<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.3/JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd"><article xml:lang="en" dtd-version="1.3" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="issn">2615-790X</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Tropical Animal Science Journal</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title>Trop. Anim. Sci. J.</abbrev-journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2615-790X</issn><issn pub-type="ppub">2615-787X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Faculty of Animal Science, IPB University</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Indonesia</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5398/tasj.2026.49.3.240</article-id><title-group><article-title>Screening the CLA Producing Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Rumen Goats  and Their Effects on Ruminal <italic>In Vitro</italic> Fermentation</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Oluodo</surname><given-names>L. A.</given-names></name><address><country>Thailand</country></address><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF-1"></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1152-7276</contrib-id><name><surname>Hnokaew</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><address><country>Thailand</country></address><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF-1"></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6142-3563</contrib-id><name><surname>Thirawong</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><address><country>Thailand</country></address><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF-1"></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5341-6737</contrib-id><name><surname>Umsook</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><address><country>Thailand</country></address><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF-1"></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1616-5323</contrib-id><name><surname>Fitriyah</surname><given-names>N. S.</given-names></name><address><country>Indonesia</country></address><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF-1"></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1483-1158</contrib-id><name><surname>Phatsara</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><address><country>Thailand</country></address><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF-1"></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2014-5306</contrib-id><name><surname>Lumsangkul</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><address><country>Thailand</country></address><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF-1"></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6805-6938</contrib-id><name><surname>Montha</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><address><country>Thailand</country></address><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF-1"></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4763-1243</contrib-id><name><surname>Yammuen-Art</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><address><country>Thailand</country><email>saowaluck.y@cmu.ac.th</email></address><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF-1"></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor-8"></xref></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="editor"><name><surname>Wiryawan</surname><given-names>Prof. Dr. Komang G</given-names></name><address><country>Indonesia</country></address><xref rid="EDITOR-AFF-1" ref-type="aff"></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="AFF-1"><institution content-type="dept">Department of Animal and Aquatic Science, Faculty of Agriculture</institution><institution-wrap><institution>Chiang Mai University</institution><institution-id institution-id-type="ror">https://ror.org/05m2fqn25</institution-id></institution-wrap><country country="TH">Thailand</country></aff><aff id="EDITOR-AFF-1">Tropical Animal Science Journal</aff><author-notes><fn fn-type="coi-statement"><label>CONFLICT OF INTEREST</label><p>We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial, personal, or other relationships with other people or organizations related to the material discussed in the manuscript.</p></fn><corresp id="cor-8">Corresponding author: S. Yammuen-Art, Department of Animal and Aquatic Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University.  Email: <email>saowaluck.y@cmu.ac.th</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2026-4-16" publication-format="electronic"><day>16</day><month>4</month><year>2026</year></pub-date><pub-date date-type="collection" iso-8601-date="2026-4-16" publication-format="electronic"><day>16</day><month>4</month><year>2026</year></pub-date><volume>49</volume><issue>3</issue><issue-title>Tropical Animal Science Journal</issue-title><fpage>240</fpage><lpage>251</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2025-12-15"><day>15</day><month>12</month><year>2025</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd" iso-8601-date="2026-3-3"><day>3</day><month>3</month><year>2026</year></date><date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="2026-3-4"><day>4</day><month>3</month><year>2026</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright (c) 2026 Tropical Animal Science Journal</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2026</copyright-year><copyright-holder>Tropical Animal Science Journal</copyright-holder><license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</ali:license_ref><license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.Authors submitting manuscripts should understand and agree that copyright of manuscripts of the article shall be assigned/transferred to Tropical Animal Science Journal. The statement to release the copyright to Tropical Animal Science Journal is stated in Form A. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA) where Authors and Readers can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, as well as remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, but they must give appropriate credit (cite to the article or content), provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journal.ipb.ac.id/tasj/article/view/70301" xlink:title="Screening the CLA Producing Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Rumen Goats  and Their Effects on Ruminal In Vitro Fermentation">Screening the CLA Producing Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Rumen Goats  and Their Effects on Ruminal In Vitro Fermentation</self-uri><abstract><p>Ruminant-Derived products are a major dietary source of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a bioactive fatty acid associated with numerous health benefits. However, the natural biosynthesis of CLA in the rumen is often limited by extensive biohydrogenation of unsaturated fatty acids, necessitating strategies to enhance its synthesis through microbial manipulation. This study aimed to identify CLA-producing lactic acid bacteria (LAB) from goat rumen fluid and evaluate their effects on <italic>in vitro</italic> rumen fermentation characteristics. A total of 140 LAB isolates were obtained from rumen fluid of lactating goats, with 23 isolates demonstrating CLA production ranging from 9.0 to 12.3 μg/mL after 24 h of incubation in MRS broth supplemented with linoleic acid. Molecular identification revealed five unique LAB species: <italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic> (n=15), <italic>Lactobacillus plantarum</italic> (n=4), <italic>Pediococcus acidilactici</italic> (n=2), <italic>Lactobacillus argentoratensis</italic> (n=1), and <italic>Lactobacillus pentosus</italic> (n=1). <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 was identified as the highest CLA producer (&gt;12.0 μg/mL) and adopted for <italic>in vitro </italic>ruminal fermentation assessment. Four treatments: control (TMR), TMR supplemented with <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 (LP; 10⁸ CFU/mL), TMR supplemented with 2% sunflower oil (SFO), and TMR supplemented with both SFO and LP (LPSFO). The LPSFO group significantly (p&lt;0.05) increased cumulative gas production at 72 h (95.51mL/0.2 g DM) and 96 h (103.47 mL/0.2 g DM) compared to the control. Similarly, the LPSFO group had the highest ammonia-nitrogen content (13.15 mM), while pH remained stable across all treatments. The volatile fatty acid (VFA) profiles, fatty acid profiles, and total ruminal CLA content were similar across treatments. <italic>Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens</italic> appears more prominent in the LPSFO group on heatmap visualization, a bacterium associated with ruminal biohydrogenation and CLA metabolism. Our findings suggest that <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 primarily functions as a rumen modulator, influencing rumen microbial ecology and promoting beneficial shifts in microbial community composition that may improve fermentation capacity.</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>conjugated linoleic acid</kwd><kwd>Lactobacillus plantarum</kwd><kwd>probiotic</kwd><kwd>sunflower oil</kwd><kwd>microbial ecology</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>File created by JATS Editor</meta-name><meta-value><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://jatseditor.com" xlink:title="JATS Editor">JATS Editor</ext-link></meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>issue-created-year</meta-name><meta-value>2026</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta></front><body><sec><title>INTRODUCTION</title><p>Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is a complex structure that comprises a group of positional and geometric isomers of linoleic acid (LA) that have gained attention due to the numerous therapeutic benefits, including anticarcinogenic <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-38">(Viladomiu et al., 2016)</xref>, antiatherogenic<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-9">(Hartigh, 2019)</xref>, body mass <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-13">(Fuke et al., 2017)</xref>, and muscle-damage <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-23">(Lee et al., 2017)</xref>. Ruminants are the major source of CLA from their meat and milk through the process of microbial biohydrogenation of dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids in the rumen, followed by endogenous synthesis in animal tissues <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-32">(Salsinha et al., 2023)</xref>. However, the required therapeutic dose of CLA is low in meat or milk from ruminant animals, which has driven the development of nutritional strategies to modulate rumen microbial activity and enhance the nutritional quality of ruminant-derived products.</p><p>Biohydrogenation in the rumen is key to CLA synthesis, and microbes are responsible for the process. Among rumen microorganisms, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) have been investigated previously for their potential roles in CLA synthesis and rumen fermentation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-2">(Astuti et al., 2018)</xref>;<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-36">(Tyagi et al., 2020)</xref>. Those LAB species that possess linoleic acid isomerase activity can convert LA to CLA in numerous in vitro studies <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-21">(Kuhl &amp; Dea Lindner, 2016)</xref>;<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-36">(Tyagi et al., 2020)</xref>. However, LAB are generally minor and transient members of the rumen ecology, and their functional relevance is highly dependent on diet composition. Balancing the LAB population is crucial for ruminant health and feed digestion by enhancing nutrient degradation and fermenting high-starch substrates into lactic acid, which is subsequently converted into propionic and butyric acids <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-2">(Astuti et al., 2018)</xref>. LAB could influence microbial distribution, altering fermentation parameters, such as increasing volatile fatty acid <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-2">(Astuti et al., 2018)</xref> and fiber digestion <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-11">(Fitriyah et al., 2024)</xref>;<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-18">(Izuddin et al., 2018)</xref>. Similarly, Astuti et al. (2018) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-2">(Astuti et al., 2018)</xref> reported improved dry matter and neutral detergent fiber digestibility on supplementation of rumen fluid with L. plantarum at 10⁹ CFU mL⁻¹. In addition, a reduction in methane production associated with LAB supplementation promotes the shifts in hydrogen utilization, stimulation of alternative hydrogen sinks, or changes in microbial community structure <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-10">(Doyle et al., 2019)</xref>.</p><p>However, previous studies have focused on CLA-producing lactic acid bacteria (LAB) under pure culture systems, with limited studies under ruminant conditions. Some LAB species, including <italic>Lactobacillus acidophilus</italic>, <italic>Lactobacillus plantarum</italic>, and <italic>Bifidobacterium spp</italic>., have been identified as CLA producers <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-39">(Yang et al., 2017)</xref>; however, CLA synthesis is highly strain-dependent<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-7">(Chen et al., 2024)</xref>, underscoring the need for targeted screening to identify high-performing candidates. Moreover, laboratory screening media are widely used for screening but differ substantially from the rumen environment in terms of substrate availability, microbial competition, and physicochemical conditions. Consequently, CLA production under rumen-simulated or <italic>in vivo</italic> conditions may not accurately reflect the functional outcomes observed <italic>in vitro</italic>. This discrepancy marks the importance of integrating microbial screening with fermentation-based evaluations to assess the rumen ecology of candidate strains. Therefore, the present study aimed to screen lactic acid bacteria isolated from the rumen microbiome of lactating goats for their CLA-producing potential under laboratory conditions and to evaluate the effects of a selected strain on <italic>in vitro</italic> ruminal fermentation characteristics and microbial community composition.</p></sec><sec><title>MATERIALS AND METHODS</title><sec><title>Isolation and Screening of LAB for CLA Production</title><sec><title><bold>Isolation and screening of LAB for CLA production from goat rumen fluid</bold>. </title><p>The Chiang Mai University Institutional Biosafety Committee approved this protocol (CMUIBC0666001, Approval No. A0666001) before the commencement of this experiment. Rumen fluid was collected from three randomly selected lactating goats (Anglo-Nubian × Saanen; average body weight 30 kg; age 3 years) at the Mae-Hia Agricultural Training and Research Center, Mueang, Chiang Mai (AUP). A suction pump was used to collect 100 mL of rumen fluid. Rumen fluid was stored in sterile containers that had been CO<sub>2</sub>-flushed to remove any oxygen and homogenized before further processing. For 24 h at 37 °C, each sample was incubated in deMan-Rogosa-Sharpe (MRS) broth with 0.5 mg/mL of LA (GK5161-25G; Glentham Life Sciences, &gt;90% purity) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-8">(Dahiya &amp; Puniya, 2017)</xref>. After being serially diluted in 0.1% peptone water, the samples were plated on MRS agar and incubated at 37 °C for 72 h. Randomly picked colonies from the MRS agar plates were transferred to MRS broth, and the selected isolates were streaked on MRS agar plates for further purification. The cultures were microscopically examined for purity after Gram staining and then stored at -20 °C in 10% glycerol stocks.</p></sec><sec><title><bold>Biochemical and morphological identification</bold>. </title><p>All isolated colonies were subjected to Gram staining and biochemical tests <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-5">(Bell et al., 2005)</xref>. The selected bacterial isolates were smeared onto glass slides, Gram-stained following standard procedures, and examined microscopically to determine cell morphology and Gram reaction. We used a catalase test with 3% hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) added to day-old bacterial cultures on glass slides.</p></sec><sec><title><bold>UV-based spectrophotometric screening of LAB for CLA production</bold>. </title><p>Based on colony morphology and Gram staining, a total of 140 presumptive LAB isolates were selected. After the selection process, these isolates were subcultured and screened for CLA-producing potential in MRS broth supplemented with LA. The isolates were rapidly screened using a UV-based spectrophotometric method to evaluate their CLA production <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-36">(Tyagi et al., 2020)</xref>. However, the approach was used to identify candidate strains with relative CLA-producing ability; it does not quantify individual CLA isomers with the precision of gas chromatography. A 0.2 μm syringe filter was used to filter a solution of LA (5 mg/mL) in sterile distilled water supplemented with 1% (w/v) Tween-80 (Hi-media, Mumbai, India). To conduct the screening process, 10 mL of MRS broth was inoculated with bacterial cultures at 1% (v/v) and supplemented with 0.05% Lcys-HCl as a reducing agent and 0.5 mg/mL LA as the substrate. The cultures were then incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. The capacity of lactic acid isolates to synthesize CLA was evaluated following incubation using the methodology of Barrett et al. (2007) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-4">(Barrett et al., 2007)</xref>. The enriched samples were centrifuged at 13,000 × g for 5 min at 4 °C. Subsequently, 1 mL of the supernatant from the sample was vigorously mixed with 2 mL of isopropanol and allowed to settle for 3 min. Subsequently, 1.5 mL of hexane was introduced to facilitate the extraction of FAs, which was subsequently allowed to settle for an additional 3 min. A UV-Vis spectrophotometer (Specord-200, Schönwalde-Glien, Germany) was used to analyze a 1 mL aliquot at 233nm. The trans-10, cis-12 CLA isomer was used to establish a standard curve for quantifying total CLA, with a range of 0.5 to 10 μg/mL. The blank was represented by hexane layers that contained only LA during the assay. Based on screening results, isolates with CLA-producing activity below 9.0 μg/mL were discarded, and R-11 was selected for further evaluation due to its comparatively higher CLA-producing activity in MRS medium. Furthermore, the DNA sequencing results revealed that the isolated R-11 strain is <italic>Lactobacillus plantarum</italic> and was selected for the<italic> in vitro</italic> study.</p></sec><sec><title><bold>Genomic DNA isolation</bold>. </title><p>DNA was extracted from 3 mL of bacterial cultures confirmed to produce CLA after 24 h of incubation using the NucleoSpin<sup>®</sup> Tissue Kit from MACHEREY-NAGEL GmbH &amp; Co. KG, Germany. The efficiency and quality of the extracted DNA were tested using a 1% (W/V) agarose gel electrophoresis at 100 V for 15 min in 1 × TBE buffer. The DNA concentration and purity were assessed using the NanoDrop™ 2000/2000c Spectrophotometer. Isolated DNA was stored at -20 °C until further use.</p></sec><sec><title><bold>16S rRNA gene sequencing and identification</bold>. </title><p>The DNA samples from isolates confirmed to produce CLA were amplified using universal 16S rRNA gene primers: 27F (5’-AGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG-3’) and 1492R (5’-GGTTACCTTGTTACGACTT-3’) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-22">(Lane, 1991)</xref>. These primers specifically targeted portions of the 16S rRNA gene during PCR amplification. The PCR reaction mixture consisted of PCR buffer, 10 μM of each primer, 10 mM of each dNTPs mix, 1 unit of Taq DNA polymerase, and 100 ng of template DNA. The reaction was conducted in a total volume of 50 μL, following PCR cycling conditions for 35 cycles. Following amplification, the PCR products were purified from the gel using the QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Cat#28704) according to the manufacturer’s instructions (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany). We outsourced purified products for bidirectional sequencing to Gibthai Co., Ltd. (Bangkok, Thailand). The bidirectional sequencing output was examined and confirmed in BioEdit, and alignment of both strands was performed using CLUSTAL W v2.0. Finally, these sequences were BLAST against the NCBI GenBank database to identify similarities with other <italic>Lactobacillus sequences</italic>. Phylogenetic analysis was performed to confirm the taxonomic identification of CLA-producing LAB isolates. The 16S rRNA gene sequences of the isolates and reference strains retrieved from the NCBI GenBank database were aligned using ClustalW implemented in the RStudio v2023.06.0 Build 421 (Posit Software, PBC, Boston, MA, USA). A genetic distance matrix was calculated using the Kimura 2-parameter (K80) model. A Maximum Likelihood tree was constructed. Bootstrap analysis with 1,000 replicates was performed to assess branch support, and bootstrap values ≥70% were considered reliable. The phylogenetic tree was visualized using the ggtree package in RStudio (version 2023.06.0).</p></sec></sec><sec><title><italic>In Vitro</italic> Degradation of TMR Supplemented with <italic>Lactobacillus plantarum</italic>-R11</title><sec><title><bold>Production of L. plantarum-R11</bold>. </title><p>To rejuvenate the bacteria, L. plantarum-R11 in a 10% glycerol stock was streaked onto de Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe (MRS) agar and incubated at 37 °C for 48 h. A pure single colony was picked, then placed in 10 mL MRS broth and incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. The enriched culture (1% v/v) was transferred to MRS broth in a sterile Erlenmeyer flask at 37°C with agitation at 100 rpm, then incubated for 15 h. The bacteria-media solution was separated using an Allegra X-22R Benchtop Centrifuge (Beckman Coulter, USA) at 10000 × g for 5 min, then the pellet was kept at 4 °C before supplementation.</p></sec><sec><title><bold><italic>In vitro</italic></bold><bold> gas production method</bold>. </title><p>The in vitro degradation was performed using the gas production technique <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-27">(Menke et al., 1979)</xref>. Goat rumen fluid was collected from randomly selected three goats in an abattoir, Hamza Farm, located in 117/314 Soi 22 Pa Daet Sub-district, Mueang Chiang Mai District, Chiang Mai, under ethics license No. AG01005/2566. Rumen fluid was pooled in equal portions, then filtered through two layers of cheesecloth before the<italic> in vitro</italic> degradation experiment. The basal feed used for <italic>in vitro</italic> is a total mixed ration (TMR) with chemical composition listed in (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table-1">Table 1</xref>). The fatty acid profile of TMR is shown in (<xref rid="table-2" ref-type="table">Table 2</xref>). Treatments in this experiment were: CON: TMR; LP: TMR + 10<sup>8</sup> CFU / mL <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11; SFO: TMR + 2% sunflower oil; LPSFO: TMR + 2% sunflower oil + 10<sup>8</sup> CFU/mL<italic> L. plantarum</italic>-R11.</p><table-wrap id="table-1" ignoredToc=""><label>Table 1</label><caption><p> Chemical composition of total mixed ration used in the in vitro experiment (DM basis, %)</p></caption><table frame="box" rules="all"><thead><tr><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">Item</th><th align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">TMR</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top" align="left">Feed ingredients (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">Corn silage</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">18.84</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">Pangola hay</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">12.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">Water</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">30.14</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">Corn husks</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">18.84</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">Rice bran</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">4.52</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">Corn meal</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">6.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">Soybean meal</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">8.67</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">Premix</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.15</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2" valign="top">Chemical composition</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">Dry matter (%)</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">41.78</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">Ash (%)</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">7.98</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="left">Crude protein (%DM)</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">16.85</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">Ether extract (%DM)</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">4.08</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">NDF (%DM)</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">66.04</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">ADF (%DM)</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">37.80</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">ADL (%DM)</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">10.72</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">Hemicellulose</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">28.24</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">Cellulose</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">27.08</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><p>Note: Chemical composition values are represented on a dry matter ba-sis (%DM); TMR: total mixed ration; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table-2" ignoredToc=""><label>Table 2</label><caption><p>Fatty acid composition of TMR (g/100 g total fat)</p></caption><table frame="box" rules="all"><thead><tr><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">Fatty acid</th><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">Concentration</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">C12:0</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.51</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">C14:0</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.23</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">C16:0</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">13.48</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">C18:0</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">5.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">C18:1n9c</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">27.81</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">C18:2n6</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">34.71</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">Total SFA</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">19.28</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">Total MUFA</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">27.81</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">Total PUFA</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">34.71</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><p>Note:     TMR:  total  mixed  ration;  SFA:  saturated  fatty  acids;  MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acids.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>Each treatment has three replications for measuring gas production. The TMR was weighed at 230 ± 5 mg, then placed in a 100 mL plunger-equipped syringe (FORTUNA<sup>®</sup>; Poulten and Graf GmbH, Wertheim, Germany). Blanks, standard hay, and standard concentrate (Hohenheimer Futterwerttest (HFT); University of Hohenheim, Germany) syringes were prepared according to the method of Menke et al. (1979) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-27">(Menke et al., 1979)</xref>. The syringes were prewarmed at 39 °C before being filled with 30 mL of rumen fluid and buffered mineral mixture. Rumen fluid and buffered mineral solution were mixed in a ratio of 1:2. Buffered mineral solution was made as described by Menke et al. (1979) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-27">(Menke et al., 1979)</xref>. During the mixing process, the buffered mineral solution was kept in a flask flushed with constant CO<sub>2</sub>, stirred with a magnetic stirrer at 39 °C. Rumen fluid was added after the buffered mineral solution turned clear. For the LP and LPSFO groups, 3 mL of L. plantarum-R11 in MRS broth was added to the rumen-buffered mineral solution. The sunflower oil (Naturel brand, Lam Soon Ltd.; Bangkok, Thailand) (2%, w/w) was incorporated into the TMR before use in the experiment. The syringes were incubated in a water bath at 39 °C, equipped with a rotor at 30 RPM. Gas production was recorded at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h during the incubation period.</p><p>The accumulated gas production data were adopted to calculate gas kinetic parameters using an exponential model as described in (Ørskov &amp; McDonald, 1979) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-29">(Ørskov &amp; McDonald, 1979)</xref></p><p>GP = a + b (1 − e<sup>-ct</sup>)</p><p>where GP was the volume of gas produced at time “t” (mL/0.2 g DM), a was the production of gas from the immediately soluble fraction (mL), b was the production of gas from the insoluble fraction (mL/0.2 g DM), c was the rate of gas production from insoluble fraction (mL/h), and t = incubation time (h).</p></sec><sec><title><bold><italic>In vitro</italic></bold><bold> ruminal pH, total ammonia (NH</bold><bold><sub>3</sub></bold><bold>), and volatile fafly acids (VFA)</bold>. </title><p>Rumen fluid pH was measured after 24 h of incubation with a portable pH meter (Model 205, Testo, Lenzkirch, Germany). Ammonia nitrogen (NH₃-N) concentration in rumen fluid was determined using the phenol–hypochlorite colorimetric method. Following 24 h of incubation, rumen fluid samples were centrifuged at 10,000 × g for 5 min, and the supernatant was collected for analysis. Briefly, the phenol and hypochlorite reagents were thoroughly mixed with the 50 μL supernatant, which was then diluted with distilled water. The mixture was incubated for 10–15 min to allow color development. Ammonia-N concentration was calculated from a standard curve prepared using ammonium chloride, and absorbance was measured at 625 nm using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-6">(Chaney &amp; Marbach, 1962)</xref>. Furthermore, rumen fluid was prepared according to Tanakorn et al. (2026) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-34">(Tanukarn et al., 2026)</xref> for the quantification of volatile fatty acids (VFA) using gas chromatography (GC). One microliter of the sample was injected in split mode into a Shimadzu Nexis GC-2030 gas chromatograph equipped with an automatic injector (Shimadzu AOC-20i Plus) and a Zebron ZB-FAME capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d. × 0.20 μm film thickness; Phenomenex, USA). Helium was used as the carrier gas at a constant flow rate of 1 mL min⁻¹, with the injector temperature maintained at 160 °C. The oven temperature was programmed to increase from 60 °C to 115 °C at 5 °C/ min, then to 130 °C at 3 °C/min, and finally to 230 °C at 15 °C/min for 3 min. The FID was maintained at 250 °C. The samples were classified by comparing their peak retention time to those of the VFA standard (Volatile Free Acid Mix; Supelco, Laramie, Wyoming, USA).</p></sec><sec><title><bold><italic>In vitro</italic></bold><bold> dry mafler degradability (IVDMD) and organic mafler degradability (IVOMD)</bold>. </title><p>The syringes were systematically arranged into separate sets for individual sample incubations to assess <italic>in vitro</italic> substrate degradation. The analysis concentrated on assessing <italic>in vitro</italic> dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) and in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD). Approximately 230 ± 5 mg of each sample was measured and subjected to the previously described in vitro gas production techniques. After a 24 h incubation period, the contents of the glass syringes for each treatment and control were filtered using a Buchner funnel lined with the Whatman filter papers No. 41. The residue in the filter paper was dried at 105 °C for 24 h, and the organic matter (OM) content of substrates was determined by ashing samples at 550 °C <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-16">(Hnokaew &amp; Yammuen-Art, 2021)</xref>. The <italic>in vitro</italic> substrate degradability was determined using the following formula:</p><p>IVDMD (%) = [(dry matter initial weight - dry matter final weight) / (dry matter initial weight)]× 100</p><p>IVOMD (%) = [(organic matter initial weight - organic matter final weight) / (organic matter initial weight)] × 100</p></sec><sec><title><bold>Fafly acid analysis</bold>. </title><p>The rumen fluid was collected after 24 h incubation for fatty acids analysis. Approximately</p><p>1.0 mL of rumen was converted to fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) by direct transesterification as described by O’Fallon et al. (2007) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-28">(O’Fallon et al., 2007)</xref>. Before gas chromatography analysis, the collected hexane extract was concentrated under nitrogen and preserved at -20 °C. The composition of fatty acids was determined using a GC-7820A (Agilent Technologies Inc., USA) following the protocol by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-35">(Teng et al., 2017)</xref> and a CP-Sil 88 fused-silica capillary column (100 m length × 0.25 mm diameter (i.d) and film thickness 0.20 <bold>μm</bold>; Agilent Technologies Inc., USA). The samples were classified by comparing their peak retention times with those of the FAME mixture standard (Food Industry FAME Mix, 30 mg/mL; RESTEK, Pennsylvania, USA), which provided isomeric profiles in the chromatogram. Total CLA is accumulated from identified isomers, which are<italic> cis</italic>-9, <italic>trans</italic>-11 CLA and <italic>trans</italic>-10, <italic>cis</italic>-12 CLA.</p></sec><sec><title><bold>Rumen microbial community analysis</bold>. </title><p>Rumen fluid samples (n = 3 per treatment) were collected after 24 h of incubation for microbial community analysis. Amplicon metagenome sequencing targeting the V3-V4 hypervariable regions of the 16S rRNA gene was performed on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform by Gibthai Co., Ltd. (Bangkok, Thailand) following their standard protocols <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-31">(Sahatsanon et al., 2025)</xref>. Briefly, genomic DNA was extracted, and the V3-V4 region was amplified using universal bacterial primers (5'-CCTAYGGGRBGCASCAG-3') and 806R (5'-GGACTACNNGGGTATCTAAT-3'). Raw sequences were quality-filtered, and operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were clustered at 97% sequence similarity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-3">(Barfod et al., 2013)</xref>. Taxonomic classification was performed using the SILVA reference database. Relative abundances of bacterial taxa at the phylum, family, genus, and species levels were visualized using heatmaps and bar plots <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-3">(Barfod et al., 2013)</xref>.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>Statistical Analysis</title><p>The<italic> in vitro</italic> data, such as gas production, in vitro degradation, kinetics of gas production, total NH<sub>3</sub>, volatile fatty acids (VFA), fatty acids composition, were analyzed with RStudio 2023.06.0 Build 421 (Posit Software, PBC, Boston, MA, USA), using analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on the completely randomized design (CRD) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-1">(Akhmad, 2019)</xref>. Normality of data distribution was assessed before analysis. The mathematical model used is a linear model for CRD: Yij = μ + αi +<bold> εij</bold>, where Yij is the observation value, μ is the overall mean, αi is the treatment effect, and <bold>εij </bold>is the experimental error. The Duncan multiple-range test was used to determine the significance of differences among the groups. The outcomes were presented as the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical differences were considered significant at p&lt;0.05.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>RESULTS</title><sec><title>Screening and Isolation of CLA-producing LAB</title><p>A total of 140 isolates were obtained from selective media (MRS Agar) enriched with LA derived from goat rumen fluid. The pure isolates exhibited rod-shaped and spherical colonies, and microscopic examination confirmed that all isolates were Gram-positive. Additionally, they tested negative for catalase and oxidase, which are characteristic of lactic acid bacteria (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table-3">Table 3</xref>). A phylogenetic tree was generated to visualize the genetic similarities among sequencing results (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figure-1">Figure 1</xref>). All 140 isolates were evaluated for CLA synthesis in MRS broth enriched with LA using an active culture technique based on UV spectrophotometry. Following 24 h of incubation, 23 isolates were identified as producing CLA concentrations ranging from 9.0 to 12.3 μg/mL from LA (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figure-2">Figure 2</xref>). The highest CLA production was observed in isolate RI-11, whereas the lowest production was recorded for RI-8. Only two isolates (RI-11 and RI-41) produced CLA concentrations exceeding 12.0 μg/mL, while the majority of isolates exhibited CLA production of approximately 9.0 μg/mL in MRS-supplemented broth. Therefore, RI-11 was selected as the potential CLA-producing bacterium to be incorporated into the <italic>in vitro</italic> gas production technique for evaluating its fermentation characteristics. The positive isolates underwent molecular confirmation, yielding five strains of lactic acid bacteria, as detailed in (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table-3">Table 3</xref>): <italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic> (15),<italic> Lactobacillus plantarum</italic> (4), <italic>Pediococcus acidilactici</italic> (2), <italic>Lactobacillus argentoratensis </italic>(1), and<italic> Lactobacillus pentosus</italic> (1).</p><table-wrap id="table-3" ignoredToc=""><label>Table 3</label><caption><p>Biochemical characteristics of rumen isolates</p></caption><table frame="box" rules="all"><thead><tr><th colspan="1" rowspan="2" valign="middle" align="center">Isolates</th><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="2">Biochemical characteristics</th><th colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">16s rRNA Sequencing</th></tr><tr><th align="center" colspan="1" valign="middle">Catalase/oxidase</th><th align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">Shape</th><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">Identified based on sequencing</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">RI-3</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">RI-6</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">RI-8</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">R</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">RI-11</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1"><italic>Lactobacillus plantarum</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">RI-21</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">RI-22</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">-</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">R</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">RI-24</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">RI-26</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">-</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">R</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">RI-35</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">R</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">RI-41</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">C</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1"><italic>Pedicoccus acidilactici</italic></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">RI-45</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">-</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">R</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">RI-48</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">R</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">RI-55</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top"><italic>Lactobacillus plantarum</italic></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">RI-59</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">C</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1"><italic>Pedicoccus acidilactici</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">RI-67</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">R</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">RI-76</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">RI-81</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">RI-83</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">-</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">R</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1"><italic>Lactobacillus pentosus</italic></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">RI-90</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">RI-93</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center"><italic>Lactobacillus fermentum</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">RI-97</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1"><italic>Lactobacillus argentoratensis</italic></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">RI-99</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top"><italic>Lactobacillus plantarum</italic></td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">RI-140</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">R</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top"><italic>Lactobacillus plantarum</italic></td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><p>Note: Rumen Isolates: RI, Rod: R, Cocci: C</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><fig id="figure-1" ignoredToc=""><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p> Phylogenetic  analysis  of  LAB  strains  isolated  from  rumen fluid based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="png" mimetype="image" xlink:href="https://journal.ipb.ac.id/tasj/article/download/70301/version/50745/33202/401598/Trop_Anim_Sci_J-49-3-240-g1.png"><alt-text>Image</alt-text></graphic></fig><fig id="figure-2" ignoredToc=""><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p>Comparative conjugated linoleic acid (μg/mL) assay of the goat isolates after 24 h incubation</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="png" mimetype="image" xlink:href="https://journal.ipb.ac.id/tasj/article/download/70301/version/50745/33202/401599/Trop_Anim_Sci_J-49-3-240-g2.png"><alt-text>Image</alt-text></graphic></fig></sec><sec><title>In Vitro Gas Production (IVGP) and In Vitro Rumen Fermentation</title><p>Supplementation with sunflower oil (SFO) and<italic> L. plantarum</italic>-R11 (LP) affected in vitro degradability and gas production (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table-4">Table 4</xref>). The inclusion of 2% SFO significantly suppressed early gas production at 2 h and 6 h of incubation; the LP and LPSFO groups produced significantly more gas than the control group. Additionally, the LPSFO combination significantly yielded the highest gas production at 72 and 96 h. Simultaneously, the asymptotic gas potential (b) of the LPSFO group was higher compared to other groups. However, the LPSFO group exhibited the lowest IVDMD and IVOMD at 24 h and maintained lower dry matter degradability at 48 h, whereas the SFO group restored degradability to control levels at this time point.</p><p>Fermentation parameters are affected by the combination of L. plantarum-R11 and sunflower oil (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table-5">Table 5</xref>). The LPSFO produced the highest ammonia (NH₃) levels, and the pH remained stable. The VFA and ruminal fatty acids profile (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table-6">Table 6</xref>) were not significantly affected by treatments.</p><p>Heatmap analysis illustrated differences in relative abundance patterns of selected bacterial taxa at the species level among treatments (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figure-3">Figure 3</xref>). The microbial profiles were similar across the group, with the baseline community structure characterized by a higher relative abundance of <italic>Ruminococcus</italic>. <italic>Acinetobacter indicus</italic> and butyrate-producing bacteria show higher relative abundance in the LP group. In contrast, a distinct abundance pattern, with<italic> Blautia </italic>spp. and <italic>Selenomonas ruminantium </italic>appearing more, was observed in the LPSFO group compared with the other treatment groups. Additionally, a prominent display in <italic>Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens</italic> in the SFO and LPSFO groups, followed closely by the CON group. <italic>B. fibrisolvens</italic> is a key microbe involved in ruminal biohydrogenation and CLA synthesis. All observations are descriptive and based on relative abundance patterns derived from heatmap visualization.</p><p>A clear difference in community structure between the sample groups in the taxonomic analysis at the species level (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figure-4">Figure 4</xref>). Variation in the relative abundances of key taxa, including <italic>Streptococcus lutetiensis</italic>, <italic>Streptococcus macedonicus</italic>, <italic>Ruminococcus flavefaciens</italic>, and unclassified members of<italic> Ruminococcus </italic>and <italic>Prevotella</italic>. A substantial unassigned fraction and other categories indicated a considerable degree of microbial diversity that requires further investigation. The compositional changes suggest that experimental treatments exerted significant pressure on the microbial community.</p><table-wrap ignoredToc="" id="table-4"><label>Table 4</label><caption><p><italic>In vitro</italic> gas production and kinetics of gas production of total mixed ration supplemented with Lactobacillus plantarum-R11 and sunflower oil</p></caption><table frame="box" rules="all"><thead><tr><th valign="middle" align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="2">Variables</th><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="6">Treatments</th></tr><tr><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">CON</th><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">LP</th><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">SFO</th><th align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">LPSFO</th><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">SEM</th><th align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">p-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="7" valign="top">IVGP (mL/0.2 gDM)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">2</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">15.92ᵃ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">15.87ᵃ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">10.96ᵇ</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">11.93ᵃᵇ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">1.299</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.040</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">4</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">19.89</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">18.85</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">16.96</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">19.88</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">0.693</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.417</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">6</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">18.90ᵇ</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">21.83ᵃ</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">18.94ᵇ</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">20.90ᵃ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.729</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.007</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">8</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">20.88</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">23.81</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">20.95</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">22.88</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.727</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">0.168</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">10</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">23.87</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">26.78</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">24.93</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">26.86</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.732</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.162</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">12</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">58.15</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">60.51</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">53.84</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">58.70</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">1.412</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.391</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">24</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">75.07</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">72.41</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">71.80</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">77.60</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">1.331</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.621</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="left">48</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">77.05</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">77.37</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">73.78</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">84.57</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">2.274</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.135</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">72</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">81.02ᵇ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">80.34ᵇ</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">76.76ᵇ</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">95.51ᵃ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">4.141</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.021</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">96</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">83.03ᵇ</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">86.30ᵇ</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">78.73ᵇ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">103.47ᵃ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">5.421</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.008</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="7">Kinetics of Gas Production</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">a (mL)</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-2.16</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-1.11</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">-5.83</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">-2.28</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">1.029</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">0.539</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">b (mL/0.2mgDM)</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">85.85ᵇ</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">85.37ᵇ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">84.99ᵇ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">102.48ᵃ</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">4.274</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.050</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">c (mL/h)</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.06</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">0.06</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.07</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.05</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.004</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.111</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><p>Note: IVGP: In vitro gas production, CON (control): Total Mixed Ration (TMR), LP: TMR + 108 CFU / mL of L. plantarum supplementation; SFO: TMR + 2% of sunflower oil; LPSFO: TMR + 2% of sunflower oil + 10⁸ CFU / mL of L. plantarum supplementation; SEM: standard error mean (n= 3 repli-cates per treatment) n; superscript a-b connote values among treatment groups are significantly different at p&lt;0.05 or p&lt;0.01; a: production of gas from the soluble fraction; b: production of from the insoluble fraction; c: rate of gas production from insoluble fraction.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table-5" ignoredToc=""><label>Table 5</label><caption><p><italic> In vitro</italic> rumen degradability and rumen fermentation of total mixed ration supplemented with Lactobacillus plantarum-R11 and sunflower oil</p></caption><table frame="box" rules="all"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Variables</th><th align="center" colspan="6" valign="top">Treatments</th></tr><tr><th align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">Control</th><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">LP</th><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">SFO</th><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">LPSFO</th><th align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">SEM</th><th colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">p-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="7" valign="top">Fermentability</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">Total NH₃ (mM)</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">10.76ᵈ</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">12.51ᵇ</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">12.28c</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">13.15ᵃ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.506</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">pH 24 h</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">7.09</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">6.84</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">6.95</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">7.02</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.053</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.083</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">pH 48 h</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">6.70</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">6.71</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">6.67</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">6.74</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.014</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">0.702</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="left">Acetate (mM)</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">26.24</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">30.04</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">36.10</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">32.88</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">2.095</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.425</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="left">Propionate (mM)</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">8.53</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">8.26</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">11.61</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">8.69</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.785</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.697</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">Butyrate (mM)</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">9.78</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">9.46</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">9.33</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">7.97</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.399</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.574</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">Total VFA (mM)</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">44.55</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">47.76</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">57.04</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">49.54</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">2.647</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.410</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">A:P</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">3.35</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">3.61</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">3.94</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">4.46</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.241</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">0.898</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="7" valign="top">Degradability (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">IVDMD 24 h</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">62.31ᵃ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">56.86ᵇ</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">57.86ᵃᵇ</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">47.51c</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">3.110</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.001</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">IVOMD 24 h</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">67.71ᵃ</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">61.80ᵇ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">62.88ᵃᵇ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">51.63c</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">3.380</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.001</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="left">IVDMD 48 h</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">64.39ᵃ</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">61.80ᵇ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">63.48ᵃ</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">60.53ᵇ</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">1.856</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.001</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">IVOMD 48 h</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">68.35</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">67.16</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">68.99</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">65.78</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">2.017</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.149</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><p>Note: CON (control): Total Mixed Ration (TMR), LP: TMR + 10⁸ CFU / mL of L. plantarum supplementation; SFO: TMR + 2% of sunflower oil; LPSFO: TMR + 2% of sunflower oil + 10⁸ CFU / mL of L. plantarum supplementation; VFA: Volatile fatty acids; A:P: Acetate:Propionate; SEM: standard er-ror mean (n = 4 replicates per treatments); superscript a-d connote values among treatment groups are significantly different at p&lt;0.05 or p&lt;0.01; IVDMD: in vitro dry matter degradability; IVOMD: in vitro organic matter degradability.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table-6" ignoredToc=""><label>Table 6</label><caption><p> Ruminal fatty acids profile in vitro (% Total FA)</p></caption><table frame="box" rules="all"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Fatty acids</th><th colspan="6" valign="top" align="center">Treatments</th></tr><tr><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">Control</th><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">LP</th><th align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">SFO</th><th align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">LPSFO</th><th valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">SEM</th><th colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">p-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">cis-9, trans-11 C18:1, CLA</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.45</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">0.61</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.45</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">1.25</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.190</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.217</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="1" valign="top">trans-10, cis-12 C18:1, CLA</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.41</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">0.61</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">0.40</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">1.00</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.140</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.128</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="left">C12:0, lauric</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.41</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">1.06</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">2.94</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.75</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">1.069</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.443</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">C14:0, myristic</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">6.89</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">3.44</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">4.08</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">2.70</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.914</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.506</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="left">C16:0, palmitic</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">28.53</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">27.15</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">20.36</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">26.20</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">1.799</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.203</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">C16:1, cis-9, palmitoleic</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.58</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">0.89</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">2.72</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.79</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.495</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.360</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="left">C18:0, stearic</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">32.79</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">35.30</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">29.79</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">35.70</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">1.363</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.692</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">C18:1n9t, octadecenoic</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">8.63</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">13.94</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">13.20</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">16.97</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">1.722</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">0.119</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">C18:1n9c, oleic</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">10.19</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">12.29</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">9.93</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">11.27</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.540</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">0.706</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" colspan="1">C18:2n6c, linoleic</td><td colspan="1" valign="top" align="center">3.66</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">4.71</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">7.59</td><td align="center" colspan="1" valign="top">4.44</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.858</td><td valign="top" align="center" colspan="1">0.459</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><p>Note: CLA:  conjugated linoleic acid; CON (control): Total Mixed Ration (TMR), LP: TMR + 10⁸ CFU / mL of L. plantarum supplementa-tion; SFO: TMR + 2% of sunflower oil; LPSFO: TMR + 2% of sunflower oil + 10⁸ CFU / mL of L. plantarum supplementation; SEM: Standard Error Mean (n = 4 replications per treatment).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></sec><sec><title>DISCUSSION</title><p>Our present study screened rumen-derived lactic acid bacteria (LAB) from goats for their potential to produce CLA under laboratory conditions. <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 was evaluated for its effects on <italic>in vitro</italic> ruminal fermentation and microbial community structure. A total of 140 rumen-derived isolates, 23 LAB strains, were identified to produce CLA concentrations ranging from 9.0 to 12.3 μg/mL after 24 h of incubation. According to Sosa-Castañeda et al. (2015) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-33">(Sosa-Castañeda et al., 2015)</xref>, a higher CLA value was observed when LAB were cultured in skimmed milk supplemented with 2% LA at 36 °C for 48 h. Numerous factors may have contributed to the difference in CLA content produced, including incubation time, LA availability, and culture medium. Skimmed milk provides a more favorable substrate and reduces microbial competition compared with MRS-based systems, while longer incubation allows greater enzymatic conversion of LA to CLA. We identified five distinct LAB species: <italic>Lactobacillus fermentum </italic>(15 isolates), <italic>Lactobacillus plantarum</italic> (4 isolates),<italic> Pediococcus acidilactici</italic> (2 isolates), <italic>Lactobacillus argentoratensis </italic>(1 isolate), and <italic>Lactobacillus pentosus </italic>(1 isolate), demonstrating the diversity of CLA-producing bacteria within the LAB of the rumen microbiome. The predominance of<italic> L. fermentum</italic> among CLA producers aligns with the findings of Tyagi et al. (2020) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-36">(Tyagi et al., 2020)</xref>, who reported that this species possesses robust linoleic acid isomerase activity. LAB strains isolated from the rumen exhibit variation in CLA production efficiency, even within the same species, underscoring the specific metabolic capabilities of each strain <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-7">(Chen et al., 2024)</xref>.</p><fig id="figure-3" ignoredToc=""><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p>Heatmap illustrating species-specific abundance patterns among treatments. CON (control): total mixed ra-tion (TMR), LP: TMR + 10⁸ CFU / mL of L. plantarum supplementation; SFO: TMR + 2% of sunflower oil; LPSFO: TMR + 2% of sunflower oil + 10⁸ CFU / mL of <italic>L. plantarum </italic>supplementation.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="jpeg" mimetype="image" xlink:href="https://journal.ipb.ac.id/tasj/article/download/70301/version/50745/33202/401600/Trop_Anim_Sci_J-49-3-240-g3.jpeg"><alt-text>Image</alt-text></graphic></fig><fig id="figure-4" ignoredToc=""><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p>Species abundance bar plot among treatments. CON (control): total mixed ration (TMR), LP: TMR + 10⁸ CFU / mL of L. plantarum supplementation; SFO: TMR + 2% of sunflower oil; LPSFO: TMR + 2% of sunflower oil + 10⁸ CFU / mL of L. plantarum supplementation.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="jpeg" mimetype="image" xlink:href="https://journal.ipb.ac.id/tasj/article/download/70301/version/50745/33202/401601/Trop_Anim_Sci_J-49-3-240-g4.jpeg"><alt-text>Image</alt-text></graphic></fig><p>These findings align with the need for systematic screening to identify efficient CLA-producing strains rather than relying solely on species-level identification. Based on our preliminary CLA-producing ability in MRS medium, <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11(12.3 μg/mL) was selected using a UV-based spectrophotometric method. However, the introduction of <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 into the<italic> in vitro</italic> system did not enhance ruminal CLA accumulation during <italic>in vitro</italic> fermentation. Still, it did exert measurable effects on gas kinetics and microbial community composition. The UV-based method used during initial isolate screening is a rapid, cost-effective preliminary screening tool. However, it has some limitations in resolving individual CLA isomers compared with gas chromatography. The disparity observed between the MRS medium and the rumen conditions for CLA production might be attributed to the media used in both experiments. The MRS condition provides abundant substrates and minimal microbial competition, thereby favoring LA conversion. In contrast, the rumen environment is surrounded by intense microbial competition and extensive biohydrogenation, which likely explains the lack of increased CLA under rumen-simulated conditions. Previous studies observed discrepancies between pure-culture screening and rumen systems, restating that CLA production observed in laboratory media does not necessarily translate to ruminal conditions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-30">(Özer &amp; Kılıç, 2021)</xref>.</p><p>Inoculation with LP and SFO, individually and in combination, influenced <italic>in vitro</italic> gas production parameters. We observed suppressed gas production at 2 h in the SFO and LPSFO in the earlier phase. Due to the antimicrobial effects of the medium-chain fatty acids present in SFO, which temporarily slow microbial activity during the early fermentation phase, as suggested by Jenkin (1993) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-19">(Jenkins, 1993)</xref>. However, by 6 h, the LPSFO and LP groups marked enhanced gas production compared to the control, suggesting the <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 promotes microbial adaptation and fermentation despite the presence of dietary oil. Elevated asymptotic gas potential (b) and the highest cumulative gas production at 72 and 96 h were observed in the LPSFO group, indicating improved and sustained fermentation of the insoluble fiber fraction during prolonged incubation. An increase in the asymptotic gas parameter (b) reflects substrate degradation, particularly slowly fermentable components such as cell wall polysaccharides, and its increase indicates improved utilization of residual fibrous substrates. Previous studies reported that gas production increases in the late phase when dietary lipids are combined with microbial additives, reducing lipid biohydrogenation and inhibiting microbial activity in the early phase, thereby promoting fermentation more efficiently at later incubation times <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-11">(Fitriyah et al., 2024)</xref>;<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-20">(Kim et al., 2020)</xref>. The study suggests a synergistic interaction between <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 and SFO that enhances long-term fermentative capacity, possibly through selective modulation of the microbial community.</p><p>Despite improved gas production, the LPSFO group exhibited lower IVDMD and IVOMD at 24 h than the control. This contradiction between gas production and digestibility reflected a shift in fermentation rather than a reduction in microbial activity. The PUFA’s inhibitory effects on fiber-degrading rumen bacteria might contribute to the reduced degradability in the LPSFO group <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-14">(Gao et al., 2019)</xref>;<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-19">(Jenkins, 1993)</xref>. Sunflower oil is rich in LA; thus, its presence could disrupt microbial cell membranes and interfere with cellulolytic activity, particularly among gram-positive fiber-degrading species. Interestingly, by 48 h, the SFO group had restored degradability, suggesting that the microbial community had adapted to the oil supplement over time. Moreover, the LPSFO group recorded a high ammonia-nitrogen concentration (13.15 nM), suggesting enhanced protein degradation. The NH<sub>3</sub> level does not exceed the optimal range for microbial growth (5-20 mM), which may support microbial protein synthesis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-26">(McDonald et al., 2010)</xref>. Supplementation with <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 did not disrupt rumen buffering capacity, which is critical for maintaining optimal microbial function; thus, this is reflected in the stable pH across all treatments (6.67-7.09). The VFA and fatty acid profiles remained stable across the groups.</p><p>LAB is not the most dominant member of the rumen microbiota, but its presence might influence microbial interactions under <italic>in vitro</italic> conditions. Rumen microbial community analysis provides insight into the potential of <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 to shift microbial communities. The relative abundances of the treatments suggest selective microbial modulation of the rumen ecosystem; however, these differences are descriptive and based on relative abundance patterns rather than formal differential abundance or beta-diversity analyses. <italic>Ruminococcus spp</italic>. and <italic>Prevotella spp</italic> are the dominant in the control group, representing fibrolytic and amylolytic bacteria essential for plant polysaccharide degradation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-12">(Flint et al., 2008)</xref>. The LP treatment showed dominance of <italic>Ruminococcus</italic>, with <italic>Acinetobacter indicus</italic> and butyrate-producing bacteria also present. The LPSFO group showed a distinct abundance pattern, with <italic>S. ruminantium</italic> and Blautia spp. appeared more prominent (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figure-4">Figure 4</xref>). We observed a stable pH across the treatment, even though <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 is associated with lactic acid production <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-24">(Liu et al., 2021)</xref>;<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-25">(Lu et al., 2023)</xref>. Both taxa are associated with lactate utilization, which may partly explain the stable ruminal pH. However, as lactate concentration was not measured, the interpretation is based on a potential mechanism rather than a confirmed effect. The established relationship between lactate-producing and lactate-utilizing bacteria likely contributed to the extended gas production and improved fermentative stability in the LPSFO group. <italic>Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens</italic>, a key bacterium responsible for CLA production through LA isomerization in the rumen <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-17">(Hussain et al., 2016)</xref>, was enriched in both the SFO and LPSFO. The degree of <italic>B. fibrisolvens</italic> on the relative abundance in oil-supplemented groups confirms that sunflower oil provided sufficient LA substrate to stimulate CLA-producing bacterial populations. However, stable CLA content in the ruminal fatty acid profile at 24 h suggests that either the sampling time did not capture peak CLA levels or that rapid conversion to stearic acid via complete biohydrogenation occurred. The combined supplementation of <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 and sunflower oil appears to produce a synergistic effect on long-term gas production and microbial community structure.</p><p>Overall, the potential mechanism is that <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 produces antimicrobial compounds, such as bacteriocins, which may selectively inhibit competing bacteria and modulate rumen microbial activities <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-37">(Urban et al., 2024)</xref>. This modulation could create a more favorable fermentative ecology characterized by stable pH, reduced microbial competition, and enhanced cross-feeding. It could promote the activities of lactate-utilizing bacteria such as <italic>S. ruminantium</italic> to limit lactate accumulation and support the activities of fibrolytic and biohydrogenating bacteria, including <italic>Butyrivibrio spp</italic>. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-15">(Guo et al., 2020)</xref>. However, these mechanisms remain hypothetical because bacteriocin production and interspecies interactions were not confirmed in the study. Alternatively, the presence of <italic>L. plantarum</italic>-R11 in rumen ecology could enhance the bioavailability of LA from sunflower oil through lipase activity, providing a substrate for biohydrogenation bacteria <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="BIBR-36">(Tyagi et al., 2020)</xref>. The observed changes in microbial community composition validate the hypothesis that<italic> L. plantarum</italic>-R11 acts as a modulator of rumen ecology rather than only a CLA producer in the complex rumen environment.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>CONCLUSION</title><p>Our study demonstrates that rumen-derived lactic acid bacteria can be effectively screened in the laboratory for their potential to produce CLA. Moreover, such potential does not necessarily translate into increased CLA accumulation under a rumen-simulated environment. L. plantarum-R11, selected based on its CLA-producing ability in MRS medium, but the properties did not reflect on ruminal CLA concentration. Still, it influenced gas production kinetics and rumen microbial community composition, playing a key role in microbial modulation rather than in direct CLA enhancement. Our findings underscore the difference between pure-culture screening outcomes and functional responses in rumen-like environments. Future research should focus on in vivo studies with robust fatty acid tracing alongside comprehensive microbial community analyses to confirm the ecological role of LAB supplementation.</p></sec></body><back><ack><sec><title>ACKNOWLEDGEMENT</title><p>The first author is a PhD candidate in the Department of Animal Science at the Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, under the CMU Presidential Scholarship. The authors express their gratitude to the Animal and Aquatic Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, for providing infrastructure for conducting this research. Chiang Mai University partially supported this research.</p></sec></ack><sec><title>DECLARATION OF GENERATIVE AI AND AI-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGIES IN THE WRITING PROCESS</title><p>During the preparation of this work, the authors used Claude.ai, QuillBot, and Grammarly to paraphrase, edit language, and proofread. After using this tool/service, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the publication’s content.</p></sec><ref-list><title>REFERENCES</title><ref id="BIBR-1"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><article-title>Experimental Design and Data Analysis Using R</article-title><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Akhmad</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2019</year><publisher-loc>Matematika</publisher-loc><edition>1st</edition></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-2"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Effects of selected Lactobacillus plantarum as probiotic on in vitro ruminal fermentation and microbial population</article-title><source>Pakistan Journal of Nutrition</source><volume>17</volume><issue>3</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Astuti</surname><given-names>W.D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wiryawan</surname><given-names>K.G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wina</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Widyastuti</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Suharti</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ridwan</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2018</year><fpage>131</fpage><lpage>139</lpage><page-range>131-139</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3923/pjn.2018.131.139</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-3"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>The murine lung microbiome in relation to the intestinal and vaginal bacterial communities</article-title><source>BMC microbiology</source><volume>13</volume><issue>1</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Barfod</surname><given-names>K.K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Roggenbuck</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hansen</surname><given-names>L.H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schjørring</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Larsen</surname><given-names>S.T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sørensen</surname><given-names>S.J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Krogfelt</surname><given-names>K.A.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2013</year><page-range>1-121011861471-2180-13-303</page-range></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-4"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Rapid screening method for analyzing the conjugated linoleic acid production capabilities of bacterial cultures</article-title><source>Applied and Environmental Microbiology</source><volume>73</volume><issue>7</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Barrett</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ross</surname><given-names>R.P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Fitzgerald</surname><given-names>G.F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Stanton</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2007</year><fpage>2333</fpage><lpage>2337</lpage><page-range>2333-2337</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1128/AEM.01855-06</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-5"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><article-title>Food microbiology and laboratory practice</article-title><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bell</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Neaves</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Williams</surname><given-names>A.P.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2005</year><publisher-loc>Blackwell Science</publisher-loc></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-6"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia</article-title><source>Clinical Chemistry</source><volume>8</volume><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Chaney</surname><given-names>A.L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Marbach</surname><given-names>E.P.</given-names></name></person-group><year>1962</year><fpage>130</fpage><lpage>13210109382130</lpage><page-range>130-13210109382130</page-range></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-7"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Screening and identification of high-yielding strains of conjugated linoleic acid and optimization of conditions for the conversion of CLA</article-title><source>Foods</source><volume>13</volume><issue>12</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tong</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Pang</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2024</year><page-range>1830</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/foods13121830</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-8"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Isolation, molecular characterization and screening of indigenous lactobacilli for their abilities to produce bioactive conjugated linoleic acid (CLA</article-title><source>Journal of Food Science and Technology</source><volume>54</volume><issue>3</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Dahiya</surname><given-names>D.K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Puniya</surname><given-names>A.K.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2017</year><fpage>792</fpage><lpage>801</lpage><page-range>792-801</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s13197-017-2523-x</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-9"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Conjugated linoleic acid effects on cancer, obesity, and atherosclerosis: a review of pre-clinical and human trials with current perspectives</article-title><source>Nutrients</source><volume>11</volume><issue>2</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hartigh</surname><given-names>L.J.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2019</year><page-range>370</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/nu11020370</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-10"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Use of lactic acid bacteria to reduce methane production in ruminants, a critical review</article-title><source>Frontiers in Microbiology</source><volume>10</volume><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Doyle</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mbandlwa</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kelly</surname><given-names>W.J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Attwood</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ross</surname><given-names>R.P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Stanton</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Leahy</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2019</year><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fmicb.2019.02207</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-11"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Optimum level of Lactobacillus plantarum supplementation as probiotic on in vitro digestibility and rumen fermentation products in Thai native cattle</article-title><source>Veterinary Integrative Sciences</source><volume>22</volume><issue>2</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Fitriyah</surname><given-names>N.S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Oluodo</surname><given-names>L.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hnokaew</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Umsook</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Thirawong</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Khamlor</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yammuen-Art</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2024</year><fpage>489</fpage><lpage>500</lpage><page-range>489-500</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.12982/VIS.2024.034</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-12"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Polysaccharide utilization by gut bacteria: potential for new insights from genomic analysis</article-title><source>Nature Reviews Microbiology</source><volume>6</volume><issue>2</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Flint</surname><given-names>H.J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bayer</surname><given-names>E.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Rincon</surname><given-names>M.T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lamed</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>White</surname><given-names>B.A.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2008</year><fpage>121</fpage><lpage>131</lpage><page-range>121-131</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nrmicro1817</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-13"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Systematic evaluation on the effectiveness of conjugated linoleic acid in human health</article-title><source>Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition</source><volume>57</volume><issue>1</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Fuke</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Laerte Nornberg</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Laerte Nornberg</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2017</year><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>7</lpage><page-range>1-7</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/10408398.2012.716800</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-14"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Inhibitory effect of lactic acid bacteria on foodborne pathogens: a review</article-title><source>Journal of Food Protection</source><volume>82</volume><issue>3</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Gao</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name><name><surname>Daliri</surname><given-names>E.B.-M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ye</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ding</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2019</year><fpage>441</fpage><lpage>453</lpage><page-range>441-453</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-18-303</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-15"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>The effect of lactic acid bacteria inoculums on in vitro rumen fermentation, methane production, ruminal cellulolytic bacteria populations and cellulase activities of corn stover silage</article-title><source>Journal of Integrative Agriculture</source><volume>19</volume><issue>3</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Guo</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Shen</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Shao</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>Huo</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2020</year><fpage>838</fpage><lpage>847</lpage><page-range>838-847</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62707-3</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-16"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Vitamin D2 production and in vitro ruminal degradation of UV-B irradiated vitamin D enriched yeast in Thai native cattle</article-title><source>Veterinary Integrative Sciences</source><volume>19</volume><issue>3</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hnokaew</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yammuen-Art</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2021</year><fpage>537</fpage><lpage>556</lpage><page-range>537-556</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.12982/VIS.2021.042</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-17"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Characterization of CLA-producing Butyrivibrio spp. reveals strain-specific variations</article-title><source>3 Biotech</source><volume>6</volume><issue>1</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hussain</surname><given-names>S.K.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Srivastava</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tyagi</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Shandilya</surname><given-names>U.K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kumar</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kumar</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Panwar</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tyagi</surname><given-names>A.K.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2016</year><page-range>90</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s13205-016-0401-2</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-18"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>In vitro study of postbiotics from Lactobacillus plantarum RG14 on rumen fermentation and microbial population</article-title><source>Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia</source><volume>47</volume><issue>10</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Izuddin</surname><given-names>W.I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Loh</surname><given-names>T.C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Samsudin</surname><given-names>A.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Foo</surname><given-names>H.L.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2018</year><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>13</lpage><page-range>1-13</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1590/rbz4720170255</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-19"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Lipid metabolism in the rumen</article-title><source>Journal of Dairy Science</source><volume>76</volume><issue>12</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jenkins</surname><given-names>T.C.</given-names></name></person-group><year>1993</year><fpage>3851</fpage><lpage>3863</lpage><page-range>3851-3863</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(93)77727-9</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-20"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Dietary lysophospholipids supplementation inhibited the activity of lipolytic bacteria in forage with high oil diet: an in vitro study</article-title><source>Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences</source><volume>33</volume><issue>10</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cho</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kwon</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Seo</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2020</year><fpage>1590</fpage><lpage>1598</lpage><page-range>1590-1598</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5713/ajas.19.0850</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-21"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Biohydrogenation of linoleic acid by lactic acid bacteria for the production of functional cultured dairy products: a review</article-title><source>Foods</source><volume>5</volume><issue>1</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kuhl</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Dea Lindner</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2016</year><page-range>13</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/foods5010013</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-22"><element-citation publication-type="chapter"><article-title>16S/23S rRNA sequencing</article-title><source>Nucleic acid techniques inbacterial systematics</source><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lane</surname><given-names>D.J.</given-names></name></person-group><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>E</surname><given-names>Stackebrandt</given-names></name><name><surname>M</surname><given-names>Goodfellow</given-names></name></person-group><year>1991</year><fpage>115</fpage><lpage>176</lpage><page-range>115-176</page-range><publisher-name>John Wiley</publisher-name></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-23"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Effect of conjugated linoleic acids and omega‐3 fatty acids with or without resistance training on muscle mass in high‐fat diet‐fed middle‐aged mice</article-title><source>Experimental Physiology</source><volume>102</volume><issue>11</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Khamoui</surname><given-names>A.V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Jo</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zourdos</surname><given-names>M.C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Panton</surname><given-names>L.B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ormsbee</surname><given-names>M.J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2017</year><fpage>1500</fpage><lpage>1512</lpage><page-range>1500-1512</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1113/EP086317</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-24"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Blautia —a new functional genus with potential probiotic properties?</article-title><source>Gut Microbes</source><volume>13</volume><issue>1</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mao</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gu</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cui</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2021</year><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>21</lpage><page-range>1-21</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/19490976.2021.1875796</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-25"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Acid tolerance of lactate-utilizing bacteria of the order Bacteroidales contributes to prevention of ruminal acidosis in goats adapted to a high-concentrate diet</article-title><source>Animal Nutrition</source><volume>14</volume><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lu</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kong</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ren</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Aschenbach</surname><given-names>J.R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Shen</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2023</year><fpage>130</fpage><lpage>140</lpage><page-range>130-140</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.aninu.2023.05.006</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-26"><element-citation publication-type="book"><article-title>Animal Nutrition</article-title><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>McDonald</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Edwards</surname><given-names>R.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Greenhalgh</surname><given-names>J.F.D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Morgan</surname><given-names>C.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sinclair</surname><given-names>L.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wilkinson</surname><given-names>R.G.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2010</year><publisher-name>Prentice Hall</publisher-name><edition>7th</edition></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-27"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro</article-title><source>The Journal of Agricultural Science</source><volume>93</volume><issue>1</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Menke</surname><given-names>K.H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Raab</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Salewski</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Steingass</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Fritz</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schneider</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name></person-group><year>1979</year><fpage>217</fpage><lpage>222</lpage><page-range>217-222</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/S0021859600086305</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-28"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>A direct method for fatty acid methyl ester synthesis: Application to wet meat tissues, oils, and feedstuffs</article-title><source>Journal of Animal Science</source><volume>85</volume><issue>6</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>O’Fallon</surname><given-names>J.V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Busboom</surname><given-names>J.R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Nelson</surname><given-names>M.L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gaskins</surname><given-names>C.T.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2007</year><fpage>1511</fpage><lpage>1521</lpage><page-range>1511-1521</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2527/jas.2006-491</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-29"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage</article-title><source>The Journal of Agricultural Science</source><volume>92</volume><issue>2</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ørskov</surname><given-names>E.R.</given-names></name><name><surname>McDonald</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name></person-group><year>1979</year><fpage>499</fpage><lpage>503</lpage><page-range>499-503</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/S0021859600063048</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-30"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Optimization of pH, time, temperature, variety and concentration of the added fatty acid and the initial count of added lactic acid bacteria strains to improve microbial conjugated linoleic acid production in fermented ground beef</article-title><source>Meat Science</source><volume>171</volume><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Özer</surname><given-names>C.O.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kılıç</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2021</year><page-range>108303</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108303</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-31"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Influence of host-specific and locally isolated multi-strain probiotics on piglet performance, mortality, inflammatory response, and gut microbiome</article-title><source>Animal Bioscience</source><volume>38</volume><issue>4</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sahatsanon</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sivapirunthep</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sringarm</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Arjin</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hnokaew</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chaweewan</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chaosap</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2025</year><fpage>717</fpage><lpage>727</lpage><page-range>717-727</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5713/ab.24.0556</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-32"><element-citation publication-type="chapter"><article-title>Bioactive lipids: Chemistry, biochemistry, and biological properties</article-title><source>Bioactive Lipids Bioactive Lipids</source><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Salsinha</surname><given-names>A.S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Machado</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Rodríguez-Alcalá</surname><given-names>L.M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gomes</surname><given-names>A.M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Pintado</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Pintado</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Machado</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gomes</surname><given-names>A.M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Salsinha</surname><given-names>A.S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Rodríguez-Alcalá</surname><given-names>L.M.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2023</year><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>35</lpage><page-range>1-35</page-range><publisher-name>Elsevier</publisher-name><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/B978-0-12-824043-4.00014-2</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-33"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Screening of Lactobacillus strains for their ability to produce conjugated linoleic acid in milk and to adhere to the intestinal tract</article-title><source>Journal of Dairy Science</source><volume>98</volume><issue>10</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sosa-Castañeda</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hernández-Mendoza</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Astiazarán-García</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Garcia</surname><given-names>H.S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Estrada-Montoya</surname><given-names>M.C.</given-names></name><name><surname>González-Córdova</surname><given-names>A.F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Vallejo-Cordoba</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2015</year><fpage>6651</fpage><lpage>6659</lpage><page-range>6651-6659</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3168/jds.2014-8515</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-34"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Effect of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum with vegetable oil supplementation on rumen fermentation and lactation performance in dairy goats</article-title><source>Veterinary Integrative Sciences</source><volume>2</volume><issue>24</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tanukarn</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Khamlor</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sawangjaeng</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yammuen-Art</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2026</year><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>22</lpage><page-range>1-22</page-range><ext-link xlink:href="https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/vis/article/view/276341" ext-link-type="uri">https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/vis/article/view/276341</ext-link></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-35"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Quantification of fatty acids in human, cow, buffalo, goat, yak, and camel milk using an improved one-step GC-FID Method</article-title><source>Food Analytical Methods</source><volume>10</volume><issue>8</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Teng</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ma</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Day</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2017</year><fpage>2881</fpage><lpage>2891</lpage><page-range>2881-2891</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s12161-017-0852-z</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-36"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Conjugated linoleic acid producing potential of lactobacilli isolated from goat (AXB) rumen fluid samples</article-title><source>Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences</source><volume>33</volume><issue>8</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tyagi</surname><given-names>A.K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kumar</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Choudhury</surname><given-names>P.K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tyagi</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tyagi</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2020</year><fpage>1233</fpage><lpage>1241</lpage><page-range>1233-1241</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5713/ajas.19.0080</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-37"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Postbiotics, a natural feed additive for growth performance, gut microbiota and quality of poultry products</article-title><source>Current Research in Biotechnology</source><volume>8</volume><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Urban</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kareem</surname><given-names>K.Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Atanasov</surname><given-names>A.G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Matuszewski</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bień</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ciborowska</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Rygało-Galewska</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Michalczuk</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2024</year><page-range>100247</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.crbiot.2024.100247</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-38"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Modulation of inflammation and immunity by dietary conjugated linoleic acid</article-title><source>European Journal of Pharmacology</source><volume>785</volume><issue>1</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Viladomiu</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hontecillas</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bassaganya-Riera</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2016</year><fpage>87</fpage><lpage>95</lpage><page-range>87-95</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ejphar.2015.03.095</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="BIBR-39"><element-citation publication-type="article-journal"><article-title>Bacterial conjugated linoleic acid production and their applications</article-title><source>Progress in Lipid Research</source><volume>68</volume><issue>4</issue><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gao</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Stanton</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ross</surname><given-names>R.P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>Y.Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name></person-group><year>2017</year><fpage>26</fpage><lpage>36</lpage><page-range>26-36</page-range><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.plipres.2017.09.002</pub-id></element-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>