草业学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (1): 170-180.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020085
收稿日期:
2020-03-05
修回日期:
2020-04-27
出版日期:
2021-01-20
发布日期:
2021-01-08
通讯作者:
周玉香
作者简介:
Corresponding author. E-mail: zhyxzhww@163.com基金资助:
Shuang WU(), Yu-xiang ZHOU(), Rou JIA, Ya-dong JIN, Wan-zong YANG
Received:
2020-03-05
Revised:
2020-04-27
Online:
2021-01-20
Published:
2021-01-08
Contact:
Yu-xiang ZHOU
摘要:
本试验旨在研究荞麦秸秆经不同酶活纤维素酶处理对其发酵前后纤维结构、营养成分、微生物数量以及滩羊肉品质的影响。本试验分为两部分,第1部分为酶处理试验,第2部分为饲养试验。酶处理试验共设计3个组,分别为对照组(未经酶处理的荞麦秸秆),试验I组(纤维素酶I处理的荞麦秸秆),试验Ⅱ组(纤维素酶Ⅱ处理的荞麦秸秆),每组3个重复。荞麦秸秆在发酵罐中密封贮存30 d后取样,然后测定其处理前后纤维结构、营养成分和微生物数量。饲养试验选择体重相近、健康状况良好的3月龄宁夏滩羊24只,采用完全随机分组设计分为3组,每组8只。日粮精粗比为30∶70,对照组饲喂基础日粮+未经处理的荞麦秸秆,试验I组饲喂基础日粮+纤维素酶I处理的荞麦秸秆,试验Ⅱ组饲喂基础日粮+纤维素酶Ⅱ处理的荞麦秸秆。预饲期15 d,正饲期60 d。正饲期结束后,每组选择5只体重接近的羊只禁食24 h后屠宰,测定羊肉理化指标和营养成分。结果表明:1) 未经酶处理的荞麦秸秆细胞壁结构完整,经纤维素酶处理的荞麦秸秆细胞壁结构存在不同程度的破坏;2) 试验I组和试验Ⅱ组中荞麦秸秆的酸性洗涤纤维分别显著降低18.71%和13.78%,中性洗涤纤维分别显著降低19.75%和17.81%(P<0.05);3) 试验I组和试验Ⅱ组荞麦秸秆中的乳酸菌数量显著增加(P<0.05),霉菌数量显著降低(P<0.05);4)纤维素酶Ⅱ处理荞麦秸秆能够显著提高肌肉熟肉率(P<0.05),纤维素酶I和纤维素酶Ⅱ处理荞麦秸秆后使得羊肉剪切力分别显著降低9.31%和11.84%(P<0.05);5)试验I组和试验Ⅱ组的羊肉粗蛋白质含量分别为14.22%和14.23%,显著高于对照组(P<0.05)。综上所述,纤维素酶处理荞麦秸秆可以有效破坏秸秆细胞壁结构,改善秸秆营养成分,提高秸秆饲料品质和肉品质。在本试验日粮条件下,纤维素酶I处理荞麦秸秆的饲喂效果较优。
吴爽, 周玉香, 贾柔, 金亚东, 杨万宗. 纤维素酶处理荞麦秸秆对其纤维结构和滩羊肉品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(1): 170-180.
Shuang WU, Yu-xiang ZHOU, Rou JIA, Ya-dong JIN, Wan-zong YANG. Effects of cellulase treatment of buckwheat straw on fiber structure and meat quality of Tan sheep[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(1): 170-180.
项目 Items | 对照组 Control group | 试验Ⅰ组 Trial group Ⅰ | 试验Ⅱ组 Trial group Ⅱ |
---|---|---|---|
原料Ingredients | |||
荞麦秸秆Buckwheat straw (%) | 28.00 | 28.00 | 28.00 |
玉米青贮Corn silage (%) | 42.00 | 42.00 | 42.00 |
玉米Corn (%) | 10.40 | 10.40 | 10.40 |
豆粕Soybean meal (%) | 15.80 | 15.80 | 15.80 |
麸皮Wheat bran (%) | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
预混料Premix1) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
食盐NaCl (%) | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 |
合计Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
营养水平Nutrient levels2) | |||
代谢能Metabolic energy (ME, MJ·kg -1) | 8.75 | 9.68 | 9.07 |
粗蛋白质Crude protein (%) | 12.31 | 12.54 | 12.43 |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (%) | 53.85 | 50.20 | 50.57 |
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber (%) | 36.02 | 32.68 | 33.05 |
钙Ca (%) | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.30 |
磷P (%) | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.26 |
表1 日粮组成及营养水平
Table 1 Composition and nutrient levels of diets (dry matter basis)
项目 Items | 对照组 Control group | 试验Ⅰ组 Trial group Ⅰ | 试验Ⅱ组 Trial group Ⅱ |
---|---|---|---|
原料Ingredients | |||
荞麦秸秆Buckwheat straw (%) | 28.00 | 28.00 | 28.00 |
玉米青贮Corn silage (%) | 42.00 | 42.00 | 42.00 |
玉米Corn (%) | 10.40 | 10.40 | 10.40 |
豆粕Soybean meal (%) | 15.80 | 15.80 | 15.80 |
麸皮Wheat bran (%) | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
预混料Premix1) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
食盐NaCl (%) | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 |
合计Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
营养水平Nutrient levels2) | |||
代谢能Metabolic energy (ME, MJ·kg -1) | 8.75 | 9.68 | 9.07 |
粗蛋白质Crude protein (%) | 12.31 | 12.54 | 12.43 |
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (%) | 53.85 | 50.20 | 50.57 |
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fiber (%) | 36.02 | 32.68 | 33.05 |
钙Ca (%) | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.30 |
磷P (%) | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.26 |
项目Items | 对照组Control group | 试验Ⅰ组Trial group Ⅰ | 试验Ⅱ组Trial group Ⅱ | P |
---|---|---|---|---|
干物质DM | 95.57±0.64a | 27.76±0.54b | 26.47±0.20b | <0.001 |
粗蛋白CP | 3.98±0.15a | 4.26±0.30a | 4.18±0.23a | 0.268 |
粗脂肪EE | 0.75±0.07a | 0.79±0.21a | 0.80±0.21a | 0.933 |
中性洗涤纤维NDF | 67.84±1.51a | 54.44±1.51b | 55.76±3.06b | <0.001 |
酸性洗涤纤维ADF | 44.57±1.96a | 36.23±2.36b | 38.43±1.08b | 0.004 |
钙Ca | 0.39±0.02a | 0.43±0.04a | 0.42±0.02a | 0.203 |
磷P | 0.14±0.01a | 0.16±0.12a | 0.15±0.01a | 0.911 |
表2 纤维素酶处理荞麦秸秆对营养成分的影响
Table 2 Effect of buckwheat straw treated with cellulase on nutrient contents (DM basis, %)
项目Items | 对照组Control group | 试验Ⅰ组Trial group Ⅰ | 试验Ⅱ组Trial group Ⅱ | P |
---|---|---|---|---|
干物质DM | 95.57±0.64a | 27.76±0.54b | 26.47±0.20b | <0.001 |
粗蛋白CP | 3.98±0.15a | 4.26±0.30a | 4.18±0.23a | 0.268 |
粗脂肪EE | 0.75±0.07a | 0.79±0.21a | 0.80±0.21a | 0.933 |
中性洗涤纤维NDF | 67.84±1.51a | 54.44±1.51b | 55.76±3.06b | <0.001 |
酸性洗涤纤维ADF | 44.57±1.96a | 36.23±2.36b | 38.43±1.08b | 0.004 |
钙Ca | 0.39±0.02a | 0.43±0.04a | 0.42±0.02a | 0.203 |
磷P | 0.14±0.01a | 0.16±0.12a | 0.15±0.01a | 0.911 |
项目Items | 对照组Control group | 试验Ⅰ组Trial group Ⅰ | 试验Ⅱ组Trial group Ⅱ | P |
---|---|---|---|---|
乳酸菌Lactic acid bacteria (×105 CFU·g-1) | 2.75±1.34 b | 25.15±2.89a | 21.65±0.49a | 0.003 |
酵母菌 Yeast (×105 CFU·g-1) | 1.85±0.07a | 1.58±0.11a | 1.70±0.14a | 0.199 |
霉菌Mold (×102 CFU·g-1) | 7.90±0.14a | 0.25±0.07b | 0.45±0.07b | <0.001 |
表3 纤维素酶处理荞麦秸秆对微生物数量的影响
Table 3 Effect of buckwheat straw treated with cellulase on microorganism quantities
项目Items | 对照组Control group | 试验Ⅰ组Trial group Ⅰ | 试验Ⅱ组Trial group Ⅱ | P |
---|---|---|---|---|
乳酸菌Lactic acid bacteria (×105 CFU·g-1) | 2.75±1.34 b | 25.15±2.89a | 21.65±0.49a | 0.003 |
酵母菌 Yeast (×105 CFU·g-1) | 1.85±0.07a | 1.58±0.11a | 1.70±0.14a | 0.199 |
霉菌Mold (×102 CFU·g-1) | 7.90±0.14a | 0.25±0.07b | 0.45±0.07b | <0.001 |
项目 Items | 对照组 Control group | 试验Ⅰ组Trial group Ⅰ | 试验Ⅱ组Trial group Ⅱ | P |
---|---|---|---|---|
pH45 min | 6.80±0.17a | 6.65±0.04a | 6.52±0.31a | 0.221 |
pH24 h | 5.88±0.05a | 5.86±0.09a | 5.80±0.10a | 0.129 |
失水率Water loss rate (%) | 44.78±2.03a | 42.34±2.25a | 42.88±4.62a | 0.549 |
滴水损失Drip loss (%) | 2.30±0.24a | 2.12±0.60a | 2.29±0.70a | 0.833 |
熟肉率Cooked meat rate (%) | 45.31±4.29b | 49.66±1.51a | 50.09±1.85a | 0.034 |
剪切力Shear force (N) | 48.33±2.92a | 43.83±1.68b | 42.61±1.94b | 0.045 |
大理石花纹评分Marbling score | 1.60±0.55a | 2.00±0.00a | 1.80±0.45a | 0.335 |
肉色Muscle color | ||||
红度值a*-value | 19.74±1.56a | 19.92±1.90a | 18.84±0.83a | 0.489 |
黄度值b*-value | 7.29±1.23a | 8.21±1.90a | 8.11±0.64a | 0.521 |
亮度值L*-value | 42.19±2.43a | 44.04±3.21a | 45.61±2.94a | 0.212 |
脂肪颜色Fat color | ||||
红度值a*-value | 6.04±1.97a | 6.28±0.97a | 6.78±1.21a | 0.717 |
黄度值b*-value | 5.24±1.78a | 6.21±2.78a | 7.50±1.46a | 0.268 |
亮度值L*-value | 86.12±4.25a | 86.34±2.04a | 84.40±4.37a | 0.672 |
表4 纤维素酶处理荞麦秸秆对滩羊羊肉理化性质的影响
Table 4 Effect of buckwheat straw treated with cellulase on mutton physicochemical properties of Tan sheep
项目 Items | 对照组 Control group | 试验Ⅰ组Trial group Ⅰ | 试验Ⅱ组Trial group Ⅱ | P |
---|---|---|---|---|
pH45 min | 6.80±0.17a | 6.65±0.04a | 6.52±0.31a | 0.221 |
pH24 h | 5.88±0.05a | 5.86±0.09a | 5.80±0.10a | 0.129 |
失水率Water loss rate (%) | 44.78±2.03a | 42.34±2.25a | 42.88±4.62a | 0.549 |
滴水损失Drip loss (%) | 2.30±0.24a | 2.12±0.60a | 2.29±0.70a | 0.833 |
熟肉率Cooked meat rate (%) | 45.31±4.29b | 49.66±1.51a | 50.09±1.85a | 0.034 |
剪切力Shear force (N) | 48.33±2.92a | 43.83±1.68b | 42.61±1.94b | 0.045 |
大理石花纹评分Marbling score | 1.60±0.55a | 2.00±0.00a | 1.80±0.45a | 0.335 |
肉色Muscle color | ||||
红度值a*-value | 19.74±1.56a | 19.92±1.90a | 18.84±0.83a | 0.489 |
黄度值b*-value | 7.29±1.23a | 8.21±1.90a | 8.11±0.64a | 0.521 |
亮度值L*-value | 42.19±2.43a | 44.04±3.21a | 45.61±2.94a | 0.212 |
脂肪颜色Fat color | ||||
红度值a*-value | 6.04±1.97a | 6.28±0.97a | 6.78±1.21a | 0.717 |
黄度值b*-value | 5.24±1.78a | 6.21±2.78a | 7.50±1.46a | 0.268 |
亮度值L*-value | 86.12±4.25a | 86.34±2.04a | 84.40±4.37a | 0.672 |
项目Items | 对照组Control group | 试验Ⅰ组Trial group Ⅰ | 试验Ⅱ组Trial group Ⅱ | P |
---|---|---|---|---|
水分Total water | 77.60±0.69a | 76.37±0.88a | 76.49±1.45a | 0.357 |
粗蛋白质CP | 13.61±0.34b | 14.22±0.43a | 14.23±0.34a | 0.009 |
粗脂肪EE | 7.64±0.73a | 8.04±1.02a | 8.25±0.58a | 0.572 |
表5 纤维素酶处理荞麦秸秆对滩羊羊肉营养成分的影响
Table 5 Effect of buckwheat straw treated with cellulase on mutton nutritient contents of Tan sheep (%)
项目Items | 对照组Control group | 试验Ⅰ组Trial group Ⅰ | 试验Ⅱ组Trial group Ⅱ | P |
---|---|---|---|---|
水分Total water | 77.60±0.69a | 76.37±0.88a | 76.49±1.45a | 0.357 |
粗蛋白质CP | 13.61±0.34b | 14.22±0.43a | 14.23±0.34a | 0.009 |
粗脂肪EE | 7.64±0.73a | 8.04±1.02a | 8.25±0.58a | 0.572 |
1 | Xie Z L, Wu R. The research progress of cellulose. Pratacultural Science, 2004, 21(4): 72-76. |
谢占玲, 吴润. 纤维素酶的研究进展. 草业科学, 2004, 21(4): 72-76. | |
2 | Zhao S, Liu J, She R, et al. Application and research progress of cellulase in animal husbandry. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Medicine, 2014(1): 30-33. |
赵珊, 刘杰, 佘容, 等. 纤维素酶在畜牧业中的应用及研究进展.黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2014(1): 30-33. | |
3 | Narayanaswamy N, Dheran P, Verma S, et al. Biological pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for enzymatic saccharificationl. Pretreatment Techniques for Biofuels and Biorefineries, 2013, 42(8): 3-34. |
4 | Liao Q, Jiang S Z, Cao X, et al. Application progress of cellulose in livestock production. Feed Review, 2017(11): 17-19, 23. |
廖奇, 江书忠, 曹霞, 等. 纤维素酶在畜牧生产中的应用进展. 饲料博览, 2017(11): 17-19, 23. | |
5 | Ama E L T, Ssakhattab M, Hmel-zzizt T, et al. Effect of cellulose and tannase enzymes supplemention on the production performance of lactating buffaloes fed diets contain date palm fronds. Asian Journal Animal Sciences, 2016, 10(6): 307-312. |
6 | Titi H H, Tabbaa M J. Efficacy of exogenous cellulose on digestibility in lambs and growth of dairy calves. Livestock Production Science, 2003, 87(2): 207-214. |
7 | Zhao G Q, Ding J, Jia Y H, et al. Effect of heat-stress on the metabolic parameters in laying hems. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2003(2): 8-10. |
赵国琦, 丁健, 贾亚红, 等. 纤维素酶对大黍青贮饲料品质的影响. 中国畜牧杂志, 2003(2): 8-10. | |
8 | Xi X J, Han L J, Yuan S Y L, et al. Effects of lactobacillus and cellulose on the quality of corn stover silage. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2003(2): 21-24. |
席兴军, 韩鲁佳, 原慎一郎, 等. 添加乳酸菌和纤维素酶对玉米秸秆青贮饲料品质的影响. 中国农业大学学报, 2003(2): 21-24. | |
9 | Han L J, Liu X, Cai Y M. Effects of lactobacillus and cellulose on the fermentation characteristics and microorganism of whole-plant corn silage. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2004(5): 38-41. |
韩鲁佳, 刘贤, 蔡义民. 乳酸菌和纤维素酶对全株玉米青贮发酵品质和微生物菌落的影响. 中国农业大学学报, 2004(5): 38-41. | |
10 | Gao Y P, Zhang G H, Wang C, et al. Effects of corn stover fermented cellulolytic enzyme on production performance and economic benefit on beef cattle. Cereal & Feed Industry, 2013(8): 47-50. |
高月平, 张贵花, 王聪, 等. 纤维素分解酶处理玉米秸秆对肉牛生产性能和经济效益的影响. 粮食与饲料工业, 2013(8): 47-50. | |
11 | Qin P Y. Quality evaluation of Chinese main buckwheat cultivars and effect of processing on the components and health-relevant functionality of buckwheat. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2012. |
秦培友. 我国主要荞麦品种资源品质评价及加工处理对荞麦成分和活性的影响. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2012. | |
12 | Tan L L, Ai R, Luo W J, et al. Research advances in chemical composition, physiological function and application in livestock and fagopyrum dibotrys. Guizhou Journal of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2016, 40(3): 64-66. |
谭露霖, 艾蓉, 罗文菊, 等. 金荞麦的化学成分、生理功能及在畜禽养殖中的应用研究进展. 贵州畜牧兽医, 2016, 40(3): 64-66. | |
13 | Wang M. Effects of the straw diet added rumen protected methionine on the performance of Tan sheep. Yinchuan: Ningxia University, 2017. |
王萌. 秸秆日粮添加过瘤胃蛋氨酸对滩羊生产性能的影响. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2017. | |
14 | Ministry of Agriculture of China. Feeding standard of meat-producing sheep and goats, NY/T 816-2004. Beijing: Ministry of Agriculture of China, 2004. |
中国农业部. 肉羊饲养标准, NY/T 816-2004. 北京: 中国农业部, 2004. | |
15 | Liang J Y. Effects of different additives on silage quality, fiber structure and sheep rumen fermentation. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2016. |
梁建勇. 不同添加剂对青贮饲料品质、纤维结构及绵羊瘤胃发酵的影响. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2016. | |
16 | Zhang L Y. Feed analysis and feed quality testing technology (3th Edition). Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2007: 49-74. |
张丽英.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术(3版). 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2007: 49-74. | |
17 | Yang Y G, Zhang Y L, Du X, et al. Study on major microorganism changes during the silage processing of two kinds of corn silage. Chinese Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 2012, 43(3): 397-403. |
杨云贵, 张越利, 杜欣, 等. 2种玉米青贮饲料青贮过程中主要微生物的变化规律研究. 畜牧兽医学报, 2012, 43(3): 397-403. | |
18 | Zhang Y M. The effects of rumen protected amino acids added in complex chemical straw diet on production performance and meat quality of Tan sheep. Yinchuan: Ningxia University, 2019. |
张艳梅. 复合化学处理稻草日粮中添加过瘤胃氨基酸对滩羊生产性能及肉品质的影响. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2019. | |
19 | AOAC. Official methods of analysis of the association of official analytical chemists (12th Edition). Arlington: Association of Analytical Chemists, 1990. |
20 | Wang Y R. Effects of different microbial ecological preparations on microstructure and in-situ ruminal degradability of rice straw. Alar: Tarim University, 2017. |
王玉荣. 不同微生态制剂对稻秸分子结构及瘤胃降解特性的影响. 阿拉尔: 塔里木大学, 2017. | |
21 | Hill T M, Mbateman H G, Aldrich J M, et al. Effects of using wheat gluten and rice protein conce ntrate in dairy calf milk replacers. The Professional Animal Scientist, 2008, 24(5): 465-472. |
22 | Xin P, Li J. Study and application of white rot fungus in crop straw. Feed Industry, 2008, 29(14): 54-57. |
鑫鹏, 李杰. 白腐真菌在农作物秸秆中的研究与应用. 饲料工业, 2008, 29(14): 54-57. | |
23 | Adetunji A J, Du C H, Walford S N, et al. Complementary effects of cell wall degrading enzymes together with lactic acid fermentation on cassava tuber cell wall breakdown. Industrial Crops and Products, 2016, 90(5): 110-117. |
24 | Tao L, Diao Q Y. Effects of ensiling on quality and bacteria composition of corn stalk. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2016, 32(1): 198-207. |
陶莲, 刁其玉. 青贮发酵对玉米秸秆品质及菌群构成的影响. 动物营养学报, 2016, 32(1): 198-207. | |
25 | Li L X. Study on mixed silage of main crops straw and forage in Tibet. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2013. |
李龙兴. 西藏主要农作物秸秆与牧草混合青贮的研究. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2013. | |
26 | Tang Z H, Chen Y L, Zou C X, et al. Effect of candida tropicalis, bacillus subtilis and lactobacillus combination on quality and aerobic stability of sugarcane tops silage. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2015, 42(12): 3217-3225. |
唐振华, 陈月丽, 邹彩霞, 等. 热带假丝酵母、枯草芽孢杆菌与乳酸菌组合对甘蔗尾青贮品质和有氧稳定性的影响. 中国畜牧兽医, 2015, 42(12): 3217-3225. | |
27 | Xing L, Chen L J. The effect of an inoculant and enzymes on fermentation and nutritive value of sorghum straw silages. Bioresource Technology, 2009, 100(1): 488-491. |
28 | Ni K, Wang Y P, Pang H L. Effect of cellulose and lactic acid bacteria on fermentation quality and chemical composition of wheat straw silage. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2014, 5(13): 1877-1884. |
29 | Rinne M, Winquist E, Pihlajaniemi V, et al. Fibrolytic enzyme treatment prior to ensiling increased press-juice and crude protein yield from grass silage. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 12(2): 572. |
30 | Sun Q, Gao F, Yu Z. Fermentation quality and chemical composition of shrub silage treated with lactic acid bacteria inoculants and cellulose additives. Animal Science Journal, 2012, 83(4): 305-309. |
31 | Peng J F, Chen L, Zhou C S. Effect of protease and cellulase on quality and amino acid content of broad bean stalk silage. Hunan Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2019(4): 6-8. |
彭锦芬, 陈亮, 周传社. 蛋白酶以及纤维素酶处理对蚕豆秸秆青贮品质及氨基酸含量的影响. 湖南畜牧兽医, 2019(4): 6-8. | |
32 | Zeng H, Qiu Y L, Li L, et al. Effect of different combinations enzyme preparations on the nutritive value of corn stalks microbial feeds. China Feed, 2019(1): 80-84. |
曾辉, 邱玉朗, 李林, 等. 不同组合酶制剂对秸秆微贮饲料营养价值的影响. 中国饲料, 2019(1): 80-84. | |
33 | Guo Y Q, Sun Y, Hua J, et al. Effects of the cellulase on nutritive composition and utilization rate of alfalfa meal. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2003(1): 48-51. |
郭玉琴, 孙彦, 滑静, 等. 纤维素酶对苜蓿草粉营养成分及其利用率的影响. 草地学报, 2003(1): 48-51. | |
34 | Gao C P, Zhou Y X, Yang W Z, et al. Effects of buckwheat straw diet supplemented with rumen protected lysine and methionine on growth performance and digestion and metabolism of Tan sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(1): 310-320. |
高昌鹏, 周玉香, 杨万宗, 等. 荞麦秸秆饲粮中添加过瘤胃赖氨酸和蛋氨酸对滩羊生长性能和消化代谢的影响. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(1): 310-320. | |
35 | Stokes M R, Chen J. Effects of an enzyme-inoculant mixture on the course of fermentation of corn silage. Dairy Science, 1994, 77(11): 3401-3409. |
36 | Hou M L, Du Z M, Fan W Q, et al. The Effects of treating with lactic acid bacteria and cellulase on silage fermentation of natural grasses in meadow steppe. Chinese Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 2017, 48(5): 871-880. |
侯美玲, 杜珠梅, 范文强, 等. 乳酸菌与纤维素酶对草甸草原天然牧草青贮品质的影响. 畜牧兽医学报, 2017, 48(5): 871-880. | |
37 | Xu Q F, Han J G, Yu Z. Advances in the research of silage effluent. Pratacultural Science, 2005(11): 94-99. |
许庆方, 韩建国, 玉柱. 青贮渗出液的研究进展. 草业科学, 2005(11): 94-99. | |
38 | Wu T M. Effects of different feeding modes on fattening performance, slaughtering performance and meat quality of young cashmere goats. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2013. |
吴铁梅. 不同饲养模式对绒山羊羔羊育肥性能、屠宰性能及肉品质的影响. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2013. | |
39 | Hopkins D L, Mortimer S I. Effect of genotype, gender and age on sheep meat quality and a case study illustrating integration of knowledge. Meat Science, 2014, 98(3): 544-555. |
40 | Rossi L G, Fiorentini G, Josea G, et al. Impact of ground soybean and starch levels on the quality of meat from feedlot young Nellore bulls. Meat Science, 2016, 122: 1-6. |
41 | Zhang Y H. Meat quality and its related targets. Food Research and Development, 2005(1): 39-42. |
张英华. 肉的品质及其相关质量指标. 食品研究与开发, 2005(1): 39-42. | |
42 | Abdallah A, Zhang P, Elemba E, et al. Carcass characteristics, meat quality, and functional compound deposition in sheep fed diets supplemented with Astragalus membranaceus by-product. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2020, 259: 114-146. |
43 | Wang B X, Wang D, Fu Y Y, et al. Effects of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes levels in diet on slaughter performance and meat quality with housing-feeding yaks. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 30(4): 945-951. |
王斌星, 王鼎, 付洋洋, 等. 日粮中外源纤维素酶添加水平对舍饲牦牛屠宰性能和肉品质的影响. 西南农业学报, 2017, 30(4): 945-951. | |
44 | Khliji S, Ven R, Lamb T A. Relationship between consumer ranking of lamb color and objective measures of color. Meat Science, 2010, 85: 224-229. |
45 | Sun Y M. Animal and poultry meat character. Jinan: Shandong Science and Technology Press, 1993. |
孙玉民. 畜禽肉品学. 济南: 山东科学技术出版社, 1993. | |
46 | Chikwanha O C, Muchenje V, Nolte J E, et al. Grape pomace (Vitis vinifera L.Cv. Pinotage) supplementation in lamb diets: Effects on growth performance, carcass and meat quality. Meat Science, 2019, 147: 6-12. |
47 | Chen W X, Wang B, Qi S L, et al. Effects of alfalfa meal substituting peanut vine on the slaughter performance and meat quality of Boer goats. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018, 26(5): 1241-1247. |
陈文雪, 王博, 齐胜利, 等. 苜蓿草粉替代花生秧对波尔山羊屠宰性能及肉品质的影响. 草地学报, 2018, 26(5): 1241-1247. | |
48 | Yuan Q, Wang W Z, Tian F, et al. Effects of live weight on eating quality of pamei lamb. Food Science and Technology, 2014, 39(10): 143-147. |
袁倩, 王维召, 田丰, 等. 不同体重对巴美肉羊食用品质的影响. 食品科技, 2014, 39(10): 143-147. | |
49 | Hou P X. Studies on the early supplement of lamb and mutton quality of different stages of weight in Tan sheep. Yinchuan: Ningxia University, 2014. |
侯鹏霞. 滩羊羔羊早期补饲以及不同体重阶段羊肉品质的研究. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2014. | |
50 | Yang S M, Guo S Z, Ge G H, et al. Analysis on mutton nutrition components of Gannan Tibetan sheep and Tan sheep. China Herbirore Science, 2009, 29(2): 61-62. |
杨树猛, 郭淑珍, 格桂花, 等. 甘南藏羊与滩羊等羊羊肉营养成分分析. 中国草食动物科学, 2009, 29(2): 61-62. | |
51 | Diao X G, Hao X Y, Zhao J X, et al. Effects of dietary supplementation of sea buckthorn pomace on growth performance, slaughter performance, meat quality, and pH of digestive tract content of fattening sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2018, 30(8): 3258-3266. |
刁小高, 郝小燕, 赵俊星, 等. 饲粮中添加沙棘果渣对育肥羊生长性能、屠宰性能、肉品质及消化道内容物pH的影响. 动物营养学报, 2018, 30(8): 3258-3266. | |
52 | Zhang G H, Wang C, Liu Q, et al. Effects of corn straw fermented by cellulase on rumen fermentation, nutrient digestion and metabolism in beef cattle. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2013, 25(9): 2091-2100. |
张贵花, 王聪, 刘强, 等.纤维分解酶处理玉米秸秆对肉牛瘤胃发酵和养分消化代谢的影响. 动物营养学报, 2013, 25(9): 2091-2100. | |
53 | Ge H C. Evaluation of associative effects of corn silage and sweet potato vines and their effects on fattening and meat quality of dairy bulls. Baoding: Hebei Agricultural University, 2019. |
葛瀚聪. 玉米青贮与红薯秧的组合效应评价及其对奶公牛育肥性能及肉品质的影响. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2019. | |
54 | Chen P Y, He H, Xiang B Q, et al. Effects of dietary fiber sources on thigh muscle quality and nutritional composition of Sichuan white geese. Meat Research, 2019, 33(6): 13-18. |
陈霈瑶, 何航, 向邦全, 等. 日粮纤维源对四川白鹅腿肌品质及营养成分的影响. 肉类研究, 2019, 33(6): 13-18. |
[1] | 张生伟, 王小平, 张展海, 马友记, 滚双宝, 杨巧丽, 高小莉, 张保军. 青贮杂交构树对杜湖杂交肉羊生长性能、血清生化指标和肉品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3): 89-99. |
[2] | 王继卿, 沈继源, 刘秀, 李少斌, 罗玉柱, 赵孟丽, 郝志云, 柯娜, 宋宜泽, 乔莉蓉. 子午岭黑山羊与辽宁绒山羊产肉性能、肉品质、肌肉营养成分和脂肪酸含量比较[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(2): 166-177. |
[3] | 杨勤, 官久强, 柴志欣, 李华德, 曹诗晓, 张翔飞, 柏琴, 钟金城, 罗晓林. 低海拔舍饲对牦牛肌肉品质的影响研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 33-42. |
[4] | 占今舜, 霍俊宏, 胡耀, 钟小军, 武艳平. 不同精粗比全混合日粮对努比亚山羊肉品质、血清指标和器官发育的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(10): 139-148. |
[5] | 陈光吉, 吴佳海, 尚以顺, 张蓉, 何廷章, 吴彦, 娄芬, 熊俊, 甘小波, 陈荫琼, 王普昶, 韩永芬, 李世歌, 舒建虹. 外源纤维素酶对发酵全混合日粮营养价值、发酵品质和酶活性的动态影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(9): 123-134. |
[6] | 都帅, 尤思涵, 包健, 格根图, 贾玉山. 补饲精料对乌珠穆沁羊生产性能、屠宰性能和肉品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 196-203. |
[7] | 李顺, 穆麟, 曾宁波, 陈东, 张志飞, 叶志刚. 添加剂对籽粒苋与豆粕混合青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 205-210. |
[8] | 苗建军, 彭忠利, 高彦华, 郭春华, 王鼎, 付洋洋. 青稞替代玉米对育肥牦牛生产性能和肉品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(1): 95-107. |
[9] | 任海伟, 刘菲菲, 王莉, 李志忠, 王昱, 孙安琪, 沈佳莉, 孙文斌, 余倩倩. 添加纤维素酶对干玉米秸秆与白菜废弃物混贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(6): 158-167. |
[10] | 李欢欢, 史莹华, 张晓霞, 刘晓, 贾泽统, 王成章. 不同亚麻酸水平及饲料组成对育肥猪生长性能和肉品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(3): 98-107. |
[11] | 苗福泓, 李永臻, 杨国锋, 刘洪庆, 孙娟, 林英庭. 天然草原青干草对农区洼地绵羊肉品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(7): 98-105. |
[12] | 陈光吉, 宋善丹, 彭忠利, 王普昶, 吴佳海, 王小利, 郭春华, 王子苑, 高彦华, 李小冬, 柏雪, 付锡三. 体外产气法研究不同NFC/NDF底物条件下外源纤维素酶的适宜添加水平[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(7): 116-127. |
[13] | 樊懿萱, 王锋, 王强, 聂海涛, 王子玉, 陶晓强. 发酵木薯渣替代部分玉米对湖羊生长性能、血清生化指标、屠宰性能和肉品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(3): 91-99. |
[14] | 郭海明, 夏天婵, 朱雯, 张勇, 叶均安. 青贮添加剂对稻草青贮品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(2): 190-196. |
[15] | 莫负涛, 李发弟, 王维民, 喇永富, 张小雪, 刘婷, 唐德富, 乐祥鹏, 李飞, 李冲, 李万宏, 肖金玉, 谭建华, 武得虎. 西北寒旱地区舍饲湖羊生长发育特征研究[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(1): 168-177. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||