Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Influence of Diet Composition on Cattle Rumen Methanogenesis: A Comparative Metagenomic Analysis in Indian and Exotic Cattle

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Microbiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Comparative metagenomics approach has been used in this study to discriminate colonization of methanogenic population in different breeds of cattle. We compared two Indian cattle breeds (Gir and Kankrej) and two exotic cattle (Holstein and Jersey) breeds. Using a defined dietary plan for selected Indian varieties, the diet dependent shifts in microbial community and abundance of the enzymes associated with methanogenesis were studied. This data has been compared with the available rumen metagenome data from Holstein and Jersey dairy cattle. The abundance of genes for methanogenesis in Holstein and Jersey cattle came from Methanobacteriales order whereas, majority of the enzymes for methanogenesis in Gir and Kankrej cattle came from Methanomicrobiales order. The study suggested that by using slow/less digestible feed, the propionate levels could be controlled in rumen; and in turn, this would also help in further reducing the hydrogenotrophic production of methane. The study proposes that with the designed diet plan the overall methanogenic microbial pool or the individual methanogens could be targeted for development of methane mitigation strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Herrero M, Grace D, Njuki J, Johnson N, Enahoro D, Silvestri S, Rufino MC (2013) The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal 7:3–18. doi:10.1017/S1751731112001954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Scheehle EA, Kruger D (2006) Global anthropogenic methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Energy J 3:33–44

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chhabra A, Manjunath KR, Panigrahy S (2007) Assessing the role of Indian livestock in climate change. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inform Sci XXXVIII Part 8:W3

    Google Scholar 

  4. Janssen PH, Kirs M (2008) Structure of the archaeal community of the rumen. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:3619–3625. doi:10.1128/AEM.02812-07

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ross EM, Moate PJ, Marett LC, Cocks BG, Hayes BJ (2013) Metagenomic predictions: from microbiome to complex health and environmental phenotypes in humans and cattle. PLoS ONE 8:e73056. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073056

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Patel V, Patel AK, Parmar NR, Patel AB, Reddy B, Joshi CG (2014) Characterization of the rumen microbiome of Indian Kankrej cattle (Bos indicus) adapted to different forage diet. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98:9749–9761. doi:10.1007/s00253-014-6153-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Parmar NR, Solanki JV, Patel AB, Shah TM, Patel AK, Parnerkar S, Kumar J, Joshi CG (2014) Metagenome of Mehsani buffalo rumen microbiota: an assessment of variation in feed-dependent phylogenetic and functional classification. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 24:249–261. doi:10.1159/000365054

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yuan S, Cohen DB, Ravel J, Abdo Z, Forney LJ (2012) Evaluation of methods for the extraction and purification of DNA from the human microbiome. PLoS ONE 7:e33865. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033865

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Glass EM, Wilkening J, Wilke A, Antonopoulos D, Meyer F (2010) Using the metagenomics RAST server (MG-RAST) for analyzing shotgun metagenomes. Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2010:prot5368. doi:10.1101/pdb.prot5368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) Past: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4(1):4–9. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm

  11. Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, Ramage D, Amin N, Schwikowski B, Ideker T (2003) Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Gen Res 13:2498–2504. doi:10.1101/gr.1239303

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kanehisa M (2002) The KEGG database. In: Bock G, Goode JA (eds) ‘In Silico’ simulation of biological processes: novartis foundation symposium, vol 247. Wiley, Chichester. doi:10.1002/0470857897.ch8

    Google Scholar 

  13. Thomas T, Gilbert J, Meyer F (2012) Metagenomics—a guide from sampling to data analysis. Microb Inform Exp 2:3. doi:10.1186/2042-5783-2-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Westermann P, Ahring BK, Mah RA (1989) Acetate production by methanogenic bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 55:2257–2261

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim M, Morrison M, Yu Z (2011) Status of the phylogenetic diversity census of ruminal microbiomes. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 76:49–63. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.01029.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bergman E (1990) Energy contributions of volatile fatty acids from the gastrointestinal tract in various species. Physiol Rev 70:567–590

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rahman MM, Salleh MA, Sultana N, Kim MJ, Ra CS (2013) Estimation of total volatile fatty acid (VFA) from total organic carbons (TOCs) assessment through in vitro fermentation of livestock feeds. Afr J Microbiol Res 7:1378–1384. doi:10.5897/AJMR12.1694

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bell MJ, Eckard RJ (2012) Reducing enteric methane losses from ruminant livestock—its measurement, prediction and the influence of diet. In: Khalid J (ed) Livestock production. InTech, Trichy. doi:10.5772/50394

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jami E, White BA, Mizrahi I (2014) Potential role of the bovine rumen microbiome in modulating milk composition and feed efficiency. PLoS ONE 9:e85423. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085423

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Hegarty RS, Nolan JV (2007) Estimation of ruminal methane production from measurement of volatile fatty acid production. In: Makkar HPS, Vercoe PE (eds) Measuring methane production from ruminants. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 69–92. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6133-2_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Hawkes F, Dinsdale R, Hawkes D, Hussy I (2002) Sustainable fermentative hydrogen production: challenges for process optimisation. Int J Hydrog Energy 27:1339–1347. doi:10.1016/S0360-3199(02)00090-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Carberry CA, Waters SM, Kenny DA, Creevey CJ (2014) Rumen methanogenic genotypes differ in abundance according to host residual feed intake phenotype and diet type. Appl Environ Microbiol 80:586–594. doi:10.1128/AEM.03131-13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Balch WE, Fox G, Magrum L, Woese C, Wolfe R (1979) Methanogens: reevaluation of a unique biological group. Microbiol Rev 43:260

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hook SE, Wright A-DG, McBride BW (2010) Methanogens: methane producers of the rumen and mitigation strategies. Archaea. doi:10.1155/2010/945785

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Singh KM, Pandya PR, Parnerkar S, Tripathi AK, Rank DN, Kothari RK, Joshi CG (2011) Molecular identification of methanogenic archaea from surti buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis), reveals more hydrogenotrophic methanogens phylotypes. Braz J Microbiol 42:132–139. doi:10.1590/s1517-83822011000100017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Shin EC, Choi BR, Lim WJ, Hong SY, An CL, Cho KM, Kim YK, An JM, Kang JM, Lee SS (2004) Phylogenetic analysis of archaea in three fractions of cow rumen based on the 16S rDNA sequence. Anaerobe 10:313–319. doi:10.1016/j.anaerobe.2004.08.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Danielsson R, Schnürer A, Arthurson V, Bertilsson J (2012) Methanogenic population and CH4 production in Swedish dairy cows fed different levels of forage. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:6172–6179. doi:10.1128/aem.00675-12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Whitford MF, Teather RM, Forster RJ (2001) Phylogenetic analysis of methanogens from the bovine rumen. BMC Microbiol 1:5. doi:10.1186/1471-2180-1-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Schnürer A, Nordberg Å (2008) Ammonia, a selective agent for methane production by syntrophic acetate oxidation at mesophilic temperature. Water Sci Technol 57:735–740. doi:10.2166/wst.2008.097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Westerholm M, Levén L, Schnürer A (2012) Bioaugmentation of syntrophic acetate-oxidizing culture in biogas reactors exposed to increasing levels of ammonia. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:7619–7625. doi:10.1128/aem.01637-12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful to Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) for providing the fund and also to the field veterinarians of Sardar Krushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University and Anand Agricultural University (India) for their co-operation in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, 388001, Gujarat, India

    Nidhi R. Parmar & Chaitanya G. Joshi

  2. Environmental Genomics Division, CSIR—National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

    Prabhakar D. Pandit & Hemant J. Purohit

  3. Institute of Science and Technology for Advanced Studies and Research, Mota Bazaar, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Anand, Gujarat, India

    J. I. Nirmal Kumar

Authors
  1. Nidhi R. Parmar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prabhakar D. Pandit
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hemant J. Purohit
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. I. Nirmal Kumar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chaitanya G. Joshi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chaitanya G. Joshi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1560 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parmar, N.R., Pandit, P.D., Purohit, H.J. et al. Influence of Diet Composition on Cattle Rumen Methanogenesis: A Comparative Metagenomic Analysis in Indian and Exotic Cattle. Indian J Microbiol 57, 226–234 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-016-0635-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-016-0635-z

Keywords