Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:52:25.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applying a mechanistic fermentation and digestion model for dairy cows with emission and nutrient cycling inventory and accounting methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2020

A. Bannink Open the ORCID record for A. Bannink [Opens in a new window] ,
R. L. G. Zom ,
K. C. Groenestein ,
J. Dijkstra  and
L. B. J. Sebek
A. Bannink*
Affiliation:
Wageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen6700 AH, The Netherlands
R. L. G. Zom
Affiliation:
Wageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen6700 AH, The Netherlands
K. C. Groenestein
Affiliation:
Wageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen6700 AH, The Netherlands
J. Dijkstra
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen6700 AH, The Netherlands
L. B. J. Sebek
Affiliation:
Wageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen6700 AH, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: andre.bannink@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

In mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and reducing the carbon footprint of dairy milk, the use of generic estimates in inventory and accounting methodology at farm level largely ignores variation of on-farm GHG emissions. The present study aimed to implement results of an extant dynamic, mechanistic Tier 3 model for enteric methane (CH4) (applied in Dutch national GHG inventory) in order to capture variation in enteric CH4 emission, and in faecal N and organic matter (OM) digestibility, ultimately required to predict manure CH4 and ammonia emission. Tier 3 model predictions were translated into calculation rules that could easily be implemented in an annual nutrient cycling assessment tool including GHG emissions, which is currently used by Dutch dairy farmers. Calculations focussed on (1) enteric CH4 emission, (2) apparent faecal OM digestibility and (3) apparent faecal N digestibility. Enteric CH4 was expressed in CH4 yield indicated with the term emission factor (EF; g CH4/kg DM) for individual dietary components and feedstuffs. Factors investigated to cover predicted variation in EF value included the level of feed intake, the type of roughage fed (proportions of grass silage and maize silage) and the quality of roughage fed. A minimum number of three classes of roughage type (i.e. 0. 40% and 80% maize silage in roughage DM) appeared necessary to obtain correspondence between interpolated EF values from EF lists and Tier 3 model predictions. A linear decline in EF value with 1% per kg increase in DM intake is adopted based on model simulations. The quality of roughage was represented by the effect of maturity of harvested grass or of the whole plant maize at cutting, based on a survey of modelling as well as experimental work. Also, predictions were assembled for apparent faecal OM digestibility which could be used in national inventory and in farm accounting. Apparent faecal N digestibility (as a major determinant of predicted urinary N excretion) was predicted, to support current Dutch national ammonia emission inventory and to correct the level of N digestibility in farm accounting. Compared to generic values or values retrieved from the Dutch feeding tables, predicted OM and N digestibility and enteric CH4 are better rooted in physiological principles and better reflect observed variation under experimental conditions. The present results apply for conditions with fairly intensive grassland management in temperate regions.

Keywords

enteric methanenitrogendigestibilityTier 3farm accounting
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue S2: 9th Workshop on Modelling Nutrient Digestion and Utilization in Farm Animals (MODNUT) , August 2020 , pp. s406 - s416
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Animal Consortium

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

Aarts, HFM, de Haan, MHA, Schröder, JJ, Holster, HC, de Boer, JA, Reijs, JW, Oenema, J, Hilhorst, GJ, Šebek, LBJ, Verhoeven, FPM and Meerkerk, B 2015. Quantifying the environmental performance of individual dairy farms – the Annual Nutrient Cycling Assessment (ANCA). In: Grassland Science in Europe 20, 377–380.Google Scholar
Bannink, A, France, J, Lopez, S, Gerrits, WJJ, Kebreab, E, Tamminga, S and Dijkstra, J 2008. Modelling the implications of feeding strategy on rumen fermentation and functioning of the rumen wall. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannink, A, Smits, MCJ, Kebreab, E, Mills, JAN, Ellis, JL, Klop, A, France, J and Dijkstra, J 2010. Simulating the effects of grassland management and grass ensiling on methane emission from lactating cows. The Journal of Agricultural Science 148, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannink, A, Spek, WJ, Dijkstra, J and Šebek, LBJ 2018. A Tier 3 method for enteric methane in dairy cows applied for fecal N digestibility in the ammonia inventory. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2, 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannink, A, Van Lingen, HJ, Ellis, JL, France, J and Dijkstra, J 2016. Contribution of mathematical modeling to understanding dynamic aspects of rumen metabolism. Frontiers in Microbiology 7, 1820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bannink, A, Van Schijndel, MW and Dijkstra, J 2011. A model of enteric fermentation in dairy cows to estimate methane emission for the Dutch National Inventory Report using the IPCC Tier 3 approach. Animal Feed Science & Technology 166, 603–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannink, A, Zom, RLG, Groenestein, CM, Dijkstra, J and Šebek, LBJ 2019. Applying a mechanistic fermentation and digestion model for emissions accounting on dairy farms. Advances in Animal Biosciences 10, 349–349.Google Scholar
Benaouda, M, Martin, C, Li, X, Kebreab, E, Hristov, AN, Yu, Z, Yáñez-Ruiz, DR, Reynolds, CK, Crompton, LA, Dijkstra, J, Bannink, A, Schwarm, A, Kreuzer, M, McGee, M, Lund, P, Hellwing, ALF, Weisbjerg, MR, Moate, PJ, Bayat, AR, Shingfield, KJ, Peiren, N and Eugène, M 2019. Evaluation of the performance of existing mathematical models predicting enteric methane emissions from ruminants: animal categories and dietary mitigation strategies. Animal Feed Science and Technology 255, 114207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLGG 2014. Eurofins Agro, Meerjarengemiddelden voor gras- en snijmaiskuilen in Nederland. Retrieved on 15 May 2019 from https://www.eurofins-agro.com.Google Scholar
Cederberg, C, Henriksson, M and Berglund, M 2013. An LCA researcher’s wish list - data and emission models needed to improve LCA studies on animal production. Animal 7, 212–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CVB 2011. Table of Feedstuffs Information about composition, digestibility, and feeding values. Centraal Veevoederbureau, Product Board Animal Feed, Den Haag, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, J, Bannink, A, Bosma, PM, Lantinga, EA and Reijs, JW 2018. Modeling the effect of nutritional strategies for dairy cows on the composition of excreta nitrogen. Sustainable Food Systems 2, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, J, Neal, HDStC, Beever, DE and France, J 1992. Simulation of nutrient digestion. Absorption and outflow in the rumen: model description. Journal of Nutrition 122, 239–2256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eugène, M, Sauvant, D, Nozière, P, Viallard, D, Oueslati, K, Lherm, M, Mathias, E and Doreau, M 2019. A new Tier 3 method to calculate methane emission inventory for ruminants. Journal of Environmental Management 231, 982–988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerber, PJ, Steinfeld, H, Henderson, B, Mottet, A, Opio, C, Dijkman, J, Falcucci, A and Tempio, G 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Hatew, B, Bannink, A, van Laar, H, de Jonge, LH and Dijkstra, J 2016. Increasing harvest maturity of whole-plant corn silage reduces methane emissions of lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 354–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heeren, JAH, Podesta, SC, Hatew, B, Klop, G, van Laar, H, Bannink, A, Warner, D, de Jonge, LH and Dijkstra, J 2016. Rumen degradation characteristics of ryegrass herbage and ryegrass silage are affected by interactions between stage of maturity and nitrogen fertilisation rate. Animal Production Science 54, 1263–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hristov, AN, Kebreab, E, Niu, M, Oh, J, Bannink, A, Bayat, AR, Boland, TM, Brito, AF, Casper, DP, Crompton, LA, Dijkstra, J, Eugène, M, Garnsworthy, PC, Haque, N, Hellwing, ALF, Huhtanen, P, Kreuzer, M, Kuhla, B and Yu, Z 2018. Symposium review: uncertainties in enteric methane inventories, measurement techniques, and prediction models. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 6655–6674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hristov, AN, Oh, J, Firkins, JL, Dijkstra, J, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Makkar, HPS, Adesogan, AT, Yang, W, Lee, C, Gerber, PJ, Henderson, B and Tricarico, JM 2013. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5045–5069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IPCC 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: agriculture, forestry and other land use. In IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories 2006 (ed. H Dong, J Mangino, TA McAllister, JL Hatfield, DE Johnson, KR Lassey, M Aparecida de Lima and A Romanovskaya), Chapter 10. Emissions from livstock and manure management, Pages 10.1-10.87. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan.Google Scholar
Kafle, KG and Chen, L 2016. Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP) using different statistical models. Waste Management 48, 492–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, C, Salas, W, Zhang, R, Krauter, C, Rotz, A and Mitloehner, F 2012. Manure-DNDC: A biogeochemical process model for quantifying greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from livestock manure systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 93, 163–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, JAN, Dijkstra, J, Bannink, A, Cammell, SB, Kebreab, E and France, J 2001. A mechanistic model of whole-tract digestion and methanogenesis in the lactating cow: model development, evaluation, and application. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1584–1597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moate, PJ, Williams, SRO, Jacobs, JL, Hannah, MC, Beauchemin, KA, Eckard, RJ and Wales, WJ 2017. Wheat is more potent than corn or barley for dietary mitigation of enteric methane emissions from dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 7139–7153.10.3168/jds.2016-12482CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moraes, LE, Wilen, JE, Robinson, PH and Fadel, JG 2012. A linear programming model to optimize diets in environmental policy scenarios. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 1267–1282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potts, SB, Shaughness, M and Erdman, RA 2017. The decline in digestive efficiency of US dairy cows from 1970 to 2014. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 5400–5410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, CK, Mills, JAN, Crompton, LA, Givens, DI and Bannink, A 2010. Ruminant nutrition regimes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in dairy cows. In Proceedings of the 3rd International symposium on energy and protein metabolism and nutrition (ed. Crovetto, CM), pp. 427–437. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Sommer, SG, Petersen, SO and Møller, HB 2004. Algorithms for calculating methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure management. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 69, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tedeschi, LO, Cavalcanti, LFL, Fonseca, MA, Herrero, M and Thornton, PK 2014. The evolution and evaluation of dairy cattle models for predicting milk production: an agricultural model intercomparison and improvement project (AgMIP) for livestock. Animal Production Science 54, 2052–2067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Bruggen, C, Bannink, A, Groenestein, CM, Huijsmans, JFM, Luesink, HH, Van der Sluis, SM, Velthof, GL and Vonk, J 2019. Emissies naar lucht uit de landbouw in 2017 (Berekeningen met het model NEMA). Wot-technical report 147. Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Duinkerken, G, Blok, MC, Bannink, A, Cone, JW, Dijkstra, J, Van Vuuren, AM and Tamminga, S 2011. Update of the Dutch protein evaluation system for ruminants: the DVE/OEB2010 system. The Journal of Agricultural Science 149, 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Es, AJH 1978. Feed evaluation for ruminants.1. The system use from May 1977 onwards in the Netherlands. Livestock Production Science 5, 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gastelen, S, Bannink, A and Dijkstra, J 2019. Effect of silage characteristics on enteric methane emissions from ruminants. CAB Reviews 14, 51.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vonk, J, Bannink, A, van Bruggen, C, Groenestein, CM, Huijsmans, JFM, van der Kolk, JWH, Luesink, HH, Oude Voshaar, SV, van der Sluis, SM and Velthof, GL 2016. Methodology for estimating emissions from agriculture in the Netherlands. WOt-technical report 53. Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Warner, D, Bannink, A, Hatew, B, van Laar, H and Dijkstra, J 2017. Effects of grass silage quality and level of feed intake on enteric methane production in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 95, 3687–3699.Google ScholarPubMed
Warner, D, Hatew, B, Podesta, SC, Klop, G, van Gastelen, S, van Laar, H, Dijkstra, J and Bannink, A 2016. Effects of nitrogen fertilisation rate and maturity of grass silage on methane emission by lactating dairy cows. Animal 10, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warner, D, Podesta, SC, Hatew, B, Klop, G, van Laar, H, Bannink, A and Dijkstra, J 2015. Effect of nitrogen fertilization rate and regrowth interval of grass herbage on methane emission of zero-grazing lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 3383–3393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zom, RLG, André, G and Vuuren, AM 2012. Development of a model for the prediction of feed intake by dairy cows: 1. Prediction of feed intake. Livestock Science 143, 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zom, RLG and Groenestein, CM 2015. Excretion of volatile solids by livestock to calculate methane production from manure. RAMIRAN 2015m 16th Int. Conference Rural-Urban Symbiosis, 8–10 September 2015. pp. 372–275. Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar