Simulated Swine Digestion and Gut Microbiota Fermentation of Hydrolyzed Copra Meal

Animals Pub Date : 2024-06-04 DOI:10.3390/ani14111677
Jurairat Rungruangsaphakun, F. Ayimbila, M. Nakphaichit, S. Keawsompong
{"title":"Simulated Swine Digestion and Gut Microbiota Fermentation of Hydrolyzed Copra Meal","authors":"Jurairat Rungruangsaphakun, F. Ayimbila, M. Nakphaichit, S. Keawsompong","doi":"10.3390/ani14111677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to compare the effects of hydrolyzed copra meal (HCM) inclusion at 1% on its in vitro digestibility and the microbiota and cecum fermentation using the gut microbiota of weaned swine, targeting microbial community and short-chain fatty acids (SCF). For this reason, three treatments were considered: control (no copra meal), 1% non-hydrolyzed copra meal (CM), and 1% HCM. Non-defatted copra meal was hydrolyzed and analyzed (reducing sugars and total carbohydrates) in our laboratory. For digestion, microbiota identification, and fermentation assays, fresh fecal samples from two weaned pigs (1 month old) were used. Three replicates of each treatment were employed. HCM was more digestible, with approximately 0.68 g of hydrolysate recovered after simulated digestion compared to 0.82 g of hydrolysate recovered from CM. This was shown by Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images. Also, the three swine shared the majority of microbial species identified at the phylum and family levels. There were no differences (p > 0.05) between treatments in the microbial community and SCFA during fermentation. However, higher Chao-1 and Shannon indexes were observed in CM and HCM treatments. HCM was also found to be capable of preserving Actinobacterota and Proteobacteria at the phylum level, while at the family level, both treatments may help Lactobacillaceae, Peptostreptococcaceae, Lachnospiraceae, and Ruminococcaceae survive in the long term. Also, there was a potential trend of increasing acetic acid and butyric acid in the CM and HCM treatments. While HCM shows promise in potentially modulating the gut microbiota of weaned swine, additional research is required to investigate the effects of higher doses of HCM on swine performance parameters.","PeriodicalId":502248,"journal":{"name":"Animals","volume":"6 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14111677","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the effects of hydrolyzed copra meal (HCM) inclusion at 1% on its in vitro digestibility and the microbiota and cecum fermentation using the gut microbiota of weaned swine, targeting microbial community and short-chain fatty acids (SCF). For this reason, three treatments were considered: control (no copra meal), 1% non-hydrolyzed copra meal (CM), and 1% HCM. Non-defatted copra meal was hydrolyzed and analyzed (reducing sugars and total carbohydrates) in our laboratory. For digestion, microbiota identification, and fermentation assays, fresh fecal samples from two weaned pigs (1 month old) were used. Three replicates of each treatment were employed. HCM was more digestible, with approximately 0.68 g of hydrolysate recovered after simulated digestion compared to 0.82 g of hydrolysate recovered from CM. This was shown by Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images. Also, the three swine shared the majority of microbial species identified at the phylum and family levels. There were no differences (p > 0.05) between treatments in the microbial community and SCFA during fermentation. However, higher Chao-1 and Shannon indexes were observed in CM and HCM treatments. HCM was also found to be capable of preserving Actinobacterota and Proteobacteria at the phylum level, while at the family level, both treatments may help Lactobacillaceae, Peptostreptococcaceae, Lachnospiraceae, and Ruminococcaceae survive in the long term. Also, there was a potential trend of increasing acetic acid and butyric acid in the CM and HCM treatments. While HCM shows promise in potentially modulating the gut microbiota of weaned swine, additional research is required to investigate the effects of higher doses of HCM on swine performance parameters.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
水解椰菜粉的模拟猪消化和肠道微生物群发酵
本研究旨在利用断奶猪的肠道微生物群,以微生物群落和短链脂肪酸(SCF)为目标,比较添加 1%的水解椰菜粉(HCM)对其体外消化率、微生物群落和盲肠发酵的影响。因此,考虑了三种处理方法:对照组(无椰菜粉)、1% 非水解椰菜粉(CM)和 1%HCM。非脱脂椰干粉在我们的实验室进行水解和分析(还原糖和总碳水化合物)。在消化、微生物群鉴定和发酵测定中,使用了两头断奶猪(1 个月大)的新鲜粪便样本。每种处理重复三次。HCM 的消化率更高,模拟消化后回收的水解物约为 0.68 克,而 CM 回收的水解物为 0.82 克。扫描电子显微镜(SEM)图像显示了这一点。此外,三头猪在门和科一级鉴定出的微生物物种大多相同。在发酵过程中,不同处理之间的微生物群落和 SCFA 没有差异(p > 0.05)。不过,在 CM 和 HCM 处理中观察到较高的 Chao-1 和香农指数。研究还发现,HCM 能在门一级保存放线菌群和变形菌群,而在科一级,两种处理方法都能帮助乳酸菌科(Lactobacillaceae)、肽球菌科(Peptostreptococcaceae)、乳酸菌科(Lachnospiraceae)和反刍球菌科(Ruminococcaceae)长期存活。此外,在 CM 和 HCM 处理中,乙酸和丁酸有增加的潜在趋势。虽然 HCM 有可能调节断奶猪的肠道微生物群,但还需要进行更多的研究,以探究更高剂量的 HCM 对猪性能参数的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Early Detection of Chronic Kidney Disease Using Plasma Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin and Kidney Injury Molecule-1 in Small-Breed Dogs: A Retrospective Pilot Study Isolation of Aerobic Bacterial Species Associated with Palpable Udder Defects in Non-Dairy Ewes Amur Tiger Individual Identification Based on the Improved InceptionResNetV2 Identification of ActivinβA and Gonadotropin Regulation of the Activin System in the Ovary of Chinese Sturgeon Acipenser sinensis Reconstruction of the Quadriceps Extensor Mechanism with a Calcaneal Tendon–Bone Allograft in a Dog with a Resorbed Tibial Tuberosity Fracture
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1