Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T06:04:35.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of short-term breath measures to estimate daily methane production by cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2015

J. I. Velazco ,
D. G. Mayer ,
S. Zimmerman  and
R. S. Hegarty
J. I. Velazco*
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale 2351, NSW, Australia National Institute of Agricultural Research, Ruta 8 km 281, 33000 Treinta y Tres, Uruguay
D. G. Mayer
Affiliation:
Agri-Science Queensland, Dutton Park, 4102 Queensland, Australia
S. Zimmerman
Affiliation:
C-Lock Inc., 2951 N Plaza Dr, Rapid City, 57702 SD, USA
R. S. Hegarty
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale 2351, NSW, Australia
*
†E-mail: jvelazco@inia.org.uy
Get access

Abstract

Methods to measure enteric methane (CH4) emissions from individual ruminants in their production environment are required to validate emission inventories and verify mitigation claims. Estimates of daily methane production (DMP) based on consolidated short-term emission measurements are developing, but method verification is required. Two cattle experiments were undertaken to test the hypothesis that DMP estimated by averaging multiple short-term breath measures of methane emission rate did not differ from DMP measured in respiration chambers (RC). Short-term emission rates were obtained from a GreenFeed Emissions Monitoring (GEM) unit, which measured emission rate while cattle consumed a dispensed supplement. In experiment 1 (Expt. 1), four non-lactating cattle (LW=518 kg) were adapted for 18 days then measured for six consecutive periods. Each period consisted of 2 days of ad libitum intake and GEM emission measurement followed by 1 day in the RC. A prototype GEM unit releasing water as an attractant (GEM water) was also evaluated in Expt. 1. Experiment 2 (Expt. 2) was a larger study based on similar design with 10 cattle (LW=365 kg), adapted for 21 days and GEM measurement was extended to 3 days in each of the six periods. In Expt. 1, there was no difference in DMP estimated by the GEM unit relative to the RC (209.7 v. 215.1 g CH4/day) and no difference between these methods in methane yield (MY, 22.7 v. 23.7 g CH4/kg of dry matter intake, DMI). In Expt. 2, the correlation between GEM and RC measures of DMP and MY were assessed using 95% confidence intervals, with no difference in DMP or MY between methods and high correlations between GEM and RC measures for DMP (r=0.85; 215 v. 198 g CH4/day SEM=3.0) and for MY (r=0.60; 23.8 v. 22.1 g CH4/kg DMI SEM=0.42). When data from both experiments was combined neither DMP nor MY differed between GEM- and RC-based measures (P>0.05). GEM water-based estimates of DMP and MY were lower than RC and GEM (P<0.05). Cattle accessed the GEM water unit with similar frequency to the GEM unit (2.8 v. 3.5 times/day, respectively) but eructation frequency was reduced from 1.31 times/min (GEM) to once every 2.6 min (GEM water). These studies confirm the hypothesis that DMP estimated by averaging multiple short-term breath measures of methane emission rate using GEM does not differ from measures of DMP obtained from RCs. Further, combining many short-term measures of methane production rate during supplement consumption provides an estimate of DMP, which can be usefully applied in estimating MY.

Keywords

methanecattlemeasurementgreenhouse gases
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 25 - 33
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albright, JL and Arave, CW 1997. The behavior of cattle. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Australian Fodder Industry Association 2014. Laboratory methods manual, 8th version. AFIA, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from http://www.afia.org.au/files/AFIALabManua_v8_rm.pdf Google Scholar
Bindon, BM 2001. Genesis of the cooperative research centre for the cattle and beef industry: integration of resources for beef quality research (1993-2000). Animal Production Science 41, 843–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, JG and Sowell, BF 1997. Delivery method and supplement consumption by grazing ruminants: a review. Journal of Animal Science 75, 543–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chagunda, MGG and Yan, T 2011. Do methane measurements from a laser detector and an indirect open circuit respiration calorimetric chamber agree sufficiently closely? Animal Feed Science and Technology 165, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottle, DJ 2013. The trials and tribulations of estimating the pasture intake of grazing animals. Animal Production Science 53, 1209–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deighton, MH, Williams, SRO, Hanna, MC, Eckard, RJ, Boland, TM, Wales, WJ and Moate, PJ 2014. A modified sulphur hexafluoride tracer technique enables accurate determination of enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 197, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DoE 2014. National greenhouse gas inventory 2012. Department of the Environment. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/SGGI.aspx Google Scholar
Dorich, CD, Varner, RK, Pereira, ABD, Martineau, R, Soder, KJ and Brito, AF 2015. Use of a portable automated opencircuit gas quantification system and the sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique for measuring enteric methane emissions in Holstein cows fed ad libitum or restricted. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 1–6.Google Scholar
Fogarty, NM, Lee, GJ, Ingham, VM, Gaunt, GM and Cummins, LJ 2006. Variation in feed intake of grazing crossbred ewes and genetic correlations with production traits. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 57, 1037–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnsworthy, PC, Craigon, J, Hernandez-Medrano, JH and Saunders, N 2012a. Variation among individual dairy cows in methane measurements made on farm during milking. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3181–3189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnsworthy, PC, Craigon, J, Hernandez-Medrano, JH and Saunders, N 2012b. On-farm methane measurements during milking correlate with total methane production by individual dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3166–3180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goopy, JP, Hegarty, RS and Robinson, DL 2009. Two-hour chamber measurement provides a useful estimate of daily methane production in sheep. In Proceedings of the XIth international symposium on ruminant physiology (ed. Y Chilliard, F Glasser, Y Faulconnier, F Bocquier, I Veissier and M Doreau), pp. 190–191. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Goopy, JP, Woodgate, R, Donaldson, A, Robinson, DL and Hegarty, RS 2011. Validation of a short term methane measurement using a portable static chamber to estimate daily methane production in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, KJ, Humphries, DJ, Crompton, LA, Kirton, P, Green, C and Reynolds, CK 2013. Methane emissions from growing dairy heifers estimated using an automated head chamber (GreenFeed) compared to respiration chambers or SF6 techniques. Advances in Animal Bioscience 4, 391.Google Scholar
Hegarty, RS 2013. Applicability of short-term emission measurements for on-farm quantification of enteric methane. Animal 7 (suppl. 2), 401–408.Google Scholar
Hegarty, RS, Bird, SH and Woodgate, R 2012. Cattle Respiration Facility, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved August 12, 2014, from http://www.globalresearchalliance.org/app/uploads/2012/03/GRA-MAN-Facility-BestPract-2012-ch2.pdf Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Cabezas Garcia, EH, Zimmerman, S and Zimmerman, P 2014. Comparison of active flux and passive concentration measurement of methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 97 (E-suppl.), 275. https://asas.confex.com/asas/jam2014/webprogram/Paper7338.html Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Krizsan, SJ, Hetta, M, Gidlund, H and Cabezas Garcia, EH 2013. Repeatability and between cow variability of enteric CH4 and total CO2 emissions. Advances in Animal Bioscience 4, 588.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Program (ed. HS Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara, K Tanabe). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan. Retrieved August 12, 2014, from http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
Johnson, KA, Huyler, MT, Westberg, HH, Lamb, BK and Zimmerman, P 1994. Measurement of methane emissions from ruminant livestock using a SF6 tracer technique. Environmental Science & Technology 28, 359.Google Scholar
Kennedy, PM and Charmley, E 2012. Methane yields from Brahman cattle fed tropical grasses and legumes. Animal Production Science 52, 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockyer, DR and Jarvis, SC 1995. The measurement of methane losses from grazing animals. Environmental Pollution 90, 383–398.Google Scholar
McDonald, P, Edwards, RA, Greenhagh, JFD, Morgan, CA, Sinclair, LA and Wilkinson, RG 2011. Animal nutrition, 7th edition. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, England.Google Scholar
McGinn, SM, Turner, D, Tomkins, N, Charmley, E, Bishop-Hurley, G and Chen, D 2010. A non-intrusive measurement of methane emissions from grazing cattle. Journal of Environmental Quality 40, 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, JV, Hegarty, RS, Hegarty, J, Godwin, IR and Woodgate, R 2010. Effects of dietary nitrate on fermentation, methane production and digesta kinetics in sheep. Animal Production Science 50, 801–806.Google Scholar
Payne, R, Harding, SA, Murray, DA, Soutar, DM, Baird, DB, Glaser, AI, Welham, SJ, Gilmour, AR, Thompson, R and Webster, R 2011. A guide to regression, nonlinear and generalized linear models in GenStat. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
Pickering, NK, de Haas, Y, Basarab, J, Cammack, K, Hayes, B, Hegarty, RS, Lassen, J, McEwan, JC, Miller, S, Pinares-Patiño, CS, Shackell, G, Vercoe, P and Oddy, VH 2013. Consensus methods for breeding low methane emitting animals. Retrieved August 12, 2014, from http://www.asggn.org/news,listing,95,mpwg-white-paper.html Google Scholar
Pickering, NK, Oddy, VH, Basarab, J, Cammack, K, Hayes, B, Hegarty, RS, Lassen, J, McEwan, JC, Miller, S, Pinares-Patiño, CS and de Haas, Y 2015. Genetic possibilities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Invited review Animal (in press; accepted 02 March 2015).Google Scholar
Robinson, DL, Bickell, SL, Toovey, AF, Revell, DK and Vercoe, PE 2011. Factors affecting variability in feed intake of sheep with ad-libitum access to feed and the relationship with daily methane production. Proceeding of the Australasian Association for Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 19, 159–162.Google Scholar
Robinson, DL, Goopy, JP, Hegarty, RS and Vercoe, PE 2010. Repeatability, animal and sire variation in 1-hr methane emissions and relationships with rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations. In Proceedings of the world congress on genetics applied to livestock production. Retreived December 8, 2014, fromhttp://www.kongressband.de/wcgalp2010/assets/pdf/0712.pdf Google Scholar
Velazco, J, Bremner, G, De Barbieri, I and Hegarty, RS 2013. Short-term measurements to estimate methane emissions by beef cattle using the GreenFeed emissions monitoring unit. InRecent advances in animal nutrition – Australia 2013 (ed. PB Cronje), pp. 61–62. School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar
Waghorn, G, Garnett, EJ, Pinares-Patiño, CS and Zimmerman, S 2013. Implementation of GreenFeed for estimating methane in a dairy herd grazing pasture. Advances in Animal Biosciences 4, 436.Google Scholar
Woodward, SL, Waghorn, GC and Laboyrie, PG 2004. Condensed tannins in birdsfood trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) reduce methane emissions from dairy cows. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 64, 160–164.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, S 2013. What is GreenFeed? Retrieved August 12, 2014, from http://c-lockinc.com/whatisgreenfeed.php Google Scholar