|
|
Lessire, F., Hornick, J. L., Minet, J., & Dufrasne, I. (2015). Rumination time, milk yield, milking frequency of grazing dairy cows milked by a mobile automatic system during mild heat stress. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 12–14.
|
|
|
|
Irz, X., & Kuosmanen, N. (2013). Explaining growth in demand for dairy products in Finland: an econometric analysis. Food Economics, 9(sup5), 47–56.
Abstract: The dairy sector represents the cornerstone of Finnish agriculture but faces new challenges linked to the decoupling of farm subsidies and abolition of milk production quotas. Because of its increasing exposure to market forces, the sector must anticipate future changes in demand and deliver precisely what Finnish consumers want. This paper contributes to that goal by analyzing retroactively the drivers of demand for dairy products over the period 1975–2010 using National Accounts Data. After presenting the evolution of consumption for dairy products, we estimate a complete system of demand for food and dairy products and use it to decompose demand growth into a substitution effect, income effect, and trend effect. The analysis points to the severity of the challenges that the sector is facing. Stagnant consumption is at least partially the result of continuous but adverse taste changes, and as Finnish consumers grow more prosperous, they allocate an increasingly smaller share of their food budget to the dairy group. The low own-price elasticity of demand for dairy products also limits the benefits to the sector of growth in milk production. Hence, business-as-usual will result in the dwindling importance of the dairy sector in the Finnish food chain. Innovation and product differentiation, perhaps emphasizing the attributes of livestock production processes, are clearly required to counter this evolution.
|
|
|
|
Bannink, A., van Lingen, H. J., Ellis, J. L., France, J., & Dijkstra, J. (2016). The contribution of mathematical modeling to understanding dynamic aspects of rumen metabolism. Frontiers in Microbiology, 7, 1820.
Abstract: All mechanistic rumen models cover the main drivers of variation in rumen function, which are feed intake, the differences between feedstuffs and feeds in their intrinsic rumen degradation characteristics, and fractional outflow rate of fluid and particulate matter. Dynamic modeling approaches are best suited to the prediction of more nuanced responses in rumen metabolism, and represent the dynamics of the interactions between substrates and micro-organisms and inter-microbial interactions. The concepts of dynamics are discussed for the case of rumen starch digestion as influenced by starch intake rate and frequency of feed intake, and for the case of fermentation of fiber in the large intestine. Adding representations of new functional classes of micro-organisms (i.e., with new characteristics from the perspective of whole rumen function) in rumen models only delivers new insights if complemented by the dynamics of their interactions with other functional classes. Rumen fermentation conditions have to be represented due to their profound impact on the dynamics of substrate degradation and microbial metabolism. Although the importance of rumen pH is generally acknowledged, more emphasis is needed on predicting its variation as well as variation in the processes that underlie rumen fluid dynamics. The rumen wall has an important role in adapting to rapid changes in the rumen environment, clearing of volatile fatty acids (VFA), and maintaining rumen pH within limits. Dynamics of rumen wall epithelia and their role in VFA absorption needs to be better represented in models that aim to predict rumen responses across nutritional or physiological states. For a detailed prediction of rumen N balance there is merit in a dynamic modeling approach compared to the static approaches adopted in current protein evaluation systems. Improvement is needed on previous attempts to predict rumen VFA profiles, and this should be pursued by introducing factors that relate more to microbial metabolism. For rumen model construction, data on rumen microbiomes are preferably coupled with knowledge consolidated in rumen models instead of relying on correlations with rather general aspects of treatment or animal. This helps to prevent the disregard of basic principles and underlying mechanisms of whole rumen function.
|
|
|
|
Hutchings, N. J., Özkan Gülzari, Ş., de Haan, M., & Sandars, D. (2018). How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production. Animal, 12(10), 2171–2180.
Abstract: The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools.
|
|
