ArticleAsian-Australasian journal of animal sciences2019
Nutrient and ruminal fermentation profiles of Camellia seed residues with fungal pretreatment.
Article in Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Solid State Fermentation as a Tool to Stabilize and Improve Nutritive Value of Fruit and Vegetable Discards: Effect on Nutritional Composition, In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation and Organic Matter Digestibility.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Effect of Different Durations of Solid-Phase Fermentation for Fireweed (Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of four fungal pretreatments on the nutritional value of Camellia seed residues, and to evaluate the feeding value of pre-treated Camellia seed residues for ruminants.
methodsCamellia seed residues were firstly fermented by four lignin degrading fungi, namely, Phanerochaete chrysosporium (P. chrysosporium)-30942, Trichoderma koningiopsis (T. koningiopsis)-2660, Trichoderma aspellum (T. aspellum)-2527, or T. aspellum-2627, under solid-state fermentation (SSF) conditions at six different incubation times. The nutritional value of each fermented Camellia seed residues was then analyzed. The fermentation profiles, organic matter degradability and metabolizable energy of each pre-treated Camellia seed residue were further evaluated using an in vitro rumen fermentation system.
resultsAfter 5 days of fermentation, P. chrysosporium-30942 had higher degradation of lignin (20.51%), consumed less hemicellulose (4.02%), and the SSF efficiency reached 83.43%. T. koningiopsis-2660 degraded more lignin (21.54%) and consumed less cellulose (20.94%) and hemicellulose (2.51%), the SSF efficiency reached 127.93%. The maximum SSF efficiency was 58.18% for T. aspellum-2527 and 47.61% for T. aspellum-2627, appeared at 30 and 15 days respectively. All the fungal pretreatments significantly improved the crude protein content (p<0.05). The Camellia seed residues pretreated for 5 days were found to possess significantly increased organic matter degradability, volatile fatty acid production and metabolizable energy (p<0.05) after the treatment of either P. chrysosporium-30942, T. koningiopsis-2660 or T. aspellum-2527. The fungal pretreatments did not significantly change the rumen fermentation pattern of Camellia seed residues, with an unchanged ratio of acetate to propionate.
conclusionThe fungi showed excellent potential for the solid-state bioconversion of Camellia seed residues into digestible ruminant energy feed, and their shorter lignin degradation characteristics could reduce loss of the other available carbohydrates during SSF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.