Journal of Animal Science and Technology

Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology (한국축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Potency of cashew nut shell liquid in rumen modulation under different dietary conditions and indication of its surfactant action against rumen bacteria

  • Received : 2017.06.27
  • Accepted : 2017.10.24
  • Published : 2017.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Cashew nut shell liquid (CNSL) is an agricultural byproduct containing alkylphenols that has been shown to favorably change the rumen fermentation pattern only under experimentally fixed feeding conditions. Investigation of CNSL potency in rumen modulation under a variety of feeding regimens, and evidence leading to the understanding of CNSL action are obviously necessary for further CNSL applications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potency of CNSL for rumen modulation under different dietary conditions, and to visually demonstrate its surfactant action against selected rumen bacteria. Methods: Batch culture studies were carried out using various diets with 5 different forage to concentrate (F:C) ratios (9:1, 7:3, 5:5. 3:7 and 1:9). Strained rumen fluid was diluted with a buffer and incubated with each diet. Gas and short chain fatty acid (SCFA) profiles were characterized after 18 h incubation at $39^{\circ}C$. Monensin was also evaluated as a reference additive under the same conditions. Four species of rumen bacteria were grown in pure culture and exposed to CNSL to determine their morphological sensitivity to the surfactant action of CNSL. Results: CNSL supplementation decreased total gas production in diets with 5:5 and 3:7 F:C ratios, whereas the F:C ratio alone did not affect any gas production. Methane decrease by CNSL addition was more apparent in diets with 5:5, 3:7, and 1:9 F:C ratios. An interactive effect of CNSL and the F:C ratio was also observed for methane production. CNSL supplementation enhanced propionate production, while total SCFA production was not affected. Monensin decreased methane production but only in a diet with a 1:9 F:C ratio with increased propionate. Studies of pure cultures indicated that CNSL damaged the cell surface of hydrogen- and formate-producing bacteria, but did not change that of propionate-producing bacteria. Conclusion: CNSL can selectively inhibit rumen bacteria through its surfactant action to lead fermentation toward less methane and more propionate production. As CNSL is effective over a wider range of dietary conditions for such modulation of rumen fermentation in comparison with monensin, this new additive candidate might be applied to ruminant animals for various production purposes and at various stages.

Keywords

References

  1. Hook SE, Wright AG, McBride BW. Methanogens: methane producers of the rumen and mitigation strategies. Archaea. 2010;945785.
  2. Guan H, Wittenberg KM, Ominski KH, Krause DO. Efficacy of ionophores in cattle diets for mitigation of enteric methane. J Anim Sci. 2006;84:1896-906. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-652
  3. Toral PG, Hervas G, Bichi E, Belenguer A, Frutos P. Tannins as feed additives to modulate ruminal biohydrogenation: effects on animal performance, milk fatty acid composition and ruminal fermentation in dairy ewes fed a diet containing sunflower oil. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2011;164:199-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.01.011
  4. Calsamiglia S, Busquet M, Cardozo PW, Castillejos L, Ferret A. Invited review: essential oils as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90:2580-95. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-644
  5. Beauchemin KA, Kreuzer M, O'Mara F, McAlister TA. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Anim Prod Sci. 2008;48:21-7. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07199
  6. McGuffey RK, Richardson LF, Wilkinson JID. Ionophores for dairy cattle: current status and future outlook. J Dairy Sci. 2001;84:E194-203. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70218-4
  7. Devant M, Anglada A, Bach A. Effects of plant extract supplementation on rumen fermentation and metabolism in young Holstein bulls consuming high levels of concentrate. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2007;137:46-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.10.003
  8. Flythe MD, Aiken GE. Effects of hops (Humulus Lupulus L.) extract on volatile fatty acid production by rumen bacteria. J Appl Microbiol. 2010;109:1169-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04739.x
  9. Patra AK, Essential YZ. Oils affect populations of some rumen bacteria in vitro as revealed by microarray (RumenBactArray) analysis. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:297.
  10. Menon ARR, Pillai CKS, Sudha JD, Mathew AG. Cashew nut shell liquidits polymeric and other industrial products. J Sci Ind Res (India). 1985;44:324-38.
  11. Watanabe Y, Suzuki R, Koike S, Nagasima K, Mochizuki M, Forster RJ, Kobayashi Y. In vitro evaluation of cashew nut shell liquid as a methaneinhibiting and propionate-enhancing agent for ruminants. J Dairy Sci. 2010;93:5258-67. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2754
  12. Kubo I, Muroi H, Himejima M. Structural-antibiotic activity relationships of anacardic acids. J Agric Food Chem. 1993;41:1016-9. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00030a036
  13. Kubo I, Nihei K-I, Tsujimoto K. Antibacterial action of anacardic acids against methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). J Agric Food Chem. 2003;51:7624-8. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf034674f
  14. Oh S, Shintani R, Koike S, Kobayash Y. Ginkgo fruit extract as an additive to modify rumen microbiota and fermentation and to mitigate methane production. J Dairy Sci. 2017;100:1923-34. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11928
  15. Lee SS, Ahn BH, Kim HS, Kim CH, Cheng K-J, Ha JK. Effects of non-ionic surfactants on enzyme distributions of rumen contents, anaerobic growth of rumen microbes, rumen fermentation characteristics and performances of lactating cows. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2003;16:104-15. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2003.104
  16. Liu Y, Camacho LM, Tang S, Tan Z, Salem AZM. Advances in nutritional manipulation rumen functions of surfactants. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2013;7:1451-8. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR12.2273
  17. McDougall EI. Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochem J. 1948;43:99-109. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0430099
  18. Russell JB, Strobel HJ. Effect of ionophores on ruminal fermentation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1989;55:1-6.
  19. Shinkai T, Enishi O, Mitsumori M, Higuchi K, Kobayashi Y, Takenaka A, Nagasima K, Mochizuki M, Kobayashi Y. Mitigation of methane production from cattle by feeding cashew nut shell liquid. J Dairy Sci. 2012;95:5308-16. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5554
  20. Chow JM, Kessel JASV, Russell JB. Binding of radiolabeled monensin and lasalocid to ruminal microorganism and feed. J Anim Sci. 1994;70:1630-5.
  21. Chen M, Wolin MJ. Effect of monensin and lasalocid-sodium on the growth of methanogenic and rumen saccharolytic bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1979;38:72-7.
  22. Callaway TR, Adams KA, Rusell JB. The ability of "low G + C gram-positive" ruminal bacteria to resist monensin and counteract potassium depletion. Curr Microbiol. 1999;39:226-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002849900449
  23. Macy JM, Ljungdahl LG, Gottchalk G. Pathway of succinate and propionate formation in Bacteroides Fragilis. J Bacteriol. 1978;134:84-91.
  24. Baldwin RL, Wood WA, Emery RS. Conversion of lactate-$C^{14}$ to propionate by the rumen microflora. J Bacteriol. 1962;83:907-13.
  25. Latham MJ, Wolin MJ. Fermentation of cellulose by Ruminococcus flavefaciens in the presence and absence of Methanobacterium ruminantium. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1977;34:297-301.
  26. Miller TL, Currenti E, Wolin MJ. Anaerobic biocenversion of cellulose by Ruminococcus albus, Methanobrevibacter smithii, and Methanosarcina backeri. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2000;54:494-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002530000430

Cited by

  1. Microbial community structure of the bovine rumen as affected by feeding cashew nut shell liquid, a methane‐inhibiting and propionate‐enhancing agent vol.92, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13503
  2. Growth and morphologic response of rumen methanogenic archaea and bacteria to cashew nut shell liquid and its alkylphenol components vol.92, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13598
  3. Effect of cashew nut shell liquid on rice growth and methane emission from paddy soil vol.67, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2021.1887710
  4. Cashew nut shell liquids: Antimicrobial compounds in prevention and control of the oral biofilms vol.133, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2021.105299