Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T21:56:19.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of enzyme treatment on the in vitro fermentation of lucerne incubated with equine faecal inocula

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2007

Jo-Anne M. D. Murray ,
Annette C. Longland ,
Meriel J. S. Moore-Colyer  and
Catherine Dunnett
Jo-Anne M. D. Murray*
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth SY23 3EB, UK Institute of Rural Sciences, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Llanbadarn Campus, Aberystwyth SY23 3AL, UK Division of Animal Health and Welfare, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
Annette C. Longland
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth SY23 3EB, UK
Meriel J. S. Moore-Colyer
Affiliation:
Institute of Rural Sciences, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Llanbadarn Campus, Aberystwyth SY23 3AL, UK
Catherine Dunnett
Affiliation:
Dengie Crops Limited, Heybridge Business Centre, 110 The Causeway, Maldon, Essex CM9 4ND, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Jo-Anne M. D. Murray, fax +44 131 651 3931, email Jo-Anne.Murray@ed.ac.uk
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.

A series of experiments was conducted to determine the effects of a fibrolytic enzyme preparation (enzyme 1; E1) on the in vitro fermentation of lucerne incubated with equine faecal inocula. In experiment 1, high-temperature-dried (HT) lucerne was treated with five levels of E1 (0 to 2·4ml/g DM) and incubated at 50°C for 20h. Samples then received a simulated foregut digestion (SFD) treatment before DM and NSP analysis. In experiment 2, HT lucerne was treated with the same enzyme levels used in experiment 1. Samples were then split into two groups; plus or minus an SFD treatment before in vitro fermentation using an equine faecal inoculum. In experiment 3, fresh and wilted lucerne were treated with the same levels of E1 as experiments 1 and 2, incubated at 50°C for 20h, then fermented in vitro. For experiment 4, fresh and wilted lucerne were treated with low levels (0 to 0·008ml/g DM) of E1 before fermentation. E1 significantly (P<0·05) enhanced DM and NSP losses from HT lucerne following SFD treatment compared with the control. High levels of E1 significantly (P<0·05) enhanced the rate, but not extent, of fermentation of HT, wilted and fresh lucerne; however, low levels of E1 were ineffective. At higher application levels, E1 appears to have considerable potential to enhance the nutritive value of lucerne for horses. Information on the fermentation kinetics of the substrates was valuable; all end-point measurements showed no effect of enzyme treatment.

Keywords

Enzyme treatmentIn vitro fermentationEquine inoculaLucerne
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 94 , Issue 5 , November 2005 , pp. 771 - 782
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2005

References

Akhter, S, Owen, E, Theodorou, MK, Butler, EA & Minson, DJ (1999) Bovine faeces as a source of micro-organisms for the in vitro digestibility assay of forages. Grass Forage Sci 54, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argenzio, RA (1990) Physiology of digestive, secretory and absorptive processes. Equine Acute Abdomen, pp. 25–35 [White, NA, editor]. Philadelphia, PA: USA Lea and Feiber.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Rode, LM, Maekawa, M, Morgavi, DP & Kampen, R (2000) Evaluation of a nonstarch polysaccharidase feed enzyme in dairy cow diets. J Dairy Sci 83, 543–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchemin, KA, Rode, LM & Sewalt, VJH (1995) Fibrolytic enzymes increase fiber digestibility and growth rate of steers fed dry forages. Can J Anim Sci 75, 641–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, DE (1993) Rumen function. In Quantitative Aspects of Rumen Digestion and Metabolism, [Forbes, JM and France, J, editors]. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Bickerstaff, GF (1995) Impact of genetic technology on enzyme technology. Genet Eng Biotechnol 15, 13–30.Google Scholar
Chesworth, JM, Stuchbury, T & Scaife, JR (1998) Agricultural Biochemistry. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Colombatto, D (2000) Use of enzymes to improve fibre utilisation in ruminants. A biochemical and in vitro degradation assessment, PhD Thesis, University of Reading, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombatto, D, Mould, F, Bhat, MK, Morgavi, D, Beauchemin, K & Owen, E (2003) Influence of fibrolytic enzymes on the hydrolysis and fermentation of pure cellulose and xylan by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro. J Anim Sci 81, 1040–1050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Englyst, HN & Cummings, JH (1984) Simplified method for the measurement of total non-starch polysaccharides by gas-liquid-chromatography of constituent sugars as alditol acetates. Analyst 109, 937–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, P, Hunt, CW, Julien, WE, Dickinson, K & Moen, T (1992) Effect of enzyme additives in in situ and in vitro degradation of mature cool-season grass forage. J Anim Sci 70, 309.Google Scholar
Feng, P, Hunt, CW, Pritchard, GT & Julien, WE (1996) Effective of enzyme preparations on in situ and in vitro degradation and in vivo digestive characteristics of mature cool-season grass forage in beef steers. J Anim Sci 74, 1349–1357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
France, J, Dhanoa, MS, Theodorou, MK, Lister, SJ, Davies, DR & Isac, D (1993) A model to interpret gas accumulation profiles associated with in vitro degradation of ruminant feeds. J Theor Biol 163, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furuya, S, Sakamoto, K & Takahashi, S (1979) A new in vitro method for estimation of digestibility using the intestinal fluid of the pig. Br J Nutr 41, 511–520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kung, L, Treacher, RJ, Nauman, GA, Smagala, AM, Endres, KM & Cohen, MA (2000) The effect of treating forages with fibrolytic enzymes on its nutritive value and lactation performance of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 83, 115–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, GE, Sanchez, WK, Hunt, CW, Guy, MA, Pritchard, GT, Swanson, BI & Treacher, RJ (1999) Effect of direct-fed fibrolytic enzymes on the lactational performance of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 82, 611–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Low, AG & Longland, AC (1989) Carbohydrate and dietary fibre digestion in the pig and the possible influence of feed enzymes. In Feed Enzymes in Animal Production, Forum Feeds Symposium, pp. 1–18Solihull, UK.Google Scholar
Lowman, RS (1998) Investigations into the factors which influence measurements during in vitro gas production studies, PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Lyons, P & Walsh, GA (1993) Applications of enzymes in feed manufacturing. In Enzymes in Animal Nutrition; Proceedings of the 1st Symposium, Kartause Ittingen, Switzerland, pp. 241–253 [Wenk, C and Boessinger, M, editors]. Wien, Austria: Institut für Nutzteirwissenschaften.Google Scholar
McAllister, TA, Oosting, SJ, Popp, JD, Mir, Z, Yanke, LJ, Hristov, AN, Treacher, RJ & Cheng, KJ (1999) Effect of exogenous enzymes on digestibility of barley silage and growth performance of feedlot cattle. Can J Anim Sci 79, 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merry, RJ, Dhanoa, MS & Theodorou, MK (1995) Use of freshly cultured lactic acid bacteria as silage inoculants. Grass Forage Sci 50, 112–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore-Colyer, MJS, Hyslop, JJ, Longland, AC & Cuddeford, D (1997) The degradation of organic matter and crude protein of four botanically diverse feedstuffs in the foregut of ponies as measured by the mobile bag technique. In Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science Winter Meeting Scarborough, York, p.120. Penicuik, Midlothian, UK: British Society of Animal Science.Google Scholar
Moore-Colyer, MJS, Morrow, HJ & Longland, AC (2003) Mathematical modelling of digesta passage rate, mean retention time and in vivo apparent digestibility of two different chop lengths of hay and big-bale grass silage in ponies. Br J Nutr 90, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgavi, D, Nsereko, V, Rode, L, Beauchemin, K, McAllister, T & Wang, W (2000) A Trichoderma feed enzyme preparation enhances adhesion of Fibrobacter succinogenes to complex substrates but not to pure cellulose. In Proceedings of the Chicago Rumen Function Conference, Chicago, IL, USA p. 33. St Louis, Missouri, USA: Purina Mills Inc.Google Scholar
Nsereko, VL, Beauchemin, KA, Morgavi, DP, Rode, LM, Furtado, AF, McAllister, TA, Iwaasa, AD, Yang, WZ & Wang, Y (2002) Effect of a fibrolytic enzyme preparation from Trichoderma longibrachiatum on the rumen microbial population of dairy cows. Can J Microbiol 48, 14–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rode, LM, Yang, WZ & Beauchemin, KA (1999) Fibrolytic enzyme supplements for dairy cows in early lactation. J Dairy Sci 82, 2121–2126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, GJS (1987) Maximum likelihood programme (A manual). Harpenden, UK: Rothamstead Experimental Station.Google Scholar
Scott, RW (1979) Colorimetric determination of hexuronic acids in plant material. Anal Chem 51, 936–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodorou, MK, Williams, BA, Dhanoa, MS, McAllen, AB & France, J (1994) A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol 48, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, RJ, Wallace, SJA, McKain, N, Nsereko, VL & Hartnell, GF (2001) Influence of supplementary fibrolytic enzymes on the fermentation of corn and grass silages by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro. J Anim Sci 79, 1905–1916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, WZ, Beauchemin, KA & Rode, LM (1999) Effects of an enzyme feed additive on extent of digestion and milk production of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 82, 391–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed