酸不溶性灰分作为测定家兔消化率内部标志物的可靠性

IF 0.8 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
G. Papadomichelakis, K. Fegeros
{"title":"酸不溶性灰分作为测定家兔消化率内部标志物的可靠性","authors":"G. Papadomichelakis, K. Fegeros","doi":"10.4995/wrs.2020.12216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present study aimed to evaluate acid-insoluble ash (AIA) as an internal marker for the measurement the coefficient of total tract apparent digestibility (CTTAD) in rabbits through two experiments (E1 and E2). In E1, 48 rabbits were used to calculate the CTTAD of the same basal diet according to the European reference method (ERM), the AIA and the titanium dioxide (TiO 2 with 1 g of TiO 2 /kg diet) techniques (n=16 rabbits/method). The effect of feed sample quantity on dietary AIA content was investigated and total collection of faeces was carried out to calculate marker recovery. In E2, 48 rabbits were allotted to three groups fed diets with no sugar beet pulp (SBP0) or with 100 (SBP100) and 200 (SBP200) g sugar beet pulp/kg (n=16 rabbits/group). Each group was divided into two subgroups, ERM and AIA (n=8 rabbits/subgroup), in which CTTAD was measured using the European reference and AIA method, respectively. In AIA subgroups, only 10% of the total daily faecal output was sampled from 9:00 to 9:30 am. Feed analysis in E1 showed that increasing sample quantity from 5 to 9 g did not affect the dietary AIA content; however, the analytical error was 7 and 5 times lower ( P <0.05) for 9 g, when compared to 5 and 7 g samples. Feed analysis also showed 1.030±0.003 g TiO 2 /kg diet. Faecal marker recovery was 99.80±0.03 and 96.89±0.16% for AIA and TiO 2 , respectively. The CTTAD of dry matter (DM), did not differ between methods in E1, but a 5-fold higher variability ( P <0.05) was observed for the TiO 2 technique in comparison with the ERM and AIA methods. Also, no differences in the CTTAD of DM between the ERM and AIA methods were found in E2. In conclusion, AIA is a reliable internal marker in rabbits and offers the possibility of measuring the CTTAD of diets with precision, when complete faecal collection or feed intake measurement is not possible.","PeriodicalId":23902,"journal":{"name":"World Rabbit Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of acid-insoluble ash as internal marker for the measurement of digestibility in rabbits\",\"authors\":\"G. Papadomichelakis, K. Fegeros\",\"doi\":\"10.4995/wrs.2020.12216\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present study aimed to evaluate acid-insoluble ash (AIA) as an internal marker for the measurement the coefficient of total tract apparent digestibility (CTTAD) in rabbits through two experiments (E1 and E2). In E1, 48 rabbits were used to calculate the CTTAD of the same basal diet according to the European reference method (ERM), the AIA and the titanium dioxide (TiO 2 with 1 g of TiO 2 /kg diet) techniques (n=16 rabbits/method). The effect of feed sample quantity on dietary AIA content was investigated and total collection of faeces was carried out to calculate marker recovery. In E2, 48 rabbits were allotted to three groups fed diets with no sugar beet pulp (SBP0) or with 100 (SBP100) and 200 (SBP200) g sugar beet pulp/kg (n=16 rabbits/group). Each group was divided into two subgroups, ERM and AIA (n=8 rabbits/subgroup), in which CTTAD was measured using the European reference and AIA method, respectively. In AIA subgroups, only 10% of the total daily faecal output was sampled from 9:00 to 9:30 am. Feed analysis in E1 showed that increasing sample quantity from 5 to 9 g did not affect the dietary AIA content; however, the analytical error was 7 and 5 times lower ( P <0.05) for 9 g, when compared to 5 and 7 g samples. Feed analysis also showed 1.030±0.003 g TiO 2 /kg diet. Faecal marker recovery was 99.80±0.03 and 96.89±0.16% for AIA and TiO 2 , respectively. The CTTAD of dry matter (DM), did not differ between methods in E1, but a 5-fold higher variability ( P <0.05) was observed for the TiO 2 technique in comparison with the ERM and AIA methods. Also, no differences in the CTTAD of DM between the ERM and AIA methods were found in E2. In conclusion, AIA is a reliable internal marker in rabbits and offers the possibility of measuring the CTTAD of diets with precision, when complete faecal collection or feed intake measurement is not possible.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Rabbit Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Rabbit Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2020.12216\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Rabbit Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2020.12216","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本研究旨在通过两个实验(E1和E2)评估酸不溶性灰分(AIA)作为测量兔总消化道表观消化率(CTTAD)系数的内部标志物。在E1中,根据欧洲参考方法(ERM)、AIA和二氧化钛(TiO2与1g TiO2/kg饮食)技术,使用48只兔子来计算相同基础饮食的CTTAD(n=16只兔子/方法)。研究了饲料样品量对日粮AIA含量的影响,并对粪便进行了总收集以计算标记回收率。在E2中,48只兔子被分为三组,分别饲喂不含甜菜浆(SBP0)或含100(SBP100)和200(SBP200)g甜菜浆/kg的日粮(n=16只兔子/组)。每组分为两个亚组,ERM和AIA(n=8只兔子/亚组),其中CTTAD分别使用欧洲参考和AIA方法进行测量。在AIA亚组中,从上午9点到9点30分,仅对每日粪便总产量的10%进行了采样。E1中的饲料分析表明,将样本量从5克增加到9克不会影响日粮AIA含量;然而,与5和7g样品相比,9g样品的分析误差分别低7和5倍(P<0.05)。饲料分析还显示1.030±0.003 g TiO2/kg日粮。AIA和TiO2的粪便标记回收率分别为99.80±0.03和96.89±0.16%。E1中不同方法的干物质(DM)CTTAD没有差异,但与ERM和AIA方法相比,TiO2技术的变异性高出5倍(P<0.05)。此外,在E2中,ERM和AIA方法之间的DM CTTAD没有发现差异。总之,AIA在兔子中是一种可靠的内部标志物,当无法完全收集粪便或测量饲料摄入量时,它提供了精确测量饮食CTTAD的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reliability of acid-insoluble ash as internal marker for the measurement of digestibility in rabbits
The present study aimed to evaluate acid-insoluble ash (AIA) as an internal marker for the measurement the coefficient of total tract apparent digestibility (CTTAD) in rabbits through two experiments (E1 and E2). In E1, 48 rabbits were used to calculate the CTTAD of the same basal diet according to the European reference method (ERM), the AIA and the titanium dioxide (TiO 2 with 1 g of TiO 2 /kg diet) techniques (n=16 rabbits/method). The effect of feed sample quantity on dietary AIA content was investigated and total collection of faeces was carried out to calculate marker recovery. In E2, 48 rabbits were allotted to three groups fed diets with no sugar beet pulp (SBP0) or with 100 (SBP100) and 200 (SBP200) g sugar beet pulp/kg (n=16 rabbits/group). Each group was divided into two subgroups, ERM and AIA (n=8 rabbits/subgroup), in which CTTAD was measured using the European reference and AIA method, respectively. In AIA subgroups, only 10% of the total daily faecal output was sampled from 9:00 to 9:30 am. Feed analysis in E1 showed that increasing sample quantity from 5 to 9 g did not affect the dietary AIA content; however, the analytical error was 7 and 5 times lower ( P <0.05) for 9 g, when compared to 5 and 7 g samples. Feed analysis also showed 1.030±0.003 g TiO 2 /kg diet. Faecal marker recovery was 99.80±0.03 and 96.89±0.16% for AIA and TiO 2 , respectively. The CTTAD of dry matter (DM), did not differ between methods in E1, but a 5-fold higher variability ( P <0.05) was observed for the TiO 2 technique in comparison with the ERM and AIA methods. Also, no differences in the CTTAD of DM between the ERM and AIA methods were found in E2. In conclusion, AIA is a reliable internal marker in rabbits and offers the possibility of measuring the CTTAD of diets with precision, when complete faecal collection or feed intake measurement is not possible.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Rabbit Science
World Rabbit Science 农林科学-奶制品与动物科学
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: World Rabbit Science is the official journal of the World Rabbit Science Association (WRSA). One of the main objectives of the WRSA is to encourage communication and collaboration among individuals and organisations associated with rabbit production and rabbit science in general. Subject areas include breeding, genetics, production, management, environment, health, nutrition, physiology, reproduction, behaviour, welfare, immunology, molecular biology, metabolism, processing and products. World Rabbit Science is the only international peer-reviewed journal included in the ISI Thomson list dedicated to publish original research in the field of rabbit science. Papers or reviews of the literature submitted to World Rabbit Science must not have been published previously in an international refereed scientific journal. Previous presentations at a scientific meeting, field day reports or similar documents can be published in World Rabbit Science, but they will be also subjected to the peer-review process. World Rabbit Science will publish papers of international relevance including original research articles, descriptions of novel techniques, contemporaryreviews and meta-analyses. Short communications will only accepted in special cases where, in the Editor''s judgement, the contents are exceptionally exciting, novel or timely. Proceedings of rabbit scientific meetings and conference reports will be considered for special issues. World Rabbit Science is published in English four times a year in a single volume. Authors may publish in World Rabbit Science regardless of the membership in the World Rabbit Science Association, even if joining the WRSA is encouraged. Views expressed in papers published in World Rabbit Science represent the opinion of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the WRSA or the Editor-in-Chief.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信