动物营养学报 >

2024 , Vol. 36 >Issue 11: 7040 - 7050

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2024.600

研究论文

不同剩余采食量快大型肉鸭生长性能、屠宰性能和内脏器官的比较研究

  • 刘宏祥 , 1, 2 ,
  • 张雪萍 3 ,
  • 王震 4 ,
  • 邹可欣 4 ,
  • 王逸飞 1 ,
  • 宋卫涛 1 ,
  • 朱春红 1 ,
  • 陶志云 1 ,
  • 王志成 1 ,
  • 徐文娟 1 ,
  • 顾昊天 1 ,
  • 李慧芳 1 ,
  • 章双杰 , 1, *
展开
  • 1 江苏省家禽科学研究所,扬州 225125
  • 2 南京农业大学,南京 210095
  • 3 扬州大学,扬州 225005
  • 4 山东和康源生物育种股份有限公司,济南 250101
* 章双杰,研究员,E-mail:

刘宏祥(1985—),男,江苏仪征人,副研究员,硕士,从事家禽育种及养殖技术研究。E-mail:

Copy editor: 田艳明

收稿日期: 2024-05-18

  网络出版日期: 2024-11-09

基金资助

江苏省揭榜挂帅项目(JBGS[2021]030)

江苏省揭榜挂帅项目(JGBS[2021]111)

江苏省现代农业(水禽)产业技术体系(JATS[2023]365)

山东省重点研发计划(2022LZGC014)

扬州市自然科学基金(YZ2023167)

收起

Comparative Study on Growth Performance, Slaughter Performance and Internal Organs of Fast-Growing Meat Ducks with Different Residual Feed Intake

  • LIU Hongxiang , 1, 2 ,
  • ZHANG Xueping 3 ,
  • WANG Zhen 4 ,
  • ZOU Kexin 4 ,
  • WANG Yifei 1 ,
  • SONG Weitao 1 ,
  • ZHU Chunhong 1 ,
  • TAO Zhiyun 1 ,
  • WANG Zhicheng 1 ,
  • XU Wenjuan 1 ,
  • GU Haotian 1 ,
  • LI Huifang 1 ,
  • ZHANG Shuangjie , 1, *
Expand
  • 1 Jiangsu Institute of Poultry Sciences, Yangzhou 225125, China
  • 2 Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
  • 3 Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225005, China
  • 4 Shandong Hekangyuan Group Co., Ltd., Ji’nan 250101, China
* professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2024-05-18

  Online published: 2024-11-09

Fold

摘要

本试验旨在比较不同剩余采食量(RFI)肉鸭在生长性能、屠宰性能和内脏器官间的差异,以探究RFI对快大型肉鸭的影响。试验选用400只快大型肉鸭(公母各占1/2)作为试验候选群体,于个体笼中从15日龄饲喂至35日龄,计算RFI后分为低剩余采食量(LRFI)组和高剩余采食量(HRFI)组,每组各30只公鸭和30只母鸭。每只个体称量35日龄体重后测定屠宰性能,计算屠宰率、半净膛率、全净膛率、胸肌率、腿肌率、瘦肉率和腹脂率等指标;称量肝脏重和肌胃重并计算肝脏率和肌胃率,测定十二指肠、空肠、回肠长度并计算肠道总长度。结果表明: 1)对于生长性能,公鸭和母鸭LRFI组平均日采食量和饲料转化率(FCR)均极显著低于HRFI组(P<0.01);母鸭15日龄体重、35日龄体重、代谢体重和平均日增重在HRFI组和LRFI组之间差异均不显著(P>0.05),而公鸭LRFI组上述指标显著或极显著高于HRFI组(P<0.05或P<0.01)。2)对于屠宰性能,公鸭LRFI组屠宰率和腹脂率均极显著低于HRFI组(P<0.01),胸肌率、腿肌率和瘦肉率均极显著高于HRFI组(P<0.01);母鸭LRFI组腹脂率极显著低于HRFI组(P<0.01),腿肌率和瘦肉率极显著高于HRFI组(P<0.01),而屠宰率、半净膛率、全净膛率和胸肌率与HRFI组相比差异均不显著(P>0.05)。3)对于内脏器官,公鸭和母鸭LRFI组肝脏率和肌胃率均极显著或显著高于HRFI组(P<0.05或P<0.01);母鸭所有肠段的长度及肠道总长度在HRFI组和LRFI间之间均无显著差异(P>0.05),公鸭LRFI组空肠长度和肠道总长度显著高于HRFI组(P<0.05)。综上所述,与HRFI快大型肉鸭相比,LRFI快大型肉鸭公鸭体重显著增加,而母鸭体重没有显著变化;LRFI快大型肉鸭公鸭和母鸭饲料效率均更高,腹脂沉积更少,同时屠宰性能和内脏器官部分指标甚至更优。这提示,对RFI的负向选择可以提高快大型肉鸭的饲料效率和屠宰性能,但需注意避免公鸭体重进展过快。

关键词： 肉鸭; 剩余采食量; 生长性能; 屠宰性能; 内脏器官

本文引用格式

刘宏祥 , 张雪萍 , 王震 , 邹可欣 , 王逸飞 , 宋卫涛 , 朱春红 , 陶志云 , 王志成 , 徐文娟 , 顾昊天 , 李慧芳 , 章双杰 . 不同剩余采食量快大型肉鸭生长性能、屠宰性能和内脏器官的比较研究[J]. 动物营养学报, 2024 , 36(11) : 7040 -7050 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2024.600

Abstract

The aim of this experiment was to compare the differences in growth performance, slaughter performance and internal organs of meat ducks with different residual feed intake (RFI) and to explore the effects of RFI on fast-growing meat ducks. The experiment involved 400 fast-growing meat ducks (half male and half female) as the candidate population, which were fed individually in cages from 15 to 35 days of age. After calculating the RFI, these birds were divided into low RFI (LRFI) and high RFI (HRFI) groups with 30 males and 30 females in each group. Each individual’s weight was measured at 35 days of age, followed by the determination of slaughter performance. Indices such as dressed percentage, percentage of half-eviscerated yield, percentage of eviscerated yield, percentage of breast muscle yield, percentage of leg muscle yield, percentage of lean meat yield and percentage of abdominal fat yield were calculated. The weight of the liver and gizzard was also measured to calculate the percentage of liver yield and percentage of gizzard yield, and the length of duodenum, jejunum and ileum was measured and the total intestine length was calculated. The results showed as follows: 1) for growth performance, the average daily feed intake and feed conversion ratio of both male and female ducks in LRFI group were extremely significantly lower than those in HRFI group (P<0.01); there were no significant differences in the body weight at 15 and 35 days of age, metabolic body weight and average daily gain of female ducks between HRFI and LRFI groups (P>0.05), while these indicators of male ducks in LRFI group were significantly or extremely significantly higher than those in HRFI group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). 2) For slaughter performance, the dressed percentage and percentage of abdominal fat yield of male ducks in LRFI group were extremely significantly lower than those in HRFI group (P<0.01), and the percentage of breast muscle yield, percentage of leg muscle yield, percentage of lean meat yield were extremely significantly higher than those in HRFI group (P<0.01); the percentage of abdominal fat yield of female ducks in LRFI group was extremely significantly lower than that in HRFI group (P<0.01), and the percentage of leg muscle yield and percentage of lean meat yield were extremely significantly higher than those in HRFI group (P<0.01), while there were no significant differences in the dressed percentage, percentage of half-eviscerated yield, percentage of eviscerated yield and percentage of breast muscle yield between HRFI and LRFI groups (P>0.05). 3) For internal organs, the percentage of liver yield and percentage of gizzard yield of both male and female ducks in LRFI group were significantly or extremely significantly higher than those in HRFI group (P<0.05 or P<0.01); there were no significant differences in the length of all intestinal segments and total intestine length of female ducks between HRFI and LRFI groups (P>0.05), while the length of jejunum and total intestine length of male ducks in LRFI group were significantly longer than those in HRFI group (P<0.05). In conclusion, compared to the fast-growing meat ducks with HRFI, the ducks with LRFI show a significant increase in the body weight of males, while there was no significant difference in the body weight of females. Both male and female fast-growing meat ducks with LRFI have higher feed efficiency, less abdominal fat deposition, and even better some indicates in slaughter performance and internal organs. This suggests that the negative selection for RFI can improve the feed efficiency and slaughter performance of fast-growing meat ducks, but attention should be paid to avoid excessively rapid weight gain in male individuals.

Key words： meat ducks; residual feed intake; growth performance; slaughter performance; internal organs

肉鸭养殖中,饲料成本达到养殖总成本的2/3[1],饲料利用率的小幅提升即会带来饲养成本的大幅下降,因此提高饲料利用效率是提高我国商品肉鸭市场竞争力的关键因素之一。作为衡量动物饲料利用效率的经典指标,饲料转化率(FCR)直接与经济效益挂钩,然而不同的采食量和体增重可能得到相同的FCR,因此对采食量的选择会影响体重的选择效果[2-3]。
剩余采食量(residual feed intake,RFI)是动物真实采食量与满足正常维持和生产需要的预期采食量之间的差值。由于RFI不受动物生长阶段和日增重的影响[4],且具有中等遗传力[5⇓-7],在育种上选育效率较高,该概念由Koch等[8]首次提出后便获得了极大关注。在牛[9]、羊[10]、猪[11⇓-13]、兔[14]和鸡[15-16]上的研究均表明,对RFI的负向选择不会影响个体的生长性能以及屠宰性能。
目前,基于RFI的遗传选择可显著降低肉鸡的采食量和腹脂含量,但不影响体重或肌肉内脂肪含量[17]。Bai等[18]研究表明,RFI对小体型肉鸭的体重、胸肌率及腹脂率没有显著影响。对北京鸭的研究发现,RFI与胸肌和肌胃重量呈负相关,与腹脂含量呈正相关[19]。以上关于RFI对家禽经济性状影响的研究结果并不完全一致,尤其是胸肌和腹脂含量在小体型肉鸭和北京鸭上结果相反。对生长性能与饲料效率的高强度育种提高了快大型肉鸭的生长速度,并可改变机体的代谢能力,这在其他家养动物中已经得到了证明[20⇓-22],因此RFI对快大型肉鸭经济性状的影响需要更加系统深入的研究。鉴于此,本试验以快大型肉鸭为研究对象,比较生长性能、屠宰性能和内脏器官方面在高剩余采食量(HRFI)和低剩余采食量(LRFI)组间的差异,分析RFI与生长性能、屠宰性能和内脏器官间的相关性,系统研究RFI对快大型肉鸭经济性状的影响,从而为肉鸭育种中饲料效率的选育提高提供科学的参考依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 伦理声明

本试验中涉及到的动物饲养管理和屠宰方法在江苏省家禽科学研究所实验动物福利与动物实验伦理审查委员会的批准与指导下进行,批准编号为:JIPSAEC2023-012。

1.2 试验设计

本试验所涉及的快大型肉鸭H2系饲养于山东和康源集团。首先选择H2系800枚种蛋进行孵化,1日龄出雏后进行公母鉴别,分别随机选择健康公雏和母雏分开饲养。1~14日龄为育雏期,采用大群饲养,2周龄末转入个体测定笼舍;15~35日龄为育成期,选用400只快大型肉鸭(公母各占1/2)作为试验候选群体,采用单笼饲养,计算RFI后分为LRFI组和HRFI组,每组各30只公鸭和30只母鸭。
1~3日龄使用破碎料,4~14日龄使用粒径为3 mm的颗粒料,15~35日龄使用粒径为4.5 mm的颗粒料,不同阶段基础饲粮组成及营养水平见表1。
表1 不同阶段基础饲粮组成及营养水平(风干基础)

Table 1 Composition and nutrient levels of basal diets at different stages (air-dry basis) %

项目
Items		 1~14日龄
1 to 14
days of age		 15~35日龄
15 to 35
days of age
原料Ingredients
玉米Corn 59.50 61.00
豆粕Soybean meal 29.60 29.00
Ⅰ级鱼粉Grade Ⅰ fish meal 4.00 2.00
大豆油Soybean oil 1.90 3.00
预混料Premix1) 5.00 5.00
合计Total 100.00 100.00
营养水平Nutrient levels2)
代谢能ME/(MJ/kg) 12.13 13.18
粗蛋白质CP 20.01 18.77
钙Ca 0.83 0.77
总磷TP 0.69 0.65
有效磷AP 0.42 0.39
赖氨酸Lys 1.14 1.05
蛋氨酸Met 0.49 0.46
苏氨酸Thr 0.79 0.74
色氨酸Trp 0.23 0.22

1)预混料为每千克饲粮提供 The premix provided the following per kg of diets:VA 12 500 IU,VD3 4 125 IU,VE 15 IU,VK 2 mg,硫胺素 thiamine 1 mg,核黄素 riboflavin 8.5 mg,泛酸钙 calcium pantothenate 50 mg,烟酸 nicotinic acid 32.5 mg,吡哆醇 pyridoxine 8 mg,VB12 5 mg,生物素 biotin 2 mg,Fe (as ferrous sulfate) 60 mg,Cu (as copper sulfate) 8 mg,Zn (as zinc sulfate) 66 mg,Mn 65 mg,Se 0.3 mg,I 1 mg。

2)营养水平中代谢能、有效磷和氨基酸为计算值,参照《中国饲料成分及营养价值表(2019年第30版)》计算;粗蛋白质、钙和总磷为实测值,分别参照GB/T 6432—2018、GB/T 6436—2018和GB/T 6437—2018测定。ME, AP and amino acids in nutrient levels were calculated referred to Tables of Feed Composition and Nutritive Values in China (thirty edition, 2019), while CP, Ca and TP were measured by reference to GB/T 6432—2018, GB/T 6436—2018 and GB/T 6437—2018, respectively.

1.3 指标测定

1.3.1 生长性能测定

正式试验开始前断料6~8 h后称重,将15日龄初始个体重记为BW15;试验结束时测量35日龄个体重记为BW35,并统计15~35日龄每个个体的总采食量(FI)和平均日采食量(ADFI),计算个体的代谢体重(metabolic body weight,MBW)、平均日增重(ADG)和FCR后,参照Aggrey等[23]给出的模型,分别计算公鸭和母鸭的RFI。FCR、MBW和RFI的计算公式如下:
FCR=FI/(BW35-BW15);
MBW=[(BW15+BW35)/2]0.75;
RFI=ADFI-(a+b1×MBW+b2×ADG)。
式中:a为截距;b1和b2分别为MBW和ADG关于ADFI的偏回归系数。

1.3.2 屠宰性能测定

根据BW35和FCR指标剔除异常值个体后,将公鸭和母鸭分别按照RFI从高到低排列。公鸭和母鸭各分别筛选30只HRFI个体组成HRFI组,30只LRFI个体组成LRFI组。对筛选出的个体进行屠宰性能测定,测定方法参照《家禽生产性能名词术语和度量计算方法》(NY/T 823—2020)[24]。测定指标包括宰前活重、屠体重、半净膛重、全净膛重、双侧胸肌重、双侧腿肌重、腹脂重、肝脏重、肌胃重以及十二指肠、空肠和回肠长度,并计算屠宰率、半净膛率、全净膛率、胸肌率、腿肌率、瘦肉率、腹脂率、肝脏率、肌胃率以及肠道总长度等。其中,肝脏率和肌胃率计算公式如下:
肝脏率(%)=100×肝脏重/(肝脏重+全净膛重);
肌胃率(%)=100×肌胃重/(肌胃重+全净膛重)。

1.4 数据统计分析

所有数据均利用R语言中的rstatix包进行统计分析,利用t检验分别对公鸭和母鸭HRFI组和LRFI组之间的指标进行两两比较。运用cor_test函数分别计算公鸭和母鸭RFI与其他指标的皮尔逊相关系数(r)。P>0.05表示差异不显著,P<0.05表示差异显著,P<0.01表示差异极显著。结果数据以“平均值±标准差”形式表示。

2 结果与分析

2.1 RFI对公鸭和母鸭生长性能的影响

RFI对公鸭和母鸭生长性能的影响结果见表2。公鸭和母鸭分别按照RFI高低排列,筛选HRFI个体和LRFI个体,公鸭HRFI组和LRFI组之间RFI差异极显著(P<0.01),母鸭亦然,表明公鸭和母鸭RFI高低组别划分合理。
表2 RFI对公鸭和母鸭生长性能的影响

Table 2 Effects of RFI on growth performance of male and female ducks

项目
Items		 性别
Sexes		 HRFI组
HRFI group		 LRFI组
LRFI group		 P值
P-value
15日龄体重BW15/g 公Male 570.47±46.69b 608.53±50.87a 0.023
母Female 563.10±50.92 574.73±56.70 0.654
35日龄体重BW35/g 公Male 2 688.23±228.19b 2 839.20±181.30a 0.010
母Female 2 729.67±178.22 2 691.70±207.38 0.624
代谢体重MBW/g 公Male 256.33±13.82B 267.45±12.03A 0.004
母Female 258.39±10.94 256.78±14.49 0.773
平均日增重ADG/g 公Male 105.89±11.74b 111.53±8.49a 0.045
母Female 108.33±9.27 105.85±9.10 0.471
平均日采食量ADFI/g 公Male 240.65±16.23A 204.24±11.99B <0.001
母Female 247.40±9.35A 196.78±15.94B <0.001
饲料转化率FCR 公Male 2.29±0.17A 1.84±0.10B <0.001
母Female 2.30±0.16A 1.86±0.10B <0.001
剩余采食量RFI 公Male 25.19±3.49A -22.80±4.36B <0.001
母Female 25.84±5.21A -23.60±4.21B <0.001

同行数据肩标不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05),不同大写字母表示差异极显著(P<0.01),无字母表示差异不显著(P>0.05)。表3和表4同。

Different lowercase letters in the shoulder of the same row of data indicate significant differences (P<0.05), different uppercase letters indicate extremely significant differences (P<0.01), and the absence of letters indicates no significant difference (P>0.05). The same as Table 3 and Table 4.

RFI对ADFI和FCR的影响在公鸭和母鸭上表现一致。LRFI组公鸭和母鸭ADFI分别为204.24和196.78 g,均极显著低于HRFI组的240.65和247.40 g(P<0.01);LRFI组公鸭和母鸭FCR分别为1.84和1.86,均极显著低于HRFI组的2.29和2.30(P<0.01)。
RFI对15日龄体重、35日龄体重、MBW以及ADG的影响在公鸭和母鸭上表现不同。母鸭15日龄体重、35日龄体重、MBW和ADG在HRFI组和LRFI组之间差异均不显著(P>0.05),而公鸭LRFI组上述指标分别比HRFI组提高了6.67%、5.62%、4.34%和5.33%,且差异显著或极显著(P<0.05或P<0.01)。

2.2 RFI对公鸭和母鸭屠宰性能的影响

由表3可知,RFI对半净膛率、全净膛率、腿肌率、瘦肉率和腹脂率的影响在公鸭和母鸭上表现一致。公鸭和母鸭半净膛率和全净膛率在HRFI组和LRFI组之间差异均不显著(P>0.05)。公鸭和母鸭LRFI组腿肌率分别为14.37%和14.46%,均极显著高于HRFI组的13.14%和12.87%(P<0.01);LRFI组瘦肉率分别为30.57%和31.49%,均极显著高于HRFI组的27.76%和29.29%(P<0.01);LRFI组腹脂率分别为0.80%和0.98%,均极显著低于HRFI组的1.30%和1.61%(P<0.01)。
表3 RFI对公鸭和母鸭屠宰性能的影响

Table 3 Effects of RFI on slaughter performance of male and female ducks %

项目
Items		 性别
Sexes		 HRFI组
HRFI group		 LRFI组
LRFI group		 P值
P-value
屠宰率Dressed percentage 公Male 85.42±2.50A 84.36±2.00B 0.002
母Female 84.98±1.99 84.32±2.47 0.263
半净膛率
Percentage of half-eviscerated yield		 公Male 79.40±2.12 78.49±1.92 0.088
母Female 78.93±1.97 78.72±2.48 0.725
全净膛率Percentage of eviscerated yield 公Male 73.23±1.97 72.51±1.75 0.142
母Female 72.90±1.85 72.62±2.18 0.589
胸肌率Percentage of breast muscle yield 公Male 14.61±1.66B 16.20±1.63A <0.001
母Female 16.42±1.38 17.03±1.51 0.108
腿肌率Percentage of leg muscle yield 公Male 13.14±1.05B 14.37±0.88A <0.001
母Female 12.87±0.89B 14.46±1.24A <0.001
瘦肉率Percentage of lean meat yield 公Male 27.76±1.83B 30.57±1.75A <0.001
母Female 29.29±1.46B 31.49±1.53A <0.001
腹脂率Percentage of abdominal fat yield 公Male 1.30±0.34A 0.80±0.29B <0.001
母Female 1.61±0.40A 0.98±0.24B <0.001
RFI对屠宰率和胸肌率的影响在公鸭和母鸭上表现不同。公鸭LRFI组屠宰率为84.36%,极显著低于HRFI组的85.42%(P<0.01);LRFI组胸肌率为16.20%,极显著高于HRFI组的14.61%(P<0.01)。而母鸭LRFI组屠宰率和胸肌率与HRFI组相比差异均不显著(P>0.05)。

2.3 RFI对公鸭和母鸭内脏器官的影响

由表4可知,RFI对肝脏率、肌胃率、十二指肠长度和回肠长度的影响在公鸭和母鸭上表现一致。公鸭和母鸭LRFI组肝脏率分别为2.61%和2.55%,均极显著高于HRFI组的2.25%和2.27%(P<0.01);LRFI组肌胃率分别为2.66%和2.42%,分别显著和极显著高于HRFI组的2.47%(P<0.05)和2.13%(P<0.01);LRFI组十二指肠和回肠长度与HRFI组相比差异均不显著(P>0.05)。
表4 RFI对公鸭和母鸭内脏器官的影响

Table 4 Effects of RFI on internal organs of male and female ducks

项目
Items		 性别
Sexes		 HRFI组
HRFI group		 LRFI组
LRFI group		 P值
P-value
肝脏率Percentage of liver yield/% 公Male 2.25±0.22B 2.61±0.33A <0.001
母Female 2.27±0.14B 2.55±0.24A <0.001
肌胃率Percentage of gizzard yield/% 公Male 2.47±0.31b 2.66±0.35a 0.032
母Female 2.13±0.25B 2.42±0.34A <0.001
十二指肠长度Duodenum length/cm 公Male 30.17±2.04 31.25±2.50 0.090
母Female 30.15±1.59 29.73±1.84 0.353
空肠长度Jejunum length/cm 公Male 74.50±4.76b 78.27±5.82a 0.024
母Female 76.55±4.68 76.87±4.88 0.799
回肠长度Ileum length/cm 公Male 75.93±4.92 78.25±6.17 0.113
母Female 75.28±5.95 74.77±5.64 0.731
肠道总长度Total intestine length/cm 公Male 180.60±9.92b 187.77±12.64a 0.042
母Female 181.98±10.76 181.37±10.94 0.827
RFI对空肠及肠道总长度的影响在公鸭和母鸭上表现不同。母鸭空肠和肠道总长度在HRFI组和LRFI组之间差异均不显著(P>0.05),公鸭LRFI组空肠和肠道总长度均显著高于HRFI组(P<0.05)。

2.4 公鸭和母鸭RFI与各指标的相关性

公鸭和母鸭RFI与各指标的相关性分析结果见表5。公鸭和母鸭RFI均与ADFI和FCR呈较强程度的极显著正相关(r≥0.75,P<0.01),与胸肌率、腿肌率、瘦肉率、肝脏率和肌胃率呈中等程度的显著或极显著负相关(r为-0.46~-0.17,P<0.05或P<0.01)。此外,公鸭和母鸭腹脂率与RFI呈极显著正相关(P<0.01),r分别为0.60和0.48。公鸭和母鸭15日龄体重、35日龄体重、回肠长度以及肠道总长度与RFI均无显著相关性(P>0.05)。
表5 公鸭和母鸭RFI与各指标的相关性

Table 5 Correlation between RFI and various indicators of male and female ducks

项目
Items		 公鸭RFI
RFI of male ducks		 母鸭RFI
RFI of female ducks
生长性能
Growth performance		 15日龄体重BW15 -0.14 -0.08
35日龄体重BW35 -0.14 0.04
代谢体重MWT -0.16* 0.02
平均日增重ADG -0.11 0.07
平均日采食量ADFI 0.77** 0.82**
饲料转化率FCR 0.75** 0.81**
屠宰性能
Slaughter performance		 屠宰率Dressed percentage 0.23** 0.13
半净膛率Percentage of half-eviscerated yield 0.21** 0.09
全净膛率Percentage of eviscerated yield 0.17* 0.10
胸肌率Percentage of breast muscle yield -0.28** -0.17*
腿肌率Percentage of leg muscle yield -0.37** -0.46**
瘦肉率Percentage of lean meat yield -0.43** -0.41**
腹脂率Percentage of abdominal fat yield 0.60** 0.48**
内脏器官
Internal organs		 肝脏率Percentage of liver yield -0.37** -0.39**
肌胃率Percentage of gizzard yield -0.22** -0.30**
十二指肠长度Duodenum length -0.16* 0.07
空肠长度Jejunum length -0.16* -0.05
回肠长度Ileum length -0.07 0.01
肠道总长度Total intestine length -0.14 -0.01

相关系数肩标“*”表示显著相关(P<0.05),“**”表示极显著相关(P<0.01),无“*”表示无显著相关(P>0.05)。

Correlation coefficients marked with “*” mean significant correlation (P<0.05), marked with “**” mean extremely significant correlation (P<0.01), and without any “*” mean no significant correlation (P>0.05).

公鸭RFI与MWT、十二指肠长度和空肠长度呈中等程度的显著负相关(P<0.05),与屠宰率、半净膛率和全净膛率呈中等程度的显著或极显著正相关(P<0.05或P<0.01);而母鸭RFI与上述指标均无显著相关性(P>0.05)。

3 讨论

3.1 RFI对肉鸭生长性能的影响

RFI和FCR都是描述动物饲料转化效率的指标。FCR是养殖周期内饲粮采食量与体增重的比值[25],直接与饲料成本和养殖效益挂钩。RFI代表了动物的实际饲粮消耗与生长和维持需要之间的偏差[26]。本研究结果发现,公鸭和母鸭FCR与RFI均呈极显著强相关(r分别为0.75和0.81),且LRFI组FCR均极显著低于HRFI组,这与在其他畜禽上的研究结果[10,18,27-28]一致,表明对LRFI的选择可以显著提高肉鸭的饲料利用效率,降低饲料成本。
本研究发现,母鸭35日龄体重在HRFI组和LRFI组之间无显著差异,而公鸭LRFI组35日龄体重显著高于HRFI组,这与之前认为的RFI对个体终末体重没有显著影响的观点[7,18]不完全一致。张云生等[29]对北京鸭RFI连续5个世代的负向选择发现,公鸭35日龄体重持续增加,第5世代比第1世代增加了400 g,增幅比率达到10%,说明在对RFI的长期负向选择下,公鸭体重并非保持不变,而是有逐渐增加的趋势。与此相似,本试验中母鸭LRFI组15日龄体重和ADG均与HRFI组没有显著差异,而公鸭LRFI组15日龄体重和ADG均显著高于HRFI组,最终导致LRFI组35日龄体重显著高于HRFI组。在小体型肉鸭上的研究发现,公鸭ADFI和56日龄体重均高于母鸭,而FCR和RFI则低于母鸭[28],表明在生长过程中公鸭对饲粮的需求量更大,但同时也能更有效地利用饲粮。已有研究发现,特定基因表达水平与RFI显著相关[30-31],性别差异可能通过影响基因表达,进而导致公鸭和母鸭在生长性能上的不同表现。因此,对RFI影响的全面理解需要深入探究这些内在机制,以便更好地预测和管理RFI在家禽生产中的效应,同时考虑公鸭体重的选择,防止体重进展过快。

3.2 RFI对肉鸭屠宰性能的影响

屠宰性能是动物产肉性能的重要评价指标。本研究与在骡鸭[1]和猪[32]上的研究结果均发现,LRFI组腿肌率显著高于HRFI组。李琴等[33]对渝州白鹅的研究结果发现,LRFI组全净膛率和腿肌率显著高于HRFI组。唐红玉等[34]对绵羊的研究结果也发现,与HRFI组相比,LRFI组净肉率提高了7.13%。本研究结果显示,快大型肉鸭公鸭和母鸭的半净膛率和全净膛率在HRFI组和LRFI组之间差异均不显著,但LRFI组腿肌率和瘦肉率均极显著高于HRFI组。这些结果表明,RFI的负向选择对屠宰性能具有有益的影响。
腹脂是鸭体内脂肪沉积的主要部位[19]。对于肌肉发育和生长而言,脂肪被视为加工废物。脂肪沉积越多,浪费的饲粮及能量就越多,最终影响饲料效率[13,35]。本研究发现,公鸭和母鸭LRFI组腹脂率均极显著低于HRFI组,且腹脂率与RFI呈极显著正相关,这与在小体型肉鸭[28]以及肉鸡[36]上的研究结果相似。Nkrumah等[37]报道,当摄入相同的能量饲料时,LRFI个体表现为沉积更多的肌肉蛋白质以及更少的脂肪,这说明腹脂率与RFI的这种正相关性可能与脂肪组织代谢和能量消耗特性有关。有研究表明,脂类代谢是影响RFI的重要生物学因素[38]。Liu等[39]研究发现,与鸡RFI显著关联的基因显著富集于脂类代谢这一生物学过程,这进一步解释了脂类代谢是影响家禽RFI的重要因素。张云生等[29]对连续5个世代北京鸭RFI性状的负向选择,腹脂率降低了4.72%~19.61%,与此同时FCR下降了6.84%。这些结果说明对RFI的负向选择可以通过降低腹脂率减少饲粮浪费,从而提高饲料效率。

3.3 RFI对肉鸭内脏器官的影响

消化道系统的早期发育影响动物个体的生长和性能表现[19]。本研究发现,公鸭和母鸭LRFI组肌胃率显著或极显著高于HRFI组,且肌胃率与RFI呈极显著负相关,该结果表明饲料效率高的个体通常有较大的肌胃。较大的肌胃可能增强消化能力,提高养分肠道吸收率,刺激肌胃的发育可能通过更好的饲粮流量调节来改善小肠的功能[40]。同时,增加肠道长度可以改善营养物质吸收[41]。空肠是营养物质吸收的主要场所,前人研究表明蛋白质、脂肪和淀粉主要在空肠吸收[42-43],而水和矿物质主要在回肠吸收[40]。本研究发现,公鸭LRFI组十二指肠、空肠和回肠长度以及肠道总长度均长于HRFI组,其中空肠长度和肠道总长度在HRFI组和LRFI组之间均差异显著;而母鸭各肠道长度在HRFI组和LRFI组之间差异均不显著。有研究表明,不同性别的家禽在肠道微生物组成上存在差异,并与胃肠道的生长发育有关[44-45]。家禽肠道微生物在调节饲料效率方面起着重要作用[46],甚至通过调节脂肪代谢相关基因的表达从而影响个体的生长性能[47]。因此,肠道微生物可能是在不同RFI下肉鸭胃肠道发育甚至生长性能差异表现的重要因素。

4 结论

与HRFI快大型肉鸭相比,LRFI快大型肉鸭公鸭体重显著增加,而母鸭体重没有显著变化;LRFI快大型肉鸭公鸭和母鸭饲料效率均更高,腹脂沉积更少,同时屠宰性能和内脏器官部分指标甚至更优。这提示,对RFI的负向选择可以提高快大型肉鸭的饲料效率和屠宰性能,但需注意避免公鸭体重进展过快。

参考文献

原文顺序 | 文献年度倒序 | 文中引用次数倒序
[1]
DROUILHET L, BASSO B, BERNADET M D, et al. Improving residual feed intake of mule progeny of Muscovy ducks:genetic parameters and responses to selection with emphasis on carcass composition and fatty liver quality[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2014, 92(10):4287-4296.

[2]
易国强. 利用二代测序挖掘鸡拷贝数变异及影响饲料效率的候选基因[D]. 博士学位论文. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2015.

YI G Q. Exploring copy number variations and candidate genes affecting feed efficiency in chickens using second-generation sequencing[D]. Ph.D. Thesis. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2015. (in Chinese)

[3]
袁经纬. 蛋鸡采食量和饲料转化效率性状的遗传基础研究[D]. 博士学位论文. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2017.

YUAN J W. The genetics for feed intake and efficiency in laying periods of chicken[D]. Ph.D. Thesis. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2017. (in Chinese)

[4]
边蓓蕾, 郝金平, 杨方喜, 等. 北京鸭采食行为及其剩余采食量与部分经济性状的相关研究[J]. 中国家禽, 2014, 36(16):8-11.

BIAN B L, HAO J P, YANG F X, et al. Study on feeding behavior and the relationship between residual feed intake and some economic traits in Peking ducks[J]. China Poultry, 2014, 36(16):8-11. (in Chinese)

[5]
NKRUMAH J D, BASARAB J A, WANG Z, et al. Genetic and phenotypic relationships of feed intake and measures of efficiency with growth and carcass merit of beef cattle[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2007, 85(10):2711-2720.

PMID

[6]
BASSO B, BORDAS A, DUBOS F, et al. Feed efficiency in the laying duck:appropriate measurements and genetic parameters[J]. Poultry Science, 2012, 91(5):1065-1073.

[7]
ZHANG Y S, GUO Z B, XIE M, et al. Genetic parameters for residual feed intake in a random population of Pekin duck[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2017, 30(2):167-170.

DOI PMID

[8]
KOCH R M, SWIGER L A, CHAMBERS D, et al. Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1963, 22(2):486-494.

[9]
LANCASTER P A, CARSTENS G E, RIBEIRO F R B, et al. Characterization of feed efficiency traits and relationships with feeding behavior and ultrasound carcass traits in growing bulls[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2009, 87(4):1528-1539.

DOI PMID

[10]
ZHANG X X, LI G Z, LI F D, et al. Effect of feed efficiency on growth performance,body composition,and fat deposition in growing Hu lambs[J]. Animal Biotechnology, 2023, 34(2):183-198.

[11]
YOUNG J M, CAI W, DEKKERS J C M. Effect of selection for residual feed intake on feeding behavior and daily feed intake patterns in Yorkshire swine[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2011, 89(3):639-647.

DOI PMID

[12]
FAURE J, LEFAUCHEUR L, BONHOMME N, et al. Consequences of divergent selection for residual feed intake in pigs on muscle energy metabolism and meat quality[J]. Meat Science, 2013, 93(1):37-45.

[13]
GILBERT H, BILLON Y, BROSSARD L, et al. Review:divergent selection for residual feed intake in the growing pig[J]. Animal, 2017, 11(9):1427-1439.

[14]
MOLETTE C, GILBERT H, LARZUL C, et al. Direct and correlated responses to selection in two lines of rabbits selected for feed efficiency under ad libitum and restricted feeding:Ⅱ.Carcass and meat quality[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2016, 94(1):49-57.

[15]
XU Z Q, JI C L, ZHANG Y, et al. Combination analysis of genome-wide association and transcriptome sequencing of residual feed intake in quality chickens[J]. BMC Genomics, 2016,17:594.

[16]
LIU R R, LIU J, ZHAO G P, et al. Relevance of the intestinal health-related pathways to broiler residual feed intake revealed by duodenal transcriptome profiling[J]. Poultry Science, 2019, 98(3):1102-1110.

DOI PMID

[17]
WEN C L, YAN W, ZHENG J X, et al. Feed efficiency measures and their relationships with production and meat quality traits in slower growing broilers[J]. Poultry Science, 2018, 97(7):2356-2364.

DOI PMID

[18]
BAI H, GUO Q, YANG B, et al. Effects of residual feed intake divergence on growth performance,carcass traits,meat quality,and blood biochemical parameters in small-sized meat ducks[J]. Poultry Science, 2022, 101(9):101990.

[19]
ZHANG Y S, XU Y X, FAN W L, et al. Relationship between residual feed intake and production traits in a population of F2 ducks[J]. The Journal of Poultry Science, 2019, 56(1):27-31.

[20]
YIN H, ZHANG S, GILBERT E R, et al. Expression profiles of muscle genes in postnatal skeletal muscle in lines of chickens divergently selected for high and low body weight[J]. Poultry Science, 2014, 93(1):147-154.

DOI PMID

[21]
VELLEMAN S G, LIU X, NESTOR K E, et al. Heterogeneity in growth and differentiation characteristics in male and female satellite cells isolated from turkey lines with different growth rates[J]. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology:Part A, Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 2000, 125(4):503-509.

[22]
REHFELDT C, WALTHER K, ALBRECHT E, et al. Intrinsic properties of muscle satellite cells are changed in response to long-term selection of mice for different growth traits[J]. Cell and Tissue Research, 2002, 310(3):339-348.

PMID

[23]
AGGREY S E, KARNUAH A B, SEBASTIAN B, et al. Genetic properties of feed efficiency parameters in meat-type chickens[J]. Genetics Selection Evolution, 2010, 42(1):25.

[24]
中华人民共和国农业农村部. 家禽生产性能名词术语和度量计算方法:NY/T 823—2020[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2020.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. Performance terminology and measurements for poultry:NY/T 823—2020[S]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2020. (in Chinese)

[25]
TITUS H W, MEHRING A L, BRUMBAUGH J H. Variation of feed conversion[J]. Poultry Science, 1953, 32(6):1074-1077.

[26]
KENNEDY B W. VAN DER WERF J H, MEUWISSEN T H. Genetic and statistical properties of residual feed intake[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1993, 71(12):3239-3250.

DOI PMID

[27]
ZHANG X X, WANG W M, MO F T, et al. Association of residual feed intake with growth and slaughtering performance,blood metabolism,and body composition in growing lambs[J]. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7(1):12681.

[28]
郑艺婧, 吴双, 杨宝龙, 等. 小体型肉鸭剩余采食量与屠宰性能的相关性分析[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2023, 59(1):111-116.

ZHENG Y J, WU S, YANG B L, et al. Correlation analysis between residual feed intake and slaughter performance of small-sized meat ducks[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2023, 59(1):111-116. (in Chinese)

[29]
张云生, 郭占宝, 邢光楠, 等. 选择RFI性状5个世代对北京鸭生产性能的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2020, 56(10):33-35.

ZHANG Y S, GUO Z B, XING G N, et al. Effect of selection RFI traits for 5 generations on the production performance of Pekin duck[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 56(10):33-35. (in Chinese)

[30]
金四华, 杨磊, 童雨翠, 等. 肉鸭PRKAA1和PRKAA2基因表达水平及其与剩余采食量性状的相关性分析[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2018, 41(5):925-930.

JIN S H, YANG L, TONG Y C, et al. Expression levels of PRKAA1 and PRKAA2 genes in meat ducks and their correlation with residual feed intake traits[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 2018, 41(5):925-930. (in Chinese)

[31]
金四华, 范心凤, 杨磊, 等. 肉鸭APOA4基因表达水平与剩余采食量性状的相关性分析[J]. 安徽农业大学学报, 2018, 45(5):836-841.

JIN S H, FAN X F, YANG L, et al. Expression profiles of APOA4 mRNA and its association with residual feed intake in meat-type ducks[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural University, 2018, 45(5):836-841. (in Chinese)

[32]
LEFAUCHEUR L, LEBRET B, ECOLAN P, et al. Muscle characteristics and meat quality traits are affected by divergent selection on residual feed intake in pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2011, 89(4):996-1010.

DOI PMID

[33]
李琴, 王郁石, 赵献芝, 等. 不同剩余采食量渝州白鹅生长性能、屠宰性能及肉品质的比较研究[J]. 动物营养学报, 2024, 36(1):323-331.

DOI

LI Q, WANG Y S, ZHAO X Z, et al. Comparative analysis of growth performance,slaughter performance and meat quality of Yuzhou white geese with different residual feed intake[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024, 36(1):323-331. (in Chinese)

[34]
唐红玉, 李俊达, 何喜梦, 等. 剩余采食量对绵羊屠宰性能以及肉品质的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(4):2394-2405.

DOI

TANG H Y, LI J D, HE X M, et al. Effects of residual feed intake on slaughter performance and meat quality of sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(4):2394-2405. (in Chinese)

DOI

[35]
ZEREHDARAN S, VEREIJKEN A L J, VAN ARENDONK J A M, et al. Estimation of genetic parameters for fat deposition and carcass traits in broilers[J]. Poultry Science, 2004, 83(4):521-525.

PMID

[36]
ZHUO Z, LAMONT S J, LEE W R, et al. RNA-seq analysis of abdominal fat reveals differences between modern commercial broiler chickens with high and low feed efficiencies[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(8):e0135810.

[37]
NKRUMAH J D, BASARAB J A, PRICE M A, et al. Different measures of energetic efficiency and their phenotypic relationships with growth,feed intake,and ultrasound and carcass merit in hybrid cattle[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2004, 82(8):2451-2459.

[38]
LEE J, KARNUAH A B, REKAYA R, et al. Transcriptomic analysis to elucidate the molecular mechanisms that underlie feed efficiency in meat-type chickens[J]. Molecular Genetics and Genomics, 2015, 290(5):1673-1682.

DOI PMID

[39]
LIU J, LIU R R, WANG J, et al. Exploring genomic variants related to residual feed intake in local and commercial chickens by whole genomic resequencing[J]. Genes, 2018, 9(2):57.

[40]
SVIHUS B. Function of the digestive system[J]. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 2014, 23(2):306-314.

[41]
JACKSON S, DIAMOND J. Metabolic and digestive responses to artificial selection in chickens[J]. Evolution, 1996, 50(4):1638-1650.

DOI PMID

[42]
RIESENFELD G, SKLAN D, BAR A, et al. Glucose absorption and starch digestion in the intestine of the chicken[J]. Journal of Nutrition, 1980, 110(1):117-121.

PMID

[43]
SKLAN D, HURWITZ S. Protein digestion and absorption in young chicks and turkeys[J]. Journal of Nutrition, 1980, 110(1):139-144.

DOI PMID

[44]
崔磊. 不同性别鸡肠道菌群差异的比较研究[D]. 硕士学位论文. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2019.

CUI L. Comparitive study on the gut microbiota differences of chickens with different gender[D]. Master’s Thesis. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2019. (in Chinese)

[45]
陈雪霏. 不同性别农华麻鸭的肠道发育和微生物差异研究[D]. 硕士学位论文. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2022.

CHEN X F. The difference of intestinal development and microorganism between male and female Nonghua duck[D]. Master’s Thesis. Ya’an: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2022. (in Chinese)

[46]
WEN C L, YAN W, MAI C N, et al. Joint contributions of the gut microbiota and host genetics to feed efficiency in chickens[J]. Microbiome, 2021, 9(1):126.

DOI PMID

[47]
胡亚芳. 肠道微生物通过调节脂肪代谢影响鸡生长性能的机理研究[D]. 硕士学位论文. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2019.

HU Y F. Study on the mechanism of the gut microbiota affects growth performance in chickens by regulating fat metabolism[D]. Master’s Thesis. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2019. (in Chinese)

Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉

    联系我们

  • 地址：北京市海淀区圆明园西路2号
    　　　中国农业大学动科动医大楼153室
  • 邮编：100193
  • 电话：010－62817823
  • 网址：http://www.chinajan.com
  • E-mail：cjan@chinajan.com
京公网安备 11010802041926号    京ICP备17050989号-2