Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 9992–9999 | Cite as

Influence of phytase enzyme on ruminal biogas production and fermentative digestion towards reducing environmental contamination

  • Laura Haydée Vallejo-Hernández
  • German Buendia Rodríguez
  • Mona Mohamed Mohamed Yasseen Elghandour
  • Ralf Greiner
  • Abdelfattah Zeidan Mohamed SalemEmail author
  • Moyosore Joseph Adegbeye
Research Article

Abstract

Environmental impact of livestock production has received a considerable public scrutiny because of the adverse effects of nutrient run-offs, primarily N and P, from agricultural land harboring intensive energy livestock operations. Hence, this study was designed to determine the efficacy of dietary phytase supplementation on fermentation of a sorghum grain–based total mixed ration (TMR) using a ruminal in vitro digestion approach. Phytase was supplemented at three doses: 0 (control), 540 (P540), and 720 (P720) g/t dry matter, equivalent to 0, 2.7 × 106, and 3.6 × 106 CFU/t DM, respectively. Compared to P720 and the control, gas production was higher for P540 after 12 h (P = 0.02) and 24 h (P = 0.03) of fermentation suggesting a higher microbial activity in response to phytase supplementation at lower phytase levels. Correspondingly, dry matter degradability was found to have improved in P540 and P720 compared to the control by 13 and 11% after 24 h of incubation (P = 0.05). For ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), a tendency towards lower values was only observed for P540 at 24 h of fermentation (P = 0.07), while minimal treatment effects were observed at other fermentation times. The concentrations of total volatile fatty acids (VFA) were higher (P < 0.05) after 48 h of fermentation for P540 and P720 compared to the control (P = 0.03) by 10% and 14%, respectively. Ruminal acetate tended towards higher values in the presence of phytase after 12 h of fermentation (P = 0.10), but towards lower values after 24 h of fermentation (P = 0.02), irrespective of the phytase dose applied. A trend towards lower ruminal propionate levels was observed in the presence of phytase after 6 h (P = 0.10) and 12 h (P = 0.06) of fermentation, while no effects were found at other fermentation times. In conclusion, phytase supplementation has the potential to improve metabolic energy activity of rumen microorganisms and the use of feed constituents. Thus, phytase supplementation could help to reduce environmental contamination in areas of ruminant production.

Keywords

Biogas Biodegradability Environment Phytase Ruminal fermentation 

Notes

References

  1. Abdel-Megeed A, Tahir A (2015) Reduction of phosphorous pollution from broiler waste through supplementation of wheat based broiler fed with phytase. J Chem 2015:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed SM, Allam SM, Omer HAA, Elelaime RR, Hassaan NA (2014) Effect of adding phytase to sheep rations on digestibility and bioavailability of phosphorus and calcium. Global Vet 13:844–855Google Scholar
  3. Akinfemi A, Adesanya AO, Aya VE (2009) Use of an in vitro gas production technique to evaluate some Nigerian feedstuff. Am J Sci Res 4:240–245Google Scholar
  4. AOAC (2000) Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 17th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists International, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. Applegate TJ, Angel R (2008) Phosphorous requirement for poultry AS-583-W. Purdue Univ. Coop extension west Lafayette IN. http://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/AS/AS-583-W.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2014
  6. Brask-Pedersen DN, Glitsø LV, Skov LK, Lund P, Sehested J (2011) Effect of exogenous phytase on feed inositol phosphate hydrolysis in an in vitro rumen fluid buffer system. J Dairy Sci 94:951–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broderick GA, Kang JH (1980) Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J Dairy Sci 63:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buendía G, Mendoza G, Pinos-Rodríguez JM, González-Muñoz S, Aranda E, Miranda L, Melgoza L (2010) Influence of supplemental phytase on growth performance, digestion and phosphorus balance of lambs fed sorghum-based diets. It J Anim Sci 9:187–190Google Scholar
  9. Chen J-F (2017) Green chemical engineering. Engineering 3:283–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darabighane B, Salem AZM, Aghjehgheshlagh FM, Mahdavi A, Zarei A, Elghandour MMY, López S (2018) Environmental efficiency of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on methane production in dairy and beef cattle via a meta-analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3878-x
  11. Eeckhout W, De Paepe M (1994) Total phosphorus, phytate-phosphorus and phytase activity in plant feedstuffs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 47:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fedorak PM, Hrudey SE (1983) A simple apparatus for measuring gas-production by methanogenic cultures in serum bottles. Environ Technol Lett 4:425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goering MK, van Soest PJ (1970) Forage fibre analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agriculture Handbook No. 379. Agricultural Research Service, USDA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Guyton AD, McKinney JM, Knowlton KF (2003) The effect of steam-flaked or dry ground and supplemental phytic acid on phosphorous partitioning and ruminal phytase activity in lactating cows. J Dairy Sci 86:3972–3982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hernandez A, Kholif AE, Lugo-Coyote R, Elghandour MMY, Cipriano M, Rodríguez GB, Odongo NE, Salem AZM (2017) The effect of garlic oil, xylanase enzyme and yeast on biomethane and carbon dioxide production from 60-d old Holstein dairy calves fed a high concentrate diet. J Clean Prod 142:2384–2392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kholif AE, Elghandour MMY, Salem AZM, Barbabosa A, Márquez O, Odongo NE (2017) The effects of three total mixed rations with different concentrate to maize silage ratios and different levels of microalgae Chlorella vulgaris on in vitro total gas, methane and carbon dioxide production. J Agric Sci 155:494–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khullar E, Shetty JK, Rausch KD, Tumbleson ME, Singh V (2011) Use of Phytases in ethanol production from E-mill corn processing. Cereal Chem 88:223–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kincaid RL, Garikipati DK, Nennich TD, Harrison JH (2005) Effect of grain source and exogenous phytase on phosphorus digestibility in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 88:2893–2902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knowlton KF, Parsons CM, Cobb CW, Wilson KF (2005) Exogenous phytase plus cellulase and phosphorus excretion in lactating dairy cows. Prof Anim Sci 21:212–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Komisarczuk-Bony S, Durand M (1991) Effects of minerals on microbial metabolism. In: Jouany JP (ed) Rumen microbial metabolism and ruminant digestion. INRA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. Menke K, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W (1979) The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production technique when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J Agric Sci 93:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murphy J, Braun R, Weiland P, Wellinger A (2011) Biogas from crop digestion. Task 37:1–23Google Scholar
  23. Raboy V, Dickinson DB, Below FE (1984) Variation in seed total phosphorus, phytic acid, zinc, calcium, magnesium, and protein among lines of Glycine max and G. soja. Crop Sci 24:431–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Robinson JW (1975) Atomic absorption spectroscopy, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. SAS (2006) Statistical analysis system. Version 9.4. SAS Inst., Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  26. Steinfeld H, Wassenaar T (2007) The role of livestock production in carbon and nitrogen cycles. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:271–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tayyab U, McLean FA (2015) Phosphorus losses and on-farm mitigation options for dairy farming systems: a review. J Anim Plant Sci 25:318–327Google Scholar
  28. Udén P, Robinson PH, Mateos GG, Blank R (2012) Use of replicates in statistical analyses in papers submitted for publication in animal feed science and technology. Anim Feed Sci Technol 171:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Lingen HJ, PLugge CM, Fadel JG, Kebreab E, Bannink A, Dijkstra J (2016) Thermodynamic driving force of hydrogen on rumen microbial metabolism: a theoretical investigation. PLoS One 11:e0161362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wannasek L, Ortner M, Amon B, Amon T (2017) Sorghum, a sustainable feedstock for biogas production? Impact of climate, variety and harvesting time on maturity and biomass yield. Biomass Bioenergy 106:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Winter L, Meyer U, vonSoosten D, Gorniak M, Lebzien P, Dänicke S (2015) Effect of phytase supplementation on rumen fermentation characteristics and phosphorus balance in lactating dairy cows. It J Anim Sci 14:53–60Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Haydée Vallejo-Hernández
    • 1
  • German Buendia Rodríguez
    • 2
  • Mona Mohamed Mohamed Yasseen Elghandour
    • 1
  • Ralf Greiner
    • 3
  • Abdelfattah Zeidan Mohamed Salem
    • 1
    Email author
  • Moyosore Joseph Adegbeye
    • 4
  1. 1.Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y ZootecniaUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de MéxicoTolucaMexico
  2. 2.Centro Nacional de Investigación Disciplinaria en Fisiología y Mejoramiento Animal, INIFAPAjuchitlanMexico
  3. 3.Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food, Department of Food Technology and Bioprocess EngineeringMax Rubner-InstitutKarlsruheGermany
  4. 4.Department of Animal Science, College of AgricultureJoseph Ayo Babalola UniversityIleshaNigeria

Personalised recommendations