Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:34:35.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rumen microbial counts and in vivo digestibility in buffaloes and cattle given different diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

S. Puppo ,
S. Bartocci ,
S. Terramoccia ,
F. Grandoni  and
A. Amici
S. Puppo*
Affiliation:
Istituto Sperimentale per la Zootecnia, via Salaria 31, 00016 Monterotondo Sc., Rome, Italy
S. Bartocci
Affiliation:
Istituto Sperimentale per la Zootecnia, via Salaria 31, 00016 Monterotondo Sc., Rome, Italy
S. Terramoccia
Affiliation:
Istituto Sperimentale per la Zootecnia, via Salaria 31, 00016 Monterotondo Sc., Rome, Italy
F. Grandoni
Affiliation:
Istituto Sperimentale per la Zootecnia, via Salaria 31, 00016 Monterotondo Sc., Rome, Italy
A. Amici
Affiliation:
Istituto Sperimentale per la Zootecnia, via Salaria 31, 00016 Monterotondo Sc., Rome, Italy
*
E-mail:[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Ruminal bacterial counts and in vivo digestibility were determined on four Mediterranean buffalo bulls and four Friesian bulls, all fistulated at the rumen, and given at maintenance level (50 g/kg M0·75 per day of dry matter) four different diets with the same crude protein content (N ✕ 6·25 = 140 g/kg dry matter) and with forage: concentrate ratios as follows: diet D12·5 = 0·875: 0·125; diet D25·0 = 0·75: 0·25; diet D37·5 = 0·625: 0·375; diet D50·0 = 0·5: 0·5. All the animals received the diets during four consecutive periods in a Latin-square design. Buffaloes had higher total microbial counts (10·78 v. 10·08 log10 cells per g dry rumen content, P < 0·01) as compared with cattle; differences in total ruminal bacterial counts among the diets were only observed within the buffalo species (diet D12·5 v. diets D25·0, D37·5, D50·0: 10·04 v. 10·92, 10·98, 11·17 log10 cells per g dry rumen content, P 0·01) and when comparing the two species for each diet, significantly higher values for bacterial counts in buffaloes were found for diets D25·0: 10·92 v. 10·28 (P 0·05), D37·5: 10·98 v. 10·08 (P 0·01) and D50·0: 11·17 v. 9·76 (P 0·01) log10 cells per g dry rumen content. Cattle showed significantly higher digestibility values for: organic matter (0·696 v. 0·676, P 0·05), neutral-detergent fibre (NDF; 0·548 v. 0·511, P 0·05) and cellulose (0·621 v. 0 · 509, P 0·01), while the crude protein digestibility (CPD) values were similar (0·667 and 0·671). Comparing the two species for each diet, cattle showed significantly higher digestibility values for organic matter in diet D50·0 only (0·714 v. 0·688, P 0·01), for NDF in diet D12·5 only (0·578 v. 0·531, P 0·05) and for cellulose in all diets (0·660 v. 0·546, 0·630 v. 0·525, 0·605 v. 0·505, 0·588 v. 0·460, P 0·01); in contrast buffaloes showed higher values of the CPD for diet D12·5 (0·662 v. 0·632, P 0·05).

Keywords

buffaloescattledigestibilityrumen bacteria
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , October 2002 , pp. 323 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Abdullah, N., Ho, Y. W., Mahyuddin, M. and Jalaludin, S. 1990. Comparative studies of fibre digestion between cattle and buffaloes. In Domestic buffalo production in Asia, pp. 75–87. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984. Official methods of analysis, 14th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bartocci, S., Amici, A., Verna, M., Terramoccia, S. and Martillotti, F. 1997. Solid and fluid passage rate in buffalo, cattle and sheep fed diets with different forage to concentrate ratios. Livestock Production Science 52: 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertoni, G., Amici, A., Lombardelli, R. and Bartocci, S. 1993. Variations of metabolic profile and hormones in blood of buffalo, cattle and sheep males fed the same diets. Proceedings of the international symposium ‘Prospects of buffalo production in the Mediterranean and Middle East’, Wageningen, The Netherlands. European Association for Animal Production, publication no. 62, pp. 345–348. Pudoc Scientific Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bhatia, S. K., Pradhan, K., Sangwan, D. C. and Singh S. 1999. Relative in sacco dry matter degradation in cattle and buffalo due to source and level of dietary protein and fibre. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition 16: 315–319.Google Scholar
Bittante, G., Ramanzin, M., Bailoni, L., Simonetto, A. and Bartocci, S. 1994. Confronto fra alcuni parametri ruminali di bufalini, bovini e ovini alimentati con diete diverse. Agricoltura Ricerca 153: 135–142.Google Scholar
Bryant, M. P. 1972. Commentary on the Hungate technique for culture of anaerobic bacteria. Animal Journal Clinical Nutrition 25: 1324–1328.Google ScholarPubMed
Dehority, B. A. and Orpin, C. G. 1997. Development of, and natural fluctuations in, rumen microbial population. In The rumen microbial ecosystem (ed. Hobson, P. N. and Stewart, C. S.), pp. 196–245. Blackie Academic and Professional, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhiman, T. R. and Arora, S. P. 1987. Kinetics of urea nitrogen in cattle and buffaloes fed optimum and suboptimum nitrogen containing diets. Journal of Nuclear Agriculture and Biology 16: 86–91.Google Scholar
DiLella, T., Nizza, A., Moniello, G. and Piccolo, V. 1993. Contribution to knowledge of digestive utilization capability of Mediterranean buffalo bred in Italy. 1. Comparative study with ovine species. Proceedings of the international symposium ‘Prospects of buffalo production in the Mediterranean and the Middle East’. Wageningen, The Netherlands. European Association for Animal Production publication no. 62, pp. 311–314. Pudoc Scientific Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Franzolin, R. and Dehority, B. A. 1999. Comparison of protozoal populations and digestion rates between buffalo and cattle fed an all forage diet. Journal of Applied Animal Research 16: 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilani, A. H. and Ahmad, N. 1993. Comparative efficiency of male buffalo and cow calves utilization of various nutrients. 2. Ad libitum feeding system. Buffalo Bulletin 12: 90–91.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agriculture handbook no. 379xs, ARS USDA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Grant, R. J., Van Soest, P. J. and McDowell, R. E. 1974a. Influence of rumen fluid source and fermentation time on in vitro true dry matter digestibility. Journal of Dairy Science 57: 1201–1205.Google Scholar
Grant, R. J., Van Soest, P. J., McDowell, R. E. and Perez, C. B. 1974b. Intake, digestibility and metabolic loss of napier grass by cattle and buffaloes when fed wilted, chopped and whole. Journal of Animal Science 39: 423–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrigan, W. F. and McCance, M. E. 1976. Laboratory methods in food and dairy microbiology (ed. Harrigan, W. F.), pp. 383–389. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Homma, H. 1986. Cellulase activities of bacteria in liquid and solid phases of the rumen digesta of buffaloes and cattle. Japanese Journal of Zootechnical Science 57: 336–341.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E. 1950. The anaerobic, mesophilic, cellulolytic bacteria. Bacterial Review 14: 1–49.Google Scholar
Hussain, I. and Cheeke, P. R. 1996. Evaluation of animal ryegrass straw: corn juice silage with cattle and water buffalo: digestibility on cattle v. buffalo, and growth performance and subsequent lactational performance of Holstein heifers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57: 195–202.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M., Boniface, A. N., Liang, Z. J., Muller, D. and Murray, R. M. 1992a. Intake and digestion in swamp buffaloes and cattle. 2. The comparative response to urea supplements in animals fed tropical grasses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 119: 243–254.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M., John, A., Schlink, A. C. and Waterhouse, D. 1987. Comparative nutrition of cattle and swamp buffaloes given rice straw based diet. Digestion and intake. In Herbivore nutrition research (ed. Rose, M.), pp. 165–166. Australian Society of Animal Production, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M., McSweeney, C. S., Ffoulkes, D., John, A., Schlink, A. C., LeFeuvre, R. P. and Kerr, J. D. 1992b. Intake and digestion in swamp buffaloes and cattle. 1. The digestion of rice straw (Oryza sativa). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 119: 227–242.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. and Waterhouse, D. 1987. Utilization of a poor quality diet by swamp buffalo and cattle. In Herbivore nutrition research (ed. Rose, M.), pp. 179–180. Australian Society of Animal Production, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Kumar, R., Sangwan, D. C., Bhatia, S. K., Pradhon, K., Sagar, V. and Singh, S. 1993. Intraruminal metabolism and nutrient digestion in cattle and buffalo fed low grade roughages supplemented with protein sources. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 63: 561–565.Google Scholar
Langar, P. N., Makkar, G. S. and Bakshi, M. P. S. 1984. Comparative studies on the urea and fibre utilization in buffalo and cattle. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 54: 413–419.Google Scholar
Leedle, J. A. Z., Barsuhn, K. and Hespell, R. B. 1986. Postprandial trends in estimated ruminal digesta polysaccharides and their relation to changes in bacterial groups and ruminal fluid characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 62: 789–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moran, J. B. 1983. Rice bran as a supplement to elephant grass for cattle and buffalo in Indonesia. 1. Feed intake, utilization and growth rates. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100: 709–716.Google Scholar
Moran, J. B., Norton, B. W. and Nolan, J. V. 1979. The intake, digestibility and utilization of a low-quality roughage by Brahman cross, buffalo Banteng and Shorthorn steers. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 30: 333–340.Google Scholar
Pannu, M. S. and Kaushal, J. R. 1985. Effect of roughage: concentrate ratio on the rumen volume, rumen degradation and the digestibility of proximate principles in cattle and buffalo. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition 2: 61–64.Google Scholar
Prasad, D. and Pradhan, K. 1990. Effect of feeding poor quality roughage combined with varying levels of concentrate mixture on rumen metabolic profiles in cattle, buffalo and sheep. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 60: 853–860.Google Scholar
Puppo, S. and Grandoni, F. 1994. Comparison between buffaloes and cattle fed on fibrous diets: variation in ruminal microflora and VFA during the day. Proceedings of the Society of Nutrition Physiology, Frankfurt, Germany, DLG-Verlag. 3, p. 210 Google Scholar
Puppo, S., Grandoni, F. and Annicchiarico, G. 1993. Rumen microflora in buffaloes and cattle fed diets with different roughages. Proceedings of the international symposium ‘Prospects of buffalo production in the Mediterranean and the Middle East’. Wageningen, The Netherlands.European Association for Animal Production publication no. 62, pp. 319–322. Pudoc Scientific Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Sangwan, D. C., Pradhan, K., Bhatia, S. K., Sagar, V. and Sadhana S. 1990. Associative effect of wheat straw or oat hay with protein supplements on rumen metabolites and nutrient digestibility in cattle and buffalo. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 60: 472–479.Google Scholar
Sangwan, D. C., Pradhan, K. and Sagar, V. 1987. Effect of dietary fibre and protein sources on rumen metabolites and nutrient digestibility in cattle and buffalo. Indianxs Journal of Animal Sciences 57: 562–569.Google Scholar
Settineri, D., Pace, V., Annicchiarico, G. and Marzoli, C. 1993. Fibrous fractions degradation of some animal feeds in rumen of buffalo and cattle. In Proceedings of the international symposium ‘Prospects of buffalo production in the Mediterranean and the Middle East’, Wageningen, The Netherlands. European Association for Animal Production publication no. 62, pp. 290–293. Pudoc Scientific Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Settineri, D., Pace, V., Annicchiarico, G. and Marzoli, C. 1995. Rumen organic matter degradability of feedstuffs and by products with different fibre concentrations in buffaloes and cattle. Buffalo Journal 11: 15–37.Google Scholar
Settineri, D., Pace, V. and Marzoli, C. 1994. Degradazione della fibra e attività cellulosolitica nel rumine di bufali e bovini. Agricoltura Ricerca 156: 99–106.Google Scholar
Settineri, D. and Puppo, S. 1998. In vitrocomparative digestibility by cow, buffalo and sheep rumen fluids. Buffalo Journal 14: 21–29.Google Scholar
Singh, S., Pradhan, K. and Bhatia, S. K. 1994. The effect of trans-inoculation of rumen contents on microflora concentration in the rumen of cattle and buffalo. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition 11: 133–138.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1993. SAS user’s guide. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Terramoccia, S., Bartocci, S., Amici, A. and Martillotti, F. 2000. Protein and protein-free dry matter rumen degradability in buffalo, cattle and sheep fed diets with different forage to concentrate ratios. Livestock Production Science 65: 185–195.Google Scholar
Wanapat, M. 1989. Comparative aspects of digestive physiology and nutrition in buffaloes and cattle. In Ruminant physiology and nutrition in Asia (ed. Devendra, C., and Imaizum, E.), pp. 27–43. Japanese Society of Zootechnical Science, Sendai.Google Scholar