U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Food and Feed Safety Research: College Station, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area College Station, Texas Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center Food and Feed Safety Research Research Publications at this Location





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Title:   Author  item
                                            GUTIERREZ-BANUELOS, HECTOR - TX A&M UNIVERSITYitem
                                            Anderson, Robinitem
                                            CARSTENS, GORDON - TX A&M UNIVERSITYitem
                                            TEDESCHI, LUIS - TX A&M UNIVERISTYitem
                                            PINCHAK, WILLIAM - TX AG EXPERIMENT STATIONitem
                                            CABERA-DIAZ, ELISA - TX A&M UNIVERSITYitem
                                            Krueger, Nathanitem
                                            Callaway, Todditem
                                            Nisbet, David
  Submitted to: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
                                    Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
                                    Publication Acceptance Date: 3/17/2008
                                    Publication  Date: 6/25/2008
                                    Citation: Gutierrez-Banuelos, H., Anderson, R.C., Carstens, G.E., Tedeschi, L.O., Pinchak, W.E., Cabera-Diaz, E., Krueger, N.A., Callaway, T.R., Nisbet, D.J. 2008. Effects of nitroethane and monensin on ruminal fluid fermentation characteristics and nitrocompound-metabolizing bacterial populations. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 56:4650-4658.Interpretive Summary: Cows and sheep contain beneficial bacteria in the front part of their stomach that can degrade the strong chemical bonds that make grasses hard to digest.  Unfortunately, this digestion is inefficient in that methane is produced as an end-product that is not able to be used by the cattle or sheep.  This digestive inefficiency can result in as much as 12% of the dietary energy being lost.  Methane is also a greenhouse gas that may contribute to climate change. Consequently, animal nutritionists and microbiologists have long sought to develop ways to reduce the amount of methane produced in the forward part of the cow and sheep stomach.  We report results from an experiment testing the effectiveness of two chemicals that reduce methane when fed to cows.  We found that a chemical called nitroethane significantly reduced methane production by approximately 90% and was better than a commonly used antibiotic chemical called monensin.  We also found that the chemical nitroethane did not negatively affect beneficial end-products of the microbial digestion process as is sometimes observed with the antibiotic monensin.  Our results suggested that this was because a special nitroethane-using bacterium able to outcompete methane-producing bacteria was increased in number by the nitroethane treatment but not by the monensin treatment.  While naturally present in the cow and sheep gut, this bacterium is usually very low in number.  Thus, the nitroethane treatment appeared to an effective strategy because it replaced methane-producing bacteria with another naturally present beneficial bacterium without inhibiting other important bacteria needed for digestion while at the same time maintaining a healthy gut environment.  These results will help scientists and farmers develop ways to cut production costs and help the environment by reducing animal methane production without using antibiotics.  Ultimately, these results may help farmers and ranchers produce safe and wholesome beef and lamb products at less cost for the American consumer.
                                Technical Abstract: The objectives of this study were to examine the effects of nitroethane (NE) and monensin (M) on ruminal fermentation, NE-degradation and nitro-degrading bacterial populations during in vitro consecutive batch culture (CBC).  Treatments tested included control (C), 4.5 mM NE (1NE), 9 mM NE (2NE), 5 mM M (M), and 9 mM NE plus 5 mM M (2NEM).  Cultures were incubated at 39 deg C under H2:CO2 (1:1) and transferred at 24 h intervals over 16 incubation series. Methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) productions (umol/mL) were measured in the head space after series 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 13 and 16; NE-degradation, volatile fatty acids (VFA), ammonia (μmol/mL) and lactate (mg/dL) were measured after series 1, 2, 3, 6 and 10, and most probable number (MPN) determination of nitro-degrading bacterial populations after the 6th series.  After the 16th series treatment, a cross over experiment was conducted to measure response of the previously treated populations during culture in absence of respective supplements.  Methane production was affected (P < 0.01) by treatment, with accumulations averaging 8.48, 0.88, 0.81, 1.88 and 0.74 (± 0.37 SEM) for C, 1NE, 2NE, M and 2NEM, respectively.  Carbon dioxide decreased with 2NEM, but no differences were observed on 1NE, 2NE, and M in comparison with C (67.78, 89.00, 83.37, 74.93 and 99.94 ± 5.30 respectively).  No effect treatment was observed on H2 accumulation (P > 0.05).  Acetate and propionate were not affected (P > 0.05) by treatment.  Butyrate accumulation was lower (P < 0.05) with the addition of M and 2NEM and higher (P < 0.05) with 1NE and 2NE in comparison with the C (1.73, 1.89, 5.65, 6.10, and 4.81 ± 0.73, respectively).  NE-degradation (umol/mL) was higher (P < 0.01) with 2NEM in comparison with 1NE and 2NE (1.26, 0.41 and 0.95 ± 0.06, respectively).  The MPN of nitro-degrading bacterial populations were increased (P < 0.01) in 1NE and 2NE supplemented incubations (6.9 and 5.9 log10 cells/mL, respectively) compared to C, M and 2NEM supplemented incubations (< 2.5 log10 ± 0.8 cells/mL). The cross over experiment showed that methane-producing activity was no longer present in the mixed populations that had been incubated the previous 16 transfers with NE, as evidence by a lack of CH4 accumulation on the 17th transfer into medium not containing the CH4-inhibitor NE.  In contrast, methanogens were present in the populations that had been cultured 16 times with monensin, as evidenced by considerable CH4 accumulation upon removal of selective pressure of monensin.  These results confirm the CH4-inhibiting activity of NE and monensin and suggest that ruminal adaptation of bacteria to NE is likely due to an enrichment of nitro-degrading bacteria.  These results also provide evidence that monensin negatively affects nitro-degrading bacterial populations.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov