澳大利亚维多利亚州北部奶牛场肠道甲烷排放量的比较

IF 1.3 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE Animal Production Science Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1071/an22330
Sineka Munidasa, B. Cullen, R. Eckard, Saranika Talukder, L. Barnes, L. Cheng
{"title":"澳大利亚维多利亚州北部奶牛场肠道甲烷排放量的比较","authors":"Sineka Munidasa, B. Cullen, R. Eckard, Saranika Talukder, L. Barnes, L. Cheng","doi":"10.1071/an22330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context . Enteric methane (CH 4 ) is a source of greenhouse gas (GHG) in agriculture, which needs to be reduced. A variety of feeding systems for dairy production is being used in south-eastern Australia, but there are few studies that compare CH 4 emissions and emission intensity (EI) of milk production across these systems. Aims . The objective was to estimate the lactating cows ’ enteric-CH 4 emissions, EI and their seasonal changes, across different feeding systems in northern Victoria, Australia. Methods . A Tier 2 inventory methodology was used to estimate the enteric-CH 4 emissions and EI. Four case-study farms were selected to represent a range of feeding systems, Farms A, B, C and D were categorised as System 4 – 5 (hybrid – total mixed ration system), System 4 (hybrid system), System 2 (moderate – high bail system) and System 2 respectively. Monthly feed, animal and production data were sourced from June 2019 to May 2020. Key results . Average enteric-CH 4 emissions of Farms A and B (13.1 and 12.9 kg CO 2 e/head.day respectively) were greater than those of Farms C and D (11.7 and 11.6 kg CO 2 e/head.day respectively). Furthermore, CH 4 EI was greater in Farms C and D (0.49 and 0.48 CO 2 -e kg/kg fat-and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) respectively) and it was lower in both Farms A and B (0.46 CO 2 -e kg/kg FPCM). Overall, Farms A and B using Feeding-system 4 – 5 with greater-producing cows produced more CH 4 but with less CH 4 EI than did the Farms C and D, which are mainly pasture-based. Conclusions . These fi ndings suggest that to reduce CH 4 EI requires a move towards Feeding-system 4 – 5. However, on the basis of the results of the current study, pasture-based systems have an advantage over hybrid/total mixed ration feeding systems, as these farms have lower absolute CH 4 emissions, which helps address climate change. Implications . EstimationofCH 4 emissions,EI and seasonal changes inthem gives farmersthe opportunity to identify the mitigation strategies and plan speci fi c strategies that fi t the particular feeding system and season. However, more research needs to be conducted to check the feasibility of doing this.","PeriodicalId":49242,"journal":{"name":"Animal Production Science","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative enteric-methane emissions of dairy farms in northern Victoria, Australia\",\"authors\":\"Sineka Munidasa, B. Cullen, R. Eckard, Saranika Talukder, L. Barnes, L. Cheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/an22330\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context . Enteric methane (CH 4 ) is a source of greenhouse gas (GHG) in agriculture, which needs to be reduced. A variety of feeding systems for dairy production is being used in south-eastern Australia, but there are few studies that compare CH 4 emissions and emission intensity (EI) of milk production across these systems. Aims . The objective was to estimate the lactating cows ’ enteric-CH 4 emissions, EI and their seasonal changes, across different feeding systems in northern Victoria, Australia. Methods . A Tier 2 inventory methodology was used to estimate the enteric-CH 4 emissions and EI. Four case-study farms were selected to represent a range of feeding systems, Farms A, B, C and D were categorised as System 4 – 5 (hybrid – total mixed ration system), System 4 (hybrid system), System 2 (moderate – high bail system) and System 2 respectively. Monthly feed, animal and production data were sourced from June 2019 to May 2020. Key results . Average enteric-CH 4 emissions of Farms A and B (13.1 and 12.9 kg CO 2 e/head.day respectively) were greater than those of Farms C and D (11.7 and 11.6 kg CO 2 e/head.day respectively). Furthermore, CH 4 EI was greater in Farms C and D (0.49 and 0.48 CO 2 -e kg/kg fat-and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) respectively) and it was lower in both Farms A and B (0.46 CO 2 -e kg/kg FPCM). Overall, Farms A and B using Feeding-system 4 – 5 with greater-producing cows produced more CH 4 but with less CH 4 EI than did the Farms C and D, which are mainly pasture-based. Conclusions . These fi ndings suggest that to reduce CH 4 EI requires a move towards Feeding-system 4 – 5. However, on the basis of the results of the current study, pasture-based systems have an advantage over hybrid/total mixed ration feeding systems, as these farms have lower absolute CH 4 emissions, which helps address climate change. Implications . EstimationofCH 4 emissions,EI and seasonal changes inthem gives farmersthe opportunity to identify the mitigation strategies and plan speci fi c strategies that fi t the particular feeding system and season. However, more research needs to be conducted to check the feasibility of doing this.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Production Science\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Production Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/an22330\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Production Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/an22330","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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
Comparative enteric-methane emissions of dairy farms in northern Victoria, Australia
Context . Enteric methane (CH 4 ) is a source of greenhouse gas (GHG) in agriculture, which needs to be reduced. A variety of feeding systems for dairy production is being used in south-eastern Australia, but there are few studies that compare CH 4 emissions and emission intensity (EI) of milk production across these systems. Aims . The objective was to estimate the lactating cows ’ enteric-CH 4 emissions, EI and their seasonal changes, across different feeding systems in northern Victoria, Australia. Methods . A Tier 2 inventory methodology was used to estimate the enteric-CH 4 emissions and EI. Four case-study farms were selected to represent a range of feeding systems, Farms A, B, C and D were categorised as System 4 – 5 (hybrid – total mixed ration system), System 4 (hybrid system), System 2 (moderate – high bail system) and System 2 respectively. Monthly feed, animal and production data were sourced from June 2019 to May 2020. Key results . Average enteric-CH 4 emissions of Farms A and B (13.1 and 12.9 kg CO 2 e/head.day respectively) were greater than those of Farms C and D (11.7 and 11.6 kg CO 2 e/head.day respectively). Furthermore, CH 4 EI was greater in Farms C and D (0.49 and 0.48 CO 2 -e kg/kg fat-and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) respectively) and it was lower in both Farms A and B (0.46 CO 2 -e kg/kg FPCM). Overall, Farms A and B using Feeding-system 4 – 5 with greater-producing cows produced more CH 4 but with less CH 4 EI than did the Farms C and D, which are mainly pasture-based. Conclusions . These fi ndings suggest that to reduce CH 4 EI requires a move towards Feeding-system 4 – 5. However, on the basis of the results of the current study, pasture-based systems have an advantage over hybrid/total mixed ration feeding systems, as these farms have lower absolute CH 4 emissions, which helps address climate change. Implications . EstimationofCH 4 emissions,EI and seasonal changes inthem gives farmersthe opportunity to identify the mitigation strategies and plan speci fi c strategies that fi t the particular feeding system and season. However, more research needs to be conducted to check the feasibility of doing this.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Animal Production Science
Animal Production Science AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
7.10%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Research papers in Animal Production Science focus on improving livestock and food production, and on the social and economic issues that influence primary producers. The journal (formerly known as Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture) is predominantly concerned with domesticated animals (beef cattle, dairy cows, sheep, pigs, goats and poultry); however, contributions on horses and wild animals may be published where relevant. Animal Production Science is published with the endorsement of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Academy of Science.
期刊最新文献
Indicators of functional integrity in production animals Environmental impacts of the Australian poultry industry. 1. Chicken meat production Foreword: Reproductive performance of northern Australia beef herds Production and performance of commercial beef breeding females in northern Australia. 4. Factors influencing the occurrence of lactating cows becoming pregnant within 4 months of calving Influence of season on milk fatty acid profile and sensory characteristics of grazing goats in a Mediterranean environment: a sustainable agro-food system
×
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