Hostname: page-component-6565fbc58-2ssgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-12T17:17:27.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methane emissions from two breeds of beef cows offered diets containing barley straw with either grass silage or brewers’ grains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2015

C-A. Duthie ,
J. A. Rooke ,
J. J. Hyslop  and
A. Waterhouse
C-A. Duthie*
Affiliation:
Beef and Sheep Research Centre, Future Farming Systems Group, SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
J. A. Rooke
Affiliation:
Beef and Sheep Research Centre, Future Farming Systems Group, SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
J. J. Hyslop
Affiliation:
Beef and Sheep Select, SAC Consulting Ltd, SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
A. Waterhouse
Affiliation:
Beef and Sheep Research Centre, Future Farming Systems Group, SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
*
† E-mail: Carol-Anne.Duthie@sruc.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Increasing the concentration of dietary lipid is a promising strategy for reducing methane (CH4) emissions from ruminants. This study investigated the effect of replacing grass silage with brewers’ grains on CH4 emissions of pregnant, non-lactating beef cows of two breeds. The experiment was a two×two factorial design comprising two breeds (LIMx, crossbred Limousin; and LUI, purebred Luing) and two diets consisting of (g/kg diet dry matter (DM)) barley straw (687) and grass silage (301, GS), or barley straw (763) and brewers’ grains (226, BG), which were offered ad libitum. Replacing GS with BG increased the acid-hydrolysed ether extract concentration from 21 to 37 g/kg diet DM. Cows (n=48) were group-housed in equal numbers of each breed across two pens and each diet was allocated to one pen. Before measurements of CH4, individual dry matter intake (DMI), weekly BW and weekly body condition score were measured for a minimum of 3 weeks, following a 4-week period to acclimatise to the diets. CH4 emissions were subsequently measured on one occasion from each cow using individual respiration chambers. Due to occasional equipment failures, CH4 measurements were run over 9 weeks giving 10 observations for each breed×treatment combination (total n=40). There were no differences between diets for daily DMI measured in the chambers (9.92 v. 9.86 kg/day for BG and GS, respectively; P>0.05). Cows offered the BG diet produced less daily CH4 than GS-fed cows (131 v. 156 g/day: P<0.01). When expressed either as g/kg DMI or kJ/MJ gross energy intake (GEI), BG-fed cows produced less CH4 than GS-fed cows (13.5 v. 16.4 g/kg DMI, P<0.05; 39.2 v. 48.6 kJ/MJ GEI, P<0.01). Breed did not affect daily DMI or CH4 expressed as g/day, g/kg DMI or kJ/MJ GEI (P>0.05). However, when expressed as a proportion of metabolic BW (BW0.75), LUI cows had greater DMI than LIMx cows (84.5 v. 75.7 g DMI/kg BW0.75, P<0.05) and produced more CH4 per kg BW0.75 than LIMx cows (1.30 v. 1.05 g CH4/kg BW0.75; P<0.01). Molar proportions of acetate were higher (P<0.001) and propionate and butyrate lower (P<0.01) in rumen fluid samples from BG-fed compared with GS-fed cows. This study demonstrated that replacing GS with BG in barley straw-based diets can effectively reduce CH4 emissions from beef cows, with no suppression of DMI.

Keywords

brewers’ grainscattlegreenhouse gasmethanenutrition

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 10 , October 2015 , pp. 1680 - 1687
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

AFRC 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC technical committee on responses to nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Bickell, SL, Revell, DK, Toovey, AF and Vercoe, PE 2014. Feed intake of sheep when allowed ad libitum access to feed in respiration chambers. Journal of Animal Science 92, 2259–2264.Google Scholar
Brask, M, Lund, P, Weisbjerg, MR, Hellwing, ALF, Poulsen, M, Larsen, MK and Hvelplund, T 2013. Methane production and digestion of different physical forms of rapeseed as fat supplements in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 2356–2365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cottle, DJ, Nolan, JV and Wiedemann, SG 2011. Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: a review. Animal Production Science 51, 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deighton, MH, Williams, SRO, Hannah, MC, Eckard, RJ, Boland, TM, Wales, WJ and Moate, PJ 2014. A modified sulphur hexafluoride tracer technique enables accurate determination of enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 197, 47–63.Google Scholar
Fraser, MD, Fleming, HR and Moorby, JM 2014. Traditional vs modern: role of breed type in determining enteric methane emissions from cattle grazing as part of contrasting grassland-based systems. PLoS One 9, e107861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnsworthy, PC, Craigon, J, Hernandez-Medrano, JH and 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
Gerber, PJ, Steinfeld, H, Henderson, B, Mottet, A, Opio, C, Dijkman, J, Falcucci, A and Tempio, G 2013a. Tackling climate change through livestock – a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.Google Scholar
Gerber, PJ, Hristov, AN, Henderson, B, Makkar, H, Oh, J, Lee, C, Meinen, R, Montes, F, Ott, T, Firkins, J, Rotz, A, Dell, C, Adesogan, AT, Yang, WZ, Tricarico, JM, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Dijkstra, J and Oosting, S 2013b. Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review. Animal 7 (suppl. s2), 220–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grainger, C and Beauchemin, KA 2011. Can enteric methane emissions from ruminants be lowered without lowering their production? Animal Feed Scence and Technology 166–167, 308–320.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: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5045–5069.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, vol. 4. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Retrieved March 4, 2015, from http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA and Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.Google Scholar
Lovett, D, Lovell, S, Stack, L, Callan, J, Finlay, M, Conolly, J and O’Mara, FP 2003. Effect of forage/concentrate ratio and dietary coconut oil level on methane output and performance of finishing beef heifers. Livestock Production Science 84, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C, Morgavi, DP and Doreau, M 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, PA, Chamberlain, DG, Robertson, S and Hirst, D 1994. Rumen fermentation patterns in sheep receiving silages of different composition supplemented with concentrates rich in starch or in digestible fibre. Journal of Agricultural Science 122, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food 1992. Analysis of Agricultural Materials, 2nd edition. Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London.Google Scholar
Moate, PJ, Williams, SRO, Grainger, C, Hannah, MC, Ponnampalam, EN and Eckard, RJ 2011. Influence of cold-pressed canola, brewers grains and hominy meal as dietary supplements suitable for reducing enteric methane emissions from lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patra, AK 2013. The effect of dietary fats on methane emissions, and its other effects on digestibility, rumen fermentation and lactation performance in cattle: a meta-analysis. Livestock Science 155, 244–254.Google Scholar
Ricci, P, Umstätter, C, Holland, JP and Waterhouse, A 2014. Does diverse grazing behavior of suckler cows have an impact on predicted methane emissions? Journal of Animal Science 92, 1239–1249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richmond, AS, Wylie, ARG, Laidlaw, AS and Lively, FO 2015. Methane emissions from beef cattle grazing on semi-natural upland and improved lowland grasslands. Animal 9, 130–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rooke, JA, Borman, AJ and Armstrong, DG 1990. The effect of inoculation with Lactobacillus plantarum on fermentation in laboratory silos of herbage low in water-soluble carbohydrate. Grass and Forage Science 45, 143–152.Google Scholar
Rooke, JA, Wallace, RJ, Duthie, C-A, McKain, N, de Souza, SM, Hyslop, JJ, Ross, DW, Waterhouse, T and Roehe, R 2014. Hydrogen and methane emissions from beef cattle and their rumen microbial community vary with diet, time after feeding and genotype. British Journal of Nutrition 112, 398–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rooke, JA, Duthie, C-A, Holland, J and Waterhouse, A 2015. Methane (CH4) outputs from grazing lactating beef cows of contrasting breed types on different pasture types. Advances in Animal Biosciences 6, 101.Google Scholar
Troy, S, Duthie, C-A, Dewhurst, RJ, Hyslop, JJ, Roehe, R, Ross, DW, Wallace, RJ, Waterhouse, A and Rooke, JA 2015. Effectiveness of nitrate addition and increased oil content as methane mitigation strategies for beef cattle fed two contrasting basal diets. Journal of Animal Science 93, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed