Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:21:52.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eremophila glabra is an Australian plant that reduces lactic acid accumulation in an in vitro glucose challenge designed to simulate lactic acidosis in ruminants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2009

P. Hutton ,
C. L. White ,
Z. Durmic  and
P. E. Vercoe
P. Hutton*
Affiliation:
School of Animal Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia CSIRO Livestock Industries, Private Bag, PO Wembley, WA 6913, Australia
C. L. White
Affiliation:
CSIRO Livestock Industries, Private Bag, PO Wembley, WA 6913, Australia
Z. Durmic
Affiliation:
School of Animal Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
P. E. Vercoe
Affiliation:
School of Animal Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Lactic acidosis is a major welfare issue affecting animal health and production systems such as dairy and feedlot beef. We used two bioassays to identify bioactive plants of Australia with the potential to prevent acidosis in ruminants. In the first bioassay, a potentially acidotic environment was induced by adding glucose to rumen fluid and pH and gas production were used to estimate the effect on acid production and microbial fermentation after 5-h incubation. Australian plants (n = 104) were screened for their ability to prevent a decline in the pH without inhibiting normal gas production, and five plants namely Eremophila glabra, Kennedia eximia, Acacia saligna, Acacia decurrens and Kennedia prorepens with such properties were identified. We investigated further the two top ranking plants, E. glabra and K. prorepens, in the second bioassay to determine the extent of their effect in vitro, by extending the incubation to 24 h and measuring d-lactate, and volatile fatty acids (VFA) in addition to pH and gas production. These were measured at 0, 5, 10, 16 and 24 h after inoculation. Eremophilaglabra maintained pH values that were higher and d-lactate concentrations that were lower than the control (P < 0.001), and comparable to the antibiotic-protected environment (AB; 12 μg of virginiamycin/ml). Eremophilaglabra and AB treatments did not restrict fermentation, as judged by gas production and VFA. Kennedia prorepens slowed the decline in pH and reduced the accumulation of lactate but inhibited gas production. We concluded that, in vitro, E. glabra was effective at controlling events that can lead to acidosis and the effect was comparable to that of virginiamycin, while K. prorepens was less effective than E. glabra and also inhibited fermentation.

Keywords

acidosisantibioticsEremophila glabrabioactive plantsrumen
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 9 , September 2009 , pp. 1254 - 1263
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

APVMA 2003. The reconsideration of the registration of products containing virginiamycin and their labels: draft review report. A. P. V. M. Authority, National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals 2003, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Bettelheim, FA, March, J 1998. Introduction to general, organic & biochemistry, 5th edition. Saunders College Publishing, Sydney.Google Scholar
Bryant, JP, Reichardt, PB, Clausen, TP 1992. Chemically mediated interactions between woody plants and browsing mammals. Journal of Range Management 45, 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busquet, M, Calsamiglia, S, Ferret, A, Kamel, C 2006. Plant extracts affect in vitro rumen microbial fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 761–771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coe, ML, Nagaraja, TG, Sun, YD, Wallace, N, Towne, EG, Kemp, KE, Hutcheson, JP 1999. Effect of virginiamycin on ruminal fermentation in cattle during adaptation to a high concentrate diet and during an induced acidosis. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2259–2268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennis, SM, Nagaraja, TG, Bartley, EE 1981. Effects of lasalocid or monensin on lactate-producing or -using rumen bacteria. Journal of Animal Science 52, 418–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
France, J, Lopez, S, Dijkstra, J, Sanderson, R, Dhanoa, MS 1998. Models for interpreting in vitro gas production profiles from ruminant foods. In In Vitro techniques for measuring nutrient supply to ruminants (ed. ER Deaville, E Owen, AT Adesogan, C Rymer, JA Huntington and TLJ Lawrence), BSAS Publication no. 22, pp. 79–80. British Society of Animal Science, Edinburgh, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, SI, Rowe, JB, Thorniley, GR, Boyce, MD, Speijers, EJ 1995. Virginiamycin to protect sheep fed wheat, barley or oats from grain poisoning under simulated drought feeding conditions. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 46, 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, RE 1966. The rumen and its microbes. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hutton, P 2008. Antimicrobial plants of Australia have the potential to prevent lactic acidosis in ruminants. PhD thesis. School of Animal Biology, The University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Klieve, AV, Heck, GL, Prance, MA, Shu, Q 1999. Genetic homogeneity and phage susceptibility of ruminal strains of Streptococcus bovis isolated in Australia. Letters in Applied Microbiology 29, 108–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDougall, EI 1948. Studies on ruminant saliva 1. The composition and output of sheep’s saliva. Biochemical Journal 43, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Min, BR, Attwood, GT, Reilly, K, Sun, W, Peters, JS, Barry, TN, McNabb, WC 2002. Lotus corniculatus condensed tannins decrease in vivo populations of proteolytic bacteria and affect nitrogen metabolism in the rumen of sheep. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 48, 911–921.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagaraja, T, Taylor, M 1987. Susceptibility and resistance of ruminal bacteria to antimicrobial feed additives. Applied Environmental Microbiology 53, 1620–1625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagaraja, T, Taylor, M, Harmon, D, Boyer, J 1987. In vitro lactic acid inhibition and alterations in volatile fatty acid production by antimicrobial feed additives. Journal of Animal Science 65, 1064–1076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nocek, JE 1997. Bovine acidosis: implications on laminitis. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1005–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owens, FN, Secrist, DS, Hill, WJ, Gill, DR 1998. Acidosis in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palo, RT, Robbins, CT 1991. Plant defenses against mammalian herbivory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
Palombo, EA, Semple, SJ 2001. Antibacterial activity of traditional Australian medicinal plants. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 77, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pell, AN, Pitt, RE, Doane, PH, Schofield, P 1998. The development, use and application of the gas production technique at Cornell University, USA. In In vitro techniques for measuring nutrient supply to ruminants (ed. ER Deaville, E Owen, AT Adesogen, C Rymer, JA Huntington and TLJ Lawrence), Occasional Publication no. 22, pp. 45–54. British Society of Animal Science, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Pell, AN, Schofield, P 1993. Computerized monitoring of gas production to measure forage digestion in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 1063–1073.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rymer, C, Moss, AR, Deaville, ER, Givens, DI 1998. Factors affecting the amount of indirect gas produced by the in vitro gas production technique. In In Vitro techniques for measuring nutrient supply to ruminants (ed. ER Deaville, E Owen, AT Adesogen, C Rymer, JA Huntington and TLJ Lawrences), Occasional Publication no. 22, pp. 89–91. British Society of Animal Science, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Schwartz, HM, Gilchrist, FMC 1975. Microbial interactions with the diet and the host animal. In Digestion and metabolism in the ruminant: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology (ed. IW McDonald and ACI Warner), pp. 165–179. University of New England Publishing Unit, Armidale, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Theodorou, MK, Williams, BA, Dhanoa, MS, McAllan, AB, 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, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Nevel, CJ, Demeyer, DI 1988. Manipulation of rumen fermentation. In The rumen microbial ecosystem (ed. PN Hobson), pp. 387–443. Elsevier Applied Science, London, New York.Google Scholar
Wegener, HC 2003. Ending the use of antimicrobial growth promoters is making a difference. ASM news-American Society for Microbiology 69, 443–448.Google Scholar
Wolin, MJ, Miller, TL 1988. Microbe-microbe interactions. In The rumen microbial ecosystem (ed. PN Hobson), pp. 343–359. Elsevier Applied Science, London, New York.Google Scholar