4.6 Article

Conversion of Japanese red cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) into a feed for ruminants by white-rot basidiomycetes

期刊

ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 120, 期 3-4, 页码 235-243

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.02.023

关键词

Japanese red cedar; in vitro digestibility; Ceriporiopsis subvermispora; lignin; delignification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Potential,of five white-rot fungi to,convert Japanese red cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) into feed for ruminants was determined. Pleurotus ostreatus (ATCC 66376), Pholiota nameko (1170 30373), Dichomilus squalens (CBS 432.34), Lentinula edodes (IFO 6654) and Ceriporiopsis subvermispora (ATCC 90467) were inoculated into chips of cedar sapwood. L. edodes was cultured at 25 degrees C, and the other fungi at 28 degrees C, for 4, 8,12, or 20 weeks. The in vitro organic matter (OM) digestibility (IVOMD) m cedar wood cultured without fungus,were, between 0.047 and 0.068, while it was elevated to 0.446 by culturing with C. subvermispora and to 0.281 by culturing with L. Modes for 20 weeks. In contrast, the IVOMD were 0.200, or lower, in cedar wood cultured with R ostreatus, P nameko, or D. squalens. The in vitro gas production (IVGP) in cedar wood cultured with P ostreatus, P. nameko, or D. squalens was 37 ml/g OM, or lower, while that in cedar not inoculated with fungus was between 4 and 17 ml/g OM. In contrast, the IVGP in cedar wood cultured with C. subvermispora for 20 weeks increased to 107 ml/g OM, and that in cedar wood cultured with L edodes increased to 58 ml/g OM. Lignin degradability in cedar wood cultured with C. subvermispora and L. edodes for 20 weeks were 0.578 and 0.288, respectively. These changes in IVOMD and IVGP demonstrate that a selective white-rot fungus, C. subvermispora has the ability to convert cedar wood into feed for ruminants, although further increase is required before the cultured cedar wood would have widespread feed potential. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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