Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:02:00.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the effect of accounting method, IPCC v. LCA, on grass-based and confinement dairy systems’ greenhouse gas emissions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2012

D. O'Brien ,
L. Shalloo ,
J. Patton ,
F. Buckley ,
C. Grainger  and
M. Wallace
D. O'Brien
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
L. Shalloo*
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
J. Patton
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
F. Buckley
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
M. Wallace
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
*
†E-mail: Laurence.Shalloo@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guideline methodology, which are the principal greenhouse gas (GHG) quantification methods, were evaluated in this study using a dairy farm GHG model. The model was applied to estimate GHG emissions from two contrasting dairy systems: a seasonal calving pasture-based dairy farm and a total confinement dairy system. Data used to quantify emissions from these systems originated from a research study carried out over a 1-year period in Ireland. The genetic merit of cows modelled was similar for both systems. Total mixed ration was fed in the Confinement system, whereas grazed grass was mainly fed in the grass-based system. GHG emissions from these systems were quantified per unit of product and area. The results of both methods showed that the dairy system that emitted the lowest GHG emissions per unit area did not necessarily emit the lowest GHG emissions possible for a given level of product. Consequently, a recommendation from this study is that GHG emissions be evaluated per unit of product given the growing affluent human population and increasing demand for dairy products. The IPCC and LCA methods ranked dairy systems’ GHG emissions differently. For instance, the IPCC method quantified that the Confinement system reduced GHG emissions per unit of product by 8% compared with the grass-based system, but the LCA approach calculated that the Confinement system increased emissions by 16% when off-farm emissions associated with primary dairy production were included. Thus, GHG emissions should be quantified using approaches that quantify the total GHG emissions associated with the production system, so as to determine whether the dairy system was causing emissions displacement. The IPCC and LCA methods were also used in this study to simulate, through a dairy farm GHG model, what effect management changes within both production systems have on GHG emissions. The findings suggest that single changes have a small mitigating effect on GHG emissions (<5%), except for strategies used to control emissions from manure storage in the Confinement system (14% to 24%). However, when several management strategies were combined, GHG emissions per unit of product could be reduced significantly (15% to 30%). The LCA method was identified as the preferred approach to assess the effect of management changes on GHG emissions, but the analysis indicated that further standardisation of the approach is needed given the sensitivity of the approach to allocation decisions regarding milk and meat.

Keywords

greenhouse gaslife cycle assessmentIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodconfinementgrass-based
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 9 , September 2012 , pp. 1512 - 1527
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Andrew, R, Forgie, V 2008. A three-perspective view of greenhouse gas emission responsibilities in New Zealand. Ecological Economics 68, 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle 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, Kelliher, F, Ledgard, S, Cox, N 2009. Uncertainty of global warming potential for milk production on a New Zealand farm and implications for decision making. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14, 630–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, MJ, Wall, E, Russell, G, Morgan, C, Simm, G 2010. Effect of breeding for milk yield, diet and management on enteric methane emissions from dairy cows. Animal Production Science 50, 817–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beukes, PC, Gregorini, P, Romera, AJ, Levy, G, Waghorn, GC 2010. Improving production efficiency as a strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions on pastoral dairy farms in New Zealand. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 136, 358–365.CrossRefGoogle 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 166–167, 641–652.Google Scholar
Capper, JL, Cady, RA, Bauman, DE 2009. The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2160–2167.Google Scholar
Carbon Trust 2010. Guidelines for the carbon footprinting of dairy products in the UK. Retrieved May 15, 2011, from http://www.dairyuk.org/ Google Scholar
Casey, JW, Holden, NM 2005. The relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the intensity of milk production in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Quality 34, 429–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cederberg, C, Mattsson, B 2000. Life cycle assessment of milk production – a comparison of conventional and organic farming. Journal of Cleaner Production 8, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cederberg, C, Stadig, M 2003. System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8, 350–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Central Statistics Office (CSO) 2010. Agriculture and fishing statistical products. Central Statistics Office, Skehard Road, Cork. Retrieved July 5, 2011, from http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/database/eirestat/Agriculture%20and%20Fishing.asp 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.Google Scholar
del Prado, A, Chadwick, D, Cardenas, L, Misselbrook, T, Scholefield, D, Merino, P 2010. Exploring systems responses to mitigation of GHG in UK dairy farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 136, 318–332.Google Scholar
Dillon, P, Crosse, S, Stakelum, G, Flynn, F 1995. The effect of calving date and stocking rate on the performance of spring-calving dairy cows. Grass & Forage Science 50, 286–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, P, Hyde, B, Hanley, E, Dore, C 2011a. Ireland informative inventory report 2011. Air pollutant emissions in Ireland 1990–2009 reported to the secretariat of the UN/ECE on long range transboundary air pollution. Environmental Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle Estate, Wexford, Ireland.Google Scholar
Duffy, P, Hyde, B, Hanley, E, Dore, C, O'Brien, P, Cotter, E, Black, K 2011b. 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 July 5, 2011, from www.ecoinvent.ch Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, JJ, Murphy, JJ 1999. A comparison of low starch maize silage and grass silage and the effect of concentrate supplementation of the forages or inclusion of maize grain with the maize silage on milk production by dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 57, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flysjö, A, Henriksson, M, Cederberg, C, Ledgard, S, Englund, JE 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
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) 2006. World Agriculture towards 2030/2050. Interim Report, Rome, Italy, 71pp.Google Scholar
Forster, P, Ramaswamy, V, Artaxo, P, Berntsen, T, Betts, R, Fahey, DW, Haywood, J, Lean, J, Lowe, DC, Myhre, G, Nganga, J, Prinn, R, Raga, G, Schulz, M, van Dorland, R 2007. Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. 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), pp. 131–234. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gerber, P, Vellinga, T, Opio, C, Henderson, B, Steinfeld, H 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector – a life cycle assessment. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, Animal Production and Health Division, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haas, G, Wetterich, F, Köpke, U 2001. Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 83, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hospido, A, Moreira, MT, Feijoo, G 2003. Simplified life cycle assessment of galician milk production. International Dairy Journal 13, 783–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howley, M, O'Gallachoir, B, Dennehy, E 2009. Energy in Ireland 1990–2008. Energy Policy Statistical Support Unit, Sustainable Energy Ireland, Ireland.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1996. Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. Contribution of working group I to the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
IPCC 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse inventories. vol. 4. Agriculture, forestry and other land use. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan.Google Scholar
IPCC 2007. Climate change 2007. Synthesis report. In Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. RK Pachauri and A Reisinger). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.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) 2006a. Environmental management – life cycle assessment: principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006). European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
ISO 2006b. Environmental management – life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006). European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Jarrige, R 1989. Ruminant nutrition: recommended allowances and feed tables. John Libbey Eurotext, Montrougue, France.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA, Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolver, ES, Muller, LD 1998. Performance and nutrient intake of high producing Holstein cows consuming pasture or a total mixed ration. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 1403–1411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kramer, KJ, Moll, HC, Nonhebel, S 1999. Total greenhouse gas emissions related to the Dutch crop production system. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 72, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovett, DK, Shalloo, L, Dillon, P, O'Mara, FP 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral based dairying systems: the effect of uncertainty and management change under two contrasting production systems. Livestock Science 116, 260–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, JAN, Kebreab, E, Yates, CM, Crompton, LA, Cammell, SB, Dhanoa, MS, Agnew, RE, France, J 2003. Alternative approaches to predicting methane emissions from dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 81, 3141–3150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, Grainger, C, Buckley, F, Horan, B, Wallace, M 2010. The influence of strain of Holstein–Friesian cow and feeding system on greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3390–3402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 & Environment 141, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pré Consultants 2008. SimaPro 7.0. Pré Consultants, Printerweg, Amersfoort, the Netherlands. Retrieved May 30, 2011, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/fg/ 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schils, RLM, Verhagen, A, Aarts, HFM, Kuikman, PJ, Sebek, LBJ 2006. Effect of improved nitrogen management on greenhouse gas emissions from intensive dairy systems in the Netherlands. Global Change Biology 12, 382–391.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, P, Martino, D, Cai, Z, Gwary, D, Janzen, H, Kumar, P, McCarl, B, Ogle, S, O'Mara, F, Rice, C, Scholes, B, Sirotenko, O, Howden, M, McAllister, T, Pan, G, Romanenkov, V, Schneider, U, Towprayoon, S, Wattenbach, M, Smith, J 2008. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363, 789–813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snyder, CS, Bruulsema, TW, Jensen, TL, Fixen, PE 2009. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertiliser management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 133, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soussana, JF, Tallec, T, Blanfort, V 2010. Mitigating the greenhouse gas balance of ruminant production systems through carbon sequestration in grasslands. Animal 4, 334–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M, de Haan, C 2006. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomassen, M, Dalgaard, R, Heijungs, R, de Boer, I 2008a. Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13, 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomassen, MA, van Calker, KJ, Smits, MCJ, Iepema, GL, de Boer, IJM 2008b. 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vellinga, TV, de Haan, MHA, Schils, RLM, Evers, A, van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A 2011. Implementation of GHG mitigation on intensive dairy farms: farmers’ preferences and variation in cost effectiveness. Livestock Science 137, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vibart, RE, Fellner, V, Burns, JC, Huntington, GB, Green, JT Jr 2008. Performance of lactating dairy cows fed varying levels of total mixed ration and pasture. Journal of Dairy Research 75, 471–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiske, A, Vabitsch, A, Olesen, JE, Schelde, K, Michel, J, Friedrich, R, Kaltschmitt, M 2006. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in European conventional and organic dairy farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar