Methane production and mitigation from ruminant livestock in Thailand

Transcription

1 Methane production and mitigation from ruminant livestock in Thailand Kritapon Sommart 1, Chatchai Kaewpila 1 and Akio Takenaka 2 1 Khon Kaen University, Thailand. 2 National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science,Japan.

2 Khon Kaen University Beef-Dairy- Buffalo population distribution in Thailand

3 17 Faculties, 3 Colleges, Graduate school & Nong Khai Campus 1. Sciences & Technology 1. Agriculture 2. Engineering 3. Sciences 4. Technology 2. Humanities and Social Sciences 1. Architecture 2. Education 3. Fine and Applied Arts 4. Humanities and Social Sciences 5. Management Sciences 6. Law Graduate School 3. Health Sciences 1. Associated Medical Sciences 2. Dentistry 3. Medicine 4. Nursing 5. Pharmaceutical Sciences 6. Public Health 7. Veterinary Medicine 1. College of Graduate Study in Management 2. College of Local Administration 3. International College Nong Khai Campus

4 Beef-Dairy-Buffalo population in Thailand Beef Cattle Dairy Cattle Buffaloes

5 Number of farms & size Cattle 7 Heads/Farm;Total 1,369,718 Farms Dairy 27 Heads/Farm; Total 17,837 Farms Buffalo 5 Heads/Farm; Total 300,852 Farms Swine 35 Heads/Farms 247,789 Farms Broilers 6,000 Heads/ Farms 28,623 Farms Layers 1,700 Heads/Farms 26,984 Farms

6 Ruminant production improvement opportunity

7

8 -Methane Lose 2-12 %energy intake -1960s-1970s increase feed efficiency -over the part two decades global warming

9 Methane production measurement by using indirect calorimeter with Head hood/head box system (Kawashima et al., 2000; Suzuki et al., 2008) Feed methane CO 2

10 Respiration trial system main air flow Ventilated flow - through method with a face mask Mask 400L/min Filter Flow meter Valve Brower Electronic signal Silica gel 5-10L/min Dryer Filter Pump Gas flow air sampling 1.0L/min gas analysis O 2 Analyzer CO 2 Analyzer CH 4 Analyzer Pump Pump Pump 0.5L/min 0.5L/min data record and calculation Personal Computer Gas data Interface

11

12 Table 1 Methane production from Thai-beef cattle fed forage with or without concentrate. References Breeds Stage Animal (n) BW (kg) Forage (%) DMI (kg/d) GEI (MJ/d) CH4 (l/d) CH4 (%GEI) Beef cattle without concentrate supplementation Khuamankgorn et al. (2009) TN S Kawashima et al. (2000) TN S Suzuki et al. (2008) Br S Energy lose to , Chaokaur et al. (2007) Br S 8 AV = %GEI Kawashima et al. (2007) Br S Kawashima et al. (2006) Br S Beef cattle with concentrate supplementation Kongphitee et al. (2010) TN F Tangitwattanachai (2010) TN G Energy lose 5.6 to 10.1, AV = 8.2 %GEI Nitipot (2010) TN S Chaokaur (2009) Br F Chaokaur et al. (2009) Br G Chaokaur et al. (2007) Br S Kawashima et al. (2007) Br S

13 Methane production Linear regression Y = a + bx Y = a + b 1 x 1 + b 2 x b n x n Animal & dietary factors

14 Table 2 Relationships between methane production and animal dietary factors Reference Equations R 2 RSD 2/ P-value N Yan et al. (2000) CH4 = GEI < Yan et al. (2006) CH4 = 0.336BW+19.72DMI na < Yan et al. (2009) 1) CH4 = 0.37BW na < ) CH4 = 35.1DMI na < ) CH4 = 1.95GEI na < Sommart et al.(2010) 1) CH4 = BW < ) CH4 = DMI < ) CH4 = GEI < ) CH4 = BW+1.17GEI < ) CH4 = DMI+1.32GEI < CH4, methane production (L/day); CH4, methane energy output (MJ/day); *CH4, methane production (g/day);bw, body weight (kg); DMI, dry matter intake (kg DM/day); TDN, total nutrient digestibility (%); MEImw, metabolizable energy intake (MJ/GE/kgBW 0.75 /day)

15 Methane Energy lose & GHG Methane emissions from ruminant are represent the biggest anthropogenic source [global warming of human-induced greenhouse 4-12 % Energy loss of methane from ruminant is a problem not only with respect of feed energy utilization and animal production efficiency,but also to greenhouse gas emissions.

16 Methane mitigation strategies Garlic Oils Tannin Feeding managements Chemical reagents

17 A single dairy cow can produce up to 350 L/day (Yan et al., 2009) or ranged from L/day (Takahashi, 2006). Thai Brahman cattle produced range from L/day (Chaokaur et al. (2007) Thai native cattle produced range from L/day (Moonmart, 2009; Tangitwattanachai, 2010) The adaptabilities to restrictive environment and the large variations of methane emission present a great opportunity for mitigation of methane strategy.

18 Potentials of tropical feed for a functional food and methane mitigation Sun flower seed Sun flower oil Oil seed source Coconut Soybean oil Linseed Soybean seed

19 Table 3 Energy intake, Fecal urine and methane energy loss of beef cattle fed oil plant Breed Dietary treatment Item Thai native Brahman Crossbred SEM P-Value T1=Cont T2=cotto n seed T3=SunFl T4=Coco nut SEM P-Value Energy intake GEI,MJ/day y x 2.24 < a 77.4 b b c 1.59 < GEI, KJ/kgBW y x a a a b < DEI, MJ/day y x 2.85 < a b b c 2.02 < DEI, KJ/kgBW a ab b c < MEI, MJ/day y x 2.98 < a b b c 2.11 < 0.01 MEI, KJ/kgBW a a a b < 0.01 Feces excretion Feces energy, MJ/day y x 1.46 < Feces energy loss, KJ/kgBW Urine excretion Urine energy, MJ/day Urine energy loss, KJ/kgBW GEI = gross energy intake, DEI = digestibility energy intake, MEI = metabolizeble energy, SEM = standard error of mean, [{ a, b, c, d }, { x, y } Value within rows without a common superscript are different (P<0.001).]

20 Table 4 Energy intake, Fecal urine and methane energy loss of beef cattle fed oil plant Breed Dietary treatment Item Thai native Brahman Crossbred SEM P-Value T1=Cont T2=cotto n seed T3=SunF l T4=Coco nut SEM P-Value Methane Production CH 4, L/day y x 7.76 < a b c d 5.49 < CH 4, MJ/day 5.35 y 6.77 x 0.31 < a 7.05 b 4.18 c 3.70 c 0.22 < CH 4, MJ/kgBW a 0.09 b 0.05 c 0.05 c 0.01 < CH 4, L/kgDMI a b c c 1.46 < CH 4, L/kgOMI a b c c 1.58 < CH 4 /GE, % a 9.43 b 5.61 c 5.90 c 1.56 < CH 4 /DE, % a a b ab DM = dry matter, OM = organic matter, GEI = gross energy intake, DEI = digestibility energy intake, MEI = metabolizeble energy, SEM = standard error of mean, [{ a, b, c, d },{ x, y } Value within rows without a common superscript are different (P<0.001).]

21 Result and Discussion Figure1. Methane emission pattern at various time of day in Thai native (A) and Brahman crossbred (B) beef cattle.

22 Table 5 Body weight, intake, Fecal and urine energy loss and methane production of beef cattle fed various of energy intake Items 1/ Squared (Cattle) P- Dietary (Energy intake level) P-value 2/ SEM SEM Thai native Crossbred value 0.7 M 1.1 M 1.5 M L Q Number of animal Body weight, kg 263 y 356 x 3.15 < Intake DM, kg/d 3.86 y 4.97 x 0.12 < b 4.99 a 5.37 a 0.15 <0.01 <0.01 GEI, MJ/d y x 2.34 < c b a 2.87 <0.01 <0.01 GEI, kj/kgbw c b a <0.01 <0.01 Fecal loss, KJ/kgBW Urine loss, KJ/kgBW Methane production L/d y x < b a a <0.01 <0.01 MJ/d b 8.79 a 8.69 a 0.57 <0.01 <0.01 KJ/kgBW b a a 5.87 <0.01 <0.01 L/DMI b a a 1.86 <0.01 <0.05 L/NDFI b a a 5.70 < % GEI % DEI y x 1.53 < a b b 1.78 <0.01 <0.05 % MEI a b b 2.83 < x-y : Least square means with different superscripts among breeds significantly differ (P<0.05). a-c : Least square means with different superscripts among treatments significantly differ (P<0.05). 1/ : M, maintenance requirement (500 kj ME per kgbw 0.75 /day); SEM, standard errors of the means; DM, dry matter; GEI, gross energy intake, DEI, digestible energy intake; MEI, metabolizable energy intake; 2/ : Probability of a significant effect of levels or of a linear (L) or quadratic (Q) effect of feeding levels.

23 Table 6 Summary of strategic methane mitigation in ruminant Strategies Feeding and management 1.1 Lipids % CH4 mitigation -Oils 27 % Limitations Decresed fiber digestion, food and fuel competition References Machmüller et al. (2003) -Oil plant sources 15-47% 1.2 Herbal plant Decresed intake 4-23%, feed and fuel competition Chuntrakort et al. (2011) -Tannins and saponins containing plants < 40 % Decresed fiber digestion, few research and technology Poungchompu et al. (2009) 1.3 Feeding level - Feeding low fiber forages 7-40 %DEI Feed availability Phromloungsri et al. (2011)

24 Table. Summary of strategic methane mitigation in ruminant (Cont.) Strategies Defaunations % CH4 mitigation Limitations References -Chemical agents 13% Hegarty (1999) -Ionophores 25% in the short term -protozoa can adapt to ionophores -banned in E.U. -Saponins < 40 % -effects less predictable -Oils 13% -negative effects on fiber digestion Antimethanogenic agent addition Defaunations 3.1 Organic acid addition -propionate 8-28 % expensive 3.2 Chemical compound addition -halogenated CH4 analogues Methanoge ns downs % expensive, complex and toxic Van Nevel and Demeyer (1995) Calsamiglia et al. (2007) Machmüller (2006) Newbold et al. (2005) Denman et al. (2007)

25 % Energy loss of methane from ruminant is a problem not only with respect of animal production efficiency,but also to greenhouse gas emissions Possible CH4 mitigation strategies (1) Growth rate improvement (a) animal breed, (b) level of intake & high quality forage or feed supplementation (2) Rumen methanogenesis inhibition e.g. herbal/oils plant containing tannin/saponins as feed additive There are methane mitigation possibilities by increasing beef production efficiency or feed additive, but there is an imperative to develop new technologies

26 Ruminant production improvement opportunity

27 Acknowledgements KKU JAPAN DLD Thanks to organizers: NIAES NARO AFFRC MARCO GRA