Next Article in Journal
Effect of Different Salt Additions on the Flavor Profile of Fermented Ciba Pepper
Previous Article in Journal
Enhanced Succinic Acid Production and Electronic Utilization Efficiency by Actinobacillus succinogenes 130Z in an ORP-Controlled Microbial Electrolysis Cell System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fermentation
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/fermentation10020110
fermentation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Stability and Effects of Protected Palmitic Acid on In Vitro Rumen Degradability and Fermentation in Lactating Goats

by
Jenny Nathalia Álvarez-Torres
1,
Jacinto Efrén Ramírez-Bribiesca
1,*,
Yuridia Bautista-Martínez
2,
María Magdalena Crosby-Galván
1,
Lorenzo Danilo Granados-Rivera
3,
Mónica Ramírez-Mella
4 and
Alexis Ruiz-González
5
1
Programa de Ganadería, Colegio de Postgraduados Campus Montecillo, Texcoco, Texcoco de Mora CP 56230, Mexico
2
Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, Km. 5 Carretera a Mante s/n, Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas CP 87000, Mexico
3
Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Campo Experimental Genera Terán, General Terán, Nuevo León CP 67400, Mexico
4
CONAHCyT-Colegio de Postgraduados Campus Campeche, Carretera Haltunchén-Edzná km 17.5, Sihochac, Champotón, Campeche CP 24450, Mexico
5
Département des Sols et de Génie Agroalimentaire, Université Laval, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2024, 10(2), 110; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10020110
Submission received: 29 November 2023 / Revised: 19 January 2024 / Accepted: 29 January 2024 / Published: 17 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Industrial Fermentation)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Few studies have evaluated the impact of a lipid-rich diet with palmitic acid (PA) in ruminal fermentation. The objective was to evaluate the in vitro bath culture of the protected PA on the ruminal fermentative variables. Four diets were used: (a) without protected PA (nPA) and (b) inclusion of protected PA at three levels: PA3 = 3%, PA6 = 6%, and PA9 = 9% dry matter (DM). The maximum gas production occurred without including protected PA and the low gas production given with the inclusion of protected PA9 (p ≤ 0.05). Meanwhile, the inclusion with 3 and 6% of protected PA showed a higher level of gas production kinetics than the other treatments (p ≤ 0.05). DM and organic matter degradation after 72 h of incubation linearly decreased (p ≤ 0.05) with a high level of protected PA. The level of C16:0 in the protected AP increased with the higher level of supplemented AP (p ≤ 0.05). The best efficiency in propionic acid, decrease in methane, and increase in biohydrogenation (79%) occurred with the inclusion of protected PA3 (p ≤ 0.05). In conclusion, supplements with protected PA at 3 and 6% increased PA availability. The results indicate good benefits of protected PA on fermentative variables, and these doses seem ideal for future research in lactating goats.

1. Introduction

Supplementing dairy cattle with various types of fat can increase diet energy density, improve milk fat production, reduce heat stress, enhance reproductive performance, and lower methanogenesis by up to 15% [1]. Although many studies indicate that added fat decreases fiber digestion, it mainly depends on the quality and quantity supplied. Supplementary fats in ruminant diets should not be greater than 4% because it reduces intestinal digestibility to 50%, and the other drawback is that lipids cover the forages and prevent the action of the ruminal microbiota from degrading the fiber [2]. In general, supplemental fat contains saturated (SFA) and unsaturated fatty acids (UFA), and one of the most common strategies in livestock units is to supplement more polyunsaturated fatty acids in the diet [3]. The goal is to improve the quality of milk fat and reduce the intake of saturated fatty acids. However, milk fat includes more than 60% saturated fat and has not been associated with cardiovascular diseases in healthy individuals [4].
Diets in lactating cows with more than 2% SFA cause fatty acids (FA) to be inert in the rumen and increase the production [5,6] and yield of fat in milk [7]. Dairy fat is composed of around 70–75% SFA, 20–26% monounsaturated FA, and 4–5% polyunsaturated FA [8,9]. Therefore, there is growing interest in using fat supplements to evaluate the unique effects of individual fatty acids on animal response [10]. At the same time, research on FA supplements in dairy goats is limited [11]. Palmitic acid (PA) supplementation in cows increased milk production and fat without affecting milk protein concentration [7]. Likewise, [12] observed a 5% increase in neutral detergent fiber (NDF) digestibility when a fat supplement enriched with 1.5% PA was administered to lactating Holstein cows.
A meta-analysis [13] also indicates that feeding a combination of palmitic and stearic increased the digestion of NDF. However, this effect still needs to be understood and requires more research. One possible reason is that PA is incorporated into bacterial membranes, saving ATP, favoring bacterial growth, and increasing NDF digestibility. On the other hand, it is believed that there may be a loss of PA in the rumen, and this does not reach the intestine intact and reduces milk fat since around 60% of the total FA absorbed in the small intestine is transferred to the milk, with a positive correlation (r = 0.65) between palmitic and fat percentage [14]. Goats respond less to diet-induced milk fat content [15], and FA has been shown to increase milk fat secretion in lactating dairy goats with little impact on milk production [16]. Other authors suggest that an unprotected fat-based diet can decrease forage consumption and ruminal fermentation [17]. Protected SFA can prevent energy loss and produce milk [18]. Therefore, in recent years, the livestock industry has developed protected commercial products to correct deficiencies and improve nutrient availability in ruminants [19]. The matrix of the protected product must be resistant to the physical and microbial action of the rumen. Different methodologies have been designed to ensure rumen overflow and increase the nutrient supply to the small intestine [20]. These methods include thermal and chemical treatments and coating with inert fats and polymers [21]. Protection is carried out with microencapsulation techniques that include the formation of microparticles or microcapsules. The materials selected as a coating matrix must have specific properties to protect the active ingredient from rumen degradation. They must be stable at a pH greater than 5.5, soluble in the abomasum (pH 1.5–2), and resistant to microbial attack, and they must have mechanical properties to withstand disintegration [20]. The active ingredient includes an internal coating with an external layer consisting of a delayed-release material, which maintains the integrity of the protective layer in the rumen while it is digested by intestinal enzymes where the active components are released [20,21].
Supplementing palmitic acid without protecting it from the ruminal environment can decrease fiber degradability, affect palatability, and reduce intake [2]. The protected fats marketed in livestock contain, on average, 84% lipids (40% UFA, 9.5% oleic, 1.5% saturated, 44% palmitic, and 5% stearic). UFAs (linoleic acid and linolenic acid) are prevented from ruminal biohydrogenation and protected palmitic acid that bypasses the rumen, improving milk production and milk protein-fat levels [5]. Early lactation cows supplemented with protected palmitic acid have greater energy efficiency due to increased intestinal absorption of long-chain fatty acids. Protected palmitic acid improves energy balance when nutritional demands due to lactation increase [10]. Consequently, few studies have evaluated the impact of a lipid-rich diet with C16:0 on milk production and fat secretion in lactating dairy goats. No studies have evaluated the effects of pure PA supplementation on rumen digestion. Therefore, the objective was to propose an in vitro study where the protected PA is evaluated on the rumen fermentative variables. Particularly, one of the difficulties in protected products is the lack of evaluations within the ruminal environment. There is a need to evaluate protected products; these must contain a high amount of active ingredients, have a high protection capacity, and have limited permanence in the rumen with continuous flow to the small intestine. Some disadvantages of protected products are the low proportion of active material and their limited protection against rumen microorganisms. A bath culture test with goat ruminal fluid was used to evaluate three increasing doses of protected PA on the degradability of nutrients in the diet and quantify the products generated from ruminal fermentation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animal Ethics Standards and Localization

The handling of the animals was carried out in accordance with the Regulations for the use and care of animals intended for research at the Postgraduate College, COBIAN 1009123. This study was carried out in the livestock program and Animal Nutrition Laboratory located at 19°29″ north latitude, 98°53″ west longitude, and an altitude of 2241 m above sea level, with an average annual temperature of 15.2 °C [22].

2.2. Preparation of Treatments

Four micro-diets were prepared with the following base ingredient: 30% corn grain, 24% corn stover, 12% sorghum grain, 11% alfalfa hay, 12% bran wheat, 8% molasses, 1% soybean meal, 0.2% urea, and 1.8% mineral premix [23]. The PA used was from the brand WLT® (85%, Winnipeg, MB, Canada), with the particle size ranging from 0.3 to 2.5 mm and protected by butylated hydroxytoluene. Corn grain was replaced by the included PA levels, and the treatments were distributed as follows: control without protected PA (nPA) and treatments with the inclusion of protected PA at three levels: PA3 = 3%, PA6 = 6%, and PA9 = 9% DM.

2.3. Culture Medium, Inoculation, and In Vitro Gas Production and Degradability

The culture medium was prepared as follows: (a) mineral solution I (6.0 g K2HPO4 L−1 of distilled H2O), (b) mineral solution II (6.0 g KH2PO4, 6.0 g (NH4)2SO4, 12.0 g NaCl, 2.45 g MgSO4, and 1.6 g CaClH2O L−1 of distilled H2O), (c) 8% Na2CO3 buffer solution, and (d) reduced sulfur solution of cysteine (2.5 g L-cysteine in 15 mL of NaOH (2N) and 2.5 g Na2S) and 0.1 mL 1% Rezarsurin [24]. Three crossbreed lactating goats (Alpino × Saanen) of 50 kgBW, aged 2 years old, and with a permanent ruminal cannula were used. The animals were fed 2 kg of the base diet (cited above), divided into two feeding times at 6:00 and 15:00 meridian hours. Ruminal fluid (RF) was collected 2 h after feeding and a composite sample was made from all the animals. Then, the RF was filtered through four layers of blanket and placed in a thermos at 39 °C until inoculation. RF was added to the culture medium to a final dilution of 10% [24]. The samples (0.5g−1 DM) of the micro-diets were placed in cloth bags measuring 10 cm × 8 cm (simulating the ANKOM bags), which were introduced into the 120 mL vials, filled with 90 mL of inoculum and free of O2, covered with a rubber stopper and aluminum ring, and incubated in an oven at 39 °C. Blank samples only contained the ruminal inoculum.
The incubated vials were punctured with a needle through the rubber stopper and connected to a manometer with a scale of 0–100 PSI, recording the gas pressure from 2 to 72 h of cultivation. The PSI units were transformed into volume under the regression equation y = 7.0245x − 1.0849, R2 = 0.989, subsequently adjusted to mL−1 g DM. The bags containing undigested residues at 72 h were removed from the vials, rinsed thoroughly with distilled water, dried at 65 °C by 24 h, and weighed to estimate the DM and nutrient disappearance. The in vitro degradability (IVD) from the batch culture incubation was calculated using the following equation: IVD = 1 – [(R – B)/S], where R is g of nutrients as undigested residue, B is g of nutrients as undigested residue in blank bags, and S is the dry weight of the initial substrate.

2.4. Laboratory Analysis

All samples were ground and chemical analyses were performed in triplicate, including dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), fat [25], neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF) [26].
Fatty acid profiles: The samples were analyzed in the long-chain fatty acid profile via the methylation process [27]. Briefly, 0.2 g of sample was weighed and the trans-esterification process was carried out in 50 mL culture tubes. The gas chromatograph used was an FID Detector and G2613A automatic injector by the HP brand (Hewlett Packard 6890 Herndon, VA, USA), with a silica capillary column (SPTM-2560, Supelco). The standard used was FAME Mix C4-C24 100 mg (Fatty Acids Methyl Esters).
Volatile fatty acids (VFA) profile: A subsample of 1.5 mL L−1 of the remaining liquid fraction was taken and acidified with 4 mL of metaphosphoric acid (0.25; w/v) after removing the bag. VFA levels were analyzed via gas chromatograph HP 6890 with an ionization detector [28]. The standard used was FAM6C with 1000 µg mL−1 H2O, with high purity standards.

2.5. Calculations and Statistical Analysis

The gas production kinetics (GP) content was calculated using the inverted exponential function [29] using Sigma Plot (10.0): P = a + b (1 − e–ct), where P is the gas production volume at time t, ‘a’ and ‘b’ are mathematical parameters, ‘c’ is a constant fractional of gas production rates, and a + b is theoretical maximum gas production volume: limt→+∞ a + b (1 − e − ct) = a + b. Methane production was determined as follows: CH4 = 0.45 × (% acetate) − 0.275 × (% propionate) + 0.40 × (% butyrate) [30]. The biohydrogenation (BH,%) of fatty acids was calculated using the following equation: BH = 100 – 100 [(residual unsaturated FA/total FA in residual digest)/(unsaturated FA feed sample/total FA feed sample)] [31].
The experiment was repeated three times, and each run contained ten replicates per treatment. Cumulative gas production data were analyzed as a completely randomized design using the MIXED model procedure of SAS® [32]. The means of the treatments in GP were compared using the Tukey test [33]. The chemical analyses were performed using the GLM procedure, and the values were analyzed using orthogonal polynomials to determine their linear and quadratic effects (p ≤ 0.05).

3. Results

GP had no differences between treatments at 2 h of incubation (Figure 1). Then, from 4 to 72 h, the three treatments with protected PA decreased GP by ~21.7% (p ≤ 0.05). The groups supplemented with protected PA had no differences from 2 to 12 h. However, PA6 and PA9 decreased GP from 24 to 72 h by ~13.9% less than PA3. GP indicates a linear effect with a maximum value of nPA = 317.21, with a minor decrease with PA9 = 245.6 (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 1 shows the residual sample in batch culture and the degradability indices at 72 h in the different treatments. Residual DM and OM increased linearly (p ≤ 0.05) around ~25.5 and ~22.91 units, respectively, from nPA until reaching the maximum in PA6 and subsequently maintained and decreased slightly until PA9 had a quadratic effect (p ≤ 0.05) of ~4.5 and ~3.8 units, respectively, as protected PA is added to the diet. The average degradability of the DM and MO in the treatments were 69.4 and 66.4, respectively. The residual sample of NDF and ADF presented a linear effect (p ≤ 0.05), with an increase of ~6.02 and ~4.83 units, respectively, from nPA to PA9. Only ADF showed a positive linear effect (p ≤ 0.1) with increasing protected PA levels (from 35.2 to 43.9). C16:0 presented a linear effect with an increase of ~18.21 units from nPA to PA3, followed by a quadratic effect increasing by ~8.58 units from PA3 to PA6, and finally, ~12.7 units from PA6 to PA9. The C18:0 in the residual sample had no significant differences between treatments (p > 0.05). The negative values of C16:0 and C18:0 in the residual sample indicate an increase in the amount of these FA, unlike the initial sample. The degradation of C18:1 decreased (from 69.9 to 59.6%) linearly (p ≤ 0.07) with the increase in the level of protected PA. C18:2 and C18:3 did not show significant differences (p > 0.05) in the treatments, and additionally, the degradability of both FA was more than 90%.
Table 2 shows the effect of the treatments on the production of the main VFA at 72 h of in vitro degradability. Acetate and the acetate: propionate ratio showed a linear effect (p ≤ 0.05) increasing by ~1.76 and ~0.13 units, respectively, from nPA to PA9. Propionate had a quadratic effect (p ≤ 0.05) from nPA to PA3, increasing by ~0.34 units, and subsequently, there was a decrease (linear effect, p ≤ 0.05) from PA3 to PA9, decreasing by ~0.83 units. Butyrate and total VFA presented a linear effect (p ≤ 0.05), decreasing by ~1.3 and ~0.29 units, respectively, from nPA to PA9. BH had a quadratic effect (p ≤ 0.05) from nPA to PA3, increasing by ~4.5 units, and subsequently, there was a decrease (linear effect, p ≤ 0.05) from PA3 to PA9, decreasing by ~6.9 units.

4. Discussion

4.1. Gas Production

GP decreased with the inclusion level of protected PA from 4 to 72 h; a similar study with inclusions of 0, 3.5, and 7% of octadecanoic FAs (stearic, oleic, linoleic, and linolenic), also indicates the decrease in GP [34]. This effect was attributed to the decrease in the degradability of the NDF since fat covers the fiber and inhibits the ruminal microbes from carrying out the degradability [35,36]. Contrary to the present study, the inclusion of high amounts of protected PA in PA6 and PA9 decreased GP, but NDF was not affected. Another study [37] compared olive, sunflower, and linseed oil at 6% and showed decreased GP. In this case, supplementary oils were associated with decreased methane, and consequently, there was less GP [36]. In this study, methane production did not decrease with the increase in protected PA. The lack of effect is because it is a SFA, and it cannot capture H2 ions through the BH process [38]. The data from this study indicate that diets with SFA such as protected PA do not have total protection; part of the PA is available and used by rumen microorganisms and has an effect of decreasing the GP, and consequently, decreases the degradability of DM and OM [35].

4.2. In Vitro Degradability

DM and residual OM increased with the levels of protected PA, contrary to the data of [17], who supplemented rumen-protected fats (3.62%) in Holstein cows, observing that the degradability of DM in the rumen was not affected in the rumen until 48 h. However, a longer ruminal degradation time causes the protected PA to lose part of its protective integrity, and the rumen microorganisms use this PA for their metabolism [35]. The energy density of the diet influences the presence of the rumen population [39]; increasing the fat content to cover the animal’s energy intake can suppress DM degradability [40].
SFA and UFA supplements do not show differences in DM degradability [41]. However, UFAs are the main inhibitors of the activity of cellulolytic bacteria in the rumen, causing toxic action [42], but it depends on the amount in the diet. A study [43] evaluating a diet high in forage and with oils showed that diets with sunflower oil and 6% soybean oil decreased the degradability of DM, NDF, and ADF at 48 h, while doses of these oils at 4.5% did not affect the degradability. The attack mechanism of the bacterial population was made up of SAB bacteria (solid-adherent bacteria: firmly adhered to the food particles in the rumen) and LAB bacteria (liquid-associated bacteria: associated with the liquid phase of the rumen); the lipid concentration in the SAB bacteria was twice as high. LAB bacteria [44], in such a way that the amount in the lipid supplement of the diet modifies the microbial population of the rumen, can influence the degradability of DM and OM in the rumen.
In this study, only the degradability of ADF increased as the supplementation with protected PA increased. The reason for not having an NDF effect may be due to the low amount of free and available PA in the rumen. Supplementing oils greater than 6% in the diet in unprotected form reduces the degradability of NDF and ADF [43]. However, if animals are supplemented with protected fats, there is a lower rumen protozoa content [18], and the bacterial population has more activity in the degradability of fiber; the protozoa also contribute to their ruminal activity but by not being able to absorb and transform excess dietary lipids, they can die from lipid toxicity [45]. Another study on goats [36] indicated that olive, palm, and sunflower oil supplements did not modify the protozoan population. The quality of the fat influences the negative effect on the digestibility of nutrients [46]; medium-chain FA can reduce the population of rumen protozoa and affect the degradability of fiber, while UFA acts negatively on cellulolytic bacteria that degrade fiber [47].

4.3. Saturated and Unsaturated Fatty Acids

A higher rate of residual saturated fat at 72 h indicates that the microorganisms in the rumen provide another significant amount of SFA that can reach the intestine [48]. The data from this study indicate that the purity of the protected PA can be around 85%. Another similar study indicates that the protected PA presented greater intestinal flow [11], and with the physiological response being very different when unprotected oils are supplemented, BH is expected, and the amount of SFA increases [43]. Mainly, C18:0 also showed a negative degradability; it is evident that the UFAs were biohydrogenated and the saturation rate increased, although, in this study, a decrease in the residual content of C18:0 was often observed when the inclusion of protected PA increased. Another study indicated that C18:0 decreased as the inclusion of oils in the diet increased [46] since ruminal microorganisms carry out lipolysis and subsequent BH of UFA until reaching the final product, which is the formation of C18:0 [47,48]. BH is generated partially, giving way to intermediate isomers in the rumen and decreasing the use of free hydrogen in the rumen [49,50].
On the other hand, the residual content of C18:1 c-9 increased with the increase of protected PA, but C18:2 c-6 decreased in this study. The differences can be attributed to the DM content of the forage since it affects the lipolysis process in the rumen, and the composition is also influenced by the presence of glycolipids, phospholipids, and triglycerides [42]. The primary substrates for BH are C18:1 and C18:2, but the BH route in C18:2 requires three steps involving isomerization and, subsequently, hydrogenation. For this reason, the residual content in this study increased with the increase in protected PA, although there was an incomplete BH process of C18:2. In this case, BH decreased with the increase in the level of protected palmitic acid, indicating an adequate protective effect and that the greater amount of BH is due to the fatty acids contained in the ingredients of the diet. The average BH level (75.47%) is considered adequate and coincides with several in vitro studies [35,42].

4.4. Volatile Fatty Acids and Methane

The levels of VFA can be variable, and it also shows the effectiveness in the fermentation of nutrients. Lipid supplements commonly improve the acetate: propionate ratio [44,51]. In this study, propionate increased with the inclusion of protected PA3, possibly because lipolysis in the rumen releases FA and glycerol from triglycerides. The free glycerol is rapidly fermented by bacteria and protozoa and converted to propionate [42]. The basal diet used in this experiment was isoenergetic and isoproteic, but the replacement of corn with similar proportions of PA increased the energy content. The greater presence of fatty acids contained in the PA provided more free glycerol, and the differences in energy caused the differences in the amount of VFA. The decrease in butyrate was probably due to the inhibitory action of PA on rumen protozoa since the more significant degradation of carbohydrates generates butyrate as a final product [51,52]. Several studies did not report differences in VFA profiles when FA is supplemented [36,50], although other authors also reported an increase in VFA with the use of protected fats [17]. The degradability of OM influences the production of total VFA; a lower amount of OM fermented in the rumen causes lower energy production and less VFA production [53].
UFA commonly causes a reduction in acetate production, acetate: propionate ratio, and CH4 production, generating an increase in the production of propionate, butyrate, and total VFA [54,55]. In this study, CH4 production did not decrease with the protected PA supplement; perhaps the PA was partially used by methanogens, favoring their growth, which was reflected in CH4 production [56,57]. Consequently, it can be assumed that methanogens can benefit from the protected PA supplement. Methanogenesis occurs due to the reduction of excess H2 in the rumen. In this case, the PA supplement could interfere with the BH process and perhaps modify the population of protozoans that participate in BH [38], generating greater H2 in the rumen to be used in the production of CH4.

5. Conclusions

The inclusion of PA in the in vitro batch culture test showed intermediate levels of gas production kinetics with 3 and 6% inclusion of protected PA. The maximum gas production occurred without the inclusion of protected PA, indicating greater carbon dioxide and methane formation. Likewise, the low gas production produced in response to the inclusion of protected PA9% was associated with lower degradability of the content and the dietary cell wall. Meanwhile, the best degradation of non-structural carbohydrates and nitrogen sources occurred with the inclusion of protected PA3. On the other hand, the level of C16:0 contained in the protected AP was slightly released and logically increased with the higher level of supplemented AP. The results on the FA profile indicate that the protection efficiency of PA is not efficient; there is an excretion of FA that adheres to the food, affecting the degradability of the cell wall. On the other hand, the best efficiency in propionic acid, decrease in methane, and increase in biohydrogenation (79%) also occurred with the inclusion of protected PA3.
In general, the data show better response with PA3, although, in this study involving goats in vivo, the evaluation of the inclusions of 3 and 6% of protected PA is suggested. The in vitro technique rules out the evaluation of 9% PA levels because the consideration of this amount in lactating goats is unjustified. However, it is known that the limitations of in vitro technique are the lack of control of all environmental and physiological variables in the rumen. The results consider evaluating doses of 3 to 6% of protected AP as ideal for researching lactating goats’ metabolic profile, body condition, and the quality of milk fat.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.E.R.-B. and Y.B.-M.; methodology, J.N.Á.-T.; software, L.D.G.-R.; validation, M.M.C.-G. and L.D.G.-R.; formal analysis, M.R.-M.; investigation, J.E.R.-B. and Y.B.-M.; resources, L.D.G.-R.; data curation, J.N.Á.-T.; writing—original draft preparation, J.E.R.-B.; writing—review and editing, J.E.R.-B. and Y.B.-M.; visualization, A.R.-G.; supervision, A.R.-G.; project administration, Y.B.-M.; funding acquisition, Y.B.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was supported by LGAC: Efficient livestock, sustainable well-being and climate change of the Colegio de Postgraduados Mexico. The first author, Jenny Nathalia Álvarez, is an MSc student of PREGEP-COLPOS.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Setiawan, W.A.; Yusiati, L.M.; Hanim, C.; Muhlisin, M. Ruminal hydrolytic enzymes activity and in vitro gas production kinetics of pelleted leaves mixture as tannin source: Acacia mangium willd, Swietenia mahagoni, and Artocarpus heterophyllus. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Animal Science and Technology (ICAST 2021), Makassar, Indonesia, 9–10 November 2021; Volume 2628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Enjalbert, F.; Nicot, M.C.; Bayourthe, C.; Moncoulon, R. Effects of duodenal infusions of palmitic, stearic, or oleic acids on milk composition and physical properties of butter. J. Dairy Sci. 2000, 83, 1428–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jenkins, T.C.; Bridges, W.C. Protection of fatty acids against ruminal biohydrogenation in cattle. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2007, 109, 778–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chinnadurai, K.; Kanwal, H.K.; Tyagi, A.K.; Stanton, C.; Ross, P. High conjugated linoleic acid enriched ghee (clarified butter) increases the antioxidant and antiatherogenic potency in female Wistar rats. Lipids Health Dis. 2013, 12, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tódero, C.; Ticiani, E.; Júnior, W.B.; Silva, E.D.; Miqueluti, D.J.; Oliveira, D.E. Palmitic acid increases milk fat content and yield in lactating cows. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecos. 2016, 19, 319–325. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93949148011.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2023). [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, J.P.; Bu, D.P.; Wang, J.Q.; Huo, X.K.; Guo, T.J.; Wei, H.Y.; Zhou, L.Y.; Rastani, R.R.; Baumgard, L.H.; Li, F.D. Effect of saturated fatty acid supplementation on production and metabolism indices in heat-stressed mid-lactation dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 4121–4127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lock, A.L.; Preseault, C.L.; Rico, J.E.; DeLand, K.E.; Allen, M.S. Feeding a C16:0 enriched fat supplement increased the yield of milk fat and improved conversion of feed to milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 6650–6659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jensen, R.G. The composition of bovine milk lipids: January 1995 to December 2000. J. Dairy Sci. 2002, 85, 295–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Toyes-Vargas, E.; Cordoba-Matson, M.; Espinoza-Villavicencio, J.; Palacio-Espinosa, A.; Murillo-Amador, B. Goat milk fatty acid composition in the Peninsula of Baja California, México. Rev. MVZ Córdoba 2013, 18, 3843–3850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De Souza, J.; Lock, A.L. Effects of timing of palmitic acid supplementation on production responses of early-lactation dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 260–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Western, M.M.; De Souza, J.; Lock, A.L. Effects of commercially available palmitic and stearic acid supplements on nutrient digestibility and production responses of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 5131–5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. De Souza, J.; Lock, A.L. Long-term palmitic acid supplementation interacts with parity in lactating dairy cows: Production responses, nutrient digestibility, and energy partitioning. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3044–3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Weld, K.A.; Armentano, L.E. The effects of adding fat to diets of lactating dairy cows on total-tract neutral detergent fiber digestibility: A meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 1766–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Stoop, W.M.; Van Arendonk, J.A.M.; Heck, J.M.L.; Van Valenberg, H.J.F.; Bovenhuis, H. Genetic parameters for major milk fatty acids and milk production traits of Dutch Holstein-Friesians. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chilliard, Y.; Toral, P.G.; Shingfield, K.J.; Rouel, J.; Leroux, C.; Bernard, L. Effects of diet and physiological factors on milk fat synthesis, milk fat composition and lipolysis in the goat: A short review. Small Rumin. Res. 2014, 122, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lévesque, J.; Dion, S.; Rico, D.E.; Brassard, M.È.; Gervais, R.; Chouinard, P.Y. Milk yield and composition in dairy goats fed extruded flaxseed or a high-palmitic acid fat supplement. J. Dairy Res. 2022, 89, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nam, I.S.; Choi, J.H.; Seo, K.M.; Ahn, J.H. In vitro and lactation responses in mid-lactating dairy cows fed protected amino acids and fat. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 27, 1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Behan, A.A.; Loh, T.C.; Fakurazi, S.; Kaka, U.; Kaka, A.; Samsudin, A.A. Effects of supplementation of rumen protected fats on rumen ecology and digestibility of nutrients in sheep. Animals 2019, 9, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. McGrath, J.; Duval, S.; Tamassia, L.F.M.; Kindermann, M.; Stemmler, R.T.; De Gouvea, V.N.; Acedo, T.S.; Immig, I.; Williams, S.N.; Celi, P. Nutritional strategies in ruminants: A lifetime approach. Res. Veter. Sci. 2017, 116, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gadeyne, F.; De Neve, N.; Vlaeminck, B.; Fievez, V. State of the art in rumen lipid protection technologies and emerging interfacial protein cross-linking methods. Europ. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2017, 119, 1600345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pena, O.M.; Murphy, K.; Long, N.; Lascano, G.J.; Jenkins, T.C.; Aguerre, M.J. Evaluating the Rumen Degradation of Novel Protected Gelatin Capsules Containing Fish Oil Fed to Lactating Dairy Cows. Animals 2023, 13, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. García, E. Modificación del Sistema de Clasificación Climática de Köppen; Instituto de Geografía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: Mexico City, Mexico, 2004; Volume 5, pp. 11–90. Available online: http://www.publicaciones.igg.unam.mx/index.php/ig/catalog/book/83 (accessed on 5 May 2023).
  23. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids and New World Camelids, 1st ed.; National Academic Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; pp. 271–292. [Google Scholar]
  24. Menke, K.H.; Steingass, H. Estimation if the energetic feed value obtained from the chemical analysis and the in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Res. Dev. 1988, 28, 9–52. [Google Scholar]
  25. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Official Methods of the Association of the Agricultural Chemists, 18th ed.; Association of Official Agricultural Chemists: Jasper, MI, USA, 2005; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292783651–AOAC–2005 (accessed on 2 August 2023).
  26. Van Soest, P.J.; Roberson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Palmquist, D.L.; Jenkins, T.C. Challenges with fats and fatty acid methods. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 81, 3250–3254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Darwin, C.W.; Cord-Ruwisch, R. Concurrent lactic and volatile fatty acid analysis of microbial fermentation samples by gas chromatography with heat pre-treatment. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2018, 56, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ørskov, E.R.; McDonald, I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J. Agric. Sci. 1979, 92, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Oliveira, T.S.; Fernandes, A.M.; Processi, E.F.; Baffa, D.F.; Camilo, M.G. Stoichiometric models for prediction of enteric methane production. Bioscience 2022, 38, 1981–3163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ramirez, J.E.; Zinn, R.A. Interaction of dietary magnesium level on the feeding value of supplemental fat in finishing diets for feedlot steers. J. Anim. Sci. 2000, 78, 2072–2080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Statistical Analysis System. SAS User’s Guide: Statics, Version 9.0.; SAS Institute, Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sujatha, S.; Prabhu, S.M. A Study on the importance of pre-hoc and post- hoc ANOVA tests in agriculture research. Int. J. Scient. Technol. Res. 2020, 9, 6142–6144. [Google Scholar]
  34. Amanullah, S.M.; Kim, D.H.; Paradhipta, D.H.V.; Lee, H.J.; Joo, Y.H.; Lee, S.S.; Kim, E.T.; Kim, S.C. Effects of Essential Fatty Acid Supplementation on in vitro Fermentation Indices, Greenhouse Gas, Microbes, and Fatty Acid Profiles in the Rumen. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 637220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Gomes de Souza, J.; dio Vaz, C. Ruminal biohidrogenation and main impact on met the fatty acid profile: A review. Res. Soc. Develop. 2021, 10, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nur Atikah, I.; Alimon, A.R.; Yaakub, H.; Abdullah, N.; Jahromi, M.F.; Ivan, M.; Samsudin, A.A. Profiling of rumen fermentation, microbial population and digestibility in goats fed with dietary oils containing different fatty acids. BMC Veter. Res. 2018, 14, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vargas, J.E.; Andrés, S.; López-Ferreras, L.; Snelling, T.J.; Yáñez-Ruíz, D.R.; García-Estrada, C.; López, S. Dietary supplemental plant oils reduce methanogenesis from anaerobic microbial fermentation in the rumen. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sun, X.; Wang, Y.; Ma, X.; Li, S.; Wang, W. Producing natural functional and low-carbon milk by regulating the diet of the cattle the fatty acid associated rumen fermentation, biohydrogenation, and microorganism response. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 955846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Baldwin, R.L.; Connor, E.E. Rumen function and development. Vet. Clin. N. Am.-Food Anim. Pract. 2017, 33, 427–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Yanza, Y.R.; Szumacher-Strabel, M.; Jayanegara, A.; Kasenta, A.M.; Gao, M.; Huang, H.; Cieślak, A. The effects of dietary medium-chain fatty acids on ruminal methanogenesis and fermentation in vitro and in vivo: A meta-analysis. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 105, 874–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Embaby, M.G.; Günal, M.; AbuGhazaleh, A. Effect of unconventional oils on in vitro rumen methane production and fermentation. Cienc. Investig. Agrar. 2019, 46, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Li, H.; Wang, D.; Yuan, Y. Progress of Conjugated Linoleic Acid on Milk Fat Metabolism in Ruminants and Humans. Animals 2023, 13, 3429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jacob, A.B.; Balakrishnan, V.; Kathirvelan, C. Effect of amount and source of vegetable oils in a high fibrous cattle diet on in vitro rumen fermentation, nutrient degradability and rumen cis-9, trans-11 CLA concentration. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2012, 40, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Enjalbert, F.; Combes, S.; Zened, A.; Meynadier, A. Rumen microbiota and dietary fat: A mutual shaping. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 123, 782–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fessenden, S.W.; Hackmann, T.J.; Ross, D.A.; Foskolos, A.; Van Amburgh, M.E. Ruminal bacteria and protozoa composition, digestibility, and amino acid profile determined by multiple hydrolysis times. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 7211–7226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Panahiha, P.; Mirzaei-Alamouti, H.; Kazemi-Bonchenari, M.; Aschenbach, J.R. Growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and ruminal fermentation of dairy calves fed starter diets with alfalfa hay versus corn silage as forage and soybean oil versus palm fatty acids as fat source. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 9597–9609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nur Atikah, I.; Alimon, A.R.; Yaakub, H.; Samsudin, A.A.; Candyrine, S.C.L.; Wan Nooraida, W.M.; Abidah, M.N.; Amirul, F.M.; Mookiah, S. Effects of vegetable oil supplementation on rumen fermentation and microbial population in ruminant: A review. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mizrahi, I.; Wallace, R.J.; Moraïs, S. The rumen microbiome: Balancing food security and environmental impacts. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 553–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhao, W.; Chen, X.; Xiao, J.; Chen, X.H.; Zhang, X.F.; Wang, T.; Zhen, Y.G.; Qin, G.X. Pre partum body condition score affects milk yield, lipid metabolism and oxidation status of Holstein cows. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 32, 1889–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Prieto-Manrique, E.; Vargas-Sánchez, J.E.; Angulo-Arizala, J.; Mahecha-Ledesma, L. Aceites vegetales sobre ácidos grasos y producción de metano in vitro en vacas lecheras. Agron. Mesoam. 2017, 28, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Baee, H.; Ghoorchi, T.; Toghdory, A.; Mokhtarpour, A. Growth performance, ruminal fermentation characteristics and microbial protein synthesis of lambs fed palmitic and stearic acid. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2023, 302, 115674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Abubakr, A.R.; Alimon, A.R.; Yaakub, H.; Abdullah, N.; Ivan, M. Digestibility, rumen protozoa, and ruminal fermentation in goats receiving dietary palm oil by-products. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2013, 12, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Castillo-Lopeza, E.; Domínguez, M.G. Factors affecting the ruminal microbial composition and methods to determine microbial protein yield. Review. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2019, 10, 120–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cieslak, A.; El-Sherbiny, M.; Szczechowiak, J.; Kowalczyk, D.; Pers-Kamczyc, E.; Bryszak, M.; Szumacher-Strabel, M. Rapeseed and fish oil mixtures supplied at low dose can modulate milk fatty acid composition without affecting rumen fermentation and productive parameters in dairy cows. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 2015, 33, 357–372. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kholif, A.E.; Morsy, T.A.; Abdo, M.M. Crushed flaxseed versus flaxseed oil in the diets of Nubian goats: Effect on feed intake, digestion, ruminal fermentation, blood chemistry, milk production, milk composition and milk fatty acid profile. Animal Feed Sci. Technol. 2018, 244, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Arcos-Álvarez, D.N.; Aguilar-Urquizo, E.; Sanginés-García, J.R.; Chay-Canul, A.J.; Molina-Botero, I.; Tzec-Gamboa, M.; Piñeiro-Vázquez, Á.T. Effect of Adding Extra Virgin Olive Oil to Hair Sheep Lambs’ Diets on Productive Performance, Ruminal Fermentation Kinetics and Rumen Ciliate Protozoa. Animals 2022, 12, 2588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Morgavi, D.P.; Forano, E.; Martin, C.; Newbold, C.J. Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants. Animals 2010, 4, 1024–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fermentation 10 00110 g001
Figure 1. Accumulated gas production (mLg−1 DM) from in vitro fermentation of diets for lactating goats with three levels of protected palmitic acid.
Figure 1. Accumulated gas production (mLg−1 DM) from in vitro fermentation of diets for lactating goats with three levels of protected palmitic acid.
Fermentation 10 00110 g001
Table 1. In vitro degradability of nutritional components of the diet supplemented with protected palmitic acid.
Table 1. In vitro degradability of nutritional components of the diet supplemented with protected palmitic acid.
Nutrient CompositionTreatments
nPAPA3PA6PA9SEMLinearQuadratic
Initial sample (mg−1)
DM 456.72456.97464.35463.870.38
Nitrogen8.628.438.548.270.01
OM384.33383.17390.75390.710.32
NDF179.13186.26203.24197.140.16
ADF 70.7578.9693.1096.350.07
Fat 9.3226.6035.3848.240.02
C16:0 2.5218.9527.3339.980.03
C18:0 0.210.670.971.350.02
C18:1 2.222.923.053.280.02
C18:2 3.933.042.652.170.02
C18:3 0.220.220.230.270.02
Residual sample in batch culture at 72 h (mg−1)
DM 107.66134.32158.65163.153.12<0.00010.002
OM 100.45124.66146.28150.122.88<0.00010.002
NDF68.8274.6480.8577.741.900.0350.130
ADF 38.2445.3947.9047.841.500.0180.119
C16:0 2.1920.4028.9841.680.60<0.00010.024
C18:0 3.022.593.062.810.280.9170.800
C18:1 0.670.951.201.330.090.0090.498
C18:2 0.400.210.240.180.030.0200.184
C18:3 0.030.020.040.020.010.6990.451
Degradation in batch culture incubation at 72 h (%)
DM 76.4470.6165.7864.830.68<0.00010.001
OM73.8667.4762.5761.580.74<0.00010.001
NDF65.6464.4765.4764.648.740.9620.986
ADF 37.9035.2142.4243.952.120.0960.465
C16:012.91−7.48−6.02−4.243.390.0770.079
C18:0 −1308.01−286.17−215.66−107.8038.70<0.00010.001
C18:1 69.9367.4760.7459.592.950.0660.854
C18:2 89.8192.9690.9191.851.140.6140.540
C18:3 88.7092.1687.9794.372.690.3750.637
BH,%75.0979.6274.5172.651.340.0310.042
Linear effect (p ≤ 0.1), quadratic effect (p ≤ 0.1), SEM: standard error of the mean, nPA: without inclusion of palmitic acid, PA3: inclusion of protected palmitic acid at 3% DM, PA6: inclusion of protected palmitic acid at 6% DM, PA9: Inclusion of protected palmitic acid at 9% DM, and BH: biohydrogenation.
Table 2. Levels of volatile fatty acids and methane production after 72 h of in vitro degradability.
Table 2. Levels of volatile fatty acids and methane production after 72 h of in vitro degradability.
ItemsTreatments
nPAPA3PA6PA9SEMLinearQuadratic
VFA (mmol/100 mol)
Acetate 		59.9461.2862.8265.210.518<0.00010.33
Propionate 23.9924.3323.9022.640.3870.010.05
Butirate16.0714.3913.2812.130.392<0.00010.52
Total VFA105.01104.48104.37104.140.1800.0040.46
A:P2.502.522.632.880.061<0.00010.06
CH4 (mLg−1 DM)26.8026.6427.0127.970.2780.0040.05
Linear effect (p ≤ 0.05), quadratic effect (p ≤ 0.05), SEM: standard error of the mean, nPA: without inclusion of palmitic acid, PA3: inclusion of protected palmitic acid at 3% DM, PA6: inclusion of protected palmitic acid at 6% DM, PA9: inclusion of protected palmitic acid at 9% DM, Total VFA: total volatile fatty acids, and A:P = acetate: propionate ratio.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Álvarez-Torres, J.N.; Ramírez-Bribiesca, J.E.; Bautista-Martínez, Y.; Crosby-Galván, M.M.; Granados-Rivera, L.D.; Ramírez-Mella, M.; Ruiz-González, A. Stability and Effects of Protected Palmitic Acid on In Vitro Rumen Degradability and Fermentation in Lactating Goats. Fermentation 2024, 10, 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10020110

AMA Style

Álvarez-Torres JN, Ramírez-Bribiesca JE, Bautista-Martínez Y, Crosby-Galván MM, Granados-Rivera LD, Ramírez-Mella M, Ruiz-González A. Stability and Effects of Protected Palmitic Acid on In Vitro Rumen Degradability and Fermentation in Lactating Goats. Fermentation. 2024; 10(2):110. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10020110

Chicago/Turabian Style

Álvarez-Torres, Jenny Nathalia, Jacinto Efrén Ramírez-Bribiesca, Yuridia Bautista-Martínez, María Magdalena Crosby-Galván, Lorenzo Danilo Granados-Rivera, Mónica Ramírez-Mella, and Alexis Ruiz-González. 2024. "Stability and Effects of Protected Palmitic Acid on In Vitro Rumen Degradability and Fermentation in Lactating Goats" Fermentation 10, no. 2: 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10020110

APA Style

Álvarez-Torres, J. N., Ramírez-Bribiesca, J. E., Bautista-Martínez, Y., Crosby-Galván, M. M., Granados-Rivera, L. D., Ramírez-Mella, M., & Ruiz-González, A. (2024). Stability and Effects of Protected Palmitic Acid on In Vitro Rumen Degradability and Fermentation in Lactating Goats. Fermentation, 10(2), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10020110

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop