Fermentation parameters, microbial protein synthesis and gas kinetics of native northern Mexico species in vitro
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19136/era.a13n3.5307Keywords:
Methane emissions, in vitro fermentation, gas kinetics, microbial protein, rangeland speciesAbstract
Climate change is modifying precipitation patterns in arid and semi-arid rangelands, which may affect forage quality, ruminant nutrition, and the diet composition of grazing cattle. Under these conditions, the identification of alternative forage resources adapted to such environments becomes increasingly relevant. This study evaluated the in vitro fermentation characteristics, microbial protein synthesis, and gas production kinetics of native forage species from northern Mexico. An in vitro fermentation assay was conducted using Prosopis juliflora, Quercus rugosa, Flourensia cernua, and Atriplex canescens, with alfalfa hay (Medicago sativa) as the reference forage. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed among species in total gas production, methane production, fermentable organic matter (FOM), microbial protein production (MP), and gas production kinetics. Medicago sativa showed the highest values for total gas production (237 mL g-1 DM), FOM, microbial protein synthesis, and maximum gas production, whereas Quercus rugosa consistently exhibited the lowest values for gas and methane production (79.9 and 15mL g-1 DM), respectively),. In contrast, Atriplex canescens recorded 28 mL g-1 DM of methane production. Gas production kinetics revealed variability among species, reflecting differences in substrate degradability and fermentation efficiency. Overall, the results indicate that native forage species from northern Mexico exhibit distinct fermentation profiles and could represent alternative feed resources for ruminants. Q. rugosa showed potential as a low-methane forage under in vitro conditions; however, further in vivo studies are required to confirm its nutritional value and applicability under production conditions.
Downloads
References
Aboagye IA, Beauchemin KA (2019) Potential of molecular weight and structure of tannins to reduce methane emissions from ruminants: A review. Animals 9(11): 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110856
ANKOM Technology (2008) In vitro true digestibility using the ANKOM Daisy II incubator. ANKOM Technology. Macedon, NY, USA. 8p. https://www.ankom.com. Data consulted: December 16, 2025.
AOAC (2005) Official methods of analysis. 18th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC, USA. 2590p.
Araiza-Rosales EE, Pámanes-Carrasco GA, Sánchez-Arroyo JF, Herrera-Torres E (2022) Caracterización nutricional y producción de gas de especies vegetales con potencial alimenticio para la alimentación de rumiantes. Revista MVZ Cordoba. 27(2):e2142. https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.2142
Babayemi OJ (2007) In vitro fermentation characteristics and acceptability by West African dwarf goats of some dry season forages. African Journal of Biotechnology 6(10): 1260-1265.
Berça AS, Tedeschi LO, da Silva Cardoso A, Reis RA (2023) Meta-analysis of the relationship between dietary condensed tannins and methane emissions by cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 298: 115564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2023.115564
Blümmel M, Makkar HPS, Becker K (1997) In vitro gas production: A technique revisited. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 77: 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.1997.tb00734.x
Boga M, Ayasan T (2022) Determination of nutritional value of alfalfa varieties and lines by using the in vitro method and gas production technique. Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society 73: 3613-3620. https://doi.org/10.12681/jhvms.24674
Bonilla-Cárdenas JA, Lemus-Flores C (2012) Emisión de metano entérico por rumiantes y su contribución al calentamiento global y al cambio climático. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias 3(2): 215-246.
Canul-Solís J, Campos-Navarrete M, Piñeiro-Vázquez A, Casanova-Lugo F, Barros-Rodríguez M, Chay-Canul A, Cárdenas-Medina J, Castillo-Sánchez L (2020) Mitigation of rumen methane emissions with foliage and pods of tropical trees. Animals 10(5): 843. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10050843
Cisneros-Saguilán P, Martínez-Vásquez J, de la Rosa-Galindo A, Candelaria-Martínez B, Portillo-Salgado R (2024) Caracterización tipológica de la ganadería bovina doble propósito en Santiago Pinotepa Nacional, Oaxaca, México. Ecosistemas y Recursos Agropecuarios 11(3): e3560. https://doi.org/10.19136/era.a11n3.3560
Dimas-Villalobos EP, Torres-Velázquez DS, Delgado E, Araiza-Rosales EE, Medrano-Roldán H, Gamero-Barraza JI, Pámanes-Carrasco GA, Páez-Lerma JB, Guerra-Rosas MI, Reyes-Jáquez D (2025) In vitro evaluation of cattle diets with the inclusion of a pelletized concentrate containing Acacia farnesiana. Ruminants 5(4): 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/ruminants5040047
Enríquez CE, Parra GMA, Ramírez MF (2011) Producción y valor nutritivo de forraje de atriplex en un suelo salino. Biotecnia 13(2): 29-34. https://doi.org/10.18633/bt.v13i2.86
Estell RE, Anderson DM, James DK (2016) Defoliation of Flourensia cernua (tarbush) with high-density mixed-species stocking. Journal of Arid Environments 130: 62-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2016.03.013
Estrada OR, Ortiz MM, Torres EH, Carreón FOC (2016) Seasonal and annual changes in the quality of native rangeland selected by grazing steers in northern Mexico. Ciencia e Investigación Agraria 43(2): 203-212. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-16202016000200003
FAO (2023) Reducing methane emissions in livestock systems in Asia and the Pacific. FAO Animal Production and Health Reports No. 19. FAO. Rome, Italy. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc6388en
Fernández-Mayer A (2017) Producción de carne y leche bovina en sistemas silvopastoriles: aprovechamiento de especies arbóreas, arbustivas y forrajeras de clima templado-frío, tropical y subtropical. INTA. Argentina. 193p.
Fievez V, Babayemi OJ, Demeyer D (2005) Estimation of direct and indirect gas production in syringes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123-124: 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.05.001.
Goering HK, Van-Soest PJ (1970) Forage fiber analysis. USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 379. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC, USA. 20p.
Gosselink J, Dulphy J, Poncet C, Jailler M, Tamminga S, Cone J (2004) Prediction of forage digestibility in ruminants using in situ and in vitro techniques. Animal Feed Science and Technology 115: 227-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.01.008.
Hoover WH, Stokes SR (1991) Balancing carbohydrates and proteins for optimum rumen microbial yield. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3630-3644. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78553-6
Ibrahim TA, Hassen A, Apostolides Z (2022) The antimethanogenic potentials of plant extracts. Plants 11: 3296. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233296
INEGI (2022) Censo Agropecuario 2022: Resultados definitivos. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. https://www.inegi.org.mx. Data consulted: December 16, 2025.
Jenko C, Bonato P, Fabre R, Perlo F, Tisocco O, Teira G (2018) Adición de taninos a dietas de rumiantes y su efecto sobre la calidad y rendimiento de la carne. Ciencia, Docencia y Tecnología 56: 224-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.33255/2956/355
Jurado-Guerra P, Velázquez-Martínez M, Sánchez-Gutierrez RA, Álvarez-Holguín A, Dominguez-Martínez PA, Gutiérrez-Luna M, Chávez-Ruíz MG (2021) Los pastizales y matorrales de zonas áridas y semiáridas de México: Estatus actual, retos y perspectivas. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias 12(3): 261-285. https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v12s3.5875
Lavrencic A, Stefanon B, Susmel P (1997) Evaluation of the Gompertz model in degradability studies. Animal Science 64: 423-433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800016027.
Lileikis T, Nainienė R, Bliznikas S, Uchockis V (2023) Dietary ruminant enteric methane mitigation strategies. Animals 13(16): 2586. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13162586
Makkar HPS (2004) Recent advances in the in vitro gas method for evaluation of feed resources. In: Assessing quality and safety of animal feeds. FAO Animal Production and Health Series No. 160. FAO. Rome. pp. 55-88.
Min BR, Barry TN, Attwood GT, McNabb WC (2003) The effect of condensed tannins on the nutrition and health of ruminants fed fresh temperate forages: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 106: 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(03)00041-5
Murillo-Ortiz M, Carrillo-Herrera J, Pámanes-Carrasco G, Muro-Reyes A, Herrera-Torres E (2018) Patterns of ruminal fermentation in response to addition of glucogenic precursor to the diet of feedlot steers. Agroproductividad 11(9): 155-159. https://doi.org/10.32854/agrop.v11i9.1230
Parmar AB, Patel VR, Choubey M, Desai DN, Patel NM, Baishya A (2022) Evaluation of tropical top feed species for their nutritional properties, in vitro rumen digestibility, gas production potential and polyphenolic profile. Range Management and Agroforestry 43(1): 146-153.
Peprah S, Enkhjargal D, Bill B, Kathy K, Alan I, Daalkhaijav D, Murillo CSP, Herbert L (2022) White prairie clover (Dalea candida Michx. ex Willd.) and purple prairie clover (Dalea purpurea Vent.) in binary mixtures with grass species. Sustainable Agriculture Research 11(2): 30-45. https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v11n2p30
Porter LJ, Hrstich LN, Chan BG (1985) The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25(1): 223-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(00)94533-3
Torres-Fraga K, Herrera-Torres E, Reyes-Estrada O, Murillo-Ortiz M (2018) Producción de gas, degradabilidad y fermentación ruminal in vitro de dietas para bovinos de carne con la inclusión de hojas de encino (Quercus sp.). Agroproductividad 11(6): 120-127. https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.352939
SAS (2003) SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA. 5136p.
Tamminga S, Brandsma GG, Van Duinkerken G, Van Vuuren AM, Blok MC (2007) Protein evaluation for ruminants: the DVE/OEB 2007 system. Wageningen University. Wageningen, Netherlands. 60p.
Theodorou MK, Williams BA, Dhanoa MS, McAllan AB, France J (1994) A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48: 185-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(94)90171-6
Vázquez-Mendoza OV, Andrade-Yucailla V, Elghandour MMMY, Masaquiza-Moposita DA, Cayetano-De-Jesús JA, Alvarado-Ramírez ER, Adegbeye MJ, Barros-Rodríguez M, Salem AZM (2023) Effect of dietary guanidinoacetic acid levels on the mitigation of greenhouse gas production and the rumen fermentation profile of alfalfa-based diets. Animals 13(11): 1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13111719
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ecosistemas y Recursos Agropecuarios
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Aviso de copyright
Los autores que se envían a esta revista aceptan los siguientes términos:
una. Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y garantizan a la revista el derecho a ser la primera publicación del trabajo con una licencia de atribución de Creative Commons que permite a otros compartir el trabajo con un reconocimiento de la autoría del trabajo y la publicación inicial en esta revista.
B. Los autores pueden establecer acuerdos complementarios separados para la distribución no exclusiva de la versión del trabajo publicado en la revista (por ejemplo, en un repositorio institucional o publicarlo en un libro), con un reconocimiento de su publicación inicial en esta revista.
C. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir su trabajo electrónicamente (por ejemplo, en repositorios institucionales o en su propio sitio web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, ya que puede conducir a intercambios productivos, así como a una cita más temprana y más extensa del trabajo publicado. (Consulte El efecto del acceso abierto).
