Greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian dairy industry in 2001

Vergé, X. P. C.; Dyer, James A.; Desjardins, Raymond L.; Worth, Devon E.

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2007.02.008

Cited by 99 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Methane is an end product of ruminal fermentation and is considered as a loss of total energy consumed by ruminants, representing 6-10% of total energy , which contributes to the greenhouse effect (Garnsworthy et al 2012). In ruminants, 80% of methane is generated during fiber fermentation, mainly cellulose, and 20% of methane is generated by the decomposition of manure (Vergé et al 2007). These percentages can vary depending upon the composition of ruminant diet (Rotz et al 2010).…”

Section: Ruminal Archaea or Methanogensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rumen microorganisms and fermentation

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMENEl rumen es un ecosistema complejo donde los nutrientes consumidos por los rumiantes son digeridos mediante un proceso de fermentación realizado por los microorganismos ruminales (bacterias, protozoos y hongos). Dichos microorganismos están en simbiosis, debido a su capacidad de adaptación e interacción, y mientras el rumiante proporciona el ambiente necesario para su establecimiento estos proporcionan energía al animal, la que proviene de los productos finales de la fermentación. Dentro del rumen, los microorganismos coexisten en un entorno reducido y a un pH cercano a la neutralidad. Estos microorganismos fermentan los sustratos presentes en la dieta del rumiante (azúcares, proteínas y lípidos). Sin embargo, el proceso de fermentación no es 100% eficaz, ya que durante la fermentación existen pérdidas de energía, principalmente en forma de gas metano (CH 4 ), el que representa un problema medioambiental, ya que es un gas de efecto invernadero. Por consiguiente, para mejorar la eficiencia de los sistemas de producción de rumiantes se han establecido estrategias nutricionales que tienen como objetivo manipular la fermentación ruminal mediante el uso de aditivos en la dieta, como monensina, sebo, tampones, compuestos de nitrógeno, probióticos, etc. Estos aditivos permiten cambiar el proceso de fermentación y mejorar la eficiencia animal, además disminuyen la pérdida de energía. El objetivo de este trabajo es revisar los procesos fermentativos que tienen lugar en el rumen y aplicar los fundamentos de estos en el desarrollo de nuevas estrategias nutricionales que pudieran ayudar a mejorar los procesos de digestión, de manera que se alcance una máxima producción.Palabras clave: aditivos, microorganismos ruminales, simbiosis. SUMMARYThe rumen consists of a complex ecosystem where nutrients consumed by ruminants are digested by fermentation process, which is executed by diverse microorganisms such as bacteria, protozoa, and fungi. A symbiotic relationship is found among different groups of microorganisms due to the diverse nature of these microbial species and their adaptability and interactions also coexist. The ruminant provides the necessary environment for the establishment of such microorganisms, while the microorganisms obtain energy from the host animal from microbial fermentation end products. Within the ruminal ecosystem, the microorganisms coexist in a reduced environment and pH remains close to neutral. Rumen microorganisms are involved in the fermentation of substrates contained in thedietof the animals (carbohydrates, proteins and lipids). However, the fermentation process is not 100% effective because there are energy losses mainly in the form of methane gas (CH 4 ), which is a problem for the environment since it is a greenhouse gas. In order to improve the efficiency of ruminant production systems, nutritional strategies that aim to manipulate ruminal fermentation using additives in the diet such as monensin, tallow, buffers, nitrogen compounds, probiotics, and others have been used. These additi...

show abstract

Section: Ruminal Archaea or Methanogensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rumen microorganisms and fermentation

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Greenhouse gas emissions have been estimated on a national basis for many animal-based agricultural products, such as milk [17,18], beef [14,19], pork [20,21] and poultry [22,23] but many estimates are at a much smaller scale. For example, Beauchemin et al [24] used Holos, a whole-farm GHG emissions model, developed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to estimate the GHG emissions associated with a small operation typical of western Canadian beef production.…”

Section: Carbon Footprint Of Beef Cattlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subsequently however, the International Dairy Federation [38] suggests that about 15% of these emissions are attributable to the beef sector. Assuming this allocation of emissions from the dairy sector [18,39] increased the mean beef carbon footprint for Canada by about 5% (Table 2c). On a regional basis, inclusion of emissions allocated from the dairy sector can have a very different impact on the carbon footprint.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle

Desjardins

Worth

Vergé³

et al. 2012

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The carbon footprint of beef cattle is presented for Canada, The United States, The European Union, Australia and Brazil. The values ranged between 8 and 22 kg CO 2 e per kg of live weight (LW) depending on the type of farming system, the location, the year, the type of management practices, the allocation, as well as the boundaries of the study. Substantial reductions have been observed for most of these countries in the last thirty years. For instance, in Canada the mean carbon footprint of beef cattle at the exit gate of the farm decreased from 18.2 kg CO 2 e per kg LW in 1981 to 9.5 kg CO 2 e per kg LW in 2006 mainly because of improved genetics, better diets, and more sustainable land management practices. Cattle production results in products other than meat, such as hides, offal and products for rendering plants; hence the environmental burden must be distributed between these useful products. In order to do this, the cattle carbon footprint needs to be reported in kg of CO 2 e per kg of product. For example, in Canada in 2006, on a mass basis, the carbon footprint of cattle by-products at the exit gate of the slaughterhouse was 12.9 kg CO 2 e per kg of product. Based on an economic allocation, the carbon OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2012, 4 3280 footprints of meat (primal cuts), hide, offal and fat, bones and other products for rendering were 19.6, 12.3, 7 and 2 kg CO 2 e per kg of product, respectively.

show abstract

“…The Canadian dairy industry emits ,10 MT CO 2 Eq/year, about 9% of the total GHG arising from the agriculture sector estimated at 68 MT CO 2 Eq/year (Dyer and Desjardins, 2006). The largest single source of the dairy industry's GHG output (4.7 MT CO 2 Eq/year) is the direct emission of enteric methane (EM) from cattle (Verge et al, 2007). Interest in EM supersedes that of other GHGs attributed to sectors which provide off-farm inputs (Garnett, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of dairy systems on enteric methane and postulated effects on total greenhouse gas emission

Fredeen

Juurlink²,

Main

et al. 2013

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of feeding total mixed ration (TMR) or pasture forage from a perennial sward under a management intensive grazing (MIG) regimen on grain intake and enteric methane (EM) emission were measured using chambers. Chamber measurement of EM was compared with that of SF 6 employed both within chamber and when cows grazed in the field. The impacts of the diet on farm gate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission were also postulated using the results of existing life cycle assessments. Emission of EM was measured in gas collection chambers in Spring and Fall. In Spring, pasture forage fiber quality was higher than that of the silage used in the TMR (47.5% v. 56.3% NDF; 24.3% v. 37.9% ADF). Higher forage quality from MIG subsequently resulted in 25% less grain use relative to TMR (0.24 v. 0.32 kg dry matter/kg milk) for MIG compared with TMR. The Fall forage fiber quality was still better, but the higher quality of MIG pasture was not as pronounced as that in Spring. Neither yield of fat-corrected milk (FCM) which averaged 28.3 kg/day, nor EM emission which averaged 18.9 g/kg dry matter intake (DMI) were significantly affected by diet in Spring. However, in the Fall, FCM from MIG (21.3 kg/day) was significantly lower than that from TMR (23.4 kg/day). Despite the differences in FCM yield, in terms of EM emission that averaged 21.9 g/kg DMI was not significantly different between the diets. In this study, grain requirement, but not EM, was a distinguishing feature of pasture and confinement systems. Considering the increased predicted GHG emissions arising from the production and use of grain needed to boost milk yield in confinement systems, EM intensity alone is a poor predictor of the potential impact of a dairy system on climate forcing.

show abstract

Greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian dairy industry in 2001

Cited by 99 publications

References 19 publications

Rumen microorganisms and fermentation

Rumen microorganisms and fermentation

Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle

Implications of dairy systems on enteric methane and postulated effects on total greenhouse gas emission

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About