Nutrient management and dairy cattle production.

Harrison, Joe; Nennich, T.D.; White, R.A.

doi:10.1079/pavsnnr20072020

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The potential for N and P to be environmental contaminants [44,45] resulted in more studies quantifying intake and excretion of these nutrients on commercial dairy farms compared with K, S, Ca and Mg. For instance, mean dietary P (4.5 g P/kg DM) of grazing herds on these study farms was greater and the ranges generally wider than Spanish (3.98, 2.8 to 5.4 g/kg DMg) [22], Swedish ([3.7, 2.1 to 5.2 g/kg DM) [46], northeast US (4.42, 3.6 to 7.0 g/kg DM) [9], and Wisconsin ([4.0, 2.3 to 8.5 g/kg DM) [47] commercial farms, and well in excess of NRC [35] recommendations of 3.2 to 3.8 g/kg DM for cows producing 22 to 55 kg milk/day. Mean P concentration of dietary components (0.47%, 0.01 to 3.99%) provided to the cows in this study was less than for Swedish rations (0.6%, 0.25 to 1.1%) [46], and Wisconsin (1..8%, 0.24 to 3.58%) [47]), and closer to that of Idaho (0.49%, 0.41 to 0.50%) [19]) farms.…”

Section: Nutrient Intakesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutrient Intake, Excretion and Use Efficiency of Grazing Lactating Herds on Commercial Dairy Farms

Aarons

Gourley

Powell

2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimating excreted nutrients is important for farm nutrient management, but seldom occurs on commercial grazing system farms due to difficulties in quantifying pasture intake. Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulphur (S), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) intake, excretion and use efficiency of 43 commercial dairy herds grazing pasture were calculated to understand the range in nutrient intake and excretion in these systems. Milk production, feed (grazed and supplement), as well as farm and herd management data were collected quarterly on representative farms located in temperate, arid, subtropical and tropical regions of Australia. Lactating herd sizes on these farms averaged 267 (30 to 1350) cows, with an average daily milk yield of 22 (9 to 36) kg/cow per day and the herds walked from <0.01 to 4 km/day on a variety of terrains. The mean total metabolizable energy (ME) required by cows in the herds was estimated to be 195 (116 to 289) MJ/cow per day. Although these farms are considered grazing systems, feeding strategies ranged from total dependence on pasture to total mixed rations (TMRTMR) and consisted of a wide variety of nutrient and energy contents. Mean pasture dry matter intake (DMI) (9 kg/cow per day, from 0.1 to 22 kg/cow per day) was just over half of total DMI. Dietary concentration of crude protein, P, K, S, Ca and Mg concentrations were, on average, 19%, 0.45%, 2.1%, 0.29%, 0.65%, and 0.3%, respectively, for all herds and, except for N, supplement nutrient concentrations were always more variable than pasture. Approximately 72% and 88% of diets provided greater than recommended P and N intakes, respectively. Calculated mean N, P, K, S, Ca and Mg excretions were 433, 61, 341, 44, 92 and 52 g/cow per day, respectively. Of the farm characteristics examined, residual maximum likelihood (REML) analysis indicated that daily excreted N, P and S were significantly related to per ha milk production, and excreted P, K and Mg were related to percentage of herd DMI provided as supplement. Mean use efficiencies by cows of N, P, K, S, Ca and Mg were 21%, 25%, 9%, 16%, 23% and 4%, respectively. These estimates of nutrient excretion and feed nutrient use efficiencies can be used to improve nutrient management on grazing system commercial dairy farms.

show abstract

Section: Nutrient Intakesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutrient Intake, Excretion and Use Efficiency of Grazing Lactating Herds on Commercial Dairy Farms

Aarons

Gourley

Powell

2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Enhancing both dairy and cropping efficiencies is vital to achieving effective nutrient management (Harrison et al, 2007). On the U.S. side of the watershed, there have been many conservation efforts by local and state agencies aimed at improving N management efficiencies and reducing agricultural loading of nutrients to the environment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Key Components and Contrasts in the Nitrogen Budget Across a U.S.‐Canadian Transboundary Watershed

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Watershed nitrogen (N) budgets provide insights into drivers and solutions for groundwater and surface water N contamination. We constructed a comprehensive N budget for the transboundary Nooksack River Watershed (British Columbia, Canada, and Washington, USA) using locally derived data, national statistics, and standard parameters. Feed imports for dairy (mainly in the United States) and poultry (mainly in Canada) accounted for 30% and 29% of the total N input to the watershed, respectively. Synthetic fertilizer was the next largest source contributing 21% of inputs. Food imports for humans and pets together accounted for 9% of total inputs, lower than atmospheric deposition (10%). N imported by returning salmon representing marine-derived nutrients accounted for <0.06% of total N input. Quantified N export was 80% of total N input, driven by ammonia emission (32% of exports). Animal product export was the second largest output of N (31%) as milk and cattle in the United States and poultry products in Canada. Riverine export of N was estimated at 28% of total N export. The commonly used crop nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) metric alone did not provide sufficient information on farming activities but in combination with other criteria such as farm-gate NUE may better represent management efficiency. Agriculture was the primary driver of N inputs to the environment as a result of its regional importance; the N budget information can inform management to minimize N losses. The N budget provides key information for stakeholders across sectors and borders to create environmentally and economically viable and effective solutions.

show abstract

“…Decreasing the environmental impact of intensive grazed dairy systems requires quantification of the nutrient inputs, flows and inefficiencies in these systems, and integration of these with hillslope–riparian–stream source transport models for N and P to better manage upland nutrient sources 18 , 22 , 26 , 62 , 66 . Improving the efficiency of nutrient use by dairy cows is an important first step 121 , particularly the relationship between nutrient intake and excretion in grazing systems, where pasture intake can be less accurately defined. Dietary intake may then be manipulated to reduce nutrient loading rates.…”

Section: Future Research Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vegetation types for fenced riparian zones to meet ecological and water quality requirements, and the suitability of multi-zone riparian buffer systems that incorporate a grassy filter strip with a forested buffer need to be evaluated. A configuration to be tested in grazing systems could also include the three-zone system recommended by the NRC for cropping systems 77 , 112 and incorporate wetlands to manage subsurface flow in drains 121 .…”

Section: Future Research Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of riparian buffer management in reducing off-site impacts from grazed dairy systems

Aarons

Gourley

2012

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture in general and intensive animal production in particular can degrade the environment, especially as a consequence of the overuse of nutrients. Intensively grazed dairy systems, defined by the presence of foraging animals in the landscape, are often considered a more benign approach to dairy production with perceived smaller impacts due to the reduced requirement for manure disposal. However, grazing dairy cows contribute nutrients and pathogens in excreta, and sediment through landscape deformation. These impacts can dramatically increase in parts of the farm such as feeding, watering and sacrifice areas, laneways and night paddocks where animals are concentrated and spend a disproportionate amount of time. Other practices such as the disposal of dairy shed or dairy factory effluent and cultivation of fodder crops can also pollute the environment. A common approach to reduce nutrient, pathogen and sediment losses from dairy farms is to establish buffer zones in riparian areas that act as an interface between upland land use and waterways. This is generally done by fencing riparian areas to exclude stock and revegetating with understory and overstory species, with the aim of increasing infiltration, trapping sediment and decreasing contaminant losses from upland pastures. However, poorly designed and managed riparian areas may themselves contribute to further environmental degradation. Rarely is an integrated approach, including factors such as animal behavior and dairy farm management practices, as well as an analysis of landscape and riparian hydrology used in developing riparian management recommendations for individual farms. This paper reviews the threats posed by intensively grazed dairy systems, approaches to improve riparian zone management and recommends future research needs.

show abstract

Nutrient management and dairy cattle production.

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Nutrient Intake, Excretion and Use Efficiency of Grazing Lactating Herds on Commercial Dairy Farms

Nutrient Intake, Excretion and Use Efficiency of Grazing Lactating Herds on Commercial Dairy Farms

Key Components and Contrasts in the Nitrogen Budget Across a U.S.‐Canadian Transboundary Watershed

The role of riparian buffer management in reducing off-site impacts from grazed dairy systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About