Estimation of methane emissions from local and crossbreed beef cattle in Daklak province of Vietnam

This study was aimed at evaluating effects of cattle breed resources and alternative mixed-feeding practices on meat productivity and emission intensities from household farming systems (HFS) in Daklak Province, Vietnam. Records from Local Yellow×Red Sindhi ( ; Lai Sind) and 1/2 Limousin, 1/2 Drough...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Animal bioscience 2017, 30(7), , pp.1054-1060
Hauptverfasser: Ramírez-Restrepo, Carlos Alberto, Van Tien, Dung, Le Duc, Ngoan, Herrero, Mario, Le Dinh, Phung, Van, Dung Dinh, Le Thi Hoa, Sen, Chi, Cuong Vu, Solano-Patiño, Cesar, Lerner, Amy M, Searchinger, Timothy D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study was aimed at evaluating effects of cattle breed resources and alternative mixed-feeding practices on meat productivity and emission intensities from household farming systems (HFS) in Daklak Province, Vietnam. Records from Local Yellow×Red Sindhi ( ; Lai Sind) and 1/2 Limousin, 1/2 Drought Master, and 1/2 Red Angus cattle during the growth (0 to 21 months) and fattening (22 to 25 months) periods were used to better understand variations on meat productivity and enteric methane emissions. Parameters were determined by the ruminant model. Four scenarios were developed: (HFS1) grazing from birth to slaughter on native grasses for approximately 10 h plus 1.5 kg dry matter/d (0.8% live weight [LW]) of a mixture of guinea grass (19%), cassava (43%) powder, cotton (23%) seed, and rice (15%) straw; (HFS2) growth period fed with elephant grass (1% of LW) plus supplementation (1.5% of LW) of rice bran (36%), maize (33%), and cassava (31%) meals; and HFS3 and HFS4 computed elephant grass, but concentrate supplementation reaching 2% and 1% of LW, respectively. Results show that compared to HFS1, emissions (72.3±0.96 kg CH /animal/life; least squares means± standard error of the mean) were 15%, 6%, and 23% lower (p
ISSN:1011-2367
2765-0189
1976-5517
2765-0235
DOI:10.5713/ajas.16.0821