Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:04:19.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Does the diurnal pattern of enteric methane emissions from dairy cows change over time?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2018

M. J. Bell*
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK
J. Craigon
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK
N. Saunders
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK
J. R. Goodman
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK
P. C. Garnsworthy
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK
*
Get access

Abstract

Diet manipulation and genetic selection are two important mitigation strategies for reducing enteric methane (CH4) emissions from ruminant livestock. The aim of this study was to assess whether the diurnal pattern of CH4 emissions from individual dairy cows changes over time when cows are fed on diets varying in forage composition. Emissions of CH4 from 36 cows were measured during milking in an automatic (robotic) milking station in three consecutive feeding periods, for a total of 84 days. In Periods 1 and 2, the 36 cows were fed a high-forage partial mixed ration (PMR) containing 75% forage, with either a high grass silage or high maize silage content. In Period 3, cows were fed a commercial PMR containing 69% forage. Cows were offered PMR ad libitum plus concentrates during milking and CH4 emitted by individual cows was sampled during 8662 milkings. A linear mixed model was used to assess differences among cows, feeding periods and time of day. Considerable variation was observed among cows in daily mean and diurnal patterns of CH4 emissions. On average, cows produced less CH4 when fed on the commercial PMR in feeding Period 3 than when the same cows were fed on high-forage diets in feeding Periods 1 and 2. The average diurnal pattern for CH4 emissions did not significantly change between feeding periods and as lactation progressed. Emissions of CH4 were positively associated with dry matter (DM) intake and forage DM intake. It is concluded that if the management of feed allocation remains constant then the diurnal pattern of CH4 emissions from dairy cows will not necessarily alter over time. A change in diet composition may bring about an increase or decrease in absolute emissions over a 24-h period without significantly changing the diurnal pattern unless management of feed allocation changes. These findings are important for CH4 monitoring techniques that involve taking measurements over short periods within a day rather than complete 24-h observations.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

Bell, MJ and Eckard, RJ 2012. Reducing enteric methane losses from ruminant livestock – its measurement, prediction and the influence of diet. In Livestock production (ed. K Javed), pp. 135150. InTech Publishing, Rijeka, Croatia.Google Scholar
Benchaar, C, Pomar, C and Chiquette, J 2001. Evaluation of dietary strategies to reduce methane production in ruminants: a modelling approach. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 81, 563574.Google Scholar
Brask, M, Weisbjerg, MR, Hellwing, ALF, Bannink, A and Lund, P 2015. Methane production and diurnal variation measured in dairy cows and predicted from fermentation pattern and nutrient or carbon flow. Animal 11, 17951806.Google Scholar
Crompton, LA, Mills, JAN, Reynolds, CK and France, J 2011. Fluctuations in methane emission in response to feeding pattern in lactating dairy cows. In Modelling nutrient digestion and utilization in farm animals (ed. D Sauvant, J Van Milgen, P Faverdin and N Friggens), pp. 176180. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
de Haas, Y, Windig, JJ, Calus, MPL, Dijkstra, J, de Haan, M, Bannink, A and Veerkamp, RF 2011. Genetic parameters for predicted methane production and the potential for reducing enteric emissions through genomic selection. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 61226134.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, 269277.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, 34563467.Google Scholar
Garnsworthy, PC, Craigon, J, Hernandez-Medrano, JH and Saunders, N 2012a. Variation among individual dairy cows in methane measurements made on farm during milking. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 31813189.Google Scholar
Garnsworthy, PC, Craigon, J, Hernandez-Medrano, JH and Saunders, N 2012b. On-farm methane measurements during milking correlate with total methane production by individual dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 31663180.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Krizsan, SJ, Hetta, M, Gidlund, H and Cabezas Garcia, EH 2013. Repeatability and between cow variability of enteric methane and total carbon dioxide emissions. Advances in Animal Biosciences 4, 588.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA and Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 24832492.Google Scholar
Jonker, A, Molano, G, Antwi, C and Waghorn, G 2014. Feeding lucerne silage to beef cattle at three allowances and four feeding frequencies affects circadian patterns of methane emissions, but not emissions per unit of intake. Animal Production Science 54, 13501353.Google Scholar
Kinsman, R, Sauer, FD, Jackson, HA and Wolynetz, MS 1995. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from dairy cows in full lactation monitored over a six-month period. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 27602766.Google Scholar
Kononoff, PJ and Heinrichs, J 2003. The effect of corn particle size and cottonseed hulls on cows in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 24382451.Google Scholar
Lassen, J, Løvendahl, P and Madsen, J 2012. Accuracy of noninvasive breath methane measurements using Fourier transform infrared methods on individual cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 890898.Google Scholar
Manafiazar, G, Zimmerman, S and Basarab, JA 2017. Repeatability and variability of short-term spot measurement of methane and carbon dioxide emissions from beef cattle using GreenFeed emissions monitoring system. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 97, 118126.Google Scholar
Mills, JAN, Kebreab, E, Yates, CM, Crompton, LA, Cammel, SB, Dhanoa, MS, Agnew, RE and France, J 2003. Alternative approaches to predicting methane emissions from dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 81, 31413150.Google Scholar
Watt, LJ, Clark, CEF, Krebs, GL, Petzel, CE, Nielsen, S and Utsumi, SA 2015. Differential rumination, intake, and enteric methane production of dairy cows in a pasture-based automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 72487263.Google Scholar
Welch, JG and Smith, AM 1969. Effect of varying amounts of forage intake on rumination. Journal of Animal Science 28, 827830.Google Scholar
Yan, T, Mayne, CS, Gordon, FG, Porter, MG, Agnew, RE, Patterson, DC, Ferris, CP and Kilpatrick, DJ 2010. Mitigation of enteric methane emissions through improving efficiency of energy utilization and productivity in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 26302638.Google Scholar