Open Access
Research
(Published
online: 08-11-2016)
7.
In
vitro
evaluation of different varieties of maize
fodder for their methane generation potential and digestibility
with goat rumen liquor -
Shalini Vaswani, Ravindra Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Debashis Roy and
Muneendra Kumar
Veterinary World, 9(11): 1209-1213
doi:
10.14202/vetworld.2016.1209-1213
Shalini Vaswani:
Department of Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science &
Animal Husbandry, U.P. Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Pashu Chikitsa
Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya Evam Go Anusandhan Sansthan, Mathura -
281 001, Uttar Pradesh, India; shalini_vet@yahoo.com
Ravindra Kumar:
Division of Nutrition Feed Resources and Product Technology,
Central Institute for Research on Goats, Makhdoom, Farah - 281
122, Uttar Pradesh, India; ravindra.srivastava@gmail.com
Vinod Kumar:
Department of Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science &
Animal Husbandry, U.P. Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Pashu Chikitsa
Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya Evam Go Anusandhan Sansthan, Mathura - 281
001, Uttar Pradesh, India; vinodsidhu@rediffmail.com
Debashis Roy:
Department of Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science &
Animal Husbandry, U.P. Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Pashu Chikitsa
Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya Evam Go Anusandhan Sansthan, Mathura - 281
001, Uttar Pradesh, India; debashis2k4@gmail.com
Muneendra Kumar:
Department of Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science &
Animal Husbandry, U.P. Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Pashu Chikitsa
Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya Evam Go Anusandhan Sansthan, Mathura - 281
001, Uttar Pradesh, India; muneendra82@gmail.com
Received: 21-04-2016, Accepted: 27-09-2016, Published online:
08-11-2016
Corresponding author:
Shalini Vaswani, e-mail: shalini_vet@yahoo.com
Citation:
Vaswani S, Kumar R, Kumar V, Roy D, Kumar M (2016)
In vitro
evaluation of different varieties of maize fodder for their
methane generation potential and digestibility with goat rumen
liquor,
Veterinary World, 9(11):
1209-1213.
Abstract
Aim:
To evaluate the methane generation potential and digestibility of
different (normal and three high-quality protein maize [HQPM])
varieties of maize fodder with goat rumen liquor
in vitro.
Materials and Methods:
Methane production potential and digestibility of different
varieties of maize fodder were tested in
in vitro
gas production test. Seven varieties of maize, four normal (HTHM
5101, DHM 117, HM 5, and Shaktiman/900 M Gold), and three
high-quality protein (HQPM 5, HQPM 7, and HQPM 9/Vivek) were grown
in different plots under the same environmental and agro-climatic
conditions. Fodders were harvested at 45-50 days of sowing, and
the representative samples of fodder from different varieties of
maize were collected for analysis. Dried and grinded form of these
maize fodder varieties was tested for gas, methane, and
digestibility using goat rumen microflora in
in vitro
gas syringes.
Results:
Gas production (ml/g dry matter [DM]) was highest for HM5 variety
(97.66, whereas lowest for HQPM 9 variety (64.22). Gas production
(ml/g degraded DM [DDM]) and methane (%) were statistically
similar in different varieties of maize fodder. The methane
production expressed as ml/g DM and ml/g DDM was significantly
(p<0.05) highest for HM 5 (14.22 and 26.62) and lowest for DHM 117
variety (7.47 and 14.13). The
in vitro
DM digestibility (%) and
in vitro
organic matter digestibility (%) varied from 47.48 (HQPM 5) to
52.05 (HQPM 9) and 50.03 (HQPM 7) to 54.22 (HM 5), respectively.
Conclusion:
The present study concluded that DHM 117 maize variety fodder has
lowest methane generation potential and incorporating it in the
dietary regime of ruminants may contribute to lower methane
production.
Keywords:
digestibility and quality protein maize,
in vitro,
maize varieties, methane.
References
1. Pal, K., Patra, A.K. and Sahoo, S. (2015) Evaluation of
feeds from tropical origin for in vitro methane production
potential and rumen fermentation in vitro. Span. J. Agric.
Res., 13(3): 1-12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2015133-7467 |
|
|
2. Wanapat, M., Cherdthong, A., Phesatcha, K. and Kang, S.
(2015) Dietary sources and their effects on animal production
and environmental sustainability. Anim. Nutr., 1(3): 96-103.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2015.07.004 |
|
|
3. Martin, C., Doreau, M. and Morgavi, D.P. (2010) Methane
mitigation in ruminants: From microbe to the farm scale.
Animal, 4: 351-365.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990620
PMid:22443940 |
|
|
4. Gerber, P.J., Hristov, A.N., Henderson, B., Makkar, H., Oh,
J., Lee, C., Meinen, R., Montes, F., Ott, T., Firkins, J.,
Rotz, A., Dell, C., Adesogan, A.T., Yang, W.Z., Tricarico, J.M.,
Kebreab, E., Waghorn, G., Dijkastra, J. and Oosting, S. (2013)
Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and
nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: A review. Animal, 7:
220-234.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000876
PMid:23739465 |
|
|
|
5. Tubiello, F.N., Salvatore, M., Cóndor, G.R.D., Ferrara, A.,
Rossi, S., Biancalani, R., Federici, S., Jacobs, H. and
Lammini, A. (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and other Land use
Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks: 1990-2011
Analysis. ESS Working Paper No. 2. FAO, Rome, Italy. |
|
|
6. Patra, A.K. (2012a) Estimation of methane and nitrous oxide
emissions from Indian livestock. J. Environ. Monit., 14:
2673-2684.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c2em30396e
PMid:22898933 |
|
|
7. Patra, A.K. (2014) Trends and projected estimates of GHG
emissions from Indian livestock in comparisons with GHG
emissions from world and developing countries. Asian Aust. J.
Anim. Sci., 27: 592-599.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13342
PMid:25049993 PMCid:PMC4093536 |
|
|
8. Kim, S.H., Lovelia, L., Mamuad, C., Jeong, Y.J.C., Sung,
S.L., Jong, Y.K. and Sang, S.L. (2013) In vitro evaluation of
different feeds for their potential to generate methane and
change methanogen diversity. Asian Aust. J. Anim. Sci.,
26(12): 1698-1707.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13260
PMid:25049760 PMCid:PMC4092884 |
|
|
9. Patra, A.K. (2012b) Enteric methane mitigation technologies
for ruminant livestock: A synthesis of current research and
future directions. Environ. Monit. Assess., 184: 1929-1952.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-2090-y
PMid:21547374 |
|
|
10. Kumar, R., Kamra, D.N., Agarwal, N. and Chaudhary, L.C.
(2007) In vitro methanogenesis and fermentation of feeds
containing oil seed cakes with rumen liquor of buffalo. Asian
Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 20: 1196-1200.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2007.1196 |
|
|
|
11. Agrawal, P.K. and Gupta, H.S. (2010) Enhancement of
protein quality of maize using biotechnological options. Anim.
Nutr. Feed Technol., 10S: 79-91. |
|
|
|
12. AOAC. (1995) Official Method of Analysis. 16th ed.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC. |
|
|
|
13. Menke, K.H. and Steingass, H. (1988) Estimation of the
energetic feed value obtained by chemical analysis and in
vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim. Res. Dev., 28:
7-55. |
|
|
|
14. Van Soest, P.J. and Robertson, J.B. (1988) A Laboratory
Manual for Animal Science 612. Cornell University, USA. |
|
|
|
15. Snedecor, C.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1994) Statistical
Method. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. |
|
|
|
16. Singh, B., Chaudhary, J.L. and Yadav, C.M. (2011) Effect
of feeding different levels of cereal green fodder on the
performance of crossbred cows. Anim. Nutr. Feed Technol., 11:
285-292. |
|
|
|
17. Datt, C., Niranjan, M., Chabra, A., Chattopadhyaya, K. and
Dhiman, K.R. (2006) Forage yield, chemical composition and in
vitro digestibility of different cultivars of maize (Zea mays
L.). Indian J. Dairy Sci., 59: 54-57. |
|
|
18. Tolera, A., Berg, T. and Sundstol, F. (1999) The effect of
variety on maize grain and crop residue yield and nutritive
value of the stover. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 79: 165-177.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00025-5 |
|
|
|
19. Bilal, R.M., Sultan, J.I., Jamili, M. and Nafeesi, M.
(2007) Impact of maturity and variety on digestion kinetics of
maize (Zea mays). Afr. Crop Sci. Conf. Proc., 8: 589-591. |
|
|
20. Blummel, M., Aiple, K.P., Steingass, H. and Becker, K.
(1999) A note on the stoichiometrical relationship of short
chain fatty acid production and gas formation in vitro in
feedstuffs of widely differing quality. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim.
Nutr., 81: 157-167.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0396.1999.813205.x |
|
|
21. Getachew, G., Robinson, P.H., De Peters, E.J. and Taylor,
S.J. (2004) Relationships between chemical composition, dry
matter degradation and in vitro gas production of several
ruminant feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 111: 57-71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(03)00217-7 |
|
|
22. Singh, S., Kushwaha, B.P., Nag, S.K., Mishra, A.K., Singh,
A. and Anele, U.Y. (2012) In vitro ruminal fermentation,
protein and carbohydrate fractionation, methane production and
prediction of twelve commonly used Indian green forages. Anim.
Feed Sci. Technol., 178: 2-11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.08.019 |
|
|
23. Lee, H.J., Lee, S.C., Kim, J.D., Oh, Y.G., Kim, B.K., Kim,
C.W. and Kim, K.J. (2003) Methane production potential of feed
ingredients as measured by in vitro gas test. Asian Aust. J.
Anim. Sci., 16: 1143-1150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2003.1143 |
|
|
24. Getachew, G., Blummel, M., Makkar, H.P.S. and Becker, K.
(1998) In vitro gas measuring techniques for assessment of
nutritional quality of feeds: A review. Anim. Feed Sci.
Technol., 72: 261-281.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(97)00189-2 |
|
|
|
25. Kirchgessner, M.W. and Muller, H.L. (1994) Methane release
from dairy cows and pigs. In: Aguilera, J.F., editor.
Proceeding, XIIIth Symposium on Energy Metabolism of Farm
Animals. Vol. 76. EAAP CSIC, Spain. p333-348. |
|
