Validation of a short-term methane measurement using portable static chambers to estimate daily methane production in sheep

Goopy, John P.; Woodgate, R.; Donaldson, A. J.; Robinson, D. L.; Hegarty, R. S.

doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.012

Cited by 65 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Portable accumulation chambers (PAC) are essentially an airtight box without airflow. Methane emission is measured from individual animals over 1 or 2 h, such that CH 4 , CO 2 and other gases accumulate while oxygen (O 2 ) depletes (Goopy et al, 2011;Hegarty, 2013). The PAC acts to trap all exhaled gases during the collection period and takes a single CH 4 measurement at the end.…”

Section: Respiration Chambers and Enclosuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The PAC acts to trap all exhaled gases during the collection period and takes a single CH 4 measurement at the end. Methane emission is estimated as the concentration of CH 4 (corrected for background) multiplied by net chamber volume, adjusted for STP, divided by time of measurement (Goopy et al, 2011). The time period of use should be limited to avoid negative effects of increased chamber CO 2 concentration, as discussed previously, and thus the PAC techniques provides a single spot sample of accumulated gases emitted by an animal.…”

Section: Respiration Chambers and Enclosuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quantifying enteric methane emission from ruminants

Hammond

Crompton

Bannink

et al. 2016

Animal Feed Science and Technology

148

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quantifying enteric methane emission from ruminants.Animal Feed Science and Technology http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.05.018 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. techniques based on short-term measurements of gas concentrations in samples of exhaled air. This includes automated head chambers (e.g. the GreenFeed system), the use of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) as a marker, and (handheld) laser CH 4 detection. Each of the techniques are compared and assessed on their capability and limitations, followed by methodology recommendations. It is concluded that there is no "one size fits all" method for measuring CH 4 emission by individual animals. Ultimately, the decision as to which method to use should be based on the experimental objectives and resources available. However, the need for high throughput methodology e.g. for screening large numbers of animals for genomic studies, does not justify the use of methods that are inaccurate. All CH 4 measurement techniques are subject to experimental variation and random errors. Many sources of variation must be considered when measuring CH 4 concentration in exhaled air samples without a quantitative or at least regular collection rate, or use of a marker to indicate (or adjust) for the proportion of exhaled CH 4 sampled. Consideration of the number and timing of measurements relative to diurnal patterns of CH 4 emission and respiratory exchange are important, as well as consideration of feeding patterns and associated patterns of rumen 4 fermentation rate and other aspects of animal behaviour. Regardless of the method chosen, appropriate calibrations and recovery tests are required for both method establishment and routine operation. Successful and correct use of methods requires careful attention to detail, rigour, and routine self-assessment of the quality of the data they provide.

show abstract

Section: Respiration Chambers and Enclosuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Respiration Chambers and Enclosuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quantifying enteric methane emission from ruminants

Hammond

Crompton

Bannink

et al. 2016

Animal Feed Science and Technology

148

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These include SF 6 tracer (Grainger et al, 2007), sampling of breath in feeding boxes during milking (MERm; Garnsworthy et al, 2012a), GreenFeed system (GFeed; Zimmerman et al, 2013) and portable accumulation chambers (PAC) (Robinson et al, 2012;Goopy et al, 2011). …”

Section: Applicability Of Short-term Emission Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach is being used by Garnsworthy et al (2012a), and a scaling-up coefficient will need to be derived uniquely for each specific diet and feeding schedule to accurately estimate DMP. PAC studies have typically made one measure of emissions per sheep over 1h in one of five to six measurement sessions per day (Bickell et al, 2011;Goopy et al, 2011); time-off feed has been accounted for by including measurement session as a factor in the analysis model. Emission rates derived from PACs have not been scaled to provide estimates of DMP, as relative emission rates are considered adequate for demonstrating effectiveness of mitigation strategies and for estimating genetic parameters of enteric methane production by sheep (Robinson et al, 2010).…”

Section: Applicability Of Short-term Emission Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hegarty

2013

Animal

Self Cite

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

“…Recently, multiple shortterm enteric emission measurements have being used for regularly measuring larger numbers of animals within production systems (Garnsworthy et al, 2012a). Estimates of DMP based on short-term flux (3 to 120 min) including by confinement (Robinson et al, 2010;Goopy et al, 2011) or imputed from the methane concentration in expired air (Chagunda and Yan, 2011;Garnsworthy et al, 2012b) are being evaluated and compared (Huhtanen et al, 2014;Dorich et al, 2015) The GreenFeed Emission Monitoring system (GEM; C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, South Dakota, USA) is a commercial system developed to estimate DMP of cattle from repeated short-term measures of methane emission over a period of days, weeks or months. The objective of this study was to compare DMP estimated by GEM systems with DMP measured by RC for cattle fed roughage-based diets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Velazco

Mayer²,

Zimmerman³

et al. 2016

Animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methods to measure enteric methane (CH 4 ) emissions from individual ruminants in their production environment are required to validate emission inventories and verify mitigation claims. Estimates of daily methane production (DMP) based on consolidated short-term emission measurements are developing, but method verification is required. Two cattle experiments were undertaken to test the hypothesis that DMP estimated by averaging multiple short-term breath measures of methane emission rate did not differ from DMP measured in respiration chambers (RC). Short-term emission rates were obtained from a GreenFeed Emissions Monitoring (GEM) unit, which measured emission rate while cattle consumed a dispensed supplement. In experiment 1 (Expt. 1), four non-lactating cattle (LW = 518 kg) were adapted for 18 days then measured for six consecutive periods. Each period consisted of 2 days of ad libitum intake and GEM emission measurement followed by 1 day in the RC. A prototype GEM unit releasing water as an attractant (GEM water) was also evaluated in Expt. 1. Experiment 2 (Expt. 2) was a larger study based on similar design with 10 cattle (LW = 365 kg), adapted for 21 days and GEM measurement was extended to 3 days in each of the six periods. In Expt. 1, there was no difference in DMP estimated by the GEM unit relative to the RC (209.7 v. 215.1 g CH 4 /day) and no difference between these methods in methane yield (MY, 22.7 v. 23.7 g CH 4 /kg of dry matter intake, DMI). In Expt. 2, the correlation between GEM and RC measures of DMP and MY were assessed using 95% confidence intervals, with no difference in DMP or MY between methods and high correlations between GEM and RC measures for DMP ( r = 0.85; 215 v. 198 g CH 4 /day SEM = 3.0) and for MY ( r = 0.60; 23.8 v. 22.1 g CH 4 /kg DMI SEM = 0.42). When data from both experiments was combined neither DMP nor MY differed between GEM-and RC-based measures ( P > 0.05). GEM water-based estimates of DMP and MY were lower than RC and GEM ( P < 0.05). Cattle accessed the GEM water unit with similar frequency to the GEM unit (2.8 v. 3.5 times/day, respectively) but eructation frequency was reduced from 1.31 times/min (GEM) to once every 2.6 min (GEM water). These studies confirm the hypothesis that DMP estimated by averaging multiple short-term breath measures of methane emission rate using GEM does not differ from measures of DMP obtained from RCs. Further, combining many short-term measures of methane production rate during supplement consumption provides an estimate of DMP, which can be usefully applied in estimating MY.

show abstract

Validation of a short-term methane measurement using portable static chambers to estimate daily methane production in sheep

Cited by 65 publications

References 13 publications

Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quantifying enteric methane emission from ruminants

Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quantifying enteric methane emission from ruminants

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About