The use of exogenous feed enzymes in the nutrition of ruminants
https://doi.org/10.32634/0869-8155-2025-393-04-69-74
Abstract
Relevance. By splitting the nutrients of the feed, improving the amylolytic, proteolytic, and cellulolytic activity of the scar fluid and its digestibility, the fungal alkaline protease and fungal alpha-amylase enzymes used can significantly enhance the vital activity of the symbiotic microflora of the scar, which is determined by their interaction with other enzymes.
The aim of the study was to study changes in the concentration of LDL, the digestibility of feed, as well as morphological and biochemical parameters of calves’ blood when the enzymes fungal alkaline protease and fungal alpha-amylase were introduced into the diet.
Materials and methods. Scar tissue for the study was obtained from Kazakh white-headed bull calves (n = 4), with an average weight of 310–2320 kg at the age of 14–15 months. The animals of the control and experimental groups were on a basic balanced diet, and enzyme preparations were added to the diet of the calves of the experimental groups as part of concentrated feed: I experimental — fungal alkaline protease 25 g/t; II experimental — fungal alkaline protease 50 g/t; III experimental — fungal alpha-amylase 25 g/t; IV experimental — alpha-amylase mushroom 50 g/t.
Results and conclusions. The results of the experiment showed that the best dosage of mushroom alkaline protease was 25 g/t, and mushroom alpha-amylase was 50 g/t. Their presence in the diet led to a change in the LVF in the scar content, improved the digestibility of dry matter and crude protein, which contributes to a high level of scar digestion processes, and this significantly affected the morphological and biochemical parameters of animal blood.
Keywords
exoenzymes,
feeding,
rumen metabolism,
volatile fatty acids,
nitrogen metabolites,
protease,
lipase,
amylase
Supporting agencies: The research was carried out at the expense of the grant of the Russian Science Foundation No. 23-16-00061.
About the Authors
V. V. Grechkina
Fedeal Scientific Center of Biological Systems and Agrotechnologies of the Russian Academy of Sciences ; Orenburg State Agrarian University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Viktoria Vladimirovna Grechkina, Candidate of Biological Sciences
29 January 9th Str., Orenburg, 460000
18 Chelyuskintsev Str., Orenburg, 460014
E. V. Sheida
Fedeal Scientific Center of Biological Systems and Agrotechnologies of the Russian Academy of Sciences ; Orenburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena Vladimirovna Sheida, Candidate of Biological Sciences
29 January 9th Str., Orenburg, 460000
13 Pobedy Ave., Orenburg, 460018
O. V. Kvan
Fedeal Scientific Center of Biological Systems and Agrotechnologies of the Russian Academy of Sciences ; Orenburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga Vilorievna Kvan, Candidate of Biological Sciences
29 January 9th Str., Orenburg, 460000
13 Pobedy Ave., Orenburg, 460018
A. D. Shevchenko
Fedeal Scientific Center of Biological Systems and Agrotechnologies of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alekxandеr Dmitrievich Shevchenko, Candidate of Biological Sciences
29 January 9th Str., Orenburg, 460000
References
1. Azad M.A.K., Sarker M., Li T., Yin J. Probiotic Species in the Modulation of Gut Microbiota: An Overview. BioMed Research International. 2018; 2018: 9478630. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9478630
2. Dao M.C. et al. Akkermansia muciniphila an
3. Grechkina V.V., Lebedev S.V., Miroshnikov I.S., Ryazanov V.A., Sheida E.V., Korolev V.L. Justification of rational and safe biotechnological methods of using fat additives from vegetable raw materials. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2021; 624: 012160. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/624/V012160
4. Gholizadeh P. et al. Microbial balance in the intestinal microbiota and its association with diabetes, obesity and allergic disease. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2019; 127: 48-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2018.11.031
5. Gowd V., Xie L., Zheng X., Chen W. Dietary fibers as emerging nutritional factors against diabetes: focus on the involvement of gut microbiota. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 2019; 39(4): 524-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2019.1576025
6. Holscher H.D., Caporaso J.G., Hooda S., Brulc J.M., Fahey G.C.Jr., Swanson K.S. Fiber supplementation influences phylogenetic structure and functional capacity of the human intestinal microbiome: follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2015; 101(1): 55-64. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.114.092064
7. Hosseindoust A. etal. A dose-response study to evaluate the effects of pH-stable p-mannanase derived from Trichoderma citrinoviride on growth performance, nutrient retention, and intestine morphology in broiler chickens. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2019; 18(1): 147-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2018.1500872
8. Makki K., Deehan E.C., Walter J., Backhed F. The Impact of Dietary Fiber on Gut Microbiota in Host Health and Disease. Cell Host & Microbe. 2018; 23(6): 705-715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2018.05.012
9. de la Cuesta-Zuluaga J. etal. Metformin Is Associated With Higher Relative Abundance of Mucin-Degrading Akkermansia muciniphila and Several Short-Chain Fatty Acid-Producing Microbiota in the Gut. Diabetes Care. 2017; 40(1): 54-62. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-1324
10. Jha R., Fouhse J.M., Tiwari U.P, Li L., Willing B.P Dietary Fiber and Intestinal Health of Monogastric Animals. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2019; 6: 48. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00048
11. Ko$er B., Bozkurt M., Ege G., Tuzun A.E. Effects of sunflower meal supplementation in the diet on productive performance, egg quality and gastrointestinal tract traits of laying hens. British Poultry Science. 2021; 62(1): 101-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2020.1814202
12. Lebedev S. et al. Use of chromium nanoparticles as a protector of digestive enzymes and biochemical parameters for various sources of fat in the diet of calves. AIMS Agriculture and Food. 2020; 6(1): 14-31. https://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2021002
13. Li Y, Yang H., Xu L., Wang Z., Zhao Y, Chen X. Effects of dietary fiber levels on cecal microbiota composition in geese. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2018; 31(8): 1285-1290. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0915
14. Sadeghi A., Toghyani M., Tabeidian S.A., Foroozandeh A.D., Ghalamkari G. Efficacy of dietary supplemental insoluble fibrous materials in ameliorating adverse effects of coccidial challenge in broiler chickens. Archives of Animal Nutrition. 2020; 74(5): 362-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2020.1764811
15. Tsigos C., Chrousos G.P Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, neuroendocrine factors and stress. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2022; 53(4): 865-871. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00429-4
16. Zeevi D. et al. Personalized Nutrition by Prediction of Glycemic Responses. Cell. 2015; 163(5): 1079-1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.11.001
17. Zeng MY, Inohara N., Nunez G. Mechanisms of inflammation-driven bacterial dysbiosis in the gut. Mucosal Immunology. 2017; 10(1): 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1038/mi.2016.75
18. Zhang F. et al. Response of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes to hypoglycemic agents. Endocrine. 2019; 66(3): 485-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-019-02041-5
19. Zhao L. et al. Gut bacteria selectively promoted by dietary fibers alleviate type 2 diabetes. Science. 2018; 359(6380): 1151-1156. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao5774
Review
For citations:
Grechkina V.V., Sheida E.V., Kvan O.V., Shevchenko A.D. The use of exogenous feed enzymes in the nutrition of ruminants. Agrarian science. 2025;1(4):69-74. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32634/0869-8155-2025-393-04-69-74
Views:
103
Email this article 