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)

  • Na, Youngjun (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University) ;
  • Li, Dong Hua (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University) ;
  • Lee, Sang Rak (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University)
  • Received : 2016.12.14
  • Accepted : 2017.03.06
  • Published : 2017.07.01


Objective: Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of forage-to-concentrate (F:C) ratio on the nutrient digestibility and enteric methane ($CH_4$) emission in growing goats and Sika deer. Methods: Three male growing goats (body weight $[BW]=19.0{\pm}0.7kg$) and three male growing deer ($BW=19.3{\pm}1.2kg$) were respectively allotted to a $3{\times}3$ Latin square design with an adaptation period of 7 d and a data collection period of 3 d. Respiration-metabolism chambers were used for measuring the enteric $CH_4$ emission. Treatments of low (25:75), moderate (50:50), and high (73:27) F:C ratios were given to both goats and Sika deer. Results: Dry matter (DM) and organic matter (OM) digestibility decreased linearly with increasing F:C ratio in both goats and Sika deer. In both goats and Sika deer, the $CH_4$ emissions expressed as g/d, g/kg $BW^{0.75}$, % of gross energy intake, g/kg DM intake (DMI), and g/kg OM intake (OMI) decreased linearly as the F:C ratio increased, however, the $CH_4$ emissions expressed as g/kg digested DMI and OMI were not affected by the F:C ratio. Eight equations were derived for predicting the enteric $CH_4$ emission from goats and Sika deer. For goat, equation 1 was found to be of the highest accuracy: $CH_4(g/d)=3.36+4.71{\times}DMI(kg/d)-0.0036{\times}neutral$ detergent fiber concentrate (NDFC,g/kg)+$0.01563{\times}dry$ matter digestibility (DMD,g/kg)-$0.0108{\times}neutral$ detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD, g/kg). For Sika deer, equation 5 was found to be of the highest accuracy: $CH_4(g/d)=66.3+27.7{\times}DMI(kg/d)-5.91{\times}NDFC(g/kg)-7.11{\times}DMD(g/kg)+0.0809{\times}NDFD(g/kg)$. Conclusion: Digested nutrient intake could be considered when determining the $CH_4$ generation factor in goats and Sika deer. Finally, the enteric $CH_4$ prediction model for goats and Sika deer were estimated.


Supported by : Konkuk University


  1. IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2006.
  2. Johnson KA, Johnson DE. Methane emissions from cattle. J Anim Sci 1995;73:2483-92.
  3. Blaxter KL, Clapperton JL. Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. Br J Nutr 1965;19:511-22.
  4. Moe PW, Tyrrell HF. Methane production in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1979;62:1583-6.
  5. Philippeau C, Lettat A, Martin C, et al. Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials on ruminal characteristics, methane emission, and milk fatty acid composition in cows fed high-or low-starch diets. J Dairy Sci 2017;100:2637-50.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Goodrich RD, Garrett JE, Gast DR, et al. Influence of monensin on the performance of cattle. J Anim Sci 1984;58:1484-98.
  9. Aguerre MJ, Wattiaux MA, Powell JM, Broderick GA, Arndt C. Effect of forage-to-concentrate ratio in dairy cow diets on emission of methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia, lactation performance, and manure excretion. J Dairy Sci 2011;94:3081-93.
  10. 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.
  11. Lovett D, Lovell S, Stack L, et al. Effect of forage/concentrate ratio and dietary coconut oil level on methane output and performance of finishing beef heifers. Livest Prod Sci 2003;84:135-46.
  12. FAO, Food Agric Organziation. Statistical Yearbook 2013: World Food and Agriculture. Rome, Italy: FAO Food Agric Organziation UN, 2013.
  13. Li ZP, Liu HL, Jin CA, et al. Differences in the methanogen population exist in Sika deer (Cervus nippon) fed different diets in China. Microb Ecol 2013;66:879-88.
  14. 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.
  15. Ellis JL, Kebreab E, Odongo NE, et al. Modeling methane production from beef cattle using linear and nonlinear approaches. J Anim Sci 2009;87:1334-45.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Gardinal R, Calomeni GD, Consolo NRB, et al. Influence of polymercoated slow-release urea on total tract apparent digestibility, ruminal fermentation and performance of Nellore steers. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2017;30:34-41.
  20. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. Assoiciation of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC: AOAC International; 1995.
  21. 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.
  22. Yang WZ, Beauchemin KA, Rode LM. Effects of grain processing, forage to concentrate ratio, and forage particle size on rumen pH and digestion by dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2001;84:2203-16.
  23. Moss AR, Givens DI, Garnsworthy PC. The effect of supplementing grass silage with barley on digestibility, in sacco degradability, rumen fermentation and methane production in sheep at two levels of intake. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1995;55:9-33.
  24. Ramos S, Tejido ML, Martinez ME, Ranilla MJ, Carro MD. Microbial protein synthesis, ruminal digestion, microbial populations, and nitrogen balance in sheep fed diets varying in forage-to-concentrate ratio and type of forage. J Anim Sci 2009;87:2924-34.
  25. Cantalapiedra-Hijar G, Yanez-Ruiz DR, Martin-Garcia AI, Molina-Alcaide E. Effects of forage:concentrate ratio and forage type on apparent digestibility, ruminal fermentation, and microbial growth in goats. J Anim Sci 2008;87:622-31.
  26. Kawas JR, Lopes J, Danelon DL, Lu CD. Influence of forage-to-concentrate ratios on intake, digestibility, chewing and milk production of dairy goats. Small Rumin Res 1991;4:11-8.
  27. Ramanzin M, Bailoni L, Schiavon S. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio on comparative digestion in sheep, goats and fallow deer. Anim Sci 1997;64:163-70.
  28. Agle M, Hristov AN, Zaman S, et al. Effect of dietary concentrate on rumen fermentation, digestibility, and nitrogen losses in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2010;93:4211-22.
  29. Garcia-Martinez R, Ranilla MJ, Tejido ML, Carro MD. Effects of disodium fumarate on in vitro rumen microbial growth, methane production and fermentation of diets differing in their forage:concentrate ratio. Br J Nutr 2005;94:71.
  30. Van Kessel JAS, Russell JB. The effect of pH on ruminal methanogenesis. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1996;20:205-10.
  31. Yang CJ, Mao SY, Long LM, Zhu WY. Effect of disodium fumarate on microbial abundance, ruminal fermentation and methane emission in goats under different forage:concentrate ratios. Animal 2012;6: 1788-94.
  32. Hofmann RR. Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 1989;78:443-57.
  33. Jeyanathan J, Kirs M, Ronimus RS, Hoskin SO, Janssen PH. Methanogen community structure in the rumens of farmed sheep, cattle and red deer fed different diets. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2011;76:311-26.
  34. Zhou MI, Hernandez-Sanabria E, Guan Le Luo. Assessment of the microbial ecology of ruminal methanogens in cattle with different feed efficiencies. Appl Environ Microbiol 2009;75:6524-33.
  35. Danielsson R, Dicksved J, Sun L, et al. Methane Production in dairy cows correlates with rumen methanogenic and bacterial community structure. Front Microbiol 2017;8:226.
  36. Ramin M, Huhtanen P. Development of equations for predicting methane emissions from ruminants. J Dairy Sci 2013;96:2476-93.
  37. Stergiadis S, Zou C, Chen X, et al. Equations to predict methane emissions from cows fed at maintenance energy level in pasturebased systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2016;220:8-20.
  38. Negussie E, de Haas Y, Dehareng F, et al. Invited review: Large-scale indirect measurements for enteric methane emissions in dairy cattle: A review of proxies and their potential for use in management and breeding decisions. J Dairy Sci 2017;100:2433-53.

Cited by

  1. Intake, digestibility, growth performance, and enteric methane emission of Brazilian semiarid non-descript breed goats fed diets with different forage to concentrate ratios pp.1573-7438, 2017,