Czech J. Anim. Sci., 2014, 59(6):278-287 | DOI: 10.17221/7498-CJAS

Nutritive value of maize and sorghum silages: fibre fraction degradation and rumen microbial density in buffalo cowsOriginal Paper

F. Sarubbi1, A. Chiariotti2, R. Baculo1, G. Contò2, S.A. Huws3
1 Institute of Animal Production Systems in Mediterranean Environments (ISPAAM), National Research Council (CNR) of Italy, Naples, Italy
2 Research Center for the Production of Meat and Breeding, Agricultural Research Council (CRA), Rome, Italy
3 Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences (IBERS), Aberystwyth, UK

Sorghum could be a potential substitute to maize in Mediterranean buffaloes feed in order to improve sustainability of buffalo-based agriculture, due to its reduced water and nitrogen requirements compared with maize, which is currently fed primarily. The aim of this study is to obtain information on rumen degradability of fibre fraction of maize and sorghum silages and to investigate the relationship between degradability and rumen microbial populations. As such four cannulated buffalo milking cows were fed ad libitum two different iso-energetic and iso-proteic diets based on maize silage (MS) and sorghum silage (SS). Based on plate counts, values of cellulolytic bacteria showed to be higher within the rumen of SS fed buffaloes compared to MS fed buffaloes (4.4 × 109 vs 1.9 × 109 cfu/ml, P <0.05), on the contrary, those of xylanolytic bacteria (3.2 × 109 vs 1.3 × 109 cfu/ml, P < 0.01) were higher in MS possibly due to the different fibre degradability. Real-time PCR of total bacteria, Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococcus albus, and Ruminococcus flavefaciens revealed no statistical difference in their 16S rDNA concentrations between diets. MS and SS were subsequently utilized for a degradability experiment. For this trial three cannulated Mediterranean dry buffalo cows were used (body weight 580 ± 8.5 kg). The MS was found to have an effective degradability of acid detergent fibre, hemicelluloses, and cellulose which were always lower than SS. Maize neutral detergent fibre degradability and slowly degradable fraction were significantly (P < 0.01) higher, on the contrary the immediately degradable fraction was found to be significantly (P < 0.001) lower compared with sorghum. The better sorghum relative feed value (P < 0.001) was related to the major content of fibre fraction compared to maize. As recommended by the IPCC Guidelines (in IPCC 2006), Tier 2 was chosen to estimate the enteric CH4 emission factor. The estimate of methane production is significantly lower in animals eating sorghum rather than maize (63.48 and 103.00 kg CH4/head/year respectively, P < 0.001). In conclusion, as no difference was observed in animal weight gain and milk yield, rumen microbiota or degradability, it could be possible to substitute MS with SS in buffalo diet.

Keywords: Italian Mediterranean buffalo; rumen microorganism; rumen degradability; silages

Published: June 30, 2014  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Sarubbi F, Chiariotti A, Baculo R, Contò G, Huws SA. Nutritive value of maize and sorghum silages: fibre fraction degradation and rumen microbial density in buffalo cows. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2014;59(6):278-287. doi: 10.17221/7498-CJAS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. AOAC (1998): Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 16 th Ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Maryland, USA.
    2. Barile V.L., Tripaldi C., Pizzoferrato L., Pacelli C., Palocci G., Allegrini S., Maschio M., Mattera M., Manzi P., Borghese A. (2007): Effect of different diets on milk yield and quality of lactating buffaloes: maize versus sorghum silage. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 6, 520-523. Go to original source...
    3. Brulc J.M., Antonopoulos D.A., Berg Miller M.E., Wilson M.K., Yannarell A.C., Dinsdale E.A., Edwards R.E., Frank E.D., Emerson J.B., Wacklin P., Coutinho P.M., Henrissat B., Nelson K.E., White B.A. (2009): Gene-centric metagenomics of fiber-adherent bovine rumen microbiome reveals forage specific glycoside hydrolases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 1948-1953. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    4. Bossen D., Mertens D.R., Weisbjerg M.R. (2008): Influence of fermentation methods on neutral detergent fiber degradation parameters. Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 1464-1476. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    5. European Commission (2010): Commission Regulation (EU) No 165/2010 of 26 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs as regards aflatoxins. Official Journal of the European Union, L50, 8-10.
    6. Denman S.E., McSweeney C.S. (2005): Quantitative (realtime) PCR. In: Makkar H.P.S., McSweeney C.S. (eds): Methods in Gut Microbial Ecology for Ruminants. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 105-118. Go to original source...
    7. Duan C.J., Xian L., Zhao G.C., Feng Y., Pang H., Bai X.L., Tang J.L., Ma Q.S., Feng J.X. (2009): Isolation and partial characterization of novel genes from metagenomes of buffalo rumens. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 107, 245-256. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    8. Eggleston S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., Tanabe K. (eds) (2006): 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 1. General Guidance and Reporting. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan.
    9. Hungate R.E. (1966): The Rumen and its Microbes. 1st Ed. Blackie Academic and Professional Press, London, UK. Go to original source...
    10. Huhtanen P.S., Ahvenjärvi M., Wersbjerg R., Norgaard P. (2006): Digestion and passage of fiber in ruminants. In: Sejrsen K., Hvelplund T., Nielsen O. (eds): Ruminant Physiology - Digestion Metabolism and Impact of Nutrition on Gene Expression, Immunology and Stress. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 87-135. Go to original source...
    11. Huws S.A., Lee M.R.F., Muetzel S.M., Scott M.B., Wallace R.J., Scollan N.D. (2010): Forage type and fish oil cause shifts in rumen bacterial diversity. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 7, 396-407. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Joblin K.N. (1981): Isolation, enumeration and maintenance of rumen anaerobic fungi in roll tubes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 42, 1119. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. Jung H.G., Allen M.S. (1995): Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and digestibility of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science, 73, 2774-2790. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    14. Kebreab E., Johnson K.A., Archibeque S.L., Pape D., Wirth T. (2008): Model for estimating enteric methane emissions from United States dairy and feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 86, 2738-2748. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Koike S., Kobayashi Y. (2001): Development and use of competitive PCR assays for the rumen cellulolytic bacteria: Fibrobacter succinogenens, Ruminococcus albus and Ruminococcus flavefaciens. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 204, 362-366. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    16. Koike S., Pan J., Kobayashi Y., Tanaka K. (2003): Kinetics of in sacco fiber-attachment of representative ruminal cellulolytic bacteria monitored by competitive PCR. Journal of Dairy Science, 86, 1429-1435. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    17. Leedle J.A.Z., Bryant M.P., Hespell R.B. (1982): Diurnal variations in bacterial numbers and fluid parameters in ruminal contents of animal fed low or high forage. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 44, 402. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    18. Lívian R. de Sá, De Oliveira M.A.L., Cammarota M.C., Matos A., Ferreira-Leitao V.S. (2011): Simultaneous analysis of carbohydrates and volatile fatty acids by HPLC for monitoring fermentative biohydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 36, 15177-15186. Go to original source...
    19. Mackie R.I. (1997): Gut environment and evolution of mutualistic fermentative digestion. In: Mackie R.I., White B.A. (eds): Gastrointestinal Microbiology. Chapman and Hall, New York, USA, 13-35. Go to original source...
    20. National Research Council (2001): Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th Ed. National Academies Press, Washington, USA.
    21. Oba M., Allen M.S. (1999): Evaluation of the importance of the digestibility of neutral detergent fiber from forage: effects on dry matter intake and milk yield of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 82, 589-596. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    22. Ørskov E.R., McDonalds A. (1979): The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge, 92, 499-503. Go to original source...
    23. Puppo S., Chiariotti A., Grandoni F. (1999): Differences in rumen microbial count in buffaloes fed four different diets. In: Proc. 9 th Internat. Symposium on Ruminant Physiology. Pretoria, South Africa, 127-128.
    24. Puppo S., Bartocci S., Terramoccia S., Grandoni F., Amici A. (2002): Rumen microbial counts, in vivo digestibility in buffaloes and cattle given different diets. Journal of Animal Science, 75, 323-329. Go to original source...
    25. Robertson J.B., Van Soest P.J. (1981): The detergent system of analysis. In: James W.P.T., Theander O. (eds): The Analysis of Dietary Fiber in Food. Marcel Dekker, New York, USA, 123-158.
    26. Sarubbi F., Baculo R., Palomba R., Auriemma G. (2010): Estimated emission factor of methane in Italian Mediterranean buffalo. In: Proc. 3 rd Nat. Congress on Soil Quality, Food, Health. Naples, Italy, 15.
    27. Shinkai T., Kobajashi N.M.Y. (2007): Ecological characterization of three different phylogenetic groups belonging to the cellulolytic bacterial species Fibrobacter succinogenes in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science, 78, 503-511. Go to original source...
    28. Steinsig T., Weisbjerg M.R., Madson J., Hvelplund T. (1994): Estimation of voluntary intake from in-sacco degradation and rate of passage of DM and NDF. Livestock Production Science, 39, 49-52. Go to original source...
    29. Van Soest P.J., Robertson J.B., Lewis B.A. (1991): Methods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3583-3597. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    30. Wanapat M., Sommart K., Wachirapakorn C., Uriyapongson S., Wattanachant C. (1994): Recent advances in swamp buffalo nutrition and feeding. In: Wanapat M., Sommart K. (eds): Proc. 1st Asian Buffalo Association Congress. Khon Kaen, Thailand, 155-187.
    31. Wanapat M., Cherdthong A. (2009): Use of real time PCR technique in studying rumen cellulolytic bacteria population as affected by level of roughages in swamp buffalo. Current Microbiology, 58, 294-299. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    32. Warner A.C.I. (1962): Enumeration of rumen micro-organisms. Journal of General Microbiology, 28, 1191. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    33. Weisbjerg M.R., Bhargava P.K., Hvelplund T., Madsen J. (1990): Use of degradation curves in feed evaluation. Report No. 679. National Institute of Animal Science, Fredericksburg, Denmark.
    34. Weiss W.P. (2002): Relative feed value of forage and dairy cows: a critical appraisal. In: Proc. Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference. Fort Wayne, USA, 127-140.
    35. Wora-anu S. (2006): Study on predominant ruminal cellulolytic bacteria in ruminants under various rumen ecology. PhD Diss. Khon Kaen, Thailand: Khon Kaen University.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content