亚博滚球

欢迎访问 欢乐牛牛,今天是

riliangtianjialimaijieganduiyufeigaoyangshengzhangxingnengheyangfenliyongdeyingxiang

郝生燕 杨发荣 潘发明 魏玉明 黄杰 刘文瑜

引用本文: 郝生燕,杨发荣,潘发明,魏玉明,黄杰,刘文瑜. 日粮添加藜麦秸秆对育肥羔羊生长性能和养分利用的影响. 欢乐牛牛, 2020, 37(11): 2351-2358 doi: shu
Citation:  HAO S Y, YANG F R, PAN F M, WEI Y M, HUANG J, LIU W Y. Effects of stalk on growth performance and nutrient utilization in fattening lambs. Pratacultural Science, 2020, 37(11): 2351-2358 doi: shu

日粮添加藜麦秸秆对育肥羔羊生长性能和养分利用的影响

    作者简介: 郝生燕(1985-),女,山西阳高人,助理研究员,硕士,研究方向为饲草料的开发与利用。E-mail: ;
    通讯作者: 杨发荣,
  • 基金项目: 兰州市重大科技项目(2017-2-5),甘肃省农业科学院成果转化项目(2017GAAS-CGZH03)和高寒区饲草品种筛选与种养结合技术集成示范(2019GAAS51);甘肃省中央引导地方科技发展专项(科技成果转移转化): 特色藜麦产业培育及科技扶贫模式推广

摘要: 本试验研究日粮中藜麦(Chenopodium quinoa)秸秆添加水平对育肥期湖羊羔羊生长性能和营养物质消化利用的影响,旨在确定日粮中适宜的藜麦秸秆添加水平。试验选择40只3月龄健康断奶公羔,按照平均体重接近原则随机分为4组,每组10只羊,每只羊为1个重复,分别饲喂对照组、8%藜麦秸秆组、16%藜麦秸秆组和24%藜麦秸秆组4种饲粮。试验过渡期14 d,预试期10 d,正试期60 d。结果表明: 随着日粮中藜麦秸秆添加水平的提高,试验羊体增重、平均日增重、有机物的摄入量和消化量、总能消化率均有改善,且16%藜麦秸秆组的平均日增重、有机物消化率、氮消化量、氮存留量、氮消化率、氮存留率均显著高于对照组(P < 0.05),其料重比显著低于对照组和24%藜麦秸秆组(P < 0.05);当日粮中藜麦秸秆添加水平提高到24%时,试验羊平均日增重较16%藜麦秸秆组显著降低(P < 0.05)。在本研究条件下,羔羊日粮中添加藜麦秸秆能够改善其生长性能和养分利用率,适宜的添加比例为16%。

English

    1. [1]

      赵晓倩. 我国牧草供需现状分析及未来趋势预测. 兰州: 兰州大学硕士学位论文, 2010.
      ZHAO X Q. Analysis of forage supply and demand in China and forecast of future trend. Master Thesis. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2010.

    2. [2]

      史章景, 李莹雪, 刘艳丰, 刘武军, 杨会国, 潘昱麒.  不同秸秆源NDF对巴什拜羊生产性能、器官发育和血清生化指标的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2018, 55(7): 1343-1349.
      SHI Z J, LI Y X, LIU Y F, LIU W J, YANG H G, PAN Y Q.  Effects of NDF from different straw sources on production performance, organ development and serumbiochemical indexes of Bashibai sheep[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Science, 2018, 55(7): 1343-1349.

    3. [3]

      ZHANG R Y, ZHU W Y, ZHU W, LIU J X, MAO S Y.  Effect of dietary forage sources on rumen microbiota, rumen fermentation and biogenic amines in dairy cows[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2014, 94(9): 1886-1895. doi:

    4. [4]

      MONTORO C, MILLER-CUSHON E K, DEVERIES T J, BACH A.  Effect of physical form of forage on performance, feeding behavior, and digestibility of Holstein calves[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2013, 96(2): 1117-1124. doi:

    5. [5]

      解彪.不同NDF水平饲粮对羔羊生长性能和瘤胃发育的影响. 太古: 山西农业大学硕士学位论文, 2018.
      亚博滚球 XIE B. Effect of different NDF levels on growth performance and rumen development of lambs. Master Thesis. Taigu: Shanxi Agricultural University, 2018.

    6. [6]

      WHITE P, ALVISTUR E, DIAZ C, VISAS E, WHITE H S, COLLAZOS C.  Nutrient content and protein quality of quinoa and cafiihua,edible seed products of the andes mountais[J]. Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 1955, 3(6): 351-355.

    7. [7]

      杨发荣, 刘文瑜, 黄杰, 魏玉明.  藜麦在甘肃的研发现状及对策[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2019, 9(1): 76-79.
      YANG F R, LIU W Y, HUANG J, WEI Y M.  Research and development status and countermeasures of quinoa in Gansu[J]. Gansu Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019, 9(1): 76-79.

    8. [8]

      ESCUREDO O, MARTIN M I G, MONCADA G W, FIDCHER S, HIERRO J M H.  Amino acid profile of the quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) using near in-frared spectroscopy and chemometric techniques[J]. Journal of Cereal Science, 2014, 60(): 67-74. doi:

    9. [9]

      黄杰, 杨发荣.  藜麦在甘肃的研发现状及前景[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2015, (1): 49-52. doi:
      HUANG J, YANG F R.  Research and development status and prospect of quinoa in Gansu[J]. Gansu Agricultural Science and Technology, 2015, (1): 49-52. doi:

    10. [10]

      郝怀志, 董俊, 何振富, 杨发荣.  藜麦茎秆对肉牛生产性能、养分表观消化率及血清生化指标的影响[J]. 中国草食动物科学, 2017, 37(5): 26-31. doi:
      HAO H Z, DONG J, HE Z F, YANG F R.  Effect of quinoa straw on beef cattle production performance, apparent nutrient digestibility and serum biochemical index[J]. Chinese Herbivorous Animal Science, 2017, 37(5): 26-31. doi:

    11. [11]

      田华勤. 葡萄渣提取物和亚麻籽油对湖羊羔羊生产性能和养分消化代谢的影响. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学硕士学位论文, 2016.
      TIAN H Q. Effects of grape residue extract and linseed oil on production performance and nutrient digestion and metabolism of Hu lamb. Master Thesis. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2016.

    12. [12]

      中华人民共和国农业部. NY/T816-2004肉羊饲养标准. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2004.
      Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China. NY/T816-2004 Meat Sheep Breeding Standard. Beijing: China Agricultural Press, 2004.

    13. [13]

      熊本海, 庞之洪, 赵峰.  中国饲料成分及营养价值表(第25版)[J]. 中国饲料, 2014, 21(): 31-34. doi:
      XIONG B H, PANG Z H, ZHAO F.  Chinese Feed Composition and Nutritional Value Table (25th Edition)[J]. Chinese Feed, 2014, 21(): 31-34. doi:

    14. [14]

      王玉珍, 邓颖, 李飞, 李发弟, 唐德富.  湖羊及其杂种羊生长性能和养分消化比较研究[J]. 中国草食动物科学, 2018, 38(4): 40-43. doi:
      WANG Y Z, DENG Y, LI F, LI F D, TANG D F.  Comparative study on growth performance and nutrient digestion of Hu sheep and its hybrid sheep[J]. Chinese Herbivorous Animal Science, 2018, 38(4): 40-43. doi:

    15. [15]

      张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2003.
      亚博滚球 ZHANG L Y. Feed Analysis and Feed Quality Detection Technology. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2003.

    16. [16]

      齐洪军.  肉羊干物质采食量的影响因素[J]. 现代畜牧科技, 2019, (7): 21-22.
      QI H J.  Factors influencing dry matter intake of mutton sheep[J]. Modern Animal Science and Technology亚博滚球, 2019, (7): 21-22.

    17. [17]

      王晓光. 饲草型全混日粮饲用价值评价研究. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学博士学位论文, 2011.
      亚博滚球 WANG X G. Study on the evaluation of forage value of forage type mixed diet. PhD Thesis. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2011.

    18. [18]

      袁翠林, 于子洋, 王文丹, 王利华, 林英庭.  豆秸、花生秧和青贮玉米秸间的组合效应研究[J]. 动物营养学报, 2015, 27(2): 647-654. doi:
      YUAN C L, YU Z Y, WANG W D, WANG L H, LIN Y T.  Study on the combined effect of soybean straw, peanut seedling and silage corn straw[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2015, 27(2): 647-654. doi:

    19. [19]

      胡江, 王毅, 赵芳芳, 刘秀, 权金鹏.  秸秆制粒对肉牛反刍、消化、瘤胃发酵及体增重的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(10): 163-170. doi:
      HU J, WANG Y, ZHAO F F, LIU X, QUAN J P.  Effect of straw granulation on ruminant, digestion, rumen fermentation and body weight gain of beef cattle[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(10): 163-170. doi:

    20. [20]

      严冰. 桑叶作为氨化稻草日粮蛋白质补充料的效果研究. 杭州: 浙江大学硕士学位论文, 2000.
      YAN B. Mulberry leaf as protein supplement of ammoniated rice straw diet. Master Thesis. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2000.

    21. [21]

      FRANCI O, ANTONGIOVANNI M, ACCIAIOLI R, BRUNI R, MARTINI A.  Response surface analyses of the associative effects of lucerne hay, wheat straw and maize gluten feed on growing lambs[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1997, 67(): 279-290. doi:

    22. [22]

      HUCK G L, KREIKEMEIER K K, KUHL G L, ECK T P, BOLSEN K K.  Effects of feeding combinations of steam-flaked grain sorghum and steam-flaked, high-moistur, or dry-rolled corn on growth performance and carcass characteristics in feedlot cattle[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1998, 76(): 2984-2990. doi:

    23. [23]

      王旭. 利用GI技术对粗饲料进行科学搭配及绵羊日粮配方系统优化技术的研究. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学硕士学位论文, 2003.
      WANG X. Using GI technology to scientifically mix roughage and optimize sheep diet formula system. Master Thesis. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2003.

    24. [24]

      普宣宣, 郭雪峰, 刘新路, 刘俊峰, 张秀萍.  日粮不同NFC/NDF比例对瘤胃微生物体外消化与发酵特性的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2019, (8): 91-96.
      PU X X, GUO X F, LIU X L, LIU J F, ZHANG X P.  Effects of different NFC/NDF ratios on rumen microbial digestion and fermentation in vitro[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2019, (8): 91-96.

    25. [25]

      王贝, 许贵善, 李斌昌, 董利锋, 王睿鑫.  饲粮NDF/NFC对泌乳后期奶牛瘤胃甲烷排放量、营养物质表观消化率及生产性能的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2019, 8(6): 1-12.
      WANG B, XU G S, LI B C, DONG L F, WANG R X.  Effects of NDF/NFC on rumen methane emissions, apparent digestibility of nutrients and performance of dairy cows in late lactation[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 8(6): 1-12.

    26. [26]

      普宣宣, 郭雪峰, 蒋辰宇, 刘俊峰, 张秀萍.  饲粮非纤维性碳水化合物/中性洗涤纤维对绵羊消化、瘤胃发酵参数及纤维素酶活性的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2019, 31(10): 4859-4867.
      PU X X, GUO X F, JIANG C Y, LIU J F, ZHANG X P.  Effects of dietary non cellulosic carbohydrate/neutral washing fiber on digestion, rumen fermentation parameters and cellulase activity of sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition亚博滚球, 2019, 31(10): 4859-4867.

    27. [27]

      张雪娇, 王立志, 王之盛, 薛白, 澎全辉.  饲粮NDF水平对山羊营养物质表观消化率及瘤胃古菌结构与组成的影响研究[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2018, 36(4): 542-548.
      ZHANG X J, WANG L Z, WANG Z S, XUE B, PENG Q H.  Effects of dietary NDF levels on apparent digestibility of nutrients and structure and composition of rumen archaea in goats[J]. Journal of Sichuan Agricultural University亚博滚球, 2018, 36(4): 542-548.

    1. [1]

      张玉洁赵亥山薛瑞林李讨讨马友记 . 小黑麦干草对羔羊生产性能及采食行为的影响. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

    2. [2]

      段鹏伟刘婷李彦珍郑琛周巨旺刘绘汇朱威力 . 不同NDF来源开食料对湖羊羔羊生产性能和胃肠道发育的影响. 欢乐牛牛, doi:  亚博滚球

    3. [3]

      牛骁麟张智安李飞李发弟 . 日粮粗蛋白质水平对育肥湖羊生产性能、消化代谢及血清参数的影响. 欢乐牛牛, doi:  亚博滚球

    4. [4]

      游永亮李源赵海明武瑞鑫刘贵波翟兰菊 . 种植密度对饲用小黑麦、饲用黑麦种子生产性能的影响. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

    5. [5]

      刘宁波赵亥山郭磊王霞李讨讨马友记 . 三种颗粒型全混合日粮对湖羊生产性能和瘤胃亚博滚球发育的影响. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

    6. [6]

      张怀山代立兰赵桂琴夏曾润杨世柱王春梅 . 秦王川灌区4个中型狼尾草的大田生产性能比较. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

    7. [7]

      祁军祁军郑伟郑伟张鲜花张鲜花唐高溶唐高溶王祥王祥朱进忠朱进忠 . 不同豆禾混播模式的草地生产性能. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

    8. [8]

      崔忠刚张海琴黎琦杨财容黄娟罗小梅周永红 . 3种鹅观草在成都平原的生产性能. 欢乐牛牛,

    9. [9]

      冯德庆黄勤楼黄秀声陈钟佃钟珍梅 . 杂交狼尾草、羊草不同干草比例对奶牛生产性能和乳品质的影响. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

    10. [10]

      肖雪君周青平陈有军杜忠柏晓玲田莉华彭先琴 . 播种量对高寒牧区林纳燕麦生产性能及光合特性的影响. 欢乐牛牛, doi:  亚博滚球

    11. [11]

      蔺红玲韩建成江汉青张华林贾汝敏汪春周汉林江杨李海亮陈永辉张秋炎 . 沼液对越冬期王草生产性能和品质的影响. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

    12. [12]

      娄春华王博李德锋朱晓艳齐胜利王成章 . 黄河滩区16个春播燕麦品种的生产性能和营养品质. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

    13. [13]

      徐丽君柳茜肖石良饶彦章赵东奇孙启忠王波 . 乌蒙山区春闲田粮草轮作燕麦的生产性能. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

    14. [14]

      牟琼吴佳海王少青吴静钟理 . 贵州不同生态条件对黔草5号高羊茅生产性能的影响. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

    15. [15]

      张光雨王江伟张豪睿付刚沈振西 . 西藏日喀则地区8个引进燕麦品种的生产性能和营养品质比较. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

    16. [16]

      高小莉张志新黄桠锋牛学礼南志标 . 春箭筈豌豆生产性能和品质对氮、磷、钾肥响应的研究进展. 欢乐牛牛, doi:  亚博滚球

    17. [17]

      裴亚斌杜文华刘汉成刘翠田新会 . 甘南高寒牧区3种饲草不同种植模式下的生产性能及经济效益. 欢乐牛牛, doi:  亚博滚球

    18. [18]

      王雪莱郭潇潇郭伟于崧薛盈文于立河 . 种植密度对松嫩平原西部白燕7号生产性能及光合特性的影响. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

    19. [19]

      杨建雷雄陈煜坤刘伟董志晓熊毅熊艳丽马啸 . 多花黑麦草与饲用燕麦引进品种在成都平原的生产性能评价. 欢乐牛牛, doi:  亚博滚球

    20. [20]

      黄杰马婷婷陈志远贡笑笑赵国琦 . N-羟甲基蛋氨酸钙水平对泌乳奶牛生产性能、瘤胃发酵和营养物质消化的影响. 欢乐牛牛, doi: 

  • 亚博滚球

    表 1  饲粮配方及营养水平(干物质为基础)

    Table 1.  Composition and nutrient levels of basal diets (based on dry weight)

    原料组成 Ingredient对照组
    Control group
    8% 藜麦秸秆组
    8% quinoa stalk group
    16% 藜麦秸秆组
    16% quinoa stalk group
    24% 藜麦秸秆组
    24% quinoa stalk group
    饲料配方 Basal diets
    玉米秸秆 Corn stalk/% 24.00 16.00 8.00 0.00
    藜麦秸秆 Quinoa stalk/% 0.00 8.00 16.00 24.00
    玉米 Corn/% 50.70 51.70 52.70 53.70
    糖蜜 (甜菜) Molasses (beet)/% 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
    大豆粕 Soybean meal/% 3.40 5.20 6.00 6.20
    菜籽粕 Rapeseed meal/% 6.00 3.20 1.40 0.20
    精料补充料1) Concentrate supplement/% 10.90 10.90 10.90 10.90
    合计 Total/% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
    营养水平 nutritional level
    消化能2) Digestible energy,DE/(MJ·kg−1) 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
    粗蛋白 Crude protein, CP/% 16.40 16.40 16.40 16.40
    中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber, NDF/% 32.13 31.52 31.11 30.96
    钙 Calcium, Ca/% 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
    总磷 Total phosphorus, TP/% 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
    淀粉 Starch/% 32.51 33.03 33.58 34.14
    钙/磷 Calcium/phosphorus 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
    粗饲料中性洗涤纤维 Fiber neutral
    detergent fiber, FNDF/%
    18.43 18.29 18.15 18.00
     1) 精料补充料由棉籽粕、玉米蛋白粉、麦芽根、尿素、小苏打、食盐、石粉、预混料等组成,其中矿物质(mg·kg−1全价饲粮): Fe 75,Zn 45,Cu 9,I 0.8,Mn 25,Se 0.4,Co 0.4;维生素(IU·kg−1全价饲粮): VA 2 500,VE 23,VD 200。2) 消化能为计算值,其他为实测值。
     1) Concentrate supplement consisted of cottonseed meal, corn gluten powder, malt root, urea, sodium bicarbonate, salt, limestone, and premix, including minerals (mg·kg−1 diet): Fe (as ferrous sulfate) 75, Zn (as zinc sulfate) 45, Cu (as copper sulfate) 9, I (as potassium) 0.8, Mn (as manganese sulfate) 25, Se (as sodium selenite) 0.4, Co (as cobalt sulfate) 0.4; and vitamins (IU·kg−1 diet):VA 2 500,VE 23,VD 200. 2) Digestible energy was calculated, and the others were measured values.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表 2  亚博滚球 日粮不同水平藜麦秸秆对羔羊生产性能的影响

    Table 2.  亚博滚球 Effects of different dietary levels of quinoa stalk on the production performance of fattening lambs

    处理组
    Treatment group
    初始体重 Average
    starting weight/kg
    试验末重 Average
    ending weight/kg
    平均日增重 Average
    daily gain/g
    平均日采食量 Average
    daily feed intake/kg
    料重比
    Feed∶Gain
    对照组
    Control group
    28.56 ± 2.6347.40 ± 3.82271.14 ± 45.60b1.67 ± 0.286.31 ± 1.06a
    8% 藜麦秸秆组
    8% quinoa stalk group
    28.76 ± 2.5450.16 ± 3.79305.73 ± 49.20ab1.76 ± 0.305.97 ± 0.98ab
    16% 藜麦秸秆组
    16% quinoa stalk group
    28.21 ± 2.5250.86 ± 3.92321.41 ± 48.70a1.84 ± 0.345.79 ± 0.95b
    24% 藜麦秸秆组
    24% quinoa stalk group
    28.36 ± 2.4947.20 ± 3.65264.23 ± 46.10b1.70 ± 0.296.24 ± 1.01a
    P0.7820.4750.0390.1240.045
     同列不同小写字母表示处理间差异显著(P < 0.05),未标注字母表示处理间差异不显著(P > 0.05);下表同。
     Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate significant differences between the different treatments at the 0.05 level, no lowercase letters indicate no significant difference between the different treatments (P > 0.05); this is applicable for the following tables as well.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表 3  日粮不同水平藜麦秸秆对羔羊干物质、有机物表观消化率的影响

    Table 3.  亚博滚球 Effects of different dietary levels of quinoa stalk on the apparent dry matter and organic matter digestibility of fattening lambs

    处理组
    Treatment
    group
    干物质 Dry matter有机物 Organic matter
    摄入量
    Intake/
    (kg·d−1)
    排出量 Discharge volume/(kg·d−1)消化量 Digested/
    (kg·d−1)
    消化率 Digestibility/
    %
    摄入量 Intake/
    (kg·d−1)
    排出量
    Discharge volume/
    (kg·d−1)
    消化量
    Digested/
    (kg·d−1)
    消化率 Digestibility/
    %
    对照组 Control group 1.50 ± 0.34 0.56 ± 0.12 0.94 ± 0.18 62.74 ± 1.89 1.44 ± 0.42 0.49 ± 0.13 0.95 ± 0.09 65.97 ± 2.05b
    8% 藜麦秸秆组 8% quinoa stalk group 1.58 ± 0.37 0.53 ± 0.10 1.05 ± 0.23 66.54 ± 2.01 1.56 ± 0.46 0.44 ± 0.12 1.12 ± 0.15 71.79 ± 2.31ab
    16% 藜麦秸秆组 16% quinoa stalk group 1.66 ± 0.39 0.56 ± 0.15 1.09 ± 0.21 66.18 ± 1.94 1.61 ± 0.44 0.43 ± 0.13 1.18 ± 0.21 73.29 ± 2.49a
    24% 藜麦秸秆组 24% quinoa stalk group 1.51 ± 0.33 0.52 ± 0.13 0.99 ± 0.22 65.60 ± 1.96 1.41 ± 0.49 0.46 ± 0.16 0.95 ± 0.17 67.37 ± 2.13ab
    P 0.378 0.546 0.368 0.521 0.662 0.487 0.625 0.038
    下载: 导出CSV

    表 4  日粮不同水平藜麦秸秆对羔羊氮表观消化率和氮存留率的影响

    Table 4.  亚博滚球 Effects of different dietary quinoa stalk levels on the apparent digestibility and retention of nitrogen of fattening lambs

    处理组
    Treatment group
    氮摄入量
    Nitrogen
    intake/(kg·d−1)
    粪排出量
    Fecal excretion/
    (kg·d−1)
    尿排出量
    Urinary output/
    (kg·d−1)
    消化量
    Digested/
    (kg·d−1)
    存留量
    Retention/
    (kg·d−1)
    消化率
    Digestibility/%
    存留率
    Survival rate/%
    对照组Control group41.12 ± 2.9217.97 ± 0.9411.13 ± 0.3823.15 ± 0.96b12.02 ± 1.13b56.29 ± 2.68b29.23 ± 1.45c
    8% 藜麦秸秆组
    8% quinoa stalk group
    42.18 ± 3.2316.02 ± 1.0210.62 ± 0.3526.16 ± 1.12ab15.54 ± 1.28ab62.01 ± 2.79ab36.84 ± 1.64b
    16% 藜麦秸秆组
    16% quinoa stalk group
    43.52 ± 3.3813.39 ± 0.878.39 ± 0.2930.13 ± 1.27a20.31 ± 1.57a69.23 ± 2.94a46.66 ± 1.83a
    24% 藜麦秸秆组
    24% quinoa stalk group
    40.73 ± 3.0716.72 ± 1.1210.72 ± 0.3224.01 ± 1.08ab13.29 ± 1.32ab58.95 ± 2.89b32.62 ± 1.67bc
    P0.6520.2140.7540.0410.0390.0080.001
    下载: 导出CSV

    表 5  日粮不同水平藜麦秸秆对羔羊中性洗涤纤维和酸性洗涤纤维表观消化率的影响

    Table 5.  亚博滚球 Effects of different dietary quinoa stalk levels on the apparent neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber digestibility of fattening lambs

    处理组
    Treatment group
    中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fiber (NDF)酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (ADF)
    摄入量
    Intake/
    (kg·d−1)
    粪排出量
    Fecal excretion/
    (kg·d−1)
    消化量
    Digested/
    (kg·d−1)
    消化率
    Digestibility/%
    摄入量
    Intake/
    (kg·d−1)
    粪排出量
    Fecal excretion/
    (kg·d−1)
    消化量
    Digestibility/
    (kg·d−1)
    消化率
    Digestibility/%
    对照组
    Control group
    632.1 ± 33.8281.9 ± 17.5350.3 ± 20.655.4 ± 2.9263.5 ± 16.2161.2 ± 10.1102.3 ± 9.738.8 ± 2.8
    8% 藜麦秸秆组
    8% quinoa stalk group
    641.5 ± 35.7313.9 ± 19.4327.7 ± 21.251.1 ± 2.7275.7 ± 17.5157.2 ± 11.9118.5 ± 10.843.0 ± 2.9
    16% 藜麦秸秆组
    16% quinoa stalk group
    662.3 ± 42.4327.1 ± 21.4335.3 ± 25.350.6 ± 2.5288.1 ± 18.4159.7 ± 12.3128.4 ± 11.944.6 ± 3.2
    24% 藜麦秸秆组
    24% quinoa stalk group
    622.5 ± 39.5315.8 ± 22.3306.7 ± 21.949.3 ± 2.4270.2 ± 16.7162.6 ± 14.8107.6 ± 12.939.8 ± 3.2
    P0.8740.5210.4790.3740.8360.7210.5260.114
    下载: 导出CSV

    表 6  亚博滚球 日粮不同水平藜麦秸秆对羔羊粗脂肪和总能表观消化率的影响

    Table 6.  亚博滚球 Effects of different dietary quinoa stalk levels on the apparent EE and GE digestibility of fattening lambs

    处理组
    Treatment group
    粗脂肪 Ether extract总能 Gross energy
    摄入量
    Intake/
    (kg·d−1)
    粪排出量
    Fecal excretion/
    (kg·d−1)
    消化量
    Digested/
    (kg·d−1)
    消化率
    Digestibility/
    %
    摄入量
    Intake/
    (kg·d−1)
    粪排出量
    Fecal excretion/
    (kg·d−1)
    消化能
    Digestive energy/
    (MJ·d−1)
    消化率
    Digestibility/
    %
    对照组
    Control group
    24.06 ± 1.695.51 ± 0.7818.55 ± 1.5977.09 ± 2.7824.95 ± 1.489.75 ± 1.0215.22 ± 1.8960.92 ± 4.82
    8% 藜麦秸秆组
    8% quinoa stalk group
    23.92 ± 1.525.62 ± 0.8418.30 ± 1.4776.51 ± 2.6725.62 ± 1.659.14 ± 0.9716.48 ± 1.9364.32 ± 5.13
    16% 藜麦秸秆组
    16% quinoa straw group
    23.45 ± 1.735.26 ± 0.6918.19 ± 1.6877.56 ± 2.9126.21 ± 1.728.35 ± 0.9517.86 ± 1.9668.14 ± 5.67
    24% 藜麦秸秆组
    24% quinoa stalk group
    22.82 ± 1.915.17 ± 0.7517.65 ± 1.8477.34 ± 2.9825.14 ± 1.668.78 ± 1.0716.36 ± 1.9265.07 ± 5.35
    P0.9020.7660.7120.8920.5250.4870.3680.072
    下载: 导出CSV
    亚博滚球_亚博滚球投注APP 欧洲杯足球竞猜|官网 欧洲杯足球竞猜|官网 欧洲杯足球竞猜|官网 天博体育官网|app下载 欧洲杯足球竞猜|官网 天博体育官网|app下载 天博体育官网|app下载 天博体育官网|app下载
  • <tr id='b3pwq'><strong id='b3pwq'></strong><small id='b3pwq'></small><button id='b3pwq'></button><li id='b3pwq'><noscript id='b3pwq'><big id='b3pwq'></big><dt id='b3pwq'></dt></noscript></li></tr><ol id='b3pwq'><option id='b3pwq'><table id='b3pwq'><blockquote id='b3pwq'><tbody id='b3pwq'></tbody></blockquote></table></option></ol><u id='b3pwq'></u><kbd id='b3pwq'><kbd id='b3pwq'></kbd></kbd>

      <code id='b3pwq'><strong id='b3pwq'></strong></code>

      <fieldset id='b3pwq'></fieldset>
            <span id='b3pwq'></span>

                <ins id='b3pwq'></ins>
                    <acronym id='b3pwq'><em id='b3pwq'></em><td id='b3pwq'><div id='b3pwq'></div></td></acronym><address id='b3pwq'><big id='b3pwq'><big id='b3pwq'></big><legend id='b3pwq'></legend></big></address>

                      <i id='b3pwq'><div id='b3pwq'><ins id='b3pwq'></ins></div></i>
                      <i id='b3pwq'></i>
                        • <dl id='b3pwq'></dl>
                        • 加载中
                        • 计量
                          • PDF下载量:  6
                          • 文章访问数:  392
                          • HTML全文浏览量:  186
                          文章相关
                          • 通讯作者:  杨发荣,
                          • 收稿日期:  2019-01-20
                          • 网络出版日期:  2019-10-17
                          通讯作者: 陈斌,
                          • 1. 

                            亚博滚球shenyanghuagongdaxuecailiaokexueyugongchengxueyuan shenyang 110142

                          1. 本站搜索
                          2. 百度学术搜索
                          3. 万方数据库搜索
                          4. CNKI搜索

                          /

                          返回文章
                          亚博滚球_亚博滚球投注APP 欧洲杯足球竞猜|官网 欧洲杯足球竞猜|官网 欧洲杯足球竞猜|官网 天博体育官网|app下载 欧洲杯足球竞猜|官网 天博体育官网|app下载 天博体育官网|app下载 天博体育官网|app下载