Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:34:47.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in enteric methane emissions among cows on commercial dairy farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2014

M. J. Bell ,
S. L. Potterton ,
J. Craigon ,
N. Saunders ,
R. H. Wilcox ,
M. Hunter ,
J. R. Goodman  and
P. C. Garnsworthy
M. J. Bell
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK
S. L. Potterton
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK
J. Craigon
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK
N. Saunders
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK
R. H. Wilcox
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK
M. Hunter
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK
J. R. Goodman
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK
P. C. Garnsworthy*
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Methane (CH4) emissions by dairy cows vary with feed intake and diet composition. Even when fed on the same diet at the same intake, however, variation between cows in CH4 emissions can be substantial. The extent of variation in CH4 emissions among dairy cows on commercial farms is unknown, but developments in methodology now permit quantification of CH4 emissions by individual cows under commercial conditions. The aim of this research was to assess variation among cows in emissions of eructed CH4 during milking on commercial dairy farms. Enteric CH4 emissions from 1964 individual cows across 21 farms were measured for at least 7 days/cow using CH4 analysers at robotic milking stations. Cows were predominantly of Holstein Friesian breed and remained on the same feeding systems during sampling. Effects of explanatory variables on average CH4 emissions per individual cow were assessed by fitting a linear mixed model. Significant effects were found for week of lactation, daily milk yield and farm. The effect of milk yield on CH4 emissions varied among farms. Considerable variation in CH4 emissions was observed among cows after adjusting for fixed and random effects, with the CV ranging from 22% to 67% within farms. This study confirms that enteric CH4 emissions vary among cows on commercial farms, suggesting that there is considerable scope for selecting individual cows and management systems with reduced emissions.

Keywords

dairy cowsenteric methanevariationcommercial farms
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 9 , September 2014 , pp. 1540 - 1546
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Beauchemin, KA, Kreuzer, M, O’Mara, F and McAllister, TA 2008. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 21–27.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, McGinn, SM, Benchaar, C and Holtshausen, L 2009. Crushed sunflower, flax, or canola seeds in lactating dairy cow diets: effects on methane production, rumen fermentation, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 2118–2127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, MJ and Eckard, RJ 2012. Reducing enteric methane losses from ruminant livestock – its measurement, prediction and the influence of diet. In Livestock Production (ed. K Javed), pp. 135–150. InTech Publishing, Rijeka, Croatia.Google Scholar
Bell, MJ, Wall, E, Russell, G, Morgan, C and Simm, G 2010. Effect of breeding for milk yield, diet, and management on enteric methane emissions from dairy cows. Animal Production Science 50, 817–826.Google Scholar
Blaxter, KL and Clapperton, JL 1965. Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition 19, 511–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chagunda, MGG 2013. Opportunities and challenges in the use of the laser methane detector to monitor enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Animal 7, 394–400.Google Scholar
de Haas, Y, Windig, JJ, Calus, MPL, Dijkstra, J, de Haan, M, Bannink, A and Veerkamp, RF 2011. Genetic parameters for predicted methane production and the potential for reducing enteric emissions through genomic selection. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 6122–6134.Google Scholar
Dillon, P, Berry, DP, Evans, RD, Buckley, F and Horan, B 2006. Consequences of genetic selection for increased milk production in European seasonal pasture based systems of milk production. Livestock Science 99, 141–158.Google Scholar
Ellis, JL, Kebreab, E, Odongo, NE, McBride, BW, Okine, EK and France, J 2007. Prediction of methane production from dairy and beef cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3456–3467.Google Scholar
FAO 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector: A life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.Google 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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Clarke, T, McGinn, SM, Auldist, MJ, Beauchemin, KA, Hannah, MC, Waghorn, GC, Clark, H and Eckard, RJ 2007. Methane emissions from dairy cows measured using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer and chamber techniques. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2755–2766.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007. Climate change 2007 series. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA and Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.Google Scholar
Lassen, J, Løvendahl, P and Madsen, J 2012. Accuracy of noninvasive breath methane measurements using Fourier transform infrared methods on individual cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 890–898.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust 2012. Genstat 15, version 15.1 reference manual. Clarendon Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
Martin, C, Morgavi, DP and Doreau, M 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, JAN, Kebreab, E, Yates, CM, Crompton, LA, Cammell, SB, Dhanoa, MS, Agnew, RE and France, J 2003. Alternative approaches to predicting methane emissions from dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 81, 3141–3150.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Hickey, SM, Young, EA, Dodds, KG, MacLean, S, Molano, G, Sandoval, E, Kjestrup, H, Harland, R, Hunt, C, Pickering, NK and McEwan, JC 2013. Heritability estimates of methane emissions from sheep. Animal 7, 316–321.Google Scholar
Reynolds, CK, Crompton, LA and Mills, JAN 2011. Improving the efficiency of energy utilisation in cattle. Animal Production Science 51, 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlaming, JB, Clark, H and Lopez-Villalobos, N 2005. The effect of SF6 release rate, animal species and feeding conditions on estimates of methane emissions from ruminants. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society for Animal Production 65, 4–8.Google Scholar
Yan, T, Mayne, CS, Gordon, FG, Porter, MG, Agnew, RE, Patterson, DC, Ferris, CP and Kilpatrick, DJ 2010. Mitigation of enteric methane emissions through improving efficiency of energy utilization and productivity in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2630–2638.Google Scholar