Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2026 , Vol. 38 >Issue 4: 2698 - 2708

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2026.217

RESEARCH PAPER

Effects of Residual Feed Intake on Growth Performance, Apparent Nutrient Digestibility and Serum Biochemical and Hormone Parameters of Different Breeds of Finishing Cattle

  • DONG Jiahao , 1 ,
  • ZHENG Yan 1 ,
  • CUI Jiale 1 ,
  • LIN Xiaoqian 1 ,
  • WANG Lixin 2 ,
  • WU Chunhui 1 ,
  • WANG Mingya 1 ,
  • MA Yabin 3 ,
  • LI Yingchao 3 ,
  • LI Suxia 4 ,
  • LI Qiufeng , 1, *
Expand
  • 1 College of Animal Science and Technology, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding 071000, China
  • 2 Xingtai Renze district Agricultural and Rural Bureau Animal Husbandry Workstation, Xingtai 055150, China
  • 3 Hebei Province Livestock Breeding Station, Shijiazhuang 050061, China
  • 4 Chengde Animal Husbandry Workstation, Chengde 067000, China
*professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2025-09-02

  Online published: 2026-04-14

Fold

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of residual feed intake (RFI) on growth performance, apparent nutrient digestibility and serum biochemical and hormone parameters of different breeds of finishing cattle, and to explore the effects of breed, RFI and their interactions on fattening performance of beef cattle. Twelve healthy Simmental bulls and twelve healthy Holstein dairy bulls with similar body weight were individually housed and fed, with a 7-day adaptation period followed by a 136-day experimental period. The study employed a 2×2 factorial completely randomized design with breed and RFI, divided into 4 groups with 6 cattle in each group: Simmental bulls with low residual feed intake group (XM-L group), Simmental bulls with high residual feed intake (XM-H group), Holstein dairy bulls with low residual feed intake (HS-L group) and Holstein dairy bulls with high residual feed intake group (HS-H group). The results showed as follows:1) the dry matter intake (DMI) and RFI of XM-L group and HS-L group were significantly lower than those of XM-H group and HS-H group (P<0.05). 2) During 620 to 670 kg phase, the apparent digestibility of dry matter (DM), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) of HS-L group and HS-H group was significantly lower than that of XM-L group and XM-H group (P<0.05). During 780 to 830 kg phase, the apparent digestibility of DM, crude protein (CP), NDF and ADF of HS-L group and HS-H group was significantly lower than that of XM-L group and XM-H group (P<0.05), and the apparent digestibility of CP and NDF of HS-H group was significantly lower than that of HS-L group (P<0.05). 3) During 780 to 830 kg phase, the serum glucose (GLU) content of XM-L group and XM-H group was significantly lower than that of HS-L group and HS-H group (P<0.05), and the serum GLU content of HS-L group was significantly lower than that of HS-H group (P<0.05). The serum free fatty acids (FFA) content of XM-H group and HS-H group was significantly lower than that of XM-L group and HS-L group (P<0.05). 4) During 780 to 830 kg phase, the serum insulin (INS) content of XM-L group and XM-H group was significantly lower than that of HS-L group and HS-H group (P<0.05). The serum leptin (LEP) content of XM-H group and HS-H group was significantly lower than that of XM-L group and HS-L group (P<0.05). In summary, feeding low RFI fattening cattle can improve feed efficiency and NDF apparent digestibility, it has characteristics of better serum glucose (GLU) utilization efficiency and lipid mobilization degree, and the serum GLU and FFA contents may be considered as potential auxiliary indicators for RFI selection. The apparent digestibility of DM, CP, NDF and ADF of Holstein dairy bulls is lower than that of Simmental bulls. Under these experimental conditions, the Simmental bulls with low RFI exhibit superior fattening performance.

Key words： residual feed intake; Simmental bulls; Holstein dairy bulls; growth performance; biochemical; hormone

Cite this article

DONG Jiahao , ZHENG Yan , CUI Jiale , LIN Xiaoqian , WANG Lixin , WU Chunhui , WANG Mingya , MA Yabin , LI Yingchao , LI Suxia , LI Qiufeng . Effects of Residual Feed Intake on Growth Performance, Apparent Nutrient Digestibility and Serum Biochemical and Hormone Parameters of Different Breeds of Finishing Cattle[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2026 , 38(4) : 2698 -2708 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2026.217

育肥牛生长性能和肉品质受环境、饲粮营养水平以及遗传特性等方面的影响[1]。目前,提升育肥牛生长性能、改善肉品质的研究大多聚焦于饲粮营养水平的改进和新型绿色添加剂的研发,使得肉牛育肥饲料成本有所上升[2]。研究表明,相同饲喂环境和饲粮营养水平下,遗传特性起主导作用,品种对育肥牛生长性能和肉品质所产生的影响最为显著[3]。相较于西杂牛和宣汉黄牛,犏牛的肉在氨基酸组成方面更为优秀,且风味物质含量更高[4]。在生长速度和育肥成效方面,西门塔尔牛和云岭牛比安格斯牛和日本和牛更为优异,且具备显著的品种优势[5]。安格斯牛在生长速度和育肥成效上也显著优于日本和牛[6]。
河北省肉牛育肥品种主要有西门塔尔牛和荷斯坦牛。西门塔尔牛作为肉乳兼用型品种,增重速度快、肌肉沉积能力强、耐粗饲,是良好的育肥牛品种[7]。荷斯坦牛作为典型的乳用品种,生长速度中等、饲料转化率较高,其公牛犊和淘汰母牛常被用于肉牛生产。据调查,河北省部分肉牛屠宰厂的待宰牛中有50%是育肥后的荷斯坦奶公牛[8]。由于饲养模式粗放,科学饲养技术匮乏,饲料效率低下,使得西门塔尔牛和荷斯坦牛无法发挥其本身的生长性能,造成育肥牛养殖效率和经济效益均处于较低水平[9]。尤其是荷斯坦奶公牛大多是按肉牛的养殖方式来进行育肥饲养,缺乏特有的饲养方式和技术,育肥性能相对较差[10]。目前,针对西门塔尔公牛和荷斯坦奶公牛育肥差异的研究较少。
剩余采食量(residual feed intake,RFI)为在特定时间段内,家畜个体的实际采食量和依据相关预测模型得出的采食量之间的差值,RFI越低,动物饲料利用效率越高[11-12]。料重比(F/G)和增重饲料比(G/F)是最初反映饲料利用效率的指标,但在实际生产中,如果出现平均日增重(ADG)负增长或等比值的家畜个体,以上2种指标就不能真实地反映家畜个体的饲料利用效率,但RFI不会受此影响[13]。研究显示,低RFI饲养可提高反刍动物饲料利用效率[14-16],不仅能够削减饲养成本,从长远来看,还能带来可观的经济效益。当前,针对西门塔尔公牛和荷斯坦奶公牛RFI的相关研究较少。因此,本试验通过研究RFI对不同品种育肥牛生长性能、营养物质表观消化率及血清生化和激素指标的影响,以探究其差异,为育肥牛生产、选育饲料效率较高的个体提供参考依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验动物及饲养管理

本试验所涉及的全部动物程序已经河北农业大学动物保健委员会批准(批准号:JGL202102)。选择体重相近的健康西门塔尔公牛和荷斯坦奶公牛各12头,单栏饲养。采用统一标准化饲养管理,基础饲粮组成及营养水平见表1,每日06:00和16:00各饲喂1次,保证自由采食和饮水,并提供活动空间。定期清理消毒牛舍,维持环境卫生。
表1 基础饲粮组成及营养水平(干物质基础)

Table 1 Composition and nutrient levels of the basal diet (DM basis) %

项目Items 含量Content
原料Ingredients
全株玉米青贮Whole corn silage 35.56
干草Hay 12.93
玉米Corn 27.78
豆粕Soybean meal 6.06
棉籽粕Cottonseed meal 4.95
麸皮Bran 3.64
干酒糟及其可溶物DDGS 5.05
食盐NaCl 0.50
石粉Limestone 0.51
小苏打NaHCO3 1.00
氧化镁MgO 0.51
碳酸氢钙Ca(HCO3)2 0.51
预混料Premix1) 1.00
合计Total 100.00
营养水平Nutrient levels2)
综合净能NEmf/(MJ/kg) 7.31
粗蛋白质CP 11.91
中性洗涤纤维NDF 36.31
酸洗洗涤纤维ADF 21.72
钙Ca 0.64
磷P 0.37

1)预混料为每千克饲粮提供 The premix provided the following per kilogram of the diet: VA 90 000 IU,VD3 95 000 IU,VE 1 000 IU,Fe 50 mg,Mn 170 mg,Cu 24 mg,Co 15 mg,Se 11 mg,I 25 mg。
2)综合净能为计算值[17],其余营养水平为实测值。NEmf was a calculated value[17], while the other nutrient levels were measured values.

1.2 试验设计

根据品种和RFI采用2×2两因素完全随机设计,分为4组,西门塔尔公牛低剩余采食量组(XM-L组)、西门塔尔公牛高剩余采食量组(XM-H组)、荷斯坦奶公牛低剩余采食量组(HS-L组)、荷斯坦奶公牛高剩余采食量组(HS-H组),每组6头。预试期7 d,正试期136 d。
分别在正式试验初期(620~670 kg阶段)和末期(780~830 kg阶段)晨饲前,将试验牛引导至地磅(精确度:0.5 kg)上稳定站立后称重并记录,计算ADG。试验开始时,每日使用电子台秤(精确度:0.01 kg)记录每头试验牛的投料量和剩料量,计算采食量,结合饲粮干物质(DM)含量测定结果,计算干物质采食量(DMI)。在试验结束后计算RFI,选取Koch等[18]在研究肉牛的饲料利用效率时提出来的模型计算RFI:
DMI=β0+β1×MBW+β2×ADG+RFI。
式中:DMI、MBW、ADG分别为试验牛的干物质采食量、中期代谢体重、平均日增重;β1、β2分别为中期代谢体重、平均日增重的回归系数;β0为线性回归方程截距。
依据RFI的数值高低,将每个品种RFI值最大的6头试验牛记为高RFI,RFI值最小的6头试验牛记为低RFI。

1.3 样品采集与处理

试验初期和末期,于晨饲前采集空腹状态下的颈静脉血液10 mL,放置促凝管内,静置60 min后,1 644×g离心15 min,抽取1.5 mL上清液,移入1.5 mL离心管,在-20 ℃的条件下冷冻留存,以待后续使用。在试验开始和结束的前3 d,连续采集粪便,每头试验牛取1 kg,将其分为2份,一份样品用于水分含量测定,并制备风干样品;另一份样品经每100 g粪便加20 mL 10%硫酸处理后,用于测定粗蛋白质(CP)含量,将所有粪样放入-20 ℃冰箱保存。

1.4 指标测定方法

1.4.1 营养物质表观消化率的测定

选用盐酸不溶灰分(AIA)作为内源指示物质,计算营养物质表现消化率,计算公式如下所示[19]。
某营养物质表观消化率(%)=[(a/c-b/d)/(a/c)]×100。
式中:a为饲粮中该营养物质含量(%);b为粪中该营养物质含量(%);c为饲粮中AIA含量(%);d为粪中AIA含量(%)。
饲粮和粪样中的中性洗涤纤维(NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)、粗脂肪(EE)、DM、CP及AIA含量分别参照GB/T 20806—2006[20]、NY/T 1459—2007[21]、GB/T 6433—2006[22]、GB/T 6435—2014[23]、GB/T 6432—2018[24]及GB/T 23742—2009[25]的方法进行测定。

1.4.2 血清生化和激素指标的测定

采用南京建成生物工程研究所生产的试剂盒,通过微孔板法检测血清中葡萄糖(GLU)、甘油三酯(TG)、总胆固醇(TC)和总蛋白(TP)含量;通过脲酶法测定血清中尿素氮(UN)含量。采用江苏酶免实业有限公司酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)试剂盒,检测血清中游离脂肪酸(FFA)、胰岛素(INS)、瘦素(LEP)、胆囊收缩素(CCK)和促肾上腺皮质激素(ACTH)含量,使用仪器为多功能酶标仪(SuPerMax 3100型,上海闪谱生物科技有限公司)。

1.5 数据统计与分析

数据经Excel 2021预处理,采用SPSS 27.0软件进行单因素方差分析,并采用Duncan氏法进行多重比较;采用一般线性模型多因素方差分析,统计模型包括品种、RFI及品种×RFI。P<0.05为差异显著,P>0.05为差异不显著。

2 结果

2.1 RFI对不同品种育肥牛生长性能的影响

由表2可知,XM-L组和HS-L组的DMI、RFI显著低于XM-H组和HS-H组(P<0.05),各组之间的其他生长性能差异不显著(P>0.05)。RFI对育肥牛DMI、RFI有显著影响(P<0.05),品种、RFI及二者互作对其他生长性能均无显著影响(P>0.05)。
表2 RFI对不同品种育肥牛生长性能的影响

Table 2 Effects of RFI on growth performance of different breeds of finishing cattle

项目
Items		 组别Groups 主效应分析Main effect analysis P值P-value
XM-L XM-H HS-L HS-H Breed RFI Breed RFI Breed×
RFI
XM HS L H
初重IW/kg 657.00±26.26 644.50±50.16 636.50±35.75 630.00±37.63 650.75±37.66 633.25±34.16 646.75±31.04 637.25±41.77 0.380 0.630 0.878
末重FW/kg 813.50±64.13 806.50±37.71 800.00±41.98 779.50±35.27 810.00±48.85 789.75±37.53 806.75±50.70 793.00±36.75 0.398 0.563 0.775
中期代谢体重
MBW/kg		 141.16±6.41 139.76±6.26 138.71±5.49 136.76±4.86 140.46±5.91 137.74±4.91 139.94±5.68 138.26±5.43 0.366 0.573 0.926
干物质采食量
DMI/(kg/d)		 12.71±1.20b 14.61±0.62a 12.70±0.70b 14.96±0.32a 13.66±1.35 13.83±1.31 12.71±0.91b 14.78±0.49a 0.667 <0.001 0.649
平均日增重
ADG/(kg/d)		 1.15±0.31 1.19±0.12 1.20±0.14 1.10±0.22 1.17±0.22 1.15±0.18 1.18±0.22 1.15±0.17 0.853 0.781 0.520
料重比F/G 11.57±2.72 12.39±1.70 10.62±0.72 13.97±2.44 11.98±2.15 12.30±2.44 11.10±1.91 13.18±2.12 0.763 0.065 0.242
剩余采食量RFI/kg -1.11±0.98b 0.74±0.75a -1.12±0.64b 1.19±0.25a -0.18±1.28 0.04±1.31 -1.11±0.77b 0.97±0.57a 0.540 <0.001 0.522

Breed:品种;XM:西门塔尔公牛;HS:荷斯坦奶公牛;RFI:剩余采食量;L:低;H:高。同行数据肩标不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05),相同或无字母表示差异不显著(P>0.05)。下表同。

Breed: breed; XM: Simmental bulls; HS: Holstein dairy bulls; RFI: residual feed intake; L: low; H: high. In the same row, values with different small letter superscripts mean significant difference (P<0.05), while with the same or no letter superscripts mean no significant difference (P>0.05). The same as below.

2.2 RFI对不同品种育肥牛营养物质表观消化率的影响

由表3可知,620~670 kg阶段,HS-L组和HS-H组的DM、NDF、ADF表观消化率显著低于XM-L组和XM-H组(P<0.05)。780~830 kg阶段,HS-L组和HS-H组的DM、CP、NDF、ADF表观消化率显著低于XM-L组和XM-H组(P<0.05),且HS-H组的CP、NDF表观消化率显著低于HS-L组(P<0.05)。620~670 kg和780~830 kg阶段,各组其他营养物质表观消化率均无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表3 RFI对不同品种育肥牛营养物质表观消化率的影响

Table 3 Effects of RFI on nutrient apparent digestibility of different breeds of finishing cattle %

项目
Items		 体重阶段
Weight
stages/kg		 组别Groups 主效应分析Main effect analysis P值P-value
XM-L XM-H HS-L HS-H Breed RFI Breed RFI Breed×
RFI
XM HS L H

干物质
DM		 620~670 62.83±9.28a 60.98±8.35a 54.96±8.88b 48.79±6.63b 61.91±8.74a 51.87±8.13b 58.89±9.83 54.88±9.60 0.009 0.261 0.541
780~830 67.99±3.08a 66.15±5.58a 56.17±4.66b 52.59±3.91b 67.07±4.40a 54.38±4.51b 62.08±7.23 59.37±8.44 <0.001 0.146 0.653

粗蛋白质
CP		 620~670 76.12±6.68 75.16±4.22 68.12±5.18 70.02±8.80 75.64±5.35a 69.07±6.96b 72.12±7.06 72.59±7.11 0.022 0.861 0.594
780~830 81.97±1.91a 81.12±3.52a 73.48±1.36b 70.42±2.29c 81.55±2.74a 71.95±2.40b 77.73±4.70 75.77±6.26 <0.001 0.061 0.273

粗脂肪
EE		 620~670 97.71±1.29 97.74±1.52 92.74±4.05 95.28±5.97 97.72±1.34a 94.01±5.04b 95.23±3.87 96.51±4.35 0.025 0.412 0.420
780~830 94.22±1.09 94.29±1.88 95.60±1.52 94.93±3.19 94.26±1.46 95.27±2.41 94.91±1.45 94.61±2.52 0.247 0.732 0.667

中性洗涤纤维
NDF		 620~670 55.11±2.22a 56.15±2.91a 47.61±7.68b 45.68±6.72b 55.63±2.52a 46.64±6.95b 51.36±6.66 50.91±7.37 <0.001 0.843 0.510
780~830 61.27±1.61a 59.66±1.67a 56.23±2.55b 51.08±4.01c 60.46±1.78a 53.65±4.18b 58.75±3.32a 55.37±5.36b <0.001 0.005 0.115

酸性洗涤纤维
ADF		 620~670 43.51±2.51a 42.81±3.03a 38.58±4.14b 38.40±2.80b 43.16±2.68a 38.49±3.37b 41.05±4.16 40.61±3.61 0.002 0.739 0.845
780~830 49.31±3.07a 47.94±2.86a 43.39±4.18b 41.25±2.97b 48.63±2.92a 42.32±3.63b 46.35±4.67 44.60±4.46 <0.001 0.209 0.779
由表3可知,620~670 kg阶段,品种对育肥牛DM、CP、EE、NDF、ADF表观消化率有显著影响(P<0.05)。780~830 kg阶段,品种对育肥牛DM、CP、NDF、ADF表观消化率有显著影响(P<0.05),RFI对育肥牛NDF表观消化率有显著影响(P<0.05)。620~670 kg和780~830 kg阶段,品种、RFI及二者互作对其他营养物质表观消化率均无显著影响(P>0.05)。

2.3 RFI对不同品种育肥牛血清生化指标的影响

由表4可知,780~830 kg阶段,XM-L组和XM-H组的血清GLU含量显著低于HS-L组和HS-H组(P<0.05),且HS-L组的血清GLU含量显著低于HS-H组(P<0.05)。XM-H组和HS-H组的血清FFA含量显著低于XM-L组和HS-L组(P<0.05)。620~670 kg和780~830 kg阶段,各组其他血清生化指标均无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表4 RFI对不同品种育肥牛血清生化指标的影响

Table 4 Effects of RFI on serum biochemical parameters of different breeds of finishing cattle

项目
Items		 体重阶段
Weight
stages/kg		 组别Groups 主效应分析Main effect analysis P值P-value
XM-L XM-H HS-L HS-H Breed RFI Breed RFI Breed×
RFI
XM HS L H

葡萄糖
GLU/(mmol/L)		 620~670 3.97±0.47 4.04±0.49 4.20±0.46 4.72±0.66 4.01±0.45 4.46±0.60 4.08±0.45 4.38±0.65 0.074 0.221 0.344
780~830 2.53±0.24c 2.64±0.25c 2.94±0.08b 3.27±0.24a 2.58±0.24b 3.10±0.24a 2.73±0.27b 2.95±0.41a <0.001 0.035 0.248

甘油三酯
TG/(mmol/L)		 620~670 0.33±0.03 0.35±0.03 0.33±0.03 0.34±0.02 0.34±0.03 0.34±0.02 0.33±0.02 0.35±0.03 0.802 0.221 0.933
780~830 0.36±0.04 0.39±0.09 0.35±0.02 0.38±0.06 0.37±0.07 0.36±0.04 0.35±0.03 0.39±0.07 0.676 0.220 0.970

总胆固醇
TC/(mmol/L)		 620~670 2.93±0.83 2.86±0.73 3.17±0.70 3.52±1.11 2.89±0.74 3.34±0.89 3.05±0.73 3.19±0.95 0.254 0.716 0.585
780~830 2.87±1.11 2.90±0.49 3.29±1.08 3.24±0.82 2.89±0.81 3.26±0.90 3.08±1.05 3.07±0.66 0.367 0.986 0.925

游离脂肪酸
FFA/(mmol/L)		 620~670 0.43±0.07 0.41±0.07 0.46±0.08 0.40±0.05 0.42±0.07 0.43±0.07 0.45±0.07 0.40±0.06 0.775 0.183 0.590
780~830 0.38±0.04a 0.33±0.04b 0.37±0.04a 0.30±0.02b 0.36±0.05 0.34±0.05 0.38±0.04a 0.32±0.03b 0.348 0.001 0.721

总蛋白
TP/(g/L)		 620~670 88.67±6.24 85.79±7.77 83.07±8.29 84.31±6.71 87.23±6.81 83.69±7.14 85.87±7.52 85.05±6.89 0.294 0.805 0.536
780~830 95.80±3.81 92.86±3.12 93.86±1.75 91.99±3.57 94.33±3.63 92.93±2.83 94.83±2.97 92.43±3.19 0.335 0.108 0.713

尿素氮
UN/(mmol/L)		 620~670 6.14±0.62 6.16±0.59 6.58±1.05 6.36±0.91 6.15±0.57 6.47±0.93 6.36±0.85 6.26±0.73 0.390 0.800 0.750
780~830 6.83±0.31 6.70±0.59 6.91±0.95 7.02±0.53 6.77±0.45 6.97±0.73 6.87±0.67 6.86±0.56 0.497 0.975 0.678
由表4可知,780~830 kg阶段,品种对育肥牛血清GLU含量有显著影响(P<0.05),RFI对育肥牛血清GLU、FFA含量有显著影响(P<0.05)。620~670 kg和780~830 kg阶段,品种、RFI及二者互作对其他血清生化指标均无显著影响(P>0.05)。

2.4 RFI对不同品种育肥牛血清激素指标的影响

由表5可知,780~830 kg阶段,XM-L组和XM-H组的血清INS含量显著低于HS-L组和HS-H组(P<0.05)。XM-H组和HS-H组的血清LEP含量显著低于XM-L组和HS-L组(P<0.05)。620~670 kg和780~830 kg阶段,各组其他血清激素指标均无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表5 RFI对不同品种育肥牛血清激素指标的影响

Table 5 Effects of RFI on serum hormone parameters of different breeds of finishing cattle

项目
Items		 体重阶段
Weight
stages/kg		 组别Groups 主效应分析Main effect analysis P值P-value
XM-L XM-H HS-L HS-H Breed RFI Breed RFI Bred×
RFI
XM HS L H

胰岛素
INS/(mIU/L)		 620~670 25.22±1.36 26.15±1.13 26.57±1.29 26.83±1.13 25.69±1.28 26.70±1.15 25.89±1.44 26.49±1.12 0.085 0.295 0.545
780~830 23.61±0.94b 23.90±0.55b 25.29±0.97a 25.52±1.30a 23.76±0.75b 25.41±1.09a 24.45±1.27 24.71±1.27 0.002 0.566 0.935

瘦素
LEP/(μg/L)		 620~670 11.06±1.02 10.55±0.71 11.08±0.57 10.45±0.70 10.81±0.87 10.77±0.69 11.07±0.78 10.50±0.67 0.913 0.116 0.863
780~830 10.21±0.45a 9.51±0.50b 10.18±0.54a 9.32±0.40b 9.86±0.58 9.75±0.63 10.20±0.46a 9.42±0.44b 0.606 0.002 0.699

胆囊收缩素
CCK/(ng/mL)		 620~670 0.26±0.03 0.24±0.04 0.25±0.02 0.23±0.03 0.25±0.03 0.24±0.03 0.25±0.03 0.24±0.03 0.564 0.203 0.885
780~830 0.21±0.03 0.21±0.04 0.23±0.02 0.21±0.02 0.21±0.03 0.22±0.02 0.22±0.02 0.21±0.03 0.700 0.400 0.490

促肾上腺皮质激素
ACTH/(pg/mL)		 620~670 51.87±1.25 52.78±1.25 51.47±2.05 52.06±1.38 52.33±1.27 51.76±1.67 51.67±1.61 52.42±1.30 0.420 0.290 0.815
780~830 57.19±1.61 57.25±2.12 56.54±1.04 57.21±1.56 57.22±1.77 56.88±1.30 56.87±1.32 57.23±1.75 0.640 0.622 0.680
由表5可知,780~830 kg阶段,品种对育肥牛血清INS含量有显著影响(P<0.05),RFI对育肥牛血清LEP含量有显著影响(P<0.05)。620~670 kg和780~830 kg阶段,品种、RFI及二者互作对其他血清激素指标均无显著影响(P>0.05)。

3 讨论

3.1 RFI对不同品种育肥牛生长性能的影响

生长性能是衡量育肥牛生长速度的重要依据,与其经济效益有直接关联。西门塔尔牛是一种原产于瑞士的大型肉乳兼用牛种,因其育肥性能优异、适应性强而广受欢迎,其生长快、饲料转化率低、耐粗饲,适合规模化育肥。而荷斯坦牛育肥是利用乳用品种荷斯坦公牛进行肉牛育肥的一种方式,其肉用性能相对专用肉牛品种稍逊,但仍具有一定的育肥价值,特别是可以充分利用奶公犊牛资源,降低生产成本。本试验中,各试验组育肥牛ADG均达到1.0~1.2 kg/d,符合育肥标准;与荷斯坦奶公牛相比,西门塔尔公牛的DMI、F/G和ADG在数值上略有变化,但未达显著水平,这可能归因于在试验过程中样本规模较小及所处的发育阶段不同等原因造成的,说明西门塔尔公牛更有生产潜力。研究发现,低RFI饲养可以提高反刍动物ADG[26]、G/F[27],降低DMI[26-28]、F/G[28]。本试验中,RFI对DMI具有显著影响,低RFI育肥牛相比高RFI育肥牛的DMI降低,XM-L组和HS-L组的DMI显著低于XM-H组和HS-H组。此外,低RFI育肥牛相比高RFI育肥牛的F/G略降低,ADG略升高,但差异不显著。本试验结果表明,在初始体重相近的条件下,低RFI育肥牛相比高RFI育肥牛DMI显著降低了14.01%,F/G和ADG在数值上也分别略有降低和升高,但未达显著水平,说明饲养低RFI育肥牛相比高RFI育肥牛可以降低饲料用量,提高饲料效率,加快生长速度,以上结果与前人的试验结果相似。Jensen等[29]和Hoque等[30]研究表明,RFI拥有较高遗传性,可稳定地在后代中遗传下来。因此,选育低RFI育肥牛可以减少生产成本,提高饲料效率,带来长期经济效益。

3.2 RFI对不同品种育肥牛营养物质表观消化率的影响

营养物质表观消化率是评估动物对饲粮营养利用效率的关键指标,能直观反映动物的营养利用情况。本试验中,620~670 kg阶段,育肥牛品种对DM、CP、NDF、ADF、EE表观消化率有显著影响;780~830 kg阶段,品种对DM、CP、NDF、ADF表观消化率有显著影响;620~670 kg和780~830 kg阶段,西门塔尔公牛的DM、CP、NDF、ADF表观消化率高于荷斯坦奶公牛,表明西门塔尔公牛较荷斯坦奶公牛对营养物质吸收效率更高。这可能归因于西门塔尔公牛主要用于育肥,生长阶段对营养需求旺盛,能高效利用营养物质满足肌肉快速生长,而荷斯坦奶公牛是乳用牛副产品[31],生长目的并非快速育肥,其营养需求和利用机制与西门塔尔公牛不同,导致营养物质表观消化率较低。
育肥牛对饲粮的利用效率以及生长性能,很大程度上取决于NDF表观消化率的高低。当NDF表观消化率较高时,意味着对分解、利用饲粮纤维的能力更强,使得育肥牛能够获取更多能量,并促进其他营养物质的吸收[32]。本试验中,780~830 kg阶段,RFI对NDF表观消化率有显著影响,低RFI育肥牛相比高RFI育肥牛的NDF表观消化率升高,这与Potts等[33]试验结果一致,表明低RFI育肥牛可以更好地利用、分解饲粮纤维。其他营养物质表观消化率也出现类似现象,但差异不显著。本试验中,HS-L组的CP、NDF表观消化率显著高于HS-H组,XM-L组和XM-H组也出现类似结果,但差异不显著,这可能归因于育肥牛品种差异,导致RFI影响程度不同。但综合来看,低RFI育肥牛的营养物质表观消化率更高[34-35],其原因可能在于它们在自由采食状态下DMI较低,造成消化物经过瘤胃的速率变缓,从而能得到更充分的消化与吸收。

3.3 RFI对不同品种育肥牛血清生化指标的影响

血清生化指标与营养物质的消化、吸收关联紧密,能够直观地呈现出动物机体的生理情形与健康态势。本试验中,780~830 kg阶段,品种对育肥牛血清GLU含量有显著影响,西门塔尔公牛相比荷斯坦奶公牛的血清GLU含量降低;RFI对育肥牛血清GLU含量有显著影响,低RFI育肥牛的血清GLU含量低于高RFI育肥牛,HS-L组的血清GLU含量显著低于HS-H组。出现上述情况的原因可能是血清GLU是关键供能物质,是维持器官运转、保障动物生长的必要要素。当动物对能量的需求上升,为满足机体对能量的急切需求,血清GLU含量会随之降低[36]。结合营养物质表观消化率数据可知,西门塔尔公牛和低RFI育肥牛的身体组织和器官能有效吸收血清中的GLU满足能量需求,从而提高营养物质表观消化率,由此推断出西门塔尔公牛和低RFI育肥牛体内的组织和器官可以更高效利用血清GLU所产生的能量,且相同饲养条件下,维持能量更低。本试验中,RFI对育肥牛血清FFA含量有显著影响,低RFI育肥牛相比高RFI育肥牛的血清FFA含量升高,XM-L组和HS-L组的血清FFA含量显著高于XM-H组和HS-H组。这或许是因为血清FFA含量反映动物在能量匮乏时脂质的调动程度[37],由于低RFI育肥牛DMI较低,为满足自身能量需求,脂质分解活动增强,血清FFA含量就会升高。

3.4 RFI对不同品种育肥牛血清激素指标的影响

作为机体内重要的内分泌激素,血清激素不仅参与多种代谢活动,还能调控机体生长发育,并反映个体的发育状况[38]。动物血清INS可以调节GLU代谢,当分泌不足时会引起代谢紊乱、免疫系统异常等问题[39]。本试验中,各阶段各组血清INS含量均在20~30 mIU/L,属于正常范围,说明各组试验牛较为健康。本试验中,780~830 kg阶段,品种对育肥牛血清INS含量有显著影响,西门塔尔公牛相比荷斯坦奶公牛的血清INS含量降低。血清INS的分泌受GLU含量的调节,结合血清GLU含量数据趋势来看,其原因可能是当血清GLU含量降低时,血清INS含量也会相应减少,以此推动GLU含量回升,进而让GLU得以维持在正常范围。血清LEP是脂肪细胞分泌的一类激素,它能够经由对能量代谢的调控方式,维持体重稳定[40]。本试验中,RFI对育肥牛血清LEP含量有显著影响,低RFI育肥牛相比高RFI育肥牛的血清LEP含量升高,XM-L组和HS-L组的血清LEP含量显著高于XM-H组和HS-H组。李伟等[41]研究认为,低RFI肉牛的血清LEP含量更高,与本试验结果一致。结合血清FFA含量数据趋势来看,其原因可能是当DMI降低时,血清LEP分泌会增加,促进脂质分解,增加能量消耗[41],进而产生更多的血清FFA,且含量并未导致动物产生疾病。

4 结论

饲养低RFI育肥牛可以提高饲料效率和NDF表观消化率,具有对血清GLU能量利用率较好、脂质调动程度较高的特性,血清GLU、FFA含量可以考虑作为RFI选择的辅助指标。荷斯坦奶公牛DM、CP、NDF、ADF表观消化率低于西门塔尔公牛,且RFI对荷斯坦奶公牛营养物质表观消化率的影响相较于西门塔尔公牛更大。本试验条件下,低RFI西门塔尔公牛具有更优的育肥性能。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
孔玉霞, 陈功哲. 影响肉牛生产性能的因素及改良措施[J]. 广东蚕业, 2022, 56(4):57-59.

KONG Y X, CHEN G Z. Factors affecting the production performance of beef cattle and improvement measures[J]. Guangdong Canye, 2022, 56(4):57-59. (in Chinese)

[2]
杨英超, 昝林森. 非常规饲料在反刍动物生产中的应用进展[J]. 中国牛业科学, 2020, 46(1):26-30,37.

YANG Y C, ZAN L S. Application progress of unconventional feed in ruminant production[J]. China Cattle Science, 2020, 46(1):26-30,37. (in Chinese)

[3]
付守志, 白凤辉. 肉牛生产性能的影响因素及提高措施[J]. 现代畜牧科技, 2022(2):42-43.

FU S Z, BAI F H. Influencing factors and improvement measures of beef cattle production performance[J]. Modern Animal Husbandry Science & Technology, 2022(2):42-43. (in Chinese)

[4]
王泳杰. 相同饲养条件下不同品种(系)肉牛产肉性能及肉品质差异的研究[D]. 硕士学位论文. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2018.

WANG Y J. A comparative study on meat performance,meat quality of beef cattle of different breeds under the same feeding conditions[D]. Master’s Thesis. Ya’an: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2018. (in Chinese)

[5]
孙峰, 宋金海, 李建昌, 等. 云南省元江县不同肉牛品种育肥性能评价[J]. 养殖与饲料, 2022, 21(10):31-34.

SUN F, SONG J H, LI J C, et al. Evaluation of fattening performance of different beef cattle breeds in Yuanjiang county,Yunnan Province[J]. Animals Breeding and Feed, 2022, 21(10):31-34. (in Chinese)

[6]
徐迎春, 高树新, 呼格吉勒图, 等. 不同品种肉牛生长发育、育肥性能比较[J]. 畜牧兽医科学(电子版), 2019(9):1-2.

XU Y C, GAO S X, HUGEJILETU, et al. Comparison of growth,development and fattening performance of beef cattle of different breeds[J]. Graziery Veterinary Sciences (Electronic Version), 2019(9):1-2. (in Chinese)

[7]
ALBERTÍ P, PANEA B, SAÑUDO C, et al. Live weight,body size and carcass characteristics of young bulls of fifteen European breeds[J]. Livestock Science, 2008, 114(1):19-30.

DOI

[8]
薛永杰. 河北省肉牛产业竞争力研究[D]. 博士学位论文. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2021.

XUE Y J. Research on the competitiveness of beef cattle industry in Hebei Province[D]. Ph.D.Thesis. Baoding: Hebei Agricultural University, 2021. (in Chinese)

[9]
马长海, 赵慧峰, 王秀芳, 等. 2018年河北省肉牛产业发展报告[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2020.

MA C H, ZHAO H F, WANG X F, et al. Development report on the beef cattle industry in Hebei Province in 2018[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2020. (in Chinese)

[10]
WOLF C A, KARSZES J. Financial risk and resiliency on US dairy farms:measures,thresholds,and management implications[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2023, 106(5):3301-3311.

DOI

[11]
HERD R M, ARTHUR P F. Physiological basis for residual feed intake[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2009, 87(S14):E64-E71.

[12]
ARTHUR J P F, HERD R M. Residual feed intake in beef cattle[J]. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 2008, 37:269-279.

DOI

[13]
ONAN G, HUTU I, RADUNZ A. Residual feed intake as a measure of feed efficiency[J]. Lucrări ştiintifice Medicină Veterinară, 2016, 49(1):154-162.

[14]
ANDREINI E M, AUGENSTEIN S M, FALES C S, et al. Effects of feeding level on efficiency of high- and low-residual feed intake beef steers[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 98(10):skaa286.

[15]
SPRINKLE J E, TAYLOR J B, CLARK P E, et al. Grazing behavior and production characteristics among cows differing in residual feed intake while grazing late season Idaho rangeland[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 98(1):skz371.

[16]
HOLLÓ G, NAGY-KISZLINGER H, TOSSENBERGER J, et al. Individual feed efficiency monitoring of Charolaise candidate young bulls in relation to feeding behavior and self-performance test results[J]. Animals, 2022, 12(1):35.

DOI

[17]
中华人民共和国农业部. 肉牛饲养标准:NY/T 815—2004[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2004.

Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China. Feeding standard of beef cattle:NY/T 815—2004[S]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2004. (in Chinese)

[18]
KOCH R M, SWIGER L A, CHAMBERS D, et al. Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1963, 22(2):486-494.

DOI

[19]
VAN KEULEN J, YOUNG B A. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1977, 44(2):282-287.

DOI

[20]
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. 饲料中中性洗涤纤维(NDF)的测定:GB/T 20806—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,National Standardization Administration. Determination of neutral detergent fiber in feedstuffs:GB/T 20806—2006[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2006. (in Chinese)

[21]
中华人民共和国农业部. 饲料中酸性洗涤纤维的测定:NY/T 1459—2007[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2007.

Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China. Determination of acid detergent fiber in feedstuff:NY/T 1459—2007[S]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2007. (in Chinese)

[22]
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,National Standardization Administration. Determination of crude fat in feeds:GB/T 6433—2006[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2006. (in Chinese)

[23]
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, 2014.

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

[24]
中华人民共和国国家市场监督管理总局,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.

State Administration for Market Regulation,National Standardization Administration. Determination of crude protein in feeds—Kjeldahl method:GB/T 6432—2018[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2018. (in Chinese)

[25]
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. 饲料中盐酸不溶灰分的测定:GB/T 23742—2009[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2009.

General Administration of Quality Supervision,Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China,National Standardization Administration. Animal feeding stuffs-determination of ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid:GB/T 23742—2009[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2009. (in Chinese)

[26]
唐红玉. 剩余采食量对绵羊生长性能、胴体特性及肉品质的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2023.

TANG H Y. Effect of residual feed intake on sheep growth performance,carcass traits and meat quality[D]. Master’s Thesis. Yangling: Northwest A&F University, 2023. (in Chinese)

[27]
梁玉生. 不同剩余采食量育肥湖羊的生长性能与瘤胃功能差异研究[D]. 硕士学位论文. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2017.

LIANG Y S. Study on growth performance and rumen function in finishing Hu lambs with different residual feed intakes[D]. Master’s Thesis. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2017. (in Chinese)

[28]
王子庭, 张志军, 王许, 等. 不同剩余采食量对德新肉用细毛羊生长性能、血清生化指标、肝脏及十二指肠黏膜抗氧化能力的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2024, 36(10):6549-6559.

DOI

WANG Z T, ZHANG Z J, WANG X, et al. Effects of different residual feed intake on growth performance,serum biochemical indexes,and antioxidant indexes in live and duodenal mucosa of Dexin meat-type fine wool sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024, 36(10):6549-6559. (in Chinese)

[29]
JENSEN J, HOHENBOKEN W D, MADSEN P, et al. Sire×nutrition interactions and genetic parameters for energy intake,production and efficiency of nutrient utilization in young bulls,heifers and lactating cows[J]. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A:Animal Science, 1995, 45(2):81-91.

[30]
HOQUE M A, SUZUKI K. Genetics of residual feed intake in cattle and pigs:a review[J]. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2009, 22(5):747-755.

[31]
霍云龙. 荷斯坦奶公牛饲养管理技术介绍[J]. 新农业, 2017(18):36-37.

HUO Y L. Introduction to the feeding and management techniques of Holstein dairy bulls[J]. Modern Agriculture, 2017(18):36-37. (in Chinese)

[32]
马宗亮, 张怀, 达富兰, 等. 不同淀粉/中性洗涤纤维比例饲粮对育肥牦牛生长性能、屠宰性能及肉品质的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2024, 36(5):3094-3105.

DOI

MA Z L, ZHANG H, DA F L, et al. Effects of diets with different starch/neutral detergent fiber ratios on growth performance,carcass performance and meat quality of fattening yaks[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024, 36(5):3094-3105. (in Chinese)

[33]
POTTS S B, BOERMAN J P, LOCK A L, et al. Relationship between residual feed intake and digestibility for lactating Holstein cows fed high and low starch diets[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2017, 100(1):265-278.

DOI PMID

[34]
RIUS A G, KITTELMANN S, MACDONALD K A, et al. Nitrogen metabolism and rumen microbial enumeration in lactating cows with divergent residual feed intake fed high-digestibility pasture[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2012, 95(9):5024-5034.

DOI PMID

[35]
LIU E, VANDEHAAR M J. Relationship of residual feed intake and protein efficiency in lactating cows fed high- or low-protein diets[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2020, 103(4):3177-3190.

DOI PMID

[36]
MOALLEM U, ROZOV A, GOOTWINE E, et al. Plasma concentrations of key metabolites and insulin in late-pregnant ewes carrying 1 to 5 fetuses[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2012, 90(1):318-324.

DOI PMID

[37]
KALYESUBULA M, MOPURI R, ASIKU J, et al. High-dose vitamin B1 therapy prevents the development of experimental fatty liver driven by overnutrition[J]. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 2021, 14(3):dmm048355.

[38]
WILLIAMS C L, GARCIA-REYERO N, MARTYNIUK C J, et al. Regulation of endocrine systems by the microbiome:perspectives from comparative animal models[J]. General and Comparative Endocrinology, 2020, 292:113437.

DOI

[39]
RAHMAN M S, HOSSAIN K S, DAS S, et al. Role of insulin in health and disease:an update[J]. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2021, 22(12):6403.

DOI

[40]
HALL J E, DO CARMO J M, DA SILVA A A, et al. Obesity,kidney dysfunction and hypertension:mechanistic links[J]. Nature Reviews Nephrology, 2019, 15(6):367-385.

DOI

[41]
李伟, 李想, 叶柏平, 等. 肥育安格斯阉牛血清瘦素与剩余采食量、生长性能和脂代谢指标的表型关系[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(11):7260-7269.

DOI

LI W, LI X, YE B P, et al. Phenotypic relationships between serum leptin and residual feed intake,growth performance and lipid metabolism indices of fattening angus steers[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2023, 35(11):7260-7269. (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.