Evaluación de métodos nutricionales para reactivar inóculo ruminal preservado analizado a través de cinética de fermentación y digestibilidad de forrajes in vitro
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v10i2.4483Palabras clave:
Digestibilidad del forraje, Fermentación, Preservación, Inóculo ruminalResumen
Se evaluó el efecto del medio de cultivo y tiempo de pre-incubación para reactivar inóculo ruminal preservado, evaluando parámetros de la cinética de fermentación y digestibilidad in vitro de materia seca (DIVMS). En el primer experimento, los tratamientos fueron 1) CONTROL, líquido ruminal fresco; 2) BAJO24, inóculo reactivado pre-incubándolo durante 24 h en una solución base; 3) MODE24, inóculo reactivado pre-incubándolo durante 24 h en una solución base, extracto de levaduras y peptona de caseína; y 4) ALTO24, inóculo reactivado pre-incubándolo durante 24 h en una solución base, extracto de levaduras, peptona de caseína y carbohidratos. En el segundo experimento, los tratamientos fueron 1) CONTROL, líquido ruminal fresco, y 2) ALTO12, similar a ALTO24, pero el inóculo fue pre-incubado durante 12 h. Se realizaron tres réplicas. Se midió el volumen máximo de gas (Vm), la fase lag (L), la tasa de producción de gas (S) y DIVMS usando cuatro substratos. Se analizaron los efectos principales de inóculos y substratos e interacciones. Comparado con el CONTROL, la preservación del inóculo afectó (P<0.01) Vm, L y S. Sin embargo, ALTO24 mejoró (P<0.01) la cinética de fermentación y DIVMS comparado con el tratamiento MODE24 o BAJO24. En el segundo experimento, DIVMS fue menor (P<0.01) para el tratamiento ALTO12 a las 72 h de fermentación comparado con el CONTROL. La alfalfa y el pasto ovillo tuvieron mayor (P<0.01) Vm y DIVMS comparado con el cocuite y el pasto de Guinea. La reactivación del inóculo ruminal preservado por pre-incubación durante 24 h en medio que contiene extracto de levaduras, peptona de caseína y carbohidratos tuvo un desempeño mejor que la pre-incubación por 12 h; sin embargo, la cinética de fermentación y DIVMS no fueron comparables al líquido ruminal fresco.Descargas
Citas
Narvaez N, Wang Y, Xu Z, McAllister T. Effects of hops on in vitro ruminal fermentation of diets varying in forage content. Livest Sci 2011; 138:193–201.
Anele UY, Refat B, Swift ML, Zhao YL, Doublier C, McAllister TA, et al. In vitro ruminal fermentation of ground and dry-rolled barley grain differing in starch content. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2015; 203:88–94.
Pal K, Patra AK, Sahoo A, Kumawat PK. Evaluation of several tropical tree leaves for methane production potential, degradability and rumen fermentation in vitro. Livest Sci 2015; 180:98–105.
Bochi-Brum O, Carro MD, Valdés C, González JS, López S. In vitro digestibility of forages and concentrates: effect of diet on donor animals. Arch Zoot 1999; 48:51–61.
Bueno ICS, Cabral LS, Gobbo SP, Louvandini H, Vitti DM, Abdalla L. Influence of inoculum source in a gas production method. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2005; 124:95-105.
Mould FL, Kliem KE, Morgan R, Mauricio RM. In vitro microbial inoculum: A review of its function and properties. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2005; 123-124:31–50.
Luchini ND, Broderick GA, Combs DK. In vitro determination of ruminal protein degradation using freeze-stored ruminal microorganisms. J Anim Sci 1996a; 74:2488–2499.
Luchini ND, Broderick GA, Combs DK. Preservation of ruminal microorganisms for in vitro determination of ruminal protein. J Anim Sci 1996b; 74:1134–1143.
Meneses M, Madrid SJ, Hernández RF, Megias MD. Evaluación de diferentes métodos de conservación del líquido ruminal para pruebas in vitro. Sociedad Española de Ovinotecnia y Caprinotecnia 2000; 25:315-317.
Malik KA. Cryopreservation of bacteria with special reference to anaerobes. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 1991; 7:629e32.
Perry SF. Freeze-drying and cryopreservation of bacteria. Mol Biotechnol 1998; 9:59e64.
McKain N, Genc B, Snelling TJ, Wallace RJ. Differential recovery of bacterial and archaeal 16S rRNA genes from ruminal digesta in response to glycerol as cryoprotectant. J Microbiol Methods 2013; 95:381–383.
Fliegerova K, Tapio I, Bonin A, Mrazek J, Callegari ML, Bani P, et al. Effect of DNA extraction and sample preservation method on rumen bacterial population. Anaerobe 2014; 29:80–84.
Hervas G, Frutos P, Giráldez FJ, Mora MJ, Fernández B, Mantecón AR. Effect of preservation on fermentative activity of ruminal fluid inoculum for in vitro gas production techniques. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2005; 124:107-118.
NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC; 2000.
Beaudet V, Gervais R, Graulet B, Nozière P, Doreau AM, Fanchone A, et al. Effects of dietary nitrogen levels and carbohydrate sources on apparent ruminal synthesis of some B vitamins in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2016; 99:2730–2739.
Stern MD, Hoover WH. Methods for determining and factors affecting rumen microbial protein synthesis: a review. J Anim Sci 1979; 49:1590–1603.
Russell JB. Rumen Microbiology and Its Role in Ruminant Nutrition, p. 88. J. B. Russell Publ. Co., Ithaca, NY. 2002.
Fernando SC, Purvis II HT, Najar FZ, Sukharnikov L, Nagaraja TG, Krehbiel CR, et al. Rumen microbial population dynamics during adaptation to high-grain diet. Appl Environ Microbiol 2010; 76:7482–7490.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. ‘Official methods of Analysis.’ 17th edn. (AOAC: Arlington, VA, USA); 2000.
Georing HK, Van Soest PJ. Forage Fiber Analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC, USA, Agriculture Handbook No 379; 1970.
Witham FH, Blaydes DF, Devlin RM. Experiments in Plant Physiology. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, USA; 1971.
Udén P, Robinson PH, Mateos GG, Blank R. Use of replicates in statistical analyses in papers submitted for publication in Animal Feed Science And Technology. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2012; 171:11–15.
Castro-Montoya J, DeCampeneere S, VanRanst G, Fievez V. Interactions between methane mitigation additives and basal substrates on in vitro methane and VFA production. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2012; 176:47–60.
Ferraro SM, Mendoza GD, Miranda LA, Gutiérrez CG. In vitro ruminal fermentation of glycerol, propylene glycol and molasses combined with forages and their effect on glucose and insulin blood plasma concentrations after an oral drench in sheep. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2016; 213:74–80.
Prate A, de Oliveira JA, Abecia L, Fondevila M. Effects of preservation procedures of rumen inoculum on in vitro microbial diversity and fermentation. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2010; 150:186–193.
Johnson RR. Techniques and procedures for in vitro and in vivo rumen studies. J Anim Sci 1966; 25:855–875.
Nelson BD, Ellzey HD, Montgomery C, Morgan EB. Factors affecting the variability of an in vitro rumen fermentation technique for estimating forage quality. J Dairy Sci 1972; 55:358–366.
Pehrson A, Faber WE. Individual variation of in vitro dry matter digestibility in moose. J Range Manage 1994; 47:392–394.
Theodorou MK, Williams BA, Dhanoa MS, McAlla AB, France J. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1994; 48:185–197.
Antúnez G, Cajarville C, Britos A, González A, Repetto JL. Ruminal inoculum activity in cattle supplemented with corn grain at different daily frequencies: evaluation using the in vitro gas-production technique. Anim Prod Sci 2014; 54:1662–1664.
Schofield P, Pitt RE, Pell AN. Kinetics of fiber digestion from in vitro gas production. J Anim Sci 1994; 72:2980–2991.
SAS. SAS/STAT User´s guide (Release 9.1). SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 2004.
Salem AZM. Oral administration of leaf extracts to rumen liquid donor lambs modifies in vitro gas production of other tree leaves. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2012; 176:94–101.
Elghandour MMY, Salem AZM, Gonzalez-Ronquillo M, Bórquez JL, Odongo NE, Penuelas CG, et al. Effects of exogenous enzymes on in vitro gas production kinetics and ruminal fermentation of four fibrous feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2013; 179:46–53.
Aemiro A, Watanabe S, Suzuki K, Hanada M, Umetsu K, Nishida T. Effects of Euglena (Euglena gracilis) supplemented to diet (forage: concentrate ratios of 60:40) on the basic ruminal fermentation and methane emissions in in vitro condition. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2016; 212:1129–135.
Williams BA. Cumulative gas-production techniques for forage evaluation. In: Forage Evaluation in Ruminant Nutrition. Givens, D.I., Owen, E., Omed, H.M., Axford, R.F. (eds.). Wallingford. UK. CAB International; 2000.
Weimer PJ, Stevenson DM, Mantovani HC, Man SLC. Host specificity of the ruminal bacterial community in the dairy cow following near-total exchange of ruminal contents. J Dairy Sci 2010a; 93:5902–5912.
Weimer PJ, Stevenson DM, Mertens DR. Shifts in bacterial community composition in the rumen of lactating dairy cows under milk fat-depressing conditions. J Dairy Sci 2010b; 93:265–278.
Kim SJ, Yim JH. Cryoprotective properties of exopolysaccharide (P-21653) produced by the Antarctic bacterium, Pseudoalteromonas artica KOPRI 21653. J Microbiol 2007; 46:510–514.
Hubálek Z. Protectant used in the cryopreservation of microorganisms. Cryobiology 2003; 46:205–229.
Hancocks NH, Thomas CR, Stocks SM, Hewitt CJ. An investigation into the preservation of microbial cell banks for α–amilase production during 5 l fed-batch Bacillus licheniformis fermentations. Biotechnol Lett 2010; 32:1405–1412.
Geissinger O, Herlemann DPR, Morschel E, Maier UG, Brune A. The ultramicrobacterium “Elusimicrobium minutum” gen. nov., sp. nov., the first cultivated representative of the termite group I phylum. Appl Environ Microbiol 2009; 75:2831–2840.
Herlemann DPR, Geissinger O, Ikeda-Ohtsubo W, Kunin V, Sun H, Lapidus A, et al. Genomic Analysis of “Elusimicrobium minutum,” the First Cultivated Representative of the Phylum “Elusimicrobia” (Formerly Termite Group 1). Appl Environ Microbiol 2009; 75, 2841–2849.
McAllister TA, Bae HD, Jones GA, Cheng KJ. Microbial Attachment and Feed Digestion in the Rumen. J Anim Sci 1994; 72:3004–3018.
Saydack AH, Grant CC, Smit IP, Vermeulen WJ, Baard J, Zambatis N. Climate and vegetation in a semi-arid savanna: Development of a climate-vegetation response model linking plant metabolic performance to climate and the effects on forage availability for large herbivores. Koedoe. 2012; 54:1–12. Doi: 10.4102/koedoe.v54i1.1046.
Bryant MP, Robinson IM. Some nutritional characteristics of predominant culturable ruminal bacteria. J Bacteriol 1962; 84:605–614.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
-
Resumen894
-
PDF 450
-
PDF733
-
Texto Completo372
Número
Sección
Licencia
Los autores/as que publiquen en la Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias aceptan las siguientes condiciones:
De acuerdo con la legislación de derechos de autor, la Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias reconoce y respeta el derecho moral de los autores/as, así como la titularidad del derecho patrimonial, el cual será cedido a la revista para su difusión en acceso abierto.
Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.
