Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock manure (cattle) in different feeding formulas, methods and practices
Paper Details
Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock manure (cattle) in different feeding formulas, methods and practices
Abstract
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) reported that the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions with 18% of the total CO2 emissions, 3% higher than the transport sector with 15%. Thus, urgent action is needed to mitigate the emission of greenhouse gasses from livestock. The study used twenty-four (24) heads of cattle (eight natives, eight crossbreeds, and eight Brahman). These test animals were distributed in the four experimental treatments: treatment 1- commercial feeding practices, treatment 2- good agricultural practices, treatment 3- conventional feeding practices, and treatment 4- organic agricultural practices. The result shows that conventional feeding practice had the lowest greenhouse gas emission with an average emission of 1,996.37 L, while good agricultural practice is the highest (3,614, 59 L) and is a significant difference among treatment means (p = >0.05). With regards to the breeds of cattle, crossbreeds had the lowest greenhouse gas emissions (2,030.87 L) while Brahman was the highest (3,312.42 L) with no significant difference (p = >0.05). Moreover, gas chromatography analysis shows methane had the highest percent emission (52-72%), followed by carbon dioxide (16.33-18.33%) and other gasses (11-22%). The findings revealed that feeding practices affect the emission and composition of greenhouse gasses in cattle manure.
Rosegrant M, Ringler C, Zhu SMT, Sulser T, Valmonte-Santos R, Wood S. 2007. Agriculture and food security in Asia: the role of agricultural research and knowledge in a changing environment.
Aydinalp C, Cresser MS. 2008. The effects of global climate change on agriculture. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences 3(5), 672-676.
Anita W, Dominic M, Neil A. 2010. Climate change and agriculture impacts, adaptation and Mitigation: Impacts, adaptation and Mitigation. OECD publishing.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2015. Climate change and food systems: global assessments and implications for food security and trade. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org.
Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar TD, Castel V, Rosales M, Rosales M, de Haan C. 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food & Agriculture Org.
Huhtanen P, Cabezas-Garcia EH, Utsumi S, Zimmerman S. 2015. Comparison of methods to determine methane emissions from dairy cows in farm conditions. Journal of dairy science 98(5), 3394-3409.
Smith DW. 2014. Contribution of greenhouse gas emissions: animal agriculture in perspective. Animal agriculture & climate change. Department of Biological & Agricultural Engineering, Texas A & M University.
Beauchemin KA, Janzen HH, Little SM, McAllister TA, McGinn SM. 2010. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada: A case study. Agricultural Systems 103(6), 371-379.
Merilo MGAD. 2001. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Strategies: The Philippine Experience. In Workshop on good practices in policies and measures 8, p. 10.
Ilea RC. 2009. Intensive livestock farming: Global trends, increased environmental concerns, and ethical solutions. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics 22(2), 153-167.
Hammond KJ, Jones AK, Humphries DJ, Crompton LA, Reynolds CK. 2016. Effects of diet forage source and neutral detergent fiber content on milk production of dairy cattle and methane emissions determined using GreenFeed and respiration chamber techniques. Journal of Dairy Science 99(10), 7904-7917.
Mills JAN, Kebreab E, Yates CM, Crompton LA, Cammell SB, Dhanoa MS, France J. 2003. Alternative approaches to predicting methane emissions from dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 81(12), 3141-3150.
Bell MJ, Eckard RJ. 2012. Reducing enteric methane losses from ruminant livestock- Its measurement, prediction and the influence of diet. In Tech Publishing: Rijeka, Croatia 135-150.
Eckert M, Bell M, Potterton S, Craigon J, Saunders N, Wilcox R, Garnsworthy P. 2018. Effect of feeding system on enteric methane emissions from individual dairy cows on commercial farms. Land 7(1), 26.
Jouany JP, Papon Y, Morgavi DP, Doreau M, Champanelle F. 2008. Linseed oil and a combination of sunflower oil and malic acid decrease rumen methane emissions in vitro. Livestock and Global Climate Change 140.
Warnecke S, Schulz F, Paulsen HM, Rahmann G. 2014. Differences in feeding practices on organic and conventional dairy farms-data from a farm network. Building Organic Bridges 2, 343-346.
Olijhoek DW, Løvendahl P, Lassen J, Hellwing ALF, Höglund JK, Weisbjerg MR, Lund P. 2018. Methane production, rumen fermentation, and diet digestibility of Holstein and Jersey dairy cows being divergent in residual feed intake and fed at 2 forage-to-concentrate ratios. Journal of Dairy Science 101(11), 9926-9940.
Shike DW. 2013. Beef Cattle Feed Efficiency, presented at the driftless region beef conference retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu.
Yan T, Mayne CS, Gordon FG, Porter MG, Agnew RE, Patterson DC, Kilpatrick DJ. 2010. Mitigation of enteric methane emissions through improving efficiency of energy utilization and productivity in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93(6), 2630-2638.
Nkrumah JD, Okine EK, Mathison GW, Schmid K, Li C, Basarab JA, Moore SS. 2006. Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. Journal of animal science 84(1), 145-153.
De Haas Y, Windig JJ, Calus MPL, Dijkstra J, De Haan M, Bannink A, Veerkamp RF. 2011. Genetic parameters for predicted methane production and potential for reducing enteric emissions through genomic selection. Journal of dairy science, 94(12), 6122-6134.
Tomas M. Austral Jr., Joey Arles O. Vergara, Lutess P. Canizares-Gallardo, 2023. Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock manure (cattle) in different feeding formulas, methods and practices. J. Biodiv. Environ. Sci., 22(1), 7-15.
Copyright © 2023 by the Authors. This article is an open access article and distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) license.