This paper is a brief introduction to the different methods used to quantify the enteric methane emission from ruminants. A thorough knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of these methods is very important in order to plan experiments, understand and interpret experimental results, and compare them with other studies. The aim of the paper is to describe the principles, advantages and disadvantages of different methods used to quantify the enteric methane emission from ruminants. The best-known methods: Chambers/respiration chambers, SF₆ technique and in vitro gas production technique and the newer CO₂ methods are described. Model estimations, which are used to calculate national budget and single cow enteric emission from intake and diet composition, are also discussed. Other methods under development such as the micrometeorological technique, combined feeder and CH₄ analyzer and proxy methods are briefly mentioned. Methods of choice for estimating enteric methane emission depend on aim, equipment, knowledge, time and money available, but interpretation of results obtained with a given method can be improved if knowledge about the disadvantages and advantages are used in the planning of experiments.

Nitrate may lower methane production in ruminants by competing with methanogenesis for available hydrogen in the rumen. This study evaluated the effect of 4 levels of dietary nitrate addition on enteric methane production, hydrogen emission, feed intake, rumen fermentation, nutrient digestibility, microbial protein synthesis, and blood methemoglobin. In a 4×4 Latin square design 4 lactating Danish Holstein dairy cows fitted with rumen, duodenal, and ileal cannulas were assigned to 4 calcium ammonium nitrate addition levels: control, low, medium, and high [0, 5.3, 13.6, and 21.1g of nitrate/kg of dry matter (DM), respectively]. Diets were made isonitrogenous by replacing urea. Cows were fed ad libitum and, after a 6-d period of gradual introduction of nitrate, adapted to the corn-silage-based total mixed ration (forage:concentrate ratio 50:50 on DM basis) for 16d before sampling. Digesta content from duodenum, ileum, and feces, and rumen liquid were collected, after which methane production and hydrogen emissions were measured in respiration chambers. Methane production [L/kg of dry matter intake (DMI)] linearly decreased with increasing nitrate concentrations compared with the control, corresponding to a reduction of 6, 13, and 23% for the low, medium, and high diets, respectively. Methane production was lowered with apparent efficiencies (measured methane reduction relative to potential methane reduction) of 82.3, 71.9, and 79.4% for the low, medium, and high diets, respectively. Addition of nitrate increased hydrogen emissions (L/kg of DMI) quadratically by a factor of 2.5, 3.4, and 3.0 (as L/kg of DMI) for the low, medium, and high diets, respectively, compared with the control. Blood methemoglobin levels and nitrate concentrations in milk and urine increased with increasing nitrate intake, but did not constitute a threat for animal health and human food safety. Microbial crude protein synthesis and efficiency were unaffected. Total volatile fatty acid concentration and molar proportions of acetate, butyrate, and propionate were unaffected, whereas molar proportions of formate increased. Milk yield, milk composition, DMI and digestibility of DM, organic matter, crude protein, and neutral detergent fiber in rumen, small intestine, hindgut, and total tract were unaffected by addition of nitrate. In conclusion, nitrate lowered methane production linearly with minor effects on rumen fermentation and no effects on nutrient digestibility.

The purpose of this experiment was to study the effect of the physical form of rapeseed fat on methane (CH4) mitigation properties, feed digestion, and rumen fermentation. Four lactating ruminal-, duodenal-, and ileal-cannulated Danish Holstein dairy cows (143 d in milk, milk yield of 34.3 kg) were submitted to a 4×4 Latin square design with 4 rations: 1 control with rapeseed meal (low-fat, CON) and 3 fat-supplemented rations with either rapeseed cake (RSC), whole cracked rapeseed (WCR), or rapeseed oil (RSO). Dietary fat concentrations were 3.5 in CON, 5.5 in RSC, 6.2 in WCR, and 6.5% in RSO. The amount of fat-free rapeseed was kept constant for all rations. The forage consisted of corn silage and grass silage and the forage to concentrate ratio was 50:50 on a dry matter basis. Diurnal samples of duodenal and ileal digesta and feces were compiled. The methane production was measured for 4 d in open-circuit respiration chambers. Additional fat reduced the CH4 production per kilogram of dry matter intake and as a proportion of the gross energy intake by 11 and 14%, respectively. Neither the total tract nor the rumen digestibility of organic matter (OM) or neutral detergent fiber were significantly affected by the treatment. Relating the CH4 production to the total-tract digested OM showed a tendency to decrease CH4 per kilogram of digested OM for fat-supplemented rations versus CON. The acetate to propionate ratio was not affected for RSC and WCR but was increased for RSO compared with CON. The rumen ammonia concentration was not affected by the ration. The milk and energy-corrected milk yields were unaffected by the fat supplementation. In conclusion, rapeseed is an appropriate fat source to reduce the enteric CH4 production without affecting neutral detergent fiber digestion or milk production. The physical form of fat did not influence the CH4-reducing effect of rapeseed fat. However, differences in the volatile fatty acid pattern indicate that different mechanisms may be involved.

Methane is a greenhouse gas with a significant anthropogenic contribution from cattle production. A demand exists for techniques that facilitate evaluation of mitigation strategies for dairy cows. Therefore, a low-cost system facilitating the highest possible animal welfare was constructed and validated. The system uses the same principles as systems for open-circuit indirect calorimetry, but to lower the costs, the chamber construction and air-conditioning system were simpler than described for other open-circuit systems. To secure the highest possible animal welfare, the system is located in the cow's daily environment. The system consists of 4 transparent polycarbonate chambers placed in a square so that the cows are facing each other. The chamber dimensions are 183 (width), 382 (length), and 245 cm (height) with a volume of 17 m(3). Flow and concentrations of O(2), CO(2), CH(4), and H(2) are measured continuously in the outlet. Flow is measured with a mass flow meter, O(2) with a paramagnetic sensor, CO(2) and CH(4) with infrared sensors, and H(2) with an electrochemical sensor. Chamber inlet is placed in the barn and background concentrations may differ between chambers, but delta values between background and outlet concentrations for all chambers were within instrument tolerance. Average recovery rates of CO(2) and CH(4) were (mean ± SD) 101 ± 4 and 99 ± 7%, respectively. This is within the expected tolerance of the whole system (gas sensors and flow meters). Feed dry matter intakes were not affected by confining the animals in chambers, as dry matter intake before and during chamber stay were similar. It was concluded that the system delivers reliable values, and the transparent construction in combination with the location in the barn environment prevent negative impact on animal welfare and, thereby, data quality.