Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions from Ruminant Animals

Tenzin Tseten; Rey Anthony Sanjorjo; Moonhyuk Kwon; Seon-Won Kim

doi:10.4014/jmb.2202.02019

Articles Service

Metrics

CrossRef [43]
View[7104]
Download[2353]

Review

Biotechnology and Bioengineering (BB) | Microbiome

Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions from Ruminant Animals

Tenzin Tseten^†, Rey Anthony Sanjorjo^†, Moonhyuk Kwon^*, and Seon-Won Kim^*
^†T.T. and R.A.S. equally contributed to this work.

Division of Applied Life Science (BK21 Four), ABC-RLRC, PMBBRC, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Republic of Korea

Correspondence to:

S.W. Kim, swkim@gnu.ac.kr
M. Kwon, mkwon@gnu.ac.kr

Received: February 15, 2022; Revised: March 2, 2022; Accepted: March 3, 2022

J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022; 32(3): 269-277

Published March 28, 2022 https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.2202.02019

Abstract

Human activities account for approximately two-thirds of global methane emissions, wherein the livestock sector is the single massive methane emitter. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas of over 21 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide. In the rumen, methanogens produce methane as a by-product of anaerobic fermentation. Methane released from ruminants is considered as a loss of feed energy that could otherwise be used for productivity. Economic progress and growing population will inflate meat and milk product demands, causing elevated methane emissions from this sector. In this review, diverse approaches from feed manipulation to the supplementation of organic and inorganic feed additives and direct-fed microbial in mitigating enteric methane emissions from ruminant livestock are summarized. These approaches directly or indirectly alter the rumen microbial structure thereby reducing rumen methanogenesis. Though many inorganic feed additives have remarkably reduced methane emissions from ruminants, their usage as feed additives remains unappealing because of health and safety concerns. Hence, feed additives sourced from biological materials such as direct-fed microbials have emerged as a promising technique in mitigating enteric methane emissions.

Keywords

Global warming, methane, ruminants, rumen microbiome, methanogenesis, direct-fed microbials

Graphical Abstract

Introduction

Anthropogenic activities account for approximately two-thirds of global methane emissions [1], wherein 41%is attributable to agricultural activities which involve ruminant enteric fermentation, manure management, and rice cultivation. Around 16% of the global methane emission is contributed by ruminant animals (Fig. 1A). Within the agricultural sector, 73% of the methane emission comes from livestock [2], majorly represented by beef (35%) and dairy (30%) cattle, with only 15% from small ruminants and buffalos (Fig. 1B) [3, 4]. The United Nations (UN) has estimated that the world’s population will reach 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100 [5], along with an increasing demand for milk and meat products by 1.04 million tons and 465 million tons, respectively [6]. As the demand for ruminant livestock increases, it results in higher methane production, accelerating global warming in the process inevitably [7].

Fig. 1. Global methane emissions and methanogenesis in rumen. A. Global methane emissions contributed by the ruminants and other sectors. B. Contributions of different animal species including beef cattle, dairy cattle, small ruminants and buffalos, and other animals such as pigs and birds to the total methane emissions from livestock. C. Methanogenesis pathways in the rumen.

Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas [8], with the potency to trap infrared radiation in the atmosphere and raise global temperature by over 21 times the ability of CO₂ [9, 10]. It also translates to 2-12% of gross energy lost as eructed methane from animal feed [11, 12], which could have been used to boost animal productivity. Therefore, a reduction in enteric methane emission from the ruminants could improve animal performance while assuring long-term agricultural sustainability [13].

Methanogenesis in Ruminant Animals

Ruminants are cloven-hoofed mammals of the Artiodactyla order, with domesticated cattle, sheep, and goats comprising 95% of the total ruminant population [14]. They obtain their food by browsing or grazing, subsisting on plant material using their specialized digestive system [15] with a sophisticated symbiotic web of microorganisms [16]. The digestive system of ruminants consists of four compartments - rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum [17].

In the rumen, the intricate community of bacteria (10¹⁰-10¹¹ cells/ml), ciliate protozoa (10⁴-10⁶ cells/ml), methanogenic archaea (10⁶-10⁸ cells/ml), and fungi (10³-10⁶ cells/ml) synthesizes enzymes which breakdown complex macromolecules derived from feed [18, 19]. This fermentative process produces short volatile fatty acids (SVFAs) and microbial crude protein, which is an essential source of energy and protein for the host, while the rumen provides the microbes a suitable environment for survival and growth [16, 20]. Acetate (~65%), propionate (~20%), and butyrate (~15%) form the major part of SVFAs in the anaerobic rumen fermentation, which supplies 80% of the animal’s total energy requirement [21]. Subsequently, methanogens in the gastrointestinal tract produce methane as a by-product of anaerobic fermentation [22].

Methanogens can be classified into three clades based on the substrate it utilizes: methane derivatives (methylotrophic), H₂/CO₂ (hydrogenotrophic), and acetate (acetoclastic) as shown in Fig. 1C [23, 24]. Among all groups, hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis from the substrate H₂/CO₂ is the main route for hydrogen disposal, where CO₂ acts as a hydrogen sink in an anaerobic environment [25]. Likewise, nitrate and sulfate can also act as hydrogen sinks as the nitrate/sulfate reduction pathway is more thermodynamically favorable [26]. However, since its concentration in the rumen is low, this limits the rate of electron flow towards the sulfate/nitrate reduction pathway diverting the majority of H₂ towards methane formation. Hence, methanogenesis is the most effective way of eliminating hydrogen in the rumen to allow the fermentation process to continue. This rationale emphasizes the role of rumen methanogens as a crucial target in various methane mitigating emission strategies [24].

Moreover, intercellular H₂ transfer between methanogens and the fermentative community of protozoa, fungi, and bacteria regulates the H₂ levels in the rumen, as traces of H₂ have been reported to inhibit hydrogenase activity, negatively affecting carbohydrate oxidation [25, 27, 28]. Overall, the rumen fermentation process is regulated by the interspecies transfer of hydrogen between microbes and its intracellular flow into competing metabolic pathways [29].

Mitigation Strategies

Since the 1950s, researchers have endeavored to adopt diverse strategies in minimizing enteric methane emissions. Several approaches have proved successful and shown exceptional results in reducing enteric methane emissions while improving animal productivity, but they are expensive and carry environmental and human health risks. So, it is crucial to understand existing techniques and create better solutions towards abating ruminant methane emissions (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Strategies to mitigate methane emissions from ruminant animals. Feed manipulation, supplementation of additives, and probiotics. Light brown line (flow of rumen fermentation), pink line (inhibition), purple line (stimulation), and green line (consumption).

I. Mitigation through Feed Manipulation

Dietary manipulation by changing the feed composition remains the most straightforward and inexpensive approach to lessen enteric methane levels [30, 31]. This strategy alone could curtail up to 70% of ruminant methane emissions, depending on the method or nature of the nutritional intervention [32, 33].

The predominant approach is to change the type or quality of forage or adjust the concentrate to forage ratio in the feed. The younger plants containing higher fermentable carbohydrates, less non-digestible fiber (NDF), and lower C:N ratio makes up for high-quality forage, ensuring higher digestibility and passage rate, which can direct rumen fermentation towards propionate [34, 35]. Since propionate also serves as an alternative H₂ sink, increased propionate production leads to less H₂ available for methanogenesis [36]. However, forage alone is not enough to enhance animal performances as concentrates are usually added to feed in different proportions as it contains fewer cell walls and readily fermentable carbohydrates (starch and sugar) [37, 38]. It has been observed that when 35% or 60% concentrate is added to feed, CH₄ production decreases, accompanied by enhanced productivity [49]. Conversely, many groups have reported that high levels of concentrates could elevate lactic acid and volatile fatty acids (VFAs) concentration in the rumen, which contributes to health disorders such as subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) [39, 40].

II. Mitigation through Additives

In general, additives are added to feed consisting of either inorganic or organic compounds or direct-fed probiotics. These additives either specifically inhibit methanogens or alter the metabolic pathways leading to a reduction of the substrate for methanogenesis [30, 41].

Ionophores

In 1975, the United States FDA approved ionophores as a cattle feed supplement [42]. Ionophores benefit animal metabolism by enhancing the efficiency of energy metabolism, improving ruminal nitrogen metabolism while reducing the risk of bloating and acidosis [43, 44]. Commercially available ionophores such as monensin (Rumensin), lasalocid (Bovatec), salinomycin (Bio-cox, Sacox), and laidlomycin (Cattlyst) are used widely across many countries including Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States. It is used to manipulate ruminal fermentation, improving feed efﬁciency as it has been reported to modulate the ratio of propionic to acetic acid production [45, 46], resulting in body weight gain [47]. In addition, there is also a pronounced reduction of proteolysis in the rumen, decreasing ammonia as a by-product while increasing the total flow of protein into the small intestine for absorption [48].

Ionophores also act as antimicrobials capable of disrupting the ion concentration gradient (Ca²⁺, K⁺, H⁺, Na⁺) across specific microbial membranes, causing them to enter a futile ion cycle providing a competitive advantage for specific microbes at the expense of others [49, 50]. This carboxylic polyether compound preferentially inhibits gram-positive bacteria that produce lactate, acetate, butyrate, formate, and hydrogen as end products, thereby reducing the hydrogen availability for methanogens [48]. Guan et al. [49] reported supplementation of ionophores correlated with a nearly 80% decrease in the ciliate protozoal population and lower methane generation in Angus yearling steers [51]. Similarly, Odongo et al. [47] observed over a 9% reduction in methane production, which was sustained for six months when fed with 24 mg of Rumensin Premix/kg of dry matter in lactating dairy cows.

Even though ionophores can reduce methane production, they also seem to impair dry matter intake (DMI) in both dairy cows and beef steers [52]. It also has shown that the effect of ionophores wanes over time due to the adaptation by ciliate protozoa [52, 53] and the development of resistance in succinate and propionate producing bacteria [54].

Methanogenesis Inhibitors

The methyl-coenzyme M reductase (McR) plays a crucial role in anaerobic methanogenesis [55]. It catalyzes the final step of methane metabolism involving a methyl-transfer reaction to coenzyme M (HS-CoM or 2-mercaptoethanesulfonic acid), the electron donor coenzyme F430 containing nickel (active: Ni⁺ or inactive: Ni⁺²), reducing the substrate methyl-CoM releasing methane in the process [56, 57]. Disrupting any of these series of steps is the primary mode of several halogenated and nitro-derivatives of hydrocarbons, fatty acids, and alcohols.

For instance, halogenated, sulfonated compounds such as bromoethane sulfonate (BES) and bromopropanesulfonic acid (BPS) structurally mimic CoM (2-mercaptoethanesulfonic acid), reducing in vitro methane emissions from 70% [58] up to 80% without sacrificing organic matter digestibility and VFA concentrations [59, 60]. Chloroform also decreased the methane production by 30% (g/kg) when fed to cattle at 6-7% w/w, significantly affecting Methanobrevibacter and Methanosphaera species [61]. In contrast to other halogenated derivatives, it appears to disrupt the cobamide-dependent methyl-transferase step of the methanogenesis pathway.

A nitro derivative, 3-NOP (3-Nitrooxypropanol), also acts as a structural analog of Methyl-coenzyme M, which competitively binds to the active site of McR and its ability to oxidize the cofactor Ni⁺, thereby inactivating McR [62]. As microbes can tolerate nitro toxins from nitro compounds, daily weight gain (DWG) increased, and the DMI, milk production and digestibility remain unaffected in both Holstein cows and beef cattle [63-66]. Enteric methane emissions were diminished by 20% to 60%, depending on the method or duration of supplementation. Similar nitro compounds such as 3-nitrooxypropanol, nitroethane, and 3-nitropropionic acid are also being investigated [67].

Overall, the remarkable inhibitory capacity of nitro and halogenated derivatives gradually diminishes as resistant microbes steadily replace sensitive microbes [68]. Moreover, the significant reduction in methane leads to hydrogen accumulation inside the rumen with unknown long-term effects [69]. In addition, cost and safety concerns limit current practical application [69, 70, 71].

Essential Oils and Other Plant Extracts

In recent years, more additives from biological sources have been investigated for their role in enhancing cattle performance and reducing greenhouse gas after the 2006 EU ban against antibiotics as growth promoters [72, 73].

Essential oils (EOs) are volatile and aromatic oily liquids extracted from plant materials such as flowers, seeds, buds, leaves, herbs, wood, fruits, twigs, and roots [74]. EOs demonstrate broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties and are generally considered safe for human and animal consumption [74, 75]. Different microbes react differently to EOs by either promoting or inhibiting specific groups of microorganisms such as methanogens [76]. Some inhibit the growth of protozoa indirectly or by biohydrogenation of unsaturated fatty acids limiting the hydrogen availability for methanogens [77, 78]. Below is a tabulated summary of the effects of essential oils from various plants such as garlic, eucalyptus, clove, rosemary, thyme, paprika, juniper, ginger in vitro, and in vivo below (Table 1).

Table 1 . Effect of essential oils from various plant sources on methane emission.

Plant source	Effect on methane emissions	Reference
Garlic	91% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[79]
	73% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[80]
	Improved feed digestibility in dairy cows	[81]
Thyme	30% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[82]
	21% reduction in CH₄ production in cows	[83]
	Increased propionate production in Holstein calves	[84]
Rosemary	Over 20% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[85]
	9% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[86]
Oregano	87% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[87]
	11% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[88]
Clove	34% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[89]
	No effect on CH₄ production in dairy cows	[90]
Eucalyptus	Up to 85% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[91]
	No effect on CH₄ production in sheep	[92]
Lavender	Up to 60% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[93]
	54% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[94]
Peppermint	Over 30% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[95]
	52% reduction in CH₄ production (in vitro)	[96]

Different research groups have evaluated the efficacy of secondary metabolites, including saponins, flavonoids, tannins, and other terpenoids [70]. Guyader et al. [95] observed a reduction in methane emission (29%) and protozoal population by (50%) with an increasing dosage of saponin during an in vitro batch culture. Woodward et al. [96] also compared the effect of tannin-containing legume Lotus pedunculatus with the ryegrass on sheep moderating methane emission of up to 28% (g/kg DMI). A separate report also demonstrated 50% methane reduction using condensed tannin-containing forage in goats, although it negatively affected other conditions such as total tract protein digestion [97].

Additional Organic Additives

Biochar has become increasingly popular during the last decade as it has been shown to improve growth, egg yield, blood profiles, inhibitory effects against the growth of rumen pathogens, and reduce enteric methane emission [98, 99]. Seaweeds, also known as macroalgae, including brown (Phaeophyta), red (Rhodophyta), and green (Chlorophyta) seaweeds, have become preferable feed additives because of their anti-methanogenic properties [100, 101]. Several in vitro studies of seaweed supplements showed a negative correlation with methane generation especially using Asparagopsis taxiformis [72, 102, 103] and its fellow Asparagopsis spp., which could cut back in vivo methane emission from 50% to over 80% in dairy cattle [104-106].

Prebiotics such as chitosan, inulin, and yeast products can also limit enteric methane emissions by modifying the rumen bacterial community structure [107, 108]. Yeast products and inulin stimulate the growth of other rumen bacteria competing for hydrogen against methanogens [109], while chitosan disrupts the cell wall permeability of methanogen causing cell death [110]. However, their usage in ruminants is still relatively limited compared to other feed additives and requires further research to encourage its adoption [111].

III. Mitigation through Direct-Fed Microbials (DFMs)/Probiotics

DFMs are defined as a single or mixed culture of live organisms, which promotes desirable rumen microflora and provide beneficial effects when fed to animals [112]. Various rumen bacteria are thought to compete with methanogens for the hydrogen supply by promoting propionogenesis, acetogenesis, and nitrate/nitrite or sulfate reduction which can serve as an alternative H₂ sink. This redirects the metabolic flow of rumen hydrogen towards VFAs production which could otherwise be used for methanogenesis [113].

Propionic Acid Bacteria (PAB)

Propionibacteria are gram-positive bacteria that naturally inhabit the rumen at approximately 4.3% of the total rumen microbial population. They produce propionate via two pathways: The succinate and acrylate pathway [114-116]. The propionate production process utilizes H₂ when reducing pyruvate to propionate. Since H₂ is a limiting substrate for methane production, the inclusion of propionate-forming bacteria as DFMs could lower methane production [117].

Numerous strains of PAB that could play a critical role in reducing methane emissions have been tested in vitro and in vivo. These include Propionibacterium acidipropionici, P. freudenreichii, P. propionicus, P. jensenii, P. japonicas, and P. japonicas [118-120]. Recently, another PAB strain, Propionibacterium thoenii T159 has demonstrated 20%methane reduction and a 21% increase in the total VFA production when rumen fluid from Norwegian dairy cows fed with grass silage–concentrate mixture was used in vitro [121]. However in vivo, Propionibacteria spp. fails to persist in the rumen of cattle fed with a diet rich in starch. Elevated starch fermentation results in an increased molar proportion of propionate thereby reducing the efficacy of inoculated Propionibacterium spp. [118, 120, 122, 123].

Acetogens

Homoacetogens are a diverse group of 23 different bacterial genera capable of producing acetate [124]. These acetogenic bacteria are present in rumen between 10⁷ to 10⁸ cells/g and grow heterotrophically by utilizing sugars. It can also thrive autotrophically by utilizing H₂ and CO₂ [117, 125] catalyzed by a hydrogenase enzyme via the Wood–Ljungdahl (WLP) pathway [126, 127].

Several attempts have already been made to isolate homoacetogens from the rumen and analyze their role as an alternative hydrogen sink, including Acetitomaculum ruminis, Eubacterium limosum, Blautia schinkii, and Blautia producta [128]. Furthermore, in vitro studies have also suggested that acetogenesis could serve as an alternative to methanogenesis in eliminating H₂ from the rumen [129]. However, their abundance and affinity towards hydrogen are generally lower than hydrogenotrophic methanogen [127, 130]. As Lopez et al. [130] have concluded, high concentrations of acetogenic bacteria cannot compete against methanogens for H₂ disposal, making it unclear whether homoacetogens could play a pivotal role in the ruminal ecosystem [128].

Methane Oxidizing Bacteria (MOB)

MOB is a class of bacteria that can grow on methane as a sole carbon and energy source. It is ubiquitous in either micro-oxic or aerobic environments [131, 132]. These bacteria utilize a specialized enzyme called methane monooxygenase (MMO), which oxidizes methane to methanol [133]. Methanol is then further oxidized to formaldehyde catalyzed by methanol dehydrogenase, then assimilated into the serine or ribulose-5-monophosphate pathway (RuMP) for biomass synthesis [134, 135].

Even though there is a growing number of methane oxidation and MOB enrichment studies from ruminants, the possibility of MOB as a potential probiotic for cattle has hardly received attention from the international scientific community [136].

In 2003, Kajikawa et al. [137] used carbon isotope labeling and estimated the flux of ¹³C to CO₂. Around 0.2-0.5% of methane oxidation was attributable to microbial cells when ¹³CH₄ was incubated together with mixed rumen microbes from sheep. MOB was also detected in both rumen fluid and rumen epithelium from non-lactating Holstein cows [138]. Moreover, Valdez et al. [139] decreased in vitro methane accumulation when MOB isolated from young pigs was used. MOBs have also been successfully enriched and taxonomically characterized as Methylocystis and Methylobacter from Bos indicus steers [136]. Furthermore, Stocks and McCleskey [140] isolated a MOB morphologically and physiologically related to Methanomonas methanooxidans. Recently, a group from India also isolated a Ca. Methylobacter coli BlB1 from the feces of an Indian antelope that can utilize both methane and methanol [141].

However, in vivo studies using MOBs as probiotics remain scarce. Isolation, screening, and in vivo studies of MOB need to expand to realize its probiotic potential in alleviating methane emissions while enhancing animal nutrition.

Conclusion

Cattle farming is the single most significant contributor to global methane emissions. As the demand for quality meat and milk products rises, methane emissions and global temperature increase. Therefore, one of the most effective strategies to ameliorate climate change is to subdue ruminant methane emissions. Feed manipulation remains the most cost-effective approach, attaining a substantial 60% reduction in methane just by meticulously selecting the type or quality of forage and optimizing the concentrate to forage ratio in feed. Many organic and inorganic feed additives also hold tremendous potential to attenuate CH₄ production by directly or indirectly transforming the rumen microbial community. Chemical additives including 3-NOP, ionophores, and halogenated compounds have exhibited exceptional declines in vitro and in vivo rumen methanogenesis; by stimulating the growth of microbes competing for the same substrate used by methanogens or as a direct inhibitor of methanogens. Lately, emphasis on biological feed additives such as essential oils, macroalgae, biochar, and other plant metabolites has grown over human health concerns. Along with is the growing significance of probiotics as feed supplements. In this review, we discussed two DFMs strategies. The one is by using microbes that compete against methanogens for hydrogen availability, such as propionic acid bacteria, acetogens, and nitrate/sulfate-reducing bacteria. Another is using MOB that directly utilize the methane generated during the ruminal fermentation process. The usage of probiotics to tackle climate change carries considerable breadth and depth, but their inability to compete with rumen methanogens for H₂, or colonize and proliferate in the rumen needs to be addressed. Identifying potential probiotics that can minimize rumen methane generation while maintaining a balanced gastrointestinal ecosystem remains the most attractive strategy. To conclude, developing an efficient and effective methane mitigation strategy while improving animal performance is critical in achieving agricultural sustainability.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. PJ01566401), Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea, and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2021R1A5A8029490).

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

References

Saunois M, Jackson RB, Bousquet P, Poulter B, Canadell JG. 2016. The growing role of methane in anthropogenic climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 11: 12.
US EPA. Global mitigation of non‐CO2 greenhouse gases: 2010‐2030.
Opio C, Gerber P, Mottet A, Falcucci A, Tempio G, MacLeod M, et al. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains-A global life cycle assessment. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations.
Islam M, Lee SS. 2019. Advanced estimation and mitigation strategies: a cumulative approach to enteric methane abatement from ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 61: 122-137.
Rate NM. 2017. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, United Nations Population Division. UN Data.
Ribeiro Pereira LG, Machado FS, Campos MM, Guimaraes Júnior R, Tomich TR, Reis LG, et al. 2015. Enteric methane mitigation strategies in ruminants: a review. Rev. Colom. Cienc. Pecu. 28: 124-143.
Salter AM. 2017. Improving the sustainability of global meat and milk production. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 76: 22-27.
Heilig GK. 1994. The greenhouse gas methane (CH 4): sources and sinks, the impact of population growth, possible interventions. Popul. Environ. 16: 109-137.
EPA, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/. Accessed May 15, 2008.
FAO. 2006, pp. 978-92. Livestock's long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C (eds). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. ISBN: 978-92-5-105571-7.
Giger-Reverdin S, Sauvant D. 2000. Methane production in sheep in relation to concentrate feed composition from bibliographic data. Cah. Options Méditerr. 52: 43-46.
Johnson KA, Johnson DE. 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 2483-2492.
Lascano CE, Cárdenas E. 2010. Alternatives for methane emission mitigation in livestock systems. R. Bras. Zootec. 39: 175-182.
Hackmann TJ, Spain JN. 2010. Invited review: ruminant ecology and evolution: perspectives useful to ruminant livestock research and production. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 1320-1334.
Huntington GB. 1997. Starch utilization by ruminants: from basics to the bunk. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 852-867.
Cammack KM, Austin KJ, Lamberson WR, Conant GC, Cunningham HC. 2018. Ruminant nutrition symposium: tiny but mighty: the role of the rumen microbes in livestock production. J. Anim. Sci. 96: 752-770.
Clauss M, Hofmann RR. 2014, pp. 57-62. The digestive system of ruminants, and peculiarities of (wild) cattle. Ecology, evolution and behaviour of wild cattle: Implications for conservation.
Wang Y, McAllister TA. 2002. Rumen microbes, enzymes and feed digestion-a review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 15: 1659-1676.
Matthews C, Crispie F, Lewis E, Reid M, O'Toole PW, Cotter PD. 2019. The rumen microbiome: a crucial consideration when optimising milk and meat production and nitrogen utilisation efficiency. Gut Microbes 10: 115-132.
McCann JC, Wickersham TA, Loor JJ. 2014. High-throughput methods redefine the rumen microbiome and its relationship with nutrition and metabolism. Bioinform. Biol. Insights 8: BBI-S15389.
Bergman EN, Reid RS, Murray MG, Brockway JM, Whitelaw FG. 1965. Interconversions and production of volatile fatty acids in the sheep rumen. Biochem. J. 97: 53-55.
Janssen PH, Kirs M. 2008. Structure of the archaeal community of the rumen. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74: 3619-3625.
De la Fuente G, Yañez-Ruiz DR, Seradj AR, Balcells J, Belanche A. 2019. Methanogenesis in animals with foregut and hindgut fermentation: a review. Anim. Prod. Sci. 59: 2109-2122.
Poulsen M, Schwab C, Borg Jensen B, Engberg RM, Spang A, Canibe N, et al. 2013. Methylotrophic methanogenic Thermoplasmata implicated in reduced methane emissions from bovine rumen. Nat. Commun. 4: 1428.
Thauer RK, Kaster AK, Seedorf H, Buckel W, Hedderich R. 2008. Methanogenic archaea: ecologically relevant differences in energy conservation. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6: 579-591.
Van Zijderveld SM, Gerrits WJ, Apajalahti JA, Newbold JR, Dijkstra J, Leng RA, et al. 2010. Nitrate and sulfate: effective alternative hydrogen sinks for mitigation of ruminal methane production in sheep. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 5856-5866.
Hook SE, Wright ADG, McBride BW. 2010. Methanogens: methane producers of the rumen and mitigation strategies. Archaea 2010: 945785.
McAllister TA, Newbold CJ. 2008. Redirecting rumen fermentation to reduce methanogenesis. Austral. J. Exp. Agric. 48: 7-13.
Ungerfeld EM. 2020. Metabolic hydrogen flows in rumen fermentation: principles and possibilities of interventions. Front. Microbiol. 11: 589.
Haque MN. 2018. Dietary manipulation: a sustainable way to mitigate methane emissions from ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 60: 15.
Kebreab E, Strathe A, Fadel J, Moraes L, France J. 2010. Impact of dietary manipulation on nutrient flows and greenhouse gas emissions in cattle. R. Bras. Zootec. 39: 458-464.
Benchaar C, Pomar C, Chiquette J. 2001. Evaluation of dietary strategies to reduce methane production in ruminants: a modelling approach. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 81: 563-574.
Mosier AR, Duxbury JM, Freney JR, Heinemeyer O, Minami K, Johnson DE. 1998. Mitigating agricultural emissions of methane. Clim. Change 40: 39-80.
Ball DM, Collins M, Lacefield GD, Martin NP, Mertens DA, Olson KE, et al, pp. 1-21. Understanding forage quality. American Farm Bureau Federation Publication.
Hills JL, Wales WJ, Dunshea FR, Garcia SC, Roche JR. 2015. Invited review: an evaluation of the likely effects of individualized feeding of concentrate supplements to pasture-based dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 1363-1401.
Beauchemin KA, McAllister TA, McGinn SM. 2009. Dietary mitigation of enteric methane from cattle. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Natur. Resour. 4: 1-8.
Agle M, Hristov AN, Zaman S, Schneider C, Ndegwa PM, Vaddella VK. 2010. Effect of dietary concentrate on rumen fermentation, digestibility, and nitrogen losses in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4211-4222.
Jiao HP, Dale AJ, Carson AF, Murray S, Gordon AW, Ferris CP. 2014. Effect of concentrate feed level on methane emissions from grazing dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 97: 7043-7053.
Ogata T, Kim YH, Masaki T, Iwamoto E, Ohtani Y, Orihashi T, et al. 2019. Effects of an increased concentrate diet on rumen pH and the bacterial community in Japanese Black beef cattle at different fattening stages. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 81: 968-974.
Owens FN, Secrist DS, Hill WJ, Gill DR. 1998. Acidosis in cattle: a review. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 275-286.
Halmemies-Beauchet-Filleau A, Rinne M, Lamminen M, Mapato C, Ampapon T, Wanapat M, et al. 2018. Alternative and novel feeds for ruminants: nutritive value, product quality and environmental aspects. Animal 12: s295-309.
Russell JB, Strobel H. 1989. Effect of ionophores on ruminal fermentation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55: 1-6.
Richardson LF, Raun AP, Potter EL, Cooley CO, Rathmacher RP. 1976. Effect of monensin on rumen fermentation in vitro and in vivo. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 657-664.
Bergen WG, Bates DB. 1984. Ionophores: their effect on production efficiency and mode of action. J. Anim. Sci. 58: 1465-1483.
Thivend P, Jouany JP. 1983. Effect of lasalocid sodium on rumen fermentation and digestion in sheep. Reprod. Nutr. Dév. 23: 817-828.
Singh GP, Mohini M. 1999. Effect of different levels of rumensin in diet on rumen fermentation, nutrient digestibility and methane production in cattle. Asian-Austral. J. Anim. Sci. 12: 1215-1221.
Odongo NE, Bagg R, Vessie G, Dick P, Or-Rashid MM, Hook SE, et al. 2007. Long-term effects of feeding monensin on methane production in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 1781-1788.
Marques RD, Cooke RF. 2021. Effects of ionophores on ruminal function of beef cattle. Animals 11: 2871.
McGuffey RK, Richardson LF, Wilkinson JI. 2001. Ionophores for dairy cattle: current status and future outlook. J. Dairy Sci. 84: E194-203.
Russell JB, Houlihan AJ. 2003. Ionophore resistance of ruminal bacteria and its potential impact on human health. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 27: 65-74.
Guan H, Wittenberg KM, Ominski KH, Krause DO. 2006. Efficacy of ionophores in cattle diets for mitigation of enteric methane. J. Anim. Sci. 84: 1896-1906.
Appuhamy JR, Strathe AB, Jayasundara S, Wagner-Riddle C, Dijkstra J, France J, et al. 2013. Anti-methanogenic effects of monensin in dairy and beef cattle: a meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 96: 5161-5173.
Carmean BR, Johnson DE. 1990. Persistence of monensin-induced changes in methane emissions and ruminal protozoa numbers in cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 68(Suppl 1): 517.
Patra A, Park T, Kim M, Yu Z. 2017. Rumen methanogens and mitigation of methane emission by anti-methanogenic compounds and substances. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 8: 13.
Shima S, Krueger M, Weinert T, Demmer U, Kahnt J, Thauer RK, et al. 2012. Structure of a methyl-coenzyme M reductase from Black Sea mats that oxidize methane anaerobically. Nature 481: 98-101.
Callaway TR, Edrington TS, Rychlik JL, Genovese KJ, Poole TL, Jung YS, et al. 2003. Ionophores: their use as ruminant growth promotants and impact on food safety. Curr. Issues Intest. Microbiol. 4: 43-51.
Chen H, Gan Q, Fan C. 2020. Methyl-coenzyme M reductase and its post-translational modifications. Front. Microbiol. 11: 578356.
Hwang HS, Ok JU, Lee SJ, Chu GM, Kim KH, Oh YK, et al. 2012. Effects of halogenated compounds on in vitro fermentation characteristics in the rumen and methane emissions. J. Life Sci. 22: 1187-1193.
Mathison GW, Okine EK, McAllister TA, Dong Y, Galbraith J, Dmytruk OI. 1998. Reducing methane emissions from ruminant animals. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 14: 1-28.
Dong Y, Bae HD, McAllister TA, Mathison GW, Cheng KJ. 1999. Effects of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes, α-bromoethanesulfonate and monensin on fermentation in a rumen simulation (RUSITEC) system. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 491-498.
Martinez-Fernandez G, Duval S, Kindermann M, Schirra HJ, Denman SE, McSweeney CS. 2018. 3-NOP vs. halogenated compound: methane production, ruminal fermentation and microbial community response in forage fed cattle. Front. Microbiol. 9: 1582.
Zhang ZW, Cao ZJ, Wang YL, Wang YJ, Yang HJ, Li SL. 2018. Nitrocompounds as potential methanogenic inhibitors in ruminant animals: a review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 236: 107-114.
Alemu AW, Pekrul LK, Shreck AL, Booker CW, McGinn SM, Kindermann M, et al. 2021. 3-nitrooxypropanol decreased enteric methane production from growing beef cattle in a commercial feedlot: implications for sustainable beef cattle production. Front. Anim. Sci. 2: 641590.
Lopes JC, De Matos LF, Harper MT, Giallongo F, Oh J, Gruen D, et al. 2016. Effect of 3-nitrooxypropanol on methane and hydrogen emissions, methane isotopic signature, and ruminal fermentation in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 5335-5344.
Haisan J, Sun Y, Guan LL, Beauchemin KA, Iwaasa A, Duval S, et al. 2014. The effects of feeding 3-nitrooxypropanol on methane emissions and productivity of Holstein cows in mid lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 97: 3110-3119.
Romero-Perez A, Okine EK, McGinn SM, Guan LL, Oba M, Duval SM, et al. 2015. Sustained reduction in methane production from long-term addition of 3-nitrooxypropanol to a beef cattle diet. J. Anim. Sci. 93: 1780-1791.
Jayanegara A, Sarwono KA, Kondo M, Matsui H, Ridla M, Laconi EB, et al. 2018. Use of 3-nitrooxypropanol as feed additive for mitigating enteric methane emissions from ruminants: a meta-analysis. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 17: 650-656.
Lee C, Beauchemin KA. 2014. A review of feeding supplementary nitrate to ruminant animals: nitrate toxicity, methane emissions, and production performance. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94: 557-570.
Mitsumori M, Shinkai T, Takenaka A, Enishi O, Higuchi K, Kobayashi Y, et al. 2012. Responses in digestion, rumen fermentation and microbial populations to inhibition of methane formation by a halogenated methane analogue. Br. J. Nutr. 108: 482-491.
Kobayashi Y. 2010. Abatement of methane production from ruminants: trends in the manipulation of rumen fermentation. Asian-Austral. J. Anim. Sci. 23: 410-416.
Boadi D, Benchaar C, Chiquette J, Massé D. 2004. Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: update review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84: 319-335.
Abbott DW, Aasen IM, Beauchemin KA, Grondahl F, Gruninger R, Hayes M, et al. 2020. Seaweed and seaweed bioactives for mitigation of enteric methane: challenges and opportunities. Animals 10: 2432.
Benchaar C, Calsamiglia S, Chaves AV, Fraser GR, Colombatto D, McAllister TA, et al. 2008. A review of plant-derived essential oils in ruminant nutrition and production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 145: 209-228.
Burt S. 2004. Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods-a review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 94: 223-253.
Davoodi SM, Mesgaran MD, Vakili AR, Valizadeh R, Pirbalouti AG. 2019. In vitro effect of essential oils on rumen fermentation and microbial nitrogen yield of high concentrate dairy cow diet. Biosci. Biotechnol. Res. Asia 16: 333-341.
Benchaar C, Greathead H. 2011. Essential oils and opportunities to mitigate enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 166: 338-355.
Iqbal MF, Cheng YF, Zhu WY, Zeshan B. 2008. Mitigation of ruminant methane production: current strategies, constraints and future options. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 24: 2747-2755.
Toprak NN. 2015. Do fats reduce methane emission by ruminants? - A review. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 33: 305-321.
Soliva CR, Amelchanka SL, Duval SM, Kreuzer M. 2011. Ruminal methane inhibition potential of various pure compounds in comparison with garlic oil as determined with a rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). Br. J. Nutr. 106: 114-122.
Busquet M, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, Carro MD, Kamel C. 2005. Effect of garlic oil and four of its compounds on rumen microbial fermentation. J. Dairy Sci. 88: 4393-4404.
Yang WZ, Benchaar C, Ametaj BN, Chaves AV, He ML, McAllister TA. 2007. Effects of garlic and juniper berry essential oils on ruminal fermentation and on the site and extent of digestion in lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 5671-5681.
Günal M, Pinski B, AbuGhazaleh AA. 2017. Evaluating the effects of essential oils on methane production and fermentation under in vitro conditions. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 16: 500-506.
LaabouriI F, Guerouali A, Alali S, Remmal A, Ajbilou M. 2017. Effect of a natural food additive rich in thyme essential oil on methane emissions in dairy cows. Rev. Mar.Sci. Agron. Vét. 5: 287-292.
Vakili AR, Khorrami B, Mesgaran MD, Parand E. 2013. The effects of thyme and cinnamon essential oils on performance, rumen fermentation and blood metabolites in Holstein calves consuming high concentrate diet. Asian-Austral. J. Anim. Sci. 26: 935-944.
Roy D, Tomar SK, Sirohi SK, Kumar V, Kumar M. 2014. Efficacy of different essential oils in modulating rumen fermentation in vitro using buffalo rumen liquor. Vet. World 7: 213-218.
Cobellis G, Petrozzi A, Forte C, Acuti G, Orrù M, Marcotullio MC, et al. 2015. Evaluation of the effects of mitigation on methane and ammonia production by using Origanum vulgare L. and Rosmarinus officinalis L. essential oils on in vitro rumen fermentation systems. Sustainability 7: 12856-12869.
Patra AK, Yu Z. 2012. Effects of essential oils on methane production and fermentation by, and abundance and diversity of, rumen microbial populations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78: 4271-4280.
Zhou R, Wu J, Lang X, Liu L, Casper DP, Wang C, et al. 2020. Effects of oregano essential oil on in vitro ruminal fermentation, methane production, and ruminal microbial community. J. Dairy Sci. 103: 2303-2314.
Benchaar C. 2020. Feeding oregano oil and its main component carvacrol does not affect ruminal fermentation, nutrient utilization, methane emissions, milk production, or milk fatty acid composition of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 103: 1516-1527.
Sallam SM, Bueno IC, Brigide P, Godoy PB, Vitti DM, Abdalla AL. 2009. Efficacy of eucalyptus oil on in vitro ruminal fermentation and methane production. Options Mediter. 85: 267-272.
Wang B, Jia M, Fang L, Jiang L, Li Y. 2018. Effects of eucalyptus oil and anise oil supplementation on rumen fermentation characteristics, methane emission, and digestibility in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 96: 3460-3470.
Yadeghari S, Malecky M, Banadaky MD, Navidshad B. 2015, pp. 285. Evaluating in vitro dose-response effects of Lavandula officinalis essential oil on rumen fermentation characteristics, methane production and ruminal acidosis. In Veterinary Research Forum. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
Ozkan CO, Kamalak A, Atalay AI, Tatliyer A, Kaya E. 2015. Effect of peppermint (Mentha piperita) essential oil on rumen microbial fermentation of barley grain. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 43: 287-290.
Beyzi SB. 2020. Effect of lavender and peppermint essential oil on in vitro methanogenesis and fermentation of feed with buffalo rumen liquor. Buffalo Bull. 39: 311-321.
Guyader J, Eugène M, Doreau M, Morgavi DP, Gérard C, Martin C. 2017. Tea saponin reduced methanogenesis in vitro but increased methane yield in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 100: 1845-1855.
Woodward SL, Waghorn GC, Ulyatt MJ, Lassey KR. 2001, pp. 23-26. Early indications that feeding Lotus will reduce methane emissions from ruminants. In Proceedings-New Zealand Society of Animal Production.
Animut G, Puchala R, Goetsch AL, Patra AK, Sahlu T, Varel VH, et al. 2008. Methane emission by goats consuming diets with different levels of condensed tannins from lespedeza. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 144: 212-227.
Man KY, Chow KL, Man YB, Mo WY, Wong MH. 2021. Use of biochar as feed supplements for animal farming. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51: 187-217.
Leng RA, Preston TR, Inthapanya S. 2012. Biochar reduces enteric methane and improves growth and feed conversion in local "Yellow" cattle fed cassava root chips and fresh cassava foliage. Livest Res. Rural Dev. 24: 199.
Vijn S, Compart DP, Dutta N, Foukis A, Hess M, Hristov AN, et al. 2020. Key considerations for the use of seaweed to reduce enteric methane emissions from cattle. Front. Vet. Sci. 7: 597430.
Roque BM, Venegas M, Kinley RD, de Nys R, Duarte TL, Yang X, et al. 2021. Red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80 percent in beef steers. PLoS One 16: e0247820.
Maia MR, Fonseca AJ, Oliveira HM, Mendonça C, Cabrita AR. 2016. The potential role of seaweeds in the natural manipulation of rumen fermentation and methane production. Sci. Rep. 6: 32321.
Min BR, Parker D, Brauer D, Waldrip H, Lockard C, Hales K, et al. 2021. The role of seaweed as a potential dietary supplementation for enteric methane mitigation in ruminants: challenges and opportunities. Anim. Nutri. 7: 1371-1387.
Roque BM, Salwen JK, Kinley R, Kebreab E. 2019. Inclusion of Asparagopsis armata in lactating dairy cows' diet reduces enteric methane emission by over 50 percent. J. Clean. Prod. 234: 132-138.
Kinley RD, Martinez-Fernandez G, Matthews MK, de Nys R, Magnusson M, Tomkins NW. 2020. Mitigating the carbon footprint and improving productivity of ruminant livestock agriculture using a red seaweed. J. Clean. Prod. 259: 120836.
Li X, Norman HC, Kinley RD, Laurence M, Wilmot M, Bender H, et al. 2016. Asparagopsis taxiformis decreases enteric methane production from sheep. Anim. Prod. Sci. 58: 681-688.
Tong JJ, Zhang H, Jia WA, Yun LI, Mao SY, Xiong BH, Jiang LS. 2020. Effects of different molecular weights of chitosan on methane production and bacterial community structure in vitro. J. Integr. Agric. 19: 1644-1655.
Seankamsorn A, Cherdthong A, Wanapat M. 2020. Combining crude glycerin with chitosan can manipulate in vitro ruminal efficiency and inhibit methane synthesis. Animals 10: 37.
Vallejo-Hernández LH, Elghandour MM, Greiner R, Anele UY, Rivas-Cáceres RR, Barros-Rodríguez M, et al. 2018. Environmental impact of yeast and exogenous xylanase on mitigating carbon dioxide and enteric methane production in ruminants. J. Clean. Prod. 189: 40-46.
Zanferari F, Vendramini TH, Rentas MF, Gardinal R, Calomeni GD, Mesquita LG, et al. 2018. Effects of chitosan and whole raw soybeans on ruminal fermentation and bacterial populations, and milk fatty acid profile in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101: 10939-10952.
Sun K, Liu H, Fan H, Liu T, Zheng C. 2021. Research progress on the application of feed additives in ruminal methane emission reduction: a review. PeerJ. 9: e11151.
Krehbiel CR, Rust SR, Zhang G, Gilliland SE. 2003. Bacterial direct-fed microbials in ruminant diets: performance response and mode of action. J. Anim. Sci. 81: E120-132.
Ungerfeld EM. 2015. Shifts in metabolic hydrogen sinks in the methanogenesis-inhibited ruminal fermentation: a meta-analysis. Front. Microbiol. 6: 37.
Stein DR, Allen DT, Perry EB, Bruner JC, Gates KW, Rehberger TG, et al. 2006. Effects of feeding Propionibacteria to dairy cows on milk yield, milk components, and reproduction. J. Dairy Sci 89: 111-125.
Mead LJ, Jones GA. 1981. Isolation and presumptive identification of adherent epithelial bacteria ("epimural" bacteria) from the ovine rumen wall. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 41: 1020-1028.
Counotte GH, Prins RA, Janssen RH, DeBie MJ. 1981. Role of Megasphaera elsdenii in the fermentation of DL-[2-13C] lactate in the rumen of dairy cattle. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 42: 649-655.
Jeyanathan J, Martin C, Morgavi DP. 2014. The use of direct-fed microbials for mitigation of ruminant methane emissions: a review. Animal 8: 250-261.
Vyas D, McGeough EJ, Mohammed R, McGinn SM, McAllister TA, Beauchemin KA. 2014. Effects of Propionibacterium strains on ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestibility and methane emissions in beef cattle fed a corn grain finishing diet. Animal 8: 1807-1815.
Alazzeh AY, Sultana H, Beauchemin KA, Wang Y, Holo H, Harstad OM, et al. 2012. Using strains of Propionibacteria to mitigate methane emissions in vitro. Acta Agric. Scand. A-Anim. Sci. 62: 263-272.
Vyas D, Alazzeh A, McGinn SM, McAllister TA, Harstad OM, Holo H, et al. 2015. Enteric methane emissions in response to ruminal inoculation of Propionibacterium strains in beef cattle fed a mixed diet. Anim. Prod. Sci. 56: 1035-1040.
Chen J, Harstad OM, McAllister T, Dörsch P, Holo H. 2020. Propionic acid bacteria enhance ruminal feed degradation and reduce methane production in vitro. Acta Agric. Scand. A-Anim. Sci. 69: 169-175.
Vyas D, McGeough EJ, McGinn SM, McAllister TA, Beauchemin KA. 2014. Effect of Propionibacterium spp. on ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestibility, and methane emissions in beef heifers fed a high-forage diet. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 2192-2201.
Jeyanathan J, Martin C, Eugène M, Ferlay A, Popova M, Morgavi DP. 2019. Bacterial direct-fed microbials fail to reduce methane emissions in primiparous lactating dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 10: 41.
Drake HL, Gößner AS, Daniel SL. 2008. Old acetogens, new light. Annal. NY Acad. Sci. 1125: 100-128.
Fonty G, Joblin K, Chavarot M, Roux R, Naylor G, Michallon F. 2007. Establishment and development of ruminal hydrogenotrophs in methanogen-free lambs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73: 6391-6403.
Ragsdale SW, Pierce E. 2008. Acetogenesis and the wood-ljungdahl pathway of CO₂ fixation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1784: 1873-1898.
Le Van TD, Robinson JA, Ralph J, Greening RC, Smolenski WJ, Leedle JA, et al. 1998. Assessment of reductive acetogenesis with indigenous ruminal bacterium populations and Acetitomaculum ruminis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64: 3429-3436.
Henderson G, Naylor GE, Leahy SC, Janssen PH. 2010. Presence of novel, potentially homoacetogenic bacteria in the rumen as determined by analysis of formyltetrahydrofolate synthetase sequences from ruminants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76: 2058-2066.
Morvan B, Bonnemoy F, Fonty G, Gouet P. 1996. Quantitative determination of H₂-utilizing acetogenic and sulfate-reducing bacteria and methanogenic archaea from digestive tract of different mammals. Curr. Microbiol. 32: 129-133.
Lopez S, McIntosh FM, Wallace RJ, Newbold CJ. 1999. Effect of adding acetogenic bacteria on methane production by mixed rumen microorganisms. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 78: 1-9.
Richard SH, Thomas EH. 1996. Methanotrophic bacteria. Microbiol. Rev. 60: 439-471.
Pandey VC, Singh JS, Singh DP, Singh RP. 2014. Methanotrophs: promising bacteria for environmental remediation. Int. J. Environ. Sci Technol. 11: 241-250.
Sazinsky MH, Lippard SJ. 2015. Methane monooxygenase: functionalizing methane at iron and copper. Met. Ions Life Sci. 15: 205-256.
Kalyuzhnaya MG, Puri AW, Lidstrom ME. 2015. Metabolic engineering in methanotrophic bacteria. Metab. Eng. 29: 142-152.
Dalton H, pp. 85-114. Methane oxidation by methanotrophs. In Methane and methanol utilizers. Springer, Boston, MA. USA.
Finn D, Ouwerkerk D, Klieve A. Methanotrophs from natural ecosystems as biocontrol agents for ruminant methane emissions. Govt. report. Australia; The University of Queensland.
Kajikawa H, Valdes C, Hillman K, Wallace RJ, J. Newbold C. 2003. Methane oxidation and its coupled electron‐sink reactions in ruminal fluid. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 36: 354-357.
Mitsumori M, Ajisaka N, Tajima K, Kajikawa H, Kurihara M. 2002. Detection of Proteobacteria from the rumen by PCR using methanotroph‐specific primers. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 35: 251-255.
Valdes C, Newbold CJ, Hillman K, Wallace RJ. 1996, pp. 351-351. Evidence for methane oxidation in rumen fluid in vitro. In Annales De Zootechnie.
Stocks PK, McCleskey CS. 1964. Morphology and physiology of Methanomonas methanooxidans. J. Bacteriol. 88: 1071-1077.
Khatri K, Mohite J, Pandit P, Bahulikar RA, Rahalkar MC. 2021. Isolation, description and genome analysis of a putative novel Methylobacter Species ('Ca. Methylobacter coli') isolated from the faeces of a blackbuck (Indian antelope). Microbiol. Res. 12: 513-523.

Article Tools

Article

Review

J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022; 32(3): 269-277

Published online March 28, 2022 https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.2202.02019