Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T01:02:03.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mode of action of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in enteric methane mitigation in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2017

Y. L. Gong ,
J. B. Liang ,
M. F. Jahromi ,
Y. B. Wu ,
A. G. Wright  and
X. D. Liao
Y. L. Gong
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
J. B. Liang
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Sustainable Animal Production and Biodiversity, Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Food Security, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia
M. F. Jahromi
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Sustainable Animal Production and Biodiversity, Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Food Security, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia
Y. B. Wu
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
A. G. Wright
Affiliation:
School of Animal and Comparative Biomedical Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
X. D. Liao*
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
*
†E-mail: xdliao@scau.edu.cn
Get access

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to determine the effect and mode of action of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (YST2) on enteric methane (CH4) mitigation in pigs. A total of 12 Duroc×Landrace×Yorkshire male finisher pigs (60±1 kg), housed individually in open-circuit respiration chambers, were randomly assigned to two dietary groups: a basal diet (control); and a basal diet supplemented with 3 g/YST2 (1.8×1010 live cells/g) per kg diet. At the end of 32-day experiment, pigs were sacrificed and redox potential (Eh), pH, volatile fatty acid concentration, densities of methanogens and acetogens, and expression of methyl coenzyme-M reductase subunit A gene were determined in digesta contents from the cecum, colon and rectum. Results showed that S. cerevisiae YST2 decreased (P<0.05) the average daily enteric CH4 production by 25.3%, lowered the pH value from 6.99 to 6.69 in the rectum, and increased the Eh value in cecum and colon by up to −55 mV (P<0.05). Fermentation patterns were also altered by supplementation of YST2 as reflected by the lower acetate, and higher propionate molar proportion in the cecum and colon (P<0.05), resulting in lower acetate : propionate ratio (P<0.05). Moreover, there was a 61% decrease in Methanobrevibacter species in the upper colon (P<0.05) and a 19% increase in the acetogen community in the cecum (P<0.05) of treated pigs. Results of our study concluded that supplementation of S. cerevisiae YST2 at 3 g/kg substantially decreased enteric CH4 production in pigs.

Keywords

Saccharomyces cerevisiaemethanemethanogenmitigationpig
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , February 2018 , pp. 239 - 245
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cao, Z, Gong, YL, Liao, XD, Liang, JB and Yu, B 2013. Effect of dietary fiber on methane production in Chinese Lantang gilts. Livestock Science 157, 191–199.Google Scholar
Change, IC 1996. The science of climate change. Contribution of working group I to the second assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Chaucheyras, F, Fonty, G, Bertin, G and Gout, P 1995. In vitro H2 utilization by a ruminal acetogenic bacterium cultivated alone or in association with an archaea methanogen is stimulated by a probiotic strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61, 3466–3467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, YH, Walker, ND, McGinn, SM and Beauchemin, KA 2011. Differing effects of 2 active dried yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) strains on ruminal acidosis and methane production in nonlactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 2431–2439.Google Scholar
Desnoyers, M, Giger-Reverdin, S, Bertin, G, Duvaux-Ponter, C and Sauvant, D 2009. Meta-analysis of the influence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on ruminal parameters and milk production of ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1620–1632.Google Scholar
Ermler, U, Grabarse, W, Shima, S, Goubeaud, M and Thauer, RK 1997. Crystal structure of methyl-coenzyme Mreductase: the key enzyme of biological methane formation. Science 278, 1457–1462.Google Scholar
Goberna, M, Gadermaier, M, Garca, C, Wett, B and Insam, H 2010. Adaptation of methanogenic communities to the cofermentation of cattle excreta and olive mill wastes at 37°C and 55°C. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 76, 6564–6571.Google Scholar
Gong, YL, Liao, XD, Liang, JB, Jahromi, MF and Wang, H 2013. Saccharomyces cerevisiae live cells decreased in vitro methane production in intestinal content of pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 26, 856–863.Google Scholar
Grainger, C and Beauchemin, KA 2011. Can enteric methane emissions from ruminants be lowered without lowering their production? Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 308–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, YQ, Liu, JX, Lu, Y, Zhu, WY and Denman, SE 2008. Effect of tea saponin on methanogenesis, microbial community structure and expression of mcrA gene, in cultures of rumen microorganisms. Letters in Applied Microbiology 47, 421–426.Google Scholar
Helrick, K 2000. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemist, New York, US.Google Scholar
Jensen, BB 1996. Methanogenesis in monogastric animals. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 42, 99–112.Google Scholar
Ji, ZY, Cao, Z, Liao, XD, Wu, YB and Liang, JB 2011. Methane production of growing and finishing pigs in southern China. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 430–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, KA and Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.Google Scholar
Jones, WJ, Nagle, DP and Whitman, WB 1987. Methanogens and the diversity of archaebacteria. Microbiological Reviews 51, 135–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kessel, JAS and Russell, JB 1996. The effect of pH on ruminal methanogenesis. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 20, 205–210.Google Scholar
Lana, RP, Russell, JB and Van-Amburgh, ME 1998. The role of pH in regulating ruminal methane and ammonia production. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2190–2196.Google Scholar
Livak, KJ and Schmittgen, TD 2001. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the $${\rm 2}^{{{\minus}\Delta \Delta C_{t} }} $$ method. Methods 25, 402–408.Google Scholar
López-Gutiérrez, JC, Henry, S, Hallet, S, Martin-Laurent, F and Catroux, G 2004. Quantification of a novel group of nitrate-reducing bacteria in the environment by real-time PCR. Journal of Microbiological Methods 57, 399–407.Google Scholar
Luo, YH, Su, Y, Wright, ADG, Zhang, LL and Smidt, H 2012. Lean breed Landrace pigs harbor fecal methanogens in higher diversity and density than obese breed Erhualian pigs. Archaea 2012, 1–9.Google Scholar
Marden, JP, Bayourthe, C, Enjalbert, F and Moncoulon, R 2005. A new device for measuring kinetics of ruminal pH and redox potential in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 277–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, C, Morgavi, DP and Doreau, M 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351–365.Google Scholar
McGinn, SM, Beauchemin, KA, Coates, T and Colombatto, D 2004. Methane emissions from beef cattle: Effects of monensin, sunflower oil, enzymes, yeast, and fumaric acid. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3346–3356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, AR, Jouany, JP and Newbold, J 2000. Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Annales de Zootechnie 49, 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagaraja, TG and Titgemeyer, EC 2007. Ruminal acidosis in beef cattle: the current microbiological and nutritional outlook 1, 2. Journal of Dairy Science 90, E17–E38.Google Scholar
Newbold, CJ, Wallace, RJ, Chen, XB and McIntosh, FM 1995. Different strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae differ in their effects on ruminal bacterial numbers in vitro and in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1811–1818.Google Scholar
Patra, AK 2010. Meta-analyses of effects of phytochemicals on digestibility and rumen fermentation characteristics associated with methanogenesis. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 90, 2700–2708.Google Scholar
Robinson, PH and Erasmus, LJ 2009. Effects of analyzable diet components on responses of lactating dairy cows to Saccharomyces cerevisiae based yeast products: a systematic review of the literature. Animal Feed Science and Technology 149, 185–198.Google Scholar
Russell, JB 1998. The importance of pH in the regulation of ruminal acetate to propionate ratioand methane production in vitro . Journal of Dairy Science 81, 3222–3230.Google Scholar
Shibata, M and Terada, F 2010. Factors affecting methane production and mitigation in ruminants. Animal Science Journal 81, 2–10.Google Scholar
Singh, KM, Pandya, PR, Parnerkar, S, Tripathi, AK and Ramani, U 2010. Methanogenic diversity studies within the rumen of Surti buffaloes based on methyl coenzyme M reductase A (mcrA) genes point to Methanobacteriales. Pol J Microbiol 59, 175–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, P, Martino, D, Cai, Z, Gwary, D and Janzen, H 2008. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363, 789–813.Google Scholar
Su, Y, Bian, G, Zhu, ZG, Smidt, H and Zhu, WY 2014. Early methanogenic colonization in the feces of Meishan and Yorkshire piglets as determined by pyrosequencing analysis. Archaea 2014, 1–10.Google Scholar
Van-Soest, PJ, Robertson, JD and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharide in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Wallace, RJ and Newbold, CJ 1993. Rumen fermentation and its manipulation: the development of yeast cultures as feed additives. Biotechnology in the Feed Industry 1993, 173–192.Google Scholar
Wang, CJ, Wang, SP and Zhou, H 2009. Influences of flavomycin, ropadiar, and saponin on nutrient digestibility, rumen fermentation, and methane emission from sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 148, 157–166.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Gong supplementary material

Tables S1-S2

Download Gong supplementary material(File)
File 32.7 KB