Abstract
Background
Live yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has been used for a long time in ruminant feed as a probiotic supply on the intensifying system to avoid acidosis.
Objectives
This study investigated the effects of addition of live yeast S. cerevisiae in calf feed on growth, rumen pH and in vitro digestibility.
Methods
Sixteen Holstein calves were divided into two homogeneous groups corresponding to body weight. The ration comprises wheat straw 5 kg dry matter (DM)/calf/day and 8 kg DM/calf/day concentrate for the control group C and for the group LY. Each calf of the live yeast group LY gets more than C group, 28 g/calf/day of live yeast S. cerevisiae powder on the concentrate.
Results
This supplementation improves significantly (p < 0.003) the mean daily gain during the trial (ADG) with 400 g/calf. A notable increase (p < 0.004) was seen in final body weight gain (FWG) with 39.1 kg/calf. The live yeast supplementation decreases the feed intake and significantly (p < 0.05) the feed conversion rate (FCR) average. The live yeast S. cerevisiae as probiotic supply in ruminant feed improves the growth performance and feed efficiency in fattening calves.
Conclusions
In conclusion, we mentioned that live yeast supply induces a considerable advance in growth performance for calves.
Keywords: calves, growth, live yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae , probiotic
In fact, we hope our work lives up to a high impact article. We have dealt with an important subject in our country which has always and for a long time posed a problem for breeders which is a metabolic disease called acidosis due to the accumulation of lactic acid in the rumen inducing a decrease in rumen pH. The main cause of this problem is the excessive use of concentrated feeds in favor of extreme fiber forage. This is the result of the severe climatic conditions that Tunisia has known for years and the phenomenon of global warming. And so, among the quick and short‐term solutions, the use of yeast is advised by veterinarians and specialists in the field.
1. INTRODUCTION
The cattle breeding is a strategic component of agricultural production in many countries. Because of public growth, the states become ever invested in developing the meat sector to satisfy the current demand for red meat. This production improvement has contributed to the enormous expenditure of concentrate feed and cereals in animal feed, especially in fattening calves. Farming conditions over the decades have continued to evolve to adapt to the expectations and requirements of society and in particular to growing demand for animal products. To improve their profits and increase their revenues, these producers enlarge the shares of concentrate in animal feed without taking into account the compromises of metabolic illnesses such as acidosis led by this harm, contributing to reducing production. To avoid this risk, several studies have shown that these feed additives can resolve the risk of latent acidosis in ruminants. To boost their profits and extend their returns, producers grow the percentages of concentrate in animal feed without taking into account the concessions of metabolic disorders (Bramley et al., 2008). This acidosis leads to decreased production. To avert this compromise, several studies have shown that the value of feed additives seems to solve the compromise of latent acidosis in ruminants. They study live yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Chaucheyras‐Durand & Durand, 2010; Chaucheyras‐Durand et al., 2008; Desnoyers et al., 2006). Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been used as preventer supplement against diarrhoea and other digestive system problems in livestock (Chaucheyras‐Durand et al., 2008). They also give production benefits, reduced digestive problems and better health of animals in cost‐effective manners (Huber, 1997). They make it potential to keep animals healthy following digestive comfort and then enhance their production. This research tests the effect of the supplement of S. cerevisiae live yeast in the feed of cattle on in vitro digestibility, ruminal fluid pH and production in an intensifying system. Our study can be considered an indirect manipulation of the rumen microbiota with yeast supplementation.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experimental procedures were approved by the Committee of Animal Experiments (CEEA).
2.1. Animals and management
The study was conducted for 147 days on a fattening farm. We divided 16 Holstein Friesian calves into two homogeneous groups of eight calves per group (n = 8) corresponding to the body weight. The average body weight at the beginning of the trial was in order of 444 ± 29 kg and 459 ± 17 kg for C and live yeast LY groups, respectively (p > 0.7). These calves were given the ration made up of wheat straw and concentrate feed. The ration comprises wheat straw 5 kg dry matter (DM)/calf/day and 8 kg DM/calf/day concentrate feeds for the control group C and for the group LY, respectively. Each calf from LY group receives in addition to the calves from C group, 28 g/calf/day of live yeast S. cerevisiae ActisafSc47 in the feed. ActisafSc47 is a concentrate of live yeast S. cerevisiae (strain NCYC Sc 47). It is intended exclusively for animal feed. It is sold in the form of spherules characterised by a very low porosity, which preserves it from humidity and also rapid reactivation of cells. This low porosity also confers remarkable resistance to granulation. Therefore, ActisafSc 47 can be incorporated into granulated food. It is a zootechnical additive, stabiliser of the intestinal flora and digestibility enhancer in the form of a concentration of live yeast S. cerevisiae (strain Sc 47). We measured the weight every 2 weeks with a cattle scale. We also calculated the average daily gain (ADG), the final weight gain (FWG), and feed conversion rate (FCR). The quantity refused of wheat straw is also weighed on each control dates the day after the food distribution using a balance. We should note the full amount of concentrate feed eaten.
2.2. Chemical analysis
The chemical composition is presented as % of DM. DM was determined after oven drying at 65°C for 24 h and milling through a 1 mm screen that follows method ID 934.01 (AOAC, 2005). Ash content was measured by combustion at 550°C for 16 h according to method ID 942.05 (AOAC, 2005). Organic matter (OM) was calculated by method ID 967.05 (AOAC, 2005). Crude protein (CP) was determined by the Kjeldahl method ID 988.05 (AOAC, 2005). We performed the calculations of energy values using the approach and equations proposed by INRA (INRA, 1978, 1988). We express the nutritional values for nitrogen as digestible protein in the intestine (PDI) (g/kg DM). The PDI values are indicated as follows (INRA, 1978, 1988): PDIE, when energy is the limiting factor for rumen microbial activity; PDIN, when nitrogen is the limiting factor for rumen microbial activity.
2.3. In vitro fermentation parameters
We performed a determination of the total gas on the contents of the rumen filtered from the calf. In syringes, we set 0.3 g of a substrate (concentrate ground to 1 mm), 10 ml of rumen juice filtered ruminal fluid and 20 ml of artificial saliva. Then, we put the syringes vertically in a water bath at 39°C; we checked reading every 2 h after mixing syringes until a bearing (Orskov & Mc Donald, 1979).
2.4. Collection and measurements of ruminal fluid pH samples
This action was performed every 2 weeks, the day after the calf weight was measured. Rumen fluid samples were taken from each animal 5–6 h after the distribution of concentrate in the morning using a stomach tube (Sauvant et al., 1999). The pH of ruminal fluid samples was measured immediately using a portable pH meter (PH850 Portable pH Meter Kit; Apera Instruments, China).
2.5. Statistical analysis
Data of body weight, ADG, feed intake, FCR and ruminal fluid pH twice a month for 147 days were analysed as repeated measures using the mixed procedure of SAS (2000). The statistical model included the experimental diet.
The data recorded during the pre‐experimental period were used as covariates and included in the model. Significance was declared at p < 0.05 unless otherwise declared.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Chemical composition of feeds
The chemical composition of feeds is presented in Table 1. For wheat straw, it allows a low CP content 4% of DM, a high fibre content (CF) with 29% of DM and metabolised energy (ME) of 3.1 MJ/kg DM. For feed concentrate, the CP content is 16% of DM and the ME 8.2 MJ/kg of DM. We could consider the CP content of feed concentrate is not as per the required standard (Norton, 1994).
TABLE 1.
Chemical composition and nutritive value of diets
| Items | Concentrate | Wheat straw |
|---|---|---|
| DM (%) | 89.6 | 89.5 |
| Crude protein (%) | 16 | 4 |
| Crude fibre (%) | 6.3 | 29 |
| Ash (%) | 9 | 7 |
| Organic matter (%) | 91 | 93 |
| Fat (%) | 4.3 | nd |
| PDIE (g/kg DM) | 96 | 48 |
| PDIN (g/kg DM) | 80 | 22 |
| ME (MJ/kg DM) | 8.2 | 3.1 |
Note: The nutritional values for nitrogen are expressed as digestible protein in the intestine or PDI (g/kg DM).
Abbreviations: DM, dry matter; ME, metabolised energy (MJ/kg DM); nd, not determinated; PDIE, when energy is the limiting factor for rumen microbial activity; PDIN, when nitrogen is the limiting factor for rumen microbial activity.
3.2. Body weight and average daily gain
The results showed that supplementation of 28 g/calf/day of S. cerevisiae live yeast in the feed did not result in a significant difference in calf body weight (BW) between the two groups. In fact, body weight begins in the order of 444 ± 29 kg and 459 ± 17 kg for C and live yeast LY groups, respectively. Body weight measured every 2 weeks continued without significant variation between the two groups until reaching a final body weight (FBW) of the order of 603 ± 34 kg and 658 ± 18 kg for C and LY groups, respectively, but without reporting a significant difference. The interaction between the diet effect and the time does not show a significant difference throughout the trial (p > 0.367). The live body weight increases significantly (p < 0.0001) by advancing at the time regardless of the diet (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1.
Evolution of the corresponding curves of body weight for each group as a function of diet, of time, and their interaction; ns, not significant at (p < 0.05); diet*week: interaction effect between diet and time; C: control group; LY: group with live yeast supply
In contrast, we declare that the final body weight gain (FBWG) was 159.4 ± 8.6 kg for group C against 198.5 ± 7.5 kg for group LY with a considerable difference (p < 0.004). Regarding the ADG, we declare that the ADG of the fourth control increased by +0.6 kg (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the mean ADG increased from 1.5 ± 0.08 kg to 1.9 ± 0.08 kg for the groups C and LY, respectively (p < 0.003) (Table 2).
TABLE 2.
Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae live yeast feeding on body weight gain and ADG
| k | Control week | Group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Items | C | LY | SEM | p‐Value | |
| BW (kg) | |||||
| 2nd | 444 ± 29 | 459 ± 17 | 68.47 | 0.7 | |
| 4th | 470.5 ± 32 | 492 ± 17 | 73.4 | 0.56 | |
| 6th | 486.5 ± 31 | 519 ± 20.9 | 77.4 | 0.41 | |
| 8th | 498 ± 31.5 | 535 ± 23 | 77.99 | 0.36 | |
| 10th | 513 ± 32.9 | 558 ± 22.7 | 79.98 | 0.27 | |
| 12th | 536 ± 35 | 595 ± 20 | 81.11 | 0.17 | |
| 14th | 557 ± 36 | 615 ± 21 | 83.91 | 0.18 | |
| 16th | 578 ± 36 | 634 ± 20 | 82.19 | 0.19 | |
| 18th | 603 ± 34 | 658 ± 18 | 78.96 | 0.19 | |
| ADG (kg/c/d) | |||||
| 2nd | 1.98 ± 0.301 | 2.5 ± 0.32 | 0.98 | 0.27 | |
| 4th | 1.25 ± 0.270 | 2 ± 0.39 | 0.95 | 0.1 | |
| 6th | 0.930 ± 0.19 | 1.25 ± 0.30 | 0.71 | 0.39 | |
| 8th | 1.1b ± 0.160 | 1.7a ± 0.33 | 0.75 | 0.05 | |
| 10th | 1.8 ± 0.410 | 2.8 ± 0.41 | 1.16 | 0.1 | |
| 12th | 1.6 ± 0.210 | 1.6 ± 0.26 | 0.68 | 0.85 | |
| 14th | 1.5 ± 0.200 | 1.4 ± 0.14 | 0.49 | 0.58 | |
| 16th | 1.9 ± 0.290 | 1.8 ± 0.25 | 0.77 | 0.65 | |
| Mean ADG (kg/calf/d) | 1.5b ± 0.08 | 1.9a ± 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.003 | |
| Final weight body gain (kg) | 159.4b ± 8.6 | 198.5a ± 7.5 | 22.9 | 0.004 | |
Note: Mean values with different letters in the same row are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: ADG, average daily gain; BW, body weight; c, calf; d, day; SEM, standard error mean.
3.3. Total dry matter feed intake, feed conversion rate and ruminal fluid pH
The quantity of total DM feed intake (TDMI) remains proportionate to the two groups during the trial with the modest inferiority in the LY group but without significant variation. This parameter remains around an average of 9.6 ± 0.1 kg for group C and 9.4 ± 0.06 kg for group LY (p > 0.3). We noted a moderate amount of total intake of around 9.1 ± 0.07 kg DM/calf/day and a large amount of 9.8 ± 0.07 kg DM/calf/day for the group LY. We also show that the smallest amount of total intake is around 9.3 ± 0.1 kg DM/calf/day and the large amount of 9.8 ± 0.1 kg DM/calf/day for group C. For the total feed intake during the trial period, compared with the C group, the LY group was lower, but there was no significant difference 85.4 ± 0.05 kg DM/calf/day versus 86.5 ± 1.1 kg DM/calf/day (p > 0.3).
For the FCR determined for each measure, we admit significant variation between the two groups during the trial. Besides, for the average FCR, it is significantly lower for the LY group than the C group with 7 ± 0.4 versus 9 ± 0.8 (p < 0.05) for each group, respectively (Table 3).
TABLE 3.
Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on feed intake, feed conversion rate (FCR) and ruminal pH
| Group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Items | C | LY | SEM | p‐Value |
| Average intake (kg/c/d) | 9.6 ± 0.1 | 9.4 ± 0.06 | 0.27 | 0.3 |
| Total intake (kg/c) | 86.5 ± 1 | 85.4 ± 0.05 | 2.5 | 0.3 |
| Average FCR | 9b ± 0.8 | 7a ± 0.4 | 1.8 | 0.05 |
| Average ruminal pH | 5.93 ± 0.01 | 5.97 ± 0.007 | 0.03 | 0.4 |
Note: Mean values with different letters in the same row are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: c, calf; d, day; SEM, standard error mean.
The results show no remarkable modifications in ruminal fluid pH between the groups during the entire trial period. The interaction between the diet effect and the time does not display a significant difference throughout the trial (p > 0.693). Ruminal pH increases significantly (p < 0.0001) by advancing over time, but on the contrary, no difference was recorded in this parameter with the addition of live yeast in the diet (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2.
Evolution of the corresponding curves of ruminal pH for each group as a function of diet, time, and their interaction; ns, not significant at (p < 0.05); diet*week: interaction effect between diet and time; C: control group; LY: group with live yeast supply
The respective ruminal fluid pH values for the two groups are around an average value of 5.94. The respective pH values are 5.93 ± 0.01 and 5.95 ± 0.007 for the C and LY groups, respectively (p > 0.4) (Table 3). However, as shown in Figure 2, we can note a minor step up in ruminal fluid pH for the group LY compared to the group C due to live yeast.
3.4. Limits and rumen fermentation facies
The supplementation with live yeast S. cerevisiae did not alter the facies’ limit fermentation as organic matter digestibility (OMD), volatile fatty acid concentration (VFA), and ME, as well as the ammonia nitrogen (p > 0.1).
After incubation, the gas produced in the 100 ml glass syringe developed rapidly. After 24 h of incubation, the C diet recorded the maximum amount of gas 62.5 ml/0.3 g DM. The diet containing live yeast S. cerevisiae is <55.5 ml/0.3 g DM. After incubation of experimental diets in the 100 ml glass syringe, the diet supplemented with live yeast registered the largest volume of gas 56 ± 10.8 ml/0.3 g DM for cons, the control diet, which gave a small volume, produced 42.7 ± 8.8 ml/0.3 g DM. We show the kinetic limits of in vitro fermentation of the different substrates deduced from the exponential model of Orskov and Mc Donald (1979) in Table 4. They showed that they recorded the highest value of the volume of gas; the LY group diet 64.3 ml/0.3 g DM against the C group diet displays a lower value of 63.7 ml/0.3 g DM. The mixture (concentrate feed + live yeast) is the most fermented by the ruminal microbiota 0.03/h followed by the concentrate feed with 0.02/h. In vitro fermentation of two substrates depends on a lag phase, shown by the negative value of the soluble fraction (a) −3.1 ml/0.3 g DM and −2.7 ml/0.3 g DM for C and LY feed. This explains its low degradation. This lag phase looks because of the time required for microorganisms to accede to and colonise dietary fibre. As for the other limits, the predicted value points out that the OMD of the concentrate feed alone is 73.6% and 76% of the mixture, which explains why the supplement of live yeast shows no significant effect on this parameter (p > 0.26). It is common to ME issued by the various substrates (p > 0.4). Furthermore, although the total volatile fatty acids recorded; various values were 1.27 mmol/syringe in the concentrate feed only and 1.33 mmol/syringe for the concentrate feed + live yeast. The statistical analysis shows no significant variation (p > 0.26). The addition of live yeast produced more ammonia nitrogen N‐NH3. We register for the LY diet 0.20 ± 0.02 mg/ml compared with C diet 0.16 ± 0.04 mg/ml but without reporting a considerable difference (Table 4).
TABLE 4.
The limits a, b, c and (a + b) of non‐linear model of gas production and estimated limits from gas produced at 24 h: comparison of the two trial diets (C) and (LY)
| Items | Group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | LY | SEM | p‐Value | |
| a (ml) | −3.1b ± 1.6 | −2.7a ± 2 | 0.4.10–4 | <0.0001 |
| b (ml) | 109.6a ± 15 | 113.6b ± 11 | 0.4.10–5 | <0.0001 |
| c (h–1) | 0.02b ± 0.0006 | 0.03a ± 0.0006 | 0 | <0.0001 |
| a+ a + b (ml) | 106.5a ± 0.003 | 110.9b ± 0.001 | – | <0.0001 |
| Prod gas 24 h (ml) | 42.7 ± 8.8 | 56.0 ± 10.8 | 15.3 | 0.4 |
| Total gas (ml) | 63.7 ± 2.5 | 64.3 ± 0.6 | 2.9 | 0.5 |
| OMd (%) | 73.6 ± 2.8 | 76 ± 1.4 | 4.9 | 0.2 |
| ME (kcal) | 1919 ± 332 | 2419 ± 407 | 576 | 0.4 |
| VFA (mmol/syringe) | 1.27± 0.07 | 1.33 ± 0.04 | 0.004 | 0.2 |
| N‐NH3 (mg/ml) | 0.16 ± 0.04 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.0009 | 0.1 |
Note: Mean values with different letters in the same row are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: C, control diet; LY, diet supplemented with live yeast; ME, metabolised energy; N‐NH3, nitrogen ammonia produced by the diets; OMd, organic matter digestibility; SEM, standard error mean; VFA, volatile fatty acids.
4. DISCUSSION
Throughout the experimental period, the assigned ration is energetic, so it can fill the corresponding requirements. It has a significant percentage of acidogenic feed (61.5% of concentrate). Contents in CP were 16% in the concentrate feed and 4% for straw. This ration can lead to a state of ruminal acidosis (affirming to the feeder, it marks’ instances of acidosis marked by diarrhoea and lameness). According to Sauvant and Giger‐Reverdin (2015), we establish this pathology in intensive rearing when animals at a high production level receive rations richest concentrate feeds. Moreover, with proven results, Desnoyers (2008) demonstrated that the major sources of acidosis being insufficient adaptation of the rumen to the diet and with rapid or high digestion and fermentable carbohydrates. This ration can produce a state of rumen acidosis.
According to a study by Sauvant and Peyraud (2010), the diets with more than 40% of concentrate have a potential risk of acidosis. Desnoyers (2008) also showed that the main cause of acidosis is the normal adaptation of the rumen to diet. Numerous restrictions, including feed ingredients, can affect susceptibility to acidosis. The evolution of the average quantity of voluntary feed intake in DM/calf/day during the trial period was 9.8 ± 0.1 kg for group C and 9.8 ± 0.07 kg for the group LY (p > 0.6) during the first week of control. After the 10th week, there was an increase in intake, with the largest advance before the end of the trial 9.1 versus 9.3 kg DM/calf/day for the C group and LY group with a slight dominance in the C group. Over the overall period, the two diets generated a particular eating behaviour (Table 3). In fact, the values of the total dry matter intake recorded 85.4 ± 0.05 kg and 86.5 ± 1.1 kg DM/calf for the LY and C groups, respectively. Incorporating live yeast as a feed additive has no important effect on this parameter (p > 0.3). We are consistent with the results of Desnoyers (2008), Sauvant and Giger‐Reverdin (2015) and Sauvant and Peyraud (2010) who found that live yeast supplementation does not affect the amount of feed intake. A study by Moncoulon and Auclair (2001) showed that incorporating S. cerevisiae live yeast in the diet reduced the quantity of dry matter intake by 2.6%. During this trial, the live body weight of calves derived from 444 ± 29 kg to 603 ± 34 kg for the C group and from 459 ±17 kg to 658 ± 18 kg for the LY group at the end of the trial, without significant dominance between the two groups (p > 0.19). According to Table 2, the calves that did not receive S. cerevisiae live yeast achieved a weight gain of 159.4 ± 8.6 kg compared to 198.5 ± 7.5 kg for those of the LY group. The statistical analysis shows that body weight gains differ (p < 0.004) between the two groups with a significant difference of 39.1 kg between the average values obtained. Regarding the mean ADG, statistical analysis shows a notable difference only for the ADG at the fourth week (p < 0.05) and mean daily gain ADG (p < 0.003) that has undergone a remarkable improvement at 1.9 ± 0.08 kg/day for calves of the LY group against 1.5 ± 0.08 kg/day for the C group. These results are consistent with those of Majdoub‐Mathlouthi et al. (2011), who showed that the addition of live yeast to fattening bulls fed poor forage increased the ADG of 39.6% with a significant gain (p < 0.01) of the body weight at the end of this trial. An improvement in the limits of ruminal fermentation interprets these rises. Moncoulon and Auclair (2001) and Sauvant and Peyraud (2010) proved that the influence of live yeast is more effective for diets rich in concentrate and for animals with a greater feed intake. Moncoulon and Auclair (2001) and Sauvant and Peyraud (2010) have shown that the influence of live yeast is more effective with diets rich in concentrate and for animals with a greater food intake. That is to say, that in the case of acidogenic regimes distributed in farms carried out intensively. The intake of live yeast can modify the physicochemical limits of the rumen in a beneficial way for the animal by allowing the synthesis of a greater quantity of AGV and significant increases (p < 0.01) of the accumulation of acetate and propionate while maintaining a high pH. In addition, decreasing the lactic acid concentration and increasing the propionic acid concentration, improving the digestibility of the organic matter, and then induce an increase in weight gain. The results from Table 3 showed that the diet supplemented with live yeast caused on average a significant decrease in the FCR to those got with the control diet 7 ± 0.4 and 9 ± 0.8 kg DM feed intake/kg gain for C and LY groups. The effect of this feed additive on FCR is important (p < 0.05) on this experimental model, suggesting that live yeast improved rumen conditions and the efficacy of microbial flora in the rumen (Maamouri et al., 2016). The results obtained from this trial show the capacity of this feed additive to exert an effect on calves growth and this with the improvement of feed efficiency (FCR), as has been demonstrated throughout the trial (Sauvant & Giger‐Reverdin, 2015; Cano Lopez et al., 2010).
The herd is considered to be in a state of latent acidosis, therefore it is necessary to maintain the rumen pH at a level between 6 and 6.4, which is considered the optimal range for rumen fermentation, digestion of fibers and offers considerable performance to high yielding animals (Sauvant et al., 1999). It results from a permanent imbalance between great production of volatile fatty acids and a small yield of a salivary buffer when we feed animals to concentrate feed and limited forage. So, this ration used is unacceptable to hold away the risk of acidosis. Below these values, we examine the herd as acidosis. It has concluded that live yeast as a feed additive can modulate microbial fermentation of the rumen. Furthermore, changes in calves fattening behaviour such as total feed intake, which has a modest inferiority for group LY compared with the C group, showed no significant variation of 0.200 kg/calf/day. For the feed conversion ratio average, it is lower for the LY group compared with the C group with a difference of two points. We note a minor step up in ruminal fluid pH for the group LY compared to the group C. The supplementation with live yeast can improve moderately FWG. In addition, it appears crucial to explore the mechanisms of action of the S. cerevisiae metabolic activities and intra‐ruminal microbiote of ruminants and their impacts on animal health. The ruminal pH increases significantly (p < 0.0001) by advancing at the time, regardless of the diet, which can be explained by the fact of the adaptation of rumen microbiote by the diet advances at the time. As shown in Figure 2, it appears that the rumen pH value has increased significantly (p < 0.0001) over time and this more clearly the group of animals receiving the live yeast to reach a mean value at the end of the period. At the end of the test, the ruminal pH recorded was close to 6, where we can suggest the positive effect of this additive to prevent acidosis. This proves that probiotic yeast has the ability to stabilise the rumen pH, thus allowing, thanks to the stimulation of cellulolytic bacteria, a better use of the ration by the animal (Williams et al., 1991). According to Oetzel (2000), these yeasts are recommended in intensive ruminant farming systems, where diets rich in rapidly fermentable carbohydrates are likely to cause acidosis.
This trial allowed us to examine the effects of live yeast as a feed additive; the fermented profile of the rumen defined by various variables such as OMD, ME, VFA and N‐NH3. We find those after the prediction by in vitro gas production method (Menke & Steingass, 1988). We demonstrate the gas production results for the different substrates as a role of time in Figure 3. The production of in vitro gas in 100‐ml glass syringes undergoes rapid evolution after incubation. Studies in adult animals have shown no effect of live yeast supplementation on these fermented limits of the rumen (Mickael, 2012). A study carried by Marden (2007) showed an increase in ruminal VFA concentration with live yeast supplementation. In addition, Desnoyers (2008) showed that the influence of these types of additives on the digestibility of organic matter is positive for diets with less than 67% concentrate feed, but negative for diets with over 67% concentrate feed. Likewise, the conclusive effect of live yeast in certain limits, such as AGV, can also increase for diets rich concentrate and rich in fibre. The results are so variable in the research, so many factors, in particular the diet, can change the influence of live yeast on ruminal fermentation. The results are found to agree with those of Cano Lopez et al. (2010), who found no significant differences between the two treatments at the level of the ADG, even if it is higher in animals that received live yeast. Trials performed by El Hassan et al. (1993) on young bulls reported a significant increase in ADG when animals receive an acidogenic diet. This could be the live yeast effect, which helps limit fermentation disturbances in the rumen caused by concentrated feeds (Desnoyers, 2008).
FIGURE 3.
Kinetics of gas production by the two tested diets (in ml): C: diet of control group; LY: diet with live yeast supply
5. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we mentioned a considerable advance in the total ADG during the trial. In addition, significant increases in FWG with the supply of live yeast S. cerevisiae. The intake is lower with the supply of live yeast from the middle to the end of the test, but without a noticeable difference. The mean FCR was lower for the live yeast group. We did not note any changes in ruminal fluid pH and facies fermentation parameters. Live yeast as a probiotic effect results in rumen comfort of animals receiving this additive in the feed, which has been shown to improve their performance.
ANIMAL WELFARE STATEMENT
The authors confirm that they have followed the Committee of Animal Experiments (CEEA), of Tunisia for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, writing‐original draft and writing‐review & editing: Omar Maamouri. Conceptualization, validation, visualization, writing‐original draft and writing‐review & editing: Mondher Ben Salem.
PEER REVIEW
The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1002/vms3.631
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the breeder and Mr Sales Manager of Arm and Hammer Company, sector of the Animal Nutrition in Tunisia.
Maamouri, O. , & Ben Salem, M. (2022). The effect of live yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as probiotic supply on growth performance, feed intake, ruminal pH and fermentation in fattening calves. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 8, 398–404. 10.1002/vms3.631
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The author has provided the required data availability statement and, if applicable, included functional and accurate links to said data therein.
REFERENCES
- AOAC (2005). Official methods of analysis of AOAC International (18th ed.). Association Office. [Google Scholar]
- Bramley, E. , Lean, I. J. , Fulkerson, W. J. , Stevenson, M. A. , Rabiee, A. R. , & Costa, N. D. (2008). The definition of acidosis in dairy herds predominantly fed on pasture and concentrates. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(1), 308–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cano Lopez, G. , Villalba Mata, D. , & Philippe, F. (2010). Comparaison de l'effet de l'apport en levures Saccharomyces cerevisiae vivantes ou inactivées sur les performances de croissance de bovins en engraissement. Rencontres Recherches Ruminants, 17, 316. [Google Scholar]
- Chaucheyras‐Durand, F. , & Durand, H. (2010). Probiotics in animal nutrition and health. Beneficial Microbes, 1(1), 3–9. 10.3920/BM2008.1002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chaucheyras‐Durand, F. , Walker, N. , & Bach, A. (2008). Effects of active dry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem: Past, present and future. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 145(1), 5–26. 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.04.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Desnoyers, M. (2008). Intérêt de l'apport de levures sur la susceptibilité à l'acidose et le comportement alimentaire du ruminant . [PhD thesis, Institut des sciences et Industries du vivant et de l'environnement (Agro Paris Tech), France].
- Desnoyers, M. , Duvaux‐ponter, C. , Bertin, G. , Roussel, S. , Tessier, J. , Piquerel, P. , & Giger‐Reverdin, S. (2006). Effets de l'apport de levures (Saccharomyces cerevisiae CBS493.94) sur le comportement et la réactivité émotionnelle de chèvres laitières en acidose subclinique. Rencontres Recherches Ruminants, 13, 137. [Google Scholar]
- El Hassan, S. M. , Newbold, C. J. , & Wallace, R. J. (1993). The effect of yeast in the rumen and the requirement for viable yeast cells [Abstract]. Animal Production, 54, 504. 10.1017/S0308229600024971 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Huber, J. T. (1997). Probiotics in cattle. Chapman and Hall. [Google Scholar]
- INRA . (1978). Alimentation des ruminants, Versailles. INRA Editions. [Google Scholar]
- INRA . (1988). Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. INRA Editions. [Google Scholar]
- Maamouri, O. , Jemmali, B. , Amrawi, M. , Selmi, H. , & Rouissi, H. (2016). Effects of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) feed concentrate supplement on growth performances and microbial activity in the rumen of “Queue Fine de l'Ouest” lambs. Journal of New Sciences, (14), 1297–1302. [Google Scholar]
- Majdoub‐Mathlouthi, L. , Chammaoui, A. , & Kraiem, K. (2011). Effet de la levure Saccharomyces cerevisiae sur les performances des taurillons à l'engraissement alimentés à base de fourrages pauvres. Livestock Research of Rural Development, 23, 11. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/11/majd23240.htm [Google Scholar]
- Marden, J. P. (2007). Contribution à l’étude du mode d'action de la levure Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sc47 chez le ruminant : Approche thermodynamique chez la vache laitière . [PhD thesis, ENSAT, Toulouse, France]. [Google Scholar]
- Menke, K. H. , & Steingass, H. (1988). Estimation of the energetic feed value got from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research Development, 28, 7–55. [Google Scholar]
- Mickael, R. (2012). Implantation du microbiote et mise en place des fonctions du rumen chez le veau de race laitière et effet de la supplémentation en levures vivantes. [PhD thesis, Université. Polytechnique, Toulouse, France: ]. [Google Scholar]
- Moncoulon, R. , & Auclair, E. (2001). Utilisation du BIOSAF® Sc 47 pour la production de viande de taurillon. Rapport de Recherche; [Google Scholar]
- Norton, B. W. (1994). Tree Legumes as dietary supplements for ruminants. In Gutteridge RC and Shelton HM: Forage tree legumes in tropical agriculture (pp. 192–201). CAB International. [Google Scholar]
- Oetzel, G. R. (2000). Clinical aspects of ruminal acidosis in dairy cattle. Proceedings of the Thirty‐Third Annual Conference (pp. 46–53). American Association of Bovine Practitioners. [Google Scholar]
- Orskov, E. R. , & Mc Donald, I. (1979). The estimations of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate passage. Journal Agriculture Science Cambridge, 92, 499–502. [Google Scholar]
- SAS (2000). Institute Inc. SAS/STAT ® 8 User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc. [Google Scholar]
- Sauvant, D. , & Giger‐Reverdin, S. (2015). Approche quantitative de l'acidose chez les ruminants. Bulletin de l'Académie Vétérinaire de France, 168(3), 260–266. [Google Scholar]
- Sauvant, D. , Meschy, F. , & Mertens, D. (1999). Les composantes de l'acidose ruminale et les effets acidogènes des rations. INRA Productions Animales, 12(1), 49–60. [Google Scholar]
- Sauvant, D. , & Peyraud, J. L. (2010). Calculs de rations et évaluation du risque acidogène. INRA Productions Animales, 23, 333–342. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, P. E. V. , Tait, C. A. G. , Innes, G. M. , & Newbold, C. J. (1991). Effects of the inclusion of yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae plus growth medium) in the diet of dairy cows on milk yield and forage degradation and fermentation patterns in the rumen of steers. Journal of Animal Science, 69, 3016–3026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The author has provided the required data availability statement and, if applicable, included functional and accurate links to said data therein.