Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:42:11.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methane emissions from beef cattle grazing on semi-natural upland and improved lowland grasslands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2014

A. S. Richmond ,
A. R. G. Wylie ,
A. S. Laidlaw  and
F. O. Lively
A. S. Richmond
Affiliation:
Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, 18-30 Malone Road, Belfast, BT9 5BN, UK
A. R. G. Wylie*
Affiliation:
Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, 18-30 Malone Road, Belfast, BT9 5BN, UK Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, 18a Newforge Lane, Belfast, BT9 5PX, UK
A. S. Laidlaw
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, 50 Houston Road, Belfast, BT6 9SH, UK
F. O. Lively
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Large Park, Hillsborough, Co. Down, BT26 6DR, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In ruminants, methane (CH4) is a by-product of digestion and contributes significantly to the greenhouse gas emissions attributed to agriculture. Grazed grass is a relatively cheap and nutritious feed but herbage species and nutritional quality vary between pastures, with management, land type and season all potentially impacting on animal performance and CH4 production. The objective of this study was to evaluate performance and compare CH4 emissions from cattle of dairy and beef origin grazing two grassland ecosystems: lowland improved grassland (LG) and upland semi-natural grassland (UG). Forty-eight spring-born beef cattle (24 Holstein–Friesian steers, 14 Charolais crossbred steers and 10 Charolais crossbred heifers of 407 (s.d. 29), 469 (s.d. 36) and 422 (s.d. 50) kg BW, respectively), were distributed across two balanced groups that grazed the UG and LG sites from 1 June to 29 September at stocking rates (number of animals per hectare) of 1.4 and 6.7, respectively. Methane emissions and feed dry matter (DM) intake were estimated by the SF6 tracer and n-alkane techniques, respectively, and BW was recorded across three experimental periods that reflected the progression of the grazing season. Overall, cattle grazed on UG had significantly lower (P<0.001) mean daily DM intake (8.68 v. 9.55 kg/day), CH4 emissions (176 v. 202 g/day) and BW gain (BWG; 0.73 v. 1.08 kg/day) than the cattle grazed on LG but there was no difference (P>0.05) in CH4 emissions per unit of feed intake when expressed either on a DM basis (20.7 and 21.6 g CH4 per kg DM intake for UG and LG, respectively) or as a percentage of the gross energy intake (6.0% v. 6.5% for UG and LG, respectively). However, cattle grazing UG had significantly (P<0.001) greater mean daily CH4 emissions than those grazing LG when expressed relative to BWG (261 v. 197 g CH4/kg, respectively). The greater DM intake and BWG of cattle grazing LG than UG reflected the poorer nutritive value of the UG grassland. Although absolute rates of CH4 emissions (g/day) were lower from cattle grazing UG than LG, cattle grazing UG would be expected to take longer to reach an acceptable finishing weight, thereby potentially off-setting this apparent advantage. Methane emissions constitute an adverse environmental impact of grazing by cattle but the contribution of cattle to ecosystem management (i.e. promoting biodiversity) should also be considered when evaluating the usefulness of different breeds for grazing semi-natural or unimproved grassland.

Keywords

methanesulphur hexafluoridebeef cattlegrasslandgrazing
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Supplement 1 , January 2015 , pp. 130 - 137
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Agricultural UK GHG Platform 2013. Project AC01115. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from http://www.ghgplatform.org.uk/ Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA and McGinn, SM 2006. Enteric methane emissions from growing beef cattle as affected by diet and level of intake. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 86, 401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, KL and Clapperton, JL 1965. Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition 19, 511–522.Google Scholar
Boland, TM, Quinlan, C, Pierce, KM, Lynch, MB, Kelly, AK and Purcell, PJ 2013. The effect of pasture pre-grazing vegetation mass on methane emissions, ruminal fermentation, and average daily gain of grazing beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 91, 3867–3874.Google Scholar
Bruinenberg, MH, Valk, H, Korevaar, H and Struik, PC 2002. Factors affecting digestibility of temperate forages from seminatural grasslands: a review. Grass and Forage Science 57, 292–301.Google Scholar
Clark, H 2013. Nutritional and host effects on methanogenesis in the grazing ruminant. Animal 7, 41–48.Google Scholar
Climate Change Act 2008. An Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, passed on 26th November 2008. The Stationery Office Limited, London, UK.Google Scholar
Cottle, DJ, Nolan, JV and Wiedemann, SG 2011. Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: a review. Animal Production Science 51, 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushnahan, A and Gordon, FJ 1995. The effects of grass preservation on intake, apparent digestibility and rumen degradation characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 60, 429–438.Google Scholar
Dawson, LER, O'Kiely, P, Moloney, AP, Vipond, JE, Wylie, ARG, Carson, AF and Hyslop, J 2011. Grassland systems of red meat production: integration between biodiversity, plant nutrient utilisation, greenhouse gas emissions and meat nutritional quality. Animal 5, 1432–1441.Google Scholar
Decruyenaere, V, Buldgen, A and Stilmant, D 2009. Factors affecting intake by grazing ruminants and related quantification methods: a review. Biotechnologie Agronomie Societe et Environnement 13, 559–573.Google Scholar
DeRamus, HA, Clement, TC, Giampola, DD and Dickison, PC 2003. Methane emissions of beef cattle on forages: Efficiency of grazing management systems. Journal of Environmental Quality 32, 269–277.Google Scholar
Dove, H and Mayes, RW 2006. Protocol for the analysis of n-alkanes and other plant-wax compounds and for their use as markers for quantifying the nutrient supply of large mammalian herbivores. Nature 1, 1680–1697.Google Scholar
Edward-Jones, G, Plassmann, K and Harris, IM 2009. Carbon footprinting of lamb and beef production systems: insights from an empirical analysis of farms in Wales, UK. Journal of Agricultural Science 147, 707–719.Google Scholar
Ellis, JL, Kebreab, E, Odongo, NE, McBride, BW, Okine, EK and France, J 2007. Prediction of methane production from dairy and beef cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3456–3467.Google Scholar
FAO 2006. Livestock's long shadow – environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
Fraser, MD, Davies, DA, Vale, JE, Nute, GR, Hallett, KG, Richardson, RI and Wright, IA 2009. Performance and meat quality of native and continental cross steers grazing improved upland pasture or semi-natural rough grazing. Livestock Science 123, 70–82.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Clarke, T, McGinn, SM, Auldist, MJ, Beauchemin, KA, Hannah, MC, Waghorn, GC, Clark, H and Eckard, RJ 2007. Methane emissions from dairy cows measured using the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer and chamber techniques. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2755–2766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, KJ, Martin, PG, Foley, PA, Kenny, DA and Boland, TM 2009. Effect of sward dry matter digestibility on methane production, ruminal fermentation, and microbial populations of zero-grazed beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3342–3350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiao, H, Yan, T, McDowell, DA, Carson, AF, Ferris, CP, Easson, DL 2013. Measurement of enteric methane emissions and the efficiency of utilisation of energy and nitrogen in Holstein heifers and steers at age of six months. Journal of Animal Science 91, 356–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, KA and Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, KM, Huyler, M, Westberg, H, Lamb, B and Zimmerman, P 1994. Measurement of methane emissions from ruminant livestock using a SF6 tracer technique. Environmental Science and Technology 28, 359–362.Google Scholar
Jung, HG and Allen, MS 1995. Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and digestibility of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2774–2790.Google Scholar
Lassey, KR 2013. On the importance of background sampling in applications of the SF6 tracer technique to determine ruminant methane emissions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 180, 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayes, RW, Lamb, CS and Colgrove, PM 1986. The use of dosed and vegetation n-alkanes as markers for the determination of vegetation intake. Journal of Agricultural Science 107, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCaughey, WP, Wittenberg, K and Corrigan, D 1999. Impact of pasture type on methane production by lactating beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79, 221–226.Google Scholar
McGinn, SM, Beauchemin, KA, Iwaasa, AD and McAllister, TA 2006. Assessment of the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique for measuring enteric methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 1686–1691.Google Scholar
Parry, ML, Canziani, OF, Palutikof, JP, van der Linden, PJ and Hanson, CE 2007. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Pelve, ME, Olsson, I, Spörndly, E and Eriksson, T 2012. In vivo and in vitro digestibility, nitrogen balance and methane production in non-lactating cows and heifers fed forage harvested from heterogeneous semi-natural pastures. Livestock Science 144, 48–56.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patino, CS and Clark, H 2008. Reliability of the sulphur hexafluoride tracer technique for methane emission measurement from individual animals: an overview. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 223–229.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patino, CS, Baumont, R and Martin, C 2003. Methane emissions by Charolais cows grazing a monospecific pasture of timothy at four stages of maturity. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 769–777.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patino, CS, D'Hour, P, Jouany, JP and Martin, C 2007. Effects of stocking rate on methane and carbon dioxide emissions from grazing cattle. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 121, 30–46.Google Scholar
Porter, MG 1992. Comparison of sample preparation methods for the determination of the gross energy concentration of fresh silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 37, 207–208.Google Scholar
Richmond, AS, Wylie, ARG, Laidlaw, AS and Lively, FO 2014. An evaluation of contrasting C32 alkane dosing and faecal sampling regimes to estimate herbage dry matter intake by beef cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, doi:10.1017/S0021859614000410.Google Scholar
Rook, AJ, Dumont, B, Isselstein, J, Osoro, K, Wallis De Vries, MF, Parente, G and Mills, J 2004. Matching type of livestock to desired biodiversity outcomes in pastures – a review. Biological Conservation 119, 137–150.Google Scholar
Titterington, F and Morrison, SJ 2013. BovIS Annual Report. Outputs from the BovIS database 2012 including a review of 2009–2011 data. Technical report. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, Belfast, UK.Google Scholar
Wallis de Vries, MF and Daleboudt, C 1994. Foraging strategy of cattle in patchy grassland. Oecologia 100, 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, IA, Pakeman, RJ, Dennis, P, Dalziel, AJ and Milne, JA 2006. The effects on the natural heritage of Scotland. Commissioned Report No. 203 (ROAME No. FO4AA103), Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness, Scotland, UK.Google Scholar
Yan, T, Porter, MG and Mayne, CS 2009. Prediction of methane emission from beef cattle using data measured in indirect open-circuit respiration calorimeters. Animal 3, 1455–1462.Google Scholar
Yan, T, Agnew, RE, Gordon, FJ and Porter, MG 2000. Prediction of methane energy output in dairy and beef cattle offered grass silage-based diets. Livestock Production Science 64, 253–263.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Richmond Supplementary Material

Figure S1

Download Richmond Supplementary Material(File)
File 13.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Richmond Supplementary Material

Figure S2

Download Richmond Supplementary Material(File)
File 12.7 KB