Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:57:16.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurement of methane emission from sheep by the sulphur hexafluoride tracer technique and by the calorimetric chamber: failure and success

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2008

C. S. Pinares-Patiño ,
C. W. Holmes ,
K. R. Lassey  and
M. J. Ulyatt
C. S. Pinares-Patiño*
Affiliation:
Rumen, Nutrition & Welfare Section, AgResearch Limited, Grasslands Research Centre, Tennent Drive, Private Bag 11008, Palmerston North, New Zealand
C. W. Holmes
Affiliation:
Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
K. R. Lassey
Affiliation:
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd, PO Box 14-901, Kilbirnie, Wellington, New Zealand
M. J. Ulyatt
Affiliation:
Rumen, Nutrition & Welfare Section, AgResearch Limited, Grasslands Research Centre, Tennent Drive, Private Bag 11008, Palmerston North, New Zealand
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique for methane (CH4) emission measurement in sheep. Ten cryptorchid Romney sheep were involved in two indoor trials (T1 and T2), where daily CH4 emissions were individually measured both by the SF6 tracer (‘tracer CH4’) and by the indirect calorimetry chamber (‘chamber CH4’) techniques while fed on lucerne hay at 1.2 times maintenance requirements. Separate sets of permeation tubes with pre-calibrated permeation rates (‘pre-calibrated PRs’) were used in the two trials (for tracer CH4) and at the time of T1 and T2 these tubes had been deployed in the rumen for 250 and 30 days, respectively. The tracer CH4 measurements were carried out for 2 (T1) and 5 (T2) days in digestibility crates housed within a building (T1) or a well-ventilated covered yard (T2). Sheep were transferred to calorimetry chambers for 3 days acclimatisation, followed by measurement of CH4 emission for 7 (T1) and 3 (T2) days. In T1 samples from the chamber, outflow and inflow (collected over ∼22 h) were analysed for CH4 and SF6 concentrations using the tracer protocol. Thus, PRs of SF6 at the time of the trials (‘calculated PRs’) could be inferred and the corresponding CH4 emissions are then calculated using either the pre-calibrated PR or calculated PR. Permeation tubes were recovered at the end of the animal trials and their ‘post-recovery PR’ determined. In trial T1, the tracer CH4 estimates (based on the pre-calibrated PR) were much higher and more variable than the chamber CH4 values. In this trial, the calculated PR and the post-recovery PR were similar from each other but smaller than the pre-calibrated PR, and when the calculated PR was used in place of the pre-calibrated PR the CH4 emission estimates agreed well with the chamber CH4 values. This suggested that the discrepancy was due to a declining PR during the long deployment time of the tubes in T1, an observation reported elsewhere. When the long intra-ruminal deployment was avoided in T2, good agreement between the techniques for CH4 emission measurement was observed.

Keywords

foragesmethaneruminantsSF6 tracer techniquesheep
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 141 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Blaxter, KL, Clapperton, JL 1965. Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition 19, 511–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boadi, DA, Wittenberg, KM, Kennedy, AD 2002. Validation of the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer gas technique for measurement of methane and carbon dioxide production by cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H, Pinares-Patiño, CS, De Klein, C 2005. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from grazed grasslands. In Grassland: a global resource (ed. DA McGilloway), pp. 279–293. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cody, RP, Smith, JK 1991. Applied statistics and the SAS programming language, 3rd edition. North-Holland, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Colucci, PE, MacLeod, GK, Grovum, WL, McMillan, I 1984. Comparative digestion and digesta kinetics in sheep and cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64 (suppl.), 173–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colvin, HW, Wheat, JD, Rhode, EA, Boda, JM 1957. Technique for measuring eructated gas in cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 40, 492–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boer, JL, Cottyn, BG, Boucque, CV, Aerts, JV, Buysse, FX 1984. Comparative digestibility by sheep and cows and consequences on energy value. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64 (suppl.), 175–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, RW, Cook, HM 1962. Routes of eructed gas expulsion in cattle – a quantitative study. American Journal of Veterinary Research 23, 997–1000.Google ScholarPubMed
Dougherty, RW, Allison, MJ, Mullenax, CH 1964. Physiological disposition of C14-labeled rumen gases in sheep and goats. American Journal of Physiology 207, 1181–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dziuk, HE, McCauley, EH 1965. Comparison of ruminoreticular motility patterns in cattle, sheep, and goats. American Journal of Physiology 209, 324–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, LA, Denmead, OT, Freney, JR, Byers, FM 1999. Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1392–1401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoernicke, H, Williams, WF, Waldo, DR, Flatt, WP 1965. Composition and absorption of rumen gases and their importance for the accuracy of respiration trials with tracheostomized ruminants. In Energy metabolism (ed. KL Blaxter), pp. 165–178. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
Holmes, CW 1973. The energy and protein metabolism of pigs growing at a high ambient temperature. Animal Production 16, 117–133.Google Scholar
Holter, JB, Young, AJ 1992. Methane prediction in dry and lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2165–2175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Immig, I 1996. The rumen and hindgut as source of ruminant methanogenesis. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 42, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, K, Huyler, M, Westberg, H, Lamb, B, Zimmerman, P 1994a. Measurement of methane emissions from ruminant livestock using a SF6 tracer technique. Environmental Science & Technology 28, 359–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, KA, Huyler, MT, Westberg, HH, Lamb, BK, Zimmerman, P 1994b. Measurement of methane emissions from ruminant livestock using a sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique. In Energy metabolism of farm animals, EAAP publication no. 76 (ed. JF Aguilera), pp. 335–338. Servicio de Publicaciones, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Granada, Spain.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA, Westberg, HH, Lamb, BK, Kincaid, RL 1998. The use of sulphur hexafluoride for measuring methane production by cattle. In Energy metabolism of farm animals (ed. KJ McCraken, EF Unsworth and ARG Wylie), pp. 189–192. CAB International, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
Kurihara, M, Magner, T, Hunter, RA, McCrabb, GJ 1999. Methane production and energy partition of cattle in the tropics. British Journal of Nutrition 81, 227–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassey, KR, Ulyatt, MJ 1999. Methane emission by grazing livestock, a synopsis of 1000 direct measurements. In Non-CO2 greenhouse gases: scientific understanding, control and implementation (ed. J Van Ham, APM Baede, LA Meyer and R Ybema), pp. 101–106. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lassey, KR, Ulyatt, MJ, Martin, RJ, Walker, CF, Shelton, ID 1997. Methane emissions measured directly from grazing livestock in New Zealand. Atmospheric Environment 31, 2905–2914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassey, KR, Walker, CF, McMillan, AMS, Ulyatt, MJ 2001. On the performance of SF6 permeation tubes used in determining methane emission from grazing livestock. Chemosphere: Global Change Science 3, 367–376.Google Scholar
Leuning, R, Baker, SK, Jamie, IM, Hsu, CH, Klein, L, Denmead, OT, Griffith, DWT 1999. Methane emission from free-ranging sheep: a comparison of two measurement methods. Atmospheric Environment 33, 1357–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockyer, DR, Jarvis, SC 1995. The measurement of methane losses from grazing animals. Environmental Pollution 90, 383–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGinn, SM, Beauchemin, KA, Iwaasa, AD, McAllister, TA 2006. Assessment of the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique for measuring enteric methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 1686–1691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, RM, Bryant, AM, Leng, RA 1976. Rates of production of methane in the rumen and large intestine of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 36, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Kelly, JC, Spiers, WG 1992. Effect of monensin on methane and heat productions of steers fed lucerne hay either ad libitum or at the rate of 250 g/h. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 43, 1789–1793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinares-Patiño CS 2000. Methane emission from forage-fed sheep, a study of variation between animals. PhD thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Ulyatt, MJ, Lassey, KR, Barry, TN, Holmes, CW 2003. Rumen function and digestion parameters associated with differences between sheep in methane emissions when fed chaffed lucerne hay. Journal of Agricultural Science 140, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standing Committee on Agriculture (SCA) 1990. Feeding standards for Australian livestock, Ruminants. SCA, SCIRO Publishing, Australia.Google Scholar
Torrent, J, Johnson, DE 1994. Methane production in the large intestine of sheep. In Energy metabolism of farm animals, EAAP publication no. 76 (ed. JF Aguilera), pp. 391–394. Servicio de Publicaciones, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Granada, Spain.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, MJ, Baker, SK, McCrabb, GJ, Lassey, KR 1999. Accuracy of SF6 tracer technology and alternatives for field measurements. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 1329–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, MJ, Miller, TL 1988. Microbe interactions in the rumen microbial ecosystem. In The rumen ecosystem (ed. PN Hobson), pp. 343–359. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Wright, ADG, Kennedy, P, O’Neill, CJ, Toovey, AF, Popovski, S, Rea, SM, Pimm, CL, Klein, L 2004. Reducing methane emissions in sheep by immunization against rumen methanogens. Vaccine 22, 3976–3985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed