Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2024 , Vol. 36 >Issue 7: 4428 - 4446

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2024.381

RESEARCH PAPER

Effects of Guanidine Acetic Acid, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Cellulase Complex on Growth Performance, Digestion and Metabolism, Slaughter Performance and Meat Quality of Mutton Sheep

  • LI Xiuli , 1 ,
  • SHI Ying 1 ,
  • PANG Jicai 1 ,
  • YANG Jufeng 1 ,
  • LI Yanwu 1 ,
  • ZHANG Chunhao 1 ,
  • CAO Jiangtao 2 ,
  • DING Yinglong 3 ,
  • YANG Qingli 3 ,
  • LI Qiang 4 ,
  • XIE Hongmei , 1, *
Expand
  • 1 Shandong Vocational Animal Science and Veterinary College, Weifang 261061, China
  • 2 Fangzi District Huangqi Fort Veterinary Station, Weifang 262118, China
  • 3 Shandong Dongminglige Trading Co., Ltd., Heze 274000, China
  • 4 Caoxian Yuanhong Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd., Heze 274000, China
*E-mail:

Received date: 2023-11-03

  Online published: 2024-07-09

Fold

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of dietary supplemented with guanidine acetic acid (GAA), Saccharomyces cerevisiae and cellulase complex (SCC) on growth performance, digestion and metabolism, slaughter performance, meat quality and economic benefit of mutton sheep. A 3×2 (GAA×SCC) completely randomized trial design was adopted with GAA supplemental levels of 0, 0.03% and 0.06% and SCC supplemental levels of 0 and 0.01% based on dietary dry matter weight. Seventy-two weaned and castrated Texel×Dolper hybrid rams were randomly divided into 6 groups with 3 replicates per group and 4 sheep per replicate. After the pretest period of 7 days, it entered the trial period of 60 days. The results showed as follows: 1) compared with non-added GAA and SCC, dietary supplemented with 0.06% GAA or 0.01% SCC significantly increased the average daily gain (P<0.05), and significantly decreased the feed to gain ratio (P<0.05). GAA and SCC had significant interaction effects on the average daily gain and feed to gain ratio (P<0.05). 2) Compared with non-added GAA and SCC, dietary supplemented with 0.06% GAA significantly increased the nitrogen apparent digestibility and nitrogen deposition rate (P<0.05), and significantly decreased the fecal nitrogen (P<0.05); dietary supplemented with 0.01% SCC significantly increased the apparent digestibility of nitrogen, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber and nitrogen deposition rate (P<0.05), and significantly decreased the fecal nitrogen (P<0.05). The interaction of GAA and SCC had significant effects on the nitrogen apparent digestibility, nitrogen deposition rate and fecal nitrogen (P<0.05). 3) Compared with non-added GAA and SCC, dietary supplemented with 0.06% GAA significantly increased the carcass weight and eye muscle area (P<0.05), while dietary supplemented with 0.01% SCC only significantly increased the carcass weight (P<0.05). GAA and SCC had significant interaction effects on the carcass weight and eye muscle area (P<0.05). 4) Compared with non-added GAA and SCC, dietary supplemented with 0.06% GAA or 0.01% SCC significantly increased the spleen index (P<0.05). GAA and SCC had no significant interaction effect on the organ indexes (P>0.05). 5) Compared with non-added GAA and SCC, dietary supplemented with 0.06% GAA significantly increased the pH24 h, lightness for 45 min ( L 45 m i n *) value and lightness for 24 h ( L 24 h *) value of longissimus dorsi muscle (P<0.05), and significantly decreased the drip loss (P<0.05); dietary supplemented with 0.01% SCC significantly increased the L 45 m i n * value and L 24 h * value of longissimus dorsi muscle (P<0.05). GAA and SCC had significant interaction effects on the pH24 h, L 45 m i n * value, L 24 h * value and drip loss (P<0.05). 6) Compared with non-added GAA and SCC, dietary supplemented with 0.06% GAA or 0.01% SCC significantly increased the muscle crude protein content (P<0.05). GAA and SCC had a significant interaction effect on muscle crude protein content (P<0.05). 7) Dietary supplemented with 0.06% GAA or 0.01% SCC and the interaction between GAA and SCC had significant effects on the additive cost, drug cost and net income (P<0.05), and the highest net income was found when both 0.06% GAA and 0.01% SCC were added. In conclusion, under the conditions of this experiment, considering all aspects of performance, dietary simultaneously supplemented with 0.06% GAA and 0.01% SCC can more effectively improve the growth and slaughter performance of mutton sheep, promote their growth and development, and improve the nitrogen apparent digestibility, spleen index, muscle quality and economic benefit.

Key words： guanidine acetic acid; Saccharomyces cerevisiae and cellulase complex; growth performance; digestion and metabolism; slaughter performance; meat quality; economic benefit

Cite this article

LI Xiuli , SHI Ying , PANG Jicai , YANG Jufeng , LI Yanwu , ZHANG Chunhao , CAO Jiangtao , DING Yinglong , YANG Qingli , LI Qiang , XIE Hongmei . Effects of Guanidine Acetic Acid, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Cellulase Complex on Growth Performance, Digestion and Metabolism, Slaughter Performance and Meat Quality of Mutton Sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024 , 36(7) : 4428 -4446 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2024.381

胍基乙酸(guanidine acetic acid,GAA)作为肌酸的直接前体,较肌酸具有性质稳定、生物效价高的优点,目前已成为国内外学者研究的热点。GAA可为机体提供能量,促进生长和脂肪的转化,改善育肥期间饲喂大量精饲料导致的肉质脂肪过高问题。Córdova-Noboa等[1]和Degroot等[2]研究报道,GAA可为机体提供肌酸、磷酸及ATP等能量,促进动物机体的能量代谢、生长及肌纤维的发育,Mcbreairty等[3]也有相同的报道。段浩楠等[4]研究表明,饲粮中添加500 mg/kg GAA可提高育肥猪的日增重,降低料重比(F/G)及改善肉品质。张海雷等[5]报道,GAA可促进哺乳羔羊体内生殖激素和胰岛素样生长因子-Ⅰ的释放,从而促进生长发育。但GAA长期单独饲喂会影响胃肠功能,还会刺激胰岛素分泌,降低血糖[6]。李秀丽[7]报道,复方GAA(由胍基乙酸、牛磺酸、酿酒酵母菌等构成)可以改善肉羊的生长性能,提高抗氧化能力和经济效益。酿酒酵母菌可分泌多种酶,促进营养物质的消化吸收[8],提高瘤胃菌群丰度,稳定微生态菌群[9];纤维素酶是一种由真菌发酵生产的多酶复合体,其含有的内切葡聚糖酶可任意切开纤维分子内部的β-1,4-糖苷键,β-葡萄糖苷酶可将纤维二糖和三糖及其他低分子纤维糊精分解为葡萄糖[10-11],为瘤胃微生物提供速效碳源,促进营养物质的吸收。关于酿酒酵母菌与纤维素酶复合物(Saccharomyces cerevisiae and cellulase complex,SCC)目前有大量研究,其中李秀丽[12]研究表明SCC可提高肉牛对营养物质的消化吸收,促进生长;毕梦凡等[13]研究表明SCC可促进湖羊生长,改善瘤胃菌群。综合上述研究结果推测,GAA和SCC联合使用可稳定瘤胃菌群和胃肠功能,补充血糖,从而更高效促生长,降低肌肉中脂肪含量,改善肉质。
目前关于GAA和SCC对断奶后肉羊生长性能、屠宰性能及肉品质的影响尚未见报道。因此,本试验拟探讨GAA和SCC对肉羊生长性能、消化代谢、屠宰性能和肉品质影响,明确GAA和SCC的互作效应,为GAA、SCC在肉羊生产中应用提供一定的理论依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验材料

SCC:由酿酒酵母菌(活菌数为2×1010 CFU/g)与纤维素酶(白色粉末固体,最佳作用温度为45~60 ℃、pH为4.8~5.2,酶活性为1.5×105 U/g)等比例混合而成;GAA:纯度≥98.5%;稻壳粉:60目。试验所用添加剂产品均以稻壳粉为载体制备,由小型V型混合器混合15 min。

1.2 试验动物与试验设计

饲养试验于2023年6—9月在山东省潍坊市安丘市黄旗堡家庭养殖场进行。选用断奶、去势、体重为(25.62±2.01) kg的健康特克塞尔羊与杜泊羊杂交公羔72只,随机分为6组,每组3个重复,每个重复4只羊。采用3×2因子完全随机试验设计,试验因子GAA设3个添加水平(0、0.03%、0.06%,基于饲粮干物质重量),试验因子SCC设2个添加水平(0、0.01%,基于饲粮干物质重量),共得到6种不同GAA和SCC添加水平的饲粮,分别饲喂6组肉羊,具体试验设计见表1。基础饲粮配方按照NY/T 816—2021中体重为25 kg、平均日增重为250 g的肉绵羊饲养标准进行配制,其组成及营养水平见表2。采用固定式全混合日粮(TMR)搅拌机混合饲料原料,添加剂先用稻壳粉稀释成10 g,再进行逐级稀释。预试期7 d,正试期60 d。
表1 试验设计

Table 1 Experimental design%

组别 Groups GAA添加水平 GAA supplemental levels SCC添加水平 SCC supplemental levels
对照 Control 0 0
Ⅰ 0.03 0
Ⅱ 0.06 0
Ⅲ 0 0.01
Ⅳ 0.03 0.01
Ⅴ 0.06 0.01
表2 基础饲粮组成及营养水平(风干基础)

Table 2 Composition and nutrient levels of the basal diet (air-dry basis)%

原料 Ingredients 含量 Content 营养水平 Nutrient levels2) 含量 Content
豆腐渣 Soybean pulp 40.60 干物质 DM 91.70
高丹草青贮饲料Gaodan grass silage 38.20 代谢能 ME/(MJ/kg) 9.17
花生蔓 Peanut seedling 16.20 粗蛋白质 CP 12.40
预混料 Premix1) 2.00 中性洗涤纤维 NDF 44.55
脱霉剂 Mildew remover 1.50 酸性洗涤纤维 ADF 30.12
食盐 NaCl 1.50 粗脂肪 EE 1.89
合计 Total 100.00 粗灰分 Ash 10.05
钙 Ca 0.88
磷 P 0.29

1)预混料为每千克饲粮提供The premix provided the following per kg of the diet:VA 7 000 IU,VD 1 000 IU,VE 100 IU,Fe 70 mg,Zn 50 mg,Mn 50 mg,Cu 10 mg,Se 0.3 mg,Co 0.2 mg,泛酸 pantothenic acid 100 mg,烟酸 niacin 90 mg。

2)代谢能由原料消化能估算所得,高丹草青贮饲料的消化能参考冀旋等[14]中的丙酸和尿素处理组中性洗涤纤维计算,代谢能和消化能估算公式均参考NY/T 816—2021,其余营养水平为实测值。ME was estimated by DE of ingredients, DE of Gaodan grass silage was calculated by NDF, based on Ji,et al[14], and the estimation formulas of DE and ME were referred to NY/T 816—2021, while the others were measured values.

1.3 饲养管理

试验羊育肥期间按照家庭养殖场原来的饲养管理进行,以高丹草青贮饲料和豆腐渣为主,所有育肥羊在育肥前按照每千克体重0.02 mL伊维菌素注射液进行了驱虫,驱虫3 d后用健胃散25 g、酵母片5~10片拌料饲喂进行了健胃。每天06:30—07:00和16:30—17:00各饲喂1次,自由饮水。

1.4 添加剂的饲喂

添加剂以重复为单位,先用稻壳粉稀释成10 g,再逐级稀释,1 d饲喂2次,用1/2的TMR量在小型搅拌机内混合拌料后进行饲喂,吃完后再饲喂剩余的TMR,以保证添加剂全部吃完。

1.5 指标检测

1.5.1 生长性能指标

每天记录采食量、剩料量和发病情况,于试验前1天和第1天及结束当天和结束后第1天早晨饲喂前称空腹体重,取连续2 d的平均值分别为初始体重(IBW)和终末体重(FBW),并计算平均采食量(ADFI)、平均日增重(ADG)和F/G。
ADFI=(总喂料量-总剩料量)/试验天数;
ADG=(FBW-IBW)/试验天数;
F/G=ADFI/ADG。

1.5.2 消化代谢指标

消化代谢试验于试验中期进行。每组选择体重差异不大的6只羊进行消化代谢试验,预试期5 d,采样期3 d,准确记录每天的采食量,全收粪收尿法收集每天(24 h)的粪便和尿液。将3 d的粪便混匀后,四分法称取10%粪便,加入10%的硫酸固氮,自然风干,装入自封袋,-20 ℃保存备用。将3 d的尿液混匀后,4层纱布过滤,取10%加入10%的硫酸固氮,-20 ℃保存备用。
饲粮干物质(DM)、氮、粗蛋白质(CP)、粗脂肪(EE)、粗灰分(Ash)、中性洗涤纤维(NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)、钙(Ca)和磷(P)以及粪便中DM、氮、NDF、ADF、Ca和P及尿氮含量均参考饲料中营养成分测定对应的国家标准或农业行业标准方法进行测定。消化代谢指标计算公式如下:
某养分表观消化率(%)=100×(采食量×饲粮中该养分含量-排粪量×粪中该养分含量)/采食量×饲粮中该养分含量;
可消化氮(g/d)=摄入总氮-粪氮;
沉积氮(g/d)=可消化氮-尿氮;
氮沉积率(%)=100×沉积氮/摄入氮。

1.5.3 屠宰性能指标和器官指数

试验结束当天20:00,所有羊只停食停水,在第2天早上饲喂前每个重复随机选择1只接近平均体重的试验羊,按照特定工艺程序颈动脉放血后进行屠宰,检测屠宰性能指标和器官指数,测定或计算方法如下。
宰前活重:宰前12~24 h停食、2 h停水的空腹有效体重。
胴体重:去掉头、皮毛、血液、四肢(前肢腕关节以下,后肢飞节以下)及内脏(保留肾脏及肾脏周围的脂肪)等的躯体在静置30 min后称取的重量。
净肉重:胴体精细剔骨后的重量。
肉骨比:净肉重与骨重的比值。
眼肌面积:第12、13肋骨之间背最长肌的横切面积。用2B铅笔和硫酸绘图纸描绘出眼肌横切面的轮廓,然后用KP-90N求积仪计算眼肌面积。
GR值:第12、13肋骨间距离背脊中线11 cm处的组织厚度,是衡量羊脂肪厚度的主要指标,用游标卡尺测量。
屠宰率(%)=(胴体重/宰前活重)×100;
胴体净肉率(%)=(净肉重/胴体重)×100;
净肉率(%)=(净肉重/宰前活重)×100;
器官指数=器官重量/宰前活重。

1.5.4 肉品质指标

试验羊屠宰后取左侧背最长肌[4],用于肉品质检测,主要指标及检测方法如下。
pH:取4 cm厚、直径5 cm的肉样,用胴体肉质pH测定仪(pH-5)检测pH,45 min内检测的记为pH45 min,将肉样放入4 ℃冰箱内,24 h后检测的记为pH24 h。
肉色:用胴体肉质颜色测定仪(SC-10,TenovoFood)检测45 min和24 h时的红度(a*)、亮度(L*)和黄度(b*)值,取3个不同位置测量,然后取平均值。
剪切力:取肉样放锅内水浴至75 ℃,取出冷却至室温,用取样器顺肌纤维钻取肉柱(直径约1.27 cm),用肌肉嫩度仪(C-LM3B型)检测剪切力。
熟肉率:取去掉外膜脂肪的背最长肌样品称重(m1),水煮45 min,室温冷却30 min后称重(m2),通过公式(m2/m1)×100计算出熟肉率。
滴水损失:取约50 g肉样,称重(m1)后装入专用的塑料袋中,充气然后扎紧袋口,放入4 ℃冰箱悬挂冷藏,24 h后取出,用滤纸擦去表面的汁液后称重(m2),通过公式[(m1-m2)/m1]×100计算出滴水损失。

1.5.5 羊肉营养成分

取屠宰后18只羊的左侧背最长肌,参照国家标准GB 5009.3—2016测定水分含量、GB 5009.5—2016测定CP含量、GB 5009.6—2016测定EE含量、GB 5009.4—2010测定Ash含量、GB 5009.128—2016测定胆固醇含量。

1.5.6 经济效益

饲料和添加剂价格以购买时市场价计,肉羊售价以出售时市场价计,纯收入按照如下公式计算:
纯收入=(终末体重-初始体重)×肉羊价格-饲料单价×平均日采食量×试验天数-添加剂价格-药费。

1.6 数据统计与分析

试验数据均用SPSS 19.0软件进行分析,采取一般线性模型(GLM)程序的双因素方差分析和Duncan氏多重比较法进行显著性检验,结果数据表示为“平均值±标准误”,P>0.05表示差异不显著,P<0.05表示差异显著。

2 结果

2.1 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊生长性能的影响

由表3可知,相较于未添加GAA,添加0.06% GAA显著提高了ADG(P<0.05),显著降低了F/G(P<0.05),对FBW和ADF无显著影响(P>0.05);相较于未添加SCC,添加0.01% SCC显著提高了FBW和ADG(P<0.05),显著降低了F/G(P<0.05),对ADFI无显著影响(P>0.05);GAA和SCC的互作显著影响了ADG和F/G(P<0.05),以Ⅴ组(0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组)的ADG最大,F/G最小。
表3 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊生长性能的影响

Table 3 Effects of GAA, SCC and their interaction on growth performance of mutton sheep

项目
Items		 组别 Groups GAA添加水平
GAA supplemental levels/%		 SCC添加水平
SCC supplemental
levels/%		 P值
P-value
对照 Control Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ 0 0.03 0.06 0 0.01 GAA SCC GAA×SCC
初始体重
IBW/kg		 26.03
±1.98		 25.54
±2.08		 25.74
±2.11		 25.05
±1.68		 26.34
±2.41		 25.02
±2.01
终末体重
FBW/kg		 41.24
±2.23b		 41.82
±2.01b		 42.85
±2.34b		 43.65
±2.37ab		 44.97
±3.00a		 45.13
±2.73a		 42.45 43.40 43.99 41.97b 44.58a 0.574 0.017 0.044
平均日增重
ADG/g		 253.50
±12.31c		 271.33
±12.89bc		 285.17
±11.43b		 310.12
±11.32b		 310.50
±10.97b		 335.16
±12.09a		 281.81b 290.92ab 310.17a 270.00b 318.59a 0.005 0.003 <0.001
平均日采食量
ADFI/kg		 1.79
±0.03		 1.75
±0.06		 1.77
±0.11		 1.80
±0.10		 1.79
±0.07		 1.79
±0.11		 1.80 1.77 1.78 1.77 1.79 0.165 0.339 0.175
料重比
F/G		 7.36
±0.12a		 6.46
±0.07b		 6.21
±0.04b		 5.80
±0.01c		 5.77
±0.04c		 5.34
±0.02c		 6.58a 6.12ab 5.78b 6.68a 5.64b 0.014 0.024 0.016
n 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 9 9

GAA:胍基乙酸;SCC:酿酒酵母菌与纤维素酶复合物;GAA×SCC:胍基乙酸和酿酒酵母菌与纤维素酶复合物的互作。同行数据肩标相同字母或无字母表示差异不显著(P>0.05),不同字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。下表同。

GAA: guanidine acetic acid; SCC: Saccharomyces cerevisiae and cellulase compound; GAA×SCC: the interaction of guanidine acetic acid and Saccharomyces cerevisiae and cellulase compound. In the the same row, values with the same letter or no letter superscripts indicated no significant difference (P>0.05), while with different letter superscripts indicated significant difference (P<0.05). The same as below.

2.2 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊消化代谢的影响

由表4可知,相较于未添加GAA和添加0.03% GAA,添加0.06% GAA显著提高了沉积氮、氮表观消化率和氮沉积率(P<0.05),显著降低了粪氮(P<0.05);相较于未添加SCC,添加0.01% SCC显著提高了NDF、ADF和氮表观消化率及沉积氮、氮沉积率(P<0.05),显著降低了粪氮(P<0.05);GAA和SCC的互作对粪氮、氮表观消化率和氮沉积率有显著影响(P<0.05)。
表4 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊消化代谢的影响

Table 4 Effects of GAA, SCC and their interaction on digestion and metabolism of mutton sheep

项目
Items		 组别 Groups GAA添加水平
GAA supplemental levels/%		 SCC添加水平
SCC supplemental
levels/%		 P值
P-value
对照 Control Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ 0 0.03 0.06 0 0.01 GAA SCC GAA×SCC
表观消化率 Apparent digestibility/%
干物质
DM		 61.33
±2.01		 60.87
±2.24		 60.49
±2.07		 61.52
±2.11		 62.18
±2.09		 61.99
±2.14		 61.43 61.53 61.24 60.90 61.90 0.340 0.772 0.212
中性洗涤纤维
NDF		 40.58
±1.93b		 41.02
±2.01b		 40.59
±2.03b		 43.12
±1.88a		 42.26
±2.12a		 43.56
±2.10a		 41.85 41.64 42.08 40.73b 42.98a 0.446 0.038 0.335
酸性洗涤纤维
ADF		 27.89
±1.17b		 26.72
±1.09b		 27.01
±1.14b		 29.49
±1.19a		 29.18
±1.03a		 30.01
±1.14a		 28.69 27.95 28.51 27.21b 29.56a 0.638 0.026 0.199
钙
Ca		 29.36
±1.03		 28.61
±1.18		 28.79
±1.20		 29.03
±1.24		 29.53
±1.14		 30.04
±1.22		 29.20 29.07 29.42 28.92 29.52 0.811 0.297 0.075
磷
P		 27.11
±1.09		 26.73
±1.01		 27.04
±1.07		 26.94
±1.11		 27.06
±1.10		 26.98
±1.05		 27.03 26.90 27.01 26.96 26.99 0.399 0.511 0.161
氮代谢指标Nitrogen metabolism indexes
摄入氮
N uptake/(g/d)		 35.51
±1.14		 34.72
±1.11		 35.12
±1.17		 35.71
±1.23		 35.51
±1.09		 35.51
±1.13		 35.61 35.12 35.32 35.12 35.58 0.663 0.163 0.359
粪氮
Fecal N/(g/d)		 10.48
±0.13a		 10.65
±0.13a		 9.53
±0.14b		 9.81
±0.17b		 9.77
±0.16b		 9.08
±0.13c		 10.15a 10.21a 9.31b 10.22a 9.55b 0.026 0.040 0.019
尿氮
Urinary N/(g/d)		 2.23
±0.01		 2.19
±0.01		 2.23
±0.02		 2.21
±0.03		 2.21
±0.02		 2.20
±0.01		 2.22 2.20 2.22 2.22 2.21 0.226 0.083 0.195
沉积氮
Deposited N/(g/d)		 22.80
±1.06b		 21.83
±1.10b		 23.36
±1.11ab		 23.69
±1.07ab		 23.53
±1.09ab		 24.23
±1.13a		 23.25b 22.68b 23.80a 22.66b 23.82a 0.032 0.047 0.036
可消化氮
Digestible N/
(g/d)		 25.03
±1.13		 24.07
±1.25		 25.59
±1.27		 25.90
±1.22		 25.74
±1.21		 26.43
±1.18		 25.47 24.91 26.01 24.90 26.02 0.052 0.062 0.071
氮表观消化率
Apparent digestibility
of N/%		 70.49
±2.75c		 69.33
±3.17c		 72.86
±3.39b		 72.53
±3.67b		 72.49
±3.72b		 74.43
±3.93a		 71.51b 70.91b 73.65a 70.89b 73.15a 0.018 0.036 0.028
氮沉积率
N deposition rate/%		 64.21
±2.02c		 63.02
±2.11c		 66.51
±2.21b		 66.34
±2.27b		 66.26
±2.15b		 68.23
±2.23a		 65.28b 64.64b 67.37a 64.58b 66.94a 0.035 0.022 0.019
n 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 9 9

2.3 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊屠宰性能的影响

由表5可知,添加0.06% GAA较未添加GAA显著提高了胴体重和眼肌面积(P<0.05);添加0.01% SCC较未添加SCC显著提高了胴体重(P<0.05);GAA和SCC的互作对胴体重和眼肌面积有显著影响(P<0.05),以0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组的胴体重和眼肌面积最大。
表5 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊屠宰性能的影响

Table 5 Effects of GAA, SCC and their interaction on slaughter performance of mutton sheep

项目
Items		 组别 Groups GAA添加水平
GAA supplemental levels/%		 SCC添加水平
SCC supplemental
levels/%		 P值
P-value
对照 Control Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ 0 0.03 0.06 0 0.01 GAA SCC GAA×SCC
宰前活重
Pre-slaughter weight/kg		 40.61
±2.11		 41.84
±2.01		 42.73
±2.14		 42.31
±2.27		 43.75
±2.36		 44.54
±2.45		 41.46 42.80 43.64 41.72 43.53 0.441 0.390 0.186
胴体重
Carcass weight/kg		 21.40
±0.67c		 22.79
±0.34b		 22.66
±0.09b		 22.75
±0.17b		 22.98
±0.76b		 24.53
±0.53a		 22.08b 22.89ab 23.60a 22.28b 23.42a 0.036 0.041 0.019
屠宰率
Dressing percentage/%		 52.69
±1.25		 54.47
±1.37		 53.03
±1.53		 53.77
±1.39		 52.53
±0.97		 55.07
±1.44		 53.23 53.50 54.05 53.40 53.79 0.116 0.094 0.198
净肉重
Pure meat weight/kg		 17.43
±0.22		 18.11
±0.27		 18.63
±0.21		 18.90
±0.15		 19.09
±0.18		 20.21
±0.34		 18.17 18.60 19.42 18.06 19.40 0.209 0.254 0.091
净肉率
Net meat percentage/%		 42.92
±1.02		 43.28
±1.21		 43.60
±1.08		 44.67
±1.19		 43.63
±1.29		 45.37
±1.33		 43.80 43.46 44.49 43.27 44.56 0.330 0.357 0.107
胴体净肉率
Carcass net meat
percentage/%		 81.44
±2.35		 79.46
±3.01		 82.21
±2.47		 83.08
±3.15		 83.07
±2.71		 82.39
±2.19		 82.26 81.27 82.30 81.04 82.85 0.943 0.705 0.696
肉骨比
Meat-bone ratio		 4.39
±0.01		 3.87
±0.02		 4.62
±0.01		 4.91
±0.03		 4.91
±0.01		 4.68
±0.03		 4.65 4.39 4.65 4.29 4.83 0.402 0.489 0.519
眼肌面积
Eye muscle area/cm2		 16.83
±0.42c		 17.01
±0.24c		 18.56
±0.18b		 17.16
±0.26c		 18.33
±0.31b		 20.54
±0.45a		 17.00b 17.52b 19.55a 17.47 18.58 0.047 0.381 0.002
GR值
GR value/mm		 17.45
±0.71		 17.78
±0.53		 17.23
±0.32		 17.41
±0.29		 17.25
±0.37		 17.16
±0.48		 17.43 17.52 17.20 17.49 17.27 0.097 0.104 0.160
n 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 9 9

2.4 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊器官指数的影响

由表6可知,与未添加GAA相比,添加0.06% GAA显著提高了脾脏指数(P<0.05);与未添加SCC相比,添加0.01% SCC显著提高了脾脏指数(P<0.05);GAA和SCC的互作对所有检测的器官指数均未产生显著影响(P>0.05)。
表6 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊器官指数的影响

Table 6 Effects of GAA, SCC and their interaction on organ indexes of mutton sheep

项目
Items		 组别 Groups GAA添加水平
GAA supplemental levels/%		 SCC添加水平
SCC supplemental
levels/%		 P值
P-value
对照 Control Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ 0 0.03 0.06 0 0.01 GAA SCC GAA×SCC
心脏指数
Cardiac index		 0.42
±0.01		 0.39
±0.02		 0.40
±0.02		 0.43
±0.01		 0.38
±0.02		 0.43
±0.02		 0.43 0.39 0.42 0.40 0.41 0.473 0.935 0.559
肝脏指数
Liver index		 1.72
±0.03		 1.75
±0.03		 1.69
±0.01		 1.71
±0.04		 1.78
±0.03		 1.74
±0.04		 1.72 1.77 1.72 1.72 1.74 0.593 0.467 0.111
肾脏指数
Renal index		 0.47
±0.01		 0.48
±0.03		 0.51
±0.02		 0.47
±0.01		 0.49
±0.02		 0.51
±0.02		 0.47 0.49 0.51 0.49 0.49 0.494 0.669 0.740
肺脏指数
Pulmonary index		 0.91
±0.02		 0.94
±0.01		 0.91
±0.01		 0.89
±0.04		 0.91
±0.01		 0.95
±0.02		 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.816 0.995 0.553
脾脏指数
Spleen index		 0.15
±0.01b		 0.16
±0.02b		 0.19
±0.01a		 0.19
±0.02a		 0.19
±0.01a		 0.19
±0.02a		 0.17b 0.18ab 0.19a 0.17b 0.19a 0.022 0.048 0.069
瘤胃指数
Rumen index		 3.34
±0.01		 3.57
±0.02		 4.21
±0.01		 4.18
±0.03		 3.89
±0.03		 4.09
±0.02		 3.76 3.73 4.15 3.71 4.05 0.337 0.752 0.387
网胃指数
Reticulum index		 0.44
±0.02		 0.43
±0.03		 0.46
±0.02		 0.44
±0.03		 0.46
±0.03		 0.43
±0.03		 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.174 0.995 0.776
瓣胃指数
Omasogastric index		 0.22
±0.01		 0.21
±0.02		 0.23
±0.01		 0.22
±0.01		 0.23
±0.02		 0.22
±0.01		 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.697 0.946 0.831
皱胃指数
Abomasal index		 0.39
±0.02		 0.37
±0.02		 0.38
±0.01		 0.37
±0.02		 0.38
±0.01		 0.39
±0.02		 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.885 0.938 0.982
n 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 9 9

2.5 GAA和SCC及其互作对羊肉品质的影响

由表7可知,与未添加GAA和添加0.03% GAA相比,添加0.06% GAA显著提高了背最长肌的pH24 h、 L 45 m i n *值和 L 24 h *值(P<0.05),显著降低了滴水损失(P<0.05);与未添加SCC相比,添加0.01% SCC显著提高了背最长肌的 L 45 m i n *值和 L 24 h *值(P<0.05)。GAA和SCC的互作对背最长肌的pH24 h、 L 45 m i n *值、 L 24 h *值和滴水损失有显著影响(P<0.05),且均以0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组最佳。
表7 GAA和SCC及其互作对羊肉品质的影响

Table 7 Effects of GAA, SCC and their interaction on mutton quality

项目
Items		 组别 Groups GAA添加水平
GAA supplemental levels/%		 SCC添加水平
SCC supplemental
levels/%		 P值
P-value
对照 Control Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ 0 0.03 0.06 0 0.01 GAA SCC GAA×SCC
pH45 min 6.17
±0.02		 6.20
±0.04		 6.28
±0.01		 6.28
±0.02		 6.32
±0.03		 6.37
±0.02		 6.23 6.26 6.33 6.22 6.32 0.496 0.847 0.641
pH24 h 5.88
±0.01c		 5.91
±0.02c		 6.12
±0.02b		 5.93
±0.01c		 6.14
±0.03b		 6.34
±0.01a		 5.91b 6.03b 6.23a 5.97 6.14 0.036 0.094 0.002
45 min红度
a 45 m i n *		 14.32
±0.31		 14.55
±0.45		 15.71
±0.26		 14.45
±0.15		 14.67
±0.35		 16.47
±0.48		 14.39 14.61 16.09 14.86 15.20 0.063 0.185 0.073
45 min亮度
L 45 m i n *		 33.67
±1.15b		 34.15
±1.02b		 39.10
±0.05a		 36.02
±0.06b		 35.99
±1.09b		 39.23
±1.13a		 34.85b 35.07b 39.16a 35.64b 37.08a 0.039 0.045 0.029
45 min黄度
b 45 m i n *		 9.34
±0.01		 9.27
±0.02		 9.41
±0.01		 9.35
±0.04		 9.29
±0.08		 9.19
±0.06		 9.35 9.28 9.30 9.34 9.28 0.449 0.643 0.268
24 h红度
a 24 h *		 15.35
±0.01		 15.59
±0.45		 16.69
±0.05		 16.01
±0.03		 16.23
±0.05		 17.19
±0.07		 15.68 15.91 16.94 15.88 16.48 0.094 0.175 0.343
24 h亮度
L 24 h *		 34.54
±0.10c		 35.81
±0.02c		 39.09
±0.05b		 36.02
±0.06c		 38.73
±0.04b		 41.74
±0.14a		 35.28b 37.27b 40.42a 36.48b 38.83a 0.002 0.017 0.005
24 h黄度
b 24 h *		 10.21
±0.01		 10.11
±0.02		 10.01
±0.01		 10.12
±0.04		 10.15
±0.08		 10.03
±0.06		 10.17 10.13 10.02 10.11 10.10 0.338 0.267 0.084
剪切力
Shear force/kgf		 6.47
±2.14		 6.36
±2.76		 6.42
±2.19		 6.51
±3.01		 6.34
±2.53		 6.03
±2.91		 6.49 6.35 6.23 6.42 6.29 0.689 0.739 0.370
滴水损失
Drip loss/%		 5.87
±0.02a		 5.58
±0.01a		 4.23
±0.02b		 5.55
±0.01a		 5.45
±0.04a		 4.04
±0.01b		 5.71a 5.52a 4.14b 5.23 5.01 0.040 0.892 0.002
熟肉率
Cooked meat rate/%		 53.23
±2.34		 53.31
±2.42		 53.67
±2.37		 53.78
±2.11		 54.23
±2.24		 54.55
±2.42		 53.51 53.77 54.11 53.40 54.19 0.197 0.093 0.570
n 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 9 9

2.6 GAA和SCC及其互作对羊肉常规营养成分的影响

由表8可知,与未添加GAA和添加0.03%GAA相比,添加0.06% GAA显著提高了肌肉CP含量(P<0.05);GAA或SCC添加水平对肌肉EE、Ash和胆固醇含量均无显著影响(P>0.05),肌肉水分含量随着GAA或SCC添加水平的提高而增加,但并未达到显著水平(P>0.05);与未添加SCC相比,添加0.01% SCC显著提高了肌肉CP含量(P<0.05);GAA和SCC的互作对肌肉CP含量有显著影响(P<0.05),以0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组最大。
表8 GAA和SCC及互作对羊肉常规营养成分的影响

Table 8 Effects of GAA, SCC and their interaction on common nutrient composition of mutton%

项目
Items		 组别 Groups GAA添加水平
GAA supplemental levels/%		 SCC添加水平
SCC supplemental
levels/%		 P值
P-value
对照 Control Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ 0 0.03 0.06 0 0.01 GAA SCC GAA×
SCC
水分 Moisture 71.23±2.24 72.54±2.41 73.13±2.47 72.33±2.56 72.66±2.48 73.37±1.92 71.78 72.60 73.25 72.30 72.79 0.883 0.792 0.195
粗蛋白质 CP 19.17±0.61c 19.02±0.67c 20.41±0.65b 20.33±0.37b 20.36±0.71b 22.42±0.74a 19.75b 19.69b 21.42a 19.53b 21.04a 0.022 0.036 0.011
粗脂肪 EE 13.07±0.32 12.78±0.40 12.03±0.61 12.34±0.46 12.25±0.39 11.68±0.52 12.71 12.52 11.86 12.63 12.09 0.074 0.091 0.539
粗灰分 Ash 5.56±0.01 5.42±0.04 5.33±0.02 5.45±0.07 5.41±0.03 5.33±0.02 5.51 5.42 5.33 5.44 5.40 0.887 0.505 0.759
胆固醇Cholesterol 0.12±0.13 0.12±0.07 0.12±0.04 0.13±0.06 0.13±0.02 0.10±0.04 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.936 0.567 0.683
n 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 9 9

2.7 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊经济效益的影响

由表9可知,与未添加GAA相比,添加0.06% GAA显著提高了总增重、添加剂成本和纯收入(P<0.05),显著降低了药成本(P<0.05);与未添加SCC相比,添加0.01% SCC显著提高了总增重、添加剂成本和纯收入(P<0.05),显著降低了药成本(P<0.05);GAA和SCC的互作对总增重、添加剂成本、药成本和纯收入产生了显著影响(P<0.05),以0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组的纯收入最高,显著高于其他各组(P<0.05)。
表9 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊经济效益的影响

Table 9 Effects of GAA, SCC and their interaction on economic benefit of mutton sheep

项目
Items		 组别 Groups GAA添加水平
GAA supplemental levels/%		 SCC添加水平
SCC supplemental
levels/%		 P值
P-value
对照 Control Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ 0 0.03 0.06 0 0.01 GAA SCC GAA×
SCC
总增重
Total weight gain/kg		 15.21
±0.36d		 16.28
±0.29cd		 17.11
±0.41bc		 18.60
±0.33b		 18.63
±0.47b		 20.11
±0.39a		 16.91b 17.46b 18.61a 16.20b 19.11a 0.045 0.025 0.008
肉羊价格
Mutton sheep price/(元/kg)		 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
添加剂成本
Additive cost/(元/只)		 0.00d 3.75b 3.90b 1.80c 5.55a 5.70a 0.90b 4.65a 4.80a 2.55b 4.35a 0.019 0.021 0.008
平均日采食量
ADFI/kg		 1.79
±0.03		 1.75
±0.06		 1.77
±0.11		 1.80
±0.10		 1.79
±0.07		 1.79
±0.11		 1.80 1.77 1.78 1.77 1.79 0.165 0.339 0.175
饲料单价
Feed unit price/(元/kg)		 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67
饲料成本
Feed cost/(元/d)		 2.99
±0.01		 2.92
±0.01		 2.96
±0.02		 3.01
±0.01		 2.99
±0.02		 2.99
±0.01		 3.00 2.96 2.98 2.96 3.00 0.411 0.338 0.375
药成本 Drug
cost/(元/只)		 6.00a 6.00a 4.00b 3.00b 0.00c 0.00c 4.50a 3.00b 2.00b 5.33a 1.00b 0.036 0.008 0.002
纯收入
Net income/(元/只)		 270.90
±12.76d		 303.45
±13.01cd		 324.80
±13.42c		 372.60
±12.78b		 373.95
±12.92b		 418.20
±13.53a		 321.75b 338.70b 371.5a 299.72b 388.25a 0.014 0.004 0.028
n 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 9 9

3 讨论

3.1 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊生长性能的影响

肌酸在动物能量代谢和肌肉生长方面起着重要的作用[15],反刍动物自身合成的肌酸不能满足需求,需要从饲料中获取。肌酸不稳定且价格昂贵,而作为肌酸前体的GAA,价格较低且性质较稳定[16]。研究显示,饲粮中添加GAA可提高动物肌肉组织中肌酸含量[17-18],为细胞代谢提供能量。本试验中,添加0.06% GAA后肉羊的ADG显著提高,F/G显著降低。刘笑梅等[19]报道,饲粮中添加900 mg/kg的GAA可提高杜寒杂交羔羊的生长性能;晁雅琳等[20]报道,舍饲滩羊饲粮中添加0.08%或0.12% GAA可显著提高ADG,降低F/G;王子苑等[21]报道,饲粮中添加800 mg/kg GAA可显著提高肉牛的ADG,降低F/G。本试验结果与上述这些研究结果基本一致,原因可能是外源GAA可提高机体的肌酸和磷酸肌酸含量,为机体代谢提供更多能量,同时节约了体内精氨酸和甘氨酸,二者是合成GAA的必需氨基酸,使更多精氨酸和甘氨酸参与氨基酸和蛋白质合成,从而促进动物生长;也可能与GAA可促进类胰岛素生长因子-Ⅰ和胰岛素的分泌[22]有关。但也有与本研究结果不一致的观点,比如上述文献GAA添加水平不同,还有任国栋等[23]研究报道,饲粮中添加900 mg/kg GAA对杜寒杂交羔羊的ADG无显著提高作用,但使饲料效率得到显著提高,这些可能与试验动物、试验条件及饲粮等存在差异有关。
李秀丽等[24]研究表明,在饲粮中添加10 g/(d·头)的酿酒酵母复合物可显著提高肉牛的ADG,显著降低F/G。本研究中,在饲粮中添加0.01% SCC对肉羊的ADG和F/G均有显著改善,可能是纤维素酶分解纤维素为葡萄糖,为细菌和机体提供能量。而GAA被转运为肌酸后,也可为机体提供代谢所需能量,同时GAA还可提高瘤胃微生物分泌的纤维素酶活性[25]。本试验中,0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组的ADG显著高于0.06% GAA组和0.01% SCC组,同时F/G显著低于其余组,说明GAA和SCC对肉羊的ADG和F/G产生了显著的互作效应。李秀丽[7]报道,复方GAA可显著提高肉羊的ADG,降低F/G,与本试验研究结果基本一致。

3.2 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊消化代谢的影响

饲粮中营养物质表观消化率的高低直接影响肉羊的生长性能,跟饲粮的可消化性、采食量、瘤胃菌群及食物在消化道停留的时间等都有关[26]。刘笑梅等[19]研究表明,饲粮中添加900 mg/kg GAA可显著提高羔羊的DM、CP和NDF表观消化率。Liu等[27]报道,肉牛瘤胃中DM、NDF和ADF的表观消化率随着饲粮中GAA添加水平的增加而增加。本试验结果显示,添加0.06% GAA只显著提高了肉羊的氮表观消化率,而没有显著提高NDF和DM表观消化率,这可能跟个体及GAA添加水平有关。李秀丽[28]报道,饲粮中添加10 g/d SCC可显著提高肉牛的CP、ADF、NDF表观消化率,其对奶牛的研究也有相同结果[9],这与本试验得出的添加0.01% SCC显著影响氮代谢及显著提高了NDF和ADF表观消化率的结果基本一致,原因可能是酵母菌使瘤胃维持厌氧环境,提供给微生物更适宜的生长环境[27]。此外,酵母菌还促进微生物进一步分泌纤维素酶和淀粉酶[29],再加上SSC中额外添加的纤维素酶,更能提高营养物质的消化率。有研究报道,复方GAA可提高肉羊的免疫机能和抗氧化能力[7],而本研究中添加0.06% GAA和0.01% SCC时对粪氮、氮表观消化率和氮沉积率的改善效果最佳,这可能跟肉羊机体的免疫力提高导致营养物质的消化代谢提高有关。

3.3 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊屠宰性能和器官指数的影响

胴体重和眼肌面积是衡量羊产肉性能的重要经济指标,眼肌面积是胴体品质的评价指标,眼肌面积越大,产肉性能越高。本试验结果显示,添加0.06% GAA或0.01% SCC后肉羊的胴体重显著提高,可能是GAA提供给机体更多肌酸,产生更多ATP,提高了肌肉产量;SCC提供给机体蛋白质、氨基酸等营养物质,并提供纤维素酶将纤维素分解为葡萄糖给机体提供能量;也可能是GAA使机体胰岛素样生长因子-Ⅰ含量提高,促进肌肉内蛋白质的沉积,进而促进肌肉生长。刘笑梅等[30]报道,饲粮中添加900 mg/kg GAA可显著提高杜寒杂交羊的胴体重,与本试验结果基本一致。本试验发现,添加0.06% GAA和0.01% SCC组的胴体重和眼肌面积显著高于其余组,可见0.06% GAA和0.01% SCC产生了显著的互作效应,说明在SCC调节瘤胃菌群、提供一定营养物质时,0.06% GAA能更好降低肝脏脂肪酶的活性和表达,减少胴体脂肪的沉积[31];或者GAA通过促进γ-氨基丁酸分泌,刺激下丘脑分泌促生长激素释放激素,从而促进垂体分泌生长激素[21,32],生长激素的分泌可直接促进脂肪分解[33],减少胴体脂肪沉积,进而提高眼肌面积,改善肌肉嫩度。
器官指数可反映动物机体的机能状况,可用来指导畜禽生产。脾脏指数主要与机体免疫机能有关。脾脏是机体产生抗体的主要器官,对病原体产生抵抗力和清除衰老细胞[34]。本试验结果表明,与对照组相比,0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组、0.06% GAA组、0.03% GAA×0.01% SCC组及0.01% SCC组脾脏指数均显著提高,可能是GAA提高了机体的免疫力,促进了T细胞的分化增殖,进而提高了脾脏指数[35],同时SCC中的酿酒酵母菌可抑制机体促炎因子的表达,刺激宿主抗氧化系统,改善抗氧化能力[8],提高机体免疫力,从而提高脾脏指数。康永刚等[36]研究表明,饲粮中添加30%菌酶协同金针菇菌糠可显著提高湖羊的抗氧化能力;李秀丽[7]研究表明,饲粮中添加10 g/(d·只)复方GAA能提高肉羊机体免疫力;邱明科等[37]研究表明,每吨精料中添加200、500或1 000 g GAA均可提高肉牛的抗氧化能力。本试验中,0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组、0.03% GAA×0.01% SCC组与0.06% GAA组、0.01% SCC组脾脏指数无显著差异,说明GAA和SCC互作对脾脏指数没有显著影响,综合来看,以0.01% SCC组和0.06% GAA组为好。

3.4 GAA和SCC及其互作对羊肉品质的影响

pH是判断肉品质的一个重要指标,羊屠宰后,血液停止氧气运输,细胞进入无氧呼吸阶段,即糖酵解过程,肌糖原经过糖酵解产生大量乳酸,乳酸积累到一定程度,导致pH下降[38]。本试验结果显示,0.06% GAA组、0.03% GAA×0.01% SCC组和0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组肌肉pH24 h显著提高,可能是饲粮中添加的外源GAA通过肝脏被转化为肌酸,肌酸与磷酸基团结合生成磷酸肌酸,进而生成ATP,为机体提供能量,节省了体内糖原的消耗,延缓了糖酵解的进程,减少了乳酸的积累,从而提高了肌肉pH,这与潘宝海等[39]在育肥猪、刘笑梅等[30]在羔羊上得出的GAA可显著提高肌肉pH24 h的结果一致;而SCC中的纤维素酶可将大分子纤维素最终分解为小分子单糖葡萄糖为机体提供能量,同样延缓了糖酵解,从而提高肌肉pH。0.03% GAA组和0.01% SCC组可能是GAA和SCC添加量过低,造成无显著变化;0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组肌肉pH24 h显著高于0.06% GAA组,0.03% GAA×0.01% SCC组显著高于0.03% GAA组和0.01% SCC组,说明GAA和SCC对肌肉pH24 h有显著的互作效应。
肉色是人们购买时判断肉品质的重要指标之一,主要由肌红蛋白的含量决定。a*值反映肌红蛋白量,L*值反映肌肉白度,b*值与肉新鲜度呈负相关,其值越高肉质越不新鲜[40]。本研究结果表明,添加GAA可改善肉色,0.06% GAA组、0.03% GAA×0.01% SCC组和0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组背最长肌的 L 24 h *值显著提高,可能与GAA和SCC延缓了糖酵解,提高了肌肉pH有关,也可能与滴水损失较低导致肌肉含水量较高有关,说明添加GAA对肌肉色泽的改善有积极效果。刘笑梅等[30]有相同报道。0.03% GAA×0.01% SCC组背最长肌 L 24 h *值略微提高,与对照组无显著差异,可能是GAA和SCC添加量较少。辛均平[6]研究表明,在饲粮中添加0.2% GAA显著提高了锦江黄牛背最长肌的a*和b*值。该结果与本试验结果不一致,这可能与试验动物、试验条件、饲粮及添加水平等不同有关,有待进一步研究。刘瑞生等[41]研究发现,肉色与肉的系水力和抗氧化能力有关。肌肉中肌红蛋白为紫色,与氧结合后生成鲜红色氧合肌红蛋白,若被氧化则生成紫色高铁肌红蛋白。本试验中添加SCC组肌肉的a*值较高,说明肌肉中高铁肌红蛋白含量较少,抗氧化能力较强。吴宝云等[42]报道,饲粮中添加GAA可在一定程度上提高育肥猪肌肉的L*和a*值,降低肌肉b*值,改善肉色,与本试验结果基本一致。本试验中,0.03% GAA×0.01% SCC组背最长肌 L 24 h *值显著高于0.03% GAA组和0.01% SCC组,说明GAA和SCC在背最长肌 L 24 h *值上有显著的互作效应。
滴水损失一般与失水率呈正相关,与保水性、系水力呈负相关。保水性能越强,系水能力越佳,肉质越鲜嫩多汁。本试验结果表明,添加0.06% GAA时羊肉的滴水损失显著降低,可能是GAA转变为肌酸、磷酸肌酸及ATP,延长了肌肉收缩时间,延缓了尸僵,保持了水分含量[43];也可能与肌肉pH提高有关,较高的pH可降低蛋白质变性,蛋白质的静电负荷增多,加强了与水的作用,减轻了彼此间的相互作用,进而降低滴水损失[44]。0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组与0.06% GAA组的滴水损失无显著差异,说明GAA和SCC对滴水损失的影响无显著互作效应。有研究报道,GAA可通过调控肝脏脂肪生成酶的表达,增加肌内脂肪含量,减少胴体脂肪含量,改善肌肉脂肪含量[45],提高肌肉大理石评分,减少滴水损失[46]。辛均平等[47]的研究结果表明,在锦江黄牛饲粮中添加0.2% GAA,背最长肌滴水损失比对照组显著降低36.36%,李蛟龙等[48]也有相同的报道。侯冉等[49]报道,肉质嫩度与剪切力呈负相关。陈艳珍[50]报道,保水性与熟肉率有关,熟肉率越高,保水性越强。本试验中0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组熟肉率最高,剪切力最低,滴水损失最低,说明GAA和SCC的添加对羊肉品质有一定程度的改善作用。

3.5 GAA和SCC及其互作对羊肉常规营养成分的影响

水分、CP、EE、Ash及胆固醇含量是评价肉品质的重要指标。水分含量越高,肌肉嫩度越高,CP含量是肉最重要的营养指标,EE含量则与肉的多汁性有关,含量少时肌肉粗糙,反之则油腻,Ash含量则是肉中矿物质和维生素含量的反映,胆固醇含量与人高血脂、心血管病等疾病有关。本试验结果表明,0.06% GAA组、0.01% SCC组、0.03% GAA×0.01% SCC组和0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组肌肉CP含量显著提高,这可能是GAA合成肌酸增强了能量利用率,降低了蛋白质分解供能[4],并且添加GAA后节约了体内精氨酸,使更多精氨酸参与蛋白质合成,而SCC可调节瘤胃菌群,其中的纤维素酶可分解纤维素为葡萄糖,为细菌转化蛋白质提供了能量,同时GAA还可提高蛋白酶活性[24],酿酒酵母菌本身含有丰富的可吸收蛋白质和氨基酸等[38]。刘笑梅等[30]报道,饲粮中添加600、900 mg/kg GAA可显著提高羔羊背最长肌CP含量,与本试验结果基本一致。但晁雅琳等[20]报道,滩羊饲粮中添加0.08%或0.12% GAA显著升高了肌肉蛋白质和肌内脂肪含量,本试验中肌肉EE含量各组间无显著差异,与上述结果不完全一致,是否与试验动物、环境、饲粮等因素有关,有待进一步深入研究;此外,0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组肌肉CP含量显著高于0.06% GAA组、0.01% SCC组,说明GAA和SCC对肌肉CP含量产生了显著的互作效应。

3.6 GAA和SCC及其互作对肉羊经济效益的影响

近些年来,随着人们生活水平的提高,对羊肉品质的要求越来越高,因此羊肉产量和品质同时提高便成为养殖者的目标。本试验中,育肥结束时,尽管0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组的添加剂成本显著增加,但其总增重显著增加所带来的收入远高于添加剂成本,因此0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组每只羊纯收入最高,比对照组、0.03% GAA组、0.06% GAA组、0.01% SCC组、0.03% GAA×0.01% SCC组分别高出54.43%、37.82%、28.76%、12.24%和11.83%,且显著高于0.06% GAA组和0.01% SCC组,可见GAA和SCC在提高纯收入上有显著的互作效应;另外,0.06% GAA×0.01% SCC组羊由于体重大、肉质好,实际活羊出售价格比对照组高2元/kg,这样产生的纯收入会更高。

4 结论

综合各方面性能,饲粮中同时添加0.06% GAA和0.01% SCC能更有效地提高肉羊的ADG,降低F/G,促进生长发育,提高氮表观消化率和氮沉积率,提高脾脏指数、屠宰后肌肉pH24 h和胴体重,增大眼肌面积,提高肌肉L*值和CP含量并降低滴水损失,提高经济效益。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
CÓRDOVA-NOBOA H A, OVIEDO-RONDÓN E O, SARSOUR A H, et al. Effect of guanidinoacetic acid supplementation on live performance,meat quality,pectoral myopathies and blood parameters of male broilers fed corn-based diets with or without poultry by-products[J]. Poultry Science, 2018, 97(7):2494-2505.

[2]
DEGROOT A A, BRAUN U, DILGER R N. Efficacy of guanidinoacetic acid on growth and muscle energy metabolism in broiler chicks receiving arginine-deficient diets[J]. Poultry Science, 2018, 97(3):890-900.

DOI PMID

[3]
MCBREAIRTY L E, ROBINSON J L, FURLONG K R, et al. Guanidinoacetate is more effective than creatine at enhancing tissue creatine stores while consequently limiting methionine availability in Yucatan miniature pigs[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(6):e0131563.

[4]
段浩楠, 武殿阁, 申帅峰, 等. 胍基乙酸对育肥猪生长性能、屠宰性能、血清生化指标、肌纤维特性及肌肉发育相关调节因子基因表达的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(9):5619-5628.

DOI

DUAN H N, WU D G, SHEN S F, et al. Effects of guanidinoacetic acid on growth performance,slaughter performance,serum biochemical indexes,muscle fiber characteristics and gene expression of regulatory factors related to muscle development of finishing pigs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(9):5619-5628. (in Chinese)

[5]
张海雷, 安敏, 杨开伦, 等. 补喂4种氨基酸对哺乳期羔羊生长代谢的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2022(17):59-64.

ZHANG H L, AN M, YANG K L, et al. Effects of supplementary feeding of 4 amino acids on growth and metabolism of suckling lambs[J]. China Feed, 2022(17):59-64. (in Chinese)

[6]
辛均平. 胍基乙酸对育肥期锦江黄牛生长性能、血液指标及肉品质的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 南昌: 江西农业大学, 2020.

XIN J P. Effects of guanidinoacetic acid on long performance,blood index and meat quality of Jinjiang yellow cattle in fattening period[D]. Master's Thesis. Nanchang: Jiangxi Agricultural University, 2020. (in Chinese)

[7]
李秀丽. 复方胍基乙酸对肉羊生长性能、抗氧化指标及经济效益的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(18):25-27.

LI X L. Effect of compound guanidine acetic acid on growth performance,antioxidant indices and economic benefit of mutton sheep[J]. Feed Research, 2019, 44(18):25-27. (in Chinese)

[8]
高文文, 安柯颖, 李鹏, 等. 酿酒酵母菌对北京鸭生产性能、免疫和抗氧化功能的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2022, 58(12):247-253.

GAO W W, AN K Y, LI P, et al. Effects of Saccharomscces cerevisiae on performance,immunity and antioxidant function of Peking ducks[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2022, 58(12):247-253. (in Chinese)

[9]
李秀丽. 酿酒酵母菌和纤维素酶复合物对奶公牛日增重、表观消化率及经济效益的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(14):23-26.

LI X L. Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and cellulase complex on daily gain,apparent digestibility and economic benefit of dairy bulls[J]. Feed Research, 2019, 44(14):23-26. (in Chinese)

[10]
辛总秀. 纤维素复合酶处理粗饲料饲喂反刍动物的效果研究[D]. 硕士学位论文. 西宁: 青海大学, 2007.

XIN Z X. Effect of cellulose complex enzyme on roughage feeding of ruminants[D]. Master's Thesis. Xining: Qinghai University, 2007. (in Chinese)

[11]
阳治康, 殷运菊, 徐伟伟, 等. 纤维素酶的酶学特性及在畜禽生产中的应用研究进展[J/OL]. 中国畜牧杂志:1-10[2024-04-21].https://doi.org/10.19556/j.0258-7033.20230830-01.

YANG Z K, YIN Y J, XU W W, et al. Research progress on enzymatic characteristics of cellulase and its application in livestock and poultry production[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Animal Husbandry:1- 10 [2024-04-21].https://doi.org/10.19556/j.0258-7033.20230830-01. (in Chinese)

[12]
李秀丽. 菌酶混合型饲料添加剂对肉牛生长性能、营养物质表观消化率及经济效益的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(23):12-15.

LI X L. Effect of bacterial enzyme mixed feed additives on growth performance,apparent digestibility of nutrients and economic benefit of beef cattle[J]. Feed Research, 2021, 44(23):12-15. (in Chinese)

[13]
毕梦凡, 王平, 王利军, 等. 菌酶复合制剂对育肥湖羊生长性能、瘤胃发酵和细菌菌群的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(11):7228-7239.

DOI

BI M F, WANG P, WANG L J, et al. Effects of probiotics and enzyme compound preparation on growth performance,rumen fermentation and bacterial community of fattening Hu sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(11):7228-7239. (in Chinese)

[14]
冀旋, 玉柱, 白春生, 等. 添加剂对高丹草青贮效果的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2012, 20(3):571-575.

DOI

JI X, YU Z, BAI C S, et al. Effect of additives on quality of sorghum-sudangrass hybrids silage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2012, 20(3):571-575. (in Chinese)

DOI

[15]
李文娟, 王彦芦, 王炜康, 等. 胍基乙酸对畜禽生产性能与肉品质的调控作用研究进展[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2021, 57(1):1-5.

LI W J, WANG Y L, WANG W K, et al. Role of dietary guanidine acetic acid in manipulating animal performance and meat quality:a review[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2021, 57(1):1-5. (in Chinese)

[16]
张含, 桂红兵, 张晨俭, 等. 过瘤胃胍基乙酸对育肥后期湖羊生长性能、屠宰性能、肌肉品质及血清生化指标的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(2):1057-1065.

DOI

ZHANG H, GUI H B, ZHANG C J, et al. Effects of rumen-protected guanidinoacetic acid on growth performance,slaughter performance,muscle quality and serum biochemical indexes of Hu sheep during late fattening period[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(2):1057-1065. (in Chinese)

DOI

[17]
TOSSENBERGER J, RADEMACHER M, NÉMETH K, et al. Digestibility and metabolism of dietary guanidino acetic acid fed to broilers[J]. Poultry Science, 2016, 95(9):2058-2067.

DOI PMID

[18]
LIU Y, LI J L, LI Y J, et al. Effects of dietary supplementation of guanidinoacetic acid and combination of guanidinoacetic acid and betaine on postmortem glycolysis and meat quality of finishing pigs[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2015, 205:82-89.

[19]
刘笑梅, 郝小燕, 崔乔, 等. 饲粮中添加胍基乙酸对羔羊生长性能和营养物质消化代谢的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(12):6910-6918.

DOI

LIU X M, HAO X Y, CUI Q, et al. Effects of dietary guanidineacetic acid on growth performance and nutrient digestion and metabolism of lambs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(12):6910-6918. (in Chinese)

[20]
晁雅琳, 刘博, 寇启芳, 等. 胍基乙酸对舍饲滩羊生长性能、屠宰性能、脂肪沉积及肌肉营养成分的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2019, 31(1):388-394.

CHAO Y L, LIU B, KOU Q F, et al. Effects of guanidine acetic acid on growth performance,slaughter performance,fat deposition and nutritional components in muscle of stabling Tan sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2019, 31(1):388-394. (in Chinese)

[21]
王子苑, 陈光吉, 舒健虹, 等. 胍基乙酸对肉牛生长性能、血浆抗氧化和糖代谢指标及血液相关基因表达的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(12):6853-6863.

DOI

WANG ZI Y, CHEN G J, SHU J H, et al. Effects of guanidine acetic acid on growth performance,plasma antioxidant and glycometabolism indexes and blood related genes expression of beef cattle[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(12):6853-6863. (in Chinese)

[22]
江涛, 戴燊, 李小燕, 等. 胍基乙酸对AA肉仔鸡生长性能和屠宰性能的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2012(4):8-10.

JIANG T, DAI S, LI X Y, et al. Effects of guanidine acetic acid on growth performance and slaughter performance of AA broilers[J]. Feed Research, 2012(4):8-10. (in Chinese)

[23]
任国栋, 郝小燕, 张暄梓, 等. 胍基乙酸和甜菜碱对羔羊生长性能、瘤胃发酵和血液代谢的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(4):766-778.

DOI

REN G D, HAO X Y, ZHANG X Z, et al. Effects of guanidinoacetic acid and betaine supplementation on growth performance,rumen fermentation and blood metabolites in lambs[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(4):766-778. (in Chinese)

[24]
李秀丽, 丁应龙, 孟宪国. 不同水平的酿酒酵母复合物对肉牛增重的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(9):25-28.

LI X L, DING Y L, MENG X G. Effect of different levels of Saccharomyces cerevisiae complex on weight gain of beef cattle[J]. Feed Research, 2021, 44(9):25-28. (in Chinese)

[25]
LIU C, WANG C, ZHANG J, et al. Guanidinoacetic acid and betaine supplementation have positive effects on growth performance,nutrient digestion and rumen fermentation in Angus bulls[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2021, 276:114923.

[26]
温红瑞, 齐明江, 高昌鹏, 等. 单宁对育肥滩羊生长性能、消化代谢以及屠宰性能的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(12):2809-2817.

DOI

WEN H R, QI M J, GAO C P, et al. Effect of tannin on growth performance,digestion and metabolism and slaughtering performance of fattening Tan sheep[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(12):2809-2817. (in Chinese)

[27]
LIU Y J, CHEN J Z, WANG D H, et al. Effects of guanidinoacetic acid and coated folic acid supplementation on growth performance,nutrient digestion and hepatic gene expression in Angus bulls[J]. British Journal of Nutrition, 2021, 126(4):510-517.

[28]
李秀丽. 菌酶混合型饲料添加剂对肉牛生长性能和经济效益的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(4):7-10.

LI X L. Effect of bacteria-enzyme mixed feed additive on growth performance and economic benefit of beef cattle[J]. Feed Research, 2022, 45(4):7-10. (in Chinese)

[29]
冯伟业. 不同品质粗饲料日粮及添加酵母培养物对绵羊瘤胃内主要纤维分解菌及纤维物质降解的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2008.

FENG W Y. Effect of different dietary forage quality and adding yeast culture on main cellulolytic bacteria and fiber digestion in the rumen of sheep[D]. Master's Thesis. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2008. (in Chinese)

[30]
刘笑梅, 郝小燕, 张宏祥, 等. 饲粮中添加胍基乙酸对羔羊生长性能、屠宰性能和肉品质的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(3):1565-1575.

DOI

LIU X M, HAO X Y, ZHANG H X, et al. Effects of dietary guanidineacetic acid on growth performance,slaughter performance and meat quality of lambs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(3):1565-1575. (in Chinese)

[31]
GUO Q, KONG X F, HU C J, et al. Fatty acid content,flavor compounds,and sensory quality of pork loin as affected by dietary supplementation with L-arginine and glutamic acid[J]. Journal of Food Science, 2019, 84(12):3445-3453.

[32]
OSTOJIC S M. Guanidinoacetic acid as a performance-enhancing agent[J]. Amino Acids, 2016, 48(8):1867-1875.

DOI PMID

[33]
FU R, WANG Q, KONG C H, et al. Mechanism of action and the uses betaine in pig production[J]. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 2022, 106(3):528-536.

[34]
YANG F, LIAO J Z, YU W L, et al. Copper induces oxidative stress with triggered NF-κB pathway leading to inflammatory responses in immune organs of chicken[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2020, 200:110715.

[35]
江涛. 胍基乙酸的合成及其对肉鸡生长性能和血液理化指标的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 合肥: 安徽农业大学, 2012.

JIANG T. The synthesis of guanidine acetic acid and the influence of broiler growth performance and blood biochemical indexes[D]. Master's Thesis. Hefei: Anhui Agricultural University, 2012. (in Chinese)

[36]
康永刚, 孙朋, 廖云琼, 等. 菌酶协同发酵金针菇菌糠对湖羊生长性能、营养物质的表观消化率及抗氧化能力的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(21):24-28.

KANG Y G, SUN P, LIAO Y Q, et al. Effect of fermented Flammulina velutiper chaff by bacteria coupled with enzymes on growth performance,nutrient apparent digestibility and antioxidant capacity of Hu sheep[J]. Feed Research, 2019, 45(21):24-28. (in Chinese)

[37]
邱明科. 胍基乙酸对放牧条件下肉牛生产性能、血清生化指标及经济效益的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(3):9-12.

QIU M K. Effects of guanidine acetic acid on performance,serum biochemical indices and economic benefits of beef cattle under grazing conditions[J]. Feed Research, 2019, 44(3):9-12. (in Chinese)

[38]
孙德文. 糖萜素对鸡肉品质的影响及其作用机理研究[D]. 硕士学位论文. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2003.

SUN D W. Effects of saccharicterpenin on broilers meat quality and approach to its mechanism[D]. Master's Thesis. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2003. (in Chinese)

[39]
潘宝海, 孙冬岩, 田耀耀. 胍基乙酸对育肥猪生长性能、胴体品质及肉品质的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2016, 52(19):38-41.

PAN B H, SUN D Y, TIAN Y Y. Effects of guanidinoacetic acid on growth performance,carcass traits and meat quality in finishing pigs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2016, 52(19):38-41. (in Chinese)

[40]
LI D L, CHEN J L, WEN J, et al. Growth,carcase and meat traits and gene expression in chickens divergently selected for intramuscular fat content[J]. British Poultry Science, 2013, 54(2):183-189.

[41]
刘瑞生, 王珂, 徐建峰, 等. 中草药添加剂改善羊肉品质的研究进展[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2020, 56(7):42-46.

LIU R S, WANG K, XU J F, et al. Research progress on Chinese herbal medicine additives improving mutton quality[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 56(7):42-46. (in Chinese)

[42]
吴宝云, 周振明, 吴浩. 胍基乙酸改善畜禽肉品质的研究进展[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2022, 58(11):21-26.

WU B Y, ZHOU Z M, WU H. Advance in guanidinoacetic acid on meat quality of livestock animal[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2022, 58(11):21-26. (in Chinese)

[43]
BERG E P, MADDOCK K R, LINVILLE M L. Creatine monohydrate supplemented in swine finishing diets and fresh pork quality:Ⅲ.Evaluating the cumulative effect of creatine monohydrate and alpha-lipoic acid[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2003, 81(10):2469-2474.

[44]
刘洋, 李蛟龙, 张林, 等. 胍基乙酸和甜菜碱对育肥猪肌肉能量代谢和肉品质的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2015, 46(9):1557-1563.

LIU Y, LI J L, ZHANG L, et al. Effects of dietary supplementation of guanidinoacetic acid and combination of guanidinoacetic acid and betaine on muscle energy metabolism,meat quality in finishing pigs[J]. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2015, 46(9):1557-1563. (in Chinese)

[45]
GHAMARI MONAVVAR H, MOGHADDAM G, EBRAHIMI M. A review on the effect of arginine on growth performance,meat quality,intestine morphology,and immune system of broiler chickens[J]. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science, 2020, 10(4):587-594.

[46]
SEOK W J, AHN J M, KIM Y M, et al. PSVIII-8 Effects of dietary L-arginine on growth performance,nutrient digestibility,and meat quality in finishing pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 98(Suppl.3):201-202.

[47]
辛均平, 李美发, 王江北, 等. 胍基乙酸对锦江黄牛瘤胃体外发酵参数的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2020(1):15-18.

XIN J P, LI M F, WANG J B, et al. Effect of thioglycolic acid on rumen in vitro fermentation parameters of Jinjiang cattle[J]. China Feed, 2020(1):15-18. (in Chinese)

[48]
李蛟龙, 马冰冰, 陈作栋, 等. 胍基乙酸对育肥猪肉品质和抗氧化能力的影响[J]. 中国粮油学报, 2020, 35(12):94-100.

LI J L, MA B B, CHEN Z D, et al. Effects of guanidinoacetic acid supplementation on meat quality and antioxidant capacity of finishing pigs[J]. Journal of the Chinese Cereals and Oils Association, 2020, 35(12):94-100. (in Chinese)

[49]
侯冉, 郭月英, 张敏, 等. 丁酸梭菌对小尾寒羊生长性能、肉品质、血清生化指标、肌肉脂肪酸组成及脂肪代谢相关基因表达的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(1):391-402.

DOI

HOU R, GUO Y Y, ZHANG M, et al. Effects of Clostridium butyricum on growth performance,meat quality,serum biochemical indexes,muscle fatty acid composition and lipid metabolism related gene expression of small-tailed Han sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(1):391-402. (in Chinese)

DOI

[50]
陈艳珍. 羊肉品质的评定指标及影响因素[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2011(14):53-54.

CHEN Y Z. Evaluation indexes and influencing factors of mutton quality[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2011(14):53-54. (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.