Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T00:42:07.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New inhibitors of methane production by rumen micro-organisms. Experiments with animals and other practical possibilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. W. Czerkawski  and
Grace Breckenridge
J. W. Czerkawski
Affiliation:
The Hannah Research Institute, Ayr KA6 5HL, Scotland
Grace Breckenridge
Affiliation:
The Hannah Research Institute, Ayr KA6 5HL, Scotland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Two inhibitors of rumen methane production were given to sheep and their effects were measured using an in vitro technique.

2. The substances used were trichloroethyl pivalate (TCE-P) and trichloroethyl adipate (TCE-A). In one experiment with two sheep TCE-P was injected into the rumen and in another experiment with two sheep the same inhibitor was mixed with the food just before feeding. In another experiment, TCE-A was given to two sheep at two dose levels, and in an experiment with four sheep two levels of inhibitor and two levels of diet were used.

3. In general the inhibition of methane production was greater with samples of rumen contents taken after feeding than with those taken before feeding. When sheep were given 120–300 mg TCE-P/d the inhibition of methane production ranged from 21 to 81%. When sheep given maintenance rations were given 125–300 mg TCE-A/d there was 28–90% inhibition of methane production. When sheep were given twice maintenance rations 150 mg TCE-A/d gave no inhibition and 300 mg TCE-A/d gave very low inhibition of methane production (about 16%).

4. In most experiments there was a significant increase in the propionic acid:acetic acid concentration ratio in the rumen when methane production was inhibited.

5. The possible practical use of inhibitors is discussed.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , November 1975 , pp. 447 - 457
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Clapperton, J. L. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 155.Google Scholar
Clapperton, J. L. & Czerkawski, J. W. (1972). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 31, 55..Google Scholar
Cottyn, B. G. & Boucque, C. V. (1968). J. agric. Fd Chem. 16, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. & Breckenridge, G. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 34, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W., Christie, W. W., Breckenridge, G. & Hunter, M. L. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 34, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. & Clapperton, J. L. (1968). Lab. Pract. 17, 994.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. (1972). J. Anim. Sci. 35, 1064.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. (1974). J. Anim. Sci. 38, 154.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E., Wood, A. S., Store, J. B. & Morgan, E. T. (1972). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 52, 703.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Lucas, H. L. (1962). Tech. Bull. N. Carol. agric. Exp. Stn no. 147.Google Scholar
Prins, R. A. (1965). J. Dairy Sci. 48, 991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quaghebeur, D. & Oyaert, W. (1971). Zentbl. VetMed. 18, 55.Google Scholar
Sawyer, M. S., Hoover, W. H. & Sniffen, C. J. (1974). J. Anim. Sci. 38, 908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trei, J. E. & Olsen, W. A. (1969). J. Anim. Sci. 29, 173.Google Scholar
Trei, J. E., Parish, R. C., Singh, Y. K. & Scott, G. C. (1971). J. Dairy Sci. 54, 536.Google Scholar
Trei, J. E., Singh, Y. K. & Scott, G. C. (1970). J. Anim. Sci. 31, 256.Google Scholar