Research Article

Performance of Santa Inês/Dorper Lambs Fed with Live Yeast Concentrate

Carlos Alberto da Rocha Rosa MV*

Professor Titular Pleno de Micologia e Micotoxicologia, Brazil

Submission: December 21, 2017 ; Published: May 08, 2018

*Corresponding author: Carlos Alberto da Rocha Rosa MV, Professor Titular Pleno de Micologia e Micotoxicologia, Membro da Academia Brazileira de Medicina Veteriária, Tel:+5521980306677/+5521982761781 Email: shalako1953@gmail.com

How to cite this article: Carlos A d Rocha R MV. Performance of Santa Ines/Dorper Lambs Fed with Live Yeast Concentrate. Dairy and Vet Sci J. 2018; 6(1): 5556676. DOI: 10.19080/JDVS.2018.06.555676

Abstract

Due to the development of the Brazilian sheep breeding, new alternatives for animal feeding, in order to increase gain and economic result of the production, were required. The present paper intends to evaluate the effect of the addition of live yeast concentrate (LYC) on Santa Inês/Dorper lambs diet, in the growth performance. For this purpose, 16 weaned lambs were used, divided in two groups (Yeast X Control) which received both the same feed and sanitary management, although the group yeast has received 2g of LYC/an.day. The effect of LYC was significant and positive for average daily gain (Yeast = 214.0g/day X Control = 194.8g/day).

Keywords: Live Weight Gain; Feed additive; Growth; Yeast concentrate; Animal feeding; probiotics; Nutrition; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Jeopardizing human; Fibrous fraction; Starch; soluble carbohydrates; Feeding strategy; Dorper lambs; Ruminal pH

Introduction

The market for sheep meat is growing in Brazil. It became necessary to determine the more appropriate technical management according to Brazilian's conditions. Feed efficiency is an important variable, is not enough simply select animals with higher weight gain: they must be as efficient as possible for feed consumption and performance

Nutrition is the main factor for good performance and cost production, so any strategies to increase the use of nutrients by animals is important [2]. One of the most used strategies is adding probiotics to animal's diet to improve live weight gain efficiency without altering carcass characteristics or jeopardizing human or animal health. However, the results are still very inconstant [3].

Among probiotics, Saccharomyces cerevisiae has been showing to be a viable alternative to be used for ruminants. However, even with several published studies, little is known about the mechanism of action, since the effects are very inconstant and depend on the additive dosage and diet composition [4].

Tricarico review [3] reports increase in productivity (meat or milk) associated to the use of live yeast cells (LYC) of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. According to Hopkins D & Newbold et al. [5,6] it happens because yeast stimulates the proliferation of total anaerobic bacteria, cellulolytic bacteria and lactateconsuming bacteria in the rumen, leading to changes in metabolism and improving digestive process of the diet's fibrous fraction.

Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its related species and strains are the most known and highly commercially used yeasts. However, little is known about its use on sheep's diet. Its use has become widespread among breeders but has been based on inferences on bovine data [7]. The goal for presenting this paper is helping to clarify these questions.

Materials and Methods

¹Minerais and vitamins: Ca 14.5%. 11.6 P. 2.8% Mg. 2.8% S. 220ppm CO. 6000ppm of Mn; 10.000ppm Zn. 90ppm Se . 180ppm of I; 1.000.000IU/kg Vit. A; 250.000 IU/kg Vit.D. 2250 IU/kg Vit. E

²NFC - non-fibrous carbohydrates = 100 - (CP + NDF + EE + ash).

An experiment was performed using 16 weaned lambs, half blood SantaInes/Dorper, at Green lamb Farm ,Araruama County, Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. The weaning lambs were randomly divided into 2 groups of 8 animals each (T0- control and T1 - Yeast). The trial lasted five months, when the animals were confined getting the same sanitary and feed management (diet is described in Table 1). The T1 group animals received 2g daily of Biosaf® commercial product constituted by 10x109CFU/g live Saccharomyces cerevisiae strainSc47.Treatments were arranged in a completely randomized design with eight replication sand analyzed according to the model:

Where,

Yij =observation for animal receiving treatment i,

m =overall constant;

Ti =effect of treatment I,

eij =random error to each Observation

The animals were weighed weekly, in the morning. The facilities presented concentrate trough, manger, water trough and a sunbathing area. The average live weights of the animals, at the beginning of the experiment, was 17.8kg and 17.6kg for Yeast and Control group respectively.

Results and Discussion

Same letter do not differ statistically by Tukey test (p≤0.01).

Both live weight evolution and daily weight gain data are presented in Table 2. By analyzing them, it can be observed that the effect of using LYC was significant and positive with average daily gain of 261.5g versus 192.2g of the Control group.

The weight gain and final weight of Yeast group animals are similar to those found by Baungartner (2001) cited by Rosanova [8] & Barros [8,9] who found values of 214.0g/day and 182.4g/ day + 11.9g/day respectively. Castillo Estrada et al. [10] had tested 80 male sheep using 1.5 to 2.5g of LYC/an.day and found the average daily gain respectively 38.5% and 77.5% higher than Control group. Dawson's review [11] reported increased responses in average weight gain ranging from 8.7% to more than 20%.

Means followed by the same letterdo not differ by Wilcoxon test (p<0.05)

The results obtained at this present paper were, possibly, due to higher dry matter intake observed in Yeast group animals (3.38% LW) compared to Control group (2.64% LW). Similar data was observed by Furosho-Garcia [12]. Several authors [1317] have found higher values in dry matter degradation due to inclusion of LYC in ruminant's diets and this has been suggested as the factor that justifies the higher dry matter intake associated with the use of yeast.

The mechanism of the yeast action in ruminants is not quite clear Some studies suggested that the beneficial effect seems to be associated with the yeast presence which should stimulate both bacterial growth and cellulolytic activity, thus increasing ruminal fiber degradation, the flow of microbial protein to the small intestine and consequently animal production [6,15,17,18].

Although dry matter degradation has not been evaluated at the experiment, performance results obtained are consistent with those found by Carro & Fiems et al. [19,20] testing lambs fed with highly starch and soluble carbohydrates diets (HSSCD) compared to those fed with base diets and concluding that greater effect of yeast addition on ruminal pH and microbial growth and activity were experienced on group receiving HSSCD.

Santos et al. [21] emphasized that the beneficial effect of yeast occurs only with high soluble carbohydrates diets and highly digestible cell wall diets due to enhances on ruminal environment. However, several factors can affect animal performance response to supplementation with yeast, specially the presence of factors causing stress, desired production level, stage of animal development, type of forage, feeding strategy, roughage-to-concentrate ratio in the diet [22,23] and diet quality [24].

Neumann [25] found lower feed conversion for lambs fed with high concentrate diet and supplemented with 0.8g/day of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In this case, the beneficial effects of yeast were not sufficient to prevent the occurrence of digestive disorders such as subclinical rumen acidosis. So, the author adds another variable to the previous list: yeast dose and viability.

When using roughage base diets the results are discordant. Some studies have shown increased microbial synthesis and in vitro degradability while others found no effect [26].

Conclusion

The use of 2g of live yeast concentrate with 10x10⁹ provided better performance to 1/2 blood Santa Inês/Dorper lambs after weaning, and thus reducing the interval from birth to slaughter.

References

1. Forbes JM (1995) Voluntary food intake and diet seleetion in farm animals.Guiford: Biddles. pp. 532.
2. Brody S (1945) Bioenergeties and growth with speeial referenee to the effieieney eomplex in domestie animals. New York: Reinhold Publishing Eorporation, USA pp. 1023.
3. Triearieo JM (2005) Optimizing rumen funetion: Benefits of Beef- Saeein animal produetivity. In: Malaguido A, Prieto F (Eds.), Brazilian Symposium Of Animal Feed Industry, 2. Ereate, Innovate And Elevate- Nutritional Bioteehnology Of Animal Feed Industry Euritiba: Simposio Brazileiro Allteeh pp. 119-126.
4. Wallaee RJ (1994) Ruminal mierobiology, bioteehnology, and ruminant nutrition: progress and problems. J Anim Sei 72: 2992-3003.
5. Dawson KA, Hopkins DM (1992) Differential effeets of live yeast eulture in animal produetion: A review of researeh over the last six years. Nieholasville: AllteehTeehnieal Publieations, p. 40.
6. Newbold EJ, Wallaee RJ, MeIntosh FM (1996) Mode of aetion of the yeast Saeeharomyees eerevisiae as a feed additive for ruminants. British J Nutrition n 76(2): 249-261.
7. Aronovieh M (2005) Goats and sheeps. Agrieulture Researeh Eompanies Eouneil - EONSEPA, Teehnieal Meeting (1^a edn), Eampinas, Brazil p. 47.
8. Rosanova E, Silva Sobrinho AG, Gonzaga Neto S (2005) The Dorper Breed and their produetive and reproduetive eharaeterization. Vet Not Uberlandia 11: 127-135.
9. Barros NN,Vaseoneelos VR, Wander AE, Araújo MRA (2005) Bioeeonomie effieieney of lambs FjDorper x Santa Ines for meet produetion. Brazilian Journal of Agrieultural Researeh, Brazil 40(8).
10. Eastillo Estrada LH, Lopez AJO, Oldakowski EF (2005) Live weight gain of Santa Ines lambs supplemented with inereasing doses of Proereatin7®, proeeedings of FENORTE meeting, Eampos dos Goytaeases, RJ, Brazil.
11. Dawson KA (2000) Some limestone in our understanding of yeast eulture supplementation in ruminants and their implieations in animal produetions systems. In: Proeeedings of the 16^th Annual Symposium on Bioteehnology in the Feed Industry, 16, Nottingham, 2000. Anais... Nottingham: Nottingham University, pp. 473-486.
12. Furosho-Gareia IF, Perez JRO, Bonagurio S, Santos EL (2006) Allometrie study of standard euts of Santa Ines lambs pure bred and eross bred. Brazilian Journal of Animal Seienee 35(4): 1416-1422.
13. Harrison GA, Hemken RW, Dawson KA, Harmon RJ, Barker KB (1988) Influenee of addition of yeast eulture supplement to diets of laetating eows on ruminal fermentation and mierobial populations. J Dairy Sei 71: 2967-2975.
14. Williams PEV, Tait EAG, Innes GM, Newbold EJ (1991) Effeets of the inelusion of yeast eulture (Saeeharomyees eerevisiae plus growth medium) in the diet of dairy eows on milk yield and forage degradation and fermentation patterns in the rumen of sheep and steers. J Anim Sei n 69(7): 3016-3026.
15. Newbold EJ (1995) Mierobial feed additives for ruminants. In: Bioteehnology in Animal Feeds and animal feeding. Ehesson A, Wallaee RJ (Eds.), Germany p. 259.
16. Newbold EJ, MeIntosh FM, WallaeeRJ (1998) Ehanges in the mierobial population of a rumen-simulating fermenter in response to yeast eulture. Ean. J Anim Sei 78: 241-244.
17. Newbold EJ, Wallaee RJ, Ehen XB, MeIntosh FM (1995) Different strains of Saeeharomyees eerevisiae differ in their effeets on ruminal baeterial numbers in vitro and in sheep. J AnimSei n 73(6): 1811-1818.
18. Wallaee RJ, Newbold EJ (1992) Probioties for ruminants. In: Fuller R editor. Probioties: The Seientifie Basis. London, UK: Ehapman & Hall pp. 317-353.
19. Earro MD, Lebzien P, Rohr K (1992) Effeets of yeast eulture on rumen fermentation, digestibility and duodenal flow in dairy eows fed a silage-based diet. Livestoek Prod Sei 32: 219-229.
20. Fiems L (1993) The use of yeast in praetieal diets for ruminants. In: Miero-organisms and enzyme preparations in animal nutrition. Eastanon JIR (Eds.), Eommission of the European Eommunities, Brussels pp. 159.
21. Santos FAP, Earmo EDA, Martinez JE, Pires AV, Bittar EMM (2006) Performanee of dairy eows fed diets with different eontents of total stareh, added or not with yeast (Saeeharomyees eerevisiae). BrazilianJournalof Animal Seienee, Vicosa 35(4): 1568-1575.
22. Van Soest PJ (1984) Nutritional eeology of the ruminant. (2^nd edn), Ithaea: Eornell University pp. 476.
23. Ezequiel JMB, Sampaio AAM, Seixas JRE, de Oliveira MM (2000) Nitrogen balanee and total digestion of protein and energy of rations eontaining eotton seed meal, sugareane yeast or ureain sheep. Brazilian Journal of Animal Seienee, Vicosa 29(6): 2332-2337.
24. Auelair E (2001) Yeast as an example of the mode of aetion of probioties in monogastrie and ruminant speeies. In: Brufau J editor. Feed Manufaeturing in the Mediterranean Region. Reus, Spain: EIHEAM- IAMZ p. 45-53.
25. Neumann M, Ost PR, De Pellegrini LG, De Mello SEG, Da Silva MAA, Nörnberg JL (2008) Use of live yeast (Saeeharomyees eerevisiae) for produetion of Ile de Franee super preeoee lambs on ereep-feeding system. Eieneia Rural 38(8).
26. Zeleòák I, Jalè D, Kmet V, Siroka P (1994) Influenee of diet and yeast supplement on in vitro ruminal eharaeteristies. AnimFeedSeiTeehnol 3(4): 211-221.