alltech yea-sacc carbon trust validation report report... · yea-sacc is yeast culture designed to...

Carbon Trust Advisory Limited

4th Floor, Dorset House, 27-45 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NT

T: +44 (0)20 7170 7000 F: +44 (0)20 7170 7020 www.carbontrust.co.uk

Carbon Trust Advisory Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales Number 06274284

Registered at 4th Floor, Dorset House, 27-45 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NT

Alltech Yea-Sacc

Carbon Trust Validation Report

22nd November 2018

Carbon Trust Team

John Kazer, Footprint Certification Manager

Karl Hsu, Analyst

In confidence and not for external publication.

This report is submitted by the Carbon Trust for Alltech E-CO2.

This document and the intellectual property, concepts, and content contained within it shall

not be used for any purpose other than that for which it was provided by the Carbon Trust,

and shall not be reproduced in whole or in part. The document shall not be distributed outside

of Alltech E-CO2 without prior consent from the Carbon Trust.

Contents

1 Project Overview ................................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Feed digestibility and enteric CH4 ............................................................................... 4

1.2 Recalculating N excretion rate .................................................................................... 5

1.3 Recalculating enteric CH4 emissions ........................................................................... 5

2 Carbon Trust Validation Opinion ........................................................................................ 7

3 Carbon Footprinting of Farms ............................................................................................ 8

3.1 Analysis for GHG calculators ....................................................................................... 8

3.2 Implications for GHG calculators................................................................................. 9

4 Evidence Base ................................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Published Research ................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Farm Trials ................................................................................................................. 15

References ............................................................................................................................... 19

1 Project Overview

Alltech Inc. has commissioned the Carbon Trust to provide an independent validation opinion

against ISO 14064 (part 2) regarding the predicted performance of their ruminant feed

additive – Yea Sacc® (Yea-Sacc) – in terms of its ability to improve ruminant performance on

dairy and beef farms. This report summarises the terms of reference for this review (evidence

base) and our opinion.

It should be noted that the FAO’s Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance

(LEAP) Partnership has begun a process of writing guidance for assessing the efficacy of

ruminant feed additives (FAO, 2017) and our review process may be updated on publication.

Yea-Sacc is yeast culture designed to optimise ruminant feed utilisation, efficiency, and

performance (‘Yea-Sacc’ n.d.). Alltech would like to be able to enhance their Yea-Sacc sales

process with supporting opinion from a third party (the Carbon Trust) regarding its efficacy in

reducing enteric methane (CH4) (and hence increasing ruminant productivity). The product is

a yeast culture based on Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain 1026, which was selected due to its

influence on animal performance (Alltech, n.d.). In this report, we set out the key issues,

provide an opinion regarding the addition of Yea-Sacc into feeds, and summarise the evidence

base used to form that opinion. We focus our opinion upon productivity and nutrition rather

than enteric CH4, although there are implications of Yea-Sacc on this.

1.1 Feed digestibility and enteric CH4

The rumen contains a complex mixture of eaten food, bacteria, fungi, and by-products. Cattle,

sheep, and other ruminants use bacteria to breakdown grass into digestible chemicals.

However, a range of issues can make this a sub-optimal process. It is beyond the scope of this

report to provide a review of rumen biochemistry. However, some general features are

important:

The principle aim of a farmer is (should be) to make the rumen as efficient as possible

at turning feed into meat and milk without compromising health and welfare

Rumen bacteria generate a range of by-products, some of which are digestible and

some not

By-products include energy carriers (e.g. lactate, followed by fatty acids)

Increased bacteria activity should increase the amount of energy carriers and

digestible matter but may in parallel increase the non-digestible by-products (e.g. CH4)

There is evidence that Yea-Sacc promotes bacterial activity and can also directly reduce CH4

production. The former is linked with improved nutritional update and subsequent higher

DLWG or fat and protein corrected milk yield. The latter is linked to direct emission reduction.

Either may be used to demonstrate lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per litre of

production.

Increased utilisation of feed can have indirect GHG emissions benefits, due to:

Improved feed conversion ratio

Higher quality milk

Earlier slaughter age

Direct emissions benefits may be due to:

Reduced enteric CH4 per litre or kg DLWG

Reduced excreted nitrogen (N) per litre of kg DLWG

With sufficient experimental evidence it is feasible to modify GHG calculations directly with

adjusted data for CH4 and excreted N.

1.2 Recalculating N excretion rate

The current method for calculating excreted N in Alltech E-CO2 beef and dairy models takes

account of the N content of meat and milk (i.e. N excreted = N intake – N in DLWG – N in milk

– N from calf production). However, these certified models (CERT-12629, 23 August 2018)

currently use fixed constants rather than actual farm average (or animal specific) parameters.

1.3 Recalculating enteric CH4 emissions

CH4 losses from the cattle and sheep rumen can represent 2-12% of consumed energy – a

significant cause of lost productivity (Tapio, Snelling, Strozzi, & Wallace, 2017). In addition,

CH4 is an important GHG and the source of existential challenge to the livestock sector from

NGOs, government agencies, and academics (FAO, 2006), (Public Health England, 2014),

(Garnett, 2015).

A number of organisations1 have developed tools to estimate the carbon footprint of farming

livestock, which include a number of assumptions about enteric CH4 generation. These

assumptions link existing empirical research regarding CH4 release volumes, animal physical

characteristics (e.g. weight), and the quality, quantity, and type of feed. The approach taken

therefore, is to model enteric CH4 release based upon what is known about this data – any

adjustment to these calculations (e.g. CH4 Conversion Factor) due to the use of Yea-Sacc will

therefore need to be made in reference to:

Animal weight (e.g. average Holstein Friesian cow at 650kg)

Feed quality (e.g. digestibility)

Feed quantity (e.g. kg dry matter intake (DMI))

Feed type (e.g. concentrate, grazed grass, forage, etc.)

The primary factors regarding the impact upon methanogenic bacteria are the ratio of fatty

acids acetate, propionate, and butyrate, as well as the balance of dietary carbohydrate and

1 Such as: Alltech E-CO2, Promar International, Bord Bia, Cool Farm Alliance (for a UK and Ireland focus)

fibre types (Figure 1). Based upon the impact of these fatty acids upon hydrogen (and hence

CH4) production, there are several metrics of interest:

Ratio of acetate (and/or butyrate) to propionate (aim to favour the latter)

Ratio of CH4 to overall gas production (reduce CH4 without reducing overall gas)

Amount of overall gas production (related to feed digestibility, so aim for no change)

It is broadly acknowledged that dietary content can regulate the behaviour of these bacteria,

however making reliable adjustments across the range of ruminant diets, species, and breeds

is challenging.

Figure 1 – Summary of rumen biochemistry (Beauchemin & McGinn, 2011)

2 Carbon Trust Validation Opinion

We consider that:

Rumen CH4 performance improvements come without significantly affecting animal

performance (e.g. weight gain and/or milk production in absolute or per kg DMI) and

in most reviewed farm trial results, improves performance (as described in section 4.2

below).

Excreted N improvements come without significantly affecting animal performance.

It is reasonable to assume Yea-Sacc can lead to an increase against a valid baseline in:

o Milk protein and fat content

o Milk production/yield

o Bacterial DM intake

o Ruminal pH

o Ruminal bacteria

o Microbial fermentation

Note 1:

We strongly recommend that farmers test the additive for at least 8 weeks before committing

to long-term use, due to the wide variability of farm conditions.

Note 2:

To reflect the potential importance of diet contents and alternative energy utilisation, the on-

farm test should ideally include each broad type of diet used on farm (e.g. one for the winter

or during finishing if concentrates predominate, and one focussed on forage when grazing in

the summer). The trials summarised in section 4.2 below tended to focus on silage-based

diets. One trial (Preissinger, Obermaier, & Maierhofer, 2004) also had opposite results to the

rest – please acknowledge this in conversations with farmers.

3 Carbon Footprinting of Farms

In order to provide companies with sufficient information to enable livestock carbon

calculations to take account of Yea-Sacc’s benefits, the following should be taken into

account:

Firstly, what level of analysis regarding benefits would a company managing a carbon

calculator require?

Secondly, what are the implications for this company in terms of data and calculation

changes?

3.1 Analysis for GHG calculators

The evidence desired to enable the inclusion of Yea-Sacc in farm GHG mitigation

recommendations and modelling should:

Be based upon statistical principles, including the role of a viable control group on-

farm (i.e. animals without the additive for comparison)

Include on-farm demonstration examples

Highlight the impact (positive or negative) on animal performance

Include the price of Yea-Sacc per kg CO2e saved compared to other GHG mitigation

options

Our validation opinion, summarised in section 2 above, considers that the top three bullet

points have been met by the results described below. Alltech may wish to provide farmers

with some additional information in order to satisfy the fourth point regarding comparable

cost of mitigation. In this context, a farmer may have a GHG reduction target to achieve in a

variety of alternative ways:

Increase grazing period (free?)

Improve genetic quality of the herd (potentially expensive but with important

financial benefits)

Agro-chemical efficiency (e.g. fertiliser reduction – free?)

Investment in less polluting manure management facilities (expensive)

There are several free or financially beneficial options available to farmers to reduce their

GHG emissions, which may be considered alongside Yea-Sacc. However, Yea-Sacc should be

considered additional in its impact and, following a successful on-farm test, would be

expected to enhance productivity too. Therefore, we believe it should be considered an

important GHG mitigation option for a well-managed dairy or beef enterprise.

3.2 Implications for GHG calculators

The following is a non-exhaustive list of the potential changes, which could be made to

existing dairy or beef carbon calculators.

Record that the farmer is using Yea-Sacc and in what ways (e.g. all cows, for the past

year). If it has only been recently adopted, then the impacts should be considered

limited (i.e. only apply 50% of the potential gain), as the full effects may only be

detected in farm audit data after multiple months of use.

Review the feed and productivity data prior to starting use of Yea-Sacc to confirm any

(positive or negative) change in feed efficiency, weight gain/conformity, and milk yield

or quality. Data should preferably be at least monthly but annual data is suitable if

Yea-Sacc has been used for a significant length of time and monthly data is

unavailable.

Reference improved feed utilisation but no increase in CH4 in the calculations, which

could take the form of:

o Reduce assumptions about feed intake needs for a given modelled energy

requirement

o Acknowledge that the farm has taken steps to improve feed efficiency but only

measure this indirectly via the improved relationship between measured feed

intake and milk production or DLWG. No calculation changes are required for

this approach, other than recording use of Yea-Sacc.

Directly reduce the estimated N excretion rate, linked to increased N retention in meat

and/or milk.

Simply acknowledge that it is likely that feed efficiency will have improved and aim to

measure changes in feeding and milk production data accordingly. Any changes may

then be attributed to Yea-Sacc

o The expected increase in weight gain, milk yield and/or fat/protein content

may be used as a guide to understanding any changes

4 Evidence Base

We used two sources of evidence in coming to our opinion.

The first (section 4.1) is a set of (non-exhaustive) academic papers describing the

experimental conditions and results of trials, which included Yea-Sacc.

The second (section 4.2) is based upon farm trials of Yea-Sacc. They provided views on what

sort of evidence they would need in order to include Yea-Sacc as a quantitative factor in their

GHG calculations and hence recommend it as a GHG mitigation option.

4.1 Published Research

In reviewing the literature, we referred to academic publications, industry reports, and also

some additional generally available material. However, we did not conduct an exhaustive

review of all the publically available evidence.

This section briefly reviews a set of research papers, providing a list of relevant features to

enable comparison.

In general, the approach taken combined data from in vivo (live animals in normal

surroundings and occasional CH4 measurement using non-invasive equipment) and in vitro

(extracts of rumen content fermented in the lab) approaches. A range of geographies apply,

although typically the same (or similar) dairy breeds were used.

Rossi et al. (1995)

This study evaluated the effect of a yeast culture (Yea-Sacc) filter-sterilised filtrate on the

growth and lactate uptake by the ruminal bacteria Megasphaera elsdenii.

Report-specific information

Title Effect of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on growth and lactate utilization by the ruminal bacterium Megasphaera elsdenii

Active ingredient(s) Yea-Sacc

Fermentation location In vitro

Dose 0, 1, 2.5, 5% filtrate levels

Milk yield change Linear improvement in lactate utilisation 0% Yea-Sacc = 817.36 mg 100ml-1 utilised lactate 1% = 1033.45 mg 100ml-1 2.5% = 1085.07 mg 100ml-1 5% = 1335.00 mg 100ml-1

Influence on rumen Linear improvement in bacterial dry matter production 0% Yea-Sacc = 95.01 mg 100ml-1 1% = 115.82 mg 100ml-1 2.5% = 142.13 mg 100ml-1

5% = 157.69 mg 100ml-1

Acetate change Slight decrease 0% Yea-Sacc = 33.06 molar % of VFA 1% = 31.83% 2.5% = 30.74% 5% = 31.28%

Edwards et al. (1991)

The study evaluated the impact of Yea-Sacc upon feed intake, digestion and nutrient retention

of (effectively) 18 Limousin steers.


Title The Response of Limousin X Friesian Steers Fed Silage and Concentrates to the Addition of Supplemental Yeast Culture (Yea-Sacc) and/or an Antibiotic Additive (Avotan)

Active ingredient(s) Yea-Sacc

Fermentation location In vivo

Dose 10g/head/day

DLWG change (kg/day) 1.22 to 1.32

FCR 6.07 to 5.66

Influence on rumen There were no significant differences in rumen pH, ammonia or plasma urea but feed digestibility was increased

N retention 0.22 to 0.31 (significant increase, p < 0.05)

Volatile Fatty Acid change

Increase in total VFA of 16% with no measurable change in ratio across butyrate, acetate and propionate. The may indicate an increase in enteric CH4 but without direct measurement it is not feasible.

Lascano et al. (2009)

Investigation of viable and total ruminal bacteria counts with the addition of Alltech Yea-Sacc


Title Concentrate levels and Saccharomyces cerevisiae affect rumen fluid-associated bacteria numbers in dairy heifers

Active ingredient Yea-Sacc

Period 35 days

Species (breed) Holstein heifers (18 years ± 1 month)

Number of animals 3

Feed Corn silage-based

Dose 1g kg-1 day-1

Influence on rumen Mean rumen viable bacteria linearly increased among treatments (total and viable bacteria decreased for the

first two hours after feeding, then increased four hours post-feeding)

Al Ibrahim et al. (2012)


Title The effect of abrupt or gradual introduction to pasture after calving and supplementation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Strain 1026) on ruminal pH and fermentation in early lactation dairy cows


Geography Ireland

Species (breed) Holstein/Friesian

Number of animals 8

Feed 27% maize silage, 16.5% grass silage, 3.5% wheat straw, 53% lactating compound

Dose 1.25g kg-1 day-1

Influence on rumen Dietary supplementation with YC during early lactation increased ruminal pH and tVFA and reduced lactic acid. Ruminal pH in the first measuring period was not affected by YC supplementation (P>0.10). During the second measuring period, a higher (P>0.01) pH was recorder in the YC supplement group than the control group, averaging 6.10 v. 5.95 ± 0.04.

Nisbet and Martin (1991)

Examining the effects of Yea-Sacc on lactate utilisation by predominant ruminal bacterium


Title Effect of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on lactate utilization by the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium


Geography United States

Dose 5-10 g litre-1

Lactate change Lactate uptake stimulated by Yea-Sacc concentrations of 2.5-10g litre-1 and the 5g litre-1 increased uptake 3.8 fold. When concentrations increased above the 5g l-1 level, lactate uptake decreased but 10g l-1 stimulated more uptake than threefold.

Filter-sterilised Yea-Sacc filtrate increased lactate uptake more than fourfold at all concentrations (10-100µl ml-1).

Influence on rumen Growth of Selenomonas ruminantium in medium that contained 2 g l-1 of DL-lactate was stimulated more than twofold by either 2 or 5% Yea-Sacc filtrate after 24h.

Arcos-Garcia et al. (2000)

Feed trial to evaluate the effect of two direct-fed microbial cultures containing

Saccharomyces cerevisiae on ruminal fermentation and digestibility of diets based on sugar

cane tops


Title Effect of two commercial yeast cultures with Saccharomyces cerevisiae on ruminal fermentation and digestion in sheep fed sugar cane tops


Species (breed) Suffolk ewes

Number of animals 3

Feed 50% sugar cane tops, 21% sorghum grain, 15% wheat bran, 12% molasses, 2% urea

Dose 3g day-1 Yea-Sacc (and 1g day-1 Levucell)

Influence on rumen Yea-Sacc reduced ruminal pH compared to the control group. Ruminal pH was highest (P<0.05) in the control group (6.05) and lower (P<0.05) with Yea-Sacc (5.85). Yeast cultures with Yea-Sacc did not improve digestibility or fermentation

Hoover and Miller Webster (1997)

To determine whether Yea-Sacc in a pelleted concentrate would alter the effects of the viable

yeast culture on rumen bacteria in continuous cultures


Title The effect of pelleting on the biological activity of Yea-Sacc®1026


Geography United States

Feed “Typical lactating dairy cow grain mix (meal)”

Dose 0.042g day-1 / 1.6x106 CFU g-1 of feed

Influence on rumen Yea-Sacc inclusion significantly improved (17-25%) crude protein digestibility, total microbial N yield, and the N

yield per kg of carbohydrate fed, thus stimulating microbial fermentation

4.2 Farm Trials

Farm trials do not measure CH4 but focussed upon cow performance (e.g. milk yield, milk

characteristics, and DMI).

Kalmus et al. (2009)

Estimation of the effect of Yea-Sacc 1026 on milk production, metabolic parameters, and

resumption of ovarian activity in early lactation dairy cows


Title Effect of yeast culture on milk production and metabolic and reproductive performance of early lactation dairy cows


Period 2005-2006

Species (breed) Estonian Holstein Friesian

Number of animals 46 in two groups

Feed Mixed ration with silages and concentrates

Dose 10g day-1 (recommended dosage of Yea-Sacc)

Milk yield change No statistically significant effect (32.7 ± 6.4 v. 30.7 ± 5.3 kg day-1)

Milk fat content Higher (p<0.001)

Milk protein content Higher (p<0.001)

Influence on rumen No significant differences in energy-related metabolites in early lactation

Novais et al. (2008)

Evaluation of the effects of Yea-Sacc 1026 on feed intake and performance of dairy cows in

summer


Title Effect of Yea-Sacc 1026 supplementation on productive response of dairy cows fed corn silage-based diets during summer


Geography Portugal

Species (breed) Holstein

Number of animals 12

Feed 42% corn silage, 8% ryegrass hay, 50% concentrate

Dose 1g day-1

Milk yield change Increased milk production (P=0.072; 30.6 and 33.0 kg day-1 for control and Yea-Sacc)

Milk protein content Increased milk protein content (P=0.096; 0.82 and 0.88 kd day-1 for control and Yea-Sacc)

Milk lactose content Decreased milk lactose content (P=0.083)

DMI change No influence (19.6 and 20.4 kg DM day-1 for control and Yea-Sacc)

Kumar et al. (2000)

Study of the effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast culture on milk production


Title Effect of supplementation of a yeast preparation milk production and its composition in Murrah buffaloes

Active ingredient Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Period 12 weeks

Species (breed) Murrah buffalo


Feed Basal production diet (green berseem Trifolium alexandrinum)

Dose 10g day-1

Milk yield change Increased starting in the first week and increased from the second week onwards. Milk yield increased by 5.13% and FCM increased by 6.97% (P<0.05)

Milk fat content Increased by 2.28%

Milk protein content Increased by 2.66%

Influence on rumen Enhanced ruminal microbial associated digestive processes (particularly fibre)

Preissinger et al. (2004)

Study of the effect of dietary yeast culture on feed intake, milk production, and milk

composition.


Title Effects of yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on nutrient digestibility, feed intake and milk yield response in Simmental dairy cows

Active ingredient Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Period 15 weeks

Species (breed) Simmental x Red Holstein


Feed 45% corn silage, 45% grass silage, 2.5% hay, 7.5% concentrate

Dose 10g day-1

DM change DM intake tended to be higher for cows fed live yeast

Milk yield change Milk yield tended to be higher for cows fed live yeast

Milk fat content Cows fed control had statistically higher milk fat content

Milk protein content Cows fed control had slightly higher milk protein content

This was the only study we reviewed that found negative effects (decreases) for milk fat and

protein content.

Smink and Fitie (2007)

An in vitro study with rumen fluid of lactating cows in batch culture carried out to determine

the effect of live yeast (Yea-Sacc) on fermentation rate, volatile fatty acids, ammonia, and CH4

production


Title Effect of viable yeast culture (Yea-Sacc®1026) on methane and volatile fatty acid production in rumen fluid – an in vitro experiment


Geography Netherlands

Feed 50% roughage (75% grass silage, 25% com silage) and 50% concentrate

Dose 8mg 100ml-1

VFA change Significant increase in VFA (P<0.01), acetic acid (P<0.05), and propionic acid (P<0.01) production

Ammonia content Acetic/propionic acid ratio and ammonia concentration did not differ between treatments

CH4 content Significantly lower (P<0.05) for the Yea-Sacc supplemented substrate

Tristant et al. (2010)

Investigation of whether the addition of viable yeast culture (Yea-Sacc) to the total mixed

ration of dairy cattle could potentially reduce CH4 emissions in a crop-livestock farming

system


Title Effect of Yea-Sacc®1026 in a dairy diet on total greenhouse gas emissions of a crop-livestock farming system


Geography Grignon, France

Species (breed) Dairy cows

Number of animals 6

Dose 50g

CH4 change Use of Yea-Sacc had no effect on enteric CH4 production, expressed as g/d, g/kg DMI, or g/kg milk Control 12.49g kg-1 milk // 18.51g kg-1 DMI Yea-Sacc 12.16g kg-1 milk // 18.14g kg-1 DMI

Tristant and Moran (2015)

To determine the effect of Yea-Sacc in the diet of lactating dairy cows on aspects of milk

production, milk quality, environmental outputs, and financial impact on farm.


Title The efficacy of feeding a love probiotic yeast, Yea-Sacc®, on the performance of lactating dairy cows


Period 12 weeks

Species (breed) Holstein


Dose 5x107 CFU kg DM-1

Milk yield change Significant beneficial effects on: Milk production (+0.8kg day-1; P=0.003) Energy corrected milk production (+1.4 kg day-1; P<0.0001)

Milk protein content Significant beneficial effects on: Synthesis of milk protein (+36g day-1; P=0.001) Milk protein content (+0.3g kg-1; P=0.009)

Milk urea content Significant beneficial effects (-0.09mg l-1; P=0.004)

Lactose change Lactose content was always higher for the Yea-Sacc group (+0.8g kg-1; P<0.0001)

References

Al Ibrahim, R., Gath, V., Campion, D., Duffy, P., & Mulligan, F. (2012). The effect of abrupt or

gradual introduction to pasture after calving and supplementation with

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Strain 1026) on ruminal pH and fermentation in early

lactation dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 40-47.

Alltech. (n.d.). Yea-Sacc. Retrieved from Alltech: https://www.alltech.com/yea-sacc

Arcos-Garcia, J., Castrejon, F., Mendoza, G., & Perez-Gavilan, E. (2000). Effect of two

commercial yeast cultures with Saccharomyces cerevisiae on ruminal fermentation

and digestion in sheep fed sugar cane tops. Livestock Production Science, 153-157.

Beauchemin, K., & McGinn, S. (2011). Reducing Greenhouse Gas Contribution from Ruminant

Livestock. Retrieved from https://www.slu.se/globalassets/ew/org/centrb/fr-

lantbr/pdf-filer/fran-gamla-

webben/kbeauchemin_2011_sweden_ghg_copy_for_viewing.pdf

Dunkel, S., Zweifel, B., Schaeffer, H., Trauboth, K., & Strube, M. (2013). Die wirkung der zulage

einer mischung aus ätherischen Ölen auf die leistung von milchkühen. Tierische

Produktion, 592-600.

FAO. (2006). Livestock's Long Shadow. Rome: FAO.

FAO. (2017). Formation of the Technical Advisory Group on feed additive environmental

assessment. Retrieved from LEAP: http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/news-and-

events/news/detail/en/c/1024928/

Garnett, T. (2015). Gut feelings and possible tomorrows: (where) does animal farming fit?

Oxford: Food Climate Research Network.

Hoover, W., & Miller Webster, T. (1997). The effect of pelleting on the biological activity of

Yea-Sacc®1026.

Kalmus, P., Orro, T., Waldmann, A., Lindjarv, R., & Kask, K. (2009). Effect of yeast culture on

milk production and metabolic and reproductive performance of early lactation dairy

cows. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica.

Kumar, U., Sareen, V., & Singh, S. (2000). Effect of supplementation of a yeast preparation

milk production and its composition in Murrah buffaloes. Indian Journal of Animal

Sciences, 983-984.

Lascano, G., Zanton, G., & Heinrichs, A. (2009). Concentrate levels and Saccharomyces

cerevisiae affect rumen fluid-associated bacteria numbers in dairy heifers. Livestock

Science, 189-194.

Newbold, J. (2016). The effect of addition of Agolin Ruminant on performance and gaseous

emissions of lactating dairy cattle. Climate-KIC.

Nisbet, D., & Martin, S. (1991). Effect of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on lactate

utilization by the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium.

Novias, V., Cabrita, R., Gomes, C., Fonseca, J., & Andrieu, S. (2008). Effect of Yea-Sacc 1026

supplementation on productive response of dairy cows fed corn silage-based diets

during summer.

Pirondini, M., Colombini, S., Malagutti, L., Rapetti, L., Galassi, G., Zanchi, R., & Crovetto, G.

(2015). Effects of a selection of additives on in vitro ruminal methanogenesis and in

situ and in vivo NDF digestibility. Animal Science Journal, 59-68.

Preissinger, W., Obermaier, A., & Maierhofer, R. (2004). Effects of yeast culture

(Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on nutrient digestibility, feed intake and milk yield

response in Simmental dairy cows. LfL Tierernahrung.

Public Health England. (2014). The Eatwell Guide. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-eatwell-guide

Rossi, F., Cocconcelli, P., & Masoero, F. (1995). Effect of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture

on growth and lactate utilization by the ruminal bacterium Megasphaera elsdenii. Ann

Zootech, 403-409.

Smink, W., & Fitie, A. (n.d.). Effect of viable yeast culture (Yea-Sacc®1026) on methane and

volatile fatty acid production in rumen fluid – an in vitro experiment. 2007.

Tapio, I., Snelling, T., Strozzi, F., & Wallace, R. (2017). The ruminal microbiome associated with

methane emissions from ruminant livestock. Journal of Animal Science and

Biotechnology.

Tristant, D., & Moran, C. (2015). The efficacy of feeding a love probiotic yeast, Yea-Sacc®, on

the performance of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition.

Tristant, D., Python, Y., Schmidely, P., Carton, S., & Bourgeat, E. (2010). Effect of Yea-

Sacc®1026 in a dairy diet on total greenhouse gas emissions of a crop-livestock farming

system.

alltech yea-sacc carbon trust validation report report... · yea-sacc is yeast culture designed to...

Documents