4.3 Article

Potency of microbial inocula from bovine faeces and rumen fluid for in vitro digestion of different tropical forage substrates

期刊

GRASS AND FORAGE SCIENCE
卷 67, 期 2, 页码 263-273

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2011.00841.x

关键词

Tilley and Terry technique; microbial inoculum; rumen fluid; faecal inocula; in vitro organic matter digestibility; incubation intervals

类别

资金

  1. University of the West Indies
  2. Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) - Jamaica/Dairy Development Board
  3. Bodles Agriculture Research Station - MOA, Jamaica

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In vitro ruminal fermentation techniques rely on the availability of fistulated ruminants for rumen fluid (RF), a major constraint for resource-poor institutions. An alternative would be to use faecal microbes. This study was therefore designed to compare the potency of fresh bovine faeces against RF as sources of microbial inocula for fermenting six contrasting tropical forages using the Tilley and Terry (Journal of British Grassland Society, 18, 104111) technique. Faecal inocula were prepared at concentrations of 250 g (Faec250), 300 g (Faec300), 350 g (Faec350), 400 g (Faec400) and 450 g (Faec450) fresh cow faeces per litre bicarbonate buffer. In vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) increased with increasing concentration of faeces at 12-, 24- and 48-h incubation intervals. All faecal inocula except Faec450 had lower potency when compared with RF at all incubation intervals. Digestibility of forage substrates with Faec450 (533 +/- 23 g kg-1 DM IVOMD) was comparable to RF (566 +/- 5 g kg-1 DM IVOMD) after 48-h incubation. Faec450 showed greater potency on more fibrous and low-protein substrates than RF. The coefficient of determination of the regression models for predicting 12-, 24- and 48-h RF IVOMD from Faec450 were 0.914, 0.75 and 0.756 respectively. It was concluded that inocula prepared from 450 g cow faeces demonstrated great potential as a substitute and predictor for RF in 48-h IVOMD assays of tropical forages.

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

4.3
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