9397至尊信誉威尼斯

生长育肥猪饲料形式和饲喂方法对饲料微生物和生长性能的影响

发布单位:9397至尊信誉农牧科技集团有限企业

查看次数:363

时间:2020-04-08
       现在总体上来说还没有最佳的育肥猪饲料形式和饲喂方法。本试验的主要目的在于比较不同饲料形式(粉料和颗粒料)和饲喂方法(液体饲喂、干喂、湿喂)对育肥猪饲料微生物、生长速度、肉料比和胴体品质的影响。

       试验用两批猪,每批每个处理6圈。每批猪216头(初重32.7±0.48kg),每个圈6头(全公或全母猪),试验期为屠宰前62天。试验为2(粉料和颗粒料)×3(液体饲喂、干喂、湿喂)双因子试验,试验处理为:1、干喂粉料;2、湿喂粉料;3、液体粉料;4、干喂颗粒料;5、湿喂颗粒料;6、液体颗粒料。试验检测猪生长性能,屠宰时收集血液样品进行血液学分析,对饲料进行微生物学分析和常规检测。

       处理对肉料比有显著互作影响。1~6处理组全期肉料比分别为0.446、0.433、0.423、0.474、0.459、0.418(SE= 0.0080;P < 0.01)。在干喂或者湿喂情形下,制粒可以显著改善肉料比,而在液体饲喂下,制粒对肉料比没有影响。不同处理之间对全期平均日增重没有互作影响。粉料和颗粒料全期日增重分别为1114、1156g/d,干喂、湿喂、液体饲喂的全期日增重分别为1080、1114、1210 g/d(SE = 18.4;P < 0.001)。粉料和颗粒料组胴体重分别为76.6、79.0kg,干喂、湿喂、液体饲喂的全期日增重分别为74.7、77.3、81.5kg(SE = 18.4、SE = 0.60;P < 0.001)。液体饲喂粉料和颗粒料下,料槽的乳酸菌数和酵母菌数显著高于干喂粉料和颗粒料。液体日粮中赖氨酸会降解,但是并没有影响生长性能。与粉料相比,饲喂颗粒料导致血红蛋白降低、白细胞和中性粒细胞计数增加(P<0.05)。

       总之,为了生长育肥猪生长速度最快、肉料比高建议饲喂湿喂颗粒料。

       注:湿喂是指料槽中装有水嘴,猪可以以自己喜欢的比例混合水和料。


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.

文章来源:猪营养国际论坛
【免责声明】:文章来源于网络,大家对文中陈述观点判断保持中立,并不对文章观点负责。仅供读者参考。版权属于原编辑。

XML 地图 | Sitemap 地图