Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:23:41.457Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of rumen protozoa on methane emission in ruminants: a meta-analysis approach1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2014

J. Guyader ,
M. Eugène ,
P. Nozière ,
D. P. Morgavi ,
M. Doreau  and
C. Martin
J. Guyader
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France
M. Eugène
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France
P. Nozière*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France
D. P. Morgavi
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France
M. Doreau
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France
C. Martin
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France
*
†E-mail: pierre.noziere@clermont.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of protozoa concentration on methane emission from ruminants. A database was built from 59 publications reporting data from 76 in vivo experiments. The experiments included in the database recorded methane production and rumen protozoa concentration measured on the same groups of animals. Quantitative data such as diet chemical composition, rumen fermentation and microbial parameters, and qualitative information such as methane mitigation strategies were also collected. In the database, 31% of the experiments reported a concomitant reduction of both protozoa concentration and methane emission (g/kg dry matter intake). Nearly all of these experiments tested lipids as methane mitigation strategies. By contrast, 21% of the experiments reported a variation in methane emission without changes in protozoa numbers, indicating that methanogenesis is also regulated by other mechanisms not involving protozoa. Experiments that used chemical compounds as an antimethanogenic treatment belonged to this group. The relationship between methane emission and protozoa concentration was studied with a variance−covariance model, with experiment as a fixed effect. The experiments included in the analysis had a within-experiment variation of protozoa concentration higher than 5.3 log10 cells/ml corresponding to the average s.e.m. of the database for this variable. To detect potential interfering factors for the relationship, the influence of several qualitative and quantitative secondary factors was tested. This meta-analysis showed a significant linear relationship between methane emission and protozoa concentration: methane (g/kg dry matter intake)=−30.7+8.14×protozoa (log10 cells/ml) with 28 experiments (91 treatments), residual mean square error=1.94 and adjusted R2=0.90. The proportion of butyrate in the rumen positively influenced the least square means of this relationship.

Keywords

methaneprotozoameta-analysisruminantvolatile fatty acids
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 11 , November 2014 , pp. 1816 - 1825
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

1

This paper is based on a presentation at the Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture Conference held in Dublin, June 2013.

References

Brossard, L, Martin, C, Chaucheyras-Durand, F and Michalet-Doreau, B 2004. Protozoa involved in butyric rather than lactic fermentative pattern during latent acidosis in sheep. Reproduction Nutrition Development 44, 195–206.Google Scholar
Calsamiglia, S, Busquet, M, Cardozo, PW, Castillejos, L and Ferret, A 2007. Invited review: essential oils as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2580–2595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czerkawski, JW 1986. An introduction to rumen studies. Pergamon Press, Oxfordshire and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Doreau, M and Ferlay, A 1995. Effect of dietary lipids on nitrogen metabolism in the rumen: a review. Livestock Production Science 43, 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, BJ, Esteban, G, Clarke, KJ, Williams, AG, Embley, TM and Hirt, RP 1994. Some rumen ciliates have endosymbiotic methanogens. FEMS Microbiology Letters 117, 157–161.Google Scholar
Goel, G, Puniya, A, Aguilar, C and Singh, K 2005. Interaction of gut microflora with tannins in feeds. Die Naturwissenschaften 92, 497–503.Google Scholar
Hegarty, RS 1999. Reducing rumen methane emissions through elimination of rumen protozoa. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 1321–1327.Google Scholar
Hook, SE, Wright, ADG and McBride, BW 2010. Methanogens: methane producers of the rumen and mitigation strategies. Archaea 2010, 1–11.Google Scholar
Jeyanathan, J, Martin, C and Morgavi, DP 2014. The use of direct-fed microbials for mitigation of ruminant methane emissions: a review. Animal 8, 250–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, E, Lovett, DK, Monahan, FJ, Callan, J, Flynn, B and O’Mara, FP 2006. Effect of refined coconut oil or copra meal on methane output and on intake and performance of beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 84, 162–170.Google Scholar
Lettat, A 2012. Efficacité et mode d'action des bactéries propioniques et/ou lactiques pour prévenir l'acidose latente chez le ruminant. PhD thesis, Blaise Pascal University, Clermont Ferrand, France.Google Scholar
Loncke, C, Ortigues-Marty, I, Vernet, J, Lapierre, H, Sauvant, D and Nozière, P 2009. Empirical prediction of net portal appearance of volatile fatty acids, glucose, and their secondary metabolites (b-hydroxybutyrate, lactate) from dietary characteristics in ruminants: a meta-analysis approach. Journal of Animal Science 87, 253–268.Google Scholar
Morgavi, DP, Jouany, JP and Martin, C 2008. Changes in methane emission and rumen fermentation parameters induced by refaunation in sheep. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 69–72.Google Scholar
Morgavi, DP, Forano, E, Martin, C and Newbold, CJ 2010. Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants. Animal 4, 1024–1036.Google Scholar
Morgavi, DP, Martin, C, Jouany, JP and Ranilla, MJ 2012. Rumen protozoa and methanogenesis: not a simple cause-effect relationship. The British Journal of Nutrition 107, 388–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbold, CJ, Lassalas, B and Jouany, JP 1995. The importance of methanogens associated with ciliate protozoa in ruminal methane production in vitro. Letters in Applied Microbiology 21, 230–234.Google Scholar
Popova, M, Morgavi, DP, Doreau, M and Martin, C 2011. Production de méthane et interactions microbiennes dans le rumen. INRA Productions Animales 24, 447–460.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Perez, J and Tran, G 2004. Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d'élevage. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Schmidely, P, Daudin, JJ and St-Pierre, NR 2008. Meta-analyses of experimental data in animal nutrition. Animal 2, 1203–1214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauvant, D, Giger-Reverdin, S, Serment, A and Broudiscou, L 2011. Influences des régimes et de leur fermentation dans le rumen sur la production de méthane par les ruminants. INRA Productions Animales 24, 433–446.Google Scholar
Stewart, CS, Flint, HJ and Bryant, MP 1997. The rumen bacteria. In The rumen microbial ecosystem (ed. PN Hobson and CS Stewart), pp. 10–72. Blackie Academic & Professional, London, UK.Google Scholar
Ungerfeld, EM and Kohn, RA 2006. The role of thermodynamics in the control of ruminal fermentation. In Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism and impact of nutrition on gene expression, immunology and stress (ed. K Sejrsen, T Hvelplund and MO Nielsen), pp. 55–85. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Ungerfeld, EM, Kohn, RA, Wallace, RJ and Newbold, CJ 2007. A meta-analysis of fumarate effects on methane production in ruminal batch cultures. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2556–2563.Google Scholar
Williams, AG and Coleman, GS 1992. The rumen protozoa. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Supplementary material

Guyader Supplementary material S1

Download Supplementary material(File)
File 22.1 KB