Fifty years of environmental progress for United States dairy farms.

Dairy farms in the United States have changed in many ways over the past 50 yr. Milk production efficiency has increased greatly, with ∼30% fewer cows producing about twice the amount of milk today. Other improvements include increases in crop yields, fuel efficiency of farm equipment, and efficiency in producing most resources used on farms (e.g. electricity, fuel, fertilizer). These improvements have led to changes in the environmental impact of farms. Through simulation of representative dairy farms in 1971 and 2020, changes in nutrient losses and farmgate life cycle assessments of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil energy use, and blue (ground and surface) water use were determined for 6 regions and the United States. For all environmental metrics studied, intensities expressed per unit of fat- and protein-corrected milk produced were reduced, but the total effects over all farms or milk produced increased for 5 of the 13 environmental metrics. Reductions in the impacts of dairy farms in the eastern United States were offset by large increases in western regions because of a major increase in cow numbers in the West. The national average intensity of GHG emissions decreased by 42%, which gave just a 14% increase in the total GHG emissions of all dairy farms over the 50-yr period. The intensity of fossil energy use decreased by 54%, with the total for all farms decreasing by 9%. Water use related to milk production decreased in intensity by 28%, but due to the large increase in dairy production in the dry western regions that have a greater dependence on irrigated feed crops, total blue water use increased by 42%. Major pathways of nitrogen loss included ammonia volatilization, leaching, and denitrification, where total ammonia emissions related to US dairy farms increased by 29%, while leaching losses decreased by 39%, with little change in nitrous oxide emissions. Simulated nitrogen and phosphorus runoff losses totaled for all dairy farms decreased by 27% to 51% through more efficient fertilizer use, reduced tillage, and greater use of cover crops. Emissions of methane and reactive non-methane volatile organic compounds increased by 32% and 53%, respectively, due to greater use of long-term manure storage and silage stored in bunkers and piles. Although much progress has been made in improving production efficiency, continued improvements with new strategies and technologies are needed to meet the demand for dairy products and mitigate total environmental impacts, particularly in view of projected climate variability.

Economic and environmental effects of double cropping winter annuals and corn using the Integrated Farm System Model.

Dairy farms have been under pressure to reduce negative environmental impacts while remaining profitable during times with volatile milk and commodity prices. Double cropping has been promoted to reduce negative environmental impacts and increase total dry matter yield per hectare. Three dairy farms that double cropped winter annuals and corn were selected from northern and western Pennsylvania. Data were collected from recorded crop and dairy records and financial data for 2016 and 2017. Farms ranged in size from 336 to 511 ha with 233 to 663 cows. Data were used to set parameters for the Integrated Farm System Model, which was then used to simulate 8 scenarios for each farm: current operation; 0, 50, and 100% of corn hectares double cropped; 30% feed price increase with and without double cropping; and 30% feed price decrease with and without double cropping at the farm's current level of double cropping. A 20-yr time period, using weather data that was representative of the actual farms, was used in the Integrated Farm System Model simulation to produce both financial and environmental outputs. Double cropping winter annuals and corn silage increased dry matter yield per hectare by 19%, when comparing 0 to 100% of the corn area double cropped. With all corn land double cropped, net return to management per hundredweight (45.36 kg) of milk increased by 1.8%, N leached per hectare per year decreased by an average of 4.5%, and phosphorus loss was reduced by an average of 9.2% across farms. When feed prices increased by 30%, double cropping increased net return over feed cost and net return to management by 1.6 and 2.2%, respectively, across farms. When feed prices decreased by 30%, double cropping decreased net return over feed cost and net return to management by smaller amounts of 0.13% and 0.11%, respectively, across farms. Modeling indicated that double cropping winter annuals with corn silage can have both environmental and economic benefits when winter-annual silage yields are enough to cover expenses.

Short communication: Identifying challenges and opportunities for improved nutrient management through the USDA's Dairy Agroecosystem Working Group.

Nutrient management on US dairy farms must balance an array of priorities, some of which conflict. To illustrate nutrient management challenges and opportunities across the US dairy industry, the USDA Agricultural Research Service Dairy Agroecosystems Working Group (DAWG) modeled 8 confinement and 2 grazing operations in the 7 largest US dairy-producing states using the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM). Opportunities existed across all of the dairies studied to increase on-farm feed production and lower purchased feed bills, most notably on large dairies (>1,000 cows) with the highest herd densities. Purchased feed accounted for 18 to 44% of large dairies' total operating costs compared with 7 to 14% on small dairies (<300 milk cows) due to lower stocking rates. For dairies with larger land bases, in addition to a reduction in environmental impact, financial incentives exist to promote prudent nutrient management practices by substituting manure nutrients or legume nutrients for purchased fertilizers. Environmental priorities varied regionally and were principally tied to facility management for dry-lot dairies of the semi-arid western United States (ammonia-N emissions), to manure handling and application for humid midwestern and eastern US dairies (nitrate-N leaching and P runoff), and pasture management for dairies with significant grazing components (nitrous oxide emissions). Many of the nutrient management challenges identified by DAWG are beyond slight modifications in management and require coordinated solutions to ensure an environmentally and economically sustainable US dairy industry.

Measures of nitrogen use efficiency and nitrogen loss from dairy production systems.

In dairy production systems, tradeoffs can occur between fertilizer N applications and crop N use, feed N consumption and manure N excretion, and environmental impacts. This paper examines (i) how stocking rates affect N imports and management on dairy farms, N use efficiency (NUE; i.e., the amount of applied N incorporated into product N), and N loss; (ii) how reductions in fertilizer N and feed N may affect crop and milk production, NUE, and N loss; and (iii) why tradeoffs in N use outcomes should be considered when attempting to enhance overall NUE and reduce N loss. The Integrated Farm Simulation Model simulations of two representative dairy farm types and analyses of regional studies, long-term field experiments, and cow nutrition trials were used to demonstrate that (i) stocking rate affects cropping patterns, fertilizer and feed imports, and N loss; (ii) although fertilizer N reductions of 20 kg N ha may reduce slightly the crude protein (CP) content of corn silage (which would require purchase of additional CP supplements), this practice should not affect long-term corn yield but would reduce nitrate (NO) and nitrous oxide (NO) losses by 13 to 38%; (iii) dietary CP could be reduced on many dairy farms, which would not affect milk production but would reduce ammonia (NH) and NO emissions by 15 to 43%; and (iv) greater recognition of the tradeoffs in N use and N loss are needed to provide a better understanding of the potentials to enhance overall NUE and reduce environmental N loss from dairy production systems.

Potential use of milk urea nitrogen to abate atmospheric nitrogen emissions from wisconsin dairy farms.

Urinary urea N (UUN) is the principal nitrogen (N) source controlling emissions of ammonia (NH) and nitrous oxide (NO) from dairy manure. The objectives of this study were (i) to study the integrative nature of dietary crude protein (CP) management, secretion of milk urea N (MUN), excretion of UUN, and N emissions from dairy production systems; (ii) to evaluate how associative changes in dietary CP, MUN, and UUN affect atmospheric N emissions from dairy farms; and (iii) to discuss some of the challenges and opportunities to an expanded use of MUN to enhance dietary CP use and decrease UUN excretion and N emissions from dairy farms. Milk urea N records of 37,889 cows in 197 herds in Wisconsin revealed that approximately one half of tested cows were likely consuming dietary CP in excess of requirement. Farm simulations were used to quantify the effect of dietary CP on whole-farm N emissions. At a statewide average MUN of 12.5 mg dL, 48 to 87% of UUN was emitted as NH, with the lowest loss from pasture-based farms and the greatest loss from tie-stall farms. Each 1 mg dL decrease of MUN (range, 16-10 mg dL) provided an associated daily decrease in UUN of 16.6 g per cow, which decreased NH and NO emissions from manure by 7 to 12%. Although more site-specific information is required on herd MUN-UUN relationships and more a reliable interpretation of MUN assay results is needed, monitoring of MUN may be used to enhance dietary CP use and to reduce UUN excretion and N emissions from Wisconsin dairy farms.

Limiting grazing periods combined with proper housing can reduce nutrient losses from dairy systems.

Pasture-based and grass-fed branding are often associated with consumer perceptions of improved human health, environmental performance and animal welfare. Here, to examine the impacts of dairy production in detail, we contrasted global observational (n = 156) data for nitrogen and phosphorus losses from land by the duration of outdoor livestock grazing in confined, grazed and hybrid systems. Observational nitrogen losses for confined systems were lowest on a productivity-but not area-basis. No differences were noted for phosphorus losses between the systems. Modelling of the three dairy systems in New Zealand, the United States and the Netherlands yielded similar results. We found insufficient evidence that grazed dairy systems have lower nutrient losses than confined ones, but trade-offs exist between systems at farm scale. The use of a hybrid system may allow for uniform distribution of stored excreta, controlled dietary intake, high productivity and mitigation of animal welfare issues arising from climatic extremes.

Recycling nutrients in the beef supply chain through circular manuresheds: Data to assess tradeoffs.

Nutrient circularity can help supply chain participants meet sustainability targets. Across the segmented beef supply chain, opportunity exists to reinforce and introduce nutrient circularity by recycling surplus manure nutrients from cattle feedlots to lands where cattle feed is produced. We describe four datasets developed to evaluate options in U.S. and Canadian beef systems. The datasets delineate three "circular manuresheds," each encompassing a hay-grazing landscape where beef cattle are raised on grazingland and supplemented with hay grown nearby, and the distant feedlots where those cattle produce manure nutrients for potential import back to the hayfields. We selected the hay-grazing landscapes of New Mexico, USA; Florida, USA; and western Canada (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia) because of their significant grazingland production and potential to substitute feedlot manure for commercial fertilizer on hayfields. In each circular manureshed, the manure nutrients from major feedlot destinations could supply a considerable proportion of the P used by hay for grazing cattle: 34% of the P requirements in New Mexico, 36% in Florida, and 6% in western Canada. The average distance to return the resource was 647 km for New Mexico, 1,884 km for Florida, and 1,587 km for western Canada. These magnitudes and distances suggest that the New Mexico circular manureshed may be the most economically viable in the current agri-food system, but this reflects only part of a greater, multi-factor assessment of tradeoffs. The circular manureshed concept provides a platform for simultaneous consideration of competing factors for sustainability via circularity.

Nutrient circularity can help animal supply chain participants meet sustainability goals. The manureshed concept can help willing consortia operationalize nutrient circularity. Data delineate three circular manuresheds where feedlot manure is recycled onto hayfields in landscapes where feedlot cattle originated. Available nutrients and transport distances for the three circular manuresheds are calculated. These findings can inform a comprehensive assessment of tradeoffs of circular manureshed management.

Environmental and economic comparisons of manure application methods in farming systems.

Alternative methods for applying livestock manure to no-till soils involve environmental and economic trade-offs. A process-level farm simulation model (Integrated Farm System Model) was used to evaluate methods for applying liquid dairy (Bos taurus L.) and swine (Sus scrofa L.) manure, including no application, broadcast spreading with and without incorporation by tillage, band application with soil aeration, and shallow disk injection. The model predicted ammonia emissions, nitrate leaching, and phosphorus (P) runoff losses similar to those measured over 4 yr of field trials. Each application method was simulated over 25 yr of weather on three Pennsylvania farms. On a swine and cow-calf beef operation under grass production, shallow disk injection increased profit by $340 yr(-1) while reducing ammonia nitrogen and soluble P losses by 48 and 70%, respectively. On a corn (Zea mays L.)-and-grass-based grazing dairy farm, shallow disk injection reduced ammonia loss by 21% and soluble P loss by 76% with little impact on farm profit. Incorporation by tillage and band application with aeration provided less environmental benefit with a net decrease in farm profit. On a large corn-and-alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)-based dairy farm where manure nutrients were available in excess of crop needs, incorporation methods were not economically beneficial, but they provided environmental benefits with relatively low annual net costs ($13 to $18 cow). In all farming systems, shallow disk injection provided the greatest environmental benefit at the least cost or greatest profit for the producer. With these results, producers are better informed when selecting manure application equipment.

The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their potential effect on the environment has become an important national and international issue. Dairy production, along with all other types of animal agriculture, is a recognized source of GHG emissions, but little information exists on the net emissions from dairy farms. Component models for predicting all important sources and sinks of CH(4), N(2)O, and CO(2) from primary and secondary sources in dairy production were integrated in a software tool called the Dairy Greenhouse Gas model, or DairyGHG. This tool calculates the carbon footprint of a dairy production system as the net exchange of all GHG in CO(2) equivalent units per unit of energy-corrected milk produced. Primary emission sources include enteric fermentation, manure, cropland used in feed production, and the combustion of fuel in machinery used to produce feed and handle manure. Secondary emissions are those occurring during the production of resources used on the farm, which can include fuel, electricity, machinery, fertilizer, pesticides, plastic, and purchased replacement animals. A long-term C balance is assumed for the production system, which does not account for potential depletion or sequestration of soil carbon. An evaluation of dairy farms of various sizes and production strategies gave carbon footprints of 0.37 to 0.69kg of CO(2) equivalent units/kg of energy-corrected milk, depending upon milk production level and the feeding and manure handling strategies used. In a comparison with previous studies, DairyGHG predicted C footprints similar to those reported when similar assumptions were made for feeding strategy, milk production, allocation method between milk and animal coproducts, and sources of CO(2) and secondary emissions. DairyGHG provides a relatively simple tool for evaluating management effects on net GHG emissions and the overall carbon footprint of dairy production systems.

Exploring economically and environmentally viable northeastern US dairy farm strategies for coping with rising corn grain prices.

In 2008, corn grain prices rose $115/t of DM above the 2005 average. Such an increase creates tight marginal profits for small (<100) and medium-sized (100 to 199) dairy farms in the northeastern United States importing corn grain as animal feed supplement. Particularly in New York State, dairy farmers are attempting to avoid or minimize profit losses by growing more corn silage and reducing corn grain purchases. This study applies the Integrated Farm Systems Model to 1 small and 1 medium-sized New York State dairy farm to predict 1) sediment and P loss impacts from expanding corn fields, 2) benefits of no-till or cover cropping on corn fields, and 3) alternatives to the economic challenge of the current farming system as the price ratio of milk to corn grain continues to decline. Based on the simulation results, expanding corn silage production by 3% of the cultivated farm area increased sediment and sediment-bound P losses by 41 and 18%, respectively. Implementing no-till controlled about 84% of the erosion and about 75% of the sediment-bound P that would have occurred from the conventionally tilled, expanded corn production scenario. Implementing a conventionally tilled cover crop with the conventionally tilled, expanded corn production scenario controlled both erosion and sediment-bound P, but to a lesser extent than no-till corn with no cover crop. However, annual farm net return using cover crops was slightly less than when using no-till. Increasing on-farm grass productivity while feeding cows a high-quality, high-forage diet and precise dietary P levels offered dual benefits: 1) improved farm profitability from reduced purchases of dietary protein and P supplements, and 2) decreased runoff P losses from reduced P-levels in applied manure. Moreover, alternatives such as growing additional small grains on marginal lands and increasing milk production levels demonstrated great potential in increasing farm profitability. Overall, it is crucial that conservation measures such as no-till and cover cropping be implemented on new or existing corn lands as these areas often pose the highest threat for P losses through runoff. Although alternatives that would likely provide the largest net profit were evaluated one at a time to better quantify their individual impacts, combinations of these strategies, such as no-till corn plus a minimum-till cover crop, are recommended whenever feasible.

Organic dairy production systems in Pennsylvania: a case study evaluation.

The current market demand and price for organic milk is encouraging dairy producers, particularly those on smaller farms, to consider organic production as a means for improving the economic viability of their operations. Organic production systems vary widely in scale, in practices, and across agroclimatic settings. Within this context, case studies of 4 actual organic dairy farms were used to characterize existing systems in Pennsylvania. Based on data from these farms, a whole-farm simulation model (Integrated Farm System Model) was used to compare 4 production systems representing organic grass, organic crop, conventional crop with grazing, and conventional confinement production. The performance of each of these systems was simulated over each year of 25 yr of central Pennsylvania weather data. Simulation results indicated that farm level accumulation of soil P and K may be a concern on organic farms that use poultry manure as a primary crop nutrient source, and that erosion and runoff loss of P may be of concern on organic farms producing annual crops because more tillage is required for weed control. Whole-farm budgets with prices that reflect recent conditions showed an economic advantage for organic over conventional production. A sensitivity analysis showed that this economic advantage depended on a higher milk price for producers of organic milk and was influenced by the difference in milk production maintained by herds using organic and conventional systems. Factors found to have little effect on the relative profitability of organic over conventional production included the differences between organic and conventional prices for seed, chemicals, forage, and animals and the overall costs or prices assumed for organic certification, machinery, pasture fencing, fuel, and labor. Thus, at the current organic milk price, relative to other prices, the case study organic production systems seem to provide an option for improving the economic viability of dairy operations of the scale considered in Pennsylvania. To motivate transition to organic systems, the economic advantage found requires the persistence of a substantial difference between conventional and organic raw milk prices.

Economic and phosphorus-related effects of precision feeding and forage management at a farm scale.

Structural best management practices were implemented throughout the Cannonsville Reservoir Watershed (CRW) in an effort to reduce P losses to the reservoir. Yet long-term water quality control efforts within CRW are hindered by continuous P build-up in the soils resulting from dairy farm P imports exceeding exports. Addressing the P imbalance problems and maintaining economic viability of the farms requires a system-level redesign of farm management. One possible innovative strategy, precision feed management (PFM), reduces soil-P build-up by limiting feed and fertilizer purchases, and increasing high-quality homegrown forage production. This study applied the integrated farm system model (IFSM) to 2 CRW dairy farms to quantify the benefits of a PFM farm planning strategy in controlling P imbalance problems, and maintaining farm profit-ability and reducing off-farm P losses. The IFSM accurately simulated the 2 farms based on farm data supplied by farm planners; these scenarios were used as the baseline conditions. The IFSM simulations of more accurate feeding of P (based on P required in animal diets) integrated with increased productivity of grass-forage and increased proportion of forage in the diet reduced the P imbalance of 1 farm from 5.3 to 0.5 kg/ ha and from 9.6 to 0.0 kg/ha for the second farm. For both farms, soluble P lost to the environment was reduced by 18%. Feed supplement purchases declined by 7.5 kg/cow per year for dietary mineral P, and by 1.04 and 1.29 t/cow per year for protein concentrates through adoption of the PFM system. Moreover, when a land management practice of converting corn to grass was coupled with the precision feeding of P and improved forage management, IFSM predicted reductions of 5.8 and 9.3 kg/ha of converted land sediment-bound P in erosion loss each year. The model predicted slight purchase increases in corn grain to offset reductions in corn silage production and feeding rates, but no appreciable change in the farm P balance due to land conversion. The model-based studies conducted on a farm-by-farm basis complement farm planning efforts in exploring innovative farming systems. Moreover, the results set a benchmark for potential benefits of PFM strategies, economically and environmentally.

Economic and environmental feasibility of a perennial cow dairy farm.

More efficient and economical production systems are needed to improve the sustainability of dairy farms. One concept to consider is using perennial cows. Perennial cows are those that maintain a relatively high milk production for >or=2 yr without going through the typical dry period followed by calving. Farm records show that some cows have produced over 20 kg/d after 4 yr of continuous lactation. A farm simulation model was used to evaluate the long-term performance, environmental impact, and economics of a conceptual perennial cow production system on a typical dairy farm in Pennsylvania. Compared with a traditional 100-cow farm with replacement heifers produced on the farm, a perennial herd of 100 cows and purchased replacements provided environmental benefit but sustained a substantial economic loss. However, increasing the perennial herd to 128 cows better utilized the feed produced on the farm. Compared with the traditional 100-cow farm, use of the perennial 128-cow herd reduced supplemental protein and mineral feed purchases by 38%, increased annual milk sales by 21%, reduced nitrogen losses by 17%, maintained a phosphorus balance, and increased annual net return to farm management by 3200 dollars. A traditional 120-cow dairy farm with purchased replacements also used a similar amount of farm-produced feed. Compared with this option, the farm with 128 perennial cows reduced protein and mineral feed purchases by 36%, maintained similar annual milk sales, increased manure production by 7%, reduced N losses by 10%, and increased annual net return by 12,700 dollars. The economic feasibility of the perennial-cow dairy farm was very sensitive to the milk production maintained by the perennial herd and market prices for milk and perennial replacement animals. The analysis was relatively insensitive to the assumed useful life of perennial cows as long as they could be maintained in the herd for at least 3 yr. Thus, a perennial cow production system can improve the economic and environmental sustainability of a traditional dairy farm if a similar level in annual milk production per cow can be maintained.

Cradle-to-farm gate environmental footprints of beef cattle production in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

A comprehensive national assessment of the sustainability of beef is being conducted by the U.S. beef industry. The first of 7 regions to be analyzed is Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. A survey and visits conducted throughout the region provided data on common production practices. From these data, representative ranch and feedyard operations were defined and simulated for the varying climate and soil conditions throughout the region using the Integrated Farm System Model. These simulations predicted environmental impacts of each operation including cradle-to-farm gate footprints for greenhouse gas emissions, fossil-based energy use, nonprecipitation water use, and reactive N loss. Individual ranch and feedyard operations were linked to form 28 representative production systems. A weighted average of the production systems was used to determine the environmental footprints for the region where weighting factors were developed based on animal numbers reported in the survey and agricultural statistics data. Along with the traditional beef production systems, Holstein steer and cull cow production from the dairy industry in the region were also modeled and included. The carbon footprint of all beef produced was 18.3 ± 1.7 kg CO2 equivalents (CO2e)/kg carcass weight (CW) with the range in individual production systems being 13 to 25 kg CO2e/kg CW. Energy use, water use, and reactive N loss were 51 ± 4.8 MJ/kg CW, 2,470 ± 455 L/kg CW, and 138 ± 12 g N/kg CW, respectively. The major portion of each footprint except water use was associated with the cow-calf phase; most of the nonprecipitation water use was attributed to producing feed for the finishing phase. These data provide a baseline for comparison as new technologies and strategies are developed and implemented to improve the sustainability of cattle production. Production information also will be combined with processing, marketing, and consumer data to complete a comprehensive life cycle assessment of beef.

A simulation-based approach for evaluating and comparing the environmental footprints of beef production systems.

A methodology was developed and used to determine environmental footprints of beef cattle produced at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) in Clay Center, NE, with the goal of quantifying improvements achieved over the past 40 yr. Information for MARC operations was gathered and used to establish parameters representing their production system with the Integrated Farm System Model. The MARC farm, cow-calf, and feedlot operations were each simulated over recent historical weather to evaluate performance, environmental impact, and economics. The current farm operation included 841 ha of alfalfa and 1,160 ha of corn to produce feed predominately for the beef herd of 5,500 cows, 1,180 replacement cattle, and 3,724 cattle finished per year. Spring and fall cow-calf herds were fed on 9,713 ha of pastureland supplemented through the winter with hay and silage produced by the farm operation. Feedlot cattle were backgrounded for 3 mo on hay and silage with some grain and finished over 7 mo on a diet high in corn and wet distillers grain. For weather year 2011, simulated feed production and use, energy use, and production costs were within 1% of actual records. A 25-yr simulation of their current production system gave an average annual carbon footprint of 10.9±0.6 kg of CO2 equivalent units per kg BW sold, and the energy required to produce that beef (energy footprint) was 26.5±4.5 MJ/kg BW. The annual water required (water footprint) was 21,300±5,600 L/kg BW sold, and the water footprint excluding precipitation was 2,790±910 L/kg BW. The simulated annual cost of producing their beef was US$2.11±0.05/kg BW. Simulation of the production practices of 2005 indicated that the inclusion of distillers grain in animal diets has had a relatively small effect on environmental footprints except that reactive nitrogen loss has increased 10%. Compared to 1970, the carbon footprint of the beef produced has decreased 6% with no change in the energy footprint, a 3% reduction in the reactive nitrogen footprint, and a 6% reduction in the real cost of production. The water footprint, excluding precipitation, has increased 42% due to greater use of irrigated corn production. This proven methodology provides a means for developing the production data needed to support regional and national full life cycle assessments of the sustainability of beef.

Whole-farm models to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and their potential use for linking climate change mitigation and adaptation in temperate grassland ruminant-based farming systems.

The farm level is the most appropriate scale for evaluating options for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, because the farm represents the unit at which management decisions in livestock production are made. To date, a number of whole farm modelling approaches have been developed to quantify GHG emissions and explore climate change mitigation strategies for livestock systems. This paper analyses the limitations and strengths of the different existing approaches for modelling GHG mitigation by considering basic model structures, approaches for simulating GHG emissions from various farm components and the sensitivity of GHG outputs and mitigation measures to different approaches. Potential challenges for linking existing models with the simulation of impacts and adaptation measures under climate change are explored along with a brief discussion of the effects on other ecosystem services.

Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of California beef production systems.

Beef production is a recognized source of greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH(3)) emissions; however, little information exists on the net emissions from beef production systems. A partial life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted using the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) to estimate GHG and NH(3) emissions from representative beef production systems in California. The IFSM is a process-level farm model that simulates crop growth, feed production and use, animal growth, and the return of manure nutrients back to the land to predict the environmental impacts and economics of production systems. Ammonia emissions are determined by summing the emissions from animal housing facilities, manure storage, field applied manure, and direct deposits of manure on pasture and rangeland. All important sources and sinks of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide are predicted from primary and secondary emission sources. Primary sources include enteric fermentation, manure, cropland used in feed production, and fuel combustion. Secondary emissions occur during the production of resources used on the farm, which include fuel, electricity, machinery, fertilizer, and purchased animals. The carbon footprint is the net exchange of all GHG in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO(2)e) units per kg of HCW produced. Simulated beef production systems included cow-calf, stocker, and feedlot phases for the traditional British beef breeds and calf ranch and feedlot phases for Holstein steers. An evaluation of differing production management strategies resulted in ammonia emissions ranging from 98 ± 13 to 141 ± 27 g/kg HCW and carbon footprints of 10.7 ± 1.4 to 22.6 ± 2.0 kg CO(2)e/kg HCW. Within the British beef production cycle, the cow-calf phase was responsible for 69 to 72% of total GHG emissions with 17 to 27% from feedlot sources. Holstein steers that entered the beef production system as a by-product of dairy production had the lowest carbon footprint because the emissions associated with their mothers were primarily attributed to milk rather than meat production. For the Holstein system, the feedlot phase was responsible for 91% of the total GHG emission, while the calf-ranch phase was responsible for 7% with the remaining 2% from transportation. This simulation study provides baseline emissions data for California beef production systems and indicates where mitigation strategies can be most effective in reducing emissions.

Growth-promoting technologies decrease the carbon footprint, ammonia emissions, and costs of California beef production systems.

Increased animal performance is suggested as one of the most effective mitigation strategies to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH(3)) emissions from livestock production per unit of product produced. Little information exists, however, on the effects of increased animal productivity on the net decrease in emission from beef production systems. A partial life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted using the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) to estimate GHG and NH(3) emissions from representative beef production systems in California that use various management technologies to enhance animal performance. The IFSM is a farm process model that simulates crop growth, feed production, animal performance, and manure production and handling through time to predict the performance, economics, and environmental impacts of production systems. The simulated beef production systems compared were 1) Angus-natural, with no use of growth-enhancing technologies, 2) Angus-implant, with ionophore and growth-promoting implant (e.g., estrogen/trenbolone acetate-based) application, 3) Angus-ß2-adrenergic agonists (BAA; e.g., zilpaterol), with ionophore, growth-promoting implant, and BAA application, 4) Holstein-implant, with growth implant and ionophore application, and 5) Holstein-BAA, with ionophore, growth implant, and BAA use. During the feedlot phase, use of BAA decreased NH(3) emission by 4 to 9 g/kg HCW, resulting in a 7% decrease in NH(3) loss from the full production system. Combined use of ionophore, growth implant, and BAA treatments decreased NH(3) emission from the full production system by 14 g/kg HCW, or 13%. The C footprint of beef was decreased by 2.2 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO(2)e)/kg HCW using all the growth-promoting technologies, and the Holstein beef footprint was decreased by 0.5 kg CO(2)e/kg HCW using BAA. Over the full production systems, these decreases were relatively small at 9% and 5% for Angus and Holstein beef, respectively. The growth-promoting technologies we evaluated are a cost-effective way to mitigate GHG and NH(3) emissions, but naturally managed cattle can bring a similar net return to Angus cattle treated with growth-promoting technologies when sold at an 8% greater premium price.

A beef herd model for simulating feed intake, animal performance, and manure excretion in farm systems.

A beef herd submodel was created for integration with other farm components to form a whole-farm model capable of simulating a wide range of beef production systems. This herd submodel determined the best available feed or feed mix to meet the fiber, energy, and protein requirements for each of up to six animal groups on the farm. The groups comprised any combination of cows, nursing calves, young heifers, yearling heifers, stockers, and finishing cattle. Protein, energy, and mineral requirements were determined for each group using the Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System, Level 1. Diets were formulated to meet these requirements with available feeds, and the resulting feed intake, growth, and manure DM and nutrient (N, P, and K) excretions were predicted. Required feed characteristics included CP, ruminally degradable protein, acid detergent insoluble protein, NDF, P, and K concentrations. Feed intake was predicted by considering energy intake, potentially limited by fill, and exceeding a minimum roughage requirement. Fill and roughage limits were functions of feed NDF concentrations adjusted to consider particle size distribution and the relative rate of ruminal digestibility or the physical effectiveness of the fiber. The herd submodel was verified to predict feed intakes, nutrient requirements, diets, and manure excretions similar to those recommended or measured for beef animals. Incorporation of the beef herd submodel with other farm components, including crop growth (alfalfa, grass, corn, small grain, and soybean), harvest, storage, feeding, grazing, and manure handling, provided the Integrated Farm System Model. This comprehensive farm-simulation model is a useful research and teaching tool for evaluating and comparing the long-term performance, economics, and environmental impact of beef, dairy, and crop production systems.

Management to reduce nitrogen losses in animal production.

Reduction of nitrogen loss in animal production requires whole-farm management. Reduced loss from one farm component is easily negated in another if all components are not equally well managed. Animal excretion of manure N can be decreased by improving the balance of protein or amino acids fed to that required by individual animals or animal groups or by improving production efficiency. Management to increase milk, meat, or egg production normally improves efficiency by reducing the maintenance protein required per unit of production. Large losses of manure nitrogen occur through the ammonia and nitrous oxide that are emitted into the atmosphere and the nitrate leached into groundwater. Up to half of the excreted nitrogen is lost from the housing facility, but this loss can be decreased through frequent manure removal and by avoiding deep litter systems and feedlots. Techniques such as acid treatment of manure, scrubbing of ventilation air, and floor designs for separating feces and urine substantially reduce ammonia emissions, but these practices are often impractical or uneconomical for general use. Manure storage units improve nutrient utilization by allowing better timing of nutrient application with crop needs. At least 70% of the nitrogen entering anaerobic lagoons is typically lost, but a less than 10% loss can be maintained using slurry storage with a natural crust or other cover, or by drying poultry manure to at least 50% dry matter. Irrigation and surface spreading of manure without soil incorporation often ensures the loss of all remaining nonorganic nitrogen (typically, 20 to 40% of remaining nitrogen). Rapid incorporation and shallow injection methods decrease this loss by at least 50%, and deep injection into the soil essentially eliminates this loss. For grazing animals, excessive loss can be avoided by not overstocking pastures and avoiding late fall and winter grazing. Reducing emissions between the animal and the soil can lead to greater leaching and denitrification losses from the soil if this additional nitrogen is not used properly. The use of a crop rotation that efficiently absorbs these nutrients and applying nitrogen near the time it is needed by crops reduce the potential for further loss. Maintaining the proper number of animals per unit of land available for manure application is always crucial for efficient recycling of nitrogen. Our understanding of nitrogen loss processes is improved through modeling, and computer models assist in the development of integrated systems for efficient and economical nitrogen use in animal production.