Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:56:20.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feed intake, microbial adherence and fibrolytic activity in residues of forage samples incubated in the rumen of sheep fed grass forages and/or a total mixed ration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2024

A. Pérez-Ruchel ,
J. L. Repetto ,
C. Cajarville Open the ORCID record for C. Cajarville [Opens in a new window] ,
M. P. Mezzomo  and
G. V. Kozloski Open the ORCID record for G. V. Kozloski [Opens in a new window]
A. Pérez-Ruchel
Affiliation:
Instituto de Producción Animal Veterinaria (IPAV), Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, 13000, Uruguay
J. L. Repetto
Affiliation:
Instituto de Producción Animal Veterinaria (IPAV), Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, 13000, Uruguay
C. Cajarville
Affiliation:
Instituto de Producción Animal Veterinaria (IPAV), Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, 13000, Uruguay
M. P. Mezzomo
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia (Animal Science), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, 97105-900, Brazil
G. V. Kozloski*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia (Animal Science), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, 97105-900, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: G. V. Kozloski; Email: gilberto.kozloski@ufsm.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three male sheep were fed, throughout three experimental periods, with either only forage, only total mixed ration (TMR) or a mixed diet (TMR + forage). The rich-fibre ingredients of each diet were incubated daily in situ for three days and the ruminal pH was measured every 2 h during the last day of each experimental period. Rumen pH decreased at increased proportion of TMR in diet (P < 0.05). The dry matter (DM) degradability of the grass forage was higher (P < 0.05) in animals receiving only forage than in those receiving the mixed diet whereas the DM degradability of the corn silage was higher (P < 0.05) in animals receiving the mixed diet than in those receiving only TMR. The level of microbial adherence in residues of grass forage was higher (P < 0.05) in animals fed with only forage than in those fed with the mixed diet and, the level of microbial adherence in residue of corn silage was higher (P < 0.05) in animals receiving the mixed diet than in those receiving TMR. The carboxymethylcellulase activity in residues of grass forage was higher (P < 0.05) in sheep fed the mixed diet whereas not significant effect of diet type was observed for this variable in residues of corn silage. In conclusion, increased inclusion of TMR in sheep diet showed a negative impact on microbial adherence and forage degradability in situ, an effect mediated by changes in rumen pH which was not compensated by increased fibrolytic activity.

Keywords

carboxymethylcellulase activitycorn silagedegradabilitygrass foragephosphorus
Type
Animal Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 161 , Issue 6 , December 2023 , pp. 871 - 876
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AOAC (1997) Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemist, 16th Edn. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC International.Google Scholar
Bradford, MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein–dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry 72, 248–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dewhurst, RJ, Shingfield, KJ, Lee, MRF and Scollan, ND (2006) Increasing the concentrations of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in milk produced by dairy cows in high-forage systems. Animal Feed Science and Technology 131, 168–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, J, Ellis, JL, Kebreab, E, Strathe, AB, López, S, France, J and Bannink, A (2012) Ruminal pH regulation and nutritional consequences of low pH. Animal Feed Science and Technology 172, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farenzena, R, Kozloski, GV, Mezzomo, MP and Fluck, AC (2014) Forage degradability, rumen bacterial adherence and fibrolytic enzyme activity in vitro: effect of pH or glucose concentration. The Journal of Agricultural Science 152, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernell, WR and King, HK (1953) The chemical composition of the soluble and insoluble fractions of the bacterial cell. Biochemical Journal 55, 758–763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, CH and Subbarov, Y (1925) The colorimetric determination of phosphorus. Journal of Biology Chemistry 66, 375–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, JM and Mayes, RW (2002) Food choice. In Freer, M and Dove, H (eds), Sheep Nutrition. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, M (1979) The principles and practice of feeding ruminants on complete diets. Grass and Forage Science 34, 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, RJ and Mertens, DR (1992) Influence of buffer pH and raw corn starch addition on in vitro fiber digestion kinetics. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2762–2768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, RJ and Weidner, SJ (1992) Digestion kinetics of fibre: Influence of in vitro buffer pH varied within observed physiological range. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 1060–1068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamra, DN (2005) Rumen microbial ecosystem. Current Science 89, 124–135.Google Scholar
Koike, S, Pan, J, Kobayashi, Y and Tanaka, K (2003) Kinetics of in sacco fibre-attachment of representative ruminal cellulolytic bacteria monitored by competitive PCR. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1429–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozloski, GV, Lima, LD, Cadorin, RL, Bonnecarrère Sanchez, LM, Senger, CCD, Fiorentini, G and Härter, CJ (2008) Microbial colonization and degradation of forage samples incubated in vitro at different initial pH. Animal Feed Science and Technology 141, 356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, DO, Denman, ST, Mackie, RI, Morrison, M, Rae, AL, Attwood, GT and McSweeney, CS (2003) Opportunities to improve fibre degradation in the rumen: microbiology, ecology, and genomics. FEMS Microbiology Review 27, 663–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lourenço, M, Van Ranst, G, Vlaeminck, B, De Smet, S and Fievez, V (2008) Influence of different dietary forages on the fatty acid composition of rumen digesta as well as ruminant meat and milk. Animal Feed Science and Technology 145, 418–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendoza, A, Cajarville, C and Repetto, JL (2016) Digestive response of dairy cows fed diets combining fresh forage with a total mixed ration. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 8779–8789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertens, DR (2002) Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fibre in feeds with refluxing beakers or crucibles: a collaborative study. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 85, 1217–1240.Google ScholarPubMed
Mezzomo, MP, Stefanello, S, Castro, LAS and Kozloski, GV (2023) Comparison of markers to estimate microbial adherence and fibrolytic activity in forages after in vitro incubation. Letters of Applied Microbiology 76, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michalet-Doreau, B, Fernandez, I, Peyron, C, Millet, L and Fonty, G (2001) Fibrolytic activities and cellulolytic bacterial community structure in the solid and liquid phases of rumen contents. Reproduction Nutrition Development 41, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, GL, Blum, R, Glennon, WE and Burton, AL (1960) Measurement of carboxymethyl cellulose activity. Analytical Biochemistry 2, 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgavi, DP, Beauchemin, KA, Nsereko, VL, Rode, LM, Iwaasa, AD, Yang, WZ, McAllister, TA and Wang, Y (2000) Synergy between ruminal fibrolytic enzymes and enzymes from Trichoderma longibrachiatum. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1310–1321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mould, FL and Ørskov, ER (1983) Manipulation of rumen fluid pH and its influence on cellulolysis in sacco, dry matter degradation and the rumen microflora of sheep offered either hay or concentrate. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mould, FL, Ørskov, ER and Mann, SO (1983) Associative effects of mixed feeds. I. Effects of type and level of supplementation and the influence of the rumen fluid pH on cellulolysis in vivo and dry matter digestion of various roughages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouriño, F, Akkarawongsa, RA and Weimer, PJ (2001) Initial pH as a determinant of cellulose digestion rate by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 848–859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pastorini, M, Pomiés, N, Repetto, JL, Mendoza, A and Cajarville, C (2019) Productive performance and digestive response of dairy cows fed different diets combining a total mixed ration and fresh forage. Journal of Dairy Science 102, 4118–4130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez-Ruchel, A, Repetto, JL and Cajarville, C (2017) Supplementing high quality fresh forage to growing lambs fed a total mixed ration diet led to higher intake without altering nutrient utilization. Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience 11, 2175–2183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez, CA and González, J (2006) In situ study of the relevance of bacterial adherence to feed particles for the contamination and accuracy of rumen degradability estimates for feeds of vegetable origin. British Journal of Nutrition 96, 316–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez, CA, González, J, Alvir, MR, Redondo, R and Cajarville, C (2003) Effects of feed intake on composition of sheep rumen contents and their microbial population size. British Journal of Nutrition 89, 97–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, JB and Dombrowski, DB (1980) Effect of pH on the efficiency of growth by pure cultures of rumen bacteria in continuous culture. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 39, 604–610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, JB and Wilson, DB (1988) Potential opportunities and problems for genetically altered rumen microorganisms. Journal of Nutrition 118, 271–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santana, A, Cajarville, C, Mendoza, A and Repetto, JL (2016) Combination of legume-based herbage and total mixed ration (TMR) maintains intake and nutrient utilization of TMR and improves nitrogen utilization of herbage in heifers. Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience 11, 616–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Senger, CCD, Kozloski, GV, Bonnecarrère Sanchez, LM, Mesquita, FR, Alves, TP and Castagnino, DS (2008) Evaluation of autoclave procedures for fibre analysis in forage and concentrate feedstuffs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 146, 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soder, KJ and Rotz, CA (2001) Economic and environmental impact of four levels of concentrate supplementation in grazing dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2560–2572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sung, HG, Kobayashi, Y, Chang, J, Ha, A, Hwang, IH and Ha, JK (2007) Low ruminal pH reduces dietary fibre digestion via reduced microbial attachment. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 20, 200–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Keyserlingk, MAG, Rushen, J, Passillé, AM and Weary, DM (2009) The welfare of dairy cattle - Key concepts and the role of science. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 4101–4111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wales, WJ, Marett, LC, Greenwood, JS, Wright, MM, Thornhill, JB, Jacobs, JL, Ho, CKM and Auldist, MJ (2013) Use of partial mixed rations in pasture-based dairying in temperate regions of Australia. Animal Production Science 53, 1167–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y and McAllister, TA (2002) Rumen microbes, enzymes and feed digestion-A review. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Science 15, 1659–1676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar