Ammonia and methane emissions from small herd cattle buildings in a cold climate

Ammonia (NH3) and methane (CH4) emission measurements that reflect local production conditions are required to track progress in national emission policies and verify emission factors. The findings can also be used to better understand key factors influencing emissions. This is especially important in Norway, which has long cold winters, and small cattle herds in mechanically ventilated buildings. However, until now, NH3 and CH4 emissions from Norwegian cattle buildings have not been reported in literature. Moreover, in other cold climates, NH3 and CH4 emissions are often taken from large dairy herds in naturally ventilated buildings, with less focus on suckler cows. The objectives were to assess indoor climate, report NH3 and CH4 emissions and examine the impact of climatic factors on NH3 and CH4 emissions in three small herd dairy and suckler cow buildings over three seasons. Three of the buildings had mechanical ventilation, while one was naturally ventilated. The suckler building had higher relative humidity (RH > 90 %) and NH3 concentrations (> 25 ppm) due to lower minimum air change rate (ACH = 1.2 h-1). The suckler building also had the highest NH3 emissions (2.04 g Livestock Unit (LU)-1 h-1) followed by the mechanically ventilated dairy building (1.92 g LU-1 h-1) with the highest ACH. These two buildings had the lowest stocking densities and floor areas. In contrast, the suckler building had the lowest CH4 emissions (6.8-10.7 g LU-1 h-1). Methane emissions from the dairy building with the supply-exhaust air mixing system (16.4-19.3 g LU-1 h-1) was higher than the other dairy buildings (11.7-13.8 g LU-1 h-1). Temperature influenced NH3 emissions however, the direction of association between temperature and NH3 emissions differed among buildings. Relationship between RH and NH3 emissions was positive, but the correlation coefficient (R2 = 0.67) was strongest in the building with the highest RH.

A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of indoor living space on dairy cow production, reproduction and behaviour

As a global society, we have a duty to provide suitable care and conditions for farmed livestock to protect animal welfare and ensure the sustainability of our food supply. The suitability and biological impacts of housing conditions for intensively farmed animals is a complex and emotive subject, yet poorly researched, meaning quantitative evidence to inform policy and legislation is lacking. Most dairy cows globally are housed for some duration during the year, largely when climatic conditions are unfavourable. However, the impact on biology, productivity and welfare of even the most basic housing requirement, the quantity of living space, remains unknown. We conducted a long-term (1-year), randomised controlled trial (CONSORT 10 guidelines) to investigate the impact of increased living space (6.5 m2 vs 3 m2 per animal) on critical aspects of cow biology, behaviour and productivity. Adult Holstein dairy cows (n = 150) were continuously and randomly allocated to a high or control living space group with all other aspects of housing remaining identical between groups. Compared to cows in the control living space group, cows with increased space produced more milk per 305d lactation (primiparous: 12,235 L vs 11,592 L, P < 0.01; multiparous: 14,746 L vs 14,644 L, P < 0.01) but took longer to become pregnant after calving (primiparous: 155 d vs 83 d, P = 0.025; multiparous: 133 d vs 109 d). In terms of behaviour, cows with more living space spent significantly more time in lying areas (65 min/d difference; high space group: 12.43 h/day, 95% CI = 11.70-13.29; control space group: 11.42 h/day, 95% CI = 10.73-12.12) and significantly less time in passageways (64 min/d), suggesting enhanced welfare when more space was provided. A key physiological difference between groups was that cows with more space spent longer ruminating each day. This is the first long term study in dairy cows to demonstrate that increased living space results in meaningful benefits in terms of productivity and behaviour and suggests that the interplay between farmed animals and their housed environment plays an important role in the concepts of welfare and sustainability of dairy farming.

Invited review: Freedom from thirst-Do dairy cows and calves have sufficient access to drinking water?

The importance of drinking water for production and animal welfare is widely recognized, but surveys and animal welfare assessment schemes suggest that many dairy calves and dairy cows do not have sufficient access. Limit milk-fed calves drink more water than calves fed milk ad libitum, but ad libitum milk-fed calves also require access to drinking water, as milk does not meet the animal's requirement for water. At hot ambient temperatures and when calves are sick, access to water is especially important and should be provided at all times. Many young calves do not have access to water throughout 24 h, and whether healthy young calves require free access to water at all times, or from which age, is not clear and requires further study. Dairy cow free water intake (FWI) is largely determined by milk yield, and high-yielding dairy cows may drink up 100 L of water per day. Dry matter, crude protein, and salt content of feed, as well as ambient temperature, have considerable effects on dairy cow water intake. Deprivation of water affects meal patterning for the cow, as well as increased subsequent rate of drinking and compensatory water intake. Although dairy cow ad libitum water intake may exceed the water provision necessary to maintain production, offering water for ad libitum intake may be necessary to safe guard animal welfare. Cattle are suction drinkers that prefer to drink from large open water surfaces, and Holstein dairy cows can drink at a rate of up to 24 L/min. Research on the effect of design and placement of water troughs for indoor-housed dairy cows on their drinking behavior and water intake is limited. Access to a water source at pasture increases the time cows spend there, and access to shade reduces water requirements during periods of warm weather. In both indoor and pastured cattle, there is a lack of knowledge about the effect of stocking of water troughs on competition, drinking behavior, and intake in dairy cows. Studies on the effect of available water trough length and placement, and of the number of cows being able to drink from the same trough of a given dimension, are needed to evaluate current recommendations.

Yield gap in milk production is considerable in Indian Himalayan state of Meghalaya

Yield gaps in milk production are here defined as the differentials between the actual yield obtained by the dairy farmer and the potential farm yield (production achieved by the top 10% of farmers: Gap 2) as well as the differential between this potential farm yield and the yield registered in the research stations (Gap 1). Assessment of yield gaps provides valuable information on potential production enhancement and drivers behind yield gaps. Milk production can be increased by narrowing the predominant large yield gaps in resource-poor smallholder farming system. Hence, this study assessed the milk yield gap and factors affecting the yield gap in Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya, a state located in the north-eastern Himalayan region of India. This research paper provides a scope for exploring the possibilities for improving dairy production in the state as well as contributing to literature through incorporating crucial determinants responsible for milk yield gap. A sample of 81 respondents was drawn purposely from two blocks of the district. The results indicated that the average number of cattle per household was 9.38 in standard animal units. The total yield gap was estimated at 6.20 l (91.06%) per day, composed of 0.80 l (11.76%) per day of yield gap I and 5.40 l (79.30%) per day of yield gap II. This demonstrates that the top performing farms were achieving a production level not dissimilar to that obtained on the research stations, but many were doing far less well. The size of cattle shed, dairy farming experience, concentrate price and human labour were the important determinants of the yield gap. Hence, encouraging the right stocking density of cattle, training on the preparations of home-made concentrates, access to cheap and quality concentrates, incorporating training and experience sharing on proper dairy management practices and use of technology could benefit the dairy farmers of the region.