动物营养学报    2021, Vol. 33 Issue (9): 5007-5015    PDF    
不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊生长性能、屠宰性能、肌肉品质和胃肠道发育的影响
程光民     
山东畜牧兽医职业学院, 潍坊 261061
摘要: 本试验旨在研究不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊生长性能、屠宰性能、肌肉品质和胃肠道发育的影响,为沂蒙黑山羊健康饲养提供科学依据。试验选取100只6月龄沂蒙黑山羊,随机分为4组,每组5个重复,每个重复5只(公:母=2:3)。试验采用放牧+补饲的饲喂模式,各组试验羊分别补饲0(对照组)、0.10、0.15、0.20 kg/(d·只)精料补充料。预试期10 d,正试期120 d。结果表明:1)各试验组的终末体重、体重增加、终末体长、终末体高、管围增加和终末腰角宽度显著高于对照组(P < 0.05),补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组的体长增加、体高增加、终末管围和腰角宽度增加显著高于对照组(P < 0.05)。各试验组的平均日增重显著高于对照组(P < 0.05),且补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组显著高于补饲0.10 kg/(d·只)组(P < 0.05)。2)各试验组的宰前活体重、胴体重和眼肌面积显著高于对照组(P < 0.05),补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组的后腿比重显著高于对照组和补饲0.10 kg/(d·只)组(P < 0.05)。3)补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组的肌肉pH24 h显著低于对照组(P < 0.05),补饲0.15和0.20 kg/(d·只)组的肌肉剪切力显著低于对照组(P < 0.05)。各试验组的肌肉粗脂肪含量显著高于对照组(P < 0.05),肌肉粗灰分含量显著低于对照组(P < 0.05)。4)各试验组的复胃相对重量显著低于对照组(P < 0.05),补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组的瘤胃液pH、瘤胃相对重量和小肠总长度显著低于对照组和补饲0.10 kg/(d·只)组(P < 0.05)。补饲0.15 kg/(d·只)组的瘤胃乳头长度、十二指肠绒毛高度、十二指肠隐窝深度、空肠隐窝深度和回肠绒毛高度显著高于对照组(P < 0.05)。由此可见,补饲精料补充料能够提高沂蒙黑山羊的生长性能,改善肌肉品质和胃肠道发育。在本试验条件下,结合生长性能和屠宰性能等各项指标,育成期沂蒙黑山羔羊补饲0.15~0.20 kg/(d·只)精料补充料比较合适。
关键词: 沂蒙黑山羊    补饲水平    生长性能    屠宰性能    肌肉品质    胃肠道发育    
Effects of Different Supplementary Feeding Levels on Growth Performance, Slaughter Performance, Muscle Quality and Gastrointestinal Development of Grazing Yimeng Black Goats
CHENG Guangmin     
Shandong Vocational Animal Science and Veterinary College, Weifang 261061, China
Abstract: The purpose of this experiment was to study the effects of different supplementary feeding levels on growth performance, slaughter performance, muscle quality and gastrointestinal development of grazing Yimeng black goats, so as to provide scientific basis for healthy feeding of Yimeng black goats. A total of 100 Yimeng black goats were randomly divided into 4 groups with 5 replicates per group and 5 goats per replicate (male: female=2:3) in each group. They were all fed with grazing and supplementary feeding mode, and the experimental goats were fed with 0 (control group), 0.10, 0.15 and 0.20 kg/(d·head) concentrate supplementary feed. After 10 days of pre feeding period, it entered the formal period of 120 days. The results showed as follows: 1) the final body weight, increased body weight, final body length, final body height, increased canno circumference and final waist width of experimental groups were significantly higher than those of the control group (P < 0.05), and the increased body length, increased body height, final canno circumference and increased waist width of supplementary feeding 0.20 kg/(d·head) group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P < 0.05). The average daily gain of experimental groups was significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and supplementary feeding 0.20 kg/(d·head) group was higher than supplementary feeding 0.10 kg/(d·head) group (P < 0.05). 2) The pre-slaughter weight, carcass weight and eye muscle area of experimental groups were significantly higher than those of the control group (P < 0.05), and the ham percentage of supplementary feeding 0.20 kg/(d·head) group was significantly higher than that of the control group and supplementary feeding 0.10 kg/(d·head) group (P < 0.05). 3) The muscle pH24 h of supplementary feeding 0.20 kg/(d·head) group was significantly lower than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and the muscle shear force of supplementary feeding 0.15 and 0.20 kg/(d·head) groups was significantly lower than that of the control group (P < 0.05). The muscle ether extract content of experimental groups was significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and the muscle ash content of experimental groups was significantly lower than that of the control group (P < 0.05). 4) The relative weight of stomach of experimental groups was significantly lower than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and the rumen fluid pH, rumen relative weight and total length of small intestine of supplementary feeding 0.20 kg/(d·head) group were significantly lower than that of the control group and supplementary feeding 0.10 kg/(d·head) group (P < 0.05). The length of rumen papilla, villus height of duodenum, crypt depth of duodenum, crypt depth of jejunum and villus height of ileum of supplementary feeding 0.15 kg/(d·head) group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P < 0.05). In conclusion, supplementary feeding the concentrate supplementary feed can improve the growth performance, muscle quality and gastrointestinal development of grazing Yimeng black goats. Under the conditions of this experiment, combining with the growth performance, slaughter performance and other indexes, it is suitable to supplement 0.15 to 0.20 kg/(d·head) concentrate supplementary feed of Yimeng black goats during growing period.
Key words: Yimeng black goats    supplementary feeding level    growth performance    slaughter performance    muscle quality    gastrointestinal development    

沂蒙黑山羊是山东沂蒙山区肉、毛、绒多用型地方品种,具有耐粗糙、抗病力强、肉质好的特点。沂蒙黑山羊生产性能较低,一般情况下,平均窝产胎数为1.1~1.2只,初生重为2.0~2.5 kg,3~4月龄断奶重为5~7 kg。由于山区牧草质量及放牧方式、季节等不同,沂蒙黑山羊增重不同,放牧羊6月龄体重在8~12 kg,12月龄体重在20~30 kg,2年左右出栏[1]。沂蒙黑山羊传统的养殖模式主要是采用山区放牧饲养,并无补饲,其生长速度缓慢,经济效益低。随着畜牧业的不断发展,养羊业也逐渐由粗放型向现代化、集约化的养殖模式转变。羔羊补饲精料育肥能够提高生长速度,缩短育肥周期,进而提高经济效益[2]。沂蒙黑山羊在放牧补饲条件下前期体重增长较快,后期趋于缓慢,生长增速逐渐减小[3]。不同的饲养方式能够影响沂蒙黑山羊对饲料的利用率和对营养物质的吸收能力,从而影响其生长速度[4]。孙大明等[5]报道,早期补饲颗粒料能够改善羔羊肠道组织形态结构。为充分发挥沂蒙黑山羊的生长育肥性能,本试验旨在探讨不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊生长性能、屠宰性能、肌肉品质、胃肠道发育和形态结构的影响,以确定放牧条件下沂蒙黑山羊适宜的补饲水平,为更好地挖掘沂蒙黑山羊生产潜力、提高经济效益提供理论参考。

1 材料与方法 1.1 试验设计

试验选择胎次和体重[(10.0±2.5) kg]相近、健康状况良好的6月龄沂蒙黑山羊100只,随机分为4组,每组设5个重复,每个重复5只(公∶母=2 ∶ 3)。各组试验羊分别补饲0(对照组)、0.10、0.15、0.20 kg/(d·只)精料补充料。精料补充料组成及营养水平见表 1。试验羊采用放牧+补饲的饲喂模式,每天早晨放牧前及下午结束后2次补饲,自由采食。预试期10 d,正式期120 d。

表 1 精料补充料组成及营养水平(风干基础) Table 1 Composition and nutrition levels of the concentrate supplement (air-dry basis)  
1.2 饲养管理

试验羊由专人负责,在沂南县鼻子山区统一放牧,自由采食。山区杂草灌木丛生,品种繁多。根据分组情况,佩戴不同耳标,便于管理。每天早晨外出放牧前及下午放牧结束后,在各自圈舍内,根据分组情况统一补饲。阴雨天气则饲喂羊场内自备粗草。

1.3 测定指标及方法 1.3.1 生长性能指标的测定

试验开始及结束后当天测定每只试验羊的体重和主要生长指标(体尺、体长、体高、胸围、管围和腰角宽度等),并计算试验期间相应指标增加情况。

1.3.2 屠宰性能指标的测定

试验结束当天从每组中选择与该组平均体重相近的5只试验羊,称重后进行屠宰,宰前禁食24 h。宰前活重、胴体重、屠宰率、前躯后腿及各内脏器官比重等测定方法参考程光民等[6]

1.3.3 肉质品质指标的测定

取背最长肌进行pH[宰后45 min pH(pH45 min)、宰后24 h pH(pH24 h)]、肉色[亮度(L*)、红度(a*)、黄度(b*)]、滴水损失、熟肉率、剪切力、眼肌面积和胴体脂肪含量值(GR值)测定,测定方法参考程光民等[6]

背最长肌中干物质(DM)、粗蛋白质(CP)、粗脂肪(EE)和粗灰分(Ash)含量分别采用GB 5009.3—2016[7]、GB 5009.9—2016[8]、GB/T 14772—2008[9]和GB/T 9695.18—2008[10]方法进行测定。

1.3.4 胃肠道发育指标和组织形态结构的测定

测定瘤胃液pH后,弃去内容物称重,分别计算复胃和瘤胃所占比重(瘤胃比重是指瘤胃占复胃比重),同时测量小肠总长度(包括十二指肠、空肠和回肠)。

组织形态结构:在小肠、空肠、回肠中段分别截取2 cm左右的组织以及在瘤胃底部正中位置截取2 cm×2 cm的组织,用生理盐水充分冲洗组织内容物,放入4%的多聚甲醛固定液中固定48 h,常规石蜡包埋,组织横切后进行苏木精-伊红(HE)染色。应用电脑显微图像分析系统(OLYMPUS DP73型)进行观察和拍照,通过Cell Sens Standard软件进行测量。测量指标包括:瘤胃乳头长度、十二指肠绒毛高度、十二指肠隐窝深度、空肠绒毛高度、空肠隐窝深度、回肠肠绒毛高度、回肠隐窝深度。

1.4 数据处理与统计分析

采用Excel 2010和SPSS 21.0统计软件处理试验数据,采用一般线性模型进行数据统计分析,若差异显著则进一步进行Duncan氏法多重比较。试验结果数据均表示为平均值±标准误,P < 0.05为差异显著。

2 结果 2.1 不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊生长性能的影响

表 2可见,各组之间初始体重、初始体长、初始体高、初始胸围、初始管围和初始腰角宽度均无显著差异(P>0.05)。各试验组的终末体重、体重增加、终末体长、终末体高、管围增加和终末腰角宽度显著高于对照组(P < 0.05),补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组的体长增加、体高增加、终末管围和腰角宽度增加显著高于对照组(P < 0.05)。补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组的体重增加和管围增加显著高于补饲0.10 kg/(d·只)组(P < 0.05),与补饲0.15 kg组无显著差异(P>0.05)。补饲0.15和0.20 kg/(d·只)组的管围增加显著高于补饲0.10 kg/(d·只)组(P < 0.05)。各试验组的平均日增重显著高于对照组(P < 0.05),且补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组显著高于补饲0.10 kg/(d·只)组(P < 0.05)。

表 2 不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊生长性能的影响 Table 2 Effects of different supplementary feeding levels on growth performance of grazing Yimeng black goats
2.2 不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊屠宰性能的影响

表 3可见,各试验组的宰前活体重、胴体重和眼肌面积显著高于对照组(P < 0.05),补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组的后腿比重显著高于对照组和补饲0.10 kg/(d·只)组(P < 0.05)。各组之间屠宰率、前驱比重、头比重、蹄比重、GR值和内脏器官(心脏、肺脏、肝脏、肾脏、脾脏)比重无显著差异(P>0.05)。

表 3 不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊屠宰性能的影响 Table 3 Effects of different supplementary feeding levels on slaughter performance of grazing Yimeng black goats
2.3 不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊肌肉品质的影响

表 4可见,补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组的肌肉pH24 h显著低于对照组(P < 0.05),补饲0.15和0.20 kg/(d·只)组的肌肉剪切力显著低于对照组(P < 0.05)。各组之间肌肉pH45 min、肉色、滴水损失和熟肉率无显著差异(P>0.05)。各试验组的肌肉粗脂肪含量显著高于对照组(P < 0.05),肌肉粗灰分含量显著低于对照组(P < 0.05)。各组之间肌肉干物质和粗蛋白质含量无显著差异(P>0.05)。

表 4 不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊肌肉品质的影响 Table 4 Effects of different supplementary feeding levels on muscle quality of grazing Yimeng black goats
2.4 不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊胃肠道发育和形态结构的影响

表 5可见,各试验组的复胃相对重量显著低于对照组(P < 0.05),补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组的瘤胃液pH、瘤胃相对重量和小肠总长度显著低于对照组和补饲0.10 kg/(d·只)组(P < 0.05)。补饲0.15 kg/(d·只)组的瘤胃乳头长度、十二指肠绒毛高度、十二指肠隐窝深度、空肠隐窝深度和回肠绒毛高度显著高于对照组(P < 0.05)。补饲0.10和0.15 kg/(d·只)组的瘤胃乳头长度、十二指肠绒毛高度、空肠隐窝深度显著高于补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组(P < 0.05),补饲0.15 kg/(d·只)组的十二指肠隐窝深度和回肠绒毛高度显著高于补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)组(P < 0.05)。各组之间空肠绒毛高度和回肠隐窝深度无显著差异(P>0.05)。

表 5 不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊胃肠道发育和形态结构的影响 Table 5 Effects of different supplementary feeding levels on gastrointestinal development and morphological structure of grazing Yimeng black goats
3 讨论 3.1 不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊生长性能的影响

羊的体重、体长、体高、胸围、管围、腰角宽度等体尺指标是衡量其生长情况的重要评价指标。精准饲养才能保障动物的健康和正常的生长,而山区放牧所采食饲料单一,容易导致羊出现营养障碍。精料补充料可补充牛、羊仅采食饲草营养不足的部分,具有高能量、高蛋白质及低纤维的特点,一般情况下能够提高羊的生产效率。大量研究表明,补饲精料补充料能够提高羊的生长性能[11-13]。付凤生等[11]研究报道,小尾寒羊补饲精料补充料后生长速度加快,经济效益明显提高。赵彦光等[12]试验表明,补饲精料补充料能够提高云南半细毛羊的平均日增重和经济效益。Fruet等[13]研究报道,提高饲粮精料水平可以改善试验羊的生长性能。本研究发现,与未补饲精料补充料的试验羊相比,补饲精料补充料的试验羊的体重、体长、体高、胸围、管围、腰角宽度均明显增加,且随着补饲水平的增加而增大,这与前人的研究结果一致,也说明放牧采食并不能满足羊只的营养需要,必须补饲。而不同补饲水平之间差异并不明显,可能与试验羊品种及饲养方式(放牧)有关。继续增加补饲水平是否还能提高生长性能,还需进一步观察研究。

3.2 不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊屠宰性能和肌肉品质的影响

胴体重和屠宰率是反映动物屠宰性能的重要指标,眼肌面积则可反映胴体发育程度。一般情况下宰前活重越大,则胴体重和眼肌面积也越大,眼肌面积越大说明胴体脂肪含量越高。本研究表明,提高补饲水平可提高放牧沂蒙黑山羊的宰前体重、胴体重和眼肌面积,这与Majdoub-Mathlouthi等[14]、Papi等[15]和Jacques等[16]的研究结果一致。

本研究结果显示,随着补饲水平升高,放牧沂蒙黑山羊肌肉pH24 h降低,这与羊只肌肉pH24 h随饲喂精料水平的增加而降低的研究结果[17-18]基本一致。另外,本研究发现补饲高水平精料补充料的试验羊肌肉粗脂肪含量较高,这与Kemp等[19]和Mamani-Linares等[20]的研究结果一致。肌肉剪切力与肌肉粗脂肪含量存在一定的相关性,肌肉粗脂肪含量高其剪切力通常较低,即剪切力和肌肉粗脂肪含量呈负相关[21]。本研究结果发现,提高放牧沂蒙黑山羊补饲水平可提高肌肉粗脂肪含量,从而降低其肌肉剪切力,这与前人研究报道结果[22]基本一致。

3.3 不同补饲水平对放牧沂蒙黑山羊胃肠道发育和形态结构的影响

饲粮纤维能够刺激胃肠道的发育,同时胃肠道发育状况与饲料营养物质含量、机体消化吸收和代谢密切相关。本研究发现,随着补饲水平升高,放牧沂蒙黑山羊复胃相对重量和瘤胃相对重量降低,这与包斯琴高娃等[23]在舍饲育肥母羊与放牧育肥母羊上关于胃肠道重量的相关研究结果基本一致。相比内脏,羊只体重增加速度较大。消化器官尤其是瘤胃和小肠的发育受饲粮纤维影响较大,其能够刺激瘤胃乳头和小肠黏膜的生长发育。瘤胃乳头长度是评定瘤胃组织形态学发育的重要指标,本研究结果表明,0.10和0.15 kg/(d·只)组的瘤胃乳头长度显著高于对照组和0.20 kg/(d·只)组。可能原因是羊只采食了足量的精料补充料,填充胃肠道,采食牧草较少,粗纤维不能发挥应有的刺激消化道生长作用。乔灵等[24]研究了放牧和舍饲等不同饲养方式下阿尔巴斯白绒山羊瘤胃的形态学变化,发现饲喂干草组瘤胃乳头长度高于饲喂青草组和放牧组。另外,饲粮营养水平能够影响瘤胃组织形态结构,饲喂高营养水平饲粮的山羊的瘤胃乳头长度显著高于饲喂低营养水平饲粮[25]。小肠的绒毛高度和隐窝深度是反映小肠发育状态的重要指标。本研究发现,适宜的补饲水平可改善沂蒙黑山羊的肠道组织形态结构。于洋等[26]研究报道,舍饲育肥比放牧育肥能够增加绒山羊母羊的瘤胃乳头长度及小肠绒毛高度和隐窝深度。Zitnan等[27]研究报道,高精料饲粮促进犊牛十二指肠、空肠绒毛高度及十二指肠隐窝深度的发育,但饲喂反刍动物过量的精料补充料会导致瘤胃酸中毒,胃肠功能受损。这也说明育成期山羊还处于生长发育阶段,补饲精料补充料能够促进消化器官发育,但大量补饲精料补充料对促进瘤胃等消化器官的发育并无益处。

4 结论

① 补饲精料补充料能够提高沂蒙黑山羊的生长性能,改善羊肉品质和胃肠道发育。

② 补饲0.15 kg/(d·只)精料补充料有利于沂蒙黑山羊胃肠道的发育,而补饲0.20 kg/(d·只)精料补充料有利于生长性能和屠宰性能的提高。

③ 在本试验条件下,结合生长性能和屠宰性能等各项指标,育成期沂蒙黑山羔羊补饲0.15~0.20 kg/(d·只)精料补充料比较合适。

致谢:

感谢山东畜牧兽医职业学院徐相亭教授和山东省农业科学院畜牧所刘公言博士对文稿所提的宝贵意见。

参考文献
[1]
杨燕, 吕慎金, 陈炳宇. 沂蒙黑山羊种质资源现状及保护开发对策[J]. 家畜生态学报, 2014, 35(6): 81-84.
YANG Y, LYU S J, CHEN B Y. Current situation of genetic resource of Yimeng black goat and its protection and development strategies[J]. Acta Ecologae Animalis Domastici, 2014, 35(6): 81-84 (in Chinese). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1673-1182.2014.06.016
[2]
刘鹤翔, 欧阳叙向, 邓灶福, 等. 不同营养水平补饲对湘东黑山羊肥育羔羊生产性能的影响[J]. 中国草食动物, 2006, 26(6): 9-11.
LIU H X, OUYANG X X, DENG Z F, et al. Effects of supplementary feeding on the performance of Xiangdong black goat fattening kid[J]. China Herbivores, 2006, 26(6): 9-11 (in Chinese). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.2095-3887.2006.06.003
[3]
杨燕, 王冠东, 李付武, 等. 放牧补饲条件下沂蒙黑山羊生长发育规律研究[J]. 现代畜牧兽医, 2017(11): 7-11.
YANG Y, WANG G D, LI F W, et al. Analysis of growth and development under supplementary feeding condition with Yimeng black goat[J]. Modern Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2017(11): 7-11 (in Chinese).
[4]
杨燕, 李富宽, 苏鑫尧, 等. 不同饲养方式对沂蒙黑山羊体重和体尺的影响[J]. 畜牧与兽医, 2020, 52(7): 34-38.
YANG Y, LI F K, SU X Y, et al. Effects of different feeding models on the body weight and size of Yimeng black goats[J]. Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2020, 52(7): 34-38 (in Chinese).
[5]
孙大明, 殷雨洋, 吴建良, 等. 早期补饲粉状精料和颗粒料对羔羊生长性能及胃肠道发育的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(7): 184-192.
SUN D M, YIN Y Y, WU J L, et al. Effect of early mashed and pelleted concentrate starter supplementation on animal performance and development of the gastrointestinal tract in lambs[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(7): 184-192 (in Chinese).
[6]
程光民, 陈凤梅, 刘公言, 等. 全株玉米青贮中植物乳杆菌及其与尿素混合添加对杜泊绵羊生长性能、屠宰性能及肌肉品质的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2019, 31(12): 5857-5865.
CHENG G M, CHEN F M, LIU G Y, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum and it mixed with urea added in whole corn silage on growth performance, slaughter performance and muscle quality of Dorper sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2019, 31(12): 5857-5865 (in Chinese). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2019.12.051
[7]
中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会. 食品安全国家标准食品中水分的测定: GB 5009.3-2016[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2017.
National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People's Republic of China. Determination of moisture in food in national food safety standard: GB 5009.3-2016[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2017. (in Chinese)
[8]
国家卫生和计划生育委员会, 国家食品药品监督管理总局. 食品安全国家标准食品中蛋白质的测定: GB 5009.5-2016[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2017.
National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People's Republic of China, National Medical Products Administration. Determination of protein in food according to national food safety standard: GB 5009.5-2016[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2017. (in Chinese)
[9]
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 食品中粗脂肪的测定: GB/T 14772-2008[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2009.
General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China, Standardization Administration. Determination of crude fat in foods: GB/T 14772-2008[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2009. (in Chinese)
[10]
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 肉与肉制品总灰分测定: GB/T 9695.18-2008[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2009.
General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China, Standardization Administration. Determination of total ash in meat and meat products: GB/T 9695.18-2008[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2009. (in Chinese)
[11]
付凤生, 赵家旺, 王强, 等. 肉羊精饲料补充料的饲喂效果[J]. 当代畜牧, 2004(12): 26.
FU F S, ZHAO J W, WANG Q, et al. Feeding effect of concentrate supplement for mutton sheep[J]. Contemporary Animal Husbandry, 2004(12): 26 (in Chinese).
[12]
赵彦光, 洪琼花, 谢萍, 等. 不同营养水平精饲料对云南半细毛羊增重及养分消化率的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2013, 41(9): 3931-3935.
ZHAO Y G, HONG Q H, XIE P, et al. Effects of different nutritional levels of diets on digestibility and growth performances of Yunnan semi-wool sheep[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Science, 2013, 41(9): 3931-3935 (in Chinese). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2013.09.061
[13]
FRUET A P B, STEFANELLO F S, ROSADO-JÚNIOR A G R, et al. Whole grains in the finishing of culled ewes in pasture or feedlot: performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality[J]. Meat Science, 2016, 113: 97-103. DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.11.018
[14]
MAJDOUB-MATHLOUTHI L, SAÏD B, SAY A, et al. Effect of concentrate level and slaughter body weight on growth performances, carcass traits and meat quality of Barbarine lambs fed oat hay based diet[J]. Meat Science, 2013, 93(3): 557-563. DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.10.012
[15]
PAPI N, MOSTAFA-TEHRANI A, AMANLOU H, et al. Effects of dietary forage-to-concentrate ratios on performance and carcass characteristics of growing fat-tailed lambs[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2011, 163(2/3/4): 93-98.
[16]
JACQUES J, BERTHIAUME R, CINQ-MARS D. Growth performance and carcass characteristics of Dorset lambs fed different concentrates: forage ratios or fresh grass[J]. Small Ruminant Research, 2011, 95(2/3): 113-119.
[17]
ROSENVOLD K, PETERSEN J S, LWERKE H N, et al. Muscle glycogen stores and meat quality as affected by strategic finishing feeding of slaughter pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2001, 79(2): 382-391. DOI:10.2527/2001.792382x
[18]
PRIOLO A, MICOL D, AGABRIEL J, et al. Effect of grass or concentrate feeding systems on lamb carcass and meat quality[J]. Meat Science, 2002, 62(2): 179-185. DOI:10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00244-3
[19]
KEMP J D, JOHNSON A E, STEWART D F, et al. Effect of dietary protein, slaughter weight and sex on carcass composition, organoleptic properties and cooking losses of lamb[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1976, 42(3): 575-583. DOI:10.2527/jas1976.423575x
[20]
MAMANI-LINARES L W, GALLO C B. Meat quality, proximate composition and muscle fatty acid profile of young llamas (Lama glama) supplemented with hay or concentrate during the dry season[J]. Meat Science, 2014, 96(1): 394-399. DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.028
[21]
UEDA Y, WATANABE A, HIGUCHI M, et al. Effects of intramuscular fat deposition on the beef traits of Japanese black steers (Wagyu)[J]. Animal Science Journal, 2007, 78(2): 189-194. DOI:10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00424.x
[22]
BHATT R S, SOREN N M, SAHOO A, et al. Level and period of realimentation to assess improvement in body condition and carcass quality in cull ewes[J]. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 2013, 45(1): 167-176.
[23]
包斯琴高娃, 荷花, 闫素梅. 舍饲与放牧育肥对绒山羊成年母羊育肥和屠宰性能的影响[J]. 饲料工业, 2018, 39(1): 41-45.
BAO S Q G W, HE H, YAN S M. Effects of house feeding and grazing feeding on fattening performance and slaughter performance of adult female cashmere goats[J]. Feed Industry, 2018, 39(1): 41-45 (in Chinese).
[24]
乔灵, 吴美玲, 包花尔, 等. 不同饲养条件下阿尔巴斯绒山羊前胃的形态学变化[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2005, 33(9): 39-44.
QIAO L, WU M L, BAO H E, et al. The morphological changes of Aerbasi cashmere goats' proventriculus under different raising conditions[J]. Journal of Northwest A & F University (Natural Science Edition), 2005, 33(9): 39-44 (in Chinese).
[25]
黄智南. 日粮营养对前胃上皮生长和组织形态的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2010.
HUANG Z N. Effects of dietary nutrition on growth and histomorphology of forestomach epithelium[D]. Master's Thesis. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2010. (in Chinese)
[26]
于洋, 格日乐玛, 闫素梅, 等. 放牧与舍饲育肥对绒山羊胃肠道组织形态的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(2): 775-783.
YU Y, GE R L M, YAN S M, et al. Effects of pasture fattening and stall fattening on gastrointestinal tract morphology of cashmere goats[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(2): 775-783 (in Chinese). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.02.033
[27]
ZITNAN R, KUHLA S, NVRNBERG K, et al. Influence of the diet on the morphology of ruminal and intestinal mucosa and on intestinal carbohydrase levels in cattle[J]. Veterinární Medicna, 2003, 48(7): 177-182.