Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34379691›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

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

P K Malik, S Trivedi, A Mohapatra, A P Kolte, V Sejian, R Bhatta, H Rahman

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Effect of Two Selected Levels ofMicroorganisms · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Isolation of aFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  11. Effect ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

P K MalikBioenergetics and Environmental Science Division, ICAR-National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.ORCID 0000-0002-6581-4772
S TrivediBioenergetics and Environmental Science Division, ICAR-National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
A MohapatraBioenergetics and Environmental Science Division, ICAR-National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
A P KolteAnimal Nutrition Division, ICAR-National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3243-4140
V SejianAnimal Physiology Division, ICAR-National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
R BhattaBioenergetics and Environmental Science Division, ICAR-National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
H RahmanInternational Livestock Research Institute, South Asia Regional Office, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

AnimalsBuffaloesCattleDietDNA, ArchaealMaleMethaneMethanomicrobialesRumenDNA, ArchaealMethane

Identifiers

PMID34379691
PMCPMC8357158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.