| Literature DB >> 33274228 |
Biaosheng Lin1, Jianbin Yan2, Zhilong Zhong3, Xintian Zheng1,4.
Abstract
1000 g maize cob mixed material was synergistically fermented by adding 2.5% composite probiotics and 0.06-0.08% NSP (nonstarch polysaccharide) enzyme to prepare fermented feed, and its effectiveness as feed for fattening pigs was investigated. The results showed that the appearance, texture, and nutrient quality of maize cobs significantly improved after fermentation, the total number of bacteria was 4.5 × 1010 CFU/g, and the protein content was 7.1%. Compared to the control group, the pigs in the 6% fermented maize cob feed experimental group showed significantly increased daily feed intake, daily weight gain, and nutrient digestion rate (p < 0.05) and reduced feed conversion ratio (p < 0.05). Most indicators including slaughter performance and meat quality significantly improved. In addition, beneficial bacteria including Lactobacillus in the intestines of the finishing pigs significantly increased, and pathogenic bacteria including Escherichia coli in the intestines and feces were found to be significantly reduced (p < 0.05). The intestinal crypt depth, VH/CD ratio, and ileal mucosal immunity of the finishing pigs also significantly improved (p < 0.05). The cytokine content and gene expression of sIgA, IL-8, and TNF-α were found to be significantly increased (p < 0.05). It could be concluded that the addition of 6% fermented maize cob feed to the diets of finishing pigs could promote their growth, improve their production performance and slaughter performance meat quality, and enhance their intestinal microecological balance and immunity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33274228 PMCID: PMC7683112 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8839148
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Components and nutritional level of forages for tested pigs.
| Components of basic diet (%) | Nutritional level | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Corn | 53~68 | Energy (MJ·kg−1) | 15.68~15.97 |
| Bean cake CP (44%) | 22~36 | Crude protein (%) | 12.65~19.38 |
| Rice bran | 2~6 | Dry matter (%) | 86.25~88.97 |
| Complex premix compound | 2~4 | Crude fiber (%) | 2.45~2.86 |
| Total | 100 | Ca (%) | 0.56~0.72 |
| Available phosphorus (%) | 0.24~0.31 | ||
| Lysine (%) | 0.85~1.00 | ||
Primer sequences for real-time PCR.
| Gene | Primer sequence (5′- -3′) | Fragment size (bp) | Tm (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|
| IL-8 | F: TTCGATGCCAGTGCATAAATA | 176 | 60 |
| R: CTGTACAACCTTCTGCACCCA | |||
| TNF- | F: CCAATGGCAGAGTGGGTATG | 116 | 60 |
| R: TGAAGAGGACCTGGGAGTAG |
Determination of maize cob composition before and after fermentation.
| Items | Before processing | After processing (added bacteria but no NSP enzyme) | After processing (added bacteria and NSP enzyme) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual evaluation | Yellowish brown, powdery, tough, uniform tissue, no obvious fragrance, slightly dry | Brown, with a certain lactic acid and wine flavor, soft texture, loose, slightly moist | Dark brown, more obvious lactic acid and wine flavor, soft smell, not pungent, loose, soft, and moist | |
| Bacteria content | — | Total bacteria count: 3.6 × 1010 CFU/g, containing 6.8 × 106 CFU/g | Total bacteria count: 4.5 × 1010 CFU/g, containing 7.2 × 106 CFU/g | |
| Nutrient composition (%) | Crude protein | 3.4 ± 0.09a | 5.9 ± 0.13b | 7.1 ± 0.15c |
| Dry matter | 97.1 ± 1.89a | 96.5 ± 2.21a | 92.9 ± 2.16b | |
| Crude ash | 2.9 ± 0.01a | 2.1 ± 0.12b | 1.8 ± 0.08b | |
| Neutral washing fiber | 88.5 ± 0.87a | 70.3 ± 1.78b | 61.5 ± 2.21c | |
| Acid detergent fiber | 42.6 ± 2.52a | 42.2 ± 2.03a | 39.8 ± 1.12b | |
| Crude fat | 0.52 ± 0.12a | 0.34 ± 0.11b | 0.29 ± 0.09b | |
| Reducing sugar | 2.15 ± 0.11a | 1.42 ± 0.12b | 1.18 ± 0.13c | |
| Ca | 0.12 ± 0.02a | 0.28 ± 0.05b | 0.33 ± 0.03 | |
| P | 0.04 ± 0.001a | 0.05 ± 0.002b | 0.06 ± 0.001b | |
Note:“-” means no value, all the data in the table were the determination results of corncob before and after fermentation at different batches, and five batches were determined. In the shoulder markers of peer data, The same letters indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05), and different letters indicate significant difference (p < 0.05), the same as below.
Effect of fermented maize cob feed on growth performance of finishing pigs.
| Group | Control group | Test group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4% additive group | 6% additive group | 8% additive group | ||
| Initial weight (kg) | 59.93 ± 3.41a | 60.21 ± 4.21a | 60.13 ± 1.54a | 60.25 ± 2.24a |
| Final weight (kg) | 118.69 ± 2.65a | 120.32 ± 3.21a | 121.36 ± 2.65a | 121.63 ± 1.65a |
| Average daily gain (g/d) | 691.29 ± 20.12a | 707.18 ± 25.36a | 720.35 ± 22.12b | 722.12 ± 18.69b |
| Average daily intake (g/d) | 2135.36 ± 56.32a | 2145.98 ± 74.25c | 2140.36 ± 36.68b | 2141.32 ± 56.32b |
| Feed conversion ratio | 3.09 ± 0.07a | 3.03 ± 0.05b | 2.97 ± 0.06c | 2.97 ± 0.05c |
Note: the feeding time was July~October 2019, the pretest period of feeding the basic diet before the formal test was 3 d, and then, the formal feeding test was carried out for 85 d.
Effect of fermented maize cob feed on nutrient digestibility of finishing pigs.
| Group | Control group | Test group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4% additive group | 6% additive group | 8% additive group | ||
| Total energy (%) | 81.92 ± 5.21a | 83.31 ± 3.12b | 85.72 ± 3.42c | 86.04 ± 6.41c |
| Dry matter (%) | 82.60 ± 2.36a | 84.73 ± 5.62b | 86.71 ± 2.45c | 84.68 ± 4.65b |
| Organic matter (%) | 85.85 ± 5.65a | 87.82 ± 3.25b | 87.80 ± 4.52b | 89.32 ± 2.98c |
| Crude protein (%) | 77.11 ± 4.56a | 80.44 ± 2.32b | 82.33 ± 4.56c | 82.34 ± 4.68c |
| Crude fat (%) | 33.62 ± 1.23a | 61.79 ± 2.21b | 63.15 ± 1.87c | 62.99 ± 2.12c |
| Ca (%) | 35.94 ± 1.12a | 43.35 ± 1.25b | 44.02 ± 1.68bc | 44.93 ± 1.59c |
| P (%) | 51.01 ± 1.67a | 54.20 ± 2.25b | 56.13 ± 2.20c | 55.99 ± 4.36bc |
Effect of fermented maize cob feed on slaughter performance and meat quality of finishing pigs.
| Group | Control group | Test group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4% additive group | 6% additive group | 8% additive group | |||
| Slaughter performance | Weight before slaughter (kg) | 118.69 ± 2.65a | 120.32 ± 3.21a | 121.36 ± 2.65a | 121.63 ± 1.65a |
| Carcass weight (kg) | 84.41 ± 2.21a | 86.30 ± 2.35ab | 88.21 ± 1.65b | 87.01 ± 2.03ab | |
| Dressing percentage (%) | 71.12 ± 1.56a | 72.56 ± 2.31b | 72.68 ± 2.14b | 71.54 ± 1.89a | |
| 10th ribbed back fat thick (cm) | 2.80 ± 0.32a | 2.78 ± 0.24ab | 2.76 ± 0.16b | 2.79 ± 0.30ab | |
| 10th costal muscle area (cm2) | 37.45 ± 1.13a | 37.94 ± 1.36b | 38.14 ± 1.34c | 38.10 ± 1.42c | |
| Thin meat rate (%) | 55.42 ± 1.45a | 56.01 ± 2.01ab | 56.32 ± 1.36b | 55.69 ± 1.37a | |
| Meat quality | Meat color score | 2.12 ± 0.13a | 3.11 ± 0.16b | 3.20 ± 0.35c | 3.22 ± 0.21c |
| Marbling score | 2.32 ± 0.21a | 3.16 ± 0.21b | 3.26 ± 0.26c | 3.24 ± 0.16bc | |
| pH45min | 6.12 ± 0.36a | 6.15 ± 0.31a | 6.25 ± 0.29b | 6.25 ± 0.38b | |
| pH24h | 5.51 ± 0.29a | 5.52 ± 0.27a | 5.57 ± 0.31b | 5.57 ± 0.39b | |
| Tenderness (N) | 30.52 ± 1.03a | 23.44 ± 0.98b | 23.15 ± 1.12c | 23.21 ± 1.03c | |
| Water loss rate (%) | 42.36 ± 1.13a | 42.22 ± 1.12b | 42.12 ± 1.25c | 42.20 ± 1.20bc | |
| Drip loss (%) | 2.71 ± 0.16a | 2.68 ± 0.21a | 2.63 ± 0.18b | 2.65 ± 0.22b | |
| Muscle fat levels and fatty acid levels | Meat fat (%) | 2.31 ± 0.26a | 2.35 ± 0.21ab | 2.38 ± 0.16b | 2.44 ± 0.19c |
| Monounsaturated fatty acid (%) | 43.36 ± 1.17a | 45.21 ± 1.16b | 45.32 ± 1.05bc | 45.38 ± 1.21c | |
| Polyunsaturated fatty acid (%) | 11.15 ± 0.21a | 10.65 ± 0.32ab | 10.23 ± 0.25bc | 10.02 ± 0.29c | |
| Unsaturated fatty acid (%) | 54.51 ± 1.36a | 55.86 ± 1.38b | 55.55 ± 1.25d | 55.40 ± 1.28c | |
| Saturated fatty acid (%) | 40.12 ± 1.14a | 40.20 ± 1.03ab | 40.22 ± 0.89b | 40.23 ± 0.97b | |
Figure 1Effects of fermented maize cob feed on intestinal morphological structure of finishing pigs: (a) villus height; (b) crypt depth; (c) villus height/crypt depth. Value columns with different letters mean significant difference (p < 0.05), the same as below.
Figure 2Effect of fermented maize cob feed on feces and intestinal microflora of finishing pigs: (a) changes in the microbial flora of feces in different test groups; (b) changes in the microbial flora of the ileum in different test groups; (c) changes in the microbial flora of the cecum in different test groups.
Figure 3Effect of fermented maize cob feed on ileal mucosal immunity of finishing pigs: (a) changes in cytokine content in different test groups; (b) changes in gene expression of immune factors in different test groups.