Technical note: Bacterial diversity and fermentation end products in rumen fluid samples collected via oral lavage or rumen cannula

Abstract

A study was conducted to determine if sampling rumen contents via a ruminal cannula or oral lavage tube would yield similar denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis profiles of the bacterial community. Two species of ruminally cannulated animals were used for this study (cattle, n = 2; sheep, n = 3). All animals were allowed ad libitum access to feed. Cattle were fed baled unprocessed sorghum-sudan hay (12% CP, 68% NDF; DM basis), whereas sheep were maintained on chopped alfalfa (18% CP, 40% NDF; DM basis). Ruminal fluid was collected (approximately 20 mL) once per week for 3 wk from each animal using a poly tube equipped with a suction strainer with a hand-held suction pump through the rumen cannula or oral cavity. The denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis demonstrates that yield of bacterial diversity was not different between the 2 sampling methods (P = 0.73). When samples were grouped according to band pattern similarity, groups were most stable according to individual animal and species rather than sampling method. Total VFA and molar proportions of individual VFA did not differ by sampling method (P> 0.40). Additionally, rumen ammonia concentrations were similar for both sampling methods (19.3 vs. 19.1 mM +/- 8.0 for cannula vs. lavage, respectively; P = 0.98). These data indicate that rumen samples collected via oral lavage or rumen cannula yield similar results. This knowledge will allow sample collection from a greater population of animals and an ability to maintain the value of research livestock that can be lost due to the surgical implantation of a ruminal cannula.

Design, implementation and interpretation of in vitro batch culture experiments to assess enteric methane mitigation in ruminants—a review

“…Access to surgically-modified animals is not universal, and therefore less invasive techniques, such as oral stomach probing, have been used as an alternative. In the relatively few studies that have compared sampling through the rumen cannula or by stomach probing, differences in fermentation profile and microbiota have been reported in some (e.g., Geishauser and Gitzel, 1996;Duffield et al, 2004) but not all cases (e.g., Lodge-Ivey et al, 2009;Shen et al, 2012;Terré et al, 2013). Part of the discrepancy between studies may reflect differences in the procedures used to avoid salivary dilution and contamination, the type of samples collected and rumen sampling site.…”

Avaliação das características do líquido ruminal, hemogasometria, atividade pedométrica e diagnóstico de laminite subclínica em vacas leiteiras

“…O método de colheita do líquido ruminal realizado através de sonda oro-ruminal foi de rápida realização e não causou traumas aos animais, estando de acordo com Lavezzo et al (1988), Radostits (2002), Salles et al (2003), Campos et al (2006), Cardoso (2007), Zilio et al (2008), Lodge-Ivey et al (2009) e Rangel et al (2010. Estes autores indicaram o uso da sondagem por ser de baixo custo, permitir a realização do procedimento em um grande número de animais.…”

Use of stomach tubing as an alternative to rumen cannulation to study ruminal fermentation and microbiota in sheep and goats

“…Rumen cannulation and stomach tubing have been mainly used to assess ruminal fermentation (Geishauser and Gitzel, 1996;Duffield et al, 2004) and, more recently, to analyse the structure of the rumen microbial community (Hook et al, 2009;Lodge-Ivey et al, 2009;Terré et al, 2013). In the few studies in which the two techniques were used together, comparisons of fermentation profile and microbiota resulted in either significant differences (e.g., Geishauser and Gitzel, 1996;Duffield et al, 2004) or similar results (e.g., Lodge-Ivey et al, 2009;Shen et al, 2012;Terré et al, 2013) and the reasons for this discrepancy are probably related to the probing procedure to avoid saliva contamination, the type of sample obtained and the rumen sampling site.…”