Ruminal pH pattern, fermentation characteristics and related bacteria in response to dietary live yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) supplementation in beef cattle

  • Zhang, Xiangfei (Low Carbon Breeding Cattle and Safety Production-University Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Dong, Xianwen (Chongqing Academy of Animal Science) ;
  • Wanapat, Metha (Tropical Feed Resources Research and Development Center, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University) ;
  • Shah, Ali Mujtaba (Low Carbon Breeding Cattle and Safety Production-University Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Luo, Xiaolin (Institute of Plateau Animals, Sichuan Academy of Grassland Science) ;
  • Peng, Quanhui (Low Carbon Breeding Cattle and Safety Production-University Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Kang, Kun (Low Carbon Breeding Cattle and Safety Production-University Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Hu, Rui (Low Carbon Breeding Cattle and Safety Production-University Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Guan, Jiuqiang (Institute of Plateau Animals, Sichuan Academy of Grassland Science) ;
  • Wang, Zhisheng (Low Carbon Breeding Cattle and Safety Production-University Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University)
  • Received : 2021.04.28
  • Accepted : 2021.07.21
  • Published : 2022.02.01


Objective: In this study we aimed to evaluate the effect of dietary live yeast supplementation on ruminal pH pattern, fermentation characteristics and associated bacteria in beef cattle. Methods: This work comprised of in vitro and in vivo experiments. In vitro fermentation was conducted by incubating 0%, 0.05%, 0.075%, 0.1%, 0.125%, and 0.15% active dried yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae, ADY) with total mixed ration substrate to determine its dose effect. According to in vitro results, 0.1% ADY inclusion level was assigned in in vivo study for continuously monitoring ruminal fermentation characteristics and microbes. Six ruminally cannulated steers were randomly assigned to 2 treatments (Control and ADY supplementation) as two-period crossover design (30-day). Blood samples were harvested before-feeding and rumen fluid was sampled at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 h post-feeding on 30 d. Results: After 24 h in vitro fermentation, pH and gas production were increased at 0.1% ADY where ammonia nitrogen and microbial crude protein also displayed lowest and peak values, respectively. Acetate, butyrate and total volatile fatty acids concentrations heightened with increasing ADY doses and plateaued at high levels, while acetate to propionate ratio was decreased accordingly. In in vivo study, ruminal pH was increased with ADY supplementation that also elevated acetate and propionate. Conversely, ADY reduced lactate level by dampening Streptococcus bovis and inducing greater Selenomonas ruminantium and Megasphaera elsdenii populations involved in lactate utilization. The serum urea nitrogen decreased, whereas glucose, albumin and total protein concentrations were increased with ADY supplementation. Conclusion: The results demonstrated dietary ADY improved ruminal fermentation dose-dependently. The ruminal lactate reduction through modification of lactate metabolic bacteria could be an important reason for rumen pH stabilization induced by ADY. ADY supplementation offered a complementary probiotics strategy in improving gluconeogenesis and nitrogen metabolism of beef cattle, potentially resulted from optimized rumen pH and fermentation.



The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding support of Sichuan Science and Technology Program (2021YFYZ0001) and Angel Yeast Co., Ltd for the conduct of the research and preparation of the article.


  1. Hobson PN, Stewart CS. The rumen microbial ecosystem. London, UK: Blackie Academic & Professional; 1997.
  2. Moallem U, Lehrer H, Livshitz L, Zachut M, Yakoby S. The effects of live yeast supplementation to dairy cows during the hot season on production, feed efficiency, and digestibility. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:343-51.
  3. Jiao P, He Z, Ding S, et al. Impact of strain and dose of live yeast and yeast derivatives on in vitro ruminal fermentation of a high-grain diet at two pH levels. Can J Anim Sci 2018;98:477-87.
  4. Rossi F, Luccia AD, Vincenti D, Cocconcelli PS. Effects of peptidic fractions from Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on growth and metabolism of the ruminal bacteria Megasphaera elsdenii. Anim Res 2004;53:177-86.
  5. Chaucheyras-Durand F, Walker N, Bach A. Effects of active dry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem: Past, present and future. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2008;145:5-26.
  6. Broderick GA. Effects of varying dietary protein and energy levels on the production of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2003;86:1370-81.
  7. Zhang X, Zhang H, Wang Z, et al. Effects of dietary carbohydrate composition on rumen fermentation characteristics and microbial population in vitro. Ital J Anim Sci 2015;14:3366.
  8. Plaizier JC, Krause DO, Gozho GN, McBride BW. Subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows: the physiological causes, incidence and consequences. Vet J 2008;176:21-31.
  9. Wanapat M, Gunun P, Anantasook N, Kang S. Changes of rumen pH, fermentation and microbial population as influenced by different ratios of roughage (rice straw) to concentrate in dairy steers. J Agric Sci 2014;152:675-85.
  10. Russell JB, Rychlik JL. Factors that alter rumen microbial ecology. Science 2001;292:1119-22.
  11. Nagaraja TG, Titgemeyer EC. Ruminal acidosis in beef cattle: the current microbiological and nutritional outlook. J Dairy Sci 2007;90:E17-E38.
  12. Penner GB. Short chain fatty acid absorption and regulation of ruminal pH. Florida Ruminant Nutrition Conference 2019; Gainesville, FL, USA: University of Florida; 2019.
  13. Luo J, Ranadheera CS, King S, Evans C, Baines S. In vitro investigation of the effect of dairy propionibacteria on rumen pH, lactic acid and volatile fatty acids. J Integr Agric 2017;16:1566-75.
  14. Cagle CM, Tedeschi LO, Runyan CA, Callaway TR, Cravey MD. Evaluation of the effects of dried live yeast on rumen pH and in situ digestibility of dry matter in growing cattle. J Anim Sci 2018;96:62-3.
  15. Stella AV, Paratte R, Valnegri L, et al. Effect of administration of live Saccharomyces cerevisiae on milk production, milk composition, blood metabolites, and faecal flora in early lactating dairy goats. Small Rumin Res 2007;67:7-13.
  16. Magrin L, Gottardo F, Fiore E, et al. Use of a live yeast strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a high-concentrate diet fed to finishing Charolais bulls: effects on growth, slaughter performance, behavior, and rumen environment. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2018;241:84-93.
  17. Sousa DO, Oliveira CA, Velasquez AV, et al. Live yeast supplementation improves rumen fibre degradation in cattle grazing tropical pastures throughout the year. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2018;236:149-58.
  18. Menke K, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J Agric Sci 1979;93:217-22.
  19. Searle PL. The Berthelot or indophenol reaction and its use in the analytical chemistry of nitrogen. A review. Analyst 1984;109:549-68.
  20. Opsi F, Fortina R, Tassone S, Bodas R, LOPez S. Effects of inactivated and live cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on in vitro ruminal fermentation of diets with different forage: concentrate ratio. J Agric Sci 2012;150:271-83.
  21. Besharati M. Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on in vitro gas production of biscuit waste. Glob J Anim Sci Res 2015;3:512-7.
  22. Tristant D, Moran C. The efficacy of feeding a live probiotic yeast, Yea-Sacc®, on the performance of lactating dairy cows. J Appl Anim Nutr 2015;3:e12.
  23. Cagle CM, Fonseca MA, Callaway TR, Runyan CA, Cravey MD, Tedeschi LO. Evaluation of the effects of live yeast on rumen parameters and in situ digestibility of dry matter and neutral detergent fiber in beef cattle fed growing and finishing diets. Appl Anim Sci 2020;36:36-47.
  24. Diaz TG, Branco AF, Jacovaci FA, et al. Inclusion of live yeast and mannan-oligosaccharides in high grain-based diets for sheep: Ruminal parameters, inflammatory response and rumen morphology. PLoS ONE 2018;13:e0193313.
  25. Thrune M, Bach A, Ruiz-Moreno M, Stern MD, Linn JG. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on ruminal pH and microbial fermentation in dairy cows: Yeast supplementation on rumen fermentation. Livest Sci 2009;124:261-5.
  26. Tripathi MK, Karim SA. Effect of individual and mixed live yeast culture feeding on growth performance, nutrient utilization and microbial crude protein synthesis in lambs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2010;155:163-71.
  27. Chaucheyras-Durand F, Masseglia S, Fonty G. Effect of the microbial feed additive Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077 on protein and peptide degrading activities of rumen bacteria grown in vitro. Curr Microbiol 2005;50:96-101.
  28. Marden JP, Julien C, Monteils V, Auclair E, Moncoulon R, Bayourthe C. How does live yeast differ from sodium bicarbonate to stabilize ruminal pH in high-yielding dairy cows? J Dairy Sci 2008;91:3528-35.
  29. Geng CY, Ren LP, Zhou ZM, Chang Y, Meng QX. Comparison of active dry yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and yeast culture for growth performance, carcass traits, meat quality and blood indexes in finishing bulls. Anim Sci J 2016;87:982-8.
  30. Pinloche E, McEwan N, Marden JP, Bayourthe C, Auclair E, Jamie Newbold C. The effects of a probiotic yeast on the bacterial diversity and population structure in the rumen of cattle. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e67824.
  31. Mao H, Mao H, Wang JK, Liu JX, Yoon I. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product on in vitro fermentation and microbial communities of low-quality forages and mixed diets. J Anim Sci 2013;91:3291-8.
  32. Newbold CJ, Wallace R, McIntosh F. Mode of action of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a feed additive for ruminants. Br J Nutr 1996;76:249-61.
  33. Oeztuerk H, Schroeder B, Beyerbach M, Breves G. Influence of living and autoclaved yeasts of Saccharomyces boulardii on in vitro ruminal microbial metabolism. J Dairy Sci 2005;88:2594-600.
  34. Sato S. Pathophysiological evaluation of subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) by continuous ruminal pH monitoring. Anim Sci J 2016;87:168-77.
  35. Krause KM, Oetzel GR. Inducing subacute ruminal acidosis in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2005;88:3633-9.
  36. Lettat A, Noziere P, Silberberg M, Morgavi DP, Berger C, Martin C. Rumen microbial and fermentation characteristics are affected differently by bacterial probiotic supplementation during induced lactic and subacute acidosis in sheep. BMC Microbiol 2012;12:142.
  37. Enemark JMD, Jorgensen R, Enemark PS. Rumen acidosis with special emphasis on diagnostic aspects of subclinical rumen acidosis: a review. Veterinarija ir zootechnika 2002;20:16-29.
  38. Petri RM, Forster RJ, Yang W, McKinnon JJ, McAllister TA. Characterization of rumen bacterial diversity and fermentation parameters in concentrate fed cattle with and without forage. J Appl Microbiol 2012;112:1152-62.
  39. Calsamiglia S, Blanch M, Ferret A, Moya D. Is subacute ruminal acidosis a pH related problem? Causes and tools for its control. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2012;172:42-50.
  40. Malekkhahi M, Tahmasbi AM, Naserian AA, et al. Effects of supplementation of active dried yeast and malate during sub-acute ruminal acidosis on rumen fermentation, microbial population, selected blood metabolites, and milk production in dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2016;213:29-43.
  41. Shu Q, Gill HS, Hennessy DW, Leng RA, Bird SH, Rowe JB. Immunisation against lactic acidosis in cattle. Res Vet Sci 1999;67:65-71.
  42. Belanche A, Doreau M, Edwards JE, Moorby JM, Pinloche E, Newbold CJ. Shifts in the rumen microbiota due to the type of carbohydrate and level of protein ingested by dairy cattle are associated with changes in rumen fermentation. J Nutr 2012;142:1684-92.
  43. Silberberg M, Chaucheyras-Durand F, Commun L, et al. Repeated acidosis challenges and live yeast supplementation shape rumen microbiota and fermentations and modulate inflammatory status in sheep. Animal 2013;7:1910-20.
  44. Mickdam E, Khiaosa-ard R, Metzler-Zebeli BU, Klevenhusen F, Chizzola R, Zebeli Q. Rumen microbial abundance and fermentation profile during severe subacute ruminal acidosis and its modulation by plant derived alkaloids in vitro. Anaerobe 2016;39:4-13.
  45. Wang H, Pan X, Wang C, Wang M, Yu L. Effects of different dietary concentrate to forage ratio and thiamine supplementation on the rumen fermentation and ruminal bacterial community in dairy cows. Anim Prod Sci 2015;55:189-93.
  46. Keunen JE, Plaizier JC, Kyriazakis L, et al. Effects of a subacute ruminal acidosis model on the diet selection of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2002;85:3304-13.
  47. Chaucheyras F, Fonty G, Gouet P, Bertin G, Salmon J-M. Effects of a strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Levucell® SC), a microbial additive for ruminants, on lactate metabolism in vitro. Can J Microbiol 1996;42:927-33.
  48. Fonty G, Chaucheyras-Durand F. Effects and modes of action of live yeasts in the rumen. Biologia 2006;61:741-50.
  49. Yalcin S, Yalcin S, Can P, Gurdal AO, Bagci C, Eltan O. The nutritive value of live yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and its effect on milk yield, milk composition and some blood parameters of dairy cows. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2011;24:1377-85.
  50. Kowalik B, Skomial J, Pajak JJ, et al. Population of ciliates, rumen fermentation indicators and biochemical parameters of blood serum in heifers fed diets supplemented with yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) preparation. Anim Sci Pap Rep 2012;30:329-38.
  51. Hassan A, Salem A, Kholif A, et al. Performance of crossbred dairy Friesian calves fed two levels of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: intake, digestion, ruminal fermentation, blood parameters and faecal pathogenic bacteria. J Agric Sci 2016;154:1488-98.
  52. Dolezal P, Dvoracek J, Dolezal J, et al. Effect of feeding yeast culture on ruminal fermentation and blood indicators of Holstein dairy cows. Acta Vet Brno 2011;80:139-45.
  53. Depeters EJ, Ferguson JD. Nonprotein nitrogen and protein distribution in the milk of cows. J Dairy Sci 1992;75:3192-209.
  54. Denman SE, McSweeney CS. Development of a real-time PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic bacterial populations within the rumen. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2006;58:572-82.
  55. Stevenson DM, Weimer PJ. Dominance of Prevotella and low abundance of classical ruminal bacterial species in the bovine rumen revealed by relative quantification real-time PCR. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2007;75:165-74.
  56. Bekele AZ, Koike S, Kobayashi Y. Genetic diversity and diet specificity of ruminal Prevotella revealed by 16S rRNA genebased analysis. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2010;305:49-57.
  57. Ouwerkerk D, Klieve AV, Forster RJ. Enumeration of Megasphaera elsdenii in rumen contents by real-time Taq nuclease assay. J Appl Microbiol 2002;92:753-8.
  58. Qi H, Xiang Z, Han G, Yu B, Huang Z, Chen D. Effects of different dietary protein sources on cecal microflora in rats. Afr J Biotechnol 2011;10:3704-8.
  59. Vitti A, La Monaca E, Sofo A, et al. Beneficial effects of Trichodermaharzianum T-22 in tomato seedlings infected by Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). BioControl 2015;60:135-47.