Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:46:03.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of diet on the protozoa population in permeable continuous cultures of rumen contents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

M. Abe  and
T. Iriki
M. Abe
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Nippon Formula Feed Manufacturing Co., 4-1-1 Higashiterao, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama 230, Japan
T. Iriki
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Nippon Formula Feed Manufacturing Co., 4-1-1 Higashiterao, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama 230, Japan
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Responses of the protozoa population to the composition and the components of the diet were studied in permeable continuous cultures of rumen contents.

2. In Expt I a study was made of responses to diets containing different combinations of rice straw, lucerne meal and mixed concentrates given to the cow supplying inocula for cultures. It was found that (1) when a diet devoid of concentrates was fed, entodiniomorphs decreased in numbers; (2) their numbers increased with the increase in the amount of concentrates; (3) holotrich numbers were hardly affected by the type of diet; (4) rice straw and lucerne meal were not essential for protozoa to survive in culture medium.

3. In Expt 2 responses were determined to diets containing different combinations of maize, maize starch, sugars (glucose-sucrose (1:1, w/w)), soya-bean meal and isolated soya-bean protein. The results suggested the following relationship between dietary component and protozoa population. (1) The diet rich in both starch and sugars sustains the increased numbers of protozoa on the whole. (2) The diet rich in starch and deficient in sugars decreases selectively Dasytricha and small species of Entodinium such as Entodinium minimum and E. nanellum. The other species of protozoa, especially large entodiniomorphs such as Ophryo-scolex and Polyplastron, are maintained at relatively high levels. (3) The diet deficient in starch and abundant in sugars decreases general entodiniomorphs except small species, while the numbers of Holotrichs are kept at relatively high levels.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , March 1978 , pp. 255 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

REFERENCES

Abe, M. & Kandatsu, M. (1968). Arch. Tierernähr. 18, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abe, M. & Kumeno, F. (1973). J. Anim. Sci. 36, 941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abe, M., Shibui, H., Iriki, T. & Kumeno, F. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 29, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abou Akkada, A. R., Eadie, J. M. & Howard, B. H. (1963). Biochem. J. 89, 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abou Akkada, A. R. & Howard, B. H. (1960). Biochem. J. 76, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abou Akkada, A. R. & Howard, B. H. (1962). Biochem. J. 82, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M. & Mann, S. O. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in The Ruminant, p. 335 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Heald, P. J. & Oxford, A. E. (1953). Biochem. J. 53, 506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hino, T. & Kametaka, M. (1974). Jap. J. Zootech. Sci. 45, 223.Google Scholar
Hino, T., Kametaka, M. & Kandatsu, M. (1973). J. gen. appl. Microbiol. 19, 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, W. H., Crooker, B. A. & Sniffen, C. J. (1976). J. Anim. Sci. 43, 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, W. H., Knowlton, P. H., Stem, M. D. & Sniffen, C. J. (1976). J. Anim. Sci. 43, 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, B. H. (1959). Biochem. J. 71, 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and Its Microbes. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mould, D. L. & Thomas, G. J. (1958). Biochem. J. 69, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Oltjen, R. R. (1967). J. Nutr. 93, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford, A. E. (1951). J. gen. Microbiol. 5, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudgen, B. (1953). J. gen. Microbiol. 9, 44.Google Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. (1965). In Physiology of Digestion in The Ruminant, p. 346 [Dougherty, R. W., editor]. Washington, DC: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Weller, R. A. & Pilgrim, A. F. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, P. P., Davis, R. E., Doetsch, R. N. & Gutierrez, J. (1961). Appl. Microbiol. 9, 405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar