动物营养学报 >

2019 , Vol. 31 >Issue 9: 4080 - 4091

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2019.09.020

反刍与草食动物营养 Ruminant and herbivore nutrition

不同剩余采食量的湖羊生长性能和消化道微生物多样性差异的研究

  • 马万浩 ,
  • 梁玉生 ,
  • 张智安 ,
  • 董春晓 ,
  • 李飞 ,
  • 李发弟 ,
  • 翁秀秀
展开
  • 1. 兰州大学草地农业生态系统国家重点实验室, 兰州大学农业农村部草牧业创新重点实验室, 兰州大学草地农业科技学院, 兰州 730020;
    2. 甘肃省肉羊繁育生物技术工程实验室, 民勤 733300
马万浩(1993-),男,甘肃嘉峪关人,硕士研究生,动物营养与饲料科学专业。E-mail:mw93@foxmail.com

收稿日期: 2019-02-11

  网络出版日期: 2019-09-17

基金资助

国家重点研发计划（2018YFD0502103）；公益性行业（农业）科研专项——北方农作物秸秆饲用化利用技术研究与示范（201503134）；甘肃现代农业（草食畜）产业技术体系（GARS-09）

收起

Difference of Growth Performance and Digestive Tract Microbial Diversity of Hu Sheep with Different Residual Feed Intake

  • MA Wanhao ,
  • LIANG Yusheng ,
  • ZHANG Zhi'an ,
  • DONG Chunxiao ,
  • LI Fei ,
  • LI Fadi ,
  • WENG Xiuxiu
Expand
  • 1. State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agro-Ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China;
    2. Engineering Laboratory of Mutton Sheep Breeding And Reproduction Biotechnology in Gansu Province, Minqin 733300, China

Received date: 2019-02-11

  Online published: 2019-09-17

Fold

摘要

本试验旨在研究不同剩余采食量（RFI）的湖羊生长性能和瘤胃、盲肠微生物多样性的差异。选用60只健康湖羊公羔[体重（25.2±2.5）kg]，单栏饲养，饲喂相同颗粒料，预试期14 d，正试期63 d。通过干物质采食量、平均日增重和中期代谢体重多元回归模型计算出60只羊的RFI后，选择RFI最高和最低的个体各6只，屠宰采样。结果表明：1）高RFI组干物质采食量显著高于低RFI组（P<0.05），但RFI对初始体重、终末体重、平均日增重、饲料转化率、GR值和尾脂重无显著影响（P>0.05）；RFI和干物质采食量呈显著正相关（P<0.05），和饲料转化率及GR值呈显著正相关（P<0.05），和尾脂重有正相关趋势（0.05 ≤ P<0.10），和初始体重、终末体重、平均日增重无显著相关性（P>0.05）。2）RFI对瘤胃微生物丰富度和多样性指数无显著影响（P>0.05），对盲肠微生物丰富度指数没有显著影响（P>0.05），但低RFI组盲肠Shannon指数显著高于高RFI组（P<0.05），Simpson指数有高于高RFI组趋势（0.05 ≤ P<0.10）；高RFI组盲肠理研菌科_RC9_gut_group属相对丰度显著高于低RFI组（P<0.05），低RFI组盲肠拟杆菌属和瘤胃球菌科_UCG-013属相对丰度显著高于高RFI组（P<0.05）。综上，高RFI个体更倾向于沉积体脂肪，不同RFI对湖羊瘤胃、盲肠微生物的影响只体现在个别可能具有重要作用的菌属上。

关键词： 剩余采食量; 湖羊; 生长性能; 微生物

本文引用格式

马万浩 , 梁玉生 , 张智安 , 董春晓 , 李飞 , 李发弟 , 翁秀秀 . 不同剩余采食量的湖羊生长性能和消化道微生物多样性差异的研究[J]. 动物营养学报, 2019 , 31(9) : 4080 -4091 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2019.09.020

Abstract

This study was designed to explore the differences of growth performance, rumen and cecum microbial diversity of the Hu sheep with different residual feed intake (RFI). Sixty healthy Hu lambs with body weight of (25.2±2.5) kg were fed the same pellets feed individually, and the pre-trial period was 14 days, while the trial period was 63 days. The RFI of 60 sheep were calculated using dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain and metabolic midweight multiple regression model, and 12 sheep with the highest RFI (n=6) and lowest RFI (n=6) were chosen to be slaughtered and sampled. Results showed as follows:1) DMI in high RFI group was significantly higher than that in low RFI group (P<0.05), but there were no significant differences in initial body weight, final body weight, average daily gain, feed conversion ratio, GR value and tail fat weight between high and low RFI groups (P>0.05). There was a significant positive correlation between RFI and DMI as well as feed conversion ratio, GR value (P<0.05), and a positive correlation trend between RFI and tail fat weight (0.05 ≤ P<0.10), and no significant correlation between RFI and both initial body weight, final body weight and average daily gain (P>0.05). 2) No effects of RFI on ruminal bacteria richness and diversity indexes were detected (P>0.05), as well as the richness indexes in cecum bacteria (P>0.05). The Shannon index of cecal bacteria in low RFI group was significantly higher than that in high RFI group (P<0.05), while the Simpson index was tended be higher in this group (0.05 ≤ P<0.10). The relative abundance of Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group of rumen in high RFI group was significantly lower than that in low RFI group (P<0.05)and the relative abundance of Bacteroides and Ruminococcaceae_UCG-013 group of cecum in low RFI group were significantly higher than those in high RFI group (P<0.05). The above-mentioned results indicate that individuals with high RFI are more likely to deposit body fat, and the effects of different RFI on rumen and cecum microflora of Hu sheep are only reflected in several special genus which may plays an important role in digestion.

Key words： residual feed intake; Hu sheep; growth performance; bacteria

参考文献

[1] KOCH R M,SWIGER L A,CHAMBERS D,et al.Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle[J].Journal of Animal Science,1963,22(2):486-494.  
[2] BENSON A K,KELLY S A,LEGGE R,et al.Individuality in gut microbiota composition is a complex polygenic trait shaped by multiple environmental and host genetic factors[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,2010,107(44):18933-18938.  
[3] KIM M,KIM J,KUEHN L A,et al.Investigation of bacterial diversity in the feces of cattle fed different diets[J].Journal of Animal Science,2014,92(2):683-694.  
[4] HALES K E,BROWN-BRANDL T M,FREETLY H C.Effects of decreased dietary roughage concentration on energy metabolism and nutrient balance in finishing beef cattle[J].Journal of Animal Science,2014,92(1):264-271.  
[5] LIANG Y S,LI G Z,LI X Y,et al.Growth performance,rumen fermentation,bacteria composition,and gene expressions involved in intracellular pH regulation of rumen epithelium in finishing Hu lambs differing in residual feed intake phenotype[J].Journal of Animal Science,2017,95(4):1727-1738.
[6] CARBERRY C A,WATERS S M,KENNY D A,et al.Rumen methanogenic genotypes differ in abundance according to host residual feed intake phenotype and diet type[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology,2014,80(2):586-594.  
[7] LAM S.Associations between rumen function and feed efficiency in beef cattle[D].Master's thesis.Guelph:The University of Guelph,2016.
[8] HERNANDEZ-SANABRIA E,GOONEWARDENE L A,WANG Z Q,et al.Impact of feed efficiency and diet on adaptive variations in the bacterial community in the rumen fluid of cattle[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology,2012,78(4):1203-1214.  
[9] PAZ H A,HALES K E,WELLS J E,et al.Rumen bacterial community structure impacts feed efficiency in beef cattle[J].Journal of Animal Science,2018,96(3):1045-1058.  
[10] OH J H,HUME I D,TORELL D T.Development of microbial activity in the alimentary tract of lambs[J].Journal of Animal Science,1972,35(2):450-459.  
[11] PEREA K,PERZ K,OLIVO S K,et al.Feed efficiency phenotypes in lambs involve changes in ruminal,colonic,and small-intestine-located microbiota[J].Journal of Animal Science,2017,95(6):2585-2592.
[12] 许婷婷.高谷物日粮对山羊盲肠发酵、微生物区系和黏膜形态结构的影响[D].硕士学位论文.南京:南京农业大学,2014.
[13] RAJAEI SHARIFABADI H,NASERIAN A A,VALIZADEH R,et al.Growth performance,feed digestibility,body composition,and feeding behavior of high-and low-residual feed intake fat-tailed lambs under moderate feed restriction[J].Journal of Animal Science,2016,94(8):3382-3388.  
[14] LI F,WANG Z L,DONG C X,et al.Rumen bacteria communities and performances of fattening lambs with a lower or greater subacute ruminal acidosis risk[J].Frontiers in Microbiology,2017,8:2506.
[15] REDDEN R R,SURBER L M M,GROVE A V,et al.Growth efficiency of ewe lambs classified into residual feed intake groups and pen fed a restricted amount of feed[J].Small Ruminant Research,2013,114(2/3):214-219.
[16] KELLY A K,MCGEE M,CREWS D H,Jr,et al.Effect of divergence in residual feed intake on feeding behavior,blood metabolic variables,and body composition traits in growing beef heifers[J].Journal of Animal Science,2010,88(1):109-123.  
[17] FITZSIMONS C,KENNY D A,FAHEY A G,et al.Feeding behavior,ruminal fermentation,and performance of pregnant beef cows differing in phenotypic residual feed intake offered grass silage[J].Journal of Animal Science,2014,92(5):2170-2181.  
[18] REDDEN R R,SURBER L M M,GROVE A V,et al.Effects of residual feed intake classification and method of alfalfa processing on ewe intake and growth[J].Journal of Animal Science,2014,92(2):830-835.  
[19] BOSE B K S,KUNDU S S,THO N T B,et al.Residual feed intake as a feed efficiency selection tool and its relationship with feed intake,performance and nutrient utilization in Murrah buffalo calves[J].Tropical Animal Health and Production,2014,46(4):615-621.  
[20] REDDEN R R,SURBER L M M,ROEDER B L,et al.Residual feed efficiency established in a post-weaning growth test may not result in more efficient ewes on the range[J].Small Ruminant Research,2011,96(2/3):155-159.
[21] MURO-REYES A,GUTIERREZ-BANUELOS H,DIAZ-GARCIA L H,et al.Potential environmental benefits of residual feed intake as strategy to mitigate methane emissions in sheep[J].Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances,2011,10(12):1551-1556.  
[22] 莫负涛.不同RFI育肥羔羊生产性能和体组成及消化代谢研究[D].硕士学位论文.兰州:甘肃农业大学,2016.
[23] 梁玉生.不同剩余采食量育肥湖羊的生长性能与瘤胃功能差异研究[D].硕士学位论文.兰州:兰州大学,2017.
[24] LIMA N L L,DE FREITAS RIBEIRO C R,DE SÁ H C M,et al.Economic analysis,performance,and feed efficiency in feedlot lambs[J].Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia,2017,46(10):821-829.  
[25] ARCHER J A,RICHARDSON E C,HERD R M,et al.Potential for selection to improve efficiency of feed use in beef cattle:a review[J].Australian Journal of Agricultural Research,1999,50(2):147-162.  
[26] NKRUMAH J D,BASARAB J A,PRICE M A,et al.Different measures of energetic efficiency and their phenotypic relationships with growth,feed intake,and ultrasound and carcass merit in hybrid cattle[J].Journal of Animal Science,2004,82(8):2451-2459.  
[27] BASARAB J A,PRICE M A,AALHUS J L,et al.Residual feed intake and body composition in young growing cattle[J].Canadian Journal of Animal Science,2003,83(2):189-204.  
[28] SCHENKEL F S,MILLER S P,WILTON J W.Genetic parameters and breed differences for feed efficiency,growth,and body composition traits of young beef bulls[J].Canadian Journal of Animal Science,2004,84(2):177-185.  
[29] ARTHUR P F,ARCHER J A,JOHNSTON D J,et al.Genetic and phenotypic variance and covariance components for feed intake,feed efficiency,and other postweaning traits in Angus cattle[J].Journal of Animal Science,2001,79(11):2805-2811.  
[30] RICHARDSON E C,HERD R M,ODDY V H,et al.Body composition and implications for heat production of Angus steer progeny of parents selected for and against residual feed intake[J].Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture,2001,41(7):1065-1072.  
[31] NKRUMAH J D,OKINE E K,MATHISON G W,et al.Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency,performance,and feeding behavior with metabolic rate,methane production,and energy partitioning in beef cattle[J].Journal of Animal Science,2006,84(1):145-153.  
[32] RATTRAY P V,JOYCE J P.Utilisation of metabolisahle energy for fat and protein deposition in sheep[J].New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research,1976,19(3):299-305.  
[33] BRETHOUR J R.The relationship of average backfat thickness of feedlot steers to performance and relative efficiency of fat and protein retention[J].Journal of Animal Science,2004,82(11):3366-3372.  
[34] MCCANN J C,WILEY L M,FORBES T D,et al.Relationship between the rumen microbiome and residual feed intake-efficiency of brahman bulls stocked on bermudagrass pastures[J].PLoS One,2014,9(3):e91864.
[35] MYER P R,SMITH T P L,WELLS J E,et al.Rumen microbiome from steers differing in feed efficiency[J].PLoS One,2015,10(6):e0129174.
[36] MYER P R,WELLS J E,SMITH T P L,et al.Cecum microbial communities from steers differing in feed efficiency[J].Journal of Animal Science,2015,93(11):5327-5340.  
[37] RETI K L,THOMAS M C,YANKE L J,et al.Effect of antimicrobial growth promoter administration on the intestinal microbiota of beef cattle[J].Gut Pathogens,2013,5:8.
[38] DE OLIVEIRA M N V,JEWELL K A,FREITAS F S,et al.Characterizing the microbiota across the gastrointestinal tract of a Brazilian Nelore steer[J].Veterinary Microbiology,2013,164(3/4):307-314.
[39] MARTINEZ-GARCIA M,BRAZEL D M,SWAN B K,et al.Capturing single cell genomes of active polysaccharide degraders:an unexpected contribution of Verrucomicrobia[J].PLoS One,2012,7(4):e35314.
[40] 张科.陕北白绒山羊0-56日龄羔羊胃肠道发育及瘤胃微生物区系研究[D].硕士学位论文.杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2017.
[41] ZENED A,COMBES S,CAUQUIL L,et al.Microbial ecology of the rumen evaluated by 454 GS FLX pyrosequencing is affected by starch and oil supplementation of diets[J].FEMS Microbiology Ecology,2013,83(2):504-514.  
[42] JAMI E,MIZRAHI I.Composition and similarity of bovine rumen microbiota across individual animals[J].PLoS One,2012,7(3):e33306.
[43] 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.  
[44] CARBERRY C A,KENNY D A,HAN S,et al.Effect of phenotypic residual feed intake and dietary forage content on the rumen microbial community of beef cattle[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology,2012,78(14):4949-4958.  
[45] AL-SHEIKHLY F,AL-SAIEG A.Role of coccidia in the occurrence of necrotic enteritis of chickens[J].Avian Diseases,1980,24(2):324-333.  
[46] CHEN J,ZHANG H X,WU X Y,et al.Characterization of the gut microbiota in the golden takin (Budorcas taxicolor bedfordi)[J].AMB Express,2017,7:81.
[47] BIDDLE A,STEWART L,BLANCHARD J,et al.Untangling the genetic basis of fibrolytic specialization by lachnospiraceae and ruminococcaceae in diverse gut communities[J].Diversity,2013,5(3):627-640.  
[48] DALY K,PROUDMAN C J,DUNCAN S H,et al.Alterations in microbiota and fermentation products in equine large intestine in response to dietary variation and intestinal disease[J].British Journal of Nutrition,2012,107(7):989-995.  
[49] PATRA A K,YU Z T.Essential oils affect populations of some rumen bacteria in vitro as revealed by microarray (Rumen Bact Array) analysis[J].Frontiers in Microbiology,2015,6:297.
[50] HUHTANEN P,AHVENJÄRVI S,BRODERICK G A,et al.Quantifying ruminal digestion of organic matter and neutral detergent fiber using the omasal sampling technique in cattle-a meta-analysis[J].Journal of Dairy Science,2010,93(7):3203-3215.  
[51] MOHARRERY A,LARSEN M,WEISBJERG M R.Starch digestion in the rumen,small intestine,and hind gut of dairy cows-A meta-analysis[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2014,192:1-14.
[52] COTTA M A.Interaction of ruminal bacteria in the production and utilization of maltooligosaccharides from starch[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology,1992,58(1):48-54.
[53] POPOVA M,MCGOVERN E,MCCABE M S,et al.The structural and functional capacity of ruminal and cecal microbiota in growing cattle was unaffected by dietary supplementation of linseed oil and nitrate[J].Frontiers in Microbiology,2017,8:937.
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