Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:31:07.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of SIMSDAIRY modelling framework system to compare the scope on the sustainability of a dairy farm of animal and plant genetic-based improvements with management-based changes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2008

A. del PRADO  and
D. SCHOLEFIELD
A. del PRADO*
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB, UK
D. SCHOLEFIELD
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Currently, society awareness, legislations and competing markets demand dairy farming systems which are sustainable. In the near future, farm management and animal genetics will be key elements in developing such sustainability. Although the effect of farm management on some attributes of sustainability has already been studied, the impacts and scope for realizing goals of agricultural multifunctionality through genetic changes are still to be tested. Sustainable and Integrated Management Systems for Dairy Production (SIMSDAIRY) is a new farm level modelling framework which integrates these concepts to practical actions and brings all of this complexity into an operational and scientific modus operandi.

The current paper provides a brief description of the structure of SIMSDAIRY and an example of how it can be used to compare the scope for improving the overall sustainability of a dairy farm by: (i) future system changes aimed at improving genetic characteristics of plants and animals with (ii) current system structural changes aimed at improving nutrient management efficiency. In order to do this comparison, management factors and new genetic traits from plants or/and animals, acting singly or in combination, are evaluated against a baseline dairy farm scenario. Sustainability is measured in terms of targets associated with: (i) the Nitrates Directive, (ii) phosphorus (P) threshold for eutrophication, (iii) the Kyoto Protocol, (iv) the Gothenburg Protocol, (v) an adequate net farm income for standard of living and acceptable standards of (vi) quality of milk, (vii) animal welfare, (viii) level of biodiversity, (ix) landscape aesthetics and (x) soil quality.

Results suggest that genetic-based changes offer greater scope than management-based ones to improve sustainability up to an acceptable level. Costs associated with management changes are often too high within current socio-economics circumstances. Optimizing nitrogen (N) mineral fertilizer rate and timing was the only management-based measure that, while improving most of the environmental and biodiversity indices, resulted in improved economic results. Some genetic-based changes offered substantial scope for reducing environmental losses while having economic benefits. However, only those decreasing the crude protein (CP) of the plant and increasing the diet N cow partition into milk seemed to result in non-significant pollution swapping and be achievable in the nearby future.

Type
Modelling Animal Systems Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 146 , Issue 2: Modelling Animal Systems , April 2008 , pp. 195 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

REFERENCES

Abberton, M. T., Fothergill, M., Collins, R. P. & Marshall, A. H. (2006). Breeding forage legumes for sustainable and profitable farming systems. Aspects of Applied Biology 80, 81–87.Google Scholar
Ambrose, D. J., Kastelic, J. P., Corbett, R., Pitney, P. A., Petit, H. V., Small, J. A. & Zalkovic, P. (2006). Lower pregnancy losses in lactating dairy cows fed a diet enriched in alpha-linolenic acid. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3066–3074.Google Scholar
Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A. & Wilson, J. D. (2003). Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, L., Scholefield, D., Jewkes, E. C., Lockyer, D. R. & Del Prado, A. (2005). NGAUGE: a decision support system to optimise N fertilisation of British grassland for economic and/or environmental goals. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 109, 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camargo, J. A. & Alonso, A. (2006). Ecological and toxicological effects of inorganic nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems: a global assessment. Environment International 32, 831–849.Google Scholar
Castillo, A. R., Kebreab, E., Beever, D. E. & France, J. (2000). A review of efficiency of nitrogen utilisation in lactating dairy cows and its relationship with environmental pollution. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 9, 1–32.Google Scholar
Chadwick, D. R. & Pain, B. F. (1997). Methane fluxes following slurry applications to grassland soils: laboratory experiments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, B. J., Lord, E. I., Nicholson, F. A. & Smith, K. A. (1999). Predicting nitrogen availability and losses following application of organic manures to arable land: MANNER. Soil Use and Management 15, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colmenero, J. J. O. & Broderick, G. A. (2006). Effect of dietary crude protein concentration on milk production and nitrogen utilization in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1704–1712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czerkawski, J. W. (1972). Fate of metabolic hydrogen in the rumen. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 31, 141–146.Google Scholar
Davison, P. S., Withers, P. J. A., Lord, E. I., Betson, M. J. & Stromqvist, J. (2008). PSYCHIC – A process-based model of phosphorus and sediment mobilisation and delivery within agricultural catchments. Part 1: model description and parameterisation. Journal of Hydrology 350(3–4), 290–302.Google Scholar
Del Prado, A. & Scholefield, D. (2006). Use of SIMSDAIRY modelling framework system to specify sustainable UK dairy farms. Aspects of Applied Biology 80, 73–80.Google Scholar
Del Prado, A., Cardenas, L. & Scholefield, D. (2006 a). Impact of NO3 leaching abatement measures on N2O and CH4 emissions from a UK dairy system. International Congress Series 1293, 359–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Prado, A., Scholefield, D., Chadwick, D. R., Misselbrook, T. H., Haygarth, P. M., Hopkins, A., Dewhurst, R. J., Jones, R., Moorby, J. M., Davison, P., Lord, E. I., Turner, M., Aikman, P. & Schröder, J. (2006 b). A modelling framework to identify new integrated dairy production systems. Grassland Science in Europe 11, 766–768.Google Scholar
Dewhurst, R. J., Scollan, N. D., Youell, S. J., Tweed, J. K. S. & Humphreys, M. O. (2001). Influence of species, cutting date and cutting interval on the fatty acid composition of grasses. Grass and Forage Science 56, 68–74.Google Scholar
Dewhurst, R. J., Scollan, N. D., Lee, M. R. F., Ougham, H. J. & Humphreys, M. O. (2003). Forage breeding and management to increase the beneficial fatty acid content of ruminant products. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 62, 329–336.Google Scholar
EC (2000). Directive 1999/30/EC Relating to Limit Values for Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide and Oxides of Nitrogen, Particulate Matter and Lead in Ambient Air. Official Journal of the European Communities L 163, 41–60.Google Scholar
EC (European Communities) (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework of Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Official Journal of European Communities L 327, 1–72.Google Scholar
EC (1991). Council Directive Concerning the Protection of Water Against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources (91/676/EEC). Official Journal of the European Communities L 375, 1–5.Google Scholar
Elgersma, A., Ellen, G., Van Der Horst, H., Muuse, B. G., Boer, H. & Tamminga, S. (2003). Influence of cultivar and cutting date on the fatty acid composition of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.). Grass and Forage Science 58, 323–331.Google Scholar
Firbank, L. G. (2005). Striking a new balance between agricultural production and biodiversity. Annals of Applied Biology 146, 163–175.Google Scholar
Giger-Reverdin, S., Morand-Fehr, P. & Tran, G. (2003). Literature survey of the influence of dietary fat composition on methane production in dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 82, 73–79.Google Scholar
Herrmann, S., Dabbert, S. & Schwarz-Von Raumer, H. G. (2003). Threshold values for nature protection areas as indicators for bio-diversity – a regional evaluation of economic and ecological consequences. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98, 493–506.Google Scholar
Jenkins, T. C. & Jenny, B. F. (1989). Effect of hydrogenated fat on feed-intake, nutrient digestion, and lactation performance of dairy-cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 2316–2324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kebreab, E., France, J., Beever, D. E. & Castillo, A. R. (2001). Nitrogen pollution by dairy cows and its mitigation by dietary manipulation. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 60, 275–285.Google Scholar
Machmüller, A., Ossowski, D. A., Wanner, M. & Kreuzer, M. (1998). Potential of various fatty feeds to reduce methane release from rumen fermentation in vitro (Rusitec). Animal Feed Science and Technology 71, 117–130.Google Scholar
Machmüller, A., Ossowski, D. A. & Kreuzer, M. (2006). Effect of fat supplementation on nitrogen utilisation of lambs and nitrogen emission from their manure. Livestock Science 101, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macleod, C. J. A., Binley, A., Hawkins, S. L., Humphreys, M. W., Turner, L. B., Whalley, W. R. & Haygarth, P. M. (2007). Genetically modified hydrographs: what can grass genetics do for temperate catchment hydrology? Hydrological Processes 21, 2217–2221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAFF (2000). Fertiliser Recommendations for Agricultural and Horticultural Crops (RB209) 7th edn.London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Marini, J. C. & Van Amburgh, M. E. (2005). Partition of nitrogen excretion in urine and the feces of Holstein replacement heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1778–1784.Google Scholar
McAdam, J. H., Kerr, J. A., Fisher, G. E. J. & Tallowin, J. R. B. (2001). Management for biodiversity in grassland farming systems. In Proceedings of the International Fertiliser Society, 485, pp. 1–28. York, UK: International Fertiliser Society.Google Scholar
Misselbrook, T. H., Powell, J. M., Broderick, G. A. & Grabber, J. H. (2005). Dietary manipulation in dairy cattle: laboratory experiments to assess the influence on ammonia emissions. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1765–1777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oenema, O. & Berentsen, P. B. M. (2004). Manure Policy and MINAS: Regulating Nitrogen and Phosphorus Surpluses in Agriculture in the Netherlands. Paris, France: OECD.Google ScholarPubMed
Palmquist, D. L. & Conrad, H. R. (1978). High fat rations for dairy-cows: effects on feed-intake, milk and fat production, and plasma metabolites. Journal of Dairy Science 61, 890–901.Google Scholar
Pantoja, J., Firkins, J. L., Eastridge, M. L. & Hull, B. L. (1994). Effects of fat-saturation and source of fiber on site of nutrient digestion and milk-production by lactating dairy-cows. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 2341–2356.Google Scholar
Parodi, P. W. (1997). Cows' milk fat components as potential anticarcinogenic agents. Journal of Nutrition 127, 1055–1060.Google Scholar
Rossing, W. A. H., Jansma, J. E., De Ruijter, F. J. & Schans, J. (1997). Operationalising sustainability: exploring options for environmentally friendly flower bulb production systems. European Journal of Plant Pathology 103, 217–234.Google Scholar
Sanderson, H. R. (1989). Effects of management strategies on other resources. In Managing Interior Northwest Rangelands: The Oregon Range Evaluation Project (Eds Quigley, T. M., H. R. Sanderson & Tiedemann, A. R.), pp. 91–97. General Technolical Report PNW-GTR-238. Portland, OR, USA: USDA.Google Scholar
Schils, R. L. M., Verhagen, A., Aarts, H. F. M., Kuikman, P. J. & Sebek, L. B. J. (2006). Effect of improved nitrogen management on greenhouse gas emissions from intensive dairy systems in the Netherlands. Global Change Biology 12, 382–391.Google Scholar
Schils, R. L. M., Olesen, J. E., Del Prado, A. & Soussana, J. F. (2007). A review of farm level modelling approaches for mitigating GHG emissions from ruminant livestock systems. Livestock Science 112, 240–251.Google Scholar
Smart, S. M., Robertson, J. C., Shield, E. J. & Van De Poll, H. M. (2003). Locating eutrophication effects across British vegetation between 1990 and 1998. Global Change Biology 9, 1763–1774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. A., Brewer, A. J., Crabb, J. & Dauven, A. (2001). A survey of the production and use of animal manures in England and Wales. III. Cattle manures. Soil Use and Management 17, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stromqvist, J., Collins, A. L., Davison, P. S. & Lord, E. I. (2008). PSYCHIC – a process-based model of phosphorus and sediment transfers within agricultural catchments. Part 2. A preliminary evaluation. Journal of Hydrology 350(3–4), 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. (2004). Feed into Milk: A New Applied Feeding System for Dairy Cows. Nottingham, UK: Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Thorman, R. E., Chadwick, D. R., Harrison, R., Boyles, L. O. & Matthews, R. (2007). The effect on N2O emissions of storage conditions and rapid incorporation of pig and cattle farmyard manure into tillage land. Biosystems Engineering 97, 501–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, B. L. & Haygarth, P. M. (2000). Phosphorus forms and concentrations in leachate under four grassland soil types. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64, 1090–1099.Google Scholar
UNECE (1999). Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Economic Commissions for Europe (UNECE).Google Scholar
UNFCCC (1997). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.Google Scholar
Van Calker, K. J., Berentsen, P. B. M., Romero, C., Giesen, G. W. J. & Huirne, R. B. M. (2006). Development and application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy farming systems. Ecological Economics 57, 640–658.Google Scholar
Van Cauwenbergh, N., Biala, K., Bielders, C., Brouckaert, V., Franchois, L., Garcia Cidad, V., Hermy, M., Mathijs, E., Muys, B., Reijnders, J., Sauvenier, X., Valckx, J., Vanclooster, M., Van der Veken, B., Wauters, E. & Peeters, A. (2007). SAFE – A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 120, 229–242.Google Scholar
Vereijken, P. (1997). A methodological way of prototyping integrated and ecological arable farming systems (I/EAFS) in interaction with pilot farmers. European Journal of Agronomy 7, 235–250.Google Scholar
Webb, J. & Misselbrook, T. H. (2004). A mass-flow model of ammonia emissions from UK livestock production. Atmospheric Environment 38, 2163–2176.Google Scholar
Webb, J., Henderson, D. & Anthony, S. G. (2001). Optimizing livestock manure applications to reduce nitrate and ammonia pollution: scenario analysis using the MANNER model. Soil Use and Management 17, 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, J., Menzi, H., Pain, B. F., Misselbrook, T. H., Dammgen, U., Hendriks, H. & Dohler, H. (2005). Managing ammonia emissions from livestock production in Europe. Environmental Pollution 135, 399–406.Google Scholar
Whitmore, A. (2001). Impact of livestock on soil. Landbauforschung Volkenrode FAL Agricultural Research, Sonderheft 226, 39–41.Google Scholar
Wilkins, P. W., Allen, D. K. & Mytton, L. R. (2000). Differences in the nitrogen use efficiency of perennial ryegrass varieties under simulated rotational grazing and their effects on nitrogen recovery and herbage nitrogen content. Grass and Forage Science 55, 69–76.Google Scholar
Wilkins, P. W. & Humphreys, M. O. (2003). Progress in breeding perennial forage grasses for temperate agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Science 140, 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamulki, S. (2004). Quantitative effects of high-C additives on GHG emissions from farmyard manure. In Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture Mitigation Options and Strategies’, Leipzig, Germany, 10–12 Feb 2004 (Ed. Weiske, A.), pp. 179–182. Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
Yamulki, S. (2006). Effect of straw addition on nitrous oxide and methane emissions from stored farmyard manures. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112, 140–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar