饲用甜高粱裹包青贮料对肉羊生产性能及血清指标的影响

张霞, 付晓悦, 王虎成, 侯明杰, 尚占环

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2018.05.019

动物营养学报 >

2018 , Vol. 30 >Issue 5: 1771 - 1780

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2018.05.019

反刍动物营养 Ruminant nutrition

饲用甜高粱裹包青贮料对肉羊生产性能及血清指标的影响

展开

1. 兰州大学农业部草牧业创新重点实验室, 兰州 730020;
2. 兰州大学草地农业科技学院, 草地农业生态系统国家重点实验室, 兰州 730020;
3. 兰州大学生命科学学院, 兰州 730000

张霞(1992-),女,甘肃定西人,硕士研究生,动物营养与饲料科学专业。E-mail:zhangx2016@lzu.edu.cn

收稿日期: 2017-11-01

网络出版日期: 2018-05-06

基金资助

甘肃省重大科技专项（1502NKDA005-3）

收起

Effects of Packaging Forage Sweet Sorghum Silage on Performance and Serum Indexes of Mutton Sheep

Expand

1. Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China;
2. State Key Laboratory of Pastoral Agriculture Ecosystem, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China;
3. College of Life Science, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China

Received date: 2017-11-01

Online published: 2018-05-06

Fold

摘要

本试验旨在研究饲用甜高粱裹包青贮料对肉羊生产性能及血清指标的影响，以评价饲用甜高粱裹包青贮料对肉羊的饲喂效果。试验选取3~4月龄小尾寒羊[（25.70±1.50）kg]和杜泊羊[（33.40±1.68）kg]母羊各14只作为供试动物，根据饲粮中粗饲料不同将其分为杜泊羊甜高粱青贮组（DG组，n=7）、杜泊羊玉米青贮组（DY组，n=7）、小尾寒羊甜高粱青贮组（HG组，n=7）和小尾寒羊玉米青贮组（HY组，n=7）。饲养试验为期3个月，并于试验第30天、第60天和第90天早晨称重及采集血液。结果表明：1）玉米青贮组（DY组+HY组，n=14）的平均日采食量（ADFI）和平均日增重（ADG）极显著高于甜高粱青贮组（DG组+HG组，n=14）（P<0.01）。2）试验期内杜泊羊组（DG组+DY组，n=14）的血清总抗氧化能力（T-AOC）显著高于小尾寒羊组（HG组+HY组，n=14）（P<0.05）；在试验第60天，杜泊羊组血清丙二醛（MDA）含量显著低于小尾寒羊组（P<0.05）；在试验第90天，甜高粱青贮组的血清超氧化物歧化酶（SOD）活性显著高于玉米青贮组（P<0.05）；在试验第90天，HY组的血清MDA含量显著高于DY组和HG组（P<0.05）；甜高粱青贮组的血清SOD活性在试验第60天和第90天显著高于试验第30天（P<0.05）。3）血清尿素氮（UN）含量以及谷丙转氨酶（GPT）、碱性磷酸酶（AKP）活性分别在试验第60天、第90天、第60天存在显著的品种效应（P<0.05）；血清β-羟丁酸（BHBA）含量及谷草转氨酶（GOT）、AKP活性分别在试验第90天、第30天与第90天、第60天存在显著的处理效应（P<0.05）；HY组的血清GOT和AKP活性在试验第90天显著高于试验第30天（P<0.05）。综上，饲喂含玉米裹包青贮料饲粮的肉羊的生产性能优于饲喂含饲用甜高粱裹包青贮料饲粮的肉羊，但青贮料长期育肥肉羊存在安全风险，而饲用甜高粱裹包青贮料较玉米裹包青贮料有利于提高肉羊肝脏健康、降低"高血脂"及机体酮症酸中毒等疾病的几率，进而降低安全风险。

关键词： 饲用甜高粱; 玉米; 裹包青贮; 肉羊; 生产性能; 血清指标

本文引用格式

张霞, 付晓悦, 王虎成, 侯明杰, 尚占环 . 饲用甜高粱裹包青贮料对肉羊生产性能及血清指标的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2018 , 30(5) : 1771 -1780 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2018.05.019

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of packaging forage sweet sorghum silage on growth performance and serum indexes of mutton sheep, in order to evaluate the feeding effect of packaging forage sweet sorghum silage for mutton sheep. Fourteen 3-to 4-month-old Dorper female sheep[(33.40±1.68) kg] and fourteen 3-to 4-month-old small-tailed Han female sheep[(25.70±1.50) kg] as test animals were divided into four groups according to roughage, including Dorper sheep sweet sorghum silage group (DG group, n=7), Dorper sheep corn silage group (DY group, n=7), small-tailed Han sheep sweet sorghum silage group (HG group, n=7) and small-tailed Han sheep corn silage group (HY group, n=7). The feeding experiment lasted for 3 months, and the body weight and blood samples were sampled on the morning of the day 30, 60 and 90 of experiment. The results showed that:1) the average daily feed intakes (ADFI) and average daily gain (ADG) of corn silage group (DY group+HY group, n=14) were significantly higher than those of sweet sorghum silage group (DG group+HG group, n=14) (P<0.01). 2) The serum total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) for Dorper sheep group (DG group+DY group, n=14) was significantly higher than that for small-tailed Han sheep during the whole experiment (P<0.05); on day 60 of experiment, the serum malondialdehyde (MDA) content for Dorper sheep group was significantly lower than that for small-tailed Han sheep (P<0.05); on day 90 of experiment, the serum superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity for sweet sorghum silage group was significantly higher than that of corn silage group (P<0.05); on day 90 of experiment, serum MDA content of HY group was significantly higher than that of DY and HG group(P<0.05); on day 90 of experiment, the serum SOD activity for sweet sorghum silage group was significantly lower than that on day 60 and 90 of experiment (P<0.05). 3) The breed effects were significant on the serum urea nitrogen (UN) content, glutamic-pyruvic transaminase (GPT) and alkaline phosphatase (AKP) activities on day 60, 90 and 60 of experiment (P<0.05), respectively; the treatment effects were significant on the serum β-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA) content, GOT and AKP activities on day 90, 30 and 90, 60 of experiment (P<0.05), respectively; on day 90 of experiment, the serum GOT and AKP activities of HY group were significantly higher than those on day 30 of experiment (P<0.05). In summary, the performance of mutton sheep fed diets with packaging corn silage is superior to mutton sheep fed diets with packaging forage sweet sorghum silage. There will be existed in security risks when the higher ratio silage diets were fatten mutton sheep for a long time, but the packaging forage sweet sorghum silage may be more benefit to sheep liver health, and away from the "high blood fat" and reduce the chance for animal ketoacidosis than packaging corn silage.

Key words： forage sweet sorghum; corn; packaging silage; mutton sheep; performance; serum indexes

参考文献

[1] 王永慧,陈建平,张培通,等.甜高粱和玉米青贮质量及其对奶牛的饲喂效果[J].安徽农业科学,2015,43(14):127-128.

[2] 陆水怡,李南珠,邹剑秋,等.甜高粱的生物学特性、研究现状与开发应用前景[J].江苏农业科学,2009(3):11-13.

[3] 刘公社,周庆源,宋松泉,等.能源植物甜高粱种质资源和分子生物学研究进展[J].植物学报,2009,44(3):253-261.

[4] 朱翠云.甜高粱——大有发展前途的作物[J].园艺与种苗,1999,19(2):29-32.

[5] 李兵.初产母羊补饲青贮甜高粱秸秆的生产性能试验[J].新疆农业科学,2001(增刊1):214-215.

[6] 李春喜,冯海生,李永仁,等.青贮甜高粱与青贮玉米饲喂奶牛、羊及奶品质的比较研究[J].青海农林科技,2014(2):8-11.

[7] 张元来,白晶晶.青贮甜高粱与玉米秸秆饲喂肉牛效果研究[J].中国牛业科学,2014(5):35-36.

[8] 宋金昌,范莉,牛一兵,等.不同甜高粱品种生产与奶牛饲喂特性比较[J].草业科学,2009,26(4):74-78.

[9] DI MARCO O N,RESSIA M A,ARIAS S,et al.Digestibility of forage silages from grain,sweet and BMR sorghum types:comparison of in vivo,in situ and in vitro data[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2009,153(3/4):161-168.

[10] 沈文琳.机械化青贮裹包技术推广的现状和对策[J].草业机械化,2005(1):36-37.

[11] 沙文锋,朱娟,姜慧锋.稻草拉伸膜裹包青贮效果分析[J].农产品加工,2010(3):79-80.

[12] 李荣侠.全株玉米窖贮与拉伸膜裹包青贮的比较研究[J].当代畜牧,2010(1):31-32.

[13] FÉRARD A,JOURNAUX J,MESLIER E,et al.Effect of harvest period of maize silage and the content of wrapped grass silage on the production of dairy cows[C]//Rencontres Recherche Ruminants.[S.l.]:[s.n.],2014.

[14] THEODORIDOU K,AUFRÈRE J,ANDUEZA D,et al.Effects of condensed tannins in wrapped silage bales of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) on in vivo and in situ digestion in sheep[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2010,160(1/2):23-38.

[15] 张利.肉羊的饲养价值与品种引进[J].养殖技术顾问,2013(6):23-23.

[16] 张宏福.动物营养参数与饲养标准[M].2版.北京:中国农业出版社,2010.

[17] 杨保奎,刘信宝,沈益新,等.不同青贮饲料对肉牛生长性能及血清生化指标的影响[J].畜牧与兽医,2016,48(11):5-9.

[18] 刘学东,龚学明.微量元素硒与老年性白内障[J].微量元素与健康研究,1999,16(4):66-68.

[19] 邹志芳,李伯灵,符古雅,等. 铸铜石英砂对小鼠肺组织匀浆抗氧化酶系的影响[J].中华临床防治医学杂志,2002,2(1):18-19.

[20] ASTIZ M E,RACKOW E C,KAUFMAN B,et al.Relationship of oxygen delivery and mixed venous oxygenation to lactic acidosis in patients with sepsis and acute myocardial infarction[J].Critical Care Medicine,1988,16(7):655-658.

[21] KAMADA T,KAWANO S,SATO N,et al.Gastric mucosal blood distribution and its changes in the healing process of gastric ulcer[J].Gastroenterology,1983,84(6):1541-1546.

[22] 司方方,涂剑锋,刘天龙,等.四君子汤超微粉对脾虚小鼠总抗氧化能力和NO的影响[J].动物医学进展,2006,27(3):75-77.

[23] 王大愚,赵有璋.白萨福克羊和特克塞尔羊生理生化常值的测定[J].家畜生态学报,2007,28(6):54-57,72.

[24] 马森,王荣鑫,张才骏,等.青海高原家畜生理生化参数[J].青海畜牧兽医杂志,1994,23(4):36-41.

[25] 周明亮,陈明华,吴伟生,等.不同月龄白藏羊的生理生化指标测定[J].家畜生态学报,2015,36(3):53-57.

[26] 王高富,黄勇富,任航行,等.酉州乌羊血液生化指标测定及其相关性分析[J].中国农学通报,2013,29(35):47-52.

[27] 刘晓辉,杨明,宋东光,等.能源高粱不同品种叶片抗氧化物质动态研究[J].种子,2012,31(9):48-52.

[28] 李景伟.木薯渣对肉牛生产性能、屠宰性能、胴体品质及血清生化指标的影响[D].硕士学位论文.泰安:山东农业大学,2015.

[29] MAL M K.Amino acid in farm animal metabolism.Partion and consequences of imbalance[J].Swedish Journal of Agriculture Research,1988,18(4):191-193.

[30] WIER M L,SCOTT R E.Regulation of the terminal event in cellular differentiation:biological mechanisms of the loss of proliferative potential[J].The Journal of Cell Biology,1986,102(5):1955-1964.

[31] COMA J,ZIMMERMAN D R,CARRION D.Lysine requirement of the lactating sow determined by using plasma urea nitrogen as a rapid response criterion[J].Journal of Animal Science,1996,74(5):1056-1062.

[32] 赵国先,张正珊,王余丁,等.低蛋白日粮添加氨基酸对肉兔生产性能及血液生化指标的影响[J].饲料与畜牧,1997(2):9-11.

[33] 齐顺章,张曼夫,王悦先,等.动物生物化学[M].2版.北京:北京农业出版社,1987:155-358.

[34] 史仍飞,袁海平,刘学,等.不同强度运动对大鼠脂质代谢的影响及机理探讨[J].中国运动医学杂志,2003,22(5):509-510.

[35] 高俊峰.发酵木薯渣对本地黑山羊生长性能、血液生化指标和养分消化代谢的影响[D].硕士学位论文.南宁:广西大学,2013.

[36] 郭辉.山羊在不同日粮结构下尿中嘌呤衍生物排出规律的研究[D].硕士学位论文.南宁:广西大学,2008.

[37] SONG K,SHAN A S,LI J P.Effect of different combinations of enzyme preparation supplemented to wheat based diets on growth and serum biochemical values of broiler chickens[J].Acta Zoonutrimenta Sinica,2008(4):25-29.

[38] 王秋颖.碱性磷酸酶特性及其应用的研究进展[J].中国畜牧兽医,2011,38(1):157-161.

[39] 孙敏,马飞.浅析碱性磷酸酶及其同工酶测定的临床意义[J].饮食保健,2017,4(16):12.

[40] 王石莹,闫素梅.碱性磷酸酶在动物骨骼代谢中的研究进展[J].饲料博览,2009(4):14-17.

[41] 崔树和,李香子,高青山,等.不同处理玉米秸秆饲料对延边黄牛生长性能、血清生化指标的影响[J].饲料工业,2015,36(23):39-44.

Options

文章导航

摘要

本文引用格式

Abstract

参考文献

关于本刊

在线期刊

作者中心

相关单位

联系我们

模态框（Modal）标题

摘要

本文引用格式

Abstract

参考文献

关于本刊

在线期刊

作者中心

相关单位

联系我们