草业学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (4): 145-154.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2021021
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
收稿日期:
2021-01-20
修回日期:
2021-03-22
出版日期:
2022-04-20
发布日期:
2022-01-25
通讯作者:
王虎成
作者简介:
Corresponding author. E-mail: wanghuch@lzu.edu.cn基金资助:
De-zhi YANG1, Chen WANG2, Ming-jie HOU3, Hu-cheng WANG2()
Received:
2021-01-20
Revised:
2021-03-22
Online:
2022-04-20
Published:
2022-01-25
Contact:
Hu-cheng WANG
摘要:
本试验旨在探究饲用甜高粱青贮(sweet sorghum silage, SS)和全株玉米青贮(whole-plant corn silage, CS)对肉羊前胃微生态的影响。选择健康的3~4月龄杜泊母羊[(33.40±1.68) kg]14只,随机分为2组,每组7只羊,每只羊为1个重复,分别喂甜高粱青贮(SS组)和玉米青贮(CS组),单栏饲喂并自由饮水。预饲期15 d,正试期90 d,在正试期测定并计算生长性能指标,正试期结束后,每组选取4只羊进行屠宰,采集前胃(瘤胃、网胃和瓣胃)食糜和组织样品,对前胃发酵参数、微生物表达量、上皮颜色和组织结构进行观察和测定。结果表明:1)CS组肉羊的干物质采食量显著高于SS组(P<0.05)。2)甜高粱青贮和玉米青贮育肥肉羊90 d后,对前胃的pH值未产生显著影响(P>0.05);在网胃内容物中,SS组肉羊氨氮浓度显著高于CS组(P<0.05),CS组肉羊丁酸含量显著高于SS组(P<0.05);SS组肉羊瘤胃总挥发性脂肪酸含量显著高于CS组(P<0.05)。3)SS组肉羊瘤胃内短普雷沃氏菌、栖普雷沃氏菌、产琥珀酸丝状杆菌和黄色瘤胃球菌的表达量显著高于CS组(P<0.05)。4)饲粮处理显著影响前胃颜色,CS组肉羊的前胃上皮颜色比SS组深(P<0.05)。5)SS组肉羊瘤胃乳头宽度显著高于CS组(P<0.05),饲喂甜高粱青贮和玉米青贮对肉羊网胃黏膜厚度、黏膜下层厚度和肌层厚度并未产生显著影响(P>0.05),CS组肉羊的瓣胃黏膜上皮厚度显著高于SS组(P<0.05)。综上所述,在本试验条件下,和饲用玉米青贮相比,饲用甜高粱青贮肉羊的采食量较低,且这两种青贮料饲喂对肉羊的微生态有影响,甜高粱青贮组肉羊的瘤胃总挥发性脂肪酸含量、前胃内纤维分解菌的表达量以及瘤胃乳头宽度等指标显著高于玉米青贮组,且甜高粱青贮组肉羊的前胃上皮颜色较浅,角质化程度低,有利于肉羊的胃肠道健康。
杨德智, 王晨, 侯明杰, 王虎成. 饲用甜高粱和全株玉米青贮对肉羊前胃微生态的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(4): 145-154.
De-zhi YANG, Chen WANG, Ming-jie HOU, Hu-cheng WANG. Effects of sweet sorghum silage and whole-plant corn silage on the forestomach microecology of mutton sheep[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(4): 145-154.
项目Items | 引物序列Primer sequences (5′-3′) | 文献References |
---|---|---|
白色瘤胃球菌 Rumincoccus albus | F: CCCTAAAAGCAGTCTTAGTTCG | [ |
R: CCTCCTTGCGGTTAGAAC | ||
产琥珀酸丝状杆菌 Fibrobacter succinogenes | F: GGTATGGGATGAGCTTGC | [ |
R: GCCTGCCCCTGAACTATC | ||
黄色瘤胃球菌 Rumincoccus flavefaciens | F: TCTGGAAACGGATGGTA | [ |
R: CCTTTAAGACAGGAGTTTACAA | ||
溶纤维丁酸弧菌 Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens | F: GCCTCAGCGTCAGTAATCG | [ |
R: GGAGCGTAGGCGGTTTTAC | ||
短普雷沃氏菌 Prevotella brevis | F: GCGAACTGGTTTCCTTGAGTGTATT | [ |
R: ACCTTCGAGCTTTAGCGTCAGTTAT | ||
栖普雷沃氏菌 Prevotella ruminicola | F: GCGAAAGTCGGATTAATGCTCTATG | [ |
R: CCCATCCTATAGCGGTAAACCTTTG | ||
总菌 Total bacteria | F: CGGCAACGAGCGCAACCC | [ |
R: CCATTGTAGCACGTGTGTAGCC |
表1 前胃微生物RT-PCR引物
Table 1 Forestomach microorganisms RT-PCR primer
项目Items | 引物序列Primer sequences (5′-3′) | 文献References |
---|---|---|
白色瘤胃球菌 Rumincoccus albus | F: CCCTAAAAGCAGTCTTAGTTCG | [ |
R: CCTCCTTGCGGTTAGAAC | ||
产琥珀酸丝状杆菌 Fibrobacter succinogenes | F: GGTATGGGATGAGCTTGC | [ |
R: GCCTGCCCCTGAACTATC | ||
黄色瘤胃球菌 Rumincoccus flavefaciens | F: TCTGGAAACGGATGGTA | [ |
R: CCTTTAAGACAGGAGTTTACAA | ||
溶纤维丁酸弧菌 Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens | F: GCCTCAGCGTCAGTAATCG | [ |
R: GGAGCGTAGGCGGTTTTAC | ||
短普雷沃氏菌 Prevotella brevis | F: GCGAACTGGTTTCCTTGAGTGTATT | [ |
R: ACCTTCGAGCTTTAGCGTCAGTTAT | ||
栖普雷沃氏菌 Prevotella ruminicola | F: GCGAAAGTCGGATTAATGCTCTATG | [ |
R: CCCATCCTATAGCGGTAAACCTTTG | ||
总菌 Total bacteria | F: CGGCAACGAGCGCAACCC | [ |
R: CCATTGTAGCACGTGTGTAGCC |
项目Item | SS | CS |
---|---|---|
干物质采食量Dry matter intake (DMI, kg·d-1) | 0.98±0.05b | 1.10±0.04a |
平均日增重Average daily gain (ADG, kg·d-1) | 0.11±0.03b | 0.16±0.30a |
料重比F/G | 9.11±2.16a | 6.89±1.35b |
表2 饲用甜高粱和全株玉米青贮对肉羊生长性能的影响
Table 2 Effects of sweet sorghum and whole-plant corn silage on the growth performance of mutton sheep
项目Item | SS | CS |
---|---|---|
干物质采食量Dry matter intake (DMI, kg·d-1) | 0.98±0.05b | 1.10±0.04a |
平均日增重Average daily gain (ADG, kg·d-1) | 0.11±0.03b | 0.16±0.30a |
料重比F/G | 9.11±2.16a | 6.89±1.35b |
项目 Item | 瘤胃 Rumen | 网胃 Reticulum | 瓣胃 Omasum | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SS | CS | SS | CS | SS | CS | |
pH | 6.39±0.06a | 6.28±0.64a | 6.43±0.65a | 7.13±0.79a | 6.51±0.79a | 6.13±0.52a |
氨氮Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N, g·dL-1) | 3.23±1.10a | 1.97±0.24a | 2.63±0.26a | 1.61±0.03b | 3.38±0.77a | 3.64±1.39a |
总挥发性脂肪酸Total volatile fatty acids (TVFA, mmol·L-1) | 44.12±4.73a | 40.13±1.60b | 36.73±5.33a | 36.68±4.17a | 36.66±3.23a | 33.37±4.49a |
乙酸Acetic acid (%) | 70.60±10.49a | 73.91±2.85a | 72.85±3.37a | 73.48±0.54a | 78.87±1.41a | 78.95±2.68a |
丙酸Propionic acid (%) | 18.14±6.87a | 16.46±1.82a | 17.49±2.55a | 16.21±0.66a | 14.72±0.87a | 14.87±2.03a |
异丁酸Isobutyric acid (%) | 0.91±0.56a | 0.50±0.13a | 0.53±0.18a | 0.75±0.11a | 0.51±0.17a | 0.70±0.16a |
丁酸Butyric acid (%) | 7.91±2.56a | 7.15±1.83a | 6.10±0.70b | 7.37±0.45a | 2.79±1.10a | 3.16±0.83a |
异戊酸Isovaleric acid (%) | 1.26±0.56a | 1.52±0.09a | 1.20±0.35a | 1.45±0.15a | 1.11±0.50a | 1.60±0.03a |
戊酸Valeric acid (%) | 1.17±0.94a | 0.83±0.21a | 1.83±2.48a | 0.75±0.21a | 2.00±2.79a | 0.72±0.03a |
表3 饲用甜高粱和全株玉米青贮对肉羊前胃发酵参数的影响
Table 3 Effects of sweet sorghum and whole-plant corn silage on fermentation parameters of forestomach in mutton sheep
项目 Item | 瘤胃 Rumen | 网胃 Reticulum | 瓣胃 Omasum | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SS | CS | SS | CS | SS | CS | |
pH | 6.39±0.06a | 6.28±0.64a | 6.43±0.65a | 7.13±0.79a | 6.51±0.79a | 6.13±0.52a |
氨氮Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N, g·dL-1) | 3.23±1.10a | 1.97±0.24a | 2.63±0.26a | 1.61±0.03b | 3.38±0.77a | 3.64±1.39a |
总挥发性脂肪酸Total volatile fatty acids (TVFA, mmol·L-1) | 44.12±4.73a | 40.13±1.60b | 36.73±5.33a | 36.68±4.17a | 36.66±3.23a | 33.37±4.49a |
乙酸Acetic acid (%) | 70.60±10.49a | 73.91±2.85a | 72.85±3.37a | 73.48±0.54a | 78.87±1.41a | 78.95±2.68a |
丙酸Propionic acid (%) | 18.14±6.87a | 16.46±1.82a | 17.49±2.55a | 16.21±0.66a | 14.72±0.87a | 14.87±2.03a |
异丁酸Isobutyric acid (%) | 0.91±0.56a | 0.50±0.13a | 0.53±0.18a | 0.75±0.11a | 0.51±0.17a | 0.70±0.16a |
丁酸Butyric acid (%) | 7.91±2.56a | 7.15±1.83a | 6.10±0.70b | 7.37±0.45a | 2.79±1.10a | 3.16±0.83a |
异戊酸Isovaleric acid (%) | 1.26±0.56a | 1.52±0.09a | 1.20±0.35a | 1.45±0.15a | 1.11±0.50a | 1.60±0.03a |
戊酸Valeric acid (%) | 1.17±0.94a | 0.83±0.21a | 1.83±2.48a | 0.75±0.21a | 2.00±2.79a | 0.72±0.03a |
项目 Item | 瘤胃Rumen | 网胃Reticulum | 瓣胃Omasum | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SS | CS | SS | CS | SS | CS | |
短普雷沃氏菌P. brevis | 0.25±0.05a | 0.02±0.00b | 0.04±0.01a | 0.05±0.02a | 0.05±0.04b | 0.23±0.02a |
溶纤维丁酸弧菌B. fibrisolvens | 0.13±0.02a | 0.14±0.08a | 0.29±0.08a | 0.01±0.00b | 0.14±0.04a | 0.30±0.21a |
栖普雷沃氏菌P. ruminicola | 0.62±0.10a | 0.12±0.08b | 0.15±0.07a | 0.03±0.01b | 0.10±0.05a | 0.07±0.00a |
产琥珀酸丝状杆菌F. succinogenes | 0.05±0.01a | 0.01±0.01b | 0.05±0.00a | 0.02±0.01b | 0.05±0.01a | 0.02±0.01b |
白色瘤胃球菌R.albus | 0.09±0.05a | 0.04±0.02a | 0.10±0.03a | 0.06±0.01a | 0.26±0.10a | 0.14±0.05a |
黄色瘤胃球菌R. flavefaciens | 0.17±0.05a | 0.01±0.00b | 0.45±0.06a | 0.01±0.00b | 0.09±0.03b | 0.25±0.05a |
表4 饲用甜高粱和全株玉米青贮对肉羊前胃微生物表达量的影响
Table 4 Effects of sweet sorghum and whole-plant corn silage on microbial expression of forestomach in mutton sheep (%)
项目 Item | 瘤胃Rumen | 网胃Reticulum | 瓣胃Omasum | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SS | CS | SS | CS | SS | CS | |
短普雷沃氏菌P. brevis | 0.25±0.05a | 0.02±0.00b | 0.04±0.01a | 0.05±0.02a | 0.05±0.04b | 0.23±0.02a |
溶纤维丁酸弧菌B. fibrisolvens | 0.13±0.02a | 0.14±0.08a | 0.29±0.08a | 0.01±0.00b | 0.14±0.04a | 0.30±0.21a |
栖普雷沃氏菌P. ruminicola | 0.62±0.10a | 0.12±0.08b | 0.15±0.07a | 0.03±0.01b | 0.10±0.05a | 0.07±0.00a |
产琥珀酸丝状杆菌F. succinogenes | 0.05±0.01a | 0.01±0.01b | 0.05±0.00a | 0.02±0.01b | 0.05±0.01a | 0.02±0.01b |
白色瘤胃球菌R.albus | 0.09±0.05a | 0.04±0.02a | 0.10±0.03a | 0.06±0.01a | 0.26±0.10a | 0.14±0.05a |
黄色瘤胃球菌R. flavefaciens | 0.17±0.05a | 0.01±0.00b | 0.45±0.06a | 0.01±0.00b | 0.09±0.03b | 0.25±0.05a |
组别 Group | 瘤胃Rumen | 网胃Reticulum | 瓣胃Omasum |
---|---|---|---|
SS | 46.65±0.42a | 44.42±1.04a | 53.40±4.25a |
CS | 40.23±4.49b | 37.98±0.60b | 41.66±3.28b |
表5 饲用甜高粱和全株玉米青贮对肉羊前胃上皮颜色的影响
Table 5 Effects of sweet sorghum and whole-plant corn silage on the color of forestomach epithelium in mutton sheep (亮度L*)
组别 Group | 瘤胃Rumen | 网胃Reticulum | 瓣胃Omasum |
---|---|---|---|
SS | 46.65±0.42a | 44.42±1.04a | 53.40±4.25a |
CS | 40.23±4.49b | 37.98±0.60b | 41.66±3.28b |
前胃部位Forestomach site | 项目Item | SS | CS |
---|---|---|---|
瘤胃Rumen | 乳头长度 Length of nipples | 1631.10±1024.99a | 1622.20±1076.27a |
乳头宽度 Width of nipples | 308.70±115.88a | 249.20±122.61b | |
黏膜上皮厚度 Thickness of mucous epithelium | 113.00±9.90a | 83.14±6.25a | |
肌层厚度 Thickness of muscle layer | 913.64±169.20a | 903.80±593.58a | |
黏膜下层厚度 Thickness of submucosa | 258.99±35.00a | 255.60±63.42a | |
网胃Reticulum | 黏膜厚度 Thickness of mucous | 38.30±4.81a | 42.82±3.83a |
黏膜下层厚度 Thickness of submucosa | 133.60±23.51a | 176.94±65.09a | |
肌层厚度 Thickness of muscle layer | 888.17±116.30a | 1034.39±350.38a | |
瓣胃Omasum | 黏膜上皮厚度 Thickness of mucous epithelium | 18.27±0.10b | 20.39±1.45a |
中央肌层厚度 Thickness of central muscle | 55.07±10.91a | 61.57±10.06a | |
瓣叶肌层厚度 Thickness of omasum lamina muscle | 44.15±8.72a | 55.85±11.39a |
表6 饲用甜高粱和全株玉米青贮对肉羊前胃组织结构的影响
Table 6 Effects of sweet sorghum and whole-plant corn silage on the tissue structure of forestomach in mutton sheep (μm)
前胃部位Forestomach site | 项目Item | SS | CS |
---|---|---|---|
瘤胃Rumen | 乳头长度 Length of nipples | 1631.10±1024.99a | 1622.20±1076.27a |
乳头宽度 Width of nipples | 308.70±115.88a | 249.20±122.61b | |
黏膜上皮厚度 Thickness of mucous epithelium | 113.00±9.90a | 83.14±6.25a | |
肌层厚度 Thickness of muscle layer | 913.64±169.20a | 903.80±593.58a | |
黏膜下层厚度 Thickness of submucosa | 258.99±35.00a | 255.60±63.42a | |
网胃Reticulum | 黏膜厚度 Thickness of mucous | 38.30±4.81a | 42.82±3.83a |
黏膜下层厚度 Thickness of submucosa | 133.60±23.51a | 176.94±65.09a | |
肌层厚度 Thickness of muscle layer | 888.17±116.30a | 1034.39±350.38a | |
瓣胃Omasum | 黏膜上皮厚度 Thickness of mucous epithelium | 18.27±0.10b | 20.39±1.45a |
中央肌层厚度 Thickness of central muscle | 55.07±10.91a | 61.57±10.06a | |
瓣叶肌层厚度 Thickness of omasum lamina muscle | 44.15±8.72a | 55.85±11.39a |
1 | Ding L N. Research on the current situation and future trend of mutton supply and demand in China. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2014. |
丁丽娜. 中国羊肉市场供求现状及未来趋势研究. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2014. | |
2 | Quan K. Thoughts on the development of modern industrialization of mutton sheep in the Central Plains. China Animal Husbandry Association, National Animal Husbandry General Station, National Downy Sheep Industry Technology System: China Animal Husbandry Association, 2010: 5. |
权凯. 中原地区肉羊现代产业化发展的思考. 中国畜牧业协会、全国畜牧总站、国家绒毛用羊产业技术体系: 中国畜牧业协会, 2010: 5. | |
3 | Yang Z M. Discussion on the mode of ecological raising of meat sheep on a moderate scale in ethnic area. China Livestock and Poultry Seed Industry, 2016, 12(9): 17. |
杨紫美. 民族地区适度规模肉羊生态养殖模式探论. 中国畜禽种业, 2016, 12(9): 17. | |
4 | Yin Y Y, Jiang Y Q, Huang J, et al. Effects of silage feeding rape on growth performance, slaughter performance, rumen fermentation and organ development of Hu sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 33(2): 10. |
殷雨洋, 蒋永清, 黄杰, 等.青贮饲用油菜对湖羊生长性能、屠宰性能、瘤胃发酵及器官发育的影响. 动物营养学报, 2020, 33(2): 10. | |
5 | Jiao B L, Zhang N, Ao D G L N, et al. Feeding energy-sweet sorghum silage. China Dairy Cattle, 2019(5): 15-19. |
焦蓓蕾, 张楠, 敖·德古里那, 等. 饲喂能源——甜高粱青贮. 中国奶牛, 2019(5): 15-19. | |
6 | Li S S, Li F, Bai Y F, et al. Sweet sorghum feeding value and feeding dairy cows technology. Pratacultural Science, 2017, 34(7): 1534-1541. |
李珊珊, 李飞, 白彦福, 等. 甜高粱饲用价值及饲喂奶牛技术. 草业科学, 2017, 34(7): 1534-1541. | |
7 | Wang Y H. Sweet sorghum is a good silage for dairy cows. Farmer’s Consultant, 2015(15): 32. |
王永慧. 甜高粱是很好的奶牛青贮饲料. 农家顾问, 2015(15): 32. | |
8 | Tai F H, Wei Y H, Chen F B. Contrastive experiment of feeding beef cattle with sweet sorghum and whole-plant corn silage. China Herbivore Science, 2016, 36(4): 75-76. |
邰发红, 魏永红, 陈福斌. 饲用甜高粱与全株玉米青贮饲喂肉牛对比试验. 中国草食动物科学, 2016, 36(4): 75-76. | |
9 | Cloete S W P, Snyman M A, Herselman M J. Productive performance of Dorper sheep. Small Ruminant Research, 2000, 36(2): 119-135. |
10 | Xu X, Ma Y J, Li D H, et al. Correlation and regression analysis between body weight and body size of Dorper sheep. Gansu Animal Husbandry and Veterinary, 2017, 47(5): 92-95. |
许鑫, 马友记, 李东红, 等. 肉羊体重与体尺指标的相关及回归分析. 甘肃畜牧兽医, 2017, 47(5): 92-95. | |
11 | Zhao N, Yang X H, Chen F, et al. Effect of silage feeding rape on the rumen fermentation parameters and microbial diversity of goats. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(9): 146-154. |
赵娜, 杨雪海, 陈芳, 等. 青贮饲用油菜对育肥期山羊瘤胃发酵参数及微生物多样性的影响. 草业学报, 2019, 28(9): 146-154. | |
12 | Huang Z P. Effect of feeding whole-plant corn silage inoculated with Lactobacilllus plantrum or lactobacillus buchneri on growth performance and rumen microflora of lambs. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2020. |
黄志鹏. 饲喂添加植物乳杆菌和布氏乳杆菌的全株玉米青贮对羔羊生长性能及瘤胃菌群的影响. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2020. | |
13 | Yu X. Effects of sweet sorghum silage on the performance, blood biochemical indexes and rumen function of dairy cows. Tongliao: Inner Mongolia University for the Nationalities, 2020. |
玉霞. 甜高粱青贮对奶牛生产性能、血液生化指标及瘤胃功能的影响. 通辽: 内蒙古民族大学, 2020. | |
14 | Huo J H, Fang S P, Wu P S, et al. Effects of diets with different concentration-roughage ratios on the microbial community structure of Nubian goat rumen. Pratacultural Science, 2020, 37(12): 2558-2566. |
霍俊宏, 方绍培, 吴平山, 等. 不同精粗比日粮对努比亚山羊瘤胃菌群结构的影响. 草业科学, 2020, 37(12): 2558-2566. | |
15 | Zhang X, Fu X Y, Wang H C, et al. Effects of packaging forage sweet sorghum silage on performance and serum indexes of mutton sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2018, 30(5): 1771-1780. |
张霞, 付晓悦, 王虎成, 等. 饲用甜高粱裹包青贮料对肉羊生产性能及血清指标的影响. 动物营养学报, 2018, 30(5): 1771-1780. | |
16 | Feng Z C, Gao M. Improvement of colorimetric method for determination of ammonia nitrogen in rumen fluid. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2010, 31(Z1): 37. |
冯宗慈, 高民. 通过比色测定瘤胃液氨氮含量方法的改进. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2010, 31(Z1): 37. | |
17 | Zeng Y, Gao Y H, Peng Z L, et al. Effects of yeast culture supplementation in diets on rumen fermentation parameters and microflora of house-feeding yak. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(4): 1721-1733. |
曾钰, 高彦华, 彭忠利, 等.饲粮中添加酵母培养物对舍饲牦牛瘤胃发酵参数及微生物区系的影响. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(4): 1721-1733. | |
18 | Koike S, Kobayashi Y. Development and use of competitive PCR assays for the rumen cellulolytic bacteria: Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococcus albus and Ruminococcus flavefaciens. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 2001, 204(2): 361-366. |
19 | Denman S E, Mcsweeney C S. Development of a real-time PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic bacterial populations within the rumen. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 2010(3): 572-582. |
20 | Stevenson D M, Weimer P J. Dominance of Prevotella and low abundance of classical ruminal bacterial species in the bovine rumen revealed by relative quantification real-time PCR. Applied Microbiology and Cell Physiology, 2007, 75(1): 165-174. |
21 | Cunha I S, Barreto C C, Costa O Y A, et al. Bacteria and archaea community structure in the rumen microbiome of goats (Capra hircus) from the semiarid region of Brazil. Anaerobe, 2011, 17(3): 118-124. |
22 | Wang C L, Hao Z L, Li F D, et al. Histomorphometric changes of stomach in grazing Gansu Alpine Fine-wool sheep at 0-56 day of age. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 2009, 44(3): 10-15. |
王彩莲, 郝正里, 李发弟, 等. 放牧条件下甘肃高山细毛羊公羔胃的组织形态学变化. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2009, 44(3): 10-15. | |
23 | Brunette T, Baurhoo B, Mustafa A F. Effects of replacing grass silage with forage pearl millet silage on milk yield, nutrient digestion, and ruminal fermentation of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2016, 99(1): 269-279. |
24 | Wang X F, Pan X L, Xiang C H, et al. The effect of beet molasses added to diets on the rumen pH and NH3-N concentration. China Feed, 2006(2): 25-27. |
王新峰, 潘晓亮, 向春和, 等. 添加甜菜糖蜜对绵羊瘤胃pH和NH3-N浓度的影响. 中国饲料, 2006(2): 25-27. | |
25 | Krause K M, Oetzel G R. Understanding and preventing subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds: A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2006, 126(3/4): 215-236. |
26 | Khorasani G R, Okine E K, Kennelly J J. Effects of forage source and amount of concentrate on rumen and intestinal digestion of nutrients in late-lactation cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2001, 84(5): 1156-1165. |
27 | Han Z K, Chen J. Digestion and metabolism of rumen in ruminants. Beijing: Science Press, 1988. |
韩正康, 陈杰. 反刍动物瘤胃的消化和代谢. 北京: 科学出版社出版, 1988. | |
28 | Feng Y L. Ruminant nutrition. Beijing: Science Press, 2004. |
冯仰廉. 反刍动物营养学. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004. | |
29 | Lv J Y. Effects of roughage sources on production performance and ruminal microflora of finishing lamb. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2017. |
吕佳颖. 粗饲料来源对育肥羔羊生产性能和瘤胃微生物区系的影响. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2017. | |
30 | Guo J P, Pan J Z, Li F D, et al. Effect of different early weaned day on morphological development of stomach for housed lambs. Chinese Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 2018, 49(5): 971-985. |
郭江鹏, 潘建忠, 李发弟, 等. 不同早期断奶日龄对舍饲肉用羔羊胃组织形态发育变化的影响. 畜牧兽医学报, 2018, 49(5): 971-985. | |
31 | Jiang X, Xu H J, Cui Z Q, et al. Effects of fermented corn gluten meal on growth performance, plasma metabolites and rumen microorganism populations in pre-weaning Holstein male calves. Chinese Journal of Veterinary Science, 2020, 40(11): 2214-2219, 2233. |
姜鑫, 徐宏建, 崔梓琪, 等. 发酵玉米蛋白粉对断奶前荷斯坦公犊生长、血浆代谢物和瘤胃微生物菌群的影响. 中国兽医学报, 2020, 40(11): 2214-2219, 2233. | |
32 | Thoetkiattikul H, Mhuantong W, Laothanachareon T. Comparative analysis of microbial profiles in cow rumen fed with different dietary fiber by tagged 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing. Current Microbiology, 2013, 67(2): 130-137. |
33 | Xiao R, Zheng W, Zheng L, et al. Effects of mulberry branch and leaf powder on rumen microflora of Yunnan Yunling cattle. Pratacultural Science, 2020, 37(10): 2069-2078. |
肖润, 郑旺, 郑琳, 等. 桑枝叶粉对云南云岭牛瘤胃微生物区系的影响. 草业科学, 2020, 37(10): 2069-2078. | |
34 | Harvey R W. Influence of added roughage and chlortetracycline to all-concentrate rations for fattening steers. Journal of Animal Science, 1968. |
35 | Steele M A, Croom J, Kahler M, et al. Bovine rumen epithelium undergoes rapid structural adaptations during grain-induced subacute ruminal acidosis. American Journal of Physiology Regulatory Integrative & Comparative Physiology, 2011, 300(6): 1515-1523. |
36 | Plaizier J C, Khafipour E, Li S, et al. Subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA), endotoxins and health consequences. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2012, 172(1/2): 9-21. |
37 | Blanco C, Giraldez F J, Prieto N, et al. Total mixed ration pellets for light fattening lambs: Effects on animal health. Animal, 2015, 9(2): 258-266. |
38 | Wang L. Effects of thiamine on the rumen tissue morphology and growth in Holstein bull calves. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2013. |
王龙. 硫胺素对犊牛瘤胃组织形态及其生长发育影响的研究. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2013. | |
39 | Nockels C F, Kintner L D, Pfander W H. Influence of ration on morphology, histology, and trace mineral content of sheep rumen papillae. Journal of Dairy Science, 1966, 49(9): 1068-1074. |
40 | Huang Z N. The effects of nutrition level on the growth and morphology of forestomach epithelial. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2010. |
黄智南. 日粮营养对前胃上皮生长和组织形态的影响. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2010. | |
41 | Lesmeister K E, Tozer P R, Heinrichs A J. Development and analysis of a rumen tissue sampling procedure. Journal of Dairy Science, 2004, 87(5): 1336-1344. |
42 | Zhang H T, Wang J Q, Bu D P, et al. The development of rumen in dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science and Technology, 2008(2): 86-89. |
张海涛, 王加启, 卜登攀, 等. 影响犊牛瘤胃发育的因素研究. 乳业科学与技术, 2008(2): 86-89. | |
43 | Kong L Q. The comparative study of calf stomach anatomy and histological structure development under the different feeding condition. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2011. |
孔令强. 不同饲喂条件下犊牛胃解剖组织学结构的比较研究. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2011. | |
44 | Yu Y, Ge R L M, Yan S M, et al. Effects of pasture fattening and stall fattening on gastrointestinal tract morphology of cashmere goats. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(2): 775-783. |
于洋, 格日乐玛, 闫素梅, 等. 放牧与舍饲育肥对绒山羊胃肠道组织形态的影响. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(2): 775-783. | |
45 | Zhang S Q, Zan L S, Liang D Y, et al. Effect of different dietary concentrate to forage ratio on rumen morphological structure of Chinese Hostein bull. Journal of Northwest A & F University (Natural Science Edition), 2009, 37(9): 59-64. |
张双奇, 昝林森, 梁大勇, 等. 日粮精粗比对荷斯坦公犊瘤胃组织结构的影响. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 37(9): 59-64. | |
46 | Zhou L, Li X Q, Wang Z Y, et al. Effects of diets with different ratios of non-fibrous carbohydrate to neutral detergent fiber on morphological development of compound stomach of plateau type Tibetan sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(2): 986-998. |
周力, 李雪清, 王志有, 等. 不同非纤维性碳水化合物/中性洗涤纤维饲粮对高原型藏羊复胃形态发育的影响. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(2): 986-998. | |
47 | Zhen Y G, Ma N. Comparative study on fiber digestion and rumen digestion dynamics in small ruminants fed various low-quality roughage. Journal of Jilin Agricultural University, 1998(2): 3-5. |
甄玉国, 马宁. 绵羊、山羊对不同粗饲料纤维的消化和瘤胃消化动态学的比较研究. 吉林农业大学学报, 1998(2): 3-5. |
[1] | 温媛媛, 张美琦, 刘桃桃, 沈宜钊, 高艳霞, 李秋凤, 曹玉凤, 李建国. 体外产气法评价生薯条加工副产品-稻草混贮与全株玉米青贮组合效应的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(8): 154-163. |
[2] | 张丹丹, 张元庆, 程景, 靳光, 李博, 王栋才, 徐芳, 孙锐锋. 不同粗饲料组合对晋南牛瘤胃体外发酵特性的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(7): 93-100. |
[3] | 黄丽琴, 李松桥, 袁振中, 唐晶, 闫景彩, 唐启源. 全株水稻与平菇菌糠共发酵料对浏阳黑山羊屠宰性能、肉品质和器官指数的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(6): 133-140. |
[4] | 毛翠, 刘方圆, 宋恩亮, 王亚芳, 王永军, 战翔, 李原, 成海建, 姜富贵. 不同乳酸菌添加量和发酵时间对全株玉米青贮营养价值及发酵品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(10): 172-181. |
[5] | 王婷, 王虎成, 苟娜娜, 冯强, 贺春贵, 尚占环. 甜高粱饲草及葡萄籽对小尾寒羊生产性能及血液生理参数的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(9): 155-163. |
[6] | 李雪莉, 王超, 虞徳夫, 丁立人, 朱伟云, 杭苏琴. 微生态制剂对断奶仔猪生长性能、器官重及其胃肠道发育的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(8): 192-199. |
[7] | 陶莲, 冯文晓, 王玉荣, 刁其玉. 微生态制剂对玉米秸秆青贮发酵品质、营养成分及瘤胃降解率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(9): 152-160. |
[8] | 孙国强,吕永艳,张杰杰. 利用体外瘤胃发酵法研究全株玉米青贮与花生蔓和羊草间的组合效应[J]. 草业学报, 2014, 23(3): 224-231. |
[9] | 王典,李发弟,张养东,卜登攀,孙鹏,周凌云. 马铃薯淀粉渣-玉米秸秆混合青贮料对肉羊生产性能、瘤胃内环境和血液生化指标的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2012, 21(5): 47-54. |
[10] | 郭江鹏,潘建忠,李发弟,郝正里,马友记,张元兴,李海静,马腾. 0~56日龄舍饲肉用羔羊前胃功能发育研究[J]. 草业学报, 2011, 20(3): 128-135. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||