Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2026 , Vol. 38 >Issue 6: 4114 - 4122

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2026.330

RESEARCH PAPER

Study on Differences in Dietary Nutrient Digestion in Different Intestinal Segments of Ningxiang and Baning Pigs

  • JIA Zengqiang , 1, 2 ,
  • FAN Ningyu 1, 2 ,
  • TANG Hui 1, 2 ,
  • ZHANG Yuhong 1, 2 ,
  • YIN Yulong 1, 2, 3 ,
  • LI Rui , 2, * ,
  • XU Kang , 2, 3, *
Expand
  • 1 Key Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Resources (Pig) Evaluation and Utilization, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China
  • 2 Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Nutritional Physiology and Metabolic Process, National Engineering Laboratory for Poultry Breeding Pollution Control and Resource Technology, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changsha 410125, China
  • 3 Yuelushan Laboratory, Changsha 410128, China
* LI Rui, assistant professor, E-mail: ;
XU Kang, associate professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2025-11-14

  Online published: 2026-06-13

Fold

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to study the differences in dietary nutrient digestion in different intestinal segments of Ningxiang and Baning pigs. In experiment 1, each 6 healthy castrated Ningxiang and Baning boars with initial body weights of (45.50±1.20) kg and (43.35±0.30) kg, respectively, were selected and fed the same corn-soybean meal type basal diet with 0.3% titanium dioxide supplementation. The pre-test period was 7 days and the formal test period was 3 days. The digestive energy (DE), metabolic energy (ME) and apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of nutrients in diet were determined by the total fecal and urine collection method. In experiment 2, each 6 healthy castrated Ningxiang and Baning boars with initial body weights of (48.87±0.22) kg and (50.75±1.19) kg, respectively, were equipped with T-shaped fistulas at the end of ileum and the posterior end of cecum and fed the same corn-soybean meal type basal diet in experiment 1. The pre-test period was 5 days and the formal test period was 4 days. The ileal digesta and cecal digesta were collected each for 2 days to determine the apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and apparent cecal digestibility (ACD), respectively. The results showed as follows: 1) the DE and ME of diet in Ningxiang pigs were 15.71 and 15.16 MJ/kg, and those in Baning pigs were 15.64 and 15.19 MJ/kg, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two pig breeds (P>0.05). 2) The AID of dietary gross energy (GE), crude protein (CP) and ether extract (EE) in Ningxiang pigs was extremely significantly higher than that of Baning pigs (P<0.01), and the AID of dietary neutral detergent fiber (NDF) was significantly higher than that of Baning pigs (P<0.05). 3) The ACD of dietary GE in Ningxiang pigs was extremely significantly higher than that of Baning pigs (P<0.01), and the ACD of dietary acid detergent fiber (ADF) was significantly higher than that of Baning pigs (P<0.05). The ACD of dietary EE and crude fiber (CF) in Baning pigs were extremely significantly higher than that of Ningxiang pigs (P<0.01). 4) The ATTD of dietary GE, dry matter, organic matter, CF, NDF and ADF in Ningxiang pigs was significantly or extremely significantly higher than that of Baning pigs (P<0.05 or P<0.01). In conclusion, compared to Baning pigs, Ningxiang pigs demonstrate superior efficiency in the small intestine digestion of dietary GE, CP and EE, as well as in the total tract digestion of dietary fiber.

Key words： Ningxiang pigs; Baning pigs; corn-soybean meal type diet; intestinal segments; apparent digestibility

Cite this article

JIA Zengqiang , FAN Ningyu , TANG Hui , ZHANG Yuhong , YIN Yulong , LI Rui , XU Kang . Study on Differences in Dietary Nutrient Digestion in Different Intestinal Segments of Ningxiang and Baning Pigs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2026 , 38(6) : 4114 -4122 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2026.330

我国本土猪种质资源是畜禽遗传多样性和优质特色猪肉供给的重要战略资源。凭借早熟易肥、肉质细嫩鲜美、耐粗饲和抗逆能力强等特点,宁乡猪作为湖南本土优良猪种,以优质猪肉生产为核心种源,成为区域特色养殖的重要种质资源[1]。与此同时,为提升生产效率,我国持续引入优秀外来猪种进行杂交选育。巴克夏猪以其生长速度快、肉质优良的特点被广泛用作父本,与宁乡猪杂交形成的“巴宁猪”组合,在湖南消费市场展现出显著的开发潜力[2]。然而,目前关于宁乡猪与其杂交后代巴宁猪在相同饲粮条件下的养分消化规律,尤其是在不同肠段(回肠、盲肠及全肠道)的消化特性差异,仍缺乏系统研究。
在畜牧生产领域,玉米-豆粕型饲粮长期占据主导地位,其中玉米作为核心能量原料,通常占饲粮比例达60%以上[3]。近年来,受供应链波动的影响及可持续发展理念的倡导,“玉米-豆粕减量替代”成为行业趋势,这就需要通过精准营养调控提高现有饲料资源的利用效率[4]。养分消化率是评价饲料营养价值和动物代谢效率的关键指标,直接影响生长性能和养殖成本[5]。目前针对养分消化的研究多集中于商业化猪种,对地方猪及其杂交组合在不同肠段(回肠、盲肠及全肠道)的养分消化特性仍缺乏系统了解。尽管有研究表明中国本土猪种可能具备更优的养分利用能力[6-7],但是这些结论多基于其他猪种(如梅山猪),能否直接运用至宁乡猪及其杂交后代尚未明确。针对宁乡猪与巴宁猪,尤其是其在回肠和盲肠等关键消化位点的养分消化规律差异,目前仍缺乏直接的试验证据。因此,本研究通过对比宁乡猪与巴宁猪在相同体重阶段对玉米-豆粕型饲粮的回肠、盲肠及全肠道表观消化率,旨在填补地方猪种及其杂交组合的肠段特异性消化数据空白,为饲料资源的高效利用提供参考。

1 材料与方法

本试验在中国科学院亚热带农业生态研究所完成,所有试验操作均经中国科学院亚热带农业生态研究所动物伦理委员会审查批准,批准编号:IACUC#201302。

1.1 试验材料

试验所用玉米-豆粕型饲粮营养水平满足或超过NRC(2012)[8]推荐量,其组成及营养水平见表1。
表1 玉米-豆粕型饲粮组成及营养水平(饲喂基础)

Table 1 Composition and nutrient levels of the corn-soybean meal type diet (as-fed basis) %

项目 Items 含量 Content
原料 Ingredients
玉米 Corn 70.10
豆粕 Soybean meal 27.20
石粉 Limestone 0.60
磷酸氢钙 CaHPO4 1.00
氯化钠 NaCl 0.30
二氧化钛 TiO2 0.30
预混料 Premix1) 0.50
合计 Total 100.00
营养水平 Nutrient levels2)
总能 GE/(MJ/kg) 16.48
干物质 DM 88.55
粗蛋白质 CP 18.77
粗脂肪 EE 3.65
粗灰分 Ash 6.59
有机物 OM 81.96
粗纤维 CF 4.73
中性洗涤纤维 NDF 13.85
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF 4.11
钙 Ca 0.61
总磷 TP 0.73

1)预混料为每千克饲粮提供 The premix provided the following per kg of the diet:VA 4 200 IU,VD3 400 IU,VE 36 IU,VB1 3.4 mg,VB2 5.63 mg,VB3 28 mg,VB5 20.5 mg,VB6 2.7 mg,VB12 23 μg,VK3 1.2 mg,VH 0.18 mg,氯化胆碱 choline chloride 1.0 g,叶酸 folic acid 0.80 mg,Cu (as copper sulfate) 70 mg,Fe (as ferrous sulfate) 70 mg,Zn (as zinc sulfate) 70 mg,Se (as sodium selenite) 0.30 mg,I (as potassium iodide) 0.30 mg,Mn (as manganese sulfate) 40 mg。
2)营养水平均为实测值。Nutrient levels were all measured values.

1.2 试验设计

试验1:分别选取健康的去势宁乡公猪和巴宁公猪各6头,初始体重分别为(45.50±1.20) kg和(43.35±0.30) kg,采用玉米-豆粕型基础饲粮以粉料的形式进行饲喂。预试期7 d,正试期3 d。正试期间严格执行全收粪尿法,准确收集全部排泄物,并通过直接法测定饲粮消化能(DE)和代谢能(ME),同时测定饲粮养分表观全肠道消化率(ATTD)。
试验2:分别选取健康的去势宁乡公猪和巴宁公猪各6头,初始体重分别为(48.87±0.22) kg和(50.75±1.19) kg,通过外科手术在回肠末端和盲肠后端安装T型瘘管,以便分段获取食糜,采用与试验1相同的玉米-豆粕型基础饲粮以粉料的形式进行饲喂。预试期5 d,正试期4 d,分别收集2 d回肠食糜和2 d盲肠食糜,用于测定表观回肠消化率(AID)和表观盲肠消化率(ACD)。
试验1和试验2均在饲粮中添加0.3%二氧化钛(TiO2)作为惰性指示剂。

1.3 饲养管理

试验1:将12头试验猪单独饲养于尺寸为1.8 m×0.8 m×0.6 m的不锈钢代谢笼中,饲喂相同饲粮。代谢室环境条件均符合饲养标准。试验开始前对猪进行称重,按体重的4%确定日饲喂量[8]。每日09:00和18:00分2次投喂等量饲粮,记录剩料和撒料量,以重量差法计算实际采食量。预试期内,代谢室每隔2 d进行1次大扫除;正试期前1天彻底清洗消毒代谢室、代谢笼及粪样收集板,正试期间不再清理。
试验2:本研究参照范宁宇等[9]的动物手术与管理方案并加以改进。试验猪在术前48 h进行肠道准备,第1天禁食并补充葡萄糖,第2天起完全禁食禁水。手术安装回肠-盲肠双T型瘘管后,连续3 d肌肉注射头孢噻呋钠抗感染,并每日对伤口进行碘伏消毒和红霉素软膏处理,直至愈合。手术后经过7 d恢复期开始试验。将12头试验猪单独安置于代谢笼中,自由采食和饮水。正试期前称重,按体重的4%确定日饲喂量,并于每日09:00和18:00分2次等量投喂。

1.4 样品采集及处理

试验1:正试期间,每日收集试验猪新鲜粪便和24 h全尿样品。粪便样品经10%硫酸溶液进行固氮处理后于-20 ℃保存,试验结束后将每头猪3 d的样品解冻混匀,于65 ℃烘干72 h,随后回潮、粉碎过40目筛(孔径约0.425 mm),制得干粉样本备用。尿液样品在收集时用50 mL 6 mol/L HCl酸化,每日取总量的10%于-20 ℃保存;试验结束后将所有样品解冻、混匀、过滤,滤液于-4 ℃储存待测。尿能测定前处理参照Li等[10]和Li等[11]的方法。
试验2:每日08:00—18:00通过瘘管进行食糜连续采集。采用7号自封袋作为收集容器,紧密套置于瘘管外端口,并使用橡皮筋固定,确保收集过程无泄漏。采样过程中每间隔30 min更换1次收集袋。每次采集的食糜样品均立即于冰盒中速冻暂存,并于当日统一转存至-20 ℃冷库。试验结束后,汇集所有保存的食糜样品,经4 ℃解冻后均质化处理,随后进行72 h真空冷冻干燥,冻干后的样品经粉碎机研磨并过40目筛,所得均质粉末分装于密封容器中,储存于-20 ℃备用。

1.5 检测指标及方法

样品干物质(DM)、粗灰分(Ash)、粗脂肪(EE)、钙和总磷含量分别参照GB/T 6435—2014、GB/T 6438—2007、GB/T 6433—2006、GB/T 6436—2018和GB/T 6437—2018中方法测定,有机物(OM)含量=DM含量-Ash含量;纤维组分中,粗纤维(CF)、中性洗涤纤维(NDF)和酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)含量分别参照GB/T 6434—2022、GB/T 20806—2022和NY/T 1459—2022中方法,采用全自动纤维分析仪(FT12,C.Gerhardt,德国)测定;粗蛋白质(CP)含量采用碳氮硫元素分析仪(Vario MAX cube,Elementar,德国)测定;总能(GE)采用等温式全自动量热仪(5E-AC8018,长沙凯德测控仪器有限公司)测定;TiO2含量参照文献[12-13]的方法前处理后,采用电感耦合等离子体发射光谱仪(5110,Agilent,美国)上机检测。

1.6 计算公式

参考Adeola[12]的方法,计算饲粮DE和ME,计算公式如下:
DE(MJ/kg,饲喂基础)=(食入GE-排粪GE)/食入饲粮质量;
ME(MJ/kg,饲喂基础)=(食入GE-排粪GE-尿能)/食入饲粮质量。
参照文献[14-15]的方法计算饲粮养分各肠段表观消化率,计算公式如下:
某养分AID(%)=100-[(回肠食糜中该养分含量/回肠食糜中TiO2含量)×(饲粮中TiO2含量/饲粮中该养分含量)]×100;
某养分ACD(%)=100-[(盲肠食糜中该养分含量/盲肠食糜中TiO2含量)×(饲粮中TiO2含量/饲粮中该养分含量)]×100;
某养分ATTD(%)=100-[(粪样中该养分含量/粪样中TiO2含量)×(饲粮中TiO2含量/饲粮中该养分含量)]×100。

1.7 数据统计分析

采用Excel 2019对试验数据进行初步统计与计算,然后采用SPSS 27.0软件进行差异显著性分析(独立样本t检验);结果数据采用平均值和均值标准误(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 宁乡猪和巴宁猪饲粮DE和ME比较

由表2可知,宁乡猪对玉米-豆粕型饲粮DE和ME分别为15.71和15.16 MJ/kg,巴宁猪分别为15.64和15.19 MJ/kg,两者对饲粮DE和ME均无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表2 宁乡猪和巴宁猪饲粮DE和ME比较(饲喂基础)

Table 2 Comparison of DE and ME of diets in Ningxiang and Baning pigs (as-fed basis)MJ/kg

项目
Items		 宁乡猪
Ningxiang pigs		 巴宁猪
Baning pigs		 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
消化能 DE 15.71 15.64 0.035 0.299
代谢能 ME 15.16 15.19 0.032 0.621

同行数据肩标无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 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 extremely significant difference (P<0.01). The same as below.

2.2 宁乡猪和巴宁猪对饲粮养分AID比较

由表3可知,宁乡猪和巴宁猪对饲粮部分养分AID存在显著或极显著差异(P<0.05或P<0.01。其中,宁乡猪对饲粮GE、CP和EE的AID(分别为79.90%、86.51%和93.83%)均极显著高于巴宁猪(分别为75.36%、84.66%和89.03%)(P<0.01),对饲粮NDF的AID(27.33%)显著高于巴宁猪(22.52%)(P<0.05)。2种猪对饲粮DM、OM、CF和ADF的AID无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表3 宁乡猪和巴宁猪对饲粮养分AID比较

Table 3 Comparison of AID of dietary nutrients in Ningxiang and Baning pigs %

项目
Items		 宁乡猪
Ningxiang pigs		 巴宁猪
Baning pigs		 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
总能 GE 79.90A 75.36B 0.744 0.001
粗蛋白质 CP 86.51A 84.66B 0.328 0.001
粗脂肪 EE 93.83A 89.03B 0.704 0.001
干物质 DM 74.47 73.81 0.323 0.327
有机物 OM 77.76 77.55 0.263 0.714
粗纤维 CF 40.74 42.17 0.600 0.255
中性洗涤纤维 NDF 27.33a 22.52b 1.209 0.037
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF 23.64 22.43 0.881 0.523

2.3 宁乡猪和巴宁猪对饲粮养分ACD比较

由表4可知,宁乡猪对饲粮GE的ACD(79.89%)极显著高于巴宁猪(75.50%)(P<0.01),对饲粮ADF的ACD(28.15%)显著高于巴宁猪(24.56%)(P<0.05);而巴宁猪对饲粮EE和CF的ACD(分别为92.69%和42.01%)极显著高于宁乡猪(分别为89.80%和31.75%)(P<0.01)。2种猪对饲粮CP、DM、OM和NDF的ACD无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表4 宁乡猪和巴宁猪对饲粮养分ACD比较

Table 4 Comparison of ACD of dietary nutrients in Ningxiang and Baning pigs %

项目
Items		 宁乡猪
Ningxiang pigs		 巴宁猪
Baning pigs		 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
总能 GE 79.89A 75.50B 0.779 0.001
粗蛋白质 CP 83.75 83.22 0.295 0.399
粗脂肪 EE 89.80B 92.69A 0.525 0.001
干物质 DM 75.23 74.74 0.314 0.297
有机物 OM 78.83 78.33 0.255 0.363
粗纤维 CF 31.75B 42.01A 1.856 0.001
中性洗涤纤维 NDF 28.18 26.07 0.778 0.190
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF 28.15a 24.56b 0.827 0.020

2.4 宁乡猪和巴宁猪对饲粮养分ATTD比较

由表5可知,宁乡猪对饲粮GE、DM、OM、CF和NDF的ATTD(分别为88.67%、85.33%、87.26%、72.53%和56.34%)极显著高于巴宁猪(分别为85.75%、83.27%、85.17%、61.52%和41.54%)(P<0.01),且宁乡猪对饲粮ADF的ATTD(44.51%)显著高于巴宁猪(35.23%)(P<0.05)。2种猪对饲粮CP和EE的ATTD无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表5 宁乡猪和巴宁猪对饲粮养分ATTD比较

Table 5 Comparison of ATTD of dietary nutrients in Ningxiang and Baning pigs %

项目
Items		 宁乡猪
Ningxiang pigs		 巴宁猪
Baning pigs		 均值标准误
SEM		 P值
P-value
总能 GE 88.67A 85.75B 0.590 0.005
粗蛋白质 CP 87.38 87.50 0.295 0.858
粗脂肪 EE 75.70 76.74 0.781 0.536
干物质 DM 85.33A 83.27B 0.439 0.006
有机物 OM 87.26A 85.17B 0.440 0.005
粗纤维 CF 72.53A 61.52B 2.143 0.002
中性洗涤纤维 NDF 56.34A 41.54B 2.690 0.001
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF 44.51a 35.23b 2.034 0.013

3 讨论

3.1 玉米-豆粕型饲粮养分特性分析

本试验采用的玉米-豆粕型饲粮(玉米70.10%,豆粕27.20%),其CP含量(实测18.77%)和GE(实测16.48 MJ/kg)水平满足猪的基本生长需求,而且该饲粮的NDF(实测13.85%)和ADF含量(实测4.11%)反映了其结构性碳水化合物的水平。研究表明,“杜长大”三元杂交猪在饲粮NDF含量为13.5%时达到最佳消化率,而地方猪种马身猪结肠菌群对高纤维底物的适应性发酵,使其可在饲粮NDF含量为18%的条件下维持更高消化效率[16]。本试验通过比较宁乡猪与巴宁猪对该类型饲粮的养分消化特性,旨在揭示两者在纤维利用方面的潜在差异。

3.2 宁乡猪和巴宁猪饲粮有效能比较

饲粮中可被动物机体利用的能量被称为有效能,而有效能是评定饲粮能量营养价值的决定性参数。本试验中,宁乡猪和巴宁猪对饲粮DE和ME均无显著差异,说明两者对饲粮能量整体的利用能力相近。然而,相较于杂交的巴宁猪,地方猪种宁乡猪对饲粮GE、DM、OM、CF和NDF的ATTD更高,说明其对饲粮能量的高效利用可能主要得益于更强的后肠发酵能力。前人研究也表明,地方猪种安定猪在饲粮中掺入棕榈粕、木薯渣等高纤维副原料时,NDF和ADF表观消化率比“杜长大”猪高出约10%,说明地方猪种在利用高纤维原料时具有更优的后肠发酵特性和纤维降解效率[17]。此外,宁乡猪后肠中拟杆菌属和普雷沃氏菌属相对丰度较高,有助于将结构性碳水化合物转化为挥发性脂肪酸,从而提升能量利用效率[18]。综上所述,本研究针对宁乡猪和巴宁猪对玉米-豆粕型饲粮DE和ME所获得的测定结果,能够为地方猪饲养过程中的能量营养管理及饲粮科学应用提供理论依据。

3.3 宁乡猪和巴宁猪不同肠段养分消化规律

消化系统是一个具有多种功能、具备极大复杂性和动态性的系统,可以通过酶和微生物发酵将饲粮养分消化成小分子,然后被机体吸收利用[19]。本试验通过比较回肠、盲肠及全肠道养分表观消化率,揭示宁乡猪及其杂交猪种巴宁猪对饲粮中养分在不同肠段的消化特征。结果发现,除EE外,大多数养分从回肠、盲肠至全肠道的表观消化率呈逐步上升趋势,说明后肠发酵对纤维等难降解组分具有重要的进一步降解作用,从而提高整体能量和OM的利用率[20]。EE的ATTD低于AID和ACD,可能与后肠微生物利用未吸收的碳水化合物合成自身脂质有关,该过程增加了粪中EE含量,从而导致EE表观消化率降低[21]。由此可见,相较于ACD和ATTD,EE的AID避免了后肠道微生物发酵的干扰,能更加准确地反映EE在小肠中的实际消化和吸收情况[22]。此外,宁乡猪对饲粮GE、CP和EE的AID均极显著高于巴宁猪,表明其小肠消化能力更强;同时,宁乡猪对饲粮GE的ACD仍显著高于巴宁猪,进一步说明其后肠发酵能力更为突出。综上所述,与巴宁猪相比,宁乡猪在不同肠段均表现出更全面的养分吸收利用优势,尤其是在后肠发酵方面,这为地方猪种饲粮的应用提供了依据。

3.4 宁乡猪和巴宁猪饲粮养分AID和ACD比较

本试验结果显示,宁乡猪在回肠段对CP、EE等关键养分的表观消化率极显著高于巴宁猪,体现了其更强的小肠消化吸收能力。回肠是能量和氨基酸消化吸收的重要场所,研究表明通过发酵处理可提升宁乡花猪对ADF的AID[23]。陈莹等[24]研究指出,可溶性膳食纤维主要在回肠和盲肠部位被快速发酵,而不溶性膳食纤维则延迟至结肠部位才被大量降解,这种前段加后段的消化分工模式,与本试验中宁乡猪对ADF的ACD显著提高的结果一致。同类研究也表明,纤维的全肠道消化率高于回肠,证实后肠发酵的重要贡献[25]。此外,研究表明,梅山猪对干酒糟及其可溶物(DDGS)中不溶性膳食纤维的后肠消化率(43.8%)显著高于约克夏猪(14%~19%),说明地方猪种对不溶性膳食纤维的发酵能力更强[6]。本研究中,宁乡猪对NDF的AID显著高于巴宁猪,可能与后者胃肠道蠕动较快、食糜停留时间较短有关[26-27]。此外,巴宁猪对饲粮EE的ACD极显著高于宁乡猪,提示杂交后代可能在脂肪的后肠微生物代谢或重吸收方面具有优势[28]。从整体消化特征来看,猪前肠消化段对饲粮GE、DM、OM、CP和EE的表观消化率已达到70%~90%,是消化吸收的核心区域;而NDF在回肠末端的表观消化率仅维持在20%~30%,其可溶部分已在前肠降解,难溶部分进入后肠,经纤维降解菌发酵为挥发性脂肪酸,从而为机体供能[29]。

3.5 宁乡猪和巴宁猪对饲粮养分ATTD比较

ATTD是综合评价饲粮养分利用程度的关键指标。本研究中,宁乡猪对饲粮GE、DM、OM及纤维组分的ATTD均显著高于巴宁猪,表明前者在能量和纤维利用方面更具优势。这与宁乡猪后肠发酵能力更强、纤维降解菌群(如拟杆菌门和厚壁菌门)更为丰富有关,能更高效地将结构性碳水化合物转化为挥发性脂肪酸[30-32]。巴宁猪作为杂交组合,在EE的ATTD上略高于宁乡猪,可能与其肠道微生物脂肪代谢活性有关[27],但在能量和纤维的整体利用效率上仍不及宁乡猪,说明其未能完全继承地方猪种高效的后肠发酵特性。综上所述,宁乡猪凭借其优越的后肠发酵能力和微生物群落结构,在饲粮养分ATTD上表现突出。

4 结论

本研究结果表明,宁乡猪在能量和养分利用方面整体优于巴宁猪。尽管两者对饲粮DE和ME无显著差异,但宁乡猪在小肠段对GE、CP和EE的消化效率更高,同时全肠道对纤维类物质的消化利用能力也更强,表明宁乡猪在回肠消化和后肠发酵2个关键环节均具有优势。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
朱吉, 王慧明, 喻金娥, 等. 宁乡花猪保种方法的创建与应用[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2024, 60(10):179-183.

ZHU J, WANG H M, YU J E, et al. Establishment and application of conservation methods for Ningxiang pig[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2024, 60(10):179-183. (in Chinese)

[2]
陶璇, 杨雪梅, 梁艳, 等. 巴克夏猪选育进展报告[J]. 畜牧与兽医, 2014, 46(8):46-49.

TAO X, YANG X M, LIANG Y, et al. Report on the selection and breeding progress of Berkshire pigs[J]. Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2014, 46(8):46-49. (in Chinese)

[3]
王连生, 石宝明, 单安山, 等. 非淀粉多糖酶对生长猪玉米-豆粕型饲粮养分表观消化率的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2010(13):29-31.

WANG L S, SHI B M, SHAN A S, et al. Effects of non-starch polysaccharide enzyme in corn-soybean meal based diet on apparent digestibilities of nutrients of growing pigs[J]. China Feed, 2010(13):29-31. (in Chinese)

[4]
吴秋杰, 刘佳, 陈华云, 等. 玉米豆粕减量替代营养调控在养猪上的研究进展[J]. 中国猪业, 2024, 19(4):12-18.

WU Q J, LIU J, CHEN H Y, et al. Research progress on reducing and replacing nutritional regulation with corn and soybean meal in pigs feed[J]. China Swine Industry, 2024, 19(4):12-18. (in Chinese)

[5]
SAUER W C, OZIMEK L. Digestibility of amino acids in swine:results and their practical applications.A review[J]. Livestock Production Science, 1986, 15(4):367-388.

DOI

[6]
URRIOLA P E, STEIN H H. Comparative digestibility of energy and nutrients in fibrous feed ingredients fed to Meishan and Yorkshire pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2012, 90(3):802-812.

DOI

[7]
NGOC T T B, LEN N T, LINDBERG J E. Impact of fibre intake and fibre source on digestibility,gut development,retention time and growth performance of indigenous and exotic pigs[J]. Animal, 2013, 7(5):736-745.

DOI

[8]
National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of swine[S].11th rev. ed. Washington,D.C.: National Academies Press, 2012.

[9]
范宁宇, 贾增强, 唐辉, 等. 宁乡猪和巴宁杂交猪对玉米有效能、氨基酸回肠消化率及各肠段养分消化的比较研究[J]. 动物营养学报, 2025, 37(6):3655-3666.

DOI

FAN N Y, JIA Z Q, TANG H, et al. Comparative study on corn effective energy,amino acid ileal digestibility and nutrient digestion in intestinal segments in Ningxiang and Baning hybrid pigs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2025, 37(6):3655-3666. (in Chinese)

[10]
LI P, LI D F, ZHANG H Y, et al. Determination and prediction of energy values in corn distillers dried grains with solubles sources with varying oil content for growing pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2015, 93(7):3458-3470.

DOI PMID

[11]
LI R, HOU G F, SONG Z H, et al. Nutritional value of enzyme-treated soybean meal,concentrated degossypolized cottonseed protein,dried porcine solubles and fish meal for 10- to -20 kg pigs[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2019, 252:23-33.

DOI

[12]
张丽萍, 王久荣, 唐思宇, 等. 优化测定表观消化率指示剂二氧化钛含量前处理方法的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(11):159-164.

DOI

ZHANG L P, WANG J R, TANG S Y, et al. Optimization of pretreatment method for determining the digestibility indicator-titanium dioxide[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(11):159-164. (in Chinese)

[13]
杨刚, 李瑞, 冯淦熠, 等. 生长育肥猪木薯氨基酸消化率测定及预测模型建立[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(8):4892-4903.

DOI

YANG G, LI R, FENG G Y, et al. Determination and prediction model establishment of amino acid digestibility of cassava for growing-finishing pigs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(8):4892-4903. (in Chinese)

DOI

[14]
ADEOLA O. Digestion and balance techniques in pigs[M]// LEWIS A J,SOUTHERN L L.Swine nutrition.2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2000:923-936.

[15]
LEE G I, NIELSEN T S, LÆRKE H N, et al. The ileal and total tract digestibility fibre and nutrients in pigs fed high-fibre cereal-based diets provided without and with a carbohydrase complex[J]. Animal, 2023, 17(8):100872.

DOI

[16]
ZHAO Y, LIU C, NIU J, et al. Impacts of dietary fiber level on growth performance,apparent digestibility,intestinal development,and colonic microbiota and metabolome of pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2023, 101:skad174.

DOI

[17]
许晏维, 邹有为, 张翔宇, 等. 基于杜长大猪营养价值数据库建立定安猪和定安黑猪饲料原料有效能预测模型的研究[J]. 动物营养学报, 2024, 36(9):5981-5993.

DOI

XU Y W, ZOU Y W, ZHANG X Y, et al. Establishment of efficient energy prediction models of feed ingredients for Ding’an pigs and Ding’an black pigs based on database of nutritional values of Duroc×Landace×Yorkshire pigs[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2024, 36(9):5981-5993. (in Chinese)

[18]
BERGAMASCHI M, TIEZZI F, HOWARD J, et al. Gut microbiome composition differences among breeds impact feed efficiency in swine[J]. Microbiome, 2020, 8(1):110.

DOI PMID

[19]
CELI P, COWIESON A J, FRU-NJI F, et al. Gastrointestinal functionality in animal nutrition and health:new opportunities for sustainable animal production[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2017, 234:88-100.

DOI

[20]
BACH KNUDSEN K E. The nutritional significance of “dietary fibre” analysis[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2001, 90(1/2):3-20.

DOI

[21]
ZHAO J B, LIU X Z, ZHANG Y, et al. Effects of body weight and fiber sources on fiber digestibility and short chain fatty acid concentration in growing pigs[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2020, 33(12):1975-1984.

DOI

[22]
WANG L, WANG L, ZHOU J Y, et al. Comparison of regression and fat-free diet methods for estimating ileal and total tract endogenous losses and digestibility of fat and fatty acids in growing pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 98(12):skaa376.

[23]
侯振平, 严理, 郑霞, 等. 3种非常规粗饲料对宁乡花猪的营养价值评定[J]. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(1):30-35.

HOU Z P, YAN L, ZHENG X, et al. Nutritional value evaluation of three unconventional roughages for Ningxiang pigs[J]. Feed Research, 2022, 45(1):30-35. (in Chinese)

[24]
陈莹, 钟儒清, 陈亮, 等. 猪饲粮纤维的利用及其对养分消化的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(9):3745-3757.

DOI

CHEN Y, ZHONG R Q, CHEN L, et al. Utilization of dietary fiber and its impact on nutrient digestion of pigs[J]. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2023, 54(9):3745-3757. (in Chinese)

DOI

[25]
URRIOLA P E, SHURSON G C, STEIN H H. Digestibility of dietary fiber in distillers coproducts fed to growing pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2010, 88(7):2373-2381.

DOI PMID

[26]
田雯, 江书忠, 肖淑华. 不同类型日粮纤维对猪肠道健康的影响研究[J]. 湖南饲料, 2022(1):27-30.

TIAN W, JIANG S Z, XIAO S H. Effects of different types of dietary fiber on intestinal health in pigs[J]. Hunan Feed, 2022(1):27-30. (in Chinese)

[27]
KIM J E, TUN H M, BENNETT D C, et al. Microbial diversity and metabolic function in duodenum,jejunum and ileum of emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae)[J]. Scientific Reports, 2023, 13(1):4488.

DOI

[28]
谭占坤, 商振达, 褚瑰燕, 等. 藏猪对饲粮纤维的消化及其与肠道微生物的相关性研究[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2022, 53(9):3063-3078.

DOI

TAN Z K, SHANG Z D, CHU G Y, et al. Study on dietary fibre digestion and its correlation with intestinal microbiome of Tibetan pigs[J]. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2022, 53(9):3063-3078. (in Chinese)

DOI

[29]
WENK C. The role of dietary fibre in the digestive physiology of the pig[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2001, 90(1/2):21-33.

DOI

[30]
CHENG Y T, DING S J, AZAD M A K, et al. Small intestinal digestive functions and feed efficiency differ in different pig breeds[J]. Animals, 2023, 13(7):1172.

DOI

[31]
JHA R, BERROCOSO J F D. Dietary fiber and protein fermentation in the intestine of swine and their interactive effects on gut health and on the environment:a review[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2016, 212:18-26.

DOI

[32]
LE GALL M, WARPECHOWSKI M, JAGUELIN-PEYRAUD Y, et al. Influence of dietary fibre level and pelleting on the digestibility of energy and nutrients in growing pigs and adult sows[J]. Animal, 2009, 3(3):352-359.

DOI PMID

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.