苏共中央全体会议在《关于进一步发展苏联农业的措施》的决议中指出，最迅速地提高畜牧业，首先是公有畜牧业的生产，对国家具有极其重要的意义，是党和政府在农业领域当前最紧迫的任务。只有在建立稳固的饲料基地、为畜牧业提供各类饲料的条件下，这项任务才能顺利解决。\n饲料生产包括从天然饲料地获取饲料（从天然割草地和牧场获取干草和青饲料），在饲料轮作和大田轮作体系中生产饲料，即：多汁饲料（块根作物、马铃薯、青贮饲料和饲用瓜类作物）、谷物饲料（燕麦、大麦等）、大田作物粗饲料（秸秆、秕壳），以及轮作草地田上的干草和青饲料。\n由此可见，畜牧业饲料的主要来源是植物，而对植物的研究则构成一门科学——植物学的研究对象。\n苏联植物学家研究植物的生命，并将这门科学的成果应用于国民经济。\n因此，植物学作为研究植物的科学和作物栽培各分支学科的理论基础，有助于饲料生产的发展和稳固饲料基地的建立。\n这样就确立了植物学与饲料生产之间的直接联系。\n生物学是研究生命自然界发生和发展规律的科学，它探索永恒运动和变化中的自然界。它研究从最简单到最复杂的多样化生物世界的发展规律。\n直到十八世纪，形而上学自然观占据统治地位，认为整个世界是一成不变的，是一下子创造出来的。\n\"根据这种观点，自然界，无论其本身是如何产生的，只要它已经存在，在其存在期间就始终是不变的……植物和动物的物种在产生时便一劳永逸地确定了，同种总是产生同种……\"\n十九世纪初，拉马克提出了进化论，这一理论在达尔文的著作中得到了进一步发展和全面论证。已经证实，地球上所有的生物都是由最简单的生物体经过数百万年的发展而来的。拉马克在其著作中指出了外部环境对生物体发展的巨大作用。达尔文揭示了这种发展所依据的普遍变异；他展示了如何通过自然选择积累有益的变异并在后代中固定下来。拉马克和达尔文的著作得到了俄国科学家的热情支持。他们发展了达尔文理论，清除了其中的错误，开创了科学的生物学。\n苏联生物科学的奠基人伊·弗·米丘林进一步发展了拉马克和达尔文确立的实验理论，揭示了生物体生命发展的规律。\n李森科院士延续了这一学说，创立了植物阶段发育学说。米丘林学派对生物体发展规律的新理解为改变植物本性提供了可能，从而使解释有机世界的达尔文理论转变为改造有机世界的理论。米丘林苏联生物学是唯物主义的生命自然学说，其基础是唯一科学的世界观——辩证唯物主义。\n生物学包括多个学科：研究动物有机体的动物学、研究植物的植物学、研究微观生物世界的微生物学。\n随着十九世纪微生物学、植物解剖学和生理学等科学的发展，人们认识到动植物之间没有截然的分界，植物和动物一样是活的生物体。从那时起，植物学被视为生物学，即关于生命有机体的科学的一部分。\n自然会产生一个问题：植物与动物之间的相似性和差异性究竟体现在哪里？\n动植物有机体的共同特征在于细胞结构（且构建细胞消耗的是相同的化学物质），以及活细胞中持续进行的呼吸过程。生长现象和为植物有机体所极度有限具备的运动能力，是植物和动物共有的特性。\n通常很难在个别的原生生物、植物和动物有机体之间划定严格的界限。这证实了它们起源的共同性。例如，有些动物——海绵、水螅体、珊瑚等，像植物一样，终生固着在一处；而同时，某些低等植物，如藻类，则处于持续的积极运动状态。有些类群的植物，像动物一样，以现成的有机物质为食。这包括食虫植物、寄生在其他植物上并利用其营养物质的寄生植物，以及定居在死亡有机残体上并以分解产物为食的腐生植物。然而，以现成有机化合物为食的植物属于例外。植物与动物有机体之间的基本区别恰恰在于营养方式。\n植物能够借助叶绿素和光制造必需的营养物质，其中一部分用于构建植物新的组织和器官，另一部分储存起来。\n动物则以植物制造的有机食物为食，没有这些食物它们就无法生存。\n为了更好地利用光线和二氧化碳，绿色植物拥有叶面。为了从土壤中吸收水分和矿物质盐，植物拥有发达的计算根系统。\n动物为了寻找现成的有机食物，发展了运动能力，因此它们的身体变得更加灵活。由此可见，营养方式的差异，进一步导致了最初相近类群之间更显著的分化，并形成了当今动植物所特有的区别性特征。\n植物界宏大而多样。树木、草本植物、栽培作物覆盖着大片地域。植被不仅存在于陆地，也存在于淡水水体以及海洋深处。\n植物界的巨大意义首先在于，植物（除少数非绿色植物外）使空气富含氧气。\n绝大多数动植物有机体的呼吸都需要氧气，没有氧气它们会迅速死亡。但空气中仅含有约20%的游离氧，其余大气成分由其他气体组成：氮气——78%，二氧化碳——0.03%，氩气——约1%等。\n由于呼吸、燃烧以及地壳中发生的相关过程，游离氧被结合，大气中的氧气含量会持续减少，如果没有补充其储备的来源的话。这些来源正是绿色植物。\n在植物的绿色叶片中，发生着自然界最奇妙的现象之一——光合作用。在光合作用过程中，来自大气或水中的二氧化碳进入植物的绿色细胞，而氧气从植物中释放出来。同时，在植物绿色部分，通过光合作用形成糖、淀粉和其他碳水化合物，它们构成了植物的基本食物。\n除此之外，植物还需要蛋白质、脂肪和其他物质。它们是由植物从土壤中吸收的氮、磷、硫、钾、钙、镁等元素的化合物加工而成。\n由此可见，植物从无机物质和水中创造出有机物质，这些物质被植物自身、动物和人类用作食物。例如，在1公顷土地上播种约0.3吨甜菜种子，在高水平耕作下可获得超过100公担的纯糖。\n种植黑麦、小麦和其他禾谷类作物的田地产出大量食品。全球主要粮食作物和部分饲料作物（小麦、玉米、黑麦、水稻、燕麦、大麦等）的总产量超过5亿吨。在苏联，粮食产量超过1亿吨。田地里还种植大量蔬菜，其中首要的是马铃薯——约2亿吨（其中苏联约1亿吨），各种块根作物、瓜类作物，不仅供人食用，也用作牲畜饲料。\n割草地和牧场为牲畜提供许多有价值的饲料产品，包括干草和青绿物质。\n除了为人类提供多种食物和为动物提供饲料外，植物还提供建筑材料、用于制造工业品的原料——橡胶、纸张、纤维、酒精、颜料，以及药品、各种醚类、维生素等。\n最后，绿色植物为工业和运输业积累能源资源。煤炭、石油、泥炭——这些都是植物来源的产品。\n这就是植物在自然界和国民经济中的巨大作用。\n植物学是研究植物生命、结构及其生长发育规律的科学。它分为以下主要分支：形态学、解剖学、生理学、植物系统学、植物地理学、生态学、地植物学。\n_形态学_研究植物的形态、外部结构、其器官的排列和各种变态。\n_系统学_的任务是对植物进行分类，建立植物界的系统，描述各个植物物种。\n_植物解剖学_旨在研究植物的微观结构（植物细胞、组织、它们的起源、发育等）。\n_植物生理学_研究植物体内进行的生命过程：营养、新陈代谢、植物的生长发育等。\n十九世纪末，微生物学作为一门独立科学从植物学中分离出来，研究微小生物——细菌；后来，遗传学也分离出来，研究植物的遗传和变异现象，并成为植物育种的基础。\n_植物地理学_研究植物在地球上的分布，确定个别物种和植物类群不仅在当前、而且在过去的分布。\n_植物生态学_研究植物与环境、植物栖息地之间的相互关系规律。\n_地植物学_作为关于植物群落的科学，研究植物与环境条件的相互关系。\n植物学作为一门包含众多学科的广阔科学，并非一蹴而就。公元前三百多年，希腊医生希波克拉底首次描述了植物。他列举了约200种用于医药的植物。稍晚，希腊哲学家亚里士多德及其弟子泰奥弗拉斯托斯试图收集和系统化积累的植物知识。泰奥弗拉斯托斯的著作中描述了约500种植物，其中相当篇幅给予了在农业中具有重要意义的栽培植物。泰奥弗拉斯托斯将所有植物分为乔木、灌木和草本，关于它们的知识在当时相当全面和多样化，因此泰奥弗拉斯托斯常被称为\"植物学之父\"。\n在随后的几个世纪（直到十六世纪），植物研究未取得任何重大进展。植物学著作的作者盲目崇拜亚里士多德和泰奥弗拉斯托斯的权威。\n十六世纪，随着贸易和航海的发展，新的植物物种被发现。从那时起，植物学开始顺利发展，但长期仍是一门收集事实、仅限于描述植物的科学。\n个别学者试图将根据某种特征所做的零散植物描述系统化。植物学发展史上的转折点是十八世纪瑞典科学家林奈的著作。林奈被认为是现代植物系统学的奠基人。他整理了大量零散的植物资料，创建了植物属、种划分的系统，制定了多达1000个形态学术语，并描述了约10000种植物。\n然而，林奈秉持当时占统治地位的关于物种恒定不变的错误观点。他在《植物学哲学》一书中写道：\"物种有多少，全能者在创世之初就创造了多少……\"\n林奈关于物种恒定不变的立场在当时就已令许多科学家不满。\n最早尝试从进化论角度解释有机形态起源的是拉马克。在他1800年出版的《动物哲学》一书中指出，物种不断变化，而变化的原因在于外部条件，生物体被迫适应这些条件。但许多问题，如有机形态的多样性、合理性、生物体结构的完善性等问题，拉马克并未解决。实际上，进化发展的问题只是被提了出来，但并未解决。\n如果说拉马克在十九世纪初试图给出动物界进化发展的第一个体系，那么俄国科学家帕·费·戈里亚尼诺夫则给出了植物界进化发展的最早体系之一（1834年）。\n帕·费·戈里亚尼诺夫是达尔文的先驱，他清晰地阐述了有机界进化的原则（1834年），研究了不同植物物种之间的亲缘关系，并将它们排列成反映有机界发展过程的特定系统。\n查·达尔文创立的进化论在当时关于生命、自然的形而上学观念中引起了彻底的革命。\n达尔文用他的唯物主义学说驳斥了关于物种恒定的统治性观点。他确立了地球生命赖以变化和发展的自然规律，创建了解释生物体完善原因的进化论。\n达尔文学说引起了部分资产阶级科学家的猛烈攻击，因为它给唯心主义世界观以沉重打击。那个时代的进步人士热情欢迎这一学说。它给了他们强大的武器来与各种形式的唯心主义、各种反动思潮作斗争。\n然而，达尔文学说存在一些错误。表现在试图将其学说基础建立在马尔萨斯人口论的结论上，低估了环境在生物变异中的作用。他的格言：\"自然界不产生飞跃\"表明对发展过程缺乏辩证理解。尽管如此，达尔文理论具有巨大意义。\n在俄国，达尔文学说被怀着浓厚兴趣接受，并迅速得到广泛传播。\n据达尔文主义历史学家姆·阿·安东诺维奇证实，与西欧国家不同，在俄国\"科学家们对新的理论深表同情，并像迎接一位受欢迎的、在某种程度上期待已久的客人一样迎接它\"。\n这是因为，从十八世纪中叶到十九世纪上半叶，俄国科学家在进化问题的研究上走在了大多数西欧国家科学家的前面。他们在著作中阐述了许多后来成为进化理论基础的重要问题。例如，关于有机界起源于无机界、关于生物起源的统一性和亲缘关系、关于外部条件及其进化意义等思想，均由俄国科学家提出。罗蒙诺索夫、列夫斯基、卡维尔津、戈里亚尼诺夫、别克托夫、谢韦尔佐夫等在著作中奠定了进化论的基础，但未能完成并给出完整的进化理论。作为达尔文先驱的俄国进化论学者的功绩在于，他们不仅为达尔文主义在俄国的迅速广泛传播，而且为其后续的成功发展创造了有利条件。\n阿·恩·别克托夫、科瓦列夫斯基兄弟（阿·奥和弗·奥）、伊·伊·梅奇尼科夫、伊·米·谢切诺夫、恩·阿·谢韦尔佐夫、阿·帕·波格丹诺夫等当时俄国科学家成为达尔文学说的宣传者和积极追随者。\n在继续发展唯物主义科学基础的过程中，十九和二十世纪的俄国植物学家取得了一系列最重要发现。例如，伊·德·奇斯佳科夫发现了核的间接分裂（有丝分裂），伊·尼·戈罗扎宁发现了细胞核的减数分裂，谢·格·纳瓦申发现了被子植物的双受精现象。\n在早期达尔文主义者中，伟大的俄国科学家、科学革命家克·阿·季米里亚泽夫占有特殊地位。\n他在半个多世纪的一生中，宣传并创造性地发展了达尔文学说。他不仅证明了达尔文学说的正确性，而且给出了该学说的正确哲学解释和事实依据。\n季米里亚泽夫用植物生命中的生动例子展示了变异、遗传和自然选择的力量。\n在制定真正科学的生物学和植物学基础方面，苏联科学家的作用极其巨大。\n伟大的自然改造者伊·弗·米丘林及其继承者特·德·李森科将达尔文理论转变为一门严谨的科学，给出了全新的关于遗传性的唯物主义学说，揭示了生物体变异的原因，从而开辟了改造动植物本性的道路。他们指出，在发展中起决定性作用的是外部环境条件，从而在生物学中贯彻了辩证唯物主义路线，纠正了达尔文的一系列错误和背离唯物主义之处。\n米丘林和李森科揭示了生物体个体发育的规律，指出了获得性特征在物种形成中的决定性作用，科学论证了物种内生物体相互关系的问题，从而开创了控制整个生物类群发育的先河。由米丘林和威廉斯创立、李森科院士发展的苏联农业生物科学，运用辩证唯物主义方法，揭示了生命自然界的发展规律。它为解决植物栽培和畜牧业的基本问题开辟了广阔天地，其途径是应用米丘林关于改造生命自然界的学说。\n米丘林关于营养杂种的学说，驳斥了反动的染色体遗传理论——现代魏斯曼主义的理论基础；李森科关于植物阶段发育的学说，极大地提高了俄国科学家在生物学和植物学领域的优先地位。\n染色体遗传理论的反动性在于，根据该理论，在萌生的性细胞中含有染色体，这些染色体唯一地预定了生物体的遗传特性，独立于生物体的其余部分、新陈代谢和外部条件的影响。根据这一学说，染色体通过性细胞代代相传，既不重新产生也不改变。这种理论是毫无生气的，自然不可能有效推动植物栽培和畜牧业的发展。\n米丘林学说的传播及其在社会主义农业发展中的应用，遭到魏斯曼-摩尔根主义者的阻挠，他们宣扬染色体遗传理论，其结论甚至断言自然现象不可知。\n李森科院士的报告《论生物学科学的状况》以及全苏列宁农业科学院会议（1948年7月31日—8月7日）上进行的辩论，揭露并彻底粉碎了魏斯曼-摩尔根主义者，他们是农业科学和实践领域唯心主义和形而上学资产阶级理论的代表者和传播者。他们的伪学说被苏联米丘林生物学所取代。\n苏联科学家基于这些真正科学基础的研究工作，武装了我们的农业，并引导其沿着改造动植物本性的道路前进。\n我国野生饲料植被的调查和评估一直是科学家们特别关注的对象。第一部描述野生饲料植被的著作由列佩欣院士和帕拉斯院士在1767-1773年对俄国南部和东部地区进行考察后完成。\n在国外，关于野生植物饲料评价及其对牲畜适口性的首批著作由瑞典科学家林奈（十八世纪后半叶）给出。\n在俄国，关于野生植物饲料评价的研究完全独立于林奈及其弟子的工作。在十八世纪和十九世纪初，俄国科学家阿·特·博洛托夫、罗兹拉托夫斯基、格·伊·恩格曼、波·阿·列夫申研究了饲料牧草并进行了牧草播种试验。\n格·伊·恩格曼发表了关于草地经营的著作，其中指出了不同植物对不同牲畜的适口性差异，论述了有害和有益的牧草、草场改良、种子收集等。\n十九世纪初，伊·伊·萨马林和德·米·波尔托拉茨基在自己的农场从事牧草播种，阿·瓦·索韦托夫认为后者是俄国大田牧草播种的奠基人。\n伊·谢戈洛夫教授发表了关于俄国生长的各种经济作物的描述。在了解野生植物有益特性方面，十八世纪和十九世纪上半叶成立的各类农业科学协会发挥了重要作用。\n十九世纪下半叶，著名俄国科学家阿·叶·斯托列托夫在其著作《论大田饲料牧草的栽培》、《饲料牧草》等中详细描述了许多饲料牧草，并给出了俄国牧草播种史纲要。另一位著名俄国科学家伊·阿·斯捷布特教授详细描述了60多种主要饲料牧草，将其分为优等和中等，并指出每种植物的开花时间、成熟期、产量、作为割草用或放牧用植物的适用性、利用季节、播种量、栽培区域。\n在发展俄国耕作农业方面，杰出的科学家伊·阿·科斯蒂切夫教授发挥了巨大作用。在其著作中，帕·阿·科斯蒂切夫阐述了饲料生产的某些问题，即：饲料牧草的栽培、收割期、轮作等。他首次对割草地和牧场（主要是在草原地区）进行了研究和经济描述，提供了关于许多常见野生植物化学成分和适口性的重要数据，指出了牧草干草收割期的重要性。\n科学家勒·帕夫洛维奇对乌克兰生长的野生植物进行了大量的饲料评价工作。他描述了224种。1905年，瓦·格·别利亚耶夫对348种饲料用野生和栽培植物进行了描述。1908年，对1550种植物进行了全面的经济评价，其中550种给出了饲料方面的特征。\n在沙皇俄国，草地经营的试验工作是靠私人主动性进行的。直到上个世纪末，农业和国家财产部农业司才开始涉足此项事业。十九世纪初，省级和县级地方自治局开始在草地经营领域开展工作。\n在革命前，阿·姆·德米特里耶夫（饲料地调查）、恩·恩·克林根、瓦·斯·博格丹教授等著名科学家就已开始进行大量工作。对植物的广泛研究及其引种栽培始于十九世纪头几十年，由瓦·罗·威廉斯院士开创，他首次在世界上从理论上论证了草地经营中的农艺措施体系。\n1910年开始建立试验站，其主要目的是研究饲料植物和饲料生产的其他问题。试验和示范站网络得到相当广泛的发展，其任务是试验饲料植物栽培和草地经营的新方法。\n在苏维埃政权下，杰出草地学家的活动尤其广泛地展开。1917年，瓦·罗·威廉斯和阿·姆·德米特里耶夫建立了饲料植物研究站，1922年组织成立了草地研究所，该所于1930年改组为饲料研究所，目前正在进行饲料生产问题研究方面的巨大工作。\n在苏联科研机构中对个别饲料植物（栽培和野生）进行了大量的研究。\n应特别指出下列苏联科学家、斯大林奖获得者在研究饲料生产问题方面的杰出作用：阿·姆·德米特里耶夫、伊·瓦·拉林、谢·尼·斯梅洛夫、瓦·伊·叶列耶夫等，他们进行了关于确定饲料植物经济意义以及饲料生产其他非常重要问题（如天然草场改良、割草地和放牧地的合理利用、牧草混播、作物选择和播种时间、新播草的管理等）的研究。\n在研究饲料植物方面，1931-1933年由苏联农业人民委员部和饲料研究所（负责人：勒·格·拉缅斯基）进行的苏联天然饲料地普查具有重大意义。这次普查几乎涵盖了全国所有边区和州。\n由全苏威廉斯饲料科学研究所科学家集体完成的专著《天然割草地和牧场的饲料植物》，对2778种植物进行了饲料特性描述。目前，在该所名誉所长、功勋科学家伊·瓦·拉林教授主编下，这部巨著的第二版正在分三卷出版（已出版的第一卷荣获斯大林奖），将包含不少于4000种植物的饲料特性描述。\n苏联农业生物科学，作为生物学中新的先进方向，作为革命性改造自然的理论，与社会主义农业密不可分。米丘林农业生物学揭示并调动了提高农作物产量和畜牧业生产力的巨大潜力。米丘林的格言：\"我们不能等待自然的恩赐；向自然索取是我们的任务\"，这一付诸实践的格言，揭示了提高我国农业生产力的无限可能。社会主义农业的先进工作者、高产能手和在工作中取得显著成就的畜牧工作者，每天都以米丘林农业生物科学为指导，在实践中证实米丘林关于外部条件对动植物生产力具有决定性影响的学说。\n建立在道库恰耶夫、科斯蒂切夫、威廉斯学说基础上的草田农作制，是进一步提高耕作和畜牧业生产力水平的主要手段。\n1949年4月苏联部长会议和苏共中央通过的关于发展公有产品畜牧业三年计划（1949-1954年）的决议，对巩固饲料基地具有巨大意义，标志着苏联畜牧业发展的新阶段。该决议指出：\"当前，在提高谷物经济方面已取得重大成就，并为进一步增加谷物生产创造了必要前提的条件下，全力发展畜牧业的任务已全面提出，这是党和国家在发展农业方面的中心任务。\"\n根据党和政府的指示，饲料生产问题、扩大和巩固饲料基地问题具有特别重要的意义。决议强调，必须在最短时间内为畜牧业建立稳固的饲料基地，\n该基地应能保障牲畜在夏季和冬季的充足饲喂。为实现此目标，规定了收集粗饲料和多汁饲料、在集体农庄建立谷物饲料储备、播种多年生牧草、饲用块根作物和青贮作物、以及广泛利用天然和人工割草地及牧场的青饲料等任务。此外，决议指出必须增加食品工业废料加工饲料的产量，以及更广泛地生产配合饲料。在苏共第十九次代表大会关于苏联发展第五个五年计划（1951-1955年）的指示中，规划了农业发展的后续阶段。指示指出：\"在农业领域，主要任务仍然是提高所有农作物的单位面积产量，在显著提高其生产力的同时进一步增加公有牲畜头数，通过进一步加强和发展集体农庄公有经济、在农业中运用先进技术和农业技术改善国营农场和机器拖拉机站的工作，来增加种植业和畜牧业的的总产量和商品产量。\"农业应成为更具生产力和技术性的，拥有发达的牧草种植和正确的轮作制，技术作物、饲料作物、蔬菜作物和马铃薯的播种面积比重更高。\n在第五个五年计划中，除提高所有农作物单位面积产量外，还计划进一步增加公有牲畜头数及其生产力，以及随着畜牧业的发展进一步巩固饲料基地。苏共第十九次代表大会指示中给出如下指示：\"增加饲料生产：干草增加80-90%，块根块茎作物增加3-4倍，青贮饲料增加2倍。\"指示中还指出了进一步巩固饲料基地的途径——推行饲料作物比重更高的正确轮作制，发展牧草种植，土地排水、进一步灌溉和供水，在中亚、哈萨克斯坦地区建立高产割草地和牧场地段，在供水地区组织装备良好的牧场并在这些地区为大型和超大型羊群等建立组织良好的牧场。在国营农场，为了建立稳固的饲料基地并充分保障牲畜粗饲料和多汁饲料，计划将国营农场饲料作物播种面积扩大45-55%，并基本完成饲料收获和饲料调制所有最繁重作业的综合机械化。\n在苏共中央全会1953年9月7日根据尼·谢·赫鲁晓夫报告通过的《关于进一步发展苏联农业的措施》决议中，指出了饲料基地的极端重要性：\"……如果党的、苏维埃的和农业的机关、所有农业工作者不认真着手在每个集体农庄和国营农场建立直接的饲料基地，畜牧业事业就无法向前推进。许多地区和集体农庄中饲料基地的落后状况已达到完全不能容忍的程度。\"\n同一决议规划了改善饲料基地任务的具体解决途径：\"争取扩大播种面积并急剧提高多年生和一年生牧草、青贮用玉米和向日葵、饲用块根作物、饲用瓜类作物的单位面积产量。\"\n苏共第十九次代表大会指示和1953年9月7日苏共中央全会决议中规定的所有这些措施，指明了我国进一步巩固饲料基地应遵循的基本路径。\n在本教材中，饲料生产问题是根据党和政府在畜牧业领域提出的任务来探讨的。\n在发展公有畜牧业计划的实施中，特别是在组织和巩固饲料基地方面，兽医工作者的作用尤为重大。\n苏联部长会议和苏共中央关于发展公有产品畜牧业三年计划的决议中指出，统一的国家畜牧兽医网的主要任务之一应是组织饲料生产。\n兽医工作者在实际工作中，不仅需要研究饲料生产问题，还需要了解植物（特别是饲料植物、有害植物、有毒植物、药用植物）以及支配植物界的规律。因此，除了饲料生产外，植物学的学习也是兽医教育体系中必要的一环。\n在本教材中，根据兽医学院和兽医系的教学大纲，旨在简要阐述植物生命和发育的基本规律，这构成了前十六章（《植物学基础》）的内容。\n其余各章阐述了与饲料生产和利用直接相关的组织经营和农艺措施，即构成\"饲料生产\"概念的整个问题综合体。此处描述了天然饲料地的饲料植被特征，阐述了天然割草地和牧场的改良及合理利用方法、人工草地牧场和割草地的建立、牧场经营组织、干草生产和储藏的基础。此外，还阐述了多汁饲料和青贮饲料生产、谷物饲料及其他饲料资源的基础知识。\n以上即是《饲料生产与植物学基础》教材所涵盖的问题范围。
", "ds_source": "作者（编委会）：Н.Г.安德列耶夫(Н.Г.Андреев)\n出版社： Государственное издательство сельскохозяйственной литературы\n出版地：莫斯科\n出版年：1953年\n页数：416页\n语种：俄文\n馆藏条形码：XJLAS RU 70018605
", "ds_process_way": "本书为中国科学院新疆生态与地理研究所文献信息中心（以下简称中心）馆藏文献，中心将本书电子化后存储，已经过OCR识别，数据加工过程依据国家标准《GB/T 31219.2-2014图书馆馆藏资源数字化加工规范》，完全遵照《饲料生产与植物学基础》的数据信息，未改动删减。
", "ds_quality": "对收集到的《饲料生产与植物学基础》进行电子化加工处理，按照国家标准《GB/T 31219.2-2014图书馆馆藏资源数字化加工规范》要求，未改动删减《饲料生产与植物学基础》的数据信息，数据质量可靠。
", "ds_acq_start_time": "2025-09-30 00:00:00", "ds_acq_end_time": "2025-09-30 00:00:00", "ds_acq_place": "苏联", "ds_acq_lon_east": null, "ds_acq_lat_south": null, "ds_acq_lon_west": null, "ds_acq_lat_north": null, "ds_acq_alt_low": null, "ds_acq_alt_high": null, "ds_share_type": "login-access", "ds_total_size": 276938303, "ds_files_count": 1, "ds_format": "PDF格式", "ds_space_res": "无", "ds_time_res": "无", "ds_coordinate": "无", "ds_projection": "无", "ds_thumbnail": "7cea828d-157f-4e0b-879c-ea5559899e31.png", "ds_thumb_from": 0, "ds_ref_way": "", "paper_ref_way": "", "ds_ref_instruction": "", "ds_from_station": null, "organization_id": "a5877b42-96ea-4f13-af7e-246f355413d6", "doi_value": "", "subject_codes": [ "210.3040" ], "quality_level": 1, "publish_time": "2026-09-16 11:52:41", "first_publish_time": null, "last_updated": "2026-09-16 13:04:18", "protected": false, "protected_to": null, "lang": "zh", "cstr": "33110.11.ariddc.02367", "license": null, "extra": null, "files_shape": [ { "name": "202508190004（XJLASRU70018605）双层.pdf", "size": 276938303, "is_dir": false } ], "features": null, "data_level": 0, "i18n": { "en": { "title": "Feed production and botany basics", "ds_abstract": "The Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in its Resolution On Measures for the Further Development of Soviet Agriculture, pointed out that the most rapid increase in livestock production, and above all in publicly owned livestock husbandry, is of exceptionally great importance to the state and constitutes the most urgent task currently facing the Party and the Government in the sphere of agriculture. This task can be successfully accomplished only through the establishment of a stable fodder base capable of supplying all types of feed required by livestock husbandry.\r\nForage production includes obtaining feed from natural forage lands (hay and green fodder from natural hayfields and pastures), as well as the production of feed within forage and field crop rotation systems, namely: succulent feeds (root crops, potatoes, silage crops, and forage melons), grain feeds (oats, barley, etc.), coarse feeds from field crops (straw and chaff), and hay and green fodder from rotation grasslands.\r\nIt thus becomes evident that the principal source of livestock feed is the plant world, and the study of plants constitutes the subject matter of a science known as botany.\r\nSoviet botanists study the life of plants and apply the achievements of this science to the national economy.\r\nTherefore, botany, as the science of plants and as the theoretical foundation of all branches of crop cultivation, contributes to the development of forage production and to the establishment of a stable fodder base.\r\nThus, a direct connection is established between botany and forage production.\r\nBiology is the science that studies the laws governing the origin and development of living nature. It investigates nature in its eternal movement and change. It studies the laws of development of the diverse living world, from the simplest to the most complex organisms.\r\nUntil the eighteenth century, the metaphysical view of nature dominated. According to this view, the entire world was immutable and had been created at one moment.\r\n“According to this conception, nature, regardless of how it arose, once it existed remained unchanged throughout its existence... Species of plants and animals were fixed once and for all at the moment of their origin, and each species invariably gave rise only to its own kind...”\r\nAt the beginning of the nineteenth century, Lamarck proposed the theory of evolution, which was subsequently further developed and comprehensively substantiated in the works of Darwin. It has been established that all living organisms on Earth descended from the simplest forms of life through a development lasting millions of years.\r\nIn his works, Lamarck emphasized the enormous influence of the external environment upon the development of organisms.\r\nDarwin revealed the universal variability underlying this development and demonstrated how useful variations accumulate through natural selection and become fixed in successive generations.\r\nThe works of Lamarck and Darwin received enthusiastic support from Russian scientists. They developed Darwinian theory further, eliminated its errors, and laid the foundations of scientific biology.\r\nThe founder of Soviet biological science, I. V. Michurin, further developed the experimental principles established by Lamarck and Darwin and revealed the laws governing the development of living organisms.\r\nAcademician Lysenko continued this doctrine and created the theory of the stage development of plants.\r\nThe Michurin school’s new understanding of the laws of organismal development made it possible to alter the nature of plants, thereby transforming Darwin’s theory from a doctrine explaining the organic world into a doctrine for transforming it.\r\nMichurinist Soviet biology is a materialist doctrine of living nature founded upon the only scientific worldview, dialectical materialism.\r\nBiology comprises a number of disciplines: zoology, which studies animal organisms; botany, which studies plants; and microbiology, which studies the microscopic world of living organisms.\r\nWith the development of microbiology, plant anatomy, plant physiology, and other sciences during the nineteenth century, it became clear that there exists no sharp boundary between plants and animals and that plants, like animals, are living organisms.\r\nFrom that time onward, botany came to be regarded as a branch of biology, the science of living organisms.\r\nA natural question arises: wherein lie the similarities and differences between plants and animals?\r\nThe common features of plant and animal organisms consist in their cellular structure (which is built from the same chemical substances) and in the continuous process of respiration taking place in living cells.\r\nGrowth and the extremely limited capacity for movement possessed by plant organisms are characteristics shared by both plants and animals.\r\nIt is often difficult to draw a strict line between certain protozoa, plant organisms, and animal organisms. This confirms the common origin of all living beings.\r\nFor example, some animals, such as sponges, hydroids, and corals, remain attached to one place throughout their entire lives, resembling plants.\r\nAt the same time, certain lower plants, such as algae, are capable of constant active movement.\r\nCertain groups of plants, like animals, feed on ready-made organic substances. These include insectivorous plants, parasitic plants that live on other plants and utilize their nutrients, and saprophytic plants that inhabit dead organic remains and feed upon the products of their decomposition.\r\nHowever, plants that feed on ready-made organic compounds are exceptions.\r\nThe fundamental distinction between plants and animals lies precisely in their mode of nutrition.\r\nPlants are able, with the aid of chlorophyll and light, to manufacture the nutrients necessary for their existence. Part of these substances is used to build new tissues and organs, while another part is stored.\r\nAnimals feed on the organic food produced by plants and cannot survive without it.\r\nIn order to make better use of sunlight and carbon dioxide, green plants possess leaves.\r\nTo absorb water and mineral salts from the soil, plants have highly developed root systems.\r\nAnimals, in their search for ready-made organic food, developed the ability to move; consequently, their bodies became more flexible and mobile.\r\nThus, differences in nutrition led to increasingly pronounced divergence between originally related groups and produced the distinctive features characteristic of plants and animals today.\r\nThe plant kingdom is immense and diverse.\r\nTrees, herbaceous plants, and cultivated crops cover vast territories.\r\nVegetation exists not only on land but also in fresh waters and in the depths of the oceans.\r\nThe great significance of the plant kingdom lies first of all in the fact that plants, with the exception of a few non-green forms, enrich the atmosphere with oxygen.\r\nRespiration in the overwhelming majority of plant and animal organisms requires oxygen; without oxygen they perish rapidly.\r\nYet the atmosphere contains only about 20 percent free oxygen. The remainder consists of other gases: nitrogen (78 percent), carbon dioxide (0.03 percent), argon (about 1 percent), and others.\r\nBecause of respiration, combustion, and related processes occurring within the Earth’s crust, free oxygen is constantly being bound, and the oxygen content of the atmosphere would steadily decline if there were no source replenishing its reserves.\r\nSuch a source is provided by green plants.\r\nWithin the green leaves of plants occurs one of the most remarkable phenomena in nature, namely photosynthesis.\r\nDuring photosynthesis, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or water enters the green cells of plants, while oxygen is released from them.\r\nAt the same time, sugars, starches, and other carbohydrates are produced in the green parts of plants. These substances constitute the basic food of the plant itself.\r\nIn addition, plants require proteins, fats, and other substances.\r\nThese are formed from compounds containing nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and other elements absorbed by plants from the soil.\r\nThus, plants create organic substances from inorganic materials and water, and these organic substances are used as food by plants themselves, animals, and human beings.\r\nFor example, by sowing approximately 0.3 tons of sugar-beet seed on one hectare of land, more than 100 centners of pure sugar may be obtained under advanced cultivation conditions.\r\nFields planted with rye, wheat, and other cereal crops produce enormous quantities of food.\r\nThe total world production of major grain crops and certain forage crops (wheat, maize, rye, rice, oats, barley, etc.) exceeds 500 million tons.\r\nIn the Soviet Union, grain production exceeds 100 million tons.\r\nLarge quantities of vegetables are also grown. Foremost among them is the potato, amounting to about 200 million tons worldwide, of which roughly 100 million tons are produced in the Soviet Union.\r\nVarious root crops and melons serve not only as food for humans but also as feed for livestock.\r\nHayfields and pastures provide livestock with many valuable fodder products, including hay and green forage.\r\nIn addition to supplying food for humans and feed for animals, plants also provide building materials and raw materials for industrial products, including rubber, paper, fibers, alcohol, dyes, medicines, various ethers, vitamins, and many other substances.\r\nFinally, green plants accumulate energy resources for industry and transportation.\r\nCoal, petroleum, and peat are all products of plant origin.\r\nSuch is the enormous role of plants in nature and in the national economy.\r\nBotany is the science that studies the life, structure, growth, and development of plants. It is divided into the following principal branches: morphology, anatomy, physiology, plant taxonomy, plant geography, ecology, and geobotany. \r\n\r\nMorphology studies the form and external structure of plants, the arrangement of their organs, and their various modifications. \r\n\r\nTaxonomy is concerned with the classification of plants, the construction of a systematic arrangement of the plant kingdom, and the description of individual plant species. \r\n\r\nPlant Anatomy investigates the microscopic structure of plants, including plant cells, tissues, their origin, and development. \r\n\r\nPlant Physiology studies the life processes occurring within plants: nutrition, metabolism, growth, and development. \r\n\r\nAt the end of the nineteenth century, microbiology separated from botany as an independent science devoted to the study of microscopic organisms, especially bacteria. Later, genetics also became an independent discipline, investigating heredity and variation in plants and forming the basis of plant breeding. \r\n\r\nPlant Geography studies the distribution of plants on the Earth and determines the distribution of individual species and plant groups both in the present and in the past. \r\n\r\nPlant Ecology studies the laws governing the relationships between plants and their environment, including their habitats. \r\n\r\nGeobotany, as the science of plant communities, investigates the interactions between vegetation and environmental conditions. \r\n\r\nBotany, as a broad science embracing numerous disciplines, did not emerge all at once. \r\n\r\nMore than three hundred years before our era, the Greek physician Hippocrates was the first to describe plants. He listed about two hundred plants used in medicine. \r\n\r\nSomewhat later, the Greek philosopher Aristotle and his pupil Theophrastus attempted to collect and systematize accumulated botanical knowledge. \r\n\r\nTheophrastus described approximately five hundred plants in his works, devoting considerable attention to cultivated plants of agricultural importance. He divided all plants into trees, shrubs, and herbs. \r\n\r\nBecause the knowledge contained in his writings was exceptionally comprehensive and diverse for his time, Theophrastus is often referred to as the “Father of Botany.” \r\n\r\nDuring the subsequent centuries, up to the sixteenth century, no major advances were made in plant studies. Authors of botanical works blindly revered the authority of Aristotle and Theophrastus. \r\n\r\nIn the sixteenth century, with the development of trade and navigation, new plant species were discovered. From that time onward, botany began to develop steadily, although for a long period it remained largely a descriptive science devoted to collecting facts and recording plant characteristics. \r\n\r\nIndividual scholars attempted to organize scattered descriptions of plants according to particular characteristics. \r\n\r\nA turning point in the history of botany came with the work of the Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus in the eighteenth century. \r\n\r\nLinnaeus is regarded as the founder of modern plant taxonomy. He organized a vast amount of scattered botanical information, created a system for the classification of genera and species, introduced as many as one thousand morphological terms, and described approximately ten thousand plant species. \r\n\r\nHowever, Linnaeus adhered to the then-dominant but erroneous belief in the immutability of species. \r\n\r\nIn his Philosophia Botanica he wrote: \r\n\r\n“Just as many species exist, so many were created by the Almighty at the beginning of the world...” \r\n\r\nLinnaeus’s belief in the fixed and unchanging nature of species already provoked dissatisfaction among many scientists of his time. \r\n\r\nThe first scientist who attempted to explain the origin of organic forms from an evolutionary perspective was Lamarck. \r\n\r\nIn his work Philosophie Zoologique (1800), he argued that species undergo constant change and that the cause of such change lies in external conditions to which organisms are compelled to adapt. \r\n\r\nHowever, Lamarck failed to solve many important problems, including the diversity of organic forms, their apparent purposiveness, and the perfection of biological structures. \r\n\r\nIn reality, the problem of evolution had merely been posed, not solved. \r\n\r\nIf Lamarck attempted to provide the first systematic explanation of the evolution of the animal kingdom at the beginning of the nineteenth century, then the Russian scientist P. F. Goryaninov produced one of the earliest evolutionary systems for the plant kingdom in 1834. \r\n\r\nGoryaninov was a precursor of Darwin. In 1834 he clearly formulated the principles of organic evolution, studied the relationships among different plant species, and arranged them into a system reflecting the developmental process of the organic world. \r\n\r\nThe theory of evolution created by Charles Darwin produced a genuine revolution in the prevailing metaphysical views of life and nature. \r\n\r\nDarwin refuted the dominant doctrine of the permanence of species through his materialist teaching. He established the natural laws according to which life on Earth changes and develops and created an evolutionary theory explaining the origin of biological adaptation. \r\n\r\nDarwin’s theory was subjected to severe attacks by certain bourgeois scientists because it dealt a powerful blow to idealistic conceptions of the world. \r\n\r\nProgressive thinkers of the time enthusiastically welcomed the theory. It provided them with a powerful weapon in the struggle against all forms of idealism and reactionary ideology. \r\n\r\nYet Darwin’s theory contained certain errors. \r\n\r\nThese were manifested in his attempt to base parts of his theory on the conclusions of Malthus’s population doctrine and in his underestimation of the role of the environment in biological variation. \r\n\r\nHis famous statement, “Nature does not make leaps,” reflected an insufficiently dialectical understanding of the developmental process. \r\n\r\nNevertheless, Darwin’s theory possessed immense significance. \r\n\r\nIn Russia, Darwinism was received with great interest and rapidly gained wide acceptance. \r\n\r\nAccording to the historian of Darwinism M. A. Antonovich, unlike in Western Europe, in Russia “scientists greeted the new theory with sincere sympathy, receiving it as a welcome and, in a sense, long-awaited guest.” \r\n\r\nThis occurred because, from the middle of the eighteenth century to the first half of the nineteenth century, Russian scientists had advanced further in the study of evolutionary problems than the majority of their Western European colleagues. \r\n\r\nIn their writings they formulated many ideas that later became fundamental elements of evolutionary theory. \r\n\r\nAmong these were concepts concerning the origin of the organic world from inorganic matter, the unity of origin and kinship of living organisms, and the evolutionary significance of external environmental conditions. \r\n\r\nSuch scientists as Lomonosov, Lepekhin, Kaverzin, Goryaninov, Beketov, and Severtsov contributed substantially to the foundations of evolutionary thought, although none succeeded in constructing a complete evolutionary theory. \r\n\r\nThe great achievement of these Russian evolutionary thinkers, who preceded Darwin, was that they prepared favorable conditions not only for the rapid dissemination of Darwinism in Russia but also for its later successful development. \r\n\r\nRussian scientists such as A. N. Beketov, the Kovalevsky brothers (A. O. and V. O.), I. I. Mechnikov, I. M. Sechenov, N. A. Severtsov, and A. P. Bogdanov became active advocates and followers of Darwin’s teachings. \r\n\r\nWhile further developing the foundations of materialist science, Russian botanists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries made a series of important discoveries. \r\n\r\nFor example, I. D. Chistyakov discovered indirect nuclear division (mitosis), I. N. Gorozhankin investigated meiotic division of the cell nucleus, and S. G. Navashin discovered double fertilization in flowering plants. \r\n\r\nAmong the early Darwinists, the great Russian scientist and scientific revolutionary K. A. Timiryazev occupied a special place. \r\n\r\nDuring more than half a century of his life, he popularized and creatively developed Darwin’s theory. \r\n\r\nHe not only demonstrated the correctness of Darwinism but also provided its proper philosophical interpretation and factual foundation. \r\n\r\nTimiryazev illustrated the power of variation, heredity, and natural selection through vivid examples drawn from the life of plants. \r\n\r\nThe role of Soviet scientists in establishing the foundations of genuinely scientific biology and botany was exceptionally great. \r\n\r\nThe great transformer of nature, I. V. Michurin, and his successor T. D. Lysenko transformed Darwinian theory into a rigorous science, advanced a fundamentally new materialist doctrine of heredity, revealed the causes of biological variation, and thereby opened the way to the transformation of the nature of plants and animals. \r\n\r\nThey argued that environmental conditions play the decisive role in development, thereby introducing the principles of dialectical materialism into biology and correcting what they regarded as a number of Darwin’s errors and departures from materialism. \r\n\r\nMichurin and Lysenko revealed the laws of individual development in organisms, emphasized the decisive role of acquired characteristics in species formation, and scientifically substantiated the problem of relationships among organisms within a species, thereby laying the foundation for the controlled development of entire biological populations. \r\nSoviet agrobiological science, founded by Michurin and Williams and developed by Academician Lysenko, applied the method of dialectical materialism to reveal the laws governing the development of living nature. By applying Michurin’s doctrine of the transformation of living nature, it opened broad prospects for solving the fundamental problems of crop cultivation and livestock husbandry. \r\n\r\nMichurin’s theory of vegetative hybrids refuted the reactionary chromosome theory of heredity, which constituted the theoretical foundation of modern Weismannism. Lysenko’s theory of the stage development of plants greatly strengthened the priority of Russian scientists in the fields of biology and botany. \r\n\r\nThe reactionary nature of the chromosome theory of heredity lies in its assertion that chromosomes contained in developing reproductive cells exclusively predetermine the hereditary characteristics of an organism, independently of the rest of the organism, its metabolism, and the influence of external conditions. According to this doctrine, chromosomes are transmitted through reproductive cells from generation to generation without being newly formed or undergoing change. Such a lifeless theory could not effectively promote the development of crop cultivation and livestock husbandry. \r\n\r\nThe dissemination of Michurin’s doctrine and its application to the development of socialist agriculture were obstructed by the Weismannist-Morganists, who advocated the chromosome theory of heredity and whose conclusions went so far as to assert that natural phenomena were unknowable. \r\n\r\nAcademician Lysenko’s report, On the Situation in Biological Science, and the debates held at the Session of the All-Union Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences from July 31 to August 7, 1948, exposed and completely defeated the Weismannist-Morganists, who were the representatives and propagators of idealist and metaphysical bourgeois theories in agricultural science and practice. Their pseudoscientific doctrine was replaced by Soviet Michurinist biology. \r\n\r\nThe research conducted by Soviet scientists on these genuinely scientific foundations armed our agriculture with knowledge and guided it along the path of transforming the nature of plants and animals. \r\n\r\nThe investigation and evaluation of the wild forage vegetation of our country have always received special attention from scientists. The first work describing wild forage vegetation was produced by Academicians Lepekhin and Pallas following their expeditions to the southern and eastern regions of Russia between 1767 and 1773. \r\n\r\nAbroad, the earliest works evaluating wild plants as forage and examining their palatability to livestock were produced by the Swedish scientist Linnaeus in the second half of the eighteenth century. \r\n\r\nIn Russia, research into the forage value of wild plants developed entirely independently of the work of Linnaeus and his pupils. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the Russian scientists A. T. Bolotov, Rozlatovsky, G. I. Engelman, and P. A. Levshin studied forage grasses and conducted experiments in grass sowing. \r\n\r\nG. I. Engelman published works on meadow management in which he pointed out differences in the palatability of various plants to different kinds of livestock and discussed harmful and beneficial grasses, grassland improvement, seed collection, and other matters. \r\n\r\nAt the beginning of the nineteenth century, I. I. Samarin and D. M. Poltoratsky practiced grass sowing on their own farms. A. V. Sovetov regarded the latter as the founder of field grass cultivation in Russia. \r\n\r\nProfessor I. Shchegolov published descriptions of various economically valuable plants growing in Russia. The agricultural scientific societies founded during the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century played an important role in advancing knowledge of the useful properties of wild plants. \r\n\r\nIn the second half of the nineteenth century, the prominent Russian scientist A. E. Stoeletov described numerous forage grasses in detail in such works as On the Cultivation of Field Forage Grasses and Forage Grasses. He also provided an outline of the history of grass sowing in Russia. \r\n\r\nAnother eminent Russian scientist, Professor I. A. Stebut, provided detailed descriptions of more than sixty major forage grasses. He divided them into superior and medium-quality groups and indicated the flowering time, ripening period, yield, suitability for haymaking or grazing, season of use, sowing rate, and cultivation region of each plant. \r\n\r\nThe outstanding scientist Professor P. A. Kostychev played an enormous role in the development of Russian arable agriculture. In his works, he addressed various questions of forage production, including the cultivation of forage grasses, harvesting periods, and crop rotation. \r\n\r\nHe was the first to conduct investigations and provide economic descriptions of hayfields and pastures, principally in steppe regions. He supplied important data on the chemical composition and palatability of many common wild plants and emphasized the importance of the proper harvesting period for grass hay. \r\n\r\nThe scientist L. Pavlovich carried out extensive work evaluating the forage value of wild plants growing in Ukraine. He described 224 species. \r\n\r\nIn 1905, V. G. Belyaev described 348 wild and cultivated forage plants. In 1908, a comprehensive economic evaluation was made of 1,550 plant species, 550 of which were characterized in terms of their forage value. \r\n\r\nIn tsarist Russia, experimental work in meadow management was conducted through private initiative. It was not until the end of the previous century that the Agricultural Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and State Domains began to participate in this work. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, provincial and district zemstvos began working in the field of meadow management. \r\n\r\nBefore the Revolution, prominent scientists such as A. M. Dmitriev, who studied forage lands, N. N. Klingen, and Professor V. S. Bogdan had already begun extensive work in this field. \r\n\r\nThe broad study of plants and their introduction into cultivation began during the first decades of the nineteenth century under the leadership of Academician V. R. Williams, who was the first in the world to provide a theoretical foundation for a system of agronomic measures in meadow management. \r\n\r\nExperimental stations began to be established in 1910, principally for the study of forage plants and other questions of forage production. A relatively extensive network of experimental and demonstration stations was developed to test new methods of forage-plant cultivation and meadow management. \r\n\r\nUnder Soviet rule, the activities of outstanding meadow scientists developed on a particularly broad scale. \r\n\r\nIn 1917, V. R. Williams and A. M. Dmitriev established the Forage Plant Research Station. In 1922, the Institute of Meadow Science was organized. In 1930, it was reorganized as the Institute of Forage, which is now carrying out extensive research into problems of forage production. \r\n\r\nSoviet scientific institutions conducted a large amount of research on individual forage plants, both cultivated and wild. \r\n\r\nSpecial mention must be made of the outstanding contribution of the following Soviet scientists and Stalin Prize laureates to the study of forage-production problems: A. M. Dmitriev, I. V. Larin, S. N. Smelov, V. I. Yeleev, and others. \r\n\r\nThey carried out research to determine the economic significance of forage plants and investigated other highly important questions of forage production, including the improvement of natural grasslands, the rational use of hayfields and pastures, the sowing of grass mixtures, the selection of crops and sowing dates, and the management of newly sown grasslands. \r\n\r\nOf great importance to the study of forage plants was the survey of the natural forage lands of the Soviet Union conducted from 1931 to 1933 by the People’s Commissariat of Agriculture of the USSR and the Institute of Forage under the direction of L. G. Ramensky. This survey covered almost all territories and provinces of the country. \r\n\r\nThe collective monograph Forage Plants of Natural Hayfields and Pastures, prepared by scientists of the All-Union Williams Scientific Research Institute of Forage, provided descriptions of the forage characteristics of 2,778 plant species. \r\n\r\nThe second edition of this monumental work is now being published in three volumes under the editorship of Professor I. V. Larin, the honorary director of the institute and an Honored Scientist. The first volume already published was awarded the Stalin Prize. The complete edition will contain forage descriptions of no fewer than 4,000 plant species. \r\n\r\nSoviet agrobiological science, as a new and advanced direction in biology and as a theory for the revolutionary transformation of nature, is inseparably connected with socialist agriculture. \r\n\r\nMichurinist agrobiology revealed and mobilized the enormous potential for increasing crop yields and livestock productivity. \r\n\r\nMichurin’s maxim, “We cannot wait for favors from nature; our task is to wrest them from her,” when put into practice, reveals the unlimited possibilities for increasing the productivity of our agriculture. \r\n\r\nEvery day, the leading workers of socialist agriculture, masters of high yields, and livestock workers who have achieved outstanding results are guided by Michurinist agrobiology. Through their practical work, they confirm Michurin’s doctrine concerning the decisive influence of external conditions upon the productivity of plants and animals. \r\n\r\nThe grass-field system of agriculture, founded upon the teachings of Dokuchaev, Kostychev, and Williams, is the principal means of further increasing the productivity of arable farming and livestock husbandry. \r\n\r\nThe resolution on the Three-Year Plan for the Development of Publicly Owned Productive Livestock Husbandry for 1949–1954, adopted in April 1949 by the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was of enormous importance for strengthening the fodder base and marked a new stage in the development of Soviet livestock husbandry. \r\n\r\nThe resolution stated: \r\n\r\n“At present, when major achievements have been made in improving the grain economy and the necessary prerequisites have been created for a further increase in grain production, the task of developing livestock husbandry to the fullest extent has been placed on the agenda. This is the central task of the Party and the state in the development of agriculture.” \r\n\r\nIn accordance with the instructions of the Party and the Government, the problems of forage production and of expanding and strengthening the fodder base acquired particular importance. \r\n\r\nThe resolution emphasized that a stable fodder base had to be established for livestock husbandry in the shortest possible time, ensuring that livestock would be adequately fed in both summer and winter. \r\n\r\nTo achieve this objective, tasks were established for the procurement of coarse and succulent feeds, the creation of grain-feed reserves on collective farms, the sowing of perennial grasses, forage root crops, and silage crops, and the extensive use of green fodder from natural and artificial hayfields and pastures. \r\n\r\nIn addition, the resolution pointed out the need to increase the production of feeds processed from food-industry waste and to expand the manufacture of compound feeds. \r\n\r\nThe Directives of the Nineteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union concerning the Fifth Five-Year Plan for the Development of the USSR for 1951–1955 outlined the subsequent stage of agricultural development. \r\n\r\nThe Directives stated: \r\n\r\n“In the sphere of agriculture, the principal task remains that of increasing the yield per unit area of all agricultural crops, further increasing the number of publicly owned livestock while substantially raising their productivity, and increasing the gross and marketable output of crop production and livestock husbandry by further strengthening and developing the publicly owned economy of collective farms, introducing advanced machinery and agricultural techniques into agriculture, and improving the work of state farms and machine-tractor stations.” \r\n\r\nAgriculture was to become more productive and technically advanced, with well-developed grass cultivation and proper crop rotations, and with a larger proportion of the sown area devoted to industrial crops, forage crops, vegetable crops, and potatoes. \r\n\r\nIn addition to increasing the yield per unit area of all agricultural crops, the Fifth Five-Year Plan provided for a further increase in the number and productivity of publicly owned livestock and for the further strengthening of the fodder base as livestock husbandry developed. \r\n\r\nThe Directives of the Nineteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union contained the following instruction: \r\n\r\n“Increase forage production: hay by 80–90 percent, root and tuber crops by three to four times, and silage by two times.” \r\n\r\nThe Directives also indicated the means of further strengthening the fodder base: the introduction of proper crop rotations with a larger proportion of forage crops; the development of grass cultivation; land drainage; the further expansion of irrigation and water supply; the establishment of highly productive hayfields and pasture plots in Central Asia and Kazakhstan; the organization of well-equipped pastures in areas supplied with water; and the establishment in these areas of well-organized pastures for large and exceptionally large flocks of sheep and other livestock. \r\n\r\nOn state farms, in order to establish a stable fodder base and fully supply livestock with coarse and succulent feeds, it was planned to increase the area sown with forage crops by 45–55 percent and to achieve, in the main, the comprehensive mechanization of all the most labor-intensive operations involved in harvesting and preparing feed. \r\n\r\nThe Resolution On Measures for the Further Development of Soviet Agriculture, adopted by the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on September 7, 1953, following the report of N. S. Khrushchev, emphasized the exceptional importance of the fodder base: \r\n\r\n“...Livestock husbandry cannot advance unless Party, Soviet, and agricultural bodies, as well as all agricultural workers, seriously undertake the establishment of a direct fodder base on every collective farm and state farm. The backward condition of the fodder base in many regions and collective farms has reached a completely intolerable level.” \r\n\r\nThe same resolution outlined specific means of improving the fodder base: \r\n\r\n“Strive to expand the sown area and sharply increase the yield per unit area of perennial and annual grasses, maize and sunflower for silage, forage root crops, and forage melons.” \r\n\r\nAll these measures, prescribed in the Directives of the Nineteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Central Committee dated September 7, 1953, indicated the principal path to be followed in further strengthening the fodder base of our country. \r\n\r\nIn this textbook, the problems of forage production are examined in accordance with the tasks established by the Party and the Government in the sphere of livestock husbandry. \r\n\r\nVeterinary workers play a particularly important role in implementing the plan for the development of publicly owned livestock husbandry, especially in organizing and strengthening the fodder base. \r\n\r\nThe Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on the Three-Year Plan for the Development of Publicly Owned Productive Livestock Husbandry stated that one of the principal tasks of the unified state livestock and veterinary network should be the organization of forage production. \r\n\r\nIn their practical work, veterinary specialists need not only to study questions of forage production but also to understand plants, particularly forage, harmful, poisonous, and medicinal plants, as well as the laws governing the plant kingdom. \r\n\r\nConsequently, in addition to forage production, the study of botany is a necessary component of the veterinary education system. \r\n\r\nIn accordance with the curricula of veterinary institutes and veterinary faculties, this textbook is intended to provide a concise account of the fundamental laws of plant life and development. This material constitutes the first sixteen chapters, entitled Fundamentals of Botany. \r\n\r\nThe remaining chapters describe the organizational, economic, and agronomic measures directly related to the production and use of forage, that is, the entire complex of questions encompassed by the concept of “forage production.” \r\nThey describe the forage vegetation of natural forage lands and explain methods for improving and rationally using natural hayfields and pastures, establishing artificial grassland pastures and hayfields, organizing pasture management, and producing and storing hay. \r\nThey also present the fundamentals of succulent-feed and silage production, grain feeds, and other forage resources. \r\nThese are the subjects covered in the textbook Forage Production and Fundamentals of Botany.", "ds_source": "Author (Editorial Board): Un.Г. AndreyevГ.Андреев)\r\nPublished by: 丨 о с у д а р с т в е н н о е и з д а т е л ь с т в о с е л ь ско Го зяй с т в е н н о й л и т е р а т у ры\r\nPublished: Moscow\r\nPublication year: 1953\r\nPages: 416 pages\r\nLanguage: Russian\r\nCollection barcode: XJLAS RU 70018605", "ds_process_way": "This book is the collection of the Documentation and Information Center of the Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, China Academy of Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the Center). The center has stored the book electronically and has been recognized by OCR. The data processing process is in accordance with the national standard \"GB/T 31219.2-2014 Specifications for Digital Processing of Library Collection Resources\", and fully complies with the data information of \"Fundamentals of Feed Production and Botany\" without modification or deletion.", "ds_quality": "The collected \"Fundamentals of Feed Production and Botany\" were processed electronically. In accordance with the requirements of the national standard \"GB/T 31219.2-2014 Code for Digital Processing of Library Collection Resources\", the data information of \"Fundamentals of Feed Production and Botany\" was unchanged and deleted., and the data quality was reliable.", "ds_acq_place": "Soviet Union", "ds_ref_instruction": "", "ds_ref_way": "", "ds_format": "PDF format", "ds_projection": "", "ds_space_res": "", "ds_time_res": "" } }, "license_type": null, "doi_reg_from": "reg_local", "cstr_reg_from": "reg_local", "doi_not_reg_reason": null, "cstr_not_reg_reason": null, "is_paper_in_submitting": false, "ds_topic_tags": [ "植物资源", "饲料生产" ], "ds_subject_tags": [ "作物栽培学" ], "ds_class_tags": [], "ds_locus_tags": [ "苏联" ], "ds_time_tags": [ 1953 ], "ds_contributors": [ "文献信息中心" ], "ds_meta_authors": [ "文献信息中心" ], "ds_managers": [ "文献信息中心" ], "category": "图书" }