Effects of Lactococcus lactococcus and It Mixed with Urea Added in Whole Corn Silage on Digestive Metabolism, Serum Biochemical and Rumen Fermentation Indexes of Dorper Sheep

  • CHENG Guangmin ,
  • CHEN Fengmei ,
  • ZHANG Yongcui ,
  • ZUO Zhaoyun ,
  • LI Fuchang ,
  • WANG Yuanxin ,
  • XU Xiangting
Expand
  • 1. Shandong Vocational Animal Science and Veterinary College, Weifang 261061, China;
    2. Shandong Agricultural University, Taian 271018, China;
    3. Animal Husbandry Development Promotion Center in Lanling County, Linyi 277700, China

Received date: 2019-05-14

  Online published: 2019-11-19

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to study the effects of Lactococcus lactococcus and it mixed with urea added in whole corn silage on digestive metabolism, serum biochemical and rumen fermentation indexes of Dorper sheep. Sixty healthy 2-month-old weaned male Dorper sheep with similar body weight[(23.0±1.5) kg] were selected and randomly divided into 3 groups with 4 replicates per group and 5 sheep per replicate. Sheep were fed with no additives whole corn silage (control group), single addition of 0.1% Lactococcus lactococcus of whole corn fresh weight (probiotics group) and 0.1% Lactococcus lactococcus mixed with 0.5% urea mixture of whole corn fresh weight (mixed group) formulated total mixed rations, respectively. The pre-experimental period lasted for 10 days, and the experimental period lasted for 90 days. The results showed as follows:1) the crude protein intake of mixed group was significantly higher than that of probiotics group and control group (P<0.05). 2) The intake nitrogen, urine nitrogen, digestible nitrogen, deposition nitrogen and nitrogen digestion rate of mixed group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P<0.05), and the nitrogen utilization rate of probiotics group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P<0.05). 3) The energy digestion rate and energy utilization rate of mixed group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P<0.05), and the digestive energy and energy utilization rate of probiotics group were significantly lower than those of the control group (P<0.05). 4) The apparent digestibility of dry matter, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber of mixed group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P<0.05). 5) The glucose, total protein contents and alanine aminotransferase, glutamate aminotransferase activities in serum of probiotics group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P<0.05). 6) The rumen fluid ammonia nitrogen content of mixed group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P<0.05); the rumen fluid total volatile fatty acid content of probiotics group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P<0.05), and the pH was significantly lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). In conclusion, the single addition of Lactococcus lactococcus in whole corn silage total mixed ration cannot change the digestibility of Dorper sheep, and the addition of Lactococcus lactococcus mixed with urea in whole corn silage total mixed ration is conducive to the digestion and absorption of nutrients.

Cite this article

CHENG Guangmin , CHEN Fengmei , ZHANG Yongcui , ZUO Zhaoyun , LI Fuchang , WANG Yuanxin , XU Xiangting . Effects of Lactococcus lactococcus and It Mixed with Urea Added in Whole Corn Silage on Digestive Metabolism, Serum Biochemical and Rumen Fermentation Indexes of Dorper Sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2019 , 31(11) : 5274 -5282 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2019.11.044

References

[1] 张增欣,邵涛.青贮添加剂研究进展[J].草业科学,2006,23(9):56-63.
[2] YITBAREK M B,TAMIR B.Silage additives:review[J].Open Journal of Applied Sciences,2014,4(5):258-274.  
[3] HIIRAOKA H,ISHIKURO E,GOTO T.Simultaneous analysis of organic acids and inorganic anions in silage by capillary electrophoresis[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2010,161(1/2):58-66.
[4] 李梦寒,陈芝兰,南志强.乳酸菌青贮添加剂的研究进展[J].西藏科技,2008(11):65-67.
[5] YUNUS M,OHBA N,SHIMOJO M, et al.Effects of adding urea and molasses on napiergrass silage quality[J].Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences,2000,13(11):1542-1547.  
[6] 赵士力,许建光,于利民,等.乳酸片球菌在南美白对虾养殖过程中使用效果实验[J].渔业致富指南,2016(8):33-34.
[7] WAJDA S,SMIECINSKA K,JANKOWSKI J,et al.The efficacy of lactic acid bacteria Pediococcus acidilactici,lactose and formic acid as dietary supplements for turkeys[J].Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences,2010,13(1):45-51.
[8] CASTEX M,CHIM L,PHAM D,et al.Probiotic P.acidilactici application in shrimp Litopenaeus stylirostris culture subject to vibriosis in New Caledonia[J].Aquaculture,2008,275(1/2/3/4):182-193.
[9] CASTEX M,LEMAIRE P,WABETE N,et al.Effect of probiotic Pediococcus acidilactici on antioxidant defences and oxidative stress of Litopenaeus stylirostris under Vibrio nigripulchritudo challenge[J].Fish & Shellfish Immunology,2010,28(4):622-631.  
[10] GIANFRANCESCO A,TURCHIULI C,FLICK D,et al.CFD modeling and simulation of maltodextrin solutions spray drying to control stickiness[J].Food and Bioprocess Technology,2010,3(6):946-955.  
[11] QUARANTELLI A,RIGHI F,AGAZZI A,et al.Effects of the administration of Pediococcus acidilactici to laying hens on productive performance[J].Veterinary Research Communications,2008,32(Suppl.1):S359-S361.
[12] FERGUSON R M W,MERRIFIELD D L,HARPER G M,et al.The effect of Pediococcus acidilactici on the gut microbiota and immune status of on-growing red tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)[J].Journal of Applied Microbiology,2010,109(3):851-862.  
[13] 国家市场监督管理总局,国家标准化管理委员会.GB/T 6432-2018饲料中粗蛋白的测定凯氏定氮法[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2018.
[14] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会.GB/T 6435-2014饲料中水分的测定[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2015.
[15] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会.GB/T 6438-2007饲料中粗灰分的测定[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2007.
[16] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会.GB/T 20806-2006饲料中中性洗涤纤维(NDF)的测定[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2007.
[17] 中华人民共和国农业部.NY/T 1459-2007饲料中酸性洗涤纤维的测定[S].北京:农业出版社,2008.
[18] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局.GB/T 6436-2002饲料中钙的测定[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2002.
[19] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局.GB/T 6437-2002饲料中总磷的测定分光光度法[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2002.
[20] WEATHERBURN M W.Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia[J].Analytical Chemistry,1967,39(8):971-974.  
[21] 中国农业科学院草原研究所.中国饲用植物化学成分及营养价值表[M].北京:农业出版社,1990:213-215.
[22] 荣辉,余成群,陈杰,等.添加绿汁发酵液、乳酸菌制剂和葡萄糖对象草青贮发酵品质的影响[J].草业学报,2013,22(3):108-115.
[23] 李发杰,杨植,李飞.微生物添加剂宜生贮宝对全株玉米青贮营养成分影响的研究[J].畜牧兽医杂志,2016,35(6):15-17.
[24] 刘明晖.有益微生剂在肉绵羊育肥上的效果观察[J].中国畜禽种业,2009,5(6):72-73.
[25] 杨燕宁.饲草中添加益生菌喂养羊的效果分析[J].南方农业,2018,12(11):147-148.
[26] 许腾,谷朝勇.不同处理青贮秸秆饲喂鲁西黄牛增重效果对比试验[J].上海畜牧兽医通讯,2005(4):15.
[27] WILSON G,MARTZ F A,CAMPBELL J R,et al.Evaluation of factors responsible for reduced voluntary intake of urea diets for ruminants[J].Journal of Animal Science,1975,41(5):1431-1437.  
[28] 文生萍,窦永芳.微生态制剂在畜牧业中的研究与应用[J].现代畜牧科技,2018(8):27.
[29] 穆晓峰,刘顺德,阿依木古丽,等.化学、同步生化复合处理对玉米秸秆营养物质降解率的影响[J].草业科学,2007,24(5):79-82.
[30] 徐勇,沈其荣,钟增涛,等.化学处理和微生物混合培养对水稻秸秆腐解和组分变化的影响[J].中国农业科学,2003,36(1):59-65.
[31] 杨华,张韩杰,吴信明,等.微生态制剂对肉羊生长性能和免疫功能的影响[J].家畜生态学报,2015,36(10):27-32.
[32] SONG K,SHAN A S,LI J P.Effects of different combiantions of enzyme preparation supplemented to wheat based diets on growth and serum biochemical values of broiler chickens[J].Acta Zoonutrimenta Sinica,2004,16(4):19-25.
[33] JUOKSLAHTI T,LINDBERG P,TYÖPPÖNEN J.Organ distribution of some clinically important enzymes in mink[J].Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica,1980,21(3):347-353.
[34] 林冬梅,祝国强,李玉兰,等.复合益生菌制剂对蛋种鸡血清生化指标的影响[J].饲料研究,2009(8):22-24.
[35] 白云峰.脲酶抑制剂在羊生产中应用的研究[D].硕士学位论文.哈尔滨:东北农业大学,2001.
Outlines

/