4.0 Article

Effect of the propolis on the in vitro fermentation of different feedstuffs by the technique of gas production

出版社

REVISTA BRASILEIRA ZOOTECNIA BRAZILIAN JOURNAL ANIMAL SCI
DOI: 10.1590/S1516-35982004000400030

关键词

gas; ionophore; propolis; ruminal fermentation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two experiments were accomplished with the objective to evaluate the in vitro efficiency of the propolis extract to inhibit the gas production from ruminal fermentation of different feeds. In the first experiment. 100 mg of ground brachiaria dry matter hay was incubated, in absence (0.2 mL of alcoholic solution at 70.0% in water) or presence of 0.2 mL of propolis extract (extraction of 3 g of propolis in triturated stone for each 10 mL of alcohol at 70%, for ten days, later on diluted for 50% of the same). The propolis extract. when compared to the control treatment, reduced the final total production and the final gas production for fiber carbohydrates. The specific digestion rate for fiber carbohydrates and non fiber carbohydrates was superior when the propolis extract was used. The reduction of the total gas production could be attributed to the effect of the propolis in increasing the molar propionate concentration, with consequent decrease of the acetate: prop ion ate ratio. In the experiment 2, the objective was to evaluate different dilutions of the propolis extract (0.0, 13.7, 33.3, and 66.7%), in analogy to sodium monensin, added to reach 5.0 mM as a final concentration in the incubation tubes. It was observed significant effect of treatment, feed and feed: treatment interaction on the gas volume from the fiber and non fiber carbohydrates. There was no effect of the smallest propolis level (13.7%) on none of the evaluated diets, for final gas volume as for the fiber as non fiber carbohydrate. However, the largest level (66.7%) was efficient for all diets, for both types of carbohydrates, in addition to supplanting the monensin most of the time producing the least amount of gas.

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

4.0
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