添加益生菌的代乳品对羔羊生长、血液生化、发酵、消化率和胴体性状的影响

IF 1.9 Q2 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE Veterinary and Animal Science Pub Date : 2024-06-06 DOI:10.1016/j.vas.2024.100368
SH Mousavi Esfiokhi, MA Norouzian, MR Sahl Abadi, MR Rezaei Ahvanooei
{"title":"添加益生菌的代乳品对羔羊生长、血液生化、发酵、消化率和胴体性状的影响","authors":"SH Mousavi Esfiokhi,&nbsp;MA Norouzian,&nbsp;MR Sahl Abadi,&nbsp;MR Rezaei Ahvanooei","doi":"10.1016/j.vas.2024.100368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of feeding cow's milk replacer and probiotic supplementation on growth performance, blood metabolites, ruminal fermentation parameters, and nutrient digestibility in male lambs, with ewe's milk serving as the control treatment. Eighteen male lambs with an average initial body weight of 5.0 ± 1.2 kg and age of 15 ± 4 days were randomly assigned to three experimental groups: ewe's milk, cow's milk replacer, and cow's milk replacer with probiotic supplementation. The experiment was conducted using a completely randomized design. Lambs fed ewe's milk showed significantly higher average daily gain (218.4 g/day) compared to those fed cow's milk replacer (183.7 g/day) or cow's milk replacer with probiotic (209.1 g/day). Similarly, dry matter intake was highest in the ewe's milk group (585.6 g/day) compared to the cow's milk replacer (435.9 g/day) and cow's milk replacer with probiotic (510.5 g/day) groups. Blood glucose levels were higher in the ewe's milk group (75.3 mg/dL) compared to the cow's milk replacer (70.3 mg/dL) and cow's milk replacer with probiotic (72.1 mg/dL) groups. Probiotic supplementation resulted in increased blood urea nitrogen (15.6 mg/dL) and total protein (7.3 g/dL) levels compared to the other groups. Furthermore, the ewe's milk group showed higher apparent dry matter (76.1%) and crude protein (68.5%) digestibility compared to the other treatments. The fecal score on day 30 was higher in the cow's milk replacer group (2.34) compared to the ewe's milk (1.24) and cow's milk replacer with probiotic (1.45) groups. There were no significant differences in the carcass traits of the experimental lambs. In conclusion, based on the results of this study, it seems that feeding cow's milk + probiotic as a replacement for ewe's milk did not significantly affect the performance, carcass traits, and blood and fermentation parameters in infant lambs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37152,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary and Animal Science","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100368"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451943X24000358/pdfft?md5=e9eb3b31b47801d0eae819b300224837&pid=1-s2.0-S2451943X24000358-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of probiotic-supplemented milk replacer on growth, blood biochemistry, fermentation, digestibility, and carcass traits in lambs\",\"authors\":\"SH Mousavi Esfiokhi,&nbsp;MA Norouzian,&nbsp;MR Sahl Abadi,&nbsp;MR Rezaei Ahvanooei\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.vas.2024.100368\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of feeding cow's milk replacer and probiotic supplementation on growth performance, blood metabolites, ruminal fermentation parameters, and nutrient digestibility in male lambs, with ewe's milk serving as the control treatment. Eighteen male lambs with an average initial body weight of 5.0 ± 1.2 kg and age of 15 ± 4 days were randomly assigned to three experimental groups: ewe's milk, cow's milk replacer, and cow's milk replacer with probiotic supplementation. The experiment was conducted using a completely randomized design. Lambs fed ewe's milk showed significantly higher average daily gain (218.4 g/day) compared to those fed cow's milk replacer (183.7 g/day) or cow's milk replacer with probiotic (209.1 g/day). Similarly, dry matter intake was highest in the ewe's milk group (585.6 g/day) compared to the cow's milk replacer (435.9 g/day) and cow's milk replacer with probiotic (510.5 g/day) groups. Blood glucose levels were higher in the ewe's milk group (75.3 mg/dL) compared to the cow's milk replacer (70.3 mg/dL) and cow's milk replacer with probiotic (72.1 mg/dL) groups. Probiotic supplementation resulted in increased blood urea nitrogen (15.6 mg/dL) and total protein (7.3 g/dL) levels compared to the other groups. Furthermore, the ewe's milk group showed higher apparent dry matter (76.1%) and crude protein (68.5%) digestibility compared to the other treatments. The fecal score on day 30 was higher in the cow's milk replacer group (2.34) compared to the ewe's milk (1.24) and cow's milk replacer with probiotic (1.45) groups. There were no significant differences in the carcass traits of the experimental lambs. In conclusion, based on the results of this study, it seems that feeding cow's milk + probiotic as a replacement for ewe's milk did not significantly affect the performance, carcass traits, and blood and fermentation parameters in infant lambs.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Veterinary and Animal Science\",\"volume\":\"25 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100368\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451943X24000358/pdfft?md5=e9eb3b31b47801d0eae819b300224837&pid=1-s2.0-S2451943X24000358-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Veterinary and Animal Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451943X24000358\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary and Animal Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451943X24000358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在探讨饲喂牛奶代用品和补充益生菌对雄性羔羊生长性能、血液代谢物、瘤胃发酵参数和养分消化率的影响,母羊奶作为对照处理。将 18 只平均初始体重为 5.0 ± 1.2 千克、日龄为 15 ± 4 天的雄性羔羊随机分配到三个实验组:母羊奶组、牛奶代用品组和补充益生菌的牛奶代用品组。实验采用完全随机设计。与饲喂牛奶代用品(183.7 克/天)或添加益生菌的牛奶代用品(209.1 克/天)的羔羊相比,饲喂母羊奶的羔羊平均日增重(218.4 克/天)明显更高。同样,母羊奶组的干物质摄入量最高(585.6 克/天),而牛奶代乳粉组(435.9 克/天)和添加益生菌的牛奶代乳粉组(510.5 克/天)的干物质摄入量最低。母羊奶组的血糖水平(75.3 毫克/分升)高于代乳品组(70.3 毫克/分升)和添加益生菌的代乳品组(72.1 毫克/分升)。与其他组相比,添加益生菌可提高血尿素氮(15.6 毫克/分升)和总蛋白(7.3 克/分升)水平。此外,与其他处理相比,母羊奶组的表观干物质(76.1%)和粗蛋白(68.5%)消化率更高。与母牛奶组(1.24)和添加益生菌的代乳品组(1.45)相比,代乳品组第 30 天的粪便评分(2.34)更高。实验羔羊的胴体性状没有明显差异。总之,根据这项研究的结果,用牛奶+益生菌替代母羊奶喂养婴儿羔羊似乎对羔羊的生产性能、胴体性状、血液和发酵参数没有显著影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effects of probiotic-supplemented milk replacer on growth, blood biochemistry, fermentation, digestibility, and carcass traits in lambs

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of feeding cow's milk replacer and probiotic supplementation on growth performance, blood metabolites, ruminal fermentation parameters, and nutrient digestibility in male lambs, with ewe's milk serving as the control treatment. Eighteen male lambs with an average initial body weight of 5.0 ± 1.2 kg and age of 15 ± 4 days were randomly assigned to three experimental groups: ewe's milk, cow's milk replacer, and cow's milk replacer with probiotic supplementation. The experiment was conducted using a completely randomized design. Lambs fed ewe's milk showed significantly higher average daily gain (218.4 g/day) compared to those fed cow's milk replacer (183.7 g/day) or cow's milk replacer with probiotic (209.1 g/day). Similarly, dry matter intake was highest in the ewe's milk group (585.6 g/day) compared to the cow's milk replacer (435.9 g/day) and cow's milk replacer with probiotic (510.5 g/day) groups. Blood glucose levels were higher in the ewe's milk group (75.3 mg/dL) compared to the cow's milk replacer (70.3 mg/dL) and cow's milk replacer with probiotic (72.1 mg/dL) groups. Probiotic supplementation resulted in increased blood urea nitrogen (15.6 mg/dL) and total protein (7.3 g/dL) levels compared to the other groups. Furthermore, the ewe's milk group showed higher apparent dry matter (76.1%) and crude protein (68.5%) digestibility compared to the other treatments. The fecal score on day 30 was higher in the cow's milk replacer group (2.34) compared to the ewe's milk (1.24) and cow's milk replacer with probiotic (1.45) groups. There were no significant differences in the carcass traits of the experimental lambs. In conclusion, based on the results of this study, it seems that feeding cow's milk + probiotic as a replacement for ewe's milk did not significantly affect the performance, carcass traits, and blood and fermentation parameters in infant lambs.

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
Veterinary and Animal Science
Veterinary and Animal Science Veterinary-Veterinary (all)
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
审稿时长
47 days
期刊最新文献
A systematic review and meta-analysis of contagious bovine pleuropneumonia in Ethiopian cattle Does transport affect the eating quality potential of beef from Limousin cows in France? - A case study Comparison of two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoa Cattle, sheep, and goat humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 Effect of vaccine diluents on the colonization of Salmonella Typhimurium vaccine in chickens
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1