Effects of Different Juncus acutus: Maize Silage Ratios on Digestibility and Rumen Cellulolytic Bacteria

Bu çalışma ile farklı oranlarda karıştırılan Juncus acutus ve mısır silajının sindirilebilirliğinin ve rumendeki selülolitik bakteriler üzerine etkisinin belirlenmesi amaçlandı. Juncus acutus ve mısır silajı üç farklı oranda (100:0 (A), 50:50 (B), 0:100 (C)) karıştırılarak kaba yem örnekleri hazırlandı ve 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72 ve 96 saatlik inkübasyonlarda gaz üretim (GÜ) değerleri belirlendi. A, B ve C örneklerinin % organik madde sindirilebilirliği (OMS), (metabolik enerji) MEOMS ve MEGÜ, potansiyel gaz üretimi (b) değerleri sırasıyla %42.06, 51.06 ve 60.21; 6.72, 8.16 ve 9.63 MJ/kg KM; 5.15, 6.28 ve 7.55 MJ/kg KM; 20.85, 35.24 ve 48.11 mL bulundu. A, B ve C örneklerinin kimyasal kompozisyonları, gaz üretimi, %OMS, MEGÜ ve MEOMS değerleri arasında önemli farklılıklar tespit edildi (PRuminococcus flavefaciens>Ruminococcus albus şeklinde tespit edildi. Sonuç olarak Juncus acutus ile mısır silajının 50:50 oranında karıştırılması rumen bakterilerinin oranını ve Juncus acutusun OMS ve ME değerlerini %22 oranında artırdı.

Juncus acutus ve Mısır Silajının Farklı Oranlarının Sindirilebilirlik ve Rumen Selülolitik Bakterileri Üzerine Etkisi

The objectives of this study were to estimate the digestibility of different ratios of Juncus acutus and maize silage and to investigate the effects of them on rumen bacteria. Three different ratios of Juncus acutus and maize silage 100:0 (A), 50:50 (B) and 0:100 (C) were prepared and their gas productions were determined at 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h incubation times by ANKOM RF gas production system. OMD%, MEOMD, MEGP, and b values of A, B, C were 42.06, 51.06 and 60.21%; 6.72, 8.16 and 9.63 MJ/kg DM; 5.15, 6.28 and 7.55 MJ/kg DM; 20.85, 35.24 and 48.11 mL respectively. There were significant variations between the chemical composition, gas production, OMD%, MEGP and MEOMD values of A, B and C (P<0.05). Abundance of ruminal bacteria were as following Fibrobacter succinogenes>Ruminococcus flavefaciens>Ruminococcus albus values at all incubation times. In conclusion, mixing of Juncus acutus with maize silage in 50:50 ratio increased the amount of rumen cellulolytic bacteria and 22% of both OMD and ME of Juncus acutus. Supplementation of maize silage to Juncus acutus in ruminant diet may improve the utilization of Juncus acutus through providing of nitrogen and fermentable carbohydrates to rumen bacteria.

PDF

___

1. Moore KJ, Jung HG: Lignin and fiber digestion. J Range Manage, 54, 420-430, 2001.
2. De Boever JL, Aerts JM, Vanacker JM, De Brabander DL: Evaluation of the nutritive value of maize silages using a gas production technique. Anim Feed Sci Tech, 123-124, 255-265, 2005. DOI: 10.1016/j. anifeedsci.2005.04.019
3. Ayan AK: Natural Resources of Kizilirmak Delta. Report of Kizilirmak Delta, OMU Faculty of Agriculture. Samsun, Turkey, 2007.
4. Erdem F: Determination the digestibility of Juncus acutus by in-vıtro gas production and its effect on ruminal cellulolytic bacteria by realtime pcr methods. PhD Thesis, Ondokuz Mayıs University, 2014.
5. Menke KH, Steingass H: Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in-vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim Res Dev, 28, 7-55, 1988.
6. Getachew G, Blummel M, Makkar HPS, Becker K: In-vitro gas measuring techniques for assesment of nutritional quality of feeds: A review. Anim Feed Sci Tech,72, 261-281,1998. DOI: 10.1016/S0377- 8401(97)00189-2
7. Menke KH, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W: The estimation of the digestibility and metabolisable energy content of ruminant feding stuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor. J Agric Sci, 93, 217-222, 1979. DOI: 10.1017/ S0021859600086305
8. Makkar HPS: Recent advances in the in-vitro gas method for evaluation of nutritional quality of feed resources. Food and Agricultural Organisation, Assessing Quality and Safety of Animal Feeds. ISSN 0254- 6019, ISBN 92-5-105046-5. Publishing Management Service, Information Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, 2004.
9. Sing B, Tomar SK, Kundu SS: In-vitro Gas Production Technique for Feed Evaluation. 1-115, Karnal - 132 001, Haryana, India Intech Printers & Publishers #.353, Mughal Canal Market, 2010.
10. Klieve AV, Yokoyama MT, Forster RJ, Ouwerkerk D, Bain PA, Mawhinney EL: Naturally occuring DNA transfer system associated with membrane vesicles in cellulolytic Ruminococcus spp. of ruminal origin. Appl Environ Microbiol, 71, 4248-4253, 2005. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.71.8.4248- 4253.2005
11. Van Soest PJ: Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. 2nd ed., 140-155, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y, 1994. 12. Weimer PJ: Cellulose degradation by ruminal microorganisms. Crit Rev Biotechnol, 12, 189-223, 1992. DOI: 10.3109/07388559209069192
13. Koike S, Kobayyashi Y: Development and use of competitive PCR assays for the rumen cellulolytic bacteria: Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococcus albus and Ruminococcus flavefaciens. FEMS Microbiol Lett, 204, 361-366, 2001. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2001.tb10911.x
14. Koike S, Pan J, Kobayashi Y, Tanaka K: Kinetics of in sacco fiberattachment of representative ruminal cellulolytic bacteria monitored by competitive PCR. J Dairy Sci, 86, 1429-1435, 2003. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022- 0302(03)73726-6
15. Koike S, Kobayashi Y: Fibrolytic rumen bacteria: their ecology and functions. Asian- Austr J Anim Sci, 22, 131-138, 2009. DOI: 10.5713/ ajas.2009.r.01
16. Russell JB, Muck RE, Weimer PJ: Quantitative analysis of cellulose degradation and growth of cellulolytic bacteria in the rumen. FEMS Microbiol Ecol, 67, 183-197, 2009. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00633.x
17. Cherdthong A, Wanapat M, Kongnum P, Pilajun R, Khejornsart P: Rumen fermentation, microbial protein synthesis and cellulolytic bacterial population of swamp buffaloes as affected by roughage to concentrate ratio. J Anim Vet Adv, 9, 1667-1675, 2010. DOI: 10.3923/ javaa.2010.1667.1675
18. Wanapat M, Cherdthong A: Use of real-time PCR technique in studying rumen cellulolytic bacteria population as affected by level of roughage in Swamp buffalo. Curr Microbiol, 58, 294-299, 2009. DOI: 10.1007/s00284-008-9322-6
19. Kongmun P, Wanapat M, Pakdee P, Navanukraw C: Effect of coconut oil and garlic powder on in-vitro fermentation using gas production technique. Livest Sci, 127, 38-44, 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2009.08.008
20. AOAC: Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed., Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc., Arlington, VA, 2006.
21. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JD, Lewis BA: Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci, 74, 3583-3597, 1991. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022- 0302(91)78551-2 22. ANKOM, 2011: RF Gas Info. pdf. http://www.ankom.com, Accessed: 27 February 2012.
23. Ørskov ER, McDonald I: The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurement weighed according to rate of passage. J Agric Sci, 92, 499-503, 1979. DOI: 10.1017/S0021859600063048
24. Kwon HB, Su HS, Jong SL, Sung RM, Suk MK, Jang RL, Dongsu C, Won JJ: Rapid and simple method for DNA extraction from plant and algal species suitable for PCR amplification using a chelating resin Chelex 100. Plant Biotech Reports, 4, 49-52, 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11816- 009-0117-4
25. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD: Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2∆∆C(T)Method. Methods, 25, 402-408, 2001. DOI: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262
26. SAS: SAS STATİSTİC SOFTWARE, SAS Campus DRİVE. Cary NC, USA, 2007.
27. Nkosi BD, Meeske R, Langa T, Thomas RS: Effects of bacterial silage inoculants on whole-crop maize silage fermentation and silage digestibility in rams. S Afr J Anim Sci, 41, 350-359, 2011.
28. Akinfemi A, Adesenya AO, Aya VE: Use of an in-vitro gas production technique to evaluate some nigerian feedstuffs. American-Eurasian J Sci Res, 4, 240-245, 2009.
29. Ozturk D, Kizilsimsek M, Kamalak A, Canbolat O, Ozkan CO: Effects of ensiling alfalfa with whole cropmaize on chemical composition and nutritive value of silage mixtures. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci, 19, 526-532, 2006. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2006.526
30. Karakozak E, Ayaşan T: Değişik yem bitkileri karışımından hazırlanan silajlarda inokulant kullanımının flieg puanı ve ham besin maddeleri üzerine etkileri. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 16, 987-994, 2010. DOI: 10.9775/ kvfd.2010.2197
31. Podkowka Z, Podkowka L: Chemical composition and quality of sweet sorghum and maize silages. JCEA, 12, 294-303, 2011. DOI: 10.5513/ JCEA01/12.2.915
32. RahmanMM, Alam MR, Amin MR, Das NG: Comparative study of the nutritive values of the different varieties of rice straw. Bang J Anim Sci, 39, 75-82, 2010.
33. Doane PH, Schofield P, Pell AN: Neutral detergent fiber disappearance and gas and volatile fatty acid production during the in-vitro fermentation of six forages. J Anim Sci, 75, 3342-3352, 1997.
34. Canbolat O, Kara H, Filya I: Comparison of in-vitro gas production, metabolizable energy, organic matter digestibility and microbial protein production of some legume hays. Uludag Univ Zirrat Fak Derg, 27, 71-81, 2013.
35. Mirzaei-Aghsaghali A, Maheri-sis N, Mansouri H, Razeghi ME, Safaei AR, Aghajanzadeh Golshani A, Alipoor K: Estimation of the nutritive value of tomato pomace for ruminant using in-vitro gas production technique. African J Biotech, 10, 6251-6256, 2011.
36. Canbolat O: Potential nutritive value of field binweed (Convoivuius arvensis L.) hay harvested at three different maturity stages. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 18, 331-335, 2012. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2011.5533
37. Canbolat O: The Effect of some essential oils on in-vitro digestibility, rumen fermentation characteristics and methane gas production. Igdır Univ J Inst Sci & Tech, 2, 91-98, 2012.
38. Akcil E, Denek N: Investigation of different levels eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) leaves effect on in-vitro methane production of some roughages. Harran Univ Vet Fak Derg, 2, 75-81, 2013.
in-vitro digestion characteristics and microbial biomass production of wheat straw. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 17, 585-594, 2011. DOI: 10.9775/ kvfd.2010.4246
40. Gungor T, Basalan M, Aydogan I: The determination of nutrient contents and metabolizable energy levels of some roughages produced in Kirikkale region. Ankara Univ Vet Fak Derg, 55, 111-115, 2008.
41. Canbolat O: Comparison of in-vitro gas production, organic matter digestibility, relative feed value and metabolizable energy contents of some cereal forages. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 18, 571-577, 2012. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2011.5833
42. Mertens DR, Weimer PJ, Waghorn GC: Inocula differences affect invitro gas production kinetics. USA Dairy Forage Research Center, Research Summaries, 53-54, 1997.
43. Polyorach S, Wanapat M, Cherdthong A: Influence of yeast fermented cassava chip protein (yefecap) and roughage to concentrate ratio on ruminal fermentation and microorganisms using in-vitro gas production technique. Asian Australas J Anim Sci, 27, 36-45, 2014. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13298
44. Hung LV, Wanapat M: Effects of Leucaena leaf pellet on bacterial diversity and microbial protein synthesis in swamp buffalo fed on rice straw. Livest Sci, 151, 188-197, 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2012.11.011
45. Shi Y, Odt CL, Weimer PJ: Competition for cellulose among three predominant ruminal cellulolytic bacteria under substrate-excess and substrate-limited conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol, 63, 734-742, 1997.
46. Shi Y, Weimer PJ: Utilization of individual cellodextrins by three predominant ruminal cellulolytic bacteria. Applied Environ Microbiol, 62, 1084-1088, 1996.
47. Chenost M, Aufrere J, Macheboeuf D: The gas-test technique as tool for predicting the energetic value of forage plants. Anim Res, 50, 349- 364, 2001. DOI: 10.1051/animres:2001137
48. Norton BW: The nutritive value of tree legumes. from http://www.fao. org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Pub/licat/Guttshel/x5556e0j.htm, 1-10, 2003.