Differences in Small Intestinal Morphology and Digestive Enzyme Activities of Different Breed Lambs

LIU Ming; ZHAO Xingang; ZHANG Can; ZHANG Hao; LUO Hailing

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.11.037

Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2020 , Vol. 32 >Issue 11: 5322 - 5330

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.11.037

Differences in Small Intestinal Morphology and Digestive Enzyme Activities of Different Breed Lambs

LIU Ming ,
ZHAO Xingang ,
ZHANG Can ,
ZHANG Hao ,
LUO Hailing

Expand

1. State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China;
2. College of Food Science & Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China

Received date: 2020-04-01

Online published: 2020-11-16

Fold

Abstract

This study was to explore the differences in small intestinal morphology and enzyme activities of different breed lambs under the same feeding condition. Three-month-old Dorper lambs [(37.90±2.82) kg], Hu lambs [(19.20±2.94) kg] and Tan lambs [(20.67±2.39) kg] were selected as research objects. Each 14 lambs of three breeds with similar health status were selected for 15 days pre-feeding period and single pen feeding for 90 days. The results showed that the body weight and daily gain of different stages, and dry matter intake of Dorper lambs were significantly higher than those of Hu lambs and Tan lambs (P<0.05), but the differences were not significant between Hu lambs and Tan lambs (P>0.05). At the beginning of the experiment (days 1 to 3), the apparent digestibility of dry matter, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber of Dorper lambs was significantly higher than that of Hu lambs (P<0.05), and the crude protein apparent digestibility of Dorper lambs was significantly higher than that of Hu lambs and Tan lambs (P<0.05). At the end of the experiment (days 88 to 90), the crude protein apparent digestibility of Dorper lambs was significantly higher than that of Hu lambs and Tan lambs (P<0.05). The duodenal muscle layer thickness of Dorper lambs and Hu lambs was significantly higher than that of Tan lambs (P<0.05); the ileal villus height/crypt depth of Dorper lambs was significantly higher than that of Hu lambs and Tan lambs (P<0.05), and the ileal muscle layer thickness of Dorper lambs was significantly higher than that of Tan lambs (P<0.05). The amylase activity of dorper lambs and Hu lambs in jejunum was significantly higher than that of Tan lambs (P<0.05); the lipase activity of Dorper lambs in duodenum was significantly higher than that of Tan lambs (P<0.05), and the lipase activity of Dorper lambs and Tan lambs in jejunum and ileum was significantly higher than that of Tan lambs (P<0.05); the Dorper lambs had the lowest trypsin activity in duodenum and the highest trypsin activity in ileum, and the differences of them were significant compared with Hu lambs and Tan lambs (P<0.05), the trypsin activity in ileum of Hu lambs was significantly higher than that of Dorper lambs (P<0.05); in duodenum and ileum, the chymotrypsin activity of Hu lambs was significantly higher than that of Tan lambs (P<0.05), the chymotrypsin activity in duodenum of Dorper lambs was significantly lower than that of Hu lambs (P<0.05), the chymotrypsin activity in ileum of Dorper lambs was significantly higher than that of Tan lambs (P<0.05). In summary, the dry matter intake and nutrient apparent digestibility of Dorper lambs is higher, the small intestine morphology of Dorper lambs is better, and the activities of amylase and lipase in small intestine of Dorper lambs are higher than those of Hu lambs and Tan lambs, so that Dorper lambs show greater growth performance.

Key words： lambs; breed; growth performance; digestibility; small intestinal morphology; digestive enzyme

Cite this article

LIU Ming , ZHAO Xingang , ZHANG Can , ZHANG Hao , LUO Hailing . Differences in Small Intestinal Morphology and Digestive Enzyme Activities of Different Breed Lambs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020 , 32(11) : 5322 -5330 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.11.037

References

[1] 王雪娇.中国肉羊生产的经济效率研究[D].博士学位论文.北京:中国农业大学,2018.
[2] 姚巧粉,吴金亮,高新,等.精准营养技术在我国肉羊生产中的应用[J].饲料与畜牧,2015(4):14-17.
[3] 赵金宇,陈学娟,张鑫荣,等.宁夏白滩羊与黑滩羊的种质特性及生产性能的研究[J].黑龙江畜牧兽医,2010(5):58-59.
[4] 王玉琴,田志龙,施会彬,等.湖羊肌肉营养特点及肌纤维组织学特性[J].动物营养学报,2017,29(8):2867-2874.
[5] SCHOEMAN S J.A comparative assessment of Dorper sheep in different production environments and systems[J].Small Ruminant Research,2000,36(2):137-146.

[6] 徐凤霞,刘美,李兵.AIA法测定小尾寒羊对花生秧及玉米面的消化率的研究[J].饲料博览,2004(3):33-34.
[7] BURKE J M,APPLE J K.Growth performance and carcass traits of forage-fed hair sheep wethers[J].Small Ruminant Research,2007,67(2/3):264-270.
[8] 李晖,贺宋文.湘西地区努本杂山羊生长情况调查研究[J].畜牧兽医科技信息,2010(3):39-40.
[9] 廖信军,常洪,孙伟,等.利用微卫星标记对六个羊群体性的研究[J].家畜生态学报,2006,27(2):13-18.
[10] HUNT C W,PATERSON J A,WILLIAMS J E.Intake and digestibility of alfalfa-tall fescue combination diets fed to lambs[J].Journal of Animal Science,1985,60(1):301-306.

[11] SILVA A M A,SOBRINHO A G S,TRINDADE I A C M,et al.Food intake and digestive efficiency in temperate wool and tropic semi-arid hair lambs fed different concentrate:forage ratio diets[J].Small Ruminant Research,2004,55(1/2/3):107-115.
[12] WILDEUS S,TURNER K E,COLLINS J R.Growth,intake,diet digestibility,and nitrogen use in three hair sheep breeds fed alfalfa hay[J].Small Ruminant Research,2007,69(1/2/3):221-227.
[13] 刘莹莹,肖兵南,田科雄,等.安格斯杂交肉牛放牧采食量及营养物质消化率的测定[J].畜牧与饲料科学,2008,29(5):7-9.
[14] TILAHUN M,KEFELEGN K,ABEBE G,et al.Feed intake,digestibility,weight gain,and slaughter characteristics influenced by genetic percentage of Boer in goats and Dorper in sheep in the central highlands of Ethiopia[J].Tropical Animal Health and Production,2014,46(4):593-602.

[15] LI H Z,RAN T,HE Z X,et al.Postnatal developmental changes of the small intestinal villus height,crypt depth and hexose transporter mRNA expression in supplemental feeding and grazing goats[J].Small Ruminant Research,2016,141:106-112.
[16] MONTAGNE L,SALGADO P,TOULLEC R,et al.Enzymes of the small intestine of the calf:effect of dietary protein source on the activities of some enzymes in the small intestinal mucosa and digesta[J].Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,2002,82(15):1772-1779.

[17] 刘学良,罗海玲,陈勇,等.限时放牧对滩羊消化道发育的影响[J].中国畜牧兽医,2013,40(11):97-101.
[18] 王宝山.日粮类型对小尾寒羊小肠各段消化酶活性影响的研究[D].硕士学位论文.保定:河北农业大学,2003.
[19] 张英杰,刘月琴,冯仰廉.日粮对肉牛小肠pH值及胰蛋白酶活性的影响[J].中国草食动物科学,2000,2(1):8-9.
[20] 孙娟.育肥方式对呼伦贝尔及呼杜杂交羔羊消化道组织形态及酶活的影响[D].硕士学位论文.呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2014.
[21] KREIKEMEIER K K,HARMON D L,PETERS J P,et al.Influence of dietary forage and feed intake on carbohydrase activities and small intestinal morphology of calves[J].Journal of Animal Science,1990,68(9):2916-2929.

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References