Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2024 , Vol. 36 >Issue 11: 7108 - 7119

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2024.606

RESEARCH PAPER

Effects of Mixed Silage of Potato Peels and Corn Straw on Growth Performance, Nutrient Apparent Digestibility and Serum Biochemical and Antioxidant Indices of Fattening Cattle

  • LI Mingwei , 1 ,
  • LI Yuanxiao , 1, * ,
  • WANG Jiajia 1 ,
  • SONG Zhuchao 1 ,
  • YAO Jie 1 ,
  • YUN Ying 2 ,
  • BAO Wenlong 2 ,
  • SUN Juanjuan 2 ,
  • KONG Qingbin 3
Expand
  • 1 Laboratory of Biological Feed and Precision Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471023, China
  • 2 Institute of Grassland Research of CAAS, Hohhot 010010, China
  • 3 Shangdu Liutaitan Beef Cattle Breeding Cooperative, Ulanqab 013457, China
* associate professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2024-05-15

  Online published: 2024-11-09

Fold

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of mixed silage of potato peels and corn straw on growth performance, nutrient apparent digestibility, serum biochemical and antioxidant indices and economic benefits of fattening Angus bulls. Thirty-six 16-month-old Angus bulls with similar body condition and body weight of (546.75±25.76) kg were randomly divided into 3 groups with 12 bulls per group by a single-factor experimental design. The cattle in the control group were fed a basal diet with whole corn silage as the main roughage (group Ⅰ), and the others in the experimental groups were fed the diets with mixed silage of potato peels and corn straw replacing whole corn silage by 50% (group Ⅱ) and 100% (group Ⅲ) (dry matter basis), respectively. The pre-trial period lasted for 7 days and the experimental period lasted for 120 days. The results showed as follows: 1) there were no significant differences in the average daily gain and feed to gain ratio of fattening cattle among all groups (P>0.05). Compared with group Ⅰ, the dry matter intake in groups Ⅱ and Ⅲ was significantly decreased (P<0.05). 2) The ether extract apparent digestibility of fattening cattle in group Ⅲ was significantly lower than that in groups Ⅰ and Ⅱ (P<0.05); the neutral detergent fiber apparent digestibility was increased with the increase of mixed silage of potato peels and corn straw proportion, but there was no significant difference among all groups (P>0.05). 3) Compared with group Ⅰ, the serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) activity of fattening cattle in group Ⅱ was significantly increased (P<0.05), and the serum ALT activity in group Ⅲ was extremely significantly increased (P<0.01); the serum glucose (GLU) content in group Ⅱ was significantly increased (P<0.05); and the serum contents of urea nitrogen (UN) and GLU in group Ⅲ were significantly increased (P<0.05). 4) The superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity in serum of fattening cattle was increased with the increase of mixed silage of potato peels and corn straw proportion, and the SOD activity in serum in group Ⅲ was significantly higher than that in group Ⅰ (P<0.05). 5) The farming benefit in group Ⅲ was the highest as 13.83 CNY/(head·d), which was 2.45 and 1.41 CNY/(head·d) higher than that in groups Ⅰ and Ⅱ, respectively. In conclusion, the mixed silage of potato peels and corn straw has no significant effect on the growth performance of fattening Angus bulls, but can improve the antioxidant capacity, reduce the feed costs and improve the economic benefits, and can be used to replace whole corn silage.

Key words： potato peels; corn straw; fattening cattle; growth performance; nutrient apparent digestibility; antioxidant capacity; economic benefits

Cite this article

LI Mingwei , LI Yuanxiao , WANG Jiajia , SONG Zhuchao , YAO Jie , YUN Ying , BAO Wenlong , SUN Juanjuan , KONG Qingbin . Effects of Mixed Silage of Potato Peels and Corn Straw on Growth Performance, Nutrient Apparent Digestibility and Serum Biochemical and Antioxidant Indices of Fattening Cattle[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024 , 36(11) : 7108 -7119 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2024.606

肉牛产业作为节粮型畜牧产业,对提高我国节粮型畜种比重和改善人民生活具有重要意义。据数据统计,2023年我国肉牛(肉用牛与役用牛)存栏量为10 509万头,出栏5 023万头,牛肉总产量为753万t[1]。由于饲料成本占养殖成本的70%以上,开发利用非常规饲料,有效降低肉牛饲养成本,正成为近年研究的热点。马铃薯皮渣主要是指马铃薯经过高压蒸汽去皮处理后的废弃物及部分的块茎(薯体)组织废料,其不仅含有反刍动物易消化的淀粉和短纤维,而且还含有较多的果胶、生物碱和多酚等生物活性物质,具有抗菌、消炎和抗氧化等功效[2]。然而,由于马铃薯皮渣水分含量高,不易储存运输,大量马铃薯皮渣被低值化处理或随意排放,这导致资源得不到有效利用的同时也加大了对环境的污染,不利于现代农业的可持续发展[3]。将马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混合青贮可以提高饲料资源利用率,实现优势互补,且能显著降低饲料成本。Zunong等[4]研究发现,马铃薯淀粉渣制备而成的青贮饲料可以直接作为反刍动物饲粮。Okine等[5]研究发现,马铃薯皮渣青贮饲粮未对奶牛的产奶量和经济效益产生影响。益蕊等[6]将新鲜马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆按照1∶3的比例裹包青贮(乳酸菌发酵)45 d,并按照0、25%、50%和75%的比例替代黄贮饲喂肉牛,发现其对肉牛瘤胃液的pH、氨态氮和挥发性脂肪酸含量以及血清生化指标均无显著影响。温媛媛等[7]利用马铃薯条加工副产物(以马铃薯皮渣为主)与稻草按照干物质比例为1∶2混贮代替全株玉米青贮饲喂奶公牛,发现当混贮比例为40%时奶公牛生产性能最高,经济效益最好。目前,关于马铃薯加工副产物的研究主要集中在微生物发酵饲料等方面,生产实践中以马铃薯高淀粉副产物(废弃薯渣、薯条)为主,关于玉米秸秆与马铃薯皮渣对育肥后期肉牛影响的研究尚属空白。因此,本研究通过将马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混合青贮作为粗饲料等量替代全株玉米青贮,研究其对育肥牛生长性能、营养物质表观消化率以及血清生化和抗氧化指标的影响,以筛选出其在饲粮中的适宜比例,为合理利用马铃薯皮渣饲喂肉牛并降低育肥成本提供参考。

1 材料与方法

本试验经河南科技大学实验动物伦理委员会批准,批准编号为SYLY-2022ZY0098。

1.1 试验材料

本试验所用马铃薯皮渣为乌兰察布市某食品公司生产商业薯条高温去皮后的薯皮及薯渣。全株玉米青贮:玉米在蜡熟期(乳线下移至籽粒的1/2~3/4处)收割后,由XH-DBJ全自动液压青贮打捆包膜机制成裹包青贮,发酵90 d。马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮(以下亦称“马铃薯皮渣混贮”):玉米秸秆经S-3型圆形秸秆粉碎机预铡至3~5 cm后与新鲜马铃薯皮渣按照干物质基础2∶1的比例均匀混合,采用地上青贮方式发酵90 d。

1.2 试验设计

本试验在内蒙古乌兰察布六台滩肉牛养殖专业合作社进行。试验开始前对适龄公牛进行称重,然后选择36头16月龄体重[(546.75±25.76) kg]和体况相近的安格斯公牛作为试验动物,采用单因素试验设计将其随机分为3组,每组12头。对照组饲喂以全株玉米青贮为主要粗饲料的基础饲粮(Ⅰ组),2个试验组分别饲喂用马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混合青贮替代基础饲粮中50%(Ⅱ组)和100%(Ⅲ组)全株玉米青贮(干物质基础)的饲粮。试验期127 d,其中预试期7 d,正试期120 d。饲粮参照《肉牛饲养标准》(NY/T 815—2004)配制,为全混合日粮(TMR),使用立式单绞龙全混合日粮搅拌机进行制作,加料顺序为玉米秸秆、全株玉米青贮/马铃薯皮渣混贮、玉米及浓缩料。饲粮组成及营养水平见表1。
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		 Ⅰ组
Group Ⅰ		 Ⅱ组
Group Ⅱ		 Ⅲ组
Group Ⅲ
原料Ingredients
玉米Corn 36.24 36.48 36.72
豆粕Soybean meal 2.62 2.64 2.66
玉米胚芽粕Corn germ meal 1.87 1.88 1.90
高脂干酒糟及其可溶物High-fat DDGS 3.74 3.77 3.79
喷浆玉米皮Spouting corn bran 5.62 5.65 5.69
小麦麸Wheat bran 1.87 1.88 1.90
氯化钠NaCl 0.47 0.47 0.47
石粉Limestone 0.94 0.94 0.95
小苏打NaHCO3 0.47 0.47 0.47
氧化镁MgO 0.19 0.19 0.19
甘蔗糖蜜Cane molasses 0.56 0.57 0.57
预混料Premix1) 0.37 0.38 0.38
全株玉米青贮Whole maize silage 40.40 20.33
马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮
Potato peels and corn straw mixed silage		 19.68 39.61
玉米秸秆Corn straw 4.64 4.67 4.70
合计Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
营养水平Nutrient levels2)
综合净能NEmf/(MJ/kg) 6.09 6.20 6.25
代谢能ME/(MJ/kg) 2.74 2.78 2.83
干物质DM 47.45 44.99 42.74
粗蛋白质CP 12.16 12.55 12.94
酸性洗涤纤维ADF 18.87 19.20 19.53
中性洗涤纤维NDF 33.48 32.17 31.92
粗灰分Ash 4.72 5.98 6.26
总可消化养分TDN 72.84 72.45 72.27
钙Ca 0.55 0.67 0.79
磷P 0.32 0.34 0.35

1)每千克预混料含有 One kilogram of premix contained the following:Cu 3 150 mg,Fe 34 200 mg,Zn 16 850 mg,Mn 15 260 mg,I 175 mg,Co 126 mg,Se 50 mg,VA 1 579 000 IU,VD 3 600 000 IU,VE 4 893 IU。

2)综合净能、代谢能和总可消化养分为计算值,其中综合净能和代谢能参考《肉牛饲养标准》(NY/T 815—2004)计算;其余营养水平为实测值。NEmf, ME and TDN were calculated values, in which NEmf and ME were calculated according to Feeding Standard of Beef Cattle (NY/T 815—2004), while the other nutrient levels were measured values.

1.3 饲养管理

试验牛散栏饲养,每组圈舍面积为32 m×5.5 m,运动场面积为16 m×50 m,每栏配备6 m 7位式自锁式颈枷32~36个,平均采食距离为83.5 cm。每日07:00和17:00各饲喂1次TMR,根据试验牛的实际采食情况及时调整投料量,自由饮水。试验开始前统一进行驱虫管理,并提前对牛舍消毒和清理,试验过程中定期清粪,根据天气情况进行消毒。

1.4 样品采集和指标测定

1.4.1 生长性能

在试验开始和结束时,分别于晨饲前连续2 d空腹称重,取其平均值作为试验牛的初始体重和终末体重。根据称重数据,计算试验牛平均日增重(ADG),计算公式为ADG=(终末体重-初始体重)/饲喂天数;记录试验期内每天投料量和剩料量,计算干物质采食量(DMI),并根据ADG和DMI计算料重比(F/G),计算公式为F/G=DMI/ADG。

1.4.2 饲料样品的采集和处理

马铃薯皮渣混贮和全株玉米青贮样品每周采集1次,按照《饲料 采样》(GB/T 14699.1—2005)的方法进行采集,饲料样品烘干粉碎过40目筛,测定其常规营养成分含量。

1.4.3 营养物质表观消化率

试验结束前3 d,每天2次(07:00和18:00各1次)采集每组试验牛的TMR样品和新鲜粪便,TMR样品采用五点采样法,并用四分法缩至300 g左右烘干待测;粪便使用粪勺尽量撇开表层取内层部分,将每组粪便混匀缩样至300 g,其中100 g加入鲜粪体积约1/4的酒石酸固氮,搅拌均匀后置于烘箱中65 ℃烘干待测。饲粮和粪便中的中性洗涤纤维(NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)和酸不溶性灰分(AIA)含量根据Van Soest等[8]的方法进行测定;干物质[9]、粗蛋白质(CP)[10]、粗脂肪(EE)[11]、粗灰分(Ash)[12]、钙[13]和磷[14]含量根据国标方法进行测定。参照王菲[15]推荐的相关模型估测总可消化养分(TDN)含量,计算公式如下:
TDN=94.044-0.078CP+0.775EE-0.873Ash-0.565NDF。
TMR营养物质表观消化率采用AIA法测定,计算公式如下:
某营养物质表观消化率(%)=[1-(A1×B2/A2×B1)]×100。
式中:A1和A2分别表示饲粮和粪中AIA含量(g/kg);B1和B2分别表示饲粮和粪中该营养物质含量(g/kg)。

1.4.4 血清生化指标

试验结束当天晨饲前,采用尾根静脉采血法收集血液,采集完成后静置2~3 h,1 090×g离心20 min,取上层血清于1.5 mL离心管中。血清样品先存放进干冰桶中并尽快邮寄回实验室。血清生化指标采用DP-8018全自动生化分析仪测定,根据试剂盒(购自南京建成生物工程研究所)的说明书进行操作。

1.4.5 血清抗氧化指标

血清抗氧化指标按照试剂盒说明书步骤进行测定,其中过氧化氢酶(CAT)活性采用钼酸铵法进行测定,丙二醛(MDA)含量采用硫代巴比妥酸(TBA)法进行测定,总抗氧化能力(T-AOC)和谷胱甘肽过氧化物酶(GSH-Px)活性采用比色法进行测定,超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)活性采用羟胺法进行测定。以上试剂盒均购自南京建成生物工程研究所。

1.5 数据统计分析

试验数据先用Excel 2019进行初步整理,然后再用SPSS 26.0软件进行单因素方差分析,并采用Duncan氏法进行多重比较,试验结果数据以“平均值±标准误”形式以及均值标准误(SEM)表示,P<0.05表示差异显著,P<0.01表示差异极显著。

2 结果

2.1 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛生长性能的影响

由表2可知,各组育肥牛初始体重和终末体重均无显著差异(P>0.05)。随着马铃薯皮渣混贮添加比例的提高,ADG有降低趋势,但各组间差异均不显著(P>0.05);Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组DMI较Ⅰ组显著降低(P<0.05),且Ⅱ组与Ⅲ组之间DMI无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表2 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛生长性能的影响

Table 2 Effects of mixed silage of potato peels and corn straw on growth performance of fattening cattle

项目
Items		 Ⅰ组
Group Ⅰ		 Ⅱ组
Group Ⅱ		 Ⅲ组
Group Ⅲ		 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
初始体重IBW/kg 545.44±24.18 547.38±18.11 547.71±24.48 5.26 0.88
终末体重FBW/kg 753.33±27.83 750.38±28.78 748.14±18.00 4.68 0.71
体增重WG/kg 207.88±16.70 203.00±26.20 200.43±18.99 4.13 0.51
平均日增重ADG/(kg/d) 1.73±0.14 1.69±0.22 1.67±0.16 0.03 0.57
干物质采食量DMI/(kg/d) 14.56±1.42a 14.13±1.40b 14.05±1.32b 0.08 0.01
料重比F/G 8.42±0.71 8.36±1.04 8.41±0.81 0.17 0.85

同行数据肩标无字母或相同小写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 no letter or the same small letter superscripts mean no 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 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛营养物质表观消化率的影响

由表3可知,Ⅲ组育肥牛EE表观消化率显著低于Ⅰ组(P<0.05);随着马铃薯皮渣混贮添加比例的提高,NDF表观消化率有升高的趋势,但各组间差异不显著(P>0.05);各组间干物质、CP、ADF、钙和磷表观消化率均无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表3 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛营养物质表观消化率的影响

Table 3 Effects of mixed silage of potato peels and corn straw on nutrient apparent digestibility of fattening cattle %

项目
Items		 Ⅰ组
Group Ⅰ		 Ⅱ组
Group Ⅱ		 Ⅲ组
Group Ⅲ		 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
干物质DM 58.06±2.36 56.57±1.58 57.67±3.58 0.42 0.21
粗蛋白质CP 62.40±2.83 61.85±1.58 61.71±3.87 0.44 0.50
粗脂肪EE 82.28±1.69a 79.68±1.42a 77.74±2.41b 0.80 0.01
中性洗涤纤维NDF 51.53±1.41 52.07±1.17 53.16±0.26 0.33 0.06
酸性洗涤纤维ADF 46.12±1.78 47.06±3.55 46.93±2.73 0.36 0.37
钙Ca 56.47±2.35 57.04±1.73 56.97±0.72 0.50 0.71
磷P 64.54±1.80 65.83±1.36 66.22±1.42 0.50 0.24

2.3 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛血清生化指标的影响

由表4可知,与对照组(Ⅰ组)相比,Ⅱ组育肥牛血清谷丙转氨酶(ALT)活性显著提高(P<0.05),Ⅲ组血清ALT活性极显著提高(P<0.01);Ⅱ组血清葡萄糖(GLU)含量显著提高(P<0.05);Ⅲ组血清尿素氮(UN)和GLU含量均显著提高(P<0.05)。各组间其他血清生化指标均无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表4 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛血清生化指标的影响

Table 4 Effects of mixed silage of potato peels and corn straw on serum biochemical indices of fattening cattle

项目
Items		 Ⅰ组
Group Ⅰ		 Ⅱ组
Group Ⅱ		 Ⅲ组
Group Ⅲ		 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
谷丙转氨酶ALT/(U/L) 50.00±6.76Bb 57.86±3.89ABa 61.60±4.98Aa 1.61 <0.01
谷草转氨酶AST/(U/L) 69.70±8.26 72.88±6.31 74.86±9.14 1.54 0.22
总蛋白TP/(g/L) 68.50±9.30 66.92±6.43 67.33±9.91 1.41 0.53
白蛋白ALB/(g/L) 24.50±2.56 24.92±1.88 26.41±3.78 0.59 0.23
尿素氮UN/(mmol/L) 2.03±0.23b 2.26±0.30ab 2.41±0.33a 0.08 0.02
肌酐CREA/(μmol/L) 192.33±15.83 207.22±13.38 198.88±22.93 3.73 0.14
总胆固醇TCHO/(mmol/L) 2.92±0.32 3.24±0.54 3.20±0.50 0.08 0.15
甘油三酯TG/(mmol/L) 0.57±0.14 0.57±0.18 0.55±0.08 0.02 0.76
葡萄糖GLU/(mmol/L) 3.81±0.57b 4.56±0.52a 4.95±0.70a 0.14 0.02
碱性磷酸酶ALP/(U/L) 133.50±7.72 137.00±12.10 145.20±11.14 7.98 0.13

2.4 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛血清抗氧化指标的影响

由表5可知,随着马铃薯皮渣混贮添加比例的提高,育肥牛血清SOD活性也不断提高,其中Ⅲ组血清SOD活性显著高于Ⅰ组(P<0.05)。各组间其他血清抗氧化指标均无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表5 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛血清抗氧化指标的影响

Table 5 Effects of mixed silage of potato peels and corn straw on blood antioxidant indexes of fattening cattle

项目
Items		 Ⅰ组
Group Ⅰ		 Ⅱ组
Group Ⅱ		 Ⅲ组
Group Ⅲ		 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
过氧化氢酶CAT/(U/mL) 6.61±0.72 7.48±0.94 6.96±0.56 0.45 0.51
超氧化物歧化酶SOD/(U/mL) 25.35±1.26b 26.80±0.92ab 28.18±0.47a 0.68 0.03
总抗氧化能力T-AOC/(U/mL) 2.14±0.43 2.28±0.54 1.72±0.48 0.15 0.18
丙二醛MDA/(nmol/mL) 1.66±0.34 1.32±0.21 1.57±0.28 0.19 0.58
谷胱甘肽过氧化物酶
GSH-Px/(U/mL)		 67.16±9.23 63.70±8.89 59.17±2.63 3.03 0.36

2.5 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛经济效益的影响

由表6可知,当马铃薯皮渣混贮完全替代全株玉米青贮时(Ⅲ组)饲料成本最低,经济效益最好。与Ⅰ组相比,Ⅲ组每头牛每天收入提高约2.45元;与Ⅱ组相比,Ⅲ组每头牛每天收入提高约1.41元。
表6 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛经济效益的影响

Table 6 Effects of mixed silage of potato peels and corn straw on economic benefits of fattening cattle

项目
Items		 Ⅰ组
Group Ⅰ		 Ⅱ组
Group Ⅱ		 Ⅲ组
Group Ⅲ
精饲料投入Concentrate input/[元/(头·d)] 30.42 30.32 30.48
粗饲料投入Roughage input/[元/(头·d)] 13.56 11.34 9.13
平均日增重ADG/(kg/d) 1.73 1.69 1.67
活牛价格Live cattle price/(元/kg) 32.00 32.00 32.00
增重收益Weight gain benefit/[元/(头·d)] 55.36 54.08 53.44
养殖收益Farming benefit/[元/(头·d)] 11.38 12.42 13.83

养殖收益=增重收益-(精饲料投入+粗饲料投入);活牛价格为交易日市场价格。其中,精饲料投入=(精饲料单价×每日饲喂量×饲喂天数)/饲养周期;粗饲料投入=(粗饲料单价×每日饲喂量×饲喂天数)/饲养周期。饲料单价如下:玉米3 000元/t,918浓缩饲料(喷浆玉米皮、高脂干酒糟及其可溶物、玉米胚芽粕、小麦麸、豆粕、石粉、氯化钠、小苏打、氧化镁、甘蔗糖蜜、预混料)3 550元/t,马铃薯皮渣350元/t,全株玉米青贮600元/t,玉米秸秆650元/t。

Farming benefit=weight gain benefit-(concentrate input+roughage input); live cattle price was trading day market price. Concentrate input=(concentrate unit price×daily feeding quantity×feeding days)/feeding cycle; roughage input=(roughage unit price×daily feeding quantity×feeding days)/feeding cycle. The feed unit price was as follows: corn 3 000 CNY/t, 918 concentrated feed (spouting corn bran, high-fat DDGS, corn germ meal, wheat bran, soybean meal, limestone, NaCl, NaHCO3, MgO, cane molasses and premix) 3 550 CNY/t, potato peels 350 CNY/t, whole corn silage 600 CNY/t, corn straw 650 CNY/t.

3 讨论

3.1 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛生长性能和营养物质表观消化率的影响

反刍动物的瘤胃壁内分布着许多连续性受体,随着饲粮不断进入瘤胃,这些受体会反射性地抑制动物的采食行为,从而影响DMI[16]。Radunz等[17]使用马铃薯加工副产物替代玉米饲喂育肥牛时发现,当添加比例从0提高到40%时,DMI线性降低。本研究中,马铃薯皮渣混贮添加比例从0提高到50%时育肥牛DMI显著降低,这与上述研究结果类似。本试验中,饲喂马铃薯皮渣混贮饲粮会使育肥牛血清GLU含量升高,这与吴立红[18]研究认为血糖浓度升高会使饱中枢对饿中枢的抑制作用加强,动物易产生饱感,导致采食量下降的观点一致。NDF的消化程度和降解速率影响瘤胃内食糜的通过速度,由于纤维素在瘤胃内的降解速度较慢,所以NDF含量越高的饲粮食糜向后肠移动速度越慢,DMI越低[19]。温媛媛[20]的研究也验证了这一观点。此外,饲粮中的能量水平同样限制着DMI,当饲粮中的能量水平较低时,反刍动物需要更多的采食才能满足能量需要。本试验中,随着马铃薯皮渣混贮添加比例的提高,饲粮NDF含量逐渐降低,DMI却呈下降趋势,这可能是由于饲粮的代谢能升高,肉牛不需要额外采食就能满足自身能量需要。据报道,当饲粮中的能量水平已经能够满足反刍动物自身能量需要时,饲粮NDF含量不会对DMI造成影响[21]。本试验进一步证实了这一点,当马铃薯皮渣混贮添加比例为50%时,可能已经达到了育肥牛能量需要的饱和点,所以随着添加比例的继续提高,DMI并没有显著下降。李凌岩等[22]认为,当饲粮能量超过到一定水平时,ADG不再提高,本试验中虽然DMI不断降低,但各组平均综合净能摄入量差异不明显,因此ADG无显著差异。此外,3组间F/G虽无显著差异,但Ⅱ组F/G最低,说明饲料转换效率最好,这可能是由于Ⅱ组2种粗饲料之间产生了正组合效应,并通过F/G表现了出来[23]。
饲粮消化率反映了动物对营养物质的摄取量,是衡量动物生长性能的重要指标之一。瘤胃微生物中厚壁菌门与拟杆菌门的比值与脂肪的消化累积程度呈正相关,比值越高越有利于脂肪消化累积[24-25]。姜南等[26]研究发现,高能量饲粮使得生长期牦牛瘤胃拟杆菌门相对丰度升高,厚壁菌门相对丰度降低,这可能与高能量饲粮中非纤维性碳水化合物含量较高,更有利于拟杆菌门参与营养物质的降解有关。郭凯等[27]研究也表明,饲喂荷斯坦犊牛高蛋白质饲粮时,瘤胃内的菌群丰富度会显著降低,而厚壁菌门和拟杆菌门又是反刍动物瘤胃内占比最高的菌群[28]。本试验验证了这一观点,随着马铃薯皮渣混贮添加比例的不断提高,饲粮中的蛋白质和综合能值提高,导致厚壁菌门与拟杆菌门的比值降低,从而降低了EE表观消化率。反刍动物饲粮中一定的粗纤维水平可以刺激反刍和促进唾液分泌,在维持反刍动物瘤胃健康、预防瘤胃酸中毒方面发挥着积极作用[29]。其中,ADF与NDF的消化率进一步反映粗纤维饲粮的消化能力[30]。闫晓波等[31]使用马铃薯渣与玉米秸秆混贮替代50%和100%的全株玉米青贮饲喂奶牛,结果发现可显著提高奶牛的ADF和NDF表观消化率。本试验中,Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组ADF和NDF表观消化率均高于Ⅰ组,这说明马铃薯皮渣混贮饲粮更有利于粗纤维消化,使得育肥牛生长性能较好,这与前人的研究结果类似。

3.2 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛血清生化和抗氧化指标的影响

血清生化指标是反映动物机体生命活动和健康状况的重要指标。ALT和谷草转氨酶(AST)是动物体内最为重要的转氨酶,能够促进蛋白质合成,通常在血液中低水平存在,其活性的高低在一定程度上能反映机体的代谢和健康水平[32-33]。本试验中,育肥牛血清ALT和AST活性均随着马铃薯皮渣混贮添加比例的提高而提高,其中Ⅲ组血清ALT活性极显著高于Ⅰ组,说明马铃薯皮渣混贮饲粮能够维持较高的蛋白质合成率,从而降低氨的产生。血清UN含量反映机体蛋白质代谢的情况,当饲粮摄入的蛋白质与能量不平衡时,会导致UN含量升高[34]。本试验中,3组间血清UN含量存在显著差异,Ⅲ组血清UN含量最高,说明马铃薯皮渣混贮饲粮会导致蛋白质与氨基酸失衡,使氨基酸平衡性变差,这与本试验中Ⅲ组CP表观消化率下降的结果一致。正常情况下,血糖含量变化是机体对糖吸收、运转和代谢的动态反映[35]。胰岛素和胰高血糖素之间起拮抗作用,二者共同控制血糖的高低。当血糖含量升高时会促进胰岛素释放,有助于GLU转运进入细胞,降低细胞中环-磷酸腺苷含量,加强糖原合成[36]。本试验中,Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组血清GLU含量较Ⅰ组显著提高,说明马铃薯皮渣混贮饲粮有利于糖原合成,这与王典等[37]的研究结果一致。反刍动物肌肉代谢的产物主要通过血液中的肌酐(CREA)表现出来,经肾小球过滤后由尿排出。本试验中,各组血清CREA含量无显著差异,说明马铃薯皮渣混贮饲粮没有对肌肉代谢产生负面影响[38]。血清总蛋白(TP)是反映机体对蛋白质消化吸收程度和机体蛋白质代谢的重要指标之一,TP含量高则表示动物的蛋白质代谢旺盛,有利于动物的生长发育[39]。本试验中,各组间血清TP含量无显著差异,说明马铃薯皮渣混贮饲粮对机体蛋白质代谢无显著影响,可以用来代替全株玉米青贮。
血清抗氧化指标可以反映机体是否遭受自由基带来的氧化损伤。T-AOC是机体抗氧化能力的综合指标,反映着机体的总体抗氧化能力,是机体防御体系的重要体现[40-41]。SOD和GSH-Px是机体内非常重要的2种抗氧化酶,调控着体内自由基的生成与清除,可以防止脂质过氧化物对细胞产生损伤[42]。本研究发现,在采食马铃薯皮渣混贮饲粮后,肉牛血清SOD活性显著提高,这说明马铃薯皮渣混贮饲粮有助于提高机体抗氧化酶活性,不易发生氧化应激。CAT可以使过氧化氢还原成水,从而使细胞免受过氧化物的毒害[43-44]。研究表明,活性氧(ROS)可以氧化生物膜磷脂区内的多不饱和脂肪酸(PUFA),当ROS过量或者PUFA减少时就会导致脂质过氧化,使生物膜结构被破坏[45-46],由于MDA是这些脂质过氧化物分解后的产物,因此MDA也被认为是反映机体氧化损伤程度的重要指标[47]。综合来看,马铃薯皮渣混贮饲粮并没有对育肥牛的抗氧化能力造成明显负面影响,反而能提高一定的抗氧化酶活性,因此在饲粮中添加马铃薯皮渣对机体抗氧化能力的影响与常规饲粮相似。

3.3 马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混贮对育肥牛经济效益的影响

本研究中,3组TMR的成本分别为1.37、1.30和1.23元/kg,整个试验期饲养成本约为5 277.6、4 999.2和4 753.2元/头;与Ⅰ组相比,Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组整个试验周期分别节省饲料成本278.4和524.4元/头,这说明马铃薯皮渣混贮饲粮相较于常规饲粮能够明显降低饲养成本,这与张兵战[48]和温媛媛等[7]的研究结果相同。此外,随着马铃薯皮渣混贮添加比例的提高,ADG虽然略有降低,但马铃薯皮渣的价格优势足以弥补这部分损失,整个试验期Ⅲ组比Ⅰ组和Ⅱ组分别多盈利294.0和169.2元/头,说明马铃薯皮渣饲料对养殖场来说是性价比极高的选择。

4 结论

马铃薯皮渣与玉米秸秆混合青贮对育肥安格斯公牛生长性能没有显著影响,但能够提高机体抗氧化能力,并降低饲料成本,提高经济效益,可以用来替代全株玉米青贮饲喂肉牛。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
曹兵海, 曹建民, 李俊雅, 等. 2023年度肉牛牦牛产业与技术发展报告[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2024, 60(3):335-338.

CAO B H, CAO J M, LI J Y, et al. 2023 annual beef cattle and yak industry and technology development report[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science,2024, 60(3):335-338. (in Chinese)

[2]
张婷, 刁梦洁, 王晚晴, 等. 马铃薯皮中生物活性物质利用研究进展[J]. 食品工业, 2018, 39(11):254-258.

ZHANG T, DIAO M J, WANG W Q, et al. Recent developments of bioactive compounds from potato peels as a source of value added products[J]. The Food Industry, 2018, 39(11):254-258. (in Chinese)

[3]
刘洋, 余祖功, 孔祥峰. 薯类加工副产物饲料化应用研究进展[J]. 饲料工业, 2023, 44(7):87-93.

LIU Y, YU Z G, KONG X F. Research progress on feed application of tuber processing by-products[J]. Feed Industry, 2023, 44(7):87-93. (in Chinese)

[4]
ZUNONG M, TUERHONG T, OKAMOTO M, et al. Effects of a potato pulp silage supplement on the composition of milk fatty acids when fed to grazing dairy cows[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2009, 152(1/2):81-91.

[5]
OKINE A, HANADA M, AIBIBULA Y, et al. Ensiling of potato pulp with or without bacterial inoculants and its effect on fermentation quality,nutrient composition and nutritive value[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2005, 121(3/4):329-343.

[6]
益蕊, 常永杰. 马铃薯渣裹包青贮对肉牛饲养中的应用试验[J]. 畜牧兽医杂志, 2014, 33(4):28-29.

YI R, CHANG Y J. Experimental application of potato residue wrapped silage in beef cattle breeding[J]. Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2014, 33(4):28-29. (in Chinese)

[7]
温媛媛, 李妍, 李建国, 等. 马铃薯条加工副产品与稻草混贮对奶公牛育肥性能和血液生化指标的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(9):1800-1812.

DOI

WEN Y Y, LI Y, LI J G, et al. Effects of Holstein bulls fed mixed silage of potato chips processing by product with rice straw on fattening performance and blood biochemical indexes[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(9):1800-1812. (in Chinese)

DOI

[8]
VAN SOEST P J, ROBERTSON J B, LEWIS B A. Methods for dietary fiber,neutral detergent fiber,and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1991, 74(10):3583-3597.

[9]
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中水分的测定:GB/T 6435—2014[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2015.

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

[10]
国家市场监督管理总局, 国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中粗蛋白的测定凯氏定氮法:GB/T 6432—2018[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2018.

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

[11]
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中粗脂肪的测定:GB/T 6433—2006[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2006.

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

[12]
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中粗灰分的测定:GB/T 6438—2007[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2007.

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

[13]
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局. 饲料中钙的测定:GB/T 6436—2002[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2002.

General Administration of Quality Supervision,Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China. Determination of calcium in feed:GB/T 6436—2002[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2002. (in Chinese)

[14]
国家市场监督管理总局, 国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中总磷的测定分光光度法:GB/T 6437—2002[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2002.

State Administration for Market Regulation, Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Determination of phosphorus in feed-spectphotometry:GB/T 6437—2002[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2002. (in Chinese)

[15]
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)

[16]
ALLEN M S. Relationship between forage quality and dairy cattle production[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1996, 59(1/2/3):51-60.

[17]
RADUNZ A E, LARDY G P, BAUER M L, et al. Influence of steam-peeled potato-processing waste inclusion level in beef finishing diets:effects on digestion,feedlot performance,and meat quality[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2003, 81(11):2675-2685.

[18]
吴立红. 不同葡萄糖水平对水貂采食量和营养物质消化率的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 长春: 吉林农业大学, 2007.

WU L H. Effect of different levels of glucose inclusion on feed intake and nutrients’ digestion by growing and fur exchanging minks[D]. Master’s Thesis. Changchun: Jilin Agricultural University, 2007. (in Chinese)

[19]
KOSIOROWSKA A, PUGGAARD L, HEDEMANN M S, et al. Gastrointestinal development of dairy calves fed low- or high-starch concentrate at two milk allowances[J]. Animal, 2011, 5(2):211-219.

DOI PMID

[20]
温媛媛. 马铃薯条加工副产品和稻草混贮的营养价值评定及对奶公牛生产性能的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2021.

WEN Y Y. Nutritional value of FRsilage and effects on production performance of Holstein bulls[D]. Master’s Thesis. Baoding: Agricultural University of Hebei, 2021. (in Chinese)

[21]
LANE W. Overview of the new NRC nutrient requirements of small ruminants (proceedings)[EB/OL].(2008-08-01)[2024-03-28]. https://www.dvm360.com/view/overview-new-nrc-nutrient-requirements-small-ruminants-proceedings.

[22]
李凌岩, 祝远魁, 汪先友, 等. 不同能量蛋白水平及性别对湘中黑牛生产性能、胴体品质及肉品质的影响[C]// 第七届中国饲料营养学术研讨会论文集.郑州:中国畜牧兽医学会动物营养学分会, 2014:497.

LI L Y, ZHUY K, WANGX Y, et al. Effects of different energy protein levels and gender on performance,carcass quality and meat quality of Xiangzhong black cattle[C]// Proceedings of the 7th China Feed Nutrition Academic Symposium.Zhengzhou:Animal Nutrition Branch of the Chinese Association of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2014:497. (in Chinese)

[23]
高立鹏, 孟梅娟, 白云峰, 等. 不同粗饲料组合对山羊饲粮养分表观消化率及氮平衡的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2016, 28(8):2396-2403.

DOI

GAO L P, MENG M J, BAI Y F, et al. Effects of different roughage combinations on dietary nutrient apparent digestibility and nitrogen balance of goats[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2016, 28(8):2396-2403. (in Chinese)

[24]
BAJZER M, SEELEY R J. Obesity and gut flora[J]. Nature, 2006, 444(7122):1009-1010.

[25]
JAMI E, ISRAEL A, KOTSER A, et al. Exploring the bovine rumen bacterial community from birth to adulthood[J]. ISME Journal, 2013, 7(6):1069-1079.

DOI PMID

[26]
姜南, 李学威, 张楠, 等. 日粮不同能量和蛋白质水平对生长期牦牛瘤胃发酵参数及瘤胃菌群的影响[J]. 中国草食动物科学, 2024, 44(2):18-26.

JIANG N, LI X W, ZHANG N, et al. Effect of different dietary energy and protein levels on rumen fermentation parameters and rumen microflora in growing yaks[J]. China Herbivore Science, 2024, 44(2):18-26. (in Chinese)

[27]
郭凯, 唐梦琪, 霍倩倩, 等. 不同蛋白水平饲粮对犊牛瘤胃微生物区系多样性及组成的影响[J]. 家畜生态学报, 2019, 40(11):22-28.

GUO K, TANG M Q, HUO Q Q, et al. Effects of diets with different protein-level on rumen bacterial community in calves[J]. Journal of Domestic Animal Ecology, 2019, 40(11):22-28. (in Chinese)

[28]
ZHANG R Y, YE H M, LIU J H, et al. High-grain diets altered rumen fermentation and epithelial bacterial community and resulted in rumen epithelial injuries of goats[J]. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2017, 101(18):6981-6992.

DOI PMID

[29]
杜海东, 李科南, 娜梅拉, 等. 粗饲料对反刍动物瘤胃微生物和生产性能的影响研究进展[J]. 饲料研究, 2024, 47(5):133-138.

DU H D, LI K N, NA M L, et al. Research progress on effect of roughage on rumen microorganism and production performance of ruminants[J]. Feed Research, 2024, 47(5):133-138. (in Chinese)

[30]
岳红艳. 饲养水平对肉用绵羊妊娠期消化代谢的影响[J]. 中国畜禽种业, 2020, 16(9):99.

YUE H Y. Effects of feeding level on digestion and metabolism of meat ewes during pregnancy[J]. The Chinese Livestock and Poultry Breeding, 2020, 16(9):99. (in Chinese)

[31]
闫晓波, 韩向敏. 马铃薯渣和玉米秸秆混合青贮料对奶牛生产性能的影响[J]. 广东农业科学, 2009(5):144-146.

YAN X B, HAN X M. Effects of mixed silage from potato residues and corn stalks on performance of dairy cows[J]. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2009(5):144-146. (in Chinese)

[32]
KARGAR S, GHORBANI G R, FIEVEZ V, et al. Performance,bioenergetic status,and indicators of oxidative stress of environmentally heat-loaded Holstein cows in response to diets inducing milk fat depression[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2015, 98(7):4772-4784.

[33]
LEE H J, KHAN M A, LEE W S, et al. Influence of equalizing the gross composition of milk replacer to that of whole milk on the performance of Holstein calves[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2009, 87(3):1129-1137.

DOI PMID

[34]
STANLEY C C, WILLIAMS C C, JENNY B F, et al. Effects of feeding milk replacer once versus twice daily on glucose metabolism in Holstein and Jersey calves[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2002, 85(9):2335-2343.

DOI PMID

[35]
严学兵, 刘圈炜, 王成章. 苜蓿青饲对波尔山羊生长性能及血液生理生化指标的影响[C]// 第四届(2011)中国苜蓿发展大会论文集. 鄂托克旗: 中国畜牧业协会,2011:367-372.

YAN X B, LIU J W, WANG C Z. Effects of green feeding of alfalfa on growth performance and blood physiological and biochemical indexes of Boer goats[C]// Proceedings of the 4th (2011) China Alfalfa Development Conference. Etuoke Banner: China Animal Husbandry Association,2011:367-372. (in Chinese)

[36]
MAYER J P, ZHANG F M, DIMARCHI R D. Insulin structure and function[J]. Biopolymers, 2007, 88(5):687-713.

PMID

[37]
王典, 李发弟, 张养东, 等. 马铃薯淀粉渣和玉米秸秆混合青贮料对肉牛瘤胃内环境及血清生化指标的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2012, 24(7):1361-1367.

DOI

WANG D, LI F D, ZHANG Y D, et al. Mixed silage of potato pulp and corn straw affects rumen environment and serum biochemical parameters of beef cattle[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2012, 24(7):1361-1367. (in Chinese)

[38]
常玮学, 杨英超, 夏志军, 等. 不同添加量的植物水解单宁对秦川肉牛血清生化指标和瘤胃消化指标、瘤胃微生物区系的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(3):1642-1654.

DOI

CHANG W X, YANG Y C, XIA Z J, et al. Effects of different addition amounts of plant hydrolyzed tannins on serum biochemical indexes,rumen digestion indexes and rumen microflora of Qinchuan beef cattle[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(3):1642-1654. (in Chinese)

[39]
李冬梅, 耿忠诚, 于亚洲. 日粮中添加半胱胺对肉羊血液生化指标及胴体品质的影响[J]. 黑龙江八一农垦大学学报, 2007, 19(5):58-61.

LI D M, GENG Z C, YU Y Z. Effects of cysteamine on carcass quality and serum parameters of mutton sheep[J]. Journal of Heilongjiang August First Land Reclamation University, 2007, 19(5):58-61. (in Chinese)

[40]
司方方, 涂剑锋, 刘天龙, 等. 四君子汤超微粉对脾虚小鼠总抗氧化能力和NO的影响[J]. 动物医学进展, 2006, 27(3):75-77.

SI F F, TU J F, LIU T L, et al. The effects of superfine powder on the total anti-oxidative ability and NO of Sijunzi decoction in spleen-deficient mice[J]. Progress in Veterinary Medicine, 2006, 27(3):75-77. (in Chinese)

[41]
GHISELLI A, SERAFINI M, NATELLA F, et al. Total antioxidant capacity as a tool to assess redox status: critical view and experimental data[J]. Free Radical Biology & Medicine, 2000, 29(11):1106-1114.

[42]
李成贤, 曹洪志, 易宗容, 等. 过瘤胃保护性精氨酸对肉牛生产性能尧血清氨基酸组成以及抗氧化指标的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2021(17):56-60.

LI C X, CAO H Z, YI Z R, et al. Effects of rumen protected arginine on growth performance, serum amino acid profile and antioxidative indexes of beef cattle[J]. China Feed, 2021(17):56-60. (in Chinese)

[43]
张俊丽, 岳彩娟, 高旭红, 等. 日粮中添加金银花枝条粉对西门塔尔杂代肉牛生长性能及血清生化指标的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(9):5-10.

ZHANG J L, YUE C J, GAO X H, et al. Effect of honeysuckle shoot powder supplementation on growth performance and serum biochemical indexes of Simmental hybrid beef cattle[J]. Feed Research, 2022, 45(9):5-10. (in Chinese)

[44]
杨佳栋, 魏凤菊, 潘新新, 等. 动物过氧化氢酶(CAT)的研究进展[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2016(13):59-62.

YANG J D, WEI F J, PAN X X, et al. Research process of animal catalase (CAT)[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2016(13):59-62. (in Chinese)

[45]
SIEMS W G, GRUNE T, ESTERBAUER H. 4-hydroxynonenal formation during ischemia and reperfusion of rat small intestine[J]. Life Sciences, 1995, 57(8):785-789.

PMID

[46]
SORDILLO L M. Nutritional strategies to optimize dairy cattle immunity[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2016, 99(6):4967-4982.

DOI PMID

[47]
杨致玲, 杨国义, 刘旗, 等. 过瘤胃不饱和脂肪对安格斯肉牛生长性能、血清指标及相关基因表达的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2019, 31(8):3632-3642.

DOI

YANG Z L, YANG G Y, LIU Q, et al. Effects of rumen undegradable unsaturated fat on growth performance,biochemical indices and related gene expression of Angus beef[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2019, 31(8):3632-3642. (in Chinese)

[48]
张兵战. 马铃薯加工副产物的营养价值及其对肉牛饲养成本的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2021(24):111-114.

ZHANG B Z. Nutritional value of potato byproducts and its effect on feeding cost of beef cattle[J]. China Feed, 2021(24):111-114. (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.