Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AN > EA07296
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 48(2)

Methane emissions from dairy cattle divergently selected for bloat susceptibility

C. S. Pinares-Patiño A B , G. Molano A , A. Smith A and H. Clark A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Land, Climate & Environment Section, AgResearch Limited, Grasslands Research Centre, Tennent Drive, Private Bag 11008, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

B Corresponding author. Email: cesar.pinares@agresearch.co.nz

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48(2) 234-239 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07296
Submitted: 24 August 2007  Accepted: 11 November 2007   Published: 2 January 2008

Abstract

Bloat susceptibility is a genetically inherited trait and this study explored whether cattle divergently selected for this trait (low or high bloat susceptibility) also differ in methane (CH4) emissions. Twelve low bloat (402 ± 12 kg liveweight, LW) and 12 high bloat (334 ± 13 kg LW) Friesian × Jersey mixed age (2–4 years old) non-lactating and non-pregnant female cattle were used in a late autumn (June) grazing experiment involving two periods (P1 and P2). Methane emissions were measured during 5 (P1) or 4 (P2) consecutive days using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique. In P1 only, titanium dioxide (TiO2) was used for faecal output and feed dry matter intake (DMI) estimations and it was found that the selection lines did not differ in DMI per unit of LW (17.3 ± 1.3 v. 15.4 ± 1.3 g DMI/kg LW, P > 0.05; for low and high bloat cows, respectively). In both periods, the mean absolute CH4 emissions from low bloat cows were significantly higher (P < 0.001) than from high bloat cows (144.5 ± 6.3 v. 107.4 ± 7.2 and 147.9 ± 4.6 v. 119.6 ± 6.5 g/day for P1 and P2, respectively), but on per unit of LW basis, CH4 emissions from low and high bloat animals were not different from each other (P > 0.05) either at P1 (346 ± 16 v. 312 ± 11 mg/kg LW) or P2 (345 ± 11 v. 347 ± 10 mg/kg LW). In P1, when DMI was estimated using TiO2, the selection lines did not differ (P > 0.05) in CH4 yields per unit of intake (20.6 ± 0.8 v. 21.3 ± 1.4 g/kg DMI for low and high bloat, respectively). Previous studies with the same herd showed that the selection lines did not differ in DMI per unit of LW, which was confirmed by the present study from estimations of DMI by TiO2 dosing in P1. It is concluded that low and high bloat susceptible genotypes did not differ in their CH4 yields per unit of feed intake.


Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the New Zealand Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium (PGGRC). We thank the staff of AgResearch Aorangi Farm (Steve Lees, Dan Robinson and Colin Fairs) for their skilled assistance in pasture management and animal handling.


References


Carruthers VR (1984) Some rumen characteristics and performance data of cows differing in bloat susceptibility. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 44, 79–82. open url image1

Carruthers VR (1985) Response of cows differing in bloat susceptibility to intraruminal water and electrolyte loading. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 45, 31–33. open url image1

Carruthers VR, Henderson HV (1994) Grazing management and pasture composition on paired farms which differed in the incidence of bloat. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 37, 535–545. open url image1

Carruthers VR, Morris CA (1988) Weights of some body organs from cattle selected for high and low susceptibility to bloat. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 48, 147–149. open url image1

Clark H , Pinares-Patiño CS , deKlein C (2005) Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from grazed grasslands. In ‘Grassland: a global resource’. (Ed. DA McGilloway) pp. 279−293. (Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands)

Cockrem FRM, McIntosh JT, McLaren R (1983) Selection for and against susceptibility to bloat in dairy cows – a review. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 43, 101–106. open url image1

Cockrem FRM, McIntosh JT, McLaren R, Morris CA (1987) The relationship between volume of rumen contents and genetic susceptibility to pasture bloat in cattle. Animal Production 45, 43–48. open url image1

Fries GF, Marrow GS, Snow PA (1982) Soil ingestion by dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 611–618.
|  CAS | PubMed |
open url image1

Hegarty RS (2004) Genotype differences and their impact on digestive tract function of ruminants: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 459–467.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Hughes JG (1976) Short-term variation in animal live weight and reduction of its effect on weighing. Animal Breeding Abstracts 44, 111–118. open url image1

Johnson K, Huyler M, Westberg H, Lamb B, Zimmerman P (1994) Measurement of methane emissions from ruminant livestock using a sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique. Environmental Science & Technology 28, 359–362.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | open url image1

McCaughey WP, Wittenberg K, Corrigan D (1997) Methane production by steers on pasture. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 77, 519–524. open url image1

McCaughey WP, Wittenberg K, Corrigan D (1999) Impact of pasture type on methane production by lactating beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79, 221–226. open url image1

McIntosh JT, Morris CA, Cockrem FRM, McLaren RD, Gravett IM (1988) Genetics of susceptibility to bloat in cattle IV. Girth measurements, bloat scores, saliva proteins, blood components and milk production, liveweight and intake data. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 133–144. open url image1

Moate PJ, Clarke T, Davis LH, Laby RH (1997) Rumen gases and bloat in grazing dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 129, 459–469.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | open url image1

Morris CA, Carruthers VR (1991) Rumen digesta and other body measurements in relation to bloat susceptibility in cattle. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 51, 103–106. open url image1

Morris CA, Cockrem FRM, Carruthers VR, McIntosh JT, Cullen NG (1991) Response to divergent selection for bloat susceptibility in dairy cows. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 34, 75–83. open url image1

Morris CA, Cullen NG, Geertsema HG (1997) Genetic studies of bloat susceptibility in cattle. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 57, 19–21. open url image1

Myers WD, Ludden PA, Nayigihugu V, Hess BW (2006) Excretion patterns of titanium dioxide and chromic oxide in duodenal digesta and faeces of ewes. Small Ruminants Research 63, 135–141.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Okine EK, Mathison GW, Hardin RT (1989) Relations between passage rates of rumen fluid and particulate matter and foam production in rumen contents of cattle fed on different diets ad lib. The British Journal of Nutrition 61, 387–395.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed | open url image1

Pinares-Patiño CS, Baumont R, Martin C (2003a) Methane emissions by Charolais cows grazing a monospecific pasture of timothy at four stages of maturity. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 769–777. open url image1

Pinares-Patiño CS, Ulyatt MJ, Lassey KR, Barry TN, Holmes CW (2003b) Rumen function and digestion parameters associated with differences between sheep in methane emissions when fed chaffed lucerne hay. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 140, 205–214.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Pinares-Patiño CS, D’Hour P, Jouany J-P, Martin C (2007a) Effects of stocking rate on methane and carbon dioxide emissions from grazing cattle. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 121, 30–46.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Pinares-Patiño CS , Waghorn GC , Machmüller A , Vlaming B , Molano G , Cavanagh A , Clark H (2007b) Methane emissions and digestive physiology of non-lactating dairy cows fed pasture forage. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, in press.

Rajan GH, Morris CA, Carruthers VR, Wilkins RJ, Wheeler TT (1996) The relative abundance of a salivary protein, bSP30, is correlated with susceptibility to bloat in cattle herds selected for high or low bloat susceptibility. Animal Genetics 27, 407–414.
|  CAS | PubMed |
open url image1

Reid CSW, Clarke RTJ, Gurnsey MP, Hungate RE, MacMillan KL (1972) Breeding dairy cattle with reduced susceptibility to bloat. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 32, 96–98. open url image1

Roughan PG, Holland R (1977) Predicting in vivo digestibilities of herbages by exhaustive enzymatic hydrolysis of cell walls. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 28, 1057–1064.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | open url image1

SAS Institute, Inc. (2002) ‘The SAS System for Windows. Version 9.1.’ (SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC)

SCA (1990) ‘Feeding standards for Australian livestock – ruminants.’ Standing Committee on Agriculture. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)

Short FJ, Gorton P, Wiseman J, Boorman KN (1996) Determination of titanium dioxide added as an inert marker in chicken digestibility studies. Animal Feed Science and Technology 59, 215–221.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | open url image1

Titgemeyer EC, Armendariz CK, Bindel DJ, Greenwood RH, Löest CA (2001) Evaluation of titanium dioxide as a digestibility marker for cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1059–1063.
|  CAS | PubMed |
open url image1

Tolley EA, Tess MW, Johnson T, Pond KR (1988) Effect of switching diets on growth and digesta kinetics of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 66, 2551–2567.
|  CAS | PubMed |
open url image1

Wheeler TT, Haigh BJ, Wilkins RJ, McCracken JY, Morris CA (1998) A candidate gene marker for bloat susceptibility in cattle? Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 58, 10–12. open url image1