Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:15:54.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fermentation of various glycolytic intermediates and other compounds by rumen micro-organisms, with particular reference to methane production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

J. W. Czerkawski  and
Grace Breckenridge
J. W. Czerkawski
Affiliation:
Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr
Grace Breckenridge
Affiliation:
Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr
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.

Experiments with a small-scale artificial rumen have shown that of forty-two compounds tested the majority were fermented, as judged by the production of volatile fatty acids, but methane production was associated only with the fermentation of formate, certain hydroxy-acids, pyruvic acid, primary alcohols (methanol, ethanol, propanol and butanol), glycerol and methyl compounds. With primary alcohols there was a stoichiometric relationship between methane production and the oxidation of the alcohols to the corresponding acids.

The fermentation of rhamnose and 1,2-propanediol was studied in detail. With both compounds there was a temporary accumulation of lactic acid and a continuous net production of propionic acid. The initial rate of acetate production was rapid with rhamnose but decreased subsequently, whereas propionate continued to increase. With propanediol the net rate of production of acetate was slow at first and then increased. There was no increase in the production of butyric acid with either rhamnose or propanediol, and the endogenous methane production was inhibited by 20–40%. There was evidence for the formation of an unidentified compound during fermentation of rhamnose and propanediol.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 131 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1972

References

Bray, G. A. (1960). Analyt. Riochem. 1, 279.Google Scholar
Carrol, E. J. & Hungate, K. E. (1955). Archs Biochem. Biophys. 56, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conmaiy, E. J. (1962). Microdiffusioin Analysis and Volumetric Error p. 234. London: Crosby Lockwood.and Son Ltd.Google Scholar
Cottyn, B. G. & Boucque, C. V. (1968). J. agric. Fd Chem. 16, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. & Brcckenridge, C. (1969 a). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. & Breckenridge, G. (1969 b). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. & Breckenridge, G. (1970). Lab. Pract. 19, 717.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. & Clapperton, J. L. (1968). Lab. Pract. 17, 994.Google Scholar
Demeyer, D. I. & Hendericks, H. K. (1967). Biochem. J. 105, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, R. S., Burg, N., Brown, L. D. & Blank, G. N., (1964). J. Dairy Sci. 47, 1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, A. T. & Martin, A. T. P. (1952). Biochem. J. 50, 679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, L. R. & Riddick, J. A. (1957). Analyt. Chem. 29, 1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluyver, A. J. & Schnellen, C.. (1937). Enzymologia 4, 7.Google Scholar
McDougall, E. I. (1948). Biochem. J. 43, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranson, S. L. & Yeoman, M. R.. (1961).In Biochemists' Handbook p. 958 [Long, C., editor]. London: E. & F. N. Spon Ltd.Google Scholar
Scardovi, V. (1960). Ann. Microbid. 10, 99.Google Scholar
Sijpesteijn, A. K. & Elsden, S. R. (1952). Biochem. J. 52, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talcagi, Y. & Sawada, H. (1964). Biochim. biophys. Acta 92, 10.Google Scholar