Buffalo Bulletin 2013 Volume 32 (Special Issue 1)ibic.lib.ku.ac.th/e-Bulletin/IBBUSI201301001.pdf · 4.1 and 7.1 billion tonnes of CO 2 equivalents per year, equating to 1524% of

Keynote Lecture

World Buffalo Production: Challenges in Meat and Milk Production, and Mitigation of Methane Emission

Metha WANAPAT* and Sungchhang KANG Tropical Feed Resources Research and Development Center (TROFREC), Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand *Corresponding email: [email protected] ABSTRACT

Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), the long-time ruminant animal contributing to the integrated farming systems, as a source of draft power, transportation, on-farm manure, meat, milk and livelihood of the farmers. The increase in meat consumption is quite dramatic, due to the linearly increase in the world population especially in the developing countries. As buffaloes have been raised by the rural farmers, well-adapted to harsh environment and are capable of utilizing low quality roughages especially the agricultural crop-residues and by-products, hence their potential are therefore remarkable in terms of meat and milk production using locally available feed resources. Furthermore, the quality of buffalo meat has been found high in iron and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which are essential for good health. Global warming has been attributed by various sources including animal agriculture. Rumen fermentation can be manipulated by many ways in order to increase fermentation efficiency and to mitigate methane production. Although the world buffalo population has been slightly increasing, their vital role are accountable for the demand of meat and milk. Manipulation of the rumen in reducing methane using chemicals, feed additives, roughage and concentrate utilization, use of plants containing secondary compound, oils have been reported. However, among many approaches, nutritional manipulation by using feeding management and especially the use of plant extracts or plant containing secondary compounds (condensed tannins and saponins) have been receiving more attention and most promising. At the current stage, more research concerning this hot issue with the role of livestock on global warming warrants further research undertakings. It is therefore highly recommended for those engage in buffalo production to do more research and to expand the world buffalo production in order to meet the increasing demand of meat and milk. In addition, infrastructure and human resources development require indicate and continuous implementation as well as higher input contribution.

Keywords: buffalo production, global warming, methane production, nutritional manipulation, rumen fermentation

1

Buffalo Bulletin 2013 Vol.32 (Special Issue 1): 1-21

Accepted April 10, 2013; Online November 11, 2013.

INTRODUCTION Currently, livestock systems have both positive and negative effects on the

natural resource base, public health, social equity and economic growth (World Bank, 2009). Animal agriculture has been an important component in the integrated farming systems in the crop-livestock farming systems in developing countries. It serves in a paramount diversified role in producing animal protein food, draft power, farm manure as well as ensuring social status-quo and enriching livelihood. As the world population is expected to increase from 6 billion to about 8.3 billion in the year 2030 with the average growth of 1.1 per annum, it is essential and vital to be prepared to produce sufficient protein animal food for the increased population especially in the developing countries. It has been reported that consumption of animal food was 10 kg per annum in 1960s and increased to 26 kg per annum in the year 2000 and is expected to be 37 kg per annum in the year 2030, respectively (FAO, 2008; 2009).

The world buffalo population is estimated to be approximately 177.25 million, spreading in some 42 countries of which 171 million (97%) of them are found in Asia, while approximately 5.38 million (3%) are found in the rest of the world (FAO, 2008). The major source of the buffalo meat, especially, in Asia where meat from ruminants constitute only about 21.0% of the total meat production, buffalo meat is about 11.5% of the total ruminant meat, and about 2.7% of all meat produced in the region (Cruz, 2010). In the past century, the buffalo meat in the world was not accepted by the consumers and there was no market. However, the actual trends in consumption require meat with low fat content, therefore, nontraditional meat become an important source. Among them, buffalo meat has high protein level, low fat and cholesterol content compared to beef (Murthy & Devadason, 2003). Hence, researchers are trying to improve buffalo of potential breeds and meat quality for human consumption. According to Heintz (2001) it was found that when compared to meat from young buffalo and young cattle, has clearly shown that buffalo meat is indeed as good as cattle meat. Moreover, buffalo meat is required with the population increased, requirements of food, in developing countries, particularly, trend of the market in the world, the price of buffalo milk is twice that of cows' milk, buffalo skin is used in the leather industry and buffalo feces is used for manures and fuel in rural areas.

Global warming is a hot issue which affects environment and livestock production. Total emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from agriculture, including livestock, are estimated to be between 25 – 32%, depending on the source (USEPA, 2006; IPCC, 2007) and on the proportion of land conversion that is ascribed to livestock activities. Moreover, Goodland and Anhang (2009) reported that livestock production and its by-products are responsible for at least 51 percent of global warming gases or account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. While, CO2 is the largest green house gases at 55-60% and methane are the second green house gases at 15-20%. Therefore, livestock is the one sector of methane producer from the rumen. It has been estimated that global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the livestock sector approximate to between 4.1 and 7.1 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year, equating to 15-24% of total global anthropogenic GHG emissions (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Currently, researchers

2


try to reduce methane production in the rumen by using many feed additives to inhibit methanogenesis. Meanwhile, plants produce a diverse array of plant secondary metabolites to protect against microbial and insects attacks (Wallace, 2004). These natural plant ecochemicals such as essential oils (EO), saponins, tannins and organosulphur compounds have been shown to selectively modulate the rumen microbial populations (Wallace, 2004; Patra & Saxena, 2009a), resulting in an improvement of rumen fermentation and nitrogen metabolism, and a decrease in methane production and nutritional stress such as bloat or acidosis, thus improving the productivity and health of animals (Wallace et al., 2002; Kamra et al., 2006; Rochfort et al., 2008). Recently, a number of studies have discussed the potential of plant bioactives as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation and ruminant production (Wallace et al., 2002; Wallace, 2004; Hart et al., 2008; Calsamiglia et al., 2007; Patra & Saxena, 2009b). BUFFALO POPULATION AND VITAL ROLE IN FARMING SYSTEM

The world population of buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) has been estimated at over 140 million head (FAO, 1991; Borgese, 2005). Therefore, these are more than 97% found in Asia and the Pacific region, mainly in India (75 million), China (21 million), Pakistan (14 million) and Thailand (6 million and decrease to about 2 millions in 2010). Moreover, the world buffalo population were increased and estimated to be approximately 177.24 million, spreading in some 42 countries of which 171 million (97%) of them are found in Asia, while approximately 5.38 million (3%) are found in rest of the world (FAO, 2008). In fact, buffalo population were be distributions in major buffalo producing countries in Asia, therefore, in the Asian buffaloes dominate the world population, representing 96.4% of the worldwide population of 180.70 million as of 2008 (Table 1; FAO, 2010). Within the Asian region, about 74.8% of buffaloes are in the South, 12.8% in East Asia, and only 8.4% are found in South-East Asia. Moreover, buffalo productions are found some of minimum, about 0.626% in America, 0.22% in Europe, 2.895% in Africa (Cruz, 2010). In fact, buffalo population will be popular in the world market with the good quality of meat and still play important role in some certain regions, especially in developing countries. These are slightly increases of buffalo population in many regions, except those in South East Asia with slight decrease (Table 1).

Buffaloes produce meat, milk, saving bank, draft power, transportation, and other purpose for human and on-farm manure to crop farming. Therefore, feed utilization of buffaloes is more effective than cattle when cattle and buffaloes were kept under similar conditions, particularly well-adapted to harsh environment and are capable of utilizing low quality roughages especially the agricultural crop-residues and by-products, hence their potential are therefore remarkable in terms of meat and milk production using locally available feed resources. However, decrease in the number of buffaloes has been occurring in some countries in the world due to several factors: holsteinization, mechanization, and the poor market demand for buffalo products (Borghese, 2010) and others like high rate of formal slaughtering and insufficiency input for research and development by government agencies (Wanapat, 1999). However, some countries, buffalo numbers have increased due to the demand for particular products obtained from buffalo milk and meat to both on

3


the national and international market. BUFFALO PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Feeding of ruminants in the tropical area, could be separated depending on seasons, particularly, dry and rainy season. However, these ruminants often encounter low productivity because of deficiencies in feed supply, in both quality and quantity (Wanapat & Devendra, 1992). The use of rice straw as a feed in the dry season, in spite of its low nutritive value, has been a common feeding system, generally practiced by smallholder farmers when green forages are often scarce (Wanapat, 1999). Available local feed resources have been recommended for uses under smallholder farming (Wanapat, 2009). However, buffalo in the tropical area for feeding systems are based on unrestricted grazing, tethering or stall-feeding and free grazing, sometimes under the control of herders, is common in countries with native grasslands and fallows. Tethering and stall-feeding are practiced in areas where there is limited land and with cropping. In many situations, there appeared to be roughage limitations for animals in the stall-feeding and tethering systems Wanapat & Chanthakhoun (2009). Currently, Singh & Barwal (2010) reported that in India, due to the better animal husbandry practices significant improvement has taken place in the buffalo production system in rural areas. The awareness in the farmers about the feeding, breeding and health management of live-stock considerably increased. The buffalo production system in rural areas may be classified as: 1). Extensive: small farm, with a maximum of 2 buffaloes, kept on natural grasses, in communal paddocks during the rainy season. Agricultural by-products are used for feeding, marginal land, family labour and minimum investment, with simple, traditional technology; 2). Semi Intensive: animals are kept in irrigated areas, with cultivated fodders, crop by-products and concentrates. Buffaloes are confined in adequate buildings; and 3). Intensive: Herd strength ranges from 5 to 100 buffaloes, kept for milk production as in Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujrat and close to the large populated areas in India. The herds are fed on cultivated fodders and concentrate.

In many of these systems, the livestock element is interwoven with crop production, as in the rice/buffalo or cereal/cattle systems of Asia (Devendra, 2007). Animal manure is often essential for maintaining soil fertility, and the role of animals in nutrient cycling is often an important motivation for keeping animals, particularly where this involves a transfer of nutrients from common property resources to private land. In other cases, such as the seminomadic pastoral systems of the world’s natural grassland regions, environmentally stable balances of human society, animal population and vegetative biomass have been maintained for centuries. On the contrary, livestock production currently supports and sustains the livelihoods of an estimated 675 million rural poor (Steinfeld et al., 2006). These people fully or partially depend on livestock for income and/or subsistence. Livestock can provide a steady stream of food and revenues and help to raise whole farm productivity; livestock are often the only livelihood option available to the landless because they allow the exploitation of common-property resources for private gain (Chantalakhana & Skunmun, 2002; Wanapat, 2009; Nardone et al., 2010). Buffalo production systems are variable between developed and developing

4


regions, by far the largest variation in intensity of production is found within the system, which is the largest producer of buffalo products countries, though the developing regions are dependable on the system’s production worldwide. Buffalo meat production

Buffalo meat production, it was reported that about 88% of world buffalo meat is in Asia and over 21 million buffaloes slaughtered annually in Asia, 48% are slaughtered in India and about 18% each in Pakistan and China. Pakistan annually produces 0.68m tones of buffalo meat valued at 102 billion ($ 1.3 billion). Therefore, in developing countries of Asia where meat from ruminants constitute only about 21.0% of the total meat production, buffalo meat is about 11.52% of the total ruminant meat, and about 2.7% of all meat produced in the region. The average annual growth rate in production was about 1.3%. Undoubtedly, the majority of world's buffalo meat is in Asia, representing 91.89% and with volume of 3.08M tons in 2008 (FAO, 2010). Neath et al. (2007) reported that feeding trials comparing buffalo and cattle of similar age, feeding regime and carcass treatment, clearly demonstrated that there is ample scientific evidence to show that buffalo meat are more tender than beef. Anjaneyulu et al. (2007) reported that buffalo meat has been recognized as one of the healthiest meats for human consumption. It has outstanding attributes such as: lower intramuscular fat, lower cholesterol and calories, higher units of essential amino acids, higher biological value, and higher mineral content. The quality of buffalo meat has been markedly improved with crossbreds and in Australia it is hoped to be the future standard in the “Tender Buff Program”, which has gained much popularity. Compared to beef, buffalo meat contains one % less intramuscular fat, 92% less saturated fat, 25% less calories, 67% less cholesterol, 11 to 30% more protein, 10% more minerals, low cholesterol in buff meat has been re-emphasized by Lazar (2001) (Table 2). Buffalo milk production

Recently, buffalo milk production in Asia represents 96.78% of the total volumes of world's buffalo milk of 89.2 Million tons. Production in South and Southwest Asia, primarily from India and Pakistan contributed a hefty 93.17% (FAO, 2010). Buffaloes are significant sources of milk in this sub-region contributing as high as 68.35% of the total milk yield in Pakistan, and 56.85% in total milk production in India. Average annual growth rate in buffalo milk production between the years 1998 to 2008 was 4.39% in the whole of Asia. Evidently, this growth level can readily be associated with the consistent good growth in milk production in India and Pakistan, with combined growth rate of 4.52%. Buffalo milk production in China has not been as robust as in the South Asia, with average annual growth of 1.6%. What is notable is the 8.18% average annual growth in SEA, though in relative volume, such increases have not been very significant. Among the SEA countries, Myanmar registered the highest buffalo milk production, apparently because it has the highest population of dairy buffalo of about 40,000 hd as of 2000 (Hlaing, 2001). Buffalo milk production from the other SEA countries are coming mainly from smaller population of introduced riverine buffaloes and the resulting crossbreds of the dairy breed with the existing swamp

5


buffalo population. In this sub region where farmers tend their animals primarily for work, only a small %age of crossbreds produced are fully utilized for milk production. Comparative milk composition in buffalo and cow as present in Table 5 and was shown that buffalo milk is healthy as it is richer in saturated fatty acids. The Indian diet is mainly vegetarian and people relish the hot thick creamy milk for their breakfast associated with higher fat content (Table 3). Swamp buffalo milk has even higher fat (7.9%), protein (4.2%), Calcium (264.0 mg/100 g) and Cholesterol (0.65 mg/g).

Potential buffalo production on various markets

Currently, buffalo markets in the world, especially, in Asia have been increasingly emerging to produces good quality meat and milk and with high acceptability by consumers. As shown by the increase in buffalo meat exports of about 159,703 MT in 1995-96 to as much as 456,907 MT in 2008-2009. Export of Buffalo meat from India rose 2 folds in volume from 234,355M tons in 2001 to 456,907M tons in 2009, and by more than 400% in value from US$243.4M to US$1.043B during the same period. Interestingly, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines get about 43.13% of the total Indian buffalo export 2008-2009, the rest went to 10 other countries in the Middle East (Borghese, 2010). In the Philippines, practically all brands of processed corned beef are derived from imported Indian buffalo meat constituting more than 60.0% of the total buffalo supply in the Philippines. This has allowed significant growth in the local meat processing industry in the country (Borghese, 2010). Intensive feeding of male buffaloes in commercial feedlot for quality meat production started in 1999. Male calves at the age of 8-10 months are purchased from farmers and are fed high protein/high energy diet to put on additional weight of 120 kg in 4 months. Murrah yearling grow by 0.9 to 1.0 kg/day and would have high dressing %age (Ranjhan, 2004). Buffalo meat and mike consumer demand and of market possibilities, the modern applied technologies on milk and meat processing and industry, could be a serious basis to increase the availability of quality products for a positive trend of buffalo development and of higher profits for farmers and linked companies (Borghese, 2010). Meat export is desired to effectively utilize the available livestock resources and improve returns to the farmers by popularizing buffalo meat (Kadeephan et al., 2009). Buffalo meat is the major item of Indian animal product export comprising 48.76% of the total animal products exported. The major destinations of buffalo meat include Malaysia, USA, Jordan, Oman and UAE. Buffalo meat is exported to the tune of 306,970.81 MT amounting 1,615.59 cores which is the highest among all animal products exported from India.

There are 22.72 million buffalos in China in 2007, representing 17.37% of all cattle in the whole country (BingZhuang et al., 2010). According to statistical data (FAO, 2008), the output of buffalo meat in China was 0.306 million tons. Most of the meats were directly sold to consumers, only few meats were processed to byproducts such as dried beef, sausages and hams. The output of buffalo hide in 2007 is 92 thousand tons (FAO, 2008), the hides were made into various products, which were sold well on the market. The crossbreeding of buffalos has been performed for many decades, while the number of crossbred buffalos for milking is

6


not large. According to statistics of Cao et al., there were 30000 milking buffalos in China in 2006, 61.5% of them were crossbreds, while 38.5% of them were local buffalos. The buffalo milk production was 0.29 million tons in China in 2008. The buffalo dairy industry in China is a newly emerging industry, with great potential and promising prospect. Chinese government has attached great importance and increased input to the exploitation of buffalo industry during recent years, the government has also programmed the medium and long term development of buffalo industry. In the coming 10 years, the population of buffalo for milking will achieve 0.5 million, it brings opportunities to development of buffalo dairy industry.

According to Borgese (2005), in the Philippines there were 3.2 million Carabao buffaloes, 99 percent belong to small farmers that have limited resources, low income and little access to other economic opportunities. The Carabao Development Programme is a massive programme started in 1993 to improve the native Swamp buffalo locally known as the Carabao to develop their meat, milk and draught potential. An elite herd of Riverine buffalo has now been established at the Philippine Carabao Center, Science City of Muñoz, by importing about 3,000 Murrah buffaloes with pedigree performance records from Bulgaria. Each female crossbred when raised for milk can produce about 1,350 kg of milk per lactation (Cruz, 2003). In the past Thailand had the second largest number of Swamp buffalo in the world. However this buffalo population drastically declined from 4.7 million in 1990 to 1.9 million in 1998. The number of buffaloes has decreased yearly and the present number is about 2.0 million and is tending to decrease gradually.

In Italy particularly the increasing demand for buffalo mozzarella cheese both on the national and international markets, the Denomination of Controlled Origin (DOP) as "Mozzarella di Bufala Campana" for this cheese registered in Italy and in Brussels for the European Union (EU), and the milk quotas on surplus bovine milk imposed by the EU, led to an increase in the buffalo population of about 142 percent from 1993 to 2001 (compared with a 7.8 percent increase in the world population in the same period) and to an increase of 1600 percent (16 times) from 1957 to 2002 (Borgese, 2005). In Italy this increase in the number of buffaloes is not only remarkable for this percentage increase but also when compared with the trends in other species, which have all decreased over the last 50 years particularly for cattle, dairy cows and horses. In South America, although the herd size of buffaloes have been small, but have been increasing interest and development of buffalo population in various countries including Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina and others to increase the herds and production efficiency in meat and milk, especially for cheese production (Borghese, 2005). GREENHOUSE GAS AND METHANE EMISSION BY LIVESTOCK

Livestock are already well-known to contribute to GHG emissions. Livestock’s Long Shadow, the widely-cited report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), estimates that 7,516 million metric tons per year of CO2 equivalents (CO2), or 18 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions, are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, horses, pigs, and poultry. Livestock contribute about 9% of total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but 37% of methane (CH4), and 65% of nitrous oxide (N2O) (Steinfeld et al., 2006). That

7


amount would easily qualify livestock for a hard look indeed in the search for ways to address climate change. But new analysis shows that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32,564 million tons of CO2 per year, or 51 percent of annual (Goodland &Anhang, 2009). This report has brought an alarming call and has created high interest and lots of debate on the statistics and how it has been estimated. Figure 1, depicts the estimation of methane gas emission from various sources especially from the livestock enteric fermentation, which accounts for 28 % of the total methane emission.

Animal production plays four important roles in the release of gases into the atmosphere, as reported by Leng (2011), as follows;

• directly through production of methane in fermentative digestion of ruminants

• indirectly when a proportion of the fecal materials decompose anaerobically • indirectly through CO2 production from fossil fuels to provide the production

and marketing infrastructure and inputs such as motorized transport, fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides

• through the clearing of forests and range lands, the timber on which was a natural sink for carbon dioxide.

METHANOGENS

Rumen ecology is an unique environment where anaerobic fermentation process occurs by the reaction of the rumen microorganisms namely bacteria, protozoa and fungi. The main fermentation end-products are those of volatile fatty acids, ammonia nitrogen (used for microbial protein synthesis), and methane production. All feeds especially, roughages will be degraded by the microorganisms by cellulolytic bacteria via the Embden Myerhof Parnas pathway from glucose to pyruvate and further to the synthesis of the short chain volatile fatty acids (VFAs); acetate (C2), propionate (C3), butyrate (C4), valerate (C5), caproate (C6). These VFAs are used as major sources of energy for the ruminants. In addition, hydrogen produced in the rumen will be trapped by methanogens to produce methane gas and later be eructated by the ruminants into atmosphere. Fermentation efficiency can be manipulated by many possible ways including the nutritional feeding strategies (Figure 2; Wanapat, 2012).

As reported by Boadi et al. (2004) that methanogens represent a unique group of microorganisms. They possess three coenzymes which have not been found in other microorganisms. The three coenzymes are: coenzyme 420, involved in electron transfer in place of ferredoxin, coenzyme M, involved in methyl transfer, and factor B, a low molecular weight, oxygen-sensitive, heat-stable coenzyme involved in the enzymatic formation of CH4 from methyl coenzyme M. Five species of methanogens were reported to have been isolated in the rumen. These include Methanobrevibacter ruminantium, Methanosarcina barkeri, Methanosarcina mazei, Methanobacterium formicicum and Methanomicrobium mobile. Only Methanobrevibacter ruminantium and Methanosarcina barkeri have been found in the rumen at populations greater than 106 mL–1, and are assumed to play a major role in ruminal methanogenesis. Methanogens are hydrophobic and therefore stick to feed particles as well as onto the surface of protozoa. The number of

8


methanogens associated with protozoa reached a maximum (10 to 100 times pre-feeding levels) after feeding, when the rate of fermentation is the highest. It was shown that the symbiotic relationship of methanogens and protozoa might generate 37% of rumen CH4 emissions. Dietary manipulation in reducing rumen methane

There are several factors which can have great impacts on rumen methane production namely level of intake, frequency of feeding, type of roughages, ratio of roughage to concentrate, type and concentration of non-structural carbohydrates etc. All of these factors can play important roles on rumen pH, volatile fatty acids production, ammonia nitrogen and microbial protein synthesis and the consequences on rumen methanogens and menthane production, protozoa and cellulolytic bacteria. Boadi et al (2004) and Hook et al. (2010) have proposed numerous potential ways as how to mitigate the rumen methane production. The main approaches are as follows: improving animal productivity, nutritional and management strategies (type of carbohydrates, level of intake, forages type and quality, feeding frequency, roughage treatment/processing, grazing management,), management of rumen fermentation (propionate enhancers, use of fats and essential oils, use of plant secondary compounds: condensed tannins and saponins etc (Table 6).

Plant secondary compounds

Plant secondary compounds (tannins and saponins) are more important as ruminant feed additives, particularly on CH4 mitigation strategy because of their natural origin in opposition to chemicals additives. Tannins containing plants, the antimethanogenic activity has been attributed mainly to condensed tannins. There are two modes of action of tannins on methanogenesis: a direct effect on ruminal methanogens and an indirect effect on hydrogen production due to lower feed degradation. Also, there is evidence that some condensed tannins (CT) can reduce CH4 emissions as well as reducing bloat and increasing amino acid absorption in small intestine. Methane emissions are also commonly lower with higher proportions of forage legumes in the diet, partly due to lower fibre contact, faster rate of passage and in some case the presence of condensed tannins (Beauchemin et al., 2008). Supplementation of PCH at 600 g/hd/d was beneficial in swamp buffaloes fed rice straw as a basal roughage, as it resulted in increased DM intake, reduced protozoal and methane gas production in the rumen, increased N retention as well as efficiency of rumen microbial CP synthesis (Chanthakhoun et al., 2011). Legumes containing condensed tannin (e.g., Lotuses) are able to lower methane (g kg-1 DM intake) by 12-15% (Beauchemin et al., 2008; Rowlinson et al., 2008). Also, some authors reported that condensed tannins to reduce CH4 production by 13 to 16% (DMI basis) (Grainger et al., 2009; Woodward et al., 2004), mainly through a direct toxic effect on methanogens. More recently Woodward et al. (2004) carried out a similar trial with cows fed Lotus corniculatus, on methane was 24.2, 24.7, 19.9 and 22.9 g kg-1 DMI for the respective treatments. The CT in lotus reduced methane kg-1 DMI by 13% and the cows fed lotus produced 32% less methane kg-1 milk solids (fat+protein) compared to those fed good quality ryegrass. It was reported that extracts from plants such as rhubarb and garlic could decrease CH4 emissions.

9


However, there is only limited information on the effect of different saponins on rumen bacteria.

Saponins are natural detergents found in many plants. There have been increased interests in saponin-containing plants as possible means of suppressing or eliminating protozoa in the rumen. A decrease in protozoa numbers has been reported in the rumen of sheep infused with saponins or fed on saponin-containing plants. Decreased numbers of ruminal ciliate protozoa may enhance the flow of microbial protein from the rumen, increase efficiency of feed utilization and decrease methanogenesis. Saponins are also known to influence both ruminal bacterial species composition and number through specific inhibition, or selective enhancement, of growth of individual species. Saponins have been shown to possess strong defaunating properties both in vitro and in vivo which could reduce CH4 emissions (Rowlinson et al., 2008). Beauchemin et al. (2008) recently reviewed literature related to their effect on CH4 and concluded that there is evidence for a reduction in CH4 from at least some sources of saponins, but that not all are effective (Rowlinson et al., 2008). While extracts of CT and saponins may be commercially available, their cost is currently prohibitive for routine use in ruminant production systems. However, still required on the optimum sources, level of CT astringency (chemical composition), plus the feeding methods and dose rates required to reduce CH4 and stimulate production. Moreover, there have been reports of decreased methane emission by ruminants consuming plant secondary compounds (Carulla et al., 2005; Puchala et al., 2005). Supplementation of pellets containing condensed tannins and saponins (MP and soapberry fruit) influenced rumen ecology by significantly lowering methane concentration in rumen atmosphere and reduced methanogen population (Poungchompu et al., 2009). However, high CT concentrations (>55 g CT/kg DM) may reduce voluntary feed intake and digestibility (Beauchemin et al., 2008; Grainger et al., 2009). Waghorn et al. (2002) reported a 16% depression in CH4 emissions kg-1 DMI (13.8 to 11.5 g kg-1 DMI) due to the presence of CT in a diet of Lotus pedunculatus fed to sheep housed indoors. Processing and preservation of feeds

Forage processing and preservation affect enteric CH4 production but limited information with regard to these effects is available in the literature. Methanogenesis tends to be lower when forages are ensiled than when they are dried and when they are finely ground or pelleted than when coarsely chopped (Martin et al., 2010). Grinding or pelleting of forages to improve the utilization by ruminants has been shown to decrease CH4 losses per unit of feed intake by 20-40% when fed at high intakes.

Roughage and concentrate

The forage to concentrate ratio of the ration has an impact on the rumen fermentation and hence the acetate: propionate ratio (declines with F: C ratio). The CH4 reduction is well in line with the observations of Bannink et al. (1997) that concentrate rich diets showed lower and higher coefficients of conversion of substrate into acetate and propionate, respectively. However, many experimental databases suggest that a higher proportion of concentrate in the diet leads to a

10


reduction in CH4 emissions as a proportion of energy intake (Blaxter & Clapperton, 1965; Yan et al., 2000) due mainly to an increased proportion of propionate in ruminal VFA. The scope for reductions in CH4 emissions depends on the starting level of concentrates, as there are dietary limitations and there are large differences in current usage of concentrates in different regions of the world (Rowlinson et al., 2008). The poor tolerance to low pH by protozoa and cellulolytic bacteria decreases further hydrogen production. A positive correlation between cellulolytic and methanogens in the rumen of different animal species (cattle, sheep, deer) has been shown (Rowlinson et al., 2008), except in the buffalo. This exception was explained by the fact that F. succinogenes, a non-hydrogen-producing cellulolytic species, was the major cellulolytic bacteria of this animal. On the contrary to other researchers, Sejian et al. (2011) reported that higher proportion of forage to concentrate resulted in decreasing ruminal methane production. They are stated that lower CH4 production from high forage: grain diet can be attributed to the effect of the high content of fat in the diet which could potentially reduce fiber degradation and amount of feed that is fermentable as well as forage grinding effects. Yurtseven & Ozturk (2009) observed that amount of ruminal methane produced from corn was lower than that of barley grain in ruminant. This is may be due to higher starch content and slow starch degradability of corn vs. barley grain. With regard to the ingredient composition of concentrates, selecting carefully defined carbohydrate fractions, such as more starch of a higher rumen resistance and less soluble sugars could significantly contribute to a reduction in CH4 emission (Tamminga et al., 2007). Sejian et al. (2011) reported that Total mixed ration (TMR) feeding leads to decrease methane production vs. separate forage-concentrate feeding.

Plant oils

There are five possible mechanisms by which lipid supplementation reduces CH4: reducing fibre 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 (McGinn et al., 2004; Beauchemin et al., 2008; Johnson and Johnson, 1995). Oils offer a practical approach to reducing methane in situations where animals can be given daily feed supplements, but excess oil is detrimental to fibre digestion and productions. Oils may act as hydrogen sinks but medium chain length oils appear to act directly on methanogens and reduce numbers of ciliate protozoa (Machmuller et al., 2000). However, Kongmun et al. (2010) reported that supplementation of coconut with garlic powder could improve in vitro ruminal fluid fermentation in terms of volatile fatty acid profile, reduced methane losses and reduced protozoal population. In contrast, Johnson et al. (2002) and (2008) found no response to diets containing 2.3, 4.0 and 5.6% fat (cottonseed and canola) fed over an entire lactation. Beauchemin et al. (2008) recently reviewed the effect of level of dietary lipid on CH4 emissions over 17 studies and reported that with beef cattle, dairy cows and lambs, there was a proportional reduction of 0.056 in CH4 (g kg-1

DM intake) for each 10 g kg-1 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

11


melting point of 25°C) and the cost of oils which has increased dramatically in recent years due to increased demand for food and industrial use. In addition, there are few reports of the effect of oil supplementation on CH4 emissions of dairy cows, where the impact on milk fatty acid composition and overall milk fat content would need to be carefully studied. Strategies based on processed linseed turned out to be very promising in both respects recently. Most importantly, a comprehensive whole system analysis needs to be carried out to assess the overall impact on global GHG emissions (Rowlinson et al., 2008).

BUFFALO RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION

Despite the important and vital role of buffalos in the world, but there have been relatively limited and at low input contributed by the various governments and agencies across the countries regarding inputs and emphasis on species development, nutrition and feeding, production and management technology, disease prevention and control etc. as compared with others ruminant species. Furthermore, the lack of input structure and improvement standard human resources development, curriculum development and net-working of buffalo forum have been at low profile and moving at slow pace. In order to move ahead in the near future to increased capability of buffalo production, it is imperative and highly recommended to take up the above mentioned aspects at the policy level and implement such activities at short medium and long terms. All available existing know-how and strategies implementation should warrant high priorities for immediate undertakings.

CONCLUSIONS

As presented, the buffalo population are distributed widely around the world especially with their vital role to provide animal production (meat and milk) to support increasing human demand and for others essential functions. There buffaloes both meat and milk could efficiency utilized available feed resources particularly those locally available and the agricultural crop-residues. Manipulation of dietary fermentation and rumen enhancement would result in improved rumen fermentation end-products and reduced methane emission, thus enhancing productively. Improvement of infra-structure for research and development as well as know-how technology for buffalo production are highly encouraged and widely disseminated. Furthermore, emphasis on buffalo production curriculum net-working ad forum developing the young scientists warrant immediate attention and action-undertakings to cope up with the challenges of increasing meat and milk demand of global population. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express sincere gratitude to TROFREC, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Thailand and the 10th World Buffalo Congress Organizing Committee for their kind invitation and financial support for participating in the Conference. Assistances in preparing the paper from the graduate students are highly appreciated.

12


REFERENCES Anjaneyulu, A.S.R., R. Thomas and N. Kondaiah. 2007. Technologies for value

added buffalo meat products-A Review. Am. J. Fd. Tech. 2: 104-114. Anonymous. 1995. Indian Dairy man. 47(8): 63-64. Bannink, A., H.De. Visser, A. Klop, J. Dijkstra and J. France. 1997. Impact of diet-

specific input parameters on simulated rumen function. J. Theor. Biol. 184: 371-384.

Beauchemin, K.A., M. Kreuzer, F. O'Mara, and T.A. McAllister. 2008. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 48: 21-27.

Bingzhuang, Y., Y. Chunyan and L. Xianwei. 2010. Buffalo production systems in China. Revista Veterinaria 21(1): 1037.

Blaxter, K.L. and J.L. Clapperton. 1965. Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. Br. J. Nutr. 19: 511-522.

Boadi, D., C. Benchaar, J. Chiquette and D. Masse. 2004. Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84: 319-335.

Borghese, A. 2005. Buffalo production and research. Food and Agriculture Organization. Reu Technical series pp 67.

Borghese, A. 2010. Development and perspective of buffalo and buffalo market in Europe and near East. Proc. 9th World Buffalo Congr. pp 20-31.

Calsamiglia, S., M. Busquet, P.W. Cardozo, L. Castillejos and A. Ferret. 2007. Invited review: Essential oils as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2580-2595.

Carulla, J.E., M. Kreuzer, A. Machmller and H.D. Hess. 2005. Supplementation of Acacia mearnsii tannins decreases methanogenesis and urinary nitrogen in forage fed sheep. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 56: 961-970.

Chantalakhana, C. and P. Skunmun. 2002. Sustainable smallholder animal systems in the tropics. Kasetsart University Press, Bankok, Thailand.

Chanthakhoun, V., M. Wanapat, C. Wachirapakorn and S. Wanapat. 2011. Effect of legume (Phaseolus calcaratus) hay supplementation on rumen microorganisms, fermentation and nutrient digestibility in swamp buffalo. Livest. Sci. 140(1): 17-23

Cruz, L.C. 2010. Recent developments in the buffalo industry of Asia. Proc. 9th World Buffalo Congr., pp 7-19.

Devendra, C. 2007. Perspectives on animal production systems in Asia. Livest. Sci. 106: 1–18.

FAO. 1991. Food and Agriculture Organization: Selected indicators of food and agriculture development in Asia Pacific Region, 1980-90. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.

FAO. 2008. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome Italy. STAT database. www.fao.org.

FAO. 2009. Food Outlook: Global Market Analysis. December 2009. pp 42-51. FAO. 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization. Production Yearbook.

13


http://www.fao.org/

Goodland, R. and J. Anhang. 2009. Livestock and Climate Change. What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows. World Watch. 22: 10-19.

Grainger, C., T. Clarke, M.J. Auldist, K.A. Beauchemin, S.M. McGinn, G.C. Waghorn and R.J. Eckard. 2009. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cows fed pasture and grain through supplementation with Acacia mearnsii tannins. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 89(2): 241-251.

Hart, K.J., D.R. Yanez-Ruiz, S.M. Duval, N.R. McEwan and C.J. Newbold. 2008. Plant extracts to manipulate rumen fermentation. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 147: 8-35.

Heinz, G. 2001. Water buffaloes as meat animals. Proc. Regional Workshop in Water Buffalo Development, Surin, Thailand. pp 10-17.

Hlaing, S. 2001. Country report for workshop on water buffalo development-Myanmar. Proc. Regional Workshop in Water Buffalo Development, Surin, Thailand. pp 65-69.

Hook, S.E., Andr´e-Denis, G. Wright and B.W. McBride. 2010. Methanogens: Methane Producers of the Rumen and Mitigation Strategies. Archaea, Article ID 945785, 11 pages doi:10.1155/2010/945785.

IPCC. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Johnson, I.R., D.F. Chapman, V.O. Snow, R.J. Eckard, A.J. Parsons, M.G. Lambert and B.R. Cullen. 2008. DairyMod and EcoMod: Biophysical pastoral simulation models for Australia and New Zealand. Aust. J. Exper. Agric. 48: 621-631.

Johnson, K.A. and D.E. Johnson. 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 2483-2492.

Johnson, K.A., R.L. Kincaid, H.H. Westberg, C.T. Gaskins, B.K. Lamb and J.D. Cronrath. 2002. The effects of oil seeds in diets of lactating cows on milk production and methane emissions. J. Dairy Sci. 85: 1509-1515.

Kandeepan, G., S. Biswas and R.S. Rajkumar. 2009. Buffalo as a potential food animal: Review. Inter. J. Livestock Prod. 1: 001-005.

Kongmun, P., M. Wanapat, P. Pakdee and C. Navanukraw. 2010. Effect of coconut oil and garlic powder on in vitro fermentation using gas production technique. Livest. Sci. 127: 38-44.

Kumar, A., Tiwari, G.N., Kumar, S. and M. Pandey. 2006. Role of greenhouse technology in agricultural engineering. Int. J. Agric. Res. 1: 364-372.

Lazar, V. 2001. We like buffalo. Meat Proc. 40: 80-85. Leng, R.A. 2011. The impact of livestock dwvelopment on environmental changes.

Fao Corporate Document Repository on “Strategies for sustainable animal agriculture in developing countries. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Machmuller, A., D.A. Ossowski and M. Kreuzer. 2000. Comparative evaluation of the effects of coconut oil, oilseeds and crystalline fat on methane release, digestion and energy balance in lambs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 85: 41-60.

14


Martin, C., H. Dubroeucq, D. Micol, J. Agabriel and M. Doreau. 2007. Methane output from beef cattle fed different high-concentrate diets. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, April 2-4, Southport, UK, pp: 46-46.

McGinn, S.M., K.A. Beauchemin, T. Coates and D. Colombatto. 2004. Methane emissions from beef cattle: Effects of monensin, sunflower oil, enzymes, yeast and fumaric acid. J. Anim. Sci. 82: 3346-3356.

Murthy, T.R.K. and I.P. Devadason. 2003. Buffalo meat and meat products–An overview. Proc. the 4th Asian buffalo congress on buffalo for food, security and employment. New Delhi. pp:193-199.

Nardone, A., B. Ronchi, N. Lacetera, M.S. Ranieri and U. Bernabucci. 2010. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livest. Sci. 30: 57–69.

Neath, K.E., A.N. Del Barrio, R.M. Lapitan, J.R. Herrera, L.C. Cruz, T. Fujihara, S. Muroya, K. Chikun, M. Hirabayashi and Y. Kanai. 2007. Difference in tenderness and pH decline between water buffalo and beef during post mortem aging. Meat Science. 75: 499-505.

Patra, A.K. and J. Saxena. 2009a. A review of the effect and mode of action of saponins on microbial population and fermentation in the rumen and ruminant production. Nutr. Res. Rev. 22: 204-219.

Patra, A.K. and J. Saxena. 2009b. Dietary phytochemicals as rumen modifiers: A review of the effects on microbial populations. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, 96: 363-375.

Poungchompu, O., M. Wanapat, C. Wachirapakorn, S. Wanapat and A. Cherdthong. 2009. Manipulation of ruminal fermentation and methane production by dietary saponins and tannins from mangosteen peel and soapberry fruit. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 63: 389-400.

Puchala, R., B.R. Min, A.L. Goetsch and T. Sahlu. 2005. The effect of a condensed tannin-containing forage on methane emission by goats. J. Anim. Sci. 83: 182-186.

Ranjhan, S. K. 2004. Commercial production of buffalo meat with social agenda. Proc. 7th World Buffalo Congress. Manila, Philippines. 1: 1-7.

Rochfort, S., A.J. Parker and F.R. Dunshea. 2008. Plant bioactives for ruminal health and productivity. Phytochemistry 69: 299–322.

Rowlinson, P., M. Steele and A. Nefzaoui. 2008. Livestock and globao climate change. Proceedings of the International Conference in Hammamet, May 17-20, Cambridge University Press pp 216-216.

Sejian, V., J. Lakritz, T. Ezeji and R. Lal. 2011. Forage and flax seed impact on enteric methane emission in dairy cows. Res. J. Vet. Sci. 4: 1-8.

Singh, C.V. and R.S. Barwal. 2010. Buffalo breeding research and improvement strategies in India. Proc. World buffalo congr. Buenos Aires, April. pp. 1024-1031.

Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales and C. de Haan. 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Rome, Italy, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) pp 390.

15


Tamminga, S., A. Bannink, J. Dijkstra and R. Zom. 2007. Feeding strategies to reduce methane loss in cattle. Report 34, Animal Science Group. http://edepot.wur.nl/28209.

USDA. 1996. United States Department of Agriculture; Technical Bulletin, number 8. USDA, New York.

USEPA. 2006. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs (6207J), Washington, DC.

Wallace, R.J. 2004. Antimicrobial properties of plant secondary metabolites. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 63: 621-629.

Wallace, R.J., N.R. McEwan, F.M. McInotoch, B. Teferedegne and C.J. Newbold. 2002. Natural products as manipulators of rumen fermentation. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 10: 1458-1468.

Wanapat, M. 1999. Feeding of ruminants in the tropics based on local feed resources. Khon Kaen, Public Company Limited., Khon Kaen, Thailand. pp 236.

Wanapat, M. 2000. Rumen manipulation to increase the efficient use of local feed resources and productivity of ruminants in the tropics. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 13(Suppl.): 59-67.

Wanapat, M. 2009. Potential uses of local feed resources for ruminants. J. Trop. Anim. Health. Prod. 41: 1035-1049.

Wanapat, M. 2012. Contribution towards ruminant nutrition, animal scientists’ development and international animal agriculture: Past, current and future prospects. 1st International Conference on Animal Nutrition and Environment (ANINUE, 2012). 14-15 September, 2012. Khon Kaen, Thailand. pp 7-21.

Wanapat, M. and C. Devendra, 1992. Feeding and nutrition of dairy cattle in Asia. Proc. 6th AAAP Anim. Sci. Congr. 2, The Animal Husbandry Association of Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand. pp 177-194.

Wanapat, M. and V. Chanthakhoun. 2009. Recent advances in rumen ecology, digestion and feeding strategies of swamp buffaloes. Europe and America's Buffalo Symposium, Pedro Leopoldo, MG, Brazil. Anais/Proceedings Belo Horizonte: CBRA, 2009. CD-ROM. ISSN:2175-4012.

Woodward, S.L., G.C. Waghorn and P. Laboyrie. 2004. Condensed tannins in birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) reduced methane emissions from dairy cows. Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 64: 160-164.

World Bank. 2009. Minding the stock: bringing public policy to bear on livestock sector development. Report no. 44010-GLB. Washington.

World resources institute. 2000. World greenhouse gas emissions flow chart. http://www. wri.org/image/view/9529/_original.

Yan, T., R.E. Agnew, F.J. Gordon and M.G. Porter. 2000. Prediction of methane energy output in dairy and beef cattle offered grass silage-based diets. Livest. Prod. Sci. 64: 253-263.

Yurtseven, S. and I. Ozturk. 2009. Influence of two sources of cereals (corn or barley), in free choice feeding on diet selection, milk production indices and gaseous products (CH4 and CO2) in lactating sheep. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 4: 76-85.

16


http://www/

Tab

le 1

. Tot

al b

uffa

lo p

opul

atio

n in

the

wor

ld a

nd in

Asi

a 19

98-2

008.

Yea

r W

orld

A

sia

Sout

h A

sia

Eas

t Asi

a So

uth-

Eas

t Asi

a 19

98

160,

715,

087

156,

335,

297

117,

706,

250

22,5

53,8

06

15,4

50,0

89

2004

17

2,65

1,04

9 16

7,38

6,40

6 12

9,55

1,15

4 22

,287

,212

14

,955

,766

20

05

174,

526,

286

169,

182,

246

131,

256,

213

22,3

65,3

81

14,8

73,4

79

2006

17

6,18

8,72

4 17

0,84

5,26

7 13

2,41

8,95

1 22

,498

,838

15

,059

,327

20

07

177,

376,

972

171,

863,

188

133,

382,

123

22,7

20,7

62

15,1

91,4

39

2008

18

0,70

2,92

3 17

4,20

8,35

7 13

5,18

7,03

7 23

,271

,909

15

,197

,734

20

08, %

of W

orld

10

0.00

%

96.4

0%

74.8

1%

12.8

0%

8.40

%

Gro

wth

, %

1.24

1.

14

1.48

0.

31

-0.1

6 So

urce

: FA

O (2

010)

T

able

2. C

erta

in n

utrit

iona

l com

pone

nts o

f buf

falo

and

cow

mea

t (10

0 g)

.

Con

tent

s B

uffa

lo

Cow

C

alor

ies,

Kca

l 13

1.00

28

9.00

Pr

otei

n, g

26

.83

24.0

7 Fa

t, g

1.80

20

.69

Fatty

aci

ds

Satu

rate

d 0.

60

8.13

M

onos

atur

ated

0.

53

9.06

Po

lysa

tura

ted

0.36

0.

77

Cho

lest

erol

, mg

61.0

0 90

.00

Min

eral

s, m

g 64

1.80

58

3.70

V

itam

ins,

mg

20.9

5 18

.52

Cho

lest

erol

, mg

61.0

0 90

.00

Min

eral

s, m

g 64

1.80

58

3.70

V

itam

ins,

mg

20.9

5 18

.52

Sour

ce: U

SDA

(199

6).

17


Table 3. Typical composition of buffalo milk and cow milk.

Traits Cow Buffalo Total solids, % 13.10 16.30 Fat, % 4.30 7.90 Protein, % 3.60 4.20 Lactose, % 4.80 5.00 Tocopherol, mg/g 0.31 0.33 Cholesterol, mg/g 3.14 0.65 Calcium, mg/100 g 165.00 264.00 Phosphorus, mg/100 g 213.00 268.00 Magnesium, mg/100 g 23.00 30.00 Potassium, mg/100 mg 185.00 107.00 Sodium, mg/100 g 73.00 65.00 Vitamin A (incl. Carotene) IU. 30.30 33.00 Vitamin C, mg/100 g 1.90 6.70 Source: Anonymous (1995) Table 4. Comparison of milk performance in different buffalo breeds (kg/day).

Breed Lactations (n)

Lactation length (days)

Milk yield (kg)

Average milk

yield per day (kg)

Highest daily

milk yield (kg)

L 70 280.4±20.2 1092.8±207.4 3.79 6.6 M 237 324.7±73.9 2132.9±78.3 6.57 17.40 N 164 316.8±83.6 2262±663.9 7.14 18.40 MLF1 157 313.7±96.7 1240.5±479.8 3.95 7.57 MLF2 118 313.9±90.1 1423.3±534.5 4.53 8.30 NLF1 45 326.7±96.4 2041.2±540.9 6.25 16.65 NLF2 55 321.4±118 2325.6±994.4 7.22 19.35 N.MLF2 168 317.6±78.4 2294.6±772.1 7.22 18.80 N.MLG1 70 329.1±89.8 1994.9±635.0 6.06 18,50

L=local, M=Murrah, N=Nili-Ravi, G=Santa Gertrudis Source: Borghese (2005) and Bingzhuang et al. (2003)

18


Tab

le 5

. Glo

bal m

etha

ne e

mis

sion

s by

lives

tock

pro

duct

ion

syst

em.

Liv

esto

ck

prod

uctio

n sy

stem

Em

issi

ons (

mill

ion

tone

s CH

4 per

yea

r by

sour

ce)

Dai

ry

catt

le

Oth

er

catt

le

Buf

falo

Sh

eep

and

goat

Pi

gs

Poul

try

Tot

al

Glo

bal m

etha

ne e

mis

sion

from

man

ure

man

agem

ent

Gra

zing

4.

73

21.9

8 0.

00

2.95

0.

00

- 29

.58

Mix

ed

10.9

6 27

.53

9.23

6.

50

0.80

-

55.0

2 In

dust

rial

0.00

0.

73

0.00

0.

00

0.31

-

1.04

Su

btot

al

15.6

9 50

.16

9.23

9.

44

1.11

-

85.6

3 G

loba

l met

hane

em

issi

on fr

om m

anur

e m

anag

emen

t G

razi

ng

0.15

0.

50

0.00

0.

12

0.00

0.

00

0.77

M

ixed

2.

93

3.89

0.

34

0.23

4.

58

0.31

12

.27

Indu

stria

l 0.

00

0.02

0.

00

0.00

3.

80

0.67

4.

48

Subt

otal

3.

08

4.41

0.

34

0.35

8.

38

0.97

17

.52

Tota

l 18

.77

54.5

7 9.

57

9.79

9.

49

0.97

10

3.15

So

urce

: Ste

infe

ld e

t al.

(200

6)

19


Tab

le 6

. Met

hane

aba

tem

ent s

trate

gies

, mec

hani

sm o

f aba

tem

ent,

and

cons

ider

atio

ns fo

r use

. M

etha

ne a

bate

men

t str

ateg

y M

echa

nism

of a

bate

men

t act

ivity

C

onsi

dera

tions

whe

n se

lect

ing

ab

atem

ent s

trat

egy

Die

tary

com

posi

tion

Incr

ease

hem

icel

lulo

se/s

tarc

h In

crea

sed

pass

age

rate

; gr

eate

r pr

opor

tion

prop

iona

te v

ersu

s ac

etat

e; r

educ

ed r

umin

al

pH

Shift

met

hano

gens

is to

hin

d gu

t or m

anur

e, ri

sk o

f su

bacu

te ru

min

al a

cido

sis (

SAR

A)

Dec

reas

e ce

ll w

all

com

pone

nts

Grin

ding

Li

pids

Fa

tty a

cids

In

hibi

tion

of

met

hano

gens

an

d pr

otoz

oa;

grea

ter p

ropo

rtion

pro

pion

ate

vers

us a

ceta

te;

bioh

ydro

gena

tion

Effe

ct o

n pa

lata

bilit

y, i

ntak

e, p

erfo

rman

ce,

milk

co

mpo

nent

s;

varie

s by

di

et,

rum

inan

t sp

ecie

s;

long

-term

stud

ies n

eede

d O

ils

Seed

s Ta

llow

D

efau

natio

n

C

hem

ical

R

emov

es

asso

ciat

ed

met

hano

gens

; le

ss

hydr

ogen

for m

etha

noge

nesi

s A

dapt

atio

n of

mic

robi

ota

may

occ

ur;

varie

s w

ith

diet

; mai

nten

ance

of d

efau

nate

d an

imal

s Fe

ed a

dditi

ves

Met

hano

gens

Vac

cine

H

ost i

mm

une

resp

onse

to m

etha

noge

ns

Vac

cine

ta

rget

s;

diet

an

d ho

st

geog

raph

ical

lo

catio

n di

ffer

ence

s M

onen

sin

Inhi

bits

pro

tozo

a an

d gr

am-p

ositi

ve b

acte

ria;

lack

of s

ubst

rate

for m

etha

noge

nesi

s A

dapt

atio

n of

mic

robi

ota

may

occ

ur;

varie

s w

ith

diet

and

ani

mal

; ban

ned

in th

e EU

Pl

ant C

ompo

unds

C

onde

nsed

tann

ins

Ant

imic

robi

al

activ

ity;

redu

ced

hydr

ogen

av

aila

bilit

y O

ptim

um d

osag

e un

know

n; m

ore

in v

ivo

rese

arch

ne

eded

; lo

ng-te

rm

stud

ies

need

ed;

may

af

fect

di

gest

ibili

ty; r

esid

ues u

nkno

wn

Sapo

nins

Es

sent

ial o

ils

Org

anic

Aci

ds

Fum

arat

e H

ydro

gen

sink

, gr

eate

r pr

opor

tion

prop

iona

te v

ersu

s ace

tate

V

arie

s w

ith d

iet;

mor

e in

viv

o re

sear

ch n

eede

d;

long

-term

stud

ies n

eede

d; m

ay a

ffec

t dig

estib

ility

M

alat

e So

urce

: Hoo

k et

al.

(201

0)

20


Figure 1. World greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and etc.). emissions. Source: Modified from World Resource Institute (2000)

Figure 2. Rumen fermentation through Embden Myerhof Parnas pathway. Source: Wanapat (2012)

24.6

18.2

13.5

13.5

10.4

9

3.9

3.6

3.4

0 5 10 15 20 25

Electricity and heat

Land Use change

Agriculture

Transportation

Industry

Other fuel combustion

Fugitive Emission

Waste

Industrial Processes

Secto

r

21


Documents

Buffalo Bulletin 2013 Volume 32 (Special Issue 1)ibic.lib.ku.ac.th/e-Bulletin/IBBUSI201301001.pdf · 4.1 and 7.1 billion tonnes of CO 2 equivalents per year, equating to 1524% of