Production of methane in two non-ruminant herbivores

Engelhardt, W; Wolter, S; Lawrenz, H.; Hemsley, JA

doi:10.1016/0300-9629(78)90254-2

Cited by 59 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because this mechanism depends on the interplay between the position of certain ruminant anatomical features and gravity, ruminants cannot rest lying on their side -as do horses, rhinoceroses, or elephants -but must always keep their forestomach in the vertical plane by standing up or resting in sternal recumbency (Clauss, 2004). Also, when comparing measurements of methane emission in ruminants against the few available measurements in non-ruminating foregut fermenters (Kempton et al, 1976;von Engelhardt et al, 1978;Dellow et al, 1988) or equids (Pagan and Hintz, 1986;Vermorel et al, 1997), it seems that energetic losses due to methane production represent another cost associated with ruminant digestive physiology -although the causes remain to be explored. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for modern production systems

Clauss

Hume

Hummel

2010

Animal

185

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative physiology applies methods established in domestic animal science to a wider variety of species. This can lead to improved insight into evolutionary adaptations of domestic animals, by putting domestic species into a broader context. Examples include the variety of responses to seasonally fluctuating environments, different adaptations to heat and drought, and in particular adaptations to herbivory and various herbivore niches. Herbivores generally face the challenge that a high food intake compromises digestive efficiency (by reducing ingesta retention time and time available for selective feeding and for food comminution), and a variety of digestive strategies have evolved in response. Ruminants are very successful herbivores. They benefit from potential advantages of a forestomach without being constrained in their food intake as much as other foregut fermenters, because of their peculiar reticuloruminal sorting mechanism that retains food requiring further digestion but clears the forestomach of already digested material; the same mechanism also optimises food comminution. Wild ruminants vary widely in the degree to which their rumen contents 'stratify', with little stratification in 'moose-type' ruminants (which are mostly restricted to a browse niche) and a high degree of stratification into gas, particle and fluid layers in 'cattle-type' ruminants (which are more flexible as intermediate feeders and grazers). Yet all ruminants uniformly achieve efficient selective particle retention, suggesting that functions other than particle retention played an important role in the evolution of stratification-enhancing adaptations. One interesting emerging hypothesis is that the high fluid turnover observed in 'cattle-type' ruminants -which is a prerequisite for stratification -is an adaptation that not only leads to a shift of the sorting mechanism from the reticulum to the whole reticulorumen, but also optimises the harvest of microbial protein from the forestomach. Although potential benefits of this adaptation have not been quantified, the evidence for convergent evolution toward stratification suggests that they must be substantial. In modern production systems, the main way in which humans influence the efficiency of energy uptake is by manipulating diet quality. Selective breeding for conversion efficiency has resulted in notable differences between wild and domestic animals. With increased knowledge on the relevance of individual factors, that is fluid throughput through the reticulo-rumen, more specific selection parameters for breeding could be defined to increase productivity of domestic ruminants by continuing certain evolutionary trajectories.Keywords: herbivory, hindgut fermenter, foregut fermenter, browser, grazer ImplicationsUnderstanding evolutionary adaptations of ruminants will have an impact on (i) husbandry of captive wild ruminants, many of which cannot be kept or fed as domestic ruminants and (ii) research for continuous refinement of the production potential of domestic ruminants, ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for modern production systems

Clauss

Hume

Hummel

2010

Animal

185

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kangaroos and wallabies are the most numerous members of the Macropodidae and produce substantially less methane per unit of digestible organic matter intake than ruminant livestock when fed the same diet (Engelhardt et al, 1978), and this difference was recently confirmed with captive zoo populations in Europe (Madsen and Bertelsen, 2012). Although both are foregut digesters, the digestive anatomy and associated physiology of macropodids and ruminants is quite different (Hume, 1984), and as expected the microbial communities that have evolved to colonize and persist in these digestive chambers are also different.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Differences down-under: alcohol-fueled methanogenesis by archaea present in Australian macropodids

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Australian macropodids (kangaroos and wallabies) possess a distinctive foregut microbiota that contributes to their reduced methane emissions. However, methanogenic archaea are present within the macropodid foregut, although there is scant understanding of these microbes. Here, an isolate taxonomically assigned to the Methanosphaera genus (Methanosphaera sp. WGK6) was recovered from the anterior sacciform forestomach contents of a Western grey kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus). Like the human gut isolate Methanosphaera stadtmanae DSMZ 3091T, strain WGK6 is a methylotroph with no capacity for autotrophic growth. In contrast, though with the human isolate, strain WGK6 was found to utilize ethanol to support growth, but principally as a source of reducing power. Both the WGK6 and DSMZ 3091T genomes are very similar in terms of their size, synteny and G:C content. However, the WGK6 genome was found to encode contiguous genes encoding putative alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenases, which are absent from the DSMZ 3091T genome. Interestingly, homologs of these genes are present in the genomes for several other members of the Methanobacteriales. In WGK6, these genes are cotranscribed under both growth conditions, and we propose the two genes provide a plausible explanation for the ability of WGK6 to utilize ethanol for methanol reduction to methane. Furthermore, our in vitro studies suggest that ethanol supports a greater cell yield per mol of methane formed compared to hydrogen-dependent growth. Taken together, this expansion in metabolic versatility can explain the persistence of these archaea in the kangaroo foregut, and their abundance in these ‘low-methane-emitting’ herbivores.

show abstract

“…In contrast, the foregut microbiota resident in these animals releases relatively low amounts of methane compared to sheep 18,19 . Although these observations were initially proposed to reflect the absence of methanogenic archaea within the macropodid forestomach, several studies have now demonstrated the presence of Methanobrevibacter, Methanosphaera, and 'Methanoplasmatales' archaea, albeit at numbers substantially less than found for ruminant livestock (~10 6 g.sample -1 c.f.~10 8 g. sample -1 ) 6 .…”

Section: Differences Downunder: the Low Methane Emitting Macropodidsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Methane matters in animals and man: from beginning to end

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methanogenic archaea resident in the mammalian gastrointestinal tract have long been recognised for their capacity to participate in interspecies hydrogen transfer, with commensurate positive effects on plant biomass conversion. However, there is also still much to learn about these methanogenic archaea in regards to their metabolic versatility, host adaptation, and immunogenic properties that is of relevance to host health and nutrition.

show abstract

Production of methane in two non-ruminant herbivores

Cited by 59 publications

References 5 publications

Evolutionary adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for modern production systems

Evolutionary adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for modern production systems

Differences down-under: alcohol-fueled methanogenesis by archaea present in Australian macropodids

Methane matters in animals and man: from beginning to end

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About