| Literature DB >> 35744746 |
Chongya Gao1, Longfei Wu1, Weiran Zhao1, Yiye Chen1, Ming Deng1, Guangbin Liu1, Yongqing Guo1, Baoli Sun1.
Abstract
Herbal tea residues (HTRs) are a by-product of herbal tea processing that contains many nutrients and active substances but are often discarded as waste. The main aim of the present study was to determine the food safety of HTRs and lay the foundation for its use as a novel feed resource for goats. In this study, discarded HTRs were fermented and then fed to 33 female Chuanzhong black goats (121 ± 4.00 days) with similar weight (9.33 ± 0.95 kg) and genetic background, which were divided into three groups (fermented herbal tea residue (FHTR) replacement of 0%, 15% and 30% of the forage component of the diet). The feeding experiment lasted for 35 days. On day 35, our findings indicated that the concentrations of hydroxyl radicals and urea increased linearly, and the concentrations of glutathione peroxidase increased quadratically with the increase in FHTR. In addition, we investigated the fecal microbiota composition of eight Chuanzhong black goats in the control, 15% and 30% FHTR replacement groups and found that FHTR had no remarkable effect on the fecal microbiota composition. Results indicated that goat physiological functions remained stable after FHTR was added to the diet.Entities:
Keywords: fermented feed; fermented herbal residue; goats; microorganism; serum biochemical indices
Year: 2022 PMID: 35744746 PMCID: PMC9228005 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms10061228
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Composition and nutrient levels of experimental diets for Chuanzhong black goats (dry matter basis).
| Items | Dietary Treatment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CON | L15 | L30 | |
| Ingredient, % | |||
| Whole plant corn silage | 76.2 | 64.8 | 53.3 |
| Fermented herbal tea residue | 0 | 11.4 | 22.9 |
| Peanut seedling feed | 19 | 19 | 19 |
| Soya bean meal | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Alfalfa | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.47 |
| Mountain flour | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Salt | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Nutritional ingredient, % | |||
| DM | 30.84 | 33.45 | 31.33 |
| CP | 11.68 | 12.13 | 11.79 |
| EE | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| Ash | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| NDF | 69.23 | 69.93 | 68.76 |
| ADF | 52.21 | 53.83 | 51.49 |
| Ca | 0.9 | 0.91 | 1.04 |
| P | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.41 |
CON, 0% fermented herbal tea residue (FHTR) in the diet, L15, 15% FHTR in the diet; L30, 30% FHTR in the diet. DM, dry matter; CP, crude protein; EE, ether extract; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; Ca, calcium; P, phosphorus.
Figure 1Sequencing depth and fecal microbiota diversity. (A) Group observed species; (B) Venn figure; (C) Ace index; (D) Observed species index; (E) Simpson index; (F) Shannon index; and (G) OUT, operational taxonomic unit; PCA, principal component analysis; CON, 0% FHTR in the diet; L15, 15% FHTR in the diet; L30, 30% FHTR in the diet.
Effects of different proportions of FHTR on the bacteria composition of Chuanzhong black goats at the phylum level (relative abundance ≥ 0.1%).
| Items | Diet | SEM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | L15 | L30 | Line | Quad | ||
| Firmicutes | 52.12 | 56.42 | 58.67 | 1.589 | 0.100 | 0.760 |
| Bacteroidetes | 37.27 | 33.17 | 31.67 | 1.326 | 0.090 | 0.639 |
| unidentified_Bacteria | 1.66 | 3.88 | 1.92 | 0.746 | 0.889 | 0.202 |
| Spirochaetes | 2.44 | 1.70 | 2.77 | 0.703 | 0.852 | 0.564 |
| Tenericutes | 2.72 | 2.02 | 2.36 | 0.274 | 0.600 | 0.390 |
| Proteobacteria | 0.88 | 0.46 | 0.57 | 0.155 | 0.438 | 0.436 |
| Melainabacteria | 1.18 | 1.17 | 1.01 | 0.142 | 0.637 | 0.801 |
| Deferribacteres | 0.44 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.098 | 0.311 | 0.439 |
| Elusimicrobia | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.038 | 0.835 | 0.252 |
| Lentisphaerae | 0.40 | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.052 | 0.163 | 0.292 |
| Planctomycetes | 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.030 | 0.060 | 0.788 |
SEM, standard error of mean. Means with different letters in the same row (a–c) differ significantly (p < 0.05) and means with no letters or the same letters are not significantly different. CON, 0% FHTR in the diet; L15, 15% FHTR in the diet; L30, 30% FHTR in the diet. p−values are for linear and quadratic orthogonal contrasts for diet.
Figure 2Effect of fermented herbal tea residue silage (FHTR) on fecal microbiota composition. The fecal microbiota composition of goats in CON, L15 and L30 group at (A) phylum and (B) genus level.
Effects of different proportion of fermented herbal tea residue on bacterium composition at general level of Chuanzhong black goats (relative abundance ≥ 0.1%).
| Items | Diet | SEM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | L15 | L30 | Line | Quad | ||
|
| 2.09 | 2.23 | 2.40 | 0.225 | 0.592 | 0.974 |
|
| 2.44 | 1.70 | 1.95 | 0.220 | 0.373 | 0.298 |
|
| 1.45 | 3.80 | 1.90 | 0.751 | 0.812 | 0.199 |
|
| 1.00 | 0.64 | 1.85 | 0.277 | 0.210 | 0.183 |
|
| 0.10 | 0.56 | 0.98 | 0.237 | 0.140 | 0.963 |
|
| 1.55 | 1.85 | 2.30 | 0.179 | 0.095 | 0.853 |
|
| 1.70 a | 2.24 b | 1.57 a | 0.145 | 0.697 | 0.048 |
|
| 0.44 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.098 | 0.311 | 0.439 |
|
| 0.25 | 0.37 | 0.47 | 0.072 | 0.216 | 0.932 |
|
| 0.57 | 0.35 | 0.51 | 0.065 | 0.709 | 0.167 |
|
| 0.44 | 0.4 | 0.31 | 0.073 | 0.480 | 0.870 |
|
| 0.61 | 0.56 | 0.62 | 0.040 | 0.948 | 0.523 |
|
| 0.27 | 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.027 | 0.381 | 0.955 |
|
| 0.19 | 0.27 | 0.18 | 0.035 | 0.881 | 0.307 |
SEM, standard error of mean. Means with different letters in the same row (a,b) differ significantly (p < 0.05) and means with no letters or the same letters are not significantly different. CON, 0% FHTR in the diet, L15, 15% FHTR in the diet; L30, 30% FHTR in the diet. p−values are for linear and quadratic orthogonal contrasts for diet.
Figure 3Statistical graph of the gene prediction function results of fecal microorganism via Tax4fun. CON, 0% FHTR in the diet; L15, 15% FHTR in the diet; L30, 30% (FHTR) in the diet.
Figure 4Cluster heatmap of the relative abundance of fecal microorganisms in the functional analysis via Tax4fun. CON, 0% FHTR silage in the diet; L15, 15% FHTR in the diet; L30, 30% FHTR in the diet.
Figure 5PCA of level 2 functional analysis of fecal microorganisms via Tax4fun. CON, 0% FHTRin the diet; L15, 15% FHTR in the diet; L30, 30% FHTR in the diet.