Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2024 , Vol. 36 >Issue 1: 387 - 396

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2024.035

RESEARCH PAPER

Evaluation of Feeding Effect of Pepper Straw and Its Silage with Different Treatments on Lambs

  • CHENG Zhize , 1 ,
  • Aibibula Yimamu , 1, * ,
  • LI Fengming 2 ,
  • Yisilayi Dawuti 1 ,
  • WAN Jiangchun 1
Expand
  • 1 College of Prataculture, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830000, China
  • 2 College of Animal Sciences, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830000, China
* professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2023-08-07

  Online published: 2024-01-12

Fold

Abstract

In this experiment, the effects of pepper straw and silage pepper straw treated with different additives instead of alfalfa hay on growth performance, digestion and metabolism, rumen fermentation and serum biochemical indexes of lambs were studied to evaluate their nutritional value and feeding effect. Twenty-four 4-month-old Suffolk male lambs with the body weight of (31.13±1.63) kg were randomly divided into 4 groups with 6 lambs in each group. Lambs in control group (CK group) were fed a diet containing 15% alfalfa hay, lambs in experimental groups were fed diets with air-dried pepper straw (PS group), Lactobacillus plantarum+Bacillus subtilis pepper straw silage (LP+BS group) and Lactobacillus plantarum+molasses pepper straw silage (LP+M group) instead of all alfalfa hay, respectively. The pre-test period was 10 days and the test period was 50 days. The results show as follows: 1) the average daily dry matter intake in the PS group was significantly lower than that in the CK, LP+BS and LP+M groups (P<0.05), the average daily gain was significantly lower than that in the CK and LP+BS groups (P<0.05), and the feed/gain ratio was significantly higher than that in the CK and LP+BS groups (P<0.05), while there were no significant differences in the average daily dry matter intake, average daily gain and feed/gain ratio among the CK, LP+BS and LP+M groups (P>0.05). 2) The apparent digestibility of dry matter (DM), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and ether extract (EE) in the PS group was significantly lower than that in the CK, LP+BS and LP+M groups (P<0.05), the apparent digestibility of crude protein (CP) was significantly lower than that in the LP+BS group (P<0.05), and the apparent digestibility of acid detergent fiber (ADF) was significantly lower than that in the CK and LP+BS groups (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the apparent digestibility of DM, CP, NDF, ADF and EE among the CK, LP+BS and LP+M groups (P>0.05). 3) The pH of rumen fluid in the PS group were significantly higher than that in the LP+BS and LP+M groups (P<0.05), the ammonia nitrogen concentration was significantly higher than that in the CK, LP+BS and LP+M groups (P<0.05), the total volatile fatty acids and butyric acid concentrations were significantly lower than those in the CK, LP+BS and LP+M groups (P<0.05), and the acetic acid concentration was significantly lower than that in the CK and LP+BS groups (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the propionic acid concentration among the four groups (P>0.05). 4) Serum urea nitrogen content in the LP+BS group was significantly lower than that in the CK, PS and LP+M groups (P<0.05), while there were no significant differences in other serum biochemical indexes among the 4 groups (P>0.05). In conclusion, pepper straw silage prepared by adding Lactobacillus plantarum+Bacillus subtilis or Lactobacillus plantarum+molasses, can replace all alfalfa hay in the diet for feeding lambs, and the feeding effect of Lactobacillus plantarum+Bacillus subtilis pepper straw silage is better.

Key words： pepper straw; pepper straw silage; lambs; rumen fermentation parameters; serum biochemical indexes; feeding effect

Cite this article

CHENG Zhize , Aibibula Yimamu , LI Fengming , Yisilayi Dawuti , WAN Jiangchun . Evaluation of Feeding Effect of Pepper Straw and Its Silage with Different Treatments on Lambs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024 , 36(1) : 387 -396 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2024.035

近年来,由于我国畜牧业规模化、集约化发展以及人们对畜产品质量需求不断提升,优质饲草料不足缺口越显突出,已成为制约畜牧业发展的瓶颈因素。而我国非常规饲料资源丰富,从营养角度考虑具有潜在饲用价值。辣椒秸秆是非常规饲料资源,在我国年产量达6.9×107 t[1],资源极其丰富,同时辣椒秸秆粗蛋白质(CP)含量在14.79%~16.72%,营养成分优于羊草和玉米秸秆,与苜蓿接近[2],具备良好的饲料开发潜力。有研究报道,在海兰褐蛋鸡饲粮中加入一定量辣椒秸秆可显著提高蛋壳厚度、强度和蛋重,降低鸡粪中粗灰分(Ash)和粗纤维(CF)含量[3];在獭兔饲粮中添加10%辣椒秸秆粉,对獭兔的日增重、饲料转化率、主要营养物质的表观消化率、健康水平等均有提升作用[4]。
新鲜辣椒秸秆因水分含量高,易霉变,不适合长期保存,调制干草晾晒时叶片极易脱落,营养损失严重。而青贮可以延长饲草料贮藏时间,减少营养成分损失,在提高饲喂效果的同时,还可缓解饲草料短缺和季节供应不平衡问题。周娟娟等[5]使用甲酸、丙酸、玉米粉和马铃薯渣为添加剂对辣椒秸秆进行青贮处理,发现在最优条件下青贮后干物质(DM)、CP等营养成分含量增加,中性洗涤纤维(NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)含量有所降低,青贮后辣椒秸秆总体营养价值提高。李佳艾等[6]在饲粮中添加以枯草芽孢杆菌发酵的辣椒秸秆粉,能够提高肉鸡生长性能,改善机体免疫机能,维持盲肠微生物的稳定。另外,研究显示,构树[7-8]、桑叶[9-10]、苎麻[11-12]等诸多非常规饲料使用微生物等添加剂发酵后饲用价值均得到显著提高。目前,辣椒秸秆及其经不同添加剂发酵后的青贮辣椒秸秆在反刍动物上饲喂效果的研究还鲜有报道,饲粮中添加辣椒秸秆或青贮辣椒秸秆对羔羊生长性能及健康状况有无影响更不清楚。因此,本试验分别以辣椒秸秆、2种添加剂处理的青贮辣椒秸秆等比例替代羔羊饲粮中的苜蓿,通过测定受试羔羊的生长性能、养分表观消化率、瘤胃发酵参数和血清生化指标,判断其营养价值和饲喂效果,以期为辣椒秸秆的饲料化开发提供理论依据和技术参考,也为非常规饲料的开发利用提供途径和方法。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验材料

参试辣椒秸秆取自新疆昌吉州玛纳斯县辣椒种植大田,品种为改良陕早红。植物乳杆菌+枯草芽孢杆菌(LP+BS)、植物乳杆菌+糖蜜(LP+M)青贮辣椒秸秆的制作:末次辣椒采摘后收割秸秆,刈割时留茬2~3 cm,确保秸秆清洁、无泥土夹杂,待秸秆晾晒至含水率65%左右时粉碎,分别将植物乳杆菌与枯草芽孢杆菌或植物乳杆菌与糖蜜溶于蒸馏水中,用喷雾器均匀喷洒在粉碎的辣椒秸秆上,搅拌均匀后装入青贮裹包袋(承重50 kg),压紧压实,密封发酵60 d后开袋使用。2种添加剂使用量分别为0.5×106 CFU/g植物乳杆菌+0.5×106 CFU/g植物乳杆菌和1.0×106 CFU/g植物乳杆菌+4% FM糖蜜。风干辣椒秸秆为制作青贮辣椒秸秆的原料晾晒而成。植物乳杆菌(1×1011 CFU/g)、枯草芽孢杆菌(1×1011 CFU/g)购于潍坊某生物科技有限公司,糖蜜购于柳州某糖蜜有限公司。风干辣椒秸秆及其不同处理青贮的营养成分含量见表1。
表1 风干辣椒秸秆及其不同处理青贮的营养成分含量

Table 1 Nutrient contents of air-dried pepper straw and its silage under different treatments

项目
Items		 干物质
DM/%		 粗蛋白质
CP/%		 中性洗涤纤维
NDF/%		 酸性洗涤纤维
ADF/%		 粗脂肪
EE/%		 辣椒素
Capsaicin/
(μg/g)
风干辣椒秸秆
Air-dried pepper stalk		 86.00 15.90 34.97 29.30 2.90 82.29
LP+BS青贮辣椒秸秆
LP+BS pepper straw silage		 38.20 16.28 28.33 26.21 2.89 76.13
LP+M青贮辣椒秸秆
LP+M pepper straw silage		 38.10 15.51 31.11 27.14 2.33 57.22
风干苜蓿干草Air-dried alfalfa hay 87.00 17.20 39.00 28.60 2.60

1.2 试验设计

饲养试验在玛纳斯县日发新西域畜牧有限公司开展。选取24头4月龄、体重为(31.13±1.63) kg的萨福克公羔羊,随机分成4组,每组6头。对照组(CK组)饲喂含15%苜蓿干草(营养成分含量见表1)的饲粮,PS组用风干辣椒秸秆等比例代替饲粮中的苜蓿干草,LP+BS组用LP+BS青贮辣椒秸秆等比例代替饲粮中的苜蓿干草,LP+M组用LP+M青贮辣椒秸秆等比例代替饲粮中的苜蓿干草。预试期10 d,正试期50 d。试验饲粮组成及营养水平见表2。
表2 试验饲粮组成及营养水平(干物质基础)

Table 2 Composition and nutrient levels of experimental diets (DM basis)%

项目
Items		 组别Groups
CK PS LP+BS LP+M
原料Ingredients
玉米Corn 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
小麦麸Wheat bran 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50
大豆粕Soybean meal 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00
预混料Premix1) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
碳酸氢钠NaHCO3 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
绿化草坪干草Green lawn hay 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00
苜蓿干草Alfalfa hay 15.00
风干辣椒秸秆Air-dried pepper stalk 15.00
LP+BS青贮辣椒秸秆LP+BS pepper straw silage 15.00
LP+M青贮辣椒秸秆LP+M pepper straw silage 15.00
合计Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
营养水平Nutrient levels2)
消化能DE/(MJ/kg) 11.47 11.33 11.96 11.73
干物质DM 84.71 84.56 77.39 77.37
粗蛋白质CP 13.79 13.61 13.67 13.55
中性洗涤纤维NDF 36.77 36.17 35.17 35.59
酸性洗涤纤维ADF 21.60 21.71 21.24 21.38
粗脂肪EE 2.70 2.75 2.75 2.66

1)每千克预混料含有 Contained the following per kg of the premix:VA 10 000 IU,VD 1 500 IU,VE 125 IU,Fe 1 600 mg,Cu 200 mg,Mn 1 300 mg,Zn 1 300 mg,I 8.75 mg,Se 3.75 mg,Co 3.75 mg,Ca 14.5 g,P 2 g,NaCl 6.4 g。

2)消化能为计算值[13],其余为实测值。DE was a calculated value[13], while the others were measured values.

1.3 饲养管理

试验羊采用分栏饲养,每组1栏,每栏6只。每天09:00和19:00饲喂2次饲粮,试验羊自由采食和饮水,同时确保每栏有5%剩料,消毒和免疫等工作按羊场日常管理执行。

1.4 样品采集

1.4.1 饲粮样品采集

正试期每周用四分法收集1次CK、PS、LP+BS和LP+M组饲粮和剩料样品各400 g,称重后经过65 ℃烘箱烘48 h,测定样品初水分,然后再将烘干后的样品进行粉碎后过40目筛,用于常规营养成分含量测定。

1.4.2 粪样采集

在饲喂试验结束前4 d,每只羊套集粪袋(内面防渗透塑料布制作)连续收集粪样4 d,每天晨饲前将前1 d将粪样取出,待试验结束后混合收集的每只羊的粪样,采用四分法取每只羊的粪样500 g,分装成2份,一份65 ℃烘干制成风干样,用于粗脂肪(EE)、NDF、ADF等营养成分含量的测定;另一份加10%硫酸固氮,用于CP含量的测定。

1.4.3 血样采集

正试期最后1 d晨饲前,以颈静脉采血的方法,每只羊用肝素钠抗凝采血管采集10 mL血样,再用离心机以3 000 r/min常温离心15 min,取上清液1.5 mL分装于离心管,保存在-20 ℃冰箱,用于血清生化指标的测定。

1.4.4 瘤胃液采集

正试期最后1 d晨饲前,使用胃管式瘤胃液采样器抽取瘤胃液,每只羊40 mL,经4层纱布过滤后,取适量测定pH,其余瘤胃液各取5 mL分装至离心管中,一份-20 ℃冰箱冷冻保存,用于氨态氮(NH3-N)浓度测定;另一份加入1 mL 25%偏磷酸和2滴饱和氯化汞溶液使酶灭活,-20 ℃冰箱冷冻保存,用于挥发性脂肪酸(VFA)浓度的测定。

1.5 测定指标及方法

1.5.1 常规营养成分含量的测定

DM、CP和EE含量分别采用GB/T 6435—2014、GB/T 6432—2018和GB/T 6433—2006方法测定,NDF和ADF含量分别采用GB/T 20806—2022和NY/T 1459—2022方法测定。

1.5.2 生长性能的测定

试验期间记录每栏羊每日喂料量和剩料量,据此计算干物质釆食量(DMI)和平均日干物质采食量(ADMFI)。正试期第1天晨饲前空腹称重,记为试验羊的初重,正试期第50天晨饲前空腹称重,记为试验羊末重;以初重和末重计算试验羊平均日增重(ADG);以正试期内饲喂饲粮总量和总增重计算料重比(F/G)。相关计算公式如下:

DMI=饲喂总干物质量-剩料总干物质量;

ADMFI=DMI/试验天数;

ADG=(末重-初重)/试验天数;

F/G=饲喂饲粮总量/正试期内总增重。

1.5.3 养分表观消化率的计算

羔羊DM、CP、NDF、ADF和CP表观消化率采用酸不溶灰分(AIA)内源指示剂法[14]测定,计算公式如下:

某养分的表观消化率(%)=100-100×[粪中该养分含量(%)×饲粮中AIA含量(%)]/[饲粮中该养分含量(%)×粪中AIA含量(%)]。

1.5.4 血清生化指标的测定

血清总蛋白(TP)、白蛋白(ALB)、总胆固醇(TC)、甘油三酯(TG)、葡萄糖(GLU)、谷草转氨酶(AST)、谷丙转氨酶(ALT)、碱性磷酸酶(ALP)和尿素氮(UN)含量或活性使用全自动生化分析仪(科华ZY KHB-1280)测定,试剂盒购自上海科华生物工程股份有限公司。

1.5.5 瘤胃发酵参数的测定

瘤胃液pH用pH计测定,NH3-N浓度采用苯酚-次氯酸钠比色法[15]测定,VFA浓度利用高效气相色谱仪(岛津GC-2010型,日本),参照郝小燕等[16]的方法测定。

1.6 数据统计与分析

数据经Excel 2010进行汇总和整理后,利用SPSS 20.0统计软件进行单因素方差分析(one-way ANOVA),并采用Duncan氏法进行多重比较检验,结果以“平均值±标准差”表示。P<0.05表示差异显著,P>0.05表示差异不显著。

2 结果与分析

2.1 辣椒秸秆及其青贮替代苜蓿干草对羔羊生长性能的影响

由表3可知,试验开始时4组羔羊初重差异不显著(P>0.05);CK、LP+BS、LP+M组之间ADMFI差异不显著(P>0.05),但均显著高于PS组(P<0.05);PS组ADG显著低于CK、LP+BS组(P<0.05),而CK、LP+BS、LP+M组之间ADG差异不显著(P>0.05);PS组F/G显著高于CK、LP+BS组(P<0.05),而CK、LP+BS、LP+M组之间F/G差异不显著(P>0.05)。
表3 辣椒秸秆及其青贮替代苜蓿干草对羔羊生长性能的影响

Table 3 Effects of pepper straw and its silage instead of alfalfa hay on growth performance of lambs

项目
Items		 组别Groups
CK PS LP+BS LP+M
初重IBW/kg 31.21±1.45 31.46±1.33 30.77±2.01 31.08±1.71
末重FBW/kg 41.77±1.87 40.51±2.11 41.30±2.31 41.17±1.35
平均日干物质采食量ADMFI/(g/d) 1 518.21±21.31a 1 433.31±20.64b 1 511.31±20.21a 1 506.09±21.09a
平均日增重ADG/(g/d) 211.21±20.36a 181.03±20.19b 210.65±21.14a 201.88±20.21ab
料重比F/G 7.19±0.52b 7.92±0.66a 7.17±0.69b 7.46±0.71ab

同行数据肩标不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05),相同或无字母表示差异不显著(P>0.05)。下表同。

Values in the same row with different lowercase letter superscripts indicated significant difference (P<0.05), while with the same or no letter superscripts indicated no significant difference (P>0.05). The same as below.

2.2 辣椒秸秆及其青贮替代苜蓿干草对羔羊养分表观消化率的影响

由表4可知,在DM、NDF和EE表观消化率方面,CK、LP+BS和LP+M组之间差异不显著(P>0.05),但均显著高于PS组(P<0.05)。LP+BS组的CP表观消化率显著高于PS组(P<0.05),CK、LP+BS组的ADF表观消化率显著高于PS组(P<0.05),但CK、LP+BS和LP+M组之间CP和ADF表观消化率差异均不显著(P>0.05)。
表4 辣椒秸秆及其青贮替代苜蓿干草对羔羊养分表观消化率的影响

Table 4 Effects of pepper straw and its silage instead of alfalfa hay on nutrient apparent digestibility of lambs%

项目
Items		 组别Groups
CK PS LP+BS LP+M
干物质DM 71.11±1.61a 68.72±1.33b 72.21±1.56a 70.91±1.14a
粗蛋白质CP 74.27±4.16ab 70.19±4.21b 75.16±3.15a 73.33±3.88ab
中性洗涤纤维NDF 64.21±2.18a 60.57±2.11b 64.57±3.26a 63.15±2.55a
酸性洗涤纤维ADF 62.34±2.44a 59.37±2.37b 62.11±3.01a 60.27±2.59ab
粗脂肪EE 79.38±3.15a 75.22±2.37b 81.15±3.41a 78.67±2.66a

2.3 辣椒秸秆及其青贮替代苜蓿干草对羔羊瘤胃发酵参数的影响

由表5可知,PS组瘤胃液pH与CK组差异不显著(P>0.05),但显著高于LP+BS和LP+M组(P<0.05),CK、LP+BS和LP+M组之间差异均不显著(P>0.05)。PS组瘤胃液中NH3-N浓度显著高于CK、LP+BS和LP+M组(P<0.05),瘤胃液中总挥发性脂肪酸(TVFA)浓度显著低于CK、LP+BS和LP+M组(P<0.05),而CK、LP+BS和LP+M组之间瘤胃液中NH3-N和TVFA浓度差异均不显著(P>0.05)。CK、LP+BS组瘤胃液中乙酸(AA)浓度显著高于PS组(P<0.05),CK、LP+BS和LP+M组瘤胃液中丁酸(BA)浓度显著高于PS组(P<0.05),CK、LP+BS和LP+M组之间瘤胃液中BA、AA浓度差异均不显著(P>0.05);4组之间瘤胃液中丙酸(PA)浓度差异不显著(P>0.05)。
表5 辣椒秸秆及其青贮替代苜蓿干草对羔羊瘤胃发酵参数的影响

Table 5 Effects of pepper straw and its silage instead of alfalfa hay on rumen fermentation parameters of lambs

项目
Items		 组别Groups
CK PS LP+BS LP+M
pH 6.74±0.16ab 6.86±0.13a 6.66±0.18b 6.69±0.22b
氨态氮NH3-N/(mg/L) 1.88±0.12b 2.21±0.18a 1.81±0.14b 1.97±0.17b
乙酸AA/% 37.31±2.11a 35.11±2.15b 38.37±3.01a 36.55±2.13ab
丙酸PA/% 18.13±1.43 17.17±1.12 17.66±1.33 17.01±1.81
丁酸BA/% 6.24±0.27a 5.86±0.21b 6.36±0.19a 6.11±0.24a
总挥发性脂肪酸TVFA/(mmol/L) 56.69±2.33a 51.39±3.21b 57.29±2.54a 56.12±2.71a

2.4 辣椒秸秆及其青贮替代苜蓿干草对羔羊血清生化指标的影响

由表6可知,LP+BS组血清UN含量显著高于CK、PS和LP+M组(P<0.05),CK、PS和LP+M组之间差异不显著(P>0.05)。CK、PS、LP+BS和LP+M组之间血清TP、ALB、 TC、TG、GLU、ALT、AST和ALP活性或含量均差异不显著(P>0.05)。
表6 辣椒秸秆及其青贮替代苜蓿干草对羔羊血清生化指标的影响

Table 6 Effects of pepper straw and its silage instead of alfalfa hay on serum biochemical indexes of lambs

项目
Items		 组别Groups
CK PS LP+BS LP+M
总蛋白TP/(g/L) 66.41±3.37 64.39±3.15 68.27±4.12 67.11±3.28
白蛋白ALB/(g/L) 39.26±1.63 38.15±1.22 39.69±2.01 39.37±1.57
总胆固醇TC/(mmol/L) 1.21±0.11 1.32±0.09 1.19±0.23 1.22±0.16
甘油三酯TG/(mmol/L) 0.23±0.03 0.29±0.06 0.19±0.08 0.21±0.08
葡萄糖GLU/(mmol/L) 3.24±0.33 3.19±0.21 3.33±0.19 3.12±0.42
谷丙转氨酶ALT/(U/L) 28.39±3.15 31.22±4.01 26.45±3.69 27.17±3.15
谷草转氨酶AST/(U/L) 103.66±6.37 106.27±8.15 98.37±8.79 101.19±6.13
碱性磷酸酶ALP/(U/L) 215.44±28.36 223.18±22.14 206.27±24.31 211.17±20.51
尿素氮UN/(mmol/L) 6.13±0.37a 6.59±0.87a 5.23±0.39b 6.19±0.71a

3 讨论

3.1 辣椒秸秆及其青贮替代苜蓿干草对羔羊生长性能及消化代谢的影响

采食量与饲粮的适口性及瘤胃物理填充等密切相关[17]。采食量越高,则饲粮适口性越好。ADG和F/G与饲粮养分消化率显著相关,饲粮养分消化率越低,ADG越低,F/G越高。苜蓿营养价值高,适口性好,是公认的“牧草之王”。本研究中,与CK组相比,PS组羔羊的ADMFI、ADG和DM、CP、NDF、ADF、EE表观消化率均显著降低,而F/G显著升高,说明辣椒秸秆的适口性和养分表观消化率较苜蓿干草低。其原因可能是辣椒秸秆本身DM、CP等营养成分含量低于苜蓿干草,另外,还与辣椒秸秆含有一定量的辣椒素有关。此外,与CK组相比,LP+BS和LP+M组羔羊的ADFI、ADG、F/G以及DM、CP、NDF、ADF、EE表观消化率均差异不显著,说明辣椒秸秆经2种添加剂处理青贮后改善了适口性和养分消化率,这与在玉米青贮[18-19]和发酵稻秸[20]上的研究结果相一致。其可能原因有以下4点:一是辣椒秸秆经青贮处理后,增加了大量乳酸菌代谢产物,同时NDF、ADF和辣椒素含量下降,从而增加了养分含量和适口性;二是辣椒秸秆通过青贮发酵技术处理后,改变了部分细胞壁的结构,减弱了木质素对辣椒秸秆降解的抑制作用[21],进而也提高了NDF和ADF等营养成分的表观消化率;三是辣椒秸秆经青贮发酵后纤维素含量下降,降低了饲粮在消化道中的流速,增加了滞留时间,从而提高了CP、EE、NDF和ADF等营养物质的表观消化率[22];四是青贮辣椒秸秆中的乳酸菌、枯草芽孢杆菌等益生菌进入羔羊消化道后,在消化道内生长繁殖并抑制了病原菌的生长,同时也刺激消化道上皮组织,进一步增强了消化道对饲粮中营养物质的吸收[23]。
而LP+BS组与LP+M组相比较,虽然ADFI、ADG、F/G以及DM、CP、NDF、ADF、EE表观消化率差异不显著,但LP+BS组ADFI、ADG和DM、CP、NDF、ADF、EE表观消化率偏高,F/G偏低,说明青贮过程中添加植物乳杆菌和枯草芽孢杆菌制备的LP+BS青贮辣椒秸秆饲喂效果比添加植物乳杆菌和糖蜜制备的LP+M青贮辣椒秸秆的效果更好。

3.2 辣椒秸秆及其青贮替代苜蓿干草对羔羊瘤胃发酵参数的影响

瘤胃液pH能综合体现羔羊瘤胃发酵情况,饲粮特性、羔羊唾液分泌及瘤胃内消化液成分等多种因素共同影响其变化[24],同时瘤胃液pH对维持瘤胃内微生物群落结构和生存起着重要作用,是瘤胃微生物代谢活性的综合反映,适宜范围为6.5~7.0[25]。本研究中,4组羔羊瘤胃液pH均在适宜范围内,说明瘤胃消化正常。相比较,LP+BS和LP+M组瘤胃液pH要低于CK和PS组,这可能是由于青贮辣椒秸秆在瘤胃内消化性更好,易被微生物降解产生较多的VFA所致。
瘤胃液NH3-N是由饲粮中蛋白质、肽类和非蛋白氮等成分被瘤胃微生物分解产生,其浓度受饲粮中的蛋白质降解程度和微生物利用效率共同调控[26],瘤胃液中适宜的NH3-N浓度是瘤胃微生物正常生长与发酵的前提。在本研究中,PS组瘤胃液NH3-N浓度显著高于CK、LP+BS和LP+M组,而从CP表观消化率看CK、LP+BS和LP+M组均高于PS组,推测CK、LP+BS和LP+M组的瘤胃微生物对瘤胃中NH3-N的利用率可能更高。
瘤胃液中的VFA由AA、PA、BA以及一些短链脂肪酸和支链脂肪酸组成[27],是瘤胃微生物厌氧发酵过程中的主要产物,AA和BA由饲粮中纤维素被微生物发酵后生成,是脂类合成的主要前体物,PA与反刍动物能量利用相关,是糖异生的前体物质[28]。在本研究中,CK、LP+BS和LP+M组瘤胃液中TVFA、BA浓度均显著高于PS组,CK、LP+BS组瘤胃液中AA浓度显著高于PS组,瘤胃液中PA浓度4组之间差异不显著,说明含苜蓿干草和青贮辣椒秸秆饲粮比含辣椒秸秆饲粮的纤维素消化率高,更易发酵,使羔羊瘤胃微生物活动加强,进而提高了瘤胃液中TVFA、AA和BA的浓度。这与青贮桑叶在奶山羊[14]上的研究结果相一致。

3.3 辣椒秸秆及其青贮替代苜蓿干草对羔羊血清生化指标的影响

血液是机体内环境的一项重要组成部分,其生化指标的变化可反映动物健康状况和消化代谢情况。血清中UN是衡量饲粮中蛋白质被机体消化吸收、转化利用及动物健康状况的指标,当其含量较低时,表示机体内蛋白质合成效率较高[29]。在本试验中,LP+BS组血清中UN含量显著低于CK、PS和LP+M组,而4组之间血清TP和ALB含量差异不显著,说明LP+BS青贮辣椒秸秆代替饲粮中苜蓿干草饲喂羔羊后,能更好的促进蛋白质合成、转化和沉积。
血液中TP和ALB含量的高低能体现机体代谢活动强弱,在正常范围内,TP和ALB含量越高,表明机体代谢活动越旺盛[30]。GLU含量反映了机体对糖代谢平衡的状态,是衡量动物体内能量平衡的一种重要指标[31]。AST和ALT活性反映了动物肝脏功能是否正常,当肝脏细胞受损时,血清中AST和ALT的活性会增加[32]。而血清TG和TC是血脂的重要成分,其在血清中含量的高低直接反映机体脂质代谢的情况。经查阅文献[33⇓-35],本试验测定的4组羔羊的血清生化指标均在正常值范围内,且4组羔羊的血清TP、ALB、GLU、ALP、AST、ALT、TG和TC含量或活性等血清生化指标差异不显著,说明在羔羊饲粮中以辣椒秸秆、青贮辣椒秸秆替代苜蓿干草不会对机体代谢和健康状况产生不良影响,可以正常使用,且以LP+BS青贮辣椒秸秆的效果更好。

4 结论

① 相较辣椒秸秆,添加LP+BS、LP+M制备的青贮辣椒秸秆的NDF、ADF和辣椒素含量均降低,提高了适口性。
② 以风干辣椒秸秆替代饲粮中苜蓿干草后,羔羊对饲粮中DM、CP、NDF、ADF和EE的表观消化率显著降低,F/G显著增加;而以LP+BS、LP+M青贮辣椒秸秆替代饲粮中苜蓿干草后,羔羊对饲粮中DM、CP、NDF、ADF和EE的表观消化率及其生长性能、瘤胃发酵参数和血清生化指标无显著变化,在某些指标上甚至更优。
③ 添加LP+BS、LP+M制备的青贮辣椒秸秆可代替饲粮中全部苜蓿干草饲喂羔羊,且以LP+BS青贮辣椒秸秆饲喂效果更好。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
邹学校, 马艳青, 戴雄泽, 等. 辣椒在中国的传播与产业发展[J]. 园艺学报, 2020, 47(9):1715-1726.

ZOU X J, MA Y Q, DAI X Z, et al. Spread and industry development of pepper in China[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2020, 47(9):1715-1726. (in Chinese)

DOI

[2]
陆相龙, 董青, 邵涛, 等. 辣椒秸秆辣椒素和营养成分含量测定[J]. 中国草食动物科学, 2012, 32(5):24-27.

LU X L, DONG Q, SHAO T, et al. Determination of capsaicin content and nutrients in pepper straw[J]. China Herbivore Science, 2012, 32(5):24-27. (in Chinese)

[3]
陆相龙. 辣椒秸秆成分及其饲喂产蛋鸡效果研究[D]. 硕士学位论文. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2013.

LU X L. Ingredients analysis of pepper straw and feeding effect estimation in laying hens[D]. Master’s Thesis. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2013. (in Chinese)

[4]
程菊芬, 谢传奇, 徐杏, 等. 辣椒秸秆粉对獭兔生长性能、养分消化率及皮张质量的影响[J/OL]. 浙江农业科学:1-9[2023-08-01].https://doi.org/10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230695.

CHENG J F, XIE C Q, XU X, et al. Effects of pepper straw powder on growth performance,nutrient digestibility and skin quality of rex rabbits[J/OL]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences:1-9[2023-08-01].https://doi.org/10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230695. (in Chinese)

[5]
周娟娟, 魏巍, 秦爱琼, 等. 水分和添加剂对辣椒秸秆青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(2):231-239.

DOI

ZHOU J J, WEI W, QIN A Q, et al. Effects of moisture and additives on the quality of pepper straw silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(2):231-239. (in Chinese)

[6]
李佳艾, 杨恋, 唐芳, 等. 发酵辣椒对麻黄肉鸡的生产性能、免疫指标、抗氧化功能及盲肠微生物群的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2023(7):109-114.

LI J A, YANG L, TANG F, et al. Effects of fermented pepper on the production performance,immune indexes and cecal microorganisms of “MaHuang” broilers[J]. China Feed, 2023(7):109-114. (in Chinese)

[7]
屠焰, 刁其玉, 田莉, 等. 杂交构树营养成分瘤胃降解特点的研究[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2009, 45(11):38-41.

TU Y, DIAO Q Y, TIAN L, et al. Study on the rumen degradability of hybridized Broussonetia papyrifera Linn[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2009, 45(11):38-41. (in Chinese)

[8]
林萌萌, 郑爱华, 刘晓东, 等. 青贮杂交构树替代蛋白饲料对肉羊生产性能的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医杂志, 2018, 37(6):79-81.

LIN M M, ZHENG A H, LIU X D, et al. Effects of silage hybrid Broussonetia papyrifera replaced protein feed on the production performance of sheep[J]. Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2018, 37(6):79-81. (in Chinese)

[9]
黄萍, 杨飞云. 桑叶作畜禽饲料的应用研究[J]. 四川畜牧兽医, 2011, 38(8):28-29,32.

HUANG P, YANG F Y. Research on the application of mulberry leaves as livestock feed[J]. Sichuan Animal&Veterinary Sciences, 2011, 38(8):28-29,32. (in Chinese)

[10]
谭汪英, 贝建设, 莫琳, 等. 浅谈桑叶在动物养殖中的应用及展望[J]. 广西蚕业, 2021, 58(4):38-45.

TAN W Y, BEI J S, MO L, et al. Application and prospect of mulberry leaves in animal breeding[J]. Guangxi Sericulture, 2021, 58(4):38-45. (in Chinese)

[11]
李文杨, 陈鑫珠, 刘远, 等. 不同添加剂对苎麻青贮品质的影响[J]. 家畜生态学报, 2016, 37(7):56-59.

LI W Y, CHEN X Z, LIU Y, et al. Effect of additives on quality of ramie silage[J]. Journal of Domestic Animal Ecology, 2016, 37(7):56-59. (in Chinese)

[12]
刘佳杰, 马兰, 周韦, 等. 不同切碎方式及不同青贮时间对饲用苎麻青贮品质影响[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2019, 41(4):773-780.

LIU J J, MA L, ZHOU W, et al. The effects of different cutting methods and different silage time on the quality of silage for feeding ramie[J]. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis, 2019, 41(4):773-780. (in Chinese)

[13]
张宏福. 动物营养参数与饲养标准[M]. 2版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2010.

ZHANG H F. Nutrition parameters and feeding standard for animals[M]. 2nd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2010. (in Chinese)

[14]
凌浩, 郭水强, 李鑫垚, 等. 青贮桑叶替代青贮玉米对奶山羊生产性能、乳品质、养分表观消化率、瘤胃发酵参数和血清生化指标的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(6):3389-3399.

DOI

LING H, GUO S Q, LI X Y, et al. Effects of silage mulberry leaves instead of silage corn on performance,milk quality,nutrient apparent digestibilities,rumen fermentation parameters and serum biochemical indexes of dairy goats[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(6):3389-3399. (in Chinese)

[15]
罗颖洁, 穆麟, 胡龙兴, 等. 稻秸、玉米粉与紫花苜蓿混合青贮研究[J]. 中国草地学报, 2020, 42(4):139-144.

LUO Y J, MU L, HU L X, et al. Study on mixed silage of rice straw with corn meal and alfalfa[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2020, 42(4):139-144. (in Chinese)

[16]
郝小燕, 张广宁, 么恩悦, 等. 干玉米纤维饲料与羊草组合替代苜蓿干草对体外瘤胃发酵的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2018, 30(3):953-962.

HAO X Y, ZHANG G N, YAO E Y, et al. Effects of replacing alfalfa hay with dry corn fiber feed and Chinese leymus on in vitro rumen fermentation[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2018, 30(3):953-962. (in Chinese)

[17]
李文娟, 刁其玉. 肉羊日粮干物质采食量及其影响因素的研究进展[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2016, 52(19):95-99.

LI W J, DIAO Q Y. Research progress on dry matter intake of mutton sheep and related influencing factors[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2016, 52(19):95-99. (in Chinese)

[18]
王小平, 王小琪, 李标, 等. 复合菌剂对青贮玉米营养成分及其饲喂滩羊效果的研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2020, 28(8):1258-1264.

WANG X P, WANG X Q, LI B, et al. Testing the performance of compound microbial additives in silage maize nutrients and the effect of feeding Tan sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-agriculture, 2020, 28(8):1258-1264. (in Chinese)

[19]
司雪萌, 张振威, 王彦芦, 等. 微生物菌剂处理全株玉米青贮及花生秧添加对小尾寒羊生长性能及养分消化率的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2018, 54(5):79-83.

SI X M, ZHANG Z W, WANG Y L, et al. Effects of different microbial inoculants and peanut vine addition in whole-plant corn silage based total mixed rations on growth performance and nutrient digestibility of small-tailed Han sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2018, 54(5):79-83. (in Chinese)

[20]
PAN Y G, LIN W C, LO C T, et al. Effects of substitution of Bermuda grass hay with Trichoderma fermented rice straw on growth,blood,and rumen fluid parameters in Barbados sheep[J]. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 2018, 46(1):1162-1168.

DOI

[21]
孙雪丽, 李秋凤, 刘英财, 等. 全株青贮玉米对西门塔尔杂交牛生产性能、表观消化率及血液生化指标的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(9):201-209.

DOI

SUN X L, LI Q F, LIU Y C, et al. Effects of whole-plant corn silage on performance,digestibility and blood biochemical parameters in Simmental crossbred bulls[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(9):201-209. (in Chinese)

[22]
孟令凯, 郭春华, 彭忠利, 等. 微贮牧草对山羊生产性能、饲粮养分消化率和消化道微生物数量的影响[J]. 饲料工业, 2015, 36(3):48-52.

MENG L K, GUO C H, PENG Z L, et al. Effect of microorganism fermented grass on growth performance,nutrient digestion metabolism and digestive tract microorganism quantity of goats[J]. Feed Industry, 2015, 36(3):48-52. (in Chinese)

[23]
WEINBERG Z G, CHEN Y, GAMBURG M. The passage of lactic acid bacteria from silage into rumen fluid,in vitro studies[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2004, 87(10):3386-3397.

DOI

[24]
ANANTASOOK N, WANAPAT M, CHERDTHONG A, et al. Effect of plants containing secondary compounds with palm oil on feed intake,digestibility,microbial protein synthesis and microbial population in dairy cows[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2013, 26(6):820-826.

DOI

[25]
PLAIZIER J C, KRAUSE D O, GOZHO G N, et al. Subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows:the physiological causes,incidence and consequences[J]. The Veterinary Journal, 2008, 176(1):21-31.

DOI

[26]
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.

BAI Y F. Study on the applocation of urease inhibitor in production of lambs[D]. Master’s Thesis. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2001. (in Chinese)

[27]
高晓莎, 段晋伟, 张艳冰, 等. 瘤胃源酵母的分离筛选及其在不同精粗比饲粮中对瘤胃体外发酵的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2020, 56(6):95-101.

GAO X S, DUAN J W, ZHANG Y B, et al. Isolation and characterization of rumen yeast and its effect on rumen in vitro fementation in different concentrate to forage ratios[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 56(6):95-101. (in Chinese)

[28]
KANG S, WANAPAT M, PAKDEE P, et al. Effects of energy level and Leucaena leucocephala leaf meal as a protein source on rumen fermentation efficiency and digestibility in swamp buffalo[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2012, 174(3/4):131-139.

DOI

[29]
CHASHNIDEL Y, BAHARI M, TEIMOURI YANSARI A, et al. The effects of dietary supplementation of prebiotic and peptide on growth performance and blood parameters in suckling Zell lambs[J]. Small Ruminant Research, 2020, 188:106121.

DOI

[30]
程璞, 马伟, 刘卫东, 等. 不同小麦肽对断奶仔猪生产性能及血清生化指标的影响[J]. 中国粮油学报, 2022, 37(8):231-236.

CHENG P, MA W, LIU D W, et al. Effects of different wheat peptides on growth performance of weaned piglets and serum biochemical indexes[J]. Journal of the Chinese Cereals and Oils Association, 2022, 37(8):231-236. (in Chinese)

[31]
BORER K E, BAILEY S R, MENZIES-GOW N J, et al. Effect of feeding glucose,fructose,and inulin on blood glucose and insulin concentrations in normal ponies and those predisposed to laminitis[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2012, 90(9):3003-3011.

DOI

[32]
NASROLLAHI S M, ZALI A, GHORBANI G R, et al. Short communication:blood metabolites,body reserves,and feed efficiency of high-producing dairy cows that varied in ruminal pH when fed a high-concentrate diet[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2019, 102(1):672-677.

DOI

[33]
丁秋云. 松针与苜蓿混合青贮饲喂育肥羔羊效果评价[D]. 硕士学位论文. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2020.

DING Q Y. Evaluation of feeding effect of pine needles and alfalfa mixed silage on fattening lambs[D]. Master’s Thesis. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2020. (in Chinese)

[34]
蒋慧. 骆驼刺与苜蓿混合青贮饲用价值综合评价[D]. 博士学位论文. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2017.

JIANG H. The comprehensive evaluation of feed value of Alhagi sparsifolia Shap and alfalfa mix-silage[D]. Ph.D.Thesis. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2017. (in Chinese)

[35]
王民桢. 兽医临床鉴别诊断学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1994.

WANG M Z. Eterinary clinical differential diagnostics[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1994. (in Chinese)

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

京ICP备17050989号-2
Copyright © Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, All Rights Reserved.
Tel: 010－62817823　E-mail: cjan@vip.163.com
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co., Ltd.