Carbon footprint of milk production from dairy cows in Australia

Gollnow, Sebastian; Lundie, Sven; Moore, Andrew D.; McLaren, Jake; Buuren, Neil van; Stahle, Peter; Christie, KM; Thylmann, Daniel; Rehl, T.

doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2014.02.005

Cited by 55 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The environmental outcomes of the 84 analysed farms showed mean values consistent with literature findings and with the relation between environmental sustainability and dairy farm efficiency (Pirlo 2012;Guerci et al 2013;Zucali et al 2016). Average lower values for CC (1.11 ± 0.22 kg CO 2 eq/kg FPCM) were found in Gollnow et al (2014) for Australian dairy milk production but different methodological choices may have affected this result. On average, farms producing milk for PR production have a higher environmental impact respect to those producing milk for GP production (for CC, 1.455 ± 0.374 kg CO 2 eq/kg FPCM respect to 1.379 ± 0.325 kg CO 2 eq/kg FPCM of GP farms).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…The selected Functional Unit (FU) for the analysed farms is 1 kg of Fat and Protein Corrected Milk (FPCM) (4% fat and 3.3% protein) produced by milking cows. This is a key choice for gathering effective and comparable results (Danieli and Ronchi 2018), and agrees with several studies about milk production (Bacenetti et al 2016;Dalla Riva et al 2017;Gollnow et al 2014) as well as with the recommendation by IDF (2015) which is also internationally adopted for standard decision-making on milk issues. This assessment has a 'cradle to farm gate' approach.…”

Section: Functional Unit and System Boundarysupporting

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improvements to dairy farms for environmental sustainability in Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano production systems

Lovarelli

Bava

Zucali

et al. 2019

Italian Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grana Padano (GP) and Parmigiano Reggiano (PR) are the two most important Italian PDO cheeses. To improve the environmental sustainability of their production, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was completed on 84 dairy farms located in the province of Mantova (Northern Italy). In particular, 33 farms delivered milk for GP production, whereas 51 farms to dairies for PR production. In GP farms, maize silage represented 33.7% of total farmland and alfalfa represented 28.1%. While in PR farms, alfalfa represented 63.6% of total farmland. Fat and Protein Corrected Milk (FPCM) and Dairy Efficiency (DE, calculated as kg of produced FPCM per kg of DM intake) were different in the two production system: FPCM was 30.2 ± 4.32 kg/d in GP farms and 25.0 ± 4.71 kg/d in PR farms; DE was 1.35 ± 0.26 in GP farms, and 1.15 ± 0.22 in PR farms. Mitigation strategies to improve both environmental and economic sustainability were suggested focussing on forage crop production, milk production, herd management and offfarm purchased feed. From the preliminary results, there is evidence that improvements are needed. Climate Change (kg CO 2 eq/kg FPCM) and Land Use (kg Carbon deficit/kg FPCM) were similar (1.38 ± 0.33 and 19.3 ± 7.08 for GP system; 1.46 ± 0.37 and 21.8 ± 11.4 for PR system). The most efficient farms in terms of milk production and DE generally showed the best environmental and economic sustainability, while the others show worse outcomes, mainly due to poor DE, livestock-management issues, feed purchase and ration composition. HIGHLIGHTS 84 farms producing milk for Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano cheese were studied in the Province of Mantova. Life Cycle Assessment was used to quantify the environmental impacts of farms and statistical analysis was helpful to identify 6 clusters. Farm, animal and milk efficiencies were poor and mitigation strategies to improve the sustainability of milk production were suggested. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Functional Unit and System Boundarysupporting

confidence: 81%

Improvements to dairy farms for environmental sustainability in Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano production systems

Lovarelli

Bava

Zucali

et al. 2019

Italian Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current study is one of only a few that have evaluated dairy farms with year-round grazing of pasture as the dominant feed source. Others were single-year studies of 139 dairy farms across Australia (Gollnow et al, 2014) and 24 farms in Uruguay (Lizarralde et al, 2014), which had estimates for the average carbon footprint of milk of 1.1 and 1.0 kg of CO 2 eq/kg of FPCM, respectively. Two previous NZ studies of research farm systems or commercial farms from the Waikato region only had values of 0.7 to 0.8 kg of CO 2 eq/kg of FPCM (Basset-Mens et al, 2009;Chobtang et al, 2016).…”

Section: Carbon Footprint Of Milkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the United States, Thoma et al (2013b) presented results based on a survey of 536 farms nationwide, but these were from part-or full-housing systems. Similarly, Gollnow et al (2014) published results from a survey of 139 farms across several regions of Australia, where cows are grazed outdoors, but for a single year. However, a literature search showed no studies where annual data on the carbon footprint of milk have been regularly assessed over a period of time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal, spatial, and management variability in the carbon footprint of New Zealand milk

Ledgard

Falconer

Abercrombie

et al. 2020

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The carbon footprint of milk from year-round grazedpasture dairy systems and its variability has had limited research. The objective of this study was to determine temporal, regional, and farm system variability in the carbon footprint of milk from New Zealand (NZ) average dairy production. Farm production and input data were collected from a national database for 2010/11 to 2017/18 across regions of NZ and weighted on relative production supplied to the major dairy cooperative Fonterra to produce an NZ-average. Total greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using a life cycle assessment methodology for the cradle-to-farm gate, covering all on-and off-farm contributing sources. The NZ-average carbon footprint of milk varied from 0.81 kg of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 eq)/kg of fat-and proteincorrected milk (FPCM) in 2010/11 (with widespread drought) to 0.75 to 0.78 kg of CO 2 eq/kg of FPCM in 2013/14 to 2017/18, with a trend for a small decrease over time. Regional variation occurred with highest carbon footprint values for the Northland region due to greatest climatic and soil limitations on pasture production. Dairy cattle diet was approximately 85% from grazed pasture with up to 15% from brought-in feeds (mainly forages and by-products). The CO 2 emissions from direct fuel and electricity use constituted <2% of total CO 2 eq emissions, whereas enteric methane was near 70% of the total. An estimate of potential contribution from direct land use change (plantation forest to pasture) was 0.13 kg of CO 2 eq/kg of FPCM. This was not included because nationally there has been a net increase in forest land and a decrease in pasture land over the last 20 yr. Data used were highly representative, as evident by the same estimated carbon footprint from 368 farms (in 2017/18) from the national database compared with that from a direct survey of 7,146 farms. New Zealand-specific nitrous oxide emission factors were used, based on many validated field trials and as used in the NZ greenhouse gas inventory, resulting in an 18% lower carbon footprint than if default Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change factors had been used. Evaluation of the upper and lower quartiles of farms based on per-cow milk production (6,044 vs. 3,542 kg of FPCM/cow) showed a 15% lower carbon footprint for the upper quartile of farms, illustrating the potential for further decrease in carbon footprint with improved farm management practices.

show abstract

“…per kilogram of product) and, therefore, take into account the positive effect that changes in system efficiency may have on environmental indicators such as GHG emissions. LCA has been applied to determine supply chain GHG emissions at the regional or national scale for milk and dairy products (Gollnow et al 2014), beef (Wiedemann et al 2015a(Wiedemann et al , 2016a, export lamb (Wiedemann et al 2015b(Wiedemann et al , 2016b and chicken meat (Wiedemann et al 2012b). The present study provides the first case study and national analysis of GHG emissions from Australian pork production using LCA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental impacts and resource use from Australian pork production assessed using life-cycle assessment. 1. Greenhouse gas emissions

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Agricultural industries are under increasing pressure to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the supply chain. The Australian pork industry has established proactive goals to improve greenhouse-gas (GHG) performance across the industry, but while productivity indicators are benchmarked by industry, similar data have not previously been collected to determine supply chain GHG emissions. To assess total GHG emissions from Australian pork production, the present study conducted a life-cycle assessment of six case study supply chains and the national herd for the year 2010. The study aimed to determine total GHG emissions and hotspots, and to determine the mitigation potential from alternative manure treatment systems. Two functional units were used: 1 kg of pork liveweight (LW) at the farm gate, and 1 kg of wholesale pork (chilled, bone-in) ready for packaging and distribution. Mean GHG emissions from the case study supply chains ranged from 2.1 to 4.5 kg CO 2 -e/kg LW (excluding land-use (LU) and direct land use-change (dLUC) emissions). Emissions were lowest from the piggeries that housed grower-finisher pigs on deep litter and highest from pigs housed in conventional systems with uncovered anaerobic effluent ponds. Mean contribution from methane from effluent treatment was 64% of total GHG at the conventional piggeries. Nitrous oxide arose from both grain production and manure management, comprising 7-33% of the total emissions. The GHG emissions for the national herd were 3.6 kg CO 2 -e/kg LW, with the largest determining factor on total emissions being the relative proportion of pigs managed with high or low emission manure management systems. Emissions from LU and dLUC sources ranged from 0.08 to 0.7 kg CO 2 -e/kg LW for the case study farms, with differences associated with the inclusion rate of imported soybean meal in the ration and feed-conversion ratio. GHG intensity (excluding LU, dLUC) from the national herd was 6.36 AE 1.03 kg CO 2 -e/kg wholesale pork, with the emission profile dominated by methane from manure management (50%), followed by feed production (27%) and then meat processing (8%). Inclusion of LU and dLUC emissions had a minor effect on the emission profile. Scenarios testing showed that biogas capture from anaerobic digestion with combined heat and power generation resulted in a 31-64% reduction in GHG emissions. Finishing pigs on deep litter as preferred to conventional housing resulted in 38% lower GHG emissions than conventional finishing.

show abstract

Carbon footprint of milk production from dairy cows in Australia

Cited by 55 publications

References 8 publications

Improvements to dairy farms for environmental sustainability in Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano production systems

Improvements to dairy farms for environmental sustainability in Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano production systems

Temporal, spatial, and management variability in the carbon footprint of New Zealand milk

Environmental impacts and resource use from Australian pork production assessed using life-cycle assessment. 1. Greenhouse gas emissions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About