Evaluation on Feeding Values of 5 Kinds of Whole Plant Corn Silage by in Vitro Gas Production and Nylon Bag Methods

  • ZHANG Yuanqing ,
  • JIN Guang ,
  • WANG Dongcai ,
  • LI Bo ,
  • XU Fang ,
  • CHENG Jing ,
  • ZHANG Dandan
Expand
  • Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, Shanxi Academy of Agricultural Science, Taiyuan 030032, China

Received date: 2019-06-18

  Online published: 2019-12-13

Abstract

In this experiment, the feeding values of 5 kinds of whole plant corn silage were evaluated by in vitro gas production and nylon bag methods. Five kinds of whole plant corn silage made from Dafeng 26, Jindan 65, Denghai 679, Luyan 10 and Tunyu 168 silage corn, respectively, were collected to measure the common nutrient component contents. The gas production at different fermentation time was measured by in vitro gas production method, and the gas production parameters were calculated. The dry matter degradation rate was measured by nylon bag method, and the degradation parameters were calculated. The results showed as follows:the acid detergent fiber content of Jindan 65 was the lowest, and the range of crude protein content of 5 kinds of whole plant corn silage was 5.46% to 7.27%. The ether extract content of Jindan 65, Denghai 679, Tunyu 168 was significantly higher than that of Dafeng 26 and Luyan 10 (P<0.05). Jindan 65 had the highest 72 h gas production of 86.70 mL, and the gas production rate of Jindan 65 was significantly higher than that of Denghai 679 and Tunyu 168 (P<0.05). The dry matter degradation rate after 72 h fermentation of Jindan 65 was significantly higher than that of other 4 varieties (P<0.05). In conclusion, whole plant corn silage made of Jindan 65 silage corn has higher nutrient component contents and is easier to be fermented and digested.

Cite this article

ZHANG Yuanqing , JIN Guang , WANG Dongcai , LI Bo , XU Fang , CHENG Jing , ZHANG Dandan . Evaluation on Feeding Values of 5 Kinds of Whole Plant Corn Silage by in Vitro Gas Production and Nylon Bag Methods[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2019 , 31(12) : 5682 -5687 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2019.12.034

References

[1] 毛建红,富丽霞,周艳,等.体外法与半体内法评价不同酶菌制剂处理后玉米秸秆主要成分降解率的比较试验[J].饲料工业,2017,38(24):40-46.
[2] 涂远璐,汤海江,樊磊,等.体外产气法评价菊花粕、葡萄籽粕、杏鲍菇菌渣、豆腐渣的饲用价值[J].动物营养学报,2019,31(3):1376-1384.
[3] 张微,莫放.原位尼龙袋技术在评价饲料营养价值中的应用与建议方案[J].动物营养学报,2019,31(1):1-14.
[4] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会.GB/T 6435-2006饲料中水分和其他挥发性物质含量的测定[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2007.
[5] 国家市场监督管理总局,国家标准化管理委员会.GB/T 6432-2018饲料中粗蛋白的测定凯氏定氮法[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2018.
[6] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会.GB/T 6433-2006饲料中粗脂肪的测定[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2006.
[7] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会.GB/T 20806-2006饲料中中性洗涤纤维(NDF)的测定[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2007.
[8] 中华人民共和国农业部.NY/T 1459-2007饲料中酸性洗涤纤维的测定[S].北京:农业出版社,2008.
[9] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会.GB/T 6438-2007饲料中粗灰分的测定[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2007.
[10] 慕平,张恩和,方永丰,等.体外产气法对3种玉米秸秆饲用价值评价研究初探[J].草地学报,2011,19(6):983-987.
[11] 周玲,王波,谢龙,等.体外产气法评定6种草料的营养价值[J].饲料工业,2017,38(5):21-24.
[12] 达勒措.尼龙袋法与体外产气法评定饲料养分降解率的研究[D].硕士学位论文.雅安:四川农业大学,2017.
[13] 马君军.吉林省肉牛4种饲料养分浓度、瘤胃降解和体外发酵特性及其相关性研究[D].硕士学位论文.兰州:甘肃农业大学,2018.
[14] 刘月,周振明,王国艮,等.不同玉米品种全株青贮品质及营养价值的比较分析[J].中国畜牧兽医,2018,45(11):3043-3050.
[15] SEWANSON K C,CARLSON Z E,RUCH M C,et al.Influence of forage source and forage inclusion level on growth performance,feeding behavior,and carcass characteristics in finishing steers[J].Journal of Animal Science,2017,95(3):1325-1334.
[16] TERLER G,GRUBER L,KNUS W F.Effect of variety and harvest date on nutritive value and ruminal degradability of ensiled maize ears[J].Archives of Animal Nutrition,2017,71(5):333-346.  
[17] 魏晨,刘桂芬,游伟.等.6种反刍动物常用粗饲料在肉牛瘤胃中的降解规律比较[J].动物营养学报,2019,31(4):1666-1675.
[18] 郝建祥.体外发酵法评定反刍动物饲料营养价值的研究[D].硕士学位论文.南京:南京农业大学,2011.
[19] 李袁飞,郝建祥,马艳艳,等.体外瘤胃发酵法评定不同类型饲料的营养价值[J].动物营养学报,2013,25(10):2403-2413.
[20] 李文娟,王世琴,姜成钢,等.体外法评定南方4种经济作物副产品及3种暖季型牧草的营养价值研究[J].畜牧与兽医,2017,49(4):33-39.
Outlines

/