Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 8567486

Methane emissions from cattle.

Abstract

Increasing atmospheric concentrations of methane have led scientists to examine its sources of origin. Ruminant livestock can produce 250 to 500 L of methane per day. This level of production results in estimates of the contribution by cattle to global warming that may occur in the next 50 to 100 yr to be a little less than 2%. Many factors influence methane emissions from cattle and include the following: level of feed intake, type of carbohydrate in the diet, feed processing, addition of lipids or ionophores to the diet, and alterations in the ruminal microflora. Manipulation of these factors can reduce methane emissions from cattle. Many techniques exist to quantify methane emissions from individual or groups of animals. Enclosure techniques are precise but require trained animals and may limit animal movement. Isotopic and nonisotopic tracer techniques may also be used effectively. Prediction equations based on fermentation balance or feed characteristics have been used to estimate methane production. These equations are useful, but the assumptions and conditions that must be met for each equation limit their ability to accurately predict methane production. Methane production from groups of animals can be measured by mass balance, micrometeorological, or tracer methods. These techniques can measure methane emissions from animals in either indoor or outdoor enclosures. Use of these techniques and knowledge of the factors that impact methane production can result in the development of mitigation strategies to reduce methane losses by cattle. Implementation of these strategies should result in enhanced animal productivity and decreased contributions by cattle to the atmospheric methane budget.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K A Johnson, D E Johnson. 1995. Methane emissions from cattle.. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7382483x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assay and purity control of tetracycline, chlortetracycline and oxytetracycline in animal feeds and premixes by TLC densitometry with fluorescence detection.

Methods using TLC densitometry with fluorescence detection are described for the assay and purity control of tetracycline (TC), chlortetracycline (CTC), and oxytetracycline (OTC) in animal feeds and premixes. With a silica gel layer previously sprayed with 10% (m/v) sodium EDTA solution adjusted to pH 8.0 or 9.0, all the major impurities were separated from the main components and from each other. The mobile phase consisted of dichloromethane, methanol, and water. After development, the plate was dipped in a 30% (v/v) solution of liquid paraffin in hexane. Quantitation was realized by fluorescence densitometry at 400 nm. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for tetracycline impurities is 0.8 microg/g, corresponding to 0.2% of the label claimed tetracycline (400 microg/g). The LOQ for impurities of tetracycline and chlortetracycline in premixes is 0.2% of the label-claimed TC (40 mg/g) and CTC (200 or 400 mg/g). The LOQ for impurities of oxytetracycline in a premix is 0.1% of the label claimed OTC (100 mg/g).

Animal Feed↗

Rapid pesticide analysis, in post-harvest plants used as animal feed, by low-pressure gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

A wide range of pesticides used to control pests in vegetables have been determined in agricultural plant waste from beans, watermelons, and melons grown in greenhouses located in a predominantly agricultural area in Southeast Spain (Almería). Analysis of the pesticides was carried out by low-pressure gas chromatography (LP-GC) with mass spectrometry in tandem (MS-MS) mode, after extraction of the lyophilized samples with dichloromethane. The influence of the sample matrix on the analysis was avoided by use of matrix-matched standards. Linearity, detection limit ( LOD), quantitation limit ( LOQ), recovery, and precision for each pesticide were calculated. The most frequently encountered pesticides were endosulfan (>73% of the analyzed samples) and buprofezin (>55% of the samples), followed by cypermethrin, pirimifos-methyl, bifentrin, and chlorpyrifos (>30% of the samples). The pesticide found at the highest concentration level was endosulfan (223.33 mg kg(-1)) in a watermelon sample.

Animal Feed↗

Feedstuffs as a vehicle of cattle exposure to Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica.

Feed has been reported as a vehicle for transmission of Salmonella enterica in cattle and several lines of evidence suggest that feed can be a vehicle for transmitting Escherichia coli O157:H7 as well. To show whether microbial contamination of feeds could contribute to the populations of S. enterica and E. coli O157:H7 on a farm, we compared isolates from feed samples to bovine fecal isolates from the same farm using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Four of 2365 component feed samples (0.2%) and 1 of 226 feed mill samples (0.4%) were positive for E. coli O157:H7. Twenty of 2405 (0.8%) component feed samples and none of 226 feed mill samples were positive for Salmonella. PFGE profiles from E. coli O157:H7 isolated from a component feed sample closely resembled that from a fecal isolate collected later from the same farm, and a similar observation was made of a Salmonella Tyhpimurium isolate from component feed on another farm. There were indistinguishable PFGE profiles from component feed Salmonella Tyhpimurium DT104 isolates and fecal isolates from the same farm. These results provide evidence for a role of cattle feed in transmission of E. coli O157:H7; S. enterica; cattle-bacteria.

Animal Feed↗