Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-mqrwx Total loading time: 0.641 Render date: 2022-12-03T22:28:58.974Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

The use of direct-fed microbials for mitigation of ruminant methane emissions: a review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2013

J. Jeyanathan*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
C. Martin
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
D. P. Morgavi
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
Get access

Abstract

Concerns about the environmental effect and the economic burden of methane (CH4) emissions from ruminants are driving the search for ways to mitigate rumen methanogenesis. The use of direct-fed microbials (DFM) is one possible option to decrease CH4 emission from ruminants. Direct-fed microbials are already used in ruminants mainly to increase productivity and to improve health, and are readily accepted by producers and consumers alike. However, studies on the use of DFM as rumen CH4 mitigants are scarce. A few studies using Saccharomyces cerevisiae have shown a CH4-decreasing effect but, to date, there has not been a systematic exploration of DFM as modulators of rumen methanogenesis. In this review, we explored biochemical pathways competing with methanogenesis that, potentially, could be modulated by the use of DFM. Pathways involving the redirection of H2 away from methanogenesis and pathways producing less H2 during feed fermentation are the preferred options. Propionate formation is an example of the latter option that in addition to decrease CH4 formation increases the retention of energy from the diet. Homoacetogenesis is a pathway using H2 to produce acetate, however up to now no acetogen has been shown to efficiently compete with methanogens in the rumen. Nitrate and sulphate reduction are pathways competing with methanogenesis, but the availability of these substances in the rumen is limited. Although there were studies using nitrate and sulphate as chemical additives, use of DFM for improving these processes and decrease the accumulation of toxic metabolites needs to be explored more. There are some other pathways such as methanotrophy and capnophily or modes of action such as inhibition of methanogens that theoretically could be provided by DFM and affect methanogenesis. We conclude that DFM is a promising alternative for rumen methane mitigation that should be further explored for their practical usage.

Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , February 2014 , pp. 250 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, MC, Luo, J, Rayward, D, King, S, Gibson, R and Moghaddam, GH 2008. Selection of a novel direct-fed microbial to enhance weight gain in intensively reared calves. Animal Feed Science and Technology 145, 4152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikman, PC, Henning, PH, Humphries, DJ and Horn, CH 2011. Rumen pH and fermentation characteristics in dairy cows supplemented with Megasphaera elsdenii NCIMB 41125 in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 28402849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alaboudi, AR and Jones, GA 1985. Effect of acclimation to high nitrate intakes on some rumen fermentation parameters in sheep. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 65, 841849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, RC and Rasmussen, MA 1998. Use of a novel nitrotoxin-metabolizing bacterium to reduce ruminal methane production. Bioresource Technology 64, 8995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ao, RAL 2008. The potentail of feeding nitrate to reduce enteric methane production in ruminants. A report to the department of climate change, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Asa, R, Tanaka, A, Uehara, A, Shinzato, I, Toride, Y, Usui, N, Hirakawa, K and Takahashi, J 2010. Effects of protease-resistant antimicrobial substances produced by lactic acid bacteria on rumen methanogenesis. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 23, 700707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asanuma, N, Yoshii, T and Hino, T 2003. Isolation of new nitrite-reducing bacteria, and augmentation of nitrite reduction in the rumen by introducing one of the isolated bacteria. Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture-Meiji University 137, 117.Google Scholar
Asanuma, N, Kanagawa, K, Iwamoto, M and Hino, T 1998. Formate metabolism by ruminal microorganisms in relation to methanogenesis. Animal Science and Technology 69, 576584.Google Scholar
Asanuma, N, Iwamoto, M, Kawato, M and Hino, T 2002. Numbers of nitrate-reducing bacteria in the rumen as estimated by competitive polymerase chain reaction. Animal Science Journal 73, 199205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, RL, Wood, WA and Emery, RS 1963. Conversion of glucose-C14 to propionate by the rumen microbiota. Journal of Bacteriology 85, 13461349.Google ScholarPubMed
Boccazzi, P and Patterson, JA 1996. Potential for functional replacement of methanogenic bacteria by acetogenic bacteria in the rumen environment. Annales De Zootechnie 45, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boccazzi, P and Patterson, JA 2011. Using hydrogen-limited anaerobic continuous culture to isolate low hydrogen threshhold ruminal acetogenic bacteria. Agriculture, Food and Analytical Bacteriology 1, 3344.Google Scholar
Breznak, JA and Switzer, JM 1986. Acetate synthesis from H(2) plus CO(2) by termite gut microbes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 52, 623630.Google Scholar
Bryant, MP 1973. Nutritional requirements of the predominant rumen cellulolytic bacteria. Federation Proceedings 32, 18091813.Google ScholarPubMed
Bryant, MP, Campbell, LL, Reddy, CA and Crabill, MR 1977. Growth of Desulfovibrio in lactate or ethanol media low in sulfate in association with H2-utilizing methanogenic bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 33, 11621169.Google ScholarPubMed
Buddle, BM, Denis, M, Attwood, GT, Altermann, E, Janssen, PH, Ronimus, RS, Pinares-Patiño, CS, Muetzel, S and Wedlock, DN 2011. Strategies to reduce methane emissions from farmed ruminants grazing on pasture. The Veterinary Journal 188, 1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, TR, DeMelo, AMS and Russell, JB 1997. The effect of nisin and monensin on ruminal fermentations in vitro . Current Microbiology 35, 9096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, LL and Postgate, JR 1965. Classification of the spore-forming sulfate-reducing bacteria. Bacteriological Reviews 29, 359363.Google ScholarPubMed
Carro, MD, Lebzien, P and Rohr, K 1992. Influence of yeast culture on the in vitro fermentation (Rusitec) of diets containing variable portions of concentrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 37, 209220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaucheyras-Durand, F, Walker, ND and Bach, A 2008. Effects of active dry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem: past, present and future. Animal Feed Science and Technology 145, 526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaucheyras-Durand, F, Fonty, G, Bertin, G and Gouet, P 1995. In vitro H2 utilization by a ruminal acetogenic bacterium cultivated alone or in association with an archaea methanogen is stimulated by a probiotic strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61, 34663467.Google Scholar
Chaucheyras-Durand, F, Masseglia, S, Fonty, G and Forano, E 2010. Influence of the composition of the cellulolytic flora on the development of hydrogenotrophic microorganisms, hydrogen utilization, and methane production in the rumens of gnotobiotically reared lambs. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 76, 79317937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, KJ and Wallace, RJ 1979. Mechanism of passage of endogenous urea through the rumen wall and the role of ureolytic epithelial bacteria in the urea flux. British Journal of Nutrition 42, 553557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, YH, Walker, ND, McGinn, SM and Beauchemin, KA 2011. Differing effects of 2 active dried yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) strains on ruminal acidosis and methane production in non-lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 24312439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Counotte, GH, Prins, RA, Janssen, RH and Debie, MJ 1981. Role of Megasphaera elsdenii in the fermentation of dl-[2-C] lactate in the rumen of dairy cattle. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 42, 649655.Google ScholarPubMed
Cummings, BA, Caldwell, DR, Gould, DH and Hamar, DW 1995. Rumen microbial alterations associated with sulfide generation in steers with dietary sulfate-induced polioencephalomalacia. American Journal of Veterinary Research 56, 13901395.Google ScholarPubMed
Dehority, BA 1971. Carbon dioxide requirement of various species of rumen bacteria. Journal of Bacteriology 105, 7076.Google ScholarPubMed
Dehority, BA and Tirabasso, PA 1998. Effect of ruminal cellulolytic bacterial concentrations on in situ digestion of forage cellulose. Journal of Animal Science 76, 29052911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doré, J, Morvan, B, Rieu-Lesme, F, Goderel, I, Gouet, P and Pochart, P 1995. Most probable number enumeration of H2-utilizing acetogenic bacteria from the digestive tract of animals and man. FEMS Microbiology Letters 130, 712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doreau, M and Jouany, JP 1998. Effect of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on nutrient digestion in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 32143221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dridi, B, Fardeau, ML, Ollivier, B, Raoult, D and Drancourt, M 2012. Methanomassiliicoccus luminyensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a methanogenic archaeon isolated from human faeces. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 62, 19021907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Droge, S, Limper, U, Emtiazi, F, Schonig, I, Pavlus, N, Drzyzga, O, Fischer, U and Konig, H 2005. In vitro and in vivo sulfate reduction in the gut contents of the termite Mastotermes darwiniensis and the rose-chafer Pachnoda marginata . Journal of General Applied Microbiology 51, 5764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, JE, McIntyre, PS, Saleh, M, Williams, AG and Lloyd, D 1991. Influence of CO2 and low concentrations of O2 on fermentative metabolism of the ruminal ciliate Polyplastron multivesiculatum . Applied and Environmental Microbiology 57, 14001407.Google ScholarPubMed
Fonty, G, Joblin, K, Chavarot, M, Roux, R, Naylor, G and Michallon, F 2007. Establishment and development of ruminal hydrogenotrophs in methanogen-free lambs. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 73, 63916403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franzolin, R, St-Pierre, B, Northwood, K and Wright, AD 2012. Analysis of rumen methanogen diversity in water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) under three different diets. Microbial Ecology 64, 131139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gagen, EJ, Mosoni, P, Denman, SE, Al Jassim, R, McSweeney, CS and Forano, E 2012. Methanogen colonisation does not significantly alter acetogen diversity in lambs isolated 17 h after birth and raised aseptically. Microbial Ecology 64, 628640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagen, EJ, Denman, SE, Padmanabha, J, Zadbuke, S, Al Jassim, R, Morrison, M and McSweeney, CS 2010. Functional gene analysis suggests different acetogen populations in the bovine rumen and Tammar wallaby forestomach. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 76, 77857795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia-de-Lomas, J, Corzo, A, Portillo, MC, Gonzalez, JM, Andrades, JA, Saiz-Jimenez, C and Garcia-Robledoa, E 2007. Nitrate stimulation of indigenous nitrate-reducing, sulfide-oxidising bacterial community in wastewater anaerobic biofilms. Water Research 41, 31213131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghorbani, GR, Morgavi, DP, Beauchemin, KA and Leedle, JAZ 2002. Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials on ruminal fermentation, blood variables, and the microbial populations of feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 80, 19771985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, GR, Macfariane, GT and Cummings, JH 1993. Sulphate reducing bacteria and hydrogen metabolism in the large intestine. Gut 34, 437439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godoy-Vitorino, F, Goldfarb, KC, Karaoz, U, Leal, S, Garcia-Amado, MA, Hugenholtz, P, Tringe, SG, Brodie, EL and Dominguez-Bello, MG 2012. Comparative analyses of foregut and hindgut bacterial communities in hoatzins and cows. ISME Journal 6, 531541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hallam, SJ, Girguis, PR, Preston, CM, Richardson, PM and DeLong, EF 2003. Identification of methyl coenzyme M reductase A (mcrA) genes associated with methane-oxidizing archaea. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69, 54835491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henning, PH, Horn, CH, Leeuw, KJ, Meissner, HH and Hagg, FM 2010. Effect of ruminal administration of the lactate-utilizing strain Megasphaera elsdenii (Me) NCIMB 41125 on abrupt or gradual transition from forage to concentrate diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 157, 2029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hino, T, Shimada, K and Maruyama, T 1994. Substrate preference in a strain of Megasphaera elsdenii, a ruminal bacterium, and its implications in propionate production and growth competition. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 60, 18271831.Google Scholar
Hou, S, Makarova, KS, Saw, JHW, Senin, P, Ly, BV, Zhou, Z, Ren, Y, Wang, J, Galperin, MY, Omelchenko, V, Wolf, YI, Yutin, N, Koonin, EV, Stott, B, Mountain, BW, Crowe, MA, Smirnova, AV, Dunfield, PF, Feng, L, Wang, L and Alam, M 2008. Complete genome sequence of the extremely acidophilic methanotroph isolate V4, Methylacidiphilum infernorum, a representative of the bacterial phylum Verrucomicrobia . Biology Direct 3, 2651. doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-3-26, published online by BioMed central 01 July 2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubert, C and Voordouw, G 2007. Oil field souring control by nitrate-reducing Sulfurospirillum spp. that outcompete sulfate-reducing bacteria for organic electron donors. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 73, 26442652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huisingh, J, McNeill, JJ and Matrone, G 1974. Sulfate reduction by a Desulfovibrio species isolated from sheep rumen. Applied Microbiology 28, 489497.Google ScholarPubMed
Hulshof, RBA, Berndt, A, Gerrits, WJJ, Dijkstra, J, van Zijderveld, SM, Newbold, JR and Perdok, HB 2012. Dietary nitrate supplementation reduces methane emission in beef cattle fed sugarcane-based diets. Journal of Animal Science 90, 23172323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hungate, RE, Smith, W, Bauchop, T, Yu, I and Rabinowitz, JC 1970. Formate as an intermediate in the bovine rumen fermentation. Journal of Bacteriology 102, 389397.Google ScholarPubMed
Hyman, MR and Wood, PM 1983. Methane oxidation by Nitrosomonas europaea . Biochemical Journal 212, 3137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved January 30, 2012 from http://ww.ipcc.ch/publications and dataGoogle Scholar
Iwamoto, M, Asanuma, N and Hino, T 1999. Effect of nitrate combined with fumarate on methanogenesis, fermentation, and cellulose digestion by mixed ruminal microbes in vitro . Animal Science Journal 70, 471478.Google Scholar
Iwamoto, M, Asanuma, N and Hino, T 2002. Ability of Selenomonas ruminantium, Veillonella parvula, and Wolinella succinogenes to reduce nitrate and nitrite with special reference to the suppression of ruminal methanogenesis. Anaerobe 8, 209215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, PH and Kirs, M 2008. Structure of the archaeal community of the rumen. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 74, 36193625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarvis, GN, Strompl, C, Burgess, DM, Skillman, LC, Moore, ERB and Joblin, KN 2000. Isolation and identification of ruminal methanogens from grazing cattle. Current Microbiology 40, 327332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeyanathan, J, Kirs, M, Ronimus, RS, Hoskin, SO and Janssen, PH 2011. Methanogen community structure in the rumens of farmed sheep, cattle and red deer fed different diets. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 76, 311326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, QQ and Bakken, LR 1999. Nitrous oxide production and methane oxidation by different ammonia-oxidizing bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65, 26792684.Google ScholarPubMed
Kajikawa, H, Valdes, C, Hillman, K, Wallace, RJ and Newbold, CJ 2003. Methane oxidation and its coupled electron-sink reactions in ruminal fluid. Letters in Applied Microbiology 36, 354357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaspar, H 1982. Nitrite reduction to nitrous oxide by Propionibacteria: detoxication mechanism. Archives of Microbiology 133, 126130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaspar, HF and Tiedje, JM 1981. Dissimilatory reduction of nitrate and nitrite in the bovine rumen: nitrous oxide production and effect of acetylene. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 41, 705709.Google ScholarPubMed
Kempton, TJ, Murray, RM and Leng, RA 1976. Methane production and digestibility measurements in grey-Kangaroo and sheep. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 29, 209214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klieve, AV, Ouwerkerk, D and Maguire, AJ 2012. Archaea in the foregut of macropod marsupials: PCR and amplicon sequence-based observations. Journal of Applied Microbiology 113, 10651075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klieve, AV, Hennessy, D, Ouwerkerk, D, Forster, RJ, Mackie, RI and Attwood, GT 2003. Establishing populations of Megasphaera elsdenii YE 34 and Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens YE 44 in the rumen of cattle fed high grain diets. Journal of Applied Microbiology 95, 621630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knittel, K, Losekann, T, Boetius, A, Kort, R and Amann, R 2005. Diversity and distribution of methanotrophic archaea at cold seeps. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71, 467479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause, DO, Bunch, RJ, Conlan, LL, Kennedy, PM, Smith, WJ, Mackie, RI and McSweeney, CS 2001. Repeated ruminal dosing of Ruminococcus spp. does not result in persistence, but changes in other microbial populations occur that can be measured with quantitative 16S-rRNA-based probes. Microbiology 147, 17191729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, CR, Rust, SR, Zhang, G and Gilliland, SE 2003. Bacterial direct-fed microbials in ruminant diets: performance response and mode of action. Journal of Animal Science 81, 120132.Google Scholar
Lee, SS, Mantovani, HC and Russell, JB 2002a. The binding and degradation of nisin by mixed ruminal bacteria. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 42, 339345.Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, SS, Hsu, JT, Mantovani, HC and Russell, JB 2002b. The effect of bovicin, HC5, a bacteriocin from Streptococcus bovis HC5, on ruminal methane production in vitro . FEMS Microbiology Letters 217, 5155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leedle, JAZ and Greening, RC 1988. Postprandial changes in methanogenic and acidogenic bacteria in the rumens of steers fed high-forage or low-forage diets once daily. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 54, 502506.Google ScholarPubMed
Lettat, A, Noziere, P, Berger, C and Martin, C 2012a. Method for reducing methane production in a ruminant animal. In World Intellectual Property Organization. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo/wo2012147044.html Google Scholar
Lettat, A, Noziere, P, Silberberg, M, Morgavi, DP, Berger, C and Martin, C 2012b. Rumen microbial and fermentation characteristics are affected differently by bacterial probiotic supplementation during inuced lactic and subacute acidosis in sheep. BMC Microbiology 12, 142154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, L, Davis, J, Nolan, J and Hegarty, R 2012. An initial investigation on rumen fermentation pattern and methane emission of sheep offered diets containing urea or nitrate as the nitrogen source. Animal Production Science 52, 653658.Google Scholar
Li, M, Zhou, M, Adamowicz, E, Basarab, JA and Guan, LL 2011. Characterization of bovine ruminal epithelial bacterial communities using 16S rRNA sequencing, PCR-DGGE, and qRT-PCR analysis. Veterinary Microbiology 155, 7280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lila, ZA, Mohammed, N, Yasui, T, Kurokawa, Y, Kanda, S and Itabashi, H 2004. Effects of a twin strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae live cells on mixed ruminal microorizanism fermentation in vitro . Journal of Animal Science 82, 18471854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopez, S, McIntosh, E, Wallace, RJ and Newbold, CJ 1999. Effect of adding acetogenic bacteria on methane production by mixed rumen microorganisms. Animal Feed Science and Technology 78, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, HA and Martin, SA 2002. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture and Saccharomyces cerevisiae live cells on in vitro mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 26032608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macy, JM, Ljungdahl, LG and Gottschalk, G 1978. Pathway of succinate and propionate formation in Bacteroides fragilis . Journal of Bacteriology 134, 8491.Google ScholarPubMed
Martin, C, Morgavi, DP and Doreau, M 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathieu, F, Jouany, JP, Senaud, J, Bohatier, J, Bertin, G and Mercier, M 1996. The effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Aspergillus oryzae on fermentations in the rumen of faunated and defaunated sheep; protozoal and probiotic interactions. Reproduction Nutrition Development 36, 271287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAllister, TA, Beauchemin, KA, Alazzeh, AY, Baah, J, Teather, RM and Stanford, K 2011. Review: the use of direct fed microbials to mitigate pathogens and enhance production in cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 91, 193211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinn, SM, Beauchemin, KA, Coates, T and Colombatto, D 2004. Methane emissions from beef cattle: effects of monensin, sunflower oil, enzymes, yeast, and fumaric acid. Journal of Animal Science 82, 33463356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKenney, DJ, Shuttleworth, KF, Vriesacker, JR and Findlay, WI 1982. Production and loss of nitric oxide from denitrification in anaerobic brookston clay. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 43, 534541.Google ScholarPubMed
Miller, TL and Wolin, MJ 1985. Methanosphaera stadtmaniae gen. nov., sp. nov.: a species that forms methane by reducing methanol with hydrogen. Archives of Microbiology 141, 116122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitsumori, M, Ajisaka, N, Tajima, K, Kajikawa, H and Kurihara, M 2002. Detection of Proteobacteria from the rumen by PCR using methanotroph-specific primers. Letters in Applied Microbiology 35, 251255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, MP, Cancel, B and González-Más, A 1958. Toxicity of nitrates and nitrites to dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 41, 694696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morvan, B, RieuLesme, F, Fonty, G and Gouet, P 1996. In vitro interactions between rumen H-2-producing cellulolytic microorganisms and H-2-utilizing acetogenic and sulfate-reducing bacteria. Anaerobe 2, 175180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morvan, B, Dore, J, Rieulesme, F, Foucat, L, Fonty, G and Gouet, P 1994. Establishment of hydrogen-utilizing bacteria in the rumen of the newborn lamb. FEMS Microbiology Letters 117, 249256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mutsvangwa, T, Edwards, IE, Topps, JH and Paterson, GFM 1992. The effect of dietary inclusion of yeast culture (Yea-Sacc) on patterns of rumen fermentation, food intake and growth of intensively fed bulls. Animal Production 55, 3540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mwenya, B, Santoso, B, Sar, C, Gamo, Y, Kobayashi, T, Arai, I and Takahashi, J 2004. Effects of including beta 1-4 galacto-oligosaccharides, lactic acid bacteria or yeast culture on methanogenesis as well as energy and nitrogen metabolism in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 115, 313326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagaraja, TG, Newbold, CJ, Van Nevel, CJ and Demeyer, DI 1997. Manipulation of ruminal fermentation. In The rumen microbial ecosystem (ed. Hobson, PN and Stewart, CS), pp. 523632. Chapman & Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbold, CJ, Wallace, RJ and McIntoth, FM 1996. Mode of action of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a feed additive for ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition 76, 249261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nollet, L, Demeyer, D and Verstraete, W 1997. Effect of 2-bromoethanesulfonic acid and Peptostreptococcus productus ATCC 35244 addition on stimulation of reductive acetogenesis in the ruminal ecosystem by selective inhibition of methanogenesis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63, 194200.Google ScholarPubMed
Nollet, L, Mbanzamihigo, L, Demeyer, D and Verstraete, W 1998. Effect of the addition of Peptostreptococcus productus ATCC 35244 on reductive acetogenesis in the ruminal ecosystem after inhibition of methanogenesis by cell-free supernatant of Lactobacillus plantarum 80. Animal Feed Science Technology 71, 4966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, K, Nonoh, JO, Mikulski, L and Brune, A 2012. "Methanoplasmatales," thermoplasmatales-related archaea in termite guts and other environments, are the seventh order of methanogens. Applied Environmental Microbiology 78, 82458253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, SS, Deb, SM and Singh, D 2011. Isolation and characterization of novel sulphate-reducing Fusobacterium sp. and their effects on in vitro methane emission and digestion of wheat straw by rumen fluid from Indian riverine buffaloes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 132140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perdok, HB, Van Zijderveld, SM, Newbold, JR, Hulshof, RBA, Deswysen, D, Gerrits, WJJ, Dijkstra, J and Leng, RA 2011. Compositions for reducing gastro-intestinal methanogenesis in ruminants. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from http://patentscope.wipo.int.Google Scholar
Pope, PB, Smith, W, Denman, SE, Tringe, SG, Barry, K, Hugenholtz, P, McSweeney, CS, McHardy, AC and Morrison, M 2011. Isolation of Succinivibrionaceae implicated in low methane emissions from Tammar wallabies. Science 333, 646648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raciti, SM, Burgin, AJ, Groffman, PM, Lewis, DN and Fahey, TJ 2011. Denitrification in suburban lawn soils. Journal of Environmental Quality 40, 19321940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ragsdale, SW and Pierce, E 2008. Acetogenesis and the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway of CO2 fixation. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta-Proteins and Proteomics 1784, 18731898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehberger, TG and Hibberd, CA 2000. Bacterial composition to reduce the toxic effects of high nitrate consumption in livestock. Patent USA, patent number 6, 120, 810. Oklahoma State University, USA.Google Scholar
Romero-Perez, GA, Ominski, KH, McAllister, TA and Krause, DO 2011. Effect of environmental factors and influence of rumen and hindgut biogeography on bacterial communities in steers. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 77, 258268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, JB and Wallace, RJ 1997. Energy-yielding and energy-consuming reactions. In The rumen microbial ecosystem (ed. Hobson, PN and Stewart, CS), pp. 246282. Blackie Academic and Professional, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadet-Bourgeteau, S, Martin, C and Morgavi, DP 2010. Bacterial diversity dynamics in rumen epithelium of wethers fed forage and mixed concentrate forage diets. Veterinary Microbiology 146, 98104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sakthivel, PC, Kamra, DN, Agarwal, N and Chaudhry, LC 2012. Effect of sodium nitrate and nitrate reducing bacteria in in vitro methane production and fermentation with buffalo rumen liquor. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 25, 812817.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sar, C, Mwenya, B, Pen, B, Morikawa, R, Takaura, K, Kobayashi, T and Takahashi, J 2005a. Effect of nisin on ruminal methane production and nitrate/nitrite reduction in vitro . Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 56, 803810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sar, C, Mwenya, B, Santoso, B, Takaura, K, Morikawa, R, Isogai, N, Asakura, Y, Toride, Y and Takahashi, J 2005b. Effect of Escherichia coli wild type or its derivative with high nitrite reductase activity on in vitro ruminal methanogenesis and nitrate/nitrite reduction. Journal of Animal Science 83, 644652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sar, C, Mwenya, B, Pen, B, Takaura, K, Morikawa, R, Tsujimoto, A, Kuwaki, K, Isogai, N, Shinzato, I, Asakura, Y, Toride, Y and Takahashi, J 2005c. Effect of ruminal administration of Escherichia coli wild type or a genetically modified strain with enhanced high nitrite reductase activity on methane emission and nitrate toxicity in nitrate-infused sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 94, 691697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seo, JK, Kim, SW, Kim, MH, Upadhaya, SD, Kam, DK and Ha, JK 2010. Direct-fed microbials for ruminant animals. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 23, 16571667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, J 2002. Enzymology and bioenergetics of respiratory nitrite ammonification. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 26, 285309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprenger, WW, van Belzen, MC, Rosenberg, J, Hackstein, JH and Keltjens, JT 2000. Methanomicrococcus blatticola gen. nov., sp. nov., a methanol- and methylamine-reducing methanogen from the hindgut of the cockroach Periplaneta americana . International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 50, 19891999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
St-Pierre, B and Wright, ADG 2012. Molecular analysis of methanogenic archaea in the forestomach of the alpaca (Vicugna pacos). BMC Microbiology 12, 1. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2180/12/1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V and Rosales, M 2006. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome. Retrieved January 30, 2012 http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm Google Scholar
Sullivan, HM and Martin, SA 1999. Effects of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on in vitro mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 20112016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundset, MA, Edwards, JE, Cheng, YF, Senosiain, RS, Fraile, MN, Northwood, KS, Praesteng, KE, Glad, T, Mathiesen, SD and Wright, AD 2009. Molecular diversity of the rumen microbiome of Norwegian reindeer on natural summer pasture. Microbial Ecology 57, 335348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takahashi, J and Young, BA 1991. Prophylactic effect of l-cysteine on nitrate-induced alterations in respiratory exchange and metabolic rate in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 35, 105113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, J, Ikeda, M, Matsuoka, S and Fujita, H 1998. Prophylactic effect of L-cysteine to acute and subclinical nitrate toxicity in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 74, 273280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thauer, RK, Jungermann, K and Decker, K 1977. Energy-conservation in chemotropic anaerobic bacteria. Bacteriological Reviews 41, 100180.Google Scholar
Tiedje, JM, Sexstone, AJ, Myrold, DD and Robinson, JA 1982. Denitrification – ecological niches, competition and survival. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek Journal of Microbiology 48, 569583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Zijderveld, SM, Gerrits, WJJ, Dijkstra, J, Newbold, JR, Hulshof, RBA and Perdok, HB 2011. Persistency of methane mitigation by dietary nitrate supplementation in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 40284038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Zijderveld, SM, Gerrits, WJJ, Apajalahti, JA, Newbold, JR, Dijkstra, J, Leng, RA and Perdok, HB 2010. Nitrate and sulfate: effective alternative hydrogen sinks for mitigation of ruminal methane production in sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 58565866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallnofer, P and Baldwin, RL 1967. Pathway of propionate formation in Bacteroides ruminicola . Journal of Bacteriology 93, 504505.Google ScholarPubMed
Whitford, MF, Teather, RM and Forster, RJ 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of methanogens from the bovine rumen. BMC Microbiology 1, 5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, AD, Toovey, AF and Pimm, CL 2006. Molecular identification of methanogenic archaea from sheep in Queensland, Australia reveal more uncultured novel archaea. Anaerobe 12, 134139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshii, T, Asanuma, N and Hino, T 2003. Number of nitrate- and nitrite-reducing Selenomonas ruminantium in the rumen, and possible factors affecting its growth. Animal Science Journal 74, 483491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The use of direct-fed microbials for mitigation of ruminant methane emissions: a review
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The use of direct-fed microbials for mitigation of ruminant methane emissions: a review
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The use of direct-fed microbials for mitigation of ruminant methane emissions: a review
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *