Digestibilidade e parâmetros ruminais de dietas à base de forragem com adição de própolis e monensina sódica para bovinos

Prado, Odimári Pricila Pires do; Zeoula, Lúcia Maria; Moura, Lucimar Pontara Peres de; Franco, Selma Lucy; Prado, Ivanor Nunes do; Gomes, Hanna Carla Cardoso

doi:10.1590/s1516-35982010000600024

Cited by 21 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite these results, Prado et al (2010) recorded a reduction in DM, OM, NDF and ADF digestibility in cattle diets with a 72.5:27.5 roughage:concentrate ratio, with FDME -fecal dry mater excretion; DMD -dry matter digestibility; OMD -organic matter digestibility; CPD -crude protein digestibility; NDFD -neutral detergent fiber digestibility; ADFD -acid detergent fiber digestibility; EED -ether extract digestibility; ME -metabolizable energy. TFC -total feces collection; iNDF -indigestible neutral detergent fiber; iADF -indigestible acid detergent fiber; iADFSeq -sequentially determined indigestible acid detergent fiber; SEM -standard error of the mean.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Other studies on ruminants have found no effect of propolis on nutrient intake in cattle fed dietary freeze-dried propolis extract (Prado et al, 2010), dairy cattle receiving a daily dose of 64 mL of propolis extract (Freitas et al, 2009), or dairy goats receiving 50 v/v propolis extract (in 70 v/v alcohol solution) at up to 12.0 mL/animal/day or ground crude propolis . The lower voluntary DM intake of animals receiving monensin corroborates other studies on feedlot lambs (Heydari et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Oliveira et al (2007) did not observe any effect of monensin sodium inclusion at 28 mg/kg DM in lamb diets with a 65:35 roughage:concentrate ratio. Prado et al (2010) observed a reduction in EE digestibility in cattle supplemented daily with 2.0 g of freeze-dried propolis extract/animal and attributed this response to the inhibition of rumen-lipolytic microorganisms. Discrepancies between the results of the present study and those obtained by Prado et al (2010) may be related to methodological differences and the amounts of propolis used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of dietary brown propolis on nutrient intake and digestibility in feedlot lambs

Silva

Ítavo

et al. 2014

R. Bras. Zootec.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The present study tested brown propolis in crude or extract form as a feed supplement for feedlot lambs to identify the type that most improves in vivo nutrient digestibility. Digestibility was assessed by both total fecal collection and internal markers and the results obtained by these techniques were compared. The completely randomized design was used to compare feed intake and nutrient digestibility of 24 male lambs aged seven months among four dietary treatments (crude brown propolis, propolis ethanol extract, monensin sodium, and control). Methods of feces collection were compared using a completely randomized split-plot design, with experimental diets corresponding to the main factor and the methods to estimate fecal production as the sub-factor. The diets had a roughage:concentrate ratio of 50:50, with Tifton-85 bermudagrass hay (Cynodon spp.) as roughage, and ground corn, soybean meal and minerals as concentrate. The lambs fed diets with crude propolis had higher feed intake than those fed diets containing monensin sodium. The different diets did not affect dry matter, organic matter, crude protein, neutral detergent fiber, or acid detergent fiber digestibility, but crude propolis supplementation provided higher ether extract digestibility than monensin sodium. Nutrient digestibility, as indicated by indigestible neutral detergent fiber, indigestible acid detergent fiber and sequentially-determined indigestible acid detergent fiber, was lower than that found with the fecal collection method. The addition of brown propolis has the same effect as monensin, but neither maximized nutrient availability in the diet of feedlot lambs at 7 months of age. Digestibility assessment using the internal markers indigestible neutral detergent fiber, indigestible acid detergent fiber and sequentially-determined indigestible acid detergent fiber is not an efficient method compared with total feces collection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of dietary brown propolis on nutrient intake and digestibility in feedlot lambs

Silva

Ítavo

et al. 2014

R. Bras. Zootec.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Segundo pesquisas realizadas por Mazzuco et al (1996); Corneli (2004); Murarolli (2008); Parazzi (2010) Os estudos sobre a utilização de aditivos promotores de crescimento em ruminantes (bovinos e cordeiros), e estudos de fermentação in vitro para estes animais testaram o efeito dos antibióticos virginiamicina, eramicina, flavomicina (NUÑEZ, 2008;BORGES, 2006;MONGESTALE, 2005), dos ionóforos monensina sódica, lasolacida e salinomicina (BORGES, 2006, GOMES, 2009NUÑEZ, 2008), dos probióticos leveduras (GOMES, 2009) e dos promotores de crescimentos naturais à base de própolis (PRADO et al 2010a;PRADO et al, 2010b).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Growth promoters additives (antibiotics, ionophores, probiotics, prebiotics and propolis) used in animal feed

Geron¹,

Silva²,

Trautmann-Machado³

et al. 2015

Pubvet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoA procura por novas tecnologias que possibilitam aumentar a produção de alimentos de origem animal vem crescendo a cada dia, assim varias pesquisas com utilização de aditivos visam aprimorar esse sistema produtivo. A nutrição busca estratégias para melhorar o aproveitamento dos nutrientes dietéticos, a fim de alcançar condições ideais para que os animais consigam expressar o seu GERON, L.J.V. et al. Aditivos promotores de crescimento (antibióticos, ionóforos, probióticos, prebióticos e própolis) utilizados na alimentação animal. PUBVET, Londrina, V. 7, N. 14, Ed. 237, Art. 1563, Julho, 2013 máximo potencial genético de produção. A utilização de aditivos alimentares (promotores de crescimento) é um exemplo de grande importância da nutrição animal que contribui para o desenvolvimento da produção. Porém o mercado consumidor almeja produtos sem a presença de resíduos químicos e sem acréscimos ao custo de produção. Desta maneira, as pesquisas estão direcionadas aos promotores de crescimentos alternativos como probióticos, prebióticos e própolis na tentativa de assegurar condições para que os animais expressem os melhores resultados de desempenho, sem deixarem resíduos tóxicos nos produtos de origem animal.Palavras-chave: aditivos, desempenho, monogástrico, ruminante. Growth promoters additives (antibiotics, ionophores, probiotics, prebiotics and propolis) used in animal feed AbstractThe search for new technologies that allow increased production of animal foods is growing every day, so study with use of various additives seeks to improve the production system. Nutrition search a strategies to improve the utilization of dietary nutrients, which aims to achieve optimal conditions for the animals able to express their maximum genetic potential for production. The use of food additives (growth promoter) is an example of great importance, of nutrition animal that contributes to the development of production. But the market consumer, aims products without the presence of chemical residues and without the cost of production increases. Thus, searches are directed to alternative growth promoters such as probiotics, prebiotics and propolis, in an attempt to ensure conditions for the animals express the best performance results without leaving toxic residues in animal products.

show abstract

“…O uso da própolis, em bovinos, carece ainda de maiores informações; entretanto Prado et al (2010), utilizando o produto comercial LLOS* à base de Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences Maringá, v. 33, n. 1, p. [79][80][81][82][83][84][85]2011 própolis em substituição à monensina sódica, obtiveram valores maiores de DIVMS de rações com 100% de feno de Tifton para LLOSC3* (45,49%) e LLOSB2* (49,09%), enquanto para o controle a DIVMS foi de 39,30% e a monensina sódica de 39,09%, apresentando evidências da possibilidade da substituição de ionóforos para ruminantes.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Produto à base de própolis (LLOS) na dieta de bovinos inteiros confinados: comportamento animal e respostas sanguíneas

Faria¹,

Barbosa²,

Zeoula³

et al. 2011

Acta Sci. Anim. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMO. Avaliou-se o comportamento, as respostas sanguíneas de animais confinados recebendo dieta com produto à base de própolis (LLOS). Os tratamentos foram: controle (CON) e dois produtos à base de própolis (LLOSC1) e (LLOSC1+). Mediram-se os comportamentos: comendo (COM), bebendo água (BEB), andando (AND), ruminando em pé (RUEMP), ruminando deitado (RUDET), em pé (EMP) e deitado (DET). Maior tempo em COM, BEB, AND, RUEMP e EMP ocorreu de manhã (MA) e à tarde (TA), e em RUDET e DET à noite (NO) e madrugada (MD). Animais no Lado 1 do confinamento permaneceram mais tempo andando na MA e à NO, sem diferenças para MD, e mais tempo EMP para os do Lado 1 na MA, T e MD, e igual à NO. Cortisol, Glicose e Ureia não foram influenciados pelos tratamentos. Não houve efeito dos tratamentos para hemoglobina, hematócrito, VCM, HCM e CHCM, IgG, e o teor de eritrócito foi maior para LLOSC1 e LLOSC1+. Animais recebendo LLOSC1+ apresentaram maiores valores de Leucócitos, Segmentados, Linfócitos e Monócitos, que os CON. Inclusão de dieta à base de própolis não influenciou os parâmetros bioquímicos, eritrocitário e imunológico, mas aumentou as células leucocitárias. A orientação do confinamento mostrou ser importante no comportamento dos animais.Palavras-chave: comportamento animal, confinamento, própolis, sangue. ABSTRACT. Propolis-based product (LLOS) in the diet of feedlot bulls: animal behavior and blood responses.The behavior and blood responses of feedlot animals fed diets containing a propolis-based product (LLOS) were evaluated. The treatments were control (CON) and two propolis-based products (LLOSC1 and LLOSC1+). The measured behaviors were: eating (EAT), drinking water (DRI), walking (WAL), ruminating on standing (RUST), lying rumination (LYR), standing (STA) and lying (LYI). More time was spent in the morning (MO) and afternoon (AFT) for EAT, DRI, WAL, RUST and STA and in the evening (EV) and overnight (ON) for RUST and LYI. Animals on Side 1 of the feedlot spent more time walking in MO and EV, with no differences for ON, and more time STA for animals in Side 1 in MO, AFT and ON, and equal in EV. Cortisol, glucose and urea were not affected by treatments. No effects of treatments were observed for hemoglobin, hematocrit, MCV, MCH, MCHC and IgG, and the content of erythrocyte was higher in LLOSC1 and LLOSC1+ than in the CON. Animals receiving LLOSC1+ showed higher values of leukocytes, segments, lymphocytes, and monocytes than CON. The propolis-based diet did not affect biochemical, erythrocyte and immune parameters, but increased leukocytes. The position of the feedlot was important in the behavior of animals.

show abstract

Digestibilidade e parâmetros ruminais de dietas à base de forragem com adição de própolis e monensina sódica para bovinos

Cited by 21 publications

References 32 publications

Effects of dietary brown propolis on nutrient intake and digestibility in feedlot lambs

Effects of dietary brown propolis on nutrient intake and digestibility in feedlot lambs

Growth promoters additives (antibiotics, ionophores, probiotics, prebiotics and propolis) used in animal feed

Produto à base de própolis (LLOS) na dieta de bovinos inteiros confinados: comportamento animal e respostas sanguíneas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About