Are dietary strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission equally effective across dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

The digestive physiology of ruminants is sufficiently different (e.g., with respect to mean retention time of digesta, digestibility of the feed offered, digestion, and fermentation characteristics)that caution is needed before extrapolating results from one type of ruminant to another. The objectives of the present study were (1)to provide an overview of some essential differences in rumen physiology between dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep that are related to methane (CH 4 )emission; and (2)to evaluate whether dietary strategies to mitigate CH 4 emission with various modes of action are equally effective in dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep. A literature search was performed using Web of Science and Scopus, and 94 studies were selected from the literature. Per study, the effect size of the dietary strategies was expressed as a proportion (%)of the control level of CH 4 emission, as this enabled a comparison across ruminant types. Evaluation of the literature indicated that the effectiveness of forage-related CH 4 mitigation strategies, including feeding more highly digestible grass (herbage or silage)or replacing different forage types with corn silage, differs across ruminant types. These strategies are most effective for dairy cattle, are effective for beef cattle to a certain extent, but seem to have minor or no effects in sheep. In general, the effectiveness of other dietary mitigation strategies, including increased concentrate feeding and feed additives (e.g., nitrate), appeared to be similar for dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep. We concluded that if the mode of action of a dietary CH 4 mitigation strategy is related to ruminant-specific factors, such as feed intake or rumen physiology, the effectiveness of the strategy differs across ruminant types, whereas if the mode of action is associated with methanogenesis-related fermentation pathways, the strategy is effective across ruminant types. Hence, caution is needed when translating effectiveness of dietary CH 4 mitigation strategies across different ruminant types or production systems.

LanguageEnglish
Pages6109-6130
JournalJournal of Dairy Science
Volume102
Issue number7
Early online date10 May 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2019

Fingerprint

Methane
Ruminants
beef cattle
methane
dairy cattle
ruminants
Sheep
sheep
mechanism of action
Silage
Rumen
forage
Fermentation
rumen
Digestive System Physiological Phenomena
physiology
fermentation
digestive physiology
feeding methods
feed additives

Keywords

  • dietary strategy
  • in vivo measurement
  • methane
  • ruminant

Cite this

@article{cdb844fdebb34164bab2143ea82ef3dc,
title = "Are dietary strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission equally effective across dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep?",
abstract = "The digestive physiology of ruminants is sufficiently different (e.g., with respect to mean retention time of digesta, digestibility of the feed offered, digestion, and fermentation characteristics)that caution is needed before extrapolating results from one type of ruminant to another. The objectives of the present study were (1)to provide an overview of some essential differences in rumen physiology between dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep that are related to methane (CH 4 )emission; and (2)to evaluate whether dietary strategies to mitigate CH 4 emission with various modes of action are equally effective in dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep. A literature search was performed using Web of Science and Scopus, and 94 studies were selected from the literature. Per study, the effect size of the dietary strategies was expressed as a proportion ({\%})of the control level of CH 4 emission, as this enabled a comparison across ruminant types. Evaluation of the literature indicated that the effectiveness of forage-related CH 4 mitigation strategies, including feeding more highly digestible grass (herbage or silage)or replacing different forage types with corn silage, differs across ruminant types. These strategies are most effective for dairy cattle, are effective for beef cattle to a certain extent, but seem to have minor or no effects in sheep. In general, the effectiveness of other dietary mitigation strategies, including increased concentrate feeding and feed additives (e.g., nitrate), appeared to be similar for dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep. We concluded that if the mode of action of a dietary CH 4 mitigation strategy is related to ruminant-specific factors, such as feed intake or rumen physiology, the effectiveness of the strategy differs across ruminant types, whereas if the mode of action is associated with methanogenesis-related fermentation pathways, the strategy is effective across ruminant types. Hence, caution is needed when translating effectiveness of dietary CH 4 mitigation strategies across different ruminant types or production systems.",
keywords = "dietary strategy, in vivo measurement, methane, ruminant",
author = "{van Gastelen}, Sanne and Jan Dijkstra and Andr{\'e} Bannink",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
doi = "10.3168/jds.2018-15785",
language = "English",
volume = "102",
pages = "6109--6130",
journal = "Journal of Dairy Science",
issn = "0022-0302",
publisher = "American Dairy Science Association",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are dietary strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission equally effective across dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep?

AU - van Gastelen, Sanne

AU - Dijkstra, Jan

AU - Bannink, André

PY - 2019/7

Y1 - 2019/7

N2 - The digestive physiology of ruminants is sufficiently different (e.g., with respect to mean retention time of digesta, digestibility of the feed offered, digestion, and fermentation characteristics)that caution is needed before extrapolating results from one type of ruminant to another. The objectives of the present study were (1)to provide an overview of some essential differences in rumen physiology between dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep that are related to methane (CH 4 )emission; and (2)to evaluate whether dietary strategies to mitigate CH 4 emission with various modes of action are equally effective in dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep. A literature search was performed using Web of Science and Scopus, and 94 studies were selected from the literature. Per study, the effect size of the dietary strategies was expressed as a proportion (%)of the control level of CH 4 emission, as this enabled a comparison across ruminant types. Evaluation of the literature indicated that the effectiveness of forage-related CH 4 mitigation strategies, including feeding more highly digestible grass (herbage or silage)or replacing different forage types with corn silage, differs across ruminant types. These strategies are most effective for dairy cattle, are effective for beef cattle to a certain extent, but seem to have minor or no effects in sheep. In general, the effectiveness of other dietary mitigation strategies, including increased concentrate feeding and feed additives (e.g., nitrate), appeared to be similar for dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep. We concluded that if the mode of action of a dietary CH 4 mitigation strategy is related to ruminant-specific factors, such as feed intake or rumen physiology, the effectiveness of the strategy differs across ruminant types, whereas if the mode of action is associated with methanogenesis-related fermentation pathways, the strategy is effective across ruminant types. Hence, caution is needed when translating effectiveness of dietary CH 4 mitigation strategies across different ruminant types or production systems.

AB - The digestive physiology of ruminants is sufficiently different (e.g., with respect to mean retention time of digesta, digestibility of the feed offered, digestion, and fermentation characteristics)that caution is needed before extrapolating results from one type of ruminant to another. The objectives of the present study were (1)to provide an overview of some essential differences in rumen physiology between dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep that are related to methane (CH 4 )emission; and (2)to evaluate whether dietary strategies to mitigate CH 4 emission with various modes of action are equally effective in dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep. A literature search was performed using Web of Science and Scopus, and 94 studies were selected from the literature. Per study, the effect size of the dietary strategies was expressed as a proportion (%)of the control level of CH 4 emission, as this enabled a comparison across ruminant types. Evaluation of the literature indicated that the effectiveness of forage-related CH 4 mitigation strategies, including feeding more highly digestible grass (herbage or silage)or replacing different forage types with corn silage, differs across ruminant types. These strategies are most effective for dairy cattle, are effective for beef cattle to a certain extent, but seem to have minor or no effects in sheep. In general, the effectiveness of other dietary mitigation strategies, including increased concentrate feeding and feed additives (e.g., nitrate), appeared to be similar for dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep. We concluded that if the mode of action of a dietary CH 4 mitigation strategy is related to ruminant-specific factors, such as feed intake or rumen physiology, the effectiveness of the strategy differs across ruminant types, whereas if the mode of action is associated with methanogenesis-related fermentation pathways, the strategy is effective across ruminant types. Hence, caution is needed when translating effectiveness of dietary CH 4 mitigation strategies across different ruminant types or production systems.

KW - dietary strategy

KW - in vivo measurement

KW - methane

KW - ruminant

U2 - 10.3168/jds.2018-15785

DO - 10.3168/jds.2018-15785

M3 - Article

VL - 102

SP - 6109

EP - 6130

JO - Journal of Dairy Science

T2 - Journal of Dairy Science

JF - Journal of Dairy Science

SN - 0022-0302

IS - 7

ER -