Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:40:51.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of dairy systems on enteric methane and postulated effects on total greenhouse gas emission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2013

A. Fredeen ,
S. Juurlink ,
M. Main ,
T. Astatkie  and
R. C. Martin
A. Fredeen*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Dalhousie University, Truro, NS, Canada B2N 5E3
S. Juurlink
Affiliation:
Organic Meadow Cooperative, RR#5, Guelph, ON, Canada N1 H 6J2
M. Main
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Dalhousie University, Truro, NS, Canada B2N 5E3
T. Astatkie
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Dalhousie University, Truro, NS, Canada B2N 5E3
R. C. Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
*
†E-mail: alan.fredeen@dal.ca
Get access

Abstract

The effects of feeding total mixed ration (TMR) or pasture forage from a perennial sward under a management intensive grazing (MIG) regimen on grain intake and enteric methane (EM) emission were measured using chambers. Chamber measurement of EM was compared with that of SF6 employed both within chamber and when cows grazed in the field. The impacts of the diet on farm gate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission were also postulated using the results of existing life cycle assessments. Emission of EM was measured in gas collection chambers in Spring and Fall. In Spring, pasture forage fiber quality was higher than that of the silage used in the TMR (47.5% v. 56.3% NDF; 24.3% v. 37.9% ADF). Higher forage quality from MIG subsequently resulted in 25% less grain use relative to TMR (0.24 v. 0.32 kg dry matter/kg milk) for MIG compared with TMR. The Fall forage fiber quality was still better, but the higher quality of MIG pasture was not as pronounced as that in Spring. Neither yield of fat-corrected milk (FCM) which averaged 28.3 kg/day, nor EM emission which averaged 18.9 g/kg dry matter intake (DMI) were significantly affected by diet in Spring. However, in the Fall, FCM from MIG (21.3 kg/day) was significantly lower than that from TMR (23.4 kg/day). Despite the differences in FCM yield, in terms of EM emission that averaged 21.9 g/kg DMI was not significantly different between the diets. In this study, grain requirement, but not EM, was a distinguishing feature of pasture and confinement systems. Considering the increased predicted GHG emissions arising from the production and use of grain needed to boost milk yield in confinement systems, EM intensity alone is a poor predictor of the potential impact of a dairy system on climate forcing.

Keywords

pasturegrainSF6enteric methanechamberTMRdairy system
Type
Farming systems and environment
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 11 , November 2013 , pp. 1875 - 1883
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Agriculture Canada 1988. Canadian farm buildings handbook. Agriculture Canada Research Branch publ. 1822E, 155p.Google Scholar
Arseneault, N, Tyedmers, P, Fredeen, A 2009. Comparing the environmental impacts of pasture-based and confinement-based dairy systems in Nova Scotia. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7, 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belflower, JB, Bernard, JK, Gattie, DK, Hancock, DW, Rise, LM, Rotz, CA 2012. A case study of the potential environmental impacts of different dairy production systems in Georgia. Dairy Systems 108, 84–93.Google Scholar
Biswas, WK, Barton, L, Carter, D 2008. Lifecycle global warming potential of wheat production in Western Australia. Water and Environment Journal 22, 206–216.Google Scholar
Boadi, DA, Benchaar, C, Chiquette, J, Masse, D 2004. Mitigation strategies to reduce s from dairy cows: update review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 319–335.Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care 1993. Guide to the care and use of experimental animals, vol 1, 2nd edition. Canadian Council on Animal Care, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
Casey, JW, Holden, NM 2005. The relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and intensity of milk production in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Quality 34, 429–436.Google Scholar
Chagunda, MGG, Flockhart, JF, Roberts, DJ 2001. The effect of forage quality on predicted enteric methane production from dairy cows. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8, 250–256.Google Scholar
Deighton, MH, O'Loughlin, BM, Boland, TM, Buckley, F 2011. Gas sampling error in the ERUCT technique: effect of sample cross-contamination. Proceedings of the Agricultural Research Forum, Tullamore, March 14th–15th, 2011, 62pp. from http://www.agresearchforum.com/Google Scholar
de Menez, A, Lewis, B, O'Donavan, E, O'Neill, M, Brendan, F, Clipson, N, Doyle, EM 2011. Microbiome analysis of dairy cows fed pasture or total mixed ration diets. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 78, 256–265.Google Scholar
Dyer, JA, Desjardins, RL 2006. An integrated index of electrical energy use in Canadian agriculture with implications for greenhouse gas emissions. Biosystems Engineering 95, 449–460.Google Scholar
Eckard, RJ, de Klein, CM, Grainger, CC 2010. Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: a review. Livestock Science 130, 47–56.Google Scholar
Flessa, H, Ruser, R, Dorsch, P, Kamp, T, Jiminez, MA, Munch, JC, Beese, F 2002. Integrated evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O) from two farming systems in Southern Germany. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 91, 175–189.Google Scholar
Fredeen, AH, Astatkie, T, Jannasch, R, Martin, R 2002. Productivity of grazing Holstein cows in Atlantic Canada. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1331–1338.Google Scholar
Garnett, T 2009. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers. Environmental Science and Policy 12, 491–503.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Clarke, T, McGinn, SM, Auldist, MJ, Beauchemin, K, Hannah, MC, Waghorn, GC, 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
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.Google Scholar
Hindrichsen, IK, Wettstein, H-R, Machmuller, 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, 151–160.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA, Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.Google Scholar
Lovett, DK, Stack, J, Lovell, S, Callan, J, Flynn, B, Hawkins, M, O'Mara, FP 2005. Manipulating animal performance of late-lactation dairy cows through concentrate supplementation at pasture. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2836–2842.Google Scholar
Martin, C, Morgavi, DP, Doreau, M 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351–365.Google Scholar
McCaughey, WP, Wittenberg, K, Corrigan, D 1999. Impact of pasture type on methane production by lactating beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79, 221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, JA, Tobin, G 1987. Animal and human calorimetry. Cambridge University Press, NY.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D 2009. Design and analysis of experiments, 7th edition. Wiley, NY.Google Scholar
Mosier, A, Kroeze, C, Nevison, C, Oenema, O, Seitzinger, S, Van Cleemput, O 1998. Closing the global N2O budget. Nitrous oxide through the agricultural N cycle. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 55, 225–248.Google Scholar
Munger, A, Kreuzer, M 2008. Absence of persistent methane emission differences in three breeds of dairy cows. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 77–82.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C, Yan, T, Wills, DA, Murray, S, Gordon, AW 2012. Comparison of the sulfur hexafluoride tracer and respiration chamber techniques for estimating methane emissions and correction for rectum methane output from dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3139–3148.Google Scholar
O'Brien, D, Shalloo, L, Patton, J, Buckley, F, Grainger, C, Wallace, M 2012a. A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass fed and confinement dairy farms. Agricultural Systems 107, 33–46.Google Scholar
O'Brien, D, Shalloo, L, Patton, J, Buckley, F, Grainger, C, Wallace, M 2012b. Evaluation of the effect of accounting method, IPCC v. LCA, on grass-based and confinement dairy systems’ greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 6, 1512–1527.Google Scholar
Phetteplace, HW, Johnson, DE, Seidl, AF 2001. Greenhouse gas emissions from simulated beef and dairy livestock systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 60, 99–102.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patino, CS, Waghorn, GC, Machmueller, A, Vlaming, B, Molano, G, Cavanagh, A, Clark, H 2007. Methane emissions and digestive physiology of non-lactating dairy cows fed pasture forage. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 87, 601–613.Google Scholar
Refsgaard, K, Halberg, N, Kristensen, ES 1998. Energy utilization in crop and dairy production in organic and conventional livestock production systems. Agricultural Systems 57, 599–630.Google Scholar
Robertson, LJ, Waghorn, GC 2002. Dairy industry perspectives on methane emissions and production from cattle fed pasture or total mixed rations in New Zealand. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 62, 213–218.Google Scholar
Robertson, GP, Paul, EA, Harwood, RR 2000. Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Science 289, 1922–1925.Google Scholar
Saggar, S, Andrew, RM, Tate, KR, Hedley, CB, Rodda, NJ, Townsend, JA 2004. Modeling nitrous oxide emissions from dairy grazed pastures. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 68, 243–255.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc 2008. SAS/STAT 9.2 user's guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Snyder, CS, Bruulsema, TW, Jensen, TW, Fixen, PE 2009. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 133, 247–266.Google Scholar
Storm, IMLD, Hellwing, ALF, Nielsen, N, Madsen, J 2012. Methods for measuring and estimating methane emission from ruminants. Animal 2, 160–183.Google Scholar
Van der Nagel, LS, Waghorn, GC, Forgie, VE 2003. Methane and carbon emissions from conventional pasture and grain-based total mixed rations for dairying. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 63, 128–132.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB 1980. Systems of analysis for evaluating fibrous feeds. In Standardization of analytical methodology in feeds (ed. WJ Pigden, CC Balch and M Graham), pp. 49–60. International Research Development Center, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Verge, XPC, Dyer, JA, Desjardins, RL, Worth, D 2007. Greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian dairy industry in 2001. Agricultural Systems 94, 683–693.Google Scholar
Williams, SRO, Moate, PJ, Hannah, MC, Ribauxa, BE, Walesa, WJ, Eckard, RJ 2011. Background matters with the SF6 tracer method for estimating s from dairy cows: a critical evaluation of the SF6 procedure. Animal Feed Science and Technology 170, 265–276.Google Scholar
Young, F, Ferris, C 2011. Effect of concentrate feed level on methane production by grazing dairy cows In 37th Annual Research Meeting of the Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association Agricultural Research Forum 14th and 15th March, 58pp.Google Scholar