Share This Article:

Report on a breeding objective that may reduce the carbon footprint of extensive cow-calf production systems

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:184KB) PP. 167-171
DOI: 10.4236/ns.2013.51A026    2,925 Downloads   4,826 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Most measurements for beef improvement in South Africa are per individual (weaning weight, calving interval, growth rate, etc.). A measurement that expresses performance per constant unit, e.g. kilogram calf weaned per Large Stock Unit (LSU) can eventually be translated to kilogram calf produced per kg CO2 equivalent. A LSU is defined as a bovine requiring 75 MJ Metabolisable Energy (ME) per day. If more kilogram weaner calf can be produced per LSU (KgC/LSU), the carbon footprint of beef can be reduced. This study used breed average values to investigate the KgC/LSU for the 30 beef and dual purpose breeds in South Africa. The breeds were categorized in the following breed types: Sanga (indigenous to South Africa) Sanga derived, Zebu, Zebu derived, British and European. No relationship was found between cow weights and KgC/LSU, indicating that it is independent of cow weight between breeds. However, when the data is summarized into breed types, the Sanga and European breed types produce the least KgC/ LSU and Sanga derived breed types the most. This high value of the Sanga derived breeds is probably due to retained heterosis. Composite breeds are mostly intermediate to parental breeds for individual traits but superior for composite traits and KgC/LSU is a composite trait. These calculations were only done on breed averages. A genetic analysis on a breed level to estimate genetic parameters for this trait, and its genetic correlations with other traits now needs to be done before a decision can be taken whether selection for KgC/LSU will be feasible. The ultimate aim with a trait like this is to reduce the carbon footprint of weaner calf production since more kilogram calf will be produced per LSU (constant feed unit).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Mokolobate, M. , Scholtz, M. , Mulugeta, S. and Neser, F. (2013) Report on a breeding objective that may reduce the carbon footprint of extensive cow-calf production systems. Natural Science, 5, 167-171. doi: 10.4236/ns.2013.51A026.

References

[1] Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. and de Haan, C. (2006) Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome, 390.
[2] Pitesky, M.E., Stackhouse, K.R. and Mitloehner, F.M. (2009) Clearing the air: Livestock’s contribution to climate change. Advances in Agronomy, 103, 1-40. doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(09)03001-6
[3] Meissner, H.H., Scholtz, M.M. and Schonfeldt, H.C. (2012) The status, socio-economic and environmental impact, and challenges of livestock agriculture in South Africa. www.rmrdsa.co.za
[4] IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva.
[5] Clark, H., Klein, C. and Newton, P. (2001) Potential management practices and technologies to reduce nitrous oxide, methane and carbon dioxide emissions from New Zealand agriculture. Ngaherehere: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/climate/green-house-gas-migration/ghg-mitigation.htm
[6] Garnett, T. (2010) Intensive versus extensive livestock systems and greenhouse gas emissions. Food Climate Research Network Briefing Paper. http://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/FCRN_int_vs_ext_livestock.pdf
[7] Capper, J.L. (2011) Replacing rose-tinted spectacles with a high-powered microscope: The historical versus modern carbon footprint of animal agriculture. Animal Frontiers 1, 26-32. doi:10.2527/af.2011-0009
[8] Rmrd, S.A. (2012) Research and development plan for the large and small stock meat industries in South Africa, 2012-2013. www.rmrdsa.co.za
[9] Ferrell, C.L. and Jenkins, T.G. (1982) Efficiency of cows of different size and milk production potential. Rlhusmarc Germ Plasm Evaluation Report 10:12.
[10] Scholtz, M.M., Steyn, Y., van Marle-Koster, E. and Theron, H.E. (2012) Improved production efficiency in cattle to reduce the carbon footprint of beef. South African Journal of Animal Science, 42, 450-453. doi:10.4314/sajas.v42i5.1
[11] Wall, E., Simm, G. and Moran, D. (2010) Developing breeding schemes to assist mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Animal, l4, 1-11. http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2F23244_2DAE6017E006E2DC33F2C51B28655EAB_journals__
ANM_ANM4_03_S175173110999070Xa.pdf&cover=Y&code=5613ceca0ea6daec8a9e7b504bdd5319
[12] Schoeman, S.J. (2010) Crossbreeding in beef cattle. In: Scholtz, M., Ed., Beef Breeding in South Africa. 2nd Edition, ARC, Pretoria, 21-32.
[13] Meissner, H.H., Hofmeyr, H.S., Van Rensburg, W.J.J.l. and Pienaar, J.P. (1983) Classification of livestock for realistic prediction of substitution values in terms of a biologically defined large stock unit. Department of Agriculture, Pretoria.
[14] Thorne, M.S. and Stevenson, M.H. (2007) Stocking rate: The most important tool in the toolbox. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. University of Hawaii, Manoa. http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/PRM-4.pdf
[15] Neser, F.W.C. (2012) unpublished. http://www.rpo.co.za/documents/pptrpo/proffrikkieneser.pdf
[16] Weil Jr., W.B. (1962) Adjustment for size—A possible misuse of ratios. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 11, 49. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/11/3/249.short
[17] MacNeil, M.D. (2007) Retrospective analysis of selection applied to a ratio. American Society of Animal Science, 58. www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.html

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.