Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:15:29.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing breeding schemes to assist mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2009

E. Wall ,
G. Simm  and
D. Moran
E. Wall*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, SAC, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0PH, UK
G. Simm
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, SAC, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0PH, UK
D. Moran
Affiliation:
Land Economy and Environmental Research Group, SAC, West Mains Road, EH9 3JG, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Genetic improvement of livestock is a particularly effective technology, producing permanent and cumulative changes in performance. This paper highlights some of the options for including mitigation in livestock breeding schemes, focusing on ruminant species, and details three routes through which genetic improvement can help to reduce emissions per kg product via: (i) improving productivity and efficiency, (ii) reducing wastage in the farming system and (iii) directly selecting on emissions, if or when these are measurable. Selecting on traits that improve the efficiency of the system (e.g. residual feed intake, longevity) will have a favourable effect on the overall emissions from the system. Specific examples of how genetic selection will have a favourable effect on emissions for UK dairy systems are described. The development of breeding schemes that incorporate environmental concerns is both desirable and possible. An example of how economic valuation of public good outcomes can be incorporated into UK dairy selection indices is given. This paper focuses on genetic selection tools using, on the whole, currently available traits and tools. However, new direct and indirect measurement techniques for emissions will improve the potential to reduce emissions by genetic selection. The complexities of global forces on defining selection objectives are also highlighted.

Keywords

animal breedinggreenhouse gas emissionsefficiencyenvironmental valuation
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , March 2010 , pp. 366 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abberton, MT, Marshall, AH, Humphreys, MW, Macduff, JH 2008. Genetic improvement of forage crops for climate change mitigation. In Proceedings of the Livestock and Global Climate Change Conference, 17–20 May 2008, Hammamet, Tunisia, pp. 48–51.Google Scholar
Amer, PR 1994. Economic theory and breeding objectives. In Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Guelph, Canada, vol. 18, pp. 197–204.Google Scholar
Amer, PR 2006. Approaches to formulating breeding objectives. In Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 13–18 August 2006, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, abstract no. 31-01.Google Scholar
Amon, B, Kryvoruchko, V, Amon, T, Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S 2006. Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions during storage and after application of dairy cattle slurry and influence of slurry treatment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CDI 2008. The Centre for Dairy Improvement Breed Performance Statistics – 2007 Holstein Edition. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://195.153.22.85/cdi/Documentation/Holstein/BreedStats_HOL2007_combined.pdfGoogle Scholar
Coffey, MP, Simm, G, Oldham, JD, Hill, WG, Brotherstone, S 2004. Genotype and diet effects on energy balance in the first three lactations of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 4318–4326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choudrie, SL, Jackson, J, Watterson, JD, Murrells, T, Passant, N, Thomson, A, Cardenas, L, Leech, A, Mobbs, DC, Thistlethwaite, G 2008. UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2006: Annual Report for submission under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. AEA Group report to Defra. AEA Technology plc, Harwell, UK, AEAT/ENV/R/2582. ISBN 0-9554823-4-2.Google Scholar
Crocker, AW, Robison, OW 2002. Genetic and nutritional effects on swine excreta. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2809–2816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DairyCo breeding+ 2008. Holstein Cow Genetic Evaluation Reports, August 2008 Proofs. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from http://62.25.97.246/reports.asp?b=HOLGoogle Scholar
Defra 2007. The Social Cost of Carbon and the Shadow Price of Carbon: What They Are, And How to Use Them in Economic Appraisal in the UK. Retrieved July 30, 2009, from http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/research/carboncost/pdf/background.pdfGoogle Scholar
Defra 2008. Agriculture in the UK 2008 – Tables and Charts. Retrieved March 30, 2009, from https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/2008/excel.aspGoogle Scholar
De Haan, D, Steinfeld, H, Blackburn, H 1996. Livestock and the environment: finding a balance. Report to the World Bank, FAO and USAID. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5303e/x5303e00.HTMGoogle Scholar
Désilets, E 2006. Greenhouse gas mitigation program from Canadian agriculture. Final Report. Dairy Farmers of Canada. Retrieved July 30th, 2009 from http://www.dairygoodness.ca/NR/rdonlyres/F0ED4A38-9B6D-480E-9613-A2BF13315557/0/Our_cows_our_air_final_report.pdfGoogle Scholar
EEA 2007a. Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2007: tracking progress towards Kyoto targets. EEA Report No. 5/2007. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
EEA 2007b. Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2005 and inventory report 2007, Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat. EEA Technical Report No. 7/2007. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
European Union 2000. First European Climate Change Programme. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_en.htmGoogle Scholar
FAO 2006a. FAO Statistical Databases. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from http://faostat.fao.orgGoogle Scholar
FAO 2006b. World agriculture: towards 2030/2050. Interim Report. June 2006. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Ferris, CP, Gordon, FJ, Patterson, DC, Porter, MG, Yan, T 1999. The effect of genetic merit and concentrate proportion in the diet on the nutrient utilization by lactating dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science 132, 483–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friggens, NC, Newbold, JR 2007. Towards a biological basis for predicting nutrient partitioning: the dairy cow as an example. Animal 1, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnsworthy, PC 2004. The environmental impact of fertility in dairy cows: a modelling approach to predict methane and ammonia emissions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 112, 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnsworthy, PC, Sinclair, KD, Webb, R 2008. Integration of physiological mechanisms that influence fertility in dairy cows. Animal 2, 1144–1152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, M, Smith, P, Wilkinson, JM 2009. Mitigating climate change: the role of domestic livestock. Animal, in press. doi: 10.1017/S1751731109004662.Google Scholar
Halberg, N, Kristensen, IS, Dalgaard, T 2000. Linking data sources and models at the levels of processes, farm types and regions. In Agricultural data for life cycle analysis (ed. BP Weidema and MJG Meeusen), pp. 16–30. Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hegarty, RS 2004. Genotype differences and their impact on digestive function of ruminants: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, RS, Goopy, JP, Herd, RM, McCorkell, B 2007. Cattle selection for lower residual feed intake have reduced daily methane production. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1479–1486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hensen, A, Olesen, JE, Petersen, SO, Sneath, R, Weiske, A, Yamulki, S 2006. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112, 105–248.Google Scholar
Herd, RM, Arthur, PF, Hegarty, RS, Archer, JA 2002. Potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from beef production by selection for reduced residual feed intake. In Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 19–23 August 2002, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Hyslop, JJ 2008. Simulating the global warming potential and ammonia emissions figures for a range of suckler herd breeding strategies and beef cattle finishing systems. In Proceedings of the Livestock and Global Climate Change Conference, 17–20 May 2008, Hammamet, Tunisia.Google Scholar
International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) 2006. Chapter 10: emissions from livestock and manure management. In 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories (ed. HS Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara and K Tanabe), chapter 10, pp. 10.1–10.87. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan.Google Scholar
IPCC 2007a. Climate change 2007 – mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
IPCC 2007b. Climate change 2007 – impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Jones, HE, Warkup, CC, Williams, A, Audsley, E 2008. The effect of genetic improvement on emission from livestock systems. In Proceedings of the European Association of Animal Production, 24–27 August 2008, Vilnius, Lithuania, Session 5.6, p. 28.Google Scholar
Jouany, J-P, Morgavi, DP 2007. Use of ‘natural’ products as alternatives to antibiotic feed additives in ruminant production. Animal 1, 1443–1466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makkar, HPS, Vercoe, PE 2007. Measuring methane production from ruminants. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C, Morgavi, DP, Doreau, M 2009. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal, in press.Google Scholar
McKay, JC, Barton, NF, Koerhuis, ANM, McAdam, J 2000. The challenge of genetic change in the broiler chicken. In The challenge of genetic change in animal production (ed. WG Hill, SC Bishop, B McGuirk, JC McKay, G Simm and AJ Webb), BSAS occasional publication no. 27, pp. 1–7. British Society of Animal Science, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Merks, JWM 2000. One century of genetic change in pigs and the future needs. In The challenge of genetic change in animal production (ed. WG Hill, SC Bishop, B McGuirk, JC McKay, G Simm and AJ Webb), BSAS occasional publication no. 27, pp. 8–19. British Society of Animal Science, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Monteny, G-J, Bannink, A, Chadwick, D 2006. Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for animal husbandry. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, D, Barnes, A, McVittie, A 2007. The rationale for Defra investment in R&D underpinning the genetic improvement of crops and animals (IF0101). Final report to Defra. Defra, London, UK.Google Scholar
Mosier, AR, Duxbury, JM, Freney, JR, Heinemeyer, O, Minami, K, Johnson, DE 1998. Mitigating agricultural emissions of methane. Climatic Change 40, 39–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, AR, Jouany, J-P, Newbold, J 2000. Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Annales de Zootechnie 49, 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mrode, RA, Smith, C, Thompson, R 1990a. Selection for rate and efficiency of lean gain in Hereford cattle. 1. Selection pressure applied and direct response. Animal Production 51, 23–34.Google Scholar
Mrode, RA, Smith, C, Thompson, R 1990. Selection for rate and efficiency of lean gain in Hereford cattle. 2. Evaluation of correlated responses. Animal Production 51, 35–46.Google Scholar
Nielsen, HM, Christensen, LG, Groen, AF 2005. Derivation of sustainable breeding goals for dairy cattle using selection index theory. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1882–1890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, HM, Christensen, LG, Ødegård, J 2006. A method to define breeding goals for sustainable dairy cattle production. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3615–3625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, HM, Amer, PR 2007. An approach to derive economic weights in breeding objectives using partial profile choice experiments. Animal 9, 1254–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, HM, Amer, PR, Olesen, I 2008. Challenges of including welfare and environmental concerns in the breeding goal. In Proceedings of the European Association of Animal Production, 24–27 August 2008, Vilnius, Lithuania, Session 25.1, abstract no. 2915.Google Scholar
Olesen, I, Gjerde, B, Groen, AF 1999. Methodology for deriving non-market trait values in animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems. Proceedings of international workshop on EU concerted action on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in Cattle (GIFT). Wageningen, The Netherlands. Interbull Bulletin 23, 13–21.Google Scholar
Preisinger, R, Flock, DK 2000. Genetic changes in layer breeding: historical trends and future prospects. In The challenge of genetic change in animal production (ed. WG Hill, SC Bishop, B McGuirk, JS McKay, G Simm and AJ Webb), BSAS occasional publication no. 27, pp. 20–28. British Society of Animal Science, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Ravagnolo, O, Misztal, I 2000. Genetic component of heat stress in dairy cattle, parameter estimation. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2126–2130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, LJ, Waghorn, GC 2002. Dairy industry perspectives on methane emissions and production from cattle fed pasture or total mixed rations in New Zealand. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 62, 213–218.Google Scholar
Safley, LM, Casada, ME, Woodbury, JW, Roos, KF 1992. Global methane emissions from livestock and poultry manure. EPA/4001/1-91/048. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Schils, RLM, Verhagen, A, Aarts, HFM, Sebek, LBJ 2005. A farm level approach to define successful mitigation strategies for GHG emissions from ruminant livestock systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 71, 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simm, G, Bünger, L, Villanueva, B, Hill, WG 2004. Limits to yield of farm species: genetic improvement of livestock. In Yields of farmed species. Constraints and opportunities in the 21st century (ed. R Sylvester-Bradley and J Wiseman), pp. 123–141. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Soussana, JF, Tallec, T, Blanfort, V 2009. Mitigating the greenhouse gas balance of ruminant production systems through carbon sequestration in grasslands. Animal, in press.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M, de Haan, C 2006. Livestock’s long shadow – environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Stern, N 2007. The economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stott, AW, Coffey, MP, Brotherstone, S 2005. Including lameness and mastitis in a profit index for dairy cattle. Animal Science 80, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D, Cassman, KG, Matson, PA, Naylor, R, Polasky, S 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veerkamp, RF, Simm, G, Oldham, JD 1995. Genotype by environment interaction – experience from Langhill. In Breeding and feeding the high genetic merit dairy cow (ed. TLJ Lawrence, FJ Gordon and S Carson), BSAS occasional publication no. 19, pp. 59–66. British Society of Animal Science, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Wall, E, Brotherstone, S, Coffey, MP 2006. Development of a robustness index for UK dairy cattle. In Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 13–18 August, 2006, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, Communication 01-10.Google Scholar
Wall, E, Coffey, MP, Brotherstone, S 2007. Developing a robustness index for UK dairy cows. In Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 2–4 April 2007, Southport, UK, Abstract no. 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, E, Coffey, MP, Amer, PR 2008. A theoretical framework for deriving direct economic values for body tissue mobilization traits. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 343–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiske, A, Vabitsch, A, Olesen, JE, Schelde, K, Michel, J, Friedrich, R, Kaltschmitt, M 2006. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in European conventional and organic dairy farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, T, Agnew, RE, Gordon, FJ, Porter, MG 2000. Prediction of methane energy output in dairy and beef cattle offered grass silage-based diets. Livestock Production Science 64, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar