2. FAO, WHO. Sustainable healthy diets: guiding principles. Rome, Italy: FAO, WHO; 2019.
11. Lyons T, Bielak A, Doyle E, Kuhla B. Variations in methane yield and microbial community profiles in the rumen of dairy cows as they pass through stages of first lactation. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:5102–14.
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-14200
19. Brask M, Weisbjerg MR, Hellwing ALF, Bannink A, Lund P. Methane production and diurnal variation measured in dairy cows and predicted from fermentation pattern and nutrient or carbon flow. Animal 2015;9:1795–806.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001184
20. Hristov AN, Kebreab E, Niu M, et al. Symposium review: Uncertainties in enteric methane inventories, measurement techniques, and prediction models. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:6655–74.
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13536
24. Janssen PH. Influence of hydrogen on rumen methane formation and fermentation balances through microbial growth kinetics and fermentation thermodynamics. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2010;160:1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.07.002
26. Shi Y, Weimer PJ, Ralph J. Formation of formate and hydrogen, and flux of reducing equivalents and carbon in Ruminococcus flavefaciens FD-1. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 1997;72:101–9.
https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1000256221938
27. Emerson EL, Weimer PJ. Fermentation of model hemicelluloses by Prevotella strains and Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens in pure culture and in ruminal enrichment cultures. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2017;101:4269–78.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-017-8150-7
28. Paillard D, McKain N, Chaudhary LC, et al. Relation between phylogenetic position, lipid metabolism and butyrate production by different Butyrivibrio-like bacteria from the rumen. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2007;91:417–22.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-006-9121-7
29. Cato EP, Moore WEC, Bryant MP. Designation of neotype strains for Bacteroides amylophilus Hamlin and Hungate 1956 and Bacteroides succinogenes Hungate 1950. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1978;28:491–5.
https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-28-4-491
30. Joblin KN, Matsui H, Naylor GE, Ushida K. Degradation of fresh ryegrass by methanogenic co-cultures of ruminal fungi grown in the presence or absence of Fibrobacter succinogenes. Curr Microbiol 2002;45:46–53.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-001-0078-5
31. Aschenbach JR, Kristensen NB, Donkin SS, Hammon HM, Penner GB. Gluconeogenesis in dairy cows: the secret of making sweet milk from sour dough. IUBMB Life 2010;62:869–77.
https://doi.org/10.1002/iub.400
32. Allen MS, Bradford BJ, Oba M. Board-invited review: the hepatic oxidation theory of the control of feed intake and its application to ruminants. J Anim Sci 2009;87:3317–34.
https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-1779
35. Abecia L, Toral PG, Martín-García AI, et al. Effect of bromochloromethane on methane emission, rumen fermentation pattern, milk yield, and fatty acid profile in lactating dairy goats. J Dairy Sci 2012;95:2027–36.
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4831
37. Mitsumori M, Shinkai T, Takenaka A, et al. Responses in digestion, rumen fermentation and microbial populations to inhibition of methane formation by a halogenated methane analogue. Br J Nutr 2012;108:482–91.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114511005794
38. McCrabb GJ, Berger KT, Magner T, May C, Hunter RA. Inhibiting methane production in Brahman cattle by dietary supplementation with a novel compound and the effects on growth. Aust J Agric Rec 1997;48:323–9.
https://doi.org/10.1071/A96119
39. Denman SE, Tomkins NW, McSweeney CS. Quantitation and diversity analysis of ruminal methanogenic populations in response to the antimethanogenic compound bromochloromethane. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2007;62:313–22.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2007.00394.x
40. Goel G, Makkar HPS, Becker K. Inhibition of methanogens by bromochloromethane: effects on microbial communities and rumen fermentation using batch and continuous fermentations. Br J Nutr 2009;101:1484–92.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114508076198
41. Williams AG, Withers SE, Joblin KN. The effect of cocultivation with hydrogen-consuming bacteria on xylanolysis by Ruminococcus flavefaciens. Curr Microbiol 1994;29:133–8.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01570753
48. Ng F, Kittelmann S, Patchett ML, et al. An adhesin from hydrogen-utilizing rumen methanogen Methanobrevibacter ruminantium M1 binds a broad range of hydrogen-producing microorganisms. Environ Microbiol 2016;18:3010–21.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13155
49. Morgavi DP, Jouany JP, Martin C. Changes in methane emission and rumen fermentation parameters induced by refaunation in sheep. Aust J Exp Agric 2008;48:69–72.
https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07236
52. Guyader J, Eugène M, Nozière P, Morgavi DP, Doreau M, Martin C. Influence of rumen protozoa on methane emission in ruminants: a meta-analysis approach. Animal 2014;8:1816–25.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001852
54. Glasson CRK, Kinley RD, de Nys R, et al. Benefits and risks of including the bromoform containing seaweed Asparagopsis in feed for the reduction of methane production from ruminants. Algal Res 2022;64:102673.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2022.102673
55. Shinkai T, Enishi O, Mitsumori M, et al. Mitigation of methane production from cattle by feeding cashew nut shell liquid. J Dairy Sci 2012;95:5308–16.
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5554
57. Bocquier F, González-García E. Sustainability of ruminant agriculture in the new context: feeding strategies and features of animal adaptability into the necessary holistic approach. Animal 2010;4:1258–73.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110001023
58. Wasson DE, Yarish C, Hristov AN. Enteric methane mitigation through Asparagopsis taxiformis supplementation and potential algal alternatives. Front Anim Sci 2022;3:999338.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.999338
61. Ishler V, Heinrichs AJ, Varga G. From feed to milk: Understanding rumen function. University Park, PA, USA: Pennsylvania State University; 1996. Extension Circular 422
63. Pope PB, Smith W, Denman SE, et al. Isolation of Succinivibrionaceae implicated in low methane emissions from Tammar wallabies. Science 2011;333:646–8.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1205760
70. Stewart CS, Flint HJ, Bryant MP. The rumen bacteria. Hobson PN, Stewart CS, editorsThe rumen microbial ecosystem. London, UK: Chapman & Hall; 1997. p. 10–72.
72. Henderson C. The influence of extracellular hydrogen on the metabolism of Bacteroides ruminicola, Anaerovibrio lipolytica and Selenomonas ruminantium. J Gen Microbiol 1980;119:485–91.
https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-119-2-485
73. Beauchemin KA, McGinn SM. Methane emissions from beef cattle: Effects of fumaric acid, essential oil, and canola oil. J Anim Sci 2006;84:1489–96.
https://doi.org/10.2527/2006.8461489x
75. Foley PA, Kenny DA, Callan JJ, Boland TM, O’Mara FP. Effect of DL-malic acid supplementation on feed intake, methane emission, and rumen fermentation in beef cattle. J Anim Sci 2009;87:1048–57.
https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1026
77. Louis P, Duncan SH, Sheridan PO, Walker AW, Flint HJ. Microbial lactate utilisation and the stability of the gut microbiome. Gut Microbiome 2022;3:e3.
https://doi.org/10.1017/gmb.2022.3
80. Asanuma N, Hino T. Prevention of rumen acidosis and suppression of ruminal methanogenesis by augmentation of lactate utilization. Anim Sci J (Japan) 2004;75:543–50. In Japanese.
82. Accetto T, Avguštin G. The diverse and extensive plant polysaccharide degradative apparatuses of the rumen and hindgut Prevotella species: A factor in their ubiquity? Syst Appl Microbiol 2019;42:107–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2018.10.001
85. Purushe J, Fouts DE, Morrison M, et al. Comparative genome analysis of Prevotella ruminicola and Prevotella bryantii: insights into their environmental niche. Microb Ecol 2010;60:721–9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-010-9692-8
87. Stevenson DM, Weimer PJ. Dominance of Prevotella and low abundance of classical ruminal bacterial species in the bovine rumen revealed by relative quantification real-time PCR. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2007;75:165–74.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-006-0802-y
91. Hitch TCA, Bisdorf K, Afrizal A, et al. A taxonomic note on the genus Prevotella: Description of four novel genera and emended description of the genera Hallella and Xylanibacter. Syst Appl Microbiol 2022;45:126354.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2022.126354