Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2024 , Vol. 36 >Issue 11: 7134 - 7144

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2024.608

RESEARCH PAPER

Comparative Study on Growth Performance, Nutrient Apparent Digestibility, Rumen Fermentation Parameters and Meat Quality Between Angus Cattle and Xiangzhong Black Cattle

  • WU Weicheng , 1 ,
  • CHEN Dong , 1, * ,
  • ZHONG Gang 1 ,
  • ZHOU Wenjun 1 ,
  • ZHANG Baizhong 2 ,
  • YI Kangle 2 ,
  • ZHU He 3 ,
  • PENG Fanchang 4 ,
  • LI Fuqiang 4 ,
  • XIE Yongzhong 5
Expand
  • 1 College of Animal Science and Technology, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China
  • 2 Hunan Institute of Animal and Veterinary Science, Changsha 410128, China
  • 3 Shandong Agriculture and Engineering University, Ji’nan 250000, China
  • 4 Hunan Tianhua Industrial Co., Ltd., Loudi 417000, China
  • 5 Lianyuan Livestock and Aquatic Affairs Center, Lianyuan 417100, China
* associate professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2024-04-10

  Online published: 2024-11-09

Fold

Abstract

The aim of this experiment was to compare the differences in growth performance, nutrient apparent digestibility, serum biochemical indices, rumen fermentation parameters and meat quality of Angus cattle, hybrid F1 generation cattle (Angus cattle♂×Xiangxi yellow cattle♀) and Xiangzhong black cattle (Angus cattle♂×hybrid F1 generation cattle♀). Each ten healthy Angus cattle [(458.97±34.43) kg], hybrid F1 generation cattle [(426.21±27.75) kg] and Xiangzhong black cattle [(420.58±29.62) kg] of about 22 months of age with similar parity and consistent feeding and management level were selected as experimental animals and divided into 3 groups, and they were fed the same diet. The pre-trial period lasted for 10 days, and the experimental period lasted for 60 days. The results showed as follows: 1) the average daily gain (ADG), dry matter intake (DMI) and apparent digestibilities of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE) and gross energy (GE) of Angus cattle and Xiangzhong black cattle were significantly higher than those of hybrid F1 generation cattle (P<0.05), and the ratio of feed to gain (F/G) was significantly lower than that of hybrid F1 generation cattle (P<0.05). 2) The aspartate aminotransferase (AST) activity and creatinine (CRE) content in serum of Angus cattle were significantly higher than those of hybrid F1 generation cattle and Xiangzhong black cattle (P<0.05). 3) The rumen pH of hybrid F1 generation cattle and Xiangzhong black cattle was significantly higher than that of Angus cattle (P<0.05), and the rumen contents of ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), acetate, propionate, butyrate, valerate and total volatile fatty acid of Angus cattle were significantly higher than those of hybrid F1 generation cattle and Xiangzhong black cattle (P<0.05). 4) There were no significant differences in meat quality indices among all groups (P>0.05). In summary, the growth performance of Angus cattle is better than that of hybrid F1 generation cattle and Xiangzhong black cattle. With the increase of the proportion of Angus cattle lineage in Xiangxi yellow cattle, the growth performance and nutrient apparent digestibility of Xiangzhong black cattle are better than those of hybrid F1 generation cattle, and the latter and Xiangzhong black cattle are more resistant to kidney damage caused by high concentrate in late fattening. The results of the present study provide data support for the selection and breeding of Xiangzhong black cattle breeds.

Key words： Angus cattle; Xiangzhong black cattle; growth performance; rumen fermentation parameters; meat quality; comparison

Cite this article

WU Weicheng , CHEN Dong , ZHONG Gang , ZHOU Wenjun , ZHANG Baizhong , YI Kangle , ZHU He , PENG Fanchang , LI Fuqiang , XIE Yongzhong . Comparative Study on Growth Performance, Nutrient Apparent Digestibility, Rumen Fermentation Parameters and Meat Quality Between Angus Cattle and Xiangzhong Black Cattle[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024 , 36(11) : 7134 -7144 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2024.608

21世纪初,湖南省涟源市已开始利用黑安格斯牛对湘西黄牛进行杂交改良,培育出具有涟源地方特色的创新品种——湘中黑牛[1],比较安格斯牛和湘中黑牛在生长性能、营养物质代谢和肉用性能等方面的差异,对湘中黑牛品种选育具有较好的实际应用价值。杂种优势在畜牧业中扮演着至关重要的角色。研究表明,杂交育种能够显著改善肉牛生长性状,通过杂交育种来提高肉牛生长性能和肉用性能是畜牧业提高经济效益的措施之一[2-3]。Wang等[4]研究发现,与地方黄牛相比,西门塔尔×宣汉黄牛的日增重和屠宰性能均显著提高,但在嫩度和系水力等牛肉品质方面出现不同程度的下降;王向林等[5]对西门塔尔与湘西黄牛、湘南黄牛杂交效果比较研究发现,F1代杂交牛初生重和初生体尺指标以及6、12、18和24月龄体重和体尺指标均显著高于湘西黄牛和湘南黄牛;研究发现,以安格斯肉牛为终端父本的柴达木三元牛在生长性能和屠宰性能方面显著优于牦牛[6]。湘西黄牛是湖南西北部的地方品种,体型较小,成熟体重一般在400 kg以下。与中国其他肉牛品种相比,湘西黄牛肉品质更好、口感更佳、营养价值更高,是绝佳的食用肉类牛品种之一,但其生长速度缓慢、产肉率不高[7]。安格斯牛原产自英国苏格兰地区,是世界著名的肉牛品种,可以达到较高的大理石花纹等级,特别是在高饲粮营养水平下[8],具有良好的食用品质[9]等特点。安格斯牛作为优良品种已被大量引进至湖南[10],为本地品种改良和新品种选育提供了更好的选择。本研究选取安格斯牛、安本杂F1代牛(安格斯牛♂×湘西黄牛♀)和湘中黑牛(安格斯牛♂×安本杂F1代牛♀),比较了其生长性能、养分表观消化率、血清生化指标、瘤胃发酵参数和肉品质的差异,旨在为湘中黑牛的品种选育提供科学依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验设计和饲粮

本试验采用单因素试验设计,选取22月龄左右、胎次相近、饲养管理水平一致的健康安格斯牛[(458.97±34.43) kg]、安本杂F1代牛[(426.21±27.75) kg]和湘中黑牛[(420.58±29.62) kg]各10头作为试验动物,分为3组,即安格斯牛组、F1代组和湘中黑牛组。本试验饲粮参考《日本饲养标准·肉用牛(2008年版)》[11]配制,精粗比为8∶2,其组成及营养水平见表1。
表1 试验饲粮组成及营养水平(干物质基础)

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

原料Ingredients 含量Content 营养水平Nutrient levels2) 含量Content
干稻草Dry straw 3.00 中性洗涤纤维NDF 42.74
水稻秸秆-菌糠混合发酵料
Rice straw-mushroom bran mixed fermentation material		 17.00 酸性洗涤纤维ADF 13.65
玉米Corn 53.50 粗蛋白质CP 11.67
小麦麸Wheat bran 13.00 有机物OM 91.37
豆粕Soybean meal 9.00 总可消化养分TDN 75.43
小苏打NaHCO3 1.00
预混料Premix1) 3.50
合计Total 100.00

1)每千克预混料含有 One kilogram of the premix contained the following:NaCl 93.98 g,VA 9 000 IU,VD3 200 IU,VE 16 IU,Fe 100 mg,Mn 54 mg,Zn 54 mg,Cu 9 mg,I 6 mg,Se 0.2 mg,Co 1 mg,Ca 0.75 g,P 0.15 g。

2)总可消化养分为计算值,计算公式为:总可消化养分=(88.9-酸性洗涤纤维×0.779)×100[12];其余为实测值。TDN was a calculated value, with the formula as TDN=(88.9-ADF×0.779)×100[12], and the others were measured values.

1.2 饲养管理

试验前对牛舍进行消毒。试验牛采用舍饲的方式,单栏饲养;试验牛统一管理,每天08:00和15:00定时饲喂全混合日粮,自由采食、自由饮水,保证日剩料量为投料量的5%左右。牛舍每2周消毒1次。试验期70 d,其中预试期10 d,正试期60 d。

1.3 样品采集与指标测定

1.3.1 生长性能

试验开始前2天对试验牛进行空腹称重,以其平均值作为初始体重(IBW);试验结束后2天再对试验牛进行空腹称重,以其平均值作为终末体重(FBW),计算平均日增重(ADG)。每日记录采食量,饲喂前清理料槽并称重剩料,计算干物质采食量(DMI),并计算料重比(F/G)。计算公式为:
ADG=(FBW IBW)/试验天数;
DMI=每头牛正试期干物质(DM)总采食量/试验天数;
F/G=DMI/ADG。

1.3.2 养分表观消化率

每周收集1次饲粮样品和剩余饲粮样品,并制成风干样保存。试验结束后,将样品带回实验室混合均匀,测其常规营养成分含量。试验结束前2周,采用内源指示剂法连续收粪10 d,一份加入10%硫酸固氮,另一份不做处理,每份约200 g,2份均于-20 ℃冰箱保存,再将10 d的粪样混匀,采用“四分法”取样,于65 ℃烘干粉碎,装入自封袋保存。总能(GE)采用精密自动量热仪(SDACM3100,湖南三德科技股份有限公司)测定,参照国标中的方法测定DM[13]、粗蛋白质(CP)[14]和粗脂肪(EE)[15]含量,参照Van Soest等[16]的方法测定中性洗涤纤维(NDF)和酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)含量,参照张丽英[17]的方法测定有机物(OM)含量。采用酸不溶性灰分(AIA)法[18]测定养分表观消化率,计算公式为:
某养分表观消化率(%)=[1-(a/b×c/d)]×100。
式中:a为饲粮中AIA含量(%);b为粪便中AIA含量(%);c为粪便中该养分含量(%);d为饲粮中该养分含量(%)。

1.3.3 血清生化指标

试验结束后,禁食24 h,每组随机挑选5头牛进行屠宰,从颈静脉放血取样,静置30 min后,使用高速冷冻离心机1 000×g离心15 min,取上清于1.5 mL离心管中,测定血清总蛋白(TP)、白蛋白(ALB)、球蛋白(GLB)和肌酐(CRE)含量以及谷丙转氨酶(ALT)和谷草转氨酶(AST)活性,各指标测定均按照北京安迪华泰生物科技有限公司提供的试剂盒说明书进行操作。

1.3.4 肉品质

取屠宰后试验牛背最长肌2 000 g,一部分当场测定pH、肉色、剪切力、蒸煮损失和眼肌面积;另一部分于液氮中保存,运送至实验室,用于常规营养成分分析。
pH的测定:将pH计(Testo 205,Testo SE&Co. KGaA,德国)校准后,插入肉样中进行pH测定,取3次测定的平均值。
肉色的测定:取背最长肌,采用色差仪(CR-400,Konica Minolta,日本)测定样品的亮度(L*)、红度(a*)和黄度(b*)值,每个肌肉样品随机选取3个位点,取平均值。
剪切力的测定:将蒸煮后吸干表面水分并称重的肉样,用直径为1.27 cm的空心取样器钻取肉柱(每个样品至少取10根肉柱,避开肉筋),采用数显式肌肉嫩度仪(C-LM3B,北京天翔飞域科技有限公司)测定剪切力。
蒸煮损失的测定:称取25~50 g肌肉样品,去除肌膜和附着脂肪后置于85 ℃的恒温水浴锅中加热30 min取出,冷却2 h后称重,按以下公式计算蒸煮损失:
蒸煮损失=100×(蒸煮前肉样质量-蒸煮后肉样质量)/蒸煮前肉样质量。
眼肌面积的测定:按照《牛肉等级规格》(NY/T 676—2010)的方法测定眼肌面积。
肌肉DM、CP、EE和粗灰分(Ash)含量分别参照GB 5009.3—2016、GB 5009.5—2016、GB 5009.6—2016和GB 5009.4—2016进行测定。

1.3.5 瘤胃发酵参数

试验结束后,每组随机挑选5头试验牛进行屠宰,分离瘤胃采集其内容物,用4层纱布过滤出瘤胃液,立即用pH计[PB-10,赛多利斯科学仪器(北京)有限公司]测定pH,剩余样品使用液氮保存至实验室。挥发性脂肪酸(VFA)含量采用岛津GC-2010 Plus气相色谱仪测定[19],氨态氮(NH3-N)含量参照冯宗慈等[20]的比色法进行测定。

1.4 数据处理与统计分析

采用Excel 2019对试验数据进行初步整理,并采用SPSS 24.0软件进行单因素方差分析(one-way ANOVA),然后用Duncan氏法进行多重比较检验,结果以平均值和均值标准误(SEM)表示,P<0.05表示差异显著。

2 结果与分析

2.1 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛生长性能比较

由表2可知,安格斯牛FBW、ADG和DMI显著高于安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛(P<0.05),湘中黑牛ADG和DMI显著高于安本杂F1代牛(P<0.05),安本杂F1代牛F/G显著高于安格斯牛和湘中黑牛(P<0.05),且湘中黑牛F/G显著高于安格斯牛(P<0.05)。
表2 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛生长性能比较

Table 2 Comparison of growth performance between Angus cattle and Xiangzhong black cattle

项目
Items		 安格斯牛组
Angus cattle
group		 F1代组
F1 generation
group		 湘中黑牛组
Xiangzhong black
cattle group		 均值
标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
初始体重IBW/kg 458.97 426.21 420.58 7.56 0.065
终末体重FBW/kg 553.97a 496.21b 500.58b 9.69 0.007
平均日增重ADG/(g/d) 1.53a 1.13c 1.30b 0.05 0.001
干物质采食量DMI/(g/d) 12.82a 10.72c 11.73b 0.27 0.001
料重比F/G 8.09c 9.19a 8.79b 0.15 0.001

同行数据肩标无字母或相同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。

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

2.2 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛养分表观消化率比较

由表3可知,安格斯牛DM、CP、EE、NDF、ADF和GE表观消化率均显著高于安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛(P<0.05),同时湘中黑牛DM、CP、EE和GE表观消化率显著高于安本杂F1代牛组(P<0.05)。
表3 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛养分表观消化率比较

Table 3 Comparison of nutrient apparent digestibility between Angus cattle and Xiangzhong black cattle %

项目
Items		 安格斯牛组
Angus cattle
group		 F1代组
F1 generation
group		 湘中黑牛组
Xiangzhong black
cattle group		 均值
标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
干物质DM 75.12a 73.27c 74.38b 0.43 0.001
粗蛋白质CP 78.71a 70.75c 73.82b 1.02 0.001
粗脂肪质EE 75.44a 62.51c 71.43b 1.67 0.001
中性洗涤纤维NDF 72.05a 66.09b 68.43b 0.85 0.002
酸性洗涤纤维ADF 39.97a 34.67b 36.69b 1.04 0.043
有机物OM 74.45 74.27 74.37 0.36 0.295
总能GE 79.19a 72.29c 74.75b 0.92 0.001

2.3 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛血清生化指标比较

由表4可知,安格斯牛血清AST活性和CRE含量显著高于安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛(P<0.05),各组牛其他血清生化指标无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表4 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛血清生化指标比较

Table 4 Comparison of serum biochemical indices between Angus cattle and Xiangzhong black cattle

项目
Items		 安格斯牛组
Angus cattle
group		 F1代组
F1 generation
group		 湘中黑牛组
Xiangzhong black
cattle group		 均值
标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
总蛋白TP/(g/L) 92.24 95.95 95.79 0.77 0.078
白蛋白ALB/(g/L) 46.07 45.79 44.67 0.38 0.277
球蛋白GLB/(g/L) 62.11 60.00 62.34 0.50 0.111
谷丙转氨酶ALT/(U/L) 41.93 42.36 39.97 0.48 0.098
谷草转氨酶AST/(U/L) 43.02a 39.72b 39.85b 0.33 0.001
肌酐CRE/(μmol/L) 145.47a 133.30b 136.09b 1.23 0.001

2.4 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛瘤胃发酵参数比较

由表5可知,安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛瘤胃pH显著高于安格斯牛(P<0.05),安格斯牛瘤胃NH3-N、乙酸、丙酸、丁酸、戊酸和总挥发性脂肪酸(TVFA)含量显著高于安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛(P<0.05),各组间瘤胃异丁酸、异戊酸含量以及和乙酸/丙酸值无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表5 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛瘤胃发酵参数比较

Table 5 Comparison of rumen fermentation parameters between Angus cattle and Xiangzhong black cattle

项目
Items		 安格斯牛组
Angus cattle
group		 F1代组
F1 generation
group		 湘中黑牛组
Xiangzhong black
cattle group		 均值
标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
pH 6.67b 7.05a 6.99a 0.06 0.003
氨态氮NH3-N/(mg/dL) 17.40a 13.22c 15.13b 0.58 0.001
乙酸Acetate/(mmol/L) 56.13a 38.41b 35.23b 3.32 0.005
丙酸Propionate/(mmol/L) 12.81a 8.99b 8.54b 0.72 0.009
丁酸Butyrate/(mmol/L) 9.57a 5.14b 6.13b 0.69 0.006
异丁酸Isobutyrate/(mmol/L) 1.04 0.81 0.95 0.05 0.137
戊酸Valerate/(mmol/L) 0.81a 0.51b 0.51b 0.05 0.004
异戊酸Isovalerate/(mmol/L) 1.79 1.28 1.59 0.09 0.063
乙酸/丙酸Acetate/propionate 4.37 4.34 4.19 0.16 0.904
总挥发性脂肪酸TVFA/(mmol/L) 82.15a 55.14b 52.94b 4.72 0.003

2.5 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛肉品质比较

由表6可知,各组肉品质指标均无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表6 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛肉品质比较

Table 6 Comparison of meat quality between Angus cattle and Xiangzhong black cattle

项目
Items		 安格斯牛组
Angus cattle
group		 F1代组
F1 generation
group		 湘中黑牛组
Xiangzhong black
cattle group		 均值
标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
肉色Meat color
亮度L* 27.11 25.60 26.97 1.53 0.965
红度a* 11.82 10.82 9.81 0.65 0.436
黄度b* 1.39 1.23 1.16 0.18 0.351
蒸煮损失Cooking loss/% 42.35 42.12 41.25 2.31 0.776
剪切力Shear force/kgf 1.50 1.70 1.42 0.41 0.396
pH45 min 6.40 6.76 6.61 0.26 0.105
pH24 h 5.61 5.73 5.69 0.34 0.804
眼肌面积Loin eye area/cm2 112.57 92.50 110.48 1.97 0.316

2.6 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛背最长肌常规营养成分含量比较

由表7可知,各组背最长肌常规营养成分含量均无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表7 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛背最长肌常规营养成分含量比较

Table 7 Comparison of common nutrient contents in longissimus dorsi between Angus cattle and Xiangzhong black cattle %

项目
Items		 安格斯牛组
Angus cattle
group		 F1代组
F1 generation
group		 湘中黑牛组
Xiangzhong black
cattle group		 均值
标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
干物质DM 27.11 25.60 26.97 1.53 0.965
粗蛋白质CP 11.82 10.82 9.81 0.65 0.436
粗脂肪EE 1.39 1.23 1.16 0.18 0.351
粗灰分Ash 42.35 42.12 41.25 2.31 0.776

3 讨论

3.1 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛生长性能和养分表观消化率比较

养分表观消化率通常用来评价饲粮在反刍动物体内的消化情况,与动物生长性能密切相关[21]。本试验中,安格斯牛DM、CP、EE、NDF、ADF和GE表观消化率以及ADG和DMI均显著高于安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛,F/G显著低于安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛,这与李剑波等[22]的研究结果相似,说明安格斯牛生长性能较优,适合用来杂交改良湘西黄牛。本试验中,湘中黑牛ADG和DMI以及DM、CP、EE和GE表观消化率显著高于安本杂F1代牛,F/G显著低于F1组,说明随着安格斯牛血统在湘西黄牛中比例提高,湘中黑牛在生长性能方面更具优势,充分发挥了纯种安格斯牛的遗传优势。这与金磊等[23]对安格斯牛杂交改良安徽省地方品种——大别山牛的研究结果基本一致,杂交二代表现出了显著的杂交优势。由此可见,应用安格斯牛杂交改良湘西黄牛,是一种良好的遗传资源利用方式。

3.2 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛血清生化指标比较

血清生化指标是反映机体代谢水平的重要指标。在血清生化指标中,TP、ALB和GLB具有重要营养学功能,在维持机体正常免疫功能和调节组织液平衡中起着重要的作用[24]。ALB是一种运输蛋白,占血清蛋白质的60%,是机体内蛋白质的主要来源,可作为营养物质载体,具有维持血浆渗透压的作用[25];GLB主要作为免疫系统的载体,参与机体免疫活动[26]。本试验中,各组间血清TP、ALB和GLB含量均无显著差异,说明各组试验牛机体免疫功能正常。
血液中的ALT和AST是反映肝脏功能的活性酶[27],由肝细胞分泌,其活性升高可能与肉牛肝脏器官活动增强有关[28],而肝脏活动增强可能与CP和DM表观消化率提高有关[21]。本试验中,安格斯牛血清AST活性显著高于安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛,这可能是安格斯牛CP和DM表观消化率显著高于安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛的部分原因。CRE是动物体内肌肉和磷酸盐的代谢产物,血液中的CRE主要由肾小球滤过功能决定,当肾小球滤过功能受损时,CRE含量会升高[29-30]。本试验中,安格斯牛血清CRE含量显著高于安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛,这可能是由于高精料导致了安格斯牛后期育肥过程中肾脏功能的损伤,具体原因还需进一步研究。

3.3 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛瘤胃发酵参数比较

瘤胃pH是评价瘤胃内环境稳态和瘤胃发酵状态的重要指标[31-32],主要受VFA和NH3-N以及唾液分泌物的影响。通常瘤胃pH正常范围为6.0~7.5[33-34],本试验中,各组瘤胃pH均在正常范围内(6.67~7.05),安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛瘤胃pH显著高于安格斯牛,这与其瘤胃乙酸、丙酸、丁酸、戊酸和TVFA含量显著低于安格斯牛的结果相一致。VFA提供反刍动物70%以上的能量,这些能量主要来自饲粮中的碳水化合物[35-36];其中,乙酸是合成体脂和乳脂的主要物质;丙酸可通过糖异生途径生成葡萄糖,提供大量能量供机体生长;丁酸经瘤胃转化为β-羟丁酸后在肝脏中代谢,进而为机体的生长发育提供能量[37]。本试验中,安格斯牛瘤胃乙酸、丙酸、丁酸、戊酸和TVFA含量显著高于安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛,这可能与后期育肥饲喂高精料有关;而湘中黑牛瘤胃乙酸、丙酸、丁酸、戊酸和TVFA含量显著降低,说明湘中黑牛可减缓高精料在瘤胃中的发酵。
NH3-N含量在一定程度上反映瘤胃微生物降解饲粮中含氮物质,产生NH3-N及机体利用NH3-N的情况,瘤胃中正常NH3-N含量为5~30 mg/dL[38]。本试验中,各组瘤胃NH3-N含量为13.22~17.40 mg/dL,均在正常范围内,而安格斯牛瘤胃NH3-N含量显著高于安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛,这可能与安格斯牛CP表观消化率较高有关。

3.4 安格斯牛与湘中黑牛肉品质比较

在牛肉理化指标中,蒸煮损失表示肉类在蒸煮过程中水分损失的百分比;剪切力是嫩度的一个指标,在一定程度上反映了肌肉成分包括肌原纤维和结缔组织的含量[39⇓-41];肉色和肌肉pH是评价肉质的重要指标。本试验中,各组屠宰后肉品质指标无显著差异,肌肉24 h时pH较45 min时pH均有所下降,这可能是因为动物血液循环停止后,肌肉细胞开始进行糖酵解,并产生大量乳酸,导致pH下降[42-43]。
牛肉的常规营养成分含量是衡量肉类品质好坏的关键因素之一,特别是CP、EE和Ash含量等指标直接影响着肉品的食用品质,可以作为评估经济效益的重要依据。余群力等[44]研究表明,当牛肉的水分含量较低时,其蛋白质和脂肪含量相对提高,这通常意味着牛肉的品质得到了提升。本试验中,各组间背最长肌常规营养成分含量并无显著差异。

4 结论

安格斯牛作为优良品种,具有生产优势,通过与湘西黄牛杂交选育出的湘中黑牛生长性能和养分表观消化率优于安本杂F1代牛,而安本杂F1代牛和湘中黑牛更能抵抗后期育肥中高精料引起的肾脏损伤,这为湘中黑牛后续的遗传育种工作提供了科学依据。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
宋小明. 涟源市湘中黑牛产业发展情况调研报告[J]. 湖南畜牧兽医, 2018(4):45-48.

SONG X M. Research Report on the development of Xiangzhong black cattle industry in Lianyuan city[J]. Hunan Journal of Animal Science & Veterinary Medicine, 2018(4):45-48. (in Chinese)

[2]
AKANNO E C, ABO I M K, CHEN L, et al. Modeling heterotic effects in beef cattle using genome-wide SNP-marker genotypes[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2018, 96(3):830-845.

DOI PMID

[3]
HERRERO M, GRACE D, NJUKI J, et al. The roles of livestock in developing countries[J]. Animal, 2013,7 (Suppl.1):3-18.

[4]
WANG Y J, WANG Z S, HU R, et al. Comparison of carcass characteristics and meat quality between Simmental crossbred cattle,cattle-yaks and Xuanhan yellow cattle[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2021, 101(9):3927-3932.

[5]
王向林, 蔡文杰, 孙鏖, 等. 西门塔尔牛与湘西黄牛、湘南黄牛杂交效果比较研究——不同良种肉牛改良湘西黄牛、湘南黄牛的效果比较研究(一)[J]. 湖南畜牧兽医, 2019(2):1-2.

WANG X L, CAI W J, SUN A, et al. Comparative study on crossbreeding effect of Simmental cattle with Xiangxi yellow cattle and Xiangnan yellow cattle-comparative study on the improvement effect of different improved beef cattle on Xiangxi yellow cattle and Xiangnan yellow cattle (Ⅰ)[J]. Hunan Journal of Animal Science & Veterinary Medicine, 2019(2):1-2. (in Chinese)

[6]
卢福山, 常兰, 张寿, 等. 柴达木三元牛与牦牛血液生理指标、体尺指标和生长激素含量对比分析[J]. 畜禽业, 2020, 31(12):9-11.

LU F S, CHANG L, ZHANG S, et al. Comparative analysis of blood physiological indexes,body size indexes and growth hormone content between Chaiyaphum ternary cattle and yaks[J]. Livestock and Poultry Industry, 2020, 31(12):9-11. (in Chinese)

[7]
易康乐, 李志才, 燕海峰, 等. 湘西黄牛肉质特性研究[J]. 家畜生态学报, 2011, 32(5):39-42.

YI K L, LI Z C, YAN H F, et al. Study on the beef quality traits of Xiangxi yellow cattle[J]. Acta Ecologae Animalis Domastici, 2011, 32(5):39-42. (in Chinese)

[8]
FRANK D, BALL A, HUGHES J, et al. Sensory and flavor chemistry characteristics of Australian beef:influence of intramuscular fat,feed,and breed[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2016, 64(21):4299-4311.

[9]
BURES D, PERFORMANCE B L. Carcass traits and meat quality of Aberdeen Angus,Gascon,Holstein and Fleckvieh finishing bulls[J]. Livestock Science, 2018,214:231-237.

[10]
陈宁, 李吉堂, 尹君亮, 等. 营养调控产品对纯种安格斯牛生产性能的影响[J]. 草食家畜, 2018(6):23-26,31.

CHEN N, LI J T, YIN J L, et al. Effects of nutritional regulation products on production performance of black Angus cattle[J]. Grass-Feeding Livestock, 2018(6):23-26,31. (in Chinese)

[11]
农业食品产业技术综合研究机构. 日本饲养标准·肉用牛[M]. 曹兵海,译. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社,2009:193.

Comprehensive Research Institute of Agriculture and Food Industry Technology. Japanese feeding standard for beef cattle[M]. CAO B H,translation. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press,2009:193. (in Chinese)

[12]
周苗育, 武伟成, 肖定福, 等. 不同酶制剂组合对水稻秸秆青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵特性的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(6):3856-3866.

DOI

ZHOU M Y, WU W C, XIAO D F, et al. Effects of different enzyme preparation combinations on silage quality and in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics of rice straw[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(6):3856-3866. (in Chinese)

[13]
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 feed-stuff:GB/T 6435—2014[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2015. (in Chinese)

[14]
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.

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 crude protein in feeds-Kjeldahl method:GB/T 6432—2018[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2018. (in Chinese)

[15]
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. Determination of crude fat in feeds:GB/T 6433—2006[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2006. (in Chinese)

[16]
VAN SOEST P J. ROBERTSON J B, LEWIS B A. Methods for dietary fiber,neutral detergent fiber,and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1991, 74(10):3583-3597.

[17]
张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M]. 4版. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2016.

ZHANG L Y. Feed analysis and feed quality detection technology[M]. 4th ed. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2016. (in Chinese)

[18]
MATHEW B, EASTRIDGE M L, OELKER E R, et al. Interactions of monensin with dietary fat and carbohydrate components on ruminal fermentation and production responses by dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2011, 94(1):396-409.

DOI PMID

[19]
徐晓锋. 缩合单宁与水解单宁对奶牛日粮氮利用影响及作用机制的研究[D]. 博士学位论文. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2013.

XU X F. Study on mechanism of nitrogen utilization in Diet of dairy cows with condensed and hydrolyzable tannins addition[D]. Ph.D. Thesis. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2013. (in Chinese)

[20]
冯宗慈, 高民. 通过比色测定瘤胃液氨氮含量方法的改进[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2010(6):37.

FENG Z C, GAO M. Improvement of colorimetric method for determination of ammonia nitrogen contentin rumen fluid[J]. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2010(6):37. (in Chinese)

[21]
吴宝云, 易鑫, 马婧蕾, 等. 辣椒碱对安格斯杂交阉牛生长性能、营养物质表观消化率及血清生化和抗氧化指标的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(3):1675-1683.

DOI

WU B Y, YI X, MA J L, et al. Effects of capsaicin on growth performance,nutrient apparent digestibility and serum biochemical and antioxidant parameters of Angus crossbred steers[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(3):1675-1683. (in Chinese)

[22]
李剑波, 蔡文杰, 龙云, 等. 利木赞牛与湘西黄牛、湘南黄牛杂交效果比较研究——不同良种肉牛改良湘西黄牛、湘南黄牛的效果比较研究(三)[J]. 湖南畜牧兽医, 2019(5):1-2.

LI J B, CAI W J, LONG Y, et al. Comparative study on the crossbreeding effect of Limousin cattle with Xiangxi yellow cattle and Xiangnan yellow cattle-comparative study on the improvement effect of different improved beef cattle on Xiangxi yellow cattle and Xiangnan yellow cattle (Ⅲ)[J]. Hunan Journal of Animal Science & Veterinary Medicine, 2019(5):1-2. (in Chinese)

[23]
金磊, 金海, 赵拴平, 等. 安格斯牛杂交改良大别山牛的效果分析[J]. 中国草食动物科学, 2023, 43(4):78-81.

JIN L, JIN H, ZHAO S P, et al. Effect analysis of cross improvement of Angus cattle on Dabieshan cattle[J]. China Herbivore Science, 2023, 43(4):78-81. (in Chinese)

[24]
王宇波, 许豆豆, 何鑫, 等. 低蛋白饲粮缬氨酸水平对肥育猪生长性能、胴体性状和肉品质的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2019, 50(9):1832-1840.

WANG Y B, XU D D, HE X, et al. Effects of valine level in low protein diets on growth performance,carcass traits and meat quality of finishing pigs[J]. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2019, 50(9):1832-1840. (in Chinese)

[25]
邓思川, 甘乾福, 梁学武. 化学处理对真姬菇菌糠营养成分及人工瘤胃发酵特性的影响[J]. 上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2014, 32(4):24-28,33.

DENG S C, GAN Q F, LIANG X W. Effects of chemical treatment on nutrition component and artificial rumen fermentation of spent mushroom substrate of Hypsizygus marmorens[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Agricultural Science), 2014, 32(4):24-28,33. (in Chinese)

[26]
田春丽. 不同能量和蛋白水平日粮对滩羊生长性能、养分消化率和经济效益的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2015.

TIAN C L. Effects of different energy and protein levels on growing performance,nutrients digestibility and economical benefits of Tan sheep[D]. Master’s Thesis. Yangling: Northwest Agriculture & Forestry University, 2015. (in Chinese)

[27]
李继超. 日粮不同来源粗饲料对犊牛生长性能、消化代谢、瘤胃发酵及微生物区系的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2021.

LI J C. Effects of different sources of roughage on growth performance,digestion and metabolism,rumen fermentation and microflora of calves[D]. Master’s Thesis. Zhengzhou: Henan Agricultural University, 2021. (in Chinese)

[28]
YANG Y, YANG S L, TANG J, et al. Comparisons of hematological and biochemical profiles in Brahman and Yunling cattle[J]. Animals, 2022, 12(14):1813.

[29]
CHEA S W, LEE K B. TGF-beta mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease[J]. Yonsei Medical Journal, 2009, 50(1):105-111.

DOI PMID

[30]
周卫民, 朱科燕, 陈方明, 等. Tamoxifen诱导敲除多囊肾小鼠Pkd1基因后的肾脏病理变化[J]. 实验动物与比较医学, 2017, 37(1):11-14.

ZHOU W M, ZHU K Y, CHEN F M, et al. Pathological change of kidney in Pkd1 knock-out mice with polycystic kidney induced by tamoxifen[J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2017, 37(1):11-14. (in Chinese)

[31]
华金玲, 从光雷, 郭亮, 等. 构树对黄淮白山羊瘤胃发酵特性、消化代谢、生产性能及肉品质的影响[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2019, 42(5):924-931.

HUA J L, CONG G L, GUO L, et al. Effects of Broussonetia papyrifera leaves on rumen fermentation characteristics,digestibility and metabolism,production performance,and meat quality of Huanghuai white goat[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 2019, 42(5):924-931. (in Chinese)

[32]
ANANTASOOK N, WANAPAT M, CHERDTHONG A, et al. Effect of plants containing secondary compounds with palm oil on feed intake,digestibility,microbial protein synthesis and microbial population in dairy cows[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2013, 26(6):820-826.

[33]
NAGARAJA T G, TITGEMEYER E C. Ruminal acidosis in beef cattle:the current microbiological and nutritional outlook[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2007,90:E17-E38.

[34]
冯仰廉. 反刍动物营养学[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004.

FENG Y L. Nutrition of ruminants[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2004. (in Chinese)

[35]
ZANTON G I, HEINRICHS A J. Digestion and nitrogen utilization in dairy heifers limit-fed a low or high forage ration at four levels of nitrogen intake[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2009, 92(5):2078-2094.

DOI PMID

[36]
刘宏金, 徐世晓, 韩学平, 等. 不同物候期牧草对藏系绵羊血清生化指标、瘤胃内环境参数及瘤胃微生物功能菌群的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(3):1396-1404.

DOI

LIU H J, XU S X, HAN X P, et al. Effects of forage grass in different phenological periods on serum biochemical indexes,ruminal fermentation parameters and rumen microbial function flora of Tibetan sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(3):1396-1404. (in Chinese)

[37]
ASTUTI T, JUANDES P, YELNI G, et al. The effect of a local biotechnological approach on rumen fluid characteristics (pH,NH3-N,VFA) of the oil palm fronds as ruminant feed[J]. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Rescarch, 2015, 14(97):126-130.

[38]
张振宇. 饲养方式和日粮能量对牦牛生产性能及瘤胃细菌多样性的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 兰州: 西北民族大学, 2021.

ZHANG Z Y. Effects of different feeding strategies and dietary energy levels on yak production performance and rumen bacteria diversity[D]. Master’s Thesis. Lanzhou: Northwest Minzu University, 2021. (in Chinese)

[39]
PIAO M Y, HU F M, KONG F L, et al. Effects of dietary amylose to amylopectin ratio on growth performance,carcass quality characteristics and meat fatty acids in Chinese Qinchuan cattle[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2021, 20(12):3256-3269.

[40]
SULLIVAN G A, CALKINS C R. Ranking beef muscles for Warner-Bratzler shear force and trained sensory panel ratings from published literature[J]. Journal of Food Quality, 2011, 34(3):195-203.

[41]
罗欣, 梁荣蓉, 祝贺, 等. 我国育肥牛肉品质和感官评定分析[C]// 第七届中国牛业发展大会. 北京: 《中国牛业科学》编辑部,2012:257-260.

LUO X, LIANG R R, ZHU H, et al. Analysis of quality and sensory assessment of fattened beef in China[C]// Cattlemen Branch of China Animal Husbandry Association.Proceedings of the 7th China Cattle Industry Development Conference. Beijing: Editorial Department of China Cattle Science,2012:257-260 (in Chinese)

[42]
孟梅娟, 涂远璐, 白云峰, 等. 饲粮中金针菇菌渣水平对山羊屠宰性能及肉品质的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2017, 29(8):2988-2995.

MENG M J, TU Y L, BAI Y F, et al. Effects of dietary enoki mushroom residue level on slaughter performance and meat quality of goats[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2017, 29(8):2988-2995. (in Chinese)

[43]
刘瑞生. 中草药提高猪肉品质的研究进展[J]. 养猪, 2014(5):11-16.

LIU R S. Quality progress of Chinese herbal medicine[J]. Swine Production, 2014(5):11-16. (in Chinese)

[44]
余群力, 蒋玉梅, 王存堂, 等. 白牦牛肉成分分析及评价[J]. 中国食品学报, 2005, 5(4):124-127.

YU Q L, JIANG Y M, WANG C T, et al. Analysis and evaluation of the components and flavouring substances in white yak’s meat[J]. Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology, 2005, 5(4):124-127. (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.