Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T11:54:40.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of release rate of the SF6 tracer on methane emission estimates based on ruminal and breath gas samples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

C. Martin*
Affiliation:
UR1213 Herbivores, INRA Clermont-Ferrand/Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
J. Koolaard
Affiliation:
AgResearch Limited, Grasslands Research Centre, Tennent Drive, Private Bag 11008, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Y. Rochette
Affiliation:
UR1213 Herbivores, INRA Clermont-Ferrand/Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
H. Clark
Affiliation:
AgResearch Limited, Grasslands Research Centre, Tennent Drive, Private Bag 11008, Palmerston North, New Zealand
J. P. Jouany
Affiliation:
UR1213 Herbivores, INRA Clermont-Ferrand/Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
C. S. Pinares-Patiño*
Affiliation:
AgResearch Limited, Grasslands Research Centre, Tennent Drive, Private Bag 11008, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Get access

Abstract

The release rate (RR) of sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) gas from permeation tube in the rumen appears to be positively related with methane (CH4) emissions calculated using the SF6 tracer technique. Gas samples of breath and ruminal headspace were collected simultaneously in order to evaluate the hypothesis that transactions of SF6 in the rumen are the source for this relationship. Six non-lactating dairy cows fitted with rumen cannulae were subdivided into two groups and randomly assigned to a two-period crossover design to permeation tubes with low RR (LRR = 1.577 mg/day) or two-times higher RR (HRR = 3.147 mg/day) RR. The cows were fed limited amounts of maize silage (80% ad libitum) split into two meals (40% at 0800 h and 60% at 1600 h). Each period consisted of 3-day gas sampling. Immediately before the morning feed and then each hour over 8 h, ruminal gas samples (50 ml) were withdrawn through the cannula fitted with stoppers to prevent opening. Simultaneously, 8-h integrated breath gas samples were collected over the same period. Ratios of concentration of CH4/SF6, CO2/SF6 and CO2/CH4 and emission estimates of CH4 and CO2 were calculated for each sample source using the SF6 tracer technique principles. The LRR treatment yielded higher (P < 0.001) ruminal CH4/SF6 (by 1.79 times) and CO2/SF6 (by 1.90 times) ratios than the HRR treatment; however, these differences were lower than the 2.0 times difference expected from the RR between the LRR and HRR. Consequently, the LRR treatment was associated with lower (P < 0.01) ruminal emissions of CH4 over the 8-h collection period than with the HRR treatment (+11%), a difference also confirmed by the breath samples (+11%). RR treatments did not differ (P = 0.53) in ruminal or breath CO2 emissions; however, our results confirm that the SF6 tracer seems inappropriate for CO2 emissions estimation in ruminants. Irrespective of the RR treatment, breath samples yielded 8% to 9% higher CH4 emission estimates than the ruminal samples (P = 0.01). The relationship between rumen and breath sources for CH4 emissions was better for LRR than for HRR treatment, suggesting that tracer performance decreases with the highest RR of SF6 tested in our study (3.1 mg/day). A hypothesis is discussed with regard to the mechanism responsible for the relationship between RR and CH4 emission estimates. The use of permeation tubes with small range in RR is recommended in animal experiments to decrease variability in CH4 emission estimates using the SF6 tracer technique.

Type
Full Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Boadi, DA, Wittenberg, KM, Kennedy, AD 2002. Validation of the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer gas technique for measurement of methane and carbon dioxide production by cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 125131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H, Pinares-Patiño, CS, deKlein, C 2005. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from grazed grasslands. In Grassland: a global resource (ed. DA McGilloway), pp. 279293. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, RW, Cook, HM 1962. Routes of eructed gas expulsion in cattle – a quantitative study. American Journal of Veterinary Research 23, 9971000.Google Scholar
Gill, M, Smith, P, Wilkinson, JM 2010. Mitigating climate change: the role of domestic livestock. Animal 4, 323333.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Clarke, T, McGinn, SM, Auldist, MJ, Beauchemin, KA, Hannah MC Waghorn, GC, Clark, H, Eckard, RJ 2007. Methane emissions from dairy cows measured using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer and chamber techniques. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 27552766.Google Scholar
Hoernicke, H, Williams, WF, Waldo, DR, Flatt, WP 1965. Composition and absorption of rumen gases and their importance for the accuracy of respiration trials with tracheostomized ruminants. In Energy metabolism (ed. KL Blaxter), pp. 165178. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA, Huyler, M, Westberg, H, Lamb, B, Zimmerman, P 1994. Measurement of methane emissions from ruminant livestock using a SF6 tracer technique. Environmental Science and Technology 28, 359362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, KA, Westberg, H, Michal, JJ, Cossalman, MW 2007. The SF6 tracer technique: methane measurement from ruminants. In Measuring methane production from ruminants (ed. HPS Makkar and PE Vercoe), pp. 3367. Springer, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouany, JP, Senaud, J 1979. Description d'une technique permettant d'effectuer des prélèvements répétés de gaz dans le rumen. Annales Biologie Animale Biochimie Biophysique 19, 10071010.Google Scholar
Kinsman, R, Sauer, FD, Jackson, HA, Wolynetz, MS 1995. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from dairy cows in full lactation monitored over a six month period. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 27602766.Google Scholar
Lassey, KR, Ulyatt, MJ, Martin, RJ, Walker, CF, Shelton, D 1997. Methane emissions measured directly from grazing livestock in New Zealand. Atmospheric Environment 31, 29052914.Google Scholar
Leuning, R, Baker, SK, Jamie, IM, Hsu, CH, Klein, L, Denmead, OT, Griffith, DWT 1999. Methane emission from free-ranging sheep: a comparison of two measurements methods. Atmospheric Environment 33, 13571365.Google Scholar
Martin, C, Rouel, J, Jouany, JP, Doreau, M, Chilliard, Y 2008. Methane output and diet digestibility in response to feeding dairy cows with crude linseed, extruded linseed or linseed oil. Journal of Animal Science 86, 26422650.Google Scholar
Martin, C, Doreau, M, Morgavi, DP 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinn, SM, Beauchemin, KA, Iwassa, AD, McAllister, TA 2006. Assessment of the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique for measuring enteric methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 16861691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, M, Tebbe, U, Piiper, J 1980. Solubility of inert gases in dog blood and skeletal muscle. European Journal of Physiology 384, 131134.Google Scholar
Moate, PJ, Clarke, T, Davis, LH, Laby, RH 1997. Rumen gases and bloat in grazing dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science 129, 459469.Google Scholar
Murray, RM, Bryant, AM, Leng, RA 1976. Rates of production of methane in the rumen and large intestine of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 36, 114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payne, RW, Murray, DA, Harding, SA, Baird, DB, Soutar, DM 2007. GenStat for Windows introduction, 10th edition. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, UK.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Holmes, CW, Lassey, KR, Ulyatt, MJ 2008a. Measurement of methane emission from sheep by the sulphur hexafluoride tracer technique and by the calorimetric chamber: failure and success. Animal 2, 141148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Machmüller, A, Molano, G, Smith, A, Vlaming, JB, Clark, H 2008b. The SF6 tracer technique for measurement of methane emissions from cattle – effect of tracer permeation rate. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 88, 309320.Google Scholar
Rémond, D, Chaise, JP, Delval, E, Poncet, C 1993. Net flux of metabolites across the ruminal wall of sheep fed twice a day with orchardgrass hay. Journal of Animal Science 71, 25292538.Google Scholar
Sauer, FD, Fellner, V, Kinsman, R, Kramer, JK, Jackson, HA, Lee, AJ, Chen, S 1998. Methane output and lactation response in Holstein cattle with monensin or unsaturated fat added to the diet. Journal of Animal Science 76, 906914.Google Scholar
Schimmel, C, Bernard, SL, Anderson, JC, Polissar, NL, Lakshminarayan, S, Hlastala, MP 2004. Soluble gas exchange in the pulmonary airways of sheep. Journal of Applied Physiology 97, 17021708.Google Scholar
Torrent, J, Johnson, DE 1994. Methane production in the large intestine of sheep. In Energy metabolism of farm animals (EAAP Publication No. 76) (ed. JF Aguilera), pp. 391394. Servicio de Publicaciones, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Granada, Spain.Google Scholar
Veenhuizen, JJ, Russell, RW, Young, JW 1988. Kinetics of metabolism of glucose, propionate and CO2 in steers as affected by injecting phlorizin and feeding propionate. Journal of Nutrition 118, 13661375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vlaming, JB, Brookes, IM, Hoskin, SO, Pinares-Patiño, CS, Clark, H 2007. The possible influence of intra-ruminal sulphur hexafluoride release rates on calculated methane emissions from cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 87, 269275.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Reid, CSW 1983. Rumen motility in sheep and cattle giving different diets. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 289295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar