4.4 Article

Evaluation of the Effect of Low Dietary Fermentable Carbohydrate Content on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Blood Characteristics, and Meat Quality in Finishing Pigs

期刊

ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCES
卷 25, 期 9, 页码 1294-1299

出版社

ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN ASSOC ANIMAL PRODUCTION SOC
DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2011.11403

关键词

Blood Profile; Digestibility; Fermentable Carbohydrate; Finishing Pig; Growth Performance; Meat Quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A total of 96 pigs (49.23 +/- 3.20 kg) were used in an 11 wk growth trial to evaluate the effect of fermentable carbohydrate (FC) content on growth performance, apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of nutrient, blood profile, and meat quality. The dietary treatments were: i) negative control (NC), basal diet, ii) positive control (PC), NC+antibiotics (positive control diet with 5 ppm flavomycin), iii) PCL, PC-13% lower FC, and iv) NCL, NC-13% lower FC. The growth performance (average daily gain, average daily feed intake, and gain/feed) didn't differ among treatments through the whole experiment. These pigs fed the PCL diet had the greater (p<0.05) apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of dry matter than those from PC and NC treatment at the end of the experiment. No differences were observed in white blood cell (WBC), red blood cell (RBC), and lymphocyte concentration among different treatments. After the feeding period, meat samples were collected from the pigs at slaughter. The pigs in NCL and PCL treatments had greater (p<0.05) backfat thickness and lower lean percentage. The color value of loin was higher (p<0.05) in NCL treatment compared to PCL treatment. Also, the NCL treatment had higher (p<0.05) marbling value than PC treatment. The drip loss was depressed by PCL and NCL treatment comapared to NC treatments. The water holding capacity (WHC) was higher (p<0.05) in NC and PCL treatment. In conclusion, the low FC can improve digestibility and meat quality of finishing pigs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据