益生素对皖南黄鸡生产性能和肉品质量影响的研究
|
摘要
本试验选用1日龄皖南黄肉用仔鸡400只，随机分成5组，每组80
只，分别以0、0.2％、0.4％、0.6％、0.8％水平的益生素添加于基础日粮
中，本试验用益生素由地衣芽孢杆菌和枯草芽孢杆菌两菌株组成。每组鸡分
别饲喂一种日粮，饲喂6周。通过对皖南黄鸡生长性能、屠宰性能、肉样化
学组成和肉品质量指标的分析，研究益生素对皖南黄鸡生产性能和肉品质量
的影响，并对不同水平的益生素组进行比较。
试验结果表明，0-3周龄，饲喂益生素的各组鸡的平均体重、平均日
增重比对照组有所提高（P＞0.05）；平均日采食量均低于对照组，料重比分
别比对照组低1.30％、4.65％、3.85％、2.55％，其中以0.4％和0.6％两水平的
益生素组饲料转化率较好。4周龄末，饲喂益生素的各组鸡的平均体重分别
比对照组增加3.35％、5.71％、5.79％、2.50％；料重比分别比对照组低
3.38％、9.89％、11.03％，3.30％。0.4％和0.6％水平的益生素组的平均体重
显著高于对照组（P＜0.05）；0.2％、0.8％水平的益生素组的平均体重与对照
组差异不显著；各益生素组之间平均体重差异不显著。5周龄末，各益生素
组鸡的平均体重分别比对照组增加4.47％、6.29％、11.00％、2.57％；0.4％和
0.6％水平的益生素组平均体重显著提高（P＜0.05）；0.6％水平益生素组平均
体重显著高于0.2％和0.8％水平的益生素组（P＜0.05），其余各组无明显差
异；0.8％益生素组的饲料转化率较差，其余各水平的益生素组的饲料转化率
均优于对照组。6周龄末，各组鸡的平均体重差异不显著，饲料转化率均低
于对照组。从整个饲养期来看，以0.4％和0.6％两个水平益生素组的平均日
增重较高，平均日采食量较低，料重比较优；0.2％和0.8％水平益生素组的
平均日增重和料重比差于对照组差。
0.2％水平益生素组的全净膛率显著低于对照组（P＜0.05）；0.6％水平益
生素组的胸肌率显著高于0.8％组（P＜0.05），益生素对皖南黄鸡的其它屠
宰性能指标无显著影响。添加益生素对肉样的化学组成、氨基酸组成无显著
影响（P＞0.05），0.8％水平益生素组的某些氨基酸含量有所增加。
益生素对胸肌肉样的肌纤维直径无显著影响（P＞0．05）。各益生素组肉
样的滴水损失与对照组无明显差异，益生素组的拿破率均略低于对照组
（P＞0．05）。益生素组的水浴损失分别比对照组高 31．07％、38．28％、
16．22见41．17兄 除0．6％水平的益生素组外，其它水平的益生素组的水浴
损失均与对照组间差异显著（P＜0．05），这表明对照组肌肉的系水力较高。
系水力的这三项指标综合表明益生素使肉的系水力有降低趋势，其中0．8％
水平的益生素组的系水力最差。
益生素组的L”值均略高于对照组（P＞0‘05）。益生素组的d值与对照
组差异不显著，但益生素组之间存在差异。0．8％水平益生素组的d值显著
高于 0．4％水平的益生素组叩m．05）。0．6兄 0．8％水平的益生素组 b”值显
著高于对照组（P＜O．05）；o．2％、0．4％水平的益生素组的r值高于对照组
但差异不显著，0．8％水平益生素组的b”值显著高于02％益生素组
（P＜0．05）。
益生素组PH；值均高于对照组，0．2％水平的益生素组的PH；值显著高于对
照组u们．05），其余水平的益生素组之间差异不显著。益生素组肉样的
PHU值与对照组无明显差异。0．2％水平益生素组出 值显著高于0．4％、0．8％
水平的益生素组（P＜0．05）。
Four hundred Wan Nan Huang broilers of 1-day-old were allotted to five groups randomly, 80 broilers for each group. The probiotics composed of Bacillus Licheniformis and Bacillus Subtilis were added to the diet at the level of 0, 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.8% respectively. Each group was fed with an assigned diet for 6 weeks. Growth performances, slaughter performances, chemical components of the breast muscle, meat quality parameters were measured to evaluate the effects of different levels of probiotics on Wan Nan Huang broilers.
The results showed that during 0-3 weeks Wan Nan Huang broilers fed with probiotics had a slightly higher average body weight (P>0.05), higher daily gain and less daily feed intake than the control. Feed conversion rates of probiotic groups were higher by 1.30%. 4.65%, 3.85%, 2.55% than the control respectively. The groups at 0.4% and at 0.6% had more efficient feed conversion rates. By the end of week 4, the average body weights of probiotic groups increased by 3.35%, 5.71%, 5.79%, 2.50% and the feed conversion rates improved by 3.38%, 9.89%, 11.03%, 3.30% than the control respectively. The average body weights of the groups at 0.4%, 0.6% were significantly higher than that of the control (p<0.05), and those of the groups at 0.2% and 0.8% did not significantly defer from that of the control. The average body weights were not significant among probiotic
groups. By the end of week 5, the average body weight of each probiotic group increased by 4.47%, 6.29%, 11.00%, 2.57% respectively. The average body weights of the groups at 0.4% and at 0.6% were significantly higher than that of the control (p<0.05). The average body weight of the group at 0.6% was significantly higher than those of the groups at 0.2% and 0.8% (p<0.05). All probiotic groups except the group at 0.8% had high feed conversion rates. By the end of week 6, probiotic groups had worse feed conversion rates than the control; the average body weights of all groups were not significantly different (p>0.05). During the whole feeding period, the groups at 0.4% and at 0.6% increased average body weight, reduced average daily intake, improved feed conversion rate; on the contrary, the average daily gams and feed conversion rates of the groups at 0.2% and 0.8% were worse even than those of the control.
Net carcass percentage of the group at 0.2% was significantly lower than that of the control (p<0.05) and the breast muscle rate of the group at 0.6% was higher than that of the group at 0.8%(p<0.05), but the other slaughter performance parameters of the probiotic groups were not significantly different from those of the control. Probiotics had no effects on the chemical components of the breast muscle, neither on amino acids contents, however, the group at 0.8% had a tendency to increase the contents of some ammo acids.
Muscle fiber diameter was not influenced by the probotic treatments. Probiotics did not improve drip loss and Napole yield of the breast muscle. The Napole yields of the probiotic groups were lower than that of the control. The cooking losses of the probiotic groups were higher than that of the control by 31.07%, 38.28%, 16.22%, 41.17% respectively, so the cooking losses of all probiotic groups except for the group at 0.6% were significantly different from that of the control (p<0.05). This showed that the probiotics did not improve water- holding capacity of breast muscle, but could reduce it, with water- holding capacity of the group at 0.8% at the lowest level.
L* values of the probiotic groups were slightly higher than that of the control (p>0.05). There were no significant differences of a* values between the probotic groups and the control, however, a* values were significantly different among
probotic groups. The a* value of the group at 0.8% was higher than that of the group at 0.4% (p<0.05). Both the group at 0.6% and at 0.8% had higher b* values than the control (p<0.05); the groups at 0.2% and at 0.4% had higher b* values than the control, but not significantly. The group at 0.8% had highe
只，分别以0、0.2％、0.4％、0.6％、0.8％水平的益生素添加于基础日粮
中，本试验用益生素由地衣芽孢杆菌和枯草芽孢杆菌两菌株组成。每组鸡分
别饲喂一种日粮，饲喂6周。通过对皖南黄鸡生长性能、屠宰性能、肉样化
学组成和肉品质量指标的分析，研究益生素对皖南黄鸡生产性能和肉品质量
的影响，并对不同水平的益生素组进行比较。
试验结果表明，0-3周龄，饲喂益生素的各组鸡的平均体重、平均日
增重比对照组有所提高（P＞0.05）；平均日采食量均低于对照组，料重比分
别比对照组低1.30％、4.65％、3.85％、2.55％，其中以0.4％和0.6％两水平的
益生素组饲料转化率较好。4周龄末，饲喂益生素的各组鸡的平均体重分别
比对照组增加3.35％、5.71％、5.79％、2.50％；料重比分别比对照组低
3.38％、9.89％、11.03％，3.30％。0.4％和0.6％水平的益生素组的平均体重
显著高于对照组（P＜0.05）；0.2％、0.8％水平的益生素组的平均体重与对照
组差异不显著；各益生素组之间平均体重差异不显著。5周龄末，各益生素
组鸡的平均体重分别比对照组增加4.47％、6.29％、11.00％、2.57％；0.4％和
0.6％水平的益生素组平均体重显著提高（P＜0.05）；0.6％水平益生素组平均
体重显著高于0.2％和0.8％水平的益生素组（P＜0.05），其余各组无明显差
异；0.8％益生素组的饲料转化率较差，其余各水平的益生素组的饲料转化率
均优于对照组。6周龄末，各组鸡的平均体重差异不显著，饲料转化率均低
于对照组。从整个饲养期来看，以0.4％和0.6％两个水平益生素组的平均日
增重较高，平均日采食量较低，料重比较优；0.2％和0.8％水平益生素组的
平均日增重和料重比差于对照组差。
0.2％水平益生素组的全净膛率显著低于对照组（P＜0.05）；0.6％水平益
生素组的胸肌率显著高于0.8％组（P＜0.05），益生素对皖南黄鸡的其它屠
宰性能指标无显著影响。添加益生素对肉样的化学组成、氨基酸组成无显著
影响（P＞0.05），0.8％水平益生素组的某些氨基酸含量有所增加。
益生素对胸肌肉样的肌纤维直径无显著影响（P＞0．05）。各益生素组肉
样的滴水损失与对照组无明显差异，益生素组的拿破率均略低于对照组
（P＞0．05）。益生素组的水浴损失分别比对照组高 31．07％、38．28％、
16．22见41．17兄 除0．6％水平的益生素组外，其它水平的益生素组的水浴
损失均与对照组间差异显著（P＜0．05），这表明对照组肌肉的系水力较高。
系水力的这三项指标综合表明益生素使肉的系水力有降低趋势，其中0．8％
水平的益生素组的系水力最差。
益生素组的L”值均略高于对照组（P＞0‘05）。益生素组的d值与对照
组差异不显著，但益生素组之间存在差异。0．8％水平益生素组的d值显著
高于 0．4％水平的益生素组叩m．05）。0．6兄 0．8％水平的益生素组 b”值显
著高于对照组（P＜O．05）；o．2％、0．4％水平的益生素组的r值高于对照组
但差异不显著，0．8％水平益生素组的b”值显著高于02％益生素组
（P＜0．05）。
益生素组PH；值均高于对照组，0．2％水平的益生素组的PH；值显著高于对
照组u们．05），其余水平的益生素组之间差异不显著。益生素组肉样的
PHU值与对照组无明显差异。0．2％水平益生素组出 值显著高于0．4％、0．8％
水平的益生素组（P＜0．05）。
Four hundred Wan Nan Huang broilers of 1-day-old were allotted to five groups randomly, 80 broilers for each group. The probiotics composed of Bacillus Licheniformis and Bacillus Subtilis were added to the diet at the level of 0, 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.8% respectively. Each group was fed with an assigned diet for 6 weeks. Growth performances, slaughter performances, chemical components of the breast muscle, meat quality parameters were measured to evaluate the effects of different levels of probiotics on Wan Nan Huang broilers.
The results showed that during 0-3 weeks Wan Nan Huang broilers fed with probiotics had a slightly higher average body weight (P>0.05), higher daily gain and less daily feed intake than the control. Feed conversion rates of probiotic groups were higher by 1.30%. 4.65%, 3.85%, 2.55% than the control respectively. The groups at 0.4% and at 0.6% had more efficient feed conversion rates. By the end of week 4, the average body weights of probiotic groups increased by 3.35%, 5.71%, 5.79%, 2.50% and the feed conversion rates improved by 3.38%, 9.89%, 11.03%, 3.30% than the control respectively. The average body weights of the groups at 0.4%, 0.6% were significantly higher than that of the control (p<0.05), and those of the groups at 0.2% and 0.8% did not significantly defer from that of the control. The average body weights were not significant among probiotic
groups. By the end of week 5, the average body weight of each probiotic group increased by 4.47%, 6.29%, 11.00%, 2.57% respectively. The average body weights of the groups at 0.4% and at 0.6% were significantly higher than that of the control (p<0.05). The average body weight of the group at 0.6% was significantly higher than those of the groups at 0.2% and 0.8% (p<0.05). All probiotic groups except the group at 0.8% had high feed conversion rates. By the end of week 6, probiotic groups had worse feed conversion rates than the control; the average body weights of all groups were not significantly different (p>0.05). During the whole feeding period, the groups at 0.4% and at 0.6% increased average body weight, reduced average daily intake, improved feed conversion rate; on the contrary, the average daily gams and feed conversion rates of the groups at 0.2% and 0.8% were worse even than those of the control.
Net carcass percentage of the group at 0.2% was significantly lower than that of the control (p<0.05) and the breast muscle rate of the group at 0.6% was higher than that of the group at 0.8%(p<0.05), but the other slaughter performance parameters of the probiotic groups were not significantly different from those of the control. Probiotics had no effects on the chemical components of the breast muscle, neither on amino acids contents, however, the group at 0.8% had a tendency to increase the contents of some ammo acids.
Muscle fiber diameter was not influenced by the probotic treatments. Probiotics did not improve drip loss and Napole yield of the breast muscle. The Napole yields of the probiotic groups were lower than that of the control. The cooking losses of the probiotic groups were higher than that of the control by 31.07%, 38.28%, 16.22%, 41.17% respectively, so the cooking losses of all probiotic groups except for the group at 0.6% were significantly different from that of the control (p<0.05). This showed that the probiotics did not improve water- holding capacity of breast muscle, but could reduce it, with water- holding capacity of the group at 0.8% at the lowest level.
L* values of the probiotic groups were slightly higher than that of the control (p>0.05). There were no significant differences of a* values between the probotic groups and the control, however, a* values were significantly different among
probotic groups. The a* value of the group at 0.8% was higher than that of the group at 0.4% (p<0.05). Both the group at 0.6% and at 0.8% had higher b* values than the control (p<0.05); the groups at 0.2% and at 0.4% had higher b* values than the control, but not significantly. The group at 0.8% had highe
引文
1. Lopez J [a]. Probotics in animal nutrition. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. July, 2000. 12-26.
2. Vanbelle, -M.: Teller, -E.; Focant, -M. Probotics in animal nutrition: a review. Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium). Oct 1989. 59 P.
3. Jernigan, M. A. and R. D. Miles. 1985. Probiotics in poultry nutritiona review. World's Poultry Science. June, 1985.
4．蔡辉益，霍启光．饲用微生物添加剂研究进展与应用．动物营养研究进展．中国农业科技出版社，1994．
5．王丽娟．益生素的研究及应用进展．饲料博览．1999 11 (1)：15-18
6．侯晓林．新型药物微生态制剂浅谈；禽业科技．1998 14 (3)：7．
7. Parker, R. B. 1974. Probiotics, the other half of the antibiotics story. Nutr. Health. 29: 4-8.
8．董德宽，丁鼎海．动物体的微生态与饲用微生物．中国饲料．1996 (14)：18-19．
9. Fuller, R. 1989. Probiotics in man and animals. J. Appl. Bacterial. 66: 365-342.
10. Soggard, H. 1990. Microbials for feed: Beyond lactic acid bacteria. Feed International Vol. 11, No. 4: 22-37.
11．张润栋．活菌制剂在畜禽饲养业中的应用．饲料博览．1998 10 (1)：21-25．
12．俞联平．益生素在畜禽饲料中的应用．甘肃畜牧兽医．1994 (2)：29-30．
13. AAFCO. 1991. Official Publication. Association of American Feed Control Officials, PP103, Incorporated Nicholas J. President, Wiscosin Dep. Of Agr. Ahrens, F. 1987. Unpublished data.
14. Quinlin. 1991. Feed Management Vol. 11. No. 42: 26-32.
15．孙建义．益生素的研究和应用进展．生物工程进展．1995 15 (1)：28-31．
16．李槿年．正确使用及保存活菌制剂．中国饲料．1997 (6)：7-9．
17．王晓春．饲用微生物，黑龙江畜牧兽医．1996 (1)：17-18．
18．刘文波，柴同杰，牛钟相，张供领．微生态制剂及其在畜牧业中的应用前景．饲料研究．2000 (9)：15-16．
19．顾宏伟，李德发．益生素的研究进展与应用．动物营养研究进展．中国农业科技出版社，1994．
20．张力，郑中朝主编．饲料添加剂手册．北京：化学工业出版社，2000．4
21．王士长，徐菊芬，张梅芳．益生素生产菌的生物学特性研究．广西科学院学报．1999 15 (1)．
22. Pusztai A., G. Grant, T. P. King and E. M. W. Clarke. 1990. Chemical probotics. Savage D. C. 1983. Mechanisms by which indigenous microorganisms colonize gastrointestinal epithelial surfaces. Proceeding in Food and Nutrition Science 7, 65-74.
23. Frank T. Jones., 1991. Use of direct-fed microbials not new, way they work still not clear, Feedstuffs Vol. 63. No. 4: 31-33.
24．潘康成，杨汉博．饲用芽孢菌作用机理的研究进展．饲料工业．1997 18 (9)：32-33．
25．傅义刚，郑诚．益生素对肉鸡生产性能和一些生理生化指标影响的研究．饲料工业．1997 18 (5)：39-40．
26．陈惠，吕道俊．芽孢杆菌对生长肥育猪肠道菌群及酶活性的影响．中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会论文集．1995，9．
27. Svage, D. C. 1977. Microbial ecology of the gastrointestinal tract. Rev. Microbiol. 31:107-133.
28．向贵友，谢后清等．鸡微生物饲料添加剂对肉用仔鸡促生长研究．中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会论文集．1995，9．
29. Takahashi, -K.; Akiba, -Y.; Matsuda, -A. Effect of a probotic on immune responses in broiler chicks under different sanitary conditions or immune activation. Animal-Science-and-Technology (Japan). (Jun 1997). V. 68(6) P. 537-544.
30. Bosi P [A]. Modulation of immune response and barrier function in the piglet gut by dietary means. Asian -Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. July, 2000. 278-293.
31．刘克林，何明清等．鸡微生物饲料添加剂对肉鸡免疫功能影响的研究．中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会论文集．1995，9．
32．潘康成，吕道俊，何明清．正常菌群对动物免疫功能的影响研究进展．饲料工业．1999年20(9)：24-26．
33．孙海波．益生素添加剂的作用机理及应用效果．饲料与畜牧．2000 (2)：18-19．
34．闫凤兰，卢峰，朱玉琴．肉仔鸡饲喂枯草芽孢杆菌效果的研究．动物营养学报．1996 8 (4)：34-38．
35．王士长，零汉益，廖益平等．芽孢杆菌类益生素对仔鸡生长发育的影响．中国家禽．1998 20 (12)：19．
36．吕景旭，王苏宁等．肉仔鸡饲料中添加益生素的效果．中国饲料．1998 (10)：21-22．
37．王殿生．益生素在畜牧业上的应用．黑龙江畜牧兽医．1992 (5)：32-35．
38．石传林．加酶益生素饲喂肉仔鸡试验效果．饲料与畜牧，1998 (2)：14-15．
39．吕景逊，李东飞．活菌制剂在饲料中的应用研究．饲料工业．1996．17 (2)：7-9．
40．李克明．增菌素对肉用仔鸡的饲喂效果．饲料研究．1997 (12)：10-11．
41．苏军，汪莉．益生素与有机酸对肉鸡生产性能的综合效应．中国饲料．1998 (8)：17-18．
42．刑军，常秀程等．益生素添加剂饲喂雏鸡效果的研究．中国饲料．1999 (5)：11-12．
43．史兆国．微生物饲料饲喂雏鸡的效果．中国饲料．2000 (8)：31．
44. Peo, E. R, Jro., 1987. Alternatives exist to antibiotic use in swine production. Feedstuffs, February, 13—18.
45．李克明．增菌素对肥育猪的促生长效果．饲料研究，1998 (2)：34-36．
46．翟桂玉．益生素添加剂的研究与应用．国外畜牧学—饲料．1997 (5)：15-17．
47．王士长，陈茂金，张伟．益生素对新西兰肉兔生长发育的影响．甘肃畜牧兽医．2000 (3)：5-6．
48．金岭梅，顾惠明等．微生态制剂在仔猪生产中的应用．中国饲料．1999 (3)：15．
49. Fox, -S. M. Probotics: intestinal inoculants for production animals. Veterinary-medicine (USA). (Aug 1988). 83(8) P.806-810, 823-826, 828-830.
50．麻秀海，郑诚．益生素饲喂哺乳仔猪的效果．中国饲料．1997 (20)：19-20．
51．刘定发，林勇等．微生态制剂的开发及其在畜禽饲料中的应用．饲料博览．1999 11 (9)：28-29．
52．刘海江，宋长明．微生态制剂在禽病防治中的应用．中国家禽．1997 (3)：41-42．
53．王士长，何若刚．益生素综合防治哺乳仔猪下痢．中国饲料．1998 (20)：27．
54．田允波，葛长荣，张曦等．益生素的研究和应用现状．兽药与饲料添加剂．1999 4 (2)：35-40。
55．薛恒平．复合菌剂饲养仔鸡研究．中国饲料．1992 (3)：28-29．
56．冯亚强，薛恒平．芽孢杆菌微生态制剂的应用进展．中国饲料．1995 (10)：8-10．
57．曾庆亮．新型饲料添加剂——微生态制剂．饲料工业．1999 20 (2)：24-25．
58．李喜桂．对微生态制剂作用的认识．饲料与畜牧．2000 (2)：18-19．
59. Paik I k [a]. Nutritional management for environment friendly animal production. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. July, 2000. 302-314.
60．赵芙蓉，邓云昌等．益生菌制剂对猪生产性能和猪舍环境的影响．中国饲料．1998 (22)：27-28．
61．魏建平，张润栋．微生态制剂对种鸡影响试验．中国家禽．1998 20 (11)：24-25．
62. Owings, -W. J. Research note: nutritive effects of a direct-fed microbial preparation on growing turkey toms. Poultry-Science (USA). (May 1992). V. 71 (5) P. 932-935.
63．潘宝海，李德发，谯仕彦．益生菌在养鸡生产中的应用．中国饲料．2000 (16)：9-11．
64. Yeo, -J. M.; Kim, -K. I. Effect of feeding diets containing an antibiotic, a probotic, or yucca extract on growth and intestinal urease activity in broiler chicks. Poultry-Science (USA). (Feb 1997). V. 76 (2) P. 381-385.
65. Jin, -L. Z.; Ho, Y. W.; Abdullah, -N.; Jalaludin, -S. Probotics in Poultry: modes of action. World's - Poultry-Science-Journal (United Kingdom). (1997). V. 53(4) P. 351-368.
66. Mohan, -B.; Kadirvel, -R.; Natarajan, -A.; Bhaskaran, -M. Effect of probotic supplementation on growth, nitrogen utilization and serum cholesterol in broilers. British - Poultry - Science (United Kingdom). (1996). V. 37 (2) P. 395-401.
67．安登第．微生物在未来畜牧业的作用．中国饲料．1997 (11)：9-11．
68．刘延贺．影响微生物添加剂作用效果的因素探讨．当代畜牧．1997 (4)：3-4．
69．蔡辉益，刘继业．饲用微生物添加剂及国内外研制现状．中国饲料．1993 (4)：40-41．
70. Castaldo, D. J. 1991. Antibiotic and probiotic. Feed Management, 42: 26-32.
71．吴晋强主编．动物营养学．合肥：安徽科学技术出版社，1999．8．
72．杨胜主编．饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术．北京农业大学出版社，1996．
73．《饲料添加剂分析》，美国全国饲料协会(NFIA)分析方法概要/[美]National Feed lngredients Association主编；李伟格等译审．北京：中国农业科技出版社，1998．5
74．孙玉民，罗明主编．畜禽肉品学．济南：山东科学技术出版社，1993．
75．张伟力．华南小耳型猪肌纤维特性的研究[硕士学位论文]．华南农业大学，1982．
76. Honikel KO. How to measure the water holding capacity of muscle? Recommendation of standardized methods. In evaluation and control of meat quality in pigs. Eds. Tarrant PV, Eikelenboom G, Monin G. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Dordrecht, Netherlands. 1987, 127: 142
77. Naveau, J. Pommeret P, Lechaux Proposition dune Methode de measure du rundement technologique: "La methode Napole". Techni porc. 1985, 8:7-13
78. ALLEN C. D., RUSSELL S. M., and FLETCHER D. L.. The relationship of broiler breast meat color and pH to shelf-life and odor development, 1997 Poultry Science 76:1042-1046.
79．周光宏主编．肉品学．中国农业出版社．北京，1999．
80．韩剑众．益生素用作饲料添加剂的研究．饲料工业．1990 (4)：25．
81. Barmes, E. M., 1986. Anaerobic bacteria of the normal intestinal microflor of animals. Black well Sci. Pub., Oxford, England. 225-238.
82. Fuller, -R. Probotics - an overview. International - Poultry - Production (United Kingdom). (1994). V. 2(1) P. 13-17.
83. Gati, L., 1992. Effect of Lacto sacc added to sow or piglet diets Biotechnology in the feed industry. Proceedings of Alltech's Eighth Annual Symosiu. Alltech Technical Publications. 3031 Catnip Hill Pilce, Nicholasville, Kentucky 40356.
84. Gerendia, D., T. Gippert, H. etc., 1992. Addition of yeast-sacc 1026 yeast culture or lacto-sacc to diets of New Hampshire parent stock. Biotechnology in the feed industry. Proceedings of alltech's Eighth Annual Symosiu. Alltech Technical Publications. Kentucky USA.
85. Mudalgi, -P.; Singh, -R.; Verma, -S. V. S. Effect of feeding probotics on the performance of broilers I. Feed consumption, growth and nutrient utilization. Indian- Journal - of - Poultry - Science (India). (Dec1993). V. 28(3) P. 195-199.
86. McGinnis K., 1992. Lacto-sacc versus Bacitracin in broiler Starter Diets Biotechnology In The Feed Industry. Proceedings of'alltech's Eighth Annual Symosiu. Alltech Technical Publications. Kentucky USA.
87. Peo, E. R, Jro., 1987. Alternatives exist to antibiotic use in Swine production. Feedstuffs, Feburary, 13-18.
88．安永义．活菌制剂的作用及研究应用．饲料研究．1995 (8)：2-4．
89. Tibbetts, G. W. etal. 1988. Poultry viscera ensiled with Lactobacillus for acidophilutatus and dietary copper levels in the pig. J. Anim. Sci. 68 (5): 905-913.
90. Newman, C. W. et. al. 1988. Replacement of soybean meal in swine diets with Lysine and L actobacillus fermentum. Rept. Inter, 37 (2): 347-335.
91．吕道俊，何明清．饲用芽孢杆菌研究应用进展．中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会论文集．1995，9．
92．吕道俊，何明清．饲用微生物添加剂研究．中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会第二届第三次学术研讨会论文集．1997，196-200．
93．余成瑶，刘克林，周毅．鸡微生物添加剂饲喂肉用仔鸡扫描电镜下小肠粘膜的研究．中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会论文集．1995，9．
2. Vanbelle, -M.: Teller, -E.; Focant, -M. Probotics in animal nutrition: a review. Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium). Oct 1989. 59 P.
3. Jernigan, M. A. and R. D. Miles. 1985. Probiotics in poultry nutritiona review. World's Poultry Science. June, 1985.
4．蔡辉益，霍启光．饲用微生物添加剂研究进展与应用．动物营养研究进展．中国农业科技出版社，1994．
5．王丽娟．益生素的研究及应用进展．饲料博览．1999 11 (1)：15-18
6．侯晓林．新型药物微生态制剂浅谈；禽业科技．1998 14 (3)：7．
7. Parker, R. B. 1974. Probiotics, the other half of the antibiotics story. Nutr. Health. 29: 4-8.
8．董德宽，丁鼎海．动物体的微生态与饲用微生物．中国饲料．1996 (14)：18-19．
9. Fuller, R. 1989. Probiotics in man and animals. J. Appl. Bacterial. 66: 365-342.
10. Soggard, H. 1990. Microbials for feed: Beyond lactic acid bacteria. Feed International Vol. 11, No. 4: 22-37.
11．张润栋．活菌制剂在畜禽饲养业中的应用．饲料博览．1998 10 (1)：21-25．
12．俞联平．益生素在畜禽饲料中的应用．甘肃畜牧兽医．1994 (2)：29-30．
13. AAFCO. 1991. Official Publication. Association of American Feed Control Officials, PP103, Incorporated Nicholas J. President, Wiscosin Dep. Of Agr. Ahrens, F. 1987. Unpublished data.
14. Quinlin. 1991. Feed Management Vol. 11. No. 42: 26-32.
15．孙建义．益生素的研究和应用进展．生物工程进展．1995 15 (1)：28-31．
16．李槿年．正确使用及保存活菌制剂．中国饲料．1997 (6)：7-9．
17．王晓春．饲用微生物，黑龙江畜牧兽医．1996 (1)：17-18．
18．刘文波，柴同杰，牛钟相，张供领．微生态制剂及其在畜牧业中的应用前景．饲料研究．2000 (9)：15-16．
19．顾宏伟，李德发．益生素的研究进展与应用．动物营养研究进展．中国农业科技出版社，1994．
20．张力，郑中朝主编．饲料添加剂手册．北京：化学工业出版社，2000．4
21．王士长，徐菊芬，张梅芳．益生素生产菌的生物学特性研究．广西科学院学报．1999 15 (1)．
22. Pusztai A., G. Grant, T. P. King and E. M. W. Clarke. 1990. Chemical probotics. Savage D. C. 1983. Mechanisms by which indigenous microorganisms colonize gastrointestinal epithelial surfaces. Proceeding in Food and Nutrition Science 7, 65-74.
23. Frank T. Jones., 1991. Use of direct-fed microbials not new, way they work still not clear, Feedstuffs Vol. 63. No. 4: 31-33.
24．潘康成，杨汉博．饲用芽孢菌作用机理的研究进展．饲料工业．1997 18 (9)：32-33．
25．傅义刚，郑诚．益生素对肉鸡生产性能和一些生理生化指标影响的研究．饲料工业．1997 18 (5)：39-40．
26．陈惠，吕道俊．芽孢杆菌对生长肥育猪肠道菌群及酶活性的影响．中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会论文集．1995，9．
27. Svage, D. C. 1977. Microbial ecology of the gastrointestinal tract. Rev. Microbiol. 31:107-133.
28．向贵友，谢后清等．鸡微生物饲料添加剂对肉用仔鸡促生长研究．中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会论文集．1995，9．
29. Takahashi, -K.; Akiba, -Y.; Matsuda, -A. Effect of a probotic on immune responses in broiler chicks under different sanitary conditions or immune activation. Animal-Science-and-Technology (Japan). (Jun 1997). V. 68(6) P. 537-544.
30. Bosi P [A]. Modulation of immune response and barrier function in the piglet gut by dietary means. Asian -Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. July, 2000. 278-293.
31．刘克林，何明清等．鸡微生物饲料添加剂对肉鸡免疫功能影响的研究．中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会论文集．1995，9．
32．潘康成，吕道俊，何明清．正常菌群对动物免疫功能的影响研究进展．饲料工业．1999年20(9)：24-26．
33．孙海波．益生素添加剂的作用机理及应用效果．饲料与畜牧．2000 (2)：18-19．
34．闫凤兰，卢峰，朱玉琴．肉仔鸡饲喂枯草芽孢杆菌效果的研究．动物营养学报．1996 8 (4)：34-38．
35．王士长，零汉益，廖益平等．芽孢杆菌类益生素对仔鸡生长发育的影响．中国家禽．1998 20 (12)：19．
36．吕景旭，王苏宁等．肉仔鸡饲料中添加益生素的效果．中国饲料．1998 (10)：21-22．
37．王殿生．益生素在畜牧业上的应用．黑龙江畜牧兽医．1992 (5)：32-35．
38．石传林．加酶益生素饲喂肉仔鸡试验效果．饲料与畜牧，1998 (2)：14-15．
39．吕景逊，李东飞．活菌制剂在饲料中的应用研究．饲料工业．1996．17 (2)：7-9．
40．李克明．增菌素对肉用仔鸡的饲喂效果．饲料研究．1997 (12)：10-11．
41．苏军，汪莉．益生素与有机酸对肉鸡生产性能的综合效应．中国饲料．1998 (8)：17-18．
42．刑军，常秀程等．益生素添加剂饲喂雏鸡效果的研究．中国饲料．1999 (5)：11-12．
43．史兆国．微生物饲料饲喂雏鸡的效果．中国饲料．2000 (8)：31．
44. Peo, E. R, Jro., 1987. Alternatives exist to antibiotic use in swine production. Feedstuffs, February, 13—18.
45．李克明．增菌素对肥育猪的促生长效果．饲料研究，1998 (2)：34-36．
46．翟桂玉．益生素添加剂的研究与应用．国外畜牧学—饲料．1997 (5)：15-17．
47．王士长，陈茂金，张伟．益生素对新西兰肉兔生长发育的影响．甘肃畜牧兽医．2000 (3)：5-6．
48．金岭梅，顾惠明等．微生态制剂在仔猪生产中的应用．中国饲料．1999 (3)：15．
49. Fox, -S. M. Probotics: intestinal inoculants for production animals. Veterinary-medicine (USA). (Aug 1988). 83(8) P.806-810, 823-826, 828-830.
50．麻秀海，郑诚．益生素饲喂哺乳仔猪的效果．中国饲料．1997 (20)：19-20．
51．刘定发，林勇等．微生态制剂的开发及其在畜禽饲料中的应用．饲料博览．1999 11 (9)：28-29．
52．刘海江，宋长明．微生态制剂在禽病防治中的应用．中国家禽．1997 (3)：41-42．
53．王士长，何若刚．益生素综合防治哺乳仔猪下痢．中国饲料．1998 (20)：27．
54．田允波，葛长荣，张曦等．益生素的研究和应用现状．兽药与饲料添加剂．1999 4 (2)：35-40。
55．薛恒平．复合菌剂饲养仔鸡研究．中国饲料．1992 (3)：28-29．
56．冯亚强，薛恒平．芽孢杆菌微生态制剂的应用进展．中国饲料．1995 (10)：8-10．
57．曾庆亮．新型饲料添加剂——微生态制剂．饲料工业．1999 20 (2)：24-25．
58．李喜桂．对微生态制剂作用的认识．饲料与畜牧．2000 (2)：18-19．
59. Paik I k [a]. Nutritional management for environment friendly animal production. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. July, 2000. 302-314.
60．赵芙蓉，邓云昌等．益生菌制剂对猪生产性能和猪舍环境的影响．中国饲料．1998 (22)：27-28．
61．魏建平，张润栋．微生态制剂对种鸡影响试验．中国家禽．1998 20 (11)：24-25．
62. Owings, -W. J. Research note: nutritive effects of a direct-fed microbial preparation on growing turkey toms. Poultry-Science (USA). (May 1992). V. 71 (5) P. 932-935.
63．潘宝海，李德发，谯仕彦．益生菌在养鸡生产中的应用．中国饲料．2000 (16)：9-11．
64. Yeo, -J. M.; Kim, -K. I. Effect of feeding diets containing an antibiotic, a probotic, or yucca extract on growth and intestinal urease activity in broiler chicks. Poultry-Science (USA). (Feb 1997). V. 76 (2) P. 381-385.
65. Jin, -L. Z.; Ho, Y. W.; Abdullah, -N.; Jalaludin, -S. Probotics in Poultry: modes of action. World's - Poultry-Science-Journal (United Kingdom). (1997). V. 53(4) P. 351-368.
66. Mohan, -B.; Kadirvel, -R.; Natarajan, -A.; Bhaskaran, -M. Effect of probotic supplementation on growth, nitrogen utilization and serum cholesterol in broilers. British - Poultry - Science (United Kingdom). (1996). V. 37 (2) P. 395-401.
67．安登第．微生物在未来畜牧业的作用．中国饲料．1997 (11)：9-11．
68．刘延贺．影响微生物添加剂作用效果的因素探讨．当代畜牧．1997 (4)：3-4．
69．蔡辉益，刘继业．饲用微生物添加剂及国内外研制现状．中国饲料．1993 (4)：40-41．
70. Castaldo, D. J. 1991. Antibiotic and probiotic. Feed Management, 42: 26-32.
71．吴晋强主编．动物营养学．合肥：安徽科学技术出版社，1999．8．
72．杨胜主编．饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术．北京农业大学出版社，1996．
73．《饲料添加剂分析》，美国全国饲料协会(NFIA)分析方法概要/[美]National Feed lngredients Association主编；李伟格等译审．北京：中国农业科技出版社，1998．5
74．孙玉民，罗明主编．畜禽肉品学．济南：山东科学技术出版社，1993．
75．张伟力．华南小耳型猪肌纤维特性的研究[硕士学位论文]．华南农业大学，1982．
76. Honikel KO. How to measure the water holding capacity of muscle? Recommendation of standardized methods. In evaluation and control of meat quality in pigs. Eds. Tarrant PV, Eikelenboom G, Monin G. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Dordrecht, Netherlands. 1987, 127: 142
77. Naveau, J. Pommeret P, Lechaux Proposition dune Methode de measure du rundement technologique: "La methode Napole". Techni porc. 1985, 8:7-13
78. ALLEN C. D., RUSSELL S. M., and FLETCHER D. L.. The relationship of broiler breast meat color and pH to shelf-life and odor development, 1997 Poultry Science 76:1042-1046.
79．周光宏主编．肉品学．中国农业出版社．北京，1999．
80．韩剑众．益生素用作饲料添加剂的研究．饲料工业．1990 (4)：25．
81. Barmes, E. M., 1986. Anaerobic bacteria of the normal intestinal microflor of animals. Black well Sci. Pub., Oxford, England. 225-238.
82. Fuller, -R. Probotics - an overview. International - Poultry - Production (United Kingdom). (1994). V. 2(1) P. 13-17.
83. Gati, L., 1992. Effect of Lacto sacc added to sow or piglet diets Biotechnology in the feed industry. Proceedings of Alltech's Eighth Annual Symosiu. Alltech Technical Publications. 3031 Catnip Hill Pilce, Nicholasville, Kentucky 40356.
84. Gerendia, D., T. Gippert, H. etc., 1992. Addition of yeast-sacc 1026 yeast culture or lacto-sacc to diets of New Hampshire parent stock. Biotechnology in the feed industry. Proceedings of alltech's Eighth Annual Symosiu. Alltech Technical Publications. Kentucky USA.
85. Mudalgi, -P.; Singh, -R.; Verma, -S. V. S. Effect of feeding probotics on the performance of broilers I. Feed consumption, growth and nutrient utilization. Indian- Journal - of - Poultry - Science (India). (Dec1993). V. 28(3) P. 195-199.
86. McGinnis K., 1992. Lacto-sacc versus Bacitracin in broiler Starter Diets Biotechnology In The Feed Industry. Proceedings of'alltech's Eighth Annual Symosiu. Alltech Technical Publications. Kentucky USA.
87. Peo, E. R, Jro., 1987. Alternatives exist to antibiotic use in Swine production. Feedstuffs, Feburary, 13-18.
88．安永义．活菌制剂的作用及研究应用．饲料研究．1995 (8)：2-4．
89. Tibbetts, G. W. etal. 1988. Poultry viscera ensiled with Lactobacillus for acidophilutatus and dietary copper levels in the pig. J. Anim. Sci. 68 (5): 905-913.
90. Newman, C. W. et. al. 1988. Replacement of soybean meal in swine diets with Lysine and L actobacillus fermentum. Rept. Inter, 37 (2): 347-335.
91．吕道俊，何明清．饲用芽孢杆菌研究应用进展．中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会论文集．1995，9．
92．吕道俊，何明清．饲用微生物添加剂研究．中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会第二届第三次学术研讨会论文集．1997，196-200．
93．余成瑶，刘克林，周毅．鸡微生物添加剂饲喂肉用仔鸡扫描电镜下小肠粘膜的研究．中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会论文集．1995，9．
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |