_|The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production|_

[Giuseppe]

The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production
Judith L. Capper*, Euridice Casta?eda-Guti?rrez*,?, Roger A. Cady?, and Dale E. Bauman*,?
+Author Affiliations
*Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-4801; and ?Monsanto Company Animal Agricultural Group, 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63167-0001
Edited by David H. Baker, University of Illinois at Urbana?Champaign, Urbana, IL, and approved May 2, 2008 (received for review March 12, 2008)

Abstract
The environmental impact of using recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) in dairy production was examined on an individual cow, industry-scale adoption, and overall production system basis.

An average 2006 U.S. milk yield of 28.9 kg per day was used, with a daily response to rbST supplementation of 4.5 kg per cow.

Rations were formulated and both resource inputs (feedstuffs, fertilizers, and fuels) and waste outputs (nutrient excretion and greenhouse gas emissions) calculated.

The wider environmental impact of production systems was assessed via acidification (AP), eutrophication (EP), and global warming (GWP) potentials.

From a producer perspective, rbST supplementation improved individual cow production, with reductions in nutrient input and waste output per unit of milk produced.

From an industry perspective, supplementing one million cows with rbST reduced feedstuff and water use, cropland area, N and P excretion, greenhouse gas emissions, and fossil fuel use compared with an equivalent milk production from unsupplemented cows.

Meeting future U.S. milk requirements from cows supplemented with rbST conferred the lowest AP, EP, and GWP, with intermediate values for conventional management and the highest environmental impact resulting from organic production.

Overall, rbST appears to represent a valuable management tool for use in dairy production to improve productive efficiency and to have less negative effects on the environment than conventional dairying.

carbon footprint environment greenhouse gas sustainability productive efficiency

Footnotes
?To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: deb6@cornell.edu Author contributions: J.L.C., E.C.-G., R.A.C., and D.E.B. designed research; J.L.C., E.C.-G., R.A.C., and D.E.B. performed research; J.L.C., E.C.-G., R.A.C., and D.E.B. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; J.L.C., E.C.-G., R.A.C., and D.E.B. analyzed data; and J.L.C., E.C.-G., R.A.C., and D.E.B. wrote the paper.
↵ ?Present address: Nestl? Research Center, Ver-Chez-les-Blanc Case Postale 44, 1000 Lausanne 26, Switzerland.
Conflict of interest statement: R.A.C. is a full-time employee of Monsanto, holding the position of Technical Project Manager for POSILAC rbST with the primary responsibility of ensuring the scientific integrity of Monsanto publications about POSILAC; he also owns Monsanto stock. D.E.B. consults for Monsanto in areas outside the environmental impact area and owns no Monsanto stock. J.L.C. and E.C.-G. have no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
↵ ? Toride Y, Expert Consultation and Workshop, April 23?May 3, 2002, Bangkok, Thailand.
↵ ‖ Brugger M, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Annual International Meeting, July 9?12, 2006, Portland, OR, paper no. 064035.
Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/28/9668.short
------

 

[Farmer]

Re: _|The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production|_

Interesting work that suggests increasing production per animal has a much higher efficiency and lower environmental impact than increasing the total number of animals. However, there are some elements that affect the cow's carbon 'hoofprint' that are not considered fully in this analysis.

Quotes are from the summary of the "Report of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Expert Panel on rbST" metaanalysis linked below, italics are my comments.


"25% increase in the risk of clinical mastitis in treated cows"
Authors of this work do not take into account pounds of milk that are produced but do not make it into the human food chain, thus wasted. Mastitis may result in higher cell counts or antimicrobial residues that make the milk unfit for human consumption. There are also environmental consequences of antimicrobial contamination...

"There were a number of effects on reproductive performance that were associated with the use of rbST. These included a substantial increase in the risk of non-pregnancy and a slight increase in days open in cows which do conceive."
The authors cite papers to support the assertion that there is no appreciable effect on reproductive performance, yet this metaanalysis cites reports that refute that. If there is indeed lowered reproductive performance associated with rbST, then longer dry periods, a higher rate of culling and a higher need for replacement heifers all increase the 'hoofprint' over stated amounts.

"The Panel concluded that there was approximately a 50 % increase in the risk of clinical lameness associated with use of rbST. Many of the cases of lameness involved joints and dairy producers and veterinarians currently have a limited ability to control or eliminate this increased risk."
Again, an effect not considered in this analysis. Lame animals may experience decreased milk production, have higher cull rates, and be unsuitable for human food (downer cows) if they are culled.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/vet/issues-enjeux/rbst-stbr/rep_cvma-rap_acdv_14-eng.php

 

[Oracle]

Re: _|The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production|_

Dairy cattle are often fed TMR, total mixed ration, usually as medicated concentrate (pellets) in feeders. Medication includes: vitamins and minerals, protein supplements (whey, free amino acids and bonemeal/meat processing wastes) and pathogen control agents.

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/MonQA.htm

Since the late 1930s, somatotrophin has been used to boost lactation yield for dairy production. Monsanto developed an E coli recombinant form, Posilac, in the mid-1990s. One of it's side effects is reduced fertility and increased health problems. A portion of this issue is attributable to the inability of dairy cows to meet internal nutrition demand under action of Posilac administration (milk production is maintained even when the dietary energy/nutrient supply is substandard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombinant_bovine_somatotropin

Dairy farmers have had to 'cut corners' to keep profits up as base operations costs rose in the last decade. They can feed their Posilac animals a bit less and still get their yields. Animals fed in CAFO (contained area feedlot operations) are not grazed on pasturage (forage).

CAFOs were an dairy industry response to rising land rents and environmental pressures from Federal and State agencies to control odor near urban areas and reduce water pollution associated with pasturage runoff (from overcrowded fields).

CAFO dairy cattle feed sources include grains (presently expensive), silage (fermented corn crop residue, formerly plentiful, very inexpensive, and easily stored as fermenting piles covered by tarps next to CAFO lots). Other agricultural process residues used for cattle feed includes brewers grains/malt sludge, beet pulp, cottonseed, soya and wheat production byproducts, bloodmeal, poultry feed byproduct, meat and bonemeal, etc.

Most have very limited nutritional value as forage replacement.
http://www.wisc.edu/dysci/uwex/nutritn/pubs/ByProducts/ByproductFeedstuffs.html

Silage and nongrass TMR do not provide cattle with natural sources of omega-3 fatty acids in diet - historically obtained from pastured grazing and enriched in milk because of it's benefits to offspring in counterbalance to fats that are a concentrated source of energy for growing calves. Milk drinkers who consume milk produced under CAFO and fed concentrates plus supplemental waste feeds do not obtain omega-3 fats from milk, either. While grass/greens have relatively small quantities of omega-3 fats in their cells, cows munch on a lot of grass each day. Omega-3 fats play a role in blood sugar control and immune health in both cattle and humans.

Grass is high in certain key amino acids, and these are often low in many domestic feed sources (grains/crop grasses), silage and commercial waste feed sources, so TMR often contains supplemental amino acids, too.

Modern dairy cattle genetics are far different than they were just a few decades ago; heifers are now producing calves at 22-24 months of age, rather than the historical practice of putting them in calve at age 3 to initiate dairy production. This has certain consequences in progeny and maternal immune health.

http://www.engormix.com/improving_animal_feed_efficiency_e_articles_627_GDL.htm

This article also describes forage/concentrate ratio effects and feeding times. Cows naturally graze all day long; when fed concentrates at defined feeding intervals, energy costs were apparent, as well as blood glucose levels (a secondary marker of metabolic efficiency and overall animal health).

Organic farmers obviously do not use grow promoters, pathogen control drugs, and they usually avoid many sources of cheap commercial waste supplemental feeds. Not surprising that the authors 'found' there to be less environmental impact from organic dairy production.

However, this article doesn't describe the obvious issues of animal health.

Zoonotic diease is a big problem 'on the farm', and it's getting worse. Agricultural animal health cannot be maintained by a ever revolving panopoly of pathogen control agents.

Probiotic health is a key factor, as is amino acid composition of feeds. Free amino acids, supplied in TMR, aren't likely to be well absorbed in ruminant systems - plus they exert unwanted side effects in tissues that aren't normally exposed to concentrated free amino acids. These can have adverse impact on certain cellular receptors and worsen, for instance, blood sugar control.

Just thought you should know of some facts behind this article citation.

 

[Farmer]

Re: _|The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production|_

snip...

Organic farmers obviously do not use grow promoters, pathogen control drugs, and they usually avoid many sources of cheap commercial waste supplemental feeds. Not surprising that the authors 'found' there to be less environmental impact from organic dairy production.

Actually, the authors calculate the greatest environmental impact from organic dairy production partially due to fewer pounds of milk per animal.

They did not take the factors I cited into account in their analysis.

 

[Oracle]

Re: _|The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production|_

Milk Production up 2.5%, Cheese Hits Record Prices.
April 2008.
http://www.thedairysite.com/articles/1502/milk-production-up-25-cheese-hits-record-prices

April 2008 23 major dairy states milk production rose 2.5%.

Tells it like it is. Production is up, number of dairy cows is up, profit is up, and export of dairy products is up.

Food processing and packaging technology (powdered milk and irradiation processing to lengthen product self life) improvements have made canned/boxed cheeses, milk and butter possible, equating to significant demand overseas as ag land and feed prices rose abroad in the previous year. Demand for whey protein and evaporated milk have also risen dramatically (retail price increasing more than 100% in just 6 months), as foreign demand outstripped global supply in late 2007 and the first half of 2008.

Increases of 1-2 percent milk volume per year per head have been realized by mostly by genetic manipulation and hormone supplementation (> 4 fold over historical figures, mentioned in the article).

As productivity rises and prices rise, demand for product in the US has remained steady despite domestic price increases and demand for dairy abroad has been robust. Thus, production excess is available for export without exerting a depressive pricing effect at home.

How does this translate to environmental benefit? Market projections for dairy cattle production from a year claimed that there would be a drop in dairy cattle numbers to end-2006 figures, while maintaining dairy product supply at or above previous years figures.

Market economics have shifted quite a bit in the last year. Last summer, we had periods of 'product drought' here in the US because it was more lucrative to sell product abroad.

http://www.thedairysite.com/articles/1489/us-beef-and-dairy-outlook-report-june-2008

Rise in feed prices won't hit dairy product pricing until 2009. Production will continue to be high for the next 6-9 months.

There is no real savings in terms of environmental abatement for hormone-fed conventional dairy operations. Any production excess is marketed globally - an idea largely unthinkable years ago, but possible now.

This is hype and con meant to be cited to bolster consumer support for GMO product.

If we want to get into specifics, we can compare forage-only versus CAFO operations, in terms of N- and P-contaminant load per unit area, to properly assess environmental impact of conventional pasturage versus CAFO (the preferred corporate model for large-scale dairy production in the US).

Since CAFO cows are sedentary, and they are fed more to meet hormone-induced lactation nutrient demand, so we can also compare cow fart production with respect to animal management methods.

Gee, sedentary cows that are heavily fed and hormone treated *would* have IGF-1 induced blood sugar problems. That relates to joint inflammation, respiratory/skin/GI pathogen susceptibility and cardiovascular disease over time.

And that brings us back to your earlier post.