Development of feeding systems and strategies of supplementation to enhance rumen fermentation and ruminant production in the tropics
- Metha Wanapat1Email author,
- Sungchhang Kang1 and
- Sineenart Polyorach2
https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-1891-4-32
© Wanapat et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 9 June 2013
Accepted: 21 August 2013
Published: 27 August 2013
Abstract
The availability of local feed resources in various seasons can contribute as essential sources of carbohydrate and protein which significantly impact rumen fermentation and the subsequent productivity of the ruminant. Recent developments, based on enriching protein in cassava chips, have yielded yeast fermented cassava chip protein (YEFECAP) providing up to 47.5% crude protein (CP), which can be used to replace soybean meal. The use of fodder trees has been developed through the process of pelleting; Leucaena leucocephala leaf pellets (LLP), mulberry leaf pellets (MUP) and mangosteen peel and/or garlic pellets, can be used as good sources of protein to supplement ruminant feeding. Apart from producing volatile fatty acids and microbial proteins, greenhouse gases such as methane are also produced in the rumen. Several methods have been used to reduce rumen methane. However, among many approaches, nutritional manipulation using feed formulation and feeding management, especially the use of plant extracts or plants containing secondary compounds (condensed tannins and saponins) and plant oils, has been reported. This approach could help todecrease rumen protozoa and methanogens and thus mitigate the production of methane. At present, more research concerning this burning issue - the role of livestock in global warming - warrants undertaking further research with regard to economic viability and practical feasibility.
Keywords
Introduction
Animals have been an important component in integrated crop-livestock farming systems in developing countries. In a diversified role, they produce animal protein food, draft power and farm manure as well as ensuring social status and enriching people’s livelihoods [1]. As the world population is expected to increase from 6 billion to about 8.3 billion in the year 2030 at an average growth rate of 1.1% per yr, it is essential to be prepared to produce sufficient food for the increased population based on locally available resources especially in the developing countries. The consumption of animal food was 10 kg/yr in the 1960s increasing to 26 kg/yr in 2000 and is expected to be 37 kg/yr by 2030 [2, 3]. Livestock production, in particularly buffalo, cattle and small ruminants, is an integral part of food production systems, making important contributions to the quality and diversity of the human food supply as well as providing other valuable services such as work and nutrient recycling. Large increases in per capita and total demand for meat, milk and eggs are forecast for most developing countries for the next few decades [4]. In developed countries, per capita intakes are forecast to change slightly, but the increases in developing countries, with their larger populations and more rapid population growth rates, will generate a very large increase in global demand. Most importantly, the conversion of materials inedible for humans, such as roughage, tree fodder, crop residues and by-products, into human food by ruminant animals will continue to serve as an important function of animal agriculture. However, since much of the projected increase is expected to come from pork, poultry and aquaculture production, and especially from species consuming diets high in forage carbohydrate, meeting future demand will depend substantially on achievable increases in cereal yields. Therefore, there are opportunities and challenges for researchers to increase animal productivity through the application of appropriate technologies, particularly in production systems, nutrition and feeding. Wanapat [5] and Devendra and Leng [6] have emphasized the utmost importance of using local feed resources as the key driving force to increase the productivity of animals in Asia.
Global warming is a highly important issue which affects the environment and livestock production. Total emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from agriculture, including livestock, are estimated to be between 25% and 32%, depending on the source [7, 8] and on the proportion of land conversion that is ascribed to livestock activities. Interestingly, Goodland and Anhang [9] reported that livestock production and its by-products are responsible for at least 51 percent of global warming gases, accounting for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per yr. Carbon dioxide provides most GHG (55-60%) followed by methane (15-20%). Therefore, livestock is one source of methane production through fermentation in the rumen. Gas emissions from the livestock sector are estimated at between 4.1 and 7.1 billion tons of CO2 equivalents per yr, equating to 15-24% of total global anthropogenic GHG emissions [10].
Tropical plants normally contain a high to medium content of secondary compounds such assaponins and condensed tannins, which have been shown to exert a specific effect against rumen protozoa while leaving the rest of the rumen biomass unaltered [11]. Numerous studies have determined the effects of feeding ruminants with saponin-rich plants such as Enterelobium cyclocarpum, Spinadus saponaria, Sapindus rarak, Sesbania sesban, Quillajasaponaria, Acaciaauriculoformis and Yucca schidigera[11, 12]. Results have indicated that saponins have a strong anti-protozoal activity and could thus serve as an effective defaunating agent for ruminants due to their detergent action [13]. Numerous studies [14–16] have recently reported the impact of livestock on global warming and suggested approaches to mitigate rumen methane.
Development of pelleted feeds
Pelleted feeds have been used successfully for fish and animals including non-ruminant and ruminant animals, fish and shrimp. The advantages of pelleted feeds include: (1) preventing selective feeding on those ingredients in the formulation which are more palatable and thus more desirable to the animal; (2) preventing the separation of constituents in animal feeds due to varying size and density; (3) providing higher bulk density, which has advantages both for shipping and handling, resulting in maximum load efficiency and reduced storage requirements; and (4) improving nutrient utilization and so increasing the feed conversion rate. Pelleting also improves the acceptability, density and keeping quality of feedstuffs [17]. Generally, pelleted feeds are produced in an extrusion-type thermoplastic melding operation in which finely divided particles of a feed ration are formed into compact, easily-handled pellets. Binder additives may be used to improve the strength and shelf-life of pellets and to reduce the release of fines during the pelleting process. Preferably, nutritive binder additives are used which also provide essential recognized nutrients such as magnesium, calcium, potassium and/or sulfur to the feed.
Processing chart for pelleting the products (Mago-pel, Maga-lic, Maga-ulic, LLP, MUP and SWEPP).
Feed ingredients and chemical composition of Mago-pel, Maga-lic, Maga-ulic, LLP, MUP and SWEPP
Items | Mago-pel | Maga-lic | Maga-ulic | LLP | MUP | SWEPP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ingredients | % of dry matter | |||||
Mangosteen peel powder | 98.5 | 93.5 | 91.5 | - | - | - |
Garlic powder | - | 5 | 5 | - | - | - |
Leucaena leaf meal | - | - | - | 81 | - | - |
Mulberry meal | - | - | - | - | 82 | - |
Sweet potato vine | - | - | - | - | - | 81.5 |
Cassava starch | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Urea | - | - | 0.2 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Molasses | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4.5 | 5 |
Sulfur | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Mineral mixture | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Salt | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Chemical composition | ||||||
Dry matter | 93.3 | 93.1 | 92.7 | 92.9 | 92.3 | 95.6 |
% of dry matter | ||||||
Organic matter | 96.5 | 96.4 | 96.5 | 91.3 | 88.2 | 81.4 |
Crude protein | 21.2 | 21.5 | 22.1 | 42.2 | 48.7 | 40.5 |
Neutral detergent fiber | 57.3 | 57.2 | 57 | 44 | 20.4 | 33.1 |
Acid detergent fiber | 48.6 | 48.2 | 48.3 | 20 | 14.5 | 27.8 |
Effect of of Mago-pel, Maga-lic, Maga-ulic, LLP, MUP, SWEPP on DMI, digestibility, rumen volatile fatty acid (VFA) production and ruminal microorganisms
Pelleting | Suppl. | Animal | DMI | Dig. | VFA | CH4 | MPS | Prot. | Reference | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C2 | C3 | C4 | |||||||||
MUP | 600 g/hd/d | Buffalo | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | nd | ↓ | [18] |
MUP | 600 g/hd/d | Buffalo | ↑ | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | ↑ | nd | [19] |
Mago-pel | 300 g/hd/d | Dairy cow | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | ↑ | ↓ | [20] |
Maga-lic | 200 g/hd/d | Dairy steer | nc | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ | nc | ↓ | nd | ↓ | [21] |
Maga-ulic | 200 g/hd/d | Dairy steer | nc | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ | nc | ↓ | ↑ | ↓ | [22] |
LLP | 450 g/hd/d | Buffalo | ↑ | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | ↑ | ↓ | [23] |
Yeast fermented cassava chip protein (YEFECAP)
Amino acid profile of YEFECAP products (mg/100 g of YEFECAP). Source: Polyorach et al. [26].
Process chart for yeast fermented cassava chip products (YEFECAP) preparation. Polyorach et al. [29].
Chemical composition of yeast fermented cassava chip protein (YEFECAP)
Chemical composition | YEFECAP |
---|---|
Dry matter | 90.6 |
% of dry matter | |
Organic matter | 97.2 |
Crude protein | 47.5 |
Ether extract | 7.9 |
Neutral detergent fiber | 6.1 |
Acid detergent fiber | 4.3 |
Effect of using YEFECAP as a protein source in ruminants on DMI, digestibility, rumen volatile fatty acid (VFA) production, ruminal microorganisms, and milk production in various studies
Effect of YEFECAP as a protein source in concentrate mixtures on milk production, milk composition and economic return
Items | Treatments | SEM | Contrasts | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | L | Q | C | ||
Production | ||||||||
Milk yield, kg/d | 13.5 | 14.0 | 14.5 | 15.0 | 0.27 | ** | ns | ns |
3.5% FCM1, kg/d | 13.7 | 14.7 | 15.9 | 17.1 | 0.49 | ** | ns | ns |
Milk composition, % | ||||||||
Protein | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.5 | 4.7 | 0.17 | ** | ns | ns |
Fat | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 0.06 | ** | ns | ns |
Lactose | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 0.07 | ns | ns | ns |
Solids-not-fat | 8.2 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 0.29 | ns | ns | ns |
Total solids | 12.3 | 12.7 | 12.8 | 13.0 | 0.78 | ns | ns | ns |
Milk urea N, mg/dL | 14.8 | 12.5 | 12.3 | 12.0 | 0.58 | * | ns | ns |
Economic return, $US/hd/d | ||||||||
Feed cost | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 0.14 | ns | ns | ns |
Milk sale | 9.5 | 9.8 | 10.2 | 10.5 | 0.19 | ** | ns | ns |
Profit | 7.0 | 7.2 | 7.6 | 7.8 | 0.16 | ** | ns | ns |
Use of plant secondary compounds in methane reduction
Role of plant secondary compounds (condensed tannins and saponins) on rumen fermentation process[1].
Saponins are natural detergents found in many plants. Interest has increased in using saponin-containing plants as a possible means of suppressing or eliminating protozoa in the rumen. Decreased numbers of ruminal ciliate protozoa may enhance the flow of microbial protein from the rumen, to increase the efficiency of feed utilization and decrease methanogenesis. Saponins are also known to influence both the composition and number of ruminal bacterial species through specific inhibition or selective enhancement of the growth of individual species. Saponins have been shown to possess strong defaunation properties both in vitro and in vivo which could reduce methane emissions [45]. Beauchemin et al. [42] recently reviewed the literature related to the effect of saponins on methane and concluded that although there is evidence for a reduction in methane from some sources of saponins, not all are effective [45]. While extracts of CT and saponins may be commercially available, their cost is currently prohibitive for their routine use in ruminant production systems. However, research is still required on the optimum sources of CT and saponins, the level of CT astringency (chemical composition) and the feeding methods and dose rates required to reduce methane and stimulate animal production.
Effect of mangosteen peel supplementation on rumen volatile fatty acid production in ruminants using in vitro and in vivo studies
Substrate | Level | Species | TVFA | C2 | C3 | C4 | C2/C3 | References |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In vitro | ||||||||
MP | 200 mg | Steer | + | + | + | ─ | ─ | [52] |
In vivo | ||||||||
MP | 100 g/hd/d | Beef cattle | + | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | [52] |
MP | 200 g/hd/d | Dairy cows | + | ─ | + | + | ─ | [53] |
MP | 100 g/hd/d | Native cattle | + | ─ | + | ─ | ─ | [51] |
MP | 30 g/kg | Buffalo | + | ─ | + | ─ | ─ | [54] |
MPP | 200 g/hd/d | Beef cattle | + | ─ | + | ─ | ─ | [22] |
MPP | 300 g/hd/d | Dairy cow | + | ─ | + | ─ | ─ | [20] |
Combination | ||||||||
CO + MP | 50 + 30 g/kg | Buffalo | ─ | ─ | + | ─ | ─ | [54] |
MP + GP | 9 + 1% | Beef cattle | + | + | + | ─ | ─ | [22] |
MP + GP pellet | 200 g/hd/d | Beef cattle | + | ─ | + | ─ | ─ | [22] |
Effect of mangosteen peel supplementation on intake, digestibility and methane production in ruminants using in vitro and in vivo studies
Substrate | Level | Species | DMI | Dig | CH4 | References |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In vivo | ||||||
MP | 100 g/hd/d | Beef cattle | + | + | ─ | [52] |
MP | 200 g/hd/d | Dairy cows | nc | + | ─ | [53] |
MP | 100 g/hd/d | Native cattle | nc | + | ─ | [55] |
MP | 30 g/kg | Buffalo | nc | ─ | ─ | [54] |
MPP | 200 g/hd/d | Beef cattle | nc | + | ─ | [22] |
MPP | 300 g/hd/d | Dairy cows | + | nc | ─ | [20] |
Combination | ||||||
CO + MP | 50 + 30 g/kg | Buffalo | nc | + | ─ | [54] |
MP + GP | 9 + 1% | Beef cattle | nc | + | ─ | [22] |
MP + GP pellet | 200 g/hd/d | Beef cattle | nc | + | ─ | [22] |
There are five possible mechanisms by which lipid supplementation reduces methane: reducing fiber digestion (mainly in long chain fatty acids); lowering DMI (if total dietary fat exceeds 6-7%); suppression of methanogens (mainly in medium chain fatty acids); suppression of rumen protozoa and to a limited extent through biohydrogenation [42]. Oils offer a practical approach to reducing methane in situations where animals can be given daily feed supplements, but excess oil is detrimental to fiber digestion and animal production. Oils may act as hydrogen sinks but medium chain length oils appear to act directly on methanogens and reduce the numbers of ciliate protozoa. However, Kongmun et al. [55] reported that supplementation of coconut with garlic powder could improve in vitro ruminal fluid fermentation in terms of the volatile fatty acid profile, reduced methane losses and reduced protozoal population. Beauchemin et al. [42] recently reviewed the effects of the level of dietary lipid on methane emissions in 17 studies and reported that with beef cattle, dairy cows and lambs, there was a proportional reduction of 0.056 (g/kg DM intake) in methane for each 10 g/kg DM addition of supplemental fat. While this is encouraging, many factors need to be considered such as the type of oil, the form of the oil (whole crushed oilseeds vs. pure oils), handling issues (e.g. coconut oil has a melting point of 25°C) and the cost of oils which has increased dramatically in recent years due to the increased demand for food and industrial use. Few reports cover the effect of oil supplementation on methane emissions from dairy cows, where its impact on milk fatty acid composition and overall milk fat content would need to be carefully studied. Recent strategies, based on processed linseed, turned out to be very promising in both respects. Most importantly, a comprehensive whole system analysis needs to be carried out to assess the overall impact on global GHG emissions [45].
Effects of plant secondary compounds and plant oil on digestibility and methane gas production in various studies
Substrates | Level | Methane,% | Animal | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Garlic powder | 16 mg | (−) 22.0* | Buffalo (fluid) | [55] |
Coconut oil | 16 mg | (+) 6.4* | Buffalo (fluid) | [55] |
Soapberry fruit and mangosteen peel pellet | 4% | 10.0 | Holstein heifers | [25] |
Mangosteen peel powder | 100 g/hd/d | (−) 10.5 | Beef cattle | [51] |
Coconut oil | 7% | (+) 39.5* | Beef cattle | [51] |
Coconut oil | 7% | (−) 10.2* | Buffalo | [55] |
Coconut oil Garlic powder | 8:4 (mg) | (−) 18.9* | Buffalo | [55] |
Coconut oil + Garlic powder | 7% + 100 g | (−) 9.1* | Buffalo | [55] |
Eucalyptus oil | 0.33-2 ml/L | 30.3-78.6% | Sheep | [57] |
Eucalyptus oil | 0.33-1.66 ml/L | 4.47-61.0% | Buffalo | [58] |
Eucalyptus meal leaf | 100 g/d | reduce | Cow | [56] |
Conclusion
We can conclude that local feed resources are of prime importance for ruminant feeding especially in the tropics and sub-tropical regions. These resources can be established, developed and utilized for feed on the farm as well as being processed commercially by industrial enterprises. They can be used as sources of energy and/or protein either as ingredients in concentrate mixtures or as feed supplements. They have provided good results for enriching the efficiency of rumen fermentation and subsequent ruminant productivity as well as mitigating rumen methane. Using feeds containing plant secondary compounds and essential oils is recommended as a means for reducing rumen methane. However, the potential benefits of manipulating rumen ecology to improve feed utilization efficiency in ruminants warrants undertaking further research and development in this area.
Declarations
Authors’ Affiliations
References
- Wanapat M, Chanthakhoun V, Kongmun P: In proceedings of 14th animal science congress of the Asian-Australasian association of animal production societies (14th AAAP). Practical Use of local feed resources in improving rumen fermentation and ruminant productivity in the tropics. 2010, Pingtung, Taiwan, Republic of China: AAAP, 635-645. 1Google Scholar
- FAO: Food and agriculture organization. 2008, Rome Italy: STAT database, Available online: http://www.fao.orgGoogle Scholar
- FAO: Food outlook: global market analysis. 2009, Rome, Italy: Trade and Markets Division, FAO, 42-51.Google Scholar
- Delgado CL, Rosegrant M, Steinfeld H, Ehui S, Courbois C: Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution. Food agriculture, and environment discussion paper 28. 1999, Washington D.C: International Food Policy Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
- Wanapat M: Potential used of local feed resources for ruminants. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2009, 41: 1035-1049. 10.1007/s11250-008-9270-y.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Devendra C, Leng RA: Feed resources for animals in Asia: issues, strategies for use, intensification and integration for increased productivity. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci. 2011, 24 (3): 303-321. 10.5713/ajas.2011.r.05.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- USEPA: Global mitigation of Non-CO2 greenhouse gases. 2006, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs (6207J)Google Scholar
- IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Edited by: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA. 2007, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
- Goodland R, Anhang J: Livestock and climate change: what if the key actors in climate change are… cows, pigs and chickens. World Watch. 2009, 22 (6): 10-19.Google Scholar
- Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, De Haan C: Livestock’s Long shadow: environmental issues and options. 2006, Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 390.Google Scholar
- Wang Y, McAllister TA, Yanke LJ, Cheek PR: Effect of steroidal saponin from Yucca schidigera extract on ruminant microbes. J Appl Microbiol. 2000, 88: 887-896. 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2000.01054.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Calabrò S, Guglielmelli A, Iannaccone F, Danieli PP, Tudisco R, Ruggiero C, Piccolo G, Cutrignell MI, Infascelli F: Fermentation kinetics of sainfoin hay with and without PEG. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2012, 96 (5): 842-849. 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01260.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Makkar HPS, Sen S, Blummel M, Becker K: Effect of fractions containing saponins on rumen fermentation. J Agri Food Chem. 1998, 46: 4324-4328. 10.1021/jf980269q.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cotlle DJ, Nolan JV, Wiedemann SG: Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: a review. Anim Prod Sci. 2011, 51: 491-514. 10.1071/AN10163.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wanapat M, Chanthanhkoun V, Pilajun R: Dietary manipulation to reduce rumen methane production. Chiang Mai University J of Natur Sci. 2012, 11: 483-490.Google Scholar
- Guglielmelli A, Calabrò S, Cutrignelli M, Gonzalez O, Infascelli F, Tudisco R, Piccolo V: In vitro fermentation and methane production of fava and soy beans. EAAP Scientific Series. 2010, 127 (1): 457-460.Google Scholar
- Hale WH, Theurer CB: Feed preparation and processing. Digestive physiology and nutrition of ruminants, Volume 3. Edited by: Church DC. 1972, Corvallis, OR, USA: Dept. Animal Science, Oregon State University, 49-76.Google Scholar
- Huyen NT, Wanapat M, Navanukraw C: Effect of mulberry leaf pellet (MUP) supplementation on rumen fermentation and nutrient digestibility in beef cattle fed on rice straw-based diets. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2012, 175: 8-15. 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.03.020.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tan ND, Wanapat M, Uriyapongson S, Cherdthong A, Pilajun R: Enhancing mulberry leaf meal with urea by pelleting to improve rumen fermentation in cattle. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci. 2012, 25: 452-461. 10.5713/ajas.2011.11270.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Norrapoke T, Wanapat M, Wanapat S: Effects of protein level and mangosteen peel pellets (mago-pel) in concentrate diets on rumen fermentation and milk production in lactating dairy crossbreds. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci. 2012, 25 (7): 971-979. 10.5713/ajas.2012.12053.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Manasri N, Wanapat M, Navanukraw C: Improving rumen fermentation and feed digestibility in cattle by mangosteen peel and garlic pellet supplementation. Livest Sci. 2012, 148: 291-295. 10.1016/j.livsci.2012.06.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Trinh THN, Wanapat M, Thao TN: Effect of mangosteen peel, garlic and urea pellet supplementation on rumen fermentation and microbial protein synthesis of beef cattle. Agric J. 2012, 7 (2): 95-100. 10.3923/aj.2012.95.100.Google Scholar
- Hung LV, Wanapat M, Cherdthong A: Effects of leucaena leaf pellet on bacterial diversity and microbial protein synthesis in swamp buffalo fed on rice straw. Livest Sci. 2013, 151: 188-197. 10.1016/j.livsci.2012.11.011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Phesatcha K, Wanapat M: Performance of lactating dairy cows fed a diet based on treated rice straw and supplemented with pelleted sweet potato vines. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2013, 45 (2): 533-538. 10.1007/s11250-012-0255-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Poungchompu O, Wanapat M, Wachirapakorn C, Wanapat S, Cherdthong A: Manipulation of ruminal fermentation and methane production by dietary saponins and tannins from mangosteen peel and soapberry fruit. Arch Anim Nutr. 2009, 63: 389-400. 10.1080/17450390903020406.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Polyorach P, Wanapat M, Wanapat S: Increasing protein content of cassava (Manihot esculenta, Crantz) using yeast in fermentation. Khon Kaen Agr J. 2012, 40 (suppl 2): 178-182.Google Scholar
- Wanapat M, Polyorach S, Chanthakhoun V, Sornsongnern N: Yeast-fermented cassava chip protein (YEFECAP) concentrate for lactating dairy cows fed on urea–lime treated rice straw. Livest Sci. 2011, 139: 258-263. 10.1016/j.livsci.2011.01.016.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nelson GEN, Anderson RF, Rhodes RA, Shekleton MC, Hall HH: Lysine, methionine and tryptophane content of microorganisms II. Yeast Appl Microbiol. 1959, 8: 179-182.Google Scholar
- Polyorach S, Wanapat M, Wanapat S: Enrichment of protein content in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) by supplementing with yeast for use as animal feed. Emir J Food Agric. 2013, 25 (2): 142-149.Google Scholar
- Robinson PH: Effect of yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on adaptation of cows to diets postpartum. J Dairy Sci. 1997, 80: 1119-1125. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76038-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lila ZA, Mohammed N, Yasui T, Kurokawa Y, Kanda S, Itabashi H: Effects of a twin strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae live cells on mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation in vitro. J Anim Sci. 2004, 82: 1847-1854.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Robinson PH, Garrett JE: Effect of yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on adaption of cows to postpartum diets and on lactational performance. J Anim Sci. 1999, 77: 988-999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hristove AN, Varga G, Cassidy T, Long M, Heyler K, Karnati SKR, Corl B, Hovde CJ, Yoon I: Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product on ruminal fermentation and nutrient utilization in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2010, 93 (2): 682-692. 10.3168/jds.2009-2379.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Strohlein H: Back to nature, live yeasts in feed for dairy cows, DMZ. Lebensm Ind Milchwirtsch. 2003, 124: 68-71.Google Scholar
- Desnoyers M, Giger-Reverdin S, Bertin G, Duvaux-Ponter C, Sauvant D: Metha-analysis of the influence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on ruminal paramitters and milk production of ruminants. J Dairy Sci. 2009, 92: 1620-1632. 10.3168/jds.2008-1414.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boonnop K, Wanapat M, Nontaso N, Wanapat S: Enriching nutritive value of cassava root by yeast fermentation. Sci Agric (Piracicaba, Braz.). 2009, 66: 616-620.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Boonnop K, Wanapat M, Navanukraw C: Replacement of soybean meal by yeast fermented-cassava chip protein (YEFECAP) in concentrate diets fed on rumen fermentation, microbial population and nutrient digestibilities in ruminants. J Anim Vet Adv. 2010, 9: 1727-1734.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wanapat M, Boonnop K, Promkot C, Cherdthong A: Effects of alternative protein sources on rumen microbes and productivity of dairy cows. Mj Int J. Sci Tech. 2011, 5 (1): 13-23.Google Scholar
- Khampa S, Chuelong S, Kosonkittiumporn S, Khejornsart P: Manipulation of yeast fermented cassava chip supplementation in dairy heifer raised under tropical condition. Pak J Nutr. 2010, 9: 950-954.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Khampa S, Chawarat P, Singhalert R, Wanapat M: Supplement of yeast fermented cassava chip (YFCC) as a replacement concentrate and ruzi grass on rumen ecology in native cattle. Pak J Nutr. 2009, 8 (5): 597-600.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Polyorach S, Wanapat M, Sornsongnern N: Effect of yeast fermented cassava chip protein (YEFECAP) in concentrate of lactating dairy cows. In proceedings of the 14th animal science congress of the Asian-Australasian association of animal production societies (AAAP), vol. 3, August 23–26, 2010. 2010, Pingtung, Taiwan, Republic of China: National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, 304-307.Google Scholar
- Beauchemin KA, Kreuzer M, O’Mara F, McAllister TA: Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Aust J Exp Agric. 2008, 48: 21-27. 10.1071/EA07199.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Guglielmelli A, Calabro S, Primi R, Carone F, Cutrignelli MI, Tudisco R, Piccolo G, Ronchi B, Danieli PP: In vitro fermentation patterns and methane production of sainfoin (Onobrychis ViciifoliaScop.) hay with different condensed tannin contents. Grass Forage Sci. 2011, 66: 488-500. 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2011.00805.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chanthakhoun V, Wanapat M, Wachirapakorn C, Wanapat S: Effect of legume (Phaseolus calcaratus) hay supplementation on rumen microorganisms, fermentation and nutrient digestibility in swamp buffalo. Livest Sci. 2011, 140: 17-23. 10.1016/j.livsci.2011.02.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rowlinson P, Steele M, Nefzaoui A: In proceedings of the international conference in Hammamet, 17–20 May 2008. Livestock and global climate change. 2008, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 216.Google Scholar
- Grainger C, Clarke T, Auldist MJ, Beauchemin KA, McGinn SM, Waghorn GC, Eckard RJ: Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cows fed pasture and grain through supplementation with Acacia mearnsii tannins. Can J Anim Sci. 2009, 89: 241-251. 10.4141/CJAS08110.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Woodward SL, Waghorn GC, Laboyrie P: Condensed tannins in birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) reduced methane emissions from dairy cows. Proc NZ Soc Anim Prod. 2004, 64: 160-164.Google Scholar
- McAllister TA, Newbold CJ: Redirecting rumen fermentation to reduce methanogenesis. Aust J Exper Agri. 2008, 48: 7-13. 10.1071/EA07218.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sirochi SK, Pandey N, Goel N, Singh B, Mohini M, Pandey P, Chaudhry PP: Microbial activity and ruminal methane as affected by plant secondary metabolites in different plant extracts. Int J Environ Sci Engineering. 2009, 1: 52-58. 10.1504/IJEE.2009.026442.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Beauchemin KA, McGinn SM: Methane emission from beef cattle: effects of fumaric acid, essential oil and canola oil. J Anim Sci. 2006, 84: 1489-1496.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kongmun P, Wanapat M, Nontaso N, Nishida T, Angthong W: In proceedings of FAO/IAEA international symposium on sustainable improvement of animal production and health: 8–11 June 2009. Effect of phytochemical and coconut oil supplementation on rumen ecology and methane production in ruminants. 2009, Vienna, Austria: FAO/IAEA, 246-247.Google Scholar
- Ngamsaeng A, Wanapat M, Khampa S: Effects of mangosteen peel (Garcinia mangostana) supplementation on rumen ecology, microbial protein synthesis, digestibility and voluntary feed intake in cattle. Pakist J Nutr. 2006, 5: 445-452.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kanpukdee S, Wanapat M: Effects of mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana) peel and sunflower and coconut oil supplementation on rumen fermentation, milk yield and milk composition in lactating dairy cows. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2008, 20 (Suppl):http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/supplement/such2.htm.Google Scholar
- Pilajun P, Wanapat M: Effect of coconut oil and mangosteen peel supplementation on ruminal fermentation, microbial population, and microbial protein synthesis in swamp buffaloes. Livest Sci. 2011, 141: 148-154. 10.1016/j.livsci.2011.05.013.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kongmun P, Wanapat M, Pakdee P, Navanukraw C: Effect of coconut oil and garlic powder on in vitro fermentation using gas production technique. Livest Sci. 2010, 127: 38-44. 10.1016/j.livsci.2009.08.008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Manh NS, Wanapat M, Uriyapongson S, Khejornsart P, Chanthakhoun V: Effect of eucalyptus (Camaldulensis) leaf meal powder on rumen fermentation characteristics in cattle fed on rice straw. African J Agri Res. 2012, 7 (13): 1997-2003.Google Scholar
- Sallam SMA, Bueno ICS, Brigide P, Godoy PB, Vitti DMSS, Abdalla AL: Efficacy of eucalyptus oil on in vitro rumen fermentation and methane production. Options Mediterraneennes. 2009, 85: 267-272.Google Scholar
- Kumar R, Kamra DN, Agrawal N, Chaudhary LC: Effect of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globules) oil on in vitro methanogenesis and fermentation of feed with buffalo rumen liquor. Anim Nutr Feed Technol. 2009, 9: 237-243.Google Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.