Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T08:05:52.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in in vitro gas and methane production from rumen fluid from dairy cows during adaptation to feed additives in vivo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2016

G. Klop ,
S van Laar-van Schuppen ,
W. F. Pellikaan ,
W. H. Hendriks ,
A. Bannink  and
J. Dijkstra
G. Klop*
Affiliation:
Wageningen University & Research, Animal Nutrition Group, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
S van Laar-van Schuppen
Affiliation:
Wageningen University & Research, Animal Nutrition Group, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
W. F. Pellikaan
Affiliation:
Wageningen University & Research, Animal Nutrition Group, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
W. H. Hendriks
Affiliation:
Wageningen University & Research, Animal Nutrition Group, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
A. Bannink
Affiliation:
Wageningen University & Research, Animal Nutrition, Wageningen Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
J. Dijkstra
Affiliation:
Wageningen University & Research, Animal Nutrition Group, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: geronda.klop@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

The adaptation of dairy cows to methane (CH4)-mitigating feed additives was evaluated using the in vitro gas production (GP) technique. Nine rumen-fistulated lactating Holstein cows were grouped into three blocks and within blocks randomly assigned to one of three experimental diets: Control (CON; no feed additive), Agolin Ruminant® (AR; 0.05 g/kg dry matter (DM)) or lauric acid (LA; 30 g/kg DM). Total mixed rations composed of maize silage, grass silage and concentrate were fed in a 40 : 30 : 30 ratio on DM basis. Rumen fluid was collected from each cow at days −4, 1, 4, 8, 15 and 22 relative to the introduction of the additives in the diets. On each of these days, a 48-h GP experiment was performed in which rumen fluid from each individual donor cow was incubated with each of the three substrates that reflected the treatment diets offered to the cows. DM intake was on average 19.8, 20.1 and 16.2 kg/day with an average fat- and protein-corrected milk production of 30.7, 31.7 and 26.2 kg/day with diet CON, AR and LA, respectively. In general, feed additives in the donor cow diet had a larger effect on gas and CH4 production than the same additives in the incubation substrate. Incubation substrate affected asymptotic GP, half-time of asymptotic CH4 production, total volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration, molar proportions of propionate and butyrate and degradation of organic matter (OMD), but did not affect CH4 production. No substrate×day interactions were observed. A significant diet×day interaction was observed for in vitro gas and CH4 production, total VFA concentration, molar proportions of VFA and OMD. From day 4 onwards, the LA diet persistently reduced gas and CH4 production, total VFA concentration, acetate molar proportion and OMD, and increased propionate molar proportion. In vitro CH4 production was reduced by the AR diet on day 8, but not on days 15 and 22. In line with these findings, the molar proportion of propionate in fermentation fluid was greater, and that of acetate smaller, for the AR diet than for the CON diet on day 8, but not on days 15 and 22. Overall, the data indicate a short-term effect of AR on CH4 production, whereas the CH4-mitigating effect of LA persisted.

Keywords

dairy cowsadaptationessential oilslauric acidmethane
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , April 2017 , pp. 591 - 599
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 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

Benchaar, C and Greathead, H 2011. Essential oils and opportunities to mitigate enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 338–355.Google Scholar
Benchaar, C, Hassanat, F and Petit, HV 2015. Dose-response to eugenol supplementation to dairy cow diets: methane production, N excretion, ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestibility, milk production, and milk fatty acid profile. Animal Feed Science and Technology 209, 51–59.Google Scholar
Calsamiglia, S, Busquet, M, Cardozo, PW, Castillejos, L and Ferret, A 2007. Invited review: essential oils as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2580–2595.Google Scholar
Cardozo, PW, Calsamiglia, S, Ferret, A and Kamel, C 2004. Effects of natural plant extracts on ruminal protein degradation and fermentation profiles in continuous culture. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3230–3236.Google Scholar
Castro-Montoya, J, Peiren, N, Cone, JW, Zweifel, B, Fievez, V and De Campeneere, S 2015. In vivo and in vitro effects of a blend of essential oils on rumen methane mitigation. Livestock Science 180, 134–142.Google Scholar
Centraal Veevoederbureau 2008. CVB table booklet feeding of ruminants. CVB series no. 43. CVB, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Chapman, HD 2001. Use of anticoccidial drugs in broiler chickens in the USA: analysis for the years 1995 to 1999. Poultry Science 80, 572–580.Google Scholar
Dohme, F, Machmüller, A, Wasserfallen, A and Kreuzer, M 2001. Ruminal methanogenesis as influenced by individual fatty acids supplemented to complete ruminant diets. Letters in Applied Microbiology 32, 47–51.Google Scholar
Durmic, Z, Moate, PJ, Eckard, R, Revell, DK, Williams, R and Vercoe, PE 2013. In vitro screening of selected feed additives, plant essential oils and plant extracts for rumen methane mitigation. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 94, 1191–1196.Google Scholar
Ellis, JL, Bannink, A, Hindrichsen, IK, Kinley, RD, Pellikaan, WF, Milora, N and Dijkstra, J 2016. The effect of lactic acid bacteria included as a probiotic or silage inoculant on in vitro rumen digestibility, total gas and methane production. Animal Feed Science and Technology 211, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faciola, AP and Broderick, GA 2014. Effects of feeding lauric acid or coconut oil on ruminal protozoa numbers, fermentation pattern, digestion, omasal nutrient flow, and milk production in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 5088–5100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flachowsky, G and Lebzien, P 2012. Effects of phytogenic substances on rumen fermentation and methane emissions: a proposal for a research process. Animal Feed Science and Technology 176, 70–77.Google Scholar
Groot, JCJ, Cone, JW, Williams, BA, Debersaques, FMA and Lantinga, EA 1996. Multiphasic analysis of gas production kinetics for in vitro fermentation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 64, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, HH, Storm, IMLD and Sell, AM 2012. Effect of biochar on in vitro rumen methane production. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 62, 305–309.Google Scholar
Hariadi, BT and Santoso, B 2010. Evaluation of tropical plants containing tannin on in vitro methanogenesis and fermentation parameters using rumen fluid. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 90, 456–461.Google Scholar
Hatew, B, Cone, JW, Pellikaan, WF, Podesta, SC, Bannink, A, Hendriks, WH and Dijkstra, J 2015a. Relationship between in vitro and in vivo methane production measured simultaneously with different dietary starch sources and starch levels in dairy cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 202, 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatew, B, Podesta, SC, Van Laar, H, Pellikaan, WF, Ellis, JL, Dijkstra, J and Bannink, A 2015b. Effects of dietary starch content and rate of fermentation on methane production in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 486–499.Google Scholar
Hristov, AN, Lee, C, Cassidy, T, Long, M, Heyler, K, Corl, B and Forster, R 2011. Effects of lauric and myristic acids on ruminal fermentation, production, and milk fatty acid composition in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 382–395.Google Scholar
Hristov, AN, Oh, J, Firkins, J, Dijkstra, J, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Adesogan, A, Yang, W, Tricarico, J, Lee, C, Gerber, PJ, Henderson, B and Makkar, HPS 2013. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5045–5069.Google Scholar
International Standards Organization 2004. NEN-EN-ISO 1735:2004 Cheese and processed cheese products – determination of fat content – Gravimetric method (reference method). ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Klop, G, Hatew, B, Bannink, A and Dijkstra, J 2016. Feeding nitrate and docosahexaenoic acid affects enteric methane production and milk fatty acid composition in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 1161–1172.Google Scholar
Lowe, S, Theodorou, MK, Trinci, APJ and Hespell, RB 1985. Growth of anaerobic rumen fungi on defined and semi-defined media lacking rumen fluid. Journal of General Microbiology 131, 2225–2229.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M, Navarro-Villa, A, Purcell, PJ, Boland, TM and O’Kiely, P 2014. Reducing in vitro rumen methanogenesis for two contrasting diets using a series of inclusion rates of different additives. Animal Production Science 54, 141–157.Google Scholar
Panyakaew, P, Goel, G, Lourenço, M, Yuangklang, C and Fievez, V 2013. Medium-chain fatty acids from coconut or krabok oil inhibit in vitro rumen methanogenesis and conversion of non-conjugated dienoic biohydrogenation intermediates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 180, 18–25.Google Scholar
Pellikaan, WF, Hendriks, WH, Uwimana, G, Bongers, LJGM, Becker, PM and Cone, JW 2011. A novel method to determine simultaneously methane production during in vitro gas production using fully automated equipment. Animal Feed Science and Technology 168, 196–205.Google Scholar
Pirondini, M, Colombini, S, Malagutti, L, Rapetti, L, Galassi, G, Zanchi, R and Crovetto, GM 2015. Effects of a selection of additives on in vitro ruminal methanogenesis and in situ and in vivo NDF digestibility. Animal Science Journal 86, 59–68.Google Scholar
Tamminga, S, Van Straalen, WM, Subnel, APJ, Meijer, RGM, Steg, A, Wever, CJG and Blok, MC 1994. The Dutch protein evaluation system – the DVE/OEB-system. Livestock Production Science 40, 139–155.Google Scholar
Van Zijderveld, SM, Dijkstra, J, Perdok, HB, Newbold, JR and Gerrits, WJJ 2011. Dietary inclusion of diallyl disulfide, yucca powder, calcium fumarate, an extruded linseed product, or medium-chain fatty acids does not affect methane production in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 3094–3104.Google Scholar
Williams, BA, Bosch, MW, Boer, H, Verstegen, MWA and Tamminga, S 2005. An in vitro batch culture method to assess potential fermentability of feed ingredients for monogastric diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123–124, 445–462.Google Scholar
Zhou, X, Meile, L, Kreuzer, M and Zeitz, JO 2013. The effect of saturated fatty acids on methanogenesis and cell viability of Methanobrevibacter ruminantium. Archaea, Article ID 106916.Google Scholar