Comparison of enteric methane yield and diversity of ruminal methanogens in cattle and buffaloes fed on the same diet
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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2021-08, Vol.16 (8), p.e0256048-e0256048 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0256048 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | e0256048 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Malik, P K Trivedi, S Mohapatra, A Kolte, A P Sejian, V Bhatta, R Rahman, H |
| description | 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 |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0256048 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2560288760</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A671585604</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_0db4b91979cc4d8c8755b197e5e44d5c</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A671585604</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-fd7cb7c9659e30b2578d9f5df5275824be8b182d77e637938ec3d4fe3e476f4d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1uL1DAUx4so7rr6DUQLgujDjG3TXPoiLIOXgYUFb68hTU5mMqTNmKSL8-1Nd7rLVPZB8tBcfud_ev7JybKXZbEsES0_7Nzge2GXe9fDsqgwKWr2KDsvG1QtSFWgxyfzs-xZCLuiwIgR8jQ7QzWiDWnK82xYuW4vvAmuz53OoY_gjcw7iFvRQ34wYFUuepUrcwM-mHgYMT90JuWeMLeBPuSmz6WI0cIt3g5aC-sg5BpUnsTjFvIgOkhCEJ9nT9JpgBfT9yL7-fnTj9XXxdX1l_Xq8mohSVPFhVZUtlQ2BDeAirbClKlGY6VxRTGr6hZYW7JKUQokFYQYSKRqDQhqSnSt0EX2-qi7ty7wybHAR7MqxigpErE-EsqJHd970wl_4E4Yfrvh_IYLH420wAvV1m1TNrSRslZMMopxm5aAoa4Vlknr45RtaDtQMpnphZ2Jzk96s-Ubd8MZwrTELAm8mwS8-z1AiLwzQYK16SrccPzvxJaEJPTNP-jD1U3URqQCTK9dyitHUX5JxpTjq0nU8gEqDQWdkel5aZP2ZwHvZwGJifAnbsQQAl9___b_7PWvOfv2hN2CsHEbnB2icX2Yg_URlN6F4EHfm1wWfOyOOzf42B186o4U9ur0gu6D7toB_QVB9wsA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2560288760</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of enteric methane yield and diversity of ruminal methanogens in cattle and buffaloes fed on the same diet</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Malik, P K ; Trivedi, S ; Mohapatra, A ; Kolte, A P ; Sejian, V ; Bhatta, R ; Rahman, H</creator><creatorcontrib>Malik, P K ; Trivedi, S ; Mohapatra, A ; Kolte, A P ; Sejian, V ; Bhatta, R ; Rahman, H</creatorcontrib><description>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 <1% of the total archaea. Methanogens affiliated with 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256048</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34379691</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Abundance ; Animals ; Archaea ; Beef cattle ; Bioenergetics ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Buffalo ; Buffaloes ; Cattle ; Community composition ; Diet ; Diet - veterinary ; DNA, Archaeal - analysis ; DNA, Archaeal - genetics ; Emissions ; Environmental science ; Feeds ; Food and nutrition ; Geographical locations ; Grasses ; In vivo methods and tests ; Male ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methane ; Methane - analysis ; Methane - metabolism ; Methane emissions ; Methanogenic bacteria ; Methanomicrobiales - classification ; Methanomicrobiales - genetics ; Methanomicrobiales - isolation & purification ; Methanomicrobiales - metabolism ; Mitigation ; Nutrition research ; Physical Sciences ; Physiology ; Properties ; Relative abundance ; Rumen ; Rumen - metabolism ; Rumen - microbiology ; Software ; Species ; Sulfur ; Yield</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-08, Vol.16 (8), p.e0256048-e0256048</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 Malik et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 Malik et al 2021 Malik et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-fd7cb7c9659e30b2578d9f5df5275824be8b182d77e637938ec3d4fe3e476f4d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-fd7cb7c9659e30b2578d9f5df5275824be8b182d77e637938ec3d4fe3e476f4d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3243-4140 ; 0000-0002-6581-4772</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8357158/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8357158/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79343,79344</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34379691$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Malik, P K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trivedi, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohapatra, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kolte, A P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sejian, V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhatta, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rahman, H</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of enteric methane yield and diversity of ruminal methanogens in cattle and buffaloes fed on the same diet</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>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 <1% of the total archaea. Methanogens affiliated with 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.</description><subject>Abundance</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Archaea</subject><subject>Beef cattle</subject><subject>Bioenergetics</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Buffalo</subject><subject>Buffaloes</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Community composition</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Diet - veterinary</subject><subject>DNA, Archaeal - analysis</subject><subject>DNA, Archaeal - genetics</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Environmental science</subject><subject>Feeds</subject><subject>Food and nutrition</subject><subject>Geographical locations</subject><subject>Grasses</subject><subject>In vivo methods and tests</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methane</subject><subject>Methane - analysis</subject><subject>Methane - metabolism</subject><subject>Methane emissions</subject><subject>Methanogenic bacteria</subject><subject>Methanomicrobiales - classification</subject><subject>Methanomicrobiales - genetics</subject><subject>Methanomicrobiales - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Methanomicrobiales - metabolism</subject><subject>Mitigation</subject><subject>Nutrition research</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Physiology</subject><subject>Properties</subject><subject>Relative abundance</subject><subject>Rumen</subject><subject>Rumen - metabolism</subject><subject>Rumen - microbiology</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Sulfur</subject><subject>Yield</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1uL1DAUx4so7rr6DUQLgujDjG3TXPoiLIOXgYUFb68hTU5mMqTNmKSL8-1Nd7rLVPZB8tBcfud_ev7JybKXZbEsES0_7Nzge2GXe9fDsqgwKWr2KDsvG1QtSFWgxyfzs-xZCLuiwIgR8jQ7QzWiDWnK82xYuW4vvAmuz53OoY_gjcw7iFvRQ34wYFUuepUrcwM-mHgYMT90JuWeMLeBPuSmz6WI0cIt3g5aC-sg5BpUnsTjFvIgOkhCEJ9nT9JpgBfT9yL7-fnTj9XXxdX1l_Xq8mohSVPFhVZUtlQ2BDeAirbClKlGY6VxRTGr6hZYW7JKUQokFYQYSKRqDQhqSnSt0EX2-qi7ty7wybHAR7MqxigpErE-EsqJHd970wl_4E4Yfrvh_IYLH420wAvV1m1TNrSRslZMMopxm5aAoa4Vlknr45RtaDtQMpnphZ2Jzk96s-Ubd8MZwrTELAm8mwS8-z1AiLwzQYK16SrccPzvxJaEJPTNP-jD1U3URqQCTK9dyitHUX5JxpTjq0nU8gEqDQWdkel5aZP2ZwHvZwGJifAnbsQQAl9___b_7PWvOfv2hN2CsHEbnB2icX2Yg_URlN6F4EHfm1wWfOyOOzf42B186o4U9ur0gu6D7toB_QVB9wsA</recordid><startdate>20210811</startdate><enddate>20210811</enddate><creator>Malik, P K</creator><creator>Trivedi, S</creator><creator>Mohapatra, A</creator><creator>Kolte, A P</creator><creator>Sejian, V</creator><creator>Bhatta, R</creator><creator>Rahman, H</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3243-4140</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6581-4772</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210811</creationdate><title>Comparison of enteric methane yield and diversity of ruminal methanogens in cattle and buffaloes fed on the same diet</title><author>Malik, P K ; Trivedi, S ; Mohapatra, A ; Kolte, A P ; Sejian, V ; Bhatta, R ; Rahman, H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-fd7cb7c9659e30b2578d9f5df5275824be8b182d77e637938ec3d4fe3e476f4d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Abundance</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Archaea</topic><topic>Beef cattle</topic><topic>Bioenergetics</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Buffalo</topic><topic>Buffaloes</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Community composition</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Diet - veterinary</topic><topic>DNA, Archaeal - analysis</topic><topic>DNA, Archaeal - genetics</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Environmental science</topic><topic>Feeds</topic><topic>Food and nutrition</topic><topic>Geographical locations</topic><topic>Grasses</topic><topic>In vivo methods and tests</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methane</topic><topic>Methane - analysis</topic><topic>Methane - metabolism</topic><topic>Methane emissions</topic><topic>Methanogenic bacteria</topic><topic>Methanomicrobiales - classification</topic><topic>Methanomicrobiales - genetics</topic><topic>Methanomicrobiales - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Methanomicrobiales - metabolism</topic><topic>Mitigation</topic><topic>Nutrition research</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Physiology</topic><topic>Properties</topic><topic>Relative abundance</topic><topic>Rumen</topic><topic>Rumen - metabolism</topic><topic>Rumen - microbiology</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Sulfur</topic><topic>Yield</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Malik, P K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trivedi, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohapatra, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kolte, A P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sejian, V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhatta, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rahman, H</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Malik, P K</au><au>Trivedi, S</au><au>Mohapatra, A</au><au>Kolte, A P</au><au>Sejian, V</au><au>Bhatta, R</au><au>Rahman, H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of enteric methane yield and diversity of ruminal methanogens in cattle and buffaloes fed on the same diet</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2021-08-11</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e0256048</spage><epage>e0256048</epage><pages>e0256048-e0256048</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>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 <1% of the total archaea. Methanogens affiliated with 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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>34379691</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0256048</doi><tpages>e0256048</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3243-4140</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6581-4772</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2021-08, Vol.16 (8), p.e0256048-e0256048 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2560288760 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Abundance Animals Archaea Beef cattle Bioenergetics Biology and Life Sciences Buffalo Buffaloes Cattle Community composition Diet Diet - veterinary DNA, Archaeal - analysis DNA, Archaeal - genetics Emissions Environmental science Feeds Food and nutrition Geographical locations Grasses In vivo methods and tests Male Medicine and Health Sciences Methane Methane - analysis Methane - metabolism Methane emissions Methanogenic bacteria Methanomicrobiales - classification Methanomicrobiales - genetics Methanomicrobiales - isolation & purification Methanomicrobiales - metabolism Mitigation Nutrition research Physical Sciences Physiology Properties Relative abundance Rumen Rumen - metabolism Rumen - microbiology Software Species Sulfur Yield |
| title | Comparison of enteric methane yield and diversity of ruminal methanogens in cattle and buffaloes fed on the same diet |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T03%3A12%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20enteric%20methane%20yield%20and%20diversity%20of%20ruminal%20methanogens%20in%20cattle%20and%20buffaloes%20fed%20on%20the%20same%20diet&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Malik,%20P%20K&rft.date=2021-08-11&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e0256048&rft.epage=e0256048&rft.pages=e0256048-e0256048&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0256048&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA671585604%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2560288760&rft_id=info:pmid/34379691&rft_galeid=A671585604&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_0db4b91979cc4d8c8755b197e5e44d5c&rfr_iscdi=true |