Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:35:43.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutrient composition, rate of fermentation and in vitro rumen methane output from tropical feedstuffs

Part of: AGS Millet Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2016

R. BHATTA ,
M. SARAVANAN ,
L. BARUAH ,
P. K. MALIK  and
K. T. SAMPATH
R. BHATTA*
Affiliation:
Energy Metabolism Laboratory, ICAR-National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bengaluru, India
M. SARAVANAN
Affiliation:
Energy Metabolism Laboratory, ICAR-National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bengaluru, India
L. BARUAH
Affiliation:
Energy Metabolism Laboratory, ICAR-National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bengaluru, India
P. K. MALIK
Affiliation:
Energy Metabolism Laboratory, ICAR-National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bengaluru, India
K. T. SAMPATH
Affiliation:
Energy Metabolism Laboratory, ICAR-National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bengaluru, India
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: ragha0209@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In vitro rumen methane output (IRMO) of over 200 feed/feed mix samples representing approximately 74 feed types was investigated in a series of completely randomized experiments. The samples comprised dry fodder, grass, tree leaves, cultivated grasses, cereal by-products, cereal grains, oilseed/meals, compound feeds and total mixed rations (TMRs) from the tropical regions. These samples were subjected to three in vitro gas production tests at 39 °C in 100 ml Heberle syringes. The first incubation was conducted with 200 mg dry matter (DM) substrate for 96 h to determine half-time gas production (t 1/2, h) value of each sample. The second and third incubations were carried out simultaneously. The second incubation was done with 200 mg DM substrate until t 1/2 time to determine IRMO and third with 500 mg DM to estimate in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) of each samples, respectively. The IRMO was expressed as ml/100 mg digestible substrate. Crude protein content (g/kg DM) was lowest in dry fodder samples and highest in oilseed meals, whereas it was similar in local grass and tree leaves. The IVDMD values ranged from 0·48 to 0·87; the lowest digestibility was recorded in tree leaves. The potential gas production (PGP, ml/200 mg DM) ranged from 9·76 to 61·3. The PGP from grasses and compound feeds was similar, whereas it was lowest in tree leaves. The rate constant (mg/h) was maximum in compound feed followed by oilseed meal. The rate constant was similar among other group of feedstuffs. The t 1/2 time ranged from 9·8 to 19·4 h. The highest t 1/2 time was recorded in local grass samples followed by dry fodder and cultivated grasses. However, they were similar among tree leaves, cereal grains, by-products and compound feeds. The methane % in the total gas varied from 9·79 (tree leaves) to 20·2 (local grasses). Among straw, IRMO varied from 3·88 (Zea mays fodder) to 12·0 (Sorghum vulgare) and it was lower in fruit tree leaves than cultivated grasses. Among protein and energy sources, IRMO was higher in cereal by-products as compared with cereal grains, oil meals and compound feed. The IRMO was similar among TMR, irrespective of the composition of the concentrate mixture. Nevertheless, it varied with the amount of concentrate in the TMR. This is the first exhaustive data on IRMO from the tropical region. Because of the substantial amount of dietary gross energy lost in methane, knowledge of the methane output from these feed ingredients will help in formulating low methane emitting diets for ruminants. Incorporation of tropical tree leaves in the diets and feeding TMR are potential strategies to reduce enteric methane emission in ruminants.

Type
Animal Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 155 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 171 - 183
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aluwong, T., Wuyep, P. A. & Allam, L. (2011). Livestock-environment interactions: methane emissions from ruminants. African Journal of Biotechnology 10, 1265–1269.Google Scholar
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) (1995). Official Methods of Analysis, 16th edn., Arlington, VA: AOAC International.Google Scholar
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) (1997). Official Methods of Analysis, 16th edn., 3rd rev, Arlington, VA: AOAC International.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, K. A., Kreuzer, M., O'Mara, F. & McAllister, T. A. (2008). Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 21–27.Google Scholar
Bhatta, R., Enishi, O., Takusari, N., Higuchi, K., Nonaka, I. & Kurihara, M. (2008). Diet effects on methane production by goats and a comparison between measurement methodologies. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 146, 705–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatta, R., Uyeno, Y., Tajima, K., Takenaka, A., Yabumoto, Y., Nonaka, I., Enishi, O. & Kurihara, M. (2009). Difference in the nature of tannins on in vitro ruminal methane and volatile fatty acid production and on methanogenic archaea and protozoal populations. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5512–5522.Google Scholar
Bhatta, R., Saravanan, M., Baruah, L. & Sampath, K. T. (2012). Nutrient content, in vitro ruminal fermentation characteristics and methane reduction potential of tropical tannin-containing leaves. Journal of the Science Food and Agriculture 92, 2929–2935.Google Scholar
Bhatta, R., Saravanan, M., Baruah, L., Sampath, K. T. & Prasad, C. S. (2013 a). Effect of plant secondary compounds on in vitro methane, ammonia production and ruminal protozoa population. Journal of Applied Microbiology 115, 455–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhatta, R., Saravanan, M., Baruah, L., Suresh, K. P. & Sampath, K. T. (2013 b). Effect of medicinal and aromatic plants on rumen fermentation, protozoa population and methanogenesis in vitro . Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 97, 446–456.Google Scholar
Bhatta, R., Enishi, O., Yabumoto, Y., Nonaka, I., Takusari, N., Higuchi, K., Tajima, K., Takenaka, A. & Kurihara, M. (2013 c). Methane reduction and energy partitioning in goats fed two concentrations of tannin from Mimosa spp. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 151, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boadi, D., Benchaar, C., Chiquette, J. & Massé, D. (2004). Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: update review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaurasia, M., Kundu, S. S., Singh, S. & Mishra, A. K. (2006). Cornell net carbohydrate and protein system for nutritional evaluation of tree leaves, shrub and grasses. Indian Journal of Animal Science 76, 81–87.Google Scholar
Cone, J. W. & Van Gelder, A. H. (1999). Influence of protein fermentation on gas production profiles. Animal Feed Science and Technology 76, 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W., Blaxter, K. L. & Wainman, F. W. (1966). The metabolism of oleic, linoleic and linolenic acids by sheep with reference to their effects on methane production. British Journal of Nutrition 20, 349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demeyer, D. I. & Van Nevel, C. J. (1975). Methanogenesis, an integrated part of carbohydrate fermentation, and its control. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (Eds McDonald, I. W. & Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 366–382. Armidale, N.S.W., Australia: The University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Getachew, G., Blümmel, M., Makkar, H. P. S. & Becker, K. (1998). In vitro gas measuring techniques for assessment of nutritional quality of feeds: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 72, 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Getachew, G., Robinson, P. H., DePeters, E. J., Taylor, S. J., Gisi, D. D., Higgginbotham, G. E. & Riordan, T. J. (2005). Methane production from commercial dairy rations estimated using an in vitro gas technique. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123–124, 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, G. & Makkar, H. P. S. (2012). Methane mitigation from ruminants using tannins and saponins. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44, 729–739.Google Scholar
Holter, J. B. & Young, A. J. (1992). Methane prediction in dry and lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2165–2175.Google Scholar
Jentsch, W., Schweigel, M., Weissbach, F., Scholze, H., Pitroff, W. & Derno, M. (2007). Methane production in cattle calculated by the nutrient composition of the diet. Archives of Animal Nutrition 61, 10–19.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E., Ward, G. W. & Ramsey, J. J. (1996). Livestock methane: current emissions and mitigation potential. In Nutrient Management of Food Animals to Enhance and Protect the Environment (Ed. Kornegay, E. T.), pp. 219–234. NY: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. A. & Johnson, D. E. (1995). Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.Google Scholar
Jung, H. G. & Allen, M. S. (1995). Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and digestibility of forages. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2774–2790.Google Scholar
Kajikawa, H., Tajima, K., Mitsumori, M. & Takenaka, A. (2007). Effects of amino nitrogen on fermentation parameters by mixed ruminal microbes when energy or nitrogen is limited. Animal Science Journal 78, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klevenhusen, F., Bernasconi, S. M., Kreuzer, M. & Soliva, C. R. (2008). The methanogenic potential and C-isotope fractionation of different diet types represented by either C3 or C4 plants as evaluated in vitro and in dairy cows. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 119–123.Google Scholar
Kurihara, M., Magner, T., Hunter, R. A. & McCrabb, G. J. (1999). Methane production and energy partition of cattle in the tropics. British Journal of Nutrition 81, 227–234.Google Scholar
Macheboeuf, D., Coudert, L., Bergeault, R., Lalière, G. & Niderkorn, V. (2014). Screening of plants from diversified natural grasslands for their potential to combine high digestibility, and low methane and ammonia production. Animal 8, 1797–1806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAllister, T. A., Okine, E. K., Mathison, G. W. & Cheng, K.-J. (1996). Dietary, environmental and microbiological aspects of methane production in ruminants. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 76, 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrabb, C. J. & Hunter, R. A. (1999). Prediction of methane emissions from beef cattle in tropical production systems. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 1335–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, K. H., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D. & Schneider, W. (1979). 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 . Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T. L. (1995). Ecology of methane production and hydrogen sinks in the rumen. In Ruminant Physiology: Digestion, Metabolism, Growth and Reproduction. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology (Eds W. V. Engelhardt, S. Leonhard-Marek, G. Breves & D. Giesecke), pp. 317–331. Stuttgart, Germany: Ferdinand Enke Verlag.Google Scholar
Moss, A. R. (1994). Methane production by ruminants – literature review of I. Dietary manipulation to reduce methane production and II. Laboratory procedures for estimating methane of diets. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 64, 785–806.Google Scholar
Navarro-Villa, A., O'Brien, M., López, S., Boland, T. M. & O'Kiely, P. (2011). In vitro rumen methane output of red clover and perennial ryegrass assayed using the gas production technique (GPT). Animal Feed Science and Technology 168, 152–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roger, V., Fonty, G., Andre, C. & Gouet, P. (1992). Effects of glycerol on the growth, adhesion, and cellulolytic activity of rumen cellulolytic bacteria and anaerobic fungi. Current Microbiology 25, 197–201.Google Scholar
Santoso, B. & Hariadi, B. T. (2009). Evaluation of nutritive value and in vitro methane production of feedstuffs from agricultural and food industry by-products. Journal of the Indonesian Tropical Animal Agriculture 34, 189–195.Google Scholar
Santoso, B., Kume, S., Nonaka, K., Kimura, K., Mizukoshi, H., Gamo, Y. & Takahashi, J. (2003). Methane emission, nutrient digestibility, energy metabolism and blood metabolites in dairy cows fed silages with and without galacto-oligosaccharides supplementation. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 16, 534–540.Google Scholar
Santoso, B., Mwenya, B., Sar, C. & Takahashi, J. (2007). Methane production and energy partition in sheep fed timothy silage- or hay-based diets. Indonesian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences 12, 27–33.Google Scholar
SAS Institute® (2002). User's Guide: Statistics, Version 9. 1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Shibata, M. (1994). Methane production in ruminants. In CH4 and NO2: Global Emissions and Controls from Rice Fields and Other Agricultural and Industrial Sources (Eds Minami, K., Mosier, A. & Sass, R.), pp. 105–115. Yokendo, Tokyo, Japan: NIAES.Google Scholar
Singh, K. K., Das, M. M., Samanta, A. K., Kundu, S. S. & Sharma, D. (2002). Evaluation of certain feed resources for carbohydrate and protein fractions and in situ digestion characteristics. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 72, 794–797.Google Scholar
Singh, S., Kushwaha, B. P., Nag, S. K., Mishra, A. K., Bhattacharya, S., Gupta, P. K. & Singh, A. (2011). In vitro methane emission from Indian dry roughages in relation to chemical composition. Current Science 101, 57–65.Google Scholar
Takahashi, J. (2001). Nutritional manipulation of methanogenesis in ruminants. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 14, 131–135.Google Scholar
Tamminga, S. (1992). Gaseous pollutants produced by farm animal enterprises. In Effect of Farm Animals on the Human Environment (Eds Phillips, C. & Piggins, D.), pp. 345–357. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1994). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant, 2nd edn, Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Associates/Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Symposium: carbohydrate methodology, metabolism and nutritional implications in dairy cattle. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widiawati, Y. & Thalib, A. (2007). Comparison fermentation kinetics (in vitro) of grass and shrub legume leaves: the pattern of VFA concentration, estimated CH4 and microbial biomass production. Indonesian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences 12, 96–104.Google Scholar