4.6 Article

Prediction of rabbit caecal fermentation characteristics from faeces by in vitro gas production technique:: roughages

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2007.00748.x

关键词

in vitro gas production technique; faeces; caecal content; rabbit; roughages

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To find equations able to estimate the fermentation characteristics of the caecum from that of faeces, caecal content and faeces of 10 hybrid Hyla rabbits were used as inocula for an in vitro gas production trial. About 1 g of 12 roughages, 11 hays (ryegrass, alfalfa, sulla, oat, vetch, sulla-lolium, vetch-oat, sulla-oat, clover, ryegrass-clover, sulla-vetch-oat) and a wheat straw, was weighed, in triplicate per inoculum, in 120-ml flasks; 75 ml of anaerobic medium and 4 ml of reducing solution were added and the flasks were placed at 39 degrees C. Caecal content and faeces were diluted respectively 1:2 (CI) and 1:8 (FI) with anaerobic medium and were introduced into their respective flasks (10 ml). Gas production was recorded 20 times at 2-24 h intervals throughout fermentation (120 h). The fermentation characteristics (i.e. degraded organic matter, OMd; potential gas production, A; maximum fermentation rate, R-max; volatile fatty acid, VFA; ammonia, NH3) were studied by inocula and substrates. The two inocula did not differ in OMd but CI produced significantly higher gas (A, 213.1 vs. 199.4 ml/g, respectively, for CI and FI, p < 0.01) in less time (R-max, 3.08 vs. 2.24 ml/h, respectively, for CI and FI, p < 0.01). CI also produced higher levels of total VFA (57.86 vs. 46.70 mmol/g OM, respectively, for CI and FI, p < 0.01) and showed a higher branched chain proportion (0.023 vs. 0.018, respectively, for CI and FI, p < 0.01). For some parameters (as OMd pH and propionate) the equations for the estimation of caecal fermentation characteristics from that of faeces were accurate (R-2 > 0.8828) and reliable (CV < 10.78%) suggesting that faeces can be successfully used for the estimation of these parameters.

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

4.6
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