Modelling greenhouse gas emissions from European conventional and organic dairy farms

Olesen, Jørgen E.; Schelde, Kirsten; Weiske, A.; Weisbjerg, M.R.; Asman, W. A. H.; Djurhuus, J.

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.022

Cited by 200 publications

(155 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

143

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, within a study, general trends are found. When conventional farming is compared to organic farming, the organic system always results in less emissions than the conventional system per hectare, due to differences in grass management (Haas et al, 2001;Olesen et al, 2006). According to these latter authors, total emissions are related to N surplus, but other factors are likely.…”

Section: Variations In Total Ghg Emissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale

Martin

Morgavi

Doreau

2010

Animal

747

657

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decreasing enteric methane (CH 4 ) emissions from ruminants without altering animal production is desirable both as a strategy to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and as a means of improving feed conversion efficiency. The aim of this paper is to provide an update on a selection of proved and potential strategies to mitigate enteric CH 4 production by ruminants. Various biotechnologies are currently being explored with mixed results. Approaches to control methanogens through vaccination or the use of bacteriocins highlight the difficulty to modulate the rumen microbial ecosystem durably. The use of probiotics, i.e. acetogens and live yeasts, remains a potentially interesting approach, but results have been either unsatisfactory, not conclusive, or have yet to be confirmed in vivo. Elimination of the rumen protozoa to mitigate methanogenesis is promising, but this option should be carefully evaluated in terms of livestock performances. In addition, on-farm defaunation techniques are not available up to now. Several feed additives such as ionophores, organic acids and plant extracts have also been assayed. The potential use of plant extracts to reduce CH 4 is receiving a renewed interest as they are seen as a natural alternative to chemical additives and are well perceived by consumers. The response to tannin-and saponincontaining plant extracts is highly variable and more research is needed to assess the effectiveness and eventual presence of undesirable residues in animal products. Nutritional strategies to mitigate CH 4 emissions from ruminants are, without doubt, the most developed and ready to be applied in the field. Approaches presented in this paper involve interventions on the nature and amount of energy-based concentrates and forages, which constitute the main component of diets as well as the use of lipid supplements. The possible selection of animals based on low CH 4 production and more likely on their high efficiency of digestive processes is also addressed. Whatever the approach proposed, however, before practical solutions are applied in the field, the sustainability of CH 4 suppressing strategies is an important issue that has to be considered. The evaluation of different strategies, in terms of total GHG emissions for a given production system, is discussed.Keywords: methane, greenhouse gases, ruminant, mitigation strategies Implications Methane (CH 4 ) mitigation in ruminants is possible through various strategies. Today, the feeding management approach is the most developed. Other strategies (biotechnologies, additives) are promising but the diversity and plasticity of functions of the rumen bacterial and methanogenic communities may be a limiting factor for their successful application. A possible selection of animals on CH 4 production and more likely on digestive processes is evocated. In any case, before practical solutions are proposed for field application more research in vivo is needed. The sustainability of CH 4 -suppressing strategies is also an important issue and they mi...

show abstract

Section: Variations In Total Ghg Emissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale

Martin

Morgavi

Doreau

2010

Animal

747

657

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some models attempt to dynamically track the volume, DM and different fractions of C and N pools of the manure (e.g. Chardon et al, 2012;Olesen et al, 2006;Rotz et al, 2012). For example, DM of manure can be calculated as a function of added water, added DM (e.g.…”

Section: Components Of Farm Ghg Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Farm models generally simulate enteric CH 4 using empirical models derived from statistical analyses (e.g. Olesen et al, 2006;Del Prado et al, 2011a). The simplest form relates animal dry matter (DM) intake or metabolisable energy intake and CH 4 output (Mills et al, 2003) and others may include fatty acid profiles (Giger-Reverdin et al, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Whole-farm models to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and their potential use for linking climate change mitigation and adaptation in temperate grassland ruminant-based farming systems

Prado

Crosson

Olesen

et al. 2013

Animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The farm level is the most appropriate scale for evaluating options for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, because the farm represents the unit at which management decisions in livestock production are made. To date, a number of whole farm modelling approaches have been developed to quantify GHG emissions and explore climate change mitigation strategies for livestock systems. This paper analyses the limitations and strengths of the different existing approaches for modelling GHG mitigation by considering basic model structures, approaches for simulating GHG emissions from various farm components and the sensitivity of GHG outputs and mitigation measures to different approaches. Potential challenges for linking existing models with the simulation of impacts and adaptation measures under climate change are explored along with a brief discussion of the effects on other ecosystem services.Keywords: adaptation, farm-models, greenhouse gases, mitigation, ruminants ImplicationsWhole-farm models are valuable tools to study the feedback and feedforward interactions between mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adaptation to climate change for ruminant-based production systems. All of the processes affecting GHG emissions and farm productivity involve the cycling of C and N within the farm, most of which will be affected by climate change. However, not all farm models include such responses to climatic drivers, and there is a need for further development and testing of the models under diverse climatic conditions. Modelling of the complex interactions between farm components and the environment, including the socio-economic aspects, is instrumental for providing strategic direction to the development of climate and food-related policies. Despite the contribution of nontemperate livestock systems to total global GHG emissions, there is a dearth of specific farm models to assess GHG emissions from these regions. Modelling of soil carbon (C) fluxes is still largely absent or very simplified in many studies even though soil C has the potential to be the largest source or sink of C for grassland-based livestock systems. IntroductionAccording to The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (Steinfeld et al., 2006) livestock production systems contribute about 18% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Livestock is also currently one of the fastest growing agricultural subsectors in developing countries (Thornton, 2010), with projections indicating that by 2050 worldwide animal production is expected to increase by 80% compared with 2005 (Alexandratos andBruinsma, 2012). Although demand for non-ruminant meat has been increasing more rapidly than that for ruminant meats and, consequently, the importance of grasslands in livestock production and trade has been declining, increased milk and beef demand, potentially produced via grassland-based systems, is expected to increase (Fiala, 2008;Thornton, 2010). It is thus projected that the global annual growth rate of beef until 2050 will be 1.2%, clos...

show abstract

“…The main sources of energy in these farms are fuel (mainly diesel) and electricity (see also Olesen et al 2006 ) . To estimate the emissions from energy use, fuel or electricity requirements for every operation and type of machinery are estimated and multiplied by emission factors (Petersen et al 2009 ) .…”

Section: Ghg Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then, direct, indirect and leaching emissions from the applied N have been estimated according to the tier 1 methodology and the emission factors proposed by the IPCC ( 2006 ) . Pre-chain emissions have also been estimated and included in the analysis, following the work of Olesen et al ( 2006 ) . As mentioned above, farmers choose whether to feed their fl ock with on-or off-farm-produced crops.…”

Section: Ghg Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Socio-economic and Environmental Sustainability of the Sheep Farming Activity in Greece: A Whole-Farm Mathematical Programming Approach

Sintori

Tsiboukas

Zervas

2012

Methods and Procedures for Building Sustainable Farming Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ruminant livestock farming is an important agricultural activity, mainly located in less favoured areas. Furthermore, ruminants have been identi fi ed as a signi fi cant source of GHG emissions. In this study, a whole-farm optimisation model is used to assess the socio-economic and environmental performance of the dairy sheep farming activity in Greece. The analysis is undertaken in two sheep farms that represent the extensive and the semi-intensive farming systems. Gross margin and labour are regarded as socio-economic indicators and GHG emissions as environmental indicators. The issue of the marginal abatement cost is also addressed. The results indicate that the semi-intensive system yields a higher gross margin/ewe (179 €) than the extensive system (117 €) and requires less labour. The extensive system causes higher emissions/kg of milk than the semi-intensive system (5.45 and 2.99 kg of CO 2 equivalents, respectively). In both production systems, abatement is achieved primarily via reduction of the fl ock size and switch to cash crops. However, the marginal abatement cost is much higher in the case of the semi-intensive farms, due to their high productivity.

show abstract

Modelling greenhouse gas emissions from European conventional and organic dairy farms

Cited by 200 publications

References 22 publications

Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale

Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale

Whole-farm models to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and their potential use for linking climate change mitigation and adaptation in temperate grassland ruminant-based farming systems

Evaluating Socio-economic and Environmental Sustainability of the Sheep Farming Activity in Greece: A Whole-Farm Mathematical Programming Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About