| Literature DB >> 33263013 |
Faiz-Ul Hassan1,2, Muhammad Adeel Arshad2, Hossam M Ebeid3, Muhammad Saif-Ur Rehman2, Muhammad Sajjad Khan2, Shehryaar Shahid2, Chengjian Yang1.
Abstract
Ruminants inhabit the consortia of gut microbes that play a critical functional role in their maintenance and nourishment by enabling them to use cellulosic and non-cellulosic feed material. These gut microbes perform major physiological activities, including digestion and metabolism of dietary components, to derive energy to meet major protein (65-85%) and energy (ca 80%) requirements of the host. Owing to their contribution to digestive physiology, rumen microbes are considered one of the crucial factors affecting feed conversion efficiency in ruminants. Any change in the rumen microbiome has an imperative effect on animal physiology. Ruminal microbes are fundamentally anaerobic and produce various compounds during rumen fermentation, which are directly used by the host or other microbes. Methane (CH4) is produced by methanogens through utilizing metabolic hydrogen during rumen fermentation. Maximizing the flow of metabolic hydrogen in the rumen away from CH4 and toward volatile fatty acids (VFA) would increase the efficiency of ruminant production and decrease its environmental impact. Understanding of microbial diversity and rumen dynamics is not only crucial for the optimization of host efficiency but also required to mediate emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from ruminants. There are various strategies to modulate the rumen microbiome, mainly including dietary interventions and the use of different feed additives. Phytogenic feed additives, mainly plant secondary compounds, have been shown to modulate rumen microflora and change rumen fermentation dynamics leading to enhanced animal performance. Many in vitro and in vivo studies aimed to evaluate the use of plant secondary metabolites in ruminants have been conducted using different plants or their extract or essential oils. This review specifically aims to provide insights into dietary interactions of rumen microbes and their subsequent consequences on rumen fermentation. Moreover, a comprehensive overview of the modulation of rumen microbiome by using phytogenic compounds (essential oils, saponins, and tannins) for manipulating rumen dynamics to mediate CH4 emanation from livestock is presented. We have also discussed the pros and cons of each strategy along with future prospective of dietary modulation of rumen microbiome to improve the performance of ruminants while decreasing GHG emissions.Entities:
Keywords: VFA; fermentation; methane; microbiome; plant secondary metabolites; rumen
Year: 2020 PMID: 33263013 PMCID: PMC7688522 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.575801
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Figure 1Three enzymatic pathways of methanogenesis. Δ, CO2-reducing pathway (hydrogenotrophic pathway); Δ, acetoclastic pathway; Δ, methylotrophic pathway; MFR, methanofuran; H4MPT, tetrahydromethanopterin; H4SPT, tetrahydrosarcinapterin; ΔG0′, standard free energy change; CH3-R, methyl-containing compounds such as methanol, methanethiol, dimethylsulfide, monomethylamine, dimethylamine, trimethylamine, and tetramethylammonium; Fdred, reduced form of ferredoxin; Fdox, oxidized form of ferredoxin; ΔμNa+, electrochemical sodium ion potential; ΔμH+, electrochemical proton potential; FBeB, flavin-based electron bifurcation; CDeT, cytochrome-dependent electron transfer; MCR, methyl-coenzyme M reductase; CODH/ACS, carbon monoxide dehydrogenase/acetylCoA synthase/decarbonlyase complex. Adapted from Lyu et al. (72).
Figure 2Microbes involved in VFA production.
Effect of saponins on rumen microbial population.
| Tea saponin | TMR + wildrye hay | = | ↓ | = | ↑ | = | = | = | ( | |
| Tea saponin (Lerak) | Cassava leaf silage | = | = | = | = | = | = | NF | ( | |
| Quillaja saponin | TMR | ↑ | NF | = | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |
| Combination (Enterolobium cyclocarpum and Gliricidia sepium) | TMR 3.3% of 15% DM | = | = | = | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |
| Tea saponin | F:C (50:50) | = | = | = | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |
| Tea saponin | Chambers 0.52% | TMR | NF | ↓ | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( |
| Quillaja saponin | Open chambers (0.6 g/L) | F:C (50:50) | = | ↓ | ↓ | = | ↑ | ↑ | NF | ( |
F.S, Fibrobacter succinogenes; R.F, Ruminococcus flavefaciens; R.A, Ruminococcus albus; B.F, Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens; NF, not found; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease; =, no effect.
Effects of saponin on methanogenesis, rumen fermentation, and feed degradability.
| Tea saponin | TMR + wildrye hay | = | ↓ | ↑ | = | = | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | = | ↓ | ↑ | ( | |
| Tea saponin (Lerak) | Cassava leaf silage | = | ↓ | = | NF | ↑ | ↑ | = | ↑ | = | ↑ | NF | ↑ | ( | |
| Quillaja saponin | TMR | = | ↓ | = | NF | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | ( | |
| Combination of kulthi, patha, and aritha | F:C (80:20) | ↓ | NF | ↓ | NF | = | ↓ | = | = | = | = | ↓ | ↑ | ( | |
| Combination of Enterolobium cyclocarpum and Gliricidia sepium | TMR 3.3% of 15% DM | = | NF | = | = | = | = | = | = | NF | NF | = | = | ( | |
| Sapindus mukorossi fruits acetone extract | Buffalo rumen 125 ml bottles fitted 0.5 ml | Oat hay | ↓ | = | NF | = | = | = | NF | NF | NF | = | = | ( | |
| Alfalfa saponins | F:C (50:50) | NF | NF | NF | = | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ↑ | ( | |
| Tea saponin | Open chambers 0.52% | TMR | ↑ | = | = | ↓ | = | = | = | NF | NF | NF | = | = | ( |
F:C, forage to concentrate ratio; TMR, total mixed ration; tVFA, total volatile fatty acid; DMI, dry matter intake; DMD, dry matter degradability; NF, not found; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease; =, no effect.
Effect of tannins on rumen microbial population.
| Acacia mearnsii | TMR | NF | NF | NF | ↓ | = | NF | NF | ( | |
| Chestnut tannin extract | TMR | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | ( | |
| Tannic acid | (TMR) Low CP | = | NF | NF | = | = | NF | = | ( | |
| DFPP condensed tannin (6.9%) | F:C (30:70) | NF | ↓ | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |
| HT | Beef cattle | Alfalfa silage | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |
| Tannin extracted from pomegranate peel | Lambs | Recycled poultry bedding | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | ||
| HT | TMR | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | ||
| HT | F:C (50:50) | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |||
| Tannin from chestnut, valonea, sumac and grape seed | TMR | NF | NF | = | NF | ↓ | NF | NF | ( | |
| i) HT | Concentrate | ( | ||||||||
| HT | Grass hay | NF | NF | NF | = | ↑ | = | ↑ | ( |
PV, Prevotella; RC, Ruminococcus; RB, Ruminobacter; BV, Butyrivibrio; NF, not found; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease; =, no effect.
Effects of tannins on methanogenesis, rumen fermentation, and feed degradability.
| Tannin-containing hay | Hay | ↓ | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |
| ATE | Urea-containing diet | = | ↓ | = | = | ↓ | = | NF | ↑ | NF | ↑ | ↓ | ↓ | ( | |
| Acacia mearnsii | TMR | NF | = | NF | NF | ↓ | ↑ | = | = | NF | ↑ | = | NF | ( | |
| lipid encapsulated- ATE | TMR | ↓ | ↓ | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |
| Oak tannin extract | TMR including linseed | = | NF | NF | = | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | = | ( | |
| DFPP condensed tannin (6.9%) | F:C (30:70) | ( | |||||||||||||
| i) HT | Commercial concentrate diet | NF | ( | ||||||||||||
| Quebracho tannin extract | Crossbred heifers, | Low-quality tropical | ( | ||||||||||||
| 40% distillers grains and solubles with CT | Cannulated crossbred beef heifers 2.5% CT extract | High protein finishing diets | ↓ | = | ↓ | = | = | ↑ | = | ↓ | = | = | ↑ | ↓ | ( |
| Tannic acid | (TMR) | NF | ( | ||||||||||||
| HT | Beef cattle | Alfalfa silage | ( | ||||||||||||
| HT | F:C (50:50) | ( | |||||||||||||
| HT | TMR | NF | ( | ||||||||||||
| CT | Lucerne silage | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |||
| Tannin extracted from pomegranate peel | Lambs | Recycled poultry bedding | NF | NF | NF | ( | |||||||||
| Combination of TA and AF | Commercial concentrate diet | ↓ | NF | = | NF | = | NF | NF | = | NF | NF | NF | = | ( | |
| CT | Cassava silage | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |||||||
| HT Acacia nilotica | Acacia nilotica leaves | NF | NF | ( | |||||||||||
| Chestnut | Ensiled cassava leaves F:C (60:40) | NF | ( | ||||||||||||
| HT | Oil diets | NF | NF | NF | ( |
F:C, forage to concentrate ratio; TMR, total mixed ration; tVFA, total volatile fatty acid; DMI, dry matter intake; DMD, dry matter degradability; NF, not found; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease; =, no effect; HT, hydrolysable tannins; CT, hydrolysable tannins; DFPP, dragon fruit peel powder; TA, tannic acid; AF, Allium fistulosum L.; ATE, acacia tannin extract.
Effect of various EO and their compounds on rumen microbial population.
| Oregano essential oil | F:C (65.5:34.5) | = | NF | NF | ↓ | = | = | = | ( | |
| Oregano oil and carvacrol | Cannulated cows (50 mg/kg of DM) | TMR | NF | = | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( |
| Oregano essential oil | F:C (65.5:34.5) | NF | NF | ( | ||||||
| Essential oil-cobalt | Goat | Concentrate | NF | ( | ||||||
| Plant-derived EO (carvacrol, eugenol and thymol) | TMR | NF | = | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |
| Mixture of cinnamaldehyde, thymol, and eugenol | Heifer | F:C (60:50) 24 h | NF | NF | ( | |||||
| Thymol:carvacrol | Rumen culture of bovine | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |||
| Java cardamom | F:C (60:40) | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | ||
| Blend of cinnamaldehyde and garlic oil | F:C (50:50) | NF | = | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |
| Anise EO | F:C (40:60) | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( |
F:C., forage to concentrate ratio; TMR, total mixed ration; NF, not found; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease; =, no effect; EO, essential oils; F.S, Fibrobacter succinogenes; R.F, Ruminococcus flavefaciens; R.A, Ruminococcus albus; B.F, Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens; LCP, low CP diet.
Effects of various EO and their compounds on methanogenesis, rumen fermentation, and feed degradability.
| Oregano essential oil | F:C (65.5:34.5) | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | NF | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ | ( | |
| Oregano oil and carvacrol | Cannulated cows (50 mg/kg of DM) | TMR | = | = | = | = | = | = | NF | ↑ | NF | = | ↓ | = | ( |
| Dried oregano | Dairy cows (18, 36, and 53 g DM/kg of dietary DM in low EO | TMR | = | = | = | = | = | = | NF | = | NF | = | = | = | ( |
| Essential oil-cobalt | Goat | Concentrate | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | ||||||
| Lippia turbinate | F:C (80:20) | ↓ | = | = | NF | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | ↓ | ( | |
| Cashew and Castor | F:C (20:80) | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |||||||||
| Mixture of cinnamaldehyde, thymol, and eugenol | Heifer | F:C (60:50) 24 h | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | ||||||||
| Thyme | TMR | NF | ↓ | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ↑ | ( | |
| Lavandula angustifolia | Sheep μl/g DMI | Hig- concentrate diet | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | ||||||||
| Thymol:carvacrol ratio | Rumen culture of bovine | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | ||||
| EO | Dairy cow 1 g/d | TMR | ↓ | NF | NF | ↑ | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( |
| Blend of EO (cresols, thymol, limonene, vanillin, guaiacol, eugenol, and salicylate) | F:C (60:40) | NF | ( | ||||||||||||
| Lemon grass EO | Lamb, 1 ml/kg of DM | F:C (15:85) | NF | NF | = | = | = | ↓ | ↓ | = | ↓ | ↑ | NF | = | ( |
| Java cardamom | F:C (60:40) | NF | NF | NF | NF | ( | |||||||||
| Plant-derived EO (carvacrol, eugenol and thymol) | TMR | NF | ( | ||||||||||||
| Blend of cinnamaldehyde and garlic oil | Sheep 0.0043% of DM | F:C (50:50) | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | ↑ | = | = | = | ( |
| Microencapsulated blend of EO | Sheep | TMR | ( | ||||||||||||
| Citrus essential oils | TMR (3 weeks) | = | ↓ | ↓ | = | ↓ | = | NF | = | NF | NF | = | = | ( |
F:C, forage to concentrate ratio; TMR, total mixed ration; tVFA, total volatile fatty acid; DMD, dry matter degradability; DMI, dry matter intake; NF, not found; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease; =, no effect; EO, essential oils; LCP, low CP diet.