研究简报 Short Communications

不同牧草来源饲粮对奶牛瘤胃液中细菌群落结构多样性的影响

  • 徐俊 ,
  • 胡丽芳 ,
  • 侯玉洁 ,
  • 孙建勇 ,
  • 赵国琦
展开
  • 1. 江西省农业科学院农产品质量安全与标准研究所, 南昌 330200;
    2. 扬州大学 动物科学与技术学院, 扬州 225009;
    3. 新疆阿勒泰市第一牧场畜牧兽医站, 阿勒泰 836500

收稿日期: 2015-06-01

  网络出版日期: 2015-11-21

基金资助

国家自然科学基金(31560647);十二五国家科技支撑计划(2011BAD17B03)

Diversity of Bacterial Communities in Rumen Fluid of Dairy Cows Affected by Forage Sources in Diet

  • XU Jun ,
  • HU Lifang ,
  • HOU Yujie ,
  • SUN Jianyong ,
  • ZHAO Guoqi
Expand
  • 1. Institute of Quality Safety and Standards of Agricultural Products, Jiangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanchang 330200, China;
    2. College of Animal Science and Technology, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China;
    3. Institute of Animal Husbandry and Vet of State-Owned First Pasture of Xinjiang, Aletai 836500, China

Received date: 2015-06-01

  Online published: 2015-11-21

摘要

本试验旨在研究不同牧草来源饲粮对奶牛瘤胃细菌群落结构多样性的影响。选用8头荷斯坦奶牛[体重(632±12) kg;泌乳天数(135±16) d],采用4×4拉丁方设计,每组2头。分别以燕麦草、羊草、稻草和苜蓿为牧草来源,给奶牛饲喂以玉米青贮为基础、等能等氮且中性洗涤纤维(NDF)和非纤维型碳水化物(NFC)含量相同的4种饲粮;每期试验21 d,前14 d为预试期。结果表明:1)瘤胃中拟杆菌门、硬壁菌门、螺旋体门和纤维杆菌门为优势菌门;普雷沃氏菌属、丁酸弧菌属、纤维杆菌属和密螺旋体属为优势菌属。2)在属水平上,相同牧草饲喂的奶牛瘤胃液中细菌相似性更高,燕麦草组、稻草组和苜蓿组细菌的遗传距离更接近。3)在97%相似性水平下,4组共产生9 329个操作分类单元(OTU),它们共享4 120个OTU,占瘤胃液细菌总OTU数目的44.16%。综合得出,当饲粮等能等氮且NDF和NFC含量相同时,不同牧草饲喂的奶牛瘤胃液中的细菌群落结构多样性存在一定的相似性。

本文引用格式

徐俊 , 胡丽芳 , 侯玉洁 , 孙建勇 , 赵国琦 . 不同牧草来源饲粮对奶牛瘤胃液中细菌群落结构多样性的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2015 , 27(11) : 3549 -3557 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2015.11.028

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of forage sources in diet on the diversity of bacterial communities in rumen fluid of dairy cows. Eight Holstein dairy cows [(632±12) kg of body weight; (135±16) days in milk] were used in a replicated 4×4 Latin square design, and each group contained two cows. Oat hay, Leymus chinensis, rice straw and alfalfa were used as forage sources to form four isonitrogenous and isocaloric diets, which were based on corn silage and had equivalent neutral detergernt fiber (NDF) and non-fiber carbohydrates (NFC) contents; each test period lasted for 21 days with the first 14 days for adaption. The results showed as follows:1) Bacteroidertes, Firmicutes, Spirochaetes and Fibrobacteres were the most abundant in rumen under phyla level; Prevotella, Butyrivibrio, Fibrobacter and Treponema were the most abundant under genus level. 2) Similarity of the bacterial community feeding the same diet was high under genus level, and the genetic distance was near in rumen fluid of cows fed oat hay, rice straw and alfalfa. 3) The four groups comprised of 9 329 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at the 97% similarity level and 4 120 OTUs were shared, which accounted for 44.16% of the total OTUs. The results indicate that cows fed diets with different forage sources with equivalent NDF and NFC contents have similar diversity of bacterial communities.

参考文献

[1] SUN X Z, HOSKIN S O, JOBLIN K N, et al.Forage cell walls:ruminal degradation[J].Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2007, 15(4):386-393.
[2] PITTA D W, PINCHAK W E, DOWD S E, et al.Rumen bacterial diversity dynamics associated with changing from bermudagrass hay to grazed winter wheat diets[J].Microbial Ecology, 2010, 59(3):511-522.  
[3] BELANCHE A, DOREAU M, EDWARDS J E, et al.Shifts in the rumen microbiota due to the type of carbohydrate and level of protein ingested by dairy cattle are associated with changes in rumen fermentation[J].The Journal of Nutrition, 2012, 142(9):1684-1692.  
[4] JONES R T, ROBESON M S, LAUBER C L, et al.A comprehensive survey of soil acidobacterial diversity using pyrosequencing and clone library analyses[J].The ISME Journal, 2009, 3(4):442-453.  
[5] THOETKIATTIKUL H, MHUANTONG W, LAOTHANACHAREON T, et al.Comparative analysis of microbial profiles in cow rumen fed with different dietary fiber by tagged 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing[J].Current Microbiology, 2013, 67(2):130-137.  
[6] TAJIMA K, ARAI S, OGATA K, et al.Rumen bacterial community transition during adaptation to high-grain diet[J].Anaerobe, 2000, 6(5):273-284.  
[7] MOSONI P, FONTY G, GOUET P.Competition between ruminal cellulolytic bacteria for adhesion to cellulose[J].Current Microbiology, 1997, 35(1):44-47.  
[8] JAMI E, MIZRAHI I.Composition and similarity of bovine rumen microbiota across individual animals[J].PLoS One, 2012, 7(3):e33306.
[9] DE MENEZES A B, LEWIS E, O'DONOVAN M, et al.Microbiome analysis of dairy cows fed pasture or total mixed ration diets[J].FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 2011, 78(2):256-265.  
[10] MEYER M, STENZEL U, HOFREITER M.Parallel tagged sequencing on the 454 platform[J].Nature Protocols, 2008, 3(2):267-278.  
[11] MATSUI H, OGATA K, TAJIMA K, et al.Phenotypic characterization of polysaccharidases produced by four Prevotella type strains[J].Current Microbiology, 2000, 41(1):45-49.  
[12] KAMRA D N.Rumen microbial ecosystem[J].Current Science, 2005, 89(1):124-135.
[13] TAJIMA K, AMINOV R I, NAGAMINE T, et al.Rumen bacterial diversity as determined by sequence analysis of 16S rDNA libraries[J].FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 1999, 29(2):159-169.  
[14] EVANS N J, BROWN J M, MURRAY R D, et al.Characterization of novel bovine gastrointestinal tract Treponema isolates and comparison with bovine digital dermatitis treponemes[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2011, 77(1):138-147.  
[15] KOPECNY J, ZOREC M, MRÁZEK J, et al.Butyrivibrio hungatei sp.nov.and Pseudobutyrivibrio xylanivorans sp.nov., butyrate-producing bacteria from the rumen[J].International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 2003, 53(1):201-209.  
[16] CUNHA I S, BARRETO C C, COSTA O Y A, et al.Bacteria and Archaea community structure in the rumen microbiome of goats (Capra hircus) from the semiarid region of Brazil[J].Anaerobe, 2011, 17(3):118-124.  
[17] STEVENSON D M, WEIMER P J.Dominance of Prevotella and low abundance of classical ruminal bacterial species in the bovine rumen revealed by relative quantification real-time PCR[J].Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2007, 75(1):165-174.  
[18] KOCHERGINSKAYA S A, AMINOV R I, WHITE B A.Analysis of the rumen bacterial diversity under two different diet conditions using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis, random sequencing, and statistical ecology approaches[J].Anaerobe, 2001, 7(3):119-134.  
[19] WHITFORD M F, FORSTER R J, BEARD C E, et al.Phylogenetic analysis of rumen bacteria by comparative sequence analysis of cloned 16S rRNA Genes[J].Anaerobe, 1998, 4(3):153-163.  
[20] HESS M, SCZYRBA A, EGAN R, et al.Metagenomic discovery of biomass-degrading genes and genomes from cow rumen[J].Science, 2011, 331(6016):463-467.  
[21] XU J, HOU Y J, YANG H B, et al.effects of forage sources on rumen fermentation characteristics, performance, and microbial protein synthesis in midlactation cows[J].Asian-australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2014, 27(5):667-673.  
文章导航

/