Chemical composition, in-vitro fermentation and methane production potential of unconventional feed resources in goats

M K TRIPATHI; RAMKESH MEENA; ANU RAHAL; PRABHAT TRIPATHI; RAVINDRA KUMAR; U B CHAUDHARY; D L GUPTA

doi:10.56093/ijans.v86i6.59208

Authors

M K TRIPATHI ICAR-Central Institute for Research on Goats, Makhdoom, Uttar Pradesh 281 122 India
RAMKESH MEENA ICAR-Central Institute for Research on Goats, Makhdoom, Uttar Pradesh 281 122 India
ANU RAHAL ICAR-Central Institute for Research on Goats, Makhdoom, Uttar Pradesh 281 122 India
PRABHAT TRIPATHI ICAR-Central Institute for Research on Goats, Makhdoom, Uttar Pradesh 281 122 India
RAVINDRA KUMAR ICAR-Central Institute for Research on Goats, Makhdoom, Uttar Pradesh 281 122 India
U B CHAUDHARY ICAR-Central Institute for Research on Goats, Makhdoom, Uttar Pradesh 281 122 India
D L GUPTA ICAR-Central Institute for Research on Goats, Makhdoom, Uttar Pradesh 281 122 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v86i6.59208

Keywords:

Feed resources, Fermentation, Goat, Leaves, Methane

Abstract

Unconventional feed resources namely Aloe barbadensis (ALB), Musa paradisiaca (MUP), Punica granatum (PUG), Murraya koenigii (MUK), Lawsonia inermis (LOI) and Boehravia diffusa (BOD) were assessed for in- vitro methane production potential and fermentation with whole goat rumen flora. Nutrient content of all the bio- resources were different, and the gas production varied from 57.7 to 161.7 ml/ g DM, with the highest gas in ALB and the lowest in BOD. Although, gas production was different among all feed resources, however gas production for each gram DM fermented was similar in MUP, PUG, MUK and LOI leaves. Methane production ranged from 6.7 to 18.9 g and 10.5 to 22.83 g/ kg DM and g/ kg fermented DM respectively. The energy loss in the form of methane also followed the trend of gas production, which ranged from 11.4 to 17.1% of digestible energy. Therefore, feed resources with varying nutrient contents have significant variations in fermentability and methane production potential.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AOAC. 2000. Official Method of Analysis.,17 th edn. Association of Official Analytical chemists, Washington, D.C.

Bhatt R S, Agrawal A R and Sahoo A. 2014. In-vitro rumen degradability, fermentation metabolites and methanogenesis of different crop residues. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology 14: 337–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-181X.2014.01333.X

Blummel M, Makkar H P S and Becker K. 1997. In-vitro gas production: a technique revisited. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 77: 24–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.1997.tb00734.x

Blummel M, Cone J W, Van Gelder A H, Nshalai I, Umunna N N, Makkar H P S and Becker K. 2005. Prediction of forage intake using in-vitro gas production method: Comparison of multiphase fermentation kinetics measured in automated gas test, and combined gas volume and substrate degradability measurement in manual syringe system, Animal Feed Science and Technology 124: 517–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.04.040

Boga M, Yurtseven S, Kilic U, Aydemir S and Polat T. 2014. Determination of nutrient content and in-vitro gas production values of some legume forages grown in the Harran plains saline soils. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science 27: 825–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13718

Bueno I C S, Brandi R A, Franzolin R, Benetel G, Fagundes G M, Abdalla A L, Louvandini H and Muir J P. 2015. In-vitro methane production and tolerance to condensed tannins in five ruminant species. Animal Feed Science and Technology 205: 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.03.008

Chhabra A, Manjunath K R, Panigrahy S and Parihar J S. 2009. Spatial pattern of methane emission from Indian livestock. Current Science 96: 683–89.

Cottle D J, Nolan J V and Widemann S G. 2011. Ruminant methane mitigation: a review. Animal Production Science 51: 454–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/AN10163

De Haas Y, Windig J J, Calus M P L, Dijkstra J, de Haan M, Bannink A and Veerkamp R F. 2012. Genetic parameters for predicted methane production and potential for reducing enteric emissions through genomic selection. Journal of Dairy DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4439

Science 94: 6122–64.

EPA. 2010. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emission and sink: 1990–2008. USEPA, Washington DC. pp 61–67, Chap.6.

Hanson J and Rivera S F. 2010. Collecting, processing and storage

of plant materials for nutritional analysis: In-vitro screening of plant resources for extra-nutritional attributes: Nuclear and related methodologies. (Eds) P E Vercoe, H P S Makkar and A C Schilink. Pp. 15–25. Springer, New York.

Joblin K N. 1999. Ruminal acetogens and their potential to lower ruminant methane emissions. Australian Journal of Agriculture Research 50: 1307–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/AR99004

Johnson 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

Leng R A. 1990. Factors affecting the utilisation of poor-quality forages by ruminants particularly under tropical conditions. Nutrition Research and Reviews 3: 277–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/NRR19900016

McAllister T A and Newbold C J. 2008. Redirecting rumen fermentation to reduce methanogenesis. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48: 7–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07218

Morgavi D P, Forano E, Martin C and Newbold C J. 2010. Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants. Animal 4: 1024–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110000546

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

Mould F L, Morgan R, Kleim K E and Krystallidou E. 2005. A review and simplification of the in-vitro incubation medium. Animal Feed Science and Technology 124: 155–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.05.002

Ramachandran M, Bharthidhasan A and Balakrishana V. 2015. Nutrient composition, in-vitro true digestibility (IVTD) and methane production potential of fodder tree leaves. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 85: 494–97.

Roberstson J B and Van Soest P J. 1988. A laboratory manual for animal science 612, Cornell University, USA.

Santoso B, Kumar S, Nolaka K, Kimura K, Mizokoshi H, Gamo Y and Takahashi J. 2003. Methane emission, nutrient digestibility, energy metabolism and blood metabolites in dairy cows fed silage with or without galacto-oligosaccharides supplementation. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 16: 534–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2003.534

Singh S, Kushwaha B P, Nag S K, Misra A K, Singh A and Anele U Y. 2012. In-vitro rumen fermentation, protein and carbohydrate fractions, methane production and prediction of twelve commonly used Indian green forages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 170: 2–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.08.019

Van Soest P J, Robertson J B and Lewis B A. 1991. Methods for fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2

Widiwali Y and Thalib A. 2007. Comparison of fermentation kinetics (in-vitro) of grass and shrub legumes leaves: the pattern of VFA concentration, estimated methane and microbial biomass production. Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary 12: 96–04.