Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantity changes in Pseudomonas species in dairy manure during anaerobic digestion at mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion is known to eliminate many kinds of microorganisms in livestock wastes. In this study, the quantitative changes of Pseudomonas species during mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestions were investigated with focus on P. aeruginosa and P. fluorescens, which are known as a pathogen and a plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium, respectively. Furthermore, quantitative changes in antimicrobial-resistant Pseudomonas species against cefazolin were also investigated as a representative of antimicrobial resistance in dairy farms. The quantitative measurement of Pseudomonas species was performed by a plating method with modified Pseudomonas-selective agar medium. The colonies on the agar plates were classified into three groups by their colour development and constitutional fluorescence, and the group to which P. aeruginosa and P. fluorescens belong was confirmed by colony PCR using species-specific primers. The results revealed that while the number of total Pseudomonas decreased, the number of fluorescent Pseudomonas including P. fluorescens increased after anaerobic digestion. The abundance of cefazolin-resistant Pseudomonas also decreased, and no P. aeruginosa could be detected in any samples. These results suggested that the digestate has benefits such as the absence of pathogenic risks led by the Pseudomonas species and is expected to have a plant growth-promoting effect facilitated by fluorescent Pseudomonas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sumathi BR, Veeregowda BM, Amitha RG (2008) Prevalence and antibiogram profile of bacterial isolates from clinical bovine mastitis. Vet World 1:237–238

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jackson CR, Lombard JE, Dargatz DA, Fedorka-Cray PJ (2011) Prevalence, species distribution and antimicrobial resistance of enterococci isolated from US dairy cattle. Lett Appl Microbiol 52:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02964.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ohnishi M, Sawada T, Hirose K, Sato R, Hayashimoto M, Hata E, Yonezawa C, Kato H (2011) Antimicrobial susceptibilities and bacteriological characteristics of bovine Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Serratia marcescens isolates from Mastitis. Vet Microbiol 154:202–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.06.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wagner S, Erskine R (2013) Antimicrobial drug use in mastitis. In: Giguère S, Prescott JF, Dowling PM (eds) Antimicrobial therapy in veterinary medicine, 5th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 519–528

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Misaghi I, Grogan RG (1969) Nutritional and biochemical comparisons of plant-pathogenic and saprophytic fluorescent pseudomonads. Phytopathology 59:1436–1450

    Google Scholar 

  6. Alippi AM, Dal Bo E, Ronco LB, López MV, López AC, Aguilar OM (2003) Aguilar, Pseudomonas populations causing pith necrosis of tomato and pepper in Argentina are highly diverse. Plant Pathol 52:287–302. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3059.2003.00850.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zaccardelli M, Spasiano A, Bazzi C, Merighi M (2005) Identification and in planta detection of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato using PCR amplification of hrpZPst. Eur J Plant Pathol 111:85–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-004-2734-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cawoy H, Bettiol W, Fickers P, Ongena M (2011) Bacillus-based biological control of plant diseases. Pesticides in the modern world—pesticides use and management. InTech, Rijeka, pp 273–302

    Google Scholar 

  9. De Brito AM, Gagne S, Antoun H (1995) Effect of compost on rhizosphere microflora of the tomato and on the incidence of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 61:194–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hameeda B, Rupela OP, Reddy G, Satyavani K (2006) Application of plant growth-promoting bacteria associated with composts and macrofauna for growth promotion of Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.). Biol Fertil Soils 43:221–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-006-0098-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mishra PK, Mishra S, Selvakumar G, Bisht JK, Kundu S, Gupta HS (2009) Coinoculation of Bacillus thuringeinsis-KR1 with Rhizobium leguminosarum enhances plant growth and nodulation of pea (Pisum sativum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris L.). World J Microbiol Biotechnol 25:753–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-009-9963-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ongena M, Jacques P (2008) Bacillus lipopeptides: versatile weapons for plant disease biocontrol. Trends Microbiol 16:115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2007.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brandl MT, Quinones B, Lindow SE (2001) Heterogeneous transcription of an indoleacetic acid biosynthetic gene in Erwinia herbicola on plant surfaces. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:3454–3459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.061014498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Haas D, Défago G (2005) Biological control of soil-borne pathogens by fluorescent pseudomonads. Nat Rev Microbiol 3:307–319. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Laville J, Voisard C, Keel C, Maurhofer M, Defago G, Haas D (1992) Global control in Pseudomonas fluorescens mediating antibiotic synthesis and suppression of black root rot of tobacco. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:1562–1566. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.89.5.1562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vidhyasekaran P, Muthamilan M (1995) Development of formulations of Pseudomonas fluorescens for control of chickpea wilt. Plant Dis 79:782–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Botelho GR, Mendonça-Hagler LC (2006) Fluorescent Pseudomonads associated with the rhizosphere of crops—an overview. Braz J Microbiol 37:401–416. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-83822006000400001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Iwamoto Y, Aino M (2008) Suppressive effect of Pseudomonas fluorescens FPH9601 on crown and root rot disease of tomato caused by Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. radicis-lycopersici (in Japanese). Soil Microorg 62:3–8

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yamashiro T, Lateef SA, Ying C, Beneragama N, Lukic M, Iwasaki M, Ihara I, Nishida T, Umetsu K (2013) Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy cow manure and high concentrated food processing waste. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 15:539–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-012-0110-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Iwasaki M, Yamashiro T, Beneragama N, Nishida T, Kida K, Ihara I, Takahashi J, Umetsu K (2011) The effect of temperature on survival of pathogenic bacteria in biogas plant. Anim Sci J 82:707–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2011.00887.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stanbridge LH, Board RG (1994) A modification of the Pseudomonas selective medium, CFC, that allows differentiation between meat pseudomonads and Enterobacteriaceae. Lett Appl Microbiol 18:327–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.1994.tb00880.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stalon V, Mercenier A (1984) l-Arginine utilization by Pseudomonas species. J Gen Microbiol 130:69–76. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-130-1-69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. da Silva Filho LVF, Levi JE, Bento CNO, Ramos SRTS, Rozov T (1999) PCR identification of Pseudornonas aeruginosa and direct detection in clinical samples from cystic fibrosis patients. J Med Microbiol 48:357–361. https://doi.org/10.1099/00222615-48-4-357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. De Vos D, Lim A Jr, Pirnay JP, Struelens M, Vandenvelde C, Duinslaeger L, Vanderkelen A, Cornelis P (1997) Direct detection and identification of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in clinical samples such as skin biopsy specimens and expectorations by multiplex PCR based on two outer membrane lipoprotein genes, oprI and oprL. J Clin Microbiol 35:1295–1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Duan K, Lafontaine ER, Majumdar S, Sokol PA (2000) RegA, iron, and growth phase regulate expression of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa tol-oprL gene cluster. J Bacteriol 182:2077–2087. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.182.8.2077-2087.2000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Locatelli L, Tarnawski S, Hamelin J, Rossi P, Aragno M, Fromin N (2002) Specific PCR amplification for the genus Pseudomonas targeting the 3ʹ half of 16S rDNA and the whole 16S–23S rDNA spacer. Syst Appl Microbiol 25:220–227. https://doi.org/10.1078/0723-2020-00110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Noike T, Endo G, Chang J, Yaguchi J, Matsumoto J (1985) Characteristics of carbohydrate degradation and the rate-limiting step in anaerobic digestion. Biotechnol Bioeng 27:1482–1489. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260271013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Baserba MG, Angelidaki I, Karakashev D (2012) Effect of continuous oleate addition on microbial communities involved in anaerobic digestion process. Bioresour Technol 106:74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.12.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gopinath LR, Merlin Christy P, Mahesh K, Bhuvaneswari R, Divya D (2014) Identification and evaluation of effective bacterial consortia for efficient biogas production. IOSR J Environ Sci Toxicol Food Technol 8:80–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Resende JA, Silva VL, de Oliveira TLR, de Oliveira Fortunato S, da Costa Carneiro J, Otenio MH, Diniz CG (2014) Prevalence and persistence of potentially pathogenic and antibiotic resistant bacteria during anaerobic digestion treatment of cattle manure. Bioresour Technol 153:284–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Carlson CA, Ingraham JL (1983) Comparison of denitrification by Pseudomonas stutzeri, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Paracoccus denitrificans. Appl Environ Microbiol 45:1247–1253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Redfearn MS, Palleroni NJ, Stanier RY (1966) A comparative study of Pseudomonas pseudomallei and Bacillus mallei. J Gen Microbiol 43:293–313. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-43-2-293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ali Shah F, Mahmood Q, Mahmood Shah M, Pervez A, Ahmad Asad S (2014) Microbial ecology of anaerobic digesters: the key players of anaerobiosis. Sci World J. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/183752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ramadan EM, AbdelHafez AA, Hassan EA, Saber FM (2016) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and their potential for biocontrol of phytopathogens. Afr J Microbiol Res 10:486–504. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR2015.7714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jacoby GA (2006) β-Lactamase nomenclature. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50:1123–1129. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.50.4.1123-1129.2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kuan KB, Othman R, Abdul Rahim K, Shamsuddin ZH (2016) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria inoculation to enhance vegetative growth, nitrogen fixation and nitrogen remobilisation of maize under greenhouse conditions. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rodríguez H, Fraga R (1999) Phosphate solubilizing bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion. Biotechnol Adv 17:319–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Goswami D, Thakker JN, Dhandhukia PC (2016) Portraying mechanics of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): a review. Cogent Food Agric. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Maheshwari DK, Dheeman S, Agarwal M (2015) Phytohormone-producing PGPR for sustainable agriculture. In: Maheshwari DK (ed) Bacterial metabolites in sustainable agroecosystem. Springer, Cham, pp 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24654-3_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Qi G, Pan Z, Sugawa Y, Andriamanohiarisoamanana FJ, Yamashiro T, Iwasaki M, Kawamoto K, Ihara I, Umetsu K (2018) Comparative fertilizer properties of digestates from mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of dairy manure: focusing on plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) and environmental risk. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 20:1448–1457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0708-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pan Z, Qi G, Andriamanohiarisoamanana FJ, Yamashiro T, Iwasaki M, Nishida T, Tangtaweewipat S, Umetsu K (2018) Potential of anaerobic digestate of dairy manure in suppressing soil-borne plant disease. Anim Sci J. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13092

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan (no. 10670499).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agro-environmental Science, Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, 2-11 Inada-cho, Obihiro, Hokkaido, 080-8555, Japan

    Masahiro Iwasaki, Guangdou Qi, Takaki Yamashiro, Fetra Jules Andriamanohiarisoamanana & Kazutaka Umetsu

  2. Graduate School of Animal and Food Hygiene, Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Obihiro, Hokkaido, Japan

    Yumiko Endo & Zhifei Pan

  3. Department of Agricultural Engineering and Socio-Economics, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan

    Ikko Ihara

Authors
  1. Masahiro Iwasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guangdou Qi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yumiko Endo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhifei Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takaki Yamashiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fetra Jules Andriamanohiarisoamanana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ikko Ihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kazutaka Umetsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kazutaka Umetsu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iwasaki, M., Qi, G., Endo, Y. et al. Quantity changes in Pseudomonas species in dairy manure during anaerobic digestion at mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 21, 423–432 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0800-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0800-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation