Skip to main content
NCBI home page
AMB Express logoLink to AMB Express
. 2024 Jul 30;14:86. doi: 10.1186/s13568-024-01744-x

Deciphering the role of Moringa oleifera seeds and probiotic bacteria on mitigation of biogas production from ruminants

Mona M M Y Elghandour 1, Edson Brodeli Figueroa Pacheco 2, Ameer Khusro 3, Deli Nazmín Tirado-González 4, Maximilian Lackner 5,✉, José Luis Ponce-Covarrubias 6, Pasquale De Palo 7, Aristide Maggiolino 7, Abdelfattah Z M Salem 1,✉
PMCID: PMC11289196  PMID: 39080197

Abstract

Maintaining cleaner and more sustainable ecosystems by mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from livestock through dietary manipulation is in demand. This study was aimed to assess the effect of Moringa oleifera seeds and probiotics (Pediococcus acidilactici BX-B122 and Bacillus coagulans BX-B118) as feed supplements on GHG production and fermentation profile from steers and sheep. The treatments included diets containing 0, 6, 12, and 18% of M. oleifera seeds meal and a mixture of probiotic bacteria (0.2 ml/g of diet). Total biogas production, CH4, CO, and H2S emission from animals (up to 48 h), rumen fermentation profile, and CH4 conversion efficiency were recorded using standard protocols. Results showed interaction among M. oleifera seeds and probiotics on asymptotic biogas production and total biogas production up to 48 h (P < 0.05). The rate of CH4 emission in steers was reduced from 0.1694 to 0.0447 ml/h using 6 and 18% of M. oleifera seeds (P < 0.05). Asymptotic CO and the rate of CO production were increased (P < 0.05) by supplementing different doses of M. oleifera seeds and probiotics. Adding 12% of M. oleifera seeds and probiotics reduced H2S production from 0.0675 to 0.0112 ml H2S/g DM (at 48 h of fermentation) in steers. In sheep, the additives mitigated H2S production from 0.0364 to 0.0029 ml H2S/g DM (at 48 h of fermentation), however there were not interaction (P = 0.7744). In addition, M. oleifera seeds and probiotics reduced the pH level and dry matter degradability (DMD) in steers and sheep (P < 0.0001) showing a positive impact on CH4:ME and CH4:OM (in steers) and CH4:SCFA (in sheep), while the interaction was not significant (P > 0.05) for CH4:SCFA (in steers) and CH4:ME and CH4:OM (in sheep). In conclusion, the interaction of M. oleifera seeds and probiotics in the feeding diet reduced GHG emissions and affected the fermentation profile of steers and sheep.

Keywords: Feed additives, Greenhouse gases, M. Oleifera, Probiotics, Ruminants, Rumen fermentation

Introduction

The uncontrolled emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the ecosystem is worriment for society. Over time, the variations in the concentrations and proportions of detrimental GHG produced in the atmosphere have caused an unprecedented change in the ecosystem (Lackner et al. 2022; Elghandour et al. 2023). It is estimated that the temperature of the globe might increase by 4 °C in the following decades due to GHG emissions (IPCC 2014). In the current scenario, the agriculture industry and deforestation contribute about 25% of total GHG released into the atmosphere (Ahmed et al. 2020). Livestock industries are considered a source of GHG emissions, contributing approximately 15% of total anthropogenic production (Khusro et al. 2022a). The socio-economic and environmental impact of GHG emissions from animals is expected to increase worldwide in the coming years; thus, its mitigation are an urgently needed.

Dietary manipulation of animals is one of the paramount strategies implemented to minimize the emission of GHG from ruminants. Strategies such as the addition to diets of herbal extracts, plants’ metabolites (saponins, tannins, essential oils, organosulfides, etc.), probiotics, yeasts, exogenous enzymes, organic acids, ionophores, algae, and metallic nanoparticles into the fodder had shown to reduce the GHG emission from ruminants (Palangi and Lackner 2022). Among the plants, the inclusion of Moringa oleifera (Moringaceae) in diets has been studied due to its ample nutritional properties (proteins, minerals, vitamins, amino acids, etc.) and low anti-nutrient contents (tannin, lignin, phytate, etc.) (Su and Chen 2020; Pedraza-Hernández et al. 2021; Magalhães et al. 2021). M. oleifera is a rapidly growing perennial softwood plant (5–12 m in height) primarily distributed in tropical and subtropical regions, M. oleifera leaves contain high amounts of crude protein, vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, and different phytochemicals, while seeds contain odorless oil which is resistant to autoxidation process (Ebeid et al. 2020). Therefore M. oleifera had been included as an additive in animal’s diet to improve the productivity and feed utilization (Pedraza-Hernández et al. 2021; Alvarado-Ramírez et al. 2023).

Probiotics are non-pathogenic direct-fed microorganisms extensively used in animal nutrition as additives (Gado et al. 2017) to stimulate the growth of ruminal bacteria and enhance the total bacterial count by providing them certain with nutritional constituents. Although sometimes probiotic bacteria reduce the methanogenesis process by directly inhibiting of the growth of methanogens (Doyle et al. 2019), some probiotics also might inhibit specific bacteria of the rumen that produce secondary metabolites, which reduce the methanogenesis process. Previous reports have critically analyzed the role of probiotic bacteria, mainly lactic acid bacteria, in mitigating of GHG production of ruminants (Doyle et al. 2019).

Because of the role of dietary feed supplements in livestock industries, the present study aimed to assess the potentialities of M. oleifera seeds and probiotic bacteria (Pediococcus acidilactici BX-B122 and Bacillus coagulans BX-B118) as feed additives in the mitigation of biogas [methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S)] production from steers and sheep but also explore its fermentation profile under in vitro conditions.

Materials and methods

Experimental treatments

The treatments consisted of ruminant diets with the inclusion of 0, 6, 12, and 18% of M. oleifera seeds meal and a commercial probiotic product (INSILATO AL@, BIORGANIX MEXICANA S.A. DE C.V, Coahuila, Mexico), which contained probiotic bacteria [ P. acidilactici BX-B122 (1 × 1011 cfu m/L) and B. coagulans BX-B118 (1 × 1011 cfu m/L)] at a dose of 0.2 ml/g of diet. The ingredients of the diet were purchased from a feed store, while M. oleifera seeds were obtained from wild trees in the municipality of Iguala de la Independencia Guerrero, Mexico, with an approximate age of 4 years and under the criterion that the pods had to be mature (brown color and open valves). The seeds were subjected to the dehydration process at room temperature (area free from solar radiation and humidity), and subsequently, it was powdered using a forage grinder to generate flour. Mixing of the ingredients, including M. oleifera seed flour, was done manually.

Chemical composition of diets

Three representative samples of each diet were obtained were dehydrated at 60 °C for 72 h, and ground in a hammer mill (Thomas Wiley® Laboratory Mill model 4, Thomas Scientific™, Swedesboro, NJ, USA) with a 1 mm sieve. Ash (method ID 942.05) and nitrogen content (N; method ID 954.01) were quantified (g/kg DM) according to the standard methods of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC 1997). From the obtained values, the organic matter (OM) and the crude protein (CP) were calculated as follows:

graphic file with name M1.gif
graphic file with name M2.gif

The content of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) was estimated using the ANKOM200 Fiber Analyzer (ANKOM Technology Corp., Macedonia, NY, USA) following the methodology of Van Soest et al. (1991). In addition, sodium sulfite and thermostable α-amylase were used in the NDF analysis, and the NDF and ADF values were expressed without residual ash. The chemical composition of the diets is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Ingredients and chemical composition of diets for ruminants with the inclusion of different concentrations of M. Oleifera seeds

Items Level of M. oleifera seeds (% of diet)
0 6 12 18
Ingredients (g/kg diet)
 Maize grain 735 675 615 555
 Maize stubble 150 150 150 150
 Soybean grain 90 90 90 90
 M. oleifera seeds 0 60 120 180
 Mineral salt 25 25 25 25
Chemical composition (g/kg DM)
 Organic matter 910 953 954 953
 Crude protein 120 100 100 104
 Neutral detergent fiber 400 280 280 300
 Acid detergent fiber 220 200 200 220
Secondary metabolites (mg/g)
 Tannins 1.7 2.6 3.0 3.0
 Saponins 11 13 24 32
Open in a new tab

In vitro incubations

The ruminal content was obtained from 4 steers (430 ± 20 kg BW) and 4 sheep (40 ± 5 kg BW) that were slaughtered in a local slaughterhouse, regulated by the Official Mexican Standard NOM-033-SAG/ZOO-2014, which establishes methods to kill domestic and wild animals. The ruminal contents were transported to the laboratory in air-tight thermoses pre-heated to 39 °C, where it was filtered with four layers of cheesecloth to obtain only ruminal fluid, which was subsequently used as inoculum for fermentation. The nutrient medium was prepared following the methodology described by Goering and Van Soest (1970) and contained buffer solution, macrominerals, microminerals, reducing agent, resazurin, and distilled water. Fermentation was carried out in glass vials (120 ml) containing 500 mg of diet, probiotic doses (only if applicable), 10 ml of ruminal inoculum, and 40 ml of nutrient medium in each vial. Rubber stoppers and aluminum seals were used to seal the vials hermetically. Further, vials were shaken lightly and placed in a water bath at 39 °C for 48 h. In total, three fermentation cycles were carried out, and in each one, there were 51 vials, including the white ones (containing only ruminal inoculum and nutrient medium).

Biogas estimation

Total biogas production was quantified up to 48 h, following the methodology proposed by Theodorou et al. (1994) and using a digital manometer with a precision of ± 2% (Manometer model 407,910, Extech® Instruments, Nashua, NH, USA). The biogases (CH4, CO, and H2S) were quantified following the methodology of Acosta et al. (2022) using a portable gas detector (Dräger X-am®, model 2500, Dräger, Lübeck, SH, Germany) connected to an external pump (Dräger X-am®, Dräger, Lübeck, SH, Germany). Furthermore, at the end of each measurement, the accumulated biogas was released to avoid over-estimation.

Rumen pH and dry matter degradability (DMD)

The contents of the vials were filtered at the end of the fermentation using filter bags with a porosity of 25 μm (Filter bags F57, ANKOM Technology Corp., Macedonia, NY, USA) to obtain the residues of the diets and collect the liquid part in beakers (Alvarado-Ramírez et al. 2023). pH was measured in the collected liquid using a potentiometer with a glass electrode (pH wireless electrode HALO® model HI11102, Hanna® Instruments, Woonsocket, RI, USA), while DMD (%) was estimated after dehydrating and weighing the residue of the diets by measuring the difference between the initial and final weights (Elghandour et al. 2014).

Calculous

The production (ml/g DM incubated) of total biogas, CH4, CO, and H2S was used to estimate the asymptotic gas production, the production rate, and the time of the lag phase before the production of each gas, using the NLIN protocol of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS 2002) and the model proposed by France et al. (2000) as mentioned below:

graphic file with name M3.gif

where y is the production (ml/g MS) of total biogas, CH4, CO, and H2S at time t (h); b is the asymptotic production (ml/g MS) of total biogas, CH4, CO, and H2S; c is the production rate (ml/h) of total biogas, CH4, CO, and H2S; and Lag is the lag phase (h) before the production of total biogas, CH4, CO, and H2S.

The metabolizable energy (ME; MJ/kg DM) and short-chain fatty acids (SCFA; mmol per 200 mg of DM) were calculated with the equations proposed by Menke et al. (2009) and Getachew et al. (2002), respectively. The CH4 conversion efficiency was estimated based on CH4 production per unit of SCFA, ME, and MO in mmol/mmol (CH4:SCFA), g/MJ (CH4:ME), and ml/g (CH4:OM), respectively.

Statistical analyses

The variance analysis (ANOVA) model considered the experimental design (completely randomized) with a factorial arrangement (2 × 4 × 2), where factor 1 was the source of ruminal inoculum (steer and sheep), factor 2 was the inclusion of M. oleifera seeds (0, 6, 12, and 18%), and factor 3 was the addition of probiotic (without and with) in triplicates. The triplicate data of each treatment in each run were calculated as a mean, and the average values obtained were used as the experimental unit of each treatment. The data were analyzed using the GLM procedure of SAS (2002). The last minimum significance (LSD) was used for the comparison of means; it was calculated from the standard error (SE) by Proc Mixed (SAS 2002), considering the error degrees of freedom (DF) from variance analysis (ANOVA) and a P = 0.05.

Results

Total biogas production and fermentation kinetics

Table 2 shows the total biogas production from steers and sheep by supplementing M. oleifera seeds and probiotic bacteria (P. acidilactici BX-B122 and B. coagulans BX-B118). In steers, the asymptotic biogas production was increased by supplementing different concentrations (6–18%) of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics. M. oleifera seeds (P = 0.0381) and probiotics depicted (P = 0.0021) increment in asymptotic biogas production (259.7 to 344.7 ml/g DM). However, there were not interaction M. oleifera seeds × probiotics (P = 0.8774) effect on asymptotic biogas production. Similarly, the rate of biogas production was increased (0.039 to 0.048 ml/h) due to the supplementation of varied concentrations of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotic bacteria, while the effect was not significant (P = 0.8062) for M. oleifera seeds and significant (P < 0.0001) for probiotics inclusion. M. oleifera seeds × probiotics was not significant (P = 0.5973) influence on the biogas production rate. The lag period was reduced (6.34 to 4.86 h) at higher concentrations of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics. However, the effect of M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction on the lag period was not significant (P = 0.7525). In a like manner, total biogas production (ml total biogas/g DM incubated) was increased (P < 0.05) from 2 to 48 h at distinct concentrations of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics. However, there were not interaction M. oleifera seeds × probiotics (P = 0.0318) at 2 h of incubation.

Table 2.

Parameters and total biogas production from steers and sheep as a source of inoculum using different concentrations of M. Oleifera seeds in the presence or absence of probiotic (P. acidilactici BX-B122 and B. coagulans BX-B118)

Rumen inoculum source (RIS) Moringa seed % (MSP) Probiotic bacteria (PB) Total Biogas production
Parameters1 mL total biogas/g DM incubated
b c Lag 2 h 24 h 48 h
Steers 0 Without 278.87 0.0390 4.87 27.60 193.06 269.82
With 318.90 0.0467 4.94 33.81 275.88 307.91
6 Without 299.10 0.0399 6.34 26.40 193.84 288.25
With 344.67 0.0450 5.57 45.77 282.33 333.62
12 Without 274.97 0.0396 6.24 25.16 177.99 264.71
With 298.27 0.0464 5.14 32.80 257.61 289.79
18 Without 259.73 0.0394 6.29 23.89 167.72 250.42
With 297.47 0.0481 4.86 32.75 265.94 288.02
2LSD 0.05= 27.70 0.0022 1.19 3.66 9.99 22.54
2SEM 14.142 0.00133 0.711 2.183 5.965 13.474
MSP 0.0381 0.8062 0.5177 0.0106 0.0035 0.0361
Linear 0.1708 0.4919 0.3598 0.2912 0.0093 0.1641
Quadratic 0.8644 0.8194 0.4774 0.7829 0.1480 0.8800
PB 0.0021 < 0.0001 0.1279 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0015
MSP × PB 0.8774 0.5973 0.7525 0.0318 0.4463 0.8981
Sheep 0 Without 163.33 0.0155 3.49 27.00 69.82 155.37
With 212.80 0.0379 4.11 32.32 162.71 201.94
6 Without 176.67 0.0128 5.00 27.45 76.37 146.07
With 390.23 0.0302 4.06 60.41 254.49 370.53
12 Without 150.44 0.0095 3.75 28.12 75.56 140.32
With 315.67 0.0255 2.02 57.45 191.01 294.67
18 Without 158.03 0.0076 3.60 27.14 60.75 150.36
With 389.50 0.0339 2.26 56.18 275.98 374.13
2LSD 0.05= 22.60 0.0049 1.21 1.35 24.04 23.30
2SEM 13.487 0.00293 0.722 0.805 14.344 13.901
MSP < 0.0001 0.0446 0.1083 < 0.0001 0.0052 < 0.0001
Linear < 0.0001 0.0592 0.2436 < 0.0001 0.0022 < 0.0001
Quadratic 0.8571 0.0263 0.4497 < 0.0001 0.4777 0.8091
PB < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.1148 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
MSP × PB < 0.0001 0.3095 0.4103 < 0.0001 0.0021 < 0.0001
2LSD 0.05= 23.16 0.0038 1.20 2.76 18.99 22.94
2Pooled SEM 13.818 0.00227 0.717 1.645 10.985 13.689
P value
RIS < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
MSP < 0.0001 0.0656 0.1753 < 0.0001 0.0031 < 0.0001
Linear 0.0021 0.1286 0.8416 0.0002 0.0337 0.0024
Quadratic 0.9994 0.0266 0.9669 0.0025 0.2186 0.7789
PB < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0272 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
RIS × MSP < 0.0001 0.0422 0.2513 < 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001
RIS × PB < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.9509 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
MSP × PB 0.0002 0.1751 0.2871 < 0.0001 0.0003 < 0.0001
RIS × MSP × PB 0.0002 0.6103 0.9483 < 0.0001 0.0062 0.0002
Open in a new tab

1b = asymptotic biogas total production (ml/g DM); c = rate biogas total production (ml/h); Lag = initial delay before gas total production begins (h)

2LSD= last significant difference; SEM = standard error of mean

The asymptotic biogas production was increased (150.44 to 390.23 ml/g DM) in sheep, due to the supplementation of varied concentrations (6–18%) of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics (Table 2). M. oleifera seeds, probiotics, and there was interaction M. oleifera seeds × probiotics (P < 0.0001) for asymptotic biogas production. Similarly, the rate of biogas production was increased (0.0076 to 0.0339 ml/h; P < 0.05) due to the inclusion of varied concentrations of M. oleifera seeds and probiotics. However, M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction did not affect (P = 0.3095) the rate of biogas production. The addition of varied concentrations of M. oleifera seeds and probiotics also showed no effect (P > 0.05) on the lag period. M. oleifera seeds and probiotics exhibited a significant increment in total biogas production up to 48 h. Maximum biogas production of 333.6 ml total biogas/g DM was estimated using 6% of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics. Overall, M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction depicted an influence (P < 0.05) on asymptotic biogas production and total biogas production up to 48 h, while the rate of biogas production (P = 0.1751) and the duration or onset of the lag period (P = 0.2871) was not significantly affected.

Figure 1 illustrates total biogas production kinetics from steers and sheep using M. oleifera seeds at different concentrations in the presence and absence of probiotics. The results showed higher total biogas production using 6% of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Kinetics of ruminal total gas (TG) production from steers and sheep as a source of inoculum using different concentrations of M. oleifera seeds in the presence or absence of probiotic (P. acidilactici BX-B122 and B. coagulans BX-B118)

In vitro CH4 production

Methane production is due to the inclusion of M. oleifera seeds and probiotic bacteria, using steers as a source of ruminal inoculum is shown in Table 3. The addition of various concentrations of M. oleifera seeds, probiotics, and M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction revealed an effect (P < 0.05) on the asymptotic CH4 emission from steers. The rate of CH4 emission was reduced (P < 0.05, 0.1694 to 0.0447 ml/h) using 6 and 18% of M. oleifera seeds, while the effect was not significant (P = 0.7246) due to the addition of probiotics. The supplementation of M. oleifera seeds at higher concentrations caused a reduced lag period (21.02 to 8.48 h), however, the effect was not significant (P = 0.1285), while the presence of probiotics (P = 0.0262) and M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction (P = 0.0347) showed a significant effect on lag period reduction. On the other hand, CH4 production was increased up to 48 h using various concentrations of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics. However, the production due to M. oleifera seeds and probiotics supplementation was estimated to be lower than that of the control.

Table 3.

Parameters and CH4 production from steers and sheep as a source of inoculum using different concentrations of M. Oleifera seeds in the presence or absence of probiotic (P. acidilactici BX-B122 and B. coagulans BX-B118)

Rumen inoculum source (RIS) Moringa seeds % (MSP) Probiotic bacteria (PB) CH4 production
Parameters2 ml CH4/g DM incubated ml CH4/100 ml biogas total
B c Lag 2 h 24 h 48 h 2 h 24 h 48 h
Steers 0 Without 60.63 0.0687 16.91 0.299 27.002 60.193 1.08 13.83 21.67
With 20.79 0.0260 14.18 0.000 3.870 15.691 0.00 1.34 5.13
6 Without 16.21 0.0648 18.73 0.264 4.626 15.869 1.00 2.38 5.54
With 28.52 0.0610 18.75 0.000 7.042 28.352 0.00 2.47 8.46
12 Without 43.12 0.0839 19.40 0.211 12.530 43.264 0.83 7.08 16.33
With 17.69 0.1694 19.40 0.000 7.836 17.470 0.00 3.03 6.01
18 Without 18.82 0.1064 21.02 0.219 4.880 19.159 0.92 2.92 7.58
With 21.41 0.0447 8.48 0.000 14.615 21.381 0.00 5.50 7.42
2LSD 0.05= 9.61 0.0377 3.69 0.026 5.07 7.74 0.085 2.44 2.43
2SEM 5.743 0.02252 2.199 0.0155 3.0318 5.6258 0.051 1.456 1.451
MSP 0.0102 0.0160 0.1285 0.0395 0.0442 0.0230 0.1251 0.0202 0.0011
Linear 0.0025 0.2281 0.7230 0.0204 0.0790 0.0063 0.1220 0.0338 0.0009
Quadratic 0.9991 0.0041 0.0402 0.0917 0.3725 0.7991 0.0776 0.5136 0.5746
PB 0.0069 0.7246 0.0262 < 0.0001 0.0863 0.0030 < 0.0001 0.0039 < 0.0001
MSP × PB 0.0011 0.0223 0.0347 0.0395 0.0004 0.0004 0.1251 0.0005 < 0.0001
Sheep 0 Without 18.32 0.0254 17.05 0.089 3.535 13.865 0.33 4.96 8.79
With 37.55 0.0388 24.45 0.000 5.202 38.395 0.00 3.44 18.89
6 Without 11.53 0.0110 13.15 0.000 0.995 9.950 0.00 1.25 6.25
With 86.57 0.0964 24.14 0.000 8.256 86.545 0.00 3.21 23.24
12 Without 7.53 0.0037 21.95 0.000 0.567 6.937 0.00 0.75 4.83
With 34.81 0.0819 26.96 0.000 4.332 34.036 0.00 2.26 11.52
18 Without 8.66 0.0096 24.14 0.000 0.589 9.378 0.00 0.98 6.21
With 30.61 0.1392 23.63 0.000 5.267 30.275 0.00 1.89 8.20
2LSD 0.05= 8.02 0.0293 3.43 0.03 2.09 9.127 0.099 1.14 2.23
2SEM 4.786 0.01759 2.048 0.0157 1.2471 5.4459 0.059 0.678 1.624
MSP < 0.0001 0.1395 0.0383 0.0266 0.2616 0.0002 0.0266 0.0028 0.0003
Linear 0.1022 0.0287 0.1456 0.0121 0.2651 0.2641 0.0121 0.0009 0.0009
Quadratic 0.5371 0.5029 0.2456 0.1220 0.2833 0.6045 0.1220 0.0400 0.1149
PB < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0011 0.0628 0.0002 < 0.0001 0.0628 0.1565 < 0.0001
MSP × PB < 0.0001 0.0338 0.0750 0.0266 0.2016 0.0003 0.0266 0.0877 0.0023
2LSD 0.05= 8.85 0.034 3.56 0.026 3.89 9.28 0.092 1.904 2.576
2Pooled SEM 5.286 0.02020 2.125 0.0156 2.3181 5.5366 0.055 1.136 1.540
P value
RIS 0.6943 0.0108 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.7203 < 0.0001 0.0001 0.1221
MSP 0.0004 0.0190 0.0787 0.0011 0.0409 0.0023 0.0036 0.0005 < 0.0001
Linear 0.0005 0.0191 0.4419 0.0006 0.0372 0.0044 0.0030 0.0006 < 0.0001
Quadratic 0.6884 0.0342 0.0197 0.0213 0.2129 0.8571 0.0191 0.1311 0.3952
 PB 0.0001 0.0014 0.3740 < 0.0001 0.8560 0.0002 < 0.0001 0.0211 0.0676
RIS × MSP < 0.0001 0.0251 0.0376 0.5699 0.0395 < 0.0001 0.4270 0.1527 0.0002
 RIS × PB < 0.0001 0.0003 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0012 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0009 < 0.0001
 MSP × PB < 0.0001 0.0188 0.0024 0.0011 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0036 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
 RIS × MSP × PB 0.0259 0.0128 0.6617 0.5699 0.0008 0.0129 0.4270 0.0031 < 0.0001
Open in a new tab

1b = asymptotic CH4 production (ml/g DM); c = rate CH4 production (ml/h); Lag = initial delay before CH4 production begins (h)

2 LSD = last minimum difference; SEM = standard error of mean

On the contrary, using sheep as a source of ruminal inoculum, the addition of various concentrations of M. oleifera seeds, probiotics, and M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction exhibited an increment (P < 0.05) in CH4 production up to 48 h to the control. Overall, the interaction of M. oleifera seeds × probiotics affected the CH4 production (P < 0.05). Figure 2 illustrates CH4 production from steers and sheep using M. oleifera seeds at different concentrations in the presence and absence of probiotics. The results revealed a low CH4 production using 18% of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Kinetics of ruminal CH4 production from steers and sheep as a source of inoculum using different concentrations of M. oleifera seeds in the presence or absence of probiotic (P. acidilactici BX-B122 and B. coagulans BX-B118)

In vitro CO production

Carbon monoxide production from ruminants due to the addition of M. oleifera seeds and probiotic bacteria, using steers and sheep as a source of ruminal inoculum is shown in Table 4. Findings showed that various concentrations of M. oleifera seeds, probiotics, and M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction depicted an increment (P < 0.05) in asymptotic CO production (0.007 to 1.026 ml/g DM), lag period (0.0135 to 0.1710 h), and CO production (up to 48 h; 0.0076 to 0.9367 ml CO/g DM incubated) from steers. In contrast, the rate of CO production was decreased (P < 0.05, 0.0008 to 0.0003 ml/h) due to the inclusion of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics. Likewise, in sheep, asymptotic CO production (0.1626 to 1.4293 ml/g DM) as well as CO production (0.1538 to 1.4085 ml/g DM incubated) were estimated to be increased (P < 0.05) by supplementing varied concentrations of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics.

Table 4.

Parameters and CO production from steers and sheep as a source of inoculum using different concentrations of M. Oleifera seeds in the presence or absence of probiotic (P. acidilactici BX-B122 and B. coagulans BX-B118)

Rumen inoculum source (RIS) Moringa seeds % (MSP) Probiotic (PB) CO production
Parameters1 ml CO/g DM incubated
B c Lag 2 h 24 h 48 h
Steers 0 Without 0.0125 0.0005 0.0135 0.00006 0.00607 0.01231
With 0.2086 0.0003 0.1519 0.00109 0.06930 0.19127
6 Without 0.0077 0.0006 0.0168 0.00006 0.00278 0.00758
With 0.3573 0.0004 0.1710 0.00287 0.09448 0.33767
12 Without 0.0087 0.0006 0.0164 0.00005 0.00360 0.00857
With 0.5573 0.0004 0.1660 0.00146 0.15051 0.52304
18 Without 0.0070 0.0008 0.0194 0.00003 0.00232 0.00689
With 1.0263 0.0003 0.1365 0.00339 0.38647 0.93670
2LSD 0.05= 0.0737 0.00007 0.006 0.0005 0.032 0.055
2SEM 0.04378 0.00004 0.00436 0.000292 0.019079 0.040344
MSP < 0.0001 0.0466 0.0072 0.0032 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
Linear < 0.0001 0.0066 0.2938 0.0013 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
Quadratic 0.4316 0.6966 0.0109 0.1446 0.0314 0.5564
PB < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
MSP × PB < 0.0001 0.0149 0.0028 0.0028 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
Sheep 0 Without 0.3284 0.0003 0.1903 0.00099 0.05651 0.24756
With 0.7805 0.0011 0.2302 0.00008 0.18947 0.76709
6 Without 0.2318 0.0004 0.5682 0.00020 0.02033 0.20445
With 1.4293 0.0012 0.2353 0.00018 0.29208 1.40849
12 Without 0.1626 0.0006 0.5871 0.00011 0.00944 0.15379
With 0.7984 0.0012 0.2340 0.00014 0.16364 0.78836
18 Without 0.2650 0.0012 0.2340 0.00007 0.00452 0.24315
With 1.3513 0.0003 0.1903 0.00014 0.41464 1.34915
2LSD 0.05= 0.154 0.0002 0.292 0.00007 0.027 0.089
2SEM 0.09196 0.00013 0.17447 0.000041 0.027834 0.089242
MSP 0.0025 0.4936 0.4949 < 0.0001 0.0031 0.0016
Linear 0.0140 0.8095 0.9914 < 0.0001 0.0067 0.0052
Quadratic 0.0227 0.1588 0.2056 < 0.0001 0.0044 0.0327
PB < 0.0001 0.0013 0.1812 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
MSP × PB 0.0024 < 0.0001 0.5901 < 0.0001 0.0005 0.0028
 2LSD 0.05= 0.121 0.00015 0.0207 0.00035 0.04 0.116
2Pooled SEM 0.07202 0.00009 0.12341 0.000208 0.023862 0.069252
P value
RIS < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0011 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
MSP < 0.0001 0.2657 0.4327 0.0099 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
Linear < 0.0001 0.2297 0.9872 0.0233 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
Quadratic 0.0132 0.1364 0.1738 0.0294 0.0003 0.0236
PB < 0.0001 0.3654 0.7934 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
RIS × MSP 0.0006 0.5079 0.5400 < 0.0001 0.0118 0.0011
RIS × PB 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0165 < 0.0001 0.0057 < 0.0001
MSP × PB < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.6314 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
RIS × MSP × PB 0.0015 < 0.0001 0.5354 0.0123 0.0669 0.0020
Open in a new tab

1b = asymptotic CO production (ml/g DM); c = rate CO production (ml/h); Lag = initial delay before CO production begins (h)

2LSD, last minimum difference; SEM = standard error of mean

Figure 3 shows CO production (ml/g DM) from steers and sheep using M. oleifera seeds at different concentrations in the presence and absence of probiotics. Results showed low CO production using 12% of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Kinetics of ruminal CO production from steers and sheep as a source of inoculum using different concentrations of M. oleifera seeds in the presence or absence of probiotic (P. acidilactici BX-B122 and B. coagulans BX-B118)

In vitro H2S production

Hydrogen sulfide production from ruminants due to the supplementation of M. oleifera seeds and probiotic bacteria, using steers and sheep as a source of ruminal inoculum is shown in Table 5. In steers, asymptotic H2S production was decreased from 0.0672 to 0.0114 ml/g DM, but M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction was not significant (P = 0.3390). Similarly, M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction depicted no significant effect on the biogas production rate (P = 0.2977) and lag period (P = 0.2952). Adding 12% of M. oleifera seeds along with probiotics revealed a reduction in H2S production from 0.06745 to 0.01116 ml H2S/g DM incubated at 48 h, however there were not interaction M. oleifera seeds × probiotics (P = 0.4490).

Table 5.

Parameters and H2S production from steers and sheep as a source of inoculum using different concentrations of M. Oleifera seeds in the presence or absence of probiotic (P. acidilactici BX-B122 and B. coagulans BX-B118)

Rumen inoculum source (RIS) Moringa seeds % (MSP) Probiotic bacteria
(PB)		 H2S production
Parameters1 ml H2S/g DM incubated
b c Lag 2 h 24 h 48 h
Steers 0 Without 0.0630 0.0006 0.1494 0.00011 0.03328 0.06314
With 0.0091 0.0006 0.1579 0.00002 0.00316 0.00895
6 Without 0.0672 0.0000 0.0159 0.00011 0.03342 0.06745
With 0.0114 0.0001 0.0209 0.00007 0.00242 0.01166
12 Without 0.0622 0.0006 0.1576 0.00010 0.03069 0.06194
With 0.0114 0.0006 0.1575 0.00004 0.00273 0.01116
18 Without 0.0584 0.0000 0.0198 0.00010 0.02892 0.05860
With 0.0126 0.0001 0.0166 0.00007 0.00537 0.01230
2LSD 0.05= 0.005 0.00002 0.005 0.00002 0.001 0.005
2SEM 0.00281 0.00001 0.00321 0.000010 0.000849 0.003083
MSP 0.5577 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.1514 0.2953 0.5649
Linear 0.8526 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0870 0.2228 0.8505
Quadratic 0.6732 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.7485 0.2026 0.7669
PB < 0.0001 0.0321 0.2798 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
MSP × PB 0.3390 0.2977 0.2952 0.0241 0.0021 0.4490
Sheep 0 Without 0.0363 0.0003 0.1534 0.00011 0.01204 0.03636
With 0.0027 0.0003 0.1347 0.00000 0.00011 0.00271
6 Without 0.0350 0.0000 0.0025 0.00011 0.01317 0.03418
With 0.0038 0.0000 0.0028 0.00000 0.00017 0.00376
12 Without 0.0360 0.0004 0.1390 0.00012 0.01303 0.03283
With 0.0029 0.0003 0.1670 0.00000 0.00010 0.00293
18 Without 0.0356 0.0000 0.0027 0.00011 0.01047 0.03518
With 0.0042 0.0000 0.0026 0.00000 0.00024 0.00418
2LSD 0.05= 0.003 0.00002 0.009 0.000003 0.0008 0.003
2SEM 0.00169 0.00001 0.00533 0.000002 0.000468 0.001928
MSP 0.9913 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.6740 0.0483 0.7832
Linear 0.8310 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.8870 0.1456 0.9394
Quadratic 0.8861 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.2325 0.0522 0.3163
PB < 0.0001 0.0394 0.5428 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
MSP × PB 0.8631 0.1557 0.0044 0.6740 0.0320 0.7744
2LSD 0.05= 0.004 0.00002 0.007 0.00001 0.001 0.004
2Pooled SEM 0.00232 0.00001 0.00440 0.000007 0.000686 0.002571
P value
RIS < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
MSP 0.7338 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.1402 0.1400 0.6915
Linear 0.9604 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0786 0.0737 0.9040
Quadratic 0.7712 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.9363 0.8808 0.7716
PB < 0.0001 0.8905 0.2755 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
RIS × MSP 0.5956 < 0.0001 0.2381 0.1375 0.2016 0.5473
RIS × PB < 0.0001 0.0028 0.9655 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
MSP × PB 0.3862 0.0589 0.0254 0.0170 < 0.0001 0.4504
RIS × MSP × PB 0.4719 0.5798 0.0012 0.0151 0.0450 0.5931
Open in a new tab

1b = asymptotic H2S production (ml/g DM); c = rate H2S production (ml/h); Lag = initial delay before H2S production begins (h)

2LSD = last minimum difference; SEM = standard error of mean

In sheep, the inclusion of M. oleifera seeds with probiotics exhibited a reduction in asymptotic H2S production from 0.0363 to 0.0029 ml/g DM. However, the influence of M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction was not significant (P = 0.8631). The interaction showed no significant (P = 0.1557) effect on the biogas production rate, but the lag period was reduced (P = 0.0044) from 0.1534 to 0.0026 h. On the other hand, the inclusion of M. oleifera seeds along with probiotics in the diet caused mitigation in H2S emission from 0.03636 to 0.00293 ml/g DM up to 48 h, but the interaction was not significant (P = 0.7744).

Figure 4 estimates H2S production from steers and sheep using M. oleifera seeds at different concentrations in the presence and absence of probiotics. Results showed low H2S production using 18% of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Kinetics of ruminal H2S production from steers and sheep as a source of inoculum using different concentrations of M. oleifera seeds in the presence or absence of probiotic (P. acidilactici BX-B122 and B. coagulans BX-B118)

Fermentation profile and CH4 conversion efficiency

In steers, the supplementation of varied concentrations of M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics resulted in a reduction (P < 0.0001) in pH from 7.11 to 6.42. The DMD was reduced from 85.82 to 60.68% using 12% M. oleifera seeds in the presence of probiotics, but the interaction was not significant (P = 0.9706). The supplementation of M. oleifera seeds along with the probiotics increased SCFA (3.70 to 6.35 mmol/g DM) and ME (5.82 to 7.18 MJ/kg DM). M. oleifera seeds × probiotics did not significant affected (P = 0.3368) the CH4:SCFA, but it affected (P = 0.0004) the CH4:ME and CH4:OM (Table 6).

Table 6.

Rumen fermentation profile and CH4 conversion efficiency from steers and sheep as a source of inoculum using different concentrations of M. Oleifera seeds in the presence or absence of probiotic (P. acidilactici BX-B122 and B. coagulans BX-B118)

Rumen inoculum source (RIS) Moringa seeds % (MSP) Probiotic bacteria (PB) Rumen fermentation profile1 CH4 conversion efficiency2
pH DMD
(%)		 SCFA
(mmol/g DM)		 ME
(MJ/kg DM)		 CH4:SCFA
(mmol/mmol)		 CH4:ME
(g/MJ)		 CH4:OM
(ml/g)
Steers 0 Without 7.11 85.26 4.26 6.11 181.41 20.47 29.18
With 6.42 61.50 6.10 7.05 17.18 2.48 4.18
6 Without 6.98 85.69 4.28 6.12 31.15 3.51 5.00
With 6.42 62.26 6.35 7.18 31.91 4.55 7.61
12 Without 7.35 82.63 3.93 5.94 92.94 9.83 13.54
With 6.51 60.68 5.75 6.87 39.29 5.29 8.47
18 Without 7.13 85.82 3.70 5.82 38.28 3.90 5.27
With 6.66 62.42 5.95 6.97 71.21 9.75 15.79
3LSD 0.05= 0.003 3.398 0.216 32.03 0.111 3.743 5.489
3SEM 0.019 2.027 0.129 19.112 0.066 2.233 3.275
MSP < 0.0001 0.6112 0.0027 0.0201 0.0027 0.0318 0.0442
Linear < 0.0001 0.7198 0.0141 0.0332 0.0133 0.0540 0.0790
Quadratic < 0.0001 0.2505 0.1647 0.5194 0.1636 0.4230 0.3725
PB < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0036 < 0.0001 0.0248 0.0862
MSP × PB < 0.0001 0.9706 0.3315 0.0005 0.3368 0.0004 0.0004
Sheep 0 Without 6.84 72.93 1.53 4.70 65.59 3.48 3.82
With 6.61 70.72 3.59 5.76 46.85 4.19 5.62
6 Without 6.95 72.94 1.67 4.78 16.51 0.96 1.08
With 6.63 67.29 5.63 6.81 41.75 5.60 8.92
12 Without 6.92 69.81 1.66 4.77 9.91 0.55 0.61
With 6.49 61.40 4.22 6.09 29.51 3.30 4.68
18 Without 6.92 72.39 1.33 4.60 8.28 0.39 0.42
With 6.18 63.35 6.11 7.05 24.55 3.44 5.69
3LSD 0.05= 0.101 1.778 0.535 15.126 0.275 1.461 2.261
3SEM 0.060 1.061 0.319 9.025 0.164 0.872 1.349
MSP 0.0079 0.0001 0.0053 0.0018 0.0054 0.0981 0.2473
Linear 0.0097 0.0018 0.0022 0.0004 0.0023 0.0427 0.2362
Quadratic 0.2205 0.0003 0.4773 0.0496 0.4877 0.2265 0.3030
PB < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.1165 < 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001
MSP × PB 0.0032 0.0208 0.0021 0.1029 0.0022 0.2044 0.1994
3LSD 0.05= 0.074 2.712 0.407 25.048 0.21 2.841 4.198
3Pooled SEM 0.044 1.618 0.243 14.945 0.125 1.695 2.505
P value
RIS < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
MSP 0.0273 0.0078 0.0021 0.0003 0.0022 0.0117 0.0403
Linear 0.4765 0.1696 0.0259 0.0004 0.0274 0.0100 0.0349
Quadratic 0.0044 0.0031 0.2312 0.1427 0.2375 0.2300 0.2190
PB < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0239 < 0.0001 0.5116 0.8399
RIS × MSP < 0.0001 0.1578 0.0013 0.1565 0.0013 0.0494 0.0394
RIS × PB < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0006 < 0.0001 0.0004 0.0011
MSP × PB 0.0048 0.5582 0.0002 < 0.0001 0.0002 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
RIS × MSP × PB < 0.0001 0.2992 0.0080 0.0039 0.0081 0.0009 0.0009
Open in a new tab

1pH = ruminal pH; DMD = dry matter degradability; SCFA = short-chain fatty acids; ME = metabolizable energy

2CH4:SCFA = methane: short-chain fatty acids ratio; CH4:ME = methane: metabolizable energy ratio; CH4:OM = methane: organic matter ratio

3LSD = last minimum difference; SEM = standard error of mean

In sheep, including of M. oleifera seeds and probiotics yielded reduced the pH (P = 0.0032) and DMD (P = 0.0208) from 6.95 to 6.18 and 72.94 to 61.40%, respectively. The SCFA and ME were increased from 1.33 to 6.11 mmol/g DM and 4.60 to 7.05 MJ/kg DM, respectively, using 18% M. oleifera seeds along with probiotics. M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction exerted a significant effect (P = 0.0022) on CH4:SCFA, but the effect was not significant for CH4:ME (P = 0.2044) and CH4:OM (P = 0.1994) (Table 6).

Discussion

The anthropogenic GHG emissions have become a pivotal topic globally because of their detrimental impact on climate change and global warming. In the coming years, the release of GHG will exhibit significant ecological and socio-economic effects worldwide due to the significant rise in temperature. Since livestock is one of the prime contributors towards increments in GHG release, followed by a change in the earth’s climate (Mangar et al. 2022), it is imperative to minimize GHG emissions from livestock by developing alternative feed resources.

The volume of biogas produced from livestock depends on the nature of feed digestion and the fermentation process. Some feed additives affect animal biogas emissions (Santillán et al. 2023). A plethora of dietary supplements, such as the inclusion of plants and probiotics, have been tested to investigate their roles in the rate of biogas production from ruminants and non-ruminants (Khusro et al. 2022a).

In the present study, supplementing different concentrations (6–18%) of M. oleifera seeds along with probiotics (P. acidilactici BX-B122 and B. coagulans BX-B118) in diets increased the total biogas production of steers and sheep. The increase in biogas production from steers and sheep shows the availability and digestibility of diets. Similarly, Pedraza-Hernandez et al. (2019) found that including different doses of M. oleifera extract increased the rate of in vitro total biogas production from goats. On the contrary, Elghandour et al. (2017) and Mangar et al. (2022) observed a reduction in total biogas production from dairy calves and cows, respectively, after the supplementation of M. oleifera as a feed additive. The potential effects of M. oleifera inclusion on biogas production might depend on factors such as genetic differences, soil fertility, nutritional content of the plant, and type of livestock used (Fritsche et al. 2017). In another study, Abdelbagi et al. (2021) estimated increased biogas production from steers by supplementing probiotics as additives. Likewise, Elghandour et al. (2018) observed higher horse biogas production by adding probiotics to an oat straw-containing diet. The increment in biogas production is mainly associated with better microbial fermentation, followed by a nutrient digestibility enhancing.

The mitigation of CH4 emissions from ruminants and non-ruminants is the main target of veterinarians because livestock causes approximately 35–40% of the CH4 emissions (Vohra et al. 2016; Khusro et al. 2022b). In ruminants, 90% of CH4 emissions are derived from enteric fermentation (Doyle et al. 2019). Among the different types of GHG produced, the CH4 ranks second after CO2 and absorbs more energy than CO2, with a global warming potential of ~ 28 (Króliczewska et al. 2023). Thus, an innovative approach is required to reduce CH4 production from ruminants to ensure a cleaner ecosystem. In this regard, in the present context, adding different doses of M. oleifera seeds, probiotics, and M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction revealed a significant (P < 0.05) effect on asymptotic CH4 emission from steers. The rate of CH4 emission was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced using 6 and 18% of M. oleifera seeds, while the effect was not significant (P = 0.7246) due to the addition of probiotics. Including M. oleifera seeds, probiotics, and M. oleifera seeds × probiotics interaction exhibited a significant increment in CH4 production up to 48 h in sheep. Similar observations were estimated by Pedraza-Hernández et al. (2019), Dong et al. (2019), and Mangar et al. (2022), who suggested the utilization of M. oleifera as feed additives to mitigate CH4 emission from goats and cows. The reduction in CH4 production might be because of the cell plant wall content that might decrease the microbial action, thereby causing reduced emissions of CH4 (Elghandour et al. 2017). However, Elghandour et al. (2018) depicted increased CH4 production in horses after adding probiotic to the feeding diet. Overall, the source, concentrations, and strains of probiotics are factors that could affect the emission of CH4 from animals (Vohra et al. 2016).

Carbon monoxide is an indirect GHG because it has the potential to react with other molecules (i.e. the hydroxyl radical, OH*) present in the air and create another GHG, mainly CO2. It generally causes a lower absorption of energy in the infrared region. However, it enhances global warming by reacting with certain chemical species in the atmosphere, thereby increasing the amount of primary GHG and modulating CH4 and ozone production (Sobieraj et al. 2022). Including different levels of M. oleifera seeds, probiotics, and M. oleifera seeds × probiotics promoted increments of CO production from steers. However, the present study´s findings differ from the reports of Santillán et al. (2023), who demonstrated that CO emissions could be reduced in horses fed diets with plant leaf extract.

In livestock, H2S is known as a toxic signalling molecule after NO (nitric oxide) and CO (Shah et al. 2020). The anaerobic digestion of organic materials through the action of sulphate-reducing bacteria releases H2S in the ecosystem. The gut bacteria cause the metabolism of dietary SO42- (sulfate) and produce H2S in animals, which is rapidly absorbed through the intestinal wall and exhibits toxicological effects (Pal et al. 2018). Since the accumulation of H2S gas causes poliomyelitis in ruminants (Binversie et al. 2016), it is imperative to regulate the synthesis of H2S in the rumen. In the rumen, H2S (sulphide) production depends on the amount of SO42- in the diet. Ruminal microbes use sulphur or SO42-, which is present in the diet, to synthesize H2S. A competitive relationship is observed among methanogens and sulphide-reducing bacteria to require H+ for the metabolic process. Correspondingly, sulphide-reducing bacteria reduce SO42- to H2S, and methanogens reduce CO2 to CH4 in the rumen (Shah et al. 2020). Depicted that the inclusion of sulphur in the diet of steers enhanced H2S production (Drewnoski et al. 2012), the addition of S-containing amino acid and SO42− in the diet of swine might mitigate the H2S production (Sutton et al. 1999). Santillán et al. (2023) found a reduction of H2S emission from equines by supplementing M. oleifera plant extract in the diet.

Saksrithai and King (2018) summarized extensively the potential role of different additives in reducing the emission of H2S from poultry and animals. In the line with prior reports, the present investigation revealed reduction in H2S production from steers and sheep due to the inclusion of M. oleifera seeds along with probiotics in the diet.

Plants are sources of saponins, tannins, flavonoids, and other metabolites, which directly or indirectly could mitigate ruminants’ digestion-associated biogas emission, mainly CH4 (Króliczewska et al. 2023). Saponins are known to inhibit the growth of ciliate protozoa present in the rumen (Hartinger et al. 2018) and reduce the production of CH4 indirectly through the defaunation process (removal of protozoa from the rumen), which is known to disrupt the protozoan cell membrane in the rumen.

A hydrophilic sugar moiety and a hydrophobic steroid or triterpenoid aglycone are saponins’ components that allow to the formation of complexes with sterols of cell membranes, leading to cell death (Patra and Saxena 2009). Additionally, saponins affect CH4 emission by reducing the viability of methanogens and deactivating methanogenesis-associated genes, slowing down the methanogenesis process. Saponin also affects specific microbes in the rumen and alters biochemical mechanisms in the rumen (Ramos-Morales et al. 2017).

Tannins are another secondary polyphenolic plant metabolites that affect the rumen ecosystem (Broucek 2018). Tannins cause indirect inhibition of hydrogen-producing microbes and direct inhibition of methanogenic microbes in rumen (Kumar et al. 2014). Anti-methanogenic properties of tannins may be bactericidal or bacteriostatic and may depend on the type of bacterial species present in the rumen (Vasta et al. 2019). Overall, the anti-methanogenic traits of tannins rely on the binding of tannins to protein through the interaction of phenolic hydroxyl groups with amino acid residues by hydrogen bonds and hydrophobic interactions (Vasta et al. 2019); similarly, flavonoids decrease the viability of protozoa and methanogens, and thus, inhibit the methanogenesis process in the rumen by absorbing H2 after the breakdown of their carbon ring structures (Oskoueian et al. 2013).

Probiotics (lactobacilli, bacilli, pediococci, lactococci, bifidobacteria, and propionibacteria) are known to affect the ruminal fermentation process and improve animals’ health by controlling the gastro-intestinal microflora (Tavendale et al. 2005). Probiotics present in the rumen increase feed efficiency, which may decrease the production of GHG, particularly CH4 emissions (Islam and Lee 2019). Since the increase in propionate production and reduction in CH4 emission are co-related (Haque 2018), probiotics can help promote fermentation mechanisms to release hydrogen-based propionate. However, probiotic bacteria affect methanogenesis in ruminants by other possible mechanisms such as (1) Shifting of the ruminal fermentation process so that there is a prominent reduction in CH4 emission, (2) Directly inhibiting the methanogens present in the rumen, and (3) Inhibiting H2 or methyl-containing compounds producing specific bacterial species present in the rumen that are responsible for the methanogenesis process (Doyle et al. 2019).

In the present study, steers and sheep showed a reduction in pH and DMD because of the addition of 6 and 18% of M. oleifera seeds. In addition, the supplementation of M. oleifera seeds along with probiotics increased SCFA and ME and reduced the rate of CH4 emission.

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank BIORGANIX MEXICANA S.A. DE C.V, Coahuila, Mexico for providing INSILATO AL@ as a probiotic cocktail during the experiments.

Funding

Not applicable.

Data availability

Raw data can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Declarations

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

There is no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

The ruminal contents of sheep and steers were taken from the slaughterhouse of Toluca, Estado de Mexico, Mexico.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Maximilian Lackner, Email: maximilian.lackner@technikum.at.

Abdelfattah Z. M. Salem, Email: salem@uaemex.mx

References

  1. Abdelbagi M, Ridwan R, Fidriyanto R, Jayanegara A (2021) Effects of probiotics and encapsulated probiotics on enteric methane emission and nutrient digestibility in vitro. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 788:012050. 10.1088/1755-1315/788/1/012050 10.1088/1755-1315/788/1/012050 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Acosta JAD, Elghandour MM, Mariezcurrena-Berasain MD, Adegbeye MJ, Fajemisin AN, Pliego AB et al (2022) 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 115:104021. 10.1016/j.jevs.2022.104021 10.1016/j.jevs.2022.104021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahmed J, Almeida E, Aminetzah D, Denis N, Henderson K, Katz J et al (2020) Agriculture and Climate Change: reducing emissions through Improved Farming practices. McKinsey and Company, New York, USA, pp 1–45 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alvarado-Ramírez ER, Maggiolino A, Elghandour MMMY, Rivas-Jacobo MA, Ballesteros-Rodea G, Palo PD et al (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. 10.3390/ani13040764 10.3390/ani13040764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. AOAC (1997) Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 16th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists International, Arlington, VA, USA [Google Scholar]
  6. Binversie EY, Ruiz-Moreno M, Carpenter A, Heins B, Crawford G, DiCostanzo A et al (2016) Effects of dietary roughage and sulfur in diets containing corn dried distillers grains with solubles on hydrogen sulfide production and fermentation by rumen microbes in vitro. J Anim Sci 94:3883–3893. 10.2527/jas.2016-0502 10.2527/jas.2016-0502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Broucek J (2018) Options to methane production abatement in ruminants: a review. J Anim Plant Sci 28:348–364 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dong L, Zhang T, Diao Q (2019) Effect of dietary supplementation of Moringa oleifera on the production performance and fecal methanogenic community of lactating dairy cows. Animals 9:262. 10.3390/ani9050262 10.3390/ani9050262 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Doyle N, Mbandlwa P, Kelly WJ, Attwood G, Li Y, Ross RP et al (2019) Use of lactic acid bacteria to reduce methane production in ruminants, a critical review. Front Microbiol 10:2207. 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02207 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Drewnoski M, Richter E, Hansen S (2012) Dietary sulfur concentration affects rumen hydrogen sulfide concentrations in feedlot steers during transition and finishing. J Anim Sci 90:4478–4486. 10.2527/jas.2012-5078 10.2527/jas.2012-5078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ebeid HM, Mengwei L, Kholif AE, Hassan FU, Lijuan P, Xin L et al (2020) Moringa oleifera oil modulates rumen microflora to mediate in vitro fermentation kinetics and methanogenesis in total mix rations. Curr Microbiol 77:1271–1282. 10.1007/s00284-020-01935-2 10.1007/s00284-020-01935-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Elghandour MM, Chagoyán JCV, Salem AZM, Kholif AE, Castañeda JSM, Camacho LM et al (2014) Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae at direct addition or pre-incubation on in Vitro gas production kinetics and degradability of four fibrous feeds. Ital J Anim Sci 13:3075. 10.4081/ijas.2014.3075 10.4081/ijas.2014.3075 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Elghandour MM, Salem AZM, Khusro A, Cipriano-Salazar M, Olivares-Pérez J, Barros-Rodriguez MA et al (2017) Assessment of some browse tree leaves on gas production and sustainable mitigation of CH4 and CO2 emissions in dairy calves at different age. J Clean Prod 162:1192–1199. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.029 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Elghandour MM, Khusro A, Greiner R, Salem AZM, de la Fuente JL, Márquez-Molina O et al (2018) Horse fecal methane and carbon dioxide production and fermentation kinetics influenced by Lactobacillus farciminis–supplemented diet. J Equine Vet 62:98–101. 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.12.006 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.12.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Elghandour MM, Maggiolino A, Alvarado-Ramírez ER, Hernández-Meléndez J, Rivas-Cacerese RR, Hernández-Ruiz PE et al (2023) Marine microalgae as a nutritive tool to mitigate ruminal greenhouse gas production: in vitro fermentation characteristics of fresh and ensiled maize (Zea mays L.) forage. Vet Sci 10:556. 10.3390/vetsci10090556 10.3390/vetsci10090556 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. France J, Dijkstra J, Dhanoa MS, Lopez S, Bannink A (2000) 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 83:143–150. 10.1017/S0007114500000180 10.1017/S0007114500000180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fritsche S, Wang X, Jung C (2017) Recent advances in our understanding of tocopherol biosynthesis in plants: an overview of key genes, functions, and breeding of vitamin E improved crops. Antioxidants 6:99. 10.3390/antiox6040099 10.3390/antiox6040099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gado HM, Khusro A, Salem AZM (2017) Role of probiotics in animal nutrition. Anim Rev 4:8–20 10.18488/journal.ar.2017.41.8.20 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Getachew G, Makkar HPS, Becker K (2002) 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 139:341–352. 10.1017/S0021859602002393 10.1017/S0021859602002393 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Goering MK, Van Soest PJ (1970) Forage Fibre Analysis (Apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications. Agricultural Research Service USDA: Washington, DC, USA, pp 1–24 [Google Scholar]
  21. Haque MN (2018) Dietary manipulation: a sustainable way to mitigate methane emissions from ruminants. J Anim Sci Technol 60:15. 10.1186/s40781-018-0175-7 10.1186/s40781-018-0175-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hartinger T, Gresner N, Südekum KH (2018) Does intra-ruminal nitrogen recycling waste valuable resources? A review of major players and their manipulation. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 9:33. 10.1186/s40104-018-0249-x 10.1186/s40104-018-0249-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, pp 1–3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Islam M, Lee SS (2019) Advanced estimation and mitigation strategies: a cumulative approach to enteric methane abatement from ruminants. J Anim Sci Technol 61:122–137. 10.5187/jast.2019.61.3.122 10.5187/jast.2019.61.3.122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Khusro A, Aarti C, Elghandour MMMY, Adegbeye MJ, Mellado M, Barbabosa-Pliego A et al (2022a) Dietary manipulation to mitigate greenhouse gas emission from livestock. Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 2537–2575 [Google Scholar]
  26. Khusro A, Sahibzada MUK, Khan SU, Rajakrishnan R, Elghandour MMMY, Salem AZM et al (2022b) Anti-methanogenic traits of safflower oil compounds against Methyl-Coenzyme M reductase receptor in equines: an in silico docking analysis. J Equine Vet 113:103938. 10.1016/j.jevs.2022.103938 10.1016/j.jevs.2022.103938 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Króliczewska B, Pecka-Kiełb E, Bujok J (2023) Strategies used to reduce methane emissions from ruminants: controversies and issues. Agriculture 13:602. 10.3390/agriculture13030602 10.3390/agriculture13030602 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kumar S, Choudhury PK, Carro MD, Griffith GW, Dagar SS, Puniya M et al (2014) New aspects and strategies for methane mitigation from ruminants. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98:31–44. 10.1007/s00253-013-5365-0 10.1007/s00253-013-5365-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lackner M, Sajjadi B, Chen WY (2022) Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation, Springer, 3rd, edition, 10.1007/978-3-030-72579-2
  30. Magalhães ERB, de Menezes NNF, Silva FL, Garrido JWA, Sousa MADSB, dos Santos ES (2021) Effect of oil extraction on the composition, structure, and coagulant effect of Moringa oleifera seeds. J Clean Prod 279:123902. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123902 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123902 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mangar A, Muetzel S, Malik A, Bhuker A, Mor V, Molenaar A et al (2022) Moringa oleifera L.: a potential plant for greenhouse gas mitigation in temperate agriculture systems. Agriculture 12:1116. 10.3390/agriculture12081116 10.3390/agriculture12081116 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Menke KH, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W (2009) 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 93:217–222. 10.1017/S0021859600086305 10.1017/S0021859600086305 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Oskoueian E, Abdullah N, Oskoueian A (2013) Effects of flavonoids on rumen fermentation activity, methane production, and microbial population. BioMed Res Int 2013:349129. 10.1155/2013/349129 10.1155/2013/349129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Pal VK, Bandyopadhyay P, Singh A (2018) Hydrogen sulfide in physiology and pathogenesis of bacteria and viruses. IUBMB Life 70:393–410 10.1002/iub.1740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Palangi V, Lackner M (2022) Management of enteric methane emissions in ruminants using feed additives: a review. Animals 12:3452. 10.3390/ani12243452 10.3390/ani12243452 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Patra AK, Saxena J (2009) The effect and mode of action of saponins on the microbial populations and fermentation in the rumen and ruminant production. Nutr Res Rev 22:204–219. 10.1017/S0954422409990163 10.1017/S0954422409990163 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pedraza-Hernández J, Elghandour MM, Khusro A, Camacho-Diaz LM, Vallejo LH, Barbabosa-Pliego A et al (2019) Mitigation of ruminal biogases production from goats using Moringa oleifera extract and live yeast culture for a cleaner agriculture environment. J Clean Prod 234:779–786. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.126 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.126 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Pedraza-Hernández J, Elghandour MMMY, Khusro A, Salem MZM, Camacho-Diaz LM, Barbabosa-Pliego A et al (2021) Assessment on bioactive role of Moringa oleifera leaves as anthelmintic agent and improved growth performance in goats. Trop Anim Health Prod 53:318. 10.1007/s11250-021-02745-9 10.1007/s11250-021-02745-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Ramos-Morales E, de la Fuente G, Duval S, Wehrli C, Bouillon M, Lahmann M et al (2017) Antiprotozoal effect of saponins in the rumen can be enhanced by chemical modifications in their structure. Front Microbiol 8:399. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00399 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00399 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Saksrithai K, King AJ (2018) Controlling hydrogen sulfide emissions during poultry productions. J Anim Res Nutr 3:1–14. 10.21767/2572-5459.100040 10.21767/2572-5459.100040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Santillán MKG, Khusro A, Salem AZ, Pliego AB, Elghandour MM (2023) Potential and valorization of Salix babylonica waste leaf extract to mitigate equine fecal production of methane, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen sulfide. Waste Biomass Valori 14:1079–1095. 10.1007/s12649-022-01926-3 10.1007/s12649-022-01926-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. SAS (Statistical Analysis System) (2002) Institute, Cary SAS. User’s guide: statistics, Version 9.0. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA [Google Scholar]
  43. Shah AM, Ma J, Wang Z, Hu R, Wang X, Peng Q et al (2020) Production of hydrogen sulfide by fermentation in rumen and its impact on health and production of animals. Processes 8(9):1169. 10.3390/pr8091169 10.3390/pr8091169 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Sobieraj K, Stegenta-Dąbrowska S, Luo G, Koziel JA, Białowiec A (2022) Carbon monoxide fate in the environment as an inspiration for biorefinery industry: A review. Front Environ. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.822463 10.3389/fenvs.2022.822463 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Su B, Chen X (2020) Current status and potential of Moringa oleifera leaf as an alternative protein source for animal feeds. Front Vet Sci 7:53. 10.3389/fvets.2020.00053 10.3389/fvets.2020.00053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sutton AL, Kephart KB, Verstegen MWA, Canh TT, Hobbs PJ (1999) Potential for reduction of odors compounds in swine manure through diet modification. J Anim Sci 77:430–439. 10.2527/1999.772430x 10.2527/1999.772430x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. 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 123–124:403–419. 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.04.037 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.04.037 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Theodorou MK, Williams BA, Dhanoa MS, McAllan AB, France JA (1994) Simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol 48:185–197. 10.1016/0377-8401(94)90171-6 10.1016/0377-8401(94)90171-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Soest PV, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Vasta V, Daghio M, Cappucci A, Buccioni A, Serra A, Viti C et al (2019) Plant polyphenols and rumen microbiota responsible for fatty acid biohydrogenation, fiber digestion, and methane emission: experimental evidence and methodological approaches. J Dairy Sci 102:3781–3804. 10.3168/jds.2018-14985 10.3168/jds.2018-14985 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Vohra A, Syal P, Madan A (2016) Probiotic yeasts in livestock sector. Anim Feed Sci Technol 219:31–47. 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.05.019 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.05.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Raw data can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Not applicable.

Articles from AMB Express are provided here courtesy of Springer-Verlag

RESOURCES