Cargando…

Differently Pre-treated Alfalfa Silages Affect the in vitro Ruminal Microbiota Composition

Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) silage (AS) is an important feedstuff in ruminant nutrition. However, its high non-protein nitrogen content often leads to poor ruminal nitrogen retention. Various pre-ensiling treatments differing with respect to dry matter concentrations, wilting intensities and sucros...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hartinger, Thomas, Edwards, Joan E., Gómez Expósito, Ruth, Smidt, Hauke, ter Braak, Cajo J. F., Gresner, Nina, Südekum, Karl-Heinz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6902091/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31849900
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02761
_version_ 1783477623113908224
author Hartinger, Thomas
Edwards, Joan E.
Gómez Expósito, Ruth
Smidt, Hauke
ter Braak, Cajo J. F.
Gresner, Nina
Südekum, Karl-Heinz
author_facet Hartinger, Thomas
Edwards, Joan E.
Gómez Expósito, Ruth
Smidt, Hauke
ter Braak, Cajo J. F.
Gresner, Nina
Südekum, Karl-Heinz
author_sort Hartinger, Thomas
collection PubMed
description Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) silage (AS) is an important feedstuff in ruminant nutrition. However, its high non-protein nitrogen content often leads to poor ruminal nitrogen retention. Various pre-ensiling treatments differing with respect to dry matter concentrations, wilting intensities and sucrose addition have been previously shown to improve the quality and true protein preservation of AS, and have substantial effects on in vitro ruminal fermentation of the resulting silages. However, it is unknown how these pre-ensiling treatments affect the ruminal microbiota composition, and whether alterations in the microbiota explain previously observed differences in ruminal fermentation. Therefore, during AS incubation in a rumen simulation system, liquid and solid phases were sampled 2 and 7 days after first incubating AS, representing an early (ET) and late (LT) time point, respectively. Subsequently, DNA was extracted and qPCR (bacteria, archaea, and anaerobic fungi) and prokaryotic 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequence analyses were performed. At the ET, high dry matter concentration and sucrose addition increased concentrations of archaea in the liquid phase (P = 0.001) and anaerobic fungi in the solid phase (P < 0.001). At the LT, only sucrose addition increased archaeal concentration in the liquid phase (P = 0.014) and anaerobic fungal concentration in the solid phase (P < 0.001). Bacterial concentrations were not affected by pre-ensiling treatments. The prokaryotic phylogenetic diversity index decreased in the liquid phase from ET to LT (P = 0.034), whereas the solid phase was not affected (P = 0.060). This is suggestive of a general adaption of the microbiota to the soluble metabolites released from the incubated AS, particularly regarding the sucrose-treated AS. Redundancy analysis of the sequence data at the genus level indicated that sucrose addition (P = 0.001), time point (P = 0.001), and their interaction (P = 0.001) affected microbial community composition in both phases. In summary, of the pre-ensiling treatments tested sucrose addition had the largest effect on the microbiota, and together with sampling time point affected microbiota composition in both phases of the rumen simulation system. Thus, microbiota composition analysis helped to understand the ruminal fermentation patterns, but could not fully explain them.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6902091
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69020912019-12-17 Differently Pre-treated Alfalfa Silages Affect the in vitro Ruminal Microbiota Composition Hartinger, Thomas Edwards, Joan E. Gómez Expósito, Ruth Smidt, Hauke ter Braak, Cajo J. F. Gresner, Nina Südekum, Karl-Heinz Front Microbiol Microbiology Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) silage (AS) is an important feedstuff in ruminant nutrition. However, its high non-protein nitrogen content often leads to poor ruminal nitrogen retention. Various pre-ensiling treatments differing with respect to dry matter concentrations, wilting intensities and sucrose addition have been previously shown to improve the quality and true protein preservation of AS, and have substantial effects on in vitro ruminal fermentation of the resulting silages. However, it is unknown how these pre-ensiling treatments affect the ruminal microbiota composition, and whether alterations in the microbiota explain previously observed differences in ruminal fermentation. Therefore, during AS incubation in a rumen simulation system, liquid and solid phases were sampled 2 and 7 days after first incubating AS, representing an early (ET) and late (LT) time point, respectively. Subsequently, DNA was extracted and qPCR (bacteria, archaea, and anaerobic fungi) and prokaryotic 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequence analyses were performed. At the ET, high dry matter concentration and sucrose addition increased concentrations of archaea in the liquid phase (P = 0.001) and anaerobic fungi in the solid phase (P < 0.001). At the LT, only sucrose addition increased archaeal concentration in the liquid phase (P = 0.014) and anaerobic fungal concentration in the solid phase (P < 0.001). Bacterial concentrations were not affected by pre-ensiling treatments. The prokaryotic phylogenetic diversity index decreased in the liquid phase from ET to LT (P = 0.034), whereas the solid phase was not affected (P = 0.060). This is suggestive of a general adaption of the microbiota to the soluble metabolites released from the incubated AS, particularly regarding the sucrose-treated AS. Redundancy analysis of the sequence data at the genus level indicated that sucrose addition (P = 0.001), time point (P = 0.001), and their interaction (P = 0.001) affected microbial community composition in both phases. In summary, of the pre-ensiling treatments tested sucrose addition had the largest effect on the microbiota, and together with sampling time point affected microbiota composition in both phases of the rumen simulation system. Thus, microbiota composition analysis helped to understand the ruminal fermentation patterns, but could not fully explain them. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6902091/ /pubmed/31849900 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02761 Text en Copyright © 2019 Hartinger, Edwards, Gómez Expósito, Smidt, ter Braak, Gresner and Südekum. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Microbiology
Hartinger, Thomas
Edwards, Joan E.
Gómez Expósito, Ruth
Smidt, Hauke
ter Braak, Cajo J. F.
Gresner, Nina
Südekum, Karl-Heinz
Differently Pre-treated Alfalfa Silages Affect the in vitro Ruminal Microbiota Composition
title Differently Pre-treated Alfalfa Silages Affect the in vitro Ruminal Microbiota Composition
title_full Differently Pre-treated Alfalfa Silages Affect the in vitro Ruminal Microbiota Composition
title_fullStr Differently Pre-treated Alfalfa Silages Affect the in vitro Ruminal Microbiota Composition
title_full_unstemmed Differently Pre-treated Alfalfa Silages Affect the in vitro Ruminal Microbiota Composition
title_short Differently Pre-treated Alfalfa Silages Affect the in vitro Ruminal Microbiota Composition
title_sort differently pre-treated alfalfa silages affect the in vitro ruminal microbiota composition
topic Microbiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6902091/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31849900
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02761
work_keys_str_mv AT hartingerthomas differentlypretreatedalfalfasilagesaffecttheinvitroruminalmicrobiotacomposition
AT edwardsjoane differentlypretreatedalfalfasilagesaffecttheinvitroruminalmicrobiotacomposition
AT gomezexpositoruth differentlypretreatedalfalfasilagesaffecttheinvitroruminalmicrobiotacomposition
AT smidthauke differentlypretreatedalfalfasilagesaffecttheinvitroruminalmicrobiotacomposition
AT terbraakcajojf differentlypretreatedalfalfasilagesaffecttheinvitroruminalmicrobiotacomposition
AT gresnernina differentlypretreatedalfalfasilagesaffecttheinvitroruminalmicrobiotacomposition
AT sudekumkarlheinz differentlypretreatedalfalfasilagesaffecttheinvitroruminalmicrobiotacomposition