不同处理的蚯蚓产物对猪场源有害菌抑菌效果的对比研究

doi:10.19640/j.cnki.jtau.2021.02.009

天津农学院学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (2): 43-46.doi: 10.19640/j.cnki.jtau.2021.02.009

不同处理的蚯蚓产物对猪场源有害菌抑菌效果的对比研究

田佳敏¹, 莫奕豪¹, 杨悦妍¹, 金翔¹, 代宇星¹, 张建斌¹, 贾京华², 蒲蕾^1,*, 郭亮^1,*

1.天津农学院动物科学与动物医学学院天津市农业动物繁育与健康养殖重点实验室,天津 300392;
2.天津民生生物工程股份有限公司,天津 301500

收稿日期:2019-10-21 发布日期:2021-07-26
通讯作者: 蒲蕾（1987—）,女,讲师,博士,主要从事猪遗传育种方面的研究。E-mail：pulei87@126.com。
作者简介:田佳敏（1997—）,女,本科在读,主要从事猪遗传育种方面的研究。E-mail：1554592683@qq.com。
基金资助:
青海省重点研发与转化计划—科技援青合作专项（2021-QY-204）; 天津农学院大创项目（201810061234）; 天津生猪产业技术体系创新团队（ITTPRS2021006）; 天津市种业专项（15ZXZYNC00100）

A comparative study on the bacteriostatic effects of earthworm products with different treatments on harmful bacteria from pig farms

Tian Jiamin¹, Mo Yihao¹, Yang Yueyan¹, Jin Xiang¹, Dai Yuxing¹, Zhang Jianbin¹, Jia Jinghua², Pu Lei^1,*, Guo Liang^1,*

1. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Breeding and Healthy Husbandry, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Tianjin Agricultural University, Tianjin 300392, China;
2. Tianjin Minsheng Bioengineering Co., Ltd., Tianjin 301500, China

Received:2019-10-21 Published:2021-07-26

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为研究蚯蚓的不同处理对几种猪场常见有害菌的抑菌性能,从而将其运用到猪的饲料添加剂中。本试验利用纸片扩散法和紫外分光光度法对比研究蚯蚓匀浆液、电击蚯蚓获得的体腔液、诱导后电击蚯蚓所得的体腔液对大肠杆菌、金黄色葡萄球菌和猪链球菌的抑菌性能。通过纸片扩散法研究发现只有蚯蚓匀浆2∶1组对大肠杆菌有抑菌效果;蚯蚓匀浆2∶1组、4∶5组,蚯蚓电击处理和诱导电击处理均对金黄色葡萄球菌有抑菌效果;只有蚯蚓匀浆4∶5组对猪链球菌有抑菌效果。通过分光光度对比发现,蚯蚓匀浆组和电击处理组均无明显的抑制效果;蚯蚓电击处理组可以显著抑制葡萄球菌的增长（P<0.05）,而蚯蚓匀浆组抑制效果不明显;蚯蚓匀浆组和电击处理组对猪链球菌无明显抑制效果,甚至蚯蚓匀浆组在6 h时OD值与对照组有显著上升。本文研究了蚯蚓不同处理对猪场有害菌的抑菌性能,为研发无抗和替抗饲料提供了依据。

关键词: 大平二号蚯蚓, 匀浆上清液, 电击上清液, 诱导电击上清液, 猪场有害菌, 抗菌性能

Abstract: In order to study the antibacterial effect of different treatments of earthworm on several kinds of harmful bacteria in pig farm, it was applied to the feed additive of pig. In this experiment, with the paper diffusion method and ultraviolet spectrophotometry, the body cavity fluid obtained by electric shock of earthworm, and the body cavity fluid obtained by electric shock of earthworm after induction were compared to analyze the bacteriostatic performance on escherichia coli, staphylococcus aureus and streptococcus suis. Through the paper diffusion method, it was found that only earthworm homogenate group 2∶1 had bacteriostatic effect on escherichia coli. Earthworm homogenate in groups 2∶1 and 4∶5, earthworm electroshock treatment group and induced shock treatment group all had antibacterial effects on staphylococcus aureus. Only earthworm homogenate group 4∶5 had antibacterial effects on streptococcus suis. By spectrophotometric comparison, it was found that earthworm homogenate and the electroshock treatment group had no significant inhibitory effect. Earthworm electroshock treatment group could significantly inhibit the growth of staphylococcus (P<0.005), while earthworm homogenate group had no significant inhibitory effect. Earthworm homogenate and the electroshock treatment group had no obvious inhibitory effect on streptococcus suis from big farm, and even the OD value increased significantly at 6 h. The research on the antibacterial properties of earthworm on harmful bacteria in pig farms provides the basis for the study of non-resistant and substitute resistant feed.

Key words: daping no.2 earthworm, homograte supermatan, supernatant of electric shock, induced shock supernatant, pig farms harmful baceria, antibacterial properies

中图分类号:

田佳敏, 莫奕豪, 杨悦妍, 金翔, 代宇星, 张建斌, 贾京华, 蒲蕾, 郭亮. 不同处理的蚯蚓产物对猪场源有害菌抑菌效果的对比研究[J]. 天津农学院学报, 2021, 28(2): 43-46.

Tian Jiamin, Mo Yihao, Yang Yueyan, Jin Xiang, Dai Yuxing, Zhang Jianbin, Jia Jinghua, Pu Lei, Guo Liang. A comparative study on the bacteriostatic effects of earthworm products with different treatments on harmful bacteria from pig farms[J]. Journal of Tianjin Agricultural University, 2021, 28(2): 43-46.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: http://xuebao.tjau.edu.cn/CN/10.19640/j.cnki.jtau.2021.02.009

http://xuebao.tjau.edu.cn/CN/Y2021/V28/I2/43

参考文献

[1] 吴泽宇,孙晋明,王俭,等. 蚯蚓提取物作用的研究进展[J]. 山西医药杂志,2015(13):1505-1507.
[2] 樊慧杰. 蚯蚓体腔液及脱氧核糖核酸酶的抗菌机制研究[D]. 太原:山西医科大学,2008.
[3] 贾久满,朱莲英,石洪凌. 蚯蚓水解液对大肠杆菌的抑菌效果[J]. 安徽农业科学,2007,35(4):969-971.
[4] 刘文群,徐尔尼,李曼,等. 蚯蚓抗菌物质的诱导[J]. 南昌大学学报,2005,29(3):290-291.
[5] 贾久满,郑素玲,李成会. 蚯蚓水解液与浸出液对大肠杆菌的抑菌效果[J]. 饲料研究,2007(10):3-4.
[6] 刘艳琴,王东辉,孙振钧. 蚯蚓体腔液及粗组分体外抗菌特性[J]. 家畜生态学报,2004,25(4):51-54.
[7] 王冲,郑冬梅,冀竣玲,等. 蚯蚓脂肪及其在抗菌物理屏障中的作用[J]. 农业环境科学学报,2005,24(4):732-736.
[8] 张希春,孙振钧,禚如朋,等. 蚯蚓两种抗菌肽的分离纯化及部分性质[J]. 生物化学与生物物理进展,2002,29(6):955-959.
[9] 王德凤,栗朝芝,吴仙. 不同方法提取蚯蚓体腔液对大肠杆菌抑菌效果的研究[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医,2013(15):131-132.
[10] 王运成. 鸡大肠杆菌的简易药敏试验[J]. 畜牧兽医科技信息,2018(6):141-142.
[11] 孙丽蓉,李芳萍,康宏昌,等. 兽用药敏片的制作和应用[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医,2001(5):24-25.
[12] 谭瑶,赵清,舒为群,等. K-B纸片扩散法药敏试验[J]. 检验医学与临床,2010,7(20):2290-2291.
[13] 崔东波,郑彦杰,王运吉. 蚯蚓抗菌肽的分离[J]. 大连轻工业学院学报,2004,23(14):265-269.
[14] 张磊,丁柳,庄杰,等. 阴沟肠杆菌纸片扩散药敏试验中抑菌环内菌落分析[J]. 中华检验医学杂志,2005(10):36-39.
[15] 杨少通,贺盼盼,罗敏,等. 不同类型类型敷料的抑菌效果研究[J]. 转化医学电子杂志,2017,4(12):30-33.
[16] 高艺祥,杨民红,李兰会. 独立样本t检验的Excel和SPSS分析[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学,2018,39(10):79-82.
[17] 何成. SPSS中单因素方差分析的运用[J]. 农业网络信息,2018(1):92-94.
[18] 胡成,李宁宁,刘则学. 饲料因素对非洲猪瘟病毒防控的作用[J]. 养猪,2019(4):126-128.
[19] 王庆华,胥清芳,龙李,等. 两种蚯蚓提取物对大肠杆菌的抑菌效果[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医,2011(3):131-132.
[20] 张显忠,张欣然,武晓雯,等. 蚯蚓体内外分泌液的抗菌活性研究[J]. 安徽农业科学,2018,46(13):95-97.
[21] DHAINAUT A,RAVEILLON B,M'BÉRI M,et al. Purification of an antibacterial protein in the coelomic fluid of Nereis diversicolor(annelida,polychaeta). similitude with a cadmium-binding protein[J]. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C:Comparative Pharmacology,1989,94(2):555-560.
[22] 张阳,王艳红,张华. 一种蚯蚓体腔液蛋白的分离纯化及其生物活性[J]. 天然产物研究与开发,2011,23(1):89-93.

不同处理的蚯蚓产物对猪场源有害菌抑菌效果的对比研究

A comparative study on the bacteriostatic effects of earthworm products with different treatments on harmful bacteria from pig farms

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 1

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价