Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:26:39.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Propionibacterium strains on ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestibility and methane emissions in beef cattle fed a corn grain finishing diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2014

D. Vyas ,
E. J. McGeough ,
R. Mohammed ,
S. M. McGinn ,
T. A. McAllister  and
K. A. Beauchemin
D. Vyas
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Center, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
E. J. McGeough
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Center, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
R. Mohammed
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Center, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
S. M. McGinn
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Center, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
T. A. McAllister
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Center, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
K. A. Beauchemin*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Center, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Twenty ruminally cannulated beef heifers were fed a high corn grain diet in a randomized block design to determine the effect of three direct fed microbial (DFM) strains of Propionibacterium on ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestibility and methane (CH4) emissions. The heifers were blocked in five groups on the basis of BW and used in five 28-day periods. Dietary treatments included (1) Control and three strains of Propionibacterium (2) P169, (3) P5, and (4) P54. Strains were administered directly into the rumen at 5×109 CFU with 10 g of a maltodextrin carrier in a gel capsule; Control heifers received carrier only. All heifers were fed the basal diet (10 : 90 forage to concentrate, dry matter basis). Rumen contents were collected on days 15 and 18, ruminal pH was measured continuously between days 15 and 22, enteric CH4 emissions were measured between days 19 and 22 and diet digestibility was measured from days 25 to 28. Mean ruminal pH was 5.91 and was not affected by treatments. Similarly, duration of time that pH<5.8 and 5.6 was not affected by treatment. Likewise, total and major volatile fatty acid profiles were similar among all treatments. No effects were observed on dry matter intake and total tract digestibility of nutrients. Total enteric CH4 production (g/day) was not affected by Propionibacterium strains and averaged 139 g/day. Similarly, mean CH4 yield (g CH4/kg of dry matter intake) was similar for all the treatments. The relative abundance of total Propionibacteria in the rumen increased with administration of DFM and were greater 3 h post-dosing relative to Control, but returned to baseline levels before feeding. Populations of Propionibacterium P169 were higher at 3 and 9 h as compared with the levels at 0 h. In conclusion, moderate persistency of the inoculated strains within the ruminal microbiome and pre-existing high propionate production due to elevated levels of starch fermentation might have reduced the efficacy of Propionibacterium strains to increase molar proportion of propionate and subsequently reduce CH4 emissions.

Keywords

beefdigestibilitymethanePropionibacterium
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 11 , November 2014 , pp. 1807 - 1815
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Alazzeh, A, Sultana, H, Beauchemin, K, Wang, Y, Holo, H, Harstad, O and McAllister, T 2013. Using strains of Propionibacteria to mitigate methane emissions in vitro . Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 62, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2005. Official methods of analysis, vol. 2, 18th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Avila-Stagno, J, Chaves, AV, He, MM, Harstad, OM, Beauchemin, KA, McGinn, SM and McAllister, TA 2013. Effects of increasing concentrations of glycerol in concentrate diets on nutrient digestibility, methane emissions, growth, fatty acid profiles, and carcass traits of lambs. Journal of Animal Science 91, 829–837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchemin, KA and McGinn, SM 2005. Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barley or corn diets. Journal of Animal Science 83, 653–661.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA and McGinn, SM 2006. Methane emissions from beef cattle: effects of fumaric acid, essential oil, and canola oil. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1489–1496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchemin, KA, Henry Janzen, H, Little, SM, McAllister, TA and McGinn, SM 2010. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada, a case study. Agricultural Systems 103, 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrin, DG and Britton, RA 1986. Response to monensin in cattle during subacute acidosis. Journal of Animal Science 63, 888–893.Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care 1997. Guide to the care and use of experimental animals. CCAC, Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
Dohme, F, DeVries, TJ and Beauchemin, KA 2008. Repeated ruminal acidosis challenges in lactating dairy cows at high and low risk for developing acidosis: ruminal pH. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3554–3567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foschino, R, Galli, A, Ponticelli, G and Volonterio, G 1988. Propionic bacteria activity in different culture condition. Annals of Microbiololgy and Enzymology 38, 207–222.Google Scholar
Ghorbani, GR, Morgavi, DP, Beauchemin, KA and Leedle, JA 2002. Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials on ruminal fermentation, blood variables, and the microbial populations of feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1977–1985.Google Scholar
Himmi, E, Bories, A, Boussaid, A and Hassani, L 2000. Propionic acid fermentation of glycerol and glucose by Propionibacterium acidipropionici and Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp. shermanii . Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 53, 435–440.Google Scholar
IPCC 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IGES, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan. Retrieved August 14, 2013, from http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/ Google Scholar
Jeyanathan, J, Marin, C and Morgavi, DP 2014. The use of direct-fed microbials for mitigation of ruminant methane emissions: a review. Animal 8, 250–261.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA and Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kebreab, E, Johnson, KA, Archibeque, SL, Pape, D and Wirth, T 2008. Model for estimating enteric methane emissions from United States dairy and feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2738–2748.Google Scholar
Kim, S, Standorf, D, Roman-Rosario, H, Yokoyama, M and Rust, S 2000. Potential use of Propionibacterium acidipropionici, strain DH42, as a direct-fed microbial for cattle. Journal of Animal Science 78, 292 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Lehloenya, KV, Krehbiel, CR, Mertz, KJ, Rehberger, TG and Spicer, LJ 2008. Effects of Propionibacteria and yeast culture fed to steers on nutrient intake and site and extent of digestion. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 653–662.Google Scholar
Luo, J 2013. Investigation of the potential application of dairy Propionibacteria for the treatment and prevention of ruminal acidosis. PhD thesis, The University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.Google Scholar
McAllister, T and Newbold, CJ 2008. Redirecting rumen fermentation to reduce methanogenesis. Animal Production Science 48, 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, TA, Beauchemin, KA, Alazzeh, AY, Baah, J, Teather, RM and Stanford, K 2011. Review: the use of direct fed microbials to mitigate pathogens and enhance production in cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Sciences 91, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M, Baldwin, R and Koong, L 1982. Estimation of stoichiometric parameters for rumen fermentation of roughage and concentrate diets. Journal of Animal Science 55, 411–421.Google Scholar
Nagaraja, TG and Lechtenberg, KF 2007. Acidosis in feedlot cattle. Veterinary Clinics of North America Food Animal Practice 23, 333–350.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Newbold, CJ, Lopez, S, Nelson, N, Ouda, JO, Wallace, RJ and Moss, AR 1995. Propionate precursors and other metbolic intermediates as possible alternative electron acceptors to methanogenesis in ruminal fermentation in vitro . British Journal of Nutrition 94, 27–35.Google Scholar
Parrott, TD, Rehberger, T and Owens, F 1997. Selection of Propionibacterium strains capable of utilizing lactic acid from in vitro models. Journal of Animal Science 79, 80 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Peng, M, Smith, AH and Rehberger, TG 2011. Quantification of Propionibacterium acidipropionici P169 bacteria in environmental samples by use of strain-specific primers derived by suppressive subtractive hybridization. Applied Environmental Microbiology 77, 3898–3902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penner, GB, Beauchemin, KA and Mutsvangwa, T 2006. An evaluation of the accuracy and precision of a stand-alone submersible continuous ruminal pH measurement system. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2132–2140.Google Scholar
Petri, RM, Forster, RJ, Yang, W, McKinnon, JJ and McAllister, TA 2012. Characterization of rumen bacterial diversity and fermentation parameters in concentrate fed cattle with and without forage. Journal of Applied Microbiology 112, 1152–1162.Google Scholar
Piveteau, P 1999. Metabolism of lactate and sugars by dairy Propionibacteria: a review. Le Lait 79, 23–41.Google Scholar
Raeth-Knight, M, Linn, J and Jung, H 2007. Effect of direct-fed microbials on performance, diet digestibility, and rumen characteristics of Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1802–1809.Google Scholar
Rehberger, JL and Glatz, BA 1998. Response of cultures of Propionibacterium to acid and low pH: tolerance and inhibition. Journal of Food Protection 61, 211–216.Google Scholar
Rode, LM, Yang, WZ and Beauchemin, KA 1999. Fibrolytic enzyme supplements for dairy cows in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2121–2126.Google Scholar
Rossi, F, Torriani, S and Dellaglio, F 1999. Genus-and species-specific PCR-based detection of dairy Propionibacteria in environmental samples by using primers targeted to the genes encoding 16S rRNA. Applied Environmental Microbiology 65, 4241–4244.Google Scholar
Sims, GK, Ellsworth, TR and Mulvaney, RL 1995. Microscale determination of inorganic nitrogen in water and soil extracts. Communications Soil Science Plant Analysis 26, 303–316.Google Scholar
Stevenson, DM and Weimer, PJ 2007. Dominance of Prevotella and low abundance of classical ruminal bacterial species in the bovine rumen revealed by relative quantification real-time PCR. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 75, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vyas, D, McGeough, EJ, McGinn, SM, McAllister, TA and Beauchemin, KA 2014. Effect of Propionibacterium spp. on ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestibility and methane emissions in beef heifers fed a high forage diet. Journal of Animal Science 92, 2192–2201.Google Scholar
Yang, W, Beauchemin, K, Vedres, D, Ghorbani, G, Colombatto, D and Morgavi, D 2004. Effects of direct-fed microbial supplementation on ruminal acidosis, digestibility, and bacterial protein synthesis in continuous culture. Animal Feed Science and Technology 114, 179–193.Google Scholar
Yu, Y, Lee, C, Kim, J and Hwang, S 2005. Group-specific primer and probe sets to detect methanogenic communities using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 89, 670–679.Google Scholar
Zhou, M, Hernandez-Sanabria, E and Guan, L 2009. Assessment of the microbial ecology of ruminal methanogens in cattle with different feed efficiencies. Applied Environmental Microbiology 75, 6524–6533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed