Cited by 186Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production

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 access

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.3389/fvets.2020.575801

Cites

269 of 271 references verified0 citation errors · 2 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

90 of 165 cited sources checked · 26 supported · 2 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 70 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 21
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 63
78 of 78
  • 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.”
2 of 2

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

    Minor

    The text defines CT as condensed tannins, but the note to Table 4 defines CT as hydrolysable tannins.

  • Saponin effects attributed to reference 158 conflict with Table 2

    Minor

    The 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.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Items 201–271 of 271

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Solomon, 2020, Rumen protozoa shape microbiome composition and metabolic output of fermentation, bioRxiv., 10.1101/2020.05.15.080218 · DOI
  2. Ritchie, 1970, Rumen bacteriophage: survey of morphological types, Microscopie Electronique., 3, 333
  3. Mathison, 1997, Effect of canola oil on methane production in steers, Can J Anim Sci., 77, 545

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 186

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
Venue
Frontiers in Veterinary Science
Published
2020-11-12
Volume
7
Pages
575801-575801
ISSN
2297-1769 (ISSN-L)
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
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