Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Animal board invited review: genetic possibilities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants

  • N. K. Pickering (a1), V. H. Oddy (a2), J. Basarab (a3), K. Cammack (a4), B. Hayes (a5) (a6) (a7), R. S. Hegarty (a8), J. Lassen (a9), J. C. McEwan (a1), S. Miller (a10) (a11), C. S. Pinares-Patiño (a12) and Y. de Haas (a13)...

Abstract

Measuring and mitigating methane (CH4) emissions from livestock is of increasing importance for the environment and for policy making. Potentially, the most sustainable way of reducing enteric CH4 emission from ruminants is through the estimation of genomic breeding values to facilitate genetic selection. There is potential for adopting genetic selection and in the future genomic selection, for reduced CH4 emissions from ruminants. From this review it has been observed that both CH4 emissions and production (g/day) are a heritable and repeatable trait. CH4 emissions are strongly related to feed intake both in the short term (minutes to several hours) and over the medium term (days). When measured over the medium term, CH4 yield (MY, g CH4/kg dry matter intake) is a heritable and repeatable trait albeit with less genetic variation than for CH4 emissions. CH4 emissions of individual animals are moderately repeatable across diets, and across feeding levels, when measured in respiration chambers. Repeatability is lower when short term measurements are used, possibly due to variation in time and amount of feed ingested prior to the measurement. However, while repeated measurements add value; it is preferable the measures be separated by at least 3 to 14 days. This temporal separation of measurements needs to be investigated further. Given the above issue can be resolved, short term (over minutes to hours) measurements of CH4 emissions show promise, especially on systems where animals are fed ad libitum and frequency of meals is high. However, we believe that for short-term measurements to be useful for genetic evaluation, a number (between 3 and 20) of measurements will be required over an extended period of time (weeks to months). There are opportunities for using short-term measurements in standardised feeding situations such as breath ‘sniffers’ attached to milking parlours or total mixed ration feeding bins, to measure CH4. Genomic selection has the potential to reduce both CH4 emissions and MY, but measurements on thousands of individuals will be required. This includes the need for combined resources across countries in an international effort, emphasising the need to acknowledge the impact of animal and production systems on measurement of the CH4 trait during design of experiments.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Animal board invited review: genetic possibilities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Animal board invited review: genetic possibilities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Animal board invited review: genetic possibilities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

E-mail: Yvette.deHaas@wur.nl

References

Hide All
Bickell, SL, Robinson, DL, Toovey, AF, Goopy, JP, Hegarty, RS, Revell, DK and Vercoe, PE 2011. Four week repeatability of daily and one hour methane production of mature merino wethers fed ad libitum. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 19 to 21 July 2011, Perth, Western Australia, Australia, pp. 415–418.
Blaxter, KL 1962. The energy metabolism of ruminants. Academic Press, London, UK.
Capper, JL 2011. The environmental impact of beef production in the United States; 1977 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science 89, 42494261.
Capper, JL, Cady, RA and Bauman, DE 2009. The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science 87, 21602167.
Calus, MPL, De Haas, Y, Pszczola, M and Veerkamp, RF 2013. Predicted accuracy of and response to genomic selection for new traits in dairy cattle. Animal 7, 183191.
Chagunda, MGG, Ross, D, Rooke, J, Yan, T, Douglas, JL, Poret, L, McEwan, NR, Teeranavattanakul, P and Roberts, DJ 2013. Measurement of enteric methane from ruminants using a hand-held laser methane detector. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section A: Animal Science 63, 6875.
Cottle, DJ, Nolan, JV and Wiedemann, SG 2011. Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: a review. Animal Production Science 51, 491514.
Daetwyler, HD, Villanueva, B and Woolliams, JA 2008. Accuracy of predicting the genetic risk of disease using a genome-wide approach. PLoS One 3 (10), e3395.
de Haas, Y, Windig, JJ, Calus, MPL, Dijkstra, J, de Haan, M, Bannink, A and Veerkamp, RF 2011. Genetic parameters for predicted methane production and potential for reducing enteric emissions through genomic selection. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 61226134.
Dehareng, F, Delfosse, C, Froidmont, E, Soyeurt, H, Martin, C, Gengler, N, Vanlierde, A and Dardenne, P 2012. Potential use of milk mid-infrared spectra to predict individual methane emission of dairy cows. Animal 6, 16941701.
Deighton, MH, Williams, SRO, Eckard, RJ, Boland, TM and Moate, PJ 2013. High concordance of CH4 emission is possible between the SF6 tracer and respiration chamber techniques. Advances in Animal Biosciences 4, 411.
Donoghue, KA, Herd, RM, Bird, SH, Arthur, PF and 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 to 23 October 2013, Napier, New Zealand, pp. 290–293.
Dougherty, RW, Allison, MJ and Mullenax, CH 1964. Physiological disposition of C14-labeled rumen gases in sheep and goats. American Journal of Physiology 207, 11811188.
FAOSTAT 2013. Emissions – Agriculture – enteric fermentation. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://faostat3.fao.org/home/
Faichney, GJ and Graham, NM 1996. Reduced emissions associated with unstable rumen fermentation in sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of Australia 20, 120123.
Forster, P, Ramaswamy, V, Artaxo, P, Berntsen, T, Betts, R, Fahey, DW, Haywood, J, Lean, J, Lowe, DC, Myhre, G, Nganga, J, Prinn, R, Raga, G, Schulz, M and Van Dorland, R 2007. Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, M Tignor and HL Miller), pp. 129234. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Gardiner, TD and Coleman, MD 2013. Metrological assessment of the absolute accuracy of methane emission measurements from livestock chambers in the UK. Advances in Animal Biosciences 4, 480.
Garnsworthy, PC, Craigon, J, Hernandez-Medrano, JH and Saunders, H 2012. On-farm methane measurements during milking correlate with total methane production by individual dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 31663180.
Gerber, PJ, Steinfeld, H, Henderson, B, Mottet, A, Opio, C, Dijkman, J, Falcucci, A and Tempio, G 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO, Rome.
Goddard, ME 2008. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica 136, 245257.
Goopy, JP, Woodgate, R, Donaldson, A, Robinson, DL and Hegarty, RS 2011. Validation of a short term methane measurement using portable static chambers to estimate methane production in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 219226.
Goopy, JP, Donaldson, A, Hegarty, R, Vercoe, PE, Haynes, F, Barnett, M and Oddy, VH 2014. Low-methane yield sheep have smaller rumens and shorter rumen retention time. British Journal of Nutrition 111, 578585.
Gregorini, P 2012. Diurnal grazing pattern: its physiological basis and strategic management. Animal Production Science 52, 416430.
Hayes, BJ, Visscher, PM and Goddard, ME 2009. Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix. Genetics Research 91, 4760.
Hayes, BJ, Lewin, HA and Goddard, ME 2013. The future of livestock breeding: genomic selection for efficiency, reduced emissions intensity, and adaptation. Trends in Genetics 29, 206214.
Hegarty, RS 2004. Genetic diversity in function and microbial metabolism of the rumen. Australian Journal of Experimental Agricultural 44, 19.
Hegarty, RS 2013. Applicability of short term emission measurements for on-farm quantification of enteric methane. Animal 7 (s2), 401408.
Hegarty, RS, Goopy, JP, Herd, RM and McCorkell, B 2007. Cattle selected for lower residual feed intake have reduced daily methane production. Journal of Animal Science 85, 14791486.
Herd, RM, Bird, SH, Donoghue, KA, Arthur, PF and Hegarty, RS 2013. Phenotypic associations between methane production traits, volatile fatty acids and animal breeding traits. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 20 to 23 October 2013, Napier, New Zealand, pp. 286–289.
Heywood, LH and Wood, KW 1985. Thoracic oesophageal motor activity during eructation in sheep. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology 70, 603613.
Hoernicke, H, Williams, WF, Waldo, DR and Flatt, WP 1965. Composition and absorption of rumen gases and their importance for the accuracy of respiration trials with tracheostomized ruminants. In Energy metabolism (ed. KL Blaxter), pp. 165178. Academic Press, London, UK.
Hofmeyr, HS, Slabbert, N and Pienaar, JP 1984. Partitioning of methane production between ruminal and hindgut fermentation sites in sheep. Candian Journal of Animal Science 64, 171172.
Hristov, AN, Oh, J, Firkins, JL, Dijkstra, J, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Makkar, HPS, Adesogan, AT, Yang, W, Lee, C, Gerber, PJ, Henderson, B and Tricario, JM 2013a. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: 1. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science 91, 50455069.
Hristov, AN, Ott, T, Tricario, JM, Rotz, A, Waghorn, G, Adesogan, AT, Dijkstra, J, Montes, F, Oh, J, Kebreab, E, Oosting, SJ, Gerber, PJ, Henderson, B, Makkar, HPS and Firkins, JL 2013b. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: 3. A review of animal management mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science 91, 50955113.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, volume 4. Agriculture, forestry and other land use. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/
Johnson, KA and Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 24832492.
Knight, TW, Molano, G, Clark, H and Cavanagh, A 2008. Methane emissions from weaned lambs measured at 13, 17, 25 and 35 weeks of age compared with mature ewes consuming a fresh forage diet. Animal Production Science 48, 240243.
Lassen, J, Løvendahl, P and Madsen, J 2012. Accuracy of non-invasive breath methane measurements using Fourier transformed infrared methods on individual cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 890898.
Lassey, KR, Ulyatt, MJ, Martin, RJ, Walker, CF and Shelton, ID 1997. Methane emissions measured directly from grazing livestock in New Zealand. Atmospheric Environment 31, 29052914.
Martin, C, Morgavi, DP and Doreau, M 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351365.
Mathers, JC and Walters, DE 1982. Variation in methane production by sheep fed every two hours. Journal of Agricultural Science 98, 633638.
McCauley, EH and Dziuk, HE 1965. Correlation of motility and gas collection from goat rumen. American Journal of Physiology 209, 11521154.
McEwan, JC, Hickey, SM, Young, E, Dodds, KG, McLean, S, Molano, G, Sandoval, E, Kjestrup, H, Hunt, C and Pinares-Patiño, C 2012. Heritability estimates for hourly measures of methane emissions. In 33rd Conference of the International Society for Animal Genetics, 15 to 20 July 2012, Cairns, Australia, P4021.
McGinn, SM, Beauchemin, KA, Iwaasa, AD and McAllister, TA 2006. Assessment of the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique for measuring enteric methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 16861691.
McPhee, MJ and Hegarty, RS 2008. Predicting the metabolizbale energy intake of ruminants using digestibility, ruminal methane production and fermentation data. Journal of Agricultural Science 146, 643654.
Meuwissen, T, Hayes, B and Goddard, M 2013. Accelerating improvement of livestock with genomic selection. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 1, 221237.
Michal, JJ, White, RR, Guerouali, A and Johnson, KA 2013. An examination of the ranking of methane emissions measurements from growing beef heifers fed different forage diets over time. Advances in Animal Biosciences 4, 536.
Mortola, JP and Lanthier, C 2005. Breathing frequency in ruminants: a comparative analysis with non-ruminant mammals. Respiratory Physiology and Neurobiology 145, 265277.
Münger, A and Kreuzer, M 2008. Absence of persistent methane emission differences in three breeds of dairy cows. Animal Production Science 48, 7782.
Murray, PJ, Gill, E, Balsdon, SL and Jarvis, SC 2001. A comparison of methane emissions from sheep grazing pastures with differing management intensities. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosystems 60, 9397.
Murray, RM, Byrant, AM and Leng, RA 1976. Rates of production of methane in the rumen and large intestine of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 36, 114.
Negussie, E, Liinamo, AE, Mäntysaari, P, Mäntysaari, EA and Lidauer, M 2012. Between and within-individual variation in methane output measurements in dairy cows. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, 27 to 31 August 2012, Bratislava, Slovakia, p. 170.
Nolan, JV, Hegarty, RS, Hegarty, J, Godwin, IR and Woodgate, R 2010. Effects of dietary nitrate on fermentation, methane production and digesta kinetics in sheep. Animal Production Science 50, 801806.
Piccione, G, Caola, G and Mortola, JP 2004. Day/night pattern of arterial blood gases in the cow. Respiratory Physiology and Neurobiology 140, 3341.
Pinares-Patiño, CS, McEwan, JC, Dodds, KG, Cárdenas, EA, Hegarty, RS, Koolaard, JP and Clark, H 2011. Repeatability of methane emissions from sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 210218.
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Hickey, SM, Young, EA, Dodds, KG, MacLean, S, Molano, G, Sandoval, E, Kjestrup, H, Harland, R, Pickering, NK and McEwan, JC 2013a. Heritability estimates of methane emissions from sheep. Animal 7, 316321.
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Kjestrup, H, MacLean, S, Sandoval, E, Molano, G, Harland, R, Hickey, S, Young, E, Dodds, K, Knowler, K, Pickering, N and McEwan, J 2013b. Methane emission from sheep is related to concentrations of rumen volatile fatty acids. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Energy Protein Metabolism and Nutrition, 9 to 12 Septemer 2013, Sacramento, California, USA.
Robinson, DL 2009. Improving the accuracy of selecting animals for reduced methane emissions. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 28 September to 1 October 2009, Barossa Valley, South Australia, Australia, pp. 644–647.
Robinson, D, Goopy, J, Hegarty, R and Vercoe, P 2010. Repeatability, animal and sire variation in 1-hr methane emissions and relationships with rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations. Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 1 to 6 August 2010, Leizig, Germany, p. 712.
Smith, P, Martino, D, Cai, Z, Gwary, D, Janzen, H, Kumar, P, McCarl, B, Ogle, S, O’Mara, F, Rice, C, Scholes, B and Sirotenko, O 2007. Agriculture. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. B Metz, OR Davidson, PR Bosch, R Dave and LA Meyer), pp. 497540. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Tubiello, FN, Salvatore, M, Rossi, S, Ferrara, A, Fitton, N and Smith, P 2013. The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environmental Research Letters 8, 10pp.
Wall, E, Simm, G and Moran, D 2010. Developing breeding schemes to assist mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 4, 366376.

Keywords

Animal board invited review: genetic possibilities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants

  • N. K. Pickering (a1), V. H. Oddy (a2), J. Basarab (a3), K. Cammack (a4), B. Hayes (a5) (a6) (a7), R. S. Hegarty (a8), J. Lassen (a9), J. C. McEwan (a1), S. Miller (a10) (a11), C. S. Pinares-Patiño (a12) and Y. de Haas (a13)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed