Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T15:17:41.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic control of greenhouse gas emissions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2016

Y. de Haas ,
P. C. Garnsworthy ,
B. Kuhla ,
E. Negussie ,
M. Pszczola ,
E. Wall  and
J. Lassen
Y. de Haas*
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, NL-6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
P. C. Garnsworthy
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, Sutton Bonington Campus, The University of Nottingham, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK
B. Kuhla
Affiliation:
Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Wilhelm-Stahl-Allee 2, 18196 Dummerstorf, Germany
E. Negussie
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland, Biometrical Genetics, Myllytie 1, 31600 Jokioinen, Finland
M. Pszczola
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Animal Breeding, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Wolynska 33, 60-637 Poznan, Poland
E. Wall
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences, SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, EH9 3JG, UK
J. Lassen
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Centre for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Climate change is a growing international concern, and it is well established that the release of greenhouse gases (GHG) is a contributing factor. So far, within animal production, there is little or no concerted effort on long-term breeding strategies to mitigate against GHG from ruminants. In recent years, several consortia have been formed to collect and combine data for genetic evaluation. The discussion areas of these consortia focus on (1) What are methane-determining factors, (2) What are genetic parameters for methane emissions, (3) What proxies can be used, and what is their association with methane emission, and (4) How to move on with breeding for lower emitting animals? The methane-determining factors can be divided into four groups: (1) rumen microbial population, (2) feed intake and diet composition, (3) host physiology and (4) host genetics. The genetic parameters show that enteric methane is a heritable trait, and that it is highly genetically correlated with dry matter intake. So far, the most useful proxies relate to feed intake, milk mid IR spectral data and fatty acids in the milk. To be able to move on with a genetic evaluation and ranking of animals for methane emission, it is crucial to make measurements on commercial farms. In order to make that possible, it will be necessary to develop phenotypes that can be used by the farmer to optimise the production on farm level. Also, it is crucial to develop equipment that makes it possible to make measurements without interfering with everyday routines or identify proxies that are highly related to methane and which could easily be measured on a large scale. International collaboration is essential to make progress in this area. This is both in terms of sharing ideas, experiences and phenotypes, but also in terms of coming to a consensus regarding what phenotype to collect and to select for.

Keywords

greenhouse gas emissionenteric methanegenetic control
Type
Full Paper
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 7 , Special Issue 2: Proceedings of the EAAP-European Federation of Animal Science in association with ALPA , October 2016 , pp. 196 - 199
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

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, 183–191.Google Scholar
Chilliard, Y, Martin, C, Rouel, J and Doreau, M 2009. Milk fatty acids in dairy cows fed whole crude linseed, extruded linseed, or linseed oil, and their relationship with methane output. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5199–5211.Google Scholar
de Haas, Y, Pryce, JE, Calus, MPL, Wall, E, Berry, DP, Lovendahl, P, Krattenmacher, N, Miglior, F, Weigel, K, Spurlock, D, Macdonald, KA, Hulsegge, B and Veerkamp, RF 2015. Genomic prediction of dry matter intake in dairy cattle from an international data set consisting of research herds in Europe, North America, and Australasia. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 6522–6534.Google Scholar
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, 6122–6134.Google Scholar
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, 1694–1701.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, J, van Zijderveld, SM, Apajalahti, JA, Bannink, A, Gerrits, WJJ, Newbold, JR, Perdok, HB and Berends, H 2011. Relationships between methane production and milk fatty acid profiles in dairy cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 590–595.Google Scholar
Ellis, JL, Dijkstra, J, Kebreab, E, Bannink, A, Odongo, NE, McBride, BW and France, J 2008. Aspects of rumen microbiology central to mechanistic modelling of methane production in cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science 146, 213–233.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Clarke, T, McGinn, SM, Auldist, MJ, Beauchemin, KA, Hannah, MC, Waghorn, GC, Clark, H and Eckard, RJ 2007. Methane emissions from dairy cows measured using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer and chamber techniques. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2755–2766.Google Scholar
Hegarty, RS 2009. Current and emerging technologies for decreasing enteric methane emission from individual ruminants. Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition 17, 81–88.Google Scholar
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, 1479–1486.Google Scholar
Henderson, G, Cox, F, Ganesh, S, Jonker, A, Young, W, Collaborators, GRC and Janssen, PH 2015. Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Scientific Reports 5, 14567. doi:10.1038/srep14567. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4598811/pdf/srep14567.pdf CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jentsch, W, Schweigel, M, Weissbach, F, Scholze, H, Pitroff, W and Derno, M 2007. Methane production in cattle calculated by the nutrient composition of the diet. Archives of Animal Nutrition 61, 10–19.Google Scholar
Leip, A, Weiss, F, Wassenaar, T, Perez, I, Fellmann, T, Loudjani, P, Tubiello, F, Grandgirard, D, Monni, S and Biala, K 2010. Evaluation of the livestock sector’s contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS) – final report. Retrieved August 24, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/livestock-gas/full_text_en.pdf.Google Scholar
McEwan, JC, Hickey, SM, Young, EA, Dodds, KG, McLean, S, Molano, G, Sandoval, E, Kjestrup, H, Hunt, C and Pinares, C 2012. Heritability estimates for hourly measures of methane emissions. 33rd Conference of the International Society for Animal Genetics, Cairns, Australia, July 15–20, p. P4021.Google Scholar
Nkrumah, JD, Okine, EK, Mathison, GW, Schmid, K, Li, C, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Wang, Z and Moore, SS 2006. Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 84, 145–153.Google Scholar
Pickering, NK, Oddy, VH, Basarab, JA, Cammack, K, Hayes, BJ, Hegarty, RS, McEwan, JC, Miller, S, Pinares, C and De Haas, Y 2015. Invited review: genetic possibilities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Animal 9, 1431–1440.Google Scholar
Soyeurt, H, Dehareng, F, Gengler, N, McParland, S, Wall, E, Berry, DP, Coffey, M and Dardenne, P 2011. Mid-infrared prediction of bovine milk fatty acids across multiple breeds, production systems, and countries. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1657–1667.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M and de Haan, C 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Vlaeminck, B, Fievez, V, Tamminga, S, Dewhurst, RJ, van Vuuren, A, De Brabander, D and Demeyer, D 2006. Milk odd- and branched-chain fatty acids in relation to the rumen fermentation pattern. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3954–3964.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC and Woodward, SL 2006. Ruminant contribution to methane and global warming – a New Zealand perspective. In Climate change and managed ecosystems (ed. JA Bhatti, R Lal, MJ Apps and MA Price), pp. 233–260. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Florida, USA.Google Scholar