Feeding Value of Summer-pruning Twigs of Fruit Mulberry

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0787

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aims to clarify the feasibility of using summer-pruning twigs of fruit mulberry as feed by analyzing feeding value of the one-year-old twigs. The most popular mulberry varieties for fruit production, ‘Yuesheng 10’ (Y10) and ‘Jialing 30’ (J30), were harvested by pruning the fruit-bearing branch in summer. Fresh biomass, dry biomass, and nutritional quality of the one-year-old twigs were analyzed. The feeding value was compared with other conventional by-products. The results showed that the fresh biomass of one-year-old twigs of Y10 and J30 were 19798kg/hm²and 15820kg/hm², respectively. There was significant difference between the two varieties (P<0.05). The leaves had the highest contribution to the yield, and the leaf-to-stem ratios expressed on a dry weight basis were 4.03(Y10) and 6.51(J30), respectively. The amino acid composition of the mulberry leaves was comprehensive and rich, and the two varieties contained 16 kinds of amino acids in an amount from 11.00% to 12.90%. The crude protein (13.77%-15.83%), crude fat (2.21%-2.30%), crude ash (9.32%-10.84%), neutral detergent fiber (21.96%-22.66%), and acid detergent fiber (10.76%-11.69%) of the one-year-old twigs of the two fruit mulberry varieties were better than those of their stems and slightly inferior to those of their leaves. The range of dry matter intake, digestible dry matter and relative feed value were 5.30%-5.46%BW, 79.79%-80.51%DM, and 327.82-340.76 in the one-year-old twigs from the two fruit mulberry varieties, respectively. Compared with conventional by-products, such as rice straw, sweet potato vine, peanut straw and bagasse, fruit mulberry twigs have better nutritional value and relative feeding value. The summer-pruning twigs are by-products of fruit mulberry and have high biomass, comprehensive nutrition, good quality and high relative feeding value, which can be developed and utilized as unconventional high-protein feed for livestock and poultry.

Key words: fruit mulberry, summer-pruning, yield, nutritional quality, feeding value

CLC Number:

S816.5+1.

ZUO Yanchun, WANG Honglin, YAN Xu, ZHOU Xiaokang, XIAO Lian, KOU Jing, CHEN Yi’an, DU Zhouhe. Feeding Value of Summer-pruning Twigs of Fruit Mulberry[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(26): 105-110.

Figures/Tables 6

References 31

[1]	佟万红, 曾益春, 黄盖群,等. 四川省果桑产业的现状与发展建议[J]. 蚕业通讯, 2021, 41(2):15-19.
[2]	陈忠艺. 河南果桑产业的发展现状与对策建议[J]. 辽宁丝绸, 2021,(1):12-13.
[3]	王振江, 罗国庆, 戴凡炜,等. 基于8个农艺性状的569份果桑种质遗传多样性分析[J]. 园艺学报, 2021, 48(12):2375-2384.
[4]	姚永权, 危玲, 代洁,等. 25份果桑种质资源农艺性状调查初报[J]. 四川蚕业, 2020, 48(2):17-19.
[5]	徐璐珊, 陈乐阳, 姜樟土,等. 9个果桑品种特征特性调查[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(4):728-729.
[6]	王漫, 孙莹, 马盈慧,等. 吉林西部引进不同果桑品种的适用性表现[J]. 北方蚕业, 2021, 42(1):39-42.
[7]	任杰群, 张明海, 谭立新,等. 果桑丰产栽培配套技术[J]. 蚕学通讯, 2019, 39(3):20-24.
[8]	朱贤芳. 果桑病虫害综合防治技术措施分析[J]. 广东蚕业, 2021, 55(7):7-8.
[9]	李德祥. 果桑产业存在问题分析[J]. 农家参谋, 2017, 54(2):516-525.
[10]	左艳春, 周晓康, 王红林,等. 果桑枝叶饲料化利用思考[J]. 四川蚕业, 2019, 47(2):14-15.
[11]	束晓春, 杨锐侠, 王忠,等. 江苏地区果桑高效栽培管理技术要点[J]. 南方农业, 2021, 15(7):28-30.
[12]	赵佩, 唐小平, 吴均,等. 微生物及C/N比对果桑枝条堆肥腐熟的影响[J]. 农业工程, 2020, 10(6):51-56.
[13]	梁贵秋, 祁广军, 何雪梅,等. 广西蚕区21个桑树品种的桑叶营养与保健品质评价[J]. 蚕业科, 2015, 41(4):701-709.
[14]	赵晓东, 李公存, 董亚茹,等. 不同杂交桑品种桑叶活性物质含量的测定及药用品质综合评价[J]. 山东农业科学, 2019, 51(12):100-105.
[15]	郭红梅, 梁雎, 刘志刚,等. 吐鲁番市13个品种桑树叶的营养和活性成分分析与评价[J]. 保鲜与加工, 2021, 21(06):100-106.
[16]	王红林, 左艳春, 周晓康,等. 高密度草本化栽培对饲料桑全株产量及品质的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2020, 37(5):952-962.
[17]	丁鹏, 李霞, 丁亚南,等. 发酵饲料桑粉对宁乡花猪生长性能、肉品质和血清生化指标的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2018, 30(5):1950-1957.
[18]	丁鹏, 丁亚南, 曾青华,等. 发酵饲料桑粉对宁乡花猪抗氧化性能和肠道功能的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2019, 31(9):4503-4515.
[19]	易兴友, 蒋美山, 李中伟,等. 饲料桑叶粉对蛋鸡生产性能和蛋品质的影响[J]. 中国家禽, 2017, 39(23):64-66.
[20]	张吉鹍, 卢德勋, 刘建新,等. 粗饲料品质评定指数的研究现状及其进展[J]. 草业科学, 2004, 21(9):55-61.
[21]	彭海芬, 和嘉荣, 李花,等. 甘蔗渣的饲用价值评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(2):129-133.
[22]	黄先智, 赵卫国, 熊国普. 三峡库区饲料桑栽培密度对产量及营养成分的影响[J]. 广西蚕业, 2017, 54(2):28-33.
[23]	李冬兵, 刘雪峰, 王一,等. 宜宾地区饲料桑品种的引种试验[J]. 中国蚕业, 2019, 40(1):9-12.
[24]	邱长玉, 崔秋英, 朱方容,等. 桂桑6号等14个桑树品种桑叶产量及粗蛋白含量的分析[J]. 中国蚕业, 2020, 41(1):6-11.
[25]	杨建, 熊雷, 陈煜坤,等. 多花黑麦草与饲用燕麦引进品种在成都平原的生产性能评价[J]. 草业科学, 2020, 37(6):1124-1132.
[26]	郑敏娜, 梁秀芝, 韩志顺,等. 不同苜蓿品种在雁门关地区的生产性能和营养价值研究[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(5):97-108.
[27]	刘玉华. 不同苜蓿品种品质特性的分析及评价[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学,2003.
[28]	黄泽, 崔增, 刘一帆,等. 黄土高原半干旱区几种饲用植物生产与饲用价值比[J]. 草业科学, 2020, 37(4):700-776.
[29]	中国饲料数据库. 中国饲料成分营养价值表[M]. 北京. 农业出版社,1990.
[30]	陈圆, 李红伟, 冯惠婷,等. 3种植物添加剂对惠阳胡须鸡肌肉氨基酸、脂肪酸组成与含量的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2018, 45(7):1833-1840
[31]	张吉鹍, 李龙瑞. 花生藤、红薯藤与油菜秸秆饲用品质的评定[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2016, 38(4):770-776.

品种
越年生老枝	一年生结果枝	总重		鲜重	干重
Y10	6.09±0.74b	7.12±0.65b	13.21±1.06b		15820±1444b	4869±444b
J30	9.56±0.86a	8.91±0.84a	18.47±1.36a		19798±1866a	5383±507a

品种
越年生老枝	一年生结果枝	总重		鲜重	干重
Y10	6.09±0.74b	7.12±0.65b	13.21±1.06b		15820±1444b	4869±444b
J30	9.56±0.86a	8.91±0.84a	18.47±1.36a		19798±1866a	5383±507a

品种	<30 cm		30~70 cm		>70 cm		干重叶茎比
品种	占总重比/%	茎粗/cm	占总重比/%	茎粗/cm	占总重比/%	茎粗/cm	干重叶茎比
Y10	33.45	0.21~0.35	54.90	0.31~0.57	11.65	0.49~0.83	4.03b
J30	38.72	0.24~0.36	47.77	0.29~0.66	13.51	0.58~0.97	6.51a

品种	<30 cm		30~70 cm		>70 cm		干重叶茎比
品种	占总重比/%	茎粗/cm	占总重比/%	茎粗/cm	占总重比/%	茎粗/cm	干重叶茎比
Y10	33.45	0.21~0.35	54.90	0.31~0.57	11.65	0.49~0.83	4.03b
J30	38.72	0.24~0.36	47.77	0.29~0.66	13.51	0.58~0.97	6.51a

品种	部位	干物质/%	粗蛋白/%	中性洗涤纤维/%	酸性洗涤纤维/%	粗脂肪/%	粗灰分/%
Y10	叶	30.24±0.35b	15.69±0.18a	16.72±1.05c	10.29±0.47b	2.49±0.05a	12.04±0.45a
	茎	31.30±0.35a	8.66±0.28c	42.66±0.67a	28.09±0.33a	1.63±0.14c	5.35±0.07c
	枝条	30.78±0.30ab	13.77±0.36b	21.96±0.63b	10.76±0.18b	2.21±0.10b	10.84±0.15b
J30	叶	28.37±0.59a	16.14±0.16a	16.40±0.85c	9.97±0.10c	2.47±0.05a	10.75±0.11a
	茎	25.63±0.30c	9.89±0.25b	41.10±1.04a	28.55±0.54a	1.58±0.05c	6.15±0.01c
	枝条	27.19±0.34b	15.83±0.27a	22.66±0.37b	11.69±0.09b	2.30±0.05b	9.32±0.09b