| Literature DB >> 35096928 |
Zhi Yuan Ma1,2, Ju Wang Zhou1, Si Yu Yi1, Min Wang1, Zhi Liang Tan1.
Abstract
In vitro rumen batch culture is a technology to simulate rumen fermentation by inoculating microorganisms from rumen fluids. Although inocula (INO) are commonly derived from fresh rumen fluids, frozen rumen fluids are also employed for the advantages of storing, transporting, and preserving rumen microorganisms. The effects of frozen INO on microbial fermentation and community may be interfered with by substrate type, which has not been reported. This study was designed to test whether rumen fluid treatments (i.e., fresh and frozen) could interact with incubated substrates. A complete block design with fractional arrangement treatment was used to investigate the effects of INO (fresh or frozen rumen fluids) and concentrate-to-forage ratios (C/F, 1:4 or 1:1) on rumen fermentation and microbial community. The effects of increasing C/F were typical, including increased dry matter (DM) degradation and total volatile fatty acids (VFA) concentration (P < 0.001), and decreased acetate to propionate ratio (P = 0.01) and bacterial diversity of richness and evenness (P ≤ 0.005) with especially higher fermentative bacteria such as genus Rikenellaceae_RC, F082, Prevotella, Bacteroidales_BS11, Muribaculaceaege, and Christensenellaceae_R-7 (P ≤ 0.04). Although frozen INO decreased (P < 0.001) DM degradation and altered rumen fermentation with lower (P ≤ 0.01) acetate to propionate ratio and molar proportion of butyrate than fresh INO, typical effects of C/F were independent of INO, as indicated by insignificant INO × C/F interaction on substrate degradation, VFA profile and bacterial community (P ≥ 0.20). In summary, the effect of C/F on fermentation and bacterial diversity is not interfered with by INO type, and frozen INO can be used to distinguish the effect of starch content.Entities:
Keywords: bacterial community; fresh inoculum; frozen inoculum; in vitro technique; rumen fermentation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35096928 PMCID: PMC8795705 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2021.772645
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Effect of inocula (INO) and concentrate-to-forage ratio (C/F) on rumen degradation and fermentation after 48 h in vitro rumen batch culture (n = 3).
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| DM degradation, % | 69.4 | 65.1 | 57.8 | 67.7 | 0.38 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.67 |
|
| ||||||||
| mL/g DM | 328 | 294 | 276 | 312 | 2.6 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.04 |
| mL/g of DM degraded | 476 | 455 | 481 | 462 | 7.5 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.27 |
| Total VFA (m | 62.7 | 54.0 | 52.8 | 63.9 | 1.25 | 0.002 | <0.001 | 0.43 |
| pH | 6.40 | 6.40 | 6.40 | 6.40 | 0.006 | 0.91 | 0.69 | 0.91 |
|
| ||||||||
| Acetate | 67.0 | 67.3 | 68.3 | 66.0 | 0.49 | 0.64 | 0.01 | 0.78 |
| Propionate | 20.2 | 22.6 | 21.4 | 21.4 | 0.21 | <0.001 | 0.98 | 0.85 |
| Butyrate | 7.90 | 6.34 | 6.37 | 7.87 | 0.363 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.77 |
| 1.35 | 1.09 | 1.17 | 1.28 | 0.057 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.89 | |
| Valerate | 1.29 | 1.08 | 1.04 | 1.32 | 0.054 | 0.02 | 0.006 | 0.77 |
| 2.15 | 1.46 | 1.61 | 2.01 | 0.104 | 0.001 | 0.02 | 0.98 | |
|
| 3.30 | 2.97 | 3.19 | 3.08 | 0.024 | <0.001 | 0.01 | 0.50 |
INO, inocula; C/F, concentrate-to-forage ratio; DM, dry matter.
Figure 1Effect of inocula (INO) and concentrate-to-forage ratio (C/F) on total gas production after 48 h in vitro rumen batch culture (n = 3).
Figure 2Effect of inocula (INO) and concentrate-to-forage ratio (C/F) on bacterial richness and evenness at zero-radius OTU (ZOTU) level after 48 h in vitro rumen batch culture (n = 3).
Figure 3Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of bacterial community base on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix at the OTU level (n = 3). 1PMANOVA, permutational multivariate ANOVA; INO, inocula; C/F, concentrate-to-forage ratio.
Effect of inocula (INO) and concentrate-to-forage ratio (C/F) on abundance (%) of the taxonomy of bacterial community after 48 h in vitro rumen batch culture (n = 3).
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10.3 | 8.0 | 5.2 | 13.0 | 1.39 | 0.28 | 0.007 | 0.37 |
| F082 | 5.81 | 4.82 | 2.88 | 7.75 | 1.115 | 0.55 | 0.02 | 0.20 |
|
| 4.94 | 5.56 | 2.61 | 7.89 | 1.114 | 0.70 | 0.01 | 0.27 |
| 3.84 | 1.51 | 1.13 | 4.22 | 0.863 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.13 | |
| 2.15 | 1.96 | 1.21 | 2.89 | 0.383 | 0.73 | 0.02 | 0.35 | |
| 1.34 | 1.78 | 1.08 | 2.04 | 0.307 | 0.34 | 0.06 | 0.30 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.68 | 1.89 | 1.29 | 3.28 | 0.289 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.23 |
| 1.49 | 1.94 | 1.08 | 2.35 | 0.403 | 0.45 | 0.06 | 0.85 | |
|
| 0.58 | 1.87 | 0.92 | 1.54 | 0.230 | 0.007 | 0.10 | 0.80 |
|
| 1.34 | 0.77 | 0.72 | 1.39 | 0.238 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.40 |
| 1.16 | 0.83 | 0.62 | 1.37 | 0.143 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.46 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.04 | 5.12 | 6.74 | 1.42 | 0.964 | 0.17 | 0.008 | 0.72 | |
| 1.07 | 0.95 | 2.02 | 0.009 | 0.342 | 0.80 | 0.006 | 0.78 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.66 | 1.02 | 1.58 | 0.10 | 0.186 | 0.21 | 0.003 | 0.54 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top 5 phyla and their affiliated genera with an abundance higher than 1% were presented.
INO, inocula; C/F, concentrate-to-forage ratio.