Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 289

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methane Emissions from Dairy Cows Measured Using the Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) Tracer and Chamber Techniques

Open access
Grainger, C., Clarke, T., McGinn, S.M., Auldist, M.J., Beauchemin, K.A., Hannah, M.C., Waghorn, G.C., Clark, H., Eckard, R.J.·2007·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

Our study compared methane (CH4) emissions from lactating dairy cows measured using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer and open-circuit respiration chamber techniques. The study was conducted using 16 lactating Holstein-Friesian cows. In each chamber, the cow was fitted with the SF6 tracer apparatus to measure total CH4 emissions, including emissions from the rectum. Fresh ryegrass pasture was harvested daily and fed ad libitum to each cow with a supplement of 5 kg of grain/d. The CH4 emissions measured using the SF6 tracer technique were similar to those using the chamber technique: 331 vs. 322 g of CH4/d per cow. The accuracy of the SF6 tracer technique was indicated by considering the ratio of the CH4 emission measured using the SF6 tracer to the emission measured using the chamber for each cow on each day. The calculated ratio of 102.3% (SE = 1.51) was not different from 100%. A higher variability within cow between days was found for the SF6 tracer technique [coefficient of variation (CV) = 6.1%] than for the chamber technique (CV = 4.3%). The variability among cows was substantially higher than within cows, and was higher for the SF6 technique (CV = 19.6%) than for the chamber technique (CV = 17.8%). Our CH4 emission data were compared with whole-animal chamber studies conducted in Canada and Ireland. In the Canadian study the SF6 technique did not measure CH4 emissions from the rectum and emissions were 8% lower than those measured using the chamber, indicating that emissions from the rectum may be greater than previously measured (1%). The relationship between CH4 emission and dry matter intake was examined for our data and for that reported in the Canadian study. There was a difference in the slopes of the regressions derived from our data and that from Canada; 17.1 vs. 20.8 g of CH4/kg of dry matter intake. A difference between the 2 locations was expected based on the difference in diet composition for these 2 studies. The SF6 tracer technique is reasonably accurate for inventory purposes and for evaluating the effects of mitigation strategies on CH4 emissions.

Overview

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 · 10.3168/jds.2006-697

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 289

Metadata

Authors
Grainger, C., Clarke, T., McGinn, S. M., Auldist, M. J., Beauchemin, K. A., Hannah, M. C., Waghorn, G. C., Clark, H., & Eckard, R. J.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2007-06
Volume
90
Issue
6
Pages
2755-2766
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1963781488
Cited by
289
References
12
FWCI
16.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.