Vinod Kumar, Mayank Tandon and M.P. Verma. 2008.

ENVIRONMENT FRIENDLY DAIRY

FARMING: Nutritional Techniques for Mitigating Methane Production from Ruminants.
Dairy Planner. Vol.4, Issue 11, (June). pp: 12-14

ENVIRONMENT FRIENDLY DAIRY FARMING:

Nutritional Techniques for Mitigating Methane Production from Ruminants

Vinod Kumar1, Mayank Tandon1 and M.P. Verma2

1 PhD Students, 2 Research Fellow, Division of Dairy Cattle Nutrition, N.D.R.I., Karnal
email: mpverma_78@rediffmail.com

Introduction

The global warming and ozone layer depletion due to increased emission of green house gases in
the atmosphere have drawn world wide attention with a alarming stage of iceberg melting,
increased ocean level, local and global eco-system upsets, changes in the rainfall patterns,
changes in pathogenesis of plants, animals and human beings and alteration in life of the people.
Several reports of the United Nations inter-governmental panels on climate changes (IPPC, 1994
& 1996) indicated the urgency of the problem. IPPC (2001) has warned that by the mid of this
century the globe’s temperature will rise just like anything up to 5.80 C.

Methane as a Green House Gas

Methane is second major gas after CO2 responsible for the warming of environment and ozone
layer depletion. Its present concentration 1800 ppbv in atmosphere which is more than double of
about 750 ppbv estimated 100 years ago (Khalil et al. 1993). Estimates of global methane
production ranged between 350-820 T g/year (Khan et al 2001)

Table 1. Estimate of CH4 released into the Atmosphere

Source CH4 emission T g/ Year Percent of total

A. Biogenic
Ruminants 80-100 12-22 %
Termites 25-150
Paddy fields 70-120
Natural wetlands 120-200
Land fills 5-70
Oceans and lakes 1-20
Tundra 1-5
Total Biogenic 302-665 81-86
B. A-biogenic
Coal mining 10-35
Natural gas flaring & venting 10-30
Industrial & pipeline losses 15-45
Biomass burning 10-40
Methane hydrates 2-4
Volcanoes 0.5
Automobiles 0.5
Total A-biogenic 48-155 13-19 %
Total 350-820

Source: Khan, et al 2001

Methane by livestock

The comparison of methane production by livestock of developed vs. developing countries and
India is presented in Table 2. Singh (1997) arrived at the figure of 8.82-9.023 T g/ year of
methane production from Indian ruminant livestock. Respiration calorimetric studies at the IVRI,
Izatnagar, India and In-vivo methane measured using SF6 at the NDRI, Karnal showed that
similar levels of methane was produced from adult cattle and buffaloes.

Table 2. Methane Emission from Livestock, T g(x1012 g) per year

Species Develop Country Developing Total India

Countries
Ruminants
Cattle 31.8 22.8 54.6 5.69-5.8
Buffaloes -- -- 6.2 2.4-2.735
Sheep 3.2 3.7 6.9 0.2- 0.388
Goats -- -- 2.4 0.388-0.5
Subtotal 35 26.5 70.1 8.67-9.42
B. Other Animals
Pig 0.5 0.4 0.9 --
Horses, Mules, Ass -- -- 1.7 --
Camel -- -- 1.0 --
Wild Ruminants & -- -- 2.6 --
other Herbivores
Human -- - 0.3 --
Subtotal 6-10
Grand total 76-80

Source: Singh, (1997); Khan, et al. (2001)

Methanogensis in Ruminants

Rumen microbial utilization of carbohydrates in the gut of animals results in the production of
volatile fatty acids, microbial protein, CO2 and Methane with little H2. Methane generation should
be viewed as an every sink where H from all rumen microorganisms drains, allowing a greater
total yield of ATPs.

Reaction; 4H2 + CO2 ----- CH4 + 2H2O is the most common mode of methane production in
the rumen by methanogens like Methanobacterium formicicum, M. ruminantium, M. bryanti;
Methanobrevibacter ruminantium; Mrthanosarcina barkeri; Methanomicrobium mobile and
Methanoculleus olentangyi etc. Methanogenes are present in the rumen in a large number
varying from 107 to 109 cells/ml of rumen liquor depending upon the type of diet given to
animals, especially the fibre content in the ration. On a fibre rich diet production of acetic acid is
more coupled with more production of methane.

Nutritional Techniques to Reduce Methane Production

Environment concerns have stimulated efforts to develop techniques for increasing the utilization
of diet and reducing environmental pollution, which referred to as Green Nutritional Techniques
(Lu, 2001 & Singh, et. al 2003) are given hereunder.

1. Feed Processing Technologies

The processing can improve the feeding value by increasing its digestible energy content and / or
by increasing feed intake. Therefore, an attempt to increase feed intake may reduce methane
emission. These techniques are chopping and grinding of straws, alkali/ammonia treatment of
straws and feed residues, urea-molasses blocks. These processing techniques resulted in 15-25
percent increase in feed intake and 10- 20 percent increase in digestibility as compared to
unprocessed straw and feed residues (high in fibre). Most of all are reported to depress the
methane emission from rumen by 10 percent (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). Moreover, the
processing altered the rumen pH, type of fermentation, more exposer for microbial activity,
increase passage rate, and propionic acid production etc. Reduction in methane is associated with
increased propionate production.

2. Animal Species and Ration

It was observed that methane energy losses as percent of gross energy intake which were higher
in crossbred cattle than in exotic cattle/ buffaloes (Lal et al., 1987). Singh (2001) reported that
methane production by cattle and buffaloes were 76.74 and 97.01 g/ head/ day respectively. This
difference among species was probably due to the difference in feed intake and utilization
efficiency. The quantity and quality of ration consumed by ruminants have a major influence on
the proportion of energy lost as methane since acetate: propionate ratio is influenced by feed
quality and quantity as well as with roughage: concentrate ratio. Methane emission would be
less when high grains are fed as a result of higher production of propionic acid. Methane
emission fall down drastically to as low as 2-3 percent. (Johnoson and Johnoson, 1995).

3. Defaunation

Removal of protozoa from the rumen microbial population is defaunation. The methanogenic
bacteria have an eco-symbiotic relationship with ciliate protozoa and remain attached to the outer
surface of the protozoa. In defaunated ruminants, the methanogenic bacteria do not get the
symbiotic partner and methane synthesis is partially inhibited. On defaunation the methane
production is reduced by 30-35 percent depending on the various factors in the diet of the
animal. The various methods for defaunation are, feeding of high grain, anti-protozoal drug,
isolation of animal from other animals from birth, etc.

4. Supplementation of Unsaturated Fatty Acids

As methane is produced in the rumen to act as a hydrogen sink during the fermentation of
carbohydrate, So Polly Unsaturated Fatty acids having double or triple bonds have potential to be
used as Hydrogen sinks, because these bonds will get saturated by hydrogen and less hydrogen
will be available for methane production. Various trials have shown the potential of feeding
PUFA rich diet such as vegetables oils for methane reduction.

5. Organic Acids

Dietary supplementation of dicarboxylic organic acids such as malate, fumarate, aspartate etc.
reduces methane production (Martin, 1998). Malate, a potent methane inhibitor, present in
animal feeds like alfalfa (2.9-7.5% of DM) and Bermuda grass (1.9-4.5%) and its level varies
with Varity and stage of maturity. These organic acids are converted to succcinate or propionate
by reduction process and less hydrogen will be available for methane production.

6. Haloginated Methane Analogues

Various haloginated methane analogues so far tried as methane inhibitors are such as carbon
tetrachloride, chloral hydrus, trichloroacetamide, DDT, trichloacetaldehyde,
bromochloromethane, chloroform, methylene chloride, methylene bromide, nitrapyrin,
hemiacetyl of chloral and starch etc. ( Haque, 2001) generally inhibit methanogens. Favourable
effects of these had been reported only in those animals fed on high roughage diets, as prevalent
in Indian livestock. Chloral hydrate is converted in the rumen to chloroform prior to inhibiting
methanogens. Bromo chloromethane is belived to inhibit methane production by reacting with
reduced form of Vit. B12 which inhibits cobamide dependent Methanogenesis.

7. Ionophores

Ionophores are generally used as feed additives in order to improve the efficiency of digestion in
ruminants, such as tetronasin, monensin, lasalocid, salinomycine, narasin, lysocellin etc. These
ionophores antibiotics are carboxylic polyether compounds produced by various strains of
Streptomyces eg. Monensin by S. cinnamonensis and lasalocid by S. lasoliensis. Monensin is
moderately active against gram positive bacteria, certain myobacteria and coccidian, while
lasalocid is specifically against hydrogen producing bacteria and results in higher propionate
production which is in turn related with low methane production (Kobayashi et al, 1992).

8. Microbial Feed Additives, Probiotics and Prebiotics

The use of acetogenic bacteria as microbial feed additive along with some anti-methanogenic
compound may be effective in methane inhibition, as acetogenic bacteria may not be able to
compete with methanogenic bacteria due to poor affinity with hydrogen. Probiotics such as yeast
cultures are used to stimulate bacterial activity in the rumen. The probiotics have been shown to
stabilize rumen pH, increase propionate levels and decrease the amount of acetate, methane and
ammonia production.

Fuller (1989) defined probiotics as “A live microbial feed supplement which beneficially affect
the host animals by improving its intestinal microbial balance. In 1989, US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) termed them as direct fed microbe (DFM). The commonly used culture
includes Aspergillus orygae, Sacchromyces cerevisiae, Lactobacillus spp. Bifidobacterium spp.
and Streptococcus spp. Recently strains of orpinomyces and piromyces isolated , have been
shown to have good affect on rumen digestion. Addition of Sacchromyces cerevisiae reduced
methane production in vitro. (Mutsvangwa et al., 1992). Galacto oligosaccharide (GOS), Fructo
oligosaccharide (FOS), Mannan oligosaccharide (MOS), Galactosyl lactose, etc. are few pre-
biotics, which are non digestible and help in the proliferation of beneficial microorganism, can
be used as propionate enhancer thereby decreasing methane production.

9. Non-Ionic surfactant (NIS)

Tween 80, a non ionic surfactant , given at a concentration of 0.05 percent (v/v) in (in vitro
expt.) in growth medium, increase growth rate of rumen bacteria and fungi and rate of cereal
digestion, succcinate and lactate dehydrogenase activities and polysaccharides degrading
enzymes activities (Lee and Ha, 2003). Tween 80 at 0.10 percent of diet significantly decreased
cummmulative gas production with enhanced efficiency of dry matter digestion.

10. Bacteriocines

Many bacteria produce Bacteriocines (specific proteins with anti microbial activity) which have
a range of activity that mimic the ionophore antibiotics. Therefore, they would be effective
alternative to the ionophore antibiotics for the modification of rumen microbial population and
fermentation products. Bacteriocines also have many advantages over existing ionophore like
their complete digestibility (as these are proteins), prevent accumulation of residues and their
ability to be produced indigenously by the resident bacteria of the rumen and their better
specification than the ionophores, which promises, better ability to target specific rumen
microorganisms that are responsible for such undesirable rumen function as feed protein
degradation and methane production.

11. Plant Secondary Compounds

Majority of there plant secondary compounds fall in the category of lignin’s, tannins,
terpenenoids, volatile essential oils, alkaloids, etc.; have anti-microbial activity, but their
mechanism of action and inhibition of microbial growth is very specific and therefore these are
active against a specific group of microbes, and can be used for selective amelioration of rumen
fermentation.

a- Saponin

These are high molecular weight glycosides in which sugars are linked to a triterpene or
steroidaql aglycone moiety. A large number of saponins could be possible depending upon the
modification of the ring structure of aglycone moieties and the number of sugars attached to it.
There are some feeds or forages plants which contain saponins such as Alfalfa (3-5%), Sapindus
rarak, Sapindus mokorossi, Yucca schidigera (4%), Quillaja saponaria (10%), Acocia concinna,
Emblica officinalis etc. These caused a decrease in methane production from 20-60 percent on
different substrate accompanied with a decrease in a ammonia N and the numbers of protozoa.
The molar proportion of acetate was decreased and that of propionate was increased. Saponins,
reduces the protozoal population which reduces the inter species hydrogen transfer to the
methanogenic Bacteria attached to the protozoa, thereby decreases the H availability to the
methanogens.
b- Tannins

These are the second most abundant group of plant phenolics after lignin. Tannins are widely
distributed in plant kingdom including forage trees, shrubs, legumes, cereals and grains. These
are complex phenolic organic molecules with molecular weight ranging from 500 to 3000 Kda.
Based on their structure and properties they are divided in two groups’ Hydrolysable tannin and
Condensed tannins. These have been found to be toxic for many of the rumen microbes,
especially ciliate protozoa, fibre degrading microbes and methanogenic bacteria. As a result of
this property the Methanogenesis in the rumen is also reduced (Kamra, 2006).

12. Sulphate Supplementation

In the rumen fermentation three H2 utilizing microbes are the sulphate reducing bacteria,
methanogens and carbon dioxide reducing acetogens, which have a threshold value of H2 (m
mole/ liter) as 0.0013, 0.067 and 1.26 respectively at which these bacteria act as the dominant
electron acceptors. Thus it appears that sulphate-reducing bacteria have the highest affinity to
utilize H in the rumen, even better than methanogens, but the availability of sulphate in the
rumen appears to be a limitation. Kamra et al, (2004) observed that sulphate supplementation
helps in increasing the production of fibre degrading enzymes and fibre degradation in the
rumen. As sulphate / sulphite have high affinity for utilization of H for its reduction to sulphide,
therefore, a fibre diet, as prevalent in Indian livestock sulphate/ sulphite supplementation can be
a good mode of rumen amelioration for improving fibre degradability and inhibiting
methanogensis, but a proper dose will have to be optimized, keeping in view the toxic levels of
sulphide generated on sulphate reduction.

13. Protected Protein/ Amino Acids

The ruminants derive their required amount of protein and amino acids mainly from microbial
proteins synthesized in the rumen and the dietary protein, which escape degradation in the
rumen. If degradation of the dietary protein in the rumen is controlled, it results in better
utilization of protein by the ruminant and ultimately improves their performance. The protection
of protein by various techniques as treatment with heat, formaldehyde and tannic acid and
feeding of encapsulated protein, few proteins are naturally more un-degradable then the others
such as cotton seed cake etc.; produced a significant improvement in productivity and caused
depression in methane production (Johnson & Johnson, 1995).

Conclusion

Environmental problems related to animal production mainly originate due to low efficiency of
nutrient utilization, low availability of cereal grains, less awareness about environment
protection, increasing human and animal population, extensive industrialization and due to
unlimited utilization of natural resources. The genuine application of science and technology in
animal nutrition/ farming is one of the important tools to check the environmental concerns. To
make livestock production economically, environmentally and socially sound the above green
nutritional technologies/ management strategies can be adopted.
Reference

Fuller, R. 1989. J. App. Bactriol., 66: 365-378.

Haque, N. 2001. Environmental implication of methane production: diet and rumen ecology.
Short course, March 20-April.18. CAS in Animal Nutrition, IVRI, Izatnagar.
IPPC, 1994. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes. Climate Change. Working group I
and II of the IPPC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
IPPC, 1996. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes. Climate Change. The Second IPPC
Scientific Assessment, WMO/ UNEP, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
IPPC, 2001. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes. Climate Change.
Johnson, K.A. and Johnson, D.E. 1995. J. Anim. Sci. 93: 2483-2492.
Kamra, D. N. 2006. Manipulation of rumen microbial ecosystem to reduce Methanogenesis and
optimize feed utilization. XII Animal Nutrition Conf. 7-9 Jan 2006. AAU., Anand, Gujrat.
Kamra, D.N. Agarwal. N. and Yadav, M.P. 2004. Methanogenesis in the rumen and the
Greenhouse effect on the environment. Livestock International. Sept., vol. 8: 9 pp 2 & 5-
8.
Khalil, M.A.K., Ramussen, R.A. and Moraes, F. 1993. Atmospheric Methane at cape Meares:
Analysis of a high resolution data base and its environmental implications. Journal of
Geophysics Research, 98: 14753.
Khan, M.Y.; Khan, F. and Haque, N. 2001. Global Warming and Stratospheric Ozone layer
Depletion by Greenhouse Gases with special reference to Methane production from
Indian Livestock. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology. Vol 1 (2): 79-96.
Kobayarhi, Y., Wakita, M. and Hoshino, S. 1992. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 36: 67.
Lal, M., Khan, M.Y., Kishan, J., Katiyar, R.C. and Joshi, D.C. 1987. Indian J. Anim. Nutr., 4:
177-180.
Lee, S.S and Ha, J.K. 2003. Asian- Aust. J. of Anim. Sci. Vol.16: No 8, 1151-57.
Lu, D.X. 2001. Advances in enhancing nutrients utilization for ruminants by nutritional
manipulation to reduce environmental contamination- Review. Asian Australian journal
of Animal Science. 14(3): 395-401.
Martin, S.A. 1998. J. Anim. Sci., 76 : 3123-3132.
Mutsvangwa, T., Edward, I.E., Topp, J.H. and Peterson, G.F. 1992. Anim. Prod., 55: 35-40.
Singh G.P. 1997. Measuring methane emission from livestock, towards environmental friendly
livestock farming. Livestock International, 1 (3): 10-13.
Singh, G.P. 2001. Livestock and environmental protection. Lead paper. Proc. Animal nutrition
conference., NDRI., Karnal.
Singh.P.K.; Matoo, F.A.; Banday, M.T. and Khan, A.A. 2003. Green Nutritional Techniques for
Economic and Eco- friendly Animal Production. Livestock International. March. Pp 2 &
7-9.