Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:12:01.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of addition of different sources and doses of sugars on in vitro digestibilities of dry matter, fibre and cell wall monosaccharides of corn silage in ruminants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

F. P. Campos Open the ORCID record for F. P. Campos [Opens in a new window] ,
L. G. Nussio ,
P. Sarmento ,
J. L. P. Daniel  and
C. G. Lima
F. P. Campos*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Zootecnia/Agência Paulista de Tecnologia do Agronegócio/ Secretaria da Agricultura e Abastecimento, Rua Heitor Penteado, 56, Nova Odessa, SP13380.011, Brazil
L. G. Nussio
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Avenida Pádua Dias, 11, Piracicaba, SP13418.900, Brazil
P. Sarmento
Affiliation:
Instituto de Zootecnia/Agência Paulista de Tecnologia do Agronegócio/ Secretaria da Agricultura e Abastecimento, Rua Heitor Penteado, 56, Nova Odessa, SP13380.011, Brazil
J. L. P. Daniel
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Avenida Colombo 5790, Bloco J45, Zona 7, Maringá, PR87020.900, Brazil
C. G. Lima
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciências Básicas, Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de Alimentos, Avenida Duque de Caxias 225, Jardim Elite, Pirassununga, SP13635.900, Brazil
*
†E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In ruminant diets, soluble sugar is an important factor in the digestive process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of the source and dose of soluble sugars, under controlled pH conditions, on the in vitro digestibility of DM, fibre fractions (NDF and ADF) and cell wall neutral monosaccharides of corn silage. Silage was collected from several points in a silage mass from a bunker silo, oven-dried at 55°C and ground through a 1-mm screen. Sub-samples were combined with sugars to compose the treatments, in a 5 × 5 factorial arrangement, as a combination of five soluble sugar sources (glucose, fructose, arabinose, xylose and sucrose) and five sugar doses (0, 100, 200, 300 and 400 g/kg sugar in DM corn silage), respecting the following proportions of sugar : corn silage, 0 : 100, 10 : 90, 20 : 80, 30 : 70, 40 : 60 represented by the sugar doses, respectively. An in vitro test was performed to determine the true digestibility (D) of the chemical entities (DM, NDF and ADF) and cell wall monosaccharides (glucose = gluc, arabinose = arab and xylose = xyl). During the first 12 h of incubation, the pH was maintained above 6.0 by the addition of 2.5 N NaOH. The concentrations of neutral monosaccharides (arabinose, xylose and glucose) were determined by GLC. The soluble sugars decreased the digestibility of corn silage followed by pH reduction, especially at doses higher than 200 g/kg sugar. Overall, xylose, followed by sucrose, fructose and arabinose, had greater impacts on DM digestibility, whereas fibre digestibility was impaired by sucrose at all doses. Xylose and fructose had greater impacts on NDF digestibility at 300 and 400 g/kg sugar. Although xylose impaired the Dgluc in the cell wall in all doses. All doses of glucose improved the Dgluc and Dxyl in the cell wall.

Keywords

arabinosefructoseglucosesucrosexylose
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 8 , August 2020 , pp. 1667 - 1675
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis, volume 1, 15th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Arroquy, JI, Cochran, RC, Nagaraja, TG, Titgemeyer, EC and Johnson, DE 2005. Effect of types of non-fiber carbohydrate on in vitro forage fiber digestion of low-quality grass hay. Animal Feed Science and Technology 120, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campos, FP, Sarmento, P, Nussio, LG, Lugão, SMB, Lima, CG and Daniel, JLP 2013. Fiber monosaccharides and digestibility of Milenio grass under N fertilization. Animal Feed Science and Technology 183, 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, L, Liu, S, Wang, H, Wang, M and Yu, L 2016a. Relative significances of pH and substrate starch level to roles of Streptococcus bovis S1 in rumen acidosis. AMB Express 6, 80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, L, Yang, L, Wang, H, Liu, S, Shen, Y and Wang, M 2016b. Effects of glucose and starch on lactate production by newly isolated Streptococcus bovis S1 from Saanen goats. Applied Environmental Microbiology 82, 5982–5989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkstra, J, Ellis, JL, Kebreab, E, Strathe, AB, López, S, France, J and Bannink, A 2012. Ruminal pH regulation and nutrition consequences of the pH. Animal Feed Science and Technology 172, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farenzena, R, Kozloski, GV, Mezzomo, MP and Fluck, AC 2014. Forage degradability, rumen bacterial adherence and fibrolytic enzyme activity in vitro: effect of pH or glucose concentration. Journal of Agricultural Science 152, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernando, SC, Purvis, HT, Najar, FZ, Sukharnikov, LO, Krehbiel, CR, Nagaraja, TG, Roe, BA and Desilva, U 2010. Rumen microbial population dynamics during adaptation to high-grain diet. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 76, 7482–7490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firkins, JL, Allen, S, Oldick, BS and St-Pierre, NR 1998. Modeling ruminal digestibility of carbohydrates and microbial protein flow to the duodenum. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 3350–3369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, X and Oba, M 2016. Effect of increasing dietary nonfiber carbohydrate with starch, sucrose, or lactose on rumen fermentation and productivity of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 291–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goering, KH and Van Soest, PJ 1970. Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some application), Agricultural Handbook no. 379. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Grant, RJ and Mertens, DR 1992. Influence of buffer pH and raw corn starch addition on in vitro fiber digestion kinetics. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2762–2768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, RJ and Weidner, SJ 1992. Digestion kinetics of fiber: influence of in vitro buffer pH varied within observed physiological range. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 1060–1068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haddad, SG and Grant, RJ 2000. Influence of nonfiber carbohydrate concentration on forage fiber digestion in vitro. Animal Feed Science and Technology 86, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, PJ, Blakeney, AB, Henry, RJ and Stone, BA 1988. Gas chromatographic determination of the monosaccharide composition of plant cell wall preparations. Journal of the Association Official Analytical Chemists 71, 272–275.Google Scholar
Hernandez, J, Benedit, JL, Abuelo, A and Castillo, C 2014. Ruminal acidosis in feedlot: from aetiology to prevention. The Scientific World Journal, 2014, https://doi.org//10.1155/2014/702572, Published online by Hindawi Publishing Corporation 12 November 2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoover, WH and Miller-Webster, TK 2000. The role of soluble carbohydrates in ruminant nutrition. In Proceedings of the California Animal Nutrition Conference, 10–11 Mayo 2000, Fresno, California, pp. 13–30.Google Scholar
Huthanen, P and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, HG and Castler, MD 2006. Maize stem tissues: impact of development on cell wall degradability. Crop Science 46, 1801–1809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalili, H and Huhtanen, P 1991. Sucrose supplements in cattle given grass silage based diets. Digestion of cell wall carbohydrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 33, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozloski, GV, Lima, LD, Cardorin, RL Jr, Bonnecarrere Sanches, LM, Senger, CCD, Fiorentini, G and Harter, CJ 2008. Microbial colonization and degradation of forage samples incubated in vitro at different initial pH. Animal Feed Science and Technology 141, p.356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, TA, Bae, HD, Jones, GA and Cheng, KJ 1994. Microbial attachment and feed digestion in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 72, 3004–3018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McBurney, MI, Allen, MS and Van Soest, PJ 1986. Praseodymium and cooper cation-exchange capacities of neutral-detergent fibers relative to composition and fermentation kinetics. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 37, 666–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miron, J, Ben-Ghedalia, D, Yokoyama, MT and Lamed, R 1990. Some aspects of cellobiose effect on bacterial cell surface structures involved in lucerne cell walls utilization by fresh isolates of rumen bacteria. Animal Feed Science and Technology 30, 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miron, J, Yosef, E, Ben-Ghedalia, D and Chase, LE 2002. Digestibility by dairy cows of monosaccharide constituents in total mixed rations containing citrus pulp. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 89–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgavi, DP, Beachemin, KA, Nsereko, VL, Rode, LM, Iwaasa, AD, Yang, WZ, McAllister, TA and Wang, Y 2000. Synergy between ruminal fibrolytical enzymes and enzymes from Trichoderma longibrachiatum. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1310–1321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mould, FL and Ørskov, ER 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mould, FL, Ørskov, ER and Mann, SO 1983. Associative effects of mixed feeds. I. Effects of type and level of supplementation and the influence of rumen fluid pH on cellulolysis in vivo and dry matter digestion of various roughages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouriño, F, Akkarawongsa, RA and Weimer, PJ 2001. Initial pH as a determinant of cellulose digestion rate by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 848–859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owens, FN and Goetsch, AL 1988. Ruminal fermentation. In The ruminant animal digestive physiology and nutrition (ed. Church, DC), pp. 145–171. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Piwonka, EJ and Firkins, JL 1993. Effect of glucose on fiber digestion and particle-associated carboxymethyl cellulase activity in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piwonka, EJ and Firkins, JL 1996. Effect of glucose fermentation on fiber digestion by ruminal microorganisms in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 2196–2206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, JB and Van Soest, PJ 1981. The detergent system of analysis. In The analysis of dietary fibre in food (ed. James, WPT and Theander, O), pp. 123–158. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Südekum, KH 1994. Monosaccharide composition of cell-wall carbohydrates. Digestion and absorption. Livestock Production Science 39, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, S 1993. Influence of feeding management on ruminal fibre digestibility. In Forage cell wall structure and digestibility (ed. Jung, HG, Buxton, DR and Hatfield, RJ), pp. 571–602. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
Terry, RA, Tilley, JMA and Outen, GE 1969. Effect of pH on cellulose digestion under in vitro conditions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 20, 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurston, B, Dawson, KA and Strobel, HJ 1993. Cellobiose versus glucose utilization by the ruminal bacterium Ruminococcus albus. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 59, 2631–2637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurston, B, Dawson, KA and Strobel, HJ 1994. Pentose utilization by the ruminal bacterium Ruminococcus albus. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 60, 1087–1092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, H, Pan, X, Wang, C, Wang, M and Yu, L 2015. Effects of different dietary concentrate to forage ratio and thiamine supplementation on the rumen fermentation and ruminal bacterial community in dairy cows. Animal Production Science 55, 189–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiles, PG, Gray, IK and Kissling, RC 1998. Routine analysis of protein by Kjeldahl and Dumas methods: review and interlaboratory study using dairy products. Journal of AOAC International 81, 620–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Campos et al. supplementary material

Figures S1-S6
Download Campos et al. supplementary material(File)
File 33.8 KB