饲粮中添加豌豆对优质和劣质饲料肉牛消化率和瘤胃挥发性脂肪酸浓度的影响

H.L. Greenwell , J.L. Gramkow , M.L. Jolly-Breithaupt , J.C. MacDonald PAS , K.H. Jenkins PAS
{"title":"饲粮中添加豌豆对优质和劣质饲料肉牛消化率和瘤胃挥发性脂肪酸浓度的影响","authors":"H.L. Greenwell ,&nbsp;J.L. Gramkow ,&nbsp;M.L. Jolly-Breithaupt ,&nbsp;J.C. MacDonald PAS ,&nbsp;K.H. Jenkins PAS","doi":"10.15232/pas.2018-01730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Field peas (</span><em>Pisum sativum</em><span>) are increasingly available with limited data on the effects on forage digestibility. Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of field pea supplementation in forage-based diets on total-tract digestibility and RUP digestibility in growing beef cattle. In Exp. 1, 5 ruminally fistulated steers (202 kg) were used in a 2 × 3 factorial. The first factor was high quality forage<span> (50% alfalfa, 50% sorghum silage) or low quality forage (50% bromegrass hay, 50% wheat straw). The second factor was supplement type: a nonsupplemented control (CON), dry-rolled corn (DRC), or ground field peas (FP), supplemented at 0.43% of BW. Each diet was fed for 14 d. There were no interactions between forage quality and supplement type for digestibility estimates (</span></span><em>P</em> ≥ 0.25). Intake and digestibility of OM were greater with high quality forage (4.96 kg/d and 64.2%, respectively) than with low quality forage (3.60 kg/d and 50.1%, respectively; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01). The FP supplement increased DMI and OM digestibility (6.14<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.512 kg/d and 61.6 ± 1.94%, respectively) over DRC (5.33 kg/d and 56.1%, respectively) or CON (4.80 kg/d and 53.8%, respectively; <em>P</em> ≤ 0.03); DRC and CON did not differ in intake or OM digestibility. In Exp. 2, the RUP digestibility of field peas was evaluated using a mobile bag technique. The RUP content of FP was 32.6 ± 4.39% and 35.2 ± 4.39% with a postruminal digestibility of 97.4 and 98.9 ± 1.17% for yr 1 and 2, respectively, for FP grown in 2 growing seasons. Field peas are an acceptable supplement in forage diets.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":22841,"journal":{"name":"The Professional Animal Scientist","volume":"34 6","pages":"Pages 631-641"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.15232/pas.2018-01730","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of field pea supplementation on digestibility and rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations of beef-cattle diets containing high and low quality forages\",\"authors\":\"H.L. Greenwell ,&nbsp;J.L. Gramkow ,&nbsp;M.L. Jolly-Breithaupt ,&nbsp;J.C. MacDonald PAS ,&nbsp;K.H. Jenkins PAS\",\"doi\":\"10.15232/pas.2018-01730\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>Field peas (</span><em>Pisum sativum</em><span>) are increasingly available with limited data on the effects on forage digestibility. Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of field pea supplementation in forage-based diets on total-tract digestibility and RUP digestibility in growing beef cattle. In Exp. 1, 5 ruminally fistulated steers (202 kg) were used in a 2 × 3 factorial. The first factor was high quality forage<span> (50% alfalfa, 50% sorghum silage) or low quality forage (50% bromegrass hay, 50% wheat straw). The second factor was supplement type: a nonsupplemented control (CON), dry-rolled corn (DRC), or ground field peas (FP), supplemented at 0.43% of BW. Each diet was fed for 14 d. There were no interactions between forage quality and supplement type for digestibility estimates (</span></span><em>P</em> ≥ 0.25). Intake and digestibility of OM were greater with high quality forage (4.96 kg/d and 64.2%, respectively) than with low quality forage (3.60 kg/d and 50.1%, respectively; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01). The FP supplement increased DMI and OM digestibility (6.14<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.512 kg/d and 61.6 ± 1.94%, respectively) over DRC (5.33 kg/d and 56.1%, respectively) or CON (4.80 kg/d and 53.8%, respectively; <em>P</em> ≤ 0.03); DRC and CON did not differ in intake or OM digestibility. In Exp. 2, the RUP digestibility of field peas was evaluated using a mobile bag technique. The RUP content of FP was 32.6 ± 4.39% and 35.2 ± 4.39% with a postruminal digestibility of 97.4 and 98.9 ± 1.17% for yr 1 and 2, respectively, for FP grown in 2 growing seasons. Field peas are an acceptable supplement in forage diets.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Professional Animal Scientist\",\"volume\":\"34 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 631-641\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.15232/pas.2018-01730\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Professional Animal Scientist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1080744618301529\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Professional Animal Scientist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1080744618301529","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

田豌豆(Pisum sativum)对饲料消化率的影响越来越多,但数据有限。本试验旨在研究在饲料基础饲粮中添加豌豆对生长肉牛全道消化率和RUP消化率的影响。在实验1中,5只瘤胃瘘的阉牛(202公斤)被用于2 × 3因子。第一个影响因素是优质饲料(50%苜蓿,50%高粱青贮)或劣质饲料(50%凤梨草干草,50%小麦秸秆)。第二个因素是补充类型:未补充对照(CON)、干卷玉米(DRC)或地豌豆(FP),添加量为体重的0.43%。每种饲粮饲喂14 d。饲粮品质与饲粮类型对消化率的估计不存在交互作用(P≥0.25)。优质饲料组OM采食量(4.96 kg/d)和消化率(64.2%)均高于低品质饲料组(3.60 kg/d)和消化率(50.1%);P & lt;0.01)。添加FP提高了DMI和OM消化率(分别为6.14±0.512 kg/d和61.6±1.94%),高于添加DRC(分别为5.33 kg/d和56.1%)和CON(分别为4.80 kg/d和53.8%);P≤0.03);DRC和CON在摄取量和OM消化率方面没有差异。在实验2中,使用移动袋技术评估了大田豌豆的RUP消化率。2个生长季节FP的RUP含量分别为32.6±4.39%和35.2±4.39%,1年和2年的胃后消化率分别为97.4和98.9±1.17%。田豌豆是饲料饲粮中可接受的补充品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of field pea supplementation on digestibility and rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations of beef-cattle diets containing high and low quality forages

Field peas (Pisum sativum) are increasingly available with limited data on the effects on forage digestibility. Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of field pea supplementation in forage-based diets on total-tract digestibility and RUP digestibility in growing beef cattle. In Exp. 1, 5 ruminally fistulated steers (202 kg) were used in a 2 × 3 factorial. The first factor was high quality forage (50% alfalfa, 50% sorghum silage) or low quality forage (50% bromegrass hay, 50% wheat straw). The second factor was supplement type: a nonsupplemented control (CON), dry-rolled corn (DRC), or ground field peas (FP), supplemented at 0.43% of BW. Each diet was fed for 14 d. There were no interactions between forage quality and supplement type for digestibility estimates (P ≥ 0.25). Intake and digestibility of OM were greater with high quality forage (4.96 kg/d and 64.2%, respectively) than with low quality forage (3.60 kg/d and 50.1%, respectively; P < 0.01). The FP supplement increased DMI and OM digestibility (6.14 ± 0.512 kg/d and 61.6 ± 1.94%, respectively) over DRC (5.33 kg/d and 56.1%, respectively) or CON (4.80 kg/d and 53.8%, respectively; P ≤ 0.03); DRC and CON did not differ in intake or OM digestibility. In Exp. 2, the RUP digestibility of field peas was evaluated using a mobile bag technique. The RUP content of FP was 32.6 ± 4.39% and 35.2 ± 4.39% with a postruminal digestibility of 97.4 and 98.9 ± 1.17% for yr 1 and 2, respectively, for FP grown in 2 growing seasons. Field peas are an acceptable supplement in forage diets.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信