Crops ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (1): 225-230.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2026.01.028

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Mowing at Different Growth Stages on Forage Yield, Quality and Silage Fermentation Quality of Triticale in Northern Henan Province

Sang Ruijuan1(), Dong Chunyang1, Zhang Hongmei1, He Yun2, Sun Hao1,3,4, Liu Boshuai1,3,4, Zhu Xiaoyan1,3,4, Ma Sen1,3,4(), Li Defeng1,3,4()   

  1. 1College of Animal Science and Technology, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, Henan, China
    2College of Animal Science, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, Xinxiang 453003, Henan, China
    3Henan Key Laboratory of Forage Resources Innovation and Utilization, Zhengzhou 450046, Henan, China
    4Henan Forage Engineering Technology Research Center, Zhengzhou 450046, Henan, China
  • Received:2024-08-28 Revised:2024-09-26 Online:2026-02-15 Published:2026-02-10

RichHTML

1

PDF (PC)

38

Abstract:

In order to screen the suitable mowing period with high forage yield, good quality and good silage fermentation quality of triticale in Northern Henan. Triticale varieties ?Youneng? and ?Leishen? were used as experimental materials, and four mowing periods were set up to determine the dry matter yield, nutritional quality and silage fermentation quality. The results showed that from the heading stage to the milk stage, the dry matter yield of triticale gradually increased, with Youneng and Leishen reaching the highest of 15.64 and 16.67 t/ha, respectively. The whole plant moisture content, crude protein and crude ash contents all decreased with the delay of mowing period, the neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber contents increased first and then decreased, and the principal component analysis of nutritional indicators indicated that the nutritional quality score peaked at the heading stage. The pH of silage was 4.05-4.50, the lactic acid content was 2.11%-4.00%, with no detection of butyric acid. Youneng and Leishen had better fermentation quality when mowed from flowering to filling stage, from heading to filling stage, respectively. In summary, Youneng and Leishen are suitable for mowing at the flowering and heading stages, respectively. At these stages, both varieties achieve high dry matter yields along with excellent nutritional and silage fermentation quality.

Key words: Triticale, Mowing period, Yield, Nutritional quality, Fermentation quality

Fig.1

Temperature and accumulated temperature at the test site from October 2020 to June 2021"

Table 1

The tiller number and winter survival rate of different triticale varieties"

品种
Variety		 分蘖数Tiller number 越冬率
Winter survival
rate (%)
越冬前
Before winter		 越冬后
After winter
优能Youneng 3.1±0.2c 5.8±0.6b 67.0±2.2b
雷神Leishen 3.2±0.4c 8.6±1.7a 84.6±9.1a

Table 2

Agronomic traits and forage yield of triticale in different mowing periods"

品种
Variety		 刈割期
Mowing period		 刈割时间
Mowing time		 株高
Plant height (m)		 鲜草产量
Fresh forage yield (t/hm2)		 干物质产量
Dry matter yield (t/hm2)		 干鲜比
Dry to fresh ratio
优能
Youneng		 抽穗期 4月24日 0.97±0.06c 42.30±1.58cd 6.39±0.24f 0.15±0.00e
开花期 5月4日 1.27±0.02b 45.00±1.06bc 10.48±0.25e 0.23±0.01d
灌浆期 5月11日 1.32±0.02b 41.25±1.77d 11.76±0.50d 0.29±0.02c
乳熟期 5月18日 1.32±0.03b 44.67±1.41bcd 15.64±0.49b 0.35±0.01a
雷神
Leishen		 抽穗期 5月1日 1.32±0.03b 55.60±1.48a 12.19±0.33d 0.22±0.01d
开花期 5月11日 1.51±0.03a 46.75±1.77b 13.20±0.50c 0.28±0.00c
灌浆期 5月18日 1.57±0.04a 46.36±0.27b 14.88±0.09b 0.32±0.01b
乳熟期 5月26日 1.58±0.03a 45.06±0.38b 16.67±0.07a 0.37±0.02a

Table 3

Nutrient content and principal component scores of triticale in different mowing periods"

品种
Variety		 刈割期
Mowing period		 粗蛋白
CP (%)		 粗灰分
CA (%)		 中性洗涤纤维
NDF (%)		 酸性洗涤纤维
ADF (%)		 相对牧草质量
RFQ (%)		 主成分得分
Principal component score		 分级
Grade
优能
Youneng		 抽穗期 15.76±0.34a 11.08±0.11ab 51.63±0.88d 39.51±0.72b 137.16±0.38a 2.46 一级
开花期 11.70±0.11c 13.01±0.63a 56.10±1.08c 42.18±0.70b 114.17±3.42b 1.25 二级
灌浆期 11.63±0.38c 11.36±0.64ab 60.47±0.20a 45.93±0.26a 92.31±3.11c 0.17 三级
乳熟期 9.55±0.26d 10.37±0.35b 58.53±0.39ab 41.63±0.03b 107.97±0.59b 0.81 三级
雷神
Leishen		 抽穗期 13.07±1.07b 13.35±1.54a 53.45±0.61d 40.67±1.10b 127.14±2.18a 1.85 一级
开花期 11.93±0.47bc 11.81±1.16ab 59.21±1.50ab 45.22±2.00a 97.39±4.39c 0.43 三级
灌浆期 10.22±0.42d 10.97±1.51ab 57.65±0.63bc 42.29±1.71b 109.03±8.94b 0.83 二级
乳熟期 8.79±0.53e 10.38±1.32b 55.01±0.20c 41.99±1.55b 118.25±3.23ab 1.18 二级

Table 4

Principal component analysis of nutritional indexes of triticale"

指标
Index		 主成分
Principal component
PC1 PC2
酸性洗涤纤维ADF 0.956 -0.030
中性洗涤纤维NDF 0.953 0.235
相对牧草质量RFQ 0.950 0.293
粗蛋白CP 0.446 0.716
粗灰分CA 0.020 -0.914
累计方差贡献率
Cumulative variance contribution rate (%)		 58.474
 29.804

Table 5

Silage moisture content, pH and organic acid content of triticale in different mowing periods"

品种
Variety		 刈割期
Mowing
period		 青贮含水量
Silage moisture
content (%)		 pH 有机酸含量Organic acid content (%) 主成分得分
Principal
component score
乳酸
Lactic acid		 乙酸
Acetic acid		 丙酸
Propanoic acid		 丁酸
Butyric acid
优能
Youneng		 抽穗期 88.2 4.20±0.28b 4.00±1.20a 1.45±0.21a 0.49±0.69a — 0.89
开花期 76.2 4.10±0.00b 3.94±0.19a 1.06±0.22abc — — 1.50
灌浆期 74.6 4.15±0.00b 3.88±0.09a 1.12±0.03ab — — 1.41
乳熟期 71.4 4.30±0.00ab 3.74±0.37a 0.74±0.14bcd — — 1.18
雷神
Leishen		 抽穗期 75.6 4.05±0.07b 3.78±0.58a 0.55±0.08cd — — 1.52
开花期 70.5 4.20±0.00b 3.43±0.26a 0.48±0.11d — — 1.23
灌浆期 66.0 4.20±0.00b 3.18±0.63ab 0.83±0.17bcd 0.13±0.00a — 1.04
乳熟期 64.4 4.50±0.14a 2.11±0.41b 0.41±0.02d 0.15±0.06a — 0.35

Table 6

Correlation coefficient value and weighted relevance degree of triticale in different mowing periods"

品种
Variety		 刈割期
Mowing period		 干物质产量
Dry matter yield		 营养品质
Nutritional quality		 发酵质量
Fermentation quality		 加权关联度
Weighted relevance degree		 排序
Sort
优能
Youneng		 抽穗期 0.333 1.000 0.478 1.558 4
开花期 0.454 0.486 0.967 1.785 1
灌浆期 0.511 0.333 0.842 1.593 3
乳熟期 0.833 0.410 0.632 1.730 2
雷神
Leishen		 抽穗期 0.534 0.652 1.000 1.989 1
开花期 0.597 0.361 0.835 1.685 2
灌浆期 0.742 0.413 0.549 1.562 4
乳熟期 1.000 0.472 0.333 1.621 3

Table 7

Equal-weight correlation degree and weight coefficient of indexes of triticale"

项目
Item		 干物质产量
Dry matter yield		 营养品质
Nutritional quality		 青贮发酵质量
Silage fermentation quality
等权关联度Equal weight correlation degree 0.209 0.172 0.235
权重系数Weight coefficient 0.919 0.758 1.035
[1] 何鹏亮, 汪娅梅, 揭红东, 等. 不同刈割期对饲用小黑麦草产量和营养品质的影响. 草地学报, 2021, 29(11):2609-2614.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.11.028
[2] 侯云鹏, 张明, 文殷花, 等. 甘肃中部干旱半干旱区小黑麦饲用价值评价. 寒旱农业科学, 2023, 2(8):727-730.
[3] 周磊, 王璐, 赵宝平, 等. 北方农牧交错区不同播期和刈割期对燕麦饲草产量和品质的影响. 草地学报, 2021, 29(10):2355-2363.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.10.028
[4] 陈丽雪, 张继宗, 李会彬, 等. 河北坝上地区4个燕麦品种饲草产量和品质对不同刈割期的响应. 山西农业科学, 2022, 50(8):1204-1208.
[5] 孙迷平, 肖兴中, 岳竞之, 等. 饲用小黑麦在济源地区的刈割期及刈割次数研究. 中国种业, 2021(2):63-66.
[6] 李凤秀, 姬兴杰. 1961-2018年河南省暴雨初终日和暴雨日数的时空变化规律分析. 长江流域资源与环境,2019, 28(10):2527-2538.
[7] 张兰, 马淑梅, 宋谦, 等. 品系和青贮时长对小黑麦青贮饲料营养成分及发酵品质的影响. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2023(10):102-108.
[8] 刘秦华, 张建国, 卢小良. 乳酸菌添加剂对王草青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响. 草业学报, 2009, 18(4):131-137.
[9] 王增远, 孙元枢, 陈秀珍, 等. 优质饲草小黑麦与其产业化生产优势//2003中国作物学会学术年会文集. 北京: 中国作物学会, 2003.
[10] 贾龙, 王敬宽, 王艳, 等. 刈割期及青贮时长对饲草青贮品质的影响. 山东农业科学, 2021, 53(3):116-121.
[11] Khorasani G R, Okine E K, Kennelly J J, et al. Effect of whole crop cereal grain silage substituted for alfalfa silage on performance of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 1993, 76(11):3536-3546.
pmid: 8270696
[12] Rohweder D A, Barnes R F, Jorgensen N A. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, 1978, 47(3):747-759.
doi: 10.2527/jas1978.473747x
[13] 郭帅, 夏雪岩, 崔纪菡, 等. 不同品种夏播饲用谷子生产性能与营养品质的关联分析及评价. 中国草地学报, 2021, 43(9):60-70.
[14] 李志强. 燕麦干草质量评价. 中国奶牛, 2013, 1(9):1-3.
[15] 覃方锉, 赵桂琴, 焦婷, 等. 含水量及添加剂对燕麦捆裹青贮品质的影响. 草业学报, 2014, 23(6):119-125.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb20140615
[16] 郑敏娜, 李荫藩, 梁秀芝, 等. 晋北地区引种苜蓿品种的灰色关联度分析与综合评价. 草地学报, 2014, 22(3):631-637.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2014.03.029
[17] 朱昊, 张荟荟, 张学洲, 等. 新疆昌吉15个引进饲用燕麦品种的生产性能综合评价. 草地学报, 2024, 32(7):2151-2157.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2024.07.016
[18] 张仲鹃, 郝曦煜, 李峰, 等. 黑龙江中南部不同品种和刈割时期对燕麦饲草产量和品质的影响. 草业科学, 2024, 41(12):2928-2938.
[19] 游永亮, 赵海明, 李源, 等. 饲用麦类作物的生物量积累和营养品质动态变化规律. 草业学报, 2022, 31(6):189-201.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2021445
[20] 李诚, 艾尼瓦尔·哈德尔, 孔广超, 等. 不同饲用小黑麦品种在新疆的最佳收草期研究. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 2006, 24(4):406-409.
[21] 李奇铮. 播期和刈割时期对饲用小黑麦生产性能和营养价值的影响. 银川:宁夏大学, 2023.
[22] 孙元枢. 第3届国际小黑麦会议. 世界农业, 1995(6):54-56.
[23] 宋慧欣, 许永新, 王崇旺. 饲草小黑麦干草生产适宜割、晒期研究. 作物杂志, 2003(6):29-31.
[24] 岳竞之, 孙迷平, 牛小沛, 等. 刈割时期对豫西北地区小黑麦草产量和营养品质的影响. 饲料研究, 2024, 47(15):112-118.
[25] 段娜宁, 王伟, 魏希杰, 等. 不同处理方式对高寒地区燕麦青贮乳酸菌数量及pH值的影响. 青海畜牧兽医杂志, 2021, 51(6):37-45.
[26] 赵世锋, 田长叶, 陈淑萍, 等. 草用燕麦品种适宜刈割期的确定. 华北农学报, 2005,20:132-134.
[27] Gomes A L M, Jacovaci F A, Bolson D C, et al. Effects of light wilting and heterolactic inoculant on the formation of volatile organic compounds, fermentative losses and aerobic stability of oat silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2019,247:194-198.
[28] Günter P, Muck R E, Driehuis F, et al. Silage science and technology. Madison:American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America,Soil Science Society of America, 2003.
[29] Troller J A, Christian J H B. Water activity and food. New York: Academic Press,1978.
[30] 万里强, 李向林, 张新平, 等. 苜蓿含水量与添加剂组分浓度对青贮效果的影响研究. 草业学报, 2007, 16(2):40-45.
[31] 马旭光, 刘晶晶, 郑泽慧, 等. 乙酸和乳酸对玉米秸秆青贮料有氧稳定性和甲烷产率的影响. 中国农业大学学报, 2015, 20(1):44-52.
[32] 曹晓娟, 武俊英, 李文旭, 等. 不同添加剂对青贮燕麦发酵品质和营养成分的影响. 中国饲料, 2022(21):60-65.
[33] 刘晶, 宋谦, 田新会, 等. 基于隶属函数法和GGE双标图的饲草型小黑麦种质适应性评价. 草业学报, 2018, 27(5):85-96.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017241
[34] 李满有, 朱保侠, 赵延军, 等. 宁南山区6个小黑麦品种适应性评价研究. 南方农机, 2024, 55(6):42-45.
[35] 柳茜, 卢寰宗, 乔雪峰, 等. 凉山安宁河流域冬闲田种植饲用燕麦与饲用小黑麦生产性能比较. 中国奶牛, 2023(12):53-55.
[36] 王晓春, 张瑞, 沈建荣, 等. 小黑麦品种“晋饲草1号”在宁夏灌区的引进评价. 宁夏农林科技, 2021, 62(9):15-17,29,85.
[37] 王珊珊, 谷海涛, 谢慧芳, 等. 113份饲草型六倍体小黑麦种质饲草产量与品质性状的评价. 草业学报, 2023, 32(1):192-202.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2022011
[1] Zhou Wenli, Hao Miaoyi, Zhang Renhe. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer on Maize Root Growth and Nitrogen Metabolism under High-Density Planting [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 125-132.
[2] Ma Xiaoming, Qi Xiangkun, Tan Xue, Shi Mengyu, Wang Yufeng, Fu Jian, Yang Kejun. Effects of No-tillage with Straw Mulching on Soil Aggregate Stability and Maize Yield in Semi-Arid Region [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 152-159.
[3] Xie Fuxin, Jiang Xiaolin, Li Chenghuan, Zhang Wenjing, Wang Feixue, Hu Weili, Mei Hongxian, He Geming, Liu Yan. Effects of Harvesting Period on Main Economic Yield Traits and Comprehensive Benefit Analysis of Sesame Leaf Vegetable [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 160-166.
[4] Shi Nuo, Zhu Hongqiang, Yang Mengxuan, Zhou Yanbin, Dai Huijuan, Lü Penghui, Liu Bo, Wang Shengfeng, Mu Wenpo, Du Yu. Effects of Different Microbial Fertilizers on Growth, Yield and Quality of Flue-Cured Tobacco [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 189-196.
[5] Zhang Le, Han Yunfei, Du Erxiao, Li Baocheng, San Xintong, Liu Xinyu, Wang Yanli, Zhao Peiyi, Ren Yongfeng. Effects of Organic Fertilization Measures on Photosynthetic Characteristics, Nutrient Content and Yield of Potato [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 197-207.
[6] Xu Hao, Wei Quanquan, Tan Hongwei, Gou Jiulan, Ran Xuesong, Zhang Meng, Song Nanling, Liu Lingling, Gu Xiaofeng, Lü Xibin. Effect of Organic-Inorganic Compound Fertilizer from Distillerʼs Grains on Yield, Quality, Nutrient Uptake and Utilization of Sorghum [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 208-216.
[7] Ye Xiaojuan, Liu Qiang. Simulation of Spring Wheat Yield Response to Precipitation, Nitrogen Application, and Straw Mulching under Different Precipitation Year Types [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 217-224.
[8] Yang Wengao, Yuan Wenjue, Li Zhaoguang, He Guiqing, He Qiongji, Wang Rui, Li Yan, Ye Lei, Hou Zhijiang. Effects of Winter Sowing Date on Agronomic Traits and Yield of Quinoa in Northwestern Yunnan, China [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 257-265.
[9] Li Qingxin, Jin Xiuliang, Song Xiao, Zhang Keke, Guo Tengfei, Huang Shaomin, Yue Ke, Ding Shijie, Huang Ming, Li Youjun. Effects of Partial Replacement of Nitrogen Fertilizer with Organic Fertilizer on Growth of Winter Wheat and Soil Properties in Eastern Henan [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 121-131.
[10] Gao Wenrui, Sun Yanjun, Han Bing, Zhang Xiaoqing, Wang Xiansheng, Zheng Zisong. Effects of Exogenous Organic Selenium on Yield and Fruit Quality of Facility Cherry Tomato [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 140-147.
[11] Lan Xiu, Liang Zhenhua, Yang Haixia, Li Hengrui, Ruan Lixia, Wei Wanling, Chen Huixian, He Hongliang, Huang Ruolan, Zhao Chunhui, Tang Danfeng. Effects of Sugarcane and Platostoma palustre Intercropping on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Crop Yield [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 156-163.
[12] Qin Nana, Huang Linhua, Chen Ying, Wang Shengmou, Xie Yong, Miao Kai, Li Wanming, Qi Lan. Effects of Foliar Propionyl Brassinolide Application on Photosynthesis, Agronomic Traits and Yield of Summer Soybean [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 164-171.
[13] Wang Shuqi, Li Jianbo, Liu Zhiping, Ma Yu, Qu Jiahui, Batu , Xu Shoujun. Physiological Mechanism of Yield and Protein Formation in Barley under Different Cultivation Modes [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 172-180.
[14] Yan Xiaowen, Liang Junchao, Zeng Pan, Zhou Hongying, Wang Zhiqi, Le Meiwang, Sun Jian. Effects of Late Sowing on Main Agronomic Traits and Yield of Autumn Sesame [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 189-194.
[15] Zhang Aiying, Zhao Yuan, Liu Min, Xue Hongtao, Wang Guoliang, Wang Rui, Guo Erhu. Effects of Different Harvest Time and Harvesting Methods on Yield and Quality of Foxtail Millet [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 195-202.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!