|
|
|
|
|
| Rumen methane output and fermentation characteristics of gramineous forage and leguminous forage at differing harvest dates determined using an in vitro gas production technique |
| ZHONG Rong-zhen, FANG Yi, SUN Hai-xia, WANG Min, ZHOU Dao-wei |
1、Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun 130102, P.R.China
2、Key Laboratory of Agro-Ecological Processes in Subtropical Region/Huanjiang Experimental Station of Karst Agro-Ecosystem,
Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hunan 410125, P.R.China |
|
|
|
摘要 An in vitro rumen gas production technique was employed to determine the methane production and fermentation characteristics of Leymus chinensis and Medicago ruthenica at differing harvest dates (May 15, May 30, June 30, July 30, August 30 and September 30), which are sequential phases within a single continuous growth of two 10-year-old pastures. To quantify the rate of degradation and compare in vitro rumen fermentation characteristic, a logistic-exponential model, where initial gas volume was zero (LE0), was used to fit gas production and methane output results. Dried, milled forage samples were incubated in vitro for 72 h at 39°C and gas production was recorded intermittently throughout the incubation and gas samples were collected to measure methane production. Results showed that there were significant interactions between species and harvest for all chemical composition variables (P<0.001) and condensed tannin content (P<0.001). L. chinensis produced more total gas and methane than M. ruthenica (P<0.001). Both total gas and methane production decreased lineally (P<0.001) with advancing harvest date. The degradation rates of L. chinensis and M. ruthenica harvested on September 30 were lower than those on the other harvest dates (P<0.01). M. ruthenica fermented fluid had higher concentration of ammonia N (P<0.05) and molar proportions of isobutyrate (P<0.01), valerate (P<0.001) and isovalerate (P<0.01) in total volatile fatty acids than L. chinensis. Furthermore, concentration of isovalerate decreased cubically with advancing harvest date (P<0.05). In conclusion, M. ruthenica produced less methane than L. chinensis and the total gas and methane production decreased with advancing harvest date for both species, which may be due to the changes in contents of chemical compositions and condensed tannin in forages.
Abstract An in vitro rumen gas production technique was employed to determine the methane production and fermentation characteristics of Leymus chinensis and Medicago ruthenica at differing harvest dates (May 15, May 30, June 30, July 30, August 30 and September 30), which are sequential phases within a single continuous growth of two 10-year-old pastures. To quantify the rate of degradation and compare in vitro rumen fermentation characteristic, a logistic-exponential model, where initial gas volume was zero (LE0), was used to fit gas production and methane output results. Dried, milled forage samples were incubated in vitro for 72 h at 39°C and gas production was recorded intermittently throughout the incubation and gas samples were collected to measure methane production. Results showed that there were significant interactions between species and harvest for all chemical composition variables (P<0.001) and condensed tannin content (P<0.001). L. chinensis produced more total gas and methane than M. ruthenica (P<0.001). Both total gas and methane production decreased lineally (P<0.001) with advancing harvest date. The degradation rates of L. chinensis and M. ruthenica harvested on September 30 were lower than those on the other harvest dates (P<0.01). M. ruthenica fermented fluid had higher concentration of ammonia N (P<0.05) and molar proportions of isobutyrate (P<0.01), valerate (P<0.001) and isovalerate (P<0.01) in total volatile fatty acids than L. chinensis. Furthermore, concentration of isovalerate decreased cubically with advancing harvest date (P<0.05). In conclusion, M. ruthenica produced less methane than L. chinensis and the total gas and methane production decreased with advancing harvest date for both species, which may be due to the changes in contents of chemical compositions and condensed tannin in forages.
|
|
Received: 18 November 2014
Accepted:
|
| Fund: This study was conducted under the support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31201820) and the Excellent Young Scientists Foundation of the Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun, China (DLSYQ12008). |
|
Corresponding Authors:
ZHOU Dao-wei, Tel: +86-431-85542231,E-mail: zhoudaowei@iga.ac.cn
E-mail: zhoudaowei@iga.ac.cn
|
| About author: ZHONG Rong-zhen, Tel: +86-431-85542303, E-mail: zhongrongzhen@iga.ac.cn; |
Cite this article:
ZHONG Rong-zhen, FANG Yi, SUN Hai-xia, WANG Min, ZHOU Dao-wei.
2016.
Rumen methane output and fermentation characteristics of gramineous forage and leguminous forage at differing harvest dates determined using an in vitro gas production technique. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 15(2): 414-423.
|
| Alamouti A A, Ghorbani G R, Alikhani M, Rahmani H R, YansariA T, S?dekum K H. 2009. Effect of lucerne particle andsource of dietary carbohydrates on in situ degradation andruminal variables in sheep. Czech Journal Animal Science,6, 277-285Alemu A W, Dijkstra J, Bannink A, France J, Kebreab E. 2011.Rumen stoichiometric models and their contribution andchallenges in predicting enteric methane production. AnimalFeed Science and Technology, 166, 761-778Ammar H, López S, Andr?s S. 2010. Influence of maturitystage of forage grasses and leguminous on their chemicalcomposition and in vitro dry matter digestibility. OptionsMéditerranéennes, 92, 199-203AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). 1990.Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Association of OfficialAnalytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.Aziz M A. 2010. Present status of the world goat populationsand their productivity. Lohmann Information. 45, 42-52Beauchemin K A, Kreuzer M, O’Mara F, McAllister T A. 2008.Nutritional management for entire methane abatement:a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture,48, 21-27Bhatta R, Tajima K, Takusari N, Higuchi K, Enishi O, KuriharaM. 2007. Comparison of in vivo and in vitro techniques formethane production from ruminant diets. Asian-AustralasianJournal of Animal Sciences, 20, 1049-1056Broderick G A. 1995. Desirable characteristics of foragelegumes for improving protein utilization in ruminants.Journal of Animal Science, 73, 2760-2773Broderick G A, Kang J H. 1980. Automated simultaneousdeterminations of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminalfluid and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science, 63, 64-75Chiy P C, Phillips C C. 1999. Effects of sodium fertiliser onthe distribution of trace elements, toxic metals and watersolublecarbohydrates in grass and clover fractions. Journalof the Science of Food and Agriculture, 79, 2017-2024Cornou C, Drejer Storm M L, Hindrichsen I K, Worgan H,Bakewell E, Yáñez Ruiz D R, Abecia L, Tagliapietra F,Cattani M, Ritz C, Hansen H H. 2011. A ring test of awireless in vitro gas production system. Animal ProductionScience, 277, 10-14France J, López S, Kebreab E, Bannink A, Dhanoa M S, DijkstraJ. 2005. A general compartmental model for interpreting gasproduction profiles. Animal Feed Science and Technology,123-124, 473-485Gao Z L, Yuan H J, Ma W Q, Li J G, Liu X J, Desjardins R L011. Diurnal and seasonal patterns of methane emissionsfrom a dairy operation in North China Plain. Advances in Meteorology, doi: 10.1155/2011/190234Guan B, Zhou D, Zhang H, Tian Y, Japhet W, Wang P. 2009.Germination responses of Medicago ruthenica seedsto salinity, alkalinity, and temperature. Journal of AridEnviroments, 73, 135-138Han H B, Shi W G, Li Z Y, Li H Y, Li Y Y, Liu L, Wang X N. 2011.Research progress of resistance of Medicago ruthenica.Pratacultural Science, 28, 637-635 (in Chinese)Holter J B, Young A J. 1992. Methane production in dryand lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 75,2165-2175Isac M D, Gar?ia M A, Aguilera J F, Molina Alcaide E. 1994.A comparative study of nutrient digestibility, kinetics ofdigestion and passage and rumen fermentation patternin goats and sheep offered medium quality forages at themaintenance level of feeding. Archives of Animal Nutrition,46, 37-50Jayanegara A, Leiber F, Kreuzer M. 2012. Meta-analysis ofthe relationship between dietary tannin level and methaneformation in ruminants from in vivo and in vitro experiments.Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 96,365-375Johnson K A, Johnson D E. 1995. Methane emissions fromcattle. Journal of Animal Science, 73, 2483-2492Kennedy P M, Charmley E. 2012. Methane yields from Brahmancattle fed tropical grasses and legumes. Animal ProductionScience, 52, 225-239Lee M R F, Merry R J, Davies D R, Moorby J M, Humphreys MO, Theodorou M K, MacRae J C, Scollan N D. 2003. Effectof increasing availability of water-soluble carbohydrates onin vitro fermentation. Animal Feed Science and Technology,104, 59-70Littell R C, Milliken G A, Stroup W W, Wolfinger R D. 1996. SASSystem for Mixed Models. SAS, Cary, NC, USA.López S, France J, Dhanoa M S, Mould F, Dijkstra J. 1999.Comparation of mathematical models to describedisappearance curves obtained using the polyester bagtechnique for incubating feeds in the rumen. Journal ofAnimal Science, 77, 1875-1888Mauricio R M, Mould F L, Dhanoa M S, Owen E, Channa KS, Theodorou M K. 1999. A semi-automated in vitro gasproduction technique for ruminant feedstuff evaluation.Animal Feed Science and Technology, 79, 321-330McCann J C, Wickersham T A, Loor J J. 2014. High-throughputmethods redefine the rumen microbiome and its relationshipwith nutrition and metabolism. Bioinformatics and BiologyInsights, 8, 109-125Mccaughey W P, Wittenberg K, Corrigan D. 1999. Impact ofpasture type on methane production by lactating beef cows.Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 79, 221-226McDonald I W. 1948. The absorption of ammonia from therumen of the sheep. Biochemical Journal, 52, 584-587McDougall E I. 1949. Studies on ruminant saliva. I. Thecomposition and output of sheep’s saliva. BiochemicalJournal, 43, 99.Mitsumori M, Sun W B. 2008. Control of rumen microbialfermentation for mitigating methane emissions from therumen. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences,21, 144-154Navarro-Villa A, O’Brine M, López S, Boland T M, O’KielyP. 2011. In vitro rumen methane output of red clove andperennial ryegrass assayed using the gas productiontechnique (GPT). Animal Feed Science and Technology,168, 152-164Navarro-Villa A, O’Brine M, López S, Boland T M, O’Kiely P.2012. In vitro rumen methane output of grasses and grasssilages differing in fermentation characteristics using thegas-production technique (GPT). Grass Forage Science,doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2012.00894.xOshita T, Nonaka K, Kume S, Nakui T. 2004. Effects of foragetype on particle size distribution of rumen digesta and faecesof non-lactating cows fed high quality forage. LivestockProduction Science, 91, 107-115Ovens V N, Albrecht K A, Muck R E, Duke S H. 1999. Proteindegradation and ensiling characteristics of red cloverand alfalfa silage harvested with varying levels of totalnonstructural carbohydrates. Crop Science, 39, 1873-1880Price M L, Van Scoyoc S, Butler L G. 1978. A critical evaluationof the vanillin reaction as an assay for tannin in sorghumgrain. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 26,1214-1218Puchala R, Min B R, Goetsch A L, Sahlu T. 2005. The effect ofa condensed tannin-containing forage on methane emissionby goats. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 182-186Purcell P J, O’Brine M, Navarro-Villa A, Boland T M, McevoyM, Grogan D, O’Kiely P. 2012. In vitro rumen methaneoutput of perennial ryegrass varieties and perennial grassspecie harvested throughout the growing season. Grassand Forage Science, 67, 280-298Rymer C, Huntington J A, Williams S A, Givens D I. 2005.In vitro cumulative gas production technique: History,methodological considerations and challenges. Animal FeedScience and Technology, 123-124, 9–30Sahoo B, Saraswat M L, Haque N, Khan M K. 2000. Energybalance and methane procution in sheep fed chemicallytreated wheat straw. Small Ruminant Research, 35, 13-19SAS (Statistics Analysis System). 2002. SAS/STAT User’sGuide: Statistics. Version 9.1 ed. SAS, Cary, NC, USA.Sherrod P H. 1995. Users guide for NLREG. NonlinearRegression Analysis Program, Version 3.2. Phillip H.Sherrod, Brentwood, TN, USA. http://www.nlreg.comShi F L. 2006. Study on drought resistance of Medicagoruthenica accessions. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 28,39-42 (in Chinese)Sniffen C J, O’Connor J D, Van Soest P J, Fox D G, Russell J B.1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluatingcattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journalof Animal Science, 70, 3562-3577Van Soest P J, Robertson J B, Lewis B A. 1991. Methodsfor dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarchpolysaccharides in relation to animal production. Journalof Diary Science, 74, 3583-3597Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, deHaan C. 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: EnvironmentalIssues and Options. FAO, Rome, Italy.Sun Z W, Zhou D W, Ferreira L M M, Zhong Q Z, Lou Y J.2008. Diet composition, herbage intake and digestibilityin Inner Mongolian Cashmere goats grazing on nativeLeymus chinensis plant communities. Livestock Science,116, 146-155Tavendale M H, Meagher L P, Pacheco D, Walker N, AttwoodG T, Sivakumaran S. 2005. Methane production form in vitrorumen incubations with Lotus pedunculatus and Medicagosativa, and effects of extractable condensed tannin fractionson methanogenesis. Animal Feed Science and Technology,123-124, 403–419Thomas T A. 1977. An automated procedure for thedetermination of soluble carbohydrate in herbage. Journalof the Science of Food and Agriculture, 28, 639-642Tremblay G F, Michaud R, Bélanger G, Mcrae K B, Petit HV. 2000. In vitro ruminal undegradable proteins of alfalfacultivars. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 80, 315-325Wanapat M, Boonnop K, Promkot C, Cherdthong A. 2011.Effects of alternative protein sources on rumen microbesand productivity of dairy cows. Maejo International Journalof Science and Technology, 5, 13-23Wang M, Sun X Z, Tang S X, Tan Z L, Pacheco D. 2013.Deriving fractional rate of degradation of logistic-exponential(LE) model to evaluate early in vitro fermentation. Animal,7, 920-929Wang M, Tang S X, Tan Z L. 2011. Modeling in vitro gasproduction kinetics: Derivation of Logistic-Exponential (LE)equations and comparison of models. Animal Feed Scienceand Technology, 165, 137-150Wang M X, Dai A G, Huang J, Ren L X, Shen R X. 1993.Estimate on methane emission from China. Chinese Journalof Atmospheric Sciences, 17, 49-62Wang R Z, Ripley E A. 1997. Effect of grazing on a Leymuschinensis grassland on the Songnen plain of north-easternChina. Journal of Arid Enviroments, 36, 307-318Widiawati Y, Thalib A. 2009. Comparison of fermentationkinetics (in vitro) of grass and shrub legume leaves: Thepattern of VFA concentration, estimated CH4 and microbialbiomass production. Indonesian Journal of AgriculturalScience, 2, 21-27Yu P J, Li Q, Jia H T, Li G D, Zheng W, Shen X J, Diabate B,Zhou D W. 2014. Effect of cultivation on dynamics of organicand inorganic carbon stocks in Songnen plain. Agronomy,Soil & Environmental Quality, 106, 1-9Yusuf R O, Noor Z Z, Abba A H, Hassan M A A, Din M F M.2012. Greenhouse gas emissions: Quantifying methaneemissions from livestock. American Journal of Engineeringand Applied Sciences, 5, 1-8Zhang F, Qi J, Li F M, Li C S, Li C B. 2010. Quantifying nitrousoxide emissions from Chinese grasslands with a processbasedmodel. Biogeosci Discuss, 7, 1675-1706Zhang Z, Wang S P, Jiang G M, Patton B, Nyren P. 2007.Response of Artemisia frigida Willd. (Compositae) andLeymus chinensis (Trin.) Tzvel. (Poaceae) to sheep saliva.Journal of Arid Environments, 70, 111-119Zou X X, Li Y E, Li K, Cremades R, Gao Q Z, Wan Y F, Qin X B.2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural irrigationin China. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for GlobalChange, doi: 10.1007/s11027-013-9492-9 |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
