4.1 Article

Effects of low protein diets on growth performance, carcass traits and ammonia emission of barrows and gilts

期刊

ANIMAL PRODUCTION SCIENCE
卷 53, 期 2, 页码 146-153

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/AN12067

关键词

-

资金

  1. SAT (Murcia, Spain) [2439 ALIA]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present research was to determine the effect of low protein diets on growth performance, carcass traits and ammonia emission from barrows and gilts during the growing and finishing periods. For each period, three diets were formulated. A control diet (C) with 160 and 155 g crude protein (CP)/kg for the growing and finishing, respectively, a medium level diet (M) and a low level diet (L) with 10 and 20 g CP/kg less than the C, respectively. All the diets were supplemented with crystalline amino acids on an ideal protein basis. Barrows (90) and gilts (90) were sorted by bodyweight and sex and housed in three identical manually ventilated chambers. No significant effects of diet on pig performance were observed. In the finishing period, barrows were heavier (P < 0.001) and had higher average daily gain (P < 0.01) and average daily feed intake (P < 0.01) than gilts. Pigs fed the L diet had higher backfat thickness than those fed the other diets in the growing period (P < 0.05). Backfat thickness was higher (P < 0.01) in barrows than in gilts. Muscle depth decreased in pigs fed the L diet in the finishing period. Muscle depth was not affected (P > 0.05) by sex. Average ammonia emissions during the last 6 days were 117.7, 94.2 and 85.5 mg ammonia/kg pig. day for pigs fed the C, Mand L diets, respectively. The results show that a reduction in dietary CP of 10 g/kg, accompanied by supplementation with crystalline amino acid reduced ammonia emission by 19.9% with no detrimental effects on growth performance and carcass characteristics, and a reduction of 20 g/kg reduced ammonia emission by 27.3% with no detrimental effects on growth performance but reduced muscle depth at slaughter.

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

4.1
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