动物营养学报 >

2011 , Vol. 23 >Issue 07: 1130 - 1139

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2011.07.010

反刍动物营养

黑麦草酸性洗涤木质素/中性洗涤纤维、长度对山羊采食行为及瘤胃液pH和纤维素酶活性的影响

展开
  • 西北农林科技大学，杨凌712100
高洋(1984—)，男，陕西宝鸡人，硕士研究生，从事反刍动物营养研究。E-mail: highsun@126.com

网络出版日期: 2011-07-19

基金资助

科技部国际科技合作与交流专项（2010DFB34230）；陕西省‘13115’科技创新工程工程技术研究中心（2010ZDGC-02）；陕西省科技创新工程重大科技专项（2009ZDKG-18）；陕西省农业攻关项目（2009K01-02）

收起

Effects of the ADL/NDF and Length of Ryegrass on Eating Behavior, Ruminal pH and  Cellulases Activity in Goats

Expand
  • College of Animal Science and Technology, Northwest A & F University, Yangling 712100, China

Online published: 2011-07-19

Fold

摘要

本试验旨在研究黑麦草酸性洗涤木质素/中性洗涤纤维（ADL/NDF)、长度对山羊采食行为及瘤胃液pH和纤维素酶活性的影响。选用4只体重（40.0±1.8） kg安装瘤胃瘘管的健康成年山羊作为试验动物，采用两因素4×4拉丁方设计，因素1为黑麦草ADL/NDF（低、高），因素2为黑麦草切割长度（20、5 mm理论长度）。结果表明：1）盛花期黑麦草制成粗饲料8.00、1.18 mm层的物理有效中性洗涤纤维（peNDF）显著高于初花期（P<0.05）；增加黑麦草长度，显著提高制成的粗饲料＞8.00 mm层上的干物质（DM）含量及8.00、1.18 mm层物理有效因子（pef）和peNDF（P<0.05），显著提高饲粮＞8.00 mm层上的DM含量及8.00 mm层pef、peNDF（P<0.05）。2）增加黑麦草长度，显著降低山羊的干物质采食量（DMI）及采食时间，显著增加咀嚼和反刍时间（P<0.05）；增加黑麦草ADL/NDF、长度均使山羊瘤胃液平均pH提高（P≤0.05）、pH<6.0的持续时间显著缩短（P<0.05）。3）高ADL/NDF黑麦草显著提高了山羊晨饲后12和16 h瘤胃液微晶纤维素酶、4 h水杨苷酶和8 h木聚糖酶的活性（P<0.05）；增加黑麦草长度，显著提高了山羊晨饲后8和16 h的瘤胃液微晶纤维素酶、8 h羟甲基纤维素酶和4 h水杨苷酶的活性，但显著降低晨饲后16 h羟甲基纤维素酶活性（P<0.05）。结果提示，增加黑麦草长度及ADL/NDF可显著改善采食行为及瘤胃液pH，显著降低DMI，显著提高采食后部分时间点的纤维素酶活性。

关键词： 山羊; 黑麦草; 长度; 中性洗涤纤维; 瘤胃液pH; 纤维素酶

本文引用格式

高洋,徐明,刘南南,赵向辉,刘婵娟,姚军虎 . 黑麦草酸性洗涤木质素/中性洗涤纤维、长度对山羊采食行为及瘤胃液pH和纤维素酶活性的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2011 , 23(07) : 1130 -1139 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2011.07.010

Abstract

The experiment was conducted to study the effects of the ratio of acid detergent lignin to neutral detergent fiber (ADL/NDF) and length of ryegrass on eating behavior, ruminal pH and  cellulases activity in goats. Four healthy rumen-cannulated adult goats with the body weight of (40.0±1.8) kg were selected as experimental animals in a two-factor 4×4 latin square design. Factor 1 was the ADL/NDF of ryegrass (low or high), and factor 2 was the chopped length (theoretical length 20 or 5 mm) of ryegrass. The results showed as follows: 1) The physically effective NDF (peNDF) contents in 8.00 and 1.18 mm layers of the roughages made of ryegrass at full-bloom stage were significantly higher than that at early-bloom stage (P<0.05); with the increasing of ryegrass length, the contents of dry matter (DM) in the layers＞8.00 mm and physically effective factor (pef) and peNDF in 8.00 and 1.18 mm layers of the roughages, as well as the contents of DM in the layers＞8.00 mm and pef and peNDF in 8.00 mm layer of the diets were all significantly increased (P<0.05). 2) With the increasing of ryegrass length, the dry matter intake (DMI) and foraging time significantly decreased, but the chewing and rumination time significantly increased (P<0.05); with the increasing of ryegrass ADL/NDF and length, the means of ruminal pH increased (P≤0.05), and the duration time of pH<6.0 significantly shortened (P<0.05). 3) The activities of ruminal crystal cellulose hydrolytic enzyme at 12 and 16 h, salicin hydrolytic enzyme at 4 h and xylanase at 8 h after feeding in the morning were all significantly increased by high ADL/NDF of ryegrass (P<0.05); with the increasing of ryegrass length, the activities of the ruminal crystal cellulose hydrolytic enzyme at 8 and 16 h, CMC hydrolytic enzyme at 8 h and salicin hydrolytic enzyme at 4 h after feeding in the morning all significantly increased, but the CMC hydrolytic enzyme at 16 h after feeding significantly decreased (P<0.05). These results indicate that with the increasing of ADL/NDF and length of ryegrass, eating behaviour and ruminal pH can be significantly improved, and DMI can be significantly decreased and the activities of celluloses in rumen at some time points can be significantly increased. ［Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2011, 23（7）：1130 -1139］

Key words： goats; ryegrass; length; neutral detergent fiber; ruminal pH; ; cellulase

参考文献

［1］SILVEIRA C, OBA M, BEAUCHEMIN K A, et al. Effect of grains differing in expected ruminal ferm-entability on the productivity of lactating dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2007, 90(6):2852-2859.

[2]YANG W Z, BEAUCHEMIN K A. Altering physically effective fiber intake through forage proportion and particle length: Chewing and ruminal pH[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2007, 90(6):2826-2838.

[3]NRC. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle[S]. 7th ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001.

[4]MERTENS D R. Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1997, 80(7):1463-1481.

[5]ZEBELI Q, TAFAJ M, WEBER I, et al. Effects of varying dietary forage particle size in two concentrate levels on chewing activity, ruminal mat characteristics, and passage in dairy cow[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2007, 90(4):1929-1942.

[6]NRC. Nutrient requirements of small ruminants sheep, goats, cervids, and new world camelids[S]. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2007.

[7]KONONOFF P, HEINRICHS A, BUCKMASTER D. Modification of the Penn State forage and total mixed ration particle separator and the effects of moisture content on its measurements [J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2003, 86(5):1858-1863.

[8]AOAC. Official methods of analysis[S]. 17th ed. Arlington, V.A.: AOAC International, 2000.

[9]PENNER G B, BEAUCHEMIN K A, MUTSVANGWA T. An evaluation of the accuracy and precision of a stand-alone submersible continuous ruminal pH measurement system[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2005, 89(6):2132-2140.

[10]赵向辉,张涛,徐明,等.苜蓿干草粒度对山羊采食行为、瘤胃pH和瘤胃内养分降解动力学的影响[J].动物营养学报,2010,22(5)：1293-1300.

[11]KRAUSE K M, COMBS D K. Effects of forage particle size, forage source, and grain fermentability on performance and ruminal pH in midlactation cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2003, 86(4):1382-1398.

[12]MILLER-CUSHON E K, DEVRIES T J. Effect of dietary dry matter concentration on the sorting behavior of lactating dairy cows fed a total mixed ration[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2009, 92(7):3292-3298.

[13]DOMINGUES J L. Use of conserved roughage in the horse feeding[J]. Revista Brasileira De Zootecnia-Brazilian Journal of Animal Science, 2009, 38:259-269.

[14]YANG W Z, BEAUCHEMIN K A. Increasing physically effective fiber content of dairy cow diets through forage proportion versus forage chop length: chewing and ruminal pH[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2009, 92(4):1603-1615.

[15]DAVID R, MERTENS D. Physically effective NDF and its use in formulating dairy rations[C]. Gainesville, F.L.: 11th Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, 2000, 142:13-14.

[16]BEAUCHEMIN K A, YANG W Z. Effects of physically effective fiber on intake, chewing activity, and ruminal acidosis for dairy cows fed diets based on corn silage[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2005, 88(6):2117-2129.

[17]TOLKAMP B J, EMMANS G C, KYRIAZAKIS I. Body fatness affects feed intake of sheep at a given body weight[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2006, 84(7):1778-1789.

[18]MAZZENGA A, GIANESELLA M, BRSCIC M, et al. Feeding behavior, diet digestibility, rumen fluid and metabolic parameters of beef cattle fed total mixed rations with a stepped substitution of wheat straw with maize silage[J]. Livestock Science, 2009, 122(1):16-23.

[19]MAULFAIR D D, ZANTON G I, FUSTINI M, et al. Effect of feed sorting on chewing behavior, production, and rumen fermentation in lactating dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2010, 93(10):4791-4803.

[20]KONONOFF P, HEINRICHS A, LEHMAN H. The effect of corn silage particle size on eating behavior, chewing activities, and rumen fermentation in lactating dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2003, 86(10):3343-3353.

[21]TEIMOURI Y A, VALIZADEH R，NASERIAN A, et al. Effects of alfalfa particle size and specific gravity on chewing activity, digestibility, and performance of Holstein dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2004, 87(11):3912-3924.

[22]曾银,贺鸣,曹志军,等.全混合日粮中粗饲料长度对奶牛咀嚼行为和瘤胃发酵的影响[J].动物营养学报,2010,22(6):1571-1578.

[23]HOSSEINKHANI A, VALIZADEH R, NASERIAN A, et al. Effect of alfalfa hay particle size and water addition to barely base diets on dairy cows performance in early lactation[J]. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 2007, 6(12):1482-1488.

[24]LEONARDI C, ARMENTANO L E. Effect of quantity, quality, and length of alfalfa hay on selective consumption by dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2003, 86(2):557-564.

[25]HOSSEINKHANI A, DEVRIES T J, PROUDFOOT K L, et al. The effects of feed bunk competition on the feed sorting behavior of close-up dry cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2008, 91(3):1115-1121.

[26]KREHBIEL C, STOCK R, SHAIN D, et al. Effect of level and type of fat on subacute acidosis in cattle fed dry-rolled corn finishing diets[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1995, 73(8):2438-2446.

[27]KEUNEN J E, PLAIZIER J C, KYRIAZAKIS L, et al. Effects of a subacute ruminal acidosis model on the diet selection of dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2002, 85(12):3304-3313.

[28]BEAUCHEMIN K A, KREUZER M, O′MARA F, et al. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review[J]. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2008, 48(1/2):21-27.

[29]YANSARIA T, VALIZADEH R, NASERIAN A, et al. Effects of alfalfa particle size and specific gravity on chewing activity, digestibility, and performance of Holstein dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2004, 87(11):3912-3924.

[30]BOON E J M C, ENGELS F M, STRUIK P C, et al. Stem characteristics of two forage maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars varying in whole plant digestibility. Ⅱ. Relation between in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics and anatomical and chemical features within a single internode[J]. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 2005, 53(1):87-109.

[31]SANTRA A, PARTHASARATHY S, KARIM S A. Effect of defaunation on body conformation changes, wool yield and fiber characteristics of growing lambs in a hot semiarid environment[J]. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2007, 47(7):789-795.

[32]ZEBELI Q, TAFAJ M, WEBER I, et al. Effects of dietary forage particle size and concentrate level on fermentation profile, in vitro degradation characteristics and concentration of liquid- or solid-associated bacterial mass in the rumen of dairy cows[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2008, 140(3/4):307-325.

[33]RUSSELL J B, WILSON D B. Why are ruminal cellulolytic bacteria unable to digest cellulose at low pH?[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1996, 79(8):1503-1509.

[34]冯仰廉,方有生,莫放,等.奶牛饲养标准[S].北京:中国农业出版社,2004.

[35]WILSON J R, HATFIELD R D. Structural and chemical changes of cell wall types during stem development: consequences for fiber degradation by rumen microflora[J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1997, 48(2):165-180.

[36]NOZIERE P, BESLE J M, MARTIN C, et al. Effect of barley supplement on microbial fibrolytic enzyme activities and cell wall degradation rate in the rumen [J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 1996, 72(2):235-242.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉

    联系我们

  • 地址：北京市海淀区圆明园西路2号
    　　　中国农业大学动科动医大楼153室
  • 邮编：100193
  • 电话：010－62817823
  • 网址：http://www.chinajan.com
  • E-mail：cjan@chinajan.com
京公网安备 11010802041926号    京ICP备17050989号-2