Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T02:05:36.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methane production and diurnal variation measured in dairy cows and predicted from fermentation pattern and nutrient or carbon flow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2015

M. Brask ,
M. R. Weisbjerg ,
A. L. F. Hellwing ,
A. Bannink  and
P. Lund
M. Brask*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, AU Foulum, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
M. R. Weisbjerg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, AU Foulum, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
A. L. F. Hellwing
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, AU Foulum, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
A. Bannink
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
P. Lund
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, AU Foulum, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: Maike.Brask@agrsci.dk
Get access

Abstract

Many feeding trials have been conducted to quantify enteric methane (CH4) production in ruminants. Although a relationship between diet composition, rumen fermentation and CH4 production is generally accepted, the efforts to quantify this relationship within the same experiment remain scarce. In the present study, a data set was compiled from the results of three intensive respiration chamber trials with lactating rumen and intestinal fistulated Holstein cows, including measurements of rumen and intestinal digestion, rumen fermentation parameters and CH4 production. Two approaches were used to calculate CH4 from observations: (1) a rumen organic matter (OM) balance was derived from OM intake and duodenal organic matter flow (DOM) distinguishing various nutrients and (2) a rumen carbon balance was derived from carbon intake and duodenal carbon flow (DCARB). Duodenal flow was corrected for endogenous matter, and contribution of fermentation in the large intestine was accounted for. Hydrogen (H2) arising from fermentation was calculated using the fermentation pattern measured in rumen fluid. CH4 was calculated from H2 production corrected for H2 use with biohydrogenation of fatty acids. The DOM model overestimated CH4/kg dry matter intake (DMI) by 6.1% (R2=0.36) and the DCARB model underestimated CH4/kg DMI by 0.4% (R2=0.43). A stepwise regression of the difference between measured and calculated daily CH4 production was conducted to examine explanations for the deviance. Dietary carbohydrate composition and rumen carbohydrate digestion were the main sources of inaccuracies for both models. Furthermore, differences were related to rumen ammonia concentration with the DOM model and to rumen pH and dietary fat with the DCARB model. Adding these parameters to the models and performing a multiple regression against observed daily CH4 production resulted in R2 of 0.66 and 0.72 for DOM and DCARB models, respectively. The diurnal pattern of CH4 production followed that of rumen volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration and the CH4 to CO2 production ratio, but was inverse to rumen pH and the rumen hydrogen balance calculated from 4×(acetate+butyrate)/2×(propionate+valerate). In conclusion, the amount of feed fermented was the most important factor determining variations in CH4 production between animals, diets and during the day. Interactions between feed components, VFA absorption rates and variation between animals seemed to be factors that were complicating the accurate prediction of CH4. Using a ruminal carbon balance appeared to predict CH4 production just as well as calculations based on rumen digestion of individual nutrients.

Keywords

modelling methaneVFAenteric fermentationcarbondairy cow
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Supplement 11 , November 2015 , pp. 1795 - 1806
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Aschenbach, JR, Penner, GB, Stumpff, F and Gäbel, G 2011. Ruminant nutrition symposium: role of fermentation acid absorption in the regulation of ruminal pH. Journal of Animal Science 89, 1092–1107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, RL 1995. Modeling ruminant digestion and metabolism. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
Bannink, A, Kogut, J, Dijkstra, J, France, J, Kebreab, E, Van Vuuren, AM and Tamminga, S 2006. Estimation of the stoichiometry of volatile fatty acids production in the rumen of lactating cows. Journal of Theoretical Biology 238, 36–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bannink, A, France, J, Lopez, S, Gerrits, WJJ, Kebreab, E, Tamminga, S and Dijkstra, J 2008. Modelling the implications of feeding strategy on rumen fermentation and functioning of the rumen wall. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, TN, Thompson, A and Armstrong, DG 1977. Rumen fermentation studies on two contrasting diets. 1. Some characteristics of the in vivo fermentation, with special reference to the composition of the gas phase, oxidation/reduction state and volatile fatty acid proportions. Journal of Agricultural Science 89, 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Kreuzer, M, O’Mara, F and McAllister, TA 2008. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benchaar, C, Rivest, J, Pomar, C and Chiquette, J 1998. Prediction of methane production from dairy cows using existing mechanistic models and regression equations. Journal of Animal Science 76, 617–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaxter, KL and Czerkawski, J 1966. Modifications of the methane production of the sheep by supplementation of its diet. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 17, 417–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brask, M, Lund, P, Hellwing, ALF, Poulsen, M and Weisbjerg, MR 2013a. Enteric methane production, digestibility and rumen fermentation in dairy cows fed different forages with and without rapeseed fat supplementation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 184, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brask, M, Lund, P, Weisbjerg, MR, Hellwing, ALF, Poulsen, M, Larsen, MK and Hvelplund, T 2013b. Methane production and digestion of different physical forms of rapeseed as fat supplement in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 2356–2365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, Y-H, He, ML, McGinn, SM, McAllister, TA and Beauchemin, KA 2011. Linseed suppresses enteric methane emissions from cattle fed barley silage, but not from those fed grass hay. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166-167, 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demeyer, DI 1991. Quantitative aspects of microbial metabolism in the rumen and hindgut. In Rumen microbial metabolism and ruminant digestion (ed. JP Jouany), pp. 217–237. INRA, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Demeyer, DI, van Nevel, CJ and Henderson, C 1972. Stoichiometry of oxygen utilization by rumen contents. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Animal Feeding, 23–28 October, Madrid, Spain, pp. 33–37.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, J 1994. Production and absorption of volatile fatty acids in the rumen. Livestock Production Science 39, 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, J, Ellis, JL, Kebreab, E, Strathe, AB, López, S, France, J and Bannink, A 2012. Ruminal pH regulation and nutritional consequences of low pH. Animal Feed Science and Technology 172, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doreau, M and Chilliard, Y 1997. Digestion and metabolism of dietary fat in farm animals. British Journal of Nutrition 78, S15–S35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 2518–2528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
France, J and Dijkstra, J 2005. Volatile fatty acid production. In Quantitative aspects of ruminant digestion and metabolism, 2nd edition (ed. J Dijkstra, JM Forbes and J France), pp. 157–176. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, C and 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
Hammond, KJ, Burke, JL, Koolaard, JP, Muetzel, S and Pinares-Patiño, CS 2013. Effects of feed intake on enteric methane emissions from sheep fed fresh white clover (Trifolium repens) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) forages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 179, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, RS 1999. Mechnisms for competitively reducing ruminal methanogenesis. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 1299–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellwing, ALF, Brask, M, Lund, P and Weisbjerg, MR 2012a. Effect of carbohydrate source and rumen pH on enteric methane emission from dairy cows. In Emissions of gas and dust from livestock (ed. M Hassouna and N Guingand), pp. 206–208. INRA, Rennes Cedes, France.Google Scholar
Hellwing, ALF, Lund, P, Weisbjerg, MR, Brask, M and Hvelplund, T 2012b. Technical note: test of a low cost and animal-friendly system for measuring methane emissions from dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 6077–6085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hindrichsen, IK, Wettstein, H-R, Machmüller, A, Soliva, CR, Bach Knudsen, KE, Madsen, J and Kreuzer, M 2004. Effects of feed carbohydrates with contrasting properties on rumen fermentation and methane release in vitro. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, WH 1986. Chemical factors involved in ruminal fibre digestion. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 2755–2766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Ahvenjärvi, S, Weisbjerg, MR and Nørgaard, P 2006. Digestion and passage of fibre in ruminants. In Ruminant physiology (ed. K Sejrsen, T Hvelplund and MO Nielsen), pp. 87–135. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immig, I 1996. The rumen and hindgut as source of ruminant methanogenesis. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 42, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, C, Weisbjerg, MR, Nørgaard, P and Hvelplund, T 2005. Effect of maize silage on site of starch and NDF digestion in lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 118, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, KA and Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krämer, M, Lund, P and Weisbjerg, MR 2013. Rumen passage kinetics of forage- and concentrate-derived fiber in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 3163–3176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsen, M, Madsen, TG, Weisbjerg, MR, Hvelplund, T and Madsen, J 2000. Endogenous amino acid flow in the duodenum of dairy cows. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 50, 161–173.Google Scholar
Madsen, J, Bjerg, BS, Hvelplund, T, Weisbjerg, MR and Lund, P 2010. Short communication: methane and carbon dioxide ratio in excreted air for quantification of the methane production from ruminants. Livestock Science 129, 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, JAN, Dijkstra, J, Bannink, A, Cammell, SB, Kebreab, E and France, J 2001. A mechanistic model of whole-tract digestion and methanogenesis in the lactating dairy cow: model development, evaluation, and application. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1584–1597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgavi, DP, Forano, E, Martin, C and Newbold, CJ 2010. Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants. Animal 4, 1024–1036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, AR, Jouany, JP and Newbold, J 2000. Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Annales de Zootechnie 49, 231–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, MR, Baldwin, RL and Koong, LJ 1982. Estimation of stoichiometric parameters for rumen fermentation of roughage and concentrate diets. Journal of Animal Science 55, 411–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, NI, Volden, H, Åkerlind, M, Brask, M, Hellwing, ALF, Storlien, T and Bertilsson, J 2013. A prediction equation for enteric methane emission from dairy cows for use in NorFor. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 63, 126–130.Google Scholar
Nozière, P, Ortigues-Mary, I, Loncke, C and Sauvant, D 2010. Carbohydrate quantitative digestion and absorption in ruminants: from feed starch and fibre to nutrients available for tissues. Animal 4, 1057–1074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulsen, M, Schwab, C, Jensen, BB, Engberg, RM, Spang, A, Canibe, N, Højbjerg, O, Milinovich, G, Fragner, L, Schleper, C, Weckwerth, W, Lund, P, Schramm, A and Urich, T 2013. Methylotrophic methanogenic thermoplasmata implicated in reduced methane emissions from bovine rumen. Nature Communications 4, 1428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichl, JR and Baldwin, RL 1975. Rumen modeling: rumen input-output balance models. Journal of Dairy Science 58, 879–890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soliva, CR, Meile, L, Cieslak, A, Kreuzer, M and Machmüller, A 2004. Rumen simulation technique study on interactions of dietary lauric and myristic acid supplementation in suppressing ruminal methanogenesis. British Journal of Nutrition 92, 689–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storm, AC and Kristensen, NB 2010. Effects of particle size and dry matter content of a total mixed ration on intraruminal equilibration and net portal flux of volatile fatty acids in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 4223–4238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, XQ and Gibbs, SJ 2012. Diurnal variation in fatty acid profiles in rumen digesta from dairy cows grazing high-quality pasture. Animal Feed Science and Technology 177, 152–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thode, S 1999. Bestemmelse af purinderivater (allantoin, urinsyre, hypoxanthin og xanthin) samt kreatinin i urin hos kvæg ved anvendelse af HPLC. DJF intern rapport nr. 127, Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Zijderveld, SM, Gerrits, WJJ, Apajalahti, JA, Newbold, JR, Dijkstra, J, Leng, RA and 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisbjerg, MR, Børsting, CF and Hvelplund, T 1992. The influence of tallow on rumen metabolism, microbial biomass synthesis and fatty acid composition of bacteria and protozoa. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 42, 138–147.Google Scholar
Weisbjerg, MR, Hvelplund, T and Bibby, BM 1998. Hydrolysis and fermentation rate of glucose, sucrose and lactose in the rumen. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 48, 12–18.Google Scholar
Yan, T, Porter, MG and Mayne, CS 2009. Prediction of methane emission from beef cattle using data measured in indirect open-circuit respiration calorimeters. Animal 3, 1455–1462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zinn, RA and Owens, FN 1986. A rapid procedure for purine measurement and its use for estimating vet ruminal protein synthesis. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 66, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Brask supplementary material S1

Supplementary Table

Download Brask supplementary material S1(File)
File 17.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Brask supplementary material S2

Supplementary Table

Download Brask supplementary material S2(File)
File 15.5 KB