Literature DB >> 18539822

Model for estimating enteric methane emissions from United States dairy and feedlot cattle.

E Kebreab1, K A Johnson, S L Archibeque, D Pape, T Wirth.   

Abstract

Methane production from enteric fermentation in cattle is one of the major sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission in the United States and worldwide. National estimates of methane emissions rely on mathematical models such as the one recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Models used for prediction of methane emissions from cattle range from empirical to mechanistic with varying input requirements. Two empirical and 2 mechanistic models (COWPOLL and MOLLY) were evaluated for their prediction ability using individual cattle measurements. Model selection was based on mean square prediction error (MSPE), concordance correlation coefficient, and residuals vs. predicted values analyses. In dairy cattle, COWPOLL had the lowest root MSPE and greatest accuracy and precision of predicting methane emissions (correlation coefficient estimate = 0.75). The model simulated differences in diet more accurately than the other models, and the residuals vs. predicted value analysis showed no mean bias (P = 0.71). In feedlot cattle, MOLLY had the lowest root MSPE with almost all errors from random sources (correlation coefficient estimate = 0.69). The IPCC model also had good agreement with observed values, and no significant mean (P = 0.74) or linear bias (P = 0.11) was detected when residuals were plotted against predicted values. A fixed methane conversion factor (Ym) might be an easier alternative to diet-dependent variable Ym. Based on the results, the 2 mechanistic models were used to simulate methane emissions from representative US diets and were compared with the IPCC model. The average Ym in dairy cows was 5.63% of GE (range 3.78 to 7.43%) compared with 6.5% +/- 1% recommended by IPCC. In feedlot cattle, the average Ym was 3.88% (range 3.36 to 4.56%) compared with 3% +/- 1% recommended by IPCC. Based on our simulations, using IPCC values can result in an overestimate of about 12.5% and underestimate of emissions by about 9.8% for dairy and feedlot cattle, respectively. In addition to providing improved estimates of emissions based on diets, mechanistic models can be used to assess mitigation options such as changing source of carbohydrate or addition of fat to decrease methane, which is not possible with empirical models. We recommend national inventories use diet-specific Ym values predicted by mechanistic models to estimate methane emissions from cattle.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18539822     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2008-0960

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  16 in total

1.  Dairy livestock methane remediation and global warming.

Authors:  Neil J Nusbaum
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2010-10

2.  Evaluation of a sheep rumen model with fresh forages of diverse chemical composition.

Authors:  Indrakumar Vetharaniam; Ronaldo E Vibart; David Pacheco
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Measurement and prediction of enteric methane emission.

Authors:  Veerasamy Sejian; Rattan Lal; Jeffrey Lakritz; Thaddeus Ezeji
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 3.787

4.  Effects of quebracho tannin extract on intake, digestibility, rumen fermentation, and methane production in crossbred heifers fed low-quality tropical grass.

Authors:  A T Piñeiro-Vázquez; G Jiménez-Ferrer; J A Alayon-Gamboa; A J Chay-Canul; A J Ayala-Burgos; C F Aguilar-Pérez; J C Ku-Vera
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 1.559

5.  Test of conditions that affect in vitro production of volatile fatty acids and gases.

Authors:  L M Judd; R A Kohn
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Nutritional and ecological evaluation of dairy farming systems based on concentrate feeding regimes in semi-arid environments of Jordan.

Authors:  Othman Alqaisi; Torsten Hemme; Martin Hagemann; Andreas Susenbeth
Journal:  Saudi J Biol Sci       Date:  2013-05-11       Impact factor: 4.219

7.  Construction and Operation of a Ventilated Hood System for Measuring Greenhouse Gas and Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Cattle.

Authors:  Sara E Place; Yuee Pan; Yongjing Zhao; Frank M Mitloehner
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 2.752

8.  Carbon Footprints for Food of Animal Origin: What are the Most Preferable Criteria to Measure Animal Yields?

Authors:  Gerhard Flachowsky; Josef Kamphues
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 9.  Recent Advances in Measurement and Dietary Mitigation of Enteric Methane Emissions in Ruminants.

Authors:  Amlan K Patra
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2016-05-20

10.  Comparison of models for estimating methane emission factor for enteric fermentation of growing-finishing Hanwoo steers.

Authors:  Namchul Jo; Jongnam Kim; Seongwon Seo
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2016-07-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.