Effect of feeding sulphate reducing bacteria along with sulphur on growth performance, nutrient utilization and methane emission in goats

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1592681/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Effect of feeding sulphate reducing bacteria along with sulphur on growth performance, nutrient utilization and methane emission in goats

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1592681/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Competitive relationship exist between the sulphate reducing bacteria and the methanogens in the anaerobic environment including rumen for hydrogen where sulphate is not limiting for the growth and consequently inhibit the enteric methane emission as thermodynamically energetic of sulphate reduction (∆G^o= -21.1 KJ/mole of H₂) is more favourable than methanogenesis (∆G^o= -16.9 KJ/mole H₂). To validate this hypothesis a study was designed to investigate the effect of supplementation of sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) as microbial feed additives alone or along with sulphur (as sodium sulphate) on methane production, live weight gain, feed intake, nutrient digestibility and energy metabolism in goats. The SRB used as microbial feed additives were isolated from goat rumen. The experiment was conducted on growing kids (n=36, 5-6 months of age) with average body weight of 10.08 ± 0.21 kg, divided in six groups (n=6). The six treatments were control fed basal diet (T1), SRB 0.5ml/kg BW (T2), sulphur (as sodium sulphate) 0.095% of DMI (total sulphur level in the diet 1.5 times the requirement) (T3), sulphur (as sodium sulphate) 0.095% of DMI + SRB 0.5ml/kg BW (T4), sulphur (as sodium sulphate) 0.19% of DMI (total sulphur level in the diet 2 times the requirement) (T5) and sulphur (as sodium sulphate) 0.19 % of DMI + SRB 0.5ml/kg BW (T6). Duration of study was 150 days and the goats were fed as per ICAR (2013) feeding standard. Methane (CH₄) production (l/kg DMI) was reduced by 11.8 % (P=0.05) in T6 where sulphur (@ 0.19% DMI) was supplemented along with SRB4 (@ 0.5 ml/kg BW) as compared to T1 (un-supplemented group). However, the dry matter intake (DM), total weight gain (TG), average daily gain (ADG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), excretion of purine derivatives (allantoin, uric acid, xanthine and hypoxanthine) and digestibility of organic matter (OM), dry matter (DM), ether extract (EE), crude protein (CP), acid detergent fibre (ADF) and neutral detergent fibre (NDF) remained comparable (P>0.05) among all the groups. The experimental data revealed that feeding of SRB as an microbial feed additives along with sulphur (as sodium sulphate) is capable in reducing enteric CH₄ emission without any adverse effect on rumen fermentation and digestibility of the nutrients.

Goats

Methane

Nutrient digestibility

Sulphur

Sulphate reducing bacteria

Purine derivatives

Livestock are important source of methane (CH₄) emission and contributed 49 Mt/year out of total 380 Mt/year CH₄ emission in 2020 from anthropogenic sources (Zhao and Zhao 2022). Ruminant animals are the main CH₄ producer and contribute nearly 95% of total CH₄ emission from the livestock (McAllister et al. 2015). CH₄ is a potent green house gas (GHG) having global warming potential 28 times then CO₂ (Kumari et al. 2016). In addition to its greenhouse gas effects, the formation of methane is wasteful to ruminants as it results in the loss of 2–12% of the dietary gross energy, which could be otherwise be utilized for useful purpose like growth or meat or milk production (Min, et al. 2020; Uniyal et al. 2020; Yatoo et al. 2018). About 90% of the enteric CH₄ is formed in rumen by the metanogens (Dini et al. 2012), hence manipulation of ruminal environment to decrease methane production without adversely affecting digestibility of feed is one of the main areas of research worldwide. Several feed additives like halogenated compounds (Chalupa 1977), bacteriocins (Lee et al. 2002), ionophore antibiotics (Odongo et al. 2007), oils and fatty acids (Yabuuchi et al. 2007), plants and their products containing secondary metabolites like tannis, saponins and essential oils (Pawar et al. 2019; Kala et al. 2020) and diverting H₂ from CH₄ production to other alternate pathways utilizing fumarate, nitrate and sulphate (Kobayashi et al. 2010; Klop et al. 2016; Van Zijderveld et al. 2010; Kumar et al. 2019) have been investigated to reduce the enteric methane production in livestock. Out of these mitigation strategies diverting H₂ towards sulphate reduction rather then methane production by providing sulphate or elemental sulphur in the diet, is gaining more attention (Zhao and Zhao 2022) because competitive and co-operative relationships exist between methanogens and sulphate-reducing bacteria (SRB) In the rumen, and increasing sulphate or sulphur level in rumen can improve the capacity of SRB to be a H₂ sinks as thermodynamically reduction of sulphate by the SRB is more favourable (∆G^o= -21 KJ/mole of H2) than hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis (∆Go= -16.9 KJ/mole of H₂), encouraging competition between these two groups inhibit ruminal methanogenesis (Ungerfeld et al., 2015). In the rumen SRB belong to two main genra Desulfovibrio and Desulfotomaculum and the concentration is approximately 10⁵ to 10⁶/ml. SRB reduce sulphur containing compounds into hydrogen sulphide (H₂S) by utilizing ruminal H₂ and methanogen require H₂ for the reduction of CO₂ to produce CH₄. According to Droge et al. (2005) some SRB can oxidize H₂S into sulphate and prevent accumulation of H₂S. Few in vitro experiments have been done using SRB as microbial feed additives and demonstrated reduction in methane production and increased feed digestibility without accumulation of H₂S (Paul et al. 2011). However, Very little information is available on the ability of ruminal SRB to out-compete methanogens for hydrogen to reduce methane production in vivo in ruminants. The present in vivo study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of a SRB isolated from goat rumen as microbial feed additives along with sulphate to reduce methane production and to investigate its impact on nutrient utilization and growth performance of goats.

Preparation of sulphate reducing bacteria culture

An isolate of sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB4) from goat rumen, was selected among the isolates for its methane inhibiting ability in the authors laboratory and is maintained in lyophilized form. For supplementing the cultures to the animals, the lyophilized culture was inoculated in specific medium modified from Howard and Hungate (1976) under anaerobic conditions and fed to the animal by directly drenching the culture to the animals

Experimental animals and feeding

Thirty six growing male kids, 5-6 months of age with average body weight of (10.08 ± 0.21 kg) were distributed into six groups of six animals each, following complete randomized design (CRD) based on the body weight. The animals were fed maize hay and concentrate mixture as a basal diet (Table 1) following ICAR (2013) for the experimental duration of 150 days. Concentrate allowance was adjusted in such a way that proportion of concentrate intake did not exceed 50 % of DMI and thus the concentrate: roughage ratio of 50:50 was maintained in all the groups. The experimental groups were, T1 (basal diet), T2 (basal diet + SRB4 @ 0.5 ml/kg body weight, 1x10⁶CFU/ml), T3 (basal diet + sulphur (as sodium sulphate) @ 0.095 % of DMI, 1.5 times the requirement), T4 (basal diet + sulphur (as sodium sulphate) @ 0.095 % of DMI + SRB4 @ 0.5 ml/kg body weight), T5 (basal diet + sulphur (as sodium sulphate) @ 0.19% of DMI, 2 times the requirement) and T6 (basal diet + sulphur as (sodium sulphate) @ 0.19% of DMI + SRB4 @ 0.5 ml/kg body weight).The concentrate mixture was composed of wheat bran (27%), maize grains (40%), solvent extracted soybean meal (30%), mineral mixture (2%) and salt (1%).

Analysis of feed and fodder

The feed and fodder were dried in a hot air oven (100±1⁰C) until a constant weight was achieved and then ground to pass 1 mm sieve and stored in airtight polythene bags for further analysis. Analysis of feed and fodder samples were done for organic matter, dry matter, crude protein and, ether extract as per AOAC (1995). The acid detergent fiber and neutral detergent fiber content were analyzed by following Van Soest et al. (1991). Sulphur contents of feed was analysed as per the procedure of AOAC (2005).

Growth and apparent nutrients digestibility

Body weight (BW) of the animals was recorded at weekly interval in the morning before offering feed and water, consecutively for two days. To determine the digestibility of nutrients, a six days metabolism trial was carried out after 90 days of experimental feeding. For this purpose, animals were kept in the metabolic cages, individually. After three days adaptation period, sample collection was done for 6 days. The feed offered and residues were collected individually, and dried samples were pooled animal wise. Faeces voided by individual animal in 24 h were collected and an appropriate aliquot of the faeces was taken for DM estimation and dried samples were pooled for six days animal wise in the polythene bags. Another aliquot of the faeces was transferred daily into a glass bottle containing 20% sulphuric acid individually for nitrogen estimation. The dried pooled samples of feed offered, residue left and faeces were analysed for proximate principles and fibre fractions.

Estimation of methane emission

Methane concentration was measured by open circuit respiration chamber, which was maintained at 65% relative humidity and 25°C temperature. Animals were subjected to acclimatization in respiration chamber for three days after completion of metabolic trial, followed by measurement of methane emission for two consecutive days. The total volume of air (l/d) passed through the chamber was recorded. The observations were made for flow rate, temperature of dry and wet bulb and atmospheric pressure. Methane was measured by an Infrared Gas Analyzer (Analytical Development Co. Ltd. Hoddesdon, England, model 300) in the air coming to the chamber and going out from the chamber.

Estimation of gross energy

Gross energy (GE) was measured by measuring GE content of feed, orts, urine and faeces by Ballistic Bomb Calorimeter (Gallenkamp, C.B.370), taking benzoic acid as a standard.

Estimation of purine derivatives

Estimation of purine derivatives like allantoin, uric acid, xanthine and hypoxanthine in urine sample was estimated by the standard procedures given by IAEA-TECDOC-945 (1997).

Statistical analysis

The data generated in the above experiment were statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS version 20 computer package. For comparison of groups, generalized linear model ANOVA procedure and Duncan’s multiple range tests were used (Snedecor and Cochran 1994). Significant difference among the treatments was established at P<0.05.

Chemical composition of the feeds

The chemical composition of the basal diet and maize hay used for feeding the goats is presented in Table 1. The OM, CP, EE, NDF, ADF and sulphur in concentrate mixture and maize hay were as per ICAR (2013) standard. The test animals were supplemented sulphur (as sodium sulphate) over and above the sulphur already present in the basal diet. The groups without sulphur supplementation (T1 and T2) received 0.19 % of DMI whereas, the groups with sulphur supplementation received 0.28 % of DMI (T3 and T4) and 0.38 % of DMI (T5 and T6).

Growth performance and feed conversion ratio

The growth performance of goats in different groups is presented in Table 2. Statistical analysis of data revealed that mean initial body weights, mean final body weights, total weight gain, average daily gain and feed conversion ratio was found to be comparable (P>0.05) among all the six groups

Intake and digestibility of nutrients

The data obtained during metabolic trial on intake and apparent nutrient digestibility is presented in Table 3. The mean daily OM, DM, EE, CP, and fibre fractions (NDF and ADF) intake and digestibility were similar (P>0.05) in all the six groups.

Methane emission

The effect of incorporation of SRB4 alone or with sulphur (as sodium sulphate) in the diet of goats on methane emission is presented in Table 4. It was observed that there was a trend (P=0.08) in the methane production ((l/d) among the treatment groups and it was 12.68 % less in T6 group as compared to T1 group. When the values of methane production was expressed in terms of l/kg DMI it was found that the methane production was lower (P=0.05) by 11.8 % in T6 where SRB4 was supplemented with sulphur as compared to T1 (control without any supplementation). However, methane production (l/kg DDMI) and (l/kg DOMI) were comparable (P>0.05) among all the six groups

Energy metabolism

The data regarding energy metabolism are presented in Table 5. The gross energy (GE) intake (Mcal/d), faecal energy (FE) loss (Mcal/d), digestible energy (DE) (Mcal/d), urinary energy (UE) loss (Mcal/d), metabolizable energy (ME) (Mcal/d), heat production (Mcal/d), net energy (NE) for production, methane loss as % of GEI and ME (%GE) were found to be comparable (P>0.05) among the groups. However, methane energy loss (Mcal/d) shows tended (P=0.059) to 9.09% lower in T6 supplemented with SRB4 along with sulphur as compared to T1 (control group).

Excretion of purine derivatives

The mean value of allantion, uric acid and xanthine and hypoxanthine (mmol/kg W^0.75) were found to be comparable (P>0.05) among the different groups.

The isolate SRB4 produced hydrogen sulphide after incubation, which is a specific characteristic of a SRB. The reduction of sulphate into sulphide through SRBs in the rumen is reported by Van Zijderveld et al. (2010). In the present study sulphur was also included in the diet along with SRB4 because, though sulphur (as sodium sulphate) was present in the diet but the amount might not be sufficient for the exogenously introduced SRBs to compete with the methanogens through sulphate reduction. The reduction in methanogenesis through sulphate reduction can be felicitated only when sulphur is supplemented with SRB (Islam and Lee 2019). The other way, the supplementation of sulphur along with SRB minimizes the production of hydrogen sulphide along with methane reduction. In vitro methane production was reduced from 2.66 to 1.64 nmol/g digested dry matter in the presence of Fusarium sp. without H₂S accumulation (Paul et al. 2011).

Growth performance and feed conversion ratio

No impact on growth performance and FCR was observed by SRB4 and sulphur (as sodium sulphate) supplementation either individually or in combination of sulphur (As sodium sulphate). Gupta (2016) also did not find any significant difference in ADG and FCR in buffalo calves supplemented with sulphur 0.05 % of dry matter intake (DMI) as compared to control. Similarly, Arif, et al. (2016) found no effect (P>0.05) on ADG and FCR with 0.4 % sulphur supplementation in sheep and goats. Promkot and Wanapat (2007) also found no effect (P>0.05) on ADG with 0.40 and 0.15 % of sulphur supplementation in dairy cattle. Statistically no difference was observed in live weight gain, and feed conversion ratio in merino lambs supplemented 0-0.4 % sulphur in the diet (Li et al. 2013). Contrary to our observations, reduced live weight gain and poor feed efficiency by feeding sulphur @ 0.8 % DMI in cattle was reported by Phuong et al. (2012). In the present study the total sulphur level inclusive of diet was only 0.38% of the diet which might be not high enough to have adverse impact on feed intake. The difference in the response of sulphur feeding might be due difference in the levels of sulphur in the diet in different experiments.

Intake and digestibility of nutrients

The nutrients intake and digestibility were not affected by SRB4 and sulphur supplementation. Similar to our findings, no significant difference was observed on nutrient intake and digestibility in sheep and goats fed on diet supplemented with 0.4% sulphate (Arif et al. 2016). Uniyal et al. (2020) also reported no significant difference on intake and digestibility of nutrients in goats supplemented with sulphur @ 0.08 or 0.16% of DMI. Nutrient intake and digestibility of various nutrient viz. DM, OM, CP, EE, and fibre fraction (NDF and ADF) remained unaffected by supplementing sulphur @ 0.05 % of DMI in buffalo calves (Gupta 2016). Promkot and Wanapat (2007) also did not observe any significant effect on dry matter intake and nutrient digestibility with 0.40 and 0.15 % of sulphur supplementation in dairy cattle. However, Phuong et al. (2012) found significantly (P<0.05) less feed intake by 0.8 % sulphur supplementation in cattle. Contrary to our observation, Cherdthong et al. (2014) found significantly higher DMI and digestibility of various nutrients except ADF in beef cattle fed diet supplemented with feed block containing slow releasing 12-18 % urea calcium sulphate mixture on dry matter basis. Similarly, Silivong et al. (2011) reported improved CP digestibility by 0.8 % sulphur supplementation along with NPN sources (urea or calcium nitrate) in cross bred goats. The results show that it is not only the sulphur level but also the ratio of sulphur to nitrogen which is crucial for the digestion of nutrients. It is quite clear that SRBs have not interfered nutrient utilization it was only sulphur which was effective for these parameters. According to Wu et al. (2015), SRBs might be of great significance only with the diets of high sulphur contents like dried distiller grain.

Methane emission

The feeding of diet supplemented with sulphur (as sodium sulphate) at the rate of 0.19% of DMI and SRB (@ 0.5 ml/kg BW) to lambs (T6) exhibited 12.68, 11.82 and 11.99 % less methane production in terms of l/d, l/kg DMI and l/kg DDMI, respectively in comparison to control. The inhibition of methane production by sulphur and SRB is most likely attributable to the thermodynamic perspective that sulphate reduction by sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) is more favourable than reduction of CO₂by the methanogens and this competition between these microbes in the rumen decreases methane production (Ungerfeld and Kohn, 2006). However, sulphur alone had no impact on methane production. Contrary to our finding Van Zijderveld et al. (2010) reported 16% less methane production by 2.6% sulphate supplementation in crossbred Texel male lambs. Silivong et al. (2011) also found less rumen methane emissions by sulphur (0.8%) supplementation in goats. Similarly, Arif et al. (2016) found significant reduction in methane emission in goat and sheep fed 0.4 % sulphur. In these studies the level of sulphur used was quite high as compared to our study. Though dietary supplementation of sulphate alone at high level successfully reduced methane production but supplementation of sulphate alone has not been encouraged due to their toxic end product hydrogen sulfide. By adding SRB along with sulphur, the risk of hrydogen sulphide can be minimized (Paul et al. 2011).

Energy metabolism

Gross energy (GE) intake, urinary and fecal energy loss metabolizable energy (ME) intake, heat production and net energy (NE) production values were not altered by the supplementation of SRB alone or in combination with sulphur in the diet of lambs. However, methane energy loss was lower (P=0.05) by 9.09 % in the T5 and T6 groups where sulphur (0.19% of DMI) along or along with SRB (0.5 ml/kg BW) was fed as compared to control and other groups. Similar to our finding Van Zijderveld et al. (2010) also reported 16 % less methane production by sulphur (2.6%) supplementation in lambs.

Excretion of purine derivatives

The excretion of purine derivatives in urine is widely accepted marker for the estimating microbial protein synthesis in ruminants. The results revealed that no significant (P>0.05) difference was observed in the excretion of allantoin, uric acid, xanthine and hypoxanthine and total purine derivatives in the urine of goats among the six groups. It is evident from the present study that supplementation of sulphur (0.28 to 0.38 % of DMI) alone or in combination with SRB (0.5 ml/kg BW) in the diet did not alter the microbial protein production in the goats. The results of the present study revealed that feeding of SRB4 along with sulphur (as sodium sulphate at the dose of 0.19% of DMI reduced (P=0.05) methane production as compared to control. However, to achieve significant reduction in methane emission further, studies may be conducted at higher levels of sulphur (as sodium sulphate) with variable doses of sulphate reducing bacteria.

Acknowledgements

The first author is grateful to Director, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar for r providing fellowship during the tenure of his PhD.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Authors Contributions

LCC conceived the idea and planned the experimental details, SU carried out the animal experimentation, laboratory analyses, statistical analyses and wrote the draft manuscript, NA, LCC critically review the manuscript, AK and VBC contributed to laboratory analyses

Data availability

All the data is provided with the manuscript

Statement of Animal Ethics

The experiment was approved by Institutional Animal Ethics Committee and conducted under guidelines prescribed by the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals, Government of India.

Consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

The authors give their consent for publication

AOAC. (1995). Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA, USA.
AOAC (2005). Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA, USA
Arif M, Sarwar M, Hayat Z, Younas, M (2016). Effect of supplementary sodium nitrate and sulphur on methane production and growth rates in sheep and goats fed forage based diet low in true protein. J Anim Plant Sci 26: 69–78.
Chalupa W (1977). Manipulating rumen fermentation. J Anim Sci 46: 585–599.
Cherdthong A, Wanapata M, Wongwungchuna W et al (2014). Effect of feeding feed blocks containing different levels of urea calcium sulphate mixture on feed intake, digestibility and rumen fermentation in Thai native beef cattle fed on rice straw. Anim Feed Sci Technol 198:151–157.
Dini Y, Gere J, Briano C et al (2012). Methane emission and milk production of dairy cows grazing pastures rich in legumes or rich in grasses in Uruguay. Anim 2: 288–300.
Droge S, Limper U, Emtiazi F et al (2005). In vitro and in vivo sulphate reduction in the gut contents of the termite Mastotermesdarwiniensis and the rose-chafer Pachnodamarginata. J Gen Appl Microbiol 51: 57–64.
Gibson GR, Macfariane GT, Cummings JH (1993). Sulphate reducing bacteria and hydrogen metabolism in the large intestine. Gut, 34:437–439.
Gupta VP (2016). Effect of rumen modifiers on nutrient utilization, growth, methane emission and immune response in growing buffalo calves. PhD thesis Deemed Universitu IVRI Bareilly India.
Gupta VP, Kamra DN, Agarwal N, Chaudhary LC (2017). Effect of sulphate and blend of plant containing secondary metabolites on in vitro methanogenesis, digestibility and feed fermentation with buffalo rumen liquor. Indian J Anim Sci 87:199–202.
Howard BH, Hungate RE (1976). Desulfovibrio of the sheep rumen. Appl EnvironMicrobiol 32: 598–602.
IAEA-TECDOC-945 (1997). Estimation of rumen microbial protein production from purine derivatives in urine. IAEA, Vienna, pp. 48.
ICAR (2013). Nutrient Requirements of sheep, goat and rabbit 3rd Indian Council of Agricultural Research. New Delhi. India
Islam M, Lee SS (2019). Advanced estimation and mitigation strategies: a cumulative approach to enteric methane abatement from ruminants. J Anim Sci Technol 61:122–137.
Kala A, Kamra DN, Agarwal N, Chaudhary LC (2020). Effect of a blend of commercial Ajwain (Trachyspermum ammi) oil and nitrate on the fermentation and microbial profile of buffalo rumen. Anim Nutri Feed Technol 20: 141–153
Kobayashi Y (2010). Abatement of methane production from ruminants: trends in the manipulation of rumen fermentation. Asian-Austr J Anim Sci 23:410–416.
Kumar A, Kamra DN, Agarwal N, Chaudhary LC (2019). Effect of graded levels of bromoethanesulfonic acid supplementation on methane production, rumen microbial diversity and fermentation characteristics. Anim Nutr Feed Technol 19:15–25.
Kumari S, Dahiya RP, Naik SN et al (2016). Projection of methane emissions from livestock through enteric fermentation: A case study from India. Environ Devel 20, 31–44.
Lee SS, Hsu JT, Mantovani HC, Russell JB (2002). The effect of bovicin HC5, a bacteriocin from Streptococcus bovis HC5, on ruminal methane production in vitro. FEMS Microbiol Letters 217: 51–55.
Li L, Silveira CI, Nolan JV et al. (2013). Effect of added dietary nitrate and elemental sulfur on wool growth and methane emission of Merino lambs. Anim Prod Sci 53:1195–1201.
Min BR, Solaiman S, Waldrip HM et al (2020). Dietary mitigation of enteric methane emissions from ruminants: A review of plant tannin mitigation options. Anim 6:231–246.
Odongo NE, Bagg R, Vessie G et al (2007). Long-term effects of feeding monensin on methane production in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 90:1781–1788.
Paul SS, Deb SM, Singh D (2011). Isolation and characterization of novel sulphate-reducing Fusobacterium sp. and their effects on in vitro methane emission and digestion of wheat straw by rumen fluid from Indian riverine buffaloes. Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–167, 132–140.
Pawar MM, Kamra DN, Chaudhary LC, Agarwal N, Chaturvedi VB (2019). Nutrients utilization, methane emission, immune function, blood metabolites and performance of buffalo calves fed Trachyspermum copticum seed oil. Indian J Anim Sci 89:63–67
Phuong LTB, Khang DN, Preston TR (2012) Effect of NPN source, level of added sulphur and source of cassava leaves on growth performance and methane emissions in cattle fed a basal diet of molasses. Livest Res Rural Dev http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/4/phuong24070.htm.
Promkot C, Wanapat M (2007) Effect of sulfur on rumen ecology, blood metabolites, hormones and production in lactating dairy cows supplemented with fresh cassava foliage or cassava hay.In: Preston R, Ogle B, Editors Proceedings of MEKARN Regional Conference; 2007 November 25-28Halong Bay, Vietnam.
Samal L, Chaudhary LC, Agarwal N, Kamra DN (2018) Impact of phytogenic feed additives on growth performance, nutrient digestion and methanogenesis in growing buffaloes. Anim Prod Sci 58:1056–1063
Silivong P, Preston TR, Leng RA (2011) Effect of sulphur and calcium nitrate on methane production by goats fed a basal diet of molasses supplemented with Mimosa (Mimosa pigra) foliage. Livestock Research and Rural Development, 23.Article 58. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/3/sili23058.htm.
Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1994) Statistical method, 6th ed. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.
Ungerfeld EM, Kohn RA (2006) The role of thermodynamics in the control of ruminal fermentation. Pages 55–85 in Ruminant Physiology: Digestion, Metabolism and Impact of Nutrition on Gene Expression, Immunology and Stress K. Sejrsen, T. Hvelplund, and M. O. Nielsen, ed. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen. Netherlands.
Ungerfeld EM (2015). Shifts in metabolic hydrogen sinks in the methanogenesis inhibited ruminal fermentation: a meta-analysis. Front Microbiol 6: 37.
Uniyal S, Chaudhary LC, Kala A, Agarwal N, Kamra DN (2020) Effect of sulphur supplementation on methane emission, energy partitioning and nutrient utilization in goats. Anim Nutr Feed Technol 20:111–119
Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fibre neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharide in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597
Van Zijderveld SM, Gerrits WJJ, Apajalahti JA, Newbold JR, Dijkstra J, Leng RA, Perdok HB (2010). Nitrate and sulfate: Effective alternative hydrogen sinks for mitigation of ruminal methane production in sheep. J Dairy Sci, 93:5856–5866
Verma V, Chaudhary LC, Agarwal N., Bhar R, Kamra DN (2012) Effect of feeding mixture of garlic bulb and peppermint oil on methane emission, rumen fermentation and microbial profile in buffaloes. Anim Nutr Feed Technol 12:157–164
Yabuuchi Y, Tani M, Matsushita Y, Otsuka H, Kobayashi Y (2007) Effects of lauric acid on physical, chemical and microbial characteristics in the rumen of steers on a high grain diet. Anim Sci J 78:387–394
Yatoo MA, Chaudhary LC, Agarwal N, Chaturvedi VB, Kamra DN (2018) Effect of feeding of blend of essential oils on enteric methanogenesis, growth, nutrient utilization in growing buffaloes. Asian Austral J Anim 31: 672–676.
Zhao Y, Zhao G (2022). Decreasing ruminal methane production through enhancing the sulfate reduction pathway. Anim Nutri. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2022.01.006

Table 1. Chemical composition (%) of the concentrate mixture and maize hay fed to the goats

Chemical composition	Concentrate mixture	Maize hay
Dry matter	86.79	90.42
Organic matter	92.39	86.90
Crude protein	21.17	6.23
Ether extract	3.40	1.87
Neutral detergent fibre	23.94	75.49
Acid detergent fibre	17.65	37.95
Sulphur	0.26	0.12
Gross energy (kcal/g)	5.28	4.47

Table 2. Effect of feeding sulphur alone or with SRB4 on growth performance of the goats

Attributes	T1	T2	T3	T4	T5	T6	SEM	P value
Initial BW (kg)	10.18	10.07	10.06	10.00	10.01	10.19	0.21	1.000
Final BW(kg)	14.77	14.60	14.57	14.28	14.38	14.87	0.21	0.994
Total gain (kg)	4.58	4.53	4.51	4.28	4.39	4.68	0.09	0.870
ADG (g)	30.56	30.22	30.04	28.53	29.24	31.18	0.61	0.870
DMI (g/d)	401.9	400.4	399.4	398.3	399.1	400.2	0.83	0.889
FCR	13.15	13.25	13.29	13.96	13.65	12.84	1.26	0.220

T1: Basal diet, T2: Basal diet + SRB4 @ 0.5 ml/kg BW, T3: Basal diet + sulphur @ 0.095% of DMI, T4: Basal diet + sulphur @ 0.095% of DMI + SRB4 @ 0.5 ml/kg BW, T5: Basal diet + sulphur @.19% DMI, T6: Basal diet + sulphur @ 0.19% + SRB4 @ 0.5 ml/kg BW

Table 3. Effect of feeding sulphur alone or with SRB4 on intake (g/d) and digestibility (%) of nutrients in the goats

Attributes	T1	T2	T3	T4		T5	T6	SEM	P value
Dry matter
Intake (g/d)	425.1	387.9	412.3		395.6	391.8	402.3	7.32	0.737
Digestibility (%)	64.23	65.71	65.01		65.36	65.17	65.46	0.50	0.979
Organic matter
Intake (g/d)	382.9	341.4	362.5	357.3		353.5	362.5	6.11	0.567
Digestibility (%)	68.31	68.69	68.15	69.43		69.15	68.87	0.44	0.972
Ether extract
Intake (g/d)	11.70	10.54	11.00	11.15		10.93	11.13	0.16	0.527
Digestibility (%)	68.44	67.80	66.88	68.94		68.59	68.73	0.79	0.984
Crude protein
Intake (g/d)	63.11	57.40	58.92	61.27		59.63	60.29	0.82	0.465
Digestibility (%)	67.98	70.23	67.60	68.51		69.37	69.88	1.07	0.983
Neutral detergent fibre
Intake (g/d)	199.1	178.1	196.5	172.4		174.3	182.2	4.43	0.376
Digestibility (%)	53.02	54.16	55.58	54.69		54.04	55.35	0.50	0.742
Acid detergent fibre
Intake (g/d)	111.6	97.74	107.0	100.4		100.9	104.8	2.30	0.583
Digestibility (%)	44.34	45.38	44.91	45.72		45.74	44.58	0.66	0.989

Table 4. Effect feeding sulphur alone or with SRB4 on enteric methane emission in the goats

Attributes	T1	T2	T3	T4	T5	T6	SEM	P value
BW (kg)	12.55	11.90	11.98	12.10	11.95	12.28	0.22	0.972
DMI (g/d)	357.5	361.9	355.9	358.3	345.3	354.3	6.68	0.992
l/d	11.75	11.50	11.59	11.02	10.83	10.26	0.17	0.080
l/kg DMI	32.97^a	31.97^a	32.79^a	30.76^ab	31.43^ab	29.07^b	0.42	0.052
l/kg DDMI	44.20	46.23	43.13	43.32	42.49	38.90	1.07	0.554
l/kg DOMI	45.32	49.25	46.99	45.37	44.46	41.11	1.10	0.434

^abmean bearing different superscript within a row differ significantly (P<0.05)

Table 5. Effect feeding sulphur alone or with SRB4 on energy partition in the goats

Attributes	T1	T2	T3	T4	T5	T6	SEM	P value
GE intake (Mcal/d)	2.00	1.78	1.89	1.87	1.85	1.89	0.03	0.556
Faecal energy loss (Mcal/d)	0.58	0.49	0.56	0.50	0.53	0.49	0.02	0.474
Digestible energy (Mcal/d)	1.42	1.30	1.34	1.37	1.32	1.40	0.02	0.436
Urinary energy loss (Mcal/d)	0.06	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.002	0.258
Methane energy loss (Mcal/d)	0.11	0.11	0.11	0.11	0.10	0.10	0.01	0.056
Metabolizable energy (Mcal/d)	1.25	1.14	1.18	1.22	1.17	1.26	0.02	0.990
Heat production (Mcal/d)	0.13	0.11	0.12	0.12	0.12	0.13	0.004	0.729
Net energy production (Mcal/d)	1.12	1.03	1.06	1.10	1.05	1.13	0.02	0.458
Methane loss as % of GEI	5.61	6.12	5.79	5.69	5.55	5.12	0.14	0.519
ME as % of GE	62.35	63.76	62.13	65.35	63.46	66.29	0.48	0.059

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Effect of feeding sulphate reducing bacteria along with sulphur on growth performance, nutrient utilization and methane emission in goats

Archived Versions:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Results

Discussion

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Archived Versions:

Version 1