摘要
The aim of this study was to compare voluntary feed intake, nutrient digestibility, and rumen fermentation of Thai native and Thai native x Lowline Angus crossbred beef cattle fed with different diets. Three different diets consisting of ad libitum rice straw (RS), ad libitum RS supplemented with 0.5% body weight (BW) concentrate (RS+C), and ad libitum Pangola grass hay (PH). The experiment was conducted as 3 × 3 replicated Latin square design with a factorial arrangement of dietary treatment and breed. It was found that Thai native and Thai native x Lowline Angus crossbred beef cattle had comparable roughage intake, BW change, nutrient digestibility, and all parameters from rumen fluid. Cattle fed with different type of feed showed similar roughage intake, BW change, and number of protozoa and fungal zoospore in rumen fluid. However, nutrient intake and digestibility of cattle supplemented with concentrate were higher than those fed the roughage alone. Accordingly, concentration of total volatile fatty acid and proportion of propionic acid in rumen fluid of cattle received concentrate was higher than cattle fed only RS (P < .05) but not for cattle fed with PH. Moreover, the PH-fed group had a higher ammonia concentration in rumen fluid than did the RS-fed group (P < .05). Therefore, the two breeds of beef cattle showed comparable feed response while supplementation of concentrate at 0.50% BW was a useful alternative feeding pattern.
摘要译文
这项研究的目的是比较自由采食量，养分消化率和泰国本土和泰国的瘤胃发酵本地的X LOWLINE安格斯不同日粮杂交肉牛由自由采食稻草（RS）的三种不同的饮食，自由采食的RS补充有05体重（BW）浓缩物（RS + C），并自由采食Pangola草干草（PH）该实验为3鈥壝椻€进行eplicated拉丁方设计，饮食治疗和品种的一个因子安排结果发现，泰国本土和泰国本地的X LOWLINE安格斯杂交肉牛有可比粗粮的摄入量，体重变化，养分消化率，并从瘤胃所有参数具有不同类型进料的供给牛显示出相似的粗饲料的摄入量，体重的变化，并在瘤胃fluidHowever原生动物和真菌的游动孢子的数目，营养摄入并辅以精矿牛消化率比饲喂粗饲料aloneAccordingly高，总挥发性脂肪酸和牛获得精矿瘤胃丙酸比例的浓度高于饲喂牛只高RS（P鈥鈥壐05），与PH喂养牛而不是此外，PH喂养组瘤胃液更高的氨浓度比没有RS-喂养组（P鈥鈥壐05）因此，肉牛的两个品种表现出媲美饲料响应，同时在补充025 BW精矿是一个有用的替代喂养方式
R. Pilajun[a][*][*]; K. Thummasaeng[a] ; M. Wanapat[b]. Nutrient digestibility and rumen fermentation of Thai native purebred compared with Thai native x Lowline Angus crossbred beef cattle[J]. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 2016,44(1): 355-358