不同精粗比下柚子皮与苜蓿配比对绵羊饲粮组合效应影响

doi:10.11686/cyxb2017301

草业学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (6): 188-196.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2017301

• 研究简报 • 上一篇

不同精粗比下柚子皮与苜蓿配比对绵羊饲粮组合效应影响

袁玖^1,*, 唐德富¹, 万欣杰², 朱宝珍¹, 何天乐¹, 俞海山¹, 王军军¹

1.甘肃农业大学动物科学技术学院,甘肃兰州 730070;
2.兰州联邦饲料有限公司,甘肃兰州 730060

收稿日期:2017-07-10 修回日期:2017-09-12 出版日期:2018-06-20 发布日期:2018-06-20
通讯作者: *
作者简介:袁玖(1980-),女,新疆乌鲁木齐人,讲师,硕士。E-mail: 511370041@qq.com,yuanj@gsau.edu.cn
基金资助:
甘肃农业大学盛彤笙基金项目(GSAU-STS-1617),甘肃农业大学省级大学生创新创业训练计划项目(2017-111),甘肃省科技厅自然基金B类项目(1610RJZA084),优质胴体生产和羊肉品质提升技术研究及饲料产品开发(1602NKDH020-04)资助

Effects of the proportion of pomelo peel and alfalfa in different concentrate-roughage ratios on the associative effects of diets in vitro

YUAN Jiu^1,*, TANG De-fu¹, WAN Xin-jie², ZHU Bao-zhen¹, HE Tian-le¹, YU Hai-shan¹, WANG Jun-jun¹

1.College of Animal Science and Technology, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China;
2.Lanzhou Federal Feed Limited Company, Lanzhou 730060, China

Received:2017-07-10 Revised:2017-09-12 Online:2018-06-20 Published:2018-06-20
Contact: *

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为了探讨不同精粗比(concentrate:roughage, C:R)下柚子皮与苜蓿配比对绵羊饲粮组合效应的影响,采用体外产气法测定。C:R在20:80下,柚子皮:苜蓿为80:0,70:10,60:20,50:30,40:40,30:50,20:60,10:70,0:80组合;C:R在30:70下,柚子皮:苜蓿为70:0,60:10,50:20,40:30,30:40,20:50,10:60,0:70组合;C:R在 40:60下,柚子皮:苜蓿为60:0,50:10,40:20,30:30,20:40,10:50,0:60组合。24组饲粮组合及3种单独原料分别测定培养2,4,6,9,12,24,36,48,72,96 h内的产气量,并通过24 h产气量(GP_{24 h})和加权估算值计算出各组合的组合效应值(AE)。结果表明:与精料补充料和苜蓿相比,柚子皮的NDF含量较低,产气参数较高。C:R为20:80时,各组AE均为负值,80:0组显著大于0:80组(P<0.05);C:R为30:70时,各组AE无显著差异(P>0.05),30:40、10:60组AE分别为14.74%和3.61%,30:40组AE较好,其他组为负值;C:R为40:60时,0:60组AE极显著大于60:0组(P<0.01),显著大于30:30组(P<0.05),10:50组有大于60:0组的趋势(P=0.079),即0:60、10:50、20:40组AE较大。因此要获得高的AE,高精料(C:R为40:60)时,使用低比例柚子皮(0、10、20);中等精料(C:R为30:70)时,使用中等比例柚子皮(30);低精料时(C:R 20:80)使用高比例柚子皮(80)。

关键词: 组合效应, 精粗比, 柚子皮, 苜蓿, 精料补充料

Abstract: An experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of the proportions of pomelo peel and alfalfa in different concentrate-roughage ratios (C:R) on the associative effects (AE) of diets in vitro. Pomelo peel:alfalfa proportions were 80:0, 70:10, 60:20, 50:30, 40:40, 30:50, 20:60, 10:70,0:80 when C:R was 20:80. Pomelo peel:alfalfa proportions were 70:0, 60:10, 50:20, 40:30, 30:40, 20:50, 10:60, 0:70 when C:R was 30:70. Pomelo peel:alfalfa proportions were 60:0, 50:10, 40:20, 30:30, 20:40, 10:50, 0:60 when C:R was 40:60. Gas production (GP) was recorded at 0, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96 h. AE was defined as the difference between the observed in vitro GP_{24 h} and the predicted value from individual feed fermented alone. The results showed that the NDF content of pomelo peel was lower and its gas parameters were higher than either concentrate or alfalfa. The AE of all groups were negative and the AE of the group of pomelo peel:alfalfa at 80:0 was significantly greater than the 0:80 group (P<0.05) when C:R was 20:80. The AE of all groups were not significantly different when C:R was 30:70 (P>0.05). The AE of the groups 30:40 and 10:60 were 14.74% and 3.61% respectively and the AE of the 30:40 group was higher; the other groups were negative when C:R was 30:70. The AE of the 0:60 group was significantly greater than the 60:0 group (P<0.01) and significantly greater than the 30:30 group (P<0.05) when C:R was 40:60, and the AE of the 10:50 group tended to be greater than the 60:0 group (P=0.079). The AE of the 0:60, 10:50, 20:40 groups were greatest when C:R was 40:60. In conclusion, AE is the greatest when high levels of concentrate (C:R, 40:60) and low proportions of pomelo peel (0,10,20) are combined, when middle levels of concentrate (C:R, 30:70) and pomelo peel (30) are combined, and when low levels of concentrate (C:R, 20:80) and a high proportion of pomelo peel (80) are combined.

Key words: associative effects, concentrate-roughage ratio, pomelo peel, Medicago sativa, concentrate

袁玖, 唐德富, 万欣杰, 朱宝珍, 何天乐, 俞海山, 王军军. 不同精粗比下柚子皮与苜蓿配比对绵羊饲粮组合效应影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(6): 188-196.

YUAN Jiu, TANG De-fu, WAN Xin-jie, ZHU Bao-zhen, HE Tian-le, YU Hai-shan, WANG Jun-jun. Effects of the proportion of pomelo peel and alfalfa in different concentrate-roughage ratios on the associative effects of diets in vitro[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(6): 188-196.

参考文献

[1] Lu D X.The associative effects of feeds. Beijing: Chinese Agricultural Press, 2000: 289-294.
卢德勋. 饲料的组合效应. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 289-294.
[2] Menke K H, Raab L, Salewski A.The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant and starch digestion. Small Ruminant Research, 1979, 93: 217-222.
[3] Wang J Q, Feng Y L.Studies on the synthetic efficiencies of rumen microbial protein from various sources of fermentable carbohydrates and degradable nitrogens. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 1996, 27(2): 97-104.
王加启, 冯仰廉. 不同来源发酵碳水化合物和可降解氮合成瘤胃微生物蛋白质效率的研究. 畜牧兽医学报, 1996, 27(2): 97-104.
[4] Wang Y J, Bi Y Y, Gao C Y.Collectable amounts and suitability evaluation of straw resource in China. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2010, (9): 1852-1859.
王亚静, 毕于运, 高春雨. 中国秸秆资源可收集利用量及其适宜性评价. 中国农业科学, 2010, (9): 1852-1859.
[5] Tian X J.Research progress on comprehensive utilization of pomelo peel. The Beverage Industry, 2015, 21(4): 50-54.
田晓菊. 柚子皮的综合利用研究进展. 饮料工业, 2015, 21(4): 50-54.
[6] Menke K H, Steingass H.Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research Development, 1988, 28: 7-55.
[7] Ørskov E R, Mcdonald Ι.The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighed according to rate of passage. Agriculture Science Camb, 1979, 92: 499-503.
[8] Wang D, Li F D, Zhang Y D, et al. Mixed silage of potato pulp and corn straw affects growth performance, ruminant environments and blood biochemical parameters of mutton sheep. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21(5): 47-54.
王典, 李发弟, 张养东, 等. 马铃薯淀粉渣-玉米秸秆混合青贮料对肉羊生产性能、瘤胃内环境和血液生化指标的影响. 草业学报, 2012, 21(5): 47-54.
[9] Meng M J, Tu Y L, Bai Y F, et al. Study of associative effects of wheat straw mixed with rice bran meal on in vitro fermentation parameters. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(9): 161-172.
孟梅娟, 涂远璐, 白云峰, 等. 小麦秸秆与米糠粕瘤胃体外发酵组合效应研究. 草业学报, 2016, 25(9): 161-172.
[10] Zhang Y, Xia T C, Chang Y, et al. Evaluation of the associative effects of rape straw, corn and soybean meal using an in vitro gas production technique. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(11): 185-191.
张勇, 夏天婵, 常誉, 等. 体外产气法评价油菜秆与玉米、豆粕的组合效应. 草业学报, 2016, 25(11): 185-191.
[11] Yuan J, Wan X J, Li F D.Associative effect of alfalfa supplementation on wheat straw or ammonium bicarbonate treated wheat straw diets in vitro. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 2016, 51(5): 26-31.
袁玖, 万欣杰, 李发弟. 体外产气法评价小麦秸与苜蓿配比饲粮的组合效应. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2016, 51(5): 26-31.
[12] Sampth K T, Wood C D, Prasad C S.Effect of urea and by-products on the in vitro fermentation of untreated and treated finger millet straw. Journal of Science of Food Agriculture, 1995, 67: 323-328.
[13] Wang Z J, Ge G T, Gao J, et al. Research of associative effects of alfalfa, Astragalus adsurgens, Gaodan grass, Chinese Pennisetum and ryegrass. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2015, 27(11): 3628-3635.
王志军, 格根图, 高静, 等. 苜蓿、沙打旺、高丹草、狼尾草和黑麦草间的组合效应研究. 动物营养学报, 2015, 27(11): 3628-3635.
[14] Cui Z H, Hao L Z, Liu S J, et al. Evaluation of the fermentation characteristics of mixed oat green hay and native pastures in the Qinghai Plateau using an in vitro gas production technique. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21(3): 250-257.
崔占鸿, 郝力壮, 刘书杰, 等. 体外产气法评价青海高原燕麦青干草与天然牧草组合效应. 草业学报, 2012, 21(3): 250-257.
[15] Sun G Q, Lv Y Y, Zhang J J.A study on the associative effect of whole corn silage-peanut vine and Leymus chinensis by rumen fermentation in vitro. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(3): 224-231.
孙国强, 吕永艳, 张杰杰. 利用体外瘤胃发酵法研究全株玉米青贮与花生蔓和羊草间的组合效应. 草业学报, 2014, 23(3): 224-231.
[16] Meng M J, Tu Y L, Bai Y F, et al. Combination effects on wheat straw and non-conventional feeds. Chinese. Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2016, 28(9): 3005-3014.
孟梅娟, 涂远璐, 白云峰, 等. 小麦秸与非常规饲料组合效应的研究. 动物营养学报, 2016, 28(9): 3005-3014.
[17] Gao J, Jia Y S, Wang X G, et al. Study on the multiple-factors associative effects of forage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21(4): 236-243.
高静, 贾玉山, 王晓光, 等. 饲草组合效应综合指数研究. 草业学报, 2012, 21(4): 236-243.
[18] Wang F M.Study on the associative effects of ruminant feed based on GI and CBI theory. Daqing: Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, 2014.
王法明. 基于GI与CBI理论的反刍动物饲料组合效应的研究. 大庆: 黑龙江八一农垦大学, 2014.
[19] Yuan C L, Yu Z Y, Wang W D, et al. Research of associative effects of soybean stalk, peanut vine and corn stalk silage. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2015, 27(2): 647-654.
袁翠林, 于子洋, 王文丹, 等. 豆秸、花生秧和青贮玉米秸间的组合效应研究. 动物营养学报, 2015, 27(2): 647-654.
[20] Zhang R, Zhu X P, Li J Y, et al. Combination effects between regular roughages of alfalfa hay and Chinese wildrye in Liaoning cashmere goats. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2013, 25(10): 2481-2488.
张锐, 朱晓萍, 李建云, 等. 辽宁绒山羊常用粗饲料苜蓿和羊草间饲料组合效应. 动物营养学报, 2013, 25(10): 2481-2488.

不同精粗比下柚子皮与苜蓿配比对绵羊饲粮组合效应影响

Effects of the proportion of pomelo peel and alfalfa in different concentrate-roughage ratios on the associative effects of diets in vitro

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	吴勇, 刘晓静, 蔺芳, 童长春. 河西荒漠灌区紫花苜蓿施肥效应及其基于数据包络分析法的经济效益研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(9): 94-105.
[2]	邢易梅, 蕫理, 战力峰, 才华, 杨圣秋, 孙娜. 混合接种摩西球囊霉和根瘤菌对紫花苜蓿耐碱能力的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(9): 136-145.
[3]	覃凤飞, 李志华, 刘信宝, 渠晖, 平措卓玛, 洛松群措, 苏梦涵. 外源2,4表油菜素内酯对越夏期高温与弱光胁迫下紫花苜蓿生长和光合性能的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(9): 146-160.
[4]	童长春, 刘晓静, 蔺芳, 于铁峰. 基于平衡施肥的紫花苜蓿光合特性及光合因子的产量效应研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8): 70-80.
[5]	陆姣云, 熊军波, 张鹤山, 田宏, 杨惠敏, 刘洋. 水分胁迫对紫花苜蓿产量、品质和微量元素的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8): 126-133.
[6]	才璐, 王林林, 罗珠珠, 李玲玲, 牛伊宁, 蔡立群, 谢军红. 中国苜蓿产量及水分利用效率对种植年限响应的Meta分析[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 27-38.
[7]	张梨梨, 史敏, 李彦忠. 炭疽病对沙尔沁地区苜蓿产量和品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 117-126.
[8]	何国兴, 宋建超, 温雅洁, 刘彩婷, 祁娟. 不同根瘤菌肥对紫花苜蓿生产力及土壤肥力的综合影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 109-120.
[9]	刘文文, 崔会婷, 尉春雪, 龙瑞才, 康俊梅, 杨青川, 王珍. 蒺藜苜蓿叶绿素酸酯a加氧酶(MtCAO)基因的克隆与功能分析[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 171-181.
[10]	张玉霞, 王显国, 田永雷, 丛百明, 王月林, 陈卫东, 高凯. 科尔沁沙地播种时期对不同紫花苜蓿品种抗寒性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 73-80.
[11]	董文成, 林语梵, 朱鸿福, 张欢, 张桂杰. 不同品种葡萄渣对苜蓿青贮品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 129-137.
[12]	涂瑞, 苗建军, 彭忠利, 高彦华, 柏雪, 谢昕廷. 不同精粗比日粮中添加小肽对牦牛瘤胃体外发酵特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 78-88.
[13]	于浩然, 格根图, 王志军, 贾玉山, 连植, 贾鹏飞. 甲酸添加剂及青贮时间对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 89-95.
[14]	高丽敏, 苏晶, 田倩, 沈益新. 施氮对不同水分条件下紫花苜蓿氮素吸收及根系固氮酶活性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 130-136.
[15]	钱志豪, 韩丙芳, 刘自婷, 蔡伟, 伏兵哲, 马红彬. 渗灌对宁夏引黄灌区苜蓿生长性状及水分利用率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 147-156.