The position of cattle production in agricultural systems: A balance between food security and emission
Abstract
The growth of the global population leads to an increase in demand for human edible food and cattle production plays an important role to realize this aim. Cattle or ruminants are capable to transfer fibre rich materials into human-edible products, such as meat and milk. This capability allows the exploitation of grassland, which is 50% of the land available for livestock, and the reuse of a large scale of by-products for the production of food. The use of non-human edible materials may make ruminants net producers of human-edible proteins. The disadvantages of this capability are the emission of methane, contribution to global warming, and the low milk N efficiency, leading to N emission to the environment contributing to water eutrophication, soil acidification, and global warming. Research work showed that the possibilities to reduce both types of emissions are relatively limited. The inclusion of more high-quality protein and starch into the diet reduces these emissions but this change also has a negative effect on the balance between the input of non-human edible material and the output of human-edible products. Balancing between both aspects is done by focusing on the ratio of emission units per animal product. This ratio should be minimized which can also be achieved by improvement of digestion of typical feed ingredients for ruminants, such as forage and fibre-rich by-products, leading to high animal production. Research work should focus on further improvement of the digestion of forages by technological, chemical, and biological treatments. The implementation of these improvements in practice, however, is a great challenge because it affects local agricultural systems and may lead to an increase in the price of animal products.
References
FAO 2015 State of Food insecurity. FAO, Rome
Mottet A, Haan C de, Falcucci A, Tempio G, Opio C and Gerber P 2017 Global Food Security 14 1-8
Gerber PJ, Mottet A, Opio CI and Teillard F 2015 Meat Sci. 109 2-12.
Eshel G, Shepon A, Makov T and Milo R 2014 Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. In http//www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996.full.pdf
Alexandratos N and Bruinsma J 2012 World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA Work. Pap, 3.
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.
Dijksta J, Reyold CK, Kebreab E, Bannink A, Ellis JL, France J and Vuuren, AM van 2013 Challenges in ruminant nutrition: towards minimal nitrogen losses in cattle. In Oltjen J.W. et al (eds) Energy and Protein metabolism and nutrition in sustainable animal protection. EAAP publication No. 134.
Duinkerken G van, Blok MC, Bannink A, Cone JW, Dijkstra J and Vuuren AM van 2011 J. of Agr. Sc. 149 351-367
INRA 2018. INRA feeding system for ruminants. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands
NRC (2001). Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. Seventh revised edition. National Academy Press. Washington D.C., USA.
Volden H (ed.) (2011). Norfor – The Nordic Feed Evaluation System. EAAP-publication No. 130. Wageningen Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.
Capper J, Berger L and Brashears M 2013 Agric. Sci. Technol. 53 1-16
Hristov AN et al. 2013 J. Anim. Sci 91 5045-5069
Zijderveld SM van, Gerrits WJJ, Dijkstra J, Newbold JR, Hulshof BA and Perdok HB 2011 J. Dairy Sci. 94 4028-4038
Grainger C, Williams R, Eckard RJ and Hannah MC 2010 J. Dairy Sci. 93 5300-5308
Jayanegara A, Leiber F and Kreuzer M 2012 J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 96 365-375
Patra AK 2010 J. Sci. Food Agric. 90 2700-2708
Wolin MJ 1960 J. Dairy Sci. 43 1452-1459
Huhtanen P and Hetta M 2012 Livest. Sci. 143 184-194
Moraes LE, Casper D, Strathe AB, Fadel JG and Kebreab E 2013 Predicting enteric methane emissions from dairy cattle using Bayesian methods. In: Proc. of the Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture Conference, Dublin, Ireland.
Hristov AN et al. 2013. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production – A review of technical options for non-CO2 emission. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 177. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Doreau M, Rochette Y and Martin C 2012 Effect of type of forage and protein source in dairy cow diet on methane emission and on nitrogen losses. In: Proc. Symp. Emission of Gas and Dust by Livestock, Saint-Malo, France, p. 4.
Reynal SM and Broderick GA 2005 J. Dairy Sci. 88 4045-4064
Brooks MA, Harvey RM, Johnson NF and Kerley MS 2012 J. Anim. Sci. 90 4985-4994
Calsamiglia A, Ferret A, Reynolds CK, Kristensen NB and Vuuren AM van 2010 Animal 4 1184-1196.
AFRC 1992 Technical committee on responses to nutrients, report no. 9. Nutritive requirements of ruminant animals: Protein. Nutr. Abstr. Rev., Series B 62, 787-835.
Sharma RK and Arora DS 2015 Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 41 52-60
Kuijk SJA van, Sonnenberg ASM, Baars JJP, Hendriks WH and Cone JW 2015 Biotechnol. Adv. 209 40-50
Mao L 2019 Storage of fungal treated lignocellulosic biomass and its acceptance by goats. PhD-thesis. Wageningen University. The Netherlands
