Cited by 619Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production

Review: Fifty years of research on rumen methanogenesis: lessons learned and future challenges for mitigation

Open access
Beauchemin, K.A., Ungerfeld, E.M., Eckard, R.J., Wang, M.·2020·Animal

Abstract

Meat and milk from ruminants provide an important source of protein and other nutrients for human consumption. Although ruminants have a unique advantage of being able to consume forages and graze lands not suitable for arable cropping, 2% to 12% of the gross energy consumed is converted to enteric CH4 during ruminal digestion, which contributes approximately 6% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, ruminant producers need to find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions while meeting consumer demand for food. This paper provides a critical review of the substantial amount of ruminant CH4-related research published in past decades, highlighting hydrogen flow in the rumen, the microbiome associated with methanogenesis, current and future prospects for CH4 mitigation and insights into future challenges for science, governments, farmers and associated industries. Methane emission intensity, measured as emissions per unit of meat and milk, has continuously declined over the past decades due to improvements in production efficiency and animal performance, and this trend is expected to continue. However, continued decline in emission intensity will likely be insufficient to offset the rising emissions from increasing demand for animal protein. Thus, decreases in both emission intensity (g CH4/animal product) and absolute emissions (g CH4/day) are needed if the ruminant industries continue to grow. Providing producers with cost-effective options for decreasing CH4 emissions is therefore imperative, yet few cost-effective approaches are currently available. Future abatement may be achieved through animal genetics, vaccine development, early life programming, diet formulation, use of alternative hydrogen sinks, chemical inhibitors and fermentation modifiers. Individually, these strategies are expected to have moderate effects (<20% decrease), with the exception of the experimental inhibitor 3-nitrooxypropanol for which decreases in CH4 have consistently been greater (20% to 40% decrease). Therefore, it will be necessary to combine strategies to attain the sizable reduction in CH4 needed, but further research is required to determine whether combining anti-methanogenic strategies will have consistent additive effects. It is also not clear whether a decrease in CH4 production leads to consistent improved animal performance, information that will be necessary for adoption by producers. Major constraints for decreasing global enteric CH4 emissions from ruminants are continued expansion of the industry, the cost of mitigation, the difficulty of applying mitigation strategies to grazing ruminants, the inconsistent effects on animal performance and the paucity of information on animal health, reproduction, product quality, cost-benefit, safety and consumer acceptance.

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 · 10.1017/s1751731119003100

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Elevated fermentative acetate production is consistently associated with an increase in methane production.

    “Generally, elevated fermentative acetate production is consistently associated with an increase in methane production [52, 53].”

    From Reductive acetogenesis is a dominant process in the ruminant hindgut (2025) · cites this paper as [53]

    The “Rumen fermentation and microbiome associated with methanogenesis” section (page unavailable) explains that fermentation to volatile fatty acids releases hydrogen, much of which methanogens use to produce methane. It does not establish that elevated fermentative acetate production is consistently associated with increased methane production; it also distinguishes reductive acetate formation as an alternative hydrogen sink. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 72

  1. Abecia L, Martín-García AI, Martínez G, Newbold CJ and Ya ñez-Ruiz DR 2013. Nutritional intervention in early life to manipulate rumen microbial colonization and methane output by kid goats postweaning. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4832-4840. https://doi.org//10.2527/jas.2012-6142 · DOI
  2. Abecia L, Martinez-Fernandez G, Waddams K, Martin-Garcia AI, Pinloche E, Creevey CJ, Denman SE, Newbold CJ and Yanez-Ruiz DR 2018. Analysis of the rumen microbiome and metabolome to study the effect of an antimethano- genic treatment applied in early life of kid goats. Frontiers in Microbiology 9, 2227. https://doi.org//10.3389/fmicb.2018.02227 · DOI
  3. Auffret MD, Stewart R, Dewhurst RJ, Duthie C-A, Rooke JA, Wallace RJ, Freeman TC, Snelling TJ, Watson M and Roehe R 2018. Identification, compari- son, and validation of robust rumen microbial biomarkers for methane emissions using diverse Bos Taurus breeds and basal diets. Frontiers in Microbiology 9, 2642. https://doi.org//10.3389/fmicb.2017.02642 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bauchop T 1967. Inhibition of rumen methanogenesis by methane analogues. Journal of Bacteriology 94, 171-175.
  5. Breider IS, Mall E and Garnsworthy PC 2019. Short communication: Heritability of methane production and genetic correlations with milk yield and body weight in Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 102, 7277-7281. https://doi.org//10.3168/jds.2018-15909 · DOI
  6. Browne PD and Cadillo-Quiroz H 2013. Contribution of transcriptomics to systems-level understanding of methanogenic Archaea. Archaea, 2013, 11. https://doi.org//10.1155/2013/586369 · DOI
  7. Capper JL, Cady RA and Bauman DE 2009. The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2160-2167. https://doi.org//10.2527/jas.2009-1781 · DOI
  8. Chalupa W, Corbett W and Brethour JR 1980. Effects of monensin and amicloral on rumen fermentation. Journal of Animal Science 51, 170-179. https://doi.org// 10.2527/jas1980.511170x · DOI
  9. Clapperton JL 1974. The effect of trichloroacetamide, chloroform and linseed oil given into the rumen of sheep on some of the end-products of rumen digestion. British Journal of Nutrition 32, 155-161.
  10. Danielsson R, Dicksved J, Sun L, Gonda H, Müller B, Schnurer A and Bertilsson J 2017. Methane production in dairy cows correlates with rumen methanogenic and bacterial community structure. Frontiers in Microbiology 8, 226. https:// doi.org//10.3389/fmicb.2017.00226 · DOI
  11. Difford GF, Olijhoek DW, Hellwing ALF, Lund P, Bjerring MA, de Haas Y, Lassen J and Løvendahl P 2019. Ranking cows' methane emissions under commercial conditions with sniffers versus respiration chambers. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A -Animal Science. https://doi.org//10.1080/09064702. 2019.1572784, Published online 8 February. · DOI
  12. Dijkstra J, Bannink A, France J, Kebreab E and van Gastelen S 2018. Short com- munication: Antimethanogenic effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol depend on supple- mentation dose, dietary fiber content, and cattle type. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 9041-9047. https://doi.org//10.3168/jds.2018-14456 · DOI
  13. Doreau M, Arbre M, Popova M, Rochette Y and Martin C 2018. Linseed plus nitrate in the diet for fattening bulls: effects on methane emission, animal health and residues in offal. Animal 12, 501-507. https://doi.org//doi:10.1017/ S1751731117002014 · DOI
  14. Eckard RJ and Clark H 2018. Potential solutions to the major greenhouse-gas issues facing Australasian dairy farming. Animal Production Science. https:// doi.org//10.1071/AN18574, Published online by CSIRO Publishing 21 December 2018. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1999. Livestock and the environment. Meeting the challenge. Retrieved on 12 October 2018 from http:// www.fao.org/docrep/x5304e/x5304e00.htm · DOI
  15. Grainger C and Beauchemin KA 2011. Can enteric methane emissions from ruminants be lowered without lowering their production? Animal Feed Science and Technology 166-167, 308-320. https://doi.org//10.1016/ j.anifeedsci.2011.04.021 · DOI
  16. Guyader J, Doreau M, Morgavi DP, Gérard C, Loncke C and Martin C 2016a. Long-term effect of linseed plus nitrate fed to dairy cows on enteric methane emission and nitrate and nitrite residuals in milk. Animal 10, 1173-1181. https://doi.org//10.1017/S1751731115002852 · DOI
  17. Guyader J, Eugène M, Meunier B, Doreau M, Morgavi DP, Silberberg M, Rochette Y, Gerard C, Loncke C, and Martin C 2015. Additive methane-mitigating effect between linseed oil and nitrate fed to cattle. Journal of Animal Science 93, 3564-3577. https://doi.org//10.2527/jas2014-8196 · DOI
  18. Guyader J, Janzen HH, Kroebel R, and Beauchemin KA 2016b. Invited Review: Forage utilization to improve environmental sustainability of ruminant produc- tion. Journal of Animal Science 94, 3147-3158. https://doi.org//10.2527/ jas.2015-0141 · DOI
  19. Guzman CE, Bereza-Malcolm LT, De Groef B and Franks AE 2015. Presence of selected methanogens, fibrolytic bacteria, and proteobacteria in the gastrointes- tinal tract of neonatal dairy calves from birth to 72 hours. PLoS ONE 10, e0133048. https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0133048 · DOI
  20. Hammond KJ, Crompton LA, Bannik A, Dijkstra J, Yánez-Ruiz DR, O'Kiely P, Kebreab E, Eugène MA, Yu Z, Shingfield KJ, Schwarm A, Hristov AN and Reynolds CK 2016. Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quan- tifying enteric methane emission from ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 219, 13-30.
  21. Henderson C 1980. The influence of extracellular hydrogen on the metabolism of Bacteroides ruminicola, Anaerovibrio lipolytica and Selenomonas ruminantium. Journal of General Microbiology 119, 485-491.
  22. Henderson G, Cox F, Ganesh S, Jonker A, Young W, Global Rumen Census Collaborators and Janssen PH 2015. Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Scientific Reports, 5, 14567. https://doi.org//10.1038/ srep14567. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14567# supplementary-information · DOI · Paper page
  23. Henry BK, Eckard RJ and Beauchemin KA 2018. Review: Adaptation of ruminant livestock production systems to climate changes. Animal 12 (suppl. 2), s445- s456. https://doi.org//10.1017/S1751731118001301 · DOI
  24. Hristov AN, Oh J, Lee C, Meinen R, Montes F, Ott T, Firkins J, Rotz A, Dell C, Adesogan A, Yang W, Tricarico J, Kebreab E, Waghorn G, Dijkstra J and Oosting S 2013. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production: a review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions. In FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 177 (ed. PJ Gerber, B Henderson and HPS Makkar), pp. 1- 226. FAO, Rome, Italy. Retrieved on 10 July 2019 from www.fao.org/3/i3288e/ i3288e.pdf
  25. Hobson PN and Stewart CS 1997. The rumen microbial ecosystem, 2nd edition. Blackie Academic & Professional, New York. https://doi.org//10.1007/978-94- 009-1453-7 · DOI
  26. Janssen PH 2010. Influence of hydrogen on rumen methane formation and fer- mentation balances through microbial growth kinetics and fermentation thermodynamics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 160, 1-22. https:// doi.org//10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.07.002 · DOI
  27. Jayanegara A, Leiber F and Kreuzer M 2012. Meta-analysis of the relationship between dietary tannin level and methane formation in ruminants from in vivo and in vitro experiments. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 96, 365-375. https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01172.x · DOI
  28. Kenny DA, Fitzsimons C, Waters SM and McGee M 2018. Invited Review: Improving feed efficiency of beef cattle: the current state of the art and future challenges. Animal 12, 1815-1826. https://doi.org//10.1017/ · DOI
  29. S1751731118000976 · DOI
  30. Kinley RD, de Nys R, Vucko MJ, Machado L and Tomkins NW 2016. The red mac- roalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis is a potent natural antimethanogenic that reduces methane production during in vitro fermentation with rumen fluid. Animal Production Science 56, 282-289. https://doi.org//10.1071/AN15576 · DOI
  31. Knapp JR, Laur GL, Vadas PA, Weiss WP and Tricarico JM 2014. Invited Review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 3231-3261. https://doi.org//10.3168/jds.2013-7234 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Leahy SC, Kelly WJ, Ronimus RS, Wedlock N, Altermann E and Attwood GT 2013. Genome sequencing of rumen bacteria and archaea and its application to methane mitigation strategies. Animal 7, 235-243. https://doi.org//10.1017/ · DOI · Paper page
  33. S1751731113000700 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Lee C, Araujo RC, Koenig KM, and Beauchemin KA 2017. Effects of encapsulated nitrate on growth performance, nitrate toxicity, and enteric methane emissions in beef steers: backgrounding phase. Journal of Animal Science 95, 3700-3711. https://doi.org//10.2527/jas.2017.1460 · DOI
  35. Lee C and Beauchemin KA 2014. A review of feeding supplementary nitrate to ruminant animals: nitrate toxicity, methane emissions, and production perfor- mance. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 94, 557-570.
  36. Legesse G, Beauchemin KA, Ominski KH, McGeough EJ, Kroebel R, MacDonald D, Little SM and McAllister TA 2016. Greenhouse gas emissions of Canadian beef production in 1981 as compared with 2011. Animal Production Science 56, 153-168 https://doi.org//10.1071/AN15386 · DOI
  37. Li X, Norman HC, Kinley RD, Laurence M, Wilmot M, Bender H, de Nys R and Tomkins N 2018. Asparagopsis taxiformis decreases enteric methane production from sheep. Animal Production Science 58, 681-688. https://doi.org//10.1071/ · DOI
  38. AN15883 · DOI
  39. Li Y, Leahy SC, Jeyanathan J, Henderson G, Cox F, Altermann E, Kelly WJ, Lambie SC, Janssen PH, Rakonjac J and Attwood GT 2016. The complete genome sequence of the methanogenic archaeon ISO4-H5 provides insights into the methylotrophic lifestyle of a ruminal representative of the Methanomassiliicoccales. Standards in Genomic Sciences 11, 5 https://doi.org// 10.1186/s40793-016-0183-5 · DOI
  40. Liu H, Wang J, Wang A and Chen J 2011. Chemical inhibitors of methanogenesis and putative applications. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 89, 1333- 1340. https://doi.org//10.1007/s00253-010-3066-5 · DOI
  41. Løvendahl P, Difford GF, Li B, Chagunda MGG, Huhtanen P, Lidauer MH, Lassen J and Lund P 2018. Review: Selecting for improved feed efficiency and reduced methane emissions in dairy cattle. Animal 12, 336-349. https://doi.org// 10.1017/S1751731118002276 · DOI
  42. Machado L, Magnusson M, Paul NA, de Nys R and Tomkins N 2014. Effects of marine and freshwater macroalgae on in vitro total gas and methane production. PLoS ONE 9, e85289. https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0085289 · DOI
  43. McGinn SM, Flesch TK, Beauchemin KA and Shreck A 2019. Micrometeorological methods for measuring methane emission reduction at beef cattle feedlots: evaluation of 3-nitrooxypropanol feed additive. Journal of Environmental Quality 48, 454-461. https://doi.org//10.2134/jeq2018.11.0412 Min BR and Hart SP 2003. Tannins for suppression of internal parasites. Journal of Animal Science 81(E Suppl. 2), E102-E109. · DOI
  44. Muller RA and Muller EA 2017. Fugitive methane and the role of atmospheric half-life. Geo Geoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview 5, 3. https://doi.org// 10.4172/2327-4581.1000162 · DOI
  45. Nagaraja TG, Newbold CJ, Van Nevel CJ and Demeyer DI 1997. Chapter 13. Manipulation of ruminal fermentation. In The rumen microbial ecosystem, 2nd edition (ed. PN Hobson and CS Steward), pp. 523-632.
  46. Negussie E, de Haas Y, Dehareng F, Dewhurst RJ, Dijkstra J, Gengler N, Morgavi DP, Soyeurt H, van Gastelen S, Yan T and Biscarin F 2017. Invited Review: Large- scale indirect measurements for enteric methane emissions in dairy cattle: a review of proxies and their potential for use in management and breeding deci- sions. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 2433-2453. https://doi.org//10.3168/ jds.2016-12030 · DOI
  47. Pinares-Pati ño CS, Ebrahimi SH, McEwan JC, Dodds KG, Clark H and Luo D 2011. Is rumen retention time implicated in sheep differences in methane emissions? Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 71, 219-222.
  48. Pickering NK, Oddy VH, Basarab J, Cammack K, Hayes B, Hegarty RS, Lassen J, McEwan JC, Miller S, Pinares-Pati ño CS and de Haas Y 2015. Animal board invited review: genetic possibilities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Animal 9, 1431-1440.
  49. Richards M, Bruun TB, Campbell B, Gregersen LE, Huyer S, Kuntze V, Madsen STN, Oldvig MB and Vasileiou I 2015. How countries plan to address agricultural adaptation and mitigation: an analysis of intended nationally determined con- tributions. CCAFS Info Note. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved on 13 February 2019 from https://hdl.handle.net/10568/69115
  50. Romero-Perez A, Okine EK, McGinn SM, Guan LL, Oba M, Duval SM and Beauchemin KA 2014. The potential of 3-nitrooxypropanol to lower enteric methane emissions from beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 92, 4682- 4693. https://doi.org//10.2527/jas.2014-7573 · DOI
  51. Saro C, Hohenester UM, Bernard M, Lagree M, Martin C, Doreau M, Boudra H, Popova M and Morgavi DP 2018. Effectiveness of interventions to modulate the rumen microbiota composition and function in pre-ruminant and ruminant lambs. Frontiers in Microbiology 9, 1273. https://doi.org//10.3389/ fmicb.2018.01273 · DOI
  52. Schauer NL and Ferry JG 1980. Metabolism of formate in Methanobacterium formicicum. Journal of Bacteriology 142, 800-807.
  53. Seshadri R, Leahy SC, Attwood GT, Teh KH, Lambie SC, Cookson AL, Eloe-Fadrosh EA, Pavlopoulos GA, Hadjithomas M, Varghese NJ, Paez-Espino D, Perry R, Henderson G, Creevey CJ, Terrapon N, Lapebie P, Drula E, Lombard V, Rubin E, Kyrpides NC, Henrissat B, Woyke T, Ivanova NN and Kelly WJ 2018. Cultivation and sequencing of rumen microbiome members from the Hungate1000 Collection. Nature Biotechnology 36, 359-367. https://doi.org// 10.1038/nbt.4110 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Shabat SK, Sasson G, Doron-Faigenboim A, Durman T, Yaacoby S, Berg Miller ME, White BA, Shterzer N and Mizrahi I 2016. Specific microbiome-dependent mechanisms underlie the energy harvest efficiency of ruminants. The ISME Journal 10, 2958-2972. https://doi.org//10.1038/ismej.2016. · DOI · Paper page
  55. Subharat S, Shu D, Zheng T, Buddle BM, Kanek K, Hook S, Janssen PH and Wedlock DN 2016. Vaccination of sheep with a methanogen protein provides insight into levels of antibody in saliva needed to target ruminal methanogens. PLoS One 11, e0159861. https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0159861 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Tapio I, Snelling TJ, Strozzi F and Wallace RJ 2017. The ruminal microbiome asso- ciated with methane emissions from ruminant livestock. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 8, 7. https://doi.org//10.1186/s40104-017-0141-0 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Thiel A, Schoenmakers ACM, Verbaan IAJ, Chenal E, Etheve S and Beilstein P 2019b. 3-NOP: mutagenicity and genotoxicity assessment. Food and Chemical Toxicology 123, 566-573. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.fct.2018.11.010 · DOI
  58. United Nations/Framework Convention on Climate Change 2015. Adoption of the Paris agreement. United Nations/Framework Convention on Climate Change, 21st Conference of the Parties FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, Retrieved on 10 July 2019 from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
  59. Ungerfeld EM 2015. Shifts in metabolic hydrogen sinks in the methanogenesis- inhibited ruminal fermentation: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Microbiology 6, 37. https://doi.org//10.3389/fmicb.2015.00037 · DOI
  60. Ungerfeld EM 2018. Inhibition of rumen methanogenesis and ruminant produc- tivity: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 5, 1-13. https://doi.org// 10.3389/fvets.2018.00113 · DOI
  61. Ungerfeld EM and Kohn RA 2006. The role of thermodynamics in control of rumi- nal fermentation. In Ruminant physiology. Digestion, metabolism and impact of nutrition on gene expression, immunology and stress (ed. K Sejrsen, T Hvelpund and MO Nielsen), pp. 55-85. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
  62. van Gastelen S and Dijkstra J 2016. Prediction of methane emission from lactat- ing dairy cows using milk fatty acids and midinfrared spectroscopy. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 96, 3963-3968.
  63. Vanlierde A, Soyeurt H, Gengler N, Colinet FG, Froidmont E, Kreuzer M, Grandl F, Bell M, Lund P, Olijhoek DW, Eugène M, Martin C, Kuhla B and Dehareng F 2018. Short communication: Development of an equation for estimating methane emissions of dairy cows from milk Fourier transform mid-infrared spectra by using reference data obtained exclusively from respiration chambers Journal of Dairy Science 101, 7618-7624. https://doi.org//10.3168/jds.2018-14472 · DOI
  64. van Lingen HJ, Edwards JE, Vaidya JD, van Gastelen S, Saccenti E, van den Bogert B, Bannink A, Smidt H, Plugge CM and Dijkstra J 2017. Diurnal dynamics of gaseous and dissolved metabolites and microbiota composition in the bovine rumen. Frontiers in Microbiology 8, 425. https://doi.org//10.3389/ fmicb.2017.00425 · DOI
  65. van Zijderveld SM, Gerrits WJ, 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, 4028-4038. https://doi.org//10.3168/ jds.2011-4236 · DOI
  66. Veneman JB, Saetnan ER, Clare AJ and Newbold CJ 2016. MitiGate; an online meta-analysis database for quantification of mitigation strategies for enteric methane emissions. Science of the Total Environment 572, 1166-1174. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.029 · DOI
  67. Vyas D, Alemu AW, McGinn SM, Duval SM, Kindermann M, and Beauchemin KA 2018. The combined effects of supplementing monensin and 3-nitrooxypropanol on methane emissions, growth rate, and feed conversion efficiency in beef cattle fed high forage and high grain diets. Journal of Animal Science 96, 2923-2938. https://doi.org//10.1093/jas/sky174 · DOI
  68. Wallace RJ, Rooke JA, McKain N, Duthie CA, Hyslop JJ, Ross DW, Waterhouse A, Watson M and Roehe R 2015. The rumen microbial metagenome associated with high methane production in cattle. BMC Genomics 16, 839. https://doi.org//10. 1186/s12864-015-2032-0 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Wallace RJ, Snelling TJ, McCartney CA, Tapio I and Strozzi F 2017. Application of meta-omics techniques to understand greenhouse gas emissions originating from ruminal metabolism. Genetic Selection Evolution 49, 9. https://doi.org// 10.1186/s12711-017-0285-6 · DOI
  70. Wedlock DN, Pedersen G, Denis M, Dey D, Janssen PH and Buddle BM 2010. Development of a vaccine to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture: vaccination of sheep with methanogen fractions induces antibodies that block methane production in vitro. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 58, 29-36. https:// doi.org//10.1080/00480169.2010.65058 · DOI
  71. Wu L, Groot Koerkamp PWG and Ogink N 2018. Uncertainty assessment of the breath methane concentration method to determine methane production of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 554-1564. https://doi.org//10.3168/ jds.2017-12710 · DOI
  72. Zhang L, Huang X, Xue B, Peng Q, Wang Z, Yan T and Wang L 2015. Immunization against rumen methanogenesis by vaccination with a new recombinant protein. PLoS ONE 10, e0140086. https://doi.org//10.1371/ journal.pone.0140086 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beauchemin, K. A., Ungerfeld, E. M., Eckard, R. J., & Wang, M.
Affiliations
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA)
  • Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (CL)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
Corresponding author
Beauchemin, K.A.
Venue
Animal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020
Volume
14
Issue
S1
Pages
s2-s16
ISSN
1751-7311 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3005439744
Cited by
619
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 118 · 2025: 113 · 2024: 112 · 2023: 113 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 24
FWCI
9.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • animal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Funders
  • Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico, Tecnológico y de Innovación Tecnológica
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (31561143009)
  • Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica
  • Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (1160764)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Keywords
rumen methanogenesis, enteric methane, ruminant methane mitigation, rumen microbiome, 3-nitrooxypropanol, animal genetics, vaccine development, diet formulation, livestock greenhouse gas emissions, animal performance
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Greenhouse Gases, Animals, Breeding, Fermentation, Methane, Milk, Rumen, Ruminants, Livestock

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