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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
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.
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.