| Literature DB >> 34944313 |
Guanghui Yu1, Karen A Beauchemin2, Ruilan Dong1.
Abstract
Methane (CH4) from enteric fermentation accounts for 3 to 5% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. Cost-effective strategies are needed to reduce feed energy losses as enteric CH4 while improving ruminant production efficiency. Mitigation strategies need to be environmentally friendly, easily adopted by producers and accepted by consumers. However, few sustainable CH4 mitigation approaches are available. Recent studies show that the chemically synthesized CH4 inhibitor 3-nitrooxypropanol is one of the most effective approaches for enteric CH4 abatement. 3-nitrooxypropanol specifically targets the methyl-coenzyme M reductase and inhibits the final catalytic step in methanogenesis in rumen archaea. Providing 3-nitrooxypropanol to dairy and beef cattle in research studies has consistently decreased enteric CH4 production by 30% on average, with reductions as high as 82% in some cases. Efficacy is positively related to 3-NOP dose and negatively affected by neutral detergent fiber concentration of the diet, with greater responses in dairy compared with beef cattle when compared at the same dose. This review collates the current literature on 3-nitrooxypropanol and examines the overall findings of meta-analyses and individual studies to provide a synthesis of science-based information on the use of 3-nitrooxypropanol for CH4 abatement. The intent is to help guide commercial adoption at the farm level in the future. There is a significant body of peer-reviewed scientific literature to indicate that 3-nitrooxypropanol is effective and safe when incorporated into total mixed rations, but further research is required to fully understand the long-term effects and the interactions with other CH4 mitigating compounds.Entities:
Keywords: 3-nitrooxypropanol; enteric methane; hydrogen production; methanogens; mitigation; ruminant livestock
Year: 2021 PMID: 34944313 PMCID: PMC8697901 DOI: 10.3390/ani11123540
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Figure 1The main CH4 formation pathway in the rumen of ruminants and its inhibition by 3-NOP [28,29]. (3-NOP = 3-nitrooxypropanol; NOPA = 3-nitrooxypropionic acid; HPA = 3-hydroxypropionic acid).
Linear relationships between enteric CH4 and dose of 3-NOP (g/kg DM [16], mg/kg DM [17,19]) in ruminant diets.
| Type 1 | Equation 2 | Source |
|---|---|---|
| all | CH4/DMI (g/kg DMI) = −38.7 (±6.3) × 3-NOP + 20.2 (±1.25) (R2 = 0.59, n = 39, | [ |
| all | CH4/DMI (g/kg DMI) = −0.00158 (±0.000544) × 3-NOP + 12.3 ( | [ |
| all | CH4/DMI (g/kg DMI) = −0.041 (±0.0047) × 3-NOP + 20.636 (±1.02) (R2 = 0.74, n = 54, | [ |
| beef | CH4/DMI (g/kg DMI) = −0.037 (±0.0043) × 3-NOP + 21.365 (±1.48) (R2 = 0.80, n = 35, | [ |
| dairy | CH4/DMI (g/kg DMI) = −0.073 (±0.0084) × 3-NOP + 20.068 (±1.16) (R2 = 0.92, n = 16, | [ |
| long-term | CH4/DMI (g/kg DMI) = −0.053 (±0.0055) × 3-NOP + 21.379 (±2.11) (R2 = 0.91, n = 19, | [ |
| all | CH4/DOM (g/kg DOM) = −54.6 (±13.3) × 3-NOP + 30.6 (±1.32) (R2 = 0.68, n = 10, | [ |
| all | CH4/milk (g/kg milk) = −29.5 (±11.9) × 3-NOP + 14.0 (±1.90) (R2 = 0.46, n = 12, | [ |
| all | CH4/BW (g/kg BW) = −0.94 (±0.19) × 3-NOP + 0.486 (±0.04) (R2 = 0.42, n = 39, | [ |
| all | CH4 (g/d) = −0.00176 (±0.000411) × 3-NOP + 12.3 ( | [ |
| all | CH4 (% of GEI) = −10.3 × 3-NOP + 6.16 (R2 = 0.49, n = 29, | [ |
Note: 1 All refers to a combined dataset for beef, dairy and sheep and long-term refers to duration of feeding period in in vivo studies [14,49,50,51,55]; 2 3-NOP = 3-nitrooxypropanol; BW = body weight; DMI = dry matter intake; DOM = digested organic matter; GEI = gross energy intake.
Summary of 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) effects on in vivo fermentation, digestibility, microbes and enteric CH4 production in ruminants.
| Reference | Animal | Diet and Level 1 | 3-Nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) | Effects 4 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mg/kg DM 2 | Length of Experimental Period 3 | VFA | Ammonia Nitrogen | CH4 Yield 5 | CH4
| H2 Production | Digestibility 6 | Microbes 6 | |||
| Haisan et al. [ | Dairy | Silage: concentrate (60:40) | 130 | 28-d periods | ↓ acetate and acetate-to-propionate ratio | NR | ↓ (60% relative to a control diet) | Sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique | NR | NR | ↓ Methanogens |
| Reynolds et al. [ | Dairy | Silage: concentrate (51:49) | 25 and 124 | 5-wk | ↓ acetate and acetate-to-propionate ratio | – | ↓ (7%, 9.8% relative to a control diet, g/d) | Respiration chambers | NR | ↓ DM, OM, ADF, nitrogen, and energy by the higher dose | NR |
| Hristov et al. [ | Dairy | TMR | 40, 60, and 80 | 12-wk | NR | NR | ↓ (25%, 31%, 32% relative to a control diet, g/d) | GreenFeed system | ↑ 0.48, 0.96, and 1.27 g/d, respectively | NR | NR |
| Lopes et al. [ | Dairy | Forage: concentrate (55:45) | 60 | Two 14-d periods | ↓ acetate and acetate-to-propionate ratio | ↓ | ↓ (34%, relative to a control diet) | GreenFeed system | ↑ 1.3 g/d | NR | ↓ Ruminococcus and Clostridium spp. |
| Haisan et al. [ | Dairy | Silage: concentrate (60:40) | 68 and 132 | Three 28-d periods | ↓ acetate | – | ↓ (23–37% relative to a control diet) | Sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique | NR | ↑ DM, NDF at high dose | # Methanogens, protozoa, and bacteria |
| Van Wesemael et al. [ | Dairy | Silage: concentrate (66:34) | 75 7 | 10-wk | NR | NR | ↓ (21–23% relative to a control diet) | GreenFeed units | NR | NR | NR |
| Melgar et al. [ | Dairy | Forage: concentrate (58:42) | 60 | 15-wk | ↓ acetate, total VFA | – | ↓ (21%, relative to a control diet) | GreenFeed system | ↑ 48-fold relative to control diets | ↑ crude protein | NR |
| Melgar et al. [ | Dairy | Forage: concentrate (60:40) | 40, 60, 80, 100, 150, and 200 | 31 d | NR | NR | ↓ (16–36%, relative to a control diet) | GreenFeed system | ↑ 6- to 10-fold relative to control diets | NR | NR |
| d 3 | Dairy | Forage: concentrate (60:40) | 51 | NR | NR | ↓ (17%, relative to a control diet) | Climate respiration chambers | ↑ 11-fold | ↑ DM, OM, NDF and gross energy | NR | |
| Meale et al. [ | Dairy | Milk and concentrate | 3 mg/kg BW | 14-wk | No effect | NR | ↓ (11.6–17.5% relative to control calves, g/d) | GreenFeed system | NR | NR | ↓ rumen bacteria and archaeal at 60 weeks of age |
| Melgar et al. [ | Dairy | Forage: concentrate (58:42) | 60 | 15-wk | NR | NR | ↓ (27%, relative to a control diet) | GreenFeed units | ↑ 6-fold relative to control diets | NR | NR |
| Pitta et al. [ | Dairy | TMR | 60 | 12-wk | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | ↓ Methanobrevibacter, Methanosphaera |
| Schilde et al. [ | Dairy | Silage: concentrate (90:10) | 48 and 51 | d 28 | ↓ acetate and acetate-to-propionate ratio | ↓ | ↓ (23–35% relative to a control diet) | GreenFeed system | NR | NR | # protozoa |
| Romero-Perez et al. [ | Beef | Forage: concentrate (60:40) | 47, 144 and 305 | Four 28-d periods | ↓ acetate, acetate-to-propionate ratio | – | ↓ (4–33%, relative to a control diet) | Whole animal metabolic chambers | NR | # | # Methanogens, protozoa, and bacteria |
| Romero-Perez et al. [ | Beef | Forage: concentrate (60:40) | 280 | 112 d | ↓ acetate, acetate-to-propionate ratio | – | ↓ (59.2%, relative to a control diet) | Whole animal metabolic chambers | NR | NR | ↓ methanogens |
| Vyas et al. [ | Beef | Silage: concentrate (70:30,8:92) | 100 and 200 | 238 d | NR | NR | ↓ (16–22.9% relative to a backgrounding control diet; 25.8–45.2% relative to a finishing control diet) | Open-circuit calorimetry Chambers | ↑ 2.6- to 5.5-fold (backgrounding phase); 140- to 621.5-fold (finishing phase) relative to control diets | NR | NR |
| Vyas et al. [ | Beef | Silage: concentrate (65:35,8:92) | 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200 | Two 28-d periods | NR | NR | ↓ (max. 23% and 45% relative to high-forage and high-grain control diets) | Open-circuit calorimetry chambers | ↑ max. 1.03 and 2.77 g/d.animal | NR | NR |
| Martínez-Fernández et al. [ | Beef | grass hay | 325 | 21 d | ↓ | ↑ | ↓ (38%, relative to a control diet) | Open-circuit respiration chambers | – | ↑DM | ↓ Methanobrevibacter |
| Vyas et al. [ | Beef | Silage: concentrate (65:35,8:92) | 125 and 200 | 105 d | ↓ acetate and acetate-to-propionate ratio | – | ↓ (37–42% relative to a control diet) | Open-circuit calorimetry chambers | ↑ 2.26 and 7.92 g/animal per day | NR | NR |
| Kim et al. [ | Beef | Forage: concentrate (65:35) | 100 | Three 21-d periods | ↓ acetate | – | ↓ (18%, relative to high forage control diet) | GreenFeed system | NR | NR | NR |
| McGinn et al. [ | Beef | Barley silage: barley grain (92:8) | 125 | 120 d | NR | NR | ↓ (70%, relative to a control diet) | Centration ratio and inverse dispersion methods | NR | NR | NR |
| Samsonstuen et al. [ | Beef | Forage: concentrate (78:22, 47:53, 62:38, 50:50) | 100 and 237 | 34-wk | NR | NR | ↓ (15% and 31% for British breed, 19% and 35 % for Continental breed, kg CO2 eq kg−1 carcass) | HolosNorBeef modle | NR | NR | NR |
| Zhang et al. [ | Beef | Forage: concentrate (90:10) | 150 | 12 d | NR | NR | ↓ (53%, relative to a control diet) 8 | Gas chromatography | ↑ 780% | # ruminal fiber degradation | ↓ Methanobrevibacter for barley silage |
| Alemu et al. [ | Beef | Silage: concentrate (70:30) | 150, 175, and 200 | 108 d | NR | NR | ↓ (20%, 25%, and 21% relative to a control diet) | GreenFeed system | ↑ 3.5-, 4-, 4-fold relative to control diets | NR | NR |
| Alemu et al. [ | Beef | Forage: concentrate (8:92) | 100, 125 and 150 | Three 28-d periods | ↓ acetate: propionate ratio | – | ↓ (52%, 76%, and 63% relative to a control diet) | GreenFeed system | ↑ 4.9-fold | NR | NR |
| Gruninger et al. [ | Beef | Forage: concentrate (90:10) | 200 | Four 28-d periods | ↑ propionate percentages | NR | ↓ (28.2%, relative to a control diet) | Open-circuit calorimetry chambers | ↑ 37-fold relative to control diets | NR | ↓ Methanobrevibacter, Methanomicrobium, Methanomethylophilus |
| Zhang et al. [ | Beef | Forage: concentrate (90:10) | 200 | Four 28-d periods | ↓ acetate, total VFA concentration | – | ↓ (31.6%, relative to a control diet) | Open-circuit calorimetry chambers | ↑ 45-fold relative to control diets | ↑ crude protein and starch digestibility | NR |
| Martínez-Fernández et al. [ | Sheep | Alfalfa hay and oats (60:40) | 111 | 30 d | ↓ acetate and acetate-to-propionate ratio | – | ↓ (26%, relative to a control diet) | Respiration chambers | NR | # DM | # Methanogenic archaea |
1 Dietary level on a dry matter (DM) basis. 2 3-NOP concentration in the substrate. 3 DIM = days in milk; d = day; wk = week. 4 ↑ = increase; ↓ = decrease; NR = not reported; DM = dry matter; OM = organic matter; NDF = neutral detergent fiber; ADF = acid detergent fiber. 5 CH4 yield = per kg of DM, otherwise stated in g CH4/d. 6 ↑ = increase; ↓ = decrease; # = no statistically significant effect. 7 mixed with the basal diet or incorporated into a concentrate pellet. 8 Rumen dissolved CH4, mmol/L.
Summary of 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) effects on in vitro fermentation, digestibility, microbes and enteric CH4 production in ruminants.
| Reference | Animal (Rumen Fluid) | Diet Substrate and Level 1 | 3-Nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) | Effects 3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mg/g DM 2 | Persistency Time | VFA | Ammonia Concentration | CH4 Yield | CH4
| H2 Production | Digestibility | Microbes | |||
| Romero-Perez et al. [ | cattle | Silage: concentrate (10 g; 60:40) | 0.5, 1 and 2 | 7 d | ↑ except for acetate | – | ↓ (74.6%, 84.2% and 86%, relative to a control diet) 4 | gas chromatograph | ↑ 2.6, 3.05, and 3.18-fold respectively | – DM and OM | ↓ Methanogens in the solid phase |
| Romero-Perez et al. [ | cattle | Silage: concentrate (10 g; 60:40) | 0.2 | 7 d | NR | NR | ↓ (71.5%, relative to a control diet) 5 | gas chromatograph | ↑1.7-fold relative to control diets | NR | ↓ Methanogens in the solid phase |
| Guyader et al. [ | cattle | Silage: concentrate (10 g; 60:40) | 0.5 | 19 d | ↓ acetate and isovalerate | ↑ | ↓ (75%, relative to a control diet) | gas-liquid chromatography | ↑ (81%, relative to a control diet) | ↑ DM and OM | NR |
| Romero-Perez et al. [ | cattle | Silage: concentrate (10 g; 10:90) | 0.2 | 6 d | ↓ acetate | – | ↓ (77.7%, relative to a control diet) 5 | gas chromatograph | ↑ 2.3-fold relative to control diets | – DM | ↓ Methanogens |
| Alvarez-Hess et al. [ | cattle | Corn grain (0.5 g; 50%) and alfalfa hay (0.5 g; 50%) | 0.08 | 24 h | ↓ acetate-to-propionate ratio | – | ↓ (44%, relative to a control diet) 6 | gas chromatography | NR | – DM | NR |
| Schilde et al. [ | cattle | Forage: concentrate (12 g; 70:30, 40:60) | 0.07, 0.16, and 1.2 | 48 h | ↓ acetate, | ↓ | ↓ (17–97%, relative to a control diet) 7 | gas chromatography | 27- and 6.2-fold relative to low- and high-concentrate diets | ↑DM | NR |
| Martínez-Fernández et al. [ | sheep | alfalfa hay and oats (0.5 g; 60:40) | 8 and 16 | 24 h | ↓ acetate-to-propionate ratio | NR | ↓ (86.1% and 95.4% relative to a control diet) 8 | gas chromatograph | NR | NR | NR |
1 Dietary level on a dry matter (DM) basis. 2 3-NOP concentration in the substrate; d = day, semi long-term studies. 3 ↑ = increase; ↓ = decrease; – = no statistically significant effect; NR = not reported; DM = dry matter; OM = organic matter. 4 CH4 yield = mL/g DM degraded. 5 CH4 yield = mL/d. 6 CH4 yield = mL. 7 CH4 yield = mL/g DM degraded. 8 CH4 yield = μmol.