Next Article in Journal
Individual and Geographic Variation in Non-Harmonic Phases of Male Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) Song
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Processing Methods and Inclusion Levels of Dried Garlic on In Vitro Fermentation and Methane Production in a Corn Silage-Based Substrate
Previous Article in Journal
Dry Matter Intake Prediction from Milk Spectra in Sarda Dairy Sheep
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of a Model (RUMINANT) for Prediction of DMI and CH4 from Tropical Beef Cattle
 
 
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 4
10.3390/ani13040764
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

Impact of Co-Ensiling of Maize with Moringa oleifera on the Production of Greenhouse Gases and the Characteristics of Fermentation in Ruminants

by
Edwin Rafael Alvarado-Ramírez
1,
Aristide Maggiolino
2,*,
Mona M. M. Y. Elghandour
3,
Marco Antonio Rivas-Jacobo
1,
Gilberto Ballesteros-Rodea
1,
Pasquale De Palo
2 and
Abdelfattah Z. M. Salem
3,*
1
Faculty of Agronomy and Veterinary, Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí, 78321 San Luis Potosí, Mexico
2
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bari A. Moro, 70010 Bari, Italy
3
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, Autonomous University of the State of Mexico, 50000 Toluca, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(4), 764; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040764
Submission received: 17 January 2023 / Revised: 14 February 2023 / Accepted: 16 February 2023 / Published: 20 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nutritional Strategies to Control Enteric Methane Production of Ruminants)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The mixture of maize (Zea mays L.) with Moringa oleifera (MOL) during silage can improve the nutritional quality of the silage, but the impact of the proportion of both forages on fermentation and rumen production of greenhouse gases has not been assessed and evaluated. Therefore, the objective of this experiment was to evaluate the impact of maize co-ensiling with increasing percentages of MOL forage on the kinetics of biogas, methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) production, as well as the characteristics of ruminal fermentation and CH4 conversion efficiency, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources. The results indicated that the co-silage of maize with MOL improved the degradability with both sources of inoculum, and that regardless of the percentage of MOL, the steer inoculum presented the highest values in the biogas production, CH4, H2S, degradability of dry matter, short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), and metabolizable energy (ME), as well as the lowest pH and highest CH4 conversion efficiency, in terms of CH4 produced per unit of SCFA, ME, and organic matter.

Abstract

The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the impact of maize co-ensiling with increasing percentages of MOL forage on the kinetics of biogas, methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) production, as well as the characteristics of ruminal fermentation and CH4 conversion efficiency, using steers (STI) and sheep (SHI) as inoculum sources. With the STI, the inclusion of MOL reduced (linear: p ≤ 0.0199; quadratic: p ≤ 0.0267) biogas production (mL g−1 DM incubated and degraded), CH4 (mL g−1 DM degraded), CO (mL g−1 DM degraded), and H2S (mL g−1 DM incubated and degraded), without affecting (p > 0.05) the parameters (b = asymptotic gas, c = rate of gas production and Lag = initial delay time before gas production) of CH4 and H2S, and the proportion and production of CH4 per kg of dry matter (DM). In addition, with this inoculum, pH, and dry matter degradation (DMD) increased (linear: p ≤ 0.0060), and although short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) and metabolizable energy (ME) decreased (linear: p < 0.0001; quadratic: p ≤ 0.0015), this did not affect (p > 0.05) the CH4 conversion efficiency. Meanwhile, with the SHI, the inclusion of MOL only decreased (linear: p ≤ 0.0206; quadratic: p ≤ 0.0003) biogas per dry matter (DM) degraded and increased (linear: p ≤ 0.0293; quadratic: p ≤ 0.0325) biogas per DM incubated, as well as the production (mL g−1 DM incubated and degraded and g−1 kg DM) and proportion of CH4, and CO per DM incubated and degraded. In addition, it did not impact (p > 0.05) on the CH4 and H2S parameters, and in the H2S by DM incubated and degraded, and although it increased (linear: p ≤ 0.0292; quadratic: p ≤ 0.0325) the DMD, SCFA, and ME, it was inefficient (quadratic: p ≤ 0.0041) in CH4 conversion. It is concluded that regardless of the percentage of MOL, the STI presented the highest values in the production of biogas, CH4, H2S, DMD, SCFA, and ME, and the lowest pH, so it turned out to be the most efficient in CH4 conversion, while with the SHI only the highest production of CO and pH was obtained, and the lowest DMD, SCFA, and ME, so it was less efficient compared to STI.

1. Introduction

Livestock is an activity that contributes significantly to climate change [1], especially ruminant cattle due to the emission of enteric biogas into the environment, since it is mainly made up of carbon dioxide (CO2; 45–70%), methane (CH4; 20–30%), and in smaller quantity by oxygen (O2), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), among other gases [2]. Of these gases, CH4 and CO2, when released into the atmosphere, exert a greenhouse effect, thus favoring the increase in global warming [3], and although their production is inevitable since they result from ruminal fermentation of the feed [4,5], high amounts reflect poor digestibility and a loss of metabolizable energy [6,7]. Therefore, to reduce these gases, maize silage (Zea mays L.) has been proposed as a strategy, since its high starch content increases the production of propionate, and this reduces the availability of H2 for the formation of CH4 [8].
As feed for ruminant livestock, maize silage has the ability to provide forage that is high in energy, starch, and fiber, but deficient in protein due to its low content [9,10]. Given this situation, the inclusion of forage of protein-rich species, such as legumes and some non-legumes, has been proposed as an option to obtain quality silage [11,12,13]. In this sense, Moringa oleifera (MOL) is a non-leguminous tree species native to northeastern India that is used as a low-cost feed source in livestock, since it has adapted to various agroclimatic conditions and has high nutritional value [14,15,16,17]. Therefore, it can be used to improve the quality of maize silage. It has been reported that MOL presents minerals (Ca, Fe, Zn, Mg, Mn, and Cu), high percentage of protein (30%), and digestibility (79%) [18,19,20], as well as 10 essential amino acids in animal nutrition and some secondary metabolites [21,22,23]. In the case of metabolites, it has been reported that they are capable of mitigating rumen production of greenhouse gases [24,25,26] and improving productivity [27,28,29] and animal health [30].
The chemical composition of silages can influence the rumen microbial community, and this in turn compromises the potential of maize to mitigate the production of greenhouse gases [8], so it is necessary to evaluate how it affects the percentage of each forage in silage on rumen fermentation and greenhouse gas production. The in vitro gas production technique [31] has been very useful in this type of evaluations due to its practicality and similarity with in vivo evaluations [32,33,34], in addition to the fact that a greater number of feeds can be evaluated and that it allows for the estimation of short-chain fatty acids, metabolic energy, and apparent degradability of the feed [35,36]. However, it has been reported that there are variations in fermentability patterns and in some fermentation characteristics between and within animal species, so the inoculum source turns out to be a crucial factor to consider [37,38]. Based on the above, the objective of this experiment was to evaluate the impact of co-ensiling of maize with increasing percentages of MOL forage on the kinetics of biogas, methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), as well as in the characteristics of rumen fermentation and CH4 conversion efficiency, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Production of Forage

The forage was produced in the town of San Francisco, municipality of Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico (23°52′55″ N and 99°13′07″ W), at an altitude of 261 masl. The climate of the site, according to the Köppen classification, is of the Aw1 type, which corresponds to warm sub-humid with summer rains [39]. A native maize genotype from the State of Tamaulipas, locally known as “Olotillo” was used, and it established in August 2021, at a density of 62,500 plants ha−1 (0.80 × 0.20 m, distance between row and plant). The Moringa oleifera (MOL) forage was obtained from a 6-year-old plantation and established at a density of 40,000 plants ha−1 (0.50 × 0.50 m, distance between row and plant). The harvest was carried out manually in November 2021, when the maize grain reached the milky-dough state and MOL had 45 days of regrowth, and the cutting height was 10 and 25 cm above ground level, respectively. During the growth and development of the crops, fertilizers were not applied, and the weeds were controlled manually.

2.2. Elaboration of Micro-Silages

The forage of both crops was mechanically crushed separately until a particle size of 2 ± 1 cm was achieved, and three samples (300 g) were obtained from each one for the analysis of the chemical composition. The mixtures were made separately in the proportions of 10:0, 8:2, 6:4, 4:6, 2:8, and 0:10, corresponding to the inclusion of 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80), and 100 (M100)% of MOL forage in co-ensiling with whole-plants maize. Hence, 5 kg of each mixture were taken, ensiled in triplicate in black polyethylene bags (30 cm in diameter × 50 cm in height, caliber 500), and sealed under vacuum. They were stored for 120 days at room temperature in an area free from direct solar radiation and moisture, and when they were opened, three samples (300 g) were obtained for the determination of the chemical composition and in vitro evaluation.

2.3. Chemical Composition

At the time of obtaining the samples, the fresh and ensiled forage underwent a dehydration process in a forced-air circulation oven at 60 °C for 72 h and was crushed in a hammer mill (Thomas Wiley® Laboratory Mill model 4, Thomas Scientific™, Swedesboro, NJ, USA) with a 1-mm sieve for the determination of dry matter (DM) and chemical analysis. Organic matter (OM) was estimated by determining the percentage of ash using the method described by Maggiolino et al. [40], the crude protein (CP) multiplying the nitrogen content by 6.25 [41], and the ether extract (EE) following Padmore’s methodology [42]. The hemicellulose and cellulose were calculated by estimating the percentages of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) with the methodology described by Van Soest et al. [43] in the ANKOM200 fiber analyzer (ANKOM Technology Corp., Macedonia, NY, USA), as well as with the percentage of acid detergent lignin (ADL) calculated following the methodology proposed by Faichney and White [44]. The non-structural (NSC) and total (TC) carbohydrates were calculated according to the equations of Mertens [45] and Sniffen et al. [46] as follows:
NSC = 100 − (CP + NDF + EE + Ash)
TC = 100 − (CP + EE + Ash)
All estimations and calculations were made as a percentage of DM, and additionally, when opening the silages, the pH was determined using a potentiometer with a glass electrode (pH wireless electrode HALO® model HI11102, Hanna® Instruments, Villafranca, Padua, Italy) [47].

2.4. In Vitro Incubation

The incubation was carried out in glass vials with a capacity of 160 mL, and in each one 500 mg of dehydrated silage, 40 mL of nutritive solution and 10 mL of rumen liquid were placed, either from steers or sheep, as appropriate. The nutrient solution was prepared following the methodology of Goering and Van Soest [48], and the rumen fluid was obtained from the rumen content of four male steers (450 ± 25 kg LW) and four sheep (45 ± 5 kg LW) that were fed ad libitum with commercial concentrate (Purina®, Toluca, State of Mexico, Mexico), and with a constant supply of fresh water. These animals were sacrificed in the municipal slaughterhouse of Toluca, State of Mexico, Mexico, so the rumen content of the four animals per species was transferred separately in a hermetic thermos to the laboratory, as described by De Bellis et al. [49], where it was filtered with four layers of gauze for extraction of the ruminal liquid, and later it was mixed to generate a single sample of each species. The vials were sealed with butyl rubber stoppers and aluminum seals and incubated in an incubator at 39 °C for 48 h, but not without shaking them slightly. In total, three incubation cycles were carried out, and in each one each silage (treatment) was incubated in triplicate, in addition to three blanks (without substrate) per inoculum for the correction of the readings.

2.5. Ruminal Total Biogas, Methane (CH4), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)

The biogas volume was measured in PSI (pounds per square inch) at 2, 4, 6, 24, 28, 30, and 48 h of incubation, following the methodology of Theodorou et al. [50] and using a digital manometer with an accuracy of ±2% (Manometer model 407910, Extech® Instruments, Nashue, NH, USA). The CH4, CO, and H2S were also quantified by the methodology proposed by Acosta et al. [49], which consists of extracting the gas from the vials with a sterile plastic syringe (BD Plastipak™, 5 mL 21 G × 32 mm) and injecting it into a portable gas detector (Dräger X-am®, model 2500, Dräger, Lübeck, SH, Germany) by means of an external pump (Dräger X-am®, Dräger, Lübeck, SH, Germany). At the end of each measurement, the gas accumulated in the upper part of the vials was released with a syringe without a plunger, to avoid a greater accumulation of gas and the partial dissolution of the gases evaluated [51].

2.6. Ruminal Hydrogen Potential (pH) and Dry Matter Degradability (DMD)

At the end of the incubation time, the contents of the vials were filtered using bags with 25-µm porosity (Filter bags F57, ANKOM Technology Corp., Macedon, NY, USA), the liquid was collected in beakers of glass, and pH was immediately measured using a glass electrode potentiometer (Hanna® Instruments model HALO® HI11102). The residues of the samples adhering to the walls of the vials were extracted by rinsing them with distilled water and collected with the bags used in the initial filtration. Once all the residues had been collected, the bags were washed with abundant tap water and subjected to a drying process at 60 °C for 72 h. From the initial weight and the residue of the sample, the apparent DMD (%) was estimated as follows:
DMD = [(SIW − SRW) / SIW] × 100
where:
SIW = sample initial weight (mg)
SRW = sample residue weight (mg)
100 = conversion factor to percentage

2.7. Calculations

The kinetics of production of biogas, CH4, CO, and H2S were estimated by adjusting the volume of the gases with the NLIN procedure of SAS [52], according to the model proposed by France et al. [53]:
y = b × [1 − e−c (t − Lag)]
where:
y = volume (mL) of biogas, CH4, CO and H2S at time t (h).
b = asymptotic biogas, CH4, CO and H2S production (mL g−1 DM).
c = rate biogas, CH4, CO and H2S production (gas h−1).
Lag = initial delay time before biogas, CH4, CO and H2S production begins (h).
Metabolic energy (ME; MJ kg−1 DM) was estimated according to the equation proposed by Menke et al. [54]:
ME = 2.20 + (0.136 × PBG) + (0.057 × CP)
where:
PBG = net biogas production (mL 200 mg−1 DM) at 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. [55]:
SCFA = (0.0222 × PBG) − 0.00425
where
PBG = net biogas production (mL 200 mg−1 DM) at 24 h of incubation.
Additionally, the ratio between CH4 and the SCFA (CH4:SCFA; mmol mmol−1), ME (CH4:ME; g MJ−1) and OM (CH4:OM; mL g−1) was calculated.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

Before analysis, the three replicates of each treatment per incubation cycle were averaged, and the average obtained was considered as the experimental unit (EU) of each treatment. The experimental design was completely randomized with a 2 × 6 bifactorial arrangement, where factor A corresponded to the sources of rumen inoculum and factor B to the percentages of MOL, with three repetitions per treatment, which in this case corresponded to the EU. The analysis was performed with the GLM procedure of the SAS program [52], 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 inoculum source ruminal, Bj is the effect of the percentage of inclusion of MOL forage, (A × B)ij the effect of the interaction between the inoculum source ruminal and the percentage of inclusion of MOL forage, and εijk the experimental error. Linear and quadratic effects of percentage of MOL forage were determined using orthogonal polynomial contrasts. In the comparison of means with significance, the Tukey test was applied (α = 0.05).

3. Results

Table 1 shows the chemical composition of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize with different percentages of Moringa oleifera forage (MOL). The inclusion of MOL increased the percentage of CP, EE, LIG, and NSC, but decreased OM, HEM, and CEL, in addition to slight variations in TC.

3.1. Ruminal Biogas Production

Figure 1 shows the impact of the ruminal inoculum source and the percentage of MOL forage in the co-ensiling with maize on the kinetics of biogas production. The steers inoculum (STI) presented the lowest (p < 0.0001) delay in biogas production and the highest (p < 0.0001) rate and production of asymptotic biogas, which was reflected in a high (p < 0.0001) production of biogas by dry matter (DM) incubated and degraded, while the sheep inoculum (SHI) showed a completely opposite response. The inclusion of MOL decreased (p < 0.0001) the time in the lag phase at all levels, and at the M20 and M40 percentages it also reduced (p = 0.0171) the asymptotic biogas production. In addition, biogas production by DM incubated in M20 and M40 decreased (p = 0.0399), while in biogas by DM degraded this effect was observed (p ≤ 0.0235) in all silages with MOL. In the interaction, the inclusion of MOL did not affect the biogas production parameters with the STI, while with the SHI it only increased (p < 0.0001) the asymptotic biogas production. In the STI, it reduced (p = 0.0475) biogas production per DM incubated and degraded during the entire incubation period, except at 48 h per DM incubated. Contrary to this, with the SHI increased (p = 0.0475), biogas production by DM incubated at 24 and 48 h, as well as at 48 h by DM degraded, even though at 6 and 24 h it decreased (p< 0.0001; Table 2).

3.2. Ruminal Methane (CH4) Production

Figure 2 shows the impact of the rumen inoculum source and the percentage of MOL forage in the co-ensiling with maize on the kinetics of CH4 production. With STI reduced (p < 0.0001) time in lag phase and CH4 production rate and had the highest (p < 0.0001) asymptotic CH4 production compared to SHI. In the production of CH4, the STI increased (p = 0.0189) the production by DM incubated and degraded but without effect (p = 0.1585) at 24 h in the CH4 by DM incubated and a reduction (p = 0.0044) in the CH4 by DM degraded. The inclusion of MOL influenced (p ≤ 0.0259) at 24 and 48 h in the CH4 production by DM incubated, and at 6 and 24 h in the CH4 by DM degraded, and it was obtained that the silages with MOL produced more CH4 by DM incubated and degraded, except at 6 h due to DM degraded, since it decreased (p = 0.0259). In the interaction, it was found that the inclusion of MOL did not affect (p > 0.05) the parameters of CH4 production in both inoculums, and that it reduced (p = 0.0002) CH4 by DM degraded at 6 h with the STI, while that with the SHI the CH4 increased (p ≤ 0.0157) by DM incubated at 24 and 48 h, and by DM degraded at 6 h it decreased (p = 0.0002) and at 24 h it increased (p = 0.0307; Table 3).
In the proportion of CH4, it was observed that at 6 h it was lower (p < 0.0001) with the SHI and at 24 h with the STI, while in the CH4 per kg DM the lowest production (p ≤ 0.0006) was presented with the SHI at 6 and 48 h. In addition, with the inclusion of MOL, the proportion and production of CH4 per kg of DM increased (p ≤ 0.0120) at 24 and 48 h, and the interaction showed that this effect only occurs with SHI, which increased (p ≤ 0.0157) the ratio and CH4 per kg DM throughout the incubation by increasing the percentage of MOL, with no effect at 6 h on the CH4 ratio (Table 4).

3.3. Ruminal Carbon Monoxide (CO) Production

Figure 3 shows the impact of the rumen inoculum source and the percentage of MOL forage in the co-ensiling with maize on the kinetics of CO production. The STI presented the lowest values (p ≤ 0.0192) in the parameters and the production of CO by DM incubated and degraded throughout the incubation, while the SHI the highest. Excluding M40 and M60, all MOL inclusion percentages increased (p = 0.0094) asymptotic CO production, and at 48 h, all silages with MOL produced more (p ≤ 0.0006) CO per DM incubated and degraded, although in both cases there were slight variations (p ≤ 0.0331) at 6 and 24 h of incubation. In the interaction, it was found that the inclusion of MOL did not affect (p > 0.05) the parameters of CO production with the STI, but it did increase (p < 0.0001) the CO per DM incubated at 6 and 24 h and decreased (p ≤ 0.0051) CO per DM degraded throughout the incubation. In addition, with the SHI, the inclusion of MOL increased (p = 0.0094) the production of asymptotic CO and the production of CO by DM incubated and degraded (p ≤ 0.0051; Table 5).

3.4. Ruminal Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Production

Figure 4 shows the impact of the rumen inoculum source and the MOL forage percentage in co-ensiling with maize on the kinetics of H2S production. With the STI, the production of asymptotic H2S increased (p < 0.0001), the time in the lag phase decreased (p < 0.0001), and the production of H2S by DM incubated and degraded was greater (p < 0.0001), although at 48 h decreased (p < 0.0001) the amount of H2S per DM degraded, while with SHI the response was the opposite. The silages with MOL increased (p ≤ 0.0157) the production of H2S by DM incubated at 6 and 48 h, and at 6 and 24 h by DM degraded, except the M20 and M40 levels that produced less (p ≤ 0.0157) H2S in all incubations. However, the interaction showed that, with the STI and the inclusion of MOL, the production of H2S by DM incubated and degraded was reduced (p ≤ 0.0237) during the entire incubation, except at 24 h for incubated MS (p > 0.05). Contrary to this, with the SHI, the production of H2S only decreased (p ≤ 0.0015) at 6 h and increased (p ≤ 0.0046) the remaining incubation both due to DM incubated and degraded (Table 6).

3.5. Ruminal Fermentation Characteristics and CH4 Conversion Efficiency

STI increased (p < 0.0001) dry matter degraded (DMD), short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), and metabolizable energy (ME) but decreased (p < 0.0001) pH and CH4 production per unit SCFA and ME, so it turned out to be more efficient. The inclusion of MOL gradually increased (p = 0.0063) the DMD, and in the case of the M80 and M100 percentages, the SCFA and ME also increased (p ≤ 0.0064). Despite this, the silages with MOL were not very efficient due to their high (p ≤ 0.0006) CH4 production per unit of SCFA, ME, and OM. In the interaction it was observed that, with STI, the inclusion of MOL increased (p ≤ 0.0237) the pH and the DMD, and decreased the SCFA (p = 0.0001) and ME (p = 0.0128), without affecting (p > 0.05) the production of CH4 per unit of AGCC, ME, and OM. Meanwhile, with SHI increased DMD (p = 0.0127), SCFA (p = 0.0001), and ME (p = 0.0128), as well as CH4 production (p ≤ 0.0023) per unit of SCFA, ME, and OM, which led to inefficiency in CH4 conversion (Table 7).

4. Discussion

4.1. Ruminal Biogas Production

Although it has been reported that the food ingested by the donor animals before the collection of the rumen fluid influences the microbiota of the inoculum [56], in the present study, it was observed that the fermentation patterns were similar during incubation between the steers (STI) and sheep (SHI) inoculum, and when comparing the biogas production of both inoculums, the highest production was obtained with the STI. In this regard, it has been reported that, in ruminants (sheep, goats, cattle, and buffalo), it is possible that the microbial metabolic pathways may be qualitatively similar but quantitatively different between species [36,57], and that this is due to variations in the diversity and microbial load of each ruminant [58]. Likewise, during the ruminal digestion of the feed, the microorganisms first break down and ferment the carbohydrates, and as a product of this fermentation they release short-chain fatty acids, mainly acetate, propionate, and butyrate, in addition to biogas [59]. On the other hand, the percentages of inclusion of Moringa oleifera (MOL) showed a similar fermentation pattern with slight variations in the amount of biogas, which is presumably due to the observed balance between cellulose and hemicellulose, since it has been reported that hemicellulose increases biogas production, while cellulose decreases it, and in this evaluation said relationship was maintained between 0.9778 and 1.1768 (Table 1). In addition, although the inclusion of MOL increased the percentage of protein and ethereal extract, the gas produced by the fermentation of these nutrients is lower compared to carbohydrates [60]. Therefore, the contribution of gas to the total production is low and not may be the cause of this effect. On the other side, the rumen inoculum source influenced the effect of MOL inclusion on biogas production, which is why it differed between inoculums. With the STI, the inclusion of MOL decreased the production of biogas and with the SHI it increased it, except at 6 and 24 h due to DM degraded. This indicates that the SHI possibly presented low microbial activity, since although the inclusion of MOL decreased the time in the lag phase, it continued to be longer compared to the STI, and this reduced the fermentation time (Table 1).

4.2. Ruminal Methane (CH4) Production

With the STI, CH4 production was higher compared to the SHI, and this can be attributed to a higher population of methanogen microbes in the STI. These microorganisms use the hydrogen (H2) produced from carbon monoxide (CO) to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) to CH4 [61], a process known as methanogenesis, which represents the main metabolic route used as a sink source of H2 in the rumen [4]. In addition, the CO production obtained with the sheep inoculum supports the assumption that the ruminal methanogenic population influenced CH4 production, since although it had a high CO production with the SHI (which translates into a higher availability of CO2 and H2), the production of CH4 was low compared to that obtained with the bovine inoculum. In the silages, the inclusion of MOL gradually reduced the proportion of maize and hemicellulose and increased CH4 production, despite the positive correlation between hemicellulose and CH4 production. It is believed that this inverse effect may be related to the concentration of water-soluble carbohydrates in maize plants, especially starch, since it generates an unfavorable environment (lower pH and acetate:propionate ratio) for methanogens and protozoa, which suppresses their growth and consequently reduces CH4 production [62,63]. In addition, it is not ruled out that in some silages the production of H2S could have caused a competition for H2 between sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) and methanogens [64], since H2S provides an alternative pathway sink of H2 and consequently reduces methanogenesis [65].

4.3. Ruminal Carbon Monoxide (CO) Production

CO is a gas that is produced during the degradation of organic matter (OM) by the ruminal microbiota [66]. Therefore, its production is attributed to microbial activity and the fermentative capacity of microorganisms and rumens of each inoculum. In addition to the above, it is important to mention that CO is oxidized in contact with water (H2O) to form CO2 and H2, which are used by methanogens for the formation of CH4 [67]. Therefore, it is believed that the low production of CO with STI is a consequence of rapid oxidation and the formation of other gases, which was reflected in a higher production of CH4 and H2S compared to SHI. As already mentioned above, CO is produced during OM degradation, but it was observed that the inclusion of MOL gradually reduced OM and increased CO production, so it can be assumed that production is more influenced by the type and concentration of OM phytoconstituents than by the amount of OM. In this regard, it has been reported that CH4 is a natural source of CO [68], for which the statement is consistent if it is considered that the production of CH4 depends on the chemical composition of the forage, especially the quality of the fiber.

4.4. Ruminal Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Production

H2S is a component of biogas, and its production in the rumen can cause toxicity in animals and even metabolic alterations that lead to diseases [69]. H2S is produced during ruminal feed fermentation by SRB that reduce sulfur (S) to H2S [59], so the discrepancy in H2S production between ruminal inoculum sources is considered to be the result of a high population of SRB in the bovine inoculum, since the same silages were evaluated in both inoculums. On the other hand, the variations between the silages are attributed to the chemical composition, especially to the concentrations that they could have of S, and although it is part of the methionine and cysteine, amino acids necessary for protein synthesis, the excess (>3 g S kg−1 DM) of this mineral leads to a higher concentration of H2S in the rumen [70], and being rapidly absorbed causes animals to be sensitive to the toxicity of this gas [65].

4.5. Ruminal Fermentation Characteristics and CH4 Conversion Efficiency

The differences in the characteristics of fermentation and methane conversion efficiency between sources of ruminal inoculum are related to the diversity and quantity of ruminal microorganisms in the inoculum of each species [57], which consequently reflects on the microbial activity and the fermentative capacity of the ruminal microbiota, as well as the final products of fermentation [58,71]. On the other hand, the observed increase in pH with the inclusion of MOL in the STI could have occurred due to the reduction in the percentage of maize, since this led to a lower availability of fast-fermenting carbohydrates such as starch, which generally lowers the pH [72,73]. Similarly, dry matter degraded (DMD) increased in both inoculum, which is desirable from a nutritional point of view, and is attributed to the pH, which could have generated a more favorable environment for microbial proliferation, especially cellulolytic bacteria, and to the protein available for microbial growth in each silage [29,74], which, when in balance, promotes efficient feed degradation. Although short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) and metabolizable energy (ME) are positively related to DMD, the inclusion of MOL decreased SCFA and ME with the STI, while with the SHI it increased them but was less efficient due to the gradual increase of CH4 per unit of SCFA, EM, and MO in comparison with the STI, where there was no difference in the efficiency between silages. The lack of difference between silages with the STI can be attributed to the production of H2S, since it could have reduced methanogenesis [66], while with the SHI it could be caused by a higher production of acetate and butyrate, which release CO2 and H2 and, as these gases are more available in the rumen, CH4 production increases [75].

5. Conclusions

The co-ensiling of whole-plants maize with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage had a different impact on biogas production kinetics and rumen fermentation with the evaluated inoculum sources, and although the amount of biogas was higher with the inoculum steer and lower with the sheep inoculum, the inclusion of M. oleifera increased the DMD with both inoculums. In the case of the steer inoculum, the increase in degradability did not cause a negative impact on the CH4 ratio and CH4 production per unit of SCFA, ME, and OM. In addition, with this inoculum, the inclusion of M. oleifera reduced biogas, CO, and H2S by degraded DM in most of the silages, without affecting CH4 production. Despite the above, it is possible that, with the increase in DMD, the productive response in both species will improve, and that biogas production per unit of meat or milk will decrease, and if so, the co-ensiling of maize with M. oleifera can be considered as an option to reduce the impact of livestock on the environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.R.A.-R., A.Z.M.S., M.M.M.Y.E., M.A.R.-J. and G.B.-R.; methodology, E.R.A.-R., A.Z.M.S., M.M.M.Y.E. and M.A.R.-J.; software, A.Z.M.S.; formal analysis, E.R.A.-R., A.Z.M.S., M.M.M.Y.E. and M.A.R.-J.; investigation, E.R.A.-R., A.Z.M.S., M.M.M.Y.E. and M.A.R.-J.; resources, E.R.A.-R., A.Z.M.S., M.M.M.Y.E., M.A.R.-J. and G.B.-R.; data curation, E.R.A.-R., A.Z.M.S. and M.M.M.Y.E.; writing—original draft preparation, E.R.A.-R., A.Z.M.S., M.M.M.Y.E., M.A.R.-J. and G.B.-R.; writing—review and editing, E.R.A.-R., A.M., A.Z.M.S., M.M.M.Y.E., M.A.R.-J., G.B.-R. and P.D.P.; visualization, A.Z.M.S., A.M., P.D.P., M.M.M.Y.E. and M.A.R.-J.; supervision, A.Z.M.S., M.M.M.Y.E. and M.A.R.-J.; project administration, A.Z.M.S., M.M.M.Y.E. and M.A.R.-J. 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 and approval from any Educational Institution because the rumen fluid was extracted from the rumen content of animals that were slaughtered in the municipal slaughterhouse of Toluca, State of Mexico, Mexico. However, it is important to mention that the 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

References were carefully checked, and changes were made without modify the format.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Autonomous Universities of San Luis Potosí (UASLP) and of the State of Mexico (UAEMex), for the facilities granted to carry out this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P. Livestock production and the global environment: Consume less or produce better? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 18237–18238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Ryckebosch, E.; Drouillon, M.; Vervaeren, H. Techniques for transformation of biogas to biomethane. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 1633–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Besharati, M.; Maggiolino, A.; Palangi, V.; Kaya, A.; Jabbar, M.; Eseceli, H.; De Palo, P.; Lorenzo, J.M. Tannin in Ruminant Nutrition. Molecules 2022, 27, 8273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Morgavi, D.P.; Forano, E.; Martin, C.; Newbold, C.J. Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants. Animal 2010, 4, 1024–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Mizrahi, I.; Wallace, R.J.; Moraïs, S. The rumen microbiome: Balancing food security and environmental impacts. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 553–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hristov, A.N.; Oh, J.; Firkins, J.L.; Dijkstra, J.; Kebreab, E.; Waghorn, G.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Adesogan, A.T.; Yang, W.; Lee, C.; et al. Special topics-Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 5045–5069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Faniyi, T.O.; Prates, E.R.; Adegbeye, M.J.; Adewumi, M.K.; Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Ritt, L.A.; Sánchez, Z.A.; Stella, L.; Ticiani, E.; et al. Prediction of biogas and pressure from rumen fermentation using plant extracts to enhance biodigestibility and mitigate biogases. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 27043–27051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dall-Orsoletta, A.C.; Oziemblowski, M.M.; Berndt, A.; Ribeiro-Filho, H.M.N. Enteric methane emission from grazing dairy cows receiving corn silage or ground corn supplementation. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2019, 253, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Offner, A.; Bach, A.; Sauvant, D. Quantitative review of in situ starch degradation in the rumen. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2003, 106, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Castro-Montoya, J.; Witzig, M.; Rahman, M.; Westreicher-Kristen, E.; Dickhoefer, U. In vitro rumen fermentation, microbial protein synthesis and composition of microbial community of total mixed rations replacing maize silage with red clover silage. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 102, 1450–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Copani, G.; Niderkorn, V.; Anglard, F.; Quereuil, A.; Ginane, C. Silages containing bioactive forage legumes: A promising protein-rich feed source for growing lambs. Grass Forage Sci. 2016, 71, 622–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jahanzad, E.; Sadeghpour, A.; Hashemi, M.; Keshavarz-Afshar, R.; Hosseini, M.B.; Barker, A.V. Silage fermentation profile, chemical composition and economic evaluation of millet and soya bean grown in monocultures and as intercrops. Grass Forage Sci. 2016, 71, 584–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zeng, T.; Wu, Y.; Xin, Y.; Chen, C.; Du, Z.; Li, X.; Zhong, J.; Thair, M.; Kang, B.; Jiang, D.; et al. Silage quality and output of different maize-soybean strip intercropping patterns. Fermentation 2022, 8, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. García, D.E.; Medina, M.G.; Domínguez, C.; Baldizán, A.; Humbría, J.; Cova, L. Evaluación química de especies no leguminosas con potencial forrajero en el estado de Trujillo, Venezuela. Zootec. Trop. 2006, 24, 401–415. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ramachandran, C.; Peter, K.V.; Gopalakrishman, P.K. Drumstick (Moringa oleifera): A multiporpose Indian vegetable. Econ. Bot. 1980, 34, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Olson, M.E.; Fahey, J.W. Moringa oleifera: Un árbol multiusos para las zonas tropicales secas. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2011, 82, 1071–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Nouman, W.; Basra, S.M.A.; Siddiqui, M.T.; Yasmeen, A.; Gull, T.; Alcayde, M.A.C. Potential of Moringa oleifera L. as livestock fodder crop: A review. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2014, 38, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cohen-Zinder, M.; Leibovich, H.; Vaknin, Y.; Sagi, G.; Shabtay, A.; Ben-Meir, Y.; Nikbacht, M.; Portnik, Y.; Yishay, M.; Miron, J. Effect of feedeing lactating cows with ensiled mixtures of Moringa oleifera, wheat hay and molasses, on digestibility and efficiency of milk production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 211, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zheng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, J. Yield and quality of Moringa oleifera under different planting densities and cutting heights in southwest China. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 91, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Quintanilla-Medina, J.J.; López-Aguirre, D.; Joaquín-Cancino, S.; Vázquez-Armijo, J.F.; López-Villalobos, N.; Limas-Martínez, A.G.; Estrada-Drouaillet, B.; Martínez-González, J.C.; Hernández-Meléndez, J. Moringa oleifera Lam. leaf meal as a protein supplement for small ruminants in tropical conditions: Nutrient content at different harvest dates during the year. Agroforest. Syst. 2020, 94, 1301–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Moyo, B.; Masika, P.J.; Hugo, A.; Muchenje, V. Nutritional characterization of moringa (Moringa oleifera Lam.) leaves. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 12925–12933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Cabrera-Carrión, J.L.; Jaramillo-Jaramillo, C.; Dután-Torres, F.; Cun-Carrión, J.; García, P.A.; Rojas, A.L. Variación del contenido de alcaloides, fenoles, flavonoides y taninos en Moringa oleifera Lam. en función de su edad y altura. Bioagro 2017, 29, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  23. Parra-Garcia, A.; Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Greiner, R.; Barbabosa-Pliego, A.; Camacho-Diaz, L.M.; Salem, A.Z.M. Effects of Moringa oleifera leaf extract on ruminal methane and carbon dioxide production and fermentation kinetics in a steer model. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 15333–15344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Vallejo, L.H.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Mellado, M.; Camacho, L.M.; Cipriano, M.; Olafadehan, O.A.; Olivares, J.; Rojas, S. Moringa oleifera leaf meal as an environmental friendly protein source for ruminants: Biomethane and carbon dioxide production, and fermentation characteristics. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 1229–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. Babiker, E.E.; Juhaimi, F.A.; Ghafoor, K.; Abdoun, K.A. Comparative study on feeding value of Moringa leaves as a partial replacement for alfalfa hay in ewes and goats. Livest. Sci. 2017, 195, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kholif, A.E.; Gouda, G.A.; Olafadehan, O.A.; Abdo, M.M. Effects of replacement of Moringa oleifera for berseem clover in the diets of Nubian goats on feed utilisation, and milk yield, composition and fatty acid profile. Animal 2018, 12, 964–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kewan, K.Z.; Salem, F.A.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Abdou, A.R.; El-Sayed, H.M.; Eisa, S.S.; Zaki, E.A.; Odongo, N.E. Nutritive utilization of Moringa oleifera tree stalks treated with fungi and yeast to replace clover hay in growing lambs. Agroforest. Syst. 2019, 93, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mueller-Harvey, I.; Bee, G.; Dohme-Meier, F.; Hoste, H.; Karonen, M.; Kölliker, R.; Waghorn, G.C. Benefits of condensed tannins in forage legumes fed to ruminants: Importance of structure, concentration, and diet composition. Crop Sci. 2019, 59, 861–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. Tavendale, M.H.; Meagher, L.P.; Pacheco, D.; Walker, N.; Attwood, G.T.; Sivakumaran, S. Methane production from in vitro rumen incubations with Lotus pedunculatus and Medicago sativa, and effects of extractable condensed tannin fractions on methanogenesis. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2005, 123, 403–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lovett, D.K.; McGilloway, D.; Bortolozzo, A.; Hawkins, M.; Callan, J.; Flynn, B.; O’Mara, F.P. In vitro fermentation patterns and methane production as influenced by cultivar and season of harvest of Lolium perenne L. Grass Forage Sci. 2006, 61, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hatew, B.; Cone, J.W.; Pellikaan, W.F.; Podesta, S.C.; Bannink, A.; Hendriks, W.H.; Dijkstra, J. Relationship between in vitro and in vivo methane production measured simultaneously with different dietary starch sources and starch levels in dairy cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2015, 202, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Kholif, A.E.; Marquez-Molina, O.; Vazquez-Armijo, J.F.; Puniya, A.K.; Salem, A.Z.M. Influence of individual or mixed cellulase and xylanase mixture on in vitro rumen gas production kinetics of total mixed rations with different maize silage and concentrate ratios. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2015, 39, 435–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vallejo-Hernández, L.H.; Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Greiner, R.; Anele, U.Y.; Rivas-Cáceres, R.R.; Barros-Rodríguez, M.; Salem, A.Z.M. Environmental impact of yeast and exogenous xylanase on mitigating carbon dioxide and enteric methane production in ruminants. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Salem, A.Z.M. Impact of season of harvest on in vitro gas production and dry matter degradability of Acacia saligna leaves with inoculum from three ruminant species. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2005, 123, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vinhas, I.L.C.; Ítavo, C.C.B.F.; Valle, C.B.D.; Dias, A.M.; Difante, G.D.S.; Morais, M.D.G.; Soares, C.M.; Da Silva, P.C.; Oliveira, R.L. Brachiaria grasses in vitro digestibility with bovine and ovine ruminal liquid as inoculum. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2021, 12, 1045–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vargas, V.; Hernández, M.E.; Gutiérrez, L.J.; Plácido, J.M.; Jiménez, C.A. Clasificación climática del Estado de Tamaulipas, México. Ciencia UAT 2007, 2, 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  40. Maggiolino, A.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Quiñones, J.; Latorre, M.A.; Blando, F.; Centoducati, G.; Dahl, G.E.; De Palo, P. Effects of dietary supplementation with Pinus taeda hydrolyzed lignin on in vivo performances, in vitro nutrient apparent digestibility, and gas emission in beef steers. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2019, 255, 114217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Besharati, M.; Palangi, V.; Salem, A.Z.M.; De Palo, P.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Maggiolino, A. Substitution of raw lucerne with raw citrus lemon by-product in silage: In vitro apparent digestibility and gas production. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Padmore, J.M. Animal feed. In Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists; Helrick, K., Ed.; AOAC: Arlington, VA, USA, 1990; pp. 69–90. [Google Scholar]
  43. Van Soest, P.V.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Faichney, J.G.; White, G.A. Methods for the Analysis of Feeds Eaten by Ruminants; Division of Animal Production, Ian Clunies Ross Animal Research Laboratory and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mertens, D.R. Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1997, 80, 1463–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Sniffen, C.J.; O’connor, J.D.; Van Soest, P.J.; Fox, D.G.; Russell, J.B. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. J. Anim. Sci. 1992, 70, 3562–3577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Wilson, R.F.; Wilkins, R.J. The ensilage of autumn-sown rye. Grass Forage Sci. 1972, 27, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Goering, M.K.; Van Soest, P.J. Forage Fibre Analysis (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures and Some Applications); Agricultural Research Service USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 1970; pp. 1–24.
  49. De Bellis, P.; Maggiolino, A.; Albano, C.; De Palo, P.; Blando, F. Ensiling grape pomace with and without addition of a Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Strain: Effect on polyphenols and microbiological characteristics, in vitro nutrient apparent digestibility, and gas emission. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 808293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. 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, 10402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. 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. Tech. 2010, 158, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. SAS. User’s Guide: Statistics; Version 9.0; SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  53. 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, 83, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. 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] [Green Version]
  55. 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]
  56. Mould, F.L.; Kliem, K.E.; Morgan, R.; Mauricio, R.M. In vitro microbial inoculum: A review of its function and properties. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2005, 123, 31–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Calabrò, S.; Williams, B.A.; Piccolo, V.; Infascelli, F.; Tamminga, S. A comparison between buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) and cow (Bos taurus) rumen fluids in terms of the in vitro fermentation characteristics of three fibrous feedstuffs. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2004, 84, 645–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Aderinboye, R.Y.; Akinlolu, A.O.; Adeleke, M.A.; Najeem, G.O.; Ojo, V.O.A.; Isah, O.A.; Babayemi, O.J. In vitro gas production and dry matter degradation of four browse leaves using cattle, sheep and goat inocula. Slovak J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 49, 32–43. [Google Scholar]
  59. 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]
  60. Deutschmann, K.; Phatsara, C.; Sorachakula, C.; Vearasilp, T.; Hunphiphat, W.; Cherdthong, A.; Gerlach, K.; Südekum, K.H. In vitro gas production and in vivo nutrient digestibility and growth performance of Thai indigenous cattle fed fresh and conserved pangola grass. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 16, 521–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. 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] [Green Version]
  62. Bannink, A.; France, J.; Lopez, S.; Gerrits, W.J.J.; Kebreab, E.; Tamminga, S.; Dijkstra, J. Modelling the implications of feeding strategy on rumen fermentation and functioning of the rumen wall. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 143, 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kim, K.S.; Anderson, J.D.; Newell, M.A.; Grogan, S.M.; Byrne, P.F.; Baenziger, P.S.; Butler, T.J. Genetic diversity of great plains hard winter wheat germplasm for forage. Crop Sci. 2016, 56, 2297–2305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. 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]
  65. Zhao, Y.; Zhao, G. Decreasing ruminal methane production through enhancing the sulfate reduction pathway. Anim. Nutr. 2022, 9, 320–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. 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] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. 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] [PubMed]
  68. Ragsdale, S.W. Life with carbon monoxide. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2004, 39, 165–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Shah, A.M.; Ma, J.; Wang, Z.; Hu, R.; Wang, X.; Peng, Q.; Kwame, A.F.; Goswami, N. Production of hydrogen sulfide by fermentation in rumen and its impact on health and production of animals. Processes 2020, 8, 1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. 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]
  71. Sunvold, G.D.; Hussein, H.S.; Fahey, G.C., Jr.; Merchen, N.R.; Reinhart, G.A. In vitro fermentation of cellulose, beet pulp, citrus pulp, and citrus pectin using fecal inoculum from cats, dogs, horses, humans, and pigs and ruminal fluid from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 3639–3648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kolver, E.S.; De Veth, M.J. Prediction of ruminal pH from pasture-based diets. J. Dairy Sci. 2002, 85, 1255–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Shen, J.; Zheng, L.; Chen, X.; Han, X.; Cao, Y.; Yao, J. Metagenomic analyses of microbial and carbohydrate-active enzymes in the rumen of dairy goats fed different rumen degradable starch. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zicarelli, F.; Calabro, S.; Cutrignelli, M.I.; Infascelli, F.; Tudisco, R.; Bovera, F.; Piccolo, V. In vitro fermentation characteristics of diets with different forage/concentrate ratios: Comparison of rumen and faecal inocula. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 1213–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Jiao, H.P.; Yan, T.; McDowell, D.A.; Carson, A.F.; Ferris, C.P.; Easson, D.L.; Wills, D. Enteric methane emissions and efficiency of use of energy in Holstein heifers and steers at age of six months. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 356–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Animals 13 00764 g001a 550Animals 13 00764 g001b 550
Figure 1. Kinetics of ruminal biogas production of co-ensiling of whole-plant maize (Zea mays L.) with 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100 % (M100) of M. oleifera forage (a), using steers and sheep as a source of inoculum (b).
Figure 1. Kinetics of ruminal biogas production of co-ensiling of whole-plant maize (Zea mays L.) with 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100 % (M100) of M. oleifera forage (a), using steers and sheep as a source of inoculum (b).
Animals 13 00764 g001aAnimals 13 00764 g001b
Animals 13 00764 g002a 550Animals 13 00764 g002b 550
Figure 2. Kinetics of ruminal methane (CH4) production of co-ensiling of whole-plant maize (Zea mays L.) with 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100 % (M100) of M. oleifera forage (a), using steers and sheep as a source of inoculum (b).
Figure 2. Kinetics of ruminal methane (CH4) production of co-ensiling of whole-plant maize (Zea mays L.) with 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100 % (M100) of M. oleifera forage (a), using steers and sheep as a source of inoculum (b).
Animals 13 00764 g002aAnimals 13 00764 g002b
Animals 13 00764 g003a 550Animals 13 00764 g003b 550
Figure 3. Kinetics of ruminal carbon monoxide (CO) production of co-ensiling of whole-plant maize (Zea mays L.) with 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100 % (M100) of M. oleifera forage (a), using steers and sheep as a source of inoculum (b).
Figure 3. Kinetics of ruminal carbon monoxide (CO) production of co-ensiling of whole-plant maize (Zea mays L.) with 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100 % (M100) of M. oleifera forage (a), using steers and sheep as a source of inoculum (b).
Animals 13 00764 g003aAnimals 13 00764 g003b
Animals 13 00764 g004a 550Animals 13 00764 g004b 550
Figure 4. Kinetics of ruminal hydrogen sulfide (H2S) production of co-ensiling of whole-plant maize (Zea mays L.) with 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100 % (M100) of M. oleifera forage (a), using steers and sheep as a source of inoculum (b).
Figure 4. Kinetics of ruminal hydrogen sulfide (H2S) production of co-ensiling of whole-plant maize (Zea mays L.) with 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100 % (M100) of M. oleifera forage (a), using steers and sheep as a source of inoculum (b).
Animals 13 00764 g004aAnimals 13 00764 g004b
Table
Table 1. Chemical composition (%, on DM basis) of the co-ensiling 1 of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, at 120 days of fermentation.
Table 1. Chemical composition (%, on DM basis) of the co-ensiling 1 of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, at 120 days of fermentation.
Percentage
of Moringa 2		Component 3
OMCPEEHEMCELLIGNSCTC
M094.868.231.5826.1330.144.4624.3285.05
M2094.519.211.8326.6429.414.6922.7383.47
M4093.9111.181.9424.3626.955.2024.2880.79
M6092.7713.552.0222.8523.975.7624.6177.20
M8092.3017.372.8921.3520.885.9323.8872.04
M10091.0120.123.9215.7718.556.4926.1666.97
1 The pH of the silages ranged between 3.64 and 4.25. 2 Percentage inclusion of Moringa oleifera forage in the co-ensiling with whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.): 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100% (M100). 3 OM: organic matter; CP: crude protein; EE: ether extract; HEM: hemicellulose; CEL: cellulose; LIG: acid detergent lignin; NSC: non-structural carbohydrates; TC: total carbohydrates.
Table
Table 2. Parameters and in vitro ruminal biogas production of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.
Table 2. Parameters and in vitro ruminal biogas production of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.
Inoculum Source
Ruminal (ISR)		Percentage
of Moringa (PMOL) 1		Biogas Production
Parameters 2mL Gas g−1 DM IncubatedmL Gas g−1 DM Degraded
bcLag6 h24 h48 h6 h24 h48 h
SteersM0396.070.02832.17125.55283.41390.61492.081110.971530.14
M20319.970.02931.75108.30239.50318.29282.92625.58831.07
M40320.870.02841.76107.92236.53317.76316.87694.44932.90
M60374.830.02942.05118.15254.71367.81359.77775.631120.00
M80457.230.02822.50135.64276.50439.74452.40923.991474.65
M100370.570.02782.03134.94275.91366.44451.39922.681225.77
SEM 327.040.00070.153.909.3124.0218.0545.4494.30
p-value
Linear0.06980.36310.06980.00870.00590.0547<0.0001<0.00010.0002
Quadratic0.71130.27330.71140.00270.22890.69090.01360.34760.7026
SheepM0166.200.025210.3069.20125.32163.12320.59580.46755.36
M20227.400.02537.9879.69166.93221.35363.17760.561008.35
M40180.500.02359.7166.98128.13174.40290.67556.04756.98
M60221.250.02387.3371.21149.83212.62288.82607.46862.17
M80237.000.02514.8064.65156.08226.91227.27548.61797.80
M100272.550.02672.8765.29181.17262.48204.04567.07821.12
SEM 311.710.00100.473.1210.3312.1415.3740.8149.28
p-value
Linear0.01010.91550.01280.05510.02930.01460.09780.02060.0110
Quadratic0.00190.2557<0.00010.05360.03250.00320.00030.08390.3530
Pooled SEM 3 25.310.00080.283.9010.0422.7318.2746.4989.46
p-value
ISR <0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
PMOL 0.01710.5988<0.00010.03990.00640.01570.00060.00490.0235
Linear 0.77300.51030.00010.39960.91040.76140.00030.00430.0232
Quadratic 0.06040.7539<0.00010.20880.01110.05230.03190.55220.9215
ISR × PMOL 0.05710.1613<0.00010.00020.01280.0475<0.0001<0.00010.0006
1 Percentage inclusion of Moringa oleifera forage in the co-ensiling with whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.): 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100% (M100). 2 b is the asymptotic biogas production (mL gas g−1 DM); c is the rate biogas production (mL gas h−1); Lag is the initial delay before biogas production begins (h). 3 SEM, standard error of the mean.
Table
Table 3. Parameters and in vitro ruminal methane (CH4) production of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.
Table 3. Parameters and in vitro ruminal methane (CH4) production of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.
Inoculum Source
Ruminal (ISR)		Percentage
of Moringa (PMOL) 1		CH4 Production
Parameters 2mL Gas g−1 DM IncubatedmL Gas g−1 DM Degraded
bcLag6 h24 h48 h6 h24 h48 h
SteersM058.320.082610.101.239.8658.454.8338.36226.93
M2061.350.091910.631.1410.2161.622.9626.65160.99
M4062.590.085610.841.1910.9362.743.4832.09184.27
M6076.950.094413.331.3412.1077.194.0836.81235.10
M8082.980.096014.371.5813.0683.635.2843.80280.55
M10062.500.089510.831.3511.4762.844.5238.33210.08
SEM 39.530.00421.650.071.139.600.254.1535.24
p-value
Linear0.82600.14040.82610.36160.82640.81940.00020.06900.2104
Quadratic0.82280.67040.82290.08010.31730.81520.06610.27400.7152
SheepM022.680.099720.800.447.2722.632.0433.85105.30
M2030.790.105120.860.5011.2930.502.2751.37138.80
M4022.950.100321.080.337.4622.821.4532.4499.16
M6038.250.120521.710.3611.3238.021.4445.93153.59
M809.120.112321.070.3214.1743.861.1449.70154.42
M10010.050.105722.050.3325.6396.491.0280.45303.04
SEM 34.600.01260.730.062.9611.120.3110.9239.94
p-value
Linear0.25900.77010.95530.53950.37340.63470.61730.29990.5748
Quadratic0.02520.83900.22170.11740.00410.00220.02490.03000.0101
Pooled SEM 3 8.980.00761.550.071.8610.490.286.8538.25
p-value
ISR <0.00010.0011<0.0001<0.00010.15850.0006<0.00010.00440.0189
PMOL 0.31280.29020.60070.26380.00050.01200.02590.01440.0598
Linear 0.54510.34730.85310.79410.25610.60700.01030.67830.6780
Quadratic 0.38190.68290.54170.8260<0.00010.00090.31500.00180.0084
ISR × PMOL 0.22800.96850.69910.01080.00210.01570.00020.03070.0876
1 Percentage inclusion of Moringa oleifera forage in the co-ensiling with whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.): 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100% (M100). 2 b is the asymptotic CH4 production (mL gas g−1 DM); c is the rate CH4 production (mL gas h−1); Lag is the initial delay before CH4 production begins (h). 3 SEM, standard error of the mean.
Table
Table 4. In vitro ruminal methane (CH4) production based on biogas and kg DM of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.
Table 4. In vitro ruminal methane (CH4) production based on biogas and kg DM of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.
Inoculum Source
Ruminal (ISR)		Percentage
of Moringa (PMOL) 1		CH4 Production
mL CH4 100 mL−1 Biogasg CH4 kg−1 DM
6 h24 h48 h6 h24 h48 h
SteersM00.983.5315.175.7345.83271.79
M201.054.2719.355.2847.49286.52
M401.104.6219.685.5250.80291.75
M601.134.7520.926.2356.25358.95
M801.174.7218.927.3660.72388.88
M1001.004.1317.086.3053.35292.22
SEM 20.040.392.000.345.2344.63
p-value
Linear0.30610.20460.16490.36170.82650.8194
Quadratic0.76290.63100.94420.08010.31730.8152
SheepM00.635.6913.692.0433.80105.24
M200.636.7513.752.3152.52141.83
M400.505.8813.131.5634.71106.10
M600.507.5617.811.6652.65176.80
M800.509.0619.311.5065.88203.97
M1000.5013.9436.191.52119.16448.70
SEM 20.071.233.200.2913.7651.73
p-value
Linear1.00000.56440.98940.53960.37340.6347
Quadratic0.20700.00220.00120.11750.00410.0022
Pooled SEM 2 0.060.742.470.348.6448.78
p-value
ISR <0.0001<0.00010.7525<0.00010.15850.0006
PMOL 0.66160.00020.00210.26380.00050.0120
Linear 0.55480.24010.40450.79400.25610.6070
Quadratic 0.1570<0.0001<0.00010.8258<0.00010.0009
ISR × PMOL 0.07190.00020.00070.01080.00210.0157
1 Percentage inclusion of Moringa oleifera forage in the co-ensiling with whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.): 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100% (M100). 2 SEM, standard error of the mean.
Table
Table 5. Parameters and in vitro ruminal carbon monoxide (CO) production of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.
Table 5. Parameters and in vitro ruminal carbon monoxide (CO) production of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.
Inoculum Source Ruminal (ISR)Percentage
of Moringa (PMOL) 1		 CO Production
Parameters 2mL CO g−1 DM IncubatedmL CO g−1 DM Degraded
bcLag6 h24 h48 h6 h24 h48 h
SteersM00.021530.000090.000030.000500.005460.040380.001940.021390.15822
M200.033500.000080.000040.000540.005340.040670.001400.013950.10607
M400.038470.000080.002030.000540.005490.036040.001580.016130.10575
M600.018370.000060.000020.000870.004590.032310.002640.013970.09841
M800.025930.000060.000030.000990.005890.041640.003330.019600.13948
M1000.036300.000100.000050.001300.008500.040750.004360.028510.13652
SEM 30.008680.000020.000810.000060.000620.003060.000240.002080.01112
p-value
Linear0.60720.01990.60760.37700.14880.00060.00530.0005<0.0001
Quadratic0.44520.49090.44520.00190.08770.01220.00250.10220.0267
SheepM05.473650.009439.700000.001690.086390.372690.007840.401961.73135
M209.294900.006317.652400.002030.118120.531050.009260.535622.41206
M402.245350.000245.350000.001650.111920.457950.007140.486241.98784
M602.978050.000764.500000.002000.083800.510190.008080.344332.06793
M806.350000.000314.200000.001680.207900.792090.005910.730582.79043
M10025.959850.012016.650000.001140.337021.380650.003581.057464.32665
SEM 35.697360.006092.804100.000170.040200.122640.000660.156390.46880
p-value
Linear0.65210.72970.62410.21240.59700.39640.17830.56780.3441
Quadratic0.03740.59940.57670.01440.00310.00080.00080.02180.0077
Pooled SEM 32.987570.003191.470410.000110.021090.064370.000410.082030.24604
p-value
ISR<0.00010.0192<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
PMOL0.00940.30910.44060.0331<0.0001<0.00010.02060.00370.0006
Linear0.53130.63210.49730.09460.46560.23590.29790.45390.2199
Quadratic0.00220.46520.43890.7268<0.0001<0.00010.0050.0005<0.0001
ISR × PMOL0.00940.31440.4404<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.00010.00510.0007
1 Percentage inclusion of Moringa oleifera forage in the co-ensiling with whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.): 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100% (M100). 2 b is the asymptotic CO production (ppm gas g−1 DM); c is the rate CO production (ppm gas h−1); Lag is the initial delay before CO production begins (h). 3 SEM, standard error of the mean.
Table
Table 6. Parameters and in vitro ruminal hydrogen sulfide (H2S) production of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.
Table 6. Parameters and in vitro ruminal hydrogen sulfide (H2S) production of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.
Inoculum Source Ruminal (ISR)Percentage
of Moringa (PMOL) 1		H2S Production
Parameters 2mL H2S g−1 DM IncubatedmL H2S g−1 DM Degraded
bcLag6 h24 h48 h6 h24 h48 h
SteersM00.108000.000210.000800.009110.045260.16690.035780.177360.13267
M200.116130.000150.000860.007970.038230.12570.020840.099920.03632
M400.112870.000150.000840.007900.036450.12620.023200.107040.04467
M600.108770.000190.000810.010930.042890.15090.033310.130540.10073
M800.141270.000220.001050.014970.046650.17810.049950.156210.11396
M1000.122600.000200.000910.012810.049080.15860.042830.163890.11687
SEM 30.010890.000020.000080.000880.003220.00310.003110.011650.01047
p-value
Linear0.60720.01990.60760.37700.14880.00060.00530.0005<0.0001
Quadratic0.44520.49090.44520.00190.08770.01220.00250.10220.0267
SheepM00.041600.124757.083050.000080.001070.040790.000360.004900.12728
M200.083200.000035.200000.000060.004580.068250.000290.020840.20312
M400.030770.000146.000000.000060.002180.054030.000260.009450.15613
M600.024500.000057.200000.000070.002280.066350.000300.009280.17636
M800.036750.000488.300000.000070.004600.089280.000240.016260.20082
M1000.022000.000108.350000.000020.004830.066760.000060.015210.14296
SEM 30.024090.046361.365970.000010.001000.007800.000040.003600.02784
p-value
Linear0.26790.10580.36730.38570.04650.17160.28580.02040.1024
Quadratic0.22000.31470.23490.00450.15050.36130.00140.61590.5386
Pooled SEM 30.016050.024310.716280.000800.002970.004940.002820.010750.01742
p-value
ISR<0.00010.1588<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
PMOL0.33940.10350.23770.00160.17770.00670.00050.01570.0828
Linear0.14050.01990.20740.48160.56440.76860.01650.01070.5655
Quadratic0.29910.15840.09350.00720.08760.02870.00960.15780.7420
ISR × PMOL0.29990.10370.23780.00150.31990.02370.00050.00460.0018
1 Percentage inclusion of Moringa oleifera forage in the co-ensiling with whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.): 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100% (M100). 2 b is the asymptotic H2S production (ppm gas g−1 DM); c is the rate H2S production (ppm gas h−1); Lag is the initial delay before H2S production begins (h). 3 SEM, standard error of the mean.
Table
Table 7. Fermentation characteristics and CH4 conversion efficiency of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.
Table 7. Fermentation characteristics and CH4 conversion efficiency of the co-ensiling of whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.) with increasing percentages of Moringa oleifera forage, using steers and sheep as inoculum sources.
Inoculum Source
Ruminal (ISR)		Percentage
of Moringa (PMOL) 1		Fermentation Characteristics 2CH4 Conversion Efficiency 3
pHDMDSCFAMECH4:SCFACH4:MECH4:OM
SteersM06.3360.586.278.8246.275.2210.94
M206.3675.535.308.3255.905.7111.34
M406.4672.015.238.2960.496.1312.13
M606.5575.525.638.4962.226.6213.43
M806.5574.146.128.7461.766.9414.49
M1006.6781.056.108.7354.126.0912.73
SEM 40.071.4300.2110.1125.0600.5811.250
p-value
Linear0.7778<0.00010.00590.00600.20320.56420.8264
Quadratic0.0015<0.00010.22910.22960.63270.39620.3173
SheepM07.0943.252.765.0374.786.677.85
M207.0643.893.695.5188.599.5312.20
M407.0646.072.825.0777.256.878.06
M607.0349.323.315.3199.329.9112.23
M807.0256.903.445.38118.9912.2315.31
M1006.9864.144.005.67182.8420.8327.69
SEM40.0410.9920.2300.12216.1512.1633.202
p-value
Linear0.62070.66480.02920.02920.56760.38530.3734
Quadratic0.1051<0.00010.03250.03250.00220.00290.0041
Pooled SEM 40.061.400.220.119.641.252.02
p-value
ISR<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.00010.2548
PMOL0.39550.0063<0.00010.00640.00020.00010.0006
Linear0.9793<0.00010.91150.91080.24180.19940.2589
Quadratic0.0491<0.00010.01110.0111<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
ISR × PMOL0.02370.01270.00010.01280.00020.00030.0023
1 Percentage inclusion of Moringa oleifera forage in the co-ensiling with whole-plants maize (Zea mays L.): 0 (M0), 20 (M20), 40 (M40), 60 (M60), 80 (M80) and 100% (M100). 2 pH is ruminal pH; DMD is dry matter degradability (%); SCFA is short-chain fatty acids (mmol g−1 DM) at 24 h of incubation; ME is the metabolizable energy (MJ kg−1 DM) at 24 h of incubation. 3 CH4:SCFA is methane:short-chain fatty acid ratio (mmol mmol−1) at 24 h of incubation; CH4:ME is methane:metabolizable energy ratio (g MJ−1) at 24 h of incubation; CH4:OM is methane:organic matter ratio (mL g−1). 4 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

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. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040764

AMA Style

Alvarado-Ramírez ER, Maggiolino A, Elghandour MMMY, Rivas-Jacobo MA, Ballesteros-Rodea G, Palo PD, Salem AZM. 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(4):764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040764

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alvarado-Ramírez, Edwin Rafael, Aristide Maggiolino, Mona M. M. Y. Elghandour, Marco Antonio Rivas-Jacobo, Gilberto Ballesteros-Rodea, Pasquale De Palo, and Abdelfattah Z. M. Salem. 2023. "Impact of Co-Ensiling of Maize with Moringa oleifera on the Production of Greenhouse Gases and the Characteristics of Fermentation in Ruminants" Animals 13, no. 4: 764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040764

APA Style

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. (2023). Impact of Co-Ensiling of Maize with Moringa oleifera on the Production of Greenhouse Gases and the Characteristics of Fermentation in Ruminants. Animals, 13(4), 764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040764

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