An assessment of global ruminant methane-emission measurements shows bias relative to contributions of farmed species, populations and among continents
M. M. Della Rosa
A * , G. C. Waghorn B , R. E. Vibart A and A. Jonker A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A AgResearch Limited, Grasslands Research Centre, Tennent Drive, 11 Dairy Farm Road, Private Bag 11008, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand.
B Independent Scientist (retired), 6 Berkley Avenue, Hamilton 3216, New Zealand.
Animal Production Science 63(3) 201-212 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN22051
Submitted: 17 February 2022 Accepted: 19 October 2022 Published: 11 November 2022
© 2023 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)
Abstract
Global ruminant methane (CH4)-mitigation strategies rely on data from in vivo CH4-emission measurements. This survey of 415 peer-reviewed studies of in vivo enteric-CH4 measurements from farmed ruminants details research objectives, diets, and methodology as well as groups within ruminant species. The survey results have been evaluated in relation to ruminant population data and the contributions of each species to CH4 emissions. Despite the highest estimated total CH4 emissions from ruminants in Asia, South America and Africa (accounting for 37%, 23% and 17% of total enteric-CH4 emissions respectively), the number of in vivo studies of CH4 measurements were 15%, 9% and 1% of global studies respectively. Globally, the most studied species were cattle (64%) and sheep (22%), whereas goats and buffalo accounted for 7% and 5% of studies respectively. These species account for 75%, 7%, 5% and 12% of total enteric-CH4 emissions respectively. Most cattle studies were with Bos taurus and only 12% of the cattle studies were with Bos indicus. Respiration chambers have been used in 51% of studies and, despite the development of other methodologies, they remain the dominant technique for measurement of enteric-CH4 production. Most studies involved animals fed high-forage diets; these were 56% of the studies with cattle, 73% with sheep, 47% for goats, but only 15% of studies with buffalo. The evaluation of diets as a mitigation strategy was the prime objective of all regions. The number of studies that have measured CH4 from cattle aligns with their contribution to enteric emissions; however, buffalo, Bos indicus cattle and mature beef cows were under-represented relative to their global populations and contribution to global emissions. Dominance of measurements from cattle was evident in all continents.
Keywords: agriculture, diets, farmed ruminant species, global distribution of studies, methane measurement techniques, methane mitigation, ruminant methane emissions, trends.
References
Chagunda MGG (2013) Opportunities and challenges in the use of the Laser Methane Detector to monitor enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Animal 7, 394–400.| Opportunities and challenges in the use of the Laser Methane Detector to monitor enteric methane emissions from ruminants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Congio GF, Bannink A, Mogollón OLM, Latin America Methane Project Collaborators Hristov AN (2021) Enteric methane mitigation strategies for ruminant livestock systems in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a meta-analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 312, 127693
| Enteric methane mitigation strategies for ruminant livestock systems in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cottle DJ, Eckard RJ (2018) Global beef cattle methane emissions: yield prediction by cluster and meta-analyses. Animal Production Science 58, 2167–2177.
| Global beef cattle methane emissions: yield prediction by cluster and meta-analyses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dangal SRS, Tian H, Zhang B, Pan S, Lu C, Yang J (2017) Methane emission from global livestock sector during 1890–2014: magnitude, trends and spatiotemporal patterns. Global Change Biology 23, 4147–4161.
| Methane emission from global livestock sector during 1890–2014: magnitude, trends and spatiotemporal patterns.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Deb GK, Nahar TN, Duran PG, Presicce GA (2016) Safe and sustainable traditional production: the water buffalo in Asia. Frontiers in Environment Science 4, 38
| Safe and sustainable traditional production: the water buffalo in Asia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Della Rosa MM, Jonker A, Waghorn GC (2021) A review of technical variations and protocols used to measure methane emissions from ruminants using respiration chambers, SF6 tracer technique and GreenFeed, to facilitate global integration of published data. Animal Feed Science and Technology 279, 115018
| A review of technical variations and protocols used to measure methane emissions from ruminants using respiration chambers, SF6 tracer technique and GreenFeed, to facilitate global integration of published data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Garnsworthy PC, Craigon J, Hernandez-Medrano JH, Saunders N (2012) On-farm methane measurements during milking correlate with total methane production by individual dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3166–3180.
| On-farm methane measurements during milking correlate with total methane production by individual dairy cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Garnsworthy PC, Difford GF, Bell MJ, Bayat AR, Huhtanen P, Kuhla B, Lassen J, Peiren N, Pszczola M, Sorg D, Visker MHPW, Yan T (2019) Comparison of methods to measure methane for use in genetic evaluation of dairy cattle. Animals 9, 837
| Comparison of methods to measure methane for use in genetic evaluation of dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Goopy JP, Woodgate R, Donaldson A, Robinson DL, Hegarty RS (2011) Validation of a short-term methane measurement using portable static chambers to estimate daily methane production in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 219–226.
| Validation of a short-term methane measurement using portable static chambers to estimate daily methane production in sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Grainger C, Clarke T, McGinn SM, Auldist MJ, Beauchemin KA, Hannah MC, Waghorn GC, Clark H, 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.
| Methane emissions from dairy cows measured using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer and chamber techniques.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hammond KJ, Crompton LA, Bannink A, Dijkstra J, Yáñez-Ruiz DR, O’Kiely P, Kebreab E, Eugène MA, Yu Z, Shingfield KJ, Schwarm A, Hristov AN, Reynolds CK (2016a) Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quantifying enteric methane emission from ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 219, 13–30.
| Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quantifying enteric methane emission from ruminants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hammond KJ, Waghorn GC, Hegarty RS (2016b) The GreenFeed system for measurement of enteric methane emission from cattle. Animal Production Science 56, 181–189.
| The GreenFeed system for measurement of enteric methane emission from cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hayes BJ, Donoghue KA, Reich CM, Mason BA, Bird-Gardiner T, Herd RM, Arthur PF (2016) Genomic heritabilities and genomic estimated breeding values for methane traits in Angus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 94, 902–908.
| Genomic heritabilities and genomic estimated breeding values for methane traits in Angus cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hegarty RS (2004) Genotype differences and their impact on digestive tract function of ruminants: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 459–467.
| Genotype differences and their impact on digestive tract function of ruminants: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hristov AN, Kebreab E, Niu M, Oh J, Bannink A, Bayat AR, Boland TM, Brito AF, Casper DP, Crompton LA, Dijkstra J, Eugène M, Garnsworthy PC, Haque N, Hellwing ALF, Huhtanen P, Kreuzer M, Kuhla B, Lund P, Madsen J, Martin C, Moate PJ, Muetzel S, Muñoz C, Peiren N, Powell JM, Reynolds CK, Schwarm A, Shingfield KJ, Storlien TM, Weisbjerg MR, Yáñez-Ruiz DR, Yu Z (2018) Symposium review: uncertainties in enteric methane inventories, measurement techniques, and prediction models. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 6655–6674.
| Symposium review: uncertainties in enteric methane inventories, measurement techniques, and prediction models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2006) Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management. In ‘Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories’. Chapter 10. (Eds H Dong, J Mangino, TA McAllister). Available at https://wwwipcc-nggipigesorjp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestockpdf [verified 3 June 2021]
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2019) Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. (Eds E Calvo Buendia, K Tanabe, A Kranjc, J Baasansuren, M Fukuda, S Ngarize, A Osako, Y Pyrozhenko, P Shermanau, S Federici). (IPCC: Switzerland). Available at https://wwwipccch/report/2019-refinement-to-the-2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/ [verified 3 June 2021]
Johnson KA, Johnson DE (1995) Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.
| Methane emissions from cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jonker A, Hickey SM, Rowe SJ, Janssen PH, Shackell GH, Elmes S, Bain WE, Wing J, Greer GJ, Bryson B, MacLean S, Dodds KG, Pinares Patiño CS, Young EA, Knowler K, Pickering NK, McEwan JC (2018) Genetic parameters of methane emissions determined using portable accumulation chambers in lambs and ewes grazing pasture and genetic correlations with emissions determined in respiration chambers. Journal of Animal Science 96, 3031–3042.
| Genetic parameters of methane emissions determined using portable accumulation chambers in lambs and ewes grazing pasture and genetic correlations with emissions determined in respiration chambers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jonker A, Green P, Waghorn G, van der Weerden T, Pacheco D, de Klein C (2020) A meta-analysis comparing four measurement methods to determine the relationship between methane emissions and dry-matter intake in New Zealand dairy cattle. Animal Production Science 60, 96–101.
| A meta-analysis comparing four measurement methods to determine the relationship between methane emissions and dry-matter intake in New Zealand dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lassey KR (2007) Livestock methane emission: from the individual grazing animal through national inventories to the global methane cycle. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 142, 120–132.
| Livestock methane emission: from the individual grazing animal through national inventories to the global methane cycle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lassen J, Løvendahl P (2016) Heritability estimates for enteric methane emissions from Holstein cattle measured using non-invasive methods. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 1959–1967.
| Heritability estimates for enteric methane emissions from Holstein cattle measured using non-invasive methods.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Martin C, Morgavi DP, Doreau M (2010) Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351–365.
| Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McAllister TA, Stanford K, Chaves AV, Evans PR, de Souza Figueiredo EE, Ribeiro G. (2020) Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems. In ‘Animal agriculture’. (Eds FW Bazer, G Cliff Lamb, G Wu) pp. 75–98. (Academic Press) https://doi.org/
| Crossref |
Mottet A, de Haan C, Falcucci A, Tempio G, Opio C, Gerber P (2017) Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Global Food Security 14, 1–8.
| Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon FM, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, Huang J, Koch D, Lamarque JF, Lee D, Mendoza B, Nakajima T, Zhang H (2013) Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Eds TF Stocker, D Qin, G-K Plattner, M Tignor, SK Allen, J Boschung, A Nauels, Y Xia, V Bex, PM Midgley). (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Niu M, Kebreab E, Hristov AN, Oh J, Arndt C, Bannink A, Brito F, Boland T, Casper D, Crompton LA, Dijkstra J, Eugène MA, Garnsworthy PC, Haque MN, Hellwing ALF, Huhtanen P, Kreuzer M, Kuhla B, Lund P, Madsen J, Martin M, McClelland SC, McGee M, Moate PJ, Muetzel S, Muñoz C, O’Kiely P, Peiren N, Reynolds CK, Schwarm A, Shingfield KJ, Storlien TM, Weisbjerg MR, Yáñez-Ruiz DR, Yu Z (2018) Prediction of enteric methane production, yield, and intensity in dairy cattle using an intercontinental database. Global Change Biology 24, 3368–3389.
| Prediction of enteric methane production, yield, and intensity in dairy cattle using an intercontinental database.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Oss DB, Marcondes MI, Machado FS, Pereira LGR, Tomich TR, Ribeiro GO, Chizzotti ML, Ferreira AL, Campos MM, Maurício RM, Chaves AV, McAllister TA (2016) An evaluation of the face mask system based on short-term measurements compared with the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer, and respiration chamber techniques for measuring CH4 emissions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 216, 49–57.
| An evaluation of the face mask system based on short-term measurements compared with the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer, and respiration chamber techniques for measuring CH4 emissions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pinares Patiño CS, Waghorn GC (2014) Technical Manual on Respiration Chamber Designs New Zealand, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Available at https://www.globalresearchalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GRA-MAN-Facility-BestPract-2012-FINAL.pdf [verified 23 January 2022]
Seré C, Steinfeld H (1995) World livestock production systems current status, issues and trends. FAO Animal production and health paper No 127. Available at https://www.fao.org/3/w0027e/w0027e.pdf [verified 24 January 2022]
Statistical Database Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAOSTAT) (2020) Food and Agriculture data. Available at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home [verified 2 June 2020]
Thompson LR, Rowntree JE (2020) Invited review: methane sources, quantification, and mitigation in grazing beef systems. Applied Animal Science 36, 556–573.
| Invited review: methane sources, quantification, and mitigation in grazing beef systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thornton PK, van de Steeg J, Notenbaert A, Herrero M (2009) The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: a review of what we know and what we need to know. Agricultural systems 101, 113–127.
| The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: a review of what we know and what we need to know.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Undi M, Wilson C, Ominski KH, Wittenberg KM (2008) Comparison of techniques for estimation of forage dry matter intake by grazing beef cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 88, 693–701.
| Comparison of techniques for estimation of forage dry matter intake by grazing beef cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
United Nations of Climate Change (UNCC) (2015) Paris Agreement-Status of Ratification. Available at https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf [verified 24 August 2022]
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1997) Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at https://treatiesunorg/pages/ViewDetailsaspx?src=TREATYmtdsg_no=XXVII-7-achapter=27lang=en [verified 22 October 2019]
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2017) Inventory of US greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2015. Available at https://wwwepagov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2015 [verified 4 June 2021]
Utsunomiya YT, Milanesi M, Fortes MRS, Porto-Neto LR, Utsunomiya ATH, Silva MVGB, Garcia JF, Ajmone-Marsan P (2019) Genomic clues of the evolutionary history of Bos indicus cattle. Animal Genetics 50, 557–568.
| Genomic clues of the evolutionary history of Bos indicus cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Gastelen S, Dijkstra J, Bannink A (2019) Are dietary strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission equally effective across dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep? Journal of Dairy Science 102, 6109–6130.
| Are dietary strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission equally effective across dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Lingen HJ, Niu M, Kebreab E, Valadares Filho SC, Rooke JA, Duthie C-A, Schwarm A, Kreuzer M, Hynd PI, Caetano M, Eugène M, Martin C, McGee M, O’Kiely P, Hünerberg M, McAllister TA, Berchielli TT, Messana JD, Peiren N, Chaves AV, Charmley E, Cole NA, Hales KE, Lee SS, Berndt A, Reynolds CK, Crompton LA, Bayat A-R, Yáñez-Ruiz DR, Yu Z, Bannink A, Dijkstra J, Casper DP, Hristov AN (2019) Prediction of enteric methane production, yield and intensity of beef cattle using an intercontinental database. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 283, 106575
| Prediction of enteric methane production, yield and intensity of beef cattle using an intercontinental database.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
