Literature DB >> 29471429

Comparison of 3 methods for estimating enteric methane and carbon dioxide emission in nonlactating cows.

M Doreau1, M Arbre1, Y Rochette1, C Lascoux1, M Eugène1, C Martin1.   

Abstract

Among techniques for estimating enteric methane (CH4) emission by ruminants, open-circuit respiration chambers (OC), the use of a gas tracer (SF6), and the GreenFeed (GF) device are the most commonly used. In this study, we compared these techniques in 8 dry cows receiving a diet made of 70% hay and 30% concentrates given in limited and constant amounts, in a 15-wk experiment. Two periods in free stalls for SF6 and GF and in chambers for OC were used; in addition, SF6 was determined in chambers for 1 period. Methane emission (g/d) and CH4 yield (g/kg DMI) were higher (P < 0.0001) for OC than for SF6 and GF (367, 310, and 319 g/d for OC, SF6, and GF, respectively). The difference between OC and GF was related to a difference in post-prandial rate of gas emission. The between-animal coefficient of variation of CH4 emission was higher for SF6 than for OC and GF (20.8, 13.5, and 12.0% on average, respectively). Correlation coefficients between OC and SF6 were high and significant for CH4 emission and CH4 yield (r = 0.782 and r = 0.717, respectively; P < 0.05), but not significant between OC and GF, or between SF6 and GF. Correlation coefficients were highly significant for SF6 determined either in free stalls or in chambers (r = 0.908 and 0.903 for CH4 in g/d and g/kg DMI, respectively; P < 0.01). Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission and CO2 yield were similar for GF and OC (10,003 and 9,887 g/d, 752 and 746 g/kg DMI, respectively); CO2 data obtained with SF6 were lower (7,718 g/d and 606 g/kg DMI; P < 0.0001), but this technique is not relevant for CO2 emission determination. Correlation coefficients between OC and GF were not significant for CO2 emission and CO2 yield. This set of results shows that differences between methods are minor for average values, but that individual correlations may limit their interchangeability for determining gas emissions of individual animals. This study also shows the reliability of GF on-farm determination of CH4 and CO2 emissions for groups of animals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29471429      PMCID: PMC6140847          DOI: 10.1093/jas/sky033

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


  14 in total

1.  Short communication: Use of a portable, automated, open-circuit gas quantification system and the sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique for measuring enteric methane emissions in Holstein cows fed ad libitum or restricted.

Authors:  C D Dorich; R K Varner; A B D Pereira; R Martineau; K J Soder; A F Brito
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2015-02-07       Impact factor: 4.034

2.  Effect of release rate of the SF(6) tracer on methane emission estimates based on ruminal and breath gas samples.

Authors:  C Martin; J Koolaard; Y Rochette; H Clark; J P Jouany; C S Pinares-Patiño
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Enteric methane and carbon dioxide emissions measured using respiration chambers, the sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique, and a GreenFeed head-chamber system from beef heifers fed alfalfa silage at three allowances and four feeding frequencies.

Authors:  A Jonker; G Molano; C Antwi; G C Waghorn
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Comparison of the sulfur hexafluoride tracer and respiration chamber techniques for estimating methane emissions and correction for rectum methane output from dairy cows.

Authors:  C Muñoz; T Yan; D A Wills; S Murray; A W Gordon
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.034

5.  Comparison of methods to determine methane emissions from dairy cows in farm conditions.

Authors:  P Huhtanen; E H Cabezas-Garcia; S Utsumi; S Zimmerman
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 4.034

6.  Rapid Communication: Ranking dairy cows for methane emissions measured using respiration chamber or GreenFeed techniques during early, peak, and late lactation.

Authors:  J Rischewski; A Bielak; G Nürnberg; M Derno; B Kuhla
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.159

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

Authors:  J I Velazco; D G Mayer; S Zimmerman; R S Hegarty
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Methane emissions from dairy cows measured using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer and chamber techniques.

Authors:  C Grainger; T Clarke; S M McGinn; M J Auldist; K A Beauchemin; M C Hannah; G C Waghorn; H Clark; R J Eckard
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.034

9.  Additive methane-mitigating effect between linseed oil and nitrate fed to cattle.

Authors:  J Guyader; M Eugène; B Meunier; M Doreau; D P Morgavi; M Silberberg; Y Rochette; C Gerard; C Loncke; C Martin
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.159

10.  Effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol on methane emission, digestion, and energy and nitrogen balance of lactating dairy cows.

Authors:  C K Reynolds; D J Humphries; P Kirton; M Kindermann; S Duval; W Steinberg
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 4.034

View more
  1 in total

1.  Interaction between feed use efficiency and level of dietary crude protein on enteric methane emission and apparent nitrogen use efficiency with Norwegian Red dairy cows1.

Authors:  Alemayehu Kidane; Margareth Øverland; Liv Torunn Mydland; Egil Prestløkken
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 3.159

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.