DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of feeding level on nutrient digestibility and enteric methane production in growing goats (Capra hircus hircus) and Sika deer (Cervus nippon hortulorum)

  • Na, Youngjun (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University) ;
  • Li, Dong Hua (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University) ;
  • Choi, Yongjun (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University) ;
  • Kim, Kyoung Hoon (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Sang Rak (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University)
  • Received : 2017.09.22
  • Accepted : 2018.02.14
  • Published : 2018.08.01

Abstract

Objective: Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of feeding level on nutrient digestibility and enteric methane ($CH_4$) emissions in growing goats and Sika deer. Methods: Three growing male goats (initial body weight [BW] of $22.4{\pm}0.9kg$) and three growing male deer (initial BW of $20.2{\pm}4.8kg$) were each allotted to a respiration-metabolism chamber for an adaptation period of 7 d and a data collection period of 3 d. An experimental diet was offered to each animal at one of three feeding levels (1.5%, 2.0%, and 2.5% of BW) in a $3{\times}3$ Latin square design. The chambers were used for measuring enteric $CH_4$ emission. Results: Nutrient digestibility decreased linearly in goats as feeding level increased, whereas Sika deer digestibility was not affected by feeding level. The enteric production of $CH_4$ expressed as g/kg dry matter intake (DMI), g/kg organic matter intake, and % of gross energy intake decreased linearly with increased feeding level in goats; however, that of Sika deer was not affected by feeding level. Six equations were estimated for predicting the enteric $CH_4$ emission from goats and Sika deer. For goat, equation 1 was found to be of the highest accuracy: $CH_4(g/d)=6.2({\pm}14.1)+10.2({\pm}7.01){\times}DMI(kg/d)+0.0048({\pm}0.0275){\times}dry$ matter digestibility (DMD, g/kg)-0.0070 (${\pm}0.0187$)${\times}$neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD; g/kg). For Sika deer, equation 4 was found to be of the highest accuracy: $CH_4(g/d)=-13.0({\pm}30.8)+29.4({\pm}3.93){\times}DMI(kg/d)+0.046(0.094){\times}DMD(g/kg)-0.0363({\pm}0.0636){\times}NDFD(g/kg)$. Conclusion: Increasing the feeding level increased $CH_4$ production in both goats and Sika deer, and predictive models of enteric $CH_4$ production by goats and Sika deer were estimated.

Keywords

References

  1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Kamiyamaguchi, Japan: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2006.
  2. Robinson PH, Uden P, Wiseman J, Mateos GG. Some suggestions and guidelines for preparation of manuscripts for submission for consideration for publication. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2007;134:181-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.02.007
  3. Na Y, Li DH, Lee SR. Effects of dietary forage-to-concentrate ratio on nutrient digestibility and enteric methane production in growing goats (Capra hircus hircus) and Sika deer (Cervus nippon hortulorum). Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2017;30:967-72. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.16.0954
  4. Moe PW, Tyrrell HF. Methane production in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1979;62:1583-6. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(79)83465-7
  5. Okine EK, Mathison GW, Hardin RT. Effects of changes in frequency of reticular contractions on fluid and particulate passage rates in cattle. J Anim Sci 1989;67:3388-96. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1989.67123388x
  6. Jeong C-D, Mamuad LL, Kim S-H, et al. Effect of soybean meal and soluble starch on biogenic amine production and microbial diversity using in vitro rumen fermentation. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2015;28:50-7.
  7. Goodrich RD, Garrett JE, Gast DR, et al. Influence of monensin on the performance of cattle. J Anim Sci 1984;58:1484-98. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1984.5861484x
  8. Shaver RD, Nytes AJ, Satter LD, Jorgensen NA. Influence of amount of feed intake and forage physical form on digestion and passage of prebloom alfalfa hay in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1986;69:1545-59. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(86)80571-9
  9. Li DH, Kim BK, Lee SR. A respiration-metabolism chamber system for measuring gas emission and nutrient digestibility in small ruminant animals. Rev Colomb Cienc Pecu 2010;23:444-50.
  10. Omed HM. Studies of the relationships between pasture type and quality and the feed intake of grazing sheep [PhD thesis]. Bangor, UK: University College of North Wales; 1986.
  11. Gardinal R, Calomeni GD, Consolo NRB, et al. Influence of polymer-coated slow-release urea on total tract apparent digestibility, ruminal fermentation and performance of Nellore steers. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2017;30:34-41.
  12. AOAC International, Cunniff P. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. Arlington, VA: AOAC International; 1995.
  13. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  14. Blaxter KL, Wainman FW. The utilization of food by sheep and cattle. J Agric Sci 1961;57:419-25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600049418
  15. Watson CJ, Davidson WM, Kennedy JW, Robinson CH, Muir GW. Digestibility Studies with ruminants: XII. The comparative digestive powers of sheep and steers. Sci Agric 1948;28:357-74.
  16. Terry RA, Tilley JMA. Volatile fatty acid determinations on sheep rumen liquor. Exp Prog Grassld Res Inst 1961;13:79-80.
  17. Fenner H, Dickinson FN, Barnes HD. Relationship of digestibility and certain rumen fluid components to level of feed intake and time of sampling after feeding. J Dairy Sci 1967;50:334-44. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(67)87420-4
  18. Ammann AP, Cowan RL, Mothershead CL, Baumgardt BR. Dry matter and energy intake in relation to digestibility in white-tailed deer. J Wildl Manage 1973;2:195-201.
  19. Drozdz A, Osiecki A. Intake and digestibility of natural feeds by roe-deer. Acta Theriol (Warsz) 1973;18:81-91. https://doi.org/10.4098/AT.arch.73-3
  20. Koch RM, Jung HG, Crouse JD, Varel VH, Cundiff LV. Growth, digestive capability, carcass, and meat characteristics of Bison bison, Bos taurus, and Bos ${\times}$ Bison. J Anim Sci 1995;73:1271-81. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7351271x
  21. Richmond RJ, Hudson RJ, Christopherson RJ. Comparison of forage intake and digestibility by bison, yak and cattle [Internet]. Agric Bull; 1976. Available from: http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=CA19770190262
  22. Galbraith JK, Mathison GW, Hudson RJ, McAllister TA, Cheng K-J. Intake, digestibility, methane and heat production in bison, wapiti and white-tailed deer. Can J Anim Sci 1998;78:681-91. https://doi.org/10.4141/A97-089
  23. Islam M, Abe H, Hayashi Y, Terada F. Effects of feeding Italian ryegrass with corn on rumen environment, nutrient digestibility, methane emission, and energy and nitrogen utilization at two intake levels by goats. Small Rumin Res 2000;38:165-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(00)00148-6
  24. Hofmann RR. Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 1989;78:443-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00378733
  25. Sauvant D, Giger-Reverdin S. Variations in the production of CH4 per unit of digestible organic matter intake. Proc XIe ISRP; 2009. pp. 350-1.
  26. Beauchemin KA, McGinn SM. Enteric methane emissions from growing beef cattle as affected by diet and level of intake. Can J Anim Sci 2006;86:401-8. https://doi.org/10.4141/A06-021
  27. Blaxter KL, Clapperton JL. Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. Br J Nutr 1965;19:511-22. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19650046
  28. Dewhurst RJ, Evans RT, Scollan ND, et al. Comparison of grass and legume silages for milk production. 2. In vivo and in sacco evaluations of rumen function. J Dairy Sci 2003;86:2612-21. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73856-9
  29. Pinares-Patino CS, Waghorn GC, Machmuller A, et al. Methane emissions and digestive physiology of non-lactating dairy cows fed pasture forage. Can J Anim Sci 2007;87:601-13. https://doi.org/10.4141/CJAS06023
  30. Li X, Liu C, Chen Y, et al. Effects of mineral salt supplement on enteric methane emissions, ruminal fermentation and methanogen community of lactating cows. Anim Sci J 2017;88:1049-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12738
  31. Patra AK, Lalhriatpuii M. Development of statistical models for prediction of enteric methane emission from goats using nutrient composition and intake variables. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2016;215:89-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.018

Cited by

  1. Recent insight and future techniques to enhance rumen fermentation in dairy goats vol.32, pp.8, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.19.0323