Reliability of the sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique for methane emission measurement from individual animals: an overview

C. Pinares-Patiño, H. Clark
{"title":"Reliability of the sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique for methane emission measurement from individual animals: an overview","authors":"C. Pinares-Patiño, H. Clark","doi":"10.1071/EA07297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Measurements of enteric methane (CH4) emissions from individual animals have traditionally been made with indirect calorimetry techniques, which are both accurate and reliable. However, the expense and need for animal training and the extent to which calorimetric results can be extrapolated to free-ranging animals have been questioned and stimulated the development of the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique. The tracer technique is now widely used in New Zealand and many other countries for CH4 emission measurements on grazing and pen-fed cattle, sheep, deer and alpacas. Few studies with cattle and sheep have examined the validity of the SF6 tracer technique. Most of these studies have concluded that estimations of CH4 emission by this technique do not differ from those of calorimetric techniques, though some exceptions have been reported. There is general agreement that the tracer technique is associated with large between-animal variability in the CH4 emission estimates from animals on the same diet, but it remains unknown whether this is due to the environment, housing conditions or the technique itself. High within-animal variability has also been reported from tracer CH4 measurements. There is growing evidence that CH4 emission estimates by the tracer technique are positively influenced by the permeation rate (PR) of the SF6 gas from permeation tubes and it has been suggested that fate of the tracer in the rumen rather than unrepresentative breath sample collection is the likely reason for the latter. It is concluded that although some issues related to the tracer technique need to be clarified, using a narrow range in PR and balancing of PR between treatments should be practised in order to overcome the relationship between PR and CH4 emission estimates.","PeriodicalId":8636,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"70","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 70

Abstract

Measurements of enteric methane (CH4) emissions from individual animals have traditionally been made with indirect calorimetry techniques, which are both accurate and reliable. However, the expense and need for animal training and the extent to which calorimetric results can be extrapolated to free-ranging animals have been questioned and stimulated the development of the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique. The tracer technique is now widely used in New Zealand and many other countries for CH4 emission measurements on grazing and pen-fed cattle, sheep, deer and alpacas. Few studies with cattle and sheep have examined the validity of the SF6 tracer technique. Most of these studies have concluded that estimations of CH4 emission by this technique do not differ from those of calorimetric techniques, though some exceptions have been reported. There is general agreement that the tracer technique is associated with large between-animal variability in the CH4 emission estimates from animals on the same diet, but it remains unknown whether this is due to the environment, housing conditions or the technique itself. High within-animal variability has also been reported from tracer CH4 measurements. There is growing evidence that CH4 emission estimates by the tracer technique are positively influenced by the permeation rate (PR) of the SF6 gas from permeation tubes and it has been suggested that fate of the tracer in the rumen rather than unrepresentative breath sample collection is the likely reason for the latter. It is concluded that although some issues related to the tracer technique need to be clarified, using a narrow range in PR and balancing of PR between treatments should be practised in order to overcome the relationship between PR and CH4 emission estimates.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
六氟化硫示踪技术测量个体动物甲烷排放的可靠性:综述
传统上,测量个体动物肠道甲烷(CH4)排放是用间接量热法技术进行的,这种技术既准确又可靠。然而,动物训练的费用和需要以及量热结果可以外推到自由放养动物的程度受到质疑,并刺激了六氟化硫(SF6)示踪技术的发展。示踪技术目前在新西兰和许多其他国家广泛用于放牧和圈养牛、羊、鹿和羊驼的CH4排放测量。很少有牛和羊的研究检验了SF6示踪技术的有效性。这些研究大多得出结论,这种技术对CH4排放的估计与量热法的估计没有区别,尽管有一些例外报道。人们普遍认为,示踪技术与相同饮食的动物的甲烷排放估计值在动物间存在较大差异有关,但尚不清楚这是由环境、饲养条件还是技术本身造成的。从示踪剂CH4测量中也报道了高动物内变异性。越来越多的证据表明,通过示踪技术估计的CH4排放量受到来自渗透管的SF6气体的渗透率(PR)的积极影响,并且有证据表明,示踪剂在瘤胃中的作用,而不是不具代表性的呼吸样本收集,可能是后者的原因。综上所述,尽管与示踪技术有关的一些问题需要澄清,但为了克服示踪技术与CH4排放估算之间的关系,应采用较窄的PR范围并平衡不同处理之间的PR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ecology of diamondback moth in Australian canola: landscape perspectives and the implications for management Management of beneficial invertebrates and their potential role in integrated pest management for Australian grain systems Insecticide resistance and implications for future aphid management in Australian grains and pastures: a review Strategies for control of the redlegged earth mite in Australia The population dynamics of the mediterranean snails Cernuella virgata, Cochlicella acuta (Hygromiidae) and Theba pisana (Helicidae) in pasture–cereal rotations in South Australia: a 20-year study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1