Mitragyna speciosa Korth Leaves Supplementation on Feed Utilization, Rumen Fermentation Efficiency, Microbial Population, and Methane Production In Vitro
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Ethical Procedure
2.2. Dietary Treatments and Experimental Design
2.3. Rumen and Substrate Inocula
2.4. In Vitro Gas Production and Fermentation Characteristics
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Chemical Composition of Experimental Feeds
3.2. In Vitro Gas Production Kinetics
3.3. In Vitro Digestibility
3.4. Ruminal pH and Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3-N) Concentration
3.5. Volatile Fatty Acid and Methane Production
3.6. Rumen Microorganism
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Vasta, V.; Daghio, M.; Cappucci, A.; Buccioni, A.; Serra, A.; Viti, C. Invited review: Plant polyphenols and rumen microbiota responsible for fatty acid biohydrogenation, fiber digestion, and methane emission: Experimental evidence and methodological approaches. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 3781–3804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayanegara, A.; Yogianto, Y.; Wina, E.; Sudarman, A.; Kondo, M.; Obitsu, T.; Kreuzer, M. Combination effects of plant extracts rich in tannins and saponins as feed additives for mitigating in vitro ruminal methane and ammonia formation. Animals 2021, 10, 1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Patra, A.; Saxena, J. The effect and mode of action of saponins on the microbial populations and fermentation in the rumen and ruminant production. Nut. Res. Rev. 2009, 22, 204–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sinz, S.; Kunz, C.; Liesegang, A.; Braun, U.; Marquardt, S.; Soliva, C.R.; Kreuzer, M. In vitro bioactivity of various pure flavonoids in ruminal fermentation, with special reference to methane formation. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 63, 293–304. [Google Scholar]
- Cherdthong, A.; Prachumchai, R.; Wanapat, M. In vitro evaluations of pellets containing Delonix regia seed meal for ruminants. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 2003–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matra, M.; Totakul, P.; Wanapat, M. Utilization of dragon fruit waste by-products and non-protein nitrogen source: Effects on in vitro rumen fermentation, nutrients degradability and methane production. Livest. Sci. 2021, 243, 104386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ku-Vera, J.C.; Jiménez-Ocampo, R.; Valencia-Salazar, S.S.; Montoya-Flores, M.D.; Molina-Botero, I.C.; Arango, J.; Gómez-Bravo, C.A.; Aguilar-Pérez, C.F.; Solorio-Sánchez, F.J. Role of secondary plant metabolites on enteric methane mitigation in ruminants. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, D.; Chear, N.J.Y.; Narayanan, S.; Leon, F.; Sharma, A.; McCurdy, C.R.; Avery, B.A.; Balasingam, V. Patterns and reasons for Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) use among current and former opioid poly-drug users. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2020, 249, 112462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, M.F.I.L.B.; Singh, D. The adverse cardiovascular effects and cardiotoxicity of Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa Korth.): A comprehensive review. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 726003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goh, Y.S.; Karunakaran, T.; Murugaiyah, V.; Santhanam, R.; Abu Bakar, M.H.; Ramanathan, S. Accelerated solvent extractions (ASE) of Mitragyna speciosa Korth. (Kratom) leaves: Evaluation of its cytotoxicity and antinociceptive activity. Molecules 2021, 26, 3704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, Z.; Muzaimi, M.; Navaratnam, V.; Yusoff, N.H.; Suhaimi, F.W.; Vadivelu, R.; Vicknasingam, B.K.; Amato, D.; von Hörsten, S.; Ismail, N.I. From Kratom to mitragynine and its derivatives: Physiological and behavioural effects related to use, abuse, and addiction. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2013, 37, 138–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Suriyapha, C.; Cherdthong, A.; Suntara, C.; Polyorach, S. Utilization of yeast waste fermented citric waste as a protein source to replace soybean meal and various roughage to concentrate ratios on in vitro rumen fermentation, gas kinetic, and deed digestion. Fermentation 2021, 7, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phesatcha, K.; Phesatcha, B.; Wanapat, M.; Cherdthong, A. Roughage to concentrate ratio and Saccharomyces cerevisiae inclusion could modulate feed digestion and in vitro ruminal fermentation. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wanapat, M.; Gunun, P.; Anantasook, N.; Kang, S. Changes of rumen pH, fermentation and microbial population as influenced by different ratios of roughage (rice straw) to concentrate in dairy steers. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 152, 675–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 19th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson and, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for dietary fiber neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wanapat, M.; Poungchompu, O. Method for Estimation of Tannin by Vanillin-HCL Method (A Modified Method of Burns, 1971); Department of Animal Science, Khon Kaen University: Khon Kaen, Thailand, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Jamil, M.F.A.; Subki, M.F.M.; Lan, T.M.; Majid, M.I.A.; Adenan, M.I. The effect of mitragynine on cAMP formation and mRNA expression of mu-opioid receptors mediated by chronic morphine treatment in SK–N–SH neuroblastoma cell. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2013, 148, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makkar, H.P.S.; Blummel, M.; Becker, K. In vitro effects and interaction between tannins and saponins and fate of tannins in the rumen. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1995, 69, 481–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blummel, M.; Orskov, E.R. Comparison of in vitro gas production and nylon bag degradability of roughage in predicting feed intake in cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1993, 40, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orskov, E.R.; McDonal, I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J. Agric. Sci. 1979, 92, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moss, A.R.; Jouany, J.P.; Newbold, J. Methane production by ruminants: Its contribution to global warming. Ann. Zootech. 2000, 49, 231–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yu, Z.; Morrison, M. Improved extraction of PCR quality community DNA from digesta and fecal samples. Biotechniques 2004, 36, 808–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, J.E.; Huws, S.A.; Kim, E.J.; Kingston-Smith, A.H. Characterization of the dynamics of initial bacterial colonization of nonconserved forage in the bovine rumen. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2007, 62, 323–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sylvester, J.T.; Karnati, S.K.R.; Yu, Z.; Morrison, M.; Firkins, J.L. Development of an assay to quantify rumen ciliate protozoal biomass in cows using real-time PCR. J. Nutr. 2004, 134, 3378–3384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Denman, S.E.; Tomkins, N.W.; McSweeney, C.S. Quantitation and diversity analysis of ruminal methanogenic populations in response to the antimethanogenic compound bromochloromethane. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2007, 62, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tilley, J.M.A.; Terry, R.A. A two-stage technique for the digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 1963, 18, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SAS (Statistical Analysis System). User’s Guide: Statistic; SAS Inst. Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Crichton, N. Information point: Tukey Multiple Comparison test. J. Clin. Nurs. 1999, 8, 299–304. [Google Scholar]
- Phesatcha, B.; Phesatcha, K.; Viennaxay, B.; Thao, T.; Wanapat, M. Feed intake and nutrient digestibility, rumen fermentation profiles, milk yield and composition of lactating dairy cows supplemented by Flemingia macrophylla pellet. Trop. Anim. Sci. J. 2021, 44, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phesatcha, K.; Wanapat, M. Tropical legume supplementation influences microbial protein synthesis and rumen ecology. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2017, 101, 552–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wanapat, M.; Chanthakhoun, V.; Phesatcha, K.; Kang, S. Influence of mangosteen peel powder as a source of plant secondary compounds on rumen microorganisms, volatile fatty acids, methane and microbial protein synthesis in swamp buffaloes. Livest. Sci. 2014, 162, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viennasay, B.; Wanapat, M.; Totakul, P.; Phesatcha, B.; Ampapon, T.; Cherdthong, A. Effect of Flemingia macrophylla silage on in vitro fermentation characteristics and reduced methane production. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2020, 60, 1918–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunun, P.; Gunun, N.; Cherdthong, A.; Wanapat, M.; Polyorach, S.; Sirilaophaisan, S.; Wachirapakorn, C.; Kang, S. In vitro rumen fermentation and methane production as affected by rambutan peel powder. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2018, 46, 626–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ampapon, T.; Phesatcha, K.; Wanapat, M. Effect of phytonutrients on ruminal fermentation, digestibility, and microorganisms in swamp buffaloes. Animals 2019, 6, 671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cieślak, A.; Zmora, P.; Matkowski, A.; Nawrot-Hadzik, I.; Pers-Kamczyc, E.; El-Sherbiny, M.; Bryszak, M.; Szumacher-Strabe, M. Tannins from Sanguisorba officinalis affect in vitro rumen methane production and fermentation. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2016, 26, 54–62. [Google Scholar]
- Gerlach, K.; Pries, M.; Tholen, E.; Schmithausen, A.J.; Buscher, W.; Sudekum, K.H. Effect of condensed tannins in rations of lactating dairy cows on production variables and nitrogen use efficiency. Animal 2018, 12, 1847–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zicarelli, F.; Calabro, S.; Piccolo, V.; D’Urso, S.; Tudisco, R.; Bovera, F.; Cutrignelli, M.I.; Infascelli, F. Diets with different forage/concentrate ratios for the Mediterranean Italian buffalo: In vivo and in vitro digestibility. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 21, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, S.; Wanapat, M.; Phesatcha, K.; Norrapoke, T.; Foiklang, S.; Ampapon, T.; Phesatcha, B. Using Krabok (Irvingia malayana) seed oil and Flemingia macrophylla leaf meal as a rumen enhancer in an in vitro gas production system. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2017, 57, 327–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polyorach, S.; Wanapat, M.; Cherdthong, A.; Kang, S. Rumen microorganisms, methane production, and microbial protein synthesis affected by mangosteen peel powder supplement in lactating dairy cows. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2016, 48, 593–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Paula, E.M.; Samensari, R.B.; Machado, E.; Pereira, L.M.; Maia, F.J.; Yoshimura, E.H.; Franzolin, R.; Faciola, A.P.; Zeoula, L. Effects of phenolic compounds on ruminal protozoa population, ruminal fermentation, and digestion in water buffaloes. Livest. Sci. 2016, 185, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rira, M.; Morgavi, D.P.; Archimède, H.; Marie-Magdeleine, C.; Popova, M.; Bousseboua, H. Potential of tannin-rich plants for modulating ruminal microbes and ruminal fermentation in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 334–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manasri, N.; Wanapat, M.; Navanukraw, C. Improving rumen fermentation and feed digestibility in cattle by mangosteen peel and garlic pellet supplementation. Livest. Sci. 2012, 148, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramos-Morales, E.; Rossi, G.; Cattin, M.; Jones, E.; Braganca, R.; Newbold, C.J. The effect of an isoflavonoid rich liquorice extract on fermentation, methanogenesis and the microbiome in the rumen simulation technique. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2018, 94, fiy009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Naumann, H.D.; Tedeschi, L.O.; Zeller, W.E.; Huntley, N.F. The role of condensed tannins in ruminant animal production: Advances, limitations and future directions. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2017, 46, 929–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hung, L.V.; Wanapat, M.; Cherdthong, A. Effects of Leucaena leaf pellet on bacterial diversity and microbial protein synthesis in swamp buffalo fed on rice straw. Livest. Sci. 2013, 151, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, S.; Wanapat, M.; Cherdthong, A. Effect of banana flower powder supplementation as a rumen buffer on rumen fermentation efficiency and nutrient digestibility in dairy steers fed on high concentrate diet. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014, 196, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anantasook, N.; Wanapat, M.; Cherdthong, A.; Gunun, P. Effect of plants containing secondary compounds with palm oil on feed Intake, digestibility, microbial protein synthesis and microbial population in dairy cows. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 26, 820–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Item | Concentrate | ULTRS | MSLP |
---|---|---|---|
Ingredient (kg of dry matter) | |||
Cassava chip | 60.0 | ||
Rice bran | 13.5 | ||
Coconut meal | 13.0 | ||
Palm kernel meal | 6.0 | ||
Urea | 3.0 | ||
Molasses | 2.0 | ||
Mineral premix | 1.0 | ||
Salt | 1.0 | ||
Sulfur | 0.5 | ||
Chemical composition | |||
Dry matter (%) | 88.3 | 50.9 | 31.1 |
--% Dry matter-- | |||
Organic matter (OM) | 92.6 | 90.4 | 94.3 |
Crude protein (CP) | 14.2 | 5.6 | 21.2 |
Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) | 19.1 | 70.2 | 51.4 |
Acid detergent fiber (ADF) | 14.6 | 55.1 | 28.2 |
Condensed tannins | - | - | 14.6 |
Saponins | 12.1 | ||
Mitragynine | 8.2 |
Treatment | R:C 1 | MSLP 2 | Gas Kenetics 3 | Gas (96 h) mL/0.2 g DM Substrate | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a | b | c | a + b | ||||
1 | 60:40 | 0 | −1.8 | 110.7 | 0.031 | 108.9 | 109.6 |
2 | 1 | −1.9 | 113.5 | 0.032 | 111.6 | 111.4 | |
3 | 2 | −1.5 | 113.4 | 0.030 | 111.9 | 112.6 | |
4 | 3 | −2.0 | 114.6 | 0.034 | 112.6 | 115.8 | |
5 | 4 | −1.9 | 115.9 | 0.036 | 114.0 | 119.5 | |
6 | 5 | −2.1 | 116.2 | 0.038 | 114.1 | 118.8 | |
7 | 6 | −1.8 | 117.0 | 0.037 | 115.2 | 117.6 | |
8 | 7 | −1.9 | 116.9 | 0.035 | 115.0 | 117.0 | |
9 | 40:60 | 0 | 1.0 | 122.8 | 0.051 | 123.9 | 125.1 |
10 | 1 | 1.3 | 121.2 | 0.052 | 122.5 | 124.3 | |
11 | 2 | 1.4 | 123.0 | 0.054 | 124.4 | 125.6 | |
12 | 3 | 1.2 | 125.2 | 0.053 | 126.4 | 128.8 | |
13 | 4 | 1.6 | 131.1 | 0.054 | 132.7 | 133.4 | |
14 | 5 | 1.4 | 131.9 | 0.056 | 133.3 | 135.7 | |
15 | 6 | 1.4 | 127.4 | 0.055 | 128.8 | 120.4 | |
16 | 7 | 1.6 | 127.6 | 0.055 | 129.2 | 124.5 | |
SEM | 0.19 | 0.57 | 0.01 | 0.29 | 0.27 | ||
Comparison | |||||||
R:C | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.04 | ||
MPLK | 0.11 | 0.82 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.15 | ||
Interaction | 0.42 | 0.81 | 0.72 | 0.54 | 0.11 |
Treatment | R:C 1 | MSLP 2 | pH | NH3-N (mg/dL) | In Vitro Digestibility, % | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4 h | 8 h | IVDMD 12 h | IVDMD 24 h | IVOMD 12 h | IVOMD 24 h | ||||
1 | 60:40 | 0 | 6.62 | 6.60 | 20.5 | 52.8 | 62.5 | 61.6 | 66.2 |
2 | 1 | 6.67 | 6.62 | 18.4 | 53.9 | 63.1 | 64.8 | 68.7 | |
3 | 2 | 6.71 | 6.65 | 18.4 | 54.6 | 64.2 | 65.3 | 69.5 | |
4 | 3 | 6.62 | 6.61 | 18.1 | 55.8 | 65.1 | 66.4 | 71.1 | |
5 | 4 | 6.65 | 6.62 | 17.4 | 57.6 | 68.8 | 73.1 | 78.2 | |
6 | 5 | 6.64 | 6.61 | 17.2 | 56.9 | 67.1 | 72.8 | 77.9 | |
7 | 6 | 6.66 | 6.62 | 17.1 | 57.5 | 67.2 | 71.0 | 76.0 | |
8 | 7 | 6.65 | 6.60 | 16.0 | 56.9 | 67.0 | 70.1 | 75.9 | |
9 | 40:60 | 0 | 6.60 | 6.58 | 24.8 | 55.8 | 66.1 | 68.1 | 73.4 |
10 | 1 | 6.64 | 6.61 | 23.0 | 58.0 | 68.3 | 72.5 | 77.0 | |
11 | 2 | 6.61 | 6.59 | 22.8 | 58.9 | 69.1 | 73.3 | 78.5 | |
12 | 3 | 6.66 | 6.62 | 22.5 | 61.8 | 70.6 | 74.9 | 79.6 | |
13 | 4 | 6.65 | 6.61 | 20.1 | 63.7 | 74.2 | 78.8 | 83.4 | |
14 | 5 | 6.61 | 6.59 | 19.8 | 63.8 | 74.1 | 78.1 | 82.5 | |
15 | 6 | 6.61 | 6.58 | 19.0 | 63.0 | 73.6 | 77.4 | 82.1 | |
16 | 7 | 6.60 | 6.59 | 18.1 | 62.9 | 73.5 | 76.9 | 81.0 | |
SEM | 0.38 | 0.57 | 0.77 | 1.97 | 2.43 | 1.85 | 2.47 | ||
Comparison | |||||||||
R:C | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.002 | ||
MPLK | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||
Interaction | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.45 | 0.52 | 0.71 | 0.53 | 0.68 |
Treatment | R:C 1 | MPLK 2 | Total VFA, (mM/L) | C2, (%) | C3, (%) | C4, (%) | C2:C3 Ratio | CH4 Production 3, mM |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 60:40 | 0 | 40.1 | 69.8 | 20.1 | 10.1 | 3.5 | 29.9 |
2 | 1 | 41.3 | 69.6 | 21.3 | 9.1 | 3.3 | 29.1 | |
3 | 2 | 41.9 | 68.7 | 22.8 | 8.5 | 3.0 | 28.0 | |
4 | 3 | 42.0 | 66.4 | 23.1 | 10.5 | 2.9 | 27.7 | |
5 | 4 | 43.9 | 65.2 | 25.6 | 9.2 | 2.5 | 26.0 | |
6 | 5 | 43.7 | 65.9 | 25.7 | 8.4 | 2.6 | 25.9 | |
7 | 6 | 43.1 | 65.8 | 25.4 | 8.8 | 2.6 | 26.1 | |
8 | 7 | 42.9 | 61.6 | 25.5 | 12.9 | 2.4 | 25.9 | |
9 | 40:60 | 0 | 43.2 | 67.8 | 22.5 | 9.7 | 3.0 | 28.2 |
10 | 1 | 44.9 | 66.7 | 23.1 | 10.2 | 2.9 | 27.7 | |
11 | 2 | 45.7 | 66.4 | 23.5 | 10.1 | 2.8 | 27.5 | |
12 | 3 | 46.0 | 65.1 | 24.2 | 10.7 | 2.7 | 26.9 | |
13 | 4 | 49.7 | 60.1 | 26.8 | 13.1 | 2.2 | 24.9 | |
14 | 5 | 49.4 | 60.9 | 26.9 | 12.2 | 2.3 | 24.9 | |
15 | 6 | 48.5 | 60.3 | 26.7 | 13.0 | 2.3 | 25.0 | |
16 | 7 | 48.3 | 58.7 | 27.1 | 14.2 | 2.2 | 24.6 | |
SEM | 2.04 | 0.75 | 0.04 | 0.32 | 0.08 | 0.13 | ||
R:C | 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.004 | ||
MPLK | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.76 | 0.04 | 0.04 | ||
Interaction | 0.26 | 0.41 | 0.53 | 0.82 | 0.12 | 0.47 |
Treatment | R:C 1 | MPLK 2 | Total Bacteria (×1010 cells/mL) | Protozoa (×105 cells/mL) | Methanogens (×103 cells/mL) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4 h | 8 h | 4 h | 8 h | 4 h | 8 h | |||
1 | 60:40 | 0 | 7.4 | 15.5 | 5.1 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 8.6 |
2 | 1 | 8.2 | 19.3 | 4.9 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 8.5 | |
3 | 2 | 9.1 | 21.8 | 4.5 | 6.2 | 5.7 | 7.9 | |
4 | 3 | 10.4 | 22.5 | 4.0 | 6.1 | 5.4 | 7.5 | |
5 | 4 | 11.6 | 24.4 | 3.0 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 5.6 | |
6 | 5 | 11.0 | 24.1 | 2.9 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 5.5 | |
7 | 6 | 10.7 | 24.3 | 2.5 | 4.1 | 3.6 | 5.0 | |
8 | 7 | 10.3 | 23.9 | 2.4 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 4.1 | |
9 | 40:60 | 0 | 12.1 | 23.8 | 6.6 | 7.4 | 4.8 | 5.9 |
10 | 1 | 12.8 | 25.4 | 6.3 | 7.2 | 4.7 | 5.1 | |
11 | 2 | 13.2 | 26.5 | 6.1 | 6.9 | 3.4 | 4.9 | |
12 | 3 | 13.9 | 27.1 | 6.0 | 6.5 | 3.3 | 4.7 | |
13 | 4 | 15.4 | 29.8 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 2.1 | 3.2 | |
14 | 5 | 16.8 | 29.5 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 2.0 | 3.1 | |
15 | 6 | 16.5 | 29.4 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 1.8 | 2.6 | |
16 | 7 | 16.0 | 28.7 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 1.7 | 2.6 | |
SEM | 0.95 | 0.87 | 0.28 | 0.53 | 0.62 | 0.70 | ||
Comparison | ||||||||
RC | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.04 | 0.01 | ||
MPLK | 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.006 | 0.002 | 0.04 | 0.01 | ||
Interaction | 0.38 | 0.43 | 0.45 | 0.69 | 0.94 | 0.38 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Phesatcha, K.; Phesatcha, B.; Wanapat, M.; Cherdthong, A. Mitragyna speciosa Korth Leaves Supplementation on Feed Utilization, Rumen Fermentation Efficiency, Microbial Population, and Methane Production In Vitro. Fermentation 2022, 8, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8010008
Phesatcha K, Phesatcha B, Wanapat M, Cherdthong A. Mitragyna speciosa Korth Leaves Supplementation on Feed Utilization, Rumen Fermentation Efficiency, Microbial Population, and Methane Production In Vitro. Fermentation. 2022; 8(1):8. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8010008
Chicago/Turabian StylePhesatcha, Kampanat, Burarat Phesatcha, Metha Wanapat, and Anusorn Cherdthong. 2022. "Mitragyna speciosa Korth Leaves Supplementation on Feed Utilization, Rumen Fermentation Efficiency, Microbial Population, and Methane Production In Vitro" Fermentation 8, no. 1: 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8010008