Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:14:13.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mode of action of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a feed additive for ruminants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

C. J. Newbold ,
R. J. Wallace  and
F. M. Mcintosh
C. J. Newbold
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute,Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
R. J. Wallace
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute,Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
F. M. Mcintosh
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute,Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
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.

Two suggested modes of action of yeast in stimulating rumen fermentation were investigated. The first, that yeast respiratory activity protects anaerobic rumen bacteria from damage by O2, was tested using different strains of yeast that had previously been shown to have differing abilities to increase the viable count of rumen bacteria. Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC 240, NCYC 1026, and the commercial product Yea-Sacc®, added to rumen fluid in vitro at 1·3 mg/ml, increased the rate of O2 disappearance by between 46 and 89%. The same three preparations also stimulated bacterial numbers in an in vitro fermenter (Rusitec).S. cerevisiae NCYC 694 and NCYC 1088, which had no influence on the viable count in Rusitec, also had no effect on O2 uptake. Respiration-deficient (RD) mutants of S. cerevisiae NCYC 240 and NCYC 1026 were enriched by repeated culturing in the presence of ethidium bromide. S. cerevisiae NCYC 240 and NCYC 1026 stimulated the total and cellulolytic bacterial populations in Rusitec, while the corresponding RD mutants did not. Rigorous precautions to exclude air from Rusitec resulted i“n S. cevevisiae NCYC 240 no longer stimulating total bacterial numbers, although it still increased numbers of cellulolytic bacteria. The second hypothesis, that yeast provides malic and other dicarboxylic acids which stimulate the growth of some rumen bacteria, was examined by comparing the effects of yeast and malic acid on rumen fermentation in sheep. Three mature sheep were given 0·85 kg barley/d plus 0·55 kg chopped ryegrass hay/d either unsupplemented, or supplemented with 4 g S. cerevisiae NCYC 240/d or 100 mg l-malic acid/d either mixed with the diet or in aqueous solution infused continuously into the rumen. Yeast increased the total viable count of bacteria (P < 0·05)whereas malic acid did not, and no other effect of the treatments reached statistical significance. It was concluded, therefore, that the stimulation of rumen bacteria by S.cerevisiae is at least partly dependent on its respiratory activity, and is not mediated by malic acid.

Keywords

Malic acidProbioticsRuminantsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeYeast
Type
Animal Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , August 1996 , pp. 249 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1996

References

REFERENCES

Arambel, M. J. & Tung, R. S. (1987). Evaluation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae growth in the rumen ecosystem. Proceedings of 19th Biennial Conference on Rumen FunctionChicago p. 29Abstr.Google Scholar
Barford, J. P. & Hall, R. J. (1979). An examination of the Crabtree effect in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: the role of respiratory adaptation. Journal of General Microbiology 114, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, M. P. (1972). Commentary on the Hungate technique for culture of anaerobic bacteria. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 25, 1324–1328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaucheyras, F., Fonty, G., Bertin, G. & Gouet, P. (1995). Effects of live Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells on zoospore germination, growth, and cellulolytic activity of the rumen anaerobic fungus, Neocallimastix frontalis MCH3. Current Microbiology 31, 201–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czerkawski, J. W. (1969). Methane production in ruminants and its significance. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 11, 240–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czerkawski, J. W. & Breckenridge, G. (1977). Design and development of a long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). British Journal of Nutrition 38, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, K. A. (1990). Designing the yeast culture of tomorrow: mode of action of yeast culture for ruminants and non-ruminants. In Biotechnology in the Feed Industry, pp. 59–78 [Lyons, T. P. editor]. Nicholasville, Kentucky: Alltech Technical Publications.Google Scholar
Dawson, K. A., Newman, K. E. & Boling, J. A. (1990). Effects of microbial supplements containing yeast and lactobacilli on roughage-fed rumen microbial activities. Journal of Animal Science 68, 3392–3398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M. & Gill, J. C. (1971). The effect of the absence of rumen ciliate protozoa on growing lambs fed on a roughage-concentrate diet. British Journal of Nutrition 26, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El Hassan, S. M. (1994). Yeast culture and multipurpose fodder trees as feed supplements for ruminants. PhD Thesis, Unversity of AberdeenGoogle Scholar
El Hassan, S. M., Newbold, C. J. & Wallace, R. J. (1993). The effect of yeast in the rumen and the requirement for viable cells.Animal Production 54,504 Abstr.Google Scholar
Ellis, J.E., Williams, A. G. & Lloyd, D. (1989). Oxygen consumption by ruminal micro-organisms: protozoal and bacterial contribution. Applied and Environmental Micribilogy 55,2538–2587.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee (1987). Genstat 5 Users' Manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodall, S. & Byers, F. M. (1978). Automated micro method for enzymatic L(+) and D(−)-lactic acid determinations in biological fluid containing cellular extracts. Analytical Biochemistry 89, 80–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, K., Lloyd, D. & Williams, A. G. (1985 a). Use of a portable quadrupole mass spectrometer for the measurement of dissolved gas concentrations in ovine rumen liquor in situ. Current Microbiology 12, 335–340.Google Scholar
Hillman, K., Lloyd, D. & Williams, A. G. (1985 b). Continuous monitoring of fermentation gases in an artificial rumen system (Rusitec) using a membrane-inlet probe on a portable quadrupole mass spectrometer. In Gas Enzymology, pp. 201–206. [Degn, D., editor]. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, P. N. (1969). Rumen bacteria. Methods in Microbiology 3B, 133–159.Google Scholar
Ingledew, W. M. & Jones, G. A. (1982). The fate of live brewers yeast slurry in bovine rumen fluid. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 88, 18–20.Google Scholar
Jouany, J. P., Fonty, G., Lassalas, B., Dore, J., Gouet, P. & Berth, G. (1991). Effect of live yeast cultures on feed degradation in the rumen as assessed by in vitro measurements. Proceedings of 2Ist Biennial Confirenre on Rumen FunctionChicago, p. 7 Abstr.Google Scholar
Kung, L., Huber, J. T., Krummrey, J. D., Allison, L. & Cook, R. M. (1982). Influence of adding malic acid to dairy cattle rations on milk production, rumen volatile acids, digestibility, and nitrogen utilization. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 1170–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loesche, W. J. (1969). Oxygen sensitivity of various anaerobic bacteria. Applied Microbiology 18, 723–727.Google Scholar
McArthur, J. M. & Multimore, J. E. (1962). Rumen gas analysis by gas solid chromatography. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 41, 187–192.Google Scholar
McDougall, E. I. (1948). Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochemical Journal 43, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackie, R. I. & Heath, S. (1979). Enumeration and isolation of lactate utilizing bacteria from the rumen of sheep. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 38, 416–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, S. O. (1968). An improved method for determining cellulolytic activity in anaerobic bacteria. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 31, 241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marounek, M. & Wallace, R. J. (1984). Influence of culture Eh on the growth and metabolism of the rumen bacteria Selenomonas ruminantium, Bacteroides amylophilus, Bacteroides succinogenes and Streptococcus bovis in batch culture. Journal of General Microbiology 130, 223–229.Google Scholar
Martin, S.A. & Nisbet, D. J. (1992). Effect of direct-fed microbials on rumen microbial fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 1736–1744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, S. A. & Streeter, M. N. (1995). Effect of malate on in vitro mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2141–2145.Google Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z. & ørskov, E. R. (1977). A study of the artificial fibre bag technique for determining the digestibility of feeds in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mollering, H. (1985). L-Malate: determination with malate dehydrogenase and aspartate aminotransferase. In Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, 3rd ed., vol. 7 [Bergmeyer, H. U., editor]. Weiheim, Germany: VCH.Google Scholar
Newbold, C. J. & Wallace, R. J. (1992). The effect of yeast and distillery by-products on the fermentation in the rumen simulation technique (RUSITEC). Animal Production 54, 504 Abstr.Google Scholar
Newbold, C. J., Wallace, R. J., Chen, X. B. & McIntosh, F. (1995). Different strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae differ in their effects on ruminal bacterial numbers in vitro and in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1811–1818.Google Scholar
Newbold, C. J., Williams, A. G. & Chamberlain, D. G. (1987). The in vitro metabolism of D, L-lactic acid by rumen microorganisms. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 38, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbet, D. J. & Martin, S. A. (1990). Effect of dicarboxylic acids and Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on lactate uptake by the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 56, 3515–3518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nisbet, D. J. & Martin, S. A. (1991). The effect of Succharomyces cerevisiae culture on lactate utilization by the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium. Journal of Animal Science 69, 4628–4633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rickwood, D., Dujon, B. & Darley-Usmar, V. M. (1988). Yeast mitochondria. In Yeast a Practical Approach, pp.185–254 [Campbell, I. and Duffas, J. H., editors]. Oxford: IRL Press.Google Scholar
Roger, V., Fonty, G., Komisarczuk-Bony, S. & Gouet, P. (1990). Effects of physicochemical factors on the adhesion to cellulose Avicel of the rumen bacteria Ruminicoccus flavefaciens and Fibrobacter surrinogenes subsp. succinogenes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 56, 3081–3087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, A. H. (1987). Yeast culture, a micro-organism for all species: a theoretical look at its mode of action. In Biotechnology in The Feed Industry, pp. 113–118 [Lyons, T.P, editor]. Nicholasville, Kentucky: Alltech Technical Publications.Google Scholar
Scott, R. I., Yarlett, N., Hillman, K., Williams, T. N., Williams, A. G. & Lloyd, D. (1983). The presence of oxygen in rumen liquor and its effects on methanogenesis. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 55, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. N. & Cochran, G. C. (1976). Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, C. S. & Bryant, M. P. (1988). The rumen bacteria. In The Rwnen Microbial Ecosystem, pp. 21–77 [Hobson, P. N., editor]. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Stewart, C. S. & Duncan, S. H. (1985). The effect of avoparcin on cellulolytic bacteria of the ovine rumen. Journal of General Microbiology 131, 427–435.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. J. & Newbold, C. J. (1992). Probiotics for ruminants. In Probiotics: The Scientic Basis, pp. 317–353[Fuller, R., editor]. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, R., Cooke, G. H. & Chapman, B. T. (1967). Problems associated with the continuous monitoring of ammoniacal nitrogen in river water. Automation in Analytical Chemistry 2, 377–380.Google Scholar