Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:53:34.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some factors influencing the chemical composition of mixed rumen bacteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2011

R. H. Smith  and
A. B. Mcallan
R. H. Smith
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
A. B. Mcallan
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
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. Sheep, cows and calves fitted with rumen cannulas were given diets mostly containing 10–16 g nitrogen/kg dry matter and consisting of roughage and cereals. Mixed bacteria were separated from samples of their rumen contents.

2. Bacteria taken 4–6 h after a feed from calves which were kept in an experimental calf-house with no contact with adult animals (environment A) contained more α-dextran, less total N and higher nucleic acid:total N ratios than similar bacteria from calves reared in contact with adult sheep (environment C) but otherwise treated in an identical way.

3. Mixed bacteria taken 4–6 h after a feed from sheep and cows were similar in composition, with respect to nitrogenous components, to those from the ‘environment C’ calves. This composition did not vary significantly when diets containing differing proportions of roughage were given.

4. The ‘environment A’ calves were free of ciliate protozoa. When they were placed in contact with, and were inoculated with rumen contents from, adult cattle (environment B), they rapidly developed a normal protozoal population and the chemical composition of their rumen bacteria became like that of the bacteria from the ‘environment C’ calves.

5. Mixed bacteria taken just before a feed, from either cows or ‘environment A’ calves, showed significantly lower RNA-N:total N ratios and slightly (but not usually significantly) higher DNA-N:total N ratios than bacteria taken 4–6 h after feeding. Total N contents of the bacteria did not change consistently with time after feeding.

6. The possible significance of these differences in relation to the nutrition of the host animal is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 1974 , pp. 27 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Balch, C. C. & Cowie, A. T. (1962). Cornell Vet. 52, 206.Google Scholar
Bergen, W. G., Purser, D. B. & Cline, J. H. (1968). J. Dairy Sci. 51, 1698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, G. S. (1964). J. gen. Microbiol. 37, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, G. S. (1972). J. gen. Microbiol. 71, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condon, R. J. & Hatfield, E. E. (1970). J. Anim. Sci. 31, 1037.Google Scholar
Eadie, J. M. & Gill, V. S. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 26, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M. & Hobson, P. N. (1962). Nature, Lond. 193, 563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, R. J., Doetsch, R. N. & Shaw, J. C. (1955). J. Dairy Sci. 38, 1147.Google Scholar
Heald, P. J. (1951). Br. J. Nutr. 5, 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderickx, H. K., Demeyer, D. I. & van Nevel, C. J. (1972). In Tracer studies on Non-protein Nitrogen for Ruminants p. 57. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Herbert, D. (1961). Symp. Soc. gen. Microbiol. no. 11, p. 391.Google Scholar
Hoogenraad, N. J. & Hird, F. J. R. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. H. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes p. 126. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jouany, J.-P, & Thivend, P. (1972). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 12, 679.Google Scholar
Katz, I. & Keeney, M. (1964). Biochim. biophys. Acta 84, 128.Google Scholar
Kurihara, Y., Eadie, J. M., Hobson, P. hi. & Mann, S. 0. (1968). J. gen. Microbiol. 51, 267.Google Scholar
Lindsay, J. R. & Hogan, J. P. (1972). Aust. J. agric. Res. 23, 321.Google Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 671.Google Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1972). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 31, 24A.Google Scholar
Mason, V. C. & Palmer, R. (1971). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 76, 567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milwid, M. S., Oliver, J. & Topps, J. B. (1968). S. Afr. J. agric. Sci. 11, 493.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1969). J. Dairy Res. 36, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 545.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1972). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 31, 28A.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 9A.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. K. & Hobson, P. N. (1971). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 76, 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. J. (1965). In Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant p. 296 [Dougherty, R. W., editor]. Washington DC: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Walker, D. J. & Nader, C. J. (1970). Aust. J. agric. Res. 21, 747.Google Scholar