Comparison of enteric methane yield and diversity of ruminal methanogens in cattle and buffaloes fed on the same diet

被引:20
|
作者
Malik, P. K. [1 ]
Trivedi, S. [1 ]
Mohapatra, A. [1 ]
Kolte, A. P. [2 ]
Sejian, V [3 ]
Bhatta, R. [1 ]
Rahman, H. [4 ]
机构
[1] ICAR Natl Inst Anim Nutr & Physiol, Bioenerget & Environm Sci Div, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
[2] ICAR Natl Inst Anim Nutr & Physiol, Anim Nutr Div, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
[3] ICAR Natl Inst Anim Nutr & Physiol, Anim Physiol Div, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
[4] Int Livestock Res Inst, South Asia Reg Off, New Delhi, India
来源
PLOS ONE | 2021年 / 16卷 / 08期
关键词
16S RIBOSOMAL-RNA; PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS; BUBALUS-BUBALIS; SP NOV; ARCHAEAL COMMUNITY; 7TH ORDER; GEN; NOV; RUMEN; SHEEP; IDENTIFICATION;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0256048
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
An in vivo study was conducted to compare the enteric methane emissions and diversity of ruminal methanogens in cattle and buffaloes kept in the same environment and fed on the same diet. Six cattle and six buffaloes were fed on a similar diet comprising Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) green grass and concentrate in 70:30. After 90 days of feeding, the daily enteric methane emissions were quantified by using the SF6 technique and ruminal fluid samples from animals were collected for the diversity analysis. The daily enteric methane emissions were significantly greater in cattle as compared to buffaloes; however, methane yields were not different between the two species. Methanogens were ranked at different taxonomic levels against the Rumen and Intestinal Methanogen-Database. The archaeal communities in both host species were dominated by the phylum Euryarchaeota; however, Crenarchaeota represented Methanobacteriales were most prominent and their proportion did not differ between the two hosts. Methanomicrobiales and Methanomassillicoccales constituted the second largest group of methanogens in cattle and buffaloes, respectively. Methanocellales (Methanocella arvoryza) were exclusively detected in the buffaloes. At the species level, Methanobrevibacter gottschalkii had the highest abundance (55-57%) in both the host species. The relative abundance of Methanobrevibacter wolinii between the two hosts differed significantly. Methanosarcinales, the acetoclastic methanogens were significantly greater in cattle than the buffaloes. It is concluded that the ruminal methane yield in cattle and buffaloes fed on the same diet did not differ. With the diet used in this study, there was a limited influence (<3.5%) of the host on the structure of the ruminal archaea community at the species level. Therefore, the methane mitigation strategies developed in either of the hosts should be effective in the other. Further studies are warranted to reveal the conjunctive effect of diet and geographical locations with the host on ruminal archaea community composition.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Ruminal fermentation and microbial ecology of buffaloes and cattle fed the same diet
    Lwin, Khin-Ohnmar
    Kondo, Makoto
    Ban-Tokuda, Tomomi
    Lapitan, Rosalina M.
    Del-Barrio, Arnel N.
    Fujihara, Tsutomu
    Matsui, Hiroki
    ANIMAL SCIENCE JOURNAL, 2012, 83 (12) : 767 - 776
  • [2] Comparative analysis of rumen metagenome, metatranscriptome, fermentation and methane yield in cattle and buffaloes fed on the same diet
    Malik, Pradeep K.
    Trivedi, Shraddha
    Kolte, Atul P.
    Mohapatra, Archit
    Biswas, Siddharth
    Bhattar, Ashwin V. K.
    Bhatta, Raghavendra
    Rahman, Habibar
    FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY, 2023, 14
  • [3] Enteric methane emissions in response to ruminal inoculation of Propionibacterium strains in beef cattle fed a mixed diet
    Vyas, D.
    Alazzeh, A.
    McGinn, S. M.
    McAllister, T. A.
    Harstad, O. M.
    Holo, H.
    Beauchemin, K. A.
    ANIMAL PRODUCTION SCIENCE, 2016, 56 (07) : 1035 - 1040
  • [4] Comparative diversity analysis of ruminal methanogens in Murrah buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) in four states of North India
    Kumar, Sanjay
    Dagar, Sumit Singh
    Agrawal, Ravi Kant
    Puniya, Anil Kumar
    ANAEROBE, 2018, 52 : 59 - 63
  • [5] Comparative Rumen Metagenome and CAZyme Profiles in Cattle and Buffaloes: Implications for Methane Yield and Rumen Fermentation on a Common Diet
    Malik, Pradeep K.
    Trivedi, Shraddha
    Kolte, Atul P.
    Mohapatra, Archit
    Biswas, Siddharth
    Bhattar, Ashwin V. K.
    Bhatta, Raghavendra
    Rahman, Habibar
    MICROORGANISMS, 2024, 12 (01)
  • [6] Ruminal fermentation in river buffaloes and commercial Zebu cattle fed integral forage of sugarcane
    Delgado, DC
    Cairo, J
    Moreira, O
    CUBAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE, 2005, 39 (01): : 51 - 54
  • [7] Effects of oral nitroethane administration on enteric methane emissions and ruminal fermentation in cattle
    Brown, Erin G.
    Anderson, Robin C.
    Carstens, Gordon E.
    Gutierrez-Banuelos, Hector
    McReynolds, Jackson L.
    Slay, Lisa J.
    Callaway, Todd R.
    Nisbet, David J.
    ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2011, 166-67 : 275 - 281
  • [8] Review: Strategies for enteric methane mitigation in cattle fed tropical forages
    Ku-Vera, J. C.
    Castelan-Ortega, O. A.
    Galindo-Maldonado, F. A.
    Arango, J.
    Chirinda, N.
    Jimenez-Ocampo, R.
    Valencia-Salazar, S. S.
    Flores-Santiago, E. J.
    Montoya-Flores, M. D.
    Molina-Botero, I. C.
    Pineiro-Vazquez, A. T.
    Arceo-Castillo, J. I.
    Aguilar-Perez, C. F.
    Ramirez-Aviles, L.
    Solorio-Sanchez, F. J.
    ANIMAL, 2020, 14 : S453 - S463
  • [9] Weight gain and enteric methane production of cattle fed on tropical grasses
    Korir, D.
    Marquardt, S.
    Eckard, R.
    Sanchez, A.
    Dickhoefer, U.
    Merbold, L.
    Butterbach-Bahl, K.
    Jones, C.
    Robertson-Dean, M.
    Goopy, J.
    ANIMAL PRODUCTION SCIENCE, 2023, 63 (02) : 120 - 132
  • [10] The concentration of enteric methane from cattle fed different fibre level
    Krishna, N. H.
    Anggraeny, Y. N.
    Mariyono
    Pamungkas, D.
    1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE TROPICAL LAND MANAGEMENT, 2021, 648