Effect of nitrate supplementation, dietary protein supply, and genetic yield index on performance, methane emission, and nitrogen efficiency in dairy cows

Effect of nitrate supplementation on diurnal emission of enteric methane and nitrous oxide

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of nitrate supplementation on diurnal enteric methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in dairy cows. Four Danish Holstein dairy cows fitted with ruminal cannulas were used in a 2 × 2 crossover design with 2 periods of 14 d duration. Cows were fed ad libitum with 2 experimental diets based on either urea or nitrate (8.6 g ofN O 3 - / k g o f D M ) supplementation. Samples of ruminal fluid, blood, and rumen headspace gas samples were collected. Gas exchange was measured in respiration chambers during a 96-h period. Emission of N2O was calculated from the ratio between CH4 and N2O in the rumen headspace and the measured CH4 emission. Nitrate supplementation resulted in a lower daily CH4 production (g/d), CH4 yield (g/kg of DMI), and CH4 per kilogram of fat- and protein-corrected milk yield; a tendency of lower CH4 intensity (g/kg ECM); and higher daily hydrogen (H2) production, H2 yield, and daily N2O production compared with urea supplementation. The only difference in ruminal VFA composition was a higher valerate proportion in cows receiving nitrate compared with urea supplementation. In conclusion, nitrate compared with urea supplementation reduced CH4 production, mainly just after feeding, but also increased N2O production.

Predicting CO2 production of lactating dairy cows from animal, dietary, and production traits using an international dataset

Automated measurements of the ratio of concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide, [CH4]:[CO2], in breath from individual animals (the so-called "sniffer technique") and estimated CO2 production can be used to estimate CH4 production, provided that CO2 production can be reliably calculated. This would allow CH4 production from individual cows to be estimated in large cohorts of cows, whereby ranking of cows according to their CH4 production might become possible and their values could be used for breeding of low CH4-emitting animals. Estimates of CO2 production are typically based on predictions of heat production, which can be calculated from body weight (BW), energy-corrected milk yield, and days of pregnancy. The objectives of the present study were to develop predictions of CO2 production directly from milk production, dietary, and animal variables, and furthermore to develop different models to be used for different scenarios, depending on available data. An international dataset with 2,244 records from individual lactating cows including CO2 production and associated traits, as dry matter intake (DMI), diet composition, BW, milk production and composition, days in milk, and days pregnant, was compiled to constitute the training dataset. Research location and experiment nested within research location were included as random intercepts. The method of CO2 production measurement (respiration chamber [RC] or GreenFeed [GF]) was confounded with research location, and therefore excluded from the model. In total, 3 models were developed based on the current training dataset: model 1 ("best model"), where all significant traits were included; model 2 ("on-farm model"), where DMI was excluded; and model 3 ("reduced on-farm model"), where both DMI and BW were excluded. Evaluation on test dat sets with either RC data (n = 103), GF data without additives (n = 478), or GF data only including observations where nitrate, 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), or a combination of nitrate and 3-NOP were fed to the cows (GF+: n = 295), showed good precision of the 3 models, illustrated by low slope bias both in absolute values (-0.22 to 0.097) and in percentage (0.049 to 4.89) of mean square error (MSE). However, the mean bias (MB) indicated systematic overprediction and underprediction of CO2 production when the models were evaluated on the GF and the RC test datasets, respectively. To address this bias, the 3 models were evaluated on a modified test dataset, where the CO2 production (g/d) was adjusted by subtracting (where measurements were obtained by RC) or adding absolute MB (where measurements were obtained by GF) from evaluation of the specific model on RC, GF, and GF+ test datasets. With this modification, the absolute values of MB and MB as percentage of MSE became negligible. In conclusion, the 3 models were precise in predicting CO2 production from lactating dairy cows.

How much can performance measures explain of the between-cow variation in enteric methane?

Enteric CH4 produced from dairy cows contributes to the emission of greenhouse gases from anthropogenic sources. Recent studies have shown that the selection of lower CH4-emitting cows is possible, but doing so would be simpler if performance measures already recorded on farm could be used, instead of measuring gas emissions from individual cows. These performance measures could be used for selection of low emitting cows. The aim of this analysis was to quantify how much of the between-cow variation in CH4 production can be explained by variation in performance measures. A dataset with 3 experiments and a total of 149 lactating dairy cows with repeated measures was used to estimate the between-cow variation (the variation between cow estimates) for performance and gas measures from GreenFeed (C-Lock, Rapid City, SD). The cow estimates were obtained with a linear mixed model with the diet within period effect as a fixed effect and the cow within experiment as a random effect. The cow estimates for CH4 production were first regressed on the performance and gas measures individually, and then performance and CO2 production measures were grouped in 3 subsets for principal component analysis and principal component regression. The variables that explained most of the between-cow variation in CH4 production were DMI (R2 = 0.44), among the performance measures, and CO2 production (R2 = 0.61), among gas measures. Grouping the measures increased the R2 to 0.53 when only performance measures were used, and to 0.66 when CO2 production was added to the significant performance measures. We found the marginal improvement to be insufficient to justify the use of grouped measures rather than an individual measure because the latter simplifies the model and avoids over-fitting. Investigation of other measures that can be explored to increase explanatory power of between-cow variation in CH4 production is briefly discussed. Finally, the use of residual CH4 as a measure for CH4 efficiency could be considered by using either DMI or CO2 production as the sole predicting variables.