甜高粱的饲用价值及其绵羊体外瘤胃发酵产气性能研究

doi:10.11686/cyxb2019354

草业学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (5): 43-49.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2019354

甜高粱的饲用价值及其绵羊体外瘤胃发酵产气性能研究

周恩光¹, 王虎成^1,*, 尚占环²

1.兰州大学草地农业生态系统国家重点实验室,兰州大学农业农村部草牧业创新重点实验室,兰州大学草地农业教育部工程研究中心,兰州大学草地农业科技学院,甘肃兰州 730020;
2.兰州大学生命科学学院,甘肃兰州 730000

收稿日期:2019-08-14 出版日期:2020-05-20 发布日期:2020-05-20
通讯作者: * E-mail: wanghuch@lzu.edu.cn
作者简介:周恩光(1992-),男,河南商丘人,在读硕士。E-mail: zhoueg17@lzu.edu.cn
基金资助:
定西市安定区草地农业试验示范区建设项目(GCLM2017)和甘肃省重大科技专项计划项目“饲用甜高粱种质创新及栽培饲用技术研究与示范(1502NKDA005-3)”资助

Nutritional value of forage sweet sorghum and its gas production performance evaluated using incubation with sheep rumen fluid in vitro

ZHOU En-guang¹, WANG Hu-cheng^1,*, SHANG Zhan-huan²

1.State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China;
2.College of Life Science, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China

Received:2019-08-14 Online:2020-05-20 Published:2020-05-20
Contact: * E-mail: wanghuch@lzu.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本试验旨在研究不同收割时期饲用甜高粱的饲用价值及其绵羊体外瘤胃发酵产气性能,分别对8-11月收割的甜高粱(大奖3180,标记为S₁、S₂、S₃与S₄)的养分含量及相对饲喂价值(RFV)、总可消化养分(TDN)、干物质采食量(DMI)、可消化干物质(DDM)和牧草相对饲用品质(RFQ)进行评价。利用体外模拟发酵产气技术评定不同收割时期的甜高粱在3、6、9、12、24、36和48 h体外产气规律,估算降解率。结果表明,1)不同收割时期的甜高粱的干物质(DM)、粗蛋白(CP)、中性洗涤纤维(NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)、粗脂肪(EE)和粗灰分(Ash)含量差异均显著(P<0.05)。2)不同收割时期的甜高粱的RFV、DMI、RFQ呈现出S₁>S₄>S₃>S₂,差异极显著(P<0.001)。S₁和S₄的TDN和DDM含量差异不显著(P>0.05),但极显著高于S₂和S₃(P<0.001)。3)在培养12 h之前,不同收割时期的甜高粱产气量(GP)差异极显著(P<0.001),且S₃的GP最高;24 h后,S₄的GP显著高于S₂(P<0.05);培养36 h后不同收割时期的甜高粱GP差异不显著(P>0.05)。4)不同时期收割的甜高粱在发酵12、24、48 h的干物质消失率(DMD)均无显著差异(P>0.05)。综上结果,8月对黄土高原丘陵沟壑区甜高粱进行收割时饲用价值最好。

关键词: 甜高粱, 收割时期, 营养价值, 体外发酵性能

Abstract: This experiment studied the nutritional value and gas production performance, when incubated with sheep rumen fluid, of sweet sorghum forage harvested at different crop growth stages. The forage sweet sorghum cultivar Dajiang 3180 was harvested in August (S₁), September (S₂), October (S₃) and November (S₄), the herbage nutritive value analyzed. And the relative feeding value (RFV), total digestible nutrient (TDN), dry matter intake (DMI), digestible dry matter (DDM) and relative forage quality (RFQ) were evaluated. Herbage digestibility and the gas production at 3, 6, 9, 12, 24, 36 and 48 h were evaluated by in vitro simulated fermentation. It was found that: 1) There were significant differences in dry matter, crude protein, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, ethanol extract and crude ash levels at the different harvest dates (P<0.05). 2) There were significant differences across the four harvest periods in RFV, DMI and RFQ (S₁>S₄>S₃>S₂) (P<0.001). The TDN and DDM of S₁ and S₄ were higher than the S₂ and S₃ harvests (P<0.001). 3) For the first 12 h of fermentation, there were gas production (GP) differences between the four harvest periods (P<0.001), with the GP of S₃ being the highest. After 24 h, the GP of S₄ was higher than S₂ (P<0.05); There were no significant differences in GP between the four harvest periods after 36 h incubation (P>0.05). 4) There were no significant difference in DMD between the four harvest periods at 12, 24 and 48 h of incubation (P>0.05). In summary, the feeding value of sweet sorghum in the ‘hill and gully’ region of the Loess Plateau, China, is highest in August.

Key words: sweet sorghum, harvest period, nutritional value, in vitro fermentation characteristics

周恩光, 王虎成, 尚占环. 甜高粱的饲用价值及其绵羊体外瘤胃发酵产气性能研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 43-49.

ZHOU En-guang, WANG Hu-cheng, SHANG Zhan-huan. Nutritional value of forage sweet sorghum and its gas production performance evaluated using incubation with sheep rumen fluid in vitro[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(5): 43-49.

参考文献

[1] Zhang G J, Wang H M, Luo H L, et al. Evaluation of nutritional value of leguminous forage in different growth stages by in vitro gas production and in vitro digestion. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2011, 23(3): 387-394.
张桂杰, 王红梅, 罗海玲, 等. 应用体外产气与体外消化法评定不同生育期豆科牧草营养价值. 动物营养学报, 2011, 23(3): 387-394.
[2] Li S S, Bai Y F, Wang T, et al. Nutritional value and artificial rumen degradation characteristics of feed sorghum. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(5): 1273-1286.
李珊珊, 白彦福, 王婷, 等. 饲用高粱营养价值及人工瘤胃降解特性. 草业科学, 2018, 35(5): 1273-1286.
[3] Lu D X, Xie C W.Research methods and techniques of modern ruminant nutrition. Beijing: Agriculture Press, 1991.
卢德勋, 谢崇文. 现代反刍动物营养研究方法和技术. 北京: 农业出版社, 1991.
[4] Bhatta R, Tajima K, Takusari N, et al. Comparison of in vivo and in vitro techniques for methane production from ruminant diets. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2007, 20(7): 1049-1056.
[5] Gao S J, Liu X H, Li Y F, et al. Resources and utilization of chinese sweet sorghum. Horticulture and Seed, 2006, 26(4): 46-47.
高士杰, 刘晓辉, 李玉发, 等. 中国甜高粱资源与利用. 园艺与种苗, 2006, 26(4): 46-47.
[6] Yang X H. High-efficiency cultivation techniques of feeding sweet sorghum in desert development zone of hexi corridor. Sugar Crops of China, 2016, 38(1): 62-64.
杨兴虎. 河西走廊沙漠开发区饲用甜高粱高效栽培技术. 中国糖料, 2016, 38(1): 62-64.
[7] Tang T X, Wang Z H, Zhang Y P, et al. Effects of cutting frequency on yield and feed value of feeding sweet sorghum. Sugar Crops of China, 2018, 40(1): 35-37.
唐桃霞, 王致和, 张亚萍, 等. 刈割频率对饲用甜高粱产量和饲用价值的影响. 中国糖料, 2018, 40(1): 35-37.
[8] Li C H, Su Y J, Zhang P T, et al. Effects of different cutting periods on the yield and quality of sweet sorghum. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2018, 49(2): 239-245.
李春宏, 苏衍菁, 张培通, 等. 不同刈割时期对甜高粱产量和品质的影响. 南方农业学报, 2018, 49(2): 239-245.
[9] Liang W P. Effect of cutting time on yield and quality of feeding sweet sorghum. Sugar Crops of China, 2015, 37(4): 42-43.
梁万平. 刈割间隔时间对饲用型甜高粱产质量的影响. 中国糖料, 2015, 37(4): 42-43.
[10] Yang S. Feed analysis and feed quality testing technology. Beijing: Beijing Agricultural University Press, 1993.
杨胜. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 北京: 北京农业大学出版社, 1993.
[11] Rohweder D A, Barnes R F, Neal J. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, 1978, 47(3): 747-759.
[12] Zhang J K, Lu D X, Liu J X, et al. Research status and development of crude feed quality evaluation index. Pratacultural Science, 2004, 21(9): 55-61.
张吉鹍, 卢德勋, 刘建新, 等. 粗饲料品质评定指数的研究现状及其进展. 草业科学, 2004, 21(9): 55-61.
[13] Xiong Y, Xu Q F, Yu Z, et al. Nutrient and forage value of oat hay in different producing areas. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(10): 165-170.
熊乙, 许庆方, 玉柱, 等. 不同产地燕麦干草养分及饲用价值. 草业科学, 2018, 35(10): 165-170.
[14] Menke K. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research, 1988, 28: 7-55.
[15] Luo F, Wei J Z, Gao J M, et al. Study on the accumulation of crude protein in different types of forage sorghum. Tianjin Agricultural Science, 2013, 19(2): 6-8.
罗峰, 魏进招, 高建明, 等. 不同类型饲用高粱粗蛋白积累规律研究. 天津农业科学, 2013, 19(2): 6-8.
[16] Chen P, Luo F, Gao J M, et al. Effects of different sowing dates on quality traits of sweet sorghum in different growth stages. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2012, (5): 2608-2609.
陈鹏, 罗峰, 高建明, 等. 不同播期对不同生育时期甜高梁品质性状的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2012, (5): 2608-2609.
[17] Jia C H, Qian W X, Tursunay·Samat, et al. Nutritional value index and assessment method of forage. Pratacultural Science, 2017, 34(2): 415-427.
贾存辉, 钱文熙, 吐尔逊阿依·赛买提, 等. 粗饲料营养价值指数及评定方法. 草业科学, 2017, 34(2): 415-427.
[18] Li Z M, Ma M, Zhao W, et al. Effects of nutrient dynamics on rumen in vitro growth and methane production in different growth stages of peas. Feed Research, 2016, (2): 1-6.
李占明, 马敏, 赵微, 等. 山野豌豆不同生长时期营养动态变化及其对瘤胃体外发酵和甲烷产量的影响. 饲料研究, 2016, (2): 1-6.
[19] Ma M, Li M C, Zhao W, et al. Effects of different growth stages on the rumen fermentation and methane production of Yanbian yellow cattle by in vitro gas production. Feed Industry, 2016, (1): 19-23.
马敏, 李明超, 赵微, 等. 利用体外产气法研究不同生长期胡枝子对延边黄牛瘤胃发酵及甲烷产量的影响. 饲料工业, 2016, (1): 19-23.
[20] Li Z J, Hu Y G. Biological characteristics of feed rye and its dynamic changes in yield and nutrition. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2004, 13(1): 45-51.
李志坚, 胡跃高. 饲用黑麦生物学特性及其产量营养动态变化. 草业学报, 2004, 13(1): 45-51.
[21] Tang S X, Huang R L, Tan Z L, et al. Study on gas production characteristics of different varieties of oat straws in vitro fermentation. Genomics and Applied Biology, 2006, 25(4): 330-335.
汤少勋, 黄瑞林, 谭支良, 等. 不同品种燕麦秸秆体外发酵产气特性的研究. 基因组学与应用生物学, 2006, 25(4): 330-335.
[22] Zhao G Y. Advances in research on regulation of rumen fermentation. Journal of Animal Nutrition, 1999, (S1): 21-28.
赵广永. 瘤胃发酵调控研究进展. 动物营养学报, 1999, (S1): 21-28.
[23] Michael Blümmel. Comparison of in vitro gas production and nylon bag degradability of roughages in predicting feed intake in cattle. Animal Feed Science & Technology, 1993, 40(2/3): 109-119.
[24] Zhao X, Dong K H, Wang Y X, et al. Degradation dynamics of different concentrate-to-roughage feeds in rumen of sheep. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2005, 14(3): 62-66.
赵祥, 董宽虎, 王永新, 等. 不同精粗比全混合饲料在绵羊瘤胃内的降解动态. 草业学报, 2005, 14(3): 62-66.
[25] Wang F, Xu Y J, Niu J L, et al. Evaluation of nutritional value of ruminant feed by in vitro gas production method. China Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2016, 43(1): 76-83.
王芳, 徐元君, 牛俊丽, 等. 体外产气法评价反刍动物饲料营养价值的研究. 中国畜牧兽医, 2016, 43(1): 76-83.
[26] Chen X L. Study on nutritional value and rumen degradation characteristics of common roughage for meat sheep. Qingdao: Qingdao Agricultural University, 2014.
陈晓琳. 肉羊常用粗饲料营养价值和瘤胃降解特性研究. 青岛: 青岛农业大学, 2014.
[27] Zhang Y, Mao H M. Study on rumen degradation rate of different kinds of forage nutrients. Feed Industry, 2014, 35(21): 54-57.
张颖, 毛华明. 不同种类牧草营养物质瘤胃降解率研究. 饲料工业, 2014, 35(21): 54-57.

甜高粱的饲用价值及其绵羊体外瘤胃发酵产气性能研究

Nutritional value of forage sweet sorghum and its gas production performance evaluated using incubation with sheep rumen fluid in vitro

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	再吐尼古丽·库尔班, 吐尔逊·吐尔洪, 涂振东, 王卉, 山其米克, 艾克拜尔·伊拉洪. 长期不同施肥处理对连作高粱生长规律及产量的影响研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8): 81-92.
[2]	伏兵哲, 周燕飞, 李雪, 倪彪, 高雪芹. 宁夏引黄灌区羊草水肥耦合效应研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 98-108.
[3]	高丽敏, 田倩, 苏晶, 沈益新. 施氮水平对甜高粱干物质产量及氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 192-198.
[4]	姜妍, 薛恩玉, 鹿文成, 崔国文, 李远明, 韩天富, 王绍东. Kunitz型胰蛋白酶抑制剂缺失大豆新品系培育及其饲草价值分析[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(10): 91-98.
[5]	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.
[6]	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.
[7]	李影正, 严旭, 吴子周, 杨春燕, 李晓锋, 何如钰, 张萍, EBENEZERKofiSam, 周阳, 张磊, 荣廷昭, 何建美, 唐祈林. 饲草玉米不同生育期的产量、品质和青贮利用研究[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(7): 82-91.
[8]	王晓龙, 李红, 米福贵, 于洁, 王雪婷, 孟凯, 贾振宇, 王佺珍. 不同秋眠级苜蓿生产性能及越冬率评价[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 82-92.
[9]	刘月, 王国艮, 吴浩, 孟庆翔, 宋恩亮, 成海建, 周振明. 全株青贮玉米品种对其发酵品质及营养价值的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 148-156.
[10]	田春丽, 李斌, 刘芳, 赵颖, 刘世亮, 介晓磊, 胡华锋. 硒、锌元素配施对紫花苜蓿产量、植株体内硒锌积累和氨基酸含量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(3): 142-153.
[11]	赵巧芩, 徐永清, 周晶, 冯珊珊, 蔡振学, 冯哲, 冯旭, 彭丽娜, 董佳敏, 姚树宽, 李凤兰, 胡宝忠. 黑龙江4个地区鲁梅克斯新品种不同生长年限营养价值分析[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(3): 175-183.
[12]	王亚麒, 袁玲. 甜高粱、高丹草和拉巴豆对难溶性磷的活化与吸收[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(10): 33-43.
[13]	朱娟娟, 喻春明, 陈继康, 王延周, 陈平, 熊和平. 外源硒对饲用苎麻草产量和营养价值的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(10): 144-155.
[14]	李华雄, 蒋维明, 吴子周, 李影正, 程明军, 杨世鹏, 孙汝龙, 严旭, 张红芬, 杨敏, 荣廷昭, 周树峰, 吴元奇, 曹墨菊, 唐祈林. 新型多年生饲草玉草5号的生长动态及刈割期的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(6): 34-42.
[15]	于铁峰, 刘晓静, 郝凤. 施用磷肥对紫花苜蓿营养价值和氮磷利用效率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(3): 154-163.