Literature DB >> 23706486

Short communication: Comparison of pH, volatile fatty acids, and microbiome of rumen samples from preweaned calves obtained via cannula or stomach tube.

M Terré1, L Castells, F Fàbregas, A Bach.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare rumen samples from young dairy calves obtained via a stomach tube (ST) or a ruminal cannula (RC). Five male Holstein calves (46±4.0 kg of body weight and 11±4.9 d of age) were ruminally cannulated at 15 d of age. Calves received 4 L/d of a commercial milk replacer (25% crude protein and 19.2% fat) at 12.5% dry matter, and were provided concentrate and chopped oats hay ad libitum throughout the study (56 d). In total, 29 paired rumen samples were obtained weekly throughout the study in most of the calves by each extraction method. These samples were used to determine pH and volatile fatty acids (VFA) concentration, and to quantify Prevotella ruminicola and Streptococcus bovis by quantitative PCR. Furthermore, a denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis was performed on rumen samples harvested during wk 8 of the study to determine the degree of similarity between rumen bacteria communities. Rumen pH was 0.30 units greater in ST compared with RC samples. Furthermore, total VFA concentrations were greater in RC than in ST samples. However, when analyzing the proportion of each VFA by ANOVA, no differences were found between the sampling methods. The quantification of S. bovis and P. ruminicola was similar in both extraction methods, and values obtained using different methods were highly correlated (R(2)=0.89 and 0.98 for S. bovis and P. ruminicola, respectively). Fingerprinting analysis showed similar bacteria band profiles between samples obtained from the same calves using different extraction methods. In conclusion, when comparing rumen parameters obtained using different sampling techniques, it is recommended that VFA profiles be used rather than total VFA concentrations, as total VFA concentrations are more affected by the method of collection. Furthermore, although comparisons of pH across studies should be avoided when samples are not obtained using the same sampling method, the comparison of fingerprinting of a bacteria community or a specific rumen bacterium is valid.
Copyright © 2013 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  rumen cannula; rumen sample; stomach tube

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23706486     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2012-5921

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


  11 in total

1.  Ruminal Bacterial Community Composition in Dairy Cows Is Dynamic over the Course of Two Lactations and Correlates with Feed Efficiency.

Authors:  Kelsea A Jewell; Caroline A McCormick; Christine L Odt; Paul J Weimer; Garret Suen
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Use of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes and probiotic in finely ground starters to improve calf performance.

Authors:  A R Khademi; F Hashemzadeh; M Khorvash; A H Mahdavi; A Pazoki; M H Ghaffari
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  Variation in Rumen Bacteria of Lacaune Dairy Ewes From One Week to the Next.

Authors:  Solène Fresco; Christel Marie-Etancelin; Annabelle Meynadier; Guillermo Martinez Boggio
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 6.064

4.  Rumen Bacterial Community Composition in Holstein and Jersey Cows Is Different under Same Dietary Condition and Is Not Affected by Sampling Method.

Authors:  Henry A Paz; Christopher L Anderson; Makala J Muller; Paul J Kononoff; Samodha C Fernando
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 5.640

5.  The rumen microbiome as a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance and pathogenicity genes is directly affected by diet in beef cattle.

Authors:  Marc D Auffret; Richard J Dewhurst; Carol-Anne Duthie; John A Rooke; R John Wallace; Tom C Freeman; Robert Stewart; Mick Watson; Rainer Roehe
Journal:  Microbiome       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 14.650

6.  Association of residual feed intake with abundance of ruminal bacteria and biopolymer hydrolyzing enzyme activities during the peripartal period and early lactation in Holstein dairy cows.

Authors:  Ahmed A Elolimy; José M Arroyo; Fernanda Batistel; Michael A Iakiviak; Juan J Loor
Journal:  J Anim Sci Biotechnol       Date:  2018-05-14

7.  The cecal and fecal microbiomes and metabolomes of horses before and after metronidazole administration.

Authors:  Carolyn E Arnold; Anitha Isaiah; Rachel Pilla; Jonathan Lidbury; Josie S Coverdale; Todd R Callaway; Sara D Lawhon; Joerg Steiner; Jan S Suchodolski
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The Destruction of the Anaerobic Environment Caused by Rumen Fistula Surgery Leads to Differences in the Rumen Microbial Diversity and Function of Sheep.

Authors:  Yurong Cao; Baozhen Zhu; Fei Li; Duihong Zhang; Tongqing Guo; Fadi Li; Guo Yang
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2021-12-01

Review 9.  High-throughput Methods Redefine the Rumen Microbiome and Its Relationship with Nutrition and Metabolism.

Authors:  Joshua C McCann; Tryon A Wickersham; Juan J Loor
Journal:  Bioinform Biol Insights       Date:  2014-06-08

10.  Identification, Comparison, and Validation of Robust Rumen Microbial Biomarkers for Methane Emissions Using Diverse Bos Taurus Breeds and Basal Diets.

Authors:  Marc D Auffret; Robert Stewart; Richard J Dewhurst; Carol-Anne Duthie; John A Rooke; Robert J Wallace; Tom C Freeman; Timothy J Snelling; Mick Watson; Rainer Roehe
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 5.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.