한국초지조사료학회지 (Journal of The Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science)

  • 제40권4호
  • /
  • Pages.279-284
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2287-5824(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-5832(eISSN)
한국초지조사료학회 (The Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Rumen Fermentation and Methanogen Levels in Response to Various Alfalfa Hay, Oat Hay, and Feed Concentrate Ratios

  • Lee, Seul (Animal Nutrition Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Kim, Banji (Animal Nutrition Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Ryu, Chaehwa (Animal Nutrition Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Jeong, Jinyoung (Animal Nutrition Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Kim, Byeonghyeon (Animal Nutrition Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Baek, Youlchang (Animal Nutrition Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science)
  • 투고 : 2020.10.25
  • 심사 : 2020.11.23
  • 발행 : 2020.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study aimed to analyze ruminal fermentation, methane emissions, and methanogen levels for different forage feed type and concentrate feed ratios. Alfalfa hay, oat hay, and a feed concentrate were used for in vitro fermentation experiments, at ratios of 9:1, 5:5, and 1:9 (forage:concentrate). After 24 h of incubation, rumen fermentation and methanogen level changes were evaluated. In the low forage treatments, the total gas, CH4, NH3-N, true dry matter digestibility, and total volatile fatty acid were higher than the other treatments, which were used as the parameters on which to assess rumen fermentation (P < 0.05). The feed ratio influenced the copy number for the total archaea and the genus Methanobrevibacter (P = 0.015, P = 0.010). The copy number result trend was like that for CH4 per digested dry matter (DDM). The PCR results and methanogen copy number analysis indicated that the composition of the methanogens affected the CH4 levels, not their copy number. The results of this study can be applied to predict rumen fermentation and methane emission patterns for cattle fed a variety of feedstuffs.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Chaney, A.L. and Marbach, E.P. 1962. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clinical Chemistry. 8:130-132. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/8.2.130
  2. Danielsson, R., Schnurer, A., Arthurson, V. and Bertilssonet J. 2012. Methanogenic population and CH4 production in Swedish dairy cows fed different levels of forage. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 78:6172-6179. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00675-12
  3. Edwards, J.E., McEwan, N.R., Travis, A.J. and Wallace, R.J. 2004. 16S rDNA library-based analysis of ruminal bacterial diversity. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 86:263-281. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ANTO.0000047942.69033.24
  4. Erwin, E.S., Marco, G.J. and Emery, E.M. 1961. Volatile fatty acid analyses of blood and rumen fluid by gas chromatography. Journal of Dairy Science. 44:1768-1771. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(61)89956-6
  5. Goering, H.K. and Van Soest, P.J. 1970. Forage fiber analyses(Apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some applications). Agriculture. Handbook No. 379. USDA-ARS. Washington, DC, USA.
  6. Hall, M.B. 2003. Challenges with nonfiber carbohydrate methods. Journal of Animal Science. 81:3226-3232. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.81123226x
  7. Johnson, D.E., Johnson, K.A., Ward, G.M. and Branine, M.E. 2000. Ruminants and other animals: Atmospheric methane: Its role in the global environment. In M. A. K. Khalil (Ed.), (pp. 112-133). Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany. Chap. 8.
  8. Johnson, K.A. and Johnson D.E. 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 73:2483-2492. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7382483x
  9. Kim, M., Park, T. and Yu, Z. 2017. Metagenomic investigation of gastrointestinal microbiome in cattle. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 30:1515-1528. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0544
  10. Kumar, S., Dagar, S.S., Sirohi, S.K., Upadhyay, R.C. and Puniya, A.K. 2013. Microbial profiles, in vitro gas production and dry matter digestibility based on various ratios of roughage to concentrate. Annals of Microbiology. 63:541-545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-012-0501-0
  11. Lima, R., Lourenco, M., Diaz, R., Castro, A. and Fievez, V. 2010. Effect of combined ensiling of sorghum and soybean with or without molasses and lactobacilli on silage quality and in vitro rumen fermentation. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 155:122-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.10.008
  12. Penner, G.B., Taniguchi, M., Guan, L.L., Beauchemin, K.A. and Oba, M. 2009. Effect of dietary forage to concentrate ratio on volatile fatty acid absorption and the expression of genes related to volatile fatty acid absorption and metabolism in ruminal tissue. Journal of Dairy Science. 92:2767-2781. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1716
  13. RDA. 2017. Korean feeding standard for Hanwoo. pp. 57-60.
  14. Singh, K.M., Tripathi, A.K., Pandya, P.R., Parnerkar, S., Rank, D.N., Kothari, R.K. and Joshi, C.G. 2012. Methanogen diversity in the rumen of Indian Surti buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), assessed by 16S rDNA analysis. Research in Veterinary Science. 92:451-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.03.022
  15. Stiverson, J., Morrison, M. and Yu, Z. 2011. Populations of select cultured and uncultured bacteria in the rumen of sheep and the effect of diets and ruminal fractions. International Journal of Microbiology. 2011: 750613.
  16. Suarez, B.J., Van Reenen, C.G., Stockhofe, N., Dijkstra, J. and Gerrits, W.J.J. 2007. Effect of roughage source and roughage to concentrate ratio on animal performance and rumen development in veal calves. Journal of Dairy Science. 90:2390-2403. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-524
  17. Sutton, J.D., Dhanoa, M.S., Morant, S.V., France, J., Napper, D.J. and Schuller, E. 2003. Rates of production of acetate, propionate, and butyrate in the rumen of lactating dairy cows given normal and low-roughage diets. Journal of Dairy Science. 86:3620-3633. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73968-X
  18. Tymensen, L.D., Beauchemin, K.A. and McAllister, T.A. 2012. Structures of free-living and protozoa-associated methanogen communities in the bovine rumen differ according to comparative analysis of 16S rRNA and mcrA genes. Microbiology. 158:1808-1817. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.057984-0
  19. Woodward, S.L., Waghorn, G.C., Ulyatt, M.J. and Lassey, K.R. 2001. Early indications that feeding Lotus will reduce methane emissions from ruminants. In Proceedings-New Zealand Society of Animal Production. 61:23-26.
  20. Yanez-Ruiz, D.R., Hart, K., Martin-Garcia, A., Ramos, S. and Newbold, C.J. 2008. Diet composition at weaning affects the rumen microbial population and methane emissions by lambs. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 48:186-188. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07237
  21. Yu, Y., Lee, C., Kim, J. and Hwang, S. 2005. Group‐specific primer and probe sets to detect methanogenic communities using quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction. Biotechnology and Bioengineering. 89:670-679. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.20347
  22. Yu, Z. and Morrison, M. 2004. Improved extraction of PCR-quality community DNA from digesta and fecal samples. Biotechniques. 36:808-812. https://doi.org/10.2144/04365ST04
  23. Zhou, M., Chung, Y.H., Beauchemin, K.A., Holtshausen, L., Oba, M., McAllister, T.A. and Guan L.L. 2011. Relationship between rumen methanogen and methane production in dairy cow fed diets supplemented with a feed enzyme additive. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 111: 1148-1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05126.x
  24. Zhou, M., Hernandez-Sanabria, E. and Guan L.L. 2009. Assessment of the microbial ecology of ruminal methanogens in cattle with different feed efficiencies. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 75:6524-6533. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02815-08