|
|
|
|
|
| Feeding of yeast (Candida spp.) improves in vitro ruminal fermentation of fibrous substrates |
| Yo, ra Marrero, Yamicela Castillo, Oscar Ruiz, Eduviges Burrola, Claudio Angulo |
1、Department of Physiology, Animal Science Institute, San José de las Lajas 32700, Cuba
2、Multidisciplinary Division, Autonomous University of Juárez, Nuevo Casas Grandes 3003, Mexico
3、Faculty of Animal Science and Ecology, Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31110, Mexico |
|
|
|
摘要 In vitro gas production technique (IVGPT) was used with the objective of determining the inclusion effect of live cells of two strains of Candida yeast on in vitro ruminal fermentation of two fibrous substrates. In order to achieve this, two experiments were performed: A) using oat straw (Avena sativa) as substrate; B) using alfalfa hay (Medicabo sativa) as substrate, comparing the effect of two different strains of Candida genre, both isolated from the rumen, on the mentioned substrates. Levica 25 (Candida tropicalis) yeast belongs to the culture collection of the Institute of Animal Science, Cuba, and Levazoot 15 (Candida norvegensis) yeast is part of the collection of the Faculty of Zootechnology and Ecology of the Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Mexico. Both strains demonstrated their potential in activating the ruminal fermentation. They stimulated (P<0.0001) the ruminal fermentation of the substrates under study. However, the Levazoot strain stimulated the dry matter (DM) fermentation of alfalfa in 21.43%, more than Levica 25. It is concluded that there is an influence of yeast strain and diet on the rumen environment and, therefore, it is important to select the appropriate strain in every production condition.
Abstract In vitro gas production technique (IVGPT) was used with the objective of determining the inclusion effect of live cells of two strains of Candida yeast on in vitro ruminal fermentation of two fibrous substrates. In order to achieve this, two experiments were performed: A) using oat straw (Avena sativa) as substrate; B) using alfalfa hay (Medicabo sativa) as substrate, comparing the effect of two different strains of Candida genre, both isolated from the rumen, on the mentioned substrates. Levica 25 (Candida tropicalis) yeast belongs to the culture collection of the Institute of Animal Science, Cuba, and Levazoot 15 (Candida norvegensis) yeast is part of the collection of the Faculty of Zootechnology and Ecology of the Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Mexico. Both strains demonstrated their potential in activating the ruminal fermentation. They stimulated (P<0.0001) the ruminal fermentation of the substrates under study. However, the Levazoot strain stimulated the dry matter (DM) fermentation of alfalfa in 21.43%, more than Levica 25. It is concluded that there is an influence of yeast strain and diet on the rumen environment and, therefore, it is important to select the appropriate strain in every production condition.
|
|
Received: 19 September 2013
Accepted:
|
| Fund: This study was supported by the project CONACyT-FOMIX- CHIHUAHUA-2006-CO2 53024 (Mexico). |
| About author: Yoandra Marrero, Tel: +53-47-599433, E-mail: ymarrero@ica.co.cu |
Cite this article:
Yo , ra Marrero, Yamicela Castillo, Oscar Ruiz, Eduviges Burrola, Claudio Angulo.
2015.
Feeding of yeast (Candida spp.) improves in vitro ruminal fermentation of fibrous substrates. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(3): 514-519.
|
| AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). 1995.Official Method of Analysis. 16th ed. Association of OfficialAnalytical Chemists, Washington, D.C.Blümmel M, Makkar H P S, Becker K. 1997. In vitro gasproduction: A technique revisited. Journal AnimalPhysiology and Animal Nutrition, 77, 24-34Blümmel M, Orskov E R 1993. Comparison of gas productionand nylon bag degradability of roughages in predicting feedintake in cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 40,109-119Castillo Y. 2009. In vitro fermentation to obtain Candidanorvegensis yeast in mixes of alfalfa hay, oat straw andfermented apple waste and its effects on the ruminalmicrobial activity. Ph D thesis, Faculty of Zootechnics andEcology, Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Chihuahua,Mexico.Callaway T S, Martin S A. 1997. Effects of a Saccharomycescerevisiae culture on ruminal bacteria that utilize lactate anddigest cellulose. Journal of Dairy Science, 80, 2035-2044Chaucheyras F, Walker N D, Bach A. 2008. Effects of activedry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem: Past, presentand future. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 14, 5-26Chaucheyras-Durand F, Durand H. 2010. Probiotics in animalnutrition and health. Beneficial Microbes, 1, 3-9.Duncan D B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests.Biometric, 11, 1.Durmic Z, Moate P J, Eckard R, Revell D K, Williams R, Vercoe P E. 2013. In vitro screening of selected feed additives,plant essential oils and plant extracts for rumen methanemitigation. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,94, 1191-1196Elghandour M M Y, Salem A Z M, Martínez Castañeda J S,Camacho L M, Kholif A E, Vázquez Chagoyán J C. 2015.Direct-fed microbes: A tool for improving the utilization oflow quality roughages in ruminants. Journal of IntegrativeAgriculture, 14, 526-533Elghandour M M Y, Vázquez Chagoyán J C, Salem A Z M, KholifA E, Martínez Castañeda J C, Camacho L M, Cerrillo-SotoM A. 2014a. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae at directaddition or pre-incubation on in vitro gas production kineticsand degradability of four fibrous feeds. Italian Journal ofAnimal Sciecne, 13, 295-301Elghandour M M Y, Vázquez Chagoyán J C, Salem A Z M, KholifA E, Martínez Castañeda J S, Camacho L M, Buendía G.2014b. In vitro fermentative capacity of equine fecal inoculaof nine fibrous forages in presence of different doses ofSaccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of Equine VeterinaryScience, 34, 619-625Galindo J, Marrero Y, González N, Sosa A, Miranda A L,Aldana A I, Moreira O, Bocourt R, Delgado D, Torres V,Sarduy L, Noda A. 2010. Effect of preparations with theviable yeasts Saccharomyces cerevisiae and LEVICA-25 onmethanogens and in vitro ruminal methanogenesis. CubanJournal of Agricultural Science, 44, 267-273Fiems L. 1993. The use of yeast in practical diets for ruminants.In: Castanon J I R, ed., Micro-Organisms and EnzymePreparations in Animal Nutrition. Commission of theEuropean Communities, Brussels. p. 159.Galvao K N, Santos J E, Coscioni A, Villasenor M, Sischo WM, Berge A C. 2005. Effect of feeding live yeast productsto calves with failure of passive transfer on performanceand patterns of antibiotic resistance in fecal Escherichiacoli. Reproduction and Nutrition Development, 45, 427-440Groot J C, Cone J W, Williams B A, Debersaques F M, LantingaE A. 1996. Multiphasic analysis of gas production kineticsfor in vitro fermentation of ruminant feeds. Animal FeedScience and Technology, 64, 77-89Kammalak A, Canbolat O, Gurbuz Y, Ozay O, Ozkose E.2004. Variation in metabolizable energy content of foragesestimated using in vitro gas production technique. PakistanJournal of Biological Sciences, 7, 601-605Lee J H, Lim Y B, Koh J H, Baig S Y, Shin H T. 2002. Screeningof thermotolerantyeast for use as microbial feed additive.Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 12, 162-165Lila Z A, Mohammed N, Yasui T, Kurokawa Y, Kanda S, ItabashiH. 2004. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae twin of livecells on mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation in vitro.Journal of Dairy Science, 82, 1847-1854Lynch H A, Martin S A. 2002. Effects of Saccharomycescerevisiae culture and Saccharomyces cerevisiae livecells on in vitro mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation.Journal of Dairy Science, 85, 2603-2608Marrero Y, Burrola M E, Castillo Y, Basso L C, Rosa C A, RuizO, González E. 2013. Identification of Levica yeasts as apotential ruminal microbial additive. Czech Journal of AnimalScience, 58, 460-469Marrero Y, CastilloY, BurrolaE, Lovaina T, Rosa C A, Ruiz O,González E, Basso L C. 2011. Morphological, biochemical,and molecular identification of the yeast Levica 25: Apotential ruminal microbial additive. Global Veterinaria,7, 60-65Marrero Y, Castillo Y, Burrola E, Lobaina T, Rosa C A, Ruiz O,González E, Basso L C. 2013. Identification of Levica yeast:as potencial ruminal microbial additive. Czech Journal ofAnimal Science, 58, 460-469.Marrero Y, Martín E, Rodríguez D, Galindo J. 2010. Effect of theinclusion of fractions of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cultureon the in vitro ruminal fermentation of star grass (Cynodonnlemfuensis). Cuban Journal of Agriultural Science, 44,157-164Newbold C J, McIntosh F M, Wallace R J. 1995. Differentstrains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae differ in their effectson ruminal bacteria in vitro and in sheep. Journal of AnimalScience, 73, 1811.Newbold C J, McIntosh F M, Wallace R J. 1996. Mode of actionof the yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, as a feed additivefor ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition, 76, 249-261Noguera R R, Saliba E O, Mauricio R M. 2004. Comparisonof mathematical models to estimate the degradationparameters obtained through the gas production technique.Livestock Research for Rural Development, 16. [2006-9-5].http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd16/11/nogu16086.htm (in Sapnish)Posada L S, Noguera R R. 2005. The in vitro gas productiontechnique: a tool to evaluate ruminant feeds. LivestockResearch for Rural Development, 17. [2006-9-5]. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/4/posa17036.htm (in Spanish)Putnam D E, Schwab C G, Socha M T, Whitehouse N L,Kierstead N A, Grathwaite D B. 1997. Effect of yeastculture in the diets of early lactation dairy cows on ruminalfermentation and passage of nitrogen fractions and aminoacids to the small intestine. Journal of Dairy Science, 80,374.Quiñonez J A, Bush L A, Nalsen T, Adams G D. 1988. Effectof yeast culture on intake and production of dairy cows fedhigh wheat rations. Journal of Dairy Science, 7, 275 .Roa M L, Barcena-Gama J R, González M S, Mendoza M G,Ortega C M E, García B C. 1997. Effect of fiber sourceand a yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae 1026) ondigestion and the environment in the rumen of cattle. AnimalFeed Science and Technology, 64, 327.Rossi F, Luccia A D, Vincenti D, Cocconcelli P S. 2004. Effectsof peptidic fractions from Saccharomyces cerevisiaeculture on growth and metabolism of the ruminal bacteriaMegasphaera elsdenii. Animal Research, 53, 177-186SAS Institute. 2002. SAS User’ Guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Schofield P, Pell A N. 1995. Measurement and kinetic analysisof the neutral detergent-soluble carbohydrate fraction of legumes and grasses. Journal of Animal Science, 73,3455-3463Stella A V, Paratte R, Valnegri L, Cigalino G, Soncini G, ChevauxE, Dell’Orto V, Savoini G. 2007. Effect of administration oflive Saccharomyces cerevisiae on milk production, milkcomposition, blood metabolites, and faecal flora in earlylactating dairy goats. Small Ruminant, 67, 7-13Theodorou M K, Williams B A, Dhanoa M S, McAllan A D B,France J. 1994. A simple gas production method using apressure transducer to determine the fermentation kineticsof ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology,48, 185-197Tripathi M K, Karim S A. 2011. Effect of yeast culturessupplementation on live weight change, rumen fermentation,ciliate protozoa population, microbial hydrolytic enzymesstatus and slaughtering performance of growing lamb.Livestock Science, 135, 17-25Wallace R J, Newbold C J. 1992. Probiotics for ruminants. In:Fuller R, ed., Probiotics, The Scientific Basis. Chapmanand Hall, London. p. 317.Williams B A. 2000. Cumulative gas-production techniquesfor forage evaluation. In: Givens D I, Owen E, Omed H M,Axford R F E, eds., Forage Evaluation in Ruminant Nutrition.CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p. 475. |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
