CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 143Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production

Rumen function and digestion parameters associated with differences between sheep in methane emissions when fed chaffed lucerne hay

Open access
PINARES-PATIÑO, C. S., ULYATT, M. J., LASSEY, K. R., BARRY, T. N., HOLMES, C. W.·2003·The Journal of Agricultural Science
DOI 10.1017/s0021859603003046
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

An indoor experiment involving 10 rumen-cannulated Romney sheep was conducted in May and June 1998 at AgResearch Grasslands, Palmerston North, New Zealand, under restricted feeding conditions, in order to test the hypothesis that animal factors, in particular rumen fractional outflow rate (FOR) and rumen volume, have an influence on the between-sheep variation in methane (CH4) emission. Sheep were fed 2-hourly on chaffed lucerne hay. Following an acclimatization period of 21 days, the experiment lasted 16 days. Energy and nitrogen (N) balances were measured on days 1–6. Cr-EDTA marker was continuously infused into the rumen from day 9 to 16, and rumen contents emptied and sampled on days 13 and 16. Particulate and fluid FOR were estimated using feed lignin and Cr-EDTA, respectively. Daily CH4 production was measured by the sulphur hexafluoride tracer technique on days 2, 5, 6, 12 and 15 of the experiment. CH4 production (g/day) was positively correlated with the pool size of organic matter (OM) in the rumen (OM pool, g) (r=0·84, P=0·002), OM intake (OMI, g/day) (r=0·67, P=0·04), and the rumen fill (g, wet digesta) (r=0·76, P=0·01). Multiple regression analysis showed that CH4 production was best predicted (R2=0·88) as a function of OM pool and the molar % of butyrate; however, OM pool alone accounted for a large proportion (R2=0·71) of the variation in CH4 production. CH4 yield (% gross energy intake, % GEI) was negatively correlated with the particulate FOR (%/h) (r=−0·75, P=0·01) and buffering capacity of rumen fluid (mmol HCl) (r=−0·72, P=0·02), but positively correlated with the digestibility of cellulose (r=0·66, P=0·04). Multiple regression analysis showed that CH4 yield was best predicted as a function of particulate FOR, OMI (g/kg liveweight0·75) and the molar % of butyrate (R2=0·88). Particulate FOR alone explained a large proportion (R2=0·57) of the variation in CH4 yield. Particulate FOR was negatively correlated with rumen fill (r=−0·69, P=0·03) and digestibility of cellulose (r=−0·65, P=0·04). These results suggest that sheep with lower rumen particulate FOR (i.e. longer rumen retention times) had larger rumen fills and higher fibre digestibilities and CH4 yields. If rumen particulate FOR is to be used as a tool for CH4 mitigation, the repeatability of its relationship to CH4 emission must be assessed, preferably under grazing conditions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0021859603003046

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. DEMEYER, D. I. & VAN NEVEL, C. J. (1975). Methanogenesis, an integrated part of carbohydrate fermentation, and its control. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology (Eds I. W. McDonald & A. C. I. Warner), pp. 366-382. University of New England, Armidale, Australia: The University of New England Publishing Unit.
  2. FAICHNEY, G. J. (1975). The use of markers to partition di- gestion within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology (Eds I. W. McDonald & A. C. I. Warner), pp. 277-291. University of New England, Armidale, Australia: The University of New England Publishing Unit.
  3. FAICHNEY, G. J. (1993). Digesta flow. In Quantitative Aspects of Ruminant Digestion and Metabolism (Eds J. M. Forbes & J. France), pp. 53-85. Wallingford : CAB International.
  4. GOODALL, E. D. & KAY, R. N. B. (1973). The use of the chromium complex of ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid for studies of digestion in sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 32, 22A-23A.
  5. GROVUM, W. L. (1984). Integration of digestion and digesta kinetics with control of feed intake -a physiological framework for a model of rumen function. In Herbivore Nutrition in the Subtropics and Tropics (Eds F. M. C. Gilchrist & R. I. Mackie), pp. 244 -268. Craighall, SA : The Science Press.
  6. JOUANY, J. P. & LASSALAS, B. (2000). Effect of protozoa on methane production in the rumen; consequences on carbon and hydrogen distribution among the other end products of fermentation. In Methane Mitigation, Proceedings of Second International Conference, pp. 121-123. Novosibirsk, Russia: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
PINARES-PATIÑO, C. S., ULYATT, M. J., LASSEY, K. R., BARRY, T. N., & HOLMES, C. W.
Affiliations
  • AgResearch (NZ)
  • National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NZ)
  • Massey University (NZ)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Agricultural Science
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2003-03
Volume
140
Issue
2
Pages
205-214
ISSN
  • 0021-8596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-5146
DOI
10.1017/s0021859603003046
OpenAlex
W2124715304
Cited by
143
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
6.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 80 d)
Locations
  • The Journal of Agricultural Science (publishedVersion)
  • Massey Research Online (Massey University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Keywords
methane emissions, sheep, rumen function, rumen volume, butyrate, cellulose digestibility, energy balance, nitrogen balance, sulfur hexafluoride tracer, rumen fill, rumen fermentation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review