A Comparison on Metabolizable Energy of Leymus chinensis in Mutton Sheep Determined by Direct and Substitution Methods

ZHAO Mingming; YANG Kailun; DENG Kaidong; ZHAO Jiangbo; XIAO Yi; MA Tao; DIAO Qiyu

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2016.02.017

2016 , Vol. 28 >Issue 2: 436 - 443

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2016.02.017

RUMINANT NUTRITION

A Comparison on Metabolizable Energy of Leymus chinensis in Mutton Sheep Determined by Direct and Substitution Methods

ZHAO Mingming ,
YANG Kailun ,
DENG Kaidong ,
ZHAO Jiangbo ,
XIAO Yi ,
MA Tao ,
DIAO Qiyu

Expand

1. College of Animal Science, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumchi 830052, China;
2. Key Laboratory of Feed Biotechnology of the Ministry of Agriculture, Feed Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China;
3. College of Animal Science, Jinling Institute of Technology, Nanjing 210038, China

Received date: 2015-08-20

Online published: 2016-02-19

Fold

Abstract

This study aimed to compare metabolizable energy (ME) of Leymus chinensis in mutton sheep determined by direct and substitution methods. Thirty crossbreed rams weighted about 45.0 kg were used and divided into 5 treatments with 6 replicates per treatment and 1 sheep per replicate according to a randomized block design. The diets in different treatments were as follows:full Leymus chinensis diet for direct method, and a basal diet (forage:concentrate ratio was 1:1) and three experimental diets (the basal diet was replaced by Leymus chinensis at 60%, 40% and 20%) for substitution method. Diets were fed twice at 08:00 and 18:00 (600 g at each time point). Each experiment period lasted for 19 d including 10 d of pretest period and 9 d of test period. The results showed as follows:the apparent digestibility of dry matter, organic matter, gross energy and crude protein of showed that basal diet group> 20% group> 40% group> 60% group>full Leymus chinensis diet group, and significant differences were found among groups (P<0.05). The digestible energy (DE) and ME showed that basal diet group> 20% group> 40% group> 60% group> full Leymus chinensis diet group, and significant differences were found among groups (P<0.05). DM:ME had no significant difference among treatments (P>0.05). The apparent digestibility of crude protein and neutral detergent fiber had no difference between direct and substitutions methods. The apparent digestibility of dry matter, organic matter, and gross energy of Leymus chinensis in full Leymus chinensis diet group measured with direct method was significantly higher than those in 40% group (P<0.05), but had no significant difference with 20% group and 40% group (P>0.05). The DE and ME in full Leymus chinensis diet group were significantly higher than those in 60% group (P<0.05), and had no significant difference with 40% group and 20% group (P>0.05). In determination of ME of Leymus chinensis using direct and substitution methods, a significant difference is observed when the substitution proportion is different. The optimal substitution proportion is 20% when using substitution method to measure ME.

Key words： direct method; substitution method; metabolizable energy estimation; mutton sheep; Leymus chinensis

Cite this article

ZHAO Mingming , YANG Kailun , DENG Kaidong , ZHAO Jiangbo , XIAO Yi , MA Tao , DIAO Qiyu . A Comparison on Metabolizable Energy of Leymus chinensis in Mutton Sheep Determined by Direct and Substitution Methods[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2016 , 28(2) : 436 -443 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2016.02.017

References

[1] 蔡建森,刁其玉.舍饲肉羊的营养需要量[C]//2006中国羊业进展--第三届中国羊业发展大会论文集.兰州:第三届中国羊业发展大会,2006:255-259.
[2] 李婷婷.玉米DDGS营养价值预测模型研究[D].硕士学位论文.北京:中国农业科学院,2013.
[3] VILLAMIDE M J.Methods of energy evaluation of feed ingredients for rabbits and their accuracy[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,1996,57(3):211-223.

[4] SIBBALD I R. A bioassay for true metabolisable energy in feedingstuffs[J].Poultry Science,1976,55(1):303-308.

[5] FARRELLD J.Rapid determination of metabolisable energy of foods using cockerels[J]. British Poultry Science,1978,19(3):303-308.

[6] 常娟,尹清强,姜义宝,等.生物秸秆对肉鸡表观代谢能的影响及替代玉米适宜比例的研究[J].动物营养学报,2012,24(8):1557-1563.
[7] 刘德稳.生长猪常用七种饲料原料净能预测方程[D].博士学位论文.北京:中国农业大学,2014.
[8] 朱良.棉籽粕饲料猪DE评定及化学估测模型的研究[D].硕士学位论文.长沙:湖南农业大学,2011.
[9] NRC.Nutrient requirements of small ruminants:sheep,goats,cervids and new world camelids[S].Washington,D.C.:National Academy Press,2007.
[10] 张丽英.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].北京:中国农业大学出版社,2010.
[11] 杨嘉实,冯仰廉.畜禽能量代谢[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2004.
[12] ADEOLA O.Digestion and balance techniques in pigs[M]//LEWIS A J,SOUTHERN L L.Swine nutrition.2nd ed.Washington,D.C.:CRC Press,2001:903-916.
[13] 陶春卫.反刍动物常用粗饲料营养价值评定及其有效能值预测模型的建立[D].硕士学位论文.大庆:黑龙江八一农垦大学,2009.
[14] 刘洁.肉用绵羊饲料代谢能与代谢蛋白质预测模型的研究[D].博士学位论文.北京:中国农业科学院,2012.
[15] MCGEOUGH E J,O'KIELY P,HART K J,et al.Methane emissions feed intake performance digestibility and rumen fermentation of finishing beef cattle offered whole-crop wheat silages differing in grain content[J].Journal of Animal Science,2010,88(8):2703-2716.

[16] ECKARD R J,GRAINGER C,DEKLEIN C A M.Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production:a review[J].Livestock Science,2010,130(1/2/3):47-56.
[17] TAMMINGA S.Nutrition management of dairy cows as a contribution to pollution control[J].Journal of Dairy Science,1992,75(1):345-357.

[18] 赵一广.肉用绵羊甲烷排放的测定与估测模型的建立[D].硕士学位论文.北京:中国农业科学院,2012.
[19] 张立涛.25-50 kg杜寒杂交F1代肉用绵羊日粮NDF适宜水平的研究[D].硕士学位论文.北京:中国农业科学院,2013.
[20] VALDÉS C,CARRO M D,RANILLA M J,et al.Effect of forage to concentrate ratio complete diets offered to sheep on voluntary food intake and some digestive parameters[J].Animal Science,2000,70(1):119-126.
[21] HILL F W,ANDERSON D L.Comparison of metabolizable energy and productive energy determinations with growing chicks[J].The Journal of Nutrition,1958,64(4):587-603.
[22] BOLARINWA O A,ADEOLA O.Direct and regression methods do not give different estimates of digestible and metabolizable energy of wheat for pigs[J].Journal of Animal Science,2012,90(Suppl.4):390-392.
[23] 聂大娃.不同地区玉米肉仔鸡代谢能研究[D].硕士学位论文.北京:中国农业科学院,2008.
[24] AMMAR H,LÓPEZ S,GONZÁLEZ J S,et al.Seasonal variations in the chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of some Spanish leguminous shrub species[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2004,115(3/4):327-340.
[25] 姜芳.反刍动物常用饲料原料的营养价值评定及其变异度分析[D].硕士学位论文.杭州:浙江大学,2009.
[26] 邹彩霞,杨炳壮,罗荣太,等.应用体外产气法评定广西区内3种臂形草和2种坚尼草的营养价值[J].饲料工业,2011,32(19):45-48.
[27] 靳玲品.反刍动物常用粗饲料营养价值评定方法的比较研究[D].硕士学位论文.北京:中国农业科学院,2013.

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References