Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T01:46:12.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of longevity on greenhouse gas emissions and profitability of individual dairy cows analysed with different system boundaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2018

F. Grandl Open the ORCID record for F. Grandl [Opens in a new window] ,
M. Furger ,
M. Kreuzer  and
M. Zehetmeier
F. Grandl*
Affiliation:
ETH Zurich, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Universitaetstrasse 2, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland Qualitas AG, Chamerstrasse 56, 6300 Zug, Switzerland
M. Furger
Affiliation:
Agricultural Education and Advisory Centre Plantahof, Kantonsstrasse 17, 7302 Landquart, Switzerland
M. Kreuzer
Affiliation:
ETH Zurich, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Universitaetstrasse 2, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
M. Zehetmeier
Affiliation:
Bavarian State Research Center, Institute for Agricultural Economics, Menzinger Straße 54, 80638 München, Germany
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Dairy production systems are often criticized as being major emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG). In this context, the extension of the length of the productive life of dairy cows is gaining interest as a potential GHG mitigation option. In the present study, we investigated cow and system GHG emission intensity and profitability based on data from 30 dairy cows of different productive lifetime fed either no or limited amounts of concentrate. Detailed information concerning productivity, feeding and individual enteric methane emissions of the individuals was available from a controlled experiment and herd book databases. A simplified GHG balance was calculated for each animal based on the milk produced at the time of the experiment and for their entire lifetime milk production. For the lifetime production, we also included the emissions arising from potential beef produced by fattening the offspring of the dairy cows. This accounted for the effect that changes in the length of productive life will affect the replacement rate and thus the number of calves that can be used for beef production. Profitability was assessed by calculating revenues and full economic costs for the cows in the data set. Both emission intensity and profitability were most favourable in cows with long productive life, whereas cows that had not finished their first lactation performed particularly unfavourably with regard to their emissions per unit of product and rearing costs were mostly not repaid. Including the potential beef production, GHG emissions in relation to total production of animal protein also decreased with age, but the overall variability was greater, as the individual cow history (lifetime milk yield, twin births, stillbirths, etc.) added further sources of variation. The present results show that increasing the length of productive life of dairy cows is a viable way to reduce the climate impact and to improve profitability of dairy production.

Keywords

length of productive lifedairy cattleenvironmental impacteconomicsbeef
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 198 - 208
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

Alig, M, Grandl, F, Mieleitner, J, Nemecek, T and Gaillard, G 2012. Life cycle assessment of beef, pork and chicken meat. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon ART, Zurich, Switzerland. (in German).Google Scholar
Alig, M, Grandl, F and Nemecek, T 2013. Environmental impacts of beef production systems. In Book of Abstracts of the 64th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science, 26–30 August, Nantes, France, p. 194.Google Scholar
Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture (LfL) 2017. LfL gross margins and calculation data for dairy production (in German). Retrieved on 31 July 2017 from https://www.stmelf.bayern.de/idb/default.html Google Scholar
Bell, MJ, Garnsworthy, PC, Stott, AW and Pryce, JE 2015. Effects of changing cow production and fitness traits on profit and greenhouse gas emissions of UK dairy systems. Journal of Agricultural Science 153, 138–151.Google Scholar
Boulton, AC, Rushton, J and Wathes, DC 2017. An empirical analysis of the cost of rearing dairy heifers from birth to first calving and the time taken to repay these costs. Animal 11, 1372–1380.Google Scholar
Capper, JL and Bauman, DE 2013. The role of productivity in improving the environmental sustainability of ruminant production systems. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 1, 469–489.Google Scholar
Caro, D, Davis, SJ, Bastianoni, S and Caldeira, K 2014. Global and regional trends in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock. Climatic Change 126, 203–216.Google Scholar
De Vries, A 2017. Economic trade-offs between genetic improvement and longevity in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 4184–4192.Google Scholar
de Vries, M., van Middelaar, CE and de Boer, IJM 2015. Comparing environmental impacts of beef production systems: a review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science 178, 279–288.Google Scholar
Eilers, U 2014. Lifetime performance and lifetime effectivity – an analysis for optimization of essential parameters of sustainable milk production (in German). Proceedings of the 41. Viehwirtschaftliche Fachtagung 2014, 9–10 April 2014, Lehr- und Forschungszentrum für Landwirtschaft Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Irdning, Austria, pp. 45–64.Google Scholar
Ertl, P, Klocker, H, Hörtenhuber, H, Knaus, W and Zollitsch, W 2015. The net contribution of dairy production to human food supply: the case of Austrian dairy farms. Agricultural Systems 137, 119–125.Google Scholar
Flysjö, A, Cederberg, C, Henriksson, M and Ledgard, S 2012. The interaction between milk and beef production and emissions from land use change – critical consideration in life cycle assessment and carbon footprint studies of milk. Journal of Cleaner Production 28, 134–142.Google Scholar
Flysjö, A, Henriksson, M, Cederberg, C, Ledgard, S and Englund, J-E 2011. The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. Agricultural Systems 104, 459–469.Google Scholar
Gerber, P, Vellinga, T, Opio, C, Henderson, B and Steinfeld, H 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector: a life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Animal Production and Health Division, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Garnsworthy, PC, Craigon, J, Hernandez-Medrano, JH and Saunders, N 2012. Variation among individual dairy cows in methane measurements made on farm during milking. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3181–3189.Google Scholar
Grandl, F, Amelchanka, SL, Furger, M, Clauss, M, Zeitz, JO, Kreuzer, M and Schwarm, A 2016b. Biological implications of longevity in dairy cows: 2. Changes in methane emissions and efficiency with age. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 3472–3485.Google Scholar
Grandl, F, Luzi, SP, Furger, M, Zeitz, JO, Leiber, F, Ortmann, S, Clauss, M, Kreuzer, M and Schwarm, A 2016a. Biological implications of longevity in dairy cows: 1. Changes in feed intake, feeding behavior and digestion with age. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 3457–3471.Google Scholar
Horn, M, Knaus, W, Kirner, L and Steinwidder, A 2012. Economic evaluation of longevity in organic dairy cows. Organic Agriculture 2, 127–143.Google Scholar
Hörtenhuber, S, Lindenthal, T, Amon, B, Markut, T, Kirner, L and Zollitsch, W 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from selected Austrian dairy production systems – model calculations considering the effects of land use change. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25, 316–329.Google Scholar
Hörtenhuber, S and Zollitsch, W 2009. Greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle – on the importance of the system boundary (in German). Proceedings of the 36. Viehwirtschaftliche Fachtagung 2009, 16–17 April 2009, Lehr- und Forschungszentrum für Landwirtschaft Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Irdning, Austria. pp. 137–144.Google Scholar
Knaus, W 2009. Dairy cows trapped between performance demands and adaptability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89, 1107–1114.Google Scholar
Myhre, G, Shindell, D, Bréon, F-M, Collins, W, Fuglestvedt, J, Huang, J, Koch, F, Lamarque, J-F, Lee, D, Mendoza, B, Nakajima, T, Robock, A, Stephens, G, Takemura, T and Zhang, H 2013. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. TF Stocker, D Qin, G-K Plattner, M Tignor, SK Allen, J Boschung, A Nauels, Y Xia, V Bex and PM Midgley), pp. 659–740. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Puillet, L, Agabriel, J, Peyraud, JL and Faverdin, P 2014. Modelling cattle population as lifetime trajectories driven by management options: a way to better integrate beef and milk production in emissions assessment. Livestock Science 165, 167–180.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Ross, S, Topp, C, Ennos, R and Chagunda, M 2017. Relative emissions intensity of dairy production systems: Employing different functional units in life-cycle assessment. Animal 11, 1381–1388.Google Scholar
Rotz, CA 2017. Modeling greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13272. Published online by Elsevier 15 November 2017.Google Scholar
Styles, D, Gonzalez-Mejia, A, Moorby, J, Foskolos, A and Gibbons, J 2018. Climate mitigation by dairy intensification depends on intensive use of spared grassland. Global Change Biology 24, 681–693.Google Scholar
Symonds, MRE and Moussalli, A 2011. A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63, 13–21.Google Scholar
Van Middelaar, CE, Dijkstra, J, Berentsen, PBM and de Boer, IJM 2014. Cost-effectiveness of feeding strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farming. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 2427–2439.Google Scholar
Vellinga, TV, Blonk, H, Marinussen, M, van Zeist, WJ, de Boer, IJM and Starmans, D 2013. Methodology used in FeedPrint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization. Wageningen UR Livestock Research Report 674, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wolf, P, Groen, EA, Berg, W, Prochnow, A, Bokkers, EAM, Heijungs, R and de Boer, IJM 2017. Assessing greenhouse gas emissions of milk production: which parameters are essential? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 22, 441–455.Google Scholar
Zehetmeier, M, Baudracco, J, Hoffmann, H and Heißenhuber, A 2012. Does increasing milk yield per cow reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A system approach. Animal 6, 154–166.Google Scholar
Zehetmeier, M, Hoffmann, H, Sauer, J, Hofmann, G, Dorfner, G and O’Brien, D 2014. A dominance analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, beef output and land use of German dairy farms. Agricultural Systems 129, 55–67.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Grandl et al. supplementary material

Figures S1 and S2

Download Grandl et al. supplementary material(File)
File 86 KB