Cited by 108Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

Methanogenic Population and CH 4 Production in Swedish Dairy Cows Fed Different Levels of Forage

Open access
Danielsson, R., Schnürer, A., Arthurson, V., Bertilsson, J.·2012·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

Methanogenic community structure, methane production (CH(4)), and volatile fatty acid (VFA) profiles were investigated in Swedish dairy cows fed a diet with a forage/concentrate ratio of 500/500 or 900/100 g/kg of dry matter (DM) of total DM intake (DMI). The rumen methanogenic population was evaluated using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis, 16S rRNA gene libraries, and quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). Mean CH(4) yields did not differ (P > 0.05) between diets, being 16.9 and 20.2 g/kg DMI for the 500/500 and 900/100 diets, respectively. The T-RFLP analysis revealed that populations differed between individual cows and that each individual population responded differently to the diets. The 16S rRNA gene libraries revealed that Methanobrevibacter spp. dominated for both diets. CH(4) production was positively correlated with a dominance of sequences representing T-RFs related to Methanobrevibacter thaueri, Methanobrevibacter millerae, and Methanobrevibacter smithii relative to Methanobrevibacter ruminantium and Methanobrevibacter olleyae. Total numbers of methanogens and total numbers of Methanobacteriales were significantly higher with the 500/500 diet (P < 0.0004 and P < 0.002, respectively). However, no relationship was found between CH(4) production and total number of methanogens. No differences were seen in total VFA, propionic acid, or acetic acid contents, but the molar proportion of butyric acid in the rumen was higher for the 500…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aem.00675-12

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 50 · Cited by 108

Authors
Danielsson, R., Schnürer, A., Arthurson, V., & Bertilsson, J.
Affiliations
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
2012-09
Volume
78
Issue
17
Pages
6172-6179
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W2045389880
Cited by
108
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5
FWCI
12.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied and Environmental Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Stiftelsen Lantbruksforskning
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
methanogenic archaea, dairy cattle, forage to concentrate ratio, Methanobrevibacter, Methanobrevibacter smithii, Methanobacteriales, volatile fatty acids, butyrate, rumen microbiota, individual cow variation
MeSH terms
Animals, Archaea, Cattle, Diet, DNA, Ribosomal, Methane, Molecular Sequence Data, Polymorphism, Restriction Fragment Length, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Rumen, Sweden, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Biota, Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction

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