Inaugural ASAS–CAAV Asia Pacif ic Rim Conference Abstracts

M181 Study on stress resistance and probiotic characteristicsof Bacillus licheniformis in vitro. F. B. Li*, B. J. Chen, and C. C. Liang,College of Animal Science and Technology, Agriculture University of Hebei,Baoding, China.We investigated the stress resistance and characteristics of Bacilluslicheniformis. Five trials were conducted to evaluate the thermostability, acidand bile tolerance, antibacterial activity, and the adhesion properties of Bacilluslicheniformis. The pelleting process was simulated by B. licheniformis placedin a water bath at 85°C for 2.5, 5, and 7.5 min. Stomach juice was simulated atpH 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0, and juices from the small intestine were simulated with0.3% bile salts. These tests the control group and treatment group are all 3replicates per group. Through the test of inhibiting bacteria, the antibacterialproperties of B. licheniformis fermentation liquor were determined. Theability of B. licheniformis to adhere to layer intestinal tract epitheliumwas studied in the adhesiveness trial. The trial results were as follows:Viable cell counts of B. licheniformis showed no notable difference inthe pelleting process (P < 0.05). The viable count in the high-temperaturetreatment group for 5 and 7.5 min was 0.63% (P < 0.05), 1.26% (P 0.05). However, both values were significantlysmaller (P < 0.05) than the RSS from the Fisher model, indicating that the Pondmodel was more suitable to model particle size data from coarsely dry-rolledbarley grain than was the Fisher model. R 2 values (P < 0.001) continued tosupport the Pond model (R 2 : 0.9987, 0.9984) as better than the Fisher model(R 2 = 0.9917). For both of the Pond methods, no difference was found for RSSor R 2 , but better potency was observed in the Pond model with 0 mm = 100%,which included the observation of particles passing through the smallest sieve(0.58 mm). The R 2 for the Pond model with 0 mm = 100% was 0.9987. Theestimations of mean and median particle sizes from the Fisher model werelarger than those from the Pond and GM models, with the GM model giving thesmallest particle size. In conclusion, the Pond model with 0 mm = 100% wasthe best model to compute the mean and median particle sizes of coarsely dryrolledbarley samples, expressed as percentage of cumulative weight oversize.Key Words: barley processing, particle size distribution and model comparison,ruminantM184 The relationships between milk calories and milkcomposition for dairy water buffalos in Guangxi, China. C. X. Zou* 1 , S.J. Wei 1 , B. Z. Yang 1 , X. W. Liang 1 , Z. S. Xia 2 , K. Liang 1 , L. Li 1 , and S. L.Li 1 , 1 Buffalo Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences,Nanning, Guangxi, China, 2 Guangxi University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.The aim of the current research was to study the relationships between milkcalories and milk composition for dairy water buffalos in Guangxi, China.A total of 20 multiparous dairy water buffalos near their calving date wereselected. Raw milk samples were collected from the first-week calving days tothe 10th-week milking days, and the raw milk samples were collected 2 timesper week. (Milk samples collected in the morning and afternoon from 1 animalon the same day were pooled as 1 sample.) The milk calories were determinedusing a Parr 6200 instrument, and milk protein (P), milk fat (F), milk total solidscontent (TSC), nonfat milk solids content (NFC) and milk lactose (L) weredetermined using a Foss 120 MilkoScan instrument. In total, 200 samples werecollected for each parameter. Statistical analyses of the obtained data in thecurrent research were performed using Microsoft Excel 2003. The relationshipsbetween the milk calories and milk composition were calculated by the LINESTfunction in Excel 2003. The relationships between milk composition (%) andmilk calories (y, MJ/kg) are shown in the following equations: y = –0.7733 +0.1036 F + 0.1605 P + 0.1839 TSC + 0.1116 L (r 2 = 0.9448) [1]; y = –1.0463+ 0.0119 F + 0.3173 TSC – 0.0048 L (r 2 = 0.9774) [2]; y = –1.0131 + 0.0202F + 0.3105 TSC (r 2 = 0.9725) [3]; y = –1.2148 + 0.3305 TSC (r 2 = 0.9726) [4];y = 1.9654 + 0.3549 (r 2 = 0.9599) [5]. When the determination of raw milkcalories was difficult, the above equations could be used to evaluate the rawmilk calories of dairy water buffalos.Key Words: milk calorie, milk composition, dairy water buffalo46