4.4 Article

Maturation of the intestinal digestion and of microbial activity in the young rabbit:: Impact of the dietary fibre:starch ratio

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2007.08.025

关键词

digestive maturation; gut health; dietary fibre; rabbit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The developmental changes of intestinal digestive potential and caccal microbial activity were described in suckling and weaned rabbits according to two feeding programmes. Two groups of thirteen litters were fed from 18 to 42 days old a High or a Medium NDF:starch ratio diet (resp. 2.7 vs 2.0, groups HL and ML) with similar protein and lipid levels, and from 42 to 70 days old the two groups were fed a Low NDF: starch ratio diet (1.7). From 25 to 32 days (weaning), the milk and solid feed intake were 22% and 41% higher in ML group (P<0.05), and the mortality by diarrhoea was 4 units lower (P<0.01). The whole tract digestive efficiency increased by 10% before weaning, and remained steady (organic matter) or decreased (lipids, protein) after weaning. Energy digestibility was 0.623 and 0.686 for High and Medium diets respectively. From 25 to 42 days, total enzymatic activity in intestinal content increased for chymotrypsin (5-fold, P<0.001), lipase (10-fold, P<0.001), amylase (17-fold, P< 0.01) and maltase (11-fold, P<0.00 1), while trypsin doubled after weaning. The feeding programme only affected the amylase and maltase activities, that were higher in HL group (P<0.05). The volatile fatty acids concentration in the caecum was not significantly different among the groups, but it increased by 44% 10 days after weaning. The bacterial fibrolytic enzymes, increased by 30% after weaning and were similar among the two groups. The study revealed that the intestinal digestive maturation and the caecal microbial activity of the rabbit evolved markedly between 3 and 5 weeks of age, and was weakly affected when the NDF:starch ratio decreased from 2.7 to 2.0. (c) 2007 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

4.4
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