Feed Efficiency and Rumen Bacteria of Cattle

A special issue of Animals (ISSN 2076-2615). This special issue belongs to the section "Cattle".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 December 2021) | Viewed by 11751

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Animal Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
Interests: ruminant nutrition; rumen microbiology

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

With global food security challenges, scientists and producers alike are charged with determining ways to feed almost 10 billion people worldwide by 2050. To address the challenge of increasing protein production to feed a growing population, researchers must find ways to select and maintain feed efficient cattle beyond the boundary of current approaches. The rumen microbiome converts low-quality feedstuffs into usable energy for ruminants and represents the greatest opportunity to optimize cattle nutrition and growth for meeting future global protein demands. The critical role of the rumen microbiome is reflected in its impact on important production phenotypes, such as variation in feed efficiency. Therefore, this Special Issue will publish original research papers or reviews concerning the rumen microbiomes of cattle (both dairy and beef) and their relationship to feed efficiency. The scope of this Special Issue is broad to include a variety of expertise and research interests associated with this topic.

Dr. Phillip Myer
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Animals is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • rumen
  • cattle
  • microbiome
  • feed efficiency
  • microbes
  • bacteria
  • archaea
  • fungi
  • protozoa

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

12 pages, 1122 KiB  
Article
Rumen Bacterial Community of Grazing Lactating Yaks (Poephagus grunniens) Supplemented with Concentrate Feed and/or Rumen-Protected Lysine and Methionine
by Hu Liu, Hui Jiang, Lizhuang Hao, Xuliang Cao, Allan Degen, Jianwei Zhou and Chengfu Zhang
Animals 2021, 11(8), 2425; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082425 - 18 Aug 2021
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 3878
Abstract
Traditionally, yaks graze only natural pasture all year round without supplements. Forage intake of lactating yaks is below energy and protein requirements, even in the summer, and suckling yaks lose a substantial amount of significant body weight. Today, to mitigate the loss in [...] Read more.
Traditionally, yaks graze only natural pasture all year round without supplements. Forage intake of lactating yaks is below energy and protein requirements, even in the summer, and suckling yaks lose a substantial amount of significant body weight. Today, to mitigate the loss in body weight, supplementary feed is being offered to lactating yaks. However, the effects of supplementary feed on ruminal bacterial communities in lactating yaks is unknown. In the current study, we examined the effect of supplementary feed on ruminal microbiota, using 16S rRNA sequencing, and on volatile fatty acids (VFAs). Twenty-four lactating yaks of similar body weight (218 ± 19.5 kg) and grazing natural pasture were divided randomly into four groups and received different supplements: (1) rumen-protected amino acids (RPA); (2) concentrate feed (C); (3) RPA plus C (RPA+C); and (4) no supplements (control-CON). The concentrations of total VFAs, acetate, and butyrate were greater (p < 0.05) when supplemented with concentrate feed (C and RPA+C) than without concentrate feed (CON and RPA). Bacteroidetes (B) and Firmicutes (F) were the dominant ruminal bacterial phyla in all groups. The ratio of relative abundance of F:B in RPA+C was greater than in the RPA group, while there was no difference between CON and RPC (interaction, p = 0.026). At the genus level, the relative abundances of Absconditabacteriales_SR1, Bacteroidales-RF16-group, Bacteroidales_BS11_gut_group, Prevotellaceae, and Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group were lesser (p < 0.05) with supplementary concentrate feed (C and RPA+C) than without concentrate feed (CON and RPA), whereas Butyrivibrio_2 and Pseudobutyrivibrio were greater (p < 0.05) with supplementary rumen-protected amino acids (RPA and RPA+C) than without rumen-protected amino acids (CON and C). These results demonstrate that supplementary feed: (1) alters the composition of rumen microbiota and concentrations of ruminal VFAs in lactating yaks; and (2) can be used to manipulate the composition of rumen microbiota. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feed Efficiency and Rumen Bacteria of Cattle)
Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 524 KiB  
Article
Ruminal Protozoal Populations of Angus Steers Differing in Feed Efficiency
by Brooke A. Clemmons, Sung B. Shin, Timothy P. L. Smith, Mallory M. Embree, Brynn H. Voy, Liesel G. Schneider, Dallas R. Donohoe, Kyle J. McLean and Phillip R. Myer
Animals 2021, 11(6), 1561; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061561 - 27 May 2021
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 3989
Abstract
Feed accounts for as much as 70% of beef production costs, and improvement of the efficiency with which animals convert feed to product has the potential to have substantial financial impact on the beef industry. The rumen microbiome plays a key role in [...] Read more.
Feed accounts for as much as 70% of beef production costs, and improvement of the efficiency with which animals convert feed to product has the potential to have substantial financial impact on the beef industry. The rumen microbiome plays a key role in determining feed efficiency; however, previous studies of rumen microbiota have not focused on protozoal communities despite the estimation that these organisms represent approximately 50% of rumen content biomass. Protozoal communities participate in the regulation of bacterial populations and nitrogen cycling—key aspects of microbiome dynamics. The present study focused on identifying potential associations of protozoal community profiles with feed efficiency. Weaned steers (n = 50) 7 months of age weighing approximately 260 kg were adapted to a growing ration and GrowSafe for 2 weeks prior to a 70-day feed efficiency trial. The GrowSafe system is a feeding system that monitors feed intake in real time. Body weights were collected on the first day and then every 7 days of the feed efficiency trial, and on the final day, approximately 50 mL of rumen content were collected via orogastric tubing and frozen at −80 °C. Body weight and feed intake were used to calculate residual feed intake (RFI) as a measure of feed efficiency, and steers were categorized as high (n = 14) or low (n = 10) RFI based on ±0.5 standard deviations about the mean RFI. Microbial DNA was extracted, and the eukaryotic component profiled by amplification and sequencing of 18S genes using degenerate primers that can amplify this locus across a range of protists. The taxonomy of protozoal sequences was assigned using QIIME 1.9 and analyzed using QIIME and SAS 9.4 with significance determined at α ≤ 0.05. Greater abundances of unassigned taxa were associated with high-RFI steers (p = 0.03), indicating a need for further study to identify component protozoal species. Differences were observed between low- and high-RFI steers in protozoal community phylogenetic diversity, including weighted beta-diversity (p = 0.04), Faith’s phylogenetic diversity (p = 0.03), and observed Operational taxonomic unit (OTU) (p = 0.03). The unassigned taxa and differences in phylogenetic diversity of protozoal communities may contribute to divergences observed in feed efficiency phenotypes in beef steers. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feed Efficiency and Rumen Bacteria of Cattle)
Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 2229 KiB  
Article
The Rumen Specific Bacteriome in Dry Dairy Cows and Its Possible Relationship with Phenotypes
by Shih-Te Chuang, Shang-Tse Ho, Po-Wen Tu, Kuan-Yi Li, Yu-Lun Kuo, Jia-Shian Shiu, Sheng-Yao Wang and Ming-Ju Chen
Animals 2020, 10(10), 1791; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101791 - 1 Oct 2020
Cited by 11 | Viewed by 2751
Abstract
Most microbiome studies of dairy cows have investigated the compositions and functions of rumen microbial communities in lactating dairy cows. The importance of the relationships among hosts, microbiota, diet composition, and milk production remains unknown in dry dairy cows. Thus, in the present [...] Read more.
Most microbiome studies of dairy cows have investigated the compositions and functions of rumen microbial communities in lactating dairy cows. The importance of the relationships among hosts, microbiota, diet composition, and milk production remains unknown in dry dairy cows. Thus, in the present study, the composition of the rumen microbiome in cows from three dairy farms was investigated to identify core bacteria contributing to various physiological roles during rumen fermentation in dry dairy cows. The results indicated that ruminal fluid in dry dairy cows from different regional farms had core rumen microbiota that could be clearly distinguished from that of cows of the other farms. Further identification of key microorganisms associated with each farm revealed that Prevotella, Methanobrevibacter, Pseudobutyrivibrio, Ruminococcus, Bacteroides, and Streptococcus were major contributors. Spearman’s correlation indicated that the abundance of genera such as Prevotella and Ruminococcus in dry dairy cows could indicate milk yield in the previous lactating period. Functional pathway analysis of the rumen bacterial communities demonstrated that amino acid metabolism and carbohydrate metabolism were the major pathways. Our findings provide knowledge of the composition and predicted functions of rumen microbiota in dry dairy cows from regional farms, which underscore the importance of the relationships among hosts, microbiota, diet composition, and milk production. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feed Efficiency and Rumen Bacteria of Cattle)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop