EFFECT OF SOLID STATE FERMENTATION (SSF) BIOMASS ON NUTRIENT DIGESTIBILITY, RUMEN PARAMETERS AND MICROBIAL PROTEIN SYNTHESIS IN CROSSBRED HEIFERS

F.N. CHAUDHARI¹*, M.A. SHEKH², H.M. CHAUDHARI³, P.R. PANDYA⁴, S.M. DUGGIRALA^5
1Department of Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, 388110, Gujarat, India
²Department of Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, 388110, Gujarat, India
³Department of Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, 388110, Gujarat, India
⁴Department of Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, 388110, Gujarat, India
⁵Biogas Research Centre, Department of Microbiology, M.D. Gramsewa Mahavidyalaya, Gujarat Vidyapith, Sadra, Gandhinagar, 382320, Gujarat, India
* Corresponding Author : fenilchaudhari7@gmail.com

Received : 03-04-2023     Accepted : 28-04-2023     Published : 30-04-2023
Volume : 15     Issue : 4       Pages : 12310 - 12312
Int J Agr Sci 15.4 (2023):12310-12312

Keywords : SSF biomass, Digestibility, Microbial protein, Rumen parameters, Heifers
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, 388110, Gujarat, India and Biogas Research Centre, Department of Microbiology, M.D. Gramsewa Mahavidyalaya, Gujarat Vidyapith, Sadra, Gandhinagar, 382320, Gujarat, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The present study was carried out on fifteen crossbred heifers to evaluate the effect of solid state fermentation (SSF) bio-mass supplementation on nutrient digestibility, rumen parameters and microbial protein synthesis in crossbred heifers. For that, fifteen crossbred heifers were randomly divided into three group of five each based on body weight and were individually fed for the 98 days. The heifers were fed total mixed ration (TMR) without SSF (T?), TMR with 3% SSF biomass (T?) and TMR having 10% reduction in protein and energy with 3% SSF biomass (T?). The results revealed that the digestibility coefficient of DM, EE, NFE, NDF and ADF were not differ by the treatment group. However, the crude protein digestibility (%) of T? group was significantly (P<0.05) higher. The crude fibre digestibility (%) in treatment group were significantly different from each other. The rumen parameters were not affected among the groups. The microbial protein synthesis in-creased non-significantly in T? group. Hence, inclusion of SSF biomass in TMR based diet helped in improving crude pro-tein and fibre digestibility and numerically increased the microbial protein synthesis in heifers.

1. AOAC (1995) Official Methods of Analysis (15th Ed.). Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
2. Awawdeh M.S., & Obeidat B.S. (2011) Livestock Science, 138(1-3), 20-24.
3. Barbadikar M.P. (2015) Master thesis, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India.
4. Chaudhari K.I. (2018) Master thesis, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India.
5. Chen X.B., Grubic G., Orskov E.R. and Osuji P. (1992) Animal Production Science, 55, 185-191.
6. Doelle H.W., Mitchell D.A., & Rolz C.E. (Eds.) (1992) Solid substrate cultivation. Springer.
7. IAEA (1997) Estimation of rumen microbial protein production from purine derivatives in urine. IAEA-TECDOC-945, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
8. ICAR (2013) Nutrient requirements of cattle and buffalo. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India.
9. Oza R., Patel U., Desai V., & Pandya P. (2015) Journal of Animal Research, 5(4), 935-938.
10. Pandey A. (2003) Solid-state fermentation. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 13(2-3), 81-84.
11. Patel K., Sunidhi and Katole S. (2018) International, 06(04), 76-85.
12. Patel U.P. (2012) Master thesis, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India.
13. Pinos-Rodríguez J.M., González S.S., Mendoza G.D., Bárcena R., Cobos M.A., Hernández A., & Ortega M.E. (2002) Journal of Animal Science, 80(11), 3016-3020.
14. Shekhar C., Thakur S.S., & Shelke S.K. (2010) Tropical Animal Health and Production, 42(7), 1465-1470.
15. Sherasia P.L., Pandya P.R., Parnerkar S., Prajapati M.V., & Murty S. (2018) Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 35(2), 138-143.
16. Singh K.K., & Das M.M. (2008) Indian Veterinary Journal, 85(10), 1070-1072.
17. Singh K.K., & Das M.M. (2009) Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 79(6), 620-622.
18. Snedecor G.W., & Cochran W.G. (1994) Statistical methods. Viii edn.
19. Van Soest P.J., Robertson J.B. & Lewis, B. A. (1991) Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3583-3597.
20. Young E.G. and Conway C.F. (1942) Journal of Biological Chemistry, 142, 839-853.