| Literature DB >> 33049981 |
Gonzalo Martinez-Fernandez1, Jinzhen Jiao2, Jagadish Padmanabha1, Stuart E Denman1, Christopher S McSweeney1.
Abstract
This study aimed to characterize the rumen microbiota structure of cattle grazing in tropical rangelands throughout seasons and their responses in rumen ecology and productivity to a N-based supplement during the dry season. Twenty pregnant heifers grazing during the dry season of northern Australia were allocated to either N-supplemented or un-supplemented diets and monitored through the seasons. Rumen fluid, blood, and feces were analyzed before supplementation (mid-dry season), after two months supplementation (late-dry season), and post supplementation (wet season). Supplementation increased average daily weight gain (ADWG), rumen NH3-N, branched fatty acids, butyrate and acetic:propionic ratio, and decreased plasma δ15N. The supplement promoted bacterial populations involved in hemicellulose and pectin degradation and ammonia assimilation: Bacteroidales BS11, Cyanobacteria, and Prevotella spp. During the dry season, fibrolytic populations were promoted: the bacteria Fibrobacter, Cyanobacteria and Kiritimatiellaeota groups; the fungi Cyllamyces; and the protozoa Ostracodinium. The wet season increased the abundances of rumen protozoa and fungi populations, with increases of bacterial families Lachnospiraceae, Ruminococcaceae, and Muribaculaceae; the protozoa Entodinium and Eudiplodinium; the fungi Pecoramyces; and the archaea Methanosphera. In conclusion, the rumen microbiota of cattle grazing in a tropical grassland is distinctive from published studies that mainly describe ruminants consuming better quality diets.Entities:
Keywords: microbiota; nitrogen supplementation; rumen; seasonal effect; tropical rangelands
Year: 2020 PMID: 33049981 PMCID: PMC7600044 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8101550
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Rumen fermentation parameters, body weight, ADWG, fecal N, BUN, and plasma nitrogen fractionation (δ 15N) in pregnant heifers grazing tropical forage at late-dry season, two months on supplementation or un-supplemented.
| Un-Supplemented | Supplemented | SEM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight (Kg) | 379 | 437 | 8.17 | 0.002 |
| N intake kg/day | 0.002 | 0.023 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Supplement intake kg/day | 0.015 | 0.153 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| ADWG (Kg) | −0.374 | 0.674 | 0.09 | 0.001 |
| δ 15Nplasma protein | 7.11 | 5.44 | 0.11 | 0.001 |
| Fecal N % | 1.10 | 1.12 | 0.03 | 0.72 |
| Ammonia-N mg/L | 14.3 | 23.9 | 3.17 | 0.15 |
| BUN mg/100 mL | 4.66 | 4.75 | 0.30 | 0.89 |
| Total VFA mM | 75.8 | 75.8 | 3.31 | 0.99 |
| Fatty acid % | ||||
| Acetate | 73.2 | 74.5 | 0.27 | 0.031 |
| Propionate | 18.2 | 14.0 | 0.38 | 0.005 |
| Butyrate | 7.70 | 8.65 | 0.16 | 0.007 |
| iso-Butyrate | 0.25 | 0.34 | 0.03 | 0.084 |
| Valerate | 0.37 | 0.41 | 0.01 | 0.167 |
| iso-Valerate | 0.24 | 0.32 | 0.03 | 0.161 |
| Acetic:Propionic ratio | 4.08 | 4.73 | 0.11 | 0.008 |
Rumen fermentation parameters, body weight, fecal N, and BUN in heifers grazing at mid-dry and wet season (pregnant and lactating, respectively).
| Mid-Dry Season | Wet Season | SEM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight (Kg) | 399 | 389 | 7.06 | 0.168 |
| Fecal N % | 0.97 | 2.12 | 0.03 | 0.001 |
| Ammonia-N mg/L | 11.9 | 70.2 | 2.34 | 0.001 |
| BUN mg/100 mL | 2.79 | 9.04 | 0.40 | 0.001 |
| Total VFA mM | 84.0 | 64.2 | 3.15 | 0.001 |
| Fatty acid % | ||||
| Acetate | 75.6 | 75.8 | 0.16 | 0.601 |
| Propionate | 14.1 | 12.0 | 0.13 | 0.001 |
| Butyrate | 8.99 | 9.37 | 0.07 | 0.085 |
| iso-Butyrate | 0.48 | 0.89 | 0.03 | 0.001 |
| Valerate | 0.34 | 0.64 | 0.01 | 0.001 |
| iso-Valerate | 0.44 | 1.09 | 0.03 | 0.001 |
| Acetic:Propionic ratio | 5.38 | 6.18 | 0.06 | 0.001 |
Figure 1Clustering analysis using a heatmap based on the bacterial ASVs significantly different from un-supplemented and supplemented animals during the late-dry season.
Figure 2Taxonomic composition of the rumen bacteria community at the phylum level (A) and family level (B) for the mid-dry and wet seasons in un-supplemented animals.
Figure 3Taxonomic composition of the rumen archaea community at family and genus level for the mid-dry and wet seasons in un-supplemented animals.
Figure 4Taxonomic composition of the rumen protozoa community at genus level for the mid-dry and wet seasons in un-supplemented animals.
Figure 5Taxonomic composition of the rumen fungi community at the genus level for the mid-dry and wet seasons in un-supplemented animals.
Figure 6Clustering analysis using heatmap based on the bacterial ASVs significantly different from animals grazing in the mid-dry and wet seasons.