1887

Abstract

Methane produced by cattle is one of the contributors of anthropogenic greenhouse gas. Methods to lessen methane emissions from cattle have been met with varying success; thus establishing consistent methods for decreasing methane production are imperative. Ferric iron may possibly act to decrease methane by acting as an alternative electron acceptor. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of ferric citrate on the rumen bacterial and archaeal communities and its impact on methane production. In this study, eight steers were used in a repeated Latin square design with 0, 250, 500 or 750 mg Fe/kg DM of ferric iron (as ferric citrate) in four different periods. Each period consisted of a 16 day adaptation period and 5 day sampling period. During each sampling period, methane production was measured, and rumen content was collected for bacterial and archaeal community analyses. Normally distributed data were analysed using a mixed model ANOVA using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS, and non-normally distributed data were analysed in the same manner following ranking. Ferric citrate did not have any effect on bacterial community composition, methanogenic archaea nor methane production (>0.05). Ferric citrate may not be a viable option to observe a ruminal response for decreases in enteric methane production.

Keyword(s): beef , ferric citrate , methane and microbiome
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000180
2020-11-23
2021-08-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/acmi/3/1/acmi000180.html?itemId=/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000180&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C et al. Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2013
  2. Knight T, Ronimus RS, Dey D, Tootill C, Naylor G et al. Chloroform decreases rumen methanogenesis and methanogen populations without altering rumen function in cattle. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2011; 166-167:101–112 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Odongo NE, Bagg R, Vessie G, Dick P, Or-Rashid MM et al. Long-term effects of feeding monensin on methane production in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2007; 90:1781–1788 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Staerfl SM, Amelchanka SL, Kälber T, Soliva CR, Kreuzer M et al. Effect of feeding dried high-sugar ryegrass (‘AberMagic’) on methane and urinary nitrogen emissions of primiparous cows. Livestock Science 2012; 150:293–301 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Morgavi DP, Martin C, Jouany J-P, Ranilla MJ. Rumen protozoa and methanogenesis: not a simple cause-effect relationship. Br J Nutr 2012; 107:388–397 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Lovley DR, Phillips EJ. Competitive mechanisms for inhibition of sulfate reduction and methane production in the zone of ferric iron reduction in sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 1987; 53:2636–2641 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Drewnoski ME, Doane P, Hansen SL. Ferric citrate decreases ruminal hydrogen sulphide concentrations in feedlot cattle fed diets high in sulphate. Br J Nutr 2014; 111:261–269 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Johnson D. The role of ‘iron bacteria’in the biodegradation of minerals. Biodeterioration Abstracts 1995
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Pangala SR, Reay DS, Heal KV. Mitigation of methane emissions from constructed farm wetlands. Chemosphere 2010; 78:493–499 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Wu H, Meng Q, Yu Z. Evaluation of ferric oxide and ferric citrate for their effects on fermentation, production of sulfide and methane, and abundance of select microbial populations using in vitro rumen cultures. Bioresour Technol 2016; 211:603–609 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Wu H, Meng Q, Zhou Z, Yu Z. Ferric citrate, nitrate, saponin and their combinations affect in vitro ruminal fermentation, production of sulphide and methane and abundance of select microbial populations. J Appl Microbiol 2019; 127:150–158 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hales KE, Brown-Brandl TM, Freetly HC. Effects of decreased dietary roughage concentration on energy metabolism and nutrient balance in finishing beef cattle. J Anim Sci 2014; 92:264–271 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Nienaber JA, Maddy AL. Temperature controlled multiple chamber indirect calorimeter-design and operation. Trans ASAE 1985; 28:555–560 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Yu Z, Morrison M. Improved extraction of PCR-quality community DNA from digesta and fecal samples. Biotechniques 2004; 36:808–812 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Myer PR, Smith TPL, Wells JE, Kuehn LA, Freetly HC. Rumen microbiome from steers differing in feed efficiency. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0129174 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 2010; 7:335–336 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Afgan E, Baker D, van den Beek M, Blankenberg D, Bouvier D et al. The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2016 update. Nucleic Acids Res 2016; 44:W3–W10 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than blast . Bioinformatics 2010; 26:2460–2461 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Edgar RC, Haas BJ, Clemente JC, Quince C, Knight R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 2011; 27:2194–2200 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2--approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 2010; 5:e9490 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lozupone C, Knight R. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005; 71:8228–8235 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Freetly HC, Lindholm-Perry AK, Hales KE, Brown-Brandl TM, Kim M et al. Methane production and methanogen levels in steers that differ in residual gain. J Anim Sci 2015; 93:2375–2381 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision Rome: ESA Working paper FAO; 2012
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnson KA, Johnson DE. Methane emissions from cattle. J Anim Sci 1995; 73:2483–2492 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Clemmons BA, Martino C, Schneider LG, Lefler J, Embree MM et al. Temporal stability of the ruminal bacterial communities in beef steers. Sci Rep 2019; 9:9522 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Russell JB. A proposed mechanism of monensin action in inhibiting ruminal bacterial growth: effects on ion flux and protonmotive force. J Anim Sci 1987; 64:1519–1525 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chen M, Wolin MJ. Effect of monensin and lasalocid-sodium on the growth of methanogenic and rumen saccharolytic bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 1979; 38:72–77 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Thornton JH, Owens FN. Monensin supplementation and in vivo methane production by steers. J Anim Sci 1981; 52:628–634 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. FASS Guide for Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching, 3rd ed. 2010
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000180
Loading
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000180
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error