Life cycle environmental impacts of high and low intensification pasture-based milk production systems: A case study of the Waikato region, New Zealand
“…A review by Lorenz et al (2019) showed that the carbon footprint value generally decreased with increased milk production per cow and with increased proportion of the diet from pasture. In the Waikato region of NZ, Chobtang et al (2017) estimated a lower carbon foot-print from dairy farms where almost all of the animal diet was from pasture compared with farms with 70% from pasture and 30% from brought-in crop feeds (0.73 vs. 0.86 kg of CO 2 eq/kg of FPCM).…”
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.
“…A review by Lorenz et al (2019) showed that the carbon footprint value generally decreased with increased milk production per cow and with increased proportion of the diet from pasture. In the Waikato region of NZ, Chobtang et al (2017) estimated a lower carbon foot-print from dairy farms where almost all of the animal diet was from pasture compared with farms with 70% from pasture and 30% from brought-in crop feeds (0.73 vs. 0.86 kg of CO 2 eq/kg of FPCM).…”
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.
“…However, it is important to improve current systems continuously, as increasing production without improvements is associated with significantly higher carbon emissions from agriculture in Ireland (Lanigan et al., ). Moreover, intensifying grazing systems also poses the risk of environmental degradation, underlining the importance of continued improvements in farming practices to meet sustainability challenges (Chobtang et al ., ).…”
Section: Implications For Sustainable Intensification Policymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Therefore, it is interesting to compare and contrast the development of two different dairy sectors – one based on grazing systems (Ireland) and the other one largely dominated by confinement systems (Netherlands). Grazing systems are generally associated with better environmental sustainability outcomes, which nevertheless can change with increasing intensity (Chobtang et al ., ). …”
Summary
The milk quota abolition in 2015 set in motion major adjustments in the EU dairy sector and considerable differences in expansion and contraction of milk production are observed across Member States. Despite significant differences in production methods, Ireland and the Netherlands are among the EU countries that achieved the largest dairy production growth rates. This article compares and contrasts Irish and Dutch dairy farms that intensified and expanded production. To this end, Farm Accountancy Data Network data of specialised dairy farms are used and Principal Component Analysis was performed with a view to assessing common themes and differences in intensification efforts. In both countries, farms that intensified their production have higher gross investments and larger dairy herds, when compared to the average dairy farm in their country. The Principal Component Analysis revealed farm size variables, dairy specialisation and direct payments, as well as investments and financial leverage as common themes of intensification, with differing importance in the two countries. Implications of intensification for policies to ensure longer‐term sustainability are discussed.
“…It is basically depends to pasture grazing or cultivation of forage crops (Morris and Kenyon, 2014;Chobtang et al, 2017a;2017b). With the increasing water scarcity and seasonal climatic conditions that reduce production, the reutilization of wastewater is now considered essential in integrated water management (Abdoulkader et al, 2015).…”
The use of swine wastewater (SW) for irrigation can be an excellent alternative to increase productivity and quality of pastures. This work was carried out from October 2013 to September 2014 in Dourados -MS. The objectives were evaluation of the productivity and nutritional quality of Tifton 85 grass (Cynodon spp.) under different doses of SW in the presence and absence of normal water irrigation. The experiment was set in a randomized block with split plots design, including water irrigated and non-irrigated in the main plots and four doses of SW in the subplots (75, 150, 225 and 300 m 3 ha -1 cut -1 ), with four replicates. The total forage yield and the bromatological value (crude protein, neutral and fibre detergent acid and dry matter digestibility) were evaluated. There was a significant effect of irrigation and SW doses on total dry matter yield, reaching 41.4 Mg ha -1 year -1 using the highest dose of SW (300 m 3 ha -1) and irrigation use. Irrigation also provided higher crude protein levels, increasing with linear adjustment to SW doses, reaching 17.9% in the annual average. The neutral detergent fibre and the acid detergent fibre presented lower results under irrigation, reaching 65.4 and 32.6% in the annual average, respectively, and linearly decreased using SW doses. Inverse behavior was observed in the in vitro digestibility of dry matter, which was higher under irrigation, reaching 69.5% in the annual average and presenting linear growth according to doses of SW.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
