Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measurement and prediction of enteric methane emission

  • Review
  • Published:
International Journal of Biometeorology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the agricultural sector account for about 25.5% of total global anthropogenic emission. While CO2 receives the most attention as a factor relative to global warming, CH4, N2O and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) also cause significant radiative forcing. With the relative global warming potential of 25 compared with CO2, CH4 is one of the most important GHGs. This article reviews the prediction models, estimation methodology and strategies for reducing enteric CH4 emissions. Emission of CH4 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 CH4 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 CH4 prediction models to identify mitigation strategies for reducing the overall CH4 emissions. A synthesis of the available literature suggests that the mechanistic models are superior to empirical models in accurately predicting the CH4 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 CH4 emissions starting from whole animal chambers to sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer techniques. The latest technology developed to estimate CH4 more accurately is the micrometeorological mass difference technique. Because the conditions under which animals are managed vary greatly by country, CH4 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 CH4 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Axelsson J (1949) The amount of produced methane energy in the European metabolic experiments with adult cattle. Ann R Agric Coll Sweden 16:404–419

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baker SK (1995) Method of improving utilization of nutrients by ruminants or ruminant like animals, International patent WO9511041.USA

  • Baker SK, Gnanasampanthan G, Purser DB, Hoskinson RM (1997) Immunogenic preparation and method for improving the productivity of ruminant animals. Patent Application. International publication number WO 97/00086

  • Baldwin RL (1995) Modeling ruminant digestion and metabolism. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchemin KA, McGinn SM (2005) Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barley or corn diets. J Anim Sci 83:653–661

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchemin KA, McGinn SM (2006) Methane emissions from beef cattle: effects of fumaric acid, essential oil, and canola oil. J Anim Sci 84:1489–1496

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beever DE, Thomson DJ, Ulyatt MJ, Camell SB, Spooner MC (1985) The digestion of fresh perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. cv.Melle) and white clover (Trifolium repens L. cv. Blanca) by growing cattle fed indoors. Br J Nutr 54:763–775

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Benchaar C, Rivest J, Pomar C, Chiquette J (1998) Prediction of methane production from dairy cows using existing mechanistic models and regression equations. J Anim Sci 76:617–627

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blaxter KL, Clapperton JL (1965) Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. Br J Nutr 19:511–522

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boadi D, Benchaar C, Chiquette J, Massé D (2004a) Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: update review. Can J Anim Sci 319-335

  • Boadi D, Wittenburg KM, Scott SL, Burton D, Buckley K, Small JA, Ominski KH (2004b) Effect of low and high forage diets on enteric and manure pack GHG emissions from a feedlot. Can J Anim Sci 84:445

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman RL, Croucher JC, Picard MT (1992) Assessment of the prefeasibility of strategic supplementation as an opportunity for reducing methane emissions in Gujarat, India, A. T., International, prepared for the Glogal change Division, U.S. Environmental protection agency, Washington DC.

  • Bratzler JW, Forbes EB (1940) The estimation of methane production by cattle. J Nutr 19(6):611–613

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Breas O, Guillou C, Reniero F, Wada E (2001) The global methane cycle: isotopes and mixing ratios, sources and sinks. Isot Environ Health Stud 37(4):257–379

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bright KP, Sherlock RA, Lile J, Wastney ME (2000) Development and use of a whole farm model for dairying, applied complexity: from neural nets to managed landscapes. NZ Institute for Crop and Food Research, Christchurch, pp 382–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Busquet M, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, Kamel C (2006) Plant extracts affect in vitro rumen microbial fermentation. J Dairy Sci 89:761–771

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Calsamiglia S, Busquet M, Cardozo PW, Castillejos L, Ferret A (2007) Invited review: essential oils as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation. J Dairy Sci 90:2580–2595

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Castillejos L, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A (2006) Effect of essential oils active compounds on rumen microbial fermentation and nutrient flow in in vitro systems. J Dairy Sci 89:2649–2658

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chhabra A, Manjunath KR, Panigrahy S, Parihar JS (2009) Spatial pattern of methane emissions from Indian livestock. Curr Sci 96(5):683–689

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chianese DS, Rotz CA, Richard TL (2009) Whole-farm GHG emissions: a review with application to a pennsylvania dairy farm. Appl Eng Agric 25(3):431–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Christophersen CT, Wright ADG, Vercoe PE (2008) In vitro methane emission and acetate:propionate ratio are decreased when artificial stimulation of the rumen wall is combined with increasing grain diets in sheep. J Anim Sci 86:384–389

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DeRamus HA, Clement TC, Giampola DD, Dickison PC (2003) Methane emissions of beef cattle on forages: efficiency of grazing management systems. J Environ Qual 32:269–277

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra J, Neal HD, Beever DE, France J (1992) Simulation of nutrient digestion, absorption and outflow in the rumen: model description. J Nutr 122:2239–2256

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Doreau M, Ferlay A (1995) Effect of dietary lipids on nitrogen metabolism in the rumen: a review. Livest Prod Sci 43:97–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis JL, Kebreab E, Odongo NE, McBride BW, Okine EK, France J (2007) Prediction of methane production from dairy and beef cattle. J Dairy Sci 90:3456–3467

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis JL, Bannink A, France J, Kebreabz E, Dijkstra J (2010) Evaluation of enteric methane prediction equations for dairy cows used in whole farm models. Glob Chang Biol. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02188.x

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1999) Livestock manure management - U.S. Methane emissions 1990-2020: inventories, projections, and opportunities for reductions. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, pp 5–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Erfle JD, Boila RJ, Teather RM, Mahadevan S, Sauer FD (1982) Effect of pH on fermentation and protein degradation by rumen microorganism in vitro. J Dairy Sci 65:1457–1464

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eshel G, Martin PA (2006) Diet, energy and global warming. Earth Interact 10:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2006) Livestock a major threat to the environment: remedies urgently needed. Available: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 2008 [accessed 24 March 2008]. FAOSTAT

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2009) Submission to UNFCCC AWG LCA, enabling agriculture to contribute to climate change (available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/smsn/igo/036.pdf)

  • Flesch TK, Wilson JD, Harper LA, Crenna BP, Sharpe RR (2004) Deducing ground-to-air emissions from observed trace gas concentrations: a field trial. J Appl Meteorol 43:487–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley PA, Kenny DA, Callan JJ, Boland TM, O’Mara FP (2009) Effect of DL-malic acid supplementation on feed intake, methane emission, and rumen fermentation in beef cattle. J Anim Sci 87:1048–1057

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga GMS, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon S et al (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Apaza E, Paza ABO, Aranaa I (2008) GHG emissions from enteric fermentation of livestock in Bolivia: values for 1990–2000 and future projections. Aust J Exp Agric 4:255–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnett T (2007) Meat & Dairy Production and Consumption. Exploring the livestock sector’s contribution to the UK’s GHG emissions and assessing what a less GHG-intensive system of production and consumption might look like. Draft working paper, Food Climate Research Network, University of Surrey

  • Giger-Reverdin S, Vermorel M, Sauvant D (1992) Factors of variation of methane energy-loss in ruminants given compound feeds. Ann Zootech 41:37–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleik PH, Adams RM, Amasino RM et al (2010) Climate change and the integrity of science. Science 328:689–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold M, Porritt J (2004) The global benefits of eating less meat. A report for compassion in world farming trust. Navodanya, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Grainger C, Clarke T, McGinn SM, Auldist MJ, Beauchemin KA, Hannah MC, Waghorn GC, Clark H, Eckard RJ (2007) Methane Emissions from dairy cows measured using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) Tracer and chamber techniques. J Dairy Sci 90:2755–2766

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gworgwor ZA, Mbahi TF, Yakubu B (2006) Environmental implications of methane production by ruminants: a review. J Sustain Dev Agric Environ 2(1):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper LA, Denmead OT, Freney JR, Byers FM (1999) Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 77:1392–1401

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty RS (1999) Reducing rumen methane emissions through elimination of rumen protozoa. Aust J Agric Res 50:1321–1327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty RS (2001) Strategies for mitigating methane emissions from livestock- Australian options and opportunities. In Proc. 1st International Conference on GHGes and Animal Agriculture. Obihiro, Hokkaido, Japan, pp 31–34

  • Hegarty RS (2002) Strategies for mitigating methane emissions from livestock – Australian options and opportunities. In: Takahashi J, Young BA (eds) GHGes and animal agriculture. Elsevier, Dordrecht

  • Hegarty RS, Goopy JP, Herd RM, McCorkell B (2007) Cattle selected for lower residual feed intake have reduced daily methane production. J Anim Sci 85:1479–1486

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hristov AN, Ivan M, Rode LM, McAllister TA (2001) Fermentation characteristics and ruminal ciliate protozoal populations in cattle fed medium- or high-concentrate barley-based diets. J Anim Sci 79:515–524

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (1997) Guidelines for national GHG inventories: workbook and reference manual. Agriculture (Chapter 4) and Waste (Chapter 6). OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Intergovernment panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories. IGES, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan. http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) Climate Change: Synthesis Report; Summary for Policymakers. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

  • Jentsch W, Schweigel M, Weissbach F, Scholze H, Pitroff W, Derno M (2007) Methane production in cattle calculated by the nutrient composition of the diet. Arch Anim Nutr 61(1):10–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Joblin KN (1999) Ruminal acetogens and their potential to lower ruminant methane emissions. Aust J Agric Res 50:1307–1313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DE, Ward GW, Ramsey JJ (1996) Livestock methane: current emissions and mitigation potential. Lewis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DE, Phetteplace HW, Seidl AF (2002) Methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions from ruminant livestock production systems. In: Takahashi J, Young BA (eds) GHGes and animal agriculture. Proceeding of the 1st international conference on GHGes and animal agriculture, Obihiro, Japan, November 2001, pp 77-85

  • Johnson KA, Johnson DE (1995) Methane emissions from cattle. J Anim Sci 73:2483–2492

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson KA, Huyler MT, Westberg HH, Lamb BK, Zimmerman P (1994) Measurement of methane emissions from ruminant livestock using a SF6 technique. Environ Sci Technol 28:359–362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan E, Lovett DK, Hawkins M, O’Mara FP (2004) The effect of varying levels of coconut oil on methane output from continental cross beef heifers. In: Proceeding of GHG emissions from agriculture – mitigation options and strategies. Leipzig, Germany

  • Kebreab E, Mills JAN, Crompton LA, Bannink A, Dijkstra J, Gerrits WJJ, France J (2004) An integrated mathematical model to evaluate nutrient partition in dairy cattle between animal and environment. Anim Feed Sci Technol 112:131–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kebreab E, Clarke K, Wagner-Riddle C, France J (2006) Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from Canadian animal agriculture – a review. Can J Anim Sci 86:135–158

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kebreab E, Johnson KA, Archibeque SL, Pape D, Wirth T (2008) Model for estimating enteric methane emissions from United States dairy and feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 86:2738–2748

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchgessner M, Windisch W, Muller HL (1995). Nutritional factors for the quantification of methane production. In: Von Engelhardt W, Leonhard-Marek S, Breves G, Giesecke D (eds) Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction proceedings of the eigth international symposium on ruminant physiology. Stuttgart Ferdinand Enke, pp 333-348

  • Kirchgessner M, Windisch HJ, Muller HL, Kreuzer M (1991) Release of methane and of carbon-dioxide by dairy-cattle. Agribiol Res Agrarbiol Agrik Okol 44:91–102

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kriss M (1930) Quantitative relations of the dry matter of the food consumed, the heat production, the gaseous outgo and the insensible loss in body weight of cattle. J Agric Res 40:283–295

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kumaraswamy S, Rath AK, Ramakrishnan B, Sethunathan N (2000) Wetland rice soils as sources and sinks of methane: a review and prospects for research. Biol Fertil Soils 31:449–461

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lana RP, Russell JB, Van Amburgh ME (1998) The role of pH in regulating ruminal methane and ammonia production. J Anim Sci 76:2190–2196

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lassey KR (2007) Livestock methane emission: from the individual grazing animal through national inventories to the global methane cycle. Agric For Meteorol 142:120–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassey KR (2008) Livestock methane emission and its perspective in the global methane cycle. Aust J Exp Agric 48:114–118

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lassey KR, Ulyatt MJ, Martin JR, Walker CF, Shelton DI (1997) Methane emissions measured directly from grazing livestock in New Zealand. Atmos Environ 31:2905–2914

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laubach J, Kelliher FM (2004) Measuring methane emission rates of a dairy cow herd by two micrometeorological techniques. Agric For Meteorol 125:279–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leng RA (1991) Improving ruminant production and reducing methane emissions from ruminants by strategic supplementation, United States environmental protection agency, office of air and radiation, Washington DC

  • Leng RA (1993) Quantative ruminant nutrition- a green house science. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 44:363–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuning R, Baker SK, Jamie IM, Hsu CH, Klein L, Denmead OT, Griffith DWT (1999) Methane emission from free-ranging sheep: a comparison of two measurement methods. Atmos Environ 33:1357–1365

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett DK, Stack LJ, Lovell S, Callan J, Flynn B, Hawkins M, O’Mara FP (2005) Manipulating enteric methane emissions and animal performance of late-lactation dairy cows through concentrate supplementation at pasture. J Dairy Sci 88:2836–2842

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Machmuller A, Ossowski DA, Wanner M, Kreuzer M (1998) Potential of various fatty feeds to reduce methane release from rumen fermentation in vitro (Rusitec). Anim Feed Sci Technol 77:117–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin C, Rouel J, Jouany JP, Doreau M, Chilliard Y (2008) Methane output and diet digestibility in response to feeding dairy cows crude linseed, extruded linseed, or linseed oil. J Anim Sci 86:2642–2650

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin SA, Streeter MN (1995) Effect of malate on in vitro mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation. J Anim Sci 73:2141–2145

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mathison G (1997) Effect of canola oil on methane production in steers. Can J Anim Sci 77:545–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathison GW, Okine EK, McAllister TA, Dong Y, Galbraith J, Dmytruk OIN (1998) Reducing methane emission from ruminant animals. J Appl Anim Res 14:1–28

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J (1992) Beyond the limits. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrabb GJ, Berger KT, Magner T, May C, Hunte RA (1997) Inhibiting methane production in Brahman cattle by dietary supplementation with a novel compound and the effects on growth. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 48:323–329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McGinn SM, Beauchemin KA, Coates T, Colombatto D (2004) Methane emissions from beef cattle: effects of monensin, sunflower oil, enzymes, yeast, and fumaric acid. J Anim Sci 82:3346–3356

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McGinn SM, Flesch TK, Harper LA, Beauchemin KA (2006) An approach for measuring methane emissions from whole farms. J Environ Qual 35:14–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McGinn SM, Beauchemin KA, Flesch TK, Coates T (2009) Performance of a dispersion model to estimate methane loss from cattle in pens. J Environ Qual 38:1796–1802

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael AJ, Powles JW, Butler CD, Uauy R (2007) Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet 370(9594):1253–1263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills JAN, Kebreab E, Yates CM, Crompton LA, Cammell SB, Dhanoa MS, Agnew RE, France J (2003) Alternative approaches to predicting methane emissions from dairy cows. J Anim Sci 81:3141–3150

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moe PW, Tyrrell HF (1979) Methane production in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 62:1583–1586

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mosier A, Wassmann R, Verchot L, King J, Palm C (2004) Methane and nitrogen oxide fluxes in tropical agricultural soils: sources, sinks and mechanisms. Environ Dev Sustain 6:11–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss AR, Givens DI, Garnsworthy PC (1995) The effect of supplementing grass silage with barley on digestibility, in sacco degradability, rumen fermentation and methane production in sheep at two levels of intake. Anim Feed Sci Technol 55:9–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss AR, Jounany JP, Neevbold J (2000) Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Ann Zootech 49:231–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nagaraja TG, Newbold CJ, Van Nevel CJ, Demeyer DI (1997) Manipulation of rumen fermentation. In: Hobson PN, Stewart CS (eds) The rumen microbial ecosystem. Blackie, London, pp 523–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Neil PG, Bright KP, Sherlock RA (1997) Integrating legacy subsystem components into an object-oriented model, MODSIM 97 – Proceedings of the international conference on modelling and simulation, modelling and simulation society of Australia. Hobart, AU, pp 1133-1138

  • Newbold CJ, Ouda JO, Lopez S, Nelson N, Omed H, Wallace RJ, Moss AR (2002) Propionate precursors as possible alternative electron acceptors to menthane in ruminal fermentation. In: Takahashi J, Young BA (eds) GHGes and animal agriculture. Proceeding of the 1st international conference on GHGes and animal agriculture. Obihiro, Japan, November 2001, pp 151-154

  • NRC (National Research Council) (2001) Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th edn. National Academies Press, Washington DC

  • Ogino A, Orito H, Shimada K, Hirooka H (2007) Evaluating environmental impacts of the Japanese beef cow-calf system by the life cycle assessment method. Anim Sci J 78(4):424–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mara F (2004) GHG production from dairying: reducing methane production. Adv Dairy Technol 16:295–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Palliser CC, Woodward SL (2002) Using models to predict methane reduction in pasture fed dairy cows. Proceedings Integrating Management and Decision Support. Coordinated by Susan M. Cuddy CSIRO, Australia, Part 1, vol. 482, pp 162–167

  • Pinares-Patiño CS, Hour PD, Jouany JP, Martin C (2007) Effects of stocking rate on methane and carbon dioxide emissions from grazing cattle. Agric Ecosyst Environ 121:30–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinares-Patiño CS, Machmüller A, Molano G, Smith A, Vlaming JB, Clark H (2008) The SF6 tracer technique for measurements of methane emission from cattle–Effects of tracer permeation rate. Can J Anim Sci 88:309–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Puchala R, Min BR, Goetsch AL, Sahlu T (2005) The effect of a condensed tannin-containing forage on methane emission by goats. J Anim Sci 83:182–186

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson LJ, Waghorn GC (2002) Dairy industry perspectives on methane emissions and production from cattle fed pasture or total mixed rations in New Zealand. Proc NZ Soc Anim Prod 62:213–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotz CA, Corson MS, Coiner CU (2007) Integrated farm system model: reference manual. Pasture systems and watershed management research unit, USDA agricultural research service: University Park, PA. Available at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.html?docid=8519.

  • Rotz CA, Corson MS, Chianese DS, Coiner CU (2009) The integrated farm system model: reference manual. University Park, Pa: USDA-ARS Pasture Systems and Watershed Management research unit: www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/19020000/ifsmreference

  • Rotz CA, Montes F, Chianese DS (2010) The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment. J Dairy Sci 93(3):1266–1282

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ruddiman WF (2003) The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61:261–293

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saa CF, Hill TM, Johnson DE (1993) Persistance of methane suppression by ionophore and glycopeptide in steers fed a brome hay diet. CSU Beef Programe Report

  • Sherlock RA, Bright KP (1999) An object-oriented framework for farm system simulation, MODSIM 99 – Proceedings of the international conference on modelling and simulation, modelling and simulation society of Australia and New Zealand, Hamilton, NZ, pp 783-788

  • Sherlock RA, Bright KP, Neil PG (1997) An object-oriented simulation model of a complete pastoral dairy farm, MODSIM 97 – Proceedings of the international conference on modelling and simulation, modelling andsimulation society of Australia, Hobart, AU, pp 1154-1159

  • Shu Q, Gill HS, Hennessy DW, Leng RA, Bird SH, Rowe JB (1999) Immunisation against lactic acidosis in cattle. Res Vet Sci 67:65–71

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C (2006a) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C (2006b) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamminga S (1996) Areview on environmental impacts of nutritional strategies in ruminants. J Anim Sci 74:3112–3124

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tedeschi LO, Fox DG, Tylutki TP (2003) Potential environmental benefits of ionophores in ruminant diets. J Environ Qual 32:1591–1602

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ulyatt MJ, Lassey KR (2001) Methane emissions from pastoral systems: the situation in New Zealand. Arch Latinoam Prod Anim 9(1):118–126

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (1998) Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. United Nations, pp 1-20

  • USEPA (1993) Anthropogenic methane emissions in the United States. Estimates for 1990: report to congress. Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Air and Radiation, US, Washington, DC

  • USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1994) International anthropogenic methane emissions: estimates for 1990, Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, Washington, D.C., EPA 230-R-93-010.94

  • Waghorn GC, Tavendale MH, Woodfield DR (2002) Methanogenesis from forages fed to sheep. Proc NZ Grassl Assoc 64:167–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenk C (2003) Herbs and botanicals as feed additives in monogastric animals. Asian Austral J Anim Sci 16:282–289

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (World Health Organization) (2009) Department of health statistics and health information systems, world health statistics, 2009

  • Wuebbles DJ, Hayhoe K (2002) Atmospheric methane and global change. Earth Sci Rev 57:117–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan T, Agnew RE, Gordon FJ, Porter MG (2000) Prediction of methane energy output in dairy and beef cattle offered grass silage based diets. Livest Prod Sci 64:253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan T, Mayne S, Porter MG (2006) Effects of dietary and animal factors on methane production in dairy cows offered grass silage-based diets. Int Congr Ser 1293:123–126

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang SS, Liu CM, Liu YL (2003) Estimation of methane and nitrous oxide emission from animal production sector in Taiwan during 1990–2000. Chemosphere 52:1381–1388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yates CM, Cammell SB, France J, Beever DE (2000) Prediction of methane emissions from dairy cows using multiple regression analysis. Proc Br Soc Anim Sci 2000:94

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon IK, Stern MD (1995) Influence of direct-fed microbials on ruminal fermentation and performance of ruminants: a review. Asian Austral J Anim Sci 8:533–555

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Veerasamy Sejian

    Present address: Carbon Management and Sequestration Centre, School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adaptation Physiology Laboratory, Division of Physiology & Biochemistry, Central Sheep & Wool Research Insitute, Avikanagar, Via-Jaipur, Rajasthan, 304501, India

    Veerasamy Sejian

  2. Carbon Management and Sequestration Centre, School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Rattan Lal

  3. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Jeffrey Lakritz

  4. Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University & OARDC, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA

    Thaddeus Ezeji

Authors
  1. Veerasamy Sejian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rattan Lal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey Lakritz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thaddeus Ezeji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veerasamy Sejian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sejian, V., Lal, R., Lakritz, J. et al. Measurement and prediction of enteric methane emission. Int J Biometeorol 55, 1–16 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-010-0356-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-010-0356-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation