Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:01:08.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of dietary inclusion of yeast culture on digestion in the sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

I. Chademana  and
N. W. Offer
I. Chademana
Affiliation:
West of Scotland College, Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW
N. W. Offer
Affiliation:
West of Scotland College, Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW
Get access

Abstract

Six mature sheep, each fitted with a rumen cannula, were assigned to six diets in a 6 × 6 Latin-square design experiment to examine the effects of a yeast culture on ruminal metabolism, rumen liquid outflow rate, fibre digestion in the rumen and overall nutrient digestibility. The yeast culture (YC) was a commercial product composed of a yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisae) and the media on which it grew and dried so as to maintain its fermentative capacity. The six dietary treatments were three diets differing in hay dry matter (DM): concentrate DM ratio (90: 10, 65: 35 and 40: 60 designated low, medium and high concentrate respectively) each given either without or with a supplement of 4 g/day of YC. Treatment periods were of 3 weeks duration. There were significant effects of dietary forage: concentrate ratio on rumen function (P < 0·05). Rumen pH, rumen liquid outflow rate, rumen ammonia concentration, total volatile fatty acids concentration, and molar proportions of acetate, propionate and butyrate were not significantly affected by the inclusion of YC (P < 0·05). Supplemental YC did not affect the overall nutrient digestibility of organic matter, neutral-detergent fibre or gross energy measured in vivo. However, at every forage:concentrate ratio, YC increased the disappearance of hay organic matter from nylon bags incubated in the rumen for 24 h (P < 0·05). The values with and without YC were 0·482 and 0·432 for the low, 0·423 and 0·366 for the medium, and 0·360 and 0·321 for the high concentrate diets respectively. However, YC had no effect on hay disappearance when bags were incubated for 48 h. YC appeared to increase the initial rate of forage digestion in the rumen without altering overall food digestibility or the patern of production of fermentation end products.

Keywords

digestionrumen metabolismsheepyeast
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , June 1990 , pp. 483 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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

REFERENCES

Adams, D. C., Galyean, M. L., Kiesling, H. E., Wallace, J. D. and Finkner, M. D. 1981. Influence of viable yeast culture, sodium bicarbonate and monensin on liquid dilution rate, rumen fermentation and feedlot performance of growing steers and digestibility in lambs. Journal of Animal Science 53: 780–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N., Thompson, A. and Armstrong, D. G. 1977. Rumen fermentation studies in two contrasting diets. 2. Comparison of the performance of an in vitro continuous-culture fermentation with in vivo fermentation. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89: 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bath, I. H. and Rook, J. A. F. 1963. The evaluation of cattle foods and diets in terms of the ruminal concentration of volatile fatty acids. I. The effect of level of intake, frequency of feeding, the ratio of hay to concentrates in the diet and of supplementary feeds. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 61: 341–348.Google Scholar
Bax, J. A. 1989. An investigation into the response of dairy cows to supplementation with yeast culture. Second Symposium on New Techniques in Agriculture — New Techniques in Cattle Production, Bangor, North Wales. In press.Google Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., Klooster, A. T.Van't, and Frens, A. M. 1968. Soluble chromium indicator measured by atomic absorption in digestion experiments. Veterinary Record 82: 470.Google Scholar
Dawson, K. A. and Newman, K. E. 1987. Effects of yeast culture supplements on the growth and activities of rumen bacteria in continuous culture. Journal of Animal Science 65: Suppl. 1, p. 452 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. K. and Scon, J. E. 1960. A rapid and precise method for the determination of urea. Journal of Clinical Pathology 13: 156–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goerings, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fibre analyses. Agriculture Handbook, US Department of Agriculture, No. 379.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. and Williams, V. J. 1973. Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rate-constants derived from the changes in concentration of marker in faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 30: 313–329.Google Scholar
Harrison, D. G., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J. and Osbourn, D. F. 1975. Manipulation of rumen fermentation in sheep by increasing the rate of flow of water from the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. A., Hemken, R. W., Dawson, K. A., Harmon, R. J. and Barker, K. B. 1988. Influence of addition of yeast culture supplement to diets of lactating cows on ruminal fermentation and microbial populations. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 2967–2975.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, T. R. 1988. The role of biological tools in feed industry. In Biotechnology in the Feed Industry (ed. Lyons, T. P.), pp. 1–49. Alltech Technical Publications, Nicholasville, Kentucky.Google Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z. and Ørskov, E. R. 1977. A study of the artificial fibre bag technique for determining the digestibility of feeds in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88: 645–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z., Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1977. Rates of rumen fermentation in relation to ammonia concentration. British Journal of Nutrition 38: 437–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mould, F. L. and Ørskov, E. R. 1983–1984. Manipulation of rumen fluid pH and its influence on cellulolysis in sacco, dry matter degradation and 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. and Mann, S. O. 1983–1984. Associative effects of mixed feeds. 1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okorie, A. U., Buttery, P. J. and Lewis, D. 1977. Ammonia concentration and protein synthesis in the rumen. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36: 38A (Abstr.).Google ScholarPubMed
Rogers, J. A., Conrad, H. R., Dehority, B. A. and Grubb, J. A. 1986. Microbial numbers, rumen fermentation and nitrogen utilisation of steers using wet and dried brewers grains. Journal of Dairy Science 59: 745–753.Google Scholar
Satter, L. D. and Slyter, L. L. 1974. Effect of ammonia concentration on rumen microbial protein production in vitro. British Journal of Nutrition 32: 199–208.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures in Statistics. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Stevenson, A. E. and Clare, N. T. 1963. Measurement of feed intake by grazing cattle and sheep. IX. Determination of chromic oxide in faeces using an Auto-Analyzer. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 6: 121–126.Google Scholar
Stewart, C. S. 1977. Factors affecting cellulolytic activity of rumen contents. Applied Environmental Microbiology 33: 497–502.Google Scholar
Wiedmeier, R. D., Arambel, M. J. and Walters, J. L. 1987. Effect of yeast culture and Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on ruminal characteristics and nutrient digestibility. Journal of Dairy Science 70: 2063–2068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, P. E. V. 1988. Understanding the biochemical mode of action of yeast culture. In Biotechnology in the Feed Industry (ed. Lyons, T. P.), pp. 79–99. Alltech Techncal Publications, Nicholasville, Kentucky.Google Scholar