A comparison of the environmental impact of Jersey compared with Holstein milk for cheese production.

The objective of this study was to compare the environmental impact of Jersey or Holstein milk production sufficient to yield 500,000 t of cheese (equivalent cheese yield) both with and without recombinant bovine somatotropin use. The deterministic model used 2009 DairyMetrics (Dairy Records Management Systems, Raleigh, NC) population data for milk yield and composition (Jersey: 20.9 kg/d, 4.8% fat, 3.7% protein; Holstein: 29.1 kg/d, 3.8% fat, 3.1% protein), age at first calving, calving interval, and culling rate. Each population contained lactating and dry cows, bulls, and herd replacements for which rations were formulated according to DairyPro (Agricultural Modeling and Training Systems, Cornell, Ithaca, NY) at breed-appropriate body weights (BW), with mature cows weighing 454 kg (Jersey) or 680 kg (Holstein). Resource inputs included feedstuffs, water, land, fertilizers, and fossil fuels. Waste outputs included manure and greenhouse gas emissions. Cheese yield (kg) was calculated according to the Van Slyke equation. A yield of 500,000 t of cheese required 4.94 billion kg of Holstein milk compared with 3.99 billion kg of Jersey milk-a direct consequence of differences in milk nutrient density (fat and protein contents) between the 2 populations. The reduced daily milk yield of Jersey cows increased the population size required to supply sufficient milk for the required cheese yield, but the differential in BW between the Jersey and Holstein breeds reduced the body mass of the Jersey population by 125×10(3) t. Consequently, the population energy requirement was reduced by 7,177×10(6) MJ, water use by 252×10(9) L, and cropland use by 97.5×10(3) ha per 500,000 t of cheese yield. Nitrogen and phosphorus excretion were reduced by 17,234 and 1,492 t, respectively, through the use of Jersey milk to yield 500,000 t of Cheddar cheese. The carbon footprint was reduced by 1,662×10(3) t of CO(2)-equivalents per 500,000 t of cheese in Jersey cows compared with Holsteins. Use of recombinant bovine somatotropin reduced resource use and waste output in supplemented populations, with decreases in carbon footprint equivalent to 10.0% (Jersey) and 7.5% (Holstein) compared with nonsupplemented populations. The interaction between milk nutrient density and BW demonstrated by the Jersey population overcame the reduced daily milk yield, thus reducing resource use and environmental impact. This reduction was achieved through 2 mechanisms: diluting population maintenance overhead through improved milk nutrient density and reducing maintenance overhead through a reduction in productive and nonproductive body mass within the population.

[1]  K. Leslie,et al.  Exploring the impact of sexed semen on the structure of the dairy industry. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.

[2]  J. Tiedje,et al.  Dissimilatory reduction of nitrate and nitrite in the bovine rumen: nitrous oxide production and effect of acetylene , 1981, Applied and environmental microbiology.

[3]  J. Coggins Predicting Cheddar Cheese Yield in an Individual Plant: Van Slyke Revisited , 1991 .

[4]  R. Everett,et al.  Production responses to bovine somatotropin in northeast dairy herds. , 1999, Journal of dairy science.

[5]  J. Veenhuizen,et al.  Effects of sustained release bovine somatotropin (sometribove) on animal health in commercial dairy herds. , 2001, Journal of dairy science.

[6]  R. Cady,et al.  The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. , 2009, Journal of animal science.

[7]  A. Usa,et al.  Dairy 2007, part III: reference of dairy cattle health and management practices in the United States. , 2008 .

[8]  R. Weller,et al.  Clinical mastitis in cows treated with sometribove (recombinant bovine somatotropin) and its relationship to milk yield. , 1994, Journal of dairy science.

[9]  G. Marland,et al.  A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States , 2002 .

[10]  C. Knight,et al.  Local control of mammary development and function. , 1998, Reviews of reproduction.

[11]  R. Raubertas,et al.  Relationship Between Lactation Measures of Somatic Cell Concentration and Milk Yield , 1982 .

[12]  M. Varner,et al.  The impact of somatotropin, milking frequency, and photoperiod on dairy farm nutrient flows. , 2000, Journal of dairy science.

[13]  Donald E. Johnson,et al.  The environmental impact of bovine somatotropin use in dairy cattle , 1992 .

[14]  R. Cline-Cole,et al.  Food, Energy and Society. , 1982 .

[15]  Robert A. Milligan,et al.  Systems Analysis for Designing Reproductive Management Programs to Increase Production and Profit in Dairy Herds , 1981 .

[16]  A. Usa,et al.  Dairy 2007. Heifer calf health and management practices on U.S. dairy operations, 2007 , 2010 .

[17]  W. Knoblauch,et al.  The empirical impact of bovine somatotropin on New York dairy farms. , 1997, Journal of dairy science.

[18]  Agnes Willén,et al.  Methane production from dairy cows , 2011 .

[19]  P. Garnsworthy The environmental impact of fertility in dairy cows: a modelling approach to predict methane and ammonia emissions , 2004 .

[20]  G. Hartnell,et al.  Effects of a prolonged-release formulation of sometribove (n-methionyl bovine somatotropin) on Jersey cows. , 1992, Journal of dairy science.

[21]  A. Mowrey,et al.  Results of a nationwide survey to determine feedstuffs fed to lactating dairy cows. , 1999, Journal of dairy science.

[22]  M. D. Vries,et al.  Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments , 2010 .

[23]  R. Erskine,et al.  Recombinant bovine somatotropin and clinical mastitis: incidence, discarded milk following therapy, and culling. , 1997, Journal of dairy science.

[24]  M. Schulz,et al.  Red meat production in australia: life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas studies. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[25]  H. Steinfeld,et al.  Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. , 2006 .

[26]  D. Bauman,et al.  Evaluation of sometribove in a prolonged-release system in lactating dairy cows--production responses. , 1991, Journal of dairy science.

[27]  J. B. Holter,et al.  Water partitioning and intake prediction in dry and lactating Holstein cows. , 1992, Journal of dairy science.

[28]  R. Hintz,et al.  Effect of the use of bovine somatotropin on culling practices in thirty-two dairy herds in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. , 1998, Journal of dairy science.

[29]  M. Overton Cost comparison of natural service sires and artificial insemination for dairy cattle reproductive management. , 2005, Theriogenology.

[30]  R. Cady,et al.  The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  S. Nickerson,et al.  The effects of a sustained-release recombinant bovine somatotropin (somidobove) on udder health for a full lactation. , 1994, Journal of dairy science.

[32]  C. Kroeze N2O from animal waste. Methodology according to IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. , 1997 .

[33]  M. Kirchgessner,et al.  Release of methane and of carbon dioxide by dairy cattle , 1991 .

[34]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment , 2010, Nature.