Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T19:32:49.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of sodium fumarate addition on rumen fermentation in vitro

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

S. López ,
C. Valdés ,
C. J. Newbold  and
R. J. Wallace
S. López*
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, UK
C. Valdés
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, UK
C. J. Newbold
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, UK
R. J. Wallace
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, UK
*
*Corresponding author:Dr Secundino Lopez at his present address, fax +34 987 291 311, email [email protected]
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.

The influence of sodium fumarate on rumen fermentation was investigated in vitro using batch and semi-continuous cultures of mixed rumen micro-organisms taken from three sheep receiving a basal diet of hay, barley, molasses, fish meal and a mineral–vitamin supplement (500, 299·5, 100, 91 and 9·5 g/kg DM respectively). Batch cultures consisted of 10 ml strained rumen fluid in 40 ml anaerobic buffer containing 200 mg of the same feed given to the sheep. Sodium fumarate was added to achieve a final concentration of 0, 5 or 10 mmol/l, as a result of the addition of 0, 250 or 500 μmol, equivalent to 0, 200 and 400 g/kg feed. CH4 production at 24 h (360 μmol in the control cultures) fell (P < 0·05) by 18 and 22 μmol respectively (SED 7·5). Total gas production was increased by the addition of fumarate without significant accumulation of H2. Substantial increases in acetate production (92 and 194 μmol; SED 26·7, P < 0·01) were accompanied by increases in propionate formation (212 and 396 μmol; SED 13·0, P < 0·001). Longer-term effects of fumarate supplementation on ruminal fermentation and CH4 production were investigated using the rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). Eight vessels were given 20 g basal diet/d, and half of them received a supplement of fumarate (disodium salt) over a period of 19 d. The response to the daily addition of 6·25 mmol sodium fumarate was a decrease in CH4 production of 1·2 mmol (SED 0·39, P < 0·05), equivalent to the consumption of 4·8 mmol H2, and an increase in propionate production of 4·9 mmol (from 10·4 to 15·3 (SED 1·05) mmol/d, P < 0·01). The inhibition of CH4 production did not decline during the period of time that fumarate was added to the vessels. Thus, the decrease in CH4 corresponded well to the fraction of the fumarate that was converted to propionate. Fumarate had no significant (P > 0·05) effect on total bacterial numbers or on the number of methanogenic archaea, but numbers of cellulolytic bacteria were increased (8·8 v. 23·9 (SED 2·49) × 105 per ml, P < 0·01). Fumarate also increased DM digestibility of the basal diet after 48 h incubation (0·476 v. 0·508 (SED 0·0123), P < 0·05). Thus, it was concluded that sodium fumarate may be a useful dietary additive for ruminants, because it diverts some H2 from CH4 production and because it is able to stimulate proliferation of cellulolytic bacteria and digestion of fibre.

Keywords

RumenFumarateMethaneRusitec
Type
Short communication
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 59 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1999

References

Bryant, MP (1972) Commentary on the Hungate technique for culture of anaerobic bacteria American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 25, 1324–1328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callaway, TR & Martin, SA (1996) Effects of organic acid and monensin treatment on in vitro mixed ruminal micro-organisms fermentation of cracked corn Journal of Animal Science 74, 1982–1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GS (1987) Rumen entodiniomorphid protozoa. In In Vitro Methods for Parasite Cultivation, pp. 29–51 [Taylor, AER and Baker, JR, editors]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, JW & Breckenridge, G (1977) Design and development of a long term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec) British Journal of Nutrition 38, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demeyer, DI & Henderickx, HK (1967) Competitive inhibition of in vitro methane production by mixed rumen bacteria Archives Internationals de Physiologie et de Biochimie 75, 157–159.Google ScholarPubMed
Demeyer, DIVan Nevel, CJ & Henderson, C (1972) Stoichiometry of oxygen utilization by rumen contents. In Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Animal Feeding, vol. 5, part 2, pp. 33–37 [International Veterinary Association for Animal Production, editors]. Madrid: Industrias Gráficas España.Google Scholar
García-López, PMKung, L & Odom, JM (1996) In vitro inhibition of microbial methane production by 9, 10-anthraquinone Journal of Animal Science 74, 2276–2284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillman, KLloyd, D & Williams, AG (1985) Continuous monitoring of fermentation gases in an artificial rumen system (Rusitec) using a membrane-inlet probe on a portable quadrupole mass spectrometer. In Gas Enzymology, pp. 201–206 [Degn, D, editor]. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, PN (1969) Rumen bacteria Methods in Microbiology 3B, 133–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, RE (1969) A roll tube method for cultivation of strict anaerobes Methods in Microbiology 3B, 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isobe, Y & Shibata, F (1993) Rumen fermentation in goats administered fumaric acid Animal Science and Technology 64, 1024–1030.Google Scholar
Kung, LHuber, JTKrummrey, JDAllison, L & Cook, RM (1982) Influence of adding malic acid to dairy cattle rations on milk production, rumen volatile acids, digestibility, and nitrogen utilization Journal of Dairy Science 65, 1170–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, EI (1948) Studies on ruminal saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep's saliva Biochemical Journal 43, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, SO (1968) An improved method for determining cellulolytic activity in anaerobic bacteria Journal of Applied Bacteriology 31, 241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, SA & Park, CM (1996) Effect of extracellular hydrogen on organic acid utilization by the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium Current Microbiology 32, 327–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marty, RJ & Demeyer, DI (1973) The effect of inhibitors of methane production on fermentation pattern and stoichiometry in vitro using rumen contents from sheep given molasses British Journal of Nutrition 30, 369–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morvan, BDoré, JRieu-Lesme, FFoucat, LFonty, G & Gouet, P (1994) Establishment of hydrogen-utilizing bacteria in the rumen of the newborn lamb FEMS Microbiology Letters 117, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, AR (1993) Methane Global Warming and Production by Animals. Canterbury: Chalcombe Publications.Google Scholar
Newbold, CJWallace, RJ & McIntosh, FM (1997) Mode of action of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a feed additive for ruminants British Journal of Nutrition 76, 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbold, CJWilliams, AG & Chamberlain, DG (1987) The in vitro metabolism of D, L-lactic acid by rumen microorganisms Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 38, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbet, DJ & Martin, SA (1990) Effect of dicarboxylic acids and Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on lactate uptake by the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium Applied and Environmental Microbiology 56, 3515–3518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nisbet, DJ & Martin, SA (1993) Effects of fumarate, L-malate, and an Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on D-lactate utilization by the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium Current Microbiology 26, 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, AJCalder, AGStewart, CS & Smith, A (1989) Simultaneous determination of volatile and non-volatile fatty acidic fermentation products of anaerobes by capillary gas chromatography Letters in Applied Microbiology 9, 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanson, DW & Stallcup, OT (1984) Growth response and serum constituents of Holstein bulls fed malic acid Nutrition Reports International 30, 1261–1267.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (1989) SAS/STAT ® User's Guide, version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Steel, RGD & Torrie, JH (1980) Principles and Procedures of Statistics, 2nd ed. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Stewart, CS & Duncan, SH (1985) The effect of avoparcin on cellulolytic bacteria of the ovine rumen Journal of General Microbiology 131, 427–435.Google Scholar
Streeter, MNNisbet, DJMartin, SA & Williams, SE (1994) Effect of malate on ruminal metabolism and performance of steers fed a high concentrate diet Journal of Animal Science 72, Suppl. 1, 384 Abstr.Google Scholar
Van Kessel, JAS & Russell, JB (1996) The effect of pH on ruminal methanogenesis FEMS Microbiology Ecology 20, 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Nevel, CJ & Demeyer, DI (1996) Control of rumen methanogenesis Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 42, 73–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weatherburn, MW (1967) Phenol–hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia Analytical Chemistry 39, 971–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, MJ & Miller, TL (1988) Microbe–microbe interactions. In The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem, pp. 343–359 [Hobson, PN, editor]. London: Elsevier Applied Science.Google Scholar