Effects of Sugarcane Top Silage Treated with Cellulase and Xylanase on Nutrient Apparent Digestibility, Lactation Performance and Serum Biochemical Indices of Buffaloes

PENG Lijuan; LI Mengwei; XIE Huade; GUO Yanxia; YANG Chengjian

doi:10.12418/CJAN2024.544

2024 , Vol. 36 >Issue 10: 6399 - 6408

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2024.544

RESEARCH PAPER

Effects of Sugarcane Top Silage Treated with Cellulase and Xylanase on Nutrient Apparent Digestibility, Lactation Performance and Serum Biochemical Indices of Buffaloes

PENG Lijuan ,
LI Mengwei ,
XIE Huade ,
GUO Yanxia ,
YANG Chengjian ^,^*

Expand

Guangxi Key Laboratory of Buffalo Genetics, Reproduction and Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Guangxi Buffalo Research Institute, Nanning 530001, China

^*professor, E-mail: ycj0746@sina.com

Received date: 2024-04-22

Online published: 2024-10-14

Fold

Abstract

The aim of this experiment was to investigate the effects of cellulase and xylanase treatment on the quality of sugarcane top silage, and its effects on nutrient apparent digestibility, lactation performance and serum biochemical indices of buffaloes. Twenty-four Murrah female buffaloes with similar lactation period and parity, healthy condition and body weight [(726.40±6.45) kg] were randomly divided into 4 groups with 6 replicates per group and 1 buffalo per replicate. Buffaloes in the control group were fed sugarcane top silage without adding enzyme preparation, and those in the experimental groups were fed the sugarcane top silage supplemented with 200 mg/kg cellulase (experimental group Ⅰ), 200 mg/kg xylanase (experimental group Ⅱ) and 200 mg/kg cellulase+200 mg/kg xylanase (experimental group Ⅲ), respectively. The amount of enzyme preparation added was based on the fresh weight of silage raw material. The ratio of dietary concentrate to roughage forage was 7∶3 in all groups. The pre-trial period was 2 weeks and the trial period was 4 weeks. The results showed as follows: 1) compared with the control group, there were no significant differences in the conventional nutrient contents of sugarcane top silage in experimental groups (P>0.05); the lactic acid content in all experimental groups was significantly increased (P<0.05), and the lactic acid content in experimental group Ⅲ was significantly higher than that in experimental groups Ⅰ and Ⅱ (P<0.05); the pH and contents of acetic acid and ammonia nitrogen (NH₃-N) in all experimental groups were significantly decreased (P<0.05). 2) Compared with the control group, the dry matter intake (DMI) of buffaloes in experimental groups Ⅰ and Ⅱ was significantly decreased (P<0.05), and the apparent digestibilities of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) in all experimental groups were significantly increased (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in milk yield, milk composition, feed conversion efficiency and serum biochemical indices among all groups (P>0.05). In conclusion, adding cellulase and xylanase to sugarcane top alone or in combination can improve the silage quality and the apparent digestibilities of NDF and ADF of buffaloes, but has no significant effects on lactation performance and serum biochemical indices.

Key words： cellulase; xylanase; sugarcane top; silage; buffaloes; lactation performance

Cite this article

PENG Lijuan , LI Mengwei , XIE Huade , GUO Yanxia , YANG Chengjian . Effects of Sugarcane Top Silage Treated with Cellulase and Xylanase on Nutrient Apparent Digestibility, Lactation Performance and Serum Biochemical Indices of Buffaloes[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024 , 36(10) : 6399 -6408 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2024.544

广西是水牛的主产区,粗饲料的消耗量很大。甘蔗梢是甘蔗产业的副产物,由甘蔗顶部的2~3节甘蔗茎及绿叶组成^[1],占甘蔗植株重量的12%~20%^[2],是广西重要的非粮饲料资源。甘蔗梢中含糖量较高,是家畜良好的饲料资源^[3]。随着畜牧业的发展,饲料资源越来越稀缺,充分利用甘蔗梢可以解决牲畜缺乏粗饲料来源的问题,因此甘蔗梢有望成为有用的新饲料资源。但是,目前大多数甘蔗梢作为天然肥料或干燥后作为燃料,只有少量的新鲜甘蔗梢作为反刍动物的饲料;而且,新鲜甘蔗梢比较坚硬,影响动物采食量且容易伤害家畜的消化道。青贮饲料通过青贮能使其软化,且具有更高的营养价值和更长的储存时间。由于甘蔗梢收获时间比较集中,制备成青贮饲料非常方便其收获和储存。纤维水解酶是一类降解植物细胞壁的纤维素酶和半纤维素酶的总称,主要为纤维素酶和木聚糖酶^[4]。有研究表明,在青贮过程中添加纤维水解酶可以改善青贮发酵品质,并提高动物生产性能^[4⇓-6]。近年来,添加纤维素酶和木聚糖酶处理的甘蔗梢青贮在水牛生产中的利用鲜有报道。因此,本试验以纤维素酶与木聚糖酶单独及联合添加处理甘蔗梢青贮并进行泌乳水牛的饲养试验,分析纤维素酶与木聚糖酶单独及联合添加对甘蔗梢青贮饲料发酵品质以及其对水牛养分表观消化率、泌乳性能和血清生化指标等的影响,旨在为甘蔗梢青贮的调制及其在水牛生产中的应用提供理论依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验材料

试验原料甘蔗梢于2022年12月收取自广西壮族自治区南宁市,收集后用铡草机切割成1~2 cm的长度。甘蔗梢营养成分见表1。纤维素酶(活性为50 000 U/g)和木聚糖酶(活性为50 000 U/g)为粉末状制剂,均购自北京索莱宝科技有限公司,室温存储。

表1 甘蔗梢营养成分

Table 1 Nutrients of sugarcane top

项目 Item	干物质(鲜样基础) DM (fresh sample basis)/%	粗蛋白质 CP/% DM	有机物 OM/% DM	中性洗涤纤维 NDF/% DM	酸性洗涤纤维 ADF/% DM
含量 Content	25.49	6.10	94.03	63.24	34.56

1.2 青贮调制

试验共调制4种甘蔗梢青贮,其中对照组不添加任何酶制剂,3个试验组分别添加200 mg/kg纤维素酶(试验Ⅰ组)、200 mg/kg木聚糖酶(试验Ⅱ组)以及200 mg/kg纤维素酶+200 mg/kg木聚糖酶(试验Ⅲ组),酶制剂的添加量均以青贮原料鲜重为基础。将调配好的酶制剂溶液均匀喷洒到切割好的甘蔗梢表面,混合均匀后打包压实密封存放45 d。

1.3 动物试验设计和饲粮

采用单因素随机试验设计,选取泌乳期和胎次相近、体况健康、体重[(726.40±6.45) kg]相近的摩拉母水牛24头,随机分为4组,每组6个重复,每个重复1头牛。所有试验牛饲粮精粗比均为7∶3,各组试验牛饲粮中的粗饲料分别对应4种甘蔗梢青贮。各组饲粮组成及营养水平见表2。饲粮产奶净能(NE_L)(MJ/kg)=0.388 7×乳脂率(%)+0.229 8×乳蛋白率(%)+0.165 3×乳糖率(%)^[7]。试验期共6周,其中预试期2周,正试期4周。

表2 饲粮组成及营养水平(干物质基础)

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

项目 Items	对照组 Control group	试验Ⅰ组 Experimental group Ⅰ	试验Ⅱ组 Experimental group Ⅱ	试验Ⅲ组 Experimental group Ⅲ
原料 Ingredients
玉米 Corn	15.68	15.68	15.68	15.68
啤酒糟 Brewers’ grains	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00
甘蔗梢青贮 Sugarcane top silage	30.00	30.00	30.00	30.00
麦麸 Wheat bran	5.97	5.97	5.97	5.97
豆粕 Soybean meal	5.55	5.55	5.55	5.55
石粉 Limestone	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39
食盐 NaCl	0.55	0.55	0.55	0.55
磷酸氢钙 CaHPO₄	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48
小苏打 NaHCO₃	0.63	0.63	0.63	0.63
预混料 Premix¹⁾	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75
合计 Total	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
营养水平 Nutrient levels²⁾
产奶净能 NE_L/(MJ/kg)	6.02	6.04	6.07	6.05
干物质(鲜样基础) DM (fresh sample basis)	33.96	33.77	34.04	34.12
粗蛋白质 CP	15.81	15.71	15.76	15.86
中性洗涤纤维 NDF	48.68	48.01	48.41	48.17
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF	21.55	21.31	21.43	21.03
钙 Ca	0.98	0.96	0.95	0.96
磷 P	0.43	0.42	0.41	0.42

1)每千克预混料含有 One kilogram of the premix contained the following:VE 3 000 IU,VD₃ 150 000 IU,VA 500 000 IU,Cu (as copper sulfate) 80 mg,Fe (as ferrous sulfate) 250 mg,Mn (as manganese sulfate) 200 mg,I (as potassium iodide) 1 mg,Zn (as zinc sulfate) 150 mg,Co (as cobalt sulfate) 2 mg,Se (as sodium selenite) 0.5 mg。

2)产奶净能为计算值,其余均为实测值。NE_L was a calculated value, while the others were measured values.

1.4 饲养管理

饲养试验在广西壮族自治区水牛研究所种畜场进行。试验牛在同一圈舍饲养,每天06:00和14:00各饲喂1次,将饲粮各个原料混合搅拌均匀后投入食槽中,让试验牛自由采食并保持充足饮水,每次饲喂时挤奶。每次饲喂后清扫圈舍,定期消毒牛舍。

1.5 测定指标及方法

1.5.1 青贮样品采集和发酵品质测定

试验期第4、5和6周,连续3周每周在4组青贮料中随机开启3包采样,测定青贮发酵参数及营养成分含量,采样方法参照彭丽娟等^[8]的方法进行。收集青贮样品滤液后检测pH、有机酸(乳酸、乙酸和丁酸)以及氨态氮(NH₃-N)含量。pH采用pH计(PH8180-0-00,东莞万创电子制品有限公司)测定;有机酸含量采用高效液相色谱仪(Agilent 1260),参照Xie等^[9]的方法测定;NH₃-N含量采用苯酚-次氯酸钠比色法^[10]测定。测定营养成分的样品于65 ℃烘干至恒重,粉碎过0.425 mm筛后待测。

1.5.2 青贮样品、饲粮和粪样营养成分含量测定

青贮样品、饲粮或粪样干物质(DM)含量参照GB/T 6435—2014的方法测定;有机物(OM)含量参照AOAC^[11]的方法测定;粗蛋白质(CP)含量参照GB/T 6432—2018的方法,采用凯氏定氮仪(Kjeltec-8400,FOSS)测定;中性洗涤纤维(NDF)和酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)含量参照Van Soest等^[12]的方法,采用纤维分析仪(ANKON-EDLTA)测定;钙和磷含量分别参照GB/T 6436—2018和GB/T 6437—2018的方法测定。

1.5.3 干物质采食量(DMI)和养分表观消化率测定

试验期最后1周,每天记录试验牛采食量,计算DMI,并采集饲粮样品测定营养成分含量。采用直肠取粪法每天06:00和14:00采集粪样,加入10%的硫酸固氮后,于65 ℃烘干至恒重,粉碎后测定营养成分含量。酸不溶性灰分(AIA)含量参照Van Soest等^[12]的方法进行测定。

采用AIA法计算饲粮养分表观消化率^[13],计算公式如下:

某养分表观消化率(%)=100-100×(a×B)/(A×b)。

式中:A为饲粮中该养分含量(%);a为粪样中该养分含量(%);B为饲粮中AIA含量(%);b为粪样中AIA含量(%)。

1.5.4 泌乳性能测定

正试期每天记录试验牛产奶量;每周四分别于06:00和14:00每头牛各取100 mL新鲜奶样经0.1 mm孔径纱布过滤后,采用多功能乳品成分快速分析仪(MilkoScan-FT120,FOSS)测定乳成分。参照李胜利等^[14]的方法计算饲料转化效率和3.5%乳脂校正乳(FCM)产量,计算公式为:

饲料转化效率=3.5% FCM产量/DMI;

3.5% FCM产量=0.515×产奶量+13.86×乳脂量。

1.5.5 血液样品采集和血清生化指标测定

试验期最后1天,试验牛于晨饲前空腹用真空采血管经颈静脉采血5 mL,1 788.8×g离心10 min,收集血清置于冰盒中送至广西国际壮医医院测定血清生化指标。

1.6 数据统计分析

试验数据采用Excel进行初步整理,然后采用SPSS 26.0软件进行单因素方差分析,差异显著者采用Duncan氏法进行多重比较,结果数据以“平均值±标准差”以及均值标准误(SEM)表示,P<0.05表示差异显著。

2 结果

2.1 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶对甘蔗梢青贮营养成分含量的影响

由表3可知,与对照组相比,各试验组甘蔗梢青贮DM、CP、OM、NDF和ADF含量均无显著差异(P>0.05)。

表3 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶对甘蔗梢青贮营养成分含量的影响

Table 3 Effects of cellulase and xylanase on nutrient contents of sugarcane top silage

项目 Items	对照组 Control group	试验Ⅰ组 Experimental group Ⅰ	试验Ⅱ组 Experimental group Ⅱ	试验Ⅲ组 Experimental group Ⅲ	均值标准误 SEM	P值 P-value
干物质(鲜样基础) DM (fresh sample basis)/%	23.03±0.50	22.50±0.01	23.26±0.04	23.49±0.23	0.284	0.229
粗蛋白质 CP/% DM	5.85±0.17	6.04±0.47	6.00±0.19	6.08±0.45	0.179	0.653
有机物 OM/% DM	93.94±0.12	93.87±0.03	93.76±0.08	93.85±0.04	0.052	0.324
中性洗涤纤维 NDF/% DM	61.54±0.62	60.09±2.14	60.77±0.68	59.63±0.91	0.415	0.475
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF/% DM	34.45±0.11	33.83±1.02	34.16±0.08	33.03±0.04	0.311	0.455

	同行数据肩标无字母或相同字母表示差异不显著(P>0.05),不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。下表同。
	In the same row, values with no letter or the same letter superscripts mean no significant difference (P>0.05), while with different small letter superscripts mean significant difference (P<0.05). The same as below.

2.2 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶对甘蔗梢青贮发酵参数的影响

由表4可知,与对照组相比,各试验组pH均显著降低(P<0.05);各试验组乳酸含量显著提高(P<0.05),且试验Ⅲ组乳酸含量显著高于试验Ⅰ组和试验Ⅱ组(P<0.05);各试验组乙酸含量显著降低(P<0.05),且试验Ⅲ组乙酸含量显著低于试验Ⅰ组和试验Ⅱ组(P<0.05);各试验组NH₃-N含量显著降低(P<0.05)。各组甘蔗梢青贮均未检测到丁酸。

表4 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶对甘蔗梢青贮发酵参数的影响

Table 4 Effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation parameters of sugarcane top silage

项目 Items	对照组 Control group	试验Ⅰ组 Experimental group Ⅰ	试验Ⅱ组 Experimental group Ⅱ	试验Ⅲ组 Experimental group Ⅲ	均值标准误 SEM	P值 P-value
pH	4.03±0.03^a	3.89±0.02^b	3.88±0.06^b	3.86±0.04^b	0.022	0.004
乳酸 Lactic acid/(g/kg DM)	98.04±3.66^c	112.06±8.80^b	114.63±7.56^b	129.96±6.65^a	3.818	<0.001
乙酸 Acetic acid/(g/kg DM)	31.45±0.81^a	25.58±1.16^c	28.38±0.56^b	22.68±1.48^d	1.010	0.001
氨态氮 NH₃-N/(g/kg DM)	0.43±0.03^a	0.26±0.02^b	0.27±0.08^b	0.26±0.01^b	0.024	0.003

2.3 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶处理甘蔗梢青贮对水牛养分表观消化率的影响

由表5可知,与对照组相比,各试验组水牛CP表观消化率均无显著差异(P>0.05),NDF和ADF表观消化率显著提高(P<0.05)。

表5 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶处理甘蔗梢青贮对水牛养分表观消化率的影响

Table 5 Effects of sugarcane top silage treated with cellulase and xylanase on nutrient apparent digestibility of buffaloes

项目 Items	对照组 Control group	试验Ⅰ组 Experimental group Ⅰ	试验Ⅱ组 Experimental group Ⅱ	试验Ⅲ组 Experimental group Ⅲ	均值标准误 SEM	P值 P-value
粗蛋白质 CP	69.82±2.63	73.13±0.74	72.93±1.46	70.23±2.22	0.766	0.307
中性洗涤纤维 NDF	45.64±3.05^b	56.29±0.73^a	53.84±1.58^a	51.86±0.72^a	1.566	0.016
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF	36.46±2.88^b	47.80±2.50^a	46.05±7.76^a	44.41±0.82^a	1.736	0.021

2.4 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶处理甘蔗梢青贮对水牛DMI和泌乳性能的影响

由表6可知,与对照组相比,试验Ⅰ组和试验Ⅱ组水牛DMI显著降低(P<0.05),各试验组产奶量、乳脂率、乳蛋白率、总固形物含量、乳糖率、3.5% FCM产量和饲料转化效率均无显著差异(P>0.05)。

表6 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶处理甘蔗梢青贮对水牛DMI和泌乳性能的影响

Table 6 Effects of sugarcane top silage treated with cellulase and xylanase on DMI and lactation performance of buffaloes

项目 Items	对照组 Control group	试验Ⅰ组 Experimental group Ⅰ	试验Ⅱ组 Experimental group Ⅱ	试验Ⅲ组 Experimental group Ⅲ	均值标准误 SEM	P值 P-value
干物质采食量 DMI/(kg/d)	10.13±0.06^a	9.52±0.26^c	9.85±0.06^b	10.01±0.11^ab	0.590	<0.001
产奶量 Milk yield/(kg/d)	10.18±2.16	8.80±0.99	9.90±1.67	11.12±1.42	0.379	0.212
乳脂率 Milk fat percentage/%	8.48±0.65	8.52±0.86	8.56±1.31	8.40±1.93	0.245	0.997
乳蛋白率 Milk protein percentage/%	4.61±0.26	4.57±0.36	4.65±0.43	4.71±0.25	0.065	0.892
总固形物含量 Total solid content/%	19.19±0.98	19.27±1.08	19.33±1.78	19.10±2.06	0.295	0.994
乳糖率 Lactose percentage/%	10.09±0.23	10.16±0.41	10.15±0.46	10.27±0.32	0.071	0.868
3.5%乳脂校正乳产奶量 3.5% FCM yield/(kg/d)	16.87±3.26	14.95±2.55	16.67±3.19	18.04±2.10	0.632	0.328
饲料转化效率 Feed conversion efficiency	1.66±0.32	1.57±0.26	1.69±0.31	1.83±0.19	0.060	0.515

2.5 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶处理甘蔗梢青贮对水牛血清生化指标的影响

由表7可知,各组间水牛血清总蛋白(TP)、白蛋白(ALB)、球蛋白(GLB)、尿素氮(UN)、甘油三酯(TG)和葡萄糖(GLU)含量以及白球比均无显著差异(P>0.05)。

表7 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶处理甘蔗梢青贮对水牛血清生化指标的影响

Table 7 Effects of sugarcane top silage treated with cellulase and xylanase on serum biochemical indices of buffaloes

项目 Items	对照组 Control group	试验Ⅰ组 Experimental group Ⅰ	试验Ⅱ组 Experimental group Ⅱ	试验Ⅲ组 Experimental group Ⅲ	均值标准误 SEM	P值 P-value
总蛋白 TP/(g/L)	78.66±4.35	78.98±5.31	79.12±6.01	73.33±4.20	1.095	0.168
白蛋白 ALB/(g/L)	36.25±1.91	36.37±3.54	37.86±1.27	36.41±3.85	0.582	0.768
球蛋白 GLB/(g/L)	42.41±5.25	42.61±6.54	41.26±5.70	36.91±6.59	1.280	0.343
白球比 ALB/GLB	0.88±0.16	0.85±0.18	0.96±0.11	1.05±0.37	0.065	0.341
尿素氮 UN/(mmol/L)	13.55±2.83	12.87±2.20	11.72±1.87	11.96±2.91	0.513	0.601
甘油三酯 TG/(mmol/L)	0.19±0.03	0.23±0.03	0.23±0.05	0.23±0.06	0.011	0.550
葡萄糖 GLU/(mmol/L)	2.08±0.44	2.00±0.41	1.94±0.38	2.18±0.30	0.078	0.769

3 讨论

3.1 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶对甘蔗梢青贮发酵品质的影响

CP、NDF和ADF含量是反映青贮饲料饲用价值的重要指标。王亚芳等^[15]研究发现,添加纤维素酶可以显著降低全株玉米青贮NDF含量,对ADF含量无显著影响。寇江涛等^[16]研究发现,添加木聚糖酶对皇竹草青贮NDF含量无显著影响,但可以显著降低ADF含量。朱妮等^[17]研究发现,随着纤维素酶添加量的增加,甘蔗梢青贮NDF和ADF含量有下降的趋势。本试验中,添加纤维素酶和木聚糖酶对甘蔗梢青贮NDF和ADF含量均无显著影响,这与陈作栋等^[18]和孙贵宾等^[19]研究发现纤维素酶对皇竹草和全株玉米青贮NDF和ADF含量并无显著影响的结果一致。出现不同的影响结果,可能是由于纤维素酶和木聚糖酶容易失活,并且其活性受环境影响较大造成的。青贮的pH和有机酸含量是评价发酵品质的主要指标^[20]。本试验中,试验组青贮pH较对照组均显著降低,与前人研究的添加纤维素酶可迅速降低青贮pH的结果^[21-22]一致。青贮的乳酸含量越高、丁酸含量越低,则表明青贮品质越好^[23]。本试验中,试验组青贮乳酸含量均显著高于对照组,均未检测到丁酸,且纤维素酶和木聚糖酶联合添加时效果更好,这说明甘蔗梢青贮时添加纤维素酶和木聚糖酶可将甘蔗梢细胞壁的结构性多糖降解为单糖,为乳酸菌提供充足的底物,从而促进乳酸菌发酵产生乳酸^[24]。NH₃-N含量反映腐败微生物降解蛋白质的程度,其数值越小表明青贮品质越好^[23]。本试验中,试验组NH₃-N含量显著低于对照组,表明在甘蔗梢青贮时添加纤维素酶和木聚糖酶抑制了有害菌的生长以及青贮原料中植物酶的活性,减少了植物呼吸和蛋白质水解对GLU的氧化,从而节省了更多的可溶性碳水化合物,降低了NH₃-N含量,提高了发酵品质。

3.2 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶处理甘蔗梢青贮对水牛养分表观消化率的影响

甘蔗梢为纤维含量较高的饲料,纤维饲料的特点是纤维素和半纤维素含量高,可以形成纤维素、半纤维素和木质素等不溶性化合物,从而导致消化率降低和饲料利用效率低下。外源纤维水解酶可用于改变饲料原料细胞壁成分的不溶性化合物来加速消化率^[25]。本试验中,试验组水牛NDF和ADF表观消化率均显著高于对照组,这与Gandra等^[26]的研究结果一致。由此说明,纤维素酶与木聚糖酶均能降解甘蔗梢青贮中的结构性碳水化合物,降低NDF和ADF含量,提高其饲用价值。同时,联合添加纤维素酶与木聚糖酶能发挥纤维素降解酶和木质素降解酶的协同作用,破坏糖苷键,共同崩解甘蔗梢的细胞壁结构,从而降低瘤胃微生物对细胞壁的抗性,提高甘蔗梢青贮饲料在瘤胃中的养分表观消化率^[27]。

3.3 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶处理甘蔗梢青贮对水牛泌乳性能的影响

产奶量和乳成分是衡量泌乳性能及乳品质高低的重要指标。Rojo等^[28]和陈雅坤等^[29]研究报道,添加酶制剂能够提高奶牛泌乳性能和改善乳品质。而李艳玲等^[30]研究报道,酶制剂对奶牛产奶量没有显著影响,除非脂固形物含量外,对其他乳成分均无显著影响。本试验中,单独添加纤维素酶或木聚糖酶的试验组奶牛DMI显著低于对照组,产奶量和乳成分与对照组相比均无显著差异,说明在本试验条件下,饲喂添加纤维素酶或木聚糖酶以及两者联合添加处理的甘蔗梢青贮对水牛产奶量和乳成分均无显著影响。但可以看到,联合添加组的DMI低于对照组,而产奶量、饲料转化效率却略高于对照组,这应该是纤维素酶与木聚糖酶的组合效应提高养分表观消化率的结果。

3.4 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶处理甘蔗梢青贮对水牛血清生化指标的影响

血清生化指标反映了机体新陈代谢的情况^[31]。TP承载着营养物质运输的功能,与组织蛋白质合成有密切联系^[31]。ALB具有维持血管渗透压、改善营养供应和运输以及促进肝细胞修复和解毒的功能^[8]。GLB反映机体的免疫和抗病能力。UN是机体蛋白质分解代谢的重要产物,体现了蛋白质的代谢情况^[31]。TG含量反映动物体内脂肪代谢情况^[32]。GLU含量与机体糖代谢反应有关^[33]。本试验中,各组间试验牛血清生化指标均无显著差异,表明饲喂添加纤维素酶和木聚糖酶处理的甘蔗梢青贮对水牛机体蛋白质合成、免疫功能以及脂肪和糖代谢均无不良影响。

4 结论

在甘蔗梢中单独或联合添加纤维素酶和木聚糖酶进行青贮能促进乳酸菌发酵产生乳酸,降低pH及NH₃-N含量,提高发酵品质。饲喂添加纤维素酶和木聚糖酶处理的甘蔗梢青贮能够提高水牛NDF和ADF表观消化率,对泌乳性能和血清生化指标没有影响。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within

[1]	CHEN X Z, LI W Y, GAO C F, et al. Silage preparation and fermentation quality of kudzu,sugarcane top and their mixture treated with lactic acid bacteria,molasses and cellulase[J]. Animal Science Journal, 2017, 88(11):1715-1721.

[2]

郑勇, 王金丽, 李明, 等. 热带农业废弃物资源利用现状与分析——甘蔗废弃物综合利用[J]. 广东农业科学, 2011, 38(1):15-18,26.

ZHENG

, WANG

J L

, LI

, et al. Current situation and analysis of utilization of tropical agricultural waste resources-comprehensive utilization of sugarcane waste[J]. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2011, 38(1):15-18,26. (in Chinese)

[3]	李乔仙, 高月娥, 尚德林, 等. 云南甘蔗稍饲用现状及其青贮营养成分测定[J]. 养殖与饲料, 2011(10):45-47. LI Q X, GAO Y E, SHANG D L, et al. Current status of sugarcane feed and determination of silage nutritional components in Yunnan[J]. Animals Breeding and Feed, 2011(10):45-47. (in Chinese)

[4]

庄苏, 丁立人, 周建国, 等. 甲酸与纤维素酶和木聚糖酶对多花黑麦草与白三叶混合青贮料发酵品质的影响[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2013, 29(1):140-146.

ZHUANG

, DING

L R

, ZHOU

J G

, et al. Effects of formic acid,cellulase and xylanase on fermentation quality of Lolium multiflorum and Trifolium repens mixture silage during ensiling[J]. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2013, 29(1):140-146. (in Chinese)

[5]	丁浩, 吴永杰, 邵涛, 等. 纤维素酶和木聚糖酶对象草青贮发酵品质及体外消化率的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(11):2600-2608. DOI DING H, WU Y J, SHAO T, et al. Effects of cellulase and xylanase on fermentation quality and in vitro digestibility coefficient of Napier grass[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(11):2600-2608. (in Chinese) DOI

[6]	吴春会, 王明亚, 郭郁频, 等. 青贮添加剂对天然草地牧草青贮品质的影响[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2022(4):90-95. WU C H, WANG M Y, GUO Y P, et al. Effect of different silage additives on the silage quality of natural grassland forage[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2022(4):90-95. (in Chinese)

[7]	王根林. 养牛学[M]. 2版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006. WANG G L. Cattle breeding studies[M]. 2nd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2006. (in Chinese)

[8]

彭丽娟, 李孟伟, 谢华德, 等. 象草与甘蔗梢混合青贮对水牛表观消化率、泌乳性能和血清生化指标的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(16):6-10.

PENG

L J

, LI

M W

, XIE

H D

, et al. Effect of elephant grass and sugarcane tail mixed silage on apparent digestibility,lactation performance and serum biochemical index of buffalo[J]. Feed Research, 2021, 44(16):6-10. (in Chinese)

[9]	XIE H D, PENG L J, LI M W, et al. Effects of mixed sugarcane tops and napiergrass silages on fermentative quality,nutritional value,and milk yield in water buffaloes[J]. Animal Science Journal, 2023, 94(1):e13824.

[10]	冯宗慈, 高民. 通过比色测定瘤胃液氨氮含量方法的改进[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2010(6):37. FENG Z C, GAO M. Improvement of the colorimetric method for determining the ammonia nitrogen content in rumen fluid[J]. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2010(6):37. (in Chinese)

[11]	AOAC. Official method of analysis[M]. 18th ed. Gaithersburgs: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 2006.

[12]	VAN SOEST P J, ROBERTSON J B, LEWIS B A. Methods for dietary fiber,neutral detergent fiber,and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1991, 74(10):3583-3597.

[13]

赖安强, 金亚东, 陈彬龙, 等. 发酵甘蔗渣对肉牛生长性能、养分表观消化率、瘤胃发酵特性和瘤胃菌群的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2024, 36(3):1685-1697.

DOI

LAI

A Q

, JIN

Y D

, CHEN

B L

, et al. Effects of fermented sugarcane bagasse on growth performance,nutrient apparent digestibility,rumen fermentation characteristics and rumen microflora of beef cattle[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024, 36(3):1685-1697. (in Chinese)

[14]	李胜利, 陈萍, 郑博文. 改善奶牛饲料转化效率提高牛奶产量和质量[J]. 饲料与畜牧, 2006(11):12-16. LI S L, CHEN P, ZHENG B W. How to improve yield and quality of milk by improving feed conversion ratio of cow[J]. Animal Agriculture, 2006(11):12-16. (in Chinese)

[15]

王亚芳, 姜富贵, 成海建, 等. 不同青贮添加剂对全株玉米青贮营养价值、发酵品质和瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(6):2765-2774.

DOI

WANG

Y F

, JIANG

F G

, CHENG

H J

, et al. Effects of different silage additives on nutritional value,fermentation quality and rumen degradability of whole corn silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(6):2765-2774. (in Chinese)

[16]	寇江涛, 雷佳星, 张海波, 等. 不同添加剂对皇竹草青贮品质的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2021, 57(10):178-182. KOU J T, LEI J X, ZHANG H B, et al. Effects of different additives on silage quality of hybrid giant napie[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2021, 57(10):178-182. (in Chinese)

[17]	朱妮, 陈奕业, 吴汉葵, 等. 不同类型添加剂对甘蔗梢青贮品质的影响[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2019(23):99-102. ZHU N, CHEN Y Y, WU H K, et al. Effects of different types of additives on the quality of sugarcane shoot silage[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2019(23):99-102. (in Chinese)

[18]	陈作栋, 赵二龙, 梁欢, 等. 不同添加剂对皇竹草青贮品质的影响[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2018(7):135-137. CHEN Z D, ZHAO E L, LIANG H, et al. Effects of different additives on silage quality of hybrid giant napie[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2018(7):135-137. (in Chinese)

[19]	孙贵宾, 常娟, 尹清强, 等. 纤维素酶和复合益生菌对全株玉米青贮品质的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2018, 30(11):4738-4745. SUN G B, CHANG J, YIN Q Q, et al. Effects of cellulase and compound probiotics on silage quality of whole corn[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2018, 30(11):4738-4745. (in Chinese)

[20]	张立冬, 字学娟, 李茂, 等. 纤维素酶对柱花草青贮品质和营养成分的影响[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2021(7):118-121. ZHANG L D, ZI X J, LI M, et al. Effect of cellulase on the quality and nutrient composition of Stylosanthes guianensis silage[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2021(7):118-121. (in Chinese)

[21]	任志花, 贾玉山, 卢强, 等. 添加剂对紫花苜蓿营养成分与发酵品质的影响[J]. 草学, 2020(2):26-30. REN Z H, JIA Y S, LU Q, et al. Effects of additives on the nutritional components and fermentation quality of alfalfa[J]. Journal of Grassland and Forage Science, 2020(2):26-30. (in Chinese)

[22]	李茂, 字学娟, 吕仁龙, 等. 添加乳酸菌和纤维素酶对王草青贮品质和瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2020, 56(7):161-165. LI M, ZI X J, LV R L, et al. Effects of adding lactic acid bacteria and cellulase on silage quality and rumen degradation rate of King grass[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 56(7):161-165. (in Chinese)

[23]

黄小云, 陈长福, 黄勤楼, 等. 乳酸菌和纤维素酶对狼尾草和圆叶决明混合青贮品质的影响[J]. 畜牧与兽医, 2022, 54(2):36-40.

HUANG

X Y

, CHEN

C F

, HUANG

Q L

, et al. Effect of lactic acid bacteria and cellulase on the mixed silage of Pennisetum and Chamaecrista rotundifolia[J]. Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2022, 54(2):36-40. (in Chinese)

[24]	易启轩, 王鹏. 生物性添加剂在青贮饲料中的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(3):1475-1488. DOI YI Q X, WANG P. Research progress of biological additives in silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(3):1475-1488. (in Chinese) DOI

[25]	SALEM A Z M, ALSERSY H, CAMACHO L M, et al. Feed intake,nutrient digestibility,nitrogen utilization,and ruminal fermentation activities in sheep fed Atriplex halimus ensiled with three developed enzyme cocktails[J]. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 2015, 60(4):185-194.

[26]	GANDRA J R, MIRANDA G A, GOES R H T B, et al. Fibrolytic enzyme supplementation through ruminal bolus on eating behavior,nutrient digestibility and ruminal fermentation in Jersey heifers fed either corn silage- or sugarcane silage-based diets[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2017,231:29-37.

[27]

王玉荣, 陶莲, 冯文晓, 等. 不同酶、菌及复合酶菌制剂对水稻秸秆青贮品质与瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2019(19):50-57.

WANG

Y R

, TAO

, FENG

W X

, et al. The effect of different enzyme or fungus supplementation on fermentation quality,nutrition composition and in situ ruminal degradability of rice straw silage[J]. China Feed, 2019(19):50-57. (in Chinese)

[28]	ROJO R, KHOLIF A E, SALEM A Z M, et al. Influence of cellulase addition to dairy goat diets on digestion and fermentation,milk production and fatty acid content[J]. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 2015, 153(8):1514-1523.

[29]	陈雅坤, 王建平, 卜登攀, 等. 复合酶制剂对瘤胃发酵及泌乳早期奶牛生产性能的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(4):170-177. DOI CHEN Y K, WANG J P, BU D P, et al. Effects of complex enzyme on rumen fermentation and milk production in early lactation dairy cows[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(4):170-177. (in Chinese)

[30]

李艳玲, 张民, 柴建民, 等. 外源性复合酶制剂对体外瘤胃发酵及奶牛产奶性能的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2015, 27(9):2911-2919.

DOI

Y L

, ZHANG

, CHAI

J M

, et al. Effects of exogenous compound enzyme preparation on in vitro rumen fermentation and milking performance of dairy cows[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2015, 27(9):2911-2919. (in Chinese)

[31]	姜碧薇. 酶菌混合处理粗饲料对其纤维结构及滩羊生长性能和瘤胃菌群的影响[D]. 博士学位论文. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2021. JIANG B W. Effects of enzyme bacteria mixed treatment of roughage on fiber structure,growth performance and rumen microflora of Tan sheep[D]. Ph.D. Thesis. Yinchuan: Ningxia University, 2021. (in Chinese)

[32]

马晓宇, 郭艺璇, 朱凤华, 等. 发酵全混合日粮对崂山奶山羊泌乳性能、营养物质表观消化率及血清生化指标的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2019, 31(11):5075-5080.

X Y

, GUO

Y X

, ZHU

F H

, et al. Effects of fermented total mixed ration on lactation performance,nutrient apparent digestibility and serum biochemical indices of Laoshan dairy goats[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2019, 31(11):5075-5080. (in Chinese)

[33]

周雄, 周璐丽, 王定发, 等. 日粮中青贮甘蔗尾叶替代不同比例王草对海南黑山羊生长性能、养分表观消化率及血清生化指标的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2015, 42(6):1443-1448.

DOI

ZHOU