The influence of urea feeding on the bacterial and archaeal community in the forestomach of collared peccary (Artiodactyla, Tayassuidae)

Abstract

Aims: This study was carried out to test whether bacterial and archaeal populations, and products of fermentation in each compartment of collared peccary stomach, vary significantly with urea feeding. Bacteria and archaeal population variation among the four stomach compartments were also compared. Methods and Results: Archaeal and bacterial communities in the forestomach of four individuals per treatment – peccaries fed diets with and without urea – were analysed at molecular level using PCR followed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Volatile fatty acids profiles in the three different compartments of the forestomach were also compared. The bacterial community composition varied considerably among each compartment and with urea provision, but no variation was observed between archaeal populations. Differences in bacterial communities between treatments – with and without urea – were greater than amongst stomach compartments. The acetate: propionate proportion decreased with urea provision in diet. Some differences in bacterial but not archaeal community composition were observed in each compartment of the collared peccary forestomach. Conclusions: There are some differences in bacterial but not archaeal populations in each compartment of collared peccary stomach. Use of urea in the diet of peccary can substantially modify the profile of volatile fatty acids released in its forestomach, but does not influence the archaeal community composition. Urea has an important effect on bacterial population DGGE profile present in the peccary’s forestomach. Significance and Impact of the Study: These results demonstrate the ability of the collared peccary to use urea as source of nonprotein nitrogen, and confirm a hypothesis that the collared peccary has a digestive physiology more similar to ruminant than nonruminant animals.

Wildlife farming: an alternative to unsustainable hunting and deforestation in Neotropical forests?

“…This species has a forestomach with active microbial fermentation (Langer 1979;Carl and Brown 1983;Cavalcante-Filho et al 1998;Oliveira et al 2009). Therefore, digestion of forages in the collared peccary is comparable with that in ruminants (Galagher et al 1984;Comizzoli et al 1997;Nogueira-Filho 2005;Santos et al 2009).…”

Preference on silage feed intake and its effect on ovarian activity in Pecari tajacu

“…La variable principal que limita generar mayores ingresos netos es el costo de alimentación, que representa el 77% del total, debido al empleo de maíz, hojas de papaya y Opuntia. Con base en esta variable, se han efectuado varias investigaciones para sustituir insumos en la alimentación, especialmente granos para consumo humano por forrajes frescos y enriquecidos con urea (Montes-Pérez et al, 2012a;Oliveira et al, 2009). En este sentido, es necesario probar el forraje de especies nativas como alimento para P. tajacu, una característica principal, es que este tipo de alimento es de bajo costo, comparado con el uso de alimento comercial que se usa para cerdo; los forrajes nativos representan una opción que podría superar esta limitante (Ramírez, 2009).…”

Individual differences in behaviour and gut bacteria are associated in collared peccary (Mammalia, Tayassuidae)

“…Besides bacterial profile, however, the production of SCFAs is dependent on many other variables (e.g. bacterial metabolism and competition for substrates) (Hernandez-Sanabria et al 2010), and may come from the fermentation of plant cell wall compounds by protozoa (Carl and Brown 1983) and archaea (Oliveira et al 2009), which are part of the microbial community of the collared peccary's forestomach. Therefore, further studies on the whole consortium of anaerobic microbes in the forestomach of collared peccary and their relationship with interindividual behavioural differences and diet are still required.…”

“…Although a non-ruminant, the collared peccary has a forestomach composed of one fermentative pouch with two blind sacs (Langer 1978(Langer , 1979. The ingested feed undergoes anaerobic fermentation by the forestomach microbial community, which comprises bacteria (Lochmiller et al 1989), protozoa (Carl and Brown 1983) and archaea (Oliveira et al 2009), resulting in the fermentation end-products (short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs)mainly acetate, propionate and butyrate) in concentrations similar to the ones found in the rumen of cattle and sheep (Sowls 1997). This fermentation allows the species to digest dietary fibre (neutral detergent fibre-NDF and acid detergent fibre-ADF) with relatively high efficiency (>50%), almost comparable with ruminants (Comizzoli et al 1997;Nogueira-Filho 2005;Nogueira-Filho et al 2018).…”