Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

  • 제32권4호
  • /
  • Pages.548-555
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 1011-2367(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1976-5517(eISSN)
아세아태평양축산학회 (Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Enteric methane emissions, energy partitioning, and energetic efficiency of zebu beef cattle fed total mixed ration silage

  • Subepang, Sayan (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University) ;
  • Suzuki, Tomoyuki (Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Science) ;
  • Phonbumrung, Thamrongsak (Bureau of Animal Nutrition Development, Department of Livestock Development) ;
  • Sommart, Kritapon (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University)
  • 투고 : 2018.06.05
  • 심사 : 2018.09.03
  • 발행 : 2019.04.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different feeding levels of a total mixed ration silage-based diet on feed intake, total tract digestion, enteric methane emissions, and energy partitioning in two beef cattle genotypes. Methods: Six mature bulls (three Thai natives, and three Thai natives - Charolais crossbreeds) were assigned in a replicated $3{\times}3$ Latin square design, with cattle breed genotype in separate squares, three periods of 21 days, and three energy feeding above maintenance levels (1.1, 1.5, and 2.0 MEm, where MEm is metabolizable energy requirement for maintenance). Bulls were placed in a metabolic cage equipped with a ventilated head box respiration system to evaluate digestibility, record respiration gases, and determine energy balance. Results: Increasing the feeding level had no significant effect on digestibility but drastically reduced the enteric methane emission rate (p<0.05). Increasing the feeding level also significantly increased the energy retention and utilization efficiency (p<0.01). The Thai native cattle had greater enteric methane emission rate, digestibility, and energy utilization efficiency than the Charolais crossbred cattle (p<0.05). The daily metabolizable energy requirement for maintenance in Thai native cattle ($388kJ/kg\;BW^{0.75}$, where $BW^{0.75}$ is metabolic body weight) was 15% less than that in Charolais crossbred cattle ($444kJ/kg\;BW^{0.75}$). Conclusion: Our results suggested that the greater feeding level in zebu beef cattle fed above maintenance levels resulted in improved energy retention and utilization efficiency because of the reduction in enteric methane energy loss. The results also indicated higher efficiency of metabolisable energy utilization for growth and a lower energy requirement for maintenance in Bos indicus than in Bos taurus.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Gerber PJ, Hristov AN, Henderson B, et al. Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review. Animal 2013;7(Suppl 2):220-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000876
  2. Chaokaur A, Nishida T, Phaowphaisal I, Sommart K. Effects of feeding level on methane emissions and energy utilization of Brahman cattle in the tropics. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2015;199:225-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.09.014
  3. Ogino A, Sommart K, Subepang S, et al. Environmental impacts of extensive and intensive beef production systems in Thailand evaluated by life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 2016;112:22-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.110
  4. Agricultural Research Council (ARC). The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Technical Review by an Agricultural Research Council Working Party, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Farnham Royal. UK Press; 1980.
  5. National Research Council (NRC). Subcommittee on beef cattle nutrition. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 7th rev. ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2000.
  6. The Working Committee of Thai Feeding Standard for Ruminant (WTSR). Nutrient requirement of beef cattle in Indochinese Peninsula. Khon Kaen, Thailand: Klungnanavitthaya Press; 2010.
  7. Tangjitwattanachai N, Phaowphaisal I, Otsuka M, Sommart K. Enteric methane emission, energetic efficiency and energy requirements for the maintenance of beef cattle in the tropics. Jpn Agric Res Q 2015;49:399-407. https://doi.org/10.6090/jarq.49.399
  8. Schneider BH, Flatt WP. The evaluation of feeds through digestibility experiments. Athens, GA, USA: University of Georgia Press; 1975.
  9. Suzuki T, Phaowphaisal I, Pholsen P, et al. In vivo nutritive value of pangola grass (Digitaria eriantha) hay by a novel indirect calorimeter with a ventilated hood in Thailand. Jpn Agric Res Q 2008;42:123-9. https://doi.org/10.6090/jarq.42.123
  10. Kongphitee K, Sommart K, Phonbumrung T, Gunha T, Suzuki T. Feed intake, digestibility and energy partitioning in beef cattle fed diets with cassava pulp instead of rice straw. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2018;31:1431-41. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0759
  11. Cao Y, Takahashi T, Horiguchi K, Yoshida N, Zhou D. In vitro ruminal dry matter digestibility and methane production of fermented total mixed ration containing whole-crop rice and rice bran. Grassl Sci 2012;58:133-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-697X.2012.00254.x
  12. Fawcett JK, Scott Je. A rapid and precise method for the determination of urea. J Clin Pathol 1960;13:156-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.13.2.156
  13. Porter MG, Murray RS. The volatility of components of grass silage on oven drying and the inter-relationship between drymatter content estimated by different analytical methods. Grass Forage Sci 2001;56:405-11. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2494.2001.00292.x
  14. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC). Official methods of analysis of the AOAC International. 16th ed. Washington, MD, USA: AOAC International; 1995.
  15. 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
  16. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute (SAS). Version 9.1. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.; 2008.
  17. Steel RGD, Torrie JH. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. NY USA: McGraw Hill Book Co.; 1980. 633 p.
  18. Cardenas-Medina JV, Ku-Vera JC, Magana-Monforte JG. Estimation of metabolizable energy requirements for maintenance and energetic efficiency of weight gain in Bos taurus and Bos indicus cows in tropical Mexico. J Anim Vet Adv 2010;9:521-8.
  19. Ferrell CL, Jenkins TG, Freetly HC. Feed utilization and performance of crossbred tropically adapted cattle. In: Morrison DG, editor. A compilation of research results involving tropically adapted beef cattle breeds. Baton Rouge, LA, USA: Tropically Adapted Breeds - Regional Project S-1013; 2005. p. 131-47.
  20. VandeHaar MJ, Armentano LE, Weigel K, et al. Harnessing the genetics of the modern dairy cow to continue improvements in feed efficiency. J Dairy Sci 2016;99:4941-54. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10352
  21. Kaewpila C, Sommart K, Mitsumori M. Dietary fat sources affect feed intake, digestibility, rumen microbial populations, energy partition and methane emissions in different beef cattle genotypes. Animal 2018;12:2529-38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118000587
  22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES); 2006.
  23. Chuntrakort P, Otsuka M, Hayashi K, et al. The effect of dietary coconut kernels, whole cottonseeds and sunflower seeds on the intake, digestibility and enteric methane emissions of Zebu beef cattle fed rice straw based diets. Livest Sci 2014;161:80-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.01.003
  24. Kongphitee K, Udchachon S, Otsuka M, Sommart K. Energetic efficiency of Thai native beef cattle fed rice straw or Ruzi straw base diet. Khon Kaen Agric J 2010;38(Suppl):176-9.
  25. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Nutrient requirements of domesticated ruminants. Collingwood, Victoria, Australia: CSIRO Publishing; 2007.
  26. Solis JC, Byers FM, Schelling GT, Long CR, Greene LW. Maintenance requirements and energetic efficiency of cows of different breed types. J Anim Sci 1988;66:764-73. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1988.663764x
  27. Garrett WN. Factors influencing energetic efficiency of beef production. J Anim Sci 1980;51:1434-40. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1981.5161434x
  28. Tangjitwattanachai N, Otsuka M, Oshio S, Sommart K. Efficiency of metabolizable energy for maintenance and growth of Bos indicus and Bos taurus beef cattle: a meta-analysis. JIRCAS Work Rep 2009. pp. 40-4.
  29. Kaewpila C. Energy utilization and enteric methane emission assessment in beef cattle fed on selected tropical feeds [dissertation]. Khon Kaen, Thailand: Khon Kaen University; 2016.

피인용 문헌

  1. Association between residual feed intake, digestion, ingestive behavior, enteric methane emission and nitrogen metabolism in Nellore beef cattle vol.91, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13455
  2. Effects of Betaine-Biotin-Chromium Supplementation and Concentrate to Roughage Ratio on Nutrient Utilization Efficiency in Thai Native Cattle vol.11, pp.9, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092747