Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Veterinary Research Forum logoLink to Veterinary Research Forum
. 2012 Winter;3(1):5–11.

In vitro assessment of the digestibility of forage based sheep diet, supplemented with raw garlic, garlic oil and monensin

Ehsan Anassori 1, Bahram Dalir-Naghadeh 1,*, Rasoul Pirmohammadi 2, Akbar Taghizadeh 3, Siamak Asri-Rezaei 1, Safa Farahmand-Azar 1, Maghsoud Besharati 3, Morteza Tahmoozi 2
PMCID: PMC4312812  PMID: 25653739

Abstract

The effect of inclusion of garlic essential oil (EO) at 33, 66 and 100 µg mL-1, raw garlic (GAR) at 5, 10 and 15 mg mL-1 and monensin (MON) at 7.5 µg mL-1 of incubation medium on organic matter digestibility (OMD) was studied with in vitro gas production, ANKOM daisyII and conventional in vitro (IVOMD) methods. The material was incubated with sheep ruminal fluid and the experimental design was a completely randomized design. Cumulative gas production was recorded at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48, 72 and 96 hours of incubation. Conventional in vitro OMD was determined after 48 hours incubation in acid and pepsin solutions. Samples for DaisyII OMD prepared according to the operating instructions supplied by ANKOM® Tech. Co., Fairport, USA. Compared to in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), DaisyII and gas production techniques overestimated (P < 0.05) OMD. The addition of EO and MON reduced (P < 0.05) the organic matter (OM), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid-detergent fiber (ADF) digestion, and gas production volume. The potential of gas production and rate of gas production for EO and MON were the lowest; however, these variables were higher for GAR supplemented groups. It was concluded that raw garlic could be of great interest for its usage as a modulator of ruminal fermentation.

Key Words: DaisyII , Essential oil, Garlic, Gas production, Monensin

Introduction

Many attempts have been made to modify ruminant digestion to improve animal productivity. Monensin ionophor antibiotic has been used widely in ruminants to modify rumen fermentation. Monensin has selective antimicrobial activity and its supplementation enhances feed efficiency by inhibiting most lactate-producing ruminal bacteria, increasing the ruminal pH in animals consuming high-grain diets and decreasing the acetate/propionate ratio.1 These effects are also accompanied by a decrease in methane production.2 However, using monensin as a feed additive have raised welfare and public health concerns because it can lead to the development of resistance to antibiotics both in animals and human beings. Therefore, a goal for nutritionists in this area would be to find new additives to modulate microbial activity in the rumen. Among the alternatives, plant extracts are being studied because they are known to contain active compounds with numerous effects including antimicrobial activity.3 The essential oil of garlic has been shown to possess a special feature of having unique compounds which do not exist in the original plant and are produced from thiosulfates during the steam treatment.4 They are very active against a wide range of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, fungi, parasites, and viruses.5 The present study was set out in three stages to compare digestibility estimates of forage based ruminant diets using the conventional in vitro OM digestibility, DaisyII method and in vitro gas production techniques. Measurement of in vitro OM digestibility has been widely used to assess the nutritional quality of feeds, due to its high correlation with in vivo digestibility. Development of the ANKOM incubator and fiber apparatus (ANKOM Technology Corp., Fairport, NY, USA) have greatly improved labor efficiency by allowing large numbers of feeds to be simultaneously assayed. Both in vitro gas production and the ANKOM devices can be used for rapid evaluation of nutritional quality of feeds.

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of raw garlic bulb (Allium sativum) and garlic essential oil on ruminal organic matter digestibility, in comparison with monensin (MON).

Materials and Methods

Animals, feed samples and rumen fluid collection. Rumen fluid was obtained from the rumen of four, 3-year-old wether of similar weight fitted with rumen fistula. The substrate used for the in vitro procedures (Table 1), were collected from a ration prepared for wethers, to meet the maintenance energy and protein requirements with an estimated metabolizable energy of approximately 10.5 MJ kg-1 dry matter (DM). 6 The ration was fed twice per day at 08:00 and 16:00. The wethers had free access to fresh drinking water. A sample of ruminal contents was collected 3 hours (h) post morning meal in thermos flasks and taken immediately to the laboratory where it was strained through various layers of cheesecloth and kept at 39 ˚C under a CO2 atmosphere. Feed samples dried in a 60 ˚C forced air oven. Samples were ground to pass a 1mm sieve in a Wiley mill and used for chemical analysis, in vitro gas production, DaisyII and in vitro OM digestibility. All experimental procedures were approved by the Ethic Committee of Research Council (Urmia University).

Table 1.

Chemical composition of incubated ingredients

Item Amount
Ingredient, % of DM
Alfalfa hay 38.14
Corn silage 39.69
Soy bean meal 8.50
Barley grain 10.99
Wheat bran 2.68
Chemical composition
DM, % 71.95
Ash, % 9.18
CP, % of DM 16.50
NDF, % of DM 39.73
ADF, % of DM 20.93
Open in a new tab

DM = dry matter, CP = crude protein, NDF = neutral detergent fiber, ADF = acid detergent fiber

Additives. Raw garlic bulb harvested from Hamadan, Iran. Garlic oil was prepared according to Clevenger et al.7 In brief, the cloves of garlic were sliced and crushed and then subjected to hydro distillation for 3 h using a Clevenger type apparatus. The oil was transferred into dark glass bottles, capped and stored in a refrigerator (4 ˚C). Monensin was obtained from a pharmaceutical company.a

Eight treatments on total digestion media were carried out: no additive, as a negative control (CTR); the monensin antibiotic, as a positive control, 7.5 µg mL-1 (MON); GAR bulb, at three levels; 5mg mL-1 (GAR1), 10 mg mL-1 (GAR2) and 15 mg mL-1 (GAR3) and garlic EO included 33 µg mL-1 (EO1), 66 µg mL-1 (EO2) or 100 µg mL-1 (EO3). All treatments and doses were dissolved in ethanol, and the control was also dosed with the equivalent amount of ethanol (0.015 mL) and then diluted with mineral buffer. The doses of monensin were calculated based on other studies for antimicrobial activity to meet or exceed the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs).8,9 The doses of raw garlic and garlic EO were according to the previous studies.10-12

Chemical composition. Feed samples dry matter (DM, method ID 934.01), ash (method ID 942.05), crude protein (CP, method ID 984.13), ether extract (EE, method ID 920.30) and organic matter (OM, method ID 942.05) were determined by procedures of AOAC.13 The NDF and ADF concentrations were determined using the methods of Van Soest et al.14 with the addition of sodium sulfite. The NDF and ADF procedures were adapted for use in an ANKOM 200 Fiber Analyzer. Residue was ashed to allow NDF and ADF to be presented as a proportion of OM.The GC–MS analyses of the garlic oil were carried out using a Finigan gas chromatographyb coupled with mass spectrometry.c Data were processed by Xcalibur.b Retention index for each

peak/compounds was calculated by comparing its retention time against those of alkane series (C8-C40, corresponding retention index values from 800 to 4000). All compounds were identified by comparing both the MS spectra and retention index with those available in libraries, i.e. NIST, Wiley, and internally compiled spectra libraries.

Statistical analysis. Data were transferred to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA). Using SPSS 16.0 statistical software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), a Pearson chi-square test and Fisher's exact two-tailed test analysis was performed and differences were considered significant at values of P < 0.05.

Tilley and Terry two-stage in vitro (conventional in vitro or IVOMD). In vitro OM digestibility was estimated using the acid-pepsin digestion method based on Tilley and Terry.15 The buffer solution was the McDougall ‘synthetic saliva’, with pH 6.9.16 Ruminal inoculum obtained from sheep and incubating triplicate 0.5 g samples supplemented with additives followed by 48 h acid-pepsin incubation.15

In vitro digestion with Daisy II method. The DaisyII incubation method involves digestion of ground plant biomass in buffered rumen fluid for 48 h (in a DaisyII Incubator), followed by NDF digestion in an ANKOM 200/220 Fiber Analyzer. The method was conducted according to the operating instructions supplied by ANKOM. Dacron bags with a pore size of 50 µm were used for incubation of samples for OM digestibility. Bags were rinsed with acetone and dried in a forced air oven at 60 ˚C for 6 h. Ground samples (0.25 g per bag) were weighed into triplicate bags, heat sealed and placed in digestion jars. The buffered, rumen fluid solution preparation was based on that of Tilley and Terry.15 At the end of the 48 h incubation, jars were removed from the chamber, the incubation solution was discarded, and bags rinsed four times with distilled water.

For in vitro true digestibility determination, bags were placed in an ANKOM fiber analyzer and boiled in neutral detergent solution for 75 min. Bags were removed, soaked twice in acetone for 5 min at each soaking and dried at 100 ˚C for 24 h. The in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) was calculated as the difference between OM incubated and the residue after neutral detergent (ND) treatment. In vitro fiber digestibility was calculated as the difference between the amount of fiber incubated and recovered after ND treatment.

In vitro gas production. Ruminal fluid was collected approximately 3 h after morning feeding from two fistulated sheep consuming maintenance level of energy and protein (Table 1). Ruminal fluid was immediately squeezed through four layers of cheesecloth and was transported to the laboratory in a sealed thermos. The resulting ruminal fluid was purged with deoxygenated CO2 before use as the inoculum. Gas production was measured by Fedorak and Hrudy method.17 Approximately 300 mg of dried and ground (2 mm) samples was weighed and placed into serum bottles. Buffered rumen fluid with McDougall’s buffer (20 mL) was pipetted into each serum bottle.16 The gas production was recorded after 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48, 72, and 96 h of incubation. Total gas values were corrected for the blank incubation, and reported gas values are expressed in mL per 1 gram of DM. Rate and extent of gas production was determined for each feed by fitting gas production data to the non-linear equation Y = a+b (1 − e−ct),18 where y is the volume of gas produced at time t, a+b the gas production of soluble and insoluble fraction (mL g−1 DM), and c the fractional rate of gas production. Variables b and c were estimated by an iterative least square method using a non-linear regression procedure of the statistical analysis systems.19 Organic matter digestibilities (OMD) were calculated using equations of Menke et al.,20 as:

OMD ( g 100 g -1 DM) = 14.880 + 0.889×GP + 0.450×CP + 0.0651× XA

in which, XA is ash in g 100 g-1 DM and GP is the net gas production (mL) at 24 h.

Statistical analysis. Data obtained from in vitro Tilley and terry, DaisyII and gas production studies was subjected to analysis of variance as a completely randomized design by the GLM procedure of SAS Institute Inc.19 and treatment means were compared by the Duncan test. Significance was declared at P < 0.05.

Results

Raw garlic and garlic oil composition. The ingredients of substrate have been presented in Table 1. Crude fat of garlic bulb was 7.1 g kg−1 on a DM basis. Garlic bulb yielded 0.12% garlic oil on a wet weight basis. The GC–MS analyses of garlic oil revealed that trisulfide di-2-propenyl (32.76%), diallyl disulfide (28.41%) and trisulfide methyl 2-propenyl (14.26%) are the main components of the oil.

Tilley and Terry two-stage in vitro method. Chemical content and OM digestibility estimates for diets supplemented with additives are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Diets supplemented with MON and EO significantly reduced OM digestibility compared to CTR (P < 0.05). Garlic supplementation had no effects on digestibility (P > 0.05). Digestibility of substrate supplemented with EO2 and EO3 was reduced significantly compared to EO1 and MON. Organic matter digestibility was greater in gas production technique and DaisyII than IVOMD (P < 0.001) in all treatment groups (Table 2).

Table 2.

Comparison of organic matter digestibility (OMD, %) for diet supplemented with monensin, raw garlic and garlic EO with conventional in vitro (Tilley and Terry), DaisyII and gas production techniques

Techniques Treatments
CTR MON GAR1 GAR2 GAR3 EO1 EO2 EO3 SE P value
Tilley and Terry method
OMD 46.87a,y 38.32b,y 45.41a,y 45.47a,y 46.20a,y 39.47b,y 35.01c,y 34.49c,y 0.79 <0.0001
Gas production method
OMD 57.38a,x 51.21b,x 55.48a,x 56.56a,x 56.44a,x 39.40c,y 32.39d,z 30.61d,y 1.28 <0.0001
ANKOM, DaisyII method
OMD 55.13a,x 50.93b,x 54.54a,x 53.85a,x 55.15a,x 50.10b,x 44.48c,x 44.44c,x 0.79 <0.0001
NDFD 61.89a 57.49b 61.70a 61.87a 62.18a 48.78c 46.03d 41.31e 0.64 <0.0001
ADFD 54.15a 46.16b 53.97a 54.16a 54.88a 40.54c 31.32d 30.08e 0.58 <0.0001
Open in a new tab

CTR = control, MON = monensin 7.5 µg mL-1, GAR1 = raw garlic bulb 5 mg mL-1, GAR2 = raw garlic bulb 10 mg mL-1, GAR3 = raw garlic bulb 15 mg mL-1 EO1 = garlic essential oil 33 µg mL-1, EO2 = garlic essential oil 66µg mL-1, EO3 = garlic essential oil 100 µg mL-1

OMD = organic matter digestibility, NDFD = neutral detergent fiber digestibility, ADFD = acid detergent fiber digestibility

a,b,c,d,e

The means within a same row without common letter(s) differ (P < 0.05).

x,y,z

The means within a same column without common letter(s) differ (P < 0.05) for organic matter digestibility

Daisy II in vitro digestion. There were differences (P < 0.0001) among feeds in in vitro OM and NDF digestibility (Table 2). Organic matter digestibility in DaisyII in vitro digestion was similar to conventional in vitro acid-pepsin OM digestion (Table 2). OMD was significantly lower for substrates supplemented with MON and EO compared to CTR. The OMD values were highest (P < 0.01) for GAR3 and CTR and lowest for EO3 treatments.

No statistical difference (P > 0.05) was detected with the

DaisyII technique for NDF and ADF digestibility of diets supplemented with raw garlic. For diets supplemented with MON and EO, NDF and ADF digestibility decreased significantly (P < 0.05) compared to CTR. In addition, a reduction (P < 0.05) in NDF and ADF degradability by EO was found especially for diets incubated by high level of essential oils (Table 2). Compared to gas production technique the DaisyII technique overestimated (P < 0.05) OMD in EO supplemented groups but no significant effects observed with other treatments.

Gas production technique. There was a similar pattern with two previous methods in OM digestibility of samples; however, EO1 decreased significantly OMD compared to MON (P < 0.05). The volumes of gas production of the diet supplemented by different additives are shown in Table 3. There were significantly differences in gas production volumes among treatments at different incubation times (P < 0.05). Both MON and EO reduced (P < 0.05) gas production volume compared to CTR throughout the incubation time (Table 3). After 2 h incubation GAR3 had lowest gas production volume among treatments (P < 0.001), also in comparison with CTR, MON, EO1 and EO3 significantly decreased gas production volume (P < 0.01). Substrates supplemented with GAR3 (P < 0.05) caused lower gas production volume than CTR, GAR1 and GAR2 treatments but only for 6 h of incubation. No significant effect (P > 0.05) was observed for GAR3 after 8 h of incubation. GAR1 and GAR2 didn’t differ in patterns of gas production, although GAR1 differed from CTR starting from about 48 h of incubation (Table3). The amounts of potential gas production (a+b) for CTR and GAR2 treatments were higher than other treatments (Table 3). The EO3 treatment among treatments had the lowest (a+b) fraction (P < 0.05). The rate constant of gas production (c) for GAR1 and GAR3 was highest among the treatments (0.043 and 0.04 mL per hour, respectively). The pattern of fermentation of garlic EO was distinctly different from MON and GAR, particularly in the end of incubation (Table 3).

Table 3.

Gas production of feed stuffs incubated in buffered rumen fluid with different additives (mL g-1 DM).

Treatments Incubation times (h)
2 4 6 8 12 16 24 36 48 72 96 a+b c (h-1)
CTR 24.83a 32.84a 69.10a 95.61a 119.54a 142.60a 193.93a 224.64a 271.60a 287.88a 309.88a 309.08a 0.031cd
MON 19.93c 24.14b 57.80b 83.98b 106.93b 128.98b 159.22b 192.19b 215.10ab 226.27c 249.45c 243.50d 0.032c
GAR 1 23.44ab 29.26a 63.78ab 87.23b 115.30ab 136.56ab 183.22a 208.82ab 224.21b 257.62b 279.17b 272.30c 0.04a
GAR 2 24.42a 32.59a 70.04a 100.44a 122.50a 143.54a 189.31a 223.13a 249.00ab 286.37a 310.59a 309.18a 0.03b
GAR 3 16.00d 25.26b 61.28b 95.75a 124.04a 145.30a 188.63a 221.12a 243.80ab 280.58a 299.24ab 300.00b 0.04a
EO 1 20.44bc 21.37b 21.73c 24.64c 30.67c 61.69c 92.80c 108.22c 123.50ab 135.61d 147.39d 156.61e 0.03c
EO 2 20.44bc 22.12b 23.24c 27.22c 29.59c 30.79d 53.38d 85.28d 100.80b 107.26e 113.48e 145.85f 0.01e
EO 3 21.78abc 23.60b 24.51c 25.54c 26.98c 27.80d 43.36d 65.97e 86.11b 104.44e 113.00e 132.72g 0.02e
SEM 1.82 2.25 3.62 4.13 4.89 5.33 7.23 10.68 10.84 11.61 12.21 0.277 0.00
Open in a new tab

DM = dry matter, CTR = control, MON = monensin 7.5 µg mL-1, GAR1 = raw garlic bulb 5 mg mL-1, GAR2 = raw garlic bulb 10 mg mL-1, GAR3 = raw garlic bulb 15 mg mL-1, EO1 = garlic essential oil 33 µg mL-1, EO2 = garlic essential oil 66µg mL-1, EO3 = garlic essential oil 100 µg mL-1, a+b = potential of gas production mL g-1 DM, c = rate constant of gas production during incubation mL h-1

a,b,c,d,e,f,g

The means within a same column without common letter(s) differ significantly (P < 0.05).

Discussion

The technique of Tilley and Terry, was identified as an essential tool for the evaluation of ruminant feeds and is used widely because of its convenience, particularly when large-scale testing of feed stuffs is required.15 The gas measuring technique was considered to be a routine method of feed evaluation after the work of Menke et al. where a high correlation between in vitro and in vivo apparent digestibility was reported for gas production.20 Although in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) estimates are different than in vivo estimates of DMD, they are, generally, in closer agreement than the newer techniques.

In our study, the DaisyII techniques were used to estimate true digestibility and the conventional in vitro and gas production technique were used to estimate apparent digestibility. Theoretically, IVDMD should be expected to have lower values. Also overestimating digestibility for finely ground (1 mm) substrates in the filter bag based technique may be caused by agitation during incubation, boiling in neutral detergent solution, and through rinsing of the filter bags with water after 48 h of incubation. During this procedure a proportion of non-digestible fine particles may have been removed, reducing the weight of residue and increasing the estimate of digestibility compared to the conventional in vitro technique in which microbial matter and fine particles are retained. This finding is in accordance with Vogel et al.21 and Mabjeesh et al.22

In the present study, raw garlic was shown to have the potential to modify in vitro ruminal fermentation and to increase gas production volume compared to monensin. This is in contrast with Cullen et al.23 who reported that the inclusion of garlic at the higher level caused a significant reduction in dry matter and organic matter digestibilities. It could be explained with garlic’s high oligofructose and inulin content.24 Also effects of increased dietary non-starch polysaccharide (NSP) levels on the digestibility of starch, proteins and fat have been demonstrated in pig.25 This discrepancy could be explained by stimulating effects of dietary non-starch polysaccharide (NSP) levels on microbial growth in sheep rumen inoculum. In the present study the antimicrobial action of allicin and allin26 were not probably enough to be able to inhibit microbial fermentation, although the beneficial bacteria were believed to be unaffected as they were less sensitive to the inhibitory effects of garlic.24 The decreased fermentation as indicated by gas production volume for the first 6 h but not at later hours of incubation for GAR3, suggests that microbial populations are able to adapt to GAR over time due to shifts in microbial populations or adaptation of individual microbial species to garlic constituents. There are some reports for an adaptive response of rumen bacterial population to essential oil supplementation.27 Similarly, Busquet et al.10 studied effects of garlic oil on in vitro rumen microbial fermentation in a 24 h batch culture, although results of present study showed that the beneftial effects of EO did not change over entire experiments. In agreement with our results, Chen et al. found higher dry matter and organic matter digestibilities in pigs supplemented with garlic powder28; however, the exact mechanisms of this effect remain unclear.

All additives with the exception GAR decreased NDF degradability in DaisyII digestion method; moreover, in agreement with Wang et al., 9MON altered in vitro ruminal fermentation by reducing OM digestion and lowering gas production. Ionophores, such as monensin, selectively inhibit gram-positive microorganisms,29 which include most of the cellulolytic bacteria, capable of hydrolysing fiber (e.g. Ruminococcus albus, Ruminococcus flavefaciens, and Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens). In fact, in an in vitro degradability experiment, it has been demonstrated that monensin diminished NDF degradation.30 In contrast with Busquet et al.31 and Yang et al.11 who showed the supplementation of garlic oil did not affect true DM, OM, NDF, and ADF digestibilities, our results showed suppressing effects of EO on OM, NDF and ADF digestibility. These effects could be related to the antibacterial properties of essential oils that decreased the activity of the ruminal microorganism. However, because of the large number of different groups of chemical compounds present in EO, the antibacterial activity cannot be easily attributed to a specific mechanism. Several mechanisms have been suggested to explain the antibacterial action, including degradation of the cell wall, damage to the cytoplasmatic membrane, leakage of cell contents, coagulation of cytoplasm, and depletion of the proton motive force.32

NDF degradability was decreased by EO and monensin in the present study. Jalc et al. also showed that monensin decreased the in vitro degradability of NDF.30 Ionophores, such as monensin, act by interrupting trans-membrane movement and the intracellular equilibrium of ions, exhausting and causing the death of some micro-organisms.33 In in vivo studies, monensin did not affect NDF degradation1, because the expression of such effect in an in vivo ruminal medium is possibly more complex, inhibiting bacteria such as Streptococcus bovis (lactic acid producers) and therefore preventing the pH from falling, favoring activity of the cellulolytic bacteria. Therefore, it could be hypothesized that the effects of essential oils on degradability could be different between in vitro and in vivo studies. In contrast with Kongmun et al.34 who reported that garlic powder at 80 g kg-1 DM, increased in vitro potential degradability of OM in gas production technique, no change observed for OM digestion with gas production and ANKOM daisyII procedure in our study.

In this study the potential rate of gas production and rate of gas production was the lowest with EO supplementation. Antimicrobial activities of EO have been demonstrated against a wide variety of microorganisms, including Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. The antimicrobial activity of EO has been attributed to a number of terpenoid and phenolic compounds,35 as well as the chemical constituents and functional groups contained in the EO, the proportions in which they are present and the interactions between them.36 Essential oils have a high affinity for lipids of bacterial cell membranes due to their hydrophobic nature, and their antibacterial properties are evidently associated with their lipophilic character. Nagy and Tengerdy37 observed that EO extracted from Sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata) markedly inhibited activity of ruminal bacteria in vitro.

Evans and Martin observed that thymol (400 mg L-1), a main component of EO derived from Thymus and Origanum plants, was a strong inhibitor of methane in vitro, but it also caused a decrease in acetate and propionate concentrations.38 Busquet et al. found that in batch culture garlic oil and diallyl disulfide (300 mg L-1 of ruminal fluid) reduced methane production by 74 and 69% respectively, without altering digestibility.10

Our results showed that in comparison with monensin, GAR supplementation increased total gas production; however, when compared to CTR there was a decrease in gas production. Wanapat et al. found that the supplementation of diet with garlic powder resulted in a reduction of total volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and the proportion of acetate, but the proportion of propionate and butyrate were increased.12 Some studies have reported that EO addition increased VFA production,39,40 whereas others showed no effect,3,41 reflecting dependence of the outcome on the dose and diet.42 Gas production is an indication of quantitative VFA production. Since truly digested substrate is partitioned among VFA, gas, and microbial biomass; gas measurements only account for substrate that is used for VFA and gas production and does not reflect substrate utilized for microbial growth.

In conclusion, our results showed that raw garlic like monensin resulted in no adverse effects on in vitro digestibility of the diets. However, garlic EO, irrespective of its level, decreased gas production, OM and NDF degradability. The effects of essential oils on fermentation would not be nutritionally beneficial to the rumen energetic metabolism. However, further studies are required to investigate the effects of garlic constituents on in vivo ruminal fermentation and animal productivity.

a. Behroodatrak Company, Iran, Rumensin premix licensed by Elanco Division, Eli Lilly Canada Inc

b. Thermo Finigan, USA

c. TRACE 2000 / EI quadrapole

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the assistance of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of the Urmia University for their financial support.

References

  • 1.McGuffey RK, Richardson LF, Wilkinson JD. Ionophores for dairy cattle: current status and future outlook. J Dairy Sci . 2001;84(E- Suppl):E194–E203. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Thornton J H, Owens FN. Monensin supplementation and in vivo methane production by steers. J Anim Sci. 1981;52:628–634. doi: 10.2527/jas1981.523628x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Newbold CJ, McIntosh FM, Williams P, et al. Effects of a specific blend of essential oil compounds on rumen fermentation. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2004;114:105–112. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pentz R, Siegers CP. Methods for qualitative and quantitative assessment of their ingredients. In: Koch HP, Lawson LD, editors. Garlic;The Science and Therapeutic Application of Allium Sativum L. and Related Species. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins ; 1996. pp. 109–134. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Reuter HD, Koch JP, Lawson L. Therapeutic effects and applications of garlic and its preparations. In: In: Koch HP, Lawson LD., editors. Eds. Baltimore : Williams & Wilkins ; 1996. pp. 135–212. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.AFRC. AFRC TCORN Report No. 9. Nutritive Requirements of Ruminant Animals: Protein. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1992;62(12) [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Clevenger JP. Apparatus for the determination of volatile oil. J Am Pharm Assoc. 1928;17:345–349. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Domescik EJ, Scott A M. Effects of laidlomycin propionate and monensin on the in vitro mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation. J Anim Sci. 1999;77:2305–2312. doi: 10.2527/1999.7782305x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang Y, Alexander TN, McAllister TA. In vitro effects of Monensin and Tween 80 on ruminal fermentation of barley grain:barley silage-based diets for beef cattle. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2004;116:197–209. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Busquet M, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, et al. Effect of garlic oil and four of its compounds on rumen microbial fermentation. J Dairy Sci. 2005;88:4393–4404. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73126-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yang WZ, Benchaar C, Ametaj BN, et al. Effects of garlic and juniper berry essential oils on ruminal fermentation and on the site and extent of digestion in lactating cows. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90:5671–5681. doi: 10.3168/jds.2007-0369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wanapat M, Khejornsart P, Pakdee P, et al. Effect of supplementation of garlic powder on rumen ecology and digestibility of nutrients in ruminants. J Sci Food Agric. 2008;88:2231–2237. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC Inter-national. Maryland, USA: AOAC International; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991;74:3583–3597. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tilley JMA, Terry RA. A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J Br Grassl Soc. 1963;18:104–111. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.McDougall E, EI. The composition and output of sheep in salvia. Biochem J. 1948;43:99–109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fedorak PM, Hurdy DE. A simple apparatus for measuring gas production by methanogenic cultures in serum bottles. Environ Technol Leu. 1983;4:425–432. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Orskov ER, McDonald P. The estimation of protein digestibility in the rumen from incubation measurements weighed according to rate of passage. J Agric Sci Cambridge. 1979;92:499–503. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.SAS Institute INC. SAS user’s Guide: Statistics. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Menke KH, Raab L, Salewski A, et al. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J Agric Food Sci. 1979;93:217–222. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Vogel KP, Pedersen JF, Masterson SD, et al. Evaluation of a filter bag system for NDF, ADF, and IVDMD forage analysis. Crop Sci. 1999;39:276–279. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mabjeesh SJ, Galindez J, Kroll O, et al. The effect of roasting nonlinted whole cottonseed on milk production by dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2000;83:2557–2563. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)75148-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cullen SP, Monahan FJ, Callan JJ, et al. The effect of dietary garlic and rosemary on grower-finisher pig performance and sensory characteristics of pork. Ir J Agric Food Res. 2005;44:57–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gibson GR. Prebiotics for improved gut health. Food Sci Technol. 2001 Abst: 3731. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Fernandez JA, Jorgenson JM. Digestibility and absorption of nutrients as affected by fibre content in the diet of the pig. Lives Prod Sci. 1986;15:53–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ankri S, Mirelman D. Antimicrobial properties of allicin from garlic. Microbes and Infection. 1999;2:125–129. doi: 10.1016/s1286-4579(99)80003-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cardozo PW, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, et al. Effects of natural plant extracts on ruminal protein degradation and fermentation profiles in continuous culture. J Anim Sci. 2004;82:3230–3236. doi: 10.2527/2004.82113230x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chen YJ, Kim IH, Cho JH, et al. Evaluation of dietary L-carnitine or garlic powder on growth performance, dry matter and nitrogen digestibilities, blood profiles and meat quality in finishing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2008;141:141–152. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.BergenWG , Bates DB. Ionophores: their effect on production efficiency and mode of action. J Anim Sci. 1984;58:1465–1483. doi: 10.2527/jas1984.5861465x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Jalc D, Baran M, Vendrak T, et al. Effect of monensin on fermentation of hay and wheat bran investigated by the Rumen Simulation Technique (Rusitec). Basal parameters of fermentation. Arch Tierernahr. 1992;42:147–152. doi: 10.1080/17450399209432984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Busquet M, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, et al. Effects of cinnamaldehyde and garlic oil on rumen microbial fermentation in a dual flow continuous culture. J Dairy Sci. 2005;88:2508–2516. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72928-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Burt S. Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods- a review. Int J Food Microbiol. 2004;94:223–253. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.03.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Russell JB, Strobel HJ. Effect of ionophores on ruminal fermentation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1989;55:1–6. doi: 10.1128/aem.55.1.1-6.1989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kongmun P, Wanapat M, Pakdee P, et al. Effect of coconut oil and garlic powder on in vitro fermentation using gas production technique. Livestock science. 2010;127:38–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chao SC, Young DG, Oberg CJ. Screening for inhibitory activity of essential oils on selected bacteria, fungi and viruses. J Essent Oil Res. 2000;12:639–649. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Dorman HJD, Deans SG. Antimicrobial agents from plants: antibacterial activity of plant volatile oils. J Appl Microbiol. 2000;88:308–316. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2000.00969.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nagy JG, Tengerdy RP. Antibacterial action of essential oils of Artemisia as an ecological factor. II. Antibacterial action of the volatile oils of Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush) on bacteria from the rumen of mule deer. Appl Microbiol. 1968;16:441–444. doi: 10.1128/am.16.3.441-444.1968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Evans JD, Martin SA. Effects of thymol on ruminal microorganisms. Curr Microbiol. 2000;41:336–340. doi: 10.1007/s002840010145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Castillejos L, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, et al. Effects of a specific blend of essential oil compounds and the type of diet on rumen microbial fermentation and nutrient flow from a continuous culture system. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2005;119:29–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Benchaar C, Petit HV, Berthiaume R, et al. Effects of essential oils on digestion, ruminal fermentation, rumen microbial populations, milk production, and milk composition in dairy cows fed alfalfa silage or corn silage. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90:886–897. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71572-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Beauchemin KA, McGinn SM. Methane emissions from beef cattle: Effects of fumaric acid, essential oil, and canola oil. J Anim Sci. 2006;84:1489–1496. doi: 10.2527/2006.8461489x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Benchaar C, Calsamiglia S, Chaves AV, et al. A review of plant-derived essential oils in ruminant nutrition and production. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2008;145:209–228. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Veterinary Research Forum are provided here courtesy of Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

RESOURCES