Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:46:58.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of fibrolytic enzymes added to a Andropogon gayanus grass silage-concentrate diet on rumen fermentation in batch cultures and the artificial rumen (Rusitec)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2015

G. O. Ribeiro Jr ,
L. C. Gonçalves ,
L. G. R. Pereira ,
A. V. Chaves ,
Y. Wang ,
K. A. Beauchemin  and
T. A. McAllister
G. O. Ribeiro Jr
Affiliation:
Escola de Veterinária, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG 31270-901, Brazil Lethbridge Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4B1, Canada
L. C. Gonçalves
Affiliation:
Escola de Veterinária, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG 31270-901, Brazil
L. G. R. Pereira
Affiliation:
Embrapa Gado de Leite – CNPGL, Juiz de Fora, MG 36038-330, Brazil
A. V. Chaves
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Y. Wang
Affiliation:
Lethbridge Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4B1, Canada
K. A. Beauchemin
Affiliation:
Lethbridge Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4B1, Canada
T. A. McAllister*
Affiliation:
Lethbridge Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4B1, Canada
*
†E-mail: tim.mcallister@agr.gc.ca
Get access

Abstract

In vitro batch cultures were used to screen four fibrolytic enzyme mixtures at two dosages added to a 60 : 40 silage : concentrate diet containing the C4 tropical grass Andropogon gayanus grass ensiled at two maturities – vegetative stage (VS) and flowering stage (FS). Based on these studies, one enzyme mixture was selected to treat the same diets and evaluate its impact on fermentation using an artificial rumen (Rusitec). In vitro batch cultures were conducted as a completely randomized design with two runs, four replicates per run and 12 treatments in a factorial arrangement (four enzyme mixtures×three doses). Enzyme additives (E1, E2, E3 and E4) were commercial products and contained a range of endoglucanase, exoglucanase and xylanase activities. Enzymes were added to the complete diet 2 h before incubation at 0, 2 and 4 μl/g of dry matter (DM). Gas production (GP) was measured after 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h of incubation. Disappearance of DM (DMD), NDF (NDFD) and ADF (ADFD) were determined after 24 and 48 h. For all four enzyme mixtures, a dosage effect (P<0.05) was observed for NDFD and ADFD after 24 h and for DMD, NDFD and ADFD after 48 h of incubation of the VS diet. For the FS diet, a dosage effect was observed for GP and NDFD after 24 h and for GP, DMD, NDFD and ADFD after 48 h of incubation. There was no difference among enzyme mixtures nor was there an enzyme×dose interaction for the studied parameters. Because of the greatest numerical effect on NDF disappearance and the least cost price, enzyme mixture E2 at 4 µl/g of diet DM was selected for the Rusitec experiment. The enzyme did not impact (P>0.05) DM, N, NDF or ADF disappearance after 48 h of incubation nor daily ammonia-N, volatile fatty acids or CH4 production. However, enzyme application increased (P<0.05) microbial N production in feed particle-associated (loosely-associated) and silage feed particle-bound (firmly associated) fractions. With A. gayanus silage diets, degradation may not be limited by microbial colonization, but rather by the ability of fibrolytic enzymes to degrade plant cell walls within this recalcitrant forage.

Keywords

Andropogon gayanusexogenous fibrolytic enzymerumen microbial growthRusitectropical grass silage
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 7 , July 2015 , pp. 1153 - 1162
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015. Parts of this are a work of the Government of Canada, represented by the Agriculture and Agri-Food Agency of Canada 2015. 

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2006. Official methods of analysis, 18th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Avellaneda, JH, Pinos-Rodríguez, JM, González, SS, Bárcena, R, Hernández, A, Cobos, M, Hernández, D and Montañez, O 2009. Effects of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes on ruminal fermentation and digestion of Guinea grass hay. Animal Feed Science and Technology 149, 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, RW 1967. Quantitative studies of ruminant digestion of ingested plant carbohydrates from the reticulo-rumen. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Colombatto, D, Morgavi, DP and Yang, W 2003. Use of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes to improve feed utilization by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 81, E37–E47.Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care 1993. Guide to the care and use of experimental animals. Canadian Council on Animal Care, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical 1990. Andropogon gayanus Kunth: a grass for tropical acid soils. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia.Google Scholar
Cheng, K-J and McAllister, TA 1997. Compartmentation in the rumen. In The rumen microbial ecosystem (ed. PN Hobson and CS Stewart), pp. 492–552. Blackie Academic & Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
Colombatto, D and Beauchemin, KA 2003. A proposed methodology to standardize the determination of enzymic activities present in enzyme additives used in ruminant diets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 559–568.Google Scholar
Colombatto, D, Mould, FL, Bhat, MK and Owen, E 2003a. Use of fibrolytic enzymes to improve the nutritive value of ruminant diets: a biochemical and in vitro rumen degradation assessment. Animal Feed Science and Technology 107, 201–209.Google Scholar
Colombatto, D, Mould, FL, Bhat, MK, Morgavi, DP, Beauchemin, KA and Owen, E 2003b. Influence of fibrolytic enzymes on the hydrolysis and fermentation of pure cellulose and xylan by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro . Journal of Animal Science 81, 1040–1050.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, JW and Breckenridge, G 1977. Design and development of a long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). British Journal of Nutrition 38, 371–384.Google Scholar
Dean, DB, Adesogan, AT, Krueger, NA and Littell, RC 2008. Effects of treatment with ammonia or fibrolytic enzymes on chemical composition and ruminal degradability of hays produced from tropical grasses. Animal Feed Science and Technology 145, 68–83.Google Scholar
Eun, JS and Beauchemin, KA 2007. Assessment of the efficacy of varying experimental exogenous fibrolytic enzymes using in vitro fermentation characteristics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 132, 298–315.Google Scholar
Facchini, FDA, Reis, VRA, Roth, AP, Magalhães, KA, Peixoto-Nogueira, SC, Casagrande, DR, Reis, RA and MDLTM, Polizeli 2012. Effects of Aspergillus spp. exogenous fibrolytic enzymes on in vitro fermentation of tropical forages. Journal of Science Food and Agriculture 92, 2569–2573.Google Scholar
Fedorak, PM and Hrudey, SE 1983. A simple apparatus for measuring gas-production by methanogenic cultures in serum bottles. Environmental Technology Letters 4, 425–432.Google Scholar
Giraldo, LA, Ranilla, MJ, Tejido, ML and Carro, MD 2007a. Influence of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes and fumarate on methane production, microbial growth and fermentation in Rusitec fermenters. British Journal of Nutrition 98, 753–761.Google Scholar
Giraldo, LA, Tejido, ML, Ranilla, MJ and Carro, MD 2007b. Effects of exogenous cellulase supplementation on microbial growth and ruminal fermentation of a high-forage diet in Rusitec fermenters. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1962–1970.Google Scholar
Jung, HG and Allen, MS 1995. Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and digestibility of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2774–2790.Google Scholar
Karkalas, J 1985. An improved enzymatic method for determination of native or modified starch. Journal of Science Food and Agriculture 36, 1019–1027.Google Scholar
Mandebvu, P, West, JW, Froetschel, MA, Hatfield, RD, Gates, RN and Hill, GM 1999. Effect of enzyme or microbial treatment of bermudagrass forages before ensiling on cell wall composition, end products of silage fermentation and in situ digestion kinetics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 77, 317–329.Google Scholar
McDougall, EI 1948. Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep’s saliva. Biochemical Journal 43, 99–109.Google Scholar
Meale, SJ, Beauchemin, KA, Hristov, AN, Chaves, AV and McAllister, TA 2014. BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: opportunities and challenges in using exogenous enzymes to improve ruminant production. Journal of Animal Science 92, 427–442.Google Scholar
Menke, KH, Raab, L, Salewski, A, Steingass, H, Fritz, D and Schneider, W 1979. Estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas-production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro . Journal of Agricultural Science 93, 217–222.Google Scholar
Morgavi, DP, Beauchemin, KA, Nsereko, VL, Rode, LM, Iwaasa, AD, Yang, WZ, McAllister, TA and Wang, Y 2000. Synergy between ruminal fibrolytic enzymes and enzymes from Trichoderma longibrachiatum . Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1310–1321.Google Scholar
Nsereko, VL, Morgavi, DP, Rode, LM, Beauchemin, KA and McAllister, TA 2000. Effects of fungal enzyme preparations on hydrolysis and subsequent degradation of alfalfa hay fiber by mixed rumen microorganisms in vitro . Animal Feed Science and Technology 88, 153–170.Google Scholar
Ouédraogo-Koné, S, Kaboré-Zoungrana, CY and Ledin, I 2008. Intake and digestibility in sheep and chemical composition during different seasons of some West African browse species. Tropical Animal Health and Production 40, 155–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phakachoed, N, Suksombat, W, Colombatto, D and Beauchemin, KA 2013. Use of fibrolytic enzymes additives to enhance in vitro ruminal fermentation of corn silage. Livestock Science 157, 100–112.Google Scholar
Phengvichith, V and Ledin, I 2007. Effect of feeding different levels of wilted cassava foliage (Manihot esculenta, Crantz) on the performance of growing goats. Small Ruminant Research 71, 109–116.Google Scholar
Playne, MJ 1985. Determination of ethanol, volatile fatty acids, lactic and succinic acids in fermentation liquids by gas chromatography. Journal of Science Food and Agriculture 36, 638–644.Google Scholar
Rhine, ED, Mulvaney, RL, Pratt, EJ and Sims, GK 1998. Improving the berthelot reaction for determining ammonium in soil extracts and water. Soil Science Society of America Journal 62, 473–480.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, GO Jr, Teixeira, AM, Velasco, FO, Faria, WG Jr, Pereira, LGR, Chaves, AV, Gonçalves, LC and McAllister, TA 2014. Production, nutritional quality and in vitro methane production from Andropogon gayanus grass harvested at different maturities and preserved as hay or silage. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science 27, 330–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ribeiro, GO Jr, Teixeira, AM, Velasco, FO, Faria, WG Jr, Jayme, DJ, Maurício, RM, Gonçalves, LC and McAllister, TA 2015. Methane production and energy partitioning in sheep fed Andropogon gayanus grass ensiled at three regrowth stages. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 95, 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, JB and Van Soest, PJ 1981. The detergent system of analysis and its application to human foods. In The analysis of dietary fiber in food (ed. WPT James and O Theander), pp. 123–158. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysachharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Wang, Y and McAllister, TA 2002. Rumen microbes, enzymes and feed digestion – a review. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science 15, 1659–1676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, YX, McAllister, TA, Yanke, LJ, Xu, ZJ, Cheeke, PR and Cheng, K-J 2000. In vitro effects of steroidal saponins from Yucca Schidigera extract on rumen microbial protein synthesis and ruminal fermentation. Journal of Science Food and Agriculture 80, 2114–2122.Google Scholar
Wang, Y, McAllister, TA, Rode, LM, Beauchemin, KA, Morgavi, DP, Nsereko, VL, Iwaasa, AD and Yang, W 2001. Effects of an exogenous enzyme preparation on microbial protein synthesis, enzyme activity and attachment to feed in the Rumen Simulation Technique (Rusitec). British Journal of Nutrition 85, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, JR 1993. Organization of forage plant tissues. In Forage cell wall structure and digestibility (ed. HG Jung, DR Buxton, RD Hatfield and J Ralph), pp. 1–32. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
Wilson, JR and Mertens, DR 1995. Cell wall accessibility and cell structure limitations to microbial digestion of forage. Crop Science 35, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, MJ, Ellis, WC, Matis, JH, Bailey, EM, James, WD and Beever, DE 2000. The flow of forage particles and solutes through segments of the digestive tracts of cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 83, 295–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed