| Literature DB >> 28018590 |
Yasuo Kobayashi1, Seongjin Oh1, Htun Myint1, Satoshi Koike1.
Abstract
In the last five decades, attempts have been made to improve rumen fermentation and host animal nutrition through modulation of rumen microbiota. The goals have been decreasing methane production, partially inhibiting protein degradation to avoid excess release of ammonia, and activation of fiber digestion. The main approach has been the use of dietary supplements. Since growth-promoting antibiotics were banned in European countries in 2006, safer alternatives including plant-derived materials have been explored. Plant oils, their component fatty acids, plant secondary metabolites and other compounds have been studied, and many originate or are abundantly available in Asia as agricultural byproducts. In this review, the potency of selected byproducts in inhibition of methane production and protein degradation, and in stimulation of fiber degradation was described in relation to their modes of action. In particular, cashew and ginkgo byproducts containing alkylphenols to mitigate methane emission and bean husks as a source of functional fiber to boost the number of fiber-degrading bacteria were highlighted. Other byproducts influencing rumen microbiota and fermentation profile were also described. Future application of these feed and additive candidates is very dependent on a sufficient, cost-effective supply and optimal usage in feeding practice.Entities:
Keywords: Agricultural byproduct; Fermentation; Fiber degradation; Methane mitigation; Microbiota; Plant secondary metabolites; Rumen
Year: 2016 PMID: 28018590 PMCID: PMC5159970 DOI: 10.1186/s40104-016-0126-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol ISSN: 1674-9782
Effect of selected agricultural byproducts containing anacardic acid and other phenolics on dry matter (DM) digestibility and rumen fermentation parameters
| Byproduct, origin | Description | Phenolics, % in weight | Reference | Test by | Dosed at | DM digestibility, % | Total VFA, mmol/dL | Inhibition, % | Reference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anacardic acid | Caldanol | Caldol | Methanea | Ammonia | ||||||||
| Cashew shell, India | Heatedb | - | 71.4 | 14.4 | [ | Batch culture | 0.5 mg/mL | - | ns | 9.2 | - | [ |
| Raw | 57.7 | 8.2 | 19.9 | ibid. | ibid | - | ns | 56.9 | - | ibid. | ||
| Raw | ibid. | ibid. | ibid. | ibid. | RUSITEC | 0.2 mg/mL | ↑ | ns | 70.1 | 16.5 | ibid. | |
| Raw | ibid. | ibid. | ibid. | ibid. | Feeding (dry cow) | 0.32% of DMI | ns | ns | 19.3–38.3 | ns | [ | |
| Raw | ibid. | ibid. | ibid. | ibid. | Feeding (milking cow) | ibid. | ns | ns | 12.7 | ns | Shinkai et al. unpublished | |
| Raw | ibid. | ibid. | ibid. | ibid. | Feeding (sheep) | ibid. | ns | ns | 61.4 | 43.0 | Suzuki et al. unpublished | |
| Cashew shell, Tanzania | Raw | - | - | - | [ | Batch culture | 0.17 mg/mL | - | ns | 17.8 | - | [ |
| Cashew shell, Brazil | Heated | - | 62.9 | 13.4 | [ | Feeding (milking cow) | 0.11% of DMI | ns | - | 8.0 | - | [ |
| Raw | 64.9 | 1.2 | 13.3 | [ | ||||||||
| Cashew shell, Brazil | Heated | - | 73.3 | 19.4 | [ | Feeding (milking cow) | 0.036% of DMI | ns | - | - | - | [ |
| Raw | 49.3 | 30.5 | 20.2 | [ | ||||||||
| Ginkgo fruit, Japan | Cultivar A | 85.0 | 2.3 | 12.7 | Oh et al. | Batch culture | 3.2 mg/mL | - | ns | 85.7 | 42.0 | Oh et al. unpublished |
| Cultivar B | 86.8 | 2.3 | 10.9 | unpublished | ibid. | 4.5 mg/mL | - | ns | 65.9 | 46.0 | ibid. | |
| RUSITEC | 3.2 mg/mL | ns | ns | 47.3 | 53.7 | ibid. | ||||||
| Ginkgo leaf, Korea | Unspecified | - | - | - | Batch | 1.0 mg/mLc | ns | ns | 46.7 | - | [ | |
-, No data available
ns, Not significantly changed
↑, Significantly increased
aCalculated on basis of CH4 ml for in vitro test and of CH4 g/kg DMI for in vivo test, respectively
bHeat was used in deshelling process
cg of extract/mL (not calculable as original leaf)
Effect of selected agricultural byproducts containing anacardic acid and other phenolics on rumen microbial abundance determined by quantitative PCR
| Byproduct | Main compound involved | Tested by | Dosed at | Abundance of rumen microbe, relative % to total bacteria | Reference | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pro | Meth | Fu | Fs | Rf | Ra | Me | Sr | Sd | Tb | Sb | Pr | Pb | Rm | Al | |||||
| Cashew shell | Anacardic acid | RUSITEC | 0.2 mg/mL | ↓a | ns | - | ↓ | ↓ | ns | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | ns | ↓ | ↓ | ns | ↑ | [ |
| Feeding (dry cow) | 0.32% of DMI | nsa | ns | - | ns | ↓ | ↓ | - | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | - | ↑ | - | - | ↑ | [ | ||
| Feeding (milking cow) | 0.33% of DMI | - | ns | ns | ↓ | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | Shinkai et al. unpublished | ||
| Feeding (sheep) | 0.32% of DMI | ↓a | - | - | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | Suzuki et al. unpublished | ||
| Ginkgo fruit | Anacardic acid | Batch culture, culivar A | 3.2 mg/mL | - | ↑ | - | ns | ns | ns | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ | ns | ↑ | ns | ns | Oh et al. unpublished |
| Batch culture, cultivar B | 4.5 mg/mL | - | ↑ | - | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ↓ | ns | ↑ | ns | ↑ | ns | ↓ | ibid. | ||
| RUSITEC, cultivar A | 3.2 mg/mL | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | ns | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ | ibid. | ||
| Ginkgo leaf | Unspecified | Batch culture | 1.0 mg/mLb | ↓ | ↑ | - | ↑ | ↓ | ↓ | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | [ |
Pro protozoa, Meth methanogen, Fu fungi, Fs Fibrobacter succinogenes, Rf Ruminococcus flavefaciens, Ra Ruminococcus albus, Me Megasphaera elsdenii, Sr Selenomonas ruminantium, Sd Succinovibrio dextrinosolvens, Tb Treponema bryantii, Sb Streptococcus bovis, Pr Prevotella ruminicola, Pb Prevotella bryantii, Rm Ruminobacter amylophilus, Al Anaerovibrio lipolytica
-, No data available
ns, Not significantly changed
↑, Significantly increased
↓, Significantly decreased
aValue were obtained by direct counting
bg of extract/mL (not calculable as original leaf)
Effect of selected agricultural byproducts containing saponins and other phenolics on dry matter (DM) digestibility, rumen fermentation parameters and microbial abundance
| Byproduct | Main compounds involved | Tested by | Dosed at | DM digestibility, % | Total VFA, mmol/dL | Inhibition, % | Abundance, relative % | Reference | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Methane | Ammonia | Protozoa | Meth | Fungi | Fs | Rf | Ra | |||||||
| Tea seed/seed meal | Saponins | Batch culture | 0.4 mg/mL | - | ns | 8.0 | - | 51.3 | ns | ↓ | ↑ | ns | - | [ |
| Feeding (sheep) | 3 g/da | - | ns | 10.6 | 13.2 | 43.2 | ns | ns | ↓ | ns | ns | [ | ||
| Feeding (steer) | 0.24–0.38% of DMI | - | ns | 15.6 | - | ns | ns | - | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ | [ | ||
| Feeding (growing lamb) | 0.41% of DMI | - | ↑ | 27.5 | ns | 41.1 | ns | ns | - | ns | ns | [ | ||
| Thai bllueberry seed | Saponins | Feeding (goat) | 0.8–24% of DMI | ns | ns | 2.2–8.0 | ns | ns | - | - | - | - | - | [ |
| Fenugreek seed | Saponins | Batch culture | 0.14–0.29 mg/mL | - | ns | 1.8–2.0 | - | 15.0–39.0 | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ | - | [ |
| Mangosteen peel | Saponins, tannins | Feeding (dairy cow) | 100–300 g/da | - | - | 5.5–13.8 | - | 20.5–47.1 | ↓ | ns | ns | ns | ns | [ |
| Eucarypus leaf meal | Cineol, cryptone etc. | Feeding (swamp buffalo) | 0.7–2.0% of DMI | ns | ↑ | 8.4–13.9 | 12.7–33.9 | 5.5–22.0 | - | - | - | - | - | {51} |
Meth methanogen, Fs Fibrobacter succinogenes, Rf Ruminococcus flavefaciens, Ra Ruminococcus albus
-, No data available
ns, Not significantly changed
↑, Significantly increased
↓, Significantly decreased
aDosage could not be expressed as % of dry matter intake (DMI) due to lack of data on feed intake
Stimulation of growth of representative fibrolytic rumen bacteria by bean husks
| Rumen bacterial colonizationa | Rumen bacterial abundanceb | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fiber or husk, origin | H/C ratioc | By qPCR, × 107/mL | By clone library, % | By qPCR, × 107/mL | ||||||
| Fs | Rf | Ra | Fs | Rf | Ra | Fs | Rf | Ra | ||
| Beet pulp, Japan | 1.53 | 0.2 | 5.0 | 0.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rice straw, Japan | 0.68 | 747.4 | 36.7 | 19.0 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.9 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Chickpea, Myanmar | 0.06 | 476.3 | 72.4 | 7.2 | 6.5 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 229.1 | 1.9 | 0.3 |
| Lablab bean, Myanmar | 0.38 | 1044.0 | 27.5 | 91.6 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 371.5 | 3.2 | 6.0 |
Data are based on Fuma et al. [52] and Ngwe et al. [53]
aEach fiber source was incubated for 24 h in the rumen and colonized bacteria were quantified by quantitative PCR (qPCR)
bBacteria quantified were Fibrobacter succinogenes (Fs), Ruminococcus flavefaciens (Rf) and Ruminococcus albus (Ra)
cHemicellulose/cellulose ratio indicates the degree of complexity of fiber structure