The first goal of this work was the description of a model addressed to quantify the carbon footprint in Spanish autochthonous dairy sheep farms (Manchega group), foreign dairy sheep farms (foreigners group: Lacaune and Assaf breeds), and Spanish autochthonous dairy goat farms (Florida group). The second objective was to analyze the GHG emission mitigation potential of 17 different livestock farming practices that were implemented by 36 different livestock farms, in terms of CO2e per hectare (ha), CO2e per livestock unit (LU), and CO2e per liter of fat- and protein-corrected milk (FPCM). The study showed the following results: 1.655 kg CO2e per ha, 6.397 kg CO2e per LU, and 3.78 kg CO2e per liter of FPCM in the Manchega group; 12.634 kg CO2e per ha, 7.810 CO2e kg per LU, and 2.77 kg CO2e per liter of FPCM in the Foreigners group and 1.198 kg CO2e per ha, 6.507 kg CO2e per LU, and 3.06 kg CO2e per liter of FPCM in Florida group. In summary, purchasing off-farm animal feed would increase emissions by up to 3.86%. Conversely, forage management, livestock inventory, electrical supply, and animal genetic improvement would reduce emissions by up to 6.29%, 4.3%, 3.52%, and 0.8%, respectively; finally, an average rise of 2 °C in room temperature would increase emissions by up to 0.62%.
Los objetivos del presente trabajo fueron los de estimar las emisiones en la producción de forrajes de las explotaciones lecheras de Cantabria y su huella de carbono, considerando el uso indirecto de la tierra y el potencial secuestro de carbono de los restos vegetales y del purín. Sesenta explotaciones de vacuno lechero de Cantabria fueron clasificadas en tres modelos forrajeros: i) Pradera (P); ii) Pradera-Maíz (PMz) y iii) Pradera-Maíz-Cultivos Forrajeros de Invierno (PMzCFI), para estimar los gases de efecto invernadero de los forrajes. Los cultivos forrajeros fueron hierba de pradera en pesebre (HPP); ensilado de hierba (EHM) y raigrás italiano (ERM) en microsilos; ensilados de hierba (EHT) y maíz (EMz) en trinchera. Las emisiones de P, PMz y PMzCFI fueron 1519, 1851 y 2382 kg CO 2eq ha -1 , respectivamente; de ellas, el 20,1 % proceden de las operaciones de cultivo; 9,2 % de los consumibles y 70,6 % del suelo. Las emisiones de los forrajes dentro de la superficie que ocupan en una hectárea fueron 515 kg CO 2eq para HPP, 886 kg CO 2eq para EHM, 774 kg CO 2eq para EHT, 747 kg CO 2eq para EMz y 678 kg CO 2eq para HPP. Los restos vegetales aportaron 2866 kg MS ha -1 y 3769 kg el purín, equivalente a 4580 kg C con un potencial de secuestro de carbono de 458 kg. En general, la huella de carbono de cada modelo forrajero sin secuestro de carbono fue 0,219; 0,257 y 0,271 kg CO 2eq kg -1 MS en P, PMz y PMzCFI, respectivamente, y entre forrajes de 0,189; 0,266; 0,232; 0,223 y 0,395 kg CO 2eq kg -1 MS para HPP, EHM, EHT, EMz y ERM respectivamente. Estos últimos se redujeron hasta 0,0075; 0,069; 0,036; 0,025; 0,17 kg CO 2eq kg -1 MS para HPP, EHM, EHT, EMz y ERM respectivamente, al considerar el secuestro de carbono. El manejo del nitrógeno fue la variable mejor relacionada incluyendo o no el secuestro de carbono. Se concluye señalando que las emisiones por hectárea aumentan con la intensificación, pero disminuyen por kilogramo de materia seca producido. Reemplazar el uso de microsilos (EHM y ERM) por los de trinchera en hierba (EHT) puede ser una opción de mitigación, con emisiones similares al EMz. El cálculo de la huella de carbono debe considerar como sumidero a los restos vegetales y el purín, quienes pueden contribuir compensando el 80 % del total de carbono emitido en la producción de un kilogramo de materia seca.Palabras clave: Modelo forrajero, producción de leche, emisiones, gases de efecto invernadero, secuestro de carbono.
Understanding the composition of a cow’s diet through the analysis of its milk is very useful in the linking of the product consumed with the systems involved in its production. The aim of this study is to show the diet–milk composition relationship using correspondence analysis and multiple linear regression analysis. This study analyzed 174 tank milk samples taken from 89 commercial farms located in “Green Spain”. Sampling was performed in two different periods: autumn 2016 and spring 2017. The correspondence analysis allowed for study into the general relationships between diet components and their relationship with the composition of milk (chemical composition, fatty acid profile (FA), and fat-soluble antioxidants (FSA)). The model used to estimate the percentage of fresh grass (FG) in the diet had a high predictive power (Raj2 > 0.7), and the explanatory variables included in the model were linolenic acid (C18:3-n3), vaccenic acid (trans11-C18:1), and cis12-C18:1. The regression equation was applied to the 174 tank milk samples individually. To evaluate the equation’s predictive capacity, different thresholds for the dry matter percentage of fresh grass in the ration were marked (15%, 20%, 25%, and 30%), above which milk could be considered “grass-fed milk”, and below which, “not grass-fed milk”. The equation is considered valid when it correctly classifies the sample. The highest percentage of success (89.7%) was obtained by marking a threshold of 25% FG. When analyzing the misclassified milk samples, that is, where the equation did not classify the milk sample well according to its fresh grass composition, it was observed that the majority of cases corresponded to milk samples that came from herds fed with fresh grass above the marked threshold (>25%) but with a high content of concentrate in the ration. The conclusion is that the percentage of concentrate in the diet has a very important influence on the fatty acid profile of milk, particularly with respect to fresh grass. This is in such a way that anywhere above a concentrate content of >30%, the equation’s capacity to estimate the percentage of fresh grass decreases.
This study analyzes 174 tank milk samples taken from 89 commercial farms located all along the Cantabrian Coast (Green Spain). Sampling was performed in two periods: autumn 2016 and spring 2017. A survey was carried out for every day of sampling to record the average lactating dairy cow production and its diet composition. For each sample, the fatty acid (FA) profile (49 FA plus its main relationships) and nine fat-soluble antioxidant (FSA) profiles (retinol (vitamin A), α- and Υ-tocopherol (vitamin E), all-trans-β-carotene, 9-cis-β-carotene, 13-cis-β-carotene, lutein, zeaxanthin, and β-cryptoxanthin) were determined. The milk production varied between 7.3 and 45.9 liters per cow per day, highlighting the diversity found among production systems. The milk fat content ranged from 2.64% to 4.38% and the protein content from 2.87% to 3.56%. Regarding the fatty acids profile, the percentage of saturated fat varied between 59.95% and 75.99%. The linolenic acid content fluctuated between 0.21 and 1.31 and rumenic acid ranged from 0.20 to 2.47 (g 100 g−1 total FA). The most important correlations between diet and milk FA were always related to the content of fresh grass and total forage (which is defined by both fresh and conserved forage derived from fresh grass (GCF)) in the diet. The content of vaccenic acid, linolenic acid, total omega-3, rumenic acid, and total CLA isomers showed the highest correlation with the proportion of fresh grass in the diet. The antioxidant contents were also highly variable, although correlations with dietary components were lower. The highest correlations were between total forage content (fresh grass (FG) plus GCF) and lutein, all-trans-β-carotene, and 13-cis-β-carotene. Diets without fresh grass had lower omega-3 content, CLA, vaccenic acid, lutein, all-trans-β-carotene, and 13-cis-β-carotene.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.