Next Article in Journal
Benefits and Conflicts: A Systematic Review of Dog Park Design and Management Strategies
Next Article in Special Issue
Ruminal Fiber Degradation Kinetics within and among Warm-Season Annual Grasses as Affected by the Brown Midrib Mutation
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of High Concentration Nitrogen Gas Stunning of Pigs on the Quality Traits of Meat and Small Intestine
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Autochthonous Nepalese Fruits on Nutrient Degradation, Fermentation Kinetics, Total Gas Production, and Methane Production in In-Vitro Rumen Fermentation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 17
10.3390/ani12172250
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Acacia Mearnsii Fodder on Rumen Digestion and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production

by
Luis Vargas-Ortiz
1,2,
Veronica Andrade-Yucailla
3,
Marcos Barros-Rodríguez
4,*,
Raciel Lima-Orozco
2,
Edis Macías-Rodríguez
5,
Katherine Contreras-Barros
6 and
Carlos Guishca-Cunuhay
4
1
Departamento de Producción Animal, Instituto Superior Tecnológico Benjamín Araujo, Patate 180403, Ecuador
2
Centro de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Universidad Central “Marta Abreu” de Las Villas, Santa Clara 50100, Cuba
3
Centro de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena, La Libertad 240204, Ecuador
4
Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Técnica de Ambato, Sector el Tambo-La Universidad, vía a Quero, Cevallos 1801334, Ecuador
5
Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Técnica de Manabí, Portoviejo 130701, Ecuador
6
Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Campus El Dorado-Itchimbía, Quito 170403, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(17), 2250; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172250
Submission received: 20 May 2022 / Revised: 9 August 2022 / Accepted: 18 August 2022 / Published: 31 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forage and Feedstuff Digestion Kinetics in Ruminants)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The anthropogenic generation of greenhouse gases (GHG) from the production of ruminants has contributed to environmental deterioration throughout the world; therefore, reducing their production becomes one of the main objectives today. The manipulation of the ruminant diet with forage sources rich in bioactive compounds (tannins) is considered an alternative to mitigate the production of CH4 and improve the productive performance of the animals. Based on this, this research aimed to evaluate the effect of the incorporation of different amounts of Acacia mearnssi, rich in tannins, on the parameters of ruminal degradation, digestibility of DM and OM, and the generation of gas, CH4, and CO2. The incorporation of A. mearnssi forage in the ration had a reducing effect on GHG production and possibly improved utilization of dietary protein in response to the presence of tannins. However, even with the lowest level of acacia in the diet, the effective digestion of DM and OM was affected. Under the conditions of this study, it was concluded that it is possible to replace traditional forages with up to 20% of A. mearnsii, without observing changes in the production of greenhouse gases with respect to the control treatment (0% of A. mearnsii); however, A. mearnsii is not usable because it significantly decreases rumen degradability of DM and OM, which would considerably affect the production in animals.

Abstract

In recent years, the worrying generation of GHG from ruminant production has generated widespread interest in exploring nutritional strategies focused on reducing these gases, presenting the use of bioactive compounds (tannins) as an alternative in the diet. The aim of this research was to determine the effect of the addition of different levels of Acacia mearnsii on ruminal degradation, nutrient digestibility, and mitigation of greenhouse gas production. A completely randomized design with four treatments and six repetitions was used. The treatments were: T1, T2, T3, and T4 diets with, respectively, 0%, 20%, 40%, and 60% A. mearnsii. The rumen degradation kinetic and in vitro digestibility, and the production of gas, CH4, and CO2 were evaluated. In situ rumen degradation and in vitro digestibility of DM and OM showed differences between treatments, with T1 being higher (p < 0.05) in the degradation of the soluble fraction (A), potential degradation (A + B), and effective degradation for the different passage rates in percent hour (0.02, 0.05, and 0.08), compared to the other treatments. Rumen pH did not show differences (p > 0.05) between treatments. The lowest (p < 0.05) gas, CH4, and CO2 production was observed in treatments T1 and T2 with an approximate mean of 354.5 mL gas/0.500 g fermented DM, 36.5 mL CH4/0.500 g fermented DM, and 151.5 mL CO2/0.500 g fermented DM, respectively, compared to treatments T3 and T4. Under the conditions of this study, it was concluded that it is possible to replace traditional forages with up to 20% of A. mearnsii, without observing changes in the production of greenhouse gases with respect to the control treatment (0% of A. mearnsii); however, A. mearnsii is not usable because it significantly decreases rumen degradability of DM and OM, which would considerably affect the production in animals.

1. Introduction

Ruminant production systems in tropical and subtropical regions are generally based on grass monocultures. The nutritional value of these grasslands ranges between 7 and 10% protein and its content of structural carbohydrates exceeds 70% [1,2]. These factors affect feed digestibility probably due to the imbalance generated between the fermentable organic matter in the rumen and the availability of nitrogen (N) that hinders the growth and activity of ruminal microorganisms [2,3]; on the other hand, it promotes greenhouse gas (GHG) in response to the decrease in the microbial protein synthesis capacity and the high fiber concentration of the forage [4]. Methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the main GHGs generated by anaerobic fermentation in the rumen [5], causing considerable energy losses in the animal, ranging from 2–12% of the consumed energy [6,7], which causes environmental deterioration and decreased animal production [8,9]. It is estimated that livestock production generates about 14.5% of GHGs worldwide [10]. In this context, the FAO [11] calculates that ruminants under grazing conditions generate approximately 47% of CH4 with respect to the total GHGs from livestock production.
The most viable alternative to counteract these drawbacks has been the manipulation of rumen fermentation through the diet, using forages, agro-industrial by-products or seeds that, due to their high nutritional value and contribution of bioactive compounds (tannins, saponins, essential oils) can favorably modulate the ruminal environment and thereby reduce GHGs of enteric origin [12,13,14]. Under these perspectives, it has been shown that the use of nonconventional forage sources rich in bioactive compounds, especially tannins, can improve rumen fermentation and with it, digestion. These effects allow to reduce the production of gases generated enterically, and, consequently, increase in the productive performance of the animals [15]. These benefits can be attributed to: (i) the ability of tannins to form tannin–protein complexes and maximize nitrogen utilization in the lower parts of the gastrointestinal tract [16], (ii) decreased CH4 generation due to the suppression of methanogenic archaea and protozoa [17,18], and (iii) anthelmintic control of gastrointestinal parasites [19,20]. As a consequence of the above, greater milk production and daily weight gain (10–21% and 8–38%, respectively) have been observed when feeding sheep and goats with forages rich in tannins, probably due to the greater flow of metabolizable protein towards the parts from the gastrointestinal tract in response to decreased protein degradation in the rumen [21]. This has encouraged exploring the usefulness of tannins, focused on reducing GHGs generated from ruminant production and improving productivity [22]. However, the secondary compounds could have unwanted effects on the digestibility of the feed, probably due to the formation of complexes with carbohydrates in the diet [23].
The effects of tannins can vary depending on the dose, source, type, molecular weight (MW) [24], and adaptability of ruminants to their consumption [25]. Saminathan et al. [26] studied the effect of the MW of the CT of Leucaena leucocephala hybrida and showed a lower production of total gas, CH4, and CO2 and better utilization of N without negative effects on the digestibility of the DM with the highest MW. However, negative effects of tannins on consumption, digestion, productive performance, and health have been noted, probably attributed to: (a) lower feed palatability due to the binding of tannin to salivary glycoproteins [27], (b) decreased nutrient digestibility and consequent reduction in feed transit in the rumen [21], (c) toxicity with high levels of tannins (>55 g CT/kg DM) [28] with the consequent deterioration of the intestinal mucosa, liver, and kidney [29], and (d) decreased intestinal activity of pancreatic enzymes (trypsin, amylase) and absorption of amino acids [30]. Robins and Broker [31] evidenced a reduction in feed intake and body weight in sheep fed with CT of Acacia aneura (7.5 g/100 g DM) due to the formation of ulcers in the abomasum. Henke et al. [32] observed a decrease in the nutritional components of milk (protein and fat) as a result of the high consumption of CT provided by the quebracho extract (3.0 g/100 g DM vs. 1.5 g/100 g DM) given by the decrease in protein digestibility in the rumen. Garg et al. [33] reported toxic effects on the renal and hepatic system due to the consumption of Quercus incana tannins in cattle without prior adaptation and subsequent manifestation with hematochezia and edema in the ventral region of the thorax with a mortality margin of 70%. Effects were mainly associated with the inadaptability of ruminants to the consumption of forage sources rich in tannins in their ration [34].
Forages rich in tannins have been studied previously and the lack of consistency in the results on GHG production [35,36,37] requires more research to be carried out in order to find the balance point for their use in ruminant feed without promoting harmful effects on their health [38]. A. mearnsii is a plant distributed throughout the world [39]. The genus Acacia is widely distributed in tropical and warm temperate regions, it is made up of approximately 1350 species with diverse uses, previously reviewed by Correia et al. [40]. A. mearnssi adapts to temperatures that fluctuate between 14.7–27.8 °C, characterized by the presence of CT (35–45%) [41]. In recent years, A. mearnssi has been promoted as a source of tannin extracts to be used in ruminant feed for methane reduction [42]. That there is only limited information about A. mearnssi as a forage source which could be a limitation for its use in ruminant feeding [39], but the species belongs to the same genus as Acacia cyanophylla which has been shown to be useful as a forage source in small ruminants. This is probably in response to the nutritional content [protein (12.2% DM), NDF (42.1% DM), ADF (36.1% DM), and TC (31.5 g/kg DM)]. Addition of 100 g/day of acacia, corresponding to 2.88 g CT in dairy sheep feed improved the digestibility of CP, NDF, OM and decreased the excretion of N in the urine [43]. Based on this background, the objective of this research was to determine the effect of the addition of different levels of A. mearnsii on ruminal degradation, nutrient digestibility, and mitigation of gas, CH4, and CO2 production.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Location

The present investigation was carried out at “Querochaca” Experimental Farm and Rumenology Laboratory of the Universidad Técnica de Ambato, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Tungurahua, Ecuador, at an altitude of 2890 m above sea level. In the sector, there are maximum temperatures of 20 °C and minimum of 7 °C and an average ambient temperature of 15 °C.

2.2. Animals

Six three-year-old Holstein bulls with an average live weight of 450 ± 21.2 kg, provided with a fistula with a cannula in the rumen (Bar Diamond, Parma, ID, USA) were used. The animals were housed in individual pens with a zinc roof and cement floor and access to a diet based on 50% Medicago sativa + 50% Lolium perenne and ad libitum water.

2.3. Forage Samples and Treatments

The A. mearnsii forage was collected from a two-year-old plantation located at the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences—UTA (abbreviation in Spanish), subjected to a cutting frequency of 90 d. Subsequently, the forage (leaves and young stems: 50 kg) was dehydrated under cover in a greenhouse. The dehydrated forage was ground in a hammer mill to a particle size of 2 mm and proceeded to be incorporated in the following treatments (Table 1). Six repetitions were performed for each treatment (n = 6). Prior to mixing the treatments, the forages were separately passed through a 1 mm sieve to homogenize the particle size.

2.4. Ruminal Degradation Kinetic

In situ ruminal degradation of nutrients was estimated following the nylon bag methodology (0.42 µ) in the rumen described by Ørskov et al. [44]. In each bull (n = 6), a bag with 5 g of each diet was incubated at the following times (hours): 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h. At the end of 96 h, the bags were removed, washed with running water and dried at 60 °C. The residues were stored in polyethylene bags at −4 °C until their subsequent analysis in the laboratory. Nutrient disappearance was calculated as a ratio of incubated and residual material. The data was fitted to the equation: Y = a + b (1 − e−ct), and the effective degradation was fitted using the equation DE = a + [(b * c)/(c + k)] considering passage rates (k) of 0.02, 0.05, and 0.08% [45], (Prisma 4, GraphPad Software, Inc. San Diego, CA, USA).

2.5. Gas, CH4, CO2 Production and In Vitro Digestibility

Rumen content (liquid and solid fraction) was obtained separately from each bull (n = 6). The ruminal content was collected before feeding in the morning and stored in plastic containers, and then transported to the laboratory to be processed within the first hour of collection. The preparation of nitrogen-rich media (artificial saliva) was performed as described by Menke and Steingass [46]. Gas, CH4, and CO2 production was established using the methodology described by Theodorou et al. [47] which consists of placing 0.5 g samples of each of the treatments T1, T2, T3, and T4 in amber glass bottles with a capacity of 100 mL. Sixty mL of the inoculum (70:30 medium; artificial saliva/inoculum; ruminal content) were incubated in the bottles under a constant flow of CO2. The bottles were incubated between 39–40 °C. The measurement of gas pressure and volume was taken manually at the following times: 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 96 h after incubation with a pressure transducer (DO 9704, Delta OHM, Casella, Italy) and plastic syringes. The CH4 and CO2 production was quantified with a GAS Detection analyzer, model GX-6000, UK following the methodology described by Elghandour et al. [48]. For each treatment, six bottles were used, and three additional bottles were used as blanks. At the end of 96 h, the data were fitted to the monobasic equation mLgas = GV (1 + (B/t) C)−1 described by Groot et al. [49]. Additionally, six more flasks for each treatment were incubated for up to 48 h to estimate the in vitro digestibility of DM and OM [47]. Gas, CH4, and CO2 data was reported in mL/0.500 g fermented DM.

2.6. Rumen pH

Under the same procedure mentioned above for gas production and digestibility, 6 amber glass flasks were prepared for each treatment and at each time (6, 12, and 24 h postincubation) ruminal pH was measured with the help of a pH meter (BANTE-221 Portable pH/ORP Meter, London, UK).

2.7. Chemical Analysis

The dry matter (DM) (# 7007) and ash (# 7009) were determined according to the AOAC [50]. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined using method 12 and 13, respectively, ANKOM2000 fiber analyzer (ANKOM Technology, Macedon, NY, USA). CP was determined by elemental analysis (N) using a LECO CHN 628 (LECO Corporation, Michigan, USA). Condensed tannins were determined by vanillin assay (catechin equivalent, Price et al. [51]).

2.8. Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis

A completely randomized design was used, with four treatments and six repetitions. All variables were analyzed according to the design used by means of a simple classification ANOVA [52]. Means were compared using Tukey’s test. Additionally, surface response analysis was carried out to assess the linear, quadratic, or cubic effects [52] of the response to treatments. All variables were analyzed using the SAS (version 9.2, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Rumen Degradation and Digestibility of DM and OM

In situ ruminal degradation (Table 2) and in vitro digestibility (Table 3) of DM and OM showed a descending linear effect (p = 0.0001) as the inclusion level of A. mearnsii in the diet increased, with degradation being the higher (p = 0.0001) of the soluble fraction (A), potential degradation (A + B) and effective degradation for the different passage rates in percent hour (0.02, 0.05 and 0.08) in T1, with respect to the other treatments. Ruminal pH did not show differences between treatments in any of the evaluated hours (6 h, 12 h, and 24 h) (p = 0.7078, 0.3319 and 0.8729, respectively) (Table 3).

3.2. Gas, CH4, and CO2 Production

Gas production (p = 0.0001), CH4 (p = 0.0004), and CO2 (p = 0.0063) showed differences between treatments. T1 and T2 showed the lowest values with an approximate mean of 354.5 mL gas/0.500 g fermented DM, 36.5 mL CH4/0.500 g fermented DM, and 151.5 mL CO2/0.500 g fermented DM, respectively, compared to treatments T3 and T4. Showing a linear effect (p < 0.05) to the response of the treatments (Table 4). Gas and CO2 production kinetics (Figure 1A,C, respectively) are observed to start at 3 h with a notable increase until hour 96. However, the production of CH4 in T3 and T4 started at 12 h (Figure 1 B) and in T1 and T2 from approximately 20 h, reaching stabilization in all treatments at 72 h (Figure 1B).

4. Discussion

4.1. Rumen Degradation and Digestibility of DM and OM

The effect of tannins on degradation, digestibility, ruminal fermentation, and CH4 production are closely related to dose, type, source, and molecular weight [24]. In this context, the linear decrease (Table 2) in the potential degradation (A + B), effective degradation, and digestibility (Table 3) of DM and OM observed in T2, T3, and T4 is probably due to the increase of tannin in the diets (Table 1) as a consequence of the incorporation of A. mearnsii and its effect on fiber degradation as a possible response to the formation of tannin–cellulose complexes, reduction of cellulitic microorganisms, and inhibition of the binding capacity of fibrolytic microorganisms on the substrate to be degraded [18]. These are mechanisms that can affect feed intake and productive performance of animals, attributed to the enzymatic inactivity responsible for fiber degradation and subsequent decrease in the rate of feed passage in the rumen [21,53]. Similar results were reported by Kozloski et al. [54], who found lower nutrient digestibility when supplying 20, 40, and 60 g/kg of A. mearnsii tannin in sheep feed. Contrary to this, Avila et al. [42] found no negative effects of the inclusion of tannin from A. mearnsii on the digestibility of DM, OM, and NDF when using doses lower than 20 g/kg DM in the feeding of steers. Something observed in this research, the evident relationship between the content of tannin in the diet and its effect on digestion (Table 2). The ruminal pH reported in this study (Table 3) are consistent with those reported by de Oliveira et al. [55] and Hariadi and Santoso [56], who did not show pH changes in the ruminal fluid due to the addition of tannins and indicated that they are in the optimal range to maintain a balanced cellulolytic activity (pH: 6.7 ± 0.5).

4.2. Gas, CH4, and CO2 Production

The parameters of gas, CH4, and CO2 production observed in T1 and T2 (Table 4 and Figure 1) are probably due to the higher digestion obtained (Table 3) and, on the other hand, to the lower contribution of dihydrogen (H2) used as a substrate for methanogenesis and released in the process of formation of acetic acid from pyruvate [57]. This highlights the direct correlation between the chemical composition of the feed, the digestibility of DM and OM, and accumulation of ruminal H2 and volatile fatty acids (VFA) [58]. These results are consistent with those reported by Makkar [53] and Aragadvay-Yungán et al. [15]. However, the results obtained in treatments T3 and T4 of this study were possibly due to the lower degradation and digestibility of nutrients (Table 2) as an effect of the higher proportion of acacia in the diets. The larger proportion of A. mearnsii resulted in the greater content of tannins (Table 1), and these results are consistent with those reported by Kelln et al. [59]. In addition, the higher production of gas, CH4 and CO2 evidenced in T3 and T4 (Table 2) could be linked to the low digestibility of the fiber as a direct effect of tannin [18], which probably interrupted the binding capacity of the microorganism to the cell wall of the plant and, consequently, inhibited the action of microbial enzymes useful for the degradation of the fibrous component of the substrate [22,60]. This probably decreases the availability of protein located in the cell wall of the forage (fibrolized protein) and, consequently, reduces the ability to synthesize microbial protein [58]. In this context, Blümel et al. [58] showed an inversely proportional relationship between the synthesis of microbial biomass and the volume of gas produced. Evidenced in the present study with a higher production of gas, CH4, and CO2 as the digestibility of the diet decreased (Table 4). These results are consistent with those reported by Henke et al. [32] and Barros-Rodriguez et al. [61].

5. Conclusions

Under the conditions of this study, it was concluded that it is possible to replace traditional forages with up to 20% of A. mearnsii, without observing changes in the production of greenhouse gases with respect to the control treatment (0% of A. mearnsii); however, A. mearnsii is not usable because it significantly decreases rumen degradability of DM and OM, which would considerably affect the production in animals.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.V.-O., V.A.-Y. and M.B.-R.; data tabulation, M.B.-R. and R.L.-O.; writing—review and editing, M.B.-R., E.M.-R., K.C.-B. and C.G.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors thank the financial support from the Research and Development Direction (DIDE, acronym in Spanish) of the Technical University of Ambato, Ecuador, project (PFCAGP19).

Institutional Review Board Statement

All the procedures followed the recommendations of the ARRIVE Guidelines [Kilkenny et al., 2010] and were approved by the Ethical Committee of the Scientific Council of the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at Universidad Central “Marta Abreu” de Las Villas (agreement 17/2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this paper are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the “Universidad Estatal Peninsula de Santa Elena” for facilitating the laboratories and equipment to carry out this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nocek, J.E.; Russell, J. Protein and energy as an integrated system. Relationship of ruminal protein and carbohydrate availability to microbial synthesis and milk production. J. Dairy Sci. 1988, 71, 2070–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lara, P.E.; Canché, M.C.; Magaña, H.; Aguilar, E.; Sanginés, J.R. Producción de gas in vitro y cinética de degradación de harina de forraje de morera (Morus alba) mezclada con maíz. Rev. Cubana Cienc. Agríc. 2009, 43, 273–279. [Google Scholar]
  3. Rojas García, A.R.; Hernández Ayona, A.; Sánchez-Santillán, P.; Alaniz Gutierrez, L.; Torres Salado, N.; Herrera Pérez, J.; Escobar España, J.C. Cinética de fermentación y degradación in vitro de tres leguminosas rastreras nativas del municipio de Cuajinicuilapa, Guerrero. Rev. Investig. Vet. Perú 2018, 29, 1229–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mosisa, A.; Nurfeta, A.; Bezabih, M.; Tolera, A.; Mengistu, S.; Yigrem, S.; Hassen, A. Assessment of botanical composition, biomass yield, nutritional quality and methane production of forages in selected grasslands, southern highlands of Ethiopia. Sci. Afr. 2021, 12, e00726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gerber, P.J.; Hristov, A.N.; Henderson, B.; Makkar, H.; Oh, J.; Lee, C.; Meinen, R.; Montes, F.; Ott, T.; Firkins, J.; et al. Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: A review. Animals 2013, 7, 220–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Johnson, K.A.; Johnson, D.E. Methane emissions from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 2483–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ellis, J.L.; Dijkstra, J.; Kebreab, E.; Bannink, A.; Odongo, N.E.; McBride, B.W.; France, J. Aspects of rumen microbiology central to mechanistic modelling of methane production in cattle. J. Agric. Sci. 2008, 146, 213–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Moumen, A.; Azizi, G.; Chekroun, K.B.; Baghour, M. The effects of livestock methane emission on the global warming: A review. Int. J. Glob. Warm. 2016, 9, 229–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Smith, P.; Reay, D.; Smith, J. Agricultural methane emissions and the potential formitigation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 2021, 379, 20200451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Eugène, M.; Klumpp, K.; Sauvant, D. Methane mitigating options with forages fed to ruminants. Grass Forage Sci. 2021, 76, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021; Available online: https://www.fao.org/gleam/en (accessed on 27 June 2022).
  12. Carmona, J.C.; Bolívar, D.M.; Giraldo, L.A. El gas metano en la producción ganadera y alternativas para medir sus emisiones y aminorar su impacto a nivel ambiental y productivo. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu 2005, 18, 49–63. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bharanidharan, R.; Arokiyaraj, S.; Baik, M.; Ibidhi, R.; Lee, S.J.; Lee, Y.; Kim, K.H. In Vitro Screening of East Asian Plant Extracts for Potential Use in Reducing Ruminal Methane Production. Animals 2021, 11, 1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Barros-Rodríguez, M.; Oña-Rodríguez, J.; Mera-Andrade, R.; Artieda-Rojas, J.; Curay-Quispe, S.; Avilés-Esquivel, D.; Guishca-Cunuhay, C. Degradación ruminal de dietas a base de biomasa pos-cosecha de Amaranthus cruentus: Efecto sobre los protozoos del rumen y producción de gas in vitro. Rev. Investig. Vet. Perú 2017, 28, 812–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aragadvay-Yungán, R.G.; Barros-Rodríguez, M.; Ortiz, L.; Carro, M.D.; Navarro Marcos, C.; Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Salem, A.Z.M. Mitigation of ruminal methane production with enhancing the fermentation by supplementation of different tropical forage legumes. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 29, 3438–3445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Patra, A.K.; Saxena, J. Exploitation of dietary tannins to improve rumen metabolism and ruminant nutrition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bodas, R.; Prieto, N.; García-González, R.; Andrés, S.; Giráldez, F.J.; López, S. Manipulation of rumen fermentation and methane production with plant secondary metabolites. Anim. Feed Sci. Techol. 2012, 176, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Goel, G.; Makkar, H.P. Methane mitigation from ruminants using tannins and saponins. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2012, 44, 729–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hoste, H.; Martinez-Ortiz-De-Montellano, C.; Manolaraki, F.; Brunet, S.; Ojeda-Robertos, N.; Fourquaux, I.; Sandoval-Castro, C.A. Direct and indirect effects of bioactive tannin-rich tropical and temperate legumes against nematode infections. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 186, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Engström, M.T.; Karonen, M.; Ahern, J.R.; Baert, N.; Payré, B.; Hoste, H.; Salminen, J.P. Chemical Structures of Plant Hydrolyzable Tannins Reveal Their in vitro Activity against Egg Hatching and Motility of Haemonchus contortus Nematodes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 840–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Waghorn, G. Beneficial and detrimental effects of dietary condensed tannins for sustainable sheep and goat production-Progress and challenges. Anim. Feed Sci. Techol. 2008, 147, 116–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ku-Vera, J.C.; Jiménez-Ocampo, R.; Valencia-Salazar, S.S.; Montoya-Flores, M.D.; Molina-Botero, I.C.; Arango, J.; Solorio Sánchez, F.J. Role of secondary plant metabolites on enteric methane mitigation in ruminants. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rubanza, C.D.K.; Shem, M.N.; Otsyina, R.; Bakengesa, S.S.; Ichinohe, T.; Fujihara, T. Polyphenolics and tannins effect on in vitro digestibility of selected Acacia species leaves. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2005, 119, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aboagye, I.A.; Beauchemin, K.A. Potential of molecular weight and structure of tannins to reduce methane emissions from ruminants: A review. Animals 2019, 9, 856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Espinoza-Velasco, B.; Mella, M.R. Vegetable tannins, ruminal microbiota and ruminant metabolism interaction. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2022, 25, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Saminathan, M.; Sieo, C.C.; Abdullah, N.; Wong, C.M.V.L.; Ho, Y.W. Effects of condensed tannin fractions of different molecular weights from a Leucaena leucocephala hybrid on in vitro methane production and rumen fermentation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 2742–2749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lamy, E.; Rawel, H.; Schweigert, F.J.; Capela e Silva, F.; Ferreira, A.; Costa, A.R.; Antunes, C.; Almeida, A.; Varela, A.; Sales-Baptista, E. The effect of tannins on Mediterranean ruminant ingestive behavior: The role of the oral cavity. Molecules 2011, 16, 2766–2784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Min, B.R.; Barry, T.N.; Attwood, G.T.; McNabb, W.C. The effect of condensed tannins on the nutrition and health of ruminants fed fresh temperate forages: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Techol. 2003, 106, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Reed, J.D. Nutritional toxicology of tannins and related polyphenols in forage legumes. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 1516–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Silanikove, N.; Perevolotsky, A.; Provenza, F.D. Use of tannin-binding chemicals to assay for tannins and their negative postingestive effects in ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Techol. 2001, 91, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Robins, C.; Brooker, J.D. The effects of Acacia aneura feeding on abomasal and intestinal structure and function in sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Techol. 2005, 121, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Henke, A.; Dickhoefer, U.; Westreicher-Kristen, E.; Knappstein, K.; Molkentin, J.; Hasler, M.; Susenbeth, A. Effect of dietary Quebracho tannin extract on feed intake, digestibility, excretion of urinary purine derivatives and milk production in dairy cows. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 2017, 71, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Garg, S.K.; Makkar, H.P.; Nagal, K.B.; Sharma, S.K.; Wadhwa, D.R.; Singh, B. Oak (Quercus incana) leaf poisoning in cattle. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 1992, 34, 161–164. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lamy, E.; Rodrigues, L.; Guerreiro, O.; Soldado, D.; Francisco, A.; Lima, M.; Capela e Silva, F.; Lopes, O.; Santos-Silva, J.; Jerónimo, E. Changes in salivary protein composition of lambs supplemented with aerial parts and condensed tannins: Extract from Cistus ladanifer L.—A preliminary study. Agroforest. Syst. 2020, 94, 1501–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ahmed, E.; Fukuma, N.; Hanada, M.; Nishida, T. The Efficacy of Plant-Based Bioactives Supplementation to Different Proportion of Concentrate Diets on Methane Production and Rumen Fermentation Characteristics In Vitro. Animals 2021, 11, 1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Fagundes, G.M.; Benetel, G.; Carriero, M.M.; Sousa, R.L.M.; Muir, J.P.; Macedo, R.O.; Bueno, I.C.S. Tannin-rich forage as a methane mitigation strategy for cattle and the implications for rumen microbiota. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2021, 61, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Honan, M.; Feng, X.; Tricarico, J.M.; Kebreab, E. Feed additives as a strategic approach to reduce enteric methane production in cattle: Modes of action, effectiveness and safety. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2021, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. de Souza Congio, G.F.; Bannink, A.; Mogollón, O.L.M.; Jaurena, G.; Gonda, H.; Gere, J.I.; Hristov, A.N. Enteric methane mitigation strategies for ruminant livestock systems in the Latin America and Caribbean region: A meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Carulla, J.E.; Kreuzer, M.; Machmüller, A.; Hess, H.D. Supplementation of Acacia mearnsii tannins decreases methanogenesis and urinary nitrogen in forage-fed sheep. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2005, 56, 961–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Correia, R.; Quintela, J.C.; Duarte, M.P.; Gonçalves, M. Insights for the valorization of biomass from portuguese invasive Acacia spp. in a biorefinery perspective. Forests 2020, 11, 1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hassanpour, S.; Baghbani Mehmandar, F. Anthelmintic effects of Acacia mearnsii (wattle tannin) in small ruminants; a review. J. Comp. Clin. Path Res. 2012, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  42. Avila, A.S.; Zambom, M.A.; Faccenda, A.; Fischer, M.L.; Anschau, F.A.; Venturini, T.; Faciola, A.P. Effects of black wattle (Acacia mearnsii) condensed tannins on intake, protozoa population, ruminal fermentation, and nutrient digestibility in Jersey steers. Animals 2020, 10, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Maamouri, O.; Atti, N.; Kraiem, K.; Mahouachi, M. Effects of concentrate and Acacia cyanophylla foliage supplementation on nitrogen balance and milk production of grazing ewes. Livest. Sci. 2011, 139, 264–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ørskov, E.R.; Hovell, D.; Mould, F. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Trop. Anim. Prod. 1980, 5, 195–213. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ørskov, E.R.; McDonald, I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J. Agric. Sci. 1979, 92, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Menke, K.H.; Steingass, H. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim. Res. Dev. 1988, 28, 7–55. [Google Scholar]
  47. Theodorou, M.K.; Williams, B.A.; Dhanoa, M.S.; Mcallan, A.B.; France, J. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminants feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Techol. 1994, 48, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Elghandour, M.M.Y.; Rodríguez-Ocampo, I.; Parra-Garcia, A.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Greiner, R.; Marquez-Molina, O.; Barros-Rodriguez, M.; Barbabosa-Pilego, A. Biogas production from prickly pear cactus containing diets supplemented with Moringa oleifera leaf extract for a cleaner environmental livestock production. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 547–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Groot, J.C.; Cone, J.W.; Williams, B.A.; Debersaques, F.M.; Lantinga, E.A. Multiphasic analysis of gas production kinetics for in vitro fermentation of ruminant feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Techol. 1996, 64, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  51. Price, M.L.; Van Scoyoc, S.; Butler, L.G. A critical evaluation of the vanillin reaction assay for tannin in sorghum grain. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1978, 26, 1214–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Steel, R.G.D.; Torrie, J.H.; Dickey, D.A. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  53. Makkar, H.P.S. Effects and fate of tannins in ruminant animals, adaptation to tannins, and strategies to overcome detrimental effects of feeding tannin-rich feeds. Small Rumin. Res. 2003, 49, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kozloski, G.V.; Härter, C.J.; Hentz, F.; de Ávila, S.C.; Orlandi, T.; Stefanello, C.M. Intake, digestibility and nutrients supply to wethers fed ryegrass and intraruminally infused with levels of Acacia mearnsii tannin extract. Small Rumin. Res. 2012, 106, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. de Oliveira, S.G.; Berchielli, T.T.; dos Santos Pedreira, M.; Primavesi, O.; Frighetto, R.; Lima, M.A. Effect of tannin levels in sorghum silage and concentrate supplementation on apparent digestibility and methane emission in beef cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Techol. 2007, 135, 236–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hariadi, B.T.; Santoso, B. Evaluation of tropical plants containing tannin on in vitro methanogenesis and fermentation parameters using rumen fluid. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 456–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Jayanegara, A.; Leiber, F.; Kreuzer, M. Meta-analysis of the relationship between dietary tannin level and methane formation in ruminants from in vivo and in vitro experiments. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2012, 96, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Blümmel, M.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. In vitro gas production: A technique revisited. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 1997, 77, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kelln, B.M.; Penner, G.B.; Acharya, S.N.; McAllister, T.A.; Lardner, H.A. Impact of condensed tannin-containing legumes on ruminal fermentation, nutrition, and performance in ruminants: A review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 101, 210–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vasta, V.; Daghio, M.; Cappucci, A.; Buccioni, A.; Serra, A.; Viti, C.; Mele, O. Invited review: Plant polyphenols and rumen microbiota responsible for fatty acid biohydrogenation, fiber digestion, and methane emission: Experimental evidence and methodological approaches. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 3781–3804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Barros-Rodríguez, M.A.; Solorio-Sánchez, F.J.; Sandoval-Castro, C.A.; Klieve, A.; Rojas-Herrera, R.A.; Briceño-Poot, E.G.; Ku-Vera, J.C. Rumen function in vivo and in vitro in sheep fed Leucaena leucocephala. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2015, 47, 757–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 12 02250 g001a 550Animals 12 02250 g001b 550
Figure 1. Gas (A), CH4 (B), and CO2 (C) production kinetics of diets with increasing levels of A mearnsii. T1: diet 0% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T2: diet 20% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T3: diet 40% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T4: diet 60% inclusion of A. mearnsii.
Figure 1. Gas (A), CH4 (B), and CO2 (C) production kinetics of diets with increasing levels of A mearnsii. T1: diet 0% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T2: diet 20% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T3: diet 40% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T4: diet 60% inclusion of A. mearnsii.
Animals 12 02250 g001aAnimals 12 02250 g001b
Table
Table 1. Experimental treatments and chemical composition (% except where otherwise noted) of diets with increasing levels of Acacia mearnsii.
Table 1. Experimental treatments and chemical composition (% except where otherwise noted) of diets with increasing levels of Acacia mearnsii.
ItemsTreatments
T1T2T3T4
Forage meal (A. mearnsii)0.0020.0040.0060.00
Forage meal (L. perenne)66.4554.2842.1029.93
Forage meal (M. sativa)33.5525.7217.9010.07
Chemical composition
Dry matter88.6789.3790.0890.80
Organic matter90.3991.2192.0492.86
Crude protein19.0020.1020.0121.21
Ether extract3.513.353.193.03
Neutral detergent fiber43.7741.2740.7739.28
Acid detergent fiber23.5423.9424.3424.74
Metabolizable energy (MJ/kg DM)9.219.209.209.19
Condensed tannins03.566.037.97
T1: diet 0% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T2: diet 20% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T3: diet 40% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T4: diet 60% inclusion of A. mearnsii.
Table
Table 2. In situ rumen degradation kinetics and in vitro digestibility (DM and OM) of diets with increasing levels of A. mearnsii (except where otherwise noted).
Table 2. In situ rumen degradation kinetics and in vitro digestibility (DM and OM) of diets with increasing levels of A. mearnsii (except where otherwise noted).
TreatmentSEp-ValueContrasts
T1T2T3T4LQC
Degradation DM
A45.6 a40.3 b34.7 c29.6 d1.160.00010.00010.90330.9142
B44.1 a40.0 a37.5 a37.4 a1.850.06410.01440.26520.8983
c0.05 a0.05 a0.04 a0.04 a0.0070.32100.07770.78020.6712
A + B89.8 a80.2 b72.1 c67.1 c2.010.00010.00010.27180.8570
Effective Degradation *
0.0277.0 a68.1 b58.7 c51.0 d0.940.00010.00010.53600.5790
0.0567.8 a59.6 b50.6 c43.6 d1.060.00010.00010.55830.5504
0.0862.9 a55.1 b46.6 c40.1 d0.960.00010.00010.50390.5245
Degradation OM
A43.2 a38.3 b32.6 c29.0 c1.190.00010.00010.58960.5824
B46.5 a41.5 a38.7 a38.9 a2.270.08100.01950.26310.9205
c0.06 a0.05 a0.04 a0.04 a0.010.25130.05170.85500.7429
A + B89.7 a79.8 b71.2 b. c67.9 c2.450.00010.00010.19770.7189
Effective Degradation *
0.0276.7 a67.6 b57.8 c50.5 d0.950.00010.00010.32470.4577
0.0567.1 a58.7 b49.3 c43.0 d1.080.00010.00010.36340.4193
0.0861.8 a54.0 b45.2 c39.5 d0.980.00010.00010.29260.3563
a–d Means with different letter between rows differ significantly (p < 0.05). T1: diet 0% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T2: diet 20% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T3: diet 40% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T4: diet 60% inclusion of A. mearnsii. A: degradation of the soluble fraction, B: degradation of the insoluble but potentially degradable fraction, c: degradation rate in % per hour, A + B: degradation potential. *: effective degradation at ruminal passage rates of 2, 5, and 8% for hour. DM: dry matter, OM: organic matter, L: linear contrast, Q: quadratic contrast, C: cubic contrast, SE: standard error.
Table
Table 3. In vitro digestibility (DM and OM) of diets with increasing levels of A. mearnsii (%, except where otherwise noted) and pH.
Table 3. In vitro digestibility (DM and OM) of diets with increasing levels of A. mearnsii (%, except where otherwise noted) and pH.
TreatmentSEp-ValueContrasts
T1T2T3T4LQC
Digestibility
DM74.8 a58.1 a b41.5 b20.7 c4.570.00010.00010.91150.7292
OM77.1 a59.5 a b41.5 b20.6 c4.930.00010.00010.69180.9360
pH
6 h6.98 a7.00 a6.98 a6.97 a0.020.70780.56130.37460.6364
12 h6.95 a7.00 a7.00 a7.02 a0.030.33190.10090.51610.6338
24 h7.26 a7.23 a7.28 a7.29 a0.060.87290.56070.79400.6048
a–c Means with different letter between rows differ significantly (p < 0.05). T1: diet 0% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T2: diet 20% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T3: diet 40% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T4: diet 60% inclusion of A. mearnsii. DM: dry matter, OM: organic matter, L: linear contrast, Q: quadratic contrast, C: cubic contrast, SE: standard error.
Table
Table 4. Gas, CH4, and CO2 production parameters (mL/0.500 g fermented DM) of diets with increasing levels of A mearnsii.
Table 4. Gas, CH4, and CO2 production parameters (mL/0.500 g fermented DM) of diets with increasing levels of A mearnsii.
TreatmentSEp-ValueContrasts
T1T2T3T4LQC
Gas production
GV (mL)360.9 c434.7 c561.3 b944.1 a20.800.00010.00010.00010.0404
B28.9 a29.4 a35.8 a38.6 a3.290.13400.02680.71620.5274
c1.0 a0.9 a b0.8 b c0.8 c0.020.00010.00010.83720.7898
CH4 production
GV (mL)116.7 b c107.7 c141.8 a b156.1 a7.260.00040.00010.12490.0671
B39.9 a39.1 a37.8 a33.2 b1.070.00130.00030.09750.5768
c4.8 a6.0 a5.7 a5.1 a0.410.19380.71800.04120.6001
CO2 production
GV (mL)170.9 b189.7 b229.7 a b425.4 a49.750.00630.00170.09050.5528
B108.8 a105.9 a106.5 a132.5 a33.500.93150.63770.67090.8856
c1.1 a1.0 a1.0 a0.9 a0.050.27390.06740.60850.6846
a–c Means with different letter between rows differ significantly (p < 0.05). T1: diet 0% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T2: diet 20% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T3: diet 40% inclusion of A. mearnsii, T4: diet 60% inclusion of A. mearnsii. GV, B, and c: the parameters of the mL gas equation CH4 or CO2 = GV (1 + (B/t)C)−1 (Groot et al., 1996) (see text). L, linear contrast; Q, quadratic contrast; C, cubic contrast; SE, standard error.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vargas-Ortiz, L.; Andrade-Yucailla, V.; Barros-Rodríguez, M.; Lima-Orozco, R.; Macías-Rodríguez, E.; Contreras-Barros, K.; Guishca-Cunuhay, C. Influence of Acacia Mearnsii Fodder on Rumen Digestion and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production. Animals 2022, 12, 2250. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172250

AMA Style

Vargas-Ortiz L, Andrade-Yucailla V, Barros-Rodríguez M, Lima-Orozco R, Macías-Rodríguez E, Contreras-Barros K, Guishca-Cunuhay C. Influence of Acacia Mearnsii Fodder on Rumen Digestion and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production. Animals. 2022; 12(17):2250. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172250

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vargas-Ortiz, Luis, Veronica Andrade-Yucailla, Marcos Barros-Rodríguez, Raciel Lima-Orozco, Edis Macías-Rodríguez, Katherine Contreras-Barros, and Carlos Guishca-Cunuhay. 2022. "Influence of Acacia Mearnsii Fodder on Rumen Digestion and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production" Animals 12, no. 17: 2250. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172250

APA Style

Vargas-Ortiz, L., Andrade-Yucailla, V., Barros-Rodríguez, M., Lima-Orozco, R., Macías-Rodríguez, E., Contreras-Barros, K., & Guishca-Cunuhay, C. (2022). Influence of Acacia Mearnsii Fodder on Rumen Digestion and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production. Animals, 12(17), 2250. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172250

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop