Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T15:59:28.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dietary fat sources affect feed intake, digestibility, rumen microbial populations, energy partition and methane emissions in different beef cattle genotypes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2018

C. Kaewpila ,
K. Sommart  and
M. Mitsumori
C. Kaewpila
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen40002, Thailand
K. Sommart*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen40002, Thailand
M. Mitsumori
Affiliation:
Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science, National Agriculture and Food Research Organisation, 2 Ikenodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki305-0901, Japan
*
†E-mail: kritapon@kku.ac.th
Get access

Abstract

The mitigation of enteric methane emission in beef cattle production is important for reducing feed energy loss and increasing environmental sustainability. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different oilseeds included in fermented total mixed rations (whole soyabean seed (SBS, control), whole kapok seed (KPS) and cracked oil palm fruit (OPF)) on feed intake, digestibility, rumen microbial populations, energy partition and methane emissions in different cattle genotypes (Charolais crossbred v. Japanese Black crossbred). Three Charolais crossbred and three Japanese Black crossbred bulls were studied in a replicated 3×3 Latin square experimental design; genotypes were analysed in separate squares including three periods of 21 days each and three dietary oilseed treatments fed ad libitum. The cattle were placed in a metabolic cage equipped with a ventilated head box respiration system for evaluating digestibility and energy balance. As compared with Charolais crossbred individuals, Japanese Black crossbred bulls showed consistently lower dry matter intake (15.5%, P<0.01), metabolisable energy (ME) intake (13.8%, P<0.05), ME requirement for maintenance (10.3%; 386 v. 430 kJ/kg metabolic BW, respectively), faeces energy loss (19.2%, P<0.001) and enteric methane emissions (18.5%, P<0.001). However, these two genotypes did not differ in energy retention (ER) (P=0.80). Among the three dietary oilseed treatments, OPF exhibited higher NDF intake (P<0.01) and digestibility (P<0.01), which was associated with a larger (P<0.05) total number of bacteria in the rumen. In addition, the OPF diet contributed to higher ME intake and ER than that of the KPS diet, whereas the SBS diet presented intermediate values (P<0.05). The methane conversion factor of these crossbreds was not significantly affected by genotype (P>0.05) or diet (P>0.05) under the experimental conditions and ranged from 5.8% to 6.0% of gross energy intake. This value is lower than that reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (6.5%) for cattle fed with low-quality crop residues or by-products. Thus, our results imply that the Japanese Black crossbred cattle consume less feed and emits less enteric methane than the Charolais crossbred does, mainly owing to its lower ME requirement for maintenance. The OPF diet could be used to replace SBS for high beef production, although further studies are required to evaluate their application across a wide range of beef production systems.

Keywords

Bos indicusenergy utilisationgreenhouse gasnutrientoilseed
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 12 , December 2018 , pp. 2529 - 2538
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 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.)

References

Anwar, F, Rashid, U, Shahid, SA and Nadeem, M 2014. Physicochemical and antioxidant characteristics of kapok (Ceiba pentandra Gaertn.) seed oil. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 91, 1047–1054.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (ARC) 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. CAB Farnham Royal, Berkshire, UK.Google Scholar
Boadi, DA and Wittenberg, KM 2002. Methane production from dairy and beef heifers fed forages differing in nutrient density using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer gas technique. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 201–206.Google Scholar
Cao, Y, Cai, Y, Takahashi, T, Yoshida, N, Tohno, M, Uegaki, R, Nonaka, K and Terada, F 2011. Effect of lactic acid bacteria inoculant and beet pulp addition on fermentation characteristics and in vitro ruminal digestion of vegetable residue silage. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 3902–3912.Google Scholar
Chaokaur, A, Nishida, T, Phaowphaisal, I and Sommart, K 2015. Effects of feeding level on methane emissions and energy utilization of Brahman cattle in the tropics. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 199, 225–230.Google Scholar
Chuntrakort, P, Otsuka, M, Hayashi, K, Takenaka, A, Udchachon, S and Sommart, K 2014. The effect of dietary coconut kernels, whole cottonseeds and sunflower seeds on the intake, digestibility and enteric methane emissions of Zebu beef cattle fed rice straw based diets. Livestock Science 161, 80–89.Google Scholar
Denman, SE and McSweeney, CS 2006. Development of a real-time PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic bacterial populations within the rumen. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 58, 572–582.Google Scholar
Denman, SE, Tomkins, NW and McSweeney, CS 2007. Quantitation and diversity analysis of ruminal methanogenic populations in response to the antimethanogenic compound bromochloromethane. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 62, 313–322.Google Scholar
Fawcett, JK and Scott, JE 1960. A rapid and precise method for the determination of urea. Journal of Clinical Pathology 13, 156–159.Google Scholar
Ferrell, CL and Jenkins, TG 1998. Body composition and energy utilization by steers of diverse genotypes fed a high-concentrate diet during the finishing period: II. Angus, Boran, Brahman, Hereford, and Tuli sires. Journal of Animal Science 76, 647–657.Google Scholar
Fiorentini, G, Carvalho, IPC, Messana, JD, Castagnino, PS, Berndt, A, Canesin, RC, Frighetto, RTS and Berchielli, TT 2014. Effect of lipid sources with different fatty acid profiles on the intake, performance, and methane emissions of feedlot Nellore steers. Journal of Animal Science 92, 1613–1620.Google Scholar
Galyean, ML 1997. Laboratory procedures in animal nutrition research, 12th edition. Department of Animal and Food Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.Google Scholar
Hess, BW, Moss, GE and Rule, DC 2008. A decade of developments in the area of fat supplementation research with beef cattle and sheep. Journal of Animal Science 86, 188–204.Google Scholar
Hill, J, McSweeney, C, Wright, ADG, Bishop-Hurley, G and Kalantar-Zadeh, K 2016. Measuring methane production from ruminants. Trends in Biotechnology 34, 26–35.Google Scholar
Hristov, AN, Oh, J, Firkins, JL, Dijkstra, J, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Makkar, HPS, Adesogan, AT, Yang, W, Lee, C, Gerber, PJ, Henderson, B and Tricarico, JM 2013. SPECIAL TOPICS – 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
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006. 2006 Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan. Retrieved on 16 February 2018 from https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf.Google Scholar
Jin, W, Cheng, YF, Mao, SY and Zhu, WY 2014. Discovery of a novel rumen methanogen in the anaerobic fungal culture and its distribution in the rumen as revealed by real-time PCR. BMC Microbiology 14, 1–12.Google Scholar
Kaewpila, C and Sommart, K 2016. Development of methane conversion factor models for Zebu beef cattle fed low-quality crop residues and by-products in tropical regions. Ecology and Evolution 6, 7422–7432.Google Scholar
Koike, S and Kobayashi, Y 2001. Development and use of competitive PCR assays for the rumen cellulolytic bacteria: Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococcus albus and Ruminococcus flavefaciens . FEMS Microbiology Letters 204, 361–366.Google Scholar
Llonch, P, Haskell, MJ, Dewhurst, RJ and Turner, SP 2017. Current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems: an animal welfare perspective. Animal 11, 274–284.Google Scholar
Marcondes, MI, Tedeschi, LO, Valadares Filho, SC and Gionbelli, MP 2013. Predicting efficiency of use of metabolizable energy to net energy for gain and maintenance of Nellore cattle. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4887–4898.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Porter, MG and Murray, RS 2001. The volatility of components of grass silage on oven drying and the inter-relationship between dry-matter content estimated by different analytical methods. Grass and Forage Science 56, 405–411.Google Scholar
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. The British Journal of Nutrition 112, 398–407.Google Scholar
Satter, LD and Slyter, LL 1974. Effect of ammonia concentration on rumen microbial protein production in vitro . The British Journal of Nutrition 32, 199–208.Google Scholar
Schneider, BH and Flatt, WP 1975. The evaluation of feeds through digestibility experiments. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA, USA.Google Scholar
Suzuki, T, Phaowphaisal, I, Pholsen, P, Narmsilee, R, Indramanee, S, Nitipot, P, Chaokaur, A, Sommart, K, Khotprom, N, Panichpol, V and Nishida, T 2008. In vivo nutritive value of Pangola grass (Digitaria eriantha) hay by a novel indirect calorimeter with a ventilated hood in Thailand. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly 42, 123–129.Google Scholar
Sylvester, JT, Karnati, SKR, Yu, Z, Morrison, M and Firkins, JL 2004. Development of an assay to quantify rumen ciliate protozoal biomass in cows using real-time PCR. The Journal of Nutrition 134, 3378–3384.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.Google Scholar
Working Committee of Thai Feeding Standard for Ruminant (WTSR) 2010. Nutrient requirement of beef cattle in Indochinese peninsula. Klungnanavitthaya Press, Khon Kaen, Thailand.Google Scholar
Yang, SL, Bu, DP, Wang, JQ, Hu, ZY, Li, D, Wei, HY, Zhou, LY and Loor, JJ 2009. Soybean oil and linseed oil supplementation affect profiles of ruminal microorganisms in dairy cows. Animal 3, 1562–1569.Google Scholar