Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:35:07.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forage degradability, rumen bacterial adherence and fibrolytic enzyme activity in vitro: effect of pH or glucose concentration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2013

R. FARENZENA ,
G. V. KOZLOSKI ,
M. P. MEZZOMO  and
A. C. FLUCK
R. FARENZENA
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia (Animal Science), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
G. V. KOZLOSKI*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia (Animal Science), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
M. P. MEZZOMO
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia (Animal Science), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
A. C. FLUCK
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia (Animal Science), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A set of independent assays were conducted to assess the effects of either pH or glucose concentration on forage degradation, bacterial adherence and on fibrolytic enzyme activity in vitro. For measuring degradation and bacterial adherence, ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) and bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) samples were incubated in vitro for 24 h in the medium at different pH (5·5, 6·0, 6·5 or 7·0) or with different initial glucose concentrations (0, 1000, 2000 and 3000 mg/l). For fibrolytic enzyme activity evaluation, forage samples were incubated in situ and the extracted enzymes were incubated in vitro under the different pH and glucose treatment conditions. The amount of bacteria adhering to samples and the degradability of dry matter (DM) and neutral detergent fibre (NDF) were higher for ryegrass than for bermudagrass, were not affected by glucose concentration and were linearly and positively affected by increased pH. On average, carboxymethylcellulase (CMCase) and xylanase activities were higher for ryegrass than for bermudagrass in the pH assay, whereas the differences between forages were not significant in the glucose assay. For both forage species, the quadratic effect of pH or glucose concentration on CMCase and xylanase activities was significant. Maximum activity of both enzymes was observed at pH 6·0 or at glucose concentration of 2000 mg/l. In conclusion, forage degradation was affected negatively by decreased ruminal pH due to reduced bacterial adherence. In turn, the pH or glucose effect on fibrolytic enzyme activity was not related to their effects on bacterial adherence or forage degradation, indicating that forage degradation is more dependent on the degree of microbial colonization than on the specific activity of bacterial enzymes.

Type
Animal Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 152 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 325 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

AOAC (1997). Official Methods of Analysis, 16th edn. 3rd revision. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc.Google Scholar
Blümmel, M. & Lebzien, P. (2001). Predicting ruminal microbial efficiencies of dairy rations by in vitro techniques. Livestock Production Science 68, 107–117.Google Scholar
Carro, M. D. & Miller, E. L. (2002). Comparison of microbial markers (15N and purine bases) and bacterial isolates for the estimation of rumen microbial protein synthesis. Animal Science 75, 315–321.Google Scholar
Coleman, G. S. (1985). The cellulase content of 15 species of entodiniomorphid protozoa, mixed bacteria and plant debris isolated from the ovine rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science 104, 349–360.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, J., Ellis, J. L., Kebreab, E., Strathe, A. B., López, S., France, J. & Bannink, A. (2012). Ruminal pH regulation and nutritional consequences of low pH. Animal Feed Science and Technology 172, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firkins, J. L., Bowman, J. G. P., Weiss, W. P. & Naderer, J. (1991). Effects of protein, carbohydrate, and fat sources on bacterial colonization and degradation of fiber in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 4273–4283.Google Scholar
Fiske, C. H. & Subbarow, Y. (1925). The colorimetric determination of phosphorus. Journal of Biological Chemistry 66, 375–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galdámez-Cabrera, N. W., Coffey, K. P., Coblentz, W. K., Scarbrough, D. A., Turner, J. E., Kegley, E. B., Johnson, Z. B., Kellogg, D. W., Gunsaulis, J. L. & Daniels, M. B. (2004). In situ solubility of selected macrominerals from common bermudagrass fertilized with different nitrogen rates and harvested on two dates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 111, 203–221.Google Scholar
Grant, R. J. & Mertens, D. R. (1992). Influence of buffer pH and raw corn starch addition on in vitro fiber digestion kinetics. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2762–2768.Google Scholar
Haddad, S. G. & Grant, R. J. (2000). Influence of nonfiber carbohydrate concentration on forage fiber digestion in vitro. Animal Feed Science and Technology 86, 107–115.Google Scholar
Hu, Z. H., Wang, G. & Yu, H. Q. (2004). Anaerobic degradation of cellulose by rumen microorganisms at various pH values. Biochemical Engineering Journal 21, 59–62.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P. & Khalili, H. (1992). The effect of sucrose supplements on particle-associated carboxymethylcellulase (EC 3.2.1.4) and xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) activities in cattle given grass-silage-based diet. British Journal of Nutrition 67, 245–255.Google Scholar
Komisarczuk, S., Merry, R. J. & Mcallan, A. B. (1987). Effect of different levels of phosphorus on rumen microbial fermentation and synthesis determined using a continuous culture technique. British Journal of Nutrition 57, 279–290.Google Scholar
Kozloski, G. V., Lima, L. D., Cadorin, R. L. Jr, Bonnecarrère Sanchez, L. M., Senger, C. C. D., Fiorentini, G. & Härter, C. J. (2008). Microbial colonization and degradation of forage samples incubated in vitro at different initial pH. Animal Feed Science and Technology 141, 356–367.Google Scholar
Mcallister, T. A., Bae, H. D., Jones, G. A. & Cheng, K. J. (1994). Microbial attachment and feed digestion in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 72, 3004–3018.Google Scholar
Mcburney, M. I., Allen, M. S. & Van Soest, P. J. (1986). Praseodymium and copper cation-exchange capacities of neutral-detergent fibres relative to composition and fermentation kinetics. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 37, 666–672.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. R. (2002). Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fibre in feeds with refluxing beakers or crucibles: a collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International 85, 1217–1240.Google Scholar
Miller, G. L., Blum, R., Glennon, W. E. & Burton, A. L. (1960). Measurement of carboxymethylcellulase activity. Analytical Biochemistry 1, 127–132.Google Scholar
Morgavi, D. P., Beauchemin, K. A., Nsereko, V. L., Rode, L. M., Iwaasa, A. D., Yang, W. Z., Mcallister, T. A. & Wang, Y. (2000). Synergy between ruminal fibrolytic enzymes and enzymes from Trichoderma longibrachiatum. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1310–1321.Google Scholar
Morris, E. J. (1988). Characteristics of the adhesion of Ruminococcus albus to cellulose. FEMS Microbiology Letters 51, 113–117.Google Scholar
Mould, F. L. & Ørskov, E. R. (1983). Manipulation of rumen fluid pH and its influence on cellulolysis in sacco, dry matter degradation and the rumen microflora of sheep offered either hay or concentrate. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 1–14.Google Scholar
Mould, F. L., Ørskov, E. R. & Mann, S. O. (1983). Associative effects of mixed feeds. I. Effects of type and level of supplementation and the influence of the rumen fluid pH on cellulolysis in vivo and dry matter digestion of various roughages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 15–30.Google Scholar
Mouriño, F., Akkarawongsa, R. A. & Weimer, P. J. (2001). Initial pH as a determinant of cellulose digestion rate by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 848–859.Google Scholar
Paterson, J. A., Belyea, R. L., Bowman, J. P., Kerley, M. S. & Williams, J. E. (1994). The impact of forage quality and supplementation regimen on ruminant animal intake and performance. In Forage Quality, Evaluation and Utilization (Eds Fahey, G. C., Collins, M., Mertens, D. R. & Moser, L. E.), pp. 59–114. Madison, WI, USA: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.Google Scholar
Piwonka, E. J. & Firkins, J. L. (1993). Effect of glucose on fibre digestion and particle-associated carboxymethylcellulase activity in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 129–139.Google Scholar
Piwonka, E. J. & Firkins, J. L. (1996). Effect of glucose fermentation on fibre digestion by ruminal microorganisms in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 2196–2206.Google Scholar
Ramírez-Pérez, A. H., Sauvant, D. & Meschy, F. (2009). Effect of phosphate solubility on phosphorus kinetics and ruminal fermentation activity in dairy goats. Animal Feed Science and Technology 149, 209–227.Google Scholar
Russell, J. B. & Dombrowski, D. B. (1980). Effect of pH on the efficiency of growth by pure cultures of rumen bacteria in continuous culture. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 39, 604–610.Google Scholar
Russell, J. B. & Wilson, D. B. (1988). Potential opportunities and problems for genetically altered rumen microorganisms. Journal of Nutrition 118, 271–279.Google Scholar
Russell, J. B., Sharp, W. M. & Baldwin, R. L. (1979). The effect of pH on maximum bacterial growth rate and its possible role as a determinat of bacterial competition in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 48, 251–255.Google Scholar
Rymer, C., Huntington, J. A., Williams, B. A. & Givens, D. I. (2005). In vitro cumulative gas production techniques: history, methodological considerations and challenges. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123–124, 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS (2002). User's Guide: Statistics, Version 9. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
Senger, C. C. D., Kozloski, G. V., Bonnecarrère Sanchez, L. M., Mesquita, F. R., Alves, T. P. & Castagnino, D. S. (2008). Evaluation of autoclave procedures for fibre analysis in forage and concentrate feedstuffs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 146, 169–174.Google Scholar
Tamminga, S. (1993). Influence of feeding management on ruminal fibre digestibility. In Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility (Eds Jung, H. G., Buxton, D. R., Hatfield, R. D. & Ralph, J.), pp. 571–602. Madison, WI, USA: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crop. Journal British of Grassland Society 18, 104–111.Google Scholar