Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on Rumen Fermentation Characteristics, Nutrient Degradation and Cellulase Activity of Steers Fed Diets with Different Concentrate to Forage Ratios

Gengzhi Ding¹, Ying Chang¹, Zhenming Zhou¹, Liping Ren¹ and Qingxiang Meng^1,

¹State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China

Cite this paper

Gengzhi Ding, Ying Chang, Zhenming Zhou, Liping Ren and Qingxiang Meng. Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on Rumen Fermentation Characteristics, Nutrient Degradation and Cellulase Activity of Steers Fed Diets with Different Concentrate to Forage Ratios. World Journal of Agricultural Research. 2014; 2(6):303-308. doi: 10.12691/WJAR-2-6-10

Abstract

The objective of current study was to evaluate effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) on rumen fermentation characteristics and fiber degradation in steers fed diets with different concentrate levels. Ten Simental × Local breed steers fitted with rumen fistulas were assigned to control and treatment groups. Steers were fed the same basal diets but the treatment groups received SC supplementation (8×10⁹ cfu/h/d) following a 2-period crossover design. Each period was comprised of four phases. From the 1^st to the 4^th phase, steers were fed in a stepwise fashion with incremental levels of concentrate diets at concentrate to forage ratios (CTFR) of 30:70, 50:50, 70:30 and 90:10, respectively. MIXED procedure was used to analysis effect of SC supplementation on parameters. Linear and quadratic responses for dietary CTFR were assessed using orthogonal polynomial contrast statements. The results showed that with dietary CTFR increasing, rumen pH, acetate and isobutyrate molar proportion, acetate: propionate, degradation rate (c_DM, c_NDF) and effective degradability (ED_DM, ED_NDF) of CRH linearly decreased (L; P < 0.01); TVFA concentration, molar proportion of propionate, butyrate, valerate and isovalerate and enzyme fibrotic activities linearly increased (L; P < 0.01), but concentration of rumen ammonia N, d+l-lactate and rapidly degradable fraction (a_DM, a_NDF) of CRH presented quadratic variation (Q; P < 0.01). Regardless of dietary CTFR, rumen pH, c_DM, c_NDF, ED_DM, ED_NDF of CRH and enzyme fibrotic activities with SC supplementation was higher compared to control groups (P < 0.05). Overall, SC possesses the capacity to stabilize rumen pH and to enhance fiber degradation.

Keywords

fibrolytic activity, in situ, rumen fermentation characteristics, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, steer

Copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References

[1]	Anadón A, The EU ban of antibiotics as feed additives: alternatives and consumer safety. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2006. 29, 41-44.
[2]	Ondarza MB de, Sniffen CJ, Graham H and Wilcock P, Case study: Effect of Supplemental Live Yeast on Yield of Milk and Milk Components in High-Producing Multiparous Holstein Cows. The Professional Animal Scientist, 2010, 26, 443-449.
[3]	Brossard L, Chaucheyras-Durand F, Michalet-Doreauand B and Martin C, Dose effect of live yeasts on rumen microbial communities and fermentations during butyric latent acidosis in sheep: new type of interaction.Animal Science, 2006. 82, 829-836.
[4]	Moallem U, Lehrer H, Livshitz L, Zachut M and Yakoby S, The effects of live yeast supplementation to dairy cows during the hot season on production, feed efficiency, and digestibility. Journal of Dairy Science, 200992, 343-351.
[5]	Chaucheyras-Durand F, Walker ND, Bach A, Effects of active dry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem: Past, present and future. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2008145, 5-26.
[6]	Bach A, Iglesias C, Devant M, Daily rumen pH pattern of loose-housed dairy cattle as affected by feeding pattern and live yeast supplementation. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2007,136, 146-153.
[7]	Carro MD, Lebzien P, and Rohr K. Influence of yeast culture on the in vitro fermentation (Rusitec) of diets containing variable portions of concentrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1992, 37, 209-220.
[8]	Mutsvangwa T, Edwards IE, Topps JH and Paterson GFM, The effect of dietary inclusion of yeast culture (Yea-Sacc) on patterns of rumen fermentation, food intake and growth of intensively fed bulls. Animal Production, 1992. 55, 35-40.
[9]	Mir Z and Mir PS, Effect of the Addition of Live Yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on Growth and Carcass Quality of Steers Fed High-Forage or High Grain Diets and on Feed Digestibility and In Situ Degradability. Journal of Animal Science, 199472, 537-545.
[10]	Guedes CM, Gongalves D, Rodrigues MAM, Dias-da-Silva A. Effects of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast on ruminal fermentation and fibre degradation of maize silages in cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2008,145, 27-40.
[11]	Desnoyers M, Giger-Reverdin S, Bertin G, Duvaux-Ponter C and Sauvant D. Meta-analysis of the influence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on ruminal parameters and milk production of ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science. 2009,92, 1620-1632.
[12]	NRC, Nutrient Requirement of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revision Editon: Update 2000. National Academy of Science, Washington DC.
[13]	Ørskov ER, DeB Hovell FD & Mould F, The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Tropical Animal Production, 1980, 5, 195-213.
[14]	YU P Q and Niu ZY. Using a complex non-TDN based model (the DVE/OEB system) to predict microbial protein synthesis, endogenous protein, degradation balance, and total truly absorbed protein supply of different varieties of cereal oats for ruminants. Animal Science Journal, 2009, 80, 273-279.
[15]	Jensen C, Weisbjerg M R, Nørgaard P, Hvelplund T, Effect of maize silage maturity on site of starch and NDF digestion in lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2005, 118, 279-294.
[16]	Van Soest PJ, Robertson J.B., Lewis BA, Methods for dietary fiber neutral detergent fiber, and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 1991,74, 3583-3597.
[17]	Hristov AN, Varga G, Cassidy T, Long M, Heyler K, Karnati SKR, Corl B, Hovde CJ and Yoon I,. Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product on ruminal fermentation and nutrient utilization in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2010, 93, 682-692.
[18]	Chaney A and Marbach EP. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clinical Chemistry, 1962, 8, 130-132.
[19]	Mu HJ, Meng QX, Ren LP, Wang L, Simultaneous determination of lactic acid and volatile fatty acids in ox rumen juice by ion chromatography. PTCA (PART B: CHEM. ANAL), 2009, 45, 52-55.
[20]	Yue Q, Yang HJ, Li DH, Wang JQ, A comparison of HPLC and spectrophotometrical methods to determine the activity of ferulic acid esterase in commercial enzyme products and rumen contents of steers. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2009,153, 169-177.
[21]	Dashtban M, Maki M, Leung KT, Mao CQ and Qin WS, Cellulase activities in biomass conversion: measurement methods and comparison. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 2010, 30, 302-309.
[22]	Na RH, Dong HM, Zhu ZP, Chen YX, Effects of forage type and dietary concentrate to forage ratio on methane emission and rumen fermentation characteristics of dairy cows in China. Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, 2013, 56, 1115-1122.
[23]	Church DC, The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition, pp.147. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 1988.
[24]	Bach A, Calsamiglia S, Stern MD, Nitrogen metabolism in the rumen. Journal of Dairy Science, 2005, 88, 9-21.
[25]	Chaucheyras F, Fonty G, Bertin G, Salmon JM, Gouet P, Effects of a strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Levucell SC), a microbial additive for ruminants, on lactate metabolism in vitro. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 1996, 42, 927-933.
[26]	Newbold CJ, McIntosh FM, Wallace RJ, Changes in the microbial population of a rumen-simulating fermenter in response to yeast culture. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 1998, 78, 241-244.
[27]	Rossi F, Luccia A D, Vincenti D, Cocconcelli PS, Effects of peptidic fractions from Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on growth and metabolism of the ruminal bacteria Megasphaera elsdenii. Animal Research, 2004, 53, 177-186.
[28]	Monnerat JP, Paulino PV, Detmann E, Valadares FSC, Valadares RD, Duarte MS, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 2013,45, 1251-1257.
[29]	Williams PE, Tait CA, Innes GM, Newbold CJ, Effects of the inclusion of yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae plus growth medium) in the diet of dairy cows on milk yield and forage degradation and fermentation patterns in the rumen of steers. Journal of Animal Science,1991,69, 3016-3026
[30]	Ding J, Zhou ZM, Ren LP and Meng QX, Effect of Monensin and Live Yeast Supplementation on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Carcass Characteristics and Ruminal Fermentation Parameters in Lambs Fed Steam-flaked Corn-based Diets. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 2008 21, 547-554.
[31]	Arcos-Garcia JL, Castrejon FA, Mendoza GD, EP, Effect of two commercial yeast cultures with Saccharomyces cerevisiae on ruminal fermentation and digestion in sheep fed sugar cane tops. Livestock Production Science, 2000, 63, 153-157.
[32]	Putnam D E, Schwab CG, Socha MT, Whitehouse NL, Kierstead NA, Garthwaite BD. Effect of yeast culture in the diets of early lactation dairy cows on ruminal fermentation and passage of nitrogen fractions and amino acids to the small intestine. Journal of Dairy Science, 1997, 80, 374-384.
[33]	Thrune M, Bach A, Ruiz-Moreno M, Stern MD, Linn JG, Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on ruminal pH and microbial fermentation in dairy cows: Yeast supplementation on rumen fermentation. Livestock Science, 2009, 124, 261-265.
[34]	Chaucheyras-Durand F, Fonty G, Establishment of cellulolytic bacteria and development of fermentative activities in the rumen of gnotobiotically-reared lambs receiving the microbial additive Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077. Reproduction Nutrition Development, 2001, 41, 57-68.
[35]	Russell JB, Wilson DB, Why are ruminal cellulolytic bacteria unable to digest cellulose at low pH? Journal of Dairy Science, 1996, 79, 1503-1509.
[36]	Chaucheyras-Durand F and Fonty G, Influence of a probiotic yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077) on microbial colonization and fermentation in the rumen of newborn lambs. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, 2002, 14, 30-36.
[37]	Jouany JP, Mathieu F, Senaud J, Bohatier J, Bertin G, Mercier M, The effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Aspergillus oryzae on the digestion of the cell wall fraction of a mixed diet in defaunated and refaunated sheep rumen. Reproduction Nutrition Development, 1998, 38, 401-416.
[38]	Marden JP, Julien C, Monteils V, Auclair E, Moncoulon R and Bayourthe C. How does live yeast differ from sodium bicarbonate to stabilize ruminal pH in high-yielding dairy cows? Journal of Dairy Science, 2008, 91, 3528-3535.
[39]	Corona L, Mendoza GD, Castrejon FA, Crosby MM, Cobos MA, Evaluation of two yeast cultures (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on ruminal fermentation and digestion of feed fed a corn stover diet. Small Ruminant Research, 1999, 31, 209-214.
[40]	Enjalbert F, Garrett JE, Moncoulon R, Bayourthe C, Chicoteau P Effects of yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on ruminal digestion in non-lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1999. 76, 195-206.
[41]	Kowalik B, Michałowski T, Pająk JJ, Aciak MT and Zalewska M. The effect of live yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and their metabolites on ciliate fauna, fibrolytic and amylolytic activity, carbohydrate digestion and fermentation in the rumen of goats. Journal of Animal and Feed Science, 2011, 20, 526-536.