Test Forage Make More Money!

Soon we will be entering forage grazing and harvesting season. Although many producers test their hay or silages when buying and selling, there is still a group who either only test for nitrate when they believe they may be having an issue or do not bother to test at all.  There are many benefits to testing feed, such as improving animal health and production, but a major benefit from a business perspective is the potential to improve profitability.  Testing forages can help producers improve their bottom line.

I have attended several conferences where Dr. Aaron Berger from University of Nebraska Lincoln has spoken about profitability and costs to ranches.  The first point Dr. Berger always drives home is the unit cost of production.  It is important to keep track of all input costs to each enterprise on an operation to know what is profitable and what is losing money.  It is also a helpful tool to see where improvements can be made.  In his presentations, Dr. Berger also points out that the number one cost to produce beef cattle is feed.  Therefore, improvement in feed cost would increase profitability.  This can be done through selecting for cattle that consume less feed and gain the same, sourcing cheaper feed, and precise ration and diet formulations.

Precise ration and diet formulations improve profitability by reducing the occurrence of over or under supplementation to reach animal production goals.  To produce a precise and accurate ration or diet, forage testing must be done, otherwise producers are just guessing about the nutrient content of the forage.  Forages are variable plant material.  As the feed and NIR reviewer at Ward Laboratories Inc., I have seen alfalfa hays and grasses vary from a crude protein level of about 15% to 25% and 4% to 18% on a dry basis respectively.  The fiber content of various forages is also variable.  Acid detergent fiber (ADF) is used to calculate the total digestible nutrients (TDN) of the feed, so variation in ADF affects energy supplementation.  Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) affects how much of a forage or hay the animal will consume.  Minerals are also variable in forages and obtaining an idea of the mineral content may also affect mineral supplementation strategies, such as which mineral to feed or possibly creating a custom mineral mix.  If you would like to learn more about forage variability read Quarrels About Quality: 14 Sources of Variation in Forage and Hay Testing.

Testing hay and forage to formulate rations and diets can reduce underfeeding and overfeeding of animals.  When a producer overestimates the nutritional value of his forage, it can negatively affect the animal’s health.  Thereby impacting performance, reducing reproduction rates, decreasing lactation, or growth.  While the feed cost of an overestimated diet is lower, not meeting the nutritional requirements of that animal results in reduced performance and impacts the producer’s profitability.  An oversetimated nutitional value mresults in less protift. When a producer underestimates the nutritional value of a feed, overfeeding the animals results in increased feed costs and decreased profitability.  Additionally, if overfeeding is extreme, cows can become obese, which also can negatively impact reproductive performance.   In the case of underestimating a forage’s nutritional value, the cost of a NIR forage test ($15) at Ward Laboratories, Inc. is quickly made up in feed costs in just a few days of feeding.

 

So, to improve profitability, at a minimum forage testing is a necessity.  If cattle are grazing a pasture, crop residue, or cover crops, there is variation and a simple NIR test can provide information to make an informed supplementation strategy.  If cattle are consuming a total mixed ration, I would advocate to test all ingredients for the most profitable feeding ration possible with those ingredients.  Using feed testing to make decisions can increase an operations profitability through meeting animal nutrient requirements and therefore performance goals, as well as not wasting feed and money overfeeding animals.

Here are some other resources if you are still doubting the merit in hay testing for profit:

Test, Don’t Guess

The Importance of Forage Testing

Profit Tip: Understanding a Forage Analysis

There’s Money in Testing Your Stalks and Hay

A $50 Hay Test Can Save Producers Money

Carbohydrates and Forage Quality

The function of carbohydrates in any animal’s diet is to provide energy.  Some carbohydrates are more easily digestible and provide energy to the animal, or in the case of the beef cattle, to the rumen microbes more rapidly.  These carbohydrates are Non-Fiber Carbohydrates (NFC). Examples of NFC are starch and sugars, such as glucose and fructose, which are measured at Ward Laboratories Inc. as Total Sugars Invert (TSI).  Starch is also analyzed at Ward Laboratories Inc.  by breaking down the polysaccharide into simple sugars.  An example of a high starch forage is good quality corn silage.  An example of a high sugar forage is high quality alfalfa hay or haylage.

Samples dissolving into buffer on the hot plate with stir bars for starch analysis

 

 

 

Fibrous carbohydrates such as cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin are slowly digested.  In ruminant nutrition the two fiber types we typically use in formulation of feed rations and in evaluation of forage quality are Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) and Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF).  The indigestible and slowly digestible portion of feed is represented by NDF which contains cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin.  The least digestible portion of feed is represented by ADF and contains cellulose and lignin but not hemicellulose.  Therefore, ADF is always less than NDF when represented as a percentage of the feed or forage being analyzed.

img_0943.jpg
ADF and NDF are measured using Ankom bag technology.

The Neutral Detergent Fiber of a feed makes up the floating mat of feed in the rumen.  This floating mat physically stimulates the animal’s digestive processes, specifically rumination.  A high NDF feed typically forms a mat that exists for a longer period of time in the rumen resulting in the animal feeling full longer due to the physical gut fill and consequently consuming less feed.  In summary, high NDF feeds, typically low-quality forages, are predictive of low dry matter intake, while low NDF feeds are predictive of a higher dry matter intake.

Acid Detergent Fiber is used in predictive equations to calculate the energy content of the feed.  Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN), Net Energy of Gain (NEg) and Net Energy of Maintenance (NEm) can all be calculated using the ADF value.  Feeds with a higher percentage of ADF have a lower percentage of the high energy sugars and starches.  Therefore, high ADF feeds and forages have lower energy values and low ADF feeds and forages have high energy values.

At Ward Laboratories Inc. I receive phone calls inquiring about why certain forage reports have higher Relative Feed Values (RFV) or Relative Forage Qualities (RFQ) than others or why those two index values do not match for the same feed.

Relative Feed Value was created to quickly compare the quality of legume hays such as alfalfa or clover. We often apply this index to other forages, or feeds forgetting the original purpose and loosing the understanding that it was not originally meant to be applied to grass hays, corn stalks and especially not corn grains and other non-forage feeds.  Therefore, non-legume forages typically have lower than expected RFVs and animals consuming this hay perform better than the index value would predict.

Relative Forage Quality was created to be inclusive of most forages and is a quick way to fairly compare one forage to another weather it is a grass hay or legume.  The values for RFV and RFQ on the same feed often are separated by as much as 20 points because RFV uses ADF and NDF to predict digestible dry matter and dry matter intake while RFQ uses crude protein, fat, NDF, NDF digestibility among other factors to predict dry matter intake and total digestible nutrients.  South Dakota State University Extension has put together a great resource for better understanding of RFV and RFQ.  Below are the simplified equations for each index:

RFV = Digestible Dry Matter × Dry Matter Intake / 1.29

RFQ=Dry Matter Intake × Total Digestible Nutrients /1.23

    In conclusion, carbohydrates provide energy to the beef cow and support the growth and role rumen microbes play in ruminant digestion.  The higher percentage of the forage or hay is made up of fibrous fractions, such as ADF and NDF, the less NFC are available to rapidly provide energy.  Therefore, as ADF and NDF increase the forage quality decreases due to lower energy values and declining feed intake.  So, when feeding low quality forages such as old cane hay or corn stalks it is important to provide energy supplements in the form of beet pulp, distillers grains, corn grains or molasses based liquid supplements for example. However, on low ADF and NDF, high quality forages little to no supplementation is needed to support animal maintence and production performance.

Spring Calving and Magnesium: 5 Risk Factors for Grass Tetany

As they say, “spring has sprung!” That means the birds are out chirping, summer is on its way, baby calves are on the ground and lush, green pastures ready for grazing.  While this does paint a picturesque image, cattlemen know there’s a danger in those beautiful, green spring grasslands: a nutritional disorder known as Grass Tetany, Grass Staggers or Hypomagnesaemia.  Grass Tetany is a deficiency of magnesium in a cow’s body that causes them to stagger, look alert and become easily excitable and often results in death.  Magnesium is a required mineral for beef cattle.  It is involved in many enzyme activations and therefore important biological processes.  Magnesium is particularly involved in nerve and muscle impulse transmissions. There are 5 risk factors for developing this deficiency:

  1. Age or Maturity of the Cows

Older cows that have produced 2 or more calves in prior calving seasons are more at risk to develop a magnesium deficiency during lactation.  As a beef cow moves from the gestational to the lactational physiological state, magnesium requirements increase from 0.12% to 0.2% of the dry matter intake.  Older cows have a more difficult time mobilizing stored magnesium from bone to meet these increased requirements.  In beef cattle 65-70% of the body’s magnesium is stored in the bone. While the diet may technically meet requirements, without mobilization of stored magnesium grass tetany can develop.  More mature cows have more difficulty with this biological process.

  1. Fertilization Protocol of the Pasture

In soils, the fertilization protocol can greatly affect the minerals available in the grasses grown on that pasture.  High levels of potassium, nitrogen and to a lesser extent phosphorous in the soil can interfere with a plant’s ability to absorb magnesium.  This creates a forage that is low in magnesium and high in potassium and nitrogen.  Therefore, it is recommended that pasture fertilization protocols be managed with the use of soil testing at Ward Laboratories Inc. to prevent over use of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium (NPK) fertilization.

  1. Manure Management on the Pasture

Similar to over fertilization of pasture ground, over accumulation of manure from previous grazing seasons can also result in decreased magnesium in the grasses produced. Manure is going to add nitrogen, organic acids, and long chained fatty acids to the soil, which will also decrease the absorption of magnesium by growing grasses.  Resting a pasture,that has a high manure load, can help alleviate this risk for the next grazing occurrence.

  1. Species of Grasses

Plants deficient in magnesium tend to be rapidly growing cool season grasses.  Some species commonly involved with magnesium deficiency are orchard grass, rye grass, timothy grass, fescue grass, crested wheatgrass, brome grass, and small grain producing varieties such as oats, barley or triticale.  To decrease the risk of developing Grass Tetany, it has been recommended that producers introduce legumes to the pasture at a rate greater than 30% since species, such as alfalfa, are not typically deficient in magnesium with the NRC average being 0.37% of dry matter.

  1. Forage Nutrients

Pasture grasses with dry matter mineral concentrations of less than 0.2% magnesium and greater than 3.0% potassium are known to cause Grass Tetany.  Just like in soil, excess potassium in the diet interferes with magnesium absorption and forces cows to rely on mobilization of stored magnesium for lactation.  You can send your forage samples to Ward Laboratories Inc. to test for mineral concentrations to determine if your forage matches that profile.  If so, feeding a high magnesium free choice mineral may be necessary.  Magnesium concentrations in those minerals typically range from 8-12%.  Magnesium Oxide is typically the compound added to the mineral mix and is unfortunately unpalatable and therefore, as a producer if you may need to get creative with how you are going to get that magnesium into those cows, for example mixing it in with a protein supplement if free choice mineral intake is low.

In conclusion, there are 5 risk factors for development of Grass Tetany: maturity of cows, fertilization protocol on pasture, manure on pasture, species of grasses and forage mineral concentrations.  Ward Laboratories Inc. can help you manage your pasture with soil testing and your forage with feed analysis.

 

 

Forage Creativity: Soy-Corn Silage

Here at Ward Laboratories Inc., we often encourage producers to be creative and try newapproaches to agricultural production.  A couple of weeks ago at the American Society of Animal Science Midwest meeting in Omaha, I listened to a talk about getting more creative with corn silage: “Production of High-Quality Forage through Unique Forage Blends” presented by Dr. Ishwary Acharya.  Ward Laboratories Inc. tested 1,451 corn silage samples and 2,197 total silage samples of all types in 2016.  So, I have seen the range and variation in the nutrient quality of silages used in the area.  Dr. Acharya’s research focused on making the best possible silage for a dairy operation, as he stated in his talk, “the ultimate measure of forage quality is milk production”.  Being in central Nebraska, I think his research could not only increase the nutritional content of the silages produced, but also the value of grazing the cornstalks by a beef enterprise after harvest.

The idea behind Dr. Acharya’s presentation was to double crop corn and vining soybeans to produce high protein low fiber silage without sacrificing yield.  First, to produce the best possible corn silage, the crop was chopped higher than producers typically chop corn silage.  This resulted in less stock and more leaves, husks, and cob in the silage.  Therefore, yield was compromised for higher protein and lower fiber concentrations.  The second part of the presentation explained that to overcome the sacrifice of yield, vining soybeans could be intercropped with the corn.  Therefore, when chopping for silage at a higher level, the soybean plant material made up for the loss of stocks in the yield.  In this study, the resulting silage had increase yield, forage quality, and protein compared with typical corn silage.  Dr. Acharya interseeded the vining soybean at various rates and determined that the optimal rate was somewhere between 67% corn 33% soybeans and a 50:50 mix.  The study also looked at the optimal time for fermentation based on pH and presence of volatile compounds that have affect on rumen function and animal performance.  At 60 days of fermentation Dr. Acharya determined that fermentation had not gone to completion and the silage should be ensiled for at least a 90-day period.  This finding agrees with other literature I have read on the topic.

Dr. Acharya’s idea of double cropping to create a high-quality forage source for dairy cattle could also be of benefit to beef cow calf pairs grazing the remaining corn stalks.  If soybeans were intercropped, I would predict that there would be some beans and vining materials left in the field which would be higher in protein and lower in fiber than the corn stalks alone.  Of course, I would advocate that producers test both their silage and try to get a representative idea of what has been left on their field to provide necessary supplementation.  For the silage, I would recommend testing crude protein, acid detergent fiber to predict energy values and neutral detergent fiber to predict dry matter intakes at a minimum noting that the sample would need to be ran as a wet chemistry feed test and that the addition of soybean to the silage would not allow for a reliable and accurate NIR scan.  For the grazing stocks and soybeans, I would run the same test to get an idea if protein or energy supplementation are necessary.  I would also caution that soybeans do contain urease and we typically do not graze cattle on soybeans fields as they risk urease toxicity if they have recently consumed non-protein nitrogen (NPN), therefore when considering supplementation strategies for cattle grazing a field of cornstalks intercropped with vining soybeans, lick tubs or mineral mixes with urea could not be utilized.

As, with any novel feed, always monitor animal body condition, production and health to ensure it is providing the nutrients required.  Don’t be afraid to try something new.  It might be of benefit to your operation weather it is vining soybean corn silage or grazing cover crops or feeding from the waste stream, feed testing and good ration and diet formulation can lead to success of a livestock operation.

Feeding Wild Animals

Intermittently, I receive a phone call asking me about the interpretation of a feed analysis for a wild animal as opposed to domesticated livestock whose nutrient requirements I am more familiar with.  These phone calls usually make me do a little more research and I learn something new about animal nutrition with each inquiry.

The first time this happened, I was new to consulting here at Ward Laboratories, INC.  A producer called asking why his pheasants were suddenly losing their feathers and then dying.  The situation was dire, and his story was quite startling.  As it turned out, he was offered a very good deal on some wheat grain and had decided that would be the feed source for his pheasants.  Luckily for me the nutrient requirements for pheasants are listed in the National Research Council’s Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, so I was able to make a direct comparison between the grain he was feeding and the bird’s requirements.   It turned out that wheat grain was very high in energy, however much lower than the protein, and mineral requirements of ring neck pheasants.  The moral of that story was to have a solid understanding of the nutrient requirements of the animal you are feeding along with knowledge of the nutrients the feed is providing.

A common wild animal I get asked about is deer.  Most of these questions are about supplemental feed for deer for hunting purposes.  Deer are unique in because antler growth is very important to hunters.  For optimal antler growth deer have a very high requirement for protein.  It is recommended that a supplemental feed be greater than 16% crude protein.  Deer are also browsing animals not grazing animals meaning that they select the most nutritious portions of plants for consumption.  So, it has been shown that the total diet of a deer in the wild can be between 20-24% crude protein.  A lot of livestock producers want to utilize leftover feed supplements to feed deer on their property.  These supplements were formulated for livestock species consuming roughages not wild browse therefore, those feeds may cause health issues for deer.  Sheep and goat feed is low in copper and other important minerals and may cause a deficiency for deer.  Horse supplemental feeds are typically for active horses and therefore high in starch which may result in acidosis when consumed by a deer.

Most recently, I was asked about feeding bison.  Being unfamiliar with nutritional requirements of bison, I did a little research.  Nutrient requirements of bison have not been studied as extensively and are not as well defined as beef cattle.  Bison are more efficient utilizers of fiber than beef cattle.  They prefer to consume large amounts of grass to smaller amounts of legumes.  For the most efficient finishing production bison should be provided with a diet at about 14% crude protein and 70-90% concentrate diet so that energy does not limit growth.   Crude protein requirements for bison at other stages are not well defined but are thought to be just below those for productive beef cattle.  This is because nitrogen recycling is more prevalent in these wild ruminants than in cattle.  A management challenge bison producers face is the sensitivity of bison to cool temperatures and shorter photoperiods.  Instinctually, these animals conserve energy during the winter and consume less feed, gain less and are less productive in the winter months.  However, during summer months, bison consume more feed, gain weight at a quicker rate and are more productive.

When feeding wild animals, be sure to do some research and familiarize yourself with that animal’s nutrient requirements, as well as common feeding practices by other producers or game promoters.  Then be sure you understand the feed ingredients and how they are going to meet those nutritional requirements. Ward Laboratories Inc. can test your feeds to get an accurate report of the nutritents in the feeds you are supplementing and I am here as a consultant to help you research the nutritnet requirements of different animals.   After meticulously formulating a diet or supplement, monitor the animals you are feeding to ensure they are healthy and productive.

Feeding the Bugs Part 2: 7 Feed Additives to Modify Rumen Metabolism

The two most common issues that occur when feeding ruminant animals are bloat and acidosis.  Bloat is the result of gases not being able to escape from the rumen.  It can occur on a forage-based diet due to rapid fermentation of soluble protein and readily available carbohydrates resulting in a frothy entrapment of rumen gases.  In the feedlots, bloat is typically a secondary symptom to rapid starch fermentation and acidosis and froth may or may not be present. Acidosis occurs on grain-based diets and is the result of decreased pH in the rumen due to rapid starch fermentation and excess lactic acid presence in the rumen. While bloat is an issue on forage diets, ruminants were adapted to consume a mostly forage diet, but it is not conducive to efficient animal production.  Therefore, cattle are often placed on high grain diets for growing and finishing at a high rate of efficiency. Along with increased production on a grain-based diet comes the increased incidence of acidosis and bloat.  Here are how 7 feed additives modify the fermentation process in the rumen to prevent bloat and acidosis.

 

  1. Proanthocyanidins also known as condensed tannins, are found in plants such as apples, tree bark, grapes and cranberries. These compounds when present in the rumen at 1-5ppm DM intake, can precipitate soluble protein thereby preventing the accumulation of froth decreasing the incidence of bloat. We are in the day and age where crop improvements are often from manipulation of genetic material to suppress unwanted plant characteristics such as in low lignin varieties of alfalfa and corn. Currently, the consortium for alfalfa improvement is researching the possibility of varieties expressing condensed tannins to prevent legume bloat.  This variety may be available in 8 to 10 years if the process proceeds in a similar way to the low lignin varieties.

 

  1. Poloxalene is a surfactant which breaks up the soluble protein froth thereby preventing pasture or legume bloat. It can top dress a ration or be offered in a molasses lick.

 

  1. Ionophores are a chemical compound that inhibits the growth and activity of gram-positive bacteria in the rumen. Gram-positive bacteria only have one outer cell membrane as opposed to gram negative bacteria that have two and are therefore not susceptible to the effects of ionophores on the bacterial cell. Common gram-positive bacteria in the rumen include cellulolytic bacteria and methanogens.  Therefore, the fermentation pathways in the rumen are shifted so that less methane gas is produced and more useful compounds such as volatile fatty acids, which can be utilized by the animal are produced.  Ammonia producing bacteria in the rumen also tend to be gram-positive and consequently less protein is degraded to ammonia and by-pass protein increases.  Ionophores were originally fed because they change the feed intake habits of the animal to consuming smaller amounts throughout the day which decreases acidosis occurrence.  The ultimate result of feeding ionophores on animal production is decreased feed intake, increased rate of gain and thereby improved feed efficiency.

 

  1. Buffers include bicarbonate, limestone and magnesium oxide. These compounds increase rumen pH, decreasing acidity. When animals are fed buffers, cellulolytic bacteria populations increase, amylolytic bacterial populations decline and the rate of starch fermentation decreases resulting in less incidence of acidosis.

 

  1. Direct Fed Microbials (DFM) are just as they sound, the purposeful feeding of specific microbial species to alter ruminal microbe populations. When feeding DFM the bacterial population is meant to shift from lactic acid producing bacteria to lactic acid using bacteria thereby preventing acidosis. With this feed additive results vary, and they do not always exhibit an impact on acidosis.

 

  1. Enzymes that are meant to break down fibers are sometimes fed to increase forage utilization in the rumen.

 

  1. Essential Oils are naturally occurring plant secondary metabolites. They are not well understood, and research results are varying. They are currently thought to have the potential to alter rumen fermentation pathways, but the mechanism is not known.

 

Although the above feed additives can help prevent bloat and acidosis, they can not replace a properly formulated step-up ration and diet or production practices such as backgrounding.  One of the best ways to prevent these aliments is to test feed ingredients and formulate a diet plan that moves animals from a low energy forage-based diet to a high energy high-grain diet gradually.  This allows those intermediate acid utilizing bacteria with a slower turn over rate to catch up with the diet and reduce the chances of acidosis.

Feeding the Bugs Part 1: Exploring the Interactions of Rumen Microbes

Soil microbes are all the buzz these days, but what about rumen microbes?  Currently, it is very common to go to a ruminant nutrition meeting and hear about feeding the microbes first.  This is especially the case with the NRC Nutrient Requirements of Beef using the microbial protein and bypass protein system.  There are four groups of microbes that can be found in the largest compartment of the four-chambered stomach, the rumen.  These groups are bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and archaea. These microbes make up a diverse microbial community that behaves synergistically to prevent feedback end-products of fermentation, and to ensure rapid fermentation and digestion of feed.  Understanding how these microbes perform and interact in the rumen can help producers to understand why certain feeds have the effects that they do in the rumen, for example why acidosis or bloat is more likely to occur on certain diets and how a step-up ration can help prevent these digestive issues.

Bacteria are small in size and replicate quickly making them the most populous microbe in the rumen at about 100,000,000,000 cells / mL of rumen fluid.  Therefore, they play an important role in ruminal fermentation.

Cellulolytic bacteria are important to the breakdown of the fibrous structure of the plant material.  They adhere to forages to avoid predation by other microbes and utilize cellulase, a membrane bound enzyme, to breakdown plant fibers.  Populations of cellulolytic bacteria are highly affected by rumen pH.  On high forage diets, lots of ruminating is needed to breakdown the feed into small particle sizes for fermentation resulting in lots of buffering saliva present in the rumen allowing cellulolytic bacteria to thrive.  On high grain diets, cellulolytic populations decline as pH decreases and the rumen becomes more acidic. Important species of cellulolytic bacteria include Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococcus albus, and Ruminoccuc flavefaciens.

Hemicellulolytic bacteria degrade hemicellulose into sugars, which can be used as a substrate of fermentation by other microbes in the rumen.  Most Ruminococcus bacteria fall into this category.

Amylolytic bacteria can utilize ammonia as a nitrogen source, and amylase, a secreted enzyme, to breakdown starches.  Like cellulolytic bacteria, their populations are also regulated by pH.  Inversely to cellulolytic bacteria, amylolytic bacteria are more prevalent on a high grain diet and decline with increasing pH and rumen buffers.  Amylolytic bacteria produce lactic acid which sometimes results in lactic acidosis.  Streptococcus bovis is an important species of amylolytic bacteria.

Intermediate acid utilizing bacteria are also very important to rumen fermentation.  These species utilize lactic acid, and succinyl acid as a fermentation substrate.  Intermediate acid utilizing bacteria are key to adaptation to high grain diets, however their reproductive rate is significantly slower than other bacteria, making production management such as backgrounding or implementing a step-up ration that much more important in the prevention of acidosis.  Important species of intermediate acid utilizing bacteria are Megasphaera elsdenii and Selenomonas ruminantium.

Proteolytic bacteria are very important in the rumen as they breakdown protein into peptides, amino acids and ammonia for growth by other rumen microbes. They also produce branched chain fatty acids which stimulate the growth of cellulolytic bacteria.  Some important proteolytic species are Peptostreptococcus and Clostridia.

Ureolytic bacteria only make up 5% of the rumen microbial population and are associated with the rumen wall.  These bacteria can break urea into ammonia and carbon dioxide allowing other microbes to utilize the ammonia as a nitrogen source.

Lipolytic bacteria use both secreted and membrane bound lipases to breakdown fat.

Protozoa make up a smaller proportion of the rumen microbe population than bacteria, but 50% of the microbial mass due to their larger size.  Protozoa cannot utilize non-protein nitrogen in the form of urea or ammonia.  They also predate smaller microbes such as the bacteria discussed above.  Most protozoa digest non-structural carbohydrates such as sugars and starches.  They play a role in acidosis prevention by sequestering some starch away from amylolytic bacteria. There are two classes of protozoa associated with fiber digestion.

Holotrichs have a long replication time, and are very sensitive to low pH, acidic environments. Therefore, exist mainly on a high forage diet and are not present in animals fed a high grain diet.

Entodiniomorphs have a short replication time and a greater population than Holotrichs.  They are also more tolerant of low pH environments. Therefore, Entodiniomorphs are present in the rumen on a high grain diet but are less prevalent.

Fungi have very low populations in the rumen but are very important to fiber digestion.  Fungi utilize their hyphae to physically separate strands of fiber.  Picture the stem of a mushroom as the hyphae and the log it is growing out of as the cellulose bundle it is breaking down.  Fungi also produce cellulase, an enzyme for breaking down the fibrous portion of the plant.

Archaea are not very populous in the rumen, but their impact on the efficiency of fermentation is very important. Archaea are the major methanogen producers in the rumen.  They utilize hydrogen produced by cellulolytic bacteria to produce methane gas, which is eructated by the animal.  This eructation, is considered an air pollutant by staunch environmentalists and a source of decreased production efficiency by producers.  The ionophore Monensin can be utilized to decrease methanogen numbers.  Important species of archaea are Methanobrevibacter and Methanomicrobium.

The four groups of microbes present in the rumen, bacteria, protozoa, fungi and archaea, play a major role in how ruminants utilize various feeds especially forages and high starch concentrate.  An understanding of microbial roles and interactions in the rumen can help a producer understand the importance of feed testing when formulating a new ration, changing the ruminant’s diet from forage-based to grain-based, and preventing acidosis or bloat.