Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T21:22:11.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of disodium fumarate on microbial abundance, ruminal fermentation and methane emission in goats under different forage : concentrate ratios

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2012

C. J. Yang ,
S. Y. Mao ,
L. M. Long  and
W. Y. Zhu
C. J. Yang
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Microbiology, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210095, PR China
S. Y. Mao
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Microbiology, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210095, PR China
L. M. Long
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Microbiology, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210095, PR China
W. Y. Zhu*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Microbiology, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210095, PR China
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of disodium fumarate (DF) on methane emission, ruminal fermentation and microbial abundance in goats under different forage (F) : concentrate (C) ratios and fed according to maintenance requirements. Four ruminally fistulated, castrated male goats were used in a 4 × 4 Latin square design with a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments and the main factors being the F : C ratios (41 : 59 or 58 : 42) and DF supplementation (0 or 10 g/day). DF reduced methane production (P < 0.05) on average by 11.9%, irrespective of the F : C ratio. The concentrations of total volatile fatty acids, acetate and propionate were greater in the rumen of goats supplemented with DF (P < 0.05), whereas the abundance of methanogens was lower (P < 0.05). In high-forage diets, the abundance of Selenomonas ruminantium, a fumarate-reducing bacterium, was greater in the rumen of goats supplemented with DF. The abundance of fungi, protozoa, Ruminococus flavefaciens and Fibrobacter succinogenes were not affected by the addition of DF. Variable F : C ratios affected the abundance of methanogens, fungi and R. flavefaciens (P < 0.05), but did not affect methane emission. The result implied that DF had a beneficial effect on the in vivo rumen fermentation of the goats fed diets with different F : C ratios and that this effect were not a direct action on anaerobic fungi, protozoa and fibrolytic bacteria, the generally recognized fiber-degrading and hydrogen-producing microorganisms, but due to the stimulation of fumarate-reducing bacteria and the depression of methanogens.

Keywords

methane emissiondisodium fumaraterumen fermentationmicrobial abundancegoat
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 11 , November 2012 , pp. 1788 - 1794
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemist) 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Asanuma, N, Iwamoto, M, Hino, T 1999. Effect of the addition of fumarate on methane production by ruminal microorganisms in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 780–787.Google Scholar
Bayaru, E, Kanda, S, Kamada, T, Itabashi, H, Andoh, S, Nishida, T, Ishida, M, Itoh, T, Nagara, K, Isobe, Y 2001. Effect of fumaric acid on methane production, rumen fermentation and digestibility of cattle fed roughage alone. Animal Science Journal 72, 139–146.Google Scholar
Carro, MD, Ranilla, MJ 2003. Influence of different concentrations of disodium fumarate on methane production and fermentation of concentrate feeds by rumen micro-organisms in vitro. British Journal of Nutrition 90, 617–623.Google Scholar
Cheng, YF, Mao, SY, Pei, CX, Liu, JX, Zhu, WY 2006. Detection and diversity analysis of rumen methanogens in the co-cultures with anaerobic fungi. Acta Microbiologica Sinica 46, 879–883.Google Scholar
Denman, SE, McSweeney, CS 2006. Development of a real-time PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic bacterial populations within the rumen. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 58, 572–582.Google Scholar
Denman, SE, Tomkins, NW, McSweeney, CS 2007. Quantitation and diversity analysis of ruminal methanogenic populations in response to the antimethanogenic compound bromochloromethane. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 62, 313–322.Google Scholar
De Oliveira, SG, Berchielli, TT, Pedreira, MD, Primavesi, O, Frighetto, R, Lima, MA 2007. Effect of tannin levels in sorghum silage and concentrate supplementation on apparent digestibility and methane emission in beef cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 135, 236–248.Google Scholar
Fahey, B, Berger, LL 1988. Carbohydrate nutrition of ruminants. In The ruminant animal: digestive physiology and nutrition (ed. DC Church), pp. 269–297. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Forsberg, CW, Cheng, KJ, White, BA 1997. Polysaccharide degradation in the rumen and large intestine. In Gastrointestinal microbiology (ed.RI Mackie, BA White and RE Isaacson), pp. 319–379. Chapman and Hall, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Giraldo, LA, Ranilla, MJ, Tejido, ML, Carro, MD 2007. Influence of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes and fumarate on methane production, microbial growth and fermentation in Rusitec fermenters. British Journal of Nutrition 98, 753–761.Google Scholar
Iqbal, MF, Cheng, YF, Zhu, WY, Zeshan, B 2008. Mitigation of ruminant methane production: current strategies constraints and future options. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 24, 2747–2755.Google Scholar
Khafipour, E, Li, S, Plaizier, JC, Krause, DO 2009. Rumen microbiome composition determined using two nutritional models of subacute ruminal acidosis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 22, 7115–7124.Google Scholar
Lockyer, DR, Jarvis, SC 1995. The measurement of methane losses from grazing animals. Environmental Pollution 90, 383–390.Google Scholar
Long, LM, Mao, SY, Su, Y, Zhu, WY 2008. Isolation and in vitro metabolic characterization of a lactate-utilizing bacterium from goat rumen. Acta Microbiologica Sinica 48, 1571–1577.Google Scholar
Lopez, S, Valdes, C, Newbold, CJ, Wallace, RJ 1999. Influence of sodium fumarate addition on rumen fermentation in vitro. British Journal of Nutrition 81, 59–64.Google Scholar
Lovett, DK, Shalloo, L, Dillon, P, O'Mara, FP 2006. A systems approach to quantify greenhouse gas fluxes from pastoral dairy production as affected by management regime. Agricultural Systems 88, 156–179.Google Scholar
Makkar, HPS, Sharma, OP, Dawra, RK, Negi, SS 1982. Simple determination of microbial protein in rumen liquor. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 2170–2173.Google Scholar
Mao, SY, Zhang, G, Zhu, WY 2008. Effect of disodium fumarate on ruminal metabolism and rumen bacterial communities as revealed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of 16S ribosomal DNA. Animal Feed Science and Technology 140, 293–306.Google Scholar
McGinn, SM, Beauchemin, KA, Coates, T, Colombatto, D 2004. Methane emissions from beef cattle: effects of monensin, sunflower oil, enzymes, yeast, and fumaric acid. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3346–3356.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture of China 2004. Feeding standard of meat-producing sheep and goats (NY/Y816-2004). China Agricultural Press, Being, China.Google Scholar
Molano, G, Knight, TW, Clark, H 2008. Fumaric acid supplements have no effect on methane emissions per unit of feed intake in wether lambs. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 165–168.Google Scholar
Nisbet, DJ, Martin, SA 1993. Effects of fumarate, l-malate, and an Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on d-lactate utilization by the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium. Current Microbiology 26, 133–136.Google Scholar
Qin, WL 1982. Determination of rumen volatile fatty acids by means of gas chromatography. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural College 4, 110–116.Google Scholar
Strobel, HJ, Russell, JB 1991. Succinate transport by a ruminal selenomonad and its regulation by carbohydrate availability and osmotic strength. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 57, 248–254.Google Scholar
Sylvester, JT, Karnati, SKR, Yu, ZT, Morrison, M, Firkins, JL 2004. Development of an assay to quantify rumen ciliate protozoal biomass in cows using real-time PCR. Journal of Nutrition 134, 3378–3384.Google Scholar
Theodorou, MK, Zhu, WY, Rickers, A, Nielsen, BB, Gull, K, Trinci, APJ 1996. Biochemistry and ecology of anaerobic fungi. In The mycota VI: human and animal relationships (ed. DH Howard and JD Miller), pp. 265–295. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Ungerfeld, EM, Kohn, RA, Wallace, RJ, Newbold, CJ 2007. A meta-analysis of fumarate effects on methane production in ruminal batch cultures. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2556–2563.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
VanKessel, JAS, Russell, JB 1996. The effect of pH on ruminal methanogenesis. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 20, 205–210.Google Scholar
Weatherburn, MW 1967. Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia. Analytical Chemistry 39, 971–974.Google Scholar
Yu, ZT, Michel, FC, Hansen, G, Wittum, T, Morrison, M 2005. Development and application of real-time PCR assays for quantification of genes encoding tetracycline resistance. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71, 6926–6933.Google Scholar
Zhou, YW, McSweeney, CS, Wang, JK, Liu, JX 2011. Effects of disodium fumarate on ruminal fermentation and microbial communities in sheep fed on high-forage diets. Animal (In press), doi: 10.1017/S1751731111002102.Google Scholar