4.1 Article

Evaluation of the Effects of Live Yeast Supplementation on Apparent Digestibility of High-Fiber Diet in Mature Horses Using the Acid Insoluble Ash Marker Modified Method

期刊

JOURNAL OF EQUINE VETERINARY SCIENCE
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 13-18

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jevs.2010.11.012

关键词

Live yeast; Horse; Acid insoluble ash; Digestibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of live yeast (LY) in a high-fiber diet on nutrients digestibility in mature horses. Six Italian Standardbred mares (weight: 544 +/- 14 kg; age: 15.30 +/- 3.9 years) in a two-period crossover design were fed a basal diet (2.5% body weight [BW]) in a 70:30 forage:concentrate ratio with (LY) or without (CTR) the administration of 4.6 x 10(10) colony forming unit (CFU)/d of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (MUCL 39885). An adaptation to the diet of 14 days, and an 18-day administration phase, with fecal collection in the last 3 days were performed for each period. Yeast was top-dressed twice a day during the concentrate meal (12:30 AM and 09:00 PM). Change in BW was measured at the beginning of each experimental phase and the diet adjusted accordingly, and individual feed intake was recorded daily. Concentrate samples were collected at the beginning of each confinement period and individual hay samples were obtained for each confinement day 38 hours before fecal collection. No influence of LY was observed on BW change (P = .64), feed intake (P = .48), hay intake (P = .48), or concentrate intake (P = .47). S cerevisiae supplementation improved apparent digestibility of dry matter (64.5% vs. 60.1%, P = .03), organic matter (66.1% vs. 61.6%, P = .04), neutral detergent fiber (42.5% vs. 35.9%, P = .04), and acid detergent fiber (36.5% vs. 28.0%, P = .03) with a positive trend on crude protein (P = .08). In the present study, the administration of LY to horses significantly improved the digestion of the fiber fractions of the diet. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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