The DOI matches its Crossref record; 269 of the 271 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 90 of the 165 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction
Open accessAbstract
Ruminants inhabit the consortia of gut microbes that play a critical functional role in their maintenance and nourishment by enabling them to use cellulosic and non-cellulosic feed material. These gut microbes perform major physiological activities, including digestion and metabolism of dietary components, to derive energy to meet major protein (65-85%) and energy (80%) requirements of the host. Owing to their contribution in digestive physiology, rumen microbes are considered one of the crucial factors affecting feed conversion efficiency in ruminants. Any change in the rumen microbiome has an imperative effect on animal physiology. Ruminal microbes are fundamentally anaerobic and produce various compounds during rumen fermentation, which are directly used by the host or other microbes. Methane (CH4) is produced by methanogens through utilizing metabolic hydrogen during rumen fermentation. Maximizing the flow of metabolic hydrogen in the rumen away from CH4 and toward volatile fatty acids (VFA) would increase the efficiency of ruminant production and decrease its environmental impact. Understanding of microbial diversity and rumen dynamics are crucial not only for the optimization of host efficiency but also required to mediate emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from ruminants. There are various strategies to modulate rumen microbiome, mainly including dietary interventions and the use of feed additives like plant secondary compounds. Phytogenic feed additives, mainly plant secondary compounds, have shown to modulate rumen microflora and change rumen fermentation dynamics leading to enhanced animal performance. Many in vitro and in vivo studies aimed to evaluate the use of plant secondary metabolites in ruminants have been conducted using different plants or their extract or essential oils. This review specifically aims to provide insights into the ecology of rumen microbes, their dietary interactions, and respective role in rumen fermentation. Moreover, a comprehensive overview of the modulation of rumen microbiome by using phytogenic compounds (essential oils, saponins, and tannins) for manipulating rumen dynamics to mediate methane emanation from livestock is presented. We have also discussed the pros and cons of each strategy along with future prospective of dietary modulation of rumen microbiome to improve the performance of ruminants while decreasing GHG emissions.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review synthesizes how phytogenic additives—mainly saponins, tannins, and essential oils—can modulate the rumen microbiome to alter fermentation kinetics and reduce methanogenesis in ruminants. It concludes that in vitro promise is often not confirmed in vivo, and that variability, adaptation, and long-term effects remain key barriers to commercial use.
Key findings
- The rumen microbiome is central to ruminant nutrition and methane output: bacteria reach about 10^11 cells/g of rumen contents, fungi 5–20% of microbiota, protozoa 20–50% of microbial biomass, archaea about 21%, and methanogens <1%; roughly 90% of total CH4 production originates from the rumen, and CH4 represents an energy loss of 13.3 Mcal/kg.
- Phytogenic compounds can shift rumen microbial populations and fermentation, but effects are inconsistent: tea saponin reduced methanogenesis in vitro yet 0.52% on DM basis failed to reduce daily CH4 in lactating dairy cows; crude and lipid-encapsulated acacia tannin reduced CH4 production by 30% and 19% (g/kg DM), respectively; tannin-containing hay reduced CH4 from 5.4 to 3.5 ml/g DM.
- Dietary fat and oil supplementation can lower CH4: vegetable oil at 6% in high-concentrate TMR reduced CH4 up to 21–28% in vitro, and a meta-analysis found nitrates plus vegetable oils reduced cattle CH4 by 6–20%; essential oil blends increased milk yield by 3.6%, milk fat and protein by 4.1%, and feed efficiency by 4.4%, while decreasing DM intake by 12.9% and CH4 by 8.8% in a long-term dairy trial.
- The review highlights future strategies including encapsulation, nanoparticles/nanoemulsions, molecular docking, and selection of heritable rumen microbes, but stresses that long-term in vivo trials are needed to confirm efficacy and safety.
Methods
- Design: narrative review of diet–microbe interactions and phytogenic feed additives in ruminants, with no new primary experimental data.
- Data/sample: published in vitro and in vivo studies on saponins, tannins, essential oils, dietary carbohydrates, fats, and rumen microbial populations, summarized in six tables covering microbial abundance, methanogenesis, fermentation parameters, and feed degradability.
- Analysis: qualitative synthesis of reported effects and mechanisms; the paper cites meta-analyses but does not report its own systematic search protocol or quantitative meta-analysis.
Limitations
- Stated: in vitro effects of phytochemicals often do not translate to in vivo CH4 reduction; efficacy varies with plant origin, growing conditions, processing, dose, diet, host, and microbial adaptation; long-term effects and optimal inclusion levels are not well established.
- Stated: it is difficult to conduct systematic and comprehensive evaluations of efficacy and safety for commercial application because of this variability.
- Evident: as a narrative review, it lacks a formal systematic search strategy, risk-of-bias assessment, or quantitative pooling; many table entries are “NF” or show inconsistent directions of effect, limiting definitive conclusions.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
90 of 165 cited sources checked · 26 supported · 2 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Recently, it has been reported that feeding temperate grasses produce less enteric CH4 than tropical grasses in ruminants (118) as feeding low-quality tropical grasses emitted 17 g CH4/kg DM intake.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions > Carbohydrate–Microbe Interactions
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [118] Ku-Vera, 2020, Strategies for enteric methane mitigation in cattle fed tropical forages, Animal. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Enteric methane production by cattle fed tropical grasses,” the review explicitly says its evidence does not support the contention that tropical grasses produce more enteric methane than temperate grasses. It does report a yield of 17.0 g CH₄/kg dry-matter intake for cattle fed low-quality tropical grasses, but that figure does not establish the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Disputed
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Despite the sustainability of functional redundancy in the rumen microbiome, plant secondary metabolites have shown significant manipulation of the rumen microflora leading to a shift in fermentation dynamics and milk production in lactating animals (29, 31, 145–147).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] Calsamiglia, 2007, Invited review: essential oils as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation, J Dairy Sci. source
- Partly supportedcites [31] Jayanegara, 2014, Meta-analysis on methane mitigating properties of saponin-rich sources in the rumen: influence of addition levels and plant sources, Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Discussion report that saponin-rich plant sources reduced rumen protozoa and shifted fermentation toward less acetate and more propionate. However, the Discussion’s account of a trial in early-lactating dairy cows says saponins did not affect milk production or rumen fermentation, so the claimed effect in lactating animals is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [145] Patra, 2012, Effects of essential oils on methane production and fermentation by, and abundance and diversity of, rumen microbial populations, Appl Environ Microbiol. source
- Disputedcites [146] Oh, 2013, Immune and production responses of dairy cows to postruminal supplementation with phytonutrients, J Dairy Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page unavailable) report that phytonutrient treatment did not affect rumen fermentation variables or fecal bacteria. The Discussion (page unavailable) says these compounds were administered postruminally, bypassing rumen metabolism, and describes limited or no milk-production effects in prior studies of plant extracts as rumen modifiers. This paper therefore does not show the claimed chain from rumen-microflora manipulation to changed fermentation and milk production. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Partly supportedcites [147] Oh, 2015, Effects of dietary Capsicum oleoresin on productivity and immune responses in lactating dairy cows, J Dairy Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report changes in rumen bacterial populations after Capsicum oleoresin supplementation, alongside increased fat-corrected milk yield and a trend toward increased milk yield in lactating dairy cows. But the Discussion explicitly says that rumen fermentation parameters were not affected. The paper therefore does not support the claimed shift in fermentation dynamics or establish that microbial changes caused the milk-production changes. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Specific physiological processes in lactating animals are correlated with specific rumen microbes owing to their unique fermentation and metabolic activities (14).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [14] Jami, 2013, Exploring the bovine rumen bacterial community from birth to adulthood, ISME J. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction links microbial fermentation products to rumen development, and the study includes lactating dairy cows (Rumen bacterial composition across different age groups; page unavailable). However, our copy does not establish correlations between specific microbes and specific physiological processes in those lactating cows. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Putative mechanisms of actions mainly include disturbance of the cytoplasmic membrane, disruption of the proton motive force, electron flow, active transport mechanisms, and coagulation of cell composition (80).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Modulation of Rumen Microbiome Using Phytogenic Feed Additives
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [80] Lillehoj, 2018, Phytochemicals as antibiotic alternatives to promote growth and enhance host health, Vet Res. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 'Dietary phytochemicals on weaning pig health' section (page unavailable) says phytochemicals can enter bacterial membranes and cause intracellular materials to leak, supporting the membrane-disturbance part. It does not describe disruption of the proton motive force, electron flow or active transport, or coagulation of cell contents; the 'Plant-derived phytochemicals as antibiotic alternatives' section also says their mechanisms are not clearly understood. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, a 10–25% decrease in CH4 production has been observed, when foliage and pods of trees and shrubs are included in the cattle diet (118).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions > Carbohydrate–Microbe Interactions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [118] Ku-Vera, 2020, Strategies for enteric methane mitigation in cattle fed tropical forages, Animal. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports a 10–25% decrease when foliage and ground pods of tropical trees and shrubs were added to cattle rations. It measures methane yield (CH₄ per kilogram of dry-matter intake), however, not a 10–25% decrease in total CH₄ production. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The diet fed to ruminants is the primary determinant of bacterial community structure (95–97).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [95] Henderson, 2013, Effect of DNA extraction methods and sampling techniques on the apparent structure of cow and sheep rumen microbial communities, PLoS ONE. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says that changes in diet can produce shifts in rumen microbial communities. It does not say that diet is the primary determinant of bacterial community structure. The Results and Discussion instead compare differences associated with sampling and DNA extraction methods; no passage provided ranks diet against other determinants. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Partly supportedcites [96] Pitta, 2016, Metagenomic analysis of the rumen microbiome of steers with wheat-induced frothy bloat, Front Microbiol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) says rumen microbiome composition changes with diet and describes substantial shifts in bacterial communities following dietary changes. It also names the animal, physiology, and environment as influences; it does not establish that diet is the primary determinant of bacterial community structure. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [97] Pitta, 2018, Alterations in ruminal bacterial populations at induction and recovery from diet-induced milk fat depression in dairy cows, J Dairy Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) says changes in dietary components can significantly alter rumen microbial communities, and the Discussion (page unavailable) reports that dietary modifications significantly altered bacterial community composition in the studied dairy cows. The paper does not establish that diet is the primary determinant relative to other factors, or that this ranking applies to ruminants generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Recently, a meta-analysis showed that addition of nitrates and vegetable oils in cattle diet has the ability to reduce CH4 emission up to 6–20% (118).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions > Interaction of Dietary Fat With Rumen Microbiome
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [118] Ku-Vera, 2020, Strategies for enteric methane mitigation in cattle fed tropical forages, Animal. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (page not available) reports that adding nitrates and vegetable oils to cattle rations decreased enteric CH₄ yield by approximately 6% and 20%, respectively. The cited paper is a review, not a meta-analysis, and its figures concern methane yield in the context of cattle fed tropical forages rather than a general reduction in CH₄ emissions. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Dietary changes have been reported as a major factor that influences the dynamics of rumen microbial populations and resultant metabolic shifts leading to significant changes in ruminant production (142, 143).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [142] Ornaghi, 2020, Natural plant-based additives can improve ruminant performance by influencing the rumen microbiome, Researchsquare sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Rumen bacterial diversity and abundance and Animal performance sections (pages not provided) report changes in rumen microbes, fermentation measures, daily gain, and feed efficiency after natural additives were added to young bulls’ diets. The Conclusions link improved performance to microbiome modulation, but the paper does not establish that dietary changes generally are a major factor across ruminants. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [143] Kocherginskaya, 2001, Analysis of the rumen bacterial diversity under two different diet conditions using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis, random sequencing, and statistical ecology approaches, Anaerobe. source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, rumen microbiota can detoxify unsaturated FA through the biohydrogenation process to reduce/eliminate the adverse effects on rumen fermentation (121, 124).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions > Interaction of Dietary Fat With Rumen Microbiome
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [121] Lourenco, 2010, The role of microbes in rumen lipolysis and biohydrogenation and their manipulation, Animal. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction states that ruminal microorganisms biohydrogenate unsaturated fatty acids. The section on interdependence with ruminal metabolism says long-chain unsaturated fatty acids inhibit cellulolytic bacteria and cautions against inhibiting biohydrogenation. These passages support the proposed protective role, but do not establish that biohydrogenation reduces or eliminates adverse effects on rumen fermentation. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Partly supportedcites [124] Maia, 2010, Toxicity of unsaturated fatty acids to the biohydrogenating ruminal bacterium, Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens, BMC Microbiol sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) describes biohydrogenation as a detoxification mechanism, and the Abstract says it enables Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens to survive the bacteriostatic effects of some polyunsaturated fatty acids. The claim extends this finding to rumen microbiota and adverse effects on rumen fermentation generally. The Abstract also reports that EPA and DHA were not metabolized and prevented growth, so the paper does not support detoxification of unsaturated fatty acids without qualification. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Bayat et al. (139) reported a decrease in daily CH4 emission in lactating cows fed a low concentrate diet supplemented with sunflower oil.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions > Interaction of Dietary Fat With Rumen Microbiome
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [139] Bayat, 2017, Dietary forage to concentrate ratio and sunflower oil supplement alter rumen fermentation, ruminal methane emissions, and nutrient utilization in lactating cows, Transl Anim Sci. source
The Abstract reports that sunflower oil reduced daily CH4 emissions (g/d) with both low- and high-concentrate diets in lactating cows. The Discussion’s Ruminal Gas Emissions conclusion also states that sunflower oil was effective in reducing emissions when the low-concentrate diet was fed. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
- Probably not a substantial claim. 21
- It may state two separate claims as one. 63
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Besides, microbial cell biomass is also utilized as the primary origin of protein and amino acids by host animals (3).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [3] Storm, 1983, The nutritive value of rumen micro-organisms in ruminants: 1. Large-scale isolation and chemical composition of rumen micro-organisms, Br J Nutr. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The opening section reports that, for a wide range of normal diets, 60–85% of the protein passing to a ruminant’s small intestine is of microbial origin, and that rumen microbes synthesize amino acids. This supports the claim for ruminants, but not its unqualified extension to host animals generally. The supplied passage does not give a page number. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Plant secondary metabolites are natural substances with the potential ability to alter rumen fermentation without causing microbial resistance, and their residual effects can positively affect the animal end products (27, 28).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [27] Wallace, 2002, Natural products as manipulators of rumen fermentation, Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract describes plant secondary compounds as promising natural manipulators of rumen fermentation. In “Essential oils and ruminants” (page not provided), the paper says one comparison suggested ruminal bacteria did not adapt to essential oils, but it does not establish that plant secondary metabolites generally avoid microbial resistance. “Future Prospects” discusses possible improvements to ruminant products while warning that additives could adversely affect meat or milk quality; it does not report positive residual effects on end products. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] Kholif, 2020, Phytogenic feed additives mixture enhances the lactational performance, feed utilization and ruminal fermentation of Friesian cows, Animal Biotechnol. source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“During rumen fermentation of feed, some by-products are additionally produced, such as CO2 and H2, which are further converted into CH4 by some methanogens like Methanopyrales, Methanomicrobiales, Methanobacteriales, Methanococcales, Methanocellales, and Methanosarcinales).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stewart, 1997, The rumen bacteria source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] Paul, 2012, Methanoplasmatales: thermoplasmatales-related archaea in termite guts and other environments are the seventh order of methanogens, Appl Environ Microbiol. source
- Partly supportedcites [8] Poulsen, 2013, Methylotrophic methanogenic Thermoplasmata implicated in reduced methane emissions from bovine rumen, Nat Commun. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Our copy says that rumen methanogens in Methanobacteriales and Methanomicrobiales use H₂/CO₂ produced during fermentation (Abstract; page unavailable). It does not identify Methanopyrales, Methanococcales, Methanocellales, or Methanosarcinales as rumen methanogens carrying out that conversion; the Rumen metatranscriptomics section instead identifies Methanobacteriales and RCC Thermoplasmata in the sampled rumen community. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, most chemical additives either are noxious to host animals or present a temporary impact on methanogenesis (24, 25).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [24] Moss, 2000, Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming, Annal Zootechnie. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.1.1 (Direct inhibition; page unavailable) reports that chloral hydrate caused liver damage and death in sheep, while several other methane inhibitors had effects that declined or were transient. It does not establish that most chemical additives overall are harmful to host animals or have only temporary effects; it also describes an inhibitor combination that may suppress emissions over a prolonged period. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Could not verifycites [25] Khattab, 2017, Impact of lemongrass and galangal as feed additives on performance of lactating Barki goats, Int J Dairy Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page not available) discusses concern about antibiotic residues in meat and milk, not harm to host animals from most chemical additives. The Discussion (page not available) mentions methanogenesis but does not say that chemical additives have only a temporary effect on it. Searches for additive toxicity and temporary effects found no passage supporting the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Some archaea (Methanoplasmatales or Thermoplasmatales) can also form CH4 through other substrates, such as methanol and mono-, di-, and tri-methylamine (6–8).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stewart, 1997, The rumen bacteria source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] Paul, 2012, Methanoplasmatales: thermoplasmatales-related archaea in termite guts and other environments are the seventh order of methanogens, Appl Environ Microbiol. source
- Supportedcites [8] Poulsen, 2013, Methylotrophic methanogenic Thermoplasmata implicated in reduced methane emissions from bovine rumen, Nat Commun. source
The “Methylotrophic methanogenesis from methylamines” section identifies transcripts for pathways using methanol and mono-, di-, and trimethylamine in rumen Thermoplasmata. The same section reports increased methane production after trimethylamine was added to rumen fluid, supporting the claim’s broad description of these archaea as methylotrophic methanogens. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Moreover, the rumen microbiome varies significantly among different animals, but intra-animal variation in microflora is quite less (16).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [16] Jami, 2012, Effects of adding a concentrated pomegranate-residue extract to the ration of lactating cows on in vivo digestibility and profile of rumen bacterial population, J Dairy Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Whole Bacterial Community Analysis section (page unavailable) compares cows before and after pomegranate-extract supplementation and reports significant changes at the higher doses. It does not compare variation among animals with variation within the same animal. Searches for inter-animal and intra-animal variation found no passage establishing the claimed relationship. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Highly efficient animals produce less CH4 and produce more milk, consuming less feed owing to their unique set of rumen microbiome (13).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [13] Huws, 2018, Addressing global ruminant agricultural challenges through understanding the rumen microbiome: past, present, and future, Front Microbiol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Global agricultural challenges” (page not provided), the review says more feed-efficient steers require less feed to achieve the same production parameters—not that they produce more milk. In “Developing microbiome biomarkers for prediction of ruminant phenotype” (page not provided), it links rumen microbial differences to feed efficiency and suggests some may also reduce methane, but presents that connection cautiously rather than as a general trait of highly efficient animals. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, genetic manipulation of rumen microbiota is also possible through different techniques as host genetics influences some heritable microbial traits (81–83).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Genetic Manipulation of Rumen Microbiota
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [81] Li, 2019, Host genetics influence the rumen microbiota and heritable rumen microbial features associate with feed efficiency in cattle, Microbiome. source
The Abstract Conclusions say some rumen microbial features are heritable and could be influenced by host genetics, creating potential to manipulate the microbiota through genetic selection and breeding. The Conclusions also discuss combining genetics-based and management-based approaches. The paper frames manipulation as a potential strategy, not an intervention it demonstrated. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites [82] Brito, 2020, Genetic mechanisms underlying feed utilization and implementation of genomic selection for improved feed efficiency in dairy cattle, Can J Anim Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The sections on heritability estimates and host–microbiome interactions report heritable microbial features and links to host genetics. The role-of-rumen-microbiome section describes genetic selection for a desirable profile as a potential, not an established means of manipulating rumen microbiota through different techniques. Page numbers are not available in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [83] Terry, 2020, Invited review: strategies to improve the efficiency of beef cattle production, Can J Anim Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Efficiency in the Rumen Microbiome” (pp. 21–22), the paper reports heritable microbial traits and says host genetics may influence the rumen microbiome. It proposes genetic selection as a possible future way to manipulate the microbiome, but does not establish that genetic manipulation is already possible through different techniques. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Rumen bacteria play a dominant role in fiber digestion, although anaerobic fungi and protozoa have been reported to contribute to lignocellulose breakdown by attacking lignocellulosic material differently (60, 64) and discharging different enzyme complexes (101).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions > Carbohydrate–Microbe Interactions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [60] Edwards, 2017, PCR and omics based techniques to study the diversity, ecology and biology of anaerobic fungi: insights, challenges and opportunities, Front Microbiol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Proteomics section reports secreted plant-cell-wall-degrading enzymes in anaerobic fungi, and the Genomics section describes fungal cellulosomes as multi-enzyme complexes that accelerate lignocellulose degradation (pages unavailable). These passages support the enzyme-complex point for fungi, but do not establish that protozoa discharge different enzyme complexes. Citation (101) is attached to the enzyme-complex phrase, not the preceding claim about bacteria’s dominant role. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [64] Newbold, 2015, The role of ciliate protozoa in the rumen, Front Microbiol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citation (101) is attached to the claim about discharging different enzyme complexes. The ‘Functional Genes in Rumen Ciliate Protozoa’ section reports a wide range of protozoal fibrolytic enzymes, but does not establish that fungi and protozoa discharge different enzyme complexes. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [101] Puniya, 2015, Role of live microbial feed supplements with reference to anaerobic fungi in ruminant productivity: a review, J Integr Agric. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These dietary lipids are usually enriched in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) (121), which can make complexes with bacterial cell walls and are considered toxic to gram-positive bacteria in the rumen (122).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions > Interaction of Dietary Fat With Rumen Microbiome
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [121] Lourenco, 2010, The role of microbes in rumen lipolysis and biohydrogenation and their manipulation, Animal. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and “Manipulating ruminal biohydrogenation” sections report that PUFA can be toxic to rumen microorganisms, particularly biohydrogenating bacteria. The passages do not say that PUFA form complexes with bacterial cell walls or specify toxicity to gram-positive bacteria. The dietary-PUFA statement is attached to a different citation (121). (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [122] Kim, 2002, The enrichment of a ruminal bacterium (Megasphaera elsdenii YJ-4) that produces the trans-10, cis-12 isomer of conjugated linoleic acid, J Appl Microbiol. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“An in vitro study of Vargas et al. (141) shows that supplementation of vegetable oil (sunflower and linseed) at 6% in high-concentrate TMR has the potential to reduce CH4 emission (up to 21–28%), butyrate concentration, and A:P, while increasing propionate concentration.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions > Interaction of Dietary Fat With Rumen Microbiome
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [141] Vargas, 2020, Dietary supplemental plant oils reduce methanogenesis from anaerobic microbial fermentation in the rumen, Sci Rep. source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The addition of CT extracts to the diet reduced populations of methanogenic archaea and some cellulolytic bacteria (R. flavefaciens) (201).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [201] Bhatta, 2009, Difference in the nature of tannins on in vitro ruminal methane and volatile fatty acid production and on methanogenic archaea and protozoal populations, J Dairy Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that incubating a basal diet with tannin sources containing both hydrolyzable and condensed tannins reduced methanogenic archaeal populations. It does not report a reduction in R. flavefaciens; the study measured total bacterial counts, which increased in one set of HT + CT incubations. Its findings are from in vitro incubation, not animals fed a diet. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, supplementation also increased the diversity and abundance of butyrate-producing and other beneficial bacteria (including probiotic species like Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillusamino), while enhancing the amino acid metabolic pathways and purine, pyrimidine, and sphingolipid metabolism (176).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [176] Corrêa, 2020, Tannin supplementation modulates the composition and function of ruminal microbiome in lambs infected with gastrointestinal nematodes, FEMS Microbiol Ecol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Saponins reduce the protozoal population and some methanogens associated with protozoa, although their effect on methanogens does not always correlate with the effect on protozoa (31).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [31] Jayanegara, 2014, Meta-analysis on methane mitigating properties of saponin-rich sources in the rumen: influence of addition levels and plant sources, Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that protozoal counts fell at higher saponin levels, and the Discussion says methanogens associated with protozoa also decrease. The Discussion does not say that effects on methanogens sometimes fail to correlate with effects on protozoa; its caveat instead concerns methanogen activity and methane emissions. It also notes that methanogen measures were not included in the meta-analysis (Discussion, Influence of addition levels; page unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.86)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Hederagenin bis-succinate (HBS) obtained by hydrolysis of ivy fruit extract has shown to shift fermentation toward propionate, attributed to its structural modifications that mediated the diversity of bacterial communities (167).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [167] Ramos-Morales, 2017, Antiprotozoal effect of saponins in the rumen can be enhanced by chemical modifications in their structure, Front Microbiol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods describe hydrolyzing ivy fruit extract to obtain hederagenin, then synthesizing its bis-ester derivatives. Results Table 5 shows that hederagenin bis-succinate increased propionate's share of total volatile fatty acids after 24 hours of in vitro incubation. The paper does not establish that a change in bacterial-community diversity mediated this shift; the Discussion only suggests that other microorganisms may also have been affected. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Tannins can modify the ruminal microbiome, reduce protein degradation, decrease methanogenesis, and inhibit FA biohydrogenation (174, 175).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [174] Patra, 2012, Dietary tannins on microbial ecology of the gastrointestinal tract in ruminants source
- Partly supportedcites [175] Canul-Solis, 2020, Mitigation of rumen methane emissions with foliage and pods of tropical trees, Animals. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 6 (page not available) says low concentrations of condensed tannins protect proteins from microbial degradation in the rumen, supporting the protein-degradation part. It discusses changes in rumen fermentation, methane production, and fatty-acid biohydrogenation for secondary metabolites or tropical-tree feeds more broadly, but does not establish all three effects specifically for tannins. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As a subunit of HT, gallic acid has the potential to decrease the environmental impact of ruminants (by lowering CH4 and NH3 emissions) without decreasing animal performance (180).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [180] Aboagye, 2019, Use of gallic acid and hydrolyzable tannins to reduce methane emission and nitrogen excretion in beef cattle fed a diet containing alfalfa silage, J Anim Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction identifies gallic acid as a component of hydrolyzable tannins, and the Methane Emission Measurement conclusion says it has potential to lower CH4 without reducing feed digestibility in beef cattle on a high-protein forage diet (page unavailable). But that conclusion says gallic acid may not reduce overall NH3 emissions from manure relative to the other tannins; it proposes N2O, not NH3, as the other emission it may lower. The paper reports feed intake and digestibility, not animal performance directly. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“However, studies have revealed that the activity of saponins fluctuates and even reduces during long-term studies (158), probably because of microbial adaptation (169).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [158] Yuliana, 2019, Extracted saponin from sapindus rarak and hibiscus sp. As an additive in cassava leaf silage: effects on chemical composition, rumen fermentation and microbial population, Adv Anim Vet Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citation (169) is attached to the proposed explanation, microbial adaptation. The Results and Discussion (p. 535) report that saponin addition did not alter the measured rumen microbial populations, but do not discuss adaptation or link it to declining activity over time. Searches for adaptation and long-term effects found no passage addressing that explanation. (LLM, conf=0.75)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [169] Patra, 2012, Enteric methane mitigation technologies for ruminant livestock: a synthesis of current research and future directions, Environ Monitor Assess. source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“According to Liu et al. (157), tea saponin did not affect methanogens and the total bacterial population including R. flavefaciens R. albus, and Butyrivibrio. However, protozoa were effectively reduced in response to tea saponins.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [157] Liu, 2019, Effects of tea saponin supplementation on nutrient digestibility, methanogenesis, and ruminal microbial flora in dorper crossbred ewe, Animals. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Results §3.3 reports no change in methanogens, total bacteria, R. flavefaciens, R. albus, or B. fibrisolvens. It reports only a tendency for protozoa to decrease (p = 0.054), so “effectively reduced” overstates that finding. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It may be attributed to the fact that HT (e.g., gallic acid subunits) directly inhibit methanogens, but the action of CT on rumen CH4 production is variable (172, 207).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [172] Aboagye, 2019, Potential of molecular weight and structure of tannins to reduce methane emissions from ruminants: a review, Animals. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.2.1 says hydrolysable tannins may act directly on methanogens, but emphasizes that the mechanism has not been definitively demonstrated. Section 4.2 also says gallic acid may have antimethanogenic effects; it does not establish that gallic acid directly inhibits methanogens. The Introduction supports the claim that condensed tannins have inconsistent effects on methane reduction. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [207] Goel, 2012, Methane mitigation from ruminants using tannins and saponins, Trop Anim Health Prod. source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Dietary supplementation of oak tannin has also been shown to reduce the urinary N excretion by 12% while increasing α-linolenic acid content in milk by 17.7% without affecting CH4 production (190).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [190] Focant, 2019, The effect of oak tannin (Quercus robur) and hops (Humulus lupulus) on dietary nitrogen efficiency, methane emission, and milk fatty acid composition of dairy cows fed a low-protein diet including linseed, J Dairy Sci. source
The Abstract reports that oak tannin alone reduced urinary nitrogen excretion by 12% and increased milk α-linolenic acid by 17.7% in experiment 1. The Abstract and “Enteric CH₄ Production” section report no effect of oak tannin on daily methane production at the tested dose. These findings concern dairy cows fed a low-nitrogen diet containing linseed. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Tannin containing hay has been shown to reduce the CH4 emission (5.4 DM vs. 3.5 ml/g) and urea N excretion in beef cattle (187).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [187] Stewart, 2019, Effect of tannin-containing hays on enteric methane emissions and nitrogen partitioning in beef cattle, J Anim Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports less urinary urea N in cows and heifers fed tannin-containing hays, and the Results and Conclusion report reduced methane yield for cows fed small burnet hay. The claimed 5.4 versus 3.5 ml/g comparison is not reported in the retrieved passages; the paper reports methane yield in g/kg of dry matter intake. Its methane finding is also conditional: heifers fed the same hay did not show reduced methane yield. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Chestnut tannin possesses sufficient potential to reduce methanogenesis, without compromising feed efficiency and animal performance due to its neutral effect on NDF digestibility (177).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [177] Mannelli, 2019, Effects of chestnut tannin extract, vescalagin and gallic acid on the dimethyl acetals profile and microbial community composition in rumen liquor: an in vitro study, Microorganisms. source
The Conclusions (section 5) state that chestnut tannin did not decrease NDF degradability in this in vitro trial and suggest it could reduce methanogenesis without affecting diet efficiency or animal performance. The claim describes that potential, rather than asserting those animal outcomes were measured. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Tannins also possess antioxidant properties as they can scavenge free radicals due to hydroxyl groups, degree of polymerization, and redox activities (216–218).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [216] Ariga, 1990, Radical scavenging action and its mode in procyanidins B-1 and B-3 from azuki beans to peroxyl radicals, Agri Biol Chem. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [217] Ricci, 2016, Antioxidant activity of commercial food grade tannins exemplified in a wine model, Food Additiv Contaminants A source
- Partly supportedcites [218] Nawab, 2020, The potential effect of dietary tannins on enteric methane emission and ruminant production; as an alternative to antibiotic feed additives–a review, Annal Anim Sci sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Gaps in the literature and recommendation for future study’ section states that tannins have strong antioxidant activity. It does not attribute that activity to free-radical scavenging, hydroxyl groups, degree of polymerization, or redox activity. The ‘Effects of tannins on milk secretion’ section links hydroxyl groups to antimicrobial activity instead. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Pomegranate as hydrolyzable tannin has shown better antioxidant activity as tested on cultured bovine aortic endothelial cells; it has no adverse effects on cell viability and apoptosis. Pomegranate has also exhibited protective effects against membrane lipid peroxidation, owing to its potent ability to reduce the production of intracellular reactive oxygen species (224).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [224] Ciampi, 2020, Evaluation of natural plant extracts as antioxidants in a bovine in vitro model of oxidative stress, J Dairy Sci sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Recently, Garcia et al. (238) revealed that the chemical composition of EO, especially proportion of oxygenated compounds, has a positive interaction with fermentation pattern and indicate promising potential regarding CH4 mitigation.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [238] Garcia, 2020, The reduction of methane production in the in vitro ruminal fermentation of different substrates is linked with the chemical composition of the essential oil, Animals. source
The Discussion links the fermentation effects of the two essential oils to their chemical composition, particularly the proportion of oxygenated compounds and its interaction with the incubation medium. The Conclusions report reduced methane production across substrates in vitro and identify the oils as candidates for further study, while noting that in vivo confirmation is needed. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Supplementation of oregano EO at 4 and 7 g/d promoted the population of primary cellulolytic bacteria and ruminal fungi, respectively, in sheep (241).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [241] Zhou, 2019, Effects of oregano essential oil on the ruminal pH and microbial population of sheep, PLoS ONE. source
The Conclusions state that oregano essential oil increased the abundance of three primary cellulolytic bacteria at 4 g/d and ruminal fungi at 7 g/d. The Results and discussion likewise report greater abundances of the three bacterial species in sheep given 4 g/d and of fungi in sheep given 7 g/d. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Prolonged use of the purified form of secondary compounds can lead to antimicrobial resistance; however, tannin supplementation as a crude extract of mixtures (having different molecular sizes) offers a major advantage to control antimicrobial resistance (226).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [226] Huang, 2018, Potential and challenges of tannins as an alternative to in-feed antibiotics for farm animal production, Anim Nutr. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Challenges section says prolonged use of purified plant compounds may lead to antimicrobial resistance and that complex tannin mixtures would reduce the likelihood of resistance. It also says little research has been done on this question, so the claim overstates a proposed advantage as an established way to control resistance. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This shows the effective inhibitory effects of tannins on ruminal protein degradation and CH4 emission but requires careful selection of diets and nutrient composition to avoid adverse effects on feed digestibility and efficiency (229).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [229] Min, 2020, Dietary mitigation of enteric methane emissions from ruminants: a review of plant tannins mitigation options, Anim Nutr sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Tannins section (page unavailable) reports that tannin-containing diets can reduce enteric CH4, but says the effect varies and that high-tannin diets can harm production when dietary protein is limiting. The rumen-fermentation section (page unavailable) says condensed tannins bind plant proteins and interfere with protein digestion, but does not establish uniformly effective inhibition of ruminal protein degradation; it also reports increased proteolysis in some studies. The review supports careful diet formulation to avoid adverse effects, while the claim overstates the consistency of the inhibitory effects. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Dietary supplementation of EO (coriander, geranyl acetate, and eugenol) reduced CH4 production up to 6% per cow/day and 20% less CH4 per kg of milk.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [253] Hart, 2019, An essential oil blend decreases methane emissions and increases milk yield in dairy cows, Open J Anim Sci. source
The Introduction identifies coriander seed oil, geranyl acetate and eugenol as the additive’s main active compounds. The Conclusion reports 6% less methane per cow per day and 20% less per kg of milk in cows fed the additive versus controls, measured after the initial three weeks of the trial. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A recent study has revealed that rumen microbial taxa (Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, and Schwartzia) exhibited a strong association with host antioxidant capacity and immunomodulatory functions (225).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [225] Wang, 2020, Mining novel specific rumen bacteria to enhance the bioactive function of mulberry leaf in promoting host antioxidant activity and immunomodulatory, Researchsquare source
In “Change in ruminal bacterial communities” (page unavailable), Schwartzia correlates with antioxidant measures and Bifidobacterium correlates with the immune marker IFN-γ. The Discussion (page unavailable) also says Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium correlate with IFN-γ. Together, these passages support the claim about the three taxa, although the reported associations differ by taxon. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“They are most effective against gram +ve bacteria and possess almost no activity against gram –ve (because of their hydrophilic bilayer) except thymol and carvacrol (232).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [232] Zengin, 2014, Antibacterial and antioxidant activity of essential oil terpenes against pathogenic and spoilage-forming bacteria and cell structure-activity relationships evaluated by SEM microscopy, Molecules. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.5 says Gram-positive bacteria are generally more sensitive to terpenes and explains how the hydrophilic surface of some Gram-negative bacteria can impede entry. But Section 2.2 reports that Gram-negative E. coli and Salmonella were inhibited by α-terpineol, linalool, and eucalyptol. The claim that Gram-negative bacteria have almost no susceptibility except to thymol and carvacrol overstates the source. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It has been proposed that higher molecular weight compounds (such as polyphenols) were not dissolved well in water (263).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Future Implications
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [263] Gao, 2010, Bioavailability challenges associated with development of anti-cancer phenolics, Mini Rev Med Chem. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.3 reports poor water solubility for some phenolics, including ellagic acid and potentially lignans. It does not say that higher molecular weight makes polyphenols poorly soluble in water; indeed, it says water solubility is usually not a major impediment for flavonoids. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Essential oil–cobalt complexes have shown positive effects in ruminants by enhancing productive performance while decreasing NH3 emissions (233).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [233] Lei, 2019, Ruminal metagenomic analyses of goat data reveals potential functional microbiota by supplementation with essential oil-cobalt complexes, BMC Microbiol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Microbial metabolites and morphology in the goat rumen; page unavailable) report significantly increased average daily gain and reduced ruminal NH3-N production with EOC supplementation. The Conclusions suggest EOC could reduce ammonia emissions, but the reported measurement is ruminal ammonia production, not emissions. The claim overstates that part as an observed effect. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This is mainly because each EO possesses a complex mixture of phytochemicals and their synergistic effects can lead to the synthesis of new compounds with a quite different bioactivity that could not be harvested with individual compounds (29, 262).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] Calsamiglia, 2007, Invited review: essential oils as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation, J Dairy Sci. source
- Partly supportedcites [262] McIntosh, 2003, Effects of essential oils on ruminal microorganisms and their protein metabolism, Appl Environ Microbiol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The methods passage (labelled Abstract in our copy; page unavailable) describes a defined blend containing thymol, eugenol, vanillin, and limonene, supporting the point that the preparation contains multiple compounds. The paper does not say that each essential oil has a complex phytochemical mixture or that interactions synthesize new compounds with bioactivity unattainable from individual compounds. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This allows the penetration of the nanoparticles or nanoemulsion droplets to the microbial cells leading to enhanced activity (265, 266).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Future Implications
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [265] Gopal, 2016, Bactericidal activity of green tea extracts: the importance of catechin containing nano particles, Sci Rep. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that catechin-containing near-nano and nano-sized green tea particles contribute to enhanced antimicrobial activity, and the Results report reduced antibacterial activity when smaller particles are removed. The paper does not say that the particles penetrate microbial cells or that penetration explains the activity; it also does not study nanoemulsion droplets. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [266] Li, 2015, A review: using nanoparticles to enhance absorption and bioavailability of phenolic phytochemicals, Food Hydrocolloids. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Increased feed efficiency and calcium homeostasis have been observed with supplementation of a plant bioactive EO blend (>80% menthol, eugenol, and anethol).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [259] Braun, 2019, Dietary supplementation of essential oils in dairy cows: evidence for stimulatory effects on nutrient absorption, Animal. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports significantly elevated feed efficiency and plasma calcium after supplementation with a blend containing more than 80% menthol plus smaller amounts of eugenol and anethol. The Conclusion says these effects *suggest* improved calcium homeostasis; it does not report calcium homeostasis itself as an observed outcome. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Some studies involving supplementation of EO in ruminants have shown contrary findings as the feeding of oregano EO did not reduce CH4 yield together with no effect on animal performance and rumen fermentation (240, 248).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [240] Benchaar, 2020, Feeding oregano oil and its main component carvacrol does not affect ruminal fermentation, nutrient utilization, methane emissions, milk production, or milk fatty acid composition of dairy cows, J Dairy Sci. source
The Conclusions (page unavailable) state that, under the study conditions, oregano oil at 50 mg/kg of dietary dry matter did not affect methane production, ruminal fermentation, or milk production in dairy cows. This supports the cited claim of no reduction in methane yield and no effect on performance or rumen fermentation, within that dose and population. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Partly supportedcites [248] Olijhoek, 2019, Effect of dried oregano (Origanum vulgare L.) plant material in feed on methane production, rumen fermentation, nutrient digestibility, and milk fatty acid composition in dairy cows, J Dairy Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports no reduction in methane yield from dried oregano with high or low essential-oil content, and the Rumen Fermentation and milk-production results show no effects on those measures in the high-essential-oil experiment. But the cows were fed dried oregano plant material, not oregano essential oil itself. The low-essential-oil experiment also found changes in some rumen measures and milk yield, so the blanket statement of no effects is too broad. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Recently, Zhou et al. (239) suggested that oregano EO (52 mg/L) in mature ruminants can modify ruminal fermentation and mitigate in vitro CH4 production through mediating ruminal bacteria (Prevotella and Dialister).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [239] Zhou, 2020, Effects of oregano essential oil on in vitro ruminal fermentation, methane production, and ruminal microbial community, J Dairy Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Effects on Total Gas and Methane Production section reports reduced in vitro methane with increasing oregano essential oil, and the Rumen Microbial Community section reports increased Prevotella and Dialister. The Conclusions propose 52 mg/L for future studies in mature ruminants, not as a demonstrated in vivo effect. The paper does not establish that changes in those two bacteria mediate methane reduction; it says the exact mechanism remains unknown and suggests methane may be more influenced by archaea. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Recently, a meta-analysis showed that dietary supplementation of a blend of EO (coriander, eugenol, and geraniol) increased the milk yield (3.6%), milk fat and protein (4.1%), and feed efficiency (4.4%), while decreasing DM intake (12.9%) and CH4 production (8.8%) during long term trial in dairy cattle (258).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [258] Belanche, 2020, A meta-analysis describing the effects of the essential oils blend agolin ruminant on performance, rumen fermentation and methane emissions in dairy cows, Animals. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Maximizing the flow of metabolic hydrogen in the rumen away from CH4 and toward volatile fatty acids (VFA) would increase the efficiency of ruminant production and decrease its environmental impact.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged
“Maximizing the flow of metabolic hydrogen ([H]) in the rumen away from CH4 and toward VFA would increase the efficiency of ruminant production and decrease its environmental impact.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged
In the paper
“Methanogenesis occurs both in the rumen and hindgut, but 90% of the total CH4 production originates from the rumen (21).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] Kumar, 2014, New aspects and strategies for methane mitigation from ruminants, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Production of CH4 also deprives the host animal of carbon resources and results in loss of energy (13.3 Mcal/kg CH4), leading to poor feed efficiency (9).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] Johnson, 1995, Methane emissions from cattle, J Anim Sci. source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Total VFA (75% of total amount) are the primary source of energy for the animal (2).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] Bergman, 1990, Energy contributions of volatile fatty acids from the gastrointestinal tract in various species, Physiol Rev. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The association of VFA composition with rumen bacteria has been reported in dairy cows possessing different efficiencies of production (15).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Hernandez-Sanabria, 2010, Correlation of particular bacterial PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis patterns with bovine ruminal fermentation parameters and feed efficiency traits, Appl Environ Microbiol. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Plant secondary metabolites usually enhance the permeability and fluidity of the cellular membranes, further causing an efflux of metabolites and ions and ultimately leading to cell leakage and microbial death.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Modulation of Rumen Microbiome Using Phytogenic Feed Additives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [78] Patra, 2019, Modulation of gastrointestinal barrier and nutrient transport function in farm animals by natural plant bioactive compounds–a comprehensive review, Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. source
- Not matchedcites [79] Mechanisms of antimicrobial actions of phytochemicals against enteric pathogens–a review7785 Omojate GodstimeC Enwa FelixO Jewo AugustinaO Eze ChristopherO J Pharm Chem Biol Sci.22014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent meta-analysis showed that feeding high-forage diets (>40% DM) reduced milk production (0.087 L/d) and milk lactose content (0.065 g/100 g) compared to high-concentrate diets (>40% DM) in sheep. However, fat content and conjugated linoleic acid concentrations were higher in the high-forage group (119).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions > Carbohydrate–Microbe Interactions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [119] Hernández, 2020, Effect of forage to concentrate ratio and fat supplementation on milk composition in dairy sheep: a meta-analysis, Livestock Sci. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Feeding of alfalfa silage increased the relative abundance of F. succinogenes and R. flavefaciens while reducing CH4 production in the cow rumen as compared to sweet sorghum silage.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions > Carbohydrate–Microbe Interactions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [115] Chen, 2019, Ensiling characteristics, in vitro rumen fermentation, microbial communities and aerobic stability of low-dry matter silages produced with sweet sorghum and alfalfa mixtures, J Sci Food Agric. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Feeding concentrate diets have shown to lower the ruminal pH, increase VFA concentrations and osmolality, and induce metabolic disorders (105).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions > Carbohydrate–Microbe Interactions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [105] DeVries, 2014, Impact of severity of ruminal acidosis on feed-sorting behaviour of beef cattle, Anim Prod Sci. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Plant oils can mitigate CH4 by directly inhibiting rumen protozoa and methanogens and increasing the biohydrogenation of PUFA to act as a sink for hydrogen produced by rumen microbes (136).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Diet–Microbe Interactions > Interaction of Dietary Fat With Rumen Microbiome
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [136] Wang, 2017, Effect of unconventional oilseeds (safflower, poppy, hemp, camelina) on in vitro ruminal methane production and fermentation, J Sci Food Agric. source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This is mainly because the enhanced expression of some methanogenic genes may lead to enhanced methanogenesis that ultimately compensated a decrease in the overall number of methanogens (156).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [156] Henderson, 2018, Enzyme-and gene-based approaches for developing methanogen-specific compounds to control ruminant methane emissions: a review, Anim Prod Sci. source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They can limit the degree of microbial hydrolysis along with direct inhibition of methanogens.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that the impacts of tea saponins under in vitro conditions must be confirmed in vivo to develop effective CH4-mitigating strategies.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Supplementation of tannic acid has shown to reduce the CP digestibility and CH4 production in beef cattle (198).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [198] Yang, 2017, Effects of dietary supplementing tannic acid in the ration of beef cattle on rumen fermentation, methane emission, microbial flora and nutrient digestibility, J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Studies have shown that a combination of garlic oil, nitrate, and saponins can additively lower CH4 emission with similar rumen fermentation and degradability (163).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [163] Patra, 2015, Effects of garlic oil, nitrate, saponin and their combinations supplemented to different substrates on in vitro fermentation, ruminal methanogenesis, and abundance and diversity of microbial populations, J Appl Microbiol. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Saponins mediate rumen fermentation mainly by decreasing protein degradation and concentrations of urea and NH3 in the rumen, leading to an increased flow of amino acids to the small intestine.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Extracts of S. sesban have shown to decrease protozoal and methanogen populations but surprisingly did not decrease CH4 production (155).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [155] Goel, 2008, Effects of Sesbania sesban and Carduus pycnocephalus leaves and Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) seeds and their extracts on partitioning of nutrients from roughage-and concentrate-based feeds to methane, Anim Feed Sci Technol. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Condensed tannins have shown better protein efficiency and growth rate of lambs as it can protect dietary proteins (e.g., soybean meal) from ruminal degradation, leading to reduction in digestive losses (204).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [204] Dentinho, 2020, Effect of soybean meal treatment with Cistus ladanifer condensed tannins in growth performance, carcass and meat quality of lambs, Livestock Sci. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this regard, it has been reported that supplementation of quebracho tannins (30 g/kg DM) could reduce myristic acid content in dairy cows, which reveals the negative effects of tannin on fiber digestibility (214).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [214] Henke, 2017, Effect of dietary Quebracho tannin extract on feed intake, digestibility, excretion of urinary purine derivatives and milk production in dairy cows, Archiv Anim Nutr. source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Hydrolyzable tannins are considered the most potent antioxidants, which can prevent cellular damage and neutralize free radicals (222), while condensed tannins (catechin) also possess antioxidant activities (223).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [222] Chambi, 2013, Antioxidant potential of hydrolyzed polyphenolic extracts from tara (Caesalpinia spinosa) pods, Indus Crops Product. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [223] Anggraini, 2011, Antioxidative activity and catechin content of four kinds of Uncaria gambir extracts from West Sumatra, Indonesia, African J Biochem Res. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, long-chain FA (pentadecanoic and heptadecanoic acid) exhibited a negative correlation with CH4 emission as their de novo synthesis is mediated from ruminal propionate (215).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [215] French, 2012, Rumen and milk odd-and branched-chain fatty acid proportions are minimally influenced by ruminal volatile fatty acid infusions, J Dairy Sci. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The medium-chain FA (lauric and myristic acids) have shown a positive correlation with enteric CH4 production as these FA are synthesized (de novo synthesis) in the mammary gland from ruminal acetate and butyrate (213).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [213] Bernard, 2008, Expression and nutritional regulation of lipogenic genes in the ruminant lactating mammary gland source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent study showed that gallic acid can inhibit undesirable microorganisms such as Clostridium, Listeria, and Escherichia coli during ensiling and can improve fermentation quality and protein preservation (203).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [203] He, 2020, Gallic acid influencing fermentation quality, nitrogen distribution and bacterial community of high-moisture mulberry leaves and stylo silage, Bioresource Technol. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Supplementation of tannin has been shown to improve the antioxidant status of cattle and sheep (219–221).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [219] Barreira, 2008, Antioxidant activities of the extracts from chestnut flower, leaf, skins and fruit, Food Chem. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [220] Huang, 2015, Effects of purple prairie clover (Dalea purpurea Vent.) on feed intake, nutrient digestibility and faecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in lambs, Anim Feed Sci Technol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [221] Peng, 2016, Effect of purple prairie clover (Dalea purpurea Vent.) hay and its condensed tannins on growth performance, wool growth, nutrient digestibility, blood metabolites and ruminal fermentation in lambs fed total mixed rations, Anim Feed Sci Technol. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A meta-analysis showed reduction in ruminal ammonia N (16%), milk urea (9%), and urinary N excretion (11%) in response to supplementation of tannin in lactating dairy cows.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [211] Herremans, 2020, Effect of dietary tannins on milk yield and composition, nitrogen partitioning and nitrogen use efficiency of lactating dairy cows: a meta-analysis, J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Tannic acid (0–1.25 mg/mL) can alter microbial activities and improve feed efficiency in ruminants.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [206] Cipriano-Salazar, 2018, Antibacterial activities of tannic acid against isolated ruminal bacteria from sheep, Microb Pathogenesis. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Extracts of HT (tara) and CT (mimosa and gambier) inhibited the activity of methanogens and protozoa without affecting ruminal fermentation and animal production (185).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [185] Salami, 2018, Characterisation of the ruminal fermentation and microbiome in lambs supplemented with hydrolysable and condensed tannins, FEMS Microbiol Ecol. source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Many in vitro and in vivo trials have proved the favorable effect of EO in reducing CH4 production and altering microbial populations (Tables 5, 6).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tables 5, 6
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Higher microbial protein might be attributed to the enhanced post-ruminal protein supply and absorption.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Moreover, it might possibly due to the reduction of protozoal counts as ruminal protozoa devour many bacteria and their protein flow toward the small intestine (237).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [237] Soltan, 2018, Progressive adaptation of sheep to a microencapsulated blend of essential oils: ruminal fermentation, methane emission, nutrient digestibility, and microbial protein synthesis, Anim Feed SciTechnol. source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These harmful effects might be due to their extensive and non-specific antimicrobial properties in the rumen.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Supplementing a blend of EO (cinnamaldehyde, eugenol, carvacrol, and capsicum oleoresin) firstly increased rumen acetate concentration, which was replaced by propionate concentration afterward.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [237] Soltan, 2018, Progressive adaptation of sheep to a microencapsulated blend of essential oils: ruminal fermentation, methane emission, nutrient digestibility, and microbial protein synthesis, Anim Feed SciTechnol. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Extensive literature supports the supplementation of phytogenic feed additives like saponin, tannins, and EO for the manipulation of rumen microbiome to modulate ruminal fermentation to increase VFA and decrease NH3 and CH4 production.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Future Implications
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Essential oils of Lippia turbinata and Tagetes minuta have shown a 10-fold decrease of in vitro CH4 production coupled with modification of N metabolism in the rumen (249).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [249] Garcia, 2019, Essential oils from Lippia turbinata and Tagetes minuta persistently reduce in vitro ruminal methane production in a continuous-culture system, Anim Prod Sci. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the benefits of such a combination are its ultimate utility for using on large scale in the animal industry as a commercial feed additive to have an overall impact on the improvement of global animal production while mitigating GHG emissions.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies summarized above clearly demonstrate that although phytochemicals possess a potent ability to modulate rumen microbiome and reduce methanogenesis in vitro, the observed in vivo effects varied greatly.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Future Implications
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Nanoparticles are formulated with hydrophobic groups inside and polar groups on the surface of particles and have shown to significantly enhance the solubility and bioavailability of less-water-soluble phenolic phytochemicals (264).”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Future Implications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [264] Li, 2014, Fabrication of self-assembled ()-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) ovalbuminedextran conjugate nanoparticles and their transport across monolayers of human intestinal epithelial Caco-2 cells, J Agri Food Chem. source
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, using a combination of phytochemicals is also advantageous for the host regarding the provision of various phytonutrients from different plant combinations.”
§ Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction > Dietary Manipulation of Rumen Function Using Natural Feed Additives > Plant Secondary Metabolites as Rumen Modulator
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
A reduction in the population of methanogens can decrease CH4 emissions.
“It is generally expected that a reduction in the population of methanogens can decrease CH4 emissions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
All saponins have no inherent antiprotozoal activity.
“All saponins have no inherent antiprotozoal activity; that is why their biological activity can be affected by even small changes in their structure.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
CT is defined as both condensed and hydrolysable tannins
MinorThe text defines CT as condensed tannins, but the note to Table 4 defines CT as hydrolysable tannins.
“condensed tannins (CT) and hydrolyzable tannins (HT)”
“HT, hydrolysable tannins; CT, hydrolysable tannins”
Saponin effects attributed to reference 158 conflict with Table 2
MinorThe statement says propionate increased at the expense of acetate and butyrate. In Table 2, both saponins from reference 158 increased acetate; Lerak increased butyrate, while Hibiscus left it unchanged and decreased propionate.
“Moreover, saponins can increase the propionate ratio at the expense of both acetate and butyrate (158).”
“| Tea saponin (Lerak) Tea saponin (Hibiscus) | In vitro rumen fluid from cattle (2 and 4%) | Cassava leaf silage | = ↑ | ↓ ↓ | = = | NF NF | ↑ ↑ | ↑ = | = = | ↑ ↓ | = = | ↑ = | NF NF | ↑ ↑ | (158) |”
Citations
Cites
Items 201–271 of 271
Corrêa, P. S., Mendes, L. W., Lemos, L. N., Crouzoulon, P., Niderkorn, V., Hoste, H., Costa-Júnior, L. M., Tsai, S. M., Faciola, A. P., Abdalla, A. L., et al. (2020) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1093/femsec/fiaa024 · Cited by 39
McSweeney, C. S., Denman, S. E., & Mackie, R. I. (2005) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3791-0_2 · Cited by 36
Impact of severity of ruminal acidosis on feed-sorting behaviour of beef cattle
DeVries, T. J., Schwaiger, T., Beauchemin, K. A., & Penner, G. B. (2014) · Animal Production Science · doi:10.1071/an14227 · Cited by 35
Halmemies‐Beauchet‐Filleau, A., Shingfield, K. J., Simpura, I., Kokkonen, T., Jaakkola, S., Toivonen, V., & Vanhatalo, A. (2016) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11438 · Cited by 35
Application of new biotechnologies for improvements in swine nutrition and pork production
Wu, G., & Bazer, F. W. (2019) · Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology/Journal of animal science and biotechnology · doi:10.1186/s40104-019-0337-6 · Cited by 35
Dentinho, M. T. P., Paulos, K., Francisco, A., Belo, A. T., Jerónimo, E., Almeida, J., Bessa, R. J. B., & Santos-Silva, J. (2020) · Livestock Science · doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104021 · Cited by 34
Antibacterial activities of tannic acid against isolated ruminal bacteria from sheep
Cipriano-Salazar, M., Rojas-Hernández, S., Olivares-Pérez, J., Jiménez-Guillén, R., Cruz-Lagunas, B., Camacho-Díaz, L. M., & Ugbogu, A. E. (2018) · Microbial Pathogenesis · doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2018.01.045 · Cited by 33
Witzig, M., Zeder, M., & Rodehutscord, M. (2018) · Anaerobe · doi:10.1016/j.anaerobe.2018.01.012 · Cited by 33
Wu, P., Liu, Z. B., He, W., Yu, S. B., Gao, G., & Wang, J. K. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.167 · Cited by 33
Zhou, K., Bao, Y., & Zhao, G. (2018) · Archives of Animal Nutrition · doi:10.1080/1745039x.2018.1545502 · Cited by 33
Mannelli, F., Daghio, M., Alves, S. P., Bessa, R. J. B., Minieri, S., Giovannetti, L., Conte, G., Mele, M., Messini, A., Rapaccini, S., et al. (2019) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms7070202 · Cited by 33
Wang, S., Kreuzer, M., Braun, U., & Schwarm, A. (2017) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.8260 · Cited by 32
Garcia, F., Colombatto, D., Brunetti, M. A., Martínez, M. J., Moreno, M. V., Scorcione Turcato, M. C., Lucini, E., Frossasco, G., & Martínez Ferrer, J. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10050786 · Cited by 32
Henderson, G., Cook, G. M., & Ronimus, R. S. (2018) · Animal Production Science · doi:10.1071/an15757 · Cited by 31
Impact of lemongrass and galangal as feed additives on performance of lactating Barki goats
Khattab, M. S. A., El-Zaiat, H. M., Abd El Taw, A. M., Matloup, O. H., Morsy, A. S., Abdou, M. M., Ebeid, H. M., Attia, M. F. A., & Sallam, S. M. A. (2017) · International Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3923/ijds.2017.184.189 · Cited by 31
Self-citationNawab, A., Li, G., An, L., Nawab, Y., Zhao, Y., Xiao, M., Tang, S., & Sun, C. (2020) · Annals of Animal Science · doi:10.2478/aoas-2020-0005 · Cited by 31
Mitigation of rumen methane emissions with foliage and pods of tropical trees
Canul-Solis, J., Campos-Navarrete, M., Piñeiro-Vázquez, A., Casanova-Lugo, F., Barros-Rodríguez, M., Chay-Canul, A., Cárdenas-Medina, J., & Castillo-Sánchez, L. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10050843 · Cited by 30
Ferry, J. G., & Kastead, K. A. (2014) · ASM Press eBooks · doi:10.1128/9781555815516.ch13 · Cited by 29
Selection of a method of condensed tannin analysis for studies with rumen bacteria
Bae, H. D., McAllister, T. A., Muir, A. D., Yanke, L. J., Bassendowski, K. A., & Cheng, K. J. (1993) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf00032a018 · Cited by 28
Ye, D., Karnati, S. K. R., Wagner, B. K., Firkins, J. L., Eastridge, M. L., & Aldrich, J. M. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13646 · Cited by 28
Methanogenic potential of tropical feeds rich in hydrolyzable tannins1,2
Rira, M., Morgavi, D. P., Genestoux, L., Djibiri, S., Sekhri, I., & Doreau, M. (2019) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.1093/jas/skz199 · Cited by 28
Angeles-Hernandez, J. C., Vieyra Alberto, R., Kebreab, E., Appuhamy, J. A. D. R. N., Dougherty, H. C., Castelan-Ortega, O., & Gonzalez-Ronquillo, M. (2020) · Livestock Science · doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104069 · Cited by 28
Wei, J., Gao, H., Yang, Y., Liu, H., Yu, H., Chen, Z., & Dong, B. (2020) · Animal Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s42523-020-00048-2 · Cited by 28
Huang, Q. Q., Jin, L., Xu, Z., Barbieri, L. R., Acharya, S., Hu, T. M., McAllister, T. A., Stanford, K., & Wang, Y. (2015) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.06.009 · Cited by 26
Wei, C., Guyader, J., Paucar, L. L. C., Beauchemin, K. A., & Zhao, G. (2018) · Animal Production Science · doi:10.1071/an17365 · Cited by 24
Yuping, M., Li, Y., Li, Y., Cheng, Y., & Zhu, W. (2020) · World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s11274-020-02894-3 · Cited by 24
Wu, H., Meng, Q., Zhou, Z., & Yu, Z. (2019) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/jam.14286 · Cited by 23
Singh, R. K., Dey, A., Paul, S. S., Singh, M., Dahiya, S. S., & Punia, B. S. (2019) · Agroforestry Systems · doi:10.1007/s10457-019-00395-3 · Cited by 23
Rearing young ruminants on milk replacers and starter feeds
Krishnamoorthy, U., & Moran, J. V. (2012) · University of Maribor digital library (University of Maribor) · Cited by 22
Effect of freshwater microalgae Nannochloropsis limnetica on the rumen fermentation in vitro
Marrez, D. A., Cieślak, A., Gawad, R., Ebeid, H. M., Chrenkova, M., Gao, M., Yanza, Y. R., El‐Sherbiny, M., & Szumacher‐Strabel, M. (2017) · Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences · doi:10.22358/jafs/81275/2017 · Cited by 22
Self-citationBao, Y., Zhou, K., & Zhao, G. (2018) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.1093/jas/sky252 · Cited by 22
Guo, W., Guo, X., Zhu, B., Guo, Y. Y., & Zhou, X. (2018) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.07.007 · Cited by 22
Correa, A. C., Corral-Luna, A., Hume, M. E., Anderson, R. C., Ruiz-Barrera, Ó., Castillo-Castillo, Y., Rodríguez-Almeida, F. A., Salinas-Chavira, J., & Arzola-Álvarez, C. (2018) · Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B · doi:10.1080/03601234.2018.1536580 · Cited by 22
Oh, J., Harper, M. T., & Hristov, A. N. (2019) · animal · doi:10.1017/s1751731119001083 · Cited by 21
McCaughern, J. H., Mackenzie, A. M., & Sinclair, L. A. (2020) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2020-18453 · Cited by 19
Brandao, V. L. N., Dai, X., de Paula, E. M., da Silva, L. G., Marcondes, M. I., Shenkoru, T., Poulson, S. R., & Faciola, A. P. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13558 · Cited by 18
Wickramasinghe, J. P., Anast, J. M., Schmitz‐Esser, S., Serão, N. V. L., & Appuhamy, J. A. D. R. N. (2020) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2019-17258 · Cited by 18
Carvalho, P. H. V., Pinto, A. C. J., Millen, D. D., & Felix, T. L. (2020) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.1093/jas/skaa114 · Cited by 18
Production of Transgenic Livestock: Overview of Transgenic Technologies
Laible, G. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92348-2_6 · Cited by 17
Ruminal Viruses (Bacteriophages, Archaeaphages)
Gilbert, R. A., & Klieve, A. V. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-81-322-2401-3_9 · Cited by 16
Matra, M., Wanapat, M., Cherdthong, A., Foiklang, S., & Mapato, C. (2019) · Tropical Animal Health and Production · doi:10.1007/s11250-019-01844-y · Cited by 16
Rumen methane amelioration in sheep using two selected tanniferous phyto-leaves
Baruah, L., Malik, P. K., Kolte, A. P., Goyal, P., Dhali, A., & Bhatta, R. (2019) · Carbon Management · doi:10.1080/17583004.2019.1605480 · Cited by 15
Not all saponins have a greater antiprotozoal activity than their related sapogenins
Ramos‐Morales, E., Lyons, L., de la Fuente, G., Bragança, R., & Newbold, C. J. (2019) · FEMS Microbiology Letters · doi:10.1093/femsle/fnz144 · Cited by 15
Garcia, F., Vercoe, P. E., Martínez, M. J., Durmic, Z., Brunetti, M. A., Moreno, M. V., Colombatto, D., Lucini, E., & Ferrer, J. M. (2019) · Animal Production Science · doi:10.1071/an17469 · Cited by 14
Lin, L., Wang, Y., Xu, L., Liu, J., Zhu, W., & Mao, S. (2020) · Animal Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s42523-020-00041-9 · Cited by 14
Saminathan, M., Ramiah, S. K., Gan, H. M., Abdullah, N., Wong, C., Ho, Y. W., & ZULKIFLI, I. (2019) · Italian Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.1080/1828051x.2019.1681304 · Cited by 13
Aliyu, A., Olusola, O. O., Gilead, E. F., Abdullahi, S. U., & Michael, D. M. (2016) · International Journal of Livestock Production · doi:10.5897/ijlp2015.0268 · Cited by 12
Proteolysis and in situ ruminal degradation of lucerne ensiled with Cistus ladanifer tannins
Dentinho, M. T., Paulos, K., Portugal, P. V., Moreira, O. C., Santos‐Silva, J., & Bessa, R. J. B. (2018) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/gfs.12394 · Cited by 12
Coneglian, S. M., Serrano, R. D. C., Cruz, O. T. B., & Branco, A. F. (2019) · Semina Ciências Agrárias · doi:10.5433/1679-0359.2019v40n5p2057 · Cited by 12
Syahniar, T. M., Ridla, M., Jayanegara, A., & Samsudin, A. A. (2018) · Journal of Applied Animal Research · doi:10.1080/09712119.2018.1485568 · Cited by 11
Wang, Q., Qian, L., Jiang, S., Cai, C., Ma, D., Gao, P., Li, H., Jiang, K., Tang, M., Hou, J., et al. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150937 · Cited by 9
Nascimento, T. V. C., Bezerra, L. R., Menezes, D. R., de Lucena, A. R. F., Queiróz, M. A. Á., Trajano, J. D. S., & Oliveira, R. L. (2017) · The Journal of Agricultural Science · doi:10.1017/s0021859617000867 · Cited by 9
McGeough, E. J. J., Passetti, L. C. G., Chung, Y. H., Beauchemin, K. A., McGinn, S. M., Harstad, O. M., Crow, G. H., & McAllister, T. A. (2019) · Canadian Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.1139/cjas-2018-0185 · Cited by 8
Jahani-Azizabadi, H., Durmic, Z., Vadhanabhuti, J., & Vercoe, P. E. (2019) · UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) · Cited by 7
Sharifi, A., Chaji, M., & Vakili, A. (2019) · PubMed Central · doi:10.30466/vrf.2019.75050.2007 · Cited by 6
Chahaardoli, A., Soroor, M. E. N., & Foroughi, A. R. (2018) · Cited by 6
Davoodi, S. M., Mesgaran, M. D., Vakili, A. R., Valizadeh, R., & Pirbalouti, A. G. (2016) · Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia · doi:10.13005/bbra/2749 · Cited by 6
LEMON GRASS ESSENTIAL OIL (CYMBOPOGUM FLEXUOSUS) IN HIGH-CONCENTRATE DIETS FOR LAMBS
Lodi, F., Ferreira, E. M., Biava, J. S., Martins, M. C., de Assis, R. G., Moletta, J. L., de Araújo, L. C., Pedrosa, V. B., Polizel, D. M., & Pires, A. V. (2019) · Archives of Veterinary Science · doi:10.5380/avs.v24i2.61062 · Cited by 5
Yang, H., Wu, J., Huang, X., Zhou, Y., Zhang, Y., Liu, M., Liu, Q., Ke, S., He, M., Fu, H., et al. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.07.16.206219 · Cited by 5
Yuliana, P., Laconi, E. B., Jayanegara, A., Achmadi, S. S., & Samsudin, A. A. (2019) · Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences · doi:10.17582/journal.aavs/2019/7.7.530.536 · Cited by 4
Kurniawati, A., Widodo, W., Artama, W. T., & Yusiati, L. M. (2019) · BIOTROPIA · doi:10.11598/btb.2019.26.3.1089 · Cited by 3
Dahlen, C. R., Kassetas, C. J. J., Geary, T. W., Zezeski, A. L., Underdahl, S. R. R., Crouse, M. S., McCarthy, K. L., Baumgaertner, F., Kirsch, J. D., Dorsam, S. T., et al. (2020) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.1093/jas/skaa278.209 · Cited by 3
Natural plant-based additives can improve ruminant performance by influencing the rumen microbiome
Ornaghi, M., Prado, R. M., Ramos, T. R., Catalano, F. R., Mottin, C., Creevey, C. J., Huws, S. A., & Prado, I. N. (2020) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-29748/v1 · Cited by 3
SIDHU, A. S., & Wadhwa, M. (2019) · The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences · doi:10.56093/ijans.v89i1.86389 · Cited by 3
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock Farms
Jassim, S. A. A., & Limoges, R. G. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54051-1_5 · Cited by 2
농업생명과학연구원&중점연구소, 경., Lee, S.-J., Eom, J. S., Kim, H.-S., Kim, H.-S., & Lee, S. S. (2018) · 한국유기농업학회지 · doi:10.11625/kjoa.2018.26.4.775 · Cited by 2
O’Hara, E. (2019) · T-Stór (Teagasc) · doi:10.7939/r3-gpj3-5m35 · Cited by 2
The development and application of genome editing technology in ruminants: a review
Mengke, Y. U. A. N., Yuanpeng, G. A. O., Jing, H. A. N., Teng, W. U., ZHANG, J., Yongke, W. E. I., & ZHANG, Y. (2019) · Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering · doi:10.15302/j-fase-2019302 · Cited by 2
Introduction to General Approach to Rumen Studies
CZERKAWSKI, J. W. (1986) · An Introduction to Rumen Studies · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-025486-9.50019-0
Puniya (2015) · doi:10.1016/s2095-311960837-6
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Solomon, 2020, Rumen protozoa shape microbiome composition and metabolic output of fermentation, bioRxiv., 10.1101/2020.05.15.080218 · DOI
- Ritchie, 1970, Rumen bacteriophage: survey of morphological types, Microscopie Electronique., 3, 333
- Mathison, 1997, Effect of canola oil on methane production in steers, Can J Anim Sci., 77, 545
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wang, J., Deng, L., Chen, M., Che, Y., Li, L., Zhu, L., Chen, G., & Feng, T. (2024) · Animal nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.aninu.2024.01.012 · Cited by 342
Tannin in Ruminant Nutrition: Review
Besharati, M., Maggiolino, A., Palangı, V., Kaya, A., Jabbar, M., Eseceli, H., Palo, P. D., & Lorenzo, J. M. (2022) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules27238273 · Cited by 260
Arshad, M. A., Hassan, F., Rehman, M. S.-U., Huws, S., Cheng, Y., & Din, A. U. (2021) · Animal nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.aninu.2021.03.004 · Cited by 151
Self-citationHassan, F., Arshad, M. A., Li, M., Rehman, M. S.-U., Loor, J. J., & Huang, J. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10112076 · Cited by 116
Self-citationOrzuna‐Orzuna, J. F., Dorantes-Iturbide, G., Lara-Bueno, A., Martínez, G. D. M., Miranda‐Romero, L. A., & Hernández-García, P. A. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13137410 · Cited by 99
Metadata
- Authors
- Hassan, F.-U., Arshad, M. A., Ebeid, H. M., Rehman, M. S.-U., Khan, M. S., Shahid, S., & Yang, C.
- Affiliations
- Guangxi Buffalo Research Institute (CN)
- University of Agriculture Faisalabad (PK)
- National Research Centre (EG)
- Corresponding author
- Yang, Chengjian
- ORCID
- Venue
- Frontiers in Veterinary Science
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2020-11-12
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 575801-575801
- ISSN
- 2297-1769 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7688522
- OpenAlex
- W3099865830
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 267
- Citations by year
- 2026: 49 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Veterinary Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Key Research and Development Program of China Stem Cell and Translational Research (2016YFD0500507 and 2018YFD0501600)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
- Keywords
- herbal feed additives, rumen microbiome, rumen fermentation, methanogenesis, methane mitigation, ruminants, plant secondary metabolites, essential oils, saponins, tannins, volatile fatty acids, feed efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, ruminant performance
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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