Antimethanogenic plants for grazing systems - Zoey Durmic

811 views
634 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
811
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
15
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Antimethanogenic plants for grazing systems - Zoey Durmic

  1. 1. Antimethanogenic plants for grazing systems Durmic, Z. (UWA)Revell, D., Ramírez-Restrepo, C. (CSIRO) Moate, P. (DPI Vic) Ghamkhar, K., Vercoe, P. (UWA)
  2. 2. Why do herbivores produce GHG? Herbivores have evolved to consume large quantities of plants and can transform poor quality food (grass) into high quality products (meat and milk).Cellulose Meat, milk
  3. 3. Methane emissions from livestock Food EnergyMethane CO2 Fermentation
  4. 4. Methane emissions from livestock• mechanism of removing hydrogen from the rumen Substrate CO2 Fermentation H2 H2 H2 H2 CH4 H2 H2O H2O VFA (energy) CO2 +4H2 CH4 + 2H2O
  5. 5. Methane emissions from livestock Cow SheepCH4 per day 200-300L 20-30LCH4 head/year 100 kg 8 kg
  6. 6. Reducing methane from livestock• dietary, i. e. increasing feed quality (grain)
  7. 7. Reducing methane from livestock• dietary, i. e. increasing feed quality (grain) = expensive,impact on the environment
  8. 8. Reducing methane from livestock•dietary, i. e. increasing feed quality (grain)• feed supplements (i.e. antibiotics)
  9. 9. Reducing methane from livestock•dietary, i. e. increasing feed quality (grain)• feed supplements (i.e. antibiotics) = antibiotic resistance,becoming ineffective
  10. 10. Reducing methane from livestock•dietary, i. e. increasing feed quality• feed supplements (i.e. antibiotics)• vaccine?
  11. 11. Reducing methane from livestock•dietary, i. e. increasing feed quality• feed supplements (i.e. antibiotics)• vaccine = ineffective, expensive, side-effects
  12. 12. Reducing methane from livestock – novel approachesSome novel, safer, long-term and more effectiveapproaches:• breeding for low-methane animals• ‘bioactive’ plants and secondary compounds• novel and natural feed additives
  13. 13. Reducing methane from livestock – novel approachesSome novel, safer, long-term and more effectiveapproaches:• breeding for low-methane animals• ‘bioactive’ plants and secondary compounds• novel and natural feed additives
  14. 14. ‘Bioactive’ plants may affect methane output? •Methane is produced by microbes •Plant contain secondary compounds (PSC) • Many ‘bioactvie’ (antimicrobial) • I.e. tannins - antimethanogenic
  15. 15. Why AM plants may be a solution for Australia? • Part of a normal animal diet • Our production systems are forage-based • Great plant diversity in Australia • Harsh environment = more PSC = more ‘bioactive’
  16. 16. Why AM plants may be a solution for Australia? Plant antimethanogenic potential – EU vs AU EU ‘Replace’ AU ‘Enrich’ no reduction 5-25% reduction >25% reduction 500 plants 100 plants 6 active 30 active
  17. 17. Why plants may be a solution for Australia?Other benefits:• can help transform landscapes• provide out of season fodder, provide shelter for the animals• retain water, absorb salt, prevent soil erosion, wind break
  18. 18. UWA Research farm30 Jan 2011
  19. 19. UWA Research farm31 Jan 2011
  20. 20. UWA Research farm31 Jan 2011
  21. 21. Why plants may be a solution for Australia? ‘BEFORE’Monarto (SA) Badgingarra (WA)
  22. 22. Why plants may be a solution for Australia? AFTERMonarto (SA) Badgingarra (WA)
  23. 23. Projects 2005-2008 ENRICH 1 - Multi-purpose ‘healthy’ grazing systems using perennial shrubs 2008-2010 2009-2011 ENRICH 2 - Building Antimethanogenic functional and resilient bioactivity of Australian systems with forage shrubs plants for grazing systems2010Variation for in vitro methane production 2009-2012in pasture legumes with particular focus Using bioactive secondary plant compounds foron subterranean clover. improving health and function in grazing ruminants 2011 - 2015 Exploiting the subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum L.) genome to meet future challenges for Australian livestock industries - climate change mitigation and ruminant health.
  24. 24. Approach and methodology Tropical pastures (beef)Arid (sheep)Legumes (sheep) Pastures (beef) Novel pastures (dairy) Arid (sheep)
  25. 25. Approach and methodologyCollect plant Test in vitro Identify candidatesmaterial
  26. 26. Approach and methodology Expand the screening Confirm in vivo Identify PSC Variability Management
  27. 27. Results
  28. 28. Native shrubs(WA and SA, sheep) 90 80 70 60CH4 (mL/g DM) 50 Oaten chaff 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Gas pressure (kPa) Durmic et al., 2010 • varied methanogenic potential (4 mL/g – 84 mL/g DM) • plants with beneficial profiles identified
  29. 29. Legumes and grasses (WA, sheep) 60 50 Lucerne 40CH4 (mL/g DM) 30 20 10 0 L.p. B.b. O.s. B.p M.p. T.p. L.r T.s.W. L.c. T.s. M.s. O.c. T.r. T.s.D. Plant • varied methanogenic potential (4 mL/g – 51 mL/g DM)
  30. 30. Tropical forages (North QLD, beef) 70 60 50 Lucerne 40CH4 (mL/g DM) 30 20 10 0 Plant sample • varied methanogenic potential (18 mL/g – 60 mL/g DM)
  31. 31. Novel forages (Vic, dairy) 70 60 Lucerne 50CH4 (mL/g DM) * 40 * * * * 30 20 10 0 Forage • varied methanogenic potential (36 -57 mL/g DM)
  32. 32. Novel additives - DHA• DHA caused small, but significant reduction in methanogenic potential, but onlywhen mixed with a concentrate diet 80 70 60 * CH4 (mL/g DM) 50 40 30 20 10 0 Forage DHA/forage Pellet DHA/pellet DHA(o)/pellet Treatment
  33. 33. Moving towards in vivoArtificial rumen Confirmation Dose PersistenceAnimal house Effect on microbes Which ones? Static/cidal? Effect on vital functionsPaddock-scale
  34. 34. Results from the artificial rumen 16 14 12 10CH4 (%) 8 Control 6 EG 25% 4 2 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Day • Methane reduced immediately with addition of 25% EG • Gas production was unaffected • Effect persisted over 8 days
  35. 35. Moving towards in vivoArtificial rumen Confirmation Dose PersistenceAnimal house Effect on microbes Which ones? Static/cidal? Effect on vital functionsPaddock-scale
  36. 36. Summary• Variability exists in methanogenic potential amongst forages• Differences can be of 10 to 20 times magnitude, however otherfactors such as plant nutritive and agronomic value, overallfermentability and effect on animal should be taken into account• Plants that have strong antimethanogenic potential, but are notsuitable as fodder, may be part of a mixed diet or developed as anadditive• Observation so far are based on in vitro (laboratory) testing, but workis on the way to confirm findings in vivo
  37. 37. Partners
  38. 38. Antimethanogenic plants for grazing systems More info: zoey.durmic@uwa.edu.au

×