Fate of tylosin a and its effect on anaerobic digestion using two tylosin inclusion methods

Authors

  • Xiaoqing Wang,

    1. College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Ruipeng Guo,

    1. College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Baohua Ma,

    1. Nanhai Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, Foshan, People's Republic of China
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Juanboo Liang,

    1. Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Xindi Liao,

    1. College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
    2. Key Laboratory of Ecological Agro-Environment in the Tropics of Ministry of Agriculture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Yinbao Wu

    Corresponding author
    1. College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
    2. Key Laboratory of Ecological Agro-Environment in the Tropics of Ministry of Agriculture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

This study examined the fate and effects of tylosin (TYL) on anaerobic digestion of swine wastewater at two concentrations of tylosin A (TYLA) using manure collected from swine fed with TYLA (TYLFED) or direct addition of TYLA (TYLADD) to antibiotic-free swine manure, to examine whether there are differences between the two TYL addition methods on methane production and other fermentation parameters. TYLA and tylosin D (TYLD) concentrations, pH, Chemical oxygen demand (COD), Total nitrogen (TN), and diversity of methanogenic archaea population were parameters used for this study. The results showed that concentrations of TYLA and TYLD in the TYLFED treatment were higher (P < 0.05) than those in the TYLADD treatment. Methane production in the TYLFEDH and TYLFEDL was reduced by 35.52% and 37.06%, respectively, compared with the control during the 7 days addition period; but for TYLADDH and TYLADDL, the decrease (P < 0.05) was only 12.98% and 7.84%, respectively. The diversity index of methanogenic archaea in the TYLFED treatment were lower than that in the control and the TYLADD on Day 4, but no difference (P > 0.05) between the control and the TYLADD treatment was observed. pH, COD, and TN were not affected by treatment. Our results showed clear differences in the rate of methane inhibition by the two antibiotic inclusion methods; been higher for the TYLFED treatment than the TYLADD treatment. Since the former method resembles more under actual farm conditions, we suggested that studies on effects of antibiotic residues on anaerobic fermentation should adopt such an approach. © 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 33: 808–813, 2014

Ancillary