Suppr超能文献

缓解反刍动物肠道甲烷排放的饮食策略在奶牛、肉牛和绵羊中同样有效吗?

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

机构信息

Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, the Netherlands; Wageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

出版信息

J Dairy Sci. 2019 Jul;102(7):6109-6130. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-15785. Epub 2019 May 10.

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) emission; and (2) to evaluate whether dietary strategies to mitigate CH 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 emission, as this enabled a comparison across ruminant types. Evaluation of the literature indicated that the effectiveness of forage-related CH 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 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 mitigation strategies across different ruminant types or production systems.

摘要

反刍动物的消化生理学有足够的差异(例如,在食糜的平均停留时间、饲料的消化率、消化和发酵特性方面),因此在将一种反刍动物的结果推断到另一种反刍动物之前需要谨慎。本研究的目的是:(1)概述奶牛、肉牛和绵羊在瘤胃生理学方面与甲烷(CH)排放相关的一些重要差异;(2)评估各种作用模式的饲料策略在奶牛、肉牛和绵羊中减少 CH 排放的有效性是否相同。通过 Web of Science 和 Scopus 进行文献检索,从文献中选择了 94 项研究。对于每项研究,饮食策略的效果大小表示为 CH 排放对照水平的比例(%),因为这可以在反刍动物类型之间进行比较。对文献的评估表明,包括饲喂更易消化的草料(牧草或青贮料)或用玉米青贮料替代不同的饲草类型在内的与饲草相关的 CH 减排策略在反刍动物类型之间的有效性不同。这些策略对奶牛最有效,在一定程度上对肉牛有效,但对绵羊似乎影响较小或没有影响。一般来说,增加精饲料喂养和饲料添加剂(如硝酸盐)等其他饮食缓解策略的有效性似乎对奶牛、肉牛和绵羊相似。我们得出结论,如果饮食 CH 缓解策略的作用模式与反刍动物特有的因素(如饲料摄入量或瘤胃生理学)相关,那么该策略在不同反刍动物类型之间的有效性不同,而如果作用模式与与甲烷生成相关的发酵途径相关,则该策略在反刍动物类型中均有效。因此,在不同反刍动物类型或生产系统之间翻译饮食 CH 缓解策略的有效性时需要谨慎。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验