Is there a joint lever? Identifying and ranking factors that determine GHG emissions and profitability on dairy farms in Bavaria, Germany

Modeling the environmental impacts of Asparagopsis as feed, a cow toilet and slurry acidification in two synthetic dairy farms

“…In both farms, N 2 O contributed less than 10 % to the GWP. The N 2 O emissions of the GWP from manure management accounted for less than 5 %, and those from fertilization in forage production were less than 4 % ( Table 5 ; Table SI3 ), which were similar to the values found by Zehetmeier et al [ 76 ].…”

“…The global warming potential (GWP) in our LCA was strongly affected by enteric CH 4 (OS: 46 %; DH: 44 %; Table 4 ; Table SI1 ). Literature-based contributions of CH 4 ranged between 35 % and >80 % [ 44 , 48 , 49 , 76 ]. Together, the feed and forage provisions caused approximately 33 % of the GWP in both farm types, followed by the manure management treatment (23 %; Table 4 ; Table SI1 ), which agreed with the results from the literature [ 51 , 76 ].…”

“…Literature-based contributions of CH 4 ranged between 35 % and >80 % [ 44 , 48 , 49 , 76 ]. Together, the feed and forage provisions caused approximately 33 % of the GWP in both farm types, followed by the manure management treatment (23 %; Table 4 ; Table SI1 ), which agreed with the results from the literature [ 51 , 76 ]. For forage production, Ecoinvent provided no data on CH 4 emissions; thus, fertilization had no influence on direct CH 4 in our study.…”

Sustainability Assessment of Key European Dairy Cattle Production Systems: System Identification, Analysis, and Greenhouse Gas and Nitrogen Emission Mitigation

“…An average GHGint of 1.19±0.387 kgCO2eq kg milk -1 was obtained. As shown in When comparing the results obtained with those reported in the literature, baseline GHGint for both German DPS aligns with previously obtained results (0.8-1.8 kg CO2eq kg milk -1 ) (Zehetmeier et al 2020). As for MCi, previous studies for Italian DPS with similar milk production, showed values between 1.3 and 1.6 kg CO2eq per unit of product (Lovarelli et al 2019).…”

System Design and Validation of a Wireless Sensor Monitoring System in Silage

“…For the reasons mentioned, the automated controlling of silages could potentially assure higher quality [13] and prevent losses, thereby greatly benefiting farmers with regard to economical savings. Furthermore, if losses are minimized, the carbon footprint of fodder-making could be as well [14]. To date, however, no automated systems for detecting destructive conditions in silage have been put into practice, despite extensive research on this topic since the 1990s, exhibited by [15].…”