Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Efficacy of ionophores in cattle diets for mitigation of enteric methane1

Guan, H., Wittenberg, K. M., Ominski, K. H., Krause, D. O.·2006·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

Use of ionophores in cattle diets has been proposed as a strategy for mitigation of enteric CH4 emissions. Short- and long-term effects of feeding a single ionophore (monensin) or rotation of 2 ionophores (monensin and lasalocid) on enteric CH4 emissions were evaluated in 36 Angus yearling steers (328 +/- 24.9 kg of BW) over a 16-wk period. Steers were randomly assigned to 6 dietary treatments of 6 steers each. The 6 diets were low-concentrate without ionophore supplementation, low-concentrate with monensin supplementation, low-concentrate with a 2-wk rotation of monensin and lasalocid supplementation, high-concentrate without ionophore supplementation, high-concentrate with monensin supplementation, and high-concentrate with a 2-wk rotation of monensin and lasalocid supplementation. Daily enteric CH4 emissions, as measured using the SF(6) tracer gas technique, ranged from 54.7 to 369.3 L/steer daily. Supplementing ionophores decreased (P < 0.05) enteric CH4 emissions, expressed as liters per kilogram of DMI or percentage of GE intake, by 30% for the first 2 wk and by 27% for the first 4 wk, for cattle receiving the high-concentrate and low-concentrate diets, respectively. Cattle fed a rotation of ionophores did not (P > 0.05) exhibit a greater decrease and did not (P > 0.05) have a longer period of depressed enteric CH4 emissions compared with cattle receiving monensin only. Ionophore supplementation did not (P > 0.05) alter total ruminal fluid VFA concentration; however, the acetate:propionate ratio and ammonia-N concentration in ruminal fluid were decreased (P < 0.001) from the time that ionophores were introduced to the time they were removed from the diets. Both monensin and the rotation of monensin and lasalocid decreased (P < 0.001) total ciliate protozoal populations by 82.5% in the first 2 wk and by 76.8% in the first 4 wk during which they were supplemented in the high-concentrate and low-concentrate diets, respectively. Original ciliate protozoal populations were restored by the fourth and sixth week of supplementation when cattle were fed the high- or low-concentrate diets, respectively. No significant change was observed thereafter. These data suggest that the effects of ionophores on enteric CH(4) production are related to ciliate protozoal populations and that ciliate protozoal populations can adapt to the ionophores present in either low- or high-concentrate diets. Rotation of monensin and lasalocid did not (P > 0.05) prevent ciliate protozoal adaptation to ionophores.

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 · 10.2527/jas.2005-652

Cites

Statistics

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

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

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Guan, H., Wittenberg, K. M., Ominski, K. H., & Krause, D. O.
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2006-07-01
Volume
84
Issue
7
Pages
1896-1906
ISSN
  • 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3163
OpenAlex
W1999125464
Cited by
304
References
0
FWCI
18.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of ionophores in cattle diets for mitigation of enteric methane1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2527/jas.2005-652
The paper
Guan, H., Wittenberg, K. M., Ominski, K. H., & Krause, D. O. (2006). Efficacy of ionophores in cattle diets for mitigation of enteric methane1. Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-652

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.