Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-wlffp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-15T10:31:52.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating the impact of clinical mastitis in dairy cows on greenhouse gas emissions using a dynamic stochastic simulation model: a case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2019

P. F. Mostert ,
E. A. M. Bokkers ,
I. J. M. de Boer  and
C. E. van Middelaar
P. F. Mostert*
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
E. A. M. Bokkers
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
I. J. M. de Boer
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
C. E. van Middelaar
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: pimmostert@hotmail.com
Get access

Abstract

The increasing attention for global warming is likely to contribute to the introduction of policies or other incentives to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to livestock production, including dairy. The dairy sector is an important contributor to GHG emissions. Clinical mastitis (CM), an intramammary infection, results in reduced milk production and fertility, increases culling and mortality of cows and, therefore, has a negative impact on the efficiency (output/input) of milk production. This may increase GHG emissions per unit of product. Our objective was to estimate the impact of CM in dairy cows on GHG emissions of milk production for the Dutch situation. A dynamic stochastic simulation model was developed to simulate the dynamics and losses of CM for individual lactations. Cows receive a parity (1 to 5+), a milk production and a calving interval (CI). Based on the parity, cows have a risk of CM, with a maximum of three cases in a lactation. Pathogens causing CM were classified as gram-positive bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, or other. Based on the parity and pathogen combinations, cows had a reduced milk production, discarded milk, prolonged CI and a risk of removal (culling and mortality) that reduce productivity of dairy cows and therefore increase GHG emissions per unit of product. Using life cycle assessment, emissions of GHGs were estimated from cradle to farm gate for processes along the milk production chain that are affected by CM. Processes included were feed production, enteric fermentation, and manure management. Emissions of GHGs were expressed as kg CO2 equivalents per ton of fat-and-protein-corrected milk (kg CO2e/t FPCM). Emissions of cows with CM increased on average by 57.5 (6.2%) kg CO2e/t FPCM compared with cows without CM. This increase was caused by removal (39%), discarded milk (38%), reduced milk production (17%) and prolonged CI (6%). The GHG emissions increased by 48 kg CO2e/t FPCM for cows with one case of CM, by 69 kg CO2e/t FPCM for cows with two cases of CM and by 92 kg CO2e/t FPCM for cows with three cases of CM compared with cows without CM. Preventing CM can be an effective strategy for farmers to reduce GHG emissions and can contribute to sustainable development of the dairy sector, because this also can improve the income of farmers and the welfare of cows. The impact of CM on GHG emissions, however, will vary between farms due to environmental conditions and management practices.

Keywords

diseasehealthenvironmental impactcarbon footprintmodeling

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 12 , December 2019 , pp. 2913 - 2921
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ahmadzadeh, A, Frago, F, Shafii, B, Dalton, JC, Price, WJ and McGuire, MA 2009. Effect of clinical mastitis and other diseases on reproductive performance of Holstein cows. Animal Reproduction Science 112, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bar, D, Gröhn, YT, Bennett, G, González, RN, Hertl, JA, Schulte, HF, Tauer, LW, Welcome, FL and Schukken, YH 2008. Effects of repeated episodes of generic clinical mastitis on mortality and culling in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2196–2204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumann, H and Tillmann, A 2004. The Hitch Hiker’s guide to LCA an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studentlitteratur AB, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Bell, MJ and Wilson, P 2018. Estimated differences in economic and environmental performance of forage-based dairy herds across the UK. Food and Energy Security 7, e00127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) 2014. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Dierlijke mest en mineralen 2013 (Animal Manure and Minerals 2013). CBS, Den Haag, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Cha, E, Bar, D, Hertl, JA, Tauer, LW, Bennett, G, González, RN, Schukken, YH, Welcome, FL and Gröhn, YT 2011. The cost and management of different types of clinical mastitis in dairy cows estimated by dynamic programming. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 4476–4487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cha, E, Hertl, J, Schukken, Y, Tauer, L, Welcome, F and Gröhn, Y 2016. Evidence of no protection for a recurrent case of pathogen specific clinical mastitis from a previous case. Journal of Dairy Research 83, 72–80.10.1017/S002202991500062XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, W, White, E and Holden, NM 2016. The effect of lameness on the environmental performance of milk production by rotational grazing. Journal of Environmental Management 172, 143–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CRV 2014. International Dutch cattle improvement co-operative. Jaarstatistieken 2014 voor Nederland (Annual Statistics 2014). CRV, Arnhem, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
CVB 2012. Centraal Veevoederbureau. Tabellenboek veevoeding 2012, voedernormen landbouwhuisdieren en voederwaarde veevoeders (Composition and nutritional values of feedstuffs and requirement values), CVB-reeks nr.50, August 2012. Productschap Diervoeder, Den Haag, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
De Mol, RM and Hilhorst, MA 2003. Emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia from production, storage and transport of manure. Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
De Vries, JW, Hoeksma, P and Groenestein, CM 2011. LevensCyclusAnalyse (LCA) pilot mineralenconcentraten. Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Fogsgaard, KK, Røntved, CM, Sørensen, P and Herskin, MS 2012. Sickness behavior in dairy cows during Escherichia coli mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 630–638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnsworthy, PC 2004. The environmental impact of fertility in dairy cows: a modelling approach to predict methane and ammonia emissions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 112, 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, PJ, Steinfeld, H, Henderson, B, Mottet, A, Opio, C, Dijkman, J, Falcucci, A and Tempio, G 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Gröhn, YT, Rajala-Schultz, PJ, Allore, HG, DeLorenzo, MA, Hertl, JA and Galligan, DT 2003. Optimizing replacement of dairy cows: modeling the effects of diseases. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 61, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guinée, J, Gorrée, M, Heijungs, R, Huppes, G, Kleijn, R, de Koning, A, van Oers, L, Wegener Sleeswijk, A, Suh, S, Udo de Haes, H, de Bruijn, H, van Duin, R, Huijbregts, M, Lindeijer, E, Roorda, A, van der Ven, B and Weidema, B 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment. operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer, Leiden, the Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertl, JA, Gröhn, YT, Leach, JDG, Bar, D, Bennett, GJ, González, RN, Rauch, BJ, Welcome, FL, Tauer, LW and Schukken, YH 2010. Effects of clinical mastitis caused by gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria and other organisms on the probability of conception in New York State Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1551–1560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertl, JA, Schukken, YH, Bar, D, Bennett, GJ, González, RN, Rauch, BJ, Welcome, FL, Tauer, LW and Gröhn, YT 2011. The effect of recurrent episodes of clinical mastitis caused by gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria and other organisms on mortality and culling in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 4863–4877.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertl, JA, Schukken, YH, Welcome, FL, Tauer, LW and Gröhn, YT 2014. Effects of pathogen-specific clinical mastitis on probability of conception in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 6942–6954.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogeveen, H, Huijps, K and Lam, T 2011. Economic aspects of mastitis: new developments. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 59, 16–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hospido, A and Sonesson, U 2005. The environmental impact of mastitis: a case study of dairy herds. Science of the Total Environment 343, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IDF 1987. International dairy federation. Bovine Mastitis. Definitions and guidelines for diagnosis, volume 211. International Dairy Federation, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
IPCC 2006. 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4: Agriculture, forestry and other land use. In Emissions from livestock and manure management (ed. Eggleston, HS, Buendia, L, Miwa, K, Ngara, T and Tanabe, K), pp. 10.1–10.87. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan.Google Scholar
Kessels, JA, Cha, E, Johnson, SK, Welcome, FL, Kristensen, AR and Gröhn, YT 2016. Economic comparison of common treatment protocols and J5 vaccination for clinical mastitis in dairy herds using optimized culling decisions. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 3838–3847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Llonch, P, Haskell, MJ, Dewhurst, RJ and Turner, SP 2017. Current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems: an animal welfare perspective. Animal 11, 274–284.10.1017/S1751731116001440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meul, M, Van Middelaar, CE, de Boer, IJM, Van Passel, S, Fremaut, D and Haesaert, G 2014. Potential of life cycle assessment to support environmental decision making at commercial dairy farms. Agricultural Systems 131, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mostert, PF, Bokkers, EAM, Van Middelaar, CE, Hogeveen, H and De Boer, IJM 2018a. Estimating the economic impact of subclinical ketosis in dairy cattle using a dynamic stochastic simulation model. Animal 12, 145–154.10.1017/S1751731117001306CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mostert, PF, van Middelaar, CE, Bokkers, EAM and de Boer, IJM 2018b. The impact of subclinical ketosis in dairy cows on greenhouse gas emissions of milk production. Journal of Cleaner Production 171, 773–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mostert, PF, van Middelaar, CE, de Boer, IJM and Bokkers, EAM 2018c. The impact of foot lesions in dairy cows on greenhouse gas emissions of milk production. Agricultural Systems 167, 206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhre, G, Shindell, D, Bréon, F-M, Collins, W, Fuglestvedt, J, Huang, DK, Lamarque, J-F, Lee, D, Mendoza, B, Nakajima, T, Robock, A, Stephens, G, Takemura, T and Zhang, H 2013. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (ed. Stocker, TF, Qin, D, Plattner, G-K, Tignor, M, Allen, SK, Boschung, J, Nauels, A, Xia, Y, Bex, V and Midgley, PM), pp. 659–740. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Olivier, JGJ, Brandes, LJ and te Molder, RAB 2009. Uncertainty in the Netherlands’ greenhouse gas emissions inventory estimation of the level and trend uncertainty using the IPCC Tier 1 approach. Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), Den Haag, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Özkan Gülzari, Ş, Vosough Ahmadi, B and Stott, AW 2018. Impact of subclinical mastitis on greenhouse gas emissions intensity and profitability of dairy cows in Norway. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 150, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raboisson, D, Mounié, M and Maigné, E 2014. Diseases, reproductive performance, and changes in milk production associated with subclinical ketosis in dairy cows: a meta-analysis and review. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 7547–7563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved on 4 July 2016, from https://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Santos, JEP, Cerri, RLA, Ballou, MA, Higginbotham, GE and Kirk, JH 2004. Effect of timing of first clinical mastitis occurrence on lactational and reproductive performance of Holstein dairy cows. Animal Reproduction Science 80, 31–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schukken, YH, Hertl, J, Bar, D, Bennett, GJ, González, RN, Rauch, BJ, Santisteban, C, Schulte, HF, Tauer, L, Welcome, FL and Gröhn, YT 2009. Effects of repeated gram-positive and gram-negative clinical mastitis episodes on milk yield loss in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3091–3105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seegers, H, Fourichon, C and Beaudeau, F 2003. Production effects related to mastitis and mastitis economics in dairy cattle herds. Veterinary Research 34, 475–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steffen, W, Richardson, K, Rockström, J, Cornell, SE, Fetzer, I, Bennett, EM, Biggs, R, Carpenter, SR, de Vries, W, de Wit, CA, Folke, C, Gerten, D, Heinke, J, Mace, GM, Persson, LM, Ramanathan, V, Reyers, B and Sörlin, S 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Middelaar, CE, Berentsen, PBM, Dijkstra, J, van Arendonk, JAM and de Boer, IJM 2014b. Methods to determine the relative value of genetic traits in dairy cows to reduce greenhouse gas emissions along the chain. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 5191–5205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Middelaar, CE, Cederberg, C, Vellinga, TV, Van Der Werf, HMG and De Boer, IJM 2013. Exploring variability in methods and data sensitivity in carbon footprints of feed ingredients. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18, 768–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Middelaar, CE, Dijkstra, J, Berentsen, PBM and De Boer, IJM 2014a. Cost-effectiveness of feeding strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farming. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 2427–2439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Soest, FJS, Santman-Berends, IMGA, Lam, TJGM and Hogeveen, H 2016. Failure and preventive costs of mastitis on Dutch dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 8365–8374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vellinga, TV, Blonk, H, Marinussen, M, Van Zeist, WJ and De Boer, IJM 2013. Methodology used in feedprint: A tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization. Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Velthof, GL and Mosquera, J 2011. Calculation of nitrous oxide emission from agriculture in the Netherlands. Alterra, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Vonk, J, Bannink, A, van Bruggen, C, Groenestein, CM, Huijsmans, JFM, van der Kolk, JWH, Luesink, HH, Oude Voshaar, SV, van der Sluis, SM and Velthof, GL 2016. Methodology for estimating emissions from agriculture in the Netherlands calculations of CH4, NH3, N2O, NOx, PM10, PM2.5 and CO2 with the National Emission Model for Agriculture (NEMA). The Statutory Research Tasks Unit for Nature and the Environment (WOT Natuur & Milieu), Wageningen, the Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A, Chatterton, J, Hateley, G, Curwen, A and Elliott, J 2015. A systems-life cycle assessment approach to modelling the impact of improvements in cattle health on greenhouse gas emissions. Advances in Animal Biosciences 6, 29–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, DJ, Grohn, YT, Bennett, GJ, González, RN, Schukken, YH and Spatz, J 2008. Milk production change following clinical mastitis and reproductive performance compared among J5 vaccinated and control dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3869–3879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, PDP 1967. Algebraic model of the lactation curve in cattle. Nature 216, 164–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mostert et al. supplementary material

Mostert et al. supplementary material 1

Download Mostert et al. supplementary material(File)
File 37.2 KB