The effect of dietary nitrate and canola oil alone or in combination on fermentation, digesta kinetics and methane emissions from cattle

Villar, Maria Laura; Hegarty, R. S.; Nolan, John; Godwin, Ian; McPhee, M. J.

doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114294

Cited by 34 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This pathway is highly competitive with methanogens for H 2 utilisation in the rumen due to greater changes in Gibbs energy than with methanogenesis (CO 2 + 4H 2 ! CH 4 + 2H 2 O) pathway (Villar et al 2020). The result is a redirection of H + flow from CO 2 to nitrate reduction, thereby reducing the generation of CH 4 (Olijhoek et al 2016).…”

Section: Halogensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feed additives as a strategic approach to reduce enteric methane production in cattle: modes of action, effectiveness and safety

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing consumer concern in greenhouse-gas (GHG) contributions from cattle is pushing the livestock industry to continue to improve their sustainability goals. As populations increase, particularly in low-income countries, the demand for animal-sourced foods will place further pressure to reduce emission intensity. Enteric methane (CH 4 ) production contributes to most of the GHG from livestock; therefore, it is key to mitigating such emissions. Feed additives have primarily been used to increase animal productivity, but advances in understanding the rumen has resulted in their development to mitigate CH 4 emissions. The present study reviewed some of the main feed additives with a potential to reduce enteric CH 4 emissions, focusing on in vivo studies. Feed additives work by either inhibiting methanogenesis or modifying the rumen environment, such that CH 4 production (g/day) is reduced. Feed additives that inhibit methanogenesis or compete with substrate for methanogens include 3-nitroxypropanol (3NOP), nitrates, and halogenated compounds containing organisms such as macroalgae. Although 3NOP and macroalgae affect methyl-coenzyme M reductase enzyme that is necessary in CH 4 biosynthesis, the former is more specific to methanogens. In contrast, nitrates reduce CH 4 emissions by competing with methanogens for hydrogen. However, nitrite could accumulate in blood and be toxic to ruminants. Rumen modifiers do not act directly on methanogens but rather on the conditions that promote methanogenesis. These feed additives include lipids, plant secondary compounds and essential oils. The efficacy of lipids has been studied extensively, and although supplementation with mediumchain and polyunsaturated fatty acids has shown substantial reduction in enteric CH 4 production, the results have been variable. Similarly, secondary plant compounds and essential oils have shown inconsistent results, ranging from substantial reduction to modest increase in enteric CH 4 emissions. Due to continued interest in this area, research is expected to accelerate in developing feed additives that can provide options in mitigating enteric CH 4 emissions.

show abstract

Section: Halogensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feed additives as a strategic approach to reduce enteric methane production in cattle: modes of action, effectiveness and safety

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A PRISMA statement according to Liberati et al (2009) has been provided (Supplemental Figure S1, https: / / doi .org/ 10 .3168/ jds .2020 -18541). Of the 56 treatment means, 35 treatment means related to beef cattle (Hulshof et al, 2012;Newbold et al, 2014;Lee et al, 2015;Troy et al, 2015;Henry, 2017;Lee et al, 2017a,b;Capelari, 2018;Duthie et al, 2018;Tomkins et al, 2018;Alemu et al, 2019;Granja-Salcedo et al, 2019;Rebelo et al, 2019;Villar et al, 2020) and 21 treatment means related to dairy cattle (van Zijderveld et al, 2011b;Guyader et al, 2015a,b;Veneman et al, 2015;Klop et al, 2016;Olijhoek et al, 2016;van Wyngaard et al, 2018;Wang et al, 2018;Meller et al, 2019;van Wyngaard et al, 2019; Table 1). All beef cattle in the selected studies were steers except in Lee et al (2015), which were beef heifers.…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All beef cattle in the selected studies were steers except in Lee et al (2015), which were beef heifers. Studies in 2 articles used beef cattle at the backgrounding phase (Lee et al, 2017a;Alemu et al, 2019), studies in 4 articles used cattle in the growing stage (Lee et Feng et al: ANTIMETHANOGENIC EFFECT OF NITRATE IN CATTLE 11377 al., 2015;Capelari, 2018;Duthie et al, 2018;Rebelo et al, 2019), studies in 4 articles used cattle at the finishing phase (Troy et al, 2015;Lee et al, 2017b;Granja-Salcedo et al, 2019;Villar et al, 2020), 1 study used 2-yr-old steers (Tomkins et al, 2018), whereas 3 articles did not report type of beef cattle (Hulshof et al, 2012;Newbold et al, 2014;Henry, 2017). Diets included grazing pasture in 4 studies (van Wyngaard et al, 2018;Granja-Salcedo et al, 2019;van Wyngaard et al, 2019), or feed delivered to cattle in housed pens and stalls (all others; 52 studies).…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antimethanogenic effects of nitrate supplementation in cattle: A meta-analysis

Feng

Dijkstra

Bannink

et al. 2020

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supplementing a diet with nitrate is regarded as an effective and promising methane (CH 4 ) mitigation strategy by competing with methanogens for available hydrogen through its reduction of ammonia in the rumen. Studies have shown major reductions in CH 4 emissions with nitrate supplementation, but with large variation in response. The objective of this study was to quantitatively investigate the effect of dietary nitrate on enteric CH 4 production and yield and evaluate the variables with high potential to explain the heterogeneity of between-study variability using meta-analytical models. A data set containing 56 treatments from 24 studies was developed to conduct a meta-analysis. Dry matter (DM) intake, nitrate dose (g/kg of DM), animal body weight, roughage proportion of diet, dietary crude protein and neutral detergent fiber content, CH 4 measurement technique, and type of cattle (beef or dairy) were considered as explanatory variables. Average DM intake and CH 4 production for dairy cows (16.2 ± 2.93 kg/d; 311 ± 58.8 g/d) were much higher than for beef cattle (8.1 ± 1.57 kg/d; 146 ± 50.9 g/d). Therefore, a relative mean difference was calculated and used to conduct random-effect and mixed-effect model analysis to eliminate the large variations between types of animal due to intake. The final mixed-effect model for CH 4 production (g of CH 4 /d) had 3 explanatory variables and included nitrate dose, type of cattle, and DM intake. The final mixed-effect model for CH 4 yield (g of CH 4 /kg of DM intake) had 2 explanatory variables and included nitrate dose and type of cattle. Nitrate effect sizes on CH 4 production (dairy: −20.4 ± 1.89%; beef: −10.1 ± 1.52%) and yield (dairy: −15.5 ± 1.15%; beef: −8.95 ± 1.764%) were significantly different between the 2 types of cattle. When data from slow-release nitrate sources were removed from the analysis, there was no significant difference in type of cattle anymore for CH 4 production and yield. Nitrate dose enhanced the mitigating effect of nitrate on CH 4 production and yield by 0.911 ± 0.1407% and 0.728 ± 0.2034%, respectively, for every 1 g/kg of DM increase from its mean dietary inclusion (16.7 g/kg of DM). An increase of 1 kg of DM/d in DM intake from its mean dietary intake (11.1 kg of DM/d) decreased the effect of nitrate on CH 4 production by 0.691 ± 0.2944%. Overall, this metaanalysis demonstrated that nitrate supplementation reduces CH 4 production and yield in a dose-dependent manner, and that elevated DM intake decreases the effect of nitrate supplementation on CH 4 production. Furthermore, the stronger antimethanogenic effect on CH 4 production and yield in dairy cows than in beef steers could be related to use of slow-release nitrate in beef cattle.

show abstract

“…However, those practices are complicated in pastoral systems in the tropics, since forage quality varies with season. Villar et al (2020) found that mature steers fed a basal ration of lucerne chaff and supplemented with a mixture of NO À 3 and canola oil reduced daily methane production by 26%, which suggested a synergistic effect of the two mitigating compounds, when combined.…”

Section: Enteric Methane Production By Cattle Fed Tropical Grassesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Review: Strategies for enteric methane mitigation in cattle fed tropical forages

Kú-Vera

Castelán-Ortega

Galindo-Maldonado

et al. 2020

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas (GHG) produced and released by eructation to the atmosphere in large volumes by ruminants. Enteric CH4 contributes significantly to global GHG emissions arising from animal agriculture. It has been contended that tropical grasses produce higher emissions of enteric CH4 than temperate grasses, when they are fed to ruminants. A number of experiments have been performed in respiration chambers and head-boxes to assess the enteric CH4 mitigation potential of foliage and pods of tropical plants, as well as nitrates (NO3−) and vegetable oils in practical rations for cattle. On the basis of individual determinations of enteric CH4 carried out in respiration chambers, the average CH4 yield for cattle fed low-quality tropical grasses (>70% ration DM) was 17.0 g CH4/kg DM intake. Results showed that when foliage and ground pods of tropical trees and shrubs were incorporated in cattle rations, methane yield (g CH4/kg DM intake) was decreased by 10% to 25%, depending on plant species and level of intake of the ration. Incorporation of nitrates and vegetable oils in the ration decreased enteric CH4 yield by ∼6% to ∼20%, respectively. Condensed tannins, saponins and starch contained in foliages, pods and seeds of tropical trees and shrubs, as well as nitrates and vegetable oils, can be fed to cattle to mitigate enteric CH4 emissions under smallholder conditions. Strategies for enteric CH4 mitigation in cattle grazing low-quality tropical forages can effectively increase productivity while decreasing enteric CH4 emissions in absolute terms and per unit of product (e.g. meat, milk), thus reducing the contribution of ruminants to GHG emissions and therefore to climate change.

show abstract

The effect of dietary nitrate and canola oil alone or in combination on fermentation, digesta kinetics and methane emissions from cattle

Cited by 34 publications

References 67 publications

Feed additives as a strategic approach to reduce enteric methane production in cattle: modes of action, effectiveness and safety

Feed additives as a strategic approach to reduce enteric methane production in cattle: modes of action, effectiveness and safety

Antimethanogenic effects of nitrate supplementation in cattle: A meta-analysis

Review: Strategies for enteric methane mitigation in cattle fed tropical forages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About