Effects of Compound Microecological Preparation Combined with Fructosan on Growth Performance, Diarrhea Rate and Intestinal Microbiota of Lactation Calves

CHEN Fengmei; CHENG Guangmin; GU Tianxian; XIA Qingxiang; LIU Meiling; NIU Zhongxiang; HU Shilin

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.08.048

2020 , Vol. 32 >Issue 8: 3896 - 3905

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.08.048

Effects of Compound Microecological Preparation Combined with Fructosan on Growth Performance, Diarrhea Rate and Intestinal Microbiota of Lactation Calves

CHEN Fengmei ,
CHENG Guangmin ,
GU Tianxian ,
XIA Qingxiang ,
LIU Meiling ,
NIU Zhongxiang ,
HU Shilin

Expand

1. Research Center of Reducing Engineering Technology for The Use of Antimicrobial Drugs for Livestock and Poultry in Shandong Province, Shandong Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, Weifang 261061, China;
2. College of Animal Science and Technology, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an 271018, China

Received date: 2020-02-22

Online published: 2020-08-13

Fold

Abstract

This study was performed to investigate the effects of compound microecological preparation combined with fructosan (FOS) on growth performance, diarrhea rate and intestinal microbiota of lactating calves. A total of 21 healthy Holstein calves at 3 days of age were randomly divided into three groups:5 g of Lactobacillus plantarum (1×10⁹ CFU) and Bacillus subtilis (2×10¹⁰ CFU) were added to each head daily in ZK group; 5 g of Lactobacillus plantarum (1×10⁹ CFU) and Bacillus subtilis (2×10¹⁰ CFU) and FOS were added to each head daily in ZKT group (the two preparations were dissolved in warm water 1 h after regular feeding and fed with milk bottle); group C was control group and was fed conventionally. The pre-test lasted for 7 days, and the normal test lasted for 50 days. The results showed as follows:1) the average daily gain and average daily feed intake of ZK group and ZKT group were not significantly different from those of the C group (P>0.05). However, the diarrhea rate of the two groups was significantly lower than that of the C group (P<0.05). 2) The analysis of microbial community Alpha diversity showed that the addition of microecological preparation had no significant effect on the intestinal microbial flora richness and diversity of calves of ZK group (P>0.05), but had significant effect on the intestinal microbial abundance of ZKT group (P<0.05). The analysis of intestinal microbiota revealed that at the level of phylum, the dominant bacteria mainly included Bacteroides, Firmicutes and Tenericutes. There is no significant difference in relative abundance of the top ten phylum between the groups (P>0.05). At the genus level, the dominant genus were Bacteroides, unidentified_Prevotellaceae and Allobaculum, and the relative abundance of Bacteroides of ZKT group was significantly higher than that of C group and ZK group (P<0.05). 3) The t-test differential species analysis showed that the average abundance of Clostridia of ZKT group was significantly lower than that of C group (P<0.05). In summary, it is found that the two preparations have little effect on the growth performance of the calves, but the compound microecological preparation in ZKT group can significantly change the calf intestinal microflora, increase the relative abundance of Bacteroides significantly, and especially significantly reduce the relative abundance of Clostridia, which reduce the calf diarrhea rate.

Key words： microecological preparation; high-throughput sequencing; diarrhea rate; Clostridium; intestinal microbiota; FOS

Cite this article

CHEN Fengmei , CHENG Guangmin , GU Tianxian , XIA Qingxiang , LIU Meiling , NIU Zhongxiang , HU Shilin . Effects of Compound Microecological Preparation Combined with Fructosan on Growth Performance, Diarrhea Rate and Intestinal Microbiota of Lactation Calves[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020 , 32(8) : 3896 -3905 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.08.048

References

[1] THOMSEN P T,DAHL-PEDERSEN K,JENSEN H E.Necropsy as a means to gain additional information about causes of dairy cow deaths[J].Journal of Dairy Science,2012,95(10):5798-5803.

[2] BÄCKHED F,LEY R E,SONNENBURG J L,et al.Host-bacterial mutualism in the human intestine[J].Science,2005,307(5717):1915-1920.

[3] LEE Y E,KANG I J,YU E A,et al.Effect of feeding the combination with Lactobacillus plantarum and Bacillus subtilis on fecal microflora and diarrhea incidence of Korean native calves[J].Korean Journal of Veterinary Service,2012,35(4):343-346.

[4] AN H M,LEE D K,CHA M K,et al.Effects of Lactic Acid Bacteria(LAB) supplement on the growth rate and elimination of enteropathgenic bacteria in calves[J].Biotechnogy & Biotechno-Logical Equipment,2011,25(4):2597-2603.

[5] KAWAKAMI S I,YAMADA T,NAKANISHI N,et al.Feeding of lactic acid bacteria and yeast affects fecal flora of Holstein calves[J].Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances,2011,10(3):269-271.

[6] 张家超,郭壮,孙志宏,等.益生菌对肠道菌群的影响——以Lactobacillus casei Zhang研究为例[J].中国食品学报,2011,11(9):58-68.
[7] 王平,夏川,罗焕,等.低聚果糖对慢性应激小鼠抑郁样行为及肠道菌群的影响[J].中国微生态学杂志,2018,30(11):1241-1246,1251.
[8] 赵思琪,秦翠丽,王辉,等.高通量测序研究三种非消化性寡糖及其组合对小鼠肠道菌群的影响[J].营养学报,2019,41(6):576-579,586.
[9] 杨大亮,罗丹,王蓉.微生态制剂联合低聚果糖治疗对抗生素诱发腹泻患儿肠道菌群的影响[J].西部医学,2017,29(10):1389-1392,1396.
[10] 张蓉.能量水平及来源对早期断奶犊牛消化代谢的影响研究[D].硕士学位论文.北京:中国农业科学院,2008.
[11] LARSON L L,OWEN F G,ALBRIGHT J L,et al.Guidelines toward more uniformity in measuring and reporting calf experimental data[J].Journal of Dairy Science,1977,60(6):989-991.

[12] TIMMERMAN H M,MULDER L,EVERTS H,et al.Health and growth of veal calves fed milk replacers with or without probiotics[J].Journal of Dairy Science,2005,88(6):2154-2165.

[13] 陈臣.植物乳杆菌ST-Ⅲ全基因组序列分析及其对低聚果糖代谢通路的解析[D].博士毕业论文.无锡:江南大学,2014.
[14] 陈臣,周方方,任婧,等.乳酸菌利用低聚果糖代谢机理的研究进展[J].食品与发酵工业,2013,39(10):156-160.
[15] 陈臣,卢艳青,于海燕,等.乳酸菌代谢低聚糖机理的研究进展[J].中国食品学报,2019,19(6):274-283.
[16] SAULNIER D M A,MOLENAAR D,DE VOS W M,et al.Identification of prebiotic fructooligosaccharide metabolism in Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1 through microarrays[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology,2007,73(6):1753-1765.

[17] 李玉,路福平,王正祥.功能性低聚糖合成中糖基转移酶研究进展[J].食品科学,2013,34(9):358-363.
[18] UYENO Y,SHIGEMORI S,SHIMOSATO T.Effect of probiotics on cattle health and productivity[J].Microbes and Environments,2015,30(2):126-132.

[19] KIDO K,TEJIMA S,NAGAYAMA H,et al.Effects of supplementation with cellooligosaccharides on growth performance of weaned calves on pasture[J].Animal Science Journal,2016,87(5):661-665.

[20] 梁彦彦,兰道亮,林宝山,等.动物肠道乳酸菌的分离鉴定技术研究进展[J].动物医学进展,2015,36(10):90-94.
[21] SHANKS O C,KELTY A,ARCHIBEQUE S,et al.Community structures of fecal bacteria in cattle from different animal feeding operations[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology,2011,77(9):2992-3001.

[22] QIN J J,LI R Q,RAES J,et al.A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing[J].Nature,2010,464(7285):59-65.

[23] SINGH K M,AHIR V B,TRIPATHI A K,et al.Metagenomic analysis of Surti buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) rumen:a preliminary study[J].Molecular Biology Reports,2012,39(4):4841-4848.

[24] MOENS F,VERCE M,DE VUYST L.Lactate-and acetate-based cross-feeding interactions between selected strains of lactobacilli,bifidobacteria and colon bacteria in the presence of inulin-type fructans[J].International Journal of Food Microbiology,2017,241:225-236.
[25] 韩广伟,李兆才,宫晓炜,等.产气荚膜梭菌α毒素和ε毒素的共表达及其免疫原性的研究[J].中国兽医科学,2014,44(6):630-635.
[26] 尹辉,赵达,陈为宏,等.牛产气荚膜梭菌α-ε毒素基因的融合表达及其纯化[J].中国生物制品学杂志,2015,28(3):261-265.
[27] MARTINEZ-VAZ B M,FINK R C,DIEZ-GONZALEZ F,et al.Enteric pathogen-plant interactions:molecular connections leading to colonization and growth and implications for food safety[J].Microbes and Environments,2014,29(2):123-135.

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References