The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of different dietary doses of compound probiotics on rumen fermentation and cellulase activity in Holstein dairy cows. Three ruminally-fistulated cows with similar body weight were used in a 3×3 Latin square design. Control group, low dose group and high dose group were fed a basal diet with 0, 0.6×1011, and 1.2×1011 cfu/d compound probiotics, respectively. The trial was divided into 3 periods and each period lasted for 18 days. The results showed as follows: 1) after adding the compound probiotics in the diet, rumen pH and concentrations of ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), acetate and volatile fatty acid (VFA) were all increased significantly than those of the control group (P<0.05); 2) the compound probiotics had no significant effects on propionate, butyrate and acetate to propionate ratios (P>0.05), the bacterial protein (BCP) in high dose group was significantly higher than that in the other groups (P<0.05); 3) the activities of carboxymethyl cellulose, salicinase and xylanase in rumen were increased significantly with supplementation of compound probiotics (P<0.05), the activities of cellulose microcrystallisate in high dose group was significantly higher than that in low dose group (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference compared with the control group (P>0.05). In conclusion, adding compound probiotics in the diet for dairy cows could improve rumen fermentation and the activities fiber hydrolytic enzymes.［Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2011, 23（5）：821 -827］
LIU Caijuan，SUN Manji，SUN Jinyan，LV Wenlong，LIU Wei,SHAN Anshan,ZHANG Yonggen
. Dietary Compound Probiotics on Rumen Fermentation and Cellulase Activity in Dairy Cows[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2011
, 23(05)
: 821
-827
.
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2011.05.016
［1］KREHBIEL C R, RUST S R, ZANG G, et al. Bacterial direct-fed microbials in ruminant diets: performance response and mode of action[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2003, 81 (Suppl. 2): E120-E132.
[2]VERSCHUERE L, ROMBAUT G, SORGELOOS P, et al. Probiotic bacteria as biological control agents in aquaculture[J]. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 2000, 64(4):655-671.
[3]NOCEK J E, KAUTZ W P. Direct-fed microbial supplementation on ruminal digestion, health and performance of pre- and postpartum dairy cattle[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2006, 89:260-266.
[4]姜艳美,王加启,邓露芳,等.酵母培养物对瘤胃发酵的影响[J].动物营养学报,2008,20(1):92-97.
[5]黄庆生,王加启.添加不同酵母培养物对瘤胃纤维分解菌群和纤维素酶活的影响[J].畜牧兽医学报,2005,36(2):144-148.
[6]WANG Z, EASTRIDGE M L, QIU X. Effects of forage neutral detergent fiber and yeast culture on performance of cows during early lactation[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2001, 84(1): 204-212.
[7]张爱忠,卢德勋,姜宁,等.酵母培养物对绒山羊机体抗氧化能力的影响[J].动物营养学报,2010,22(3):781-786.
[8]王建平,王加启,卜登攀,等.高温条件下高产和中产奶牛产奶性能及瘤胃发酵的研究[J].动物营养学报,2010,22(1):51-56.
[9]卢德勋.系统动物营养学导论[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2004:132-133.
[10]姜旭明,齐智利,齐德生,等.不同蛋白质来源的日粮对瘤胃发酵特性及蛋白质消化的影响[J].草业科学,2009,26(1):74-80.
[11]GHORBANI G R, MORGAVI D P, BEAUCHEMIN K A, et al. Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials on ruminal fermentation, blood variables, and the microbial populations of feedlot cattle[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2002, 80:1977-1985.
[12]冯仰廉.反刍动物营养学[M].北京:科学出版社,2004:241-336.
[13]王丽娟,刘大程,卢德勋,等.日粮同时添加酵母培养物与延胡索酸二钠与对慢性酸中毒奶山羊瘤胃发酵和细菌数量的影响[J].动物营养学报,2009,21(1):67-71.
[14]冯伟业,刘大程,卢德勋,等.不同品质粗饲料日粮及添加酵母培养物对绵羊瘤胃内主要纤维素酶及纤维物质降解的影响[J].动物营养学报,2008,20(1):108-114.
