Differential effects of monensin and a blend of essential oils on rumen microbiota composition of transition dairy cows
Open accessAbstract
In response to oral application, monensin alters the rumen microbiota, increasing ruminal propionate production and energy availability in the animal. Data from different studies indicate that the susceptibility of rumen bacteria to monensin is mainly cell-wall dependent but tracing its activity to specific microbial groups has been challenging. Several studies have shown a similar effect for essential oils but results are inconsistent. To investigate the influence of monensin and a blend of essential oils (BEO, containing thymol, guaiacol, eugenol, vanillin, salicylaldehyde, and limonene) on the rumen microbiome, rumen liquid samples were collected orally on d 56 postpartum from cows that had either received a monensin controlled-release capsule 3 wk antepartum, a diet containing a BEO from 3 wk antepartum onward, or a control diet (n = 12). The samples were analyzed for pH, volatile fatty acid, ammonia, and lipopolysaccharide concentrations and protozoal counts. A 16S rRNA gene fingerprinting analysis (PCR-single-strand conformation polymorphism) and sequencing revealed that the BEO treatment had no effect on the rumen microbiota, whereas monensin decreased bacterial diversity. Twenty-three bacterial species-level operational taxonomic units were identified for which monensin caused a significant decrease in their relative abundance, all belonging to the phyla Bacteroidetes (uncultured BS11 gut group and BS9 gut group) and Firmicutes (Lachnospiraceae, Ruminococcaceae, and Erysipelotrichaceae). Ten bacterial operational taxonomic units belonging to the phyla Actinobacteria (Coriobacteriaceae), Bacteroidetes (Prevotella), Cyanobacteria (SHA-109), and Firmicutes (Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae) increased in relative abundance due to the monensin treatment. These results confirm the hypothesis that varying effects depending on cell-wall constitution and thickness might apply for monensin sensitivity rather than a clear-cut difference between gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria. No effect of monensin on the archaea population was observed, confirming the assumption that reported inhibition of methanogenesis is most likely caused through a decrease in substrate availability, rather than by a direct effect on the methanogens. The data support the hypothesis that the observed increase in ruminal molar propionate proportions due to monensin may be caused by a decrease in abundance of non-producers and moderate producers of propionate and an increase in abundance of succinate and propionate producers.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Inhibition of gram-positive bacteria in the rumen can potentially increase propionate concentration.
“Inhibition of gram-positive bacteria in the rumen can potentially increase the propionate concentration (235).”
From Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction (2020) · cites this paper as [235]
The Introduction says monensin increases ruminal propionate and that it has been proposed to preferentially inhibit gram-positive bacteria. But the Conclusions attribute the propionate increase to changes in propionate-producing and non-producing taxa, and reject a clear-cut gram-positive versus gram-negative distinction. The paper therefore supports a possible link, but not gram-positive inhibition specifically as the mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSupplementation of a blend of essential oils containing thymol, guaiacol, eugenol, vanillin, salicylaldehyde, and limonene had no effect on the rumen microbiome.
“In a study, no effect on the rumen microbiome has been observed by supplementation of a blend of EO having thymol, guaiacol, eugenol, vanillin, salicylaldehyde, and limonene (235).”
From Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction (2020) · cites this paper as [235]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 75 · Cited by 149
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- REFERENCES Anonymous. 1998. DIN 38406-E5-2. Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-, Abwasser-und Schlammuntersuchung. 40. Lieferung. Wiley-VCH, Winheim, Germany.
- Hollander, M., and D. Wolfe. 1999. Nonparametric Statistical Meth- ods: Solutions Manual. 2nd ed. Wiley New York, NY.
- Krieg, N. R., J. T. Stanley, D. R. Brown, B. P. Hedlund, B. J. Paster, N. L. Ward, W. Ludwig, and B. W. Whitman. 2009. Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Volume 4: The Bacteroide- tes, Spirochaetes, Tenericutes (Mollicutes), Acidobacteria, Fibro- bacteres, Fusobacteria, Dictyoglomi, Gemmatimonadetes, Len- tisphaerae, Verrucomicrobia, Chlamydiae, and Planctomycetes. Springer, New York, NY.
- Mackie, R. I., C. S. McSweeney, and R. I. Aminov. 2013. Rumen. eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK.
- Vos, P., G. Garrity, D. Jones, N. R. Krieg, W. Ludwig, F. A. Rainey, K.-H. Schleifer, and W. Whitman. 2009. Bergey's Manual of Sys- tematic Bacteriology: Volume 3: The Firmicutes. Vol. 3. Springer Science & Business Media, New York, NY.
- Whitman, W., M. Goodfellow, P. Kämpfer, H.-J. Busse, M. E. Trujillo, W. Ludwig, K.-i. Suzuki, and A. Parte. 2012. Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology: Volume 5: The Actinobacteria. Springer, New York, NY.
- Authors
- Schären, M., Drong, C., Kiri, K., Riede, S., Gardener, M., Meyer, U., Hummel, J., Urich, T., Breves, G., & Dänicke, S.
- Affiliations
- Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (DE)
- University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation (DE)
- The Open University (GB)
- University of Göttingen (DE)
- Universität Greifswald (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Meyer, U.
- Venue
- Journal of Dairy Science
- Publisher
- American Dairy Science Association
- Published
- 2017-04
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2765-2783
- ISSN
- 0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2584890449
- Cited by
- 149
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 21.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- OpenAgrar (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Keywords
- monensin, essential oil blends, rumen microbiota, transition dairy cows, rumen bacteria, bacterial diversity, propionate production, volatile fatty acids, methanogenesis, rumen protozoa, lipopolysaccharide, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Lachnospiraceae, Ruminococcaceae, Erysipelotrichaceae, rumen pH, ammonia, 16S rRNA gene sequencing
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cattle, Diet, Female, Fermentation, Monensin, Oils, Volatile, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Rumen, Microbiota
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