Contribution of milk production to global greenhouse gas emissions (original) (raw)
Related papers
Greenhouse gas emissions from global dairy production
de Jong/Sustainable Dairy Production, 2013
The French dairy sector-like the rest of the economy-has to address the challenge of mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to curb climate change. Deciding the economically optimal mitigation level and mix of abatement strategies requires knowledge on the cost of reducing GHG emissions. Agricultural bio-economic models can help identify which production-system changes are needed to reduce GHG emissions at different levels of incentives at minimal cost. The results reflect the model structure and parameter set, especially for GHG emissions accounting. Here abatement strategies and related costs for several levels of tax on GHG emissions in French dairy production are compared using four bio-economic models: the three supply models AROPAj, ORFEE and FARMDYN and the global partial equilibrium model GLOBIOM. It is found that between 1% and 6% GHG emissions abatement can be achieved at the current price of the EU allowances without substantially reducing milk production or outsourcing input production such as feed or herd renewal. Costs reflect the planning horizon: mitigation is more expensive when past investments are not amortized. Models that account for demand-side factors show a carbon tax has potential negative impacts on consumers through higher milk prices, but could nevertheless partly offset the reduction in income of farmers simulated by farm models. Model results suggest that promising on-farm GHG emissions abatement strategies include measures that let animals reach their full production potential and moderately intensive land management. Highlights • GHG abatements simulated by three supply farm models and one partial equilibrium model • 15% milk price increase and considerable decrease in profits found at 100€/tCO 2 eq tax • 1% to 6% and 4% to 15% abatement found resp.at 20€ and 100€ tax with limited outsourcing • Up to 70% GHG abatement found at 100€/tCO 2 eq tax if the carbon tax is not embodied in trade • Up to 15% GHG abatement found with productive dairy cows raised on low-input forages
Impact of Cow Milk Production from Latin America on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The lack of research from a Latin American perspective on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from cow milk production hinders the design of specific policies that will tackle the problems in this region. The present paper intends to fill in this gap by analyzing statistical information from FAOSTAT, with the aim to find the specific problems that contribute to GHG emissions from Latin America. The main objective of this paper is to review estimates of GHG emissions from dairy production from Latin America, so that more informed decisions in the face of climate change. Results show that milk production does not have such an important effect on GHG production than meat production. On the other hand, countries that import meat may consider the ecological footprint of their meat consumption, since it is an important contributor to GHG production.
Productivity gains and greenhouse gas emissions intensity in dairy systems
Livestock Science, 2011
This paper explores the relationship between productivity of dairy production and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on a global scale. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology was used to assess GHG emissions from dairy production and processing chains. Milk yield expressed as kg fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM) per animal was chosen as a proxy for system productivity. On a per cow basis, GHG emissions increase with higher yields. However, GHG emissions per kg FPCM decline substantially as animal productivity increases. The contribution of different gases to total GHG emissions of dairy production systems vary; methane and nitrous oxide emissions decrease with increasing productivity, while carbon dioxide emissions increase, but on a lower scale. Productivity increase therefore offers not only a pathway to satisfying increasing demand for milk but also a viable mitigation approach, especially in areas where milk yields are currently below 2000 kg/cow and year.
The effect of methodology on estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from grass-based dairy systems
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2011
The objective of this study was to compare two standard methodologies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) method and life cycle analysis (LCA), for quantifying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from dairy farms. Both methods were applied to model the GHG emissions from 9 dairy farm systems differing in strain of Holstein-Friesian cow and type of grass-based feed systems using the physical performance findings of previously published work. The strains of Holstein-Friesian cow used were; high milk production North American (HP), high fertility and survival (durability) North American (HD), and New Zealand (NZ). The alternate grass-based feed systems were; high grass allowance (HG, control); high stocking rate (HS) and high concentrate supplementation (HC). The milk production systems were modelled using a previously developed integrated economic-GHG farm model. The model calculated GHG emissions using the LCA approach and was extended to quantify GHG emissions using the IPCC method. The study found that the method of reporting GHG emissions (per unit of product or per unit area) affected the ranking of emissions of dairy systems investigated. Greenhouse gas emission were greater when calculated using the LCA method rather than the IPCC method. Both methods found reducing inputs or the intensity of dairy production reduced GHG emissions per hectare. When emissions were expressed per unit of product the methodologies did not rank farming systems in the same order. The effect of feed system on emissions per unit of product was inconsistent between methodologies because the IPCC method excludes indirect GHG emissions from farm pre-chains, i.e. concentrate production. Both methodologies agreed that animals selected solely for milk production (HP) had higher GHG emissions per unit of product relative to strains selected on a combination of traits. The results indicate that if dairy systems targeting a net reduction in global GHG for projected increases in meat and milk production are to be developed, a holistic approach such as LCA, should be used to assess emissions on a per unit product basis.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018
Quantification of the environmental performance of dairy farms should allow comparisons between farms. We assess whether IPCC Tier 1 methodology for emissions from soil management is sufficiently precise to analyse and differentiate the carbon footprint of milk production between practical dairy farms and whether we can correctly identify which farms have the lowest and the highest GHG emissions per product unit, respectively. We used data from 20 Norwegian dairy farms which are very similar in structure, but differ in organic/non-organic management and the share of peat soil of their farmland. We assessed the uncertainty of the carbon footprint by running Monte Carlo simulations with the uncertainty ranges given in Tier 1 of the IPCC guidelines. The carbon footprint is considered different when 95 % of all Monte Carlo iterations assume that one farm has higher product-related GHG emissions than the farm in comparison. The uncertainty of results in the single farms, expressed as two-times the standard deviation divided by the median result, ranges between 4.2 % and 15.3 %. This means that 95 % of values in the resulting distribution of one farm are within a range of 4-16 % of the median of that farm. Farms can be differentiated when the variation of the carbon footprint is higher than the uncertainty of farm-related emissions. From all 190 direct comparisons of two farms in the study, 78 % are significantly different. For this uncertainty assessment, it must be established that background processes, especially the datasets for import feed, can be judged covariant in order to prohibit them from influencing the comparison between farms. Secondly, the uncertainty ranges used for the calculation must be appropriate for the assessed systems. We were able to confirm the hypothesis that a significant differentiation of the milk carbon footprint between farms is possible with an IPCC Tier 1 approach for a majority of our comparisons, and found a difference of above 8.7 % sufficient to establish significance.
Whole-farm systems analysis of Australian dairy farm greenhouse gas emissions
The Australian dairy industry contributes ~1.6% of the nation’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, emitting an estimated 9.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents(CO2e) per annum. This study examined 41 contrasting Australian dairy farms for their GHG emissions using the Dairy Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategies calculator, which incorporates Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Australian inventory methodologies, algorithms and emission factors. Sources of GHG emissions included were pre-farm embedded emissions associated with key farm inputs (i.e. grains and concentrates, forages and fertilisers), CO2 emissions from electricity and fuel consumption, methane emissions from enteric fermentation and animal waste management, and nitrous oxide emissions from animal waste management and nitrogen fertilisers. The estimated mean (s.d.) GHG emissions intensity was 1.04 0.17 kg CO2 equivalents/kg of fat and proteincorrected milk (kgCO2e/kg FPCM). Enteric methane emissions were found to be approximately half of total farm emissions. Linear regression analysis showed that 95% of the variation in total farmGHG emissions could be explained by annual milk production. While the results of this study suggest that milk production alone could be a suitable surrogate for estimating GHG emissions for national inventory purposes, the GHG emissions intensity of milk production, on an individual farm basis, was shown to vary by over 100% (0.76–1.68 kg CO2e/kg FPCM). It is clear that using a single emissions factor, such as milk production alone, to estimate any given individual farm’s GHG emissions, has the potential to either substantially under- or overestimate individual farms’ GHG emissions.
Journal of Dairy Science, 2014
Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is the preferred methodology to assess carbon footprint per unit of milk. The objective of this case study was to apply an LCA method to compare carbon footprints of high-performance confinement and grass-based dairy farms. Physical performance data from research herds were used to quantify carbon footprints of a high-performance Irish grass-based dairy system and a top-performing United Kingdom (UK) confinement dairy system. For the US confinement dairy system, data from the top 5% of herds of a national database were used. Life-cycle assessment was applied using the same dairy farm greenhouse gas (GHG) model for all dairy systems. The model estimated all on-and off-farm GHG sources associated with dairy production until milk is sold from the farm in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 -eq) and allocated emissions between milk and meat. The carbon footprint of milk was calculated by expressing GHG emissions attributed to milk per tonne of energycorrected milk (ECM). The comparison showed that when GHG emissions were only attributed to milk, the carbon footprint of milk from the Irish grass-based system (837 kg of CO 2 -eq/t of ECM) was 5% lower than the UK confinement system (884 kg of CO 2 -eq/t of ECM) and 7% lower than the US confinement system (898 kg of CO 2 -eq/t of ECM). However, without grassland carbon sequestration, the grass-based and confinement dairy systems had similar carbon footprints per tonne of ECM. Emission algorithms and allocation of GHG emissions between milk and meat also affected the relative difference and order of dairy system carbon footprints. For instance, depending on the method chosen to allocate emissions between milk and meat, the relative difference between the carbon footprints of grass-based and confinement dairy systems varied by 3 to 22%. This indicates that further harmonization of several aspects of the LCA methodology is required to compare carbon footprints of contrasting dairy systems. In comparison to recent reports that assess the carbon footprint of milk from average Irish, UK, and US dairy systems, this case study indicates that top-performing herds of the respective nations have carbon footprints 27 to 32% lower than average dairy systems. Although differences between studies are partly explained by methodological inconsistency, the comparison suggests that potential exists to reduce the carbon footprint of milk in each of the nations by implementing practices that improve productivity.
Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dairy Farming Using the Cool Farm Tool
Journal of Applied Life Sciences and Environment
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges mankind has ever faced and could lead to potentially devastating global problems, with a need for urgent mitigation and adaptation. Agriculture, especially livestock farming, is a major driver of climate change through its contribution to the total emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The dairy sector has been identified as an important source of GHG emissions, mainly via carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). In this study, total CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions were assessed from a dairy farm (65 dairy cows) located in Romania using the Cool Farm Tool calculator (CFT). We specifically aimed to calculate: (1) the total CO2 equivalent (CO2e) and CO2e per kg FPCM (fat- and protein-corrected milk); (2) methane emissions from enteric fermentation; (3) GHGs resulting from feeding practices; (4) GHGs from manure management; and (5) a simulation of two different scenarios and their impact on GHG emissions. Our results ...
International Dairy Journal, 2013
This article presents a cradle-to-grave analysis of the United States fluid milk supply chain greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are accounted from fertilizer production through consumption and disposal of milk packaging. Crop production and on-farm GHG emissions were evaluated using public data and 536 farm operation surveys. Milk processing data were collected from 50 dairy plants nationwide. Retail and consumer GHG emissions were estimated from primary data, design estimates, and publicly available data. Total GHG emissions, based primarily on 2007 to 2008 data, were 2.05 (90% confidence limits: 1.77e2.4) kg CO 2 e per kg milk consumed, which accounted for loss of 12% at retail and an additional 20% loss at consumption. A complementary analysis showed the entire dairy sector contributes approximately 1.9% of US GHG emissions. While the largest GHG contributors are feed production, enteric methane, and manure management; there are opportunities to reduce impacts throughout the supply chain.