Enteric Methane Emissions in Dairy Cows with Different Genetic Groups in the Humid Tropics of Costa Rica
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Trial Farm
2.2. Cow Selection and Feeding
2.3. Measurement of Enteric Methane Emissions and Other Variables
- The calibration of the emission rate of the tracer gas (SF6) in the permeation tubes (capsules) was made by placing the tubes in an incubator at 39 °C for 12 weeks and weighed two times per week. All tubes presented a tracer gas emission curve with an R2 of 0.999, and those with lower values were rejected. The emission rate data were also used to estimate the life span of the tube and to calculate the daily emission of enteric CH4 per cow. Tubes registered a daily emission that varied between 3.36 and 5.05 mg day−1 (average = 4.16 ± 0.07 mg day−1).
- Two weeks before starting measurements, tubes were placed into the rumen using a cannula to ensure placement, in the same way that any bolus is administered.
- Two weeks before starting the trial, cows were adapted to carry a halter and a canister around the neck.
- The sampling line was adjusted to identify the critical points where they could get broken or uncoupled with cows’ movements. These pieces were adjusted, and damages were reduced after making adjustments. One method used for reducing damages was to manage the cows separately in the feeding and milking parlor.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Enteric Methane Emission in Dairy Cows by Genetic Group
3.2. Feed Consumption, Milk Production and Intensity of Enteric Methane Emissions
3.3. Enteric CH4 Conversion Factor of Grazing Cows with Different Genetic Groups
4. Discussion
4.1. Enteric CH4 Emissions in Dairy Cows
4.2. Enteric Methane Emission Intensity
4.3. Enteric CH4 Conversion Factor of Grazing Cows with Different Genetic Groups
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAO Stat. FAOSTAT Statistical Database 2019. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA (accessed on 20 May 2022).
- Acosta, A.; Valdés, A. Situación y perspectiva del sector ganadero en Centroamérica. In Lineamientos de Política para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Sector Ganadero; Acosta, A., Díaz, T., Eds.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2014; pp. 3–22. [Google Scholar]
- Austin, K. The “Hamburger Connection” as ecologically unequal exchange: A cross-national investigation of beef exports and deforestation in less-developed countries. Rural. Sociol. 2010, 75, 270–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pezo, D. Tecnologías forrajeras para la intensificación de sistemas ganaderos en el contexto del cambio climático. Rev. UTN 2017, 78, 18–25. [Google Scholar]
- Herrero, M.; Gerber, P.; Vellinga, T.; Garnett, T.; Leip, A.; Opio, C.; Westhoek, H.J.; Thornton, P.K.; Oelsen, J.; Hutchings, N.; et al. Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: The importance of getting the numbers right. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 779–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gerber, P.J.; Hristov, A.N.; Henderson, B.; Makkar, H.; Oh, J.; Lee, C.; Meinen, R.; Montes, F.; Ott, T.; Firkins, J.; et al. Technical options for the mitigation of direct CH4 and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: A review. Animal 2013, 7, 220–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- MINAE. COSTA RICA II INFORME BIENAL DE ACTUALIZACIÓN ante la Convención Marco de la Naciones Unidas Sobre el Cambio Climático. IMN, DCC, GEF, PNUD, 2019, San José, Costa Rica. 2019. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/IBA-2019.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2022).
- Vega, A. Análisis de Herramientas Para la Estimación de Gases de Efecto Invernadero (GEI) y su Aplicación en Sistemas de Producción Bovina Doble Propósito de la Cuenca del Río Jesús María, Costa Rica; Master’s thesis, CATIE: Turrialba, Costa Rica, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wattiux, M.A.; Iñamagua-Uyaguari, J.P.; Guerra, L.; Casasola, F.; Jenet, A. Feeding and fertilization practices and greenhouse gas emissions in specialized dairy farms of Dos Pinos in Costa Rica. Trop. Grassl. 2016, 3, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez Ledezma, W. Balance de gases de efecto invernadero en lecherías especializadas de Costa Rica. Alcances Tecnológicos 2018, 12, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckard, R.J.; Grainger, C.; de Klein, C.A. Options for the abatement of CH4 and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: A review. Livest. Sci. 2010, 130, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dos Santos Pedreira, M.; Primavesi, O.; Lima, M.A.; Frighetto, R.; de Oliveira, S.M.; Berchielli, T.T. Ruminal CH4 emission by dairy cattle in southeast Brazil. Sci. Agric. 2009, 66, 742–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manzanilla-Pech, C.I.V.; Gordo, D.; Difford, G.F.; Løvendahl, P.; Lassen, J. Multitrait genomic prediction of CH4 emissions in Danish Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 9195–9206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Wyngaard, J.F.V.; Meeske, R.; Erasmus, L. Effect of concentrate level on enteric CH4 emissions, production performance, and rumen fermentation of Jersey cows grazing kikuyu-dominant pasture during summer. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 9954–9966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jiao, H.P.; Dale, A.J.; Carson, A.F.; Murray, S.; Gordon, A.W.; Ferris, C.P. Effect of concentrate feed level on CH4 emissions from grazing dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 7043–7053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reynolds, C.K.; Humphries, D.J.; Kirton, P.; Kindermann, M.; Duval, S.; Steinberg, W. Effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol on CH4 emission, digestion, and energy and nitrogen balance of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 3777–3789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hristov, A.N.; Oh, J.; Giallongo, F.; Frederick, T.W.; Harper, M.T.; Weeks, H.L.; Branco, A.F.; Moate, P.J.; Deighton, M.H.; Williams, S.R.O.; et al. An inhibitor persistently decreased enteric CH4 emission from dairy cows with no negative effect on milk production. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 10663–10668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duin, E.C.; Wagner, T.; Shima, S.; Prakash, D.; Cronin, B.; Yáñez-Ruiz, D.R.; Duval, S.; Rümbeli, R.; Stemmler, R.T.; Thauer, R.K.; et al. Mode of action uncovered for the specific reduction of CH4 emissions from ruminants by the small molecule 3-nitrooxypropanol. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 6172–6177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vyas, D.; McGinn, S.M.; Duval, S.M.; Kindermann, M.K.; Beauchemin, K.A. Optimal dose of 3-nitrooxypropanol for decreasing enteric CH4 emissions from beef cattle fed high-forage and high-grain diets. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 58, 1049–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roque, B.M.; Salwen, J.K.; Kinley, R.; Kebreab, E. Inclusion of Asparagopsis armata in lactating dairy cows’ diet reduces enteric CH4 emission by over 50 percent. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kinley, R.D.; Martinez-Fernandez, G.; Matthews, M.K.; de Nys, R.; Magnusson, M.; Tomkins, N.W. Mitigating the carbon footprint and improving productivity of ruminant livestock agriculture using a red seaweed. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roque, B.M.; Vengas, M.; Kinley, R.D.; de Nys, R.; Duarte, T.L.; Yang, X.; Kebreab, E. Red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) supplementation reduces enteric CH4 by over 80 percent in beef steers. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0247820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Jaramillo, J.I.; Vargas-Leitón, B.; Abarca-Monge, S.; Hidalgo, H.G. Efecto del estrés calórico sobre la producción del ganado lechero en Costa Rica. Agron. Mesoam. 2019, 30, 733–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargas Leitón, B.; Solís Guzmán, O.; Sáenz Segura, F.; León Hidalgo, H. Caracterización y clasificación de hatos lecheros en Costa Rica mediante análisis multivariado. Agron. Mesoam. 2013, 24, 257–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Letelier, P.; Aguirre-Villegas, H.A.; Chacón Navarro, M.; Wattiaux, M.A. Milk, meat, and human edible protein from dual-purpose cattle in Costa Rica: Impact of functional unit and co-product handling methods on predicted enteric methane allocation. Livest. Sci. 2022, 263, 105013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holdridge, L. Ecología Basada en Zonas de Vida; Instituto Interamericano de Ciencias Agrícolas: San José, Costa Rica, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Mejía, H.J. Consumo Voluntario de Forrajes en Pastoreo. Instituto de Ciencias Agrícolas, Universidad de Guanajuato, México. Acta Univ. 2002, 12, 56–65. [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez, N.M.; Simoes Saliba, E.O.; Guimaraes Junior, R. Uso de indicadores para estimar el consumo y digestibilidad de pasto. LIPE, lignina purificada y enriquecida. Rev. Col. Cienc. Pec. 2007, 20, 518–525. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, K.A.; Johnson, D.E. CH4 emissions from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 2483–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berndt, A.; Boland, T.M.; Deighton, M.H.; Gere, J.I.; Grainger, C.; Hegarty, R.S.; Iwaasa, A.D.; Koolaard, J.P.; Lassey, K.R.; Luo, D.; et al. Guidelines for Use of Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6) Tracer Technique to Measure Enteric CH4 Emissions from Ruminants; Lambert, M., Ed.; New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre: Wellington, New Zealand, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CNPL. Estadísticas Nacionales de Comercio de Leche 2019. Available online: http://proleche.com/comercio-internacional/ (accessed on 15 February 2022).
- Di Rienzo, J.; Casanoves, F.; Balzarini, M.; Gonzalez, L.; Tablada, M.; Robledo, C. InfoStat Versión 2019 (en línea). Centro de Transferencia InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. Available online: http://www.infostat.com.ar (accessed on 10 May 2022).
- Grainger, C.; Clarke, T.; McGinn, S.M.; Auldist, M.J.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Hannah, M.C.; Waghorn, G.C.; Clark, H.; Eckard, R.J. CH4 emissions from dairy cows measured using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer and chamber techniques. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 2755–2766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muñoz, C.; Hube, S.; Morales, J.; Yan, T.; Ungerfeld, E. Effects of concentrate supplementation on enteric CH4 emissions and milk production of grazing dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 2015, 175, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montenegro Ballestero, J.; Barrantes Guevara, E.; Ivankovich Cruz, S. Cuantificación de metano entérico según estado fisiológico en vacas lecheras de alta producción en Costa Rica. Agron. Costarric. 2020, 44, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basarab, J.A.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Baron, V.S.; Ominski, K.H.; Guan, L.L.; Miller, S.P.; Crowley, J.J. Reducing GHG emissions through genetic improvement for feed efficiency: Effects on economically important traits and enteric CH4 production. Animal 2013, 7, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- IPCC. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; The National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme: Hayama, Japan, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkes, A.; Reisinger, A.; Wollenberg, E.; van Dijk, S. Measurement, Reporting and Verification of Livestock GHG Emissions by Developing Countries in the UNFCCC: Current Practices and Opportunities for Improvements; Global Research Alliance, CGIAR, CCAFS, CCAFS Report No. 17; CCAFS: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Poore, J.; Nemececk, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 2018, 360, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sharma, S. Milking the Planet: How Big Dairy is Heating up the Planet and Hollowing Rural Communities. 2020. Available online: http://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible (accessed on 10 April 2022).
- Cassandro, M.; Mele, M.; Stefanon, B. Genetic aspects of enteric CH4 emission in livestock ruminants. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 12, 450–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garnsworthy, P.C. Reducing the environmental impact of animal production. Arch. Latinoam. De Prod. Anim. 2018, 26, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Villa Alves, F.; Giolo de Almeida, R.; Laura, V.A. Carne Carbono Neutro: Um Novo Conceíto Para Carne Sustentável Produzida nos Trópicos; Embrapa, Documentos 210; Embrapa: Brasilia, Brazil, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Case, B.; Ryan, C. An Analysis of Carbon Stocks and Net Carbon Position for New Zealand Sheep and Beef Farmland; Department of Applied Ecology, School of Science, Auckland University of Technology: Auckland, New Zealand, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- MLA. The Australian Red Meat Industry’s Carbon Neutral by 2030 Roadmap: Meat & Livestock Australia; RMAC: Sydney, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Montanholi, Y.R.; Swanson, K.C.; Palme, R.; Schenkel, F.S.; McBride, B.W.; Lu, D.; Miller, S.P. Assessing feed efficiency in beef steers through feeding behavior infrared thermography and glucocorticoids. Animal 2010, 4–5, 692–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Feed | Dry Matter (%) | Crude Protein (%) | Neutral Detergent Fiber (%) | Digestible Energy (Mcal kg DM−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Concentrate | 87.00 | 18.98 | 13 | 3.50 |
Soya flour | 88.00 | 47.75 | 11 | 3.30 |
Citrus pulp 1 | 87.00 | 4.00 | 25 | 2.85 |
Sugarcane Molasses | 72.60 | 3.80 | 0 | 3.05 |
M. maximus cv. Mombasa | 16.10 | 11.10 | 57.60 | 1.90 |
P. purpureum cv. Taiwan | 20.60 | 7.00 | 69.00 | 2.10 |
Food | Lactating Cows | Dry Cows |
---|---|---|
Concentrate | 5.55 | 0.46 |
Soy flour | 0.36 | - |
Citropulp 1 | 1.95 | 0.31 |
Molasses | 0.52 | 0.08 |
M. maximus cv. Mombasa | 6.87 | 7.9 |
P. purpureum cv. Taiwan | 0.81 | 0.55 |
Total | 16.06 | 9.30 |
Period | F1 1 | Triple Cross | Jersey |
---|---|---|---|
Non-lactating | 202.96 (55.77) | 250.19 (43.99) | 267.44 (55.34) |
Lactation stages: | |||
<76 days | 232.74 (93.24) | 350.11 (80.24) | 410.30 (140.46) |
76–150 days | 363.86 (56.02) | 385.24 (75.03) | 386.48 (100.43) |
>150 days | 224.77 (51.83) | 272.35 (51.37) | 222.53 (53.25) |
Annual mean | 274.49 (24.15) | 322.69 (29.49) | 297.77 (32.42) |
Period | F1 1 | Triple Cross | Jersey |
---|---|---|---|
Dry cow | 17.25 (2.00) | 21.27 (1.88) | 22.73 (2.85) |
Lactating cow | 73.97 (14.78) | 90.56 (21.29) | 88.69 (22.76) |
Annual emission | 91.22 (12.78) | 111.82 (19.41) | 111.42 (19.90) |
Lactating Cows | Dry Cows | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | F1 1 | Triple Cross | Jersey | Mean | F1 | Triple Cross | Jersey | Mean |
Total DMI (%BW) | 3.54 (0.17) a | 3.71 (0.19) a | 3.91 (0.17) a | 3.69 (0.07) a | 1.89 (0.11) a | 1.86 (0.12) a | 2.19 (0.12) a | 2.02 (0.09) b |
Grass DMI (%BW) | 1.59 (0.01) a | 1.56 (0.01) a | 1.56 (0.01) a | 1.57 (0.01) b | 1.75 (0.03) a | 1.75 (0.03) a | 1.74 (0.03) a | 1.75 (0.01) a |
Production of milk (kg cow−1 day−1) | 18.19 (1.78) a | 18.25 (1.93) a | 17.77 (1.87) a | 18.17 (0.57) | ||||
CH4 emission (g kg−1 of milk) | 16.09 (4.41) a | 17.38 (4.65) a | 18.76 (5.71) a | 16.95 (1.15) | ||||
CH4 emission (g kg−1 DM) | 16.71 (4.05) a | 19.84 (4.17) a | 19.78 (5.54) a | 17.82 (1.30) b | 26.70 (7.57) a | 29.86 (6.4) a | 27.08 (7.52) a | 29.40 (1.87) a |
Period | F1 1 | Triple Cross | Jersey |
---|---|---|---|
Dry | 6.9 (1.22) b | 9.87 (1.37) a | 10.28 (1.3) a |
Lactation stages (days) | |||
<76 | 4.44 (0.91) a | 6.25 (0.98) a | 7.25 (1.27) a |
76–150 | 7.11 (1.04) a | 7.20 (1.51) a | 6.91 (1.63) a |
>150 | 5.14 (0.72) a | 5.55 (0.84) a | 3.79 (0.79) a |
Mean | 5.90 (0.58) a | 7.22 (0.69) a | 7.05 (0.73) a |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Villanueva, C.; Ibrahim, M.; Castillo, C. Enteric Methane Emissions in Dairy Cows with Different Genetic Groups in the Humid Tropics of Costa Rica. Animals 2023, 13, 730. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040730
Villanueva C, Ibrahim M, Castillo C. Enteric Methane Emissions in Dairy Cows with Different Genetic Groups in the Humid Tropics of Costa Rica. Animals. 2023; 13(4):730. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040730
Chicago/Turabian StyleVillanueva, Cristóbal, Muhammad Ibrahim, and Cristina Castillo. 2023. "Enteric Methane Emissions in Dairy Cows with Different Genetic Groups in the Humid Tropics of Costa Rica" Animals 13, no. 4: 730. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040730