Added Values of Dairy Cattle Breeds Martino Cassandro

Transcription

1 Added Values of Dairy Cattle Breeds Martino Cassandro Department of Animal Science Agripolis - University of Padova - ITALY

2 Outline Introduction Added Value for Dairy Chain Added Value for Environmental Chain Conclusions

3 INTRODUCTION Over the next 50 years, the world s farmers and ranchers will be called upon to produce more food than has been produced in the past 10,000 years combined, and to do so in environmentally sustainable ways. Jacques Diouf, FAO Director General, 2007

4 INTRODUCTION An important strategy to INCREASE Added Value for Animal Products to PRESERVE Environment and Biodiversity to ORIENTATE Tourism & Food Consumptions would be based on PROMOTION of the LINK among LOCAL BREED BREED TERRITORY PRODUCT

5 LINKs of Italian BREED-PRODUCT Reggiana Parmigiano Reggiano Rendena Rendena Cheese Valdostana Fontina Cheese Burlina Morlacco Cheese Italian Brown Cheese of only Italian Brown Pezzata Rossa Cheese of only Pezzata Rossa

6 INTRODUCTION Definition # 1 (broad sense): Added Value (AV) The AV in a productive process is the difference between Value of a final product and the Value of products used to produce it The AV is a measurement of increment ofgrossvalue for a product made by a specific process The AV is a measure of potential production specialization

7 Definition # 1: Added Value (AV): The AV formula: where: INTRODUCTION AV = V K V is the price value of final product (e.g. Value of Cheese produced by 1 kg of milk) K is the price value of input (e.g. Value of 1 Kg of milk used as milk fluid) If AV is positive (+), the product has added value If AV is negative (-), the product has destroyed value If AV > Cost of gain = Profitable If AV < Cost of gain = Not profitable

8 Farmer Milk (Meat) Animal Modern Integrated Chain Traditional Dairy Chain Environmental Chain Climate Change/GHG Processed Products Landscapes/Pollution Air and Water Commercial and Marketing Tourism/Quality of life Economy/Profit/AV

9 INTRODUCTION Definition # 2: Added Value (AV): The AV in environmental chain may be defined as the Minimum Production of Air Pollution, as enteric CH 4 emissions (e.g. GHG emission x 1 kg of Milk Yield or Metabolic Weight) The AV is a measurement of an Environmental Mitigation and might be used as a New Brand of the breed for a valorization project

10 Outline Introduction Added Value for Dairy Chain Added Value for Environmental Chain Conclusions

11 Milk Yield & Composition, Live Weight of 11 Cattle Breeds (4 Cosmopolitan and 7 Local Breeds) Breed Milk yield kg/d Fat % Prt % SCS Score Live Weight Kg Cosmopolitan 1 Holstein Friesian Brown Swiss Simmental Jersey n.a Local 4 5 Burlina Rendena Alpine Grey Reggiana Modenese (BVP) Modicana n.a Valdostana P.R n.a Average AIA, 2007, AA.VV

12 Milk Yield & Composition, Live Weight and Milk Value of 11 Cattle Breeds (4 Cosmopolitan and 7 Local Breeds) Breed Milk yield kg/d Fat % Prt % SCS Score Value of Milk Yield* /kg REVENUE Value of Lactation* /305d Cosmopolitan 1 Holstein Friesian Brown Swiss Simmental Jersey n.a Local 5 Burlina Rendena Alpine Grey Reggiana Modenese (BVP) Modicana n.a Valdostana P.R n.a Average AIA, 2007, AA.VV

13 Milk Coagulation Abilities, Cheese Yield and Cheese Value Breed Cosmopolitan of 11 Cattle Breeds (4 Cosmopolitan and 7 Local Breeds) REVENUE Casein % K-Cn B % β-lg B % RCT min A30 mm Cheese Yield, % Value of Cheese* /kg Value of Cheese* /305d 1 Holstein Friesian Brown Swiss Simmental Jersey Local 5 Burlina n.a Rendena Alpine Grey Reggiana Modenese (BVP) Modicana Valdostana P.R n.a. n.a Average AA.VV; Cassandro et al., WCGALP, 2010 * 8 Euro/kg Parmigiano Reggiano

14 Added Values per kg of Milk Yield of 11 Cattle Breeds (4 Cosmopolitan and 7 Local Breeds) Breed Cosmopolitan Value of Cheese /kg Value of Milk Yield /kg A.V. /kg A.V. Dev. by HF % 1 Holstein Friesian Brown Swiss Simmental Jersey Local 5 Burlina Rendena Alpine Grey Reggiana Modenese (BVP) Modicana Valdostana P.R Average /Kg -21% /Kg

15 Breed Cosmopolitan Added Value per Lactation Yield of 11 Cattle Breeds (4 Cosmopolitan and 7 Local Breeds) Value of Cheese /305d Value of Lactation /305d A.V. /305d A.V. Dev. by HF % Lactation yield kg/305d kg of Milk Yield to = AV of HF 1 Holstein Friesian Brown Swiss Simmental Jersey = Local 5 Burlina Rendena Alpine Grey Reggiana Modenese (BVP) Modicana Valdostana P.R Average But this Added Value is PROFITABLE? +932 (local: +1244)

16 A case study: The BURLINA Cattle Breed

17 Morlacco Cheese of Burlina Cattle Breed BURLACCO PROJECT Funds by Veneto Region, PSR ( ) mis. 124 Herd with 100% Burlina cows reared & < ml somatic cells count Herds multibreed guarantee milk separation & < ml somatic cells count Population of 300 Burlina lactating cows kg of milk yield/year -> about 900 tons of milk/year 81 ton /year of Morlacco of Burlina cow (11% cheese yield) wheels of Morlacco of Burlina cow per year (8 kg/ wheel)

18 Morlacco Market Products Price, /kg Morlacco of Burlina by Alpin Pasture - Slow Food Protected - Traditional process - Crude Milk - Chain/Genetic Traceability Morlacco of Burlina cow -Traditional process - Crude Milk - Chain/Genetic Traceability Morlacco standard Yield

19 (Re-)Productive and Management Parameters Burlina Holstein Friesian Lactation Yield kg / 305d, Milk yield, kg/d Live Weight, kg Days-Open, d Calving interval, d N. Inseminations Age at first calving, months Parity Lifetime production, years Replacement rate, % 24.0% 32.2% Calving per year Calves saled (% on calvings) 73% 59% Milking time, min Data provided by APA TV

20 Prices and Costs Burlina Holstein Friesian Milk price, /kg Milk valorization, /kg Cost per Heifer, 1, Calf Value, Disposal Value, Insemination Cost, Milking Cost per h, Milking Cost per cow/d, Annula Incentive per adult head, Diet cost per kg of milk, Diet cost per day of dry period,

21 Economic Comparison: Burlina vs HF Diff. in pr rofit, /year per cow Economic comparison Burlina vs HF Equal to HF in term of Milk Price = /kg (0.380 /kg) in term of Lactation Yield = 5890 kg/305d (4792 kg/305d) Regional Incentive no 200 /cow 200 /cow 200 /cow 0 Milk valorization no no + 0,05 /kg + 0,05 /kg Holstein Friesian yield 9079 kg 9079 kg 9079 kg 7706 kg

22 Outline Introduction Added Value for Dairy Chain Added Value for Environmental Chain Conclusions

23 Agriculture Animal Production Contribution to GHGs Agriculture Livestock Production Source USA, % total country EPA, 2007 Canada, % total country Kebreab e coll., 2006 UK, % total country Gill e coll., 2010 Italy, % total country ISPRA 2010 Global World % total sector FAO, IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

24 Animal Production Contribution to GHGs Contributionoftotal emissionsofghg in livestocksectorbysingle species and categories in ITALY Goat 0,61% Sheep 7,08% Pig 13,95% Poultry 0,00% Rabbit 0,00% Horse 0,01% Bufalini 0,02% Dairy c attle 53,90% Beef cattle 24,43% Atzori, Mele, Pulina, 2010

25 Predicted Methane Production MJ/d MJ/d 20,0 Cosmopolitan vs Local Breeds: vs MJ/d (+28%) 21,33 18,82 18,22 CH 4, MJ/d 16,0 12,0 15,39 14,31 12,53 14,58 15,38 14,68 14,78 13,37 15,76 8,0 4,0 0,0 Cassandro, et al. WCGALP, 2010

26 Predicted Methane Production / unit of output Cosmopolitan vs Local Breeds: 0.82 vs 1.03 MJ/ Milk yield, kg (-20 %) MJ/Kg CH 4, MJ/Milk yield kg 1,40 1,36 1,20 1,00 0,80 0,94 0,92 0,86 0,90 0,73 1,10 1,04 0,91 0,79 0,92 0,95 0,60 0,40 0,20 0,00

27 Predicted Methane Production / unit of output Cosmopolitan vs Local Breeds: vs MJ/ Milk yield, kg (-18 %) MJ/Kg CH 4, MJ/kg, Cheese Yield * 18,00 16,00 14,55 14,44 15,95 14,00 12,00 13,17 12,33 11,42 12,43 11,06 12,08 12,65 12,68 10,00 9,41 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 * Parmigiano Reggiano

28 Predicted Methane Production / Metabolic Weight MJ/Kg 0.75 Cosmopolitan vs Local Breeds: 0.15 vs 0.13 MJ/ Metabolic Weight, kg (+13 %) 0,17 0,16 CH 4, MJ/kg of Metabolic Weight 0,165 0,15 0,149 0,14 0,135 0,135 0,142 0,138 0,135 0,137 0,138 0,13 0,128 0,128 0,12 0,121 0,11 0,10

29 Predicted Methane Production / Metabolic Weight MJ/ [Kg milk yield/k Kg 0.75 of metabolic weight] Cosmopolitan vs Local Breeds: vs MJ/ Metabolic Weight, kg (-9 %) CH4, MJ/ [kg milk yield/kg metabolic weight] 165,32 107,08 123,04 118,08 110,09 104,76 107,76 103,58 97,00 89,74 108,83 70,67

30 Outline Introduction Added Value for Dairy Chain Added Value for Environmental Chain Conclusions

31 CONCLUSIONS Analyses on Added Value (AV) for Dairy Chain, showed that AV for dairy breeds is around 0.16 /kg some breeds showed to be better for cheese yield than for milk fluid production: + 21% per kg of milk of Local vs Cosmopolitan breeds + 65% per kg of milk of Local vs HF breed - 25% per lactation yield of Local vs Cosmopolitan breeds - 21% per lactation yield of Local vs HF breed but, Local breeds with an average increment of 1,244 kg/305d showed to be at the same AV per lactation yield of the HF (with only ~ +500 kg/305d per Rendena, Modicana e Reggiana).

32 CONCLUSIONS Analyses on AV for Environmental Chain, showed that AV for dairy breeds is around MJ/d some breeds showed to cope better with mitigation of predicted CH 4 emission per unit of metabolic weight than for unit of milk: - 13% per kg of metabolic weight of Local vs Cosmopolitan breeds - 12% per kg of metabolic weight of Local vs HF breed + 20% per kg of milk yield of Local vs Cosmopolitan breeds + 41% per kg of milk yield of Local vs HF breed P.S. CH 4 emission per unit of metabolic weight is a measure at net of the Selection effect CH 4 emission per unit of milk yield is a measure at gross of the Selection effect

33 CONCLUSIONS AnGR have a dual role not only in food production, but also in the provision of public good objectives including, biodiversity and landscape values and diffuse pollution to air and water. Hence, AnGR should be evaluated in term of environmental efficiency and not only in term of economic efficiency. Some AnGR showed to produce more food in an environmentally sustainable way. These breeds in the next 50 years (Diouf, 2007) have good chance to improve own profitable

34 CONCLUSIONS AnGR need to be evaluated not only per unit of output but for others direct and indirect units of output related to social and human returns, but, with valorization projects based on added values: - for cheese yield and environment mitigation; - and for other social and public goods, as territory preservation, consumer habits, turists requests, and history and cultural aspects of link between breed and food

35 Thank You for Your Attention A FUTURE OF MORE VALORIZATION TO GUARANTEE THE BEST CONSERVATION

36 INTRODUCTION TRACEABILITY is an important tool in EU not only for Consumers but also for Producers No. of Certified Products PDO (DOP) e PGI (IGP) 1 ITALY France Portugal 92 4 Spain e Greece 84 6 Germany 67 Loss of 2,5 billion /year for FOOD PIRACY* Example of False ITA-Products : - Asiago by Wisconsin (USA) - Parma Ham (USA) - Parmesao (Brasile) - Regianito (Argentina) * data CIA and Legambiente

37 CONCLUSIONS Livestock farming is important for providing high quality food to consumers and to maintain the variety of landscapes. Good progress has been made in recent years to increase production efficiency and thereby reduce the environmental footprint of livestock farming per unit product and more can be done to continue the process of making the industry sustainable. Research and development Increasing efficiency in livestock production: Benefits for producers, consumers and the environment David Garwes

38 FUTURE PERSPECTIVE The environmental impact of fertility in dairy cows: a modelling approach to predict methane and ammonia emissions Garnworthy, P.C. (2004).Animal Feed Science & Technology, Vol. 112, Issue 1, pages Abstract Dairy cows are estimated to contribute about 20% of total UK atmospheric methane emissions and 25% of total UK ammonia emissions. Previous models of atmospheric emissions have linked dietary inputs to gas emissions, but fertility models have not included emissions by herd replacements. The objective of this study was to construct a model that linked changes in fertility to herd structure, number of replacements, milk yield, nutrient requirements and gas emissions. The model was then used to investigate the impact of changing fertility parameters on predicted total gas emissions at the herd level. Fertility has a major effect on the number of heifer replacements required to maintain herd size for a given milk quota or number of cows. The proportion of total gas emissions that is produced by herd replacements is up to 27% of methane and 15% of ammonia with commercially common fertility levels. Restoring fertility to 1995 levels is predicted to reduce methane emissions by 10 11% and ammonia emissions by about 9%. Further improvements in fertility could reduce methane emissions by up to 24% and ammonia emissions by about 17%. Nutritional strategies for improving fertility are likely to be complementary to dietary strategies already proposed for reducing emissions.

39 Dairy improved productivity and fertility Potential breeding for production/fertility could achieve reductions in GHG emissions similar to those proposed by SAC (15%). But, if the deadline is 2022 then that is likely too short a time horizon for such an impact. Hence we suggested a reduced abatement of 5% in 2022, compared Relationship between CH 4 emission in chambers and DMI with that of SAC. SAC point out that the abatement potential for genetic improvement of any sort tends to be cumulative. Farmers can use different bulls each year and with the availability of genetic improvement tools (delivered to the national dairy, beef and sheep populations and updated regularly) the males Restricted Commercial Agricultural advisory services analysis AEA/ED47617/Issue 4 AEA 61 (and females) will improve year on year (i.e., the genetic merit of a bull 20 years ago is different to the genetic potential of a bull today). The increased abatement potential of 15% in 2022 was based on this continued genetic improvement of animals over time (i.e., 10 years of improvement from 2012 to 2022) and did not include breeding directly for reduced emissions which is likely to enhance the abatement potential. This annual abatement rate of GHG emissions by continuing current selection policies has been shown in the Defra report AC0204. The abatement rate for selecting on fertility has been shown by Garnsworthy (2004). Grazing livestock are a crucial element of our landscape and about 80% of our countryside has been shaped by farming (National Trust 2001). 25% is semi natural habitat maintained by grazing animals (Countryside Survey 2000). 8% of England s land area is designated as National Parks and 15 % as Areas of

40 Would livestock breeding goals change if carbon and nitrogen efficiency, rather than economic efficiency, were the priority objectives? - IF0182 Description Livestock production systems have a dual role not only in food production, but also in the provision of public good objectives including, biodiversity and landscape value. However, agriculture also generates external costs or negative public goods; specifically, diffuse pollution to air and water. Mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from livestock is increasingly recognised as a necessary part of the UK s overall climate change obligations. One of the tools available to Relationship between CH 4 emission in chambers and DMI mitigate GHG emissions is genetic selection. Genetic improvement of livestock is a particularly cost- effective technology, producing permanent and cumulative changes in performance. A recent study (Moran et al., 2007) has shown the very high value of animal and plant genetics research and development in helping to deliver on likely future policy priorities (public good rates of return ranging between 11-61%), including responding to global climate change and reducing the environmental impact of farming systems. Genetic evaluations of dairy cattle (funded by DairyCo), and of sheep and several selected beef cattle breeds (funded by Signet) are currently undertaken by Edinburgh Genetic Evaluation Services (EGENES) part of SAC, Edinburgh. These evaluations include a range of production and fitness-related traits in each species. The individual trait genetic evaluations are then published singly and combined with other traits in a selection index using index weights, many of which have been developed by SAC and partners. As a result, SAC have unrivalled experience in ruminant breeding goal construction and delivery. The genetic improvement in the UK has been shown to be worth many millions of pounds to the dairy, beef (23 million over 10 years) and sheep (29 million over 10 years) sectors (Amer et al., 2007). A recent Defra report (Genesis-Faraday, 2008; AC0204) estimated the impact of historic genetic improvement in selected traits (e.g. milk/meat output, growth efficiency) in UK livestock species on the GHG emissions from the production of the relevant agricultural commodity (e.g., a tonne of beef/sheep meat). On average, there was a 1% per year reduction in GHG production per unit food produced that could be attributed to genetic improvement. This study hypothesised that further reductions in GHG emissions could be achieved via genetic selection based on current indices and that this reduction could be increased if livestock breeding goals changed to consider environmental efficiency rather than economic efficiency. This project will examine the impact of past, current and future breeding goals in UK livestock populations on GHG emissions, quantifying and comparing the mitigation potential of each and their impact on system performance and profitability. The project will also examine how indices would change if the breeding goal shifted from economic efficiency to environmental efficiency, and the subsequent environmental and economic impact on the system. Finally, the project will examine how and what market incentives/policy drivers would be required to encourage livestock breeders to change their breeding goal.

41 Genomic Characterization of AnGR Assignment of individuals at 4 clusters breeds using software STRUCTURE 2.1, Group #1 : unknown BREED? Group #2: Burlina breed Group #3: Bruna breed Group #4: Frisona breed. Unknown BURLINA BROWN HOLSTEIN Breed? SWISS FRIESIAN

42 Contribution of total emission of GHG in agriculture bysingle sourcesofghg in ITALY (ISPRA 2010) CH 4 : Field Burning 0.04% CH 4 : Enteric 30.45% N 2 O: Agriculture soils 46.83% N 2 O: Field Burning 0.01% CH 4 : Rice Cultivation 3.89% N 2 O: Manure 10.53% CH 4 : Manure 8.26% Atzori, Mele, Pulina, 2010

43 GHG reductions should be treated as a public good, like infrastructure investments in public health and safety and, indeed, national defence. US Congress, is prospecting to define a price on GHG emissions. Limiting the concentration of Carbon Dioxide and other GHG in Earth s atmosphere requires a technological and economic revolution

44 Many sectors of economy have GHG emissions reduction strategies A mitigation of Methane emission in livestock species seem to be possible Methane from rumen fermentation: - diet manipulation - rumen modifiers/additives - rumen microbial genomes - animal selection Alford et al. 2006, calculated a 16% of reduction of CH 4 in 25 years if Residual Feed Intake will be included in beef selection programmes

45 ECT = Error due to bias, as a percentage of total RMSPE

46 Grainger et al., 2007, J. Dairy Sci. 90: Relationship between CH 4 emission in chambers and DMI

47 Economic Comparison: Burlina vs HF Diff. in pr rofit, /year per cow Economic comparison Burlina vs HF Regional Premium no 200 /capo 200 /capo 200 /capo Milk valorization no no + 0,05 /kg + 0,05 /kg Holstein Friesian yield 9079 kg 9079 kg 9079 kg 7706 kg

48 Economic Comparison: Burlina vs HF Diff. in pr rofit, /year per cow Economic comparison Burlina vs HF Regional Incentive no 200 /head 200 /capo 200 /capo Milk valorization no no + 0,05 /kg + 0,05 /kg Holstein Friesian yield 9079 kg 9079 kg 9079 kg 7706 kg

49 Economic Comparison: Burlina vs HF Diff. in pr rofit, /year per cow Economic comparison Burlina vs HF Regional Premium no 200 /capo 200 /capo 200 /capo Milk valorization no no + 0,05 /kg + 0,05 /kg Holstein Friesian yield 9079 kg 9079 kg 9079 kg 7706 kg

50 Economic Comparison: Burlina vs HF Diff. in pr rofit, /year per cow Economic comparison Burlina vs HF Equal to HF in term of Milk Price = /kg (0.380 /kg) in term of Lactation Yield = 5890 kg/305d (4792 kg/305d) Regional Premium no 200 /capo 200 /capo 200 /capo 0 Milk valorization no no + 0,05 /kg + 0,05 /kg Holstein Friesian yield 9079 kg 9079 kg 9079 kg 7706 kg

51 Farmer Traditional Dairy Chain Milk (Meat) Animal Modern Integrated Chain Environmental Chain Grassland-Pastures Processed Products Environment - Landscape Commercial and Marketing Tourism/quality of life Economy/Profit/AV

52 Milk Coagulation Abilities, Cheese Yield of 11 Cattle Breeds (4 Cosmopolitan and 7 Local Breeds) Breed Cosmopolitan Casein % K-Cn B % β-lg B % RCT min A30 mm Cheese Yield, % 1 Holstein Friesian Brown Swiss Simmental Jersey Local 5 Burlina n.a Rendena Alpine Grey Reggiana Modenese (BVP) Modicana Valdostana P.R n.a. n.a Average AA.VV; Cassandro et al., WCGALP, 2010

53 Breed Cosmopolitan Added Value per Lactation Yield of 11 Cattle Breeds (4 Cosmopolitan and 7 Local Breeds) Value of Cheese /305d Value of Lactation /305d A.V. /305d A.V. Dev. by HF % Lactation yield kg/305d kg of Milk Yield to = AV of HF 1 Holstein Friesian Brown Swiss Simmental Jersey = Local 5 Burlina Rendena Alpine Grey Reggiana Modenese (BVP) Modicana Valdostana P.R Average (local: +1244)

54 Farmer Animal Traditional Dairy Chain Milk (Meat) Modern Integrated Chain Grassland-Pastures Processed Products Environment - Landscape Commercial and Marketing Tourism/quality of life Economy/Profit/AV