
Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (12): 162-169.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0623
Previous Articles Next Articles
WANG Yueqing1(
), LI Lifeng1, WANG Jieqiong1, YUE Yulu1, LU Jiading1, CAI Haixia1, YANG Zhibo2, LI Defeng3
Received:2025-07-22
Revised:2026-01-30
Online:2026-06-25
Published:2026-06-23
CLC Number:
WANG Yueqing, LI Lifeng, WANG Jieqiong, YUE Yulu, LU Jiading, CAI Haixia, YANG Zhibo, LI Defeng. Study on Production Performance of Forage Oats in Western Henan Under Late Sowing Condition[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(12): 162-169.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.casb.org.cn/EN/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0623
| 品种 | 发芽率/% | 净度/% | 播种量/(kg/hm2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 青海444 | 82 | 94.8 | 115.8 |
| 三星 | 99 | 96.9 | 93.8 |
| 牧丰 | 95 | 97.3 | 97.4 |
| 刀客 | 61 | 95.6 | 154.2 |
| 特牧 | 67 | 98.3 | 136.7 |
| 甜燕3号 | 99 | 94.7 | 96.0 |
| mongan | 93 | 93.1 | 103.9 |
| 锋利 | 98 | 96.7 | 93.3 |
| 甜燕70 | 97 | 95.7 | 97.0 |
| 甜燕75 | 99 | 94.6 | 96.1 |
| 甜燕2+ | 99 | 97.0 | 93.7 |
| 贝利 | 96 | 94.2 | 99.3 |
| 品种 | 发芽率/% | 净度/% | 播种量/(kg/hm2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 青海444 | 82 | 94.8 | 115.8 |
| 三星 | 99 | 96.9 | 93.8 |
| 牧丰 | 95 | 97.3 | 97.4 |
| 刀客 | 61 | 95.6 | 154.2 |
| 特牧 | 67 | 98.3 | 136.7 |
| 甜燕3号 | 99 | 94.7 | 96.0 |
| mongan | 93 | 93.1 | 103.9 |
| 锋利 | 98 | 96.7 | 93.3 |
| 甜燕70 | 97 | 95.7 | 97.0 |
| 甜燕75 | 99 | 94.6 | 96.1 |
| 甜燕2+ | 99 | 97.0 | 93.7 |
| 贝利 | 96 | 94.2 | 99.3 |
| 品种 | 基本苗/(万株/hm2) | 基本苗增加率/% | 分蘖/株 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 越冬前 | 返青期 | 越冬前 | 返青期 | ||
| 特牧 | 250.8±27.2ab | 296.7±25.0Aa | 18.3 | 0 | 2.0±0.17ab |
| 刀客 | 212.5±30.2ab | 272.5±41.6ABa | 28.2 | 0 | 1.85±0.2b |
| 锋利 | 250.8±23.4ab | 267.5±23.1ABa | 6.6 | 0 | 2.1±0.18ab |
| 三星 | 255.8±22.8a | 265.0±20.9ABa | 3.6 | 0 | 2.25±0.18ab |
| 青海444 | 235.8±22.1ab | 260.8±31.3ABa | 10.6 | 0 | 2.3±0.18ab |
| 甜燕75 | 236.7±29.4ab | 256.7±28.8ABa | 8.5 | 0 | 2.35±0.17ab |
| mongan | 245.8±17.7ab | 248.3±20.2ABab | 1.0 | 0 | 2.05±0.17ab |
| 甜燕3号 | 270.0±29.5a | 245.0±15.8ABab | -9.3 | 0 | 2.5±0.14a |
| 贝利 | 195.8±2.7ab | 224.2±4.2ABab | 14.5 | 0 | 2.2±0.16ab |
| 甜燕2+ | 218.3 ±21.1ab | 222.5±18.9ABab | 1.9 | 0 | 2.4±0.15ab |
| 牧丰 | 205.0±5.0ab | 220.8±4.9ABab | 7.7 | 0 | 1.95±0.15ab |
| 甜燕70 | 178.3±15.1b | 175.8±14.4Bb | -1.4 | 0 | 2.45±0.15a |
| 品种 | 基本苗/(万株/hm2) | 基本苗增加率/% | 分蘖/株 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 越冬前 | 返青期 | 越冬前 | 返青期 | ||
| 特牧 | 250.8±27.2ab | 296.7±25.0Aa | 18.3 | 0 | 2.0±0.17ab |
| 刀客 | 212.5±30.2ab | 272.5±41.6ABa | 28.2 | 0 | 1.85±0.2b |
| 锋利 | 250.8±23.4ab | 267.5±23.1ABa | 6.6 | 0 | 2.1±0.18ab |
| 三星 | 255.8±22.8a | 265.0±20.9ABa | 3.6 | 0 | 2.25±0.18ab |
| 青海444 | 235.8±22.1ab | 260.8±31.3ABa | 10.6 | 0 | 2.3±0.18ab |
| 甜燕75 | 236.7±29.4ab | 256.7±28.8ABa | 8.5 | 0 | 2.35±0.17ab |
| mongan | 245.8±17.7ab | 248.3±20.2ABab | 1.0 | 0 | 2.05±0.17ab |
| 甜燕3号 | 270.0±29.5a | 245.0±15.8ABab | -9.3 | 0 | 2.5±0.14a |
| 贝利 | 195.8±2.7ab | 224.2±4.2ABab | 14.5 | 0 | 2.2±0.16ab |
| 甜燕2+ | 218.3 ±21.1ab | 222.5±18.9ABab | 1.9 | 0 | 2.4±0.15ab |
| 牧丰 | 205.0±5.0ab | 220.8±4.9ABab | 7.7 | 0 | 1.95±0.15ab |
| 甜燕70 | 178.3±15.1b | 175.8±14.4Bb | -1.4 | 0 | 2.45±0.15a |
| 品种 | 拔节期/(月/日) | 孕穗期/(月/日) | 抽穗期/(月/日) | 乳熟期/(月/日) | 生育期/d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 青海444 | 3/24 | 4/20 | 4/24 | 5/21 | 180 |
| 三星 | 3/28 | 5/3 | 5/6 | 5/26 | 185 |
| 牧丰 | 3/26 | 5/4 | 5/12 | 6/1 | 191 |
| 刀客 | 3/29 | 5/1 | 5/6 | 5/26 | 185 |
| 特牧 | 3/24 | 4/22 | 4/27 | 5/23 | 182 |
| 甜燕3号 | 3/28 | 5/13 | 5/17 | 6/6 | 196 |
| mongan | 3/28 | 4/29 | 5/4 | 5/25 | 184 |
| 锋利 | 3/30 | 5/13 | 5/20 | 6/6 | 196 |
| 甜燕70 | 3/28 | 5/1 | 5/6 | 5/26 | 185 |
| 甜燕75 | 3/27 | 5/6 | 5/13 | 6/1 | 191 |
| 甜燕2+ | 3/30 | 5/4 | 5/9 | 5/26 | 185 |
| 贝利 | 3/26 | 5/7 | 5/19 | 6/6 | 196 |
| 品种 | 拔节期/(月/日) | 孕穗期/(月/日) | 抽穗期/(月/日) | 乳熟期/(月/日) | 生育期/d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 青海444 | 3/24 | 4/20 | 4/24 | 5/21 | 180 |
| 三星 | 3/28 | 5/3 | 5/6 | 5/26 | 185 |
| 牧丰 | 3/26 | 5/4 | 5/12 | 6/1 | 191 |
| 刀客 | 3/29 | 5/1 | 5/6 | 5/26 | 185 |
| 特牧 | 3/24 | 4/22 | 4/27 | 5/23 | 182 |
| 甜燕3号 | 3/28 | 5/13 | 5/17 | 6/6 | 196 |
| mongan | 3/28 | 4/29 | 5/4 | 5/25 | 184 |
| 锋利 | 3/30 | 5/13 | 5/20 | 6/6 | 196 |
| 甜燕70 | 3/28 | 5/1 | 5/6 | 5/26 | 185 |
| 甜燕75 | 3/27 | 5/6 | 5/13 | 6/1 | 191 |
| 甜燕2+ | 3/30 | 5/4 | 5/9 | 5/26 | 185 |
| 贝利 | 3/26 | 5/7 | 5/19 | 6/6 | 196 |
| 品种 | 株高/cm | 叶茎比 | 干鲜比 | 鲜草产量/(kg/hm2) | 干草产量/(kg/hm2) | 位次 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 特牧 | 164.5±4.4Aa | 0.307±0.039 | 0.301±0.006Aa | 45362.6±522.9BCbc | 13643.8±390.9Aa | 1 |
| 甜燕3号 | 144.1±3.0BCDbc | 0.308±0.032 | 0.292±0.002ABab | 45915.9±412.4BCbc | 13417.0±127.7ABab | 2 |
| 牧丰 | 135.0±4.0Dd | 0.294±0.046 | 0.282±0.004BCDcd | 45853.5±1337.6BCbc | 12905.3±208.8ABCbc | 3 |
| 甜燕70 | 140.3±1.1BCDcd | 0.328±0.02 | 0.238±0.005Gh | 53216.2±525.0Aa | 12649.5±138.7BCcd | 4 |
| 甜燕75 | 139.9±0.8BCDcd | 0.321±0.036 | 0.279±0.002BCDcd | 44842.5±406.8BCbc | 12528.8±171.8BCDcd | 5 |
| 贝利 | 145.2±1.4BCDbc | 0.344±0.038 | 0.284±0.002BCbc | 43716.2±536.7CDc | 12435.5±238.5BCDcd | 6 |
| mongan | 144.8±1.0BCDbc | 0.285±0.012 | 0.256±0.002Fg | 47012.4±777.6Bb | 12018.3±121.9CDEde | 7 |
| 三星 | 146.8±3.2BCDbc | 0.321±0.036 | 0.272±0.001CDEde | 43932.0±1078.2BCDc | 11952.6±241.2CDEde | 8 |
| 刀客 | 149.5±1.7BCb | 0.292±0.016 | 0.258±0.002Fg | 44994.0±376.5BCbc | 11607.2±78.6DEFef | 9 |
| 青海444 | 151.9±3.8Bb | 0.286±0.025 | 0.288±0.003ABbc | 38382.1±557.4Fe | 11040.6±247.9EFfg | 10 |
| 甜燕2+ | 138.8±0.2CDcd | 0.288±0.031 | 0.261±0.002EFfg | 41446.9±487.0DEd | 10805.7±202.1Fg | 11 |
| 锋利 | 145.1±2.0BCDbc | 0.327±0.019 | 0.268±0.004DEFef | 39786.6±772.1EFde | 10683.5±373.0Fg | 12 |
| 品种 | 株高/cm | 叶茎比 | 干鲜比 | 鲜草产量/(kg/hm2) | 干草产量/(kg/hm2) | 位次 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 特牧 | 164.5±4.4Aa | 0.307±0.039 | 0.301±0.006Aa | 45362.6±522.9BCbc | 13643.8±390.9Aa | 1 |
| 甜燕3号 | 144.1±3.0BCDbc | 0.308±0.032 | 0.292±0.002ABab | 45915.9±412.4BCbc | 13417.0±127.7ABab | 2 |
| 牧丰 | 135.0±4.0Dd | 0.294±0.046 | 0.282±0.004BCDcd | 45853.5±1337.6BCbc | 12905.3±208.8ABCbc | 3 |
| 甜燕70 | 140.3±1.1BCDcd | 0.328±0.02 | 0.238±0.005Gh | 53216.2±525.0Aa | 12649.5±138.7BCcd | 4 |
| 甜燕75 | 139.9±0.8BCDcd | 0.321±0.036 | 0.279±0.002BCDcd | 44842.5±406.8BCbc | 12528.8±171.8BCDcd | 5 |
| 贝利 | 145.2±1.4BCDbc | 0.344±0.038 | 0.284±0.002BCbc | 43716.2±536.7CDc | 12435.5±238.5BCDcd | 6 |
| mongan | 144.8±1.0BCDbc | 0.285±0.012 | 0.256±0.002Fg | 47012.4±777.6Bb | 12018.3±121.9CDEde | 7 |
| 三星 | 146.8±3.2BCDbc | 0.321±0.036 | 0.272±0.001CDEde | 43932.0±1078.2BCDc | 11952.6±241.2CDEde | 8 |
| 刀客 | 149.5±1.7BCb | 0.292±0.016 | 0.258±0.002Fg | 44994.0±376.5BCbc | 11607.2±78.6DEFef | 9 |
| 青海444 | 151.9±3.8Bb | 0.286±0.025 | 0.288±0.003ABbc | 38382.1±557.4Fe | 11040.6±247.9EFfg | 10 |
| 甜燕2+ | 138.8±0.2CDcd | 0.288±0.031 | 0.261±0.002EFfg | 41446.9±487.0DEd | 10805.7±202.1Fg | 11 |
| 锋利 | 145.1±2.0BCDbc | 0.327±0.019 | 0.268±0.004DEFef | 39786.6±772.1EFde | 10683.5±373.0Fg | 12 |
| 基本苗 | 株高 | 叶茎比 | 干鲜比 | 鲜草产量 | 干草产量 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 基本苗 | 1 | |||||
| 株高 | 0.16 | 1 | ||||
| 叶茎比 | 0.418 | -0.123 | 1 | |||
| 干鲜比 | -0.458 | 0.529 | -0.650* | 1 | ||
| 鲜草产量 | 0.455 | -0.402 | 0.497 | -0.837** | 1 | |
| 干草产量 | 0.487 | -0.117 | 0.202 | -0.4 | 0.816** | 1 |
| 基本苗 | 株高 | 叶茎比 | 干鲜比 | 鲜草产量 | 干草产量 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 基本苗 | 1 | |||||
| 株高 | 0.16 | 1 | ||||
| 叶茎比 | 0.418 | -0.123 | 1 | |||
| 干鲜比 | -0.458 | 0.529 | -0.650* | 1 | ||
| 鲜草产量 | 0.455 | -0.402 | 0.497 | -0.837** | 1 | |
| 干草产量 | 0.487 | -0.117 | 0.202 | -0.4 | 0.816** | 1 |
| 品种 | 加权关联度 | 等权关联度 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 数值 | 排序 | 数值 | 排序 | |
| 甜燕70 | 0.771365 | 1 | 0.768327 | 1 |
| 特牧 | 0.761595 | 2 | 0.7613 | 2 |
| 贝利 | 0.691063 | 3 | 0.678387 | 4 |
| 刀客 | 0.687694 | 4 | 0.682983 | 3 |
| 三星 | 0.685026 | 5 | 0.67819 | 5 |
| 甜燕3号 | 0.684071 | 6 | 0.676228 | 6 |
| 甜燕75 | 0.668508 | 7 | 0.66318 | 7 |
| mongan | 0.664531 | 8 | 0.659997 | 8 |
| 锋利 | 0.658347 | 9 | 0.651076 | 9 |
| 牧丰 | 0.619364 | 10 | 0.613905 | 10 |
| 青海444 | 0.615208 | 11 | 0.60545 | 11 |
| 甜燕2+ | 0.580869 | 12 | 0.573871 | 12 |
| 品种 | 加权关联度 | 等权关联度 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 数值 | 排序 | 数值 | 排序 | |
| 甜燕70 | 0.771365 | 1 | 0.768327 | 1 |
| 特牧 | 0.761595 | 2 | 0.7613 | 2 |
| 贝利 | 0.691063 | 3 | 0.678387 | 4 |
| 刀客 | 0.687694 | 4 | 0.682983 | 3 |
| 三星 | 0.685026 | 5 | 0.67819 | 5 |
| 甜燕3号 | 0.684071 | 6 | 0.676228 | 6 |
| 甜燕75 | 0.668508 | 7 | 0.66318 | 7 |
| mongan | 0.664531 | 8 | 0.659997 | 8 |
| 锋利 | 0.658347 | 9 | 0.651076 | 9 |
| 牧丰 | 0.619364 | 10 | 0.613905 | 10 |
| 青海444 | 0.615208 | 11 | 0.60545 | 11 |
| 甜燕2+ | 0.580869 | 12 | 0.573871 | 12 |
| [1] |
姚晋, 何云, 卢家顶, 等. 河南省秋播饲用燕麦的越冬率分蘖特性及其生产性能[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(2):528-538.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.02.027 |
| [2] |
高菲, 王铁梅, 卢欣石. 2021年我国商品饲草生产形势分析与2022年趋势展望[J]. 畜牧产业, 2022(3):32-37.
|
| [3] |
国家统计局. 中国统计年鉴2024[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社,2024:388-389.
|
| [4] |
杨秀玲, 魏臻武. 燕麦种苗的抗寒性研究[J]. 四川草原, 2005(6):23-24.
|
| [5] |
吴嘉浩, 桑瑞娟, 董春阳, 等. 播期与播量对河南省秋播饲用燕麦生产性能的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2024(15):155-161.
|
| [6] |
张洁, 田文仲, 黄向荣, 等. 半湿润偏旱区水肥耦合对大豆产量的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2024, 33(3):469-476.
|
| [7] |
张瑞珍, 马涛, 杨春桃, 等. “康巴”变绿异燕麦品种比较研究[J]. 四川农业与农机, 2020(3):43-45.
|
| [8] |
景芳, 刘彦明, 陈富, 等. 饲用燕麦在甘肃不同种植区的生产性能及营养品质[J]. 草原与草坪, 2025, 45(5):137-145.
|
| [9] |
张靓, 梁小玉, 胡远彬, 等. 燕麦抗倒伏性研究进展[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2024, 44(1):74-81.
|
| [10] |
陈路路. 不同行距和密度对谷子茎秆抗倒伏性能及产量的影响[D]. 晋中: 山西农业大学, 2022.
|
| [11] |
曹利萍, 王君杰, 雷梦林, 等. 高光谱对冬小麦倒伏的响应[J]. 山西农业科学, 2017, 45(12):1930-1932.
|
| [12] |
何玉婷. 10个青稞高代品系农艺性状与产量的灰色关联度分析[J]. 种子科技, 2024, 42(18):58-60.
|
| [13] |
吕伟, 文飞, 韩俊梅, 等. 芝麻种质资源苗期抗旱性鉴定及灰色关联度分析[J]. 种子, 2022, 41(12):106-112.
|
| [14] |
王贞. 中国燕麦填图[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2007.
|
| [15] |
郑殿升, 张宗文. 大粒裸燕麦(莜麦)(Avena nuda L.)起源及分类问题的探讨[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2011, 12(5):667-670.
doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.2011.05.001 |
| [16] |
熊昌绪. 种子休眠特性的研究[J]. 石河子农学院学报, 1984(2):65-70.
|
| [17] |
康素珍, 朱文江. 野燕麦种子的休眠和萌发习性的初步研究[J]. 青海农林科技, 1981(4):20-24.
|
| [18] |
浦铜良, 吕忠恕. 野燕麦籽粒休眠与种皮透气性及内源GA类物质活性的关系[J]. 植物学通报, 1988(4):232-235.
|
| [19] |
M.P.沙马,D.K. 麦克比思,W.H. 范登博恩, et al. 野燕麦生物学的研究Ⅰ.休眠、萌芽和出苗[J]. 青海农林科技, 1978(1)28-35.
|
| [20] |
王霞霞, 李龑, 李岩, 等. 低温胁迫对燕麦种子萌发期蛋白质组影响的研究[J]. 种子, 2017, 36(3):28-32.
|
| [21] |
柏晓玲, 周青平, 陈有军, 等. 燕麦幼苗对低温胁迫的响应[J]. 草业科学, 2016, 33(7):1375-1382.
|
| [22] |
贾志国, 张丽. 低温胁迫对不同萌发状态的裸燕麦种子某些生理特性的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2011(5):117-118.
|
| [23] |
河南省农业科学院小麦研究所. DB41/T 1379—2017,小麦品种冬春季抗寒性鉴定与评价[S].2017-04-24.
|
| [24] |
郑冬晓. 不同冬春性小麦低温灾害指标和可种植界限变化研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2019.
|
| [25] |
冯学颖, 米俊珍, 刘景辉, 等. 宽幅条播和种植密度对燕麦抗倒伏性及产量的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2021, 41(7):914-920.
|
| [26] |
王雪莱, 郭潇潇, 郭伟, 等. 种植密度对松嫩平原西部燕麦产量形成的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2020, 40(7):881-889.
|
| [27] |
周萍萍, 赵军, 颜红海, 等. 播期、播种量与施肥量对裸燕麦籽粒产量及农艺性状的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2015, 32(3):433-441.
|
| [28] |
桑瑞娟, 崔超杰, 何云, 等. 豫北地区18个秋播饲用燕麦品种抗倒伏特性及生产性能评价[J].草业学报, 2024, 33(8):74-85.
|
| [1] | WANG Jun, ZUO Xi, QIU Jingtao, YANG Wuguang, QIAN Chencheng. Differences Analysis of Agronomic Traits and Yield of Different Wheat Varieties Under Late-Sowing Conditions [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(2): 25-31. |
| [2] | DANG Haihong, HE Keyan, HE Lili, LI Jiyun, WANG Jiahao, WANG Xiaoli, WANG Qian, WEI Xiaoxing. Comprehensive Evaluation of Production Performance and Nutritional Value of Eight Oat Varieties in Maduo Region [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(34): 112-120. |
| [3] | LIU Yu, LI Xinxin, PAN Xingliang, WANG Chongqing, ZHANG Wen, LIANG Jingbo, LI Fuhuang, LIU Jun. Potential Mechanism of Yeast Improving Production Performance of Laying Hens Based on Transcriptome Technology [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(24): 104-110. |
| [4] | SHAO Wenqi, DONG Qingjun, DONG Yubing, ZHONG Ping, JI Li, CHEN Chuan, ZHANG Ankang. Effect of Chemical Seed Dressing on Seedling Strength and Yield of Late-sowing Wheat in Huaihe River Region [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(6): 22-28. |
| [5] | GAO Xiaoli, HUANG Haijiao, CHANG Zihui, YANG Tao, LIU Rong, ZONG Xuxiao, ZHANG Haifang, LIAO Wenhua. Improvement of Vegetable Peas Varieties in Suburb of Lhasa and Its Comprehensive Evaluation [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(22): 24-31. |
| [6] | ZHANG Hongyan, ZHANG Qiang, HAN Shanshan, YIN Hong, WANG Jianbo, Qin Tao. Effects of Chinese Herbal Extract on Performance, Immune Function and Antioxidant Capacity of Highland Brown Laying Hens [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(14): 127-133. |
| [7] | MENG Zhanying, CAI Haixia, YANG Haozhe, WANG Yueqing, GUO Dang, LI Lifeng. Variety Adaptability of Silage Maize in Terms of Photosynthesis and Yield in Western Henan [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(5): 28-32. |
| [8] | Li Shangmin, Jiang Yixiu, Fan Jianhua, Qu liang, Lu Jian, Dou Xinhong. Adding Lucid Ganoderma: Effect on Performance, Egg Quality, and NH3 and H2S Released from Feces of Laying Hens [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(24): 154-158. |
| [9] | Zheng Wenyong, Yang Tao, Li Shuangquan, Lv Changxu, Shi Min, Ma Libao, Yan Xianghua. Novel Saccharomyces cerevisiae Culture: Effects on Performance, Muscle Quality and Intestinal Microorganisms of Fattening Pig [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(21): 145-154. |
| [10] | . Effect of Late Sowing on Lodging Resistance and Grain Yield of Winter Wheat at Different Densities [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2019, 35(32): 1-6. |
| [11] | . Comparison of Yield and Quality Characteristics of 14 Alfalfa Varieties in Dongting Lake Area [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2018, 34(28): 130-136. |
| [12] | Lin Weicai,Xie Shaohe,Du Xiaodong,Wang Qingui and Fu Shao. Factors Affecting Pearl Production Performance of Pinctada maxima [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2016, 32(32): 29-33. |
| [13] | Huang Shuizhen. Effects of Feeding Treatments with Hybrid Pennisetum Silage on the Hog Production and Meat Quality Parameters [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2015, 31(8): 21-25. |
| [14] |
Wang Qiaoling,Hua Limin and Yang Siwei.
Comparison on the Production Performance of Different Hybridized Lambs in Alpine Pastoral Region [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2014, 30(35): 30-34. |
| [15] | . Impacts of the Different Seeding Time on Growing Development and Production of Corn [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2014, 30(24): 105-110. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||