Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 1263–1269 | Cite as

Effect of source and dose of probiotics and exogenous fibrolytic enzymes (EFE) on intake, feed efficiency, and growth of male buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) calves

Original Research
First Online:
Accepted:

Abstract

Probiotics of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Aspergillus niger and three commercial exogenous fibrolytic enzymes (EFE) were tested in vitro to select best source and optimum dose followed by in vivo studies on male buffalo calves. Bacterial (P < 0.001) and protozoal population were increased significantly (P < 0.001) with probiotics and EFE. In vitro dry matter digestibility was more (P < 0.001) on L. acidophilus and then on S. cerevisiae. Dose required for L. acidophilus and S. cerevisiae probiotics was 1 × 109 and 3 × 109 cfu/flask, respectively. Cellulase and xylanase were effective at 4,000 and 12,500 IU/kg DM. In vitro cell wall digestibility was increased (P < 0.001) when probiotics and EFE were used together. Best source and optimum dose of probiotics and EFE were fed to 18 male buffalo calves with concentrate supplement (CS). Calves were randomly divided into three groups either without probiotics and EFE (CG) or with probiotics (EG1) or probiotics combined with EFE (EG2) on wheat straw diet. Organic matter, neutral detergent fiber, and acid detergent fiber digestibility was improved significantly. Average daily weight gain (ADG) and feed efficiency were significantly higher (P < 0.001) in EG2 than EG1 or CG. Final body weight was 4% and 12% and feed efficiency was 2.6% or 1.6% more (P < 0.001) in EG2 compared to CG or EG1, respectively. Fortification of CS with probiotics and EFE together had more impact on FE and ADG in buffalo calves.

Keywords

Bacteria Cell-wall digestibility Enzymes Microbial population Probiotics Growth 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. A.O.A.C. 1995. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 16th Edn. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott A. 2004. Gut reaction. Nature 427, 284-286.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams D. C. Galyean M. L. Kiesling H. E. Wallace J. D. Finker M. D. 1981. Influence of viable yeast culture, sodium bicarbonate and monensin on liquid dilution rate, rumen fermentation and feed-lot performance of growing steers and digestibility in lambs. Journal of Animal Science 53, 780-789.Google Scholar
  4. Bala P. Malik R. Srinivas B. 2009. Effect of fortifying concentrate supplement with fibrolytic enzymes on nutrient utilization, milk yield and composition in lactating goats. Animal Science Journal 80(3):265-272.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett A. J. G. Reid R.L. 1957. Studies on the production of volatile fatty acids from grass in artificial rumen. 1. Volatile fatty acids production from fresh grasses. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 48, 315-321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchemin K. A. Rode L. M. Karren D. 1999. Use of feed enzymes in ruminant nutrition. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79, 243-246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brossard L. Chaucheyras-Durand F. Michalet-Doreau B. Martin C. 2006. Dose effect of live yeasts on rumen microbial communities and fermentations during butyric latent acidosis in sheep: Newtype of interaction. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1-11.Google Scholar
  8. Chesson A. Forsberg C. W. 1997. Polysaccharide degradation by rumen microorganisms. In: P. N. Hobson, C. S. Stewart (Editors). The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem. Elsevier Sciences Publishers Ltd., London and New York. Pp 329-381.Google Scholar
  9. Das M. N. Giri N. C. 1991. Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley Eastern Ltd., New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawson K. A. 1990. Designing the yeast culture of tomorrow: mode of action of yeast culture for ruminants and non-ruminants. In: T.P.Lyons (Editor). Biotechnology in the Feed Industry. Alltech Tecyhnical Publications, Nashville, Kentucky. Pp. 59-78.Google Scholar
  11. Gashe B. A. 1992. Cellulase production and activity by Trichoderma sp. A -001. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 73, 79-82.Google Scholar
  12. Gilliland S. E. Staley T. E. Bush L. J. 1984. Importance of bile tolerance of L. acidophilus used as dietary adjunct. Journal of Dairy Science 67, 3045-3051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Girard I. D. 1996. The mechanisms of action of yeast culture in stimulating ruminal fermentation. Feed Composition 16, 16-17.Google Scholar
  14. Guarner F. Schaafsma G.J. 1998. Probiotics. International Journal of Food Microbiology 39, 237–238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoffmann I. Scherf B. Boerma D. 2009. Livestock diversity and climate change. CBD Technical series No. 34, Animal Production and Health Division. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/ag/AGAInfo/programmes/en/A5.html (12-04-2010).
  16. Hughes J. 1988. Effect of high strength yeast cultures in the diet of early weaned calves. Animal Production 46, 526-532.Google Scholar
  17. ICAR. 1998. Nutrient requirement of buffaloes. In: S. K. Ranjhan (Editor). Nutrient requirements of livestock and poultry. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Directorate of Information and Publications of Agriculture, Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamara D. N. Sawal R. K. Patahk N. N. Kewalramani N. Agarwal N. 1991. Diurnal variation in ciliate protozoa in the rumen of black buck (Antelope cervicapra) fed green forage. Letters of Applied Microbiology 13, 165-167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kowalik B. Michalowski T. Pajak J. J. Taciak M. Rawa, J. 2008. The effect of Supplementing cows with live yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, on cilate fauna and ruminal fermentation. Journal of Animal and Feed Science 17, 157-165.Google Scholar
  20. Morgavi D. P. Nsereko V. L. Rode L. M. Beuchemi K. A. McAllister T. A. I wassa A. D. Wang, Y. Yang W. Z. 2001. Resistence of feed enzymes to proteolytic inactivation by rumen microorganisms and gastrointestinal protease. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1621-1630.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Muirhead S. 1996. Direct fed microbial, enzyme and forage additive compendium. 3rd ed. The Miller Publishing Company, Minetonka, MN. 391 Pp.Google Scholar
  22. Newbold C.J. 1996. Probiotics for ruminants. Annals of Zootechnology 45 (Suppl.), 329-335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Piva A. Galvano F. Biagi G. Casadei G. 2006. Intestinal fermentation:dietary and microbial interactions. In: R. Mosenthi, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Editors). Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals. Elsevier Ltd., New York, pp 1-31Google Scholar
  24. Reuter G, Klein G, Goldber M. 2002. Identification of probiotics cultures in food samples. Food Research International 35, 117-124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singh J. Sikka S. S. 2007. Desinging diets for environ-friendly ruminants. Feed International, Article Id=23754, September 2007. http://www.feedindustrynetwork.com (24-01-2009).
  26. Srinivas B. Krishnamoorthy U. Jash S. 2002. Impact of three categories of supplements on in sacco ruminal degradation of urea-treated and untreated straw substrates. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 15, 195-204.Google Scholar
  27. Srinivas B, Chaturvedi OH, Malik R, Asgar M. 2008. Effect of enzyme to substrate ratio of exogenous fibrolytic and protease enzymes on in vitro gas production kinetics. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 14, 181-190Google Scholar
  28. Van Soest P. J. Roberson J. B. Lewis B. A. 1991. Methods for fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583-3597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wanapat M. 2001. Swamp Buffalo Rumen Ecology and Its Manipulation. Paper presented at National workshop on swamp buffalo development–Hanoi 16-17/12/2001, http://www.mekarn.org/procbuf/wanapat.htm
  30. Wang Y, McAllister TA (2002) Rumen microbes, enzymes and feed digestion: A review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 15: 1659-1676Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central Institute for Research on BuffaloesHissarIndia
  2. 2.Southern Campus, National Dairy Research InstituteBangaloreIndia
  3. 3.National Dairy Research InstituteKarnalIndia

Personalised recommendations