
L'objectif de ce travail était d'évaluer les effets des inoculants bactériens et/ou enzymatiques sur la dégradation de l'ensilage de maïs. La technique in situ a été utilisée chez quatre bouvillons adultes dans un modèle carré latin 4x4. Les traitements évalués étaient : CS (ensilage témoin), SBI (ensilage avec inoculant bactérien), SBEI (ensilage avec inoculant bactérien et enzymatique) et SEI (ensilage avec inoculant enzymatique). Il n'y avait pas de différence entre les traitements de la fraction soluble (a), de la fraction dégradable potentielle (b), du taux de dégradation de la fraction b (c), de la dégradabilité potentielle (PD) et de la dégradabilité efficace (ED) du DM et de l'OM. L'ED de la PC était plus élevée dans le traitement de l'IES (63,13 %) et plus faible dans le traitement de l'ISEE (53,69 %). La fraction de NDF était plus élevée pour SBEI (74,13 %) et plus faible pour SBI (64,07 %). Le résidu indigeste NDF (I) n'a montré aucune différence entre les traitements. La fraction ADF b et I et les valeurs de taux c n'ont montré aucune différence entre les traitements.
El objetivo de este trabajo fue evaluar los efectos de los inoculantes bacterianos y/o enzimáticos sobre la degradación del ensilaje de maíz. La técnica in situ se utilizó en cuatro novillos adultos en un diseño de cuadrado latino 4x4. Los tratamientos evaluados fueron: CS (ensilaje control), SBI (ensilaje con inoculante bacteriano), SBEI (ensilaje con inoculante bacteriano y enzimático) y SEI (ensilaje con inoculante enzimático). No hubo diferencia entre los tratamientos en la fracción soluble (a), la fracción degradable potencial (b), la tasa de degradación de la fracción b (c), la degradabilidad potencial (PD) y la degradabilidad efectiva (ED) de DM y OM. El DE de CP fue mayor en el tratamiento con SEI (63.13%) y menor en el tratamiento con SBEI (53.69%). La fracción de NDF fue mayor para SBEI (74.13%) y menor para SBI (64.07%). El residuo indigerible de NDF (I) no mostró ninguna diferencia entre los tratamientos. La fracción ADF b e I y los valores de la tasa c no mostraron ninguna diferencia entre los tratamientos.
The objective of this work was to evaluate the effects of the bacterial and/or enzymatic inoculants on corn silage degradation. The in situ technique was used in four adult steers in a 4x4 latin square design. The evaluated treatments were: CS (control silage), SBI (silage with bacterial inoculant), SBEI (silage with bacterial and enzymatic inoculant) and SEI (silage with enzymatic inoculant). There was no difference among treatments in soluble fraction (a), potential degradable fraction (b), fraction b rate of degradation (c), potential degradability (PD) and effective degradability (ED) of DM and OM. The ED of CP was higher in SEI treatment (63.13%) and lower in SBEI treatment (53.69%). The b fraction of NDF was higher for SBEI (74.13%) and lower for SBI (64.07%). The NDF indigestible residue (I) did not show any difference among treatments. The ADF b and I fraction and the c rate values did not show any difference among treatments.
The objective of this work was to evaluate the effects of bacterial and/or enzymatic inoculants on corn silage degradation. The in situ technique was used in four adult steers in a 4x4 latin square design. The evaluated treatments were: CS (control silage), SBI (silage with bacterial inoculant), SBEI (silage with bacterial and enzymatic inoculant) and SEI (silage with enzymatic inoculant). There was no difference between treatments in soluble fraction (a), potential degradable fraction (b), fraction b rate of degradation (c), potential degradability (PD) and effective degradability (ED) of DM and OM. The ED of CP was higher in SEI treatment (63.13%) and lower in SBEI treatment (53.69%). The fraction of NDF was higher for SBEI (74.13%) and lower for SBI (64.07%). The NDF indigestible residue (I) did not show any difference between treatments. The ADF b and I fraction and the c rate values did not show any difference between treatments.
كان الهدف من هذا العمل هو تقييم آثار اللقاحات البكتيرية و/أو الأنزيمية على تدهور سيلاج الذرة. تم استخدام تقنية الموقع في أربع عجلات للبالغين بتصميم مربع لاتيني 4 × 4. كانت العلاجات التي تم تقييمها هي: CS (سيلاج التحكم)، SBI (السيلاج مع اللقاح البكتيري)، SBEI (السيلاج مع اللقاح البكتيري والإنزيمي) و SEI (السيلاج مع اللقاح الإنزيمي). لم يكن هناك فرق بين المعالجات في الجزء القابل للذوبان (أ)، والجزء القابل للتحلل المحتمل (ب)، ومعدل تحلل الجزء ب (ج)، وقابلية التحلل المحتملة (PD) وقابلية التحلل الفعالة (ED) لـ DM و OM. كان الضعف الجنسي للشلل الدماغي أعلى في علاج SEI (63.13 ٪) وأقل في علاج SBEI (53.69 ٪). كان جزء NDF أعلى لـ SBEI (74.13 ٪) وأقل لـ SBI (64.07 ٪). لم تظهر بقايا عسر الهضم NDF (I) أي فرق بين العلاجات. لم يظهر كسر ADF b و I وقيم معدل c أي فرق بين العلاجات.
Rumen, Soil Science, Horticulture, Biological and Therapeutic Properties of Bee Products, Antimicrobial Activity, Biochemistry, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Significant difference, Food science, Nutritional Strategies for Ruminant Health and Production, Inoculation, FOS: Mathematics, Biology, Completely randomized design, Silage, Effects of Soil Compaction on Crop Production, Statistics, Latin square, Life Sciences, Residue (chemistry), Agronomy, Microbial inoculant, Chemistry, Insect Science, Fermentation, Agronomy and Crop Science, Animal science, Mathematics
Rumen, Soil Science, Horticulture, Biological and Therapeutic Properties of Bee Products, Antimicrobial Activity, Biochemistry, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Significant difference, Food science, Nutritional Strategies for Ruminant Health and Production, Inoculation, FOS: Mathematics, Biology, Completely randomized design, Silage, Effects of Soil Compaction on Crop Production, Statistics, Latin square, Life Sciences, Residue (chemistry), Agronomy, Microbial inoculant, Chemistry, Insect Science, Fermentation, Agronomy and Crop Science, Animal science, Mathematics
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
