Bennett S L, Arce-Cordero J A, Brandao V L N, Vinyard J R, Agustinho B C, Monteiro H F, Lobo R R, Tomaz L, Faciola A P
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Department of Animal Sciences, State University of Maringa, Maringá, Brazil.
Transl Anim Sci. 2021 Feb 11;5(2):txab026. doi: 10.1093/tas/txab026. eCollection 2021 Apr.
Bacterial cultures, enzymes, and yeast-derived feed additives are often included in commercial dairy rations due to their effects on ruminal fermentation. However, the effects of these additives when fed together are not well understood. The objective of this study was to evaluate the changes in ruminal fermentation when a dairy ration is supplemented with combinations of bacterial probiotics, enzymes and yeast. Our hypotheses were that ruminal fermentation would be altered, indicated through changes in volatile fatty acid profile and nutrient digestibility, with the inclusion of (1) an additive, (2) yeast, and (3) increasing additive doses. Treatments were randomly assigned to 8 fermenters in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin square with four 10 d experimental periods, consisting of 7 d for diet adaptation and 3 d for sample collection. Basal diets contained 52:48 forage:concentrate and fermenters were fed 106 g of dry matter per day divided equally between two feeding times. Treatments were: control (CTRL, without additives); bacterial culture/enzyme blend (EB, 1.7 mg/d); bacterial culture/enzyme blend with a blend of live yeast and yeast culture (EBY, 49.76 mg/d); and a double dose of the EBY treatment (2×, 99.53 mg/d). The bacterial culture/enzyme blend contained five strains of probiotics (, , , , and ) and three enzymes (amylase, hemicellulase, and xylanase). On d 8-10, samples were collected for pH, redox, volatile fatty acids, lactate, ammonia N, and digestibility measurements. Statistical analysis was performed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS. Repeated measures were used for pH, redox, VFA, NH-N, and lactate kinetics data. Orthogonal contrasts were used to test the effect of (1) additives, ADD (CTRL vs. EB, EBY, and 2X); (2) yeast, YEAST (EB vs. EBY, and 2X); and (3) dose, DOSE (EBY vs. 2X). No effects ( > 0.05) were observed for pH, redox, NH-N, acetate, isobutyrate, valerate, total VFA, acetate:propionate, nutrient digestibility or N utilization. Within the 24 h pool, the molar proportion of butyrate increased ( = 0.03) with the inclusion of additives when compared to the control while the molar proportion of propionate tended to decrease ( = 0.07). In conclusion, the inclusion of bacterial cultures, enzymes and yeast in the diet increased butyrate concentration; but did not result in major changes in ruminal fermentation.
由于细菌培养物、酶和酵母衍生的饲料添加剂对瘤胃发酵有影响,它们常被包含在商业奶牛日粮中。然而,这些添加剂一起投喂时的效果尚未得到充分了解。本研究的目的是评估在奶牛日粮中添加细菌益生菌、酶和酵母的组合时瘤胃发酵的变化。我们的假设是,通过挥发性脂肪酸谱和养分消化率的变化表明,添加(1)一种添加剂、(2)酵母和(3)增加添加剂剂量会改变瘤胃发酵。处理在一个重复的4×4拉丁方中随机分配到8个发酵罐,有四个10天的实验期,包括7天的日粮适应期和3天的样本采集期。基础日粮的粗饲料与精饲料比例为52:48,每个发酵罐每天饲喂106克干物质,分两次等量投喂。处理组为:对照组(CTRL,不添加添加剂);细菌培养物/酶混合物(EB,1.7毫克/天);细菌培养物/酶混合物与活酵母和酵母培养物的混合物(EBY,49.76毫克/天);以及EBY处理的双倍剂量(2X,99.53毫克/天)。细菌培养物/酶混合物包含五种益生菌菌株(、、、和)和三种酶(淀粉酶、半纤维素酶和木聚糖酶)。在第8至10天,采集样本用于测量pH值、氧化还原电位、挥发性脂肪酸、乳酸、氨氮和消化率。使用SAS的GLIMMIX程序进行统计分析。对pH值、氧化还原电位、挥发性脂肪酸、氨氮和乳酸动力学数据采用重复测量。使用正交对比来检验(1)添加剂(ADD,CTRL与EB、EBY和2X对比)、(2)酵母(YEAST,EB与EBY和2X对比)和(3)剂量(DOSE,EBY与2X对比)的效果。在pH值、氧化还原电位、氨氮、乙酸、异丁酸、戊酸、总挥发性脂肪酸、乙酸:丙酸、养分消化率或氮利用率方面未观察到影响(>0.05)。在24小时的时间段内,与对照组相比,添加添加剂时丁酸的摩尔比例增加(=0.03),而丙酸的摩尔比例有下降趋势(=0.07)。总之,日粮中添加细菌培养物、酶和酵母会增加丁酸浓度;但不会导致瘤胃发酵发生重大变化。