The lore of low methane livestock: co-producing technology and animals for reduced climate change impact

Abstract

Methane emissions from sheep and cattle production have gained increasing profile in the context of climate change. Policy and scientific research communities have suggested a number of technological approaches to mitigate these emissions. This paper uses the concept of co-production as an analytical framework to understand farmers’ evaluation of a 'good animal’. It examines how technology and sheep and beef cattle are co-produced in the context of concerns about the climate change impact of methane. Drawing on 42 semi-structured interviews, this paper demonstrates that methane emissions are viewed as a natural and integral part of sheep and beef cattle by farmers, rather than as a pollutant. Sheep and beef cattle farmers in the UK are found to be an extremely heterogeneous group that need to be understood in their specific social, environmental and consumer contexts. Some are more amenable to appropriating methane reducing measures than others, but largely because animals are already co-constructed from the natural and the technical for reasons of increased production efficiency.

Farmers’ perceptions of climate change: identifying types

“…Conversely, other groupings did not perceive climate change as a significant enough threat to change their future management planning. Whereas these studies have focused on farmer types in other sectors, or on one aspect of adaptation or mitigation (Eggers et al 2014;Bruce 2013), there is a specific need to investigate beef and sheep farmers' perceptions of climate change in temperate regions. Such analyses are important in light of the considerable attention bestowed on the red meat sectors' contribution towards climate change; therein, assisting the industry's aspirations in reducing emissions.…”

Research System [IKRS] for Treatment of Bloat and its Significance towards Greenhouse Gas Emission: Jharkhand, India

“…These environmental friendly formulations need to be encouraged not only for sustenance but for animal welfare (Periyaveeturaman et al, 2015). The environmental challenges demand system-wide transformations in understanding and utilizing sociotechnical systems that were amenable (Seyfand and Haxeltine, 2012;Bruce, 2013 welfare issues in small holder dairy farming system (Ravikumar et al, 2015a). Further, utility of IKRS beyond the place of origin were demonstrated reinforcing belief for its relevance, wider diffusion potential (Ghorai et al, 2016).…”

Utilization of farm animal genetic resources in a changing agro-ecological environment in the Nordic countries

“…This can be considered as unwanted in terms of resource utilization in food production for a growing human population and would also mean that the Nordic countries become more dependent on imported feedstuff. In addition to the manipulation of the animals’ diets, selective breeding work is the other principal means used to mitigate GHG emissions ( Wall et al, 2010 ; Bruce, 2013 ).…”

“…Mitigation through selection refers to breeding animals that have high productivity and efficiency, fertility, good health, robustness and that produce less GHG ( Boadi et al, 2004 ; Wall et al, 2010 ; Bruce, 2013 ; Hietala et al, 2014 ). The breeding goals for adaptation are very similar to those for mitigation: in adaptation to new environmental circumstances and production environments, we consider that fertility, feed conversation rate and particularly health traits, are very important.…”

“…However, there are several genetic and animal breeding questions that should be considered in climate change strategies ( Hoffman, 2010 ; Wall et al, 2010 ; Bruce, 2013 ), such as choosing among breeds and even among species suited to changing circumstances ( Seo et al, 2010 ). There may be an increased demand for robust animal breeds with the potential to adapt to changes in environmental conditions and tolerate new livestock diseases ( Hoffman, 2010 ).…”