直接饲喂微生物菌剂(10-G)对饲喂肉用小母牛的活畜性能、胴体特征和沙门氏菌感染率的影响。

IF 1.3 Q3 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE Translational Animal Science Pub Date : 2024-05-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/tas/txae086
Travis J Tilton, Kevin Martens, Loni W Lucherk, Alyssa B Word, Ben P Holland, Ty E Lawrence, Travis C Tennant
{"title":"直接饲喂微生物菌剂(10-G)对饲喂肉用小母牛的活畜性能、胴体特征和沙门氏菌感染率的影响。","authors":"Travis J Tilton, Kevin Martens, Loni W Lucherk, Alyssa B Word, Ben P Holland, Ty E Lawrence, Travis C Tennant","doi":"10.1093/tas/txae086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of the direct-fed microbial 10-G upon cattle growth performance, liver and lung health, carcass quality, and yield outcomes, as well as prevalence and enumeration of <i>Salmonella</i> in feces and lymph nodes. Fed beef heifers (<i>N</i> = 1,400; initial shrunk body weight [<b>BW</b>] 343.3 ± 36.2 kg) were blocked by the day of arrival and randomly allocated to one of two treatments (0 [negative control, CON] or 2 g of a direct-fed microbial [10-G] that provided 1 billion CFUs per animal per day of <i>Lactobacillus acidophilus</i>, <i>Enterococcus faecium</i>, <i>Pediococcus pentosaceus</i>, <i>L. brevis</i>, and <i>L. plantarum</i>) with 10 pens per treatment. Recto-anal mucosal fecal samples (<b>RAMs</b>; <i>n</i> = 477) and subiliac lymph nodes (<b>SLNs</b>; <i>n</i> = 479) were collected longitudinally at harvest from 23 to 25 heifers per pen. Data were analyzed using mixed models; pen served as the experimental unit; block and harvest date were random effects. No differences were detected in dry matter intake (<i>P</i> = 0.78), final BW (<i>P</i> = 0.64), average daily gain (<i>P</i> = 0.51), gain to feed (<i>P</i> = 0.71), hot carcass weight (<i>P</i> = 0.54), dressed carcass yield (<i>P</i> = 0.52), 12th rib fat depth (<i>P</i> = 0.13), longissimus muscle area (<i>P</i> = 0.62), calculated empty body fat (<i>P</i> = 0.26), or marbling score (<i>P</i> = 0.82). Distributions of liver scores (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.34), quality grades (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.23), and yield grades (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.11) were also not different between treatments. A tendency was detected for more normal lungs (<i>P</i> = 0.08; 10-G = 65.96%, CON = 61.12%) and fewer inflated lungs at harvest for cattle fed 10-G (<i>P</i> = 0.10; 10-G = 0.29%, CON = 1.16%); other lung outcomes did not differ (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.54). <i>Salmonella</i> prevalence did not differ for RAM samples (<i>P</i> = 0.41; 10-G = 97.74%, CON = 96.82%) or SLN (<i>P</i> = 0.22; 10-G = 17.92%, CON = 13.66%). <i>Salmonella</i> concentration of RAM samples (<i>P</i> = 0.25; 10-G = 3.87 log CFU/g, CON = 3.32 log CFU/g) or SLN (<i>P</i> = 0.37; 10-G = 1.46 log CFU/g, CON = 1.14 log CFU/g) also did not differ between treatments at harvest. These results do not demonstrate any difference in live animal performance, carcass characteristics, or <i>Salmonella</i> carriage for heifers fed 10-G.</p>","PeriodicalId":23272,"journal":{"name":"Translational Animal Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11165639/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of a direct-fed microbial (10-G) on live animal performance, carcass characteristics, and <i>Salmonella</i> prevalence of fed beef heifers.\",\"authors\":\"Travis J Tilton, Kevin Martens, Loni W Lucherk, Alyssa B Word, Ben P Holland, Ty E Lawrence, Travis C Tennant\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tas/txae086\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of the direct-fed microbial 10-G upon cattle growth performance, liver and lung health, carcass quality, and yield outcomes, as well as prevalence and enumeration of <i>Salmonella</i> in feces and lymph nodes. Fed beef heifers (<i>N</i> = 1,400; initial shrunk body weight [<b>BW</b>] 343.3 ± 36.2 kg) were blocked by the day of arrival and randomly allocated to one of two treatments (0 [negative control, CON] or 2 g of a direct-fed microbial [10-G] that provided 1 billion CFUs per animal per day of <i>Lactobacillus acidophilus</i>, <i>Enterococcus faecium</i>, <i>Pediococcus pentosaceus</i>, <i>L. brevis</i>, and <i>L. plantarum</i>) with 10 pens per treatment. Recto-anal mucosal fecal samples (<b>RAMs</b>; <i>n</i> = 477) and subiliac lymph nodes (<b>SLNs</b>; <i>n</i> = 479) were collected longitudinally at harvest from 23 to 25 heifers per pen. Data were analyzed using mixed models; pen served as the experimental unit; block and harvest date were random effects. No differences were detected in dry matter intake (<i>P</i> = 0.78), final BW (<i>P</i> = 0.64), average daily gain (<i>P</i> = 0.51), gain to feed (<i>P</i> = 0.71), hot carcass weight (<i>P</i> = 0.54), dressed carcass yield (<i>P</i> = 0.52), 12th rib fat depth (<i>P</i> = 0.13), longissimus muscle area (<i>P</i> = 0.62), calculated empty body fat (<i>P</i> = 0.26), or marbling score (<i>P</i> = 0.82). Distributions of liver scores (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.34), quality grades (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.23), and yield grades (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.11) were also not different between treatments. A tendency was detected for more normal lungs (<i>P</i> = 0.08; 10-G = 65.96%, CON = 61.12%) and fewer inflated lungs at harvest for cattle fed 10-G (<i>P</i> = 0.10; 10-G = 0.29%, CON = 1.16%); other lung outcomes did not differ (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.54). <i>Salmonella</i> prevalence did not differ for RAM samples (<i>P</i> = 0.41; 10-G = 97.74%, CON = 96.82%) or SLN (<i>P</i> = 0.22; 10-G = 17.92%, CON = 13.66%). <i>Salmonella</i> concentration of RAM samples (<i>P</i> = 0.25; 10-G = 3.87 log CFU/g, CON = 3.32 log CFU/g) or SLN (<i>P</i> = 0.37; 10-G = 1.46 log CFU/g, CON = 1.14 log CFU/g) also did not differ between treatments at harvest. These results do not demonstrate any difference in live animal performance, carcass characteristics, or <i>Salmonella</i> carriage for heifers fed 10-G.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational Animal Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11165639/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational Animal Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txae086\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 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/txae086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在确定直接饲喂微生物 10-G 对牛的生长性能、肝脏和肺部健康、胴体质量、产量结果以及粪便和淋巴结中沙门氏菌的流行率和计数的影响。喂养的肉用小母牛(N = 1,400; 初始收缩体重 [BW] 343.3 ± 36.2 kg),并随机分配到两种处理之一(0 [阴性对照,CON] 或 2 g 直接饲喂微生物 [10-G],每只动物每天可获得 10 亿 CFUs 的嗜酸乳杆菌、粪肠球菌、五味子球菌、布氏乳杆菌和植物乳杆菌),每个处理有 10 个栏。收获时纵向收集直肠肛门粘膜粪便样本(RAMs;n = 477)和髂下淋巴结(SLNs;n = 479),每栏 23 到 25 头母牛。采用混合模型对数据进行分析;圈作为实验单位;区组和收获日期为随机效应。在干物质摄入量(P = 0.78)、最终体重(P = 0.64)、平均日增重(P = 0.51)、饲料增重(P = 0.71)、热胴体重量(P = 0.54)、胴体产量(P = 0.52)、第 12 肋骨脂肪深度(P = 0.13)、长肌肉面积(P = 0.62)、计算的空体脂肪(P = 0.26)或大理石纹评分(P = 0.82)方面未发现差异。肝脏评分(P ≥ 0.34)、质量等级(P ≥ 0.23)和产量等级(P ≥ 0.11)的分布在不同处理之间也没有差异。发现饲喂 10-G 的牛在收获时有更多正常肺(P = 0.08;10-G = 65.96%,CON = 61.12%)和更少膨胀肺(P = 0.10;10-G = 0.29%,CON = 1.16%)的趋势;其他肺部结果无差异(P ≥ 0.54)。沙门氏菌流行率在 RAM 样本(P = 0.41;10-G = 97.74%,CON = 96.82%)或 SLN(P = 0.22;10-G = 17.92%,CON = 13.66%)中无差异。收获时,RAM 样品(P = 0.25;10-G = 3.87 log CFU/g,CON = 3.32 log CFU/g)或 SLN(P = 0.37;10-G = 1.46 log CFU/g,CON = 1.14 log CFU/g)的沙门氏菌浓度在不同处理之间也没有差异。这些结果表明,饲喂 10-G 的小母牛在活畜表现、胴体特征或沙门氏菌携带方面没有任何差异。
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
The effect of a direct-fed microbial (10-G) on live animal performance, carcass characteristics, and Salmonella prevalence of fed beef heifers.

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of the direct-fed microbial 10-G upon cattle growth performance, liver and lung health, carcass quality, and yield outcomes, as well as prevalence and enumeration of Salmonella in feces and lymph nodes. Fed beef heifers (N = 1,400; initial shrunk body weight [BW] 343.3 ± 36.2 kg) were blocked by the day of arrival and randomly allocated to one of two treatments (0 [negative control, CON] or 2 g of a direct-fed microbial [10-G] that provided 1 billion CFUs per animal per day of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium, Pediococcus pentosaceus, L. brevis, and L. plantarum) with 10 pens per treatment. Recto-anal mucosal fecal samples (RAMs; n = 477) and subiliac lymph nodes (SLNs; n = 479) were collected longitudinally at harvest from 23 to 25 heifers per pen. Data were analyzed using mixed models; pen served as the experimental unit; block and harvest date were random effects. No differences were detected in dry matter intake (P = 0.78), final BW (P = 0.64), average daily gain (P = 0.51), gain to feed (P = 0.71), hot carcass weight (P = 0.54), dressed carcass yield (P = 0.52), 12th rib fat depth (P = 0.13), longissimus muscle area (P = 0.62), calculated empty body fat (P = 0.26), or marbling score (P = 0.82). Distributions of liver scores (P ≥ 0.34), quality grades (P ≥ 0.23), and yield grades (P ≥ 0.11) were also not different between treatments. A tendency was detected for more normal lungs (P = 0.08; 10-G = 65.96%, CON = 61.12%) and fewer inflated lungs at harvest for cattle fed 10-G (P = 0.10; 10-G = 0.29%, CON = 1.16%); other lung outcomes did not differ (P ≥ 0.54). Salmonella prevalence did not differ for RAM samples (P = 0.41; 10-G = 97.74%, CON = 96.82%) or SLN (P = 0.22; 10-G = 17.92%, CON = 13.66%). Salmonella concentration of RAM samples (P = 0.25; 10-G = 3.87 log CFU/g, CON = 3.32 log CFU/g) or SLN (P = 0.37; 10-G = 1.46 log CFU/g, CON = 1.14 log CFU/g) also did not differ between treatments at harvest. These results do not demonstrate any difference in live animal performance, carcass characteristics, or Salmonella carriage for heifers fed 10-G.

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.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of formaldehyde when complete feed and soybean meal were inoculated with porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, and Seneca Valley virus 1. Effect of balanced vs. standard protein on muscle mass development in exercising horses. Mealworm larvae and black soldier fly larvae as novel protein supplements for cattle consuming low-quality forage. Determination of gas flux of growing steers under intensive grazing conditions. Growth performance and meat quality of broiler chickens fed diet containing bird eye pepper of varying proportion and sieve size.
×
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