39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of Marine and Freshwater Macroalgae on In Vitro Total Gas and Methane Production

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study aimed to evaluate the effects of twenty species of tropical macroalgae on in vitro fermentation parameters, total gas production (TGP) and methane (CH 4) production when incubated in rumen fluid from cattle fed a low quality roughage diet. Primary biochemical parameters of macroalgae were characterized and included proximate, elemental, and fatty acid (FAME) analysis. Macroalgae and the control, decorticated cottonseed meal (DCS), were incubated in vitro for 72 h, where gas production was continuously monitored. Post-fermentation parameters, including CH 4 production, pH, ammonia, apparent organic matter degradability (OMd), and volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentrations were measured. All species of macroalgae had lower TGP and CH 4 production than DCS. Dictyota and Asparagopsis had the strongest effects, inhibiting TGP by 53.2% and 61.8%, and CH 4 production by 92.2% and 98.9% after 72 h, respectively. Both species also resulted in the lowest total VFA concentration, and the highest molar concentration of propionate among all species analysed, indicating that anaerobic fermentation was affected. Overall, there were no strong relationships between TGP or CH 4 production and the >70 biochemical parameters analysed. However, zinc concentrations >0.10 g.kg −1 may potentially interact with other biochemical components to influence TGP and CH 4 production. The lack of relationship between the primary biochemistry of species and gas parameters suggests that significant decreases in TGP and CH 4 production are associated with secondary metabolites produced by effective macroalgae. The most effective species, Asparagopsis, offers the most promising alternative for mitigation of enteric CH 4 emissions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Methane emissions from cattle.

          Increasing atmospheric concentrations of methane have led scientists to examine its sources of origin. Ruminant livestock can produce 250 to 500 L of methane per day. This level of production results in estimates of the contribution by cattle to global warming that may occur in the next 50 to 100 yr to be a little less than 2%. Many factors influence methane emissions from cattle and include the following: level of feed intake, type of carbohydrate in the diet, feed processing, addition of lipids or ionophores to the diet, and alterations in the ruminal microflora. Manipulation of these factors can reduce methane emissions from cattle. Many techniques exist to quantify methane emissions from individual or groups of animals. Enclosure techniques are precise but require trained animals and may limit animal movement. Isotopic and nonisotopic tracer techniques may also be used effectively. Prediction equations based on fermentation balance or feed characteristics have been used to estimate methane production. These equations are useful, but the assumptions and conditions that must be met for each equation limit their ability to accurately predict methane production. Methane production from groups of animals can be measured by mass balance, micrometeorological, or tracer methods. These techniques can measure methane emissions from animals in either indoor or outdoor enclosures. Use of these techniques and knowledge of the factors that impact methane production can result in the development of mitigation strategies to reduce methane losses by cattle. Implementation of these strategies should result in enhanced animal productivity and decreased contributions by cattle to the atmospheric methane budget.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review.

            Anaerobic digestion is an attractive waste treatment practice in which both pollution control and energy recovery can be achieved. Many agricultural and industrial wastes are ideal candidates for anaerobic digestion because they contain high levels of easily biodegradable materials. Problems such as low methane yield and process instability are often encountered in anaerobic digestion, preventing this technique from being widely applied. A wide variety of inhibitory substances are the primary cause of anaerobic digester upset or failure since they are present in substantial concentrations in wastes. Considerable research efforts have been made to identify the mechanism and the controlling factors of inhibition. This review provides a detailed summary of the research conducted on the inhibition of anaerobic processes. The inhibitors commonly present in anaerobic digesters include ammonia, sulfide, light metal ions, heavy metals, and organics. Due to the difference in anaerobic inocula, waste composition, and experimental methods and conditions, literature results on inhibition caused by specific toxicants vary widely. Co-digestion with other waste, adaptation of microorganisms to inhibitory substances, and incorporation of methods to remove or counteract toxicants before anaerobic digestion can significantly improve the waste treatment efficiency.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A unified correlation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2014
                22 January 2014
                : 9
                : 1
                : e85289
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
                [2 ]Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
                [3 ]CSIRO Animal Food and Health Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
                Mount Allison University, Canada
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: LM NT RN MM NAP. Performed the experiments: LM. Analyzed the data: LM NAP NT. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: LM NT MM RN. Wrote the paper: LM NT RN NAP MM.

                Article
                PONE-D-13-20146
                10.1371/journal.pone.0085289
                3898960
                24465524
                4e3dd1ed-ea7d-4faa-975b-f1fd6b2e9fb9
                Copyright @ 2014

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 15 May 2013
                : 3 December 2013
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Funding
                This project is supported by funding from the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as part of its Carbon Farming Futures Filling the Research Gap Program. The project is also supported by the Australian Government through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and the Advanced Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre (AMCRC), funded through the Australian Government's Cooperative Research Centre Scheme. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Agriculture
                Agricultural Production
                Environmental Impacts
                Animal Management
                Animal Nutrition
                Aquaculture
                Algaculture
                Sustainable Agriculture
                Biology
                Biochemistry
                Lipids
                Fatty Acids
                Oils
                Marine Biology
                Phycology
                Plant Science
                Plants
                Algae
                Chemistry
                Chromatography
                Gas Chromatography
                Veterinary Science
                Animal Management
                Animal Nutrition

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article