Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bt4hw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:37:43.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of fumaric acid on ruminal parameters and organ weights of growing bulls fed with grass or maize silage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2017

N. Remling ,
S. Riede ,
U. Meyer ,
A. Beineke ,
G. Breves ,
G. Flachowsky  and
S. Dänicke
N. Remling
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Nutrition, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute (FLI), Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Bundesallee 50, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany
S. Riede
Affiliation:
Institute for Physiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30559 Hannover, Germany
U. Meyer*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Nutrition, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute (FLI), Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Bundesallee 50, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany
A. Beineke
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Bünteweg 17, 30559 Hannover, Germany
G. Breves
Affiliation:
Institute for Physiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30559 Hannover, Germany
G. Flachowsky
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Nutrition, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute (FLI), Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Bundesallee 50, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany
S. Dänicke
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Nutrition, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute (FLI), Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Bundesallee 50, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany
*
† E-mail: ulrich.meyer@fli.de
Get access

Abstract

The influence of the potential methane reducer, fumaric acid (FA), on ruminal parameters, the rumen wall and organ weights was investigated in a long-term study with growing bulls. In all, 20 bulls were fed with maize or grass silage as roughage, and with concentrate with or without 300 g FA per animal and day during the whole fattening period. After slaughtering, the organs were weighed and blood serum was analysed for glucose, β-hydroxybutyric acid (BHB) and non-esterified fatty acid concentration. The ruminal fluid was analysed for short-chain fatty acids, ammonia-N and the microbial community via single strand conformation polymorphism analysis. The rumen wall was examined histopathologically and results were graded as ‘no visible lesions’, ‘few inflammatory infiltrates’, ‘some inflammatory infiltrates’ or ‘several inflammatory infiltrates’. In addition, the dimensions of the rumen villi were measured. The FA supplementation decreased the serum BHB concentration and the butyric acid concentration in the ruminal fluid. The microbial community in the ruminal fluid was not influenced by FA. An interaction between FA and silage type was observed for the inflammation centres counted in the villous area of rumen papillae. This interaction was also observed in the length and surface of the rumen villi. Rumen villi results show that the influence of FA depends on the roughage used in the diet.

Keywords

fumaric acidgrowing bullsruminal parametersorgan weightssilage

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 10 , October 2017 , pp. 1754 - 1761
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

Anderson, MJ 2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26, 32–46.Google Scholar
Aschemann, M, Lebzien, P, Hüther, L, Südekum, K-H and Dänicke, S 2012. Effect of niacin supplementation on rumen fermentation characteristics and nutrient flow at the duodenum in lactating dairy cows fed a diet with a negative rumen nitrogen balance. Archives of Animal Nutrition 66, 303–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayaru, E, Kanda, S, Kamada, T, Itabashi, H, Andoh, S, Nishida, T, Ishida, M, Itoh, T, Nagara, K and Isobe, Y 2001. Effect of fumaric acid on methane production, rumen fermentation and digestibility of cattle fed roughage alone. Animal Science Journal 72, 139–146.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA and McGinn, SM 2006. Methane emissions from beef cattle: effects of fumaric acid, essential oil, and canola oil. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1489–1496.Google Scholar
Callaway, TR and Martin, SA 1996. Effects of organic acid and monensin treatment on in vitro mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation of cracked corn. Journal of Animal Science 74, 1982–1989.Google Scholar
Carberry, CA, Kenny, DA, Han, S, McCabe, MS and Waters, SM 2012. Effect of phenotypic residual feed intake and dietary forage content on the rumen microbial community of beef cattle. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 78, 4949–4958.Google Scholar
Carrasco, C, Medel, P, Fuentetaja, A and Carro, MD 2012. Effect of malate form (acid or disodium/calcium salt) supplementation on performance, ruminal parameters and blood metabolites of feedlot cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 176, 140–149.Google Scholar
Castillo, C, Benedito, JL, Mendez, J, Pereira, V, Lopez-Alonso, M, Miranda, M and Hernandez, J 2004. Organic acids as a substitute for monensin in diets for beef cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 115, 101–116.Google Scholar
Castillo, C, Benedito, JL, Pereira, V, Vazquez, P, Alonso, ML, Mendez, J and Hernandez, J 2007. Malic acid supplementation in growing/finishing feedlot bull calves: influence of chemical form on blood acid-base balance and productive performance. Animal Feed Science and Technology 135, 222–235.Google Scholar
Chethan, KP, Verma, AK and Singh, P 2013. Effect of fumaric acid supplementation on methanogenesis and rumen fermentation in Barbari goats. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 83, 63–66.Google Scholar
Cincovic, RM, Branislava, B, Biljana, R, Hristov, S and Dokovic, R 2012. Influence of lipolysis and ketogenesis to metabolic and hematological parameters in dairy cows during periparturient period. Acta Veterinaria 62, 429–444.Google Scholar
Danielsson, R, Werner-Omazic, A, Ramin, M, Schnurer, A, Griinari, M, Dicksved, J and Bertilsson, J 2014. Effects on enteric methane production and bacterial and archaeal communities by the addition of cashew nut shell extract or glycerol-an in vitro evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 5729–5741.Google Scholar
DIN38406-E5-2 1998. Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-, Abwasser- und Schlammuntersuchung. 40. Lieferung. Beuth Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Dobson, A and Phillipson, AT 1965. Absorption from the ruminant forestomach. Handbook of Physiology, Alimentary Canal, Volume V, American Physiological Society. Washington DC, USA, pp. 2761–2774.Google Scholar
Engel, CAR, Straathof, AJJ, Zijlmans, TW, van Gulik, WM and van der Wielen, LAM 2008. Fumaric acid production by fermentation. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 78, 379–389.Google Scholar
Fitzsimons, C, Kenny, DA and McGee, M 2014. Visceral organ weights, digestion and carcass characteristics of beef bulls differing in residual feed intake offered a high concentrate diet. Animal 8, 949–959.Google Scholar
Flachowsky, G and Brade, W 2007. Reduction potentials for methane emissions from ruminants. Züchtungskunde 79, 417–465.Google Scholar
Flachowsky, G, von Soosten, D and Meyer, U 2015. Climate relevant emissions from animal production and reduction potentials. Animal Review 2, 19–57.Google Scholar
Gäbel, G and Sehested, J 1997. SCFA transport in the forestomach of ruminants. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology 118, 367–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geissler, C, Hoffmann, M and Hickel, B 1976. Ein Beitrag zur gaschromatischen Bestimmung flüchtiger Fettsäuren. Archives of Animal Nutrition 26, 123–129.Google Scholar
GfE 1995. Empfehlungen zur Energie- und Nährstoffversorgung der Mastrinder. DLG Verlag, Frankfurt (Main), Germany.Google Scholar
Hofmann, RR and Schnorr, B 1982. The functional morphology of proventriculi. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Miettinen, H and Ylinen, M 1993. Effect of increasing ruminal butyrate on milk-yield and blood-constituents in dairy-cows fed a grass silage-based diet. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 1114–1124.Google Scholar
Hungate, RE 1966. The rumen and its microbes. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Kolver, E and Aspin, P 2006. Supplemental fumarate did not influence milksolids or methane production from dairy cows fed high quality pasture. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 66, 409–415.Google Scholar
Kraft, W and Dürr, UM 2005. Klinische Labordiagnostik in der Tiermedizin. Schattauer GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Mach, N, Devant, M and Bach, A 2005. Relationship between rumen fermentation parameters and rumen papillae characteristics in finishing bulls – Relacion entre los parametros relativos a la fermentacion ruminal y las papilas ruminales en terneros durante la fase de acababo. In Proceedings of the XI Jornadas sobre Produccion Animal, 11–12 Mayo 2005, Zaragoza, Spain, pp. 533–535.Google Scholar
Mach, N, Devant, M and Bach, A 2006. Rumen fermentation parameters and rumen papillae characteristics in finishing bulls as affected by nonfibrous carbohydrate level and lipid source of the diet. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 5, 220–225.Google Scholar
Martin, SA 1998. Manipulation of ruminal fermentation with organic acids: a review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 3123–3132.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
Nielsen, NI, Ingvartsen, KL and Larsen, T 2003. Diurnal variation and the effect of feed restriction on plasma and milk metabolites in TMR-fed dairy cows. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series A – Physiology Pathology Clinical Medicine 50, 88–97.Google Scholar
Omazic, W, Kronqvist, AC, Zhongyan, L, Martens, H and Holtenius, K 2015. The fate of glycerol entering the rumen of dairy cows and sheep. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition (Berlin) 99, 258–264.Google Scholar
Owens, D, McGee, M, Boland, T and O’Kiely, P 2009. Rumen fermentation, microbial protein synthesis, and nutrient flow to the omasum in cattle offered corn silage, grass silage, or whole-crop wheat. Journal of Animal Science 87, 658–668.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Secrist, DS, Hill, WJ and Gill, DR 1998. Acidosis in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 275–286.Google Scholar
Penner, GB, Steele, MA, Aschenbach, JR and McBride, BW 2011. Ruminant nutrition symposium: molecular adaptation of ruminal epithelia to highly fermentable diets. Journal of Animal Science 89, 1108–1119.Google Scholar
Remling, N, Hachenberg, S, Meyer, U, Höltershinken, M, Flachowsky, G and Dänicke, S 2011. Influence of various amounts of fumaric acid on performance and parameters of the acid–base balance of growing bulls fed with grass or maize silage. Archives of Animal Nutrition 65, 386–401.Google Scholar
Remling, N, Riede, S, Lebzien, P, Meyer, U, Höltershinken, M, Kersten, S, Breves, G, Flachowsky, G and Dänicke, S 2013. Effects of fumaric acid on rumen fermentation, milk composition and metabolic parameters in lactating cows. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 98, 968–981.Google Scholar
Rezac, DJ, Thomson, DU, Bartle, SJ, Osterstock, JB, Prouty, FL and Reinhardt, CD 2014. Prevalence, severity, and relationships of lung lesions, liver abnormalities, and rumen health scores measured at slaughter in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 92, 2595–2602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riede, S, Boguhn, J and Breves, G 2013. Studies on potential effects of fumaric acid on rumen microbial fermentation, methane production and microbial community. Archives of Animal Nutrition 67, 368–380.Google Scholar
Sirohi, SK, Poonam, P and Navneet, G 2012. Response of fumaric acid addition on methanogenesis, rumen fermentation, and dry matter degradability in diets containing wheat straw and sorghum or berseem as roughage source. ISRN Veterinary Science 2012, 496801.Google Scholar
Stewart, AM and Walsh, P 1967. Studies on rumen development in the beef cattle. I. Anatomical changes in the rumen of the calf. In Proceedings of the First Rhodesian Science Congress, May 16–20 1967, Bulawayo, Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, p. 8.Google Scholar
Tamate, H, McGilliard, AD, Jacobsen, NL and Getty, R 1962. Effect of various dietaries on anatomical development of the stomach in the calf. Journal of Dairy Science 45, 408–420.Google Scholar
Warner, RG, Flatt, WP and Loosli, JK 1956. Dietay factors influencing the development of the ruminant stomach. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 4, 788–792.Google Scholar
Wood, TA, Wallace, RJ, Rowe, A, Price, J, Yanez-Ruiz, DR, Murray, P and Newbold, CJ 2009. Encapsulated fumaric acid as a feed ingredient to decrease ruminal methane emissions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 152, 62–71.Google Scholar
Yang, CJ, Mao, SY, Long, LM and Zhu, WY 2012. Effect of disodium fumarate on microbial abundance, ruminal fermentation and methane emission in goats under different forage: concentrate ratios. Animal 6, 1788–1794.Google Scholar
Zhou, YW, McSweeney, CS, Wang, JK and Liu, JX 2012. Effects of disodium fumarate on ruminal fermentation and microbial communities in sheep fed on high-forage diets. Animal 6, 815–823.Google Scholar
Zitnan, R, Kuhla, S, Nurnberg, K, Schonhusen, U, Ceresnakova, Z, Sommer, A, Baran, M, Greserova, G and Voigt, J 2003. Influence of the diet on the morphology of ruminal and intestinal mucosa and on intestinal carbohydrase levels in cattle. Veterinarni Medicina (Praha) 48, 177–182.Google Scholar