Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T13:15:46.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reducing methane emissions by including methane production or feed intake in genetic selection programmes for Suffolk sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2013

D. J. COTTLE  and
J. CONINGTON
D. J. COTTLE*
Affiliation:
Scottish Rural University College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK School of Environmental and Rural Science, UNE, Armidale 2351, Australia
J. CONINGTON
Affiliation:
Scottish Rural University College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The use of selective breeding to reduce methane (CH4) emissions is an option for reducing carbon emissions from livestock farming systems. The current study models UK lowland terminal sire (meat) sheep production systems to study the impacts of including CH4 emissions and/or feed intake as breeding objective and selection criteria traits in sheep breeding systems, on the predicted genetic responses of production traits. Nine breeding goal traits and 15 selection index traits were modelled in a Suffolk breeding flock with a deterministic model of trait economic values (EVs). Methane was given an EV equivalent to a carbon price varying from £0 to £538/t CO2-e. When currently used selection indices added feed intake as a breeding objective, CH4 reductions of 0·15 and 0·05 kg CO2-e/sheep/year were predicted when intake was, or was not, measured, respectively, with a zero carbon price. These reductions were relatively insensitive to carbon price. Overall economic (index) response to selection was insensitive to carbon price and increased with higher feed costs, when neither CH4 nor feed intake was measured. When CH4 and/or intake were measured, overall economic responses increased with higher carbon prices, when feed costs were zero. Methane and intake responses were only sensitive to carbon price (whether CH4 and intake were measured or not) when feed costs were zero. To achieve a desired reduction of 0·1 kg CH4/head/year (cumulative 30% reduction in 20 years) when feed costs were zero, CH4 and/or intake needed to be measured. If CH4 was measured, carbon price needed to be >£50/t CO2-e; if intake was measured carbon price needed to be >£100/t CO2-e. Including feed intake as a breeding objective trait with non-zero feed costs should assist in reducing CH4 in breeding programmes. Selective breeding of terminal sheep by index selection has the potential to contribute a reduction of up to 0·27 kg CO2-e per ewe per annum, depending on the traits measured, feed costs and carbon price. This would help meet the UK Government's greenhouse gas reduction targets for farming systems.

Type
Animal Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 151 , Issue 6 , December 2013 , pp. 872 - 888
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Amer, P. R., Nieuwhof, G. J., Pollott, G. E., Roughsedge, T., Conington, J. & Simm, G. (2007). Industry benefits from recent genetic progress in sheep and beef populations. Animal 1, 1414–1426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Box, G. E. P. & Muller, M. E. (1958). A note on the generation of random normal deviates. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 29, 610–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conington, J., Bishop, S. C., Grundy, B., Waterhouse, A. & Simm, G. (2001). Multi-trait selection indices for sustainable UK hill sheep. Animal Science 73, 413–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottle, D. J. (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 Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 19, 423–425.Google Scholar
Cottle, D. J. & Conington, J. (2012). Breeding for reduced methane emissions in extensive UK sheep systems. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 150, 570–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottle, D. J., Nolan, J. V. & Wiedemann, S. G. (2011). Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: a review. Animal Production Science 51, 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottle, D. J., van der Werf, J. H. J. & Banks, R. G. (2009). Is methane production likely to be a future Merino selection criterion? Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 18, 516–519.Google Scholar
de Haas, Y., Windig, J. J., Calus, M. P. L., Dijkstra, J., de Haan, M., Bannink, A. & Veerkamp, R. F. (2011). Genetic parameters for predicted methane production and potential for reducing enteric emissions through genomic selection. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 6122–6134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, P., Key, N., Portet, F. & Steinfeld, H. (2010). Policy options in addressing livestock's contribution to climate change. Animal 4, 393–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodland, R. & Anhang, J. (2009). Livestock and Climate Change. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.Google Scholar
Harvey, F. & Stratton, A. (2011). Chris Huhne Pledges to Halve UK Carbon Emissions by 2025. London: Guardian News and Media Limited. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions (verified 1 December 2012).Google Scholar
Hegarty, R. S. & McEwan, J. C. (2010). Genetic opportunities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminant livestock. In Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (Abstracts) (Ed. German Society for Animal Science), p. 181. Leipzig, Germany: Zwonull Media GbR.Google Scholar
Dong, H., Mangino, J., McAllister, T., Hatfield, J. L., Johnson, D. E., Lassey, K. R., de Lima, M. A. & Romanovskaya, A. (2006). Emissions from livestock and manure management. In 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Eds Eggleston, S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe, K.), pp. 10.1–10.87. Hayama, Japan, IGES and IPCC.Google Scholar
James, J. W. (1986). Economic evaluation of breeding objectives in sheep and goats – general considerations. In Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (Eds Dickerson, G. E. & Johnson, R. K.), pp. 470–478. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Jones, H. E., Amer, P. R., Lewis, R. M. & Emmans, G. C. (2004). Economic values for changes in carcass lean and fat weights. Livestock Production Science 89, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambe, N. R., Bunger, L., Bishop, S. C., Simm, G. & Conington, J. (2008). The effects of selection indices for sustainable hill sheep production on carcass composition and muscularity of lambs, measured using X-ray computed tomography. Animal 2, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakielny, C. & Roden, J. (2011). Modelling the Effect of Genetic Improvement Programmes on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Welsh Sheep Industry. A report prepared for HCC by The Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences (IBERS), KN Consulting and Innovis Ltd. Aberystwyth, UK: IBERS. Available from: http://hccmpw.org.uk/index.php/tools/required/files/download?fID=4017 (verified 1 December 2012).Google Scholar
PCT/AU2010/001054 (2012). System and Method for Monitoring the Feeding Practices of Individual Animals in a Grazing Environment. Geneva, Switzerland: WIPO. Available from: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2011020145 (verified 1 December 2012).Google Scholar
Price, R., Thornton, S. & Nelson, S. (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. London: Economics Group, DEFRA.Google Scholar
Simm, G. & Dingwall, W. S. (1989). Selection indices for lean meat production in sheep. Livestock Production Science 21, 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock's Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2008). Challenges and Opportunities for Mitigation in the Agricultural Sector. Geneva, Switzerland: UN. Available from: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/tp/08.pdf (verified 1 December 2012).Google Scholar
Van der Werf, J. (2012). Teaching Software used for Quantitative Genetics at UNE. Available from: http://www-personal.une.edu.au/∼jvanderw/software.htm (verified 1 December 2012).Google Scholar
Wall, E., Simm, G. & Moran, D. (2010 a). Developing breeding schemes to assist mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 4, 366–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, E., Ludemann, C., Jones, H., Audsley, E., Moran, D., Roughsedge, T. & Amer, P. (2010 b). The Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Sheep and Cattle in the UK using Genetic Selection. Final Report for DEFRA project FGG0808. Edinburgh, UK: SAC. Available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/fangr/research/ (verified 1 December 2012).Google Scholar