Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35657151›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science2022

Quantification of methane emitted by ruminants: a review of methods.

Luis Orlindo Tedeschi, Adibe Luiz Abdalla, Clementina Álvarez, Samuel Weniga Anuga, Jacobo Arango, Karen A Beauchemin, Philippe Becquet, Alexandre Berndt, Robert Burns, Camillo De Camillis and 15 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Luis Orlindo TedeschiDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2471, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1883-4911
Adibe Luiz AbdallaCenter for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, University of Sao Paulo, Piracicaba CEP 13416.000, Brazil.
Clementina ÁlvarezDepartment of Research, TINE SA, Christian Magnus Falsens vei 12, 1433 Ås, Norway.
Samuel Weniga AnugaEuropean University Institute (EUI), Via dei Roccettini 9, San Domenico di Fiesole (FI), Italy.
Jacobo ArangoInternational Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Km 17 Recta Cali-Palmira, A.A, 6713, Cali, Colombia.
Karen A BeaucheminAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research and Development Centre, Lethbridge, Alberta, T1J 4B1, Canada.
Philippe BecquetInternational Feed Industry Federation, 51657 Wiehl, Germany.
Alexandre BerndtEmbrapa Southeast Livestock, Rod. Washington Luiz, km 234, CP 339, CEP 13.560-970. São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil.
Robert BurnsBiosystems Engineering and Soil Science Department, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
Camillo De CamillisAnimal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.
Julián CharáCentre for Research on Sustainable Agriculture, CIPAV, Cali 760042, Colombia.
Javier Martin EchazarretaCentro Carnes-Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Industrial, INTI, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Mélynda HassounaINRAE, Institut Agro Rennes Angers, UMR SAS, F-35042, Rennes, France.
David KennyTeagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, C15PW93, Ireland.
Michael MathotAgricultural Systems Unit, Walloon Agricultural Research Centre, rue du Serpont 100, B-6800 Libramont, Belgium.
Rogerio M MauricioDepartment of Bioengineering, Federal University of São João del-Rei, São João del-Rei, MG 36307-352, Brazil.
Shelby C McClellandAnimal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.
Mutian NiuInstitute of Agricultural Sciences, ETH Zurich, Universitaetstrasse 2, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.
Alice Anyango OnyangoMazingira Centre, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya.
Ranjan ParajuliEcoEngineers, Des Moines, IA 50309, USA.
Luiz Gustavo Ribeiro PereiraEmbrapa Dairy Cattle, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Agustin Del PradoBasque Centre For Climate Change (BC3), Leioa, Spain.
Maria Paz TieriDairy Value Chain Research Institute (IDICAL) (INTA-CONICET), Rafaela, Argentina.
Aimable UwizeyeAnimal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.
Ermias KebreabDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0833-1352

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The contribution of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ruminant production systems varies between countries and between regions within individual countries. The appropriate quantification of GHG emissions, specifically methane (CH4), has raised questions about the correct reporting of GHG inventories and, perhaps more importantly, how best to mitigate CH4 emissions. This review documents existing methods and methodologies to measure and estimate CH4 emissions from ruminant animals and the manure produced therein over various scales and conditions. Measurements of CH4 have frequently been conducted in research settings using classical methodologies developed for bioenergetic purposes, such as gas exchange techniques (respiration chambers, headboxes). While very precise, these techniques are limited to research settings as they are expensive, labor-intensive, and applicable only to a few animals. Head-stalls, such as the GreenFeed system, have been used to measure expired CH4 for individual animals housed alone or in groups in confinement or grazing. This technique requires frequent animal visitation over the diurnal measurement period and an adequate number of collection days. The tracer gas technique can be used to measure CH4 from individual animals housed outdoors, as there is a need to ensure low background concentrations. Micrometeorological techniques (e.g., open-path lasers) can measure CH4 emissions over larger areas and many animals, but limitations exist, including the need to measure over more extended periods. Measurement of CH4 emissions from manure depends on the type of storage, animal housing, CH4 concentration inside and outside the boundaries of the area of interest, and ventilation rate, which is likely the variable that contributes the greatest to measurement uncertainty. For large-scale areas, aircraft, drones, and satellites have been used in association with the tracer flux method, inverse modeling, imagery, and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), but research is lagging in validating these methods. Bottom-up approaches to estimating CH4 emissions rely on empirical or mechanistic modeling to quantify the contribution of individual sources (enteric and manure). In contrast, top-down approaches estimate the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere using spatial and temporal models to account for transportation from an emitter to an observation point. While these two estimation approaches rarely agree, they help identify knowledge gaps and research requirements in practice.

Indexed as

Greenhouse GasesMethaneAnimalsEatingManureRuminantsGreenhouse GasesManureMethaneestimatesgreenhouse gaslivestockmeasurementsquantificationsustainability

Identifiers

PMID35657151
PMCPMC9261501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.