Printer Friendly

Use of lysozyme as a feed additive on in vitro rumen fermentation and methane emission.


Lysozyme is a universal enzyme found in living organisms having diverse role starting from digestion to immune response. Lysozymes (e.g. 1, 4-[beta]-N-acetylmuramidase) have both enzymatic and bacteriolytic activity. They cleave the glycosidic linkage in the peptidoglycan component of gram-positive bacterial cell walls, which ultimately leads to cell death (Ellison and Giehl, 1991). Interestingly, lysozymes lyse the microbial cells from the outside, in addition to inducing microbial autolysis (Ibrahim et al., 2001). Gram-positive bacteria are susceptible to the action of lysozyme but most of the gram-negative bacteria are not for their thick outer membrane beyond the peptidoglycan layer. In the animal production sector, antimicrobials, such as antibiotics, are used at low doses as growth promoters for their bactericidal effect. But, the adverse effects of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics (such as antibiotic resistance) on the animal as well as environment make the animal industry in vulnerable condition. So, animal production people as well as animal scientists are inspired to identify the alternative of antibiotic for sustainable animal production system. For the enzymatic and bacteriolytic characteristics of lysozyme, scientists are encouraging the application of lysozymes for enhancing growth performance and as an antimicrobials (Nyachoti et al., 2012). Lysozymes have been shown to reduce diarrhoea incidence during the preweaning period of calves and tend to increase average daily gain (ADG) (Goncu et al., 2012). In addition, they have been shown to have an ADG-increasing capability in pigs (May et al., 2012). However, there is no information available about the effects of lysozymes on in vitro rumen fermentation and methane (C[H.sub.4]) emission in ruminants. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of lysozymes on in vitro fermentation parameters and to identify the inclusion rate of lysozymes for abating in vitro C[H.sub.4] production.


An in vitro ruminal fermentation technique was adopted using late fattening commercial pelleted concentrate (Nonghyup co., Haman, Korea) and rice straw (8:2) as substrate. In this experiment, we used liquid lysozyme collected from Celltech co., Ltd., Eumseong, Korea containing 150,000 units/mL. In addition to the control (no added lysozyme), the following treatments were applied: 2,000, 4,000, and 8,000 U lysozyme (hereafter referred to as T1, T2, and T3, respectively), which were added to 1 g dry matter (DM) substrate. Inclusion level of lysozyme as U/g DM substrate were based on the previous research work done by Nyachoti et al. (2012). On the basis of inclusion level (U) and lysozyme content (U/mL) of liquid lysozyme, we have used 13.33 [micro]L, 26.66 [micro]L, and 53.33 [micro]L liquid lysozyme in 1 g DM substrate for T1, T2, and T3 treatments, respectively.

In vitro experiment

Ruminal contents were obtained from a 48-month old rumen-cannulated Holstein cow (650 kg) fed rice straw and commercial pelleted concentrate (8:2 ratio) twice a day. The supplied rice straw contained 4.45% crude protein (CP) and 38.29% total digestible nutrients (TDN), whereas the concentrate contained 12% CP and 72% TDN. The pooled ruminal contents were squeezed and the extracted fluids were collected in a glass bottle after straining through cheese cloth that had been folded four times. The bottle was subsequently capped and immediately transported to the laboratory while maintaining the temperature at 39[degrees]C. In the laboratory, the bottle was placed in a water bath at 39[degrees]C. The bottle was shaken vigorously by hand, prior to mixing with a buffer. The particle-free rumen fluid was transferred to a buffer medium (pH 6.9) at a 1:3 rumen fluid: buffer ratio. The buffer medium was prepared according to the method described by Asanuma et al. (1999). Under a constant flow of [N.sub.2] gas, 100 mL of buffered rumen fluid was anaerobically transferred to 160 mL 96 serum bottles containing 1 g substrate (1 mm particle size) together with the different concentrations of lysozyme. The serum bottles were subsequently sealed with rubber septum stoppers and aluminium caps followed by incubation at 39[degrees]C for 0, 6, 12, and 24 h in a 120 rpm shaking incubator as described by Hattori and Matsui (2008). For each incubation time, three replicates per experimental treatment were used.

pH, total gas (TG), C[H.sub.4], ammonia nitrogen (N[H.sub.3]-N), acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid and total volatile fatty acid (VFA) were analysed at each incubation time. Fifteen ml samples were collected from each of the serum bottles into the falcon tube and kept at -80[degrees]C until further analysis of VFA, N[H.sub.3]-N, and molecular study. The gas produced inside the bottle was estimated for TG and gas sample trapped inside vacuum tubes and stored in a refrigerator until C[H.sub.4] determination. In vitro DM and organic matter (OM) disappearance were estimated after 0, 6, 12, and 24 h of incubation.

Analyses of in vitro fermentation parameters

Fermentation parameters were checked at the end of each incubation time. pH was determined using a Pinnacle series M530p meter (Schott Instruments, Mainz, Germany). Before opening serum bottle, an EA-6 (Sun Bee instrument, Inc., Seoul, Korea) pressure sensor meter was used to measure TG production from each of the serum bottles. Duplicates of 1 mL fermentation samples from each of the serum bottles were immediately centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 10 min at 4[degrees]C using a Micro 17TR centrifuge (Hanil Science Industrial Co. Ltd., Gimpo, Korea). The supernatant was transferred to two 1.5 mL Eppendorf tubes and deep-frozen at -80[degrees]C until N[H.sub.3]-N and VFA analysis also remaining pellet were preserved in the same temperature for DNA copy number estimation. At the time of N[H.sub.3]-N and VFA analysis, the samples contained in the Eppendorf tubes were thawed at room temperature and used for measuring N[H.sub.3]-N, individual VFA i.e. acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid and total VFA. The measurements of N[H.sub.3]-N were performed according to the methods developed by Chaney and Marbach (1962), at an optical density of 630 nm using a Libra S22 spectrophotometer (Biochrom Ltd., CB40FJ, Cambourne, England). The VFA measurements followed the methods described by Han et al. (2005) and Tabaru et al. (1988). We used high performance liquid chromatography (Agilent Technologies 1200 series, Waldbronn, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) using a UV detector set at 210 and 220 nm and a METACARB87H (Varian, Palo Alto, CA, USA) column with 0.0085 N [H.sub.2]S[O.sub.4] solvent as buffer at a flow rate of 0.6 mL/min. The individual VFA concentration in mM was calculated as parts per million divided by the molecular weight. Total VFA were calculated with sum of individual VFA and acetate/propionate ratio (A/P) value was calculated as acetic acid divided by propionic acid.

Determination of in vitro dry matter and organic matter disappearance

At the start of the in vitro rumen fermentation, the substrate DM and OM were determined by drying at 105[degrees]C for 16 h and ashing at 550[degrees]C for 12 h, respectively. The resulting percent DM and OM were used to compute the initial DM ([DM.sub.i]) and OM ([OM.sub.i]) content (g) of the substrate. After each of the specified incubation periods, every treatment bearing three replicates fermentation samples from each serum bottle were drained in dried, pre-weighed nylon bags and knotted using nylon thread. They were then rinsed in flowing water until the turbidity of the rinse water disappeared. The final DM ([DM.sub.f]) and OM ([OM.sub.f]) of the substrate were determined using the same conditions as applied when determining [DM.sub.i] and [OM.sub.i]. The DM and OM disappearance (%) were calculated as ([[DM.sub.i] - [DM.sub.f]]/[DM.sub.i]) x 100 and ([[OM.sub.i] - [OM.sub.f]]/[OM.sub.i]) x 100, respectively.

Methane estimation

The samples contained in the vacuum tube were analysed for C[H.sub.4], using gas chromatography (Agilent Technologies HP 5890, Germany) using a TCD detector with a Carboxen 1006PLOT capillary column 30 m x 0.53 mm (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA).

Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction

General bacteria, methanogens, and protozoan DNA copies were estimated using the protocol of Denman and McSweeney (2006). The DNA concentration from the extracted gDNA from each pelleted sample was determined using an Epoch Microplate Spectrophotometer (Biotek, Winooski, VT, USA). Target-specific forward and reverse polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers were used (Table 1). Amplification was done using Eco Real-Time PCR (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) in a total reaction volume of 20 [micro]L per reaction mixture containing 10 [micro]L of 2X qPCRBIO SyGreen Mix, 0.8 [micro]L each forward and reverse PCR primers, and 8.4 [micro]L template DNA of 50 ng/[micro]L in sterile distilled water.

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed by analysis of variance using a general linear model for a complete randomised design. All treatments were conducted in triplicate. Duncan's multiple range test and orthogonal polynomial contrast were used to identify differences between and among treatments and control. A p [less than or equal to] 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. All analyses were carried out using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (SAS, 2004) (version 9.1; SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA).


There was no significant difference in pH after 6 and 12 h of incubation. After 24 h of incubation, the pH in the control group was the lowest (p<0.01), subsequently increase in T1 then T2 and the highest pH was in the T3 treatment group (Table 2). In the case of TG, no significant differences were observed after 12 and 24 h. However, a tendency towards higher TG in treatment groups compared to the control was observed after 12 and 24 h (Table 2). We found no differences in N[H.sub.3]-N after 12 or 24 h of incubation. Nevertheless, at 6 h of incubation, the N[H.sub.3]-N differed significantly among the treatments (p = 0.05) with the highest value observed in the T3 treatment (Table 2).

There were significant differences in acetic acid at all incubation periods except after 6 h of incubation (Table 3). The highest (p<0.01) acetic acid was observed in T3 (41.61 mM) after 24 h of incubation followed by T2, T1, and the control. Likewise, we found a significant difference (p<0.01) in propionic acid after 12 and 24 h of incubation with 12.21 mM and 12.01 mM, respectively. The highest and lowest propionic acid concentrations were found in T3 and control, respectively, after 12 and 24 h of incubation. In the case of butyric acid, there was no significant difference after 24 h but there was a tendency towards T3 having the highest butyric acid. Significant differences in total VFA (p<0.05) were found in all treatments except at 6 h of incubation. The highest total VFA was observed in T3 after 12 and 24 h of incubation (Table 3). There were no significant differences in A/P value after 6, 12, or 24 h of incubation, although there was a tendency towards the highest A/P value in the control after 12, and 24 h of incubation (Table 3).

There were no significant differences in DM or OM disappearance, but there was a tendency towards higher DM disappearance in T3 compared to the control after 24 h of incubation (Table 4). Likewise, after 24 h of incubation the tended to highest OM disappearance was found in T3 (Table 4). In the case of C[H.sub.4] concentration, significant differences were observed at all incubation times, except after 6 h of incubation. After 24 h, the lowest C[H.sub.4] concentration was observed in the T3 treatment, followed by T2 and T1 and highest C[H.sub.4] concentration was found in the control (Figure 1). Although non-significant, the general bacterial DNA copy number tended to be lower in the treatment groups (T1 to T3), compared to the control. Likewise, there were no significant differences in the case of methanogen DNA copy number. The protozoan DNA copy numbers were not significantly different either, but the lowest DNA copy numbers were found in the T3 treatment (Table 5).


Lysozyme is an antimicrobial enzyme that can lyses bacterial cell walls by hydrolysing the polysaccharide component (Salton, 1957). It cleaves the gram-positive bacterial glycosidic linkage in the peptidoglycan component (Ellision and Giehl, 1991) but most of gram negative bacteria are not susceptible to lysozyme for their protective outer membrane. Also, lysozyme has enzymatic activity on digestion process. According to Sahoo et al. (2012), lysozyme has been recruited as a digestive enzyme for some of animals. They have also mentioned that lysozyme has diverse role including digestion. In the current study, we found that the pH after 24 h of incubation was the lowest in the control group with sequentially increasing from low to high inclusion level of lysozyme, which is suggested that the high pH found in the treatment groups containing higher amounts of lysozyme, was due to the high pH (8.99) of the lysozyme used in this experiment. This high pH can reduce the ruminal acidosis (Owens et al., 1998) which will be helpful for ruminant production especially high yielding animal.

Significantly higher contents of acetic acid, propionic acid, and total VFA of this study after 24 h of incubation supported by Giraldo et al. (2007) who observed increased total VFA using fibrolytic enzyme (cellulase and xylanase) addition in in vitro trials. This increased VFA could be the effect of enzymatic degradation of feed material through hydrolytic action. Current experimental increased total VFA, which ultimately reflects better performance, also agrees with the findings of May et al. (2012) and Goncu et al. (2012), who reported tended to increase in daily gain of calves fed 10 mg lysozyme/L of milk. In addition, Nyachoti et al. (2012) also reported a tendency to an ADG increase in piglets, when 0.1% and 0.2% of lysozyme were added to the basal diet.

Digestibility of different feed ingredients is an important factor for the C[H.sub.4] production (Kim et al., 2013). We found no effect of lysozyme on DM or OM disappearance, irrespective of incubation period is consistent with the findings of Quinn et al. (2009) and Zinn et al. (1997) where they observed no difference of DM and OM disappearance with the ionophores, antibiotics and sulphur supplementation in their in vitro digestion trial. This non-significant different DM and OM disappearance results are also consistent with the results observed by Soriano et al. (2014), where they elicited in vitro DM and OM disappearance with Lactobacillus mucosae on dried brewers grain. The results observed in our experiment tended towards higher DM and OM disappearance, whose ultimate effect on higher in vitro total VFA production supported by Van Dung et al. (2014), where they reported higher DM and OM disappearance with concentrate:roughage (8:2) substrate along with higher in vitro total VFA production. We found a significant decrease in C[H.sub.4] concentration after 12 and 24 h of incubation which is in concordance with the result of Mamuad et al. (2014), where significantly lower in vitro C[H.sub.4] concentration was revealed. Current experimental decreasing C[H.sub.4] concentration was found with increasing lysozyme inclusion, suggesting a negative correlation between lysozyme amount and C[H.sub.4] concentration. Present experimental lower C[H.sub.4] concentration is also negatively correlated with the higher total VFA. Nyachoti et al. (2012) reported a tendency to increase propionate in piglets, when 0.1% and 0.2% of lysozyme were added to the basal diet. Current experimental lysozyme with high concentrate based substrate can produce higher propionate by the utilization of hydrogen ([H.sub.2]) through the fumarate to succinate production pathway. On the other hand, methanogen generate C[H.sub.4] from C[O.sub.2] and [H.sub.2] (Miller et al., 1986). So, lysozyme which facilitate [H.sub.2] utilization can be the methanogen competitors. Ultimately, lysozyme inhibit C[H.sub.4] production, presumably which reflected as lower C[H.sub.4] concentration in this experiment. However, further in vivo study should be conducted to draw rigid conclusion.

We observed no differences in the general bacterial DNA copy number. The same non-significant results were found by Zhou et al. (2011) in an in vitro experiment using 2nitroethanol, sodium nitrate, and ethyl 2 butynote with the result of lower C[H.sub.4] concentration. Thus, the lack of difference in general bacterial DNA copy number observed in the present study may be linked to the non-significant difference in DM and OM disappearance and TG production after 12 and 24 h of incubation period. However, we did see a tendency towards a lower general bacterial DNA copy number in the treatment groups compared to the control group. This result is supported by Salton (1957), in which the lysozyme digested bacterial cell wall as well as inducing microbial autolysis (Ibrahim et al., 2001) resulting in DNA autolysis, ultimately decreasing the DNA copy number. We found no differences in methanogen DNA copy number. Likewise, Zhou et al. (2011) found no difference in methanogen DNA copies log number among control and treatment groups, although compared to the control groups, a lower C[H.sub.4] concentration was found in groups treated with a methanogen inhibitor (propynoic acid). In this connection, Ungerfeld et al. (2004) explained that different types of methanogens differ in their C[H.sub.4] production potential and display different sensitivities to methanogen inhibitors. The amount of methanogen DNA copies log number found in our experiment is supported by the findings of Stiverson et al. (2011) who used samples from the adhering portion of sheep rumen and observed similar methanogen DNA log copy number as current experiment. We did not find any significant differences in protozoan DNA copy number with lower C[H.sub.4] concentration in treatments group is in concordance with the result of Karnati et al. (2009), where they revealed a tendency to be lower C[H.sub.4] concentration with non-significant different of protozoal N flow, using a continuous in vitro culture treatment with monensin. As seen in Table 5, however, protozoan DNA copy number is nearly 1 log difference but result is statistically non-significant, this type of result also elicited by Zhou et al. (2011) where 1 log difference DNA copy showed non-significant difference. The protozoan DNA copies log number observed in the current study is supported by those found by Anantasook et al. (2013) who used urea treated rice straw and concentrate mixture with and without rain tree pod meal in an in vivo experiment using dairy steers.


Addition of 8,000 U lysozyme per g of DM feed substrate increased total VFA and decreased C[H.sub.4] concentration which indicates that it is capable to improving in vitro rumen fermentation and reducing C[H.sub.4] emission. Further in vitro studies should be conducted using higher doses of lysozyme, and in vivo trials are needed to draw rigid conclusions. 10.5713/ajas.16.0575


We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.


This research was supported by the Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Project number 314075-3). Authors also thankful to Dr. Byung-Hern Moon. Managing Director, CellTech for their technical support to this experiment.


Anantasook, N., M. Wanapat, A. Cherdthong, and P. Gunun. 2013. Changes of microbial population in the rumen of dairy steers as influenced by plant containing tannins and saponins and roughage to concentrate ratio. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 26:1583-1591.

Asanuma, N., M. Iwamoto, and T. Hino. 1999. Effect of the addition of fumarate on methane production by ruminal microorganisms in vitro. J. Dairy Sci. 82:780-787.

Chaney, A. L. and E. P. Marbach. 1962. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clin. Chem. 8:130-132.

Denman, S. E. and C. S. McSweeney. 2006. Development of a realtime PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic bacterial populations within the rumen. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 58:572-582.

Ellison, R. T. 3rd and T. J. Giehl. 1991. Killing of gram-negative bacteria by lactoferrin and lysozyme. J. Clin. Invest. 88:1080-1091.

Giraldo, L. A., M. D. Carro, M. J. Ranilla, and M. L. Tejido. 2007. Influence of fibrolytic enzymes on in vitro methane production and rumen fermentation of a substrate containing 60% of grass hay. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 19:257-261.

Goncu, S., M. Gorgulu, and G. Gokce. 2012. The effect of additional lyzozyme to milk on growth performances of Holstein calves. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 11:3724-3727.

Han, S., S. Kim, and H. Shin. 2005. UASB treatment of wastewater with VFA and alcohol generated during hydrogen fermentation of food waste. Process Biochem. 40:2897-2905.

Hattori, K. and H. Matsui. 2008. Diversity of fumarate reducing bacteria in the bovine rumen revealed by culture dependent and independent approaches. Anaerobe 14:87-93.

Ibrahim, H. R., T. Matsuzaki, and T. Aoki. 2001. Genetic evidence that antibacterial activity of lysozyme is independent of its catalytic function. FEBS Lett. 506:27-32.

Karnati, S., J. Sylvester, C. Ribeiro, L. Gilligan, and J. Firkins. 2009. Investigating unsaturated fat, monensin, or bromoethanesulfonate in continuous cultures retaining ruminal protozoa. I. Fermentation, biohydrogenation, and microbial protein synthesis. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3849-3860.

Kim, S., L. L. Mamuad, C. Jeong, Y Choi, S. S. Lee, J. Ko, and S. Lee. 2013. In vitro evaluation of different feeds for their potential to generate methane and change methanogen diversity. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 26:1698-1707.

Mamuad, L., S. H. Kim, C. D. Jeong, Y. J. Choi, C. O. Jeon, and S. Lee. 2014. Effect of fumarate reducing bacteria on in vitro rumen fermentation, methane mitigation and microbial diversity. J. Microbiol. 52:120-128.

May, K. D., J. E. Wells, C. V Maxwell, and W. T. Oliver. 2012. Granulated lysozyme as an alternative to antibiotics improves growth performance and small intestinal morphology of 10-day-old pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 90:1118-1125.

Miller, T. L., M. J. Wolin, H. X. Zhao, and M. P Bryant. 1986. Characteristics of methanogens isolated from bovine rumen. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 51:201-202.

Nyachoti, C. M., E. Kiarie, S. K. Bhandari, G. Zhang, and D. O. Krause. 2012. Weaned pig responses to Escherichia coli K88 oral challenge when receiving a lysozyme supplement. J. Anim. Sci. 90:252-260.

Ownes, F. N., D. S. Secrist, W. J. Hill, and D. R. Gill. 1998. Acidosis in cattle: A review. J. Anim. Sci. 76:275-286.

Quinn, M. J., M. L. May, K. E. Hales, N. DiLorenzo, J. Leibovich, D. R. Smith, and M. L. Galyean. 2009. Effects of ionophores and antibiotics on in vitro hydrogen sulfide production, dry matter disappearance, and total gas production in cultures with a steam-flaked corn-based substrate with or without added sulfur. J. Anim. Sci. 87:1705-1713.

Sahoo, N. R., P. Kumar, B. Bhusan, T. K. Bhattacharya, S. Dayal, and M. Sahoo. 2012. Lysozyme in livestock: A guide to selection for disease resistance: A review. J. Anim. Sci. Adv. 2:347-360.

Salton, M. R. J. 1957. The properties of lysozyme and its action on microorganisms. Bacteriol. Rev. 21:82-100.

SAS (Statistical Analysis System) Institute Inc. 2004. SAS/STAT User's Guide. version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA.

Soriano, A. P., L. L. Mamuad, S. H. Kim, Y. J. Choi, C. D. Jeong, G. S. Bae, M. B. Chang, and S. S. Lee. 2014. Effect of Lactobacillus mucosae on in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics of dried brewers grain, methane production and bacterial diversity. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 27:1562-1570.

Stiverson, J., M. Morrison, and Z. Yu. 2011. Populations of select cultured and uncultured bacteria in the rumen of sheep and the effect of diets and ruminal fractions. Int. J. Microbiol. 2011:750613.

Tabaru, H., E. Kadota, H. Yamada, N. Sasaki, and A. Takeuchi. 1988. Determination of volatile fatty acids and lactic acid in bovine plasma and ruminal fluid by high performance liquid chromatography. Jpn. J. Vet. Sci. 50:1124-1126.

Ungerfeld, E. M., S. R. Rust, D. R. Boone, and Y. Liu. 2004. Effects of several inhibitors on pure cultures of ruminal methanogens. J. Appl. Microbiol. 97:520-526.

Van Dung, D., W. Shang, and W. Yao. 2014. Effect of crude protein levels in concentrate and concentrate levels in diet on in vitro fermentation. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 27:797-805.

Zhou, Z., Q. Meng, and Z. Yu. 2011. Effects of methanogenic inhibitors on methane production and abundances of methanogens and cellulolytic bacteria in in vitro ruminal cultures. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77:2634-2639.

Zinn, R. A., E. Alvarez, M. Mendez, M. Montano, E. Ramirez, and Y Shen. 1997. Influence of dietary sulfur level on growth performance and digestive function in feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 75:1723-1728.

Ashraf A. Biswas (a), Sung Sill Lee (1,a), Lovelia L. Mamuad, Seon-Ho Kim, Yeon-Jae Choi, Gui-Seck Bae (2), Kichoon Lee (3), Ha-Guyn Sung (4), and Sang-Suk Lee *

Ruminant Nutrition and Anaerobe Laboratory, Department of Animal Science and Technology, Sunchon National University, Suncheon 540-742, Korea

* Corresponding Author: Sang-Suk Lee. Tel: +82-61-750-3237, Fax: +82-61-750-3237, E-mail:

(1) Division of Applied Life Science ([BK21.sup.+], IALS), Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea.

(2) Department of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong 456-756, Korea.

(3) Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

(4) Department of Animal Science & Technology, Sangji University, Wonju 26339, Korea.

(a) These authors contributed equally to the work.

Submitted Jul. 28, 2016; Revised Sept. 12, 2016; Accepted Sept. 28, 2016

Table 1. Primer used in quantitative polymerase chain reaction

Target microbes    Primer sequences

General bacteria   1114F: 5'-CGG CAA CGA GCG CAA CCC-3'
                   1275R: 3'-CCA TTG TAG CAC GTG TGT AGC C-5'
Methanogens        qmcraA-F: 5'-GGA TTA GAT ACC CSG GTA GT-3'
                   qmcrA-R: 3'-GTT GAR TCC AAT TAA ACC GCA-5'
Protozoa           F: 5'-GCT TTC GWT GGT AGT GTA TT-3'
                   R: 3'-CTT GCC CTC YAA TCG TWC T-5'

Target microbes     Annealing     Product
                      temp.        size

General bacteria        60          130

Methanogens             60          140

Protozoa                60          223

Target microbes            Reference

General bacteria   Denman and McSweeney, 2006

Methanogens        Denman and McSweeney, 2006

Protozoa           Denman and McSweeney, 2006

Table 2. pH, total gas and ammonia nitrogen (N[H.sub.3]-N)
production from in vitro rumen fermentation by the addition of

Parameters/time               Treatments (1)

                   Control        T1          T2          T3

pH value
  0 h               6.16d      6.20 (c)    6.23 (b)    6.26 (a)
  6 h               5.56         5.53        5.61        5.59
  12 h              5.34         5.37        5.37        5.37
  24 h            5.20 (c)    5.21 (bc)    5.23 (b)    5.25 (a)
Total gas (mL)
  0 h             3.75 (a)     3.17 (b)    3.67 (a)    3.75 (a)
  6 h             51.33 (b)   54.20 (ab)   53.20 (b)   57.00 (a)
  12 h              87.25       88.75        87.75       88.50
  24 h              96.17       99.00        98.83       98.83
NH3-N (mM)
  0 h               31.28       32.09        34.28       34.72
  6 h             34.65 (b)   38.46 (ab)   37.13 (b)   44.57 (a)
  12 h              36.67       38.73        42.93       45.82
  24 h              41.58       44.59        43.40       45.99

Parameters/time    SEM    p value (2)

                           All     C vs T

pH value
  0 h             0.008   <0.001   <0.001
  6 h             0.019   0.097    0.354
  12 h            0.008   0.152    0.032
  24 h            0.005   0.002    0.002
Total gas (mL)
  0 h             0.124   0.010    0.144
  6 h             1.097   0.020    0.019
  12 h            1.475   0.911    0.578
  24 h            1.307   0.431    0.106
NH3-N (mM)
  0 h             1.405   0.697    0.440
  6 h             2.081   0.050    0.072
  12 h            2.159   0.203    0.157
  24 h            2.424   0.697    0.357

SEM, standard error of the mean.

(1) Control: without lysozyme, T1: 2,000 unit lysozyme, T2: 4,000
unit lysozyme, T3: 8,000 unit lysozyme.

(2) C vs T is the comparison between control and treatment.

(a,b,c) Means in the same row with different superscript are
significantly different (p<0.05).

Table 3. Volatile fatty acid (VFA) production (mM) and A/P ratio
from in vitro fermentation by the addition of lysozyme

Parameters/time                       Treatments (1)

                   Control        T1           T2          T3

Acetic acid
  0 h             26.30 (b)   26.76 (a)    26.72 (a)    26.87 (a)
  6 h               37.20       37.04        36.98        38.18
  12 h            37.77 (d)   38.63 (c)    39.35 (b)    40.40 (a)
  24 h            39.17 (c)   39.92 (bc)   40.48 (b)    41.61 (a)
Propionic acid
  0 h               7.82         7.78         7.77        7.76
  6 h               10.61       10.62        10.21        11.36
  12 h            11.04 (b)   11.39 (b)    11.98 (a)    12.21 (a)
  24 h            10.67 (b)   11.57 (a)    11.50 (a)    12.01 (a)
Butyric acid
  0 h               4.65         4.60         4.58        4.47
  6 h               9.06         9.46         8.76        9.28
  12 h            15.42 (a)   15.23 (a)    13.71 (b)    13.52 (b)
  24 h              16.14       15.91        15.99        16.19
Total VFA
  0 h             38.77 (b)   39.13 (a)    39.06 (a)    39.09 (a)
  6 h               56.87       57.11        56.94        58.82
  12 h            64.22 (c)   65.25 (ab)   65.04 (bc)   66.13 (a)
  24 h            66.29 (b)   67.40 (b)    67.98 (ab)   69.81 (a)
A/P ratio
  0 h             3.36 (b)     3.44 (a)     3.44 (a)    3.48 (a)
  6 h               3.51         3.49         3.63        3.36
  12 h              3.42         3.39         3.29        3.31
  24 h              3.57         3.45         3.52        3.47

Parameters/time    SEM    p value (2)

                           All     C vs T

Acetic acid
  0 h             0.068   0.002    0.001
  6 h             0.274   0.109    0.622
  12 h            0.168   <0.001   <0.001
  24 h            0.237   0.003    0.004
Propionic acid
  0 h             0.023   0.460    0.145
  6 h             0.181   0.078    0.711
  12 h            0.134   0.002    0.001
  24 h            0.175   0.008    0.002
Butyric acid
  0 h             0.027   0.012    0.015
  6 h             0.207   0.191    0.676
  12 h            0.188   <0.001   0.001
  24 h            0.306   0.934    0.798
Total VFA
  0 h             0.071   0.046    0.008
  6 h             0.701   0.185    0.340
  12 h            0.273   0.010    0.005
  24 h            0.512   0.039    0.040
A/P ratio
  0 h             0.012   0.003    0.001
  6 h             0.037   0.073    0.864
  12 h            0.042   0.239    0.143
  24 h            0.041   0.329    0.149

A/P, acetate/propionate; SEM, standard error of the mean.

(1) Control: without lysozyme, T1: 2,000 unit lysozyme, T2: 4,000
unit lysozyme, T3: 8,000 unit lysozyme.

(2) C vs T is the comparison between control and treatment.

(a,b,c) Means in the same row with different superscript are
significantly different (p<0.05).

Table 4. Dry matter and organic matter disappearance (%) from as
influenced by the addition of lysozyme

Parameters /time             Treatments (1)           SEM

                   Control    T1      T2      T3

DM disappearance
  0 h               29.18    30.95   31.85   32.52   1.631
  6 h               47.10    47.68   47.08   48.37   1.084
  12 h              57.25    57.66   55.80   56.33   0.713
  24 h              57.10    60.12   59.13   59.40   1.738
OM disappearance
  0 h               25.58    26.95   27.69   28.38   1.351
  6 h               42.39    42.39   42.68   43.86   1.011
  12 h              51.79    52.23   50.65   50.92   0.624
  24 h              52.61    53.61   54.26   54.37   1.602

Parameters /time   p value (2)

                   All     C vs T

DM disappearance
  0 h              0.682   0.301
  6 h              0.854   0.706
  12 h             0.341   0.438
  24 h             0.722   0.323
OM disappearance
  0 h              0.696   0.321
  6 h              0.708   0.673
  12 h             0.318   0.472
  24 h             0.843   0.456

SEM, standard error of the mean; DM, dry matter; OM, organic matter.

(1) Control: without lysozyme, T1: 2,000 unit lysozyme, T2: 4,000
unit lysozyme, T3: 8,000 unit lysozyme.

(2) C vs T is the comparison between control and treatment.

Means in the same row with different superscript are significantly
different (p<0.05).

Table 5. Microbial DNA copies from as influenced by the addition of
lysozyme after 24 h of incubation

Target microbes                     Treatment (1)

                   Control       T1         T2         T3

General bacteria   7.05E+08   5.40E+08   4.55E+08   6.07E+08
Methanogens        4.23E+05   6.70E+05   2.84E+05   3.75E+05
Protozoa           5.53E+04   3.58E+05   3.59E+05   2.59E+05

Target microbes      SEM         p value (2)

                               All    C vs T

General bacteria   3.23E+08   0.965   0.704
Methanogens        9.76E+04   0.265   0.886
Protozoa           4.66E+04   0.181   0.055

SEM, standard error of the mean.

(1) Control: without lysozyme, T1: 2,000 unit lysozyme, T2: 4,000
unit lysozyme, T3: 8,000 unit lysozyme.

(2) C vs T is the comparison between control and treatment.


Please note: Some tables or figures were omitted from this article.
COPYRIGHT 2016 Asian - Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Biswas, Ashraf A.; Lee, Sung Sill; Mamuad, Lovelia L.; Kim, Seon-Ho; Choi, Yeon-Jae; Bae, Gui-Seck;
Publication:Asian - Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
Article Type:Report
Date:Nov 1, 2016
Previous Article:Effects of starvation on lipid metabolism and gluconeogenesis in yak.
Next Article:In vitro solubility of copper(II) sulfate and dicopper chloride trihydroxide for pigs.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters