Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • C-A. Duthie (a1), M. Haskell (a2), J. J. Hyslop (a3), A. Waterhouse (a1), R. J. Wallace (a4), R. Roehe (a1) and J. A. Rooke (a1)...

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

References

Hide All
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.
Alexandratos, N and Bruinsma, J 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA working paper No. 12-03. FAO, Rome, Italy.
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, 189204.
Beauchemin, KA and McGinn, SM 2005. Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barley or corn diets. Journal of Animal Science 83, 653661.
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, 65366546.
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, 201206.
Cottle, DJ, Nolan, JV and Wiedemann, SG 2011. Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: a review. Animal Production Science 51, 491514.
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, 307318.
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, 25182528.
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, 16801687.
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, 786795.
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. 1930. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. (EAAP publication No. 123).
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.
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), 220234.
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.
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.
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, 122.
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, 107138.
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, 890898.
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, 135146.
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, 223227.
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food 1992. Analysis of agricultural materials, 2nd edition. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London, UK.
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, 130137.
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.
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, 398407.
Sauvant, D and Giger-Reverdin, S 2009. Modelling of digestive interactions and methane production in ruminants. Productions Animales 22, 375384.
Thomas, C 2004. Feed into milk: an advisory manual. Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.
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, 18151823.
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.
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.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed