Effect of Mowing Treatment on the Main Season Whole Plant Biomass and Silage Quality and Yield in Regeneration Season of Ratooning Rice

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2021.0117

Abstract

Abstract:

To evaluate the effects of mowing time and stubble height on biomass， silage quality of main season rice and yield of regeneration season， Xiangliangyou 900 and Yongyou 4149 were used as cultivars， and a field experiment was conducted at Datonghu District， Yiyang City， Hunan Province. The mowing times were set including 10 （P10）， 15 （P15）， 20 （P20）， 25 （P25） and 30 d （P30） after full ear， while the stubble heights were set including 10 （H10）、20 （H20） and 30 cm （H30）. The biomass， silage quality of main season rice and yield of regeneration season in different treatments were determined. The results suggested that delaying harvesting time by 10~15 d significantly improved the dry matter production and the quality， V-score， fermentation quality of silage in main season rice. Compared different treatments， P10H20 treatment showed the highest dry matter production， appearance， fermentation and nutrient quality. The yield of regeneration season showed a downward trend with the delay of cutting time， and the yield of the regeneration season in P10H15 treatment was significantly higher than those in P20 and P30 treatments， and the yields of the regeneration season in H20 and H30 treatments were significantly higher than those in H10 treatments. Therefore， for the purpose of harvest whole plant silage， the main season should adopt the mowing time at 25~30 d after full ears with stubble height 10~20 cm， which had high biomass， better sensory quality， fermentation quality and nutritional quality； for the purpose of harvesting rice in the regeneration season， the first season should be mowed at 10~15 d after full ears with stubble height 20~30 cm， which had high yield.

Key words: ratooning rice, mowing, biomass, silage quality, yield

摘要：

为研究再生稻齐穗后刈割时间和留桩高度对再生稻头季生物量、青贮品质和再生季产量的影响，在湖南省益阳市大通湖区选取湘两优900和甬优4149为供试材料，设置刈割时间分别为齐穗后10（P10）、15（P15）、20（P20）、25（P25）和30 d（P30）；留桩高度分别为10（H10）、20（H20）和30 cm（H30），研究不同处理下再生稻头季生物量、青贮品质和再生季产量的变化。结果表明，再生稻头季全株生物量随刈割时间的推迟呈现出逐渐增加的趋势，P25和P30处理的全株生物量显著高于P10和P20处理，V-score评分均在80分以上，且感官品质优良，发酵品质良好，相对饲用价值较高；留桩高度H10和H20处理头季的全株生物量显著高于H30处理，V-score评分均在80分以上，且感官品质优良，发酵品质良好，相对饲用价值较高；再生季产量随刈割时间的推迟呈现下降趋势，P10和P15 处理再生季的产量显著高于P20和P30处理；留桩高度H20和H30处理再生季的产量显著高于留桩高度H10处理。综上所述，以收获全株青贮饲料为主要目的时，头季宜采取齐穗后25~30 d、10~20 cm留桩高度的刈割处理，此时，生物量高，感官品质、发酵品质和营养品质较好；以收获再生季稻谷为主要目的时，头季宜采用齐穗后10~15 d、留桩20~30 cm的刈割处理，再生季产量较高。

关键词: 再生稻, 刈割, 生物量, 青贮品质, 产量

CLC Number:

S511.4+2

Yuanwei CHEN, Huabin ZHENG, Weiqin WANG, Na KUANG, Youyi LUO, Dan ZOU, Qiyuan TANG. Effect of Mowing Treatment on the Main Season Whole Plant Biomass and Silage Quality and Yield in Regeneration Season of Ratooning Rice[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(8): 161-171.

陈元伟, 郑华斌, 王慰亲, 旷娜, 罗友谊, 邹丹, 唐启源. 刈割处理对再生稻头季全株生物量、青贮品质和再生季产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(8): 161-171.

Figures/Tables 9

References 26

1	付蓉.对我国畜牧业可持续发展的建议[J].河南农业科学,2008(12):137-138.
2	王亚静,毕于运,高春雨.中国秸秆资源可收集利用量及其适宜性评价[J].中国农业科学,2010,43(9):1852-1859.
	WANG Y J, BI Y Y, GAO C Y. Collectable amounts and suitability evaluation of straw resource in China [J]. Sci. Agric. Sin., 2010, 43(9):1852-1859.
3	韩鲁佳,闫巧娟,刘向阳,等.中国农作物秸秆资源及其利用现状[J].农业工程学报,2002,18(3):87-91.
	HAN L J, YAN Q J, LIU X Y, et al.. Straw resources and their utilization in China [J]. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng., 2002, 18(3):87-91.
4	楚天舒,杨增玲,韩鲁佳.中国农作物秸秆饲料化利用满足度和优势度分析[J].农业工程学报,2016,32(22):1-9.
	CHU T S, YANG Z L, HAN L J. Analysis of satisfaction and dominance of crop straw forage utilization in China [J]. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng., 2016, 32(22):1-9.
5	曹志宏,黄艳丽,郝晋珉.中国作物秸秆资源利用潜力的多适宜性综合评价[J].环境科学研究, 2018, 31(1):179-186.
	CAO Z H, HUANG Y L, HAO J M. Multi-suitability comprehensive evaluation of crop straw resource utilization in China [J]. Res. Environ. Sci., 2018, 31(1):179-186.
6	陈超玲,杨阳,胡林,等.中国各省市区秸秆资源管理政策发展述评[J].中国农业大学学报,2017(11):1-16.
	CHEN C L, YANG Y, HU L, et al.. Review on the development of crop residue management policies in provincial regions in China [J]. J. China Agric.Univ., 2017(11):1-16.
7	张桂莲,屠乃美.再生稻研究现状与展望[J].作物研究,2001,15(3):64-69.
	ZHANG G L, TU N M. Status and prospects of studies on regenerating rice [J]. Crop Res., 2001, 15(3):64-69.
8	YUAN J. Study on nitrogen requirement and split application of nitrogen fertilizer in ratooning rice [J]. Acta Agron. Sin., 1996(4):11-12.
9	熊洪,冉茂林,徐富贤.南方稻区再生稻研究进展及发展[J].作物学报,2000,26(3):297.
10	陈立云,肖应辉,唐文邦.粮食结构调整的一种理想种植方式——中稻蓄留再生[J].湖南农业大学学报,2000,26(3):160-162.
	CHEN L Y, XIAO Y H, TANG W B. An Ideal planting pattern for the adjustment of grain yield structure-middle season rice and its ratoon rice [J]. J. Hunan Agric.Univ., 2000, 26(3):160-162.
11	张子仪.中国饲料学[M].北京:中国出版社,2000:1-1205.
	ZHANG Z Y. Chinese Feed Science [M]. Beijing: China Publishing House, 2000:1-1205.
12	许庆方,周禾,玉柱,等.贮藏期和添加绿汁发酵液对袋装苜蓿青贮的影响[J].草地学报,2006,14(2):129-133.
	XU Q F, ZHOU H, YU Z, et al.. Effect of different storage time and dilution previous fermented juice on bagged alfalfa silage [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2006, 14(2):129-133.
13	张晓庆,金艳梅,李发弟,等.麻叶荨麻与玉米粉混贮对青贮品质的影响[J].草业学报,2015,24(1):190-195.
	ZHANG X Q, JIN Y M, LI F D, et al.. Effect of corn flour on the quality of Urtica cannabinasilage [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2015, 24(1):190-195.
14	自给饲料品质评价研究会.粗饲料品质评价手册[M].东京:日本草地畜产种子协会,2001:82-87.
	Self-contained Feed Quality Evaluation Research Society. Coarse feed quality evaluation manual [M]. Tokyo: Japan Grassland Livestock Seed Association, 2001:82-87.
15	李顺,陈东,穆麟,等.添加剂对籽粒苋与麦麸混合青贮品质的影响[J].中国草地学报,2019,41(4):173-178.
	LI S, CHEN D, MU L, et al.. Effects of additives on the quality of mixed silage with amaranth and wheat bran [J]. J. Grassl. China, 2019, 41(4):173-178.
16	SOEST P J, VAN ROBERTSON J B, LEWIS B A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition [J]. J. Dairy Sci., 1991, 74(10):3583-3597.
17	董德宽.饲草的相对饲料值[J].中国奶牛,1990(4):28-29.
18	张佩华.饲料稻全株青贮及其品质评定研究[D].长沙:湖南农业大学,2008.
	ZHANG P H. Study on whole plant silage of forage rice and its quality evaluation [D]. Changsha: Hunan Agricultural University, 2008.
19	彭廷,王童童,李玲子,等.刈割时期和留茬高度对水稻饲草产量、品质及籽粒产量的影响[J].河南农业科学,2020,49(2):27-33.
	PENG T, WANG T T, LI L Z, et al. Effect of clipping stage and stubble height on quality and yield of herbage and grain yield of ratoon rice [J]. J Henan Agric. Sci., 2020, 49(2):27-33.
20	韦还和,孟天瑶,李超,等.甬优籼粳杂交稻花后干物质积累模型与特征分析[J].作物学报,2016,42(2):265-277.
	WEI H H, MENG T Y, LI C, et al.. Dynamic model and its characteristics analysis for dry matter production after heading of indica/japonica hybrid rice of Yongyou series [J]. Acta Agron. Sin., 2016, 42(2):265-277.
21	邢虎成,谭松林,张英,等.刈割时期和留茬高度对大麦鲜草产量及饲用品质的影响[J].中国农学通报,2018,34(31):1-4.
	XING H H, TAN S L, ZHANG Y, et al.. Effect of cutting time and stubble height on fresh yield and forage quality of barley [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2018, 34(31):1-4.
22	苗树君,曲永利,杨柳,等.不同收获期玉米青贮结构性碳水化合物对奶牛瘤胃发酵的影响[J].中国牛业科学,2006(5):32-36.
	MIAO S J, QU Y L, YANG L, et al. Effects of structural carbohydrate in corn silage harvested at different stages on rumen fermentation of cows [J]. Chin. Cattle Sci., 2006(5):32-36.
23	BAL M A, COORS J G, SHAVER R D. Impact of the maturity of corn for use as silage in the diets of dairy cow on intake, digestion and milk production [J]. J. Dairy Sci., 1997, 80:2497-2530.
24	FILYA I. Nutritive value and aerobic stability of whole crop maize silage harvested at four stages of maturity [J]. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 2004, 116:141-150.
25	霍成君,韩建国,洪绂曾,等.刈割期和留茬高度对新麦草产草量及品质的影响[J].草地学报,2000(4):319.
26	BOND J A, BOLLICH P K. Ratoon rice response to nitrogen fertilizer [J]. Crop Manage, 2006(5):23-28.

品种 Variety	刈割处理 Mowing treatment	留桩处理 Stubble treatment	鲜重 Fresh weight/（t·hm^‒2）	干重 Dry weight/（t·hm^‒2）
湘两优900	P10	H10	33.3±1.1 d	9.6±0.5 g
XLY 900		H20	29.3±0.7 ef	8.8±0.2 g
		H30	25.0±1.4 g	7.6±0.4 h
	P15	H10	37.5±0.8 c	11.5±1.1 de
		H20	34.3±2.5 d	11.1±0.3 ef
		H30	25.1±0.4 g	9.0±0.1 g
	P20	H10	42.1±1.3 b	12.5±0.4 cd
		H20	35.7±0.8 cd	12.3±0.9 cde
		H30	27.4±0.9 fg	10.0±0.1 fg
	P25	H10	47.5±2.5 a	15.6±0.8 a
		H20	40.1±0.5 b	14.6±0.3 ab
		H30	30.6±0.9 e	11.6±0.5 de
	P30	H10	46.5±0.9 a	15.4±0.2 a
		H20	40.1±1.0 b	13.5±0.4 bc
		H30	27.8±0.4 f	11.8±0.9 de
	P		**	**
	H		**	**
	P×H		**	*

品种 Variety	刈割处理 Mowing treatment	留桩处理 Stubble treatment	鲜重 Fresh weight/（t·hm^‒2）	干重 Dry weight/（t·hm^‒2）
湘两优900	P10	H10	33.3±1.1 d	9.6±0.5 g
XLY 900		H20	29.3±0.7 ef	8.8±0.2 g
		H30	25.0±1.4 g	7.6±0.4 h
	P15	H10	37.5±0.8 c	11.5±1.1 de
		H20	34.3±2.5 d	11.1±0.3 ef
		H30	25.1±0.4 g	9.0±0.1 g
	P20	H10	42.1±1.3 b	12.5±0.4 cd
		H20	35.7±0.8 cd	12.3±0.9 cde
		H30	27.4±0.9 fg	10.0±0.1 fg
	P25	H10	47.5±2.5 a	15.6±0.8 a
		H20	40.1±0.5 b	14.6±0.3 ab
		H30	30.6±0.9 e	11.6±0.5 de
	P30	H10	46.5±0.9 a	15.4±0.2 a
		H20	40.1±1.0 b	13.5±0.4 bc
		H30	27.8±0.4 f	11.8±0.9 de
	P		**	**
	H		**	**
	P×H		**	*

品种 Variety	刈割处理 Mowing treatment	留桩处理 Stubble treatment	鲜重 Fresh weight/（t·hm^‒2）	干重 Dry weight/（t·hm^‒2）
甬优4149	P10	H10	30.6±1.2 de	9.7±0.4 fg
YY 4149		H20	25.3±1.6 ij	8.3±0.5 h
		H30	20.8±0.4 k	6.9±0.1 i
	P15	H10	35.6±0.5 ab	11.0±0.3 d
		H20	26.9±0.6 ghi	9.7±0.2 fg
		H30	24.1±0.3 j	9.3±0.1 g
	P20	H10	35.4±0.4 ab	12.1±0.4 c
		H20	29.6±0.7 ef	10.9±0.5 de
		H30	27.4±0.5 gh	10.7±0.4 de
	P25	H10	36.0±1.0 a	13.1±0.3 ab
		H20	32.4±1.3 cd	12.1±0.3 c
		H30	25.6±0.8 hij	10.2±0.3 ef
	P30	H10	33.8±0.4 bc	13.5±0.1 a
		H20	31.3±1.0 de	13.3±0.4 a
		H30	28.5±0.3 fg	12.4±0.1 bc
	P		**	**
	H		**	**
	P×H		**	*

品种 Variety	刈割处理 Mowing treatment	留桩处理 Stubble treatment	鲜重 Fresh weight/（t·hm^‒2）	干重 Dry weight/（t·hm^‒2）
甬优4149	P10	H10	30.6±1.2 de	9.7±0.4 fg
YY 4149		H20	25.3±1.6 ij	8.3±0.5 h
		H30	20.8±0.4 k	6.9±0.1 i
	P15	H10	35.6±0.5 ab	11.0±0.3 d
		H20	26.9±0.6 ghi	9.7±0.2 fg
		H30	24.1±0.3 j	9.3±0.1 g
	P20	H10	35.4±0.4 ab	12.1±0.4 c
		H20	29.6±0.7 ef	10.9±0.5 de
		H30	27.4±0.5 gh	10.7±0.4 de
	P25	H10	36.0±1.0 a	13.1±0.3 ab
		H20	32.4±1.3 cd	12.1±0.3 c
		H30	25.6±0.8 hij	10.2±0.3 ef
	P30	H10	33.8±0.4 bc	13.5±0.1 a
		H20	31.3±1.0 de	13.3±0.4 a
		H30	28.5±0.3 fg	12.4±0.1 bc
	P		**	**
	H		**	**
	P×H		**	*

品种Variety	刈割处理 Mowing treatment	留桩处理 Stubble treatment	嗅觉 Olfactory	结构 Texture	色泽 Color	总分 Total score	等级 Grade
湘两优900		H20	11.3±0.5 bc	4.0±0.0 a	2.0±0.0 a	17.3±0.5 b	优良Excellent
XLY 900		H30	11.7±0.5 ab	4.0±0.0 a	2.0±0.0 a	17.7±0.5 ab	优良Excellent
	P25	H10	11.7±0.5 ab	4.0±0.0 a	2.0±0.0 a	17.7±0.0 ab	优良Excellent
		H20	11.7±0.5 ab	4.0±0.0 a	1.7±0.5 a	17.3±0.5 b	优良Excellent
		H30	11±0.9 bcd	4.0±0.0 a	2.0±0.5 a	17.0±1.2 b	优良Excellent
	P30	H10	11.7±0.5 b	4.0±0.0 a	2.0±0.0 a	17.7±0.5 b	优良Excellent
		H20	12.0±0.0 ab	4.0±0.0 a	2.0±0.5 a	18.0±0.0 ab	优良Excellent
		H30	12.7±0.0 a	4.0±0.0 a	2.0±0.0 a	18.7±0.0 a	优良Excellent
	P		**	ns	**	**
	H		ns	ns	*	*
	P×H		ns	ns	*	**
甬优4149	P10	H10	10.0±0.0 e	4.0±0.0 a	1.0±0.0 c	15.0±0.0 e	尚满意Good
YY 4149		H20	10.7±0.5 de	4.0±0.0 a	1.0±0.0 c	15.7±0.5 e	尚满意Good
		H30	10.7±0.5 de	4.0±0.0 a	1.0±0.0 c	15.7±0.5 e	尚满意Good
	P15	H10	11.7±0.5 cd	4.0±0.0 a	1.0±0.0 c	16.7±0.5 c	优良Excellent
		H20	12.0±0.8 bc	4.0±0.0 a	1.0±0.0 c	17.0±0.8 bc	优良Excellent
		H30	12.3±0.5 abc	4.0±0.0 a	1.0±0.0 c	17.3±0.5 bc	优良Excellent
	P20	H10	13.0±0.0 ab	4.0±0.0 a	2.0±0.0 a	19.0±0.0 a	优良Excellent
		H20	11.7±0.5 cd	4.0±0.0 a	1.7±0.5 ab	17.3±0.5 bc	优良Excellent
		H30	12.3±0.5 abc	4.0±0.0 a	1.3±0.5 bc	17.7±0.5 b	优良Excellent
	P25	H10	11.7±0.5 cd	4.0±0.0 a	1.3±0.5 bc	17.0±0.0 bc	优良Excellent
		H20	12.0±0.0 bc	4.0±0.0 a	1.0±0.0 c	17.0±0.0 bc	优良Excellent
		H30	13.3±0.5 a	4.0±0.0 a	1.3±0.5bc	18.7±0.5 a	优良Excellent
	P30	H10	11.7±0.9 cd	4.0±0.0 a	2.0±0.0 a	17.7±0.9 b	优良Excellent
		H20	13.0±0.0 ab	4.0±0.0 a	2.0±0.0 a	19.0±0.0 a	优良Excellent
		H30	13.3±0.5 a	4.0±0.0 a	1.3±0.5bc	18.7±0.5 a	优良Excellent
	P		**	ns	**	**
	H		**	ns	ns	**
	P×H		ns	ns	ns	ns