Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Oct 21;9(10):837.
doi: 10.3390/ani9100837.

Comparison of Methods to Measure Methane for Use in Genetic Evaluation of Dairy Cattle

Affiliations

Comparison of Methods to Measure Methane for Use in Genetic Evaluation of Dairy Cattle

Philip C Garnsworthy et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

Partners in Expert Working Group WG2 of the COST Action METHAGENE have used several methods for measuring methane output by individual dairy cattle under various environmental conditions. Methods included respiration chambers, the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique, breath sampling during milking or feeding, the GreenFeed system, and the laser methane detector. The aim of the current study was to review and compare the suitability of methods for large-scale measurements of methane output by individual animals, which may be combined with other databases for genetic evaluations. Accuracy, precision and correlation between methods were assessed. Accuracy and precision are important, but data from different sources can be weighted or adjusted when combined if they are suitably correlated with the 'true' value. All methods showed high correlations with respiration chambers. Comparisons among alternative methods generally had lower correlations than comparisons with respiration chambers, despite higher numbers of animals and in most cases simultaneous repeated measures per cow per method. Lower correlations could be due to increased variability and imprecision of alternative methods, or maybe different aspects of methane emission are captured using different methods. Results confirm that there is sufficient correlation between methods for measurements from all methods to be combined for international genetic studies and provide a much-needed framework for comparing genetic correlations between methods should these become available.

Keywords: dairy cows; environment; genetic evaluation; greenhouse gases; methane.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

    1. Myhre G., Shindell D., Bréon F., Collins W., Fuglestvedt J., Huang J., Koch D., Lamarque J., Lee D., Mendoza B., et al. In: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. Stocker T.F., Qin D., Plattner G.-K., Tignor M., Allen S.K., Boschung J., Nauels A., Xia Y., Bex V., Midgley P.M., editors. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: New York, NY, USA: 2013.
    1. Knapp J.R., Laur G.L., Vadas P.A., Weiss W.P., Tricarico J.M. Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. J. Dairy Sci. 2014;97:3231–3261. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-7234. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Janssen P.H. Influence of hydrogen on rumen methane formation and fermentation balances through microbial growth kinetics and fermentation thermodynamics. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2010;160:1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.07.002. - DOI
    1. Beauchemin K.A., Kreuzer M., O’Mara F., McAllister T.A. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008;48:21–27. doi: 10.1071/EA07199. - DOI
    1. Cottle D.J., Nolan J.V., Wiedemann S.G. Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: A review. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2011;51:491–514. doi: 10.1071/AN10163. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources