| Literature DB >> 24883184 |
Gengzhi Ding1, Ying Chang2, Liping Zhao1, Zhenming Zhou1, Liping Ren1, Qingxiang Meng1.
Abstract
Live yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) constitutes an effective additive for animal production; its probiotic effect may be related to the concentrate-to-forage ratio (CTFR). The objective of this study was to assess the effects of S. cerevisiae (SC) on fiber degradation and rumen microbial populations in steers fed diets with different levels of dietary concentrate. Ten Simmental × Local crossbred steers (450 ± 50 kg BW) were assigned to a control group or an SC group. Both groups were fed the same basal diet but the SC group received SC supplementation (8 × 10(9) cfu/h/d through the ruminal fistula) following a two-period crossover design. Each period consisted of four phases, each of which lasted 17 d: 10 d for dietary adaptation, 6 d for degradation study, and 1 d for rumen sample collection. From the 1(st) to the 4(th) phase, steers were fed in a stepwise fashion with increasing CTFRs, i.e., 30:70, 50:50, 70:30, and 90:10. The kinetics of dry matter and fiber degradation of alfalfa pellets were evaluated; the rumen microbial populations were detected using real-time PCR. The results revealed no significant (P > 0.05) interactions between dietary CTFR and SC for most parameters. Dietary CTFR had a significant effect (P < 0.01) on degradation characteristics of alfalfa pellets and the copies of rumen microorganism; the increasing concentrate level resulted in linear, quadratic or cubic variation trend for these parameters. SC supplementation significantly (P < 0.05) affected dry matter (DM) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) degradation rates (c DM, c NDF) and NDF effective degradability (EDNDF). Compared with the control group, there was an increasing trend of rumen fungi and protozoa in SC group (P < 0.1); copies of total bacteria in SC group were significantly higher (P < 0.05). Additionally, percentage of Ruminobacter amylophilus was significantly lower (P < 0.05) but percentage of Selenomonas ruminantium was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in the SC group. In a word, dietary CTFR had a significant effect on degradation characteristics of forage and rumen microbial population. S. cerevisiae had positive effects on DM and NDF degradation rate or effective degradability of forage; S. cerevisiae increased rumen total bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and lactate-utilizing bacteria but reduced starch-degrading and lactate-producing bacteria.Entities:
Keywords: Concentrate-to-forage ratios; In situ; Real-time PCR; Rumen microorganism; Steers
Year: 2014 PMID: 24883184 PMCID: PMC4025562 DOI: 10.1186/2049-1891-5-24
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol ISSN: 1674-9782
Ingredients and chemical composition of basal diets
| Ingredient, % DM | | | | |
| Steam-flaked maize1 | 13.00 | 34.00 | 54.00 | 74.00 |
| Soybean curb residue2 | 15.20 | 13.90 | 13.70 | 13.30 |
| Maize stalks | 57.00 | 38.00 | 19.00 | 1.00 |
| Chinese ryegrass | 4.00 | 5.00 | 6.00 | 6.00 |
| Alfalfa pellets | 9.00 | 7.00 | 5.00 | 3.00 |
| Salt | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Limestone | 0.40 | 0.70 | 1.10 | 1.50 |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Magnesium oxide | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 |
| Sodium bicarbonate | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Composition, % DM | | | | |
| ME, MJ/kg | 9.10 | 10.30 | 11.70 | 12.80 |
| CP | 12.70 | 12.70 | 12.70 | 12.80 |
| aNDF | 54.20 | 42.70 | 31.60 | 20.80 |
| Starch | 12.20 | 26.80 | 40.90 | 54.20 |
| Ca | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.67 |
| P | 0.32 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.35 |
1Flaking density is 360 g/L.
2A by-product comes from soybean processed into bean curd which is a kind of food in China.
Primers used in real-time PCR for the detection of rumen microorganism
| Total bacteria | F, CGGCAACGAGCGCAACCC | [ |
| R, CCATTGTAGCACGTGTGTAGCC | ||
| Rumen fungi | F, GAGGAAGTAAAAGTCGTAACAAGGTTTC | [ |
| R, CAAATTCACAAAGGGTAGGATGATT | ||
| Protozoa | F, GCTTTCGWTGGTAGTGTATT | [ |
| R, CTTGCCCTCYAATCGTWCT | ||
| F, TGTTAACAGAGGGAAGCAAAGCA | [ | |
| R, TGCAGCCTACAATCCGAACTAA | ||
| F, TGGCGGACGGGTGAGTAA | [ | |
| R, TTACCATCCGTTTCCAGAAGCT | ||
| F, ACCGCATAAGCGCACGGA | [ | |
| R, CGGGTCCATCTTGTACCGATAAAT | ||
| F, GCGGGTAGCAAACAGGATTAGA | [ | |
| R, CCCCCGGACACCCAGTAT | ||
| F, CAATAAGCATTCCGCCTGGG | [ | |
| R, TTCACTCAATGTCAAGCCCTGG | ||
| F, CTAATACCGCATAACAGCAT | [ | |
| R, AGAAACTTCCTATCTCTAGG | ||
| F, CAACCAGTCGCATTCAGA | [ | |
| R, CACTACTCATGGCAACAT | ||
| F, AGCAGTAGGGAATCTTCCA | [ | |
| R, CGCCACTGGTGTTCYTCCATATA |
Effect of SC supplementation on dry matter (DM) degradation characteristics of alfalfa pellets in steers fed diets with different concentrate-to-forage ratios
| 26.07 | 29.46 | 27.08 | 26.58 | 0.64 | 27.46 | 27.14 | 0.45 | <0.01 | 0.61 | 0.09 | 0.80 | 0.01 | 0.03 | |
| 38.48 | 35.95 | 38.99 | 39.86 | 0.75 | 38.18 | 38.46 | 0.53 | <0.01 | 0.71 | 0.43 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 | |
| 3.50 | 3.30 | 3.00 | 2.47 | 0.14 | 2.86 | 3.29 | 0.10 | <0.01 | 0.04 | 0.14 | <0.01 | 0.25 | 0.96 | |
| ED, % | 46.54 | 48.48 | 46.62 | 43.76 | 0.32 | 45.65 | 47.06 | 0.22 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.14 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.12 |
1N: without yeast supplementation;
2Y: with yeast supplementation;
3Linear indicates linear effect of dietary CTFR; quadratic indicates a quadratic effect of dietary CTFR; cubic indicates a cubic effect of dietary CTFR.
Effect of SC supplementation on neutral detergent fiber (NDF) degradation characteristics of alfalfa pellets in steers fed diets with different concentrate-to-forage ratios
| 2.32 | 6.36 | 2.70 | 2.99 | 0.74 | 3.22 | 3.96 | 0.52 | <0.01 | 0.32 | 0.13 | 0.67 | 0.03 | <0.01 | |
| 46.77 | 44.76 | 49.29 | 49.69 | 0.92 | 48.11 | 47.15 | 0.65 | <0.01 | 0.30 | 0.35 | <0.01 | 0.24 | 0.02 | |
| 3.40 | 2.77 | 2.55 | 1.83 | 0.11 | 2.52 | 2.76 | 0.08 | <0.01 | 0.03 | 0.04 | <0.01 | 0.95 | 0.24 | |
| ED, % | 26.89 | 27.35 | 25.28 | 22.36 | 0.44 | 24.70 | 26.25 | 0.31 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.56 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.47 |
1N: without yeast supplementation;
2Y: with yeast supplementation;
3Linear indicates linear effect of dietary CTFR; quadratic indicates a quadratic effect of dietary CTFR; cubic indicates a cubic effect of dietary CTFR.
Effect of SC supplementation on rumen microbial populations and percentage of target species relative to total bacteria of steers fed diets with different concentrate-to-forage ratios
| Total bacteria, | 6.95 | 9.62 | 13.08 | 6.21 | 1.09 | 7.86 | 10.07 | 0.77 | <0.01 | 0.05 | 0.61 | 0.82 | <0.01 | 0.04 |
| ×1010 copies/mL | ||||||||||||||
| Rumen fungi, | 6.57 | 5.10 | 11.80 | 3.57 | 0.91 | 5.99 | 7.51 | 0.64 | <0.01 | 0.10 | 0.22 | 0.63 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| ×105 copies/mL | ||||||||||||||
| Protozoa, | 4.03 | 3.64 | 17.44 | 7.44 | 1.47 | 6.74 | 9.54 | 1.04 | <0.01 | 0.06 | 0.30 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| ×105 copies/mL | ||||||||||||||
| Percentage relative to total bacteria | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
| 0.45 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.16 | 0.03 | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.02 | <0.01 | 0.25 | 0.87 | <0.01 | 0.07 | <0.01 | |
| 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | <0.01 | 0.63 | 0.08 | <0.01 | 0.40 | 0.02 | |
| 1.03 | 0.39 | 0.23 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.06 | <0.01 | 0.72 | 0.85 | <0.01 | 0.03 | 0.41 | |
| 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | <0.01 | 0.37 | 0.61 | <0.01 | 0.68 | 0.75 | |
| 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.00 | <0.01 | 0.64 | 0.83 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | |
| 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.53 | <0.01 | 0.03 | 0.19 | |
| 3.10 | 3.24 | 1.80 | 1.07 | 0.21 | 2.04 | 2.55 | 0.15 | <0.01 | 0.02 | 0.46 | <0.01 | 0.09 | 0.05 | |
| 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.16 | 0.73 | <0.01 | 0.51 | 0.14 | |
1N: without yeast supplementation;
2Y: with yeast supplementation;
3Linear indicates linear effect of dietary CTFR; quadratic indicates a quadratic effect of dietary CTFR; cubic indicates a cubic effect of dietary CTFR;
4FibSuc: Fibrobacter succinogenes;
5ButFib: Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens;
6StrBov: Streptococcus bovis;
7RumAmy: Ruminobacter amylophilus;
8SelRum: Selnomonas ruminantium;
9Lactobacillus: Lactobacillus species.
Figure 1Effect of SC on of alfalfa pellet of steers fed different concentrate to forage ratios N: without yeast supplementation; Y: with yeast supplementation.
Figure 2Effect of SC on ED of alfalfa pellet of steers fed different concentrate to forage ratios N: without yeast supplementation; Y: with yeast supplementation.
Figure 3Effect of SC on of alfalfa pellet of steers fed different concentrate to forage ratios N: without yeast supplementation; Y: with yeast supplementation.
Figure 4Effect of SC on percentage of of steers fed different concentrate to forage ratios N: without yeast supplementation; Y: with yeast supplementation.