4.1 Article

Performance of finishing beef cattle fed diets containing maize silages inoculated with lactic-acid bacteria and Bacillus subtilis

期刊

ANIMAL PRODUCTION SCIENCE
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 266-276

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/AN16358

关键词

digestibility; ingestive behaviour; Lactobacillus spp; ruminal fermentation; silage inoculant; tropical silage

资金

  1. SAo Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2012/25463-0, 2012/00412-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our objective was to evaluate the effect of lactic-acid bacteria and Bacillus subtilis as silage additives on feed intake and growth performance of finishing feedlot beef cattle. Whole-maize forage was ensiled either with distilled water (untreated), or inoculated with Lactobacillus buchneri and L. plantarum at a rate 1 x 10(5) cfu/g fresh forage for each bacteria (LBLP); or inoculated with B. subtilis and L. plantarum at a rate 1 x 10(5) cfu/g fresh forage for each bacteria (BSLP). Thirty-six young crossbreed bulls (316 +/- 33.9 kg) were used in the feedlot program for 110 days, and they were assigned (n = 12) to one of three diets containing untreated, LBLP, or BSLP silages in a 40:60 forage:concentrate ratio. Dry matter (DM) intake, average daily gain, and carcass yield of bulls were unaffected by silage inoculation. Conversely, bulls fed the BSLP silage had lower DM, organic matter, and crude protein digestibility compared with bulls fed untreated silage. Bulls fed both inoculated silages had a reduction of similar to 12% in neutral detergent fibre and acid detergent fibre digestibility compared with that in bulls fed untreated silage. Bulls fed the LBLP silage spent more time chewing (496 min/day) than bulls fed untreated silage. There was little effect of silage inoculation on rumen fermentation, but bulls fed the inoculated silages had a lower concentration of ammonia-N. In conclusion, adding L. plantarum combined with L. buchneri or B. subtilis to maize silage do not improve the growth performance of finishing feedlot beef cattle.

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