STM Journals Peer-reviewed research from Consortium e-Learning Network

Research and Reviews: A Journal of Microbiology and Virology Review Article

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

  1. Md. Emran Hossain Department of Animal Science and Nutrition, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Khulshi, Chattogram

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

References (120)

  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. 2025;15(5):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(9):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. Environmental Microbiology. 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. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2015;6. 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. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019;10. 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. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2022;9. 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(8):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. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 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. Frontiers in Immunology. 2022;13. 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. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2023;10. 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. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019;10. 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. Animal Production Science. 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. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2020;11. 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. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2024;108(1). 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. Journal of Animal Science. 2021;99(10). 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. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2023;78(2):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. Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering. 2023;0(0):0. 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: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. Journal of Dairy Science. 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. Animal Nutrition. 2024;18:17-26. doi:10.1016/j.aninu.2024.04.013
  27. Morgavi DP, Cantalapiedra-Hijar G, Eugène M, Martin C, Noziere P, Popova M, et al. Review: Reducing enteric methane emissions improves energy metabolism in livestock: is the tenet right? animal. 2023;17:100830. 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(1):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). Frontiers in Microbiology. 2020;11. 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(7):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(1):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. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 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. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2024;90(9). 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. Animal Microbiome. 2020;2(1). 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. Animal Production Science. 2014;54(5):519-543. doi:10.1071/an13381
  39. Carey HV, Assadi-Porter FM. The Hibernator Microbiome: Host-Bacterial Interactions in an Extreme Nutritional Symbiosis. Annual Review of Nutrition. 2017;37(1):477-500. doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-071816-064740
  40. Hassan FU, Arshad MA, Ebeid HM, Rehman MSU, Khan MS, Shahid S, et al. Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2020;7. 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 and Microbiomes. 2021;7(1). 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. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 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. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 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). 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. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1). 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. Nature Microbiology. 2023;9(1):108-119. doi:10.1038/s41564-023-01521-9
  47. Hu R, Li S, Diao H, Huang C, Yan J, Wei X, et al. The interaction between dietary fiber and gut microbiota, and its effect on pig intestinal health. Frontiers in Immunology. 2023;14. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1095740
  48. Chadaideh KS, Carmody RN. Host-microbial interactions in the metabolism of different dietary fats. Cell Metabolism. 2021;33(5):857-872. 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(1). 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. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology. 2020;11(1). doi:10.1186/s40104-020-00461-2
  51. Solomon JKQ. Legumes for animal nutrition and dietary energy. Advances in Legumes for Sustainable Intensification. 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. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2019;117(2):1167-1173. doi:10.1073/pnas.1914939117
  53. Dirks B, Davis TL, Carnero EA, Corbin KD, Smith SR, Rittmann BE, et al. Methanogenesis associated with altered microbial production of short-chain fatty acids and human-host metabolizable energy. The ISME Journal. 2025;19(1). 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 metabolism1. Journal of Animal Science. 2006;84(suppl_13):E25-E33. doi:10.2527/2006.8413_supple25x
  57. JI SK, JIANG CG, LI R, DIAO QY, TU Y, ZHANG NF, et al. Growth performance and rumen microorganism differ between segregated weaning lambs and grazing lambs. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 2016;15(4):872-878. 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(17):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. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology. 2017;8(1). 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. Scientific Reports. 2025;15(1). 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. Journal of Animal Science. 2023;101. 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(7):1073. doi:10.3390/ani14071073
  65. Dittoe DK, Olson EG, Ricke SC. Impact of the gastrointestinal microbiome and fermentation metabolites on broiler performance. Poultry Science. 2022;101(5):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. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2021;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 1 H Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 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. Journal of Dairy Science. 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. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 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. Scientific Reports. 2023;13(1). doi:10.1038/s41598-023-45330-w
  73. Han H, Wang C, Huang Z, Zhang 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. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2023;14. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2023.1306192
  75. Mizrahi I, Wallace RJ, Moraïs S. The rumen microbiome: balancing food security and environmental impacts. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 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. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2003;32(5):1591-1602. doi:10.2134/jeq2003.1591
  77. Guo W, Zhou M, Li F, Neves ALA, Ma T, Bi S, et al. Seasonal stability of the rumen microbiome contributes to the adaptation patterns to extreme environmental conditions in grazing yak and cattle. BMC Biology. 2024;22(1). 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(8):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(8):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(9):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. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2024;90(1). 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 Migration. Livestock Diseases and Management. 2023:231-248. 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 and Biomass Valorization. 2020;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. Microbial Biotechnology. 2021;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. 2020;9(1):30. doi:10.3390/microorganisms9010030
  89. 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. 2020;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. Animal Microbiome. 2025;7(1). doi:10.1186/s42523-025-00407-x
  91. Wang W, Dong Y, Guo W, Zhang 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. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2024;15. 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. Animal Nutrition. 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. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2022;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. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2019;85(20). 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. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy. 2024;43(4). 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. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 2016;37(5):626-640. doi:10.1080/07388551.2016.1209158
  97. McCullough HC, Song HS, Auchtung JM. Diversity in chemical subunits and linkages: a key molecular determinant of microbial richness, microbiota interactions, and substrate utilization. Microbiology Spectrum. 2025;13(4). 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. Nature Microbiology. 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 ofLactobacillus amylovorus. The ISME Journal. 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. Industrial Crops and Products. 2025;230:121113. 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. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 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 in Microbiology. 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. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology. 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. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2021;8. 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. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2022;13. 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. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 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 diets1. Journal of Animal Science. 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). Frontiers in Marine Science. 2024;11. 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. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2018;237:8-18. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.01.004
  114. Machado MG, Detmann E, Mantovani HC, Valadares Filho SC, 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. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 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. The ISME Journal. 2024;18(1). 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. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2022;13. 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. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2016;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. Animal Microbiome. 2020;2(1). 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. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2024;15. 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
Support