Short communication: Effect of pre-activated Saccharomyces cerevisiae or malate salts on fermentation of ground barley grain under in vitro conditions simulating intensive ruminant feeding
Aim of study: To determine the dose response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on rumen fermentation of concentrates, and to compare it with the effect of malate salts.
Material and methods: S. cerevisiae (0.7, 1.4 and 2.1 mg/g) and malic acid salts (4, 8 or 12 mg/g) were added to barley and compared with barley alone (CTL), in three 24 h in vitro incubation series, using rumen inocula from beef cattle receiving a high concentrate diet. Yeasts were pre-activated by aerobic incubation for 24 h at 30ºC. Incubation pH was recorded at 8 and 24 h and volatile fatty acids (VFA) and lactate at 8 h were analysed.
Main results: Gas produced with S. cerevisiae was higher than malate (p<0.001). Yeast addition linearly (p<0.01) and quadratically (p<0.05 at 4 h and from 10 to 18 h) increased gas production, but no dose response to malate levels was observed. Dry matter disappearance at 24 h was not affected by S. cerevisiae but increased linearly with malate. Microbial mass linearly increased with the level of yeast (p<0.01) and malate (p=0.09). Adding yeasts did not affect 8 h total VFA concentration compared with CTL, but linear valerate (p<0.01) and butyrate (p=0.092) increases, and a decrease of acetate (p=0.064) were detected. Malate salts linearly increased (p<0.05) total VFA concentration but did not affect VFA proportions.
Research highlights: Addition of active yeasts linearly increased barley fermentation and microbial synthesis, whereas the effect of malate salts was of minor magnitude.
Amanzougarene Z, Fondevila M, 2018. Fitting of pH conditions for the study of concentrate feeds fermentation by the in vitro gas production technique. Anim Prod Sci 58: 1751-1757. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN16097
Amanzougarene Z, Tejeda MP, Calvo H, de la Fuente G, Fondevila M., 2020. Microbial fermentation of starch- or fibre-rich feeds added with dry or pre-activated Saccharomyces cerevisiae studied in vitro under conditions simulating high-concentrate feeding for ruminants. J Sci Food Agric 100: 2236-2243. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10249
Analytical Software, 2010. Statistix 10 for Windows. Analytical Software, Tallahasee, FL, USA.
AOAC, 2005: Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Barker SB, Summerson WH, 1941. The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material. J Biol Chem 138: 535-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)51379-X
BOE, 2013. Real Decreto 53/2013, de 1 de febrero, por el que se establecen las normas básicas aplicables para la protección de los animales utilizados en experimentación y otros fines científicos, incluyendo la docencia. Boletín Oficial del Estado No. 34, 08/02/13.
Callaway TR, Martin SA, 1996. Effects of organic acid and monensin treatment on in vitro mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation of cracked corn. J Anim Sci 74: 1982-1989. https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.7481982x
Callaway TR, Martin SA, 1997. Effects of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on ruminal bacteria that utilizes lactate and digest cellulose. J Dairy Sci 80: 2035-2044. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76148-4
Carro MD, Lebzien P, Rohr K, 1992. Influence of yeast culture on the in vitro fermentation (RUSITEC) of diets containing variable portions pf concentrates. Anim Feed Sci Technol 37: 209-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(92)90005-Q
Carro MD, López S, Valdés C, Ovejero FJ, 1999. Effect of DL-malate on mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation using the rumen simulation technique (RUSITEC). Anim Feed Sci Technol 79: 279-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00034-6
Carro MD, Ranilla MJ, 2003. Effect of the addition of malate on in vitro rumen fermentation of cereal grains. Br J Nutr 89: 279-288. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN2002759
Chaucheyras-Durand F, Walker ND, Bach A, 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
Desnoyers M, Giger-Reverdin S, Bertin G, Duvaux-Ponter C, Sauvant D, 2009. Meta-analysis of the influence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on ruminal parameters and milk production of ruminants. J Dairy Sci 92: 1620-1632. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1414
Durand-Chaucheyras F, Fonty G, Bertin G, Theveniot M, Gouet P, 1998. Fate of Levucell SC I-1077 yeast additive during digestive transit in lambs. Reprod Nutr Dev 38: 275-280. https://doi.org/10.1051/rnd:19980307
Erasmus LJ, Botha PM, Kistner A, 1992. Effect of yeast culture supplement on production, rumen fermentation, and duodenal nitrogen flow in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 75: 3056-3065. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)78069-2
Fuller R, 1989. Probiotics in man and animals. J Appl Bacteriol 66: 365-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1989.tb05105.x
Gómez JA, Tejido ML, Carro MD, 2005. Mixed rumen microorganisms growth and rumen fermentation of two diets in RUSITEC fermenters: influence of disodium malate supplementation. Br J Nutr 93: 479-484. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN20041367
González LA, Manteca X, Calsamiglia S, Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Ferret A, 2012. Ruminal acidosis in feedlot cattle: Interplay between feed ingredients, rumen function and feeding behavior (a review). Anim Feed Sci Technol 172: 66-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.12.009
Hsu JT, Fahey GC, 1990. Effect of centrifugation speed and freezing on composition of ruminal bacterial samples collected from defaunated sheep. J Dairy Sci 73: 149-152. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(90)78658-4
Hungate RU, 1969. The rumen and its microbes. Academic Press, NY.
Jouany JP, Morgavi DP, 2007. Use of natural products as alternatives to antibiotic feed additives in ruminant production. Animal 1: 1443-1466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731107000742
Kohn RA, Dunlap TF, 1998. Calculation of the buffering capacity of bicarbonate in the rumen and in vitro. J Anim Sci 76: 1702-1709. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.7661702x
Krause KM, Oetzel GR, 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
Malekkhahi M, Tahmasbi AM, Naserian AA, Danesh-Mesgaran N, Kleen JL, Al Zahal O, Ghaffari MH, 2016. Effects of supplementation of active dried yeast and malate during sub-acute ruminal acidosis on rumen fermentation, microbial population, selected blood metabolites, and milk production in dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 213: 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.12.018
Montaño MF, Chai W, Zinn-Ware TE, Zinn RA, 1999. Influence of malic acid supplementation on ruminal pH, lactic acid utilization, and digestive function in steers fed high concentrate finishing diets. J Anim Sci 77: 780-784. https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.773780x
Mould FL, Morgan R, Kliem KE, Krystallidou E, 2005. A review and simplification of the in vitro incubation medium. Anim Feed Sci Technol 123-124: 155-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.05.002
Newbold CJ, 1996. Probiotics for ruminants. Ann Zootech 45 (suppl.): 329-335. https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:19960664
Newbold CJ, Wallace RJ, McInotsh FM, 1996. Mode of action of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as feed additive for ruminants. Br J Nutr 76: 249-261. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19960029
Nisbet DJ, Martin SA, 1993. Effects of fumarate, L-malate, and an Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on D-lactate utilization by the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium. Curr Microbiol 26: 133-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01577366
OJEU, 2010. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. 22 Sept 2010. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32010L0063
Owens FN, Secrist DS, Hill WJ, Gill DR, 1998. Acidosis in cattle: A review. J Anim Sci 76: 275-286. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.761275x
Pinloche E, McEwan N, Marden JP, Bayourthe C, Auclair E, Newbold CJ, 2015. The effects of a probiotic yeast on the bacterial biodiversity and population structure in the rumen of cattle. PLoS ONE 8: e67824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067824
Sullivan ML, Bradford BJ, 2011. Viable cell yield from active live yeast products and effects of storage temperature and diluent on yeast cell viability. J Dairy Sci 94: 526-531. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3553
Tejido ML, Ranilla MJ, García-Martínez R, Carro MD, 2005. In vitro microbial growth and rumen fermentation of different substrates as affected by the addition of disodium malate. Animal 81: 31-38. https://doi.org/10.1079/ASC42060031
Theodorou MK, Williams BA, Dhanoa MS, McAllan AB, France J, 1994. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol 48: 185-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(94)90171-6
Thrune M, Bach A, Ruiz-Moreno M, Stern MD, Linn JG, 2009. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on ruminal pH and microbial fermentation in dairy cows: Yeast supplementation on rumen fermentation. Livest Sci 124: 261-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.02.007
Walsh RM, Martin PA, 1977. Growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces ovarum in a temperature gradient incubator. J Inst Brew 83: 169-172. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1977.tb06813.x
© INIA. Manuscripts published are the property of the Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
SJAR is an Open Access Journal. All articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the license CC-by must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.