The potential impact of breeding strategies to reduce methane output from beef cattle
P. F. Fennessy A B , T. J. Byrne A , L. E. Proctor A and P. R. Amer A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A AbacusBio Limited, PO Box 5585, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
B Corresponding author. Email: pfennessy@abacusbio.co.nz
Animal Production Science 59(9) 1598-1610 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN18186
Submitted: 11 March 2018 Accepted: 12 November 2018 Published: 19 December 2018
Abstract
The present paper provides an indication (using selection index theory) of the contribution of genetics to a reduction in methane emissions through the current selection for productivity traits (defined as the inherent rate). This is then compared with potential new approaches that incorporate measurements or estimates of methane production as selection criteria. The predicted value of the inherent reduction in methane at a price (all costs and prices are in Australian dollars) of $25/t carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e; methane × 25) is $0.38/cow mated per year. The direct value of the estimated annual genetic gain in productivity (about $3/cow mated) is about eight times the value of the savings in methane. The value of the carbon savings doubles to ~$0.75 if methane yield (methane per unit feed intake) is included in the index. This is due to a reduction in methane emissions of 0.78% of the mean (1.20 kg methane/cow mated per year at a carbon cost of $25/t CO2-e) which increases to 1.0% at $50/t CO2-e. If selection is on methane alone, the annual response is ~1.45%, which is valued at $1.39 at a price of $25/t CO2-e. However, adoption is less than 100% at the breeder level, so that realised gains will be less than predicted here.
Additional keywords: methane mitigation, selection.
References
Alcock DJ, Harrison MT, Rawnsley RP, Eckard RJ (2015) Can animal genetics and flock management be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also maintain productivity of wool-producing enterprises? Agricultural Systems 132, 25–34.| Can animal genetics and flock management be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also maintain productivity of wool-producing enterprises?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Amer PR (1999) Economic accounting of numbers of expressions and delays in sheep genetic improvement. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 42, 325–336.
| Economic accounting of numbers of expressions and delays in sheep genetic improvement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Amer PR, Simm G, Keane MG, Diskin MG, Wickham BW (2001) Breeding objectives for beef cattle in Ireland. Livestock Production Science 67, 223–239.
| Breeding objectives for beef cattle in Ireland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Amer PR, Hely FS, Quinton CD, Cromie AR (2018) A methodology framework for weighting genetic traits that impact greenhouse gas emission intensities in selection indexes. Animal 12, 5–11.
| A methodology framework for weighting genetic traits that impact greenhouse gas emission intensities in selection indexes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Archer JA, Barwick SA, Graser HU (2004) Economic evaluation of beef cattle breeding schemes incorporating performance testing of young bulls for feed intake. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 393–404.
| Economic evaluation of beef cattle breeding schemes incorporating performance testing of young bulls for feed intake.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Arthur PF, Archer JA, Johnston DJ, Herd RM, Richardson EC, Parnell PF (2001) Genetic and phenotypic variance and covariance components for feed intake, feed efficiency and other postweaning traits in Angus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2805–2811.
| Genetic and phenotypic variance and covariance components for feed intake, feed efficiency and other postweaning traits in Angus cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Basarab JA, Beauchemin KA, Baron VS, Ominski KH, Guan LL, Miller SP, Crowley JJ (2013) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through genetic improvement for feed efficiency: effects on economically important traits and enteric methane production. Animal 7, 303–315.
| Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through genetic improvement for feed efficiency: effects on economically important traits and enteric methane production.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Berry DP, Madalena FE, Cromie AR, Amer PR (2006) Cumulative discounted expressions of dairy and beef traits in cattle production systems. Livestock Science 99, 159–174.
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 |
Burney JA, Davis SJ, Lobell DB (2010) Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 107, 12052–12057.
| Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Byrne TJ, Amer PR, Fennessy PF, Cromie AR, Keady TWJ, Hanrahan JP, McHugh MP, Wickham BW (2010) Breeding objectives for sheep in Ireland: a bio-economic approach. Livestock Science 132, 135–144.
| Breeding objectives for sheep in Ireland: a bio-economic approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Byrne TJ, Ludemann CI, Amer PR, Young MJ (2012) Broadening breeding objectives for maternal and terminal sheep. Livestock Science 144, 20–36.
| Broadening breeding objectives for maternal and terminal sheep.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 |
Cottle DJ (2011) Use of residual feed intake as an indirect selection trait for reduction of methane emissions in grazing beef cattle. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 19, 423–425.
Cottle DJ (2017) Optimising the proportion of selection candidates measured for methane emissions in a beef cattle breeding objective that includes feed intake. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 22, 405–408.
Cottle DJ, Conington J (2012) Breeding for reduced methane emissions in extensive UK sheep systems. The Journal of Agricultural Science 150, 570–583.
| Breeding for reduced methane emissions in extensive UK sheep systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cottle DJ, van der Werf JH (2017) Optimising the proportion of selection candidates measured for feed intake for a beef cattle breeding objective that includes methane emissions. Journal of Animal Science 95, 1030–1041.
Cottle DJ, Nolan JV, Wiedemann SG (2011) Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: a review. Animal Production Science 51, 491–514.
| Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Donoghue KA, Herd RM, Bird SH, Arthur PF, Hegarty RF (2013) Preliminary genetic parameters for methane production in Australian beef cattle. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 20, 290–293.
Donoghue KA, Bird-Gardiner TL, Arthur PF, Herd RM, Hegarty RF (2015) Genetic parameters for methane production and relationships with production traits in Australian beef cattle. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 21, 114–117.
Fennessy PF, Byrne TJ, Amer PR, Martin G (2014) ‘Evaluating the impact of animal genetics and genomics RD&E investment.’ Available at http://www.mla.com.au/Research-and-development/Search-RD-reports/RD-report-details/Productivity-On-Farm/Evaluating-the-impact-of-animal-genetics-and-genomics-RDandE-investment/258 [Verified 15 November 2017]
Gerber PJ, Hristov AN, Henderson B, Makkar H, Oh J, Lee C, Meinen R, Montes F, Ott T, Firkins J, Rotz A, Dell C, Adesogan AT, Yang WZ, Tricarico JM, Kebreab E, Waghorn G, Dijkstra J, Oosting S (2013a) Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review. Animal 7, 220–234.
| Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G (2013b) ‘Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities.’ (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome)
Hayes BJ, Donoghue KA, Reich C, Mason B, Herd RM, Arthur PF (2015) Genomic breeding values for methane production in Australian beef cattle. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 21, 118–121.
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, Arthur PF, Hegarty RF (2016) Associations among methane emission traits measured in the feedlot and in respiration chambers in Angus cattle bred to vary in feed efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 94, 4882–4891.
| Associations among methane emission traits measured in the feedlot and in respiration chambers in Angus cattle bred to vary in feed efficiency.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hristov AN, Oh J, Lee C, Meinen R, Montes F, Ott T, Firkins J, Rotz A, Dell C, Adesogan A, Yang WZ, Tricarico J, Kebreab E, Waghorn G, Dijkstra J, Oosting S (2013) ‘Animal production and health paper: mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production: a review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions.’ (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome)
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: Working Group I: the physical science basis, Table 2.14. Fourth assessment report. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Lieffering M, Ledgard S, Boyes M, Kemp R (2010) Beef greenhouse gas footprint: final report. Report to MAF. AgResearch, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Ludemann CI, Byrne TJ, Sise JA, Amer PR (2011) The role of breeding in reducing sheep GHG intensity. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 71, 162–167.
Manzanilla-Pech CIV, De Haas Y, Hayes BJ, Veerkamp RF, Khansefid M, Donoghue KA, Arthur PF, Pryce JE (2016) Genome wide association study of methane emissions in Angus beef cattle with validation in dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Science 94, 4151–4166.
| Genome wide association study of methane emissions in Angus beef cattle with validation in dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nicol AM, Brookes IM (2007) The metabolisable energy requirements of grazing livestock. In ‘Pasture and supplements for grazing animals. Occasional publication no. 14’. (Eds PV Rattray IM Brookes, AM Nicol) pp. 151–172. (New Zealand Society of Animal Production: Hamilton, New Zealand)
Pickering NK, Oddy VH, Basarab J, Cammack K, Hayes B, Hegarty RS, Lassen J, McEwan JC, Miller S, Pinares-Patiño CS, de Haas Y (2015) Animal board invited review: genetic possibilities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Animal 9, 1431–1440.
| Animal board invited review: genetic possibilities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants.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 |
Quinton CD, Hely FS, Amer PR, Byrne TJ, Cromie AR (2017) Prediction of effects of beef selection indexes on greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 9, 1–9.
Robinson DL, Oddy VH (2016) Benefits of including methane measurements in selection strategies. Journal of Animal Science 94, 3624–3635.
| Benefits of including methane measurements in selection strategies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Roughsedge T, Amer PR, Thompson R, Simm G (2005) Development of a maternal breeding goal and tools to select for this goal in UK beef production. Animal Science 81, 221–232.
| Development of a maternal breeding goal and tools to select for this goal in UK beef production.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sise JA, Byrne TJ, Young MJ, Amer PR (2013) Economic impact of changes to the breeding objectives used within the New Zealand beef breeding industry. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 20, 487–490.
Wall E, Simm G, Moran D (2010a) Developing breeding schemes to assist mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 4, 366–376.
| Developing breeding schemes to assist mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wall E, Ludemann C, Jones H, Audsley E, Moran D, Roughsedge T, Amer P (2010b). The potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions for sheep and cattle in the UK using genetic selection. Science Advisory Council, final report for Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (FGG0808), London, UK.
Wiedemann SG, Henry BK, McGahan EJ, Grant T, Murphy CM, Niethe G (2015) Resource use and greenhouse gas intensity of Australian beef production: 1981–2010. Agricultural Systems 133, 109–118.
| Resource use and greenhouse gas intensity of Australian beef production: 1981–2010.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilton JW, Quinton VM, Quinton CM (2013) ‘Optimising animal breeding plans.’ (Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph: Guelph, Canada)
