Literature DB >> 31079901

Are dietary strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission equally effective across dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep?

Sanne van Gastelen1, Jan Dijkstra2, André Bannink3.   

Abstract

The digestive physiology of ruminants is sufficiently different (e.g., with respect to mean retention time of digesta, digestibility of the feed offered, digestion, and fermentation characteristics) that caution is needed before extrapolating results from one type of ruminant to another. The objectives of the present study were (1) to provide an overview of some essential differences in rumen physiology between dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep that are related to methane (CH4) emission; and (2) to evaluate whether dietary strategies to mitigate CH4 emission with various modes of action are equally effective in dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep. A literature search was performed using Web of Science and Scopus, and 94 studies were selected from the literature. Per study, the effect size of the dietary strategies was expressed as a proportion (%) of the control level of CH4 emission, as this enabled a comparison across ruminant types. Evaluation of the literature indicated that the effectiveness of forage-related CH4 mitigation strategies, including feeding more highly digestible grass (herbage or silage) or replacing different forage types with corn silage, differs across ruminant types. These strategies are most effective for dairy cattle, are effective for beef cattle to a certain extent, but seem to have minor or no effects in sheep. In general, the effectiveness of other dietary mitigation strategies, including increased concentrate feeding and feed additives (e.g., nitrate), appeared to be similar for dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep. We concluded that if the mode of action of a dietary CH4 mitigation strategy is related to ruminant-specific factors, such as feed intake or rumen physiology, the effectiveness of the strategy differs across ruminant types, whereas if the mode of action is associated with methanogenesis-related fermentation pathways, the strategy is effective across ruminant types. Hence, caution is needed when translating effectiveness of dietary CH4 mitigation strategies across different ruminant types or production systems. The Authors. Published by FASS Inc. and Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Dairy Science Association®. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Entities:  

Keywords:  dietary strategy; in vivo measurement; methane; ruminant

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31079901     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2018-15785

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dairy Sci        ISSN: 0022-0302            Impact factor:   4.034


  7 in total

1.  Linking metabolites in eight bioactive forage species to their in vitro methane reduction potential across several cultivars and harvests.

Authors:  Supriya Verma; Siegfried Wolffram; Juha-Pekka Salminen; Mario Hasler; Andreas Susenbeth; Ralf Blank; Friedhelm Taube; Christof Kluß; Carsten Stefan Malisch
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  Enteric methane emissions, growth, and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers fed a garlic- and citrus-based feed additive in diets with three different forage concentrations.

Authors:  Bryce Bitsie; Andrea M Osorio; Darren D Henry; Breno C Silva; Leticia A Godoi; Chanadol Supapong; Tassilo Brand; Jon P Schoonmaker
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2022-05-01       Impact factor: 3.338

3.  Net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from feed additive use in California dairy cattle.

Authors:  Xiaoyu Feng; Ermias Kebreab
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Incorporating a Fresh Mixed Annual Ryegrass and Berseem Clover Forage Into the Winter Diet of Dairy Cows Resulted in Reduced Milk Yield, but Reduced Nitrogen Excretion and Reduced Methane Yield.

Authors:  Daniel Enriquez-Hidalgo; Dayane Lemos Teixeira; Luiz Carlos Pinheiro Machado Filho; Deirdre Hennessy; Paula Toro-Mujica; Shaun Richard Owen Williams; Fabiellen Cristina Pereira
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2020-11-20

5.  Enteric methane mitigation interventions.

Authors:  Julia Q Fouts; Mallory C Honan; Breanna M Roque; Juan M Tricarico; Ermias Kebreab
Journal:  Transl Anim Sci       Date:  2022-04-08

6.  Evaluation of Feed Strategies and Changes of Stocking Rate to Decrease the Carbon Footprint in a Traditional Cow-Calf System: A Simulation Model.

Authors:  Paula Toro-Mujica
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2021-06-09

Review 7.  The Role of Chitosan as a Possible Agent for Enteric Methane Mitigation in Ruminants.

Authors:  Rafael Jiménez-Ocampo; Sara Valencia-Salazar; Carmen Elisa Pinzón-Díaz; Esperanza Herrera-Torres; Carlos Fernando Aguilar-Pérez; Jacobo Arango; Juan Carlos Ku-Vera
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2019-11-09       Impact factor: 2.752

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.