]	周建萍, 刘龙龙, 崔林. 山西省燕麦育种现状及资源特点. 山西农业科学, 2010, 38(11): 6-9. ZHOU J P, LIU L L, CUI L. The breeding status and resources characteristics of oats in Shanxi Province. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences, 2010, 38(11): 6-9.
[7]	卢欣石. 2020我国饲草商品生产形势分析与2021年展望. 畜牧产业, 2021(3): 31-36. LU X S. 2020 Analysis of China’s forage commodity production situation and 2021 outlook. Animal Agriculture, 2021(3): 31-36.
[8]	赵秀芳, 戎郁萍, 赵来喜. 我国燕麦种质资源的收集和评价. 草业科学, 2007(3): 36-40. ZHAO X F, RONG Y P, ZHAO L X. The collection and evaluation of oat (Avena sativa) in China. Pratacultural Science, 2007(3): 36-40.
[9]	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. 草地学报, 2016, 24(5): 1100-1107. CHAI J K, MU P, ZHAO G Q. Study on yield stability and test site representativeness of eight oat varieties in Gansu Province. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2016, 24(5): 1100-1107.
[10]	王金兰, 王小军, 刘启林, 梁国玲, 琚泽亮, 石红梅, 汪小兵, 文培, 青梅然丁, 李文. 不同燕麦品种在三江源区的生产性能和营养品质综合评价. 草业学报, 2024, 33(10): 83-95. WANG J L, WANG X J, LIU Q L, LIANG G L, JU Z L, SHI H M, WANG X B, WEN P, QING M R D, LI W. A multi-trait evaluation of production performance and nutritional quality of different oat varieties in the Sanjiangyuan area. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(10): 83-95.
[11]	张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 2版. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2007: 17-25. ZHANG L Y. Feed Analysis and Feed Quality Testing Technology. 2nd Edition. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2007: 17-25.
[12]	SOEST P J V, WINE R H. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. 4. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1967, 50(1): 50-55.
[13]	LINN J G, MARTIN N P. Forage quality analyses and interpretation. Food Animal Practice, 1991, 7(2): 509-523. doi: 10.1016/S0749-0720(15)30790-8
[14]	MENKE K H, RAAB L, SALEWSKI A, STEINGASS H, FRITZ D, SCHNEIDER W. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 1979, 93(1): 217-222. doi: 10.1017/S0021859600086305
[15]	WANG L Z, WANG Z S, XUE B, WU D, PENG Q H. Comparison of rumen archaeal diversity in adult and elderly yaks (Bos grunniens) using 16S rRNA gene high-throughput sequencing. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2017, 16(5): 1130-1137. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61454-5
[16]	许家宝, 王静, 张唯玉, 陶薪燕, 张月娇, 张丹丹, 程景, 张亚伟, 李博, 张元庆. 4种全株高粱青贮的饲用价值评定. 动物营养学报, 2024, 36(3): 1997-2009. XU J B, WANG J, ZAHNG W Y, TAO X Y, ZHANG Y J, ZHANG D D, CHENG J, ZHANG Y W, LI B, ZHANG Y Q. Evaluation of feeding value of 4 varieties of whole plant sorghum silage. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024, 36(3): 1997-2009.
[17]	冯宗慈, 高民. 通过比色测定瘤胃液氨氮含量方法的改进. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2010, 31(Z1): 37. FENG Z C, GAO M. Improvement of the method for determination of ammonia nitrogen content in rumen fluid by colorimetry. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2010, 31(Z1): 37.
[18]	KE T, JUNHUI L, YAWANG S, YONGJIANG W, JUNCAI C, RUIMING Z, TIANLE H, GOUZHONG D. Effects of dietary supplementation of inulin on rumen fermentation and bacterial microbiota, inflammatory response and growth performance in finishing beef steers fed high or low-concentrate diet. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2019, 258: 114299. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114299
[19]	MAKKAR H P S, SHARMA O P, DAWRA R K, NEGI S S. Simple determination of microbial protein in rumen liquor. Journal of Dairy Science, 1982, 65(11): 2170-2173. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(82)82477-6
[20]	MENKE K H, STElINGASS H. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in viro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research Development, 1988, 28: 7-55.
[21]	蔡宗程, 吕亮雨, 刘青青, 王琛, 雷莎清, 施建军. 不同燕麦品种在三江源区的引种适应性评价. 饲料研究, 2024(20): 135-139. CAI Z C, LYU L Y, LIU Q Q, WANG C, LEI S Q, SHI J J. Evaluation of the adaptation of different oat varieties to introduced in the Sanjiangyuan region. Feed Research, 2024(20): 135-139.
[22]	赵永刚, 刘彦, 侯国庆, 杜晶. 10个饲用燕麦品种在北疆不同生态区的生产性能评价. 种子, 2022, 41(3): 111-116, 131. ZHAO Y G, LIU Y, HOU G Q, DU J. Performance evaluation of 10 forage oat varieties in different ecological regions of northern xinjiang. seed, 2022, 41(3): 111-116, 131.
[23]	王廷艳, 周华坤, 薛万朝, 张铭, 杨学贵, 王轲, 郝力壮. 青海高原农牧交错带上7种燕麦生产性能及营养品质综合评价. 饲料研究, 2023, 46(23): 135-139. WANG T Y, ZHOU H K, XUE W C, ZHANG M, YANG X G, WANG K, HAO L Z. Comprehensive evaluation on production performance and nutritional quality of seven Avena sativa species in agro-pastoral ecotone of Qinghai Plateau. Feed Research, 2023, 46(23): 135-139.
[24]	关皓, 许多, 李海萍, 贾志锋, 马祥, 刘文辉, 陈有军, 李欣洋, 黄艳玲, 周青平, 陈仕勇. 高寒地区17个燕麦品种营养品质及瘤胃降解特性研究. 草业学报, 2024, 33(9): 185-198. GUAN H, XU D, LI H P, JIA Z F, MA X, LIU W H, CHEN Y J, LI X Y, HUANG Y L, ZHOU Q P, CHEN S Y. A study of nutritional quality and rumen degradation characteristics of 17 oat varieties in high cold regions. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(9): 185-198.
[25]	游茵洁, 周浩珍, 刘垚, 王晨曦, 彭忠利. 燕麦干草、青贮燕麦与天然牧草饲喂牦牛的营养价值比较研究. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8): 99-110. YOU Y J, ZHOU H Z, LIU Y, WANG C X, PENG Z L. Comparison of nutritional value of oat hay, oat silage and Sichuan pasture for yaks. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8): 99-110.
[26]	王茜, 李志坚, 李晶, 周帮伟. 不同类型燕麦农艺和饲草品质性状分析. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 149-158. WANG Q, LI Z J, LI J, ZHOU B W. Evaluation of agronomic and forage quality traits of a range of oat cultivars. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(12): 149-158.
[27]	刘敏国, 杨倩, 杨梅, 杨惠敏. 藜麦的饲用潜力及适应性. 草业科学, 2017, 34(6): 1264-1271. LIU M G, YANG Q, YANG M, YANG H M. Advances in the studies on feeding potential and adaptability of Quinoa. Pratacultural Science, 2017, 34(6): 1264-1271.
[28]	吴欣明, 陈智君, 池惠武, 贾会丽, 杨如达, 石永红, 王学敏. 25个饲草燕麦品种农艺性状与品质比较. 草业科学, 2023, 40(7): 1902-1912. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2022-1005 WU X M, CHEN Z J, CHI H W, JIA H L, YANG R D, SHI Y H, WANG X M. Comparative analysis of the agronomic characters and quality of 25 forage oat varieties. Pratacultural Science, 2023, 40(7): 1902-1912. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2022-1005
[29]	邓子棋, 李紫欣, 李想, 王金泽, 叶柏平, 孟庆翔, 周振明, 吴浩. 肉牛常用蛋白质饲料的饲用价值评价及粗蛋白质有效降解率预测模型建立. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(11): 7247-7259. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.660 DENG Z Q, LI Z X, LI X, WANG J Z, YE B P, MENG Q X, ZHOU Z M, WU H. Evaluation on feeding value and establishing prediction model of effective degradability of crude protein of commonly-used Protein feedstuffs for beef cattle. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(11): 7247-7259. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.660
[30]	何洪浪, 马政发, 郭子義, 杨艺, 吴文旋, 王翀, 朱雯. 体外产气法评价刺梨果渣对肉羊瘤胃体外发酵参数的影响. 饲料工业, 2024, 45(7): 68-73. HE H L, MA Z F, GUO Z Y, YANG Y, WU W X, WANG C, ZHU W. Effect of Rosa roxburghii residue on in vitro rumen fermentation parameters of goats using gas production technology. Feed Industry, 2024, 45(7): 68-73.
[31]	程鹏辉, 廖新俤, 吴银宝. 利用猪粪液为菌源体外发酵产气法评价牧草纤维品质. 草业学报, 2007, 16(5): 61-69. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1004-5759.2007.05.008 CHENG P H, LIAO X D, WU Y B. Studies on evaluation of fiber quality of fodder grass. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2007, 16(5): 61-69. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1004-5759.2007.05.008
[32]	NSAHLAI I V, SIAW D, OSUJI P O. The relationships between gas production and chemical composition of 23 browses of the genus Sesbania. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 1994, 65(1): 13-20. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2740650104
[33]	史良, 刁其玉. 体外产气法评定不同来源中性洗涤纤维与粗蛋白质间组合效应. 中国饲料, 2008(14): 18-21, 39. SHI L, DIAO Q Y. The combined effect of neutral detergent fiber and crude protein from different sources was evaluated by in vitro gas production method. China Feed, 2008(14): 18-21, 39.
[34]	芦岩, 张伶俐, 罗远琴, 魏利, 薛雪, 孙新文, 向春和, 毛胜勇, 王新峰, 张文举. 不同比例棉秆和甜菜渣混合发酵产物的体外产气特性及发酵参数的研究. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 58-66. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2019357 LU Y, ZHANG L L, LUO Y Q, WEI L, XUE X, SUN X W, XIANG C H, MAO S Y, WANG X F, ZHANG W J. In vitro gas production characteristics and fermentation parameters of feedstuffs with varying proportions of cotton stalks and beet pulp. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(5): 58-66. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2019357
[35]	YANG W Z, BEAUCHEMIN K A, RODE L M. Effects of grain processing, forage to concentrate ratio, and forage particle size on rumen pH and digestion by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2001, 84(10): 2203-2216. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74667-X
[36]	刘洁. 肉用绵羊饲料代谢能与代谢蛋白质预测模型的研究. 北京: 中国农业科学院博士学位论文, 2012. LIU J. Prediction of metabolizable energy and metabolizable protein in feeds for meat sheep. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2012.
[37]	GETACHEW G, ROBINSON P H, DEPETERS E J, TAYLOR S J. Relationships between chemical composition, dry matter degradation and in vitro gas production of several ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2004, 111(1/4): 57-71. doi: 10.1016/S0377-8401(03)00217-7
[38]	BOGUHN J, KLUTH H, RODEHUTSCORD M. Effect of total mixed ration composition on fermentation and efficiency of ruminal microbial crude protein synthesis in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science, 2006, 89(5): 1580-1591. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72225-1
[39]	郝建祥. 体外发酵法评定反刍动物饲料营养价值的研究. 南京: 南京农业大学硕士学位论文, 2011. HAO J X. Study on nutritional evaluation of feed for ruminants by in vitro. Master Thesis. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2011.
[40]	杨双鸣, 马煜斌, 田梅, 沈艳, 赵晓清, 王笠年, 王文倩, 苟姸, 徐晓锋. 体外产气法评价菌酶协同发酵对花棒瘤胃发酵特性的影响. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(11): 7472-7480. YANG S M, MA Y B, TIAN M, SHEN Y, ZHAO X Q, WANG L N, WANG W Q, GOU Y, XU X F. Evaluation of effects of cooperative fermentation by bacteria and enzymes on rumen fermentation characteristics of hedysarum scopariums by in vitro gas production method. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(11): 7472-7480.
[41]	杜云龙, 潘金石, 冯鑫, 栾嘉明, 杨东旭, 冯健, 金锡九, 耿春银. 基于体外产气法的吉林省食用菌菌糠的营养价值评定. 中国畜牧兽医, 2024, 51(4): 1520-1529. DU Y L, PAN J S, FENG X, LUAN J M, YANG D X, FENG J, JIN X J, GENG C Y. Evaluation of nutritional value of fungus bran in Jilin Province based on in vitro gas production method. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2024, 51(4): 1520-1529.
[42]	SIEGERT I, BANKS C. The effect of volatile fatty acid additions on the anaerobic digestion of cellulose and glucose in batch reactors. Process Biochemistry, 2005, 40(11): 3412-3418. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2005.01.025
[43]	张振威, 朱明霞, 王长法. 异位酸影响反刍动物瘤胃代谢和生产性能的研究进展. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(3): 1408-1415. ZHANG Z W, ZHU M X, WANG C F. Effects of isoacids on ruminal metabolism and performance in rumiants: A review. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(3): 1408-1415.
[44]	黄文明. 围产前期日粮能量水平对奶牛能量代谢和瘤胃适应性影响的研究. 北京: 中国农业大学博士学位论文, 2014. HUANG W M. Studies on different energy density of close-up diets on energy metabolism and ruminal adaption in multiparous Holstein cows. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2014.
[45]	GUILLOTEAU P, TOULLEC R, GRONGNET J F, PATUREAU-MIRAND P, PRUGNAUD J, SAUVANT D I. Digestion of milk, fish and soya-bean protein in the preruminant calf: Flow of digesta, apparent digestibility at the end of the ileum and amino acid composition of ileal digesta. British Journal of Nutrition, 1986, 55(3): 571-592. doi: 10.1079/BJN19860063
[46]	卢俊言, 王明亚, 吴春会, 李素霞, 徐宏建, 曹玉凤, 李秋凤. 体外产气法研究丁酸梭菌对瘤胃发酵特性的影响. 饲料研究, 2024, 47(9): 7-11. LU J Y, WANG M Y, WU C H, LI S X, XU H J, CAO F, LI Q F. Effect of Clostridium butyricum on rumen fermentation characteristics by gas production in vitro. Feed Research, 2024, 47(9): 7-11.
[47]	安靖, 杨艺, 吴文旋, 周传社, 陈鑫珠, 王翀, 茅慧玲, 朱雯. 体外产气法评价缓释尿素替代山羊饲粮中苜蓿蛋白的可行性. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(10): 6516-6525. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.596 AN J, YANG Y, WU W X, ZHOU C S, CHEN X Z, WANG C, MAO H L, ZHU W. Feasibility evaluation on replacing dietary alfalfa protein with slow-release urea using in vitro gas production technique for Goats. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(10): 6516-6525. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.596
[48]	SAMUEL B S, SHAITO A, MOTOIKE T, REY F E, BACKHED F, MANCHESTER J K, HAMMER R E, WILLIAMS S C, CROWLEY J, YANAGISAWA M, GORDON J I. Effects of the gut microbiota on host adiposity are modulated by the short-chain fatty-acid binding G protein-coupled receptor, Gpr41. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008, 105(43): 16767-16772. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808567105
[49]	曹旭亮. 暖季补饲对泌乳牦牛生产性能、乳品质和瘤胃微生物的影响. 兰州: 兰州大学硕士学位论文, 2021. CAO X L. Effect of supplementation in warm season on productive performance, milk quality and rumen microbiota of lactating yaks. Master Thesis. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2021.
[50]	王思伟, 刘婷婷, 王雅晶, 石少轻, 游永亮, 彭朋, 梁爽, 王昆. 不同品种饲用小黑麦青贮瘤胃发酵参数和降解特性的研究. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(6): 3843-3855. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.357 WANG S W, LIU T T, WANG Y J, SHI S Q, YOU Y L, PENG P, LIANG S, WANG K. Rumen fermentation parameters and degradation characteristics of different varieties of forage triticale silages. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(6): 3843-3855. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.357
[51]	戴东文, 王书祥, 王迅, 杨英魁, 柴沙驼. 精料补饲水平对暖季放牧牦牛生长性能、血清生化指标及养殖收益的影响. 草业科学, 2020, 37(11): 2359-2365. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2020-0258 DAI D W, WANG S X, WANG X, YANG Y K, CHAI S T. Effects of different concentrate supplementation levels on growth performance, blood markers, and economic return of yaks grazing in the warm season. Pratacultural Science, 2020, 37(11): 2359-2365. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2020-0258

资源附件(0)

图(2) / 表(6)

计量

PDF下载量: 0
文章访问数: 0
HTML全文浏览量: 0
被引次数: 0

1. 材料与方法
1.1 试验地概况
1.2 试验设计
1.3 测定指标及方法
1.4 体外瘤胃消化性能测定
1.5 数据分析
2. 结果与分析
2.1 各收获期甜高粱农艺性状及产量比较
2.2 不同收获期甜高粱田间营养品质比较
2.3 不同收获期甜高粱体外消化性能比较
2.4 甜高粱营养品质与体外消化性能的相关性分析
3. 讨论
3.1 不同收获期对甜高粱农艺性状的影响
3.2 不同收获期对甜高粱营养品质的影响
3.3 不同收获期对甜高粱体外消化性能及可消化养分产量的影响
4. 结论
参考文献

1. 材料与方法
1.1 试验地概况
1.2 试验设计
1.3 测定指标及方法
1.4 体外瘤胃消化性能测定
1.5 数据分析
2. 结果与分析
2.1 各收获期甜高粱农艺性状及产量比较
2.2 不同收获期甜高粱田间营养品质比较
2.3 不同收获期甜高粱体外消化性能比较
2.4 甜高粱营养品质与体外消化性能的相关性分析
3. 讨论
3.1 不同收获期对甜高粱农艺性状的影响
3.2 不同收获期对甜高粱营养品质的影响
3.3 不同收获期对甜高粱体外消化性能及可消化养分产量的影响
4. 结论
参考文献

参考文献(51)

资源附件(0)

青海省共和县4种燕麦品种营养及对牦牛饲用潜力的评价

English