Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-2tv5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-21T18:33:46.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dietary starch and rhubarb supplement increase ruminal dissolved hydrogen without altering rumen fermentation and methane emissions in goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2018

M. Wang ,
R. Wang ,
M. Liu ,
K. A. Beauchemin ,
X. Z. Sun ,
S. X. Tang ,
J. Z. Jiao ,
Z. L. Tan  and
Z. X. He
M. Wang
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Engineering Laboratory for Pollution Control and Waste Utilization in Livestock and Poultry Production, Changsha, Hunan410125, P. R. China Hunan Co-Innovation Center of Animal Production Safety (CICAPS), Changsha, Hunan410128, P. R. China
R. Wang
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Engineering Laboratory for Pollution Control and Waste Utilization in Livestock and Poultry Production, Changsha, Hunan410125, P. R. China Hunan Co-Innovation Center of Animal Production Safety (CICAPS), Changsha, Hunan410128, P. R. China College of Animal Science and Technology, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha, Hunan410128, P. R. China
M. Liu
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science and Technology, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha, Hunan410128, P. R. China
K. A. Beauchemin
Affiliation:
Lethbridge Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AlbertaT1J 4B1,Canada
X. Z. Sun
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science and Technology, Jilin Agricultural Science and Technology University, Jilin City, Jilin132101, P. R. China
S. X. Tang
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Engineering Laboratory for Pollution Control and Waste Utilization in Livestock and Poultry Production, Changsha, Hunan410125, P. R. China Hunan Co-Innovation Center of Animal Production Safety (CICAPS), Changsha, Hunan410128, P. R. China
J. Z. Jiao
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Engineering Laboratory for Pollution Control and Waste Utilization in Livestock and Poultry Production, Changsha, Hunan410125, P. R. China Hunan Co-Innovation Center of Animal Production Safety (CICAPS), Changsha, Hunan410128, P. R. China
Z. L. Tan*
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Engineering Laboratory for Pollution Control and Waste Utilization in Livestock and Poultry Production, Changsha, Hunan410125, P. R. China Hunan Co-Innovation Center of Animal Production Safety (CICAPS), Changsha, Hunan410128, P. R. China
Z. X. He
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Engineering Laboratory for Pollution Control and Waste Utilization in Livestock and Poultry Production, Changsha, Hunan410125, P. R. China Hunan Co-Innovation Center of Animal Production Safety (CICAPS), Changsha, Hunan410128, P. R. China
*
†E-mail: zltan@isa.ac.cn
Get access

Abstract

Hydrogen is an important intermediate that is produced during carbohydrate fermentation to volatile fatty acid and utilized by methanogens to produce methane in the rumen. Ruminal volatile fatty acid and dissolved methane concentrations are more than 500 times greater than dissolved hydrogen concentration. Therefore, we hypothesized that dissolved hydrogen might have a higher sensitivity in response to dietary changes compared with volatile fatty acid and dissolved methane. Using goats, we investigated the effects of increasing dietary starch content (maize replaced with wheat bran) and supplementing with rhubarb rhizomes and roots on the relationships among dissolved hydrogen, dissolved methane and other fermentation end products. The study was conducted in a replicated 4×4 Latin square with a 2×2 factorial arrangement of four treatments: two starch levels (220 v. 320 g/kg dry matter (DM)), without and with rhubarb supplement (0% v. 2.8% of total mixed ration). Increased dietary starch and rhubarb supplementation did not alter volatile fatty acid concentrations or methane emissions in terms of g/day, g/g DM intake and g/g organic matter digested. However, goats fed the high-starch diet had greater dissolved hydrogen (P=0.005) and relative abundance of Selenomonas ruminantium (P<0.01), and lower (P=0.02) copy number of protozoa than those fed the low-starch diet. Rhubarb increased ruminal dissolved H2 (P=0.03) and total volatile fatty acid concentration (P<0.001), but decreased copies of bacteria (P=0.002). In conclusion, dissolved hydrogen appears to be more sensitive to dietary changes with starch content and rhubarb supplementation, when compared with volatile fatty acid concentrations and methane production.

Keywords

fermentation pathwaysrumen microbiotadissolved gasescarbohydratemethane inhibitor

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 5 , May 2019 , pp. 975 - 982
Copyright
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2018. 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA and McGinn, SM 2005. Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barley or corn diets. Journal of Animal Science 83, 653–661.10.2527/2005.833653xGoogle Scholar
Belanche, A, Doreau, M, Edwards, JE, Moorby, JM, Pinloche, E and Newbold, CJ 2012. Shifts in the rumen microbiota due to the type of carbohydrate and level of protein ingested by dairy cattle are associated with changes in rumen fermentation. The Journal of Nutrition 142, 1684–1692.10.3945/jn.112.159574Google Scholar
Denman, SE and McSweeney, CS 2006. Development of a real-time PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic bacterial populations with in the rumen. FEMS Microbial Ecology 58, 572–582.10.1111/j.1574-6941.2006.00190.xGoogle Scholar
Dittmann, MT, Hammond, KJ, Kirton, P, Humphries, DJ, Crompton, LA, Ortmann, S, Misselbrook, TH, Südekum, KH, Schwarm, A, Kreuzer, M, Reynolds, CK and Clauss, M 2016. Influence of ruminal methane on digesta retention and digestive physiology in non-lactating dairy cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 116, 763–773.10.1017/S0007114516002701Google Scholar
Ferraretto, LF, Crump, PM and Shaver, RD 2013. Effect of cereal grain type and corn grain harvesting and processing methods on intake, digestion, and milk production by dairy cows through a meta-analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 533–550.10.3168/jds.2012-5932Google Scholar
Firkins, JL, Eastridge, ML, St-Pierre, NR and Noftsger, SM 2001. Effects of grain variability and processing on starch utilization by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79, E218–E238.10.2527/jas2001.79E-SupplE218xGoogle Scholar
García-González, R, Giráldez, FJ, Mantecón, AR, González, JS and López, S 2012. Effects of rhubarb (Rheum spp.) and frangula (Frangula alnus) on intake, digestibility and ruminal fermentation of different diets and feedstuffs by sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 176, 131–139.10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.07.016Google Scholar
Garcia-Gonzalez, R, Gonzalez, JS and Lopez, S 2010. Decrease of ruminal methane production in Rusitec fermenters through the addition of plant material from rhubarb (Rheum spp.) and alder buckthorn (Frangula alnus). Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3755–3763.10.3168/jds.2010-3107Google Scholar
García-González, R, López, S, Fernández, M and González, JS 2008. Dose–response effects of Rheum officinale root and Frangula alnus bark on ruminal methane production in vitro. Animal Feed Science and Technology 145, 319–334.10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.05.040Google Scholar
Guyader, J, Ungerfeld, EM and Beauchemin, KA 2017. Redirection of metabolic hydrogen by inhibiting methanogenesis in the rumen simulation technique (RUSITEC). Frontiers in Microbiology 8, 393.10.3389/fmicb.2017.00393Google Scholar
Hatew, B, Podesta, SC, Van Laar, H, Pellikaan, WF, Ellis, JL, Dijkstra, J and Bannink, A 2015. Effects of dietary starch content and rate of fermentation on methane production in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 486–499.10.3168/jds.2014-8427Google Scholar
Hegarty, R and Gerdes, R 1998. Hydrogen production and transfer in the rumen. Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition 12, 37–44.Google Scholar
Henderson, G, Cox, F, Kittelmann, S, Miri, VH, Zethof, M, Noel, SJ, Waghorn, GC and Janssen, PH 2013. Effect of DNA extraction methods and sampling techniques on the apparent structure of cow and sheep rumen microbial communities. PLoS One 8, e74787.10.1371/journal.pone.0074787Google Scholar
Hook, SE, Northwood, KS, Wright, ADG and McBride, BW 2009. Long-term monensin supplementation does not significantly affect the quantity or diversity of methanogens in the rumen of the lactating dairy cow. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 75, 374–380.10.1128/AEM.01672-08Google 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, 1–22.10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.07.002Google Scholar
Jiao, J, Lu, Q, Tan, Z, Guan, L, Zhou, C, Tang, S and Han, X 2014. In vitro evaluation of effects of gut region and fiber structure on the intestinal dominant bacterial diversity and functional bacterial species. Anaerobe 28, 168–177.10.1016/j.anaerobe.2014.06.008Google Scholar
Kargar, S, Khorvash, M, Ghorbani, GR, Alikhani, M and Yang, WZ 2010. Short communication: effects of dietary fat supplements and forage: concentrate ratio on feed intake, feeding, and chewing behavior of Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 4297–4301.10.3168/jds.2010-3168Google Scholar
Kartchner, RJ and Theurer, B 1981. Comparison of hydrolysis methods used in feed, digesta, and fecal starch analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 29, 8–11.10.1021/jf00103a003Google Scholar
Kim, KH, Arokiyaraj, S, Lee, J, Oh, YK, Chung, HY, Jin, GD, Kim, EB, Kim, EK, Lee, Y and Baik, M 2016. Effect of rhubarb (Rheum spp.) root on in vitro and in vivo ruminal methane production and a bacterial community analysis based on 16S rRNA sequence. Animal Production Science 56, 402–408.10.1071/AN15585Google Scholar
Koike, S and Kobayashi, Y 2001. Development and use of competitive PCR assays for the rumen cellulolytic bacteria: Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococus albus and Ruminococcus flavefaciens . Fems Microbiology Letters 204, 361–366.10.1111/j.1574-6968.2001.tb10911.xGoogle Scholar
Martinez-Fernandez, G, Denman, SE, Yang, C, Cheung, J, Mitsumori, M and McSweeney, CS 2016. Methane inhibition alters the microbial community, hydrogen flow, and fermentation response in the rumen of cattle. Frontiers in Microbiology 7, 1122.10.3389/fmicb.2016.01122Google Scholar
McGinn, SM, Beauchemin, KA, Coates, T and Colombatto, D 2004. Methane emissions from beef cattle: effects of monensin, sunflower oil, enzymes, yeast, and fumaric acid. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3346–3356.10.2527/2004.82113346xGoogle Scholar
Owens, FN, Secrist, DS, Hill, WJ and Gill, DR 1998. Acidosis in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 275–286.10.2527/1998.761275xGoogle Scholar
Rooke, JA, Wallace, RJ, Duthie, CA, 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, 398–407.10.1017/S0007114514000932Google Scholar
Stevenson, D and Weimer, P 2007. Dominance of Prevotella and low abundance of classical ruminal bacterial species in the bovine rumen revealed by relative quantification real-time PCR. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 75, 165–174.10.1007/s00253-006-0802-yGoogle Scholar
Ungerfeld, EM 2015. Shifts in metabolic hydrogen sinks in the methanogenesis-inhibited ruminal fermentation: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Microbiology 6, 37.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2Google Scholar
Vyas, D, McGinn, SM, Duval, SM, Kindermann, M and Beauchemin, KA 2016. Effects of sustained reduction of enteric methane emissions with dietary supplementation of 3-nitrooxypropanol on growth performance of growing and finishing beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 94, 2024–2034.10.2527/jas.2015-0268Google Scholar
Wang, L, Li, D, Bao, C, You, J, Wang, Z, Shi, Y and Zhang, H 2008. Ultrasonic extraction and separation of anthraquinones from Rheum palmatum L. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 15, 738–746.10.1016/j.ultsonch.2007.12.008Google Scholar
Wang, M, Janssen, PH, Sun, XZ, Muetzel, S, Tavendale, M, Tan, ZL and Pacheco, D 2013. A mathematical model to describe in vitro kinetics of H2 gas accumulation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 184, 1–16.10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.05.002Google Scholar
Wang, M, Sun, XZ, Janssen, PH, Tang, SX and Tan, ZL 2014. Responses of methane production and fermentation pathways to the increased dissolved hydrogen concentration generated by eight substrates in in vitro ruminal cultures. Animal Feed Science and Technology 194, 1–11.10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.04.012Google Scholar
Wang, M, Ungerfeld, EM, Wang, R, Zhou, CS, Basang, ZZ, Ao, SM and Tan, ZL 2016a. Supersaturation of dissolved hydrogen and methane in rumen of Tibetan Sheep. Frontiers in Microbiology 7, 850.Google Scholar
Wang, M, Wang, R, Janssen, PH, Zhang, XM, Sun, XZ, Pacheco, D and Tan, ZL 2016b. Sampling procedure for the measurement of dissolved hydrogen and volatile fatty acids in the rumen of dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 94, 1159–1169.10.2527/jas.2015-9658Google Scholar
Wang, M, Wang, R, Sun, X, Chen, L, Tang, S, Zhou, C, Han, X, Kang, J, Tan, Z and He, Z 2015. A mathematical model to describe the diurnal pattern of enteric methane emissions from non-lactating dairy cows post-feeding. Animal Nutrition 1, 329–338.10.1016/j.aninu.2015.11.009Google Scholar
Wang, M, Wang, R, Xie, T, Janssen, PH, Sun, X, Beauchemin, KA, Tan, Z and M., G 2016c. Shifts in rumen fermentation and microbiota are associated with dissolved ruminal hydrogen concentrations in lactating dairy cows fed different types of carbohydrates. Journal of Nutrition 146, 1714–1721.10.3945/jn.116.232462Google Scholar
Wang, M, Wang, R, Yang, S, Deng, JP, Tang, SX and Tan, ZL 2016d. Effects of three methane mitigation agents on parameters of kinetics of total and hydrogen gas production, ruminal fermentation and hydrogen balance using in vitro technique. Animal Science Journal 87, 224–232.10.1111/asj.12423Google Scholar
Wang, M, Wang, R, Zhang, X, Ungerfeld, EM, Long, D, Mao, H, Jiao, J, Beauchemin, KA and Tan, Z 2017. Molecular hydrogen generated by elemental magnesium supplementation alters rumen fermentation and microbiota in goats. British Journal of Nutrition 118, 401–410.10.1017/S0007114517002161Google Scholar
Yang, WZ, Beauchemin, KA and Rode, LM 2001. Barley processing, forage: concentrate, and forage length effects on chewing and digesta passage in lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2709–2720.10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74725-XGoogle Scholar
Zhang, HF and Zhang, ZY 1998. Animal nutrition parameters and feeding standard. China Agriculture Press, Beijing, China.Google Scholar