NAAS Score 2018

                   5.36

Declaration Format

Please download DeclarationForm and submit along with manuscript.

UserOnline

Free counters!

Previous Next

Effect of Probiotic and Synbiotic Supplementation on Different Milk Constituents in Sahiwal Cattle

G. Gujar S. C. Goswami V. Kumar
Vol 8(9), 87-97
DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20180221060958

This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of probiotic and synbiotic supplementation on production performance of lactating Sahiwal cattle in arid region of Rajasthan. Eighteen apparently healthy Sahiwal cows in their second month of lactation were randomly assigned to three groups. One group acted as control and were given basal diet only and the cows in other two groups were supplemented with probiotic and synbiotic at the dose of 15g/animal/day and 10g/animal/day, for three months. The supplementation of probiotic and synbiotic supplementation resulted in significantly (P<0.01) higher milk fat percentage (4.62 and 4.54 percent against 3.99 percent) in supplemented cows. Highly significant (P<0.01) increase in the milk lactose percentage (4.92 percent) and total solids (13.35 and 14.25 percent against 12.51) was evident in probiotic supplemented cows. However, milk lactose percentage though higher in synbiotic supplemented group (4.78 percent) compared with control cows (4.75 percent), the difference was not statistically significant. No significant effect of probiotic and synbiotic supplementation was evident on milk protein (3.31 and 3.33 percent against 3.35 percent), and solids not fat (8.73 and 8.70 percent against 8.51) percentage during the course of supplementation. It can be concluded that the supplementation of probiotic and synbiotic at the dose of 15g/animal/day and 10g/animal/day can effectively increase different milk constituent (Milk fat percentage, Milk lactose percentage and total solids) significantly.


Keywords : Milk Fat Percentage Milk Lactose Percentage Milk Protein Probiotic Sahiwal Solids Not Fat Synbiotic

Animal husbandry and dairying along with agriculture forms the backbone of the rural Indian economy. Milk is India’s single largest agricultural commodity in value terms and is more than the combined value of paddy and wheat put together. The milk production has increased from 146.3 million tonnes in 2014-15 to 155.5 in 2015-16 registering a growth of 6.27 percent, of which 48 percent is contributed by cattle alone. Sahiwal is one of the established milch cattle breed of tropical regions, with large population concentrated in India and Pakistan. The average lactation yield ranges from 1600-2750 Kg per lactation with average fat percentage ranging from 4.8-5.1(AGRIS-IS). The major bottleneck in exploiting the full potential of animals is the feeding practices adopted in our country and the scarcity of fodder, both qualitative and quantitative further exacerbates the problem of low output. Most of the feed additives used for ruminants are aimed at rumen manipulation mainly to enhance rumen microbial fermentation, predominantly fibre degradation by incorporating such additives which make the ruminal environment favourable for the useful cellulolytic microbes to proliferate and suppress the harmful microbial population. Probiotics are defined as “live micro-organisms, which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host” (FAO/ WHO, 2001). Feeding of probiotics to dairy cows lead to an increase in their milkiness and improve nutrient utilization by the stabilization of bacterial microflora in the rumen (Semeniuk et al., 2008). Synbiotics may be defined as a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics that beneficially affects the host by improving the survival and implantation of live microbial dietary supplements in the gastrointestinal tract (Gibson and Roberfroid, 1995). The combined action of probiotics and prebiotics on the animal body is much more effective than the probiotics or prebiotics alone (Radzikowski, 2017). The reason behind using a synbiotic is that without its prebiotic food, a true probiotic does not work well in the digestive system. It has been suggested that a combination of a probiotic and a prebiotic, i.e. synbiotics, might be more effective than either a probiotic or prebiotic alone (Hamasalim, 2016). So, assuming the above consideration, the present study was planned to evaluate the effect of supplementation of probiotic and synbiotic on production performance of Sahiwal cattle in the arid area of Rajasthan.

Materials and Methods

The present study was conducted to evaluate the effects of probiotic and synbiotic supplementation on the production performance of Sahiwal cattle at the Livestock Research Station, Kodamdesar and laboratories of Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner Rajasthan.

Selection of Animals

Eighteen healthy Sahiwal cows were selected and randomly divided into three groups of six animals  in each: Group-I (control group) was given only basal diet without any supplementation and Group-II (treatment 1) and Group-III (treatment 2) were supplemented with probiotic and synbiotic, respectively. All the animals were in their second month of lactation and free from physiological, anatomical and infectious diseases. Animals were housed in well ventilated and protected shed and were allowed to acclimatize for a period of seven day for experimental feeding. The data for various observations were recorded after two weeks of acclimatization where treatments were continued till the end of three month of experiment.

Experimental Feeding

Each animal in control and treatment groups were offered green fodder ab lib. and 2.5 kg concentrate mixture daily. 1 kg extra concentrate mixture was given for every 2.5 kg milk production. The control group (Group-I) cows daily received the basal diet formulated on the guidelines of NRC, 2001 based on pelleted concentrate feed, green maize and wheat straw and the cow in treatment groups were additionally supplemented with probiotic and synbiotic, respectively.

Amount of Probiotic and Synbiotic Feeding

Probiotic

Commercial preparation of probiotic was supplemented at the dose of 15g/animal/day.

Composition

Saccharomyces cerevisiae

500 Billion cfu (Per 125g)

Synbiotic

Commercial preparation of synbiotic was fed supplemented at the dose of 10g/animal/day.

Composition (Per 125g)             Saccharomyces cerevisiae 1000 Billion cfu
     Lactobacillus acidophilus 30000 million cfu
Lactobacillus sporogenes              30000 million cfu
Bacillus subtilis                     60000 million cfu
Bacillus licheniformis             60000 million cfu
Fructo oligosaccharide           5000 mg
Mannan Oligosaccharide              5000 mg

Composition of Basal Diet

The diets of cows were based on green maize, wheat straw and concentrate mixture as their proximate composition have been presented in Table 1 and same feed and fodder was offered to animals of control and treatment groups.

Table 1: Proximate analysis of feeds given to experimental animals

Nutrients (Per cent) Wheat Straw Green Maize Concentrate Mixture
DM 91.5 27.8 89
CP 3.2 6.54 20
CF 29.82 27.52 10
EE 0.3 1.27 4.31
Ash 12.31 11.82 4.92

Parameters Studied

Production Parameters

Milk Composition: Milk fat, protein, lactose, SNF and total solids.

 

Collection of Samples

A total 70 ml of milk from individual animals after each milking was collected weekly in a sterile milk sample collection tube. Milk sample was kept for two hours after milking and then stirred well for minimum 5 minutes by vertical and circular slow movements. The sample so collected was then kept at 4 C till analysis was done.

Preparation of Sample for Analysis

The milk sample was pre warmed at 39-400 C before analysis. Then the milk sample was poured slowly from one vessel to another vessel by slightly tilting the vessel and using the side walls of the vessel to avoid formation of foams for the equal distribution of fat within the sample.

Analysis of the Sample

The samples were analyzed, for milk composition i.e. fat, protein, lactose, SNF and total solids, by automatic milk analyzer at Urmul Dairy Bikaner.

Accuracy of Milk Analyzer

The accuracy of milk analyzer was checked by comparing the data obtained by analyzing milk samples by the analyzer for some of the measuring parameters with the corresponding reference method of analysis (Gerber for fat, Kjeldhal for protein etc.).

Statistical Analysis

The properly classified and tabulated data collected during the experimental period were subjected to statistical analysis by adopting appropriate methods of analysis of variance as described by Snedecor and Cochran (1994). Wherever, the variance ratio (F-values), were found significant at 5 per cent and 1per cent level of probability. The significance of mean difference was tested by Duncans New Multiple range test (Duncans range test) as modified by Kramer (1957). Statistical analysis was carried out by using SPSS software, version 23.0.

Results and Discussion

Milk Fat Percentage

The overall means of milk fat percentage recorded were 3.99 ± 0.019, 4.619 ± 0.038 and 4.54 ± 0.019 in control, probiotic and synbiotic supplemented groups, respectively (Table 2). The significant (P<0.01) increase (Table 3) in milk fat percentage was seen in treatment groups. The probiotic supplemented group had the highest milk fat percentage followed by synbiotic supplemented and control groups. The milk fat percentage between the supplemented groups was not significantly differing. The increased production of milk fat might be due to the changes in rumen fermentation as a result of feeding probiotics which may lead to increased supply of glucogenic, aminogenic and lipogenic substrates as reported by Erasmus et al. (2005).

Table 2: Mean ± SE of weekly milk fat (%) in control and supplemented cows

  Treatments
Weeks Control Probiotic Synbiotic
1 4.05 ± 0.108 4.33 ± 0.042 4.29  ± 0.051
2 4.10 ±  0.057 4.38  ± 0.048 4.285 ± 0.071
3 3.92 ± 0.030 4.46  ± 0.034 4.44  ± 0.024
4 4 ± 0.057 4.63 ±  0.066 4.42  ± 0.067
5 4.18 ± 0.060 4.69 ± 0.050 4.52  ± 0.030
6 4.02 ± 0.094 4.77 ± 0.072 4.55  ± 0.020
7 4.03 ± 0.071 4.83 ± 0.047 4.62  ± 0.013
8 3.88 ± 0.070 4.79  ± 0.043 4.66  ± 0.010
9 3.95 ± 0.056 4.73  ± 0.038 4.69  ± 0.013
10 3.96 ± 0.042 4.66  ± 0.032 4.72 ± 0.022
11 3.92 ± 0.060 4.59  ± 0.030 4.73 ± 0.019
12 3.88 ± 0.030 4.55  ± 0.032 4.66 ± 0.020
Overall 3.99± 0.019 4.619b ± 0.038 4.54b ± 0.019

Table 3: Analysis of variance of milk fat percentage in control and supplemented cows

Sources df MSS F value
Treatment 2 0.710721 154.20**
Error 15 0.004609  
Total 17    

**(P<0.01)

Our results are consistent with the findings of Azzaz et al. (2015), as they reported an increase in milk fat yield when buffaloes were supplemented with yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) alone or in combination with Propionibacterium freudenreichii strain P169. Further, the studies of El-Din (2015), Yuan et al. (2015) and Dehghan-Banadaky et al. (2012)  also showed similar trends of increase in milk fat percentage with supplementation of probiotics, which concurs with our findings.

Contrary to our findings, the works of Xu et al. (2017) and Nocek et al. (2011) revealed that probiotic supplementation did not have any effect on milk fat percentage. Further, Rossow et al. (2017) and Lehloenya et al. (2007) revealed that probiotic supplementation tended to decrease milk fat percentage, which is not compliant with our findings.

Milk Protein Percentage

The overall means for milk protein percentage recorded during the trial period were 3.35 ± 0.036, 3.31 ± 0.033 and 3.33 ± 0.009 for control, probiotic supplemented and synbiotic supplemented groups, respectively (Table 4).

Table 4: Mean ± SE of weekly milk Protein (%) in control and supplemented cows                        

  Treatments
Weeks Control Probiotic Synbiotic
1 3.30 ± 0.0704 3.37 ± 0.048 3.28 ± 0.010
2 3.36 ± 0.051 3.36 ± 0.047 3.30 ± 0.013
3 3.36 ± 0.042 3.33 ± 0.046 3.33 ± 0.009
4 3.36 ± 0.027 3.36 ± 0.042 3.36 ± 0.009
5 3.39 ± 0.035 3.39 ± 0.036 3.41 ± 0.015
6 3.36 ± 0.051 3.36 ± 0.034 3.44 ± 0.013
7 3.39 ± 0.044 3.32 ± 0.033 3.43 ± 0.008
8 3.42 ± 0.037 3.27 ± 0.032 3.38 ± 0.012
9 3.38 ± 0.026 3.25 ± 0.029 3.33 ± 0.013
10 3.34 ± 0.024 3.23 ± 0.026 3.27 ± 0.012
11 3.30 ± 0.018 3.22 ± 0.018 3.23 ± 0.011
12 3.27 ± 0.019 3.22 ± 0.009 3.19 ± 0.008
Overall 3.35 ± 0.036 3.31 ± 0.033 3.33 ± 0.009

It was found that there was non-significant effect (Table 5) of treatment on milk protein percentage as the control and supplemented groups recorded almost similar milk protein percentage during the experiment, with little or no changes over the trial period.

Table 5: Analysis of variance of milk protein percentage in control and supplemented cows

Source DF MSS F
Treatment 2 0.003078 0.612NS
Error 15 0.005023  
Total 17    

NS- Non-significant

Our findings are in agreement with Xu et al. (2017), Hagg et al. (2012), Peng et al. (2011) and Hippen et al. (2010) who also found no difference in milk protein percentage following supplementation of probiotics. The work of Rossow et al. (2014) revealed decrease in milk protein percentage following probiotic supplementation in cows, contrary to our results. Studies of Rossow et al. (2017), Azzaz et al. (2015), Bernard (2015), Yuan et al. (2015) and Zaworski et al. (2014) reported an increase in the milk protein percentage following supplementation of probiotics, which is inconsistent with our results.

Milk Lactose Percentage

The overall means for milk lactose percentage of control, probiotic and synbiotic supplemented cows were 4.75 ± 0.013, 4.92 ± 0.018 and 4.78 ± 0.009, respectively during the experimental period (Table 6). The statistical analysis of milk lactose percentage shown the highly significant (P<0.01) difference (Table 7) between control and probiotic supplemented groups. However, the milk lactose percentage did not differ significantly between control and synbiotic supplemented group and between probiotic and synbiotic supplemented groups.

Table 6: Mean ± SE of weekly milk lactose (%) in control and supplemented cows

  Treatments
Weeks Control Probiotic Synbiotic
1 4.85 ± 0.057 4.80 ± 0.011 4.79 ± 0.010
2 4.85 ± 0.023 4.86 ± 0.006 4.81 ± 0.014
3 4.85 ± 0.025 4.88 ± 0.004 4.83 ±0.011
4 4.82 ± 0.011 4.91 ± 0.011 4.82 ± 0.016
5 4.82 ± 0.011 4.93 ± 0.006 4.82 ± 0.010
6 4.81 ± 0.018 4.96 ± 0.006 4.82 ± 0.012
7 4.79 ± 0.018 5.09 ± 0.055 4.83 ± 0.015
8 4.75 ± 0.017 5.33 ± 0.084 4.80 ± 0.014
9 4.71 ± 0.016 4.90 ± 0.074 4.75 ± 0.015
10 4.66 ± 0.016 4.83 ± 0.066 4.72 ± 0.013
11 4.60 ± 0.016 4.79 ± 0.063 4.69 ± 0.011
12 4.55 ± 0.016 4.75 ± 0.060 4.66 ± 0.012
Overall 4.75a ± 0.013 4.92b  ± 0.018 4.78a ± 0.009

Means bearing different superscripts differ significantly

Table 7:  Analysis of variance of milk lactose percentage in control and supplemented cows

Source DF MSS F Value
Treatment 2 0.047436 39.074**
Error 15 0.001214  
Total 17    

**- Highly significant (P<0.01)

Rigout et al. (2002) reported that increased glucose appearance rates favour increased glucose uptake by the mammary gland and therefore, increased lactose production. This enhanced level of milk lactose may be due to increased propionate production in rumen following supplementation of yeast culture as reported by Miller-Webster et al. (2002) which in turn increases glucose-6-P levels in milk (Rigout et al., 2003). Similar to our findings, higher milk lactose percentage on supplementing probiotics were also reported in the works of Azaz et al. (2015), Zhang et al. (2013) and Peng et al. (2011) with the addition of probiotic in diets of animals whereas Maamouri et al. (2014), Dehghan-Banadaky et al. (2012) and Hagg et al. (2012) revealed a non-significant effect of probiotic supplementation on milk lactose percentage.

Milk Total Solids Percentage

Overall means of 14.66 ± 0.025, 14.68 ± 0.030 and 14.67 ± 0.027 for milk total solids percentage were recorded in control, probiotic and synbiotic supplemented groups, respectively (Table 8).

 

Table 8: Mean ± SE of weekly total solids in control and supplemented cow

  Treatments
Weeks Control Probiotic Synbiotic
1 12.55 ± 0.043 12.99 ± 0.077 12.74 ± 0.043
2 12.61 ± 0.035 13.05 ± 0.043 12.75 ± 0.038
3 12.55 ± 0.036 13.14 ± 0.035 12.98 ± 0.031
4 12.57± 0.032 13.35 ± 0.026 13.01 ± 0.021
5 12.70 ± 0.029 13.4 ± 0.027 13.15 ± 0.028
6 12.58 ± 0.026 13.52 ± 0.023 13.22 ± 0.030
7 12.56 ± 0.022 13.61 ± 0.031 13.34 ± 0.028
8 12.38± 0.019 13.62 ± 0.031 13.44 ± 0.027
9 12.43 ± 0.020 13.54 ± 0.024 13.52 ± 0.026
10 12.43 ± 0.020 13.45 ± 0.022 13.61 ± 0.023
11 12.39± 0.017 13.33 ± 0.019 13.69 ± 0.023
12 12.35 ± 0.017 13.21 ± 0.017 13.59 ± 0.014
Overall 12.51a ± 0.025 13.35b ± 0.030 13.25b ± 0.028

Statistical analysis of milk total solids percentage data revealed (Table 9) highly significant (P<0.01) difference in milk total solids percentage between control and supplemented groups.

Table 9: Analysis of variance of total solids in control and supplemented cows

Source DF MSS F Value
Treatment 2 0.054441 3.72**
Error 15 0.014621  
Total 17    

**P<0.01

Over the experimental period, the control and supplemented groups recorded almost equal total solids percentage, with little or no change due to treatments. El-Din (2015), Morsy et al. (2014) and Dehghan-Banadaky et al. (2012) also reported the non-significant effect of probiotic supplementation on milk total solid percentage. However, the study conducted by Alshaikh et al. (2002) revealed a significant increase in milk total solids percentage with yeast cultures supplementation. Zaworski et al. (2014) also found increased total solids percentage on Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation, inconsistent to our result finding.

Milk SNF Percentage

Overall means of milk SNF percentage were 8.51 ± 0.147, 8.73 ± 0.102 and 8.70 ± 0.017 in control, probiotic and synbiotic supplemented groups, respectively (Table 10). The probiotic supplemented group recorded the highest SNF percentage, closely followed by synbiotic supplemented group. Statistical analysis revealed that milk SNF percentage did not differ significantly (Table 11) between control and supplemented groups and also between supplemented groups.

Table 10: Mean ± SE of weekly SNF (%) in control and supplemented cows

  Treatments
Weeks Control Probiotic Synbiotic
1 8.50 ± 0.181 8.66 ± 0.093 8.45 ± 0.024
2 8.51 ± 0.183 8.67 ± 0.101 8.47 ± 0.025
3 8.60 ± 0.087 8.68 ± 0.087 8.54 ± 0.022
4 8.57 ± 0.168 8.72 ± 0.109 8.59 ± 0.023
5 8.52 ± 0.131 8.71 ± 0.097 8.63 ± 0.021
6 8.56 ±0.154 8.75 ± 0.111 8.67 ±0.017
7 8.53 ± 0.135 8.78 ± 0.113 8.72 ± 0.015
8 8.5  ± 0.132 8.83 ± 0.117 8.78 ± 0.014
9 8.48 ± 0.128 8.81 ±0.118 8.83 ± 0.014
10 8.47 ± 0.123 8.79 ± 0.110 8.89 ± 0.018
11 8.47 ± 0.121 8.74 ± 0.106 8.96 ± 0.029
12 8.47 ± 0.132 8.66 ± 0.078 8.93 ± 0.007
Overall 8.51 ± 0.147 8.73 ± 0.102 8.70 ± 0.017

Table 11: Analysis of variance of SNF in control and supplemented cows

Source DF MS F Value
Treatment 2 0.085078 1.296 NS
Error 15 0.065622  
Total 17    

NS- Non-significant

El-Din (2015), Maamouri et al. (2014), Morsy et al. (2014) and Diler et al. (2014) also reported findings similar to our results and no effect of probiotic supplementation was evident on milk SNF following probiotics supplementation in animals. Inconsistent with our results, Alshaikh et al. (2002) reported a significant increase in the SNF percentage following supplementation of yeast culture to the diets of lactating Holstein cows. Bruno et al. (2009) also reported an increase in milk solids not fat percentage post probiotic supplementation, which is contradictory to our findings.

Conclusion

The present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of probiotics and synbiotic supplementation in Sahiwal lactating cows on their milk quality parameters and it was found that the supplementation of these feed additive had the positive effect on milk fat and lactose while other component were invariable. Therefore it is concluded on the basis of present study that supplementation of probiotics and synbiotic as a feed additive will be beneficial to enhance the milk quality in term of their energy content.

References

  1. Alshaikh M.A., Alsiadi M.Y., Zahran S. M., Mogawer H.H. and Aalshowime T.A. 2002. Effect of feeding yeast culture from different sources on the performance of lactating holstein cows in Saudi Arabia. J. Anim. Sci., 15(3): 352-356.
  2. Animal genetic Resources of India – Information System (AGRI-IS). National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources (NBAGR), Karnal.
  3. Azzaz H.H., Ebeid H.M., Morsy T.A. and Kholif S.M. 2015. Impact of Feeding Yeast Culture or Yeast Culture and Propionibacteria 169 on the Productive Performance of Lactating Buffaloes. Int. J. Dairy Sci., 10(3): 107-116
  4. Bernard J.K. 2015. Milk yield and composition of lactating dairy cows fed diets supplemented with a probiotic extract. PAS. 31(4):354 – 358.
  5. Bruno R.G.S., Rutigliano H.M., Cerri R.L., Robinson P.H. and Santos J.E.P. 2009. Effect of feeding Saccharomyces cerevisiae on performance of dairy cows during summer heat stress. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 150:175–186.
  6. Dehghan-Banadaky M., Ebrahimi M., Motameny R. and Heidari S.R. 2012. Effects of live yeast supplementation on mid-lactation dairy cow’s performances, milk composition, rumen digestion and plasma metabolites during hot season. J. Appl. Anim. Res., 41:137–142.
  7. Diler A., Kocyigit R., Yanar M. and Aydin R. 2014. Effect of feeding direct fed microbials plus exogenous feed enzymes on milk and composition of Holstein Friesian cows. Vet Med Zoot. 65 (87).
  8. El-Din N.A. 2015. Milk production and some blood metabolite responses to yeast supplementation in early lactating Holstein dairy cows. Egyptian J. Anim. Prod., 52:11-17.
  9. Erasmus L.J., Robinson P.H., Ahmadi A., Hinders R. And Garrett J.E. 2005. Influence of prepartum and postpartum supplementation of a yeast culture and monensin, or both, on ruminal fermentation and performance of multiparous dairy cows. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 122:219–239.
  10. FAO Animal Production and Health, 2016 Probiotics in Animal Nutrition: Production, impact and regulation. 179:5.
  11. Gibson G.R. and Roberfroid M.B. 1995. Dietary Modulation of the Human Colonie Microbiota: Introducing the Concept of Prebiotics. J. Nutr., 125:1401-1412.
  12. Hagg F.M., Erasmus L., Henning P.H. and Coertze R. 2010. The effect of a direct fed microbial (Megasphaera elsdenii) on the productivity and health of Holstein cows. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci., 40(2): 101-112.
  13. Hamasalim H. 2016. Synbiotic as Feed Additives Relating to Animal Health and Adv Microbiol., 6:288-302.
  14. Hippen A.R., Schingoethe D.J., Kalscheur K.F., Linke P.L., Rennich D.R., Abdelqader M.M. and Yoon I. 2010. Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product in dairy cow diets containing dried distillers grains plus soluble. J. Dairy Sci., 93(6):2661–2669.
  15. Lehloenya K.V., Stein D.R., Allen D.T., Selk G.E., Jones D.A., Aleman M.M., Rehberger T.G., Mertz K.J. and Spicer L.J. 2007. Effects of feeding yeast and propionibacteria to dairy cows on milk yield and components, and reproduction. J. Anim. Physiol. a Anim. Nutr., 92:190–202.
  16. Miller-Webster, T., Hoover, W.H., Holt, M., Nocek, J.E., 2002. Influence of yeast culture on ruminal microbial metabolism in continuous culture. J. Dairy Sci., 85:2009–2014.
  17. Morsy T.M., Ebeid H.M., Kholif A.E.K.M., Murad H.A, El-Gawad A.E.R.M.A. and Bedawy T.M. 2014. Influence of Propionibacteria Supplementation to Rations on Intake, Milk Yield, Composition and Plasma Metabolites of Lactating Buffalos during Early Lactation. Sci. Int., 2:13-19.
  18. NRC-National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, seventh revised ed., National Academic Press, Washington, DC, USA.
  19. Peng H., Wang J.Q., Kang H.Y., Dong S.H., Sun P., Bu D. P. and Zhou L. Y. 2011. Effect of feeding Bacillus subtilis natto fermentation product on milk production and composition, blood metabolites and rumen fermentation in early lactation dairy cows. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr., 96:506–12.
  20. Radzikowski D. 2017. Effect of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics on the productivity and health of dairy cows and calves. WSN., 78:193–198
  21. Rigout S., Lemosquet S., Van Eys J.E., Blum J.W. and Rulquin H. 2002: Duodenal glucose fluxes and lactose synthesis in grass silage-fed dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 85:595–606.
  22. Rigout S., Hurtaud C., Lemosquet S., Bach A. and Rulquin H. 2003. Lactational effect of propionic acid and duodenal glucose in cows. J. Dairy Sci., 86:243–253.
  23. Rossow H.A., Riordan T. and Riordan A. 2017. Effects of addition of a live yeast product on dairy cattle performance. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 0 :1-5.
  24. Rossow H.A., DeGroff D. and Parsons M. 2014. Performance of dairy cows administered probiotic in water troughs. PAS. 30(5): 527 – 533.
  25. Semeniuk W., Klebaniuk R., Grela E. R 2008. Feed additives in animal nutrition. Alfaalfa in human and animal nutrition. E. R. Grela, Dzierdziówka–Lublin 2008; 139-165.
  26. Xu H., Huang W., Hou Q., Kwok L., Sun Z., Maa H., Zhao F., Lee Y. and Zhang H. 2017. The effects of probiotics administration on the milk production, milk components and fecal bacteria microbiota of dairy cows. Sci. Bull., 62(11): 767-774.
  27. Zhang R.Y., Yoon I., Zhu W.Y., and Mao S.Y. 2013. Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product on lactation performance and lipopolysaccharide concentration of dairy cows. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci., 26:1137-1143.
Abstract Read : 172 Downloads : 53
Previous Next
Close