Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2024 , Vol. 36 >Issue 2: 1117 - 1126

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2024.101

RESEARCH PAPER

Effects of Different Material Types on Growth Performance, Slaughter Performance and Meat Quality of Dezhou Donkeys in Fattening Period

  • DIAO Keqiang ,
  • GUO Cuihua ,
  • LI Han ,
  • ZHANG Chongyu , * ,
  • ZHANG Guiguo , *
Expand
  • College of Animal Science and Technology, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, China
* ZHANG Chongyu, associate professor, E-mail: ;
ZHANG Guiguo, professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2023-08-07

  Online published: 2024-02-01

Fold

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to study the effects of granular total mixed daily diet (TMR) and bulk TMR on growth performance, slaughter performance and meat quality of Dezhou donkeys in fattening period. Twenty healthy donkeys with similar weight [(150±2) kg] and age of 8 months were selected and randomly divided into two groups, with 10 replicates in each group. The control group (CG group) was fed scattered TMR, and the experimental group (EG group) was fed granular TMR. The composition of the two diets was consistent with composition and nutrient levels, and they were all fed ad libitum, with a pre-feeding period of 10 days and a formal period of 129 days. The results showed as follows: 1) final weight in EG group was significantly higher than that in CG group (P<0.05) ; the average feed intake in EG group was significantly higher than that in CG group (P0.01); the average daily gain in EG group was significantly higher than that in CG group (P<0.05) ; the weight gain benefit in EG group was significantly higher than that in CG group (P<0.05 ). 2) There was no significant difference between EG group and CG group in live weight before slaughter (P>0.05), but the carcass weight and slaughter rate in EG group were significantly higher than those in CG group (P<0.05), and the slaughter benefit in EG group tended to be significantly higher than CG group (0.05<P<0.10). 3) The shear force of muscle in EG group was significantly lower than that in CG group (P<0.05), and there were no significant difference in cooking loss, dripping loss and meat color between EG group and CG group (P>0.05). 4) The content of crude fat (EE) of muscle in EG group was significantly higher than that in CG group (P<0.05), and there were no significant difference in the contents of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), organic matter (OM) and ash between EG group and CG group (P>0.05). 5) The contents of His and Hyp of muscle in EG group were significantly higher than those in CG group (P<0.05); there were no significant difference in the contents of essential amino acids (EAA), semi-essential amino acids (SEAA), nonessential amino acids (NEAA), flavor amino acids (FAA) and EAA/NEAA value between EG group and CG group (P>0.05). The contents of octanoic acid (C8:0) and trans-9-octadecenoic acid (C18:1n9t) of muscle in EG group were significantly higher than those in CG group (P<0.05). The content of saturated fatty acid (SFA) of muscle in EG group was significantly lower than that in CG group (P<0.05), while the content of monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) and MUFA/SFA value of muscle in EG group were significantly higher than those in CG group (P<0.05), and the content of unsaturated fatty acid (UFA) of muscle in EG group was significantly higher than that in CG group (P<0.05). It can be seen that compared with scattered TMR, granular TMR can very significantly increase the average daily feed intake in Dezhou donkey during fattening period, significantly increase the average daily gain, slaughter rate and economic benefits, improve the tenderness and fatty acid composition of donkey meat. To sum up, it is feasible and efficient to fatten Dezhou donkeys with granular TMR in large-scale farming.

Key words： different material types; Dezhou donkeys; growth performance; slaughter performance; meat quality

Cite this article

DIAO Keqiang , GUO Cuihua , LI Han , ZHANG Chongyu , ZHANG Guiguo . Effects of Different Material Types on Growth Performance, Slaughter Performance and Meat Quality of Dezhou Donkeys in Fattening Period[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024 , 36(2) : 1117 -1126 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2024.101

2017年底,我国驴产业总值已达到780亿元的规模,马属动物饲养被国家农业部《全国草食畜牧业发展规划(2016—2020年)》、《全国禽遗传资源保护和利用“十三五”规划》等文件列为调整畜牧业供给结构、支持畜牧业差异化和特色化发展的重点支持产业;然而我国驴产业起步较晚,技术支撑力度不够,这就与国家大力发展驴产业的需求相矛盾,为此必须加强国内外高校与企业的合作研究[1]。德州驴原产于山东省德州市和滨州市沿渤海各县,分为“三粉”和“乌头”两大类型,其肉、奶、皮、乳均有较高的应用价值[2-3]。颗粒型全混合日粮(TMR)具有营养均衡、减少养殖场人工成本、有利于饲料厂规模化生产、提高家畜采食量和生产性能的优点[4],然而关于颗粒型TMR的研究多集中在羊上,在驴上的研究鲜有报道。因此,本研究旨在探究颗粒型TMR与散状TMR 2种不同料型对育肥期德州驴生长性能、屠宰性能、肉品质的影响,为科学养驴提供理论参考。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验设计

试验在2022年5月26日至2022年10月15日于山东省东阿县黑毛驴牧业科技有限公司进行。选取体重[(150±2) kg]相近、年龄为8个月的健康公驴20头,随机分为2组,即试验组(EG组)和对照组(CG组),每组10个重复,每个重复1头驴,单栏单饲,即每栏饲养1头驴。EG组驴饲喂颗粒型TMR;CG组驴饲喂散状TMR,即在饲喂前分别称量粗饲料和精饲料的质量,然后混匀后制成散状TMR饲喂,第2天08:00称取剩料。试验预试期10 d,正试期129 d。

1.2 试验饲粮

试验第1~69天,EG组和CG组分别饲喂饲粮1、2;试验第70~129天,进入育肥的后期阶段,因此需要调整饲粮配方,EG组和CG组分别饲喂更符合生产实际的饲粮3、4。饲养试验中2种饲粮除饲粮料型不同,饲粮组成及营养水平均相同,其组成及营养水平见表1。试验饲粮粗蛋白质(CP)、粗脂肪(EE)、粗纤维(CF)、中性洗涤纤维(NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)、酸性洗涤木质素(ADL)、钙(Ca)和磷(P)含量分别按照GB/T 6432—2018、GB/T 6433—2006、GB/T 6434—2022、GB/T 20806—2022、NY/T 1459—2022、GB/T 20805—2006、GB/T 6436—2018和GB/T 6437—2018等相关国家标准进行测定。
表1 饲粮组成及营养水平(风干基础)

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

项目
Items		 第1~69天 Days 1 to 69 第70~129天 Days 70 to 129
饲粮1 Diet 1 饲粮2 Diet 2 饲粮3 Diet 3 饲粮4 Diet 4
原料 Ingredients
玉米 Corn 33.60 33.60 22.00 22.00
豆粕 Soybean meal 9.40 9.40 5.00 5.00
麸皮 Wheat bran 8.00 8.00
次粉 Wheat middlings 8.00 8.00 35.00 35.00
稻壳粉 Rice husk 8.00 8.00
苜蓿颗粒 Alfalfa pellets 15.00 15.00
花生秧 Peanut vine 15.00 15.00 35.00 35.00
大豆油 Soybean oil 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
石粉 Limestone 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
磷酸氢钙 CaHPO4 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
赖氨酸 Lys 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
蛋氨酸 Met 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
碳酸氢钠 NaHCO3 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
预混料 Premix1) 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
食盐 NaCl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
合计 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
营养水平 Nutrient levels2)
消化能 DE/(MJ/kg) 10.90 10.90 11.79 11.79
粗蛋白质 CP 13.02 13.02 12.52 12.52
粗脂肪 EE 3.11 3.11 2.95 2.95
粗纤维 CF 15.85 15.85 16.12 16.12
中性洗涤纤维 NDF 36.83 36.83 34.35 34.35
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF 22.13 22.13 18.77 18.77
酸性洗涤木质素 ADL 4.90 4.90 4.55 4.55
钙 Ca 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63
磷 P 0.49 0.49 0.55 0.55

1)预混料为每千克饲粮提供The premix provided the following per kg of diets:VA 8 000 IU,VD 2 400 IU,VE 30 mg,VK3 3 mg,VB1 3 mg,VB2 8 mg,VB3 10.8 mg,VB5 34 mg,VB6 4 mg,VB9 1.4 mg,VB12 0.02 mg,VB7 0.13 mg,Cu 8.3 mg,Fe 60 mg,Zn 70 mg,Mn 62 mg,Se 0.25 mg,I 0.5 mg。

2)消化能为计算值[5],其余为实测值。DE was a calculated value[5], while the others were measured values.

1.3 饲养管理

试验驴自由采食与饮水,每天饲喂3次(08:00、12:00和17:00),每周定期清理水槽、食槽并且打扫圈舍,试验前用阿苯达唑-伊维菌素混合剂给驴肠道驱虫。

1.4 检测指标

1.4.1 生长性能的测定

试验前后空腹称重,记录采食量,计算平均日采食量、平均日增重、料重比、增重效益。

1.4.2 屠宰性能的测定

饲养试验结束后,EG组和CG组中分别随机选取4头驴,宰前禁食24 h、禁水2 h,称取体重即为宰前活重,称重后按照山东农业大学动物伦理委员会推荐的程序用电击,随即进行屠宰。屠宰时,试验驴除去头、蹄、毛、血和内脏后称重,即为胴体重。
屠宰率(%)=[胴体重(kg)/宰前活重(kg)]×100;
屠宰效益(元/头)=[胴体重(kg)×胴体单价(元/kg)]-[平均每日饲料成本(元)×平均日采食量(kg)×试验天数(d)]。

1.4.3 肉品质的测定

取500 g左侧背最长肌放于冰盒,24 h内测定肌肉肉色、剪切力、蒸煮损失和滴水损失等指标,测定方法参考王钊等[6]。

1.4.4 肌肉常规营养成分的测定

肌肉中DM、Ash、CP、EE含量的测定参考周贝贝等[7],OM含量由计算得出。
OM(%)=DM(%)-Ash(%)。

1.4.5 肌肉中氨基酸、脂肪酸含量的测定

肌肉中的氨基酸含量采用Vanquish超高压液相色谱仪测定;脂肪酸含量采用安捷伦公司的6890A-5975C气质联用仪测定。

1.5 数据处理与分析

采用Excel 2016对试验数据进行简单的运算与处理,利用SPSS 25.0统计软件进行t检验分析。试验结果以平均值和均值标准误来表示,P<0.01表示差异极显著,P<0.05表示差异显著,P>0.05表示差异不显著,0.05<P<0.10表示有差异显著的趋势。

2 结果

2.1 不同料型对育肥期德州驴生长性能的影响

由表2可知,EG组末重显著高于CG组(P<0.05);EG 组平均日采食量极显著高于 CG 组 (P<0.01); EG 组平均日增重显著高于CG组(P<0.05);料重比无显著差异(P>0.05),但以EG组最优;EG组增重效益显著高于 CG 组(P<0.05 ),EG组比CG组增重效益高1.93元/(头·d)。
表2 不同料型对育肥期德州驴生长性能的影响

Table 2 Effects of different material types on growth performance of Dezhou donkeys during fattening period

项目
Items		 组别 Groups 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
EG CG
始重 Initial weight/kg 150.50 149.33 1.942 0.586
末重 Final weight/kg 223.79 211.60 2.141 0.013
平均日采食量 ADFI/kg 4.89 4.43 0.061 0.002
平均日增重 ADG/g 568.11 482.70 18.421 0.034
料重比 F/G 8.66 9.39 0.154 0.165
增重效益 Weight gain benefit/[元/(头·d)] 14.07 12.14 0.389 0.010

2.2 不同料型对育肥期德州驴屠宰性能的影响

由表3可知,不同料型对育肥期德州驴宰前活重无显著影响(P>0.05);EG组胴体重与屠宰率显著高于CG组(P<0.05);EG组屠宰效益趋于显著地高于CG组(0.05<P<0.10)。
表3 不同料型对育肥期德州驴屠宰性能的影响

Table 3 Effects of different material types on slaughter performance of Dezhou donkeys in fattening stage

项目
Items		 组别 Groups 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
EG CG
宰前活重 Live weight before slaughter/kg 217.00 222.83 2.032 0.158
胴体重 Carcass weight/kg 127.05 119.60 1.786 0.020
屠宰率 Slaughtering percentage/% 58.61 53.71 1.155 0.017
屠宰效益 Slaughter benefit/(元/头) 9 115.17 8 763.37 101.530 0.090

2.3 不同料型对育肥期德州驴肉品质的影响

由表4可知,EG组肌肉剪切力显著低于CG组(P<0.05),蒸煮损失、滴水损失和肉色均无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表4 不同料型对育肥期德州驴肉品质的影响

Table 4 Effects of different material types on meat quality of Dezhou donkeys in fattening stage

项目
Items		 组别 Groups 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
EG CG
蒸煮损失 Cooking loss/% 40.60 42.02 0.773 0.411
滴水损失 Drip loss/% 1.46 1.51 0.033 0.433
剪切力 Shear force/N 78.15 88.17 2.519 0.029
亮度 L* 31.23 30.02 0.665 0.417
红度 a* 17.63 17.49 0.637 0.926
黄度 b* 8.90 8.46 0.357 0.585

2.4 不同料型对育肥期德州驴肌肉中常规营养成分的影响

由表5可知,EG组肌肉中EE含量显著高于CG组(P<0.05),其他指标无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表5 不同料型对育肥期德州驴肌肉中常规营养成分的影响(鲜样基础)

Table 5 Effects of different material types on conventional nutrients in muscle of Dezhou donkeys in fattening stage (fresh sample basis)%

项目
Items		 组别 Groups 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
EG CG
干物质 DM 28.57 28.51 0.029 0.392
粗蛋白质 CP 23.00 23.52 0.356 0.522
粗脂肪 EE 3.81 2.45 0.360 0.034
粗灰分 Ash 1.39 1.27 0.219 0.678
有机物 OM 27.10 27.19 0.099 0.686

2.5 不同料型对育肥期德州驴肌肉中氨基酸、脂肪酸含量的影响

2.5.1 氨基酸

由表6可知,EG组肌肉中组氨酸(His)和羟基脯氨酸(Hyp)含量显著高于CG组(P<0.05),其他单一氨基酸含量无显著差异(P>0.05)。2组之间必需氨基酸(EAA)、半必需氨基酸(SEAA)、非必需氨基酸(NEAA)、风味氨基酸(FAA)含量和EAA/NEAA值无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表6 不同料型对育肥期德州驴肌肉中氨基酸含量的影响(占总氨基酸的比例)

Table 6 Effects of different material types on amino acid contents in muscle of Dezhou donkeys in fattening stage(percentage of total amino acids)

项目
Items		 组别 Groups 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
EG CG
组氨酸 His/% 5.335 4.798 0.141 0.033
羟基脯氨酸 Hyp/% 0.665 0.276 0.103 0.034
天冬酰胺 Asn/% 7.010 6.800 0.098 0.340
丝氨酸 Ser/% 4.528 4.447 0.039 0.356
甘氨酸 Gly/% 5.794 5.717 0.049 0.501
天冬氨酸 Asp/% 11.420 12.441 0.318 0.110
谷氨酸 Glu/% 10.366 10.944 0.185 0.122
苏氨酸 Thr/% 5.419 5.263 0.045 0.077
丙氨酸 Ala/% 8.121 8.538 0.123 0.085
脯氨酸 Pro/% 6.835 6.872 0.049 0.752
半胱氨酸 Cys/% 0.237 0.264 0.008 0.068
甲硫氨酸 Met/% 1.422 1.887 0.142 0.100
酪氨酸 Tyr/% 3.707 3.445 0.105 0.255
缬氨酸 Val/% 5.937 5.937 0.046 0.997
异亮氨酸 Ile/% 6.145 6.078 0.058 0.623
亮氨酸 Leu/% 11.607 11.247 0.152 0.283
苯丙氨酸 Phe/% 5.442 5.039 0.162 0.254
必需氨基酸 EAA/% 35.976 35.453 0.411 0.688
半必需氨基酸 SEAA/% 14.267 13.874 0.147 0.585
非必需氨基酸 NEAA/% 49.756 50.671 0.471 0.213
风味氨基酸 FAA/% 20.376 20.673 0.087 0.389
必需氨基酸/非必需氨基酸EAA/NEAA 0.726 0.700 0.015 0.442

2.5.2 脂肪酸

由表7可知,EG组肌肉中C8:0和C18:1n9t含量显著高于CG组(P<0.05);EG组肌肉中饱和脂肪酸(SFA)含量显著低于CG组(P<0.05),EG组肌肉中不饱和脂肪酸(UFA)含量显著高于CG组(P<0.05);EG组肌肉中单不饱和脂肪酸(MUFA)含量和MUFA/SFA值显著高于CG组(P<0.05);EG组肌肉中多不饱和脂肪酸(PUFA)含量趋于显著地高于CG组(0.05<P<0.10),但组间PUFA/SFA值无显著差异(P>0.05)
表7 不同料型对育肥期德州驴肌肉中脂肪酸含量的影响(占总脂肪酸的比例)

Table 7 Effects of different material types on fatty acid contents in muscle of Dezhou donkeys in fattening stage(percentage of total fatty acids)

项目
Items		 组别 Groups 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
EG CG
己酸 C6:0/% 7.112 7.020 0.266 0.884
辛酸 C8:0/% 0.006 0.002 0.000 0.013
癸酸 C10:0/% 0.064 0.055 0.006 0.506
十一烷酸 C11:0/% 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.099
月桂酸 C12:0/% 0.178 0.171 0.018 0.879
十三烷酸 C13:0/% 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.905
肉豆蔻酸 C14:0/% 2.438 2.253 0.156 0.613
十五烷酸 C15:0/% 0.126 0.136 0.005 0.467
棕榈酸 C16:0/% 37.505 39.322 0.543 0.088
十七烷酸 C17:0/% 0.237 0.297 0.017 0.070
硬酯酸 C18:0/% 14.394 17.673 1.061 0.129
11-二十烯酸 C20:1/% 0.272 0.262 0.005 0.378
二十一烷酸 C21:0/% 0.030 0.035 0.001 0.056
山嵛酸 C22:0/% 0.082 0.095 0.005 0.282
芥酸 C22:1n9/% 0.355 0.428 0.029 0.268
花生四烯酸 C20:4n6/% 0.310 0.392 0.029 0.189
木蜡酸 C24:0/% 0.027 0.031 0.001 0.316
肉豆蔻脑酸 C14:1/% 0.156 0.092 0.021 0.158
棕榈油酸 C16:1/% 4.102 2.727 0.473 0.163
反-9-十八碳烯酸 C18:1n9t/% 15.921 12.004 0.972 0.014
油酸 C18:1n9c/% 18.062 15.944 0.682 0.126
亚油酸 C18:2n6c/% 5.458 7.728 0.644 0.063
花生酸 C20:0/% 0.167 0.217 0.016 0.125
1,14,17-顺-二十碳三烯酸甲酯 C20:3n3/% 0.014 0.015 0.000 0.289
二十三烷酸 C23:0/% 0.033 0.040 0.002 0.217
二十二碳二烯酸 C22:2/% 0.030 0.046 0.004 0.077
二十二碳六烯酸 C22:6n3/% 0.009 0.011 0.001 0.111
饱和脂肪酸 SFA/% 56.043 61.170 1.314 0.041
不饱和脂肪酸 UFA/% 43.956 38.829 1.414 0.045
单不饱和脂肪酸 MUFA/% 38.242 30.769 2.015 0.041
多不饱和脂肪酸 PUFA/% 5.713 8.060 0.667 0.064
单不饱和脂肪酸/饱和脂肪酸 MUFA/SFA 0.684 0.532 0.041 0.048
多不饱和脂肪酸/饱和脂肪酸 PUFA/SFA 0.102 0.124 0.007 0.117

3 讨论

3.1 不同料型对育肥期德州驴生长性能的影响

刘凤华等[8]用常规TMR和颗粒型TMR饲喂驴驹,结果发现颗粒型TMR显著提高驴驹的日增重;宋龙龙等[9]研究发现,与粉状料相比,颗粒料显著提高育肥后期德州公驴日增重;李亚奎等[10]在羔羊上也有类似结果;Zhang等[11]研究发现,饲喂颗粒型TMR的育肥羔羊采食量极显著高于散状TMR,本研究结果与前人研究结果类似。本研究中,在自由采食的情况下,颗粒型 TMR 的平均日采食量极显著高于散状TMR,这说明将TMR颗粒化提高了适口性,平均日采食量的明显提高可能也是颗粒型TMR组平均日增重和料重比优于散状TMR组的重要原因之一。颗粒型TMR显著提高德州驴的生长性能,这说明颗粒型TMR具有广大的应用前景,为德州驴科学养殖、节本增效进一步提供了理论支撑。

3.2 不同料型对育肥期德州驴屠宰性能的影响

Zhang等[11]研究发现,饲喂颗粒型TMR的育肥羔羊胴体重和屠宰率显著高于散状TMR,李偲奇[12]研究发现,饲喂颗粒型TMR的育肥羊净肉率和屠宰率显著高于散状TMR。本研究中,EG组和CG组宰前活重无显著差异,但EG组屠宰率与CG组相比,显著提高,提高了4.90%,这使得EG组胴体重相较CG组也显著提高;此外,在屠宰过程中发现CG组盲肠和结肠中有较多未排出的草渣(这可能与散状TMR在驴胃肠中排空速率较慢有关),而EG组盲肠和结肠中的草渣则较少,这可能也是CG组屠宰率低而EG组屠宰率高的原因之一。

3.3 不同料型对育肥期德州驴肌肉品质的影响

研究发现,嫩度是感知肉类食用质量的最重要因素之一,嫩度的数值通过剪切力来评价。Islam等[13]研究发现,与散状TMR相比,颗粒型TMR提高了孟加拉加罗勒羊肌肉嫩度;侯川川等[14]研究发现,与传统先粗后精料颗粒组相比,饲喂颗粒型TMR的湖羊肉色、蒸煮损失均无显著差异,剪切力和失水率明显降低,这与本研究结果类似。肌肉嫩度主要受肌内脂肪含量和肌纤维状态的影响[15],肌内脂肪能通过切断肌纤维束间的交联结构调控肌肉的嫩度[16],由此推测,本研究中EG组肌肉嫩度显著优于CG组可能是与EG组肌肉中EE沉积量较多有关。本研究结论与侯川川等[14]研究结果类似。由此可见,与散状TMR相比,用颗粒型TMR饲喂德州驴,在保持优良肉品质的同时,还改善了驴肉嫩度。

3.4 不同料型对育肥期德州驴肌肉中常规营养成分的影响

肌肉营养成分是影响肉质的主要因素,通常受品种、饲粮组成和饲养管理等因素的影响[17]。本研究中,EG组和CG组肌肉中CP含量无显著差异。李斐[18]研究表明,与散料TMR和发酵TMR组相比,饲喂颗粒型TMR的滩羊肌肉中DM、CP和Ash含量无显著变化,但EE含量显著升高,这与本研究结果相似。脂类是主要产生香味的前体物质,不同肉质香味的差异主要是由脂肪氧化产物不同导致,脂质氧化降解产生的醛类物质或磷脂中极性基团上的氨基可以与美拉德反应物相互作用,减少美拉德反应产生的含硫化合物,从而改善肉的风味[19]。本研究中,EG组肌肉中EE含量显著高于CG组,推测与散状TMR相比,颗粒型TMR可能通过影响机体脂肪代谢,进一步改善了驴肉的风味。

3.5 不同料型对育肥期德州驴肌肉中氨基酸、脂肪酸含量的影响

蛋白质是评价肉产品营养价值的重要指标之一,氨基酸的种类与含量决定了蛋白质的营养价值[20]。陈滇黔[21]研究发现,与精粗分饲组相比,颗粒型TMR组驴肌肉中SFA含量显著减少,UFA含量显著提高。在一定范围内EAA/NEAA值对畜禽蛋白质利用起积极作用[22-23],但在本研究中,2组之间EAA/NEAA值无显著差异,这说明在肌肉氨基酸的品质方面,EG组和CG组无显著差异。Valsta等[24]研究表明,肉类脂肪主要由MUFA和SFA组成,本研究中MUFA和SFA含量在总脂肪酸中占比90%以上,这与Valsta等[24]的结论一致。研究表明,SFA与癌症、冠心病等现代生活疾病有关[25],饮食中高MUFA含量有利于脂质氧化并降低肥胖发展的风险,并对SFA诱导的胰岛素抵抗和细胞死亡具有保护作用[26],因此,MUFA/SFA值也是评定脂肪酸品质的重要因素。本研究中,与CG组相比,EG组肌肉中SFA含量显著减少,MUFA含量以及MUFA/SFA值显著增加,由此可知,用颗粒型TMR饲喂的驴肌肉中脂肪酸品质更优。

4 结论

与散状TMR相比,颗粒型TMR极显著提高育肥期德州驴采食量,显著提高平均日增重、屠宰率,提高经济效益;提高肌肉中的EE含量,增加肌肉的嫩度并改善肌肉脂肪酸组成。综上所述,在规模化养殖中应用颗粒型TMR来育肥德州驴是可行且高效的。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
刘桂芹. 驴肠道微生物的分布规律及功能预测研究[D].硕士学位论文. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2020:2-4.

LIU G Q. The distribution and function prediction of intestinal microbiota in donkey[D].Master’s Thesis. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2020:2-4. (in Chinese)

[2]
曹河源, 刘长洪. 德州驴的概况、现状及发展对策[J]. 中国草食动物, 2006, 26(6):43-44.

CAO H Y, LIU C H. General situation, present situation and development countermeasures of dezhou donkey[J]. China Herbivores, 2006, 26(6):43-44. (in Chinese)

[3]
程广龙, 赵小伟. 安徽省驴产业发展的现状、问题及建议[J]. 中国草食动物科学, 2014, 34(5):70-72.

CHENG G L, ZHAO X W. Present situation,problems and suggestions of donkey industry development in Anhui province[J]. China Herbivore Science, 2014, 34(5):70-72. (in Chinese)

[4]
严德青. 全混合日粮颗粒料饲喂反刍动物的研究概况[J]. 中国畜牧兽医文摘, 2016, 32(3):228.

YAN D Q. General situation of feeding ruminants with granular feed in total mixed diet[J]. Chinese Abstracts of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2016, 32(3):228. (in Chinese)

[5]
杨泉, 王云, 张晨, 等. 德州驴饲粮中营养物质表观消化率不同测定方法的比较[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(7):4465-4474.

DOI

YANG Q, WANG Y, ZHANG C, et al. 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. (in Chinese)

DOI

[6]
王钊, 刘静, 于昊, 等. 日粮添加蚕豆皮对湖羊生长性能、屠宰性能、器官发育和肉品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(10):162-172.

DOI

WANG Z, LIU J, YU H, et al. Effects of dietary broad bean skin on growth rate,slaughter performance,organ development and meat quality of Hu sheep[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(10):162-172. (in Chinese)

[7]
周贝贝, 张雅佳, 杨丽萍, 等. 不同屠宰日龄莱芜黑兔的生产性能和肌肉品质比较分析[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(8):5322-5332.

DOI

ZHOU B B, ZHANG Y J, YANG L P, et al. Comparative analysis of production performance and meat quality of laiwu black rabbits at different slaughter ages[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(8):5322-5332. (in Chinese)

[8]
刘凤华, 辛萍萍, 温华梅, 等. 饲粮类型对驴驹生长性能和血清生化指标的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(19):103-106.

LIU F H, XIN P P, WEN H M, et al. Effect of feed types on growth performance and serum biochemical indexes of donkey foal[J]. Feed Research, 2021, 44(19):103-106. (in Chinese)

[9]
宋龙龙, 王兴鑫, 张书超, 等. 不同料型对育肥后期公驴生产性能和经济效益的影响[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2018, 39(10):37-40.

SONG L L, WANG X X, ZHANG S C, et al. Effects of different feed types on productive performance and economic benefits of late fattening donkeys[J]. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2018, 39(10):37-40. (in Chinese)

[10]
李亚奎, 郝荣超, 马旭平, 等. 颗粒化全混合日粮 (TMR) 对羔羊育肥效果的研究[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2011(3):65-66.

LI Y K, HAO R C, MA X P, et al. Study on the effect of granulated total mixed diet (TMR) on lamb fattening[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2011(3):65-66. (in Chinese)

[11]
ZHANG C, LI M M, AL-MARASHDEH O, et al. Performance,rumen fermentation,and gastrointestinal microflora of lambs fed pelleted or unpelleted total mixed ration[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2019, 253:22-31.

DOI

[12]
李偲奇. 不同料型日粮对育肥羊生产性能、胃肠道微生物组和代谢组的影响研究[D].硕士学位论文. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2020:15-16.

LI C Q. Effects of diets types on performance,gastrointestinal microbiome and metabolome of fattening lambs[D].Master’s Thesis. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2020:15-16. (in Chinese)

[13]
ISLAM R, REDOY M, SHUVO A, et al. Effect of pellet from total mixed ration on growth performance,blood metabolomics,carcass and meat characteristics of Bangladeshi garole sheep[J]. Progressive Agriculture, 2017, 28(3):222-229.

DOI

[14]
侯川川, 马莲香, 邱家凌, 等. 饲粮类型对育肥湖羊生长性能、屠宰性能和肉品质的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2018, 30(12):5023-5031.

HOU C C, MA L X, QIU J L, et al. Effects of different diet types on growth performance,slaughter performance and meat quality of fattening Hu sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2018, 30(12):5023-5031. (in Chinese)

[15]
马凤英, 张景萍, 付绍印, 等. 影响绵羊肉质因素的研究进展[J]. 饲料研究, 2023, 46(10):134-138.

MA F Y, ZHANG J P, FU S Y, et al. Research progress on factors affecting sheep meat quality[J]. Feed Research, 2023, 46(10):134-138. (in Chinese)

[16]
祝仁铸. 野菜F1猪肉品质及肌内脂肪沉积机理的研究[D].硕士学位论文. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2013:32-40.

ZHU R Z. Study on the meat qualities and the sedimentary mechanism of intramuscular fat in YL F1 pigs[D].Master’s Thesis. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2013:32-40. (in Chinese)

[17]
徐自强, 刘金松, 孙耀威, 等. 月桂酸对肉鸡屠宰性能、肌肉品质和抗氧化功能的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 32(16):49-58.

XU Z Q, LIU J S, SUN Y W, et al. Effects of lauric acid on slaughter performance,muscle quality and antioxidant function of broilers[J]. Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2023, 32(16):49-58. (in Chinese)

[18]
李斐. 不同处理方式的南瓜子副产物饲粮对滩羊生产性能及肉品质的影响[D].硕士学位论文. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2022:36-37.

LI F. Effects of pumpkin seed by-products diet with different treatment methods on production performance and meat quality of Tan sheep[D].Master’s Thesis. Yinchuan: Ningxia University, 2022:36-37. (in Chinese)

[19]
刁小琴, 王莹, 贾瑞鑫, 等. 动物性脂肪对肉品风味影响机制研究进展[J]. 肉类研究, 2022, 36(3):45-51.

DIAO X Q, WANG Y, JIA R X, et al. Progress in understanding the mechanism of the influence of animal fat on meat flavor[J]. Meat Research, 2022, 36(3):45-51. (in Chinese)

[20]
MCCOARD S A, SALES F A, SCIASCIA Q L. Amino acids in sheep production[J]. Frontiers in Bioscience-Elite, 2016, 8(2):264-288.

[21]
陈滇黔. TMR日粮对黑山羊育肥效果影响研究[D].硕士学位论文. 贵阳: 贵州大学, 2021:48-50.

CHEN D Q. Study on total mixed ration on fattening effect of black goats[D].Master’s Thesis. Guiyang: Guizhou University, 2021:48-50. (in Chinese)

[22]
GREEN J A, HARDY R W, BRANNON E L. The optimum dietary essential:nonessential amino acid ratio for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss),which maximizes nitrogen retention and minimizes nitrogen excretion[J]. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry, 2002, 27(1):109-115.

DOI

[23]
PERES H, OLIVA-TELES A. Effect of the dietary essential to non-essential amino acid ratio on growth,feed utilization and nitrogen metabolism of European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax)[J]. Aquaculture, 2006, 256(1/2/3/4):395-402.

DOI

[24]
VALSTA L M, TAPANAINEN H, MÄNNISTÖ S. Meat fats in nutrition[J]. Meat Science, 2005, 70(3):525-530.

DOI PMID

[25]
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

[26]
BERGOUIGNAN A, MOMKEN I, SCHOELLER D A, et al. Metabolic fate of saturated and monounsaturated dietary fats:the mediterranean diet revisited from epidemiological evidence to cellular mechanisms[J]. Progress in Lipid Research, 2009, 48(3/4):128-147.

DOI

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.