Effects of bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-based feed additive combinations on ruminal fermentation in a dual-flow continuous culture system
| Autor(a) principal: | |
|---|---|
| Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
| Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , |
| Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
| Idioma: | eng |
| Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
| Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tas/txab026 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/221968 |
Resumo: | Bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-derived feed additives are often included in commercial dairy rations due to their effects on ruminal fermentation. However, the effects of these additives when fed together are not well understood. The objective of this study was to evaluate the changes in ruminal fermentation when a dairy ration is supplemented with combinations of bacterial probiotics, enzymes and yeast. Our hypotheses were that ruminal fermentation would be altered, indicated through changes in volatile fatty acid profile and nutrient digestibility, with the inclusion of (1) an additive, (2) yeast, and (3) increasing additive doses. Treatments were randomly assigned to 8 fermenters in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin square with four 10 d experimental periods, consisting of 7 d for diet adaptation and 3 d for sample collection. Basal diets contained 52:48 forage:concentrate and fermenters were fed 106 g of dry matter per day divided equally between two feeding times. Treatments were: control (CTRL, without additives); bacterial culture/enzyme blend (EB, 1.7 mg/d); bacterial culture/enzyme blend with a blend of live yeast and yeast culture (EBY, 49.76 mg/d); and a double dose of the EBY treatment (2×, 99.53 mg/d). The bacterial culture/enzyme blend contained five strains of probiotics (Lactobacillus animalis, Propionibacterium freudenreichii, Bacillus lichenformis, Bacillus subtilis, and Enterococcus faecium) and three enzymes (amylase, hemicellulase, and xylanase). On d 8-10, samples were collected for pH, redox, volatile fatty acids, lactate, ammonia N, and digestibility measurements. Statistical analysis was performed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS. Repeated measures were used for pH, redox, VFA, NH3-N, and lactate kinetics data. Orthogonal contrasts were used to test the effect of (1) additives, ADD (CTRL vs. EB, EBY, and 2X); (2) yeast, YEAST (EB vs. EBY, and 2X); and (3) dose, DOSE (EBY vs. 2X). No effects (P > 0.05) were observed for pH, redox, NH3-N, acetate, isobutyrate, valerate, total VFA, acetate:propionate, nutrient digestibility or N utilization. Within the 24 h pool, the molar proportion of butyrate increased (P = 0.03) with the inclusion of additives when compared to the control while the molar proportion of propionate tended to decrease (P = 0.07). In conclusion, the inclusion of bacterial cultures, enzymes and yeast in the diet increased butyrate concentration; but did not result in major changes in ruminal fermentation. |
| id |
UNSP_7698f65668c6a4ff10153fe862bbff4e |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/221968 |
| network_acronym_str |
UNSP |
| network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
| repository_id_str |
2946 |
| spelling |
Effects of bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-based feed additive combinations on ruminal fermentation in a dual-flow continuous culture systemamylasebutyratehemicellulaseSaccharomyces cerevisiaexylanaseBacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-derived feed additives are often included in commercial dairy rations due to their effects on ruminal fermentation. However, the effects of these additives when fed together are not well understood. The objective of this study was to evaluate the changes in ruminal fermentation when a dairy ration is supplemented with combinations of bacterial probiotics, enzymes and yeast. Our hypotheses were that ruminal fermentation would be altered, indicated through changes in volatile fatty acid profile and nutrient digestibility, with the inclusion of (1) an additive, (2) yeast, and (3) increasing additive doses. Treatments were randomly assigned to 8 fermenters in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin square with four 10 d experimental periods, consisting of 7 d for diet adaptation and 3 d for sample collection. Basal diets contained 52:48 forage:concentrate and fermenters were fed 106 g of dry matter per day divided equally between two feeding times. Treatments were: control (CTRL, without additives); bacterial culture/enzyme blend (EB, 1.7 mg/d); bacterial culture/enzyme blend with a blend of live yeast and yeast culture (EBY, 49.76 mg/d); and a double dose of the EBY treatment (2×, 99.53 mg/d). The bacterial culture/enzyme blend contained five strains of probiotics (Lactobacillus animalis, Propionibacterium freudenreichii, Bacillus lichenformis, Bacillus subtilis, and Enterococcus faecium) and three enzymes (amylase, hemicellulase, and xylanase). On d 8-10, samples were collected for pH, redox, volatile fatty acids, lactate, ammonia N, and digestibility measurements. Statistical analysis was performed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS. Repeated measures were used for pH, redox, VFA, NH3-N, and lactate kinetics data. Orthogonal contrasts were used to test the effect of (1) additives, ADD (CTRL vs. EB, EBY, and 2X); (2) yeast, YEAST (EB vs. EBY, and 2X); and (3) dose, DOSE (EBY vs. 2X). No effects (P > 0.05) were observed for pH, redox, NH3-N, acetate, isobutyrate, valerate, total VFA, acetate:propionate, nutrient digestibility or N utilization. Within the 24 h pool, the molar proportion of butyrate increased (P = 0.03) with the inclusion of additives when compared to the control while the molar proportion of propionate tended to decrease (P = 0.07). In conclusion, the inclusion of bacterial cultures, enzymes and yeast in the diet increased butyrate concentration; but did not result in major changes in ruminal fermentation.Department of Animal Sciences University of FloridaDepartment of Animal Sciences State University of MaringaDepartment of Animal Breeding and Nutrition Sao Paulo State UniversityDepartment of Animal Breeding and Nutrition Sao Paulo State UniversityUniversity of FloridaState University of MaringaUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)Bennett, S. L.Arce-Cordero, J. A.Brandao, V. L.N.Vinyard, J. R.Agustinho, B. C.Monteiro, H. F.Lobo, R. R.Tomaz, L. [UNESP]Faciola, A. P.2022-04-28T19:41:36Z2022-04-28T19:41:36Z2021-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tas/txab026Translational Animal Science, v. 5, n. 2, 2021.2573-2102http://hdl.handle.net/11449/22196810.1093/tas/txab0262-s2.0-85110342364Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengTranslational Animal Scienceinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2022-04-28T19:41:36Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/221968Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462022-04-28T19:41:36Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Effects of bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-based feed additive combinations on ruminal fermentation in a dual-flow continuous culture system |
| title |
Effects of bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-based feed additive combinations on ruminal fermentation in a dual-flow continuous culture system |
| spellingShingle |
Effects of bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-based feed additive combinations on ruminal fermentation in a dual-flow continuous culture system Bennett, S. L. amylase butyrate hemicellulase Saccharomyces cerevisiae xylanase |
| title_short |
Effects of bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-based feed additive combinations on ruminal fermentation in a dual-flow continuous culture system |
| title_full |
Effects of bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-based feed additive combinations on ruminal fermentation in a dual-flow continuous culture system |
| title_fullStr |
Effects of bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-based feed additive combinations on ruminal fermentation in a dual-flow continuous culture system |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Effects of bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-based feed additive combinations on ruminal fermentation in a dual-flow continuous culture system |
| title_sort |
Effects of bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-based feed additive combinations on ruminal fermentation in a dual-flow continuous culture system |
| author |
Bennett, S. L. |
| author_facet |
Bennett, S. L. Arce-Cordero, J. A. Brandao, V. L.N. Vinyard, J. R. Agustinho, B. C. Monteiro, H. F. Lobo, R. R. Tomaz, L. [UNESP] Faciola, A. P. |
| author_role |
author |
| author2 |
Arce-Cordero, J. A. Brandao, V. L.N. Vinyard, J. R. Agustinho, B. C. Monteiro, H. F. Lobo, R. R. Tomaz, L. [UNESP] Faciola, A. P. |
| author2_role |
author author author author author author author author |
| dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
University of Florida State University of Maringa Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
| dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Bennett, S. L. Arce-Cordero, J. A. Brandao, V. L.N. Vinyard, J. R. Agustinho, B. C. Monteiro, H. F. Lobo, R. R. Tomaz, L. [UNESP] Faciola, A. P. |
| dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
amylase butyrate hemicellulase Saccharomyces cerevisiae xylanase |
| topic |
amylase butyrate hemicellulase Saccharomyces cerevisiae xylanase |
| description |
Bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-derived feed additives are often included in commercial dairy rations due to their effects on ruminal fermentation. However, the effects of these additives when fed together are not well understood. The objective of this study was to evaluate the changes in ruminal fermentation when a dairy ration is supplemented with combinations of bacterial probiotics, enzymes and yeast. Our hypotheses were that ruminal fermentation would be altered, indicated through changes in volatile fatty acid profile and nutrient digestibility, with the inclusion of (1) an additive, (2) yeast, and (3) increasing additive doses. Treatments were randomly assigned to 8 fermenters in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin square with four 10 d experimental periods, consisting of 7 d for diet adaptation and 3 d for sample collection. Basal diets contained 52:48 forage:concentrate and fermenters were fed 106 g of dry matter per day divided equally between two feeding times. Treatments were: control (CTRL, without additives); bacterial culture/enzyme blend (EB, 1.7 mg/d); bacterial culture/enzyme blend with a blend of live yeast and yeast culture (EBY, 49.76 mg/d); and a double dose of the EBY treatment (2×, 99.53 mg/d). The bacterial culture/enzyme blend contained five strains of probiotics (Lactobacillus animalis, Propionibacterium freudenreichii, Bacillus lichenformis, Bacillus subtilis, and Enterococcus faecium) and three enzymes (amylase, hemicellulase, and xylanase). On d 8-10, samples were collected for pH, redox, volatile fatty acids, lactate, ammonia N, and digestibility measurements. Statistical analysis was performed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS. Repeated measures were used for pH, redox, VFA, NH3-N, and lactate kinetics data. Orthogonal contrasts were used to test the effect of (1) additives, ADD (CTRL vs. EB, EBY, and 2X); (2) yeast, YEAST (EB vs. EBY, and 2X); and (3) dose, DOSE (EBY vs. 2X). No effects (P > 0.05) were observed for pH, redox, NH3-N, acetate, isobutyrate, valerate, total VFA, acetate:propionate, nutrient digestibility or N utilization. Within the 24 h pool, the molar proportion of butyrate increased (P = 0.03) with the inclusion of additives when compared to the control while the molar proportion of propionate tended to decrease (P = 0.07). In conclusion, the inclusion of bacterial cultures, enzymes and yeast in the diet increased butyrate concentration; but did not result in major changes in ruminal fermentation. |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-04-01 2022-04-28T19:41:36Z 2022-04-28T19:41:36Z |
| dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tas/txab026 Translational Animal Science, v. 5, n. 2, 2021. 2573-2102 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/221968 10.1093/tas/txab026 2-s2.0-85110342364 |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tas/txab026 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/221968 |
| identifier_str_mv |
Translational Animal Science, v. 5, n. 2, 2021. 2573-2102 10.1093/tas/txab026 2-s2.0-85110342364 |
| dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
| language |
eng |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Translational Animal Science |
| dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Scopus reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
| instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
| instacron_str |
UNESP |
| institution |
UNESP |
| reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
| collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
repositoriounesp@unesp.br |
| _version_ |
1854948647673790464 |