Substitution of corn silage with sorghum silages in lactating cow diets: In vivo methane emission and global warming potential of milk production

Colombini, S.; Zucali, Maddalena; Rapetti, L.; Crovetto, Gianni Matteo; Sandrucci, A.; Bava, L.

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2015.02.006

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In their study, DMI differed by 9%. Higher DMI in the current study explains why daily CH 4 emissions results were higher than those reported by Colombini et al (2015; 523 versus 342 g/d, respectively), yet emission intensity was lower, likely due to higher MY in the current experiment.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 61%

Using brown midrib 6 dwarf forage sorghum silage and fall-grown oat silage in lactating dairy cow rations

Harper

Giallongo

et al. 2017

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Double cropping and increasing crop diversity could improve dairy farm economic and environmental sustainability. In this experiment, corn silage was partially replaced with 2 alternative forages, brown midrib-6 brachytic dwarf forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) or fall-grown oat (Avena sativa) silage, in the diet of lactating dairy cows. We investigated the effect on dry matter (DM) intake, milk yield (MY), milk components and fatty acid profile, apparent total-tract nutrient digestibility, N utilization, enteric methane emissions, and income over feed cost. We analyzed the in situ DM and neutral detergent fiber disappearance of the alternative forages versus corn silage and alfalfa haylage. Sorghum was grown in the summer and harvested in the milk stage. Oats were grown in the fall and harvested in the boot stage. Compared with corn silage, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber concentrations were higher in the alternative forages. Lignin content was highest for sorghum silage and similar for corn silage and oat silage. The alternative forages had less than 1% starch compared with the approximately 35% starch in the corn silage. Ruminal in situ DM effective degradability was similar, although statistically different, for corn silage and oat silage, but lower for sorghum silage. Diets with the alternative forages were fed in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design experiment with three 28-d periods and 12 Holstein cows. The control diet contained 44% (DM basis) corn silage. In the other 2 diets, sorghum or oat silages were included at 10% of dietary DM, replacing corn silage. Sorghum silage inclusion decreased DM intake, MY, and milk protein content but increased milk fat and maintained energy-corrected MY similar to the control. Oat silage had no effect on DM intake, MY, or milk components compared to the control. The oat silage diet increased apparent total-tract digestibility of dietary nutrients, except starch, whereas the sorghum diet slightly decreased DM, organic matter, crude protein, and starch digestibility. Cows consuming the oat silage diet had higher milk urea N and urinary urea N concentrations. Milk N efficiency was decreased by the sorghum diet. Diet did not affect enteric methane or carbon dioxide emissions. This study shows that oat silage can partially replace corn silage at 10% of the diet DM with no effect on MY. Brown midrib sorghum silage harvested at the milk stage with <1% starch may decrease DM intake and MY in dairy cows.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 61%

Using brown midrib 6 dwarf forage sorghum silage and fall-grown oat silage in lactating dairy cow rations

Harper

Giallongo

et al. 2017

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, Hart et al (2015) observed lower methane yields for cows fed a high corn silage ration than those fed a high grass silage ration, but the proportion of NFC (starch) and fiber in the diets in their experiment was more variable than in our study. As far as the overall methane energy losses (% of energy intake) are concerned, the results of the present study agree with those of Pirondini et al (2015) and of Colombini et al (2015), with methane produced by rumen fermentation accounting for 5 to 6% of the gross energy ingested by the cows. No difference between diets was found for the methane energy loss as a percentage of GEI, but the methane energy loss as a percentage of DE was lower for the cows fed the CS diet than the cows fed the PR diet.…”

Section: Enteric Methane Production and Energy Balancesupporting

confidence: 86%

Milk production, methane emissions, nitrogen, and energy balance of cows fed diets based on different forage systems

Gislon

Colombini

Borreani

et al. 2020

Journal of Dairy Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eight lactating Italian Friesian cows were housed in individual respiration chambers in a repeated Latin square design to determine their dry matter intake (DMI) and their milk and methane production, as well as to collect the total feces and urine to determine the N and energy balances. Four diets, based on the following forages (% of dry matter, DM), were tested: corn silage (CS, 49.3), alfalfa silage (AS, 26.8), wheat silage (WS, 20.0), and a typical hay-based Parmigiano Reggiano cheese production diet (PR, 25.3 of both alfalfa and Italian ryegrass hay). The greatest DMI was observed for cows fed PR (23.4 vs. 20.7 kg/d, the average of the other 3 diets). The DM digestibility was lower for PR (64.5 vs. 71.7%, the average of the other diets). The highest ash-free neutral detergent fiber digestibility values were obtained for CS (50.7%) and AS (47.4%). In the present study, no differences in milk production were observed between diets, although PR showed a higher milk yield trend. The highest milk urea N concentration (mg/dL) was found for the cows fed the WS diet (13.8), and the lowest was observed for the cows fed AS (9.24). The highest milk urea N concentration for the cows fed WS was also correlated with the highest urinary N excretion (g/d), which was found for the cows fed that same diet (189 vs. 147 on average for the other diets). The protein digestibility was higher for the cows fed the CS and WS diets (on average 68.5%) than for the cows fed AS and PR (on average 57.0%); dietary soybean inclusion was higher for CS and WS than for AS and PR. The rumen fermentation pattern was affected by the diet; the cows fed the PR diet showed a higher rumen pH and decreased propionate production than those fed CS, due to the lower nonfiber carbohydrate content and higher ash-free neutral detergent fiber content of the PR diet than the CS diet. Feeding cows with PR diet increased the acetate: propionate ratio in comparison with the CS diet (3.30 vs. 2.44 for PR and CS, respectively). Cows fed the PR diet produced a greater daily amount of methane and had a greater methane energy loss (% of digestible energy intake) than those fed the CS diet (413 vs. 378 g/d and 8.67 vs. 7.70%), but no differences were observed when methane was expressed as grams per kilogram of DMI or grams per kilogram of milk. The PR diet resulted in a smaller net energy for lactation content than the CS diet (1.36 vs. 1.70 Mcal/kg of DM for the PR and CS diets, respectively). Overall, our research suggests that a satisfactory milk production can be attained by including different high-quality forages in balanced diets without any negative effect on milk production or on the methane emissions per kilogram of milk.

show abstract

“…The LCA has been used for the environmental evaluation of milk production [19,20], pork [21,22], beef [23,24], and other agricultural products [25,26]. However, the LCA system has some limitations regarding its application.…”

Section: Life Cycle Assessment Applied: State Of the Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Impacts of the Beef Production Chain in the Northeast of Portugal Using Life Cycle Assessment

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The beef supply chain has multiple negative impacts on the environment. A method widely used to measure impacts from both the use of resources and the emissions generated by this sector is the life cycle assessment (LCA) (ISO 14040). This study aimed to evaluate a semi-intensive system (SIS) and an extensive organic system (EOS), combined with two different slaughterhouses located in the northeast of Portugal. The studied slaughterhouses are similar in size but differ in number of slaughters and in sources of thermal energy: natural gas (Mng) vs. biomass pellets (Mp). Four categories of environmental impact were evaluated: global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), and photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP). As expected, higher impacts were found for SIS for all studied impact categories. Slaughterhouse activities, fertilizer production, and solid waste treatment stages showed little contribution when compared to animal production. Concerning the slaughterhouses activities, the main sources of environmental impact were the use of energy (electric and thermal) and by-products transportation.

show abstract

Substitution of corn silage with sorghum silages in lactating cow diets: In vivo methane emission and global warming potential of milk production

Cited by 26 publications

References 43 publications

Using brown midrib 6 dwarf forage sorghum silage and fall-grown oat silage in lactating dairy cow rations

Using brown midrib 6 dwarf forage sorghum silage and fall-grown oat silage in lactating dairy cow rations

Milk production, methane emissions, nitrogen, and energy balance of cows fed diets based on different forage systems

Environmental Impacts of the Beef Production Chain in the Northeast of Portugal Using Life Cycle Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About