Contemporary Methods of Measuring and Estimating Methane Emission from Ruminants
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Widely Used Methods
2.1. Respiration Chambers (Direct Measurements)
2.2. In Vitro Incubation (Indirect Measurements)
2.3. The Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) (Direct Measurements)
3. Spot Sampling Methods
3.1. Sniffer Method
3.2. GreenFeed
3.3. Face Mask Method
3.4. Portable Accumulation Chambers
4. Models to Estimate CH4 Emission
5. Laser Technologies to Measure Enteric CH4 Emission
5.1. The Laser CH4 Detector (Direct Measurements)
5.2. Open-Path Laser (Direct Measurements)
6. Micrometeorological Methods
7. Emerging Technologies to Measure CH4 Emission from Ruminant
7.1. Blood CH4 Concentration Tracer
7.2. Infrared (IR) Thermography
7.3. Intraruminal Telemetry
7.4. Eddy Covariance (EC) Technique
7.5. Carbon Dioxide as a Tracer Gas
7.6. Polytunnel
8. Pros and Cons of Various Methods for Measuring and Estimating CH4 Emissions from Ruminants
9. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency): Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2017. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases (accessed on 10 September 2020).
- NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): Greenhouse Gases. 2020. Available online: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php (accessed on 10 September 2020).
- Alemu, A.W.; Dijkstra, J.; Bannink, A.; France, J.; Kebreab, E. Rumen stoichiometric models and their contribution and challenges in predicting enteric methane production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 761–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okpara, M.O. Methane Emissions in Ruminants: Perspectives on Measurement and Estimation Methods. Russ. Agric. Sci. 2018, 44, 290–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.H.; Kim, B.G.; Lee, S.R. A respiration-metabolism chamber system for measuring gas emission and nutrient digestibility in small ruminant animals. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu. 2010, 23, 444–450. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenstock, T.S.; Rufino, M.C.; Chirinda, N.; van Bussel, L.; Reidsma, P.; Butterbach-Bahl, K. Scaling Point and Plot Measurements of Greenhouse Gas Fluxes, Balances, and Intensities to Whole Farms and Landscapes. In Methods for Measuring Greenhouse Gas Balances and Evaluating Mitigation Options in Smallholder Agriculture; Rosenstock, T., Rufino, M., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Wollenberg, L., Richards, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vermeulen, S.J.; Campbell, B.M.; Ingram, J.S.I.I. Climate change and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012, 37, 195–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013; pp. 1–139. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e00.htm (accessed on 25 June 2021).
- Kristiansen, S.; Painter, J.; Shea, M. Animal Agriculture and Climate Change in the US and UK Elite Media: Volume, Responsibilities, Causes and Solutions. Environ. Commun. 2020, 15, 153–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online: http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed on 4 March 2019).
- Tubiello, F.N.; Salvatore, M.; Rossi, S.; Ferrara, A.; Fitton, N.; Smith, P. The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 015009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.D.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; Rosales, M.; de Haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2006; ISBN 978-9251055717. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, C.; Rouel, J.; Jouany, J.P.; Doreau, M.; Chilliard, Y. Methane output and diet digestibility in response to feeding dairy cows crude linseed, extruded linseed, or linseed oil. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 2642–2650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Olivier, J.G.; Schure, K.M.; Peters, J.A.H.W. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions; PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2018; Available online: https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-and-total-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2018-report (accessed on 5 November 2019).
- Nisbet, E.G.; Dlugokencky, E.J.; Manning, M.R.; Lowry, D.; Fisher, R.; France, J.; Michel, S.E.; Miller, J.; White, J.W.; Vaughn, B.; et al. Rising atmospheric methane: 2007–2014 growth and isotopic shift. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2016, 30, 1356–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beauchemin, K.A.; Kreuzer, M.; O’Mara, F.; McAllister, T.A. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008, 48, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beauchemin, K.A.; McGinn, S.M.; Benchaar, C.; Holtshausen, L. Crushed sunflower, flax, or canola seeds in lactating dairy cow diets: Effects on methane production, rumen fermentation, and milk production. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 2118–2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patra, A.K. Trends and Projected Estimates of GHG Emissions from Indian Livestock in Comparisons with GHG Emissions from World and Developing Countries. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 27, 592–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Johnson, K.; Huyler, M.; Westberg, H.; Lamb, B.; Zimmerman, P. Measurement of methane emissions from ruminant livestock using a sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1994, 28, 359–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnson, K.A.; Johnson, D.E. Methane emissions from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 2483–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGinn, S.M.; Turner, D.; Tomkins, N.; Charmley, E.; Bishop-Hurley, G.; Chen, D. Methane Emissions from Grazing Cattle Using Point-Source Dispersion. J. Environ. Qual. 2011, 40, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kebreab, E.; Clark, K.; Wagner-Riddle, C.; France, J. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from Canadian animal agriculture: A review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 86, 135–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castelan-Ortega, O.A.; Ku-Vera, J.C.; Estrada-Flores, J.G. Modeling methane emissions and methane inventories for cattle production systems in Mexico. Atmósfera 2014, 27, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goopy, J.P.; Chang, C.; Tomkins, N. A Comparison of methodologies for measuring methane emissions from ruminants. In Methods for Measuring Greenhouse Gas Balances and Evaluating Mitigation Options in Smallholder Agriculture; Rosenstock, T., Rufino, M., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Wollenberg, L., Richards, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prajapati, P.; Santos, E.A. Estimating Herd-Scale Methane Emissions from Cattle in a Feedlot Using Eddy Covariance Measurements and the Carbon Dioxide Tracer Method. J. Environ. Qual. 2019, 48, 1427–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huhtanen, P.; Cabezas-Garcia, E.H.; Utsumi, S.; Zimmerman, S. Comparison of methods to determine methane emissions from dairy cows in farm conditions. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 3394–3409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hill, J.; McSweeney, C.; Wright, A.-D.G.; Bishop-Hurley, G.; Kalantar-Zadeh, K. Measuring Methane Production from Ruminants. Trends Biotechnol. 2016, 34, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Storm, I.M.L.D.; Hellwing, A.L.F.; Nielsen, N.I.; Madsen, J.O. Methods for Measuring and Estimating Methane Emission from Ruminants. Animals 2012, 2, 160–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ramin, M.; Huhtanen, P. Development of equations for predicting methane emissions from ruminants. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 2476–2493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Armsby, H.P. The Principles of Animal Nutrition; J. Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1903. Available online: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gdc/scd0001.00008948185 (accessed on 10 September 2020).
- Hammond, K.J.; Waghorn, G.C.; Hegarty, R.S. The GreenFeed system for measurement of enteric methane emission from cattle. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 56, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouček, J. Methods of methane measurement in ruminants. Slovak J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 47, 51–60. [Google Scholar]
- Patra, A.K. Recent Advances in Measurement and Dietary Mitigation of Enteric Methane Emissions in Ruminants. Front. Vet. Sci. 2016, 3, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hellwing, A.L.F.; Lund, P.; Weisbjerg, M.R.; Brask, M.; Hvelplund, T. Technical note: Test of a low-cost and animal-friendly system for measuring methane emissions from dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 6077–6085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wainman, F.W.; Blaxter, K.L. Closed-Circuit Respiration Apparatus for the Cow and Steer. In Proceedings of the 1st Symposium in Energy Metabolism, Principles, Methods and General Aspects, Copenhagen, Denmark, 15–19 September 1958; pp. 80–84. [Google Scholar]
- Gerrits, W.; Labussière, E.; Reynolds, M.C.; Kuhla, B.; Lund, P.; Weisbjerg, M.; Dijkstra, J. Letter to the Editor: Recovery test results as a prerequisite for publication of gaseous exchange measurements. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 4703–4704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hristov, A.; Kebreab, E.; Niu, M.; Oh, J.; Bannink, A.; Bayat, A.; Boland, T.; Brito, A.; Casper, D.; Crompton, L.; et al. Symposium review: Uncertainties in enteric methane inventories, measurement techniques, and prediction models. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 6655–6674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGinn, S.M.; Chen, D.; Loh, Z.; Hill, J.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Denmead, O.T. Methane emissions from feedlot cattle in Australia and Canada. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008, 48, 183–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rymer, C.; Huntington, J.A.; Williams, B.A.; Givens, D.I. In vitro cumulative gas production techniques: History, methodological considerations and challenges. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2005, 123–124, 9–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, R.W.; Murray, D.A.; Harding, S.A. An Introduction to the GenStat Command Language, 14th ed.; VSN International: Hemel Hempstead, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Blümmel, M.; Ørskov, E.R. Comparison of in vitro gas production and nylon bag degradability of roughages in predicting feed intake in cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1993, 40, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhatta, R.; Tajima, K.; Takusari, N.; Higuchi, K.; Enishi, O.; Kurihara, M. Comparison of sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique, rumen simulation technique and in vitro gas production techniques for methane production from ruminant feeds. Int. Congr. Ser. 2006, 1293, 58–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro-Villa, A.; O’Brien, M.; Lopez, S.; Boland, T.M.; O’Kiely, P. Modifications of a gas production technique for assessing in vitro rumen methane production from feedstuffs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellikaan, W.F.; Hendriks, W.H.; Uwimana, G.; Bongers, L.J.G.M.; Becker, P.M.; Cone, J.W. A novel method to determine simultaneously methane production during in vitro gas production using fully automated equipment. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 168, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- DeRamus, H.A.; Clement, T.C.; Giampola, D.D.; Dickison, P.C. Methane emissions of beef cattle on forages: Efficiency of grazing management systems. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zimmerman, P.R. System for Measuring Metabolic Gas Emissions from Animals. U.S. Patent 5265618, 30 December 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, K.; Huyler, M.; Pierce, C.S.; Lamb, B.; Zimmermann, P. The use of SF6 as an inert gas tracer for use in methane measurements. J. Anim. Sci. 1992, 70, 302. [Google Scholar]
- Harper, L.A.; Denmead, O.T.; Freney, J.R.; Byers, F.M. Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1999, 77, 1392–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williams, S.R.O.; Moate, P.J.; Hannah, M.C.; Ribaux, B.E.; Wales, W.J.; Eckard, R.J. Background matters with the SF6 tracer method for estimating enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: A critical evaluation of the SF6 procedure. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 170, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McSweeney, C. Measuring Methane in the Rumen under Different Production Systems as a Predictor of Methane Emissions. CCH.6210 Final Report. 2015. Available online: https://www.mla.com.au/ (accessed on 20 March 2019).
- Garnsworthy, P.C.; Craigon, J.; Hernandez-Medrano, J.H.; Saunders, N. On-farm methane measurements during milking correlate with total methane production by individual dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 3166–3180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yan, T.; Mayne, C.S.; Gordon, F.G.; Porter, M.G.; Agnew, R.E.; Patterson, D.C.; Ferris, C.P.; Kilpatrick, D.J. Mitigation of enteric methane emissions through improving efficiency of energy utilization and productivity in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 2630–2638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmerman, S.; Brito, A.; Huhtanen, P.; Johnson, K.; Michal, J.; Pereira, A.; Pineras, C.; Utsumi, S.; Waghorn, G.; Zimmerman, P. Measurement and evaluation of enteric CH4 emissions and variability in production systems. Adv. Anim. Biosci. 2013, 4, 518. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, M.J.; Saunders, N.; Wilcox, R.; Homer, E.; Goodman, J.; Craigon, J.; Garnsworthy, P. Methane emissions among individual dairy cows during milking quantified by eructation peaks or ratio with carbon dioxide. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 6536–6546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hegarty, R.S. Applicability of short-term emission measurements for on-farm quantification of enteric methane. Animal 2013, 7, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zimmerman, P.R.; Zimmerman, R.S. Method and System for Monitoring and Reducing Ruminant Methane Production. U.S. Patent US20090288606A, 26 November 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hammond, K.; Humphries, D.; Crompton, L.; Kirton, P.; Green, C.; Reynolds, C. Methane Emissions from Growing Dairy Heifers Estimated Using an Automated Head Chamber (GreenFeed) Compared to Respiration Chambers or SF6 Techniques. Adv. Anim. Biosci. 2013, 4, 391. [Google Scholar]
- Arthur, P.F.; Barchia, I.M.; Weber, C.; Bird-Gardiner, T.; Donoghue, K.A.; Herd, R.M.; Hegarty, R.S. Optimizing test procedures for estimating daily methane and carbon dioxide emissions in cattle using short-term breath measures. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 95, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Washburn, L.E.; Brody, S. Growth and development with special reference to domestic animals. Methane, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide production in the digestive tract of ruminants in relation to the respiratory exchange. Univ. Missouri. Coll. Agric. Agric. Exp. Stat. Res. Bull. 1937, 263, 614. [Google Scholar]
- Bhatta, R.B.; Nishi, O.; Kurihara, M. Measurement of Methane Production from ruminants. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 20, 1305–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oss, D.B.; Marcondes, M.I.; Machado, F.S.; Pereira, L.G.R.; Tomich, T.R.; Ribeiro, G.O.; Chizzotti, M.L.; Ferreira, A.L.; Campos, M.M.; Maurício, R.M.; et al. An evaluation of the face mask system based on short-term measurements compared with the sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6) tracer, and respiration chamber techniques for measuring CH4 emissions. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 216, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brosh, A. Heart rate measurements as an index of energy expenditure and energy balance in ruminants: A review. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 85, 1213–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goopy, J.P.; Woodgate, R.; Donaldson, A.; Robinson, D.L.; Hegarty, R.S. Validation of a short-term methane measurement using portable static chambers to estimate daily methane production in sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kebreab, E.; Johnson, K.A.; Archibeque, S.L.; Pape, D.; Wirth, T. Model for estimating enteric methane emissions from United States dairy and feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 2738–2748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumari, S.; Fagodiya, R.K.; Hiloidhari, M.; Dahiya, R.P.; Kumar, A. Methane production and estimation from livestock husbandry: A mechanistic understanding and emerging mitigation options. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 709, 136135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thornley, J.H.M.; France, J. Mathematical Models in Agriculture: Quantitative Methods for the Plant, Animal and Ecological Sciences; Cromwell Press: Trowbridge, UK, 2007; ISBN 9780851990101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumas, A.; Dijkstra, J.; France, J. Mathematical modelling in animal nutrition: A centenary review. J. Agric. Sci. 2008, 146, 123–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- France, J.; Kebreab, E. Mathematical Modelling in Animal Nutrition. CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2008; Available online: https://books.google.com.et/books?id=Fs9piuD_K1YC (accessed on 5 November 2019).
- Kebreab, E.; Tedeschi, L.; Dijkstra, J.; Ellis, J.L.; Bannink, A.; France, J. Modeling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Enteric Fermentation; Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sejian, V.; Lal, R.; Lakritz, J.; Ezeji, T. Measurement and prediction of enteric methane emission. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2011, 55, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010; Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/k7930e/k7930e00.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2019).
- Stephen, M.; Ogle, S.M.; Shannon, S.; Melannie, H.; Leandro, B.; Luanne, S.; du Toit, L.; Jongikhaya, W. Developing National Baseline GHG Emissions and Analyzing Mitigation Potentials for Agriculture and Forestry Using an Advanced National GHG Inventory Software System; Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling. 2016. Available online: https://doi.org/10.2134/advagricsystmodel6.2013.0009 (accessed on 10 March 2019).
- International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. In Revised IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Chapter, 10; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2006; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
- Ogle, S.M.; Breidt, F.J.; Easter, M.; Williams, S.; Killian, K.; Paustian, K. Scale and uncertainty in modeled soil organic carbon stock changes for US croplands using a process-based model. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2010, 16, 810–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chagunda, M.G.G. Opportunities and challenges in the use of the Laser Methane Detector to monitor enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Animal 2013, 7, 394–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ricci, P.; Chagunda, M.G.G.; Rooke, J.; Houdijk, J.G.M.; Duthie, C.-A.; Hyslop, J.; Roehe, R.; Waterhouse, A. Evaluation of the laser methane detector to estimate methane emissions from ewes and steers. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 92, 5239–5250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sorg, D. Measuring Livestock CH4 Emissions with the Laser Methane Detector: A Review. Methane 2022, 1, 38–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Troy, S.; Rooke, J.A.; Duthie, C.A.; Ross, D.; Hyslop, J.J.; Roehe, R. Measurement of methane from finishing cattle fed either a forage-based or high concentrate diet from both feeder-mounted samplers and respiration chambers. Adv. Anim. Biosci. 2013, 4, 551. [Google Scholar]
- Rey-Sanchez, C.; Bohrer, G.; Slater, J.; Li, Y.-F.; Grau-Andrés, R.; Hao, Y.; Rich, V.I.; Davies, G.M. The ratio of methanogens to methanotrophs and water-level dynamics drive methane transfer velocity in a temperate kettle-hole peat bog. Biogeosciences 2019, 16, 3207–3231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loh, Z.; Chen, D.; Bai, M.; Naylor, T.; Griffith, D.; Hill, J.; Denmead, T.; McGinn, S.; Edis, R. Measurement of greenhouse gas emissions from Australian feedlot beef production using open-path spectroscopy and atmospheric dispersion modelling. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008, 48, 244–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harper, L.A.; Denmead, O.T.; Flesch, T.K. Micrometeorological techniques for measurement of enteric greenhouse gas emissions. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomkins, N.W.; McGinn, S.M.; Turner, D.A.; Charmley, E. Comparison of open-circuit respiration chambers with a micrometeorological method for determining methane emissions from beef cattle grazing a tropical pasture. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramírez-Restrepo, C.A.; Barry, T.N.; Marriner, A.; Lopez-Villalobos, N.; McWilliam, E.L.; Lassey, K.R.; Clark, H. Effects of grazing willow fodder blocks upon methane production and blood composition in young sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2010, 155, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johannes, L.; Francis, M. Methane emissions from dairy cows: Comparing open-path laser measurements to profile-based techniques. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2005, 135, 340–345. [Google Scholar]
- Ian, B. Using Infrared Thermography as a Proxy for Measuring Methane Emissions. MLA (Meat & Livestock Australia); Project Code: B.CCH.1085; University of Melbourne: Parkville, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Montanholi, Y.R.; Odongo, N.E.; Swanson, K.C.; Schenkel, F.S.; McBride, B.W.; Miller, S.P. Application of infrared thermography as an indicator of heat and methane production and its use in the study of skin temperature in response to physiological events in dairy cattle (Bos taurus). J. Therm. Biol. 2008, 33, 468–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabbi, A.M.; Kolling, G.J.; Fischer, V.; Pereira, L.G.R.; Tomich, T.R.; Machado, F.S.; Campos, M.M.; da Silva, M.V.G.B.; Cunha, C.S.; Santos, M.K.R.; et al. Use of infrared thermography to estimate enteric methane production in dairy heifers. Quant. Infrared Thermogr. J. 2021, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McSweeney, C. Measuring Methane in the Rumen under Different Production Systems as a Predictor of Methane Emissions. CCH.6210 Final Report. 2015. Available online: https://www.mla.com.au/contentassets/92d46123c2a640268f7a978c1d50c787/b.cch.6210_final_report.pdf (accessed on 14 May 2019).
- Shunlin, L.; Xiaowen, L.; Jindi, W. Vegetation production in terrestrial ecosystems. In Advanced Remote Sensing; Meat & Livestock, Australia Limited ABN: Sydney, Australia, 2012; pp. 501–531. ISBN 9780123859549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coates, T.W.; Benvenutti, M.A.; Flesch, T.K.; Charmley, E.; McGinn, S.M.; Chen, D. Applicability of Eddy Covariance to Estimate Methane Emissions from Grazing Cattle. J. Environ. Qual. 2018, 47, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coates, T.W.; Flesch, T.K.; McGinn, S.M.; Charmley, E.; Chen, D. Evaluating an eddy covariance technique to estimate point-source emissions and its potential application to grazing cattle. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2017, 234–235, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouwer, E. Report of sub-committee on constants and factors. In Energy Metabolism: Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium Held at Troon, Scotland, May 1964; European Association for Animal Production: Academic Press: London, UK, 1965; Volume 11, pp. 441–443. [Google Scholar]
- Pedersen, S.; Sällvik, K. 4th Report from Working Group on Climatization in Animal Houses—Heat and Moisture Production at Animal and House Level. 2002. Available online: http://www.cigr.org/documents/CIGR_4TH_WORK_GR.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2019).
- Pedersen, S.; Blanes, V.; Jørgensen, H.; Chwalibog, A.; Haeussermann, A.; Heetkamp, M.J.W.; Aarnink, A.J.A. Carbon dioxide production in animal houses: A literature review. Agric. Eng. Int. 2008, 10, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Madsen, J.; Bjerg, B.S.; Hvelplund, T.; Weisbjerg, M.R.; Lund, P. Methane and carbon dioxide ratio in excreted air for quantification of the methane production from ruminants. Livest. Sci. 2010, 129, 223–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellwing, A.; Lund, P.; Madsen, J.; Weisberg, M.R. Comparison of enteric methane production from the CH4/CO2 ratio and measured in respiration chambers. Adv. Anim. Biosci. 2013, 4, 557. [Google Scholar]
- Huhtanen, P.; Bayat, A.R.; Lund, P.; Hellwing, A.L.F.; Weisbjerg, M.R. Short communication: Variation in feed efficiency hampers use of carbon dioxide as a tracer gas in measuring methane emissions in on-farm conditions. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 9090–9095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lockyer, D.R.; Jarvis, S.C. The measurement of methane losses from grazing animals. Environ. Pollut. 1995, 90, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray, P.; Chadwick, D.; Newbold, C.; Lockyer, D. Measurement of methane from grazing animals—The tunnel method. In Measuring Methane Production from Ruminants; Makkar, H.P., Vercoe, P.E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Categories | Pros | Cons |
---|---|---|
Widely Used Methods | ||
Respiration chamber | Provides the most accurate and precise measurements of emissions, including CH4 from ruminal and hindgut fermentation. | Expensive to construct and maintain. Use is technically demanding. Not suitable for examining effects of grazing management; restricts normal animal behavior and movement. |
In Vitro Incubation | Can be used as a first approach to test potential feedstuffs and additives under controlled conditions. Less expensive and time-consuming than respiration chambers. | May not represent whole animal (in vivo) emissions. |
Sulfur Hexafluoride Tracer Technique (SF6) | Applicable for large numbers of individual animals. Allows the animal to move about freely, suitable for grazing systems. | SF6 is a highly potent GHGs with GWP 22800. A great risk of equipment failure and more labor-intensive than respiration chambers. Does not measure hindgut CH4 emissions. |
| ||
Sniffer method | Provides hundreds of repeated measurements over prolonged periods. | High between-animal CV compared to RC or flux. |
GreenFeed | Provides comparable estimates to respiratory chamber and SF6 techniques. | Requires the use of a feed “attractant” to lure the animal to the facility, which alters measurement results. Does not measure hindgut CH4. |
Face mask method | When compared to other techniques such as SF6 or RC, it is far less expensive and simpler. | Restricted measurement periods and access to food and water. FM technique was considered also too laborious. |
Portable Accumulation Chambers | Designed to measure large numbers of animals for genetic screening of relative CH4 emission. | Similar in cost to open-circuit respiration chambers, but with much shorter measurement time. Comparability with respiration chambers unclear. |
| Applicable in cases where measurements are not possible. Inexpensive to use once developed; eliminates need for CH4 measurement; easy for predicting national or global emissions; they are easy to apply. | Since the models are trained on experimental data, their applicability is limited. Developed empirical models are mainly related to the range of intake in the dataset used to develop the equations. Models cannot be used to study between-animal variation. Although many models with different characteristics exist for predicting CH4 emission from ruminants, most of them require the use of feed intake which is difficult to obtain on a large thereby hindering their use. |
| ||
Open Path Laser | Measures CH4 emissions from herds of animals and facilitates whole-farm measurements across a number of pastures. | Expensive. Requires sensitive instrumentation to analyze CH4 concentration; dependent on environmental factors and the location of test animals. |
The laser CH4 detector | Non-invasive, non-contact technique, fast response, and enables real-time measurements. | Affected by factors, such as temperature, wind velocity, proximity of other animals, humidity, and atmospheric pressure. |
| Ideal for measuring animal emissions, without altering animal behavior; measurements can be made on a potentially large number of animals. | Individual animals, as well as indoor confined animals cannot be measured. Hardly to use during evaluation of CH4 abatement. The accuracy and precision of measuring CH4 varied with surrounding weather, e.g., wind speed and landscape. This method is generally costly. |
| ||
Blood CH4 Concentration tracer | Potential to measure large number of animals. | The method provides little more than a “snapshot” of CH4 concentration. Destructive method during collection of blood sample. |
Infrared Thermography | Simple procedure, non-invasive and relatively inexpensive. | No direct relationship was reported between temperature in any specific part of the body and CH4 emission. |
Intraruminal Telemetry | Ideal to measure real-time data. | The electronic circuit of an electric gadget corrodes inside the rumen due to the tough rumen environment. |
Eddy covariance (EC) technique | Successfully applied to measure CH4 and CO2 flux data to estimate CH4 emissions from grazing cattle. | The high cost of fast-response instrumentation and the challenge with changes in wind direction, surface roughness, and atmospheric stability conditions. Interpretation of the EC flux as an animal emission rate is challenging. EC measurements of point-source emissions may be biased because of cattle movement. When measured during daylight, the EC is more effective than when measured at night. |
Carbon dioxide as a tracer gas | Can be easily applied to many animals. | Has a higher day-to-day variation unsuitable for precision measurements. Overestimate CH4 from efficient cows and underestimated it from inefficient cows. |
Polytunnel | Suitable for measuring CH4 emission from the small group of grazing animals. This is portable and easy to operate. | It is difficult to control the temperature and humidity inside the tunnel. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bekele, W.; Guinguina, A.; Zegeye, A.; Simachew, A.; Ramin, M. Contemporary Methods of Measuring and Estimating Methane Emission from Ruminants. Methane 2022, 1, 82-95. https://doi.org/10.3390/methane1020008
Bekele W, Guinguina A, Zegeye A, Simachew A, Ramin M. Contemporary Methods of Measuring and Estimating Methane Emission from Ruminants. Methane. 2022; 1(2):82-95. https://doi.org/10.3390/methane1020008
Chicago/Turabian StyleBekele, Wondimagegne, Abdulai Guinguina, Abiy Zegeye, Addis Simachew, and Mohammad Ramin. 2022. "Contemporary Methods of Measuring and Estimating Methane Emission from Ruminants" Methane 1, no. 2: 82-95. https://doi.org/10.3390/methane1020008
APA StyleBekele, W., Guinguina, A., Zegeye, A., Simachew, A., & Ramin, M. (2022). Contemporary Methods of Measuring and Estimating Methane Emission from Ruminants. Methane, 1(2), 82-95. https://doi.org/10.3390/methane1020008