Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T10:30:53.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of tannin-rich leaves of oak (Quercus incana) on various microbial enzyme activities of the bovine rumen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

H. P. S. Makkar ,
B. Singh  and
R. K. Dawra
H. P. S. Makkar
Affiliation:
Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Regional Station, Palampur Kangra Valley 176 061, Himachal Pradesh, India
B. Singh
Affiliation:
Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Regional Station, Palampur Kangra Valley 176 061, Himachal Pradesh, India
R. K. Dawra
Affiliation:
Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Regional Station, Palampur Kangra Valley 176 061, Himachal Pradesh, India
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The objective of the present experiment was to study the effects of oak (Quercus incana) leaves rich in tannins on various enzyme activities of the bovine rumen.

2. The procedure employed was incubation of tannin-rich, very-low-tannin or virtually tannin-free leaves in nylon-gauze bags in the rumen, and determination of enzyme activities in microbes tightly bound to the solid matrix and in microbes loosely plus tightly attached to the solid matrix.

3. The activities of urease (EC 3.5.1.5), carboxymethylcellulase, glutamate dehydrogenase (EC 1.4.1.2) and alanine aminotransferase (glutamic-pyruvic transaminase) (EC 2.6.1.2) were significantly lower in the tannin-rich group, whereas the activities of glutamate ammonia ligase (glutamine synthetase) (EC 6.3.1.2; both yγ- glutamyltransferase (EC 2.3.2.2) and the forward reaction) were higher in the tannin-rich group. These changes were more marked in micro-organisms tightly bound to the solid matrix than in the more complex microbial compartment.

4. The protein, DNA and RNA contents, and protein: RNA ratio, were significantly lower in the tannin-rich group, whereas no difference was observed for protein: DNA between the groups.

5. Effects of tannin-containing extracts of oak leaves on various rumen enzymes in vitro showed a trend similar to that observed in nylon-gauze bags, suggesting that the changes observed in various compartments were due to the tannins of oak leaves.

Type
General Nutrition papers
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , September 1988 , pp. 287 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1988

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1970). Official Methods of Analysis, 11th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1984). Official Methods of Analysis, 14th ed. Virginia, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Bender, R. A., Janssen, K. A., Resnick, A. D., Blumenberg, M., Foor, F. & Magasanik, B. (1977). Journal of Bacteriology 129, 1001–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. (1984). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 43, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W., Piatkova, M. & Breckenridge, G. (1984). Journal of Applied Bacteriology 56, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, C. J. & Carlson, J. (1974). Journal of General Microbiology 82, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, R. & Singh, M. (1984). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 32, 447–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohan, O. P., Lall, D., Vaid, J. & Negi, S. S. (1983). Indian Journal of Animal Science 53, 1057–1063.Google Scholar
Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. (1951). Journal of Biological Chemistry 193, 262–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, M. N. (1974). Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 44, 803–815.Google Scholar
Makkar, H. P. S., Sharma, O. P., Pal, R. N. & Negi, S. S. (1981). Journal of Dairy Science 63, 785–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkar, H. P. S. & Singh, B. (1987). Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 10, 172–174.Google Scholar
Makkar, H. P. S., Singh, B. & Dawra, R. K. (1987). International Journal of Animal Science 2, 127–140.Google Scholar
Martin, J. S. & Martin, M. M. (1982). Oecologia 5, 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meers, J. L., Tempest, D. W. & Brown, C. M. (1970). Journal of General Microbiology 64, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mole, S. & Waterman, P. G. (1985). Journal of Chemical Ecology 11, 1323–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negi, S. S., Pal, R. N. & Ehrich, C. (1979). Tree Fodders in Himachal Pradesh, no. 41, Eschborn, FRG: German Agency for Technical Cooperation.Google Scholar
Neser, J. A., Coetzer, J. A. W., Boomker, J. & Cable, H. (1982). Journal of South African Veterinary Association 53, 151–155.Google Scholar
Oh, H. I. & Hoff, J. E. (1986). Nutrition Reports International 34, 51–58.Google Scholar
Price, M. L., Hagerman, A. E. & Butler, L. G. (1980). Nutrition Reports International 21, 761–767.Google Scholar
Reddy, N. R., Pierson, M. D., Sathe, S. K. & Salunkhe, D. K. (1985). Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 62, 541–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitman, S. & Frankel, S. (1974). In Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, Vol 2, pp. 735, 760 [H. U. Bergmeyer, editor]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sadanandan, K. P. & Arora, S. P. (1979). Journal of Nuclear and Agriculture Biology 8, 1–3.Google Scholar
Schneider, W. C. (1957). Methods bin Enzymology, Vol. 3, p. 680,New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sharma, K., Wah, C. S. & Jackson, M. G. (1977). Indian Journal of Animal Science 47, 473–478.Google Scholar
Singleton, V. L. (1981). Advances in Food Research 27, 149–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. J. (1979). Journal of Applied Bacteriology 47, 443–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar