Literature DB >> 35953208

Technical note: Evaluation of sampling methods for methane concentration from in vitro fermentation.

Genevieve M D'Souza1, Aaron B Norris2, Luis O Tedeschi1.   

Abstract

The objectives of this multipart study were 1) to assess the efficacy of sampling methods of methane concentration ([CH4]) of headspace gas produced during in vitro gas production (IVGP) fermentation, 2) to verify whether headspace [CH4] sampled from an exetainer has the same [CH4] as the headspace of IVGP bottles, 3) to measure relative humidity (RH) within an IVGP bottle, and 4) to compare [CH4] on a dry-gas (DG) basis when accounting for water vapor pressure (Pw). The original IVGP protocol recommends placing bottles on ice (0 °C) for 30 min to stop fermentation (ICE). A laboratory protocol recommends placing the bottles in the refrigerator (4 to 6 °C) to slow fermentation for 48 h and subsequently allowing the bottles to return to ambient temperature before sampling (FRIDGE). This study evaluated the previous methods against a direct sampling of the headspace gas after incubation (DIRECT). Rumen inoculum from four rumen-cannulated beef steers was combined and homogenized before incubating the fermentable substrate of ground alfalfa hay. After 48 h of IVGP incubation, each bottle was randomly assigned to a treatment protocol. The pressure (P), volume (V), and temperature (T) of headspace gas in each bottle were recorded. Headspace gas was then thoroughly mixed, and 12 mL gas was removed into an evacuated exetainer for [CH4] sampling via gas chromatography (EXET; Objective 1). Eight bottles from ICE and FRIDGE were randomly selected to follow EXET, whereas the remaining bottles had [CH4] directly measured from their headspace (BOTT; Objective 2). Five diets of differing feed composition and nutrient densities were used with a blank to test the RH of the IVGP slurry (Objective 3). Using RH, [CH4] was transformed to a DG basis to account for Pw (Objective 4). Statistical analysis was completed using a random coefficients model. There were no differences between EXET and BOTT (P = 0.28). The RH of the IVGP slurry was 100% (P = 1.00), confirming that IVGP gas is saturated with water vapor. The P, V, and T differed among treatments (P < 0.01). The [CH4] of DIRECT, ICE, and FRIDGE were different (P < 0.01). Dry-gas P, V, and [CH4] differed among treatments (P < 0.01). As the methods differ in their assessment of [CH4], there is no clear recommendation. Instead, to present a more accurate [CH4], P, V, and T should be measured when sampling headspace gas and equations presented should be used to remove volume inflation due to water vapor and present [CH4] on a DG basis.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cattle; headspace gas; in vitro gas production; methane; ruminant

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35953208      PMCID: PMC9512091          DOI: 10.1093/jas/skac259

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.338


  9 in total

Review 1.  The development of anaerobic treatment and its future.

Authors:  P L McCarty
Journal:  Water Sci Technol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 1.915

2.  On-farm methane measurements during milking correlate with total methane production by individual dairy cows.

Authors:  P C Garnsworthy; J Craigon; J H Hernandez-Medrano; N Saunders
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.034

3.  Rates of production of methane in the rumen and large intestine of sheep.

Authors:  R M Murray; A M Bryant; R A Leng
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  1976-07       Impact factor: 3.718

4.  Computerized monitoring of gas production to measure forage digestion in vitro.

Authors:  A N Pell; P Schofield
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 4.034

5.  Site and extent of starch degradation in the dairy cow - a comparison between in vivo, in situ and in vitro measurements.

Authors:  V A Hindle; A M Vuuren van; A Klop; A A Mathijssen-Kamman; A H van Gelder; J W Cone
Journal:  J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl)       Date:  2005 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.130

6.  Effects of chemical composition variation on the dynamics of ruminal fermentation and biological value of corn milling (co)products.

Authors:  L O Tedeschi; P J Kononoff; K Karges; M L Gibson
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.034

Review 7.  Measuring Methane Production from Ruminants.

Authors:  Julian Hill; Chris McSweeney; André-Denis G Wright; Greg Bishop-Hurley; Kourosh Kalantar-Zadeh
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 19.536

Review 8.  Methods for Measuring and Estimating Methane Emission from Ruminants.

Authors:  Ida M L D Storm; Anne Louise F Hellwing; Nicolaj I Nielsen; Jørgen Madsen
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2012-04-13       Impact factor: 2.752

9.  Comparison of Methods to Measure Methane for Use in Genetic Evaluation of Dairy Cattle.

Authors:  Philip C Garnsworthy; Gareth F Difford; Matthew J Bell; Ali R Bayat; Pekka Huhtanen; Björn Kuhla; Jan Lassen; Nico Peiren; Marcin Pszczola; Diana Sorg; Marleen H P W Visker; Tianhai Yan
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 2.752

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.