DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Laser methane detector-based quantification of methane emissions from indoor-fed Fogera dairy cows

  • Kobayashi, Nobuyuki (Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University) ;
  • Hou, Fujiang (State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agroecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University) ;
  • Tsunekawa, Atsushi (Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University) ;
  • Yan, Tianhai (Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute) ;
  • Tegegne, Firew (Bahir Dar University) ;
  • Tassew, Asaminew (College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Bahir Dar University) ;
  • Mekuriaw, Yeshambel (College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Bahir Dar University) ;
  • Mekuriaw, Shigdaf (The United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Tottori University) ;
  • Hunegnaw, Beyadglign (Andassa Livestock Research Center, Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute) ;
  • Mekonnen, Wondimeneh (Andassa Livestock Research Center, Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute) ;
  • Ichinohe, Toshiyoshi (Faculty of Life and Environmental Science, Shimane University)
  • Received : 2020.10.23
  • Accepted : 2020.12.14
  • Published : 2021.08.01

Abstract

Objective: Portable laser methane detectors (LMDs) may be an economical means of estimating CH4 emissions from ruminants. We validated an LMD-based approach and then used that approach to evaluate CH4 emissions from indigenous dairy cows in a dryland area of Ethiopia. Methods: First, we validated our LMD-based approach in Simmental crossbred beef cattle (n = 2) housed in respiration chambers and fed either a high- or low-concentrate diet. From the results of the validation, we constructed an estimation equation to determine CH4 emissions from LMD CH4 concentrations. Next, we used our validated LMD approach to examine CH4 emissions in Fogera dairy cows grazed for 8 h/d (GG, n = 4), fed indoors on natural-grassland hay (CG1, n = 4), or fed indoors on Napier-grass (Pennisetum purpureum) hay (CG2, n = 4). All the cows were supplemented with concentrate feed. Results: The exhaled CH4 concentrations measured by LMD were linearly correlated with the CH4 emissions determined by infrared-absorption-based gas analyzer (r2 = 0.55). The estimation equation used to determine CH4 emissions (y, mg/min) from LMD CH4 concentrations (x, ppm m) was y = 0.4259x+38.61. Daily CH4 emissions of Fogera cows estimated by using the equation did not differ among the three groups; however, a numerically greater milk yield was obtained from the CG2 cows than from the GG cows, suggesting that Napier-grass hay might be better than natural-grassland hay for indoor feeding. The CG1 cows had higher CH4 emissions per feed intake than the other groups, without significant increases in milk yield and body-weight gain, suggesting that natural-grassland hay cannot be recommended for indoor-fed cows. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate the potential of using LMDs to valuate feeding regimens rapidly and economically for dairy cows in areas under financial constraint, while taking CH4 emissions into consideration.

References

  1. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations): FAOSTAT [Internet]. Statistics Division, FAO; 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 1]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA
  2. O'Mara FP. The significance of livestock as a contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions today and in the near future. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2011;166-7:7-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.074
  3. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations): FAOSTAT [Internet]. Statistics Division, FAO; 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 12]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GE/visualize
  4. Gerber PJ, Hristov AN, Henderson B, et al. Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review. Animal 2013;7(Suppl 2):220-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000876
  5. Haregeweyn N, Tsunekawa A, Nyssen J, et al. Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia: a review. Prog Phys Geogr 2015;39:750-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133315598725
  6. Weiske A, Vabitsch A, Olesen JE, et al. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in European conventional and organic dairy farming. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2006;112:221-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.023
  7. Garnsworthy PC, Difford GF, Bell MJ, et al. Comparison of methods to measure methane for use in genetic evaluation of dairy cattle. Animals 2019;9:837. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100837
  8. Hammond KJ, Jones A, Humphries DJ, Crompton LA, Reynolds CK. Effects of diet forage source and neutral detergent fiber content on milk production of dairy cattle and methane emissions determined using GreenFeed and respiration chamber techniques. J Dairy Sci 2016;99:7904-17. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10759
  9. Chagunda MGG, Ross D, Roberts DJ. On the use of a laser methane detector in dairy cows. Comput Electron Agric 2009;68:157-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2009.05.008
  10. Ricci P, Chagunda MGG, Rooke J, et al. Evaluation of the laser methane detector to estimate methane emissions from ewes and steers. J Anim Sci 2014;92:5239-50. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-7676
  11. Muhlbach S, Dorg D, Rosner F, Kecman J, Swalve HH. Genetic analyses for CH4 concentrations in the breath of dairy cows measured on-farm with the laser methane detector. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production; 2018 Feb 11-16; Auckland, New Zealand.
  12. MOA (Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China): Feeding Standard for Beef Cattle [Internet]. MOA, Beijing; 2004 [cited 2015 Jul 18]. Available from: http://wenku.baidu.com/view/a112b1a1c77da26925c5b0f1.html (In Chinese)
  13. Derno M, Jentsch W, Schweigel M, Kuhla S, Metges CC, Matthes HD. Measurements of heat production for estimation of maintenance energy requirements of Hereford steers. J Anim Sci 2005;83:2590-7. https://doi.org/10.2527/2005.83112590x
  14. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI): Forages for the Future [Internet]. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI; 2018 [cited 2020 Jun 10]. Available from: https://n2africa.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/Forages%20Newsletter_No7_fin.pdf
  15. Rambau MD, Fushai F, Baloyi JJ. Productivity, chemical composition and ruminal degradability of irrigated Napier grass leaves harvested at three stages of maturity. S Afr J Anim Sci 2016;46:398-408. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v46i4.8
  16. NRC (National Research Council). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 7th revised ed. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academy Press; 2001.
  17. Mekuriaw S, Tsunekawa A, Ichinohe T, et al. Effect of feeding improved grass hays and Eragrostis tef straw silage on milk yield, nitrogen utilization, and methane emission of lactating fogera dairy cows in Ethiopia. Animals 2020;10:1021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061021
  18. AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). Official method of analysis. 16th ed. Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC); 1995. p. 19-20 (Chapter 4).
  19. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Daily Sci 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  20. Takemasa M. Improvement of the method for chromic oxide determination with potassium phosphate reagent. Bull Nat Inst Anim Ind 1992;52:7-13. (In Japanese)
  21. Niu M, Kebreab E, Hristov AN, et al. Prediction of enteric methane production, yield, and intensity in dairy cattle using an intercontinental database. Glob Chang Biol 2018;24:3368-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14094
  22. Hristov AN, Oh J, Firkins JL, et al. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. J Anim Sci 2013;91:5045-69. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6583
  23. NARO (National Agricultural and Food Research Organization). Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (2009). Tokyo, Japan: Japan Livestock Industry Association; 2010. (In Japanese)
  24. Du W, Hou F, Tsunekawa A, Kobayashi N, Ichinohe T, Peng F. Effects of the diet inclusion of common vetch hay versus alfalfa hay on the body weight gain, nitrogen utilization efficiency, energy balance, and enteric methane emissions of crossbred Simmental cattle. Animals 2019;9:983. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110983
  25. Chagunda MGG, Ross D, Rooke J, et al. Measurement of enteric methane from ruminants using a hand-held laser methane detector. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci 2013;63:68-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2013.797487
  26. Wondimeneh M, Biadegelegn H, Meseganaw W, Tekaba E, Mekonnen T, Adebabay K. Selection of productive napier grass varieties (Pennisetum Purpureum) at Andassa Livestock Research Center, North West Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual Regional Conference on Completed Livestock Research Activities; 2016 Mar 9-20: Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute; 2016.
  27. Minson DJ. Nutritional differences between tropical and temperate pastures. In: Morley FHW, editor. Grazing animals. Farunham Royal, Slough, UK: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux; 1980. p. 167-82.
  28. Ichinohe T, Tamura T, Ueda K, Okubo M, Asahida Y. The particle size distributions of ingested boli, rumen digesta and feces in sheep fed orchardgrass hay harvested at different stages of maturity. Anim Sci Technol 1994;65:701-8. https://doi.org/10.2508/chikusan.65.701
  29. Dong L, Li B, Diao Q. Effects of dietary forage proportion on feed intake, growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and enteric methane emissions of Holstein heifers at various growth stages. Animals 2019;9:725. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100725
  30. Flachowsky G, Lebzien P. Effects of phytogenic substances on rumen fermentation and methane emissions: a proposal for a research process. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2012;176:70-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.07.009