Talk:Methane

Review of draft

To do's:

• Add links to things mentioned like RFI
• References use the ref tag
• Recommendation statement

Question: Without any carbon tax/penalty/incentive, how would you develop an economic weight for a selection index?

Question: Should this be in the Management/Convenience traits?

Bruce L. Golden (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: Review of draft -- Edressler (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Thanks for the feedback. I have added links to other relevant pages like feed intake and efficiency. I also added references using ref tag. In regards to your last comment for a recommendation statement, is that referencing the "Usage" subheading?

Re: Re: Review of draft -- Bruce L. Golden (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the adds! In many articles with a strong recommendation, we add a Recommendations subsection, usually at the end. You've recommended that RMP not be used (I agree). This recommendation probably should be repeated in its own subsection. The convention is to put it in italics. See the Possible Change article as an example: https://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Possible_Change

We probably should add that to the Feed Intake page too. Matt? Others?

Re: Re: Re: Review of draft -- Edressler (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, thanks for the clarification. I've added a recommendations subsection and statement. I discussed your first question with Dr. Rolf and there are a few options for economic weightings in the absence of an established carbon market in the U.S. We could look at other countries which have a more established carbon market, a sliding scale of pricing selected by the producer (similar to igendec), or just utilize it's impacts on other traits (probably not an ideal approach). Others may have additional ideas. For now, this may have to be approached ad hoc, with attention first focused on phenotype collection and understanding the trait and it's impact on other ERTs. Do we feel this discussion point should be added to the trait guidelines?

Your second question: I don't have an issue with including this trait in the management/convenience section. I think that makes the most sense between the current categories.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Review of draft -- Bruce L. Golden (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Matt and I discussed the idea of including it in an economic index. It cannot be included in an economic index without a clear way to assign costs or revenue to it. BIF recommends against ad hoc indexes. So that leaves a desired gains approach to weighting it. However, desired gains requires a sensible target (e.g., one imposed by regulation or standard). At this point, we recommend eliminating the sentences referring to indexes in the body and recommendations section. Alternatively, you could state that in the future market or regulatory signals may be available to construct a sensible economic index or desired gains index that includes DMP.

Also, go ahead and change it into the Management/Convenience traits category. I'll add it to the Traits page.

Thanks for all your work on this.

=Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Review of draft -- Mrolf (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)=

Fully agree with the index statements here. In our discussions, I was thinking more along the lines of getting ideas on what those weightings might be in the future in just a general manner (i.e. what do they look like in other places and how that might translate to here), rather than from the perspective of how we might implement this in the industry, and I didn't really make that very clear. I agree that we probably don't want to recommend an index at this time with no obvious economic advantage or penalty to attach to it. I do like the idea of outlining the approaches that you highlighted here, that could be added to in the future or modified as things change.

=Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Review of draft -- Mspangler (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)=

I made some minor edits throughout. I did not edit the contemporary group section but I would suggest it be revised. I see no problem with animals of different sexes and breed compositions being in the same contemporary group. These effects (sex and breed) could/should be fitted in addition to CG where CG is simply defined by having the same management/feed such that there is an equal opportunity to perform.

==Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Review of draft -- Mrolf (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)==

This is a good point-do we need to specify this relative to having enough animals in the CG to estimate these effects? It may not be a big issue in many/most groups, but might be in a group of cows with a herd sire, for example, where we only have one male animal in the group. Might be a niche enough situation, or easy enough to pull that animal out later, that we don't need to specify that.

==Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Review of draft -- Bruce L. Golden (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)==

Is there a sex by CG interaction? Do not include breed in the CG. Fit additive genetic groups.

===Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Review of draft -- 129.130.19.169 15:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)===

Thanks Dr. Spangler and Golden for your feedback. I've removed the mention of sex and breed from the contemporary group section.

Re: Review of draft -- Mrolf (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

One question I've thought of relative to this is the differences in diet between groups. With feed intake, there is a recommendation relative to minimum diet energy levels. Here, I think there is a possibility of animals collected on grass, like we are doing, where there could be dramatic differences in diet between groups (which may be somewhat made up in supplement or not), or those collecting in confinement where the diet may be more consistent, at least in energy value, if not in the feedstuffs themselves. Do we need to address any of these differences in a more substantive way than just keeping it the same within contemporary group?

Re: Re: Review of draft -- Mspangler (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

For now I think we keep it as it is and not complicate it given there is still a lot of uncertainty. I think it is very possible that heterogenous variance models might ned to be used to take into account differences in number of collections and large differences in diet type.

Re: Re: Re: Review of draft -- Mspangler (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I approve the most recent version.