Animal Bioscience

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Corn stover usage and farm profit for sustainable dairy farming in China

  • He, Yuan (Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University & Research) ;
  • Cone, John W. (Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University & Research) ;
  • Hendriks, Wouter H. (Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University & Research) ;
  • Dijkstra, Jan (Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University & Research)
  • Received : 2019.03.18
  • Accepted : 2019.12.06
  • Published : 2021.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study determined the optimal ratio of whole plant corn silage (WPCS) to corn stover (stems+leaves) silage (CSS) (WPCS:CSS) to reach the greatest profit of dairy farmers and evaluated its consequences with corn available for other purposes, enteric methane production and milk nitrogen efficiency (MNE) at varying milk production levels. Methods: An optimization model was developed. Chemical composition, rumen undegradable protein and metabolizable energy (ME) of WPCS and CSS from 4 cultivars were determined to provide data for the model. Results: At production levels of 0, 10, 20, and 30 kg milk/cow/d, the WPCS:CSS to maximize the profit of dairy farmers was 16:84, 22:78, 44:56, and 88:12, respectively, and the land area needed to grow corn plants was 4.5, 31.4, 33.4, and 30.3 ha, respectively. The amount of corn available (ton DM/ha/yr) for other purposes saved from this land area decreased with higher producing cows. However, compared with high producing cows (30 kg/d milk), more low producing cows (10 kg/d milk) and more land area to grow corn and soybeans was needed to produce the same total amount of milk. Extra land is available to grow corn for a higher milk production, leading to more corn available for other purposes. Increasing ME content of CSS decreased the land area needed, increased the profit of dairy farms and provided more corn available for other purposes. At the optimal WPCS:CSS, MNE and enteric methane production was greater, but methane production per kg milk was lower, for high producing cows. Conclusion: The WPCS:CSS to maximize the profit for dairy farms increases with decreased milk production levels. At a fixed total amount of milk being produced, high producing cows increase corn available for other purposes. At the optimal WPCS:CSS, methane emission intensity is smaller and MNE is greater for high producing cows.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We thank the Sino-Dutch Dairy Development Centre (SDDDC) for their financial support. Limagrain (Limagrain Nederland BV, Rilland, the Netherlands) is acknowledged for providing the corn plants Lg30248 and Perley. Gerard Derks (Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands) is acknowledged for helping collect corn plants Rivaldinio and Leovoxx from the experimental field of Unifarm (Wageningen, the Netherlands).

References

  1. Shi HT, Li SL, Cao ZJ, Wang YJ, Alugongo GM, Doane PH. Effects of replacing wild rye, corn silage, or corn grain with CaO-treated corn stover and dried distillers grains with solubles in lactating cow diets on performance, digestibility, and profitability. J Dairy Sci 2015;98:7183-93. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9273
  2. Fan S. A study on the cost and benefit to grow corn plants in China [Dissertation]. Shandong, China: Shandong Agricultural University; 2014. (In Chinese).
  3. Verbic J, Stekar JMA, Resnik-Cepon M. Rumen degradation characteristics and fibre composition of various morphological parts of different maize hybrids and possible consequences for breeding. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1995;54:13348. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00777-K
  4. Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010;327:812-8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383
  5. Van Gastelen S, Antunes-Fernandes EC, Hettinga KA, et al. Enteric methane production, rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations, and milk fatty acid composition in lactating HolsteinFriesian cows fed grass silage- or corn silage-based diets. J Dairy Sci 2015;98:1915-27. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.20148552
  6. Cantalapiedra-Hijar G, Peyraud JL, Lemosquet S, et al. Dietary carbohydrate composition modifies the milk N efficiency in late lactation cows fed low crude protein diets. Animal 2014;8:275-85. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113002012
  7. Huisden CM, Adesogan AT, Kim SC, Ososanya T. Effect of applying molasses or inoculants containing homofermentative or heterofermentative bacteria at two rates on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:690-7. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1546
  8. Scheiner D. Determination of ammonia and Kjeldahl nitrogen by indophenol method. Water Res 1976;10:31-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(76)90154-8
  9. He Y, Mouthier TMB, Kabel MA, et al. Lignin composition is more important than content for maize stem cell wall degradation. J Sci Food Agric 2018;98:384-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8630
  10. He Y, Cone JW, Hendriks WH, Dijkstra J. Relationships between chemical composition and in vitro gas production parameters of maize leaves and stems. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2020;104:12-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13221
  11. Menke KH, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J Agric Sci 1979;93:217-22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600086305
  12. Cone JW, Rodrigues MAM, Guedes CM, Blok MC. Comparison of protein fermentation characteristics in rumen fluid determined with the gas production technique and the nylon bag technique. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2009;153:2838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.05.008
  13. Cone JW, Van Gelder AH, Driehuis F. Description of gas production profiles with a three-phasic model. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1997;66:31-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S03778401(96)01147-9
  14. NRC. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 7th revised ed. Washington DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2001.
  15. Dairy Association of China [internet]. Beijing, China: The report of dairy quality in China; c2017 [cited 2018, Sept, 2]. Available from: https://www.dac.org.cn/read/newgndt-17071915434754710221.jhtm (In Chinese).
  16. Bailey K, Ishler V. Tracking milk prices and feed costs [internet]. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Penn. State University; c2007 [cited 2018 Sept, 2]. Available from: https://extension.psu.edu/dairy-risk-managementeducation-tracking-milk-prices-and-feed-costs
  17. Givens DI, Rymer C, Cottrill BR, Offer NW, Thomas C. Protein requirement and supply. In: Thomas C, editor. Feed into milk: a new applied feeding system for dairy cows. Nottingham, UK: Nottingham University Press; 2004. p. 21-40.
  18. Mertens DR. Regulation of forage intake. In: Fahey GC, Collins Jr M, Mertens DR, Moser LE, editors. Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization. Madison, WI, USA: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America; 1994. p. 450-93.
  19. Liu CG. China dairy yearbook. Beijing, China: China Agriculture Press; 2016. (In Chinese).
  20. Johnson LM, Harrison JH, Davidson D, et al. Corn silage management I: effects of hybrid, maturity, and mechanical processing on chemical and physical characteristics. J Dairy Sci 2002;85:833-53. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74143-X
  21. D'Amours L, Savoie P. Density profile of corn silage in bunker silos. Can Biosyst Eng 2005;47:21-8. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.17064
  22. Shinners KJ, Binversie BN, Muck RE, Weimer PJ. Comparison of wet and dry corn stover harvest and storage. Biomass Bioenergy 2007;31:211-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.04.007
  23. National Development and Reform Commission. Collection on the cost and profit of China agricultural products. Beijing China: China Statistics Press; 2017.
  24. Kohler B, Diepolder M, Ostertag J, Thurner S, Spiekers H. Dry matter losses of grass, lucerne and maize silages in bunker silos. Agric Food Sci 2013;22:145-50. https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.6715
  25. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Unions). Rome, Italy: FAOSTAT; 2017.
  26. Dei HK. Soybean as a feed ingredient for livestock and poultry. In: Krezhova D, editor. Recent trends for enhancing the diversity and quality of soybean products. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech Open Access Publisher; 2011. p. 215-26.
  27. Bannink A, France J, Lopez S, et al. Modelling the implications of feeding strategy on rumen fermentation and functioning of the rumen wall. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2008;143:3-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.05.002
  28. Vellinga TV, Blonk H, Marinussen M, et al. Methodology used in FeedPrint: A tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization. Lelystad, the Netherlands: Wageningen UR, Livestock Research; 2013, 108 p.
  29. Shi S. How to pricing corn silage in China. China Dairy Cattle 2017;8:7-13.
  30. Zhu W, Fu Y, Wang B, et al. Effects of dietary forage sources on rumen microbial protein synthesis and milk performance in early lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2013;96:1727-34. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5756
  31. Oba M, Allen MS. Evaluation of the importance of the digestibility of neutral detergent fiber from forage: effects on dry matter intake and milk yield of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1999;82:589-96. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75271-9
  32. Hook SE, Steele MA, Northwood KS, Wright AG, McBride BW. Impact of high-concentrate feeding and low ruminal pH on methanogens and protozoa in the rumen of dairy cows. Microbiol Ecol 2011;62:94-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-011-9881-0
  33. Hatew B, Bannink A, Van Laar H, De Jonge LH, Dijkstra J. Increasing harvest maturity of whole-plant corn silage reduces methane emission of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2016;99:354-68. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10047
  34. Ellis JL, Dijkstra J, Kebreab E, et al. Aspects of rumen microbiology central to mechanistic modelling of methane production in cattle. J Agric Sci 2008;146:213-33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859608007752
  35. Dijkstra J, Reynolds CK, Kebreab E, et al. Challenges in ruminant nutrition: Towards minimal nitrogen losses in cattle. In: Oltjen WJ, Kebreab E, Lapierre H, editors. Energy and protein metabolism and nutrition in sustainable animal production. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2013. p. 47-58. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-908686-781-3_3
  36. Nadeau E, Englund JE, Gustafsson AH. Nitrogen efficiency of dairy cows as affected by diet and milk yield. Livest Sci 2007;111:45-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.11.016