8954856055505db

مطالعه مقایسه‌ای قابلیت هضم پیت نیشکر عمل‌آوری‌شده با بخار آب تحت فشار توسط قارچ‌های بی‌هوازی شکمبه گاو هلشتاین و گاومیش خوزستان

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش‌آموخته کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی رامین خوزستان

2 دانشیار، دانشگاه کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی رامین خوزستان

3 دانشیار بازنشسته دانشگاه کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی رامین خوزستان

4 استادیار، دانشگاه کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی رامین خوزستان

چکیده

این مطالعه به منظور مقایسة قابلیت هضم پیت نیشکر عمل‌آوری‌شده توسط قارچ‌ها و کل میکروارگانیسم‌های شکمبة گاو و گاومیش انجام شد. قابلیت هضم مادة خشک (DM)، الیاف‌ نامحلول در شویندة خنثی (NDF) و الیاف ‌نامحلول در شویندة اسیدی (ADF) پیت نیشکر عمل‌آوری‌شده توسط کل میکروارگانیسم‌ها و قارچ‌های شکمبة گاو و گاومیش به روش هضم دو مرحله‌ای، تکنیک تولید گاز و کشت اختصاصی قارچ‌های شکمبه اندازه‌گیری و مقایسه شد. قابلیت هضم آزمایشگاهی مادة خشک، NDF و ADF پیت نیشکر توسط کل میکروارگانیسم‌های شکمبة گاومیش (به ترتیب 62، 31/32 و 22 درصد) بیشتر از گاو (به ترتیب 13/50، 07/27 و 25/16 درصد) بود (05/0P<). صرف نظر از نوع میکروارگانیسم قابلیت هضم مادة خشک NDF و ADF توسط گاومیش (13/54، 51/27 و 86/19 درصد) بیشتر از گاو (69/49، 54/24 و 67/14 درصد) بود (05/0P<). پتانسیل تولید گاز پیت نیشکر عمل‌آوری‌شده در حضور کل میکروارگانیسم‌های مایع شکمبة گاو از نظر عددی بیشتر از گاومیش بود (05/0P>). نرخ تولید گاز توسط کل میکروارگانیسم‌ها و قارچ‌های شکمبة گاومیش به طور معناداری بیشتر از گاو بود (05/0P<). صرف نظر از نوع میکروارگانیسم، نرخ تولید گاز پیت نیشکر در گاومیش به طور معناداری بیشتر از گاو بود (05/0P<)؛ برعکس پتانسیل تولید گاز در گاو اندکی بیشتر بود (05/0P>). صرف نظر از نوع دام، قابلیت هضم و توان تولید گاز برای کل میکروارگانیسم‌ها بیشتر از قارچ‌ها بود (05/0P<)، اما برای نرخ تولید گاز بین آن‌ها تفاوتی وجود نداشت. در محیط کشت اختصاصی قارچ‌های شکمبه، قابلیت هضم مادة خشک پیت نیشکر توسط قارچ‌ها در گاومیش در روز دوازدهم به‌طور معناداری بیشتر از گاو بود (05/0P<). تراکم قارچ‌ها در هر میلی‌لیتر مایع شکمبة گاو بیشتر از گاومیش بود (05/0P<). در کل، با وجود تعداد بیشتر قارچ‌های شکمبة گاو، می‌توان گفت که توان قارچ‌ها و کل میکروارگانیسم‌های شکمبة گاومیش در آزمایش حاضر بیشتر از گاو بود. بنابراین، نتایج برتری گاومیش به گاو هلشتاین در استفاده از مواد فیبری کم‌کیفیت را نشان داد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The comparative study of steam treated sugarcan pith by digestibility rumen anaerobic fungi in Holstein cow and Khuzestan buffalo

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fateme Shakarami 1
  • Morteza Chaji 2
  • Moosa Eslami 3
  • Tahereh Mohammadabadi 4
  • Mohammad Bojarpour 4
1 M.Sc. Student, Department of Animal science, Ramin Agriculture and National Resources University of Khuzestan
2 Associate Professor, Department of Animal science, Ramin Agriculture and National Resources University of Khuzestan
3 Associate Professor (Retired), Department of Animal science, Ramin Agriculture and National Resources University of Khuzestan
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Animal science, Ramin Agriculture and National Resources University of Khuzestan
چکیده [English]

This study was conducted to compare fungi and whole rumen microorganisms (WRM) digestibility of treated sugarcane pith by fungi and of buffalos and Holstein cows. Dry matter (DM), neutral and acid detergent fiber (NDF and ADF) digestibilities of steam treated sugarcane pith (STP) by fungi and WRM were compared with a two-steps digestion technique, gas production (GP) and specific rumen fungi culturing (SRFC). Dry matter, NDF and ADF digestibilities of steam treated sugarcane pith by WRM in buffalo were higher (62, 32.31 and 22%, respectively) than cow (50.13, 27.07 and 16.2%, respectively) (P<0.05). Regardless of microorganisms type, digestibility of DM, NDF and ADF were greater in buffalo (54.13, 27.51 and 19.86%) than in buffalo (49.69, 24.54 and 14.67) (P<0.05). Potential of GP (B) of STP by WRM in cow was numerically more than that of cow (P>0.05). Fractional rate of GP (C) for WRM and fungi was lower in cow than buffalo (P<0.05). Regardless of microorganisms type, C was higher in buffalo was more than cow (P<0.05) and vice versa for B (P>0.05). Regardless of animal species, whole rumen microorganisms had higher digestibility and potential of GP than fungi (P>0.05), but there was not any difference for rat of GP between them. In SRFC, DM digestibility of STP by fungi at day 12 in buffalo was significantly more than cow (P<0.05). The concentration of fungi per ml of rumen liquer in cow was more than buffalo (P<0.05). Although, the rumen population fungi in cow was more than buffalo, but that digestibility of fungi (in specific rumen fungi culture) and WRM of buffalo was more than cow in present experiment. Therefore, the results of this study showed the advantage and supremacy of buffalo in usage the low quality roughages.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Gas production
  • rumen fungi numeration
  • specific rumen fungi culture
  • whole rumen microorganisms
  1. Akin, D.E. & Borneman, W.S. (1990). Role of rumen fungi in fiber degradation. Journal of Diary Science, 73, 3023-3032.
  2. Agarwal, N., Kewalramani, N., Kamra, D.N., Agarwal, D.K. & Nath, K. (1991). Hydrolytic enzymes of buffalo rumen comparison of cell free rumen fluid, bacterial and protozoal fractions. Buffalo Journal. 7, 203-207.
  3. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. (2002). Official method of analysis. (15th ed). AOAC: Arlington.
  4. Bahatia, S.K., Kumar, S. & Sangowan, D.C. (2003). Nuritional microbiology and digestive physiology of buffalo and cattle. Teachnig Manual. Departman of Animal Nutrition. CCS HAU, Hisar. P 42-44.
  5. Bahatia, S.K., Kumar, S. & Sangwan, D.C. (2004). Advances in buffalo-cattle nutrition and rumen ecosystem. International Book Distributing Co.
  6. Bauchop, T. & Clarke, T.J. (1976). Attachment of the ciliateepidinium crawley to plant fragments in the sheep rumen. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 32, 417-422.
  7. Broderick, G. A. & Kang, J. H. (1980). Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. Journal of Diary Science, 63, 64-75.
  8. Bryant, M.P. & Small, N. (1960). Observations on the ruminal microorganisms of isolated and inoculated calves. Journal of Diary Science, 43, 654-67.
  9. Bryant, M. P. (1973). Nutritional requirements of the predominant rumen cellulolytic bacteria. Federation Proceedings. 32(7), 1809-1813
  10. Chaji, M. & Mohammadabadi, T. (2011). The investigation of in vitro fermentation of sugarcane pith treated with low temperature steam and sulfuric acid by isolated rumen microbial fractions. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology, 11, 185-193.
  11. Chaudhary, L. C., Srivastava, A. & Singh, K. K. (1995). Rumen fermentation patten and digestion of structural carbohydrates in buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) calves as affected by ciliate protozoa. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 56, 11-117.
  12. Chen, X. L. & Wang, J. K. (2008). Effects of chemical treatments of rice straw on rumen fermentation characteristics, fibrolytic enzyme activities and populations of liquid-and solidassociated ruminal microbes in vitro. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 141, 1-14.
  13. Czerkawski, J. W. (1986). Degridation of soil feeds in the rumen: spatial distribution of microbial activity and its consequences. In: Proceeding of Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. USA, pp. 158-172.
  14. Davies, D. R., Theodorou, M. K., Lawrence, M. I. & Trinci, A. P. J. (1993). Distribution of anaerobic fungi in the digestive tract of cattle and their survival in faeces. Journal of general microbiology, 139, 59-64.
  15. Dayanand T.L., Nagpal R., Puniya A.K., Sehgal J.P. & Singh K. (2007). Biodegradation of urea-NH3treated wheat straw using anaerobic rumen fungi. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 16, 484-489.
  16. Dehority, B. A. (1969). Pectin-fermenting bacteria isolated from the bovine rumen. Journal of Bacteriology. 99:189.
  17. Dehority, B. A. (2003). Rumen microbiology. London, UK.: Nottingham University, Academic Press,
  18. Devendral, C. (1985). Comparative nitrogen utilization in Malaysia swamp buffaloes and kedah- kelanton cattle.In: Diox, R. (Ed), Proc. The 7th AFAR Int. Workshap. IDPD, Canberra, Australia.
  19. Dey, A., Sehgal, J. P., Puniya, A. K. & Singh, K. (2004). Influence of anaerobic fungal culture (Orpinomyces sp.) administration on growth rate, ruminal fermentation and nutrient digestion in calves. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Sciences, 17, 820-824.
  20. Erfle, J. D., Boila, R. J., Teather, R. M., Mahadevan, S. & Sauer, F. D. (1982). Effect of pH fermentation characteristics and protein degradation by rumen micro-organisms in vitro. Journal of Diary Science, 65: 1451-1464.
  21. Hobson, P. N. & C. S. Stewart. (1997). The rumen microbialecosystem. London: Chapman and Hall.
  22. Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. London: Academic Press.
  23. Jabbari, S. (2010). The comparison digestibility of steam treated sugarcane pith and wheat straw by rumen microorganisms of cattle and buffalo in Khuzestan. M.Sc. thesis, Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Iran. (In Farsi)
  24. Jabbari, S., Eslami, M., Chaji, M., Mohammadabadi, T. & Bojarpour, M. (2011). The comparison of in vitro digestibility of wheat straw by rumen microorganism of khuzestani buffalo and Hostein cow in vitro digestibility by khuzestani buffalo. Singapore: IACSIT Press, pp 266-268.
  25. Jabbari, S., Eslami, M., Chaji, M., Mohammadabadi, T. & Bojarpour, M. (2012). A comparison between water buffalo (Khuzestani) and cow rumen fluids in terms of the in vitro digestibility of steam treated sugarcane pith. In: Proceeding of WCDSAdvances in Dairy Technology, University of Alberta, Canada, pp. 24: 405.
  26. Krause, D. O., Denman, S. E., Mackie, R. I., Morrison, M., Rae, A. L., Attwood, G. T. & McSweency, C. S. (2003). Opportunities to improve fiber degradation in the rumen: microbiology, ecology and genomics. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 27, 663-693.
  27. Kumar, S., Singh, S. & Bhatia, S. K. (2002). Microbial and biochemical changes in the rumen of cattle and buffalo fed oat hay concentrate diet. Indian journal of animal nutrition, 19, 78.
  28. Lee S. S., Ha, J. K. & Cheng, K. J. (2000). Influence of an anaerobic fungal culture administration on in vivo ruminal fermentation and nutrient digestion. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 88, 201-217.
  29. Lee, S. S., Choi, C. K., Ahn, B. H., Moon, Y. H., Kim, C. H. & Ha, J. K. (2004). In vitro stimulation of rumen microbial fermentation by a rumen anaerobic fungal culture. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 115, 215-226.
  30. Lowe, S. E. (1987). Cellulases and xylanase of an anaerobic rumen fungusgrown on wheat straw, wheat straw holocellulose, cellulose and xylan. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 53, 216-1223.
  31. Malakar, D. & Walli, T.K. (1995). Relative fibre degradation (in vitro) by bacteria and fungi using inoculum from cow and buffalo rumen. Indian Journal of Dairy Science, 48, 295-301
  32. Mansouri, H., Nik-Khah, A. & Rezaeian, M. & Mirhadi, S. A. (2005). Comparison of microbial population in ruminal fluid of Sistani and Holstein cattle fed different roughages. Pajouhesh & Sazandegi, 72, 66-73. (In Farsi)
  33. McDougall, E. L. (1948). Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep’s saliva. Biochemical Journal, 43, 99-106.
  34. Menk, K. H. & Stenigass, H. (1988). Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development, 28, 6-55.
  35. Mohammadabdi, T., Chaji, M. & Bojarpour, M. (2012). The Effect of processing of sugarcane pith with steam on gas production parameters by using isolated rumen microbioia. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research. 4(3), 240-46. (in Farsi)
    1. Noroozy, S. & Alemzadeh, B. (2006). Effect of different amounts of treated sugarcane tops silage on performance of milk buffaloes. Buffalo Bulletin, 25(1), 7.
  36. NRC. (1996). Nutrient Requirements for beef Cattle. (7th rev. ed.). Washington DC: Natl. Acad. Sci.
  37. Osorio, H. & Cruz, De La. (1990). Steam treated bagasse for fattening cattle. Effect of supplementation with Giricidia sepium and urea/molasses. Livstock Research for Rural development, (2)2.
  38. Paul, S. S., Kamra, D. N., Sastry, V. R. B. & Agarwal, N. (2004). Effect of administration of an anaerobic gut fungus isolated from wild blue bull to buffaloes on in vivo ruminal fermentation and digestion of nutrients. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 115, 143-157.
  39. Rafiei, M., Chaji, M., Mohammadabadi, T. & Sari, S. (2013). The comparison digestibility of steam treated sugarcane pith by rumen bacteria or rumen microorganisms of Holstein cow and buffalo of Khuzestan. Journal of Ruminant Researches, 1(1), 53-75. (In Farsi)
  40. Rezaeian, M., Beakes, G. W. & Chaudhry, A. S. (2005). Relative fibrolytic activities of anaerobic rumen fungi on untreated and sodium hydroxide treated barley straw in in vitro culture. Anaerobe, 11, 163-175.
  41. Russell, J. B. (1986). Ecology of rumen microorganism: Energy use. In Dabson, A., and M. J. Dobson, (Eds.), Aspect of digestive physiology in ruminants. London: Comstock publishing association.
  42. Samanta, A. K., Walli, T. K., Batish, V. K., Grover, S., Rajput, Y. S. & Mohanty, A. K. (2001). Description of anaerobic fungi isolated from bovin rumen. (Personal communication).
  43. Sehgal, J. P., Jit, D., Puniya, A. K. & Singh, S. (2008). Influence of anaerobic fungal administration on growth, rumen fermentation and nutrient digestion in female buffalo calves. Journal of Animal Science, 17, 510-518.
  44. Singh S., Bhatia, S. K. & Pradhan, K. (2003). Relative ruminal ciliates distribution and physiology of bacteria isolated in buffalo and cattle fed weath straw-preformed protein diets. Iranian Journal of Animal Science, 73, 663.
  45. Singh, S., Pradhan, K., Bhatia, S. K., Sangwan, D. C. & Sagar, V. (1992). Relative rumen microbial profile of cattle and buffalo fed wheat straw-concentrate diets. Iranian Journal of Animal Science, 62, 1197.
  46. Tewatia, B. S. & Bhatia, S. K. (1996). Comparative studies in rumen ammonia anabolizing enzymes, microbial and mineral profiles between buffalo and cattle fed fibrous diet. Buffalo Journal, 12, 169.
  47. Tilley, J. M. and R. A. Terry. (1963). A two staged technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society, 10, 104-111.  
  48. Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. & Lewis. B. A. (1991). Methods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3583-3597.
  49. Varga, G. A. & Hoover, W. H. (1983). Rate and Extent of Neutral Detergent Fiber Degradation of Feedstuffs in Situ. Journal of Dairy Science, 66, 2109-2115.
  50. Wallace, R. J. & Joblin, K. N. (1985). Proteolytic activity of a rumen anaerobic fungus. FEMS microbiology letters, 29, 19-26.
  51. Wanapat, M. (2001). Swamp buffalo rumen ecology and its manipulation. In: Nationolworkshop on swamp buffalo development, Thailand.
  52. Wanapat, M. & Pimpa, O. (1999). Effect of ruminal NH3-N levels on ruminal fermentation purine derivatives, digestibility and rice straw intake in swamp buffaloes. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Sciences, 12, 904-907.
  53. Wanapat, M., pilagun, R. & Kongmun, P. (2009). Rominal ecology of swamp buffalo as influenced by dietary sourse. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 151, 205-214.