动物营养学报 >

2020 , Vol. 32 >Issue 8: 3906 - 3916

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.08.049

研究简报 SHORT COMMUNICATION

利用人工瘤胃产气法比较不同品种肉牛瘤胃发酵特性和产甲烷差异

  • 祝伊枭 ,
  • 王之盛 ,
  • 胡瑞 ,
  • 王雪莹 ,
  • 周芯宇 ,
  • 代秦丹 ,
  • 曹广 ,
  • 马健 ,
  • 张翔飞 ,
  • 邹华围 ,
  • 彭全辉 ,
  • 薛白 ,
  • 王立志
展开
  • 四川农业大学动物营养研究所, 四川省牛低碳养殖与安全生产高校重点实验室, 成都 611130
祝伊枭(1995-),女,四川眉山人,硕士研究生,研究方向为反刍动物营养与饲料科学。E-mail:992943781@qq.com

收稿日期: 2020-02-07

  网络出版日期: 2020-08-13

基金资助

国家重点研发计划项目（2017YFD0502005）；国家肉牛牦牛产业技术体系（CARS-37）

收起

Comparison of Rumen Fermentation Characteristics and Methane Production of Different Breeds of Beef Cattle by Artificial Rumen Gas Production Method

  • ZHU Yixiao ,
  • WANG Zhisheng ,
  • HU Rui ,
  • WANG Xueying ,
  • ZHOU Xinyu ,
  • DAI Qindan ,
  • CAO Guang ,
  • MA Jian ,
  • ZHANG Xiangfei ,
  • ZOU Huawei ,
  • PENG Quanhui ,
  • XUE Bai ,
  • WANG Lizhi
Expand
  • Key Laboratory of Low Carbon Culture and Safety Production in Cattle in Sichuan, Animal Nutrition Institute of Sichuan Agriculture University, Chengdu 611130, China

Received date: 2020-02-07

  Online published: 2020-08-13

Fold

摘要

本试验旨在利用人工瘤胃产气法比较不同品种肉牛瘤胃发酵特性和产甲烷（CH4）等温室气体的差异。选用健康无病、年龄相近（24月龄）的麦洼牦牛、中国荷斯坦奶公牛、犏牛（藏黄牛×麦洼牦牛）阉公牛各5头，相同舍饲环境下饲喂相同饲粮42 d后，采集各品种肉牛瘤胃液进行相同饲粮底物的体外发酵，比较分析体外发酵产气量、产气参数、发酵参数以及CH4、氢气（H2）、二氧化碳（CO2）产量。结果表明：1）各组产气量随着发酵时间延长呈增加趋势。犏牛组慢速发酵部分产气量和潜在产气量显著高于中国荷斯坦奶公牛组和麦洼牦牛组（P<0.05），而中国荷斯坦奶公牛组和麦洼牦牛组快速发酵部分产气量和产气速率显著高于犏牛组（P<0.05）。2）中国荷斯坦奶公牛组发酵24和48 h乙酸/丙酸显著高于其余2组（P<0.05），麦洼牦牛组发酵48 h丙酸和总挥发性脂肪酸（TVFA）含量显著高于其余2组（P<0.05），麦洼牦牛组发酵72 h乙酸、丙酸、丁酸和TVFA含量显著高于其余2组（P<0.05）。同时，麦洼牦牛组乙酸、丙酸和丁酸理论最大产量以及乙酸和丁酸产量潜在增幅显著高于其余2组（P<0.05）。3）各组发酵液pH均处于正常范围。犏牛组和麦洼牦牛组发酵24和48 h发酵液pH显著高于中国荷斯坦奶公牛组（P<0.05），麦洼牦牛组发酵24、48、72 h发酵液氨态氮含量显著高于其余2组（P<0.05），麦洼牦牛组发酵48、72 h发酵液微生物蛋白含量显著高于其余2组（P<0.05）。综上所述，麦洼牦牛、中国荷斯坦奶公牛、犏牛的瘤胃微生物发酵能力不同。

关键词： 品种; 肉牛; 体外发酵; 发酵特性; 甲烷产量

本文引用格式

祝伊枭 , 王之盛 , 胡瑞 , 王雪莹 , 周芯宇 , 代秦丹 , 曹广 , 马健 , 张翔飞 , 邹华围 , 彭全辉 , 薛白 , 王立志 . 利用人工瘤胃产气法比较不同品种肉牛瘤胃发酵特性和产甲烷差异[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020 , 32(8) : 3906 -3916 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.08.049

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to compare the differences in rumen fermentation characteristics, methane (CH4) production and other greenhouse gases of different breeds of beef cattle by artificial rumen gas production method. Each five healthy Maiwa yaks, Chinese Holstein steers, cattle-yaks (Tibetan yellow cattle×Maiwa yaks) with similar age (24-month-old) were selected and fed with the same diet for 42 days in the same house feeding environment, and then the rumen fluid of each breed were collected for in vitro fermentation with same diet substrate, the in vitro fermentation gas production, gas parameters, fermentation parameters and yield of CH4, hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) were compared. The results showed as follows:1) the gas production of each group showed an upward trend with fermentation time increased. The slowly fermentation fraction gas production and potential gas production of cattle-yak group were significantly higher than those of Maiwa yak group and Chinese Holstein steer group (P<0.05), while the rapidly fermentation fraction gas production and gas production rate of Maiwa yak group and Chinese Holstein steer group were significantly higher than those of cattle-yak group (P<0.05). 2) The acetate/propionate at fermentation 24 and 48 h of Chinese Holstein steer group was significantly higher than that of other 2 groups (P<0.05), the contents of propionate and total volatile fatty acid (TVFA) at fermentation 48 h of Maiwa yak group were significantly higher than those of other 2 groups (P<0.05), and the contents of acetate, propionate, butyrate and TVFA at fermentation 72 h of Maiwa yak group were significantly higher than those of other 2 groups (P<0.05). Meanwhile, the theological maximum productions of acetate, propionate, butyrate and potential growth rates of acetate, butyrate production of Maiwa yak group were significantly higher than those of other 2 groups (P<0.05). 3) The fermentation liquid pH of each group was in the normal range. The fermentation liquid pH at fermentation 24 and 48 h of cattle-yak group and Maiwa yak group was significantly higher than that of Chinese Holstein steer group (P<0.05), the fermentation liquid ammonia nitrogen content at fermentation 24, 48 and 72 h of Maiwa yak group was significantly higher than that of other 2 groups (P<0.05), and the fermentation liquid microbial protein content at fermentation 48 and 72 h of Maiwa yak group was significantly higher than that of other 2 groups (P<0.05). In conclusion, the rumen microorganisms have different fermentation capabilities among Maiwa yaks, Chinese Holstein steers and cattle-yaks.

Key words： breed; beef cattle; in vitro fermentation; fermentation characteristics; methane production

参考文献

[1] 官久强,张海波,罗晓林.舍饲牦牛与犏牛生长性能、屠宰性能、肉品质和肌内脂肪沉积相关基因表达的比较分析[J].动物营养学报,2019,31(6):2659-2665.
[2] WEI Y Q,YANG H J,LONG R J,et al.Characterization of natural co-cultures of Piromyces with Methanobrevibacter ruminantium from yaks grazing on the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau:a microbial consortium with high potential in plant biomass degradation[J].Amb Express,2017,7:160.
[3] LIAO Y P,HU R,WANG Z S,et al.Metabolomics profiling of serum and urine in three beef cattle breeds revealed different levels of tolerance to heat stress[J].Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,2018,66(26):6926-6935.  
[4] 曹兵海.我国奶公犊资源利用现状调研报告[J].中国农业大学学报,2009,14(6):23-30.
[5] OLIJHOEK D W,LØVENDAHL P,LASSEN J,et al.Methane production,rumen fermentation,and diet digestibility of Holstein and Jersey dairy cows being divergent in residual feed intake and fed at 2 forage-to-concentrate ratios[J].Journal of Dairy Science,2018,101(11):9926-9940.  
[6] 武斌,张国梁,李旭,等.2种营养水平下不同遗传基础肉牛对日粮养分消化率的比较研究[J].中国畜牧兽医,2014,41(2):101-105.
[7] LI F Y,HITCH T C A,CHEN Y H,et al.Comparative metagenomic and metatranscriptomic analyses reveal the breed effect on the rumen microbiome and its associations with feed efficiency in beef cattle[J].Microbiome,2019,7:6.
[8] EPA(Environmental Protection Agency).Global anthropogenic non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions:1990-2030[M].Washington,D.C.:Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division,2011:11-12.
[9] JOHNSON K A,JOHNSON D E.Methane emissions from cattle[J].Journal of Animal Science,1995,73(8):2483-2492.  
[10] RAMIREZ-RESTREPO C A,VAN TIEN D,LE DUC N,et al.Estimation of methane emissions from local and crossbreed beef cattle in Daklak province of Vietnam[J].Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences,2017,30(7):1054-1060.  
[11] MENKE K H,RAAB L,SALEWSKI A,et al.The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro[J].Journal of Agricultural Science,1979,93(1):217-222.  
[12] 何亭漪.不同粗饲料在绵羊瘤胃和体外降解规律的研究及代谢能数学预测模型的建立[D].硕士学位论文.呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2013.
[13] ØRSKOV E R,MCDONALD I.The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage[J].The Journal of Agricultural Science,1979,92(2):499-503.  
[14] 屯妮萨·麦提赛伊迪,阿里娅古丽·依布热依木,阿依沙依拉,等.碱性次氯酸钠-苯酚分光光度法测定甲醇处理的瘤胃液中氨态氮浓度[J].新疆农业科学,2012,49(3):565-570.
[15] 庄二林.苜蓿与谷草组合效应的评定研究[D].硕士学位论文.杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2017.
[16] CORLEY Ⅲ R N C,MURPHY M R.An in vitro technique for measuring the production rate of volatile fatty acids in the rumen under dynamic conditions[J].Small Ruminant Research,2004,54(3):219-225.  
[17] HE Y,WANG H B,YU Z T,et al.Effects of the gender differences in cattle rumen fermentation on anaerobic fermentation of wheat straw[J].Journal of Cleaner Production,2018,205:845-853.
[18] 冯仰廉.反刍动物营养学[M].北京:科学出版社,2004.
[19] GETACHEW G,DEPETERS E J,ROBINSON P H.In vitro gas production provides effective method for assessing ruminant feeds[J].California Agriculture,2004,58(1):54-58.  
[20] MOULD F L.Predicting feed quality-chemical analysis and in vitro evaluation[J].Field Crops Research,2003,84(1/2):31-44.
[21] TIRFESSA G,TOLERA A.Comparative evaluation of chemical composition,in vitro fermentation and methane production of selected tree forages[J].Agroforestry Systems,2019,doi:10.1007/s10457-019-00391-7.
[22] 朱雯,王炳,付妍,等.不同粗料来源对体外瘤胃发酵和微生物蛋白合成的影响[J].中国畜牧杂志,2013,49(17):39-42.
[23] WANAPAT M,BOONNOP K,PROMKOT C,et al.Effects of alternative protein sources on rumen microbes and productivity of dairy cows[J].Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology,2011,5(1):13-23.
[24] ZHANG Z G,XU D M,WANG L,et al.Convergent evolution of rumen microbiomes in high-altitude mammals[J].Current Biology,2016,26(14):1873-1879.  
[25] MARTÍNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ G,ABECIA L,MARTÍN-GARCÍA A I,et al.In vitro-in vivo study on the effects of plant compounds on rumen fermentation,microbial abundances and methane emissions in goats[J].Animal,2013,7(12):1925-1934.  
[26] ROOKE J A,WALLACE R J,DUTHIE C A,et al.Hydrogen and methane emissions from beef cattle and their rumen microbial community vary with diet,time after feeding and genotype[J].British Journal of Nutrition,2014,112(3):398-407.  
[27] 杨金山,岳奎忠,刘鑫,等.利用体外模拟瘤胃发酵技术预测奶牛生产性能的研究[J].中国畜牧兽医,2018,45(8):2167-2174.
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