We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Comparison of the effect of sodium bicarbonate, sodium sesquicarbonate, and zeolite as rumen buffers on apparent digestibility, growth performance, and rumen fermentation parameters of Arabi lambs.
- Authors
Mahdavirad, Nasrin; Chaji, Morteza; Bojarpour, Mohammad; Dehghanbanadaky, Mehdi
- Abstract
The current research was conducted to compare the effect of various buffers or alkalizers in Arabi lambs and find new and less expensive buffering resources. Forty-five Arabi lambs with an average weight of 29.37 ± 3.63 kg were used in a completely randomized design with five treatments and nine replicates. Treatments included 1 — control diet (no buffer); 2 — base diet + 0.75% sodium sesquicarbonate, 0.75% sodium bicarbonate; 3 — base diet + 2% zeolite; 4 — base diet + 1.5% sodium bicarbonate; and 5 — base diet + 1.5% sodium sesquicarbonate. Results showed that rumen pH increased and ammonia nitrogen concentration decreased in diets containing buffer in comparison to control diet (P < 0.05). Rumen concentration of acetate and acetate to propionate ratio showed reduction in experimental diets compared to control (P < 0.05). The concentration of propionate in control diet increased significantly compared to diets receiving buffer (P < 0.05). Using 1.5% sodium bicarbonate in the diet causes a significant increase in rumen protozoa population compared to the control group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in dry matter intake and growth performance of lambs. Generally, the effects of using 2% of zeolite were competitive with the effects of other buffers, and caused an increase in the rumen pH and concentration of the acetate. Therefore, the use of buffer in fattening lambs ration fed moderate concentrate diets is beneficial, and it is possible to use low-cost zeolite buffer in the ration of livestock as an alternative to sodium bicarbonate and/or sodium sesquicarbonate.
- Publication
Tropical Animal Health & Production, 2021, Vol 53, Issue 5, p1
- ISSN
0049-4747
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1007/s11250-021-02909-7