Review Article

The Role of Direct-Fed Microbes to

Ruminants: A Review
Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe*
Department of Animal Sciences, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Mekdela
Amba University, Tulu Awulia, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT
Feed additives are used in livestock feed and feeding to increase feed quality, the
utility of feed derived from animals, and the performance and health of the animals.
Digestibility gravies, rumen flora stabilizers, and microbial are some of the zoo's
technological additions. Direct feed microbial are characterized as microbial-based
feed additives, with a tighter definition than probiotics. It improves feed use by
boosting energy usage per unit of feed and enhancing fiber digestibility. The term
direct-fed microbial (DFM) was coined by the Food and Drug Administration and the
American Feed Regulator Representatives Associations to describe a feed product that
contains live, naturally occurring microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, and yeast;
the bacteria can produce or consume lactic acid. Microbial feed additives have
traditionally been given to animals during stressful times in the hopes of establishing a
beneficial microbe population in the digestive tract, which would reduce or prevent
harmful organism development. DFM has several mechanisms of action, some of
which affect the rumen and others which affect the gastrointestinal system. Lactic
acid-generating bacteria (LAB) have a favorable impact on the rumen by reducing
ruminal acidosis, encouraging the proliferation of ruminal microorganisms that have
adapted to the presence of lactic acid in the rumen, and boosting lactic acid-using
bacteria (LUB). LUB has been presented as a DFM that can lower lactate levels while
maintaining ruminal pH. Through hydrophobic interactions, DFM can block or

Corresponding Author: Zemedkun Diffe < [email protected]>

Cite this Article: Kassa, T., and Diffe, Z. (2022). The Role of Direct Fed Microbes to Ruminants: A
Review. Global Journal of Animal Scientific Research, 10(2), 1-13.
Retrieved from http://www.gjasr.com/index.php/GJASR/article/view/108
Article History: Received: 2022.03.09 Accepted: 2022.05.03
Copyright © 2022 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No

Derivatives 4.0 International License.
1
 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 10(2), 1-13

prevent pathogens like Escherichia coli from attaching to the intestinal mucosa. DFM
medication helps dairy calves adapt quickly to solid feed by speeding up the formation
of ruminal and intestinal microbes and preventing the spread of enteric pathogens,
which can cause diarrhea. DFM was utilized to improve dairy cow performance by
improving dry matter intake, milk output and protein content, as well as blood glucose
and insulin levels before and after delivery. DFM is critical in beef cattle to prevent
ruminal acidosis induced by highly fermentable diets, as well as to promote growth,
meat output, and feed efficiency. Powders, pastes, boluses, and capsules are only
some of the direct-fed microbial products available. It can be added to feed or ingested
by drinking water. According to one study, feeding more than 107 CFU per head per
day may cause lower nutrient absorption due to overpopulation in the gastrointestinal
tract.
Keywords: Direct feed microbial, lactic acid-producing bacteria, lactic acid utilizing
bacteria, mode of action.

INTRODUCTION
Direct feed microbial are characterized as microbial-based feed additives, with a
tighter definition than probiotics. It improves feed use by increasing fiber digestibility,
boosting energy use per unit of feed, and lowering feed costs (Beauchemin et al.,
2008). overcrowding of the gastrointestinal tract has the power to influence the
immunological system of the host
Ruminant animals and bacteria have developed a symbiotic connection in which
microorganisms may ferment plant cell wall polysaccharides that are resistant to
mammalian enzymatic degradation. The symbiotic connection fills a need in the
ecosystem, and the conversion of complex plant sugars to energy benefits both the
host animal and microbial symbionts (Knapp et al., 2014).
The reticulum, rumen, omasum, and abomasum make up the ruminant digestive
system. The principal fermentation activities in the ruminant's digestive tract take
place mostly in the rumen (Tharwat et al., 2012). Microorganisms create the enzymes
found in the rumen. These enzymes help ruminants digest and ferment their food,
hence the Rumen is thought of as a fermentation vat (Aschenbach et al., 2011).
Even with intensely concentrated feeding systems, forages remain the most significant
component of ruminant animals' diets (Beauchemin et al., 2003). However, huge
amounts of fiber components creating plant cell walls limit energy accessibility from
forages, limiting feed intake and animal performance (Jung and Allen, 1995).
Producers have been encouraged to provide greater starch diets due to fiber digestion
issues. However, dietary starch content can be difficult to control and can have
negative repercussions on the rumen environment, putting cows at risk for subacute
2

ruminal acidosis and a frequent digestive problem (Enermark, 2008).

Page
 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 10(2), 1-13

Rumen microbial research aim to increase feed utilization, animal productivity and
health, and animal food safety for the reasons stated above. These objectives can be
met by utilizing feed additives to facilitate optimal fermentation, reduce ruminal
diseases, and eliminate pathogens. Antibiotics, probiotics, and prebiotics have been
researched in the rumens and digestive tracts of cattle animals to modify the microbial
environment and fermentation properties (Hong et al., 2005).
Poppy (2008) defines feed additives as "items used in animal nutrition to increase the
quality of feed, the quality of food from animals, or the performance and health of
animals." They are divided into the following categories: Technological supplements
(e.g. preservatives, antioxidants, emulsifiers, stabilizing agents, acidity regulators,
silage additives), Sensory enhancers (e.g. flavors, colorants), Vitamins, minerals,
amino acids, and trace elements are examples of nutritional additions (e.g. digestibility
enhancers, gut flora stabilizers) Histomonostats and coccidiostats (additives used in
poultry diets for health reasons).
Feed costs account for 40 to 60% of the overall cost of production in farm animals
(Bozic et al, 2012), hence nutritionists are always looking for ways to improve feed
utilization, which may be done by improving feedstuff dietary digestibility. As a
result, the goal of this study is to evaluate the microorganisms employed as DFM,
their mechanism of action and effects, as well as practical considerations and a path
ahead.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Direct-fed microbes (DFM)
Sub-therapeutic dosages of antibiotics have been used in feed to stimulate growth and
preserve health in farm animals, but feeding antibiotics to animals was forbidden in
the European Union (EU) in 2006 owing to worries about rising bacterial antibiotic
resistance in people (Prieto et al., 2014). Concerns over the use of antibiotics in
animal agriculture have sparked interest in finding alternatives to antimicrobial feed
additives (Martin et al., 1999).
The potential use of probiotics in feeding operations has been emphasized by societal
concerns about the use of antibiotics and other growth stimulants in agricultural
production, as well as the necessity for farmers to adopt preventative measures against
pathogen outbreaks in the food supply (Elam et al., 2003; Krehbiel et al., 2003).
Ruminal probiotics are "live cultures of microorganisms that are intentionally
introduced into the rumen to enhance animal health or nutrition," according to the
definition. Probiotic is a broad phrase that refers to a variety of microbial cultures,
extracts, and enzyme preparations (Elam et al., 2003).
The term Direct-Fed Microbials (DFM) is used to describe feed products that contain
3

a source of life, naturally occurring microorganisms, such as bacteria, fungi, and

Page
 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 10(2), 1-13

yeast, according to the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Regulatory Affairs
(2003) and the Association of American Feed Control Officials (1999).
DFM is a wide term that encompasses a variety of conditions. They may be divided
into three categories: bacterial, fungal, and a mix of both. Lactic acid-generating
bacteria (LAB), lactic acid-using bacteria (LUB), and other microorganisms are all
possible classifications for bacterial DFM strains. Lactobacillus, Propionibacterium,
Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus, Streptococcus, and Bacillus are all frequent bacteria
found in bacterial DFM for ruminants, as well as Megasphaera elsdenii and Prevotella
bryantii (Kung, 2006; Seo et al., 2010). DFM grows in the rumen and changes the
microbial environment and fermentation properties for the better. DFM may
potentially find a home in the digestive system (Seo et al., 2010).
To be successful, microbial feed supplement solutions must meet the following
criteria: The microbial strain must be non-pathogenic and non-toxic to the host
animal, capable of producing antimicrobial agents, antagonistic toward pathogenic
(Kullen and Klaenhammer, 1999), able to adhere to and colonize the epithelial cells of
the rumen and gut, capable of competing with normal microflora and metabolizing in
the gut environment (e.g., resistant to low pH, organic acids, bile salts, and digestive
enzymes), genetically stable ( Parvez et al., 2006).

Microorganisms Used as Direct-Fed Microbes

Supplementation of fungal cultures (Aspergillus oryzae, Saccharomyces cerevisiae),
lactate producing (Enterococcus) and lactate-utilizing (Propionibacterium) bacterial
species, as well as Bifidobacterium spp., and Bacillus spp., are the most common
DFM interventions of ruminal fermentation to promote desirable intestinal microflora,
improve nutrient utilization, and stabilize pH to promote (NRC, 2001; Beauchemin,
2003 and FAO, 2013)
Based on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA, 2003) and the Association of
American Feed Control Officials (AAFC, 1999), Seo et al., (2010) identified the
microorganisms that are employed as direct feed microbial for ruminants. Those
microorganisms are listed in Table 1.

Modes of Action of DFM

According to Azzaz et al., (2016), microbial feed additives have traditionally been
given to animals during stressful times in the hopes of establishing a beneficial
microorganism population in the digestive system, which would reduce or prevent
harmful organism establishment. When an animal is stressed, however, the gut
microflora changes. An increase in the quantity of coliform and other enterotoxigenic
bacteria is frequently seen.
4

Any of the following factors might cause an animal to become stressed:

Page

Environmental stress (thermal, moisture, crowding, and sanitary conditions),

 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 10(2), 1-13

Emotional stress (handling or shipping, changes in pen-mates, and weaning), and

Disease stress (nutrient shortage or excess, and antagonism between levels of two or
more nutrients) (infectious and metabolic). To boost production performance, change
ruminal fermentation, or improve nutrient usage, microbial feed additives should be
supplied continually (Azzaz et al., 2016).

Table 2: Microorganisms used as DFM for ruminants

Genus Species
Lactic acid-producing bacteria (LAB)
Lactobacillusplantarum
Lactobacillus casei
Lactobacillus gallinarum
Lacto bacillus
Lactobacillus salivarius
Lactobacillus reuteri
Lactobacillus bulgaricus
Bifidobacterium pseudolongum
Bifidobacterium thermophilium
Bifidobacterium
Bifidobacterium longum
Bifidobacterium lactis
Streptococcus bovis
Streptococcus
Streptococcus faecium
Enterococcus faecium
Enterococcus
Enterococcus faecal
Lactic acid utilizing bacteria (LUB)
Megasphaera Megasphaera elsdenii
Propionibacterium shermanii
Propionibacterium freudenreichii
Propionibacterium
Propionibacterium acidipropionici
Propionibacterium jensenii
Other bacteria
Prevotella Prevotella bryantii
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus Bacillus licheniformis
Bacillus coagulans
Yeast
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Saccharomyces
Saccharomyces boulardii
Fungi
Aspergillus oryzae
Aspergillus
Aspergillus niger
Source: Seo et al., (2010)
5
Page
 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 10(2), 1-13

Bacterial DFM
Many factors influence the manner of action of bacterial DFM, including doses,
feeding periods and frequencies, and DFM strains. DFM affects the rumen and the
gastrointestinal system in different ways (Puniya et al., 2015).
(1) within the rumen: LAB and LUB have a major role in the mode of action of
various DFM sources in the rumen. LAB may have a favorable effect on the rumen by
avoiding ruminal acidosis in dairy cows (Nocek et al., 2002). By activating LUB and
facilitating the proliferation of ruminal bacteria suited to the presence of lactic acid in
the rumen. LUB has been presented as a DFM that can lower lactate levels while
maintaining ruminal pH. (Yoon and Stern, 1995). When fed a highly fermentable diet,
Megasphaera elsdenii, the predominant lactate-utilizing bacteria in the rumen, inhibits
the severe pH reductions induced by lactate buildup in the rumen (Yang et al., 2004
and Kung, 2006). Another bacterial species observed in large numbers in the rumen of
animals fed forage and medium concentration diets is the Propioni bacterium (Kung,
2006). Among the volatile fatty acids, propionate is the most essential single precursor
of glucose production (VFA). Stein et al. (2006) discovered that specific species of
Propioni bacteria can alter rumen fermentation and increase the molar fraction of
ruminal propionate. In early lactation in dairy cows, it can convert lactate to
propionate, resulting in enhanced hepatic glucose production, more substrates for
lactose synthesis, improved energy efficiency, and reduced ketosis (Weiss et al.,
2008). Propionate is thought to account for 61 to 67 percent of glucose release in
developing ruminants and nursing cows (Huntington, 2000). According to the
stoichiometric rules of chemical balance and its equation, increasing propionate has
been followed by a reduction in methane (CH4) generation (Van Soest, 1994).
(2) In the post-ruminal gastrointestinal tract, DFM can restrict or prevent pathogens
like Escherichia coli from sticking to the intestinal mucosa via hydrophobic
interactions, as well as limit pathogens from binding to the enterocytic receptor or
creating enterotoxins that cause diarrhoea (Lee et al., 2003 and Kung 2006). LAB was
able to stick to the intestine and protect the mice against Salmonella (Frizzo et al.,
2010). LAB has important functions in infiltrating microbial cells and interfering with
fundamental cell function, in addition to creating lactate and acetate as key metabolic
end-products (Holzapfel et al., 1998).
Another mechanism is that DFM and LAB can create antibacterial chemicals with
competitive exclusion and probiotic properties, such as bacteriocin and hydrogen
peroxide. The sulfhydryl groups of metabolic enzymes such as glucose transport
enzymes, hexokinase, and glycerol aldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase can be
oxidized by hydrogen peroxide, leading glycolysis to be blocked (Dicks and Botes,
2010). LAB bacteriocins, on the other hand, can prevent substrates from binding to the
6

rib nucleotide reductase subunit, therefore interfering with target microorganism DNA
Page

synthesis (Dicks and Botes, 2010).

 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 10(2), 1-13

DFM have the power to influence the immunological system of the host. Dendritic
cells, natural killer cells, macrophages, neutrophils, and T and B lymphocytes are
among the immune cells found in the GIT's Peyer's patches, lamina propria, and
intraepithelial areas (Krehbiel et al., 2003). DFM are immediately taken up by
intestinal epithelial cells by transcytosis, then engulfed by antigen-presenting cells,
macrophages, or dendritic cells, ultimately triggering an immunological response
(Dicks and Botes, 2010).

Fungal DFM
In ruminants, fungal DFMs are commonly utilized to improve performance and
regulate rumen fermentation. The most commonly employed species are
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae and Aspergillus Oryzae (Elghandour et al., 2014a and
Puniya et al., 2015).
When ruminants are given fungal-based DFM, several mechanisms have been
proposed to explain changes in ruminal fermentation and improvements in
performance. Fungal cultures may help the ruminal bacteria Selenomonas
ruminantium utilize lactate more effectively by supplying dicarboxylic acids and other
growth factors. When ruminants are fed high concentration diets, yeast may aid to
buffer excess lactic acid generation by mediating the abrupt dips in rumen pH. (Kung,
2006). Furthermore, yeasts may remove oxygen from the surfaces of recently eaten
feed, allowing the rumen to retain metabolic activity while remaining anaerobic.
Another process relies on yeast's capacity to lower the rumen's redox potential, which
allows strict anaerobic cellulolytic bacteria to grow more easily, accelerates their
adhesion to fodder particles, and boosts the initial rate of cellulolysis (Newbold et al.,
1996).
Furthermore, S. cerevisiae was able to compete with other starch-using bacteria for
starch fermentation, limiting lactate buildup in the rumen, supplying growth factors
such as organic acids or vitamins, and stimulating ruminal cellulolytic bacteria and
LUB (Lynch and Martin, 2002).

Effect of DFM on Ruminant Performance

Pre ruminant calves (Young Calves)
Young calves vary from adult ruminants in that they may digest a large number of diet
nutrients in their gut, but this comes with the danger of intestinal proliferation of
harmful organisms, which can lead to diarrhoea and weight loss. The major purpose of
DFM administration for dairy calves, according to Kung (2001), is to aid quick
adaptation to solid feed by increasing the creation of ruminal and intestinal microbes
while preventing the establishment of enteropathogens, which typically results in
7

diarrhea.
Page
 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 10(2), 1-13

According to Dicks and Botes (2010), Bifidobacteria generates acetic and lactic acids
in a 3:1 ratio, and these acids are more efficient in the GIT for controlling Gram-
negative infections and yeasts. Young calves were also infected with LAB to help
them develop faster (Adams et al., 2008 & Frizzo et al., 2010). Adams et al. (2008)
discovered that giving Propionibacterium jensenii 702 (PJ702) to calves improves
weight increase throughout both the pre-weaning and weaning periods, with heavier
calves' final weight. To create an intestinal imbalance, LAB fed newborn calves milk
replacer and a huge amount of spray-dried whey powder. Calves fed LAB showed
better daily growth, total feed intake, and starting diet consumption, as well as a lower
fecal consistency score, indicating that diarrhea incidence was reduced under these
conditions (Frizzo et al., 2010).
Feeding L. acidophilus 27SC to calves considerably reduced the incidence of
diarrhoea, according to Abu-Tarboush et al. (1996). Lactobacillus and Streptococcus
species are the most prevalent DFM species in young calves. There have been several
reports of a reduction in diarrhea.

Adult ruminants
Early lactation high-producing cows would be the greatest candidates for such goods
since they are in a negative energy balance and have diets high in fermentable carbs,
which can lead to acidosis (Kung, 2006).
Cows may be subjected to many metabolic disorders during the three weeks prior to
calving to three weeks after calving (i.e., transition periods) as a result of calving
stress, changing diets to rapidly fermented carbohydrate sources, and lactation,
according to the findings of Oetzel et al., (2007) and Chiquette et al., (2008). In this
scenario, DFM was employed to improve dairy cow performance by boosting dry
matter intake, milk output, milk protein content, and pre-and post-partum blood
glucose and insulin levels (Nocek et al., 2003; Nocek and Kautz, 2006; and Oetzel et
al.,2007).
Weiss et al., (2008) supplemented dairy cows with Propionibacterium P169 from 2
weeks before expected calving to 119 days in milk, finding reduced quantities of
acetate and higher concentrations of propionate and butyrate. DFM did not affect
plasma glucose or plasma-hydroxybutyrate levels, but it did result in greater plasma
non-esterified fatty acid concentrations. Cows given Propionibacterium P169
consumed less dry matter, increasing their energy efficiency by 4.4 percent.
P. bryantii 25A treatment did not affect milk supply, but it did seem to increase milk
fat due to increased acetate and butyrate concentrations in the rumen, according to
Chiquette et al., (2008). When compared to control treatments, P. bryantii 25A
lowered lactate concentration after 2–3 hours of feeding, indicating that it can prevent
8

acidosis.
Page
 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 10(2), 1-13

The use of exogenous cellulolytic bacteria as DFM to promote ruminal fermentation

has been investigated. Ruminococcus flavefaciens NJ was given to non-lactating dairy
cows who were fed either a high concentrate or a high forage diet regularly. When
administered as part of a high concentration diet, R. flavefaciens NJ altered the
abundance of other cellulolytic bacterial communities and enhanced sacco
digestibility of hay in the rumen (Chiquette et al., 2008).
DFM is critical in finishing beef cattle to minimize ruminal acidosis induced by
widely used highly fermentable diets. DFM-fed beef cattle demonstrated
enhanced growth, meat output, and feed efficiency (Ghorbani et al., 2002;
Krehbiel et al., 2003). According to Krehbiel et al. (2003), giving bacterial
DFM to feedlot cattle leads to a 2.5 to 5% increase in daily gain and a 2%
improvement in feed efficiency, whereas DMI proved inconclusive.

DFM Practical Considerations

Powders, pastes, boluses, and capsules are only some of the direct-fed microbial
products available. DFM can be blended with feed or injected into drinking water in
specific situations. However, because interactions with chlorine, water temperature,
minerals, flow rate, and antibiotics can alter the survival of DFM organisms, their
usage in water must be carefully monitored (Kung, 2011).
Non-hydroscopic whey is frequently employed as a carrier for bacterial DFM and is
an excellent growth medium. Bacterial DFM pastes are made using vegetable oil and
inert gelling agents, whereas fungal DFM pastes are made with grain by-products as
carriers. Some DFM is intended for one-time use, while others are intended to be fed
regularly. Furthermore, bacterial DFM dosage levels have been reported to vary in
investigations where L. acidophilus was fed at levels ranging from 106 to 1010 colony
forming units (CFU) per animal per day (Kung, 2011). According to research by
Hutchenson et al., (1980), feeding more than 107 CFU per head per day may result in
decreased nutritional absorption due to overpopulation in the gastrointestinal tract
(GIT). Feeding a continuous high dosage of L.acidophilus to feeder calves (1010
CFU/head/day) did not affect body weight increase but lowered feed efficiency when
compared to feeding a lower dose of 106 CFU/head/day, according to Orr et al.
(1988).
Because many feeds are pelleted, the heat tolerance of DFM bacteria is critical. Heat
kills the majority of yeast, Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Streptococcus. Bacilli
are now employed in a variety of applications that require pelleting (Kung, 2011).
Increased DFM inclusion can compensate for microbial loss during pelleting,
however, this is not a recommended technique. According to Kung (2011), the
viability of DFM goods has increased in recent years, although it is still important to
9
Page

follow storage guidelines. Products should be maintained free from dampness,

 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 10(2), 1-13

excessive heat, and light, for example. If oxygen-sensitive microorganisms are to be

created for commercial uses, further research on novel DFM products will need to
address survivability.

CONCLUSIONS
In general, several feed additives are utilized in ruminant nutrition to increase feed
quality (feed utilization), improve animal performance, and improve animal health.
Microbes are a type of zootechnical feed additive used in the diet of ruminants.
Ruminants and microorganisms have a symbiotic connection; the animals consume
fodder to feed the bacteria, and the microbes eat to feed the ruminant. When ruminants
ingest high fiber content feed, this aids them in obtaining efficient energy.
Direct-fed microbial refers to the methods of adding microorganisms to ruminant
rations. DFM was not used by all microorganisms. DFM's routes of action in the
rumen and gastrointestinal tract include the production of organic acids, antimicrobial
production, competitive exclusion, immunological stimulation, enzyme activity, and
toxic amine reduction. DFM influences the performance of both pre-ruminant and
ruminant animals as a result of this. DFM can be given in a variety of ways, including
as a supplement, in feed, or drinking water.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES
Abu-Tarboush, H. M., Al-Saiady, M. Y., & El-Din, A. H. K. (1996). Evaluation of
diet containing lactobacilli on performance, fecal coliform, and lactobacilli of
young dairy calves. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 57(1-2), 39-49.
Adams, M. C., Luo, J., Rayward, D., King, S., Gibson, R., & Moghaddam, G. H.
(2008). Selection of a novel direct-fed microbial to enhance weight gain in
intensively reared calves. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 145(1-4), 41-52.
Aschenbach, J. R., Penner, G. B., Stumpff, F., & Gäbel, G. (2011). Ruminant nutrition
symposium: Role of fermentation acid absorption in the regulation of ruminal
pH. Journal of animal science, 89(4), 1092-1107.
Beauchemin, K. A., Eriksen, L., Nørgaard, P., & Rode, L. M. (2008). Salivary
secretion during meals in lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(5),
2077-2081.
Beauchemin, K. A., Yang, W. Z., Morgavi, D. P., Ghorbani, G. R., Kautz, W., &
Leedle, J. A. Z. (2003). Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials and yeast on
10

site and extent of digestion, blood chemistry, and subclinical ruminal acidosis in
feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 81(6), 1628-1640.
Page
 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 10(2), 1-13

Bozic, M., Newton, J., Thraen, C. S., & Gould, B. W. (2012). Mean-reversion in
income over feed cost margins: Evidence and implications for managing margin
risk by US dairy producers. Journal of dairy science, 95(12), 7417-7428.
Chiquette, J., Allison, M. J., & Rasmussen, M. A. (2008). Prevotella bryantii 25A
used as a probiotic in early-lactation dairy cows: effect on ruminal fermentation
characteristics, milk production, and milk composition. Journal of Dairy
Science, 91(9), 3536-3543.
Dicks, L., & Botes, M. (2010). Probiotic lactic acid bacteria in the gastro-intestinal
tract: health benefits, safety and mode of action. Beneficial microbes, 1(1), 11-
29.
Elam, N. A., Gleghorn, J. F., Rivera, J. D., Galyean, M. L., Defoor, P. J., Brashears,
M. M., & Younts-Dahl, S. M. (2003). Effects of live cultures of Lactobacillus
acidophilus (strains NP45 and NP51) and Propionibacterium freudenreichii on
performance, carcass, and intestinal characteristics, and Escherichia coli strain
O157 shedding of finishing beef steers. Journal of Animal Science, 81(11), 2686-
2698.
Elghandour, M. M., Salem, A. Z., Castañeda, J. S. M., Camacho, L. M., Kholif, A. E.,
& Chagoyán, J. C. V. (2015). Direct-fed microbes: A tool for improving the
utilization of low quality roughages in ruminants. Journal of Integrative
Agriculture, 14(3), 526-533.
Enemark, J. M. (2008). The monitoring, prevention and treatment of sub-acute
ruminal acidosis (SARA): A review. The Veterinary Journal, 176(1), 32-43.
Frizzo, L. S., Soto, L. P., Zbrun, M. V., Bertozzi, E., Sequeira, G., Armesto, R. R., &
Rosmini, M. R. (2010). Lactic acid bacteria to improve growth performance in
young calves fed milk replacer and spray-dried whey powder. Animal Feed
Science and Technology, 157(3-4), 159-167.
Ghorbani, G. R., Morgavi, D. P., Beauchemin, K. A., & Leedle, J. A. Z. (2002).
Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials on ruminal fermentation, blood
variables, and the microbial populations of feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal
Science, 80(7), 1977-1985.
Holzapfel, W. H., Haberer, P., Snel, J., Schillinger, U., & in't Veld, J. H. H. (1998).
Overview of gut flora and probiotics. International journal of food
microbiology, 41(2), 85-101.
Hong, H. A., Duc, L. H., & Cutting, S. M. (2005). The use of bacterial spore formers
as probiotics. FEMS microbiology reviews, 29(4), 813-835.
Huntington, G. B. (2000). High-starch rations for ruminant production
discussed. Feedstuffs. 23,12-13.
Hutcheson, D. P., Cole, N. A., Keaton, W., Graham, G., Dunlap, R., & Pittman, K.
11

(1981). Use of a living, nonfreeze-dried Lactobacillus acidophilus culture for

Page
 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 10(2), 1-13

receiving feedlot calves. Progress Report-Texas Agricultural Experiment Station

(USA).
Jung, H. G., & Allen, M. S. (1995). Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake
and digestibility of forages by ruminants. Journal of animal science, 73(9), 2774-
2790.
Knapp, J. R., Laur, G. L., Vadas, P. A., Weiss, W. P., & Tricarico, J. M. (2014).
Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the
opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. Journal of dairy science, 97(6),
3231-3261.
Krehbiel, C. R., Rust, S. R., Zhang, G., & Gilliland, S. E. (2003). Bacterial direct-fed
microbials in ruminant diets: Performance response and mode of action. Journal
of Animal Science, 81(14_suppl_2), E120-E132.
Kullen, M. J., & Klaenhammer, T. R. (2000). Genetic modification of intestinal
lactobacilli and bifidobacteria. Current issues in molecular biology, 2(2), 41-50.
Kung Jr L. (2006). Direct-fed microbial and enzyme feed additives. In: 2006 Direct-
Fed Microbial, Enzyme and Forage Additive Compendium. Miller Publishing,
Minnetonka, MN.
Kung Jr, L. (2001). Direct-fed microbials for dairy cows and enzymes for lactating
dairy cows: New theories and applications. In 2001 Pennsylvania State Dairy
Cattle Nutrition Workshop (pp. 86-102). Grantville PA.
Kung, L. J. (2006). Direct fed microbials and enzymes for dairy cows. department of
Animal and Food Science University of Delaware Newark, DL,USA.
Lynch, H. A., & Martin, S. A. (2002). Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture
and Saccharomyces cerevisiae live cells on in vitro mixed ruminal
microorganism fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science, 85(10), 2603-2608.
Martin, C., Devillard, E., & Michalet-Doreau, B. (1999). Influence of sampling site on
concentrations and carbohydrate-degrading enzyme activities of protozoa and
bacteria in the rumen. Journal of animal science, 77(4), 979-987.
Newbold, C. J., Wallace, R. J., & McIntosh, F. M. (1996). Mode of action of the yeast
Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a feed additive for ruminants. British Journal of
Nutrition, 76(2), 249-261.
Nocek, J. E., & Kautz, W. P. (2006). Direct-fed microbial supplementation on ruminal
digestion, health, and performance of pre-and postpartum dairy cattle. Journal of
Dairy Science, 89(1), 260-266.
Nocek, J. E., Kautz, W. P., Leedle, J. A. Z., & Allman, J. G. (2002). Ruminal
supplementation of direct-fed microbials on diurnal pH variation and in situ
digestion in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 85(2), 429-433.
Nocek, J. E., Kautz, W. P., Leedle, J. A. Z., & Block, E. (2003). Direct-fed microbial
12

supplementation on the performance of dairy cattle during the transition

Page

period. Journal of dairy science, 86(1), 331-335.

 Tesfa Kassa and Zemedkun Diffe

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 10(2), 1-13

Oetzel, G. R., Emery, K. M., Kautz, W. P., & Nocek, J. E. (2007). Direct-fed
microbial supplementation and health and performance of pre-and postpartum
dairy cattle: A field trial. Journal of dairy science, 90(4), 2058-2068.
Orr, C. L., Ware, D. R., Manfredi, E. T., & Hutcheson, D. P. (1988). The effect of
continuous feeding of Lactobacillus acidophilus strain BT1386 on gain and feed
efficiency of feeder calves. J. Anim. Sci, 66(Suppl 1), 460.
Parvez, S., Malik, K. A., Ah Kang, S., & Kim, H. Y. (2006). Probiotics and their
fermented food products are beneficial for health. Journal of applied
microbiology, 100(6), 1171-1185.
Poppy, F. (2008). feed additives in ruminant nutrition, agriculture &development
board pp 6
Prieto, M. L., O’Sullivan, L., Tan, S. P., McLoughlin, P., Hughes, H., Gutierrez, M.,
... & Gardiner, G. E. (2014). In vitro assessment of marine Bacillus for use as
livestock probiotics. Marine drugs, 12(5), 2422-2445.
Seo, J. K., Kim, S. W., Kim, M. H., Upadhaya, S. D., Kam, D. K., & Ha, J. K. (2010).
Direct-fed microbials for ruminant animals. Asian-Australasian Journal of
Animal Sciences, 23(12), 1657-1667.
Tharwat, M., Al-Sobayil, F., Ali, A., & Buczinski, S. (2012). Transabdominal
ultrasonographic appearance of the gastrointestinal viscera of healthy camels
(Camelus dromedaries). Research in veterinary science, 93(2), 1015-1020.
Van Soest, P. J. (1994). Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell university press.
Weiss, W. P., Wyatt, D. J., & McKelvey, T. R. (2008). Effect of feeding
propionibacteria on milk production by early lactation dairy cows. Journal of
Dairy Science, 91(2), 646-652.
Yang, W. Z., Beauchemin, K. A., Vedres, D. D., Ghorbani, G. R., Colombatto, D., &
Morgavi, D. P. (2004). Effects of direct-fed microbial supplementation on
ruminal acidosis, digestibility, and bacterial protein synthesis in continuous
culture. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 114(1-4), 179-193.
Yoon, I. K., & Stern, M. D. (1995). Influence of direct-fed microbials on ruminal
microbial fermentation and performance of ruminants: A review. Asian-
Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 8(6), 533-555.
13
Page