Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2023 , Vol. 35 >Issue 9: 5827 - 5836

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2023.536

RESEARCH PAPER

Effects of Caragana Silage Replacing Whole Corn Silage on Growth Performance, Fat Deposition and Meat Quality of Tan Sheep

  • LIU Jiadong , 1, 2 ,
  • HAN Xiaojuan 1, 2 ,
  • ZHANG Guijie 1, 2 ,
  • HUANG Shuai , 1, 2, *
Expand
  • 1 Agricultural College, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, China
  • 2 Ningxia Grassland and Animal Husbandry Engineering Technology Research Centre, Yinchuan 750021, China
* associate professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2023-03-20

  Online published: 2023-09-13

Fold

Abstract

The purpose of this experiment was to study the effects of Caragana silage at different ratios on the growth performance, slaughter performance, fat deposition and meat quality of Tan sheep. Eighty 4-month-old healthy castrated Tan sheep with similar weight (23.36±0.71) kg were randomly divided into 4 groups,with 5 replicates in each group and 4 Tan sheep in each replicate.The four groups of Tan sheep were fed with 0 (control group), 15%, 30% and 45% Caragana silage instead of corn silage. The pre-test period lasted for 7 days, and the experimental period lasted for 95 days. The results showed as follows: 1) the average daily weight gain and average daily feed intake in the 15%, 30% and 45% Caragana silage replacement groups were significantly higher than those in the control group(P<0.01), and there was no significant difference among the three groups of Caragana silage replacement groups (P>0.05). The feed/gain in the 30% and 45% Caragana silage replacement groups were significantly lower than that in the control group and the 15% Caragana silage replacement group (P<0.01). 2) The subcutaneous fat to carcass weight ratio in the 15%, 30% and 45% Caragana silage replacement groups had a tendency to increase compared with the control group (0.05≤P<0.10), and there was no significant difference among the 3 groups (P>0.05). The tail fat weight/carcass weight in 30% and 45% Caragana silage replacement groups was significantly higher than that in the control group and 15% Caragana silage replacement group (P<0.01). 3) The drip loss, cooking loss and shearing force in 15%, 30% and 45% Caragana silage replacement groups were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.01); the pH45 min and pH24 h in 15%, 30% and 45% Caragana silage replacement groups were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.01); there was no significant difference in pH45 min and pH24 h among the three groups of Caragana silage replacement groups (P>0.05); the ΔpH in 15% Caragana silage replacement group was significantly lower than that in the control group and the 30% and 45% Caragana silage replacement groups (P<0.01). In conclusion, replacing the same proportion of corn silage with Caragana silage in the diet of Tan sheep can improve the growth performance and meat quality of Tan sheep, and has no obvious adverse effect on the slaughter performance and fat deposition of Tan sheep. Under the experimental conditions, the appropriate substitution ratio of Caragana silage to corn silage in the diet is 15%.

Key words： Caragana silage; Tan sheep; growth performance; fat deposition; meat quality

Cite this article

LIU Jiadong , HAN Xiaojuan , ZHANG Guijie , HUANG Shuai . Effects of Caragana Silage Replacing Whole Corn Silage on Growth Performance, Fat Deposition and Meat Quality of Tan Sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023 , 35(9) : 5827 -5836 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2023.536

近年来,随着消费者对高品质肉蛋奶需求的不断增加,我国畜牧业逐步向着集约化、规模化发展,带来巨大的经济效益的同时,优质粗饲料资源的短缺已成为制约我国养殖业发展的瓶颈[1-2]。只有合理利用各种常规饲料资源,并开发利用非常规饲料资源,才能从根本上解决我国饲料资源短缺的问题,促进畜牧业的良性循环发展[3]。
柠条,豆科锦鸡儿属多年生落叶大灌木植物,其抗逆性极强[4],多分布于我国西北地区,其种植面积广阔,资源丰富[5]。柠条的营养价值较高,粗蛋白质含量可达19.07%,粗脂肪含量可达7.46%,还富含动物生长所必需的氨基酸、钙、磷等矿物元素以及黄酮、多酚等多种生物活性物质[6],属于非竞争性的良好粗饲料资源[7],也是当地家畜一种重要的粗饲料来源[8]。然而,柠条枝干中纤维素和木质素含量较高,不易被动物消化吸收[9],并且柠条中的单宁具有味苦以及抗营养特性[10],从而造成柠条的适口性差且很难被反刍动物消化利用[11]。研究证明,柠条在经过青贮发酵后,可以很好地保持其高营养价值特性,并降低了纤维素和木质素含量[12-13],同时使柠条枝干上的托叶刺软化并具备酸香气味,提高了柠条的适口性[14]。目前,利用柠条青贮替代常规饲料已有相关报道:王保平[14]用30%、45%、60%比例的柠条青贮替代全株玉米青贮可以提高奶牛营养物质的消化率,并显著提高乳脂率;陈亮等[15]用70%比例的柠条青贮替代玉米秸秆黄贮显著提高了滩羊的平均日增重(ADG)。目前,有关柠条青贮替代全株玉米青贮的具体替代比例鲜见相关文献,此外,有关柠条青贮替代全株玉米青贮对滩羊脂肪沉积和肉品质的影响也鲜有报道。因此,本试验旨在研究不同比例柠条青贮替代全株玉米青贮对育肥滩羊的生长性能、屠宰性能、脂肪沉积和肉品质的影响,并评估柠条青贮在滩羊饲粮中的适宜替代比例,为柠条青贮在滩羊生产中的开发利用提供科学依据和实践参考。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验设计与试验饲粮

试验时间为2019年8月4日至2019年12月4日,试验在盐池宁鑫有机生态牧场进行,柠条青贮由某牧业有限责任公司提供。
选用体重[(23.36±0.71) kg]相近的4月龄去势滩羊80只,随机分为4组,每组5个重复,每个重复4只。4组滩羊分别饲喂在基础饲粮中以0(对照组)、15%、30%、45%柠条青贮替代等比例全株玉米青贮的饲粮。精饲料参考《肉羊饲养标准》(NY/T 816—2004)[16]中绵羊营养需要中体重20 kg、日增重150 g羔羊营养需要和羊场生产实践配制,4组精料配方相同。试验饲粮组成及营养水平见表1。
表1 试验饲粮组成及营养水平(干物质基础)

Table 1 Composition and nutrient levels of experimental diets (DM basis)%

项目
Items		 饲粮柠条青贮替代比例 Dietary Caragana silage replacement ratio/%
0(对照 Control) 15 30 45
原料 Ingredients
全株玉米青贮 Whole corn silage 45.00 30.00 15.00
柠条青贮 Caragana silage 15.00 30.00 45.00
玉米 Corn 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
豆粕 Soybean meal 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00
葵花粕 Sunflower meal 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
石粉 Limestone 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
氯化钠 NaCl 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
碳酸氢钠 NaHCO3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
预混料 Premix1) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
合计 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
营养水平 Nutrient levels2)
代谢能 ME/(MJ/kg) 9.96 9.83 9.71 9.65
粗蛋白质 CP 16.15 17.73 18.21 19.85
粗脂肪 EE 2.98 2.86 2.83 2.77
粗灰分 Ash 7.24 6.32 6.41 6.50
中性洗涤纤维 NDF 32.65 34.63 36.36 38.32
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF 16.86 17.76 17.35 18.36
钙 Ca 0.82 0.95 1.09 1.22
磷 P 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56

1)预混料为每千克饲粮提供 The premix provided the following per kg of diets: Cu 15 mg,Fe 55 mg,Zn 25 mg,Mn 40 mg,Se 0.3 mg,I 0.5 mg,Co 0.2 mg,VA 20 000 IU,VD 4 000 IU,VE 40 IU。

2)代谢能为计算值,其余为测定值。代谢能参照《中国饲料成分及营养价值表(2012)》[17]及《肉羊饲养标准》(NY/T 816—2004)[18]计算。代谢能=0.82×(总可消化养分/4.4)。Nutrient levels were measured values except ME. ME was calculated according to Tables of Feed Composition and Nutritive Values in China (2012)[17] and Feeding Standard of Sheep (NY/T 816—2004)。ME=0.82×(TDN/4.4)[18]。

1.2 饲养管理

试验前对羊舍进行清洁消毒,羊舍保持自然通风与光照,对试验羊经过统一去势、编号并做防疫处理后,进行剪毛、药浴,于半室外的封闭羊舍内饲养。试验期间,定期对羊舍进行消毒,保持羊舍干净整洁。每日08:00和15:00各饲喂1次,每次饲喂前均对前1次剩料进行称重,自由饮水。预试期7 d,正试期95 d。

1.3 试验指标及测定方法

1.3.1 饲粮营养水平测定

饲粮DM、粗蛋白质(CP)、粗脂肪(EE)、钙(Ca)、磷(P)含量分别参考GB/T 6435—1986、GB/T 6432—1994、GB/T 6433—2006、GB/T 6436—2002和GB/T 6437—2002所推荐方法进行测定;中性洗涤纤维(NDF)和酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)含量依据《饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术》[19]中的方法,采用全自动纤维分析仪(ANKOM A2000i)进行测定。

1.3.2 生长性能测定

在试验开始当天和结束当天的08:00空腹测定各组滩羊的体重,记为始重(IBW)、末重(FBW),通过公式计算平均日增重(ADG);每日饲喂前准确记录试验期间滩羊的采食量,计算平均干物质采食量(ADMI);根据ADMI和ADG计算料重比(F/G),计算公式如下:
ADG=(FBW-IBW)/正试期天数;
ADMI=每个重复正试期总干物质采食量/(正试期试验天数×该重复试验羊只数);
F/G=ADMI/ADG。

1.3.3 屠宰性能测定

饲养试验结束后,每组选择3只接近本圈羊的平均生长水平的滩羊进行屠宰,宰前活重、胴体重、屠宰率参考《绵、山羊生产性能测定技术规范》(NY/T 1236—2006)[20]进行测定,GR值用数显游标卡尺量取第12~13肋骨、距背脊中线11 cm处的肉组织厚度。

1.3.4 脂肪沉积测定

皮下脂肪质量参照Majoub-Mathlouthi等[21]所述方法进行测定。参照《绵、山羊生产性能测定技术规范》(NY/T 1236—2006)[20],利用数显游标卡尺测量羊只背膘厚度,对屠宰羊的肾周和腹部的脂肪进行剥离并称重,分别计算占胴体重的比率。

1.3.5 肉品质测定

pH的测定:试验羊屠宰后,分离背最长肌并于室温静置,在静置45 min与24 h时使用pH仪将探头插入肉样中,重复测定3次后取平均值,得到pH45 min与pH24 h,求pH45 min与pH24 h差值,记为ΔpH。
肉色的测定:选取每个背最长肌样品不同的3个点位,使用TC-P2A全自动色差仪测定后取平均值,肉色指标包括亮度(L*)、红度(a*)和黄度(b*)值。
剪切力的测定:将密封保存在4 ℃的背最长肌样品置于75 ℃的水浴锅中恒温加热45 min取出,冷却至室温。顺着肌纤维的方向将样品分割成3 cm×1 cm ×1 cm的长方体,使用CLM-3型嫩度仪重复测量6次后取平均值。
蒸煮损失的测定:背最长肌样品经过静置排酸24 h,称取大约30 g的肉块,经分析天平称量后记为 m1,用塑封袋将肉样密封,放入75 ℃的恒温水浴锅中加热40 min后取出,待肉块冷却后用滤纸挤压肉块表面至无水份渗出后再次称重,记为m2,计算蒸煮损失,计算公式如下:
蒸煮损失(%)=[(m1-m2)/m1]×100。

1.4 数据处理与统计

试验数据采用Excel 2010进行整理,用SPSS 17.0统计软件中的ANOVA过程进行单因素方差分析(one-way ANOVA)后,进行Duncan氏法多重比较检验,P<0.05表示差异显著,P<0.01表示差异极显著,0.05≤P<0.10表示差异有显著趋势,P>0.05表示差异不显著。

2 结果与分析

2.1 柠条青贮替代玉米青贮对滩羊生长性能的影响

由表2可知,15%、30%和45%柠条青贮替代组的ADG、ADMI、粗蛋白质日采食量(CPI)、中性洗涤纤维日采食量(NDFI)、酸性洗涤纤维日采食量(ADFI)都极显著高于对照组(P<0.01),粗脂肪日采食量(EEI)显著高于对照组(P<0.05)。3组柠条青贮替代组间差异不显著(P>0.05),30%和45%柠条青贮替代组的F/G极显著低于对照组和15%柠条青贮替代组(P<0.01)。
表2 柠条青贮对滩羊生长性能的影响

Table 2 Effects of Caragana silage on growth performance of Tan sheep (n=80)

项目
Items		 饲粮柠条青贮替代水平 Dietary Caragana silage replacement ratio/% SEM P值
P-value
0(对照 Control) 15 30 45
初始体重 IBW/kg 23.96 23.38 22.72 23.40 0.60 0.68
终末体重 FBW/kg 39.33 42.43 43.52 44.83 0.76 0.06
平均干物质日采食量 ADMI/(g/d) 1 150.00Bb 1 320.00Aa 1 370.00Aa 1 360.00Aa 0.02 <0.01
粗蛋白质日采食量 CPI/(g/d) 185.73Bb 234.04Aa 249.48Aa 269.96Aa 0.73 <0.01
粗脂肪日采食量 EEI/(g/d) 34.27b 37.75a 38.77a 37.672a 0.25 0.04
中性洗涤纤维日采食量
NDFI/(g/d)		 375.48Bb 457.12Aa 498.13Aa 521.15Aa 0.76 <0.01
酸性洗涤纤维日采食量
ADFI/(g/d)		 193.89Bb 234.43Aa 237.70Aa 249.70Aa 0.08 <0.01
平均日增重 ADG/(g/d) 161.79Bb 200.53Aa 218.95Aa 225.58Aa 0.03 <0.01
料重比 F/G 7.11Aa 6.58Bb 6.26Bb 6.03Bb 0.03 <0.01

同行数据肩标相同小写字母或无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),不同大写字母表示差异极显著(P<0.01)。下表同。

In the same row,values with the same small letter or no letter superscripts mean significant difference (P>0.05), while with different small letter superscripts mean significant difference (P<0.05), and with different capital letter superscripts mean significant difference (P<0.01). The same as below.

2.2 柠条青贮替代玉米青贮对滩羊屠宰性能的影响

由表3可知,各组之间胴体重、屠宰率以及GR值差异不显著(P>0.05)。
表3 柠条青贮对滩羊屠宰性能的影响

Table 3 Effects of Caragana silage on slaughter performance of Tan sheep (n=12)

项目
Items		 饲粮柠条青贮替代水平 Dietary Caragana silage replacement ratio/% SEM P值
P-value
0(对照 Control) 15 30 45
胴体重 Carcass weight/kg 19.06 20.06 19.62 20.26 0.41 0.21
屠宰率 Slaughter rate/% 50.06 51.51 50.98 50.78 0.01 0.37
GR值 GR value/mm 15.10 13.19 12.61 13.14 1.24 0.53

2.3 柠条青贮替代玉米青贮对滩羊脂肪沉积的影响

由表4可知,15%、30%和45%柠条青贮替代组的皮下脂肪重/胴体重较对照组有显著提高的趋势(0.05≤P<0.10),3组柠条青贮替代组间差异不显著(P>0.05)。30%和45%柠条青贮替代组的尾部脂肪重/胴体重极显著高于对照组和15%柠条青贮替代组(P<0.01)。
表4 柠条青贮对滩羊脂肪沉积的影响

Table 4 Effects of Caragana silage on fat deposition of Tan sheep (n=12)%

项目
Items		 饲粮柠条青贮替代水平 Dietary Caragana silage replacement ratio/% SEM P值
P-value
0(对照 Control) 15 30 45
皮下脂肪重/胴体重
Subcutaneous fat weight/
carcass weight		 1.17 1.40 1.68 1.37 0.01 0.06
腹脂重/胴体重
Abdomen fat weight/carcass weight		 4.44 4.79 5.26 4.94 0.04 0.38
尾部脂肪重/胴体重
Tail fat weight/carcass weight		 7.73Bb 8.13Bb 12.58Aa 10.26Aa 0.02 <0.01
肾周脂重/胴体重
Perirenal fat weight/carcass weight		 2.37 2.31 2.62 2.34 0.01 0.92

2.4 柠条青贮替代玉米青贮对滩羊肉品质的影响

由表5可知,各组之间肉色L*、a*、b*值差异不显著(P>0.05);15%、30%和45%柠条青贮替代组的滴水损失、蒸煮损失和剪切力极显著低于对照组(P<0.01);15%、30%和45%柠条青贮替代组的pH45 min、pH24 h极显著高于对照组(P<0.01);3组柠条青贮替代组间pH45 min与pH24 h差异不显著(P>0.05);15%柠条青贮替代组的ΔpH极显著低于对照组与30%、45%柠条青贮替代组(P<0.01)。
表5 柠条青贮对滩羊肉品质的影响

Table 5 Effects of Caragana silage on meat quality of Tan sheep (n=12)

项目
Items		 饲粮柠条青贮替代水平 Dietary Caragana silage replacement ratio/% SEM P值
P-value
0(对照 Control) 15 30 45
45 min
亮度 L* 36.40 35.50 35.53 35.48 0.39 0.52
红度a* 15.91 15.25 16.06 16.11 0.41 0.45
黄度b* 3.27 2.76 3.01 3.19 0.16 0.15
24 h
亮度 L* 44.35 43.11 43.32 42.30 0.72 0.32
红度a* 20.93 19.22 20.10 20.55 0.58 0.22
黄度b* 9.85 10.65 10.99 10.42 0.47 0.40
pH45 min 5.84Bb 6.12Aa 6.06Aa 6.17Aa 0.04 <0.01
pH24 h 5.35Bb 5.71Aa 5.53Aa 5.43Aa 0.04 <0.01
ΔpH 0.49Bb 0.41Cc 0.53Bb 0.74Aa 0.37 <0.01
滴水损失 Drip loss/% 1.91Aa 1.71Bb 1.78Bb 1.83Bb 0.01 <0.01
蒸煮损失 Cooking loss/% 45.60Aa 44.38Bb 44.22Bb 43.06Cc 0.36 <0.01
剪切力 Shear force/N 69.02Aa 65.66Bb 63.65Bb 64.58Bb 0.83 <0.01

3 讨论

3.1 柠条青贮替代玉米青贮对滩羊生长性能的影响

柠条的营养价值较高,可作为饲粮加工粗蛋白质的理想原料[22],但由于其作为木本饲料,粗纤维含量过高[6],不仅影响饲料的适口性,而且使家畜难以消化吸收,并且柠条中单宁的含量较高,可达到5.66 mg/g[23],使柠条苦涩味较重,适口性较差。有研究表明,在滩羊饲粮中用柠条青贮替代等量的玉米秸秆青贮与玉米秸秆黄贮,滩羊的ADG提高了23.94%,ADFI提高了13.64%,获得了较为良好的饲喂效果[15,24]。本试验结果显示:柠条青贮替代全株玉米青贮使滩羊的ADG分别提高了27.00%、35.33%、39.43%,ADMI分别提高了14.78%、19.13%、18.26%,均极显著高于对照组,与前人研究结果相似。柠条青贮替代组滩羊ADMI的极显著高于对照组可能是由于柠条在经过青贮后,柠条从干硬且带有小刺的灌木发酵为青绿多汁且具备酸香气味的发酵饲料[13],提高了其适口性,柠条青贮替代组滩羊的ADMI因此极显著提升。有研究表明,青贮处理可以显著降低灌木类植物中单宁的含量,使其降至对家畜生长发育有利的水平[25]。柠条青贮替代组滩羊的ADG极显著高于对照组,这是因为采用柠条青贮替代全株玉米青贮后,滩羊的CPI分别提升了26.01%、34.32%、45.35%,极显著高于对照组;EEI分别提升了10.16%、13.13%、9.92%,显著高于对照组,能更好地为滩羊提供生长发育所需的能量[12,23]。也可能是柠条青贮中的单宁改善了滩羊小肠养分吸收能力,适宜水平的单宁具有抑制肠道寄生虫繁殖的作用,改善了滩羊肠道结构与功能,提高了滩羊的养分消化率[26],使滩羊的生长性能得到显著改善。同时,采用柠条青贮替代全株玉米青贮后滩羊饲粮的NDFI与ADFI分别提升21.74%、32.66%、38.79%与20.91%、22.60%、28.78%,均极显著高于对照组,粗纤维能促进反刍动物胃肠道蠕动,提升饲粮的消化速度[27]。综上所述,使用柠条青贮替代玉米青贮是可行的,15%、30%、45%比例的柠条青贮均可显著改善滩羊的生长性能。

3.2 柠条青贮替代玉米青贮对滩羊屠宰性能的影响

屠宰性能可以反映动物的产肉情况,屠宰率代表了动物的产肉能力[28]。有研究表明,在饲粮中分别采用10%、30%、50%比例的柠条替代玉米秸秆和苜蓿干草,杜寒杂交育肥羊的屠宰率较对照组提升了2.70%,提高并不显著[29]。本试验结果显示,与对照组相比,采用柠条青贮替代全株玉米青贮使滩羊的屠宰率提升了1.45%,提高同样不显著,与前人研究结果相似。

3.3 柠条青贮替代全株玉米青贮对滩羊脂肪沉积的影响

饲粮的营养水平在很大程度上决定了胴体脂肪沉积情况,安全有效地调控机体脂肪沉积可有效提高动物的生产效益[30]。本试验中,柠条青贮替代组在皮下脂肪/胴体重方面较对照组略有增加,但未达到显著水平,30%与45%柠条青贮替代组尾部脂肪重/胴体重较对照组极显著增加。这可能是瘤胃可以为柠条青贮的单宁-蛋白质螯合物提供稳定的环境,而皱胃和小肠中存在胃蛋白酶和胰蛋白酶,这使柠条中的单宁-蛋白质螯合物降解为结构简单的小分子物质,被皱胃和小肠消化吸收,从而提高过瘤胃蛋白浓度,并降低反刍动物瘤胃的氨浓度和尿氮排放,提高机体的氮利用率,也使更多的蛋白质转化为脂肪沉积于体内用于储存能量,从而改善了机体脂肪沉积效果[31⇓-33]。又因为滩羊脂尾的特性[32],故采用柠条青贮替代玉米青贮使得滩羊尾部脂肪重/胴体重极显著增加。
综上所述,柠条青贮替代玉米青贮提高了滩羊的脂肪沉积能力,15%比例的柠条青贮对尾部脂肪重/胴体重的增加不显著,对滩羊产肉能力的影响最小。

3.4 柠条青贮替代玉米青贮对滩羊肉品质的影响

肉品质作为肌肉的综合性状,通常以肉色、pH、滴水损失、蒸煮损失和嫩度等指标反映[34]。肉色是消费者对肉类品质最直观的印象,包括了肉色L*、a*、b*值。李家博等[35]研究发现,用10%比例的柠条替代滩羊饲粮中的苜蓿对滩羊的肉品质无显著影响;Orzuna等[36]研究表明,在绵羊饲粮中添加单宁对绵羊的肉色无显著影响。本试验中,4组滩羊的背最长肌肉色的L*、a*和b*值差异不显著,与前人试验结果相似,说明用柠条青贮替代玉米青贮对滩羊肉色无不良影响。
肌肉的pH作为评定肌肉品质的指标之一,反映了动物宰后肌肉的糖酵解速率,与肌肉的嫩度、色泽、持水性等密切相关[37-38]。本试验中,柠条青贮替代玉米青贮比例达到15%时肌肉ΔpH极显著低于其他3组,说明15%比例的柠条青贮减缓了肌肉中糖酵解作用。这可能是由于柠条青贮中的单宁激活了滩羊机体核转录因子E2相关因子2/抗氧化反应元件(Nrf2/ARE)信号通路,提高了细胞抗氧化应激的能力,从而使机体抗氧化能力增强,促进了肉品质优良性状的维持[39]。肌肉的嫩度可以通过剪切力、滴水损失与蒸煮损失共同衡量,剪切力受到动物的肌内脂肪含量和肌纤维类型及其密度的影响[40],剪切力越低,肌肉嫩度越高。肌肉滴水损失与蒸煮损失反映了肌肉的持水性能。肌肉的滴水损失与蒸煮损失较低时,表明肌肉的保水性能较好,嫩度较高[41]。本试验中,柠条青贮替代组的剪切力、滴水损失以及蒸煮损失较对照组极显著降低,这可能是由于柠条青贮中的单宁促进了机体的肌内脂肪沉积[33,42-43],从而提高了肌肉的嫩度。
综上所述,柠条青贮可以极显著降低滩羊肌肉的滴水损失、蒸煮损失以及剪切力,同时在柠条青贮比例为15%时极显著降低了24 h肌肉的ΔpH,说明15%比例的柠条青贮能够减缓滩羊肌肉pH降低的速度,使滩羊肌肉的优良性状更易被保存。

4 结论

本试验条件下,滩羊饲粮中使用15%、30%、45%比例的柠条青贮替代等比例全株玉米青贮均可改善滩羊的生长性能和肉品质,当柠条青贮比例为15%时对滩羊尾部脂肪重/胴体重的提升效果显著,并且极显著减缓了滩羊的肌肉糖酵解速度,使滩羊肉更易于保存,故本试验中柠条青贮替代玉米青贮适宜比例为15%。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
郭婷, 薛彪, 白娟, 等. 刍议中国牧草产业发展现状-以苜蓿、燕麦为例[J]. 草业科学, 2019, 36(5):1466-1473.

GUO T, XUE B, BAI J, et al. Discussion of the present situation of China’s forage grass industry development:an example using alfalfa and oats[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(5):1466-1473. (in Chinese)

[2]
刘亚钊, 王明利, 蒋年华. 中国草产品贸易格局和发展趋势分析[J]. 草业科学, 2018, 35(11):2765-2772.

LIU Y Z, WANG M L, JIANG N H. Analysis of trade patterns and development trends of Chinese grass products[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(11):2765-2772. (in Chinese)

[3]
凌浩, 郭水强, 李鑫垚, 等. 青贮桑叶替代青贮玉米对奶山羊生产性能、乳品质、养分表观消化率、瘤胃发酵参数和血清生化指标的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(6):3389-3399.

DOI

LING H, GUO S Q, LI X Y, et al. Effects of silage mulberry leaves instead of silage corn on performance,milk quality,nutrient apparent digestibilities,rumen fermentation parameters and serum biochemical indexes of dairy goats[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(6):3389-3399. (in Chinese)

[4]
王雁丽, 杨如达. 浅谈西部地区柠条资源的开发利用[J]. 中国西部科技, 2004(11):71-73.

WANG Y L, YANG R D. On the development and utilization of Caragana resources in the western region[J]. Science and Technology of West China, 2004(11):71-73. (in Chinese)

[5]
陈毅东. 不同碳源对柠条锦鸡儿青贮品质及微生物群落结构的影响[D].硕士学位论文. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2021.

CHEN Y D. Effects of different carbon sources on quality and microbial community structure of Caragana korshinskii silage[D].Master’s Thesis. Yinchuan: Ningxia University, 2021. (in Chinese)

[6]
薛树媛, 刘洋, 王宇飞, 等. 柠条锦鸡儿营养特性及其提取物对绵羊抗氧化作用的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(10):6404-6410.

DOI

XUE S Y, LIU Y, WANG Y F, et al. Research progress on nutritional characteristics of Caragana korshinskii Kom. and antioxidant effect of its extracts on sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(10):6404-6410. (in Chinese)

[7]
弓剑, 曹社会. 柠条饲料的营养价值评定研究[J]. 饲料博览, 2008(1):53-55.

GONG J, CAO S H. Study on nutritive value of Caragana feed[J]. Feed Review, 2008(1):53-55. (in Chinese)

[8]
李胜楠, 张欢, 董臣飞, 等. 复合菌制剂和复合酶制剂对柠条锦鸡儿青贮发酵品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(6):3875-3883.

DOI

LI S N, ZHANG H, DONG C F, et al. Effects of compound bacteria preparation and compound enzyme preparation on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of Caragana korshinskii silage[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(6):3875-3883. (in Chinese)

[9]
陈亮, 张凌青, 罗晓瑜, 等. 饲喂柠条包膜青贮饲料对肉牛育肥效果的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2013(7):40-42.

CHEN L, ZHANG L Q, LUO X Y, et al. Effect of feeding Caragana coated silage on fattening effect of beef cattle[J]. Feed Research, 2013(7):40-42. (in Chinese)

[10]
SOARES S, BRANDÃO E, GUERREIRO C, et al. Tannins in food:insights into the molecular perception of astringency and bitter taste[J]. Molecules, 2020, 25(11):2590.

DOI

[11]
王敬尧, 解湧芳, 丽丽, 等. 添加不同水平单宁酸对绵羊体外发酵参数和甲烷产量的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2020, 47(5):1428-1435.

WANG J Y, XIE Y F, LI L, et al. Effects of adding different levels of tannic acid on rumen fermentation parameters and methane production of sheep in vitro method[J]. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2020, 47(5):1428-1435. (in Chinese)

[12]
任余艳, 高崇华, 赵雨兴, 等. 饲用柠条的营养特点及青贮技术研究[J]. 饲料研究, 2015(5):1-2,34.

REN Y Y, GAO C H, ZHAO Y X, et al. Research on nutritional characteristics and silage technology of Caragana korshinskii for feed[J]. Feed Research, 2015(5):1-2,34. (in Chinese)

[13]
郝乐乐. 柠条青贮过程中营养物质与微生物菌群变化规律研究[D].硕士学位论文. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2022.

HAO L L. Study on the change of nutrients and microbial flora during Caragana silage[D].Master’s Thesis. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2022. (in Chinese)

[14]
王保平. 柠条青贮调制技术及柠条饲料在奶牛日粮中应用的研究[D].博士学位论文. 晋中: 山西农业大学, 2014.

WANG B P. Studies of the modulation technique of Caragana korshinskii silage and the utilization of Caragana korshinskii in dairy cows diet[D].Ph.D.Thesis Jinzhong: Shanxi Agricultural University, 2014. (in Chinese)

[15]
陈亮, 张凌青, 巫亮, 等. 饲喂柠条包膜青贮饲料对滩羊育肥效果的影响[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2014(1):97-99.

CHEN L, ZHANG L Q, WU L, et al. The effect of feeding Caragana coated silage on the fattening effect of Tan sheep[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2014(1):97-99. (in Chinese)

[16]
中国饲料成分及营养价值表(2022年第33版)(续)[J]. 中国饲料, 2022(24):63-68.

Chinese feed composition and nutritional value table (2022, 33rd edition) (continued)[J]. Chinese feed, 2022(24):63-68. (in Chinese)

[17]
中华人民共和国农业部. 肉羊饲养标准:NY/T 816—2004[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2004.

The Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China. Feeding standard of meat-producing sheep and goats:NY/T 816—2004[S]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2004. (in Chinese)

[18]
王菲. 肉牛饲料有效能值预测模型的建立与评价[D].博士学位论文. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2016.

WANG F. Establishment and evaluation of effective energy prediction model in feeds of beef cattle[D].Ph.D.Thesis Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2016. (in Chinese)

[19]
张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2007.

ZHANG L Y. Feed analysis and feed quality detection technology[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2007. (in Chinese)

[20]
中华人民共和国农业部. 绵、山羊生产性能测定技术规范:NY/T 1236—2006[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.

The Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China. Technical specifications for sheep and goat stud productivity testing:NY/T 1236—2006[S]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2006. (in Chinese)

[21]
MAJOUB-MATHLOUTHI L, SAÏD B, SAY A, et al. Effect of concentrate level and slaughter body weight on growth performances,carcass traits and meat quality of Barbarine lambs fed oat hay based diet[J]. Meat Science, 2013, 93(3):557-563.

DOI

[22]
马福军. 柠条的营养价值及其饲用加工调制方法[J]. 现代畜牧科技, 2016(10):58.

MA F J. Nutritional value of Caragana korshinskii and its feeding and processing methods[J]. Modern Animal Husbandry Science & Technology, 2016(10):58. (in Chinese)

[23]
李慧, 李大彪, 牛晓雨, 等. 柠条缩合单宁提取工艺优化[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2022, 43(5):29-32,47.

LI H, LI D B, NIU X Y, et al. Extraction process optimization of condensed tannin from Caragana korshinskii[J]. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2022, 43(5):29-32,47. (in Chinese)

[24]
苏海龙. 柠条青贮饲料的制作与饲喂效果分析[J]. 现代农业科技, 2018(4):220-221.

SU H L. Production of Caragana silage and analysis of feeding effect[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2018(4):220-221. (in Chinese)

[25]
张建国, 冯帆, 庄骐, 等. 青贮处理降解银合欢中含羞草素和单宁的研究[C]// 中国草学会青年学术研讨会. 上海: 中国草学会, 2010:303-308.

ZHANG J G, FENG F, ZHUANG Q, et al. Study on degradation of mimosa and tannin in Leucaena leucocephala by silage treatment[C]// Chinese Herbal Society Youth Symposium. Shanghai: Chinese Grassland Society, 2010:303-308. (in Chinese)

[26]
邱建强, 黄文, 王玉玺, 等. 单宁对动物肠道微生物调控的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(2):772-781.

DOI

QIU J Q, HUANG W, WANG Y X, et al. Research progress in regulation of tannins on intestinal microbiota of animals[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(2):772-781. (in Chinese)

DOI

[27]
张转弟, 张巧娥, 王庆, 等. 发酵稻草对安格斯牛生长性能、屠宰性能、血清生化指标及肉品质的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(6):3732-3742.

DOI

ZHANG Z D, ZHANG Q E, WANG Q, et al. Effects of fermented rice straw on growth performance,slaughter performance,serum biochemical indexes and meat quality of Angus cattle[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(6):3732-3742. (in Chinese)

[28]
史丽宏. 浅谈粗纤维在动物生产中的应用[J]. 吉林畜牧兽医, 2021, 42(1):66,68.

SHI L H. Application of crude fiber in animal production[J]. Jilin Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2021, 42(1):66,68. (in Chinese)

[29]
冀红芹, 孙亚波, 孟令楠, 等. 日粮中添加小叶锦鸡儿对肉羊生长性能、营养物质表观消化率、屠宰性能和经济效益的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2020, 43(10):13-17.

JI H Q, SUN Y B, MENG L N, et al. Effect of Caragana microphylla on growth performance,nutrient apparent digestibility,slaughter performance and economic benefit of mutton sheep[J]. Feed Research, 2020, 43(10):13-17. (in Chinese)

[30]
WEN Y Y, LIU H H, LIU K, et al. Analysis of the physical meat quality in partridge (Alectoris chukar) and its relationship with intramuscular fat[J]. Poultry Science, 2020, 99(2):1225-1231.

DOI PMID

[31]
代立霞, 周世卫, 田崇奇, 等. 不同日粮对滩羊尾部脂肪沉积及Leptin、GLUT4基因表达的影响[J]. 家畜生态学报, 2017, 38(1):13-19.

DAI L X, ZHOU S W, TIAN C Q, et al. Effects of different diets on tail-fat depositions and expressions of Leptin and GLUT4 genes of Tan sheep[J]. Acta Ecologae Animalis Domastici, 2017, 38(1):13-19. (in Chinese)

[32]
曾洁. 滩羊尾部脂肪及OXCT1基因对其细胞分化作用的研究[D].博士学位论文. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2020.

ZENG J. Study on tail fat and the role of OXCT1 in differentiation of adipocyte in Tan sheep[D].Ph.D.Thesis Yangling: Northwest A&F University, 2020. (in Chinese)

[33]
李杰, 刘巧玲, 孙红先, 等. 植物单宁营养生理功能及其在反刍动物生产中的应用研究进展[J]. 畜牧兽医杂志, 2021, 40(6):79-82.

LI J, LIU Q L, SUN H X, et al. Research progress on the nutritional and physiological functions of plant tannin and its application in ruminantia[J]. Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2021, 40(6):79-82. (in Chinese)

[34]
FERNÁNDEZ-BARROSO M Á, SILIÓ L, RODRÍGUEZ C, et al. Genetic parameter estimation and gene association analyses for meat quality traits in open-air free-range Iberian pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 2020, 137(6):581-598.

DOI

[35]
李家博, 王小琪, 张志超, 等. 柠条对滩羊肉品质、胃肠道挥发性脂肪酸及其菌群的影响[J]. 食品工业科技, 2023, 44(9):96-103.

LI J B, WANG X Q, ZHANG Z C, et al. Effect of Caragana korshinskii Kom. on meat quality of adipose tissue,volatile fatty acids and the microbiota in gastrointestinal tract for Tan sheep[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2023, 44(9):96-103. (in Chinese)

[36]
ORZUNA J F, DORANTES-ITURBIDE G, LARA-BUENO A, et al. Growth performance,meat quality and antioxidant status of sheep supplemented with tannins:a Meta-analysis[J]. Animals, 2021, 11(11):3184.

DOI

[37]
QWELE K, HUGO A, OYEDEMI S O, et al. Chemical composition,fatty acid content and antioxidant potential of meat from goats supplemented with Moringa (Moringa oleifera) leaves,sunflower cake and grass hay[J]. Meat Science, 2013, 93(3):455-462.

DOI

[38]
程天赋, 俞龙浩. 宰后糖酵解对肉品质影响的研究进展[J]. 食品研究与开发, 2017, 38(15):219-224.

CHENG T F, YU L H. Research progress on effects of postmortem glycolysis on meat quality[J]. Food Research and Developent, 2017, 38(15):219-224. (in Chinese)

[39]
REDONDO L M, CHACANA P A, DOMINGUEZ J E, et al. Perspectives in the use of tannins as alternative to antimicrobial growth promoter factors in poultry[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2014, 5:118.

DOI PMID

[40]
马铁伟, 王强, 王锋, 等. 营养水平对湖羊生长性能、血清生化指标、屠宰性能和肉品质的影响[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2016, 39(6):1003-1009.

MA T W, WANG Q, WANG F, et al. Effects of different nutrition levels on growth performance,serum indexes,slaughter performance and meat traits of Hu lamb[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 2016, 39(6):1003-1009. (in Chinese)

[41]
DERVISHI E, SERRANO C, JOY M, et al. The effect of feeding system in the expression of genes related with fat metabolism in semitendinous muscle in sheep[J]. Meat Science, 2011, 89(1):91-97.

DOI PMID

[42]
HERREMANS S, VANWINDEKENS F, DECRUYENAERE V, et al. Effect of dietary tannins on milk yield and composition,nitrogen partitioning and nitrogen use efficiency of lactating dairy cows:a Meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 2020, 104(5):1209-1218.

DOI

[43]
邱清华. 缩合单宁对反刍动物瘤胃发酵的影响与研究进展[J]. 中国奶牛, 2016(5):10-13.

QIU Q H. Research progress on effects of condensed tannins on rumen fermentation[J]. China Dairy Cattle, 2016(5):10-13. (in Chinese)

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

京ICP备17050989号-2
Copyright © Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, All Rights Reserved.
Tel: 010－62817823　E-mail: cjan@vip.163.com
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co., Ltd.