Next Article in Journal
Comparative Analysis of Methods for Somatic Cell Counting in Cow’s Milk and Relationship between Somatic Cell Count and Occurrence of Intramammary Bacteria
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation of Trehalose Supplementation Impacting Campylobacter jejuni and Clostridium perfringens from Broiler Farming
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Veterinary Sciences
Volume 10
Issue 7
10.3390/vetsci10070467
vetsci-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Potential Effect of Dietary Supplementation of Tannin-Rich Forage on Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production, Defaunation and Rumen Function

by
Néstor Acosta-Lozano
1,
Marcos Barros-Rodríguez
2,3,*,
Carlos Guishca-Cunuhay
3,
Veronica Andrade-Yucailla
1,
Katherine Contreras-Barros
4,
Carlos Sandoval-Castro
5,
Mona Mohamad Mohamad Yasseen Elghandour
6 and
Abdelfattah Zeidan Mohamed Salem
6
1
Centro de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena, La Libertad 240204, Ecuador
2
Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Técnica de Ambato, Sector el Tambo-La Universidad, vía a Quero, Cevallos 1801334, Ecuador
3
Department of Animal Nutrition and Rumen Biotechnology, Ruminant Feedlot Ranch-PROCESA, Street Playita-Estero Hondo, La Mana 050202, Ecuador
4
Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Campus El Dorado-Itchimbía, Quito 170403, Ecuador
5
Departamento de Nutrición Animal, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Carretera Mérida-Xmatkuil Km. 15.5. Apdo. 4-116 Itzimná, Mérida 97100, Mexico
6
Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Toluca 50200, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vet. Sci. 2023, 10(7), 467; https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10070467
Submission received: 18 March 2023 / Revised: 20 May 2023 / Accepted: 23 June 2023 / Published: 17 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases in Veterinary Medicine)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

In tropical and subtropical regions, low availability and poor nutritional quality of forage sources, limit ruminant productivity and promote enteric production of CH4 and CO2 which are considered greenhouse gases (GHG). Non-conventional trees and shrubs, as forage resources, are considered an effective alternative for the improvement of animal performance as they possess good nutritional value along with their content of secondary metabolites. The aim of this experiment was to assess the effect of including Acacia mearnsii leaves in highly fibrous rations (corn stover) and its effect on rumen degradation kinetics, digestibility, microbial synthesis and in vitro production of gas, CH4 and CO2. It is concluded that up to 15% of A. mearnsii leaves can be recommended in the diet of ruminants as it causes a reduction in the population of protozoa (holotrich and entodiniomorph), as well as the production of CH4, without generating adverse effects on the ruminal degradation kinetics, nutrient digestibility and microbial protein production.

Abstract

This experiment evaluated the effect of including Acacia mearnsii leaves in a high-fiber diet (corn stover), on ruminal degradation kinetics, digestibility, microbial biomass production, and gas, CH4, and CO2 production. Four experimental diets were tested, including a control with 100% corn stover (T1), and three additional diets with corn stover supplemented at 15% A. mearnsii leaves (T2), 30% A. mearnsii leaves (T3) and 45% of A. mearnsii leaves (T4). The highest dry matter in situ degradation (p ≤ 0.001) and in vitro digestibility (p ≤ 0.001) was found in T1 (80.6 and 53.4%, respectively) and T2 (76.4 and 49.6%, respectively) diets. A higher population of holotrich and entodiniomorph ruminal protozoa was found (p = 0.0001) in T1 at 12 and 24 h. Diets of T1 and T2 promoted a higher (p = 0.0001) microbial protein production (314.5 and 321.1 mg/0.5 g DM, respectively). Furthermore, a lower amount of CH4 was found (p < 0.05) with T2, T3 and T4. It is concluded that it is possible to supplement up to 15% of A. mearnsii leaves (30.5 g TC/kg DM) in ruminant’s diets. This decreased the population of protozoa (holotrich and entodiniomorph) as well as the CH4 production by 35.8 and 18.5%, respectively, without generating adverse effects on the ruminal degradation kinetics, nutrient digestibility and microbial protein production.

1. Introduction

Ruminant production in tropical and subtropical areas is generally based on pasture grazing with a predominance of grasses [1,2,3,4], characterized by low amounts of protein (<7%), a high proportion of structural carbohydrates (60–80%) [5,6] and low digestibility (<50%) [7]. Characteristics that affect the productivity of animals, in response to the consumption of poor quality forage and the subsequent production of greenhouse gases (GHG) (mainly methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O)), as a result of the metabolism of structural carbohydrates, gases that are later eliminated through burping or flatulence and generate considerable energy losses in the animal (2 to 12%) [8,9,10,11]. Ruminants are responsible for producing approximately 47% of CH4, 29% of N2O, and 27% of CO2 of total GHG (14.5%) of anthropogenic origin from livestock activity, so the search for possible solutions is very important [12,13,14,15]. As an alternative to solve these problems, the use or incorporation of tree fodder with anti-methanogenic capacity in ruminant feeding is proposed [16]. This can be integrated into production systems such as protein banks (cut and carry) or under silvopastoral systems [17,18], due to; (i) potential nutritional value (protein: 15.8% to 33.3%, NDF: 26.2% to 33.3%, FDA: 14.8% to 22.8%) [19], (ii) high digestibility (53.1% to 82.5%) [20], and (iii) its content of secondary metabolites. These compounds are capable of modulating fermentation in the rumen and reducing CH4 production, a desired effect due to its potential for environmental damage (26–28 times greater than CO2) [21,22].
The CH4 reduction when trees or shrubs are incorporated into ruminant feed has been attributed to a condensed tannins (CT) effect on the community of methanogenic archaea and protozoa at the ruminal level [23], probably due to their reduced growth or activity due to inhibition of the exchange of dihydrogen (H2) between species (methanogen-protozoan) as a result of changes in cell membrane permeability, reduction in the availability of nutrients (mainly protein) by forming tannin–protein complexes and inhibiting the development of ruminal microorganisms and interruption in the process of reducing CO2 to CH4 due to the decrease in H2 available in the rumen [24]. On the other hand, tannins can also improve the use of protein, effects attributed mainly to CT that, forms complexes with proteins (tannin–protein complex) which increases the amount of by-pass protein to the duodenum, later evidencing better productive yields in animals [25]. However, the greatest limitation in the use of CT is reduced microbial growth and hence a reduced protein supply to the animal [26]. However, it has been reported that the effect of tannin will depend on CT type, origin, dose, molecular weight and adaptation of the animals to its intake [27,28]. Detrimental effects on animal health show in performance, intake and digestibility. This is probably due to: (a) consumption of tannins in amounts higher than 55 g CT/kg DM [29]; (b) decreased enzyme activity such as trypsin and amylase [30]; (c) reduction in food consumption due to decreased palatability as a result of the effect of CT on salivary glycoproteins [31]; and (d) decreased digestion of nutrients (carbohydrates, protein and lipids) [32].
Thus, using Acacia mearnsii as forage for ruminants is a valuable alternative due to its wide distribution around the world and its ability to adapt to temperatures between 14.7–27.8 °C, as well as for presenting considerable quantities of bioactive compounds, mainly CT (35% to 45%), due to the antimethanogenic effect that this compound can provide [33]. Previous research has shown variability in the tannin effects on ruminal fermentation. Waghorn et al. [32] showed in their study a higher weight gain and milk production (30% and 11%, respectively) in small ruminants fed tannin rich forages. However, Vargas-Ortiz et al. [33] found negative effects on the degradation and digestibility of DM and OM when incorporating A. mearnsii forage in non-fibrous diets containing Lolium perenne and Medicago sativa. Similarly, Ávila et al. [34] mention the absence of effects on the protozoa population when using extract of A. mearnsii rich in CT in diets high in grain (Tifton 85 hay (60%), ground corn (30.7% to 33.7%) and soybean meal (52.1% to 58.4%)). Therefore, the aim of this research was to evaluate the effect of the incorporation of A. Mearnsii leaves on rumen degradation kinetics, digestibility, microbial synthesis and in vitro fermentation (gas, CH4 and CO2 production).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Location

The present research 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. Forage Samples and Treatments

The corn stover (Zea mays) (2-hectare crop) was cut 5 cm from the ground after harvesting the cob at the age of 5 months, approximately 50 kg of plants were crushed in a forage grinder (CREMASCO, model DP2, Brasilia, Brazil). A subsample (5 kg) of the minced material was dried in a forced air oven at 55 °C for 72 h to estimate dry matter (DM). The dry corn forage was ground in a hammer mill with a 2 mm sieve size, once ground it was passed through a 1 mm sieve to standardize its particle size and perform both in situ and in vitro tests.
Acacia mearnsii leaves were collected from 15 trees that are planted in the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences—UTA, Ecuador. The forage collection was carried out taking young and mature leaves. Subsequently, the forage (50 kg) was dried in a greenhouse and a 1 kg subsample was oven dried at 60 °C to determine DM and later used for chemical composition analysis. The dehydrated forage was ground under the methodology described for corn stover (see above).
The dry and sifted forages were mixed to form the following treatments (expressed in % DM); T1: 100% corn stover, T2: 85% corn stover + 15% A. mearnsii leaves, T3: 70% corn stover + 30% A. mearnsii leaves, T4: 65% corn stover + 45% A. mearnsii leaves. Chemical composition of experimental treatments is presented in Table 1.

2.3. In Situ Rumen Degradation, In Vitro Digestibility and Microbial Biomass Production

The DM degradability was measured by means of the nylon bag technique (0.42 µ) [35]. Five castrated male bovines (450 ± 30 kg LW) were used. Animals were fitted with ruminal cannula (Bar Diamond, Parma, ID, USA). The animals housed individually and fed ad libitum a ration containing alfalfa forage (Medicago sativa). Water was also provided ad libitum. Four grams of DM were incubated in each bag (times: 0, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72 and 96 h). After incubation, bags were washed with tap water and placed in an oven at 60 °C. Degradation was calculated as a ratio of incubated and residual material. The data was fitted to the exponential equation: Y = a + b (1 − e−ct) and the effective degradation was calculated as ED = a + [(b × c)/(c + k)] at 2, 5 and 8% passage rate [36].
Dry matter digestibility was performed in vitro, the liquid and solid fractions of rumen content were obtained separately from each of the five individual bulls (each one represents a replicate). Ruminal content was obtained before morning feeding, kept in a sealed plastic container (at 39 °C) and immediately transported to the laboratory (within 1 h of collection). A N-rich medium was prepared [37]. For each treatment, five amber glass bottles (replicates) of 100 mL capacity were used with 60 mL of the inoculum (70:30 medium; artificial saliva/inoculum; rumen content), containing 0.5 g of sample for each treatment at each time and five additional bottles without feed sample were used as blanks. The bottles were incubated between 39–40 °C. At the end of the incubation period (48 h), the in vitro DM digestibility was calculated from the difference between the incubated DM and the residue obtained afterwards by filtering the residues. DM digestibility was corrected with the blank residual.
The microbial biomass production (MBP) was calculated using the equation proposed by Blümmel et al. [38], where: MBP (mg) = truly degraded substrate of the OM − (gas volume (mL) × stoichiometric factor (2.2; for forage fermentation)).

2.4. Protozoa Population

Five glass bottles were prepared by the same procedure used for in vitro digestibility (see above). A one mL post-incubation sample was taken at 12 and 24 h and stored in an eppendorf tube with a 2 mL capacity. The ruminal content samples were preserved with a drop of formalin and kept at 4 °C until the protozoa were quantified using an optical microscope with 40× objective lenses and a Fuchs–Rosenthal camera (depth: 0.2 mm, small square area: 0.0625 mm2). The number of ciliate protozoa was reported as Log10 of total number + 1 per mL of rumen liquor. To determine the population of protozoa, they were stained with a solution of methyl formamide green according to the methodology described by Ogimoto and Imai [39].

2.5. Gas, CH4 and CO2 Production

Gas production was measured according to the methodology described by Theodorou et al. [40]. Ruminal fluid and nitrogen-rich medium were prepared as mentioned before for in vitro digestibility. For each treatment, 0.5 g of DM was placed in a glass bottle (100 mL nominal capacity). Then, 60 mL of ruminal inoculum (70:30 artificial saliva/ruminal inoculum) were added under a constant CO2 flow. Bottles were sealed and incubated at 39–40 °C. Gas pressure and volume were measured manually at 3, 6, 9, 12, 24, 36, and 48 h with a DELTA OHM model DO 9704 pressure transducer (Delta, model OHM Srl, Padova, Italy) and plastic syringes. Methane and CO2 production was measured with the help of a SMART 6 SENSOR SAMPLE DRAW GAS MONITOR GX-6000 gas meter, UK according to the methodology described by Elghandour et al. [21]. Total gas, CH4 and CO2 production was estimated from 0.5 g fermented DM. The gas data (mLgas/g fermented DM) were fitted to the equation y = D (1 − e−kt) described by Krishnamoorthy et al. [41], where: y = cumulative gas production at a given time (mL), D = potential cumulative gas production (mL/0.5 g fermented DM), k = rate of gas production (h–I) and t = time of fermentation (h). Parameters D and k were estimated by an iterative method of least squares using a nonlinear regression procedure of the Graphpad Prism 8 program (San Diego, CA, USA).

2.6. Chemical Analysis

The dry matter (DM) (# 7,007), ash (# 7,009) [42], Neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) (ANKOM Technology, Macedon, NY, USA. Methods 13 and 12, respectively), NDF was assayed with heat-stable alpha-amylase and sodium sulfite (Na2SO3) and expressed with residual ash (the latter also for ADF), CP (N × 6.25) (LECO CHN 628, LECO Corporation) and CT (catechin equivalent) [43] were determined.

2.7. Experimental Design and Statistical Analyzes

All variables were analyzed with ANOVA. A completely randomized design, with four treatments and five replicates was employed [44]. All means were contrasted with the Tukey test (SAS version 9.2, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Rumen Degradation, Digestibility and Microbial Biomass Production

Rumen degradation kinetics of DM showed differences (p < 0.05) between treatments (Table 2), with T3 and T4 having the lowest value in the insoluble but potentially degradable fraction (B), potential degradation (A + B) and effective degradation, in the different passage rates at 0.05 (45.70 and 42.70%, respectively) and 0.08 (41.00 and 38.80%, respectively), compared to the other treatments (T1 and T2).
For the DM digestibility and microbial biomass production, the diets of T1 and T2 had the highest value for digestibility versus T3 and T4 diets. The microbial biomass production was higher in the T1 and T2 diets, and lower in the T3 and T4 diets, with an average difference of 72.45 mg/0.5 g DM (Table 2).

3.2. Rumen Protozoa Population

Differences amongst the protozoan populations were found for all treatments (p < 0.05). The population of Holotrich and Entodiniomorph protozoa were lower (p = 0.0001) in the T4 treatment at 12 and 24 h post-incubation (0.5 and 0.0–1.6 and 1.1 protozoa: Log10, respectively) (Table 2).

3.3. Gas, CH4 and CO2 Production

Total gas production was lower (p = 0.0001) in diet T4, with a difference of 50.6 mL gas/0.5 g fermented DM compared to the treatment with higher gas production (diet T1). Regarding the gas production at different post-incubation hours, it was lower (p = 0.0002) at 48 h in T4 versus other diets. The CH4 production at 12 and 24 h was lower (p < 0.05) in diets T2, T3 and T4 and at 48-hours post-incubation, and it was lower (p = 0.0001) in diet T4 versus other treatments. With respect to CO2 production, differences were only observed at 24 h with T4 presenting the lowest values (p = 0.0001) (Table 3).

4. Discussion

4.1. Rumen Degradation, Digestibility and Microbial Biomass Production

CT can generate positive or negative effects on digestion and health in ruminants. This depends on the type, source, dose, molecular weight, and chemical composition of the diet and the adaptability of the animals to its consumption [27,28,45]. From these perspectives, the lower potential in situ degradation and in vitro digestibility of DM observed in the T3 and T4 diets (Table 2), is probably due to the increase in tannin levels in response to the increasing incorporation of A. mearnsii and its possible effect on bacteria that degrade nutrients (carbohydrates, proteins and lipids) [46]. In this study we observed the microbial biomass production decrease as the level of tannins exceeded the beneficial threshold in the diet, that is, beyond 55 g of CT/kg DM. This effect is probably attributed to (a) the antimicrobial activity of tannins, in response to structural changes induced in the cell wall of bacteria, attributed to the interaction of tannin with secreted extracellular enzymes, (b) alteration of the cell membrane, (c) inhibition of microbial metabolism, (d) nutrient deficit for the growth of bacteria and e) reduction in the availability of cations, essential for the subsistence of microorganisms [26].
However, the in vitro inhibition of the activity of the extracellular endoglucanase enzyme in Fibrobacter succinogenes has been described when using CT of Lotus corniculatus in doses higher than 100 μg/mL [47]. The CT of Lotus corniculatus and Onobrychis viciifolia have also shown inhibitory effects on fibrolytic and proteolytic microorganisms such as F. succinogenes, Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens, Clostridium proteoclasticum, Eubacterium spp., Ruminococcus albus, Ruminobacter amylophilus and Streptococcus bovis with the consequent reduction in proteolytic and fibrolytic activity [48,49]. Moreover, the low digestibility observed can also be attributed to the limited access of the microorganisms to the fiber, as a result of the possible formation of tannin–cellulose complexes and subsequent reduction in the enzymatic activity of the fibrolytic microorganisms [50]. This is evidenced in the decrease in ruminal degradation and digestion in this study in diets T1 and T2. Vargas-Ortiz et al. [33] and Kozloski et al. [51], also found low digestibility when incorporating CT from A. mearnsii as forage and extract, respectively. The greater in situ degradation and in vitro digestibility of DM, evidenced in the present study, is probably due to the absence (T1: 0%) or low content of tannins in the diet (T2: 3% CT), that is an amount less than 5% of tannins [52,53,54]. This would mean a reduction in the detrimental effects of CT on feed degradation and digestibility.
The low microbial biomass production evidenced in this study with T3 and T4 could be attributed to the amount of tannin in the experimental diets (64–95 g/kg DM), higher than the maximum levels that suppresses the negative effects of tannins on microbial rumen populations (<55 g/kg DM) [29]. This probably hindered the access of rumen microbes to plant cell wall protein or inhibited the growth and activity of fibrolytic bacteria capable of releasing the fibrolyzed protein, with a consequent reduction in the production of microbial protein [38,55]. The higher microbial biomass production evidenced in T2 is probably associated with its moderate CT content (<55 g/kg DM) and the A. mearnsii protein contribution which increased the efficiency of use from corn stover, thus increasing rumen microbial protein synthesis.

4.2. Rumen Protozoan Population

The decrease in ruminal protozoa (holotrich and entodiniomorph) could be a consequence of the CT content of diets which affected growth and activity of the methanogenic archaea and had a subsequent indirect effect on the population of protozoa. Moreover, due to the rupture of the symbiosis between these microorganisms, and consequent inhibition in the exchange of H2 between species (methanogen–protozoan), as a result of changes in cell membrane permeability, possibly due to CT acting on microbial adhesin [24,56,57,58]. Although holothrich protozoa have been reported to be more susceptible to tannins than entodiniomorph protozoa [59,60,61,62], a similar decrease was observed between the two species in the present study.

4.3. Gas, CH4 and CO2 Production

Gas, CH4 and CO2 production was influenced by the CT from A. mearnsii, showing a constant reduction in the production of CH4 as the amount of tannin rose. These effects are probably attributed to a reduction in methanogenic archaea and ruminal protozoa and formation of the tannin–fiber complex, which consequently reduces fiber degradation and digestibility [56,63]. Evidenced in the present study, was a limited degradation of the fiber, which probably decreased the availability of ruminal H2, in response to the reduction in the production of acetic acid from pyruvate [64]. H2 is necessary for methanogenic microorganisms for CH4 synthesis from CO2. This would explain the partial increase in CO2 at 24 h post-incubation with diet T2 due to reduced H2 availability at the ruminal level [65,66].

5. Conclusions

It is concluded that it is possible to replace corn stover with up to 15% of A. mearnsii (T2: 30.5 g CT/kg DM) since this decreased the population of ruminal protozoa (holotrich and entodiniomorph) as well as the production of CH4 in all hours evaluated, without generating adverse effects on ruminal digestion and microbial biomass production.

Author Contributions

N.A.-L., M.B.-R. and C.G.-C. were the principal investigators in this project. V.A.-Y. and K.C.-B. conducted the experiments. C.S.-C., M.M.M.Y.E. and A.Z.M.S. conducted the data analysis. M.B.-R., C.G.-C. and A.Z.M.S. drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. 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 procedures followed the recommendations of the ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments). The work was also approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Faculty of Livestock and Biological Sciences of the State Technical University of Quevedo (resolution 20/2019).

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. Barros-Rodríguez, M.; Rovalino-Núñez, V.; Núñez-Torres, O.; Mera-Andrade, R.; Artieda Rojas, J.; Vaca-Freire, L.; Curay-Quispe, S.; Ortiz Tirado, P.; Solorio Sánchez, J.; Iraola, J. Composición química, cinética de degradación ruminal y producción de gas in vitro de arvenses con potencial forrajero. Livest. Res. Rural. Dev. 2017, 29, 4. Available online: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd29/4/barr29071.html (accessed on 2 October 2022).
  2. Núñez Torres, O.P.; Barros Rodriguez, M.; Sanchez, D.; Guishca-Cunuhay, C. Comportamiento productivo, degradación ruminal y producción de gas in vitro en ovinos alimentados con dietas a base de residuos pos-cosecha de Chenopodium quinoa. Rev. Investig. Vet. Perú. 2018, 29, 765–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Ortiz-Tirado, P.; Barros-Rodriguez, M.; Mayorga-Paredes, S.; Chay-Canul, A.; Guishca-Cunuhay, C.; Romero-Herrera, R.; Reyes, H. Influence of cutting age on chemical composition, rumen degradation kinetics and in vitro digestibility of green hydroponic fodder of Avena sativa. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosystems 2019, 22. Available online: https://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/ojs/index.php/TSA/article/view/3082/1346 (accessed on 2 October 2022). [CrossRef]
  4. Andino, M.; Barros-Rodriguez, M.; Burgos, J.V.; Andrade-Yucailla, V.; Acosta-Lozano, N.; Aragadvay-Yungan, R.; Mayorga-Paredes, S. Effect of the cutting age of Brachiaria decumbens on rumen functions and in vitro gas production. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosystems 2019, 22. Available online: https://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/ojs/index.php/TSA/article/view/3080/1337 (accessed on 2 October 2022). [CrossRef]
  5. Charmley, E.; Williams, S.R.O.; Moate, P.J.; Hegarty, R.S.; Herd, R.M.; Oddy, V.E.; Reyenga, P.; Staunton, K.M.; Anderson, A.; Hannah, M.C. A universal equation to predict methane production of forage-fed cattle in Australia. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 56, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Piñeiro, V.A.T.; Canul, J.R.S.; Casanova, L.F.; Chay, C.A.J.; Ayala, B.J.A.; Aguilar, C.F.P.; Solorio, F.J.S.; Ku, J.C.V. Enteric methane emission in sheep fed Pennisetum purpureumand tropical trees containing condensed tannins. Rev Mex Cienc Pecu. 2017, 8, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Archimède, H.; Martin, C.; Périacarpin, F.; Rochette, Y.; Etienne, T.S.; Anais, C.; Doreau, M. Methane emission of Blackbelly rams consuming whole sugarcane forage compared with Dichanthium sp. hay. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014, 190, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Johnson, K.A.; Johnson, D.E. Methane emissions from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 2483–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. 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] [Green Version]
  10. 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. Animal 2013, 7, 220–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Vargas-Ortiz, L.; Chavez-Garcia, D.; Barros-Rodríguez, M.; Andrade-Yucailla, V.; Lima-Orozco, R.; Macías-Rodríguez, E.; Guishca-Cunuhay, C.; Zeidan Mohamed Salem, A. Rumen Function and In Vitro Gas Production of Diets Influenced by Two Levels of Tannin-Rich Forage. Fermentation 2022, 8, 607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; Haan, C. Livestock’s Longs Adow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2022).
  13. Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2022).
  14. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021; Available online: https://www.fao.org/gleam/en/ (accessed on 2 October 2022).
  15. Meza-Bone, G.; Meza-Bone, C.; Avellaneda-Cevallos, J.; Cabezas-Congo, R.; Villamar-Torres, R.; Cabanilla-Campos, M.; Vivas-Arturo, W.; Intriago-Flor, F.; Meza-Bone, F.; Zapatier-Santillan, A.; et al. Rumen Fermentation Profile and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation of Three Forage Species from Agroforestry Systems in Dry and Rainy Seasons. Fermentation 2022, 8, 630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Canul-Solis, J.; Campos-Navarrete, M.; Piñeiro-Vázquez, A.; Casanova-Lugo, F.; Barros-Rodríguez, M.; Chay-Canul, A.; Cárdenas-Medina, J.; Castillo-Sánchez, L. Mitigation of rumen methane emissions with foliage and pods of tropical trees. Animals 2020, 10, 843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Yadav, A.; Gendley, M.K.; Sahu, J.; Patel, P.K.; Chandrakar, K.; Dubey, A. Silvopastoral system: A prototype of livestock agroforestry. J. Pharm. Innov. 2019, 8, 76–82. Available online: https://www.thepharmajournal.com/archives/2019/vol8issue2/PartB/8-1-94-847.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2022).
  18. Oyelami, B.A.; Osikabor, B. Adoption of Silvopastoral Agroforestry System for a Sustainable Cattle Production in Nigeria. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2022, 26, 1397–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Castro-Montoya, J.M.; Dickhoefer, U. The nutritional value of tropical legume forages fed to ruminants as affected by their growth habit and fed form: A systematic review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2020, 269, 114641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. Sun, K.; Liu, H.; Fan, H.; Liu, T.; Zheng, C. Research progress on the application of feed additives in ruminal methane emission reduction: A review. PeerJ. 2021, 9, e11151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cardoso-Gutierrez, E.; Aranda-Aguirre, E.; Robles-Jimenez, L.E.; Castelán-Ortega, O.A.; Chay-Canul, A.J.; Foggi, G.; Angeles-Hernandez, J.C.; Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E.; González-Ronquillo, M. Effect of tannins from tropical plants on methane production from ruminants: A systematic review. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2021, 14, 100214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. 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]
  25. Bruinenberg, M.H.; van der Honing, Y.; Agnew, R.E.; Yan, T.; van Vuuren, A.M.; Valk, H. Energy metabolism of dairy cows fed on grass. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2002, 75, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Patra, A.K.; Saxena, J. Exploitation of dietary tannins to improve rumen metabolism and ruminant nutrition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 91, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. 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] [Green Version]
  28. Espinoza-Velasco, B.; Mella, M.R. Vegetable tannins, ruminal microbiota and ruminant metabolism interaction. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosystems 2022, 25, 856. Available online: http://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/urn:ISSN:1870-0462-tsaes.v25i1.39692 (accessed on 2 October 2022).
  29. 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. Technol. 2003, 106, 3–19. [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. Technol. 2001, 91, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. 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] [Green Version]
  32. Waghorn, G. Beneficial and detrimental effects of dietary condensed tannins for sustainable sheep and goat production-Progress and challenges. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 147, 116–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. 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]
  35. 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]
  36. 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] [Green Version]
  37. 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]
  38. 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]
  39. Ogimoto, K.; Imai, S. Atlas of Rumen Microbiology; Scientific Societies Press: Tokyo, Japan, 1981; p. 231. [Google Scholar]
  40. 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. Technol. 1994, 48, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Krishnamoorthy, U.; Soller, H.; Steingass, H.; Menke, K.H. A comparative study on rumen fermentation of energy supplements in vitro. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 1991, 65, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  43. 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]
  44. 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]
  45. Mueller-Harvey, I. Unravelling the conundrum of tannins in animal nutrition and health. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2006, 86, 2010–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Soltan, Y.A.; Patra, A.K. Ruminal Microbiome Manipulation to Improve Fermentation Efficiency in Ruminants. In Animal Feed Science and Nutrition-Production, Health and Environment; Patra, A., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021; Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/79866 (accessed on 2 October 2022).
  47. Bae, H.D.; McAllister, T.A.; Yanke, L.J.; Cheng, K.J.; Muir, A.D. Effect of condensed tannins on endoglucanase activity and filter paper digestion by Fibrobacter succinogenes S85. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1993, 59, 2132–2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Jones, G.A.; McAllister, T.A.; Muir, A.D.; Cheng, K.J. Effects of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia Scop.) condensed tannins on growth and proteolysis by four strains of ruminal bacterium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1994, 60, 1374–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Min, B.R.; Attwood, G.T.; McNabb, W.C.; Molan, A.L.; Barry, T.N. The effect of condensed tannins from Lotus corniculatus on the proteolytic activities and growth of rumen bacteria. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2005, 121, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Goel, G.; Makkar, H.P. Methane mitigation from ruminants using tannins and saponins. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2012, 44, 729–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. 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]
  52. Cieslak, A.; Zmora, P.; Pers-Kamczyc, E.; Szumacher-Strabel, M. Effects of tannins source (Vaccinium vitis idaea L.) on rumen microbial fermentation in vivo. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2012, 176, 102–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Buccioni, A.; Serra, A.; Minieri, S.; Mannelli, F.; Cappucci, A.; Benvenuti, D.; Rapaccini, S.; Conte, G.; Mele, M. Milk production, composition, and milk fatty acid profile from grazing sheep fed diets supplemented with chestnut tannin extract and extruded linseed. Small Rumin. Res. 2015, 130, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Castro-Montoya, J.; Henke, A.; Molkentin, J.; Knappstein, K.; Susenbeth, A.; Dickhoefer, U. Relationship between milk odd and branched-chain fatty acids and urinary purine derivatives in dairy cows supplemented with quebracho tannins-A study to test milk fatty acids as predictors of rumen microbial protein synthesis. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 214, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. 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]
  56. Pathak, A.K.; Dutta, N.; Pattanaik, A.K.; Singh, A.; Narang, A.; Sharma, K. Effect of condensed tannins supplementation from tanniferous tree leaves on methane production and efficiency of microbial biomass production in vitro. Anim. Nutr. Feed Technol. 2015, 15, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Albores-Moreno, S.; Alayón-Gamboa, J.A.; Miranda-Romero, L.A.; Alarcón-Zúñiga, B.; Jiménez-Ferrer, G.; Ku-Vera, J.C.; Piñeiro-Vázquez, A.T. Effect of tree foliage supplementation of tropical grass diet on in vitro digestibility and fermentation, microbial biomass synthesis and enteric methane production in ruminants. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 893–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tan, H.Y.; Sieo, C.C.; Abdullah, N.; Liang, J.B.; Huang, X.D.; Ho, Y.W. Effects of condensed tannins from Leucaena on methane production, rumen fermentation and populations of methanogens and protozoa in vitro. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 169, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. 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]
  60. 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] [Green Version]
  61. Gunun, P.; Cherdthong, A.; Khejornsart, P.; Wanapat, M.; Polyorach, S.; Kang, S.; Kaewwongsa, W.; Gunun, N. The Effect of Phytonutrients in Terminalia chebula Retz. on Rumen Fermentation Efficiency, Nitrogen Utilization, and Protozoal Population in Goats. Animals 2022, 12, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K.; Abel, H.J.; Szegletti, C. Degradation of condensed tannins by rumen microbes exposed to Quebracho tannins (QT) in rumen simulation technique (RUSITECH) and effects of QT on fermentative processes in the RUSITEC. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1995, 69, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. 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]
  64. Yanza, Y.R.; Fitri, A.; Suwignyo, B.; Elfahmi; Hidayatik, N.; Kumalasari, N.R.; Irawan, A.; Jayanegara, A. The Utilisation of Tannin Extract as a Dietary Additive in Ruminant Nutrition: A Meta-Analysis. Animals 2021, 11, 3317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Bilek, R.S.; Tyler, S.C.; Kurihara, M.; Yagi, K. Investigation of cattle methane production and emission over a 24-hour period using measurements of δ13C and δD of emitted CH4 and rumen water. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2001, 106, 15405–15413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ángeles-Mayorga, Y.; Cen-Cen, E.R.; Crosby-Galván, M.M.; Ramírez-Bribiesca, J.E.; Candelaria-Martínez, B.; Sánchez-Villarreal, A.; Ramírez-Mella, M. Foliage of Tropical Trees and Shrubs and Their Secondary Metabolites Modify In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation, Methane and Gas Production without a Tight Correlation with the Microbiota. Animals 2022, 12, 2628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Experimental diets and chemical composition (g/kg DM).
Table 1. Experimental diets and chemical composition (g/kg DM).
ItemTreatments
T1T2T3T4
Corn stover1000850700550
A. mearnsii leaves a0150300450
Total1000100010001000
Chemical composition
Dry matter870.0881.4887.3885.1
Organic matter894.5916.5920.9922.4
Crude protein96.6104.9114.2117.5
Neutral detergent fiber658.9619.9567.8542.5
Acid detergent fiber360.3341.6325.5312.8
Non-fiber carbohydrate138.08187.06229.59251.28
Fat1.024.749.4111.22
Ash105.483.479.077.5
Condensed tannins030.564.095.8
T1: 100% corn stover, T2: 85% corn stover + 15% A. mearnsii leaves, T3: 70% corn stover + 30% A. mearnsii leaves, T4: 65% corn stover + 45% A. mearnsii leaves, non-fiber carbohydrate = (1000 − (Crude protein + neutral detergent fiber + fat + ash)) estimated according to Getachew et al. (2004), a: 188.7 g/kg DM of condensed tannins.
Table
Table 2. Degradation kinetics, digestibility, microbial biomass production and rumen protozoa population in diets based on corn stover with increasing levels of Acacia mearnsii (g/kg DM, except where stated).
Table 2. Degradation kinetics, digestibility, microbial biomass production and rumen protozoa population in diets based on corn stover with increasing levels of Acacia mearnsii (g/kg DM, except where stated).
T1T2T3T4SEp Value
Degradation kinetics
A275.6 a291.9 a265.3 a273.2 a22.100.8710
B530.0 a473.0 ab434.0 b412.0 b23.520.0137
A + B806.0 a764.0 ab699.0 bc685.0 c18.310.0008
c0.045 a0.039 a0.041 a0.034 a0.00670.7049
Effective degradation
0.02 k639.0 a598.0 b551.0 c513.0 d9.130.0001
0.05 k524.0 a495.0 ab457.0 bc427.0 c9.840.0001
0.08 k465.0 a444.0 ab410.0 bc388.0 c9.430.0001
IVDMD (%)53.40 a49.76 ab46.08 b38.31 b1.840.0002
MBP (mg/0.5 g DM)314.50 a321.10 a274.40 b216.30 c7.740.0001
Population of rumen protozoa
Holotrich (Log10)
12 h3.8 a2.4 b1.5 c0.5 d0.120.0001
24 h3.8 a1.9 b1.0 c0 d0.150.0001
Entodiniomorph (Log10)
12 h4.1 a3.5 b2.9 c1.6 d0.100.0001
24 h4.0 a3.1 b2.2 c1.1 d0.140.0001
a–d Means with different letters between columns differ significantly (p < 0.05), A: degradation of the soluble fraction, B: degradation of the insoluble but potentially degradable fraction, A + B: degradation potential, c: degradation rate in % per hour, k: rate of passage, IVDMD: in vitro dry matter digestibility, MBP: microbial biomass production (mg/0.5 g DM).
Table
Table 3. Gas, CH4 and CO2 production characteristics of corn stover with increasing levels of Acacia mearnsii.
Table 3. Gas, CH4 and CO2 production characteristics of corn stover with increasing levels of Acacia mearnsii.
T1T2T3T4SEp-Value
Gas production parameters
D166.8 a168.4 a145.5 b117.8 c3.470.0001
k0.038 c0.043 bc0.052 ab0.061 a0.00240.0001
Gas production (mL/0.5 g fermented DM)
12 h61.3 a68.9 a66.9 a66.0 a3.520.4958
24 h96.8 a105.6 a97.9 a92.3 a3.970.1636
48 h138.9 a148.7 a135.5 a120.3 b3.320.0002
CH4 production (mL/0.5 g fermented DM)
12 h3.5 a1.4 b1.0 b1.1 b0.610.0377
24 h12.9 a10.3 b6.4 b6.7 b1.780.0415
48 h22.6 a18.4 b12.7 c8.1 d1.01<0.0001
CO2 production (mL/0.5 g fermented DM)
12 h29.8 a30.3 a25.2 a26.3 a2.140.2839
24 h68.8 a71.5 a55.8 b45.6 c2.37<0.0001
48 h79.4 a85.1 a76.6 a82.2 a5.550.7255
a–d Means with different letters between columns differ significantly (p < 0.05), D = potential cumulative gas production (mL/0.5 g fermented DM), k = rate of gas production (h).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Acosta-Lozano, N.; Barros-Rodríguez, M.; Guishca-Cunuhay, C.; Andrade-Yucailla, V.; Contreras-Barros, K.; Sandoval-Castro, C.; Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Zeidan Mohamed Salem, A. Potential Effect of Dietary Supplementation of Tannin-Rich Forage on Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production, Defaunation and Rumen Function. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 467. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10070467

AMA Style

Acosta-Lozano N, Barros-Rodríguez M, Guishca-Cunuhay C, Andrade-Yucailla V, Contreras-Barros K, Sandoval-Castro C, Elghandour MMMY, Zeidan Mohamed Salem A. Potential Effect of Dietary Supplementation of Tannin-Rich Forage on Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production, Defaunation and Rumen Function. Veterinary Sciences. 2023; 10(7):467. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10070467

Chicago/Turabian Style

Acosta-Lozano, Néstor, Marcos Barros-Rodríguez, Carlos Guishca-Cunuhay, Veronica Andrade-Yucailla, Katherine Contreras-Barros, Carlos Sandoval-Castro, Mona Mohamad Mohamad Yasseen Elghandour, and Abdelfattah Zeidan Mohamed Salem. 2023. "Potential Effect of Dietary Supplementation of Tannin-Rich Forage on Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production, Defaunation and Rumen Function" Veterinary Sciences 10, no. 7: 467. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10070467

APA Style

Acosta-Lozano, N., Barros-Rodríguez, M., Guishca-Cunuhay, C., Andrade-Yucailla, V., Contreras-Barros, K., Sandoval-Castro, C., Elghandour, M. M. M. Y., & Zeidan Mohamed Salem, A. (2023). Potential Effect of Dietary Supplementation of Tannin-Rich Forage on Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production, Defaunation and Rumen Function. Veterinary Sciences, 10(7), 467. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10070467

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