Determination of Enteric Methane Emissions from Cattle Production by Using Tier-2 Method

Year 2021, Volume: 15 Issue: 43, 1 - 9, 23.09.2021

Büşra Yaylı , İlker Kılıç

Abstract

Livestock farms are known to be important greenhouse gas producers. Especially in the agriculture sector, the most important source of anthropogenic methane (CH4) emission is ruminant animals. In recent studies of dairy cattle, it is noted that most of the formation of CH4 gas occurs as a result of enteric fermentation. In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the CH4 emissions resulting from enteric fermentation of cattle during the 2004-2020 period in Turkey. The Tier-2 method adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was used adopted for data generation and calculation of emission factors for the calculation of CH4 emissions for enteric fermentation in cattle. Based on the study results, the required gross energy (GE) value and enteric fermentation emission factors (EF) were calculated according to cattle sub-categories. It has been observed that methane gas emission from cattle as a result of enteric fermentation has followed a fluctuating course in the last 16 years in Turkey. Methane emissions of 541 kT to 907 kT CH4 gas emissions were calculated. Methane emission can be suppressed by changes made in feed rations, added oil and various additives to reduce methane emissions in the rumen. In addition, breeding high yielding species with low methane production is one of the strategies that can reduce methane formation.

Keywords

Emissions , Enteric fermentation , IPCC , Methane

References

• Akçil E, and Denek N (2013). Investigation of Different Levels Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) Leaves Effect on In Vitro Methane Production of Some Roughages. Harran University Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, 2(2): 75-81.
• Anonymous (2018). Büyükbaş Hayvancılık Sektörü. https://ekonomi.isbank.com.tr/contentmanagement/Documents/ tr11_sektor_rap/sr201804_buyukbashayvanciligi.pdf (Accessed on 12/08/2021)
• Anonymous (2020). Manda Yetiştiriciliği. http://www.veteriner.cc/manda/murrah.asp (Accessed on 24/05/2021).
• Ardicli S, Dince, D, and Balci F (2018). Evaluation of slaughter weights and carcass traits of bulls marketed in South Marmara Region of Turkey. Harran Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1): 45-50.
• Arslan C, and Çelebi E (2017). Studies on reduction of ruminal methane production in ruminants. Atatürk University Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 12(3): 327-337.
• Doreau M, Martin C, Morgavi DP, and Eugene M. (2011). Reducing methane emission in ruminants: is it an achievable goal?. In: Ranilla MJ (ed), Carro MD (ed), Ben Salem H (ed), Morand-Fehr P (ed). Challenging strategies to promote the sheep and goat sector in the current global context. Zaragoza, Spain, Universidad de Leon, CIHEAM, CSIC, 2011. pp. 65-73.
• EHRC (2009). The European Holstein and Red Holstein Confederation, 28th European Holstein and Red Holstein Conference. https://www.euholsteins.com/conference-documents/ (Accessed on 25/05/2021).
• FAOSTAT (2021). Food and agriculture data, Emissions - Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (Accessed on 08/06/2021).
• Garnsworthy PC, Craigon J, Hernandez-Medrano JH, and Saunders N (2012). On-farm methane measurements during milking correlate with total methane production by individual dairy cows. Journal of dairy science, 95(6): 3166-3180.
• Güleçyüz E, and Kılıç Ü. (2018). Determining In Vitro Gas Production Kinetics and Methane Production of Wheat Straw and Soybean Straw Pelleted with Different Additives, Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 5(1): 13-21.
• Gür G. and Öztürk H. (2021). Methane mitigation strategies in ruminants. Bulletin of Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology Association, 12(1): 43-54.
• Haque N, Saraswat ML, and Sahoo A (2001). Methane production and energy balance in crossbred male calves fed on rations containing different ratios of green sorghum and wheat straw. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 71(8).
• Ibrahim MNM (1985). Nutritional status of draught animals in Sri Lanka. In: Draught Animal Power for Production. ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) Proceedings Series No. 10, ed. JW Copland. Canberra, A.C.T., Australia: ACIAR.
• IPCC (2006). IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). vol.4. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan.
• IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
• IPCC (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Emıssıons From Lıvestock And Manure Management, Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management (Accessed on 20/05/2021)
• Kaya A, Kaya H, and Çelebi Ş (2012). Studies to reduce the production of methane from ruminant. Atatürk University Journal of the Agricultural Faculty, 43(2): 197-204.
• Lascano CE, and Cárdenas E (2010). Alternatives for methane emission mitigation in livestock systems. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 39, 175-182.
• Lawrence PR (1985). A review of nutrient requirements of draught oxen. In: Draught Animal Power for Production. ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) Proceedings Series No. 10. , ed. JW Copland. Canberra, A.C.T., Australia: ACIAR.
• Naqvi SMK, and Sejian V (2011). Global climate change: Role of livestock, Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 3:19-25.
• NRC (1996). Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 7th Revised Ed. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• NRC (1989) Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 6th Ed. . Washington, D.C. U.S.A: National Academy Press.
• Popa D, Popa R, Vidu L, and Nicolae C (2016). Emission of methane from enteric fermentation of cattle and buffaloes in Romania between 1989-2014. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 10, 289-298.
• Thakuri S, Baskota P, Khatri SB, Dhakal A, Chaudhary P, Rijal K, and Byanju RM (2020). Methane emission factors and carbon fluxes from enteric fermentation in cattle of Nepal Himalaya. Science of The Total Environment, 746, 141184.
• TUIK (2021). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Hayvancılık İstatistikleri. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=tarim-111&dil=1 (Accessed on 20/05/2021).
• Wathes DC, Pollott GE, Johnson KF, Richardson H, and Cooke JS (2014). Heifer fertility and carry over consequences for life time production in dairy and beef cattle. Animal, 8, 91-104.
• Vergé XPC, Dyer JA, Desjardins RL, and Worth D (2009). Long-term trends in greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian poultry industry. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 18, 210–222.
• Yaylı B, and Kılıç İ (2020). Estimation of global warming potential by Tier-1 method of dairy cattle farms. International Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 1(2): 79-86.
• Yusuf RO, Noor ZZ, Abba AH, Abu Hassan MA, and Din MFM (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions - Quantifying methane emissions from livestock. American J. of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 5 (1): 1-8.
• QMS (2020). Quality Meat Scotland, Cattle & Sheep Standards. https://www.qmscotland.co.uk/sites/default/files/ qms_cattle_and_sheep_standards_2020_final_20200110.pdf (Accessed on 24/05/2021)