Effects of stocking rate on methane and carbon dioxide emissions from grazing cattle

Pinares-Patiño, C. S.; d'Hour, Pascal P.; Jouany, J. P.; Martin, Cécile

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.03.024

Cited by 108 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, over the entire grazing season, NDF and ADF concentrations were lower in E1 than in E2 or E3. Several studies have suggested that level of intake rather than digestibility is the main determinant of absolute CH 4 emissions (DeRamus et al, 2003;Beauchemin and McGinn, 2006;Pinares-Patino et al, 2007;Hart et al, 2009;Pelve et al, 2012;Boland et al, 2013;Clark, 2013).However, the difference in absolute CH 4 emissions between experimental periods in the current work cannot be explained solely by differences in DMI. McCaughey et al (1999) found significant differences in DMI among cattle grazing swards of contrasting quality, but not between sampling periods, while corresponding absolute CH 4 emissions (L/day) differed significantly between sampling periods.…”

mentioning

confidence: 53%

“…Typically, semi-natural grasslands are species rich (Pinares-Patino et al, 2007) with an abundance of plant species with higher cell wall and lignin contents, and lower digestibility, than those species more commonly found in improved grassland (e.g. perennial ryegrass).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anecdotally, traditional early-maturing breeds of cattle are better adapted to survive and utilise vegetation on the uplands because of their perceived hardiness relative to other beef breeds, but evidence for this is inconclusive (Rook et al, 2004). Dairy-origin beef cattle are a significant 'by-product' of dairy herds and currently deliver 36% of the carcass output from the Northern Ireland beef industry (Titterington and Morrison, 2013) and these cattle could find use also as 'grazing agents' to maintain biodiversity in natural upland plant communities.Typically, semi-natural grasslands are species rich (Pinares-Patino et al, 2007) with an abundance of plant species with higher cell wall and lignin contents, and lower digestibility, than those species more commonly found in improved grassland (e.g. perennial ryegrass).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Methane emissions from beef cattle grazing on semi-natural upland and improved lowland grasslands

Richmond

Wylie

Laidlaw

et al. 2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In ruminants, methane (CH 4 ) is a by-product of digestion and contributes significantly to the greenhouse gas emissions attributed to agriculture. Grazed grass is a relatively cheap and nutritious feed but herbage species and nutritional quality vary between pastures, with management, land type and season all potentially impacting on animal performance and CH 4 production. The objective of this study was to evaluate performance and compare CH 4 emissions from cattle of dairy and beef origin grazing two grassland ecosystems: lowland improved grassland (LG) and upland semi-natural grassland (UG). Forty-eight spring-born beef cattle (24 Holstein-Friesian steers, 14 Charolais crossbred steers and 10 Charolais crossbred heifers of 407 (s.d. 29), 469 (s.d. 36) and 422 (s.d. 50) kg BW, respectively), were distributed across two balanced groups that grazed the UG and LG sites from 1 June to 29 September at stocking rates (number of animals per hectare) of 1.4 and 6.7, respectively. Methane emissions and feed dry matter (DM) intake were estimated by the SF 6 tracer and n-alkane techniques, respectively, and BW was recorded across three experimental periods that reflected the progression of the grazing season. Overall, cattle grazed on UG had significantly lower ( P < 0.001) mean daily DM intake (8.68 v. 9.55 kg/day), CH 4 emissions (176 v. 202 g/day) and BW gain (BWG; 0.73 v. 1.08 kg/day) than the cattle grazed on LG but there was no difference ( P > 0.05) in CH 4 emissions per unit of feed intake when expressed either on a DM basis (20.7 and 21.6 g CH 4 per kg DM intake for UG and LG, respectively) or as a percentage of the gross energy intake (6.0% v. 6.5% for UG and LG, respectively). However, cattle grazing UG had significantly ( P < 0.001) greater mean daily CH 4 emissions than those grazing LG when expressed relative to BWG (261 v. 197 g CH 4 /kg, respectively). The greater DM intake and BWG of cattle grazing LG than UG reflected the poorer nutritive value of the UG grassland. Although absolute rates of CH 4 emissions (g/day) were lower from cattle grazing UG than LG, cattle grazing UG would be expected to take longer to reach an acceptable finishing weight, thereby potentially off-setting this apparent advantage. Methane emissions constitute an adverse environmental impact of grazing by cattle but the contribution of cattle to ecosystem management (i.e. promoting biodiversity) should also be considered when evaluating the usefulness of different breeds for grazing semi-natural or unimproved grassland.Keywords: methane, sulphur hexafluoride, beef cattle, grassland, grazing ImplicationsA study comparing upland and lowland grazing by beeforigin and dairy-origin cattle showed that, as a consequence of lower dry matter intake and fewer animals stocked per hectare, the BW gain of cattle grazing upland grassland was only 15% of those grazing intensively managed lowland pasture, but with 25% more methane emitted per kg of BW produced. Policies that encourage greater use of upland grassland for beef production may be co...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methane emissions from beef cattle grazing on semi-natural upland and improved lowland grasslands

Richmond

Wylie

Laidlaw

et al. 2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As mammalian CO 2 production is proportional to energy expenditure, a field measurement of CO 2 production would be a valuable tool for nutritional research and field measures have been made using SF 6 (Boadi et al, 2002;Pinares-Patiñ o et al, 2007), isotope dilution (Corbett et al, 1971) and cardiac output (Brosh et al, 1998). At any given ME intake, CO 2 output for most of the days is much less variable than enteric methane production, and therefore CO 2 has been evaluated as an internal marker to upscale short-term methane emission rates to DMP in freeranging animals.…”

Section: Portable Accumulation Chambers (Pac)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At any given ME intake, CO 2 output for most of the days is much less variable than enteric methane production, and therefore CO 2 has been evaluated as an internal marker to upscale short-term methane emission rates to DMP in freeranging animals. Pinares-Patiñ o et al (2007) found a positive association between CO 2 and CH 4 emission for cattle because both are correlated with feed intake, and therefore the level of intake needs to be allowed for in predicting CO 2 output. As the majority of CO 2 production arises from mammalian oxidation of energy substrates, Lassen et al (2010) sought to allow for the effects of feed intake (roughage and concentrate intakes) as well as body weight on CO 2 : CH 4 ratio; they found this ratio to have a repeatability of 0.35 to 0.37 and proposed its use as a methane trait for genetic evaluation, without a requirement to scale up to DMP.…”

Section: Portable Accumulation Chambers (Pac)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicability of short-term emission measurements for on-farm quantification of enteric methane

Hegarty

2013

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A short term enteric methane emission measurement is not identical to a measure of daily methane production (DMP) made in a respiration chamber (RC). While RC curtail most variation except that from quantity and composition of feed supplied, all shortterm measurements contain additional sources of variation. The points of difference can include measurement time(s) relative to feeding, feed intake before measurement, animal behaviour in selection of diet and level of activity before measurement. For systems where a short-term emission measurement is made at the same time in the daily feeding cycle (e.g. during twice-daily milking) scaling up of short-term emission rates to estimate DMP is feasible but the scaling coefficient(s) will be diet dependent. For systems such as GreenFeed where direct emission rates are measured on occasion throughout day and night, no scaling up may be required to estimate DMP. For systems where small numbers of emission measures are made, and there is no knowledge of prior feed intake, such as for portable accumulation chambers, scaling to DMP is not currently possible. Even without scaling up to DMP, short-term measured emission rates are adequate for identifying relative emission changes induced by mitigation strategies and could provide the data to support genetic selection of ruminants for reduced enteric emissions.Keywords: ruminant, greenhouse gas, enteric emissions, methane, measurement ImplicationsThe capacity to estimate daily methane production (DMP) or relative methane production of ruminants on the basis of short-term emission measurements will enable verification of enteric emission budgets and the development and verification of abatement techniques. This will enable more rapid deployment of abatement strategies and verify the emissions data used in carbon accounting transactions. Short-term emissions measurements are uniquely placed to accelerate methane abatement by genetic selection of livestock, which requires emission data for a large number of animals. IntroductionThe majority of understanding of animal energetics and daily methane production (DMP) has been obtained from indirect calorimetry using open or closed circuit respiration chambers (RC) (Blaxter, 1962;Blaxter and Clapperton, 1965). Increasingly, however, there is a demand to measure ruminant methane emissions in animals within their natural production environment. This demand arises from the need to verify inventories, verify mitigation claims on-farm and measure large numbers of animals to determine the genetic parameters of methane output (Chagunda et al., 2009;McEwan et al., 2012). Although mobile respiration hood systems exist for on-farm use (Kelly et al., 1994), and RC studies using thousands of animals are now being conducted (Arthur et al., 2012), this is extremely slow and expensive. Robinson et al. (2010) identified that short-term measures of methane production were strongly correlated with DMP and can be used to obtain short-term on-farm emission data without need for an RC. This paper summarise...

show abstract

Towards a Full Accounting of the Greenhouse Gas Balance of European Grasslands

Soussana

2008

Ecological Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of stocking rate on methane and carbon dioxide emissions from grazing cattle

Cited by 108 publications

References 52 publications

Methane emissions from beef cattle grazing on semi-natural upland and improved lowland grasslands

Methane emissions from beef cattle grazing on semi-natural upland and improved lowland grasslands

Applicability of short-term emission measurements for on-farm quantification of enteric methane

Towards a Full Accounting of the Greenhouse Gas Balance of European Grasslands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About