| Literature DB >> 29103281 |
Yongjun Choi1, Jong-Su Rim1, Youngjun Na1, Sang Rak Lee1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the effect of fermented spent coffee ground (FSCG) on nutrient digestibility and nitrogen utilization in sheep.Entities:
Keywords: Feed Intake; Fermented Spent Coffee Ground; Nitrogen Utilization; Nutrient Digestibility; Sheep
Year: 2017 PMID: 29103281 PMCID: PMC5838341 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.17.0654
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Ingredient proportions and chemical compositions of experimental diets
| Item | Treatment (% DM) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Control | SCG | FSCG | ||
|
|
|
| ||
| 0 | 10 | 10 | 20 | |
| Ingredient (% DM basis) | ||||
| Spent instant coffee ground | 0.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 20.0 |
| Timothy hay (CP: 8.0% DM) | 36.0 | 28.8 | 28.8 | 23.9 |
| Alfalfa hay (CP: 13.0% DM) | 27.6 | 24.8 | 24.8 | 19.9 |
| Corn | 28.0 | 28.0 | 28.0 | 28.0 |
| Soybean meal (CP: 49.0% DM) | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.3 |
| Chemical composition | ||||
| DM (%) | 63.0 | 63.2 | 63.3 | 63.6 |
| OM (% DM) | 94.1 | 94.8 | 94.8 | 95.6 |
| CP (% DM) | 13.1 | 13.3 | 13.3 | 13.5 |
| EE (% DM) | 2.6 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 5.0 |
| NDF (% DM) | 43.6 | 45.1 | 45.1 | 47.0 |
| ADF (% DM) | 28.6 | 31.8 | 31.8 | 35.0 |
| NFC (% DM) | 34.8 | 32.6 | 32.6 | 30.1 |
| Ca (% DM) | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| P (% DM) | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| GE (MJ/kg DM) | 21.3 | 21.0 | 21.0 | 20.9 |
DM, dry matter; SCG, spent coffee ground; FSCG, fermented spent coffee ground; CP, crude protein; OM, organic matter; EE, ether extract; aNDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; NFC, non-fiber carbohydrates; GE, gross energy.
Ca and P was measured after experimental diet formulation.
NFC = OM – aNDF – CP – EE – ash.
Chemical compositions and fermentation profiles of spent coffee ground after 48 h of microbial fermentation
| Item | Fermentation time (h) | SEM | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 0 | 48 | |||
| Chemical composition | ||||
| DM (%) | 47.0 | 28.7 | 0.00 | <0.001 |
| OM (% DM) | 99.6 | 97.8 | 0.00 | <0.001 |
| CP (% DM) | 12.0 | 14.1 | 0.10 | 0.003 |
| EE (% DM) | 10.8 | 10.9 | 0.09 | 0.715 |
| NDF (% DM) | 79.6 | 80.2 | 0.01 | 0.414 |
| ADF (% DM) | 74.0 | 74.6 | 0.01 | 0.375 |
| ADIN (% of total N) | 78.8 | 64.5 | 1.06 | 0.005 |
| Fermentation profile | ||||
| pH | 5.57 | 3.63 | 0.01 | <0.001 |
| Acetic acid (% DM) | 5.05 | ND | 0.02 | <0.001 |
| Propionic acid (% DM) | ND | ND | - | - |
| Butyric acid (% DM) | ND | ND | - | - |
| Lactic acid (% DM) | ND | 5.83 | 0.15 | <0.001 |
| Ammonia nitrogen (% DM) | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.02 | 0.325 |
SEM, standard error of the mean; DM, dry matter; OM, organic matter; CP, crude protein; EE, ether extract; aNDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; ADIN, acid detergent insoluble nitrogen; ND, not detected.
Body weight gain, average daily gain, water intake, dry matter intake, and gain to feed ratio of rams fed spent coffee ground or fermented spent coffee ground
| Item | Treatment (% DM) | SEM | p-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
| Control | SCG | FSCG | |||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| 0 | 10 | 10 | 20 | Treatment | Fermentation | Linear | Quadratic | ||
| Initial BW (kg) | 56.3 | 57.0 | 56.6 | 57.2 | 3.20 | 0.921 | 0.798 | 0.586 | 0.897 |
| Finial BW (kg) | 62.0 | 60.1 | 61.3 | 60.0 | 2.68 | 0.203 | 0.242 | 0.203 | 0.803 |
| BWG (kg/d) | 5.70 | 3.11 | 4.72 | 2.80 | 0.89 | 0.064 | 0.151 | 0.007 | 0.958 |
| ADG (kg/d) | 0.41 | 0.22 | 0.34 | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.058 | 0.142 | 0.016 | 0.529 |
| Water intake (L/d) | 8.8 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 12.6 | 1.69 | 0.024 | 0.833 | 0.017 | 0.425 |
| Urine excretion (L/d) | 4.3 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 9.3 | 1.50 | 0.032 | 0.864 | 0.025 | 0.480 |
| DMI (kg/d) | 2.06 | 2.02 | 2.00 | 1.89 | 0.18 | 0.369 | 0.820 | 0.214 | 0.871 |
| Gain to feed ratio | 0.24 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.190 | 0.334 | 0.089 | 0.961 |
DM, dry matter; SCG, spent coffee ground; FSCG, fermented spent coffee ground; SEM, standard error of the mean; BW, body weight; BWG, body weight gain; ADG, average daily gain; DMI, dry matter intake.
Treatment, multiple comparison test among all treatments; Fermentation, SCG 10% vs FSCG 10%; linear, linear contrast effect among 0%, 10%, and 20% of FSCG; quadratic, quadratic contrast effect among 0%, 10%, and 20% of FSCG.
Means within each row with different superscripts were significantly different from each other (p<0.05).
Nutrient digestibility and nitrogen utilization of rams fed spent coffee ground or fermented spent coffee ground
| Item | Treatment (% DM) | SEM | p-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
| Control | SCG | FSCG | |||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| 0 | 10 | 10 | 20 | Treatment | Fermentation | Linear | Quadratic | ||
| Apparent digestibility (%) | |||||||||
| DM | 60.9 | 57.7 | 59.8 | 60.0 | 4.54 | 0.538 | 0.371 | 0.631 | 0.675 |
| OM | 63.3 | 59.6 | 61.9 | 61.4 | 4.06 | 0.408 | 0.303 | 0.529 | 0.848 |
| CP | 61.6 | 51.9 | 56.8 | 53.6 | 3.27 | 0.011 | 0.046 | 0.002 | 0.302 |
| NDF | 54.0 | 48.6 | 52.2 | 47.5 | 2.79 | 0.289 | 0.347 | 0.104 | 0.647 |
| ADF | 54.5 | 49.5 | 53.0 | 48.5 | 3.71 | 0.333 | 0.361 | 0.008 | 0.340 |
| Nitrogen utilization | |||||||||
| Intake (g/d) | 44.5 | 43.0 | 43.1 | 39.6 | 4.18 | 0.395 | 0.748 | 0.739 | 0.844 |
| Fecal (g/d) | 17.0 | 19.0 | 16.8 | 17.6 | 1.88 | 0.363 | 0.187 | 0.484 | 0.075 |
| Urinary (g/d) | 14.5 | 16.4 | 17.9 | 16.8 | 1.74 | 0.046 | 0.429 | 0.103 | 0.900 |
| Retained | 29.2 | 17.6 | 19.7 | 13.0 | 2.30 | 0.007 | 0.090 | 0.025 | 0.114 |
DM, dry matter; SCG, spent coffee ground; FSCG, fermented spent coffee ground; SEM, standard error of the mean; OM, organic matter; CP, crude protein; aNDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber.
Treatment, multiple comparison test among all treatments; Fermentation, SCG 10% vs FSCG 10%; linear, linear contrast effect among 0%, 10%, and 20% of FSCG; quadratic, quadratic contrast effect among 0%, 10%, and 20% of FSCG.
Retained = (intake N − fecal N − urinary N)/intake N×100.
Means within each row with different superscripts were significantly different from each other (p<0.05).