Jones Aaron M, Wu Fangzhou, Woodworth Jason C, Tokach Mike D, Goodband Robert D, DeRouchey Joel M, Dritz Steve S
Department of Animal Sciences, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
Department of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Transl Anim Sci. 2018 Mar 23;2(2):144-155. doi: 10.1093/tas/txy010. eCollection 2018 Apr.
Three experiments were conducted to determine the effects of fish meal source on nursery pig growth performance. In experiment 1, 250 pigs (PIC 327 × 1,050, initially 7.1 ± 1.00 kg) were fed either a corn-soybean meal-based diet, a diet containing 8.3% enzymatically treated soybean meal (HP 300, Hamlet Protein, Findlay, OH), or diets containing 6% fish meal from one of three sources (IPC 790, The Scoular Company, Minneapolis, MN; Special Select Menhaden, Omega Proteins, Houston, TX; LT Prime Menhaden, Daybrook Fisheries Inc., New Orleans, LA; source 1, 2, and 3, respectively). In a completely randomized design, there were five pigs per pen and 10 pens per treatment with diets fed for 13 d. There was no evidence for differences in ADG or ADFI among pigs fed the three fish meal sources; however, pigs fed source 1 had marginally decreased ( 0.068) G:F compared with pigs fed diets with other protein sources. In experiment 2, 350 barrows (DNA Line 200 × 400; initially 6.5 ± 0.90 kg) were assigned to one of seven dietary treatments including the same control diet and diets containing the three fish meal sources used in experiment 1, but fed at 3% or 6%. There were five pigs per pen and 10 pens per treatment with diets fed for 14 d. A source × level interaction (linear, 0.05) for ADG and G:F was observed. Increasing fish meal source 1 increased ADG and G:F; however, pigs fed source 2 had improved ADG and G:F at 3%, but decreased performance at 6% compared with control pigs. Pigs fed source 3 had no further improvements in ADG or G:F beyond the 3% inclusion. Fishmeal analysis for total volatile N, and modified Torry digestibility did not appear to correspond with any growth performance differences measured in experiments 1 or 2. In experiment 3, 700 barrows (DNA Line 200 × 400, initially 6.5 ± 0.84 kg) were fed a control diet or four diets with 6% fish meal (source 3) containing either 0.87%, 8.70%, 16.52%, or 24.35% fish solubles. There were five pigs per pen and 28 pens per treatment with diets fed for 21 d. Overall, pigs fed diets with fish meal had increased ( < 0.05) ADG and ADFI compared with pigs fed the control diet. There was no evidence for differences in growth performance as fish solubles increased. In conclusion, inconsistencies were observed in growth responses to different fish meal sources, but the amount of fish solubles, total volatile N, or modified Torry digestibility of fishmeal does not appear to explain these differences.
进行了三项试验以确定鱼粉来源对保育猪生长性能的影响。在试验1中，250头猪（PIC 327×1050，初始体重7.1±1.00千克）被饲喂以玉米-豆粕为基础的日粮、含有8.3%酶解豆粕（HP 300，哈姆雷特蛋白质公司，俄亥俄州芬德利）的日粮，或含有来自三种来源之一的6%鱼粉的日粮（IPC 790，斯库拉尔公司，明尼阿波利斯，明尼苏达州；特级精选鲱鱼粉，欧米伽蛋白质公司，得克萨斯州休斯顿；LT优质鲱鱼粉，代布鲁克渔业公司，路易斯安那州新奥尔良；分别为来源1、2和3）。采用完全随机设计，每栏5头猪，每个处理10个重复栏，日粮饲喂13天。饲喂三种鱼粉来源的猪在平均日增重（ADG）或平均日采食量（ADFI）上没有差异的证据；然而，与饲喂其他蛋白质来源日粮的猪相比，饲喂来源1的猪的料重比（G:F）略有下降（0.068）。在试验2中，350头公猪（DNA品系200×400；初始体重6.5±0.90千克）被分配到七种日粮处理之一，包括相同的对照日粮以及含有试验1中使用的三种鱼粉来源的日粮，但添加量为3%或6%。每栏5头猪，每个处理10个重复栏，日粮饲喂14天。观察到ADG和G:F存在来源×水平交互作用（线性，P<0.05）。增加鱼粉来源1可提高ADG和G:F；然而，饲喂来源2的猪在3%添加量时ADG和G:F有所改善，但在6%添加量时与对照猪相比性能下降。饲喂来源3的猪在添加量超过3%时，ADG或G:F没有进一步改善。对鱼粉的总挥发性氮以及改良托里消化率的分析似乎与试验1或2中测得的任何生长性能差异都不相关。在试验3中，700头公猪（DNA品系200×400，初始体重6.5±0.84千克）被饲喂对照日粮或四种含有6%鱼粉（来源3）且分别含有0.87%、8.70%、16.52%或24.35%鱼溶物的日粮。每栏5头猪，每个处理28个重复栏，日粮饲喂21天。总体而言，与饲喂对照日粮的猪相比，饲喂含鱼粉日粮的猪ADG和ADFI增加（P<0.05）。没有证据表明随着鱼溶物增加生长性能存在差异。总之，观察到对不同鱼粉来源的生长反应存在不一致性，但鱼粉中的鱼溶物含量、总挥发性氮或改良托里消化率似乎无法解释这些差异。
