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
. 2024 Jan 1:102:skae032.
doi: 10.1093/jas/skae032.

Nitrogen and energy utilization and methane emissions of sheep grazing on annual pasture vs. native pasture

Kaili Xie  1 , Fuyao Liu  1 , Cheng Zhang  1 , Fujiang Hou  1
Affiliations

Nitrogen and energy utilization and methane emissions of sheep grazing on annual pasture vs. native pasture

Kaili Xie et al. J Anim Sci. .

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences in annual pasture and native pasture on dry matter (DM) intake, nutrient digestibility, nitrogen (N) and energy utilization, and methane (CH4) emission of grazing sheep, and to provide the basis for rational livestock grazing in salinized regions. The study used 10 male Hu sheep ♀ × thin-tailed Han sheep ♂ rams (20 ± 5 kg) aged 5 mo. Sheep grazing was conducted in annual pasture and native pasture using a 2 × 2 Latin square design. After a 15-d adaptation period for grazing, the digestion and metabolism experiment of sheep were conducted, while CH4 emissions were measured using sulfur hexafluoride tracer gas. DM intake did not differ between annual pasture and native pasture (P = 0.386). Meanwhile, the digestibility of DM (P < 0.001), neutral detergent fiber (P < 0.001), acid detergent fiber (P < 0.01), crude protein (P < 0.001), and ether extract (P < 0.001) of sheep grazing on native pasture was significantly higher than that of annual pasture. Sheep grazing on native pasture had increased N intake (P < 0.001) and N retained (P < 0.001) compared with those grazing on annual pasture. Digestion energy (P < 0.05) and metabolic energy (P < 0.01) of sheep grazing on annual pasture were significantly improved compared with those on native pasture, while fecal energy (P < 0.001), urine energy (P < 0.001) and CH4 energy (CH4-E) output (P < 0.001) and CH4 emission (P < 0.001) of sheep grazing on annual pasture were significantly decreased. The CH4-E/gross energy (GE) values of sheep grazing on annual pasture and native pasture were 0.09 and 0.10, respectively. In conclusion, grazing sheep have higher N utilization on native pasture, whereas grazing sheep have higher energy utilization and low CH4 emissions in annual pasture. In conclusion, annual pasture has a lower CH4-E/GE compared to native pasture, which helps in reducing environmental pollution.

Keywords: SF6; forage; relationship; salinized meadow; sown pasture.

Plain language summary

The reduction of methane (CH4) emissions and nitrogen (N) excretion from livestock production systems can help mitigate environmental impact and improve feeding efficiency. The energy requirements of livestock are crucial for enhancing their performance and minimizing environmental impact. It is imperative to accurately ascertain the N and energy efficiency, and CH4 emissions associated with sheep grazing across diverse grassland ecosystems to optimize forage resource utilization without compromising livestock production performance, thereby facilitating sustainable grassland management and grazing practices. Sheep grazing on native pasture had higher nutrient digestibility and N utilization, while sheep grazing on annual pasture showed higher energy utilization and less CH4 emissions. CH4-energy/gross energy for grazing sheep on annual pasture and native pasture was 0.09 and 0.10, respectively. This study assessed the differences in N and energy utilization and CH4 emissions, among sheep grazing on different grasses, providing data support for the development of more rational livestock grazing methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Sketch diagram of the correlation hip between forage quality, forage diversity, and methane (CH4) emissions and annual pasture and native pasture.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Forage of composition of native pasture graze by sheep
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Relationship between nitrogen intake/gross energy per hectare and nitrogen utilization parameters, energy parameters and methane emissions of grazing sheep (n = 20). The gray words in the figure indicate that there is no significant difference between the two types of pasture (P > 0.05). while the black type indicates a significant difference (P < 0.01).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Adesogan, A., K. Arriola, Y. Jiang, A. Oyebade, E. Paula, A. Pech-Cervantes, J. Romero, and D. Vyas. 2019. Symposium review: technologies for improving fiber utilization. J. Dairy Sci. 102:5726–5755. doi:10.3168/jds.2018-15334 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alvarado-Bolovich, V., J. Medrano, J. Haro, J. Castro-Montoya., U. Dickhoefer, and C. Gómez. 2021. Enteric methane emissions from lactating dairy cows grazing cultivated and native pastures in the high Andes of Peru. Livest. Sci. 243:104385. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104385 - DOI
    1. AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. Arlington (VA): Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem.
    1. AOAC. 2005. Official methods of analysis. 18th ed. Gaithersburg (USA): Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
    1. Bhatt, A., and B. Abbassi. 2021. Review of environmental performance of sheep farming using life cycle assessment. J. Clean Prod. 293:126192. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126192 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources