The SF<sub>6</sub> tracer technique for measurements of methane emission from cattle – effect of tracer permeation rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous experiments have suggested that estimates of methane (CH 4 ) emissions from ruminant animals made using the sulphur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) tracer might be influenced by the permeation rate of SF 6 (PR). This study examined the latter issue with cattle. For this, analyses of data sets from two grazing trials involving large herds (exps. 1 and 2) and a specifically designed controlled trial (exp. 3) were conducted. Individual daily CH 4 emissions from 296 (exp. 1) and 388 (exp. 2) Friesian × Jersey cows in mid-lactation were measured with herds subdivided into four (exp. 1) or five (exp. 2) measurement groups and dry matter intake (DMI) estimated by energy metabolism algorithms. The ranges of tracer PR in exps. 1 and 2 were 2.624–5.689 and 2.214–3.594 mg d -1 , respectively. Experiment 3 was conducted using 12 rumen-fistulated beef steers pen-fed on lucerne silage and design arranged as a 4 × 4 Latin square with three replications. Permeation tubes with four levels of nominal PR (three tubes each): low (L), medium (M), medium-high (MH) and high (H) were randomly assigned to four rumen deployment sequences (L-M-MH-H, H-MH-M-L, MH-L-H-M and M-H-L-MH). The grazing experiments revealed a positive effect of PR on the CH 4 emission estimates (1 mg SF 6 d -1 accounting for 0.6–2.3 g kg -1 DMI), but this effect was significant (R 2 = 0.06–0.23, P < 0.05) only when there was a large range in PR (exp. 1), whereas with a narrower PR range (exp. 2) the effect was not significant (R 2 < 0.04, P > 0.05). Experiment 3 revealed that the influence of PR upon CH 4 emission estimates was linear. It is concluded that despite an influence of PR on CH 4 emission estimates, accuracy and precision of the tracer technique is warranted provided that PR are used in a narrow range and balanced between the experimental treatments. Key words: Methane, permeation rate, SF6 tracer, cattle, variation
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".