<rp id="nbgog"><acronym id="nbgog"><input id="nbgog"></input></acronym></rp><em id="nbgog"></em>
<progress id="nbgog"></progress><progress id="nbgog"></progress>

  • <button id="nbgog"></button>
    <li id="nbgog"><acronym id="nbgog"></acronym></li>
    <dd id="nbgog"><track id="nbgog"></track></dd>
    1. 生長育肥豬飼料形式和飼喂方法對飼料微生物和生長性能的影響

      發布單位:天津瑞孚農牧科技集團有限公司

      查看次數:1411

      時間:2020-04-08
             現在總體上來說還沒有最佳的育肥豬飼料形式和飼喂方法。本試驗的主要目的在于比較不同飼料形式(粉料和顆粒料)和飼喂方法(液體飼喂、干喂、濕喂)對育肥豬飼料微生物、生長速度、肉料比和胴體品質的影響。

             試驗用兩批豬,每批每個處理6圈。每批豬216頭(初重32.7±0.48kg),每個圈6頭(全公或全母豬),試驗期為屠宰前62天。試驗為2(粉料和顆粒料)×3(液體飼喂、干喂、濕喂)雙因子試驗,試驗處理為:1、干喂粉料;2、濕喂粉料;3、液體粉料;4、干喂顆粒料;5、濕喂顆粒料;6、液體顆粒料。試驗檢測豬生長性能,屠宰時收集血液樣品進行血液學分析,對飼料進行微生物學分析和常規檢測。

             處理對肉料比有顯著互作影響。1~6處理組全期肉料比分別為0.446、0.433、0.423、0.474、0.459、0.418(SE= 0.0080;P < 0.01)。在干喂或者濕喂情形下,制粒可以顯著改善肉料比,而在液體飼喂下,制粒對肉料比沒有影響。不同處理之間對全期平均日增重沒有互作影響。粉料和顆粒料全期日增重分別為1114、1156g/d,干喂、濕喂、液體飼喂的全期日增重分別為1080、1114、1210 g/d(SE = 18.4;P < 0.001)。粉料和顆粒料組胴體重分別為76.6、79.0kg,干喂、濕喂、液體飼喂的全期日增重分別為74.7、77.3、81.5kg(SE = 18.4、SE = 0.60;P < 0.001)。液體飼喂粉料和顆粒料下,料槽的乳酸菌數和酵母菌數顯著高于干喂粉料和顆粒料。液體日糧中賴氨酸會降解,但是并沒有影響生長性能。與粉料相比,飼喂顆粒料導致血紅蛋白降低、白細胞和中性粒細胞計數增加(P<0.05)。

             總之,為了生長育肥豬生長速度最快、肉料比高建議飼喂濕喂顆粒料。

             注:濕喂是指料槽中裝有水嘴,豬可以以自己喜歡的比例混合水和料。


      The effect of feed form and delivery method on feed microbiology and growth performance in grow-finisher pigs

      There is no generally accepted optimal feed form and delivery method for feeding finisher pigs. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of feed form (meal and pellet) and delivery method (liquid, dry, and wet/dry) on feed microbiology and growth, gain-to-feed ratio (G:F), and carcass quality of finisher pigs. Two batches of pigs were used, each with six pen replicates per treatment. In each batch 216 pigs (32.7 kg; ± 0.48 SE) housed in same-sex (entire male or female) pens of six pigs per pen were on treatment for ~62 d prior to slaughter. The experiment was a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement with two factors for diet form (meal and pellets) and three factors for feed delivery (dry, wet/dry, liquid). The treatments were 1) meal from dry feeder, 2) meal from wet/dry feeder, 3) meal from liquid system, 4) pellet from dry feeder, 5) pellet from wet/dry feeder, and 6) pellet from liquid system. Pig growth performance was determined, blood samples collected at slaughter for hematological analysis and microbiological and proximate analysis of feed performed. A significant feed form × delivery interaction was found for G:F. During the overall period G:F was 0.446, 0.433, 0.423, 0.474, 0.459, and 0.418 g/g (SE = 0.0080; P < 0.01) for treatments 1 through 6, respectively. When feed was pelleted, G:F was improved when feed delivery was dry or wet/dry compared to meal but when the delivery was liquid, pelleting did not affect G:F. There were no interactive effects for overall average daily gain (ADG). Overall ADG was 1,114 and 1,156 g/d (SE = 16.9; P < 0.01) for pigs fed diets in meal and pellet form, respectively and 1,080, 1,114, and 1,210 g/d (SE = 18.4; P < 0.001) for dry-, wet/dry-, and liquid-fed pigs, respectively. Carcass weight was 76.6 and 79.0 kg (SE = 0.55; P < 0.001) for pigs fed in meal and pellet form, respectively, while it was 74.7, 77.3, and 81.5 kg (SE = 0.60; P < 0.001) for pigs delivered dry, wet/dry, and liquid diets, respectively. Lactic acid bacteria (P < 0.05) and yeast (P < 0.01) counts in troughs were greater for the liquid than the dry diet in both meal and pelleted form. There was also evidence of lysine degradation in the liquid diet but this did not impact pig growth. Feeding the diet in pelleted vs. meal form led to lower hemoglobin and greater white blood cell and neutrophil counts (P < 0.05). To conclude, wet/dry feeding of a pelleted diet is recommended to maximize growth rate while optimizing G:F in grow-finisher pigs.

      文章來源:豬營養國際論壇
      【免責聲明】:文章來源于網絡,我們對文中陳述觀點判斷保持中立,并不對文章觀點負責。僅供讀者參考。版權屬于原作者。

      色综合久久五月色婷婷-色综合久久中文综合网-色综合伊人色综合网站