青贮玉米适收期淀粉、干物质含量和果穗鲜质量占比关系研究

徐田军,吕天放,赵久然,王荣焕,蔡万涛,刘月娥,邢锦丰,成广雷,张春原,张 勇,刘秀芝

(北京市农林科学院 玉米研究中心,玉米DNA指纹及分子育种北京市重点实验室,北京 100097)

摘要:青贮玉米的产量和品质与收获期密切相关,探究并明确优质青贮玉米品种在适收期(籽粒乳线位置1/2时)的淀粉、干物质含量和果穗鲜质量占比等指标,为青贮玉米生产适期收获和优质高产品种选择提供重要参考和依据。试验于2018-2019年在北京市农林科学院通州试验基地进行,累计选用40个优质专用型和粮饲兼用型青贮玉米品种,在籽粒乳线位置1/2时取样,各小区分别取5株,称取全株各器官茎、叶、鞘、果穗(不带苞叶)、苞叶、穗轴和籽粒的鲜质量;将玉米全株和籽粒105 ℃下杀青30 min后,60 ℃烘干至恒质量,称取干质量后磨样测全株淀粉含量。结果表明:籽粒乳线位置1/2时,参试青贮玉米品种的果穗鲜质量(不带苞叶)与全株鲜质量的比例(全文简称果穗鲜质量占比)、籽粒鲜质量与全株鲜质量的比例(全文简称籽粒鲜质量占比)、籽粒干质量与全株干质量的比例(全文简称籽粒干质量占比)在不同青贮类型和品种间均存在显著差异。参试品种果穗鲜质量占比平均为30.2%(变幅25.5%~35.7%),籽粒鲜质量占比平均为20.9%(变幅16.2%~26.4%),籽粒干质量占比平均为41.1%(变幅33.6%~48.0%)。粮饲兼用型玉米品种的果穗鲜质量、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比分别较青贮专用型品种高1.5,3.8,5.6百分点。参试品种的全株含水率平均为68.8%,变幅63.1%~73.6%,其中专用型青贮玉米品种平均为70.1%,粮饲兼用型玉米品种平均为67.3%;参试品种的籽粒含水率平均为39.0%,变幅35.4%~43.6%,其中专用型青贮玉米品种平均为39.6%,粮饲兼用型玉米品种平均为38.3%。两类青贮玉米品种的全株含水率和籽粒含水率相当。参试品种的全株淀粉含量平均为30.9%(变幅25.3%~35.6%),其中专用型青贮品种中京科青贮368淀粉含量(32.9%)最高、大京九23(25.3%)最低;粮饲兼用型品种中以京科968(35.6%)和京农科728(35.6%)最高,MC859(28.3%)最低。不同类型青贮品种间,专用型青贮品种全株淀粉含量平均为29.6%,较粮饲兼用型品种(32.5%)低2.9百分点。籽粒乳线位置1/2时,参试青贮玉米品种平均全株含水率和籽粒含水率分别为68.8%,39.0%,平均全株淀粉含量为30.9%;平均果穗鲜质量占比、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比分别为30.2%,20.9%,41.1%。为此,提出在适收期内专用型/粮饲兼用型青贮玉米品种的果穗鲜质量占比≥30%(籽粒鲜质量占比≥20%、籽粒干质量占比≥40%),此时青贮玉米干物质含量≥30%、淀粉含量≥30%,果穗鲜质量占比可以作为青贮玉米品质的简捷评价指标。

关键词:青贮玉米;适收期;青贮品质指标

玉米是我国种植面积最大、总产量最高的第一大粮食作物,对保障国家粮食安全和满足市场需要发挥着主力军作用[1]。玉米按照收获物及用途可分为籽粒玉米、青贮玉米和鲜食玉米三类。其中,青贮玉米具有生物产量高、饲用品质优、消化吸收率好等突出优势[2-3]。近年来,随畜牧业快速发展,优质高产青贮玉米作为重要的饲草来源其种植面积呈迅猛增加态势[4-5]。探究并明确优质青贮玉米品种在适收期的青贮品质评价指标,可为青贮玉米生产品种选择和适期收获提供重要参考和指导。青贮玉米是指收获玉米的鲜绿全株,经切碎和乳酸发酵后用于牛羊等草食牲畜的饲料,是养牛业特别是奶牛业不可或缺的基础饲料[6]。青贮玉米的营养品质随籽粒含水率及秸秆水分、籽粒所占百分比及秸秆组成的变化而变化[7-8],收获期是影响青贮玉米产量和青贮品质的重要因素之一[9-10]。青贮玉米收获时期一般遵循产量和品质均达到最高的原则。就生物产量而言,玉米鲜质量产量以乳熟期为最高,干质量产量以蜡熟期最高。收获过早则鲜质量降低且整株含水率过高,造成汁液等营养成分过多流失;收获过晚则植株黄叶过多,整株含水率过低,青贮玉米发酵过程中热损失增加及霉菌繁殖过快,进而影响青贮玉米的发酵品质[11]。淀粉含量是反映青贮玉米品质优劣的重要指标之一[12-13],前人研究表明,随收获期推迟青贮玉米品种淀粉含量呈升高趋势[14-15]。前人针对青贮玉米最适收获期、品质特性开展了大量研究,明确了青贮玉米在籽粒乳线位置1/2时为最佳收获期,而对此时的果穗鲜质量和籽粒鲜质量分别占全株鲜质量的比例、籽粒干质量占全株干物质量的比例,以及优质青贮玉米品种在适收期的青贮品质评价指标还鲜有研究和报道。因此,本研究共选用40个青贮玉米品种,在青贮玉米适收期籽粒乳线位置1/2时取样,测定青贮玉米全株各器官含水率、干物质质量及全株淀粉含量,探究并定量化青贮玉米品种在适收期的籽粒与全株含水率、果穗鲜质量占比、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比,明确优质青贮玉米品种在适收期的青贮品质评价指标,为青贮玉米生产适期收获和品种选择提供重要参考和依据。

1 材料和方法

1.1 试验材料

2018-2019年,选用40个生产上主推的优质专用型和粮饲兼用型青贮玉米品种为试验材料(表1)。

表1 试验品种名称

Tab.1 Experimental variety

年份Year青贮玉米品种类型Silage corn type玉米品种名称Corn variety2018专用型大京九26、京科青贮301、京科青贮927、京科青贮938、京科青贮368、京科青贮932、京科青贮561、京科青贮516、京科青贮973粮饲兼用型京农科728、MC278、京科968、郑单9582019专用型京科青贮938、北农青贮356、大京九23、京科青贮516、京科青贮368、Z京科青贮516、京科青贮561、京科青贮973、大京九26、北农青贮208、京科青贮948、京科青贮932、郑青贮1号粮饲兼用型京科968、郑单958、京科665、先玉335、京农科728、京农科828、MC278、NK718、MC121、MC703、登海605、MC859、MC529、MC670

1.2 试验设计

试验于2018,2019年在北京市通州区于家务乡北京市农林科学院试验基地(39°41′N,116°41′E)开展。0~20 cm耕层土壤含有机质1.11 g/kg、碱解氮109.0 mg/kg、有效氮21.1 mg/kg、有效磷24.2 mg/kg、速效钾158.0 mg/kg。12行区,行长10 m,行距0.6 m,小区面积72 m2。随机区组排列,3次重复。留苗密度为75 000株/hm2。田间管理同当地大田生产。

于籽粒乳线位置1/2时取样。各小区分别取5株,称取全株各器官茎、叶、鞘、果穗(不带苞叶)、苞叶、穗轴、籽粒的鲜质量;在105 ℃烘箱中将各器官杀青30 min后,60 ℃烘干至恒质量,称取干质量后,磨样进行全株青贮淀粉含量测定。

1.3 测试指标和计算方法

1.3.1 籽粒含水率 籽粒含水率(%)=(籽粒百粒鲜质量-籽粒百粒干质量)/籽粒百粒鲜质量×100。

1.3.2 全株含水率 全株含水率(%)=(全株鲜质量-全株干质量)/全株鲜质量×100。

1.3.3 全株干物质含量 全株干物质含量(%)=100-全株含水率(%)。

1.3.4 各器官含水率 各器官(茎、叶、鞘、穗轴、穗柄、苞叶)含水率(%)=(各器官鲜质量-各器官干质量)/各器官鲜质量×100。

1.3.5 果穗鲜质量(不带苞叶)与全株鲜质量的比例(全文简称果穗鲜质量占比) 果穗鲜质量占比(%)=果穗鲜质量(不带苞叶)/全株鲜质量×100。

1.3.6 籽粒鲜质量(干质量)与全株鲜质量(干质量)的比例(全文简称籽粒鲜质量占比、干质量占比) 籽粒鲜质量占比(%)=籽粒鲜质量/全株鲜质量×100;籽粒干质量占比(%)=籽粒干质量/全株干质量×100。

1.3.7 全株淀粉含量测定 采用酸水解淀粉、蒽酮比色法测定[16-17]

1.4 数据处理与统计分析

采用Microsoft Excel 2007处理和计算数据,采用SPSS 19.0统计软件进行方差分析和多重比较(采用LSD法),采用SigmaPlot 10.0软件作图。

2 结果与分析

2.1 参试品种全株含水率和籽粒含水率

由表2可知,籽粒乳线位置1/2时,参试玉米品种的全株含水率平均为68.8%,变幅63.1%~73.6%。其中,专用型青贮玉米品种平均为70.1%、粮饲兼用型玉米品种平均为67.3%。2018年,专用型青贮玉米品种以大京九26(73.5%)最高,粮饲兼用型品种以郑单958(70.2%)最高,其余品种均低于70.0%;2019年,在乳线位置1/2时全株含水率70.0%以上的青贮专用型品种有大京九23、郑青贮1号、京科青贮516、大京九26、北农青贮208和MC948,粮饲兼用型品种有郑单958、登海605、MC859和MC529。籽粒乳线位置1/2时,参试玉米品种籽粒含水率平均为39.0%,变幅35.4%~43.6%,其中,专用型青贮玉米品种平均为39.6%,粮饲兼用型玉米品种平均为38.3%。

参试玉米品种在籽粒乳线位置1/2时的全株淀粉含量在不同品种和品种类型间均存在极显著差异。参试品种在籽粒乳线位置1/2时全株淀粉含量平均为30.9%(变幅25.3%~35.6%),其中专用型青贮玉米品种中京科青贮368淀粉含量最高(32.9%)、大京九23最低(25.3%);粮饲兼用型玉米品种中京科968(35.6%)、京农科728(35.6%)最高,MC859(28.3%)最低。不同类型青贮品种间,籽粒乳线位置1/2时专用型青贮品种全株淀粉含量平均为29.6%,较粮饲兼用型品种(32.5%)低2.9百分点。吐丝期,参试品种的全株淀粉含量仅为2.1%,其中专用型青贮玉米品种平均为1.9%、粮饲兼用型玉米品种平均为2.4%。

表2 籽粒乳线位置1/2时参试玉米品种的全株含水率和籽粒含水率、淀粉含量

Tab.2 Whole plant water content,grain moisture and starch content at the time of 1/2 milk line position of the tested varieties %

注:不同字母表示处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。**.在P<0.01水平差异显著;*.在P<0.05水平差异显著;NS.差异不显著。表2同。

Note:Different letters are significantly different at P<0.05.**.Significantly different at P<0.01;*.Significantly different at P<0.05;NS.The difference was not significant.The same as Tab.2.

年际Year青贮玉米品种类型Silage corn type品种Variety全株含水率Whole plantwater content籽粒含水率Grain moisturecontent 淀粉含量Starch content 吐丝期Silking stage乳线1/2Milk line 1/22018专用型大京九2673.5±2.5a40.4±1.3bc1.5±0.4h27.5±2.2g京科青贮30169.7±3.2b37.2±1.2g1.9±0.8def28.3±1.5fg京科青贮92769.4±2.5bcd38.4±1.6ef2.1±0.3cde31.6±1.7c京科青贮93868.2±2.6de38.9±2.1def1.8±0.4fgh29.1±1.3f京科青贮97369.4±3.1bcd39.2±1.6de2.2±0.8cd30.1±1.6e京科青贮36869.5±1.4bc37.2±2.3gh1.9±0.3efg32.9±2.5b京科青贮93268.4±2.6cde38.2±1.4f1.8±0.5fgh28.9±1.2f京科青贮56169.8±1.7b39.7±1.9cd2.2±0.8cde30.6±1.9de京科青贮51669.6±1.5bc41.8±2.2a1.6±0.7gh27.9±2.5g粮饲兼用型京农科72863.1±2.4g35.5±2.2i2.8±0.5a35.2±1.4aMC27865.4±3.3f36.3±2.5hi2.3±0.6bc33.6±1.9b京科96868.1±3.6e38.4±1.1ef2.6±0.4ab35.5±1.7a郑单95870.2±2.1b40.9±1.3b2.0±0.3def31.3±1.8cd2019专用型京科青贮93867.2±3.9hij39.3±2.1d1.6±0.3i31.1±2.5efg北农青贮35669.5±4.8ef38.1±1.8efg1.6±0.2i30.2±2.1i大京九2372.4±2.5ab37.1±2.1hi1.7±0.1hi25.3±1.9n郑青贮1号72.5±3.6ab40.6±2.3c2.0±0.2efg26.4±1.1lm京科青贮51670.6±2.5cde38.9±1.4de1.5±0.1i28.1±1.4k京科青贮36869.4±3.2efg38.3±2.2ef1.9±0.2fgh31.3±2.6efZ京科青贮51669.7±2.5ef40.8±1.4c1.5±0.3i27.1±1.5l京科青贮56168.4±3.9fgh40.8±0.5c1.6±0.3i31.5±1.8def京科青贮97369.7±2.6ef37.4±2.3gh1.8±0.2ghi32.3±2.2c大京九2673.6±3.4a43.1±1.7ab1.8±0.5ghi26.2±2.4m北农青贮20870.4±2.6de42.6±3.1b2.0±0.3efg31.2±2.8efgMC94872.1±3.2abc42.8±1.7ab2.0±0.2efg31.7±1.9cdef京科青贮93268.5±3.3fgh39.4±2.5d2.1±0.5def32.4±1.8c粮饲兼用型京科96868.0±3.4ghi38.1±2.1efg2.6±0.7ab35.6±2.3a郑单95870.3±2.5de36.0±1.5jk2.0±0.3efg30.3±2.9hi京科66563.1±4.3n37.8±2.5fgh2.3±0.4cde34.7±1.3b先玉33565.7±5.2kl38.1±3.3efg2.6±0.3ab32.3±2.1c京农科72864.1±3.6mn38.0±2.3fg2.8±0.5a35.6±2.6a京农科82865.9±2.5jkl38.4±1.7ef2.7±0.2a31.1±2.1efgMC27867.1±3.3hijk40.5±`0.9c2.4±0.6bcd32.2±1.6cdNK71865.3±2.9lm40.6±1.5c2.7±0.3a34.4±1.8bMC12166.9±3.1ijk36.3±1.8j2.2±0.2cdef32.3±2.2cMC70367.2±2.5hij40.3±2.2c2.3±0.1cde31.0±1.9fgh登海60572.3±3.6ab35.4±1.6k2.3±0.4cde29.4±2.1jMC67067.3±3.8hij38.2±1.9ef2.4±0.2bcd31.9±1.6cdeMC85970.2±4.1de43.6±2.5a1.9±0.1fgh28.3±1.8kMC52971.6±3.2bcd36.5±2.2ij2.1±0.2def30.5±2.2ghi变异来源Source of variation品种年际品种类型品种×年际×品种类型**NS*****NS*****NS*****NS***

2.2 参试品种的果穗鲜质量占比、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比

由表3可知,在籽粒乳线位置1/2时,果穗鲜质量占比、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比在不同青贮品种类型和品种间均存在显著差异。籽粒乳线位置1/2时,参试品种果穗鲜质量占比平均为30.2%(变幅25.5%~35.7%),专用型青贮玉米品种平均为29.5%,其中京科青贮973(32.9%)最高、大京九26(25.5%)最低;粮饲兼用型玉米品种平均为31.0%,其中京科968(35.7%)最高、登海605(28.0%)最低。参试品种籽粒鲜质量占比平均为20.9%(变幅16.2%~26.4%),专用型青贮玉米品种平均为19.2%,其中京科青贮973(22.2%)最高、郑青贮1号(16.2%)最低;粮饲兼用型玉米品种平均为23.0%,其中京科968(26.4%)最高、登海605(19.6%)最低。参试品种籽粒干质量占比平均为41.1%(变幅33.6%~48.0%),专用型青贮玉米品种平均为38.5%,其中京科青贮368(42.3%)最高、大京九26(33.6%)最低;粮饲兼用型玉米品种平均为44.1%,其中京农科728(48.0%)最高、郑单958(38.8%)最低。粮饲兼用型玉米品种的果穗鲜质量、籽粒鲜质量和籽粒干质量的占比分别较青贮专用型品种高1.5,3.8,5.6百分点。

表3 籽粒乳线位置1/2时参试玉米品种的果穗鲜质量占比、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比

Tab.3 The ratio of ear and kernel fresh weight to whole plant fresh weight,grain dry weight to whole plant dry weight at the time of 1/2 milk line position of the tested varieties %

年际Year青贮玉米品种类型Silage corn type品种Variety果穗鲜质量占比Ratio of ear freshweight to whole plantfresh weight籽粒鲜质量占比Ratio of grain freshweight to whole plantfresh weight籽粒干质量占比Ratio of grain dryweight to whole plantdry weight2018专用型大京九26 25.5±2.7g17.8±1.1g33.6±3.2i京科青贮30132.7±3.4a19.8±1.3e41.0±3.9de京科青贮92727.4±2.1efg18.8±1.2f40.5±3.1e京科青贮93831.4±1.7abc18.9±1.6f35.6±2.5h京科青贮97330.4±2.2bcd19.2±1.3ef37.4±2.1g京科青贮36827.5±1.5ef21.2±1.5d42.3±2.1bc京科青贮93231.5±2.6ab18.9±1.2f39.3±3.6f京科青贮56129.4±1.2cde19.7±1.1e41.7±2.2cd京科青贮51626.6±1.6fg17.8±2.5g36.8±1.9g粮饲兼用型京农科72832.1±2.4ab25.0±2.4b46.9±3.6aMC27830.4±3.3bcd23.3±2.1c43.0±3.3b京科96831.1±3.6abcd26.4±1.5a46.7±3.1a郑单95829.2±2.1de21.9±1.6d38.8±2.4f2019专用型京科青贮93832.0±1.3cde20.4±1.3gh39.7±3.1m北农青贮35630.5±0.8fg16.8±0.8kl40.8±1.7kl大京九2328.3±1.1jk17.2±1.1k36.4±1.6pq郑青贮126.9±1.5m16.2±2.1l35.9±2.3q京科青贮51628.2±0.5jk19.6±0.5hij37.1±0.6op京科青贮36829.4±1.1hi21.4±1.1cdef41.8±2.4jZ京科青贮51627.5±0.5klm19.2±0.5ij36.2±4.1q京科青贮56131.8±0.9de20.8±0.9fg41.6±2.7j京科青贮97332.9±0.6bc22.2±0.6cd38.4±0.8n大京九2627.0±1.4lm18.7±1.4j37.3±2.5o北农青贮20828.6±0.6ij17.4±0.6k38.2±1.7nMC94830.6±0.7fg19.0±0.7ij37.2±2.3o京科青贮93232.7±4.3bcd21.1±4.3efg40.4±2.0lm粮饲兼用型京科96835.7±2.7a25.5±2.7a47.2±0.7b郑单95828.7±0.3ij23.9±0.3b40.2±4.0lm京科66528.6±1.0ij21.9±1.0cde43.4±1.7gh先玉33530.8±1.7fg24.1±1.7b44.3±4.3ef京农科72832.1±1.8cde25.0±1.8a48.0±2.5a

表3(续) %

年际Year青贮玉米品种类型Silage corn type品种Variety果穗鲜质量占比Ratio of ear freshweight to whole plantfresh weight籽粒鲜质量占比Ratio of grain freshweight to whole plantfresh weight籽粒干质量占比Ratio of grain dryweight to whole plantdry weight京农科82833.5±0.5b25.1±0.5a45.2±0.5cdMC27832.8±1.4bcd23.8±1.4b44.7±2.2deNK71831.2±2.2ef22.3±2.2c45.2±1.0cdMC12131.3±2.0ef20.8±2.0fg45.9±2.2cMC70330.0±1.1gh20.5±1.1fg44.0±0.7efg登海60528.0±1.0jkl19.6±1.0hi43.2±0.8hiMC67029.8±1.5gh21.2±2.2efg42.6±1.8iMC85930.4±4.5fgh21.3±4.5defg41.4±1.6jkMC52932.5±1.0bcd22.0±1.0cde43.7±5.0fgh变异来源Source of variation品种年际品种类型品种×年际×品种类型**NS*****NS*****NS***

2.3 相关性

由图1可知,淀粉含量与干物质含量、果穗鲜质量占比、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比呈极显著正相关,相关系数分别为0.74**,0.54**,0.76**和0.78**

图1 淀粉含量与干物质含量、果穗鲜质量占比、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比相关性

Fig.1 Correlation between dry matter content and ear fresh weight to plant fresh weight,kernel fresh weight to plant fresh weigh,kernel dry weight to plant dry weigh

3 讨论与结论

3.1 讨论

青贮玉米具有营养价值高、能量高、生物产量高、气味芳香和消化率高的特性,是反刍动物的重要饲料来源[18-19]。近年来,随我国“粮改饲”进程推进和畜牧业发展加快,青贮玉米产业发展势头迅猛,青贮玉米种植面积逐年递增。选择适宜品种是实现青贮玉米高产和优质的重要前提[20]。高质量青贮玉米品种应具备较高的生物学产量和优良品质[21-22]。青贮玉米收获期对青贮玉米饲料的消化率、营养成分、蛋白质利用率等影响很大,适期收获是保障青贮玉米品质的关键措施之一[4,23]。关于青贮玉米的适宜收获期,国内外学者有着不同观点。Ma等[24]认为青贮玉米籽粒在蜡熟期为最适收获期,此时生物产量高、木质素含量低,适口性好。苗树君等[25]从青贮玉米对奶牛的营养价值角度分析得出,青贮玉米蜡熟期收获最优,其次是乳熟期,乳熟早期收获营养品质最差,然而此方法操作复杂且难以量化。Ganoe等[26]认为玉米籽粒乳线从2/3到完全消失期间收获可以获得最高的生物产量。潘金豹等[18]研究表明,青贮玉米青贮时的最佳含水率约为60.0%~70.0%,此时全株品质较好且木质化程度低,适口性好,奶牛等牲畜消化率高。本研究表明,在籽粒乳线位置1/2时,青贮玉米品种的全株含水率平均为68.8%,变幅63.1%~73.6%;而籽粒含水率为39.0%,变幅35.4%~43.6%。在乳线1/2是青贮玉米的最适收获期,这与潘金豹等[18]研究结果基本一致。

青贮玉米茎、叶、鞘、穗等器官对光合作用产物的积累、转运、分配及产量形成起的作用不同[27-28]。特别是对于青贮玉米,在追求生物产量的同时,也应注重籽粒产量和品质。青贮玉米的生物产量是指青贮玉米在收获期时所收获的植株地上部茎、叶、鞘、穗的总产量,对青贮玉米进行生物产量测定是青贮玉米实验性研究中不可或缺的一部分[29-31]。因此,选择高质量青贮玉米品种是获得高产的重要前提。果穗是青贮玉米淀粉的主要来源和产量的重要组成部分,因此,果穗对青贮玉米的产量和品质有着至关重要的作用。杜志宏等[32]认为果穗质量占整个植株干质量的40.0%~60.0%,并且果穗所占比例越大青贮品质越好,而雷艳芳等[14]研究却发现收获过晚青贮玉米饲料中淀粉含量过高,会造成半纤维素、纤维素的消化率降低,到达小肠的瘤胃蛋白质减少,淀粉利用率降低。Coppock[33]指出,干物质含量对玉米青贮饲料的能量价值作用最大,而籽粒不是关键。而本研究发现,全株淀粉含量主要来源于籽粒。在吐丝期,参试品种的全株淀粉含量仅为2.1%,其中专用型青贮玉米品种平均为1.9%、粮饲兼用型玉米品种平均为2.4%;而在籽粒乳线位置1/2时,参试品种全株淀粉含量平均为30.9%。玉米籽粒中60.0%~70.0%为淀粉,是反刍动物的重要能量来源,因此籽粒占比是影响青贮玉米品质的重要因素之一,这与Coppock等[33]研究结果不一致。本研究首次引入果穗鲜质量占比(果穗鲜质量占全株鲜质量的比例)、籽粒鲜质量占比(籽粒鲜质量占全株鲜质量的比例)和籽粒干质量占比(籽粒干质量占全株干质量的比例)的指标,用于评价和鉴选优质青贮玉米品种,相关关系表明,淀粉含量与干物质含量、果穗鲜质量占比、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比呈极显著正相关。参试青贮玉米品种的果穗鲜质量占比、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比在不同青贮类型和品种间均存在显著差异。籽粒乳线位置1/2时,参试青贮玉米品种的平均果穗鲜质量占比、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比分别为30.2%,20.9%和41.1%。

3.2 结论

青贮玉米品种的果穗鲜质量占比、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比在不同青贮玉米类型和品种间均存在显著差异。籽粒乳线位置1/2时,参试玉米品种的平均果穗鲜质量占比、籽粒鲜质量占比和籽粒干质量占比分别为30.2%,20.9%和41.1%,平均全株含水率和籽粒含水率分别为68.8%和39.0%,平均全株淀粉含量为30.9%。为此,我们提出在适收期内专用型/粮饲兼用型青贮玉米品种的果穗鲜质量占比≥30%(籽粒鲜质量占比≥20%、籽粒干质量占比≥40%),此时青贮玉米干物质含量≥30%、淀粉含量≥30%,果穗鲜质量占比可以作为青贮玉米品质的简捷评价指标。

参考文献:

[1] 赵久然,王荣焕. 中国玉米生产发展历程、存在问题及对策[J]. 中国农业科技导报,2013,15(3):1-6. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1008-0864.2013.03.01.

Zhao J R,Wang R H. Development process,problem and countermeasure of maize production in China[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology,2013,15(3):1-6.

[2] 孙志强,徐芳,张元庆,海鸽,杨春艳,吴哲,王炳,玉柱. 不同品种玉米农艺性状及青贮发酵品质的比较及相关性研究[J]. 草地学报,2019,27(1):250-256. doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.01.032.

Sun Z Q,Xu F,Zhang Y Q,Hai G,Yang C Y,Wu Z,Wang B,Yu Z. Comparison and correlation of agronomic characteristics and fermentation quality of different types of hybrid corn[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica,2019,27(1):250-256.

[3] Hallauer. Specialty corn[M].Florida:CRC Press LLC,2001:347-380.

[4] 张晓庆,穆怀彬,侯向阳,闫伟红,李平,李鹏,苏佳楼. 我国青贮玉米种植及其产量与品质研究进展[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学,2013,34(1):54-57,59. doi:10.16003/j.cnki.issn.1672-5190.2013.01.016.

Zhang X Q,Mu H B,Hou X Y,Yan W H,Li P,Li P,Su J L. Review on the planting of forage corn in China and its yield and quality[J]. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science,2013,34(1):54-57,59.

[5] 施清平,徐赵红,张建国. 十个玉米品种在广州种植和青贮的潜力研究[J]. 草业学报,2017,26(3):175-182. doi:10.11686/cyxb2016155.

Shi Q P,Xu Z Y,Zhang J G. Comparison of ten corn varieties as silage material in Guangzhou[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica,2017,26(3):175-182.

[6] 王永宏,赵健,沈强云,韩礼义. 青贮玉米生物产量及营养积累规律研究[J]. 玉米科学,2005(4):81-85. doi:10.13597/j.cnki.maize.science.2005.04.023.

Wang Y H,Zhao J,Shen Q Y,Han L Y. Studies on accumulation of organism yield and nutrition of silage maize[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences,2005(4):81-85.

[7] Atis I,Duru M,Konuskan O,Gozubenli H. Effects of plant maturity stage on silage quality of some silage sorghum cultivars[J]. Journal of Food Agriculture & Environment,2013,11(1):534. doi:10.3989/gya.084612.

[8] Coors J G,Albrecht K A,Bures E J. Ear-fill effects on field and quality of silage corn[J].Crop Science,1997,37(1):243-247. doi:10. 2135/cropsci1997. 0011183X003700010043x.

[9] 孙连双,李东阳,张亚龙,齐雅芳. 收获期对青贮玉米产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报,2010,26(3):157-160.

Sun L S,Li D Y,Zhang Y L,Qi Y F. Effect of harvest date of yield on silage maize[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin,2010,26(3):157-160.

[10] 付忠军,杨华,姜参参,李淑君,赵建国,祁志云. 采收期对青贮玉米品质和产量的影响[J]. 西南农业学报,2014,27(3):1343-1345. doi:10.16213/j.cnki.scjas.2014.03.061.

Fu Z J,Yang H,Jiang C C,Li S J,Zhao J G,Qi Z Y. Effect of harvesting time on yield and quality of silage maize[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricuhural Sciences,2014,27(3):1343-1345.

[11] 梁萍. 不同生育期青贮玉米营养含量及瘤胃降解特性研究[D]. 福建:福建农林大学,2006. doi:10.7666/d. y949296.

Liang P. The nutrition of silage corn in different growth stage and ruminal degradation trend in vitro[D].Fujian:Fujian Agricultural and Forestry University,2006.

[12] 杨云贵,张越利,杜欣,刘桂要,曹社会. 2种玉米青贮饲料青贮过程中主要微生物的变化规律研究[J]. 畜牧兽医学报,2012,43(3):397-403.

Yang Y G,Zhang Y L,Du X,Liu G Y,Cao S H. Study on the major microorganism changes during the silage processing of two kinds of corn silage[J]. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechniaca Sinica,2012,43(3):397-403.

[13] Andrae J G,Hunt C W,Pritchard G T,Kennington L R,Harrison J H,Kezar W,Mahanna W. Effect of hybrid,maturity,and mechanical processing of corn silage on intake and digestibility by beef cattle[J]. Journal Animal Science,2001,79(9):2268-2275. doi:10.2527/2001.7992268x.

[14] 雷艳芳,王仪明,常伟,李俊诚,魏臻武. 不同刈割时间对青贮玉米生物量和品质的影响[J]. 上海农业学报,2016,32(4):45-49. doi:10.15955/j. issn1000-3924. 2016. 04. 10.

Lei Y F,Wang Y M,Chang W,Li J C,Wei Z W. Effect of different cutting time on biomass and quality of silage corn[J]. Acta Agricultural Shanghai,2016,32(4):45-49.

[15] Kuehn C S,Linn J G,Johnson D G,Jung H G,Endres M I. Effect of feeding silages fromcorn hybrids selected for leafiness or grain to lactating dairy cattle[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,1999,82:2746-2755.doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75531-1.

[16] 郭冬生,彭小兰. 蒽酮比色法和酶水解法两种淀粉测定方法的比较研究[J]. 湖南文理学院学报(自然科学版),2007,19(3):34-36,48. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-6164.2007.03.011.

Guo D S,Peng X L. A comparative method study on starch between the enzyme hydrolysis and anthrone colorimetry[J]. Journal of Hunan University of Arts and Science(Natural Science Edition),2007,19(3):34-36,48.

[17] 汪铁桥. 影响淀粉盐酸水解的主要因素[J]. 科技传播,2013(23):109-110.

Wang T Q. The main factors influencing the hydrochloric acid hydrolysis of starch[J]. Public Communication of Science and Technology,2013(23):109-110.

[18] 潘金豹,张秋芝,郝玉兰,石德权.我国青贮玉米育种的策略与目标[J].玉米科学,2002,10(4):3-4.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-0906.2002.04. 001.

Pan J B,Zhang Q Z,Hao Y L,Shi D Q. The breeding strategy and objective of silage Maize in China[J].Journal of Maize Sciences, 2002,10(4):3-4.

[19] Dann H M,Carter M P,Cotanch K W,Ballard C S,Takano T,Grant R J. Effect of partial replacement of forage neutral detergent fiber with by-product neutral detergent fiber in close-up diets on periparturient performance of dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2007,90(4):1789-1801.doi:10.3168/jds.2006-692.

[20] 赵昇,王晔,南张杰,潘金豹,张秋芝.青贮玉米不同器官与产量和品质的相关性研究[J]. 中国农学通报,2015,31(15):22-27.

Zhao S,Wang Y,Nan Z J,Pan J B,Zhang Q Z. Study on the correlation of different organs and the yield and quality in silage maize[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin,2015,31(15):22-27.

[21] Moore J E,Undersander D . Relative forage quality:an alternative to relative feed value and quality index[C].Florida:Proceeding 13th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium,2002:16-32.

[22] Kim J D,Kwon C H,Kim S G,Park H.S Ko H J,Kim J K. Effect of harvest stage on forage yield and quality of silage corn at late planting[J]. Journal Amins Science & Technology,2002,44(2):251-260. doi:10. 5187/JAST. 2002. 44. 2. 251.

[23] Goering H K,Van Soest P J. Forage Fiber Analysis (apparatus,reagents,procedures and some applications)[M]. Washington D C:USDA Agricultural Handb,1991.

[24] Ma B L,Dwyer L M. Changes in kernel characteristics during grain filling in silage-specific and dual-purpose corn hybrids[J]. Canada Journal Plant Science,2012,92(3):427-439. doi:10. 4141/cjps2011-071.

[25] 苗树君,曲永利,杨柳,韩华,姜宁. 不同收获期玉米青贮营养成分在奶牛瘤胃内降解率的研究[J]. 动物营养学报,2007,19(2):172-176. doi:10.3969/j. issn. 1006-267X. 2007. 02. 015.

Miao S J,Qu Y L,Yang L, Han H,Jiang N. Study on the rumen degradabilities of nutritional composition of corn silage harvested at different stages for diary cattle[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition,2007,19(2):172-176.

[26] Ganoe K H,Roth G W. Kernel milk line as a harvest indicator for corn silage in Pennsylvania[J]. Journal of Production Agriculture,1992,5(4):519-523. doi:10. 2134/jpa1992. 0519.

[27] 白琪林. 青贮玉米秸秆品质性状遗传及其近红外测定方法的研究[D]. 北京:中国农业大学,2005. doi:10. 7666/d. y835114.

Bai Q L. Inheritance of stover quality traits and their determination by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) in silage maize (Zea may L.)[D]. Beijing:China Agricultural University,2005.

[28] 陈艳霞,南张杰,潘金豹,王晔. 青贮玉米不同器官对产量和品质的影响[J]. 北京农学院学报,2016,31(3):16-22.doi:10.13473/j.cnki.issn.1002-3186.2016.0310.

Chen Y X,Nan Z J,Pan J B,Wang Y. The influence of different organs on yield and quality for whole plant of silage maize[J]. Journal of Beijing Agricultural University,2016,31(3):16-22.

[29] Harrison J H,Johnson L. Effect of harvest maturity of whole plant corn silage on milk production and component yield and passage of corn grain and starch into feces[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,1996,79:149. doi:10. 4148/2378-5977. 2216.

[30] Liu Z J,Yang X G,Lin X M,Hubbard K G,Lü S,Wang J. Maize yield gaps caused by non-controllable,agronomic,and socioeconomic factors in a changing climate of Northeast China[J]. Science of the Total Environment,2016,541:756-764. doi:10. 1016/j. scitotenv. 2015. 08. 145.

[31] 张银锁,宇振荣,Driessen P M.环境条件和栽培管理对夏玉米干物质积累、分配及转移的试验研究[J].作物学报,2002,28(1):104-109.doi:10.3321/j.issn:0496-3490.2002.01.021.

Zhang Y S,Yu Z R,Driessen P M. Experimental study of assimilate production,partitioning and translocation among plant organs in summer maize (Zea mays L.) under various environmental and management conditions[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica,2002,28(1):104-109.

[32] 杜志宏,张福耀,平俊爱,郭建文,吕鑫.我国青贮玉米育种研究进展及发展趋势[J].山西农业科学,2010,38(2):85-87,70.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-2481.2010.02.24.

Du Z H,Zhang F Y,Ping J A,Guo J W,Lü X. Silage corn breeding research progress and development trend in China[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences,2010,38(2):85-87,70.doi:10.1080/00949651003724790.

[33] Coppock C E.Problems associated with all corn silage feeding[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,1969,52(6):848-858.doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(69)86662-2.

Study on the Relationship Between the Content of Starch and Dry Matter,the Ratio of Fresh Weight of Ear in Silage Maize

XU Tianjun,LÜ Tianfang,ZHAO Jiuran,WANG Ronghuan,CAI Wantao,LIU Yuee,XING Jinfeng,CHENG Guanglei,ZHANG Chunyuan,ZHANG Yong,LIU Xiuzhi

(Maize Research Center,Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences,Beijing Key Laboratory of Maize DNA Fingerprinting and Molecular Breeding,Beijing 100097,China)

Abstract The yield and quality of silage corn are closely related to the harvest time. The plant,ear and grain related silage quality indexes at the stage of 1/2 kernel milk line were studied to provide instruction for determining suitable harvest time and variety selection in silage corn production. The experiments were conducted in Tongzhou experimental base of Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences in 2018 and 2019. Totally 40 specific silage corn and dual-purpose corn varieties were selected and sampled at the stage of 1/2 kernel milk line. 5 plants for each plot were selected and the fresh weight of stems,leaves,sheaths,ears (without bracts),bracts,rachises and grains of the plant were weighed. The whole plant was baked in 105 ℃ oven for 30 minutes,and then dried at 60 ℃ to constant weight,the dry weight was weighed and then used to test the starch content. The result showed that: There were significant differences in the ratios of ear and kernel fresh weight to plant fresh weight(FWe/FWp,FWk/FWp),and that of kernel dry weight to plant dry weight(DWk/DWp) among different silage corn types and varieties at the stage of 1/2 kernel milk line. The ratios of FWe/FWp,FWk/FWp and DWk/DWp for all the tested varieties averaged 30.2%,20.9%,41.1% and ranged 25.5%-35.7%,16.2%-26.4%,33.6%-48.0%,respectively,with the dual-purpose type were 1.5,3.8 and 5.6 percentage point higher than that of specific silage type. The average plant water content of all the varieties was 68.8% (ranged 63.1%-73.6%),with the specific silage and the dual-purpose type was 70.1% and 67.3%,respectively. The average kernel water content of all the varieties was 39.0% (ranged 35.4%-43.6%),with the specific silage and the dual-purpose type was 39.6% and 38.3%,respectively. The average plant starch content of all the varieties was 30.9% (ranged 25.3%-35.6%). JKQZ368 was the highest (32.9%) and DJJ23 was the lowest (25.3%) among the specific silage varieties; JK968 (35.6%) and JNK728(35.6%) were the highest,and MC859 was the lowest(28.3%) among the dual-purpose varieties. The average plant starch content of the specific silage varieties was 29.6%,which 2.9 percentage point lower than that of the dual-purpose varieties (32.5%). At the stage of 1/2 kernel milk line,the average plant and kernel water content of all the varieties was 68.8%,39.0%,and the average starch content was 30.9%; the ratios of FWe/FWp,FWk/FWp and DWk/DWp for all the tested varieties averaged 30.2%,20.9% and 41.1%. During the suitable harvest period,the ratio of FWe/FWp of specific silage/dual-purpose corn varieties was ≥30%(the ratio of FWk/FWp was ≥20%,and that of DWk/DWp was ≥40%),the dry biomass content was ≥30% and the starch content was ≥30%. So,we suggested that the ratio of FWe/FWp could be used as a simple index for evaluating the quality of silage maize.

Key words: Silage corn; Suitable harvest stage; Silage quality index

中图分类号:S513.01

文献标识码:A

文章编号:1000-7091(2020)增刊-0167-09

doi:10.7668/hbnxb.20191264

收稿日期:2020-04-09

基金项目:国家重点研发计划项目(2018YFD0100205);现代农业产业技术体系专项资金(CARS-02-11);北京市农林科学院青年科研基金(QNJJ201728);北京市农林科学院院级科技创新团队建设项目(JNKYT201603)

作者简介:徐田军(1982-),男,山东临沂人,助理研究员,硕士,主要从事玉米高产栽培生理研究。徐田军,吕天放为同等贡献作者。

通讯作者:赵久然(1962-),男,北京平谷人,研究员,博士,主要从事玉米育种与栽培生理研究。王荣焕(1980-),女,河北衡水人,推广研究员,博士,主要从事玉米高产栽培生理研究。