scholarly journals Evaluation of the performance of existing mathematical models predicting enteric methane emissions from ruminants: Animal categories and dietary mitigation strategies

2019 ◽  
Vol 255 ◽  
pp. 114207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed Benaouda ◽  
Cécile Martin ◽  
Xinran Li ◽  
Ermias Kebreab ◽  
Alexander N. Hristov ◽  
...  
PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e0256048
Author(s):  
P. K. Malik ◽  
S. Trivedi ◽  
A. Mohapatra ◽  
A. P. Kolte ◽  
V. Sejian ◽  
...  

An in vivo study was conducted to compare the enteric methane emissions and diversity of ruminal methanogens in cattle and buffaloes kept in the same environment and fed on the same diet. Six cattle and six buffaloes were fed on a similar diet comprising Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) green grass and concentrate in 70:30. After 90 days of feeding, the daily enteric methane emissions were quantified by using the SF6 technique and ruminal fluid samples from animals were collected for the diversity analysis. The daily enteric methane emissions were significantly greater in cattle as compared to buffaloes; however, methane yields were not different between the two species. Methanogens were ranked at different taxonomic levels against the Rumen and Intestinal Methanogen-Database. The archaeal communities in both host species were dominated by the phylum Euryarchaeota; however, Crenarchaeota represented <1% of the total archaea. Methanogens affiliated with Methanobacteriales were most prominent and their proportion did not differ between the two hosts. Methanomicrobiales and Methanomassillicoccales constituted the second largest group of methanogens in cattle and buffaloes, respectively. Methanocellales (Methanocella arvoryza) were exclusively detected in the buffaloes. At the species level, Methanobrevibacter gottschalkii had the highest abundance (55–57%) in both the host species. The relative abundance of Methanobrevibacter wolinii between the two hosts differed significantly. Methanosarcinales, the acetoclastic methanogens were significantly greater in cattle than the buffaloes. It is concluded that the ruminal methane yield in cattle and buffaloes fed on the same diet did not differ. With the diet used in this study, there was a limited influence (<3.5%) of the host on the structure of the ruminal archaea community at the species level. Therefore, the methane mitigation strategies developed in either of the hosts should be effective in the other. Further studies are warranted to reveal the conjunctive effect of diet and geographical locations with the host on ruminal archaea community composition.


2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi Cristina Meister ◽  
Abmael da Silva Cardoso ◽  
Fernando Oliveira Alari ◽  
Nailson Lima Santos Lemos ◽  
Rosa Toyoko Shiraishi Frighetto ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinfeng Chang ◽  
Shushi Peng ◽  
Philippe Ciais ◽  
Marielle Saunois ◽  
Shree R. S. Dangal ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuezhao Sun ◽  
David Pacheco ◽  
Dongwen Luo

A series of experiments was conducted in New Zealand to evaluate the potential of forage brassicas for mitigation of enteric methane emissions. Experiments involved sheep and cattle fed winter and summer varieties of brassica forage crops. In the sheep-feeding trials, it was demonstrated that several species of forage brassicas can result, to a varying degree, in a lower methane yield (g methane per kg of DM intake) than does ryegrass pasture. Pure forage rape fed as a winter crop resulted in 37% lower methane yields than did pasture. Increasing the proportion of forage rape in the diet of sheep fed pasture linearly decreased methane yield. Feeding forage rape to cattle also resulted in 44% lower methane yield than did feeding pasture. In conclusion, reductions in methane emission are achievable by feeding forage brassicas, especially winter forage rape, to sheep and cattle. Investigating other aspects of these crops is warranted to establish their value as a viable mitigation tool in pastoral farming.


2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Moorby ◽  
H. R. Fleming ◽  
V. J. Theobald ◽  
M. D. Fraser

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 58
Author(s):  
Xianjiang Chen ◽  
Christopher Reynolds ◽  
Les Crompton ◽  
Huiru Zheng ◽  
Haiying Wang ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document