Production performance, nutrient use efficiency, and predicted enteric methane emissions in dairy cows under confinement or grazing management system

被引:6
作者
Brito, Andre F. [1 ]
Almeida, Kleves, V [1 ]
Oliveira, Andre S. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ New Hampshire, Dept Agr Nutr & Food Syst, Durham, NH 03824 USA
[2] Univ Fed Mato Grosso, Dairy Cattle Res Lab, Campus Sinop, BR-78557267 Sinop, MT, Brazil
关键词
climate change; dairy cow; feed efficiency; greenhouse gas; milk nitrogen efficiency; TOTAL MIXED RATION; DRY-MATTER INTAKE; CARBON FOOTPRINT; MILK-PRODUCTION; ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT; FEEDING SYSTEMS; PASTURE; METAANALYSIS; INDOORS; ACCESS;
D O I
10.1093/tas/txac028
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
There has been an intense debate regarding the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of confinement versus grazing dairy systems. Our goal was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare dry matter intake, milk yield and composition, nutrient use efficiency (i.e., feed efficiency, milk N efficiency), and predicted enteric CH4 emissions using studies that simultaneously evaluated confinement and grazing. We were able to include in the meta-analysis 8 peer-reviewed articles that met the following selection criteria: (1) publication between 1991 and 2021 in English language, (2) report either SEM or SD, (3) inclusion of at least 1 confinement [total mixed ration or fresh cut herbage fed indoors (i.e., zero-grazing)] and 1 grazing treatment in the same study, and (4) use of markers (internal or external) to estimate herbage dry matter intake.Two unpublished experiments were added to the data set resulting in a total of 10 studies for comparing confinement and grazing .The magnitude of the effect (i.e., effect size) was evaluated using weighted raw mean differences between grazing and confinement systems for a random effect model. Enteric CH4 production was predicted as follows: CH4 (g/d) = 33.2 (13.54) + 13.6 (0.33) x dry matter intake + 2.43 (0.245) x neutral detergent fiber. Dry matter intake (-9.5%), milk yield (-9.3%), milk fat yield (-5.8%), milk protein yield (-10%), and energy-corrected milk (-12%) all decreased in grazing versus confined dairy cows. In contrast, concentration of milk fat and feed efficiency (energy-corrected milk/dry matter intake) were not affected by management system. Whereas milk protein concentration increased, milk nitrogen (N) efficiency (milk N/N intake) tended to decrease in grazing compared with confinement. Predicted enteric CH4 production was 6.1% lower in grazing than confined dairy cows. However, CH4 yield (g/kg of dry matter intake) and CH4 intensity (g/kg of energy-corrected milk) did not change between confinement and grazing. In conclusion, while production performance decreased in grazing dairy cows, nutrient use efficiency and predicted enteric CH4 emissions were relatively similar in both management systems. Results of our meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies that met our inclusion criteria leading to a limited number of treatment mean comparisons.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 51 条
  • [1] Impact of recent research on energy feeding systems for dairy cattle
    Agnew, RE
    Yan, T
    [J]. LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SCIENCE, 2000, 66 (03): : 197 - 215
  • [2] Grazing intensity affects the environmental impact of dairy systems
    Aguirre-Villegas, H. A.
    Passos-Fonseca, T. H.
    Reinemann, D. J.
    Larson, R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2017, 100 (08) : 6804 - 6821
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2014, CLIMATE CHANGE 2014, V80, P1
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2001, Nutritional Requirements of Dairy Cattle, V7th
  • [5] Production, milk iodine, and nutrient utilization in Jersey cows supplemented with the brown seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum (kelp meal) during the grazing season
    Antaya, N. T.
    Ghelichkhan, M.
    Pereira, A. B. D.
    Soder, K. J.
    Brito, A. F.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2019, 102 (09) : 8040 - 8058
  • [6] Performance of high producing dairy cows with three different feeding systems combining pasture and total mixed rations
    Bargo, F
    Muller, LD
    Delahoy, JE
    Cassidy, TW
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2002, 85 (11) : 2948 - 2963
  • [7] Enhancing the fatty acid profile of milk through forage-based rations, with nutrition modeling of diet outcomes
    Benbrook, Charles M.
    Davis, Donald R.
    Heins, Bradley J.
    Latif, Maged A.
    Leifert, Carlo
    Peterman, Logan
    Butler, Gillian
    Faergeman, Ole
    Abel-Caines, Silvia
    Baranski, Marcin
    [J]. FOOD SCIENCE & NUTRITION, 2018, 6 (03): : 681 - 700
  • [8] US respondents' willingness to pay for Cheddar cheese from dairy cattle with different pasture access, antibiotic use, and dehorning practices
    Bir, Courtney
    Widmar, Nicole Olynk
    Thompson, Nathanael M.
    Townsend, Jonathan
    Wolf, Christopher A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2020, 103 (04) : 3234 - 3249
  • [9] Symposium review: Comparisons of feed and milk nitrogen efficiency and carbon emissions in organic versus conventional dairy production systems
    Brito, A. F.
    Silva, L. H. P.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2020, 103 (06) : 5726 - 5739
  • [10] The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007
    Capper, J. L.
    Cady, R. A.
    Bauman, D. E.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2009, 87 (06) : 2160 - 2167