Literature DB >> 24440256

A case study of the carbon footprint of milk from high-performing confinement and grass-based dairy farms.

D O'Brien1, J L Capper2, P C Garnsworthy3, C Grainger4, L Shalloo4.   

Abstract

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 (CO2-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 energy-corrected 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 CO2-eq/t of ECM) was 5% lower than the UK confinement system (884 kg of CO2-eq/t of ECM) and 7% lower than the US confinement system (898 kg of CO2-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.
Copyright © 2014 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  carbon footprint; confinement; grass; milk production

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24440256     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2013-7174

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dairy Sci        ISSN: 0022-0302            Impact factor:   4.034


  8 in total

1.  Food Footprint as a Measure of Sustainability for Grazing Dairy Farms.

Authors:  M Melissa Rojas-Downing; A Pouyan Nejadhashemi; Behin Elahi; Kimberly A Cassida; Fariborz Daneshvar; J Sebastian Hernandez-Suarez; Mohammad Abouali; Matthew R Herman; Sabah Anwer Dawood Al Masraf; Timothy Harrigan
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through different dairy cattle systems in subtropical regions.

Authors:  Henrique M N Ribeiro-Filho; Maurício Civiero; Ermias Kebreab
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  Production performance, nutrient use efficiency, and predicted enteric methane emissions in dairy cows under confinement or grazing management system.

Authors:  Andre F Brito; Kleves V Almeida; Andre S Oliveira
Journal:  Transl Anim Sci       Date:  2022-02-26

4.  Milk Quality and Carbon Footprint Indicators of Dairy Sheep Farms Depend on Grazing Level and Identify the Different Management Systems.

Authors:  Javier Plaza; Isabel Revilla; Jaime Nieto; Cristina Hidalgo; Mario Sánchez-García; Carlos Palacios
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-16       Impact factor: 2.752

5.  Canola Meal versus Soybean Meal as Protein Supplements in the Diets of Lactating Dairy Cows Affects the Greenhouse Gas Intensity of Milk.

Authors:  Lucia Holtshausen; Chaouki Benchaar; Roland Kröbel; Karen A Beauchemin
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 6.  Dairy intensification: Drivers, impacts and alternatives.

Authors:  Nathan Clay; Tara Garnett; Jamie Lorimer
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2019-05-04       Impact factor: 5.129

Review 7.  The Impact of Seasonality in Pasture-Based Production Systems on Milk Composition and Functionality.

Authors:  Mark Timlin; John T Tobin; André Brodkorb; Eoin G Murphy; Pat Dillon; Deirdre Hennessy; Michael O'Donovan; Karina M Pierce; Tom F O'Callaghan
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2021-03-12

8.  Dairy farmer practices and attitudes relating to pasture-based and indoor production systems in Scotland.

Authors:  Orla K Shortall; Altea Lorenzo-Arribas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.