|
|
|
|
|
| Direct-fed microbes: A tool for improving the utilization of low quality roughages in ruminants |
| Mona M Y Elghandour, Abdelfattah Z M Salem, Jose S Martínez Castaneda, Luis M Camacho, Ahmed E Kholif, Juan C Vázquez Chagoyán |
1、Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Autonomous University of the State of Mexico, Toluca P.O. 50000, Mexico
2、Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Autonomous University of Guerrero, Altamirano P.O. 40660, Mexico
3、Dairy Science Department, National Research Centre, 33 Bohouth st. Dokki, Giza P.O. 12311, Egypt |
|
|
|
摘要 For many years, ruminant nutritionists and microbiologists have been interested in manipulating the microbial ecosystem of the rumen to improve production efficiency of different ruminant species. Removal and restriction of antibiotics subtherapeutic uses from ruminant diets has amplified interest in improving nutrient utilization and animal performance and search for more safe alternatives. Some bacterial and fungal microorganisms as a direct-fed microbial (DFM) can be the most suitable solutions. Microorganisms that are commonly used in DFM for ruminants may be classified mainly as lactic acid producing bacteria (LAB), lactic acid utilizing bacteria (LUB), or other microorganism’s species like Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus, Streptococcus, Bacillus, Propionibacterium, Megasphaera elsdenii and Prevotellabryantii, in addition to some fungal species of yeast such as Saccharomyces and Aspergillus. A definitive mode of action for bacterial or fungal DFM has not been established; although a variety of mechanisms have been suggested. Bacterial DFM potentially moderate rumen conditions, and improve weight gain and feed efficiency. Fungal DFM may reduce harmful oxygen from the rumen, prevent excess lactate production, increase feed digestibility, and alter rumen fermentation patterns. DFM may also compete with and inhibit the growth of pathogens, immune system modulation, and modulate microbial balance in the gastrointestinal tract. Improved dry matter intake, milk yield, fat corrected milk yield and milk fat content were obtained with DFM administration. However, the response to DFM is not constant; depending on dosages, feeding times and frequencies, and strains of DFM. Nonetheless, recent studies have supported the positive effects of DFM on ruminant performance.
Abstract For many years, ruminant nutritionists and microbiologists have been interested in manipulating the microbial ecosystem of the rumen to improve production efficiency of different ruminant species. Removal and restriction of antibiotics subtherapeutic uses from ruminant diets has amplified interest in improving nutrient utilization and animal performance and search for more safe alternatives. Some bacterial and fungal microorganisms as a direct-fed microbial (DFM) can be the most suitable solutions. Microorganisms that are commonly used in DFM for ruminants may be classified mainly as lactic acid producing bacteria (LAB), lactic acid utilizing bacteria (LUB), or other microorganism’s species like Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus, Streptococcus, Bacillus, Propionibacterium, Megasphaera elsdenii and Prevotellabryantii, in addition to some fungal species of yeast such as Saccharomyces and Aspergillus. A definitive mode of action for bacterial or fungal DFM has not been established; although a variety of mechanisms have been suggested. Bacterial DFM potentially moderate rumen conditions, and improve weight gain and feed efficiency. Fungal DFM may reduce harmful oxygen from the rumen, prevent excess lactate production, increase feed digestibility, and alter rumen fermentation patterns. DFM may also compete with and inhibit the growth of pathogens, immune system modulation, and modulate microbial balance in the gastrointestinal tract. Improved dry matter intake, milk yield, fat corrected milk yield and milk fat content were obtained with DFM administration. However, the response to DFM is not constant; depending on dosages, feeding times and frequencies, and strains of DFM. Nonetheless, recent studies have supported the positive effects of DFM on ruminant performance.
|
|
Received: 03 September 2013
Accepted:
|
| Fund: Elghandour M M Y wishes to thank the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT, Mexico) for the scholarship for her Ph D at the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico. Kholif A E thanks the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT, Mexico) and the World Academy of Sciences (TWAS, Italy) for his Postdoctoral fellowship from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Autonomous University of the State of Mexico. |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Abdelfattah Z M Salem, E-mail: asalem70@yahoo.com
E-mail: asalem70@yahoo.com
|
Cite this article:
Mona M Y Elghandour, Abdelfattah Z M Salem, Jose S Martínez Castaneda, Luis M Camacho, Ahmed E Kholif, Juan C Vázquez Chagoyán.
2015.
Direct-fed microbes: A tool for improving the utilization of low quality roughages in ruminants. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(3): 526-533.
|
| Abu-Tarboush H M, Al-Saiady M Y, Keir El-Din A H. 1996.Evaluation of diet containing lactobacilli on performance,fecal coliform, and lactobacilli of young dairy calves. AnimalFeed Science and Technology, 57, 39-49Adams M C, Luo J, Rayward D, King S, Gibson R, MoghaddamG H. 2008. Selection of a novel direct-fed microbial toenhance weight gain in intensively reared calves. AnimalFeed Science and Technology, 145, 41-52Aslan V S, Thamsborg M, Jorgensen R J, Basse A. 1995.Induced acute ruminal acidosis in goats treated withyeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and bicarbonate. ActaVeterinaria Scandinavica, 36, 65-68Barton M D. 2000. Antibiotic use in animal feed and its impacton human health. Nutrition Research Reviews, 13, 279-299Bruce B B, Gilliland S E, Bush L J, Staley T E. 1979. Influenceof feeding cells of Lactobacillus acidophilus on thefecal flora of young dairy calves. Oklahoma AgriculturalExperiment Station, 104, 207-209Carlsson J, Iwami Y, Yamada T. 1983. Hydrogen peroxideexcretion by oral streptococci and effect of lactoperoxidasethiocyanate-hydrogen peroxide. Infection and Immunity,40, 70-80Chaucheyras F, Fonty G, Bertin G, Salmon J M, Gouet P. 1995.Effects of a strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Levucell®SC1), a microbial additive for ruminants, on lactatemetabolism in vitro. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 42,927-933Chiquette J, Allison M J, Rasmussen M A. 2008. Prevotellabryantii25a used as a probiotic in early-lactation dairy cows: Effecton ruminal fermentation characteristics, milk production, andmilk composition. Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 3536-3543Cotter P D, Hill C, Ross R P. 2005. Bacteriocins: developinginnate immunity for food. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 3,777-788Dawson K A, Hopkins D M. 1991. Differential effects of live yeaston the cellulolytic activities of anaerobic ruminal bacteria.Journal of Animal Science, 69(Suppl. 1), 531.Dicks L M T, Botes M. 2010. Probiotic lactic acid bacteria in thegastro-intestinal tract: Health benefits, safety and mode ofaction. Beneficial Microbes, 1, 11-29Elghandour M M Y, Vázquez Chagoyán J C, Salem A Z M, KholifA E, Martínez Castañeda J S, Camacho L M, Buendía G,2014a. In vitro fermentative capacity of equine fecal inoculaof 9 fibrous forages in the presence of different doses ofSaccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of Equine VeterinaryScience, 34, 619-625Elghandour M M Y, Vázquez Chagoyán J C, Salem A Z M, KholifA E, Martínez Castañeda J S, Camacho L M, Cerrillo-SotoM A. 2014b. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae at directaddition or pre-incubation on in vitro gas production kineticsand degradability of four fibrous feeds. Italian Journal ofAnimal Science, 13, 295-301Fon F N, Nsahlai I V. 2013. Effect of direct-fed microbialconsortia on ruminal fermentation of maize stover in sheep.Small Ruminant Research, 111, 71-75Frizzo L S, Sotto L P, Zbrun M V, Bertozzi E, Sequeira G,Armesto R R, Rosmini M R. 2010. Lactic acid bacteriato improve growth performance in young calves fed milkreplacer and spray-dried whey powder. Animal FeedScience and Technology, 157, 159-167Fuller R. 1989. A review: Probiotics in man and animals. Journalof Applied Bacteriology, 66, 365-378Galyean M L, Nunnery G A, Defoor P J, Salyer G B, ParsonsC H. 2000. Effects of Live Cultures of Lactobacillusacidophilus (Strains 45 and 51) and Propionibacteriumfreudenreichii PF-24 on Performance and CarcassCharacteristics of Finishing Beef Steers. Burnett CenterProgress Report. No. 8. [2013-12-1] . http://www.afs.ttu.edu/burnett_center/progress_reports/bc8.pdfGhorbani G R, Morgavi D P, Beauchemin K A, Leede J A Z.2002. Effect of bacterial direct-fed microbials on ruminalfermentation, blood variables, and the microbial populationsof feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 80, 1977-1986Gilliland S E, Bruce B B, Bush L J, Staley T E. 1980. Comparisonof two strains of Lactobacillus acidophilus as dietaryadjuncts for young calves. Journal of Dairy Science, 63,964-972Gilliland S E. 1989. Acidophilus milk products: A review ofpotential benefits to consumers. Journal of Dairy Science,72, 2483-2494Holzapfel W H, Geisen R, Schillinger U. 1995. Biologicalpreservation of foods with reference to protective cultures,bacteriocins and food-grade enzymes. International Journalof Food Microbiology, 24, 343-362Huck G L, Kriekemeier K K, Ducharme G A. 1999. Effect offeeding Lactobacillus acidophilus BG2F04 (Micro cell) andPropionibacterium freudenrechii P-63 (MicroCell PB) ongrowth performance of finishing heifers. Journal of AnimalScience, 77(Suppl. 1), 264.Huntington G B. 2000. High-starch rations for ruminantproduction discussed. Feedstuffs, 12, 13-23Jenny B F, Vandijk H J, Collins J A. 1991. Performance and fecalflora of calves fed a Bacillus subtilis concentrate. Journalof Dairy Science, 74, 1968-1973Jouany J P, Mathieu F, Senaud J, Bohatier J, Bertin G, MercierM. 1999. Influence of protozoa and fungal additives onruminal pH and redox potential. South African Journalof Animal Science, 29, 65-66Khattab H M, Gado H M, Kholif A E, Mansour A M, Kholif AM. 2011. The potential of feeding goats sun dried rumencontents with or without bacterial inoculums as replacementfor berseem clover and the effects on milk production andanimal health. International Journal of Dairy Science, 6,267-277Kmet V, Flint H J, Wallace R J. 1993. Probiotics andmanipulation of rumen development and function. Archivesof Animal Nutrition, 44, 1-10Krehbiel C R, Rust S R, Zhang G, Gilliland S E. 2003. Bacterialdirect-fed microbials in ruminant diets: Performanceresponse and mode of action. Journal of Animal Science,81, E120-E132.Kung Jr L. 2001. Direct-fed microbials for dairy cows andenzymes for lactating dairy cows: New theories andapplications. In: 2001 Pennsylvania State Dairy CattleNutrition Workshop. Grantville, PA. pp. 86–102.Kung Jr L. 2006. Direct-fed microbial and enzyme feed additives.In: 2006 Direct-Fed Microbial, Enzyme and Forage AdditiveCompendium. Miller Publishing, Minnetonka, MN. Lee Y K, Puong K Y, Ouwehand A C, Salminen S. 2003.Displacement of bacterial pathogens from mucusand Caco-2 cell surface by lactobacilliJournal ofMedical Microbiology, 52, 925-930Lynch 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, 2603-2608Mackie R I, Gilchrist F M C. 1979. Changes in lactate-producingand lactate-utilizing bacteria in relation to pH in the rumenof sheep during stepwise adaptation to a high-concentratediet. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 67, 422-430Martin S A, Streeter M N. 1995. Effect of malate on in vitromixed ruminal microorganism fermentation. Journal ofAnimal Science, 73, 2141-2145Matsuguchi T, Takagi A, Matsuzaki T, Nagaoka M, IshikawaK, Yokokura T. 2003. Lipoteichoic acids from Lactobacillusstrains elicit strong tumor necrosis factor α-inducingactivities in macrophage through Toll-like receptor 2.Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, 10,259-266Miles R D, Bootwalla S M. 1991. Direct-fed microbials in animalproduction. In: Direct-Fed Microbials in Animal Production.A Review. National Feed Ingredient Association, West DesMoines, Iowa, USA. pp. 117-132Nagaraja T G, Newbold C J, Van Nevel C J, Demeyer D I.1997. Manipulation of ruminal fermentation. In: Hobson PN, Stewart C S, eds., Rumen Microbial Ecosystem. 2nded. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, UK. pp.523-632Nakanishi Y, Arave C W, Stewart P H. 1993. Effects offeeding Lactobacillus acidophilus yogurt on performanceand behavior of dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science,76(Suppl. 1), 244.Newbold C J, Brock R, Wallace R J. 1991. Influence ofautoclaved or irradiated Aspergillus oryzae fermentationextract on fermentation in the rumen simulation technique(Rusitec). Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge),116, 159-162Newbold C J, Wallace R J, McIntosh F M. 1996. Mode of actionof the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a feed additivefor ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition, 76, 249-261Nocek J E, Kautz W P, Leedle J A Z, Block E. 2003. Direct-fedmicrobial supplementation on the performance of dairycattle during the transition period. Journal of Dairy Science,86, 331-335Nocek J E, Kautz W P. 2006. Direct-fed microbial supplementationon ruminal digestion, health, and performance of pre- andpostpartum dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 89,260-266Nocek J E, Kautz W P, Leedle J A Z, Allman J G. 2002. Ruminalsupplementation of direct-fed microbials on diurnal pHvariation and in situ digestion in dairy cattle. Journal of DairyScience, 85, 429-433Oetzel G R, Emery K M, Kautz W P, Nocek J E. 2007. Directfedmicrobial supplementation and health and performanceof pre- and postpartum dairy cattle: A field trial. Journal ofDairy Science, 90, 2058-2068Ohya T, Marubashi T, Ito H. 2000. Significance of fecal volatilefatty acids in shedding of Escherichia coli O157 fromcalves: Experimental infection and preliminary use of aprobiotic product. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science,62, 1151-1155Puniya A K, Salem A Z M, Kumar S, Dagar S S, Griffith G W,Puniya M, Ravella S R, Kumar N, Dhewa T, Kumar R. 2015.Role of live microbial feed supplements with reference toanaerobic fungi in ruminant productivity: A review. Journalof Integrative Agriculture, 14, 550-560Reynolds C K, Aikman P C, Lupoli B, Humphries D J, BeeverD E. 2003. Splanchnic metabolism of dairy cows during thetransition from late gestation through early lactation. Journalof Dairy Science, 86, 1201-1217Reynolds C K, Harmon D L, Cecava M J. 1994. Absorption anddelivery of nutrients for milk protein synthesis by portaldrainedviscera. Journal of Dairy Science, 77, 2787- 2808.Robinson J A, Smolenski W J, Greening R C, Ogilvie R L, BellR L, Barsuhn K, Peters J P. 1992. Prevention of acuteacidosis and enhancement of feed intake in the bovine byMegasphaera elsdenii 407A. Journal of Animal Science,70(Suppl. 1), 310.Roger V, Fonty G, Komisarczuk-Bony S, Gouet P. 1990.Effects of physicochemical factors on the adhesion tocellulose Avicel of the ruminal bacteria Ruminococcusflavefaciensand Fibrobacter succinogenes subsp.succinogenes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,56, 3081-3087Russell J B, Baldwin R L. 1978. Substrate preferences in rumenbacteria: Evidence of catabolite regulatory mechanisms.Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 36, 319-329Salem A Z M, Kholif A E, Elghandour M M Y, Buendía G,Mariezcurrena M D, Hernandez S R, Camacho L M. 2014a.Influence of oral administration of Salix babylonica extracton milk production and composition in dairy cows. ItalianJournal of Animal Science, 13, 10-14Salem A Z M, Kholif A E, Olivares M, Elghandour M M Y,Mellado M, Arece J. 2014b. Influence of S. babylonicaextract on feed intake, growth performance and diet invitro gas production profile in young lambs. Tropical AnimalHealth and Production, 46, 213-219Seo J K, Kim J S, Kim M H, Upadhaya S D, Kam D K, Ha J K.2010. Direct-fed microbials for ruminant animals. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 23, 1657-1667van Soest P J. 1994. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. 2nded. Comstock, Ithaca, NY.Stein D R, Allen D T, Perry E B, Bruner J C, Gates K W,Rehberger T G, Mertz K, Jones D, Spicer L J. 2006. Effectsof feeding propionibacteria to dairy cows on milk yield, milkcomponents, and reproduction. Journal of Dairy Science,89, 111-125Sullivan H M, Martin S A. 1999. Effects of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on in vitro mixed ruminal microorganismfermentation. Journal of Dairy Science, 82, 2011-2016Vanbelle M, Teller E, Focant M. 1990. Probiotics in animalnutrition: A review. Archive of Animal Nutrition, 40, 543-567Weiss W P, Wyatt D J, McKelvey T R. 2008. Effect of feedingpropionibacteria on milk production by early lactation dairycows. Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 646-652Williams D L, Mahoney J H. 1984. Pre-weaning and postweaningnutrition. In: Annual Convention of the AmericanAssociation of Bovine Practice. Stillwater. p. 98.Wolin M J. 1960. A theoretical rumen fermentation balance.Journal of Dairy Science, 43, 1452-1459Yang W Z, Beauchemin K A, Vedres D D, Ghorbani G R,Colombatto D, Morgavi D P. 2004. Effects of direct-fedmicrobial supplementation on ruminal acidosis, digestibility,and bacterial protein synthesis in continuous culture. AnimalFeed Science and Technology, 114, 179-193Yoon I K, Stern M D. 1995. Influence of direct-fed microbialson ruminal microbial fermentation and performanceof ruminants: A review. Asian-Australasian Journalof Animal Sciences, 8, 533-555 |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
