Next Article in Journal
The Selection of Reference Genes for Quantitative Real-Time PCR in the Ashidan Yak Mammary Gland During Lactation and Dry Period
Next Article in Special Issue
Volatile Fatty Acids in Ruminal Fluid Can Be Used to Predict Methane Yield of Dairy Cows
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Farm Management for Calves on Growth Performance and Meat Quality Traits Duration Fattening of Simmental Bulls and Heifers
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Lipid-Encapsulated Acacia Tannin Extract on Feed Intake, Nutrient Digestibility and Methane Emission in Sheep
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 9
Issue 11
10.3390/ani9110942
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:
Review

The Role of Chitosan as a Possible Agent for Enteric Methane Mitigation in Ruminants

by
Rafael Jiménez-Ocampo
1,
Sara Valencia-Salazar
2,
Carmen Elisa Pinzón-Díaz
3,
Esperanza Herrera-Torres
3,
Carlos Fernando Aguilar-Pérez
1,
Jacobo Arango
4 and
Juan Carlos Ku-Vera
1,*
1
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of Yucatan, Carretera Merida-Xmatkuil km 15.5. Apdo. 4-116 Itzimna, C.P. 97100 Merida, Yucatan, Mexico
2
College of the Southern Border (ECOSUR), Livestock and Environment, Carretera Panamericana—Periferico Sur, C.P. 29290 San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
3
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Juarez University of Durango, Carr Durango—Mezquital km 11.5, C.P. 34307 Durango, Mexico
4
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), km 17, Recta Cali-Palmira, Palmira C.P. 763537 Valle del Cauca, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2019, 9(11), 942; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110942
Submission received: 28 September 2019 / Revised: 21 October 2019 / Accepted: 6 November 2019 / Published: 9 November 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Reducing Enteric Methane Emissions from Ruminants)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Ruminant husbandry is one the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector, particularly of methane gas, which is a byproduct of the anaerobic fermentation of structural and non-structural carbohydrates in the rumen. Increasing the efficiency of production systems and decreasing its environmental burden is a global commitment, thus methane mitigation is a strategy in which to reach these goals by rechanneling metabolic hydrogen (H2) into volatile fatty acids (VFA) to reduce the loss of energy as methane in the rumen, which ranges from 2% (grain rations) to 12% (poor-quality forage rations) of gross energy intake. A strategy to achieve that goal may be through the manipulation of rumen fermentation with natural compounds such as chitosan. In this review, we describe the effects of chitosan on feed intake and rumen fermentation, and present some results on methanogenesis. The main compounds with antimethanogenic properties are the secondary metabolites, which are generally classified into five main groups: saponins, tannins, essential oils, organosulfurized compounds, and flavonoids. Novel compounds of interest include chitosan obtained by the deacetylation of chitin, with beneficial properties such as biocompatibility, biodegradability, non-toxicity, and chelation of metal ions. This compound has shown its potential to modify the rumen microbiome, improve nitrogen (N) metabolism, and mitigate enteric methane (CH4) under some circumstances. Further evaluations in vivo are necessary at different doses in ruminant species as well as the economic evaluation of its incorporation in practical rations.

Abstract

Livestock production is a main source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG). The main gases are CH4 with a global warming potential (GWP) 25 times and nitrous oxide (N2O) with a GWP 298 times, that of carbon dioxide (CO2) arising from enteric fermentation or from manure management, respectively. In fact, CH4 is the second most important GHG emitted globally. This current scenario has increased the concerns about global warming and encouraged the development of intensive research on different natural compounds to be used as feed additives in ruminant rations and modify the rumen ecosystem, fermentation pattern, and mitigate enteric CH4. The compounds most studied are the secondary metabolites of plants, which include a vast array of chemical substances like polyphenols and saponins that are present in plant tissues of different species, but the results are not consistent, and the extraction cost has constrained their utilization in practical animal feeding. Other new compounds of interest include polysaccharide biopolymers such as chitosan, mainly obtained as a marine co-product. As with other compounds, the effect of chitosan on the rumen microbial population depends on the source, purity, dose, process of extraction, and storage. In addition, it is important to identify compounds without adverse effects on rumen fermentation. The present review is aimed at providing information about chitosan for dietary manipulation to be considered for future studies to mitigate enteric methane and reduce the environmental impact of GHGs arising from livestock production systems. Chitosan is a promising agent with methane mitigating effects, but further research is required with in vivo models to establish effective daily doses without any detrimental effect to the animal and consider its addition in practical rations as well as the economic cost of methane mitigation.

1. Introduction

Mitigation of enteric methane production in ruminants results in two main advantages: the first is that CH4 is a short-lived climate forcer that remains for only 12.2 years in the atmosphere when compared with CO2, which remains for decades [1,2]. The second advantage is that methane mitigation will increase the efficiency of production in livestock systems, particularly those that include ruminants [3]. Conditions within the rumen are favorable for the hydrogenotrophic methanogens (Methanobrevibacter, Methanomicrobium, Methanosphaera, Methanosarcina, Methanobacterium, and rumen cluster C) [4] that reduce CO2 with the metabolic H2 produced (87–90% in the rumen) during anaerobic fermentation of glucose, which results in the synthesis of CH4 [5,6] and the remaining 10 to 13% that is generated in the hindgut [7]. Methane is eructated in large amounts by all ruminant species and has a gross energy content of 55.65 MJ per kilogram [8]. Emissions of enteric CH4 vary according to dry matter intake, growth rate, housing, live weight, level of production, ration composition, and rumen fermentation pattern [9,10]. Ration and type of feed affect the availability of metabolic hydrogen for CH4 synthesis in the rumen; feeding concentrate and grains (low fiber diets) reduce the population of methanogens (range 107 to 109 g−1) while more propionic acid is synthesized, which utilizes H2, whereas pasture-fed (methanogens 109 to 1010 g−1) ruminants yield higher concentrations of acetic acid in rumen liquor, resulting in a higher availability of metabolic H2 [11]. However, high-grain levels in rations can decrease rumen pH and result in health problems in ruminants such as acidosis [5,10,11]. During the last decade, methane mitigation strategies have been the subject of intensive study by several research groups [12]. Strategies for CH4 mitigation that have been evaluated are varied and include the inoculation of exogenous bacterial strains [13], vaccine development, biological control, prebiotics, probiotics [6], defaunation (protozoa or methanogens), and the identification of natural compounds in plants used as feed additives [14]. These are not always applicable in practice and the results of some strategies have shown some variability [15], with variation attributed to the concentration of the compound of interest in the foliage, pods, or extracts, interaction or agonistic compounds, growth stage, climate conditions, manipulation compounds, in vitro or in vivo experiments, daily intake, and bioavailability [16,17]. Dietary manipulation is of relevance because the diet of animals has a great influence on the production of methane [3,10,18]; therefore, in the last decade, more intensive research on natural compounds for livestock has increased with the objective of reducing rumen CH4 without affecting rumen fermentation and energy utilization mainly in in vitro trials [19,20].
Plants produce a wide variety of bioactive compounds and secondary metabolites [21]. Some of them have been shown to be useful for manipulating some metabolic processes in ruminants and selectively modulating microbial populations in the rumen, allowing for an improvement in fermentation, nitrogen metabolism, and in reducing methane production [22]. There is evidence that certain natural compounds have the potential to mitigate methane production in different species of ruminants and improve their productive functions (meat or milk), even with the use of different diets [23]. A range of feed additives including antibiotics has achieved a reduction of methane, but the regulatory law prohibits the use of these compounds (European Union Regulation 1831/2003/EC 2006) in some countries because of the lack of social acceptance, residues in food products, and resistant strains of pathogens, which has increased the necessity of finding natural compounds [6,24,25]. There has been growing interest in utilizing natural compounds as a novel strategy to mitigate CH4 by selectively targeting rumen methanogens, inhibit protozoa, stimulate propionate production, and use alternative H2 sinks. The conditions for using natural compounds are that they should be safe for use in animals and humans, be effective in the long-term with different raw feedstuffs, have a low cost to reduce emissions from ruminants, and increase productivity in the livestock system. The initial research process with the evaluation of the phytochemical or natural compounds started with the in vitro screening and the second step consisted of experiments in vivo. Results of the in vitro experiments with dietary additives have shown to be inconsistent between experiments [26] and discrepancies exist when evaluated directly under in vivo conditions. However, the use of chitosan as a feed additive has demonstrated its potential in productive performance, nutrient utilization efficiency, increased protein, lactose, and unsaturated fatty acid concentration in the milk of cows under in vivo conditions [27,28,29].

2. Chitosan

Chitosan is a linear polysaccharide composed of two repeated units, D-glucosamine and N-acetyl-D-glucosamine, linked by β-(1→4)-linkages, characterized in terms of intrinsic properties such as molecular weight, viscosity, and degree of deacetylation (Figure 1). Chitosan is a collective name for a group of the partially or fully deacetylated biopolymer chitin, it is a natural compound, non-toxic, biocompatible, biodegradable, bioactive, muco-adhesive, and has been identified as safe for use in food in Japan (1983), Korea (1995), and the United States (Food and Drug Administration; 2012). It is a high molecular weight poly-cationic polymer, the second most abundant polysaccharide in nature, and is present in the structural exoskeleton of insects, crustaceans, mollusks, cell walls of fungi, and certain algae, but largely obtained from marine crustaceans [30]. Several gigatons of crustacean shell are produced annually and the extraction of chitin (106–107 tons), chitosan, and protein from this waste has added value [31,32]. It has antimicrobial properties against bacteria, filamentous fungi, and yeast, and even has virus, anti-inflammatory, antitumor activity, antioxidative activity, anticholesterolemic, hemostatic, and analgesic effects [33,34]. The application of chitosan either alone or blended with other natural polymers can be done in several ways such as silage inoculants, food processing, food preservation, textile, biotechnology, water treatment, pharmaceutical, tissue engineering, and the cosmetics industry [35,36]. Recent research in animal nutrition has focused on its potential to modulate rumen fermentation in beef or dairy cattle [37,38,39,40,41] and nutrient digestibility in cattle. The chitosan extraction process can be carried out in a chemical or biological way. The chemical method at an industrial scale starts with demineralization to eliminate the calcium carbonate and calcium chloride; deproteinization; decolorization (mainly astaxanthin and β-carotene); and finally alkaline deacetylation using sodium or potassium hydroxide [35,42,43]. The biological way, which is considered environmentally safe, uses lactic acid for demineralization, deproteinization by proteases, decoloration with acetone or organic solvents, and finally deacetylation by bacteria. In recent years, new extraction methodologies have been developed with the use of microwave irradiation [43]. The quality of the final product depends upon the raw material (crustaceans species), process of extraction, and seasonal variations [36,44].

3. Antimicrobial Mechanism

Recent research emphasizes the search for natural products with antimicrobial activity, low price, and high availability to reduce the use of chemicals and avoid drug resistance [45,46]. Chitosan has a broad spectrum of activity against different fungi, suppressing sporulation and spore germination, Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, but lower toxicity toward mammalian cells (Figure 2). The antimicrobial mechanism of chitosan is complex and has not been fully described, however, the proposed mechanisms include interactions at the cell surface and outer membrane through electrostatic interactions or divalent cations, the replacement of Mg2 and Ca2 ions, the destabilization of cell membrane and leakage of intracellular substances, and the death of cells [28,47]. Other mechanisms that have been suggested are its chelating capacity in acid or neutral conditions for various metal ions including Ni2, Zn2, Co2, Fe2, Mg2, and Cu2 [48,49], and the inhibition of mRNA and protein synthesis in cell nuclei [50]. Bacteria appear to be generally less sensitive to the antimicrobial action of chitosan than fungi, regardless of the type of Gram or bacterial species [34]. The antimicrobial capacity involves intrinsic factors like molecular weight (depending on bacterial strains), hydrophilicity, crystallinity, solubility, and degree of deacetylation of the parent chitosan. Extrinsic factors include pH pka (6.3–6.5), ionic strength in the medium [51], temperature, and storage [36,52].

4. Effects of Chitosan in in Vitro Experiments

Chitosan has shown effects on feed intake, digestion, fermentation, and enteric methane production, however, the results generally disagree between the in vitro and in vivo studies (Table 1; Figure 3). In the in vitro tests, Belanche [39] found that chitosan changed rumen fermentation pattern and increased propionate production, decreasing cellulolytic bacteria such as Fibrobacter, Butyrivibrio, and Ruminococcus, hemicellulolytic bacteria such as Eubacterium, and increased amylolytic bacteria. This led us to speculate that the electrostatic interaction of chitosan and the destabilization of the cell membrane inhibited methanogens or metabolic pathways of methane synthesis and reduced methane production by 10 to 42%, increasing propionic acid and lactate as the fermentation products as a result of the use of chito-oligosaccharides as carbon sources by rumen microbiota [53]. That report (Belanche) [39] disagrees with the results of Goiri [53,54,55], who tested different types of chitosan (with respect to the degree of deacetylation and molecular weight) at doses that did not affect the total volatile fatty acid production, but decreased true organic matter digestibility. These results could be related to its antimicrobial effect, since chitosan (85% degree of deacetylation, 200 mPas viscosity) reduced methane and maintained the volume of methane produced during incubation time. The previous results agree with those reported by Puspita [56]. Goiri [55] showed that chitosan was very effective in inhibiting biohydrogenation in vitro by increasing C18:1 t11 and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) proportions regardless of fatty acids in the diet. These results can be related to the interaction with negatively charged free fatty acids, and supports the contention that chitosan alters rumen protozoa population, which agrees with the reports by Wencelová [57], who found that chitosan did not affect fatty acid profile, linoleic acid, and trans-vaccenic acid, and decreased dry matter digestibility and total gas production, and showed a slight effect on methane production.

5. Effects of Chitosan in In Vivo Experiments

5.1. Dry Matter Intake

Most of the reports showed that chitosan does not affect dry matter intake [29,38,41,57,58,59]. However, Dias [28] reported that in grazing beef steers supplemented with chitosan (0, 400, 800, 1200, or 1600 mg/kg DM), the increment recorded in dry matter intake (DMI) was probably associated with the increase in crude protein (CP) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) digestibility. On the other hand, Rodrigues [37], using Jersey heifers fed chitosan at 2.0 g/kg DM, observed a reduction in DMI, increased DM, CP, and NDF digestibilities, and reduced methane synthesis by an improved feed efficiency when chitosan was included as a feed additive.

5.2. Rumen Fermentation Pattern

Chitosan modified the rumen fermentation pattern by increasing propionic acid and decreasing the acetate:propionate ratio [28,29,59,60]. Increased propionate production could be explained by the reduction of Gram-positive bacteria [37]. Changes in molar proportions of VFA in the rumen when chitosan is used as a feed additive is conducive toward an improvement in the efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy for growth (kf) [61], which may lead to better animal performance and reduction in methane synthesis [62]. Thus, chitosan seems to work in the rumen much in the way as when grain (starch) is incorporated in the ration, by shifting the pattern of fermentation to a more propionic acid type of fermentation. Supplementation of chitosan improves feed efficiency of lactating cows, and increases the concentration of unsaturated fatty acids and cis-9,trans-11 CLA (rumenic acid; 18:2) [63] in milk. Del Valle [27] also reported an increase in nitrogen and energetic efficiency and reduced urinary nitrogen excretion [37]. Nitrogen utilization can be related to the reduction of the deamination rate of amino acids in the rumen and their absorption in the duodenum, which results in an overall improvement in the efficiency of N utilization. Mingoti [52] worked with dairy cows in mid-lactation and found that 100 and 150 mg of chitosan per kg body weight improved digestibility of crude protein, probably related to the proteolytic processes by ruminal bacteria or due to altered fermentation, although the mechanism remains unclear. Chitosan has no effect on rumen pH [28,29,38].

5.3. Rumen Microbial Population

The information presented has shown that chitosan exerts greater bactericidal effects against Gram-positive rather than on Gram-negative bacteria [64]. This antimicrobial action is enhanced at low pH values [64]. According to Zanferari [63], chitosan in dairy cows fed without lipid supplementation decreased bacterial species such as the Butyrivibrio group and B. proteoclasticus related to the rumen biohydrogenation and reduced milk yield, although it increased the concentration in milk of unsaturated fatty acids (UFA) and cis-9,trans-11 CLA. Moreover, supplementing chitosan and soybean oil resulted in an antagonism that affected productive performance [63]. There is a lack of information in relation to rumen microbial population and their modifications with the use of different concentrations of chitosan. More work is required in this field since it could lead to improvements in our understanding of the effects of this feed additive.

5.4. Enteric Methane Emissions

The number of experiments to quantify methane emissions when chitosan is added to a ration is limited (Table 1). Henry [41], working with the SF6 technique, reported that inclusion levels of chitosan of 0.5 and 1.0% of DM showed no effect on enteric CH4 production in cattle. They recorded differences between the fed, high concentrate diet since heifers produced almost 2.5 times less CH4 than the low concentrate ration [65].

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, the present review shows the lack of agreement between the experiments carried out to date, resulting in insufficient conclusive information on the methane mitigation potential of chitosan. However, the experiments performed show improved animal performance and nutrient utilization efficiency, increased propionate production, a reduced acetate:propionate ratio, and increased unsaturated fatty acid concentration in milk. Chitosan could be considered as a promising natural and abundant agent for enteric methane mitigation. The information reviewed suggests that chitosan can be used as a modulator of the fermentation pattern in the rumen, but future work should be aimed at exploring, under in vivo conditions, the synergistic or antagonistic effects with other feeds or nutrients such as lipids, pH effect, and the effect in different ruminant species as well as clarify the optimal doses, elucidate the antimicrobial mode of action at a molecular level, and quantify methane yield in experiments with greater accuracy such as with the respiration chamber or sulfur hexafluoride techniques.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.J.-O. and J.C.K.-V.; Writing—original draft preparation, R.J.-O. and S.V.-S.; Writing—review and editing, C.E.P.-D., C.F.A.-P. and E.H.-T.; Visualization, C.E.P.-D.; Supervision, J.A.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Benchaar, C.; Greathead, H. Essential oils and opportunities to mitigate enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 338–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lassey, K.R. Livestock methane emission and its perspective in the global methane cycle. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008, 48, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Johnson, K.A.; Johnson, D.E. Methane emissions from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 2483–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hill, J.; McSweeney, C.; Wright, A.-D.G.; Bishop-Hurley, G.; Kalantar-zadeh, K. Measuring Methane Production from Ruminants. Trends Biotechnol. 2016, 34, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mirzaei-Aghsaghali, A.; Maheri-Sis, N. Factors affecting mitigation of methane emission from ruminants: Microbiology and biotechnology strategies. J. Anim. Behav. Biometeorol. 2015, 4, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Takahashi, J. Prophylactic Modulation of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emitted from Ruminants Livestock for Sustainable Animal Agriculture. Media Peternak. 2014, 37, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kebreab, E.; Clark, K.; Wagner-Riddle, C.; France, J. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from Canadian animal agriculture: A review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 86, 135–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cottle, D.J.; Nolan, J.V.; Wiedemann, S.G. Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: A review. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2011, 51, 491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hammond, K.J.; Crompton, L.A.; Bannink, A.; Dijkstra, J.; Yáñez-Ruiz, D.R.; O’Kiely, P.; Kebreab, E.; Eugène, M.A.; Yu, Z.; Shingfield, K.J.; et al. Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quantifying enteric methane emission from ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 219, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Broucek, J. Options to methane production abatement in ruminants: A review. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2018, 28, 348–364. [Google Scholar]
  11. Qiao, J.; Tan, Z.; Wang, M. Potential and existing mechanisms of enteric methane production in ruminants. Sci. Agric. 2014, 71, 430–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Hristov, A.N.; Oh, J.; Firkins, J.L.; Dijkstra, J.; Kebreab, E.; Waghorn, G.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Adesogan, A.T.; Yang, W.; Lee, C.; et al. SPECIAL TOPICS—Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options1. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 5045–5069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kim, E.T.; Kim, C.-H.; Min, K.-S.; Lee, S.S. Effects of Plant Extracts on Microbial Population, Methane Emission and Ruminal Fermentation Characteristics in In vitro. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 25, 806–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Patra, A.K. The effect of dietary fats on methane emissions, and its other effects on digestibility, rumen fermentation and lactation performance in cattle: A meta-analysis. Livest. Sci. 2013, 155, 244–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Knapp, J.R.; Laur, G.L.; Vadas, P.A.; Weiss, W.P.; Tricarico, J.M. Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 3231–3261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Mrduljaš, N.; Krešić, G.; Bilušić, T. Polyphenols: Food Sources and Health Benefits. In Functional Food—Improve Health through Adequate Food; Hueda, M.C., Ed.; InTech: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-953-51-3439-8. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  17. Roque, B.M.; Salwen, J.K.; Kinley, R.; Kebreab, E. Inclusion of Asparagopsis armata in lactating dairy cows’ diet reduces enteric methane emission by over 50 percent. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wallace, R.J.; Rooke, J.A.; Duthie, C.-A.; Hyslop, J.J.; Ross, D.W.; McKain, N.; de Souza, S.M.; Snelling, T.J.; Waterhouse, A.; Roehe, R. Archaeal abundance in post-mortem ruminal digesta may help predict methane emissions from beef cattle. Sci. Rep. 2015, 4, 5892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bodas, R.; López, S.; Fernández, M.; García-González, R.; Rodríguez, A.B.; Wallace, R.J.; González, J.S. In vitro screening of the potential of numerous plant species as antimethanogenic feed additives for ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 145, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Patra, A.K.; Kamra, D.N.; Bhar, R.; Kumar, R.; Agarwal, N. Effect of Terminalia chebula and Allium sativum on in vivo methane emission by sheep: Methane inhibition in sheep by plant feed additives. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2011, 95, 187–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Akula, R.; Ravishankar, G.A. Influence of abiotic stress signals on secondary metabolites in plants. Plant Signal. Behav. 2011, 6, 1720–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Patra, A.K.; Saxena, J. A new perspective on the use of plant secondary metabolites to inhibit methanogenesis in the rumen. Phytochemistry 2010, 71, 1198–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Van Gastelen, S.; Dijkstra, J.; Bannink, A. Are dietary strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission equally effective across dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep? J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 6109–6130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Klevenhusen, F.; Zeitz, J.O.; Duval, S.; Kreuzer, M.; Soliva, C.R. Garlic oil and its principal component diallyl disulfide fail to mitigate methane, but improve digestibility in sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Roy, D.; Tomar, S.K.; Sirohi, S.K.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, M. Efficacy of different essential oils in modulating rumen fermentation in vitro using buffalo rumen liquor. Vet. World 2014, 7, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Castro-Montoya, J.; De Campeneere, S.; Van Ranst, G.; Fievez, V. Interactions between methane mitigation additives and basal substrates on in vitro methane and VFA production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2012, 176, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Del Valle, T.A.; de Paiva, P.G.; de Jesus, E.F.; de Almeida, G.F.; Zanferari, F.; Costa, A.G.B.V.B.; Bueno, I.C.S.; Rennó, F.P. Dietary chitosan improves nitrogen use and feed conversion in diets for mid-lactation dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 2017, 201, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Dias, A.O.C.; Goes, R.H.T.B.; Gandra, J.R.; Takiya, C.S.; Branco, A.F.; Jacaúna, A.G.; Oliveira, R.T.; Souza, C.J.S.; Vaz, M.S.M. Increasing doses of chitosan to grazing beef steers: Nutrient intake and digestibility, ruminal fermentation, and nitrogen utilization. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 225, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. De Paiva, P.G.; de Jesus, E.F.; Del Valle, T.A.; de Almeida, G.F.; Costa, A.G.B.V.B.; Consentini, C.E.C.; Zanferari, F.; Takiya, C.S.; da Silva Bueno, I.C.; Rennó, F.P. Effects of chitosan on ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestibility, and milk yield and composition of dairy cows. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2017, 57, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Li, J.; Cai, C.; Li, J.; Li, J.; Li, J.; Sun, T.; Wang, L.; Wu, H.; Yu, G. Chitosan-Based Nanomaterials for Drug Delivery. Molecules 2018, 23, 2661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Teng, W.L.; Khor, E.; Tan, T.K.; Lim, L.Y.; Tan, S.C. Concurrent production of chitin from shrimp shells and fungi. Carbohydr. Res. 2001, 332, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. El Kadib, A. Metal-Polysaccharide Interplay: Beyond Metal Immobilization, Graphenization-Induced-Anisotropic Growth. ChemSusChem 2016, 9, 238–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Duffy, C.; O’Riordan, D.; O’Sullivan, M.; Jacquier, J.-C. In vitro evaluation of chitosan copper chelate gels as a multimicronutrient feed additive for cattle. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 4177–4183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Divya, K.; Vijayan, S.; George, T.K.; Jisha, M.S. Antimicrobial properties of chitosan nanoparticles: Mode of action and factors affecting activity. Fibers Polym. 2017, 18, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Muxika, A.; Etxabide, A.; Uranga, J.; Guerrero, P.; de la Caba, K. Chitosan as a bioactive polymer: Processing, properties and applications. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 105, 1358–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. El Knidri, H.; Belaabed, R.; Addaou, A.; Laajeb, A.; Lahsini, A. Extraction, chemical modification and characterization of chitin and chitosan. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 120, 1181–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gandra, J.R.; Takiya, C.S.; Oliveira, E.R.D.; Paiva, P.G.D.; Goes, R.H.D.T.E.B.D.; Gandra, É.R.D.S.; Araki, H.M.C. Nutrient digestion, microbial protein synthesis, and blood metabolites of Jersey heifers fed chitosan and whole raw soybeans. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2016, 45, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Araújo, A.P.C.; Venturelli, B.C.; Santos, M.C.B.; Gardinal, R.; Cônsolo, N.R.B.; Calomeni, G.D.; Freitas, J.E.; Barletta, R.V.; Gandra, J.R.; Paiva, P.G.; et al. Chitosan affects total nutrient digestion and ruminal fermentation in Nellore steers. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2015, 206, 114–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Belanche, A.; Pinloche, E.; Preskett, D.; Newbold, C.J. Effects and mode of action of chitosan and ivy fruit saponins on the microbiome, fermentation and methanogenesis in the rumen simulation technique. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2016, 92, fiv160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ben Seghir, B.; Benhamza, M.H. Preparation, optimization and characterization of chitosan polymer from shrimp shells. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2017, 11, 1137–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Henry, D.D.; Ruiz-Moreno, M.; Ciriaco, F.M.; Kohmann, M.; Mercadante, V.R.G.; Lamb, G.C.; DiLorenzo, N. Effects of chitosan on nutrient digestibility, methane emissions, and in vitro fermentation in beef cattle1,2. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 3539–3550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Naveed, M.; Phil, L.; Sohail, M.; Hasnat, M.; Baig, M.M.F.A.; Ihsan, A.U.; Shumzaid, M.; Kakar, M.U.; Mehmood Khan, T.; Akabar, M.D.; et al. Chitosan oligosaccharide (COS): An overview. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 129, 827–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Philibert, T.; Lee, B.H.; Fabien, N. Current Status and New Perspectives on Chitin and Chitosan as Functional Biopolymers. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2017, 181, 1314–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Puvvada, Y.S.; Vankayalapati, S.; Sukhavasi, S. Extraction of chitin from chitosan from exoskeleton of shrimp for application in the pharmaceutical industry. Int. Curr. Pharm. J. 2012, 1, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Cushnie, T.P.T.; Lamb, A.J. Recent advances in understanding the antibacterial properties of flavonoids. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2011, 38, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhan, J.; Liu, M.; Su, X.; Zhan, K.; Zhang, C.; Zhao, G. Effects of alfalfa flavonoids on the production performance, immune system, and ruminal fermentation of dairy cows. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 30, 1416–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Helander, I.M.; Nurmiaho-Lassila, E.-L.; Ahvenainen, R.; Rhoades, J.; Roller, S. Chitosan disrupts the barrier properties of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2001, 71, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rabea, E.I.; Badawy, M.E.-T.; Stevens, C.V.; Smagghe, G.; Steurbaut, W. Chitosan as Antimicrobial Agent: Applications and Mode of Action. Biomacromolecules 2003, 4, 1457–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yang, T.-C.; Li, C.-F.; Chou, S.-S.; Chou, C.-C. Adsorption of metal cations by water-soluble N-alkylated disaccharide chitosan derivatives. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2005, 98, 564–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Goy, R.C.; Britto, D.D.; Assis, O.B.G. A review of the antimicrobial activity of chitosan. Polímeros 2009, 19, 241–247. [Google Scholar]
  51. Raafat, D.; Sahl, H.-G. Chitosan and its antimicrobial potential—A critical literature survey. Microb. Biotechnol. 2009, 2, 186–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kong, M.; Chen, X.G.; Xing, K.; Park, H.J. Antimicrobial properties of chitosan and mode of action: A state of the art review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 144, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Goiri, I.; Garcia-Rodriguez, A.; Oregui, L.M. Effect of chitosans on in vitro rumen digestion and fermentation of maize silage. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2009, 148, 276–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Goiri, I.; Oregui, L.M.; Garcia-Rodriguez, A. Dose–response effects of chitosans on in vitro rumen digestion and fermentation of mixtures differing in forage-to-concentrate ratios. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2009, 151, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Goiri, I.; Indurain, G.; Insausti, K.; Sarries, V.; Garcia-Rodriguez, A. Ruminal biohydrogenation of unsaturated fatty acids in vitro as affected by chitosan. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2010, 159, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Haryati, R.P.; Jayanegara, A.; Laconi, E.B.; Ridla, M.; Suptijah, P. Evaluation of Chitin and Chitosan from Insect as Feed Additives to Mitigate Ruminal Methane Emission. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings 2120, Malang, Indonesia, 3 July 2019; p. 040008. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wencelová, M.; Váradyová, Z.; Mihaliková, K.; Kišidayová, S.; Jalč, D. Evaluating the effects of chitosan, plant oils, and different diets on rumen metabolism and protozoan population in sheep. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2014, 38, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mingoti, R.D.; Freitas, J.E.; Gandra, J.R.; Gardinal, R.; Calomeni, G.D.; Barletta, R.V.; Vendramini, T.H.A.; Paiva, P.G.; Rennó, F.P. Dose response of chitosan on nutrient digestibility, blood metabolites and lactation performance in holstein dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 2016, 187, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Goiri, I.; Oregui, L.M.; Garcia-Rodriguez, A. Use of chitosans to modulate ruminal fermentation of a 50:50 forage-to-concentrate diet in sheep1. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 88, 749–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vendramini, T.H.A.; Takiya, C.S.; Silva, T.H.; Zanferari, F.; Rentas, M.F.; Bertoni, J.C.; Consentini, C.E.C.; Gardinal, R.; Acedo, T.S.; Rennó, F.P. Effects of a blend of essential oils, chitosan or monensin on nutrient intake and digestibility of lactating dairy cows. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 214, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Blaxter, K.L. Energy Metabolism in Animals and Man; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1989; ISBN 978-0-521-36094-4. [Google Scholar]
  62. Valencia Salazar, S.S.; Piñeiro Vázquez, A.T.; Molina Botero, I.C.; Lazos Balbuena, F.J.; Uuh Narváez, J.J.; Segura Campos, M.R.; Ramírez Avilés, L.; Solorio Sánchez, F.J.; Ku Vera, J.C. Potential of Samanea saman pod meal for enteric methane mitigation in crossbred heifers fed low-quality tropical grass. Agric. Meteorol. 2018, 258, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zanferari, F.; Vendramini, T.H.A.; Rentas, M.F.; Gardinal, R.; Calomeni, G.D.; Mesquita, L.G.; Takiya, C.S.; Rennó, F.P. Effects of chitosan and whole raw soybeans on ruminal fermentation and bacterial populations, and milk fatty acid profile in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 10939–10952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Şenel, S.; McClure, S.J. Potential applications of chitosan in veterinary medicine. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2004, 56, 1467–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Doreau, M.; van der Werf, H.M.G.; Micol, D.; Dubroeucq, H.; Agabriel, J.; Rochette, Y.; Martin, C. Enteric methane production and greenhouse gases balance of diets differing in concentrate in the fattening phase of a beef production system1. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89, 2518–2528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 09 00942 g001 550
Figure 1. Chemical structure of chitosan.
Figure 1. Chemical structure of chitosan.
Animals 09 00942 g001
Animals 09 00942 g002 550
Figure 2. Antimicrobial mechanisms of chitosan.
Figure 2. Antimicrobial mechanisms of chitosan.
Animals 09 00942 g002
Animals 09 00942 g003 550
Figure 3. Mechanisms of action of chitosan described in the in vivo and in vitro experiments.
Figure 3. Mechanisms of action of chitosan described in the in vivo and in vitro experiments.
Animals 09 00942 g003
Table
Table 1. Effects of chitosan on rumen fermentation and methane emission.
Table 1. Effects of chitosan on rumen fermentation and methane emission.
ChitosanLength of ExperimentDosageSubstrate/FeedMethane DeterminationResultsReference
>85% deacetylated with a viscosity equal to 140 mPas in 1% acetic acid solution at 25 °CIn vitro (18 days)0 and 50 g/L of culture fluidForage-to-concentrate ratio 50:50Gas chromatography42% of reduction methane versus control, without modification of the rumen microbiota and VFA[39]
Six different typesIn vitro (24 and 144 h)750 mg/L of culture fluidMaize silageStoichiometryModification of rumen microbial fermentation and reduced 10 to 30% of methane[53]
Three different typesIn vitro (24 h)0, 325, 750, and 1500 mg/L of culture fluidAlfalfa hay and concentrate ratio 80:20; 50:50; 20:80StoichiometryEffects were related to the nature of the feed and the characteristics of the additive, inconsistent results in methane reduction[54]
Chitin and chitosan from Black Soldier FlyIn vitro (24 h)10 and 20 g/L of culture fluidGrass Setaria splendida: concentrate ratio 60:40Gas chromatographyMethane production was not reduced and digestibility of OM and DM were decreased[56]
Deacetylated chitin, poly (D-glucosamine) Sigma-Aldrich Co., St. Louis, MO, USAIn vitro (24 h)100 mg/L of culture fluidMeadow hay, barley grain, maize silageGas chromatographyChitosan had an effect on IVDMD, total gas, slight effect on methane production, and some rumen ciliate genera[57]
Deacetylation degree >95%; viscosity < 500 mPa sIn vitro (11 days)750 mg/d of culture fluidGrass hay and a concentrate mixture 10:90 using sunflower or rapeseed mealNot quantifiedChitosan inhibited biohydrogenation[55]
Deacetylation degree > 95%, viscosity < 500 mPa sIn vivo, in vitro Sheep (45 days)0 and 136 mg/kg of BWAlfalfa hay and concentrate at 50:50StoichiometryChitosan reduce NDF apparent digestibility, ruminal NH3-N concentration and modulates ruminal and fecal fermentative activity[59]
Degree of deacetylation > 92% apparent density 0.64 g/mL; total ash ≤ 2.0%; pH 7.0–9.0; viscosity < 200 cPsIn vivo Cattle (84 days)0, 50, 100 and 150 mg/kg BWCorn Silage-concentrate 60:40Not quantifiedChitosan shifted rumen fermentation, improved nutrient digestibility and propionate concentrations[38]
Deacetylation degree of 86.6%In vivo Cattle (84 days)0 and 4 g/kg of DMCorn silage-to- concentrate ratio 50:50Not quantifiedImproved feed efficiency, increased milk UFA concentration[27]
Deacetylation degree ≥ 85%, 0.32 g/mL density, pH 7.90, and viscosity < 200 cPsIn vivo Cattle (105 days)0, 400, 800, 1200 or 1600 mg/kg DMGrazing Urochloa brizantha and concentrate at 150 g/100 kg of LWNot quantifiedChitosan increased DMI and digestibility, propionate concentration and microbial crude protein[28]
Deacetylation degree of 86.3%; 0.33 g/mL of apparent density, pH = 7.9, viscosity < 200 cPs, 1.4% ash, and 88.3% of DMIn vivo Cattle (98 days)0, 75, 150, 225 mg/kg BWCorn silage to concentrate ratio 63:37Not quantifiedIn dairy cattle works like a modulator of rumen fermentation, increasing milk yield, propionate and nitrogen utilization[29]
Deacetylation degree of 95%; apparent density of 0.64 g mL−1, 20 g kg−1 of ash, 7.0–9.0 of pH, viscosity < 200 cPs.In vivo Cattle (25 days each period)0, 2.0 g/kg Chitosan (CH) of DM. Whole raw soybean (WRS) 163.0 g/kg DM; and CH + WRSCorn silage to concentrate ratio 50:50Not quantifiedChitosan improved nutrient digestion and decrease DMI and reduce nitrogen excreted in feces[37]
Deacetylation degree 90%In vivo (21 days each period) and in vitro (24 h)0.0, 0.5, and 1.0% of DMHigh-concentrate (85%) Low concentrate (36%)Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)In vivo: No effect on enteric methane emissions. In vitro: Low concentrate substrate increased methane production[41]
Deacetylation degree of 86.6%; 0.33 g/mL of apparent density, pH of 8.81In vivo Cattle (84 days)50, 100 and 150 mg/kg BWCorn silage to concentrate ratio 50:50Not quantifiedImproved nutrient digestibility without altering productive performance of dairy cows[58]
Deacetylation degree 95%; viscosity < 200 cPs density 0.64 g/mL; pH 7.0–9.0In vivo Cattle (84 days)150 mg/kg BWMaize silage: concentrate ratio 50:50Not quantifiedChitosan increase the digestibility and reduce acetate to propionate relation[60]
Deacetylation degree of 86.3%; apparent density of 0.32 g/mL, pH 7.9, viscosity of 50 cP at 20 °CIn vivo Cattle (92 days)0 or 4 g/kg Chitosan (CH) or Whole Raw Soybean (WRS) of DMCorn silage: concentrate ratio 50:50Not quantifiedCH + WRS affected ruminal fermentation, increased milk content of UFA, decreases nutrient intake, digestibility, microbial protein synthesis, and milk yield. CH in diets with no lipid supplementation improves feed efficiency of lactating cows[63]
BW: Body weight; DM: Dry matter; OM: Organic matter; DMI: Dry matter intake; IVDMD: in vitro dry matter digestibility; UFA: Unsaturated fatty acids.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jiménez-Ocampo, R.; Valencia-Salazar, S.; Pinzón-Díaz, C.E.; Herrera-Torres, E.; Aguilar-Pérez, C.F.; Arango, J.; Ku-Vera, J.C. The Role of Chitosan as a Possible Agent for Enteric Methane Mitigation in Ruminants. Animals 2019, 9, 942. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110942

AMA Style

Jiménez-Ocampo R, Valencia-Salazar S, Pinzón-Díaz CE, Herrera-Torres E, Aguilar-Pérez CF, Arango J, Ku-Vera JC. The Role of Chitosan as a Possible Agent for Enteric Methane Mitigation in Ruminants. Animals. 2019; 9(11):942. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110942

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiménez-Ocampo, Rafael, Sara Valencia-Salazar, Carmen Elisa Pinzón-Díaz, Esperanza Herrera-Torres, Carlos Fernando Aguilar-Pérez, Jacobo Arango, and Juan Carlos Ku-Vera. 2019. "The Role of Chitosan as a Possible Agent for Enteric Methane Mitigation in Ruminants" Animals 9, no. 11: 942. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110942

APA Style

Jiménez-Ocampo, R., Valencia-Salazar, S., Pinzón-Díaz, C. E., Herrera-Torres, E., Aguilar-Pérez, C. F., Arango, J., & Ku-Vera, J. C. (2019). The Role of Chitosan as a Possible Agent for Enteric Methane Mitigation in Ruminants. Animals, 9(11), 942. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110942

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