Advertisement

Microbial Ecology

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 311–316 | Cite as

Ruminal microbial populations and fermentation characteristics in bison and cattle fed high- and low-quality forage

  • Gene Towne
  • T. G. Nagaraja
  • R. C. Cochran
Article

Abstract

Ruminal microbial populations and fermentation products were compared between two ruminally cannulated bison (375 kg) and two ruminally cannulated Hereford steers (567 kg) on alfalfa or prairie hay diets. Differential media were used to enumerate carbohydrate-specific bacterial subgroups. Voluntary dry matter intake was higher (P=0.006) for cattle than for bison fed alfalfa, but prairie hay intake was not different (P=0.16) between the two species. Volatile fatty acid concentrations, pH, and ruminal ammonia were similar between bison and cattle on both diets. Total anaerobic bacteria and xylanolytic bacterial counts were higher (P<0.02) in bison than in cattle fed alfalfa. However, with the prairie hay diet, no differences in bacterial counts on any medium were observed between ruminant species. Both bison and cattle possessed a mixed A-B protozoan population with nearly identical protozoan numbers and distribution of genera. The similarities between bison and cattle consuming either high-or low-quality forage suggest that any differences in putative forage digestibility between the species are not due to differences in microbial counts.

Keywords

Fermentation Bacterial Count Volatile Fatty Acid Fatty Acid Concentration Volatile Fatty Acid Concentration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson KL, Nagaraja TG, Morrill JL, Avery TB, Galitzer SJ, Boyer JE (1987) Ruminal microbial development in conventionally or early-weaned calves. J Anim Sci 64:1215–1226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bryant MP, Robinson IM (1961) Studies on the nitrogen requirements of some ruminal cellulolytic bacteria. Appl Microbiol 9:96–103Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cochran WF (1950) Estimation of bacterial densities by means of the “most probable number.” Biometrics 6:105–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dehority BA, Scott HW (1967) Extent of cellulose and hemicellulose digestion in various forages by pure cultures of rumen bacteria. J Dairy Sci 50:1136–1141Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eadie JM (1967) Studies on the ecology of certain rumen ciliate protozoa. J Gen Microbiol 49:175–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erwin ES, Marco GJ, Emery EM (1961) Volatile fatty acid analyses of blood and rumen fluid by gas chromatography. J Dairy Sci 44:1768–1771Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harmeyer J, Hill H (1964) Das protozoenvolumen im Panseninhalt bei Ziege und Guanako. Zentralbl. Veterinaermed., Reihe A 11:493–501Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hawley AWL, Peden DG, Reynolds HW, Stricklin WR (1981) Bison and cattle digestion of forages from the Slave River Lowlands, Northwest Territories, Canada. J Range Manage 34: 126–130Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hawley AWL, Peden DG, Stricklin WR (1981) Bison and Hereford steer digestion of sedge hay. Can J Anim Sci 61:165–174Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hungate RE (1978) The rumen protozoa. In: Kreier JP (ed) Parasitic protozoa, Vol 2. Academic Press, New York, pp 655–695Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mann SO (1968) An improved method for determining cellulolytic activity in anaerobic bacteria. J Appl Bacteriol 31:241–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ogimota K, Imai S (1981) Atlas of rumen microbiology. Japan Sci Soc Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olumeyan DB, Nagaraja TG, Miller GW, Frey RA, Boyer JE (1986) Rumen microbial changes in cattle fed diets with or without salinomycin. Appl Environ Microbiol 51:340–345PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Orpin CG, Mathiesen SD (1986)Microcetus lappus gen. nov., sp. nov.: new species of ciliated protozoon from the bovine rumen. Appl Environ Microbiol 52:527–530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orpin CG, Mathiesen SD, Greenwood Y, Blix AS (1985) Seasonal changes in the ruminai microflora of the high-arctic Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus). Appl Environ Microbiol 50:144–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peden DG, Van Dyne GM, Rice RW, Hansen RM (1974) The trophic ecology ofBison bison L. on shortgrass plains. J Appl Ecol 11:489–497Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richmond RJ, Hudson RJ, Christopherson RJ (1977) Comparison of forage intake and digestibility by American bison, yak and cattle. Acta Theriol 22:225–230Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Towne G, Nagaraja TG, Cochran RC, Harmon DL, Owensby CE, Kaufman DW (1988) Comparisons of ruminal fermentation characteristics and microbial populations in bison and cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:2510–2514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Towne G, Nagaraja TG, Kemp KK (1988) Ruminal ciliated protozoa in bison. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:2733–2736PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Gylswyk NO (1970) The effect of supplementing a low-protein hay on the cellulolytic bacteria in the rumen of sheep and on the digestibility of cellulose and hemicellulose. J Agric Sci, Camb 74:169–180Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gene Towne
    • 1
  • T. G. Nagaraja
    • 1
  • R. C. Cochran
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal Sciences and IndustryKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations