Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:45:03.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In vitro–in vivo study on the effects of plant compounds on rumen fermentation, microbial abundances and methane emissions in goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2013

G. Martínez-Fernández ,
L. Abecia ,
A. I. Martín-García ,
E. Ramos-Morales ,
G. Hervás ,
E. Molina-Alcaide  and
D. R. Yáñez-Ruiz
G. Martínez-Fernández
Affiliation:
Instituto de Nutrición Animal, Estación Experimental del Zaidín (CSIC). C/Camino del Jueves s/n, 18100, Armilla, Granada, Spain
L. Abecia
Affiliation:
Instituto de Nutrición Animal, Estación Experimental del Zaidín (CSIC). C/Camino del Jueves s/n, 18100, Armilla, Granada, Spain
A. I. Martín-García
Affiliation:
Instituto de Nutrición Animal, Estación Experimental del Zaidín (CSIC). C/Camino del Jueves s/n, 18100, Armilla, Granada, Spain
E. Ramos-Morales
Affiliation:
Instituto de Nutrición Animal, Estación Experimental del Zaidín (CSIC). C/Camino del Jueves s/n, 18100, Armilla, Granada, Spain
G. Hervás
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ganadería de Montaña (CSIC-ULE), Finca Marzanas s/n, 24346 Grulleros, León, Spain
E. Molina-Alcaide
Affiliation:
Instituto de Nutrición Animal, Estación Experimental del Zaidín (CSIC). C/Camino del Jueves s/n, 18100, Armilla, Granada, Spain
D. R. Yáñez-Ruiz*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Nutrición Animal, Estación Experimental del Zaidín (CSIC). C/Camino del Jueves s/n, 18100, Armilla, Granada, Spain
*
†E-mail: david.yanez@eez.csic.es
Get access

Abstract

Two in vitro and one in vivo experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of a selection of plant compounds on rumen fermentation, microbial concentration and methane emissions in goats. Treatments were: control (no additive), carvacrol (CAR), cinnamaldehyde (CIN), eugenol (EUG), propyl propane thiosulfinate (PTS), propyl propane thiosulfonate (PTSO), diallyl disulfide (DDS), a mixture (40 : 60) of PTS and PTSO (PTS+PTSO), and bromochloromethane (BCM) as positive control with proven antimethanogenic effectiveness. Four doses (40, 80, 160 and 320 µl/l) of the different compounds were incubated in vitro for 24 h in diluted rumen fluid from goats using two diets differing in starch and protein source within the concentrate (Experiment 1).The total gas production was linearly decreased (P<0.012) by all compounds, with the exception of EUG and PTS+PTSO (P⩾0.366). Total volatile fatty-acid (VFA) concentration decreased (P⩽0.018) only with PTS, PTSO and CAR, whereas the acetate:propionate ratio decreased (P⩽0.002) with PTS, PTSO and BCM, and a tendency (P=0.064) was observed for DDS. On the basis of results from Experiment 1, two doses of PTS, CAR, CIN, BCM (160 and 320 µl/l), PTSO (40 and 160 µl/l) and DDS (80 and 320 µl/l) were further tested in vitro for 72 h (Experiment 2). The gas production kinetics were affected (P⩽0.045) by all compounds, and digested NDF (DNDF) after 72 h of incubation was only linearly decreased (P⩽0.004) by CAR and PTS. The addition of all compounds linearly decreased (P⩽0.009) methane production, although the greatest reductions were observed for PTS (up to 96%), DDS (62%) and BCM (95%). No diet–dose interaction was observed. To further test the results obtained in vitro, two groups of 16 adult non-pregnant goats were used to study in vivo the effect of adding PTS (50, 100 and 200 mg/l rumen content per day) and BCM (50, 100 and 160 mg/l rumen content per day) during the 9 days on methane emissions (Experiment 3). The addition of PTS and BCM resulted in linear reductions (33% and 64%, respectively, P⩽0.002) of methane production per unit of dry matter intake, which were lower than the maximum inhibition observed in vitro (87% and 96%, respectively). We conclude that applying the same doses in vivo as in vitro resulted in a proportional lower extent of methane decrease, and that PTS at 200 mg/l rumen content per day has the potential to reduce methane emissions in goats. Whether the reduction in methane emission observed in vivo persists over longer periods of treatments and improves feed conversion efficiency requires further research.

Keywords

additivesgoatsmethaneplant compoundsrumen fermentation
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 12 , December 2013 , pp. 1925 - 1934
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Abecia, L, Toral, P, Martín-García, A, Martínez, G, Tomkins, N, Molina-Alcaide, E, Newbold, C and Yáñez-Ruiz, D 2012. Effect of bromochloromethane on methane emission, rumen fermentation pattern, milk yield, and fatty acid profile in lactating dairy goats. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 2027–2036.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2005. Official methods of analysis, 18th editionAOAC, Gaithersburg, MD.Google Scholar
Benchaar, C and Greathead, H 2011. Essential oils and opportunities to mitigate enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 338–355.Google Scholar
Bodas, R, Prieto, N, García-González, R, Andrés, S, Giráldez, F and López, S 2012. Manipulation of rumen fermentation and methane production with plant secondary metabolites. Animal Feed Science and Technology 176, 78–93.Google Scholar
Busquet, M, Calsamiglia, S, Ferret, A, Carro, M and Kamel, C 2005. Effect of garlic oil and four of its compounds on rumen microbial fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 4393–4404.Google Scholar
Castro-Montoya, J, De Campeneere, S, Van Ranst, G and Fievez, V 2012. Interactions between methane mitigation additives and basal substrates on in vitro methane and VFA production. Animal Feed Science and Technology 176, 47–60.Google Scholar
Cornou, C, Storm, ID, Hindrichsen, I, Worgan, H, Bakewell, E, Yáñez-Ruiz, D and Abecia, L 2013. A ring test of a wireless in vitro gas production system. Animal Production Science 53, 585–592.Google Scholar
Duval, SM, McEwan, NR, Graham, RC, Wallace, RJ and Newbold, CJ 2007. Effect of a blend of essential oil compounds on the colonization of starch-rich substrates by bacteria in the rumen. Journal of Applied Microbiology 103, 2132–2141.Google Scholar
European Directive 86/609 2007. Commission recommendations of 18 June 2007 on guidelines for the accommodation and care of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Annex II to European Council Directive 86/609. The Commission of the European Communittes Publishing, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
France, J, Dijkstra, J, Dhanoa, M, Lopez, S and Bannink, A 2000. Estimating the extent of degradation of ruminant feeds from a description of their gas production profiles observed in vitro: derivation of models and other mathematical considerations. British Journal of Nutrition 83, 143–150.Google Scholar
Getachew, G, Robinson, P, DePeters, E and Taylor, S 2004. Relationships between chemical composition, dry matter degradation and in vitro gas production of several ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 111, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, G, Makkar, HPS and Becker, K 2009. Inhibition of methanogens by bromochloromethane: effects on microbial communities and rumen fermentation using batch and continuous fermentations. British Journal of Nutrition 101, 1484–1492.Google Scholar
Hart, KJ, Yáñez-Ruiz, DR, Duval, SM, McEwan, NR and Newbold, CJ 2008. Plant extracts to manipulate rumen fermentation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 147, 8–35.Google Scholar
Isac, M, García, M, Aguilera, J and Molina, AE 1994. A comparative study of nutrient digestibility, kinetics of digestion and passage and rumen fermentation pattern in goats and sheep offered medium quality forages at the maintenance level of feeding. Archiv für Tierernährung 46, 37–50.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA and Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.Google Scholar
Kongmun, P, Wanapat, M, Pakdee, P and Navanukraw, C 2010. Effect of coconut oil and garlic powder on in vitro fermentation using gas production technique. Livestock Science 127, 38–44.Google Scholar
Macheboeuf, D, Morgavi, D, Papon, Y, Mousset, J and Arturo-Schaan, M 2008. Dose-response effects of essential oils on in vitro fermentation activity of the rumen microbial population. Animal Feed Science and Technology 145, 335–350.Google Scholar
Mateos, I, Ranilla, M, Tejido, M, Saro, C, Kamel, C and Carro, MD 2013. The influence of diet type (dairy versus intensive fattening) on the effectiveness of garlic oil and cinnamaldehyde to manipulate in vitro ruminal fermentation and methane production. Animal Production Science 53, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, C, Payne, AL, Stewart, PL and Edgar, JA 1995. A delivery system for agents. AU International Patent PCT/AU95/00733. Australian Industrial Property Organisation,Canberra, ACT, Australia.Google Scholar
Menke, KH and Steingass, H 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28, 7–55.Google Scholar
Mohammed, N, Ajisaka, N, Lila, ZA, Hara, K, Mikuni, K, Hara, K, Kanda, S and Itabashi, H 2004. Effect of Japanese horseradish oil on methane production and ruminal fermentation in vitro and in steers. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1839–1846.Google Scholar
Morgavi, DP, Forano, E, Martin, C and Newbold, CJ 2010. Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants. Animal 4, 1024–1036.Google Scholar
Newbold, C, McIntosh, F, Williams, P, Losa, R and Wallace, R 2004. Effects of a specific blend of essential oil compounds on rumen fermentation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 114, 105–112.Google Scholar
Ohene-Adjei, S, Chaves, A, McAllister, T, Benchaar, C, Teather, R and Forster, R 2008. Evidence of increased diversity of methanogenic archaea with plant extract supplementation. Microbial Ecology 56, 234–242.Google Scholar
Patra, AK and Saxena, J 2010. A new perspective on the use of plant secondary metabolites to inhibit methanogenesis in the rumen. Phytochemistry 71, 1198–1222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prieto, C, Aguilera, J, Lara, L and Fonollá, J 1990. Protein and energy requirements for maintenance of indigenous Granadina goats. British Journal of Nutrition 63, 155–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal Decree No. 1201/2005 of 10 October on the protection of animals used for experimentation and other scientific purposes. Boletin del Estado, pp. 34367–34391. Spanish Government Publishing, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
Soliva, CR, Amelchanka, SL, Duval, SM and Kreuzer, M 2011. Ruminal methane inhibition potential of various pure compounds in comparison with garlic oil as determined with a rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). British Journal of Nutrition 106, 114–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soto, E, Yáñez-Ruiz, D, Cantalapiedra-Hijar, G, Vivas, A and Molina-Alcaide, E 2012. Changes in ruminal microbiota due to rumen content processing and incubation in single-flow continuous-culture fermenters. Animal Production Science 52, 813–822.Google Scholar
Theodorou, MK, Williams, BA, Dhanoa, MS, McAllan, AB and France, J 1994. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48, 185–197.Google Scholar
Thornton, JH and Owens, FN 1981. Monensin supplementation and in vivo methane production by steers. Journal of Animal Science 52, 628–634.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, J and Lewis, B 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
Yang, W, Benchaar, C, Ametaj, B, Chaves, A, He, M and McAllister, T 2007. Effects of garlic and juniper berry essential oils on ruminal fermentation and on the site and extent of digestion in lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5671–5681.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Ruiz, DR, Moumen, A, Martin Garcia, IA and Molina Alcaide, E 2004. Ruminal fermentation and degradation patterns, protozoa population and urinary purine derivatives excretion in goats and wethers fed diets based on two-stage olive cake: effect of PEG supply. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2023–2032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, M, Hernandez-Sanabria, E and Guan, LL 2010. Characterization of variation in rumen methanogenic communities under different dietary and host feed efficiency conditions, as determined by PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 76, 3776–3786.Google Scholar