Cited by 78Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact

Effect of tannin-containing hays on enteric methane emissions and nitrogen partitioning in beef cattle1

Open access
Stewart, Elizabeth K, Beauchemin, Karen A, Dai, Xin, MacAdam, Jennifer W, Christensen, Rachael G, Villalba, Juan J·2019·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine whether feeding tannin-containing hays to heifers and mature beef cows influences enteric methane (CH4) emissions and nitrogen (N) excretion relative to feeding traditional legume and grass hays. Fifteen mature beef cows (Exp. 1) and 9 yearling heifers (Exp. 2) were each randomly assigned to treatment groups in an incomplete bock design with 2 periods and 6 types of hays with 3 hays fed each period (n = 5 cows and 3 heifers per treatment). Groups were fed tannin-containing [birdsfoot trefoil (BFT), sainfoin (SAN), small burnet (SML)] or non-tannin-containing [alfalfa (ALF), cicer milkvetch (CMV), meadow bromegrass (MB)] hays. Each period consisted of 14 d of adjustment followed by 5 d of sample collection. Nine cows and 9 heifers were selected for the measurement of enteric CH4 emissions (sulfur hexafluoride tracer gas technique), and excretion of feces and urine, while dry matter intake (DMI) was measured for all animals. The concentration of condensed tannins in SAN and BFT was 2.5 ± 0.50% and 0.6 ± 0.09% of dry matter (DM), respectively, while SML contained hydrolyzable tannins (4.5 ± 0.55% of DM). Cows and heifers fed tannin-containing hays excreted less urinary urea N (g/d; P < 0.001) and showed lower concentrations of blood urea N (mg/dL; P < 0.001) than animals fed ALF or CMV, indicating that tannins led to a shift in route of N excretion from urine to feces. Additionally, cows fed either BFT or CMV showed the greatest percentage of retained N (P < 0.001). Enteric CH4 yield (g/kg of DMI) from heifers (P = 0.089) was greatest for MB, while daily CH4 production (g/d) from heifers (P = 0.054) was least for SML. However, digestibility of crude protein was reduced for cows (P < 0.001) and heifers (P < 0.001) consuming SML. The results suggest that tannin-containing hays have the potential to reduce urinary urea N excretion, increase N retention, and reduce enteric CH4 emissions from beef cattle. The non-bloating tannin-free legume CMV may also reduce environmental impacts relative to ALF and MB hays by reducing N excretion in urine and increasing N retention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jas/skz206

Cites

126 of 126 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Tannin-containing hay reduces CH4 emission (5.4 DM vs. 3.5 ml/g) and urea N excretion in beef cattle.

    “Tannin containing hay has been shown to reduce the CH4 emission (5.4 DM vs. 3.5 ml/g) and urea N excretion in beef cattle (187).”

    From Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction (2020) · cites this paper as [187]

    The Abstract reports less urinary urea N in cows and heifers fed tannin-containing hays, and the Results and Conclusion report reduced methane yield for cows fed small burnet hay. The claimed 5.4 versus 3.5 ml/g comparison is not reported in the retrieved passages; the paper reports methane yield in g/kg of dry matter intake. Its methane finding is also conditional: heifers fed the same hay did not show reduced methane yield. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. AOAC 2012. Official methods of analysis. 19th ed. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem, Gaithersburg, MD. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hall M. B. 2000. Calculation of non-neutral detergent fiber carbohydrate content of feeds that contain non-protein nitrogen. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; p. A-25 (Bulletin, 339). [Google Scholar]
  3. Lebedeva N. D. 1964. Heats of combustion of monocarboxylic acids. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 38:1435–1437. [Google Scholar]
  4. MacAdam J. W., Whitesides R. E., Winger M. B., and Buffer S.. 1997. Pasture species for grazing-based dairy production under irrigation in the Intermountain West. In: Proc. XVIII Int. Grass. Congr., Winnipeg, MB and Saskatoon, SK, Canada p. 99–100. [Google Scholar]
  5. Peirett P. G. 2005. Prediction of the gross energy value of Mediterranean forages. J. Food Agric. Environ. 3:102–104. doi: 10.1234/4.2005.667 [DOI] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  6. Wegert W. 1977. Production and forage quality of cicer milkvetch (Astragalus cicer L.) hay at six stages of maturation. Master’s thesis. Western State Colorado University, Gunnison. [Google Scholar]
  7. Woodward S. L., Waghorn G. C., and Laboyrie P. G.. 2004. Condensed tannins in birdsfoot trefoil (Lotis corniculatus) reduce methane emissions from dairy cows. Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 64:160–164. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stewart, E. K., Beauchemin, K. A., Dai, X., MacAdam, J. W., Christensen, R. G., & Villalba, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Utah State University (US)
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA)
  • United States Department of Agriculture (US)
Corresponding author
Stewart, Elizabeth K
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2019-07-12
Volume
97
Issue
8
Pages
3286-3299
ISSN
  • 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3163
OpenAlex
W2885609388
Cited by
78
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5
FWCI
15.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • United States Department of Agriculture
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2016-69004-24855)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Keywords
enteric methane, nitrogen partitioning, beef cattle, heifers, Lotus corniculatus, sainfoin, alfalfa, cicer milkvetch, meadow bromegrass, urinary urea nitrogen, blood urea nitrogen, nitrogen retention, crude protein digestibility, legume hay, hydrolysable tannins
MeSH terms
Animals, Cattle, Diet, Feces, Female, Poaceae, Fabaceae, Methane, Nitrogen, Random Allocation, Tannins, Urea, Gastrointestinal Tract, Proanthocyanidins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review