Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:13:07.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methane excretion in the growing pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Kirsten Christensen  and
Grete Thorbek
Kirsten Christensen
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
Grete Thorbek
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Total methane excretion (CH4 in breath+flatus) was measured in two experiments with thirty-six castrated male pigs (Danish Landrace) during the growth period from 20 to 120 kg live weight (LW). In Expt A, twenty-eight pigs were fed on a commercial diet alternately at high (HFL; metabolizable energy (ME) 1234 (SE 41) kJ/kg LW0.75) or low (LFL; ME 784 (SE 31) kJ/kg LW0.75) feed levels in different weight classes. In Expt B, eight pigs were constantly fed on a semi-purified diet at HFL without (-oil) or with 90 g soya-bean oil/kg diet (foil) corresponding to daily intakes of ME of 1339 (SE 11) and 1413 (SE 8) kJ/kg LW0.75 respectively.

2. CH4 excretion was measured during 24 h respiration trials in open-air-circulation chambers.

3. About 1 litre CH4 was excreted per day at 20–25 kg LW increasing to a maximum of 12 litres at 120 kg LW, which corresponded to no more than 1.2% of dietary gross energy.

4. In Expt A, CH4 excretion increased linearly with LW, while in Expt B the increase was linear until about 70 kg LW, when it reached a plateau. On average LFL reduced CH, excretion by 23% compared with HFL. When related to dry matter (DM) intake, however, the pigs on LFL excreted 3.1 litres CH4/kg dietary DM and those on HFL 2.5 litres CH4/kg dietary DM, the difference being significant (P < 0.05). In Expt B the inclusion of soya-bean oil in the basal diet (+oil) reduced CH, excretion by 26% compared with the diet without oil (-oil). The pigs receiving the basal diet excreted 5.2 litres CH4/kg DM and the pigs receiving soya-bean oil 4.3 litres CH4/kg DM, the difference being highly significant (P < 0.001). All differences between Expt A and B in CH4 excretion based on DM intake were highly significant (P < 0.001).

5. The results are discussed in relation to gas production in ruminants, rats and humans. It is suggested that flatus production may not only be reduced by changing the composition of the dietary carbohydrates, but also by inclusion of a polyunsaturated oil in the diet of simple-stomached animals and humans.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , May 1987 , pp. 355 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1987

References

REFERENCES

Bond, J. H., Engel, R. R. & Lewitt, M. D. (1971). Journal of Experimental Medicine 133, 572–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breirem, K. (1935). National Institute of Animal Science Report no. 162, 0–269. Copenhagen: Landhusholdningsselskabets Forlag.Google Scholar
Brouwer, E. (1965). In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Energy Metabolism. European Association of Animal Production Publication no. 11, pp. 441–443. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Calloway, D. H. (1966). Gastroenterology 51, 383–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calloway, D. H. & Murphy, E. L. (1968). Annual of the New York Academy of Sciences 150, 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, K. (1985). National Institute of Animal Science Report no. 577, 0–158. Copenhagen: Landhusholdningsselskabets Forlag.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. (1976). In Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Energy Metabolism. European Association of Animal Production Publication no. 19, pp. 69–72. Clermont-Ferrand, France: G. de Bussac.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W., Blaxter, K. L. & Wainmann, F. W. (1966). British Journal of Nutrition 20, 485–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, S. E. & Wasilewski, M. M. (1984). Nutrition Reports International 30, 825–834.Google Scholar
Haines, A., Metz, G., Dilawari, J., Blendis, L. & Wiggins, M. (1977). Lancet ii, 481–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, L., Jentsch, W., Klein, M. & Schiemann, R. (1977). Archiv für Tierernéhrung 27, 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1968). In Handbook of Physiology, vol. 5, pp. 2725–2745 [Code, C. F., editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Jentsch, W. & Hoffmann, L. (1977). Archiv für Tierernährung 27, 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidder, D. E. & Manners, M. J. (1978). Digestion in the Pig. Bristol: Scientechnica.Google Scholar
Lewitt, M. D. (1985). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 44, 145–146.Google Scholar
McKay, L. F., Brydon, W. G., Eastwood, M. A. & Housley, E. (1983). Atherosclerosis 47, 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, L. F., Brydon, W. G., Eastwood, M. A. & Smith, J. H. (1981). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 34, 2728–2733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallett, A. K., Rowland, I. R. & Wise, A. (1983). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 43, 7A.Google Scholar
Marthinsen, D. & Fleming, S. E. (1982). Journal of Nutrition 112, 1133–1143.Google Scholar
Piqué, J. M., Pallarés, M., Cosó, E., Vilar-Bonet, J. & Gassull, M. A. (1984). Gastroenterology 87, 601–605.Google Scholar
Pitt, P., DeBruijn, K. M., Beeching, M. F. & Goldberg, E. (1980). Gut 21, 951–959.Google Scholar
Pond, W. G. & Houpt, K. A. (1978). Biology of the Pig. New York: Comstock Publisher Association.Google Scholar
Rohr, K. & Okubo, M. (1968). Milchwissenschaft 23, 608–614.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical Methods Applied to Experiments in Agriculture and Biology. Iowa: The Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Steggarda, F. R., Richards, E. A. & Rackis, J. F. (1966). Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine 121, 1235–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorbek, G. (1969). National Institute of Animal Science Report no. 373, pp. 0–46. Copenhagen: Landhusholdningsselskabets Forlag.Google Scholar
Thorbek, G. (1980). National Institute of Animal Science Report no. 498, pp. 0–95. Copenhagen: Landhusholdningsselskabets Forlag.Google Scholar
Thorbek, G., Chwalibog, A. & Henckel, S. (1984). National Institute of Animal Science Report no. 563, pp. 0–114. Copenhagen: Landhusholdningsselskabets Forlag.Google Scholar
Van der honing, Y., Jongbloed, A. W., Smits, B. & Wieman, B. J. (1982). In Proceedings of the 9th Symposiun on Energy Metabolism. European Association of Animal Production Publication no. 29, pp. 202–205. Ski, Norway: Informasjonsteknikk A/S.Google Scholar
Verstegen, M. V. A. (1971). Mededelingen van de Landbouwhoegeschool te Wageningen 71–2, 0–115.Google Scholar