Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:07:35.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enteric and manure-derived methane and nitrogen emissions as well as metabolic energy losses in cows fed balanced diets based on maize, barley or grass hay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

F. Klevenhusen ,
M. Kreuzer  and
C. R. Soliva
F. Klevenhusen
Affiliation:
ETH Zurich, Institute of Plant, Animal and Agroecosystem Sciences, Universitaetstrasse 2, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
M. Kreuzer
Affiliation:
ETH Zurich, Institute of Plant, Animal and Agroecosystem Sciences, Universitaetstrasse 2, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
C. R. Soliva*
Affiliation:
ETH Zurich, Institute of Plant, Animal and Agroecosystem Sciences, Universitaetstrasse 2, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Ruminant husbandry constitutes the most important source of anthropogenic methane (CH4). In addition to enteric (animal-derived) CH4, excreta are another source of CH4, especially when stored anaerobically. Increasing the proportion of dietary concentrate is often considered as the primary CH4 mitigation option. However, it is unclear whether this is still valid when diets to be compared are energy-balanced. In addition, non-structural carbohydrates and side effects on nitrogen (N) emissions may be important. In this experiment, diet types representing either forage-only or mixed diets were examined for their effects on CH4 and N emissions from animals and their slurries in 18 lactating cows. Apart from a hay-only diet, treatments included two mixed diets consisting of maize stover, pelleted whole maize plants and gluten or barley straw and grain and soy bean meal. The diets were balanced in crude protein and net energy for lactation. After adaptation, data and samples were collected for 8 days including a 2-day CH4 measurement in respiratory chambers. Faeces and urine, combined proportionately according to excretion, were used to determine slurry-derived CH4 and N emissions. Slurry was stored for 15 weeks at either 14°C or 27°C, and temperatures were classified as ‘cool’ and ‘warm’, respectively. The low-starch hay-only diet had high organic matter and fibre digestibility and proved to be equally effective on the cows’ performance as mixed diets. The enteric CH4 formation remained unaffected by the diet except when related to digested fibre. In this case emission was lowest with the hay-only diet (61 v. 88 to 101 g CH4/kg digested NDF). Feeding the hay diet resulted in the highest slurry-CH4 production after 7 weeks of storage at 14°C and 27°C, and after 15 weeks at 14°C. CH4 emissions were, in general, about 10-fold higher at 27°C compared with 14°C but only after 15 weeks of storage. Urinary N losses were highest with the barley diet and lowest with the maize diet. There was a trend towards similar differences in N losses from the slurry of these cows (significant at 14°C). However, contrary to CH4, slurry-N emissions seemed to be temperature-independent. In conclusion, energetically balanced diets proved to be widely equivalent in their emission potential when combining animal and their slurry, this even at a clearly differing forage : concentrate ratio. The variation in CH4 emission from slurry stored shortly or at cold temperature for 15 weeks was of low importance as such conditions did not support methanogenesis in slurry anyway.

Keywords

methanenitrogendairy cowsslurrycarbohydrate
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , March 2011 , pp. 450 - 461
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

Agroscope Liebefeld-Posieux (ALP) 2006. Fütterungsempfehlungen und Nährwerttabellen für Wiederkäuer (Feeding Recommendations and Nutrient Tables). Online version. Ed ALP, Posieux. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from http://www.alp.admin.ch/dokumentation/00611/00631/index.html?lang=de.Google Scholar
Amberger, A, Vilsmeier, K, Guster, R 1982. Fractions of nitrogen in various types of slurry and their effects in vegetation trials. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde 145, 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, LD, Ferguson, JD, Chalupa, W 1995. Responses in urea and true protein of milk to different protein feeding schemes for dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 2424–2434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchemin, KA, McGinn, SM 2005. Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barley or corn diets. Journal of Animal Science 83, 653–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaxter, KL, Wainman, FW 1964. Utilization of energy of different rations by sheep and cattle for maintenance and for fattening. Journal of Agricultural Science 63, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boadi, DA, Wittenberg, KM, Scott, SL, Burton, D, Buckley, K, Small, JA, Ominski, KH 2004. Effect of low and high forage diet on enteric and manure pack greenhouse gas emissions from a feedlot. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castillo, AR, Kebreab, E, Beever, DE, Barbi, JH, Sutton, JD, Kirby, HC, France, J 2001. The effect of protein supplementation on nitrogen utilization in lactating dairy cows fed grass silage diets. Journal of Animal Science 79, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chwalibog, A, Jensen, K, Thorbeck, G 1996. Oxidation of nutrients in bull calves treated with beta-adrenergic agonists. Archives of Animal Nutrition 49, 255–261.Google ScholarPubMed
Clemens, J, Trimborn, M, Weiland, P, Amon, B 2006. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112, 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, J, Kebreab, E, Mills, JAN, Pellikaan, WF, López, S, Bannink, A, France, J 2007. Predicting the profile of nutrients available for absorption: from nutrient requirement to animal response and environmental impact. Animal 1, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, LA, Denmead, OT, Freney, JR, Byers, FM 1999. Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1392–1401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hashimoto, AG, Varel, VH, Chen, YR 1981. Ultimate methane yield from beef-cattle manure: effect of temperature, ration constituents, antibiotics and manure age. Agricultural Wastes 3, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindrichsen, IK, Kreuzer, M 2009. High methanogenic potential of sucrose compared with starch at high ruminal pH. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 93, 61–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hindrichsen, IK, Wettstein, HR, Machmüller, A, Jörg, B, Kreuzer, M 2005. Effect of the carbohydrate composition of feed concentrates on methane emission from dairy cows and their slurry. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 107, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hindrichsen, IK, Wettstein, HR, Machmüller, A, Kreuzer, M 2006. Methane emission, nutrient degradation and nitrogen turnover in dairy cows and their slurry at different milk production scenarios with and without concentrate supplementation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 113, 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holter, JB, Young, AJ 1992. Methane prediction in dry and lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2165–2175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4. Agriculture, forestry and other land use. Ch. 10. Emissions from livestock and manure management. 10.1–10.87.Google Scholar
Jarvis, SC 1993. Nitrogen cycling and losses from dairy farms. Soil Use and Management 9, 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, KA, Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kebreab, E, France, J, Beever, DE, Castillo, AR 2001. Nitrogen pollution by dairy cows and its mitigation by dietary manipulation. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 60, 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kröber, TF, Külling, DR, Menzi, H, Sutter, F, Kreuzer, M 2000. Quantitative effects of feed protein reduction and methionine on nitrogen use by cows and nitrogen emission from slurry. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2941–2951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Külling, DR, Menzi, H, Kröber, TF, Neftel, A, Sutter, F, Lischer, P, Kreuzer, M 2001. Emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane from different diet types of dairy manure during storage as affected by dietary protein content. Journal of Agricultural Science 137, 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Külling, DR, Dohme, F, Menzi, H, Sutter, F, Lischer, P, Kreuzer, M 2002. Methane emissions of differently fed dairy cows and corresponding methane and nitrogen emissions from their manure during storage. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 79, 129–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Külling, DR, Menzi, H, Sutter, F, Lischer, P, Kreuzer, M 2003. Ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from differently stored dairy manure derived from grass- and hay-based rations. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 65, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, AR, Jouany, JP, Newbold, J 2000. Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Annales de Zootechnie 49, 231–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, SO, Amon, B, Gattinger, A 2005. Methane oxidation in slurry storage surface crusts. Journal of Environmental Quality 34, 455–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rotz, CA 2004. Management to reduce nitrogen losses in animal production. Journal of Animal Science 82, 119–137.Google ScholarPubMed
Soliva, CR, Hess, HD 2007. Measuring methane emission of ruminants by in vitro and in vivo techniques. In Measuring methane production from ruminants (eds HPS Makkar and PE Vercoe), pp. 15–31. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, SG, Petersen, SO, Sørensen, P, Poulsen, HD, Møller, HB 2007. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions and nitrogen turnover during liquid manure storage. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 78, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steed, J, Hashimoto, AG 1994. Methane emissions from typical manure management systems. Bioresource Technology 50, 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M, de Haan, C 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Susmel, P, Stefanon, B 1993. Aspects of lignin degradation by rumen microorganisms. Journal of Biotechnology 30, 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, S 1992. Nutrition management of dairy cows as a contribution to pollution control. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Stelt, B, Temminghoff, EJM, Van Vlieta, PCJ, Van Riemsdijka, WH 2007. Volatilization of ammonia from manure as affected by manure additives, temperature and mixing. Bioresource Technology 98, 3449–3455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van der Stelt, B, Van Vliet, PCJ, Reijs, JW, Temminghoff, EJM, Van Riemsdijk, WH 2008. Effect if dietary protein and energy levels on cow manure excretion and ammonia volatilization. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4811–4821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Horn, HH, Newton, GL, Kunkle, WE 1996. Ruminant nutrition from an environmental perspective: factors affecting whole-farm nutrient balance. Journal of Animal Science 74, 3082–3102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Vuuren, AM, Van Der Koelen, CJ, Valk, H, De Visser, H 1993. Effects of partial replacement of ryegrass by low protein feeds on rumen fermentation and nitrogen loss by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 2982–2993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verband deutscher landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalten (VDLUFA) 1976. Methodenbuch Band III – Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. VDLUFA–Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Yang, WZ, Beauchemin, KA, Farr, BI, Rode, LM 1997. Comparison of barley, hull-less barley, and corn in the concentrate of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 2885–2895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed