Feed additives for methane mitigation: Recommendations for identification and selection of bioactive compounds to develop antimethanogenic feed additives

Despite the increasing interest in developing antimethanogenic additives to reduce enteric methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) emissions and the extensive research conducted over the last decades, the global livestock industry has a very limited number of antimethanogenic feed additives (AMFA) available that can deliver substantial reduction, and they have generally not reached the market yet. This work provides technical recommendations and guidelines for conducting tests intended to screen the potential to reduce, directly or indirectly, enteric CH<sub>4</sub> of compounds before they can be further assessed in in vivo conditions. The steps involved in this work cover the discovery, isolation, and identification of compounds capable of affecting CH<sub>4</sub> production by rumen microbes, followed by in vitro laboratory testing of potential candidates. The finding of new bioactive compounds as AMFA can be based on 2 approaches: empirical and mechanistic. The empirical approach involves obtaining and screening compounds present in databases and repositories that potentially possess the desired effect but have not yet been tested, screening natural sources of secondary compounds such as plants, fungi, and algae for their antimethanogenic effects, or examining compounds with antimethanogenic effect on microbes in other research domains outside the rumen. In contrast, the mechanistic approach is the theoretical process of discovery new bioactive compounds based on existing knowledge of a biological target or process. The in vitro methodologies reviewed include examining effects at the subcellular level, in single pure cultures of methanogens and examining in more complex mixed rumen microbial populations. Simple in vitro methodologies (subcellular assessments and batch culture) allow testing a large number of compounds, whereas more complex systems simulating the rumen microbial ecosystem can test a limited number of candidates but provide better insight about the antimethanogenic efficacy. This work collated the main advantages, limitations, and technical recommendations associated with each step and methodology use during the identification and screening of AMFA candidates.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2024-12-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-25045
Citations
16
Primary Topic
Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
9.08
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Feed additives for methane mitigation: Recommendations for identification and selection of bioactive compounds to develop antimethanogenic feed additives

Evert C. Duin, G. Martı́nez, Stefan Muetzel, Max Crüsemann et al.
16 citations
Journal of Dairy Science
Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
9.08
article

Feed additives for methane mitigation: Recommendations for identification and selection of bioactive compounds to develop antimethanogenic feed additives

Evert C. Duin, G. Martı́nez, Stefan Muetzel, Max Crüsemann, Vincenzo Carbone, Miroslav Joch, Emilio M. Ungerfeld, Veerle Fievez, A. Bannink, Z. Durmic, Alejandro Belanche, María Dolores Carro, David R. Yáñez-Ruíz, A.N. Hristov, Min Wang, F. Javier Giráldez García
article en
16 citations

Abstract

Despite the increasing interest in developing antimethanogenic additives to reduce enteric methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) emissions and the extensive research conducted over the last decades, the global livestock industry has a very limited number of antimethanogenic feed additives (AMFA) available that can deliver substantial reduction, and they have generally not reached the market yet. This work provides technical recommendations and guidelines for conducting tests intended to screen the potential to reduce, directly or indirectly, enteric CH<sub>4</sub> of compounds before they can be further assessed in in vivo conditions. The steps involved in this work cover the discovery, isolation, and identification of compounds capable of affecting CH<sub>4</sub> production by rumen microbes, followed by in vitro laboratory testing of potential candidates. The finding of new bioactive compounds as AMFA can be based on 2 approaches: empirical and mechanistic. The empirical approach involves obtaining and screening compounds present in databases and repositories that potentially possess the desired effect but have not yet been tested, screening natural sources of secondary compounds such as plants, fungi, and algae for their antimethanogenic effects, or examining compounds with antimethanogenic effect on microbes in other research domains outside the rumen. In contrast, the mechanistic approach is the theoretical process of discovery new bioactive compounds based on existing knowledge of a biological target or process. The in vitro methodologies reviewed include examining effects at the subcellular level, in single pure cultures of methanogens and examining in more complex mixed rumen microbial populations. Simple in vitro methodologies (subcellular assessments and batch culture) allow testing a large number of compounds, whereas more complex systems simulating the rumen microbial ecosystem can test a limited number of candidates but provide better insight about the antimethanogenic efficacy. This work collated the main advantages, limitations, and technical recommendations associated with each step and methodology use during the identification and screening of AMFA candidates.

Journal of Dairy ScienceVol. 108(1)
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU), Pennsylvania State University (US), University of Bonn (DE), Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (AR), The University of Western Australia (AU), Universidad de Zaragoza (ES), Ghent University (BE), AgResearch (NZ), Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (CL), Estación Experimental del Zaidín (ES), Institute of Animal Science (CZ), Institute of Subtropical Agriculture (CN), Animal, Food and Health Sciences (AU), Auburn University (US), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES), Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
9.08
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.