Effects of propolis on in vitro rumen microbial fermentation

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different concentrations of propolis ethanolic extract (PEE) on rumen microbial fermentation using the rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). Six fermenters with a nominal volume of 750 ml were set up for the study that lasted 14 days. Each fermenter received daily 10 g of a basal diet consisting of 6 g pelleted alfalfa hay and 4 g pelleted concentrate. Treatments were control (received 0.5 ml/day of 70% ethanol without having any propolis), 0.5 ml/day of 20% PEE, and 0.5 ml/day of 60% PEE. Supplementation of PEE in both concentrations did not affect ruminal pH, production of total short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) as well as of acetate, acetate to propionate ratio, total protozoa count, and dry matter digestibility. High concentration of PEE resulted in a significant decrease (p<0.05) in propionate production whereas both high and low concentrations of PEE significantly increased (p<0.05) ruminal butyrate production. Total count of ruminal bacteria was decreased (p<0.05) after the addition of PEE in both concentrations. Furthermore, NH-N concentration in rumen fluid was reduced (p<0.05) in a dose-dependent manner by 24 and 39% by the addition of low and high concentrations of PEE, respectively. In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that propolis may be a useful additive to decrease ruminal ammonia production and to improve the nitrogen utilization in ruminants

Keywords

• In vitro
• fermentation
• propolis
• rumen

Propolisin rumen mikrobiyal fermantasyonu üzerine in vitro etkileri

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, Rusitec tekniği (Rumen Simulation Technique) kullanılarak, farklı yoğunluklardaki etanolik propolis ekstraktlarının rumen mikrobiyal fermantasyonu üzerine etkilerinin belirlenmesi amaçlandı. Gerçek hacimleri 750 ml olan 6 fermenterin kullanıldığı araştırma 14 gün sürdü. Her bir fermenterde günlük olarak 6 g yonca otu peleti ve 4 g konsantre pelet yemden oluşan bir rasyon inkübe edildi. Araştırmadaki uygulama grupları kontrol (propolis içermeyen % 70’lik etanol çözeltisinden 0,5 ml/gün), propolisin % 20’lik etanolik ekstraktı (0,5 ml/gün) ve propolisin % 60’lık etanolik ekstraktı (0,5 ml/gün) şeklindeydi. Rusitec fermenterlerine ilave edilen propolisin her iki yoğunluktaki ekstraktı da ruminal pH, toplam kısa zincirli yağ asitleri ve asetat üretimleri, asetatın propiyonata oranı, toplam protozoon sayısı ve yem kuru maddesi sindirilebilirliklerinde istatistiksel bir değişime neden olmadı. Ancak % 60’lık propolis ekstraktı propiyonat üretimini belirgin bir şekilde azaltırken (p<0.05), hem % 60 hem de % 20’lik propolis ekstraktı ruminal bütirat üretimini belirgin bir şekilde artırdı (p<0.05). Ayrıca her iki yoğunluktaki propolis ektraktı da ruminal bakterilerin toplam sayısında azalmaya (p<0.05) neden oldu. NH3-N konsantrasyonunda hem düşük hem de yüksek yoğunluktaki propolis ekstraktı ilavesinden sonra sırasıyla % 24 ve % 39’luk bir azalma (p<0.05) belirlendi. Bu araştırmadan elde edilen sonuçlar propolisin ruminal amonyak üretimini azaltmada ve ruminal azot değerlendirilebilirliğini iyileştirmede kullanılabilecek bir katkı maddesi olabileceğine işaret etmektedir

Keywords

• İn vitro
• fermantasyon
• propolis
• rumen

References

1. Banskota AH, Tezuka Y, Kadota S (2001): Recent progress in pharmacological research of propolis. Phytother Res, 15, 561-571.
2. Broudiscou LP, Papon Y, Broudiscou AF (2000): Effects of dry extracts on fermentation and methanogenesis in continuous culture of rumen microbes. Anim Feed Sci Tech, 87, 263-277.
3. Broudiscou LP, Papon Y, Broudiscou A (2002): Effects of dry plant extracts on feed degradation and the production of rumen microbial biomass in a dual outflow fermenter. Anim Feed Sci Tech, 101, 183–189.
4. Burdock GA (1998): Review of the biological properties and toxicity of propolis. Food Chem Toxicol, 36, 341-363.
5. Crane E (1997): The past and present importance of bee products to man. 1-14. In: A Mizrahi, Y Lensky (Ed), Bee Products: Properties, Applications, and Apitherapy. Plenum Press, New York.
6. Czerkawski JW, Breckenridge G (1977): Design and development of a long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). Brit J Nutr, 38, 371-384.
7. Demeyer D, Van Nevel CJ (1975): Methanogenesis, an integrated part of carbohydrate fermentation and its control. 366-382. In: LW McDonald, ACI Warner (Ed), Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant. University of New England Publishing Unit, Armidale, Australia.
8. Gonsales GZ, Orsi RO, Fernandes A, Rodrigues P, Funari SRC (2006): Antibacterial activity of propolis collected in different regions of Brazil. J Venom Anim Toxins, 12, 276-284.

9. Irbis C, Ushida K (2004): Detection of methanogens and proteobacteria from a single cell of rumen ciliate protozoa. J Gen Appl Microbiol, 50, 203-212.
10. Kartal M, Yıldız S, Kaya S, Kurucu S, Topçu G (2003): Antimicrobial activity of propolis samples from different regions of Anatolia. J Ethnopharmacol, 86, 69-73.
11. Kreuzer M, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL (1986): Effect of defaunation on the loss of energy in wethers fed different quantities of cellulose and normal or steamflaked maize starch. Anim Feed Sci Tech, 16, 233-241.
12. Lana RP, Camardelli MML, Queiroz AC, Rodrigues MT, Eifert EC, Miranda EN, Almeida ICC (2005): Soybean oil and propolis in the diets of dairy goats. Rev Bras Zootecn, 34, 650-658.
13. Lana RP, Camardelli MML, Rodrigues MT, Eifert EC, Oliveira MVM, Stradiotti JD, Oliveira JS (2007): Soybean oil and propolis in the diets of dairy goats: intake of nutrients and ruminal metabolism. Rev Bras Zootecn, 36, 191-197.
14. McGuffey RK, Richardson LF, Wilkinson JID (2001): Ionophore for dairy cattle: Current status and future outlook. J Dairy Sci, 84 (E. Suppl.), E194–E203.
15. Mirzoeva OK, Grishanin RN, Calder PC (1997): Antimicrobial action of propolis and some of its components: the effects on growth, membrane potential and motility of bacteria. Microbiol Res, 152, 239-246.
16. Oeztuerk H, Schroeder B, Beyerbach M, Breves G (2005): Influence of living and autoclaved yeasts of Saccharomyces boulardii on in vitro ruminal microbial metabolism. J Dairy Sci, 88, 2594-2600.
17. Oeztuerk H, Sagmanligil V (2009): Role of live yeasts on rumen ecosystem. Deut Tierarztl Woch, 116, 244-248.
18. Oliveira JS, Lana RP, Borges AC, Queiroz AC, Almeida ICC (2004): Effect of monensin and propolis extract on ammonia production and in vitro degradability of crude protein of different nitrogen sources. Rev Bras Zootecn, 33, 504-510.
19. Oliveira JS, Queiroz AC, Lana RP, Montovani HC, Generoso RAR (2006): Effect of monensin and bee propolis on in vitro fermentation of amino acids by mixed ruminal bacteria. Rev Bras Zootecn, 35, 275-281.
20. Öztürk H (2009): Effects of chicory inulin on ruminal fermentation in vitro. Vet J Ankara Univ, 55, 79-82.
21. Popova M, Silici S, Kaftanoglu O, Bankova V (2005): Antibacterial activity of Turkish propolis and its qualitative and quantitative chemical composition. Phytomedicine, 12, 221-228.
22. Rispoli TB, Rodrigues IL, Martins Neto RG, Kazama R, Prado OPP, Zeoula LM, Arcuri PB (2009): Ruminal ciliate protozoa of cattle and buffalo fed on diet supplemented with monensin or extracts from propolis. Pesqui Agropecu Bras, 44, 92-97.
23. Russell JB, Strobel HJ (1989): Mini-review: The effect of ionophores on ruminal fermentation. Appl Environ Microb, 55, 1-6.
24. Santos FA, Bastos EM, Uzeda M, Carvalho MA, Farias LM, Moreira ES, Braga FC (2002): Antibacterial activity of Brazilian propolis and fractions against oral anaerobic bacteria. J Ethnopharmacol, 80, 1-7.
25. Sforcin JM, Fernandes A, Lopes CAM, Bankova V, Funari SRC (2000): Seasonal effect on Brazilian propolis antibacterial activity. J Ethnopharmacol, 73, 243-249.
26. Stradiotti Junior D, Queiroz AC, Lana RP, Pacheco CG, Eifert EC, Nunes PMM (2004): Effect of the propolis on amino acids deamination and ruminal fermentation. Revis Bras Zootecn, 33, 1086-1092.
27. Takaisi-Kikuni NB, Schilder H (1994): Electron microscopic and microcalorimetric investigations of the possible mechanism of the antibacterial action of a defined propolis provenance. Planta Med, 60, 222-227.