Lasalocid

Transcription

Hi, I'm Mike Hutjens Extension Dairy Specialists at the University of Illinois. Today we are going to talk about feeding to reduce your carbon footprint. Certainly this is a logical place to start looking at our consumers because this is not going to go away. But, the good news for both producers and consumers this is a win-win topic as you see when you go through the various points looking and greenhouse gases and certainly we know that these companies are going to be looking at carbon footprints here in the future. Lets begin by looking at the different types of emissions that come from livestock farms. Listed on the left side of the PowerPoint you can see this reference from NRC 2003. What is really interesting to me is I'm not going to walk you through all these, but if you look at the impact or the most major one that was made here is ammonia as far as impact goes on the environment. You can see odors and particles sizes they are insignificant. So, then you go to the next column "Neighbors". What do the people or the consumers think about? Look at this folks this this table is inverted. In other words, they do not worry as much about ammonia because they don't smell it unless you get really close to certain livestock facilities, but of course odor is a big one at this point. Then the 3rd column says what do these emissions things do to the environment: climate change, quality of life, and health you can see it as well. Ta=hat is a very important PowerPoint to kind of study to see what are the big players, what are the concerns, and then what are your consumers thinking about these various emissions. Now lets look at the big 3. We look at greenhouse gases and throughout the entire presentation will be using GHG standing for greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide, everything else is pretty much converted back to carbon dioxide equivalence because this is what the standard is as we would kind of say. The smoking gun of course is Methane. This is one where the ruminate animal gets involved with because it produces Methane from the fermentation of the rumen gases and rumen carbohydrates and then also as far as fecal emissions as well. Of course the big 100 pound gorilla is Nitrogen oxide. You can see that is even bigger although not quite as big a player when it comes to the dairy farm. This data from South Dakota State looks at agriculture contributions so we are part we are a player. Obviously, so are coal emission plants and cars and buses but certainly we are a player. You can see at right around 30 percent this data summarized and presented from the South Dakota Specialist here so a we have a dog in this hunt as we would say. Now, lets look at the mil carbon footprint. Brand new data coming out of our think-tank group out of Chicago. You can see that there are 5 different areas. Feed production, as far as greenhouse gases and carbon footprint about 20 percent comes from feed production. That is production of alfalfas, grasses, forages, and grains. Look at the big 100 pound gorilla here, milk production, it's big. So that is us and we can simply say since we can effect with 52 percent of the carbon footprint. What we do about that? Then you can see transportation/processing of milk and dairy products, the retail stores, consumption of people driving to the stores, and of course people disposing of the products that are not being consumed. So, basically this powerpoint says we have opportunities to impact carbon footprint and we will see why that is a win-win situation here just a few minutes. Now needless to say, the government is not going to be silent on this. Lets just look ahead here a bit and in 2012 the European Union is looking to implement imprint the carbon footprint labels on the product. So, when you get your gallon of milk or a pound of butter it's going to tell you calories, percent fat, the daily requirements for human and then it is going to say carbon footprint. This will happen as well as with your beans, peas, or in your soy products. So, they're going to tell consumers you know what this numbers going to be. This would be important to look at such things like organic milk versus the traditional milk. I call that green milk which has the smallest carbon footprint. Our Secretary of Agriculture signed an accord in Denmark a couple years ago saying that the dairy carbon footprint will be reduced by 25 percent and I believe by 2020 was the deadline. So you say how are we going do this? The answer is a very easy and of course New Zeland ready has imposed a tax on animals to conduct research to try to reduce greenhouse gases. A couple of years ago our government got involved with the Clean Air Act and Carbon Council Initiative to tax our animals and you can look at the scope of this. Now some of our dairy people think about this 2009 was an ugly year in dairy. Most dairymen lost 3 to 5 hundred dollars and then the government said, by the way we are going to tax you another 175. This one went away very very quickly. A tremendous effort by the livestock groups across the United States and consumer groups as well. But, the point is the government thought about this and it may not be in the front burner but I think it's still on the stove. So lets talk about this change ahead and carbon footprint. 3 take home points and we will go through them slowly. Number one, hypothesis number one says express greenhouse gases per unit of dairy product. What do you mean by that? It simply says lets not do it per cow. Remember our cows s you can see from this PowerPoint here gave a lot less milk back 40 to 50 years ago. You can see here over the last 20 years approximately or 15 years you can see that greenhouse gases increase about 3 to 4 percent, but look at the production. Meat, milk and eggs up 50, 20, and 30 percent. So obviously just see as we increase production we end up reducing greenhouse gases and any emissions. Remember that and don't ever forget that. Take a look at the bottom one. This is from Cornell University in which they look at the greenhouse gas per pound of milk: 7.7 pounds in 1944 and in 2007 2.8 pounds. There is well over a 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gases and primarily led through improvements in genetics, feeding, and management of dairy cattle. Hypothesis number 2, high producing cows is what you are targeting to reduce greenhouse gases. Don't forget that at this stage of the game. Why does that occur? Well, primarily in high producing cows will do this backwards, in yellow, "high producing cows dilute down the maintenance tax" which will talk about here just a second. Remember every cow that weighs 1400 pounds has the energetic requirements or maintenance as her neighbor down the road or next to her in the barn or in the freestyle and that is important. So, the more milk I get the small percent of nutrients or dry matter in this case is committed to maintenance. Then you can look at another very important point that I call of the feed tax. Every morning your Holstein cows gets up she has to take the first 13 pounds of dry matter to maintain her body, replace tissue to worn out cells, to breath, to cool, to keep warm, whatever maintenance functions, to walk you want to perform. For a Jersey cow it is only 10 pounds. Well folks, that is a big number and that is going to come back to something we are really going to think about in the future. I'm simply saying smaller cows will have a smaller carbon footprint and they'll be more efficient. We will have some vivid discussions I'm sure about this one in the future. Hypothesis number 3, which is actually the rest of the program, what can you and I as dairy managers, dairy nutritionist, veterinarians do to reduce the carbon footprint through nutrition. So lets look at some of these alternatives. The first will be forages. What can we do in the forage aspect of it? Well, lets look at some research literature and I think clearly some take-home messages will emerge. This comes from Scotland and they used equations. Now, I have put that in orange because some of these are modeling and are not actual cow data. They look at Methane expressed in terms of liters of milk rather than pounds like we do or gallons at this point and 2 take home points. Unfortunately, the higher proportion of concentrate this reduced methane production now and corn gets up at 6 or 7 dollars a bushel that has an interesting ramifications. The good news is however in this study is that high forage quality also reduces methane production produced to low quality. So, there's 2 important points to write down if you were to take a test in terms of how are we going reach the accord that was signed by our Secretary of Agriculture. In another study from Denmark Johannes et al and they looked at methane production. Here they were looking at again forage quality and here are the hard numbers. You can look at early maturing grasses verses late maturing grasses and also comparing that to corn silage. So, there is another take home message. Even though corn silage requires fair amounts of nitrogen and other fertility it still wins when it comes to greenhouse gases. Remember we are working on that production end of the forage element that we talked about a bit earlier. Of course, highly digestible forages reduce methane production. For my producers that means NDFD's. We should be looking at feeds that have high NDFD's. We did another simulation using data from some Pennsylvania dairy farms and here we're looking at production systems. Alfalfa production in this study was somewhat more efficient than corn production. We did not say corn silage. We did not say what form it was but, looking at the actual production other crops. In this study alfalfa had a slight edge. Corn silage won over permanent grassland studies in the in this one here and then of course they did look at the breed affect. This has been published in the Journal of Dairy Science. Now, that basically says small cows and I think that is the key. Not saying Jersey and they are using Jersey's but, small cows had a 20 percent improvement in greenhouse gas and therefore carbon footprint. We then go to an Irish study that looked at pastor based systems and this is kind of a mixed slide in which it says they can be profitable and they can decrease greenhouse gases. But, management becomes important, the type of cow we have on this and stocking race becomes a management factor. This is going to be true when we look at all these hints in greenhouse gases. A quick word about fats and oils. The most useful study just recently published by a group out of Canada looked at Meta analysis. A Meta analysis looked at 27 published studies using added fats and oils. So, this is a powerful study and good news in some respects. There is a linear relationship as you increase the fat content or oil content in the ration you lower methane production. You are impacting the rumen fermentation and remember that because that is going to come back a number of times now as we are wrapping up and look at other alternatives. Now, their guideline was for every 10 grams increase in fat/oil they had a 1 gram decrease of methane production per kilogram of dry-matter intake. The last one was surprising to me because I thought there might be some impacts if it was canola oil verses say tallow. Fed at normal levels the form, meaning seed verses oil, saturation verse unsaturation or fat source was not impacting the results. That surprised me a little bit but that is what the data came up with. Just to show another study this is a canola study coming from Denmark. You can see this research is not confined to the U.S. In fact, it is probably more European research going on than in the U.S at this stage of the game. This reflects that same impact that the Canadian meta-analysis shows, that as we fed oil but this case reduce dry matter intake. Write that down on your piece paper that is on the take home message. Anything I can do to decrease dry matter intake and maintain milk production always is going to increase feed efficiency, which is always going to reduce carbon footprint. You can see the amount of Methane that the reduction was at. Lets go to another one protein. Some maybe thinking about it there is not a lot of action here. A very nice study done looking at the impact of dietary proteins this is a Spanish study done in a tie stall barn. They looked at very typical protein levels in the diet and the good news no difference in nitrogen oxide production. That is huge because remember that was the 100-pound gorilla that can really drive greenhouse gases. No big surprise that as you feed more protein you have more milk yield in terms of of protein yield and that is always good news. However, as you see more protein you decrease in efficiency and that would be another discussion in the future looking a protein efficiencies in high producing cows. Obviously, we lose some protein however there was an increased linearly of ammonia gases. Remember consumers? They would be nervous about that so certainly ammonia gases well not a big player grease on gases certainly affects the types of emissions that come from dairy facilities. Now, lets go through what I kind of like to call the speed round looking at feed additives and other inclusions that could impact greenhouse gases. Well, here comes the first big one Monensin or for many our listeners we would call it Rumensin in here. A study showing a decrease in methane production and at this stage gaming an increase in feed efficiency. PEM is a European essential oil and it too had a big impact. Certainly, Rumrnsin and organic oils are going to be big players in terms because they really impact rumen fermentation. Anytime you and I can impact rumen fermentation that really means that we are really going to have some impact in greenhouse gases. So, those 2 are winners no question about it. Why would you use Monensin over the oils? Probably 2 reasons about 1/3 the price per cow per day and we're not quite sure which oils and how many grams of those oils we have to feed. So, a lot more research on the essential oils need to be done. That work will probably come from Europe because of course Rumensin is not allowed to be fed to dairy cows in the E.U. Oregano, this a Pennsylvania study and I'll let you read this. It's a big time player first notice a 17.5 ounces. That is a pound of oregano and notice on the bottom bullet the economics is prohibitive but, these studies are being done to kind of getting an idea of what can work. Again, we're coming to the essential oils. There are 40 different oregano plants and doesn't that make you feel nervous knowing which one is the winner? You can see the various essential oils and various kinds of concentration that you can find in those oregano extracts. Again, you can see a big impact in terms of methane production. Glycerol work and is coming now from a by product from the bio-diesel area. A Korean study done invitro here and you can see that glycerol reduced methane production and increased rumen propionate. So, this really mimics the concentrate story so not a big surprise here. In some cases glycerol can be cheaper than actually looking at starch coming from corn or barley sources. So again, it says were impacting the rumen fermentation and we decrease methane production. What about hops? Hops is a product used in the brewery industry. You can see it did have some impact here in total gas production, methane production at this point, and did change the VFA production in the rumen. These are simulations with 3 different varieties of hops. The bad news is not all 3 studies performed the same way. So again, interesting data but not very practical to go to the dairy farm today with. Here comes a study looking at some other products like nitrates. It is actually a couple in here. They look at 4 different levels of nitrates. Those extremely high levels and if those were coming from feed stuffs you would have toxicity concerns but, it did have an impact. However, it only occur in one of the studies that was really significant. So again, interesting study but tough to repeat and the levels pretty scary as far as that goes. In this same study these invitro analysis they looked at sulfate with no impact, corn gluten did not have any change in methane production as well and you might expect that because it's fairly high in fiber. Lets at these other elements quickly, these are a coming from other animals in some cases. Steam flaked corn had a lower methane production compared to conventionally processed corn and probably reflects rumen response. It looks like we can reduce protozoa numbers reducing our methane being produced. Again, that controversy and what role protozoa play in here because obviously protozoa metabolize in the rumen and in many cases they metabolize bacteria. So you can see that if we knock that out we could reduce methane production. Unsaturated fatty acids is lower methane production and I think that is a winner. Even though the Canadian data did nit pick up on that and I think you'll see more of that. Saponins which is a product in forages. You can see they reduce and Tannins both of them have impacts in terms of methane production and rumen VFA's. Again you know their variability in the studies have to be pointed out. If you're into cashew nut shells it looks like that is a winner. I'm not quite sure how practical that is going to be, but certainly you can see we are looking a lot of different approaches in this area. Lets go and apply this as we wrap-up. I want to show you 2 examples and case studies in which this carbon footprint really has a win for dairy producers. First, lets look at his feed efficiency and greenhouse gases. Hopefully, your cows are not burning quite as hot as this cow is showing here, but she is flaming off all the methane from her rumen. That is supposed to be a joke. Here comes your feed efficiencies. We've got this on our websites and you can come back and actually listen to an entire discussion on feed efficiency if you wish but, simply shows and terms of the amount of milk 3.5 fat corrected milk produced per pound of dry matter consumed. Of course the key here course is less dry matter makes a smaller carbon footprint and also means less of a carbon footprint per pound of milk, per pound of butter, per gallon of milk or however you want to express it. The equation the bottom is there if you wish to make some conversions. That is fat corrected milk and you can also use energy corrected milk there are equations for that as well. The real take-home message sits here of course and we look at this case study. 70 pounds of milk with todays feed prices this would be in 2012 and this is around 12 to 13 cents per pound of dry matter. You can see that same 70 pounds of milk with a feed efficiency of about 1.2 would take 58 pounds of dry matter. If I could do for 1.8 which is extremely high only 39 pounds. So, you can see a tremendous drop in dry matter intake which also means there is a savings. Look at the cost savings you would be seeing there for the dairy farmer. That is a win for the dairy farm, but it also means less methane being produced. Here are some guidelines from Norman St.Pierre from Ohio State University looking at what these numbers should look like. Feed efficiency looking at rolling herd averages and then you can look at bulk tank averages as well. So, you can see the higher milk production we end up getting greater feed efficiency and of course we've already stated it clearly that it also reduces carbon footprint because of a 13 pound tax if they happen to be Holstein cows. What are the factors that affect feed efficiency? Well, we could spend 10 minutes and on this whole PowerPoint, but we will just click them up here slowly for you. The orange ones are big players and I call them heavy hitters. These are ones that can really impact feed efficiency and so you can see there are 4 them highlighted here. There is data in the research on every one of these that say you can change feed efficiency which means lowering greenhouse gases. Days in milk would affect reproduction and milk yield. Forge quality looks at rumen fermentations and dry matter intake. Mastitis of course indicates milk quality and milk production. By the way on the Ohio State people excuse me, the Iowa State people indicate when cows have a disease challenge their maintenance requirement goes up about 40 percent. There is another one of those taxes you get to pay their. Of course there is rumen acidosis which simply means that the rumen is not working very efficiently. All of these other ones are players as well. This is a herd here in the Midwest, simply showing what feed efficiency numbers can look like. If you look over here, some of you may want to print this off, a very good herd by the way a very good Midwest herd. Here you can look at the feed efficiencies on cows in early lactation, mid lactation late lactation and on heifers. Of course, here is your hospital pen reflecting the Iowa State data. You really lose efficiency there because you lose milk and you also increase some of the immune function requirements as well. A second area to look at quickly is up older heifers. A real opportunity for greenhouse gases again. Basically, there is interest in limit feeding animals. This is a dairy farm simply saying if they can feed less dry matter and I'll be able to feed these heifers cheaper. I can avoid fatter heavy heifers which continues to be a challenge on many dairy farms because they are not on pastor running around anymore they're more in confinement. I can reduce feed costs and I can look at different ways to get this accomplishment done out there. So, this is a dairy producers slide. Now lets take a look however at feed efficiency. Pat Hoffman did this study several years ago. It is classic guys, it's classic. We look at this, C at 100, which means basically a control diet at 100 percent intake. Restricted means at 90 percent of the feed at the 100 percent level. So we restrict these animals by 10 percent of dry matter or at 80 means 20 percent of the dry matter. Now, there is a ton of data on the slide. I think the thing you want see however is looking at the top one is that we maintain the protein, the mineral levels, and the non-fiber carbohydrates. So we don't under feed the animals, we just pack those nutrients in fewer pounds of dry matter. Then you come down to the next one, you can see energy intake is very similar in all 3 cases in terms of the amount of energy expressed as TDN or the net energy system. So what we are doing is restricting dry matter, but in most cases that is fiber or carbs, not proteins and micronutrients. Here is the data. Again, a very very complete slide in rather than just give you bulleted items you can study these or you can print these out. You can see the initial weights and the final weights. The bottom line in green or "Growth" it simply says these animals, much like what beef people told us would happen, when on restricted feed intake these animals actually had a better average daily gain and a better conversion of feed efficiency. Now, if you are looking at carbon footprint there it is down in blue, "Excretion". Notice we're getting out of the manure business by almost 2 pounds of manure dry matter. I didn't say 2 pounds of manure but, 2 pounds of manure dry matter. A lot of manure is at 80 to 85 percent moisture. So you can see you know we are talking about big shovels, big shovels at this stage of the game. Now does the behavior change? Yes, certainly eating times, standing times. They will be quite vocal especially the first couple weeks at this stage of the game because they are hungry until they adjust to this at this stage the game. You can see that the behavior of the animal will change as well, but the good news is they grew and grew very well. Now, the question is well what happened to milk production? So, we did this old bar graph here looking at 305 day milk in the first lactation. That is the last at data I have seen from Pat Hoffman there, but you can see why these are not statistically significantly different. Pretty interesting trend isn't it? The trend does not go down but, actually goes up a little bit. So, suddenly you don't give up any milk. You might enhance it, but as a researcher you cannot make that claim. It is kind of a win-win at this stage of the game. Another approach was done by Doctor John Heinrichs at Penn State and they look limited high concentrate diets. Similar to what Pat Hoffman has done. We also have a third one in which we look at using very bulky feed ingredients. While that will reduce costs, the problem is you get a lot of manure, a lot of manure. The same thing happens with the high concentrates. You limit feed of higher concentrates diets and they see a higher digestibility of organic dry matter and NDF because it means that feed and more effectively used, and we see improvement in nitrogen retention in other words, we lose less nitrogen from the animal in terms of growth in this stage of the game. Why do we think about this? Well, certainly Dr. Hienrich points out that in some years when there are scarce forages i.e 2011. We can use some lower commodity feeds prices such as some of your corn gluten feeds and distillers grains. Obviously, this whole CAFO issue comes to mind. The whole thrust of this PowerPoint is greenhouse gases and of course the ability to reduce this manure volume and ammonia loss which are really going to be pretty important. We just bulleted the data because it is very very complete. Feel free to contact Dr. Heinrich if you really want to see the data. The high forage diet you can see almost a difference there of about 1.2 pounds dry matter difference. Now you know, ding ding ding, greenhouse gases win at this point no difference in growth and performance which is important. The second trial they want from a 75 to a 25 percent forage diet. I'm not sure you and I want to go quite that low, but the point is we do see a cost reduction when this study was done. We would probably have seen in 2011 as well. We already talked again in this study this nitrogen inefficiency and that will be another story in the future besides greenhouse gases and feed efficiency we are going to look at nitrogen efficiency. Manure out out, look at that folks, a tremendous difference in manure output and again on optimal growth was occurring. Now, if you are going to manage heifers I thought we should talk about a couple of important points. Bunk space is critical. Everybody better be on board when the feed comes there because it could be gone in 1 to 3 hours as far as goes. What is left is basically refusals or sorted feeds. We want to make sure we adjust the rations so nutrients requirements in grams or pounds of minerals, vitamins, trace minerals, and protein. Grouping heifers is going to be critical because obviously a big heifer really can eat a lot of feed and you don't want to be limit feeding different sized heifers. Vocalization can be occurring and my mother would never allow that our farm. S he would not allow that to be honest with you. Cost of forages, grains, and by-products will be important. In some years it can be very beneficial and in other years maybe less of an advantage. The real opportunities looks to be older heifers probably in that 10 month to to calving age as far as that goes. Lets summarize what we talked about here. Well, the data we produced is number 1. A big issue and probably should be in green letters, increasing milk yield is no question. Anytime you can do that you going to reduce greenhouse gases and you are also going to make more money. The use of rBST no question that reduce greenhouse gases by 8 percent think about that. I think we see some of our processors and milk bottlers look at this and simply say you know we want to be green. That is the new name I'm using green milk. So, if you are producing green milk then you are actually using the rBST. Monensin/Rumensin and essential oils are going to reduce greenhouse gas by about 7 percent. We race to optimize rumen fermentation. You could do that with a microbial, a yeast product, you could be doing that with Rumensin, you could be doing that with Lasalocid, you could be doing that with Glycerol or some of the other essential oils. The feed additives you saw that data and they can be players, but you have to check the economics and the research on that. Of course the bottom one, if you increase forage quality, increase grain levels, and feed more fats and oils will also reduce greenhouse gases. That pretty much summarizes every thing we talked about in the last 30 minutes, but I'd be remiss if I didn't have my biases in this presentation. I said, okay our Secretary of Agriculture said we are going have to meet this requirement, therefore I'm going to pass the Hutjens law. It says we can only have high producing cows. So any countless producing less than 19,000 pounds of milk will have to be sold. All cows will be milked 3 times a day because they will be more efficient. We're going to look at smaller framed dairy sized cows. All cows will have to be injected with rBST and that could be pretty controversial. All cows will have to be fed an ionophore unless of course you're feeding organic milk. Excuse me, producing organic milk. All heifers will calve in at 22 to 23 months of age because all they do is make manure from 23, 24, 25, 26 months of age and that is where many dairy farms are at today. Only cows that produce a somatic cell count below 400,000 will be allowed to be on the market place. That will start to happen anyway, but certainly it is going to be a winner will greenhouse gases. All cows in the United States will be artificially bred to the superior bulls. Some Scandinavian countries do that already and simply said we want better genetics here because they produce more milk. All cows will be enrolled into some milk recording program so we know which cows are real winners on the dairy farm. In summary, folks it is here. We need to understand greenhouse gases, the relationship, where they come from, how they are produced, such things as the taxing, the maintenance requirements, higher milk production, and then of course effects on feed efficiency at this point and how we measure it. This is going to be important and certainly I think in the future you're going to see this revisited. We look at dairy technology. For example, the lack or inability in some markets not to use rBST versus the ability to have a consumer friendly dairy product. Some of these consumers in some of these markets may say we are not going to be as quite restricted in some of the technology we have out there. That completes our program for the day. Thanks and have a good one!