Measurement and prediction of enteric methane emission.
The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the agricultural sector account for about 25.5% of total global anthropogenic emission. While CO(2) receives the most attention as a factor relative to global warming, CH(4), N(2)O and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) also cause significant radiative forcing. With the relative global warming potential of 25 compared with CO(2), CH(4) is one of the most important GHGs. This article reviews the prediction models, estimation methodology and strategies for reducing enteric CH(4) emissions. Emission of CH(4) in ruminants differs among developed and developing countries, depending on factors like animal species, breed, pH of rumen fluid, ratio of acetate:propionate, methanogen population, composition of diet and amount of concentrate fed. Among the ruminant animals, cattle contribute the most towards the greenhouse effect through methane emission followed by sheep, goats and buffalos, respectively. The estimated CH(4) emission rate per cattle, buffaloe, sheep and goat in developed countries are 150.7, 137, 21.9 and 13.7 (g/animal/day) respectively. However, the estimated rates in developing countries are significantly lower at 95.9 and 13.7 (g/animal/day) per cattle and sheep, respectively. There exists a strong interest in developing new and improving the existing CH(4) prediction models to identify mitigation strategies for reducing the overall CH(4) emissions. A synthesis of the available literature suggests that the mechanistic models are superior to empirical models in accurately predicting the CH(4) emission from dairy farms. The latest development in prediction model is the integrated farm system model which is a process-based whole-farm simulation technique. Several techniques are used to quantify enteric CH(4) emissions starting from whole animal chambers to sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer techniques. The latest technology developed to estimate CH(4) more accurately is the micrometeorological mass difference technique. Because the conditions under which animals are managed vary greatly by country, CH(4) emissions reduction strategies must be tailored to country-specific circumstances. Strategies that are cost effective, improve productivity, and have limited potential negative effects on livestock production hold a greater chance of being adopted by producers. It is also important to evaluate CH(4) mitigation strategies in terms of the total GHG budget and to consider the economics of various strategies. Although reductions in GHG emissions from livestock industries are seen as high priorities, strategies for reducing emissions should not reduce the economic viability of enterprises.
Sejian
Veerasamy
V
Adaptation Physiology Laboratory, Division of Physiology & Biochemistry, Central Sheep & Wool Research Insitute, Avikanagar, Via-Jaipur, Rajasthan, 304501, India. drsejian@gmail.com
Lal
Rattan
R
Lakritz
Jeffrey
J
Ezeji
Thaddeus
T
D000822:Animal Husbandry / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D000818:Animals; D057232:Global Warming; D058751:Livestock / Q000502:physiology*; D008697:Methane / Q000032:analysis* / Q000378:metabolism; D008954:Models, Biological; D013459:Sulfur Hexafluoride / Q000032:analysis / Q000378:metabolism
D008697:Methane; D013459:Sulfur Hexafluoride
J Anim Sci. 1999 Jun;77(6):1392-401
10375217
J Anim Sci. 1998 Feb;76(2):617-27
9498373
J Anim Sci. 2005 Jan;83(1):182-6
15583058
Science. 2010 May 7;328(5979):689-90
20448167
J Anim Sci. 2009 Mar;87(3):1048-57
19028842
Br J Nutr. 1985 Nov;54(3):763-75
3870696
J Dairy Sci. 2010 Mar;93(3):1266-82
20172247
Arch Anim Nutr. 2007 Feb;61(1):10-9
17361944
J Environ Qual. 2003 Jan-Feb;32(1):269-77
12549566
J Anim Sci. 2003 Dec;81(12):3141-50
14677870
J Nutr. 1992 Nov;122(11):2239-56
1331382
J Dairy Sci. 2007 Jul;90(7):3456-66
17582129
Chemosphere. 2003 Sep;52(9):1381-8
12867167
J Anim Sci. 1998 Aug;76(8):2190-6
9734871
J Anim Sci. 2006 Jun;84(6):1489-96
16699105
J Environ Qual. 2006 Jan 03;35(1):14-20
16391273
J Dairy Sci. 2005 Aug;88(8):2836-42
16027198
Res Vet Sci. 1999 Aug;67(1):65-71
10425243
J Anim Sci. 2005 Mar;83(3):653-61
15705762
J Environ Qual. 2009 Jul 23;38(5):1796-802
19643744
J Anim Sci. 2008 Feb;86(2):384-9
18042816
Environ Sci Technol. 1994 Feb 1;28(2):359-62
22176184
Br J Nutr. 1965;19(4):511-22
5852118
J Anim Sci. 1995 Jul;73(7):2141-5
7592102
J Anim Sci. 1995 Aug;73(8):2483-92
8567486
J Dairy Sci. 2006 Feb;89(2):761-71
16428643
J Anim Sci. 1996 Dec;74(12):3112-24
8994925
J Environ Qual. 2003 Sep-Oct;32(5):1591-602
14535299
J Anim Sci. 2001 Feb;79(2):515-24
11219463
J Anim Sci. 2008 Oct;86(10):2738-48
18539822
J Anim Sci. 2004 Nov;82(11):3346-56
15542482
J Anim Sci. 2008 Oct;86(10):2642-50
18469051
J Dairy Sci. 2006 Jul;89(7):2649-58
16772584
J Anim Sci. 2007 Jun;85(6):1479-86
17296777
J Dairy Sci. 2007 Jun;90(6):2580-95
17517698
Isotopes Environ Health Stud. 2001;37(4):257-379
12723792
J Dairy Sci. 2007 Jun;90(6):2755-66
17517715
Lancet. 2007 Oct 6;370(9594):1253-63
17868818