Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:02:52.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opportunities and challenges in the use of the Laser Methane Detector to monitor enteric methane emissions from ruminants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2013

M. G. G. Chagunda
M. G. G. Chagunda*
Affiliation:
Future Farming Systems Group, SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, Scotland, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this review was to examine the application and relative efficiency of the proprietary hand-held Laser Methane Detector (LMD) in livestock production, with a focus on opportunities and challenges in different production systems. The LMD is based on IR absorption spectroscopy, uses a semiconductor laser as a collimated excitation source and uses the second harmonic detection of wavelength modulation spectroscopy to establish a methane (CH4) concentration measurement. The use of the LMD for CH4 detection in dairy cows is relatively recent. Although developed for entirely different purposes, the LMD provides an opportunity for non-invasive and non-contact scan sampling of enteric CH4. With the possibility for real-time CH4 measurements, the LMD offers a molecular-sensitive technique for enteric CH4 detection in ruminants. Initial studies have demonstrated a relatively strong agreement between CH4 measurements from the LMD with those recorded in the indirect open-circuit respiration calorimetric chamber (correlation coefficient, r = 0.8, P < 0.001). The LMD has also demonstrated a strong ability to detect periods of high-enteric CH4 concentration (sensitivity = 95%) and the ability to avoid misclassifying periods of low-enteric CH4 concentration (specificity = 79%). Being portable, the LMD enables spot sampling of methane in different locations and production systems. Two challenges are discussed in the present review. First is on extracting a representation of a point measurement from breath cycle concentrations. The other is on using the LMD in grazing environment. Work so far has shown the need to integrate ambient condition statistics in the flux values. Despite the challenges that have been associated with the use of the LMD, with further validation, the technique has the potential to be utilised as an alternative method in enteric CH4 measurements in ruminants.

Keywords

laser systemsmethaneruminants
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue s2: Greenhouse Gases & Animal Agriculture Conference (GGAA 2013), 23rd ‐ 26th June 2013, Dublin, Ireland , June 2013 , pp. 394 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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, Joyce, JP 1963. The accuracy and ease with which measurements of respiratory metabolism can be made with tracheostomized sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 17, 523–537.Google Scholar
Bobin, B 1972. Interpretation of 2v3 harmonic band of methane 12CH4 (from 5890 to 6107 cm−1). Le Journal de Physique 33, 345–352.Google Scholar
Butler, RN 1996. On the breath. Today's Life Science 7, 36–40.Google Scholar
Chagunda, MGG, Yan, T 2011. Do methane measurements from a laser detector and an indirect open-circuit respiration calorimetric chamber agree sufficiently closely? Animal Feed Science and Technology 165, 8–14.Google Scholar
Chagunda, MGG, Ross, D, Roberts, DJ 2009. On the use of a Laser Methane Detector in dairy cows. Computers and Electrics in Agriculture 68, 157–160.Google Scholar
Chagunda, MGG, Bagnall, A, Bell, D, Roberts, DJ 2011. Remote measurement of enteric methane from dairy cows under different activities. In Food security: challenges and opportunities for animal science. Proceedings of the BSAS, 4–5 April 2011, University of Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Chagunda, MGG, Ross, D, Rooke, J, Yan, T, Roberts, DJ 2012. Remote measurement of enteric methane from ruminants under different conditions using a Laser Methane Detector. Paper presented at the International Dairy Federation, World Dairy Summit, 4–8 November 2012, Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
Cong, M, Guo, S, Wang, Y 2011. A novel methane detection system based on InGaAsP distributed feedback laser. Optica Applicata 3, 639–648.Google Scholar
Crowcon Detection Instruments 2006. New hand held device detects methane up to 150 metres away. http://www.crowcon.comGoogle Scholar
Ellis, JL, Kebreab, E, Odongo, NE, McBride, BW, Okine, EK, France, J 2007. Prediction of methane production from dairy and beef cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3456–3467.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2006. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google 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.Google Scholar
Hegarty, RS 1999. Reducing rumen methane emissions through elimination of rumen protozoa. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 1321–1327.Google Scholar
Hensen, A, Groot, TT, van der Bulk, WCM, Vermeulen, AT, Olesen, JE, Schelde, K 2006. Dairy farm CH4 and N2O emissions: from one square metre to the full farm scale. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112, 146–152.Google Scholar
Hobson, PN, Mann, SO, Stewart, CS 1981. Growth and rumen function of gnotobiotic lambs fed on starchy diets. Journal of General Microbiology 126, 219–220.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Iseki, T, Miyaji, M 2003. A portable remote methane detector using a tunable diode laser. Paper Presented at the 22nd World Gas Congress, 1–5 June 2003, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Iseki, T, Tai, H, Kimura, K 2000. A portable remote methane detector using a tunable diode laser. Measurement Science and Technology 11, 594–602.Google Scholar
Johnson, K, Huyler, M, Westberg, H, Lamb, B, Zimmerman, P 1994. Measurement of methane emissions from ruminant livestock using a sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique. Environmental Science and Technology 28, 359–362.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA, Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.Google Scholar
Judd, MJ, Kellier, FM, Ulyatt, MJ, Lassey, KR, Tate, KR, Shelton, ID, Harvey, MJ, Walker, CF 1999. Net methane emissions from grazing sheep. Global Change Biology 5, 647–657.Google Scholar
Kelly, JM, Kerrigan, LP, Milligan, LP, McBride, BW 1994. Development of a mobile, open circuit indirect calorimetry system. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 74, 65–72.Google Scholar
Larsen, T, Nielsen, NI 2005. Fluorometric determination of β-hydroxybutyrate in milk and blood plasma. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2004–2009.Google Scholar
Larsen, J, Lovendahl, P, Madsen, J 2012. Accuracy of noninvasive breath methane measurements using fourier transform infrared methods on individual cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 890–898.Google Scholar
Lassey, KR, Gimson, NR, Wratt, DS, Brailsford, GW, Bromley, AM 2000. Verifying agricultural emissions of methane – air sampling from aircraft and mesoscale modelling. In Non-CO2 greenhouse gases: scientific understanding, control and implementation (ed. J Van Ham, APM Baede, LA Meyer and R Ybema), pp. 107–114. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrech, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovett, DK, Stack, LJ, Lovell, S, Callan, J, Flynn, B, Hawkins, M, O'Mara, FP 2005. Manipulating enteric methane emissions and animal performance of late-lactation dairy cows through concentrate supplementation at pasture. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2836–2842.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCurdy, MR, Bakhirkin, Y, Wysocki, G, Lewicki, R, Tittel, FK 2007. Recent advances of laser-spectroscopy-based techniques for applications in breath analysis. Journal of Breath Research 1, 1–12.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.Google Scholar
Monteny, GJ, Bannink, A, Chadwick, D 2006. Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for animal husbandry. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112, 163–170.Google Scholar
Moss, AR, Jouany, JP, Newbold, J 2000. Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Annales de Zootechnie 49, 231–253.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C, Yan, T, Wills, DA, Murray, S, Gordon, AW 2012. Comparison of the sulfur hexafluoride tracer and respiration chamber techniques for estimating methane emissions and correction for rectum methane output from dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3139–3148.Google Scholar
Murray, PJ, Moss, A, Lockyer, DR, Jarvis, SC 1999. A comparison of systems for measuring methane emissions from sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science 133, 439–444.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Phillipson, AT 1982. Ruminant digestion. In Dukes’ physiology of domestic animals, 9th edition (ed. MJ Swenson), pp. 250–286. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, USA.Google Scholar
Ross, DW, Nath, M, Rooke, JA, Duthie, C-A, Michie, C, Deans, L, Wills, D 2012. Development and preliminary testing of an animal mounted sensor system to estimate methane emission from cattle. Advances in Animal Biosciences: Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science and the Association of Veterinary Teaching and Research Work 3, 10.Google Scholar
Russell, JM, Barnett, JW, Desilets, E, Bertrand, S 2007. Mitigation strategies to reduce GHG emissions from the dairy industry. In Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at farm and manufacturing levels. International Dairy Federation (IDF) Bulletin 422, 422, 30–43.Google Scholar
Sigrist, MW, Bartlome, R, Marinov, D, Rey, JM, Vogler, DE, Wachter, H 2008. Trace gas monitoring with infrared laser-based detection schemes. Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics 90, 289–300.Google Scholar
Teeranavattanakul, P 2010. An investigation of factors affecting Laser Methane Detector measurements under outdoor conditions. MSc thesis, School of Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Glasgow, Scotland.Google Scholar
Temkin, H 1990. InGaAs/InP distributed feedback quantum well laser. Applied Physics Letters 57, 1295–1297.Google Scholar
Tivey, D, Butler, R 1999. Breath analysis – a key to understanding intestinal function. Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia 12, 45–52.Google Scholar
Uehara, K, Tai, H 1992. Remote detection of methane with a 1.66 μm diode laser. Applied Optics 31, 809–814.Google Scholar
van Well, B, Murray, S, Hodgkinson, J, Pride, R, Strzoda, R, Gibson, G, Padgett, M 2005. An open-path, hand-held laser system for the detection of methane gas. Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics 7, 420–424.Google Scholar
Wang, CJ, Sahay, P 2009. Breath analysis using laser spectroscopic techniques. Breath Biomarkers, Spectral Fingerprints and Detection Limits Sensors 9, 8230–8262.Google Scholar
Whitford, MF, Teather, RM, Forster, RJ 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of methanogens from the bovine rumen. BMC Microbiology 1, 1–5.Google Scholar