Rumen manupilation


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Eminar on
  • Rumen manupilation

    1. 1. Recent advances in rumen manipulationtechniques with particular reference to ruminant production By : Tetemke Kidane
    2. 2. INTRODUCTION• Why do we need to manipulate the rumen?• 15 to 20% of GEI is lost in the form of methane and heat due to rumen fermentation• 8 -10 % of dietary ME lost as methane - methanogenic bacteria• Amino acids are hydrolyzed and their constituent amino acids deaminated by microbes• manipulate the microbial population to minimize the degradation of feed protein
    3. 3. Cont’d…• use of chemicals inhibit the activity ofmicrobial proteases or deaminases treatment of feedstuffs inhibit ruminal proteolysis various drying procedures, heat Formaldehyde-treated feeds - increasesefficiency of growth use of some proteins to coat and protect fat • To enhance yields of milk and to increase amounts of USFA in milk or animal fat.
    4. 4. The digestive tract of a health adult ruminant(Source: Russell, 2000)
    5. 5. The rumen microbes• Bacteria- gram-positive and gram-negative • most numerous group of microbes in the rumen • Substrates are fermented to form volatile fatty acids (Acetate, Propionate, Butyrate and others) and C02 and CH4• Protozoa • Generally larger than bacteria but present in small no. • Fibre digestion • Negatively influence protein utilization – predation and reduce outflow of microbial protein • Ruminants can survive with out protozoa• Fungi – recently discovered ruminal MOs – Degrade the lignin-containing tissues than bacteria
    6. 6. livestock agriculture’s role in greenhouse gases CH4 % of million metric % of anthropogenicSources tons/yr total sourcesNatural Wetland 115 24.4 - Oceans 15 3.2 - Termites 20 4.2 - Burning 10 2.1 -Industrial Gas and oil 50 10.6 16.1 Coal 40 8.4 12.8 Charcoal 10 2.1 3.2 Landfills 30 6.4 9.6 Waste water treatment 25 5.3 8.0Agricultural Rice 60 12.8 19.3 Livestock 80 17.0 25.8 Manure 10-25 2.1 3.2-7.7 Burning Anon, 2006 Source: 5 1.0 1.6
    7. 7. Mitigation of methane from livestock• Ruminal fermentation time• Alternate hydrogen acceptors• Use of feed additives• Improvement in production efficiency – Any practice that increases productivity per animal reduces methane emissions• Enhancing ruminal acetogens – Acetogens are a group of rumen microbes that produce acetic acid from hydrogen and carbon dioxide rather than methane• Modification of bacteria in the rumen
    8. 8. Fig. Brief outline of the pathways of carbohydrate fermentation in the rumen (Source: Preston and Leng, 1986)
    9. 9. Effect of improving the efficiency of rumen fermentative activity in methane production Effect of supplementation on methane production Effect of bypass protein and other supplements on ruminal methane production 20 No supplemen tation 1200 15% DE fermented to methane Urea/miner No supplementation al supplemen 800 10 ts Methane production (Kg/ton Lwt. Urea/mineral + gain) bypass protein 5 400 supplements 0 0 1 1 ( Source: Leng, 1991)
    10. 10. Effect of improving rumen fermentative activity in methane production( Source: Leng, 1991)
    11. 11. Manipulation of R F with Organic Acids Supplementation• through treatment of roughage, concentrate and strategic supplementation with organic acids• improve rumen efficiency by maintaining higher pH, optimum ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N), thus CH4 and increasing microbial protein synthesis and essential VFAs• Recently, there has been increased public scrutiny about use of antibiotic feed additives in food animal production, especially in Europe• Use of organic acids, non-antibiotic feed additives may alleviate public skepticism
    12. 12. Cont’d…• Organic acids (OAs) have effects on ruminal fermentation analogous to ionophores (CH4 , lactate, and propionate)• However, the mode of action for the organic acids is different than ionophores• Organic acids stimulate rather than inhibit some specific ruminal bacterial populations• Organic acids that are currently being evaluated as feed additives are Malic acid, Fumaric acid, and Aspartic acid
    13. 13. Cont’d…• Recent research showed that a combination of organic acids ( malate) and monensin – more effective at reducing lactate concentrations – and increasing pH in mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation than the addition of organic acid or monensin alone
    14. 14. in vitro studies - response to supplemental malic acid Response to supplementation Culture Treat system PH TVFA Ac Pr Bu Lac CH NH3- 4 N Batch (steer)a 0,4,8,12 NE NE NE NE mM RUSTIEC 0,5.62 NE NE NE - (sheep)b mmol Batch (sheep)c 0,4,7,10 - - mM RUSTIEC 0,6.55 NE NE - NE - (sheep)d mM Continuous 0,50,100 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE (dairy g/h/d cows)e Up arrow = significant (P<0.01), NE= No effect (P<0.01), a,b,c,d &e= References
    15. 15. Effect of supplemental malic acid in dairy cattle (in vivo studies) Response to supplementation DMI Milk milk R. R. R. Animal Treat yield fat PH VFA CH 4 ReferencesDairy cattl eHolstein 0,28 , - - - - Stallcup, 1979 70gHolstein 0,100g - - - Stallcup, 1979Holstein 10,20 g Khampa et al.,2006Holstein 0, 4 g NE NE NE NE A,B,P - Vicini et al., 2003Holstein 0,84 g NE - - Devan & Bach, 2004Up arrow = significant (P<0.01), NE= No effect (P<0.01),
    16. 16. Effect of supplemental malic acid in beef cattle and small ruminants Response to supplementation Reference DMI Milk milk Gai R. R R. R. s Animal Treat com n PH . NH CH4 p V 3-N F ACrossbred 0, 40, NE - - - - - - Martin etsteers 80 g al.1999Angle 0,60,12 NE - - NE - - - - Martin etsteers 0g al.1999Beef 0, 100g NE - - NE - - - - Martin etcattle al.1999HF steers 0,9,18, - - - - NE Khampa et 27g al., 2006Dairy 0, NE NE NE - - - - - Salama etgoats 0.32% al. 2002Lambs 0, 0.2% - - - - - Flores et al.2003 Up arrow = significant (P<0.01), NE= No effect (P<0.01),
    17. 17. Manipulation of rumen with Ionophores• Ionophores are antibiotics includes: monensin, lasalocid, tetronasin, salinomycin, lysocellin, narasin, nigericin, laidlomycin and valynomycin• Since the mid-1970’s they have been extensively used to manipulate rumen fermentation• ionophores are approved in several countries including Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, and South Africa and recently USA• Monensin (trade name Rumensin) widely used ionophores
    18. 18. Cont’d…• Effect of ionophores on rumen end products • decrease in hydrogen, a precursor of methane, • Favors propionate production • Ionophores inhibit gram-positive bacteria • major benefit of feeding ionophores to dairy cattle is the potential increase in production of propionate and the associated decrease in production of methane, which conserves energy•
    19. 19. Safety (residual effect)• Several researchers indicated that meat and milk produced from animals fed monensin is safe for human consumption• Likewise, monensin is biodegradable in manure and soil, and is not toxic for crop plants
    20. 20. The effects of ionophores on fermentation end products and total ciliate protozoal populations in Angus yearling steers•CC= control•CM=33 mg/kg Monensin• CM/L= Biweekly rotationof monensin(33 mg/kg) and lasalocid(36 mg/kg) (Source: Guan et al. 2005)
    21. 21. Manipulation of ruminal fermentation by plant extracts• Plant extracts have been used for centuries for various purposes (as traditional medicine and food preservatives, among others• The antimicrobial activity of plant extracts - secondary plant metabolites (saponins, tannins, and essential oils)• selective inhibitors of methanogens
    22. 22. Cont’d…• Plants exhibiting anti-methanogenic activity include: Equisetum arvense, Lotus corniculatus, Rheum palmatum, Salvia officinalis, Sapindus saponaria, Uncaria gambir and Yucca schidigera• Major commercial source of saponins is Yucca schidiger• Defaunating agent and selective inhibitor- gram positive bacteria
    23. 23. Effect of Yucca Schidigera extract ( Saponins) in vitro ruminal characteristics and gas production Yucca schidigera extract (ml/l) SEM P value 0 2 4 6pH 6.76 6.79 6.74 6.72 0.02 NSNH3-N (mg/l) 28.60 21.15 18.19 14.86 1.61 ***TVFA(mM) 66.45 64.22 67.97 69.24 1.57 NSVFA (mM) Acetate (A) 47.71 44.12 45.50 46.26 1.05 NSPropionate (P) 12.37 14.20 17.07 19.02 0.49 *** Butyrate 5.69 5.54 4.92 3.64 0.19 *** Others 0.67 0.35 0.49 0.32 0.11 NSA:P ratio 4.42 3.88 3.61 3.52 0.06 ***Protozoa (x104/ml) 13.16 9.38 5.90 5.80 1.07 ***CH4 (ml/min) 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.00 ***CO2 (ml/min) 1.22 1.21 1.39 1.56 0.06 *** ( Source: Pen, 2007)
    24. 24. Conclusions• Rumen manipulation has paramount importance in improving ruminal fermentation efficiency and productivity in dairy and fattening ruminants in the tropics where the major sources of the feed is high in fibre.• Rumensin from ionophores and Malic acid from organic acid are the widely used rumen modifiers in both dairy and fattening ruminant animals
    25. 25. Cont’d…• Several literatures reported that use of one type of manipulating technique for prolonged time is not effective because of adaptation by the rumen microbes, hence, alternative or rotational use rather than one alone may be prolonged its effect in improving the performance of the animal• The studies conducted with plant extracts are limited to in vitro screening for the desired characteristics and only a few of them have been tested in in vivo experiments
    26. 26. Cont’d…• it is desirable to standardize in vivo dose of these plant extracts which are effective in inhibiting methane emission with minimum adverse effects on fermentation of feed so that these can be practically exploited for economic and ‘ecologically friendly’ livestock production
    27. 27. Thank You for your kind attention