Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:24:49.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herd-scale measurements of methane emissions from cattle grazing extensive sub-tropical grasslands using the open-path laser technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2015

N. W. Tomkins  and
E. Charmley
N. W. Tomkins
Affiliation:
CSIRO Agriculture, Private Mail Bag PO, Aitkenvale, QLD 4814, Australia
E. Charmley*
Affiliation:
CSIRO Agriculture, Private Mail Bag PO, Aitkenvale, QLD 4814, Australia
*
†E-mail: ed.charmley@csiro.au
Get access

Abstract

Methane (CH4) emissions associated with beef production systems in northern Australia are yet to be quantified. Methodologies are available to measure emissions, but application in extensive grazing environments is challenging. A micrometeorological methodology for estimating herd-scale emissions using an indirect open-path spectroscopic technique and an atmospheric dispersion model is described. The methodology was deployed on five cattle properties across Queensland and Northern Territory, with measurements conducted during two occasions at one site. On each deployment, data were collected every 10 min for up to 7 h a day over 4 to 16 days. To increase the atmospheric concentration of CH4 to measurable levels, cattle were confined to a known area around water points from ~0800 to 1600 h, during which time measurements of wind statistics and line-averaged CH4 concentration were taken. Filtering to remove erroneous data accounted for 35% of total observations. For five of the six deployments CH4 emissions were within the expected range of 0.4 to 0.6 g/kg BW. At one site, emissions were ~2 times expected values. There was small but consistent variation with time of day, although for some deployments measurements taken early in the day tended to be higher than at the other times. There was a weak linear relationship (R2=0.47) between animal BW and CH4 emission per kg BW. Where it was possible to compare emissions in the early and late dry season at one site, it was speculated that higher emissions at the late dry season may have been attributed to poorer diet quality. It is concluded that the micrometeorological methodology using open-path lasers can be successfully deployed in extensive grazing conditions to directly measure CH4 emissions from cattle at a herd scale.

Keywords

cattlelaser measurementmethanerangelandstropics
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 12 , December 2015 , pp. 2029 - 2038
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Ash, AJ, McIvor, JG, Mott, JJ and Andrew, MH 1997. Building grass castles: integrating ecology and management of Australia’s tropical tallgrass rangelands. The Rangeland Journal 19, 123–144.Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005. 1301.0 Year Book of Australia 2005. Retrieved August 8, 2015, from http://www/abs.gov.au/abs@.nsf/previous products. Google Scholar
Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System 2014. Department of the Environment. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/ 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, 563–574.Google Scholar
Bentley, D, Hegarty, RS and Alford, AR 2008. Managing livestock enterprises in Australia’s extensive rangelands for greenhouse gas and environmental outcomes: a pastoral company perspective. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 60–64.Google Scholar
Boland, TM, Quinlan, C, Pierce, KM, Lynch, MB, Kenny, DA, Kelly, AK and Purcell, PJ 2013. The effect of pasture pregrazing herbage mass on methane emissions, ruminal fermentation, and average daily gain of grazing beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 91, 3867–3874.Google Scholar
Chaves, AV, Thompson, LC, Iwaasa, AD, Scott, SL, Olson, ME, Benchaar, C, Veira, DM and McAllister, TA 2006. Effect of pasture type (alfalfa vs. grass) on methane and carbon dioxide production by yearling beef heifers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 86, 409–418.Google Scholar
Flesch, TK, McGinn, SM, Chen, D, Wilson, JD and Desjardins, RL 2014. Data filtering for inverse dispersion calculations. Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 198–199, 1–6.Google Scholar
Flesch, TK, Wilson, JD, Harper, LA and Crenna, BP 2005. Estimating gas emissions from a farm using an inverse-dispersion technique. Atmospheric Environment 39, 4863–4874.Google Scholar
Flesch, TK, Wilson, JD, Harper, LA, Crenna, BP and Sharpe, RR 2004. Deducing ground-to-air emissions from observed trace gas concentrations: a field trial. Journal of Applied Meteorology 43, 487–502.Google Scholar
Flesch, TK, Wilson, JD, Harper, LA, Todd, RW and Cole, NA 2007. Determining ammonia emissions from a cattle feedlot with an inverse dispersion technique. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 144, 139–155.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2006. In Livestock’s long shadow environmental issues and options, chapter 4, Emissions by Species (ed. H Steinfeld, P Gerber, T Wassenaar, V Castel, M Rosales and C de Haan), pp 23–77. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Hammond, KJ, Humphries, DJ, Westbury, DB, Thompson, A and Crompton, LA 2014. The inclusion of forage mixtures in the diet of growing heifers: impacts on digestion, energy utilization, and methane emissions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 197, 88–95.Google Scholar
Harper, LA, Flesch, TK, Weaver, KH and Wilson, JD 2010. The effect of biofuel production on swine farm methane and ammonia emissions. Journal of Environmental Quality 39, 1984–1992.Google Scholar
Herrero, M, Havlik, P, Valin, H, Notenbaert, A, Rufino, MC, Thornton, PK, Blummel, M, Weiss, F, Grace, D and Obersteiner, M 2013. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 20888–20893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holechek, JL 2013. Global trends in population, energy use and climate: implications for policy development, rangeland management and rangeland users. The Rangeland Journal 35, 117–129.Google Scholar
Hristov, AN, Oh, J, Firkins, JL, Dijkstra, J, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Makkar, HPS, Adesogan, AT, Yang, W, Lee, C, Gerber, PJ, Henderson, B and Tricarico, JM 2013. Special topics – mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: 1. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5045–5069.Google Scholar
Hunt, LP, Petty, S, Cowley, R, Fisher, A, Ash, AJ and McDonald, N 2007. Factors affecting the management of cattle grazing distribution in northern Australia: preliminary observations on the effect of paddock size and water points. The Rangeland Journal 29, 169–179.Google Scholar
Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia 2012. IBRA, version 7. Retrieved October 2, 2014, from http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/5b3d2d31-2355-4b60-820c-e370572b2520/files/bioregions-new.pdf Google Scholar
Kennedy, PM and Charmley, E 2012. Methane yields from Brahman cattle fed tropical grasses and legumes. Animal Production Science 52, 225–239.Google Scholar
Laubach, J 2010. Testing of a Lagrangian model of dispersion in the surface layer with cattle methane emissions. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150, 1428–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meat and Livestock Australia 2014. Australian cattle industry projections 2014 mid year update. Retrieved July 23, 2014, from http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets/Trends-and-analysis/Beef/Forecasts/MLA-Australian-cattle-industry-projections-mid-year-update-2014.Google Scholar
McGinn, SM, Beauchemin, KA and Flesch, TK 2009. Performance of a dispersion model to estimate methane losses from cattle in pens. Journal of Environmental Quality 38, 1795–1802.Google Scholar
McGinn, SM, Chen, D, Loh, Z, Hill, J, Beauchemin, KA and Denmead, OT 2008. Methane emissions from feedlot cattle in Australia and Canada. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 183–185.Google Scholar
McGinn, SM, Flesch, TK, Coates, TW, Charmley, E, Chen, D, Bai, M and Bishop-Hurley, G 2015. Evaluating dispersion modeling options to estimate methane emissions from grazing beef cattle. Journal of Environmental Quality 44, 97–102.Google Scholar
McGinn, SM, Turner, D, Tomkins, NW, Charmley, E and Chen, D 2011. Methane emissions from grazing cattle using point-source dispersion. Journal of Environmental Quality 40, 22–27.Google Scholar
Minson, DJ and McDonald, CK 1987. Estimates of forage intake from the growth of beef cattle. Tropical Grasslands 21, 116–122.Google Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council 2004. Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes, 7th edition. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Phillips, FA, McPhee, MJ, Hegarty, R and Naylor, T 2013. Measured methane emissions from low and high intensity grazing lamb production systems. Proceedings of the 5th Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture Conference, Dublin. Advances in Animal Biosciences 4, 446.Google Scholar
Roxburgh, CW and Pratley, JE 2015. The future of food production in the rangelands: challenges and prospects for research investment, organization and human resources. The Rangeland Journal 37, 125–138.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 1999. SAS user’s guide. Version 8. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Todd, RW, Altman, MB, Cole, A and Waldrip, HM 2014. Methane emissions from a beef cattle feedyard during winter and summer on the southern high plains of Texas. Journal of Environmental Quality 43, 1125–1130.Google Scholar
Tomkins, NW, McGinn, SM, Turner, DA and Charmley, E 2011. Comparison of open-circuit respiration chambers with a micrometeorological method for determining methane emissions from beef cattle grazing a tropical pasture. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 240–247.Google Scholar
Tomkins, NW, O’Reagain, PJ, Swain, DL, Bishop-Hurley, G and Charmley, E 2009. Determining the effect of stocking rate on the spatial distribution of cattle for the subtropical savannas. The Rangeland Journal 31, 267–276.Google Scholar
Tothill, JC, Hargreaves, JN, Jones, RM and McDonald, CK 1992. BOTANAL–A comprehensive sampling and computing procedure for estimating pasture yield and composition 1. Field Sampling. Tech. Mem. No. 78. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Yan, T, Porter, MG and Mayne, CS 2009. Prediction of methane emission from beef cattle using data measured in indirect open-circuit respiration chambers. Animal 3, 1455–1462.Google Scholar