Nutritive Evaluation of Common Grass Forage Crop for Dairy Cattle in Heilongjiang

ZHANG Yong-gen,WANG Zhi-bo,SONG Ping
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-0629.2006.09.014
2006-01-01
Abstract:The study was conducted to determine chemical composition and 72 hours dry matter degradability of 15 variety of common cultivated grass by nylon bag method with objective of evaluating nutritional value of grass for dairy cattle.The results showed: l) in terms of chemical composition and ruminal dry matter degradability(RDMD),two wheatgrass(Agropyron cristatum) varieties had the highest nutritional value of all gramineous samples,timothy(Phleum pratense) was the second,three wildryegrasses(Puccinellia tenuiflora) were medium,northeast wild-rye(Leymus chinensis) and Mexico corn(Zea nays) were poor,bristlegrass(Setaria anceps) and barnyard grass(Echinochloa crusgalli) were the lowest.2) There was significantly negative correlation between RDMD and ADF or ADL content in gramineaes(P0.05).RDMD of gramineous hay could be predicted by the regression equation in which ADF and ADL contents were independent variables.3)Grading Index of various grass were estimated by using DMI and NE prediction model.The present research classes these forages into five categories according to GI value as follows: high wheatgrass and median wheatgrass belong to high quality forage,smooth brome(Bromus inermis),droop-ear wildryegrass,Northeast wild-rye,Jilin wildrye,Baite timothy,Hound wildryegrass and Sorghum×Sudan grass belong to medium quality forage,thick-ear wildryegrass(Elymus dahuricus),Mexico maize,barnyard grass and bristlegrass belong to low quality forage.4)It is impossible to precisely evaluate nutritional value of forage using single index(for example,chemical composition,dry matter degradability).As long as DMI,nutrient content,digestibility and available energy are together taken into account,evaluation of forage with precision is possible.Differentiation of a variety of forage with minor nutrient discrepancy by using GI can indicate that GI is an authoritative index evaluating forage quality.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?