研究简报 Short Communications

饲粮中燕麦干草含量对绵羊瘤胃液pH及微生物区系的影响

  • 周瑞 ,
  • 赵生国 ,
  • 刘立山 ,
  • 王川 ,
  • 吴建平
展开
  • 1. 甘肃农业大学动物科学技术学院, 兰州 730070;
    2. 甘肃农业大学动物医学院, 兰州 730070

收稿日期: 2015-11-23

  网络出版日期: 2016-05-24

基金资助

地区科学基金项目(31460592);农业部"绒毛用羊产业技术体系放牧生态岗位科学家"(CARS-40-09B);公益性行业(农业)科研专项(201503134);公益性行业(农业)科研专项(201303059);甘肃省高等学校科研项目(2013A-064)

Effects of Dried Oat Hay Content in Diet on Rumen Fluid pH and Microflora of Sheep

  • ZHOU Rui ,
  • ZHAO Shengguo ,
  • LIU Lishan ,
  • WANG Chuan ,
  • WU Jianping
Expand
  • 1. College of Animal Science & Technology, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China;
    2. College of Veterinary Medicine, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Received date: 2015-11-23

  Online published: 2016-05-24

摘要

本试验旨在研究饲粮燕麦干草含量对绵羊瘤胃液pH及微生物区系的影响。选取9只体况和体重[(70.32±2.14) kg]相近、装有永久性瘘管的德国美利奴与蒙古羊杂种公羊,采用3×3拉丁方设计,随机分为3组,每组3只,各组分别采用全株玉米青贮、全株玉米青贮+燕麦干草(1:1)(混合组)、燕麦干草为粗饲料。饲粮精粗比34.50:65.50。进行3期饲养试验,每期20 d,15 d预试期,5 d采样期。采集饲喂前(0 h)和饲喂后1、3、5和7 h的瘤胃液,测定pH,采用实时定量PCR方法测定微生物相对含量。结果表明:1)全株玉米青贮组的瘤胃液pH在1、5 h均显著低于燕麦干草组(P<0.05),在3 h极显著低于混合组(P<0.01);2)混合组和燕麦干草组瘤胃液真菌的相对含量在0 h均极显著高于全株玉米青贮组(P<0.01),燕麦干草组在5 h真菌相对含量显著高于全株玉米青贮组(P<0.05);3)混合组原虫的相对含量在1、5 h显著低于全株玉米青贮组(P<0.05);4)饲喂后5 h,混合组和燕麦干草组的纤维分解菌相对含量均较高,其中燕麦干草组黄色瘤胃球菌相对含量显著高于全株玉米青贮组(P<0.05),白色瘤胃球菌和产琥珀酸丝状杆菌的相对含量极显著高于全株玉米青贮组(P<0.01)。综上所述,在精粗比为34.50:65.50的饲粮中采用全株玉米青贮+燕麦干草(1:1)的粗饲料,有利于维持绵羊瘤胃内环境的稳态及瘤胃微生物的生长,白色瘤胃球菌和产琥珀酸丝状杆菌为优势菌。

本文引用格式

周瑞 , 赵生国 , 刘立山 , 王川 , 吴建平 . 饲粮中燕麦干草含量对绵羊瘤胃液pH及微生物区系的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2016 , 28(5) : 1589 -1597 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2016.05.037

Abstract

In order to investigate the effects of dried oat hay content in diet on rumen fluid pH and microflora of sheep. Nine German merino sheep×Ongolian sheep cross breed rams with similar body condition and body weight[(70.32±2.14) kg] were used in a replicated 3×3 Latin square design, and randomly divided into 3 groups with 3 rams per group. Sheep were fed whole corn silage, whole corn silage+dried oat hay (1:1) (mixed group) and dried oat hay as roughages, and the dietary concentrate to roughage ratio was 34.50:65.50. The experimental consisted of 3 periods with 20 d per period, and each period had 15 d for pre-test and 5 d for sampling. Rumen fluid was collected before feeding (0 h) and 1, 3, 5 and 7 h after feeding to measure pH, meanwhile, the relative contents of microorganisms with real-time quantitative PCR method. The results showed as follows:1) ruminal pH of whole corn silage group was significantly lower than that of dried oat hay group at 1 and 5 h (P<0.05), extremely significantly lower than that of mixed group at 3 h (P<0.01); 2) the relative content of fungus in rumen fluid of mixed group and dried oat hay group was extremely significantly greater than that of whole corn silage at 0 h (P<0.01), and dried oat hay group was also significantly higher than whole corn silage group (P<0.05); 3) the relative content of protozoa in rumen fluid of mixed group was significantly lower than that of whole corn silage group at 1 and 5 h (P<0.05); 4) after 5 h of feeding, the relative contents of cellulolytic bacteria of mixed group and dried oat hay group were relatively high, among which the relative content of Ruminococcus flavefaciens was significantly higher than that of whole corn silage group (P<0.05), the relative contents of Ruminococcus albus and Fibrobacter succinogenes were extremely significantly higher than those of whole corn silage group (P<0.01). In conclusion, it is benefit for maintain stable ecosystem of rumen and growth of microorganisms that using whole corn silage+dried oat hay (1:1) as roughage in diet with concentrate to roughage ratio of 34.50:65.50, and Ruminococcus albus and Fibrobacter succinogenes are dominant bacteria.

参考文献

[1] HESPELL R B,AKIN D E,DEHORITY B A.Bacteria,fungi and protozoa of the rumen[M]//MACKIE R I,WHITE B A,ISAACSON R E.Gastrointestinal microbiology.New York:Chapman and Hall Press,1997:59-186.
[2] MACKIE R I.Mutualistic fermentative digestion in the gastrointestinal tract:diversity and evolution[J].Integrative and Comparative Biology,2002,42(2):319-326.  
[3] LEY R E,HAMADY M,LOZUPONE C,et al.Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes[J].Science,2008,320(5883):1647-1651.  
[4] ZILBER-ROSENBERG I,ROSENBERG E.Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants:the hologenome theory of evolution[J].FEMS Microbiology Reviews,2008,32(5):723-735.  
[5] RAWLS J F,SAMUEL B S,GORDON J I.Gnotobiotic zebrafish reveal evolutionarily conserved responses to the gut microbiota[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,2004,101(13):4596-4601.  
[6] 祁茹,林英庭,程明,等.瘤胃微生物区系及其相互关系的研究进展[J].饲料博览,2011(8):9-13.
[7] 薛丰,王洪荣,刘大程,等.瘤胃微生物区系的研究进展[J].畜牧与饲料科学,2007,28(2):31-33.
[8] FORSBERG C W,CHENG K J,WHITE B A.Polysaccharide degradation in the rumen and large intestine[M]//MACKIE R I,WHITE B A,ISAACSON R E.Gastrointestinal microbiology.New York:Chapman and Hall Press,1997:319-379.
[9] ORPIN C G,JOBLIN K N.The rumen anaerobic fungi[M]//HOBSON P N,STEWART C S.The rumen microbial ecosystem.London:Blackie Academic&Professional,1997,140-196.
[10] JOUNAY J P,USHIDA K.The role of protozoa in feed digestion-review[J].Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science,1999,12(1):113-128.  
[11] 付琦,侯先志,高爱武.瘤胃微生物区系及相互关系的研究进展[J].中国奶牛,2009(5):18-21.
[12] YANG S L,MA S C,CHEN J,et al.Bacterial diversity in the rumen of Gayals(Bos frontalis),Swamp buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) and Holstein cow as revealed by cloned 16S rRNA gene sequences[J].Molecular Biology Reports,2010,37(4):2063-2073.  
[13] SADET-BOURGETEAU S,MARTIN C,MORGAVI D P.Bacterial diversity dynamics in rumen epithelium of wethers fed forage and mixed concentrate forage diets[J].Veterinary Microbiology,2010,146(1/2):98-104.
[14] 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.  
[15] 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.  
[16] 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.  
[17] MUYZER G,DE WAAL E C,UITTERLINDEN A G.Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology,1993,59(3):695-700.
[18] 王海荣.不同日粮精粗比及氮源对绵羊瘤胃纤维降解菌群和纤维物质降解的影响[D].博士学位论文.呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2006.
[19] KUMAR S,DAGAR S S,SIROHI S K,et al.Microbial profiles,in vitro gas production and dry matter digestibility based on various ratios of roughage to concentrate[J].Annals of Microbiology,2013,63(2):541-545.  
[20] 郝正里,刘世民,孟宪政.反刍动物营养学[M].兰州:甘肃民族出版社,1999.
[21] 王洪亮,孙晓玉,赵福忠.黑龙江省常用粗饲料对肉牛瘤胃内环境的影响研究[J].中国牛业科学,2013,39(2):6-10.
[22] 郭勇庆,张英杰.瘤胃内环境优化技术及其应用[C]//第四届中国牛业发展大会论文集.南阳:中国畜牧业协会,2009:274-277.
[23] 冯仰廉.反刍动物营养学[M].北京:科学出版社,2004.
[24] 张瑛,周建伟,刘浩,等.藏羊瘤胃发酵参数对燕麦干草为饲粮限饲的响应及其氮维持需要量估测[J].动物营养学报,2014,26(2):371-379.
[25] 米歇尔·瓦提欧.营养与饲喂[M].石燕,施福顺,译.北京:中国农业大学出版社,2004.
[26] BARGO F,MULLER L D,DELAHOY J E,et al.Milk response to concentrate supplementation of high producing dairy cows grazing at two pasture allowances[J].Journal of Dairy Science,2002,85(7):1777-1792.  
[27] TUYEN V D,CONE J W,BAARS J J P,et al.Fungal strain and incubation period affect chemical composition and nutrient availability of w heat straw for rumen fermentation[J].Bioresource Technology,2012,111:336-342.
[28] AKIN D E.Histological and physical factors affecting digestibility of forages[J].Agronomy Journal,1989,81(1):17-25.  
[29] ROGER V,GRENET E,JAMOT J,et al.Degradation of maize stem by two rumen fungal species,Piromyces communis and Caecomyces communis,in pure cultures or in association with cellulolytic bacteria[J].Reproduction Nutrition Development,1992,32(4):321-329.  
[30] BERNALIER A,FONTY G,BONNEMOY F,et al.Degradation and fermentation of cellulose by the rumen anaerobic fungi in axenic cultures or in association with cellulolytic bacteria[J].Current Microbiology,1992,25(3):143-148.  
[31] DEHORITY B A,TIRABASSO P A.Antibiosis between ruminal bacteria and ruminal fungi[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology,2000,66(7):2921-2927.  
[32] ATASOGLU C,WALLACE R J.De novo synthesis of amino acids by the ruminal anaerobic fungi,Piromyces communis and Neocallimastix frontalis[J].FEMS Microbiology Letters,2002,212(2):243-247.  
[33] KOIKE S,KOBAYASHI Y.Fibrolytic rumen bacteria:their ecology and functions[J].Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences,2009,22(1):131-138.  
[34] MOSONI P,FONTY G,GOUET P.Competition between ruminal cellulolytic bacteria for adhesion to cellulose[J].Current Microbiology,1997,35(1):44-47.  
文章导航

/