Methane emissions from ruminant livestock have been intensively studied in order to reduce contribution to the greenhouse effect. Ruminants were found to produce more enteric methane than other mammalian herbivores. As camelids share some features of their digestive anatomy and physiology with ruminants, it has been proposed that they produce similar amounts of methane per unit of body mass. This is of special relevance for countrywide greenhouse gas budgets of countries that harbor large populations of camelids like Australia. However, hardly any quantitative methane emission measurements have been performed in camelids. In order to fill this gap, we carried out respiration chamber measurements with three camelid species (Vicugna pacos, Lama glama, Camelus bactrianus; n = 16 in total), all kept on a diet consisting of food produced from alfalfa only. The camelids produced less methane expressed on the basis of body mass (0.32±0.11 L kg−1 d−1) when compared to literature data on domestic ruminants fed on roughage diets (0.58±0.16 L kg−1 d−1). However, there was no significant difference between the two suborders when methane emission was expressed on the basis of digestible neutral detergent fiber intake (92.7±33.9 L kg−1 in camelids vs. 86.2±12.1 L kg−1 in ruminants). This implies that the pathways of methanogenesis forming part of the microbial digestion of fiber in the foregut are similar between the groups, and that the lower methane emission of camelids can be explained by their generally lower relative food intake. Our results suggest that the methane emission of Australia's feral camels corresponds only to 1 to 2% of the methane amount produced by the countries' domestic ruminants and that calculations of greenhouse gas budgets of countries with large camelid populations based on equations developed for ruminants are generally overestimating the actual levels.
The mean retention time (MRT) of solute or particles in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and the forestomach (FS) are crucial determinants of digestive physiology in herbivores. Besides ruminants, camelids are the only herbivores that have evolved rumination as an obligatory physiological process consisting of repeated mastication of large food particles, which requires a particle sorting mechanism in the FS. Differences between camelids and ruminants have hardly been investigated so far. In this study we measured MRTs of solute and differently-sized particles (2, 10, and 20 mm), and the ratio of large-to-small particle MRT, i.e., the selectivity factors (SF10/2mm, SF20/2mm, SF20/10mm), in three camelid species: alpacas (Vicugna pacos), llamas (Llama glama), and Bactrian camels (Camelus bactrianus). The camelid data were compared with literature data from ruminants and non-ruminant foregut fermenters (NRFF). Camelids and ruminants both had higher SF10/2mmFS than NRFF, suggesting convergence in the function of the FS sorting mechanism in contrast to NRFF, in which such a sorting mechanism is absent. The SF20/10mmFS did not differ between ruminants and camelids, indicating that there is a particle size threshold of about 1 cm in both suborders above which particle retention is not increased. Camelids did not differ from ruminants in MRT2mmFS, MRTsoluteFS and the ratio MRT2mmFS/MRTsoluteFS, but they were more similar to 'cattle-' than to 'moose-type' ruminants. Camelids had higher SF10/2mmFS and higher SF20/2mmFS than ruminants, indicating a potentially slower particle sorting in camelids than in ruminants, with larger particles being retained longer in relation to small particles. sorting mechanism in contrast to NRFF, in which such a sorting mechanism is absent. The SF 20/10mm FS did not differ between ruminants and camelids, indicating that there is a particle size threshold of about 1 cm in both suborders above which particle retention is not increased. Camelids did not differ from ruminants in MRT 2mm FS, MRT solute FS, and the ratio MRT 2mm FS/MRT solute FS, but they were more similar to 'cattle-' than to 'moose-type' ruminants. Camelids had higher SF 10/2mm FS and higher SF 20/2mm FS than ruminants, indicating a potentially slower particle sorting in camelids than in ruminants, with larger particles being retained longer in relation to small particles.
Horses achieve a higher degree of particle size reduction through ingestive mastication than functional ruminants. We characterized mastication using chew-monitoring halters (RumiWatch) in six domestic horses, cattle, and Bactrian camels each. All animals were offered grass hay of the same batch for 15 min. In cattle and camels, measurements were continued after eating until rumination was observed. Except for one horse, 96% of the horses' ingestive mastication data were identified as "rumination" by the proprietary RumiWatch algorithm, whereas ingestion and rumination by cattle and camels were mostly classified correctly. There were no systematic differences between cattle and camels. In cattle and camels, ingestive mastication was less regular than rumination, indicated by significantly higher standard deviations of chewing peak intervals, peak heights, and peak breadths in intraindividual comparisons. The average standard deviations of these measures were lower in horses than in cattle and camel ingestive mastication, indicating a more consistent chewing pattern in horses. Horse values were similar to those of rumination mastication, suggesting equally regular chewing motions. Regular, rhythmic chewing represents a common feature of horses and functional ruminants, but the less uniform ingestive mastication in functional ruminants represents a deviating pattern, the adaptive value of which remains unclear. In particular, it does not appear to promote a higher ingestion rate. A potential cause may be the avoidance of high tooth wear rates by delaying a more regular, systematic mastication until ingesta has been softened and the grit has been washed off in the forestomach.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.