DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

In vitro evaluation of Rhus succedanea extracts for ruminants

  • Kim, Do Hyung (Department of Animal Science, Gyeongbuk Provincial College) ;
  • Lee, Shin Ja (Institute of Agriculture and Life Science and University-Centered Labs, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Oh, Da Som (Division of Applied Life Science (BK21 Program) and Institute of Agriculture & Life Science (IALS), Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Lee, Il Dong (Division of Applied Life Science (BK21 Program) and Institute of Agriculture & Life Science (IALS), Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Eom, Jun Sik (Division of Applied Life Science (BK21 Program) and Institute of Agriculture & Life Science (IALS), Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Park, Ha Young (Department of Pathology, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Seong Ho (Department of Animal Science, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Lee, Sung Sill (Division of Applied Life Science (BK21 Program) and Institute of Agriculture & Life Science (IALS), Gyeongsang National University)
  • Received : 2018.01.10
  • Accepted : 2018.04.10
  • Published : 2018.10.01

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of Rhus succedanea extract addition on in vitro ruminal fermentation and microbial growth. Methods: Two ruminally-fistulated steers consuming 600 g/kg timothy- and 400 g/kg cracked corn-based concentrate with free access to water and mineral block were used as rumen fluid donors. In vitro batch fermentation, with timothy as a substrate, was conducted for up to 72 h, with Rhus succedanea extracts added to achieve final concentrations of 0, 10, 30, 50, 70, and 90 mg/L. Results: Effective dry matter (DM) degradability rate linearly decreased (p = 0.046) depending on extract dosing levels. Total gas production after 24 to 72 h incubation tended to decrease following extract addition, beginning with 50 mg/L starting dose (significance of quadratic effects: p = 0.006, p<0.001, and p = 0.008 for 24, 48, and 72 h, respectively). Methane production decreased depending on dosing levels following 24 h (p<0.05) and 48 h (p<0.005) incubations and was the lowest with the 50 mg/L dose. The Rhus succedanea extracts increased the abundance of Fibrobacter succinogenes (p<0.05) and Ruminococcus flavefaciens (p = 0.0597) and decreased the abundance of methanogenic archaea (p<0.05) following 24 h incubation. Conclusion: Rhus succedanea was shown to reduce methane production and increase cellulolytic bacteria without any signs of toxic effects and with a minor effect on DM degradability.

Keywords

Rhus succedanea Extracts;In vitro Ruminal Fermentation;Microbial Growth

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea

References

  1. Chalupa, W. Manipulation of rumen fermentation. In: Haresign W, Cole D, editors. Recent advances in animal nutrition. London, England: Butterworths; 1984. p. 143-60.
  2. Chopra RN, Chopra IC, Handa KI, Kapoor LD. Chopra's indigenous drugs of India. 2nd ed. Calcutta, India: U. N. Dhur & Sons Private Ltd; 1956. p. 377, p. 575.
  3. Kim TH, Lee KM, Kwon KR, Choi SM. A literature study on lacquer poison. Korean Pharmacopuncture Inst 2002;5:159-69.
  4. Kim YS, Liang CY, Song YH, Lee SK. Effects of dietary Rhus verniciflua stokes supplementation on meat quality characteristics of Hanwoo (Korean Cattle) beef during refrigerated storage. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2006;19:113-8.
  5. McDougall EI. Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochem J 1948;43:99-109. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0430099
  6. Zafarian R, Manafi M. Effect of garlic powder on methane production, rumen fermentation and milk production of buffaloes. Annu Rev Res Biol 2013;3:1013-9.
  7. Denman SE, McSweeney CS. Development of a real-time PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic bacterial populations within the rumen. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2006;58:572-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2006.00190.x
  8. Koike S, Kobayashi Y. Development and use of competitive PCR assays for the rumen cellulolytic bacteria: Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococcus albus and Ruminococcus flavefaciens. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2001;204:361-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2001.tb10911.x
  9. Skillman LC, Toovey AF, Williams AJ, Wright AD. Development and validation of a real-time PCR method to quantify rumen protozoa and examination of variability between entodinium populations in sheep offered a hay-based diet. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006;72:200-6. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.72.1.200-206.2006
  10. Denman SE, Tomkins NW, McSweeney CS. Quantitation and diversity analysis of ruminal methanogenic populations in response to the antimethanogenic compound bromochloromethane. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2007;62:313-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2007.00394.x
  11. Orskov ER, McDonald I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J Agric Sci 1979;92:499-503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600063048
  12. NRC. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 6th rev. ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 1989.
  13. Getachew G, Robinson PH, DePeters EJ, Taylor SJ. Relationships between chemical compositions, dry matter degradation and in vitro gas production of several ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2004;111:57-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(03)00217-7
  14. Busquet M, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, Kamel C. Plant extracts affect in vitro rumen microbial fermentation. J Dairy Sci 2006;89:761-71. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72137-3
  15. Van Nevel CJ, Demeyer DI. Manipulation of rumen fermentation. In: Hobson PN, editor. The rumen microbial ecosystem. London, UK: Elsevier Applied Science; 1988. p.387-443.
  16. Dehority BA. Microbial ecology of cell wall fermentation. In: Jung HG, Buxton DR, editors. Forage cell wall structure and digestibility. $Hat^{(R)}eld$ & J. Ralph. Madison, WI, USA: American Society of Agronomy/Crop Science Society of America/Soil Science Society of America; 1993. p. 425-53.
  17. Jun HS, Qi M, Ha JK, Forsberg CW. Fibrobacter succinogenes, a dominant fibrolytic ruminal bacterium: Transition to the post genomic era. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2007;20:802-10. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2007.802
  18. Moss AR, Jouany JP, Newbold J. Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Ann Zootech 2000;49:231-53. https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2000119
  19. Shrestha S, Subaramaihha SR, Subbaiah SG, Eshwarappa RS, Lakkappa DB. Evaluating the antimicrobial activity of methonolic extract of rhus succedanea leaf gall. Bioimpacts 2013;3:195-8.
  20. Kitts DD, Lim KT. Antitumorigenic and cytotoxic properties of an ethanol extract derived from Rhus verniciflua Stokes (RVS). J Toxicol Environ Health Part A 2001;64:357-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/152873901316981330
  21. Lee JC, Kim J, Lim KT, Yang MS, Jang YS. Ethanol eluted extract of Rhus verniciflua Stokes showed both antioxidant and cytotoxic effects on mouse thrombocytes depending on the dose and time of the treatment. BMB Rep 2001;34:250-8.
  22. Lim KT, Lee JC, Jung HY, Jo SK. Effects of Rhus verniciflua Stokes (RVS) on cell associated detoxificant enzymes and glucose oxidase-mediated toxicity in cultured mouse hepatocytes. Toxicol Res 2000;16:125-31.
  23. Yang J, Du Y, Huang R, Wan Y, Li T. Chemical modification, characterization and structure-anticoagulant activity relationships of Chinese lacquer polysaccharides. Int J Biol Macromol 2002;31:55-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-8130(02)00066-1