Annu Yadav, Paras Yadav and Hariom Yadav Animal Biotechnology Department, 2Animal Biochemistry Division, National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal , Haryana, India, RUMEN BIOTECHNOLOGY

Rumen Biotechnology  Application of knowledge of fore stomach fermentation and the use and management of both natural and recombinant microorganisms to improve the efficiency of digestion of fibrous feedstuffs by ruminants. (Cunningham, 1990)

Ruminants …?  A ruminant is any hooved animal that digests its food in two steps-  a) By eating the raw material and regurgitating a semi digested form known as cud  b) then eating the cud, a process called ruminating  Ruminants share another common feature that they all have an even number of toes.  Examples are: cattle, goat, sheep, camel, giraffe, buffalo and dear etc.

Digestive tract of Ruminants

 Honeycomb lining  Formation of food bolus  Regurgitation initiated here  Collects hardware (nails, wire) Reticulum

 Digestion and fermentation vat  Contains anaerobic microbes  Papillae lining  Absorption of VFA Rumen

 Laminae/manyply lining –muscular folds  Reduces particle size  Absorption of water  Absorption of VFA Omasum

 True gastric stomach  Proteolytic enzymes  Gastric digestion  Decreased pH from 6 to 2.5 –Denatures proteins –Kills bacteria and pathogens –Dissolves minerals (e.g., Ca 3 (PO 4 ) 2 ) Abomasum

 Many Microbial Munchers  The rumen is home to billions and billions of microbes, including bacteria, protists, fungi, and viruses. These many different rumen microbes form a complex community of organisms that interact with one another, helping the animal digest its food. Microbial Population

Fermentation in Ruminants  Rumen is a fermentation chamber filled with microorganisms (Gregg, 1995).  Anaerobic process-thus host can absorb energetic by-products from bacteria fermentation.  Utilizes enzymes produced by rumen microorganisms to digest the ingested material.  Benefits two distinguished groups: host (ruminant) and the microorganisms.

Rumen Microbes  Protozoa –Large ( microns) unicellular organisms –Ingest bacteria and feed particles –Engulf feed particles and digest carbohydrates, proteins and fats –Numbers affected by diet ( Yokoyama and Johnson, 1988 )

Entodinium (Rumen Protozoa)

 Fungi –Known only for about 20 years –Numbers usually low –Digest recalcitrant fiber www. animsci.agrenv.mcgill.ca/feedwww. animsci.agrenv.mcgill.ca/feed Rumen Microbes

 Cellulolytic bacteria (fiber digesters) –digest cellulose –require pH 6-7 –utilize N in form of NH 3 –require S for synthesis of sulfur-containing amino acids (cysteine and methionine) –produce acetate, propionate, little butyrate, CO 2 –predominate from roughage diets Bacterial Populations

 Amylolytic bacteria (starch, sugar digesters) –digest starch –require pH 5-6 –utilize N as NH 3 or peptides –produce propionate, butyrate and lactate –predominate from grain diets –rapid change to grain diet causes lactic acidosis (rapidly decreases pH) Contd….

 Methane-producing bacteria –produce methane (CH 4 ) –utilized by microbes for energy –represent loss of energy to animal –released by eructation Contd…..

Improvement of Forage Quality  Pre-ingestive Methods  Post-ingestive Methods

Pre-ingestive Methods  Reducing lignin content and increasing fermentable carbohydrate. Increasing available proteins.  Reducing concentration of secondary compounds. (Ulyatt, 1993).  Use of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes to improve feed utilisation.

Post-ingestive Methods  Increasing fibre digestion.  Improving efficiency of nitrogen metabolism.  Modification of ruminal ecosystems.  Recombinant ruminal Microorganisms. Hoover and Stokes, 1991; McSweeny et al., 1994.

GI Microbes in livestock development. Microbial degradation of antinutritional factors.  Tannins Toxic Non-protein amino acids.  Oxalates  Fluoroacetate  Pyrrolizidine (Allison et al., 1985; Nelson et al., 1995)

GI Microbial enzymes In Industry  Tannase in food, beverages, in preparation of instant tea and as clarifier in fruit juices and beer.  Phytase as feed additives in monogastric’s foods to increase phosphate utilisation.  Source of restriction enzymes for e.g.. Sru I and Sru4DI from ruminal selenomonades  Lactobacillus species for disease treatment as probiotics. (Cheng, 1999).

Future Prospect and Conclusion  Provide a natural barrier for controlling the entry of enteric pathogens into the human food chain.  Intensive livestock production in the future.  In various industries apart from the Livestock production  Easy and economical way to enhance economy of developing countries.

Thank You