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

doi:10.11686/cyxb20140326

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本研究旨在利用体外瘤胃发酵法研究全株玉米青贮与花生蔓及羊草间的组合效应。将全株玉米青贮与花生蔓以100∶0,90∶10,80∶20,70∶30,60∶40,50∶50,40∶60,30∶70,20∶80,10∶90,0∶100的比例进行组合,筛选出全株玉米青贮与花生蔓的最优组合后再与羊草以这11个比例进行组合。利用体外瘤胃发酵技术,测定24 h产气量、微生物蛋白产量及瘤胃干物质降解率的单项组合效应指数和多项组合效应指数。结果表明,1)在全株玉米青贮与花生蔓的不同比例组合中,产气量和干物质降解率单项组合效应指数均以70∶30的组合最大,分别为0.69和0.72,极显著高于其他比例的组合(P<0.01),微生物蛋白产量则产生了显著的负组合效应;2)在全株玉米青贮与花生蔓的不同比例组合中,多项组合效应指数以比例为70∶30的组合最大;3)在全株玉米青贮花生蔓最优组合(70∶30)与羊草的不同比例组合中, 产气量和干物质降解率单项组合效应指数均以80∶20的组合最大,分别为0.17和0.18,极显著高于其他比例的组合(P<0.01),微生物蛋白产量则产生了显著的负组合效应;4)在全株玉米青贮花生蔓最优组合(70∶30)与羊草的不同比例组合中, 多项组合效应指数以比例为80∶20的组合最大。综上,在本试验设计条件下,全株玉米青贮与花生蔓比例为70∶30的组合、全株玉米青贮-花生蔓-羊草比例为56∶24∶20的组合具有最大组合效应。

Abstract: The experiment investigated the associative effect of whole corn silage (MCS)- peanut vine (PV) and Leymus chinensis (LC). First, WCS was mixed with PV in the proportions of 100∶0, 90∶10, 80∶20, 70∶30, 60∶40, 50∶50, 40∶60, 30∶70 20∶80, 10∶90 and 0∶100. After the best combination of WCS and PV (BWP) was determined, the BWP was grouped with LC under these 11 proportions. Rumen fermentation in vitro was used and single factors associative effect indexes including the associative effects of gas production (AEGP), microbiological crude protein (AEMCP), dry matter degradation rate (AEDMD) and multiple factors associative effect indexes were analysed over 24 h. 1) Under the WCS-PV combination of different proportions, both AEGP and AEDMD were the largest at a ratio of 70∶30 and they were 0.69 and 0.72 respectively. They were very significantly (P<0.01) higher than those at other proportions, but AEMCP was negative. 2) Under the WCS-PV combination of different proportions, the 70∶30 ratio of WCS to PV had the largest associative effects according to the multiple factors associative effect indexes, and consequently, the 70∶30 ratio of WCS to PV was the best combination of WCS and PV (BWP); 3) Under the BWP-LC combination of different proportions, both AEGP and AEDMD were the largest at the ratio of 80∶20 and they were 0.17 and 0.18 respectively, very significantly (P<0.01) higher than those at other proportions, and the AEMCP was negative. 4) Under the BWP-LC combination of different proportions, the 80∶20 ratio of BWP to LC had the largest associative effects. In conclusion, the WCS-PV combination at the ratio of 70∶30 and WCS-PV-LC combination at the ratio of 56∶24∶20 were found to have the largest associative effects in this study.

中图分类号:

S816.5⁺3

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.

SUN Guo-qiang,LV Yong-yan,ZHANG Jie-jie. A study on the associative effect of whole corn silage-peanut vine and Leymus chinensis by rumen fermentation in vitro[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(3): 224-231.

参考文献

Reference：
[1]Gao J, Jia Y Sh, Wang X G, et al. Study on the multiple-factors associative effects of forage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21（4）: 236-243.
[2]Guo D S, Peng X L. Study on associated effects of feeds on ruminant[J].Acta Ecologae Animals Domastici, 2003, 29（2）: 109-112.
[3]Mould F L, Orskov E R, Mann S O. Associative effects of mixed feeds in effects of type and level of supplementation and the influence of the rumenfluid pH on cellulolysis in vitro and dry matter digestion of various roughages[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1983, 10: 15-30.
[4]Duan Z Y. Study of associative effects between starch and neutral detergent fiber in ruminants[D]. Hangzhou： Zhejiang University， 2006．
[5]Yan W J, Liu J X, Wu Y M. Evaluation methods and parameters of combination effects among feeds in ruminants[J]. China Feed, 2004, 15: 36-38.
[6]Su H Y. Study on associative effects between mulberry leaves (morus alba) and oil-seed meals in ruminants[D]. Hangzhou： Zhejiang University, 2002.
[7]Lei D Z, Jin S G, Wu R T N. Evaluation of the associative effects of same concentration and different forages by gas production method in vitro[J]. Feed Industry, 2009, 3: 30-33.
[8]Tang S Y, Zhang Y G. Assessing combination domino offect between silage and rice straw in vitro[J]. Feed Industry, 2009, 30: 26-29.
[9]Chen W J, Wang C, Duan Z Y, et al. The Measurements and Methods for Evaluation of Associative Effects in Ruminants[J]. China Cattle Science, 2011, 37（2）: 61-65.
[10]Wang X. A technique for formulation of mixed forages by grading index and systematic optimization of sheep ration based on the technique[D].Huhehaote : Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2003.
[11]Guo Y Q, Cao Z J, Li S L, et al. Whole plant corn silage production and quality evaluation of the key technology, the high cost of corn era to zap one of technology and management strategy[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2012, 48（18）: 39-44.
[12]Deng Y, Liu X N, Li X P, et al. Diurnal dynamics of photosynthetic characteristics of Leymus chinensis under different grazing intensities taking the Hulunber meadow steppe as an example[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21（3）: 308-313.
[13]Ma X Y, Peng X J, Su M , et al. Phylogeny and function characterization of DREB transcription factors in Leymus chinensis[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21（6）: 190-197.
[14]Sun Z X. Energy value evaluation and associative effects of forages for sheep[D].Beijing: The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2007
[15]Guo D S. Influence of associated effects on utilizable crude protein of feeds for ruminants and rumen fermentation in vitro[D].Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2004.
[16]Cotta M A, Russeiil J R. Effect of peptides and amino acids on efficiency of rumen bacterial protein synthesis in continuous culture[J]. Dairy Science, 1982, 65: 226-234.
[17]Yu T F, Zhang J J, Sun G Q. Associative effects of Peanut Vine and four kinds of Roughages[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, , 2012, 24（7）: 1246-1254.
[18]Bu L T. In vitro gas test to evaluate associative effects between corn silage, Chinese wild hay and alfalfa[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2006.
[19]Liu T Y, Guo X. To explore the application of peanut seedling in silage[J]. China Herbivore , 2003, 23（5）: 27-28.
参考文献：
[1]高静, 贾玉山, 王晓光, 等. 饲草组合效应综合指数研究[J]. 草业学报, 2012, 21（4）: 236-243.
[2]郭冬生, 彭小兰. 反刍动物日粮组合效应的研究进展[J]. 家畜生态学报, 2003, 29（2）: 109-112.
[3]Mould F L, Orskov E R, Mann S O. Associative effects of mixed feeds in effects of type and level of supplementation and the influence of the rumenfluid pH on cellulolysis in vitro and dry matter digestion of various roughages[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1983, 10: 15-30.
[4]段智勇. 反刍动物日粮中淀粉与纤维的组合效应及其机理的研究[D]. 杭州：浙江大学， 2006．
[5]闫伟杰, 刘建新, 吴跃明. 反刍动物饲料间组合效应评估参数及评估方法[J]. 中国饲料, 2004, 15: 36-38.
[6]苏海涯. 反刍动物日粮中桑叶与饼粕类饲料间组合效应的研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2002.
[7]雷冬至, 金曙光, 乌仁塔娜. 用体外产气法评价不同粗饲料与相同精料间的组合效应[J]. 饲料工业, 2009, 3: 30-33.
[8]唐赛勇, 张永根. 体外法评定玉米青贮与稻秸之间组合效应的研究[J]. 饲料工业, 2009, 30: 26-29.
[9]陈伟健, 王翀, 段智勇, 等. 反刍动物饲料组合效应的衡量指标及评估方法综述[J]. 中国牛业科学, 2011, 37（2）: 61-65.
[10]王旭. 利用GI技术对粗饲料进行科学搭配及绵羊日粮配方系统优化技术的研究[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2003.
[11]郭勇庆, 曹志军, 李胜利, 等. 全株玉米青贮生产与品质评定关键技术——高成本玉米时代牛场技术与管理策略之一[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2012, 48（18）: 39-44.
[12]邓钰, 柳小妮, 辛晓平, 等. 不同放牧强度下羊草的光合特性日动态变化——以呼伦贝尔草甸草原为例[J]. 草业学报, 2012, 21（3）: 308-313.
[13]马兴勇, 彭献军, 苏蔓, 等. 羊草DREB转录因子的系统发育和功能研究[J]. 草业学报, 2012, 21（6）: 190-197.
[14]孙献忠. 羊常用饲草的能量价值评定及其组合效应研究[D].北京: 中国农业科学院, 2007
[15]郭冬生.反刍动物日粮组合效应对瘤胃发酵和可利用粗蛋白的影响研究[D].北京: 中国农业大学, 2004.
[16]Cotta M A, Russeiil J R. Effect of peptides and amino acids on efficiency of rumen bacterial protein synthesis in continuous culture[J]. Dairy Science, 1982, 65: 226-234.
[17]于腾飞, 张杰杰, 孙国强. 花生蔓与四种粗饲料间组合效应的研究[J]. 动物营养学报, 2012, 24（7）: 1246-1254.
[18]布同良. 体外产气法评定青贮玉米、羊草和苜蓿之间的组合效应[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2006.
[19]刘太宇, 郭孝. 花生秧在青贮饲料中的应用探讨[J]. 中国草食动物, 2003, 23（5）: 27-28.