News 
 National Rural News 
 Livestock 
 News 
 Reducing livestock methane a win for producers, environment 

Reducing livestock methane a win for producers, environment

19 Sep, 2009 04:00 AM
AUSTRALIAN livestock could rid itself of its pollutant tag earned by being the nation’s third largest source of green house gas emissions if preliminary findings from a new methane heritability study are any indication.

Last month, scientist involved in a collaborative Western Australian and NSW greenhouse gas abatement project made the important breakthrough of successfully measuring the emissions from sheep via a simple breath test in a large sample of 700 sheep at the Faulkner research centre, NSW.

Previously methane levels could only be measured in special methane chambers, over a 24 hour period, one sheep at a time.

“There is evidence that methane production is heritable but to prove this we need to be able to measure large numbers of animals,” said project leader Dr Phil Vercoe, who has dedicated his career to improving animal’s productive capabilities and is the deputy director of animal production systems at the University of Western Australia.

“If we can identify that the level of methane production is heritable than there is an opportunity to make some serious progress in the reduction of it.”

He says sheep are ideally placed to play a major role in reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions as science has already proven that that the variation in methane production between individual sheep is as high as 10-20per cent.

That being the case, Dr Vercoe said, there is an “ideal opportunity” for selection of low methane producers providing the trait is heritable.

Meanwhile, under the consensus that more efficient animals will produce less methane, Meat and Livestock Australia modeling has shown that decreasing feed requirements in terms of dry sheep equivalent per head by one per cent would result in a weighted NPV $15.9 million per year for lamb and sheep meat production.

Individual sheep emit about 20 litres and cattle up to 280 litres of methane a day.

Under Dr Vercoe’s direction, the livestock methane reduction project is also assessing the impact different feed has on methane production.

The project falls under the four-year $130 million Australian Farming Future funding program announced by Minster for agriculture, fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke last year.

“If we can reduce methane production there is the potential to not just reduce green house gas emission but to also improve production as well,” Dr Vercoe said.

“We know that the more you eat the more methane is produced but what we don’t know is how much of a role genetics play.”

Beef Industry Centre of Excellence Dr Roger Hegarty explained: “Eight per cent of gross energy in food goes to methane so what we would like to do is repartition this into something useful like wool or milk.”

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
There is no need for livestock! Having been a vegetarian for decades and now a vegan, I can vouch for a healthy lifestyle without meat or dairy, and reducing greenhouse emissions at the some time! Meat eating has more to do with culture and conditioning than "need"! Leaving out livestock is a win-win for the environment, health and releases any impact on animals that suffer in our modern farming techniques.
Posted by vegan, 19/09/2009 4:12:22 PM
What a joke, how can not eating meat be good for the enviroment? Should we leave all our animals to be taken by nature? That is, would all sheep be eaten by dogs? Or would the vegans have them turn vegan dogs? Imagine if there was no food chain, we would no longer be on earth if no one ate meat, enviromental systems would break down, all species would over-populate and we would have more methane and assorted gases prodoced.
Posted by meateater, 20/09/2009 10:38:07 PM
There is no need for vegans!
Posted by THE FARMER, 20/09/2009 11:00:10 PM
If farmers are being made responsible for the methane gas produced by livestock, is the State going to be responsible for the methane gas produced by birds and animals both protected and feral in their National Parks. What about the proliferation of feral pigs in poorly managed (because they are poorly resourced) national parks? The whole situation becomes ridiculous when it is largely an attempt by an urban government to shift blame for environmental problems to farmers.
Posted by bushie, 21/09/2009 5:40:14 AM
Vegan. Humans have used red meat as a protein source since time began. We will continue to eat red meat as part of a healthy and balanced diet. There are large tracks of this country that are not suited to vegtable production. If you can utilise them to produce a protien source to contribute the the much spoken about world wide food shortage then we should do so. There are so many simpler ways to reduce our carbon footprint without atacking an industry that has contributed to this country's prosperity since settlement!
Posted by Sam, 21/09/2009 6:26:05 AM
Vegan. I have eye teeth. Maybe nature decided over a million years that meat was supposed to be part of my diet.
Posted by ex producer, 21/09/2009 7:03:50 AM
Wonder what vegans taste like?? g
Posted by g, 21/09/2009 9:12:04 AM
Dr Vercoe should divert some effort to calculating the volume of methane emissions from termites as they munched through the pre-settlement woodlands. This would enable us to determine the net emissions from livestock after deducting the natural emissions they replaced when land was cleared for pasture. At present both the research, and the national greenhouse accounts, focus on the gross emissions only. And surprise, surprise, livestock have what is described as a "pollutant tag". But it is a perception based on a misrepresentation by omission. And Dr Vercoe and his CSIRO cronies have a duty to supply the public and the policy process with "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Do they not?
Posted by Ian Mott, 21/09/2009 9:14:51 AM
Wow! What responses. I must admit I agree with all but the first!
Posted by mrs e, 21/09/2009 10:00:38 AM
An another example of dodgy experiments. The same results that come out of the rear end of bulls in solid format. Will humans be breath tested to determine their contribution. There is a known family here who have a reputation of clearing rooms. Will they need to be suppressed? Doesn't methane break down to water vapour and the plant food CO2?
Posted by Len, 21/09/2009 10:34:35 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
17 September, 2009
18 September, 2009
POLL
Q: If a federal election were held this weekend, for which party would you vote?

Labor
(13%)

Liberal
(30.8%)

Nationals
(35.4%)

Greens
(8.1%)

Family First
(1.6%)

Independent
(8.6%)

Other
(2.6%)

Total Votes: 1073
Poll Date: 13 September, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...