接种剂来源对饲料体外发酵和消化率的影响

A. Agustina, D. Evvyernie, R. Zahera, I. Permana, T. Toharmat, S. Suryahadi, D. Despal
{"title":"接种剂来源对饲料体外发酵和消化率的影响","authors":"A. Agustina, D. Evvyernie, R. Zahera, I. Permana, T. Toharmat, S. Suryahadi, D. Despal","doi":"10.29244/JINTP.18.3.89-94","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this research is to compare alternative inoculant source for in vitro rumen fermentation. In the first experiment, inoculant from fistulated cattle kept in LIPI and IPB (Fis1 and Fis2) and inoculant from Bogor municipality abattoir and IPB abattoir (Abo1 and Abo2) were tested for their pH, total bacterial count, and protozoal number using a complete block design with four replications. In the second experiment, the effect of the inoculant sources was tested on cornmeal (F1), soybean oil meal (F2), Napier grass (F3), and dairy cattle complete ration (F4) fermentability and digestibility including pH, VFA, NH3, IVDMD and IVOMD parameters. The results showed an unsignificant different protozoal number among inoculant sources. The pH of Fis2 rumen liquor was significantly lower (p<0.05) than others. The bacterial population was significantly higher (p<0.05) in Fis2 and Abo2 than Abo1, and Fis1. The inoculant pH after feed fermentability was not influenced by feed type but inoculant source with Fis1 was significantly higher (p<0.05) than Fis2, Abo2, and Abo1. The ammonia, VFA concentration, IVDMD, and IVOMD were influenced by interaction between inoculant sources and feed types. Although inoculant from cattle close to the laboratory (Fis2 and Abo2) were better in term of higher bacterial population, higher fermentability and digestibility for most type of feeds but other sources can be used in vitro study without differences in average fermentability and digestibility results. \nKey words:        abattoir, fermentability, fistula, inoculant, in vitro","PeriodicalId":101489,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Ilmu Nutrisi dan Teknologi Pakan","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Inoculant Sources on Feed in Vitro Fermentability and Digestibility\",\"authors\":\"A. Agustina, D. Evvyernie, R. Zahera, I. Permana, T. Toharmat, S. Suryahadi, D. Despal\",\"doi\":\"10.29244/JINTP.18.3.89-94\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this research is to compare alternative inoculant source for in vitro rumen fermentation. In the first experiment, inoculant from fistulated cattle kept in LIPI and IPB (Fis1 and Fis2) and inoculant from Bogor municipality abattoir and IPB abattoir (Abo1 and Abo2) were tested for their pH, total bacterial count, and protozoal number using a complete block design with four replications. In the second experiment, the effect of the inoculant sources was tested on cornmeal (F1), soybean oil meal (F2), Napier grass (F3), and dairy cattle complete ration (F4) fermentability and digestibility including pH, VFA, NH3, IVDMD and IVOMD parameters. The results showed an unsignificant different protozoal number among inoculant sources. The pH of Fis2 rumen liquor was significantly lower (p<0.05) than others. The bacterial population was significantly higher (p<0.05) in Fis2 and Abo2 than Abo1, and Fis1. The inoculant pH after feed fermentability was not influenced by feed type but inoculant source with Fis1 was significantly higher (p<0.05) than Fis2, Abo2, and Abo1. The ammonia, VFA concentration, IVDMD, and IVOMD were influenced by interaction between inoculant sources and feed types. Although inoculant from cattle close to the laboratory (Fis2 and Abo2) were better in term of higher bacterial population, higher fermentability and digestibility for most type of feeds but other sources can be used in vitro study without differences in average fermentability and digestibility results. \\nKey words:        abattoir, fermentability, fistula, inoculant, in vitro\",\"PeriodicalId\":101489,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Ilmu Nutrisi dan Teknologi Pakan\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Ilmu Nutrisi dan Teknologi Pakan\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29244/JINTP.18.3.89-94\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Ilmu Nutrisi dan Teknologi Pakan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29244/JINTP.18.3.89-94","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是比较不同的瘤胃体外发酵接种剂来源。在第一个实验中,采用完整的块组设计,采用4个重复,对LIPI和IPB饲养的瘘管牛接种剂(Fis1和Fis2)和茂物市屠宰场和IPB屠宰场接种剂(Abo1和Abo2)的pH、细菌总数和原虫数量进行检测。第二项试验研究了不同接种剂来源对玉米粉(F1)、豆油粕(F2)、纳皮草(F3)和奶牛全日粮(F4)发酵消化率的影响,包括pH、VFA、NH3、IVDMD和IVOMD等参数。结果表明,不同接种源的原生动物数量差异不显著。Fis2瘤胃液pH显著低于其他各组(p<0.05)。Fis2和Abo2的细菌数量显著高于Abo1和Fis1 (p<0.05)。饲料发酵后接种剂pH值不受饲料种类的影响,但接种剂来源Fis1显著高于Fis2、Abo2和Abo1 (p<0.05)。氨、VFA浓度、IVDMD和IVOMD受接种剂来源和饲料类型的交互作用影响。虽然来自靠近实验室的牛的接种剂(Fis2和Abo2)在较高的细菌数量、较高的发酵性和消化率方面较好,但对于大多数类型的饲料来说,其他来源的接种剂可以用于体外研究,平均发酵性和消化率结果没有差异。关键词:屠宰场,发酵性,瘘管,接种剂,体外
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Impact of Inoculant Sources on Feed in Vitro Fermentability and Digestibility
The aim of this research is to compare alternative inoculant source for in vitro rumen fermentation. In the first experiment, inoculant from fistulated cattle kept in LIPI and IPB (Fis1 and Fis2) and inoculant from Bogor municipality abattoir and IPB abattoir (Abo1 and Abo2) were tested for their pH, total bacterial count, and protozoal number using a complete block design with four replications. In the second experiment, the effect of the inoculant sources was tested on cornmeal (F1), soybean oil meal (F2), Napier grass (F3), and dairy cattle complete ration (F4) fermentability and digestibility including pH, VFA, NH3, IVDMD and IVOMD parameters. The results showed an unsignificant different protozoal number among inoculant sources. The pH of Fis2 rumen liquor was significantly lower (p<0.05) than others. The bacterial population was significantly higher (p<0.05) in Fis2 and Abo2 than Abo1, and Fis1. The inoculant pH after feed fermentability was not influenced by feed type but inoculant source with Fis1 was significantly higher (p<0.05) than Fis2, Abo2, and Abo1. The ammonia, VFA concentration, IVDMD, and IVOMD were influenced by interaction between inoculant sources and feed types. Although inoculant from cattle close to the laboratory (Fis2 and Abo2) were better in term of higher bacterial population, higher fermentability and digestibility for most type of feeds but other sources can be used in vitro study without differences in average fermentability and digestibility results. Key words:        abattoir, fermentability, fistula, inoculant, in vitro
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Kecernaan Kalsium dan Fosfor, pH gizzard, Kadar Air Ekskreta dan Digesta pada Ayam Petelur yang Diberi Ukuran Partikel Batu Kapur Berbeda dan Enzim Fitase Efektivitas Fungi Mikoriza Arbuskula yang Diproduksi dengan Teknik Fortifikasi Nutrisi Berbeda terhadap Produktivitas Stylosanthes guianensis pada Cekaman Kekeringan Perbedaan Tekanan Mesin Cetak Pneumatik terhadap Kualitas Fisik Permen Ternak Teknik Separasi dan Optimasi Proses Ekstrusi Bungkil Inti Sawit sebagai Bahan Baku Pakan Optimasi Level Benzyl Amino Purin (BAP) terhadap Pertumbuhan Tanaman Kembang Telang (Clitoria ternatea) melalui Teknik Kultur Jaringan
×
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