Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Understanding the Mechanism of Action of Indigenous Target Probiotic Yeast: Linking the Manipulation of Gut Microbiota and Performance in Animals

Written By

Shakira Ghazanfar

Submitted: September 21st, 2020 Reviewed: January 5th, 2021 Published: March 8th, 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.95822

From the Edited Volume

Saccharomyces

Edited by Thalita Peixoto Basso and Luiz Carlos Basso

Chapter metrics overview

330 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

The gut associated microbiota of animal plays crucial rule in the conversion to accessible nutrients for improve animal health and well-beings. Probiotic yeast (PY) is commonly use to manipulate the gut microbial balance by inhibits the disease-causing microbes and increase the number and function of desirable microbes. PY produce many fermentation metabolites, intercellular effectors, minerals and enzymes that make it an idea nutritive feed supplement for ruminants. The mode of action of the PY is depends on the animal biological inheritance, breed, managemental condition and microbial feeding type. Therefore, PY must formulate using same ecological origin, alone with desirable target; as it would be more compatible with gut ecoysytem and would yield maximum outputs as compare to non-target or foreign probiotic (FP). Therefore, for development of the Indigenous Target Probiotic (ITP), the isolation source must be same ecological region with desirable target like improve animal health and productivity. In the situation of the increase food storage around the world, ITP may provide a useful feed supplements to improve the food production in cost effective manner as compare to FP. Probiotic effectiveness is considered to be population/breed/target specific due to difference in the feed intake, change gut microflora, different food habits and different host-microbial interactions. In this chapter, we will highlight the preparation of the ITP yeast and its mode of action on animal gut microbiota.

Keywords

  • indigenous target probiotic (ITP)
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae
  • mode of action
  • gastrointestinal tract
  • fiber digestion

1. Introduction

Probiotic are the live microbial feed supplements which provide the beneficial impact on the host by producing the useful metabolites [1]. Many probiotics have been available in the market for improving animal and human health in safe and healthy way. The commercially available probiotic product contains mostly lactic acid bacteria (Lactobacillus plantrum, L.casei etc.)and yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) strains [2]. The beneficial impact of present probiotics is often limited and do not provide equal affects to each host. The positive impact of the probiotic product is based on the site of action, its dose, the stability/viability of the microbial strain; host genome and its environmental condition and health [3]. Mode of action of the microbial strains is one of the majors determines of the probiotic yeast usefulness. Latest molecular methods must be used for identification of the unique microbial strains for development of target-based probiotic yeast. During the last decades, probiotic yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae)has been extensively used as ruminant health promoter [4]. The beneficial outcomes from probiotic product mostly depends on the host and microbial interaction, therefore, pre-plan steps must follow for isolation of the best performance (target) microbial strains for development of the unique/true animal probiotic yeast [5]. Ruminants have a unique microbial flora which is responsible for breakdown of the fibrous and non-fibrous feed particles. The number and function of the gut microbes is highly affected by biochemical and microbial properties of the rumen [6]. The gastrointestinal tract microbial flora has a crucial role on upgrade nutrient utilization and feed digestion leads to the improve animal production and health status. Animal eat different types of feed (high energy & low energy), that determine the number and function of the microbes in the gastrointestinal tract. The gut microbiota is highly changeable due to the addition of useful microbial feed supplements in safe and healthy way as compare to any antibiotic [7]. Animal blood profile also plays an important role in the animal health and its production performance. PY brings changes in the concentration of rumen volatile fatty acid (VFAs) propionate, butyrate and valerate leads to the reduced synthesis of triglyceride and cholesterol in the liver cells and might be change the lipid profile in blood. These polysaccharides reduce the total cholesterol of serum in ruminants. Therefore, the blood chemistry and the fecal microbiota must be manipulated for better animal health and performance. Literature showed that the microbial diversity of the animal GIT is very important in feed digestion processes. Ruminants has a big anaerobic chamber/vat called rumen. Inside rumen, three main microbial species, i.e. bacteria, fungi and protozoa are present for feed digestion. Rumen microbial flora digests the lignocellulosic biomass and release the energy (VFAs) for animal use. Rumen microbial flora are animal best friends. If required specialized gut microbial flora are not present, the food digestion process can be shut down and death of the animal can occur. For colonization of the best microbial flora inside the rumen, we must formulate animal feed after clear understanding of the rumen ecosystem, and host genetic (Figure 1) [8, 9].

Figure 1.

Representative scheme of development of target-based probiotic (TBP): The right side covers the main steps involving in the preparation of the TBP, the internal part covers the legalistic evidence of the interrelationship between, host and microbes. The left side covers the mechanistic activity of the TBP; including the improve gut microbial balance which leads to the improve feed digestion resultantly improve host health and production in cost effective manner.

In the situation of high animal feed cost, we must identify the cost-effective probiotic by using the concept of ITP to improve poor quality feed into high quality milk and meat. We had already given the concept of indigenous probiotic yeast our previous book chapter [31]. A clear understanding regarding the proposes guidelines to develop the ITP to improve gut microbiota resultantly improve milk and meat production. This book chapter will discuss the identification of the microbial strain from local ecological breed and its mode of action for preparation of target based probiotic products. We will also support our concept of ITP with our lab conducted experiments.

Advertisement

2. Yeast: promising microbe for development of target probiotic for animal use

Yeast is a very useful microorganism with broad range of industrial application, because of their unique genetics and physiology. Yeast cells have many useful metabolites (protein, carbohydrate, vitamins; vitamin B6, thiamin, biotin, riboflavin, nicotinic acid and pantothenic acid and minerals; zinc and magnesium) [10]. The utilization of the naturally prepared yeast would be accelerated in coming years due to the nature-oriented mind set of the consumers. Therefore, research on the isolation of the nutritious rich yeast strains for preparation of probiotic product has rapidly increased [11, 12]. Yeast is an important single cell microorganism, belongs to fungus family and it multiplies by cell division. The genetics and physiology of the yeast are very unique, and, therefore, a broad range of research work in biological sciences is being carried out on this microbe. The yeast cell size is composed of 5 × 10 μm and the size of the baker’s yeast genome is 12.1 Mb containing 16 chromosomes and 5400 coding genes approximately [13]. Members of the order Saccharomycetales are mainly used for the animal probiotics when serves as reliable and economical source of essential amino acids, vitamins, carbohydrates, and minerals from yeast cell. Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin and Biotin are present in yeast [14]. The antagonistic ability of the yeast to block bacterial pathogenicity is also makes its very useful [15]. Yeast cell has competition for nutrients, pH changes in the medium, high concentrations of ethanol production, secretion of antibacterial compounds and release of antimicrobial compounds are major antagonistic steps. Yeast cell has many useful fermentation metabolites (protein, vitamins, carbohydrates) which makes it important microbial feed supplement. Yeasts are naturally present (1.3 X 105 yeasts ml-1) inside the rumen fluid [16]. Literature showed that, yeasts (Sac. Cerevisiae) are not significant members of the rumen microbial flora, but mostly, entering inside the rumen with fibrous feed [17]. Therefore, we claim that the viable yeast rich diet can improve the its numbers and function inside the rumen. Now a days, Saccharomyces cerevisiae(live yeast) has been extensively used as animal probiotic to improve milk production and its composition. Many researchers have given different types of conclusion related to the mode of action of yeast and its impact on host animal. Mostly all researchers agreed that the improved live bacterial count inside rumen is the most reproducible impact of PY [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]. Based upon a research, it is being hypothesized that probiotic effectiveness is considered to be population-specific due to differences in the feed, gut microflora composition, food habits and host-microbial interactions. We can isolate and identify the target yeast strain from animal gut and can used that strain for preparation of the animal probiotic yeast.

Advertisement

3. Probiotic yeast for neonatal and growing ruminant diet

The role of the probiotic yeast in dairy animal is well studied [25]. They have been extensively used for improve milk yeast and its composition in cost effective manners. The benefits to cost ratio of probiotic yeast is 4:1 in dairy animals. They have also used as preventer against digestive problems, and rumen acidosis.

The main target of the PY used in new born ruminate diet are; (a) improvement in the rumen maturation; (b) stop the pathogenic bacterial growth; (c) establishment of the normal growing animals like microbial flora [26, 27, 28]. Microbial based feed can improve the rumen development during the growing phase of the dairy animals. The new born gut is sterile and have no germ [29]. After 6 months of age the rumen is colonized with diverse microbial flora. PY provides beneficial metabolites and enzymes like thiamine for fast growth of the fungi. The poor fungal growth of the animal fed on PY might be due to the low production of thiamine [30]. At the same time, the animal plays an important role in the maximum colonization of the beneficial microbial population [31]. If there is any imbalance bacterial species, it would result in digestive problems and leads to the economic loss. The establishment of the useful bacterial strains results in the development of strong and balanced rumen which resultantly strong immunity and health condition [32, 33]. PY provide the improve the rumen maturation and its microbial flora is also in strong balance. PY provide the useful bacterial species for feed digestion, like cellulolytic bacterial species and ciliate protozoa [34]. The balance in rumen microbial flora plays a crucial role in feed utilization and could result in better animal productivity [35]. PY remove oxygen from rumen and provides a more anaerobic environment for its growth of key beneficial microbial groups [36]. The newborn gut can easily be modulating by PY. The new born key beneficial microbial Bacteroides-Prevotellaand the C. coccoides -E. rectalegroup easily be grown with PY presence by removing the oxygen inside rumen [17]. Under filed conditions, crossbred animal are usually underfed, which results in deficiencies of certain nutrients and ultimately reflected in the levels of certain biochemical constituents Literature showed that the use of PY may enhance the blood and fecal biomarkers leading to to improved health status in dairy animals [37, 38, 39, 40].

Advertisement

4. Manipulation of ruminal gut microbiota by target probiotic (Fibrolytic probiotic)

For clear understanding of the ruminal gut microbiota using latest genomic methods to get useful information for preparation of specific probiotics. The ruminants feed consists of concentrate, silage, seasonal fodders etc. There diet mostly contains cellulose, hemicellulose starch and water-soluble carbohydrate. The rumen microbes play an important role in feed digestion. The animal feed is digested inside rumen and then energy is released for animal use. Cow and its microbes are mutually benefiting each other (Figure 2). Rumen is the first and the largest anaerobic chamber of the cow GIT. The temperature inside the rumen chamber is between 38 to 41 oC, with 6-7 pH (depends on feed type). There are three different types of microbes present inside the rumen including, bacteria, fungi and ciliated protozoa [41, 42, 43, 44]. The location and size of the rumen microbes depends on the feed formulation and host genetic. Mostly, bacteria are associated with fibrous feed particles; fungi, protozoa [45, 46]. Some are freely living and some are bound with rumen mucous membrane. 1 ml of the rumen is composed of 109 to 1010 per ml bacteria with 200 different species, 104 to 106 per ml protozoa with 20 different species, and 103 per ml fungi with 20 different species [47]. The rumen bacteria are gram negative 1-2 micrometer in size and cocci, and rod shaped mostly. Rumen bacterial are mostly non-spore producing, facultative anaerobes. 1- 5 % of the bacterial cells in rumen are cellulose digesters [48]. The rumen fungi (gut fungi) also play an important role in fiber digestion by stimulating growth of fibrolytic bacteria [49]. The rumen microbial features are heritable; moreover, animals age, feed and genome plays an important role in the microbial colonization. The composition of the diet describes the type of gut microbial species [50]. Therefore, the rumen microbiota can be manipulated by using the yeast-based probiotic to obtained the useful products. The feed must be targeted for modulating the rumen microbiota (Figure 3).

Figure 2.

Major factors effects on the mode of action of probiotic.

Figure 3.

A scheme describing the mutually benefits between host microbes.

The modulation of the rumen microbiota is mostly for the enhanced colonization of the fiber digesting microbiota [35, 36]. Literature showed that, animal diet has an important role in the manipulation of the rumen microbiota. Low amount of fibrous feed builds up fast working microbes (fibre-degrading Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens and F. succinogenes) and high amount of fibrous build up slow working fiber degrading microbes (M. elsdenii, S. bovis, S. ruminantium, and P. bryantii). On the fibre mat of the rumen, the slow working fibre digestion microbes reside. The fast working microbes are present on the rumen fluid, for sugar and starch digestion. Microbes digest feed into end product so, the balance in the rumen microbiota must be improved. The animal diet containing the rapidly degradable starch facilitates the removal of ciliated protozoa populations (Entodinium) from the rumen fluid. On the other hand, high concentrate diets lead to the low ruminal pH which more detrimental to growth and survival of the fiber degrading bacterial species. The low pH can have negative impact of the growth of ruminal fungi [36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47]. Similarly, zoospores by Caecomyces decreases by addition of the more soluble sugar [35]. At the same time, the best growth of the fungal spores occurs between 39-40 oC. High-fibre diet might facilitate the growth of diverse fungal species in rumen. Therefore, the host animal is highly affected by the diet formulation its nutrient composition. Rumen fungi growth is alo affected by animal breed, its age and breed type. Gut fungi are the only fungi for which no oxygen is required for completion of their life cycle and the presence of oxygen is toxic [35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56]. These rumen microorganisms can degrade complex plant fibers and polysaccharides and produce volatile fatty acids (VFAs), microbial proteins, and vitamins, which provide nutrients to meet the host’s requirement for maintenance and growth [35, 36]. Manipulation of the rumen gut microbiota could be done for obtaining the required fermentation product and improve animal production [57, 58]. Rumen manipulation could be made by change/manipulated the feed intake, and some microbial supplement/probiotic [35, 36]. As far as lipid part is noted that lipid are organic compounds that are insoluble in water but soluble in organic solvents. Fat and oil are nutrition important lipids [57, 58, 59]. The high forages diet leads to high rumen pH which in turn results in high amount of the cellulolytic and hemicellulolytic bacteria and protozoa, On the other hand high concentrate diet leads to lower rumen pH which results in lower number of cellulolytic and hemicellulolytic and amylolytic bacteria and lower number the rumen protozoa (Figure 4) [59, 60]. Probiotic change rumen environmental condition through manipulation of rumen microbiota for our required fermentation end product. The animal feed must be kept constant to build up the required rumen microbiota [61]. Cow microbiota established after some weeks of birth, and the microbial diversity increases day by day [62]. The animal feed, the managemental condition, genetics plays important role in the establishment of the animal gut microbiota [63, 64]. Once established, if the feed and the life style same, the number and function of the rumen microbiota mainly same throughout life. But we can manipulate the GIT microbiota for our own purpose. If we isolate the fiberlytic yeast strains from the rumen, we can prepare the best and unique probiotic yeast for improve animal feed digestion (Figures 5 and 6).

Figure 4.

Potential mechanisms of microbial ruminal acidosis: This figure suggested that, the live yeast supply different growth factors (amino acid, peptides, vitamins and organic acids). These growth factors have the knock-on impact of increases the stimulation and metabolism of lactic acid utilizing anaerobic bacteria, such as M. Elsdenii or S. ruminantium (that control the acidosis). Yeast cells has a affinity for sugar which outcompete S.bovis for the utilization of sugar.

Figure 5.

A proposed flowsheet to explain mechanistic pathway of IPY: Steps involved in the mode of action of PY and its impact on animal.

Figure 6.

A simple scheme proposed to explain mode of action of probiotic yeast in gut: IPY improve carbohydrates, protein and lipid digestion rate by improving the production of cellulolytic, hemi- cellulolytic and proteolytic and lipolytic bacteria and fungi as compare to FPY and no yeast animal.

Advertisement

5. Prepration of indigenous probiotic yeast: right choice for maximum outcomes

The gut microbiota can digest the animal feed and produce nutrients for improve host health and well beings. Animal feed and host genetics play important role in shaping and composition of gut microbiota [18]. Same is the case of the rumen microbiota, which is highly variable and is depended on various factors like animal breed, physiology, feed type and geographical location. It has been commonly accepted that commercially available probiotic yeast may not showed equal impact to all animal breeds [65, 66]. The compatibility of PY could be variable among animals. The local prepared yeast probiotic isolated from same ecological niche may have more beneficial impact than any exotic probiotic yeast [3]. The local isolated probiotic yeast may have fast adaptability and colonization in the local rumen ecosystem [24]. The origin of the probiotic strain determines the best prepared probiotic product. The strain selection is the most important step for the development of right probiotic for animal. Being precise during the strain’s selection could yield positive outcomes from the probiotic. The probiotic yeast may use for the rumen microbial manipulation [67]. Different types of PY have been used for improve animal health and production [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68]. Some PY strains produced beneficial results in animals while others did not. The difference of that variable results of PY may be explained by different host and PY associated factors [69, 70, 71]. These factors are; animal age, breed, sex, feeding dose, PY strains isolation source and some unknown factors [3]. The major factors might be the low compatibility of the exotic probiotic yeast strain with animal having diverse biological inheritance and gut microbial composition. The right probiotic strain should be novel, so we must use latest molecular methods to isolate the target specific/local isolated microbial strains. The local isolated and molecular identified probiotic strains may have more impact on local animals in cost effective manners. The probiotic are species specific by targeting the indigenous strains and local dairy farms can get the cost-effective probiotic product for improve milk production and composition.

The main steps involved in the preparation of the breed specific probiotic yeast are as following [3].

  • Pre-plan ruminate diet for isolation of probiotic yeast

  • Identification of yeast strain based on the molecular techniques

  • Probiotic potential of selected yeast strains

  • In vitro probiotic potential

  • Safety assessment/In-vivo animal model

Advertisement

6. Mode of action of the IPY Vs FPY inside the rumen and post-ruminal GIT

The first mode of action of the probiotic yeast is competitive exclusion (CE) [27]. The CE is a probiotic mode of action that involves the colonization of the beneficial microbial strains to GIT tract to reduce the addition of disease-causing microbial flora [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74]. The ability of probiotic yeast cell to fight with other useless microbial flora can improve growth and function of beneficial microbial flora. The IPY has the indigenous strain, which has the advantage that it drives from animal of interest (Cow). IPY has an environmental modification capability. The concept of co-evolution of host microbial has been seen in case of IPY mode of action. The local strain gains an advantage because of its ability to adjust/modify itself in new environment by producing the antimicrobials e.g (lactic acid) to make its less suitable for its competitors. The FPY has the foreign origin strain, which has the less environmental modification capability less, competition for available nutrients, and mucosal adhesion sites. Second mode of action of the PY is reported as a good pH stabilization. Rumen microbial flora can work under stable pH [75]. Rumen pH is highly affected by animal feed intake and its composition. Ruminants eat different types of feed, like high energy concentrate diet, fodder, and silage. These types of feed have a quick impact on rumen pH. If rumen pH is not stable, the animals may have different types of metabolic diseases [76]. Literature showed that PY has a stabilizing effect on the rumen pH [77, 78]. Some studies reported a rise rumen pH when animal was fed on diet with high energy supplemented with PY. Sometimes, the increased pH might be due to the decreased VFAs inside the rumen [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79]. The lower pH leads to the rumen acidosis, PY can prevent the acidosis condition of the dairy animals [7]. The third proposed mechanism is that yeast cell provides the anaerobic condition inside rumen by removing the oxygen thus facilitated the useful feed digestion microbes [35, 36]. The main microbial flora are bacteria fungi and protozoa. These microbial species have a fiber digestion role by secreting the cellulase and hemicellulase enzymes. Fiber is the main part of the ruminant diet. Therefore, fiber digestion, nature blessed them with unique fibrolytic digestion bacteria (Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococcus flavefaciens, Ruminococcus albus),fungi (Necallimastix) and protozoa. That complex fibrolytic microbes catalyze the rumen fiber digestion and improve feed intake. The yeast supplementation provides the useful metabolites which stimulate the growth of fiber degrading bacteria [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47].

Advertisement

7. Experimental proofs: who is better; indigenous or foreign microbe as animal probiotic?

7.1 Experiment: impact of probiotic yeast on blood fecal biomarkers in dairy heifers and growing animals

Based upon the above discussion, we have conducted two research experiments on dairy animals by using the IPY concept to improve the gut health. In experiment 1, eight dairy heifers (87 ± 5 kg and 6–7 months) were divided into two equal groups (control n = 4 and probiotic n = 4)[80]. Control group animals fed on NRC recommended diet and probiotic group animals fed control diet FPY (Yea-Sac1026; 5 g/animal). After 120 days results showed that the FPY significantly affected the serum glucose, and urea levels in dairy heifers [24].

That means, we had a proof of positive impact of PFY on animal health. We had isolated the yeast from dairy animals fed on yeast. After careful assessment of the probiotic potential, we conducted another experiment to determine the impact of FPY Vs IPY on the health of lactating dairy cattle. Mix breed (Sahiwaland Sahiwal×Jersey,n = 9, with 4-5-liter milk per day) animal were selected for blood and fecal flora study. Animals were divided into three groups. Group 1 fed on 8 g IPY with 3.13 × 1007 CFU/g; group 2 fed on 10 g FPY with 2.5 ×1 007 CFU/g FPY, group 3 fed only control diet with no probiotic (Figure). After 90 days, results showed that the gut associated microbial flora and blood biochemical parameters were improved in the presence IPY as compare to the FPY (Tables 1 and 2).

ItemsFeeding regimep-Value
Control2FPY3
Urea (mg/100 ml)1
Before treatment430.10 ± *0.71131.14 ± 0.9740.012
After treatment533.34 ± 0.43229.23 ± 0.4940.01
Glucose (mg/100 ml)
Before treatment62.67 ± 4.0460.86 ± 2.800.605
After treatment63.31 ± 2.6065.47 ± 2.840.600

Table 1.

Blood serum metabolites (Means ± SEM) in dairy heifers fed on control and foreign probiotic yeast.

n = 4 per treatment.


Control feed without yeast.


Probiotic feed compose of control feed supplemented with 2.5×10 07 cfu/g commercially available probiotic yeast (Yac-Sac1026) at the rate of 5 g per animal/day * ± Standard error of the mean.


Before treatment (day 0).


After treatment (day 120).


ParametersFeeding regime
Control2IPY3FPY4
Urea (mg/100 ml)1
Before treatment514.55 ± *0.5714.18 ± 0.2115.54 ± 0.32
After treatment614.18a ± 0.5812.31b ± 0.2213.68ab ± 0.90
Glucose (mg/100 ml)
Before treatment75.70 ± 1.2473.99 ± 2.5175.08 ± 2.30
After treatment73.84b ± 0.7177.42a ± 1.2878.97a ± 0.54

Table 2.

Effect of indigenous Vs foreign probiotic yeast on blood parameters (Means ± SEM) in lactating dairy cattle.

n = 3 per treatment.


Control feed without yeast.


LAB-Probiotic feed compose of control feed supplemented with 3.13 × 1007 cfu/g laboratory produces probiotic yeast (QAUSC03) at the rate of 8 g/day/animal.


COM-Probiotic feed compose of control feed supplemented with 2.5×10 07 cfu/g commercially probiotic yeast (Yac-Sac1026) at the rate of 10g/day/animal.


Before treatment (day 0).


After treatment (day 120) * ± SEM = standard error of the mean.


a,b Values on the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).

We highlighted that improved animal health condition might be due to improved digestive enzymes produced from well propagated IPY. The VFAs have a capability to reduce the triglycerol and cholesterol in liver cells and might be change the animal lipid profile. Results of the ruminal gut microflora showed that the average, beneficial Pediococcusand Weisellaspecies (CFU/g) counts increased while pathogenic E.coli species (CFU/g) counts decreased in IPY fed lactating cows than other groups which leads to improve GIT microbial balance (Figures 7 and 8).

Figure 7.

Total Lactococcus count (CFU/g) in the ruminal gut of dairy heifers fed on control feed (control, ♦; no yeast) or commercial probiotic feed (COM-P, ■; control feed plus commercial yeast) (n = 4).

Figure 8.

Total Enterococcus count (CFU/g) in the ruminal gut of dairy heifers fed on control feed (control, ♦; no yeast) or commercial probiotic feed (COM-P, ■; control feed plus commercial yeast) (n = 4).

It can be concluded IPY improves the, gut health, and wellbeing of lactating dairy cattle in cost effective manner. IPY strain may adopt well in the cattle gut than FPY [80].

Advertisement

8. Conclusion

Ruminants of developing and developed countries have different types of gut microbiota due to their living standard, feeding type, their managemental style. Although from above discussion we have a clear understanding that the interlink between gut microbiota and fiber digestion plays a key role for obtaining maximum profit from dairy animals. Therefore, the PY must be target specific which give maximum outcomes in cost effective manners. For animals of specific geographical region, a unique and precise YP must be designed by isolating the local yeast strains from that population, only then maximum beneficial outputs can be obtained. The reason beings, compactivity of the local strains with normal microbiota of the rumen ecosystem (Figure 9).

Figure 9.

Target based Probiotic Preparation strategy: This figure showed probiotic preparation of by using the local animal GIT tract as preparation of local yeast probiotic. Interlinked factors involved in the application of probiotics in the ruminant’s nutrition.

Advertisement

9. Recommendations

The recommendations are outlined as follows;

  • Pre-plane feed formulation for the manipulation of the rumen microbiota to digest the fibrous feed

  • Identification of breed specific probiotic strains with same target.

  • Whole genome sequencing of the probiotic strains as well as animal for maximum outputs

  • Mode of action of the probiotic should studied well for understanding of the useful and useless probiotic.

References

  1. 1. Akin DE, Benner R. Degradation of polysaccharides and lignin by ruminal bacteria and fungi. 1988; Applied and Environmental Microbiology 54 1117-1125
  2. 2. Akin DE. Histological and Physical Factors Affecting Digestibility of Forages. 1989; Agronomy Journal 81 17-25
  3. 3. Alayande, Kazeem Adekunle, Olayinka Ayobami Aiyegoro, Thizwilondi Michael Nengwekhulu, Lebogang Katata-Seru, and Collins Njie Ateba. "Integrated genome-based probiotic relevance and safety evaluation ofLactobacillus reuteriPNW1." Plos one 15, no. 7 (2020): e0235873
  4. 4. Arakaki L, Stahringer R, Garrett J, Dehority B. The effects of feeding monensin and yeast culture, alone or in combination, on the concentration and generic composition of rumen protozoa in steers fed on low-quality pasture supplemented with increasing levels of concentrate. 2000; Animal Feed Science and Technology 84 121-127
  5. 5. Beev, G., P. Todorova, and S. Tchobanova. "Yeast cultures in ruminant nutrition." Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 13 (2007): 357-374
  6. 6. Bonhomme A. Rumen ciliates: their metabolism and relationships with bacteria and their hosts. 1990; Animal Feed Science and Technology 30 203-266
  7. 7. Callaway E, Martin S. Effects of aSaccharomyces cerevisiaeculture on ruminal bacteria that utilize lactate and digest cellulose. 1997; Journal of Dairy Science 80 2035-2044
  8. 8. Chaucheyras-Durand F, Chevaux E, Martin C, Forano E. Use of Yeast Probiotics in Ruminants: Effects and Mechanisms of Action on Rumen pH, Fibre Degradation, and Microbiota According to the Diet. 2012; Probiotic in Animals. InTech Open Book Publisher
  9. 9. Chaucheyras-Durand, F., and H. Durand. "Probiotics in animal nutrition and health." Beneficial microbes 1, no. 1 (2010): 3-9
  10. 10. Chaucheyras-Durand, F., N. D. Walker, and A. Bach. "Effects of active dry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem: Past, present and future." Animal Feed Science and Technology 145, no. 1-4 (2008): 5-26
  11. 11. Chaucheyras-Durand, F., N. D. Walker, and A. Bach. "Effects of active dry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem: Past, present and future." Animal Feed Science and Technology 145, no. 1-4 (2008): 5-26
  12. 12. Chaucheyras-Durand, Frédérique, Eric Chevaux, Cécile Martin, and Evelyne Forano. "Use of yeast probiotics in ruminants: Effects and mechanisms of action on rumen pH, fibre degradation, and microbiota according to the diet." Probiotic in animals (2012): 119-152
  13. 13. Chenoll, Empar, Inmaculada Moreno, María Sánchez, Iolanda Garcia-Grau, Ángela Silva, Marta González-Monfort, Salvador Genovés et al. "Selection of new probiotics for endometrial health."Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology9 (2019): 114
  14. 14. Cox, Faith, Peter H. Janssen, Gemma Henderson, Arjan Jonker, Wayne Young, and Siva Ganesh. "Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range." (2015)
  15. 15. Crossland, Whitney Lynn, Aaron Bradley Norris, Luis Orlindo Tedeschi, and Todd Ryan Callaway. "Effects of active dry yeast on ruminal pH characteristics and energy partitioning of finishing steers under thermoneutral or heat-stressed environment." Journal of animal science 96, no. 7 (2018): 2861-2876
  16. 16. Czerucka, D., T. Piche, and P. Rampal. "yeast as probiotics–Saccharomyces boulardii." Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 26, no. 6 (2007): 767-778
  17. 17. De Mulder, Thijs, Nico Peiren, Leen Vandaele, Tom Ruttink, Sam De Campeneere, Tom Van de Wiele, and Karen Goossens. "Impact of breed on the rumen microbial community composition and methane emission of Holstein Friesian and Belgian Blue heifers." Livestock Science 207 (2018): 38-44
  18. 18. Dolezal P, Dolezal J, Szwedziak K, Dvoracek J, Zeman L, Tukiendorf M, Havlicek Z. Use of Yeast Culture in the TMR of Dairy Holstein Cows. 2012; Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science 2 51-56
  19. 19. Elghandour MM, Salem AZ, Castañeda JS, Camacho LM, Kholif AE, Chagoyán JC. Direct-fed microbes: A tool for improving the utilization of low quality roughages in ruminants. 2015; Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14 526-533
  20. 20. Elghandour, M. M. Y., Tan, Z. L., Abu Hafsa, S. H., Adegbeye, M. J., Greiner, R., Ugbogu, E. A., … & Salem, A. Z. M. (2020). Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a probiotic feed additive to non and pseudo-ruminant feeding: a review. Journal of applied microbiology, 128(3), 658-674
  21. 21. Elghandour, M. M. Y., Z. L. Tan, S. H. Abu Hafsa, M. J. Adegbeye, R. Greiner, E. A. Ugbogu, J. Cedillo Monroy, and A. Z. M. Salem. "Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a probiotic feed additive to non and pseudo-ruminant feeding: a review." Journal of applied microbiology 128, no. 3 (2020): 658-674
  22. 22. El-Ghani AA. Influence of diet supplementation with yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on performance of Zaraibi goats. 2004; Small ruminant research 52 223-229
  23. 23. Elliott, Christopher L., Joan E. Edwards, Toby J. Wilkinson, Gordon G. Allison, Kayleigh McCaffrey, Mark B. Scott, Pauline Rees-Stevens, Alison H. Kingston-Smith, and Sharon A. Huws. "Using ‘Omic approaches to compare temporal bacterial colonization of Lolium perenne, Lotus corniculatus, and Trifolium pratense in the rumen." Frontiers in microbiology 9 (2018): 2184
  24. 24. Elliott, Christopher L., Joan E. Edwards, Toby J. Wilkinson, Gordon G. Allison, Kayleigh McCaffrey, Mark B. Scott, Pauline Rees-Stevens, Alison H. Kingston-Smith, and Sharon A. Huws. "Using ‘Omic approaches to compare temporal bacterial colonization of Lolium perenne, Lotus corniculatus, and Trifolium pratense in the rumen." Frontiers in microbiology 9 (2018): 2184
  25. 25. Fernández-Pacheco, Pilar, Carolina Cueva, María Arévalo-Villena, M. Victoria Moreno-Arribas, and Ana Briones Pérez. "Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Hanseniaspora osmophila strains as yeast active cultures for potential probiotic applications."Food & function10, no. 8 (2019): 4924-4931
  26. 26. Ferraretto LF, Shaver RD, Bertics SJ. Effect of dietary supplementation with live-cell yeast at two dosages on lactation performance, ruminal fermentation, and total-tract nutrient digestibility in dairy cows. 2012; Journal of Dairy Science 95 4017-4028
  27. 27. Fuller R. Probiotics in man and animals. 1989;The Journal of Applied Bacteriology 66 365-378
  28. 28. Garcia-Mazcorro, J. F., S. L. Ishaq, M. V. Rodriguez-Herrera, C. A. Garcia-Hernandez, J. R. Kawas, and T. G. Nagaraja. Review"Are there indigenous Saccharomyces in the digestive tract of livestock animal species? Implications for health, nutrition and productivity traits." animal 14, no. 1 (2020): 22-30
  29. 29. Ghazanfar S. Study on the effects of dietary supplementation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on performance of dairy cattle and heifers. 2016; PhD Thesis. Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. Pakistan
  30. 30. Ghazanfar S. Study on the effects of dietry supplmentation ofSaccharomyvces cerevisiaeon performance of dairy cattle and heifers. 2016; PhD Thesis. Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. Pakistan
  31. 31. Ghazanfar, Shakira, Nauman Khalid, Iftikhar Ahmed, and Muhammad Imran. "Probiotic yeast: mode of action and its effects on ruminant nutrition." Yeast—Industrial Applications, IntechOpen (2017): 179-202
  32. 32. Ghazanfar, Shakira, Nauman Khalid, Iftikhar Ahmed, and Muhammad Imran. "Probiotic yeast: mode of action and its effects on ruminant nutrition." Yeast—Industrial Applications, IntechOpen (2017): 179-202
  33. 33. Giang, Hoang Huong, Tran Quoc Viet, Brian Ogle, and Jan Erik Lindberg. "Effects of supplementation of probiotics on the performance, nutrient digestibility and faecal microflora in growing-finishing pigs." Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 24, no. 5 (2011): 655-661
  34. 34. Gijzen HJ, Lubberding HJ, Gerhardus MJT, Vogels GD. Contribution of rumen protozoa to fibre degradation and cellulase activity in vitro. 1988; FEMS Microbiology Letters 53 35-43
  35. 35. He, Z. X., B. Ferlisi, E. Eckert, H. E. Brown, A. Aguilar, and M. A. Steele. "Supplementing a yeast probiotic to pre-weaning Holstein calves: Feed intake, growth and fecal biomarkers of gut health." Animal Feed Science and Technology 226 (2017): 81-87
  36. 36. Henderson, Gemma, Faith Cox, Siva Ganesh, Arjan Jonker, Wayne Young, Leticia Abecia, Erika Angarita et al. "Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range." Scientific reports 5 (2015): 14567
  37. 37. Hillal, Hany, Gamal El-Sayaad, and Mohamed Abdella. "Effect of growth promoters (probiotics) supplementation on performance, rumen activity and some blood constituents in growing lambs." Archives Animal Breeding 54, no. 6 (2011): 607-617
  38. 38. Hungate, R. E. "The rumen microbial ecosystem." Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 6, no. 1 (1975): 39-66
  39. 39. Jackson, Scott A., Jean L. Schoeni, Christina Vegge, Marco Pane, Buffy Stahl, Michael Bradley, Virginia S. Goldman, Pierre Burguière, John B. Atwater, and Mary Ellen Sanders. "Improving end-user trust in the quality of commercial probiotic products." Frontiers in microbiology 10 (2019): 739
  40. 40. Joblin K. Physical disruption of plant fibre by rumen fungi of the Sphaeromonas group. The Roles of Protozoa and Fungi in Ruminant Digestion. 1989; Penambul Armidale NSW 259-260
  41. 41. Kamra, Devki Nandan. "Rumen microbial ecosystem." Current science (2005): 124-135
  42. 42. Khatri, Indu, Rajul Tomar, K. Ganesan, G. S. Prasad, and Srikrishna Subramanian. "Complete genome sequence and comparative genomics of the probiotic yeast Saccharomyces boulardii." Scientific reports 7, no. 1 (2017): 1-12
  43. 43. Konsue, Wilasinee, Tida Dethoup, and Savitree Limtong. "Biological control of fruit rot and anthracnose of postharvest mango by antagonistic yeasts from economic crops leaves." Microorganisms 8, no. 3 (2020): 317
  44. 44. Krause, D. O., T. G. Nagaraja, A. D. G. Wright, and T. R. Callaway. "Board-invited review: rumen microbiology: leading the way in microbial ecology." Journal of animal science 91, no. 1 (2013): 331-341
  45. 45. Lesmeister, K. E., Arlyn Judson Heinrichs, and M. T. Gabler. "Effects of supplemental yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) culture on rumen development, growth characteristics, and blood parameters in neonatal dairy calves." Journal of dairy science 87, no. 6 (2004): 1832-1839
  46. 46. Li, Fuyong, Changxi Li, Yanhong Chen, Junhong Liu, Chunyan Zhang, Barry Irving, Carolyn Fitzsimmons, and Graham Plastow. "Host genetics influence the rumen microbiota and heritable rumen microbial features associate with feed efficiency in cattle."Microbiome7, no. 1 (2019): 92
  47. 47. MA, Song-cheng, Jing CHEN, and Hua-ming MAO. "Rumen Microbial Ecosystem [J]." China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine 1 (2007)
  48. 48. Martinez-Fernandez, Gonzalo, Stuart E. Denman, Chunlei Yang, Jane Cheung, Makoto Mitsumori, and Christopher S. McSweeney. "Methane inhibition alters the microbial community, hydrogen flow, and fermentation response in the rumen of cattle." Frontiers in Microbiology 7 (2016): 1122
  49. 49. Mestecky J, Russell M. Passive and active protection against disorders of the gut. 1998; Veterinary Quarterly 20 83-87
  50. 50. Morgavi, D. P., Evelyne Forano, Cécile Martin, and C. Jamie Newbold. "Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants." Animal: an international journal of animal bioscience 4, no. 7 (2010): 1024
  51. 51. Morgavi, Diego, William Kelly, Peter Janssen, and Graeme Attwood. "Rumen microbial (meta) genomics and its application to ruminant production." Animal 7, no. Suppl. 1 (2013): 184-201
  52. 52. Musa H, Wu S, Zhu C, Seri H, Zhu G. The potential benefits of probiotics in animal production and health. 2009; Journal of Animal and veterinary Advances 8 313-321
  53. 53. Newbold C, Wallace R, Chen X, McIntosh F. Different strains ofSaccharomyces cerevisiaediffer in their effects on ruminal bacterial numbers in vitro and in sheep. 1995; Journal of Animal Science 73 1811-1818
  54. 54. Newbold, C. J. "Probiotics for ruminants." (1996)
  55. 55. Newbold, C. J., and Eva Ramos-Morales. "Ruminal microbiome and microbial metabolome: effects of diet and ruminant host." animal 14, no. S1 (2020): s78-s86
  56. 56. Nielsen, Jens. "Yeast systems biology: model organism and cell factory." Biotechnology journal 14, no. 9 (2019): 1800421
  57. 57. Nurmi E, Rantala M (1973) New aspects ofSalmonellainfection in broiler production. Nature 241 210-211
  58. 58. Paul SS, Kamra DN, Sastry VR, Sahu NP, Kumar A. Effect of phenolic monomers on biomass and hydrolytic enzyme activities of an anaerobic fungus isolated from wild nil gai (Baselophus tragocamelus). 2003; Letters in Applied Microbiology 36 377-381
  59. 59. Poppy GD, Rabiee AR, Lean IJ, Sanchez WK, Dorton KL. A meta-analysis of the effects of feeding yeast culture produced by anaerobic fermentation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on milk production of lactating dairy cows. 2012; Journal of Dairy Science 95 6027-6041
  60. 60. Poppy GD, Rabiee AR, Lean IJ, Sanchez WK, Dorton KL. A meta-analysis of the effects of feeding yeast culture produced by anaerobic fermentation ofSaccharomyces cerevisiaeon milk production of lactating dairy cows. 2012; Journal of Dairy Science 95 6027-6041
  61. 61. Robinson PH, Erasmus LJ. Effects of analyzable diet components on responses of lactating dairy cows to Saccharomyces cerevisiae based yeast products: A systematic review of the literature. 2009; Animal Feed Science and Technology 149 185-198
  62. 62. Robinson PH, Erasmus LJ. Effects of analyzable diet components on responses of lactating dairy cows toSaccharomyces cerevisiaebased yeast products: A systematic review of the literature. 2009; Animal Feed Science and Technology 149 185-198
  63. 63. Russell, James B., and Robert B. Hespell. "Microbial rumen fermentation." Journal of Dairy Science 64, no. 6 (1981): 1153-1169
  64. 64. Santra A, Karim S. Rumen manipulation to improve animal productivity. 2003; Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 16 748-763
  65. 65. Shakira G, Atiya A Ahmed.I. Effects of Dietary Supplementation of Yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) Culture on Growth Performance, Blood Parameters, Nutrient Digestibility and Fecal Flora of Dairy Heifers. 2015; The Journal of Animal and Plant Science 25 53-59
  66. 66. Srinivasan, Prashanth, and Christina D. Smolke. "Biosynthesis of medicinal tropane alkaloids in yeast." Nature 585, no. 7826 (2020): 614-619
  67. 67. Steele, Michael A., Greg B. Penner, and Frédérique Chaucheyras-Durand. "Development and physiology of the rumen and the lower gut: Targets for improving gut health." Journal of dairy science 99, no. 6 (2016): 4955-4966
  68. 68. Swanson, Kelly S., Glenn R. Gibson, Robert Hutkins, Raylene A. Reimer, Gregor Reid, Kristin Verbeke, Karen P. Scott et al. "The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of synbiotics." Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 17, no. 11 (2020): 687-701
  69. 69. Tapio, Ilma, Daniel Fischer, Lucia Blasco, Miika Tapio, R. John Wallace, Ali R. Bayat, Laura Ventto et al. "Taxon abundance, diversity, co-occurrence and network analysis of the ruminal microbiota in response to dietary changes in dairy cows."PloS one12, no. 7 (2017): e0180260
  70. 70. Tripathi VK, Sehgal JP, Puniya AK, Singh K. Hydrolytic activities of anaerobic fungi from wild blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus). 2007; Anaerobe 13: 36-39
  71. 71. Tripathi VK, Sehgal JP, Puniya AK, Singh K. Hydrolytic activities of anaerobic fungi from wild blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus). 2007; Anaerobe 13: 36-39
  72. 72. Ushida K, Jouany JP. Effect of defaunation on fibre digestion in sheep given two isonitrogenous diets. 1990; Animal Feed Science and Technology 29 153-158
  73. 73. Wallace, R. J. "Ruminal microbiology, biotechnology, and ruminant nutrition: progress and problems." Journal of Animal Science 72, no. 11 (1994): 2992-3003
  74. 74. Wallace, R. John, and C. James Newbold. "Probiotics for ruminants." In Probiotics, pp. 317-353. Springer, Dordrecht, 1992
  75. 75. Wallace, R. John. "Rumen microbiology, biotechnology and ruminant nutrition: the application of research findings to a complex microbial ecosystem."FEMS microbiology letters100, no. 1-3 (1992): 529-534
  76. 76. Wiles, Travis J., Matthew Jemielita, Ryan P. Baker, Brandon H. Schlomann, Savannah L. Logan, Julia Ganz, Ellie Melancon, Judith S. Eisen, Karen Guillemin, and Raghuveer Parthasarathy. "Host gut motility promotes competitive exclusion within a model intestinal microbiota."PLoS biology14, no. 7 (2016): e1002517
  77. 77. Williams AG, Orpin CG. Polysaccharide-degrading enzymes formed by three species of anaerobic rumen fungi grown on a range of carbohydrate substrates.1987; Canadian Journal of Microbiology 33 418-426
  78. 78. Williams AG, Orpin CG. Polysaccharide-degrading enzymes formed by three species of anaerobic rumen fungi grown on a range of carbohydrate substrates.1987; Canadian Journal of Microbiology 33 418-426
  79. 79. Yang CM, Varga GA. The effects of continuous ruminal dosing with dioctyl sodium sulphosuccinate on ruminal and metabolic characteristics of lactating Holstein cows. 1993; British Journal of Nutrition 69 397-408
  80. 80. Youngblut, Nicholas D., Georg H. Reischer, William Walters, Nathalie Schuster, Chris Walzer, Gabrielle Stalder, Ruth E. Ley, and Andreas H. Farnleitner. "Host diet and evolutionary history explain different aspects of gut microbiome diversity among vertebrate clades." Nature communications 10, no. 1 (2019): 1-15

Written By

Shakira Ghazanfar

Submitted: September 21st, 2020 Reviewed: January 5th, 2021 Published: March 8th, 2021