Gas and methane production vis-à-vis loss of energy as methane from in vitro fermentation of dry and green forages in sheep and goat inoculums


Abstract views: 99 / PDF downloads: 51

Authors

  • SULTAN SINGH ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
  • B P KUSHWAHA ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
  • U Y ANELE ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
  • S K NAG ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
  • A K MISRA ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
  • ARPANA SINGH ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v90i4.104223

Keywords:

Energy loss, Forages, Gas, Methane, Ruminants, Sustainability

Abstract

Gas production, methane and energy loss from 10 dry and 12 green fodders were evaluated in vitro using sheep and goat inocula. Dry matter intake and digestible DM (DDM) were higher for green (2.45% and 62.28%) than dry fodders (1.72% and 52.88%), respectively. Mean in vitro dry matter digestibility was higher for green than dry fodders in rumen inocula of sheep (63.51 vs 45.34%) and goat (61.36 vs 41.36%), respectively. After 12 h, gas production was higher for green than dry fodders in sheep (69.70 mL/g vs 64.40) and goat inocula (61.73 vs 55.53 mL/g). Gas production was higher for dry and green fodders in sheep inoculums vs goat at 12, 24 and 48 h. At 12 h, methane production was higher for green than dry fodders both in sheep (12.96 vs 9.69 mL/g) and goat (13.34 vs 9.14 mL/g). Total CH4 production was higher for green than dry fodders with both sheep (40.92 vs 33.83 mL/g) and goat inocula (33.34 vs 30.47 mL/g), respectively. Methane production was higher from fermentation of green fodders than dry fodders in rumen inocula from goat (19.27 vs 14.16) and sheep (18.57 vs 14.76 g/kg DM), respectively. Green fodders produced higher CH4 with goat (33.75 g/kg DDM) vs sheep inocula (29.65 g/kg DDM). Methane production (g/kg DDM) and energy loss as methane (CH4 % GE) was similar for dry and green fodders fermented in sheep and goat inocula. Overall, results showed that green forages produced more CH4 compared with dry forages so this piece of information should be put into consideration for sustainable and environmentally friendly production system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aderinboye R Y, Akinlolu O, Adeleke O, Najeem O, Ojo O A, Isah O A and Babayemi J. 2016. In vitro gas production and dry matter degradation of four browse leaves using cattle, sheep and goat inocula. Slovak Journal of Animal Science 49(1): 32–43.

Alvarez-Hess P S, Williams S R O, Jacobs J L, Hannah M C, Beauchemin K A, Eckard R J, Wales W J, Morris G L and Moate P J. 2019. Effect of dietary fat supplementation on methane emissions from dairy cows fed wheat or corn. Journal of Dairy Science 102(3): 2714–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14721

Ammar H, Lopez S, Andres S, Ranilla M J, Bodas R and Gonzalez J S. 2008. In vitro digestibility and fermentation kinetics of some browse plants using sheep or goat ruminal fluid as the source of inoculum. Animal Feed Science and Technology 147: 90–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.09.011

Benchaar C, Pomar C and Chiquette J. 2001. Evaluation of dietary strategies to reduce methane production in ruminants: A modelling approach. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 81: 563–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/A00-119

Bhatta R, Enishi O, Takusari N, Higuchi K, Nonaka I and Kurihara M. 2008. Diet effects on methane production by goats and a comparison between measurement methodologies. Journal of Agriculture Science 146: 705–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859608007983

Boadi D A and Wittenberg K M. 2002. Methane production from dairy and beef heifers fed forages differing in nutrient density using the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer gas technique. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82: 201–06. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/A01-017

Calabro S, Infascelli F, Tudisco R, Musco N, Grossi M, Monastra G and Cutrignelli M I. 2013. Estimation of in vitro methane production in buffalo and cow. Buffalo Bulletin 32 (Special Issue 2): 924–27.

Chaves A V, Thompson L C, Iwaasa A D, Scott S L, Olson M E, Benchaar C, Veira D M and McAllister T A. 2006. Effect of pasture type (alfalfa vs. grass) on methane and carbon dioxide production by yearling beef heifers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 86: 409–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/A05-081

Cone J W, Van Gelder A H, Visscher G J W and Oudshoorn L. 1996. Influence of rumen fluid and substrate concentration on fermentation kinetics measured with a fully automated time related gas production apparatus. Animal Feed Science and Technology 61: 113–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(96)00950-9

Durmic Z, Hutton P, Revell D K, Emms J, Hughes S and Vercoe P E. 2010. In vitro fermentative traits of Australian woody perennial plant species that may be considered as potential sources of feed for grazing ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 160: 98–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.07.006

Issac M D, Aguilera J F and Molina A E. 1994. A comparative study of nutrient digestibility, kinetics of digestion and passage and rumen fermentation pattern in goats and sheep offered medium quality forages at the maintenance level of feeding. Arch Tierernahr 46: 37–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17450399409381756

Jayanegara A, Wina E, Soliva C R, Marquardt S, Kreuzer M and Leiber F. 2011. Dependence of forage quality and methanogenic potential of tropical plants on their phenolic fractions as determined by principal component analysis. Animal Feed Science and Technology 163: 231–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.11.009

Kidane A, Øverland M, Mydland L T and Prestlokken E. 2018. Interaction between feed use efficiency and level of dietary crude protein on enteric methane emission and apparent nitrogen use efficiency with Norwegian Red dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 96(9): 3967–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky256

Lan W and Yang C. 2019. Ruminal methane production: Associated microorganisms and the potential of applying hydrogen-utilizing bacteria for mitigation. Science of the Total Environment 654: 1270–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.180

Mi J, Zhou J, Huang X and Long R. 2017. Lower methane emissions from yak compared with cattle in rusitec fermenters. PLOS ONE 12(1): e0170044. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170044

Mirzaei-Aghsaghali A and Maheri-Si N. 2011. Factors affecting mitigation of methane from Ruminants I: Feeding strategies. Asian Journal of Animal Veterinary Advances 6 (9): 888–908. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3923/ajava.2011.888.908

MOEFCC. 2018. India’s Second Biennial Update Report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, GoI, New Delhi, p. 68

Molina E A, Garcia A I M and Aguilera J F. 2000. A comparative study of nutrient digestibility, kinetics of degradation and passage and rumen fermentation pattern in goats and sheep offered good quality diets. Livestock Science 64: 215–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00149-9

Molina E, García M A and Aguilera J F. 1997. The in vitro digestibility of pastures from semi-arid Spanish lands and its use as a predictor of degradability. (Eds) Lindberg J E, Gonda H L and Ledin I. Recent Advances in Small Ruminant Nutrition (Options Méditerranéennes: Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens, No. 34), CIHEAM, Zaragoza 27–31.

Nielsen M O, Kiani A, Tejada E, Chwalibog A and Alstrup L. 2014. Energy metabolism and methane production in llamas, sheep and goats fed high- and low-quality grass-based diets. Archives of Animal Nutrition 68(3): 171–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2014.912039

Njidda A A and Nasiru A. 2010. In vitro gas production and dry mater digestibility of tannin-containing forges of semi-arid region of north-eastern Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 9: 60–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2010.60.66

Pal K, Patra A K and Sahoo A. 2015. Evaluation of feeds from tropical origin for in vitro methane production potential and rumen fermentation in vitro. Spanish Journal of Agriculture Research 13(3): e0608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2015133-7467

Santoso B, Mwenya B, Sar C and Takahashi J. 2007. Methane production and energy partition in sheep fed timothy hay silage- or hay-based diets. Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary 1: 27–33.

Singh S, Kushwaha B P, Nag S K, Mishra A K, Bhattacharya S, Gupta P K and Singh A. 2011. In vitro methane emission from Indian dry roughages in relation to chemical composition. Current Science 101(1): 57–65.

Singh S, Kushwaha B P, Nag S K, Mishra A K, Singh A and Anele U Y. 2012. In vitro ruminal fermentation, protein and carbohydrate fractionation, methane production and prediction of twelve commonly used Indian green forages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 178: 2–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.08.019

Singh S, Bhat B V, Shukla G P, Gaharana D and Anele U Y. 2017. Nutritional evaluation of different varieties of sorghum stovers in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 227: 42–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.03.011

Singh S, Kushwaha B P, Mohini M, Mishra A K, Nag S K and Singh A. 2018. Methane production from lactating bhadawari and murrah breeds of buffalo fed wheat straw-concentrate diet. Buffalo Bulletin 37(2): 145–50.

Tavendale M H, Meagher L P, Pacheco D, Walker N, Attwood G T and Sivakumaran S. 2005. Methane production from in vitro rumen incubations with Lotus pedunculatus and Medicago sativa, and effects of extractable condensed tannin fractions on methanogenesis. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123– 124: 403–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.04.037

Theodorou M K, Williams B A, Dhanoa M S, McAllan A B and France J.1994. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48: 185–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(94)90171-6

Tilley J M A and Terry R A. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass and Forage Science 18: 104–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x

Undersander D J, Howard W T and Shaver R D. 1993. Milk per acre spreadsheet for combining yield and quality into a single term. Journal of Production Agriculture 6: 231–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1993.0231

Waghorn G C and Hegarty R S. 2011. Lowering ruminant methane emissions through improved feed conversion efficiency. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167: 291–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.019

Downloads

Submitted

2020-09-01

Published

2020-09-01

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

SINGH, S., KUSHWAHA, B. P., ANELE, U. Y., NAG, S. K., MISRA, A. K., & SINGH, A. (2020). Gas and methane production vis-à-vis loss of energy as methane from in vitro fermentation of dry and green forages in sheep and goat inoculums. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 90(4), 636-642. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v90i4.104223
Citation