Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T05:18:24.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Using values economics to add mitigation of greenhouse gases to dairy selection tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

E Wall*
Affiliation:
SAC, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
D Moran
Affiliation:
SAC, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Get access

Extract

The economic appraisal of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions is complex. The shadow price of carbon (SPC) is derived from the best estimate of the present value of damages associated with a tonne of GHG emission in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 eq). The SPC rises with time, reflecting the increasing marginal damage of a tonne of GHG when added to a growing stock of atmospheric GHGs. There are many possible technical mitigation options for livestock systems, one of which includes harnessing selection tools. The study of Stott et al. (2005) describes how relative economic values (REVs) are calculated for traits included in the UK dairy profit index (£PLI) using dynamic programming tools to model a whole farm system. The REV for each trait is calculated by examining the consequence of a unit change in a trait of interest on net farm revenue, while keeping all other traits in the index fixed. The SPC provides a useful mechanism of considering the costs of GHG emissions in an economic index framework, such as £PLI. This study outlines methods for incorporating the environmental value of emissions mitigation into breeding goals.

Type
Theatre Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 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

IPCC 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.Google Scholar
Stott, AW, Coffey, MP and Brotherstone, S, 2005. Animal Science 80: 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar