Effects of probiotics on in vitro ruminal profile and population of some cellulolytic bacteria

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of probiotic on ruminal pH, ammonia nitrogen, production of short chain fatty acids (SCFA) and number of Ruminococcus albus and Ruminococcus flavefaciens. The probiotics blend was tested in vitro for 48 h incubation using “Hohenheim Formation Test” (HFT). There was no interaction effect of the treatment and incubation time on the ruminal pH and ammonia-nitrogen concentration. A supplemental probiotics blend tended to increase the total SCFA concentration in comparison to the non-supplemented control fermenter fluids (P> 0.05). There was a significant interaction effect of the treatment groups and incubation time on butyrate (P=0.042), valerate (P=0.045) and isovalerate (P= 0.028) concentrations. Total protozoa and total bacteria numbers were higher in probiotics supplemented fluid than in non-supplemented control fluid (P<0.001 and P<0.01, respectively). Dietary supplementation of a probiotics blend to the fermenters did not influence (P>0.05) the number of copies of R. albus. However, population of R. flavafaciens was lower (P<0.01) in the probiotic supplemented group as compared with the non-supplemented control group. Our results showed that the probiotics blend might modulate both microbial metabolic activity and population of ruminal microorganisms. 

Keywords

• Cellulolytic bacteria,nutrigenomics,probiotics,ruminomics,short chain fatty acids

References

1. 1. AOAC (2002): Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, Arlington, Virginia.
2. 2. Chaney AL, Marbach EP (1962): Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clin Chem, 8, 130-132.
3. 3. Coleman G (1988): The importance of rumen ciliate protozoa in the growth and metabolism of the host ruminant. Int J Anim Sci, 3, 75-95.
4. 4. Chaucheyras-Durand F, Durand H (2009): Probiotics in animal nutrition and health. Benef Microbes, 1, 3-9.
5. 5. Fuller R (1992): History and Development of Probiotics. 1-8. In: Probiotics. Springer, Netherlands.
6. 6. Geissler C, Hoffmann M, Hickel B (1976): Gas-chromatographic estimation of volatile fatty acids. Arch Anim Nutr, 26, 123-129.
7. 7. Harmeyer J (1965): Zur methodik experimenteller untersuchungen an pansenprotozoen. Transbound Emerg Dis, 12, 841-880.
8. 8. Horgan RP, Kenny LC (2017): Omic’technologies: genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics. Obstet Gynecol, 13, 189-195.

9. 9. Khafipour E, Li S, Plaizier JC, et al (2009): Rumen microbiome composition determined using two nutritional models of subacute ruminal acidosis. Appl Environ Microbiol, 75, 7115-7124.
10. 10. Lynd LR, Weimer PJ, Van Zyl WH, et al (2002): Microbial cellulose utilization: fundamentals and biotechnology. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 66, 506-577.
11. 11. Marais JP, Therion JJ, Mackie RI, et al (1988): Effect of nitrate and its reduction products on the growth and activity of the rumen microbial population. British J Nutr, 59, 301-313.
12. 12. Martin SA, Nisbet DJ (1990): Effects of Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on fermentation of amino acids, bermudagrass and starch by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro. J Anim Sci, 68, 2142-2149.
13. 13. Mathieu F, Jouany JP, Senaud J, et al (1996): The effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Aspergillus oryzae on fermentations in the rumen of faunated and defaunated sheep; protozoal and probiotic interactions. Reprod Nutr Develop, 36, 271-287.
14. 14. Menke K, Steingaβ H (1986): Schätzung des energetischen futterwerts aus der in vitro mit pansensaft bestimmten gasbildung und der chemischen analyse. 1. Untersuchungen zur methode. Übers Tierernähr, 14, 251-270.
15. 15. Morgavi DP, Kelly WJ, Janssen PH, et al (2013): Rumen microbial (meta) genomics and its application to ruminant production. Animal, 7, 184-201.
16. 16. Newbold CJ, Wallace RJ, McIntosh FM (1996): Mode of action of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a feed additive for ruminants. Br J Nutr, 76, 249-261. 17. Orskov ER (1987): Protein nutrition in ruminants. Academic Press Ltd, London.
17. 18. Paengkoum P, Yong H, Traiyakun S, et al (2011): Effect of blend probiotics on rumen fermentation and plasma fatty acid contents and plasma n6:n3 ratios of growing goats. J Anim Vet Adv, 10, 3112-3117.
18. 19. Ping Y, JiaQi W, DengPan B, et al (2009): Effects of Bacillus subtilis natto in diets on quantities of gastrointestinal celluloytic bacteria in weaning calves. J China Agri Uni, 14, 111-116.
19. 20. Pinloche E, McEwan N, Marden J-P, et al (2013): The effects of a probiotic yeast on the bacterial diversity and population structure in the rumen of cattle. PLoS One, 8, e67824.
20. 21. Poupard JA, Husain I, Norris RF (1973): Biology of the Bifidobacteria. Bacteriol Rev, 37, 136-165.
21. 22. Retta KS (2016): Role of probiotics in rumen fermentation and animal performance: a review. Int J Livest Prod, 7, 24-32.
22. 23. Rijkers GT, De Vos WM, Brummer R-J, et al (2011): Health benefits and health claims of probiotics: bridging science and marketing. Br J Nutr, 106, 1291-1296.
23. 24. Stewart CS (1977): Factors affecting the cellulolytic activity of rumen contents. Appl Environ Microbiol, 33, 497-502.
24. 25. Yang WZ, Beauchemin KA, Vedres DD, et al (2004): Effects of direct-fed microbial supplementation on ruminal acidosis, digestibility, and bacterial protein synthesis in continuous culture. Anim Feed Sci Technol, 114, 179-193.
25. 26. Zhong R, Sun H, Li G, et al (2014): Effects of inoculation with rumen fluid on nutrient digestibility, growth performance and rumen fermentation of early weaned lambs. Livest Sci, 162, 154-158.