|
|
Inicio >
Información > Pósters
Effects of enzymes and herbal extracts on in vitro
fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
D. Colombatto1,2*,
A. D. Garciarena3,
G. Lagos3,
C. Lago4,
F. Nahara4
1University
of Buenos Aires, Argentina;
2CONICET,
Argentina;
3EEA Balcarce INTA, Argentina;
4Porfenc
SRL, Argentina |
|
| |
|
|
|

Click to enlarge |
|
The message
Specific enzyme mixtures can positively affect
alfalfa hay degradation in the rumen. The increases in degradation are
attributable to the increased degradation of non-fibrous fractions.
Introduction
The use of fibrolytic enzymes and other
fermentation modifiers such as herbal extracts (HE) is an emerging
technology that shows promise in terms of enhancing animal performance.
Moreover, they may offer an alternative to the use of antibiotics as
growth promoters. The objective of this study was to examine the
effects of two enzyme mixtures and a specific HE on alfalfa hay, corn
silage and a total mixed ration (TMR) typical of a feedlot in
Argentina. |
|
| |
|
| |
|
Material and Methods
Approximately 0.5 g of pre-dried (milled to 2 mm)
alfalfa hay, corn silage or a feedlot total mixed ration consisting of
70% corn grain, 20% corn silage, and 10% sunflower meal (DM basis)
weighed in triplicate in 100-mL fermentation flasks (Table 1).
40 ml of anaerobic buffer and 10 ml ruminal fluid
added to the fermentation flasks.
Fibrolytic enzymes supplied by Porfenc SRL
(Martínez, Argentina), and added 16 h prior to inoculation with
ruminal fluid.
Treatments: control (CON); two fibrolytic
enzyme mixtures (denoted A and B, respectively) added at 25, 50 and
100 mg kg-1 (DM basis) (0.5X, 1X, and
2X, respectively), and an herbal extract (HE) added at 750, 1500, and
3000 mg kg-1 (DM basis).
Gas production (GP) kinetics determined at 2, 4,
6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24, 48 and 72 h post inoculation. DM and fiber
degradability at 24 h also determined.
Experiment replicated on three occasions for GP,
and in four occasions for degradability. MIXED Procedures of SAS used. |
|
| |
|
Table 1. Chemical composition of the feeds.
|
|
Alfalfa hay |
Corn silage |
Feedlot TMR |
|
DM, g/kg |
947 |
956 |
926 |
|
OM, g/kg DM |
868 |
942 |
972 |
|
CP,
g/kg DM |
203 |
56 |
117 |
|
NDF, g/kg DM |
355 |
446 |
233 |
|
ADF, g/kg DM |
298 |
296 |
129 |
|
Starch, g/kg DM |
43 |
294 |
597 |
|
|
| |
|
Results and Discussion
No effects on cumulative GP were detected (Table
2), save for a quadratic trend (P=0.09) towards higher GP of corn
silage treated with
Enzyme A . However, enzymes A and B cubically tended to increase GP at
2 h incubation time in alfalfa hay (Enzyme A: 15.2, 19.1, 16.3 y 18.1
mL/g OM for Control, 0.5x, 1x and 2x, respectively, P=0.07; Enzyme B:
15.2, 17.5, 16.1, 16.6 mL/g OM for Control, 0.5x, 1x and 2x,
respectively, P=0.09, respectively), with Enzyme B linearly increasing
(P=0.05) GP at 4 h in corn silage. HE did not affect (P>0.05) GP at
anytime.
Enzyme A increased Alfalfa DM DEG at 1x, but decreased that of the
feedlot ration when applied at 2x (Table 3).
Because fiber DEG remained unaffected, it is
suggested that non-fibrous fractions were responsible for the
differences in DM DEG with
Enzyme A.
Neither addition of Enzyme B nor HE affected
(P>0.05) DM DEG (Table 4). |
|
| |
|
|
Table 2. Cumulative gas production (mL/g OM)
of ruminant feeds treated with incremental levels of two enzyme
mixtures (Enzyme A and B) or a
herbal extract (HE) |
|
|
Alfalfa hay |
|
|
Control |
0.5x |
1x |
2x |
SEM |
TRT
Effect,
P< |
Linear,
P< |
Quad.,
P< |
Cubic,
P< |
|
Enzyme A |
180.2 |
180.2 |
185.3 |
184.3 |
9.01 |
0.89 |
0.57 |
0.79 |
0.69 |
|
Enzyme B |
180.2 |
183.7 |
183.4 |
184.7 |
9.47 |
0.69 |
0.34 |
0.64 |
0.66 |
|
HE |
180.2 |
179.7 |
177.5 |
180.5 |
6.30 |
0.86 |
0.95 |
0.48 |
0.67 |
| |
Corn silage |
|
Enzyme A |
226.8 |
240.0 |
238.8 |
227.2 |
5.98 |
0.32 |
0.74 |
0.09 |
0.61 |
|
Enzyme B |
226.8 |
234.1 |
230.1 |
233.7 |
10.15 |
0.92 |
0.69 |
0.85 |
0.64 |
|
HE |
226.8 |
235.0 |
233.0 |
231.3 |
8.56 |
0.76 |
0.75 |
0.42 |
0.59 |
| |
Feedlot TMR |
|
Enzyme A |
228.6 |
239.4 |
239.1 |
250.1 |
12.21 |
0.53 |
0.18 |
0.87 |
0.67 |
|
Enzyme B |
228.6 |
231.4 |
235.9 |
241.9 |
12.01 |
0.85 |
0.42 |
0.98 |
0.95 |
|
HE |
228.6 |
227.6 |
226.4 |
231.6 |
15.13 |
0.99 |
0.88 |
0.85 |
0.96 |
|
|
| |
|
Table 3. Effects of Enzyme A on 24 h DM (g/kg) of
ruminant feeds
|
|
Alfalfa hay |
Maize silage |
Feedlot TMR |
|
Control |
541.2 |
457.7 |
581.5 |
|
0.5x |
534.5 |
441.9 |
551.2 |
|
1x |
571.9 |
467.8 |
581.1 |
|
2x |
545.7 |
450.6 |
536.7 |
|
SEM |
13.5 |
15.33 |
17.33 |
|
Trt effect, P< |
0.10 |
0.30 |
0.09 |
|
Linear |
0.44 |
0.94 |
0.07 |
|
Quad. |
0.12 |
0.63 |
0.58 |
|
Cubic |
0.05 |
0.07 |
0.09 |
|
|

Click on the picture to enlarge |
|
Table 4. Effects of Enzyme B or Herbal extract (HE) on 24 h
DM (g/kg) of ruminant feeds.
|
Enzyme B |
Alfalfa hay |
Maize silage |
Feedlot TMR |
|
Control |
541.2 |
457.7 |
581.6 |
|
0.5x |
530.9 |
466.4 |
584.9 |
|
1x |
540.9 |
444.5 |
571.2 |
|
2x |
522.0 |
436.0 |
576.9 |
|
SEM |
14.01 |
14.63 |
15.03 |
|
Trt effect, P< |
0.56 |
0.38 |
0.88 |
|
Linear |
0.27 |
0.13 |
0.66 |
|
Quad. |
0.73 |
0.80 |
0.76 |
|
Cubic |
0.46 |
0.34 |
0.54 |
|
Herbal extract |
|
|
|
|
|
Alfalfa hay |
Maize silage |
Feedlot TMR |
|
Control |
541.2 |
457.7 |
583.2 |
|
0.5x |
548.4 |
471.1 |
571.7 |
|
1x |
554.5 |
459.5 |
535.6 |
|
2x |
529.0 |
456.9 |
559.3 |
|
SEM |
12.16 |
13.20 |
20.67 |
|
Trt effect, P< |
0.46 |
0.71 |
0.10 |
|
Linear |
0.34 |
0.67 |
0.18 |
|
Quad. |
0.14 |
0.53 |
0.09 |
|
Cubic |
0.78 |
0.37 |
0.30 |
|
|
| |
|
Conclusions
Specific enzyme mixtures can positively affect
degradation of selected ruminant feeds. These findings tend to confirm
that responses are dose- and feed-specific. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|

|
|
| |
|
|
|
|