Associations of digestibility with phenotypic and genetic variation in methane production in Angus cattle
H. C. Smith A , R. M. Herd
B C * , K. A. Donoghue D , T. Bird-Gardiner D , P. F. Arthur E and R. S. Hegarty C
A Local Land Services, Moruya, NSW 2537, Australia.
B NSW Department of Primary Industries, Livestock Industry Centre, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
C Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
D NSW Department of Primary Industries, Agricultural Research Centre, Trangie, NSW 2823, Australia.
E NSW Department of Primary Industries, Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, Menangle, NSW 2568, Australia.
Animal Production Science 62(18) 1749-1756 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN21501
Submitted: 18 October 2021 Accepted: 3 August 2022 Published: 12 September 2022
© 2022 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing
Abstract
Context: Cattle and sheep emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas, as part of the fermentation process of feed digestion in their gut; however, the mechanisms explaining differences among animals in enteric methane production are not fully understood.
Aim: To investigate whether variation among animals in their ability to digest their test ration was associated with phenotypic and genetic variation in methane production.
Methods: The experiment used 135 Angus beef cattle measured for their phenotypic and genetic merit for methane production. The extent of digestion of the dry matter (DMD) in the test ration by individual cattle was determined using silica as a naturally present indigestible marker. Its concentration in feed consumed and faeces was determined using rapid portable X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, from which DMD was calculated.
Key results: Higher daily methane-production rate (MPR), higher methane produced per unit of feed consumed (methane yield; MY) and higher methane produced than the predicted daily production (residual MPR; RMP) by animals was accompanied by higher DMD. Higher genetic merit for MPR was also accompanied by higher DMD, but DMD had no detectable association with genetic variation in the other two methane emission traits. The regression coefficients for change in MPR (g/day), MY (g/kg DMI), RMP (g/day) with change in DMD (%) were 2.6 ± 1.1 (s.e.; P < 0.05), 0.14 ± 0.07 (P < 0.1) and 0.68 ± 0.38 (P < 0.1) respectively.
Conclusions: Differences among animals in their DMD were found and were associated with phenotypic variation in the three methane emission traits studied, and with genetic variation in daily methane production. The results support the caution that feeding and breeding interventions seeking to reduce methane emissions can also reduce the extent of digestion of feed by cattle.
Implications: Feeding and breeding interventions that seek to reduce methane emissions may change rumen physiology and reduce the extent of digestion of feed by cattle, which may be undesirable.
Keywords: breeding, DMD, fermentation, greenhouse gas, internal marker, methane yield, sheep, silica.
References
Arthur PF, Donoghue KA, Bird-Gardiner T, Herd RM, Hegarty RS (2018) Effect of measurement duration in respiration chambers on methane traits of beef cattle. Animal Production Science 58, 1006–1010.| Effect of measurement duration in respiration chambers on methane traits of beef cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Barnett MC, Forster NA, Ray GA, Li L, Guppy CN, Hegarty RS (2016) Using portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) to determine fecal concentrations of non-absorbable digesta kinetic and digestibility markers in sheep and cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 212, 35–41.
| Using portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) to determine fecal concentrations of non-absorbable digesta kinetic and digestibility markers in sheep and cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Blaxter KL, Clapperton JL (1965) Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition 19, 511–522.
| Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cabezas-Garcia EH, Krizsan SJ, Shingfield KJ, Huhtanen P (2017) Between-cow variation in digestion and rumen fermentation variables associated with methane production. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 4409–4424.
| Between-cow variation in digestion and rumen fermentation variables associated with methane production.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Charmley E, Williams SRO, Moate PJ, Hegarty RS, Herd RM, Oddy VH, Reyenga P, Staunton KM, Anderson A, Hannah MC (2016) A universal equation to predict methane production of forage-fed cattle in Australia. Animal Production Science 56, 169–180.
| A universal equation to predict methane production of forage-fed cattle in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Donoghue KA, Bird-Gardiner T, Arthur PF, Herd RM, Hegarty RF (2016) Genetic and phenotypic variance and covariance components for methane emission and postweaning traits in Angus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 94, 1438–1445.
| Genetic and phenotypic variance and covariance components for methane emission and postweaning traits in Angus cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Goopy JP (2019) Creating a low enteric methane emission ruminant: what is the evidence of success to the present and prospects for developing economies? Animal Production Science 59, 1769–1776.
| Creating a low enteric methane emission ruminant: what is the evidence of success to the present and prospects for developing economies?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Goopy JP, Donaldson A, Hegarty R, Vercoe PE, Haynes F, Barnett M, Oddy VH (2014) Low-methane yield sheep have smaller rumens and shorter rumen retention time. British Journal of Nutrition 111, 578–585.
| Low-methane yield sheep have smaller rumens and shorter rumen retention time.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Herd RM, Arthur PF, Donoghue KA, Bird SH, Bird-Gardiner T, Hegarty RS (2014) Measures of methane production and their phenotypic relationships with dry matter intake, growth, and body composition traits in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 92, 5267–5274.
| Measures of methane production and their phenotypic relationships with dry matter intake, growth, and body composition traits in beef cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Herd RM, Velazco JI, Smith H, Arthur PF, Hine B, Oddy H, Dobos RC, Hegarty RS (2019) Genetic variation in residual feed intake is associated with body composition, behavior, rumen, heat production, hematology, and immune competence traits in Angus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 97, 2202–2219.
| Genetic variation in residual feed intake is associated with body composition, behavior, rumen, heat production, hematology, and immune competence traits in Angus cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hristov AN, Oh J, Firkins JL, Dijkstra J, Kebreab E, Waghorn G, Makkar HPS, Adesogan AT, Yang W, Lee C, Gerber PJ, Henderson B, Tricarico JM (2013) Special Topics: mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5045–5069.
| Special Topics: mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Manafiazar G, Flesch TK, Baron VS, McKeown L, Byron B, Block H, Ominski K, Plastow G, Basarab JA (2021) Methane and carbon dioxide emissions and grazed forage intake from pregnant beef heifers previously classified for residual feed intake under drylot conditions. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 101, 71–84.
| Methane and carbon dioxide emissions and grazed forage intake from pregnant beef heifers previously classified for residual feed intake under drylot conditions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Manzanilla-Pech CIV, L⊘vendahl P, Mansan Gordo D, Difford GF, Pryce JE, Schenkel F, Wegmann S, Miglior F, Chud TC, Moate PJ, Williams SRO, Richardson CM, Stothard P, Lassen J (2021) Breeding for reduced methane emission and feed-efficient Holstein cows: An international response. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 8983–9001.
| Breeding for reduced methane emission and feed-efficient Holstein cows: An international response.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pinares-Patiño CS, Ulyatt MJ, Lassey KR, Barry TN, Holmes CW (2003) Rumen function and digestion parameters associated with differences between sheep in methane emissions when fed chaffed lucerne hay. The Journal of Agricultural Science 140, 205–214.
| Rumen function and digestion parameters associated with differences between sheep in methane emissions when fed chaffed lucerne hay.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pinares-Patiño CS, Hickey SM, Young EA, Dodds KG, MacLean S, Molano G, Sandoval E, Kjestrup H, Harland R, Hunt C, Pickering NK, McEwan JC (2013) Heritability estimates of methane emissions from sheep. Animal 7, 316–321.
| Heritability estimates of methane emissions from sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Richardson CM, Nguyen TTT, Abdelsayed M, Moate PJ, Williams SRO, Chud TCS, Schenkel FS, Goddard ME, van den Berg I, Cocks BG, Marett LC, Wales WJ, Pryce JE (2021) Genetic parameters for methane emission traits in Australian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 539–549.
| Genetic parameters for methane emission traits in Australian dairy cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sales J, Janssens GPJ (2003) Acid-insoluble ash as a marker in digestibility studies: a review. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 12, 383–401.
| Acid-insoluble ash as a marker in digestibility studies: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
SAS (2012) ‘SAS STAT software, version 9.4 of the SAS system for windows.’ (SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA)
Tighe M, Forster N (2014) Rapid, nondestructive elemental analysis of tree and shrub litter. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 45, 53–60.
| Rapid, nondestructive elemental analysis of tree and shrub litter.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Gastelen S, Dijkstra J, Bannink A (2019) Are dietary strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission equally effective across dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep? Journal of Dairy Science 102, 6109–6130.
| Are dietary strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission equally effective across dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
