Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Effects of Three Yeast Strains on In Vitro Rumen Fermentation of Corn Stover and a Total Mixed Ration

Altmetrics

Downloads

87

Views

46

Comments

0

Submitted:

02 August 2024

Posted:

19 August 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of three yeast strains, Pichia guilliermondii (Levica 27), Candida norvegensis (Levazoot 15), and a commercial product (Levucell® SC 10) containing Saccharomyces cerevisiae, on in vitro rumen fermentation of two substrates: corn stover and a total mixed ration (TMR). Samples were taken 24 hours post-fermentation to measure pH, ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), gas production, and volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentrations. The addition of yeasts did not affect gas production at 24 hours for either diet. For pH, differences between yeast strains were noted when TMR was used. The lowest NH3-N concentration (6.1 mM) was recorded with corn stover, showing similar results across strains. Conversely, NH3-N levels with TMR ranged from 47 mM to 66 mM. The inclusion of all three yeast strains increased the molar concentrations of total VFA, as well as acetic (C2), propionic (C3), and butyric (C4) acids in the rumen fluid. The C2:C3 ratio remained unchanged with corn stover but decreased with the inclusion of Levica 27 and Levazoot 15 in the TMR. With the commercial product Levucell® SC 10, this ratio was comparable to the control treatment. In conclusion, Levica 27 and Levazoot 15 demonstrated a stimulatory effect on in vitro rumen fermentation for the evaluated diets, evidenced by increased VFA concentrations.
Keywords: 
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences  -   Animal Science, Veterinary Science and Zoology

1. Introduction

With the growth of the human population, the demand for agricultural products in developing countries is expected to double by 2030 [1]. This increased demand necessitates the intensification of livestock production, prompting the use of new strategies to enhance the production of animal-derived products [2]. In ruminants, this challenge has led nutritionists to manipulate rumen fermentation to improve animal performance and health [3]. One such strategy involves using yeast additives as probiotics to enhance the fermentation of fibrous foods and nutrient absorption [4]. These additives can stimulate the growth of beneficial microbes in the rumen, particularly cellulolytic bacteria and fungi [5,6], stabilize rumen pH, reduce methane production [7,8,9], improve fermentation patterns, reduce pathogen concentrations, and increase meat and milk production [10]. Despite extensive research on the efficacy of yeast additives in ruminant diets, there are still gaps and inconsistencies in the findings. These variations can be attributed to differences in animal species, yeast genus and species, dosage, and application methods, as some strains have specific actions while others are multifunctional [11,12,13].
Institutions worldwide are conducting preliminary research on yeast strains other than Saccharomyces spp., such as Pichia guilliermondii, Issatchenkia orientalis, Candida tropicalis, and Candida norvegensis. In vitro results suggest these strains improve fermentation patterns [11,14,15]. In some cases, these benefits surpass those of commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae, despite it being the only yeast currently authorized for commercial probiotic use in ruminants. Therefore, it is crucial to explore the advantages of different yeast genera for their potential use as probiotic feed additives in livestock systems. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Pichia guilliermondii, and Candida norvegensis on rumen fermentation in vitro using corn stover and a total mixed ration as substrates.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Location of the Study

The study was conducted in Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico, located at latitude 28°35'10.9" N, longitude 106°6'26.6" W, and an altitude of 1,440 meters above sea level. The part of the research that involved the use of animals was carried out in accordance with the regulations of the Institutional Bioethics Committee (case number: CFTZyE-ACTA-101/2015: AGREEMENT 4.2).

2.2. Experimental Design

A completely randomized design with a 4 x 2 factorial arrangement and four replications was used to study the effect of three yeast strains and a non-yeast control treatment on in vitro rumen fermentation of corn stover and a totally mixed ration (TMR) as substrates. The ingredients of the TMR are shown in Table 1.
The yeast strains used in the experiment were: Pichia guilliermondii (Levica 27), Candida norvengensis (Levazoot 15), and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Levucell® SC 10; Lallemand Animal Nutrition). The experimental treatments are presented in Table 2.

2.3. Experimental Procedure

The test was performed in vitro in 18-mL tubes, maintaining an effective volume of 15 mL. Corn stover and TMR used as substrates were pre-dried at room temperature (27°C) under the sun and ground through a 1.0-mm mesh prior to use. The chemical composition of the substrates was determined according to [16] and is shown in Table 3. Subsequently, 0.5 g of each substrate was weighed into the 18-mL test tubes for incubation.
Rumen fluid was extracted from two fistulated Pelibuey male sheep (32 kg and approximately 12-month-old), which were kept in individual pens and fed for seven days a diet containing 40% corn stover and 60% concentrate, with free access to water. Rumen fluid extraction was performed on day eight and prior to the first feed offering (9:00 a.m.). The rumen fluid was filtered through muslin and was used to prepare the fermentation medium, which contained only filtered rumen fluid (LRF). The LRF (15 mL each) was distributed to each of four vials containing the substrate, and four tubes without substrate were used as blank controls. The tubes were prepared under a constant stream of nitrogen gas to maintain an anaerobic atmosphere then capped for incubation as indicated below.
Yeast cultures were added to the tubes just before the addition of the LRF. For the preparation of the Levica 27 and Levazoot 15 inocula, the strains were activated by two aerobic subcultures in malt extract broth (DIBICO®, Cuautitlán Izcallí, Mexico) at 110 rpm (Orbital Shaker incubator; New Brunswick Model Innova 4000, Nijmegen, Netherlands), 30°C, and 24 hours of incubation. From the activated cultures, 10% (v/v) was used as inocula for 50 mL of malt extract broth (DIBICO®) in 100-mL flasks then inoculated again at 30°C and 110 rpm (Orbital Shaker incubator) for 24 hours. From these cultures, 0.5 mL (equivalent to 10 g of yeast/adult animal daily) was added to the corresponding tubes for in vitro rumen fermentation. The cultures of Levica 27 and Levazoot 15 had final concentrations of 5.23 x 109 and 1.32 x 1010 cfu/mL, respectively, in each tube. In the case of Levucell® SC 10, 1 mg of the commercial product equivalent to 10 g recommended for an adult ruminant was added to respective tubes. Finally, the tubes were immediately capped and incubated at 39°C and 110 rpm (Orbital Shaker incubator). After 24 hours, the tubes were placed on ice to stop fermentation and prepared for the analysis of the samples.

2.4. Variables Evaluated

pH was measured using a Hanna Instruments Model HI 9017 (Arvore-Vila do Conde, Portugal) and NH3-N concentration was measured by visible UV spectrophotometry (Varioskan Flash Thermo Scientific v4.00.53, Vantaa, Finland) following the method of Broderick and Kang [17]. Total gas production was measured using a FESTO® pressure transducer (Siemens, Munich, Germany). A 1-mL gas sample was taken from each tube to determine its composition by gas chromatography using a GOW-MAC Series 580 chromatograph equipped with a Carbosphere® 80/100 packed column (5682PC) (GOW-MAC Instrument Company). Carbon dioxide was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 20 mL/min to determine the individual production of hydrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide after 24 hours of sample incubation. The molar concentration of volatile fatty acids (VFA) was determined by gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (Claurus 400® gas chromatograph; Perkin Elmer, Shelton, CT, USA) with a Varian capillary CP-wax58 (FFAP) CB column (15 m x 0.53 mm, 0.5 μm). The injected sample volume was 0.6 μL, which was previously conditioned with meta-phosphoric acid according to [18].

2.5. Statistical Analyses

Analysis of variance was performed using the SAS GLM procedure (Statistical Analysis System, version 9.3; Cary, NC, USA). The model equation that was fitted is as follows (Equation (1)):
yijk = µ + αi + βj + αβij + εijk
where y i j k is the measured response variable, μ is the general mean, α i is the fixed effect of the treatment (i = 1, 2, 3, 4), ​ β j is the fixed effect of diet (j = 1, 2), α β i j is the interaction effect between treatment and diet, and e i j k is the random error term.

3. Results

Table 4 shows the effect of yeast on gas production and pH. There was no interaction between diet and yeast strain (P > 0.05) for total gas production (TGP) or its composition (H2, CO2, and CH4). However, these variables were different (P < 0.05) for each type of diet.
The molar concentration of hydrogen in the corn stover diet exceeded (P < 0.05) that obtained with the TMR. Conversely, the molar concentrations of CO2 and CH4 were higher (P < 0.05) with the TMR than with corn stover, demonstrating the advantage of using a balanced diet for the appropriate growth and activity of ruminal microorganisms.
There was no interaction (P > 0.05) between diets and yeasts for pH, but differences (P < 0.05) were obtained among the studied strains when the TMR was used. The yeast strain S. cerevisiae resulted in a higher pH value compared to the strains of the genera Pichia and Candida. However, no difference (P > 0.05) was found between any of these strains and the control treatment. With corn stover, no yeast effect (P > 0.05) was found.
Table 5 shows results for VFA and NH3-N concentration, showing interaction (P < 0.05) between yeast strains and diets evaluated. The inclusion of the three yeast strains increased the molar concentration (P < 0.05) of total VFA and acetic, propionic, and butyric acids in ruminal fluid. The C2:C3 ratio remained unchanged (P > 0.05) when corn stover was used as the substrate and decreased (P < 0.05) with the inclusion of the Levica 27 and Levazoot 15 strains in the TMR treatment. In the case of the commercial product Levucell® SC 10, this ratio remained similar (P > 0.05) to the control treatment.
NH3-N levels (Table 5), there was an interaction between yeast strains and diets used in this study. The lowest (P < 0.05) molar concentration was obtained with corn stover (6.1 mM) and was similar among yeast strains with this substrate. However, with the TMR, NH3-N concentration increased to values between 47 mM and 66 mM. Additionally, differences (P < 0.05) for NH3-N were observed among yeast strains. With Levica 27 and Levazoot 15, NH3-N concentration was higher than the control treatment, but with the commercial product Levucell® SC 10, this concentration was lower (P < 0.05) than the control treatment.

4. Discussion

4.1. Gas Production and Composition

Yeasts have the ability to alter the fermentation process in the rumen, resulting in variations in gas production and composition. These variables are commonly used to evaluate the efficiency of ruminal fermentation [19]. Generally, the use of yeasts in ruminant feeding is associated with improvements in dry matter (DM) and structural carbohydrate digestibility, which leads to higher gas production, an expected outcome in this study. However, no variation in gas production was found when yeasts were included. In agreement with our results, González et al. (2023) [15] found no effects on in vitro dry matter digestibility or in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility when adding a strain of yeast P. guilliermondii (Levica 27) to the in vitro fermentation of corn stover. The effectiveness of yeasts as additives for dry matter and structural carbohydrate digestibility has given variable results and can be influenced by several factors, including the characteristics of the diet used [20,21], the yeast strain employed [15], and the dosage used [22]. Results are also variable regarding the influence of diet on the effect of yeasts in rumen fermentation. Roa et al. (1997) [23] reported that the best results were obtained when yeasts were used with high-quality forages. In contrast to our results, previous studies by Marrero et al. (2014) [24] and Castillo et al. (2016) [14] reported significant increases (P<0.05) in gas production when using Candida norvegensis yeast strains Levica 25 and Levazoot 15, respectively, in the in vitro fermentation of fibrous substrates. Those authors attributed the results to yeasts in the rumen improving the degradation rates of structural carbohydrates and therefore gas production.
Total gas production was higher when TMR was used. This variable increased from 47 mL of gas with corn stover to 94.8 mL with TMR, likely due to the better nutritive value of the latter. Corn stover is a low-quality fibrous substrate that might not meet the requirements of ruminal microorganisms, generating low fermentative capacity. Supporting this statement, Ikhimioya (2008) [25] mentioned that for optimal microbial growth in the rumen and consequent high fermentative activity, a minimum of 80 g/kg of DM of crude protein is required, whereas the protein content in the stover used in this study was 59 g/kg of DM.
The inclusion of yeasts can not only increase total gas production but also cause changes in the composition of gases produced by improving rumen efficiency [26]. Studies evaluating the effect of yeasts on methane production vary significantly, with some reporting reductions [27,28], others increases [22,29], and still others no changes [30]. In the current study, yeast inclusion had no effect on methane production in either of the two diets used. The increase in CH4 production with TMR compared to the corn stover diet was possibly due to greater substrate degradation, a result that aligns with results presented by Benchaar et al. (2024) [22].
4.2. pH
The pH in the stover diet with yeast inclusion showed values close to neutrality (6.4), consistent with the pH observed when low-quality fibrous substrates are supplied. These observations are in line with the results reported by Marrero et al. (2006) [31], working with S. cerevisiae and Levica 25, and Ruiz et al. (2016) [32], using C. norvegensis, when studying the effects of yeast on the in vitro ruminal fermentation of fibrous substrates. The lack of difference observed with this type of diet when yeasts were included may be due to the establishment of methanogenic bacteria populations in the rumen when high-fiber diets are used. These bacteria utilize H2 and CO2 for methane formation, and their utilization of these gases, especially H2, contributes to ruminal pH stabilization [33]. Similar results, with no differences in pH when yeasts were added to fibrous substrate fermentation, have been reported by Díaz et al. (2017) [21] and Anjum et al. (2018) [34].
With TMR as substrate, pH values ranged from 5.6 to 5.8, with the highest value obtained with the S. cerevisiae strain. The effects of yeast cultures on ruminal pH reported in the literature are variable and mainly depend on experimental conditions [35], with the primary factors being the composition of the diets evaluated [8,21,34,36] and the yeast species used [32]. Authors like Chaucheyras-Durand and Fonty (2008) [37] demonstrated that yeasts, when high-concentrate diets are used, can mainly increase ruminal pH or reduce its variability due to a decrease in lactate concentration. These outcomes are attributed to the interactions between yeast cells and lactate-metabolizing bacteria [20].

4.3. Volatile Fatty Acids

Consistent with the results from the current study, González et al. (2023) [15] evaluated the P. guilliermondii strain Levica 27 with corn stover as a substrate and found increases in the molar concentrations of total VFA, acetic acid, and propionic acid in ruminal fluid and a decrease in the C2:C3 ratio within a range of 6 to 12 hours of incubation. Additionally, Ruiz et al. (2016) [32], studying the effect of a C. norvegensis on the in vitro ruminal fermentation of oat straw, reported increased molar concentrations of acetic, propionic, and butyric acids compared to the control.
However, Marrero et al. (2006) [31] did not report any effect on the molar concentration of total VFA when evaluating different yeast strains in the ruminal fermentation of cannulated Holsteins consuming fibrous diets. Similar to the latter study, Moya et al. (2009) [38] also did not observe differences with the inclusion of a S. cerevisiae in the molar concentration of VFA or the C2:C3 ratio in cannulated Holstein heifers consuming a transition diet.
In the present study, the three yeast strains increased the molar concentration of butyric acid. This acid is an important energy source for the enterocyte, stimulating its proliferation, health, and function, which leads to better feed utilization by the animal [39]. Increases in total and individual VFA concentrations are indicators of enhanced degradation of both the substrate and the yeast cultures added in each treatment. In the rumen environment, yeasts have a short lifespan and are believed to degrade or pass to the lower parts of the digestive tract a few hours after supplementation [40,41]. Once degraded, the basic components of yeasts can contribute to VFA production in the rumen [22]. In the current study, 1 mg of yeast was added to each tube. This additional substrate likely contributed to the increase in total and individual VFA concentrations, although this same contribution of the yeasts was not observed in the gas production variables.
The decrease in the C2:C3 ratio of the treatments with Levica 27 and Levazoot 15 compared to the control found in this study is explained by the higher molar concentration of propionate in the yeast treatments. Additionally, this increase resulted in changes in the molar proportion of VFA in the rumen. Similar results were reported by Lila et al. (2004) [30] and Ruiz et al. (2016) [32], who noted that one of the main effects of yeast cultures is to increase the concentration of propionate at the expense of acetate concentration. This outcome could be due to the peptide fractions of yeast cells that stimulate the growth of Megasphaera elsdenii, the main lactate-consuming microorganism in the rumen, which uses lactate to produce propionate through the acrylate pathway [36]. Additionally, yeast cultures provide vitamins (thiamine), glucans, mannanoproteins, and organic acids that stimulate the growth of fiber-digesting and lactic acid-consuming microorganisms [42].

4.4. NH3-N Concentration

The NH3-N concentration obtained with corn stover aligns with other studies, with values ranging from 5 to 12 mM when fibrous diets were used [32,43]. Levica 27 and Levazoot 15 increased NH3-N levels in ruminal fluid, consistent with the results observed by Díaz et al. (2017) [21], who reported increases in NH3-N concentration when adding a yeast hydrolysate to ruminal fluid using a 50:50 forage-to-concentrate ratio as substrate. In agreement with our results using Levica 27 and Levazoot 15 strains, Oeztuerk (2009) [44] observed that the increase in NH3-N concentration in fermenters produced by a live yeast culture was greater than that caused by the same autoclaved cultures. He concluded that the difference was associated with the stimulation of the proteolytic activity of rumen bacteria by the live yeast culture. This author also found higher ammonia concentrations in the presence of different doses of live yeasts in two in vitro fermentation systems and attributed the result to microbial degradation of yeast cells due to their high protein content [44]. In contrast, Anjum et al. (2018) [34] stated that the addition of S. cerevisiae decreased the concentration of ammonia during buffalo ruminal fermentation. This result aligns with results reported in the current study with the S. cerevisiae strain Levucell® SC 10, where the molar concentration of NH3-N decreased compared to the control. Some authors consider the effect might be due to increased microbial protein synthesis [42].

5. Conclusions

The results suggest that the yeast strains used in this study could improve the energy utilization of feed for production purposes due to the increased gluconeogenic potential of the diet as reflected by increased propionate production. It is well known that propionate is the only VFA that contributes to hepatic gluconeogenesis, and it is also the most energy-efficient because its production is indirectly related to methanogens through the use of metabolic hydrogen [43,45].
Among the strains evaluated, Pichia guilliermondii and Candida norvegensis gave similar or slightly better values to Saccharomyces cerevisiae for VFA production for both diets studied. Therefore, the use of Pichia guilliermondii and Candida norvegensis strains in livestock systems should be further studied and considered to achieve better and optimal production results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.C.C. and O.R.B; investigation, B.G.M and Y.C.C; data curation, J.D.V., M.F.P., J.S.Ch.; writing—original draft preparation, B.G.M., PLOB; writing—review and editing, M.E.H., R.C.A., Y.C.C., O.R.B, F.C.R.; supervision, O.R.B; R.C.A. A.C.L..; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this research are available within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Yoandra Marrero Rodriguez, who donated the Pichia yeasts used in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO. World agriculture: towards 2015 / 2030: an FAO perspective. 2015. London UK.
  2. Lara, E.C.; Bragiato, U.C.; Rabelo, C.H.S.; Messana, J.D.; Reis, R.A. Inoculation of corn silage with Lactobacillus plantarum and Bacillus subtilis associated with amylolytic enzyme supply at feeding. 1. Feed intake, apparent digestibility, and microbial protein synthesis in wethers. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2018, 243, 22–34. [CrossRef]
  3. Arowolo, M.A.; He, J. Use of probiotics and botanical extracts to improve ruminant production in the tropics: A review. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 241–249. [CrossRef]
  4. Pilajun, R.; Wanapat, M. Chemical composition and in vitro gas production of fermented cassava pulp with different types of supplements. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2018, 46, 81–86. [CrossRef]
  5. Fomenky, B.E.; Chiquette, J.; Bissonnette, N.; Talbot, G.; Chouinard, P.Y.; Ibeagha-Awemu, E.M. Impact of Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii CNCMI-1079 and Lactobacillus acidophilus BT1386 on total lactobacilli population in the gastrointestinal tract and colon histomorphology of Holstein dairy calves. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 234, 151-161. [CrossRef]
  6. Liu, S.; Shah, A.M.; Yuan, M.; Kang, K.; Wang, Z.; Wang, L.; Peng, Q. Effects of dry yeast supplementation on growth performance, rumen fermentation characteristics, slaughter performance and microbial communities in beef cattle. Anim. Biotech. 2022, 33, 1150-1160. [CrossRef]
  7. Elghandour, M.M.; Salem, A.Z.; Castañeda, J.S.M.; Camacho, L.M.; Kholif, A.E. Chagoyán, J.C.V. Direct-fed microbes: A tool for improving the utilization of low quality roughages in ruminants. J. Integr. Agri. 2015, 14, 526-533. [CrossRef]
  8. Vallejo-Hernández, L.H.; Elghandour, M.M.Y.; Greiner, R.; Uchenna, Y.; Rivas-Cáceres, R.R.; Barros-Rodríguez, M.; Abdelfattah, Z.M. Environmental impact of yeast and exogenous xylanase on mitigating carbon dioxide and enteric methane production in ruminants. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 40-46. [CrossRef]
  9. Phesatcha, K.; Phesatcha, B.; Wanapat, M.; Cherdthong, A. Roughage to concentrate ratio and Saccharomyces cerevisiae inclusion could modulate feed digestion and in vitro ruminal fermentation. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 151. [CrossRef]
  10. Leicester, H.C.W.; Robinson, P.H.; Erasmus, L.J. Effects of two yeast based direct fed microbials on performance of high producing dairy cows. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 215, 58–72. [CrossRef]
  11. Marrero, Y.; Rodríguez, R.; Torres, V.; Jay, O.; Galindo, J. Effect of yeasts on the production of gas from Cynodon nlemfuensis in an in vitro rumen incubation. Lives. Res. Rural Develop. 2020, 32, 1–3. Available online: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd32/1/ymarr32001.html (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  12. Amin, A.B.; Mao, S. Influence of yeast on rumen fermentation, growth performance and quality of products in ruminants: A review. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 7, 31-41. [CrossRef]
  13. Baker, L.M.; Kraft, J.; Karnezos, T.P.; Greenwood, S.L. The effects of dietary yeast and yeast-derived extracts on rumen microbiota and their function. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2022, 294,115476. [CrossRef]
  14. Castillo C.Y.; Ruiz B.O.; Burrola B.M.E. Isolation and characterization of yeasts from fermented apple bagasse as additives for ruminant feeding. Brazilian J. Microbiol. 2016, 47, 889-895. [CrossRef]
  15. González M.B.; Ruiz-Barrera, O.; Castillo R.F.; Castillo-Castillo, Y. Effect of live yeasts (Pichia guilliermondii) on in vitro fermentation of corn stover as a fibrous substrate. Fermentation 2023, 9, 17. [CrossRef]
  16. AOAC, Association Official Analytical Chemists. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 18a ed. Maryland, E. U. A. 2005. pp 486.
  17. Broderick, G.A.; Kang, J.H. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J. Dairy Sci. 1980, 63, 64–75. [CrossRef]
  18. Galyean, M.L. Analysis of volatile fatty acids in rumen fluid. En Laboratory procedures in animal nutrition research. Animal Nutrition Laboratory. Department of Animal and Food Science. Texas Tech. University. Lubbock. 1980, pages 161-162.
  19. Chung, Y.H.; Walker, N.D.; McGinn, S.M. Beauchemin, K.A. Differing effects of 2 active dried yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) strains on ruminal acidosis and methane production in nonlactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 2431-2439. [CrossRef]
  20. Chaucheyras-Durand, F.; Walker, N.D.; Bach, A. Effects of active dry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem: past, present and future. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 145, 5-26. [CrossRef]
  21. Díaz, A.; Ranilla, M.J.; Saro, C.; Tejido, M.L.; Pérez-Quintana, M. Carro, M.D. Influence of increasing doses of a yeast hydrolyzate obtained from sugarcane processing on in vitro rumen fermentation of two different diets and bacterial diversity in batch cultures and Rusitec fermenters. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 232, 129-138. [CrossRef]
  22. Benchaar, C.; Hassanat, F.; Yang, W.Z. Effects of active dried yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), a non-ionic surfactant, or their combination on gas production, rumen microbial fermentation and methane production in vitro. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2024, 307, 115844. [CrossRef]
  23. Roa, J.B. Effect of fiber source and a yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae 1026) on digestion and the environment in the rumen of cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1997, 64, 327-336. [CrossRef]
  24. Marrero, Y.; Ruiz, O.; Corrales, A.; Jay, O.; Galindo, J.; Castillo, Y. In vitro gas production of fibrous substrates with the inclusion of yeast. Cuban J. Agri. Sci. 2014, 48, 119-123. Available online: https://cjascience.com/index.php/CJAS/article/view/468 (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  25. Ikhimioya, I. Acceptability of selected common shrubs/tree leaves in Nigeria by West African Dwarf goats. Livest. Res. Rural Develop. 2008, 20. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/6/ikhi20090.htm.
  26. Adesogan, T.; Yang, W.; Lee, C.; Gerber, P.J.; Henderson, B.; Tricarico, J.M. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal—SPECIAL TOPICS. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 5045-5069. [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, Z.; He, Z.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Tang, S.; Zhou, C.; Han, X.; Tan, Z. Evaluation of different yeast species for improving in vitro fermentation of cereal straws. Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 29, 230-240. [CrossRef]
  28. Cagle, C.M.; Fonseca, M.A.; Callaway, T.R.; Runyan, C.A.; Cravey, M.D. Tedeschi, L.O. Evaluation of the effects of live yeast on rumen parameters and in situ digestibility of dry matter and neutral detergent fiber in beef cattle fed growing and finishing diets. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2020, 36, 36-47. [CrossRef]
  29. Mao, S.Y.; Huo, W.J.; Zhu, W.Y. Microbiome–metabolome analysis reveals unhealthy alterations in the composition and metabolism of ruminal microbiota with increasing dietary grain in a goat model. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 18, 525-541. [CrossRef]
  30. Lila, Z.A.; Mohammed, N.; Yasui, T.; Kurokawa, Y.; Kanda, S.; Itabashi, H. Effects of a twin strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae live cells on mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation in vitro. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82, 1847-1854. [CrossRef]
  31. Marrero, Y.; Galindo, J.; Elias, A.; Moreira, O.; Cueto, M. Efecto de preparados biológicos con levaduras viables en la población microbiana ruminal e indicadores fermentativos en vacas que consumen dietas fibrosas. Cuban J. Agri. Sci. 2006, 40, 339-348. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=193017723013 (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  32. Ruiz, O.; Castillo, Y.; Arzola, C.; Burrola, E.; Salinas, J.; Corral, A.; Itza, M. Effects of Candida norvegensis live cells on in vitro oat straw rumen fermentation. Asian-Australasian J. Anim Sci. 2016, 29, 211-218.
  33. Galindo, J.; Marrero, Y.; González, N.; Sosa, A.; Miranda, A.L.; Aldana, A.I.; Moreira, O.B.; Bocourt, R.; Delgado, D.; Torres, V.; Sarduy, L.; Noda, A. Efecto de preparados con levaduras Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Levica-25 viables en los metanógenos and metanogénesis ruminal in vitro. Rev. Cubana Cienc. Agríc. 2010, 44, 273-279. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1930/193015664010.pdf.
  34. Anjum, M.I.; Javaid, S.; Ansar M.S. Effects of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) supplementation on intake, digestibility, rumen fermentation and milk yield in Nili-Ravi buffaloes. Iranian. J. Vet. Res. 2018, 19, 96–100. [CrossRef]
  35. Vohra, A.; Syal, P.; Madan, A. Probiotic yeasts in livestock sector. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 219, 31–47. [CrossRef]
  36. Cherdthong, A.; Prachumchai, R.; Supapong, C.; Khonkhaeng, B.; Wanapat, M.; Foiklang, S.; Milintawisamai, N.; Gunun, N.; Gunun, P.; Chanjula, P. Polyorach, S. Inclusion of yeast waste as a protein source to replace soybean meal in concentrate mixture on ruminal fermentation and gas kinetics using in vitro gas production technique. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2019, 59, 1682–1688. [CrossRef]
  37. Chaucheyras-Durand, F.; Fonty, G. Effects and modes of action of live yeasts in the rumen. Biología (Bratislava). 2008, 61, 741-750. [CrossRef]
  38. Moya, D.; Calsamiglia, S.; Ferret, A.; Blanch, M.; Fandiño, J.I.; Castillejos, L.; Yoon, I. Effects of dietary changes and yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on rumen microbial fermentation of Holstein heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 87, 2874-2881. [CrossRef]
  39. Miguel, M.A.; Lee, S.S.; Mamuad, L.L.; Choi, Y.J.; Jeong, C.D.; Son, A.; Lee, S.S. Enhancing butyrate production, ruminal fermentation and microbial population through supplementation with Clostridium saccharobutylicum. J. Microbiol. Biotech. 2019, 29, 1083-1095. [CrossRef]
  40. Kung, J.L.; Kreck, E.M.; Tung, R.S.; Hession, A.O.; Sheperd, A.C.; Cohen, M.A.; Swain, H.E.; Leedle, J.A.Z. Effects of a live yeast culture and enzymes on in vitro ruminal fermentation and milk production of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1997, 80, 2045–2051. [CrossRef]
  41. Jouany, J.P. Optimizing rumen functions in the close-up transition period and early lactation to drive dry matter intake and energy balance in cows. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2006, 96, 250-264. [CrossRef]
  42. Oeztuerk, H.; Schroeder, B.; Beyerbach, M.; Breves, G. Influence of living and autoclaved yeasts of Saccharomyces boulardii on in vitro ruminal microbial metabolism. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 2594–2600. [CrossRef]
  43. Guedes, C.M.; Gonçalves, D.; Rodrigues, M.A.M.; Dias-da-Silva, A. Effects of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast on ruminal fermentation and fibre degradation of maize silages in cows. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 145, 27-40. [CrossRef]
  44. Oeztuerk, H. Effects of live and autoclaved yeast cultures on ruminal fermentation in vitro. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2009, 18, 142-150. [CrossRef]
  45. Miller-Webster, T.; Hoover, W.H.; Holt, M.; Nocek, J.E. Influence of yeast culture on ruminal microbial metabolism in continuous culture. J. Dairy Sci. 2002, 85, 2009-2014. [CrossRef]
Table 1. Ingredients of totally mixed ration.
Table 1. Ingredients of totally mixed ration.
Ingredients Percentage
Corn stover 40
Cracked corn 35
Molasses 9
Cottonseed 9
Flour mill 4
Urea 1.5
Minerals 1.0
Ammonium sulfate 0.5
1Minerals: Micro FOS.
Table 2. Experimental treatments.
Table 2. Experimental treatments.
Lable Treatment
Corn stover
T1    Yeast-free control
T2    Levica 271
T3    Levazoot 15
T4    Levucell® SC 10
Totally mixed ration
T1    Yeast-free control
T2    Levica 27
T3    Levazoot 15
T4    Levucell® SC 10
1Levica 27 at 5.23 x 109 cfu/mL; Levazoot 15 at 1.32 x 1010 cfu/mL; Levucell® SC 10 at 1010 cfu/g.
Table 3. Chemical composition of substrates used in in vitro rumen fermentation.
Table 3. Chemical composition of substrates used in in vitro rumen fermentation.
Nutrients Dry matter (%)
Corn stover TMR1
Dry matter 91.44 86.75
Crude protein 5.90 15.83
NDF 67.20 42.68
ADF 37.75 25.20
Fat 3.10 4.60
1TMR: totally mixed ration; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; ADF: acid detergent fiber.
Table 4. Effect of yeasts on gas production and pH at 24 hours of in vitro ruminal fermentation with corn stover and totally mixed ration.
Table 4. Effect of yeasts on gas production and pH at 24 hours of in vitro ruminal fermentation with corn stover and totally mixed ration.
Parameters Substrate T1 T2 T3 T4 EE P-value
D T DxT
TGP1 (mL) Corn stover 47.8b 49.6b 49.0b 50.2b 2.19 <0.0001 0.74 0.08
TMR 94.8a 92.0a 91.2a 91.8a
H2 (mM) Corn stover 22.1a 23.0a 23.7a 25.2a 1.85 <0.0001 0.37 0.48
TMR 0.0b 0.0b 0.0b 0.2b
CH4 (mM) Corn stover 0.3b 1.0b 0.7b 0.2b 3.08 <0.0001 0.63 0.64
TMR 126.8a 126.9a 123.5a 125.8a
CO2 (mM) Corn stover 191.1b 197.2b 194.4b 198.9b 8.05 <0.0001 0.70 0.07
TMR 296.1a 283.6a 283.5a 283.6a
pH Corn stover 6.4a 6.4a 6.3a 6.4a 0.06 <0.0001 0.006 0.22
TMR 5.7bwy 5.6bw 5.6bw 5.8bcy
abcdMeans (n = 32) in columns with different letters indicate significant difference at P < 0.05. wyMeans (n = 32) in rows with different letters indicate significant difference at P < 0.05. 1TGP: total gas production; TMR: totally mixed ration; T1: control without yeasts; T2: Pichia guilliermondii (Levica 27); T3: Candida norvegensis (Levazoot 15); T4: Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Levucell® SC 10); D: diet; T: treatment; DxT: Interaction between D and T; EE: standard error.
Table 5. Effect of yeasts on the production of volatile fatty acids (VFA) and NH3-N concentration during in vitro ruminal fermentation with corn stover and totally mixed ration.
Table 5. Effect of yeasts on the production of volatile fatty acids (VFA) and NH3-N concentration during in vitro ruminal fermentation with corn stover and totally mixed ration.
Parameters Substrate T1 T2 T3 T4 EE P-value
D T DXT
C2 (mM)1 Corn stover 16.97a 51.83b 63.54b 47.24bd 4.29 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.001
TMR 32.36ad 112.22c 114.35c 97.47c
C3 (mM) Corn stover 9.51a 26.38b 36.60bd 25.99b 2.92 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.001
TMR 13.37a 62.38c 59.12c 46.37d
C4 (mM) Corn stover 32.83a 77.23c 83.47c 74.18c 3.87 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.002
TMR 6.69b 25.57a 26.75a 22.52a
Total VFA
(mM)		 Corn stover 52.42a 155.46c 183.62cd 147.42c 7.75 0.0015 <0.0001 0.01
TMR 60.00b 200.17d 200.22d 166.36c
C2:C3 Corn stover 1.96a 1.78a 1.74a 1.82a 0.10 0.0017 0.027 0.004
TMR 2.43b 1.80a 1.93a 2.10ab
NH3-N (mM) Corn stover 6.1a 8.5a 9.5a 6.1a 1.16 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
TMR 55.9c 67.2d 66.8d 47.3b
abcMeans (n = 32) with different letters for both rows and columns indicate a statistically significant difference at P < 0.05.1C2: acetic acid; C3: propionic acid; C4: butyric acid; TMR: totally mixed ration; T1: control without yeasts; T2: Pichia guilliermondii (Levica 27); T3: Candida norvegensis (Levazoot 15); T4: Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Levucell® SC 10); D: diet; T: treatment; DxT: Interaction between D and T; EE: standard error.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated