9 Use of new technology to measure methane emissions

• Published in: Journal of animal science Vol. 102; no. Supplement_2; pp. 220 - 221
• Main Authors: Thompson, Logan, Beck, Matthew
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 05.05.2024
• DOI: 10.1093/jas/skae102.250
• ISSN: 0021-8812

Abstract Over recent decades, the impact of human-induced climate change and the role of ruminant agriculture has been of growing concern for both the public and the scientific community. This has led to rapid advancements in technology needed to measure methane emissions accurately and precisely. Primarily, these advancements have been focused on measurements of enteric methane, with the proliferation of GreenFeed emission measurement systems (GEM; C-Lock, Inc; Rapid City, SD) being utilized by animal scientists across the world. The GEM relies on spot measurements collected in a portable head-box, either in a freestall or on a trailer. The GEM uses bait feed to entice animals to place their head into the head-box to collect measurements. Use of respiration chambers or head-boxes are still considered the “gold standard”, but the GEM allows for quantification in production environments and with greater number of animals. While enteric emissions are the primary source of methane from ruminant agriculture, manure methane emissions account for 15.8% of direct emissions from cattle in the U.S. This emission source is a significant contributor to confined feeding operations’ greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), where consolidation and changes in manure handling practices have occurred over the last several decades. From 2010 to 2020, manure methane emissions were a larger contributor to climate warming than enteric methane (90.8 MMT CO2-we vs. 89.2 MMT CO2-we, respectively) when calculated using the new GWP* metric. However, few advancements have been made in quantifying emissions from manure, with the cost-effective static chamber methodology still widely used. This technique allows for the determination of temporal gas concentration change in a known volume of air with a PVC cylinder, inserted 5-10 cm in the soil and posteriorly closed with a PVC lid to generate “known volume” headspace. However, this method does have known limitations on spatial and temporal flux calculations. These limitations include: the PVC chamber may alter the soil microenvironment thereby altering soil GHG flux estimates; they have potential for technician bias; and are short term monitoring, limiting interpretations to that snapshot in time and making comparisons across experiments difficult. Differing measuring techniques, such as eddy covariance and dual-comb, that more accurately and precisely monitor the soil-atmosphere interface may help better understand gas fluxes from livestock systems. Key Word: cattle, enteric, manure, methane