Predicting enteric methane emission in sheep using linear and non-linear statistical models from dietary variables

Patra, Amlan Kumar; Lalhriatpuii, Melody; Debnath, B. C.

doi:10.1071/an15505

Cited by 26 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The CH 4 -E was over-predicted using either DMI and GEI by Patra et al [6], or GEI, DEI, or MEI by Zhao et al [8]. The R 2 for the relationship between predicted and actual CH 4 -E was greatest in Patra et al [6] using DMI (R 2 = 0.70) or GEI (R 2 = 0.71) and in Zhao et al [8] using GEI (R 2 = 0.71), while the lowest R 2 was observed using MEI as the prediction factor (R 2 = 0.44). A lower CH 4 /DMI was obtained from the predicted value of Zhao et al [8] and our results (20.8 vs 27.2 g/kg).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the current study body weight (BW) was not signifi cantly correlated with CH 4 emission from sheep. Similarly, it is reported that BW alone is a poor variable for predicting CH 4 emission in grazing beef cattle (R 2 = 0.27) [9] and sheep (R 2 = 0.25) [6], and it was found that metabolic BW was marginally correlated with CH 4 energy (R 2 = 0.49) in goats [38], indicating that the accuracy of using BW to predict CH 4 emission might be affected by feeding conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prediction of methane emission from sheep based on data measured in vivo from open-circuit respiratory studies

Deng

Diao

2019

Asian-Australas J Anim Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The current study analysed the relationships between methane (CH 4 ) output from animal and dietary factors. Methods The dataset was obtained from 159 Dorper×thin-tailed Han lambs from our seven studies, and CH 4 production and energy metabolism data were measured in vivo by an open-circuit respiratory method. All lambs were confined indoors and fed pelleted diet during the whole experimental period in all studies. Data from two-thirds of lambs were used to develop linear and multiple regressions to describe the relationship between CH 4 emission and dietary variables, and data from the remaining one third of lambs were used to validate the established models. Results CH 4 emission (g/d) was positively related to dry matter intake (DMI) and gross energy intake (GEI) (p<0.001). CH 4 energy/GEI was negatively related to metabolizable energy/gross energy and metabolizable energy/digestible energy (p<0.001). Using DMI to predict CH 4 emission (g/d) resulted in a coefficient of determination (R 2 ) of 0.80. Using GEI, digestible energy intake, and metabolizable energy intake predict CH 4 energy/GEI resulted in a R 2 of 0.92. Conclusion the prediction equations established in the current study are useful to develop appropriate feeding and management strategies to mitigate CH 4 emissions from sheep.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of methane emission from sheep based on data measured in vivo from open-circuit respiratory studies

Deng

Diao

2019

Asian-Australas J Anim Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( 93 ) and Food and Agricultural Organization ( 1 ) publishes guidelines that are usually employed for official estimates of CH 4 emissions in different countries. However, accuracy of these models to predict CH 4 emissions has been challenged in different studies with cattle, buffaloes, sheep, and goats ( 2 , 89 , 94 – 96 ). The IPCC ( 93 ) developed methodologies to estimate enteric CH 4 emissions with the use of CH 4 conversion factor (Ym).…”

Section: Measurement Methods Of Ch 4 Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Advances in Measurement and Dietary Mitigation of Enteric Methane Emissions in Ruminants

Patra

2016

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methane (CH4) emission, which is mainly produced during normal fermentation of feeds by the rumen microorganisms, represents a major contributor to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Several enteric CH4 mitigation technologies have been explored recently. A number of new techniques have also been developed and existing techniques have been improved in order to evaluate CH4 mitigation technologies and prepare an inventory of GHG emissions precisely. The aim of this review is to discuss different CH4 measuring and mitigation technologies, which have been recently developed. Respiration chamber technique is still considered as a gold standard technique due to its greater precision and reproducibility in CH4 measurements. With the adoption of recent recommendations for improving the technique, the SF6 method can be used with a high level of precision similar to the chamber technique. Short-term measurement techniques of CH4 measurements generally invite considerable within- and between-animal variations. Among the short-term measuring techniques, Greenfeed and methane hood systems are likely more suitable for evaluation of CH4 mitigation studies, if measurements could be obtained at different times of the day relative to the diurnal cycle of the CH4 production. Carbon dioxide and CH4 ratio, sniffer, and other short-term breath analysis techniques are more suitable for on farm screening of large number of animals to generate the data of low CH4-producing animals for genetic selection purposes. Different indirect measuring techniques are also investigated in recent years. Several new dietary CH4 mitigation technologies have been explored, but only a few of them are practical and cost-effective. Future research should be directed toward both the medium- and long-term mitigation strategies, which could be utilized on farms to accomplish substantial reductions of CH4 emissions and to profitably reduce carbon footprint of livestock production systems. This review presents recent developments and critical analysis on different measurements and dietary mitigation of enteric CH4 emissions technologies.

show abstract

“…Lamb enteric CH 4 emissions simulation began at 50 d of age (Schoenian, 2015). Enteric CH 4 was predicted using the Monomolecular equation based on ME intake (MEI, MJ/animal per d) as reported by (Patra et al, 2016) Manure emissions were calculated in all scenarios according to UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines for calculating emissions from livestock and manure management (IPCC, 2006), using US-specific emission factors wherever possible (US EPA, 2017). All enteric and manure CH 4 emissions were credited to animal production.…”

Section: Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A final sensitivity analysis was conducted comparing the impact of enteric CH 4 prediction model on whole-ranch carbon footprint, while all manure and feed emissions were kept as in the base model values. Enteric CH 4 was predicted using the Monomolecular equation based on ME intake (Patra et al, 2016)…”

Section: Sensitivity Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon and blue water footprints of California sheep production1

Dougherty

Oltjen

DePeters

et al. 2018

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the environmental impacts of livestock production, such as greenhouse gas emissions and water usage, have been studied for a variety of US livestock production systems, the environmental impact of US sheep production is still unknown. A cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted according to international standards (ISO 14040/44), analyzing the impacts of CS representing five different meat sheep production systems in California, and focusing on carbon footprint (carbon dioxide equivalents, CO 2 e) and irrigated water usage (metric ton, MT). This study is the first to look specifically at the carbon footprint of the California sheep industry and consider both wool and meat production across the diverse sheep production systems within California. This study also explicitly examined the carbon footprint of hair sheep as compared with wooled sheep production. Data were derived from producer interviews and literature values, and California-specific emission factors were used wherever possible. Flock outputs studied included market lamb meat, breeding stock, 2-d-old lambs, cull adult meat, and wool. Four different methane prediction models were examined, including the current IPCC tier 1 and 2 equations, and an additional sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the effect of a fixed vs. flexible coefficient of gain (k g) in mature ewes on carbon footprint per ewe. Mass, economic, and protein mass allocation were used to examine the impact of allocation method on carbon footprint and water usage, while sensitivity analyses were used to examine the impact of ewe replacement rate (% of ewe flock per year) and lamb crop (lambs born per ewe bred) on carbon footprint per kilogram market lamb. The carbon footprint of market lamb production ranged from 13.9 to 30.6 kg CO 2 e/kg market lamb production on a mass basis, 10.4 to 18.1 kg CO 2 e/kg market lamb on an economic basis, and 6.6 to 10.1 kg CO 2 e/kg market lamb on a protein mass basis. Enteric methane (CH 4) production was the largest single source of emissions for all CS, averaging 72% of total emissions. Emissions from feed production averaged 22% in total, primarily from manure emissions credited to feed. Whole-ranch water usage ranged from 2.1 to 44.8 MT/kg market lamb, almost entirely from feed production. Overall results were in agreement with those from meat-focused sheep systems in the United Kingdom as well as beef raised under similar conditions in California.

show abstract

Predicting enteric methane emission in sheep using linear and non-linear statistical models from dietary variables

Cited by 26 publications

References 24 publications

Prediction of methane emission from sheep based on data measured in vivo from open-circuit respiratory studies

Prediction of methane emission from sheep based on data measured in vivo from open-circuit respiratory studies

Recent Advances in Measurement and Dietary Mitigation of Enteric Methane Emissions in Ruminants

Carbon and blue water footprints of California sheep production1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About