Article

The survival of lactic acid bacteria in rumen fluid

Department of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
Journal of Applied Microbiology (Impact Factor: 2.39). 05/2003; 94(6):1066 - 1071. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.01942.x

ABSTRACT Aims: To determine whether lactic acid bacteria (LAB) used in inoculants for silage can survive in rumen fluid (RF), and to identify those that survive best.
Methods and Results: Twelve commercial silage inoculants were added at 107 CFU ml−1 to strained RF (SRF) taken from dairy cows, with and without 5 g l−1 glucose and incubated in vitro at 39°C. Changes in pH, LAB numbers and fermentation products were monitored for 72 h. In the inoculated RF with glucose, the pH decreased and numbers of LAB increased. The inoculants varied with regard to their effect on pH change and growth. In the SRF, both with and without glucose, the pH values of the inoculated samples were generally higher than those of the uninoculated controls throughout most of the incubation period. This may suggest a positive effect on the rumen environment.
Conclusions: LAB used in silage inoculants can survive in RF in vitro.
Significance and Impact of the Study: This is the first step in studying the probiotic potential of silage LAB inoculants for dairy cattle. The survival of these LAB in RF may enable them to interact with rumen microorganisms and to affect rumen functionality.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Paul J Weimer, Aug 26, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
249 Views
  • Source
    • "The effect of LAB on the rumen environment has been studied in a number of experiments. Lactic acid bacteria can survive during in vitro ruminal incubation and potentially affect volatile fatty acids (VFA) composition (Weinberg et al., 2003, 2004). Muck et al. (2007) demonstrated that microbial silage inoculants had an effect on in vitro ruminal gas and VFA production, but effects differed by inoculant. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In four parallel experiments, herbage [three harvests of alfalfa (308 to 379 g dry matter (DM)/kg), one of whole-plant corn (331 g DM/kg)] was ensiled with three different treatments: no inoculant (control), Lactobacillus plantarum (LP) or formic acid (FA), in 1-L mini-silos and fermented for 60 d at room temperature (22 °C). Mini-silos were opened and analyzed for fermentation characteristics and soluble N fractions. A subsample of wet silage from each mini-silo was ground to 4 mm and stored at −20 °C. Silages were thawed and subjected to 9 h ruminal in vitro incubations to measure gas production and volatile fatty acid (VFA) production as well as microbial biomass yield (MBY) and microbial non-ammonia N (MNAN) formation using 15N as a marker. In all four experiments, silage fermentation products and pH indicated good preservation across all treatments. Analysis of data showed that FA- and LP-treated silages had lower concentrations of ammonia-N and free amino acids N than control. The FA treatment was lower in soluble N, but higher in peptide-N, than control. Silage pH was lowest in FA (4.25), followed by LP (4.28), and control (4.38). Ruminal in vitro gas production and VFA concentrations were not different among treatments (P>0.05). Compared to control, FA- and LP-treated silage yielded greater MNAN and MBY. These findings suggested that L. plantarum preserved more true protein during silage fermentation than control, which in turn increased in vitro ruminal microbial growth.
    Animal Feed Science and Technology 01/2013; 179(s 1–4):61–68. DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.11.008 · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "When the silo is opened, the anaerobic environment is changed to an aerobic one and microorganisms which remain dormant in the absence of air multiply, resulting in a deterioration of silages, especially in warm climates (Woolford, 1990; Ashbell et al., 2002). Many workers have found that aerobic deterioration resulted from the activity of aerobic bacteria, yeast and mold utilizing residue WSC and lactic acid producing a rising pH and energy loss and even the possibility of producing harmful by products (Honig et al., 1980; MuDonald et al., 1991; Weinberg et al., 2003). Therefore, less pH change indicates good aerobic stability of silage. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The changes in yields and nutritive composition of whole crop wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) during maturation and effects of maturity stage and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) inoculants on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability were investigated under laboratory conditions. Whole crop wheat harvested at three maturation stages: flowering stage, milk stage and dough stage. Two strains of LAB (Lactobacillus plantarum: LAB1, Lactobacillus parafarraqinis: LAB2) were inoculated for wheat ensiling at 1.0×10(5) colony forming units per gram of fresh forage. The results indicated that wheat had higher dry matter yields at the milk and dough stages. The highest water-soluble carbohydrates content, crude protein yields and relative feed value of wheat were obtained at the milk stage, while contents of crude fiber, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber were the lowest, compared to the flowering and dough stages. Lactic acid contents of wheat silage significantly decreased with maturity. Inoculating homofermentative LAB1 markedly reduced pH values and ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) content (p<0.05) of silages at three maturity stages compared with their corresponding controls. Inoculating heterofermentative LAB2 did not significantly influence pH values, whereas it notably lowered lactic acid and NH3-N content (p<0.05) and effectively improved the aerobic stability of silages. In conclusion, considering both yields and nutritive value, whole crop wheat as forage should be harvested at the milk stage. Inoculating LAB1 improved the fermentation quality, while inoculating LAB2 enhanced the aerobic stability of wheat silages at different maturity stages.
    Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 10/2012; 25(10):1374-80. DOI:10.5713/ajas.2012.12084 · 0.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Energy crops and crop residues can relatively easily be stored by ensiling. Ensiling is a biochemical process which converts the soluble carbohydrates contained in the plant matter to lactic acid, acetate, propionate, and butyrate which inhibit the growth of detrimental microorganisms by a strong drop in pH to values between 3 and 4 (Weinberg et al. 2003). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anaerobic digestion of energy crops, residues, and wastes is of increasing interest in order to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and to facilitate a sustainable development of energy supply. Production of biogas provides a versatile carrier of renewable energy, as methane can be used for replacement of fossil fuels in both heat and power generation and as a vehicle fuel. For biogas production, various process types are applied which can be classified in wet and dry fermentation systems. Most often applied are wet digester systems using vertical stirred tank digester with different stirrer types dependent on the origin of the feedstock. Biogas is mainly utilized in engine-based combined heat and power plants, whereas microgas turbines and fuel cells are expensive alternatives which need further development work for reducing the costs and increasing their reliability. Gas upgrading and utilization as renewable vehicle fuel or injection into the natural gas grid is of increasing interest because the gas can be used in a more efficient way. The digestate from anaerobic fermentation is a valuable fertilizer due to the increased availability of nitrogen and the better short-term fertilization effect. Anaerobic treatment minimizes the survival of pathogens which is important for using the digested residue as fertilizer. This paper reviews the current state and perspectives of biogas production, including the biochemical parameters and feedstocks which influence the efficiency and reliability of the microbial conversion and gas yield.
    Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 09/2009; 85(4):849-60. DOI:10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7 · 3.81 Impact Factor
Show more