Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T02:00:46.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of the antibiotic monensin and an inhibitor of methanogenesis on in vitro continuous rumen fermentations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G. Stanier  and
A. Davies
G. Stanier
Affiliation:
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, Pharmaceuticals Division, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SKlO 4TG
A. Davies
Affiliation:
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, Pharmaceuticals Division, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SKlO 4TG
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. The effects of a methane inhibitor, ICI 111075, and a propionate enhancer, monensin, were studied using in vitro continuous fermenters.

2. Both compounds increased the yield of substrate energy, carbon and hydrogen in volatile fatty acids (VFA). This was mainly due to an increase in the molar proportion of propionic acid.

3. Improved yields of VFA were accompanied by reductions in methane production and microbial yield.

4. Since published information showed that monensin reduced rumen dilution rate in vivo an analogous in vitro system was proposed in which a high dilution rate control fermenter was compared with a monensin treated fermenter set to run at a low dilution rate.

5.Results showed that the general intrinsic microbial activity of the chemical manipulators was not affected by changes in dilution rate. Changing dilution rate in addition to chemical treatment however resulted in substantial modifications in the net effect on the fermentation.

6. The practical implications of reducing rumen dilution rate as a side effect of chemically manipulating the rumen fermentation could involve changes in food intake, increased importance of secondary fermentations and a reduced effect of nutrients not degraded in the rumen.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , May 1981 , pp. 567 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

REFERENCES

Allen, J. D. & Hamson, D. G. (1979). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 38, 32A.Google Scholar
Allison, M. J. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Oriel Press, Ltd.Google Scholar
Bales, G. L., Kellog, D. W. & Miller, D. D. (1976). J. Dairy Sci. 59, 1850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, K. (1956). Biochem. J. 62, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalupa, W. (1977). J. Anim. Sci. 46, 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalupa, W. (1979). Vth int. Symp. on Ruminant Physiology, Clermont-Ferrand.Google Scholar
Clapperton, J. L. (1977). Anim. Prod. 24, 169.Google Scholar
Cole, N. A. & McCroskey, J. E. (1975). J. Anim. Sci. 41, 1735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottyn, B. G. & Boucque, C. V. (1968). J. agric. Fd Chem. 16, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. & Breckenridge, G. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. & Clapperton, J. L. (1968a). Lab. Pract. 17, 994.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. & Clapperton, J. L. (1968b). Lab. Pract. 17, 1012.Google Scholar
Davis, G. V. & Erhart, A. B. (1976). J. Anim. Sci. 43, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demeyer, D. I. & Van Nevel, C. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 366 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, New South Wales: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Gill, D. R., Martin, J. R. & Lake, R. (1976). J. Anim. Sci. 43, 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, D. G., Beever, D. E. & Thomson, D. J. (1974). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 33, 43A.Google Scholar
Harrison, D. G., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J. & Osbourn, D. F. (1975). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 85, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaacson, H. R., Hinds, F. C., Bryant, M. P. & Owens, F. N. (1975). J. Dairy Sci. 58, 1645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. E. (1974). J. Anim. Sci. 38, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. J., Herlugson, M. L., Ojikutu, L. B., Cordova, G., Dyer, I. A., Zimmer, P. & De Lay, R. (1979). J. Anim. Sci. 48, 1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyner, A. E. Jr., Brown, L. J., Fogg, T. J. & Rossi, T. (1979). J. Anim. Sci. 48, 1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibholz, J. (1975). Anim. Prod. 20, 93.Google Scholar
Lemenager, R. P., Owens, F. N., Shockey, B. J., Lusby, K. S. & Totusek, R. (1978). J. Anim. Sci. 47, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, J. R. & Buttery, P. J. (1978). Er. J. Nutr. 39, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marty, R. J. & Demeyer, D. I. (1973). Er. J. Nutr. 30, 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nockels, C. F., Jackson, D. W. & Berry, B. W. (1978). J. Anim. Sci. 47, 788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, W. M. (1975). J. Anim. Sci. 41, 999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, F. N. & Isaacson, H. R. (1977). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 36, 198.Google Scholar
Perry, T. W., Beeson, W. M. & Mohler, M. T. (1976). J. Anim. Sci. 42, 761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, E. L., Cooley, C. O., Richardson, L. F. & Raun, A. P. (1976). J. Anim. Sci. 43, 665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raun, A. P., Cooley, C. O., Potter, E. L., Rathmacher, R. P. & Richardson, L. F. (1976). J. Anim. Sci. 43, 670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, L. F., Raun, A. P., Potter, E. L., Cooley, C. O. & Rathmacher, R. P. (1976). J. Anim. Sci. 43, 657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, J. B., Loughnan, M. L., Nolan, J. V. & Leng, R. A. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, M. S., Hoover, W. H. & Sniffen, C. J. (1974). J. Anim. Sci. 38, 908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, D. E. (1978). Rumen fermentation and nitrogen metabolism as affected by monensin. PhD thesis. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Slyter, L. L. (1979). Appl. env. Microbiol. 37, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, S. (1976). Manipulating methane production in Ruminants. MSc thesis, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Latham, M. J., Sharpe, M. E. & Terry, R. A. (1978). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 91, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Mundell, D. C., Elderfield, M. L. & Hamson, D. J. (1975). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 34, 111A.Google Scholar
Trei, J. E., Parish, R. C. & Scott, G. C. (1971). J. Anim. Sci. 33, 1171.Google Scholar
Trei, J. E., Parish, R. C., Singh, Y. K. & Scott, G. C. (1971). J. Dairy Sci. 54, 536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trei, J. E. & Scott, G. C. (1971a). J. Anim. Sci. 33, 301.Google Scholar
Trei, J. E. & Scott, G. C. (1971b). J. Anim. Sci. 33, 311.Google Scholar
Trei, J. E., Scott, G. C. & Parish, R. C. (1972). J. Anim. Sci. 34, 510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. A., Raleigh, R. J. & Young, D. C. (1977). J. Anim. Sci. 44, 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Nevel, C. J. & Demeyer, D. I. (1977). Appl. env. Microbiol. 34, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Nevel, C. J. & Demeyer, D. I. (1979). Ann. Rech. Vet. 10, 338.Google Scholar
Van Nevel, C. J., Hendrickx, H. K., Demeyer, D. I. & Martin, J. (1969). Appl. Microbiol. 17, 695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar