A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn

The purpose of this study is to examine whether spraying an anti-microbial agent into the slurry pit will reduce the noxious odor substances from piggery barns. For this, a total of 200 crossbred ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) growing pigs with an initial average body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 1.47 k...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Shanmugam Sureshkumar [verfasserIn] Jae Hong Park [verfasserIn] In Ho Kim [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	Multi-bacterial spray Slurry odor Gas emission Growing pigs

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Journal of Animal Science and Technology - Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology, 2014, 64(2022), 6, Seite 1035-1045
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:64 ; year:2022 ; number:6 ; pages:1035-1045

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.5187/jast.2022.e69

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ025245082

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ025245082
003	DE-627
005	20230307084101.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.5187/jast.2022.e69 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ025245082
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJf9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a SF1-1100
100	0		\|a Shanmugam Sureshkumar \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	2	\|a A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a The purpose of this study is to examine whether spraying an anti-microbial agent into the slurry pit will reduce the noxious odor substances from piggery barns. For this, a total of 200 crossbred ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) growing pigs with an initial average body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 1.47 kg were selected and housed in two different rooms, i.e. control (CON) and treatment (TRT). Each room has 100 pigs (60 gilts and 40 borrows). For a period of 42 days, all pigs were fed with corn-soybean meal-based basal diet. Later the noxious odor substances were measured by the following methods. First, fecal samples were randomly collected and stored in sealed and unsealed containers, and sprayed with the non-anti-microbial agent (NAMA) (saline water) and multi-bacterial spraying (MBS) agent (200 :1, mixing ratio-fecal sample : probiotic), Second, the slurry pit of CON and TRT rooms were directly sprayed with NAMA and MBS, respectively. The fecal sample that was stored in sealed and un-sealed containers and sprayed with MBS significantly reduced NH3 and CO2 concentration at the end of day 7. However, at the end of day 42, the fecal sample showed a lower H2S, methyl mercaptans, acetic acid, and CO2 concentration compared to the unsealed container. Moreover, at the end of days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 compared to the CON room and TRT room slurry pit emits lower concentrations of NH3, acetic acid, H2S, and methyl mercaptans, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the current findings, we infer that spraying anti-microbial agents on pig dung would be one of the better approaches to suppress the odor emission from the barn in the future.
650		4	\|a Multi-bacterial spray
650		4	\|a Slurry odor
650		4	\|a Gas emission
650		4	\|a Growing pigs
653		0	\|a Animal culture
700	0		\|a Jae Hong Park \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a In Ho Kim \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Journal of Animal Science and Technology \|d Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology, 2014 \|g 64(2022), 6, Seite 1035-1045 \|w (DE-627)788845659 \|w (DE-600)2775231-8 \|x 20550391 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:64 \|g year:2022 \|g number:6 \|g pages:1035-1045
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e69 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/f9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.ejast.org/archive/view_article?doi=10.5187/jast.2022.e69 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2672-0191 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2055-0391 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 64 \|j 2022 \|e 6 \|h 1035-1045

Indexfelder

author_variant	s s ss j h p jhp i h k ihk
matchkey_str	article:20550391:2022----::peiiayvlainniepoitcaaatmcoilpai
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
callnumber-subject-code	SF
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.5187/jast.2022.e69 doi (DE-627)DOAJ025245082 (DE-599)DOAJf9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng SF1-1100 Shanmugam Sureshkumar verfasserin aut A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The purpose of this study is to examine whether spraying an anti-microbial agent into the slurry pit will reduce the noxious odor substances from piggery barns. For this, a total of 200 crossbred ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) growing pigs with an initial average body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 1.47 kg were selected and housed in two different rooms, i.e. control (CON) and treatment (TRT). Each room has 100 pigs (60 gilts and 40 borrows). For a period of 42 days, all pigs were fed with corn-soybean meal-based basal diet. Later the noxious odor substances were measured by the following methods. First, fecal samples were randomly collected and stored in sealed and unsealed containers, and sprayed with the non-anti-microbial agent (NAMA) (saline water) and multi-bacterial spraying (MBS) agent (200 :1, mixing ratio-fecal sample : probiotic), Second, the slurry pit of CON and TRT rooms were directly sprayed with NAMA and MBS, respectively. The fecal sample that was stored in sealed and un-sealed containers and sprayed with MBS significantly reduced NH3 and CO2 concentration at the end of day 7. However, at the end of day 42, the fecal sample showed a lower H2S, methyl mercaptans, acetic acid, and CO2 concentration compared to the unsealed container. Moreover, at the end of days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 compared to the CON room and TRT room slurry pit emits lower concentrations of NH3, acetic acid, H2S, and methyl mercaptans, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the current findings, we infer that spraying anti-microbial agents on pig dung would be one of the better approaches to suppress the odor emission from the barn in the future. Multi-bacterial spray Slurry odor Gas emission Growing pigs Animal culture Jae Hong Park verfasserin aut In Ho Kim verfasserin aut In Journal of Animal Science and Technology Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology, 2014 64(2022), 6, Seite 1035-1045 (DE-627)788845659 (DE-600)2775231-8 20550391 nnns volume:64 year:2022 number:6 pages:1035-1045 https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e69 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0 kostenfrei http://www.ejast.org/archive/view_article?doi=10.5187/jast.2022.e69 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2672-0191 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2055-0391 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 64 2022 6 1035-1045
spelling	10.5187/jast.2022.e69 doi (DE-627)DOAJ025245082 (DE-599)DOAJf9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng SF1-1100 Shanmugam Sureshkumar verfasserin aut A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The purpose of this study is to examine whether spraying an anti-microbial agent into the slurry pit will reduce the noxious odor substances from piggery barns. For this, a total of 200 crossbred ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) growing pigs with an initial average body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 1.47 kg were selected and housed in two different rooms, i.e. control (CON) and treatment (TRT). Each room has 100 pigs (60 gilts and 40 borrows). For a period of 42 days, all pigs were fed with corn-soybean meal-based basal diet. Later the noxious odor substances were measured by the following methods. First, fecal samples were randomly collected and stored in sealed and unsealed containers, and sprayed with the non-anti-microbial agent (NAMA) (saline water) and multi-bacterial spraying (MBS) agent (200 :1, mixing ratio-fecal sample : probiotic), Second, the slurry pit of CON and TRT rooms were directly sprayed with NAMA and MBS, respectively. The fecal sample that was stored in sealed and un-sealed containers and sprayed with MBS significantly reduced NH3 and CO2 concentration at the end of day 7. However, at the end of day 42, the fecal sample showed a lower H2S, methyl mercaptans, acetic acid, and CO2 concentration compared to the unsealed container. Moreover, at the end of days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 compared to the CON room and TRT room slurry pit emits lower concentrations of NH3, acetic acid, H2S, and methyl mercaptans, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the current findings, we infer that spraying anti-microbial agents on pig dung would be one of the better approaches to suppress the odor emission from the barn in the future. Multi-bacterial spray Slurry odor Gas emission Growing pigs Animal culture Jae Hong Park verfasserin aut In Ho Kim verfasserin aut In Journal of Animal Science and Technology Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology, 2014 64(2022), 6, Seite 1035-1045 (DE-627)788845659 (DE-600)2775231-8 20550391 nnns volume:64 year:2022 number:6 pages:1035-1045 https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e69 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0 kostenfrei http://www.ejast.org/archive/view_article?doi=10.5187/jast.2022.e69 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2672-0191 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2055-0391 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 64 2022 6 1035-1045
allfields_unstemmed	10.5187/jast.2022.e69 doi (DE-627)DOAJ025245082 (DE-599)DOAJf9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng SF1-1100 Shanmugam Sureshkumar verfasserin aut A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The purpose of this study is to examine whether spraying an anti-microbial agent into the slurry pit will reduce the noxious odor substances from piggery barns. For this, a total of 200 crossbred ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) growing pigs with an initial average body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 1.47 kg were selected and housed in two different rooms, i.e. control (CON) and treatment (TRT). Each room has 100 pigs (60 gilts and 40 borrows). For a period of 42 days, all pigs were fed with corn-soybean meal-based basal diet. Later the noxious odor substances were measured by the following methods. First, fecal samples were randomly collected and stored in sealed and unsealed containers, and sprayed with the non-anti-microbial agent (NAMA) (saline water) and multi-bacterial spraying (MBS) agent (200 :1, mixing ratio-fecal sample : probiotic), Second, the slurry pit of CON and TRT rooms were directly sprayed with NAMA and MBS, respectively. The fecal sample that was stored in sealed and un-sealed containers and sprayed with MBS significantly reduced NH3 and CO2 concentration at the end of day 7. However, at the end of day 42, the fecal sample showed a lower H2S, methyl mercaptans, acetic acid, and CO2 concentration compared to the unsealed container. Moreover, at the end of days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 compared to the CON room and TRT room slurry pit emits lower concentrations of NH3, acetic acid, H2S, and methyl mercaptans, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the current findings, we infer that spraying anti-microbial agents on pig dung would be one of the better approaches to suppress the odor emission from the barn in the future. Multi-bacterial spray Slurry odor Gas emission Growing pigs Animal culture Jae Hong Park verfasserin aut In Ho Kim verfasserin aut In Journal of Animal Science and Technology Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology, 2014 64(2022), 6, Seite 1035-1045 (DE-627)788845659 (DE-600)2775231-8 20550391 nnns volume:64 year:2022 number:6 pages:1035-1045 https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e69 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0 kostenfrei http://www.ejast.org/archive/view_article?doi=10.5187/jast.2022.e69 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2672-0191 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2055-0391 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 64 2022 6 1035-1045
allfieldsGer	10.5187/jast.2022.e69 doi (DE-627)DOAJ025245082 (DE-599)DOAJf9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng SF1-1100 Shanmugam Sureshkumar verfasserin aut A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The purpose of this study is to examine whether spraying an anti-microbial agent into the slurry pit will reduce the noxious odor substances from piggery barns. For this, a total of 200 crossbred ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) growing pigs with an initial average body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 1.47 kg were selected and housed in two different rooms, i.e. control (CON) and treatment (TRT). Each room has 100 pigs (60 gilts and 40 borrows). For a period of 42 days, all pigs were fed with corn-soybean meal-based basal diet. Later the noxious odor substances were measured by the following methods. First, fecal samples were randomly collected and stored in sealed and unsealed containers, and sprayed with the non-anti-microbial agent (NAMA) (saline water) and multi-bacterial spraying (MBS) agent (200 :1, mixing ratio-fecal sample : probiotic), Second, the slurry pit of CON and TRT rooms were directly sprayed with NAMA and MBS, respectively. The fecal sample that was stored in sealed and un-sealed containers and sprayed with MBS significantly reduced NH3 and CO2 concentration at the end of day 7. However, at the end of day 42, the fecal sample showed a lower H2S, methyl mercaptans, acetic acid, and CO2 concentration compared to the unsealed container. Moreover, at the end of days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 compared to the CON room and TRT room slurry pit emits lower concentrations of NH3, acetic acid, H2S, and methyl mercaptans, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the current findings, we infer that spraying anti-microbial agents on pig dung would be one of the better approaches to suppress the odor emission from the barn in the future. Multi-bacterial spray Slurry odor Gas emission Growing pigs Animal culture Jae Hong Park verfasserin aut In Ho Kim verfasserin aut In Journal of Animal Science and Technology Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology, 2014 64(2022), 6, Seite 1035-1045 (DE-627)788845659 (DE-600)2775231-8 20550391 nnns volume:64 year:2022 number:6 pages:1035-1045 https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e69 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0 kostenfrei http://www.ejast.org/archive/view_article?doi=10.5187/jast.2022.e69 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2672-0191 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2055-0391 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 64 2022 6 1035-1045
allfieldsSound	10.5187/jast.2022.e69 doi (DE-627)DOAJ025245082 (DE-599)DOAJf9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng SF1-1100 Shanmugam Sureshkumar verfasserin aut A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The purpose of this study is to examine whether spraying an anti-microbial agent into the slurry pit will reduce the noxious odor substances from piggery barns. For this, a total of 200 crossbred ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) growing pigs with an initial average body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 1.47 kg were selected and housed in two different rooms, i.e. control (CON) and treatment (TRT). Each room has 100 pigs (60 gilts and 40 borrows). For a period of 42 days, all pigs were fed with corn-soybean meal-based basal diet. Later the noxious odor substances were measured by the following methods. First, fecal samples were randomly collected and stored in sealed and unsealed containers, and sprayed with the non-anti-microbial agent (NAMA) (saline water) and multi-bacterial spraying (MBS) agent (200 :1, mixing ratio-fecal sample : probiotic), Second, the slurry pit of CON and TRT rooms were directly sprayed with NAMA and MBS, respectively. The fecal sample that was stored in sealed and un-sealed containers and sprayed with MBS significantly reduced NH3 and CO2 concentration at the end of day 7. However, at the end of day 42, the fecal sample showed a lower H2S, methyl mercaptans, acetic acid, and CO2 concentration compared to the unsealed container. Moreover, at the end of days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 compared to the CON room and TRT room slurry pit emits lower concentrations of NH3, acetic acid, H2S, and methyl mercaptans, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the current findings, we infer that spraying anti-microbial agents on pig dung would be one of the better approaches to suppress the odor emission from the barn in the future. Multi-bacterial spray Slurry odor Gas emission Growing pigs Animal culture Jae Hong Park verfasserin aut In Ho Kim verfasserin aut In Journal of Animal Science and Technology Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology, 2014 64(2022), 6, Seite 1035-1045 (DE-627)788845659 (DE-600)2775231-8 20550391 nnns volume:64 year:2022 number:6 pages:1035-1045 https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e69 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0 kostenfrei http://www.ejast.org/archive/view_article?doi=10.5187/jast.2022.e69 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2672-0191 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2055-0391 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 64 2022 6 1035-1045
language	English
source	In Journal of Animal Science and Technology 64(2022), 6, Seite 1035-1045 volume:64 year:2022 number:6 pages:1035-1045
sourceStr	In Journal of Animal Science and Technology 64(2022), 6, Seite 1035-1045 volume:64 year:2022 number:6 pages:1035-1045
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Multi-bacterial spray Slurry odor Gas emission Growing pigs Animal culture
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of Animal Science and Technology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Shanmugam Sureshkumar @@aut@@ Jae Hong Park @@aut@@ In Ho Kim @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	788845659
id	DOAJ025245082
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ025245082</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307084101.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.5187/jast.2022.e69</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ025245082</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJf9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">SF1-1100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shanmugam Sureshkumar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The purpose of this study is to examine whether spraying an anti-microbial agent into the slurry pit will reduce the noxious odor substances from piggery barns. For this, a total of 200 crossbred ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) growing pigs with an initial average body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 1.47 kg were selected and housed in two different rooms, i.e. control (CON) and treatment (TRT). Each room has 100 pigs (60 gilts and 40 borrows). For a period of 42 days, all pigs were fed with corn-soybean meal-based basal diet. Later the noxious odor substances were measured by the following methods. First, fecal samples were randomly collected and stored in sealed and unsealed containers, and sprayed with the non-anti-microbial agent (NAMA) (saline water) and multi-bacterial spraying (MBS) agent (200 :1, mixing ratio-fecal sample : probiotic), Second, the slurry pit of CON and TRT rooms were directly sprayed with NAMA and MBS, respectively. The fecal sample that was stored in sealed and un-sealed containers and sprayed with MBS significantly reduced NH3 and CO2 concentration at the end of day 7. However, at the end of day 42, the fecal sample showed a lower H2S, methyl mercaptans, acetic acid, and CO2 concentration compared to the unsealed container. Moreover, at the end of days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 compared to the CON room and TRT room slurry pit emits lower concentrations of NH3, acetic acid, H2S, and methyl mercaptans, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the current findings, we infer that spraying anti-microbial agents on pig dung would be one of the better approaches to suppress the odor emission from the barn in the future.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Multi-bacterial spray</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Slurry odor</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gas emission</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Growing pigs</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Animal culture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jae Hong Park</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In Ho Kim</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Animal Science and Technology</subfield><subfield code="d">Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology, 2014</subfield><subfield code="g">64(2022), 6, Seite 1035-1045</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)788845659</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2775231-8</subfield><subfield code="x">20550391</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:64</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1035-1045</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e69</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/f9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.ejast.org/archive/view_article?doi=10.5187/jast.2022.e69</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2672-0191</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2055-0391</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">64</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="h">1035-1045</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	S - Agriculture
author	Shanmugam Sureshkumar
spellingShingle	Shanmugam Sureshkumar misc SF1-1100 misc Multi-bacterial spray misc Slurry odor misc Gas emission misc Growing pigs misc Animal culture A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn
authorStr	Shanmugam Sureshkumar
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)788845659
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	SF1-1100
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20550391
topic_title	SF1-1100 A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn Multi-bacterial spray Slurry odor Gas emission Growing pigs
topic	misc SF1-1100 misc Multi-bacterial spray misc Slurry odor misc Gas emission misc Growing pigs misc Animal culture
topic_unstemmed	misc SF1-1100 misc Multi-bacterial spray misc Slurry odor misc Gas emission misc Growing pigs misc Animal culture
topic_browse	misc SF1-1100 misc Multi-bacterial spray misc Slurry odor misc Gas emission misc Growing pigs misc Animal culture
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of Animal Science and Technology
hierarchy_parent_id	788845659
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of Animal Science and Technology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)788845659 (DE-600)2775231-8
title	A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ025245082 (DE-599)DOAJf9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0
title_full	A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn
author_sort	Shanmugam Sureshkumar
journal	Journal of Animal Science and Technology
journalStr	Journal of Animal Science and Technology
callnumber-first-code	S
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	1035
author_browse	Shanmugam Sureshkumar Jae Hong Park In Ho Kim
container_volume	64
class	SF1-1100
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Shanmugam Sureshkumar
doi_str_mv	10.5187/jast.2022.e69
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn
callnumber	SF1-1100
title_auth	A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn
abstract	The purpose of this study is to examine whether spraying an anti-microbial agent into the slurry pit will reduce the noxious odor substances from piggery barns. For this, a total of 200 crossbred ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) growing pigs with an initial average body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 1.47 kg were selected and housed in two different rooms, i.e. control (CON) and treatment (TRT). Each room has 100 pigs (60 gilts and 40 borrows). For a period of 42 days, all pigs were fed with corn-soybean meal-based basal diet. Later the noxious odor substances were measured by the following methods. First, fecal samples were randomly collected and stored in sealed and unsealed containers, and sprayed with the non-anti-microbial agent (NAMA) (saline water) and multi-bacterial spraying (MBS) agent (200 :1, mixing ratio-fecal sample : probiotic), Second, the slurry pit of CON and TRT rooms were directly sprayed with NAMA and MBS, respectively. The fecal sample that was stored in sealed and un-sealed containers and sprayed with MBS significantly reduced NH3 and CO2 concentration at the end of day 7. However, at the end of day 42, the fecal sample showed a lower H2S, methyl mercaptans, acetic acid, and CO2 concentration compared to the unsealed container. Moreover, at the end of days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 compared to the CON room and TRT room slurry pit emits lower concentrations of NH3, acetic acid, H2S, and methyl mercaptans, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the current findings, we infer that spraying anti-microbial agents on pig dung would be one of the better approaches to suppress the odor emission from the barn in the future.
abstractGer	The purpose of this study is to examine whether spraying an anti-microbial agent into the slurry pit will reduce the noxious odor substances from piggery barns. For this, a total of 200 crossbred ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) growing pigs with an initial average body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 1.47 kg were selected and housed in two different rooms, i.e. control (CON) and treatment (TRT). Each room has 100 pigs (60 gilts and 40 borrows). For a period of 42 days, all pigs were fed with corn-soybean meal-based basal diet. Later the noxious odor substances were measured by the following methods. First, fecal samples were randomly collected and stored in sealed and unsealed containers, and sprayed with the non-anti-microbial agent (NAMA) (saline water) and multi-bacterial spraying (MBS) agent (200 :1, mixing ratio-fecal sample : probiotic), Second, the slurry pit of CON and TRT rooms were directly sprayed with NAMA and MBS, respectively. The fecal sample that was stored in sealed and un-sealed containers and sprayed with MBS significantly reduced NH3 and CO2 concentration at the end of day 7. However, at the end of day 42, the fecal sample showed a lower H2S, methyl mercaptans, acetic acid, and CO2 concentration compared to the unsealed container. Moreover, at the end of days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 compared to the CON room and TRT room slurry pit emits lower concentrations of NH3, acetic acid, H2S, and methyl mercaptans, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the current findings, we infer that spraying anti-microbial agents on pig dung would be one of the better approaches to suppress the odor emission from the barn in the future.
abstract_unstemmed	The purpose of this study is to examine whether spraying an anti-microbial agent into the slurry pit will reduce the noxious odor substances from piggery barns. For this, a total of 200 crossbred ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) growing pigs with an initial average body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 1.47 kg were selected and housed in two different rooms, i.e. control (CON) and treatment (TRT). Each room has 100 pigs (60 gilts and 40 borrows). For a period of 42 days, all pigs were fed with corn-soybean meal-based basal diet. Later the noxious odor substances were measured by the following methods. First, fecal samples were randomly collected and stored in sealed and unsealed containers, and sprayed with the non-anti-microbial agent (NAMA) (saline water) and multi-bacterial spraying (MBS) agent (200 :1, mixing ratio-fecal sample : probiotic), Second, the slurry pit of CON and TRT rooms were directly sprayed with NAMA and MBS, respectively. The fecal sample that was stored in sealed and un-sealed containers and sprayed with MBS significantly reduced NH3 and CO2 concentration at the end of day 7. However, at the end of day 42, the fecal sample showed a lower H2S, methyl mercaptans, acetic acid, and CO2 concentration compared to the unsealed container. Moreover, at the end of days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 compared to the CON room and TRT room slurry pit emits lower concentrations of NH3, acetic acid, H2S, and methyl mercaptans, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the current findings, we infer that spraying anti-microbial agents on pig dung would be one of the better approaches to suppress the odor emission from the barn in the future.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	6
title_short	A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn
url	https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e69 https://doaj.org/article/f9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0 http://www.ejast.org/archive/view_article?doi=10.5187/jast.2022.e69 https://doaj.org/toc/2672-0191 https://doaj.org/toc/2055-0391
remote_bool	true
author2	Jae Hong Park In Ho Kim
author2Str	Jae Hong Park In Ho Kim
ppnlink	788845659
callnumber-subject	SF - Animal Culture
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.5187/jast.2022.e69
callnumber-a	SF1-1100
up_date	2024-07-03T13:51:24.166Z
_version_	1803566117467193344
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ025245082</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307084101.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.5187/jast.2022.e69</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ025245082</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJf9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">SF1-1100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shanmugam Sureshkumar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The purpose of this study is to examine whether spraying an anti-microbial agent into the slurry pit will reduce the noxious odor substances from piggery barns. For this, a total of 200 crossbred ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) growing pigs with an initial average body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 1.47 kg were selected and housed in two different rooms, i.e. control (CON) and treatment (TRT). Each room has 100 pigs (60 gilts and 40 borrows). For a period of 42 days, all pigs were fed with corn-soybean meal-based basal diet. Later the noxious odor substances were measured by the following methods. First, fecal samples were randomly collected and stored in sealed and unsealed containers, and sprayed with the non-anti-microbial agent (NAMA) (saline water) and multi-bacterial spraying (MBS) agent (200 :1, mixing ratio-fecal sample : probiotic), Second, the slurry pit of CON and TRT rooms were directly sprayed with NAMA and MBS, respectively. The fecal sample that was stored in sealed and un-sealed containers and sprayed with MBS significantly reduced NH3 and CO2 concentration at the end of day 7. However, at the end of day 42, the fecal sample showed a lower H2S, methyl mercaptans, acetic acid, and CO2 concentration compared to the unsealed container. Moreover, at the end of days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 compared to the CON room and TRT room slurry pit emits lower concentrations of NH3, acetic acid, H2S, and methyl mercaptans, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the current findings, we infer that spraying anti-microbial agents on pig dung would be one of the better approaches to suppress the odor emission from the barn in the future.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Multi-bacterial spray</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Slurry odor</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gas emission</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Growing pigs</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Animal culture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jae Hong Park</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In Ho Kim</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Animal Science and Technology</subfield><subfield code="d">Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology, 2014</subfield><subfield code="g">64(2022), 6, Seite 1035-1045</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)788845659</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2775231-8</subfield><subfield code="x">20550391</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:64</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1035-1045</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e69</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/f9a9270b311b4800902554e6491ee0f0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.ejast.org/archive/view_article?doi=10.5187/jast.2022.e69</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2672-0191</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2055-0391</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">64</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="h">1035-1045</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4000835

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

A preliminary evaluation on mixed probiotics as an antimicrobial spraying agent in growing pig barn

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?