Next Article in Journal
Global Terrapin Character-Based DNA Barcodes: Assessment of the Mitochondrial COI Gene and Conservation Status Revealed a Putative Cryptic Species
Next Article in Special Issue
Factors Affecting Enteric Emission Methane and Predictive Models for Dairy Cows
Previous Article in Journal
The Timing of the Maternal Recognition of Pregnancy Is Specific to Individual Mares
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ensiling Characteristics, In Vitro Rumen Fermentation Patterns, Feed Degradability, and Methane and Ammonia Production of Berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum L.) Co-Ensiled with Artichoke Bracts (Cynara cardunculus L.)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/ani13111719
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Dietary Guanidinoacetic Acid Levels on the Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production and the Rumen Fermentation Profile of Alfalfa-Based Diets

by
Oscar Vicente Vazquez-Mendoza
1,
Veronica Andrade-Yucailla
2,
Mona Mohamed Mohamed Yasseen Elghandour
1,
Diego Armando Masaquiza-Moposita
3,
Jorge Adalberto Cayetano-De-Jesús
1,
Edwin Rafael Alvarado-Ramírez
4,
Moyosore Joseph Adegbeye
5,
Marcos Barros-Rodríguez
6 and
Abdelfattah Zeidan Mohamed Salem
1,*
1
Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Toluca 50295, Mexico
2
Centro de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena, La Libertad 240204, Ecuador
3
Facultad de Ciencias Pecuarias, Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, Sede Orellana, El Coca 220150, Ecuador
4
Unidad Académica Multidisciplinaria Mante, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, El Mante 89840, Mexico
5
Department of Animal Production and Health, Federal University of Technology, Akure 340110, Nigeria
6
Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Técnica de Ambato, Cevallos 1801334, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(11), 1719; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13111719
Submission received: 10 April 2023 / Revised: 12 May 2023 / Accepted: 13 May 2023 / Published: 23 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nutritional Strategies to Control Enteric Methane Production of Ruminants)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is considered the queen of forages, and hay is an important source of protein and fiber for livestock, while guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) is a feed additive that can improve growth performance and energy metabolism in animals and reduce the population of methanogenic microorganisms. However, the percentage of alfalfa hay (AH) in the diet can cause variations in greenhouse gas (GHG) production, the rumen fermentation profile and methane (CH4) conversion efficiency, which, in turn, influences the effectiveness of GAA. In this regard, this study demonstrates that the percentage of AH in the diet affects the effectiveness of GAA and that the addition of GAA in diets with 25 and 100% AH presents low effectiveness, a diet with 10% AH can improve the mitigation of GHG and the rumen fermentation profile without compromising the CH4 conversion efficiency using a dose of 0.0015 or 0.0020 g GAA g−1 DM in the diet.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay (AH) and doses of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet on the mitigation of greenhouse gas production, the in vitro rumen fermentation profile and methane (CH4) conversion efficiency. AH percentages were defined for the diets of beef and dairy cattle, as well as under grazing conditions (10 (AH10), 25 (AH25) and 100% (AH100)), while the GAA doses were 0 (control), 0.0005, 0.0010, 0.0015, 0.0020, 0.0025 and 0.0030 g g−1 DM diet. With an increased dose of GAA, the total gas production (GP) and methane (CH4) increased (p = 0.0439) in the AH10 diet, while in AH25 diet, no effect was observed (p = 0.1311), and in AH100, GP and CH4 levels decreased (p = 0.0113). In addition, the increase in GAA decreased (p = 0.0042) the proportion of CH4 in the AH25 diet, with no influence (p = 0.1050) on CH4 in the AH10 and AH100 diet groups. Carbon monoxide production decreased (p = 0.0227) in the AH100 diet with most GAA doses, and the other diets did not show an effect (p = 0.0617) on carbon monoxide, while the production of hydrogen sulfide decreased (p = 0.0441) in the AH10 and AH100 diets with the addition of GAA, with no effect observed in association with the AH25 diet (p = 0.3162). The pH level increased (p < 0.0001) and dry matter degradation (DMD) decreased (p < 0.0001) when AH was increased from 10 to 25%, while 25 to 100% AH contents had the opposite effect. In addition, with an increased GAA dose, only the pH in the AH100 diet increased (p = 0.0142 and p = 0.0023) the DMD in the AH10 diet group. Similarly, GAA influenced (p = 0.0002) SCFA, ME and CH4 conversion efficiency but only in the AH10 diet group. In this diet group, it was observed that with an increased dose of GAA, SCFA and ME increased (p = 0.0002), while CH4 per unit of OM decreased (p = 0.0002) only with doses of 0.0010, 0.0015 and 0.0020 g, with no effect on CH4 per unit of SCFA and ME (p = 0.1790 and p = 0.1343). In conclusion, the positive effects of GAA depend on the percentage of AH, and diets with 25 and 100% AH showed very little improvement with the addition of GAA, while the diet with 10% AH presented the best results.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the warming of the Earth has increased as a consequence of the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, which has also caused instability in environmental conditions, especially in rainfall and atmospheric temperature [1]. According to the FAO, livestock farming is responsible for around 18% of methane (CH4) emissions and 9% of carbon dioxide (CO2) production [2], as these gases are the result of ruminal fermentation of feed, mainly from fibrous carbohydrates; and although their production is inevitable, high amounts represent a loss of gross energy of between 2 and 12% for the animals [3]. Other gases produced by rumen include carbon monoxide (CO), which indirectly contributes to global warming as a precursor to ozone, and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) [4], can provide an alternate sink for metabolic hydrogen (H2), which decreases CH4 production [5]. However, H2S is easily absorbed in the intestinal wall of ruminants, so in high concentrations, it can be toxic and even induce polioencephalomalacia, a harmful brain disease in animals [6]. Consequently, the need has arisen to propose novel and rapid strategies for the mitigation of GHGs of animal origin [7].
High-quality and digestible feed has been considered as an option to reduce GHG emissions by enabling increased production of short-chain fatty acids (SFCA) and an increase the energy supply in animals [8], which would be reflected in higher animal performance. In this sense, alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), also called the “queen of forages”, is a perennial legume that is widely cultivated [9] and is considered a source of protein for ruminants [10], since it has a high protein content with a rapid degradation rate and a high proportion of rapidly degrading protein [11]. As a forage crop, alfalfa is not only rich in protein but also in vitamins and some minerals, with high palatability, making it a viable alternative to be used in ruminant diets [12,13]. In this regard, it has been reported that alfalfa can improve the characteristics and quality of the carcass in sheep and even equal or exceed the quality of sheep fed with concentrate, since the animals fed with alfalfa have presented with a high concentration of linoleic acid, which has benefits for human health [14,15]. Other studies reported that the inclusion of alfalfa hay (AH) in lamb feed delayed lipid oxidation and myoglobin formation in meat, thereby prolonging meat shelf life [16]. In addition, alfalfa presents secondary metabolites such as phenols, flavonoids and saponins [17]; therefore, it also represents an important source of bioactive compounds [18]. However, forages preserved by tedding have lower protein digestibility compared to their fresh or ensiled form [19], and these changes may influence the abundance of the microbial population, which, in turn, affects feed kinetics, digestibility, GHG emissions and fermentation end products [20].
The use of feed additives has also been considered as an alternative, with improved growth performance of animals, GHG emissions per unit of animal product decrease. Guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) is an additive that is naturally biosynthesized from arginine and glycine in the kidneys or pancreas of vertebrates and is a direct precursor of creatine biosynthesis [21,22], which is why it participates in energy metabolism and is used in animal feed, including that of ruminants [23]. In bulls, it has been reported that GAA increases the microbial population and improves the rumen fermentation profile and nutrient digestibility without altering blood biochemistry parameters [8,24]. Meanwhile, in sheep, performance, carcass characteristics and meat nutritional content have been reported to improve in association with GAA [25,26]. Other studies reported that GAA in ruminants increased daily weight gain, feed conversion efficiency and total short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) production [27]. However, the doses of GAA vary across studies, and the reported effects show variability. Therefore, considering that the GAA doses used in the previous studies were tested with a diet containing a forage source other than AH and given the benefits of AH for ruminant nutrition, we hypothesized that the percentage of AH in the diet can affect the level of response of GAA to the parameters of rumen digestibility and the final products of fermentation. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different percentages of AH and doses of GAA in the diet on the mitigation of the production of greenhouse gases (CH4, CO and H2S), the in vitro ruminal fermentation profile and the CH4 conversion efficiency.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Treatments

The study factors were the percentage of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay (AH) and the dose of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet of ruminant livestock. The percentage of inclusion of AH in the diet was defined for beef cattle fattening and dairy cattle under grazing conditions as 10, 25 and 100% (only AH), respectively. The doses of GAA were based on previous studies in ruminants: 0.0000 (control), 0.0005, 0.0010, 0.0015, 0.0020, 0.0025 and 0.0030 g GAA g−1 DM diet, for which they were evaluated in a total of 21 treatments.

2.2. Diets and Chemical Composition

The AH was obtained from a local business in the municipality of Toluca, State of Mexico, Mexico, and according to the information provided by the seller, the alfalfa was second cut and was harvested in the full-bloom stage at 5 cm above ground level. GAA was purchased from Evonik México S.A. de C.V. under the trade name of GuanAMINO® for ruminants, and at the time of evaluation, it had a purity of 96%. Once the diets were prepared, representative samples were dehydrated at 60 °C for 72 h and crushed in a hammer mill (Thomas Wiley® Laboratory Mill model 4, Swedesboro, NJ, USA) with a 1 mm sieve, and the chemical composition was determined. The analysis included the estimation of dry matter (#934.01), ash (#942.05), nitrogen (#954.01) and ethereal extract (#920.39) according to the description of the AOAC [28], while the determinations of neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber were performed using an ANKOM200 fiber analyzer (ANKOM Technology Corp, Macedon, NY, USA) with alpha-amylase and sodium sulfite according to the methodology proposed by Van Soest et al. [29]. Organic matter was estimated (g kg−1 DM) by subtracting the ash content from 1000, while protein was estimated by multiplying the nitrogen content by 6.25. Table 1 shows the ingredients and the chemical composition of the experimental diets formulated with the different percentages of AH.

2.3. In Vitro Fermentation

2.3.1. Collection of Inoculum and Preparation of the Nutrient Medium

The inoculum was obtained from four steers (420 ± 20 kg LW) slaughtered in the municipal slaughterhouse of Toluca, State of Mexico, Mexico, and for the collection of the rumen content and the transfer to the laboratory, hermetic thermoses were used. The extraction of the ruminal liquid was carried out by filtering the rumen content with four layers of cheesecloth, which was then mixed and kept at 39 °C until use. The nutrient medium contained buffer solution, macrominerals, microminerals, resazurin and distilled water and was prepared following methodology described by Goering and Van Soest [30]. Before incubation, the ruminal inoculum and the nutrient medium were mixed at a ratio of 1:4 (v/v) using a magnetic stirrer, with the temperature maintained at 39 °C.

2.3.2. Incubation Process

Prior to incubation, 500 mg of each diet was weighed and placed in a glass flask with a capacity of 160 mL; then, the doses of GAA and 50 mL of the obtained solution of ruminal inoculum and the nutrient medium were added. The bottles were sealed with butyl rubber stoppers and aluminum seals, shaken and incubated in an incubator at 39 °C for the evaluation period, which, in this case, corresponded to 48 h. Each treatment was incubated in triplicate, and three flasks without substrate were added as blanks to correct for gas measurements.

2.3.3. Measurement of Gas Production

The volume of the total gas production (GP) was measured after 2, 4, 12, 24, 27, 30 and 48 h of incubation, following the technique proposed by Theodorou et al. [31] using a digital manometer (Manometer model 407910, Extech® Instruments, Nashue, NH, USA). Methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) were quantified at the same time points as the total gas but with a portable gas detector (Dräger X-am®, model 2500, Dräger, Lübeck, SH, Germany) equipped with an external pump (Dräger X-am®, Dräger, Lübeck, SH, Germany) in which a known amount of gas was injected, simultaneously indicating the percentage of each gas [32]. At the end of each measurement, the gas accumulated in the headspace of the vials was released to avoid partial dissolution of the gases and erroneous estimates [33].

2.3.4. pH and Dry Matter Degradation

At the end of the incubation, the contents of the vials were filtered following the methodology described by Alvarado-Ramírez et al. [34], which consisted of retaining the residual substrate in bags with 25 µm porosity (Filter bags F57, ANKOM Technology Corp, Macedon, NY, USA) and collecting the liquid in beakers. The pH of the liquids was measured using a potentiometer with a glass electrode (pH wireless electrode HALO® model HI11102, Hanna® Instruments, Woonsocket, RI, USA), while the residual substrate was washed with plenty of water and dehydrated at 60 °C for 48 h to calculate the dry matter degradation by weight difference.

2.3.5. Calculations

The kinetics of production of GP, CH4, CO and H2S were estimated by adjusting the volume of the gases with the NLIN procedure of SAS [35] according to the model proposed by France et al. [36]:
y = b × [1 − e−c(t−Lag)]
where:
  • y = volume (mL) of GP, CH4, CO and H2S at time t (h);
  • b = asymptotic GP, CH4, CO and H2S production (mL g−1 DM);
  • c = the rate GP, CH4, CO and H2S production (mL h−1);
  • Lag = the initial delay time before the beginning of GP, CH4, CO and H2S production (h).
Metabolizable energy (ME; MJ kg−1 DM) was estimated according to the equation proposed by Menke et al. [37]:
ME = 2.20 + (0.136 × GP) + (0.057 × CP)
where:
  • GP = total gas production (mL 200 mg−1 DM) after 24 h of incubation;
  • CP = crude protein (g kg−1 DM).
Short-chain fatty acid (SCFA; mmol 200 mg−1 DM) concentrations were calculated according to Getachew et al. [38]:
SCFA = (0.0222 × GP) − 0.00425
where GP = total gas production (mL 200 mg−1 DM) after 24 h of incubation.
Additionally, the ratios of CH4 to SCFA (CH4:SCFA; mmol mmol−1), ME (CH4:ME; g MJ−1) and OM (CH4:OM; mL g−1) were calculated.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The experimental design was completely randomized with a 3 × 7 bifactorial arrangement; a factor A corresponded to the percentage of AH, and factor B corresponded to the GAA doses, with three repetitions per treatment. The analysis was carried out with the GLM procedure of the SAS program [35] according to the following statistical model:
Yijk = µ + Ai + Bj + (A × B)ij + εijk
where Yijk is the response variable, μ is the overall mean, Ai is the effect of the percentage of AH, Bj is the effect of the dose of GAA, (A × B)ij is the effect of the interaction between the percentage of AH and the dose of GAA and εijk is the experimental error. Linear and quadratic polynomial contrasts were used to evaluate the response of the different percentages of AH with increasing doses of GAA in the diet. Tukey’s test was applied for comparison of means, with significant differences considered when p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. In Vitro Ruminal Total Gas (GP) Production

Figure 1 shows the effect of the different percentages of alfalfa hay (AH) and doses of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet on the in vitro rumen production kinetics of GP. With increased AH contents from 10 (AH10) to 25% (AH25) in the diet, the asymptotic production (mL g−1 DM) and the production rate (mL GP h−1) of GP increased (p < 0.0001), whereas when AH contents were increased from 25 to 100% (AH100) asymptotic production and the GP production rate decreased, and the time (h) in the delay phase presented an opposite effect (p = 0.0094). At 4 and 24 h, GP production (mL GP g−1 DM incubated and degraded) decreased (p < 0.0001) with augmentation of AH content, while at 48 h, it increased (p < 0.0001) with augmentation of AH content from 10 to 25%, then decreased when AH content was increased from 25 to 100% (Figure 1A; Table 2). GAA doses did not affect (p = 0.8443) asymptotic production but decreased (p = 0.0343) the rate of GP production and increased (p = 0.0255) the time in the lag phase. At 24 h, the production of GP (mL GP g−1 DM incubated and degraded) increased (p < 0.0001) with the addition of GAA, except with doses of 0.0005 and 0.0010 g, with which GP production decreased (Figure 1B; Table 2). However, with respect to the interaction (p = 0.0330) between the percentage of AH and the GAA dose, it was observed that GAA only affected the parameters of GP production in the AH100 diet, and although the GAA doses did not show a trend, all or most decreased (p = 0.0135) asymptotic production and the total gas production rate and increased (p = 0.0081) the time in the lag phase. In addition, it was observed that with respect to the production of GP, there was interaction (p = 0.0010) at 24 and 48 h but only (p = 0.0405) in the AH10 diet, while in the AH25 diet, there was no interaction (p = 0.2780), and in the AH100 diet, an interaction was only observed (p = 0.0013) at 48 h. In the AH10 diet, GP production (mL GP g−1 DM incubated and degraded) increased with increasing GAA dose both at 24 and 48 h, except with the 0.0005 g dose, while in the AH10 diet, AH100 decreased with increasing dose (Table 2).

3.2. In Vitro Ruminal Methane (CH4) Production

Figure 2 shows the effect of the different percentages of AH and the dose of GAA in the diet on the kinetics of in vitro rumen production of CH4. The asymptotic production (mL CH4 g−1 DM) and the production rate (mL CH4 h−1) of CH4 increased (p = 0.0038) when AH contents in the diet were increased from 10 to 25%, while with an increase in AH contents from 25 to 100%, they decreased. At 4 and 24 h, CH4 production decreased (p ≤ 0.0001) as the AH percentage increased, while at 48 h CH4 production first increased, then decreased (p < 0.0001). However, in the case of the CH4 proportion (mL CH4 100 mL−1 GP), there was no significant decrease at 24 h (Figure 2A; Table 3). In contrast, GAA did not affect (p = 0.2799) the parameters of CH4 production, and after 4 h of incubation, all doses of GAA increased (p = 0.0349) the production and proportion of CH4 (mL CH4 100 mL− 1 GP), except for 0.0005 and 0.0010 g, for which the production and proportion of CH4 decreased (Figure 2B; Table 3). However, the interaction between the percentage of AH and the dose of GAA had an effect (p = 0.0438) on the asymptotic production of CH4 and the production of CH4 throughout incubation. In the AH10 diet, asymptotic production increased (p = 0.0103) with the addition of GAA, with no influence in the AH25 diet group (p = 0.0965), and in AH100 it decreased (p = 0.0113). In addition, GAA increased (p = 0.0439) the production of CH4 at 4 and 48 h in the AH10 diet, with no effect in the AH25 diet group, (p = 0.1244) and in the AH100 diet group, it only decreased CH4 production (p = 0.0113) at 48 h. However, GAA increased (p = 0.0041) the proportion of CH4 at 4 h in the AH10 diet and decreased CH4 production at 48 h in the AH25 diet (p = 0.0042), with no influence in the AH100 diet group (p = 0.1050; Table 3).

3.3. In Vitro Ruminal Carbon Monoxide (CO) Production

Figure 3 shows the effect of the different percentages of AH and the doses of GAA in the diet on the kinetics of in vitro rumen production of CO. The asymptotic production (mL CO g−1 DM) and the production rate (mL CO h−1) of CO indicate an effect (p = 0.0005) of the percentage of AH, as both increased when the percentage of AH was increased from 10 to 25%, while when AH content was increased from 25 to 100%, they both decreased. At 4 h, CO production decreased (p < 0.0001) as the percentage of AH increased, while at 24 and 48 h, CO production first increased (p < 0.0001), then decreased (Figure 1A; Table 4). Instead, the doses of GAA did not influence (p = 0.4968) the production parameters but did influence the production of CO after 24 h of incubation, at which point an increase in the dose of GAA increased (p = 0.0084) the production of CO, except with doses of 0.0005 and 0.0010 g, for which CO production decreased (Figure 3B; Table 4). However, an interaction (p = 0.0413) was observed between the percentage of AH and the dose of GAA for the rate and production of CO throughout the incubation period. With an increase in the dose of GAA, the rate of CO production increased (p = 0.0086) in the AH10 diet, except with doses of 0.0005 and 0.0010 g, while in the AH25 and AH100 diets, no effect was observed (p = 0.4457). Furthermore, with most GAA doses, CO production increased (p = 0.0397) at 4 h in the AH10 diet and at 24 h in the AH25 diet, while in the AH100 diet, CO production only decreased (p = 0.0227) at 48 h (Table 4).

3.4. In Vitro Ruminal Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Production

Figure 4 shows the effect of the different percentages of AH and the doses of GAA in the diet on the kinetics of in vitro rumen production of H2S. The percentage of AH did not affect (p = 0.0724) the parameters, but it did (p = 0.0136) affect the production of H2S; when the percentage of AH was increased from 10 to 25%, the production of H2S decreased (p = 0.0136), while when AH content was increased from 25 to 100%, H2S production increased, and the AH100 diet surpassed (p = 0.0136) the AH10 in the production of H2S after 48 h (Figure 4A; Table 5). Similarly, GAA doses did not influence (p = 0.4699) the parameters but did (p = 0.0034) influence the H2S production throughout the incubation period. Although no trend was observed, H2S production decreased (p = 0.0034) with the addition of GAA throughout the incubation period, except with a dose of 0.0030 g at 48 h, for which H2S production increased (Figure 4B; Table 5). In this case, the interaction between the AH percentage and the GAA dose was significant (p = 0.0032) with respect to H2S production throughout the incubation period; when the GAA dose was increased, the H2S production in the diet AH10 decreased (p < 0.0001) throughout incubation, and in the AH100 diet, it increased (p = 0.0141) at 48 h with most doses (Table 5).

3.5. In Vitro Rumen Fermentation Profile and CH4 Conversion Efficiency

The percentage of AH influenced (p = 0.0009) the ruminal fermentation profile and the efficiency of CH4 production, except in CH4 per unit of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA). It was observed that the pH first increased (p < 0.0001) with an increase in AH from 10 to 25%; then, when AH was increased from 25 to 100%, the pH decreased. On the other hand, the degradation of dry matter (DMD), the SCFA, metabolizable energy (ME) and CH4 per unit of ME and organic matter (OM) presented an opposite effect (p = 0.0009). Like the percentage of AH, the dose of GAA influenced (p = 0.0151) the rumen fermentation profile and CH4 per unit of OM, and although no trend was observed when increasing the dose, the addition of GAA decreased (p = 0.0011) pH and increased (p = 0.0151) DMD, SCFA, ME and the CH4 per unit of OM unit with most doses. However, the SCFA, the ME and the CH4 conversion efficiency presented an effect (p = 0.0438) on the interaction between the percentage of AH and the dose of GAA. It was observed that only the AH10 diet presented an effect (p = 0.0002) of GAA on these variables. In this diet, SCFA and ME increased (p = 0.0002) with increasing GAA dose, except with doses of 0.0005 and 0.0010 g, while the amount of CH4 per OM increased (p = 0.0002) with doses of 0.0005, 0.0025 and 0.0030 g and decreased with doses of 0.0010, 0.0015 and 0.0020 g (Table 6).

4. Discussion

4.1. In Vitro Ruminal Total Gas Production

The total gas production (GP) during fermentation is positively correlated with the degradability of feed nutrients [39], and the degree of degradability is determined by the accessibility of feed components for rumen microorganisms, the activity of rumen microbes and the time available for fermentation [40]. That is why the total gas production and the rate of gas production are used as indicators to assess the degradability of feed and the functionality and adaptability of rumen microbes to the diet [41]. In this study, after 24 h of fermentation, the total gas production was higher in the diets with 10 (AH10) and 25% (AH25) alfalfa hay (AH) compared to the diet containing 100% hay (AH100), while after 48 h, the AH10 and AH100 diet presented similar levels of gas production, which were lower than the total gas obtained with the AH25 diet. This can be attributed to the content of easily fermentable carbohydrates in each diet, as they provide energy to the ruminal microbiota for their metabolic activities during the first hours of fermentation [42], as was observed after 24 h in the AH10 and AH25 diets, which presented a high total gas production. In contrast, the AH100 diet showed fewer fast-fermenting carbohydrates and higher total gas production up to 48 h, indicating that rumen microbes took time to adapt to the diet and had less energy available for their offspring activities compared to the other diets [43].
However, it has been reported that the addition of GAA in the diet can decrease the asymptotic production and the production rate of GP [44], which was observed in the AH100 diet when increasing the dose of GAA, which is attributed to the proportion of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), since GAA favors the formation of propionate [45], an SCFA that produces less gas compared to acetate and butyrate [46]. In addition, the lag phase also increased in this diet; although it did not show a trend with an increasing dose of GAA, this increase can be attributed to the time that ruminal microorganisms require to adapt to the presence of GAA, since it is susceptible to degradability when it is not rumen protected [47], and microorganisms can use it as a source of energy and nitrogen to synthesize their proteins [45]. However, with an increase in GAA, GP production increased in the AH10 diet, while in the AH100 diet, GP production decreased with increased GAA dose. In the case of the AH10 diet, this result can be attributed to the fact that GAA increases the activity of fibrolytic enzymes, α-amylase and protease [45], as well as the populations of total bacteria, fungi, Ruminococcus albus, Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococcus flavefaciens, Ruminobacter amilophilus and Prevotella ruminicola [26,48], which favors the degradation of the diet, resulting in a consequent increase in GP. In contrast, in the AH100 diet, GAA possibly did not favor enzymatic activity and an increase in the populations of fibrolytic bacteria since GAA did not influence dry matter degradation (DMD) in this diet. In addition, as previously mentioned, it is possible that increasing the dose of GAA favored the formation of propionate, which leads to a lower production of GP, as supported by the lower proportion of methane.

4.2. In Vitro Ruminal Methane (CH4) Production

The production of CH4 in the AH25 diet can be attributed to the higher total gas production that it presented, since feeds that present high total gas production generally also show a higher production of gas CH4 [41] because in the rumen, the main biochemical process carried out by bacteria, protozoa and fungi is the fermentation of carbohydrates, and as a byproduct, they release short-chain fatty acids (SCFA; mainly acetic, butyric and propionic acids), metabolic hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) [49]. Subsequently, methanogenic archaea remove H2 by reducing CO2 to CH4 [42,50] to maintain low H2 concentrations in the rumen [51], since, otherwise, inhibition of microbial growth and feed degradation would occur [52]. This metabolic process is known as methanogenesis [53] and is influenced by the fiber content in the food, since fibrous feeds tend to produce more H2 and therefore more CH4 [2]. Despite the influence of fiber, the AH100 diet did not produce the most CH4, which is attributed to the bioactive compounds that this plant presents, since they have antimicrobial and protozoan properties that reduce CH4 production [54]. In addition, it is important to note that the inclusion of GAA in the AH25 and AH100 diets decreased the production and proportion of CH4 with most of the doses, which is attributed to the decrease exerted by GAA on the population of the protozoa and methanogens [26,48] and because propionate production increases, which decreases the acetate:propionate ratio and the metabolic H2 available for the formation of CH4 [23,26]. However, in the AH10 diet, the results were inconsistent because the inclusion of GAA increased CH4 production but did not affect the proportion of CH4 with respect to total gas production. On the other hand, the ruminal population of sulfo-reducing bacteria (SRB) was low but had the ability to compete with methanogens for H2 for the production of H2S [55], although it is likely that the inclusion of GAA in the diet caused an inhibitory effect on these bacteria, and therefore, this metabolic pathway did not function as an alternate H2 sink. In addition, the availability of sulfur (S) is necessary to increase the relative abundance of SRBs and their ability to compete with methanogens for H2 [56].

4.3. In Vitro Ruminal Carbon Monoxide Production

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a metabolic intermediate gas that, under anaerobic conditions, is produced by anaerobic microbes during the degradation of organic matter (MO) [57]. In the rumen, which is also an anaerobic environment, in addition to the amount of degraded OM, other factors influence the production of CO, including microbial activity and the fermentative capacity of the ruminal microbiota, as well as the type of degraded chemical components (fiber, protein, lipids, etc.) [34]. In addition, some CO dehydrogenase enzymes are highly dependent on the availability of trace minerals, are capable of reducing CO2 and oxidizing CO by utilizing their catalytic groups for electron transfer and can maintain redox homeostasis during digestion of the feed [58]. Therefore, the variations in the production of CO are attributed to the degraded components of each diet, since although they were similar in protein content, they differed in terms of the other chemical and mineral components (Table 1). In turn, the variations in the chemical composition influence the populations of rumen microorganisms, such as methanogens, acetogens and SRB, which require CO for their metabolism [59]. Therefore, the high production of CO in the AH25 and AH100 diets is attributed to a greater availability of substrates for these microorganisms, and the production of CO increased even more with the dose of GAA, as it results in partial degradation in the rumen and is used by some microorganisms as a substrate for their metabolic functions [60]. In addition, it was observed that the production of CO was positively related to the production of CH4 of each diet, which may indicate that methanogens maintain a synergy with other microorganisms that produce CO, since in the presence of water, acetogens and methanogens oxidize CO to form CO2 and H2 and subsequently produce CH4 [61,62].

4.4. In Vitro Ruminal Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Production

It has been reported that most of the dietary S ingested by ruminants through feed is converted to sulfate by rumen microorganisms, especially bacteria [50,57]. The same occurs with amino acids that contain S; they are fermented to sulfate [63], which is used together with lactate as a substrate by SRB to produce sulfide, which is combined with H2 to form hydrogen sulfide (H2S) [58,64]. In this study, the S in the diets was not quantified, but the highest H2S production without the inclusion of GAA was observed in the AH10 diet, while the lowest H2S production was observed in the AH100 diet; therefore, it can be assumed that another ingredient in the diets likely contributed S, causing variations in the production of H2S. This assertion is supported by the metabolic process of H2S production described above and by the findings reported by Smith et al. [65], who reported that increasing the amount of S in the diet from 2 to 8 g kg−1 DM increased H2S production by more than 470%. In addition, there is a negative correlation between pH and H2S production that is attributed to the protonation of aqueous sulfide [66], which inhibits the activity of SRBs [67]. Therefore, the production of H2S requires an acidic rumen environment [6], preferably with a pH in a range of 5.5 to 6.5 [68]. In this study pH was in the range of 7.22 ± 0.26. (average ± standard deviation), so it cannot be ruled out that the low production of H2S was a consequence of the pH level. On the other hand, regardless of the amount of S available, in the three diets, most of the GAA inclusion doses presented a lower H2S production compared to the 0 g g−1 DM diet dose, and although the ratio is not known with certainty, it seems that the inclusion of GAA caused an inhibitory effect or an unfavorable environment for the activity of SRBs.

4.5. In Vitro Rumen Fermentation Profile and CH4 Conversion Efficiency

The rumen fermentation profile can be used as a measure or indicator of rumen health, feed digestibility and digestion efficiency. Rumen pH is vital for the persistence and stability of rumen microorganisms [69], while DMD, SCFA and metabolizable energy (ME) are useful as indicators of the digestibility and energy value of the feed [41,70]. In the current study, the pH at the end of fermentation ranged between 6.83 and 7.64, values that are within the range reported in other studies [71,72], and of the three diets, the AH25 diet had the highest pH, while the AH10 diet had the lowest pH. These results agree with those reported by Nemati et al. [73], who observed that increasing the percentage of AH from 15 to 30% in the diet increased the pH to a higher level than that associated with the control treatment. This is attributed to the high buffering capacity and the low content of water-soluble carbohydrates that alfalfa presents, which makes it difficult to lower the pH [74]. In addition, during the deamination of proteins, ammonia is produced, which provides additional buffering to the rumen to maintain a relatively constant pH [75]. However, the DMD, the SFCA and the ME were negatively affected by the increase in the percentage of hay, so the AH25 diet obtained the lowest values, and the diet containing 10% AH was associated with the highest values, whereas the 100% hay diet presented intermediate values. Considering that the diet influences the rumen pH and, in turn, the digestion and metabolism of nutrients [76], it is possible that the low DMD in the AH25 diet is due to the high pH level, which reduced the degradation capacity of ruminal microbes [6]. In addition, alfalfa presents a high concentration of phenolic compounds with antimicrobial bioactivity [19], which is another possible reason for the low DMD in this diet. On the other hand, the diet with 10% hay presented higher values than the AH25 diet, which is attributed to the lower percentage of alfalfa. In the case of the AH100 diet, although it presented a DMD higher than that obtained in the AH25 diet, it is important to mention that in this diet, there was no other ingredient, so the high DMD is attributed to the structure of fibrous carbohydrates. In all diets, DMD enhanced the production of SFCA and ME, since both are end products of rumen fiber fermentation [77] and positively correlated with DMD [9]. On the other hand, it has been reported that the inclusion of GAA in the diet increases the rumen microbial population and the digestibility of nutrients [26,48], which consequently influence SCFA and ME. Therefore, the high fermentation profile can be attributed to an improved rumen microbial population and nutrient digestibility, which influenced total SCFAs. In addition, the improvement in SCFA and ME evidences the role played by GAA in energy metabolism, which leads to greater energy efficiency [24]; although it seems that the conversion efficiency of CH4 in the AH10 diet decreased, it is important to highlight that it showed higher DMD and therefore increased the production of gases and the final products of fermentation, including CH4.

5. Conclusions

It is concluded that the positive effects of the addition of GAA depend on the percentage of AH in the diet and that the diets with 25 and 100% AH showed very little improvement with the addition of GAA, possibly representing an unnecessary expense. In contrast, the diet with 10% AH showed the best results with a dose equal to or greater than 0.0015 g, especially with a dose of 0.0020 g, which increased GP, CH4, DMD, SCFA and ME and decreased the H2S and CH4 per unit of OM without affecting CO production, the proportion of CH4 and the CH4 per unit of SCFA and ME. Therefore, an in vivo evaluation of a diet containing 10% AH with doses of 0.0015 and 0.0020 g GAA g−1 DM is suggested in order to validate that GAA can be used as a strategy to mitigate the production of greenhouse gases in ruminants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.M.Y.E., E.R.A.-R. and A.Z.M.S.; methodology, M.M.M.Y.E., E.R.A.-R., O.V.V.-M., J.A.C.-D.-J. and A.Z.M.S.; software, M.M.M.Y.E., E.R.A.-R. and A.Z.M.S.; validation, M.M.M.Y.E., E.R.A.-R. and A.Z.M.S.; formal analysis, M.M.M.Y.E., E.R.A.-R. and A.Z.M.S.; investigation, M.M.M.Y.E., E.R.A.-R. and A.Z.M.S.; resources, M.M.M.Y.E. and A.Z.M.S.; data curation, M.M.M.Y.E. and E.R.A.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.M.Y.E., E.R.A.-R. and M.J.A.; writing—review and editing, M.M.M.Y.E., E.R.A.-R., V.A.-Y., M.B.-R., D.A.M.-M., O.V.V.-M. and M.J.A.; visualization, A.Z.M.S.; supervision, A.Z.M.S.; project administration, A.Z.M.S.; funding acquisition, A.Z.M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study did not require ethical review or approval from any educational institution because the rumen fluid was obtained from animals that were sacrificed in the municipal slaughterhouse of Toluca, State of Mexico, Mexico. However, it is important to mention that said place is legally regulated by the official Mexican norm NOM-033-ZOO-1995, which establishes the methods for the humane slaughter of domestic and wild animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, Q.; Wu, S.; Zou, X.; Ruan, S.; Kholif, A.E.; Hu, L.; Chen, H.; Zhou, W. Effects of Neolamarckia cadamba leaves extract on methanogenesis, microbial community in the rumen and digestibility of stylo silage. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 369, 133338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ebeid, H.M.; Mengwei, L.; Kholif, A.E.; Hassan, F.U.; Lijuan, P.; Xin, L.; Chengjian, Y. Moringa oleifera oil modulates rumen microflora to mediate in vitro fermentation kinetics and methanogenesis in total mix rations. Curr. Microbiol. 2020, 77, 1271–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hristov, A.N.; Oh, J.; Firkins, J.L.; Dijkstra, J.; Kebreab, E.; Waghorn, G.; Makkar, H.P.S. SPECIAL TOPICS—Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options 1. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 5045–5069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schulmeister, T.M.; Ruiz-Moreno, M.; Benitez, J.; Ponce, C.H.; Lamb, G.C.; DiLorenzo, N. Potential of cull banana fruit at two maturity stages as a feed supplement for cattle: Effects on in vitro ruminal fermentation, kinetics of gas production and digestibility. Waste Biomass Valorization 2020, 11, 6689–6695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Qian, K.; Xu, J.; Zu, H.C.; Cong, Y.Y. Research progress of rumen hydrogen sulfide production in ruminants. Anim. Sci. J. 2020, 91, e13349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Binversie, E.Y.; Ruiz-Moreno, M.; Carpenter, A.J.; Heins, B.J.; Crawford, G.I.; Di Costanzo, A.; Stern, M.D. Effects of dietary roughage and sulfur in diets containing corn dried distillers grains with solubles on hydrogen sulfide production and fermentation by rumen microbes in vitro. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 3883–3893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Galyean, M.L.; Hales, K.E. Feeding Management Strategies to Mitigate Methane and Improve Production Efficiency in Feedlot Cattle. Animals 2023, 13, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, S.Y.; Wang, C.; Wu, Z.Z.; Liu, Q.; Guo, G.; Huo, W.J.; Zhang, J.; Chen, L.; Zhang, Y.L.; Pei, C.X.; et al. Effects of guanidinoacetic acid supplementation on growth performance, nutrient digestion, rumen fermentation and blood metabolites in Angus bulls. Animal 2020, 12, 2535–2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, T.; Wang, B.; Power, R.C.; Jiang, H. The first archaeobotanical evidence of Medicago sativa L. in China: Hay fodder for livestock. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2020, 12, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, Q.; Yu, Z.; Wang, X.G.; Na, R.S. Effects of chlorpyrifos and chlorantraniliprole on fermentation quality of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) silage inoculated with or without Lactobacillus plantarum LP. Anim. Sci. J. 2017, 3, 456–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Al-Dobaib, S.N. Effect of different levels of Quebracho tannin on nitrogen utilization and growth performance of Najdi sheep fed alfalfa (Medicago sativa) hay as a sole diet. Anim. Sci. J. 2009, 80, 532–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chiquiní-Medina, R.A.; Castillo-Águilar, C.C.; Hernández-Sánchez, D.; Torres-Hernández, G.; Delgado-Licon, E. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) grown in Campeche, Mexico, and its local integration in the diet of confined lambs. Agroproductividad 2018, 11, 69–74. [Google Scholar]
  13. McDonald, I.; Baral, R.; Min, D. Effects of alfalfa and alfalfa-grass mixtures with nitrogen fertilization on dry matter yield and forage nutritive value. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2021, 63, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alhidary, I.A.; Abdelrahman, M.M.; Alyemni, A.H.; Khan, R.U.; Al-Saiady, M.Y.; Amran, R.A.; Alshamiry, F.A. Effect of alfalfa hay on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of growing lambs with ad libitum access to total mixed rations. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2016, 45, 302–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Canton-Castillo, J.G.; Moguel-Ordoñez, Y.; Alcaraz-Romero, A.; Piña-Cardenas, B.; Betancur-Ancona, D. Effect of inclusion of alfalfa hay in the diet and gender on carcass and meat characteristics of Katahdin × Pelibuey lambs. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2022, 50, 702–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ripoll, G.; Albertí, P.; Joy, M. Influence of alfalfa grazing-based feeding systems on carcass fat colour and meat quality of light lambs. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rafińska, K.; Pomastowski, P.; Wrona, O.; Górecki, R.; Buszewski, B. Medicago sativa as a source of secondary metabolites for agriculture and pharmaceutical industry. Phytochem. Lett. 2017, 20, 520–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Krakowska, A.; Rafińska, K.; Walczak, J.; Buszewski, B. Enzyme-assisted optimized supercritical fluid extraction to improve Medicago sativa polyphenolics isolation. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 124, 931–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Plaizier, J.C. Replacing chopped alfalfa hay with alfalfa silage in barley grain and alfalfa-based total mixed rations for lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 2495–2505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xue, Z.; Liu, N.; Wang, Y.; Yang, H.; Wei, Y.; Moriel, P.; Palmer, E.; Zhang, Y. Combining Orchard grass and Alfalfa: Effects of forage ratios on in vitro rumen degradation and fermentation characteristics of silage compared with hay. Animals 2019, 10, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lu, Y.F.; Zou, T.D.; Wang, Z.R.; Yang, J.; Li, L.H.; Guo, X.B. Dietary guanidinoacetic acid improves the growth performance and skeletal muscle development of finishing pigs through changing myogenic gene expression and myofibre characteristics. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 104, 1875–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ren, G.; Hao, X.; Zhang, X.; Liu, S.; Zhang, J. Effects of guanidinoacetic acid and betaine on growth performance, energy and nitrogen metabolism, and rumen microbial protein synthesis in lambs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2022, 292, 115402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP); Bampidis, V.; Azimonti, G.; Bastos, M.D.L.; Christensen, H.; Dusemund, B.; Fasmon-Durjava, M.; Kouba, M.; Lòpez-Alonso, M.; Puente, S.L.; et al. Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of guanidinoacetic acid for all animal species (Alzchem Trostberg GmbH). EFSA J. 2022, 20, e07269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, Z.; Liang, H.; Xin, J.; Xu, L.; Li, M.; Yu, H.; Zhang, W.; Ge, Y.; Li, Y.; Qu, M. Effects of dietary guanidinoacetic acid on the feed efficiency, blood measures, and meat quality of jinjiang bulls. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 684295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Chao, Y.; Liu, B.; Kou, Q.; Niu, W.; Jiang, H.; Yang, L.; Zhang, G. Effects of guanidine acetic acid on growth performance, slaughter performance, fat deposition and nutritional components in muscle of stabling Tan sheep. Chin. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 31, 388–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, W.-J.; Wu, Q.-C.; Cui, Z.-Y.; Jiang, Y.-W.; Aisikaer, A.; Zhang, F.; Chen, H.-W.; Wang, W.-K.; Wang, Y.-L.; Lv, L.-K.; et al. Guanidine acetic acid exhibited greater growth performance in younger (13–30 kg) than in older (30–50 kg) lambs under high-concentrate feedlotting pattern. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 1134, 954675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, C.; Wang, C.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Q.; Guo, G.; Huo, W.J.; Pei, C.X.; Chen, L.; Zhang, Y.L. Guanidinoacetic acid and betaine supplementation have positive effects on growth performance, nutrient digestion and rumen fermentation in Angus bulls. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2021, 276, 114923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. AOAC—Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed.; AOAC: Arlington, VA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  29. Van Soest, P.V.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Goering, H.K.; Van Soest, P.J. Forage Fiber Analyses (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures, and Some Applications); US Agricultural Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1970; p. 379.
  31. Theodorou, M.K.; Williams, B.A.; Dhanoa, M.S.; McAllan, A.B.; France, J. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1994, 48, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Acosta, J.A.D.; Elghandour, M.M.; Mariezcurrena-Berasain, M.D.; Adegbeye, M.J.; Fajemisin, A.N.; Pliego, A.B.; Salem, A.Z. Effect of mid-term dietary administration of the Caesalpinia coriaria extract on the sustainable mitigation of equine fecal methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide production. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2022, 115, 104021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tagliapietra, F.; Cattani, M.; Bailoni, L.; Schiavon, S. In vitro rumen fermentation: Effect of headspace pressure on the gas production kinetics of corn meal and meadow hay. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2010, 158, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alvarado-Ramírez, E.R.; Maggiolino, A.; Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Rivas-Jacobo, M.A.; Ballesteros-Rodea, G.; Palo, P.D.; Salem, A.Z.M. Impact of co-ensiling of maize with Moringa oleifera on the production of greenhouse gases and the characteristics of fermentation in ruminants. Animals 2023, 13, 764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. SAS (Statistical Analysis System). User’s Guide: Statistics; Ver 9.0; SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  36. France, J.; Dijkstra, J.; Dhanoa, M.S.; Lopez, S.; Bannink, A. Estimating the extent of degradation of ruminant feeds from a description of their gas production profiles observed in vitro: Derivation of models and other mathematical considerations. Br. J. Nutr. 2000, 2, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Menke, K.H.; Raab, L.; Salewski, A.; Steingass, H.; Fritz, D.; Schneider, W. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J. Agric. Sci. 1979, 93, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Getachew, G.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Tropical browses: Contents of phenolic compounds, in vitro gas production and stoichiometric relationship between short chain fatty acid and in vitro gas production. J. Agric. Sci. 2002, 139, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Soltan, Y.; Morsy, A.; Hashem, N.; Elazab, M.; Sultan, M.; Marey, H.; Lail, G.A.E.; El-Desoky, N.; Hosny, N.; Mahdy, A.; et al. Modified nano-montmorillonite and monensin modulate in vitro ruminal fermentation, nutrient degradability, and methanogenesis differently. Animals 2021, 11, 3005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Owens, F.N.; Basalan, M. Ruminal Fermentation. In Rumenology; Millen, D., De Beni Arrigoni, M., Lauritano Pacheco, R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 63–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Faniyi, T.O.; Adewumi, M.K.; Jack, A.A.; Adegbeye, M.J.; Elghandour, M.M.Y.; Barbabosa-Pliego, A.; Salem, A.Z.M. Extracts of herbs and spices as feed additives mitigate ruminal methane production and improve fermentation characteristics in West African Dwarf sheep. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kholif, A.E.; Gouda, G.A.; Morsy, T.A.; Matloup, O.H.; Fahmy, M.; Gomaa, A.S.; Patra, A.K. Dietary date palm leaves ensiled with fibrolytic enzymes decreased methane production, and improved feed degradability and fermentation kinetics in a ruminal in vitro system. Waste Biomass Valorization 2022, 13, 3475–3488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Morsy, T.A.; Gouda, G.A.; Kholif, A.E. In vitro fermentation and production of methane and carbon dioxide from rations containing Moringa oleifera leave silage as a replacement of soybean meal: In vitro assessment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 69743–69752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Alvarado-Ramírez, E.R.; Andrade-Yucailla, V.; Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Acosta-Lozano, N.; Rivas-Jacobo, M.A.; López-Aguirre, D.; Garay-Martínez, J.R.; Vázquez-Mendoza, P.; Barros-Rodríguez, M.; Salem, A.Z.M. Effects of Guanidinoacetic Acid on Ruminal Fermentation and Greenhouse Gas Production Using Fresh Forage and Silage from Different Maize (Zea mays L.) Genotypes. Fermentation 2023, 9, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ren, G.D.; Hao, X.Y.; Zhang, X.Z.; Liu, S.; Zhang, H.X.; Tian, G.Y.; Zhang, J.X. Effects of Guanidinoacetic Acid and Betaine Supplementation on Growth Performance, Rumen Fermentation and Blood Metabolites in Lambs. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2023, 56, 766–778. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sucu, E. Effects of microalgae species on in vitro rumen fermentation pattern and methane production. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2020, 20, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Li, W.; Cui, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Aisikaer, A.; Wu, Q.; Zhang, F.; Wang, W.; Bo, Y.; Yang, H. Dietary Guanidine Acetic Acid Improves Ruminal Antioxidant Capacity and Alters Rumen Fermentation and Microflora in Rapid-Growing Lambs. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Liu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, C.; Guo, G.; Huo, W.; Xia, C.; Chen, L.; Zhang, Y.; Pei, C.; Liu, Q. Effects of guanidinoacetic acid supplementation on lactation performance, nutrient digestion and rumen fermentation in Holstein dairy cows. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 103, 1522–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, K.; Xiong, B.; Zhao, X. Could propionate formation be used to reduce enteric methane emission in ruminants? Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 855, 158867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Patra, A.; Park, T.; Kim, M.; Yu, Z. Rumen methanogens and mitigation of methane emission by anti-methanogenic compounds and substances. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 8, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Li, T.T.; Wang, J.L.; Zhang, N.Z.; Li, W.H.; Yan, H.B.; Li, L.; Jia, W.Z.; Fu, B.Q. Rapid and visual detection of Trichinella spp. Using a lateral flow strip-based recombinase polymerase amplification (LF-RPA) assay. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2019, 9, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Choudhury, P.K.; Jena, R.; Tomar, S.K.; Puniya, A.K. Reducing Enteric Methanogenesis through Alternate Hydrogen Sinks in the Rumen. Methane 2022, 1, 320–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mills, J.A.N.; Dijkstra, J.; Bannink, A.; Cammell, S.B.; Kebreab, E.; France, J.A. Mechanistic model of whole-tract digestion and methanogenesis in the lactating dairy cow: Model development, evaluation, and application. J. Anim. Sci. 2001, 79, 1584–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kholif, A.E.; Olafadehan, O.A. Essential oils and phytogenic feed additives in ruminant diet: Chemistry, ruminal microbiota and fermentation, feed utilization and productive performance. Phytochem. Rev. 2021, 20, 1087–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wu, H.; Li, Y.; Meng, Q.; Zhou, Z. Effect of high sulfur diet on rumen fermentation, microflora, and epithelial barrier function in steers. Animals 2021, 11, 2545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhao, Y.; Xie, B.; Gao, J.; Zhao, G. Dietary supplementation with sodium sulfate improves rumen fermentation, fiber digestibility, and the plasma metabolome through modulation of rumen bacterial communities in steers. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2020, 86, e01412-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Haarstad, K.; Bergersen, O.; Sørheim, R. Occurrence of carbon monoxide during organic waste degradation. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2006, 56, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ragsdale, S.W. Enzymology of the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway of acetogenesis. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2008, 1125, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Biester, A.; Marcano-Delgado, A.N.; Drennan, C.L. Structural Insights into Microbial One-Carbon Metabolic Enzymes Ni–Fe–S-Dependent Carbon Monoxide Dehydrogenases and Acetyl-CoA Synthases. Biochemistry 2022, 61, 2797–2805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Speer, H.F.; Pearl, K.A.; Titgemeyer, E.C. Relative bioavailability of guanidinoacetic acid delivered tilizati or abomasally to cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98, skaa282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Ragsdale, S.W. Life with carbon monoxide. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2004, 39, 165–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Techtmann, S.M.; Colman, A.S.; Robb, F.T. ‘That which does not kill us only makes us stronger’: The role of carbon monoxide in thermophilic microbial consortia. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 11, 1027–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Coleman, G.S. A sulfate-reducing bacterium from the sheep rumen. J. Gen. Microbiol. 1960, 22, 423–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Castro, D.J.; Cerón-Cucchi, M.E.; Ortiz-Chura, A.; Depetris, G.J.; Irazoqui, J.M.; Amadio, A.F.; Cantón, G.J. Ruminal effects of excessive dietary sulphur in feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 106, 978–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Smith, D.R.; DiLorenzo, N.; Leibovich, J.; May, M.L.; Quinn, M.J.; Homm, J.W.; Galyean, M.L. Effects of sulfur and monensin concentrations on in vitro dry matter disappearance, hydrogen sulfide production, and volatile fatty acid concentrations in batch culture ruminal fermentations. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 88, 1503–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Felix, T.L.; Murphy, T.A.; Loerch, S.C. Effects of dietary inclusion and NaOH treatment of dried distillers grains with solubles on ruminal metabolism of feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90, 4951–4961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wu, H.; Meng, Q.; Yu, Z. Effect of pH buffering capacity and sources of dietary sulfur on rumen fermentation, sulfide production, methane production, sulfate reducing bacteria, and total Archaea in vitro rumen cultures. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 186, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Fang, H.H.; Liu, H. Effect of pH on hydrogen production from glucose by a mixed culture. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 82, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Penner, G.B. Influence of microbial ecology in the rumen and lower gut on production efficiency of dairy cows. In Proceedings of the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference, Fort Wayne, IN, USA, 18–20 April 2016; pp. 75–81. [Google Scholar]
  70. Azar, M.S.; Doust-Nober, R.S.; Sis, N.M.; Shahryar, H.A.; Asadi, Y. Effects of Zataria multiflora extract as rumen modifier using in vitro gas production technique. Curr. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 2012, 4, 350–354. [Google Scholar]
  71. Shen, Z.; Seyfert, H.M.; Lohrke, B.; Schneider, F.; Zitnan, R.; Chudy, A. An energy rich diet causes rumen papillae proliferation associated with more IGF type1 receptors and increased plasma IGF-1 concentrations in young goats. J. Nutr. 2004, 134, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Krause, K.M.; Oetzel, G.R. Understanding and preventing sub-acute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2006, 126, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nemati, M.; Amanlou, H.; Khorvash, M.; Mirzaei, M.; Moshiri, B.; Ghaffari, M.H. Effect of different alfalfa hay levels on growth performance, rumen fermentation, and structural growth of Holstein dairy calves. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 1141–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Huo, W.; Wang, X.; Wei, Z.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, S.; Wang, C.; Chen, L.; Xu, Q.; Guo, G. Effect of lactic acid bacteria on the ensiling characteristics and in vitro ruminal fermentation parameters of alfalfa silage. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 20, 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Matthews, C.; Crispie, F.; Lewis, E.; Reid, M.; O’Toole, P.W.; Cotter, P.D. The rumen microbiome: A crucial consideration when tilizatio milk and meat production and nitrogen tilization efficiency. Gut. Microbes 2019, 10, 115–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cui, Y.; Liu, H.; Gao, Z.; Xu, J.; Liu, B.; Guo, M.; Shi, Y. Whole-plant corn silage improves rumen fermentation and growth performance of beef cattle by altering rumen microbiota. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 106, 4187–4198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Luo, Y.; Pfister, P.; Leisinger, T.; Wasserfallen, A. The genome of archaeal prophage ψM100 encodes the lytic enzyme responsible for autolysis of Methanothermobacter wolfeii. J. Bacteriol. 2001, 183, 5788–5792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 13 01719 g001a 550Animals 13 01719 g001b 550
Figure 1. Kinetics of in vitro ruminal production of total gas production (GP) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay (A) and doses (g g−1 DM diet) of guanidinoacetic acid (B).
Figure 1. Kinetics of in vitro ruminal production of total gas production (GP) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay (A) and doses (g g−1 DM diet) of guanidinoacetic acid (B).
Animals 13 01719 g001aAnimals 13 01719 g001b
Animals 13 01719 g002 550
Figure 2. Kinetics of in vitro ruminal production of methane (CH4) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay (A) and doses (g g−1 DM diet) of guanidinoacetic acid (B).
Figure 2. Kinetics of in vitro ruminal production of methane (CH4) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay (A) and doses (g g−1 DM diet) of guanidinoacetic acid (B).
Animals 13 01719 g002
Animals 13 01719 g003 550
Figure 3. Kinetics of in vitro ruminal production of carbon monoxide (CO) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay (A) and doses (g g−1 DM diet) of guanidinoacetic acid (B).
Figure 3. Kinetics of in vitro ruminal production of carbon monoxide (CO) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay (A) and doses (g g−1 DM diet) of guanidinoacetic acid (B).
Animals 13 01719 g003
Animals 13 01719 g004 550
Figure 4. Kinetics of in vitro ruminal production of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay (A) and doses (g g−1 DM diet) of guanidinoacetic acid (B).
Figure 4. Kinetics of in vitro ruminal production of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay (A) and doses (g g−1 DM diet) of guanidinoacetic acid (B).
Animals 13 01719 g004
Table
Table 1. Ingredients and chemical composition of the diets formulated with different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay.
Table 1. Ingredients and chemical composition of the diets formulated with different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay.
ItemAlfalfa Hay (%)
1025100
Ingredients
Alfalfa hay10.025.0100.0
Wheat meal18.018.0
Maize21.56.5
Wheat bran12.012.0
Gluten feed16.316.3
Soybean meal7.010.0
Soybean husk8.15.1
Molasses7.07.0
Vit/Min0.10.1
Chemical composition
Organic matter (g kg−1 DM)946.3942.9969.0
Crude protein (g kg−1 DM)130.9130.7155.0
Neutral detergent fiber (g kg−1 DM)320.7371.1535.5
Acid detergent fiber (g kg−1 DM)149.6194.3378.6
Ether extract (g kg−1 DM)200.5191.018.0
Table
Table 2. Parameters and in vitro ruminal total gas production (GP) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay and doses of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet after 4, 24 and 48 h of incubation.
Table 2. Parameters and in vitro ruminal total gas production (GP) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay and doses of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet after 4, 24 and 48 h of incubation.
Alfalfa
Hay (%)		Dose
of GAA
(g g−1 Diet)		Gas Production (GP)
Parameters 1mL GP g−1 DM IncubatedmL GP g−1 DM Degraded
bcLag4 h24 h48 h4 h24 h48 h
100.0000302.730.02401.7350.58144.61248.84101.16289.22497.68
0.0005306.070.02143.0850.30121.33241.49100.59242.66482.97
0.0010328.600.02443.8846.76138.26266.6093.52276.53533.19
0.0015319.920.03062.9847.86184.90297.9995.71369.82595.99
0.0020388.680.03225.0147.86201.41359.6095.71402.81719.20
0.0025339.430.03083.2650.26191.57316.38100.52383.14632.76
0.0030356.750.17724.7049.23192.15469.5398.46384.29939.06
SEM 232.1920.055720.7962.0009.85245.8024.00019.70491.605
Dose of GAA0.52920.44100.13870.75530.00020.04050.75540.00020.0405
Linear0.71150.93410.28550.35260.01180.46060.35200.01180.4605
Quadratic0.66800.96730.14080.33290.04550.90490.33330.04550.9049
250.0000415.830.29882.8835.75151.94494.3271.50303.87988.63
0.0005505.820.35123.1134.55146.88523.2969.10293.751046.58
0.0010522.180.26122.5339.14151.61521.6378.28303.211043.27
0.0015478.850.24085.0140.02155.97477.3980.04311.93954.78
0.0020427.050.17904.6537.34154.91422.2374.68309.81844.46
0.0025508.320.20922.7042.49158.41510.6584.98316.821021.30
0.0030492.480.28652.9434.97144.03513.2969.94288.051026.59
SEM 241.4810.074821.1232.4714.78947.5454.9429.58195.090
Dose of GAA0.46340.72870.59550.27800.39570.74980.27770.39590.7498
Linear0.30090.59220.20200.24220.56130.80490.24200.56160.8049
Quadratic0.16280.92660.32170.68500.69540.54880.68520.69550.5488
1000.0000399.650.34903.3230.4697.38418.2760.91194.76836.54
0.0005363.450.35363.3228.3791.70381.3956.74183.41762.77
0.0010333.150.32173.1530.6092.37349.0961.19184.75698.19
0.0015320.300.11507.2031.44100.32306.8762.89200.65613.74
0.0020390.330.35893.3028.9799.63407.1457.94199.26814.27
0.0025286.580.03348.0832.1594.44256.7264.30188.88513.43
0.0030255.530.03126.0633.4892.40228.4766.95184.79456.94
SEM 226.1280.037100.9861.1623.00827.8472.3246.01555.693
Dose of GAA0.0135<0.00010.00810.09130.26430.00130.09130.26410.0013
Linear0.04980.00050.01450.55900.50080.01340.55710.50050.0134
Quadratic0.41600.06840.10280.80830.10040.69870.80530.10040.6987
Pooled SEM 233.8610.057960.9771.9546.55941.3673.90813.11882.735
p-value
Alfalfa hay<0.0001<0.00010.0094<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Linear<0.0001<0.00010.8244<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Quadratic<0.00010.01450.0024<0.0001<0.00010.0008<0.0001<0.00010.0008
Dose of GAA0.84430.03430.02550.2804<0.00010.82970.2800<0.00010.8297
Linear0.99190.05090.00410.59990.00530.43900.59940.00530.4390
Quadratic0.36850.52790.34070.70940.01490.86080.70860.01490.8608
Alfalfa hay × dose of GAA0.03300.00190.02990.3258<0.00010.00100.3258<0.00010.0010
1 b is the asymptotic total gas production (mL GP g−1 DM); c is the rate of gas production (mL GP h−1); Lag is the initial delay before gas production begins (h). 2 SEM, standard error of the mean.
Table
Table 3. Parameters and in vitro ruminal production of methane (CH4) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay and doses of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet after 4, 24 and 48 h of incubation.
Table 3. Parameters and in vitro ruminal production of methane (CH4) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay and doses of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet after 4, 24 and 48 h of incubation.
Alfalfa
Hay (%)		Dose of
GAA
(g g−1 Diet)		CH4 Production
Parameters 1mL CH4 g−1 DM IncubatedmL CH4 100 mL−1 GP
bcLag4 h24 h48 h4 h24 h48 h
100.000087.130.136713.680.597.0287.441.174.8834.96
0.000590.830.168313.750.307.6491.470.586.2536.50
0.0010137.870.177913.940.5718.8387.671.2512.6332.87
0.0015207.470.142313.080.8042.98123.301.6723.2541.75
0.0020225.530.152113.260.7641.28142.301.5820.6339.96
0.0025200.070.152613.941.0025.32116.662.0013.3837.31
0.0030277.020.180314.181.0325.89148.102.0813.3833.17
SEM 234.0700.0150.3980.1119.75314.9250.2235.0844.457
Dose of GAA0.01030.33810.47600.00440.10720.04390.00410.17870.7559
Linear0.02560.79840.30200.21690.02070.11140.13470.02280.2998
Quadratic0.82440.05940.26860.37420.61370.34940.55100.82110.3325
250.0000233.500.181014.220.4213.45234.831.178.8847.88
0.0005193.180.205613.660.4912.45199.231.428.6337.38
0.0010189.730.232513.790.4415.27196.601.1710.0037.42
0.0015174.100.194813.690.4714.82176.881.179.5036.00
0.0020141.780.181313.780.3016.28142.660.8310.6333.63
0.0025171.000.188613.480.5617.52175.321.3311.1334.29
0.0030258.230.161913.670.4622.03260.501.2515.2550.75
SEM 226.1950.0230.1960.0772.19927.7080.1971.4952.920
Dose of GAA0.09650.51130.29200.44190.12440.13110.53380.09780.0042
Linear0.13110.68080.07340.65520.66630.16131.00000.77130.0122
Quadratic0.66770.14060.51180.98620.68070.78921.00000.66370.2269
1000.0000168.550.171914.120.108.04170.280.338.2540.42
0.0005149.450.163213.420.0012.68151.870.0013.7539.59
0.0010132.250.167013.900.009.78133.430.0010.3837.79
0.001580.450.192114.460.084.5480.640.254.5026.00
0.0020128.270.196514.010.095.48130.240.335.5031.84
0.002579.030.131712.980.0613.0479.650.1713.7530.25
0.003060.260.183313.930.007.8960.320.008.6326.21
SEM 219.6390.0130.2790.0453.08420.0290.1443.1584.129
Dose of GAA0.01130.04650.04060.43090.39380.01130.38090.30660.1050
Linear0.00680.28330.40300.72210.43530.00690.68930.41520.0270
Quadratic0.75210.35470.27650.12190.37050.75000.12120.31880.3803
Pooled SEM 227.2800.0180.3030.0836.04121.5380.1913.5623.892
p-value
Alfalfa hay<0.00010.00380.6843<0.00010.0001<0.0001<0.00010.08720.0128
Linear0.19110.00090.6823<0.00010.0153<0.00010.00760.13380.1601
Quadratic<0.00010.69980.4446<0.00010.00020.0002<0.00010.09950.0085
Dose of GAA0.27990.31490.32840.00270.12380.23590.03490.46950.3473
Linear0.68640.36580.28650.26170.02740.04010.37750.08770.0471
Quadratic0.78680.07720.98350.21920.90490.68010.26370.65720.5152
Alfalfa hay × dose of GAA<0.00010.19890.07480.00120.02740.00110.00210.04380.0121
1 b is the asymptotic CH4 production (mL CH4 g−1 DM); c is the rate of CH4 production (mL CH4 h−1); Lag is the initial delay before CH4 production begins (h). 2 SEM, standard error of the mean.
Table
Table 4. Parameters and in vitro ruminal production of carbon monoxide (CO) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay and doses of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet after 4, 24 and 48 h of fermentation.
Table 4. Parameters and in vitro ruminal production of carbon monoxide (CO) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay and doses of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet after 4, 24 and 48 h of fermentation.
Alfalfa
Hay (%)		Dose
of GAA
(g g−1 Diet)		CO Production
Parameters 1mL CO g−1 DM Incubated
bcLag4 h24 h48 h
100.00003.08670.06145.140.02940.65303.2352
0.00052.38670.00536.400.01320.49763.5657
0.00104.42670.04195.780.02120.78654.2513
0.00155.27670.07404.420.03330.99614.5540
0.00205.46000.13622.630.03491.08315.4524
0.00254.57670.11922.710.04150.93284.5694
0.00304.54000.15313.270.04371.14107.9702
SEM 20.680450.024971.3160.005570.168120.96506
Dose of GAA0.05740.00860.31290.01860.14140.0617
Linear0.03910.72590.70350.62550.17090.3503
Quadratic0.77310.41330.54440.15850.85590.7673
250.00007.74330.16203.400.01900.88157.8135
0.00058.68000.17443.440.02230.95328.8230
0.00108.22670.16953.280.02180.97098.3586
0.00157.13670.16063.540.02240.83667.1847
0.00206.18670.14322.920.02401.02886.2225
0.00258.21330.16483.390.02211.01968.2938
0.00307.54000.11965.160.02130.52147.2556
SEM 21.010420.024280.5340.003010.100471.09523
Dose of GAA0.67250.72210.16910.95170.03970.6872
Linear0.67760.96810.85570.44210.75670.6909
Quadratic0.53520.78840.78350.75960.37900.5320
1000.00005.82330.11754.960.00610.31595.6202
0.00055.89670.16983.520.00490.51695.9736
0.00106.43000.10984.750.00490.44805.0598
0.00154.42330.10164.490.00910.49453.9633
0.00206.36330.16973.650.00790.62576.4153
0.00254.56330.08544.480.00730.58943.7541
0.00305.52670.05175.460.00490.37023.1422
SEM 20.797480.042341.2750.001230.091100.65469
Dose of GAA0.45500.44570.92910.15370.24800.0227
Linear0.23490.79360.79820.10940.18740.0952
Quadratic0.20230.99620.98910.09590.70730.7431
Pooled SEM 20.840620.031651.1020.003720.124710.92367
p-value
Alfalfa hay<0.00010.00050.2818<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Linear<0.00010.00010.2109<0.00010.7950<0.0001
Quadratic0.32490.71900.3237<0.0001<0.00010.0020
Doses of GAA0.91530.68990.49680.00840.06170.8625
Linear0.92950.95160.69840.26680.12600.6713
Quadratic0.19690.79680.72120.14610.66200.4530
Alfalfa hay × dose of GAA0.10930.02870.56010.00770.04130.0109
1 b is the asymptotic CO production (ppm CO g−1 DM); c is the rate of CO production (ppm CO h−1); Lag is the initial delay before CO production begins (h). 2 SEM, standard error of the mean.
Table
Table 5. Parameters and in vitro ruminal production of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay and doses of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet after 4, 24 and 48 h of incubation.
Table 5. Parameters and in vitro ruminal production of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay and doses of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet after 4, 24 and 48 h of incubation.
Alfalfa
Hay (%)		Dose
of GAA
(g g−1 Diet)		H2S Production
Parameters 1mL H2S g−1 DM Incubated
bcLag4 h24 h48 h
100.00000.14430.00017.970.00160.01170.0490
0.00050.01860.00085.730.00060.00450.0278
0.00100.02870.00216.120.00040.00490.0266
0.00150.11540.03476.190.00020.00280.0196
0.00200.13490.00536.680.00020.00290.0260
0.00250.08590.00325.610.00020.00310.0200
0.00300.36130.00068.600.00030.00330.0347
SEM 20.102550.012781.1210.000090.001020.00591
Dose of GAA0.34280.48810.4326<0.00010.00020.0441
Linear0.84490.07610.2805<0.0001<0.00010.0034
Quadratic0.43410.34450.49600.00040.07440.3035
250.00000.01430.00056.050.00010.00220.0267
0.00050.03780.00026.970.00010.00220.0253
0.00100.02180.00023.970.00020.00270.0260
0.00150.02590.00036.830.00010.00220.0206
0.00200.08200.00036.010.00020.00280.0178
0.00250.01910.00045.060.00010.00280.0243
0.00300.03930.00124.510.00010.00180.0236
SEM 20.021060.000301.4280.000030.000380.00278
Dose of GAA0.36530.25160.69310.75830.43210.3162
Linear0.70270.64400.70630.45771.00000.1431
Quadratic0.94940.59410.17880.20710.27210.5134
1000.00000.01550.00015.980.00020.00160.0255
0.00050.01330.00066.580.00010.00170.0263
0.00100.00230.00037.350.00010.00180.0213
0.00150.44840.00077.510.00040.00240.0193
0.00200.02280.00017.570.00050.00410.0357
0.00250.14460.00226.650.00040.00410.0403
0.00300.04030.00018.990.00030.00290.0568
SEM 20.170540.000611.3130.000090.000660.00654
Dose of GAA0.52170.23550.76600.05360.07140.0141
Linear0.09430.54330.42380.13830.40890.5116
Quadratic0.29020.85990.71390.24630.77850.8976
Pooled SEM 20.115530.007391.2940.000080.000730.00534
p-value
Alfalfa hay0.31720.20860.0724<0.0001<0.00010.0136
Linear0.14080.12180.1291<0.0001<0.00010.0560
Quadratic0.74500.38780.08110.37920.01100.0217
Doses of GAA0.46990.46710.7369<0.00010.00120.0034
Linear0.14950.06020.8688<0.0001<0.00010.0026
Quadratic0.18650.32390.30770.00070.18520.5690
Alfalfa hay × dose of GAA0.45310.50140.6710<0.0001<0.00010.0032
1 b is the asymptotic H2S production (ppm H2S g−1 DM); c is the rate of H2S production (ppm H2S h−1); Lag is the initial delay before H2S production begins (h). 2 SEM, standard error of the mean.
Table
Table 6. In vitro rumen fermentation profile and CH4 conversion efficiency in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay and doses of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet.
Table 6. In vitro rumen fermentation profile and CH4 conversion efficiency in response to different percentages of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay and doses of guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in the diet.
Alfalfa Hay (%)Dose of GAA
(g g−1 Diet)		In Vitro Rumen Fermentation Profile 1CH4 Conversion Efficiency 2
pHDMDSCFAMECH4:SCFACH4:MECH4:OM
100.00006.9875.586.407.2063.839.0415.16
0.00056.8978.125.366.6781.8810.6116.51
0.00106.8779.776.127.06165.3023.7314.02
0.00156.8382.218.198.13304.1849.2113.53
0.00206.8784.278.928.50269.7945.2913.87
0.00256.8384.228.488.28174.9828.6324.71
0.00307.0385.358.518.29174.9728.9255.95
SEM 30.0551.4550.4370.22566.50810.9244.750
Dose of GAA0.15410.00230.00020.00020.17900.13430.0002
Linear0.07470.00620.01170.01160.02290.02100.8118
Quadratic0.57890.63170.04540.04540.82170.69310.9562
250.00007.5268.434.306.53108.1911.4517.38
0.00057.5068.254.056.40180.3718.3927.40
0.00107.5360.234.086.41136.0814.0821.14
0.00157.4670.514.436.5959.006.389.80
0.00207.4571.254.406.5872.127.7511.84
0.00257.5569.394.176.46180.3418.7428.18
0.00307.6465.484.086.42113.1411.4717.04
SEM 30.0141.5820.2140.10919.5802.7994.750
Dose of GAA0.06210.28940.40310.40820.09780.11080.1239
Linear0.33980.63460.56810.56990.77230.71470.6655
Quadratic0.70940.59870.69430.70550.6640.67080.6796
1000.00007.2181.526.737.37116.1816.9929.07
0.00057.2280.576.507.26112.9216.0726.91
0.00107.2279.936.717.37130.9119.2133.00
0.00157.2380.436.907.46124.3518.4632.03
0.00207.2285.236.867.44139.0820.4535.19
0.00257.2680.037.017.52145.6221.7237.85
0.00307.2780.566.377.19199.6728.4247.62
SEM 30.0313.2140.1330.06841.4134.3876.663
Dose of GAA0.01420.29240.26150.26330.30590.36290.3933
Linear0.19600.65470.50100.52350.41510.42780.4350
Quadratic0.31360.03400.09870.09860.31830.35230.3703
Pooled SEM 30.0377.2320.2910.14946.6256.9865.462
p-value
Alfalfa hay<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.00010.08920.0009<0.0001
Linear<0.00010.8821<0.0001<0.00010.13450.0447<0.0001
Quadratic<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.00010.10200.00100.0007
Dose of GAA0.00110.0151<0.0001<0.00010.47090.21840.0002
Linear0.04470.17090.00530.00540.08820.03840.6436
Quadratic0.91700.05330.01490.01510.65570.93230.4082
Alfalfa hay × dose of GAA0.23970.1320<0.0001<0.00010.04380.03590.0086
1 pH is ruminal pH; DMD is dry matter degradability (%); SCFA is short-chain fatty acids (mmol g−1 DM) after 24 h of incubation; ME is the metabolizable energy (MJ kg−1 DM) after 24 h of incubation; 2 CH4:SCFA is the methane:short-chain fatty acid ratio (mmol mmol−1) after 24 h of incubation; CH4:ME is the methane:metabolizable energy ratio (g MJ−1) after 24 h of incubation; CH4:OM is the methane:organic matter ratio (mL g−1). 3 SEM, standard error of the mean.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vazquez-Mendoza, O.V.; Andrade-Yucailla, V.; Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Masaquiza-Moposita, D.A.; Cayetano-De-Jesús, J.A.; Alvarado-Ramírez, E.R.; Adegbeye, M.J.; Barros-Rodríguez, M.; Salem, A.Z.M. Effect of Dietary Guanidinoacetic Acid Levels on the Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production and the Rumen Fermentation Profile of Alfalfa-Based Diets. Animals 2023, 13, 1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13111719

AMA Style

Vazquez-Mendoza OV, Andrade-Yucailla V, Elghandour MMMY, Masaquiza-Moposita DA, Cayetano-De-Jesús JA, Alvarado-Ramírez ER, Adegbeye MJ, Barros-Rodríguez M, Salem AZM. Effect of Dietary Guanidinoacetic Acid Levels on the Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production and the Rumen Fermentation Profile of Alfalfa-Based Diets. Animals. 2023; 13(11):1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13111719

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vazquez-Mendoza, Oscar Vicente, Veronica Andrade-Yucailla, Mona Mohamed Mohamed Yasseen Elghandour, Diego Armando Masaquiza-Moposita, Jorge Adalberto Cayetano-De-Jesús, Edwin Rafael Alvarado-Ramírez, Moyosore Joseph Adegbeye, Marcos Barros-Rodríguez, and Abdelfattah Zeidan Mohamed Salem. 2023. "Effect of Dietary Guanidinoacetic Acid Levels on the Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production and the Rumen Fermentation Profile of Alfalfa-Based Diets" Animals 13, no. 11: 1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13111719

APA Style

Vazquez-Mendoza, O. V., Andrade-Yucailla, V., Elghandour, M. M. M. Y., Masaquiza-Moposita, D. A., Cayetano-De-Jesús, J. A., Alvarado-Ramírez, E. R., Adegbeye, M. J., Barros-Rodríguez, M., & Salem, A. Z. M. (2023). Effect of Dietary Guanidinoacetic Acid Levels on the Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Production and the Rumen Fermentation Profile of Alfalfa-Based Diets. Animals, 13(11), 1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13111719

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop