Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:26:32.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carbon footprint and land requirement for dairy herd rations: impacts of feed production practices and regional climate variations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2014

M. Henriksson ,
C. Cederberg  and
C. Swensson
M. Henriksson*
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 86, SE-23053 Alnarp, Sweden
C. Cederberg
Affiliation:
Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, P.O. Box 5401, SE-40229 Gothenburg, Sweden
C. Swensson
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 86, SE-23053 Alnarp, Sweden
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Feed production is a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from dairy production and demands large arable and pasture acreage. This study analysed how regional conditions influence GHG emissions of dairy feed rations in a life cycle perspective, that is the carbon footprint (CF) and the land area required. Factors assessed included regional climate variations, grass/clover silage nutrient quality, feedstuff availability, crop yield and feed losses. Using the Nordic feed evaluation model NorFor, rations were optimised for different phases of lactation, dry and growing periods for older cows, first calvers and heifers by regional feed advisors and combined to annual herd rations. Feed production data at farm level were based on national statistics and studies. CF estimates followed standards for life cycle assessment and used emissions factors provided by IPCC. The functional unit was ‘feed consumption to produce 1 kg energy corrected milk (ECM) from a cow with annual milk yield of 9 900 kg ECM including replacement animals and feed losses’. Feed ration CF varied from 417 to 531 g CO2 e/kg ECM. Grass/clover silage contributed more than 50% of total GHG emissions. Use of higher quality silage increased ration CF by up to 5% as a result of an additional cut and increased rates of synthetic N-fertiliser. Domestically produced horse bean (Vicia faba), by-products from the sugar industry and maize silage were included in the rations with the lowest CF, but horse bean significantly increased ration land requirement. Rations required between 1.4 to 2 m2 cropland and 0.1 to 0.2 m2/kg semi-natural grassland per kg ECM and year. Higher yield levels reduced ration total CF. Inclusion of GHG emissions from land use change associated with Brazilian soya feed significantly increased ration CF. Ration CF and land use depended on ration composition, which was highly influenced by the regional availability and production of feedstuffs. The impact of individual feedstuffs on ration CF varies due to, for example, cultivation practices and climate conditions and feedstuffs should therefore be assessed in a ration and regional perspective before being used to decrease milk CF. Land use efficiency should be considered together with ration CF, as these can generate goal conflicts.

Keywords

greenhouse gas emissionsland uselife cycle assessmentration compositiondairy production
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Special Issue 8: Agroecology: integrating animals in agroecosystems , August 2014 , pp. 1329 - 1338
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Bouwman, AF, Boumans, LJM and Batjes, NH 2002. Emissions of N2O and NO from fertilized fields: summary of available measurement data. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16, 1058–1070.Google Scholar
Brask, M, Lund, P, Hellwing, ALF, Poulsen, M and Weisbjerg, MR 2013. Enteric methane production, digestibility and rumen fermentation in dairy cows fed different forages with and without rapeseed fat supplementation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 184, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cederberg, C, Henriksson, M and Berglund, M 2013. An LCA researcher’s wish list – data and emission models needed to improve LCA studies of animal production. Animal 7, 212–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deinum, B, Beyer, JD, Nordfeldt, PH, Kornher, A, Østgård, O and Gv, Bogaert 1981. Quality of herbage at different latitudes. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 29, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, M and de Boer, IJM 2009. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science 128, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flysjö, A, Cederberg, C and Strid, I 2008. LCA-foderdatabas för konventionella fodermedel (LCA-feed data base of conventional feeds). Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Flysjö, A, Cederberg, C, Henriksson, M and Ledgard, S 2012. The interaction between milk and beef production and emissions from land use change – critical considerations in life cycle assessment and carbon footprint studies of milk. Journal of Cleaner Production 28, 134–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flysjö, A, Henriksson, M, Cederberg, C, Ledgard, S and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frischknecht, R, Althaus, H-J, Bauer, C, Doka, G, Heck, T, Jungbluth, N, Kellenberger, D and Nemecek, T 2007. The environmental relevance of capital goods in life cycle assessments of products and services. International Journal of LCA Special Issue 12, 7–17.Google Scholar
Gerber, P, Vellinga, T, Opio, C, Henderson, B and Steinfeld, H 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector – a life cycle assessment. In FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Animal Production and Health Division, Rome.Google Scholar
Henriksson, M, Cederberg, C and Swensson, C 2013a. Impact of cultivation strategies and regional climate on greenhouse gas emissions from grass/clover silage. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 62, 233–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksson, M, Swensson, C and Cederberg, C 2013b. Implication of soy meal in dairy diets and their emissions of greenhouse gases – a Swedish case study, Proceedings of the Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture Conference, 23 to 26 June 2013, Dublin, Ireland, poster 442.Google Scholar
IPCC 2006. N2O Emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories –agriculture, forestry and other land use, vol. 4 (ed. HS Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara and K Tanabe), pp. 11.15–11.24. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Program IGES, Japan.Google Scholar
IPCC 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the 4th 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), pp. 13–34. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
ISO 2006a. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines In ISO 14044:2006 (E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
ISO 2006b. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework In ISO 14040:2006 (E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA and Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnsson, H, Larsson, M, Lindsjö, A, Mårtensson, K, Persson, K and Torstensson, G 2008. Läckage av näringsämnen från svensk åkermark (Nutrient leakage from arable land in Sweden). Naturvårdsverket (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Jordbruksverket 2009. Riktlinjer för gödsling och kalkning (Guidelines for fertilisation and limeing). Jordbruksverket (Swedish Board of Agriculture), Jönköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
Jordbruksverket 2011. Jordbruksverkets statistikdatabas (Statistics Database from the Swedish Board of Agriculture). Retrieved 18 June 2013, from http://www.sjv.se/etjanster/etjanster/statistikdatabas.Google Scholar
Kätterer, T, Bolinder, MA, Berglund, K and Kirchmann, H 2012. Strategies for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils in northern Europe. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 62, 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, B, Diepolder, M, Ostertag, J, Thurner, S and Spiekers, H 2013. Dry matter losses of grass, lucerne and maize silages in bunker silos. Agricultural and Food Science 22, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, T, Mogensen, L, Knudsen, MT and Hermansen, JE 2011. Effect of production system and farming strategy on greenhouse gas emissions from commercial dairy farms in a life cycle approach. Livestock Science 140, 136–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leip, A, Weiss, F, Wassenaar, T, Perez, I, Fellmann, T, Loudjani, P, Tubiello, F, Grandgirard, D, Monni, S and Biala, K 2010. Evaluation of the livestock sector’s contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS) – final report. European Commission, Joint Research Center, Ispra, Italy.Google Scholar
Lesschen, JP, van den Berg, M, Westhoek, HJ, Witzke, HP and Oenema, O 2011. Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGechan, MB 1990. A review of losses arising during conservation of grass forage: Part 2, storage losses. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 45, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middelaar, C, Cederberg, C, Vellinga, T, Werf, HG and Boer, IM 2013. Exploring variability in methods and data sensitivity in carbon footprints of feed ingredients. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18, 768–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mogensen, L, Kristensen, T, Nguyen, TLT and Knudsen, MT 2012. Greenhouse gas emissions from production of imported and local cattle feed, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector, 1 to 4 October 2012, Saint-Malo, France, pp. 321–326.Google Scholar
Mussadiq, Z, Hetta, M, Swensson, C and Gustavsson, A-M 2011. Plant development, agronomic performance and nutritive value of forage maize depending on hybrid and marginal site conditions at high latitudes. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B – Soil & Plant Science 62, 420–430.Google Scholar
Patel, M, Wredle, E, Börjesson, G, Danielsson, R, Iwaasa, AD, Spörndly, E and Bertilsson, J 2011. Enteric methane emissions from dairy cows fed different proportions of highly digestible grass silage. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 61, 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PRé Consultants bv. 2010. SimaPro 7, LCA software. Amersfoort, The Netherlands. www.pre.nl.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M and deHaan, C 2006. Livestock’s long shadow – environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Strid, I and Flysjö, A 2007. Livscykelanalys (LCA) av ensilage – en jämförelse av tornsilo, plansilo och rundbal (LCA of silage – comparison of tower silo, bunker silo and round bales). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Thomassen, MA, van Calker, KJ, Smits, MCJ, Iepema, GL and De Boer, IJM 2008. Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agricultural Systems 96, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vellinga, TV and Hoving, IE 2011. Maize silage for dairy cows: mitigation of methane emissions can be offset by land use change. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 89, 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, H 2011a. NorFor – The Nordic feed evaluation system. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, H 2011b. Feed calculations in NorFor. In NorFor – The Nordic feed evaluation system (ed. H Volden), pp. 55–58. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallman, M, Berglund, M and Cederberg, C 2011. LCA-data för fodermedel (LCA-data for feedstuffs). Retrieved 18 June 2013, from http://www.sikfoder.se/Sv/Sidor/default.aspx.Google Scholar
Weisbjerg, MR 2010. The history of feed evaluation for ruminants, with special emphasis on the Nordic countries, Proceedings of the Nordic Feed Science Conference, 22 to 23 June 2010, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 51–64.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Henriksson Supplementary Material

Figure S1

Download Henriksson Supplementary Material(File)
File 170.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Henriksson Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Henriksson Supplementary Material(File)
File 58.7 KB