WO2019056051A1 - Complément alimentaire réduisant les émissions - Google Patents

Complément alimentaire réduisant les émissions Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2019056051A1
WO2019056051A1 PCT/AU2018/050958 AU2018050958W WO2019056051A1 WO 2019056051 A1 WO2019056051 A1 WO 2019056051A1 AU 2018050958 W AU2018050958 W AU 2018050958W WO 2019056051 A1 WO2019056051 A1 WO 2019056051A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
feed
rumen
feed supplement
modifier
supplement
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/AU2018/050958
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
Robert Charles Olsson
Original Assignee
4 Season Company Pty Ltd
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Priority claimed from AU2017903860A external-priority patent/AU2017903860A0/en
Application filed by 4 Season Company Pty Ltd filed Critical 4 Season Company Pty Ltd
Priority to AU2018229465A priority Critical patent/AU2018229465A1/en
Priority to AU2018102254A priority patent/AU2018102254A4/en
Publication of WO2019056051A1 publication Critical patent/WO2019056051A1/fr

Links

Classifications

    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A23—FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS; TREATMENT THEREOF, NOT COVERED BY OTHER CLASSES
    • A23K—FODDER
    • A23K20/00—Accessory food factors for animal feeding-stuffs
    • A23K20/10—Organic substances
    • A23K20/174—Vitamins
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A23—FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS; TREATMENT THEREOF, NOT COVERED BY OTHER CLASSES
    • A23K—FODDER
    • A23K50/00—Feeding-stuffs specially adapted for particular animals
    • A23K50/10—Feeding-stuffs specially adapted for particular animals for ruminants
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A23—FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS; TREATMENT THEREOF, NOT COVERED BY OTHER CLASSES
    • A23K—FODDER
    • A23K10/00—Animal feeding-stuffs
    • A23K10/30—Animal feeding-stuffs from material of plant origin, e.g. roots, seeds or hay; from material of fungal origin, e.g. mushrooms
    • A23K10/33—Animal feeding-stuffs from material of plant origin, e.g. roots, seeds or hay; from material of fungal origin, e.g. mushrooms from molasses
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A23—FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS; TREATMENT THEREOF, NOT COVERED BY OTHER CLASSES
    • A23K—FODDER
    • A23K10/00—Animal feeding-stuffs
    • A23K10/40—Mineral licks, e.g. salt blocks
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A23—FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS; TREATMENT THEREOF, NOT COVERED BY OTHER CLASSES
    • A23K—FODDER
    • A23K20/00—Accessory food factors for animal feeding-stuffs
    • A23K20/10—Organic substances
    • A23K20/195—Antibiotics
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A23—FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS; TREATMENT THEREOF, NOT COVERED BY OTHER CLASSES
    • A23K—FODDER
    • A23K20/00—Accessory food factors for animal feeding-stuffs
    • A23K20/20—Inorganic substances, e.g. oligoelements
    • A23K20/30—Oligoelements
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A23—FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS; TREATMENT THEREOF, NOT COVERED BY OTHER CLASSES
    • A23K—FODDER
    • A23K40/00—Shaping or working-up of animal feeding-stuffs
    • A23K40/20—Shaping or working-up of animal feeding-stuffs by moulding, e.g. making cakes or briquettes
    • Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
    • Y02—TECHNOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
    • Y02P—CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING OF GOODS
    • Y02P60/00—Technologies relating to agriculture, livestock or agroalimentary industries
    • Y02P60/80—Food processing, e.g. use of renewable energies or variable speed drives in handling, conveying or stacking
    • Y02P60/87—Re-use of by-products of food processing for fodder production

Definitions

  • This invention generally relates to a feed supplement for ruminants for reducing gas emissions and/or increasing the efficiency of feed utilization by ruminants.
  • the invention concerns a feed supplement containing a rumen modifier, such as an ionophore, an antibacterial agent or bacteriocidal agent, preferably lasalocid or monensin.
  • Variable climate usually leads to ruminants changing their foraging/feeding habits throughout the seasons.
  • the nature of the ingested forage/feed will typically affect the efficiency of the feed utilised by the animals.
  • the nature of the ingested forage/feed will also dictate the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) produced by the animals.
  • GHGE greenhouse gas emissions
  • a low-quality feed/forage diet e.g. grass or leaves
  • a feed supplement for a ruminant comprising a rumen modifier capable of reducing gas emissions from the ruminant and/or increasing the efficiency of feed utilization by the ruminant.
  • a method of reducing gas emissions from a ruminant and/or increasing the efficiency of feed utilization by the ruminant comprising the step of feeding the ruminant a feed supplement according to the 1 st aspect of the invention.
  • a feed supplement of the 1 st aspect of the invention comprising the step of:
  • the supplement can be of any suitable form such as a liquid, semi-solid or solid - e.g. solution, suspension, gelatinous, powder, granule, feed block or lick block.
  • the feed supplement is in the form of a block (feed block or lick block).
  • a method of manufacturing a feed supplement comprising the steps of:
  • the feed supplement's ingredient content, size and shape can be tailored for the particular ruminant type for which it is provided, or even for the geographic location of the ruminant. For example, grain versus grass fed ruminants many require different ingredient contents, such as different mineral contents.
  • the feed supplement can also be tailored for the palate of the ruminant (e.g. molasses and salt content).
  • the feed supplement can for example comprise one or more of the following types of ingredients: a nitrogen source; a protein source; a carbohydrate source; minerals; vitamins; a solidifying, binding or gelling agent; a pH adjuster; a filler; a flavouring agent (to increase palatability of the block); a biological active; and general types of excipients.
  • the feed supplement is in the form of a block.
  • the types of gases that are typically reduced by the rumen modifier are typically referred to as greenhouse gases and include methane and carbon dioxide.
  • the percentage of gas production will typically be reduced by about 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 84, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 or 3%.
  • the percentage of gas production will typically be reduced between about 60% and 80%, and more preferably about 70% and 80% provided the ruminant is
  • the amount of methane produced per unit of feed dry matter (mL CH 4 / gram of feed dry matter) is preferably reduced by about 40% to 70% provided the ruminant is consuming the feed supplement.
  • Increasing the efficiency of feed utilization by ruminants preferably means that ingested feed/forage is more efficiently utilised by the ruminant (for increased body weight gain) by about 80, 79, 78, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 84, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 or 3%.
  • the ingested feed is more efficiently utilised by the ruminant by about a factor of 2.
  • any suitable type of rumen modifier can be used, provided that it can reduce gas emissions from the ruminant and/or increase the efficiency of feed/forage utilization by the ruminant.
  • the rumen modifier is a compound/substance that alters rumen fermentation patterns, to increase feed efficiency and body weight gain.
  • the rumen modifier can inhibit the growth of or kill methanogenic bacteria.
  • the rumen modifier is a bacteriocidal agent.
  • the rumen modifier is an antibacterial agent.
  • the rumen modifier is an antibiotic.
  • the rumen modifier is a poly ether antibiotic.
  • the rumen modifier is an ionophore.
  • the rumen modifier is a divalent poly ether ionophore antibiotic.
  • the rumen modifier is monensin, lasalocid, laidlomycin propionate or bambermycin.
  • the rumen modifier is lasalocid or monensin.
  • Lasalocid sodium is an antibacterial agent which is produced by strains of Streptomyces lasaliensis and is in the feed additive called BovatecTM.
  • Monensin is a poly ether antibiotic isolated from Streptomyces cinnamonensis .
  • the rumen modifier is a yeast capable of killing methanogenic bacteria.
  • the rumen modifier is at least one bacterial strain capable of outcompeting methanogenic bacteria.
  • the rumen modifier content can be about 0.01%, 0.02%, 0.03%, 0.04%, 0.05%, 0.06%, 0.07%, 0.08%, 0.09%, 0.1%, 0.15%, 0.2%, 0.25%, 0.3%, 0.35%, 0.4%, 0.45%, 0.5%, 0.55%, 0.6%, 0.65%, 0.7%, 0.75%, 0.8%, 0.85%, 0.9%, 0.95%, 1%, 1.5%, 2%, 2.5%, 3% , 3.5%, 4%, 4.5%, 5%, 5.5%, 6%, 6.5%, 7%, 7.5%, 8%, 8.5%, 9%, 9.5% or 10% weight/weight.
  • the rumen modifier could comprise between about 0.5 kg per tonne (metric ton) up to about 20 kg per tonne of total feed supplement.
  • Solidifying, binding or gelling agents help solidify the block/make the block a coherent mass.
  • Suitable examples include calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, calcium hydroxide, di-ammonium phosphate, cement, bentonite and hydrated lime (quick lime).
  • Any suitable solidifying, binding and/or gelling agent/s quantity can be used.
  • the solidifying, binding and/or gelling agent/s content can be about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 or 40% weight/weight.
  • pH adjusters help adjust the final pH of the block.
  • suitable pH adjusters include organic acids such as citric, tartaric, boric and phosphoric acid. Any suitable pH adjuster quantity can be used.
  • the pH adjuster content can be about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10% weight/weight.
  • fillers help bulk up the block, to get it to the correct volume.
  • the filler can be digestible or not.
  • suitable fillers include bran (digestible) and earth (not digestible).
  • Any suitable filler/s quantity can be used.
  • the filler/s content can be about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 or 40% weight/weight.
  • Any suitable source or sources of nitrogen can be used.
  • the nitrogen can derive from a source of protein or not.
  • the source of nitrogen is urea (non-protein source).
  • Any suitable quantity of nitrogen or nitrogen source can be used.
  • the nitrogen or nitrogen source content can be about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20% weight/weight.
  • Any suitable source or sources of protein can be used. Suitable sources of protein include cottonseed meal, fish meal, soybean meal and oilseed meal. Any suitable quantity of protein or protein source can be used.
  • the protein or protein source content can be about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20% weight/weight.
  • Any suitable source or sources of carbohydrate can be used.
  • Suitable sources of carbohydrate include molasses. Any suitable quantity of carbohydrate or carbohydrate source can be used.
  • the carbohydrate or carbohydrate source content can be about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20% weight/weight.
  • the block can include any suitable type of mineral or minerals.
  • suitable minerals include sodium, phosphorus, sulphur, calcium, sodium, iron, copper, manganese, zinc, iodine, selenium and cobalt. Any suitable mineral quantity can be used.
  • the mineral content can be about 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5 and 5% weight/weight.
  • the block can include any suitable type of vitamin or vitamins.
  • suitable vitamins include vitamin A, B, C, D and E. Any suitable vitamin quantity can be used.
  • the vitamin content can be about 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5 and 5% weight/weight.
  • flavouring agent Any suitable type or types of flavouring agent can be used. Any suitable quantity of flavouring agent/s can be used. Examples of flavouring agents include molasses and salt.
  • any suitable type of salt or salts can be used. Suitable types of salt include sea salt and sodium chloride. Any suitable quantity of salt can be used. For example, the salt content can be about 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20% weight/weight.
  • Suitable type or types of biological actives include antibiotics, antimicrobials, rumen stimulants (to encourage the growth of particular rumen microbes), methane-reducing agents (e.g. 3-nitrooxypropanol), and digestion enhancers (eg. vegetable oil). Any suitable quantity of biological active/s can be used.
  • the biological active/s content can be about 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35, 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, 0.95, 1%, 1.5%, 2%, 2.5%, 3%, 3.5%, 4%, 4.5%, 5%, 5.5%, 6%, 6.5%, 7%, 7.5%, 8%, 8.5%, 9%, 9.5% or 10% weight/weight.
  • suitable general excipients include antioxidants, colourants, emulsifiers, preservatives, solvents, solubilisers, viscosity increasing agents, diluents, carriers and so forth.
  • Any suitable quantity of water can be used.
  • the water content can be about 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20% weight/weight.
  • the molasses of the block provides the following: improves palatability (flavouring agent); provides minerals/trace elements such as sulphur; provides carbohydrates/fermentable sugars; and, functions as a binding agent. Molasses also makes the block easier to manufacture. Any suitable source and quantity of molasses can be used.
  • the molasses content can be about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60% weight/weight.
  • molasses can be used to balance the ingredient content to 100%.
  • the molasses can be produced from sugarcane, for example.
  • the block has a toffee-like consistency, able to withstanding wet weather as well as temperatures ranging from about -20°C to 50°C.
  • the rumen modifier is substantially uniformly dispersed throughout the block.
  • the feed supplement can be fed to any suitable type of ruminant.
  • Suitable ruminants include sheep, cattle, buffalo and goats.
  • the method comprises the ruminant self-medicating. That is, the ruminant consumes as much of the feed supplement as it desires, as often as it desires. Generally, speaking, the lower the quality feed/forage diet (eg. grass or leaves), the more feed supplement the ruminant will consume to increase digestability/uptake of the feed and reduce the volume of gas expelled from the ruminant. Generally, speaking, for a high quality feed/forage diet (eg. oats), the ruminant should consume less feed supplement.
  • the quality feed/forage diet eg. grass or leaves
  • the ruminant should consume less feed supplement.
  • feed supplement:feed ratios include 1: 10, 1:50, 1:60, 1:70, 1:80. 1:90, 1: 100, 1: 150, 1:200, 1:250, 1:300, 1:350, 1:400, 1:450, 1:500, 1:550, 1:600, 1:650, 1:700, 1:750, 1:800, 1:850, 1:900, 1:950 and 1: 1000, but preferably from about 1: 100 to 1:200.
  • ruminants consume approximately 50 g to 500 g of block per day.
  • goats and sheep can consume approximately 10 g to 100 g of block per day
  • buffalo and cattle can consume approximately 100 g to 400 g of block per day - depending on the forage/feed quality.
  • the feed supplement can be fed to the ruminant for any required period of time - months or years, for example.
  • the block can be manufactured using a hot process (requiring heating of one or more ingredients) or cold process.
  • the block is manufactured using a cold process. More preferably, the block is manufactured using a cold moulding process.
  • a body of the block can be of any suitable size and shape.
  • the block body can comprise a top surface, a bottom surface and at least one side surface.
  • Potential shapes for the block body include a rectangular, hexagonal or octagonal prism or cylinder/disc, for example.
  • the block body can be of any suitable weight but preferably has a weight of between about 5 and 1000 kg, and more preferably about 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 750, 800, 850, 900, 950 and 1000 kg.
  • the feed block comprises at least about 50% weight/weight molasses.
  • the feed block comprises about 5 to 10% weight/weight salt.
  • the feed block comprises at least one type of phosphate.
  • Any suitable type or types and quantity of phosphate can be used.
  • the phosphate content can be about 5-10% weight/weight.
  • a suitable phosphate is di-calcium phosphate.
  • the feed block comprises at least one type of hydrated lime.
  • Any suitable type and quantity of hydrated lime can be used.
  • the hydrated lime content can be about 0-5% weight/weight.
  • the feed block comprises magnesium oxide.
  • Any suitable quantity of magnesium oxide can be used.
  • the magnesium oxide content can be about 10- 20% weight/weight.
  • the feed block comprises minerals such as copper, cobalt, zinc and selenium. Any suitable mineral quantity can be used.
  • the mineral content can be about 1-2% weight/weight.
  • the feed block comprises up to about 10% weight/weight water.
  • the feed block comprises about 0.01%, 0.02%, 0.03%, 0.04%, 0.05%, 0.06%, 0.07%, 0.08%, 0.09%, 0.1%, 0.15%, 0.2%, 0.25%, 0.3%, 0.35%, 0.4%, 0.45%, 0.5%, 0.55%, 0.6%, 0.65%, 0.7%, 0.75%, 0.8%, 0.85%, 0.9%, 0.95%, 1%, 1.5%, 2%, 2.5%, 3% , 3.5%, 4%, 4.5%, 5%, 5.5%, 6%, 6.5%, 7%, 7.5%, 8%, 8.5%, 9%, 9.5% or 10% weight/weight of each type of rumen modifier. (Usually 0.5 kg to 20 kg for each type of rumen modifier per metric ton of block.) A preferred type of rumen modifier is the antibiotic ionophore lasalocid or monensin.
  • the feed block comprises about 5-10% weight/weight of phosphoric acid.
  • the feed block comprises at least one type of protein source/meal.
  • Any suitable type or types and quantity or quantities of meal can be used.
  • the meal content can be up to about 2% weight/weight.
  • Suitable meal is, for example, cottonseed meal, fish meal, soybean meal and oilseed meal.
  • a particularly preferred feed block comprises the following ingredients (all weight/weight):
  • Each type of rumen modifier e.g. lasalocid or monensin
  • Quantity to suit so as to provide adequate gas emission reduction and/or increased feed utilisation (E.g. approx. 0.01% - 10%, more preferably about 0.5% to 2%.
  • Figure 1 Organic matter digestibility, ammonia nitrogen, and gas production of blank (only rumen fluid), only supplement at an amount equivalent to 2.5% of feed (no feed added), Rhodes Grass (RG) only, RG plus 2.5% of supplement, and RG plus 5% of supplement.
  • Figure 2 Organic matter digestibility, ammonia nitrogen, and gas production of blank (only rumen fluid), only supplement with an amount equivalent to 10% of feed, oats only, oats plus 5% of supplement, and oats plus 10% of supplement.
  • Figure 3 Organic matter digestibility, ammonia nitrogen, and gas production of blank (only rumen fluid), only 1 gr. of supplement (no feed added; supplement at an amount equivalent to a consumption of 300 g/d for a 400-kg steer), mulga leaves only, and mulga plus supplement.
  • Example 1 Manufacture of a feed supplement in the form of a feed block
  • This example describes the manufacture of a feed block supplement containing a rumen modifier, manufactured using a cold moulding process.
  • the block supplement consisted of the following ingredients (all weight/weight):
  • Lasalocid sodium and/or monensin Quantity to suit so as to provide adequate gas emission reduction and/or increased feed utilisation (e.g. approx. 0.01% - 10%, more preferably about 0.5% to 2%). Will depend on feed/forage type.
  • the block had a toffee-like consistency.
  • the block had a weight of 20 kg.
  • the rumen modifier was substantially uniformly dispersed throughout the supplement block.
  • the consistency of the block was like toffee.
  • the rumen modifier (and other biological actives) can be substantially uniformly dispersed throughout the block.
  • the block releases the rumen modifier/s in a uniform and controlled manner.
  • the block enables controlled consumption - low daily dose of rumen modifier, thereby minimising the risk of overdosing.
  • the rate of cold production of the block is high, being about 50 tonnes of block per day.
  • the block need not require urea as an ingredient.
  • Animals can self regulate consumption to gas emission and at the same time intake essential nutrients to increase productivity (body mass gain).
  • the feed block saves farmers having to muster and handle animals, as well as delivering rumen modifiers.
  • Example 2 In vitro fermentation trials using the feed supplement block of Example 1
  • Another trial used an amount of supplement similar to what is achieved in the diet of animals consuming high quality oat forage, i.e. 10 g of supplement per 100 g of oats.
  • Gas production increased by 5% when the supplement was not used in high quality oat forage (249 vs. 262 + 4.9 mL / g OMD for oats with and without supplement; P ⁇ 0.001).
  • This reduction in gas production may be due to a change in the fermentation pattern towards less methane and C0 2 production, and more propionate.
  • This mechanism should also increase the efficiency of feed utilization by the animal to produce and reduce the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Trial 1 2.5 or 5 gr of supplement per 100 gr of low quality dry Rhodes grass. This was calculated assuming that a 400 kg steer would consume 150 or 300 gr/d of supplement and 6 kg/ d of forage.
  • Trial 2 5 or 10 gr of supplement per 100 gr of high quality oats forage. This amount was calculated assuming that a 400 kg steer would consume 400 or 800 gr/d of supplement with a feed intake of 8 kg DM/d of oats.
  • Trial 3 100 gr of supplement per 100 gr of very low quality mulga leaves. This amount was calculated to simulate the final concentration of supplement in the rumen of a 400- kg steer with a rumen volume of 40 L consuming 300 g/d of supplement.
  • Trial 3 assessed the effect of the supplement of mulga leaves which is a tree of the Acacia family that occupy large areas of arid and semiarid Australia dedicated to animal production. This tree has very low digestibility because of its high fiber and low protein, and high concentration of tannins which reduce protein degradation, digestibility and methane emissions. The amount of supplement was increased to simulate the concentration that the supplement would reach in the rumen liquid of a live animal.
  • Feed supplementation has the potential to increase beef production and decrease the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE).
  • the Example takes a prediction modelling approach to estimate potential productivity gains and reduction of GHGE from a breeding herd in northern Australia. These predictions were done for the following 5 scenarios: scenario 1) unsupplemented herd with 3,000 breeding cows and 55% weaning rate; scenario 2) same herd with supplementation resulting in 65% weaning rate, 15% higher weaning weight (from 165 to 190 kg/hd) and a reduction in mortality rates (by 2%); scenario 3) same as scenario 2 with joining of heifers at younger age as a result of achieving joining weight earlier; scenario 4) same as scenario 2 plus the effect of feed supplement to reduce methane emissions by 10% without impacting production or feed intake; and scenario 5) same as scenario 3 plus the effect of feed supplement to reduce methane emissions by 10%.
  • Scenario 4 and 5 produced the same amount of LW as scenario 2 and 3 however the reduction of intensity of GHGE was of 31 and 42% equating to an abatement of 4,568 and 6,954 tonnes C02e/yr, respectively.
  • the increase in live weight sales could generate an income above the unsupplemented herd of $589,725 for scenario 2 and 4, and of $820,227 for scenarios 3 and 5.
  • Feed supplementation could have a large positive impact on greenhouse emissions, beef production and profitability of northern Australian properties if these levels of abatement and productivity are achievable on farm.
  • the aim of the present study was to estimate potential productivity gains and reduction of greenhouse emissions by using feed supplementation across all animal categories throughout the year in a beef breeding herd in northern Australia.
  • scenario 1 is a typical beef breeding herd with 3,000 breeding cows, 5% mortality for younger stock and 8% for older stock. Weaners are sold at 6 months with 165 kg/hd live weight (LW) and 15% mortality of calves between birth and weaning. Almost all the female calves are kept for replacements (27% of the breeding cows) and joining occurs at 2 years of age for calving at 3 years (Table 1). Scenario 2 is very similar to the controls and assumes higher fertility (65% weaning rate), lower mortality rate (3, 5 and 13% for young stock, adult and calves), and higher growth rate and weights of all animals as a result of feed supplementation. However, the total number of animals on the farm is very similar to scenario 1 (Table 1).
  • scenario 3 is similar to scenario 2 but it assumes an earlier joining at approximately 15 months of age as a result of faster growth rate (Table 2). These heifers calve at 2 years of age and were assumed to have lower fertility compared to the main breeding herd (53% weaning rate).
  • Scenario 2 and 3 are presently recognized by the ERF Herd Management Methodology to claim carbon credits as a result of increased productivity and / or reduced time on earth of the animals.
  • ERF Herd Management Methodology to claim carbon credits as a result of increased productivity and / or reduced time on earth of the animals.
  • monensin is not an accepted methodology. Therefore, the additive effect of improving productivity and reducing the amount of methane produced daily was simulated in scenarios 4 and 5 where a 10% reduction in methane emissions per kg of feed dry matter consumed was assumed based on our in vitro fermentation trials.
  • Feed intake is calculated from live weight and growth rate, which is then multiplied by a factor to estimate daily methane emissions.
  • Digestibility of feed dry matter (DMD) and crude protein are also used to calculate methane emissions and N excretion as nitrous oxide which is another potent greenhouse gas from manure particularly. These values of DMD and CP are assumed as in the methodology for each season.
  • Methane and nitrous oxide are then converted to C02e and total emissions from the herd are estimated.
  • Beef production is calculated as the difference between live weight at the end and the start of the year for each animal class.
  • Live weight sold per year is calculated as the number of animals sold by the average weight per animal for each animal class.
  • the intensity of GHGE is then calculated as total emissions from the herd (ton C02e) divided by live weight produced.
  • the potential economic income generated by each scenario is calculated assuming a price of 3 $/kg LW and 12 $/ton C02e being both conservative values.
  • Scenario 2 and 3 resulted in more cull cows being sold compared to the control herd as a result of lower mortality and higher fertility. All animals are heavier in all scenarios compared to the control herd because all animals maintained better body condition from feed supplementation. Scenario 3 assumed to sell the same number of cull cows but greater number of calves compared to scenario 2, as a result of heifers calving at a younger age. However, the weight of all animals was assumed the same for both scenario 2 and 3 albeit the number of animals in the main herd were similar across all 3 scenarios. The higher fertility and lower mortality of calves in supplemented herds compared to control herd resulted in 18.2% more weaned calves in scenario 2 compared to the control herd.
  • the total live weight produced by the herd per annum was 55 and 84% higher in scenario 2 and 3 with feed supplementation, respectively, compared to the control unsupplemented herd (Table 3).
  • Table 3 Annual live weight produced and sold from a beef breeding herd with no feed supplementation, with feed supplementation, and with feed supplementation plus early joining in northern Australia.
  • Table 4 Abatement of greenhouse emissions (GHGE) from a beef breeding herd with no feed supplementation, with feed supplementation, with feed supplementation plus early joining, in northern Australia.
  • GHGE greenhouse emissions
  • total GHGE per year is less relevant than the intensity of GHGE, i.e. amount of GHGE per unit of liveweight produced.
  • the intensity of GHGE is what the ERF methodologies recognise and reward rather than total GHGE.
  • the intensities of GHGE were
  • feed supplementation in beef cattle of northern Australia has positive additive effects on all productivity indicators such as reproduction, mortality, growth rate and sale of live weight. This increase of productivity results in large reduction of greenhouse emissions when expressed as intensity of emissions (kg GHG / kg LW). Furthermore, feed supplements containing rumen modifiers such as monensin can further reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses as these reduce the amount of methane per unit of feed consumed.

Landscapes

  • Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
  • Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
  • Polymers & Plastics (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Animal Husbandry (AREA)
  • Zoology (AREA)
  • Food Science & Technology (AREA)
  • Molecular Biology (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Biotechnology (AREA)
  • Botany (AREA)
  • Birds (AREA)
  • Mycology (AREA)
  • Physiology (AREA)
  • Inorganic Chemistry (AREA)
  • Fodder In General (AREA)
  • Feed For Specific Animals (AREA)

Abstract

L'invention concerne un complément alimentaire pour ruminants destiné à réduire les émissions de gaz et/ou à augmenter l'efficacité de l'utilisation de nourriture par les ruminants. Le complément alimentaire, de préférence sous la forme d'un bloc à manger ou lécher, contient un modificateur de la panse, tel qu'un ionophore, un agent antibactérien ou un agent bactéricide, de préférence le lasalocide ou la monensine.
PCT/AU2018/050958 2017-09-22 2018-09-05 Complément alimentaire réduisant les émissions WO2019056051A1 (fr)

Priority Applications (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
AU2018229465A AU2018229465A1 (en) 2017-09-22 2018-09-12 Emissions reducing feed supplement
AU2018102254A AU2018102254A4 (en) 2017-09-22 2018-09-12 Emissions reducing feed supplement

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
AU2017903860A AU2017903860A0 (en) 2017-09-22 Emissions reducing feed supplement
AU2017903860 2017-09-22

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2019056051A1 true WO2019056051A1 (fr) 2019-03-28

Family

ID=65809424

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/AU2018/050958 WO2019056051A1 (fr) 2017-09-22 2018-09-05 Complément alimentaire réduisant les émissions

Country Status (2)

Country Link
AU (2) AU2018229465A1 (fr)
WO (1) WO2019056051A1 (fr)

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2020212348A1 (fr) * 2019-04-16 2020-10-22 Dsm Ip Assets B.V. Nutrition de début de vie

Families Citing this family (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JP2023553202A (ja) 2020-12-08 2023-12-20 ルミナント バイオテク コーポレーション リミテッド 動物に物質を送達するための装置および方法の改善
EP4362698A1 (fr) * 2021-06-29 2024-05-08 Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab A.m.b.a. Additif pour l'alimentation animale contenant de l'iodoforme destiné à être utilisé dans un procédé de réduction de la production de méthane dans et/pour l'amélioration des performances d'un ruminant

Citations (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO1982001463A1 (fr) * 1980-11-06 1982-05-13 Inc Uniscope Aliment en bloc pour animaux constitue de melasse et d'oxyde de calcium
US20090181906A1 (en) * 2007-12-06 2009-07-16 Intervet International B.V. Combination Therapies using Melengestrol Acetate and Zilpaterol or its Salts
US20150181910A1 (en) * 2012-07-31 2015-07-02 A.A. Company Pty Ltd. Solid animal supplements and methods for making them
AU2016253604A1 (en) * 2015-11-05 2017-05-25 4 Season Company Pty Ltd Molasses Blocks

Patent Citations (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO1982001463A1 (fr) * 1980-11-06 1982-05-13 Inc Uniscope Aliment en bloc pour animaux constitue de melasse et d'oxyde de calcium
US20090181906A1 (en) * 2007-12-06 2009-07-16 Intervet International B.V. Combination Therapies using Melengestrol Acetate and Zilpaterol or its Salts
US20150181910A1 (en) * 2012-07-31 2015-07-02 A.A. Company Pty Ltd. Solid animal supplements and methods for making them
AU2016253604A1 (en) * 2015-11-05 2017-05-25 4 Season Company Pty Ltd Molasses Blocks

Non-Patent Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
®HUBBARD FEEDS: EASYLIX@ RUMENSIN® PRESSED BLOCK, 17 September 2015 (2015-09-17), XP055584634, Retrieved from the Internet <URL:https://www.hubbardfeeds.com/product/rumensin-pressed-block> [retrieved on 20181003] *
HOOK, S. E. ET AL.: "Long-Term Monensin Suplementation Does Not Significantly Affect the Quantity or Diversity of Methanogens in the Rumen of the Lactating Dairy Cow", APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, vol. 75, no. 2, 2009, pages 374 - 380, XP055584636 *

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2020212348A1 (fr) * 2019-04-16 2020-10-22 Dsm Ip Assets B.V. Nutrition de début de vie

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
AU2018102254A4 (en) 2024-02-22
AU2018229465A1 (en) 2019-04-11

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Blair Nutrition and feeding of organic cattle
Kolver Nutritional limitations to increased production on pasture-based systems
Neville et al. Ovine offspring growth and diet digestibility are influenced by maternal selenium supplementation and nutritional intake during pregnancy despite a common postnatal diet
Mandal et al. Deriving nutrient requirements of growing Indian goats under tropical condition
AU2018102254A4 (en) Emissions reducing feed supplement
Horký Effect of protein concentrate supplement on the qualitative and quantitative parameters of milk from dairy cows in organic farming
van Vuuren et al. Economics of low nitrogen feeding strategies
Mengistu et al. Review on: supplementary feeding of urea molasses multi-nutrient blocks to ruminant animals for improving productivity
Hogan et al. Starvation of ruminant livestock
Chládek et al. A free-choice intake of mineral blocks in beef cows during the grazing season and in winter
Shinde et al. Effect of feed supplementation with copper-and zinc salts on the growth, wool yield, nutrient utilization, blood constituents and mineral profile of Malpura lambs
Stewart Mineral supplements for beef cattle
Dixon et al. Effects of experience on voluntary intake of supplements by cattle
CN1964632A (zh) 饲料和γ－氨基丁酸的供给方法
Venkanna et al. Rumen fermentation pattern on complete diets based on dry mixed grass or cotton seed hulls in crossbred bulls
Blackwood et al. Assessing stock feed additives and mineral supplements
Miller et al. Developing urea-molasses feed blocks in the Falkland Islands
Lei et al. Evaluation of three different patterns of feed intake during early lactation in lactating sows
Quadros et al. Incorporating dried distillers grains with solubles in sheep supplementation programs.
Suttle Sulfur.
US11819040B2 (en) Materials and methods for dietary calcium supplementation of animals
Ortolani Sulphur deficiency in dairy calves reared on pasture of Brachiaria decumbens
Ganchev et al. Comparative investigations on feeding efficiency in growing and fattening DanBred and Topigs hybrid pigs.
Kunkle Strategies for cost effective supplementation of beef cattle
Matsui Significance of magnesium in animals

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 18857700

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 18857700

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1