Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:22:44.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Bacillus subtilis natto on milk production, rumen fermentation and ruminal microbiome of dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2012

P. Sun ,
J. Q. Wang  and
L. F. Deng
P. Sun
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, P. R. China
J. Q. Wang*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, P. R. China
L. F. Deng
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, P. R. China
*
†Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of Bacillus subtilis natto, which was initially isolated from fermented soybeans on milk production, rumen fermentation and ruminal microbiome in dairy cows. In Experiment 1, 36 early lactation Chinese Holstein dairy cows (56 ± 23 days in milk) were randomly assigned to three groups: Control, cows were fed total mixed ration (TMR); BSNLOW, TMR plus 0.5 × 1011 colony-forming units (cfu) of B. subtilis natto/cow per day; and BSNHIGH, TMR plus 1.0 × 1011 cfu of B. subtilis natto/cow per day. During the 70-day treatment period, daily milk production and daily milk composition were determined in individual cows. The results showed that supplementing dairy cows with 0.5 × 1011 and 1.0 × 1011 cfu of B. subtilis natto linearly increased (P < 0.01) milk production (25.2 and 26.4 kg/day v. 23.0 kg/day), 4% fat-corrected milk (27.3 and 28.1 kg/day v. 24.2 kg/day), energy-corrected milk (27.3 and 28.2 kg/day v. 24.2 kg/day), as well as milk fat (1.01 and 1.03 kg/day v. 0.88 kg/day), protein (0.77 and 0.82 kg/day v. 0.69 kg/day) and lactose yield (1.16 and 1.22 kg/day v. 1.06 kg/day) but decreased milk somatic cell counts (SCC) by 3.4% to 5.5% (P < 0.01) in BSNLOW and BSNHIGH treatments compared with Control. In Experiment 2, four rumen-cannulated dairy cows were fed the basal diet from 1 to 7 days (pre-trial period) and rumen samples were collected on days 6 and 7; the same cows then were fed 1.0 × 1011 cfu/day B. subtilis natto from days 8 to 21 (trial period) and rumen samples were collected on days 20 and 21. B. subtilis natto was discontinued from days 22 to 28 (post-trial period) and rumen samples were collected on days 27 and 28. Compared with the pre- and post-periods, ruminal pH decreased by 2.7% to 3.0% during the trial period (P < 0.01), whereas ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), total volatile fatty acids and molar proportion of propionate (P < 0.01) and valerate (P < 0.05) increased. Molar proportion of acetate decreased and the acetate to propionate ratio was lower (P < 0.01) during the trial period. However, no differences for 24-h in sacco dry matter digestibility were detected among different periods (treatments) though NDF digestibility was reduced in the trial and post-trial periods (P < 0.01). Compared with pre-trial period, total ruminal bacteria, proteolytic and amylolytic bacteria in rumen enumerated by culture methods increased by 15.0%, 16.2% and 11.7%, respectively (P < 0.01) but protozoa decreased to 5.35 log10 cfu/ml (P < 0.01) during the trial period. These results demonstrate that B. subtilis natto improves milk production and milk components yield, decreases SCC and promotes the growth of total ruminal bacteria, proteolytic and amylolytic bacteria, which indicate that B. subtilis natto has potential to be applied as a probiotic for dairy cows.

Keywords

Bacillus subtilis nattomilk productionrumen fermentationruminal microbiomedairy cow
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , February 2013 , pp. 216 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Alexopoulos, C, Georgoulakis, IE, Tzivara, A, Kyriakis, CS, Govaris, A, Kyriakis, SC 2004. Field evaluation of the effect of a probiotic-containing Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis spores on the health status, performance, and carcass quality of grower and finisher pigs. Journal of Veterinary Medicine A 51, 306–312.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2000. Official Methods of Analysis, 17th edition. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Broderick, GA, Kang, JH 1980. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 64–75.Google Scholar
Casula, G, Cutting, SM 2002. Bacillus probiotics: spore germination in the gastrointestinal tract. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68, 2344–2352.Google Scholar
Chen, KL, Kho, WL, You, SH, Yeh, RH, Tang, SW, Hsieh, CW 2009. Effects of Bacillus subtilis var. natto and Saccharomyces cerevisiae mixed fermented feed on the enhanced growth performance of broilers. Poultry Science 88, 309–315.Google Scholar
China NY/t34 2004. Feeding Standard of Dairy Cattle. China NongYe HangYe Biaozhun/Tuijian-34. China Agricultural Publisher, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
Dairy Records Management Systems 2011. DHI Glossary. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from http://www.drms.org/PDF/materials/glossary.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dehority, BA, Tirabasso, PA, Grifo, AP 1989. Most-probable-number procedures for enumerating ruminal bacteria, including the simultaneous estimation of total and cellulolytic numbers in one medium. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 55, 2789–2792.Google Scholar
Dong, SH, Wang, JQ, Peng, H, Sun, P, Bu, DP, Zhou, LY, Kang, HY 2011. The survival of Bacillus subtilis natto in rumen and duodenum of Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89 (E-suppl. 1), 382–383.Google Scholar
Fritts, CA, Kersey, JH, Motl, MA, Kroger, EC, Yan, F, Si, J, Jiang, Q, Campos, MM, Waldroup, AL, Waldroup, PW 2000. Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (Calsporin) improves live performance and microbiological status of broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 9, 149–155.Google Scholar
Fujita, M, Hong, K, Ito, Y, Fujii, R, Kariya, K, Nishimuro, S 1995. Thrombolytic effect of nattokinase on a chemically induced thrombosis model in rat. Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin 18, 1387–1391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fujiwara, K, Yamazaki, M, Abe, H, Nakashima, K, Yakabe, Y, Otsuka, M, Ohbayashi, Y, Kato, Y, Namai, K, Toyoda, A, Miyaguchi, Y, Nakamura, Y 2009. Effect of Bacillus subtilis var. natto fermented soybean on growth performance, microbial activity in the caeca and cytokine gene expression of domestic meat type chickens. Journal of Poultry Science 46, 116–122.Google Scholar
Ghorbani, GR, Morgavi, DP, Beauchemin, KA, Leedle, JAZ 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, XH, Li, DF, Lu, WQ, Piao, XS, Chen, XL 2006. Screening of Bacillus strains as potential probiotics and subsequent confirmation of the in vivo effectiveness of Bacillus subtilis MA139 in pigs. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek International Journal of General and Molecular Microbiology 90, 139–146.Google Scholar
Hosoi, T, Ametani, A, Kiuchi, K, Kaminogawa, S 2000. Improved growth and viability of lactobacilli in the presence of Bacillus subtilis (natto), catalase, or subtilisin. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 46, 892–897.Google Scholar
Jenny, BF, Vandijk, HJ, Collins, JA 1991. Performance and fecal flora of calves fed a Bacillus subtilis concentrate. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 1968–1973.Google Scholar
Kang, HY, Wang, JQ, Bu, DP, Zhou, LY, Sun, P, Peng, H, Wang, XL, Dong, SH 2011. Effect of feeding Bacillus subtilis natto fermentation production on hindgut fermentation and microbiota of Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89 (E-suppl. 1), 384 (ADSA Abstract).Google Scholar
Kritas, SK, Govaris, A, Christodoulopoulos, G, Burriel, AR 2006. Effect of Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis supplementation of ewe's feed on sheep milk production and young lamb mortality. Journal of Veterinary Medicine A 53, 170–173.Google Scholar
Kritas, SK, Morrison, RB 2005. Evaluation of probiotics as a substitute for antibiotics in a large pig nursery. Veterinary Record 156, 447–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oba, M, Allen, MS 2003. Intraruminal infusion of propionate alters feeding behavior and decreases energy intake of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Nutrition 133, 1094–1099.Google Scholar
Peng, H, Wang, JQ, Kang, HY, Dong, SH, Sun, P, Bu, DP, Zhou, LY 2012. Effect of feeding Bacillus subtilis natto fermentation product on milk production and composition, blood metabolites and rumen fermentation in early lactation dairy cows. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 96, 506–512.Google Scholar
Rigout, S, Hurtaud, C, Lemosquet, S, Bach, A, Rulquin, H 2003. Lactational effect of propionic acid and duodenal glucose in cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 243–253.Google Scholar
Rook, GAW, Brunet, LR 2005. Microbes, immunoregulation, and the gut. Gut 54, 317–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samanya, M, Yamauchi, K 2002. Histological alterations of intestinal villi in chicken fed dried Bacillus subtilis var. natto. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology – Part A 133, 95–104.Google Scholar
Sauer, FD, Kramer, JKG, Cantwell, WJ 1989. Antiketogenic effects of monensin in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 436–442.Google Scholar
Stein, DR, Allen, DT, Perry, EB, Bruner, JC, Gates, KW, Rehberger, TG, Mertz, K, Jones, D, Spicer, LJ 2006. Effects of feeding propionibacteria to dairy cows on milk yield, milk components, and reproduction. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 111–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, CS, Duncan, SH 1985. The effect of avoparcin on cellulolytic bacteria of the ovine rumen. Journal of General Microbiology 131, 427, 427–435.Google Scholar
Sumi, H, Hamada, H, Tsushima, H, Mihara, H, Muraki, H 1987. A novel fibrinolytic enzyme (nattokinase) in the vegetable cheese natto; a typical and popular soybean food in the Japanese diet. Experientia 43, 1110–1111.Google Scholar
Sun, P, Wang, JQ, Zhang, HT 2010. Effects of Bacillus subtilis natto on performance and immune function of preweaning calves. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 5851–5855.Google Scholar
Sun, P, Wang, JQ, Zhang, HT 2011. Effects of supplementation of Bacillus subtilis natto Na and N1 strains on rumen development in dairy calves. Animal Feed Science and Technology 164, 154–160.Google Scholar
Tafaj, M, Maulbetsch, A, Junck, B, Steingass, H, Drochner, W 2001. Research note: a method for studying local differences in ruminal fermentation in dairy cattle. Archives of Animal Nutrition 54, 341–347.Google ScholarPubMed
Tafaj, M, Junck, B, Maulbetsch, A, Steingass, H, Piepho, H-P, Drochner, W 2004. Digesta characteristics of dorsal, middle and ventral rumen of cows fed with different hay qualities and concentrate levels. Archives of Animal Nutrition 58, 325–342.Google Scholar
Tanimoto, H, Mori, M, Motoki, M, Torii, K, Kadowaki, M, Noguchi, T 2001. Natto mucilage containing poly-γ-glutamic acid increases soluble calcium in the rat small intestine. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry 65, 516–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teo, AYL, Tan, HM 2005. Inhibition of Clostridium perfringens by a novel strain of Bacillus subtilis isolated from the gastrointestinal tracts of healthy chickens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71, 4185–4190.Google Scholar
Teo, AYL, Tan, HM 2006. Effect of Bacillus subtilis PB6 (CloSTAT) on broilers infected with a pathogenic strain of Escherichia coli. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 15, 229–235.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar