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
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信