Molecular Nutrition

Effects of Different Molecular Weights and Different Concentrations of Chitosan on Rumen in Vitro Fermentation Parameters and Methane Emission in Dairy Cows

Expand
  • 1. Key Laboratory for Dairy Cow Nutrition of Beijing, College of Animal Science and Technology, Beijing University of Agriculture, Beijing 102206, China;
    2. Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China

Received date: 2018-04-27

  Online published: 2018-11-20

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of chitosan with different molecular weights and different concentrations on the ruminal fermentation parameters and methane emission of dairy cows. Three healthy Holstein cows with good health status and permanent rumen fistulas were used as experimental animals for the collection of rumen fluid. The chitosan with three different molecular weights of 1 000, 3 000 and 50 000 u were selected for the trial, and each molecular weight of chitosan was added to the substrate at the concentration of 0.4%, 0.8% and 1.6% of the substrate, respectively. A total of nine experimental groups and 1 control group were set up with four replicates in each group and three batches were repeated. After 24 h of in vitro fermentation, gas production, methane production and rumen fermentation parameters were determined. The results showed that compared with the control group, the addition of chitosan significantly reduced the ammonia nitrogen concentration in the rumen fermentation liquor (P<0.05), significantly increased the propionic acid concentration (P<0.05), and significantly decreased the acetate/propionic acid (P<0.05), which promoted changes in the rumen fermentation mode. The chitosan with a concentration of 1.6% and a molecular weight of 50 000 u and with a concentration of 0.8% and a molecular weight of 50 000 u reduced the CH4 production in the fermentation liquor without affecting the dry matter digestibility (0.05 ≤ P<0.10). In summary, the addition of chitosan can effectively regulate the rumen microbial fermentation state under in vitro conditions. Overall consideration, the chitosan with a concentration of 0.6% and a molecular weight of 50 000 u is most suitable.

Cite this article

ZHANG Jie, TONG Jinjin, ZHANG Hua, YANG Delian, SUN Mingwei, JIANG Linshu, XIONG Benhai . Effects of Different Molecular Weights and Different Concentrations of Chitosan on Rumen in Vitro Fermentation Parameters and Methane Emission in Dairy Cows[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2018 , 30(11) : 4729 -4737 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2018.11.051

References

[1] KNAPP J R,LAUR G L,VADAS P A,et al.Invited review:enteric methane in dairy cattle production:quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions[J].Journal of Dairy Science,2014,97(6):3231-3261.  

[2] YUSUF R O,NOOR Z Z,ABBA A H,et al.Methane emission by sectors:a comprehensive review of emission sources and mitigation methods[J].Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,2012,16(7):5059-5070.  

[3] SOLIVA C R,AMELCHANKA S L,DUVAL S M,et al.Ruminal methane inhibition potential of various pure compounds in comparison with garlic oil as determined with a rumen simulation technique (Rusitec)[J].British Journal of Nutrition,2011,106(1):114-122.  

[4] GERBER P J,HRISTOV A N,HENDERSON B,et al.Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock:a review[J].Animal,2013,7(Suppl.2):220-234.

[5] MUSTAPHA N A,SAKAI K,SHIRAI Y,et al.Impact of different antibiotics on methane production using waste-activated sludge:mechanisms and microbial community dynamics[J].Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology,2016,100(21):9355-9364.  

[6] WALL E,SIMM G,MORAN D.Developing breeding schemes to assist mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions[J].Animal,2010,4(3):366-376.  

[7] KIM E T,KIM C H,MIN K S,et al.Effects of plant extracts on microbial population,methane emission and ruminal fermentation characteristics in in vitro[J].Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences,2012,25(6):806-811.  

[8] WINA E,MUETZEL S,BECKER K.The impact of saponins or saponin-containing plant materials on ruminant production-a review[J].Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,2005,53(21):8093-8105.  

[9] 韩德承.人体的第六生命要素——壳寡糖[J].祝您健康,2013(11):36-37.

[10] 李朝云,杨昕涧,孙菲菲,等.不同精粗比日粮中添加壳聚糖对奶山羊瘤胃发酵、甲烷产生及微生物区系的影响[C]//中国畜牧兽医学会动物营养学分会第七届中国饲料营养学术研讨会论文集.郑州:中国畜牧兽医学会动物营养学分会,2014.

[11] HENRY D D,RUIZMORENO M,CIRIACO F M,et al.Effects of chitosan on nutrient digestibility,methane emissions,and in vitro fermentation in beef cattle[J].Journal of Animal Science,2015,93(7):3539-3550.  

[12] 冯仰廉,周建民,张晓明,等.我国奶牛饲料产奶净能值测算方法的研究[C]//第三届全国反刍动物营养学术研讨会论文集.北京:中国畜牧兽医学会,2011.

[13] MENKE K H,RAAB L,SALEWSKI A,et al.The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro[J].Journal of Agricultural Science,1979,93(1):217-222.  

[14] TILLEY J M A,TERRY R A.A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops[J].Grass and Forage Science,1963,18(2):104-111.  

[15] 戈婷婷.不同组合的功能性寡糖对锦江黄牛瘤胃体外发酵的影响[D].硕士学位论文.南昌:江西农业大学,2011.

[16] CZERKAWSKI J W.Chemical composition of microbial matter in the rumen[J].Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,1976,27(7):621-632.  

[17] 韩昊奇,刘大程,高民,等.不同NFC/NDF比对奶山羊瘤胃微生物及瘤胃pH值变化的影响[J].畜牧与饲料科学,2011,32(9/10):54-58.

[18] 唐志文,蒋林树,杨亮,等.金银花提取物对瘤胃体外发酵参数及产气量的影响[J].动物营养学报,2018,30(2):790-796.

[19] 任海军.壳聚糖对奶牛产奶性能和免疫功能影响的研究[D].硕士学位论文.呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2008.

[20] 田雨佳,闫素梅,任海军,等.壳聚糖在奶牛瘤胃中的降解率及其对瘤胃发酵的影响[J].中国畜牧杂志,2011,47(19):53-56.

[21] 李朝云.壳聚糖与纤维素酶对瘤胃发酵、甲烷产生及微生物区系的影响[D].博士学位论文.咸阳:西北农林科技大学,2014.

[22] MCGINN S M,BEAUCHEMIN K A,COATES T,et al.Methane emissions from beef cattle:effects of monensin,sunflower oil,enzymes,yeast,and fumaric acid[J].Journal of Animal Science,2004,82(11):3346-3356.  

[23] GOIRI I,GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ A,OREGUI L M.Effect of chitosan on mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation using the rumen simulation technique (Rusitec)[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2009,152(1/2):92-102.

[24] WHITELAW F G,EADIE J M,BRUCE L A,et al.Methane formation in faunated and ciliate-free cattle and its relationship with rumen volatile fatty acid proportions[J].British Journal of Nutrition,1984,52(2):261-275.  

[25] 冯仰廉.反刍动物营养学[M].北京:科学出版社,2004.

[26] 苑忠央,杨维仁.反刍动物瘤胃甲烷排放、测定及减排技术的研究进展[J].饲料与畜牧,2016(10):40-45.

[27] KONG M,CHEN X G,XING K,et al.Antimicrobial properties of chitosan and mode of action:a state of the art review[J].International Journal of Food Microbiology,2010,144(1):51-63.  

[28] 陈娟.壳聚糖抗菌性的研究进展[J].烟台南山学院学报,2017(1):56-58.

[29] HENDERSON G,COX F,GANESH S,et al.Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host,but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range[J].Scientific Reports,2015,5:14567.

[30] BELANCHE A,PINLOCHE E,PRESKETT D,et al.Effects and mode of action of chitosan and ivy fruit saponins on the microbiome,fermentation and methanogenesis in the rumen simulation technique[J].FEMS Microbiology Ecology,2016,92(1):160.

[31] 任海军,闫素梅,邬亚青,等.壳聚糖在奶牛瘤胃内的降解及其对奶牛瘤胃体外发酵特性和产奶性能的影响[C]//中国畜牧兽医学会动物营养学分会第十次学术研讨会论文集.杭州:中国畜牧兽医学会动物营养学分会,2008.
Outlines

/