Literature DB >> 21524535

Differing effects of 2 active dried yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) strains on ruminal acidosis and methane production in nonlactating dairy cows.

Y-H Chung1, N D Walker, S M McGinn, K A Beauchemin.   

Abstract

Fifteen ruminally cannulated, nonlactating Holstein cows were used to measure the effects of 2 strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, fed as active dried yeasts, on ruminal pH and fermentation and enteric methane (CH(4)) emissions. Nonlactating cows were blocked by total duration (h) that their ruminal pH was below 5.8 during a 6-d pre-experimental period. Within each block, cows were randomly assigned to control (no yeast), yeast strain 1 (Levucell SC), or yeast strain 2 (a novel strain selected for enhanced in vitro fiber degradation), with both strains (Lallemand Animal Nutrition, Montréal, QC, Canada) providing 1 × 10(10) cfu/head per day. Cows were fed once daily a total mixed ration consisting of a 50:50 forage to concentrate ratio (dry matter basis). The yeast strains were dosed via the rumen cannula daily at the time of feeding. During the 35-d experiment, ruminal pH was measured continuously for 7 d (d 22 to 28) by using an indwelling system, and CH(4) gas was measured for 4 d (d 32 to 35) using the sulfur hexafluoride tracer gas technique (with halters and yokes). Rumen contents were sampled on 2 d (d 22 and 26) at 0, 3, and 6h after feeding. Dry matter intake, body weight, and apparent total-tract digestibility of nutrients were not affected by yeast feeding. Strain 2 decreased the average daily minimum (5.35 vs. 5.65 or 5.66), mean (5.98 vs. 6.24 or 6.34), and maximum ruminal pH (6.71 vs. 6.86 or 6.86), and prolonged the time that ruminal pH was below 5.8 (7.5 vs. 3.3 or 1.0 h/d) compared with the control or strain 1, respectively. The molar percentage of acetate was lower and that of propionate was greater in the ruminal fluid of cows receiving strain 2 compared with cows receiving no yeast or strain 1. Enteric CH(4) production adjusted for intake of dry matter or gross energy, however, did not differ between either yeast strain compared with the control but it tended to be reduced by 10% when strain 2 was compared with strain 1. The study shows that different strains of S. cerevisiae fed as active dried yeasts vary in their ability to modify the rumen fermentative pattern in nonlactating dairy cows. Because strain 2 tended (when compared with strain 1) to lower CH(4) emissions but increase the risk of acidosis, it may be prudent to further evaluate this strain in cattle fed high-forage diets, for which the risk of acidosis is low but CH(4) emissions are high.
Copyright © 2011 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21524535     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3277

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dairy Sci        ISSN: 0022-0302            Impact factor:   4.034


  13 in total

1.  Evaluation of active dried yeast in the diets of feedlot steers. II. Effects on rumen pH and liver health of feedlot steers1.

Authors:  Whitney Lynn Crossland; Caitlyn M Cagle; Jason E Sawyer; Todd R Callaway; Luis Orlindo Tedeschi
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 2.  Role of probiotics in ruminant nutrition as natural modulators of health and productivity of animals in tropical countries: an overview.

Authors:  Nitish A Kulkarni; H S Chethan; Rashika Srivastava; Anil B Gabbur
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 1.559

3.  Effect of Concentrate: Roughage Ratio and the Addition of Kefir on the Production Characteristics of Ruminant in vitro.

Authors:  H A J Al-Galbi; M S Majeed
Journal:  Arch Razi Inst       Date:  2022-02-28

4.  Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and monensin on digestion, ruminal parameters, and balance of nitrogenous compounds of beef cattle fed diets with different starch concentrations.

Authors:  João Paulo Ismério Dos Santos Monnerat; Pedro Veiga Rodrigues Paulino; Edenio Detmann; Sebastião Campos Valadares Filho; Rilene Diniz Ferreira Valadares; Márcio Souza Duarte
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 1.559

Review 5.  Effect of Probiotics/Prebiotics on Cattle Health and Productivity.

Authors:  Yutaka Uyeno; Suguru Shigemori; Takeshi Shimosato
Journal:  Microbes Environ       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Saccharomyces cerevisiae Live Cells Decreased In vitro Methane Production in Intestinal Content of Pigs.

Authors:  Y L Gong; X D Liao; J B Liang; M F Jahromi; H Wang; Z Cao; Y B Wu
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.509

7.  Effects of a bacterial probiotic on ruminal pH and volatile fatty acids during subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) in cattle.

Authors:  Hiroko Goto; Abdul Qadir Qadis; Yo-Han Kim; Kentaro Ikuta; Toshihiro Ichijo; Shigeru Sato
Journal:  J Vet Med Sci       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 1.267

8.  Redirection of Metabolic Hydrogen by Inhibiting Methanogenesis in the Rumen Simulation Technique (RUSITEC).

Authors:  Jessie Guyader; Emilio M Ungerfeld; Karen A Beauchemin
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 5.640

9.  Inclusion of live yeast and mannan-oligosaccharides in high grain-based diets for sheep: Ruminal parameters, inflammatory response and rumen morphology.

Authors:  Tatiana Garcia Diaz; Antonio Ferriani Branco; Fernando Alberto Jacovaci; Clóves Cabreira Jobim; Dheyme Cristina Bolson; João Luiz Pratti Daniel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Modulation of intestinal inflammation by yeasts and cell wall extracts: strain dependence and unexpected anti-inflammatory role of glucan fractions.

Authors:  Samir Jawhara; Khalid Habib; François Maggiotto; Georges Pignede; Pascal Vandekerckove; Emmanuel Maes; Laurent Dubuquoy; Thierry Fontaine; Yann Guerardel; Daniel Poulain
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.