Potency of microbial inocula from bovine faeces and rumen fluid for <i>in vitro</i> digestion of different tropical forage substrates

Hughes, Martin; Mlambo, Victor; Lallo, C. H. O.; Jennings, P. G.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.2011.00841.x

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Akhter et al [8] obtained significant regression equations between in vitro OMD of eight forages determined with sheep rumen liquor and cow faeces. Another study [6] showed that the OMD of different forages estimated with faecal inoculum was comparable to the OMD determined with cow rumen fluid after 48 h of incubation. Regarding GP, a study [7] showed that in vitro total GP was greater for feeds incubated with cow rumen inoculum as compared to cow faecal inoculum.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…The rumen fluid was collected before the morning meal and was immediately strained through four layers of cheesecloth into a pre-warmed (39 °C) flask with CO 2 and mixed with the buffer solution [10] in a 1:2 ratio. Faecal samples were first mixed with the same buffer solution (at the same 1:2 ratio) and maintained for thirty minutes at 39 °C with CO 2 , and then strained through four layers of cheesecloth [5,6,11].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The in vitro techniques developed to determine NDFD (for example: [3,4]) involve the use of ruminal inoculum. However, in recent time fresh faeces from ruminants have been investigated as alternative inoculum to replace rumen fluid [5,6,7]. Using a fresh faecal inoculum would have some advantages: it is easier to obtain faeces than rumen liquor and rumen cannulated animals are not needed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using a fresh faecal inoculum would have some advantages: it is easier to obtain faeces than rumen liquor and rumen cannulated animals are not needed. Faecal inocula from cows have been used to evaluate the in vitro organic matter digestibility (OMD) of forages [6,8] and gas production (GP) of different feeds [5,7]. For example, Akhter et al [8] obtained significant regression equations between in vitro OMD of eight forages determined with sheep rumen liquor and cow faeces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Faecal versus Rumen Inocula for the Estimation of NDF Digestibility

Chiaravalli

Rapetti

Graziosi

et al. 2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryThe evaluation of fibre digestibility is very important for the formulation of ruminant diets. Fibre digestibility is usually determined in lab with rumen inoculum obtained from cannulated cows. The research of alternative and less invasive inoculum sources is a critical issue that should be addressed. The present study evaluated the potential of faecal inocula, obtained from cows fed different diets, to assess fibre digestibility of different substrates at different incubation times (48, 240 and 360 h). At short incubation time, fibre digestibility obtained with rumen fluid was always higher than those obtained with faecal inocula, confirming a lower activity of the faecal inocula compared with rumen fluid. However, the type of diets fed to the donor animals had a significant effect on fibre digestibility, with a more active faecal inoculum for cows fed a diet based on maize silage. Despite the differences obtained at the short incubation time, the digestibility values at longer intervals showed that faecal inoculum could replace rumen inoculum. As a consequence, faeces may replace rumen fluid as inoculum for end-point measures, avoiding the use of cannulated animals and decreasing the analytical costs.AbstractCow faeces have been investigated as alternative inoculum to replace rumen fluid to determine neutral detergent fibre (NDF) digestibility (NDFD). Aims of this study were to estimate: (1) the NDFD (48 h) of feed ingredients using a rumen inoculum in comparison with faecal inocula from cows fed diets with different forage basis; (2) the undigestible NDF (uNDF) at 240 and 360 h with ruminal fluid and faecal inocula from lactating cows fed two different diets. At 48 h incubation, the NDFD was affected both by feed and type of inoculum (p < 0.01) and by their interaction (p = 0.03). Overall, the mean NDFD was higher for rumen inoculum than for faecal inocula (585 vs. 389 g/kg NDF, p < 0.05), and faecal inoculum obtained from cows fed hay-based diets gave lower NDFD than those from cows fed maize silage (367 vs. 440 g/kg, p < 0.05). At long incubation times, the average uNDF was affected by substrate, inoculum and incubation time (p < 0.01), but not by their interactions. For each inoculum, significantly lower values were obtained at 360 than at 240 h. Regressions between uNDF with rumen and with the tested faecal inocula resulted in r2 ≥ 0.98. Despite the differences at 48 h, the uNDF showed that faecal inoculum could replace rumen fluid at longer incubation times.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Faecal versus Rumen Inocula for the Estimation of NDF Digestibility

Chiaravalli

Rapetti

Graziosi

et al. 2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of these sources is ruminant feces; however, results have been inconsistent. For example, fecal inoculum has been demonstrated to be effective for in vitro gas production studies (54) ; nonetheless, fecal inoculum from sheep was not comparable to fresh ruminal fluid when evaluating in vitro dry matter digestibility (55) . In addition, other studies, have revealed that fecal inoculum does not perform as good as ruminal fluid in in vitro fermentation techniques (55,56) , which may be due to differences in the bacterial populations between the rumen and the lower gastrointestinal tract (57) .…”

Section: Effect Of Fermentation Substrate On Fermentation Kinetics Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluación de métodos nutricionales para reactivar inóculo ruminal preservado analizado a través de cinética de fermentación y digestibilidad de forrajes in vitro

Domínguez-Ordóñez

Miranda‐Romero

Martı́nez-Hernández

et al. 2019

Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Forages and pastures symposium: an update on in vitro and in situ experimental techniques for approximation of ruminal fiber degradation

Foster¹,

Smith

Rouquette³

et al. 2023

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Static quantification measures of chemical components are commonly used to make certain assumptions about forage or feed nutritive value and quality. In order for modern nutrient requirement models to estimate intake and digestibility more accurately, kinetic measures of ruminal fiber degradation are necessary. Compared to in vivo experiments, in vitro (IV) and in situ (IS) experimental techniques are relatively simple and inexpensive methods to determine the extent and rate of ruminal fiber degradation. This paper summarizes limitations of these techniques and statistical analyses of the resulting data, highlights key updates to these techniques in the last 30 yr, and presents opportunities for further improvements to these techniques regarding ruminal fiber degradation. The principle biological component of these techniques, ruminal fluid, is still highly variable because it is influenced by ruminally fistulated animal diet type and timing of feeding, and in the case of the IV technique by collection and transport procedures. Commercialization has contributed to the standardization, mechanization, and automation of the IV true digestibility technique, for example, the well-known DaisyII Incubator. There has been limited commercialization of supplies for the IS technique and several review papers focused on standardization in the last 30 yr; however, the IS experimental technique is not standardized and there remains variation within and among laboratories. Regardless of improved precision resulting from enhancements of these techniques, the accuracy and precision of determining the indigestible fraction are fundamental to modeling digestion kinetics and the use of these estimates in more complex dynamic nutritional modeling. Opportunities for focused research and development are additional commercialization and standardization, methods to improve the precision and accuracy of indigestible fiber fraction, data science applications, and statistical analyses of results, especially for IS data. In situ data is typically fitted to one of a few first-order kinetic models, and parameters are estimated without determining if the selected model has the best fit. Animal experimentation will be fundamental to the future of ruminant nutrition and IV and IS techniques will remain vital to bring together nutritive value with forage quality. It is feasible and important to focus efforts on improving the precision and accuracy of IV and IS results.

show abstract

Potency of microbial inocula from bovine faeces and rumen fluid for in vitro digestion of different tropical forage substrates

Cited by 8 publications

References 35 publications

Comparison of Faecal versus Rumen Inocula for the Estimation of NDF Digestibility

Comparison of Faecal versus Rumen Inocula for the Estimation of NDF Digestibility

Evaluación de métodos nutricionales para reactivar inóculo ruminal preservado analizado a través de cinética de fermentación y digestibilidad de forrajes in vitro

Forages and pastures symposium: an update on in vitro and in situ experimental techniques for approximation of ruminal fiber degradation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About