Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access March 13, 2023

Meta-analysis of the benefits of dietary Saccharomyces cerevisiae intervention on milk yield and component characteristics in lactating small ruminants

  • Ifeanyichukwu Princewill Ogbuewu EMAIL logo and Christian Anayo Mbajiorgu
From the journal Open Agriculture

Abstract

Milk yield and components in small ruminants fed Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) have been investigated, but results were not consistent among investigators. Hence, this trial aimed to explore the efficacy of SC supplementation in improving milk yield and components (i.e., milk proteins, fat, lactose, total solids and ash) in small ruminants. A search performed in Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar databases yield 1,826 studies, of which 26 met the inclusion criteria. Random-effects model was used to aggregate milk production variables. Meta-regression analysis examined the effect of the following moderators: SC type, ruminant type (sheep or goat), diet type, breed, duration of supplementation and supplementation levels on outcome measures. Subgroup analysis explored the influence of the following moderators: SC type and ruminant type on outcomes measures. SC had positive moderate effect on milk yield (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.72; p < 0.001; heterogeneity [I 2] = 73%) and small effect on milk proteins (SMD = 0.46; p = 0.004; I 2 = 83%), milk lactose (SMD = 0.17; p = 0.007; I 2 = 0%) and fat (SMD = 0.28; p = 0.016; I 2 = 70%). Subgroup analysis revealed that SC improved milk yield, lactose and proteins in lactating sheep and milk yield and fat in lactating goats. Our results show that moderators influenced the results of the meta-analysis and explained most of the sources of heterogeneity. In conclusion, SC should be included in small ruminant diets as it had small-to-moderate effects on milk yield and aspects of milk components.

1 Introduction

Small ruminants (sheep and goats) contribute immensely in improving food security (meat and dairy products) and represent the main source of income for smallholder farmers [1,2]. The demand for dairy products is increasing in developing countries due to rapid population growth, and this is envisaged to continue in the coming years [1]. Goat and sheep milk are vital sources of essential nutrients in human nutrition. Given the increasing consumer demand for high-quality milk and the fact that milk price is determined by milk quality, there is a need to improve milk production and quality using feed additives [3,4].

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC), an eco-friendly feed additive has been shown to encourage the proliferation of fibre-digesting microbes in the rumen (paunch), which in turn influence milk production and component yield in ruminants [3,5]. Three different types of SC utilised in ruminant nutrition are active SC (also called live SC), SC culture (also known as fermented SC, SC hydrolysate, scrap SC and SC extract) and inactive SC. Active SC contains pure culture of metabolically active cells, whereas inactive SC has no active cells and is commonly referred to as nutritional yeast. SC culture is a product of SC fermentation. Live SC works by reducing the concentrations of oxygen in the paunch, thereby assisting in the proliferation of bacteria that degrade fibre in the paunch [6,7]. Live yeast also secretes metabolites which bacteria that degrade fibre in the paunch used as nutrient sources [8]. Although SC culture lacks the ability to reduce the concentration of oxygen in the paunch, it produces metabolites that increase rumen microbial activity, alter its fermentation trend, enhance movement of nutrients to the abomasum and stimulate digestion processes [8,9]. SC feed additive promotes healthy rumen environment by inhibiting the growth of lactate-synthesizing microbes and supporting the multiplication of lactate-using microbes [10], which in turn transforms lactate to volatile fatty acids (VFAs) causing a drop in lactate content and a rise in ruminal pH [11,12]. Pinloche et al. [13] reported that SC encourages the growth of trans-11 hydrogenating bacteria in the paunch by inhibiting the number of lactate-producing microbes, which stimulates the production of trans-11 and cis-9, trans-11-conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in the paunch, thereby aiding milk fat synthesis. Bauman et al. [14] also confirmed that SC modifies ruminal pH by stimulating the activities of ruminal biohydrogenation microbes. The action of SC on milk yield and component characteristics in small ruminants is, however, inconsistent [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23] and may be influenced by factors such as SC type, quantity of SC added to the diets, analytical methods, parity and stage of lactation. In spite of the fact that the mechanisms by which SC increases milk production in small ruminants are not clear. SC may enhance milk yield and quality by increasing the growth of trans-11-hydrogenating bacteria in the rumen via competitive exclusion and antagonism, stabilisation of ruminal pH, improvement in dry matter intake and increase in nutrient digestion and absorption [3,24,25].

The utilisation of meta-analytical approach to resolve divergence in research findings across studies has been encouraged [26,27,28]. This is a statistical technique that employs explicit methods to pool results from published studies with conflicting findings to increase statistical power, detect patterns and identify research gaps that would not be possible in a single study [29,30,31]. However, literature on the meta-analytic effect of SC on performance of lactating small ruminants, to the best of our knowledge, is lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this trial was to perform a meta-analysis asking the research question: what is the effect of diets with and without SC on milk yield and component characteristics of small ruminants?

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study design and data sources

This investigated adhered to the protocols of the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses provided by Moher et al. [32] as shown in Figure 1. Other detailed protocol for conducting this study was not used. Authors methodically searched Scopus, Google Scholar and PubMed databases from February 4 to March 10, 2022, for published trials that examine the impact of SC on production indices in small ruminants. Our search was not constrained by publication year and language. Search terms were sheep, goats, SC, milk yield, milk ash, proteins, lactose, total solids and fat, while search queries were AND and OR. Reference sections of identified studies were also searched for related articles.

Figure 1 
                  Study selection flow chart for the meta-analysis.
Figure 1

Study selection flow chart for the meta-analysis.

  1. Ethical approval: The conducted research is not related to either human or animal use.

2.2 Inclusion criteria

Selection criteria were centred on PICO criteria, where the letters in PICO stand for Population (i.e., small ruminants), Intervention (i.e., SC supplementation), Control group or comparison (i.e., diets with and without SC) and Outcomes (i.e., milk yield, proteins, lactose, fat, ash and total solids). Studies that reported the influence of diets with and without SC supplementation on at least one of the outcome measures in small ruminants were included in this analysis. For an article to be used for the investigation, the experimental diets must be free of antibiotics and other growth-enhancing agents. Study must report the mean, number of goats and sheep and dispersion metric such as standard error (SE), standard deviation (SD) or 95% confidence interval (CI). The initial search result yielded 1,826 articles. Figure 1 shows the overall screening process and number of studies excluded. A total of 1,595 studies were excluded due to duplication based on title and abstract review. One hundred and twenty-seven of the remaining 231 articles were removed after full-text screening due to the articles not being in small ruminant. Out of the 104 studies remaining, 78 were excluded for being review (10), not in measured outcomes (62) and having no extractable data (6). Twenty-six studies were used in the investigation (Figure 1). All identified studies, after exclusion of duplicates, were evaluated and disagreements resolve by consensus.

2.3 Data synthesis

Database of the 26 studies used for the investigation is presented in Table 1. Author’s name, publication year, study country, studied moderators (SC type [active, culture and inactive], ruminant type [sheep versus goat], breed, diet type [forage, concentrate or both], duration of SC supplementation and supplementation level) and measures of variance (SD, SE and 95% CI) were extracted from the 26 publications that were suitable for the study. Information on the mean values of our outcomes of interest for the SC and control groups and the number of animals included in the experimental and control groups were retrieved. SD was estimated from SE following the method of Higgins and Deeks [33] where SE was stated instead of SD. The extracted data were keyed into an excel sheet and transformed to a CSV file which is the only format recognised by the Open Meta-analyst for Ecology and Evolution (OpenMEE) software.

Table 1

Database of studies used for the meta-analysis

References Location Design Studied moderators Milk yield and milk components
Diet type SC type RT Breed DOS (day) Supplementation levels (SL)
Giger-Reverdin et al. [41] France RCBD F + C Live 1 Alpine/Saanen 42 0, 2 MY, MP, MF, ML, MA
Hadjipanayiotou et al. [15] Cyprus F + C Culture 1, 2 Damascus +/Chios ++ 48 0, 5 MY, MP, MF, MTS, MA
Salama et al. [42] Spain F + C Culture 1 ** 84 0, 10 MY, MP, MF, MTS
Abd El-Ghani [43] Egypt F + C Culture 1 Zaraibi 120 0, 3, 6 MY, MP, MF, ML, MTS, MA
Stella et al. [44] Italy F + C Live 1 Saanen 105 0, 0.2 MY, MP, MF, ML
Ahmed et al. [45] Egypt F + C Culture 1 Zaraibi 180 0, 1, 2 MY, MP, MF, ML, MTS, MA
Mahrous et al. [46] Egypt F + C Live 1 Zaraibi 120 0, 3 MY, MP, MF, ML, MTS, MA
Masek et al. [16] Croatia F + C Live 2 * 140 0, 3, 6 MY, MP, MF, ML, MTS
Baiomy [18] Egypt F + C Live 2 Ossimi 42 0, 3, 6 MY, MP, MF, ML, MTS
Lima et al. [47] Brazil CRD F + C Culture 1 Saanen 90 102, 229 MY, MP, MF, ML, MTS
Macedo et al. [48] Mexico F + C Culture 2 Pelibuey ewes 49 0, 14 MP, MF, ML, MTS
Gomes et al. [49] Brazil CRD F + C Inactive 1 Saanen 200 0, 97.2, 234.1 MY
Zaleska et al. [50] Poland F + C Culture 2 28, 70 0, 3, 50 MP, MF, ML
Zicarelli et al. [17] Italy F + C Culture 1 Cilentana 120 0, 2 MY, MP, MF, ML
Kholif et al. [51] Egypt LSD F + C Live 1 Nubian 22 0, 4 MY, MP, MF, ML, MTS, MA
Ma et al. [52] China F + C Live 1 Saanen 56 0, 5 MY, MP, MF, ML, MTS
Aazami et al. [19] Italy CRD F + C Culture 1 Saanen 15 0, 3, 5 MY, MP, MF, ML
Elaref et al. [22] Egypt F + C Live 2 Sohagi ewes 105 0, 5, 10 MY, MP, MF, ML, MTS
Aaliya et al. [53] India CRD F + C Live 1 Boar x local cross 182 0, 2.5, 4 MP, MF, MTS
Abbas et al. [20] SA F + C Live 1 Beetal 60 0, 5, 10 MY, MP, MF, ML, MTS
Alshanbari et al. [54] SA RCBD F + C Culture 1 Ardi 90 0, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 MY, MP, MF, ML
Mavrommatis et al. [21] Greece F + C Live 2 Chios ewes 84 0, 2 MY, MP, MF, ML
Sahoo et al. [55] India nr Live 1 Beetal 30 0, 2 MY
Khan et al. [23] Pakistan CRD F + C Live 1 Beetal 45 0, 1.5, 3 MY, MP, MF, ML, MTS, MA
Tayeb [56] Iraq CRD C Culture 2 Awassi ewes 84 0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 MY, MP, MF, ML
Almallah et al. [57] Iraq CRD C Culture 2 Awassi ewes 17 0, 10 MY, MP, MF, ML

SC – Saccharomyces cerevisiae; SA – Soudi Arabia, 1 – Goat; 2 – Sheep; * Istrian Sheep × East Friesian; ** Murciano-Granadina; RT – ruminant type; C – concentrate; LSD – Latin square design; CRD – complete randomised design; RCBD – randomised complete block design; F – forage; nr – not reported; DOS – duration of supplementation in days; SL – supplementation level, in g/kg feed; MY – milk yield; MP – milk protein; MF – milk fat; ML – milk lactose; MTS – milk total solids; MA – milk ash.

2.4 Statistical analysis

OpenMEE, cross-platform software built by Wallace et al. [34], was used for the analysis. Results were pooled and presented as standardised mean difference (SMD) at 95% CI. SMD was deemed significant when the CI did not overlap [30]. SMD was designated small effect 0.2 ≤ |SMD| < 0.5, moderate effect 0.5 ≤ |SMD| < 0.8 and large effect |SMD| ≥ 0.8 using the classification methods of Cohen [35]. All the forest plots were built with OpenMEE software. Random-effects model (REM) was employed to examine the impact of diets with and without SC on milk characteristics in sheep and goats following the procedures of DerSimonian and Laird [36]. The REM was considered more appropriate instead of the fixed effect model since the 26 studies used for the trial were heterogeneous [37]. Heterogeneity was explored via Q-statistic. Heterogeneity was quantified using I 2-statistic [38] and categorised as small (25%), moderate (50%) and high (≥75%) heterogeneity [39]. The value of 0% suggests the absence of heterogeneity. We used sensitivity analysis (SA) to assess the impact of studies deemed to have an unwarranted influence on the analysed outcomes [40]. It was performed when there is evidence of heterogeneity across studies utilised for the analysis. SA involves completing the same analysis but leaving out one study in each iteration [40].

Subgroup analysis was executed to assess the influence of ruminant type (sheep versus goats) on milk variables. We carried out meta-regression analysis to explore the relationships between SC type, breed, diet type, ruminant type, duration of SC supplementation and supplementation level as moderators and milk production parameters as outcomes. The influence of study design, milking frequency, parity, mode of milking (manual versus machine) and age on milk production and quality in lactating small ruminants fed SC-supplemented diets in this investigation were not tested because of missing data. In addition, we could not consider the effect of the following potential covariates: intake, nutrient digestibility, lactation stage and rumen fermentation on our measured outcomes in lactating small ruminants on dietary SC supplementation due to insufficient data. Attempts made to get the missing information from the corresponding authors failed. Publication bias was determined using Rosenberg’s failsafe number (Nfs) [58] and funnel plot [59]. Funnel graph resembles an inverted symmetrical funnel when there was no publication bias. However, when there is the presence of publication bias the plot would resemble an asymmetrical funnel with spaces in the bottom corner of the funnel [60].

3 Results

3.1 Overview of the meta-analysis

Twenty-six quantitative articles met our selection criteria (Figure 1 and Table 1). The most commonly studied SC type was live SC (13) followed by SC culture (12) and inactive SC (1). The dose level of SC ranged from 0.2 to 234.1 g/kg feed. The studies included in the analysis spanned 25 years (1996–2021). The included articles were performed in 17 countries that cut across five continents, with Egypt having the highest number of studies followed by Italy. Nine studies were from Europe while the remaining 17 were from Africa, Asia, South America and North America.

3.2 Milk yield and proteins

Results showed that SC had positive moderate effect on milk yield (SMD = 0.72; p < 0.001 and I 2 = 73%; Table 2) and milk protein (SMD = 0.46; p = 0.004; I 2 = 83%; Table 2) relative to controls. Subgroup analysis revealed that SC had positive moderate influence on milk yield in goats (SMD = 0.51; p = 0.002; I 2 = 66%; Table 3) and large effect on sheep (SMD = 1.15; p < 0.001; I 2 = 74%; Table 3) compared to controls. Live SC had a positive large effect on milk yield (SMD = 1.38; p < 0.001; Table 4), whereas SC culture had a moderate effect on milk yield (SMD = 0.53; p = 0.002; Table 4) compared to controls. Lactating goats fed diets with and without SC had similar milk protein content (SMD = 0.08; p = 0.460; Table 3). In contrast, SC had a large influence on milk protein content (SMD = 0.89; p = 0.005; I 2 = 93%; Table 3) in lactating sheep compared to controls. Our results also show that SC culture had a moderate influence on milk protein yield (SMD = 0.60; p = 0.037; Table 4) in small ruminants. We found significant heterogeneity across trials that explored the effect of SC on milk yield and proteins as indicated by the I 2 values of 73–83% (Table 2). Results of the relationship between SC supplementation level and milk yield and components are presented in Table 5. Results found no significant relationship between SC supplementation level and milk variables (milk yield and milk proteins). In contrast, duration of supplementation (DOS), ruminant type, SC type and breed were limiting factors in the present investigation and explained most of the variability in milk yield. There were significant associations between milk proteins and studied moderators (DOS, ruminant type, diet type and breed).

Table 2

Effect of SC on milk yield and components in small ruminants

Model results Heterogeneity
Outcomes SMD 95% CI p < 0.05 I 2-test (%) p < 0.05
Milk yield 0.72 0.44 2.00 <0.001 73 <0.001
Milk protein 0.46 0.15 0.77 0.004 83 <0.001
Milk lactose 0.17 0.05 0.30 0.007 0 0.860
Milk fat 0.28 0.05 0.51 0.016 70 <0.001
Milk total solids 0.11 −0.05 0.26 0.173 0 0.975
Milk ash 0.17 −0.08 0.41 0.176 0 0.980

SC – Saccharomyces cerevisiae; SMD – standardised mean difference; CI – confidence interval.

Table 3

Effect of ruminant type on milk yield and components in small ruminants fed SC supplemented diets

Parameters Goats Sheep
SMD 95% CI p < 0.05 SMD 95% CI p < 0.05
Milk yield 0.51 0.19 0.83 0.002 1.15 0.72 1.584 <0.001
Milk protein 0.08 −0.12 0.27 0.460 0.89 0.27 1.512 0.005
Milk lactose 0.13 −0.11 0.38 0.283 0.18 0.01 0.339 0.037
Milk fat 0.30 0.05 0.55 0.019 0.201 −0.19 0.606 0.306
Milk total solids 0.04 −0.19 0.26 0.734 0.17 −0.04 0.387 0.118

SC – Saccharomyces cerevisiae; SMD – standardised mean difference; CI – confidence interval.

Table 4

Subgroup analysis of the effect of SC type on milk yield and components in small ruminants

Parameters Live SC SC culture
SMD 95% CI p < 0.05 SMD 95% CI p < 0.05
Milk yield 1.38 1.03 1.73 <0.001 0.53 0.20 0.86 0.002
Milk protein 0.16 −0.08 0.40 0.198 0.60 0.04 1.15 0.037
Milk lactose 0.12 −0.09 0.33 0.273 0.19 0.02 0.36 0.027
Milk fat 0.28 0.06 0.49 0.012 0.20 −0.18 0.58 0.295
Milk total solids 0.20 0.00 0.41 0.049 −0.03 −0.27 0.21 0.827

SC – Saccharomyces cerevisiae; SMD – standardised mean difference; CI – confidence interval.

Table 5

Relationship between moderators and milk production variables in lactating small ruminant

Measured outcomes Moderators Q M df p < 0.05 R 2 (%)
Milk yield DOS 112 19 0.001 94
SL 22 18 0.234 14
Ruminant type 5.27 1 0.022 17
SC type 32.4 2 9.41 × 10−08 55
Diet type 1.22 1 0.269 1
Breed 58.8 13 8.69 × 10−10 71
Milk proteins DOS 204 22 0.001 96
SL 15.1 16 0.519 12
Ruminant type 6.16 1 0.013 13
SC type 1.33 1 0.248 3
Diet type 4.21 1 0.040 40
Breed 30.3 14 0.007 100
Milk lactose DOS 24.7 18 0.132 0
SL 23.4 16 0.104 100
Ruminant type 0.02 1 0.879 0
SC type 2.00 1 0.658 0
Diet type 0.09 1 0.759 0
Breed 22.8 12 0.030 0
Milk fat DOS 34.7 21 0.031 37
SL 26.6 19 0.114 19
Ruminant type 0.25 1 0.621 0
SC type 0.54 1 0.463 0
Diet type 0.22 1 0.642 0
Breed 52.7 15 4.28 × 10−06 100
Milk total solids DOS 11.3 17 0.841 0
SL 6.27 8 0.617 0
Ruminant type 0.71 1 0.400 0
SC type 2.05 1 0.152 0
Breed 9.20 10 0.513 0

p – probability; Q M – coefficient of moderators; SC – Saccharomyces cerevisiae; df – degree of freedom; R 2 – amount of heterogeneity explained by the moderators; DOS – duration of supplementation; SL – supplementation level.

3.3 Milk lactose, fat, total solids, ash yield and analysis of publication bias

Results demonstrated that SC had small effect on milk lactose (SMD = 0.17; p = 0.007; I 2 = 0%; Table 2) and milk fat (SMD = 0.28, p = 0.016; I 2 = 70%; Table 2) in small ruminants. The effect of ruminant type on milk lactose and fat is described in Table 3. Subgroup analysis suggested that SC treatment had a small impact on milk lactose content in sheep (SMD = 0.18, p = 0.037) and milk fat in does (SMD = 0.30, p = 0.019) compared to controls. In converse, SC did not improve milk lactose in goats and fat yield in sheep. Our results as shown in Table 4 indicate that SC culture (SMD = 0.19; p = 0.027) had a small influence on milk lactose yield in small ruminants. Furthermore, live SC had a small impact on milk fat (SMD = 0.28, p = 0.012; Table 4) and milk total solids (SMD = 0.20, p = 0.049; Table 4). Data on the impact of studied moderators on milk lactose, total solids and fat yield are presented in Table 5. Meta-regression revealed that DOS and breed are predictors of the study effect on milk fat. There was significant relationship between milk lactose and breed. However, there is no relationship between moderators and milk total solids. There is minimal sign of publication bias as displayed in Figures S1–S5. The Rosenberg Nfs for the database is 510, which is 3.6 times higher than the 140 (5 × n + 10) required to proclaim the results of analysis robust in the face of publication bias.

4 Discussion

Results showed that systematic search performed in the three online databases yielded 26 studies published in 17 study countries spanning five continents, with most of the studies published between 2016 and 2021. The continuous yearly increase in SC-based feed additive research in this study could be linked to the growing campaign on the use of biotherapeutic agents as a replacement for antibiotics in animal feed, which have been reported to increase the spread of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria to the environment and humans via consumption of animal products with antibiotic residues [61].

Our search on available literature revealed that this study could be the first attempt to use meta-analytic method to assess the efficacy of SC administered via feed on milk yield and components in lactating small ruminants. The low-to-medium milk yield and component fractions (milk lactose, protein and fat) found in animals on SC intervention in this study compared to controls suggest that SC-based diets were moderately utilised for milk yield and protein by the lactating small ruminants. The observed moderate effect of SC on milk yield and the small effect on milk composition could be partly explained by SC’s ability to stimulate rumen fermentation, increase the production of VFAs and enhance digestion of fibre in the rumen. Most milk proteins are synthesised within the mammary epithelial cells using the substrates extracted from blood such as free amino acids and peptide-bound amino acids [62]. The mechanism by which SC regulates milk protein yield in lactating ruminants is yet to be properly documented. However, the reported ability of SC to improve the nutrient digestion and assimilation of amino acids may partly explain the moderately higher milk proteins observed in this study when compared to the controls [24]. The result of this study also demonstrated that SC had a small positive effect on milk lactose and fat content, suggesting that SC supplementation had minimal impact on milk lactose and fat. Our results indicate that milk total solids and ash content in lactating small ruminants were not affected by SC supplementation. Few studies [15,34,41,43,46,51] were used to compute the effect of SC on milk ash yield in the present meta-analysis, and the result, therefore, should be interpreted with caution.

The subgroup analysis results revealed that lactating small ruminants that received SC-supplemented diets produced more milk than those on controls. This agrees with Stella et al. [44], who recorded higher milk yield in goats offered SC in comparison with the controls. Contrary to the present finding, Uyeno et al. [25] found that addition of SC at 5 or 10 g/animal/day did not increase milk yield in lactating animals. This discrepancy may be due to differences in species of animal used, lactation stage and SC supplementation level. The significant differences in the milk protein content between goats and sheep might reflect the differences in genetics and physiological abilities to change their milk protein content according to changes in dietary constituents. This finding is consistent with Kanwal et al. [63], who reported higher protein yield in sheep milk than in goat milk.

The result of this meta-analysis suggests that the milk lactose content in lactating goats was not improved by SC additive. In contrast, our result showed that lactating sheep offered SC had significantly higher milk lactose content than controls. The increased milk lactose may be credited to the potential of SC to modulate the rumen environment to favour the production of propionate [64,65], which then enters the tricarboxylic acid cycle to produce oxaloacetate, which in turn produces glucose, a precursor of milk lactose. The observed small positive effect of SC on milk lactose of sheep in this meta-analysis corroborates the findings of Macedo et al. [48], who recorded a 13% increase in milk lactose in lactating Pelibuey sheep offered 14 g SC/head/day compared to those fed diets without SC supplementation.

Milk fat is an essential part of milk that can be easily influenced by nutritional management. Studies have shown that SC increases the concentration of acetate in the rumen [66,67], which according to Hanson and Ballard [68], is the precursor for fat synthesis in the adipose and mammary tissues. The small milk fat yield in lactating goats following SC supplementation in this study may be credited to the low potentiality of SC in increasing acetate level in the fore-stomach. In addition, this could be linked to the low capability of SC to modify rumen biohydrogenation pathway to favour the production of trans-11 and cis-9, trans-11-CLA known to enhance milk fat production.

Live SC had a positive large effect on milk yield, whereas SC culture had a moderate effect on milk yield when compared to controls. The exact mechanism underlying the observed positive large impact of live SC on milk yield in lactating small ruminants in the current study is not clear. However, this could be attributed to the capability of live SC to scavenge excess oxygen in the ruminal fluids, lower the redox potential and enhance the growth of cellulolytic bacteria [6,7], leading to an increase in milk yield. The improved milk protein content in lactating ruminants fed SC culture compared to those fed live SC in this study indicates that SC culture has the potential to produce metabolites that alter the fermentation trend, enhances nutrient digestibility and ammonia uptake and improves microbial protein production [8,9], resulting in higher milk protein content.

There is evidence of large heterogeneity in this meta-analysis as shown by the I 2 values [38]. This problem of heterogeneity was not resolved by subgroup analysis. The present study showed that DOS is a predictor of SC effect on milk yield and some of its constituents and accounted for 94, 96 and 37% of variations in milk yield, proteins and fat, respectively. Our meta-regression found that SC type is a significant predictor of the impact of SC on milk yield and accounted for 55% of the sources of heterogeneity among the studies utilised for the meta-analysis. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that breed is a limiting factor among the studies included in the meta-analysis that led to the inconsistent results among investigators on the effect of SC supplementation on milk proteins and fats. The effects of factors such as lactation stage and milking frequency in our outcome measures not reviewed in this meta-analysis because of missing data may have accounted for the variations that could not be explained by the studied moderators. In addition, residual heterogeneity can be attributed to variables such as milking frequency, parity, study design, mode of milking, age, SC intake, nutrient digestibility and rumen fermentation, which were not examined in this study due to missing data. Publication bias defined as the tendency of authors or journal editors to publish studies with significant findings is one of the challenges in meta-analytical studies. There is publication bias in this study and the Rosenberg Nfs for the database is 3.6-fold beyond the threshold required to declare the pooled results robust. However, this is not an issue as it would take a relatively large number of unpublished articles to change the significant effects of SC on milk yield and component parameters in lactating small ruminants [69].

5 Future research direction and conclusion

Future research is therefore recommended to determine the effect of the following potential covariates: milking frequency, lactation stage, parity, age, digestibility and rumen fermentation on milk production and component characteristics in small ruminant fed SC supplemented diets that were not reported in this meta-analysis because of insufficient data. In conclusion, our pooled results suggested that SC can be added to the diets of lactating sheep and goats to improve milk yield and protein. This study could be used as a model for future research on the impact of SC on milk production and component yield in small ruminants.



  1. Funding information: The authors state no funding involved.

  2. Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.

  3. Data availability statement: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

References

[1] Ali Q. The goat sector in Pakistan, goats–undervalued asset in Asia. In Proc. APHCAILRI Regional Workshop On Goat Population System and Markets. Luang Prabang, Lao PDR; 24–25 October 2006. p. 47–9.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Alary V, Aboul-Naga A, El Shafie M, Abdelkrim N, Hamdon H, Metawi H. Roles of small ruminants in rural livelihood improvement – comparative analysis in Egypt. Rev Elev Med Vet Pays Trop. 2015;68:79–85.10.19182/remvt.20592Search in Google Scholar

[3] Elghandour MMM, Hafsa SHA, Cone JW, Salem AZM, Anele UY, Alcala‑Canto Y. Prospect of yeast probiotic inclusion enhances livestock feeds utilization and performance: An overview. Biomass Conv Biorefin. 2021. 10.1007/s13399-022-02562-6.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Guta D. Feed additives in enhancing milk production. A review. J Agric Sci Bot. 2021;5:56–62.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Garg MR, Siddiqui MU, Singh DK, Bhanderi BM. Effect of supplementing yeast Sacc-1026 in the ration of Holstein Friesian cows on milk production. Indian J Anim Nutr. 2000;17:175–7.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Jouany JP. 20 years of research and now more relevant than ever- the coming of age of yeast cultures in ruminant diets. In Responding to a Changing Agricultural Landscape Alltech’s European, Middle Eastern and African Lecture Tour; 2001. p. 44–69.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Denev SA, Peeva TZ, Radulova P, Stancheva N, Staykova G, Beev G, et al. Yeast cultures in ruminant nutrition. Bulg J Agric Sci. 2007;13:357–74.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Amin AA, Mao S. Influence of yeast on rumen fermentation, growth performance and quality of products in ruminants: A review. Anim Nutr. 2021;7:31–41.10.1016/j.aninu.2020.10.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[9] Krehbiel CR, Rust SR, Zhang G, Gilliland SE. Bacterial direct-fed microbials in ruminant diets: Performance response and mode of action. J Anim Sci. 2003;81:120–32.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Yang WZ, Beauchemin KA, Vedres DD, Ghorbani GR, Colombatto D, Morgavi DP. Effects of direct-fed microbial supplementation on ruminal acidosis, digestibility, and bacterial protein synthesis in continuous culture. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2004;114:179–93.10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2003.12.010Search in Google Scholar

[11] Lesmeister KE, Heinrichs AJ, Gabler MT. Effects of supplemental yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) culture on rumen development, growth characteristics, and blood parameters in neonatal dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. 2004;87:1832–9.10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73340-8Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Guedes C, Goncalves D, Rodrigues MAM, Dias-da-Silva A. Effects of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast on ruminal fermentation and fiber degradation of maize silages in cows. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2008;145:27–40.10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.06.037Search in Google Scholar

[13] Pinloche E, McEwan N, Marden JP, Bayourthe Auclair CE, Newbold CJ. The effects of a probiotic yeast on the bacterial diversity and population structure in the rumen of cattle. PLoS One. 2013;8:e67824.10.1371/journal.pone.0067824Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[14] Bauman DE, Baumgard LH, Corl BA, Griinari JM. Biosynthesis of conjugated linoleic acid in ruminants. J Anim Sci. 2000;77(suppl_E):1–15.10.2527/jas2000.77E-Suppl1fSearch in Google Scholar

[15] Hadjipanayiotou M, Antoniou I, Photiou A. Effects of the inclusion of yeast culture on the performance of dairy ewes and goats and the degradation of feedstuffs. Livest Prod Sci. 1997;48:129–34.10.1016/S0301-6226(97)00001-8Search in Google Scholar

[16] Masek T, Mikulec Ž, Valpotić H, Antunac N, Mikulec N, Stojević Z, et al. Influence of live yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on milk production and composition, and blood biochemistry of grazing dairy ewes during the milking period. Acta Veterinaria Brno. 2008;77:547–54.10.2754/avb200877040547Search in Google Scholar

[17] Zicarelli F, Addi L, Tudisco R, Calabrgraveo S, Lombardi P, Cutrignelli MI, et al. The influence of diet supplementation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae or Saccharomyces cerevisiae plus Aspergillus oryzae on milk yield of Cilentana grazing dairy goats. Small Rum Res. 2015;135:90–4.10.1016/j.smallrumres.2015.12.018Search in Google Scholar

[18] Baiomy AA. Influence of live yeast culture on milk production, composition and some blood metabolites of Ossimi ewes during the milking period. Amer J Biochem Mol Biol. 2011;1:158–67.10.3923/ajbmb.2011.158.167Search in Google Scholar

[19] Aazami MH, Nasria MHFN, Mojtahedia M, Battacone G. Effect of yeast cell wall and (1 → 3)-β-D-glucan on transfer of aflatoxin from feed to milk in Saanen dairy goats. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2019;254:114191.10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.05.014Search in Google Scholar

[20] Abbas S, Rashid MA, Yousaf MS, Ashraf S, Rabbani I, Zaneb H, et al. Effect of maternal yeast feeding on dam performance and serum health biomarkers of Beetal goat kids. South Afr J Anim Sci. 2020;50:281–90.10.4314/sajas.v50i2.11Search in Google Scholar

[21] Mavrommatis A, Mitsiopoulou C, Christodoulou C, Karabinas D, Nenov V, Zervas G, et al. Dietary supplementation of a live yeast product on dairy sheep milk performance, oxidative and immune status in peripartum period. J Fungi. 2020;6:334.10.3390/jof6040334Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[22] Elaref MY, Hamdon HAM, Nayel UA, Salem AZM, Anele UY. Influence of dietary supplementation of yeast on milk composition and lactation curve behaviour of Sohagi ewes, and the growth performance of their new born lambs. Small Rum Res. 2020;191:106176.10.1016/j.smallrumres.2020.106176Search in Google Scholar

[23] Khan MJ, Asif AR, Ahmad N, Saleem AH, Javed K, Amin H, et al. Effect of yeast supplementation on growth and production performance in Beetal goats. Pak J Agric Sci. 2020;57:251–4.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Shehu BM, Ayo JO, Ayanwale BA, Jiya EZ, Tsado DN. Growth performance and nutrient digestibility of weaned rabbits fed diets supplemented with varying levels of baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Agrar J Agribus Rural Dev Res. 2014;17:1619–27.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Uyeno Y, Shigemori S, Shimosato T. Effect of Probiotics/Prebiotics on cattle health and productivity. Microbes Env. 2015;30:126–32.10.1264/jsme2.ME14176Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[26] Desnoyers M, Giger-Reverdin S, Bertin G, Duvaux-Ponter C, Sauvant D. Meta-analysis of the influence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on ruminal parameters and milk production of ruminants. J Dairy Sci. 2009;92:1620–32.10.3168/jds.2008-1414Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[27] Ogbuewu IP, Mbajiorgu CA. Meta-analysis of probiotic-yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) intervention on feed intake, feed efficiency and egg production indices in laying hens. Anim Prod Sci. 2020;62:1330–43.10.1071/AN20192Search in Google Scholar

[28] Ogbuewu IP, Okoro VM, Mbajiorgu CA. Probiotic-yeast improves performance indicators in broiler chickens: Evidence from meta-analysis. Appl Ecol Env Res. 2020a;18:2823–43.10.15666/aeer/1802_28232843Search in Google Scholar

[29] Greenland S, O’ Rourke K. Meta-analysis. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash T, edn. Modern epidemiology (3rd, thoroughly revised and updated ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008. p. 652.Search in Google Scholar

[30] Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K. Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press; 2013.10.1515/9781400846184Search in Google Scholar

[31] Ogbuewu IP, Okoro VM, Mbajiorgu CA. Meta-analysis of the influence of phytobiotic (pepper) supplementation in broiler chicken performance. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2020b;52:17–30.10.1007/s11250-019-02118-3Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[32] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta- analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[33] Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org/ (Accessed on 10th April 2022).Search in Google Scholar

[34] Wallace BC, Lajeunesse MJ, Dietz G, Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, Schmid CH, et al. Intuitive, open-source software for meta-analysis in ecology and evolutionary biology. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;8:941–7.10.1111/2041-210X.12708Search in Google Scholar

[35] Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1969.Search in Google Scholar

[36] DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[37] Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. United Kingdom: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd; 2009.10.1002/9780470743386Search in Google Scholar

[38] Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.10.1002/sim.1186Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[39] Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2003;327:557–60.10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[40] Lean IJ, Rabiee AR, Duffield TF, Dohoo IR. Invited review: Use of meta-analysis in animal health and reproduction: Methods and applications. J Dairy Sci. 2009;92:3545–65.10.3168/jds.2009-2140Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[41] Giger-Reverdin S, Bezault N, Sauvant D, Bertin G. Effects of probiotic yeast in lactating ruminants: Interaction with dietary nitrogen level. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 1996;63:149–62.10.1016/S0377-8401(96)01011-5Search in Google Scholar

[42] Salama AAK, Caja G, Darin D, Albanell E, Such X, Casals R. Effects of adding a mixture of malate and yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on milk production of Murciano-Granadina dairy goats. Anim Res. 2002;51:295–303.10.1051/animres:2002025Search in Google Scholar

[43] Abd El-Ghani A. Influence of diet supplementation with yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on performance of Zaraibi goats. Small Rum Res. 2004;52:223–9.10.1016/j.smallrumres.2003.06.002Search in Google Scholar

[44] Stella AV, Paratte R, Valnegri L, Cigalino G, Soncini G, Chevaux E, et al. Effect of administration of live Saccharomyces cerevisiae on milk production, milk composition, blood metabolites, and faecal flora in early lactating dairy goats. Small Rum Res. 2007;67:7–13.10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.08.024Search in Google Scholar

[45] Ahmed ME, Shehata EI, Abou Ammou FF, Abdel-Gowad AM, Aiad KM. Milk production, feed conversion rate and reproduction of Zaraibi goat in response to bacterial feed additive during late pregnancy and lactation. Egypt J Anim Prod. 2008;45:189–203.10.21608/ejap.2008.104512Search in Google Scholar

[46] Mahrous AA, Fayed AMA, Mehrez AZ, Gabr AA, Zelaky OA. Influence of supplementing live yeast to rations varied in roughage to concentrate ratio on productive performance of lactating Zaraibi goats. Egypt J Sheep Goat Sci. 2008;14:11–23.Search in Google Scholar

[47] Lima LS, Alcalde CR, Freitas HS, Molina BS, Macedo F, Horst JA. Performance of dairy goats fed diets with dry yeast from sugar cane as protein source. R Bras Zootec. 2012;41:232–6.10.1590/S1516-35982012000100033Search in Google Scholar

[48] Macedo RJ, Arredondo V, García F, Aguilar M, Prado O, Rodríguez R. Effect of supplemental yeast culture and physiological factors on colostrum and milk composition of Pelibuey ewes. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2012;44:349–54.10.1007/s11250-011-0028-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[49] Gomes LC, Alcalde CR, de Lima LR, Soares de Lima L, Rodrigo de Souza R, Possamai APS. Nutritive value of diets containing inactive dry yeast for lactating Saanen goats. Rev Brasileira de Zootecn. 2014;43:36–43.10.1590/S1516-35982014000100006Search in Google Scholar

[50] Zaleska B, Milewski S, Zabek K. Impact of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on reproductive performance, milk yield in ewes and offspring growth. Arch Anim Breed. 2015;58:79–83.10.5194/aab-58-79-2015Search in Google Scholar

[51] Kholif AE, Abdo MM, Anele UY, El‐Sayed MM, Morsy TA. Saccharomyces cerevisiae does not work synergistically with exogenous enzymes to enhance feed utilization, ruminal fermentation. Livest Sci. 2017;206:17–23.10.1016/j.livsci.2017.10.002Search in Google Scholar

[52] Ma ZZ, Cheng YY, Wang SQ, Ge JZ, Shi HP, Kou JC. Positive effects of dietary supplementation of three probiotics on milk yield, milk composition and intestinal flora in Sannen dairy goats varied in kind of probiotics. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2019;104:44–55.10.1111/jpn.13226Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[53] Aaliya F, Sanober R, Niha A, Sadiya S, Patoo RA, Sheikh GG. Effects of concentrates and probiotics supplementation on colostrums and milk composition of Boar x local cross periparturient goats. J Pharmacog Phytochem. 2020;9:24–7.Search in Google Scholar

[54] Alshanbari AA, Al-Suwaiegh SB, Al-Yousef YM, Al-Shaheen TA. Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products on productive performance of Ardi goat. Asian J Anim Sci. 2020;14:69–74.10.3923/ajas.2020.69.74Search in Google Scholar

[55] Sahoo R, Nayyar S, Singh C, Kaswan S, Kakkar SS, Jindal R. Effect of fenugreek seeds and probiotic supplementation on antioxidant status and milk production in heat stressed Beetal goats. Indian J Anim Res. 2020;54:1379–84.10.18805/ijar.B-3892Search in Google Scholar

[56] Tayeb MAM. Effect of different levels supplementation of dry bread yeast in Awassi ewes rations on milk production and its components. Plant Arch. 2020;20:1140–3.Search in Google Scholar

[57] Almallah OD, Abdullah MN, Abbo NY, Hussien NG. Impact of yeast supplement to the rations contained different levels of barley grain in milk production and components of Awassi ewes. Asian J Dairy Food Res. 2021;40:295–8.10.18805/ajdfr.DR-221Search in Google Scholar

[58] Rosenberg MS. The file-drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evol. 2005;59:464–8.10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01004.xSearch in Google Scholar

[59] Sterne JAC, Harbord RM. Funnel plots in meta-analysis. Stata J. 2004;4:127–41.10.1177/1536867X0400400204Search in Google Scholar

[60] Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://handbook. 2011; cochrane.org/. (Accessed on 24th March, 2022).Search in Google Scholar

[61] Abu-Tarboush HM, Al-Saiady MY, Keir, El-Din AH. Evaluation for diet containing Lactobacilli on performance, fecal coliform and lactobacilli of young dairy calves. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 1996;57:39–49.10.1016/0377-8401(95)00850-0Search in Google Scholar

[62] Zhou M, Xu L, Zhao F, Liu H. Regulation of milk protein synthesis by free and peptide-bound amino acids in dairy cows. Biology. 2021;10:1044.10.3390/biology10101044Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[63] Kanwal R, Ahmed T, Mirza B. Comparative analysis of quality of milk collected from buffalo, cow, goat and sheep of Rawalpindi/Islamabad region in Pakistan. Asian Plant Sci. 2004;3:300–5.10.3923/ajps.2004.300.305Search in Google Scholar

[64] Danfær A. Nutrient metabolism and utilization in the liver. Livest Prod Sci. 1994;39:115–27.10.1016/0301-6226(94)90163-5Search in Google Scholar

[65] Reynolds CK, Aikman PC, Lupoli B, Humphries DJ, Beever DE. Splanchnic metabolism of dairy cows during the transition from late gestation through early lactation. J Dairy Sci. 2003;86:1201–17.10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73704-7Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[66] Al Ibrahim RM, Kelly AK, O’Grady L, Gath VP, McCarney L, Mulligan FJ. The effect of body condition score at calving and supplementation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae on milk production, metabolic status, and rumen fermentation of dairy cows in early lactation. J Dairy Sci. 2010;93:5328.10.3168/jds.2010-3201Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[67] Malekkhahi M, Tahmasbi AM, Naserian AA, Danesh-Mesgaran M, Kleen JL, AlZahal O, et al. Effects of supplementation of active dried yeast and malate during sub-acute ruminal acidosis on rumen fermentation, microbial population, selected blood metabolites, and milk production in dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2016;213:29–43.10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.12.018Search in Google Scholar

[68] Hanson RW, Ballard F. The relative significance of acetate and glucose as precursors for lipid synthesis in liver and adipose tissue from ruminants. Biochem J. 1967;105:529–36.10.1042/bj1050529Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[69] Jennions MD, Lortie CJ, Rosenberg MS, Rothstein HR. Chapter 4: Publication and related bias. In: Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K, editors. Handbook of meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution. Princeton, London: Princeton University Press; 2013. p. 207–36.10.23943/princeton/9780691137285.003.0014Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-08-25
Revised: 2023-01-30
Accepted: 2023-01-30
Published Online: 2023-03-13

© 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 2.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opag-2022-0178/html
Scroll to top button