日粮中添加不同比例的牧站1号王草益生菌发酵饲料对黑猪生产性能及养殖效益的影响

doi:10.12160/j.issn.1672-5190.2021.01.008

畜牧与饲料科学 ›› 2021, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (1): 40-44.doi: 10.12160/j.issn.1672-5190.2021.01.008

日粮中添加不同比例的牧站1号王草益生菌发酵饲料对黑猪生产性能及养殖效益的影响

朱芝燕¹, 黄世洋¹, 邓国端²

1.广西大学农牧产业发展研究院,广西南宁 530001;
2.广西翠林农业科技有限公司,广西南宁 530001

收稿日期:2020-09-27 发布日期:2021-02-18
通讯作者: 黄世洋（1982-）,男,高级畜牧师,主要研究方向为牧草种植与动物养殖技术。
作者简介:朱芝燕（1974-）,女,助理畜牧师,主要研究方向为牧草种植与饲料加工技术。
基金资助:
广西重点研发计划项目（桂科AB19245024）；南宁市江南区重点研发计划与技术创新项目（201802081）。

Effects of Dietary Supplementation of Different Rates of Probiotic Fermentation Feed Prepared with Kinggrass No.1 on Production Performance and Feeding Economic Benefit of Black Pig

ZHU Zhi-yan¹, HUANG Shi-yang¹, DENG Guo-duan²

1.Institute of Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Industry Development,Guangxi University,Nanning 530001,China;
2. Guangxi Cuilin Agricultural Science and Technology Co.,Ltd.,Nanning 530001,China

Received:2020-09-27 Published:2021-02-18

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 旨在研究5种比例的牧站1号王草益生菌发酵饲料对黑猪生产性能及养殖效益的影响。选择体重相近、健康状况良好的二元杂黑猪180头,随机分为6组,每组3次重复,每个重复10头。对照组饲喂基础日粮,试验Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组、Ⅲ组、Ⅳ组、Ⅴ组分别在基础日粮中添加10%、20%、30%、40%、50%牧站1号王草益生菌发酵饲料。饲喂试验预试期7 d,正试期60 d,计算并比较各组试验猪平均日增重、平均日采食量、腹泻率、屠宰率及养殖毛利润。试验结果表明：试验组与对照组比较,Ⅲ组试验猪平均日增重差异不显著（P>0.05）,其他试验组试验猪平均日增重差异显著（P<0.05）,最高为Ⅱ组（865.24 g/头）,高于对照组23.24%,其次是Ⅰ组（839.33 g/头）,高于对照组19.55%,最低为Ⅴ组（552.51 g/头）,低于对照组21.31%;平均日采食量最大为Ⅴ组（3.35 kg/头）,最小的为对照组（2.30 kg/头）,各试验组与对照组比较,差异显著（P<0.05）;屠宰率方面,Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组差异不显著（P>0.05）,Ⅲ组、Ⅳ组、Ⅴ组差异显著（P<0.05）,屠宰率随着牧站1号王草益生菌发酵饲料添加量的增加呈降低趋势,最高为对照组,最低为Ⅴ组;毛利润最高的为Ⅱ组（21 259.0元）,最低的为Ⅴ组（10 325.7元）。育肥黑猪日粮中添加 20%牧站1号王草益生菌发酵饲料生产性能及经济指标影响效果最佳。

关键词: 牧站1号王草, 黑猪, 育肥, 经济效益

Abstract: This study was conducted to assess the effects of dietary supplementation with 5 different rates of probiotic fermentation feed prepared with Kinggrass No.1 on production performance and feeding economic benefit of black pig. A total of 180 healthy binary hybrid black pigs with similar weight were selected and randomly divided into 6 groups with 3 replicates for each group and 10 individuals for each replicate. The control group was fed with the basal diet, and the experimental groups of Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ, Ⅳ and Ⅴ were fed with the basal diet supplemented with 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% probiotic fermentation feed prepared with Kinggrass No.1, respectively. The feeding experiment was composed of a 7 days pre-test period and a 60 days formal test period. The average daily gain, average daily feed intake, diarrhea rate, dressing percentage and feeding gross profit of different groups were calculated and compared. The results showed that, except for experimental group Ⅲ （P>0.05）, statistically significant （P<0.05） differences in average daily gain between the other 4 experimental groups and the control group were found; the highest average daily gain was observed in experimental group Ⅱ （865.24 g per pig）, followed by experimental group Ⅰ （839.33 g per pig）, increased by 23.24% and 19.55% respectively compared with control group; the lowest average daily gain was observed in experimental group Ⅴ （552.51 g per pig）, which was decreased by 21.31% compared with control group. The highest and lowest average daily feed intakes were observed in experimental group Ⅴ （3.35 kg per pig） and control group （2.30 kg per pig）, and there were statistically significant （P<0.05) differences in average daily feed intake between the 5 experimental groups and control group. In terms of dressing percentage, statistically significant （P<0.05） inter-group differences were observed among experimental groups Ⅲ, Ⅳ and Ⅴ, while no statistically significant （P>0.05） difference between experimental group Ⅰ and experimental group Ⅱ was found; with the increase of supplementation rate of probiotic fermentation feed prepared with Kinggrass No.1, the dressing percentage of the black pigs exhibited a deceasing trend; the control group and experimental group Ⅴ had the highest and lowest dressing percentage, respectively. The highest feeding gross profit was obtained in experimental group Ⅱ （21 259.0 Yuan）, and the lowest feeding gross profit was obtained in experimental group Ⅴ （10 325.7 Yuan）. In summary, 20% dietary supplementation of probiotic fermentation feed prepared with Kinggrass No.1 has the best performance in improving production performance of fattening black pig and obtains the best feeding economic benefit.

Key words: Kinggrass No.1, black pig, fattening, economic benefit

中图分类号:

S828.61

朱芝燕, 黄世洋, 邓国端. 日粮中添加不同比例的牧站1号王草益生菌发酵饲料对黑猪生产性能及养殖效益的影响[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2021, 42(1): 40-44.

ZHU Zhi-yan, HUANG Shi-yang, DENG Guo-duan. Effects of Dietary Supplementation of Different Rates of Probiotic Fermentation Feed Prepared with Kinggrass No.1 on Production Performance and Feeding Economic Benefit of Black Pig[J]. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2021, 42(1): 40-44.

参考文献

[1] 王志龙,柴绍芳.不同豆科饲草日粮对育肥猪生产性能的影响[J].国外畜牧学(猪与禽),2019,39(11):12-14.
[2] 惠铄智,杨海天,孔祥杰,等.苜蓿草粉对松辽黑猪生长性能、屠宰性能及血清生化指标的影响[J].黑龙江畜牧兽医,2018(4):159-162.
[3] 王鹏,姜海龙,蔡维北,等.发酵玉米秸秆对生长育肥猪生产性能、肉品质及经济效益的影响[J].饲料工业,2014,35(23):44-47.
[4] 涂小丽,钟芳,邓伏清,等.微生物发酵饲料对生长猪生产性能和营养物质利用率的影响[J].饲料工业,2015,36(4):36-38.
[5] 张华杰,刘斌,张召付,等.烟台黑猪育肥期低蛋白质饲料添加发酵牧草和必需氨基酸饲喂效果试验[J].猪业科学,2016,33(6):130-131.
[6] 陈生龙.高活菌发酵猪用饲料对生长肥育猪生产性能的影响[J].科技经济导刊,2017(15):92,89.
[7] 邓素媛,易显凤,庞天德,等.发酵葛藤饲喂肉猪效果分析[J].草业科学,2020,37(1):185-193.
[8] 田建华,陆泳霖.2019年第三季度饲料生产监测情况[J].中国畜牧业,2020(3):39-41.
[9] 刘金伟. 狼尾草微生物发酵饲料加工及其饲喂肉猪效果研究[D].福州:福建农林大学,2014.
[10] CANIBE N,JENSEN B B.Fermented liquid feed and fermented grain to piglets-effect on gastrointestinal ecology and gowth performance[J].Livestock Science,2007,108(1/3):198-201.
[11] SCHOLTHEN R.Fermentation of liquid diets for pigs[D].Wageningen:Wageningen University,2001.
[12] 谢龙儿. 杂交狼尾草在生态养猪工程技术中的试验研究[D].福州:福建农林大学,2013.
[13] 刘艳芬. 优质牧草在现代养猪生产中的应用[J].中国猪业,2012,7(2):47-49.
[14] 高钰锋,任继武.微生态饲料添加剂的作用[J].中国畜牧兽医文摘,2014,30(12):193.
[15] 秦广军,徐阳,王海英,等.商品育肥猪饲喂发酵玉米秸秆粉效果观察[J].现代畜牧兽医,2009(6):13-14.
[16] 沈彦锋,阮瑞宝,孙延晓,等.生物发酵饲料对鲁莱黑猪育肥性能的影响[J].饲料博览,2011(9):27-29.

日粮中添加不同比例的牧站1号王草益生菌发酵饲料对黑猪生产性能及养殖效益的影响

Effects of Dietary Supplementation of Different Rates of Probiotic Fermentation Feed Prepared with Kinggrass No.1 on Production Performance and Feeding Economic Benefit of Black Pig

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

本文评价

[1]	刘宗正, 邹明, 檀学进, 曹瑞, 肖娜, 宋修瑜, 刘迎春. 菌酶协同对里岔黑猪断奶仔猪生长性能、血清免疫指标和肠道菌群的影响[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2022, 43(6): 30-35.
[2]	刘峪廷, 靳慧卿, 尔墩扎玛, 刘丽平, 米福贵. 内蒙古呼和浩特市苜蓿种植经济效益分析——以土默特左旗苜蓿种植园区为例[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2022, 43(3): 77-82.
[3]	陆奇, 韩淑敏, 赵丰, 张蓉, 王涛, 李建涛. 日粮中添加活性干酵母对西门塔尔育肥牛饲料消化率和日增重的影响[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2021, 42(6): 24-27.
[4]	乌力吉, 成海荣, 哈斯牧仁, 李春生, 何托雅, 崔红霞, 何云梅, 郭清亮, 王泽平, 张军锋, 乌兰其其格, 李荣. 内蒙古阿尔巴斯白绒山羊羔羊短期育肥效果与屠宰性能分析[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2021, 42(3): 21-27.
[5]	殷国梅, 镡建国, 王晓栋, 万敏, 冀超, 刘思博, 李俊海, 高巧玲, 陈小菲, 慕宗杰, 马春梅. 不同修复措施在退化荒漠草原生态修复中的效果研究[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2021, 42(3): 81-85.
[6]	孙林, 肖燕子, 房永雨, 吴晓光, 娜娜, 殷国梅, 刘思博, 薛艳林. 天然牧草型全混合日粮颗粒饲料配方筛选研究[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2021, 42(2): 42-47.
[7]	孙奴奴, 马晶晶. IL1RN基因在晋汾白猪仔猪和新山西黑猪仔猪不同组织和细胞中的表达特征分析[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2019, 40(8): 1-5.
[8]	赵寿保, 马进寿, 保广才, 武甫德, 李永平, 李生福, 白俊杰, 李国栋, 李吉叶, 杜元梅, 杜元生. 半舍饲条件下淘汰母牦牛育肥及犊牦牛培育技术研究[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2019, 40(7): 19-21.
[9]	周雨,罗章,张文会,文华英,胡赟,于翠翠,陈锋. 西藏不同品种藏系绵羊育肥屠宰后肉品质的分析[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2019, 40(3): 21-27.
[10]	张文, 王骏俊, 何小雷, 胡嘉彦, 王世娇. 皖南黑猪种质资源保护现状与开发利用对策分析[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2019, 40(12): 47-50.
[11]	周宁聪, 张勇, 张惠文. “杜蒙萨”三元杂交羔羊产肉性能测定试验[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2019, 40(11): 75-78.
[12]	谭博, 柴明杰, 陈秀梅, 许向莉, 陈立华, 隋晓东. 甘肃省肉牛养殖现状及饲料使用情况调查分析[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2019, 40(10): 37-40.
[13]	于长青,李冰,皮尔·穆罕默德·阿卜杜勒,武刚,贾鸿震,张晓雪,郝琴,魏文慧,李梅林. 棕榈粕渣发酵饲料养殖肉牛应用效果研究[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2019, 40(1): 46-49.
[14]	吴雪梅,赖松家. 育肥肉牛的饲料加工工艺和饲料品质评定指标与方法[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2018, 39(9): 40-42.
[15]	马吉锋,于洋,王建东,侯鹏霞,梁小军. 糖蜜尿素复合处理玉米芯对肉牛生产性能及血液生化指标影响的研究[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2018, 39(8): 27-27.