Carbon Footprint of Milk from Pasture-Based Dairy Farms in Azores, Portugal

Morais, Tiago G.; Teixeira, Ricardo F. M.; Rodrigues, Nuno; Domingos, Tiago

doi:10.3390/su10103658

Cited by 34 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, if only the Italian farms were taken into account, the emissions ranged between 1.11 and 1.91 kg CO 2 eq/kg FPCM, with the highest value being observed in the farm and with the lowest production level per cow and the lowest feed efficiency. Salvador et al [22], Guerci et al [52] and Kiefer et al [21] showed that the highest emission levels happened in more extensive production systems; conversely, this result was not confirmed by Chobtang et al [53] or by Morais et al [54]. However, usually, the greater the productive level of the farm, or its productive efficiency, the lower the environmental footprint per kg of milk [55].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Dairy Farms Rearing the Italian Simmental Dual-Purpose Breed

Baldini

Borso

Rossi³

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to assess the environmental footprint of dairy farms rearing a dual-purpose breed, and to evaluate, through alternative scenario analyses, the fattening of calves and the cultivation of hemp as strategies for reducing the environmental impact of these farms. Eleven farms were evaluated for global warming (GWP), acidification (AC) and eutrophication (EUP) potential. The Life Cycle Assessment method with three scenarios, REAL, based on real data, BEEF, where calves were fattened in farm, and HEMP, where hemp was cultivated in farms, were considered. If referred to 1 m2 of utilizable agricultural land, the GWP, AC and EUP were 1.6 kgCO2eq, 21.7 gSO2eq and 7.1 gPO43−eq, respectively. If referring to 1 kg of fat and protein corrected milk, the emissions were 1.1–1.4 kgCO2eq, 14.8–19.0 gSO2eq, and 5.0–6.4 gPO43−eq, depending on the allocation method adopted. The emissions were associated positively with culling rate and negatively with production intensity. In BEEF and HEMP scenarios, the emissions were reduced by 8–11% and by 1–5%, respectively. Fattening the calves, evaluating the cultivation of alternative plants and improving the productive and reproductive efficiency of animals could be effective strategies for reducing the environmental footprint of the farm.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Dairy Farms Rearing the Italian Simmental Dual-Purpose Breed

Baldini

Borso

Rossi³

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to that, the use of barn facilities makes the dairy system more intensive, increasing stocking rate and input consumption to produce more milk per cow. This in turn has increased the cow size (weight), increasing methane emissions per cow, as bigger cows produce more enteric methane due to their higher feed intake [57,58]. Based on these other greenhouse gases (CH 4 , N 2 O etc.)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Carbon Footprint of Energy Consumption in Pastoral and Barn Dairy Farming Systems: A Case Study from Canterbury, New Zealand

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dairy farming is constantly evolving to more intensive systems of management, which involve more consumption of energy inputs. The consumption of these energy inputs in dairy farming contributes to climate change both with on-farm emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, and by off-farm emissions due to production of farm inputs (such as fertilizer, feed supplements). The main purpose of this research study was to evaluate energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, the carbon footprint, of pastoral and barn dairy systems located in Canterbury, New Zealand. The carbon footprints were estimated based on direct and indirect energy sources. The study results showed that, on average, the carbon footprints of pastoral and barn dairy systems were 2857 kgCO2 ha−1 and 3379 kgCO2 ha−1, respectively. For the production of one tonne of milk solids, the carbon footprint was 1920 kgCO2 tMS−1 and 2129 kgCO2 tMS−1, respectively. The carbon emission difference between the two systems indicates that the barn system has 18% and 11% higher carbon footprint than the pastoral system, both per hectare of farm area and per tonne of milk solids, respectively. The greater carbon footprint of the barn system was due to more use of imported feed supplements, machinery usage and fossil fuel (diesel and petrol) consumption for on-farm activities.

show abstract

“…Some commercial feeds include a higher share of co-products (cereals husk, meals, and others). Those feeds can have lower impacts [49], depending on the exact co-products. Here, we additionally considered that changing animals diets would not change live weight gain, which is a simplification that can change the results for avoided impact per kg of meat.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects on Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Ecological Intensification of Meat Production with Rainfed Sown Biodiverse Pastures

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feed production is an important contributor to the environmental impacts caused by livestock production. In Portugal, non-dairy cattle are commonly fed with a mixture of grazing and forages/concentrate feed. Sown biodiverse permanent pastures rich in legumes (SBP) were introduced to provide quality animal feed and offset concentrate consumption. SBP also sequester large amounts of carbon in soils. Here, we used a comparative life cycle assessment approach to test the substitution of concentrate through installation of high-yield SBP. Using field data for the Alentejo region in Portugal, we compare the global warming potential of a baseline scenario where cattle is fed in low-yield, semi-natural pastures supplemented with feeds that vary in the ratio of silage to concentrate, and a second scenario where the feed is substituted with high-yield SBP. Although SBP use more fertilizers and machinery, this replacement avoids the emission of about 3 t CO 2 eq/ha even after SBP stop sequestering carbon. Using crude fiber to establish the equivalence between scenarios leads to higher avoided impact, owing to the fact that the fiber content of SBP is also higher. SBP can avoid 25% emissions from beef production per kg of live animal weight.Sustainability 2018, 10, 4184 2 of 23 supported by the Portuguese Government through the Portuguese Carbon Fund (PCF), to assist the country in keeping with Portuguese goals for the Kyoto Protocol under the Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses activities of Article 3.4. The PCF supported the installation and maintenance of SBP using a system of service payments for carbon sequestration. As a consequence, 1095 farmers installed SBP in an area of more than 4% of the country's agricultural land [10]. The majority of the area of SBP (over 90%) was installed in the agricultural region of Alentejo; namely in highly important "Montado" areas, an agro-forestry landscape of high biodiversity value [15].The high yields of SBP are achieved because of (a) the biodiversity effect on productivity, (b) the selection of high-yield and locally adapted grass and legume species, and (c) technical support for precision management that often involves phosphate fertilization and pH correction using limestone [10]. To farmers, the costs with management are counter-weighed by a decrease or elimination of the need for commercial concentrate feeds for ruminants, because SBP increased productivity when compared with their most common alternative land use system observed in farms before sowing-semi-natural pastures (SNP). Savings in concentrate feeds are an additional ecological and economic benefit for the country [9].Despite the savings in feed consumption, SBP require more agricultural operations and inputs for production, such as seeds production and machinery for installation, and regular applications of phosphate fertilizer and limestone for maintenance. So far, a plot-level assessment of GHG emissions has been carried out [16], but no life cycle assessment (LCA) study has ever been carried out to also a...

show abstract

Carbon Footprint of Milk from Pasture-Based Dairy Farms in Azores, Portugal

Cited by 34 publications

References 59 publications

Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Dairy Farms Rearing the Italian Simmental Dual-Purpose Breed

Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Dairy Farms Rearing the Italian Simmental Dual-Purpose Breed

The Carbon Footprint of Energy Consumption in Pastoral and Barn Dairy Farming Systems: A Case Study from Canterbury, New Zealand

The Effects on Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Ecological Intensification of Meat Production with Rainfed Sown Biodiverse Pastures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About