JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
In vitro Methanogenesis, Microbial Profile and Fermentation of Green Forages with Buffalo Rumen Liquor as Influenced by 2-Bromoethanesulphonic Acid
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
In vitro Methanogenesis, Microbial Profile and Fermentation of Green Forages with Buffalo Rumen Liquor as Influenced by 2-Bromoethanesulphonic Acid
Agarwal, Neeta; Kamra, D.N.; Chatterjee, P.N.; Kumar, Ravindra; Chaudhary, L.C.;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The interaction of fibre degrading microbes and methanogens was studied using two forages, lucerne (Medicago sativa) hay and maize (Zea mays) hay, as substrate and 2-bromoethanesulphonic acid (BES) as an additive in an in vitro gas production test. Gas and methane production (ml/g dry matter) were significantly higher (p<0.05) on lucerne as compared to maize hay. Inclusion of BES in the incubation medium significantly suppressed methane emission irrespective of substrate. The population density of total bacteria, fungi, Ruminococcus flavefaciens and Fibrobacter succinogenes was higher, whereas that of methanogens was lower with maize hay as compared to lucerne as substrate. BES suppressed methanogen population by 7 fold on lucerene and by 8.5 fold on maize at 24 h incubation as estimated by real time-PCR. This suppression was accompanied by almost complete (>98% of control) inhibition of methanogenesis. The proportion of acetate decreased, whereas that of propionate increased significantly by inclusion of BES, resulting in narrowing of acetate to propionate ratio. In vitro true digestibility (IVTD) of lucerne was significantly higher as compared to maize but BES inclusion did not affect IVTD.
 Keywords
2-Bromoethanesulphonic Acid;Methane Inhibition;Buffalo Rumen Liquor;Real-time PCR;Fibrobacter succinogenes;Ruminococcus flavefaciens;
 Language
English
 Cited by
1.
Nutritional Management for Buffalo Production,;;;;;

아세아태평양축산학회지, 2009. vol.22. 7, pp.1060-1068 crossref(new window)
2.
Effect of Feeding Ficus infectoria Leaves on Rumen Microbial Profile and Nutrient Utilization in Goats,;;;;

아세아태평양축산학회지, 2011. vol.24. 6, pp.810-817 crossref(new window)
3.
Effect of Sodium Nitrate and Nitrate Reducing Bacteria on In vitro Methane Production and Fermentation with Buffalo Rumen Liquor,;;;;

아세아태평양축산학회지, 2012. vol.25. 6, pp.812-817 crossref(new window)
1.
Effect of Madhuca longifolia and Terminalia chebula on methane production and nutrient utilization in buffaloes, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2015, 201, 38  crossref(new windwow)
2.
Encapsulated fumaric acid as a feed ingredient to decrease ruminal methane emissions, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2009, 152, 1-2, 62  crossref(new windwow)
3.
Influence of supplementation of tropical plant feed additives on in vitro rumen fermentation and methanogenesis, Animal Production Science, 2014, 54, 10, 1770  crossref(new windwow)
4.
Effect of Sodium Nitrate and Nitrate Reducing Bacteria on In vitro Methane Production and Fermentation with Buffalo Rumen Liquor, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2012, 25, 6, 812  crossref(new windwow)
5.
Effect of feeding tannin degrading bacteria (Isolate-6) on rumen fermentation, nutrient utilization and growth performance of goats fed on Ficus infectoria leaves, Small Ruminant Research, 2011, 99, 2-3, 143  crossref(new windwow)
6.
Rumen microbial variation and nutrient utilisation in mithun (Bos frontalis) under different feeding regimes, Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 2013, 97, 2, 297  crossref(new windwow)
7.
Effect of Feeding Ficus infectoria Leaves on Rumen Microbial Profile and Nutrient Utilization in Goats, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2011, 24, 6, 810  crossref(new windwow)
8.
Impact of levels of total digestible nutrients on microbiome, enzyme profile and degradation of feeds in buffalo rumen, PLOS ONE, 2017, 12, 2, e0172051  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
Agarwal, N., I. Agarwal, D. N. Kamra and L. C. Chaudhury. 2000. Diurnal variations in the activities of hydrolytic enzymes in different fractions of rumen contents of Murrah buffaloes. J. App. Anim. Res. 18:73-80.

2.
Agarwal, N., J. Saxena, S. Saha, L. C. Chaudhary and D. N. Kamra. 2004. Changes in fermentation characteristics, microbial populations and enzyme profile in the rumen of buffalo as affected by roughage level in the diet. Bubalus bubalis III:81-90

3.
AOAC. 1995. Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed., Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC

4.
Choi, N. J., S. Y. Lee, H. G. Sung, S. C. Lee and J. K. Ha. 2004. Effects of halogenated compounds, organic acids, unsaturated fatty acids on in vitro methane production. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 17:1255-1259

5.
Cottyn, B. G. and C. V. Boucque. 1968. Rapid method for the gaschromatographic determination of volatile fatty acids in rumen fluid. J. Agric. Food Chem. 16:105-107. crossref(new window)

6.
Denman, S. E. and C. S. McSweeney. 2005. Quantitative (real time) PCR. In: Methods in Gut Microbial Ecology for Ruminants (Ed. H. P. S. Makkar and C. S. McSweeney). Springer, Netherlands, pp. 105-115

7.
Denman, S. E., N. Tomkins and C. S. McSweeney. 2005. Monitoring the effect of bromochloromethane on methanogen population within the rumen using q-PCR. 2nd International Conference on Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture, 20-24 September, pp. 112-114.

8.
Hristov, A. N., T. A. McAllister and K. J. Cheng. 1999. Effect of diet, digesta processing, freezing and extraction procedure on some polysaccharide degrading activities of ruminal contents. Canadian J. Anim. Sci. 79:73-81. crossref(new window)

9.
IAEA. 2004. qPCR workshop for Rumen microbial ecology. International Atomic Energy Agency, pp 1-38, Australia.

10.
IPCC. 1996. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Greenhouse Gas Inventories Revised Methodology. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume, 3. Blackwell.

11.
Johnson, D. E., T. M. Hill, B. R. Carmean, L. W. Lodman and G. M. Warm. 1991. New perspective on ruminant methane production. In: Energy Metabolism of Farm Animal (Ed. C. Wenk and M. Boessinger). Zurich, Switzerland.

12.
Johnson, E. D., A. S. Wood, J. E. Wtone and E. T. Moran. 1972. Some effects of methane inhibition in ruminants. Canadian J. Anim. Sci. 52:703-712 crossref(new window)

13.
Kamra, D. N., S. Saha, N. Bhatt, L. C. Chaudhary and N. Agarwal. 2003. Effect of diet on enzyme profile, biochemical changes and in sacco degradability of feeds in the rumen of buffalo. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 16:374-379.

14.
Kumar, R., D. N. Kamra, N. Agarwal and L. C. Chaudhary. 2007. In vitro methanogenesis and fermentation of feeds containing oil seed cakes with rumen liquor of buffalo. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 20:1196-1200.

15.
Lila, Z. A., N. Mohammed, S. Kanda, M. Kurihara and H. Itabashi. 2005. Sarsaponin effects on ruminal fermentation and microbes, methane production, digestibility and blood metabolites in steers. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 18:1746-1751.

16.
Lowry, O. H., N. J. Rosenbrough, A. R. Farr and R. J. Randall. 1951. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 193:265-275.

17.
Martin, S. A. and J. M. Macy. 1985. Effects of monensin, pyromellitic diimide and bromoethanesulphonic acid on rumen fermentation in vitro. J. Anim. Sci. 60:544-550.

18.
Menke, K. H. and H. Steingass. 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained by chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim. Res. Develop. 28:7-55.

19.
Russel, J. B. 1998. The importance of pH in the regulation of ruminal acetate to propionate ratio and methane production. J. Dairy Sci. 81:3222-3230. crossref(new window)

20.
Saravanan, T. S. 2000. Effect of bromochloromethane on methanogenesis, nutrient utilization and growth rate of lambs. M.V.Sc. Thesis, IVRI, Izatnagar, India.

21.
Sauer, F. D. and R. M. Teather. 1987. Changes in oxidationreduction potentials and volatile fatty acid production by rumen bacteria when methane synthesis is inhibited. J. Dairy Sci. 70:1835-1840. crossref(new window)

22.
SPSS. 1996. Statistical Packages for Social Sciences version 7.5, SPSS Inc., Illinois, USA.

23.
Tomkins, N. W. and R. A. Hunter. 2003. Methane mitigation in beef cattle using a patented antimethanogen. In Proceedings 2nd Joint Australia and New Zealand Forum on Non-$CO_2$ Greenhouse Gas Emission from Agriculture (Ed. R. Eckard). CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, Canberra.

24.
Trei, J. E., R. C. Parish, Y. K. Singh and G. C. Scott. 1971. Effect of methane inhibitors on rumen metabolism and feedlot performance of sheep. J. Dairy Sci. 154:536-540.

25.
Van Soest, P. J. and J. B. Robertson. 1988. A laboratory Manual for Animal Science 612, Cornell University, USA.

26.
Van Soest, P. J., J. B. Robertson and B. A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharide in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 3585-3597.

27.
Weatherburn, M. W. 1967. Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia. Anal. Chem. 39:971-974. crossref(new window)

28.
Wina, E., S. Muetzel, E. Hoffman, H. P. S. Makkar and K. Becker. 2005. Saponins containing methanol extract of Sapindus rarak affect microbial fermentation, microbial activity and microbial community structure in vitro. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 121:159-174. crossref(new window)