4.7 Article

The measurement of volatile organic compounds in faeces of piglets as a tool to assess gastrointestinal functionality

期刊

BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
卷 184, 期 -, 页码 122-129

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.06.005

关键词

Animal nutrition; Gastrointestinal functionality; VOC analysis; Ion mobility spectrometry; Faecal volatiles

资金

  1. Animal Nutrition and Health, Kaiseraugst, Switzerland
  2. Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP), Ministry of Finance, Republic of Indonesia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is an increasing interest in developing innovative means to monitor animal health through precision farming. As part of this drive, we have targeted digestive health and in particular the microbiota. In this study, we investigated the effect of different dietary interventions in piglets, feeding these piglets with one of two different feeds (high protein and low protein). We then evaluated its effects by measuring the volatile organic compounds (VOC) that emanated from these faecal samples using various forms of Ion Mobility Spectrometry. Piglets were monitored for 19 days, with faecal samples collected on days 6, 12 and 19, providing a total of 69 samples. The statistical analysis attempted to separate the samples using either dietary intervention or faecal score. First, the faecal score was investigated using a value based on a visual faecal scoring system, from 0 to 3, with 0 being normal and 3 having diarrhoea. Then the VOCs were analysed in regard to dietary intervention (high vs low protein). Results indicated that our approach was able to separate the dietary intervention (area under the curve (AUC) 0.81) using VOC data. Furthermore, we were able to separate samples based on faecal score (AUC between 0.71 and 1, with six different comparisons undertaken). We believe that faeces volatiles hold potential as a future means to monitor animal health. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IAgrE.

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

4.7
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