DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

In vitro rumen fermentation kinetics, metabolite production, methane and substrate degradability of polyphenol rich plant leaves and their component complete feed blocks

  • Aderao, Ganesh N. (Division of Animal Nutrition Division, ICAR- Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute) ;
  • Sahoo, A. (Animal Nutrition Division, ICAR- Indian Veterinary Research Institute) ;
  • Bhatt, R.S. (Division of Animal Nutrition Division, ICAR- Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute) ;
  • Kumawat, P.K. (Division of Animal Nutrition Division, ICAR- Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute) ;
  • Soni, Lalit (Division of Animal Nutrition Division, ICAR- Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute)
  • Received : 2018.07.04
  • Accepted : 2018.10.29
  • Published : 2018.11.30

Abstract

Background: This experiment aimed at assessing polyphenol-rich plant biomass to use in complete feed making for the feeding of ruminants. Methods: An in vitro ruminal evaluation of complete blocks (CFB) with (Acacia nilotica, Ziziphus nummularia leaves) and without (Vigna sinensis hay) polyphenol rich plant leaves was conducted by applying Menke's in vitro gas production (IVGP) technique. A total of six substrates, viz. three forages and three CFBs were subjected to in vitro ruminal fermentation in glass syringes to assess gas and methane production, substrate degradability, and rumen fermentation metabolites. Results: Total polyphenol content (g/Kg) was 163 in A. nilotica compared to 52.5 in Z. nummularia with a contrasting difference in tannin fractions, higher hydrolysable tannins (HT) in the former (140.1 vs 2.8) and higher condensed (CT) tannins in the later (28.3 vs 7.9). The potential gas production was lower with a higher lag phase (L) in CT containing Z. nummularia and the component feed block. A. nilotica alone and as a constituent of CFB produced higher total gas but with lower methane while the partitioning factor (PF) was higher in Z. nummularia and its CFB. Substrate digestibility (both DM and OM) was lower (P < 0.001) in Z. nummularia compared to other forages and CFBs. The fermentation metabolites showed a different pattern for forages and their CFBs. The forages showed higher TCA precipitable N and lower acetate: propionate ratio in Z. nummularia while the related trend was found in CFB with V. sinensis. Total volatile fatty acid concentration was higher (P < 0.001) in A. nilotica leaves than V. sinensis hay and Z. nummularia leaves. It has implication on widening the forage resources and providing opportunity to use forage biomass rich in polyphenolic constituents in judicious proportion for reducing methane and enhancing green livestock production. Conclusion: Above all, higher substrate degradability, propionate production, lower methanogenesis in CFB with A. nilotica leaves may be considered useful. Nevertheless, CFB with Z. nummularia also proved its usefulness with higher TCA precipitable N and PF. It has implication on widening the forage resources and providing opportunity to use polyphenol-rich forage biomass for reducing methane and enhancing green livestock production.

Keywords

Polyphenol;Methane production;Fermentation metabolites;degradability

References

  1. Haslam E. Practical polyphenolics: from structure to molecular recognition and physiological action. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
  2. Kamra DN, Agarwal N, Chaudhary LC. Inhibition of ruminal methanogenesis by tropical plants containing secondary compounds. Int Cong Ser. 2006; 1293:156-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2006.02.002
  3. Pal K, Patra AK, Sahoo A. Evaluation of feeds from tropical origin for in vitro methane production potential and rumen fermentation in vitro. Span J Agric Res. 2015;13:e0608. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2015133-7467
  4. Jadhav RV, Kannan A, Bhar R, Sharma OP, Gulati A, Rajkumar K, Verma MR. Effect of tea (Camellia sinensis) seed saponins on in vitro rumen fermentation, methane production and true digestibility at different forage to concentrate ratios. J Appl Anim Res. 2018;46:118-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2016.1270823
  5. Abdulrazak SA, Fujihara T, Ondiek JK, Orskov ER. Nutritive evaluation of some Acacia tree leaves from Kenya. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2000;85: 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00133-4
  6. Waghorn GC, McNabb WC. Consequences of plant phenolic compounds for productivity and health of ruminants. Proc Nutr Soc. 2003;62:383-92. https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2003245
  7. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 17th edn. Gaithersburg: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 2000.
  8. Van Soest PV, 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
  9. Hagerman A, Harvey-Mueller I, Makkar HPS. Quantification of tannins in tree foliage-a laboratory manual. Vienna: FAO/IAEA; 2000. p. 4-7.
  10. Makkar HPS. Quantification of tannins in tree and shrub foliage: a laboratory manual. Dordrecht: Kluer Academic Publishers; 2003.
  11. Menke KH, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J Agri Sci. 1979;93:217-22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600086305
  12. Schofield P, Pitt RE, Pell AN. Kinetics of fibre digestion from in vitro gas production. J Anim Sci. 1994;72:2980-91. https://doi.org/10.2527/1994.72112980x
  13. Menke KH, Steingass H. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim Re Dev. 1988;28:7-55.
  14. ICAR. Nutrient Requirement of Sheep, Goat and Rabbit, second ed. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 2013.
  15. Sharma SC, Sahoo A. Promising Feed & Fodder Resources for Dry Areas. Avikanagar: Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute; 2017.
  16. Singh B, Sahoo A, Sharma R, Bhat TK. Effect of polethylene glycol on gas production parameters and nitrogen disappearance of some tree forages. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2005;123:351-64.
  17. Rana KK, Wadhwa M, Bakshi MPS. Seasonal variations in tannin profile of tree leaves. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2006;19:1134-8. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2006.1134
  18. Sahoo A, Ogra RK, Sood A, Ahuja PS. Nutritional evaluation of bamboo cultivars in sub_Himalayan region of India by chemical composition and in vitro ruminal fermentation. Grassl Sci. 2010;56:116-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-697X.2010.00183.x
  19. Blummel M, Bullerdick P. The need to complement in vitro gas measurements with residue determination from in sacco degradabilities to improve the prediction of voluntary intake of hays. Anim Sci. 1997;64:71-5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800015563
  20. Blummel M, Makkar HPS, Becker K. In vitro gas production: a technique revisited. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 1997;77:24-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.1997.tb00734.x
  21. Nsahlai IV, Siaw D, Osuji PO. The relationships between gas production and chemical composition of 23 browses of the genus Sesbania. J Sci Food Agric. 1994;65:13-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740650104
  22. Tavendale MH, Meagher LP, Pacheco D, Walker N, Attwood GT, Sivakumaran S. Methane production from in vitro rumen incubations with Lotus pedunculatus and Medicago sativa, and effects of extractable condensed tannin fractions on methanogenesis. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2005;123:403-19.
  23. Bhatta R, Saravanan M, Baruah L, Sampath KT. Nutrient content, in vitro ruminal fermentation characteristics and methane reduction potential of tropical tannin-containing leaves. J Sci Food Agric. 2012; 92:2929-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.5703
  24. Archimede H, Eugene M, Marie Magdeleine C, Boval M, Martin C, Morgavi DP, Lecomte P, Doreau M. Comparison of methane production between C3 and C4 grasses and legumes. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2011;166:59-64.
  25. Parmar P, Bhatt S, Dhyani S, Jain A. Phytochemical studies of the secondary metabolites of Ziziphus mauritania Lam. Leaves Int J Curr Pharm Res. 2012;4:153-5.
  26. Goel G, Makkar HP. Methane mitigation from ruminants using tannins and saponins. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2012;44:729-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-011-9966-2
  27. Patra AK, Saxena J. A new perspective on the use of plant secondary metabolites to inhibit methanogenesis in the rumen. Phytochemistry. 2010; 71:1198-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2010.05.010
  28. Jayanegara A, Leiber F, Kreuzer M. Meta-analysis of the relationship between dietary tannin level and methane formation in ruminants from in vivo and in vitro experiments. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2012;96:365-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01172.x
  29. Beauchemin KA, Kreuzer M, Mara FO, McAllister TA. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Aust J Exp Agric. 2008;48:21-7. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07199