Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:30:22.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of supplementing pony diets with yeast on 1. In vivo and in vitro digestibility, faecal pH and particle size

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2020

A. Garber*
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, McCall Building, Bearsden, GlasgowG61 1QH, UK
P. M. Hastie
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, McCall Building, Bearsden, GlasgowG61 1QH, UK
V. Farci
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, McCall Building, Bearsden, GlasgowG61 1QH, UK
L. Bulmer
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, McCall Building, Bearsden, GlasgowG61 1QH, UK
O. Alzahal
Affiliation:
AB Vista, Woodstock Court, Blenheim Road, Marlborough Business Park, Marlborough, WiltshireSN8 4AN, UK
J. M. D. Murray
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, McCall Building, Bearsden, GlasgowG61 1QH, UK
Get access

Abstract

Fibre is essential to maintain healthy gut; however, energy demands of performance horses can be too high to be met by forages alone. Yeast may support the function of cellulolytic bacteria to digest fibre. The aim of this work was to determine the effect of an oral supplement (VistaEQ) containing 4% live yeast on the in vitro and in vivo digestibility of high-starch (HS) and high-fibre diets (HF). Eight ponies were used in a 4 × 4 Latin square design consisting of 4- × 19-day periods and four diets: HF, HF + yeast (HFY), HS and HS + yeast (HSY). In vivo apparent digestibility (AD) was estimated using total collection technique, and faecal particle size was measured using NASCO digestive analyser. Faeces from the ponies were subsequently used as an inoculum in ANKOM RF gas production system to assess fermentation kinetics in vitro. Each module contained 1 g of feed substrate DM in the following combinations: 50% grass hay and 50% alfalfa (HF_50 : 50) or concentrate (HS_50 : 50), and 75% grass hay and 25% alfalfa (HF_75 : 25) or concentrate (HS_75 : 25) with or without yeast. Yeast was able to induce more gas production from HF_75 : 25, HS_75 : 25 and HF_50 : 50 feed substrates incubated with respective faecal inoculum base. Yeast did not affect pH in vitro when the substrates were incubated in 50 : 50 ratio, while the pH was higher for HF_75 : 25 incubated with correspondent faecal inoculum compared to HS_75 : 25 and HSY_75 : 25. Yeast had no effects on ADF and CP AD of either diet. Yeast addition increased DM (HF: 0.2%, HS: 0.4%), organic matter (HF: 0.7%, HS: 1.3%), NDF (HF: 0.5%, HS: 1.5%), total detergent fibre (HF: 0.7%; HS: 0.4%) (P < 0.05) and also tended to increase hemicellulose AD (HF: 0.9%, HS: 1.2%) (P < 0.10). Faecal pH in vivo was higher for both HF diets compared to HS diet without yeast supplementation (P < 0.001, HF and HFY: 6.8; HS: 6.6, HSY: 6.7). However, no difference was observed in faecal pH when HSY was compared to both HF diets. Yeast had no effect on the size of the faecal particles (P > 0.05). Yeast increased in vitro gas production, suggesting more energy could be extracted from the feed, and the in vivo AD of some of the nutrients when HF and HS diets were fed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Animal Consortium

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agazzi, A, Ferroni, M, Fanelli, A, Maroccolo, S, Invernizzi, G, Dell’Orto, V and Savoini, G 2011. Evaluation of the effects of live yeast supplementation on apparent digestibility of high-fiber diet in mature horses using the acid insoluble ash marker modified method. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 31, 1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ANKOM 2018. RF Gas Production System Operator’s Manual. Retrieved on 20 May 2020 from https://www.ankom.com/sites/default/files/document-files/RF_Manual.pdf.Google Scholar
Blummel, M, Makkar, HPS and Becker, K 1997. In vitro gas production: a technique revisited. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 77, 2434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, TR, Anderson, RC, Edrington, TS, Genovese, KJ, Harvey, RB, Poole, TL and Nisbet, DJ 2013. Novel methods for pathogen control in livestock pre-harvest: an update. In Advances in microbial food safety (ed. Sofos, J), pp. 275304, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coverdale, JA 2016. Horse species symposium: can the microbiome of the horse be altered to improve digestion? Journal of Animal Science 94, 22752281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elghandour, MMY, Kholif, AE, López, S, Mendoza, GD, Odongo, NE and Salem, AZM 2016. In vitro gas, methane, and carbon dioxide productions of high fibrous diet incubated with fecal inocula from horses in response to the supplementation with different live yeast additives. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 38, 6471.Google Scholar
Elghandour, MMY, Vázquez Chagoyán, JC, Salem, AZM, Kholif, AE, Martínez Castañeda, JS, Camacho, LM and Buendía, G 2014. In vitro fermentative capacity of equine fecal inocula of 9 fibrous forages in the presence of different doses of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 34, 619625.Google Scholar
Ericsson, AC, Johnson, PJ, Lopes, MA, Perry, SC and Lanter, HR 2016. A microbiological map of the healthy equine gastrointestinal tract. PloS one 11, e0166523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garber, A, Hastie, P and Murray, J-A 2020. Factors influencing equine gut microbiota: current knowledge. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 88, 102943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garber, A, Hastie, PM, Handel, I and Murray, JMD 2017. In vitro fermentation of different ratios of alfalfa and starch or inulin incubated with an equine faecal inoculum. Livestock Science 215, 715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grenet, E, Chenost, M and Martin-Rosset, W 1984. Compared size and structure of plant particles in the horse and sheep feces. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64, 345346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsdottir, H, Van der Stede, Y, De Vlamynck, C, Muurling, F, De Clercq, D, van Loon, G and Vlaminck, L 2014. Hospital-based study of dental pathology and faecal particle size distribution in horses with large colon impaction. Veterinary Journal 202, 153156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, P, Ellis, AD, Fradinho, MJ, Jansson, A, Julliand, V, Luthersson, N, Santos, AS and Vervuert, I 2016. Review: feeding conserved forage to horses: recent advances and recommendations. Animal 11, 958967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hydock, KL, Nissley, SG and Staniar, WB 2014. A standard protocol for fecal pH measurement in the horse. The Professional Animal Scientist 30, 643648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouany, JP, Medina, B, Bertin, G and Julliand, V 2009. Effect of live yeast culture supplementation on hindgut microbial communities and their polysaccharidase and glycoside hydrolase activities in horses fed a high-fiber or high-starch diet. Journal of Animal Science 87, 28442852.Google ScholarPubMed
Jouany, JP, Gobert, J, Medina, B, Bertin, G and Julliand, V 2008. Effect of live yeast culture supplementation on apparent digestibility and rate of passage in horses fed a high-fiber or high-starch diet. Journal of Animal Science 86, 339347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lapinskas, SL, Swartz, KA, Ochonski, P and Staniar, WB 2017. Quantification of dietary and fecal particle size. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 52, 9394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowman, RS, Theodorou, MK, Hyslop, JJ, Dhanoa, MS and Cuddeford, D 1999. Evulation of an invitro batch culture technique for estimating the invivo digestibility and digestible energy content of equine feeds using equine faeces as the source of microbial inoculum. Animal Feed Science and Technology 80, 1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenthun, E, Coenen, M and Vervuert, I 2013. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on apparent total tract digestibility of nutrients and fermentation profile in healthy horses. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 97, 115120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martuzzi, F, Federico, R, Martuzzi, F, Mazzoni, Y and Quarantelli, A 2015. Relationship between horse faecal particle size and forage type/dry matter digestibility. Italian Journal of Animal Science 14, 47.Google Scholar
Medina, B, Girard, ID, Jacotot, E and Julliand, V 2002. Effect of a preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on microbial profiles and fermentation patterns in the large intestine of horses fed a high fiber or a high starch diet. Journal of Animal Science 80, 26002609.Google ScholarPubMed
Monroy Salazar, H, Salem, AZM, Kholif, A, Fernandez, P, Zamora, JL, Monroy, H, Pérez, LS and Acosta, J 2016. Mode of action of yeast in animal nutrition. In Yeast additive and animal production (ed. Salem, AZM, Kholif, AE and Puniya, AK), pp. 1420, PubBioMed Central Research Publishing Services, Kolkata, India.Google Scholar
Murray, JAMD, Longland, A and Dunnett, C 2008. Effect of yeast supplementation on the invitro fermentation of high-temperature dried lucerne incubated with an equine faecal inoculum. Animal Feed Science and Technology 146, 149159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, JAMD, Longland, AC, Moore-Colyer, MJ and Dunnett, C 2005. The effect of enzyme treatment on the invitro fermentation of lucerne incubated with equine faecal inocula. British Journal of Nutrition 94, 771782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, JAMD, Brown, S, O’Shaughnessy, P, Monteiro, A, Warren, H and Hastie, PM 2017. Effect of live yeast culture supplementation on fibrolytic and saccharolytic bacterial populations in the feces of horses fed a high-fiber or high-starch diet. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 51, 4145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbold, CJ, Wallace, RJ and McIntosh, FM 2007. Mode of action of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a feed additive for ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition 76, 249261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, N, Hinch, GN and Rowe, JB 2006. The effect of current grain feeding practices on hindgut starch fermentation and acidosis in the Australian racing Thoroughbred. Australian Veterinary Journal 84, 402407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, GJS 1987. Maximum likelihood program. Numerical Algorithms Group, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Salem, AZM, Elghandour, MMY, Kholif, AE, Barbabosa, A, Camacho, LM and Odongo, NE 2016. Influence of feeding horses a high fiber diet with or without live yeast cultures supplementation on feed intake, nutrient digestion, blood chemistry, fecal coliform count, and invitro fecal fermentation. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 39, 1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoster, A, Weese, JS and Guardabassi, L 2014. Probiotic use in horses – what is the evidence for their clinical efficacy? Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 28, 16401652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepherd, ML, Swecker, WS, Jensen, RV and Ponder, MA 2012. Characterization of the fecal bacteria communities of forage-fed horses by pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA V4 gene amplicons. FEMS Microbiology Letters 326, 6268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sjaastad, OV, Hove, K and Sand, O 2010. Physiology of domestic animals. Scandinavian Veterinary Press, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
Taran, FMP, Gobesso, AAO, Gonzaga, IVF, Françoso, R, Centini, TN, Moreira, CG and Silva, LFP 2016. Effects of different amounts of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on apparent digestibility and faecal parameters in horses fed high-roughage and high-concentrate diets. Livestock Science 186, 2933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodorou, MK, Williams, BA, Dhanoa, MS, McAllan, AB and France, J 1994. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48, 185197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickström, E 2010. Effect of plant maturity at harvest of haylage on digestibility and faecal particle size in horses fed forage-dominated diets. Master thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Williamson, A, Rogers, CW and Firth, EC 2007. A survey of feeding, management and faecal pH of Thoroughbred racehorses in the North Island of New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 55, 337341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zwirglmaier, S, Remler, HP, Senckenberg, E, Fritz, J, Stelzer, P and Kienzle, E 2013. Effect of dental correction on voluntary hay intake, apparent digestibility of feed and faecal particle size in horse. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 97, 7279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar