Effects of hydrolysed yeasts on ruminal fermentation in the rumen simulation technique (Rusitec)

https://doi.org/10.17221/8820-VETMEDCitation:Oeztuerk H., Emre B., Breves G. (2016): Effects of hydrolysed yeasts on ruminal fermentation in the rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). Veterinarni Medicina, 61: 195-203.
download PDF
The objective of the present study was to investigate the effects of three different hydrolysed yeast products derived from Saccharomyces cerevisiae [hydrolysed whole yeast (HWY), less hydrolysed whole yeast (LHWY), and yeast cell wall (YCW)] on microbial fermentation characteristics using the rumen simulation technique (Rusitec) with three consecutive experiments. The Rusitec system consisted of six fermentation vessels. Each vessel received 5 g chopped meadow hay and 4 g concentrate (as-fed basis) daily for up to 22 days. Yeast products were added to the fermentation vessels at a concentration of 0.25 or 0.75 g/day. In most cases, ruminal microbial activity was stimulated by HWY and YCW, particularly at the 0.75 g/day level. HWY resulted in a decrease (P < 0.05) in ruminal pH and an increase (P < 0.05) in total short-chain fatty acid (SCFA), acetate, propionate and methane productions, and an increase in NH3-N concentration when compared with the control values. Ruminal pH was not altered, but total SCFA, acetate, propionate, butyrate, and methane productions as well as NH3-N concentration increased (P < 0.05) in response to YCW treatment. Digestibility of organic matter was not significantly affected by either HWY or YCW. The effects of LHWY on ruminal fermentation characteristics were negligible. These results indicate that degree of hydrolysation (low or high) and composition of yeasts (whole cell or cell wall) have remarkable effects on ruminal microbial activity in the Rusitec system.
References:
Abdl-Rahman M. A. (2010): In vitro Manipulation of Rumen Fermentation Efficiency by Fumaric acid – Bentonite Coupled Addition as an Alternative to Antibiotics. Journal of Agricultural Science, 2, -  https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v2n2p174
 
AOAC (2000): Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 17th ed. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
 
Bach A., Iglesias C., Devant M. (2007): Daily rumen pH pattern of loose-housed dairy cattle as affected by feeding pattern and live yeast supplementation. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 136, 146-153  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.09.011
 
Breves Gerhard, Faul Karin, Schr&ouml;der Bernd, Holst Hasso, Caspary Wolfgang F., Stein J&uuml;rgen (2000): Application of the Colon-Simulation Technique for Studying the Effects of <i>Saccharomyces boulardii</i> on Basic Parameters of Porcine Cecal Microbial Metabolism Disturbed by Clindamycin. Digestion, 61, 193-200  https://doi.org/10.1159/000007757
 
Carro M.D., Lebzien P., Rohr K. (1992): Influence of yeast culture on the in vitro fermentation (Rusitec) of diets containing variable portions of concentrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 37, 209-220  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(92)90005-Q
 
Czerkawski J. W., Breckenridge Grace (1977): Design and development of a long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). British Journal of Nutrition, 38, 371-  https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19770102
 
Durix Andrée, Jean-Blain C., Sallmann H. P., Jouany J. P. (1991): Use of a semicontinuous culture system (RUSITEC) to study the metabolism of ethanol in the rumen and its effects on ruminal digestion. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 71, 115-123  https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas91-013
 
Faverdin P. (1999): The effect of nutrients on feed intake in ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 58, 523-531  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665199000695
 
Hegarty RS (1999): Mechanisms for competitively reducing ruminal methanogenesis. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 1299–1306.  https://doi.org/10.1071/AR99007
 
Hristov A.N., Varga G., Cassidy T., Long M., Heyler K., Karnati S.K.R., Corl B., Hovde C.J., Yoon I. (2010): Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product on ruminal fermentation and nutrient utilization in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 93, 682-692  https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2379
 
Jouany Jean-Pierre, Mathieu Frédérique, Senaud Jean, Bohatier Jacques, Bertin Gérard, Mercier Mariette (1998): The effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Aspergillus oryzae on the digestion of the cell wall fraction of a mixed diet in defaunated and refaunated sheep rumen. Reproduction Nutrition Development, 38, 401-416  https://doi.org/10.1051/rnd:19980405
 
Lascano GJ, Heinrichs AJ (2007): Yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) supplementation in growing animals in the dairy industry. CAB Reviews Perspectives in Agriculture Veterinary Science Nutrition and Natural Resources 2, 049.
 
Lila Z. A., Mohammed N., Yasui T., Kurokawa Y., Kanda S., Itabashi H. (2004): Effects of a twin strain of live cells on mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation in vitro. Journal of Animal Science, 82, 1847-  https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.8261847x
 
Marden JP, Julien C, Monteils V, Auclair E, Moncoulon R, Bayourthe C (2008): How does live yeast differ from sodium bicarbonate to stabilize ruminal pH in high yielding dairy cows? Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3528–3535.
 
Martin SA, Nisbet DJ, Dean RG (1989): Influence of a commercial yeast supplement on the in vitro ruminal fermentation. Nutrition Reports International 40, 395–403.
 
Miller-Webster T., Hoover W.H., Holt M., Nocek J.E. (2002): Influence of Yeast Culture on Ruminal Microbial Metabolism in Continuous Culture. Journal of Dairy Science, 85, 2009-2014  https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74277-X
 
Mutsvangwa T., Edwards I. E., Topps J. H., Paterson G. F. M. (1992): The effect of dietary inclusion of yeast culture (Yea-Sacc) on patterns of rumen fermentation, food intake and growth of intensively fed bulls. Animal Production, 55, 35-40  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100037247
 
Newbold C J, Wallace R J, Chen X B, McIntosh F M (1995): Different strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae differ in their effects on ruminal bacterial numbers in vitro and in sheep.. Journal of Animal Science, 73, 1811-  https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7361811x
 
Newbold C. J., McIntosh F. M., Wallace R. J. (1998): Changes in the microbial population of a rumen-simulating fermenter in response to yeast culture. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 78, 241-244  https://doi.org/10.4141/A97-086
 
Nisbet D J, Martin S A (1991): Effect of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on lactate utilization by the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium.. Journal of Animal Science, 69, 4628-  https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.69114628x
 
Oeztuerk H. (2009): Effects of live and autoclaved yeast cultures onruminal fermentation <i>in vitro</i>. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 18, 142-150  https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/66378/2009
 
Oeztuerk H., Schroeder B., Beyerbach M., Breves G. (2005): Influence of Living and Autoclaved Yeasts of Saccharomyces boulardii on In Vitro Ruminal Microbial Metabolism. Journal of Dairy Science, 88, 2594-2600  https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72935-0
 
OJEU (2003): Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 September 2003 on Additives for Use in Animal Nutrition. Official Journal of European Union. Page L268/36 in OJEU of 18/10/2003.
 
OPSI F., FORTINA R., TASSONE S., BODAS R., LÓPEZ S. (2012): Effects of inactivated and live cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on in vitro ruminal fermentation of diets with different forage:concentrate ratio. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 150, 271-283  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859611000578
 
Thrune M., Bach A., Ruiz-Moreno M., Stern M.D., Linn J.G. (2009): Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on ruminal pH and microbial fermentation in dairy cows. Livestock Science, 124, 261-265  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.02.007
 
Tripathi M.K., Karim S.A. (2011): Effect of yeast cultures supplementation on live weight change, rumen fermentation, ciliate protozoa population, microbial hydrolytic enzymes status and slaughtering performance of growing lamb. Livestock Science, 135, 17-25  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.06.007
 
Vyas D., Uwizeye A., Mohammed R., Yang W. Z., Walker N. D., Beauchemin K. A. (): The effects of active dried and killed dried yeast on subacute ruminal acidosis, ruminal fermentation, and nutrient digestibility in beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 92, 724-732  https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7072
 
Wallace R. J., Czerkawski J. W., Breckenridge Grace (1981): Effect of monensin on the fermentation of basal rations in the Rumen Simulation Technique (Rusitec). British Journal of Nutrition, 46, 131-  https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19810016
 
Weatherburn M. W. (1967): Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia. Analytical Chemistry, 39, 971-974  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60252a045
 
Williams P E, Tait C A, Innes G M, Newbold C J (1991): Effects of the inclusion of yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae plus growth medium) in the diet of dairy cows on milk yield and forage degradation and fermentation patterns in the rumen of steers.. Journal of Animal Science, 69, 3016-  https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.6973016x
 
Wolin Meyer J. (1960): A Theoretical Rumen Fermentation Balance. Journal of Dairy Science, 43, 1452-1459  https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(60)90348-9
 
Young J.W. (1977): Gluconeogenesis in Cattle: Significance and Methodology. Journal of Dairy Science, 60, 1-15  https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(77)83821-6
 
download PDF

© 2020 Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences | Prohlášení o přístupnosti