单宁酸和乳酸菌对紫花苜蓿青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵的影响

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.08.029

草地学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (8): 1853-1858.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.08.029

单宁酸和乳酸菌对紫花苜蓿青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵的影响

陈雷¹, 暴雪艳¹, 郭刚¹, 霍文婕¹, 李清宏¹, 许庆方², 王聪¹, 刘强¹

1. 山西农业大学动物科学学院, 山西太谷 030801;
2. 山西农业大学草业学院, 山西太谷 030801

收稿日期:2021-02-25 修回日期:2021-04-04 出版日期:2021-08-15 发布日期:2021-09-06
通讯作者: 刘强,E-mail:liuqiangabc@163.com
作者简介:陈雷(1987-),吉林德惠人,博士,讲师,主要从事饲料资源开发与利用研究,E-mail:CL1016BXY@163.com
基金资助:
山西省面上青年基金项目（201901D211370）；山西农业大学科技创新基金项目（2020BQ04）；山西省优秀博士来晋工作科研启动项目（SXYBKY2019012）资助

Effects of Tannic Acid and Lactic Acid Bacteria on Alfalfa Silage Quality and Ruminal Fermentation in Vitro

CHEN Lei¹, BAO Xue-yan¹, GUO Gang¹, HUO Wen-jie¹, LI Qing-hong¹, XU Qing-fang², WANG Cong¹, LIU Qiang¹

1. College of Animal Science, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi Province 030801, China;
2. College of Grassland Science, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi Province 030801, China

Received:2021-02-25 Revised:2021-04-04 Online:2021-08-15 Published:2021-09-06

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为评价单宁酸和乳酸菌单独以及组合添加对紫花苜蓿（Medicago sativa L.）青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵的影响，本试验以晾晒至含水量约为55%的初花期紫花苜蓿为青贮原料，设无添加剂为对照组（CK），单宁酸（Tannic acid，TC）、乳酸菌（Lactic acid bacteria，L）和单宁酸+乳酸菌（Tannic acid+Lactic acid bacteria，TL）为添加剂处理组。青贮60 d后开袋取样，测定相关指标。结果表明：添加剂处理组均显著降低了青贮饲料的pH值、乙酸和非蛋白氮含量（P<0.05），干物质和真蛋白含量显著增加（P<0.05）；添加剂处理组均能促进瘤胃丙酸生成，提高微生物蛋白产量（P<0.05）；与TC处理组相比，TL处理组能够减轻TC处理组对青贮饲料干物质降解的抑制作用。综上，单宁酸和乳酸菌组合添加对紫花苜蓿青贮饲料品质的调控作用效果最好。

关键词: 紫花苜蓿, 单宁酸, 乳酸菌, 青贮, 瘤胃发酵

Abstract: To evaluate the potential of tannic acid with or without lactic acid bacteria on alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) silage quality and ruminal fermentation in vitro, alfalfa at the flowering stage was used as the ensiling material, and was air-dried to a moisture content about 55%. Alfalfa was prepared with four treatments, including no additives (CK), tannic acid (TC), lactic acid bacteria (L) and tannic acid + lactic acid bacteria (TL). The silage samples were obtained after 60 days of ensiling, which were subsequently analyzed for the related indexes of fermentation quality and rumen fermentation characteristics in vitro. The results showed that all additive treatments reduced (P<0.05) the pH value and the content of acetic acid and non-protein nitrogen, while dry matter and true protein content of alfalfa silage was increased significantly (P<0.05). The additive treatments can enhance propionic acid production and microbial protein synthesis in the rumen(P<0.05). In conclusion, the combined addition of tannic acid and lactic acid bacteria has the best effect on modulating alfalfa silage fermentation quality and rumen fermentation in vitro.

Key words: Alfalfa, Tannic acid, Lactic acid bacteria, Ensiling, Rumen fermentation

中图分类号:

S541.9

陈雷, 暴雪艳, 郭刚, 霍文婕, 李清宏, 许庆方, 王聪, 刘强. 单宁酸和乳酸菌对紫花苜蓿青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1853-1858.

CHEN Lei, BAO Xue-yan, GUO Gang, HUO Wen-jie, LI Qing-hong, XU Qing-fang, WANG Cong, LIU Qiang. Effects of Tannic Acid and Lactic Acid Bacteria on Alfalfa Silage Quality and Ruminal Fermentation in Vitro[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(8): 1853-1858.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.08.029

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2021/V29/I8/1853

参考文献

[1] Tabacco E, Borreani G, Crovetto G M, et al. Effect of chestnut tannin on fermentation quality, proteolysis, and protein rumen degradability of alfalfa silage[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2006, 89(12):4736-4746
[2] 刘汉锁, 龙沈飞, 尚庆辉, 等. 水解单宁酸的作用机制及其在畜禽生产中的应用进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2019, 31(9):3991-3999
[3] 杨冬梅, 陶双伦, 梁静, 等. 添加单宁酸对青贮葛藤茎叶品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2012, 20(4):784-787
[4] He L, Lv H, Chen N, et al. Improving fermentation, protein preservation and antioxidant activity of Moringa oleifera leaves silage with gallic acid and tannin acid[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 297(2):122390
[5] 邸凌峰, 曹雪, 秦炜赜, 等. 两种含单宁饲草对反刍动物应用的价值研究[J]. 饲料工业, 2017, 38(7):43-50
[6] Aboagye I A, Oba M, Koenig K M, et al. Use of gallic acid and hydrolyzable tannins to reduce methane emission and nitrogen excretion in beef cattle fed a diet containing alfalfa silage[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 97(5):2230-2244
[7] 张红梅, 段珍, 李霞, 等. 青贮饲料乳酸菌添加剂的应用现状[J]. 草业科学, 2017, 34(12):2575-2583
[8] Kassa S R. Role of probiotics in rumen fermentation and animal performance:A review[J]. International Journal of Livestock Production, 2016, 7(5):24-32
[9] McSweeney C S, Palmer B, McNeill D M, et al. Microbial interactions with tannins:nutritional consequences for ruminants[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2001, 91(1-2):83-93
[10] 尉志霞, 刘强, 霍文婕, 等. 不同日间刈割时间及茬次对紫花苜蓿青贮发酵质量和体外发酵参数的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 1(27):235-242
[11] Broderick G A, Kang J H. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1980, 63(1):64-75
[12] Du H S, Wang C, Wu Z Z, et al. Effects of rumen-protected folic acid and rumen-protected sodium selenite supplementation on lactation performance, nutrient digestion, ruminal fermentation and blood metabolites in dairy cows[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2019, 99(13):5826-5833
[13] Guo G, Shen C, Liu Q, et al. Fermentation quality and in vitro digestibility of first and second cut alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) silages harvested at three stages of maturity[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2019(257):114274
[14] 张丽英.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].第4版.北京:中国农业大学出版社, 2016:47-59
[15] Van Soest P J, Robertson J B, Lewis B A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch carbohydrates in relation to animal nutrition[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1991, 74(10):3583-3597
[16] Owens V N, Albrecht K A, Muck R E, et al. Protein degradation and fermentation characteristics of red clover and alfalfa silage harvested with varying levels of total nonstructural carbohydrates[J]. Crop Science, 1999, 39(6):1873-1880
[17] Licitra G, Hernandez T M, Soest P J V. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1996, 57(4):347-358
[18] Menke K H, Raab L, Salewski A, et al. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science, 1979, 93(1):217-222
[19] Pang D G, Yang H J, Cao B B, et al. The beneficial effect of Enterococcus faecium on the in vitro ruminal fermentation rate and extent of three typical total mixed rations in northern China[J]. Livestock Science, 2014(167):154-160
[20] Heipieper H J, Keweloh H, Rehm H J. Influence of phenols on growth and membrane permeability of free and immobilized Escherichia coli[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1991, 57(4):1213-1217
[21] Kung L, Shaver R D, Grant R J, et al. Silage review:Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(5):4020-4033
[22] Salawu M B, Acamovic T, Stewart C S, et al. The use of tannins as silage additives:effects on silage composition and mobile bag disappearance of dry matter and protein[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1999, 82(3-4):243-259
[23] Jayanegara A, Sujarnoko T U P, Ridla M, et al. Silage quality as influenced by concentration and type of tannins present in the material ensiled:A meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 2019, 103(2):456-465
[24] Oliveira A S, Weinberg Z G, Ogunade I M, et al. Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with homofermentative and facultative heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and the performance of dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2017, 100(6):4587-4603
[25] Barry T N, McNabb W C. The implications of condensed tannins on the nutritive value of temperate forages fed to ruminants[J]. British Journal of Nutrition, 1999, 81(4):263-272
[26] McKersie B D. Effect of pH on proteolysis in ensiled legume forage¹[J]. Agronomy Journal, 1985, 77(1):81-86
[27] Hamid P, Akbar T, Hossein J, et al. Nutrient digestibility and gas production of some tropical feeds used in ruminant diets estimated by the in vivo and in vitro gas production techniques[J]. American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 2007, 2(4):108-113
[28] Yáñez-Ruiz D R, Bannink A, Dijkstra J, et al. Design, implementation and interpretation of in vitro batch culture experiments to assess enteric methane mitigation in ruminants-a review[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2016(216):1-18
[29] 李积兰, 刘书杰, 柴沙驼, 等. 体外产气法评价精补料与冷季天然牧草组合发酵营养特性[J]. 草地学报, 2015(4):850-858
[30] Chalupa W. Manipulating rumen fermentation[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1977, 45(3):585-599
[31] 郭晨阳, 张腾龙, 徐腾腾, 等. 复合植物提取物对荷斯坦奶牛体外瘤胃发酵的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(8):3698-3707
[32] Russell J B, Wallace R J. Energy-yielding and energy-consuming reactions. In:Hobson P N, Stewart C S. (ed.). The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem[M]. 2th ed. London:Blackie Academic and Professional, 1997:246-282
[33] Hoover W H. Chemical factors involved in ruminal fiber digestion[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1986, 69(10):2755-2766

单宁酸和乳酸菌对紫花苜蓿青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵的影响

Effects of Tannic Acid and Lactic Acid Bacteria on Alfalfa Silage Quality and Ruminal Fermentation in Vitro

PDF

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

本文评价

[1]	王静, 刘晓静, 程甜甜, 童长春, 汪雪. 不同氮效率紫花苜蓿叶特征及其产量效应研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 1941-1949.
[2]	卢家顶, 杨旭, 朱晓艳, 崔亚垒, 王成章, 李德锋, 史莹华. 河南地区21个粮饲兼用型青贮玉米品种综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 1950-1958.
[3]	孟宣辰, 马鹏程, 马杰, 段珍, 韩阳阳, 张吉宇. 黄土高原半干旱区紫花苜蓿覆膜垄沟和施肥效应研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 2098-2106.
[4]	马冉冉, 袁洁, 张文洁, 许能祥, 顾洪如. 堆放时间对西兰花尾菜青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 2107-2114.
[5]	姚喜喜, 才华, 刘皓栋, 李长慧. 不同季节高寒草甸牧草瘤胃发酵特性和体外消化率分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1729-1737.
[6]	李春萍, 邱轶辉, 夏厚胤, 谭璐娜, 许环宇, 张瀚文, 高景慧. 紫花苜蓿多父本F₁代低蒸腾及产量性状的隶属函数分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1416-1422.
[7]	李天琦, 林志玲, 卢轩, 黄佳媛, 杨宁, 沃野, 高凯, 柳小妮, 王显国. 灌溉量对科尔沁沙地紫花苜蓿土壤速效养分分布及淋失的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1454-1461.
[8]	杜昭昌, 王红, 闫艳红, Muhammad Tahir, 韦潇, 曾泰儒, 李洪亮. 稻壳和麦麸对鲜玉米秸秆青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1549-1554.
[9]	吴硕, 邹璇, 王明亚, 张庆. 陈皮柑汁对柱花草和水稻秸秆青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1565-1570.
[10]	李鹏珍, 赵得琴, 邓波, 杨军, 赵国华, 赵亮. 生物炭与干旱胁迫对接种紫花苜蓿光合效率及生长的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1257-1264.
[11]	韩学琴, 邓红山, 普天磊, 罗会英, 赵琼玲, 廖承飞, 薛世明, 范建成, 金杰. 金沙江干热河谷区青贮玉米品种农艺性状分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1327-1335.
[12]	吕竑建, 邹璇, 吴硕, 李云, 陈晓阳, 张庆. 添加辣木叶和香肠乳杆菌对玉米秸秆青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1343-1349.
[13]	王文静, 麻冬梅, 赵丽娟, 马巧利. 2,4-表油菜素内酯对盐胁迫下紫花苜蓿生理指标及根系离子积累的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1363-1368.
[14]	潘新怡, 史昆, 龚攀, 韦宝, 吴欣明, 王赞. 紫花苜蓿花青苷合成的转录组分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 866-875.
[15]	黄荣, 姚博, 张玉娟, 贾倩英, 李向阳, 张宏, 张振粉. 成团泛菌CQ10脂多糖对紫花苜蓿种子萌发及苗期生长的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 965-971.