Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:48:43.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methane formation in faunated and ciliate-free cattle and its relationship with rumen volatile fatty acid proportions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

F. G. Whitelaw ,
J. Margaret Eadie ,
L. A. Bruce  and
W. J. Shand
F. G. Whitelaw
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
J. Margaret Eadie
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
L. A. Bruce
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
W. J. Shand
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Twelve steers fitted with rumen cannulas were used in three separate experiments to investigate the effects of the presence or absence of rumen ciliate protozoa on methane production. The diet consisted of 850 g barley and 150 g protein supplement/kg, and was given in three feeds daily at a restricted level of 61 g/kg live weight0.75. Animals were defaunated initially by allowing ad lib. consumption of this diet and were then maintained ciliate-free by isolation or were faunated by inoculation with a mixed ciliate suspension. Samples of rumen fluid were taken routinely for the assessment of microbial populations and for volatile fatty acid (VFA) analysis and energy and nitrogen balances and digestibility measurements were made at intervals while animals were confined in respiration chambers.

2. In each experiment the rumen VFA proportions changed from a high-propionate pattern under ciliate-free conditions to a low-propionate, high-butyrate pattern in the presence of ciliates: differences between treatments were highly significant (P < 0.001). There were also marked differences between treatments in CH, production but a reliable comparison was possible only in Expt 3, in which CH4 was significantly higher (P < 0.001) in the presence of a rumen ciliate population. In Expt 3 the increased loss of energy as CH4 in the faunated animals amounted to 44 MJ/100 MJ energy intake.

3. Stoichiometric estimates of CH4 production derived from the observed VFA proportions showed good agreement with CH4 production as measured in respiration chambers. On average, the stoichiometric CH4 values overestimated CH4 production by a factor of 1.08.

4. Highly significant linear relationships (P < 0.001) were observed between the molar proportion of each major VFA and the quantity of CH4 produced: the proportion of propionic acid was inversely related to CH4 and showed the lowest residual standard deviation of all the relationships examined.

5. The losses of energy in faeces and urine did not differ between treatments hence the increased loss of energy as CH4 in the faunated animals resulted in a significant reduction in the metabolizability of the diet from 0.73 to 0.69 (P < 0.05). No significant differences were detected between treatments in heat production, apparent digestibility coefficients or N balance.

6. It is suggested that the rumen ciliates, by modifying the rumen VFA proportions, are directly responsible for the increased CH4 production in faunated animals.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , September 1984 , pp. 261 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

Abou Akkada, A. R. & Howard, B. H. (1960). Biochemical Journal 76, 445–451.Google Scholar
Axelsson, J. (1949). Kungliga Lantbrukhogskolans Annaler 16, 404–419.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1967). The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants, p. 199. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Brockway, J. M. & Boyne, A. W. (1972). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology 57, 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Clapperton, J. L. (1965). British Journal of Nutrition 19, 511–522.Google Scholar
Bratzler, J. W. & Forbes, E. B. (1940). Journal of Nutrition 19, 611–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockway, J. M., Boyne, A. W. & Gordon, J. G. (1971). Journal of Applied Physiology 31, 296–297.Google Scholar
Brouwer, E. (1965). In Energy metabolism: proceedings of 3rd symposium on energy metabolism, troon. EAAP Publication no. 11, p. 441 [Blaxter, K. L., editor]. London: Academic press.Google Scholar
Clapperton, J. L. & Czerkawski, J. W. (1967). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 26, XXI.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. (1969). World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 11, 240–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. (1972). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 31, 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. (1975). In Tracer studies on non-protein nitrogen for ruminants, vol. 2, pp. 55–63. Vienna: International atomic energy authority.Google Scholar
Davidson, J., Mathieson, J. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Analyst 95, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M. (1967). Journal of General Microbiology 49, 175–194.Google Scholar
Eadie, J. M. & Gill, J. C. (1971). British Journal of Nutrition 26, 155–167.Google Scholar
Eadie, J. M., Hyldgaard-Jensen, J., Mann, S. O., Reid, R. S. & Whitelaw, F. G. (1970). British Journal of Nutrition 24, 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M. & Mann, S. O. (1970). In Physiology of digestion and metabolism in the ruminant, pp. 335–347 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle upon tyne: Oriel press.Google Scholar
Eadie, J. M. & Oxford, A. E. (1955). Journal of General Microbiology 12, 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fell, B. F., Kay, M., Whitelaw, F. G. & Boyne, R. (1968). Research in Veterinary Science 9, 458–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutierrez, J. & Davis, R. E. (1962). Applied Microbiology 10, 305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and Its Microbes. New york and London: Academic press.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1967). Archiv Für Mikrobiologie 59, 158–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karr, U. R., Little, C. O. & Mitchell, G. E. Jr (1966). Journal of Animal Science 25, 652–654.Google Scholar
Kleiber, M., Regan, W. M. & Mead, S. W. (1945). Hilgardia 16, 511–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriss, M. (1930). Journal of Agricultural Research 40, 283–295.Google Scholar
Kurihara, Y., Eadie, J. M., Hobson, P. N. & Mann, S. O. (1968). Journal of General Microbiology 51, 267–288.Google Scholar
McKenzie, J. D. & Kay, R. N. B. (1968). Journal of Science and Technology 14, 15–16.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Flatt, W. P. & Moe, P. W. (1968). Journal of Dairy Science 51, 1429–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, T. R. (1963). Veterinary Record 75, 1399–1402.Google Scholar
Pullar, J. D. (1969). In International Encyclopaedia of Food and Nutrition vol. 17, Nutrition of Animals of Agricultural Importance, pp. 471–490 [Cuthbertson, D. P., editor]. Oxford: Pergamon press.Google Scholar
Stumm, C. K., Guzen, H. J. & Vogels, G. D. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 47, 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, R. W., Bratzler, J. W., James, W. H., Tillman, A. D. & Meek, D. C. (1948). Journal of Animal Science 7, 475–485.Google Scholar
Topps, J. H., Kay, R. N. B., Goodall, E. D., Whitelaw, F. G. & Reid, R. S. (1968). British Journal of Nutrition 22, 281–290.Google Scholar
Vogels, G. D., Hoppe, W. F. & Stumm, C. K. (1980). Applied and Environmental Microbiology 40, 608–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Brockway, J. M. & Smith, J. S. (1974). Animal Production 19, 127–139.Google Scholar
Whitelaw, F. G., Eadie, J. M., Bruce, L. A. & Shand, W. J. (1983). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 42, 158A.Google Scholar
Whitelaw, F. G., Eadie, J. M., Mann, S. O. & Reid, R. S. (1972). British Journal of Nutrition 27, 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitelaw, F. G., Hyldgaard-Jensen, J., Reid, R. S. & Kay, M. G. (1970). British Journal of Nutrition 24, 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, M. J. (1960). Journal of Dairy Science 43, 1452–1459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, P. L., Grainger, R. B. & Marco, G. J. (1966). Journal of Nutrition 89, 241–246.Google Scholar