Zoonotic bacterial populations, gut fermentation characteristics and methane production in feedlot steers during oral nitroethane treatment and after the feeding of an experimental chlorate product

Bañuelos, Héctor Gutiérrez; Anderson, Robin C.; Carstens, G. E.; Slay, Lisa J.; Ramlachan, N.; Horrocks, Shane M.; Callaway, Todd R.; Edrington, Thomas S.; Nisbet, David J.

doi:10.1016/j.anaerobe.2006.11.002

Cited by 45 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, the determination of mcrA gene expression was accepted for mcr activity measurement [16]. A positive correlation between decreased mcrA gene expression and decreased molar CH 4 proportions was found in the present study, suggesting that NE, NEOH, and NPOH inhibited CH 4 production by decreasing mcr activity. In addition, the activity of mcr is dependent mainly on the unique nickel-containing tetrapyrrole known as coenzyme F 430 [38].…”

Section: Effects Of Nitrocompounds On Methane Production and Related supporting

confidence: 69%

Rumen Methanogenesis, Rumen Fermentation, and Microbial Community Response to Nitroethane, 2-Nitroethanol, and 2-Nitro-1-Propanol: An In Vitro Study

Zhang

Wang

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nitroethane (NE), 2-nitroethanol (NEOH), and 2-nitro-1-propanol (NPOH) were comparatively examined to determine their inhibitory actions on rumen fermentation and methanogenesis in vitro. Fermentation characteristics, CH4 and total gas production, and coenzyme contents were determined at 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h incubation time, and the populations of ruminal microbiota were analyzed by real-time PCR at 72 h incubation time. The addition of NE, NEOH, and NPOH slowed down in vitro rumen fermentation and reduced the proportion of molar CH4 by 96.7%, 96.7%, and 41.7%, respectively (p < 0.01). The content of coenzymes F420 and F430 and the relative expression of the mcrA gene declined with the supplementation of NE, NEOH, and NPOH in comparison with the control (p < 0.01). The addition of NE, NEOH, and NPOH decreased total volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and acetate (p < 0.05), but had no effect on propionate concentration (p > 0.05). Real-time PCR results showed that the relative abundance of total methanogens, Methanobacteriales, Methanococcales, and Fibrobacter succinogenes were reduced by NE, NEOH, and NPOH (p < 0.05). In addition, the nitro-degradation rates in culture fluids were ranked as NEOH (−0.088) > NE (−0.069) > NPOH (−0.054). In brief, the results firstly provided evidence that NE, NEOH, and NPOH were able to decrease methanogen abundance and dramatically decrease mcrA gene expression and coenzyme F420 and F430 contents with different magnitudes to reduce ruminal CH4 production.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Nitrocompounds On Methane Production and Related supporting

confidence: 69%

Rumen Methanogenesis, Rumen Fermentation, and Microbial Community Response to Nitroethane, 2-Nitroethanol, and 2-Nitro-1-Propanol: An In Vitro Study

Zhang

Wang

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nitrocompounds have been shown to reduce methanogenesis (Anderson et al, 2006). However, the main mechanism of action of nitrocompounds seems to be mediated by the inhibition of formate dehydrogenases and/or H 2 dehydrogenases (Anderson et al, 2008) and, paradoxically, increases in the numbers of D. detoxificans, which uses H 2 to reduce these compounds, may reduce the abating potential of nitrocompounds (Anderson et al, 2006, Gutierrez-Banuelos et al, 2007. In contrast, one strain of D. detoxificans was able to utilise nitrate and reduced methane production in vitro when this substrate was added (Anderson and Rasmussen, 1998).…”

Section: Bacteria Using Alternative H 2 Sinksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants

Morgavi

Forano²,

Martin

et al. 2010

Animal

523

406

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ruminant production is under increased public scrutiny in terms of the importance of cattle and other ruminants as major producers of the greenhouse gas methane. Methanogenesis is performed by methanogenic archaea, a specialised group of microbes present in several anaerobic environments including the rumen. In the rumen, methanogens utilise predominantly H 2 and CO 2 as substrates to produce methane, filling an important functional niche in the ecosystem. However, in addition to methanogens, other microbes also have an influence on methane production either because they are involved in hydrogen (H 2 ) metabolism or because they affect the numbers of methanogens or other members of the microbiota. This study explores the relationship between some of these microbes and methanogenesis and highlights some functional groups that could play a role in decreasing methane emissions. Dihydrogen ('H 2 ' from this point on) is the key element that drives methane production in the rumen. Among H 2 producers, protozoa have a prominent position, which is strengthened by their close physical association with methanogens, which favours H 2 transfer from one to the other. A strong positive interaction was found between protozoal numbers and methane emissions, and because this group is possibly not essential for rumen function, protozoa might be a target for methane mitigation. An important function that is associated with production of H 2 is the degradation of fibrous plant material. However, not all members of the rumen fibrolytic community produce H 2 . Increasing the proportion of non-H 2 producing fibrolytic microorganisms might decrease methane production without affecting forage degradability. Alternative pathways that use electron acceptors other than CO 2 to oxidise H 2 also exist in the rumen. Bacteria with this type of metabolism normally occupy a distinct ecological niche and are not dominant members of the microbiota; however, their numbers can increase if the right potential electron acceptor is present in the diet. Nitrate is an alternative electron sinks that can promote the growth of particular bacteria able to compete with methanogens. Because of the toxicity of the intermediate product, nitrite, the use of nitrate has not been fully explored, but in adapted animals, nitrite does not accumulate and nitrate supplementation may be an alternative under some dietary conditions that deserves to be further studied. In conclusion, methanogens in the rumen co-exist with other microbes, which have contrasting activities. A better understanding of these populations and the pathways that compete with methanogenesis may provide novel targets for emissions abatement in ruminant production.

show abstract

“…Iodopropane is probably a corrinoid inhibitor that transfers methyl group to coenzyme M in methanogens. Some nitrocompounds such as nitroethane, 2-nitroethanol, 2-nitro-1-propanol, and 3-nitro-1-propionic acid inhibited ruminal CH 4 production in vitro (Anderson et al 2003(Anderson et al , 2008 and nitroethane and 2-nitro-1-propanol have been shown to reduce CH 4 -producing activity in vivo (Anderson et al 2006;Gutierrez-Bañuelos et al 2007). These nitrocompounds probably act by Inhibition of methane production compared with control relative to dry matter or organic matter digested unless otherwise marked c Relative to per kilogram feed intake et al 2008).…”

Section: Chemical Compoundsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Enteric methane mitigation technologies for ruminant livestock: a synthesis of current research and future directions

Patra

2011

Environ Monit Assess

194

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enteric methane (CH(4)) emission in ruminants, which is produced via fermentation of feeds in the rumen and lower digestive tract by methanogenic archaea, represents a loss of 2% to 12% of gross energy of feeds and contributes to global greenhouse effects. Globally, about 80 million tonnes of CH(4) is produced annually from enteric fermentation mainly from ruminants. Therefore, CH(4) mitigation strategies in ruminants have focused to obtain economic as well as environmental benefits. Some mitigation options such as chemical inhibitors, defaunation, and ionophores inhibit methanogenesis directly or indirectly in the rumen, but they have not confirmed consistent effects for practical use. A variety of nutritional amendments such as increasing the amount of grains, inclusion of some leguminous forages containing condensed tannins and ionophore compounds in diets, supplementation of low-quality roughages with protein and readily fermentable carbohydrates, and addition of fats show promise for CH(4) mitigation. These nutritional amendments also increase the efficiency of feed utilization and, therefore, are most likely to be adopted by farmers. Several new potential technologies such as use of plant secondary metabolites, probiotics and propionate enhancers, stimulation of acetogens, immunization, CH(4) oxidation by methylotrophs, and genetic selection of low CH(4)-producing animals have emerged to decrease CH(4) production, but these require extensive research before they can be recommended to livestock producers. The use of bacteriocins, bacteriophages, and development of recombinant vaccines targeting archaeal-specific genes and cell surface proteins may be areas worthy of investigation for CH(4) mitigation as well. A combination of different CH(4) mitigation strategies should be adopted in farm levels to substantially decrease methane emission from ruminants. Evidently, comprehensive research is needed to explore proven and reliable CH(4) mitigation technologies that would be practically feasible and economically viable while improving ruminant production.

show abstract

Zoonotic bacterial populations, gut fermentation characteristics and methane production in feedlot steers during oral nitroethane treatment and after the feeding of an experimental chlorate product

Cited by 45 publications

References 36 publications

Rumen Methanogenesis, Rumen Fermentation, and Microbial Community Response to Nitroethane, 2-Nitroethanol, and 2-Nitro-1-Propanol: An In Vitro Study

Rumen Methanogenesis, Rumen Fermentation, and Microbial Community Response to Nitroethane, 2-Nitroethanol, and 2-Nitro-1-Propanol: An In Vitro Study

Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants

Enteric methane mitigation technologies for ruminant livestock: a synthesis of current research and future directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About