Effects of Complex Microbial Agent Fermented Liquid Feed on Growth Performance, Meat Quality, Immunity, Antioxidant Capacity and Intestinal Morphological Structure of Finishing Pigs

CHEN Bihong

doi:10.12418/CJAN2023.696

2023 , Vol. 35 >Issue 12: 7658 - 7667

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2023.696

RESEARCH PAPER

Effects of Complex Microbial Agent Fermented Liquid Feed on Growth Performance, Meat Quality, Immunity, Antioxidant Capacity and Intestinal Morphological Structure of Finishing Pigs

CHEN Bihong

Expand

Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Station of Quanzhou Fujian, Quanzhou 362000, China

CHEN Bihong, senior engineer, E-mail: cbhok2000@126.com

Received date: 2023-06-05

Online published: 2023-12-11

Fold

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of complex microbial agent fermented liquid feed on the growth performance, meat quality, immunity, antioxidant capacity and intestinal morphological structure of finishing pigs. One hundred and twenty 60-day-old “Duroc×Landrace×Yorkshire” ternary crossbred pigs with an average body weight of (25.28±2.35) kg were randomly divided into 4 groups of 3 replicates each with 10 pigs in each replicate, according to half of the males and females and similar body weight. Pigs in control group were fed a solid-state basal diet, pigs in test group 1 were fed a liquid feed (the solid-state basal diet was prepared into liquid feed according to the ratio of water to feed of 2.5∶1), and pigs in test groups 2 and 3 were fed fermented liquid feed which was fermented by 1% and 2% complex microbial agent (Lactobacillus plantarum+Enterobacter faecium mixed fermentation broth), respectively. The pre-trial period lasted for 5 days, and the experiment period lasted for 60 days. The growth performance data of pigs were collected during the experiment. At the end of the experiment, blood was collected for determining the antioxidant and immune indexes, pectoral muscle and leg muscle were collected for measuring meat quality, and intestinal tissues were collected for assessment of intestinal morphological structure. The results showed as follows: 1) the average daily feed intake (ADFI) was not significant among groups (P>0.05); compared with the control group, the final body weight and average daily weight gain (ADG) were significantly improved (P<0.05), the feed/gain (F/G) was significantly decreased in test groups 1, 2 and 3 (P<0.05), and the ADG in test group 3 was 86.34 g/d higher than the control group; moreover, the ADG in test groups 2 and 3 was significantly higher than that in the test group 1 (P<0.05). 2) Compared with the control group, the contents of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin A (IgA) were significantly increased in test groups 1, 2 and 3 (P<0.05); the content of IgG in test group 3 was significantly higher than that in the test groups 1 and 2 (P<0.05), and the content of IgA in test groups 2 and 3 was significantly higher than that in the test group 1 (P<0.05); compared with the control group, the serum catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD) activities and total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) were significantly increased in test groups 1, 2 and 3 (P<0.05); moreover, the serum SOD activity and T-AOC in test group 3 were significantly higher than those in the test groups 1 and 2 (P<0.05), and the CAT activity was significantly higher than that in the test group 1 (P<0.05). 3) Feeding 1% and 2% complex microbial agent fermented liquid feed significantly increased the villus height and villus height/crypt depth ratio of the duodenum, ileum and colon (P<0.05), and feeding 2% complex microbial agent fermented liquid feed also significantly increased the villus height/crypt depth ratio of jejunum and cecum (P<0.05). 4) Compared with the control group, the contents of valine, lysine, glutamic acid, linoleic acid, vitamin E and vitamin B₁ in pork were significantly increased by feeding 2% complex microbial agent fermented liquid feed, and the contents of glutamic acid and linoleic acid in pork in test group 3 was 1.82 and 1.85 g/100 g, respectively, which was more than 2 times higher than that in the control group, and significantly higher than that in the test group 2 (P<0.05). In conclusion, it is shown that feeding 2% complex microbial agent fermented liquid feed can improve can improve the intestinal morphological structure, enhance the body immunity and antioxidant capacity, and then increase the growth performance of finishing pigs, and it also can improve the meat quality.

Key words： Lactobacillus plantarum; Enterobacter faecalis; liquid feed; finishing pigs; immune indexes; antioxidant indexes; meat quality

Cite this article

CHEN Bihong . Effects of Complex Microbial Agent Fermented Liquid Feed on Growth Performance, Meat Quality, Immunity, Antioxidant Capacity and Intestinal Morphological Structure of Finishing Pigs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023 , 35(12) : 7658 -7667 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2023.696

微生物发酵液态饲料是指将微生物添加至一定水料比的液态饲料中,经一定条件发酵后制备的液态生物饲料^[1]。在19世纪末的英国,有部分生猪养殖公司用生猪屠宰后的下脚料和肉屑作为液态饲料原料进行粗放式液态饲料发酵。至21世纪,世界各国已陆续开始使用液态饲料。近些年,随着微生物在饲料工业的中应用,发酵液态饲料在生猪养殖中的应用日益得到重视^[2]。越来越多的研究认为液态饲料经微生物发酵可产生更多的有机酸和释放更多小分子物质,对维护畜禽胃肠道微生态平衡和提升饲料转化率、增强机体免疫力效果明显^[3]。此外,发酵后产生的代谢物具有多种生物学活性,如抗菌、抗氧化、降解霉菌毒素和分解抗营养因子等^[4⇓-6]。最近几年,畜牧业生产中因抗生素过量使用带来的危害日益突出,国际粮食危机引起的饲料原料价格上涨使生猪养殖成本急剧增加,影响了畜牧业的健康发展。为减少抗生素使用,提升饲料的转化效率,降低生猪养殖成本,保证畜牧业健康和稳定的发展,有必要深入研究微生物发酵液态饲料对生猪的影响^[7⇓-9]。已有研究报道,断奶仔猪因胃酸较缺乏,导致对有害菌入侵防御较弱,最终导致仔猪腹泻率高,成活率低,养殖的经济效益较差^[6]。而给仔猪饲喂发酵液态饲料可明显降低仔猪胃肠道的pH,防止大肠杆菌和沙门氏菌等病原体的增殖;同时,发酵液态饲料能促进饲粮酸化,显著提高饲粮酸度(大约降低2个pH),从而抑制饲粮中病原菌增殖,大幅度降低饲粮有害菌隐性感染率,有较好的杀菌抑菌作用^[10]。此外,发酵液态饲料可明显提高猪的消化率、改善猪胃肠道形态、降低饲料中各种抗营养因子的含量以及减少舍内灰尘。有报道显示,给断奶仔猪饲喂发酵液态饲料可促进仔猪的小肠绒毛生长,增加日增重和饲料转化率^[11]。近几年,陆续有研究证实饲喂发酵液态饲料可提高乳猪、断奶仔猪和生长肥育猪的生长性能^[12]。猪的育肥阶段是饲料消耗和转化率逐渐上升的阶段,也是实现经济效益最为关键的一段,该阶段胃肠道的健康状态影响育肥猪后半程的生长发育。本试验以60日龄的育肥猪为研究对象,以有益菌植物乳杆菌和粪肠球菌制备发酵液态饲料,评估复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料降本增效的可能性,以期为微生物发酵液态饲料在生猪养殖中的应用奠定基础,从而推动微生物发酵液态饲料在生猪养殖中的应用。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验设计

选取120头初始体重为(25.28±2.35) kg的60日龄“杜×长×大”三元健康育肥猪,按公母各占1/2、体重相近原则随机分为4组,每组3个重复,每个重复10头。对照组饲喂固态的基础饲粮,试验1组饲喂液态饲料,试验2、3组则分别饲喂经1%和2%的复合微生物制剂发酵制备的发酵液态饲料。预试期5 d,正试期60 d。

基础饲粮是参照NRC(2012)25~50 kg育肥猪营养需求配制的全价配合饲料,其组成及营养水平见表1。饲粮干物质、粗蛋白质、钙和总磷含量的测定分别参照国标GB/T 6438—2007、GB/T 6432—2018、GB/T 6436—2018和GB/T 6437—2018。液态饲料和发酵液态饲料的制备方法如下:首先按照水料比为2.5∶1的比例将固态的基础饲粮制备成液态饲料,然后分别在液体饲料中添加1%和2%的复合微生物制剂[植物乳杆菌(1.13×10⁸ CFU/mL)+粪肠球菌(1.21×10⁸ CFU/mL)混合增殖发酵液],在室温(25 ℃)下发酵12 h制成发酵液态饲料。试验所用植物乳杆菌和粪肠球菌由福建省农业科学院畜牧兽医研究所提供,并参照该实验室拟定的培养条件进行增殖。

表1 基础饲粮组成及营养水平(风干基础)

Table 1 Composition and nutrient levels of the basal diet (air-dry basis) %

项目Items	含量Content
原料Ingredients
玉米Corn	63.0
豆粕Soybean meal	27.0
小麦麸Wheat bran	4.4
大豆油Soybean oil	1.6
预混料Premix¹⁾	4.0
合计Total	100.0
营养水平Nutrient levels²⁾
消化能DE/(MJ/kg)	13.65
干物质DM	85.76
粗蛋白质CP	15.23
钙Ca	0.68
总磷TP	0.57

1)预混料为每千克饲粮提供The premix provided the following per kg of the diet:VA 10 000 IU,VB₆ 23 mg,VB₁₂ 0.23 mg,VD₃ 2 500 IU,VE 15.5 IU,VK₃ 1.35 mg,生物素 biotin 0.63 mg,叶酸 folic acid 15.0 mg,D-泛酸 D-pantothenic acid 8.5 mg,烟酸 nicotinic acid 300 mg,抗氧化剂 antioxidant 0.28 mg,胆碱 choline 600 mg,NaCl 4 g,CaHPO₄ 5 g,CaCO₃ 12 g, Cu (as copper sulfate) 15 mg,Fe (as ferrous sulfate) 130 mg,Mn (as manganese sulfate) 13.43 mg,Zn (as zinc sulfate) 52.4 mg,I (as potassium iodide) 0.40 mg,Se (as sodium selenite) 0.09 mg,赖氨酸 Lys 10 g,蛋氨酸 Met 5 g。

2)消化能为计算值^[13],其余为实测值。DE was a calculated value^[13], while the others were measured values.

1.2 饲养管理

所有试验猪饲养于同一栋猪舍,中间采用1.5 m高的砖墙分隔,免疫、驱虫、保健和消毒按猪场常规程序进行。所有试验猪均按液态饲料的饲喂模式(管道式)进行分餐饲喂,每天4餐,饮水采用猪用自动饮水碗。

1.3 样品采集

1.3.1 血液

试验结束当天早上,每组每个重复随机选取10头试验猪,由前腔静脉采集血液10 mL,室温静置30 min后3 000 r/min离心20 min,取上清,-20 ℃保存备用。

1.3.2 肠道和肌肉组织

试验结束当日上午,每个重复随机选取3头试验猪,麻醉后处死。采集1 cm左右的完整的十二指肠、空肠、回肠、结肠和盲肠肠段,加入10%多聚甲醛固定,然后石蜡包埋,制成组织切片备用;取胸肌和腿肌各100 g,-4 ℃保存备用。

1.4 指标测定及方法

1.4.1 生长性能测定

在正试期第1天和第60天上午,空腹进行称重并记录其初始体重和终末体重。试验期间记录采食量,并计算平均日采食量(ADFI)、平均日增重(ADG)和料重比(F/G)。计算公式如下:

ADG(g/d)=1 000×(终末体重-初始体重)/试验天数;

ADFI(g/d)=总采食量/试验天数;

F/G=ADFI/ADG。

1.4.2 血清免疫和抗氧化指标测定

血清免疫指标[免疫球蛋白G(IgG)、免疫球蛋白M(IgM)、免疫球蛋白A(IgA)含量]和抗氧化指标[丙二醛(MDA)含量、总抗氧化能力(T-AOC)及超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、过氧化氢酶(CAT)和谷胱甘肽过氧化物酶(GSH-Px)活性]均采用试剂盒测定,其中免疫指标测定所用试剂盒购自厦门致善生物科技股份有限公司,抗氧化指标测定所用试剂盒购自上海厦维生物技术有限公司,严格按照试剂盒操作说明书进行测定。

1.4.3 肉质成分测定

取-4 ℃保存的胸肌和腿肌进行肉质成分分析,具体检测成分及检测方法见表2。

表2 肉质成分测定参考方法

Table 2 Reference methods for determination of meat quality components

序号 No.	检测成分 Detection components	检测方法 Detection methods
1	缬氨酸、苏氨酸、丙氨酸、赖氨酸、谷氨酸	GB 5009.124—2016
2	锌	GB 5009.14—2017第1法
3	铁	GB 5009.90—2016第1法
4	二十碳四烯酸、亚油酸、亚麻酸	GB 5009.168—2016第2法
5	维生素E	GB 5009.82—2016第1法
6	烟酸	GB 5009.89—2016第2法
7	维生素C	GB 5009.86—2016第1法
8	维生素B₁(以硫胺素计)	GB 5009.84—2016第1法
9	维生素B₂	GB 5009.85—2016第1法

1.4.4 肠道组织形态观察

将之前制备的各肠道组织石蜡切片依次加二甲苯碘、二甲苯、无水乙醇碘进行脱蜡,再进行苏木精-伊红(HE)染色、脱水和树胶封片,然后电子显微镜观察肠道组织形态,并进行图像采集分析。

1.5 统计分析

试验数据采用SAS 9.0软件进行单因素方差分析,并采用Duncan氏法进行组间多重比较,试验结果用平均值±标准误表示,P>0.05表示差异不显著,P<0.05表示差异显著。

2 结果与分析

2.1 复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料对育肥猪生长性能的影响

由表3可知,与对照组相比,饲喂液态饲料的试验1组和饲喂发酵液态饲料的试验2、3组的ADFI无显著变化(P>0.05),但终末体重和ADG显著提高(P<0.05),F/G显著降低(P<0.05),尤其是饲喂2%复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料的试验3组,其ADG比对照组高出86.34 g/d。此外,饲喂1%和2%复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料的试验2、3组之间ADG和F/G差异不显著(P>0.05),但这2组的ADG均显著高于饲喂未经复合微生物制剂发酵的液态饲料的试验1组(P<0.05)。

表3 复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料对育肥猪生长性能的影响

Table 3 Effects of complex microbial agent fermented liquid feed on growth performance of finishing pigs

项目 Items	对照组 Control group	试验1组 Test group 1	试验2组 Test group 2	试验3组 Test group 3
初始体重IBW/kg	25.36±3.27	25.78±4.39	24.95±2.35	25.03±3.58
终末体重FBW/kg	65.16±3.59^c	68.34±5.04^b	69.54±7.32^b	70.01±6.05^a
平均日增重ADG/(g/d)	663.33±15.71^c	709.33±18.40^b	743.16±21.54^a	749.67±29.39^a
平均日采食量ADFI/(g/d)	1 865.31±28.50	1 860.43±37.06	1 878.55±39.65	1 885.42±25.77
料重比F/G	2.81±0.14^a	2.63±0.12^b	2.53±0.15^b	2.52±0.21^b

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

2.2 复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料对育肥猪血清免疫和抗氧化指标的影响

由表4可知,与对照组相比,饲喂液态饲料或发酵液态饲料均显著提高了育肥猪血清中IgG和IgA含量(P<0.05)。与饲喂未经复合微生物制剂发酵的液态饲料相比,饲喂2%复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料显著提高了育肥猪血清中IgG含量(P<0.05),饲喂1%和2%复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料显著提高了育肥猪血清中IgA含量(P<0.05)。此外,试验3组血清中IgG含量还显著高于试验2组(P<0.05)。4组育肥猪血清中IgM含量没有显著差异(P>0.05)。与对照组相比,饲喂液态饲料或发酵液态饲料均显著提高了育肥猪血清中CAT、SOD活性和T-AOC(P<0.05)。3个试验组中,以饲喂2%复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料的试验3组血清中CAT、SOD活性和T-AOC最高,其SOD活性和T-AOC显著高于试验1、2组(P<0.05),CAT活性显著高于试验1组(P<0.05)。血清中MDA含量和GSH-Px活性4组之间无显著差异(P>0.05)。

表4 复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料对育肥猪血清免疫和抗氧化指标的影响

Table 4 Effects of complex microbial agent fermented liquid feed on serum immune and antioxidant indexes of finishing pigs

项目 Items	对照组 Control group	试验1组 Test group 1	试验2组 Test group 2	试验3组 Test group 3
免疫球蛋白G IgG/(mg/mL)	53.14±6.65^c	58.64±7.97^b	63.21±7.01^b	65.65±8.21^a
免疫球蛋白M IgM/(mg/mL)	3.69±0.37	3.73±0.55	3.88±0.25	3.81±0.39
免疫球蛋白A IgA/(mg/mL)	0.33±0.09^d	0.89±0.15^c	1.35±0.13^b	1.75±0.23^a
总抗氧化能力T-AOC/(U/mL)	6.73±1.47^d	7.15±1.69^c	8.55±1.54^b	9.47±1.67^a
丙二醛MDA/(nmol/mL)	3.13±1.25	3.15±1.05	3.17±1.03	3.15±1.29
过氧化氢酶CAT/(U/mL)	1.30±0.25^c	1.55±0.37^b	1.57±0.35^a	1.57±0.42^a
超氧化物歧化酶SOD/(U/mL)	44.34±1.98^c	46.69±3.87^b	49.21±1.98^b	55.33±6.34^a
谷胱甘肽过氧化物GSH-Px/(U/mL)	654.21±33.65	669.78±31.63	675.12±43.02	689.17±41.55

2.3 复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料对育肥猪肠道形态结构的影响

由表5可知,与对照组相比,饲喂发酵液态饲料均显著提高了育肥猪十二指肠、回肠、结肠和盲肠的绒毛高度(P<0.05),且以饲喂2%复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料时效果最好,而隐窝深度只有盲肠有显著增加(P<0.05);而饲喂液态饲料仅显著提高了育肥猪十二指肠、回肠和盲肠的绒毛高度(P<0.05),并显著增加了回肠、结肠和盲肠的隐窝深度(P<0.05)。与对照组相比,饲喂1%和2%复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料显著提高了育肥猪十二指肠、回肠、结肠的绒毛高度/隐窝深度比值(P<0.05),饲喂2%复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料还显著提高了空肠和盲肠的绒毛高度/隐窝深度比值(P<0.05)。此外,与饲喂未经复合微生物制剂发酵的液态饲料相比,饲喂2%复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料显著提高了育肥猪十二指肠、空肠、回肠、结肠和盲肠的绒毛高度和绒毛高度/隐窝深度比值(P<0.05)。

表5 复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料对育肥猪肠道形态结构的影响

Table 5 Effects of complex microbial agent fermented liquid feed on intestinal morphological structure of finishing pigs

项目 Items	对照组 Control group	试验1组 Test group 1	试验2组 Test group 2	试验3组 Test group 3
十二指肠Duodenum
绒毛高度Villus height/μm	361.67±7.43^c	375.89±8.15^b	376.36±10.32^b	385.90±9.17^a
隐窝深度Crypt depth/μm	214.63±7.05	215.21±6.72	213.95±7.38	215.60±6.53
绒毛高度/隐窝深度V/C	1.68±0.12^c	1.74±0.21^b	1.76±0.27^b	1.79±0.07^a
空肠Jejunum
绒毛高度Villus height/μm	393.91±8.25^b	399.56±6.78^b	399.83±8.57^b	409.16±9.21^a
隐窝深度Crypt depth/μm	180.17±5.33	182.45±6.18	183.56±7.08	183.45±6.55
绒毛高度/隐窝深度V/C	2.18±0.23^b	2.19±0.35^b	2.18±0.98^b	2.23±0.11^a
回肠Ileum
绒毛高度Villus height/μm	378.25±8.05^c	392.14±7.39^b	392.95±7.27^b	412.51±8.75^a
隐窝深度Crypt depth/μm	188.25±13.57^b	199.12±12.77^a	189.20±13.51^b	179.78±13.26^c
绒毛高度/隐窝深度V/C	2.01±0.13^c	1.97±0.33^c	2.08±0.41^b	2.29±0.56^a
结肠Colon
绒毛高度Villus height/μm	328.57±9.99^c	339.01±8.57^c	349.53±10.93^b	353.25±8.70^a
隐窝深度Crypt depth/μm	161.15±6.43^b	166.53±8.02^a	165.77±9.05^a	161.83±5.54^b
绒毛高度/隐窝深度V/C	2.04±0.06^b	2.04±0.01^b	2.11±0.05^a	2.18±0.07^a
盲肠Caecum
绒毛高度Villus height/μm	358.37±9.45^d	368.27±7.71^c	378.50±6.74^b	389.22±7.09^a
隐窝深度Crypt depth/μm	151.53±7.66^c	156.22±6.45^b	159.50±8.17^a	159.45±5.05^a
绒毛高度/隐窝深度V/C	2.36±0.29^b	2.36±0.15^b	2.37±0.35^b	2.44±0.47^a

2.4 复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料对育肥猪肉质成分的影响

由表6可知,与对照组相比,饲喂1%和2%复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料均显著提高了育肥猪肉中缬氨酸、赖氨酸、谷氨酸、亚油酸、维生素E和维生素B₁的含量(P<0.05),其中饲喂2%复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料的试验3组育肥猪的肉中谷氨酸和亚油酸含量分别高达1.82和1.85 g/100 g,是对照组的2倍多,并显著高于饲喂1%复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料的试验2组(P<0.05);饲喂发酵液态饲料也显著提高了育肥猪肉中谷氨酸、亚油酸、维生素E和维生素B₁的含量(P<0.05)。育肥猪肉中苏氨酸、丙氨酸、锌、铁、二十碳四烯酸、亚麻酸、烟酸、维生素C和维生素B₂的含量4组之间差异不显著(P>0.05)。

表6 复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料对育肥猪肉质成分的影响

Table 6 Effects of complex microbial agent fermented liquid feed on meat quality components of finishing pigs

项目 Items	对照组 Control group	试验1组 Test group 1	试验2组 Test group 2	试验3组 Test group 3
缬氨酸Val/(g/100 g)	0.52±0.01^b	0.55±0.03^b	0.62±0.02^a	0.65±0.02^a
苏氨酸Thr/(g/100 g)	0.55±0.05	0.56±0.03	0.56±0.04	0.57±0.03
丙氨酸Ala/(g/100 g)	0.75±0.11	0.79±0.03	0.79±0.03	0.78±0.04
赖氨酸Lys/(g/100 g)	1.08±0.01^b	1.18±0.03^b	1.21±0.06^a	1.28±0.03^a
谷氨酸Glu/(g/100 g)	0.74±0.11^d	1.13±0.12^c	1.62±0.32^b	1.82±0.26^a
锌Zinc/(mg/kg)	17.8±1.5	17.7±1.3	17.6±1.4	17.7±1.7
铁Iron/(mg/kg)	6.7±1.3	6.9±1.7	6.8±1.5	6.7±1.8
二十碳四烯酸 Eicosatetraenoic acid/(mg/100 g)	30.31±1.56	36.87±1.19	39.34±1.20	41.60±1.43
亚油酸Linoleic acid/(g/100 g)	0.95±0.23^c	1.59±0.50^b	1.79±0.75^b	1.85±0.61^a
亚麻酸Linolenic acid/(mg/100 g)	93.41±6.94	91.83±4.76	90.95±2.11	98.40±5.36
维生素E Vitamin E/(mg/100 g)	0.142±0.037^c	0.239±0.044^b	0.245±0.081^a	0.251±0.051^a
烟酸Nicotinic acid/(mg/100 g)	4.28±0.12	4.26±0.18	4.14±0.17	4.31±0.21
维生素C Vitamin C/(mg/100 g)	0.22±0.02	0.32±0.01	0.31±0.05	0.27±0.01
维生素B₁(以硫胺素计) Vitamin B₁(as thiamine)/(mg/100 g)	0.87±0.03^c	1.10±0.56^b	1.25±0.31^a	1.23±0.40^a
维生素B₂ Vitamin B₂/(mg/100 g)	0.11±0.01	0.12±0.01	0.12±0.01	0.11±0.02

3 讨论

3.1 复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料对育肥猪生长性能的影响

发酵液态饲料作为一种新型生物饲料,能提高猪的ADG,降低F/G,进而提高养殖经济效益。之前有研究报道给断奶仔猪分别饲喂干饲料、液态饲料或发酵液态饲料,结果发现,饲喂发酵液态饲料的仔猪比饲喂干饲料的仔猪体重增加22.3%,饲料转化效率提高10.9%^[14-15]。本研究的结果也证实,饲喂液态饲料或复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料均可提高育肥猪的终末体重和ADG,且以饲喂复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料效果更好。此外,有研究发现,将饲粮发酵72 h(30~35 ℃)可明显提高生长肥育猪对饲粮中粗蛋白质、粗纤维和中性洗涤纤维的回肠消化率以及粗蛋白质的胃肠道消化率^[16]。饲喂发酵液态饲料的猪蛋白质消化率提高原因可能与胃液pH的降低有关,低pH会刺激胃中蛋白质水解并减慢胃排空速度,从而让采食的蛋白质饲料在胃中有更多时间进行消化^[17]。本研究中,饲喂发酵液态饲料的育肥猪的F/G显著降低,主要可能是复合微生物制剂在发酵过程中产生了大量的代谢物质如氨基酸、维生素、活性肽、消化酶、有机酸等,这些物质能够促进肠道对营养成分的消化吸收,提高饲料的转化效率,最终体现为降低F/G,增加养殖经济效益。此外,本次试验中发酵饲料的水料比例是2.5∶1,这与常规液态饲料是一致,但是否存在因水料比不一致而影响饲料的发酵或最终影响生长性能的情况,以及性别对试验结果的影响等都有待下一步深入研究。

3.2 复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料对育肥猪免疫力和抗氧化能力的影响

血液免疫指标可实时反映仔猪免疫状态。机体的免疫包括细胞免疫和体液免疫,其中IgG在体液免疫反应中起重要作用,控制体内细菌感染,而IgA是仅次IgG的黏膜免疫抗体,是机体黏膜免疫的关键,它主要是由胃肠道黏膜上皮产生,在关键时候可以结合多种病原来控制腹泻感染^[18]。研究报道,给猪饲喂发酵饲料,其血液中IgG和IgM含量显著升高^[19]。有研究发现,饲喂仔猪发酵饲料后,其血清IgG含量降低,血清IgA和IgM含量无显著变化^[20]。本研究结果发现,饲喂液态发酵饲料的育肥猪,其血清中IgG和IgA的含量显著增加,尤其以IgA含量增加的最为明显,而血清中IgM含量则无显著的变化。已有研究表明,脂肪酸包括单不饱和脂肪酸(MUFA)、多不饱和脂肪酸(PUFA)和饱和脂肪酸(SFA)不仅有改善肉质的作用,还对机体的激素代谢和多种酶的活性具有调节作用,在调节脂质代谢、预防心脑血管疾病、延缓免疫功能下降等方面发挥着广泛的作用^[21]。本研究中饲喂液态发酵饲料的育肥猪血清中IgG和IgA含量增加可能与复合微生物制剂发酵后产生了大量的脂肪酸密切相关。

自由基在生物领域常作为一种衰老和疾病的代名词,受人诟病。作为机体清除自由基的能力的指征,T-AOC常作为机体健康评价的指标之一^[22]。GSH-Px、SOD和CAT是机体最主要的酶促抗氧化系统,其主要作用是清除机体产生的过多的自由基和活性氧,防止脂质过氧化物产生^[23]。本研究发现,饲喂复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料显著提高了育肥猪血清的T-AOC,这可能是复合微生物制剂在发酵过程中产生了维生素、氨基酸以及多酚类等多种抗氧化活性物质,进而提高了机体的抗氧化能力。

3.3 复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料对育肥猪肠道形态结构的影响

小肠绒毛是猪体内生长最快的组织,其生长所需的多种养分直接从肠道吸收而得。有研究报道,饲喂发酵液态饲料的猪具有明显较长的绒毛和较高的绒毛高度/隐窝深度比值^[24]。研究发现,对小肠进行短暂的"饥饿",会使小肠绒毛高度迅速下降,转而出现肠道的吸收障碍^[25]。而本研究中复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料解决了固态饲料因适口性差出现小肠短时间“饥饿”状态而引起的肠绒毛发育问题,能为育肥猪提供适宜的养分,维持了肠绒毛的生长,进而增强了小肠对养分的吸收。

3.4 复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料对育肥猪肉质成分的影响

猪肉中的氨基酸谱对于肉质评估很重要。猪肉中氨基酸的种类、含量和比例与肉品质和风味有关。例如,必需氨基酸(EAA)决定了肌肉蛋白质质量的好坏,而呈味氨基酸,如丙氨酸、甘氨酸、谷氨酸、天冬氨酸和丝氨酸,可能会影响猪肉的风味^[26-27]。在本研究中,饲喂复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料的猪肉中有较高的赖氨酸和谷氨酸含量,该结果表明饲喂复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料可以改善猪肉的品质并增强风味。因为赖氨酸不仅是人体内的一种EAA,而且是改善肉制品质地和色泽、提高产品良率的重要物质,而谷氨酸是最重要的呈味氨基酸之一,它是主要的风味物质,在肉品新鲜度和缓冲咸味和酸味中发挥作用。之前提到复合微生物制剂发酵饲料后可产生的大量的脂肪酸,这些脂肪酸与猪肉的营养价值以及构成肉类特征风味的直接相关^[28]。因此,饲喂复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料改善猪肉脂肪酸组成的机制可能是因为经复合微生物制剂发酵后液态饲料中的脂肪酸组成得到改善。

4 结论

综上可知,饲喂复合微生物制剂发酵液态饲料可增加育肥猪肠道绒毛高度和部分肠段绒毛高度/隐窝深度比值,提高机体抗氧化能力和免疫力,进而提高生长性能,同时还能改善和提升育肥猪肉的品质和风味。

References

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

[1]	BROOKS P H. Fermented liquid feed for pigs[J]. CAB Reviews:Perspectives in Agriculture,Veterinary Science,Nutrition and Natural Resources, 2008, 3(73):1-18.

[2]	MISSOTTEN J A, MICHIELS J, DEGROOTE J, et al. Fermented liquid feed for pigs:an ancient technique for the future[J]. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2015, 6(1):4. DOI

[3]	MITSUMOTO M, SASAKI K, KAWASHIMA T, et al. Effect of fermented liquid feed of food processing waste and dietary tea catechins on growth performance,carcass characteristics,and meat quality during chilled storage in finishing pigs[J]. Nihon Chikusan Gakkaiho, 2006, 77(3):409-416. DOI

[4]	CANIBE N, MIKKELSEN L L, JENSEN B B. Fermented liquid feed:an alternative feed strategy for pigs[J]. Feed Tech, 2002, 6(4):24-28.

[5]	LIU S Q, DU M, TU Y A, et al. Fermented mixed feed alters growth performance,carcass traits,meat quality and muscle fatty acid and amino acid profiles in finishing pigs[J]. Animal Nutrition, 2023, 12:87-95. DOI

[6]	AHMED S T, MUN H S, ISLAM M M, et al. Effects of dietary natural and fermented herb combination on growth performance,carcass traits and meat quality in grower-finisher pigs[J]. Meat Science, 2016, 122:7-15. DOI

[7]	MARIA L, THOMAS F P, THOMAS M P, et al. Preventing potentially inappropriate use of antibiotics using the World Health Organization AWaRe tool[J]. Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice, 2022, 30(2):e1104.

[8]	Antibiotics Editorial Office. Acknowledgment to the reviewers of antibiotics in 2022[J]. Antibiotics, 2023, 12(2):185. DOI

[9]	KARUNIAWATI H, HASSALI M A A, ISMAIL W I, et al. Antibiotic use in animal husbandry:a mixed-methods study among general community in Boyolali,Indonesia[J]. International Journal of One Health, 2021, 7(1):122-127. DOI

[10]	MACASAIT D R, ROYLO B B, ESPINA D M. Growth performance of grower pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus L.),nutritional and microbial contents of wet and fermented commercial hog ration with different levels of wood vinegar[J]. Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research, 2021, 40(2):220-224.

[11]	REWAR R, KALITA G, GOSWAMI R, et al. Effect of feeding fermented liquid feed on haemato-biochemical parameters of pre-weaned and post-weaned young pigs of large white Yorkshire breed[J]. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 2021, 9(1):479-483.

[12]	GEARY T M, BROOKS P H, BEAL J D, et al. Effect on weaner pig performance and diet microbiology of feeding a liquid diet acidified to pH 4 with either lactic acid or through fermentation with Pediococcus acidilactici[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 1999, 79(4):633-640. DOI

[13]	霍贵成. 猪饲粮消化能和代谢能的估测[J]. 饲料博览, 1990(5):4-5. HUO G C. Evaluation of digestive and metabolic energy in pigs[J]. Feed Review, 1990(5):4-5. (in Chinese)

[14]	HURST D, CLARKE L, LEAN I J. Effect of liquid feeding at different water-to-feed ratios on the growth performance of growing-finishing pigs[J]. Animal, 2008, 2(9):1297-1302. DOI PMID

[15]	SULABO R C, TOKACH M D, DEROUCHEY J M, et al. Effects of creep feeder design and feed accessibility on preweaning pig performance and the proportion of pigs consuming creep feed[J]. Journal of Swine Health and Production, 2010, 18(4):174-181.

[16]	O’MEARA F M, GARDINER G E, O’DOHERTY J V, et al. Effect of wet/dry,fresh liquid,fermented whole diet liquid,and fermented cereal liquid feeding on feed microbial quality and growth in grow-finisher pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 98(6):skaa166. DOI

[17]	O’MEARA F M, GARDINER G E, O’DOHERTY J V, et al. The effect of feed form and delivery method on feed microbiology and growth performance in grow-finisher pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 98(3):skaa021. DOI

[18]	JIANG J J, CHEN D W, YU B, et al. Improvement of growth performance and parameters of intestinal function in liquid fed early weanling pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 97(7):2725-2738. DOI

[19]	VADOPALAS L, BADARAS S, RUZAUSKAS M, et al. Influence of the fermented feed and vaccination and their interaction on parameters of large white/Norwegian landrace piglets[J]. Animals, 2020, 10(7):1201. DOI

[20]	MIZUMACHI K, AOKI R, OHMORI H, et al. Effect of fermented liquid diet prepared with Lactobacillus plantarum LQ80 on the immune response in weaning pigs[J]. Animal, 2009, 3(5):670-676. DOI

[21]	WOOD J D, RICHARDSON R I, NUTE G R, et al. Effects of fatty acids on meat quality:a review[J]. Meat Science, 2004, 66(1):21-32. DOI

[22]

PRYOR

W A

. Free radicals in autoxidation and in aging.Kinetics of the autoxidation of linoleic acid in SDS micelles:calculations of radical concentrations,kinetics chain lengths,and the effects of vitamin E.Ⅱ.The role of radicals in chronic human diseases and in aging[J]. Molecuar Biology,Aging and Disease, 1984, 2(2):1-10.

[23]	ZHANG W D, FU T, ZHANG Z, et al. GSH intervented spermatogenesis by oxygen free radicals-mitochondrial signaling pathway[J]. Life Science Journal, 2014, 11(4):398-403.

[24]	PLUSKE J R, HAMPSON D J, WILLIAMS I H. Factors influencing the structure and function of the small intestine in the weaned pig:a review[J]. Livestock Production Science, 1997, 51(1/2/3):215-236. DOI

[25]	CERA K R, MAHAN D C, CROSS R F, et al. Effect of age,weaning and postweaning diet on small intestinal growth and jejunal morphology in young swine[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1988, 66(2):574-584. DOI

[26]	LORENZO J M, FRANCO D. Fat effect on physico-chemical,microbial and textural changes through the manufactured of dry-cured foal sausage lipolysis,proteolysis and sensory properties[J]. Meat Science, 2012, 92(4):704-714. DOI

[27]	ZHENG Y D, XU P, LI S Y, et al. Effects of L-lysine/L-arginine on the physicochemical properties and quality of sodium-reduced and phosphate-free pork sausage[J]. International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences, 2017, 6(1):12-18. DOI

[28]	ENSER M, HALLETT K, HEWITT B, et al. Fatty acid content and composition of English beef,lamb and pork at retail[J]. Meat Science, 1996, 42(4):443-456. DOI

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题