内蒙古中部地区饲用燕麦品种筛选及青贮品质评价

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2025.19.017

中国农业科学 ›› 2025, Vol. 58 ›› Issue (19): 4026-4038.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2025.19.017

• 畜牧·兽医 • 上一篇

内蒙古中部地区饲用燕麦品种筛选及青贮品质评价

任家辉¹^,²(), 孙娟娟¹^,²(), 郝莹璐¹^,², 王凤梧³, 王靖宇⁴, 张明伟⁴, 李宝涵⁴, 郑成忠³, 何竹青³, 王照兰¹^,²

¹ 中国农业科学院草原研究所，呼和浩特 010010
² 北方农牧业技术创新中心，呼和浩特 010111
³ 乌兰察布市农林科学研究所，内蒙古乌兰察布 012000
⁴ 兴安盟农牧科学研究所，内蒙古兴安盟 137400

收稿日期:2025-03-28 接受日期:2025-07-17 出版日期:2025-10-01 发布日期:2025-10-10
通信作者:
孙娟娟，E-mail：sunjuanjuan@caas.cn。
联系方式: 任家辉，E-mail：2559512968@qq.com。
基金资助:
中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项(Y2025CY40); 内蒙古燕麦藜麦现代农牧业产业技术体系(IMARS-03-G-08); 2024年乌兰察布市“科技兴蒙”创新平台后补助项目

Screening of Feed Oat Varieties and Its Evaluation of Silage Quality in Central Inner Mongolia

REN JiaHui¹^,²(), SUN JuanJuan¹^,²(), HAO YingLu¹^,², WANG FengWu³, WANG JingYu⁴, ZHANG MingWei⁴, LI BaoHan⁴, ZHENG ChengZhong³, HE ZhuQing³, WANG ZhaoLan¹^,²

¹ Institute of Grassland Research, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hohhot 010010
² Northern Agriculture and Livestock Husbandry Technology Innovation Center, Hohhot 010111
³ Ulanqab Institute of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Ulanqab 012000, Inner Mongolia
⁴ Xing'an League Institute of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, Xing'an League 137400, Inner Mongolia

Received:2025-03-28 Accepted:2025-07-17 Published:2025-10-01 Online:2025-10-10

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】随着草牧业的不断推进，内蒙古中部地区优质饲用燕麦品种缺乏，尤其是青贮型饲用燕麦种质资源匮乏，通过对不同燕麦品种营养成分和青贮品质的分析，筛选适宜该地区推广种植的优质饲用燕麦及青贮型饲用燕麦品种。【方法】筛选9个饲用燕麦品种蒙饲燕2号（Mengsi Yan No. 2）、禾王（Dictator）、麦迪逊（Madison）、福星（Fuxing）、黑玫克（Haymaker）、凯撒（Caesar）、甜燕1号（Tianyan No. 1）、大瀑布（Waterfall）、牧乐思（Molasses），种植于中国农业科学院草原研究所农牧交错区试验基地，在乳熟期刈割测定产量，聚乙烯饲料袋装填青贮饲料并抽真空密封，室温贮藏120 d。分析饲用燕麦青贮前后营养成分以及青贮饲料发酵品质、微生物数量。【结果】不同品种饲用燕麦在内蒙古中部地区的产量、营养价值和青贮发酵品质差异显著（P<0.05）。9个饲用燕麦品种的鲜草产量为40.20—59.54 t•hm^-2，蒙饲燕2号鲜草产量最高，为59.54 t•hm^-2；9个饲用燕麦品种原料的干物质含量为31.53%—41.32%，粗蛋白含量最高的福星（13.75%）比最低的麦迪逊（7.04%）高95.31%；可溶性碳水化合物含量均较低，最高的为牧乐思（4.83%）；凯撒和福星的中性洗涤纤维含量显著低于其他品种（P<0.05），禾王的酸性洗涤纤维含量最高为37.07%，与其他品种存在显著差异（P<0.01）。青贮120 d后，品种间营养成分差异仍然显著（P<0.05）；凯撒的干物质含量最高，福星的粗蛋白含量为11.98%，显著高于其他品种（P<0.05）。麦迪逊的可溶性碳水化合物含量最高，福星的中性、酸性洗涤纤维均为最低，显著低于其他品种（P<0.05）；其中福星的粗灰分为7.81%，显著高于其他品种（P<0.05）。不同品种的发酵品质也存在显著差异，福星的pH最低，乳酸含量最高，未检测到丁酸，氨态氮含量最低，乳酸菌数量较高。根据Kaiser评价体系评价，福星级别为1，发酵品质最好，其他品种发酵品质较差。冗余分析结果显示原料营养品质共同解释了青贮发酵品质变异的80.01%。其中粗蛋白贡献率最高，酸性洗涤纤维与青贮品质存在显著差异（P<0.01）。皮尔森相关性结果显示原料营养品质显著影响青贮发酵品质，其中粗蛋白，中性、酸性洗涤纤维和粗灰分是影响发酵品质的主要因素。【结论】综合考虑产量、营养品质和发酵品质，福星可作为内蒙古中部地区春播青贮型饲用燕麦品种。

关键词: 饲用燕麦, 品种, 青贮, 营养品质, 发酵品质

Abstract:

【Objective】With the continuous advancement of grass animal husbandry, there is a shortage of high-quality feed oat varieties in central Inner Mongolia, especially the lack of silage feed oat germplasm resources. Through the analysis of nutritional components and silage quality of different oat varieties, the high quality oat and silage oat varieties suitable for planting in this area were selected.【Method】In this study, 9 feed oat varieties, including Mengsi Yan No. 2, Dictator, Madison, Fuxing, Haymaker, Caesar, Tianyan No. 1, Waterfall, and Molasses, were screened. They were planted in the experimental base of the agro-pastoral ecotone of the Grassland Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. The yield was measured by mowing at the milk maturity stage, filling the polyethylene feed bag with silage and vacuum sealing it, storing it at room temperature for 120 days. The nutrient composition of feed oat silage before and after silage, the fermentation quality of silage and the number of microorganisms were analyzed.【Result】There were significant differences in yield, nutritional value and silage fermentation quality among different varieties of feed oats in central Inner Mongolia (P<0.05). The yield of fresh grass in the nine feed oat varieties was 40.20-59.54 t•hm^-2, and the yield of fresh grass in Mengsi Yan No. 2 was the highest (59.54 t•hm^-2), while the dry matter content of the raw materials of the nine feed oat varieties was 31.53%-41.32%, and the Fuxing (13.75%) with the highest crude protein content was 95.31% higher than that of Madison (7.04%). The content of soluble carbohydrates was low, and the highest was Molasses (4.83%). The content of neutral detergent fiber in Caesar and Fuxing was significantly lower than that of other varieties (P<0.05), and the highest content of acid detergent fiber in Dictator was 37.07%, which was significantly different from other varieties (P<0.01). After 120 days of silage, there was still a significant difference in nutrient composition between varieties (P<0.05). The dry matter content of Caesar was the highest, and the crude protein content of Fuxing was 11.98%, which was significantly higher than that of other varieties (P<0.05). The content of soluble carbohydrates in Madison was the highest, and the neutral and acidic detergent fibers of Fuxing were the lowest, which were significantly lower than those of other varieties (P<0.05). The crude ash fraction of Fuxing was 7.81%, which was significantly higher than that of other varieties (P<0.05). There were also significant differences in the fermentation quality of different varieties, with Fuxing having the lowest pH, the highest lactic acid content, no butyric acid detected, the lowest ammonia nitrogen content, and a higher number of lactic acid bacteria. According to the evaluation system of Kaiser, the Fuxing grade was 1, and the fermentation quality was the best, while the fermentation quality of other varieties was poor. The results of redundancy analysis showed that the nutritional quality of raw materials jointly explained 80.01% of the variation of silage fermentation quality. Among them, the contribution rate of crude protein was the highest, while there was a significant difference between acid detergent fiber and silage quality (P<0.01). The results of Pearson correlation showed that the nutritional quality of raw materials significantly affected the fermentation quality of silage, and crude protein, neutral and acidic detergent fiber and crude ash were the main factors affecting the fermentation quality.【Conclusion】Considering the yield, nutritional quality and fermentation quality, Fuxing could be used as a spring-sown silage feed oat variety in central Inner Mongolia.

Key words: feed oats, variety, silage, nutritional quality, fermentation quality

任家辉, 孙娟娟, 郝莹璐, 王凤梧, 王靖宇, 张明伟, 李宝涵, 郑成忠, 何竹青, 王照兰. 内蒙古中部地区饲用燕麦品种筛选及青贮品质评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(19): 4026-4038.

REN JiaHui, SUN JuanJuan, HAO YingLu, WANG FengWu, WANG JingYu, ZHANG MingWei, LI BaoHan, ZHENG ChengZhong, HE ZhuQing, WANG ZhaoLan. Screening of Feed Oat Varieties and Its Evaluation of Silage Quality in Central Inner Mongolia[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2025, 58(19): 4026-4038.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2025.19.017

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2025/V58/I19/4026

图/表 10

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

图1

图2

参考文献 42

[1]	杨海鹏, 孙泽民. 中国燕麦. 北京: 农业出版社, 1989.
	YANG H P, SUN Z M. Chinese Oats. Beijing: Agriculture Press, 1989. (in Chinese)
[2]	赵桂琴, 慕平, 魏黎明. 饲用燕麦研究进展. 草业学报, 2007, 16(4): 116-125.
	ZHAO G Q, MU P, WEI L M. Research progress in Avena sativa. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2007, 16(4): 116-125. (in Chinese)
[3]	祁学东. 高寒牧区燕麦营养价值及其评价. 畜牧兽医杂志, 2012, 31(4): 100-101.
	QI X D. Nutritional value and evaluation of oats in alpine pastoral areas. Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2012, 31(4): 100-101. (in Chinese)
[4]	肖燕子, 徐丽君, 辛晓平, 乌仁其其格, 孙林, 姜超. 呼伦贝尔地区不同燕麦品种的营养价值及发酵品质评价研究. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 171-179. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2020138
	XIAO Y Z, XU L J, XIN X P, WU R, SUN L, JIANG C. Nutritional value and fermentation quality of different oat varieties in the Hulunbuir area. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(12): 171-179. (in Chinese)
[5]	琚泽亮, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 贾志峰, 梁国玲. 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. 草业学报, 2019, 28(9): 77-86. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2018542
	JU Z L, ZHAO G Q, CHAI J K, JIA Z F, LIANG G L. Comprehensive evaluation of nutritional value and silage fermentation quality of different oat varieties in central Gansu Province. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(9): 77-86. (in Chinese)
[6]	KAPLAN M, AKCURA M, KARDES Y M, BUYUKILIC BEYZI S, CIFTCI B, KOKTEN K. Evaluation of silage quality characteristics and nutritive value of oat genotypes. Euphytica, 2024, 220(12): 178.
[7]	王昊然, 高凤芹, 薛艳林, 蒋恒, 娜娜, 王娇, 孙乐. 不同乳酸菌添加剂对燕麦青贮品质和微生物多样性的影响. 中国草地学报, 2024, 46(11): 82-90.
	WANG H R, GAO F Q, XUE Y L, JIANG H, NA N, WANG J, SUN L. Effects of different lactic acid bacteria additives on the quality and microbial diversity of oat silage. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2024, 46(11): 82-90. (in Chinese)
[8]	ZHU X M, JIANG D D, YUAN B J, NI K K. Effect of low- temperature-tolerant lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation quality and bacterial community of oat silage at 5 ℃ vs. 15 ℃. Fermentation, 2022, 8(4): 158.
[9]	贾婷婷, 徐梓萌, 王铁梅. 萎蔫和添加剂处理对燕麦青贮品质和蛋白质组分的影响. 动物营养学报, 2024, 36(11): 7371-7382. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2024.627
	JIA T T, XU Z M, WANG T M. Effects of wilting and additive treatment on quality and protein fractions of Avena sativa silage. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024, 36(11): 7371-7382. (in Chinese)
[10]	申瑶. 柠条与燕麦草混合青贮对青贮品质及瘤胃发酵性能的影响[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2024.
	SHEN Y. Effect of mixed silage of caragana and oat grass on silage quality and rumen fermentation performance[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2024. (in Chinese)
[11]	JIA T T, YU Z. Effect of temperature and fermentation time on fermentation characteristics and biogenic amine formation of oat silage. Fermentation, 2022, 8(8): 352.
[12]	YIN X J, ZHAO J, WANG S R, DONG Z H, LI J F, SHAO T. Separating the chemical and microbial factors of oat harvested at two growth stages to determine the main factor on silage fermentation. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2022, 132(6): 4266-4276. doi: 10.1111/jam.15566 pmid: 35384180
[13]	DENG X C, JIA Y S, GE G T, WANG Z J, LIU M J, BAO J, ZHAO M, SI Q, LIU Y C, ZHAO W X. Microbiomics and volatile metabolomics-based investigation of changes in quality and flavor of oat (Avena sativa L.) silage at different stages. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2023, 14: 1278715.
[14]	包文龙, 任家辉, 张腾薇, 赵金梅, 王照兰, 王凤梧, 唐加高, 殷国梅, 韩云鹏, 孙娟娟. 12个饲用燕麦品种在乌兰察布生产力的综合评价. 草地学报, 2024, 32(4): 1169-1176. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2024.04.020
	BAO W L, REN J H, ZHANG T W, ZHAO J M, WANG Z L, WANG F W, TANG J G, YIN G M, HAN Y P, SUN J J. Comprehensive evaluation of productivity of 12 forage oat varieties in Ulanqab. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2024, 32(4): 1169-1176. (in Chinese)
[15]	张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 4版. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2016.
	ZHANG L Y. Feed Analysis and Quality Test Technology. 4th ed. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2016. (in Chinese)
[16]	宁开桂. 实用饲料分析手册. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 1993.
	NING K G. Handbook of Practical Feed Analysis. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 1993. (in Chinese)
[17]	孙娟娟, 阿拉木斯, 白春生. 青贮饲料质量检测实用手册. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2017.
	SUN J J, ALAMUSI, BAI C S. Practical Handbook of Silage Quality Inspection. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2017. (in Chinese)
[18]	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.
[19]	KAISER E. A new system for the evalution of the fermentation quality of silages. Proceedings of the XIV international silage conference, a satellite workshop of the XXth international grassland congress, Bellast, Northern Ireland, 2005.
[20]	吴璞, 王虎成, 沈禹颖. 水分含量对红豆草青贮发酵品质的影响. 草业科学, 2024, 41(3): 770-778.
	WU P, WANG H C, SHEN Y Y. Effect of water content of sainfoin on its silage fermentation quality. Pratacultural Science, 2024, 41(3): 770-778. (in Chinese)
[21]	饶正华. 饲料微生物学检测技术. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
	RAO Z H. Microbial Feed Science Detection Technology. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2006. (in Chinese)
[22]	孙建平, 董宽虎, 蒯晓妍, 薛竹慧, 高永强. 晋北农牧交错区引进燕麦品种生产性能及饲用价值比较. 草业学报, 2017, 26(11): 222-230. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017021
	SUN J P, DONG K H, KUAI X Y, XUE Z H, GAO Y Q. Comparison of productivity and feeding value of introduced oat varieties in the agro-pasture ecotone of northern Shanxi. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(11): 222-230. (in Chinese)
[23]	董志晓, 苟文龙, 刘英杰, 刘柏杨, 牟海鹏, 谭小平, 刘伟, 雷雄, 马啸. 15份饲用燕麦品种在凉山地区的生产性能和营养价值评价. 草业科学, 2024, 41(11): 2651-2663.
	DONG Z X, GOU W L, LIU Y J, LIU B Y, MOU H P, TAN X P, LIU W, LEI X, MA X. Evaluation of production performance and nutritional value of 15 feed barley varieties in the Liangshan Region. Pratacultural Science, 2024, 41(11): 2651-2663. (in Chinese)
[24]	EMRAN S A, KRUPNIK T J, KUMAR V, ALI M Y, PITTELKOW C M. Agronomic, economic, and environmental performance of nitrogen rates and source in Bangladesh’s coastal rice agroecosystems. Field Crops Research, 2019, 241: 107567.
[25]	景芳, 刘彦明, 陈富, 边芳, 南铭, 任生兰. 饲用燕麦在甘肃不同种植区的生产性能及营养品质. 草原与草坪: 1-14. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/62.1156.s.20241010.1610.004.
	JING F, LIU Y M, CHEN F, BIAN F, NAN M, REN S L. Production performance and nutritional quality of feed oats in different planting areas of Gansu Province. Prairie & Lawn: 1-14. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/62.1156.s.20241010.1610.004. in Chinese)
[26]	王春梅. 河西走廊主要栽培牧草的品质对肉牛和绵羊营养物质利用效率的影响[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2020.
	WANG C M. Responses in nutrient utilisation efficiencies of cattle and sheep to the quality of major forages cultivated in Hexi Corridor[D]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2020. (in Chinese)
[27]	任长忠, 胡跃高. 中国燕麦学. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2013.
	REN C Z, HU Y G. China Oat Science. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2013. (in Chinese)
[28]	姚晋, 何云, 卢家顶, 张晓霞, 崔亚垒, 马森, 王志昌, 朱晓艳, 史莹华, 李德锋, 孙浩. 河南省秋播饲用燕麦的越冬率、分蘖特性及其生产性能. 草地学报, 2023, 31(2): 528-539. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.02.027
	YAO J, HE Y, LU J D, ZHANG X X, CUI Y L, MA S, WANG Z C, ZHU X Y, SHI Y H, LI D F, SUN H. Winter survival rate, tillering characteristics, and production performance of autumn-sown forage oats in Henan Province. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(2): 528-539. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.02.027
[29]	王鹏, 马垭杰, 甘辉林, 顾新民. 祁连山北麓14个饲用燕麦生产性能及饲用价值评价. 畜牧兽医杂志, 2022, 41(6): 95-98, 100.
	WANG P, MA Y J, GAN H L, GU X M. Production performance and forage value evaluation of 14 kinds of forage oats at the northern foot of Qilian Mountains. Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2022, 41(6): 95-98, 100. (in Chinese)
[30]	王小军, 王金兰, 琚泽亮, 梁国玲, 贾志锋, 刘文辉, 马祥, 马金秀, 李文. 环青海湖地区不同饲用燕麦品种生产性能和营养品质综合评价. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(19): 3730-3742. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.19.002.
	WANG X J, WANG J L, JU Z L, LIANG G L, JIA Z F, LIU W H, MA X, MA J X, LI W. Comprehensive evaluation on production performance and nutritional quality of different varieties of forage oat in the Qinghai Lake area. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(19): 3730-3742. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.19.002. (in Chinese)
[31]	ZHANG J, YAN L, LIU M X, GUO G G, WU B. Analysis of β-d-glucan biosynthetic genes in oat reveals glucan synthesis regulation by light. Annals of Botany, 2021, 127(3): 371-380. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcaa185 pmid: 33090200
[32]	KAVI KISHOR P B, SREENIVASULU N. Is proline accumulation per se correlated with stress tolerance or is proline homeostasis a more critical issue? Plant, Cell & Environment, 2014, 37(2): 300-311.
[33]	陈杰. 提高象草青贮发酵品质的研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2012.
	CHEN J. Studies on improving fermentation quality of Napier grass silages[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2012. (in Chinese)
[34]	孙雷雷, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 康晓强, 刘富渊. 贮藏方式和时间对紫花苜蓿干草营养品质的影响. 草原与草坪, 2020, 40(6): 33-38.
	SUN L L, ZHAO G Q, CHAI J K, KANG X Q, LIU F Y. Effects of storage methods and time on the nutritional quality of alfalfa hay. Grassland and Turf, 2020, 40(6): 33-38. (in Chinese)
[35]	李晶, 南铭, 刘彦明, 张成君, 任生兰, 边芳. 不同燕麦品种产量和品质及饲喂性能综合评价. 草地学报, 2023, 31(4): 1089-1098. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.04.018
	LI J, NAN M, LIU Y M, ZHANG C J, REN S L, BIAN F. Comprehensive evaluation of the yield, quality and feeding performance on different oat varieties. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(4): 1089-1098. (in Chinese)
[36]	MCDONALD P. The Biochemistry of Silage. Marlow (United Kingdom): Chalcombe Publications, 1991.
[37]	秦梦臻, 沈益新. 生育期对小麦全株青贮发酵品质的影响. 中国农业科学, 2012, 45(8): 1661-1666. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.08.023.
	QIN M Z, SHEN Y X. Effects of maturity stage on fermentation quality of whole crop wheat silage. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2012, 45(8): 1661-1666. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.08.023. (in Chinese)
[38]	KAISER A G, PILTZ J W, BURNS H M, GRIFFITHS N W. TopFodder Successful Silage. New South Wales: Department of Primary Industries, 2003.
[39]	ASIAN A, OKAMOTO M, YOSHILHIRA T, ATAKU K, NARASAKI N. Effect of ensiling with Acremonium cellulase, lactic acid bacterial and formic acid on tissue structure of timothy and alfalfa. Asian- Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 1997, 10(6): 593-598.
[40]	贾春旺, 原现军, 李君风, 闻爱友, 白晰, 肖慎华, 郭刚, 魏化敬, 邵涛. 青稞酒糟对紫花苜蓿和多年生黑麦草混合青贮发酵品质的影响. 南京农业大学学报, 2016, 39(2): 275-280.
	JIA C W, YUAN X J, LI J F, WEN A Y, BAI X, XIAO S H, GUO G, WEI H J, SHAO T. Effect of adding wet hulless barley distillers' grains on fermentation quality of mixed ensilage of alfalfa and perennial ryegrass. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 2016, 39(2): 275-280. (in Chinese)
[41]	KAISER E, WEIB K, KRAUSC R. Criterions to judge fermentation quality of grass silages. Proceedings of the Society for Nutritional Physiology, 2000(9): 94-101.
[42]	王福成. 西藏不同海拔燕麦青贮发酵特性及发酵品质改善研究[D]. 林芝: 西藏农牧学院, 2021.
	WANG F C. Study on fermentation characteristics and fermentation quality improvement of oat silage at different altitudes in Tibet[D]. Nyingchi: Tibet Agriculture and Animal Husbandry University, 2021. (in Chinese)

品种名称 Breed name	品种来源 Breed source	原产地 Origin
蒙饲燕2号 Mengsi Yan No. 2	中国农业科学院草原研究所 Institute of Grassland, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences	中国 China
禾王 Dictator	百绿国际（天津）草业有限公司 Bailv International (Tianjin) Grass Industry Co., Ltd	美国America
麦迪逊 Madison	百绿国际（天津）草业有限公司 Bailv International (Tianjin) Grass Industry Co., Ltd	加拿大 Canada
福星 Fuxing	北京正道种业有限公司 Beijing Zhengdao Seed Industry Co., Ltd	美国 America
黑玫克 Haymaker	北京正道种业有限公司 Beijing Zhengdao Seed Industry Co., Ltd	加拿大 Canada
凯撒 Caesar	北京百斯特草业有限公司 Beijing Best Grass Industry Co., Ltd	美国 America
甜燕1号 Tianyan No. 1	北京佰青源畜牧业科技发展有限公司 Beijing Baiqingyuan Animal Husbandry Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd	加拿大 Canada
大瀑布 Waterfall	克劳沃（北京）生态科技有限公司 Crowwer (Beijing) Ecological Technology Co., Ltd	加拿大 Canada
牧乐思 Molasses	克劳沃（北京）生态科技有限公司 Crowwer (Beijing) Ecological Technology Co., Ltd	加拿大 Canada

丁酸 Butyric acid（%DM）	得分 Bonus point	乙酸 Acetic acid（%DM）	去分 Subtract point	总分 Total score	级别 Level
0—0.3	100	≤3.0	0	90—100	1
0.3—0.4	90	3.0—3.5	-10	72—89	2
0.4—0.7	80	3.5—4.5	-20	52—71	3
0.7—1.0	70	4.5—5.5	-30	30—51	4
1.0—1.3	60	5.5—6.5	-40	<30	5
1.3—1.6	50	6.5—7.5	-50	—	—
1.6—1.9	40	7.5—8.5	-60	—	—
1.9—2.6	30	>8.5	-70	—	—
2.6—3.6	20	—	—	—	—
3.6—5.0	10	—	—	—	—
>5.0	—	—	—	—	—

品种 Variety	鲜草产量 Fresh yield (t•hm^-2)	干草产量 Hay yield (t•hm^-2)	株高 Plant height (cm)
蒙饲燕2号Mengsi Yan No. 2	59.54±8.19a	13.26±1.35ab	120.50±0.89b
禾王Dictator	41.46±3.82ab	9.54±0.94abc	100.70±1.77e
麦迪逊Madison	53.80±11.26ab	14.34±1.74a	127.20±2.86a
福星Fuxing	45.46±0.35ab	9.78±0.03abc	96.70±1.92e
黑玫克Haymaker	47.86±0.57ab	10.46±0.0.63abc	108.00±2.49d
凯撒Caesar	35.82±5.47b	7.34±0.75c	115.80±1.58bc
甜燕1号Tianyan No. 1	49.66±3.26ab	11.46±1.07abc	121.00±2.20b
大瀑布Waterfall	40.20±9.00ab	8.54±1.57bc	112.30±1.87cd
牧乐思Molasses	56.20±9.72ab	13.00±2.96ab	97.50±1.01e

品种 Variety	干物质 Dry matter (%FW)	粗蛋白 Crude protein (%DM)	可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates (%DM)	中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent Fibers (%DM)	酸性洗涤纤维 Acidic detergent Fiber s(%DM)	粗灰分 Ash (%DM)
蒙饲燕2号Mengsi Yan No. 2	33.82±0.24de	9.14±0.20bc	3.99±0.56ab	59.10±0.10a	28.23±0.15bc	6.25±0.29cd
禾王Dictator	37.58±0.28bc	13.04±0.64a	1.63±0.05d	51.83±1.48c	37.07±1.78a	7.43±0.24b
麦迪逊Madison	34.02±0.14de	7.04±0.19d	4.52±0.08ab	56.94±0.78b	29.24±0.57b	7.24±0.20b
福星Fuxing	31.53±0.49f	13.75±0.75a	2.64±0.43cd	48.90±0.61d	23.97±0.70e	8.50±0.23a
黑玫克Haymaker	32.42±0.79ef	10.06±0.18b	3.85±0.39ab	56.09±0.19b	27.45±0.25bcd	7.31±0.34b
凯撒Caesar	41.32±1.08a	9.11±0.16bc	2.22±0.24d	48.48±0.73d	24.30±0.16e	6.23±0.39cd
甜燕1号Tianyan No. 1	36.37±0.79bc	9.24±0.35bc	4.25±0.42ab	53.16±0.54c	26.70±0.57cd	6.21±0.52cd
大瀑布Waterfall	34.72±0.25cd	8.05±0.44cd	3.56±0.43bc	56.24±0.20b	29.51±0.24b	6.53±0.20bc
牧乐思Molasses	38.42±0.44b	8.46±0.21c	4.83±0.46a	55.79±0.49b	25.52±0.27de	5.51±0.18d

品种 Variety	干物质 Dry matter (%FW)	粗蛋白 Crude protein (%DM)	可溶性碳水化合物 Water soluble carbohydrates (%DM)	中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fibers (%DM)	酸性洗涤纤维 Acidic detergent fibers (%DM)	粗灰分 Ash (%DM)
蒙饲燕2号Mengsi Yan No. 2	30.24±0.95d	8.78±0.24cd	1.81±0.13b	48.02±1.88ab	22.22±1.04abc	5.98±0.07c
禾王Dictator	34.82±0.58abc	10.27±1.19b	1.44±0.22bc	47.34±1.24ab	22.91±1.29abc	7.30±1.01ab
麦迪逊Madison	34.46±1.46abc	7.08±0.42e	3.57±0.23a	51.55±1.28a	25.42±1.15a	6.40±0.33bc
福星Fuxing	29.70±0.37d	11.98±0.39a	1.03±0.08c	41.33±1.91b	18.47±1.07c	7.81±0.15a
黑玫克Haymaker	33.28±0.46bcd	10.02±0.12bc	2.05±0.11b	52.80±0.96a	24.07±0.90ab	5.44±0.16c
凯撒Caesar	37.14±1.12a	9.12±0.14bcd	1.81±0.40b	45.71±4.98ab	21.98±2.62abc	5.88±0.36c
甜燕1号Tianyan No. 1	31.19±0.69cd	8.65±0.23cd	1.81±0.13b	50.76±3.37a	24.21±1.96ab	6.02±0.17c
大瀑布Waterfall	31.90±1.53bcd	7.91±0.27de	2.98±0.19a	47.38±2.35ab	22.96±1.40abc	5.82±0.11c
牧乐思Molasses	35.09±2.06ab	7.94±0.36de	3.09±0.24a	50.07±2.14a	22.94±1.56abc	5.29±0.45c

内蒙古中部地区饲用燕麦品种筛选及青贮品质评价

Screening of Feed Oat Varieties and Its Evaluation of Silage Quality in Central Inner Mongolia

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 42

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

品种 Variety	pH	乳酸 Lactic acid (%DM)	乙酸 Acetic acid (%DM)	丙酸 Propionic acid(%DM)	丁酸 Butyric acid (%DM)	氨态氮/总氮 NH₃-N/TN (%)
蒙饲燕2号Mengsi Yan No. 2	4.52±0.11bc	1.96±0.35bc	0.07±0.01b	1.57±0.09de	2.19±0.15a	6.66±0.80abc
禾王Dictator	4.77±0.06ab	1.47±0.41bcd	0.04±0.01bc	1.63±0.10de	1.30±0.44ab	5.89±0.52bc
麦迪逊Madison	4.61±0.08b	1.00±0.19d	0.03±0.01c	1.23±0.09e	1.83±0.17ab	7.97±0.12a
福星Fuxing	4.33±0.08c	5.28±0.27a	0.18±0.01a	1.94±0.07bcde	—	4.98±0.21c
黑玫克Haymaker	4.59±0.03b	2.23±0.14bc	0.07±0.00b	1.71±0.11cde	1.64±0.04ab	5.09±0.12c
凯撒Caesar	4.57±0.11b	2.30±0.35b	0.06±0.01b	2.60±0.16ab	1.06±0.08b	5.24±0.33bc
甜燕1号Tianyan No. 1	4.69±0.06ab	1.82±0.14bcd	0.06±0.00bc	1.70±0.11cde	2.10±0.38a	6.91±0.51ab
大瀑布Waterfall	4.68±0.04ab	1.35±0.16cd	0.05±0.01bc	2.04±0.12bcd	2.20±0.23a	8.30±0.88a
牧乐思Molasses	4.75±0.06ab	1.77±0.26bcd	0.05±0.01bc	2.77±0.46a	2.08±0.53a	6.85±0.76ab

品种 Variety	丁酸 Butyric acid (%DM)	得分 Bonus point	乙酸 Acetic acid (%DM)	总分 Total score	级别 Level
蒙饲燕2号Mengsi Yan No. 2	2.19	30	0.07	30	4
禾王Dictator	1.30	60	0.04	60	3
麦迪逊Madison	1.83	40	0.03	40	4
福星Fuxing	0.00	100	0.18	100	1
黑玫克Haymaker	1.64	40	0.07	40	4
凯撒Caesar	1.06	60	0.06	60	3
甜燕1号Tianyan No. 1	2.10	30	0.06	30	4
大瀑布Waterfall	2.20	30	0.05	30	4
牧乐思Molasses	2.08	30	0.05	30	4

品种 Variety	乳酸菌 Lactic acid bacteria (lg cfu•g^-1)	大肠杆菌 Colibacillus (lg cfu.g^-1)	霉菌与酵母菌 Mold and Yeast (lg cfu.g^-1)
蒙饲燕2号Mengsi Yan No. 2	3.83±0.98bc	0.78±0.78ab	2.12±0.91c
禾王Dictator	5.90±0.27a	0.18±0.18b	6.12±0.15a
麦迪逊Madison	3.60±0.70bc	2.32±1.34ab	2.20±0.50c
福星Fuxing	5.63±0.20a	1.01±1.06ab	4.16±0.85abc
黑玫克Haymaker	5.91±0.18a	2.52±0.95ab	5.73±0.09a
凯撒Caesar	5.57±0.17a	—	2.85±1.00bc
甜燕1号Tianyan No. 1	5.79±0.22a	0.60±0.60b	4.52±0.69abc
大瀑布Waterfall	4.49±0.81ab	1.30±1.30ab	2.59±0.68bc
牧乐思Molasses	2.64±0.42c	1.88±1.00ab	2.87±1.01bc

[1]	季圣阳, 陆柏益, 李培武. 关于现代农产品品质学的若干思考[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(9): 1830-1844.
[2]	韦文华, 李盼, 邵冠贵, 樊志龙, 胡发龙, 范虹, 何蔚, 柴强, 殷文, 赵连豪. 西北灌区青贮玉米产量及品质对减量灌水与有机无机肥配施的响应[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(8): 1521-1534.
[3]	陈桂平, 李盼, 邵冠贵, 吴霞玉, 殷文, 赵连豪, 樊志龙, 胡发龙. 减量灌水与有机无机肥配施对青贮玉米吐丝期后叶片持绿特性的调控作用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(7): 1381-1396.
[4]	罗一诺, 李艳霏, 李文虎, 张思琦, 牟文燕, 黄宁, 孙蕊卿, 丁玉兰, 佘文婷, 宋文斌, 李小涵, 石美, 王朝辉. 我国新育成小麦品种（系）籽粒不同部位铁含量及影响因素[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(3): 416-430.
[5]	韩林蒲, 马纪龙, 齐勇杰, 高嘉琪, 谢铁娜, 贾彪. 无人机多光谱参数与Shapley分析融合的青贮玉米生物量估算[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(18): 3632-3647.
[6]	唐佳灵, 张玉林, 杨勇, 方正锋, 韩国全, 惠腾. 日粮中添加酱油残渣压榨油脂对猪肉品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(15): 3118-3133.
[7]	赵甜甜, 袁剑龙, 卓峰琦, 唐振三, 徐杰, 张峰. 马铃薯全粉品质综合评价及品种筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(13): 2522-2537.
[8]	黄立强, 江如, 朱波汁, 彭焕, 许翀, 宋家雄, 陈敏, 李永青, 黄文坤, 彭德良. 马铃薯主栽品种抗马铃薯金线虫鉴定及抗性分子标记检测[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(8): 1506-1516.
[9]	刘泽厚, 王琴, 叶美金, 万洪深, 杨宁, 杨漫宇, 杨武云, 李俊. 人工合成小麦和地方品种穗发芽抗性育种利用效率[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(7): 1255-1266.
[10]	赵婕, 赵龙缘, 潘凝辉, 管丽蓉, 杜云龙, 李成云, 王云月, 谢勇. 水解酶基因BGIOSGA023826在稻瘟菌侵染过程中的抗病表型效应[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(23): 4607-4618.
[11]	田龙兵, 沈兆崟, 赵孝天, 张放, 侯文峰, 高强, 王寅. 种植密度与施氮量互作对不同玉米品种产量和水分利用效率的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(21): 4221-4237.
[12]	蔡玉彪, 张坤杰, 王雅宣, 赖凤香, 何佳春, 万品俊, 傅强. 水稻品种对褐飞虱趋向二化螟危害株习性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(20): 3998-4006.
[13]	罗江陶, 郑建敏, 邓清燕, 刘培勋, 蒲宗君. 2000—2020年四川小麦育成品种产量增益分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(20): 3945-3956.
[14]	王小军, 王金兰, 琚泽亮, 梁国玲, 贾志锋, 刘文辉, 马祥, 马金秀, 李文. 环青海湖地区不同饲用燕麦品种生产性能和营养品质综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(19): 3730-3742.
[15]	苏素苗, 康天恺, 邹家龙, 汪本福, 张洋洋, 廖世鹏, 李小坤. 不同水稻品种和施锌方式对水稻产量及籽粒锌有效性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(15): 3023-3034.