不同乳酸菌添加剂对青贮黑麦草和青贮玉米微生物群集的影响

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2015.02.026

草地学报 ›› 2015, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (2): 387-393.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2015.02.026

不同乳酸菌添加剂对青贮黑麦草和青贮玉米微生物群集的影响

李雁冰¹, 玉柱², 孙娟娟³

1. 黑龙江八一农垦大学动物科技学院动物营养实验室, 黑龙江大庆 163319;
2. 中国农业大学动物科技学院草业科学系, 北京 100193;
3. 中国农业科学院草原研究所, 内蒙古呼和浩特 010031

收稿日期:2014-01-09 修回日期:2014-03-24 出版日期:2015-04-15 发布日期:2015-03-25
通讯作者: 玉柱
作者简介:李雁冰(1980-),女,吉林吉林人,博士,研究方向为饲料资源开发,E-mail:liyanbing929@163.com
基金资助:
公益性行业(农业)科研专项经费项目(201303061);黑龙江省应用技术研究与开发计划项目(WB13B111-2);黑龙江省教育厅海外学人重点科研项目(1252HQ009);国家牧草业技术体系(CARS-35)资助

Microbial Communities of Whole Crop Corn and Wilted Italian Ryegrass Silage Inoculated with and without Different Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculants

LI Yan-bing¹, YU Zhu², SUN Juan-juan³

1. College of Animal Science and Technology, Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, Daqing, Heilongjiang Province 163319, China;
2. College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China;
3. Institute of Grassland Research of Chinese Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia 010010, China

Received:2014-01-09 Revised:2014-03-24 Online:2015-04-15 Published:2015-03-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在青贮黑麦草(Lolium perenne)和青贮玉米(Zea mays)中添加鼠李糖乳杆菌和布氏乳杆菌,研究其对微生物群集的影响,青贮饲料贮藏时间为14,56,120 d.结果表明:添加布氏乳杆菌的青贮黑麦草组细菌与真菌群集都很稳定,大肠菌中的Erwinia persicina, Pantoea agglomerans和Rahnella aquatilis 在青贮黑麦草对照组中被发现,鼠李糖乳杆菌组没有发现.Saccharomyces cerevisiae 和Pichia anomala是对照组与鼠李糖乳杆菌组青贮黑麦草中的主要真菌;P. anomala在布氏乳杆菌组未检测到.Candida magnolia, Cryptococcus flavus和Candida intermedia在青贮玉米原料与发酵过程中均检测到,Candida glabrata 和Candida quercitrusa 只在发酵过程检测到.有氧腐败发生时,青贮玉米真菌菌群发生明显变化,Saccharomyces exiguus, Saccharomyces martiniae, Pichia fermentans, Pichia deserticola 和Pichia kudriavzevii 可在腐败的青贮玉米中检测到.这表明添加乳酸菌制剂可以改变青贮黑麦草的菌群,但是对青贮玉米菌群影响较小,发生腐败时真菌菌群与细菌菌群均发生变化.

关键词: 细菌, 真菌, DGGE, 青贮

Abstract:

To understand the effects of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) inoculation on the fermentation products, aerobic stability and microbial communities of silage, wilted Italian ryegrass and whole crop corn were stored in laboratory silos with and without Lactobacillus rhamnosus and Lactobacillus buchneri inoculants. The silos were opened after 14, 56 and 120 days and then subjected to aerobic deterioration for 7 days. Enterobacteria such as Erwinia persicina, Pantoea agglomerans and Rahnella aquatilis were detected in untreated grass silage, whereas some of these bacteria disappeared or became faint with L. rhamnosus grass treatment. Both Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Pichia anomala were the main fungi in untreated and L. rhamnosus-inoculated grass silages; however, P. anomala was not visibly seen in L. buchneri inoculated grass silage either at silo opening or after exposure to air. Candida magnolia, Cryptococcus flavus and Candida intermedia were detected in the pre-ensiled corn crop and the silage, whereas Candida glabrata and Candida quercitrusa were identified exclusively in the corn silage. The marked change of fungal community was seen after aerobic spoilage; Saccharomyces exiguus, Saccharomyces martiniae, Pichia fermentans, Pichia deserticola and Pichia kudriavzevii appeared in the spoiled corn silage. These results indicated that LAB inoculation induced the few change of bacterial and fungal communities in corn silage, and the substantial changes of fungal community and bacterial community occurred when the silage was spoiled.

Key words: Bacteria, Fungi, Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis, Silage

中图分类号:

S543.6

李雁冰, 玉柱, 孙娟娟. 不同乳酸菌添加剂对青贮黑麦草和青贮玉米微生物群集的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2015, 23(2): 387-393.

LI Yan-bing, YU Zhu, SUN Juan-juan. Microbial Communities of Whole Crop Corn and Wilted Italian Ryegrass Silage Inoculated with and without Different Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculants[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2015, 23(2): 387-393.

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.1007-0435.2015.02.026

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2015/V23/I2/387

参考文献

[1] McDonald P, Henderson A R, Heron S J E. The biochemistry of silage [M]. Welton, Lincoln, UK: Chalcombe Publications,1991
[2] Weinberg Z G, Muck R E. New trends and opportunities in the development and use of inoculants for silage [J].FEMS Microbiology Reviews,1996,19(1):53-68
[3] Driehuis F, Oude S, Spoelstra S F. Anaerobic lactic acid degradation during ensilage of whole crop maize inoculated with Lactobacillus buchneri inhibits yeast growth and improves aerobic stability [J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology,1999,87(4):583-594
[4] Oude S, Krooneman J, Gottschal J C, et al. Anaerobic conversion of lactic acid to acetic acid and 1,2-Pro panediol by Lacto bacillus buchneri [J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,2001,67(1):125-132
[5] Lin C, Bolsen K, Brent B E, et al. Epiphytic lactic acid bacteria succession during the pre-ensiling and ensiling periods of alfalfa and maize [J]. Journal of Applied Bacteriology,1992,73(5):375-387
[6] Parvin S, Wang C, Li Y, et al. Effects of inoculation with lactic acid bacteria on the bacterial communities of Italian ryegrass, whole crop maize, guinea grass and Rhodes grass silages [J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology,2010,160(3):160-166
[7] Ostling C, Lindgren S. Influences of enterobacteria on the fermentation and aerobic stability of grass silages [J]. Grass and Forage Science,1995,50(1):41-47
[8] Pascual L M, Daniele M B, Ruiz F, et al. Lactobacillus rhamnosus L60, a potential probiotic isolated from the human vagina [J]. The Journal of general and applied microbiology,2008,54(3):141-148
[9] Nakamura L K. Bacillus amylolyticus sp. nov., nom.rev., Bacillus lautus sp. nov., nom. rev., Bacillus pabuli sp.nov., nom, rev., and Bacillus validus sp. nov., nom.rev [J]. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology,1984,34(2):224-226
[10] Middelhoven W J, Baalen A H M. Development of the yeast flora of whole-crop maize during ensiling and during subsequent aerobiosis [J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,1988,42(3):199-207
[11] Auerbach H, Oldenburg E, Weissbach F. Incidence of Penicillium roqueforti and roquefortin C in silages [J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,1998,76(4):565-572
[12] Hacking A, Rosser W R. Patulin production by Paecilomyces species isolated from silage in the United Kingdom [J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,1981,32(6):620-623
[13] Inglis G D, Yanke L J, Kawchuk L M, et al. The influence of bacterial inoculants on the microbial ecology of aerobic spoilage of barlery silage [J]. Canadian Journal of Microbiology,1999,45(1):77-87
[14] Waite J G, Jones J M, Yousef A E. Isolation and identification of spoilage microorganisms using food-based media combined with rDNA sequencing: Ranch dressing as a model food [J]. Food Microbiology,2009,26(3):235-239
[15] Danner H, Holzer M, Mayrhuber E, et al. Acetic acid increases stability of silage under aerobic conditions [J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,2003,69(1):562-567
[16] Nishino N, Yoshida M, Shiota H, et al. Accumulation of 1,2-propanediol and enhancement of aerobic stability in whole crop maize silage inoculated with Lactobacillus buchneri [J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology,2003,94(5):800-807
[17] Muck R E. Inoculation of silage and its effects on silage quality [C]//Informational Conference with Dairy and Forage Industries. US dairy forage research center, Madison, WI, USA, 1996:43-51
[18] Kristensen N B, Sloth K H, Hojberg O, et al. Effects of microbial inoculants on corn silage fermentation, microbial contents, aerobic stability, and milk production under field conditions [J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2010,93(8):3764-3774
[19] Oros-Sichler M, Costa R, Heuer H, et al. Molecular fingerprinting techniques to analyze soil microbial communities [M]//van Elsas J D, Jansson J K, Trevors J T, eds.Modern Soil Microbiology, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,USA,2007

不同乳酸菌添加剂对青贮黑麦草和青贮玉米微生物群集的影响

Microbial Communities of Whole Crop Corn and Wilted Italian Ryegrass Silage Inoculated with and without Different Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculants

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]	黄彩霞, 芦光新, 李欣, 范月君, 周华坤, 王英成, 王志慧, 姚世庭. 产漆酶真菌对高寒草甸土壤有机质矿化特性的研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(S1): 173-178.
[2]	石国玺, 王芳萍, 马丽, 张中华, 王弋博, 汪之波, 姚步青, 周华坤. 长期、短期增温对高寒草甸AM真菌群落结构的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(S1): 179-189.
[3]	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.
[4]	王谭国艳, 马志远, 李沛洋, 郭俊宏, 张嘉懿, 蒋胜竞. 短期增温对青藏高原高寒草甸不同植物根际丛枝菌根真菌的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 1959-1966.
[5]	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.
[6]	魏勇, 高嵩涓, 曹卫东, 段廷玉. 绿肥影响农田土传病害的研究进展[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1605-1614.
[7]	连鹤娜, 陈泰祥, 陈振江, 魏学凯, 李春杰. 内生真菌醉马草作为机场驱鸟草的潜力分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1649-1657.
[8]	唐丽辉, 刘奕伶, 赵文星, 张云昊, 吴可欣, 郭梓豫, 莫重辉, 赵宝玉, 路浩. 箭叶橐吾内生真菌分离鉴定及组织分布特性研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1658-1665.
[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.
[10]	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.
[11]	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.
[12]	郑敏娜, 梁秀芝, 韩志顺, 康佳惠, 陈燕妮. 不同改良措施对盐碱土土壤细菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1200-1209.
[13]	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.
[14]	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.
[15]	孙雷雷, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 刘富渊, 聂秀美, 王军. 贮藏方式和贮藏时间对苜蓿干草霉菌数量和种类的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 884-893.