Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:38:14.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of divergent breed types and diets on methane emissions, rumen characteristics and performance of finishing beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2017

C-A. Duthie ,
M. Haskell ,
J. J. Hyslop ,
A. Waterhouse ,
R. J. Wallace ,
R. Roehe  and
J. A. Rooke
C-A. Duthie*
Affiliation:
Future Farming Systems Group, Beef and Sheep Research Centre, SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
M. Haskell
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Animal and Veterinary Sciences Group, SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
J. J. Hyslop
Affiliation:
Beef and Sheep Select, SAC Consulting Ltd, SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
A. Waterhouse
Affiliation:
Future Farming Systems Group, Beef and Sheep Research Centre, SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
R. J. Wallace
Affiliation:
Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB16 5BD, UK
R. Roehe
Affiliation:
Future Farming Systems Group, Beef and Sheep Research Centre, SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
J. A. Rooke
Affiliation:
Future Farming Systems Group, Beef and Sheep Research Centre, SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
†E-mail: Carol-Anne.Duthie@sruc.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

This study was undertaken to further develop our understanding of the links between breed, diet and the rumen microbial community and determine their effect on production characteristics and methane (CH4) emissions from beef cattle. The experiment was of a 2×2 factorial design, comprising two breeds (crossbred Charolais (CHX); purebred Luing (LU)) and two diets (concentrate-straw or silage-based). In total, 80 steers were used and balanced for sire within each breed, farm of origin and BW across diets. The diets (fed as total mixed rations) consisted of (g/kg dry matter (DM)) forage to concentrate ratios of either 500 : 500 (Mixed) or 79 : 921 (Concentrate). Steers were adapted to the diets over a 4-week period and performance and feed efficiency were then measured over a 56-day test period. Directly after the 56-day test, CH4 and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were measured (six steers/week) over a 13-week period. Compared with LU steers, CHX steers had greater average daily gain (ADG; P<0.05) and significantly (P<0.001) lower residual feed intake. Crossbred Charolais steers had superior conformation and fatness scores (P<0.001) than LU steers. Although steers consumed, on a DM basis, more Concentrate than Mixed diet (P<0.01), there were no differences between diets in either ADG or feed efficiency during the 56-day test. At slaughter, however, Concentrate-fed steers were heavier (P<0.05) and had greater carcass weights than Mixed-fed steers (P<0.001). Breed of steer did not influence CH4 production, but it was substantially lower when the Concentrate rather than Mixed diet was fed (P<0.001). Rumen fluid from Concentrate-fed steers contained greater proportions of propionic acid (P<0.001) and lower proportions of acetic acid (P<0.001), fewer archaea (P<0.01) and protozoa (P=0.09), but more Clostridium Cluster XIVa (P<0.01) and Bacteroides plus Prevotella (P<0.001) than Mixed-fed steers. When the CH4 to CO2 molar ratio was considered as a proxy method for CH4 production (g/kg DM intake), only weak relationships were found within diets. In conclusion, although feeding Concentrate and Mixed diets produced substantial differences in CH4 emissions and rumen characteristics, differences in performance were influenced more markedly by breed.

Keywords

beef cattleconcentrateforagemethaneperformance
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 10 , October 2017 , pp. 1762 - 1771
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Agriculture and Food Research Council (AFRC) 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Alexandratos, N and Bruinsma, J 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA working paper No. 12-03. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Aalhus, JL, Okine, EK, Snelling, WM and Lyle, KL 2003. Residual feed intake and body composition in young growing cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauchemin, KA and McGinn, SM 2005. Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barley or corn diets. Journal of Animal Science 83, 653–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, MJ, Saunders, N, Wilcox, RH, Homer, EM, Goodman, JR, Craigon, J and Garnsworthy, PC 2014. Methane emissions among individual dairy cows during milking quantified by eructation peaks or ratio with carbon dioxide. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 6536–6546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boadi, DA and Wittenberg, KM 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, 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottle, DJ, Nolan, JV and Wiedemann, SG 2011. Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: a review. Animal Production Science 51, 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craigie, CR, Navajas, EA, Purchas, RW, Maltin, CA, Bunger, L, Hoskin, SO, Ross, DW, Morris, ST and Roehe, R 2012. A review of the development and use of video image analysis (VIA) for beef carcass evaluation as an alternative to the current EUROP system and other subjective systems. Meat Science 92, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doreau, M, van der Werf, HMG, Micol, D, Dubroeucq, H, Agabriel, J, Rochette, Y and Martin, C 2011. Enteric methane production and greenhouse gases balance of diets differing in concentrate in the fattening phase of a beef production system. Journal of Animal Science 89, 2518–2528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duthie, C-A, Rooke, JA, Hyslop, JJ and Waterhouse, A 2015. Methane emissions from two breeds of beef cows offered diets containing barley straw with either grass silage or brewers’ grains. Animal 9, 1680–1687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duthie, C-A, Rooke, JA, Troy, S, Hyslop, JJ, Ross, DW, Waterhouse, A and Roehe, R 2016. Impact of adding nitrate or increasing the lipid content of two contrasting diets on blood methaemoglobin and performance of two breeds of finishing beef steers. Animal 10, 786–795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, AL 2007. Beef carcass classification in the EU: an historical perspective. In Evaluation of carcass and meat quality in beef and sheep (ed. C. Lazzaroni, S. Gigli and D. Gabiña), pp. 19–30. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. (EAAP publication No. 123).Google Scholar
Fraser, MD, Fleming, HR and Moorby, JM 2014. Traditional vs modern: role of breed type in determining enteric methane emissions from cattle grazing as part of contrasting grassland-based systems. PLoS One 9, e107861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerber, PJ, Hristov, AN, Henderson, B, Makkar, H, Oh, J, Lee, C, Meinen, R, Montes, F, Ott, T, Firkins, J, Rotz, A, Dell, C, Adesogan, AT, Yang, WZ, Tricarico, JM, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Dijkstra, J and Oosting, S 2013a. Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review. Animal 7 (suppl. S2), 220–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerber, PJ, Steinfeld, H, Henderson, B, Mottet, A, Opio, C, Dijkman, J, Falcucci, A and Tempio, G 2013b. Tackling climate change through livestock – a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Hristov, AN, Oh, J, Lee, C, Meinen, R, Montes, F, Ott, T, Firkins, J, Rotz, A, Dell, C, Adesogan, A, Yang, W, Tricarico, J, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Dijkstra, J and Oosting, S 2013. Mitigation practices. In FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 177. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production – a review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions (ed. PJ Gerber, B Henderson B and HPS Makkar), pp. 40–47. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Janssen, PH 2010. Influence of hydrogen on rumen methane formation and fermentation balances through microbial growth kinetics and fermentation thermodynamics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 160, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, AJ, Cook, GL and Grantley-Smith, M 1986. National estimates of the body composition of British cattle, sheep and pigs with special reference to trends in fatness: a review. Meat Science 17, 107–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lassen, J, Lovendahl, P and Madsen, J 2012. Accuracy of noninvasive breath methane measurements using Fourier transform infrared methods on individual cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 890–898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovett, D, Lovell, S, Stack, L, Callan, J, Finlay, M, Conolly, J and O’Mara, FP 2003. Effect of forage/concentrate ratio and dietary coconut oil level on methane output and performance of finishing beef heifers. Livestock Production Science 84, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, J, Bjerg, BS, Hvelplund, T, Weisbjerg, MR and Lund, P 2010. Methane and carbon dioxide ratio in excreted air for quantification of the methane production from ruminants. Livestock Science 129, 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food 1992. Analysis of agricultural materials, 2nd edition. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London, UK.Google Scholar
Richmond, AS, Wylie, ARG, Laidlaw, AS and Lively, FO 2015. Methane emissions from beef cattle grazing on semi-natural upland and improved lowland grasslands. Animal 9, 130–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roehe, R, Dewhurst, RJ, Duthie, C-A, Rooke, JA, McKain, N, Ross, DW, Hyslop, JJ, Waterhouse, A, Freeman, TC, Watson, M and Wallace, RJ 2016. Bovine host genetic variation influences rumen microbial methane production with best selection criterion for low methane emitting and efficiently feed converting hosts based on metagenomic gene abundance. PLoS Genetics 12, e1005846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rooke, JA, Wallace, RJ, Duthie, C-A, McKain, N, de Souza, SM, Hyslop, JJ, Ross, DW, Waterhouse, T and Roehe, R 2014. Hydrogen and methane emissions from beef cattle and their rumen microbial community vary with diet, time after feeding and genotype. British Journal of Nutrition 112, 398–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauvant, D and Giger-Reverdin, S 2009. Modelling of digestive interactions and methane production in ruminants. Productions Animales 22, 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C 2004. Feed into milk: an advisory manual. Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Troy, SM, Duthie, C-A, Hyslop, JJ, Roehe, R, Ross, DW, Wallace, RJ, Waterhouse, A and Rooke, JA 2015. Effectiveness of nitrate addition and increased oil content as methane mitigation strategies for beef cattle fed two contrasting basal diets. Journal of Animal Science 93, 1815–1823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, RJ, Rooke, JA, Duthie, C-A, Hyslop, JJ, Ross, DW, McKain, N, de Souza, SM, Snelling, TJ, Waterhouse, A and Roehe, R 2014. Archaeal abundance in post-mortem ruminal digesta may help predict methane emissions from beef cattle. Scientific Reports 4, 5892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, RJ, Rooke, JA, McKain, N, Duthie, C-A, Hyslop, JJ, Ross, DW, Waterhouse, A, Watson, M and Roehe, R 2015. The rumen microbial metagenome associated with high methane production in cattle. BMC Genomics 16, 839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed