Effects of bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-based feed additive combinations on ruminal fermentation in a dual-flow continuous culture system

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Bennett, S. L.
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: 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.
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