CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 159Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 204 of the 209 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dietary mitigation of enteric methane emissions from ruminants: A review of plant tannin mitigation options

Open access
Min, Byeng R., Solaiman, Sandra, Waldrip, Heidi M., Parker, David, Todd, Richard W., Brauer, David·2020·Animal nutrition
DOI 10.1016/j.aninu.2020.05.002PMC PMC7503797
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Methane gas from livestock production activities is a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which have been shown to influence climate change. New technologies offer a potential to manipulate the rumen biome through genetic selection reducing CH4 production. Methane production may also be mitigated to varying degrees by various dietary intervention strategies. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions need to be developed which increase ruminant production efficiency whereas reducing production of CH4 from cattle, sheep, and goats. Methane emissions may be efficiently mitigated by manipulation of natural ruminal microbiota with various dietary interventions and animal production efficiency improved. Although some CH4 abatement strategies have shown efficacy in vivo, more research is required to make any of these approaches pertinent to modern animal production systems. The objective of this review is to explain how anti-methanogenic compounds (e.g., plant tannins) affect ruminal microbiota, reduce CH4 emission, and the effects on host responses. Thus, this review provides information relevant to understanding the impact of tannins on methanogenesis, which may provide a cost-effective means to reduce enteric CH4 production and the influence of ruminant animals on global GHG emissions.

Overview

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.aninu.2020.05.002

Cites

204 of 204 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Schematic microbial fermentation of polysaccharides, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis in the rumen. VFA = volatile fatty acids. Boxes with bold solid lines are potential targets for suppressing CH4 emissions. Sources: Attwood and McSweeney (2008), Beauchemin et al. (2008), Morgavi et al. (2010), Patra (2012, 2016).
Fig. 1 Schematic microbial fermentation of polysaccharides, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis in the rumen. VFA = volatile fatty acids. Boxes with bold solid lines are potential targets for suppressing CH4 emissions. Sources: Attwood and McSweeney (2008), Beauchemin et al. (2008), Morgavi et al. (2010), Patra (2012, 2016).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Selected studies of methane emissions from widely used techniques. (A) Effects of dry matter intake (DMI) on daily CH4 emissions in dairy and beef cattle associated with detection methods, and (B) effects of DMI on average daily CH4 emissions in dairy and beef cattle. SF6 = sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique; IRC = indirect respiration chamber; GF = GreenFeed system (C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA). Source: adapted from Table 1.
Fig. 2 Selected studies of methane emissions from widely used techniques. (A) Effects of dry matter intake (DMI) on daily CH4 emissions in dairy and beef cattle associated with detection methods, and (B) effects of DMI on average daily CH4 emissions in dairy and beef cattle. SF6 = sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique; IRC = indirect respiration chamber; GF = GreenFeed system (C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA). Source: adapted from Table 1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Feed dry matter intake and methane production from beef cattle selected for variance in residual feed intake (RFI). Low (L)-RFI are efficient, high (H)-RFI are inefficient. RFI is expected feed requirements for maintenance and growth, with the expected feed requirements obtained by regression of feeding standards formula. IRC = indirect respiratory chamber; GF = GreenFeed system (C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA). Sources: Dini et al. (2019; beef, BW = 357 kg BW; SF6); Hegarty et al. (2007; beef, BW = 590 kg; SF6); Alemu et al. (2017; beef heifers, BW = 380 kg; IRC and GF); Mercadante et al. (2015; cattle, BW = 238 to 326 kg BW; SF6); Flay et al. (2019; dairy cattle, BW = 448 kg; GF); Lansink, (2018; beef, BW = 269 kg; GF).
Fig. 3 Feed dry matter intake and methane production from beef cattle selected for variance in residual feed intake (RFI). Low (L)-RFI are efficient, high (H)-RFI are inefficient. RFI is expected feed requirements for maintenance and growth, with the expected feed requirements obtained by regression of feeding standards formula. IRC = indirect respiratory chamber; GF = GreenFeed system (C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA). Sources: Dini et al. (2019; beef, BW = 357 kg BW; SF6); Hegarty et al. (2007; beef, BW = 590 kg; SF6); Alemu et al. (2017; beef heifers, BW = 380 kg; IRC and GF); Mercadante et al. (2015; cattle, BW = 238 to 326 kg BW; SF6); Flay et al. (2019; dairy cattle, BW = 448 kg; GF); Lansink, (2018; beef, BW = 269 kg; GF).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Effects of predominant bacterial phylum, total protozoa, and methanogen on methane emissions (A) Relationships between CH4 productions and populations of total protozoa, (B) total bacteria, (C) Firmicutes-to-Bacteroidetes ratio, and (D) total methanogens in the rumen and in vitro rumen incubations. Source: Animut et al. (2008a, b; respiratory chamber), Liu et al. (2011; respiratory chamber), Puchala et al. (2005, 2012a, b; respiratory chamber), Min et al. (2019a; in vitro).
Fig. 4 Effects of predominant bacterial phylum, total protozoa, and methanogen on methane emissions (A) Relationships between CH4 productions and populations of total protozoa, (B) total bacteria, (C) Firmicutes-to-Bacteroidetes ratio, and (D) total methanogens in the rumen and in vitro rumen incubations. Source: Animut et al. (2008a, b; respiratory chamber), Liu et al. (2011; respiratory chamber), Puchala et al. (2005, 2012a, b; respiratory chamber), Min et al. (2019a; in vitro).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Methane emission abatement strategies for ruminants. FCE = feed conversion efficiency, RFI = residual feed intake. Low (L)-RFI are efficient, high (H)-RFI are inefficient. RFI is expected feed requirements for maintenance and growth, with the expected feed requirements obtained by regression of feeding standards formula. Sources: Arthur et al. (2001), Beauchemin et al. (2007, 2008), Broucek (2018), Charmley et al. (2016), Carstens, (2019), Hegarty et al. (2007), Hristov et al. (2013a, b), Min and Solaiman (2018), Nkrumah et al. (2006), Patra et al. (2017), Roeche et al. (2016), Ross et al. (2013), Tavendale et al. (2005), and Woodward et al. (2001).
Fig. 5 Methane emission abatement strategies for ruminants. FCE = feed conversion efficiency, RFI = residual feed intake. Low (L)-RFI are efficient, high (H)-RFI are inefficient. RFI is expected feed requirements for maintenance and growth, with the expected feed requirements obtained by regression of feeding standards formula. Sources: Arthur et al. (2001), Beauchemin et al. (2007, 2008), Broucek (2018), Charmley et al. (2016), Carstens, (2019), Hegarty et al. (2007), Hristov et al. (2013a, b), Min and Solaiman (2018), Nkrumah et al. (2006), Patra et al. (2017), Roeche et al. (2016), Ross et al. (2013), Tavendale et al. (2005), and Woodward et al. (2001).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Effect of condensed tannin-rich diets on rumen methane production per kilogram of dry matter intake for meat goats. Sources: Animut et al. (2008a, b); Puchala et al. (2005, 2012a, b).
Fig. 6 Effect of condensed tannin-rich diets on rumen methane production per kilogram of dry matter intake for meat goats. Sources: Animut et al. (2008a, b); Puchala et al. (2005, 2012a, b).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 Relative abundance (%) of major gastrointestinal methanogenic archaea diversity (>0.9%) present in meat goats (n = 6) fed condensed tannins (CT)-containing ground pine bark (PB) supplementation with grain mixed diets as analyzed using pyrosequencing. Control, 0 PB, 19% CT DM; 15% PB, 1.63% CT DM; and 30% PB, 3.20% CT DM, as-fed basis (Min et al., 2014b).
Fig. 7 Relative abundance (%) of major gastrointestinal methanogenic archaea diversity (>0.9%) present in meat goats (n = 6) fed condensed tannins (CT)-containing ground pine bark (PB) supplementation with grain mixed diets as analyzed using pyrosequencing. Control, 0 PB, 19% CT DM; 15% PB, 1.63% CT DM; and 30% PB, 3.20% CT DM, as-fed basis (Min et al., 2014b).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Broucek, 2018, Options to methane production abatement in ruminants: a review, J Anim Plant Sci, 28, 348
  2. Lee, 2004, Methane remissions by dairy cows fed increasing proportions of white clover (Trifolium repens) in pasture, Proc NZ Grass Assoc, 66, 151
  3. Min, 2014, The effect of phytochemical tannins- containing diet on rumen fermentation characteristics and microbial diversity dynamics in goats using 16S rDNA amplicon pyrosequencing, Agri Food Anal Bacteriol, 4, 195
  4. Tedeschi, 2001, Cornell value discovery system for individual cattle management, Dept. of Animal Science, 130
  5. Todd, 2016, Pasture-scale methane emissions of grazing cattle, Proc. Grazing CAP Field Res Sym, 46
  6. Waghorn, 1987, Pasture as a nutrient source, vol. 10, 21

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 159

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Min, B. R., Solaiman, S., Waldrip, H. M., Parker, D., Todd, R. W., & Brauer, D.
Affiliations
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • Tuskegee University (US)
Corresponding author
Min, Byeng R.
ORCID
Venue
Animal nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
231-246
ISSN
  • 2405-6383 (ISSN-L)
  • 2405-6545
DOI
10.1016/j.aninu.2020.05.002
PMC
PMC7503797
OpenAlex
W3041141320
Cited by
159
References
209
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Animal nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
enteric methane, ruminants, plant tannins, methane mitigation, rumen microbiota, methanogenesis, greenhouse gas emissions, dietary intervention, cattle, sheep, goats, host response

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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