Quantifying effects of grassland management on enteric methane emission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data on the effect of grassland management on the nutritional characteristics of fresh and conserved grass, and on enteric methane (CH4) emission in dairy cattle, are sparse. In the present study, an extant mechanistic model of enteric fermentation was evaluated against observations on the effect of grassland management on CH4 emission in three trials conducted in climate-controlled respiration chambers. Treatments were nitrogen fertilisation rate, stage of maturity of grass and level of feed intake, and mean data of a total of 18 treatments were used (4 grass herbage treatments and 14 grass silage treatments). There was a wide range of observed organic matter (OM) digestibility (from 68% to 84%) and CH4 emission intensity (from 5.6% to 7.3% of gross energy intake; from 27.4 to 36.9 g CH4/kg digested OM; from 19.7 to 24.6 g CH4/kg dry matter) among treatment means. The model predicted crude protein, fibre and OM digestibility with reasonable accuracy (root of mean square prediction errors as % of observed mean, RMSPE, 6.8%, 7.5% and 3.9%, respectively). For grass silages only, the model-predicted CH4 correlated well (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.73) with the observed CH4 (which varied from 5.7% to 7.2% of gross energy intake), after predicted CH4 was corrected for nitrate consumed with grass silage, acting as hydrogen sink in the rumen. After nitrate correction, there was a systematic under-prediction of 18%, which reduced to 9% when correcting the erroneously predicted rumen volatile fatty acid (VFA) profile (RMSPE 15%). Although a small over-prediction of 3% was obtained for the grass herbages, this increased to 14% when correcting VFA profile. The model predictions showed a systematic difference in CH4 emission from grass herbages and grass silages, which was not supported by the observed data. This is possibly related to the very high content of soluble carbohydrates in grass herbage (an extra 170 g/kg dry matter compared with grass silages) and an erroneous prediction of its fate and contribution to CH4 in the rumen. Erroneous prediction of the VFA profile is likely to be due to different types of diets included in the empirical database used to parameterise VFA yield in the model from those evaluated here. Model representations of feed digestion and VFA profile are key elements to predict enteric CH4 accurately, and with further evaluations, the latter aspect should be emphasised in particular.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".