Microbial Competition in the Rumen: Insights into Fermentation Kinetics, Host Health, and Environmental Sustainability

Year : 2025 | Volume : 15 | Issue : 03 | Page : 27 42
    By

    Md. Emran Hossain,

  1. Professor, Department of Animal Science and Nutrition, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Khulshi, Chattogram, , Bangladesh

Abstract

Microbial competition within the rumen is a crucial determinant of fermentation efficiency, nutrient utilization, and overall host health in ruminant animals. The complex microbial community in the rumen comprises bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and archaea, all of which interact in intricate and often competitive ways to degrade feed and produce essential metabolites. This competition significantly influences fermentation kinetics, determining the rate and efficiency of carbohydrate, protein, and fat breakdown. Such microbial interactions can either enhance or impair nutrient digestibility and utilization, with direct implications for feed conversion, growth performance, and milk yield. The balance of microbial populations in the rumen also has profound effects on host health. Competitive dynamics can suppress pathogenic microorganisms and strengthen the rumen’s resilience to stressors such as dietary changes or environmental fluctuations. Conversely, dysbiosis due to imbalanced competition can lead to gastrointestinal disorders, reduced immune function, and suboptimal productivity. Moreover, microbial competition in the rumen impacts the environmental footprint of livestock farming. It plays a key role in the mitigation of methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas, and affects nitrogen cycling, which in turn influences manure management and fertilizer requirements. Understanding these microbial interactions offers potential avenues for improving rumen function, promoting animal welfare, and enhancing sustainability in livestock production systems. This review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of microbial competition in the rumen, highlighting its influence on fermentation kinetics, host health, and environmental sustainability.

Keywords: Fermentation kinetics, gut microbiota, microbial competition, microbial diversity, nutrient digestion, rumen ecology, rumen fermentation

[This article belongs to Research and Reviews: A Journal of Microbiology and Virology ]

How to cite this article:
Md. Emran Hossain. Microbial Competition in the Rumen: Insights into Fermentation Kinetics, Host Health, and Environmental Sustainability. Research and Reviews: A Journal of Microbiology and Virology. 2025; 15(03):27-42.
How to cite this URL:
Md. Emran Hossain. Microbial Competition in the Rumen: Insights into Fermentation Kinetics, Host Health, and Environmental Sustainability. Research and Reviews: A Journal of Microbiology and Virology. 2025; 15(03):27-42. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/rrjomv/article=2025/view=233156


References

  1. Saleem ASA, Abdelnour S, Bassiony SM, Abdel-Monem UM, Elaref MY, Al-Marakby KM. Probiotic supplementation in sustainable sheep production: Impacts on health, performance, and methane mitigation. Springer; 2025. doi: 10.1007/s11250–025–04439–y.
  2. Deng X, Li H, Wu A, He J, Mao X, Dai Z, et al. Composition, influencing factors, and effects on host nutrient metabolism of fungi in gastrointestinal tract of monogastric animals. Animals (Basel). 2025;15:710. doi: 10.3390/ani15050710.
  3. Chen M, Li Q, Liu C, Meng E, Zhang B. Microbial degradation of lignocellulose for sustainable biomass utilization and future research perspectives. Sustainability. 2025;17:4223. doi: 10.3390/su17094223.
  4. Flint HJ, Duncan SH, Scott KP, Louis P. Interactions and competition within the microbial community of the human colon: Links between diet and health: Minireview. Environ Microbiol. 2007;9(5):1101–1111. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01281.x.
  5. Weimer PJ. Redundancy, resilience, and host specificity of the ruminal microbiota: Implications for engineering improved ruminal fermentations. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:296. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00296.
  6. Chen L, Shen Y, Wang C, Ding L, Zhao F, Wang M, et al. Megasphaera elsdenii lactate degradation pattern shifts in rumen acidosis models. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:162. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00162.
  7. Sejian V, Silpa MV, Lees AM, Krishnan G, Devaraj C, Bagath M, et al. Opportunities, challenges, and ecological footprint of sustaining small ruminant production in the changing climate scenario. In: Agroecol Footprints Manage Sustain Food Syst. 2020. pp. 365–396. doi: 10.1007/978–981–15–9496–0_12.
  8. Sun X, Wang Y, Ma X, Li S, Wang W. Producing natural functional and low-carbon milk by regulating the diet of the cattle—the fatty acid associated rumen fermentation, biohydrogenation, and microorganism response. Front Nutr. 2022;9:955846. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.955846.
  9. Petri RM, Pourazad P, Khiaosa-ard R, Klevenhusen F, Metzler-Zebeli BU, Zebeli Q. Temporal dynamics of in-situ fiber-adherent bacterial community under ruminal acidotic conditions determined by 16S rRNA gene profiling. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0182271. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182271.
  10. Yang WZ, Beauchemin KA. Altering physically effective fiber intake through forage proportion and particle length: Digestion and milk production. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90(7):3410–3421. doi: 10.3168/jds.2006–818.
  11. Weimer PJ, Stevenson DM, Mertens DR, Hall MB. Fiber digestion, VFA production, and microbial population changes during in vitro ruminal fermentations of mixed rations by monensin-adapted and unadapted microbes. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2011;169(1–2):68–78. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.06.002.
  12. Puhlmann ML, de Vos WM. Intrinsic dietary fibers and the gut microbiome: Rediscovering the benefits of the plant cell matrix for human health. Front Immunol. 2022;13:954845. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.954845.
  13. Belanche A, Palma-Hidalgo JM, Jiménez E, Yáñez-Ruiz DR. Enhancing rumen microbial diversity and its impact on energy and protein metabolism in forage-fed goats. Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1272835. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1272835.
  14. Lu Z, Xu Z, Shen Z, Tian Y, Shen H. Dietary energy level promotes rumen microbial protein synthesis by improving the energy productivity of the ruminal microbiome. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:847. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00847.
  15. Parra MC, Costa DF, Meale SJ, Silva LFP. Rumen bacteria and feed efficiency of beef cattle fed diets with different protein content. Anim Prod Sci. 2022;62(11):1029–1039. doi: 10.1071/AN21508.
  16. Liu X, Sha Y, Dingkao R, Zhang W, Lv W, Wei H, et al. Interactions between rumen microbes, VFAs, and host genes regulate nutrient absorption and epithelial barrier function during cold season nutritional stress in Tibetan sheep. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:593062. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.593062.
  17. Zhang X, Xiong Z, He Y, Zheng N, Zhao S, Wang J. Epiberberine: A potential rumen microbial urease inhibitor to reduce ammonia release screened by targeting UreG. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2024;108:13131–13144. doi: 10.1007/s00253-024-13131-4.
  18. Bello IA. Development of soy formulate and bioprocessing for biological ammonia production via hyperammonia bacteria fermentation. [Dissertation]. 2023. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/openview/155416bc35cf348462ff6eee9dd3cc08/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
  19. Króliczewska B, Pecka-Kiełb E, Bujok J. Strategies used to reduce methane emissions from ruminants: Controversies and issues. Agriculture. 2023;13(3):602. doi: 10.3390/agriculture13030602.
  20. Asselstine V, Lam S, Miglior F, Brito LF, Sweett H, Guan L, et al. The potential for mitigation of methane emissions in ruminants through the application of metagenomics, metabolomics, and other -omics technologies. J Anim Sci. 2021;99(10):skab193. doi: 10.1093/jas/skab193.
  21. Kelly L, Kebreab E. Recent advances in feed additives with the potential to mitigate enteric methane emissions from ruminant livestock. J Soil Water Conserv. 2023;78(3):111–123. doi: 10.2489/jswc.2023.00070.
  22. Sun J, Zhao G, Li MM. Using nutritional strategies to mitigate ruminal methane emissions from ruminants. Front Agric Sci Eng. 2023;10(3):390–402. doi: 10.15302/J-FASE-2023504.
  23. Hassen A, Tesfamariam N, Pepeta N, Tasfamariam EN. The potential of strategies used to mitigate enteric methane emissions in nutrition studies of ruminants: A review. Preprints. 2024. Available at preprints.org
  24. Newbold CJ, Ramos-Morales E. Review: Ruminal microbiome and microbial metabolome: Effects of diet and ruminant host. Animal. 2020;14(S1):S78–S86. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119003252.
  25. Pitta D, Indugu N, Narayan K, Hennessy M. Symposium review: Understanding the role of the rumen microbiome in enteric methane mitigation and productivity in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2022;105(10):8569–8585. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-21466.
  26. Zhao X, Zhang Y, Rahman A, Chen M, Li N, Wu T, et al. Rumen microbiota succession throughout the perinatal period and its association with postpartum production traits in dairy cows: A review. Anim Nutr. 2024;18:17–26 doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2024.04.013.
  27. Morgavi DP, Forano E, Martin C, Newbold CJ. Review: Reducing enteric methane emissions improves energy metabolism in livestock: Is the tenet right? Animal. 2023:17 Suppl 3:100830. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2023.100830.
  28. Lambo MT, Ma H, Liu R, Dai B, Zhang Y, Li Y. Review: Mechanism, effectiveness, and the prospects of medicinal plants and their bioactive compounds in lowering ruminants’ enteric methane emission. Animal. 2024;18(4):101134. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2024.101134.
  29. Qiu Q, Zhang J, Qu M, Li Y, Zhao X, Ouyang K. Effect of energy provision strategy on rumen fermentation characteristics, bacterial diversity and community composition. Bioengineering. 2023;10:107. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10010107.
  30. Ahmad AA, Yang C, Zhang J, Kalwar Q, Liang Z, Li C, et al. Effects of dietary energy levels on rumen fermentation, microbial diversity, and feed efficiency of yaks (Bos grunniens). Front Microbiol. 2020;11:625. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00625.
  31. Pitta DW, Pinchak WE, Dowd S, Dorton K, Yoon I, Min BR, et al. Longitudinal shifts in bacterial diversity and fermentation pattern in the rumen of steers grazing wheat pasture. Anaerobe. 2014;30:11–17. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2014.07.008.
  32. Pinloche E, McEwan N, Marden JP, Bayourthe C, Auclair E, Newbold CJ. The effects of a probiotic yeast on the bacterial diversity and population structure in the rumen of cattle. PLoS One. 2013;8:e67824. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067824.
  33. Kibegwa FM, Bett RC, Gachuiri CK, Machuka E, Stomeo F, Mujibi FD. Diversity and functional analysis of rumen and fecal microbial communities associated with dietary changes in crossbreed dairy cattle. PLoS One. 2023;18:e0274371. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274371.
  34. Linde DA, van Marle-Köster E, du Toit CJL, Scholtz MM, Schokker D. Rumen microbial diversity of Bonsmara cattle using amplicon sequencing during a 120-day growth trial. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2022;52(2):148–161. doi: 10.4314/sajas.v52i2.4.
  35. de Melo HSA, Ítavo LCV, de Castro AP, Ítavo CCBF, de Araújo Caldas R, Mateus RG, et al. Effect of whole oilseeds in the diet on bacterial diversity in the solid fraction of the ruminal content of steers. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2023;55:1. doi: 10.1007/s11250-022-03442-x.
  36. Nishiyama K, Murakami R, Nakahata M, Zhou B, Hashikura N, Kaneko H, et al. Exploring strain-level diversity in the gut microbiome through mucin particle adhesion. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2024. doi: 10.1128/aem.01235-24.
  37. Guo W, Zhou M, Ma T, Bi S, Wang W, Zhang Y, et al. Survey of rumen microbiota of domestic grazing yak during different growth stages revealed novel maturation patterns of four key microbial groups and their dynamic interactions. Anim Microbiome. 2020;2:42. doi: 10.1186/s42523-020-00042-8.
  38. Leng RA. Interactions between microbial consortia in biofilms: A paradigm shift in rumen microbial ecology and enteric methane mitigation. CSIRO Publishing; 2014;54:519–543. doi: 10.1071/AN13381.
  39. Carey HV, Assadi-Porter FM. The hibernator microbiome: Host-bacterial interactions in an extreme nutritional symbiosis. Annu Rev Nutr. 2017;37:477–500. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-071816-064740.
  40. Hassan FU, Arshad MA, Ebeid HM, Rehman MS-U, Khan MS, Shahid S, et al. Phytogenic additives can modulate rumen microbiome to mediate fermentation kinetics and methanogenesis through exploiting diet–microbe interaction. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:575801. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.575801.
  41. Guo N, Wu Q, Shi F, Niu J, Zhang T, Degen AA, et al. Seasonal dynamics of diet–gut microbiota interaction in adaptation of yaks to life at high altitude. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2021;7(1):38. doi: 10.1038/s41522-021-00207-6.
  42. Liu Z, De Bruijn WJC, Bruins ME, Vincken JP. Reciprocal interactions between epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) and human gut microbiota in vitro. J Agric Food Chem. 2020;68(36):9804–9815. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c03587.
  43. Charlier C, Cretenet M, Even S, Le Loir Y. Interactions between Staphylococcus aureus and lactic acid bacteria: An old story with new perspectives. Int J Food Microbiol. 2009;131(1):30–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.06.032.
  44. Pu G, Hou L, Zhao Q, Liu G, Wang Z, Zhou W, et al. Interactions between gut microbes and host promote degradation of various fiber components in Meishan pigs. mSystems. 2025;10(2):e0150024. doi: 10.1128/msystems.01500-24.
  45. Maas RM, Deng Y, Dersjant-Li Y, Petit J, Verdegem MCJ, Schrama JW, et al. Exogenous enzymes and probiotics alter digestion kinetics, volatile fatty acid content and microbial interactions in the gut of Nile tilapia. Sci Rep. 2021;11:17464. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-87408-3.
  46. Moraïs S, Mazor M, Tovar-Herrera O, Zehavi T, Zorea A, Ifrach M, et al. Plasmid-encoded toxin defence mediates mutualistic microbial interactions. Nat Microbiol. 2024;9(1):123–132. doi: 10.1038/s41564-023-01521-9.
  47. Hu R, Li S, Diao S, Huang C, Yan J, Wei X, et al. The interaction between dietary fiber and gut microbiota, and its effect on pig intestinal health. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1095740. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1095740.
  48. Chadaideh KS, Carmody RN. Host-microbial interactions in the metabolism of different dietary fats. Cell Metab. 2021;33:1234–1248. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2021.04.011.
  49. Anderson CL, Sullivan MB, Fernando SC. Dietary energy drives the dynamic response of bovine rumen viral communities. Microbiome. 2017;5:122. doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0374-3.
  50. Park T, Ma L, Ma Y, Zhou X, Bu D, Yu Z. Dietary energy sources and levels shift the multi-kingdom microbiota and functions in the rumen of lactating dairy cows. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2020;11:66. doi: 10.1186/s40104-020-00461-2.
  51. Solomon JK. Legumes for animal nutrition and dietary energy. Adv Legum Sustain Intensif. 2022:227–244. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-85797-0.00026-4.
  52. Schoelmerich MC, Katsyv A, Dönig J, Hackmann TJ, Müller V. Energy conservation involving 2 respiratory circuits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(2):1167–1173. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1914939117.
  53. Dirks B, Davis TL, Carnero EA, Corbin KD, Smith SR, Rittmann BE, et al. Methanogens are associated with altered microbial production of short-chain fatty acids and human-host metabolizable energy. ISME J. 2025;19(1):wraf103. doi: 10.1093/ismejo/wraf103..
  54. Cuervo W, Gomez-Lopez C, DiLorenzo N. Methane synthesis as a source of energy loss impacting microbial protein synthesis in beef cattle—A review. Methane. 2025;4(2):10. Available at https://www.mdpi.com/2674-0389/4/2/10.
  55. Zhang J, Zheng N, Shen W, Zhao S, Wang J. Synchrony degree of dietary energy and nitrogen release influences microbial community, fermentation, and protein synthesis in a rumen simulation system. Microorganisms. 2020;8(2):231. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8020231.
  56. Brown MS, Ponce CH, Pulikanti R. Adaptation of beef cattle to high-concentrate diets: Performance and ruminal metabolism. J Anim Sci. 2006;84 Suppl:E25. doi: 10.2527/2006.8413_supplE25x.
  57. Ji SK, Jiang C-g, Li R, Diao Q-Y, Tu Y, Zhang N-f, et al. Growth performance and rumen microorganism differ between segregated weaning lambs and grazing lambs. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2016;7:12. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61267-9.
  58. Wang K, Song D, Zhang X, Datsomor O, Jiang M, Zhao G. Effects of high-grain diet on performance, ruminal fermentation, and rumen microbial flora of lactating Holstein dairy cows. Animals. 2024;14:2522. doi: 10.3390/ani14172522.
  59. Zhu W, Wei Z, Xu N, Yang F, Yoon I, Chung Y, et al. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products on performance and rumen fermentation and microbiota in dairy cows fed a diet containing low quality forage. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2017;8:36. doi: 10.1186/s40104-017-0167-3.
  60. Ji H, Chen L, Ma Y, Degen AA, Yuan Z, Chen H, et al. A comparison of growth performance, blood parameters, rumen fermentation, and bacterial community of Tibetan sheep when fattened by pasture grazing versus stall feeding. Microorganisms. 2024;12(10):1967. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms12101967.
  61. Yang F, Henniger MT, Izzo AS, Melchior EA, Clemmons BA, Oliver MA,et al. Performance improvements and increased ruminal microbial interactions in Angus heifers via supplementation with native rumen bacteria during high-grain challenge. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):86331. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-86331-1.
  62. Pittaluga AM, Yang F, Gaffney JR, Embree M, Relling AE. Effect of supplementation with ruminal probiotics on growth performance, carcass characteristics, plasma metabolites, methane emissions, and the associated rumen microbiome changes in beef cattle. J Anim Sci. 2023;101:skac308. doi: 10.1093/jas/skac308.
  63. Hassan F, Tang Z, Ebeid HM, Li M, Peng K, Liang X, et al. Consequences of herbal mixture supplementation on milk performance, ruminal fermentation, and bacterial diversity in water buffaloes. PeerJ. 2021;9:e11241. doi: 10.7717/peerj.11241.
  64. Adnane M, Whiston R, Tasara T, Bleul U, Chapwanya A. Harnessing vaginal probiotics for enhanced management of uterine disease and reproductive performance in dairy cows: A conceptual review. Animals. 2024;14:1073. doi: 10.3390/ani14071073.
  65. Dittoe DK, Olson EG, Ricke SC. Impact of the gastrointestinal microbiome and fermentation metabolites on broiler performance. Poult Sci. 2022;101:101786. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.101786.
  66. Sandrini S. New perspectives in livestock nutrition to improve health and performance. Milan: Università degli Studi di Milano; 2023. Available at https://air.unimi.it/handle/2434/971654
  67. Singh S, Hundal JS, Patra AK, Sethi RS, Sharma A. A composite polyphenol-rich extract improved growth performance, ruminal fermentation and immunity, while decreasing methanogenesis and excretion of nitrogen and phosphorus in growing buffaloes. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2022;29(17):24757–24773. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-17674-1.
  68. Lee HJ, Jung JY, Oh YK, Lee SS, Madsen EL, Jeon CO. Comparative survey of rumen microbial communities and metabolites across one caprine and three bovine groups, using bar-coded pyrosequencing and 1H nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78(17):5983–5993. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00104-12.
  69. Beckett L, Gleason CB, Bedford A, Liebe D, Yohe TT, Hall MB, et al. Rumen volatile fatty acid molar proportions, rumen epithelial gene expression, and blood metabolite concentration responses to ruminally degradable starch and fiber supplies. J Dairy Sci. 2021;104(8):8857–8869. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-19622.
  70. Omondi VO. Analysis of metabolite compounds in ruminants and their contribution to greenhouse gas emission. Nairobi: University of Nairobi; 2023. Available at: https://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/164603
  71. Artiles-Ortega E, de la Fé–Rodríguez PY, Reguera-Barreto B, Lima-Orozco R, Fievez V. In vitro rumen degradability of tropical legumes and their secondary metabolites depends on inoculum source. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2022;54:5. doi: 10.1007/s11250-022-03327-z.
  72. Malheiros JM, Correia BSB, Ceribeli C, Bruscadin JJ, Diniz WJS, Banerjee P, et al. Ruminal and feces metabolites associated with feed efficiency, water intake and methane emission in Nelore bulls. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):18001. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-45330-w.
  73. Han H, Wang C, Huang Z, Zhnag Y, Sun L, Xue Y, et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria-inoculated corn silage on bacterial communities and metabolites of digestive tract of sheep. Fermentation. 2022;8(7):320. doi: 10.3390/fermentation8070320.
  74. Prajapati N, Patel J, Singh S, Yadav VK, Joshi C, Patani A, et al. Postbiotic production: Harnessing the power of microbial metabolites for health applications. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1306192. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1306192.
  75. Mizrahi I, Wallace RJ, Moraïs S. The rumen microbiome: Balancing food security and environmental impacts. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19(9):553–566. doi: 10.1038/s41579-021-00543-6.
  76. Tedeschi LO, Fox DG, Tylutki TP. Potential environmental benefits of ionophores in ruminant diets. J Environ Qual. 2003;32(5):1591–1602. doi: 10.2134/jeq2003.1591.
  77. Guo W, Zhou M, Li F, Neves ALA, Ma T, Bo S, et al. Seasonal stability of the rumen microbiome contributes to the adaptation patterns to extreme environmental conditions in grazing yak and cattle. BMC Biol. 2024;22(1):240. doi: 10.1186/s12915-024-02035-4.
  78. He S, Zhao S, Wang Z, Dai S, Mao H, Wu D. Impact of seasonal variation in pasture on rumen microbial community and volatile fatty acids in grazing yaks: Insights from high-altitude environments. Microorganisms. 2024;12:1701. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms12081701.
  79. Briški F, Vuković Domanovac M. Environmental microbiology. Berlin: De Gruyter; 2018. doi: 10.1515/9783110468038-004.
  80. Sandoval DF, Florez JF, Enciso Valencia KJ, Sotelo Cabrera ME, Stefan B. Economic-environmental assessment of silvo-pastoral systems in Colombia: An ecosystem service perspective. Heliyon. 2023;9:e19082. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19082.
  81. Frommeyer B, Fiedler AW, Oehler SR, Hanson BT, Loy A, Franchini P, et al. Environmental and intestinal phylum Firmicutes bacteria metabolize the plant sugar sulfoquinovose via a 6-deoxy-6-sulfofructose transaldolase pathway. iScience. 2020;23:101510. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101510.
  82. Faizan M, Rehman M, Fiaz M, Tauqir NA, Shoaib M, Aamir J. Ruminants enteric methane production: its deleterious effect on environment and mitigation strategies—A review. Pak J Sci. 2024;76(1). Available at : https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=
    ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=00309877&AN=177323439
  83. Zhao S, Lau R, Zhong Y, Chen MH. Lactate cross-feeding between Bifidobacterium species and Megasphaera indica contributes to butyrate formation in the human colonic environment. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2024;90(1):e01019–e01023. doi:10.1128/aem.01019-23.
  84. Debbarma S, Talukdar J, Sarma A, Maurya P, Deka D, Barkalita L. Microbial genomics and modulation in ruminants: An environmental perspective with special reference to methane mitigation. In: Livestock Health and Production. Springer; 2023. pp. 231–248. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-2209-3_13.
  85. Kadigi JH, Muzzo BI, Schreiber S. Potential benefits of tannins on ruminant health, production and environmental sustainability. 2024. Available at https://qcnr.usu.edu/smart-foodscapes/files/Muzzo
    pdf
  86. Besharati M, Palangi V, Moaddab M, Nemati Z, Pliego AB, Salem AZM. Influence of cinnamon essential oil and monensin on ruminal biogas kinetics of waste pomegranate seeds as a biofriendly agriculture environment. Waste Biomass Valor. 2021;12(5):2333–2342. doi: 10.1007/s12649-020-01167-2.
  87. Verstraete W, Yanuka-Golub K, Driesen N, De Vrieze J. Engineering microbial technologies for environmental sustainability: Choices to make. Microb Biotechnol. 2022;15(1):215–227. doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.13986.
  88. Cozannet M, Borrel G, Roussel E, Moalic Y, Allioux M, Sanvoisin A, et al. New insights into the ecology and physiology of methanomassiliicoccales from terrestrial and aquatic environments. Microorganisms. 2021;9(1):30. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9010030.
  89. Cozannet M, Cauquil L, Comtet-Marre S, et al. New insights into the ecology and physiology of methanomassiliicoccales from terrestrial and aquatic environments. Microorganisms. 2021;9(1):30. doi:10.3390/microorganisms9010030.
  90. Xie X, Wang JK, Liu JX, Guan LL, Neves ALA. Temporal microbial colonization on different forages is driven by the rumen environmental conditions. Microbiome. 2025;13:407. doi: 10.1186/s42523-025-00407-x.
  91. Wang W, Dong Y, Guo W, Zhnag X, Degen AA, Bi S, et al. Linkages between rumen microbiome, host, and environment in yaks, and their implications for understanding animal production and management. Front Microbiol. 2024;15:1301258. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1301258.
  92. Wang B, Sun H, Wang D, Liu H, Liu J. Constraints on the utilization of cereal straw in lactating dairy cows: A review from the perspective of systems biology. Anim Nutr. 2022;9:240–248. doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2022.01.002.
  93. Shilwant S, Hundal JS, Singla M, Patra AK. Ruminal fermentation and methane production in vitro, milk production, nutrient utilization, blood profile, and immune responses of lactating goats fed polyphenolic and saponin-rich plant extracts. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2023;30(4):10901–10913. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-22931-y.
  94. Déjean G, Tauzin AS, Bennett SW, Creagh AL, Brumer H. Adaptation of syntenic xyloglucan utilization loci of human gut Bacteroidetes to polysaccharide side chain diversity. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85(20):e01491–19. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01491-19.
  95. Castellanos HG, Aryanfar Y, Fardinnia H, Arslan B, Ilbas M, Keçebaş A. Characterization and utilization of industrial wastewater in biorefinery systems: A comprehensive approach. Environ Prog Sustain Energy. 2024;43(4):e14399. doi: 10.1002/ep.14399.
  96. Rosnow JJ, Anderson LN, Nair RN, Baker ES, Wright AT. Profiling microbial lignocellulose degradation and utilization by emergent omics technologies. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2017;37(5):626–640. doi: 10.1080/07388551.2016.1209158.
  97. McCullough HC, Song H-S, Auchtung JM. Diversity in chemical subunits and linkages: A key molecular determinant of microbial richness, microbiota interactions, and substrate utilization. Microbiol Spectr. 2025;13:e02618–e02624. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.02618-24.
  98. Strachan CR, YU XA, Neubauer V, Mueller AJ, Wagner M, Zebeli Q, et al. Differential carbon utilization enables co-existence of recently speciated Campylobacteraceae in the cow rumen epithelial microbiome. Nat Microbiol. 2023;8(2):309–320. doi: 10.1038/s41564-022-01300-y.
  99. Jing Y, Mu C, Wang H, Shen J, Zoetendal EG, Zhu W. Amino acid utilization allows intestinal dominance of Lactobacillus amylovorus. ISME J. 2022;16(11):2491–2502. doi: 10.1038/s41396-022-01287-8.
  100. Hu R, Wu D, Liang X, Wang Z, Zou H, Wu F, et al. Solid state fermentation improves the utilization value of cotton stalk. Ind Crops Prod. 2025;208:121113. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2025.121113.
  101. Yan M, Firkins J, Guo J, Relling A, Yu Z. New insights into microbial nitrogen utilization in the rumen enabled by genome-resolved multi-omics. bioRxiv. 2025. doi: 10.1101/2025.03.23.644819.abstract.
  102. Flint HJ, Bayer EA, Rincon MT, Lamed R, White BA. Polysaccharide utilization by gut bacteria: Potential for new insights from genomic analysis. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008;6(2):121–131. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1817.
  103. Holmes E, Li JV, Athanasiou T, Ashrafian H, Nicholson JK. Understanding the role of gut microbiome-host metabolic signal disruption in health and disease. Trends Microbiol. 2011;19(7):349–359. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2011.05.006.
  104. Nakamura N, Lin HC, McSweeney CS, MacKie RI, Gaskins HR. Mechanisms of microbial hydrogen disposal in the human colon and implications for health and disease. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol. 2010;1(1):363–395. doi: 10.1146/annurev.food.102308.124101.
  105. Xu Q, Qiao Q, Gao Y, Hou J, Hu M, Du Y, et al. Gut microbiota and their role in health and metabolic disease of dairy cow. Front Nutr. 2021;8:701511. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.701511.
  106. Mao SY, Zhang RY, Wang DS, Zhu WY. Impact of subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) adaptation on rumen microbiota in dairy cattle using pyrosequencing. Anaerobe. 2013;24:12–19. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2013.08.003.
  107. Ricci S, Pacífico C, Castillo-Lopez E, Rivera-Chacon R, Schwartz-Zimmermann HE, Reisinger N, et al. Progressive microbial adaptation of the bovine rumen and hindgut in response to a step-wise increase in dietary starch and the influence of phytogenic supplementation. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:920427. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.920427.
  108. Qiu Q, Gao C, Gao Z, Rahman MAU, He Y, Cao B, et al. Temporal dynamics in rumen bacterial community composition of finishing steers during an adaptation period of three months. Microorganisms. 2019;7(10):410. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms7100410.
  109. Wanapat M, Phesatcha K, Kang S. Rumen adaptation of swamp buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) by high level of urea supplementation when fed on rice straw-based diet. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2016;48(6):1135–1140. doi: 10.1007/s11250-016-1064-z.
  110. Sun YZ, Mao SY, Zhu WY. Rumen chemical and bacterial changes during stepwise adaptation to a high-concentrate diet in goats. Animal. 2010;4(2):210–217. doi: 10.1017/S175173110999111X.
  111. Penner GB, Steele MA, Aschenbach JR, McBride BW. Ruminant nutrition symposium: Molecular adaptation of ruminal epithelia to highly fermentable diets. J Anim Sci. 2011;89(4):1108–1119. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3378.
  112. Ruiz A, Alós J, Gisbert E, Furones D, Viver T. Long-term adaptation to dietary shifts of gut microbiota in gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Front Mar Sci. 2024;11:1498892. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2024.1498892.
  113. Soltan YA, Natel AS, Araujo RC, Morsy AS, Abdalla AL. Progressive adaptation of sheep to a microencapsulated blend of essential oils: Ruminal fermentation, methane emission, nutrient digestibility, and microbial protein synthesis. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2018;237:8–18. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.01.004.
  114. Machado MG, Detmann E, Mantovani HC, Filho SCV, Bento CBP, Marcondes MI, et al. Evaluation of the length of adaptation period for changeover and crossover nutritional experiments with cattle fed tropical forage-based diets. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2016;222:132–148. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.10.009.
  115. Zhu W, Chang L, Shi S, Lu N, Du S, Li J, et al. Gut microbiota reflect adaptation of cave-dwelling tadpoles to resource scarcity. ISME J. 2024;18(1):wrad009. doi: 10.1093/ismejo/wrad009.
  116. Li B, Jia G, Wen D, Zhao X, Zhang J, Xu Q, et al. Rumen microbiota of indigenous and introduced ruminants and their adaptation to the Qinghai–Tibetan plateau. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:1027138. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1027138.
  117. Farenzena R, Kozloski GV, Gindri M, Stefanello S. Minimum length of the adaptation and collection period in digestibility trials with sheep fed ad libitum only forage or forage plus concentrate. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2017;101(5):1057–1066. doi: 10.1111/jpn.12550.
  118. Lin L, Wang Y, Xu L, Liu J, Zhu W, Mao S. Microbiome–host co-oscillation patterns in remodeling of colonic homeostasis during adaptation to a high-grain diet in a sheep model. Anim Microbiome. 2020;2(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s42523-020-00041-9.
  119. Borowska-Beszta M, Smoktunowicz M, Horoszkiewicz D, Jonca J, Waleron MM, Gawor J, et al. Comparative genomics, pangenomics, and phenomic studies of Pectobacterium betavasculorum strains isolated from sugar beet, potato, sunflower, and artichoke: Insights into pathogenicity, virulence determinants, and adaptation to the host plant. Front Plant Sci. 2024;15:1352318. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1352318.
  120. Clauss M, Hume ID, Hummel J. Evolutionary adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for modern production systems. Rumin Physiol Dig Metab Eff Nutr Reprod Welf. 2023. Available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/evolutionary-adaptations-of-ruminants-and-their-potential-relevance-for-modern-production-systems/D12EF9D4AF3A8B0F26DED6689BCA43D3

 

Regular Issue Subscription Review Article
Volume 15
Issue 03
Received 25/05/2025
Accepted 06/08/2025
Published 07/08/2025
Publication Time 74 Days
137

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics