New roughage source of Pennisetum purpureum cv. Mahasarakham utilization for ruminants feeding under global climate change

  • Mapato, Chaowarit (Tropical Feed Resources Research and Development Center (TROFREC), Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University) ;
  • Wanapat, Metha (Tropical Feed Resources Research and Development Center (TROFREC), Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University)
  • Received : 2018.03.15
  • Accepted : 2018.05.09
  • Published : 2018.12.01


Objective: As the climate changes, it influences ruminant's feed intake, nutrient digestibility, rumen methane production and emission. This experiment aimed to evaluate the effect of feeding Sweet grass (Pennisetum purpureum cv. Mahasarakham; SG) as a new source of good quality forage to improve feed utilization efficiency and to mitigate rumen methane production and emission. Methods: Four, growing crossbred of Holstein Friesian heifers, 14 months old, were arranged in a $4{\times}4$ Latin square design to receive four dietary treatments. Treatment 1 (T1) was rice straw (RS) fed on ad libitum with 1.0% body weight (BW) of concentrate (C) supplementation (RS/1.0C). Treatment 2 (T2) and treatment 3 (T3) were SG, fed on ad libitum with 1.0% and 0.5% BW of concentrate supplementation, respectively (SG/1.0C and SG/0.5C, respectively). Treatment 4 (T4) was total Sweet grass fed on ad libitum basis with non-concentrate supplementation (TSG). Results: The results revealed that roughage and total feed intake were increased with SG when compared to RS (p<0.01) while TSG was like RS/1.0C treatment. Digestibility of nutrients, nutrients intake, total volatile fatty acids (VFAs), rumen microorganisms were the highest and CH4 was the lowest in the heifers that received SG/1.0C (p<0.01). Total dry matter (DM) feed intake, digestibility and intake of nutrients, total VFAs, $NH_3-N$, bacterial and fungal population of animals receiving SG/0.5C were higher than those fed on RS/1.0C. Reducing of concentrate supplementation with SG as a roughage source increased $NH_3-N$, acetic acid, and fungal populations, but it decreased propionic acid and protozoal populations (p<0.05). However, ruminal pH and blood urea nitrogen were not affected by the dietary treatments (p>0.05). Conclusion: As the results, SG could be a good forage to improve rumen fermentation, decrease methane production and reduced the level of concentrate supplementation for growing ruminants in the tropics especially under global climate change.


Forage Utilization;Sweet Grass;Feed Quality;Global Climate Change;Ruminants


Supported by : Thailand Research Fund (TRF)


  1. Knapp JR, Laur GL, Vadas PA, Weiss WP, Tricarico JM. Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. J Dairy Sci 2014;97:3231-61.
  2. Wanapat M, Cherdthong A, Phesatcha K, Kang S. Dietary sources and their effects on animal production and environmental sustainability. Anim Nutr 2015;1:96-103.
  3. Wanapat M, Khampa S. Effect of cassava hay in high quality feed block as anthelmintics in steers grazing on ruzi grass. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2006;19:695-8.
  4. Chase LE, Grant RJ. High forage rations - What do we know? Proceedings of the Cornell Nutrition Conference. Syracuse, NY, USA; 2013.
  5. Wanapat M, Foiklang S, Phesatcha K, et al. On-farm feeding interventions to increase milk production in lactating dairy cows. Trop Anim Health Prod 2017;49:829-33.
  6. Yammeun-art S, Somrak P, Phatsara C. Effect of the ratio of maize cob and husk to Napier Pakchong 1 silage on nutritive value and in vitro gas production of rumen fluid of Thai native cattle. Anim Prod Sci 2017;57:1603-6.
  7. Yang WZ, Beauchemin KA. Altering physically effective fiber intake through forage proportion and particle length: chewing and ruminal pH. J Dairy Sci 2007;90:2826-38.
  8. Wanapat M, Puramongkon T, Siphuak W. Feeding of cassava hay for lactating dairy cows. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2000;13:478-82.
  9. Akins MS, Shaver RD. Influence of corn silage hybrid type on lactation performance by Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2014;97:7811-20.
  10. Mapato C, Wanapat M. Fermentation characteristics of tropical grass using in vitro gas production technique. Proceeding of the 17th Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies Animal Science Congress; 2016. pp. 366-72.
  11. Wanapat M, Gunun P, Anantasook N, Kang S. Changes of rumen pH, fermentation and microbial population as influenced by different ratios of roughage (rice straw) to concentrate in dairy steers. J Agric Sci (Cambridge) 2014;152:675-85.
  12. AOAC. Official methods of analysis, 19th edition. Animal Feed: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. AOAC International; 2012.
  13. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-97.
  14. NRC (National Research Council). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 6th Rev. Ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy of Sciences; 2001.
  15. Samuel M, Sagathewan S, Thomus J, Mathen G. An HPLC method for estimation of volatile fatty acids of rumen fluid. Indian J Anim Sci 1997;67:805-7.
  16. Moss AR, Jouany P, Newbold J. Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Ann Zootech 2000;49:231-53.
  17. Galyen M. Laboratory procedures in animal nutrition research. Las Cruces, NM, USA: New Mexico State University; 1989.
  18. Crocker CL. Rapid determination of urea-nitrogen in serum or plasma without deproteinization. Am J Med Technol 1967;33:361-5.
  19. SAS. What's New in SAS 9.0, 9.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.3. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.; 2004.
  20. Steel RGD, Torrie JH. Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach. 2nd edition. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill Book Co; 1980.
  21. Yokota H, Fujii Y, Oshima M. Nutritional quality of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum, Schum.) silage supplemented with molasses and rice bran by goats. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 1998;11:697-701.
  22. Halim RA, Shampazurini S, Idris AB. Yield and nutritive quality of nine Napier grass varieties in Malaysia. Mal J Anim Sci 2013;16:37-44.
  23. Wangchuk K, Rai K, Nirola H, Dendup C, Mongar D. Forage growth, yield and quality responses of Napier hybrid grass cultivars to three cutting intervals in the Himalayan foothills. Trop Grassl - Forrajes Tropicales 2015;3:142-50.
  24. Zailan MZ, Yaakub H, Jusoh S. Yield and nutritive value of four Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) cultivars at different harvesting ages. Agric Biol J North Am 2016;7:213-9.
  25. Chanthakhoun V, Wanapat M, Wachirapakorn C, Wanapat S. Effect of legume (Phaseolus calcaratus) hay supplementation on rumen microorganisms, fermentation and nutrient digestibility in swamp buffalo. Livest Sci 2011;140:17-23.
  26. Corea EE, Aguilara JM, Alasa NP, et al. Effects of dietary cowpea (Vigna sinensis) hay and protein level on milk yield, milk composition, N efficiency and profitability of dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2017;226:48-55.
  27. Van Soest PJ. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press; 1994.
  28. Wanapat M, Pimpa O. Effect of ruminal $NH_3$-N levels on ruminal fermentation, purine derivatives, digestibility and rice straw intake in swamp buffaloes. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 1999;12:904-7.
  29. Kang S, Wanapat M, Cherdthorng A. Effect of banana flower powder supplementation as a rumen buffer on rumen fermentation efficiency and nutrient digestibility in dairy steers fed a high-concentrate diet. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2014;196:32-41.
  30. Wanapat M, Kang S. Cassava chip (Manihot esculenta Crantz) as an energy source for ruminant feeding. Anim Nutr 2015;1:266-70.
  31. Benchaar C, Pomar C, Chiquette J. Evaluation of dietary strategies to reduce methane production in ruminants: a modelling approach. Can J Anim Sci 2001;81:563-74.
  32. Jouany JP. Effects of diet on populations of rumen protozoa in relation to fibre digestion. In: Nolan JV, Leng RA, Demeyer DI, editors. The roles of protozoa and fungi in ruminant digestion. Armidale, Australia: Penambul Books; 1989.
  33. Martinez ME, Ranilla MJ, Tejido ML, Saro C, Carro MD. Comparison of fermentation of diets of variable composition and microbial populations in the rumen of sheep and Rusitec fermenters. II. Protozoa population and diversity of bacterial communities. J Dairy Sci 2010;93:3699-712.
  34. Kamra DN. Rumen microbial ecosystem. Curr Sci 2005;89;126.
  35. Akin DE, Rigsby LL. Mixed fungal populations and lignocellulosic tissue degradation in the bovine rumen. Appl Environ Microbiol 1987;53:1987-95.
  36. Hungate RE. A roll tube method for cultivation of strict anaerobes. In: Norris JR, Ribbons DW, editors. Methods in microbiology. NY, USA: Academic Press; 1969. pp. 117-313.
  37. Russell JB, Muck RE, Weimer PJ. Quantitative analysis of cellulose degradation and growth of cellulolytic bacteria in the rumen. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2009;67:183-97.