Two metabolism studies were conducted to evaluate the effects of biochar (0, 0.8, or 3% of diet dry matter) on digestibility and methane production in growing and finishing diets. Intake was not affected by biochar inclusion in the growing diet and increased with 0.8% biochar inclusion in the finishing study. Digestibility tended to increase quadratically with biochar inclusion in the growing study while digestibility tended to linearly decrease with biochar inclusion in the finishing study. Methane production (g/d) decreased 10.7% in the growing study and 9.9% in the finishing study with 0.8% biochar compared to no biochar. Methane production was reduced 10.6% and 18.4% in the growing and finishing studies, respectively, when measured as g/lb of intake. Although biochar is not FDA approved for animal feeding, the initial research shows potential as a methane mitigation strategy in both growing and finishing diets

Erickson, Galen E.

Freeman, Collin B.

Hamilton, Hannah C.

Jolly-Breithaupt, Melissa L.

MacDonald, Jim C.

Mark, Brittney A., Mark

Watson, Andrea K.

Winders, Tommy M.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnNebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department2019Biochar Supplementation in Growing andFinishing DietsTommy M. WindersCollin B. FreemanBrittney A. Mark MarkMelissa L. Jolly-BreithauptHannah C. HamiltonUniversity of Nebraska - Lincoln, hhamilton6@unl.eduSee next page for additional authorsFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcrPart of the Large or Food Animal and Equine Medicine Commons, Meat Science Commons, andthe Veterinary Preventive Medicine, Epidemiology, and Public Health CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.Winders, Tommy M.; Freeman, Collin B.; Mark, Brittney A. Mark; Jolly-Breithaupt, Melissa L.; Hamilton, Hannah C.; MacDonald,Jim C.; Erickson, Galen E.; and Watson, Andrea K., "Biochar Supplementation in Growing and Finishing Diets" (2019). Nebraska BeefCattle Reports. 1031.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/1031AuthorsTommy M. Winders, Collin B. Freeman, Brittney A. Mark Mark, Melissa L. Jolly-Breithaupt, Hannah C.Hamilton, Jim C. MacDonald, Galen E. Erickson, and Andrea K. WatsonThis article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/103156 · 2019 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report©  The Board Regents of the University of  Nebraska. All rights reserved.consecutive, 23- h periods in the headbox calorimeter. The availability of the calo-rimeters dictated period length. Diets fed were identical between treatments other than inclusion of biochar (0, 0.8, or 3% of diet dry matter; DM), which displaced fine- ground corn in the supplement (Table 1). The biochar was derived from pine trees and had a composition of 85% carbon, 0.7% nitrogen, and was 94% OM on a DM basis. Diets consisted of 30% corn silage, 21% brome hay, 20% wheat straw, 22% wet dis-tillers grains plus solubles (WDGS), and 7% supplement (DM basis). Urea was included in the supplement of all diets at 0.5% of diet DM and treatments provided 200 mg/ani-mal daily of monensin (Rumensin, Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN).Diets were fed ad libitum twice daily with 50% of daily feed offered at each feed-ing. Each period consisted of adaptation to the treatments (minimum of 8 d), fecal grab sampling 4 times/d on 4 days leading up to headbox collections, and headbox collec-tions for the final 2 d of the period. Feed and fecal samples were ground through a plant material) at very high temperatures in the absence of oxygen. Although a mode of action is not fully understood, it has been suggested that it adsorbs gas in the rumen resulting in reduced methane eructation. Other theories are that the porous nature of biochar will increase the amount of inert surface area in the rumen, allowing for im-proved habitat for microbes to reside. This improved habitat may increase microbial growth, allow feeds to be digested more completely, and bring methanogens and methanotrophs together, leading to more complete oxidation of feeds and less meth-ane production.ProcedureGrowing ExperimentSix crossbred steers (initial BW 1166 lb; standard deviation = 35 lb) were used in a 6- period crossover design. Steers were blocked by body weight (BW) and assigned randomly within block to 1 of 3 treatments. Periods ranged from 14– 24 days with 2 Biochar Supplementation in Growing and Finishing DietsTommy M. WindersCollin B. FreemanBrittney A. MarkMelissa L. Jolly- BreithauptHannah C. WilsonJim C. MacDonaldGalen E. EricksonAndrea K. WatsonSummary with ImplicationsTwo metabolism studies were conducted to evaluate the effects of biochar (0, 0.8, or 3% of diet dry matter) on digestibility and methane production in growing and finishing diets. Intake was not affected by biochar inclusion in the growing diet and increased with 0.8% biochar inclusion in the finish-ing study. Digestibility tended to increase quadratically with biochar inclusion in the growing study while digestibility tended to linearly decrease with biochar inclusion in the finishing study. Methane production (g/d) decreased 10.7% in the growing study and 9.9% in the finishing study with 0.8% biochar compared to no biochar. Methane production was reduced 10.6% and 18.4% in the grow-ing and finishing studies, respectively, when measured as g/lb of intake. Although biochar is not FDA approved for animal feeding, the initial research shows potential as a methane mitigation strategy in both growing and finishing diets.IntroductionEnergy lost as methane by ruminants can range from 2– 12% of gross energy intake (GEI), but is variable depending on multiple things, with diet composition being one factor. Diet composition can be used to manipulate the rumen environ-ment and is a methane mitigation strategy. Biochar is a feed product with potential as a methane inhibitor. Biochar is produced by burning organic matter (OM; typically Table 1. Composition of diet (DM basis) fed to cattle (Growing trial)Ingredient, % of diet DMBiochar, % Inclusion0 0.8 3Brome hay 21 21 21Wheat straw 20 20 20Corn silage 30 30 30Wet distillers grains plus solubles 22 22 22Supplement1Fine ground corn 4.630 3.830 1.630Biochar - 0.800 3.000Limestone 1.320 1.320 1.320Tallow 0.175 0.175 0.175Urea 0.500 0.500 0.500Salt 0.300 0.300 0.300Beef Trace Mineral2 0.050 0.050 0.050Vitamin A- D- E3 0.015 0.015 0.0151Supplement fed at 7% of diet DM2Premix contained 10% Mg, 6% Zn, 2.5% Mn, 0.5% Cu, 0.3% I, and 0.05% Co3Premix contained 1,500 IU of vitamin A, 3,000 IU of vitamin D, and 3.7 IU of vitamin E per g4Formulated to supply Rumensin- 90 (Elanco Animal Health; Greenfield, IN) at 18 g/ton2019 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 57 DM), which displaced fine- ground corn in the supplement (Table 2). Diets consisted of 53% dry rolled corn, 15% corn silage, 25% WDGS, and 7% supplement, on a DM basis. Periods were 14 days in length with 2 consecutive 23- hr headbox collections over the last 2 days of each period. Fecal output was estimated by dosing 10 g/d of titanium dioxide in the feed and was used to calcu-late diet digestibility. All other procedures were the same as described for the growing experiment. At the conclusion of the trial, cattle were euthanized under veterinary su-pervision and composted because biochar is not an FDA approved feed additive.Gas emissionsIn both experiments, methane emissions were measured through indirect calorime-try using headboxes built at the University of Nebraska– Lincoln. A training period was done before the experiment for steers to become acclimated to the headboxes. One steer was removed from the growing exper-iment after period two because of a lack of dry matter intake (DMI) while in the head-box, but was re- trained and used during the finishing experiment. Gas samples were collected in foil bags that continuously and evenly filled throughout the 23 h collection period. Gas measurements collected over the 2 d were averaged to obtain 1 value per period for each steer. A 5 d DMI average leading up to the 2 d headbox period was used to report gas emissions on a grams per lb of DMI basis.Digestibility and gas emissions were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Steer within period was the experimental unit and steer was included in the random statement. Probabilities were considered significant at P ≤ 0.10 and tendencies are discussed at P ≤ 0.15.ResultsGrowing ExperimentDigestibility and EnergyAll intake, fecal output and digestibility data are reported in Table 3. Dry matter intake (lb/d) did not differ between treat-ments (P ≥ 0.43; Table 3), but did increase between periods as a result of the cattle growing, and therefore eating more. There 1- mm screen and analyzed for DM, OM, acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral deter-gent fiber (NDF), GE and digestible energy (DE). Bomb calorimetry was done to obtain energy values. Acid insoluble ash (AIA) was used as an internal marker and analysis was done on the base diet fed, feed refusals, and fecals to determine digestibility DMD.Finishing ExperimentThe same 6 steers were utilized in a 3- period crossover design. Steers remained in the same BW block and were assigned randomly to 1 of 3 treatments. Similar to the growing experiment, diets fed were identical between treatments other than inclusion of biochar (0, 0.8, or 3% of diet Table 2. Composition of diet (DM basis) fed to cattle (Finishing trial)Ingredient, % of diet DMBiochar, % Inclusion0 0.8 3Dry- rolled Corn 53 53 53Corn silage 15 15 15Wet distillers grains plus solubles 25 25 25Supplement1Fine ground corn 4.630 3.830 1.630Biochar - 0.800 3.000Limestone 1.320 1.320 1.320Tallow 0.175 0.175 0.175Urea 0.500 0.500 0.500Salt 0.300 0.300 0.300Beef Trace Mineral2 0.050 0.050 0.050Vitamin A- D- E3 0.015 0.015 0.015Rumensin- 904 0.010 0.010 0.0101Supplement fed at 7% of diet DM2Premix contained 10% Mg, 6% Zn, 2.5% Mn, 0.5% Cu, 0.3% I, and 0.05% Co3Premix contained 1,500 IU of vitamin A, 3,000 IU of vitamin D, and 3.7 IU of vitamin E per g4Formulated to supply Rumensin- 90 (Elanco Animal Health; Greenfield, IN) at 18 g/tonTable 3. Effect of biochar inclusion on intake and total tract digestibility (Growing trial)0 0.8 3 SEM Lin1 Quad2DMIntake, lb/d 17.7 17.4 17.3 0.46 0.43 0.64Digestibility, % 55.7 57.6 54.7 1.12 0.25 0.11OMIntake, lb/d 16.0 15.8 15.7 0.42 0.52 0.74Digestibility, % 58.6ab 60.6a 57.7b 1.16 0.31 0.10NDFIntake, lb/d 9.35 9.24 9.44 0.24 0.62 0.57Digestibility, % 50.5ab 52.6a 48.2b 1.55 0.08 0.10ADFIntake, lb/d 6.24 6.22 6.46 0.18 0.13 0.53Digestibility, % 46.7 48.1 45.0 1.50 0.29 0.35EnergyGE intake, Mcal/d 35.3 34.8 34.8 0.93 0.62 0.68DE intake, Mcal/d 20.5 21.0 20.0 0.51 0.27 0.301Linear effect on response variables2Quadratic effect on response variablesa, b Means within a row with different superscripts are different (P < 0.10)58 · 2019 Nebraska Beef Cattle Reportwere no differences between treatments in intake of DM, OM, NDF, or ADF (P ≥ 0.13). Dry matter digestibility and OM digestibility (OMD) were not different (P ≥ 0.15) from the control diet at either biochar inclusion. A linear (P = 0.08) decrease was observed for NDF digestibility (NDFD) with 3% inclusion of biochar having the lowest digestibility. Gross energy intake (GEI; Mcal/d) and digestible energy intake (DEI; Mcal/d) did not differ between treat-ments (P ≥ 0.27).Methane ProductionReported DMI used for gas emission calculations was a 5 d average prior to cattle entering the headboxes, and was not different between treatments (P ≥ 0.68; Table 4). Methane production (g/d) tended to decrease quadratically (P = 0.14) with the 0.8% biochar treatment reducing methane compared to the 0% treatment. Numeri-cally, the 0.8% biochar treatment reduced methane (g/d) by 11% compared to the control treatment without biochar. Methane production calculated as g/lb of DMI or g/Mcal of GEI was not different between treatments (P ≥ 0.17). Methane produced per Mcal of DEI was lowest for 0.8% biochar and greatest for the 0% treatment, resulting in a quadratic response (P = 0.05).When combining the two treatments that contained biochar (0.8 and 3%) and comparing to the 0% biochar treatment, methane production (g/d, g/lb DMI, and g/Mcal GEI) tended (P ≤ 0.13) to be lower for the biochar cattle relative to the control cat-tle. Methane produced per Mcal of DEI was reduced (P = 0.07) for the biochar cattle.Finishing ExperimentDigestibilityIntake of DM, OM, NDF, and ADF all increased quadratically (P < 0.01) as biochar inclusion in the diet increased (Table 5). Dry matter digestibility tended to decrease linearly (P = 0.11) as biochar inclusion increased, while OMD and ADFD did decrease linearly (P ≤ 0.10) as biochar inclusion increased.Table 4. Effect of increasing inclusion of biochar on methane emissions from steers (Growing trial)Biochar Inclusion, % DMSEM3 Types P- value Bio vs No Bio30 0.8 3 Lin1 Quad2 P- valueDMI, lb/d 17.4 17.4 17.2 0.4 0.68 0.90 0.70GE intake, Mcal/d 34.9 34.7 34.8 0.9 0.99 0.85 0.88DE intake, Mcal/d 20.6 21.1 20.3 0.5 0.50 0.32 0.82Methaneg/d 108.8 97.2 100.7 5.1 0.42 0.14 0.11g/lb DMI 6.25 5.59 5.85 0.30 0.43 0.18 0.13g/Mcal GE intake 3.10 2.80 2.86 0.13 0.37 0.17 0.11g/Mcal DE intake 5.27a 4.62b 4.92ab 0.21 0.51 0.05 0.071Linear effect on response variables2Quadratic effect on response variables3Biochar vs. No biochar inclusiona, bMeans within a row with different superscripts are different (P < 0.10)Table 5. Effect of biochar inclusion on intake and total tract digestibility (Finishing trial)0 0.8 3 SEM Lin1 Quad2DMIntake, lb/d 26.4a 28.5b 26.8a 1.2 0.48 < 0.01Digestibility, % 71.5 70.0 68.2 1.8 0.12 0.70OMIntake, lb/d 22.5a 24.4b 22.8a 1.0 0.33 < 0.01Digestibility, % 72.3a 70.4ab 68.7b 1.7 0.10 0.45NDFIntake, lb/d 6.62a 7.40b 7.47b 0.33 < 0.01 < 0.01Digestibility, % 56.6 54.1 53.4 3.8 0.22 0.43ADFIntake, lb/d 2.82a 3.18b 3.38c 0.13 < 0.01 < 0.01Digestibility, % 52.4a 50.1a 41.3b 3.8 < 0.01 0.751Linear effect on response variables2Quadratic effect on response variablesa,b,cMeans within a row with different superscripts are different (P < 0.10)Table 6. Effect of increasing inclusion of biochar on methane emissions from steers (Finishing trial)Biochar Inclusion, % DMSEM3 Types P- value Bio vs No Bio30 0.8 3 Lin1 Quad2 P- valueDMI, lb/d 24.8a 28.0b 26.3b 1.1 0.52 0.01 0.04Methaneg/d 141 127 122 19 0.39 0.62 0.32g/lb DMI 5.65 4.61 4.83 0.66 0.48 0.85 0.221Linear effect on response variables2Quadratic effect on response variables3Biochar vs. No biochar inclusiona, bMeans within a row with different superscripts are different (P < 0.10)2019 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 59 to determine if it is a feasible methane mitigation tool.Tommy M. Winders, graduate studentCollin B. Freeman, undergraduate studentBrittney A. Mark, undergraduate studentMelissa L. Jolly- Breithaupt, research technicianHannah C. Wilson, research technicianJim C. MacDonald, associate professorGalen E. Erickson, professorAndrea K. Watson, research assistant professor, University of Nebraska– Lincoln, Department of Animal Science, Lincoln, Neb.in the growing experiment) due to cattle becoming too large for the headboxes, which limited statistical power.While not always statistically significant, there were consistent numerical decreases in methane production with 0.8% biochar inclusion in the diet compared to no bio-char. Intake was not hindered with biochar inclusion, and actually increased in the finishing experiment. Feeding 0.8% biochar appears to be sufficient and no further benefits were observed from increasing inclusion to 3% of diet DM. The effects of biochar in the rumen show promise, but are not fully understood and performance data (ADG, efficiency, carcass data) are needed Methane ProductionIntake used for gas emission calcula-tions increased quadratically (P = 0.01) as biochar inclusion increased. When biochar treatments were combined, biochar cattle had greater DMI (P = 0.04) than the control. Methane production (g/d and g/lb DMI) was not different between treatments (P ≥ 0.22) when analyzed as three inclusion levels or as biochar inclusion vs. no biochar inclusion (Table 6). However, methane production (g/d) numerically decreased 9.9% and meth-ane production (g/lb DMI) decreased 18.4% for the 0.8% biochar treatment relative to no biochar. Only 3 periods of data were col-lected in the finishing experiment (6 periods 

Biochar Supplementation in Growing and Finishing Diets

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2049&amp;context=animalscinbcr

Biochar Supplementation in Growing and Finishing Diets

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska