Nutritive value and methane production potential of energy and protein rich feedstuffs fed to livestock in India

SULTAN SINGH; B P KUSHWAHA; A K MISHRA; S K NAG; U Y ANELE; A SINGH; S BHATTACHARYA; P K GUPTA; J JAYASHANKAR

doi:10.56093/ijans.v86i5.58504

Authors

SULTAN SINGH Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
B P KUSHWAHA Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
A K MISHRA Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
S K NAG Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
U Y ANELE Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
A SINGH Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
S BHATTACHARYA Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
P K GUPTA Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
J JAYASHANKAR Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v86i5.58504

Keywords:

Carbohydrate fractions, Feedstuffs, Methane and gas production, Nutritive value, Protein fractions

Abstract

Four protein-rich (groundnut cake-GNC, mustard seed cake-MSC, cotton seed cake-CSC and coconut cake- CNC) and 8 energy-rich (wheat grain-WG, barley grain-BG, oat grain-OG, maize grain-MG, wheat bran A-WBA, wheat bran B-WBB, rice bran-RB, chickpea husk/chuni-GC) feedstuffs were evaluated for their carbohydrate and protein fractions, in vitro dry matter degradability, in vitro methane production and energy loss as methane. Crude protein (CP) and ether extract contents were higher in protein-rich feedstuffs than in energy feedstuffs. High lignin content was noted in CSC, GNC, MSC and RB. Degradable CP fractions of total CP ranged from 0.61 to 0.97 and were higher for protein-rich than energy-rich feedstuffs. On an average, protein-rich feedstuffs had more undegradable CP fraction than the grains or brans. Starch content was highest (P< 0.001) in WBB and least in CSC with values of 369 and 37.3 g/kg DM, respectively. Rapidly degradable carbohydrate fraction (CA) was highest in WG, OG, MG (all energy-rich feedstuffs) and least in RB (6.7 g/kg DM). Similar to the observation made in the protein fractions, protein-rich feedstuffs had more unavailable CHO. Feedstuffs energy loss as methane was highest (P< 0.001) from GC (1.90 Mj/kg DM) and least from MG (1.19 Mj/kg DM). Methane production of the feedstuffs could be predicted from the chemical composition, CP and CHO fractions. On an average, chemical composition and protein fractions were better predictors of CH₄ production versus CHO fractions with mean R2 values of 0.94 and 0.80, respectively. Data on relative methane emission from energy and protein rich feeds could be utilized to prepare diets that will lead to less methane production from ruminants.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AOAC. 2000. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis. 17th edn. Arlington, VA, USA.

Batajoo K K and Shaver R D. 1998. In situ dry matter, crude protein and starch digestibility’s of selected grains and by- product feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 71: 165– 176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(97)00132-6

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

Boadi D, Benchaar C, Chiquette J and Masse D. 2004. Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: update review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84: 319–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/A03-109

Bonhomme A. 1990. Rumen ciliates: their metabolism and relationships with bacteria and their hosts. Animal Feed Science and Technology 30: 203–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(90)90016-2

Caballero R, Alzueta C, Ortiz L T, Rodridguez M L, Barro C and Rebole A. 2001. Carbohydrate and protein fractions of fresh and dried common vetch at three maturity stages. Agronomy Journal 93: 1006–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2001.9351006x

DeBlas C, Garcia-Rebollar P, Cambra-Lopez M and Torres A G. 2008. Contribución de los rumiantes a las emisiones de gases con efecto invernadero. XXIV Curso de Especialización FEDNA.

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

Government of India-GOI. 2007. 18th Livestock Census 2007. Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries. Ministry of Agriculture, GOI, New Delhi. www.dhad.nic.in.

Gupta A, Singh S, Kundu S S and Jha N. 2011. Evaluation of tropical feedstuffs for carbohydrate and protein fractions by CNCP system. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 81: 1154– 60.

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

Johson K A and Johnson D E. 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2483–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7382483x

Kamble A B, Kundu S S, Shelke S K, Datt C and Jha N. 2010. Evaluation of concentrate feedstuffs for carbohydrate and protein fractions and in vitro methane production. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition 27: 109–15.

Kim M J, Lee J S, Kumar S, Rahman M M, Shin J S and Ra C S. 2012. Indirect estimation of CH4 from livestock feeds through TOCs evaluation. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 25: 496–501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2011.11352

Kumar R, Kamra D N, Agarwal N and Chaudhary L C. 2007. In vitro methanogenesis and fermentation of feeds containing oil seed cakes with rumen liquor of buffalo. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 20: 1196–1200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2007.1196

Licitra G, Hernandez T M and Van Soest P J. 1996. Standardizations of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57: 347– 58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3

Machmuller A, Soliva C R and Kreuzer M. 2003. Methane- suppressing effect of myristic acid in sheep as affected by dietary calcium and forage proportion. British Journal of Nutrition 90: 529–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN2003932

Madsen J and Hvelplund T. 1987. Values of feed protein degradability and possible methods for its estimation in routine laboratories. Feed Evaluation and Protein Requirement Systems for Ruminants. pp 97–110. (Eds) Jarrige R and Alderman G. ECSC-EEC-EAEC, Brussels.

McCrabb C J and Huntewr R A. 1999. Prediction of methane emission from beef cattle in tropical production systems. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50 (8): 1335–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/AR99009

McDonald P, Edwards R A, Greenhalgh J F D and Morgan C A. 2002. Animal Nutrition. 6th edn, pp 266–77. Pearson Education Limited. Harlow. Essex, UK.

Menke K H and Steingass H.1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28: 7– 55.

MEFGOI. 2012. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. India Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, pp 60–61.

Mirzaii A H R, Amanloo H and Nikkhah A. 2005. Protein and carbohydrate fractions of common feedstuffs in the Cornell net carbohydrate and protein system. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 36: 409–14.

Mondal G. Walli T K and Patra A K. 2008. In vitro and in sacco ruminal protein degradability of common Indian feed ingredients. Livestock Research for Rural Development 20(4): http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/4/mond20063.htm.

NRC. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th edn. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Njidda A A and Nasiru A. 2010. In vitro gas production and dry matter 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

Preston T R, Do H Q, Khoa T D, Hao T P and Leng R A. 2013. Protein solubility of fish meal and groundnut meal and methane production in an in vitro incubation. Livestock Research for Rural Development 25: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/1/hqdo25016.htm.

Ramin M and Huhtanen P. 2013. Development of equations for predicting methane emissions from ruminants. Journal of Diary Science 96: 2476–2496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6095

Rossi F, Vecchia P and Masoero F. 2001. Estimate of methane production from rumen fermentation. Nutrient Cycling in Agro ecosystem 60: 89–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012609332406

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. Indonesian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences 12: 27–33.

SAS®, User’s guide: Statistics, Version 9. 1. SAS Institute Inc., 2002, Cary, NC, USA.

Singh K K, Samanta A K, Kundu S S and Sharma D. 2002. Evaluation of certain feed resources for carbohydrate and protein fractions and in situ digestion characteristics. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 72: 794–97.

Sniffen C J, O’Connor J D, Van Sorest P J, Fox D G and Russell J B. 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets. 2. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science 70: 3562–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/1992.70113562x

Tavendale M H, Meagher L P, Pacheco D, Walker N, Attwood G T and Siva kumaran 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: 403–419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.04.037

Theodorou M K, Williams A B, Dhanoa M S, Mcallan A B and France J. 1994. A simple gas production method using 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. Journal British Grassland Society 18: 104–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x

Van Nevel C J and Demeyer D I. 1988. Manipulation of rumen fermentation. The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem. pp. 337–343. (Ed.) Hobson P N. Elsevier Science Publishers, London and New York.

Van Soest P J, Robertson J B and 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 Diary Science 4: 3583–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2

Van Kessel J A S and Russell J B. 1996. The effect of pH on ruminal methanogenesis. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 20: 205–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-6496(96)00030-X

Waghorn G C, Burke J L and Kolver E S. 2007. Principles of Feeding Value. Pasture and Supplements for Grazing Animal. pp. 35–60. (Eds) Rattray P, Brookes I and Nicol A. New Zealand Society of Animal Production, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Widiawati Y and Thali A. 2009. 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 Agriculture 2: 21–27.

Wilson J R and Hatfield R D. 1997. Structural and chemical changes of cell wall types during stem development: Consequences for fibre degradation by rumen microflora. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 48: 165–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/A96051