Advertisement

In vitro evaluations of pellets containing Delonix regia seed meal for ruminants

  • Anusorn CherdthongEmail author
  • Rittikeard Prachumchai
  • Metha Wanapat
Regular Articles
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

The objective of the present research was to determine the influence of various doses of the pellets containing DR seed meal (PEDEM) on in vitro CH4 gas production, in vitro digestibility, protozoal count, and ruminal fermentation characteristics. The study was designed as a completely randomized design with eight levels of PEDEM supplementation at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mg DM. Gas production rate constants for the insoluble fraction (c) and cumulative gas production at 96 h were quadratically increased when PEDEM was supplemented (P < 0.05). The concentration of NH3-N was linearly increased when the PEDEM concentration (P < 0.05) was increased, whereas the population of protozoa was linearly decreased when the level of PEDEM supplementation (P < 0.05) was increased. The supplementation of PEDEM in substrate quadratically affected the mean values of in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD), and in vitro NDF digestibility (P < 0.05). TVFA, acetic acid (C2), and butyric acid (C4) were not altered by different doses of PEDEM supplementation (P > 0.05). In contrast, the concentration of propionic acid (C3) was quadratically affected with the supplementation of PEDEM (P = 0.05). The inclusion of PEDEM did not change the CH4 concentration at 6 h of incubation (P > 0.05), whereas the CH4 concentration at 24 h of incubation and the mean values were linearly reduced with additional doses of PEDEM (P < 0.05). Compared with the control group, the mean CH4 concentration was reduced at 51.1% with 12 mg PEDEM, whereas 59.6% was reduced with 14 mg PEDEM supplementations. The supplementation of PEDEM at 12 mg has the potential to manipulate rumen fermentation, to manipulate in vitro digestibility and to reduce protozoa and CH4 production.

Keywords

Plant secondary compound Rumen fermentation Greenhouse gas Protozoa Feed processing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their most sincere thanks to the Increase Production Efficiency and Meat Quality of Native Beef and Buffalo Research Group, Khon Kaen University (KKU), for the use of the research facilities.

Funding information

This study is financially supported by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) and Office of the Commission on Higher Education through the Research Grant for New Scholar (grant no. MRG6080003) and Increase Production Efficiency and Meat Quality of Native Beef and Buffalo Research Group, Khon Kaen University (KKU). This work was also supported by the TRF though the Research and Researcher for Industry (RRi) program (contract grants PHD60I0080) and TFR-IRG5980010.

References

  1. Anantasook N, Wanapat M, Gunun P, Cherdthong A. 2016. Reducing methane production by supplementation of Terminalia chebula RETZ. containing tannins and saponins. Animal Science Journal, 87, 783–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). 1998. Official Analytical Chemists 16th ed. Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
  3. Beauchemin KA, McGinn SM, Martinez TF, McAllister TA. 2007. Use of condensed tannin extract from quebracho trees to reduce methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 85, 1990–1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns RE. 1971. Method for estimation of tannin in the grain sorghum. Agronomy Journal, 163, 511–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calabrò S, Cutrgnelli M, Bovera F, Piccolo G, Infascelli F. 2005a. In vitro fermentation kinetics of carbohydrate fractions of fresh forage, silage and hay of Avena sativa. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85, 1838–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calabrò S, Cutrignelli MI, Lo Presti V, Tudisco R, Chiofalo V, Grossi M, Infascelli F, Chiofalo B. 2015. Characterization and effect of year at harvest on the nutritional properties of three varieties of white lupine (Lupinus albus L.). Journal of Science Food and Agriculture, 95, 3127–3136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calabrò S, Cutrignelli MI, Piccolo G, Bovera F, Zicarelli F, Gazaneo MP, Infascelli F. 2005b. In vitro fermentation kinetics of fresh and dried silage Animal Feed Science and Technology, 123–124, 129–137.Google Scholar
  8. Cherdthong A, Wanapat M. 2013. Rumen microbes and microbial protein synthesis in Thai native beef cattle fed with various feed block. Archives of Animal Nutrition, 67, 448–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cieślak A, Zmora P, Matkowski A, Nawrot-Hadzik I, Pers-Kamczyc E, El-Sherbiny M, Bryszak M, Szumacher-Strabe M. 2016. Tannins from Sanguisorba officinalis affect in vitro rumen methane production and fermentation. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 26, 54–62.Google Scholar
  10. Foiklang S, Wanapat M, Norrapoke T. 2016. Effect of grape pomace powder, mangosteen peel powder and monensin on nutrient digestibility, rumen fermentation, nitrogen balance and microbial protein synthesis in dairy steers. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 29, 1416–1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gunun P, Gunun N, Khejornsart P, Ouppamong T, Cherdthong A, Wanapat M, Sirilaophaisan S, Yuangklang C, Polyorach S, Kenchaiwong W, Kang S. 2019. Effects of Antidesma thwaitesianum Muell. Arg. pomace as a source of plant secondary compounds on digestibility, rumen environment, hematology and milk production in dairy cows. Animal Science Journal, 90, 372–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hummel J, Südekum KH, Streich WJ, Clauss M. 2006. Forage fermentation patterns and their implications for herbivore ingesta retention times. Funct Ecol. 20:989–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson KA, Johnson DE. 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 73, 2483–2492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jouany JP, Morgavi DP. 2007. Use of ‘natural’ products as alternatives to antibiotic feed additives in ruminant production. Animal, 1, 1443–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerlach K, Pries M, Südekum K-H. 2018. Effect of condensed tannin supplementation on in vivo nutrient digestibilities and energy values of concentrates in sheep. Small Ruminant Research, 161, 57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Menke KH, Steingass H. 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research Development, 28, 7–55.Google Scholar
  17. Moss AR, Jouany JP, Newbold J. 2000. Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Annales de zootechnie, 49, 231–2353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ngamsaeng A, Wanapat M, Khampa S. 2006. Evaluation of local tropical plants by in vitro rumen fermentation and their effects on fermentation end-products. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 5, 414–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Norrapoke T, Wanapat M, Wanapat S. 2012. Effects of protein level and mangosteen peel pellets (mago-pel) in concentrate diets on rumen fermentation and milk production in lactating dairy crossbreds. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 25, 971–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nunoi A, Wanapat M, Foiklang S, Ampapon T, Viennasay B. 2019. Effects of replacing rice bran with tamarind seed meal in concentrate mixture diets on the changes in ruminal ecology and feed utilization of dairy steers. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 51: 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ørskov ER, McDonald I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, 92, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Patra AK, Kamra DN, Agarwal N. 2010. Effects of extracts of spices on rumen methanogenesis, enzyme activities and fermentation of feeds in vitro. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 90, 511–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Patra AK, Saxena J. 2009. Dietary phytochemicals as rumen modifiers: a review on the effects on microbial populations. Antoine Van Leeuwenhoek, 96, 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rochfort S, Parker AJ, Dunshea FR. 2008. Plant bioactives for ruminant health and productivity. Phytochemistry, 69, 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. SAS. 1998. User’s guide: statistics, Version6, 12th Edition. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  26. Seankamsorn A, Cherdthong A, Wanapat M, Supapong C, Khonkhaeng B, Uriyapongson S, Gunun N, Gunun P, Chanjula P. 2017. Effect of dried rumen digesta pellet levels on feed use, rumen ecology, and blood metabolite in swamp buffalo. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 48, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Śliwiński BJ, Kreuzer M, Wettstein H-R, Machmüller A. 2002. Rumen fermentation and nitrogen balance of lambs fed diets containing plant extracts rich in tannins and saponins, and associated emissions of nitrogen and methane. Archives of Animal Nutrition, 56, 379–392.Google Scholar
  28. Südekum K-H, Schröder A, Fiebelkorn S, Schwer R, Thalmann A. 2008. Quality characteristics of pelleted compound feeds under varying storage conditions as influenced by purity and concentration of glycerol from biodiesel production. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 17, 120–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Supapong C, Cherdthong A, Seankamsorn A, Khonkhaeng B, Wanapat M, Uriyapongson S, Gunun N, Gunun P, Chanjula P, Polyorach S. 2017. In vitro fermentation, digestibility and methane production as influenced by Delonix regia seed meal containing tannins and saponins. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 26, 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tilley JMA, Terry RA. 1963. A two-stage technique for the digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society, 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wanapat M, Kang S, Polyorach S. 2013. Development of feeding systems and strategies of supplementation to enhance rumen fermentation and ruminant production in the tropics. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 4, 32. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-1891-4-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang Z, Fang YZ. 2004. Analysis of sugars in traditional Chinese drugs. Journal of Chromatography B, 812, 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tropical Feed Resources Research and Development Center (TROFREC), Department of Animal Science, Faculty of AgricultureKhon Kaen UniversityKhon KaenThailand

Personalised recommendations