草料青贮添加剂类型和大麦粒保存方法对奶牛瘤胃功能、微生物生态和能量代谢的影响

Dairy Pub Date : 2023-12-13 DOI:10.3390/dairy4040048
Ali R. Bayat, I. Tapio, Marcia Franco, Tomasz Stefański, P. Mäntysaari, M. Rinne
{"title":"草料青贮添加剂类型和大麦粒保存方法对奶牛瘤胃功能、微生物生态和能量代谢的影响","authors":"Ali R. Bayat, I. Tapio, Marcia Franco, Tomasz Stefański, P. Mäntysaari, M. Rinne","doi":"10.3390/dairy4040048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The effects of grass silage and barley grain preservation methods on dairy cows were evaluated using four Nordic Red dairy cows placed in respiration chambers in a 4 × 4 Latin square. Silage was conserved using a formic acid-based product (AS) or a homofermentative lactic acid bacteria inoculant (IS), while grains were dried (DB) or crimped and ensiled (EB). Fermentation profile of silages and the chemical composition of the mixed diets were very similar. The dietary treatments did not affect feed intake, milk production, and rumen fermentation except molar proportion of butyrate, and energy metabolism. Digestibility of dry matter and organic matter were higher (p < 0.05) and that of crude protein was lower (p < 0.05) for AS than IS. Feeding EB compared to DB decreased (p < 0.05) diet organic matter and starch digestibility. The cows receiving AS tended (p = 0.06) to emit more methane per day than those receiving IS, but methane yield and intensity were not different between dietary treatments. Bacteria alpha diversity was higher (p < 0.01) in barley samples than grass silages and was not affected by the diet in rumen samples. All freshly prepared rations were dominated by Lactobacillaceae, Erwiniaceae, and Pseudomonadaceae but rations based on AS than IS remained more stable over 2 days. In conclusion, grass silage and barley grain preservation methods did not affect the measured parameters in dairy cows and the preservation method can be selected based on practical on-farm factors.","PeriodicalId":505869,"journal":{"name":"Dairy","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effects of Grass Silage Additive Type and Barley Grain Preservation Method on Rumen Function, Microbial Ecology, and Energy Metabolism of Dairy Cows\",\"authors\":\"Ali R. Bayat, I. Tapio, Marcia Franco, Tomasz Stefański, P. Mäntysaari, M. Rinne\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/dairy4040048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The effects of grass silage and barley grain preservation methods on dairy cows were evaluated using four Nordic Red dairy cows placed in respiration chambers in a 4 × 4 Latin square. Silage was conserved using a formic acid-based product (AS) or a homofermentative lactic acid bacteria inoculant (IS), while grains were dried (DB) or crimped and ensiled (EB). Fermentation profile of silages and the chemical composition of the mixed diets were very similar. The dietary treatments did not affect feed intake, milk production, and rumen fermentation except molar proportion of butyrate, and energy metabolism. Digestibility of dry matter and organic matter were higher (p < 0.05) and that of crude protein was lower (p < 0.05) for AS than IS. Feeding EB compared to DB decreased (p < 0.05) diet organic matter and starch digestibility. The cows receiving AS tended (p = 0.06) to emit more methane per day than those receiving IS, but methane yield and intensity were not different between dietary treatments. Bacteria alpha diversity was higher (p < 0.01) in barley samples than grass silages and was not affected by the diet in rumen samples. All freshly prepared rations were dominated by Lactobacillaceae, Erwiniaceae, and Pseudomonadaceae but rations based on AS than IS remained more stable over 2 days. In conclusion, grass silage and barley grain preservation methods did not affect the measured parameters in dairy cows and the preservation method can be selected based on practical on-farm factors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":505869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dairy\",\"volume\":\"10 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dairy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/dairy4040048\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dairy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dairy4040048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过将四头北欧红奶牛放置在 4 × 4 拉丁方形的呼吸室中,评估了青贮饲料和大麦谷物保存方法对奶牛的影响。青贮采用甲酸产品(AS)或同发酵乳酸菌接种剂(IS)进行保存,而谷物则采用干燥(DB)或卷曲和腌制(EB)。青贮饲料的发酵情况和混合日粮的化学成分非常相似。除了丁酸盐摩尔比例和能量代谢外,日粮处理对采食量、产奶量和瘤胃发酵没有影响。与 IS 相比,AS 的干物质和有机物消化率更高(p < 0.05),粗蛋白消化率更低(p < 0.05)。饲喂EB比饲喂DB降低了日粮有机物和淀粉的消化率(p < 0.05)。与饲喂 IS 的奶牛相比,饲喂 AS 的奶牛趋向于每天排放更多的甲烷(p = 0.06),但不同日粮处理的甲烷产量和强度并无差异。在瘤胃样本中,大麦样本中的细菌α-多样性高于青贮草(p < 0.01),且不受日粮的影响。所有新配制的日粮都以乳酸菌科、埃文菌科和假单胞菌科为主,但基于 AS 的日粮比基于 IS 的日粮在 2 天内更稳定。总之,青贮草料和大麦粒的保存方法不会影响奶牛的测量参数,可根据牧场的实际因素选择保存方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effects of Grass Silage Additive Type and Barley Grain Preservation Method on Rumen Function, Microbial Ecology, and Energy Metabolism of Dairy Cows
The effects of grass silage and barley grain preservation methods on dairy cows were evaluated using four Nordic Red dairy cows placed in respiration chambers in a 4 × 4 Latin square. Silage was conserved using a formic acid-based product (AS) or a homofermentative lactic acid bacteria inoculant (IS), while grains were dried (DB) or crimped and ensiled (EB). Fermentation profile of silages and the chemical composition of the mixed diets were very similar. The dietary treatments did not affect feed intake, milk production, and rumen fermentation except molar proportion of butyrate, and energy metabolism. Digestibility of dry matter and organic matter were higher (p < 0.05) and that of crude protein was lower (p < 0.05) for AS than IS. Feeding EB compared to DB decreased (p < 0.05) diet organic matter and starch digestibility. The cows receiving AS tended (p = 0.06) to emit more methane per day than those receiving IS, but methane yield and intensity were not different between dietary treatments. Bacteria alpha diversity was higher (p < 0.01) in barley samples than grass silages and was not affected by the diet in rumen samples. All freshly prepared rations were dominated by Lactobacillaceae, Erwiniaceae, and Pseudomonadaceae but rations based on AS than IS remained more stable over 2 days. In conclusion, grass silage and barley grain preservation methods did not affect the measured parameters in dairy cows and the preservation method can be selected based on practical on-farm factors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信