Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T00:58:26.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making sense of methods to audit emissions – various audit methods to estimate dairy production carbon footprint

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

D. O'Brien ,
C. Grainger  and
L. Shalloo
D. O'Brien*
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
C. Grainger
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
L. Shalloo
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: donal.o'brien@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

A dairy farm greenhouse gas (GHG) model was applied in this study to compare the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) method and the life cycle assessment (LCA) procedure, which are the principal methods for quantifying the carbon footprint of dairy production. The objectives of this paper were to compare the auditing methods in estimating the carbon footprint of grass and confinement dairy systems and to assess the methods in estimating the footprint of grass-based dairy farms varying in cow genetic potential, stocking rate and level of concentrate feeding. The input data used to operate the model was based on published research studies. The results of the study showed that the IPCC and LCA methods ranked the carbon footprint of dairy systems differently. For example, the IPCC method found that the carbon footprint of the confinement dairy system was 8% lower than the grass system, but the LCA results show that the confinement system increased the carbon footprint by 16%. The comparison of grass-based dairy systems, differing in cow genotype, stocking rate and concentrate fed per cow also showed that the methods did not agree on the ranking of dairy systems carbon footprint. The re-ranking of dairy systems carbon footprint occurred because the IPCC method excludes emissions associated with imported goods, for example, concentrate. Thus, it is incorrect to consider only components of the dairy system relevant for policy reporting such as that used by IPCC when estimating the carbon footprint of dairy produce. Instead, holistic approaches, such as LCA, which consider on and off-farm GHG emissions should be used. Therefore, reform of the present policy framework is required to enable quantification of the impact of mitigation strategies on global emissions. The evaluation of the carbon footprint from grass-based systems differing in cow genotype also demonstrated that selecting cows solely for milk production will increase the carbon footprint of grass-based dairy systems relative to cows selected on a combination of traits, because of reduced cow fertility and thus higher emissions from replacement heifers.

Keywords

carbon footprintgrassconfinement
Type
Full Paper
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 4 , Special Issue s1: Proceedings of the Dairy Solutions Symposium, 20th – 21st June 2012, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland , September 2013 , pp. 2 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arsenault, N, Tyedmers, P, Fredeen, A 2009. Comparing the environmental impacts of pasture-based and confinement-based dairy systems in Nova Scotia (Canada) using life cycle assessment. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7, 19–41.Google Scholar
Bargo, F, Muller, LD, Delahoy, JE, Cassidy, TW 2002. Performance of high producing dairy cows with three different feeding systems combining pasture and total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2948–2963.Google Scholar
Basset-Mens, C, Ledgard, S, Boyes, M 2009. Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk production in New Zealand. Ecological Economics 68, 1615–1625.Google Scholar
Browne, NA, Eckard, RJ, Behrendt, R, Kingwell, RS 2011. A comparative analysis of on-farm greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural enterprises in south eastern Australia. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 641–652.Google Scholar
Central Statistics Office (CSO) 2011. Agriculture and fishing statistical products. Central Statistics Office, Skehard Road, Cork, Ireland. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/statire/SelectTable/Omrade0.asp?Planguage=0 Google Scholar
Crosson, P, Shalloo, L, O'Brien, D, Lanigan, GJ, Foley, PA, Boland, TM, Kenny, DA 2011. A review of whole farm systems models of greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle production systems. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, P, Hyde, B, Hanley, E, Dore, C, O'Brien, P, Cotter, E, Black, K 2011. Ireland national inventory report 2011. Greenhouse gas emissions 1990–2009 reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Environmental Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle Estate, Co., Wexford, Ireland.Google Scholar
Ecoinvent 2010. Ecoinvent Centre. Ecoinvent 2.0 database. Swiss centre for life cycle inventories, Dübendorf. Retrieved November 30, 2012, from www.ecoinvent.ch Google Scholar
Fisher, BS, Nakicenovic, N, Alfsen, K, Corfee-Morlot, J, de la Chesnaye, F, Hourcade, JC, Jiang, K, Kainuma, M, La Rovere, E, Matysek, A, Rana, A, Riahi, K, Richels, R, Rose, S, van Vuuren, D, Warren, R 2007. Issues related to mitigation in the long term context. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, pp. 171–240. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. B Metz, OR Davidson, PR Bosch, R Dave and LA Meyer), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Flysjö, A, Henriksson, M, Cederberg, C, Ledgard, S, Englund, J-E 2011. The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. Agricultural Systems 104, 459–469.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2006. World Agriculture: towards 2030/2050. Interim report. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Auldist, MJ, O'Brien, G, Macmillan, KL, Culley, C 2009. Effect of type of diet and energy intake on milk production of Holstein–Friesian cows with extended lactations. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1479–1492.Google Scholar
Hegarty, RS, Goopy, JP, Herd, RM, McCorkell, B 2007. Cattle selected for lower residual feed intake have reduced daily methane production. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1479–1486.Google Scholar
Horan, B, Mee, JF, Rath, M, O'Connor, P, Dillon, P 2004. The effect of strain of Holstein–Friesian cow and feeding system on reproductive performance in seasonal-calving milk production systems. Animal Science 79, 453–467.Google Scholar
Horan, B, Dillon, P, Faverdin, P, Delaby, L, Buckley, F, Rath, M 2005. The interaction of strain of Holstein–Friesian cows and pasture-based feed systems on milk yield, body weight and body condition score. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1231–1243.Google Scholar
International Dairy Federation (IDF) 2010. A common carbon footprint for dairy. The IDF guide to standard lifecycle assessment methodology for the dairy industry. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 445, 38pp.Google Scholar
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) 2006. Environmental management – life cycle assessment: principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006). European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1996. Climate Change 1995 – the science of climate change: Contribution of working group 1 to the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Chapter 2 – Radiative forcing of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse inventories. Vol. 1. General guidance and reporting 1. Chapter 1 – Introduction to the 2006 guidelines (ed. HS Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara and K Tanabe), pp. 1–12. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007. Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Chapter 2 – Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing, pp. 211–214. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, M Tignor and HL Miller), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lovett, DK, Shalloo, L, Dillon, P, O'Mara, FP 2006. A systems approach to quantify greenhouse gas fluxes from pastoral dairy production as affected by management regime. Agricultural Systems 88, 156–179.Google Scholar
Nemecek, T, Kägi, T 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Swiss and European Agricultural Production Systems. Final report ecoinvent v2.0 No. 15a. Agroscope Reckenholz Taenikon research station ART, Swiss centre for life cycle inventories, Dübendorf.Google Scholar
O'Brien, D, Shalloo, L, Buckley, F, Horan, B, Grainger, C, Wallace, M 2011. The effect of methodology on estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from grass-based dairy systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 141, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, D, Shalloo, L, Patton, J, Buckley, F, Grainger, C, Wallace, M 2012. Evaluation of the effect of accounting method, IPCC v. LCA, on grass-based and confinement dairy systems’ greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 6, 1512–1527.Google Scholar
Olmos, G, Mee, JF, Hanlon, A, Patton, J, Murphy, JJ, Boyle, L 2009. Peripartum health and welfare of Holstein–Friesian cows in a confinement-TMR system compared to a pasture-based system. Animal Welfare 18, 467–476.Google Scholar
O'Neill, BF, Deighton, MH, O'Loughlin, BM, Mulligan, FJ, Boland, TM, O'Donovan, M, Lewis, E 2011. Effects of a perennial ryegrass diet or total mixed ration diet offered to spring-calving Holstein–Friesian dairy cows on methane emissions, dry matter intake, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1941–1951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, J, Murphy, JJ, Butler, M 2009. Comparison of total mixed ration and pasture feeding systems – Irish dairying new thinking for challenging times (Moorepark Open Day 2009). Teagasc, pp. 107–109.Google Scholar
Peters, GP 2008. From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories. Ecological Economics 65, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, G, Hertwich, E 2008. Post-Kyoto greenhouse gas inventories: production versus consumption. Climatic Change 86, 51–66.Google Scholar
Pre Consultants, 2010. Simapro 7.0. Pre Consultants. Printerweg, Amersfoort, Netherlands. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from www.pre.nl Google Scholar
Rotz, CA, Montes, F, Chianese, DS 2010. The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1266–1282.Google Scholar
Rotz, CA, Soder, KJ, Skinner, RH, Dell, CJ, Kleinman, PJ, Schmidt, JP, Bryant, RB 2009. Grazing can reduce the environmental impact of dairy production systems. Forage and Grazinglands. doi: 10.1094/FG-2009-0916-01-RS.Google Scholar
Schils, RLM, Verhagen, A, Aarts, HFM, Šebek, LBJ 2005. A farm level approach to define successful mitigation strategies for GHG emissions from ruminant livestock systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 71, 163–175.Google Scholar
Schils, RLM, Verhagen, A, Aarts, HFM, Kuikman, PJ, Šebek, LBJ 2006. Effect of improved nitrogen management on greenhouse gas emissions from intensive dairy systems in the Netherlands. Global Change Biology 12, 382–391.Google Scholar
Shalloo, L, Dillon, P, Rath, M, Wallace, M 2004. Description and validation of the Moorepark Dairy System Model. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1945–1959.Google Scholar
Thomassen, MA de Boer, IJM 2005. Evaluation of indicators to assess the environmental impact of dairy production systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 111, 185–199.Google Scholar
Thomassen, MA, van Calker, KJ, Smits, MCJ, Iepema, GL, de Boer, IJM 2008. Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agricultural Systems 96, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Werf, HMG, Kanyarushoki, C, Corson, MS 2009. An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 3643–3652.Google Scholar