Proxies to adjust methane production rate of beef cattle when the quantity of feed consumed is unknownR. M. Herd A , J. I. Velazco B C , P. F. Arthur D E and R. S. Hegarty B
A NSW Department of Primary Industries, Beef Industry Centre, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
B Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
C National Institute of Agricultural Research, Treinta y Tres 33000, Uruguay.
D NSW Department of Primary Industries, Agricultural Institute, Menangle, NSW 2568, Australia.
E Corresponding author. Email: email@example.com
Animal Production Science 56(3) 231-237 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15477
Submitted: 24 August 2015 Accepted: 11 November 2015 Published: 9 February 2016
The aim of the present experiment was to evaluate the utility of carbon dioxide production rate (CPR; g CO2/day) and animal weight (WT) data as proxies for feed intake to adjust methane production rate (MPR; g CH4/day) in situations where dry-matter intake (DMI) is not known. This experiment measured individual-animal DMI, MPR and CPR in the feedlot, and then again on restricted quantities of grain and roughage diets in open-circuit respiration chambers. Of the 59 cattle tested in the feedlot, 41 had MPR and CPR recorded, and 59 and 57 had test results on the restricted grain and roughage rations. Methane production relative to DMI by individual animals was calculated as CH4 yield (MY; MPR/DMI) and as residual CH4 production (RMPDMI; calculated as MPR less predicted MPR based on DMI). A second form of RMP: RMPCO2, was calculated by regressing MPR against CPR to determine whether animals were producing more or less CH4 than predicted for their CPR. Carbon dioxide production rate was positively associated with DMI in all three test phases (R2 = 0.25, 0.45 and 0.47; all P < 0.001). The associations for MY with MPR : CPR were moderate and positive, as follows: R2 = 0.49 in the feedlot test; R2 = 0.37 in the restricted-grain test; and R2 = 0.59 in the restricted-roughage test, and with RMPCO2, values of R2 were 0.57, 0.34 and 0.59 in the three test phases (all P < 0.001). The R2 for RMPDMI with MPR : CPR in all three tests were 0.50, 0.79 and 0.69, and with RMPCO2, values of R2 were 0.68, 0.79 and 0.68 (all P < 0.001). The high R2 for MY with MPR : CPR and RMPCO2 and even higher R2 for RMPDMI with MPR : CPR and RMPCO2 in all three test phases showed that CPR can be used to adjust MPR data for DMI when DMI is not recorded. In the feedlot test, where animal WT data were recorded over 70 days, MPR adjusted for WT and WT gain had R2 with MY and RMPDMI of 0.60 and 0.83, respectively (P < 0.001), offering the possibility that animal WT data determined over an extended time period could also be used as a proxy for DMI in adjustment of MPR.
Additional keywords: GEM, greenhouse gas, respiration chamber.
ReferencesArcher JA, Arthur PF, Herd RM, Parnell PF, Pitchford WS (1997) Optimum postweaning test for measurement of growth rate, feed intake, and feed efficiency in British breed cattle. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2024–2032.
Blaxter KL, Clapperton JL (1965) Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition 19, 511–522.
| Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DyaF28XitFKktg%3D%3D&md5=6cde6902b771bbb1af70db2dca0760aaCAS | 5852118PubMed |
Hegarty R, Bird S, Woodgate R (2014) Cattle respiration facility, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia. In ‘Technical manual on respiration chamber designs’. (Eds C Pinares, G Waghorn) pp. 29–41. (New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: Wellington, New Zealand) Available at http://www.globalresearchalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GRA-MAN-Facility-BestPract-2012-FINAL.pdf [Verified at 24 August 2015]
Herd RM, Arthur PA, Bird SH, Donoghue KA, Hegarty RS (2014a) Genetic variation in methane traits in beef cattle. In ‘Proceedings of the 10th world congress of genetics applied to livestock production’. Paper 038. (WCGALP: Vancouver, Canada) Available at https://asas.org/docs/default-source/wcgalp-proceedings-oral/038_paper_8845_manuscript_274_0.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [Verified 30 November 2015]
Herd RM, Donoghue KA, Arthur PF, Bird SH, Bird-Gardiner T, Hegarty RS (2014b) Measures of methane production and their phenotypic relationships with growth and body composition traits in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 92, 5267–5274.
| Measures of methane production and their phenotypic relationships with growth and body composition traits in beef cattle.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2MXitlartw%3D%3D&md5=c17a1cb11bffd89430e7403c5b06ec85CAS | 25349368PubMed |
Kennedy PM, Charmley E (2012) Methane yields from Brahman cattle fed tropical grasses and legumes. Animal Production Science 52, 225–239.
| Methane yields from Brahman cattle fed tropical grasses and legumes.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XktFWgsL0%3D&md5=0e18aa7dabcd5946d7575591a16a9980CAS |
Ramin M, Huhtanen P (2013) Development of equations for predicting methane emissions from ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 2476–2493.
| Development of equations for predicting methane emissions from ruminants.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXitlemt7s%3D&md5=80e2f676e1278d10e26ca08df4003d02CAS | 23403199PubMed |
SCA (2000) ‘Feeding standards for Australian livestock. Ruminants.’ (Standing Committee on Agriculture, Ruminants Subcommittee) (CSIRO Publications: Melbourne)
Velazco JI, Herd RM, Cottle DJ, Hegarty RS (2016) Daily methane emissions and emission intensity of grazing beef cattle genetically divergent for residual feed intake. Animal Production Science
| Daily methane emissions and emission intensity of grazing beef cattle genetically divergent for residual feed intake.CrossRef |