This experiment was conducted to evaluate the nutritional value of amino acids and energy of wheat by substitution method and direct force-feeding method for meat ducklings, and to study the differences between the two methods. Forty-eight 15-day-old ducklings were allotted to 4 treatments with 12 replicates and 1 duckling per replicate in a completely randomized design. The ducklings in treatments 1 to 3 were fed basal diet (basal diet group), 80% basal diet+20% wheat (substitution group) and 100% wheat (direct force-feeding group), respectively, and ducklings in the treatment 4 were hungry for detecting endogenous lost. The results showed as follows: 1) in dry matter of wheat, the crude protein content and total energy value were 16.09% and 18.56 MJ/kg, respectively; 2) except glutamic acid, proline and cystine,the amino acid availability assayed by the substitution method was higher than that assayed by the direct force-feeding method (P<0.01). The apparent availability of total amino acids were 86.59% and 82.42%, and the true availability of total amino acids were 92.36% and 90.80% assayed by the substitution method and direct force-feeding method, respectively; 3) there was no significant difference between the two methods in energy availability and metabolisable energy value (P>0.05). The energy apparent availability, energy true availability, apparent metabolisable energy value and true metabolisable energy value assayed by the substitution method were 77.51%, 86.23%, 14.38 and 16.00 MJ/kg, respectively, while the energy apparent availability, energy true availability, apparent metabolisable energy value and true metabolisable energy value assayed by the direct force-feeding method were 75.95%, 84.81%, 14.09 and 15.74 MJ/kg, respectively. There is no significant difference between substitution method and direct force-feeding method in metabolisable energy assay, however, the results of amino acid availability obtained by the substitution method are higher than those obtained by the direct force-feeding method, which indicates that suitable substitution ratio still need further study.
DU Yiting, GAO Qing, YANG Yufeng, FENG Guangde, WU Chenglin
. A Comparison of Substitution Method and Direct Force-Feeding Method for Evaluating Nutritional Value of Amino Acids and Energy of Wheat for Meat Ducklings[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2012
, 24(1)
: 104
-110
.
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2012.01.015
[1] 樊红平,侯水生,郑旭阳,等.鸡鸭对饲料能量利用的比较研究[J].单胃动物营养,2006,42(19):30-32.
[2] 樊红平,侯水生,温少辉,等.鸡鸭对饲料氨基酸利用的比较研究[J].动物营养学报,2006,18(4):237-243.
[3] SIBBALD I R.A bioassay for true metabolizable energy in feedingstuffs[J]. Poultry Science, 1976, 55(1):303-308.
[4] 李杰,李凌.家禽饲料代谢能的研究——Ⅴ. 日粮和小麦麸对鸡和水禽代谢能的比较[J].东北农业大学学报,1984,3:91-95.
[5] STOREY M L, ALLEN N K. The effect of fasting time of mature,non-laying female Embden geese on true metabolizable energy of corn[J]. Poultry Science, 1982, 61:101-106.
[6] 杨凤.动物营养学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,1999.
[7] 赵峰,张子仪.对家禽饲料代谢能值评定方法中若干误区的探讨[J].动物营养学报,2006,18(1):1-5.
[8] 李昂,郑腾,王宏,等.雏番鸭胰腺和肠道消化酶活性变化规律研究[J].中国畜牧杂志,2004,40(7):14-17.
[9] 安永义,周毓平,呙于明,等.0~3周肉仔鸡消化道酶发育规律的研究[J].动物营养学报,1999,11(1):17-24.
[10] 邓英.番鸭、绍兴鸭对几种常规饲料代谢能及氨基酸消化率的研究[D].硕士学位论文.长沙:湖南农业大学,2004.
[11] KING D,金光明.鸭饲料的表观和真代谢能值[J].国外畜牧学,1998,5:28-30.
[12] 宋代军,王康宁,曾静康,等.肉鸭肉鸡常用植物饲料TME的比较研究[J].西南农业大学学报,2000,22(2):134-136.
[13] 樊红平,侯水生,郑旭阳,等.鸡鸭对饲料能量利用的比较研究[J].中国畜牧杂志,2006,42(19):30-32.
[14] 张春雷,侯水生,刘福柱,等.影响家禽饲料代谢能的因素[J].饲料工业,2003,24(8):11-13.
[15] FARRELL D J. Rapid determination of metabolisable energy of foods using cockerels[J]. British Poultry Science, 1978, 19:303-308.
