Use of particle-bound microbial enzyme activity to predict the rate and extent of fibre degradation in the rumen | British Journal of Nutrition | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

1. A method was developed for extracting enzymes from micro-organisms closely associated with ammoniatreated straw (NH3-S) that had been incubated in nylon bags in the rumen. Incubation of washed straw with 125 ml carbon tetrachloride/l and 20 μg lysozyme/ml for 3 h at 37° gave carboxymethylcellulase (EC 3. 2. 1. 4; CMCase) and NAD-linked glutamate dehydrogenase (EC 1. 4. 1.2; GDH) activities greater than those extracted by sonication.

2. GDH associated with NH3-S increased with incubation time and was highest in sheep receiving a high-barley diet. Particle-bound CMCase activity reached a peak between 16 and 24 h and declined thereafter.

3. Particle-bound GDH activity showed no correlation with dry matter (DM) degradation in the rumens of sheep fed on a range of diets. In contrast, CMCase activity after 24 h was highly correlated with DM degradability of the same samples at 24 h (r 0.98) and 48 h ( r 0.94).

4. It was concluded that GDH and CMCase can be used as indices of the total population of colonizing rumen micro-organisms and of the fibre-degrading population respectively, and that these enzymes can therefore be used to assess rapidly and with great sensitivity variations in the rumen environment that affect the rate of fibre breakdown.

References

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar

Cheng, K.J., Fay, J. P., Coleman, R. N., Milligan, L. P. & Costerton, J. W. (1981). Applied and Environmental Microbiology 41, 298–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Herbert, D., Phipps, P. J. & Strange, R. E. (1971). In Methods in Microbiology, vol. 5B, p. 209 [Norris, J. R. and Ribbons, D. W. editors]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Joyner, A. E. & Baldwin, R. L. (1966). Journal of Bacteriology 92, 1321–1330.Google Scholar

Latham, M. J., Hobbs, D. G. & Harris, P. J. (1979). Annales de Recherches Veterinaires 10, 244–245.Google Scholar

Mathers, J. C. & Aitchison, E. M. (1981). Journal of Agricultura1 Science, Cambridge 96, 691–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meers, J. L., Tempest, D. W. & Brown, C. M. (1970). Journal of General Microbiology 64, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, G. L., Blum, R., Glennon, W. E. & Broton, A. L. (1960). Analytical Biochemistry 2, 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Minato, H., Endo, A., Higuchi, M., Ootomo, Y. & Uemura, T. (1966). Journal of General and Applied Microbiology 12, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ørskov, E. R., Hovell, F.D.DeB. & Mould, F. (1980). Tropical Animal Production 5, 195–213.Google Scholar

Silva, A. T., Wallace, R. J. & Ørskov, E. R. (1985). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 44, 98A.Google Scholar