日粮中添加藜麦对芦花鸡生长性能、屠宰性能、器官指数与肠道形态的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.02.06

浙江农业学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (2): 255-265.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.02.06

日粮中添加藜麦对芦花鸡生长性能、屠宰性能、器官指数与肠道形态的影响

吴涛¹(), 魏玉明², 江小帆¹, 黄杰², 杨发荣², 陈国顺¹, 蔡原¹, 焦婷³, 赵生国¹^,^*()

1.甘肃农业大学动物科学技术学院,甘肃兰州 730070
2.甘肃省农业科学院畜草与绿色农业研究所,甘肃兰州 730070
3.甘肃农业大学草业学院,甘肃兰州 730070

收稿日期:2021-05-31 出版日期:2022-02-25 发布日期:2022-03-02
作者简介:赵生国,E-mail: zhaosg@gsau.edu.cn
吴涛(1995—),男,甘肃陇南人,硕士研究生,研究方向为动物遗传育种与繁殖。E-mail: 1572794274@qq.com
通讯作者: 赵生国
基金资助:
中央引导地方科技发展专项;甘肃省科协学会助力精准扶贫项目(甘科协20190002);甘肃省现代农业科技支撑体系区域创新中心重点科技项目(2019GAAS51);兰州市科技计划(2020-1-10);兰州市科技计划(2019-4-52)

Effects of Chenopodium quinoa in diets on growth performance, slaughter performance, organ index and intestinal morphology of Luhua chickens

WU Tao¹(), WEI Yuming², JIANG Xiaofan¹, HUANG Jie², YANG Farong², CHEN Guoshun¹, CAI Yuan¹, JIAO Ting³, ZHAO Shenguo¹^,^*()

1. College of Animal Science and Technology, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China
2. Institute of Animal Husbandry, Grassland and Green Agriculture, Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou 730070, China
3. College of Pratacultural Science, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Received:2021-05-31 Online:2022-02-25 Published:2022-03-02
Contact: ZHAO Shenguo

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究日粮中添加藜麦(Chenopodium quinoa)对芦花鸡(Gallus domestiaus)生长性能、屠宰性能、器官指数与肠道形态的影响,选用49日龄的脱温健康芦花鸡150只,随机分成5组,每组3个重复,每重复10只鸡,设4个藜麦添加水平,即日粮中添加4%(Q4)、8%(Q8)、12%(Q12)的藜麦籽实(原粮)和12%藜麦糠(QS),以不添加藜麦原料为对照组(CK),进行为期75 d的饲养试验,测定其生长性能、屠宰性能、器官指数与肠道形态。结果表明:与对照组相比,1)Q4组终末体重提高了5.23%(P<0.05),Q8、Q12组腹泻率分别降低了47.7%、52.3%,QS组腹泻率增加了196%,各试验组死亡率均低于对照组;2)试验结束后Q8组活体重增加了4.65%(P<0.05),Q4、Q8和QS组屠宰率分别提高了3.29%、3.73%和3.54%(P<0.05),Q8、Q12组半净膛率分别提高了5.12%、3.82%(P<0.05),Q8组全净膛率提高了4.81%(P<0.05);3)QS组肾指数高于对照组(P<0.05),Q8、QS组胸腺指数分别是CK组的2.00倍和2.18倍(P<0.05);4)各试验组空肠和回肠绒毛高度、绒毛高度/隐窝深度(V/C)、QS组十二指肠绒毛高度均显著(P<0.05)高于对照组,Q4组十二指肠隐窝深度、QS组十二指肠、空肠和回肠隐窝深度显著(P<0.05)低于对照组;5)经济效益分析结果表明,Q4和QS组每只鸡的毛利润比对照组分别高1.75元和1.58元。日粮中添加藜麦籽实与藜麦糠可明显提高芦花鸡生长性能和屠宰性能,对改善其器官指数和肠道形态有一定作用,添加4%藜麦籽实经济效益更好。

关键词: 藜麦, 芦花鸡, 生长性能, 屠宰性能, 器官指数, 肠道形态

Abstract:

To investigate effects of quinoa supplementation on growth performance, slaughter performance, organ index and intestinal morphology of Luhua chickens, a total of 150 healthy 49-day-old Luhua chickens were randomly divided into five groups with three replicates per group and ten chickens per replicate. Four quinoa supplemental levels were set, 4% (Q4), 8% (Q8), 12% (Q12) quinoa seed (raw grain) and 12% quinoa bran (QS) were added into the current diet, and no quinoa raw material was used as control group (CK). The feeding experiment lasted for 75 days.Growth performance, slaughter performance, organ index and intestinal morphology were determined. The results showed as follows: compared with CK, 1) final body weight of group Q4 was significantly increased by 5.23% (P<0.05), diarrhea rate in Q8 and Q12 groups decreased by 47.7% and 52.3%, respectively, while that in QS group increased by 196%, mortality rate in all experimental groups was lower than that in CK. 2) After the end of the experiment, live body weight of Q8 group increased by 4.65% (P<0.05), slaughter percentage in Q4, Q8 and QS groups were increased by 3.29%, 3.73% and 3.54% (P<0.05), respectively; half eviscerated percentage in Q8 and Q12 groups was increased by 5.12% and 3.82 (P<0.05), respectively, and eviscerated percentage in Q8 group was increased by 4.81% (P<0.05). 3) Renal index in QS group was significantly higher than that in CK (P<0.05), and thymus index in Q8 and QS groups was 2.00 times and 2.18 times of CK, respectively (P<0.05). 4) Villus height of jejunum and ileum, ratio of villus height to crypt depth (V/C) and duodenum villus height of QS group were significantly higher than those of CK (P<0.05), Crypt depth of duodenum, jejunum and ileum in Q4 group and QS group were significantly (P<0.05) lower than those in CK. 5) Economic benefit analysis results showed that the gross profit per chicken of Q4 and QS groups was 1.75 yuan and 1.58 yuan higher than that of CK, respectively. Addition of quinoa seed and quinoa bran in diet could significantly improve growth performance and slaughter performance of Luhua chickens, and also had certain effects on improving organ index and intestinal morphology, and 4% quinoa seed had better economic benefit.

Key words: Chenopodium quinoa, Gallus domestiaus, growth performance, slaughter performance, organ index, intestinal morphology

中图分类号:

S831

吴涛, 魏玉明, 江小帆, 黄杰, 杨发荣, 陈国顺, 蔡原, 焦婷, 赵生国. 日粮中添加藜麦对芦花鸡生长性能、屠宰性能、器官指数与肠道形态的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(2): 255-265.

WU Tao, WEI Yuming, JIANG Xiaofan, HUANG Jie, YANG Farong, CHEN Guoshun, CAI Yuan, JIAO Ting, ZHAO Shenguo. Effects of Chenopodium quinoa in diets on growth performance, slaughter performance, organ index and intestinal morphology of Luhua chickens[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(2): 255-265.

图/表 9

参考文献 46

[1]	郝志锋. 浅析藜麦育种技术研究进展[J]. 山西农经, 2020(13): 96, 98.
	HAO Z F. A brief analysis of the research progress of quinoa breeding technology [J]. Shanxi Agricultural Economy, 2020(13): 96, 98.(in Chinese)
[2]	王黎明, 马宁, 李颂, 等. 藜麦的营养价值及其应用前景[J]. 食品工业科技, 2014, 35(1):381-384.
	WANG L M, MA N, LI S, et al. Nutritional properties of quinoa and its application prospects[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2014, 35(1):381-384.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	杨发荣, 刘文瑜, 黄杰, 等. 甘肃省藜麦产业发展现状及对策[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2019(1):76-79.
	YANG F R, LIU W Y, HUANG J, et al. Current situation and countermeasure of quinoa industry in Gansu Province[J]. Gansu Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019(1):76-79.(in Chinese)
[4]	杨发荣, 黄杰, 魏玉明, 等. 藜麦生物学特性及应用[J]. 草业科学, 2017, 34(3):607-613.
	YANG F R, HUANG J, WEI Y M, et al. A review of biological characteristics, applications, and culture of Chenopodium quinoa[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2017, 34(3):607-613.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[5]	BHARGAVA A, SHUKLA S, OHRI D. Chenopodium quinoa: an Indian perspective[J]. Industrial Crops and Products, 2006, 23(1):73-87. DOI URL
[6]	FUENTES F, BHARGAVA A. Morphological analysis of quinoa germplasm grown under lowland desert conditions[J]. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 2011, 197(2):124-134. DOI URL
[7]	STIKIC R, GLAMOCLIJA D, DEMIN M, et al. Agronomical and nutritional evaluation of quinoa seeds (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as an ingredient in bread formulations[J]. Journal of Cereal Science, 2012, 55(2):132-138. DOI URL
[8]	丁云双, 曾亚文, 闵康, 等. 藜麦功能成分综合研究与利用[J]. 生物技术进展, 2015, 5(5):340-346.
	DING Y S, ZENG Y W, MIN K, et al. Comprehensive research and utilization of functional components in quinoa[J]. Current Biotechnology, 2015, 5(5):340-346.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	金茜, 杨发荣, 黄杰, 等. 我国藜麦籽实的研究与开发利用进展[J]. 农业科技与信息, 2018(10):36-41.
	JIN Q, YANG F R, HUANG J, et al. Progress in research, development and utilization of quinoa seeds in China[J]. Agricultural Science-Technology and Information, 2018(10):36-41.(in Chinese)
[10]	张慧玲, 王志伟, 周中凯. 不同汽爆处理对藜麦秸秆化学组成及纤维结构的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2018, 20(7):105-112.
	ZHANG H L, WANG Z W, ZHOU Z K. Influence of different steam explosion treatments on chemical composition and fiber structure of quinoa straw[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2018, 20(7):105-112.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[11]	魏玉明, 杨发荣, 刘文瑜, 等. 藜麦不同生育期营养物质积累与分配规律[J]. 草业科学, 2018, 35(7):1720-1727.
	WEI Y M, YANG F R, LIU W Y, et al. Regulation of nutrient accumulation and distribution in quinoa at different growth stages[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(7):1720-1727.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[12]	郝怀志, 董俊, 杨发荣. 日粮中添加藜麦秸秆对奶牛生产性能和血清生化指标的影响[J]. 中国饲料, 2019(11):61-65.
	HAO H Z, DONG J, YANG F R. Effect of dietary quinoa straw on performance and serum biochemical indexes in dairy cows[J]. China Feed, 2019(11):61-65.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	郝生燕, 杨发荣, 潘发明, 等. 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[J]. 草业科学, 2020, 37(11):2351-2358.
	HAO S Y, YANG F R, PAN F M, et al. Effects of Chenopodium quinoa stalk on growth performance and nutrient utilization in fattening lambs[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2020, 37(11):2351-2358.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[14]	郝怀志, 董俊, 何振富, 等. 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.
	HAO H Z, DONG J, HE Z F, et al. Effects of quinoa stem on performance, apparent digestibility and serum biochemical indicators of beef cattle[J]. China Herbivore Science, 2017, 37(5):26-31.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	JACOBSEN E E, SKADHAUGE B, JACOBSEN S E . Effect of dietary inclusion of quinoa on broiler growth performance[J]. Animal Feed Science & Technology, 1997, 65(1):5-14.
[16]	ZHAO Y T. Comparisons of meat quality characteirstics and the expressions of H-FABP gene of three chicken breeds[D]. Changchun: Jilin University, 2013. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	杨宁. 家禽生产学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2002.
[18]	中华人民共和国农业农村部. 家禽生产性能名词术语和度量统计方法:NY/T823-2004[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2005.
[19]	李百成, 韦博, 杨婷, 等. 藜麦脱壳降皂工艺研究与应用[J]. 中国种业, 2020(9):37-38.
	LI B C, WEI B, YANG T, et al. Study and application of soap reduction process of quinoa hellout[J]. China Seed Industry, 2020(9):37-38.(in Chinese)
[20]	MA W W, HEINSTEIN P F, MCLAUGHLIN J L. Additional toxic, bitter saponins from the seeds of Chenopodium quinoa[J]. Journal of Natural Products, 1989, 52(5):1132-1135. DOI URL
[21]	蔡云汐. 藜麦营养价值分析及保健功效的动物实验研究[D]. 济南: 山东大学, 2019.
	CAI Y X. Analysis of the nutritional value of quinoa and animal experiment on its health care effects[D]. Jinan: Shandong University, 2019. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	MOSQUERA M L, PORTILLA S, LÓPEZ F J. Evaluación del efecto nutricional de quinua (Chenopodium quinoa Willdenow) con diferentes niveles de inclusión en dietas Para pollos de engorde[J]. Biotecnología En El Sector Agropecuario y Agroindustrial, 2009, 7(1):76-90.
[23]	魏爱春, 杨修仕, 么杨, 等. 藜麦营养功能成分及生物活性研究进展[J]. 食品科学, 2015, 36(15):272-276.
	WEI A C, YANG X S, YAO Y, et al. Progress in research on nutritional and functional components and bioactivity of quinoa(Chenopodium quinoa Willd.)[J]. Food Science, 2015, 36(15):272-276.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	范三红, 李兰, 张锦华, 等. 藜麦糠黄酮的抑菌性研究[J]. 中国食品添加剂, 2020, 31(2):126-131.
	FAN S H, LI L, ZHANG J H, et al. Antibacterial property of flavonoids from Chenopodium quinoa chaff[J]. China Food Additives, 2020, 31(2):126-131.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	杨海明, 王志跃, 孙红暖, 等. 硒对仔鹅生长性能、血清生化指标、抗氧化能力、屠宰性能和肉品质的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2015, 27(12):3699-3707.
	YANG H M, WANG Z Y, SUN H N, et al. Effects of selenium on growth performance, serum biochemical indices, antioxidant capacity, slaughter performance and meat quality of goslings[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2015, 27(12):3699-3707.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[26]	张芬芬, 王志跃, 杨海明, 等. 木薯渣对22~49日龄仔鹅生长性能、屠宰性能及内脏器官发育的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2015, 27(6):1804-1812.
	ZHANG F F, WANG Z Y, YANG H M, et al. Effects of cassava residues on growth performance, slaughter performance and visceral development of geese at 22 to 49 days of age[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2015, 27(6):1804-1812.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	张秀梅. 汶上芦花鸡和济宁百日鸡肉质特性的研究[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2014: 28-29.
	ZHANG X M. Studies on meat characteristics between Wenshang Barred chickens and Jining Bairi chickens[D]. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2014: 28-29.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[28]	刘定发, 林勇, 蒋隽, 等. 性别对优质黄羽肉鸡屠体性状和肌肉品质的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2005, 32(11):23-25.
	LIU D F, LIN Y, JIANG J, et al. Effects of sex on carcass traits and muscle quality of quality yellow-feathered broilers[J]. Animal Science Abroad, 2005, 32(11):23-25.(in Chinese)
[29]	周桂莲, 林映才, 蒋守群, 等. 饲粮代谢能水平对22~42日龄黄羽肉鸡生长性能、胴体品质以及部分血液生化指标影响的研究[J]. 饲料工业, 2004, 25(3):35-38.
	ZHOU G L, LIN Y C, JIANG S Q, et al. Effects of dietary metabolizable energy level on growth performance, carcass quality and some blood biochemical indices of yellow-feathered broilers aged 22 to 42 days[J]. Feed Industry, 2004, 25(3):35-38.(in Chinese)
[30]	蔺淑琴, 李金录, 史兆国, 等. 日粮不同营养水平对黄羽肉鸡屠宰性能及肉品质的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2008, 35(8):9-13.
	LIN S Q, LI J L, SHI Z G, et al. Effects of dietary nutrient level on slaughter performance and partial meat quality indices of yellow-feathered broiler[J]. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2008, 35(8):9-13.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[31]	王健, 杨芷, 张得才, 等. 不同补饲量对林下散养蛋鸡内脏器官、血常规及血清生化指标的影响[J]. 中国家禽, 2014, 36(23):33-36.
	WANG J, YANG Z, ZHANG D C, et al. Effects of different supplementary feeding levels on visceral organs, blood parameters and serum biochemical indexes of free range laying hens in the orchard[J]. China Poultry, 2014, 36(23):33-36.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[32]	熊忙利, 张文娟, 张兆顺. 槐树林下散养对芦花鸡血常规、血清生化指标及内脏器官指数的影响[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2019(6):51-53.
	XIONG M L, ZHANG W J, ZHANG Z S. Effects of free rearing under Sophora japonica forest on blood routine, serum biochemical indexes and visceral organ indexes of Luhua chickens[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2019(6):51-53.(in Chinese)
[33]	从光雷, 肖蕴祺, 张倩雲, 等. 饲粮添加化香果单宁对肉鸡生长性能、屠宰性能、器官指数、肉品质、抗氧化功能和肠道发育的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(5):2661-2671.
	CONG G L, XIAO Y Q, ZHANG Q Y, et al. Effects of Plotytarya strohilacea Sieb. et Zuce tannin on growth performance, slaughter performance, organ indexes, meat quality, antioxidant function and intestinal development of broilers[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(5):2661-2671.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[34]	张李荣. 三种益生菌对雏鸡生长、小肠发育及盲肠微生物区系的影响[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2018.
	ZHANG L R. Effects of three probiotics on the growth, small intestine development and cecum microorganism of chicks[D]. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2018. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[35]	黄晨轩, 岳巧娴, 郝二英, 等. 植物提取物GT-S对雏鸡生长性能、器官指数和血清免疫指标的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(1):32-34.
	HUANG C X, YUE Q X, HAO E Y, et al. Effect of plant extracts GT-S on growth performance, organ indexes and serum biochemical parameter of chicks[J]. Feed Research, 2021, 44(1):32-34.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[36]	ZHENG X C, WU Q J, SONG Z H, et al. Effects of oridonin on growth performance and oxidative stress in broilers challenged with lipopolysaccharide[J]. Poultry Science, 2016, 95(10):2281-2289. DOI URL
[37]	阳金金, 杨芷, 杨雨, 等. 甜菜碱对脂多糖刺激仔鹅生长性能、器官指数、血清生化指标及脾脏炎性因子表达的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(4):2044-2054.
	YANG J J, YANG Z, YANG Y, et al. Effects of betaine on growth performance, organ indices, serum biochemical parameters and spleen inflammatory factor mRNA expression of geese challenged by lipopolysaccharide[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(4):2044-2054.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[38]	宋晓雯, 朱风华, 王利华, 等. 日粮能量水平对育成期崂山奶山羊屠宰性能的研究[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2016, 52(7):55-60.
	SONG X W, ZHU F H, WANG L H, et al. Effects of dietary energy level on growth performance and serum biochemical indices of growing Laoshan dairy goats[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2016, 52(7):55-60.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[39]	ZHU Y J, LI H, WANG X Z. Lunasin abrogates monocytes to endothelial cells[J]. Molecular Immunology, 2017, 92:146-150. DOI URL
[40]	刘永, 丁贤群, 佟荟全, 等. 尼西鸡器官指数对比分析[J]. 中国家禽, 2016, 38(20):63-66.
	LIU Y, DING X Q, TONG H Q, et al. Comparative analysis of organ index of Nissi chicken[J]. China Poultry, 2016, 38(20):63-66.(in Chinese)
[41]	CASPARY W F. Physiology and pathophysiology of intestinal absorption[J]. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1992, 55(1):299S-308S. DOI URL
[42]	PAIVA D, WALK C, MCELROY A. Dietary calcium, phosphorus, and phytase effects on bird performance, intestinal morphology, mineral digestibility, and bone ash during a natural necrotic enteritis episode[J]. Poultry Science, 2014, 93(11):2752-2762. DOI URL
[43]	THOMAS D V, RAVINDRAN V. Effect of cereal type on the performance, gastrointestinal tract development and intestinal morphology of the newly hatched broiler chick[J]. The Journal of Poultry Science, 2008, 45(1):46-50. DOI URL
[44]	农斯伟, 沈水宝, 韦晓芳, 等. 丁酸梭菌和枯草芽孢杆菌对广西黎村黄鸡生长性能、肠道形态及盲肠微生物区系的影响[J]. 饲料工业, 2021, 42(3):19-24.
	NONG S W, SHEN S B, WEI X F, et al. Effects of Clostridium butyricum and Bacillus subtilis on the growth performance, intestinal morphology and cecal microflora of Guangxi Licun yellow chickens[J]. Feed Industry, 2021, 42(3):19-24.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[45]	KATO Y, YU D H, SCHWARTZ M Z. Glucagonlike peptide-2 enhances small intestinal absorptive function and mucosal mass in vivo[J]. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 1999, 34(1):18-21. DOI URL
[46]	EWTUSHIK A L, BERTOLO R F P, BALL R O. Intestinal development of early-weaned piglets receiving diets supplemented with selected amino acids or polyamines[J]. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 2000, 80(4):653-662. DOI URL

项目 Items	干物质 Dry matter	粗蛋白 Crude Protein	中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber	酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber	粗灰分 Crude ash	粗脂肪 Ether extract	钙 Ca	磷 P
藜麦籽实Quinoa seeds	91.45	16.60	23.77	15.28	2.40	5.10	0.069	0.416
藜麦糠Quinoa chaff	91.49	10.23	27.69	7.36	17.49	1.66	1.060	0.129

项目 Items	干物质 Dry matter	粗蛋白 Crude Protein	中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber	酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber	粗灰分 Crude ash	粗脂肪 Ether extract	钙 Ca	磷 P
藜麦籽实Quinoa seeds	91.45	16.60	23.77	15.28	2.40	5.10	0.069	0.416
藜麦糠Quinoa chaff	91.49	10.23	27.69	7.36	17.49	1.66	1.060	0.129

项目Items	CK	Q4	Q8	Q12	QS
组成Composition
玉米Corn	64.00	64.00	64.00	64.00	64.00
次粉Wheat middling	12.00	8.00	4.00	0	0
藜麦Quinoa seeds	0	4.00	8.00	12.00	0
藜麦糠Quinoa chaff	0	0	0	0	12.00
去皮豆粕Soybean meal	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00
石粉Limestone	1.20	1.20	1.20	1.20	1.20
磷酸氢钙CaHPO₄	1.20	1.20	1.20	1.20	1.20
饲料级氯化钠NaCl	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30
1%复合预混料Premix¹⁾	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
沸石粉Zeolite powder	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30
营养水平Nutrient levels²⁾
代谢能Metabolic energy/(MJ·kg^-1)	12.24	12.32	12.40	12.48	12.48
干物质Dry matter	84.20	84.43	84.66	84.88	84.74
粗蛋白Crude Protein	16.12	16.18	16.25	16.31	16.17
粗纤维Crude fiber	2.47	2.60	2.74	2.88	4.73
粗脂肪Ether extract	2.86	2.98	3.10	3.22	2.92
钙Ca	0.87	0.88	0.88	0.88	0.99
TP	0.59	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.55
AP	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20
Lys	0.81	0.83	0.84	0.86	0.86
Met	0.26	0.30	0.33	0.36	0.36
Met+Cys	0.56	0.59	0.61	0.64	0.64
Thr	0.62	0.62	0.62	0.62	0.62
Trp	0.19	0.19	0.18	0.18	0.18

项目Items	CK	Q4	Q8	Q12	QS
组成Composition
玉米Corn	64.00	64.00	64.00	64.00	64.00
次粉Wheat middling	12.00	8.00	4.00	0	0
藜麦Quinoa seeds	0	4.00	8.00	12.00	0
藜麦糠Quinoa chaff	0	0	0	0	12.00
去皮豆粕Soybean meal	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00
石粉Limestone	1.20	1.20	1.20	1.20	1.20
磷酸氢钙CaHPO₄	1.20	1.20	1.20	1.20	1.20
饲料级氯化钠NaCl	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30
1%复合预混料Premix¹⁾	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
沸石粉Zeolite powder	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30
营养水平Nutrient levels²⁾
代谢能Metabolic energy/(MJ·kg^-1)	12.24	12.32	12.40	12.48	12.48
干物质Dry matter	84.20	84.43	84.66	84.88	84.74
粗蛋白Crude Protein	16.12	16.18	16.25	16.31	16.17
粗纤维Crude fiber	2.47	2.60	2.74	2.88	4.73
粗脂肪Ether extract	2.86	2.98	3.10	3.22	2.92
钙Ca	0.87	0.88	0.88	0.88	0.99
TP	0.59	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.55
AP	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20
Lys	0.81	0.83	0.84	0.86	0.86
Met	0.26	0.30	0.33	0.36	0.36
Met+Cys	0.56	0.59	0.61	0.64	0.64
Thr	0.62	0.62	0.62	0.62	0.62
Trp	0.19	0.19	0.18	0.18	0.18

处理 Treatment	初始体重(49日龄) Initial body weight/g	终末体重(121日龄) Final body weight/g	平均日增重 Average daily gain/(g·d^-1)	平均日采食量 Average daily feed intake/(g·d^-1)	料重比 F/G	死亡率 Death rate/%	腹泻率 Diarrhea rate/%
CK	1 461.70±90.45 a	2 655.56±234.82 b	19.32±2.64 ab	94.88±1.91 b	4.64±0.43 b	6.67 a	2.14 b
Q4	1 471.42±101.62 a	2 794.44±262.48 a	20.61±2.49 a	105.68±3.79 a	4.65±0.41 b	0 b	2.14 b
Q8	1 486.13±77.82 a	2 787.04±176.46 ab	20.33±2.30 ab	106.55±4.00 a	4.85±0.37 ab	0 b	1.12 c
Q12	1 464.62±115.20 a	2 727.04±209.61 ab	19.48±2.06 ab	105.40±4.03 a	5.00±0.39 a	0 b	1.02 c
QS	1 500.57±95.87 a	2 746.67±238.39 ab	19.15±2.44 b	104.60±3.90 a	4.96±0.47 a	0 b	6.34 a

日粮中添加藜麦对芦花鸡生长性能、屠宰性能、器官指数与肠道形态的影响

Effects of Chenopodium quinoa in diets on growth performance, slaughter performance, organ index and intestinal morphology of Luhua chickens

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 46

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

处理 Treatment	LW/g	SW/g	HEW/g	AEW/g	LMW/g	CMW/g	AFW/g
CK	2 761.67 ±87.50 ab	2 495.40 ±81.21 a	2 245.75 ±12.80 ab	1 899.18 ±61.51 ab	444.20 ±45.40 a	337.20 ±57.23 a	55.35 ±2.21 a
Q4	2 830.00 ±117.47 ab	2 530.00 ±70.59 a	2 244.98 ±79.07 ab	1 880.42 ±69.87 b	437.19 ±22.32 a	305.76 ±36.82 a	53.47 ±3.03 a
Q8	2 890.00 ±92.09 a	2 573.12 ±121.04 a	2 339.45 ±89.21 a	1 994.68 ±76.47 a	470.94 ±35.80 a	345.79 ±24.31 a	53.40 ±1.12 a
Q12	2 712.00 ±139.36 b	2 437.58 ±154.26 a	2 173.99 ±134.39 b	1 821.70 ±120.98 b	454.90 ±29.87 a	312.73 ±33.83 a	53.34 ±1.70 a
QS	2 790.00 ±62.93 ab	2 495.92 ±79.23 a	2 233.32 ±52.76 ab	1 883.43 ±52.69 b	436.83 ±39.49 a	323.77 ±32.12 a	52.45 ±0.93 a
处理 Treatment	SP/%	HEP/%	EP/%	PMP/%	LMP/%	AFP/%
CK	85.82±0.87 b	77.02±2.19 b	65.85±2.72 b	16.30±1.75 a	22.43±0.87 a	2.93±0.08 a
Q4	88.64±0.89 a	78.80±0.79 ab	66.47±1.50 ab	15.74±2.09 a	22.48±1.35 a	2.81±0.11 a
Q8	89.02±2.35 a	80.96±2.02 a	69.02±1.56 a	16.54±2.01 a	23.69±2.66 a	2.80±0.16 a
Q12	88.06±1.71 ab	79.96±1.80 a	67.48±2.13 ab	16.58±1.34 a	23.93±2.68 a	2.82±0.03 a
QS	88.86±0.64 a	79.06±1.17 ab	67.53±2.07 ab	17.17±1.37 a	23.39±1.92 a	2.79±0.04 a

项目	LW	SW	HEW	AEW	CMW	LMW	AFW	SP	HEP	EP	PMP	LMP
Items
SW	0.794^**
HEW	0.736^**	0.761^**
AEW	0.729^**	0.808^**	0.934^**
CMW	0.114	0.437^*	0.511^**	0.518^**
LMW	-0.431	-0.282	-0.135	-0.152	0.080
AFW	0.285	0.423	0.694^**	0.635^**	0.234	-0.441
SP	0.231	0.439	0.009	0.280	0.159	-0.073	-0.411
HEP	-0.361	-0.328	-0.213	-0.294	-0.259	-0.090	0.179	-0.351
EP	0.098	0.152	0.114	0.241	0.537^**	0.308	-0.208	0.321	-0.271
PMP	0.148	0.090	0.083	0.074	0.599^**	-0.151	-0.462^*	0.052	-0.037	0.247
LMP	-0.357	-0.546^**	-0.370	-0.400^*	0.070	0.550^*	-0.167	-0.259	0.054	0.072	-0.149
AFP	-0.127	-0.276	0.047	0.019	-0.123	-0.378	0.635^**	-0.424	0.318	-0.192	-0.436^*	-0.239

处理 Treatment	心指数 Cardiac index	肝指数 Liver index	肺指数 Lungs index	肾指数 Kidney index	胰腺指数 Pancreas index	腺胃指数 Gland stomach index	肌胃指数 Gizzard index	脾指数 Spleen index	法氏囊指数 Bursa of Fabricius index	胸腺指数 Thymus index
CK	0.38 ±0.04 a	1.75 ±0.42 a	0.46 ±0.12 a	0.16 ±0.03 bc	0.17 ±0.01 a	0.25 ±0.05 a	1.29 ±0.21 ab	0.14 ±0.02 a	0.12 ±0.03 a	0.11 ±0.04 b
Q4	0.36 ±0.04ab	1.78 ±0.28 a	0.44 ±0.09 a	0.17 ±0.02 abc	0.16 ±0.02 a	0.23 ±0.02 ab	1.13 ±0.16 b	0.13 ±0.02 a	0.10 ±0.03 a	0.17 ±0.05 ab
Q8	0.33 ±0.02 b	1.73 ±0.40 a	0.47 ±0.14 a	0.14 ±0.03 c	0.17 ±0.01 a	0.19 ±0.02 c	1.20 ±0.09 ab	0.13 ±0.03 a	0.12 ±0.02 a	0.22 ±0.06 a
Q12	0.33 ±0.02 b	1.89 ±0.40 a	0.47 ±0.10 a	0.18 ±0.01 ab	0.15 ±0.03 a	0.21 ±0.02 abc	1.16 ±0.09 ab	0.14 ±0.04 a	0.11 ±0.01 a	0.17 ±0.03 ab
QS	0.34 ±0.02 b	1.51 ±0.21 a	0.54 ±0.11 a	0.19 ±0.03 a	0.14 ±0.03 a	0.20 ±0.02 bc	1.36 ±0.18 a	0.15 ±0.03 a	0.10 ±0.03 a	0.24 ±0.07 a

项目 Items	心指数 Cardiac index	肝指数 Liver index	肺指数 Lungs index	肾指数 Kidney index	脾指数 Spleen index	法氏囊指数 Bursa of Fabricius index	胸腺指数 Thymus index	胰腺指数 Pancreas index	腺胃指数 Gland stomach index
肝指数Liver index	-0.065
肺指数Lungs index	0.016	-0.224
肾指数Kidney index	-0.258	0.119	0.151
脾指数Spleen index	0.031	-0.256	0.256	0.162
法氏囊指数	0.042	-0.023	0.230	0.021	0.144
Bursa of Fabricius index
胸腺指数	-0.342	-0.228	0.291	0.138	0.313	0.298
Thymus index
胰腺指数	-0.065	0.187	0.285	-0.239	0.313	0.419^*	0.088
Pancreas index
腺胃指数	0.280	0.038	-0.137	-0.205	0.122	-0.308	-0.454^*	0.336
Gland stomach index
肌胃指数	-0.035	-0.317	0.268	-0.060	0.240	0.326	0.364	0.216	-0.014
Gizzard index

处理 Treatment	十二指肠Duodenum			空肠Jejunum			回肠Ileal
处理 Treatment	绒毛高度 Villus height/μm	隐窝深度 Crypt depth/μm	绒毛高度/ 隐窝深度 V/C	绒毛高度 Villus height/μm	隐窝深度 Crypt depth/μm	绒毛高度/ 隐窝深度 V/C	绒毛高度 Villus height/μm	隐窝深度 Crypt depth/μm	绒毛高度/ 隐窝深度 V/C
CK	1 206.13 ±97.02 b	170.27 ±17.50 ab	7.15 ±0.58 bc	779.93 ±44.25 d	140.91 ±9.73 b	5.70 ±0.39 d	545.30 ±59.89 d	131.08 ±23.30 a	4.41 ±0.51 d
Q4	946.39 ±175.87 c	133.98 ±7.26 c	6.82 ±1.01 c	1 002.88 ±114.25 c	145.57 ±18.41 ab	6.64 ±0.83 c	896.06 ±138.72 a	142.92 ±16.74 a	6.04 ±0.73 b
Q8	1 272.79 ±182.78 ab	175.79 ±9.28 a	7.52 ±0.81 bc	1 120.73 ±77.11 a	153.62 ±11.84 a	7.53 ±0.59 b	833.59 ±58.24 b	138.27 ±14.62 a	6.11 ±0.54 b
Q12	1 296.56 ±181.62 ab	165.10 ±9.29 b	8.03 ±1.16 c	968.14 ±84.84 c	144.18 ±18.00 b	7.09 ±0.96 b	776.15 ±65.41 c	141.23 ±13.22 a	5.38 ±0.50 c
QS	1 384.73 ±93.31 a	119.05 ±11.70 d	11.81 ±1.56 a	1 057.20 ±123.72 b	113.31 ±8.76 c	9.43 ±0.93 a	822.06 ±62.05 b	107.97 ±5.61 b	7.51 ±0.40 a

处理 Treatment	饲料成本/(元·t^-1) Feed cost/ (yuan·t^-1)	试验期增重 Weight gain during the trial/kg	销售收入/元 Sales revenue/yuan	饲料总消耗量 Total feed consumption/kg	消耗饲料成本/元 Feed cost consumed/yuan	销售收入-消耗饲料成本/元 Weight gain income-feed cost consumed/yuan
CK	2 413.24	1.19	42.98	5.98	14.42	28.56
Q4	2 601.24	1.32	47.63	6.66	17.32	30.31
Q8	2 789.24	1.30	46.83	6.71	18.72	28.11
Q12	2 977.24	1.26	45.45	6.64	19.77	25.68
QS	2 233.24	1.25	44.86	6.59	14.72	30.14

[1]	张若楠, 门小明, 秦凯鹏, 王彬彬, 吴杰, 丁向彬, 徐子伟, 齐珂珂. 绿嘉黑猪的不同杂交组合生长性能、胴体品质、产肉性能和收益比较研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1203-1211.
[2]	周毛措, 卢建雄, 郭晓农, 冯玉兰, 柴薇薇, 高鹏飞. 基于响应面法优化藜麦秸秆发酵工艺[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(9): 2020-2030.
[3]	李紫薇, 张雅文, 宋斌, 侯凤香, 金俊杰, 赵燕, 卢立志. 温州红鸡生长曲线拟合与最佳上市周龄分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(8): 1741-1752.
[4]	李飞, 苏甜甜, 苏康杰, 徐可, 马力, 刘子明. 螺旋藻和红球藻对斑马鱼生长性能、抗氧化酶、磷酸酶和热休克蛋白的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(7): 1511-1518.
[5]	董飚, 纪荣超, 张干生, 王健. 番鸭A-FABP基因外显子2多态性及其与生长性能和肉品质的关联分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(11): 2456-2464.
[6]	聂玮, 孟科, 荣轩, 强浩, 郭晨浩, 陶毛孩, 冯登侦. 绵羊GRM1基因多态性及其与肉质性状的相关性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(4): 799-808.
[7]	夏伦斌, 马龙龙, 乔德亮, 何燕飞, 蒋平. 三角帆蚌多糖对肉仔鸡生长性能、抗氧化及免疫功能的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(3): 547-555.
[8]	张喜闻, 郭晓农, 王泽兴, 王亚玲. 不同复合益生菌对藜麦秸秆发酵饲料的发酵工艺优化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(12): 2818-2829.
[9]	李虹仪, 周润盛, 梁笑玲, 张楚玥, 吕祺欣, 杨长华, 张茂. 日粮钙磷水平对马岗鹅生长性能及肝脏基因表达的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(11): 2533-2542.
[10]	吕敬, 吴治勇, 郭晓农, 冯玉兰, 卢建雄, 柴薇薇. 基于响应面法的乳酸菌发酵藜麦秸秆工艺条件优化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(9): 1866-1876.
[11]	吴涛, 江小帆, 杨发荣, 魏玉明, 陈国顺, 蔡原, 焦婷, 黄杰, 赵生国. 日粮中不同藜麦添加水平对芦花鸡肉品质及微量元素的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(5): 897-907.
[12]	安雅雯, 杨晓东, 高智雄, 郭绍乾, 高爱武, 杨金丽, 王海荣. 高精饲粮中添加苦豆子对羔羊生长与血液生化指标的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(5): 908-914.
[13]	蔡逸龙, 张利兵, 胡高宇, 肖国强, 蔡景波, 张翔. 不同饵料对室内立体养殖拟穴青蟹生长与摄食环境的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(11): 2404-2415.
[14]	江小帆, 吴涛, 魏玉明, 杨发荣, 陈国顺, 焦婷, 蔡原, 赵生国. 饲粮中添加牛至精油对芦花鸡生长性能、屠宰性能、器官指数和肠道形态的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(1): 41-49.
[15]	时羽杰, 李兴龙, 唐媛, 余海萍, 邬晓勇. 基于GC-MS分析两地白色藜麦种子的代谢差异[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(6): 869-877.