Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19819
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRobinson, Dorothy Len
dc.contributor.authorOddy, Huttonen
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-13T12:14:00Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Animal Science, 94(9), p. 3624-3635en
dc.identifier.issn1525-3163en
dc.identifier.issn0021-8812en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19819-
dc.description.abstractEstimates of genetic/phenotypic covariances and economic values for slaughter weight, growth, feed intake and efficiency, and three potential methane traits were compiled to explore the effect of incorporating methane measurements in breeding objectives for cattle and meat sheep. The cost of methane emissions was assumed to be zero (scenario A), A$476/t (based on A$14/t CO₂ equivalent and methane's 100-yr global warming potential [GWP] of 34; scenario B), or A$2,580/t (A$30/t CO₂ equivalent combined with methane's 20-yr GWP of 86; scenario C). Methane traits were methane yield (MY; methane production divided by feed intake based on measurements over 1 d in respiration chambers) or short-term measurements of methane production adjusted for live weight (MPadjWt) in grazing animals, e.g., 40-60 min measurements in portable accumulation chambers (PAC) on 1 or 3 occasions, or measurements for 1 wk using a GreenFeed Emissions Monitor (GEM) on 1 or 3 occasions. Feed costs included the cost of maintaining the breeding herd and growth from weaning to slaughter. Sheep were assumed to be grown and finished on pasture (A$50/t DM). Feed costs for cattle included 365 d on pasture for the breeding herd and averages of 200 d postweaning grow-out on pasture and 100 d feedlot finishing. The greatest benefit of including methane in the breeding objective for both sheep and cattle was as a proxy for feed intake. For cattle, 3 GEM measurements were estimated to increase profit from 1 round of selection in scenario A (no payment for methane) by A$6.24/animal (from A$20.69 to A$26.93) because of reduced feed costs relative to gains in slaughter weight and by A$7.16 and A$12.09/ animal, respectively, for scenarios B and C, which have payments for reduced methane emissions. For sheep, the improvements were more modest. Returns from 1 round of selection (no methane measurements) were A$5.06 (scenario A), A$4.85 (scenario B), and A$3.89 (scenario C) compared to A$5.26 (scenario A), A$5.12 (scenario B), and A$4.72 (scenario C) for 1 round of selection with 3 PAC measurements. Including MY in the selection index was less profitable because it did not reduce feed costs relative to weight gain. Consequently, for strategies measuring MY but not MPadjWt (and with no estimate of feed intake in the production environment), proportionately greater emphasis was placed on increasing slaughter weight, and as a result, the decreases in methane emissions per animal and per unit of feed intake were smaller than for strategies that measured MPadjWt.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Animal Scienceen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Animal Scienceen
dc.titleBenefits of including methane measurements in selection strategiesen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.2527/jas.2016-0503en
dc.subject.keywordsAnimal Breedingen
local.contributor.firstnameDorothy Len
local.contributor.firstnameHuttonen
local.subject.for2008070201 Animal Breedingen
local.subject.seo2008830310 Sheep - Meaten
local.subject.seo2008960302 Climate Change Mitigation Strategiesen
local.subject.seo2008830301 Beef Cattleen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Environmental and Rural Scienceen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Environmental and Rural Scienceen
local.profile.emaildrobin27@une.edu.auen
local.profile.emailhoddy2@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC1en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.identifier.epublicationsrecordune-20161201-18236en
local.publisher.placeUnited States of Americaen
local.format.startpage3624en
local.format.endpage3635en
local.identifier.scopusid84991082899en
local.peerreviewedYesen
local.identifier.volume94en
local.identifier.issue9en
local.contributor.lastnameRobinsonen
local.contributor.lastnameOddyen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:drobin27en
dc.identifier.staffune-id:hoddy2en
local.profile.orcid0000-0001-6113-1141en
local.profile.orcid0000-0003-1783-1049en
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:20011en
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleBenefits of including methane measurements in selection strategiesen
local.output.categorydescriptionC1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journalen
local.search.authorRobinson, Dorothy Len
local.search.authorOddy, Huttonen
local.uneassociationUnknownen
local.identifier.wosid000388638600003en
local.year.published2016en
local.fileurl.closedpublishedhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/cfac96eb-0904-4ef7-b5bf-5fa8db5a730een
local.subject.for2020300305 Animal reproduction and breedingen
local.subject.seo2020100412 Sheep for meaten
local.subject.seo2020190301 Climate change mitigation strategiesen
local.subject.seo2020100401 Beef cattleen
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

13
checked on Aug 24, 2024

Page view(s)

1,320
checked on May 19, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.