DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of Different Yeast Species for Improving In vitro Fermentation of Cereal Straws

  • Wang, Zuo ;
  • He, Zhixiong ;
  • Beauchemin, Karen A. ;
  • Tang, Shaoxun ;
  • Zhou, Chuanshe ;
  • Han, Xuefeng ;
  • Wang, Min ;
  • Kang, Jinhe ;
  • Odongo, Nicholas E. ;
  • Tan, Zhiliang
  • Received : 2015.03.04
  • Accepted : 2015.05.19
  • Published : 2016.02.01

Abstract

Information on the effects of different yeast species on ruminal fermentation is limited. This experiment was conducted in a $3{\times}4$ factorial arrangement to explore and compare the effects of addition of three different live yeast species (Candida utilis 1314, Saccharomyces cerevisiae 1355, and Candida tropicalis 1254) at four doses (0, $0.25{\times}10^7$, $0.50{\times}10^7$, and $0.75{\times}10^7$ colony-forming unit [cfu]) on in vitro gas production kinetics, fiber degradation, methane production and ruminal fermentation characteristics of maize stover, and rice straw by mixed rumen microorganisms in dairy cows. The maximum gas production (Vf), dry matter disappearance (IVDMD), neutral detergent fiber disappearance (IVNDFD), and methane production in C. utilis group were less (p<0.01) than other two live yeast supplemented groups. The inclusion of S. cerevisiae reduced (p<0.01) the concentrations of ammonia nitrogen ($NH_3$-N), isobutyrate, and isovalerate compared to the other two yeast groups. C. tropicalis addition generally enhanced (p<0.05) IVDMD and IVNDFD. The $NH_3$-N concentration and $CH_4$ production were increased (p<0.05) by the addition of S. cerevisiae and C. tropicalis compared with the control. Supplementation of three yeast species decreased (p<0.05) or numerically decreased the ratio of acetate to propionate. The current results indicate that C. tropicalis is more preferred as yeast culture supplements, and its optimal dose should be $0.25{\times}10^7$ cfu/500 mg substrates in vitro.

Keywords

Fiber Degradation;In vitro Fermentation;Live Yeast;Methane;Volatile Fatty Acids

References

  1. Tang, S. X., G. O. Tayo, Z. L. Tan, Z. H. Sun, L. X. Shen, C. S. Zhou, W. J. Xiao, G. P. Ren, X. F. Han, and S. B. Shen. 2008. Effects of yeast culture and fibrolytic enzyme supplementation on in vitro fermentation characteristics of low-quality cereal straws. J. Anim. Sci. 86:1164-1172. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0438
  2. Van Soest, P. V., J. B. Robertson, and B. A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  3. Wang, M., X. Z. Sun, S. X. Tang, Z. L. Tan, and D. Pacheco. 2013. Deriving fractional rate of degradation of logistic-exponential (LE) model to evaluate early in vitro fermentation. Animal 7:920-929. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112002443
  4. Wang, M., S. X. Tang, and Z. L. Tan. 2011. Modeling in vitro gas production kinetics: Derivation of Logistic-Exponential (LE) equations and comparison of models. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 165:137-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.09.016
  5. Wolin, M. J., T. L. Miller, and C. S. Stewart. 1997. Microbe: Microbe interactions. In: The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem II (Eds. P. N. Hobson and C. S. Stewart). Chapman and Hall, London, UK. pp. 467-491.
  6. Sullivan, H. M. and S. A. Martin. 1999. Effects of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on in vitro mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation. J. Dairy Sci. 82:2011-2016. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75438-X
  7. Tang, S., Z. Tan, C. Zhou, H. Jiang, Y. Jiang, and L. Sheng. 2006. A comparison of in vitro fermentation characteristics of different botanical fractions of mature maize stover. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 15:505-515. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/66920/2006
  8. AOAC. 1999. Official Methods of Analysis. 16th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.
  9. Arambel, M. J., R. D. Wiedmeier, and J. L. Walters. 1987. Influence of donor animal adaptation to added yeast culture and/or Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on in vitro rumen fermentation. Nutr. Rep. Int. 35:433-437.
  10. Chaucheyras-Durand, F., N. D. Walker, and A. Bach. 2008. Effects of active dry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem: Past, present and future. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 145:5-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.04.019
  11. Dawson, K. A., K. E. Newman, and J. A. Boling. 1990. Effects of microbial supplements containing yeast and lactobacilli on roughage-fed ruminal microbial activities. J. Anim. Sci. 68:3392-3398. https://doi.org/10.2527/1990.68103392x
  12. Estefan, G. 1999. Feedyard Performance and Carcass Traits of Cattle as Influenced by Stocker Phase Implant Strategy and Yeast Culture (S. cerevisiae 8$\times$109CFU/g; BIOSAF) Supplementation during the Feedyard Phase. Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University, Amarillo, TX, USA.
  13. FadelElseed, A. M. and R. M. Abusamra. 2007. Effects of supplemental yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) culture on NDF digestibility and rumen fermentation of forage sorghum hay in Nubian goat's kids. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 3:133-137.
  14. Gorosito, A. R., J. B. Russell, and P. J. van Soest. 1985. Effect of carbon-4 and carbon-5 volatile fatty-acids on digestion of plant-cell wall in vitro. J. Dairy Sci. 68:840-847. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(85)80901-2
  15. Holtshausen, L. and K. A. Beauchemin. 2010. Supplementing barley-based dairy cow diets with Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Prof. Anim. Sci. 26:285-289.
  16. Hristov, A. N., J. K. Ropp, and C. W. Hunt. 2002. Effect of barley and its amylopectin content on ruminal fermentation and bacterial utilization of ammonia-N in vitro. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 99:25-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(02)00076-7
  17. Jouany, J. P. 2001. A new look at yeast cultures as probiotics for ruminants. Feed Mix. 9:17-19.
  18. Krause, K. M. and G. R. Oetzel. 2006. Understanding and preventing subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 126:215-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.08.004
  19. Martin, S. A., D. J. Nisbet, and R. G. Dean. 1989. Influence of a commercial yeast supplement on the in vitro ruminal fermentation. Nutr. Rep. Int. 40:395-403.
  20. Moallem, U., H. Lehrer, L. Livshitz, M. Zachut, and S. Yakoby. 2009. The effects of live yeast supplementation to dairy cows during the hot season on production, feed efficiency, and digestibility. J. Dairy Sci. 92:343-351. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0839
  21. Mutsvangwa, T., I. E. Edwards, J. H. Topps, and G. F. Paterson. 1992. The effect of dietary inclusion of yeast culture (Yea-Sacc) on patterns of rumen fermentation, food-intake and growth of intensively fed bulls. Anim. Prod. 55:35-40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100037247
  22. Newbold, C. J., R. J. Wallace, X. B. Chen, and F. M. Mcintosh. 1995. Different strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae differ in their effects on ruminal bacterial numbers in vitro and in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 73:1811-1818. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7361811x
  23. Qiao, G. H. and A. S. Shan. 2006. The effect of different direct-fed microbial culture on methane production in vitro and production performance in dairy cattle. China Anim. Husb. Vet. Med. 33:11-14.
  24. SAS Institute Inc. 2001. The SAS system for Microsoft Windows: release 8.2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
  25. Satter, L. D. and L. L. Slyter. 1974. Effect of ammonia concentration of rumen microbial protein production in vitro. Br. J. Nutr. 32:199-208. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19740073
  26. Stewart, C. S., H. J. Flint, and M. P. Bryant. 1997. The rumen bacteria. In: The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem II (Eds. P. N. Hobson and C. S. Stewart). Chapman and Hall, London, UK. pp. 10-72.

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Natural Science Foundation of China