Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2026 , Vol. 38 >Issue 8: 5954 - 5964

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2026.477

RESEARCH PAPER

Effects of Aspergillus oryzae Culture and Trichoderma longibrachiatum Culture on Growth Performance, Nutrient Apparent Digestibility, Slaughter Performance and Meat Quality of Arbas Goats

  • NIU Meiyan , 1 ,
  • XU Jiangbo 1 ,
  • JIANG Runyao 1 ,
  • CHEN Dong , 1, 2, * ,
  • ZHOU Qinglong 1 ,
  • LUO Na 1
Expand
  • 1 College of Animal Science and Technology, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China
  • 2 Yuelushan Laboratory, Changsha 410128, China
*associate professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2026-01-09

  Online published: 2026-08-13

Fold

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of Aspergillus oryzae culture and Trichoderma longibrachiatum culture on growth performance, nutrient apparent digestibility, slaughter performance and meat quality of Arbas goats. Forty-eight healthy Arbas late-fattening goats of 24-month-old, with an initial body weight of (37.31±2.03) kg, were selected and randomly divided into 4 groups, with 12 replicates in each group and 1 goat in each replicate. The control group (CON group) was fed a basal diet, while the experimental groups were fed the basal diets supplemented with 2 g/(head·d) of Aspergillus oryzae culture (AOC group), Trichoderma longibrachiatum culture (TLC group), and mixed culture (Aspergillus oryzae culture and Trichoderma longibrachiatum culture were mixed in a ratio of 1∶1, ATC group), respectively. The pre-experiment lasted for 7 days and the formal experiment lasted for 40 days. The results showed as follows: 1) the total weight gain and average daily weight gain in AOC group were significantly higher than those in the other groups (P<0.05). 2) The apparent digestibility of crude protein (CP) and acid detergent fiber in AOC group, TLC group and ATC group was extremely significantly higher than that in CON group (P<0.01); the apparent digestibility of dry matter and neutral detergent fiber in AOC group was significantly higher than that in the other groups (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in the ether extract (EE) apparent digestibility among the groups (P>0.05). 3) The liver weight in AOC group was significantly higher than that in CON group and ATC group (P<0.05). 4) In longissimus dorsi, the values of meat color lightness (L*), redness (a*) and yellowness (b*) in AOC group were extremely significantly higher than those in the other groups (P<0.01), and the dripping loss, cooking loss and EE content in TLC group were extremely significantly higher than those in the other groups (P<0.01). In belly meat, the pH in AOC group was significantly higher than that in the other groups (P<0.05), and the meat color L* value and CP content were significantly higher than those in CON group (P<0.05); the drip loss and EE content in TLC group were significantly or extremely significantly higher than those in the other groups (P<0.05 or P<0.01). In biceps femoris, the pH in AOC group was significantly higher than that in CON group and TLC group (P<0.05), and the values of meat color L*, a* and b* were extremely significantly higher than those in the other groups (P<0.01); the drip loss and cooking loss in TLC group were significantly higher than those in CON group and AOC group (P<0.05); the CP content in AOC group and TLC group was significantly lower than that in CON group and ATC group (P<0.05). In conclusion, dietary supplementation with Aspergillus oryzae culture can improve the growth performance, nutrient apparent digestibility and meat color of Arbas goats in the later fattening stage. Although dietary supplementation with Trichoderma longibrachiatum culture can increase the apparent digestibility of some nutrients, it will reduce the muscle water retention. There is no synergistic effect when the two are supplemented together.

Key words： Aspergillus oryzae culture; Trichoderma longibrachiatum culture; growth performance; nutrient apparent digestibility; meat quality

Cite this article

NIU Meiyan , XU Jiangbo , JIANG Runyao , CHEN Dong , ZHOU Qinglong , LUO Na . Effects of Aspergillus oryzae Culture and Trichoderma longibrachiatum Culture on Growth Performance, Nutrient Apparent Digestibility, Slaughter Performance and Meat Quality of Arbas Goats[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2026 , 38(8) : 5954 -5964 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2026.477

山羊养殖对我国肉类供应、农民增收及地方经济发展具有重要意义[1]。当前,集约化养殖面临精饲料成本上升压缩经济效益,以及高精料饲粮易破坏瘤胃稳态、诱发酸中毒,制约山羊健康等问题。在“减抗、替抗”背景下,开发绿色饲料添加剂成为重要研究方向[2]。
在众多替抗产品中,微生物源性添加剂因其独特的作用机制和高安全性备受关注。丝状真菌(如曲霉属和木霉属)培养物作为瘤胃调节剂展现出良好的应用前景。米曲霉(Aspergillus oryzae)是具有长期安全使用历史的益生真菌[3],其发酵产生的纤维素酶、半纤维素酶、淀粉酶等外源酶,可补充瘤胃微生物酶系,协同降解植物细胞壁,提高饲料消化率[4]。此外,米曲霉培养物中的生物活性物质能促进瘤胃有益微生物增殖,稳定瘤胃pH,降低乳酸积累风险,优化挥发性脂肪酸生成模式,提升丙酸比例,为宿主提供更多有效能量[5]。长枝木霉(Trichoderma longibrachiatum)同样具有强大的纤维素分解能力,其分泌的纤维素酶复合体在破解植物纤维方面具有显著优势[6]。添加长枝木霉培养物可提升粗饲料利用价值,对降低饲养成本具有重要意义[7]。尽管其在反刍动物中的应用研究相对较少,但在改善肠道健康、拮抗病原微生物方面的潜在益生功能仍具研究价值。
阿尔巴斯山羊以优质绒、肉著称。然而,现有关于丝状真菌培养物的研究多集中于奶牛和肉牛上,其是否适用于生理特性独特的阿尔巴斯山羊尚缺乏验证。同时,米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对该品种山羊的综合影响,尤其是联合应用效果仍属空白。因此,本研究拟系统评价上述2种真菌培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊生长性能、养分表观消化率、屠宰性能和肉品质的影响,旨在为其作为新型绿色饲料添加剂的开发提供理论依据,推动阿尔巴斯山羊养殖业的健康可持续发展。

1 材料与方法

1.1 伦理声明

本研究中的动物试验经湖南农业大学动物管理和使用委员会审查批准(批准编号:2025228)。试验于2025年8—10月在内蒙古自治区鄂尔多斯市三羊牧业科技有限公司进行,试验羊由该公司提供。

1.2 试验材料

米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物均为市购产品,其中米曲霉培养物中蛋白酶活性≥2 200 U/g,纤维素酶活性≥700 U/g;长枝木霉培养物中蛋白酶活性≥4 500 U/g,纤维素酶活性≥400 U/g。混合培养物为米曲霉培养物与长枝木霉培养物按1∶1比例混合而成,非混合发酵产物。

1.3 试验设计

试验选取48只体况健康、24月龄、初始体重为(37.31±2.03) kg的阿尔巴斯育肥后期山羊,采用单因素试验设计,随机分为4组,每组12个重复,每个重复1只。对照组(CON组)饲喂基础饲粮,试验组分别在饲喂基础饲粮的基础上添加2 g/(只·d)米曲霉培养物(AOC组)、长枝木霉培养物(TLC组)和混合培养物(ATC组)。基础饲粮参照《肉羊营养需要量》(NY/T 816—2021)配制,其组成及营养水平见表1。预试期7 d,正试期40 d。
表1 基础饲粮组成及营养水平(风干基础)

Table 1 Composition and nutrient levels of the basal diet (air-dry basis)

原料 Ingredients 含量 Content 营养水平 Nutrient levels2) 含量 Content
玉米 Corn 49.35 干物质 DM 83.82
豆粕 Soybean meal 10.50 粗蛋白质 CP 12.90
麸皮 Wheat bran 7.00 粗脂肪 EE 2.78
苜蓿干草 Alfalfa hay 12.00 粗纤维 CF 15.92
玉米秸秆 Corn stalk 18.00 中性洗涤纤维 NDF 35.69
碳酸氢钠 NaHCO3 0.35 酸性洗涤纤维 ADF 19.57
预混料 Premix1) 2.80 消化能 DE/(MJ/kg) 10.93
合计 Total 100.00

1)每千克预混料含有 Each kilogram of the premix contained the following:VA 45 000 IU,VD3 15 000 IU,VE 55 mg,Cu (as copper sulfate) 750 mg,Fe (as ferrous sulfate) 9 500 mg,Zn (as zinc sulfate) 6 000 mg,Mn (as manganese sulfate) 2 000 mg,I (as potassium iodide) 100 mg。

2)消化能为计算值,参照《肉羊营养需要量》(NY/T 816—2021)计算;其他为实测值。DE was a calculated value in accordance with Nutrient Requirements of Meat-Type Sheep and Goat (NY/T 816—2021), while the others were measured values.

1.4 饲养管理

饲养前对羊舍进行全面消毒。试验羊全期实行单栏饲养,每天分别于08:00和15:00各饲喂1次,自由采食和饮水。采用“先精后粗、精料打底,培养物均匀撒于精料表面”的饲喂方式,确保培养物精准摄入。每天收集1次剩料,按照自由采食的要求,以剩料量不超过饲喂量5%的原则,调整第2天的饲喂量。

1.5 测定指标及方法

1.5.1 饲粮营养成分含量

饲粮干物质(DM)、粗蛋白质(CP)、粗脂肪(EE)、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《饲料中水分的测定》(GB/T 6435—2014)、《饲料中粗蛋白的测定 凯氏定氮法》(GB/T 6432—2018)、《饲料中粗脂肪的测定》(GB/T 6433—2025)、《饲料中中性洗涤纤维(NDF)的测定》(GB/T 20806—2022)和《饲料中酸性洗涤纤维的测定》(NY/T 1459—2022)中方法进行测定。

1.5.2 生长性能

分别于正试期开始前和结束后连续2 d在饲喂前对试验羊进行空腹称重,以其平均值分别作为初始体重(IBW)和终末体重(FBW),计算总增重(TWG),并计算平均日增重(ADG);试验期间每天记录试验羊采食量,计算平均日采食量(ADFI),并计算料重比(F/G)。计算公式如下:

TWG(kg)=FBW-IBW;

ADG(kg/d)=(FBW-IBW)/试验天数;

ADFI(kg/d)=总采食量/试验天数;

F/G=ADFI/ADG。

1.5.3 养分表观消化率

正试期最后3 d,收集饲粮和试验羊粪便样品,以盐酸不溶灰分(AIA)为内源指示剂,采用内源指示剂法测定养分表观消化率,养分表观消化率计算公式如下:

某养分表观消化率(%)=[1-(a/b)×(c/d)]×100。

式中:a表示饲粮中AIA含量(%);b表示粪便中AIA含量(%);c表示粪便中该养分含量(%);d表示饲粮中该养分含量(%)。
饲粮和粪便样品中各养分含量测定方法同1.5.1,AIA含量参照《饲料中盐酸不溶灰分的测定》(GB/T 23742—2009)中方法测定。

1.5.4 屠宰性能

参照《种羊生产性能测定技术规范》(NY/T 1236—2023)中方法开展屠宰性能测定。试验结束后,试验羊禁食24 h、禁水2 h,称量宰前活重;屠宰去除皮、头、蹄及内脏(保留肾脏及肾周脂肪),静置30 min后称胴体重,计算屠宰率,计算公式如下:

屠宰率(%)=100×胴体重/宰前活重。

分别称量头、蹄、皮、心脏、肝脏、脾脏、肺脏和肾脏重量,并计算器官指数,计算公式如下:

器官指数(%)=100×器官重量/宰前活重。

切开左侧胴体第12~13肋间露出背最长肌横截面,用硫酸纸描摹轮廓后采用求积仪测定眼肌面积;于该横截面眼肌上方紧贴肋骨处,采用数显卡尺垂直测定皮下脂肪厚度,读数记为背膘厚度。眼肌面积计算公式如下:

眼肌面积(cm2)=眼肌高×眼肌宽×0.7。

1.5.5 肉品质

pH:于屠宰取样后45 min,采用pH计(PH818M,深圳市希玛英豪贸易有限公司)测定第12~13肋间背最长肌、腹肉(羊腩)和股二头肌样品pH,每块部位选择3个位点重复测定。
肉色:在屠宰取样后45 min,采用色差仪(CR-410,Konica Minolta)测定第12~13肋间背最长肌、腹肉和股二头肌样品亮度(L*)、红度(a*)和黄度(b*)值。
滴水损失:屠宰后取左侧胴体第1~2腰椎段背最长肌、腹肉和股二头肌样品,称重记为W1;将肉样一端固定,悬挂于充气塑料袋内(不接触袋壁),用细线密封袋口,置于4 ℃下冷藏静置24 h后再次称重记为W2。滴水损失计算公式如下:

滴水损失(%)=[(W1-W2)/W1]×100。

蒸煮损失:取第1~2腰椎段背最长肌、腹肉和股二头肌样品,称重记为W3;装入耐热蒸煮袋后置于80 ℃水浴中加热30 min,取出自然冷却30 min,再次称重记为W4。蒸煮损失计算公式如下:

蒸煮损失(%)=[(W3-W4)/W3]×100。

羊肉营养成分含量:分别参照《食品安全国家标准 食品中水分的测定》(GB 5009.3—2016)、《食品安全国家标准 食品中蛋白质的测定》(GB 5009.5—2016)和《食品安全国家标准 食品中脂肪的测定》(GB 5009.6—2016)中方法测定肉样水分、CP和EE含量。

1.6 数据统计分析

试验数据经Excel 2021初步整理后,采用SPSS 25.0软件进行单因素方差分析(one-way ANOVA),并采用Duncan氏法进行多重比较,结果数据以“平均值±标准差”形式表示,P<0.05为差异显著,P<0.01为差异极显著。

2 结果

2.1 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊生长性能的影响

由表2可知,AOC组山羊TWG和ADG显著高于其他组(P<0.05),各组间其他生长性能指标无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表2 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊生长性能的影响

Table 2 Effects of Aspergillus oryzae culture and Trichoderma longibrachiatum culture on growth performance of Arbas goats

项目
Items		 组别 Groups P值
P-value
CON AOC TLC ATC
初始体重 IBW/kg 37.07±2.68 36.53±2.15 36.83±2.09 37.23±1.58 0.948
终末体重 FBW/kg 41.23±2.28 42.83±4.46 40.90±1.64 40.97±1.72 0.593
总增重 TWG/kg 4.17±1.74b 6.30±2.51a 4.07±0.80b 3.73±1.27b 0.044
平均日增重 ADG/(kg/d) 0.10±0.04b 0.16±0.06a 0.10±0.02b 0.09±0.03b 0.044
平均日采食量 ADFI/(kg/d) 1.07±0.11 1.20±0.22 1.09±0.15 1.12±0.10 0.434
料重比 F/G 12.05±6.10 8.39±2.41 10.94±1.90 13.00±4.22 0.251

同行数据肩标无字母或相同小写字母表示差异不显著(P>0.05),不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05),不同大写字母表示差异极显著(P<0.01)。下表同。

In the same row, values with no letter or the same small letter superscripts mean no significant difference (P>0.05), while with different small letter superscripts mean significant difference (P<0.05), and with different capital letter superscripts mean extremely significant difference (P<0.01). The same as below.

2.2 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊养分表观消化率的影响

由表3可知,AOC组、TLC组和ATC组山羊CP和ADF表观消化率极显著高于CON组(P<0.01);AOC组DM和NDF表观消化率显著高于其他组(P<0.05);各组间EE表观消化率无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表3 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊养分表观消化率的影响

Table 3 Effects of Aspergillus oryzae culture and Trichoderma longibrachiatum culture on nutrient apparent digestibility of Arbas goats

项目
Items		 组别 Groups P值
P-value
CON AOC TLC ATC
干物质 DM 78.02±0.44b 83.68±0.24a 80.69±0.64b 80.52±0.94b 0.042
粗蛋白质 CP 80.60±0.08Cc 85.75±0.15Aa 84.30±1.52Bb 83.62±0.01Bb 0.001
粗脂肪 EE 87.11±0.34 87.35±0.10 87.33±0.03 87.24±0.18 0.464
中性洗涤纤维 NDF 71.46±0.23b 73.72±1.12a 72.10±0.58b 71.49±0.33b 0.011
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF 70.37±0.97Cc 73.20±0.19Aa 73.00±0.91ABab 71.68±0.48ABab 0.004

2.3 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊屠宰性能的影响

由表4可知,AOC组山羊肝脏重量显著高于CON组和ATC组(P<0.05),各组间其他指标无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表4 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊屠宰性能的影响

Table 4 Effects of Aspergillus oryzae culture and Trichoderma longibrachiatum culture on slaughter performance of Arbas goats

项目
Items		 组别 Groups P值
P-value
CON AOC TLC ATC
胴体重 Carcass weight/kg 20.81±3.01 19.82±1.44 19.67±1.18 19.44±1.17 0.613
屠宰率 Dressing percentage/% 50.33±6.38 46.67±3.67 47.83±1.94 47.00±2.53 0.402
眼肌面积 Longissimus dorsi area/cm2 16.62±3.12 14.22±3.95 15.90±2.69 15.12±2.74 0.598
背膘厚度 Backfat thickness/mm 21.99±2.83 19.95±1.66 21.54±1.79 21.47±1.29 0.077
器官重量 Organ weight/kg
头 Head 2.56±0.27 2.72±0.23 2.43±0.15 2.45±0.18 0.103
蹄 Hoof 0.83±0.06 0.92±0.16 0.86±0.04 0.84±0.03 0.316
皮 Skin 3.28±0.19 3.43±0.34 3.37±0.36 3.47±0.41 0.798
心脏 Heart 0.18±0.03 0.21±0.04 0.16±0.01 0.18±0.04 0.052
肝脏 Liver 0.60±0.07b 0.72±0.08a 0.63±0.13ab 0.57±0.05b 0.044
脾脏 Spleen 0.08±0.02 0.08±0.03 0.07±0.01 0.07±0.03 0.691
肺脏 Lung 0.35±0.06 0.36±0.09 0.27±0.04 0.33±0.08 0.114
肾脏 Kidney 0.13±0.01 0.13±0.01 0.13±0.02 0.12±0.02 0.828
器官指数 Organ index/%
头 Head 6.20±0.56 6.39±0.67 5.96±0.40 5.98±0.49 0.474
蹄 Hoof 2.03±0.24 2.15±0.30 2.10±0.11 2.06±0.11 0.754
皮 Skin 7.99±0.70 8.06±1.01 8.26±1.03 8.46±0.89 0.813
心脏 Heart 0.43±0.05 0.50±0.11 0.40±0.04 0.45±0.08 0.138
肝脏 Liver 1.45±0.18 1.68±0.11 1.56±0.38 1.40±0.14 0.168
脾脏 Spleen 0.18±0.05 0.19±0.07 0.16±0.02 0.17±0.06 0.809
肺脏 Lung 0.86±0.16 0.83±0.14 0.65±0.12 0.81±0.17 0.114
肾脏 Kidney 0.30±0.02 0.31±0.04 0.31±0.03 0.30±0.04 0.973

2.4 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊肉品质的影响

由表5可知,AOC组山羊背最长肌肉色L*、a*和b*值均极显著高于其他组(P<0.01),TLC组和ATC组最长肌肉色L*和a*值极显著高于CON组(P<0.01),同时TLC组背最长肌b*值极显著高于CON组(P<0.01);TLC组背最长肌滴水损失和蒸煮损失均极显著高于其他组(P<0.01),ATC组背最长肌滴水损失和蒸煮损失极显著高于CON组和AOC组(P<0.01);ATC组背最长肌CP含量显著高于AOC组和TLC组(P<0.05);TLC组背最长肌EE含量极显著高于其他组(P<0.01);各组间背最长肌pH和水分含量无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表5 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊背最长肌肉品质的影响

Table 5 Effects of Aspergillus oryzae culture and Trichoderma longibrachiatum culture on longissimus dorsi meat quality of Arbas goats

项目
Items		 组别 Groups P值
P-value
CON AOC TLC ATC
pH 6.40±0.30 6.36±0.29 6.48±0.21 6.33±0.15 0.284
亮度 L* 31.82±1.74Cc 37.60±2.18Aa 33.44±1.61Bb 33.63±2.26Bb <0.001
红度 a* 15.49±1.81Cc 20.50±2.16Aa 17.81±2.27Bb 16.94±1.55Bb <0.001
黄度 b* 2.78±1.14Cc 4.60±0.80Aa 3.67±1.24Bb 3.08±0.78BCbc <0.001
滴水损失 Drip loss/% 2.53±0.13Cc 2.48±0.10Cc 3.00±0.09Aa 2.85±0.13Bb <0.001
蒸煮损失 Cooking loss/% 39.07±0.78Cc 38.88±0.97Cc 42.12±1.40Aa 40.75±0.67Bb <0.001
水分 Moisture/% 71.70±0.35 71.53±0.40 71.27±0.40 71.53±0.40 0.262
粗蛋白质 CP/% DM 72.67±1.21ab 70.54±0.24bc 69.59±1.66c 74.75±1.61a 0.011
粗脂肪 EE/% DM 20.61±0.03Bb 22.70±0.66Bb 23.50±0.25Aa 20.08±0.53Bb <0.001
由表6可知,AOC组山羊腹肉pH显著高于其他组(P<0.05);AOC组和ATC组腹肉肉色L*值显著高于CON组(P<0.05);TLC组腹肉滴水损失显著高于其他组(P<0.05);AOC组和ATC组腹肉CP含量显著高于CON组和TLC组(P<0.05);TLC组腹肉EE含量极显著高于其他组(P<0.01);各组间腹肉肉色a*、b*值以及蒸煮损失和水分含量无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表6 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊腹肉肉品质的影响

Table 6 Effects of Aspergillus oryzae culture and Trichoderma longibrachiatum culture on belly meat quality of Arbas goats

项目
Items		 组别 Groups P值
P-value
CON AOC TLC ATC
pH 6.84±0.19b 7.08±0.22a 6.91±0.21b 6.88±0.24b 0.012
亮度 L* 34.07±2.36b 36.11±2.18a 35.77±2.84ab 37.51±3.44a 0.014
红度 a* 20.17±2.44 22.49±2.05 20.93±1.79 21.58±4.08 0.083
黄度 b* 4.00±1.80 4.86±0.93 4.52±1.05 4.62±1.42 0.280
滴水损失 Drip loss/% 2.89±0.21b 2.84±0.17b 3.21±0.30a 2.89±0.19b 0.034
蒸煮损失 Cooking loss/% 41.18±1.95 40.83±1.00 43.41±3.82 40.19±1.04 0.109
水分 Moisture/% 56.81±0.28 57.38±0.48 56.87±0.46 57.14±0.27 0.314
粗蛋白质 CP/% DM 35.11±0.17b 38.06±0.19a 35.04±1.83b 37.06±0.27a 0.010
粗脂肪 EE/% DM 46.83±0.47Bb 46.39±0.54Bb 48.92±0.41Aa 46.67±0.25Bb <0.001
由表7可知,AOC组山羊股二头肌pH显著高于CON组和TLC组(P<0.05);AOC组股二头肌肉色L*、a*和b*值均极显著高于其他组(P<0.01);TLC组股二头肌滴水损失和蒸煮损失显著高于CON组和AOC组(P<0.05);AOC组和TLC组股二头肌CP含量显著低于CON组和ATC组(P<0.05);ATC组股二头肌EE含量显著低于其他组(P<0.05);各组间股二头肌水分含量无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表7 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊股二头肌肉品质的影响

Table 7 Effects of Aspergillus oryzae culture and Trichoderma longibrachiatum culture on biceps femoris meat quality of Arbas goats

项目
Items		 组别 Groups P值
P-value
CON AOC TLC ATC
pH 6.63±0.18b 6.81±0.16a 6.65±0.24b 6.71±0.14ab 0.017
亮度 L* 31.35±1.51Bb 35.53±3.99Aa 31.67±1.44Bb 31.22±1.21Bb <0.001
红度 a* 17.73±2.63Bb 22.05±4.32Aa 17.73±1.49Bb 18.04±1.28Bb <0.001
黄度 b* 2.83±1.02Bb 4.45±1.21Aa 3.29±0.85Bb 2.77±0.87Bb <0.001
滴水损失 Drip loss/% 2.90±0.17b 2.87±0.28b 3.45±0.53a 3.15±0.22ab 0.024
蒸煮损失 Cooking loss/% 41.25±1.09b 41.06±1.33b 46.09±5.46a 43.39±2.89ab 0.034
水分 Moisture/% 72.44±0.61 71.91±0.39 71.79±0.55 72.76±0.60 0.182
粗蛋白质 CP/% DM 85.09±0.98a 83.06±0.16b 82.98±0.05b 85.12±1.16a 0.011
粗脂肪 EE/% DM 8.58±0.17a 8.64±1.04a 9.29±0.26a 7.01±0.12b 0.013

3 讨论

3.1 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊生长性能的影响

动物生长性能主要通过ADG、ADFI和F/G等指标体现。Zerby等[8]研究表明,饲粮添加1 g/(只·d)米曲霉提取物可以显著改善羔羊F/G;另有研究显示,饲粮添加40 g/(只·d)米曲霉培养物可显著提高湖羊ADG[9]。本试验中,饲粮添加2 g/(只·d)米曲霉培养物显著提高阿尔巴斯山羊TWG和ADG,与前人研究结果基本一致,印证了其促生长的潜力。米曲霉培养物富含的外源酶及生物活性物质可协同瘤胃微生物增强对纤维和淀粉的降解能力,从而提高饲料利用率[10-11];同时可调节瘤胃微生物区系、稳定瘤胃pH,降低酸中毒风险[12]。本研究中,AOC组F/G在数值上低于CON组,间接体现了米曲霉培养物改善饲料转化效率的潜力;而TLC组未表现出预期的促生长效果,ATC组增重略低于CON组,这可能与菌株特性、培养物添加剂量等因素有关,提示2种真菌可能存在竞争或拮抗关系[13]。

3.2 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊养分表观消化率的影响

养分表观消化率是评价饲料添加剂作用效果的重要指标,可直观反映动物对饲粮养分的利用效率[14]。本试验中,AOC组CP表观消化率极显著高于其他组,与其生长性能提升直接相关,这得益于米曲霉培养物含蛋白酶等氮代谢相关酶类,可在瘤胃中启动蛋白质预消化,将其降解为更易利用的肽类及氨基酸;同时,其代谢物有机酸还能稳定瘤胃pH,优化氮代谢[15]。TLC组CP表观消化率亦有所提高,可能与长枝木霉培养物中的活性物质能够改善纤维结构、释放束缚蛋白质有关,但效果不及AOC组,提示二者作用机制存在差异。在纤维消化方面,AOC组NDF和ADF表观消化率较CON组显著或极显著提高,且NDF表观消化率优于TLC组,这可能与米曲霉培养物中含有复合纤维降解酶系并通过益生元促进纤维分解菌增殖有关[16]。TLC组仅ADF表观消化率极显著提高,表明长枝木霉培养物对半纤维素降解较弱,导致NDF表观消化率改善有限[17]。此外,AOC组DM表观消化率显著高于其他组,表明米曲霉培养物的添加可为生长性能提供更多的物质基础。同时,ATC组各养分表观消化率未优于单独添加组,提示2种真菌可能存在竞争或拮抗关系。综上可知,米曲霉培养物促消化效果较为全面,长枝木霉培养物作用有限,二者混合添加无叠加效应。

3.3 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊屠宰性能的影响

屠宰性能是评价山羊生产效益的重要指标,主要包括胴体重、屠宰率和眼肌面积等。本试验中,各组间山羊胴体重、屠宰率和眼肌面积等主要屠宰性能指标无显著差异,表明2种真菌培养物未对阿尔巴斯山羊产肉性能及胴体组成产生显著影响,这与游伟等[18]在肉牛上的研究结果一致。值得注意的是,AOC组肝脏重量高于其他组。肝脏作为营养物质代谢的核心器官,其重量增加可能反映米曲霉培养物对机体代谢的促进作用[19],即通过提高养分表观消化率来增加肝脏营养底物的供给,增强代谢活性和蛋白质合成,表现出代偿性增生[20],这可能是AOC组生长性能更优的原因之一;不过,肝脏重量持续增加的长期效应仍需结合组织病理学及肝脏功能指标进行评估。此外,AOC组心脏重量增加、背膘厚度降低的趋势。心脏重量增加可能与米曲霉培养物改善机体整体代谢水平、增加血液循环需求有关;背膘厚度降低则提示其可能改变了机体的能量分配方向,倾向于减少皮下脂肪沉积[21],这与AOC组肌肉脂肪含量较低相吻合,表明米曲霉培养物可能促进机体代谢向蛋白质沉积和能量高效利用的方向发展[22]。

3.4 米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊肉品质的影响

肉品质是决定羊肉市场接受度和经济效益的关键性状指标。本研究通过对山羊背最长肌、腹肉和股二头肌3个典型部位进行肉品质理化指标分析,以揭示米曲霉培养物和长枝木霉培养物对阿尔巴斯山羊肉品质的差异化影响。
肉色是评价肉品质最直观的指标,反映肌肉的抗氧化能力[23]。本试验中,AOC组在多个部位的肉色L*、a*、b*值均得到提升。其中,L*值升高表明肌肉表面光反射特性增强,反映肌肉微观结构的完整性和良好的保水状态;a*值升高标志着肌肉中氧合肌红蛋白含量的增加,是抗氧化能力增强的关键体现;b*值适度升高可能与类胡萝卜素等天然色素沉积有关[24-25]。上述肉色参数的协同变化,印证了米曲霉培养物对羊肉色泽的改善作用。该效应可能是因为米曲霉培养物提高了蛋白质和纤维的消化率,为肌红蛋白合成提供了充足底物[26];同时,其代谢产物中的抗氧化成分能够延缓氧合肌红蛋白向高铁肌红蛋白的转化[27];此外,AOC组肌肉较高的pH也减少了肌纤维的收缩和汁液渗出,从而提升了肉色[28]。肌肉保水性主要由肌原纤维蛋白空间结构、细胞膜完整性及水分分布决定[29]。TLC组在各部位均表现出较高的滴水损失和蒸煮损失,说明肌肉持水能力降低。这表明长枝木霉培养物可能改变了机体能量代谢模式,导致宰后糖酵解速率异常,影响蛋白质水合能力[30]。此外,TLC组各部位较高的EE含量可能也破坏了水分保持的结构基础[31]。与之对比,AOC组肌肉保水性指标与CON组相比无显著差异,表明米曲霉培养物在改善肉色的同时能够维持正常的肌肉系水能力。
肌肉营养成分含量直接影响其营养价值和加工特性。本试验中,AOC组腹肉CP含量显著高于CON组,这与米曲霉培养物促进蛋白质消化的效应一致;但在背最长肌和股二头肌中未观察到CP含量的提升,可能与能量分配优先供给内脏或肌肉部位差异有关。米曲霉培养物通过提供外源蛋白酶和优化瘤胃发酵,促进肌肉蛋白质合成[32]。同时,AOC组背最长肌EE含量高于CON组,表明米曲霉培养物可能通过改善纤维消化和能量利用效率,间接促进脂肪沉积[33]。此外,AOC组在腹肉和股二头肌中表现出较高的pH,这有助于减少肌原纤维蛋白变性,保持细胞膜完整性[34],与该组较好的保水性和肉色相吻合。这可能与米曲霉培养物能够稳定瘤胃发酵、减少乳酸积累有关,体现其通过改善前消化环节影响终产品质量的系统性作用[35]。未来应进一步探究米曲霉培养物的适宜添加剂量、添加周期及与其他添加剂的互作效应。

4 结论

在本试验条件下,饲粮添加米曲霉培养物可改善阿尔巴斯山羊育肥后期生长性能、养分表观消化率和肉色;饲粮添加长枝木霉培养物虽可提高部分养分表观消化率,但会降低肌肉保水性;此外,米曲霉培养物与长枝木霉培养物二者联合添加无协同效应。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
仇保亚, 仇颖. 山羊传染性胸膜肺炎的诊断及综合防控[J]. 畜牧业环境, 2025(17):83-84.

QIU B Y, QIU Y. Diagnosis and integrated prevention and control of contagious caprine pleuropneumonia[J]. Animal Industry and Environment, 2025(17):83-84. (in Chinese)

[2]
赵明山. 集约化养殖模式下对肉羊减抗养殖的思考[J]. 四川畜牧兽医, 2025, 52(11):6-7.

ZHAO M S. Reflections on antibiotic reduction in meat sheep under intensive farming mode[J]. Sichuan Animal & Veterinary Sciences, 2025, 52(11):6-7. (in Chinese)

[3]
IBRAHIM S R M, PINZARI F, MOHAMED S G A, et al. Compilation of secondary metabolites produced by fungal strains identified as Aspergillus flavus var. oryzae (formerly Aspergillus oryzae),with a review of biotechnological applications,and computational studies of their anti-COVID-19 activity[J]. Mycological Progress, 2024, 23(1):66.

[4]
蒋菱玉, 赵梅, 季久秀, 等. 饲用酶制剂在动物生产中的应用[J]. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(12):144-147.

JIANG L Y, ZHAO M, JI J X, et al. Application of feed enzyme preparation in animal production[J]. Feed Research, 2022, 45(12):144-147. (in Chinese)

[5]
YANG L, LÜBECK M, LÜBECK P S. Aspergillus as a versatile cell factory for organic acid production[J]. Fungal Biology Reviews, 2017, 31(1):33-49.

[6]
REN F Y, WU F, GAO L, et al. Proteomic and mechanistic insights into the efficiency of atmospheric and room-temperature plasma mutagenesis-driven bioconversion of corn stover by Trichoderma longibrachiatum[J].Fermentation. 2025, 11(4):181.

[7]
DONG M Y, WANG S Y, XU F Q, et al. Integrative transcriptome and proteome analyses of Trichoderma longibrachiatum LC and its cellulase hyper-producing mutants generated by heavy ion mutagenesis reveal the key genes involved in cellulolytic enzymes regulation[J]. Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts, 2022, 15(1):63.

[8]
ZERBY H N, BARD J L, LOERCH S C, et al. Effects of diet and Aspergillus oryzae extract or Saccharomyces cervisiae on growth and carcass characteristics of lambs and steers fed to meet requirements of natural markets[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2011, 89(7):2257-2264.

[9]
张对红. 米曲霉培养物对湖羊生产性能和瘤胃功能的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2021.

ZHANG D H. Effects of Aspergillus oryzae culture on the performance and rumen function of Hu sheep[D]. Master’s Thesis. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2021. (in Chinese)

[10]
黄峰. 不同添加剂组合对甘蔗尾青贮品质和肉牛生长性能及瘤胃微生物群落的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 南宁: 广西大学, 2020.

HUANG F. Effects of different additive combinations on silage quality,growth performance and rumen microbial community of beef cattle[D]. Master’s Thesis. Nanning: Guangxi University, 2020. (in Chinese)

[11]
蒋润瑶, 郭子强, 吴鹏辉, 等. 长枝木霉培养物和米曲霉培养物对西门塔尔育肥牛肉品质的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2025, 37(10):6842-6851.

JIANG R Y, GUO Z Q, WU P H, et al. Effects of Trichoderma longibrachiatum culture and Aspergillus oryzae culture on meat quality of fattening Simmental cattle[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2025, 37(10):6842-6851. (in Chinese)

[12]
SUN H, WU Y M, WANG Y M, et al. Effects of Aspergillus oryzae culture and 2-hydroxy-4-(methylthio)-butanoic acid on in vitro rumen fermentation and microbial populations between different roughage sources[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2014, 27(9):1285-1292.

[13]
LIN W C, LEE M T, LO C T, et al. Effects of dietary supplementation of Trichoderma pseudokoningii fermented enzyme powder on growth performance,intestinal morphology,microflora and serum antioxidantive status in broiler chickens[J]. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 2018, 17(1):153-164.

[14]
赵国宏, 王世琴, 王芬, 等. 湖羊育肥期饲粮添加酵母培养物对营养物质表观消化率及瘤胃发酵参数的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2019, 50(10):2156-2165.

ZHAO G H, WANG S Q, WANG F, et al. Effects of yeast culture supplementation in high-concentration diet on nutrient digestibility and rumen fermentation of fattening Hu sheep[J]. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2019, 50(10):2156-2165. (in Chinese)

[15]
王晓磊, 甄玉国, 肖君, 等. 高产纤维素酶的米曲霉选育及固态发酵代谢产物对绵羊瘤胃体外发酵的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2014, 50(11):46-48.

WANG X L, ZHEN Y G, XIAO J, et al. Breeding of Aspergillus oryzae with high cellulase production and effects of its solid-state fermentation metabolites on in vitro rumen fermentation of sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2014, 50(11):46-48. (in Chinese)

[16]
魏满红, 王东贤, 邵钺馨, 等. 米曲霉产酶工艺优化及干物质消化效果的研究[J]. 饲料工业, 2024, 45(19):85-92.

WEI M H, WANG D X, SHAO Y X, et al. Optimization of enzyme production process and dry matter digestion of Aspergillus oryzae[J]. Feed Industry, 2024, 45(19):85-92. (in Chinese)

[17]
MATSUZAWA T, ISHIKAWA M, FUJIWA S, et al. Solid-state cultivation of Aspergillus oryzae using insoluble plant cell wall polysaccharides and expression analyses of plant polysaccharide degradation-related enzymes[J]. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 2025, 140(4):200-210.

[18]
游伟, 成海建, 胡鑫, 等. 米曲霉培养物对肉牛生长性能、养分表观消化率、血清生化和抗氧化指标的影响[J]. 饲料工业, 2024, 45(20):63-68.

YOU W, CHENG H J, HU X, et al. Effects of Aspergillus oryzae culture on growth performance,nutrient apparent digestibility,serum biochemical and antioxidant indexes of beef cattle[J]. Feed Industry, 2024, 45(20):63-68. (in Chinese)

[19]
GAO L, LI X L, LI Y M, et al. Biochemical characterization,biosynthesis mechanism,and functional evaluation of selenium-enriched Aspergillus oryzae A02[J]. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2024, 275(Pt 2):133714.

[20]
OYEAGU C E, MLAMBO V, MUCHENJE V. Effect of dietary Aspergillus xylanase on nutrient digestibility and utilization,growth performance and size of internal organs in broiler chickens offered maize-soybean meal based-diets[J]. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 2019, 18(9):852-865.

[21]
DELZENNE N M, KNUDSEN C, BEAUMONT M, et al. Contribution of the gut microbiota to the regulation of host metabolism and energy balance:a focus on the gut-liver axis[J]. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 2019, 78(3):319-328.

[22]
姜南, 修雨荷, 邵婷婷, 等. 米曲霉培养物对冷季泌乳牦牛产奶量、乳成分、血浆生化及免疫指标的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2024, 47(13):7-10.

JIANG N, XIU Y H, SHAO T T, et al. Effects of Aspergillus oryzae culture on milk yield,milk composition,plasma biochemical,and immune indicators in lactating yaks during cold season[J]. Feed Research, 2024, 47(13):7-10. (in Chinese)

[23]
黄卉, 孙申宇, 魏涯, 等. 红色肉贮藏期间肌红蛋白与肉色变化研究进展[J]. 南方水产科学, 2020, 16(3):119-124.

HUANG H, SUN S Y, WEI Y, et al. Research progress on color transformation of red meat during storage[J]. South China Fisheries Science, 2020, 16(3):119-124. (in Chinese)

[24]
AMARAL Y M S, DE CASTRO R J S. Chicken viscera meal as substrate for the simultaneous production of antioxidant compounds and proteases by Aspergillus oryzae[J]. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, 2023, 46(12):1777-1790.

[25]
BUENO L O, MASSINGUE A A, DE LEMOS SOUZA RAMOS A, et al. Meat color by numbers:evaluation of the myoglobin redox forms by different methods and its relationship to CIE color indices[J]. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 2024, 133:106365.

[26]
CHEN M J, WANG X Y, LIU Y, et al. Discoloration investigations of yellow lantern pepper sauce (Capsicum chinense Jacq.) fermented by Lactobacillus plantarum:effect of carotenoids and physiochemical indices[J]. Molecules, 2022, 27(20):7139.

[27]
张炫, 唐道邦, 程镜蓉, 等. 响应面法优化米曲霉生物转化血红蛋白制备小分子肽培养基[J]. 食品科技, 2016, 41(4):40-45.

ZHANG X, TANG D B, CHENG J R, et al. Response surface methodology to optimize culture medium for preparation of low molecular weight peptide by biotransformation of hemoglobin with Aspergillus oryzae[J]. Food Science and Technology, 2016, 41(4):40-45. (in Chinese)

[28]
LI Q, MA J B, YU Q L, et al. Effect of NO on AMPK activity,glycolysis and water-holding capacity in beef during postmortem aging[J]. Food Science, 2021, 42(12):17-23.

[29]
张玉伟, 罗海玲, 贾慧娜, 等. 肌肉系水力的影响因素及其可能机制[J]. 动物营养学报, 2012, 24(8):1389-1396.

ZHANG Y W, LUO H L, JIA H N, et al. Effect factors of water holding capacity of meats and its potential mechanism[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2012, 24(8):1389-1396. (in Chinese)

[30]
朱坤. 发酵饲料对育肥猪生长性能、肉品质及结肠微生物的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2018.

ZHU K. Effects of fermented feed on growth performance,meat quality and colon microbiota in finishing pigs[D]. Master’s Thesis. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2018. (in Chinese)

[31]
熊逸林, 景爱强, 王志武. 不同精粗比例的日粮对育肥羔羊生长性能和屠宰性能的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2022, 45(8):1-5.

XIONG Y L, JING A Q, WANG Z W. Effect of different ratios of concentrate to forage on growth performance and slaughter performance of fattening lambs[J]. Feed Research, 2022, 45(8):1-5. (in Chinese)

[32]
杨媛丽. 不同育肥时间对牦牛肉品质及肌肉代谢物的影响比较研究[D]. 硕士学位论文. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2020.

YANG Y L. Comparative study on the effects of breeding time on the quality of yak beef and muscle metabolites[D]. Master’s Thesis. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2020. (in Chinese)

[33]
ZHU J, SHUR S J, URRIOLA P E, et al. Aspergillus oryzae extract supplement increases nutrient digestibility[EB/OL].(2019-10-10)[2025-12-12]. https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-nutrition/aspergillus-oryzae-extract-supplement-increases-nutrient-digestibility.

[34]
孔潇, 刘琦, 罗欣, 等. 宰后初期pH-温度窗口对牛肉品质的影响[J]. 食品研究与开发, 2022, 43(10):9-14.

KONG X, LIU Q, LUO X, et al. Effects of pH-temperature window on beef quality in the early post-mortem period[J]. Food Research and Development, 2022, 43(10):9-14. (in Chinese)

[35]
肖君, 甄玉国, 周雪飞, 等. 不同添加剂量的米曲霉培养物对绵羊瘤胃发酵及羊草降解率的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2015, 51(23):53-58.

XIAO J, ZHEN Y G, ZHOU X F, et al. Effects of different addition levels of Aspergillus oryzae culture on rumen fermentation and Leymus chinensis degradation rate in sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2015, 51(23):53-58. (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.