研究简报 SHORT COMMUNICATION

复合微生物制剂对育肥牛生长性能、养分表观消化率、瘤胃酶活性和糖脂代谢的影响

  • 仲伟光 ,
  • 于维 ,
  • 祁宏伟 ,
  • 赵玉民
展开
  • 吉林省农业科学院畜牧科学分院, 公主岭 136100
仲伟光(1990-),男,吉林梨树人,硕士研究生,从事草食动物营养与饲料科学研究。E-mail:915253263@qq.com

收稿日期: 2020-03-20

  网络出版日期: 2020-09-17

基金资助

吉林省重点研发项目(20200402056NC);国家现代肉牛牦牛产业技术体系建设项目(CARS-37);吉林省产业技术示范推广项目(吉牧202002)

Effects of Compound Microbial Preparation on Growth Performance, Nutrient Apparent Digestibilities, Rumen Enzyme Activities and Glycolipid Metabolism of Fattening Cattle

  • ZHONG Weiguang ,
  • YU We ,
  • QI Hongwei ,
  • ZHAO Yumin
Expand
  • Animal Science Branch, Jilin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Gongzhuling 136100, China

Received date: 2020-03-20

  Online published: 2020-09-17

摘要

本试验旨在研究复合微生物制剂对育肥牛生长性能、养分表观消化率、瘤胃酶活性和糖脂代谢的影响。选择12月龄左右、体重[(500±25)kg]相近的荷斯坦公牛20头,按体重随机分为2组,对照组不添加复合微生物制剂,试验组每头牛添加80 g/d复合微生物制剂(酿酒酵母、枯草芽孢杆菌、地衣芽孢杆菌,三者组成比例为7:2:1)。试验预试期7 d,正试期55 d。每天准确记录采食量,并于试验开始和结束时清晨空腹称重,连续收集7 d粪便用以测定养分表观消化率,试验中期抽取瘤胃液用以测定酶活性,试验结束时空腹采集静脉血进行糖脂代谢检测。结果表明:与对照组相比,1)试验组干物质采食量与平均日增重分别提高2.74%和28.95%(P<0.05);2)试验组干物质表观消化率无显著差异(P>0.05),但是粗蛋白质表观消化率提高1.56%(P<0.05),中性洗涤纤维表观消化率提高1.93%(P<0.05);3)试验组瘤胃液中蛋白酶活性提高8.87%(P<0.01),淀粉酶活性提高10.27%(P<0.05),但是脂肪酶活性并未发生显著改变(P>0.05),果胶酶活性提高18.63%(P<0.01),木聚糖酶和滤纸酶活性未见显著变化(P>0.05);4)试验组血清中葡萄糖含量升高11.67%(P<0.01),胆固醇和甘油三酯含量分别升高22.91%和12.84%(P<0.01)。由此可见,复合微生物制剂对于育肥牛的干物质采食量和增重效果都有促进作用,能够在一定程度上改善料重比,并且复合微生物制剂能够提高部分瘤胃消化酶活性,改善营养物质的消化吸收。

本文引用格式

仲伟光 , 于维 , 祁宏伟 , 赵玉民 . 复合微生物制剂对育肥牛生长性能、养分表观消化率、瘤胃酶活性和糖脂代谢的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020 , 32(9) : 4456 -4461 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.09.057

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to study the effects of compound microbial preparation on the growth performance, nutrient apparent digestibilities, rumen enzyme activities and glycolipid metabolism of fattening cattle. Twenty 12-month-old Holstein bulls with the similar weight of (500±25) kg were randomly divided into two groups, which was experimental group and control group. The compound microbial preparation (Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis, and the ratio of the three was 7:2:1) amount of each cattle in the experimental group was 80 g/d, and no compound microbial preparation were added to the control group. Preliminary period lasted for 7 d, and test period lasted for 55 d. Feed intake was accurately recorded every day and weighed in the morning at the beginning and the end of the experiment, separately. Feces were continuously collected for 7 days to determine nutrient apparent digestibilities. Rumen juice was extracted in the middle of the experiment to determine enzyme activities, and venous blood was collected at the end of the experiment for glycolipid metabolism detection. The results showed as follows:compare with control groups, 1) the dry matter intake and average daily weight gain in the experimental group increased by 2.74%(P<0.05)and 28.95%(P<0.05), respectively; 2) the apparent digestibility of dry matter in experimental group had no significant change (P>0.05). However, the apparent digestibilities of crude protein and neutral detergent fiber increased by 1.56% and 1.93%(P<0.05),respectively; 3)the activities of protease and amylase of rumen juice in the experimental group increased by 8.87% (P<0.01)and 10.27%(P<0.05),respectively. However, lipase activity did not found apparent change (P>0.05). The activity of pectinase in the experimental group increased by 18.63% (P<0.01), but the activities of xylanase and filter paper enzyme were not significantly different from that of control group (P>0.05); 4)the serum glucose content in the experimental group increased by 11.67% (P<0.01), and cholesterol and triglyceride contents increased by 22.91% and 12.84%(P<0.01), respectively. In conclusion, the compound microbial preparation can promote the dry matter intake and weight gain of fattening cattle, and improve the feed-to-weight ratio to a certain extent as well. In addition, the compound microbial preparation can improve the activities of rumen digestive enzymes and the digestion and absorption of nutrients as well.

参考文献

[1] 曹婷,李汉丰,刘诚,等.我国肉牛养殖现状及存在的问题和解决对策[J].家畜生态学报,2018,39(11):79-82.
[2] 赵晓川,王嘉博,亓美玉.奶公犊牛产业的发展现状[J].饲料广角,2013(24):40-43.
[3] 赵洋洋,韩永胜,李伟,等.不同蛋白质水平高精料饲粮对荷斯坦奶公牛育肥性能、养分表观消化率及血清生化指标的影响[J].动物营养学报,2019,31(7):3123-3134.
[4] 李秋凤,杜柳柳,曹玉凤,等.中国荷斯坦奶公牛肉用研究进展[J].畜牧与兽医,2017,49(8):138-141.
[5] 申惠敏,李沂肖,杜晓明,等.肉牛微生态饲料添加剂的作用及机理[J].中国畜禽种业,2015,11(11):91-92.
[6] 高堂亮,沈思军,潘晓亮,等.微生态制剂对肉牛生长性能和血清生化指标的影响[J].畜牧与兽医,2018,50(7):29-32.
[7] GRVNWALDT E G,GUEVARA J C,ESTÉVEZ O R,et al.Biochemical and haematological measurements in beef cattle in Mendoza plain rangelands (Argentina)[J].Tropical Animal Health and Production,2005,37(6):527-540.  
[8] 符运勤.地衣芽孢杆菌及其复合菌对后备牛生长性能和瘤胃内环境的影响[D].硕士学位论文.北京:中国农业科学院,2012.
[9] SHAH N P.Functional cultures and health benefits[J].International Dairy Journal,2007,17(11):1262-1277.  
[10] 沈美英.日粮内不同粗饲料品质对绵羊瘤胃发酵功能和微生物区系的影响[D].硕士学位论文.呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2006.
[11] 张翔飞.活性干酵母对肉牛瘤胃发酵、纤维降解及微生物菌群的影响[D].硕士学位论文.雅安:四川农业大学,2014.
[12] 邓露芳.日粮添加纳豆枯草芽孢杆菌对奶牛生产性能、瘤胃发酵及功能微生物的影响[D].博士学位论文.北京:中国农业科学院,2009.
[13] SPICER L A,THEURER C B,SOWE J,et al.Ruminal and post-ruminal utilization of nitrogen and starch from sorghum grain-,corn-and barley-based diets by beef steers[J].Journal of Animal Science,1986,62(2):521-530.  
[14] 李睿,崔曦,汪新星,等.枯草芽孢杆菌微生态制剂的研究与应用进展[J].预防医学论坛,2018,24(12):959-960,969-970.
[15] 仲伟光.羊草不同加工方式对杂交羊生产性能、肉品质及营养物质消化吸收的影响[D].硕士学位论文.长春:吉林农业大学,2017.
[16] 惠朝俭,王文波,许德华,等.南阳黄牛血清总胆固醇的测定[J].中国良种黄牛,1985(2):45-48.
[17] 李胜开.南方农副产品混合青贮饲料的营养价值评定及对肉牛生长性能和血液生化指标的影响[D].硕士学位论文.南宁:广西大学,2017.
[18] 孟庆翔,周振明,吴浩.肉牛营养需要[M].北京:科学出版社,2018:71-72.
[19] CALLAWAY E S,MARTIN S A.Effects of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on ruminal bacteria that utilize lactate and digest cellulose[J].Journal of Dairy Science,1997,80(9):2035-2044.  
文章导航

/