Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-gckwl Total loading time: 0.278 Render date: 2021-04-21T03:09:22.528Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Comparison of microbial fermentation of high- and low-forage diets in Rusitec, single-flow continuous-culture fermenters and sheep rumen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2009

M. D. Carro
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad de León, 24007 León, Spain
M. J. Ranilla
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad de León, 24007 León, Spain
A. I. Martín-García
Affiliation:
Estación Experimental del Zaidín (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), Profesor Albareda, 1, 18008 Granada, Spain
E. Molina-Alcaide
Affiliation:
Estación Experimental del Zaidín (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), Profesor Albareda, 1, 18008 Granada, Spain
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

Eight Rusitec and eight single-flow continuous-culture fermenters (SFCCF) were used to compare the ruminal fermentation of two diets composed of alfalfa hay and concentrate in proportions of 80 : 20 (F80) and 20 : 80 (F20). Results were validated with those obtained previously in sheep fed the same diets. Rusitec fermenters were fed once daily and SFCCF twice, but liquid dilution rates were similar in both types of fermenters. Mean values of pH over the 12 h postfeeding were higher (P < 0.001) in Rusitec than in SFCCF, with diet F80 showing higher values (P < 0.001) in both types of fermenters. Concentrations of total volatile fatty acids (VFA) were higher (P < 0.001) in SFCCF than in Rusitec, and in both systems were higher (P = 0.002) for diet F20 than for diet F80. There were significant differences between systems in the proportions of the main VFA, and a fermentation system × diet interaction (P < 0.001) was detected for all VFA with the exception of valerate. No differences (P = 0.145) between the two types of fermenters were detected in dry matter (DM) digestibility, but NDF, microbial N flow and its efficiency were higher (P = 0.001) in SFCCF compared to Rusitec. Whereas pH values and VFA concentrations remained fairly stable through the day in both in vitro systems, pH dropped and VFA increased shortly after feeding in sheep rumen reaching the minimum and maximal values, respectively, about 4 h after feeding. Both in vitro systems detected differences between diets similar to those found in sheep for liquid dilution rate, pH values, DM digestibility, microbial N flow and growth efficiency. In contrast, acetate/propionate ratios were lower for diet F20 than for F80 in sheep rumen (2.73 and 3.97) and SFCCF (3.07 and 4.80), but were higher for diet F20 compared to F80 (4.29 and 3.40) in Rusitec, with values considered to be unphysiological for high-concentrate diets. In vivo NDF digestibility was affected (P = 0.017) by diet, but no differences between diets (P > 0.05) were found in any in vitro system. A more precise control of pH in both types of fermenters and a reduction of concentrate retention time in Rusitec could probably improve the simulation of in vivo fermentation.

Type
Full Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1999. Official methods of analysis, 16th Edition, 5th revision. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Blanchart, G, Durant, M, Barry, JL, Bouiller-Oudot, M, Jouany, JP 1989. Intérêts et limites des fermenteurs à flux semi-continu de type Rusitec dans l’étude des fermentations du rumen (Advantages and limits of the semi-continuous artificial rumen (Rusitec) for the study of rumen fermentation). Annales de Zootechnie 38, 285314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calsamiglia, S, Ferret, A, Devant, M 2002. Effects of pH and pH fluctuations on microbial fermentation and nutrient flow from a dual-flow continuous culture system. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 574579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calsamiglia, S, Cardozo, PW, Ferret, A, Bach, A 2008. Changes in rumen microbial fermentation are due to a combined effect of type of diet and pH. Journal of Animal Science 86, 702711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carro, MD, Miller, EL 1999. Effect of supplementing a fibre basal diet with different nitrogen forms on ruminal fermentation and microbial growth in an in vitro semi-continuous culture system (Rusitec). British Journal of Nutrition 82, 149157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carro, MD, Ranilla, MJ 2003. Effect of the addition of malate on in vitro rumen fermentation of cereal grains. British Journal of Nutrition 89, 279288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carro, MD, Lebzien, P, Rohr, K 1992. Influence of yeast culture on the “in vitro” fermentation (Rusitec) of diets containing variable portions of concentrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 37, 209220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carro, MD, Lebzien, P, Rohr, K 1995. Effects of pore size of nylon bags and dilution rate on fermentation parameters in a semi-continuous artificial rumen. Small Ruminant Research 15, 113119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carro, MD, Valdés, C, Ranilla, MJ, González, JS 2000. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio in the diet on ruminal fermentation and digesta flow kinetics in sheep offered food at a fixed and restricted level of intake. Animal Science 70, 127134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerrato-Sánchez, M, Calsamiglia, S, Ferret, A 2007. Effects of time at suboptimal pH on rumen fermentation in a dual-flow continuous culture system. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 14861492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, RJ Jr, Hoover, WH, Junkins, LL 1980. Effects of solids and liquid flows on fermentation in continuous cultures. II. Nitrogen partition and efficiency of microbial synthesis. Journal of Animal Science 51, 986995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czerkawski, JW, Breckenridge, G 1977. Design and development of a long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). British Journal of Nutrition 38, 371384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demeyer, DI 1991. Quantitative aspects of microbial metabolism in the rumen and hindgut. In Rumen microbial metabolism and ruminant digestion (ed. JP Jouany), pp. 217237. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Dewhurst, RJ, Davies, DR, Ferry, RJ 2000. Microbial protein supply from the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 85, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giraldo, LA, Ranilla, MJ, Tejido, ML, Carro, MD 2007. Influence of exogenous fibrolytic enzyme and fumarate on methane production, microbial growth and fermentation in Rusitec fermenters. British Journal of Nutrition 98, 753761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gómez, JA, Tejido, ML, Carro, MD 2005. Mixed rumen micro-organisms growth and rumen fermentation of two diets in Rusitec fermenters: influence of disodium malate supplementation. British Journal of Nutrition 93, 479484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannah, SM, Stern, MD, Ehle, FR 1986. Evaluation of a dual flow continuous culture system for estimating bacterial fermentation in vivo of mixed diets containing various soybean products. Animal Feed Science and Technology 16, 5162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hespell, RB, Bryant, MP 1979. Efficiency of rumen microbial growth: influence of some theoretical and experimental factors on YATP. Journal of Animal Science 49, 16401659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoover, WH, Crooker, BA, Sniffen, CJ 1976. Effects of differential solid–liquid removal rates on protozoa numbers in continuous cultures of rumen contents. Journal of Animal Science 43, 528534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, HR, Endres, MI, Stern, MD 1995. Comparison of microbial fermentation in the rumen of dairy cows and dual flow continuous culture. Animal Feed Science and Technology 55, 4766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, ME, Ramos, S, Tejido, ML, Ranilla, MJ, Giraldo, LA, Carro, MD 2006. Retention time of substrate affects fermentation characteristics in Rusitec fermenters. Reproduction, Nutrition and Development 46 (suppl. 1), S51.Google Scholar
McDougall, EI 1948. Studies on ruminant saliva. I. The composition and output of sheep’s saliva. Biochemical Journal 43, 99109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meng, Q, Kerley, MS, Ludden, PA, Belyea, RL 1999. Fermentation substrate and dilution rate interact to affect microbial growth and efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 77, 206214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miettinen, H, Setälä, J 1989. Design and development of a continuous culture system to study rumen fermentation. Journal of Agriculture Science in Finland 61, 463473.Google Scholar
Molina-Alcaide, E, Moumen, A, Martín-García, I, Carro, MD 2008. Comparison of bacterial isolates and microbial markers for the estimation of the flow of microbial amino acids from continuous culture fermenters. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2008.00834.x.Google Scholar
Ranilla, MJ, Carro, MD 2003. Diet and procedures to detach particle-associated microbes from ruminal digesta influence chemical composition of microbes and estimation of microbial growth in Rusitec fermenters. Journal of Animal Science 81, 537544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ranilla, MJ, Carro, MD, Valdés, C, Giráldez, FJ, López, S 1997. A comparative study of ruminal activity in Churra and Merino sheep offered alfalfa hay. Animal Science 65, 121128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 2001. SAS user’s guide: statistics (release 8.01). SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Schadt, I, Hoover, WH, Miler Webster, TK, Thayne, WV, Licitra, G 1999. Degradation of two protein sources at three solids retention times in continuous culture. Journal of Animal Science 77, 485491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shriver, BJ, Hoover, WH, Sargent, JP, Crawford, RJ Jr, Thayne, WV 1986. Fermentation of a high concentrate diet as affected by ruminal pH and digesta flow. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 413419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slyter, LL, Putnam, PA 1967. In vivo vs. in vitro continuous culture of ruminal microbial populations. Journal of Animal Science 26, 14211427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, MD, Hoover, WH 1979. Methods for determining and factors affecting rumen microbial protein synthesis: a review. Journal of Animal Science 49, 15901603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 35833597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 16
Total number of PDF views: 180 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparison of microbial fermentation of high- and low-forage diets in Rusitec, single-flow continuous-culture fermenters and sheep rumen
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Comparison of microbial fermentation of high- and low-forage diets in Rusitec, single-flow continuous-culture fermenters and sheep rumen
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Comparison of microbial fermentation of high- and low-forage diets in Rusitec, single-flow continuous-culture fermenters and sheep rumen
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *