Annals of Microbiology

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 541–545 | Cite as

Microbial profiles, in vitro gas production and dry matter digestibility based on various ratios of roughage to concentrate

  • Sanjay Kumar
  • Sumit Singh Dagar
  • Sunil Kumar Sirohi
  • Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
  • Anil Kumar PuniyaEmail author
Original Article


The study assessed the effects of different roughage to concentrate ratios on enteric methane production, rumen fermentation and microbial counts. These ratios were 80:20, 50:50, and 20:80 for diets 1, 2, and 3, respectively. No significant differences were observed in total gas production among diets; however, methane emissions increased (P < 0.05) with increased roughage in diet. The pH was greater (P < 0.05) in diet 1 compared to diets 2 and 3 (6.38 vs 6.17 and 6.07). In vitro dry matter digestibility increased with decreased roughage ratios (47.67, 61.67, 67.33 % for diets 1, 2 and 3, respectively). Similarly, total volatile fatty acids (mM/100 mL) also increased with decreased roughage ratios [diet 1 (5.38); diet 2 (6.30); diet 3 (7.37)]. Methanogen counts, total bacterial counts and protozoal counts were lower (P < 0.05) in diet 3 compared to diet 1 and 2. However, total fungal counts were higher in diet 1 compared to diet 2 and 3. The results indicate that methane emission, enteric fermentation patterns, and change in methanogens population appear only with higher level of roughage. These findings are important for reducing methane without any impact on rumen performance.


Digestibility Fermentation Methane Methanogen Rumen 



The work was supported by NDRI (ICAR), Karnal and the authors are also grateful to National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture for providing partial support.


  1. Anderson RC, Krueger NA, Stanton TB, Callaway TR, Edrington TS, Harvey RB, Jung YS, Nisbet DJ (2008) Effects of select nitrocompounds on in vitro ruminal fermentation during conditions of limiting or excess added reductant. Bioresour Technol 99:8655–8661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AO RAL (2008) The potential of feeding nitrate to reduce enteric methane production in ruminants. In: A Report to the Department of Climate Change, p 90. Commonwealth Government of Australia Canberra ACT, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett AJG, Reid R (1957) Studies on the production of volatile fatty acids from the grass by rumen liquor in an artificial rumen. J Agric Sci 48:315–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauchemin K, Kreuzer M, O'mara F, McAllister T (2008) Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Aust J Exp Agric 48:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beauchemin KA, Henry Janzen H, Little SM, McAllister TA, McGinn SM (2010) Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada: a case study. Agric Syst 103:371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke K, Owens N (1983) A simple and versatile micro-computer program for the determination of ‘most probable number’. J Microbiol Methods 1:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dagar SS, Kumar S, Mudgil P, Singh R, Puniya AK (2011) D1/D2 domain of large-subunit ribosomal DNA for differentiation of Orpinomyces spp. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:6722–6725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Desnoyers M, Duvaux-Ponter C, Rigalma K, Roussel S, Martin O, Giger-Reverdin S (2008) Effect of concentrate percentage on ruminal pH and time-budget in dairy goats. Animal 2:1802–1808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eun JS, Fellner V, Gumpertz M (2004) Methane production by mixed ruminal cultures incubated in dual-flow fermentors. J Dairy Sci 87:112–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finlay BJ, Esteban G, Clarke KJ, Williams AG, Embley TM, Hirt RP (1994) Some rumen ciliates have endosymbiotic methanogens. FEMS Microbiol Lett 117:157–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Getachew G, DePeters E, Robinson P, Fadel J (2005) Use of an in vitro rumen gas production technique to evaluate microbial fermentation of ruminant feeds and its impact on fermentation products. Anim Feed Sci Technol 123:547–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goel G, Makkar HPS, Becker K (2008) Changes in microbial community structure, methanogenesis and rumen fermentation in response to saponin-rich fractions from different plant materials. J Appl Microbiol 105:770–777Google Scholar
  13. Joblin KN (1981) Isolation, enumeration, and maintenance of rumen anaerobic fungi in roll tubes. Appl Environ Microbiol 42:1119–1122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Joblin KN (2005) Methanogenic archaea. In: Makkar HPS, McSweeney CS (eds) Methods in gut microbial ecology for ruminants. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson K, Johnson D (1995) Methane emissions from cattle. J Anim Sci 73:2483PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kamra DN (2005) Rumen microbial ecosystem. Curr Sci 89:124–135Google Scholar
  17. Kumar S, Puniya AK, Puniya M, Dagar SS, Sirohi SK, Singh K, Griffith GW (2009) Factors affecting rumen methanogens and methane mitigation strategies. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 25:1557–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kumar S, Dagar S, Puniya A (2012) Isolation and characterization of methanogens from rumen of Murrah buffalo. Ann Microbiol 62:345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lana RP, Russell JB, Van Amburgh ME (1998) The role of pH in regulating ruminal methane and ammonia production. J Anim Sci 76:2190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lange M, Westermann P, Ahring BK (2005) Archaea in protozoa and metazoa. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 66:465–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marten GC, Barnes RF (1979) Prediction of energy digestibility of forages with in vitro rumen fermentation and fungal enzyme systems. Workshop on Standardization of Analytical Methodology for Feeds, Ottawa, Canada, p 61Google Scholar
  22. Martin C, Morgavi D, Doreau M (2010) Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4:351–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McSweeney C, Denman S, Mackie R (2005) Rumen bacteria. In: Makkar HPS, McSweeney CS (eds) Methods in gut microbial ecology for ruminants. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Menke KH, Steingass H (1988) Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim Res Dev 28:55Google Scholar
  25. Miller TL, Wolin MJ (1974) A serum bottle modification of the hungate technique for cultivating obligate anaerobes. Appl Environ Microbiol 27:985–987Google Scholar
  26. Newbold CJ, Rode L (2006) Dietary additives to control methanogenesis in the rumen. Int Congr Ser 1293:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Mara F (2004) Greenhouse gas production from dairying: reducing methane production. Adv Dairy Technol 16:295–309Google Scholar
  28. Ohene-Adjei S, Teather RM, Ivan M, Forster RJ (2007) Postinoculation protozoan establishment and association patterns of methanogenic archaea in the ovine rumen. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:4609–4618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patra AK, Kamra DN, Bhar R, Kumar R, Agarwal N (2011) Effect of Terminalia chebula and Allium sativum on in vivo methane emission by sheep. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 95:187–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paul S, Kamra D, Sastry V, Sahu N, Kumar A (2003) Effect of phenolic monomers on biomass and hydrolytic enzyme activities of an anaerobic fungus isolated from wild nil gai (Baselophus tragocamelus). Lett Appl Microbiol 36:377–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Santra A, Karim SA (2009) Effect of dietary roughage and concentrate ratio on nutrient utilization and performance of ruminant animals. J Anim Nutr Feed Technol 9:113–135Google Scholar
  32. Sar C, Santoso B, Mwenya B, Gamo Y, Kobayashi T, Morikawa R, Kimura K, Mizukoshi H, Takahashi J (2004) Manipulation of rumen methanogenesis by the combination of nitrate with [beta] 1-4 galacto-oligosaccharides or nisin in sheep. Anim Feed Sci Technol 115:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh K, Singh GP (1997) Effect of concentrate levels in diet of cattle on rumen microorganisms. Ind J Anim Sci 64:349–350Google Scholar
  34. Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1980) Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Tilley JMA, Terry RA (1963) A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass Forage Sci 18:104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Veysset P, Lherm M, Bebin D (2010) Energy consumption, reenhouse gas emissions and economic performance assessments in French Charolais suckler cattle farms: model-based analysis and forecasts. Agric Syst 103:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vogels GD, Hoppe WF, Stumm CK (1980) Association of methanogenic bacteria with rumen ciliates. Appl Environ Microbiol 40:608–612PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Walichnowski A, Lawrence S (1982) Studies into the effects of cadmium and low pH upon methane production. Hydrobiologia 91:559–569Google Scholar
  40. Whitelaw F, Eadie JM, Bruce L, Shand W (1984) Methane formation in faunated and ciliate-free cattle and its relationship with rumen volatile fatty acid proportions. Br J Nutr 52:261–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yanez-Ruiz DR, Hart K, Martin-Garcia A, Ramos S, Newbold CJ (2008) Diet composition at weaning affects the rumen microbial population and methane emissions by lambs. Aust J Exp Agr 48:186–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag and the University of Milan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanjay Kumar
    • 1
  • Sumit Singh Dagar
    • 1
  • Sunil Kumar Sirohi
    • 2
  • Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
    • 3
  • Anil Kumar Puniya
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Dairy Microbiology DivisionNational Dairy Research InstituteKarnalIndia
  2. 2.Dairy Cattle Nutrition DivisionNational Dairy Research InstituteKarnalIndia
  3. 3.Dairy Cattle Physiology DivisionNational Dairy Research InstituteKarnalIndia

Personalised recommendations