Enteric methane production, digestibility and rumen fermentation in dairy cows fed different forages with and without rapeseed fat supplementation

Brask, M.; Lund, Peter; Hellwing, Anne Louise Frydendahl; Poulsen, Morten; Weisbjerg, M.R.

doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.06.006

Cited by 121 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…MRT DNDF , dietary maize proportion and rumen NDF digestibility) are interdependent as maize silage NDF usually has a lower rumen digestibility than grass silage NDF (Jensen et al, 2005;Brask et al, 2013a) and a different rumen MRT DNDF (Krämer et al, 2013). Furthermore, maize silage is rich in starch, whereas grass silage contains the more methanogenic CHO fibre and sugars.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A data set was constructed from three experiments that were conducted with lactating rumen, duodenal and ileal cannulated Danish Holstein dairy cows and reported by Brask et al (2013a;experiment A), Brask et al (2013b;experiment B) and by Hellwing et al (2012a;experiment C). Experiment A had a 6 × 4 incomplete Latin square design with six cows, six diets and four periods and experiments B and C had a 4 × 4 Latin square design with four cows, four treatments and four periods.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The experimental set-up, the procedures for determining rumen, intestinal and total tract digestibility and the measurement of enteric CH 4 production are further described in detail in Brask et al (2013a). Facilities and procedures followed to measure enteric CH 4 are described by Hellwing et al (2012b).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies reported both CH 4 production and rumen fermentation pattern (e.g. Soliva et al, 2004;Chung et al, 2011;Doreau et al, 2011;Brask et al, 2013a and2013b). However, the diet effect on CH 4 production appears not always to be consistent with the observed shift in rumen fermentation pattern.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…However, there is a lack of a combination of these data. This combination was available in three experiments by Brask et al (2013a), Brask et al (2013b) and Hellwing et al (2012a), which to our knowledge delivers a unique data set to evaluate the presumptions on the relationship between rumen digestion, fermentation pattern and CH 4 production.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Brask

Weisbjerg

Hellwing

et al. 2015

Animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many feeding trials have been conducted to quantify enteric methane (CH 4 ) production in ruminants. Although a relationship between diet composition, rumen fermentation and CH 4 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 CH 4 production. Two approaches were used to calculate CH 4 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 (H 2 ) arising from fermentation was calculated using the fermentation pattern measured in rumen fluid. CH 4 was calculated from H 2 production corrected for H 2 use with biohydrogenation of fatty acids. The DOM model overestimated CH 4 /kg dry matter intake (DMI) by 6.1% ( R 2 = 0.36) and the DCARB model underestimated CH 4 /kg DMI by 0.4% ( R 2 = 0.43). A stepwise regression of the difference between measured and calculated daily CH 4 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 CH 4 production resulted in R 2 of 0.66 and 0.72 for DOM and DCARB models, respectively. The diurnal pattern of CH 4 production followed that of rumen volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration and the CH 4 to CO 2 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 CH 4 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 CH 4 . Using a ruminal carbon balance appeared to predict CH 4 production just as well as calculations based on rumen digestion of individual nutrients.Keywords: modelling methane, VFA, enteric fermentation, carbon, dairy cow Implications Methane (CH 4 ) is a potent greenhouse gas that arises from feed fermentation in the rumen and large intestine of ruminant animals. The quantity of CH 4 depends on daily feed intake, feed chemical composition and feed rumen digestibility. Therefore, the present paper was ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Brask

Weisbjerg

Hellwing

et al. 2015

Animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Potential of Seaweeds to Mitigate Production of Greenhouse Gases during Production of Ruminant Proteins

Bhowmick

Hayes

2023

Global Challenges

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The potential of seaweed to mitigate methane is real and studies with red seaweeds have found reductions in methane produced from ruminants fed red seaweeds in the region of 60–90% where the active compound responsible for this is bromoform. Other studies with brown and green seaweeds have observed reductions in methane production of between 20 and 45% in vitro and 10% in vivo. Benefits of feeding seaweeds to ruminants are seaweed specific and animal species‐dependent. In some instances, positive effects on milk production and performance are observed where selected seaweeds are fed to ruminants while other studies note reductions in performance traits. A balance between reducing methane and maintaining animal health and food quality is necessary. Seaweeds are a source of essential amino acids and minerals however, and offer huge potential for use as feeds for animal health maintenance once formulations and doses are correctly prepared and administered. A negative aspect of seaweed use for animal feed currently is the cost associated with wild harvest and indeed aquaculture production and improvements must be made here if seaweed ingredients are to be used as a solution to control methane production from ruminants for continued production of animal/ruminant sourced proteins in the future. This review collates information concerning different seaweeds and how they and their constituents can reduce methane from ruminants and ensure sustainable production of ruminant proteins in an environmentally beneficial manner.

show abstract

Predicted methane production from Italian ryegrass pastures with contrasting chemical composition under sheep grazing in Northern Norway

Lardy,

Ramin,

Hetta

et al. 2024

JSFA Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Norwegian sheep farming system relies on forages, such as grass silage during winter and grazing cultivated leys and rangeland pastures during summer. Sheep and other ruminants produce enteric methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas of interest, and there is a need for reliable data on gas emissions from sheep capturing both the indoor feeding period and the grazing season. This study utilized an in vitro gas technique (with standard cow rumen fluid) and modeling approach to estimate CH4 production and fermentation patterns based on two different qualities of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) pasture under sheep grazing.ResultsHerbage quality was examined for two 10‐day periods, in July and August. Differences in chemical composition of the herbage during these periods had an impact on herbage digestibility and CH4 production. Total gas production and CH4 levels were significantly higher for lower quality herbage grazed in July than for higher quality herbage grazed in August (p < 0.005). Production of volatile fatty acids in the rumen remained constant between the two periods, but the higher acetate to propionate (A/P) ratio correlated with the higher CH4 production.ConclusionThese findings suggest that pasture quality is an important factor to consider when implementing grazing strategies to reduce enteric CH4 production in sheep.

show abstract

Enteric methane production, digestibility and rumen fermentation in dairy cows fed different forages with and without rapeseed fat supplementation

Cited by 121 publications

References 38 publications

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

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

Potential of Seaweeds to Mitigate Production of Greenhouse Gases during Production of Ruminant Proteins

Predicted methane production from Italian ryegrass pastures with contrasting chemical composition under sheep grazing in Northern Norway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About