Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-gs9qr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T22:34:11.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of autoclaved or irradiated Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on fermentation in the rumen simulation technique (Rusitec)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. J. Newbold ,
R. Brock  and
R. J. Wallace
C. J. Newbold
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB, UK
R. Brock
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB, UK
R. J. Wallace
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A rumen simulation device (Rusitec) was used to compare the effects of autoclaved and γ-irradiated Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract (AO) with those of untreated AO on rumen fermentation. Each vessel received daily 18 g of a basal diet consisting of 500 g hay, 299·5 g rolled barley, 100 g molasses, 91 g fishmeal and 9·5 g of a minerals and vitamins mixture/kg dry matter. AO preparations (0·25 g/day) were added with the feed. Dry matter digestion increased at 24 h, but not at 48 h, after adding AO, suggesting that AO stimulated the rate of digestion but not the extent. AO increased the numbers of total and cellulolytic bacteria by 90 and 50%, respectively. Irradiated AO stimulated numbers of bacteria in the same way as AO, although to a slightly lesser extent. Autoclaved AO had no effect. Thus, the mode of action of AO on rumen fermentation depends on a heat-labile component, possibly a nutrient or an enzyme, or metabolic activity. Viable AO cells are not required to stimulate bacterial growth and activity.

Information

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 116 , Issue 1 , February 1991 , pp. 159 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adams, D. C., Galyean, M. L., Kiesling, H. E., Wallace, J. D. & Finker, M. D. (1981). Influence of viable yeast culture, sodium bicarbonate and monensin on liquid dilution rate, rumen fermentation and feedlot performance of growing steers and digestibility in lambs. Journal of Animal Science 53, 780–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arambel, M. J., Wiedmeier, R. D. & Walters, J. L. (1987). Influence of donor animal adaptation to added yeast culture and/or Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on in vitro rumen fermentation. Nutrition Reports Internationa! 35, 433–436.Google Scholar
Boing, J. T. P. (1983). Enzyme production. In Industrial Microbiology, 4th edn (Ed. Reed, G.), pp. 685–689. Westport, CT: AVI Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
Bryant, M. P. (1972). Ċommentary on the Hungate technique for culture of anaerobic bacteria. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 25, 1324–1328.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. (1987). Mode of action of the yeast culture, Yea-Sacc, in the rumen: a natural fermentation modifier. In Biotechnology in the Feed Industry, Proceedings of Alltech's 2nd Annual Symposium (Ed. Lyons, T. P.), pp. 119–126. Nicholasville, KY: Alltech Technical Publications.Google Scholar
Fondevila, M., Newbold, C. J., Hotten, P. M. & Ørskov, E. R. (1990). A note on the effect of Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on the rumen fermentation of sheep fed straw. Animal Production 51, 422–425.Google Scholar
Frumholtz, P. P., Newbold, C. J. & Wallace, R. J. (1989). Influence of Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on the fermentation of a basal ration in the rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 113, 169–172.CrossRefGoogle 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
Hobson, P. N. (1969). Rumen bacteria. In Methods in Microbiology 3B (Eds Norris, J. R. & Ribbons, D. W.), pp. 133–159. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huber, J. T., Higginbotham, G. E. & Alarcon, R. A. G. (1986). Influence of feeding A. oryzae culture during hot weather on performance of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 69 (Suppl. 1), 187 (abstract).Google Scholar
McDougall, E. F. (1948). Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochemical Journal 43, 99–109.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
Newbold, C. J., Williams, P. E. V., McKain, N., Walker, A. & Wallace, R. J. (1990). The effects of yeast culture on yeast numbers and fermentation in the rumen of sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 49, 47A.Google Scholar
Nisbet, D. J. & Martin, S. A. (1989). Factors affecting lactate uptake by Selenomonas ruminantium HD4. In 20th Biennial Conference on Rumen Function, abstract No. 8. Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1976). Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.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
Van Horn, H. H., Harris, B., Taylor, M. J., Bachman, K. C. & Wilcox, C. J. (1984). By-product feeds for lactating dairy cows: effects of cottonseed hulls, sunflower hulls, corrugated paper, peanut hulls, sugercane bagasse, and whole cottonseed with additives of fat, sodium bicarbonate and Aspergillus oryzae product on milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 67, 2922–2938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanderley, R. C., Huber, J. T., Theurer, C. B. & Poore, M. (1985). Ruminal digestion of protein and fiber in duodenally cannulated cows treated with Vitaferm. Journal of Dairy Science 68 (Suppl. 1), 123 (abstract).Google 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
Wiedmeier, R. D., Arambel, M. J. & Walters, J. L. (1987). Effect of yeast culture and Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on ruminal characteristics and nutrient digestibility. Journal of Dairy Science 70, 2063–2068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, P. E. V., Walker, A. & MacRae, J. C. (1990). Rumen probiosis: the effects of addition of yeast culture (viable yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, plus growth medium) on duodenal protein flow in wether sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 49, 128A.Google Scholar