Animal Health and Nutrition

Alle, Denmark

Animal Health and Nutrition

Alle, Denmark
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Ribeiro Jr. V.,Federal University of Viçosa | Albino L.F.T.,Federal University of Viçosa | Rostagno H.S.,Federal University of Viçosa | Barreto S.L.T.,Federal University of Viçosa | And 5 more authors.
Animal Feed Science and Technology | Year: 2014

The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of the dietary levels of Bacillus subtilis (BS) on performance, egg quality and excreta moisture of hens. A total of 240 Hy-line W-36 layers, between 25 and 45 weeks of age, were distributed according to a randomized block experimental design into 4 treatments with 10 replicates of 6 birds each. The following treatments were evaluated: basal diet with no probiotic (control, T1); basal diet containing BS at 8×105CFU/g feed (T2); basal diet containing BS at 4×105CFU/g feed (T3); and basal diet containing BS at 3×105CFU/g feed (T4). Feed intake (FI), egg production (EP), egg weight (EW), egg mass (EM), feed conversion ratio per dozen eggs (FCRD) and feed conversion ratio per egg mass (FCRM), yolk, eggshell, albumen and excreta dry matter (EDM) content were evaluated. Feed intake, FCRD, and egg component were not influenced (P>0.05) by the treatments. Dietary supplementation with BS at 8×105CFU/g feed compared to control increased (P<0.05) EP (g/kg) in 2.63% and EM in 3.96%. Dietary supplementation with BS in different concentrations increased (P<0.05) EW in 1.20%. There was not an improvement (P>0.05) in FCRM. Excreta dry matter was on average 4.67% higher (P<0.05) with BS than with control diet. The level of 8×105CFU/g feed of B. subtilis improves the egg production and reduces excreta moisture of layers. © 2014 Elsevier B.V.


Tagliapietra F.,University of Padua | Cattani M.,University of Padua | Hindrichsen I.K.,Animal Health and Nutrition | Hansen H.H.,Copenhagen University | And 3 more authors.
Animal Production Science | Year: 2012

The aim of the study was to determine the comparability of the true dry matter digestibility (TDMd) achieved in situ with either traditional nylon bags (IS nylon) or synthetic filter bags (IS filter), and in vitro with either conventional bottles (CB) or the DaisyII incubation technique, using rumen fluid collected by oro-ruminal suction from intact cows. The four TDMd results were compared by linear regression. For each method, 11 feeds were incubated for 48 h in two separate incubations. The reproducibility of TDMd measurements was 97.9%, 95.1%, 98.8% and 96.0% for IS nylon, IS filter, CB and DaisyII, respectively. The determination coefficient, the slope (b), and the significant difference of the slope from unity, of the linear relationship between TDMd values (g/kg DM) were as follows: IS nylon v. IS filter, R2 = 0.97, b = 0.86, P = 0.02; IS nylon v. CB, R2 = 0.90, b = 1.02, P = 0.27; IS nylon v. DaisyII, R2 = 0.90, b = 1.06, P 0.01; and IS filter v. DaisyII, R2 = 0.95, b = 0.98, P = 0.13. In situ filter bags and DaisyII underestimated the TDMd values compared with IS nylon bags and CB, respectively. In situ, the replacement of nylon with filter bags could simplify the procedure of analysis, with less manipulation of residuals and less labour, and offers the possibility to increase the number of samples analysed simultaneously. The close relationships found among methods suggest that rumen fluid collected from intact cows can produce in vitro estimates of TDMd at 48 h well correlated with those obtained in situ. © 2012 CSIRO.


Tagliapietra F.,University of Padua | Cattani M.,University of Padua | Hansen H.H.,Copenhagen University | Hindrichsen I.K.,Animal Health and Nutrition | And 2 more authors.
Animal Feed Science and Technology | Year: 2011

The true dry matter (DM) digestibility (TDMd) and metabolizable energy (ME) contents of feeds are frequently assessed from the amount of digestible neutral detergent fibre (dNDF) measured in situ or in vitro after a fixed time of incubation using a theoretical summative approach. Feed ME content can also be predicted from the gas produced after 24h of in vitro incubation (GP24) and its chemical composition. Aims of this study were to evaluate the validity of reducing the in situ incubation time from 48 to 24h for determining TDMd and to study the relationship between the ME values estimated from dNDF and from GP24. Eleven feeds (aNDF: 101-768g/kg DM) were simultaneously incubated in the rumen of two cows for 24 and 48h with two replications. Following National Research Council (NRC) guidelines, dNDF measured after 24 and 48h of incubation was used to compute true DM digestibility (TDMd24 and TDMd48, respectively) and ME based on 48h (MENRC). From the same feeds incubated in vitro, GP24 was measured by an automated GP system with 4 replications. The in situ and the in vitro incubations were repeated twice. Estimates of ME from GP24 were computed using the Hohenheim (MEMenke) and UC Davis (MEUCD) equations developed using in vivo digestibility measurements. The MENRC, MEMenke and MEUCD estimates were compared by regression. The repeatability of TDMd24 and TDMd48 was comparable (SED=12g/kg DM) and these values were related with a RMSE of only 21.5g/kg DM suggesting that, for in situ evaluations, the incubation time can be reduced from 48 to 24h. The measures of GP24 and TDMd48 were also well correlated (R2=0.97), but only for feeds with<160g CP/kg DM. The repeatability of MENRC, MEMenke, and MEUCD, expressed in terms of SED, were 0.35, 0.46 and 0.46MJ/kg DM, respectively. The MENRC was related to MEUCD and MEMenke as: 1.04×MEUCD (RMSE=0.63MJ/kg DM) and 1.11×MEMenke (RMSE=1.16MJ/kg DM), suggesting that MENRC overestimates ME compared to the GP24 methods developed from in vivo digestibility data. The precision of ME predictions based on GP24 depends on availability of standardized procedures to measure GP, reliable equations relating GP and feed chemical composition (with special regards for crude protein) to predicted or in vivo measured ME content of feeds, and reliable equations which predict ME from feed digestible nutrient contents. © 2011 Elsevier B.V.

Loading Animal Health and Nutrition collaborators
Loading Animal Health and Nutrition collaborators