Feed Planet Magazine Issue-Sayı: 37 April-Nisan 2022

47 COVER STORY • KAPAK DOSYASI FEED PLANET / APRIL 2022 • NISAN 2022 REFERENCES / KAYNAKLAR 1.Kılıç HN ve Boğa M. 2021. Hayvan Besleme Stratejileri ile Metan Emisyonunun Azaltılması. Turkish Journal of Agriculture Food Scien- ce and Technology, 9(9): 1700-1713. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v9i9.1700-1713.4446 2.Koyuncu M ve Akgün H. 2018. Çiftlik hayvanları ve küresel iklim değişikliği arasındaki etkileşim.U. Ü. Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 32 (1): 151-164. 3.Nosalewicz M, Brzezinska M, Pasztelan M, Supryn G. 2011. Methane In the environment (a review). Acta Agrophysica, 18(2): 193. 4.Bayat A ve Shingfield KJ. 2012. Overview of nutritional strategies to lower enteric methane emissions in ruminants. Suomen Maata- loustieteellisen Seuran Tiedote, (28): 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33354/smst.75433 5.Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G. 2013. Tackling climate change through li- vestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations (FAO), ISBN: 9789251079201. 6.Opio C, Gerber P, Mottet A, Falcucci A, Tempio G, MacLeod M, Vellinga T, Henderson B, Steinfeld H. 2013. Greenhouse gas emis- sions from ruminant supply chains a global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations, FAO 2013. 7.Johnson DE ve Ward GM. 1996. Estimates of animal methane emissions. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 42(1): 133-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00394046 8.Beauchemin K, Kreuzer M, O’Mara F, McAllister TA. 2008. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Austra- lian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48(2): 21-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07199 9.Moss AR, Jouany JP, Newbold J. 2000. Methane production by ruminants: ıts contribution to global warming. Annales de zootechnie EDP Sciences, 49(3): 231-253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/animres :2000119 10.McAllister TA, Beauchemin KA, Alazzeh AY, Baah J, Teather RM, Stanford K. 2011. Review: the use of direct fed microbials to mitigate pathogens and enhance production ın cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 91(2): 193-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas10047 11.Newbold CJ ve Rode L. 2006. Dietary additives to control methanogenesis ın the rumen. ınternational congress series. Elsevier, 1293: 138-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ics.2006.03.047 12.Öztürk H, Demirbaş YS, Aydin FG, Pişkin İ, Ünler FM, Emre MB. 2015. Effects of hydrolyzed and live yeasts on rumen microbial fer- mentation in a semicontinuous culture system (Rusitec). Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 39(5): 556-559. 13.Chaucheyras, F, Fonty G, Bertin G, Gouet P. 1995. Effects of live Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells on zoospore germination, growth, and cellulolytic activity of the rumen anaerobic fungus, Neocallimastix frontalis MCH3. Current Microbiology, 31(4): 201-205. 14.Newbold CJ, De La Fuente G, Belanche A, Ramos-Morales E, Mcewan NR. 2015. The role of ciliate protozoa in the rumen. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6, 1313. 15.Gür G ve Öztürk H. 2021. Ruminantlarda metan salınımını azaltma stratejileri. Veteriner Farmakoloji ve Toksikoloji Derneği Bülteni, 12 (1): 43-54. 16.Lila ZA, Mohammed N, Yasui T, Kurokawa Y, Kanda S, Itabashi H. 2004. Effects of a twin strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae live cells on mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation in vitro. Journal of Animal Science, 82(6), 1847-1854. 17.Latham EA, Pinchak WE, Trachsel J, Allen HK, Callaway TR, Nisbet DJ, Anderson RC. 2018. Isolation, characterization and strain se- lection of a Paenibacillus species for use as a probiotic to aid in ruminal methane mitigation, nitrate/nitrite detoxification and food safety. Bioresource Technology, 263, 358-364. 18. Newbold CJ ve Rode L. 2006. Dietary additives to control methanogenesis ın the rumen. ınternational congress series. Else- vier, 1293: 138-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ics.2006.03.047 19.Sahoo A ve Jena B. 2014. Organic acids as rumen modifiers. International Journal of Science and Research, 3, 2262-2266. 20.Carro MD ve Ungerfeld EM. 2015. Utilization of organic acids to manipulate ruminal fermentation and improve ruminant producti- vity. In: Puniya KA. Singh R. Kamra ND. Editors; Rumen microbiology: From evolution to revolution. New Delhi: Springer India, p. 177–197. 21.Canbolat Ö, Kalkan H, Karaman Ş, Filya İ. 2011. Esansiyel yağların sindirim, rumen fermantasyonu ve mikrobiyal protein üretimi üze- rine etkileri. Kafkas Üniv. Vet. Fak. Derg., 17 (1): 557-565. 22.Evans JD, Martin SA. 2000. Effects of thymol on ruminal microorganisms. Curr Microbiol., 41: 336-340. 23.Bodas R, Prieto N, García-González R, Andrés S, Giráldez FJ, López S. 2012. Manipulation of rumen fermentation and methane production with plant secondary metabolites. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 176(1-4): 78-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anife- edsci.2012.07.010 24.Eun JS ve Beauchemin K. 2007. Assessment of the efficacy of varying experimental exogenous fibrolytic enzymes using ın vitro fer- mentation characteristics. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 132(3-4): 298-315. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.02.014 25.Sadeghi, A.A., Shawrang, P., 2006. The effect of natural zeolite on nutrient digestibility, carcass traits and performance of Holstein steers given a diet containing urea. Anim Sci., Cambridge Univ Press, 82: 163-167. 26.Janice MC, Labeeuw L, Jaramillo-Madrid AC, Nguyen LN, Nghiem LD, Chaves AV, Ralph PJ. 2020. Management of Enteric Methanogenesis in Ruminants by Algal-Derived Feed Additives Current Pollution Reports, 6:188–205. DOI: 10.1007/s40726-020-00151-7