Loading…

Grazing intensity and stocking methods on animal production and methane emission by grazing sheep: Implications for integrated crop–livestock system

•Pasture management can influence animal production and CH4 emission.•CH4 emissions per animal did not differ in response to grazing management.•CH4 emissions per unit area were 15.3% higher for the rotational stocking method.•Moderate grazing had greater CH4 emission per area than low grazing due t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Agriculture, ecosystems & environment ecosystems & environment, 2014-06, Vol.190, p.112-119
Main Authors: Savian, Jean Victor, Neto, Armindo Barth, de David, Diego Bitencourt, Bremm, Carolina, Schons, Radael Marinho Três, Genro, Teresa Cristina Moraes, do Amaral, Glaucia Azevedo, Gere, José, McManus, Concepta Margaret, Bayer, Cimélio, de Faccio Carvalho, Paulo César
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-4d5af797b68c39b7d569c3301b56bff5df5b4da321177e55d9268802510fbb043
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-4d5af797b68c39b7d569c3301b56bff5df5b4da321177e55d9268802510fbb043
container_end_page 119
container_issue
container_start_page 112
container_title Agriculture, ecosystems & environment
container_volume 190
creator Savian, Jean Victor
Neto, Armindo Barth
de David, Diego Bitencourt
Bremm, Carolina
Schons, Radael Marinho Três
Genro, Teresa Cristina Moraes
do Amaral, Glaucia Azevedo
Gere, José
McManus, Concepta Margaret
Bayer, Cimélio
de Faccio Carvalho, Paulo César
description •Pasture management can influence animal production and CH4 emission.•CH4 emissions per animal did not differ in response to grazing management.•CH4 emissions per unit area were 15.3% higher for the rotational stocking method.•Moderate grazing had greater CH4 emission per area than low grazing due to higher stocking rate.•Continuous stocking had lower methane emissions per kg of live weight gain than rotational stocking. Among the various sources with a potential negative impact on the environment, methane (CH4) emissions from livestock origin have been highlighted as important for the agricultural sector. Research to mitigate CH4 emissions and understand how integrated crop and livestock production systems may contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases, is essential for the development of public policies for environmental preservation. We hypothesized that combinations of stocking methods and grazing intensities provokes differences in the quantity and quality of herbage ingested, thus altering animal production and CH4 emissions by the grazing animal. Experiments were carried out in 2011 (Experiment 1) and 2012 (Experiment 2), when the production of pasture and CH4 emissions from sheep were studied in a system that integrates soybean (Glycine max. (L.) Merr.) and maize (Zea mays L.) in the summer/autumn, in rotation with Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) in winter/spring. Two stocking methods (continuous or rotational) and two grazing intensities (herbage allowance: moderate and low, 2.5 and 5 times the potential daily dry matter intake, respectively) in a randomized complete block design with three replicates were studied. Lambs were used in the first experiment, while lactating ewes (all with a single lamb) were used in the second experiment. Average daily gain (ADG) of lambs was greater (P0.05) between treatments. Live weight gain per hectare (LWGHA) showed the same response in both experiments, with greater LWGHA in moderate grazing intensity (P
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.008
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1642210291</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0167880914000887</els_id><sourcerecordid>1627984691</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-4d5af797b68c39b7d569c3301b56bff5df5b4da321177e55d9268802510fbb043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkbtuFDEUhi0EEkvIC1C5QaKZwfaM54JoUBRCpEg0pLY89vHGy9zw8UbaVHkHpDxgngTP7IoS4cbSr-9c_vMT8o6znDNefdzleguQC8bLnImcseYF2fCmLjJRMPmSbBJUZ03D2tfkDeKOpSeKZkOeroJ-8OOW-jHCiD4eqB4txTiZn4s8QLybLNJpTLofdE_nMNm9iX5V7AroESgMHnERuwPdnnriHcD8iV4Pc--NXkqQuimssxITwVITpvn58Xfv72GdSfGAEYa35JXTPcL56T8jt18vf1x8y26-X11ffLnJTFmymJVWale3dVc1pmi72sqqNUXBeCerzjlpnexKqwvBeV2DlLYVVTqCkJy5rmNlcUY-HPsmV7_2aQWVbBjo-2Rp2qPiVSkEZ6Ll_4GKum3KakXFEU3uEAM4NYd0u3BQnKklL7VTS15qyUsxoVJeqej9qb9Go3sX9Gg8_q0UjZQtrxbu85GDdJd7D0Gh8TAasD6AicpO_l9j_gC5pq9w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1627984691</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Grazing intensity and stocking methods on animal production and methane emission by grazing sheep: Implications for integrated crop–livestock system</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024</source><creator>Savian, Jean Victor ; Neto, Armindo Barth ; de David, Diego Bitencourt ; Bremm, Carolina ; Schons, Radael Marinho Três ; Genro, Teresa Cristina Moraes ; do Amaral, Glaucia Azevedo ; Gere, José ; McManus, Concepta Margaret ; Bayer, Cimélio ; de Faccio Carvalho, Paulo César</creator><creatorcontrib>Savian, Jean Victor ; Neto, Armindo Barth ; de David, Diego Bitencourt ; Bremm, Carolina ; Schons, Radael Marinho Três ; Genro, Teresa Cristina Moraes ; do Amaral, Glaucia Azevedo ; Gere, José ; McManus, Concepta Margaret ; Bayer, Cimélio ; de Faccio Carvalho, Paulo César</creatorcontrib><description>•Pasture management can influence animal production and CH4 emission.•CH4 emissions per animal did not differ in response to grazing management.•CH4 emissions per unit area were 15.3% higher for the rotational stocking method.•Moderate grazing had greater CH4 emission per area than low grazing due to higher stocking rate.•Continuous stocking had lower methane emissions per kg of live weight gain than rotational stocking. Among the various sources with a potential negative impact on the environment, methane (CH4) emissions from livestock origin have been highlighted as important for the agricultural sector. Research to mitigate CH4 emissions and understand how integrated crop and livestock production systems may contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases, is essential for the development of public policies for environmental preservation. We hypothesized that combinations of stocking methods and grazing intensities provokes differences in the quantity and quality of herbage ingested, thus altering animal production and CH4 emissions by the grazing animal. Experiments were carried out in 2011 (Experiment 1) and 2012 (Experiment 2), when the production of pasture and CH4 emissions from sheep were studied in a system that integrates soybean (Glycine max. (L.) Merr.) and maize (Zea mays L.) in the summer/autumn, in rotation with Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) in winter/spring. Two stocking methods (continuous or rotational) and two grazing intensities (herbage allowance: moderate and low, 2.5 and 5 times the potential daily dry matter intake, respectively) in a randomized complete block design with three replicates were studied. Lambs were used in the first experiment, while lactating ewes (all with a single lamb) were used in the second experiment. Average daily gain (ADG) of lambs was greater (P&lt;0.05) in continuous than in rotational stocking, regardless of grazing intensity (150 vs. 89gday−1 and 241 vs. 209gday−1 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively). Ewe ADG did not differ (P&gt;0.05) between treatments. Live weight gain per hectare (LWGHA) showed the same response in both experiments, with greater LWGHA in moderate grazing intensity (P&lt;0.05). In Experiment 1, the dry matter intake (DMI) was on average 21% greater (P&lt;0.05) for continuous stocking than rotational stocking (1345gday−1 vs. 1075gday−1, respectively), while in Experiment 2, no differences (P&gt;0.05) between stocking methods and grazing intensities were observed (1673±83gday−1). The CH4 emissions per animal did not differ (P&gt;0.05) among treatments in both experiments (22.7±1.0 and 39.9±1.3gday−1, Experiments 1 and 2, respectively), but when expressed in g CH4kgADG−1 emissions were on average 35 and 15% greater (Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) (P&lt;0.05) under rotational than continuous stocking, independent of grazing intensity (171 vs. 263g CH4kgADG−1 and 171 vs. 202g CH4kgADG−1 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively). Stocking method was more important than grazing intensity in determining methane production by grazing sheep. Continuous stocking was the most efficient grazing management in reducing methane emissions per unit animal production.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-8809</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2305</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.008</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AEENDO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions ; Animal productions ; Animals ; Biological and medical sciences ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General agroecology ; General agroecology. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development. Rural area planning. Landscaping ; General agronomy. Plant production ; Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development ; Glycine max ; Grazing ; Greenhouse gases ; Herbage allowance ; Herbage intake ; Italian ryegrass ; Lactating ewes ; Lamb ; Lambs ; Lolium multiflorum ; Methane ; Production methods ; Rotational ; Sheep ; Stockings ; Sulfur hexafluoide ; Terrestrial animal productions ; Vertebrates ; Zea mays</subject><ispartof>Agriculture, ecosystems &amp; environment, 2014-06, Vol.190, p.112-119</ispartof><rights>2014 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-4d5af797b68c39b7d569c3301b56bff5df5b4da321177e55d9268802510fbb043</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-4d5af797b68c39b7d569c3301b56bff5df5b4da321177e55d9268802510fbb043</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,780,784,789,790,23930,23931,25140,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=28559168$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Savian, Jean Victor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neto, Armindo Barth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de David, Diego Bitencourt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bremm, Carolina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schons, Radael Marinho Três</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Genro, Teresa Cristina Moraes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>do Amaral, Glaucia Azevedo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gere, José</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McManus, Concepta Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayer, Cimélio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Faccio Carvalho, Paulo César</creatorcontrib><title>Grazing intensity and stocking methods on animal production and methane emission by grazing sheep: Implications for integrated crop–livestock system</title><title>Agriculture, ecosystems &amp; environment</title><description>•Pasture management can influence animal production and CH4 emission.•CH4 emissions per animal did not differ in response to grazing management.•CH4 emissions per unit area were 15.3% higher for the rotational stocking method.•Moderate grazing had greater CH4 emission per area than low grazing due to higher stocking rate.•Continuous stocking had lower methane emissions per kg of live weight gain than rotational stocking. Among the various sources with a potential negative impact on the environment, methane (CH4) emissions from livestock origin have been highlighted as important for the agricultural sector. Research to mitigate CH4 emissions and understand how integrated crop and livestock production systems may contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases, is essential for the development of public policies for environmental preservation. We hypothesized that combinations of stocking methods and grazing intensities provokes differences in the quantity and quality of herbage ingested, thus altering animal production and CH4 emissions by the grazing animal. Experiments were carried out in 2011 (Experiment 1) and 2012 (Experiment 2), when the production of pasture and CH4 emissions from sheep were studied in a system that integrates soybean (Glycine max. (L.) Merr.) and maize (Zea mays L.) in the summer/autumn, in rotation with Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) in winter/spring. Two stocking methods (continuous or rotational) and two grazing intensities (herbage allowance: moderate and low, 2.5 and 5 times the potential daily dry matter intake, respectively) in a randomized complete block design with three replicates were studied. Lambs were used in the first experiment, while lactating ewes (all with a single lamb) were used in the second experiment. Average daily gain (ADG) of lambs was greater (P&lt;0.05) in continuous than in rotational stocking, regardless of grazing intensity (150 vs. 89gday−1 and 241 vs. 209gday−1 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively). Ewe ADG did not differ (P&gt;0.05) between treatments. Live weight gain per hectare (LWGHA) showed the same response in both experiments, with greater LWGHA in moderate grazing intensity (P&lt;0.05). In Experiment 1, the dry matter intake (DMI) was on average 21% greater (P&lt;0.05) for continuous stocking than rotational stocking (1345gday−1 vs. 1075gday−1, respectively), while in Experiment 2, no differences (P&gt;0.05) between stocking methods and grazing intensities were observed (1673±83gday−1). The CH4 emissions per animal did not differ (P&gt;0.05) among treatments in both experiments (22.7±1.0 and 39.9±1.3gday−1, Experiments 1 and 2, respectively), but when expressed in g CH4kgADG−1 emissions were on average 35 and 15% greater (Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) (P&lt;0.05) under rotational than continuous stocking, independent of grazing intensity (171 vs. 263g CH4kgADG−1 and 171 vs. 202g CH4kgADG−1 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively). Stocking method was more important than grazing intensity in determining methane production by grazing sheep. Continuous stocking was the most efficient grazing management in reducing methane emissions per unit animal production.</description><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</subject><subject>Animal productions</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General agroecology</subject><subject>General agroecology. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development. Rural area planning. Landscaping</subject><subject>General agronomy. Plant production</subject><subject>Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development</subject><subject>Glycine max</subject><subject>Grazing</subject><subject>Greenhouse gases</subject><subject>Herbage allowance</subject><subject>Herbage intake</subject><subject>Italian ryegrass</subject><subject>Lactating ewes</subject><subject>Lamb</subject><subject>Lambs</subject><subject>Lolium multiflorum</subject><subject>Methane</subject><subject>Production methods</subject><subject>Rotational</subject><subject>Sheep</subject><subject>Stockings</subject><subject>Sulfur hexafluoide</subject><subject>Terrestrial animal productions</subject><subject>Vertebrates</subject><subject>Zea mays</subject><issn>0167-8809</issn><issn>1873-2305</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkbtuFDEUhi0EEkvIC1C5QaKZwfaM54JoUBRCpEg0pLY89vHGy9zw8UbaVHkHpDxgngTP7IoS4cbSr-9c_vMT8o6znDNefdzleguQC8bLnImcseYF2fCmLjJRMPmSbBJUZ03D2tfkDeKOpSeKZkOeroJ-8OOW-jHCiD4eqB4txTiZn4s8QLybLNJpTLofdE_nMNm9iX5V7AroESgMHnERuwPdnnriHcD8iV4Pc--NXkqQuimssxITwVITpvn58Xfv72GdSfGAEYa35JXTPcL56T8jt18vf1x8y26-X11ffLnJTFmymJVWale3dVc1pmi72sqqNUXBeCerzjlpnexKqwvBeV2DlLYVVTqCkJy5rmNlcUY-HPsmV7_2aQWVbBjo-2Rp2qPiVSkEZ6Ll_4GKum3KakXFEU3uEAM4NYd0u3BQnKklL7VTS15qyUsxoVJeqej9qb9Go3sX9Gg8_q0UjZQtrxbu85GDdJd7D0Gh8TAasD6AicpO_l9j_gC5pq9w</recordid><startdate>20140601</startdate><enddate>20140601</enddate><creator>Savian, Jean Victor</creator><creator>Neto, Armindo Barth</creator><creator>de David, Diego Bitencourt</creator><creator>Bremm, Carolina</creator><creator>Schons, Radael Marinho Três</creator><creator>Genro, Teresa Cristina Moraes</creator><creator>do Amaral, Glaucia Azevedo</creator><creator>Gere, José</creator><creator>McManus, Concepta Margaret</creator><creator>Bayer, Cimélio</creator><creator>de Faccio Carvalho, Paulo César</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7SU</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140601</creationdate><title>Grazing intensity and stocking methods on animal production and methane emission by grazing sheep: Implications for integrated crop–livestock system</title><author>Savian, Jean Victor ; Neto, Armindo Barth ; de David, Diego Bitencourt ; Bremm, Carolina ; Schons, Radael Marinho Três ; Genro, Teresa Cristina Moraes ; do Amaral, Glaucia Azevedo ; Gere, José ; McManus, Concepta Margaret ; Bayer, Cimélio ; de Faccio Carvalho, Paulo César</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-4d5af797b68c39b7d569c3301b56bff5df5b4da321177e55d9268802510fbb043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</topic><topic>Animal productions</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General agroecology</topic><topic>General agroecology. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development. Rural area planning. Landscaping</topic><topic>General agronomy. Plant production</topic><topic>Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development</topic><topic>Glycine max</topic><topic>Grazing</topic><topic>Greenhouse gases</topic><topic>Herbage allowance</topic><topic>Herbage intake</topic><topic>Italian ryegrass</topic><topic>Lactating ewes</topic><topic>Lamb</topic><topic>Lambs</topic><topic>Lolium multiflorum</topic><topic>Methane</topic><topic>Production methods</topic><topic>Rotational</topic><topic>Sheep</topic><topic>Stockings</topic><topic>Sulfur hexafluoide</topic><topic>Terrestrial animal productions</topic><topic>Vertebrates</topic><topic>Zea mays</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Savian, Jean Victor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neto, Armindo Barth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de David, Diego Bitencourt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bremm, Carolina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schons, Radael Marinho Três</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Genro, Teresa Cristina Moraes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>do Amaral, Glaucia Azevedo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gere, José</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McManus, Concepta Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayer, Cimélio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Faccio Carvalho, Paulo César</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Agriculture, ecosystems &amp; environment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Savian, Jean Victor</au><au>Neto, Armindo Barth</au><au>de David, Diego Bitencourt</au><au>Bremm, Carolina</au><au>Schons, Radael Marinho Três</au><au>Genro, Teresa Cristina Moraes</au><au>do Amaral, Glaucia Azevedo</au><au>Gere, José</au><au>McManus, Concepta Margaret</au><au>Bayer, Cimélio</au><au>de Faccio Carvalho, Paulo César</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Grazing intensity and stocking methods on animal production and methane emission by grazing sheep: Implications for integrated crop–livestock system</atitle><jtitle>Agriculture, ecosystems &amp; environment</jtitle><date>2014-06-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>190</volume><spage>112</spage><epage>119</epage><pages>112-119</pages><issn>0167-8809</issn><eissn>1873-2305</eissn><coden>AEENDO</coden><abstract>•Pasture management can influence animal production and CH4 emission.•CH4 emissions per animal did not differ in response to grazing management.•CH4 emissions per unit area were 15.3% higher for the rotational stocking method.•Moderate grazing had greater CH4 emission per area than low grazing due to higher stocking rate.•Continuous stocking had lower methane emissions per kg of live weight gain than rotational stocking. Among the various sources with a potential negative impact on the environment, methane (CH4) emissions from livestock origin have been highlighted as important for the agricultural sector. Research to mitigate CH4 emissions and understand how integrated crop and livestock production systems may contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases, is essential for the development of public policies for environmental preservation. We hypothesized that combinations of stocking methods and grazing intensities provokes differences in the quantity and quality of herbage ingested, thus altering animal production and CH4 emissions by the grazing animal. Experiments were carried out in 2011 (Experiment 1) and 2012 (Experiment 2), when the production of pasture and CH4 emissions from sheep were studied in a system that integrates soybean (Glycine max. (L.) Merr.) and maize (Zea mays L.) in the summer/autumn, in rotation with Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) in winter/spring. Two stocking methods (continuous or rotational) and two grazing intensities (herbage allowance: moderate and low, 2.5 and 5 times the potential daily dry matter intake, respectively) in a randomized complete block design with three replicates were studied. Lambs were used in the first experiment, while lactating ewes (all with a single lamb) were used in the second experiment. Average daily gain (ADG) of lambs was greater (P&lt;0.05) in continuous than in rotational stocking, regardless of grazing intensity (150 vs. 89gday−1 and 241 vs. 209gday−1 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively). Ewe ADG did not differ (P&gt;0.05) between treatments. Live weight gain per hectare (LWGHA) showed the same response in both experiments, with greater LWGHA in moderate grazing intensity (P&lt;0.05). In Experiment 1, the dry matter intake (DMI) was on average 21% greater (P&lt;0.05) for continuous stocking than rotational stocking (1345gday−1 vs. 1075gday−1, respectively), while in Experiment 2, no differences (P&gt;0.05) between stocking methods and grazing intensities were observed (1673±83gday−1). The CH4 emissions per animal did not differ (P&gt;0.05) among treatments in both experiments (22.7±1.0 and 39.9±1.3gday−1, Experiments 1 and 2, respectively), but when expressed in g CH4kgADG−1 emissions were on average 35 and 15% greater (Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) (P&lt;0.05) under rotational than continuous stocking, independent of grazing intensity (171 vs. 263g CH4kgADG−1 and 171 vs. 202g CH4kgADG−1 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively). Stocking method was more important than grazing intensity in determining methane production by grazing sheep. Continuous stocking was the most efficient grazing management in reducing methane emissions per unit animal production.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.008</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-8809
ispartof Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 2014-06, Vol.190, p.112-119
issn 0167-8809
1873-2305
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1642210291
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024
subjects Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions
Animal productions
Animals
Biological and medical sciences
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General agroecology
General agroecology. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development. Rural area planning. Landscaping
General agronomy. Plant production
Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development
Glycine max
Grazing
Greenhouse gases
Herbage allowance
Herbage intake
Italian ryegrass
Lactating ewes
Lamb
Lambs
Lolium multiflorum
Methane
Production methods
Rotational
Sheep
Stockings
Sulfur hexafluoide
Terrestrial animal productions
Vertebrates
Zea mays
title Grazing intensity and stocking methods on animal production and methane emission by grazing sheep: Implications for integrated crop–livestock system
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T01%3A51%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Grazing%20intensity%20and%20stocking%20methods%20on%20animal%20production%20and%20methane%20emission%20by%20grazing%20sheep:%20Implications%20for%20integrated%20crop%E2%80%93livestock%20system&rft.jtitle=Agriculture,%20ecosystems%20&%20environment&rft.au=Savian,%20Jean%20Victor&rft.date=2014-06-01&rft.volume=190&rft.spage=112&rft.epage=119&rft.pages=112-119&rft.issn=0167-8809&rft.eissn=1873-2305&rft.coden=AEENDO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1627984691%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-4d5af797b68c39b7d569c3301b56bff5df5b4da321177e55d9268802510fbb043%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1627984691&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true