Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:14:20.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance, profitability and greenhouse gas emissions of alternative finishing strategies for Holstein-Friesian bulls and steers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2018

B. Murphy ,
P. Crosson ,
A. K. Kelly  and
R. Prendiville
B. Murphy
Affiliation:
Animal Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath C15 PW93, Ireland School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
P. Crosson
Affiliation:
Animal Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath C15 PW93, Ireland
A. K. Kelly
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
R. Prendiville*
Affiliation:
Animal Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath C15 PW93, Ireland
*
†E-mail: robert.prendiville@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

Modifying finishing strategies within established production systems has the potential to increase beef output and farm profit while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Thus, the objectives of this study were to investigate the effects of finishing duration on animal performance of Holstein-Friesian (HF) bulls and steers and evaluate the profitability and GHG emissions of these finishing strategies. A total of 90 HF calves were assigned to a complete randomised block design; three bull and three steer finishing strategies. Calves were rotationally grazed in a paddock system for the first season at pasture, housed and offered grass silage ad libitum plus 1.5 kg DM of concentrate per head daily for the first winter and returned to pasture for a second season. Bulls were slaughtered at 19 months of age and either finished indoors on concentrates ad libitum for 100 days (19AL), finished at pasture supplemented with 5 kg DM of concentrate per head daily for 100 (19SP) or 150 days (19LP). Steers were slaughtered at 21 months of age and finished at pasture, supplemented with 5 kg DM of concentrate per head daily for 60 (21SP) and 110 days (21LP) or slaughtered at 24 months of age and finished indoors over the second winter on grass silage ad libitum plus 5 kg DM of concentrate per head daily (24MO). The Grange Dairy Beef Systems Model and the Beef Systems Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model were used to evaluate profitability and GHG emissions, respectively. Average daily gain during the finishing period (P<0.001), live weight at slaughter (P<0.01), carcass weight (P<0.05) and fat score (P<0.001) were greater for 19AL than 19SP and 19LP, respectively. Similarly, concentrate dry matter intake was greater for 19AL than 19SP; 19LP was intermediate (P<0.001). Live weight at slaughter (P<0.001), carcass weight (P<0.001), conformation score (P<0.05) and fat score (P<0.001) were greater for 24MO than 21SP and 21LP, respectively. During the finishing period concentrate dry matter intake was greater for 21LP than 21SP with 24MO intermediate; 542, 283 and 436 kg DM, respectively. Although pasture-based finishing strategies had lower gross output values, concentrate feed costs were also reduced thus net margin was greater than indoor finishing strategies. Reducing concentrate input increased GHG emissions for bulls and steers slaughtered at the same age, respectively. Although prolonging the finishing duration reduced GHG emissions for bull and steer production systems, finishing bulls and steers over a longer period at pasture did not enhance animal performance and profit.

Keywords

pasture basedfinishing durationfat scoreprofitabilitygreenhouse gas emissions
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 11 , November 2018 , pp. 2391 - 2400
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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.)

References

Ashfield, A, Crosson, P and Wallace, M 2013. Simulation modelling of temperate grassland based dairy calf-to-beef production systems. Agricultural Systems 115, 41–50.Google Scholar
Ashfield, A, Wallace, M, Prendiville, R and Crosson, P 2014. Bioeconomic modelling of male Holstein-Friesian dairy calf-to-beef production systems on Irish farms. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 53, 133–147.Google Scholar
Bouwman, AF 1996. Direct emission of nitrous oxide from agricultural soils. Nutrient Cycling and Agroecosystems 46, 53–70.Google Scholar
Bown, MD, Muir, PD and Thomson, BC 2016. Dairy and beef breed effects on beef yield, beef quality and profitability: a review. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 59, 174–184.Google Scholar
Byrne, KA, Kiely, G and Leahy, P 2005. CO2 fluxes in adjacent new and permanent temperate grasslands. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 135, 85–92.Google Scholar
Carbon Trust 2010. Footprint ExpertTM. Model Framework Reference Database and Calculators. Footprint Expert v. 3.1 London, Carbon Trust Footprinting Company.Google Scholar
Chadwick, DR, Pain, BF and Brookman, SKE 2000. Nitrous oxide and methane emissions following application of animal manures to grassland. Journal of Environmental Quality 29, 277–287.Google Scholar
Conant, RT, Paustian, K and Elliott, ET 2001. Grassland management and conversion into grassland: effects on soil carbon. Ecological Applications 11, 343–355.Google Scholar
Connolly, L, Kinsella, A, Quinlan, G and Moran, B 2010. Teagasc National Farm Survey. Teagasc, Athenry, Galway.Google Scholar
CSO 2015. Agricultural input and output absolute prices by month and statistic. Central Statistics Office, Dublin.Google Scholar
Devaney, S, O’Riordan, EG and Caffrey, PJ 1997. On farm monitoring of grassland management and animal performance on drystock farms. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 36, 92–93.Google Scholar
EPA 1990. Methane emissions and opportunities for control. Workshop results of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, EPA/400/9-90/007.Google Scholar
Foley, PA, Crosson, P, Lovett, DK, Boland, TM, O’Mara, FP and Kenny, DA 2011. Whole-farm systems modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral suckler beef cow. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 142, 222–230.Google Scholar
Howley, M, O’Leary, F and Ó’Gallachóir, B 2007. Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI). Energy in Ireland 1990–2006. Retrieved on 10 January 2017 from http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Energy_in_Ireland/Energy_in_Irl_1990-2006_Fnl_07_rpt.pdf.Google Scholar
IPCC 2006. Chapter 10: Emissions from livestock and manure management. In IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories (ed. HS Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara and K Tanabe), pp. 10.1–10.87. The National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IGES, Japan.Google Scholar
Jacksic, V, Kiely, G, Albertson, J, Oren, R, Katul, G, Leahy, P and Byrne, KA 2006. Net ecosystem exchange of grassland in contrasting wet and dry years. Agricultural and Forest Meterology 139, 323–334.Google Scholar
Jarrige, R. 1989. Ruminant nutrition: recommended allowances and feed tables. John Libbey Eurotext, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Keane, MG and Allen, P 1998. Effects of production system intensity on performance, carcass composition and meat quality of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 56, 203–214.Google Scholar
Keane, MG and Drennan, MJ 2008. A comparison of Friesian, Aberdeen Angus×Friesian and Belgian Blue×Friesian steers finished at pasture or indoors. Livestock Science 115, 268–278.Google Scholar
Keane, MG, Drennan, MJ and Moloney, AP 2006. Comparison of supplementary concentrate levels with grass silage, separate or total mixed ration feeding and duration of finishing in beef steers. Livestock Science 103, 169–180.Google Scholar
Kramer, KJ, Moll, HC and Nonhebel, S 1999. Total greenhouse gas emissions related to the Dutch crop production system. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 72, 9–16.Google Scholar
McDonald, P, Edwards, RA, Greenhalgh, JFD and Morgan, CA 2002. Grass and forage crops. In Animal nutrition, 6th edition (ed. P McDonald, RA Edwards, JFD Greenhalgh and CA Morgan), pp. 495–514. Pearson Education Limited, Edinburg Gate, Harlow.Google Scholar
McEvoy, M, Kennedy, E, Murphy, JP, Boland, TM, Delaby, L and O’Donovan, M 2008. The effect of herbage allowance and concentrate supplementation on milk production performance and dry matter intake of spring-calving dairy cows in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1258–1269.Google Scholar
McGeough, EJ, Crosson, P, Kenny, DA and O’Kiely, P 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from integrated crop-beef finishing systems. In 4th International Greenhouse Gases from Animal Agriculture Conference, Banff, Canada, 203pp.Google Scholar
Murphy, B, Crosson, P, Kelly, AK and Prendiville, R 2017. An economic and greenhouse gas emissions evaluation of pasture-based dairy calf-to-beef production systems. Agricultural Systems 154, 124–132.Google Scholar
O’Donovan, T and O’Mahony, J 2011. Crops costs and returns 2011. Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland.Google Scholar
Oenema, O, Velthof, GL, Yamulki, S and Jarvis, SC 1997. Nitrous oxide emissions from grazed grassland. Soil Use Management 13, 288–295.Google Scholar
Owens, D, McGee, M, Boland, T and O’Kiely, P 2008. Intake, rumen fermentation and nutrient flow to the omasum in beef cattle fed grass silage fortified with sucrose and/or supplemented with concentrate. Animal Feed Science Technology 144, 23–43.Google Scholar
Phetteplace, HW, Johnson, DE and Seidl, AF 2001. Greenhouse gas emissions from simulated beef and dairy livestock systems in the United States. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 60, 99–102.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, GH 1993. Reductions of emissions in farming systems in Germany. In Climate-change mitigation and European land-use policies (ed. WN Adger, D Pettenella and M Whitby), pp. 159–169. CAB International, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
Sneath, RW, Beline, F, Hilhorst, MA and Peu, P 2006. Monitoring GHG from manure stores on organic and conventional dairy farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112, 122–128.Google Scholar
Soussana, JF, Loiseau, P, Vuichard, N, Ceschia, E, Balesdent, J, Chevallier, T and Arrouays, D. 2004. Carbon cycling and sequestration opportunities in temperate grasslands. Soil Use Manag 20, 219–230.Google Scholar
Vasconcelos, JT, Rathmann, RJ, Reuter, RR, Leibovich, J, McMeniman, JP, Hales, KE, Covey, TJ, Miller, MF, Nichols, WT and Galyean, ML 2008. Effects of duration of zilpaterol hydrochloride feeding and days on the finishing diet on feedlot cattle performance and carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2005–2015.Google Scholar
Wright, IA, Russel, AJF and Hunter, EA 1986. The effect of winter food level on compensatory growth of weaned, suckled calves grazed at two sward heights. Animal Production. 43, 211–223.Google Scholar