杂交黑麦籽粒加工方式对饲喂育肥期犊牛生长性能、饲粮净能量利用及胴体特性的影响

IF 1.8 Q3 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
Translational Animal Science Pub Date : 2025-08-19 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/tas/txaf102
Federico Podversich, Warren C Rusche, Scott L Bird, Zachary K F Smith
{"title":"杂交黑麦籽粒加工方式对饲喂育肥期犊牛生长性能、饲粮净能量利用及胴体特性的影响","authors":"Federico Podversich, Warren C Rusche, Scott L Bird, Zachary K F Smith","doi":"10.1093/tas/txaf102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This experiment evaluated the effects of replacing one-third of corn grain in a finishing diet with rye grain (RG) processed using one of three processing methods. Predominately Angus steers (n = 192, initial shrunk BW = 410 ± 20.9 kg) were blocked by source and pen location and assigned to one of four dietary treatments: dry-rolled corn (DRC), unprocessed RG (UNP), dry-rolled RG (DRR) and hammer-milled RG (HMR). Steers were fed for a total of 147 d. Pen was the experimental unit (6 pens per treatment, 8 steers per pen), and data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design using three contrasts: grain type [DRC vs. (UNP + DRR + HMR)], RG processing (UNP vs (DRR + HMR), and RG processing method (DRR vs HMR). Processing RG increased (<i>P</i> = 0.02) apparent neutral detergent fiber digestibility (aNDFD). Dry-rolling RG increased digestibility of dry matter and organic matter (<i>P </i>≤ 0.02) and tended (<i>P </i>= 0.09) to increase starch digestibility compared to HMR. Dry matter intake (DMI) was unaffected by grain type (<i>P</i> = 0.55) and whether RG was processed (<i>P</i> = 0.27), but processing method affected DMI (<i>P</i> < 0.01; 11.5 and 12.3 kg/d for DRR and HMR, respectively). Grain type did not affect (<i>P</i> = 0.18) gain to feed (G:F). Rye processing tended to increase G:F by 4.4% (<i>P</i> = 0.08), and DRR steers tended to be 4% more efficient than HMR steers (<i>P</i> = 0.10; 0.146 and 0.140, respectively). Observed Net Energy for gain (paNEg) tended to be 3% greater for DRC than steers fed RG (<i>P</i> = 0.09) with RG processing having no effect (P = 0.17). Steers fed DRR tended to have 4.5% greater paNEg than HMR steers (<i>P</i> = 0.06; 1.32 and 1.26 Mcal/kg, for DRR and HMR, respectively). Rye grain processing tended to decrease dressing percentage (<i>P </i>= 0.07) but no other effects on carcass characteristics or USDA grade distributions were observed (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.24). Liver abscess prevalence was unaffected by grain type (<i>P</i> = 0.81) and whether RG was processed (<i>P</i> = 0.77). However, processing method tended (<i>P </i>= 0.08) to influence liver abscess prevalence (78.4% and 91.8% normal livers for DRR and HMR, respectively). Rye grain effectively replaced one-third of DRC in a finishing diet with minor effects on performance or feed efficiency. Processing RG tended to improve efficiency, and using dry-rolling tended to improve feed efficiency compared to hammer-milling under the conditions of this experiment.</p>","PeriodicalId":23272,"journal":{"name":"Translational Animal Science","volume":"9 ","pages":"txaf102"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12416138/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of processing method of hybrid rye grain on growth performance, dietary net energy utilization, and carcass characteristics of yearling beef steers fed a finishing diet.\",\"authors\":\"Federico Podversich, Warren C Rusche, Scott L Bird, Zachary K F Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tas/txaf102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This experiment evaluated the effects of replacing one-third of corn grain in a finishing diet with rye grain (RG) processed using one of three processing methods. Predominately Angus steers (n = 192, initial shrunk BW = 410 ± 20.9 kg) were blocked by source and pen location and assigned to one of four dietary treatments: dry-rolled corn (DRC), unprocessed RG (UNP), dry-rolled RG (DRR) and hammer-milled RG (HMR). Steers were fed for a total of 147 d. Pen was the experimental unit (6 pens per treatment, 8 steers per pen), and data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design using three contrasts: grain type [DRC vs. (UNP + DRR + HMR)], RG processing (UNP vs (DRR + HMR), and RG processing method (DRR vs HMR). Processing RG increased (<i>P</i> = 0.02) apparent neutral detergent fiber digestibility (aNDFD). Dry-rolling RG increased digestibility of dry matter and organic matter (<i>P </i>≤ 0.02) and tended (<i>P </i>= 0.09) to increase starch digestibility compared to HMR. Dry matter intake (DMI) was unaffected by grain type (<i>P</i> = 0.55) and whether RG was processed (<i>P</i> = 0.27), but processing method affected DMI (<i>P</i> < 0.01; 11.5 and 12.3 kg/d for DRR and HMR, respectively). Grain type did not affect (<i>P</i> = 0.18) gain to feed (G:F). Rye processing tended to increase G:F by 4.4% (<i>P</i> = 0.08), and DRR steers tended to be 4% more efficient than HMR steers (<i>P</i> = 0.10; 0.146 and 0.140, respectively). Observed Net Energy for gain (paNEg) tended to be 3% greater for DRC than steers fed RG (<i>P</i> = 0.09) with RG processing having no effect (P = 0.17). Steers fed DRR tended to have 4.5% greater paNEg than HMR steers (<i>P</i> = 0.06; 1.32 and 1.26 Mcal/kg, for DRR and HMR, respectively). Rye grain processing tended to decrease dressing percentage (<i>P </i>= 0.07) but no other effects on carcass characteristics or USDA grade distributions were observed (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.24). Liver abscess prevalence was unaffected by grain type (<i>P</i> = 0.81) and whether RG was processed (<i>P</i> = 0.77). However, processing method tended (<i>P </i>= 0.08) to influence liver abscess prevalence (78.4% and 91.8% normal livers for DRR and HMR, respectively). Rye grain effectively replaced one-third of DRC in a finishing diet with minor effects on performance or feed efficiency. Processing RG tended to improve efficiency, and using dry-rolling tended to improve feed efficiency compared to hammer-milling under the conditions of this experiment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational Animal Science\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"txaf102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12416138/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational Animal Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaf102\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Animal Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaf102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本试验评估了用三种加工方法中的一种加工黑麦谷物(RG)代替育肥日粮中三分之一的玉米谷物的效果。以安格斯阉牛(n = 192头,初始缩小体重= 410±20.9 kg)为主,根据饲粮来源和栏位的不同,分别饲喂干轧玉米(DRC)、未加工RG (UNP)、干轧RG (DRR)和锤磨RG (HMR)。试验共饲喂147 d。猪圈为实验单位(每处理6个猪圈,每个猪圈8头牛),数据采用随机完全区组设计进行分析,采用三种对比:谷物类型[DRC vs (UNP + DRR + HMR)]、RG处理(UNP vs (DRR + HMR))和RG处理方法(DRR vs HMR)。RG处理提高了中性洗涤纤维表观消化率(aNDFD) (P = 0.02)。干滚RG提高了干物质和有机物消化率(P≤0.02),有提高淀粉消化率的趋势(P = 0.09)。干物质采食量(DMI)不受籽粒类型(P = 0.55)和是否加工RG (P = 0.27)的影响,但加工方式影响干物质采食量(P = 0.18)的料重(G:F)。黑麦加工可使G:F提高4.4% (P = 0.08), DRR组比HMR组效率提高4% (P分别为0.10、0.146和0.140)。观察到,与饲喂RG的肉牛相比,DRC肉牛的净增重能(paNEg)往往高出3% (P = 0.09),而RG加工对肉牛没有影响(P = 0.17)。DRR组的paNEg比HMR组高4.5% (P = 0.06; DRR组和HMR组的paNEg分别为1.32和1.26 Mcal/kg)。黑麦谷物加工有降低屠宰率的趋势(P = 0.07),但对胴体性状和USDA等级分布没有其他影响(P≥0.24)。肝脓肿患病率不受颗粒类型(P = 0.81)和是否处理RG (P = 0.77)的影响。然而,处理方法倾向于影响肝脓肿患病率(DRR和HMR分别为78.4%和91.8%)(P = 0.08)。黑麦籽粒可有效替代育肥日粮中三分之一的DRC,对生产性能和饲料效率影响不大。在本试验条件下,加工RG有提高效率的趋势,干式轧制比锤式铣削有提高进料效率的趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of processing method of hybrid rye grain on growth performance, dietary net energy utilization, and carcass characteristics of yearling beef steers fed a finishing diet.

This experiment evaluated the effects of replacing one-third of corn grain in a finishing diet with rye grain (RG) processed using one of three processing methods. Predominately Angus steers (n = 192, initial shrunk BW = 410 ± 20.9 kg) were blocked by source and pen location and assigned to one of four dietary treatments: dry-rolled corn (DRC), unprocessed RG (UNP), dry-rolled RG (DRR) and hammer-milled RG (HMR). Steers were fed for a total of 147 d. Pen was the experimental unit (6 pens per treatment, 8 steers per pen), and data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design using three contrasts: grain type [DRC vs. (UNP + DRR + HMR)], RG processing (UNP vs (DRR + HMR), and RG processing method (DRR vs HMR). Processing RG increased (P = 0.02) apparent neutral detergent fiber digestibility (aNDFD). Dry-rolling RG increased digestibility of dry matter and organic matter (P ≤ 0.02) and tended (P = 0.09) to increase starch digestibility compared to HMR. Dry matter intake (DMI) was unaffected by grain type (P = 0.55) and whether RG was processed (P = 0.27), but processing method affected DMI (P < 0.01; 11.5 and 12.3 kg/d for DRR and HMR, respectively). Grain type did not affect (P = 0.18) gain to feed (G:F). Rye processing tended to increase G:F by 4.4% (P = 0.08), and DRR steers tended to be 4% more efficient than HMR steers (P = 0.10; 0.146 and 0.140, respectively). Observed Net Energy for gain (paNEg) tended to be 3% greater for DRC than steers fed RG (P = 0.09) with RG processing having no effect (P = 0.17). Steers fed DRR tended to have 4.5% greater paNEg than HMR steers (P = 0.06; 1.32 and 1.26 Mcal/kg, for DRR and HMR, respectively). Rye grain processing tended to decrease dressing percentage (P = 0.07) but no other effects on carcass characteristics or USDA grade distributions were observed (P ≥ 0.24). Liver abscess prevalence was unaffected by grain type (P = 0.81) and whether RG was processed (P = 0.77). However, processing method tended (P = 0.08) to influence liver abscess prevalence (78.4% and 91.8% normal livers for DRR and HMR, respectively). Rye grain effectively replaced one-third of DRC in a finishing diet with minor effects on performance or feed efficiency. Processing RG tended to improve efficiency, and using dry-rolling tended to improve feed efficiency compared to hammer-milling under the conditions of this experiment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Translational Animal Science
Translational Animal Science Veterinary-Veterinary (all)
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
15.40%
发文量
149
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Translational Animal Science (TAS) is the first open access-open review animal science journal, encompassing a broad scope of research topics in animal science. TAS focuses on translating basic science to innovation, and validation of these innovations by various segments of the allied animal industry. Readers of TAS will typically represent education, industry, and government, including research, teaching, administration, extension, management, quality assurance, product development, and technical services. Those interested in TAS typically include animal breeders, economists, embryologists, engineers, food scientists, geneticists, microbiologists, nutritionists, veterinarians, physiologists, processors, public health professionals, and others with an interest in animal production and applied aspects of animal sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信