Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:21:46.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feed enzymes for ruminants. The need for a rational screening system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

D. Colombatto ,
D. P. Morgavi  and
F. L. Mould
D. Colombatto
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Center, PO Box 3000, Lethbridge T1J 4B1, Canada
D. P. Morgavi
Affiliation:
Unité de Recherche sur les Herbivores, INRA Clermont-Theix, 63122 Saint Genès-Champanelle, France
F. L. Mould
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, The University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 237, RG6 6AR, UK
Get access

Extract

Enzymes that degrade the plant cell wall, collectively termed cellulases and hemicellulases, have attracted considerable research efforts recently, because of their potential to be used as additives for animal feeds. Widely used in monogastric animals, mainly to remove antinutritional factors (Bedford, 2000), enzymes are increasingly used in ruminant diets to enhance feedstuff degradability, following results from feeding trials where positive responses in rumen digestion and animal production were observed (Beauchemin et al., 1995; Feng et al., 1996; Yang et al., 1999). Enzymes could also provide an environmentally friendly alternative to the use of antibiotics as feed additives for ruminants.

Type
Invited Theatre Presentations
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 2002 , 2002 , pp. 249 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Beauchemin, K.A., Rode, L.M. & Sewalt, V.J.H. 1995. Fibrolytic enzymes increase fiber digestibility and growth rate of steers fed dry forages. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 75: 641–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedford, M.R. 2000. Exogenous enzymes in monogastric nutrition- their current value and future benefits. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 86: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D.A. & Mould, F.L. 2000. Forage evaluation for efficient ruminant livestock production. In Forage evaluation in ruminant nutrition, D.I., Givens, E., Owen, H.M., Omed & R.F.E., Axford (Eds.). CAB International, UK. pp. 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombatto, D., Mould, F. L., Bhat, M. K. & Owen, E. 2000a. Biochemical and in vitro assessment of six enzyme preparations as potential feed additives. Proceedings of the BSAS Annual Meeting, Scarborough, UK. Page 54.Google Scholar
Colombatto, D., Mould, F.L., Owen, E. & Bhat, M.K. 2000b. The influence of fibrolytic enzyme pre-treatment on the rate and extent of in vitro fermentation of alfalfa fractions, investigated using the Reading Pressure Technique. “Gas Production: Fermentation dynamics for feed evaluation and to assess microbial activity”. Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 62–63.Google Scholar
Colombatto, D., Mould, F.L., Bhat, M.K. & Owen, E. 2000c. Effects of adding fibrolytic enzymes to alfalfa stems at start of incubation, on the degradation of dry matter and fibre using the ANKOM fermentation system. Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on Feed Enzymes, The Netherlands. pp. 48–49.Google Scholar
Colombatto, D., Mould, F.L., Bhat, M.K. & Owen, E. 2001. Fibrolytic enzymes increase the hydrolysis and rate of fermentation of pure substrates in vitro . Proceedings of the BSAS Annual Meeting, York, UK. Page 125.Google Scholar
Colombatto, D., Morgavi, D.P., Furtado, A.F. & Beauchemin, K.A. 2002a. Screening of fibrolytic enzymes as additives for ruminant diets: relationship between enzyme activities and the in vitro degradation of enzyme treated-forages. This meeting.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombatto, D., Mould, F.L., Bhat, M.K. & Owen, E. 2002b. The effect of fibrolytic enzyme application on the rate and extent of alfalfa stem fermentation, assessed in vitro . This meeting.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cone, J.W., Van Gelder, A.H., Visscher, G.J.W. & Oudshoorn, L. 1996. Influence of rumen fluid and substrate concentration on fermentation kinetics measured with a fully automated time related gas production apparatus. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 61: 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, P., Hunt, C.W., Pritchard, G.T. & Julien, W.E. 1996. Effect of enzyme preparations on in situ and in vitro degradation and in vivo digestive characteristics of mature cool-season grass forage in beef steers. Journal of Animal Science, 74: 1349–1357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mauricio, R.M., Mould, F.L., Dhanoa, M.S., Owen, E., Channa, K.S. & Theodorou, M.K. 1999. A semi-automated in vitro gas production technique for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 79: 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, K.H., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D. & Schneider, W. 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro . Journal of Agricultural Science (Camb.) 93: 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgavi, D.P., Beauchemin, K.A., Nsereko, V., Rode, L.M., Iwaasa, A.D., Yang, W.Z., McAllister, T.A. & Wang, Y. 2000. Synergy between ruminal fibrolytic enzymes and enzymes from Trichoderma longibrachiatum . Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 1310–1321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mould, F.L., Smith, T., Owen, E., Phipps, R.H., Beever, D.E. & Hartnell, G.F. 1999. The influence of short-term enzyme application on maize silage degradation assessed in vitro using the Reading Pressure Technique. Journal of Dairy Science, 82: 123(Abstract).Google Scholar
Ørskov, E.R., DeB Hovell, F.D. & Mould, F.L. 1980. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Tropical Animal Production, 5: 195–213.Google Scholar
Pell, A.N. & Schofield, P. 1993. Computerized monitoring of gas production to measure forage digestion in vitro . Journal of Dairy Science 76: 1063–1073.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabatier, A.M. & Fish, N.M. 1996. Method of analysis for feed enzymes: Methodological problems? Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 5: 408–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodorou, M.K., Williams, B.A., Dhanoa, M.S., McAllan, A.B., & France, J.A. 1994. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48: 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J.M.A. & Terry, R.A. 1963. A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society. 18: 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, R.J., Wallace, S.J.A., Mc Kain, N., Nsereko, V. & Hartnell, G.F. 2001. Influence of supplementary fibrolytic enzymes on the fermentation of maize and grass silages by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro . Journal of Animal Science. 79: 1905–1916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, T.M. & Bhat, M.K. 1988. Methods for measuring cellulase activities. In: Methods in Enzymology, Wood, W.A. & Kellogg, S.T. (Eds.). Academic Press, Inc., London, UK. pp. 87–112.Google Scholar
Yang, W.Z., Beauchemin, K.A. & Rode, L.M. 1999. Effects of an enzyme feed additive on extent of digestion and milk 250 production of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 82: 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar