Effect of stocking density and effective fiber on the ruminal bacterial communities in lactating Holstein cows

Overstocking can be a major issue in the dairy cattle industry, leading to negative changes in feeding and resting behavior. Additional stress imposed and alterations in feeding behavior may significantly impact the rumen microbiome. The rumen microbiome is responsible for the successful conversion...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Brooke A. Clemmons, Mackenzie A. Campbell, Liesel G. Schneider, Richard J. Grant, Heather M. Dann, Peter D. Krawczel, Phillip R. Myer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: PeerJ Inc. 2020-04-01
Series:PeerJ
Subjects:
Online Access:https://peerj.com/articles/9079.pdf
_version_ 1797424265579986944
author Brooke A. Clemmons
Mackenzie A. Campbell
Liesel G. Schneider
Richard J. Grant
Heather M. Dann
Peter D. Krawczel
Phillip R. Myer
author_facet Brooke A. Clemmons
Mackenzie A. Campbell
Liesel G. Schneider
Richard J. Grant
Heather M. Dann
Peter D. Krawczel
Phillip R. Myer
author_sort Brooke A. Clemmons
collection DOAJ
description Overstocking can be a major issue in the dairy cattle industry, leading to negative changes in feeding and resting behavior. Additional stress imposed and alterations in feeding behavior may significantly impact the rumen microbiome. The rumen microbiome is responsible for the successful conversion of feed to usable energy for its host. Thus, understanding the effects of stocking density on the rumen microbiome is imperative for further elucidation of potentially negative consequences of overstocking in dairy cattle. This study implemented a Latin Square design accounting for four pens of cattle and four treatment periods so that all treatment combinations were assigned to every pen during one period of the study. Two treatment factors, including two levels of physically effective neutral detergent fiber, achieved with addition of chopped straw, and stocking density (100% vs. 142%) of freestalls and headlocks, were combined and tested within a factorial treatment design. Within each pen, three or four cannulated cows (n = 15 total) were sampled for rumen content on the final day of each treatment period. Each treatment was randomly assigned to a single pen for a 14-day period. The V1–V3 hypervariable regions of the 16S rRNA gene were targeted for bacterial analyses. Variables with approximately normally-distributed residuals and a Shapiro–Wilk statistic of ≥0.85 were analyzed using a mixed model analysis of variance with the GLIMMIX procedure with fixed effects of feed (straw vs. no straw), stocking density (100% vs. 142%), and the interaction of feed × stocking density, and random effects of pen, period, feed × stocking × pen × period. Pen was included as the experimental unit in a given period and the sampling unit as cow. Variables included Shannon’s Diversity Index, Faith’s phylogenetic diversity index, chao1, observed OTU, and Simpson’s evenness E as well as most individual taxa. Data were analyzed in SAS 9.4 utilizing the GLIMMIX procedure to perform mixed model analysis of variance. If data were not normally distributed, a ranked analysis was performed. No differences were observed in α-diversity metrics by fiber or stocking density (P > 0.05). Beta diversity was assessed using weighted and unweighted Unifrac distances in QIIME 1.9.1 and analyzed using ANOSIM. No differences were observed in weighted (P = 0.6660; R = −0.0121) nor unweighted (P = 0.9190; R = −0.0261) metrics and R values suggested similar bacterial communities among treatments. At the phylum level, Tenericutes differed among treatments with an interaction of stocking density by feed (P = 0.0066). At the genus level, several differences were observed by treatment, including Atopobium (P = 0.0129), unidentified members of order RF39 (P = 0.0139), and unidentified members of family Succinivibrionaceae (P = 0.0480). Although no diversity differences were observed, taxa differences may indicate that specific taxa are affected by the treatments, which may, in turn, affect animal production.
first_indexed 2024-03-09T07:59:48Z
format Article
id doaj.art-981e0643151a49b9a12f6f7f839061ea
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2167-8359
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-09T07:59:48Z
publishDate 2020-04-01
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format Article
series PeerJ
spelling doaj.art-981e0643151a49b9a12f6f7f839061ea2023-12-03T00:48:27ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592020-04-018e907910.7717/peerj.9079Effect of stocking density and effective fiber on the ruminal bacterial communities in lactating Holstein cowsBrooke A. Clemmons0Mackenzie A. Campbell1Liesel G. Schneider2Richard J. Grant3Heather M. Dann4Peter D. Krawczel5Phillip R. Myer6Animal Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USAWilliam H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute, Chazy, NY, USAAnimal Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USAWilliam H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute, Chazy, NY, USAWilliam H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute, Chazy, NY, USAAnimal Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USAAnimal Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USAOverstocking can be a major issue in the dairy cattle industry, leading to negative changes in feeding and resting behavior. Additional stress imposed and alterations in feeding behavior may significantly impact the rumen microbiome. The rumen microbiome is responsible for the successful conversion of feed to usable energy for its host. Thus, understanding the effects of stocking density on the rumen microbiome is imperative for further elucidation of potentially negative consequences of overstocking in dairy cattle. This study implemented a Latin Square design accounting for four pens of cattle and four treatment periods so that all treatment combinations were assigned to every pen during one period of the study. Two treatment factors, including two levels of physically effective neutral detergent fiber, achieved with addition of chopped straw, and stocking density (100% vs. 142%) of freestalls and headlocks, were combined and tested within a factorial treatment design. Within each pen, three or four cannulated cows (n = 15 total) were sampled for rumen content on the final day of each treatment period. Each treatment was randomly assigned to a single pen for a 14-day period. The V1–V3 hypervariable regions of the 16S rRNA gene were targeted for bacterial analyses. Variables with approximately normally-distributed residuals and a Shapiro–Wilk statistic of ≥0.85 were analyzed using a mixed model analysis of variance with the GLIMMIX procedure with fixed effects of feed (straw vs. no straw), stocking density (100% vs. 142%), and the interaction of feed × stocking density, and random effects of pen, period, feed × stocking × pen × period. Pen was included as the experimental unit in a given period and the sampling unit as cow. Variables included Shannon’s Diversity Index, Faith’s phylogenetic diversity index, chao1, observed OTU, and Simpson’s evenness E as well as most individual taxa. Data were analyzed in SAS 9.4 utilizing the GLIMMIX procedure to perform mixed model analysis of variance. If data were not normally distributed, a ranked analysis was performed. No differences were observed in α-diversity metrics by fiber or stocking density (P > 0.05). Beta diversity was assessed using weighted and unweighted Unifrac distances in QIIME 1.9.1 and analyzed using ANOSIM. No differences were observed in weighted (P = 0.6660; R = −0.0121) nor unweighted (P = 0.9190; R = −0.0261) metrics and R values suggested similar bacterial communities among treatments. At the phylum level, Tenericutes differed among treatments with an interaction of stocking density by feed (P = 0.0066). At the genus level, several differences were observed by treatment, including Atopobium (P = 0.0129), unidentified members of order RF39 (P = 0.0139), and unidentified members of family Succinivibrionaceae (P = 0.0480). Although no diversity differences were observed, taxa differences may indicate that specific taxa are affected by the treatments, which may, in turn, affect animal production.https://peerj.com/articles/9079.pdfStocking densityEffective fiberRumenBacteriaCattleMicrobes
spellingShingle Brooke A. Clemmons
Mackenzie A. Campbell
Liesel G. Schneider
Richard J. Grant
Heather M. Dann
Peter D. Krawczel
Phillip R. Myer
Effect of stocking density and effective fiber on the ruminal bacterial communities in lactating Holstein cows
PeerJ
Stocking density
Effective fiber
Rumen
Bacteria
Cattle
Microbes
title Effect of stocking density and effective fiber on the ruminal bacterial communities in lactating Holstein cows
title_full Effect of stocking density and effective fiber on the ruminal bacterial communities in lactating Holstein cows
title_fullStr Effect of stocking density and effective fiber on the ruminal bacterial communities in lactating Holstein cows
title_full_unstemmed Effect of stocking density and effective fiber on the ruminal bacterial communities in lactating Holstein cows
title_short Effect of stocking density and effective fiber on the ruminal bacterial communities in lactating Holstein cows
title_sort effect of stocking density and effective fiber on the ruminal bacterial communities in lactating holstein cows
topic Stocking density
Effective fiber
Rumen
Bacteria
Cattle
Microbes
url https://peerj.com/articles/9079.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT brookeaclemmons effectofstockingdensityandeffectivefiberontheruminalbacterialcommunitiesinlactatingholsteincows
AT mackenzieacampbell effectofstockingdensityandeffectivefiberontheruminalbacterialcommunitiesinlactatingholsteincows
AT lieselgschneider effectofstockingdensityandeffectivefiberontheruminalbacterialcommunitiesinlactatingholsteincows
AT richardjgrant effectofstockingdensityandeffectivefiberontheruminalbacterialcommunitiesinlactatingholsteincows
AT heathermdann effectofstockingdensityandeffectivefiberontheruminalbacterialcommunitiesinlactatingholsteincows
AT peterdkrawczel effectofstockingdensityandeffectivefiberontheruminalbacterialcommunitiesinlactatingholsteincows
AT philliprmyer effectofstockingdensityandeffectivefiberontheruminalbacterialcommunitiesinlactatingholsteincows