Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2026 , Vol. 38 >Issue 2: 954 - 966

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2026.076

RESEARCH PAPER

Effects of Different Proportions of Dietary Fermented Wheat Bran on Growth Performance, Nutrient Apparent Digestibility and Meat Quality of Growing-Finishing Pigs

  • TANG Jiayong ,
  • WEI Xinru ,
  • ZHOU Qiang ,
  • ZHANG Ruinan ,
  • LI Hua ,
  • WU Fali ,
  • JIA Gang ,
  • XU Shengyu ,
  • WU De ,
  • CHE Lianqiang , *
Expand
  • Key Laboratory of Animal Disease-Resistant Nutrition of Ministry of Education, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
* professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2025-07-23

  Online published: 2026-02-12

Fold

Abstract

The experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of different proportions of dietary fermented wheat bran (FWB) on growth performance, nutrient apparent digestibility and meat quality of growing-finishing pigs. A total of 96 growing-finishing pigs with an initial body weight of (69.73±8.56) kg were selected and randomly divided into 4 groups, with 6 replicates in each group and 4 pigs in each replicate (2 males and 2 females). Each group was fed diets supplemented with 5% wheat bran (5% WB group), 5% FWB (5% FWB group), 10% FWB (10% FWB group), and 20% FWB (20% FWB group), respectively. The experiment lasted for 56 days. The results showed as follows: 1) compared with 5% WB group, the final body weight in 5% FWB group tended to be increased (P=0.082); compared with 5% FWB group, the final body weight in 20% FWB group was significantly decreased (P<0.05). From days 29 to 56, compared with 5% WB group, the average daily gain (ADG) in 5% FWB group was significantly increased (P<0.05); compared with 5% FWB group, the ADG in 20% FWB group was significantly decreased (P<0.05). From days 1 to 56, compared with 5% FWB group, the ADG in 20% FWB group was significantly decreased (P<0.05), and the feed to gain ratio in 10% FWB group and 20% FWB group was significantly increased (P<0.05). 2) From days 1 to 28, compared with 10% FWB group, the ether extract (EE) apparent digestibility in 20% FWB group was significantly increased (P<0.05). From days 29 to 56, compared with 5% WB group, the apparent digestibilities of crude protein, gross energy (GE), acid detergent fiber (ADF), dry matter, EE and crude ash (Ash) in 5% FWB group were significantly increased (P<0.05); compared with 5% FWB group, the apparent digestibilities of GE and ADF in 20% FWB group were significantly decreased (P<0.05); compared with 5% FWB group and 10% FWB group, the EE apparent digestibility in 20% FWB group was significantly increased (P<0.05); compared with 5% FWB group and 20% FWB group, the Ash apparent digestibility in 10% FWB group was significantly increased (P<0.05). 3) Compared with 10% FWB group, the backfat thickness in 20% FWB group was significantly decreased (P<0.05); compared with 5% FWB group and 10% FWB group, the cooking loss of longissimus dorsi in 20% FWB group was significantly decreased (P<0.05). Compared with 5% FWB group, the muscle fiber diameter in longissimus dorsi in 5% WB group, 10% FWB group and 20% FWB group was significantly decreased (P<0.05), while the muscle fiber density was significantly increased (P<0.05). 4) Compared with 5% FWB group and 20% FWB group, the acetic acid content in cecal content in 10% FWB group was significantly increased (P<0.05). In conclusion, an appropriate proportion of dietary FWB is beneficial for improving the growth performance and nutrient apparent digestibility of growing-finishing pigs. Although a higher proportion can improve the meat quality to a certain extent, it will have a negative impact on growth performance. It is recommended that the appropriate proportion of dietary FWB for growing-finishing pigs is 10%.

Key words： fermented wheat bran; growing-finishing pigs; growth performance; nutrient apparent digestibility; meat quality

Cite this article

TANG Jiayong , WEI Xinru , ZHOU Qiang , ZHANG Ruinan , LI Hua , WU Fali , JIA Gang , XU Shengyu , WU De , CHE Lianqiang . Effects of Different Proportions of Dietary Fermented Wheat Bran on Growth Performance, Nutrient Apparent Digestibility and Meat Quality of Growing-Finishing Pigs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2026 , 38(2) : 954 -966 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2026.076

我国玉米和豆粕等粮饲两用型大宗原料十分紧缺,在养殖业中主要依靠进口,且价格波动较大;而我国非粮型饲料原料种类多、产量大、价格低廉,极具开发利用价值。为此,农业农村部在2023年4月12日发布了《饲用豆粕减量替代三年行动方案》,旨在鼓励非粮型饲料资源的开发利用,这有利于在减少对进口原料依赖的同时降低饲粮成本。麦麸作为常见的非粮型饲料原料,可用来调节饲粮能量水平及提供适量粗纤维(CF),在饲粮中有一定的应用。但由于麦麸适口性较差、营养价值较低、营养成分不均衡以及CF和抗营养因子含量较高[1],过量添加会对猪造成负面影响。研究表明,当在饲粮中添加14%麦麸时,育肥猪对粗蛋白质(CP)、粗脂肪(EE)、CF和中性洗涤纤维(NDF)的表观消化率均显著降低;当添加21%麦麸时,育肥猪平均日增重(ADG)显著降低,料重比(F/G)显著升高[2]。对麦麸进行发酵、酶解等加工处理,可降低其抗营养因子含量,提高其营养价值。酵母菌蛋白质含量高达40%~80%,且发酵中可产生游离氨基酸和消化酶,从而提高底物蛋白质含量[3]。芽孢杆菌可产生芽孢以及分泌蛋白酶和纤维素酶,能够在拮抗好氧有害菌定植的同时提高动物对养分的消化吸收[4]。乳酸菌及其代谢产生的酶类和有机酸可抑制有害菌增殖并改善底物风味[5]。本课题组前期将麦麸经纤维素酶酶解,再经产朊假丝酵母(Candida utili)、枯草芽孢杆菌(Bacillus subtilis)和植物乳杆菌(Lactobacillus plantarum)协同发酵后,其酸溶蛋白(ASP)、真蛋白质和可溶性膳食纤维(SDF)含量显著升高,CF、NDF、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)和不可溶性膳食纤维(IDF)含量显著降低[6]。向生长育肥猪饲粮中添加10%发酵麦麸(fermented wheat bran,FWB)(枯草芽孢杆菌发酵),试验猪ADG提高13.2%,F/G降低7.94%,同时收益提高12.4%[7]。此外,发酵原料除能改善猪的生长性能外,还可促进肌内脂肪沉积,改善猪肉嫩度和风味[8]。不过,不同发酵工艺对麦麸营养特性的改善效果差异较大。本课题组研发的FWB在断奶仔猪饲粮中添加10%时,与未添加麦麸组相比,对仔猪生长性能无显著影响,但使盲肠食糜中丙酸(PA)和丁酸(BA)含量显著上升[6]。生长育肥猪由于机体发育成熟,对纤维的利用能力和脂肪沉积潜力均高于断奶仔猪,所以该FWB在生长育肥猪中的最适添加比例及具体应用情况还需进一步研究。因此,本研究旨在探究饲粮中添加不同比例FWB对生长育肥猪生长性能、养分表观消化率和肉品质的影响,以期为促进麦麸在生长育肥猪中的广泛应用提供数据支撑。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验材料

FWB的制备:将麦麸(市购)先用纤维素酶酶解后,再用产朊假丝酵母、枯草芽孢杆菌和植物乳杆菌以3∶2∶2(总菌数为3×109 CFU/kg)进行发酵,具体发酵工艺见本课题组前期研究[6],麦麸发酵好后于4 ℃保存备用。

1.2 试验设计

本动物试验经四川农业大学动物伦理与福利委员会审核,符合国家动物福利伦理的相关规定(批准号:20231066)。
试验选取96头PIC生长育肥猪[五系配套杂交猪,体重(69.73±8.56) kg,阉公猪和母猪各占1/2],采用单因素随机设计,按体重相近原则分为4组,每组6个重复,每个重复4头猪(公母各2头)。各组分别饲喂添加5%麦麸(5% WB组)、5% FWB(5% FWB组)、10% FWB(10% FWB组)和20% FWB(20% FWB组)的饲粮。饲粮根据NRC(2012)生长育肥猪营养标准推荐值配制,分为70~75 kg(第1~7天)、75~100 kg(第8~28天)及100~135 kg(第29~56天)3个阶段,其组成及营养水平见表1。饲粮为粉料,试验猪自由采食和饮水。试验期56 d。
表1 饲粮组成及营养水平(风干基础)

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

项目
Items		 第1~7天Days 1 to 7 第8~28天Days 8 to 28 第29~56天Days 29 to 56
5%
WB组
5% WB
group		 5%
FWB组
5% FWB
group		 10%
FWB组
10% FWB
group		 20%
FWB组
20% FWB
group		 5%
WB组
5% WB
group		 5%
FWB组
5% FWB
group		 10%
FWB组
10% FWB
group		 20%
FWB组
20% FWB
group		 5%
WB组
5% WB
group		 5%
FWB组
5% FWB
group		 10%
FWB组
10% FWB
group		 20%
FWB组
20% FWB
group
原料Ingredients
玉米Corn 74.88 75.33 71.12 62.68 79.80 80.28 76.06 67.60 85.13 85.57 81.34 72.88
豆粕Soybean meal 14.92 14.58 12.88 9.50 10.36 10.02 8.33 4.97 5.50 5.23 3.54 0.15
大豆油Soybean oil 2.10 2.00 2.90 4.70 2.00 1.90 2.80 4.60 1.80 1.70 2.60 4.40
麦麸Wheat bran 5.00 5.00 5.00
发酵麦麸FWB 5.00 10.00 20.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 5.00 10.00 20.00
L-赖氨酸盐酸盐L-Lys·HCl 0.44 0.44 0.47 0.52 0.42 0.41 0.44 0.49 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.47
DL-蛋氨酸DL-Met 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.06
L-苏氨酸L-Thr 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.11
L-色氨酸L-Trp 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06
氯化胆碱Choline chloride 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
碳酸钙CaCO3 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.48 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.42 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.30
磷酸氢钙CaHPO4 1.10 1.10 1.04 0.90 0.96 0.95 0.88 0.74 0.80 0.80 0.76 0.64
维生素预混料
Vitamin premix1)		 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
氯化钠NaCl 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
矿物质预混料
Mineral premix2)		 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
合计Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
营养水平Nutrient levels3)
消化能DE/(MJ/kg) 14.23 14.23 14.23 14.23 14.23 14.23 14.23 14.23 14.23 14.23 14.23 14.23
粗蛋白质CP 13.80 14.02 14.01 13.99 11.90 12.14 12.19 12.14 10.31 10.54 10.55 10.57
粗纤维CF 3.41 3.54 3.69 4.32 3.47 3.41 3.56 4.52 4.36 3.55 4.44 4.10
中性洗涤纤维NDF 17.69 16.97 15.44 18.36 17.48 16.92 15.98 18.30 18.67 17.70 16.00 18.54
酸性洗涤纤维ADF 3.52 3.28 3.46 4.03 3.46 3.24 3.45 4.21 3.15 3.32 3.36 4.03
粗脂肪EE 6.43 6.75 7.84 10.02 6.40 6.71 7.78 9.75 6.27 6.39 7.83 10.84
钙Ca 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
有效磷AP 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
赖氨酸Lys 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
蛋氨酸Met 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
蛋氨酸+胱氨酸Met+Cys 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
苏氨酸Thr 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
色氨酸Trp 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11

1)维生素预混料为每千克饲粮提供 The vitamin premix provided the following per kg of diets:VA 15 000 IU,VD3 5 000 IU,VE 40 IU,VK3 5 mg,VB1 5 mg,VB2 12.5 mg,VB6 6 mg,VB12 0.6 mg,烟酸 nicotinic acid 50 mg,泛酸 pantothenic acid 25 mg,叶酸 folic acid 2.5 mg,生物素 biotin 2.5 mg。

2)矿物质预混料为第1~7天每千克饲粮提供 The mineral premix provided the following per kg of diets from days 1 to 7:Fe (as ferrous sulfate) 50 mg,Cu (as basic copper chloride) 3.5 mg,Zn (as zinc sulfate) 50 mg,Mn (as manganese sulfate) 2 mg,I (as potassium iodide) 0.14 mg,Se (as sodium selenite) 0.15 mg。矿物质预混料为第8~28天每千克饲粮提供 The mineral premix provided the following per kg of diets from days 8 to 28:Fe (as ferrous sulfate) 40 mg,Cu (as basic copper chloride) 3 mg,Zn (as zinc sulfate) 50 mg,Mn (as manganese sulfate) 2 mg,I (as potassium iodide) 0.14 mg,Se (as sodium selenite) 0.15 mg。矿物质预混料为第29~56天每千克饲粮提供 The mineral premix provided the following per kg of diets from days 29 to 56:Fe (as ferrous sulfate) 40 mg,Cu (as basic copper chloride) 3 mg,Zn (as zinc sulfate) 50 mg,Mn (as manganese sulfate) 2 mg,I (as potassium iodide) 0.14 mg,Se (as sodium selenite) 0.15 mg。

3)粗蛋白质、粗纤维、中性洗涤纤维、酸性洗涤纤维和粗脂肪为实测值,其他为计算值[根据《中国饲料成分及营养价值表(2020年第31版)》计算]。CP, CF, NDF, ADF and EE were measured values, while the others were calculated values according to Tables of Feed Composition and Nutritive Values in China (31st edition, 2020).

1.3 饲养管理

饲养试验在四川农业大学教学科研基地进行,期间试验猪免疫和管理按照基地要求进行。每天饲喂3次(08:00、14:00、20:00各1次),饲喂量以料槽中有少量余料为准。于试验第25~28天和第53~56天连续收集粪便(每天3次),将粪便混匀后密封储存于-20 ℃,用于测定养分表观消化率。

1.4 样品采集

各阶段每组饲粮样品采集500 g,密封保存于-20 ℃。试验第57天早上将试验猪空腹称重后,每重复选取1头接近该组平均体重的公猪(n=6),电晕后放血处死,开膛分离盲肠,将盲肠内容物置于无菌冻存管中,液氮保存。将试验猪胴体劈半后,量取胴体背中线肩部最厚处、最后肋处和腰荐结合处3点的脂肪厚度,计算平均脂肪厚度(背膘厚度);取左半胴体倒数第3~4肋骨处的背最长肌,用于测定肉品质;取第5~6肋骨处中心位置背最长肌,用4%多聚甲醛固定,用于组织切片。

1.5 检测指标及方法

1.5.1 生长性能

试验期间每天记录圈舍损料情况,于试验第28和56天晚上进行结料,计算各阶段平均日采食量(ADFI);分别于试验第1、29和57天早上对试验猪进行空腹称重,以重复为单位计算各阶段ADG和F/G。其中,ADFI和F/G均以饲粮风干样基础进行计算。

1.5.2 养分表观消化率

饲粮和粪便中干物质(DM)、CP、EE、粗灰分(Ash)、CF、NDF、ADF和盐酸不溶灰分(AIA)含量分别参照GB/T 6435—2014、GB/T 6432—2018、GB/T 6433—2006、GB/T 6438—2007、GB/T 6434—2022、GB/T 20806—2022、NY/T 1459—2022和GB/T 23742—2009中方法进行测定,总能(GE)采用氧氮式热量计(6400,Parr,美国)用直接测热法进行测定。采用AIA作为内源指示剂进行相应养分表观消化率的计算,计算公式如下:
某养分表观消化率(%)=100×[1-(A1×F2)/(A2×F1)]。
式中:F1为饲粮中该养分含量(%);F2为粪便中该养分含量(%);A1为饲粮中AIA含量(%);A2为粪便中AIA含量(%)。

1.5.3 盲肠内容物短链脂肪酸(SCFAs)和氨态氮(NH3-N)含量

盲肠内容物中乙酸(AA)、PA、BA和戊酸(VA)含量采用气相色谱仪(CP-3800,Varian)测定,样品前处理和上机条件参考本实验室方法[9]进行;盲肠内容物中NH3-N含量采用水杨酸分光光度法测定。

1.5.4 肌肉品质及肌纤维形态分析

猪背最长肌pH、大理石纹评分、肉色、滴水损失、蒸煮损失和剪切力参照NY/T 821—2019中方法测定。将4%多聚甲醛中固定的背最长肌样品修剪成约0.5 cm×0.5 cm×0.5 cm小块,脱水后经透明、包埋、切片、苏木精-伊红(HE)染色等操作后,每个切片在显微镜(BX43,OLYMPUS)下随机观察5个视野,并用Image-Pro Plus 6.0软件测量统计每个视野中的肌纤维数目和直径,并计算肌纤维密度。

1.6 数据统计和分析

试验数据采用SPSS 27软件进行分析,其中生长性能和养分表观消化率以重复为统计单位,其余以个体为统计单位,结果以“平均值±标准误”表示。5% WB组和5% FWB组间采用独立样本t检验(P1表示);5% FWB组、10% FWB组和20% FWB组间采用单因素方差分析(P2表示),并采用Duncan氏法进行多重比较,P<0.05为差异显著,0.05≤P<0.10为差异有显著趋势。

2 结果

2.1 FWB对生长育肥猪生长性能的影响

由表2可知,与5% WB组相比,5% FWB组生长育肥猪第56天体重(终末体重)有升高趋势(P=0.082);与5% FWB组相比,20% FWB组终末体重显著降低(P<0.05)。第29~56天,与5% WB组相比,5% FWB组ADG显著提高(P<0.05);与5% FWB组相比,20% FWB组ADG显著降低(P<0.05),F/G有升高趋势(P=0.053)。在整个试验期(第1~56天),与5% WB组相比,5% FWB组ADG有升高趋势(P=0.074);与5% FWB组相比,20% FWB组ADG显著降低(P<0.05),F/G显著提高(P<0.05)。
表2 FWB对生长育肥猪生长性能的影响

Table 2 Effects of FWB on growth performance of growing-finishing pigs (n=6)

项目
Items		 组别Groups P值P-value
5% WB 5% FWB 10% FWB 20% FWB P1 P2
体重BW/kg
第1天Day 1 69.93±0.52 69.67±0.05 69.67±0.07 69.67±0.08 0.629 0.991
第28天Day 28 105.41±0.68 104.70±1.31 102.04±1.19 102.97±0.86 0.643 0.284
第56天Day 56 133.00±1.93 137.75±1.55a 134.17±1.14ab 132.11±1.58b 0.082 0.037
平均日采食量ADFI/(kg/d)
第1~28天Days 1 to 28 3.05±0.12 2.82±0.07 2.90±0.05 2.92±0.06 0.126 0.468
第29~56天Days 29 to 56 3.00±0.14 3.25±0.08 3.30±0.05 3.15±0.10 0.174 0.423
第1~56天Days 1 to 56 3.02±0.11 3.04±0.07 3.10±0.05 3.03±0.06 0.951 0.657
平均日增重ADG/(kg/d)
第1~28天Days 1 to 28 1.27±0.04 1.25±0.05 1.16±0.04 1.19±0.03 0.781 0.283
第29~56天Days 29 to 56 0.99±0.07* 1.18±0.02a 1.16±0.03ab 1.04±0.05b 0.033 0.041
第1~56天Days 1 to 56 1.13±0.04 1.22±0.03a 1.15±0.02ab 1.11±0.03b 0.074 0.029
料重比F/G
第1~28天Days 1 to 28 2.43±0.14 2.26±0.09 2.52±0.08 2.46±0.06 0.374 0.092
第29~56天Days 29 to 56 3.10±0.20 2.76±0.07 2.88±0.08 3.04±0.08 0.158 0.053
第1~56天Days 1 to 56 2.70±0.12 2.50±0.06b 2.69±0.05a 2.72±0.03a 0.171 0.012

P1表示5% WB组和5% FWB组间独立样本t检验P值,P2表示5% FWB组、10% FWB组和20% FWB组间单因素方差分析P值。5% WB组数据肩标*表示与5% FWB组相比差异显著(P<0.05);5% FWB组、10% FWB组和20% FWB组间同行数据肩标不同字母表示差异显著(P<0.05),相同字母或者无字母表示差异不显著(P>0.05)。下表同。

P1 represented the P-value of independent sample t-test between 5% WB and 5% FWB groups, and P2 represented the P-value of one-way ANOVA among 5% FWB, 10% FWB and 20% FWB groups. The values in 5% WB group marked with * on shoulder mean significant differences compared with 5% FWB group (P<0.05); in the same row, values with different letter superscripts mean significant differences among 5% FWB, 10% FWB and 20% FWB groups, while with the same letter or no letter superscripts mean no significant differences (P>0.05). The same as below.

2.2 FWB对生长育肥猪养分表观消化率的影响

由表3可知,第1~28天,与5% WB组相比,5% FWB组生长育肥猪CF表观消化率有提高趋势(P=0.060);与5% FWB组相比,10% FWB组和20% FWB组CF表观消化率有降低趋势(P=0.073);与10% FWB组相比,20% FWB组EE表观消化率显著提高(P<0.05)。第29~56天,与5% WB组相比,5% FWB组CP、GE、ADF、DM、EE和Ash表观消化率均显著提高(P<0.05);与5% FWB组相比,20% FWB组GE和ADF表观消化率显著降低(P<0.05),CF(P=0.053)和NDF表观消化率(P=0.052)有降低趋势;与5% FWB组和10% FWB组相比,20% FWB组EE表观消化率显著提高(P<0.05);与5% FWB组和20% FWB组相比,10% FWB组Ash表观消化率显著提高(P<0.05)。
表3 FWB对生长育肥猪养分表观消化率的影响

Table 3 Effects of FWB on nutrient apparent digestibility of growing-finishing pigs %

项目
Items		 组别Groups P值P-value
5% WB 5% FWB 10% FWB 20% FWB P1 P2
第1~28天Days 1 to 28
粗蛋白质CP 68.55±1.76 72.27±1.80 67.83±2.42 72.60±0.55 0.172 0.144
总能GE 78.03±1.17 78.45±1.07 76.21±0.41 78.08±0.28 0.796 0.292
粗纤维CF 34.07±2.38 40.69±2.09 30.04±4.52 30.91±2.71 0.060 0.072
中性洗涤纤维NDF 47.46±2.24 43.94±1.89 39.16±3.55 36.54±2.47 0.258 0.191
酸性洗涤纤维ADF 29.26±3.30 30.37±2.74 22.50±3.60 23.16±3.28 0.802 0.204
干物质DM 80.30±1.05 81.11±0.94 78.87±1.24 79.85±0.28 0.578 0.246
粗脂肪EE 80.30±2.41 81.13±1.27ab 78.46±2.89b 86.79±1.35a 0.771 0.034
粗灰分Ash 39.60±3.02 43.66±2.76 46.23±3.65 50.63±1.48 0.353 0.232
第29~56天Days 29 to 56
粗蛋白质CP 70.42±1.45* 79.43±1.03 76.20±0.68 76.31±1.35 0.004 0.081
总能GE 79.80±0.81* 84.93±0.58a 83.47±0.51ab 81.93±0.83b 0.003 0.024
粗纤维CF 44.91±2.98 44.99±2.61 42.32±3.67 33.97±2.66 0.976 0.053
中性洗涤纤维NDF 55.91±1.73 57.05±2.16 54.76±2.21 48.67±2.44 0.668 0.052
酸性洗涤纤维ADF 30.29±2.60* 40.35±2.58a 29.71±3.81b 29.10±2.70b 0.033 0.043
干物质DM 81.84±0.73* 86.65±0.47 85.15±0.48 85.34±0.68 0.004 0.148
粗脂肪EE 77.37±1.33* 84.20±0.82b 85.27±1.04b 88.32±0.63a 0.004 0.013
粗灰分Ash 37.12±2.67* 51.08±1.04b 57.12±1.29a 53.18±1.51b 0.003 0.021

2.3 FWB对生长育肥猪肉品质的影响

由表4可知,与5% WB组相比,5% FWB组生长育肥猪肉品质指标均无显著差异(P>0.05)。与10% FWB组相比,20% FWB组背膘厚度显著降低(P<0.05);与5% FWB组和10% FWB组相比,20% FWB组背最长肌蒸煮损失显著降低(P<0.05)。
表4 FWB对生长育肥猪肉品质的影响

Table 4 Effects of FWB on meat quality of growing-finishing pigs

项目
Items		 组别Groups P值P-value
5% WB 5% FWB 10% FWB 20% FWB P1 P2
背膘厚度Backfat thickness/cm 2.47±0.11 2.47±0.09ab 2.65±1.26a 2.21±0.09b 0.978 0.034
亮度L* 37.80±0.75 38.39±0.52 38.44±0.64 36.74±0.78 0.534 0.152
黄度b* 7.33±0.37 7.98±0.60 7.84±0.56 7.66±0.53 0.369 0.940
红度a* 4.86±0.14 4.93±0.25 4.88±0.26 4.94±0.27 0.814 0.979
剪切力Shear force/kgf 4.15±0.43 4.75±0.22 4.58±0.32 5.21±0.24 0.201 0.253
滴水损失Drip loss/% 2.28±0.14 2.71±0.20 2.52±0.15 2.47±0.11 0.104 0.526
蒸煮损失Cooking loss/% 34.61±0.99 34.08±2.27a 36.28±0.64a 29.24±0.78b 0.831 0.004
大理石纹评分Marbling score 2.02±0.14 2.57±0.32 2.33±0.37 2.17±0.22 0.162 0.673
pH45 min 6.20±0.06 6.07±0.10 6.15±0.09 6.18±0.08 0.303 0.697

2.4 FWB对生长育肥猪肌纤维形态的影响

如图1所示,5% WB组、10% FWB组和20% FWB组生长育肥猪背最长肌肌纤维直径均显著低于5% FWB组(P<0.05);相反,5% WB组、10% FWB组和20% FWB组肌纤维密度均显著高于5% FWB组(P<0.05)。
图1 FWB对生长育肥猪肌纤维形态的影响

A、B、C和D分别为5% WB组、5% FWB组、10% FWB组和20% FWB组背最长肌肌纤维HE染色图,E为肌纤维直径,F为肌纤维密度。*表示差异显著(P<0.05)。

Fig.1 Effects of FWB on muscle fiber morphology of growing-finishing pigs

A, B, C and D were HE staining images of muscle fibers in longissimus dorsi in 5% WB group, 5% FWB group, 10% FWB group and 20% FWB group, respectively; E was muscle fiber diameter, and F was muscle fiber density. * mean significant differences (P<0.05).

2.5 FWB对生长育肥猪盲肠内容物SCFAs和NH3-N含量的影响

由表5可知,与5% WB组相比,5% FWB组生长育肥猪盲肠内容物各SCFAs含量均无显著差异(P>0.05),盲肠内容物NH3-N含量有降低趋势(P=0.092)。与5% FWB组和20% FWB组相比,10% FWB组盲肠内容物AA含量显著提高(P<0.05)。
表5 FWB对生长育肥猪盲肠内容物SCFAs和NH3-N含量的影响

Table 5 Effects of FWB on SCFAs and NH3-N contents in cecal content of growing-finishing pigs mg/g

项目
Items		 组别Groups P值P-value
5% WB 5% FWB 10% FWB 20% FWB P1 P2
短链脂肪酸SCFAs
乙酸AA 2.10±0.24 2.57±0.23b 3.32±0.10a 2.60±0.14b 0.184 0.011
丙酸PA 1.04±0.17 1.35±0.15 1.23±0.06 1.28±0.21 0.192 0.839
丁酸BA 0.32±0.04 0.54±0.11 0.55±0.03 0.39±0.04 0.118 0.241
戊酸VA 0.09±0.03 0.12±0.06 0.06±0.01 0.08±0.02 0.640 0.544
氨态氮NH3-N 25.87±1.42 22.82±0.44 22.29±0.41 23.96±1.02 0.092 0.254

3 讨论

3.1 FWB对生长育肥猪生长性能的影响

动物饲粮中添加一定比例的麦麸可促进其生产性能的提高,但由于其适口性差、纤维和木质素含量较高,抗营养因子含量较多,过量添加会影响动物生长性能[10]。研究发现,向生长猪饲粮中添加不同比例麦麸(5%、15%、25%和30%),当添加比例为5%时,猪对CP、Ash等养分的表观消化率最高;但随着添加比例的升高,养分表观消化率逐渐下降,生长性能也显著降低[11-12]。同时,研究发现,用5%和10% FWB[产朊假丝酵母CICC 31188和黑曲霉(Aspergillus niger)CICC 40273发酵]等比例替代育肥猪饲粮中的麦麸后,ADFI有升高趋势,ADG和终末体重显著提高,F/G显著降低[13]。这与本研究中5% FWB组生长育肥猪较5% WB组ADG和终末体重提高的结果相似,这与麦麸发酵后适口性得到改善以及营养价值得到有效提升密切相关。本试验所用麦麸经纤维素酶酶解后再经产朊假丝酵母、枯草芽孢杆菌和植物乳杆菌发酵,其CP、ASP、Ash和SDF含量分别提高25.93%、3.35倍、44.60%和37.79%,CF、NDF、ADF、酸性洗涤木质素(ADL)和IDF含量分别降低7.69%、12.12%、7.48%、29.64%和8.98%[6]。
不过,发酵对非粮型发酵原料(如麦麸)营养价值的改善有一定限度,如CF、NDF、ADF和ADL含量依然较高,CP和氨基酸等含量仍然低于玉米、豆粕,如过量添加则无法满足育肥猪对优质蛋白质和氨基酸的需求,会对生长性能造成负面影响。研究表明,与不含玉米秸秆组相比,添加6%发酵玉米秸秆组育肥猪ADFI和终末体重显著提高;但随着发酵玉米秸秆添加比例的提高,ADG逐渐降低、F/G逐渐升高,生长性能下降[14]。本研究中,20% FWB组生长育肥猪终末体重、育肥后期和全期ADG均显著低于5% FWB组,全期F/G也显著高于5% FWB组;而10% FWB组除全期F/G较5% FWB组提高7.60%外,其他生长性能指标与5% FWB组相比均无显著差异。由此可见,生长育肥猪生长性能随FWB添加比例(5%、10%、20%)的提高而逐渐降低。值得注意的是,20% FWB组全期生长性能与5% WB组在数值上相当,这可能是由于饲粮中随着FWB添加比例的逐渐提高,CF等含量也逐渐提高,从而抵消了发酵对麦麸营养价值的改善效果。在10% FWB组饲粮中,玉米和豆粕的使用量较5% WB组在育肥3个阶段中分别降低了5.80、5.77和5.75个百分点。由此可见,饲粮中添加5%和10% FWB均对生长育肥猪生长性能起积极作用,但当玉米、豆粕处于价格高位时,添加10% FWB更经济。

3.2 FWB对生长育肥猪养分表观消化率的影响

猪对养分的表观消化率与生长性能密切相关,特别是饲料转化率。麦麸在发酵过程中,大分子蛋白质被微生物降解为更容易吸收的小肽,同时SDF、多酚和风味物质含量均得以提高[15],植酸、IDF等抗营养因子含量降低,从而利于猪对其的消化吸收。此外,FWB的pH低于麦麸,其添加会降低肠道的酸性缓解,从而促进蛋白酶和其他消化酶的肠道分泌[16]。在断奶仔猪试验中,8% FWB组CF表观消化率较8%麦麸组高[17]。本研究中,在试验前期(第1~28天),5% FWB组与5% WB组间养分表观消化率无显著差异。这可能是因为FWB中的有益微生物需要一定的时间来适应新环境[18],可能尚未在肠道中建立稳定的定植。研究发现,植物乳杆菌CCFM737、干酪乳杆菌(Lactobacillus casei)CCFM736最少需要2周的时间才能在小鼠体内定植[19]。而在试验后期(第29~56天),5% FWB组CP、GE、ADF、DM、EE和Ash表观消化率均显著高于5% WB组。这应该与麦麸经微生物发酵后,ASP和SDF含量升高以及CF被降解密切相关。ASP反映大分子蛋白质被分解情况,ASP含量越高、小肽含量越高,蛋白质就越容易被机体消化吸收[20]。SDF含量适当提高可改善肠道微生物组成,促进肠道对养分的消化吸收[21]。
小肠是猪养分消化吸收的主要场所,大部分CP、EE和碳水化合物都被其消化吸收,而未被小肠消化的纤维则进入后肠,被盲肠和结肠微生物产生的纤维素酶分解利用[22]。在试验前期(第1~28天),随着FWB添加比例的提高,各组间养分(EE除外)表观消化率无显著差异。70 kg左右的生长育肥猪其肠道已发育完全,纤维素分解酶活性较高,具有一定的CF适应能力[23],因此在试验前期养分消化率并没有随FWB添加比例的提高而显著下降。但这一适应过程有限,当纤维含量过高或饲喂时间过长时,此适应就会逐渐消失。在试验后期(第29~56天),随着FWB添加比例的提高,GE、CF、NDF和ADF表观消化率逐渐降低,其中10% FWB组除ADF表观消化率显著低于5% FWB组外,其余同5%FWB组相比均无显著差异。这一结果与生长猪饲粮中NDF和ADF含量随麦麸添加比例的升高而升高,而猪对NDF和ADF的表观消化率随之逐渐降低的结果[11]一致。这可能是高含量的纤维在肠道中难以被消化,缩短了饲粮在胃肠道内的消化时间,导致养分消化不完全[24]。同时,EE表观消化率随着FWB添加比例的提高而逐渐升高,但与此同时ADG随着FWB添加比例的提高而逐渐降低,这一现象除与高纤维可缩短饲粮在肠道停留时间有关外,还可能与其采食量下降导致总能量摄入不足有关;同时也可能与纤维含量增多导致后肠发酵纤维的微生物增多,需要更多的能量有关。此外,FWB中较多的SDF会增加消化物的黏度,阻碍食糜与消化酶之间的接触,从而减慢消化物在小肠中的转运时间,降低CP和GE表观消化率[25]。研究发现,向生长育肥猪饲粮中添加20%小麦次粉(与麦麸组成相近),会影响猪对EE的消化吸收率,并导致背膘厚度降低[26]。

3.3 FWB对生长育肥猪肉品质的影响

背膘作为反映猪脂肪沉积的重要指标,生产上常用来反映猪肉品质,且与瘦肉率呈负相关[27]。本试验中,10% FWB组生长育肥猪背膘厚度最高,且显著高于20% FWB组,表明高比例FWB饲粮影响脂肪的沉积。研究表明,与低纤维饲粮(ADF含量3.5%,NDF含量11.5%)相比,高纤维饲粮(ADF含量7.9%,NDF含量18.3%)显著降低育肥猪ADG,并使背膘厚度降低25%[28]。这可能是由于高纤维饲粮会降低猪背膘中棕榈酸酯与油酸酯的比例,以及诱导关键脂肪生成酶活性降低,进而影响脂肪沉积速率[28]。也有研究发现,当育肥猪饲粮中NDF含量为8.85%~14.35%时,随着纤维含量的升高,猪肉的保水力升高[29]。这与本研究结果相同,20% FWB组背最长肌蒸煮损失较5% FWB组和10% FWB组显著降低,表明其保水性高,这也与20% FWB组肌纤维直径小相吻合。肌纤维密度越大(肌纤维直径越小),则纤维间空隙就越小、肌束结构就更致密,其保水性就更好[30]。肌纤维形态特征与猪肉品质密切相关,其直径越大,可能使肉质变硬,缺乏肌内脂肪沉积,从而不同程度上影响肉质性状[31]。本试验中,5% FWB组肌纤维直径显著高于其他组,相反肌纤维密度显著低于其他组,这可能与5% FWB组猪生长速度较快有关。动物在生长过程中,肌肉体积的变化是由肌纤维直径变粗以及肌纤维间脂肪和结缔组织增多导致,从而使肌纤维密度降低[32]。由此可见,虽然20% FWB组生长育肥猪生长性能较5% FWB组显著降低,但高比例FWB的添加却能一定程度上提高肉品质。

3.4 FWB对生长育肥猪盲肠内容物SCFAs和NH3-N含量的影响

猪消化CF的主要生理部位为盲肠,其内部微生物可分泌分解CF的纤维素分解酶,从而降解CF产生SCFAs[33]。前人研究发现,向育肥猪饲粮中加入5%、10%和15%的风干全株青贮玉米,随着CF含量的提高,盲肠中AA、PA和BA含量也随之有所升高;但当CF含量过高(15%)时,盲肠中AA、PA和BA却又显著降低[22]。本试验中,生长育肥猪盲肠内容物中只有AA含量随FWB添加比例的升高(5%~10%)而升高,且当添加到20%时又显著降低;而其余SCFAs不随FWB添加比例的变化而变化。这可能与试验后期CF、NDF和ADF表观消化率下降密切相关,因为高添加比例(20%)FWB可能加快食糜通过速度(缩短滞留时间),从而减少微生物充分发酵的机会。此外,10% FWB组盲肠内容物AA含量最高,且该组的生长性能较好以及养分表观消化率较高,这可能与AA作为后肠微生物发酵纤维的主要产物(占总SCFAs的50%~70%),能够增强肠道上皮屏障功能,从而提高机体的免疫功能有关[34]。未被消化吸收的含氮物质进入后肠后可被微生物发酵生成NH3-N、生物胺等代谢产物。NH3-N主要来自于氨基酸脱氨基反应,NH3-N含量过高不仅会抑制肠上皮细胞的增殖和分化,还会增加仔猪腹泻从而对肠道产生负面影响[35],降低NH3-N含量对维护肠道健康具有重要意义。研究发现,向低蛋白质饲粮中添加益生菌可显著降低粪便中NH3-N含量,原因是肠道中增多的益生菌提高了对NH3-N的利用率[36]。本试验中,5% FWB组生长育肥猪盲肠内容物NH3-N含量较5% WB组有所降低,这可能是因为FWB改变了猪肠道菌群,使益生菌增多;但3个FWB组间盲肠内容物NH3-N含量无显著差异,这可能是由于盲肠中的微生物随FWB添加比例的升高而增多,而微生物生长会优先利用NH3-N来合成菌体蛋白,从而维持NH3-N的动态平衡。

4 结论

在本试验条件下,生长育肥猪饲粮中用5% FWB全部替代5%麦麸,可对其生长性能和养分表观消化率产生积极的改善作用;当添加10% FWB时,试验猪生长性能、养分表观消化率和肉品质与5% FWB组相比无显著差异;当添加20% FWB时,试验猪生长性能低于5% FWB组但与5% WB组相当,同时背膘厚度和背最长肌蒸煮损失最低。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
WANG J H, MA T, XIE Y N, et al. A cellulose-degrading Bacillus altitudinis from Tibetan pigs improved the in vitro fermentation characteristics of wheat bran[J]. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 2025,27:1233-1243.

[2]
李娟花. 日粮添加麸皮对育肥猪生长性能、肠道表观消化率及粪中微生物组分和氮代谢的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2022(12):54-57.

LI J H. Effects of dietary bran supplementation on growth performance,intestinal apparent digestibility,fecal microbial components and metabolism in growing finishing pigs[J]. China Feed, 2022(12):54-57. (in Chinese)

[3]
OLIVARES-MARIN I K, GONZÁLEZ-HERNÁNDEZ J C, REGALADO-GONZALEZ C, et al. Saccharomyces cerevisiae exponential growth kinetics in batch culture to analyze respiratory and fermentative metabolism[J]. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 2018(139):e58192.

[4]
KASPAR F, NEUBAUER P, GIMPEL M. Bioactive secondary metabolites from Bacillus subtilis:a comprehensive review[J]. Journal of Natural Products, 2019, 82(7):2038-2053.

DOI

[5]
KOBASHI Y, OHMORI H, TAJIMA K, et al. Reduction of chlortetracycline-resistant Escherichia coli in weaned piglets fed fermented liquid feed[J]. Anaerobe, 2008, 14(4):201-204.

DOI

[6]
JIA N H, JIN J, WEI X R, et al. Effects of fermented wheat bran on growth performance,nutrient digestibility and intestinal microbiota of weaned piglets[J]. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2025,12:1561196.

[7]
王震. 不同菌种发酵麸皮对育肥猪生产性能、抗氧化以及粪便微生物的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2018.

WANG Z. Effects of different strains fermented bran on the production performance,antioxidant and fecal microorganism of pigs[D]. Master’s Thesis. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2018. (in Chinese)

[8]
NGAPO T M, GARIEPY C. Factors affecting the eating quality of pork[J]. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2008, 48(7):599-633.

DOI PMID

[9]
张睿楠, 李华, 汤加勇, 等. 猪肠道食糜和血清中短链脂肪酸浓度的测定[M]// 微生物组实验手册. 森尼维尔: Bio-protocol,2021:e2003671.

ZHANG R N, LI H, TANG J Y, et al. The determination of the concentration of short chain fatty acids in the intestinal digesta and serum of pigs[M]// Microbiome protocol eBook. Sunnyvale:Bio-protocol,2021:e2003671. (in Chinese)

[10]
安济山, 刘宽博, 王永伟, 等. 发酵麦麸的营养特性及其在畜禽生产中的应用[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(7):3064-3071.

DOI

AN J S, LIU K B, WANG Y W, et al. Nutritional properties of fermented wheat bran and its application in animal production[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(7):3064-3071. (in Chinese)

[11]
ZHAO J B, LIU P, HUANG C F, et al. Effect of wheat bran on apparent total tract digestibility,growth performance,fecal microbiota and their metabolites in growing pigs[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2018,239:14-26.

[12]
冉亿. 麸皮或苜蓿颗粒替代部分玉米及豆粕对育肥猪生长性能及肉品质的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2024.

RAN Y. Effects of replacing partial corn and soybean meal with wheat bran or alfalfa pellets on growth performance and meat quality of finishing pigs[D]. Master’s Thesis. Yangling: Northwest A&F University, 2024. (in Chinese)

[13]
郭惠敏, 李辉. 发酵麦麸对育肥猪生产性能、肠道菌群及免疫功能的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2023(16):65-68.

GUO H M, LI H. Effects of fermented wheat bran on production performance,intestinal flora and immune function of fattening pigs[J]. China Feed, 2023(16):65-68. (in Chinese)

[14]
HAN R, YONG F, FANG X, et al. Influences of fermented corn straw fiber on performance and nutrient utilization in different breeds of finishing pigs[J]. Animals, 2024, 14(23):3393.

DOI

[15]
方静, 石宝明, 何威, 等. 发酵小麦麸对断奶仔猪生长性能、养分表观消化率、免疫功能及粪便菌群的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(1):150-158.

DOI

FANG J, SHI B M, HE W, et al. Effects of fermented wheat bran on growth performance,nutrient apparent digestibility,immune function and fecal microbiota of weaned piglets[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(1):150-158. (in Chinese)

[16]
HUANG S B, CUI Z J, HAO X Y, et al. Dietary fibers with low hydration properties exacerbate diarrhea and impair intestinal health and nutrient digestibility in weaned piglets[J]. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2022, 13(1):142.

DOI PMID

[17]
LUO Y H, HE J, LI H, et al. Wheat bran fermented by mixed fungal strains improves the digestibility of crude fiber and may benefit the gut health without impacting the growth performance in weaned pigs[J]. Food & Function, 2021, 12(7):2962-2971.

[18]
YAO Z H, XIE T, DENG H J, et al. Directed evolution of microbial communities in fermented foods:strategies,mechanisms,and challenges[J]. Foods, 2025, 14(2):216.

DOI

[19]
ZHAO G Z, CUI M, WANG M Y, et al. The correlation between colonization and the biological properties of Lactobacillus sp.[J]. Food Bioscience, 2020,36:100613.

[20]
耿彦超, 原雪峰, 王馨, 等. 响应面法优化仔猪玉米-豆粕型饲粮发酵工艺及其蛋白质二级结构分析[J]. 动物营养学报, 2024, 36(11):7320-7334.

DOI

GENG Y C, YUAN X F, WANG X, et al. Optimization of fermentation process of corn-soybean meal diet for piglets using response surface method and its protein secondary structure analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024, 36(11):7320-7334. (in Chinese)

DOI

[21]
FENG L Y, LUO Z F, WANG J, et al. Effects of different ratios of soluble to insoluble dietary fiber on growth performance and intestinal health of piglets[J]. Animal Nutrition, 2024,18:257-271.

[22]
WANG L L, WANG P F, YAN Z Q, et al. Whole-plant silage maize to improve fiber digestive characteristics and intestinal microbiota of Hezuo pigs[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2024,15:1360505.

[23]
LINDBERG J E. Fiber effects in nutrition and gut health in pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2014, 5(1):15.

DOI PMID

[24]
XU S, YU Z R, LI Z L, et al. Wheat bran inclusion level impacts its net energy by shaping gut microbiota and regulating heat production in gestating sows[J]. Animal Nutrition, 2023,15:45-57.

[25]
PATERNOSTRE L, DE BOEVER J, MILLET S. Interaction between fat and fiber level on nutrient digestibility of pig feed[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2021,282:115126.

[26]
SALYER J A, DEROUCHEY J M, TOKACH M D, et al. Effects of dietary wheat middlings,distillers dried grains with solubles,and choice white grease on growth performance,carcass characteristics,and carcass fat quality of finishing pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2012, 90(8):2620-2630.

DOI

[27]
SEO Y J, LIM B, KIM D Y, et al. Regulation of swine growth by backfat tissue during growing and finishing stages[J]. Animals, 2021, 11(12):3511.

DOI

[28]
GONDRET F, LOUVEAU I, MOUROT J, et al. Dietary energy sources affect the partition of body lipids and the hierarchy of energy metabolic pathways in growing pigs differing in feed efficiency[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2014, 92(11):4865-4877.

DOI PMID

[29]
高琛. 苏淮猪肉滴水损失相关候选基因鉴别及适宜日粮脱脂米糠水平的遴选[D]. 硕士学位论文. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2019.

GAO C. Identification of candidate genes and selection of suitable level for diet defatted rice bran related to drip loss of Suhuai pork[D]. Master’s Thesis. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2019. (in Chinese)

[30]
DU M, ZHAO J X, YAN X, et al. Fetal muscle development, mesenchymal multipotent cell differentiation,and associated signaling pathways[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2011, 89(2):583-590.

DOI

[31]
李娜. 基于GWAS的猪肉品质性状候选基因研究[D]. 博士学位论文. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2016.

LI N. Genome-wide association studies for pig meat traits and exploration of major genes[D]. Ph.D. Thesis. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2016. (in Chinese)

[32]
季方芳. 基于图像处理技术的牛肉生理成熟度预测方法研究[D]. 硕士学位论文. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2019.

JI F F. Study on the prediction method of beef physiological maturity based on image processing[D]. Master’s Thesis. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2019. (in Chinese)

[33]
余苗, 李贞明, 陈卫东, 等. 不同淀粉类型饲粮对育肥猪盲肠食糜主要微生物及其代谢产物的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(2):613-625.

DOI

YU M, LI Z M, CHEN W D, et al. Effects of different starch type diets on main microbes and their metabolites in cecal digesta of finishing pigs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(2):613-625. (in Chinese)

[34]
CHANG Y H, JEONG C H, CHENG W N, et al. Quality characteristics of yogurts fermented with short-chain fatty acid-producing probiotics and their effects on mucin production and probiotic adhesion onto human colon epithelial cells[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2021, 104(7):7415-7425.

DOI PMID

[35]
RIST V T S, WEISS E, EKLUND M, et al. Impact of dietary protein on microbiota composition and activity in the gastrointestinal tract of piglets in relation to gut health:a review[J]. Animal, 2013, 7(7):1067-1078.

DOI

[36]
王四新, 季海峰, 刘辉, 等. 低蛋白质饲粮中添加益生菌对育肥猪生长性能、粪便菌群组成和代谢组特征的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2024, 36(5):2886-2900.

DOI

WANG S X, JI H F, LIU H, et al. Effects of low-protein diet supplemented with probiotics on growth performance,fecal microbiota composition and metabolome feature of finishing pigs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024, 36(5):2886-2900. (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.