Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:05:36.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The efficacy of feeding a live probiotic yeast, Yea-Sacc®, on the performance of lactating dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2015

D. Tristant
Affiliation:
Ferme Expérimentale d'AgroParisTech, 78850 Thiverval-Grignon, France
C. A. Moran
Affiliation:
Regulatory Affairs Department, Alltech France SARL, 25 Rue Greffulhe, 92300, Levallois-Perret, France

Summary

The following trial was conducted to evaluate the impact of feeding Yea-Sacc® (YS; Alltech Inc, USA), a zootechnical feed additive based on a live probiotic strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, to lactating dairy cows over a 12 week period. Sixty-four primiparous and multiparous Holstein dairy cows, grouped to give similar range of parity, physiological and milk production stages, were selected for the study. Cows were equally allocated to either a control feed group or a diet supplemented with YS (32 cows per treatment). The test diet was formulated to include YS (Yea-Sacc® Farm Pak) incorporated in the total mixed ration (TMR), supplying a target dose of 5 × 107 CFU/kg feed dry matter (DM). This target dose delivered 1 × 109 CFU/cow/day, for a cow consuming 20 kg feed (DM basis) daily. Each cow was considered a replicate unit. Cows were fed a nutritionally adequate total TMR plus hay and a supplementary protein/energy concentrate (calculated according to milk yield) for 12 weeks, supplied once a day after the morning milking. Weigh backs of feed were recorded daily, with refusals being maintained at 3% of the total intake. During the 12 week study period, YS had significant beneficial effects on milk production (+0.8 kg/day; P = 0.003), energy corrected milk production (+1.4 kg/day; P < 0.0001), synthesis of milk protein (+36 g/day; P = 0.001), milk protein content (+0.3 g/kg; P = 0.009), and milk urea content (−0.09 mg/l; P = 0.004). The synthesis of milk fat was similar between treatments but milk fat content was lower for the YS group compared to the control group (−1.1 g/kg; P = 0.0002). Lactose content was always higher (+0.8 g/kg; P < 0.0001) for the YS group, indicating enhanced energy utilisation. In general, the effect of YS was higher during the first study period (one to seven weeks), when cows were in early lactation and the production potential was higher. YS cows produced significantly more milk during the study, and an additional 220 kg milk per cow was sold from this group from the output measured from the beginning of the study to two weeks post-trial. However, the statistical analysis including the post-study period did not show a significant effect. The 305-day simulated milk production was higher for the YS group (+400 kg/cow) but again the difference was not significant. In conclusion, YS at a target dose of 5 × 107 CFU/kg DM improved milk production and milk quality in healthy dairy cows. In addition, when the data were included in a whole-farm model, feeding YS reduced methane emissions by 4%, reduced the number of animals required for the desired milk production by 4% and increased overall farm margins by 1.4%.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition Ltd. 2015 

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

AOAC. 2005. Official Methods of Analysis (17th Ed.) Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Desnoyers, M., Giger-Reverdin, S., Bertin, G., Duvaux-Ponter, C. & Sauvant, D. 2009. Meta-analysis of the influence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on ruminal parameters and milk production of ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science, 92: 16201632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erasmus, L., Botha, P. & Kistner, A. 1992. Effect of yeast culture supplementation on production, rumen fermentation and duodenal nitrogen flow in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 75: 30563065.Google Scholar
Giger-Reverdin, S., Sauvant, D., Vermorel, M. & Jouany, J. P. 2000. Modélisation empiriquedes facteurs de variation des rejets de méthane par les ruminants. Rencontre Recherche Ruminants, 7: 187190.Google Scholar
Gombos, S., Tossenberger, J. & Szabo, C. 1995. Effects of probiotics and yeast culture on the performance of pigs and dairy cows. Krmiva, 37: 1317.Google Scholar
Lascano, G. J. & Heinrichs, A. J. 2009. Rumen fermentation pattern of dairy heifers fed restricted amounts of low, medium, and high concentrate diets without and with yeast culture. Livestock Science, 124: 4857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascano, G. J., Zanton, G., Suarez-Mena, F. & Heinrichs, A. 2009. Effect of limit feeding high-and low-concentrate diets with Saccharomyces cerevisiae on digestibility and on dairy heifer growth and first-lactation performance. Journal of Dairy Science, 92: 51005110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lila, Z. A., Mohammed, N., Takahashi, T., Tabata, M., Yasui, T., Kurihara, M., Kanda, S. & Itabashi, H. 2006. Increase of ruminal fiber digestion by cellobiose and a twin strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae live cells in vitro. Animal Science Journal, 77: 407413.Google Scholar
Meller, R. A., Firkins, J. L. & Gehman, A. M. 2014. Efficacy of live yeast in lactating dairy cattle. The Professional Animal Scientist, 30: 413417.Google Scholar
Mruthunjaya, H., Kailas, M. & Thirumalesh, T. 2010. Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Yeast Culture on Rumen Profile and in Vitro Rumen Fibre Digestibility in Crossbred Cows. Indian Journal of Animal Research, 44: 4043.Google Scholar
Newbold, C., Wallace, R. & Mcintosh, F. 1996. Mode of action of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a feed additive for ruminants Britrish Journal of Nutrition, 76: 249261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oeztuerk, H. 2009. Effects of live and autoclaved yeast cultures on ruminal fermentation in vitro. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 18: 142150.Google Scholar
Skórko-Sajko, H., Sajko, J. & Zalewski, W. 1993. The effect of Yea-Sacc 1026 in the ration for dairy cows on production and composition of milk. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 2: 159167.Google Scholar
Tricarico, J., Harrison, G. & Johnston, J. 2006. Modeling Yea-Sacc®1026 effect on ruminal function and performance in lactating dairy cattle within the framework of the CPM-Dairy ration analyzer. Nutritional Biotechnology in the Feed and Food Industries, Alltech's 22nd Annual Symposium (poster session). Lexington, KY, USA.Google Scholar