Digestion and importance of starch in ruminants

Abstract

Ruminants have a unique digestive physiology that heavily relies on microbial fermentation specifically in the rumen. This review explores the complex mechanisms of starch digestion in ruminants and highlights its crucial role in shaping their nutritional landscape. The rumen, a complex microbial ecosystem, is the primary site for starch digestion. Enzymatic hydrolysis and microbial fermentation of starch in this compartment produce important byproducts, such as volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and microbial proteins. These byproducts are crucial sources of energy and protein, which affect the overall metabolic dynamics of ruminants. It is essential to have a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence starch digestion rates to optimize ruminant nutrition. This review examines the various factors involved in starch digestion, including feed composition, microbial populations, and enzymatic activity, and how they contribute to the digestive process. Additionally, identifying and characterizing starch fractions in concentrated feed sources is crucial for formulating well-balanced rations. In conclusion, this review synthesizes current knowledge on starch digestion in ruminants, offering insights into the complexities of the process. The collected information not only contributes to our academic understanding but also has practical implications for optimizing feeding strategies, enhancing nutrient utilization, and promoting the overall well-being of ruminants.

Keywords

• ruminants
• starch
• starch digestion

References

1. Allen MS, Grant RJ, Weiss WP, Roth GW, Beck JF. Effects of endosperm type of corn grain on starch degradability by ruminal microbes in vitro. J Dairy Sci. 2003; 86:61.
2. Baldwin RL, Connor EE. Rumen function and development. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2017; 33 (3):427-439.
3. Bello‐Pérez LA, Rodríguez‐Ambriz SL, Agama‐Acevedo E, Sanchez‐Rivera MM. Solubilization effects on molecular weights of amylose and amylopectins of normal maize and barley starches. Cereal Chem, 2009. 86(6), 701-705.
4. Bhandari KB, Rusch HL, Heuschele DJ. Alfalfa stem cell wall digestibility: Current knowledge and future research directions. Agronomy. 2023; 13(12):2875.
5. Biliaderis CG. Structural transitions and related physical properties of starch. In: Be Miller J, Whistler R, eds. Starch: Chemistry and Technology. 3th ed. USA: Academic Press; 2009. pp.293-372.
6. Dijkstra J, Forbes JM, France J. Quantitative aspects of ruminant digestion and metabolism. 2nd ed. UK: CABI Publishing; 2005. pp.157-170.
7. Du C, Ma L, Zhen YG, Kertz AF, Zhang WJ, Bu DP. Effects of different physical forms of starter on digestibility, growth, health, selected rumen parameters and blood metabolites in Holstein calves. Anim Feed Sci Tech, 2021; 271, 114759.
8. Ergün A, Tuncer ŞD, Çolpan İ, et al. Hayvan besleme ve beslenme hastalıkları. 8. Baskı. Ankara: Elma Teknik Basım Matbaacılık; 2020. ss.33-50.

9. Evers AD, O’Brien L, Blakeney AB. Cereal structure and composition. Aust J. Agric Res. 1999; 50:629-650.
10. Faichney GJ, Poncet C, Lassalas B, et al. Effect of concentrates in a hay diet on the contribution of anaerobic fungi, protozoa and bacteria to nitrogen in rumen and duodenal digesta of sheep. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 1997; 64:193-213.
11. Fernandes J, da Silva EB, de Almeida Carvalho-Estrada P, Danil JLP, Nussio LG. Influence of hybrid, moisture, and length of storage on the fermentation profile and starch digestibility of corn grain silages. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2021; 271:114707.
12. Fondevila M, Dehority BA. In vitro growth and starch digestion by Entodinium exiguumas influenced by the presence or absence of live bacteria. J Anim Sci. 2001; 79:2465-2471.
13. Grev AM, Wells MS, Samac DA, Martinson KL, Sheaffer CC. Forage accumulation and nutritive value of reduced lignin and reference alfalfa cultivars. Agron J. 2017; 109(6), 2749-2761.
14. Hall MB. Working with Non-NDF carbohydrates with manure evaluation and environmental considerations. Proc Mid South Ruminant Conf, Texas; April 24-25 2002.
15. Hall MB. Dietary carbohydrate impact on milk components. Proceedings of the Four-State Dairy Nutrition and Management Conference, Dubuque, Iowa; 2006a June 15. pp.79-83.
16. Hall MB. Rumen acidosis: Carbohydrate feeding considerations. Penn State: Dairy Cattle Nut Proc; 2006b. pp.1-9.
17. Hall MB. Carbohydrate nutrition and manure scoring. Part I: Carbohydrates. Proceedings of the Minnesota Dairy Health Conference, St. Paul, Minnesota. May 15; 2007a. pp.69-79.
18. Hall MB. Methodological challenges in carbohydrate analysis. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Brazilian Society of Animal Science. Brazilian J Anim Sci (supplement). 2007b; 36:359-367.
19. Hall MB, Zanton GI. Substitution of cane molasses for corn grain at two levels of degradable protein. I. Lactating cow performance, nutrition model predictions, and potential basis for butterfat and intake responses. J Dairy Sci. 2022; 105(5):3939-3953.
20. Hoffman P, Shaver R. Improving and evaluating starch digestibility for lactating dairy cows. In Four-State Dairy Nutrition and Management Conference 2010 (p. 32).
21. Iommelli P, Zicarelli F, Musco N, et al. Effects of cereals and legumes processing on in situ rumen protein degrability: A review. Fermentation. 2022; 8(8):363.
22. Kalaycıoglu L, Serpek B, Nizamlıoğlu M, Başpınar N, Tiftik AM. Biyokimya. Ankara: Nobel; 2000. pp.412-420.
23. Khan NA, Yu P, Ali M, Cone JW, Hendriks WH. Nutritive value of maize silage in relation to dairy cow performance and milk quality. J Sci Food Agricul. 2015; 95(2):238-252.
24. Ma C, Li Y, You H, et al. Nonstructural carbohydrates, carbon and nitrogen concentrations in fine roots of Quercus variabilis secondary forests after two different periods of regeneration. Forest Systems. 2021; 30(1):1.
25. McAllister TA, Hristov AN, Beauchemin KA, Rode LM, Cheng KJ. Enzymes in ruminant diets. In: Bedford MR, Partridge GG, eds. Enzymes in Farm Animal Nutrition. Marlborough, Wiltshire, UK: CABI Publishing; 2001. pp.273-298.
26. Narwal S, Kumar D, Kharub AS, Verma RPS. 11 - Barley biofortification: present status and future prospects, Editor(s): Om Prakash Gupta, Vanita Pandey, Sneh Narwal, Pradeep Sharma, Sewa Ram, Gyanendra Pratap Singh, In Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, Wheat and Barley Grain Biofortification, Woodhead Publishing, Elsevier, 2020, pp 275-294.
27. National Research Council (NRC). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 7th ed. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001.
28. Oba M, Allen MS. Effects of com grain conservation method on ruminal digestion kinetics for lactating dairy cows at two dietary starch concentrations. J Dairy Sci. 2003; 86:184-194.
29. Palmonari A, Federiconi A, Cavallini D, Sniffen CJ, Mammi L, Turroni S, Formigoni A. Impact of molasses on ruminal volatile fatty acid production and microbiota composition in vitro. Animals, 2023; 13(4), 728.
30. Pan L, Huang KH, Middlebrook T, Zhang D, Bryden WL, Li X. Rumen degradability of barley, oats, sorghum, triticalei and wheat in situ and the effect of pelleting. Agriculture. 2021; 11(7):647.
31. Pérez S, Baldwin PM, Gallant DJ. Structural features of starch granules I. In: James B, Roy W, eds. Starch. 3rd ed. San Diego: Academic; 2009. pp:149-192.
32. Saha SK, Pathak NN, Saha SK, Pathak NN. Digestion, absorption and metabolism of nutrients. In: Fundamentals of Animal Nutrition. Singapore, Springer Singapore; 2021. pp.219-246.
33. Slafer GA, Savin R. Comparative performance of barley and wheat acress a wide range of yielding conditions. Does barley outyield wheat consistently in low-yielding conditions? European J Agro. 2023; 143:126689.
34. Svihus B, Uhlen AK, Harstad OM. Effect of starch granule structure, associated components and processing on nutritive value of cereal starch: A review. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2005; 122:303-320.
35. Tester RF, Karkalas J, Qi X. Starch-composition, fine structure and architecture. J Cereal Sci. 2004; 39:151-165.
36. Trotta RJ, Harmon DL, Matthews JC, Swansson KC. Nutritional and physiological constraints contributing to limitations in small intestinal starch digestion and glucose absorption in ruminants. Ruminants. 2021; 2(1):1-26.
37. Van Barneveld SL. Chemical and physical characteristics of grains related to variability in energy and amino acid availability in ruminant: A review. Aust J Agric Res. 1999; 50:651-666.
38. Wang S, Li C, Copeland L, Niu Q, Wang S. Starch retrogradation: A comprehensive review. Comp Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2015; 14(5):568-585.
39. Wang H, Yu Z, Gao Z, et al. Effects of compound probiotics on growth performance, rumen fermentation, blood parameters, and health status of neonatal Holstein calves. J Dairy Sci. 2022; 105(3):2190-2200.
40. Wang Y, Tian Y, Christensen SJ, Blennow A, Svensson B, Moller MS. An enzymatic approach to quantify brancching on the surface of starch granules by interfacial catalysis. Food Hydrocol. 2024; 146:109162.
41. Weinert-Nelson JR, Kagan IA, Ely DG, Flythe MD, Davis BE. Fructan catabolism by rumen microbiota of cattle and sheep. Fermentation. 2023; 9(11):925.
42. Zhang G, Zihua ZA, Hamaker BR. Slow digestion property of native cereal starches. Biomacromolecules. 2006; 7:3252-3258.