You are on page 1of 19

COURSE:

CURRENT TOPIC IN ANIMAL PRODUCTION

2011

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUTE STUDISES

School of Animal and Range Sciences

Title:

DEFAUNATION: EFFECTS ON FEED INTAKE, DIGESTION, RUMEN METABOLISM AND WEIGHT GAIN

Course name: Current Topic in Animal Production


Course Code: ANPR562

By: Arse Gebeyehu ID: sgs4170/2003 Date: May, 2011

Haramaya University, School

of

Animal

and

Range Science

Yoseph M (PhD)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 2 DEFAUNATION................................................................................................................ 3 3.1. 3.2. DEFAUNATION TECHNIQUES .............................................................................. 3 EFFECT OF DEFAUNATION ................................................................................... 3 FEED INTAKE .................................................................................................... 4 FEED DIGESTION ............................................................................................. 6 METABOLISM ................................................................................................... 7 WEIGHT GAIN ................................................................................................... 9

3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.3. 3.2.4. 4. 5. 6.

FUTURE DIRECTION .................................................................................................... 12 CHALLENGES OF DEFAUNATION ............................................................................ 12 CONCLUSIION ............................................................................................................... 13

REFERENCE ........................................................................................................................... 14

KEYS

ADG = Average Daily Gain NPN = Non-Protein-Nitrogen LCFA = Long Chain Fatty Acid VFA = Volatile Fatty Acid ME = Metabolizable Energy DP = Digestible Protein G or g = gram D or d = day
ii

1. INTRODUCTION The rumen is a very diverse and complex microbial ecosystem. There is ample evidence (Walker 2000) for genotypic and phenotypic diversity of the major functional groups of ruminal microorganisms in different ruminant species and geographical regions. Hobso (1972) report indicates about 10-20% of the rumen microbial population on roughage based diets is culturable but only few strains are currently held in culture collections and cannot represent all ruminal species. Hobso (1972) also indicated that culturing is not enough to describe the existing interplay in the rumen since the control of the rumen fermentation needs a basic knowledge of all the rumen microbes. It is the rumen microbes that makes possible for ruminants to digest and metabolise feed materials that may otherwise be indigestible.

Hobsos (1972) claims of rumen microbes function was in agreement with the report of Hungate (1966) which indicates ruminants dependence on microorganisms to digest and assimilate nutrients from forage diets. Hungate (1966) indicated digestion of feed matters is aided by rumen dwelling several thousands of species of bacteria, thousands of protozoa and several fungi species. Any changes within this population can affect digestion and animal performance. The microbes are predominantly anaerobic and live in a symbiotic relationship with the animal. Rumen is a continuous anaerobic culture system in which the pH and temperature are maintained between 5-7 and 39-40oC respectively. In the rumen feed materials are fermented to volatile fatty acids and absorbed (Hungate 1966).

Orpin (1984) found that rumen protozoa are larger than bacteria but present in smaller numbers (104-106 per ml). The total biomass of protozoa in the rumen may however equal or exceed that of the bacteria (Orpin 1984). Walker (2000) reported that protozoa are relatively large size can account for up to 50% of the biomass. They primarily play a role in predation of other microorganisms, resulting in a contribution to nitrogen recycling, although some are able to digest starch and plant particles. Protozoa are generally more sensitive to dietary changes than the bacterial population and there appears to be greater host animal to animal variation in the protozoal population than with bacterial populations. Orpin (1984) also claimed that rumen protozoal diversity tends to be reduced in browsing ruminants. Several study reports indicates at pH value of 6 protozoan feel uncomfortable with the possible
1

exception of some Entodinium spp. Most of the rumen protozoa are ciliate with a few species of flagellate regularly encountered (Hungate 1966; Williams and Coleman 1988). Protozoa can ingest food particles and can utilize readily fermentable carbohydrates as well as structural carbohydrates (Bird and Leng 1989). Bird and Leng (1989) and Nolan et al (1989) reported that bacteria are also ingested and digested by protozoa and this may be particularly disadvantageous to animals fed a low nitrogen diet because proteins are retained in the rumen as a result of the sequestration of protozoa which tend to be retained in the rumen.

According to Fahmy et al (1998) the consequence of this is a reduction in the amount of microbial proteins reaching the abomasums and small intestine. Because of these and other effects rumen protozoa particularly ciliated protozoa have been the subject of many studies in the past few decades (Fahmy et al 1998). Defaunation and refaunation are the technologies and techniques to study the effect of presence or absence of rumen protozoan. Defaunation is the selective removal of protozoa from the rumen and refaunation is introduction of protozoa in to the rumen. The important point is that reports on the effects of the presence or absence of rumen ciliate protozoa on performance of ruminants have been contradicting each other. Some researchers reported positive effect of removal of protozoa and other researchers cameup with the results that disproves the positive effect of removal on animal performance. Because of this contradictions investigation on the effect of defaunation have been continuing till to-date. Thus the objective of this paper is to reviews the effect of defauanation on feed intake, digestion, feed metabolism and weight gain.

2. METHODOLOGY Pertinent information on recent development on defaunation and its effect on animal performance were reviewed. All possible sources of information especially recently published scientific journals and articles were reviewed to prepare this important paper.

N.B: This paper reviewed journals, articles and books from accessible sources only; there are many more study reports but unavailable to be reviewed. Thus, this constraint should be considered during evaluating this paper.

3. DEFAUNATION 3.1. DEFAUNATION TECHNIQUES

The term defaunation represents the elimination of the microfauna, protozoa from rumen. There are several defaunation techniques or methods. It has been shown that Eadie and Oxford (1957) did defaunation by prolonged starvation and copper sulphate administration and reported to be fairly effective. These authors also indicated that it drastically affects both ruminal processes and the animal's health. Eadie and Oxford (1957) also explained heating the rumen contents to 50C is safe but doesnt remove all of the small oligotrichs Diplodinium dentatum and Entodinium species. Abou Akkada et al (1968) did defaunation with aerosol OT (Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate) method. Bird and Leng (1978) defaunated animals with Nonyl phenol ethoxylate (teric GN9, trade name). These authors noted 100g teric GN9 was found to be sufficient to eliminate protozoa from the rumen. Ankrah et al (1990) defaunated steers with 40g dioctyl sulfosuccinate for two consecutive days. Hsu et al
(1991) defaunated experimental sheep with 30ml alkanate 3SL3. Fahmy et al (1998) defaunated

experimental animal using 0.5 ounces of alkanate 3SL3. Santra et al (2000) defaunated malpura lambs with sodium lauryl sulfate at the rate of 8 g/100 kg body weight. Eryavuz et al (2003) defaunated by dosing each sheep with 2g of dioctylsodium sulphosuccinate in 100ml of water through a polyethylene tube inserted down the esophagus on three consecutive days.

3.2. EFFECT OF DEFAUNATION

Many trials conducted on fattening lambs realized supplements of protein rich forages showed that defaunation significantly increased the nitrogen retention in organism. Several reports indicate that protozoan consumes bacteria and transform the bacterial protein into protozoal protein, which protozoal protein has higher digestibility and superior biological value in host. Yet results coming from different research reports on defaunation are still contradicting each other. Willians and Coleman (1988) evaluated the weight of protozoa and found to be a half of the total ruminal biomass and responsible for the degradation of the forages. Eryavuz et al (2003) reported defaunated sheep efficiently used high dietary urea levels with similar amounts of amino acids flowing to the duodenum with urea as from true protein diets.
3

But even still in recent studies there is contradicting results of defaunation is being reported in many literatures. Walker (2000) findings indicated ciliate protozoa are not essential for ruminal fermentation like bacteria. This author also claimed defaunation has no drastic effect on overall fermentation. This author also came to know that potential method for either reducing methane production or of improving the flow of nitrogen from the rumen to the small intestine will decrease in nitrogen recycling. Vioara et al (2006) understood the effect of defaunation in many ways: food and water privation, pH variation beyond the optimal limits, the suddenly change of any other condition and by adding chemical substances.

3.2.1.

FEED INTAKE

Bird et al (1994) reported that defaunation of the wethers had no significant effect on feed intake. Eryavuz et al (2003) reported defaunated animal performed less than faunated on the same treatment. According to Eryavuz et al (2003) result report, defaunated concentrate feed intake is lower than faunated. These authors also reported defaunated used higher amount of feed per gain. Bird et al (1994) also reported, when defaunation was combined with lucerne supplementation the digestibility of untreated wheat straw increased. Fahmy et al (1998) reported short-term depression in feed intake following chemical defaunation. However Fahmy et al (1998) reported dry matter intake over the experimental period was not significantly affected by defaunation (See Table 1 - 3). According to Bird and Leng (1978) report, growth rates were significantly increased by 43% for cattle on the higher protein intake and where protozoa were removed. Bird and Leng (1978) further explained that intake of molasses was apparently stimulated by a protein supplementation but not by defaunation. Chandramoni et al (2002) reported higher feed intake for defaunated sheep.

Table 1: Daily intake of feeds (DM basis) and nutritive value of rations in faunated and defaunated sheep Particulars Live weight(kg) Concentrate mix(g) Oat hay(g) Total intake(g) Intake(g/kg W0.75) DP intake(g/d) TDN intake(g/d) Faunated 48.1 840.8 263.6 1104.4 60.68 78.9 743.0 Defaunated 51.2 892.4 294.1 1186.5 62.1 86.7 791.8 SEM 1.63 28.64 26.57 29.95 1.31 4.17 23.35

Adopted from: Chandramoni et al (2002) N.B: Compare bolded with bolded ones, underlined with underlined ones

TABLE 2. Defaunation and amino acid supplementation effects on growth of sheep Protozoa Diet Measure Control Dry matter intake (lb/d) Body weight gain(lb/d) Efficiency of gain Wool growth, ounces per day Adopted from: Fahmy et al (1998) 2.28 0.26 0.11 0.34 Faunated Supplemented 2.16 0.15 0.07 0.31 Defaunated Control 1.92 0.29 0.15 0.30 Supplemented 2.22 0.40 0.18 0.36

Table 3: faunated and defaunated feed intake Faunated Intake (g/d) Alfalfa Concentrate Total Feed per gain Plant Protein 350 726 1076 5.9 Non-protein N2 350 756 1106 5.2 Defaunated Plant Protein 350 714 1064 6.5 Non-protein N2 350 755 1105 5.7

Source: Eryavuz et al (2003) N.B: Compare bolded with bolded ones, underlined with underlined ones
5

3.2.2.

FEED DIGESTION

The rumen is essentially a fermentation chamber in which the resident microbial population helps to digest the diet and is inhabited by diverse and interdependent populations of bacteria, protozoa and fungi (Damry 2009). This kind of aid to ruminal digestion was studied with the aim of establishing the roles of the protozoa in rumen and for interference in alteration of the mechanisms which determine the profile of the digestive intra-ruminal processes. Some scientists believe elimination of protozoa from the rumen ecosystem is a means of overcoming the loss of available protein due to protozoal turnover (Ankrah et al 1990). Early findings of Abou Akkada et al (1968) indicated that there were no differences in performance of ruminants due to faunation or defaunation. This failure to detect effect of defaunation may be due to inefficient technology to detect little effect at early times.

Kayouli et al (1986) reported defaunation resulted in higher bacterial growth efficiency. Digestibility of organic matter increased by defiaunation but to the lower extent. According to Kayouli et al (1986) this little improvement in digestion is due to shifting of digestion site i.e., from rumen to lower digestive tracts. Hsu et al (1991) reported defaunation doubled ruminal fungal spores and bacteria numbers. These authors noted ruminal microbial crude protein and organic matter concentrations were not increased by defaunation. Eadie and Gill (1971) demonstrated that certain rations are more readily digested by faunated than by defaunated lambs. However, (Vioara et al 2006) insist that protozoa can have key role in the turnover of the bacterial proteins. Ushida et al (1990) reported cell-wall carbohydrates were less digested in the defaunated. Ushida et al (1990) also reported intestinal fibre digestion increased in the defaunated sheep. Santra et al (2000) also reported the digestibility of cell and cell wall contents were generally poor in defaunated lambs. Some scientists reported reducing protozoa number will reduce the fermentation process in rumen and also the fibre degradation.

Walker (2000) indicated the important advantage of defaunation as the possibility of introducing single strain or species of ciliate during refaunation to assess its biochemical processes. Vioara et al (2006) noticed defaunation depressed total rumen fermentation for three days after treatment, but these authors claimed rumen fermentation rate was normal on the fourth day onward. According to Vioara et al (2006) defaunated animals remained healthy
6

throughout the experiment except for going off-feed for two to three days after treatment can be overcomed by feeding a highly palatable ration. Ankrah et al (1990) reported Orchardgrass disappearance is significantly higher in steer faunated than defaunated. Eugne et al (2004) also reported defaunation significantly decreased organic matter digestibility. These authors also reported the higher microbial synthesis efficiency observed for the ciliate-free animals. Mosoni et al (2011) reported defaunation negatively affects fiber digestion.

3.2.3.

METABOLISM

The role of rumen protozoa in ruminant metabolism has received increasing attention during past few decades. Nevel et al (1985) reported defaunation caused a decrease in propionic acid percentage in the rumen. But Eugne et al (2004) reported the molar proportion of propionic acid was enhanced by defaunation. Abou Akkada et al (1968) indicated in his/her report that values of pH, volatile fatty acids, ammonia and in vitro cellulose digestion of rumen contents obtained from defaunated cows four days after treatment are normal compared to those previously reported. Kayouli et al (1986) also reported defaunation had no effect on acetic acid as a proportion of the total volatile fatty acids in the rumen. Ankrah et al (1990) also reported no pH difference in both faunated and defaunated steers. According to Kayouli et al (1986) report concentration of ammonia in the rumen was clearly decreased after defaunation, already indicating an effect of the elimination of protozoa on nitrogen metabolism in the rumen.

Several studies revealed defaunation tend to increase ruminal escape of dietary protein. Duodenal amino acid supply was enhanced by the incorporation of escape protein into the diet. Hsu et al (1991a) reported defaunation increased crude protein flow to the duodenum. Hsu et al (1991a) compared faunated with defaunated and reported decreased ruminal ammonia concentration in defaunated animal. Hsu et al (1991a) also reported defaunation does not consistently alter VFA pattern in a particular way. These authors also claimed that defaunation tended to increase ruminal escape of dietary protein. According to Hsu et al (1991a) defaunation combined with escape protein proved promising as a means of increasing the quantity and altering the profile of amino acids apparently digested in the small intestine. Hsu et al (1991a) noted defaunated sheep efficiently used high dietary urea levels
7

with similar amounts of amino acids flowing to the duodenum with urea as from true protein diets.

Williams (1986) and Jouany et al (1988) reported that protozoa not only prey on bacteria but also change the ruminal environment and metabolism, affecting pH, ammonia concentration and H2 production. Whitelaw et al (1972) explained saying, defaunation not only increase ruminal bacterial numbers but also affects the composition and activity of the ruminal bacterial population. Hsu et al (1991a) also reported defaunation increased crude protein flow to the duodenum. These authors further explained their report noting defaunation does not increase acetate or propionate molar proportions. These authors also reported that defaunation does not consistently alter VFA pattern in a particular way. Damry (2009) and Ankrah et al (1990) reported higher rumen ammonia concentrations in faunated than in defaunated lambs. These authors also reported different proportion of volatile fatty acids (VFA) in faunated and defaunated sheep. Damry (2009) and Ankrah et al (1990) reports were in agreement with report of Abou Akkada et al (1968) and Eadie and Gill (1971) who reported increased nitrogen retention in faunated lambs when compared with defaunated animals. Vioara et al (2006) reported that when diets which do not satisfy the proteins requirement are usual feed of the animal defaunation is not recommendable. Ushida et al (1990) reported defaunation markedly increased the efficiency of microbial protein synthesis. Mosoni et al (2011) reported that defaunation decreases methanogenesis. Abel et al (2006) report indicates NH4 concentration and the release of CH4 were reduced. Hsu et al
(1991) reported defaunation increased ruminal bacterial numbers but no increase in crude protein in ruminal contents. Santra et al (2000) report indicates N retention was higher in defaunated than

in refaunated and faunated lambs. Williams and Coleman (1988) findings on defaunation reveals that defaunation increased availability of protein to be absorbed from the intestine. According to Williams and Coleman (1988) defaunation have positive effect when the feeds consumed by animals are low in protein contents and animals are in condition where protein is considered as a limiting nutrient. In the same report Williams and Coleman (1988) also reported that bacterial pool size and amino acid outflow are generally higher in defaunated compared with refaunated animals. Damry (2009) study report indicates protozoa in the rumen significantly increased the ruminal long chain fatty acid (LCFA) production and the daily flow of total LCFA to the
8

abomasums. Table 4 presents the metabolic difference between faunated and defaunated sheep. Table 4: Daily energy balance and heat production in faunated and defaunated sheep Particulars Protein deposited (g) Fat deposited (g) Energy stored as protein (kcal/d) Energy stored as fat(kcal/d) Total energy retained (kcal/d) ME utilization efficiency(for maint) Adopted from: Chandramoni et al (2002) N.B: Compare bolded with bolded ones, underlined with underlined ones Faunated 14.4 51.2 76.6 480.1 556.7 51.3 Defaunated 17.5 47.37 93.1 443.9 537.0 54.7 SEM 1.87 15.60 9.08 146.17 152.81 4.2

3.2.4.

WEIGHT GAIN

The results on the effect of defaunation particularly weight gain are contradicting. Due to this inconclusive results being reported by different scientists enormous researches has been done and is being done till today. From earlier reports Abou Akkada et al (1968) report indicates faunated have higher rate of gain than defaunated lambs (See Table 6). rskov and Ryle (1990) reported additives like defaunating agent alter fermentation patterns. According to
Eryavuz et al (2003) report, defaunated animal performed less than faunated on the same treatment. Ankrah et al (1990) report indicates N retention of defaunated of steer fed on soy-

bean meal was significantly lower than faunated. Other results indicates that fattening lambs which received supplements of protein rich forages showed that defaunation significantly increased the nitrogen retention in organism (Hsu et al 1991a). Vioara et al (2006) report indicates that protozoa plays key role in the turnover of the bacterial proteins. Vioara et al (2006) explained that protozoa consume bacteria and transform the bacterial protein in protozoal protein, which has higher digestibility and superior biological value in host.

In contrary to the above results Ankrah et al (1990) reported defamation positively affected growth rate of lambs. Fahmy et al (1998) also reported defaunated sheep supplemented with
9

amino acids gained weight most rapidly. Eugne et al (2004) reported that the average daily gain (ADG) of faunated lambs was significantly lower than defaunated lambs. But these authors also reported the feed conversion ratio was higher with conventional lambs compared with ciliate-free lamb (See Table 5). Santra et al (2000) also reported that even with similar dry matter intake, body weight gain and feed conversion efficiency were higher in defaunated lambs. Nevel et al (1985) reported daily gain and food conversion efficiency were better in the defaunated group in the first five weeks. Eugne et al (2004) insisted defaunation increased average daily gain and improved feed conversion efficiency. In disagreement with Ankrah et al (1990), Fahmy et al (1998), Eugne et al (2004), Santra et al (2000) and Nevel et al (1985) Eryavuz et al (2003) reported faunated animals gained more than defaunated ones(See Table 6).

Chandramoni et al (2002) also reported positive effect defaunation that removal of protozoa benefited the sheep fed energy dense diet. Chandramoni et al (2002) noted the existence of difference between faunated and defaunated sheep but the difference is not significant at P< 0.05 (See Table 4). Bird and Leng (1978) reported removal of ciliate population appears to have considerable potential in improving ruminant productivity under certain feeding situations. Bird and Leng (1978) also indicated defaunation had no effect on growth rates for cattle given the basal diet without bypass protein supplementation. These authors also

noticed that addition of 240g of a feed pellet containing bypass protein increased growth rate significantly. Bird and Leng (1978) reported growth rates can be stimulated by defaunation without an ill effect on feed intake. These authors also claimed that defaunation increased efficiency of utilization of feed. Bird et al (1994) also reported that the effects of defaunation on daily live-weight gain were not statistically significant.

Fahmy et al (1998) indicated efficiency of body weight gain (pounds of gain divided by pounds of dry matter consumed) was highest for defaunated sheep. Williams (1986); Jouany et al (1988) report indicates after defaunation, bacterial numbers in the rumen generally increased leading to a positive effect on the efficiency of feed utilization. Hsu et al (1991) also reported defaunation doubled numbers of both ruminal bacteria and fungal zoospores. Whitelaw et al (1972) noticed protozoa cannot convert NPN to protein because they have no ureases and so cannot utilize urea and ammonia to synthesize amino acids. These authors also

10

reported the presence of protozoa may limit the productivity of ruminants particularly when the diet contains urea.

Table 5: Effect of protozoa and protein source on lamb performance and rumen microbial concentration Item Protein source Soybean meal DM intake(g/d) Gain (g/d) Feed/gain
d-1 Protozoal conc (106/ml) d-56 protozoal conc(10 /ml) d-56 Bacterial conc (109/g)
6

Protozoal status Refaunated 1160 169 8.0 2.3 4.1 30.9 Defaunated 1087 188 5.9 0 0 28.9 SE 49.9 18.9 0.7 0.32 0.43 2.6

Fish meal 1205 224 5.5 1.22 2.03 30.1

1042 133 8.5 1.06 2.05 29.7

Adopted from: Ankrah et al (1990) N.B: Compare bolded with bolded ones, underlined with underlined ones

Table 6: Faunated and defaunated sheep performance Faunated Plant Protein No of lambs Initial BW(kg) 10 17.8 Non-protein N2 9 17.3 36.2 210 Defaunated Plant Protein 9 17.6 32.3 163 Non-protein N2 10 17.6 34.7 190

>90 day BW(kg) 34.0 Daily gain(g/d) 180

Source: Eryavuz et al (2003) N.B: Compare bolded with bolded ones, underlined with underlined ones

11

4. FUTURE DIRECTION

Results reported on effect of defaunation are still contradicting each other. Contradictions on feed digestion and rumen metabolism are likely to happen because these two parameters are not as simple and easy as feed-intake and weight-gain parameters to measure because rumen gastro-intestinal tracts are complex media. Therefore the contradictory results reported on feed digestion and rumen metabolism can arise from; 1. Variation between or among species of animals, 2. Variation in operator skills to apprehend small effects and analyze, 3. Variation in procedure and examination techniques, 4. Variation from technological level of apparatus or machine used to examine and analyze 5. Personal skill to interpret the analyzed results Contradictory results on easy parameters like feed-intake and weight-gain can be cleared by conducting skilfully fine-tuning type of research on strictly homogenous animals.

Whitelaw et al (1972) noticed protozoa cannot convert NPN to protein because they have no ureases and so cannot utilize urea and ammonia. Whitelaw et al (1972) recommended further study on protozoa free animal for their maximum capacity on NPN utilization. Vioara et al (2006) also noticed that defaunation may increase urea utilization and indicated the need for further testing of appropriate level of urea utilization. Eryavuz et al (2003) also pointed out this researchable gap saying the maximal dietary urea level useful for defaunated animals remains to be determined.

5. CHALLENGES OF DEFAUNATION There are different kinds of defaunating agents. All brands of defaunating medicaments have different efficiency (Abou Akkada et al 1968; Bird and Leng 1978; Ankrah et al 1990; Fahmy et al 1998; Eryavuz et al 2003). From animal welfare point of view, it is inhumane to change natural environment of rumen and force the animal to have non-natural and non-normal physiological activities (this is my personal view). As far as accessible literatures on internet and hard-copy books, articles and journals available in the university library, there is no any evidence reported that an act of defaunation threatens human health. Plus, as far as eating
12

qualities of meat produced from defaunated animals is concerned, there is no negative effect reported for reducing meat eating qualities. The most import thing this paper noted on reviewed research findings is that there is no clear cutting result on the advantage and disadvantage of defaunation.

6. CONCLUSIION Results on effect of defaunation are contradictory of each other. Some results indicate defaunation enhanced animals feed intake, feed digestion, rumen metabolism and weight gain (see the above tables). On the other hand some research findings indicate defaunation hampers feed intake, feed digestion, rumen metabolism and animals weight gain (see the above tables). The negative result of defaunation on the above parameters indicates the existence of symbiotic relationship between rumen and protozoa. The positive results of defaunation indicate the existence of parasitic relationship between host (rumen) and protozoa. Vioara et al (2006) recommends not to defaunated the animals being fed on poor protein diet.

13

REFERENCE Abel H., Schrder B., Lebzien P and Flachowsky G. 2006. Effects of defaunation on fermentation characteristics and biotin balance in an artificial rumen-simulation system (RUSITEC) receiving diets with different amounts and types of cereal. Br J Nutr. 2006 Jan;95(1):99-104. Retrieved from:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16441921 Abou Akkada A. R., Bartley E. E., Berube R, Fina L. R., Meyer R. M., Henricks D and Julius F. 1968. Simple method to remove completely ciliate protozoa of adult ruminants. Applied Microbiology, Vol. 16, No. 10 Ankrah P., Loerch S. C., Kampman K. A and Dehority B. A. 1990. Effects of defaunation on in situ dry matter and nitrogen disappearance in steers and growth of lambs. J Anim Sci. 68:3330-3336. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1701424 Bird, S.H and Leng, R.A. 1978. The effects of defaunation of the rumen on the growth of cattle on low protein, high energy diets. British Journal of Nutrition. 40:163-167. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/667001 Bird S.H., Romulo B and Leng R.A. 1994. Effects of lucerne supplementation and

defaunation on feed intake, digestibility, N retention and productivity of sheep fed straw based diets. Retrieved from:

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/anifee/article/PII03778401949002 05/abstract Chandramoni., Tiwari C. M., Haque N., Lal M., Jadhao S. B and Khan M. Y.2002. Energy Balance in Faunated and Defaunated Sheep on a Ration High in Concentrate to Roughage (Good Quality) Ratio. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 1 (1): 31-33 Damry 2009. Effects of defaunation and methionine in the presence of protozoa on the flow of microbial long chain fatty acids from the rumen of sheep. J. Agroland 16 (2): 162 171 Eadie M and Gill J.C. 1971. The effect of the absence of rumen ciliate protozoa on growing lambs fed on a roughage-concentrate diet. Br. J. Nutr. (1971), 26, 155 I55

14

Eadie J. M and Oxford A. E. 1957. A simple and safe procedure for the removal of holotrich ciliates from the rumen of an adult fistulated sheep. Nature 179:485. Eryavuz A., Dndar Y., Ozdemir M., Aslan R and Tekerli M. 2003. Effects of urea and sulfur on performance of faunate and defaunate Ramlic lambs, and some rumen and blood parameters. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 109 (2003) 3546 Eugne M., Archimde H., Weisbecker J.L., Periacarpin F., Saminadin G and Sauvant D. 2004. Effects of defaunation on digestion and growth, in sheep receiving a mixed diet (fresh Digitaria decumbens grass and concentrate) at four proteins to energy ratios. Retrieved from:

http://animres.edpsciences.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Item id=129&url=/articles/animres/pdf/2004/02/Z202133.pdf Eugne M., Archimde H and Sauvant D. 2004. Quantitative meta-analysis on the effects of defaunation of the rumen on growth, intake and digestion in ruminants. Livestock Production Science. Volume 85, Issue 1, Pages 81-97. Fahmy W.G., Bahaa A.O., Murphy M.R., Nombekela S.W., Corley R.N and Zhu J.S. 1998. Effect of Defaunation and Amino Acid Supplementation on Growth and Amino Acid Balance in Sheep. Retrieved from:

http://www.livestocktrail.uiuc.edu/dairynet/paperDisplay.cfm?ContentID=238 Hsu J. T., Fahey G. C., Merchen N. R and Mackie R. I. 1991. Effects of defaunation and various nitrogen supplementation regimens on microbial numbers and activity in the rumen of sheep. J Anim Sci. 69:1279-1289. Hsu J. T., Fahey G. C., Berger L. L., Mackie R. I and Merchen N. R. 1991a. Manipulation of nitrogen digestion by sheep using defaunation and various nitrogen supplementation regimens. J Anim Sci 1991. 69:1290-1299. Hungate R.E. 1966. The Rumen and its Microbes. Academic press, London and New York. Jouany J. P., Derneyer D. I and Grain J. 1988. Effect of defaunating the rumen. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 21: 229.

15

Kayouli C., van Nevel C.J., Dendooven R., Demeyer D.I. 1986. Effect of defaunation and refaunation of the rumen on rumen fermentation and N-flow in the duodenum of sheep. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3026284 Mosoni P., Martin. C., Forano. E and Morgavi D. P. Long-term defaunation increases the abundance of cellulolytic ruminococci and methanogens but does not affect the bacterial and methanogen diversity in the rumen of sheep. J. Anim Sci. 2011. 89:783791. doi:10.2527/jas.2010-2947. Retrieved from:

http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/3/783 Nolan J.V., Leng R.A and Demeyer D.I. 1989. The role of protozoa and fungi in Ruminant digestion, Armidale, Penambul Books, Australia. rskov E.R and Ryle M. 1990. Energy Nutrition in Ruminants. Elsevier Applied Science. Elsevier Science Publisher LTD, Essex England Orpin C.G. 1984. The role of ciliate protozoa and fungi in the rumen digestion of plant cell walls. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 10:121-143. Santra A and Karim S.A. 2000. Growth performance of faunated and defaunated Malpura weaner lambs. Retrieved from:

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/anifee/article/PIIS0377840100001 619/abstract Ushida K., Kayouli C., De Smet S and Jouany J.P. 1990. Effect of defaunation on protein and fibre digestion in sheep fed on ammonia-treated straw-based diets with or without maize. Br J Nutr. 1990 Nov;64(3):765-75. Retrieved from:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2176099 Van-Nevel C.J., Demeyer D.I and van de Voorde G. 1985. Effect of defaunating the rumen on growth and carcass composition of lambs. Retrieved from:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2412527 Vioara M., Rducu C and Stetca G. 2006. The efect of ruminal defaunation in establisghing the role of the infusores in ruminal physiology. Buletinul USAMV-CN, 63 pp 88-92.

16

Walker N.D. 2000. Nutrient Requirements and Metabolism of Rumen Microorganisms. Retrieved from: http://www.rumen-

health.com/PDF/Nutrient_Requirements_Metabolism_Rumen.pdf Williams A. G. 1986. Rumen holotrich ciliate protozoa. Microbiol. Rev. 50:25. William A.G and Coleman G.S. 1988. The rumen protozoa. In: Hobson, P.N. Ed. The rumen microbial ecosystem. Elselvier Sci. Publishers Ltd. London, England, pp. 77-128. Whitelaw F. G., Eadie J. M., Mann S. O and Reid R. S. 1972. Some effects of rumen ciliate protozoa in cattle given restricted amounts of a barley diet. Br. J. Nutr. 27425.

17

You might also like