Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T18:47:30.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritional and host effects on methanogenesis in the grazing ruminant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2012

H. Clark
H. Clark*
Affiliation:
New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, Grasslands Research Centre, Tennent Drive, Private Bag 11008, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
*
†E-mail: harry.clark@nzagrc.org.nz
Get access

Abstract

Concentrations of methane (CH4) in the atmosphere have almost doubled since the mid 1700s, and it is estimated that ∼30% of the global warming experienced by the planet in the last century and a half can be attributed to CH4. Between 25% and 40% of anthropogenic CH4, emissions are estimated to arise from livestock farming. Mitigating absolute emissions from livestock is extremely challenging technically and is made more difficult because of the need to increase food production to meet the demands of a burgeoning world population. Opportunities for manipulating the diet of intensively managed ruminant to reduce absolute CH4 exist, but in grazing livestock the opportunities are constrained practically and economically. Mitigating emissions per unit of product is more tractable, especially in the short term. Although the formation of CH4 is an anaerobic microbiological process, the host animal does seem to exert an influence, as animals differ in the quantity of CH4 they emit when fed the same diet. The reasons for this are not yet clear, but evidence is accumulating that these differences are consistent and have a genetic basis. Exploiting these between animal differences by animal breeding is an attractive mitigation option as it is potentially applicable to all animals and is open to continuous improvement. However, identifying the desired phenotype poses severe practical constraints. Vaccinating the host animal to produce antibodies that can modulate the activities of the organisms responsible for CH4 formation also presents a novel mitigation option.

Keywords

methanedietruminantbreedingvaccination
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue s1: The 8th International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores (ISNH8) 6 – 9th September 2011, Aberystwyth (UK) , March 2013 , pp. 41 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Archimède, H, Eugène, M, Marie Magdeleine, C, Bova, M, Martin, C, Morgavi, DP, Lecomte, P, Doreau, M 2011. Comparison of methane production between C3 and C4 grasses and legumes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 59–64.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, McGinn, SM 2005. Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barley or corn diets. Journal of Animal Science 83, 653–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchemin, KA, Kreuzer, M, O'Mara, F, McAllister, TA 2008. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 21–27.Google Scholar
Beever, DE, Thomson, DJ, Ulyatt, MJ 1985. The digestion of fresh perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. cv. Melle) and white clover (Trifolium repens L. cv. Blanca) by growing cattle fed indoors. British Journal of Nutrition 54, 763–775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benchaar, C, Greathead, H 2011. Essential oils and opportunities to mitigate enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 338–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, KL, Clapperton, JL 1965. Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition 19, 511–522.Google Scholar
Clark, H 2009. Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant livestock; are they important and can we reduce them? In International Symposium on Impact of Global Warming on Food and Agriculture. National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Tsukuba International Congress Center, Japan.Google Scholar
Clark, H, Pinares-Patino, C, de Klein, C 2005. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from grazed grasslands. In Grassland: a global resource (ed. DA McGilloway), pp. 279–293. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Dairy NZ 2012. Feed Conversion Efficiency Trial. Retrieved July 24, 2012, from http://www.dairynz.co.nz/page/pageid/2145860920/Feed_Conversion_Efficiency_TrialGoogle Scholar
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2010. Ruminant Nutrition Regimes to Reduce Methane and Nitrogen Emission. Retrieved July 24, 2011, from http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=AC0209_10114_FRP.pdfGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization 2009. How to Feed the World in 2050. Retrieved July 24, 2011, from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdfGoogle Scholar
Forster, P, Ramaswamy, V, Artaxo, P, Berntsen, T, Betts, R, Fahey, DW, Haywood, J, Lean, J, Lowe, DC, Myhre, G, Nganga, J, Prinn, R, Raga, G, Schulz, M, Van Dorland, R 2007. Changes in atmospheric constituents and in Radioactive forcing. In Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, M Tignor and HL Miller), pp. 129–234. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Goodrich, RD, Garrett, JE, Gast, DR, Kirick, MA, Larson, DA, Meiske, JC 1984. Influence of monensin on the performance of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 58, 1484–1498.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Beauchemin, KA 2011. Can enteric methane emissions from ruminants be lowered without lowering their production? Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 308–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, C, Williams, R, Eckard, RJ, Hannah, MC 2010. A high dose of monensin does not reduce methane emissions of dairy cows offered pasture supplemented with grain. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 5300–5308.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Auldist, MJ, Clarke, T, Beauchemin, KA, McGinn, SM, Hannah, MC, Eckard, RJ, Lowe, LB 2008. Use of monensin controlled-release capsules to reduce methane emissions and improve milk production of dairy cows offered pasture supplemented with grain. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1159–1165.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Clarke, T, McGinn, SM, Auldist, MJ, Beauchemin, KA, Hannah, MC, Waghorn, GC, Clark, H, Eckard, RJ 2007. Methane emissions from dairy cows measured using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer and chamber techniques. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2755–2766.Google Scholar
Hammond, KJ, Muetzel, S, Waghorn, GG, Pinares-Patiño, CS, Burke, JL, Hoskin, SO 2009. The variation in methane emissions from sheep and cattle is not explained by the chemical composition of ryegrass. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 69, 174–178.Google Scholar
Hammond, KJ, Hoskin, SO, Burke, JL, Waghorn, GC, Koolaard, JP, Muetzel, S 2011. Effects of feeding fresh white clover (Trifolium repens) or perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) on enteric methane emissions from sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 398–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, RS, Goopy, JP, Herd, RM, McCorkell, B 2007. Cattle selected for lower residual feed intake have reduced daily methane production. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1479–1486.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Forestry 5, 1–12.Google Scholar
Jayanegara, A, Leiber, F, Kreuzer, M 2011. Meta-analysis of the relationship between dietary tannin level and methane formation from in vivo and in vitro experiments. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 96, 365–375.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA, Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.Google Scholar
Jones, FM, Phillips, FA, Naylor, T, Mercer, NB 2011. Methane emissions from grazing Angus beef cows selected for divergent residual feed intake. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 302–307.Google Scholar
Kim, EJ, Newbold, CJ, Scollan, ND 2011. Effect of water-soluble carbohydrate in fresh forage on growth and methane production by growing lambs. Advances in Animal Biosciences 2, 241–404.Google Scholar
Kirchgessner, M, Windisch, W, Muller, HL 1995. Nutritional factors for the quantification of methane production. In Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction. Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology (ed. W von Engelhardt, S Leonhard-Marek, G Breves and D Giesecke), pp. 333–348. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Kolver, ES, Aspin, PW, Jarvis, GN, Elborough, KM, Roche, JR 2004. Fumarate reduces methane production from pasture fermented in continuous culture. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 64, 155–159.Google Scholar
Lee, JM, Woodward, SL, Waghorn, GC, Clark, DA 2004. Methane emissions by dairy cows fed increasing proportions of white clover (Trifolium repens) in pasture. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 66, 151–155.Google Scholar
Leslie, M, Aspin, M, Clark, H 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions from New Zealand agriculture: issues, perspectives and industry response. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1–5.Google Scholar
Martin, C, Morgavi, DP, Doreau, M 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, TA, Newbold, CJ 2008. Redirecting rumen fermentation to reduce methanogenesis. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 7–13.Google Scholar
McCourt, AR, Yan, T, Mayne, S, Wallace, J 2008. Effect of dietary inclusion of encapsulated fumaric acid on methane production from grazing dairy cows. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 64pp.Google Scholar
McNaughton, LR, Berry, DP, Clark, H, Pinares-Patino, C, Harcourt, S, Spelman, RJ 2005. Factors affecting methane production in Friesian × Jersey dairy cattle. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 65, 352–355.Google Scholar
Memon, S, Denman, KL, Brasseur, G, Chidthaisong, A, Ciais, P, Cox, PM, Dickinson, RE, Hauglustaine, D, Heinze, C, Holland, E, Jacob, D, Lohmann, U, Ramachandran, S, da Silva Dias, PL, Wofsy, SC, Zhang, X 2007. Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, M Tignor and HL Miller), pp. 541–584. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Min, BR, Barry, TN, Attwood, GT, McNabb, WC 2003. The effect of condensed tannins on the nutrition and health of ruminants fed fresh temperate forages: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 106, 3–19.Google Scholar
Molano, G, Clark, H 2008. The effect of level of intake and forage quality and forage quality on methane production by sheep. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 219–222.Google Scholar
Molano, G, Knight, TW, Clark, H 2008. Fumaric acid supplements have no effect on methane emissions per unit of feed intake in wether lambs. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 165–168.Google Scholar
Neef, L, Van Weele, M, Van Velthoven, P 2010. Optimal estimation of the present-day global methane budget. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 24, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nkrumah, JD, Okine, EK, Mathison, GW, Schmid, K, Li, C, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Wang, Z, Moore, SS 2006. Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance and feeding behaviour with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 84, 145–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nolan, JV, Hegarty, RS, Hegarty, J, Godwin, IR, Woodgate, R 2010. Effects of dietary nitrate on fermentation, methane production and digesta kinetics in sheep. Animal Production Science 50, 801–806.Google Scholar
O'Hara, P, Freney, J, Ulyatt, M 2003. Abatement of agricultural non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions: a study of research requirements. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Ulyatt, MJ, Lassey, KR, Barry, TN, Holmes, CW 2003a. Persistence of differences between sheep in methane emission under generous grazing conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science 140, 227–233.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Ulyatt, MJ, Lassey, KR, Barry, TN, Holmes, CW 2003b. Rumen function and digestion parameters associated with differences between sheep in methane emissions when fed chaffed lucerne hay. Journal of Agricultural Science 140, 205–214.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Ulyatt, MJ, Waghorn, GC, Lassey, KR, Barry, TN, Holmes, CW, Johnson, DE 2003c. Methane emission by alpaca and sheep fed on lucerne hay or grazed on pastures of perennial ryegrass/white clover or birdsfoot trefoil. Journal of Agricultural Science 140, 215–226.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Waghorn, GC, Machmuller, A, Vlaming, B, Molano, G, Cavanagh, A, Clark, H 2007. Methane emissions and digestive physiology of non-lactating dairy cows fed pasture forage. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 87, 601–613.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Ebrahimi, SH, McEwan, JC, Dodds, KG, Clark, H, Luo, D 2011a. Is rumen retention time implicated in sheep differences in methane emissions? Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 71, 219–222.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, McEwan, JC, Dodds, KG, Cárdenas, EA, Hegarty, RS, Koolaard, JP, Clark, H 2011b. Repeatability of methane emissions from sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 210–218.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Lassey, KR, Martin, RJ, Molano, G, Fernandez, M, MacLean, S, Sandoval, E, Luo, D, Clark, H 2011c. Assessment of the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique using respiration chambers for estimation of methane emissions from sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 201–209.Google Scholar
Reynolds, CK, Crompton, LA, Mills, JAN 2011. Improving the efficiency of energy utilisation in cattle. Animal Production Science 51, 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, DL, Goopy, JP, Hegarty, RS, Vercoe, PE 2010. Repeatability, animal and sire variation in 1-hr methane emissions & relationships with rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations. In Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Leipzig, from www.kongressband.de/wcgalp2010/assets/pdf/0712.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sauvant, D, Giger-Reverdin, S 2007. Empirical modelling meta-analysis of digestive interactions and CH4 production in ruminants. In Energy and protein metabolism and nutrition (ed. I Ortigues-Marty, N Miraux and W Brand-Williams), pp. 561–563. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M, de Haan, C 2006. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. Renewable Resources Journal 24, 15–17.Google Scholar
Tedeschi, LO, Fox, DG, Tylutki, TP 2003. Potential environmental benefits of ionophores in ruminant diets. Journal of Environmental Quality 32, 1591–1602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ulyatt, MJ, Clark, H, Lassey, DKR 2002. Methane and climate change. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 64, 153–157.Google Scholar
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2010. The Cancun Agreements. Retrieved July 24, 2011, from http://cancun.unfccc.int/cancun-agreements/main-objectives-of-the-agreements/#c33Google Scholar
van Dorland, HA, Wettstein, HR, Leuenberger, H, Kreuzer, M 2007. Effect of supplementation of fresh and ensiled clovers to ryegrass on nitrogen loss and methane emission of dairy cows. Livestock Science 111, 57–69.Google Scholar
Van Nevel, CJ, Demeyer, DI 1996. Control of rumen methanogenesis. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment 42, 73–97.Google Scholar
van Zijderveld, SM, Gerrits, WJJ, Apajalahti, JA, Newbold, JR, Dijkstra, J, Leng, RA, Perdok, HB 2010. Nitrate and sulfate: effective alternative hydrogen sinks for mitigation of ruminal methane production in sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 5856–5866.Google Scholar
Vlaming, JB 2008. Quantifying variation in estimated methane emission from ruminants using the SF6 tracer technique. Doctor of Philosophy, Massey University, 171pp.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Tavendale, MH, Woodfield, DR 2002. Methanogenesis from forages fed to sheep. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 64, 167–171.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Burke, JL, Kolver, ES 2007. Principles of feeding value. (Pasture and supplements for grazing animals). Occasional Publication – New Zealand Society of Animal Production 14, 35–59.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Clark, H, Taufa, V, Cavanagh, A 2008. Monensin controlled-release capsules for methane mitigation in pasture-fed dairy cows. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 65–68.Google Scholar
Wedlock, DN, Pedersen, G, Denis, M, Dey, D, Janssen, PH, Buddle, BM 2010. Development of a vaccine to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture: vaccination of sheep with methanogen fractions induces antibodies that block methane production in vitro. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 58, 29–36.Google Scholar
Woodward, SL, Waghorn, GC, Laboyrie, PG 2004. Condensed tannins in birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) reduce methane emissions from dairy cows. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 64, 160–164.Google Scholar
Wright, ADG, Kennedy, P, O'Neill, CJ, Toovey, AF, Popovski, S, Rea, SM, Pimm, CL, Klein, L 2004. Reducing methane emissions in sheep by immunization against rumen methanogens. Vaccine 22, 3976–3985.Google Scholar