不同化学处理对稻草体外发酵动态变化的影响

doi:10.11686/cyxb20140341

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用瘤胃体外发酵技术评定了不同化学处理对稻草体外发酵特性的影响。试验以3头装有永久性瘤胃瘘管的荷斯坦奶牛为瘤胃液供体,用复合碱、氨及尿素处理稻草后,称量1 g样品于含有10 mL瘤胃液和90 mL培养基的39℃发酵瓶内体外发酵,分别于24,48,72,96 h冰浴终止发酵,测定产气量、发酵液中挥发性脂肪酸、氨态氮及微生物蛋白浓度。结果表明,化学处理提高了稻草发酵的产气量、挥发性脂肪酸、氨态氮以及微生物蛋白浓度。其中复合碱处理组的发酵速度最快,累计产气量、干物质消失率和挥发性脂肪酸浓度最高,显著高于其他各组,其次为尿素处理组和氨化处理组,对照组最低;尿素处理组的pH、氨态氮浓度和微生物蛋白含量最高,显著高于其他各组,氨化处理组和碱化处理组次之,对照组最低。化学处理提高了稻草的体外降解率,其中复合碱化处理的效果最好。

Abstract: The effects of different chemical treatments on fermentation characteristics of rice straw (RS) in vitro were investigated. The rumen fluid was collected from 3 holstein dairy cows with permanent rumen fistula. The rice straw was treated with composite sodium hydroxide (SH), ammonium bicarbonate (AB) and urea (UR). The bottles containing 10 mL rumen fluid and 90 mL media with 1 g RS as substrate were incubated at 39℃, and the samples were collected at 24, 48, 72 and 96 h after incubation for the analysis of gas production (GP), volatile fatty acids (VFA), ammonia nitrogen (NH₃-N) and microbial protein production (MCP). The chemical treatments significantly improved the GP, concentrations of VFA, NH₃-N and MCP compared with untreated RS. The cumulative gas production, dry matter digestibility and VFA of SH-RS were significantly higher than the others and they were significantly lower in the untreated RS. However, pH and the concentrations of NH₃-N and MCP of UR-RS were significantly higher than those of AB-RS, SH-RS and UT-RS. In conclusion, chemical treatments improved the in vitro digestibility of RS, in which composite sodium hydroxide treatment was recommended.

中图分类号:

S816.6

马艳艳,李袁飞,成艳芬,朱伟云. 不同化学处理对稻草体外发酵动态变化的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2014, 23(3): 350-355.

MA Yan-yan,LI Yuan-fei,CHENG Yan-fen,ZHU Wei-yun. Effects of different chemical treatments on fermentation characteristics of rice straw in vitro[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(3): 350-355.

参考文献

Reference：
[1]Chen G Y, Zheng Z, Luo Y, et al. Effect of Alkaline Treatment on Anaerobic Digestion of Rice Straw[J]. Environmental Science, 2010, 31(9): 2208-2213.
[2]Dong C F, Ding C L, Xu N X, et al. Research on the feeding quality and related stem morphological traits of rice (Oryza sativa) straw[J]. Research on the feeding quality and related stem morphological traits of rice (Oryza sativa) straw, 2013, 22(4): 83-88.
[3]Ma X Y, Liu Q, Ma J. the effects of ammoniation pretreatment on anaerobic fermentation of the Biomass straw[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2011, 20(10): 1503-1506.
[4]Wang J X, Zhu S L, Liu J X, et al. Study on the chemical basis of chemical pretreatment to change the ultrastructure of rice straw[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University(Science Edition), 2006, 33(4): 424-427.
[5]Rezaeian M, Beakes G W, Chaudhry A S. Relative fibrolytic activities of anaerobic rumen fungi on untreated and sodium hydroxide treated barley straw in in vitro culture[J]. Anaerobe, 2005, 11: 163-175.
[6]Theodorou M K, Williams B A, Dhanoam S, et al. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1994, 48(34): 185-197.
[7]Zhang L Y. Conventional analysis of feed ingredients[A]. Feed Analysis and feed quality detection technology[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2003: 45-75.
[8]Van Soest P J, Robertson B A. Methods for dietary fiber neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1991, 67(4): 256-258.
[9]Qin W L. Determination by gas chromatography method improved rumen volatile fatty acids[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 1982, 4: 110-116.
[10]Weathburn M W. Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia[J]. Analytical Chemistry, 1967, 39: 791-794.
[11]Zhang H. Comparison of nutrients in rice straw and dry matter degradation rate treated differently [J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2000, 36(6): 25-27.
[12]Qiu X F, Guan B, Qiao F S, et al. Studies on pretreatment of rice straw for food[J].Cereal & Feed Industry, 2006, 2: 31-34.
[13]Liu D, Liu J X, Zhu S L,et al. Histological investigation of tissues and cell wall of rice straw influenced by pretreatment with different chemicals and rumen degradation[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2005, 14: 367-381.
[14]Pang Y Z, Li X J, Luo Q M. Effect of temperature and chemical pretreatment on anaerobic biogasification of corn stalk[J]. Chinese Journal of Bioprocess Engineering, , 2005, 3(1): 37-41.
[15]Ai L X, Su Y, Zhu W Y. A comparison of in vitro fermentation characteristics of eight fiber substrates by faecal microbiota from Meishan and Landrace sows[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(3): 99-107.
[16]Chen W J, Wang C, Wang J X, et al. Effects of ammonium bicarbonate treatment of rice straw on rumen fermentation characteristics and populations of ruminal microbes in Vitro[J]. China Dairy Cattle, 2011, 14: 11-14.
[17]Kang S, Ding L R, Zhou J G, et al. Effects of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes on the enzyme activities and fermentation characteristic of Chinese wildrye by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(1): 315-322.
参考文献：
[1]陈广银, 郑正, 罗艳, 等. 碱处理对秸秆厌氧消化的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2010, 31(9): 2208-2213.
[2]董臣飞, 丁成龙, 许能祥, 等. 稻草饲用品质及茎秆形态特征的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2013, 22(4): 83-88.
[3]马兴元, 刘琪, 马君. 氨化预处理对生物质秸秆厌氧发酵的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2011, 20(10): 1503-1506.
[4]王佳堃, 朱素丽, 刘建新, 等. 预处理改变稻草亚细胞结构的化学基础[J]. 浙江大学学报: 理学版, 2006, 33(4): 424-427.
[5]Rezaeian M, Beakes G W, Chaudhry A S. Relative fibrolytic activities of anaerobic rumen fungi on untreated and sodium hydroxide treated barley straw in in vitro culture[J]. Anaerobe, 2005, 11: 163-175.
[6]Theodorou M K, Williams B A, Dhanoam S, et al. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1994, 48(3-4): 185-197.
[7]张丽英. 饲料中常规成分分析[A]. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2003: 45-75.
[8]Van Soest P J, Robertson B A. Methods for dietary fiber neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1991, 67(4): 256-258.
[9]秦为琳. 应用气相色谱法测定瘤胃挥发性脂肪酸方法的研究改进[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 1982, 4: 110-116.
[10]Weathburn M W. Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia[J]. Analytical Chemistry, 1967, 39: 791-794.
[11]张浩. 不同处理稻草的营养成分及干物质降解率比较[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2000, 36(6): 25-27.
[12]邱向峰, 管斌, 乔抚顺, 等. 饲用稻草预处理的研究[J]. 粮食与饲料工业, 2006, 2: 31-34.
[13]Liu D, Liu J X, Zhu S L, et al. Histological investigation of tissues and cell wall of rice straw influenced by pretreatment with different chemicals and rumen degradation[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2005, 14: 367-381.
[14]庞云芝, 李秀金, 罗庆明. 温度和化学预处理对玉米秸秆厌氧消化产气量的影响[J]. 生物加工工程, 2005, 3(1): 37-41.
[15]艾丽霞, 苏勇, 朱伟云. 梅山与长白母猪粪样微生物体外发酵八种纤维底物的特性比较[J]. 草业学报, 2013, 22(3): 99-107.
[16]陈伟健, 王翀, 王佳堃, 等. 体外法研究氨化处理对稻草发酵特性及其微生物数量的影响[J]. 中国奶牛, 2011, 14: 11-14.
[17]庄苏, 丁立人, 周建国, 等. 添加外源纤维水解酶对羊草体外瘤胃发酵酶活性及特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2013, 22(1): 315-322.