Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 31, pp 31450–31458 | Cite as

Potential of guava leaves for mitigating methane emissions and modulating ruminal fermentation characteristics and nutrient degradability

  • Adham A. Al-SagheerEmail author
  • Eman A. Elwakeel
  • Mariam G. Ahmed
  • Sobhy M. A. Sallam
Research Article


Guava leaves (Psidium guajava, GL), a high-phenolic- and flavonoid-containing plant resource capable of substituting the high-quality forage, may help in mitigating ruminal methane (CH4) emission without adverse impact on nutrient degradability if supplemented at an appropriate level. In order to test this hypothesis, rumen fermentation, CH4 production, and nutrient degradability of GL either solely or as a substitute of berseem hay (Trifolium alexandrinum, BH) were evaluated in a diet containing 50:50 concentrate to roughage. Five different levels of GL (0, 12.5, 25, 37.5, and 50%) were tested in vitro after 24 h incubation using a semi-automated gas production (GP) system. The current findings indicated that merely the presence of GL resulted in significantly lower values for cumulative GP (P < 0.001), CH4 emission (P < 0.05), truly degraded dry matter (TDDM; P < 0.001), truly degraded organic matter (TDOM; P < 0.001), and ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) concentration (P < 0.001); however, pH (P < 0.001) and partitioning factor (P < 0.001) were higher. The total and individual volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentrations were drastically declined with GL as compared to BH (P < 0.05). A negative linear correlation was recorded between the levels of GL and GP including CH4 production (P < 0.05). The addition of GL up to 25% did not pose any negative effect on both TDDM and TDOM values along with NH3-N concentration. In addition, the inclusion of GL up to 25% did not affect the total or individual VFA concentration. Conclusively, in a medium concentrate diet, use of 25% GL and 25% BH in animal diet could be a promising alternative for mitigating the CH4 production without any deleterious effect on nutrient degradability.


Tree leaves Methane emissions Rumen fermentation Nutrient degradability 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. Adjorlolo L, Timpong-Jones E, Boadu S, Adogla-Bessa T (2016) Potential contribution of neem (Azadirachta indica) leaves to dry season feeding of ruminants in West Africa. Livest Res Rural Dev 28, Accessed from
  2. AOAC (2006) Official methods of analysis, 18th edn. USA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Badan P (2004) Monografi ekstrak tumbuhan obat Indonesia (volume 1). Badan POM, Jakarta, p 159Google Scholar
  4. Barahona R, Lascano CE, Narvaez N, Owen E, Morris P, Theodorou MK (2003) In vitro degradability of mature and immature leaves of tropical forage legumes differing in condensed tannin and non-starch polysaccharide content and composition. J Sci Food Agric 83:1256–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bento M, Acamovic T, Makkar H (2005) The influence of tannin, pectin and polyethylene glycol on attachment of 15 N-labelled rumen microorganisms to cellulose. Anim Feed Sci Technol 122:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhatta R, Uyeno Y, Tajima K, Takenaka A, Yabumoto Y, Nonaka I, Enishi O, Kurihara M (2009) Difference in the nature of tannins on in vitro ruminal methane and volatile fatty acid production and on methanogenic archaea and protozoal populations. J Dairy Sci 92:5512–5522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhatta R, Saravanan M, Baruah L, Sampath KT (2012) Nutrient content, in vitro ruminal fermentation characteristics and methane reduction potential of tropical tannin-containing leaves. J Sci Food Agric 92:2929–2935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blümmel M, Steingaβ H, Becker K (1997) The relationship between in vitro gas production, in vitro microbial biomass yield and N incorporation and its implications for the prediction of voluntary feed intake of roughages. Br J Nutr 77:911–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang C-C, Yang M-H, Wen H-M, Chern J-C (2002) Estimation of total flavonoid content in propolis by two complementary colorimetric methods. J Food Drug Anal 10:178–182Google Scholar
  10. Chatterjee P, Kamra D, Agarwal N, Patra A (2014) Influence of supplementation of tropical plant feed additives on in vitro rumen fermentation and methanogenesis. Anim Prod Sci 54:1770–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Czerkawski J, Milligan LP, G WL, aD A (eds) (1986) Degradation of solid feeds in the rumen: spatial distribution of microbial activity and its consequences, proceedings of 6th international symposium on ruminant physiology. Banff (Canada). Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  12. Demeyer D, Van Nevel C (1975) Methanogenesis, an integrated part of carbohydrate fermentation and its control. In: IW M, ACI W (eds) Digestion and metabolism in the ruminant. University of New England Publishing Unit, Armidale, pp 366–382Google Scholar
  13. Eckard R, Grainger C, De Klein C (2010) Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: a review. Livest Sci 130:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO (2006) Livestock’s long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  15. Getachew G, Pittroff W, Putnam DH, Dandekar A, Goyal S, DePeters EJ (2008) The influence of addition of gallic acid, tannic acid, or quebracho tannins to alfalfa hay on in vitro rumen fermentation and microbial protein synthesis. Anim Feed Sci Technol 140:444–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goel, G, Makkar, H, Becker, K (2007) Effect of saponin-rich fractions of different plants on rumen fermentation with particular reference to methane emission in vitro. Proceedings of the Society of Nutrition PhysiologyGoogle Scholar
  17. Gutiérrez RMP, Mitchell S, Solis RV (2008) Psidium guajava: a review of its traditional uses, phytochemistry and pharmacology. J Ethnopharmacol 117:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hariadi BT, Santoso B (2010) Evaluation of tropical plants containing tannin on in vitro methanogenesis and fermentation parameters using rumen fluid. J Sci Food Agric 90:456–461Google Scholar
  19. Hassen A, Theart JJF, Adriaan van Niekerk W, Adejoro FA, Gemeda BS (2016) In vitro methane and gas production characteristics of Eragrostis trichopophora substrate supplemented with different browse foliage. Anim Prod Sci 56:634–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hernández D, Solana M, Riaño B, García-González M, Bertucco A (2014) Biofuels from microalgae: lipid extraction and methane production from the residual biomass in a biorefinery approach. Bioresour Technol 170:370–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang X, Liang J, Tan H, Yahya R, Khamseekhiew B, Ho Y (2010) Molecular weight and protein binding affinity of Leucaena condensed tannins and their effects on in vitro fermentation parameters. Anim Feed Sci Technol 159:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jayanegara A, Wina E, Soliva CR, Marquardt S, Kreuzer M, Leiber F (2011) Dependence of forage quality and methanogenic potential of tropical plants on their phenolic fractions as determined by principal component analysis. Anim Feed Sci Technol 163:231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones G, McAllister T, Cheng K, Muir A (1994) Effect of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia Scop) on growth and proteolysis by 4 strains of rumen bacteria: resistance of Prevotella (Bacteroides) ruminicola B14. Appl Environ Microbiol 60:1374–1378Google Scholar
  24. Jouany J, Lassalas B (2000) Effect of protozoa on methane production in the rumen; consequences on carbon and hydrogen distribution among the other end products of fermentation, methane mitigation. US Environ Protection Agency and Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, NovosibirskGoogle Scholar
  25. Kamra D (2005) Rumen microbial ecosystem. Curr Sci 89:124–135Google Scholar
  26. Kamra D, Sawal R, Pathak N, Kewalramani N, Agarwal N (1991) Diurnal variation in ciliate protozoa in the rumen of black buck (Antilope cervicapra) fed green forage. Lett Appl Microbiol 13:165–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamra D, Agarwal N, Chaudhary L (2006) Inhibition of ruminal methanogenesis by tropical plants containing secondary compounds. International Congress Series. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  28. Krzywiecki S, Szyrner A, Pasternak A, Czarna Z (2006) Influence of fodder silage type on fermentation processes and rumen microorganisms. Electron J Pol Agric Univ 9:e26Google Scholar
  29. Makkar H (2003) Effects and fate of tannins in ruminant animals, adaptation to tannins, and strategies to overcome detrimental effects of feeding tannin-rich feeds. Small Rumin Res 49:241–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Makkar HP, Blümmel M, Borowy NK, Becker K (1993) Gravimetric determination of tannins and their correlations with chemical and protein precipitation methods. J Sci Food Agric 61:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Makkar HP, Blümmel M, Becker K (1995) In vitro effects of and interactions between tannins and saponins and fate of tannins in the rumen. J Sci Food Agric 69:481–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Makkar H, Blümmel M, Becker K (1997) In vitro rumen apparent and true digestibilities of tannin-rich forages. Anim Feed Sci Technol 67:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martınez TF, McAllister TA, Wang Y, Reuter T (2006) Effects of tannic acid and quebracho tannins on in vitro ruminal fermentation of wheat and corn grain. J Sci Food Agric 86:1244–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mauricio RM, Mould FL, Dhanoa MS, Owen E, Channa KS, Theodorou MK (1999) A semi-automated in vitro gas production technique for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. Anim Feed Sci Technol 79:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McSweeney C, Palmer B, Bunch R, Krause D (2001) Effect of the tropical forage calliandra on microbial protein synthesis and ecology in the rumen. J Appl Microbiol 90:78–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meng Y, Mumme J, Xu H, Wang K (2016) A biologically inspired variable-pH strategy for enhancing short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) accumulation in maize straw fermentation. Bioresour Technol 201:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ngamsaeng A, Wanapat M, Khampa S (2006) Evaluation of local tropical plants by in vitro rumen fermentation and their effects on fermentation end-products. Pak J Nutr 5:414–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Onodera R, Henderson C (1980) Growth factors of bacterial origin for the culture of the rumen oligotrich protozoon Entodinium caudatum. J Appl Bacteriol 48:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pal K, Patra A, Sahoo A, Kumawat P (2015) Evaluation of several tropical tree leaves for methane production potential, degradability and rumen fermentation in vitro. Livest Sci 180:98–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Palmquist D, Conrad H (1971) Origin of plasma fatty acids in lactating cows fed high grain or high fat diets. J Dairy Sci 54:1025–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Patra AK, Saxena J (2011) Exploitation of dietary tannins to improve rumen metabolism and ruminant nutrition. J Sci Food Agric 91:24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Patra AK, Yu Z (2014) Combinations of nitrate, saponin, and sulfate additively reduce methane production by rumen cultures in vitro while not adversely affecting feed digestion, fermentation or microbial communities. Bioresour Technol 155:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pellikaan WF, Stringano E, Leenaars J, Bongers DJ, van Laar-van Schuppen S, Plant J, Mueller-Harvey I (2011) Evaluating effects of tannins on extent and rate of in vitro gas and CH4 production using an automated pressure evaluation system (APES). Anim Feed Sci Technol 166-67:377–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ramírez-Restrepo C, Barry T, López-Villalobos N, Kemp P, McNabb W (2004) Use of Lotus corniculatus containing condensed tannins to increase lamb and wool production under commercial dryland farming conditions without the use of anthelmintics. Anim Feed Sci Technol 117:85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Russo VM, Jacobs JL, Hannah MC, Moate PJ, Dunshea FR, Leury BJ (2017) In vitro evaluation of the methane mitigation potential of a range of grape marc products. Anim Prod Sci 57:1437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sallam SMA (2005) Nutritive value assessment of the alternative feed resources by gas production and rumen fermentation in vitro. Res J Agric Biol Sci 1(2):200–209Google Scholar
  47. Sallam SM, Bueno IC, Nasser ME, Abdalla AL (2010) Effect of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus citriodora) fresh or residue leaves on methane emission in vitro. Ital J Anim Sci 9:299–303Google Scholar
  48. Soltan Y, Morsy A, Sallam S, Louvandini H, Abdalla A (2012) Comparative in vitro evaluation of forage legumes (prosopis, acacia, atriplex, and leucaena) on ruminal fermentation and methanogenesis. J Anim Feed Sci 21:759–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Soltan YA, Morsy AS, Sallam SM, Lucas RC, Louvandini H, Kreuzer M, Abdalla AL (2013) Contribution of condensed tannins and mimosine to the methane mitigation caused by feeding Leucaena leucocephala. Arch Anim Nutr 67:169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tavendale MH, Meagher LP, Pacheco D, Walker N, Attwood GT, Sivakumaran S (2005) 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 123:403–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tiemann TT, Lascano CE, Wettstein H-R, Mayer AC, Kreuzer M, Hess HD (2008) Effect of the tropical tannin-rich shrub legumes Calliandra calothyrsus and Flemingia macrophylla on methane emission and nitrogen and energy balance in growing lambs. Animal 2:790–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Soest PV, Robertson J, Lewis B (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Waghorn G (2008) Beneficial and detrimental effects of dietary condensed tannins for sustainable sheep and goat production—progress and challenges. Anim Feed Sci Technol 147:116–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wu H, Meng Q, Yu Z (2015) Effect of pH buffering capacity and sources of dietary sulfur on rumen fermentation, sulfide production, methane production, sulfate reducing bacteria, and total Archaea in in vitro rumen cultures. Bioresour Technol 186:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wu H, Meng Q, Yu Z (2016) Evaluation of ferric oxide and ferric citrate for their effects on fermentation, production of sulfide and methane, and abundance of select microbial populations using in vitro rumen cultures. Bioresour Technol 211:603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Production, Faculty of AgricultureZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Animal and Fish Production, Faculty of AgricultureAlexandria UniversityAlexandriaEgypt

Personalised recommendations