Comparison of Different Methods for Determining Apparent Digestibility of Nutrients in Diets of Dezhou Donkeys

YANG Quan; WANG Yun; ZHANG Chen; ZHANG Guiguo; ZHANG Chongyu

doi:10.12418/CJAN2023.415

Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2023 , Vol. 35 >Issue 7: 4465 - 4474

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2023.415

RESEARCH PAPER

Comparison of Different Methods for Determining Apparent Digestibility of Nutrients in Diets of Dezhou Donkeys

YANG Quan ,
WANG Yun ,
ZHANG Chen ,
ZHANG Guiguo ^,^** ,
ZHANG Chongyu ^,^**

Expand

Key Laboratory of Efficient Utilization of Non-Grain Feed Resources of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Jointly Built by the Ministry and the Province, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Bioengineering and Disease Prevention, School of Animal Science and Technology, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, China

^** ZHANG Guiguo, professor, E-mail: Zhangg@sdau.edu.cn;

ZHANG Chongyu, associate professor, E-mail: 17225122@163.com

^*Contributed equally

Received date: 2022-12-12

Online published: 2023-07-11

Fold

Abstract

The purpose of this experiment was to compare the different methods for determining apparent digestibility of nutrients in the diet of Dezhou donkeys. In the experiment, twelve 9-month-old Dezhou donkeys weighing about (128.5±5.0) kg were randomly divided into 3 treatments with 4 donkeys in each treatment. Three kinds of granular diets were fed separately, namely, single forage alfalfa granules, high roughage total mixed granular diet (TMR-1) containing 60% roughage and low roughage total mixed granular diet (TMR-2) containing 30% roughage. Each diet was independently digested by total fecal collection method, acid detergent lignin (ADL) method and hydrochloric acid insoluble ash (AIA) method. The digestion test lasted for 16 days, including 10 days for the preliminary test and 6 days for the formal test. The Dezhou donkey was raised in a single metabolic cage. The full fecal collection method was on duty 24 hours during the formal test. The feces were collected as they were discharged. The fecal excretion and feed intake were accurately recorded at 08:00 every day; during the formal test, ADL method and AIA method took fresh fecal samples three times a day, about 100 g each time. The ADL method, AIA method and total fecal collection method were used to determine the apparent digestibility of nutrients in the diet of Dezhou donkeys. The results showed as follows: 1) the digestible energy (DE) and the apparent digestibility of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), crude fiber (CF), nitrogen-free extract (NFE), carbohydrate (CHO), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), hemicellulose (HCEL) and cellulose (CEL) in the same diet determined by the total fecal collection method and ADL method were basically the same, the differences were not significant (P>0.05); the DE and the apparent digestibility of DM, OM, CP, EE, CF, NFE, CHO, NDF, ADF, HCEL and CEL in the same diet determined by AIA method were significantly higher than those determined by total fecal collection method (P<0.05). 2) When the same method (ADL method) was used to determine the digestibility of different roughage level diets, the DE and the apparent digestibility of DM, OM, CP, EE, NFE and CHO in the TMR-2 was significantly higher than those in the TMR-1 and alfalfa granule (P<0.05). To sum up, ADL method can be used as an ideal endogenous indicator to determine the apparent digestibility of nutrients in the diet of Dezhou donkeys; the DE and the apparent digestibility of DM, OM, CP, EE, NFE and CHO in the diet of Dezhou donkeys decrease gradually with the increase of the roughage level in the granular diet.

Key words： total fecal collection method; ADL method; AIA method; Dezhou donkeys; digestibility

Cite this article

YANG Quan , WANG Yun , ZHANG Chen , ZHANG Guiguo , ZHANG Chongyu . Comparison of Different Methods for Determining Apparent Digestibility of Nutrients in Diets of Dezhou Donkeys[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023 , 35(7) : 4465 -4474 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2023.415

德州驴以其耐粗饲、体型高大和屠宰率高而闻名^[1]。营养物质消化率是衡量饲料可消化性和动物消化能力的综合指标,测定营养物质表观消化率对优化和调整德州驴饲料配方具有重要意义^[2-3]。前人研究发现,采食消化能(DE)水平为11.90 MJ/kg饲粮的德州驴,其干物质(DM)、有机物(OM)和碳水化合物(CHO)的表观消化率显著高于采食DE水平为11.03 MJ/kg饲粮的德州驴^[4]。杨泉等^[5]给德州驴采食3种能量水平的全混合日粮(TMR),研究发现高能组德州驴对DM、OM、无氮浸出物(NFE)、CHO和中性可溶性碳水化合物(NDSC)的表观消化率均显著高于中能组和低能组。目前用于测定营养物质表观消化率的方法主要有全收粪法和指示剂法。全收粪法需要准确记录试验动物的采食量和排粪量,需要耗费大量的人力、物力,不便推广应用^[6]。指示剂法与全收粪法相比减少了全部收集动物粪便带来的繁琐^[7]。其中,外源指示剂需要提前均匀掺入饲粮中^[3],这对于食草动物很困难。对于草食动物,最好的方法是找到一种理想的内源指示剂。常用的内源指示剂有酸性洗涤木质素(ADL)和盐酸不溶灰分(AIA)等^[8]。AIA作为内源指示剂在鸡、猪等不易受到食槽和地面上杂质影响的动物上有较好的利用效果^[9]。研究显示,AIA作为内源指示剂在草食动物中测定饲粮中营养物质表观消化率时存在误差偏高的问题^[10⇓-12],而ADL作为内源指示剂测定山羊饲粮中营养物质的表观消化率所得结果较准确^[13]。本试验旨在对德州驴饲粮中营养物质表观消化率的不同测定方法进行比较,以期寻求理想的内源指示剂法代替全收粪法,为测定德州驴饲粮中营养物质的表观消化率提供一种准确、快速的方法。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验设计和试验饲粮

试验选用体重(128.5±5.0) kg左右的9月龄德州驴公驴12头,随机分为3个处理,(每个处理4头驴),分别饲喂单一饲草苜蓿颗粒、含60%粗料的高粗料全混合日粮颗粒(TMR-1)和含30%粗料的低粗料全混合日粮颗粒(TMR-2)这3种颗粒型饲粮。试验饲粮组成及营养水平见表1。每种饲粮均独立的利用全收粪法、ADL法和AIA法进行消化试验。消化试验共16 d,其中预试期10 d,正试期6 d。试验驴采用室内单栏饲养,试验期间自由采食和饮水。

表1 试验饲粮组成及营养水平(风干基础)

Table 1 Composition and nutrient levels of experimental diets (air-dry basis) %

项目 Items	含量Content
项目 Items	苜蓿颗粒Alfalfa granules	TMR-1	TMR-2
原料Ingredients
玉米Corn		7.30	34.55
麸皮Wheat bran		6.00	6.00
次粉Wheat middlings		8.00	8.00
米糠粕Rice bran meal		6.00	6.00
豆粕Soybean meal		11.00	13.00
稻壳粉Rice husk		10.00	5.00
花生秧Peanut vine		25.00	12.50
苜蓿Alfalfa	100.00	25.00	12.50
蛋氨酸Met		0.10	0.10
赖氨酸Lys		0.20	0.20
碳酸氢钠NaHCO₃		0.30	0.30
磷酸氢钙CaHPO₄		0.15	0.15
石粉Limestone		0.20	0.95
食盐NaCl		0.30	0.30
预混料Premix¹⁾		0.45	0.45
合计Total	100.00	100.00	100.00
营养水平Nutrient levels²⁾
消化能DE/(MJ/kg)	9.36	10.13	12.23
粗蛋白质CP	16.68	15.08	13.76
粗纤维CF	23.31	21.00	11.98
粗脂肪EE	1.89	1.91	2.92
酸性洗涤纤维ADF	26.72	26.69	14.49
中性洗涤纤维NDF	38.21	38.46	27.18
酸性洗涤木质素ADL	5.78	5.46	3.22
半纤维素HCEL	11.49	11.77	12.69
纤维素CEL	17.26	17.59	9.66
钙Ca	0.79	0.75	0.74
磷P	0.45	0.44	0.44

	1)预混料为每千克饲粮提供 Premix provided the following per kg of diets:VA 8 000 IU,VD₃ 2 400 IU,VE 30 mg,VK 3 mg,VB₁ 3 mg,VB₂ 8 mg,VB₃ 10.8 mg,VB₅ 34 mg,VB₆ 4 mg,VB₇ 0.13 mg,VB₉ 1.4 mg,VB₁₂ 0.02 mg,Cu 8.3 mg,Fe 60 mg,Zn 70 mg,Mn 62 mg,Se 0.25 mg,I 0.5 mg。
	2)消化能(MJ/kg)=可消化粗蛋白质(kg)×23.64 MJ/kg+可消化粗脂肪(kg)×39.54 MJ/kg+可消化碳水化合物(kg)×17.5 MJ/kg,公式中系数为各自的热价^[13]。其他营养水平为实测值。DE(MJ/kg)=DCP(kg)×23.64 MJ/kg+DEE(kg)×39.54 MJ/kg+DCHO(kg)×17.5 MJ/kg, the coefficients in the formulas were the respective heat values. The other nutrient levels were measured values.

全收粪法、ADL法和AIA法消化试验同期进行。消化试验结束后,利用ADL法、AIA法和全收粪法测定德州驴饲粮中营养物质表观消化率。

1.2 饲养管理

德州驴饲养在单体代谢笼内,自由采食和饮水,每天08:00称取剩料重和排粪重,根据饲喂量和剩料量计算其采食量,记作前1天的采食量和排粪量。试验期间按常规免疫程序驱虫和消毒。

1.3 样品采集

1.3.1 全收粪法样品采集

全收粪法在正试期内24 h值班,粪便随排随收,于每天08:00记录采食量和排粪量。将每日收集的新鲜粪样混合均匀后取10%,分成2份,一份每100 g鲜粪加10%的硫酸溶液10 mL封闭保存,用于粪样中粗蛋白质含量的测定;另一份65 ℃烘干制成风干样品,用于其他营养成分含量的测定^[14]。分别在正试期采集每个处理的颗粒料300 g,粉碎过筛后保存待测。

1.3.2 ADL法与AIA法样品采集

在正试期内每天取3次新鲜粪便,每次约100 g,置于冰箱中^[15]。然后将6 d取得的粪样以动物为单位混合在一起拌匀,分成2份,一份每100 g鲜粪加10%的硫酸溶液10 mL封闭保存,用于粪样中粗蛋白质含量的测定;另一份65 ℃烘干制成风干样品,用于ADL、AIA和其他营养成分含量的测定^[14]。饲粮样品采集与处理与全收粪法相同。

1.4 指标测定与计算方法

饲粮和粪便样品中的水分、CP、EE、粗灰分(Ash)和AIA含量的测定采用对应的国家标准方法^{[16⇓⇓⇓-20]},粗纤维(CF)、ADF和NDF含量均采用聚酯网袋法^[21]进行测定。OM、CHO、NFE、半纤维素(HCEL)和纤维素(CEL)按照如下公式计算得出:

OM=DM-Ash;

CHO=OM-CP-EE;

NFE=OM-CP-EE-CF;

HCEL=NDF-ADF;

CEL=ADF-经硫酸处理后的残渣。

利用全收粪法计算饲粮中营养物质表观消化率的公式如下:

饲粮中某营养物质的表观消化率(%)=
[(饲粮中该营养物质含量×采食量-粪样中该
营养物质含量×排粪量)/(饲粮中该营养物质
含量×采食量)]×100。

利用指示剂法计算饲粮中营养物质表观消化率的公式如下:

饲粮中某营养物质的表观消化率(%)=100-
[(粪样中该营养物质含量/饲粮中该营养物质
含量)×(饲粮中指示剂含量/粪样中
指示剂含量)]×100。

DE按照如下公式计算:

DE(MJ/kg)=DCP(kg)×23.54 MJ/kg+DEE(kg)×
39.33 MJ/kg+DCHO(kg)×17.36 MJ/kg。

式中:DCP、DEE和DCHO分别为可消化粗蛋白质、可消化粗脂肪和可消化碳水化合物,公式中系数为各自的热价^[13]。

1.5 统计分析

试验数据采用Excel 2016进行整理和分析,试验结果用平均值和均值标准误表示,采用SAS 9.4统计软件中的ANOVA过程进行单因素方差分析,采用Duncan氏法进行多重比较,P<0.05为差异显著。

2 结果与分析

2.1 苜蓿颗粒中营养物质表观消化率不同测定方法的比较

由表2可知,ADL法与全收粪法测得的苜蓿颗粒中各营养物质的表观消化率以及DE基本一致,均差异不显著(P>0.05);AIA法测得的苜蓿颗粒中各营养物质的表观消化率以及DE均显著高于全收粪法与ADL法(P<0.05)。

表2 苜蓿颗粒中营养物质表观消化率不同测定方法的比较

Table 2 Comparison of different determination methods for apparent digestibility of nutrients in alfalfa granules

项目 Items	ADL法 ADL method	AIA法 AIA method	全收粪法 Total fecal collection method	均值标准误 SEM	P值 P-value
消化能DE/(MJ/kg)	9.59^b	10.82^a	9.36^b	0.204	0.027
表观消化率Apparent digestibility/%
干物质DM	56.42^b	66.46^a	54.50^b	1.627	0.021
有机物OM	63.23^b	71.63^a	61.66^b	1.383	0.026
粗蛋白质CP	75.60^b	81.13^a	74.56^b	0.950	0.042
粗脂肪EE	55.51^b	65.61^a	53.62^b	1.729	0.040
粗纤维CF	36.40^b	51.06^a	33.61^b	2.340	0.017
无氮浸出物NFE	71.71^b	78.13^a	70.52^b	1.090	0.038
碳水化合物CHO	60.01^b	69.16^a	58.29^b	1.497	0.024
中性洗涤纤维NDF	35.85^b	50.57^a	33.04^b	2.409	0.024
酸性洗涤纤维ADF	23.63^b	41.09^a	20.36^b	2.860	0.024
半纤维素HCEL	64.27^b	72.63^a	62.56^b	1.436	0.038
纤维素CEL	43.63^b	56.29^a	41.36^b	2.218	0.045

	同行数据肩标无字母或相同字母表示差异不显著(P>0.05),不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。下表同。
	In the same row, values with no letter or the same letter superscripts mean no significant difference (P>0.05), while with different small letter superscripts mean significant difference (P<0.05). The same as below.

2.2 TMR-1中营养物质表观消化率不同测定方法的比较

由表3可知,ADL法与全收粪法测得的TMR-1中各营养物质的表观消化率以及DE基本一致,均差异不显著(P>0.05);AIA法测得的TMR-1中各营养物质的表观消化率以及DE均显著高于全收粪法(P<0.05);AIA法测得的TMR-1中DM、OM、CP、EE、CF、CHO、NDF、ADF和CEL的表观消化率以及DE显著高于ADL法(P<0.05)。

表3 TMR-1中营养物质表观消化率不同测定方法的比较

Table 3 Comparison of different determination methods for apparent digestibility of nutrients in TMR-1

项目 Items	ADL法 ADL method	AIA法 AIA method	全收粪法 Total fecal collection method	均值标准误 SEM	P值 P-value
消化能DE/(MJ/kg)	10.22^b	10.79^a	10.13^b	0.111	0.031
表观消化率Apparent digestibility/%
干物质DM	61.94^b	66.52^a	61.43^b	0.781	0.005
有机物OM	67.41^b	71.27^a	66.79^b	0.752	0.033
粗蛋白质CP	79.55^b	81.98^a	79.01^b	0.489	0.041
粗脂肪EE	61.46^b	66.06^a	60.50^b	0.926	0.042
粗纤维CF	35.21^b	42.95^a	34.36^b	1.380	0.012
无氮浸出物NFE	77.06^ab	79.74^a	76.52^b	0.611	0.035
碳水化合物CHO	64.62^b	68.81^a	63.99^b	0.823	0.038
中性洗涤纤维NDF	40.35^b	47.51^a	39.35^b	1.249	0.008
酸性洗涤纤维ADF	31.32^b	39.60^a	30.85^b	1.381	0.004
半纤维素HCEL	60.84^ab	65.44^a	58.63^b	1.122	0.031
纤维素CEL	45.15^b	51.71^a	44.67^b	1.152	0.011

2.3 TMR-2中营养物质表观消化率不同测定方法的比较

由表4可知,ADL法与全收粪法测得的TMR-2中各营养物质的表观消化率以及DE基本一致,均差异不显著(P>0.05);AIA法测得的TMR-2中各营养物质的表观消化率以及DE均显著高于全收粪法与ADL法(P<0.05)。

表4 TMR-2中营养物质表观消化率不同测定方法的比较

Table 4 Comparison of different determination methods for apparent digestibility of nutrients in TMR-2

项目 Items	ADL法 ADL method	AIA法 AIA method	全收粪法 Total fecal collection method	均值标准误 SEM	P值 P-value
消化能DE/(MJ/kg)	12.37^b	13.35^a	12.23^b	0.121	<0.001
表观消化率Apparent digestibility/%
干物质DM	73.47^b	81.28^a	72.32^b	0.965	<0.001
有机物OM	78.61^b	84.91^a	77.69^b	0.777	<0.001
粗蛋白质CP	82.43^b	87.57^a	81.64^b	0.658	0.001
粗脂肪EE	76.62^b	83.55^a	75.66^b	0.881	0.002
粗纤维CF	29.57^b	50.17^a	26.41^b	2.623	0.001
无氮浸出物NFE	87.72^b	91.37^a	87.22^b	0.448	<0.001
碳水化合物CHO	77.90^b	84.41^a	76.95^b	0.801	<0.001
中性洗涤纤维NDF	45.99^b	61.88^a	43.68^b	1.957	<0.001
酸性洗涤纤维ADF	19.52^b	43.18^a	16.06^b	2.918	<0.001
半纤维素HCEL	76.21^b	83.23^a	75.19^b	0.862	<0.001
纤维素CEL	34.77^b	53.71^a	31.91^b	2.517	0.008

2.4 基于ADL法测定饲粮不同粗料水平对营养物质表观消化率的影响

由表5可知,德州驴采食苜蓿颗粒、TMR-1和TMR-2这3种粗料水平饲粮时,低粗料水平的TMR-2对DE以及DM、OM、CP、EE、NFE和CHO的表观消化率均显著高于高粗料水平的TMR-1和苜蓿颗粒(P<0.05),同时TMR-1显著高于苜蓿颗粒(P<0.05)。

表5 基于ADL法测定饲粮不同粗料水平对营养物质表观消化率的影响

Table 5 Effects of diets with different roughage levels on apparent digestibility of nutrients based on ADL method

项目 Items	不同粗料水平饲粮Diets with different roughage levels			均值标准误 SEM	P值 P-value
项目 Items	苜蓿颗粒 Alfalfa granules	TMR-1	TMR-2	均值标准误 SEM	P值 P-value
消化能DE/(MJ/kg)	9.59^c	10.22^b	12.37^a	0.363	<0.001
表观消化率Apparent digestibility/%
干物质DM	56.42^c	61.94^b	73.47^a	2.163	<0.001
有机物OM	63.23^c	67.41^b	78.61^a	1.988	<0.001
粗蛋白质CP	75.60^c	79.55^b	82.43^a	0.892	<0.001
粗脂肪EE	55.51^c	61.46^b	76.62^a	2.746	<0.001
粗纤维CF	36.40^a	35.21^a	29.57^b	1.033	0.002
无氮浸出物NFE	71.71^c	77.06^b	87.72^a	2.040	<0.001
碳水化合物CHO	60.01^c	64.62^b	77.90^a	2.317	<0.001
中性洗涤纤维NDF	35.85^a	40.35^b	45.99^c	1.373	0.001
酸性洗涤纤维ADF	23.63^b	31.32^a	19.52^b	1.676	0.001
半纤维素HCEL	64.27^b	60.84^b	76.21^a	2.062	<0.001
纤维素CEL	43.63^a	45.15^a	34.77^b	1.583	0.002

3 讨论

3.1 全收粪法与ADL法测定饲粮中营养物质表观消化率的比较

消化试验是一项通过测定营养物质摄入量和排出量之间的差异来反映饲料中营养物质消化率的研究^[22]。全收粪法与指示剂法是测定饲粮中营养物质表观消化率最常用的方法^[23]。全收粪法测定表观消化率需要制作合适的设备,而且工作量大,对于目前饲养环境和设备整体较落后的马属动物来说难以开展^[24],因此内源指示剂法是测定德州驴饲粮中各营养物质表观消化率的最佳方案。前人在杂交波尔山羊的研究中发现,全收粪法和ADL法测得的饲粮中各营养物质的表观消化率无显著差异,该研究中ADL在饲粮中的含量较高,但并未影响适口性^[13]。本试验中,ADL法与全收粪法测得的3种饲粮中各营养物质的表观消化率均差异不显著,与上述研究结果一致。

3.2 全收粪法与AIA法测定饲粮中营养物质表观消化率的比较

在传统的AIA法中,饲粮和粪样中AIA的含量较低,提高饲粮中AIA的含量有利于降低分析误差对营养物质表观消化率的影响^[7]。饲粮中AIA的含量高于0.75%,测定结果更具可信度^[25-26]。在饲粮中添加硅藻土可以提高AIA的含量,从而减少分析结果的误差。Dourado等^[27]通过在鸡饲粮中添加1%的硅藻土,使得AIA法测得的饲粮中各营养物质表观消化率与全收粪法基本一致。不同研究者之间对AIA法测定营养物质表观消化率的准确性也存在差异。Penning等^[28]指出,AIA法比全收粪法高估了OM的消化率。但也有研究表明,采用全收粪法测得的饲粮能量和CP的表观消化率显著高于AIA法^[29]。有研究表明,AIA作为内源指示剂测定马属动物饲粮中营养物质的表观消化率时所得结果偏高^[30]。在本试验中,AIA法测得的3种饲粮中各营养物质的表观消化率均显著高于全收粪法,这与前人的研究结果一致。AIA作为内源指示剂测得的德州驴饲粮中营养物质的表观消化率偏高,其原因可能是:一方面,AIA含量低容易造成较大的测定误差;另一方面,动物可能会摄入一些食槽和地面的非饲粮成分的AIA。

3.3 饲粮不同粗料水平对营养物质表观消化率的影响

饲粮粗料水平对草食动物的消化率具有显著影响,适宜精粗比可以保持挥发性脂肪的正常比例,提高动物的生产性能^[31]。研究显示,在适宜的采食量时,随着饲粮中精料水平的升高,营养物质的表观消化率将会提高。张立涛^[32]在绵羊的研究中发现,随着饲粮中粗料水平的增加,DM的消化率逐渐降低。本试验基于ADL法测定3种粗料水平颗粒型饲粮时发现,低粗料水平的TMR-2的DE以及DM、OM、CP、EE、NFE和CHO的表观消化率显著高于高粗料水平的TMR-1和单一饲草苜蓿颗粒,与上述研究结果一致。饲粮精粗比对肉驴的DM、CP、EE等的营养物质的表观消化率均有不同程度的影响,随着饲粮粗料水平的升高,营养物质的表观消化率也相应下降,其可能通过影响消化酶活性来影响营养物质的消化吸收^[33]。

4 结论

① 测定相同饲粮时,全收粪法与ADL法测得的DE以及各营养物质的表观消化率基本一致,而AIA法测得的DE以及各营养物质的表观消化率均显著高于全收粪法。

② 采用ADL法测定德州驴对不同粗料水平饲粮的营养物质表观消化率时,低粗料水平饲粮的DE以及DM、OM、CP、EE、NFE和CHO表观消化率显著高于高粗料水平饲粮和单一饲草苜蓿颗粒。

③ 综上所述,ADL可以作为理想的内源指示剂测定德州驴饲粮中营养物质的表观消化率;随着颗粒型饲粮中粗料水平的升高,德州驴对饲粮中DE以及DM、OM、CP、EE、NFE和CHO的表观消化率逐渐降低。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within

[1]	SHI T P, HU W P, HOU H B, et al. Identification and comparative analysis of long non-coding RNA in the skeletal muscle of two Dezhou donkey strains[J]. Genes, 2020, 11(5):508. DOI

[2]	PARKINS J J, SNOW D H, ADAMS S. The apparent digestibility of ‘complete diet’ cubes given to thoroughbred horses and the use of chromic oxide as an inert faecal marker[J]. British Veterinary Journal, 1982, 138(4):350-355. DOI

[3]	杨凤. 动物营养学[M]. 2版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000. YANG F. Animal nutrition[M]. 2nd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000. (in Chinese)

[4]

张晨, 杨泉, 王云鹏, 等. 饲粮能量水平对德州驴生长性能、营养物质消化率及血清生化指标的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(2):1158-1164.

DOI

ZHANG

, YANG

, WANG

Y P

, et al. Effects of dietary energy level on growth performance,nutrient digestibility and serum biochemical indices of Dezhou donkeys[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(2):1158-1164. (in Chinese)

[5]	杨泉, 王云, 张晨, 等. 生长期德州驴能量需要量研究[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(12):7970-7980. DOI YANG Q, WANG Y, ZHANG C, et al. Energy requirement of Dezhou donkeys during growth period[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(12):7970-7980. (in Chinese) DOI

[6]	刘超逊, 梁世忠, 黄怡, 等. 不同方法测定山羊粗饲料养分消化率的比较[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2013(3):82-84. LIU C X, LIANG S Z, HUANG Y, et al. Comparative study on nutrient digestibility of goat roughage determined by different methods[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2013(3):82-84. (in Chinese)

[7]	KAVANAGH S, LYNCH P B, O’MARA F, et al. A comparison of total collection and marker technique for the measurement of apparent digestibility of diets for growing pigs[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2001, 89(1/2):49-58. DOI

[8]	王成章, 王恬. 饲料学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003. WANG C Z, WANG T. Feed science[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2003. (in Chinese)

[9]	VOGTMANN H, PFIRTER H P, PRABUCKI A L. A new method of determining metabolisability of energy and digestibility of fatty acids in broiler diets[J]. British Poultry Science, 1975, 16(5):531-534. PMID

[10]	曹锦萍, 张晓雷, 翟英丽, 等. 全收粪法和AIA指示剂法测定奶牛日粮有机物消化率差异比较[J]. 中国草食动物, 2008, 28(6):18-20. CAO J P, ZHANG X L, ZHAI Y L, et al. The apparent digestibility of organic matter determined by direct and AIA marker methods for dairy cows[J]. China Herbivore Science, 2008, 28(6):18-20. (in Chinese)

[11]

陈瑶, 邢壮, 莫放, 等. 全收粪和指示剂法测定阉牛日粮有机物消化率的差异性分析[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2008, 39(2):176-181.

CHEN

, XING

, MO

, et al. The apparent organ matter digestibility in different diets determined by direct and indirect chromic oxide or AIA marker methods for steers[J]. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2008, 39(2):176-181. (in Chinese)

[12]	高晔, 闫海龙, 屈雷, 等. 全收粪法和指示剂法测定陕北白绒山羊日粮养分消化率的研究[J]. 中国草食动物, 2010, 30(3):17-20. GAO Y, YAN H L, QU L, et al. Study on the determination of diet digestibility by direct and indirect methods in Shanbei white cashmere goat[J]. China Herbivore Science, 2010, 30(3):17-20. (in Chinese)

[13]

张晨, 李静, 王云鹏, 等. 全收粪法与不同内源指示剂法测定山羊饲粮中养分消化率的比较[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(7):3274-3281.

DOI

ZHANG

, LI

, WANG

Y P

, et al. Comparison of determination of dietary nutrient digestibility by different endogenous indicator methods and total feces collection method for goats[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(7):3274-3281. (in Chinese)

[14]

中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 动物饲料试样的制备:GB/T 20195—2006[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2006.

General Administration of Quality Supervision,Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Animal feeding stuffs-preparation of test samples:GB/T 20195—2006[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2006. (in Chinese)

[15]	计成. 动物营养学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2008. JI C. Animal nutrition[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2008. (in Chinese)

[16]

中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中水分的测定:GB/T 6435—2014[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2015.

General Administration of Quality Supervision,Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Determination of moisture in feedstuffs:GB/T 6435—2014[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2015. (in Chinese)

[17]

中华人民共和国国家市场监督管理总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中粗蛋白的测定凯氏定氮法:GB/T 6432—2018[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2018.

State Administration for Market Regulation, Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Determination of crude protein in feeds-Kjeldahl method:GB/T 6432—2018[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2018. (in Chinese)

[18]

中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中粗脂肪的测定:GB/T 6433—2006[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2006.

General Administration of Quality Supervision,Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Determination of crude fat in feeds:GB/T 6433—2006[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2006. (in Chinese)

[19]

中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中粗灰分的测定:GB/T 6438—2007[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2007.

General Administration of Quality Supervision,Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Animal feeding stuffs-determination of crude ash:GB/T 6438—2007[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2007. (in Chinese)

[20]

中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中盐酸不溶灰分的测定:GB/T 23742—2009[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2009.

General Administration of Quality Supervision,Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Animal feeding stuffs-determination of ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid:GB/T 23742—2009[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2009. (in Chinese)

[21]

李泽民, 张晨, 张桂国, 等. 应用聚酯网袋测定饲料中中性洗涤纤维和酸性洗涤纤维含量的可行性研究[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(12):5967-5975.

DOI

Z M

, ZHANG

G G

, et al. Feasibility study of determination of neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber contents in feed using polyester mesh bag[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(12):5967-5975. (in Chinese)

[22]	周安国, 陈代文. 动物营养学[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2010:148-151. ZHOU A G, CHEN D W. Animal nutrition[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2010:148-151. (in Chinese)

[23]	谭占坤, 高瑞玲, 商振达, 等. 盐酸不溶灰分作为指示剂测定藏猪饲粮养分的表观消化率[J]. 高原农业, 2019, 3(2):153-158. TAN Z K, GAO R L, SHANG Z D, et al. Acid-insoluble ash as a marker to determine apparent digestibility in Tibetan pigs[J]. Journal of Plateau Agriculture, 2019, 3(2):153-158. (in Chinese)

[24]	李杰, 王玉斌. 我国驴业发展现状、问题及对策[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2019, 55(5):159-162. LI J, WANG Y B. Current situation,problems and countermeasures of donkey industry in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 55(5):159-162. (in Chinese)

[25]	LAN Y, OPAPEJU F O, NYACHOTI C M. True ileal protein and amino acid digestibilities in wheat dried distillers’ grains with solubles fed to finishing pigs[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2008, 140(1/2):155-163. DOI

[26]	LÆRKE H N, KASPRZAK M M, BACH KNUDSEN K E.Evaluation of two external markers for measurement of ileal and total tract digestibility of pigs fed human-type diets[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2012, 90(Suppl 4):384-386. DOI

[27]	DOURADO L R B, SIQUEIRA J C, SAKOMURA N K, et al. Poultry feed metabolizable energy determination using total or partial excreta collection methods[J]. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 2010, 12(2):129-132. DOI

[28]	PENNING P D, JOHNSON R H. The use of internal markers to estimate herbage digestibility and intake:1.Potentially indigestible cellulose and acid insoluble ash[J]. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 1983, 100(1):127-131. DOI

[29]	MCCARTHY J F, AHERNE F X, OKAI D B. Use of HCl insoluble ash as an index material for determining apparent digestibility with pigs[J]. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 1974, 54(1):107-109. DOI

[30]	MIRAGLIA N, BERGERO D, BASSANO B, et al. Studies of apparent digestibility in horses and the use of internal markers[J]. Livestock Production Science, 1999, 60(1):21-25. DOI

[31]	AHMAD A A, YANG C, ZHANG J B, et al. Effects of dietary energy levels on rumen fermentation,microbial diversity,and feed efficiency of yaks (Bos grunniens)[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2020, 11:625. DOI

[32]	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. ZHANG L T. Study on suitable dietary NDF level of 25 to 50 kg live weight Dorper and thin-tailed Han crossbred lambs[D]. Master’s Thesis. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2013. (in Chinese)

[33]	周艳. 日粮能量水平对肉驴生长育肥性能、屠宰性能和肉品质的影响及其机理研究[D]. 硕士学位论文. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2020. ZHOU Y. Effect and mechanism of dietary energy level on growth,finishing and slaughter performance and meat quality of donkeys[D]. Master’s Thesis. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2020. (in Chinese)

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题