How can farming intensification affect the environmental impact of milk production?

L. Bava; A. Sandrucci; M. Zucali; M. Guerci; A. Tamburini

doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7530

Research Article| Volume 97, ISSUE 7, P4579-4593, July 2014

How can farming intensification affect the environmental impact of milk production?

L. Bava
L. Bava
Affiliations
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy
Search for articles by this author
A. Sandrucci
A. Sandrucci
Correspondence
Corresponding author:
Contact
Affiliations
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy
Search for articles by this author
M. Zucali
M. Zucali
Affiliations
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy
Search for articles by this author
M. Guerci
M. Guerci
Affiliations
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy
Search for articles by this author
A. Tamburini
A. Tamburini
Affiliations
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy
Search for articles by this author

Open ArchivePublished:May 01, 2014DOI:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7530

Abstract

The intensification process of the livestock sector has been characterized in recent decades by increasing output of product per hectare, increasing stocking rate, including more concentrated feed in the diet, and improving the genetic merit of the breeds. In dairy farming, the effects of intensification on the environmental impact of milk production are not completely clarified. The aim of the current study was to assess the environmental impacts of dairy production by a life cycle approach and to identify relations between farming intensity and environmental performances expressed on milk and land units. A group of 28 dairy farms located in northern Italy was involved in the study; data collected during personal interviews of farmers were analyzed to estimate emissions (global warming potential, acidification, and eutrophication potentials) and nonrenewable source consumption (energy and land use). The environmental impacts of milk production obtained from the life cycle assessment were similar to those of other recent studies and showed high variability among the farms. From a cluster analysis, 3 groups of farms were identified, characterized by different levels of production intensity. Clusters of farms showed similar environmental performances on product basis, despite important differences in terms of intensification level, management, and structural characteristics. Our study pointed out that, from a product perspective, the most environmentally friendly way to produce milk is not clearly identifiable. However, the principal component analysis showed that some characteristics related to farming intensification, such as milk production per cow, dairy efficiency, and stocking density, were negatively related to the impacts per kilogram of product, suggesting a role of these factors in the mitigation strategy of environmental burden of milk production on a global scale. Considering the environmental burden on a local perspective, the impacts per hectare were positively associated with the intensification level.

Key words

Introduction

In recent decades, the European livestock sector has shown a general trend toward enlarging farm size and increasing intensification in terms of output per hectare. The intensification of production is generally characterized by increasing stocking rate, including more concentrated feed in the diet and improving the genetic merit of the breeds (

Alvarez et al., 2008

Alvarez A.
del Corral J.
Solís D.
Pérez J.A.

Does intensification improve the economic efficiency of dairy farms?.

). Such evolution has also affected the Italian dairy sector, which has shown a strong decrease in the total number of dairy cows over the last 30 yr (from 2.6 million in 1980 to 1.6 million presently) and an increase in the number of cows per farm (from 7.9 to 31.8 in the same period;

ISTAT, 2012

ISTAT. 2012. Istituto nazionale di statistica. Accessed Dec. 2012. http://www3.istat.it/

Google Scholar

). Furthermore, in northern Italy, favorable climatic and infrastructure conditions have led to a very high livestock concentration with a consequent intensive utilization of natural resources (i.e., land, air, water) and high environmental pressure. Intensification of livestock production systems is generally considered detrimental from an environmental point of view. A study from New Zealand (

Basset-Mens et al., 2009

Basset-Mens C.
Ledgard S.
Boyes M.

Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk production in New Zealand.

) showed that increasing the number of cows per land unit (with higher N-fertilization and more land used to grow maize for silage instead of permanent grass) reduced dairy farm eco-efficiency in terms of both milk production and land use functions.

Penati et al. (2011)

Penati C.
Berentsen P.B.M.
Tamburini A.
Sandrucci A.
de Boer I.J.M.

Effect of abandoning highland grazing on nutrient balances and economic performance of Italian Alpine dairy farms.

, assessing environmental sustainability of a group of alpine dairy farms, found that the best environmental performances were obtained by the farms characterized by low stocking density, low production intensity, high feed self-sufficiency, and large land availability in the valley floor. But other results from the literature showed some positive effects of the intensification of livestock production in terms of environmental impact mitigation. A review study by

Crosson et al. (2011)

Crosson P.
Shalloo L.
O’Brien D.
Laniganc G.J.
Foley P.A.
Boland T.M.
Kenny D.A.

A review of whole farm systems models of greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle production systems.

concluded that increased output per hectare obtained through intensification can reduce emissions per kilogram of product.

Kristensen et al. (2011)

Kristensen T.
Mogensen L.
Knudsen M.T.
Hermansen J.E.

Effect of production system and farming strategy on greenhouse gas emissions from commercial dairy farms in a life cycle approach.

identified herd efficiency and farming intensity as relevant strategies for environmental impact reduction .

Yan et al. (2013)

Yan M.J.
Humphreys J.
Holden N.M.

Life cycle assessment of milk production from commercial dairy farms: The influence of management tactics.

found that, as milk production increases, a mitigation of environmental impact is observed.

Casey and Holden (2005)

Casey J.W.
Holden N.M.

The relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the intensity of milk production. Ireland.

suggested that, to improve the environmental efficiency of dairy farms, a move toward fewer cows producing more milk at lower stocking rates is required. This represents an extensification in terms of area but an intensification in terms of animal husbandry systems.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a generally accepted method for estimating the environmental impact of agricultural products on a global perspective. The main environmental effects quantified in LCA studies on dairy systems are the acidifying and eutrophic effects on watercourses, the global warming effect, and the utilization of resources such as land and nonrenewable energy during the production of milk (

O’Brien et al., 2012

O’Brien D.
Shalloo L.
Patton J.
Buckley F.
Grainger C.
Wallace M.

A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms.

).

Even if climate change is a global issue, for environmental aspects with a local connotation (especially acidification and eutrophication), environmental impact should be evaluated not only per unit of product but also per hectare of land. In particular, eutrophication pertains directly to the leaching and run-off of nitrate and phosphate to the ground and surface water; therefore, this parameter contains a local aspect (

Oudshoorn et al., 2011

Oudshoorn V.
Sørensen C.A.G.
de Boer I.J.M.

Economic and environmental evaluation of three goal-vision based scenarios for organic dairy farming in Denmark.

). Many authors showed significantly worse environmental performances of the intensive livestock systems when the impacts were expressed in terms of land unit (

Haas et al., 2001

Haas G.
Wetterich F.
Köpke U.

Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment.

;

Casey and Holden (2005)

Casey J.W.
Holden N.M.

The relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the intensity of milk production. Ireland.

).

The first objective of the current study was to analyze the environmental performances of a sample of dairy farms, both on a global and on a local perspective, through an LCA approach. The second objective was to identify the relation between environmental impacts and main farm characteristics, focusing in particular on farming intensity.

Materials and Methods

System Description and Data Collection

A group of 28 dairy cattle farms were involved in the current study. All the farms were located in northern Italy and were members of a cheese factory producing Grana Padano. All cows were Italian Holstein kept in permanent confinement without pasture. This rearing system is the most commonly used in the north of Italy.

Data were collected through personal interviews of farmers. Questions were addressed to obtain precise information about cropping systems and field operations, fuel consumption, number of animals and housing systems, and manure storage and animal rations. Moreover, data regarding the inputs entering the farms were acquired, including amount of purchased feeds (both roughages and concentrates), fertilizers and pesticides, bedding materials, and number and origin of purchased replacement animals.

In each farm, forages (hays and silages) and TMR were sampled and analyzed for the content of DM ash, CP, ether extract, and crude fiber by

AOAC International (1995)

AOAC International

Google Scholar

methods; starch by

AOAC International (1998)

AOAC International

Google Scholar

methods; NDF analyzed following the protocol of

Mertens (2002)

Mertens D.R.

Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds using refluxing in beakers or crucibles: Collaborative study.

; and ADF and ADL by the method of

Van Soest et al. (1991)

Van Soest P.J.
Robertson J.B.
Lewis B.A.

Methods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition.

. Data obtained from the analyses were used for the estimation of digestibility of the feeding rations. The amount of milk produced by each farm was provided by the cheese factory, whereas the amount of meat (as animal liveweight) was estimated on the basis of the number of animals sold for slaughter and their liveweight declared by the farmers.

Composition of concentrated feed was estimated on the basis of the raw materials reported on the commercial labels using CPM-Dairy Ration Analyzer Beta V3 software (

Cornell-Penn-Miner, 2004

Cornell-Penn-Miner. 2004. CPM Dairy. Dairy cattle ration analyzer, version 3.0.6. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Google Scholar

). Table 1 summarizes the inventory of the most important data used for impact assessment. All the data are expressed as the average value of the 28 dairy farms.

Table 1Inventory data (average of the 28 farms)

Item	Unit	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Land
Farm land	ha	40.7	27.8	8.5	120
Permanent grassland	% land	52.1	23.8	12.9	100
Maize land for silage	% land	36.5	20.3	0.0	87.1
NE_L yield	MJ/ha	74,965	20,924	34,901	134,248
Nitrogen yield	kg/ha	180	38.2	103	238
N synthetic fertilizers	kg/ha	84.3	51.1	0.0	202
Pesticides (active substances)	g/ha	791	614	0.0	1,849
Herd
Dairy cows	n	90.3	52.0	17.0	195
Livestock unit (LU)	n	143	86.7	25.7	308
Milk production	kg of FPCM ¹ FPCM = fat- and protein-corrected milk. /cow per day	27.1	4.3	18.1	35.4
Production intensity	kg of FPCM/ha	19,764	7,955	12,005	46,455
Meat production ² Liveweight sold.	kg/farm per year	130	45.6	53.1	223
Manure type
Solid manure	%	40.3	38.0	0.0	100.0
Liquid slurry	%	59.7	38.0	0.0	100.0
Feed
Feed produced on farm	t of DM/LU per year	3.8	1.2	1.6	6.5
Purchased forages	t of DM/LU per year	0.3	0.4	0.0	1.4
Purchased concentrates	t of DM/LU per year	1.7	0.7	0.4	3.0
Energy
Diesel use	kg/LU per year	88.6	21.3	54.0	141
Electricity use	KWH/LU per year	211	79.9	52.3	336

1 FPCM = fat- and protein-corrected milk.

2 Liveweight sold.

Open table in a new tab

The income over feed cost (IOFC) was used as economic indicator of farm profitability, as proposed by

Hutjens (2007)

Hutjens, M. F. 2007. Practical approaches to feed efficiency and applications on the farm. Penn State Dairy Cattle Nutrition Workshop, November 13–14, Grantville, PA. Accessed May 2012. http://www.dairyweb.ca/Resources/PDCNW2007/Hutjens.pdf

Google Scholar

, and it was calculated as the income from milk minus feeding costs (self-produced and purchased feed) per cow per day.

Emission Estimation

Greenhouse Gas Emissions On Farm

Table 2 shows the models used for on-farm greenhouse gas emission (GHG) estimation. Methane (CH₄) emissions from livestock enteric fermentations were estimated using an equation from

Ellis et al. (2007)

Ellis J.L.
Kebreab E.
Odongo N.E.
McBride B.W.
Okine E.K.
France J.

Prediction of methane production from dairy and beef cattle.

. To convert the energy of enteric methane in kilograms of methane emitted, the factor 55.65 MJ/kg of CH₄ (

IPCC, 2006a

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf

Google Scholar

) was used. Methane emissions from manure management were estimated using the Tier 2 method suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (

IPCC, 2006a

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf

Google Scholar

). Volatile solid excretion was estimated considering gross energy of the diets (kJ/kg of DM) evaluated using an equation of

Ewan (1989)

Ewan R.C.

Predicting the energy utilization of diets and feed ingredients by pigs.

Google Scholar

. Digestibility of the feed was estimated using a calculation model developed for each type of forage and concentrate feed on the basis of the equation proposed by

INRA, 2007

INRA (Institut national de la recherche agronomique). 2007. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoins des animaux—Valeurs des aliments. Tables Inra 2007. INRA, Versaille, France.

Google Scholar

. Feed nutritional characteristics were obtained from the laboratory analyses.

Table 2Models and emission factors (EF) used for the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions on farm

Pollutant	Source	Amount ¹ VS = daily volatile solid excreted (kg of DM /animal); B0 = maximum methane-producing capacity for manure (m3); MCF = methane conversion factors for each given manure management system (%); MS = fraction of livestock manure handled using each given manure management system (dimensionless); GE = gross energy intake (MJ/ d); DE% = energy digestibility of feed (%); (UE · GE) = urinary energy expressed as fraction of GE (dimensionless); EE% = ether extract of feed (% DM); Nex = annual N excretion (kg of N/animal); EF = emission factor for direct N2O emissions from a given manure management system (kg of N2O-N/kg of N in manure management system); Nsn = annual amount of synthetic fertilizer N applied to soils (kg of N); Non = annual amount of animal manure, compost, sewage sludge and other organic N additions applied to soils (kg of N); Ncr = annual amount of N in crop residues (above and below ground), including N-fixing crops, and from forage/pasture renewal, returned to soils (kg of N); Frac_loss = fraction of managed manure N that is lost in a given manure management system (%); N_bedding = annual amount of N from bedding (kg of N/animal); N volatilization = annual amount of manure N that is lost due to volatilization of NH3 and nitric oxide compounds (NOx; kg of N); Frac_GasMS = fraction of managed manure N that volatilizes as NH3 and NOx in a given manure management system (%); Frac_GasF = fraction of synthetic fertilizer N that volatilizes as NH3 and NOx (% ); Frac_GasM = fraction of applied organic N fertilizer materials and of urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals that volatilizes as NH3 and NOx (%); Frac_Leach = N fraction lost through leaching and runoff (%).	Reference
CH₄	Enteric	CH₄ (MJ) = 2.16 (±1.62) + 0.493 (±0.192) ⋅ DMI (kg) − 1.36 (±0.631) ⋅ ADF (kg) + 1.97 (±0.561) ⋅ NDF (kg)	Ellis et al. (2007) Ellis J.L. Kebreab E. Odongo N.E. McBride B.W. Okine E.K. France J. Prediction of methane production from dairy and beef cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2007; 90: 3456-3466 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (269) Google Scholar
	Manure storage	CH₄ = VS × B₀ ⋅ 0.67 ⋅ MCF/100 ⋅ MS	Equation 10.23 in IPCC, 2006a IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
		VS = [GE ⋅ (1 − DE/100) + (UE ⋅ GE)] ⋅ [(1 − Ash)/18.45]	Equation 10.24 in IPCC, 2006a IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
		GE (kJ) = 17,350 + (234.46 ⋅ EE%) + (62.8 ⋅ CP%) − (184.22 ⋅ Ash %)	Ewan (1989) Ewan R.C. Predicting the energy utilization of diets and feed ingredients by pigs. in: van der Honing Y. Close W.H. Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals. Pudoc, Wageningen, the Netherlands1989 Google Scholar
		DE: feed digestibility	INRA, 2007 INRA (Institut national de la recherche agronomique). 2007. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoins des animaux—Valeurs des aliments. Tables Inra 2007. INRA, Versaille, France. Google Scholar
		MCF solid storage: 4	IPCC, 2006a IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
		MCF liquid slurry: 17
		MCF pit storage: 27
N₂O direct	Manure storage	N₂O = Nex ⋅ MS ⋅ EF ⋅ 44/28	Equation 10.25 in IPCC, 2006a IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
		Nex = Nintake ⋅ (1 − N retention)	Equation 10.31 in IPCC, 2006a IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
		N intake: DMI ⋅ (CP %/100/6.25)
		N retention: N retained per animal with milk and weight gain	Equation 10.33 in IPCC, 2006a IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
		EF solid storage: 0.005 (0.0027 − 0.01)	Table 10.21 in IPCC, 2006a IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
		EF liquid slurry: 0.005
		EF pit storage: 0.002
	Field	N₂O = (Nsn + Non + Ncr) ⋅ EF ⋅ 44/28	Equation 11.2 in IPCC, 2006b IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006b. N₂O Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf Google Scholar
		Non: annual amount of N from managed animal manure applied to soil (Nex − Frac_loss + N bedding)	Equation 10.34 in IPCC, 2006a IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
		Frac_loss solid storage: 40% (10 − 65)	Table 10.23 in IPCC, 2006a IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
		Frac_loss liquid slurry: 40% (15 − 45)
		Frac_loss pit storage: 28% (10 − 40)
		EF: 0.01 (0.003 − 0.03)	Table 11.1 in IPCC, 2006b IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006b. N₂O Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf Google Scholar
N₂O indirect	Manure storage	N₂O_G = N volatilization ⋅ EF ⋅ 44/28	Equation 10.27 in IPCC, 2006a IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
		Nvolatilization: Nex ⋅ MS ⋅ Frac_GasMS/100
		Frac_GasMS solid storage: 30 (10 − 40)	Table 10.22 in IPCC, 2006a IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
		Frac_GasMS liquid slurry: 40 (15 − 45)
		Frac_GasMS pit storage: 28 (10 − 40)
		EF: 0.01 (0.002 − 0.05)	Table 11.3 in IPCC, 2006b IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006b. N₂O Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf Google Scholar
	Field	N₂O_(ATDN) = [(Nsn ⋅ Frac_GasF) + (Non ⋅ Frac_GasM)] ⋅ EF ⋅ 44/28	Equation 11.9 in IPCC, 2006b IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006b. N₂O Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf Google Scholar
		Frac_GasF: 0.1 (0.03 − 0.3)	Table 11.3 in IPCC, 2006b IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006b. N₂O Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf Google Scholar
		Frac_GasM: 0.2 (0.05 − 0.5)	Table 11.3 in IPCC, 2006b IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006b. N₂O Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf Google Scholar
		EF: 0.01 (0.002 − 0.05)	Table 11.3 in IPCC, 2006b IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006b. N₂O Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf Google Scholar
		N₂O_(L) = (Nsn + Non) ⋅ Frac_Leach ⋅ EF ⋅ 44/28	Equation 11.10 in IPCC, 2006b IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006b. N₂O Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf Google Scholar
		Frac_Leach: 0.3 (0.1 − 0.8)
		EF: 0.0075 (0.0005 − 0.025)	Table 11.3 in IPCC, 2006b IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006b. N₂O Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf Google Scholar
CO₂	Field operations		Ecoinvent (2007) Ecoinvent. 2007. Ecoinvent Centre 2007, Ecoinvent Data v2.0—Final reports Ecoinvent 2000 No. 1–15. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Google Scholar
	Diesel combustion ² Excluding the quota used during field operations.	CO₂ = kg diesel ⋅ EF	Nemecek and Kägi (2007) Nemecek, T., and T. Kägi. 2007. Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural production systems. Final Report Ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a. Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, Switzerland Google Scholar
		EF: 3.12 kg of CO₂/kg of diesel

1 VS = daily volatile solid excreted (kg of DM /animal); B₀ = maximum methane-producing capacity for manure (m³); MCF = methane conversion factors for each given manure management system (%); MS = fraction of livestock manure handled using each given manure management system (dimensionless); GE = gross energy intake (MJ/ d); DE% = energy digestibility of feed (%); (UE · GE) = urinary energy expressed as fraction of GE (dimensionless); EE% = ether extract of feed (% DM); Nex = annual N excretion (kg of N/animal); EF = emission factor for direct N₂O emissions from a given manure management system (kg of N₂O-N/kg of N in manure management system); Nsn = annual amount of synthetic fertilizer N applied to soils (kg of N); Non = annual amount of animal manure, compost, sewage sludge and other organic N additions applied to soils (kg of N); Ncr = annual amount of N in crop residues (above and below ground), including N-fixing crops, and from forage/pasture renewal, returned to soils (kg of N); Frac_loss = fraction of managed manure N that is lost in a given manure management system (%); N_bedding = annual amount of N from bedding (kg of N/animal); N volatilization = annual amount of manure N that is lost due to volatilization of NH₃ and nitric oxide compounds (NOx; kg of N); Frac_GasMS = fraction of managed manure N that volatilizes as NH₃ and NOx in a given manure management system (%); Frac_GasF = fraction of synthetic fertilizer N that volatilizes as NH₃ and NOx (% ); Frac_GasM = fraction of applied organic N fertilizer materials and of urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals that volatilizes as NH₃ and NOx (%); Frac_Leach = N fraction lost through leaching and runoff (%).

2 Excluding the quota used during field operations.

Open table in a new tab

In the current study, animal nitrogen excretion was estimated as proposed by the

IPCC, 2006a

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf

Google Scholar

Tier 2 method considering the nitrogen intake (on the basis of CP% of the diet) minus the nitrogen retained by the animals and excreted with milk. Nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions from manure storages occurred in direct and indirect forms, and in both cases they were estimated using the Tier 2 method from

IPCC, 2006a

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf

Google Scholar

. Direct and indirect N₂O losses from fertilizer application were estimated following the Tier 2 and Tier 1 methods suggested by

IPCC, 2006b

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006b. N₂O Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf

Google Scholar

, respectively; the amount of nitrogen applied to the soils from synthetic fertilizers and from manure (slurry and solid) plus the nitrogen from crop residues were accounted for in the estimation.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fuel combustion were estimated on the basis of fuel consumption of each farm. Emissions occurring during field operations (i.e., plowing, harrowing, sowing, harvesting, and so on) were estimated using the processes of the

Ecoinvent (2007)

Ecoinvent. 2007. Ecoinvent Centre 2007, Ecoinvent Data v2.0—Final reports Ecoinvent 2000 No. 1–15. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.

Google Scholar

database; whereas, for other fuel consumptions (i.e., use for feeding mixer), the emission factor used was 3.12 kg of CO₂/kg of diesel, as proposed by

Nemecek and Kägi (2007)

Nemecek, T., and T. Kägi. 2007. Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural production systems. Final Report Ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a. Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, Switzerland

Google Scholar

. Emissions from livestock respiration and the variation in soil carbon stocks were not accounted for.

Other Emissions On Farm

Table 3 reports the models used for the estimation of acidifying and eutrophic substances emitted on farm. Ammonia (NH₃) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions that occur during animal housing, manure storage, and spreading were estimated following the method proposed by the European Environment Agency (

EEA, 2009a

EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view

Google Scholar

,

EEA, 2009b

EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009b. 4.D Crop production and agricultural soils. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-d/4-d-crop-production-and-agricultural-soils.pdf/view

Google Scholar

) on the basis of the total amount of nitrogen excreted by the animals. The Tier 2 method used a mass flow approach based on the concept of a flow of total ammonia nitrogen through the manure management systems. The NH₃-N and NOx emission factors, as a proportion of total ammonia nitrogen, were specific for each manure type (slurry or solid) and each step in manure handling (

EEA, 2009a

EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view

Google Scholar

). The NH₃ and NOx emitted during manure spreading and application of synthetic fertilizers were estimated following

EEA, 2009b

EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009b. 4.D Crop production and agricultural soils. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-d/4-d-crop-production-and-agricultural-soils.pdf/view

Google Scholar

guidelines. The amount of nitrogen leached was estimated following the

IPCC, 2006b

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006b. N₂O Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf

Google Scholar

model (Table 2). To estimate emissions of PO₄^3-, the amount of phosphorus lost in dissolved form to surface water (run-off) and leached was considered as proposed by

Nemecek and Kägi (2007)

Nemecek, T., and T. Kägi. 2007. Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural production systems. Final Report Ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a. Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, Switzerland

Google Scholar

.

Table 3Models and emission factors (EF) for the estimation of ammonia, nitric oxide, and phosphate emissions on farm

Pollutant	Source	Amount ¹ TAN = total ammoniacal-N; Nex = annual average N excretion per head (kg of N/animal); EF_TAN = emission factor of TAN; build_slurry = liquid slurry in the livestock buildings; build_solid = solid manure in the livestock buildings; storage_solid = solid manure in storages; storage_slurry = liquid slurry in storages; applic_slurry = application of liquid slurry to the field; applic_solid = application of solid manure to the field; NH3 applic_fert =emission from fertilizer application to the field; N fert_applic = total N from fertilizer application; EF fert_type = emission factor for fertilizer type; Amm nitr = ammonium nitrate; NPK = nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium fertilizer; Ts = mean spring temperature (°C); NOx = nitric oxide compounds (NO + NO2); Pgw = quantity of phosphorus leached to ground water (kg/ha); Pgwl = average quantity of phosphorus leached to ground water for each land use category (kg/ha); Fgw =correction factor for fertilization by slurry; Pro = quantity of phosphorus lost through runoff to rivers (kg/ha); Prol = average quantity of phosphorus lost through runoff to rivers for each land use category (kg/ha); Fro = correction factor for fertilization with each source of phosphorus.	Reference
NH₃	Housing	TAN = Nex ⋅ EF_TAN	Equation 10 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		EF_TAN: 0.6	Table 3–8 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		NH₃build_slurry = TANbuild_slurry ⋅ EFbuild_slurry ⋅ 17/14	Equation 15 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		EFbuild_slurry: 0.2	Table 3–8 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		NH₃build_solid = TANbuild_solid ⋅ EFbuild_solid ⋅ 17/14	Equation 16 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		EFbuild_solid: 0.19	Table 3–8 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
	Manure storage	NH₃storage_solid = TANstorage_slurry ⋅ EFstorage_slurry ⋅ 17/14	Equation 29 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		EFstorage_slurry: 0.20	Table 3–8 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		NH₃storage_solid = TANstorage_solid ⋅ EFstorage_solid ⋅ 17/14	Equation 30 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		EFstorage_solid: 0.27	Table 3–8 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
	Field	NH₃applic_slurry = TANslurry_applic ⋅ EFapplic_slurry ⋅ 17/14	Equation 35 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		EFapplic_slurry: 0.55	Table 3–8 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		NH₃applic_solid = TANsolid_applic ⋅ EFapplic_solid ⋅ 17/14	Equation 36 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		EFapplic_solid: 0.79	Table 3–8 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		NH₃applic_fert = Nfert_applic ⋅ EFfert_type	Equation 3 in EEA, 2009b EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009b. 4.D Crop production and agricultural soils. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-d/4-d-crop-production-and-agricultural-soils.pdf/view Google Scholar
		EF urea: 0.1067 + 0.0035 ⋅ Ts	Table 3–2 in EEA, 2009b EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009b. 4.D Crop production and agricultural soils. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-d/4-d-crop-production-and-agricultural-soils.pdf/view Google Scholar
		EFamm.nitr. and NPK: 0.0080 + 0.0001 ⋅ Ts
NOx	Manure storage	NOxstorage_solid = TANstorage_slurry ⋅ EFstorage_slurry ⋅ 17/14	Equation 29 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		EFstorage_slurry: 0.0001	Table 3–9 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		NOxstorage_solid = TANstorage_solid ⋅ EFstorage_solid ⋅ 17/14	Equation 30 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
		EFstorage_solid: 0.01	Table 3–9 in EEA, 2009a EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view Google Scholar
	Field	NOxapplic_tot = (Nslurry_applic + Nsolid_applic + Nfert_applic) ⋅ EFapplic
	Field	EFapplic: 0.026	Table 3–1 in EEA, 2009b EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009b. 4.D Crop production and agricultural soils. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-d/4-d-crop-production-and-agricultural-soils.pdf/view Google Scholar
PO³⁻₄	Field	P_gw (leached to ground water) = P_gwl ⋅ F_gw	Paragraph 4.4.3 in Nemecek and Kägi (2007) Nemecek, T., and T. Kägi. 2007. Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural production systems. Final Report Ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a. Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, Switzerland Google Scholar
		P_gwl arable land: 0.07
		P_gwl permanent pasture and meadow: 0.06
		F_gw: 1 + 0.2/80 • P₂O₅slurry
		P_ro (P lost through run-off to rivers) = P_rol ⋅ F_ro
		P_rol open arable land: 0.175
		P_rol extensive meadow: 0.25
		F_rofert: 0.2/80 ⋅ P₂O₅fert
		F_roslurry: 0.7/80 ⋅ P₂O₅slurry
		F_romanure: 0.4/80 ⋅ P₂O₅manure

1 TAN = total ammoniacal-N; Nex = annual average N excretion per head (kg of N/animal); EF_TAN = emission factor of TAN; build_slurry = liquid slurry in the livestock buildings; build_solid = solid manure in the livestock buildings; storage_solid = solid manure in storages; storage_slurry = liquid slurry in storages; applic_slurry = application of liquid slurry to the field; applic_solid = application of solid manure to the field; NH₃ applic_fert =emission from fertilizer application to the field; N fert_applic = total N from fertilizer application; EF fert_type = emission factor for fertilizer type; Amm nitr = ammonium nitrate; NPK = nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium fertilizer; Ts = mean spring temperature (°C); NOx = nitric oxide compounds (NO + NO₂); P_gw = quantity of phosphorus leached to ground water (kg/ha); P_gwl = average quantity of phosphorus leached to ground water for each land use category (kg/ha); F_gw =correction factor for fertilization by slurry; Pro = quantity of phosphorus lost through runoff to rivers (kg/ha); P_rol = average quantity of phosphorus lost through runoff to rivers for each land use category (kg/ha); Fro = correction factor for fertilization with each source of phosphorus.

Open table in a new tab

Off-Farm Processes

The emissions related to off-farm activities were calculated using LCA software, Simapro PhD 7.3.3 (

PRé Consultants, 2012

PRé Consultants. 2012. SimaPro 7.3.2 PhD, LCA software. Amersfoort, the Netherlands. Accessed May 2012. http://www.pre.nl

Google Scholar

), and were modeled using the databases reported in Table 4. The processes considered included the production chain of commercial feed (from crop growing to feed factory processing), production of purchased forages and bedding material, rearing of purchased replacing heifers, production of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and diesel and electricity used in the farms. Transportation was accounted for only in feed, bedding materials, and purchased replacement animals.

Table 4Inventory of off-farm processes

Process	Reference
Feed production
Crop	Ecoinvent (2007) Ecoinvent. 2007. Ecoinvent Centre 2007, Ecoinvent Data v2.0—Final reports Ecoinvent 2000 No. 1–15. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Google Scholar ; Baldoni and Giardini, 2002 Baldoni, R., and L. Giardini. 2002. Coltivazioni Erbacee, Foraggere e Tappeti Erbosi. Pàtron Editore, Bologna, Italy. Google Scholar ; Ribaudo, 2002 Ribaudo F. Prontuario di Agricoltura. Calderini Edagricole, Bologna, Italy2002 Google Scholar ; data from the current study
Milk powder	Nielsen et al., 2007
Feed processing	Nielsen et al., 2007
Forage production	Ecoinvent (2007) Ecoinvent. 2007. Ecoinvent Centre 2007, Ecoinvent Data v2.0—Final reports Ecoinvent 2000 No. 1–15. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Google Scholar ; Baldoni and Giardini, 2002 Baldoni, R., and L. Giardini. 2002. Coltivazioni Erbacee, Foraggere e Tappeti Erbosi. Pàtron Editore, Bologna, Italy. Google Scholar ; Ribaudo, 2002 Ribaudo F. Prontuario di Agricoltura. Calderini Edagricole, Bologna, Italy2002 Google Scholar ; data from the current study
Bedding material production	Ecoinvent (2007) Ecoinvent. 2007. Ecoinvent Centre 2007, Ecoinvent Data v2.0—Final reports Ecoinvent 2000 No. 1–15. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Google Scholar
Rearing animals	Data from the current study
Fertilizer production	Patyk and Reinhardt, 1997 Patyk A. Reinhardt G.A. Düngemittel- Energie- und Stoffstrohmbilanzen (Fertilizer- Energy- and Massbalances). Vieweg, Heidelberg, Germany1997 Crossref Google Scholar ; Ecoinvent (2007) Ecoinvent. 2007. Ecoinvent Centre 2007, Ecoinvent Data v2.0—Final reports Ecoinvent 2000 No. 1–15. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Google Scholar
Pesticide production	Ecoinvent (2007) Ecoinvent. 2007. Ecoinvent Centre 2007, Ecoinvent Data v2.0—Final reports Ecoinvent 2000 No. 1–15. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Google Scholar
Energy production	Ecoinvent (2007) Ecoinvent. 2007. Ecoinvent Centre 2007, Ecoinvent Data v2.0—Final reports Ecoinvent 2000 No. 1–15. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Google Scholar
Transportation	Ecoinvent (2007) Ecoinvent. 2007. Ecoinvent Centre 2007, Ecoinvent Data v2.0—Final reports Ecoinvent 2000 No. 1–15. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Google Scholar

Open table in a new tab

As farms bought a quota of their replacement heifers, a simplified LCA was performed to assess the impacts associated to heifer rearing, considering animals sold at 24 mo of age, average feed intake, average diet composition, standard housing conditions, and manure management.

Impact Assessment

The environmental impact of milk production in each dairy farm was evaluated through a detailed cradle-to-farm-gate LCA (

Belflower et al., 2012

Belflower J.B.
Bernard J.K.
Gattie D.K.
Hancock D.W.
Risse L.M.
Rotz C.A.

A case study of the potential environmental impacts of different dairy production systems in Georgia.

). The system boundaries included all the on-farm processes plus the off-farm activities linked to the production of external inputs (Figure 1).

Figure thumbnail gr1 — Figure 1System boundaries. T = transportation.
View Large Image
Figure Viewer
Download Hi-res image
Download (PPT)

The selected environmental impact categories were global warming, acidification, eutrophication, nonrenewable energy use, and land use (

O’Brien et al., 2012

O’Brien D.
Shalloo L.
Patton J.
Buckley F.
Grainger C.
Wallace M.

A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms.

). The impact assessment was performed with the

EPD, 2008

EPD (Environmental Product Declarations) 2008. SimaPro 7.7.3 PhD, Database\Professional\Methods\EPD 1.03 version. EPD, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.

Google Scholar

1.03 method, updated with

IPCC, 2007

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Direct global warming potential. In IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Accessed June 2012. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html

Google Scholar

global-warming potential (GWP) conversion factors (100-yr time horizon). Land use was estimated on the basis of total area (on- and off-farm land).

On a global perspective the functional unit (FU) was established as 1 kg of fat- and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) leaving the farm gate (

Thomassen et al., 2008

Thomassen M.A.
van Calker K.J.
Smits M.C.J.
Iepema G.L.
de Boer I.J.M.

Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands.

) estimated using the formula FPCM (kg) = raw milk (kg) × (0.337 + 0.116 × % fat + 0.060 × % protein) from

Gerber et al. (2010)

Gerber P.
Vellinga T.
Opio C.
Henderson B.
Steinfeld H.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector.

Google Scholar

. The biological allocation method developed by

IDF, 2010

IDF (International Dairy Federation).2010. A common carbon footprint approach for dairy. The IDF guide to standard lifecycle assessment methodology for the dairy sector. In the Bulletin of theIDFNo 445/2010. International Dairy Federation, Brussels, Belgium.

Google Scholar

for the dairy farming system was calculated using the formula AF = 1 − 5.7717 × R, where AF = allocation factor for milk; r = M meat/M milk; M meat = sum of liveweight of all animals sold, including bull calves and culled mature animals; and M milk = sum of sold FPCM. The environmental impacts were also estimated from a local point of view, assuming 1 ha of farm land as FU.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.2 software (

SAS Institute, 2001

SAS Institute. 2001. User’s Guide, Version 9.0. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Google Scholar

) and was carried out in 3 steps. The first step was performed through a principal component analysis (PCA; PROC PRINCOMP) to study the relationships among total environmental impacts per kilogram of milk and per hectare, their on-farm contributions, and several quantitative variables related to farming intensity, including production level (kg of FPCM/cow per day), dairy efficiency (kg of FPCM/kg of DMI), number of dairy cows, stocking rate as livestock units (LU; LU/ha), total farm land (ha), shares of maize land for silage and grassland on total farm land, and IOFC (€/cow per day). In the second step, farms were grouped through a CLUSTER procedure (using average linkage method) considering as variables total farm land (ha), number of dairy cows, stocking rate (LU/ha), production level (kg of FPCM/cow per day), percentage of grass hay and maize silage on DMI, percentage of maize land for silage on farm land, dairy efficiency (kg of FPCM/kg of DMI), and feed self-sufficiency (expressed as the ratio between the DM produced on farm and the total DM used for animal feeding). For each cluster, average farm characteristics and environmental impacts on a global (FU = 1 kg of FPCM) and local (FU = 1 ha of farm land) scale were computed. Moreover a Pearson correlation analysis was used to identify the relationship between farm characteristics and each environmental impact expressed per hectare of farm land.

Results

Environmental Impacts of Milk Unit

Table 5 reports the average results of the environmental impact assessment of milk production in the farms under consideration expressed per milk unit. The on-farm percentage of GHG emissions was much higher compared with the off-farm one. The most important contributor to global warming was enteric and manure storage emission (52.9 ± 4.40%), followed by emissions related to the production of concentrated feed (19.9 ± 6.78%). Almost all the acidification was due to on-farm activity and the main role was played by farm crop production (39.1 ± 8.54%), animal housing (22.7 ± 2.63%), and manure storage (22.5 ± 5.25%). Also, for eutrophication, on-farm contribution was the most important factor; in particular, farm crop production was the major driver (51.6 ± 7.89%), whereas, in off-farm processes, the production of concentrate feed accounted for 21.2 ± 7.66% of total eutrophication potential. In nonrenewable energy use, the on- and off-farm contributions were similar; the production of concentrated feed covered 46.6 ± 13.9% of the total energy consumption alone. Similar to energy consumption, land use did not show any important difference between on- and off-farm shares; crop production for purchased concentrated feed contributed 33.0 ± 10.8% of total impact alone, followed by growing of purchased forages (5.82 ± 7.58%).

Table 5Total environmental impacts expressed per kilogram of fat- and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) for the 28 dairy farms and on-farm contributions

Environmental impact	Location	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Global warming (kg of CO₂-equivalent)	Total	1.26	0.17	0.90	1.56
	On-farm %	74.3	7.05	61.1	87.8
Acidification (g of SO₂-equivalent)	Total	15.2	3.34	8.63	21.7
	On-farm %	86.6	5.60	70.1	94.9
Eutrophication (g of PO₄-equivalent)	Total	7.33	1.39	5.00	9.69
	On-farm %	74.6	8.10	59.5	90.3
Energy use (MJ)	Total	5.47	0.89	2.85	7.33
	On-farm %	43.3	12.5	22.9	72.1
Land use (m²)	Total	0.95	0.16	0.59	1.24
	On-farm %	58.1	12.4	40.1	83.1

Open table in a new tab

Figure 2 shows the average contributions of different substances to GWP, acidification, and eutrophication. Overall, methane was responsible for 49.9 ± 3.64% of total GHG emission, followed by carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, which had similar weights (25.4 ± 2.59 and 24.5 ± 3.25%, respectively). Enteric fermentation was the most important source of CH₄, as 74.3 ± 8.87% of total methane was produced in the gastrointestinal tract of the animals.

Figure thumbnail gr2 — Figure 2Contribution of different substances to the impact categories.
View Large Image
Figure Viewer
Download Hi-res image
Download (PPT)

Ammonia emission accounted for 88.8 ± 2.34% of acidification potential. Ammonia volatilized mainly during application of manure on farm soils (41.4 ± 9.36% of total ammonia emission) and during animal housing and manure storage (25.6 ± 2.87 and 25.1 ± 5.66% of total ammonia emission, respectively). Nitrate leaching was the main contributor to eutrophication potential (47.8 ± 4.01%), followed by volatilized NH₃ (40.3 ± 4.61%), whereas the role of phosphate losses was less important (only 6.13 ± 1.43%). The percentage of nitrate leached during on-farm crop production was higher than the fraction related to purchased feed (concentrates and forages), at 67.1 ± 10.4 and 29.6 ± 10.9% of total nitrogen leached, respectively.

Interaction Between Farm Characteristics and Environmental Impact

The results obtained from the PCA are plotted in Figures 3 and 4 and the eigenvectors are reported in Tables 6 and 7. Figure 3 shows the multivariate correlation between farm characteristics and environmental impacts per kilogram of FPCM. The first dimension explains 38.7% of the total variance, whereas the second dimension explains 20.1%. Total impacts [total global warming (GWtot), total land use (LANDtot), and total energy use (ENERGYtot)] and their on-farm quotas, expressed in terms of kilograms of milk produced, are in the same area and highly correlated with each other and with feed self-sufficiency. On-farm land use and on-farm energy use are strongly related to feed self-sufficiency because the higher the quota of feed produced on farm, the higher their impact. Total and on-farm acidification and eutrophication are very close to the percentage of land used for maize silage production, which needs high N fertilization.

Figure thumbnail gr3 — Figure 3Principal component analysis (environmental impact expressed per kilogram of fat- and protein-corrected milk). PC = principal component; GW = global warming (kg of CO₂ equivalents); EUTr = eutrophication (g of PO₄ equivalents); ACID = acidification (g of SO₂ equivalents); LAND = land use (m²); ENERGY = energy use (MJ); tot = total impact; on = on-farm fraction of impact; IOFC = income over feed cost (€/cow per day); IOFC = income over feed cost (€/cow per day).
View Large Image
Figure Viewer
Download Hi-res image
Download (PPT)

Figure thumbnail gr4 — Figure 4Principal component analysis (environmental impact expressed per hectare of farm land). PC = principal component; GW = global warming (kg of CO₂ equivalents); eutrophication (g of PO₄ equivalents); ACID = acidification (g of SO₂ equivalents); ENERGY = energy use (MJ); tot = total impact; on = on-farm fraction of impact.
View Large Image
Figure Viewer
Download Hi-res image
Download (PPT)

Table 6Eigenvectors corresponding to the principal components (PC) retained for the 28 dairy farms (impacts expressed per kilogram of fat- and protein-corrected milk; FPCM); the first 5 PC had eigenvalues greater than 1

Item	Unit	PC 1	PC 2	PC 3	PC 4	PC 5
Farm land	ha	0.07	0.33	0.29	0.00	−0.52
Maize land for silage	% land	0.09	0.26	−0.29	−0.25	0.07
Permanent grassland	% land	−0.18	−0.19	0.05	0.44	−0.07
Dairy cows	no.	−0.01	0.40	0.08	−0.02	−0.55
Stocking density	LU ¹ LU = livestock units. /ha	−0.13	0.18	−0.48	−0.03	−0.06
Milk production	kg of FPCM/cow per day	−0.22	0.32	0.17	0.12	0.27
Dairy efficiency	kg of milk/kg of DMI	−0.20	0.27	0.23	−0.01	0.33
Feed self-sufficiency	% of total feed DM	0.23	−0.12	0.26	−0.42	0.00
Global warming total	kg of CO₂-equivalent	0.30	0.00	−0.14	0.35	−0.06
Global warming on farm	kg of CO₂-equivalent	0.32	−0.09	−0.14	−0.03	−0.10
Acidification total	g of SO₂-equivalent	0.27	0.28	−0.08	0.07	0.17
Acidification on farm	g of SO₂-equivalent	0.27	0.27	−0.08	−0.04	0.15
Eutrophication total	g of PO₄-equivalent	0.30	0.24	−0.06	0.16	0.15
Eutrophication on farm	g of PO₄-equivalent	0.32	0.19	−0.04	−0.13	0.10
Energy use total	MJ	0.25	0.00	0.09	0.38	0.24
Energy use on farm	MJ	0.26	−0.26	0.05	−0.28	0.04
Land use total	m ² IOFC = income over feed cost.	0.24	−0.01	0.30	0.35	−0.09
Land use on farm	m ² IOFC = income over feed cost.	0.25	−0.20	0.34	−0.06	−0.03
IOFC ² IOFC = income over feed cost.	€/cow per day	−0.13	0.23	0.42	−0.16	0.23

1 LU = livestock units.

2 IOFC = income over feed cost.

Open table in a new tab

Table 7Eigenvectors corresponding to the principal components (PC) retained for the 28 dairy farms (impacts expressed per hectare); the first 4 PC had eigenvalues greater than 1

Item	Unit	PC 1	PC 2	PC 3	PC 4
Farm land	ha	−0.03	0.37	0.35	−0.47
Maize land for silage	% land	0.20	−0.05	0.40	0.15
Permanent grassland	% land	−0.06	0.03	−0.58	−0.32
Dairy cows	LU ¹ LU = livestock units. /ha	0.11	0.34	0.30	−0.49
Stocking density	no.	0.31	−0.08	−0.08	−0.10
Milk production	kg of FPCM ² FPCM = fat- and protein-corrected milk. /cow per day	0.12	0.46	−0.20	0.17
Dairy efficiency	kg of milk/kg of DMI	0.08	0.44	−0.16	0.35
Feed self-sufficiency	% of total feed DM	−0.21	−0.08	0.41	0.25
Global warming total	kg of CO₂-equivalent	0.33	−0.04	−0.10	−0.09
Global warming on farm	kg of CO₂-equivalent	0.33	−0.09	−0.04	−0.08
Acidification total	g of SO₂-equivalent	0.33	0.03	0.03	0.05
Acidification on farm	g of SO₂-equivalent	0.32	0.02	0.06	0.06
Eutrophication total	g of PO₄-equivalent	0.34	0.02	0.02	0.01
Eutrophication on farm	g of PO₄-equivalent	0.33	0.01	0.11	0.05
Energy use total	MJ	0.30	0.00	−0.11	0.03
Energy use on farm	MJ	0.22	−0.28	0.10	0.18
IOFC ³ IOFC = income over feed cost	€/cow per day	−0.04	0.48	0.02	0.37

1 LU = livestock units.

2 FPCM = fat- and protein-corrected milk.

3 IOFC = income over feed cost

Open table in a new tab

The farm characteristics enclosed in the upper-left area of Figure 3 are inversely related to the total impact per kilogram of milk. The distance between the variables on the first dimension of the graph means that improving milk production and dairy efficiency, on one hand, and increasing stocking density and the share of grassland on farm land, on the other hand, may result in a reduction of all the impacts per kilogram of product. Dairy efficiency is one of the parameters that mainly influences profitability, expressed as IOFC, of a dairy farm; in fact, they are in the same area of Figure 3. Stocking density and feed self-sufficiency are on the opposite sides of the graph in Figure 3 and inversely related as a consequence of the higher amount of feeds generally bought from the market in the high-stocking density farms. Figure 4 shows the multivariate correlation between farm characteristics and environmental impacts per hectare of land. All environmental impact categories are close to each other, to the percentage of land for maize silage, and to the stocking density. On the first dimension (principal component 1), which explains 50.8% of the variance, all impact categories, expressed on unit of land, are inversely related to feed self-sufficiency.

The Pearson correlation analysis identified stocking density and feed self-sufficiency as the major drivers of environmental burden per hectare of farm land for all the impact categories. In particular, global warming (kg of CO₂-equivalent/ha of farm land) showed a strong positive correlation with stocking density (r = 0.91; P < 0.001) and a negative correlation with feed self-sufficiency (r = −0.71; P < 0.001). Significant positive correlations were shown between the percentage of land used to grow maize for silage and all on-farm impact categories, especially acidification and eutrophication (0.55; P < 0.01 and 0.58; P < 0.01, respectively).

Figure 5 shows the relationship between stocking density and eutrophication, expressed both per kilogram of FPCM and per hectare of farm land. The number of LU per hectare did not affect the emission per kilogram of milk, whereas it is a key point when the impact is expressed in land units.

Figure thumbnail gr5 — Figure 5Relation between stocking density and eutrophication expressed per kilogram of fat- and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) and per hectare of farm land. Open circles (○) represent eutrophication per hectare and stocking density: y = 42.025x + 10.561; R² = 0.74. Triangles (▲) represent eutrophication per kilogram of FPCM and stocking density: y = −0.0543x + 7.5317; R² = 0.002. LU = livestock unit.
View Large Image
Figure Viewer
Download Hi-res image
Download (PPT)

Farming Intensity and Environmental Performances

The cluster analysis clearly identified 3 groups of farms differing in terms of intensity level (Table 8). The first one (high) included 10 farms characterized by a high level of intensification: high milk production per hectare, high percentage of arable land on total land, large land area sowed with maize for silage, high stocking density, high milk yield per cow, high dairy efficiency, high use of concentrate and maize silage in the cow rations instead of grass hay. The second cluster (medium) consisted of 7 farms less intensive in comparison with the farms of first cluster. The third group (low) included 11 farms identified as the least intensive on the basis of their characteristics.

Table 8Characteristics of the clusters

Item	Unit	Intensity level
		High		Medium		Low
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Farm		10		7		11
Farm land	ha	34.9	8.17	81.4	21	20	9.84
Arable crops	% of total land	54.1	17.4	61.7	20.2	34.5	25.6
Maize for silage	% of total land	45.7	18.6	38.5	13.3	26.9	22.5
Livestock unit (LU)	n	157	37.1	258	36.1	55	21.5
Stocking density	LU ¹ LU = livestock units. /ha	4.71	1.44	3.31	0.8	2.97	0.67
Daily milk production	kg of FPCM ² FPCM = fat- and protein-corrected milk. /cow	28.9	2.03	28.1	2.29	24.7	5.66
Production intensity	kg of FPCM/ha per year	25,917	9,043	17,771	4,875	15,439	4,668
Dry matter intake	kg/cow per day	21.22	1.3	21.2	1.92	12.0	2.12
Dairy efficiency	kg of milk/kg of DMI	1.36	0.16	1.33	0.07	1.22	0.18
Forage concentrate ratio		1.33	0.33	1.37	0.58	2.21	1.56
Maize silage intake	% DMI	30.41	6.84	34.7	3.04	22.75	17.3
Grass hay intake	% DMI	15.64	11.5	17.9	9.23	27.47	14.4
Feed self-sufficiency	% of total feed DM	54.63	10.4	69.2	12.5	71.72	14.4
IOFC ³ IOFC = income over feed cost.	€/cow per day	5.96	1.23	6.76	0.82	5.78	1.27

1 LU = livestock units.

2 FPCM = fat- and protein-corrected milk.

3 IOFC = income over feed cost.

Open table in a new tab

Total farm land was different among the 3 groups, with the highest value in the medium cluster and lower values in the others. The percentage of arable land of the low group was lower compared with the other 2 groups; high had the higher quota of land used to grow maize for silage in comparison with the low group. The number of livestock units showed the same trend among the groups observed for the farm land. Stocking rate was generally high; in the high group it was particularly elevated compared with the other groups. The milk production levels of high and medium were higher compared with low; similarly, the dairy efficiency, which is strongly related to the level of productivity, showed better results in high and medium farms. High farms had lower feed self-sufficiency compared with the other groups which had similar values. Considering the economic performances, no differences were observed between the average IOFC of the 3 clusters.

Analyzing the environmental impact on the product basis, only few differences were observed among the groups, and overall they should be considered similar (Table 9). Low farms showed higher on-farm energy use compared with the high ones. High farms had lower on-farm land use impact compared with the other 2 groups, whereas low had lower off-farm land use than high and medium.

Table 9Environmental impacts expressed per kilogram of fat- and protein-corrected milk corresponding to each cluster of farms

Item	Location	Intensity level
		High		Medium		Low
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Global warming (kg of CO₂-equivalent)	Total	1.26	0.17	1.27	0.13	1.25	0.21
	On farm	0.90	0.13	0.95	0.09	0.96	0.21
	Off farm	0.36	0.09	0.32	0.08	0.29	0.13
Acidification (g of SO₂-equivalent)	Total	16.0	3.07	16.2	4.05	13.9	2.91
	On farm	13.9	2.79	14.3	4.24	12.0	2.89
	Off farm	2.13	0.51	1.94	0.48	1.86	1.09
Eutrophication (g of PO₄-equivalent)	Total	7.59	1.24	7.71	1.10	6.86	1.63
	On farm	5.45	0.82	5.96	1.38	5.23	1.65
	Off farm	2.14	0.56	1.75	0.51	1.63	0.74
Energy use (MJ)	Total	5.44	1.17	5.44	0.66	5.51	0.80
	On farm	2.00	0.42	2.19	0.38	2.77	0.91
	Off farm	3.44	0.98	3.25	0.54	2.74	1.01
Land use (m²)	Total	0.89	0.16	1.02	0.18	0.97	0.14
	On farm	0.44	0.13	0.59	0.14	0.64	0.14
	Off farm	0.45	0.09	0.43	0.11	0.32	0.13

Open table in a new tab

The results change widely if the environmental impacts are evaluated on land unit, as shown in Table 10. High had higher total environmental impact per hectare of farm land for all the categories in comparison to the other 2 groups, which were similar to each other. A similar trend was observed for on-farm GWP, acidification, and eutrophication, which were higher in high than in medium and low. No differences were found regarding on-farm energy use.

Table 10Environmental impacts expressed per hectare corresponding to each cluster of farms

Item	Location	Intensity level
		High		Medium		Low
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Global warming (kg of CO₂-equivalent)	Total	36,269	10,026	26,094	8,130	22,475	5,907
	On farm	25,992	7,500	19,384	5,542	16,935	3,618
	Off farm	10,277	3,088	6,711	2,845	5,540	3,442
Acidification (g of SO₂-equivalent)	Total	464	154	316	56	252	85.5
	On farm	404	141	276	63.5	216	66.6
	Off farm	60.0	17.8	40.2	18.2	36.2	28.6
Eutrophication (g of PO₄-equivalent)	Total	218	65.6	155	31.6	123	35.0
	On farm	158	51.7	118	22.6	92.0	24.5
	Off farm	60.3	18.2	37.1	19.8	30.7	18.3
Energy use (MJ)	Total	152,327	36,184	111,278	32,997	99,317	26,930
	On farm	56,063	12,714	43,844	8,653	47,436	10,663
	Off farm	96,264	28,116	67,434	26,867	51,881	30,655

Open table in a new tab

Discussion

Environmental Impacts of Milk Unit

The estimated GWP for the production of 1 kg of FPCM was comparable to the value found by

Guerci et al. (2013)

Guerci M.
Bava L.
Zucali M.
Sandrucci A.
Penati C.
Tamburini A.

Effect of farming strategies on environmental impact of intensive dairy farms in Italy.

and in agreement with

Castanheira et al. (2010)

Castanheira É.G.
Dias A.C.
Arroja L.
Amaro R.

The environmental performance of milk production on a typical Portuguese dairy farm.

, who similarly obtained a higher contribution of on-farm activities to GHG emission compared with off-farm activities. The acidification and the eutrophication potentials were similar to

Castanheira et al. (2010)

Castanheira É.G.
Dias A.C.
Arroja L.
Amaro R.

The environmental performance of milk production on a typical Portuguese dairy farm.

, but higher compared with findings reported by

O’Brien et al., 2012

O’Brien D.
Shalloo L.
Patton J.
Buckley F.
Grainger C.
Wallace M.

A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms.

and

Basset-Mens et al., 2009

Basset-Mens C.
Ledgard S.
Boyes M.

Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk production in New Zealand.

. Total nonrenewable energy use was consistent with the results reported by

Thomassen et al., 2008

Thomassen M.A.
van Calker K.J.
Smits M.C.J.
Iepema G.L.
de Boer I.J.M.

Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands.

for conventional Dutch dairy farms. Considering land use, the total impact and on-farm contribution were similar to

O’Brien et al., 2012

O’Brien D.
Shalloo L.
Patton J.
Buckley F.
Grainger C.
Wallace M.

A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms.

and

Basset-Mens et al., 2009

Basset-Mens C.
Ledgard S.
Boyes M.

Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk production in New Zealand.

. The contributions of the different substances to GWP were comparable with

Castanheira et al. (2010)

Castanheira É.G.
Dias A.C.
Arroja L.
Amaro R.

The environmental performance of milk production on a typical Portuguese dairy farm.

. Similarly, several other studies reported CH₄ to be the predominant contributor to the total climate change emissions (

Flysjö et al., 2011

Flysjö A.
Henriksson M.
Cederberg C.
Ledgard S.
Englund J.E.

The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden.

;

Kristensen et al. (2011)

Kristensen T.
Mogensen L.
Knudsen M.T.
Hermansen J.E.

Effect of production system and farming strategy on greenhouse gas emissions from commercial dairy farms in a life cycle approach.

;

O’Brien et al., 2012

O’Brien D.
Shalloo L.
Patton J.
Buckley F.
Grainger C.
Wallace M.

A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms.

), whereas

Thomassen et al., 2008

Thomassen M.A.
van Calker K.J.
Smits M.C.J.
Iepema G.L.
de Boer I.J.M.

Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands.

found a methane contribution to total climate change of only 34% in the conventional system and of 43% in the organic system. Enteric methane is generally recognized as the major driver of GHG emissions in milk production, and the abatement of enterically derived CH₄ is considered one of the most promising strategies for the reduction of GHG emissions from the dairy sector (

Mc Geough et al., 2012

Mc Geough E.J.
Little S.M.
Janzen H.H.
McAllister T.A.
McGinn S.M.
Beauchemin K.A.

Life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from dairy production in eastern Canada: A case study.

).

The main contribution of ammonia to total acidification potential was found also by

Thomassen et al., 2008

Thomassen M.A.
van Calker K.J.
Smits M.C.J.
Iepema G.L.
de Boer I.J.M.

Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands.

and

Castanheira et al. (2010)

Castanheira É.G.
Dias A.C.
Arroja L.
Amaro R.

The environmental performance of milk production on a typical Portuguese dairy farm.

, who observed that NH₃ emissions have a strong impact on the total acidification potential, whereas SO₂ and NOx play a minor role.

Castanheira et al. (2010)

Castanheira É.G.
Dias A.C.
Arroja L.
Amaro R.

The environmental performance of milk production on a typical Portuguese dairy farm.

reported NH₃ and NO₃ as the major contributors to total eutrophication potential, whereas

Thomassen et al., 2008

Thomassen M.A.
van Calker K.J.
Smits M.C.J.
Iepema G.L.
de Boer I.J.M.

Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands.

found phosphate to be more important in terms of impact on eutrophication. In the study of

O’Brien et al., 2012

O’Brien D.
Shalloo L.
Patton J.
Buckley F.
Grainger C.
Wallace M.

A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms.

, nitrate losses occurring on-farm were around 90% for the seasonal grass-based dairy system, but only about 30% for the confinement dairy system.

Interaction Between Farm Characteristics and Environmental Impact

The negative relationships shown by the PCA between total environmental impact per milk unit, on one side, and dairy efficiency and milk production level, on the other, are in agreement with numerous results from the literature. In fact, feed conversion efficiency of the animals is known to be an effective strategy in mitigating the environmental impact per unit of product (

Hermansen and Kristensen, 2011

Hermansen J.E.
Kristensen T.

Management options to reduce the carbon footprint of livestock products.

;

Yan et al. (2013)

Yan M.J.
Humphreys J.
Holden N.M.

Life cycle assessment of milk production from commercial dairy farms: The influence of management tactics.

); according to

Capper et al. (2008)

Capper J.L.
Castañeda-Gutiérrez E.
Cady R.A.
Bauman D.E.

The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production.

, a general increase in productivity might positively affect the environmental sustainability of milk.

Guerci et al. (2013)

Guerci M.
Bava L.
Zucali M.
Sandrucci A.
Penati C.
Tamburini A.

Effect of farming strategies on environmental impact of intensive dairy farms in Italy.

showed that farming strategies based on high production intensity and high dairy efficiency could mitigate environmental impact per kilogram of milk. The mitigation effect of enhancing dairy efficiency is based on the dilution of environmental costs associated with maintenance. Moreover high-producing cows usually receive low-fiber rations, reducing their methane emission per kilogram of milk.

The negative correlation between stocking density and total impact (per kilogram of FPCM) is a little surprising, especially when eutrophication and acidification potentials are considered. But farms with high stocking density were also characterized by high production levels and high dairy efficiency.

Grassland, instead of arable land, seemed to have a positive effect on the environmental impact, but its role was not clear due to the opposite effects of many factors. Generally grassland needs less fertilization than arable land and this has positive effects on GWP, eutrophication, and acidification, but arable crops (e.g., maize silage) have higher yield per hectare and require less field operations and less energy compared with grass hay production (

Rotz et al., 2010

Rotz C.A.
Montes F.
Chianese D.S.

The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment.

).

Profitability, expressed as IOFC, shows a negative relationship with total environmental impact per kilogram of FPCM. Farms with cows more efficient in converting feed to milk have higher income per cow and lower impacts per milk unit.

Regarding environmental impact per hectare of land, PCA showed that the farm management characteristics mostly related to the different impact categories were stocking density and percentage of land for maize silage production. High LU per hectare means a high quantity of organic nitrogen on soil and low feed self-sufficiency. With respect to percentage of land for maize silage production, its positive relationship with environmental impact per hectare depends mainly on the high demand of maize in terms of nitrogen application (organic and chemical), which is positively related to environmental impact per unit of land, as found by

Casey and Holden (2005)

Casey J.W.
Holden N.M.

The relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the intensity of milk production. Ireland.

.

Farming Intensity and Environmental Performances

The current study did not show any difference between the environmental impact per milk unit of the 3 clusters of farms, despite important differences among the groups in terms of farm characteristics and farming intensity. On the contrary, when the functional unit was the hectare of farm land, most of the impacts were much higher in the group of farms with high intensity levels. In general, intensification, defined as increased output per hectare, invariably led to increased emissions when expressed on an area basis; however, the result was less obvious when expressed on a product basis (

Crosson et al. (2011)

Crosson P.
Shalloo L.
O’Brien D.
Laniganc G.J.
Foley P.A.
Boland T.M.
Kenny D.A.

A review of whole farm systems models of greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle production systems.

).

Basset-Mens et al., 2009

Basset-Mens C.
Ledgard S.
Boyes M.

Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk production in New Zealand.

highlighted better environmental performances for the low-input dairy systems compared with more intensive systems from both a product and local perspective; similar results were obtained by

O’Brien et al., 2012

O’Brien D.
Shalloo L.
Patton J.
Buckley F.
Grainger C.
Wallace M.

A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms.

for a grass-based farm versus a confinement system.

van der Werf et al. (2009)

van der Werf H.M.G.
Kanyarushoki C.
Corson M.S.

An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment.

observed no difference in terms of environmental impact between conventional and organic dairy systems when milk sold was considered as functional unit; however, on a land basis, the conventional systems showed a significantly higher environmental burden compared with the organic systems. Similar results were found by

Haas et al., 2001

Haas G.
Wetterich F.
Köpke U.

Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment.

, who reported significantly worse environmental performances in the intensive system than in the extensive system when the impact was expressed on land unit.

Casey and Holden (2005)

Casey J.W.
Holden N.M.

The relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the intensity of milk production. Ireland.

found a significant positive linear correlation between stocking rate and the amount of CO₂-equivalent per hectare, but no relationship between stocking rate and GHG emissions per kilogram of milk. Similarly,

Oudshoorn et al., 2011

Oudshoorn V.
Sørensen C.A.G.
de Boer I.J.M.

Economic and environmental evaluation of three goal-vision based scenarios for organic dairy farming in Denmark.

found that no correlation between surplus N per hectare and emission of GHG per kilogram of ECM existed.

As a consequence, when the environmental impacts related to the product unit are considered, the identification of the more sustainable production strategy seems to be difficult. Several studies compared organic versus conventional farms or grass-based versus confined farms; some authors attributed better environmental performances to the low-input systems (

Belflower et al., 2012

Belflower J.B.
Bernard J.K.
Gattie D.K.
Hancock D.W.
Risse L.M.
Rotz C.A.

A case study of the potential environmental impacts of different dairy production systems in Georgia.

;

O’Brien et al., 2012

O’Brien D.
Shalloo L.
Patton J.
Buckley F.
Grainger C.
Wallace M.

A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms.

), others associated the more intensive systems with a potential reduction of the environmental pressure (

Thomassen et al., 2008

Thomassen M.A.
van Calker K.J.
Smits M.C.J.
Iepema G.L.
de Boer I.J.M.

Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands.

;

Kristensen et al. (2011)

Kristensen T.
Mogensen L.
Knudsen M.T.
Hermansen J.E.

Effect of production system and farming strategy on greenhouse gas emissions from commercial dairy farms in a life cycle approach.

), still other researchers reported different results depending on the impact category considered (

Cederberg and Mattsson, 2000

Cederberg C.
Mattsson B.

Life cycle assessment of milk production—A comparison of conventional and organic farming.

).

Conclusions

When assessing the environmental impact per milk unit, it is difficult to clearly identify the relationship between farming intensity and environmental performances, despite important differences in terms of farm intensification level, management, and structural characteristics. However, the PCA showed that some characteristics related to farming intensification, particularly milk production per cow, dairy efficiency, and stocking density, were negatively related to the impact per kilogram of product; this suggests a role of these factors in the mitigation strategy of the environmental impact of milk production on a global scale. Besides an important role in global environmental impact (i.e., climate change), livestock systems are often responsible for local and not less important impacts (i.e., eutrophication of soils and water). Considering the environmental burden on a local perspective, the impacts were positively associated with the intensification level.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Plan for R&S (Research and Development), Region of Lombardy DG Agricoltura, Italy. Project no. 1726—Individuazione di modelli di aziende zootecniche per produzioni di eccellenza di latte e derivati.

References

- Alvarez A.
- del Corral J.
- Solís D.
- Pérez J.A.
Does intensification improve the economic efficiency of dairy farms?.
J. Dairy Sci. 2008; 91: 3693-3698
View in Article
- AOAC International
Official Methods of Analysis. 15th. AOAC International, Washington, DC1995
View in Article
- Google Scholar
- AOAC International
Official Methods of Analysis. 16th. AOAC International, Washington, DC1998
View in Article
- Google Scholar
Baldoni, R., and L. Giardini. 2002. Coltivazioni Erbacee, Foraggere e Tappeti Erbosi. Pàtron Editore, Bologna, Italy.
View in Article
- Google Scholar
- Basset-Mens C.
- Ledgard S.
- Boyes M.
Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk production in New Zealand.
Ecol. Econ. 2009; 68: 1615-1625
View in Article
- Belflower J.B.
- Bernard J.K.
- Gattie D.K.
- Hancock D.W.
- Risse L.M.
- Rotz C.A.
A case study of the potential environmental impacts of different dairy production systems in Georgia.
Agric. Syst. 2012; 108: 84-93
View in Article
- Capper J.L.
- Castañeda-Gutiérrez E.
- Cady R.A.
- Bauman D.E.
The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 15th. University of Illinois, Urbana2008 (Pages 9668–9673)
View in Article
- Casey J.W.
- Holden N.M.
The relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the intensity of milk production. Ireland.
J. Environ. Qual. 2005; 34: 429-436
View in Article
- Castanheira É.G.
- Dias A.C.
- Arroja L.
- Amaro R.
The environmental performance of milk production on a typical Portuguese dairy farm.
Agric. Syst. 2010; 103: 498-507
View in Article
- Cederberg C.
- Mattsson B.
Life cycle assessment of milk production—A comparison of conventional and organic farming.
J. Clean. Prod. 2000; 8: 49-60
View in Article
Cornell-Penn-Miner. 2004. CPM Dairy. Dairy cattle ration analyzer, version 3.0.6. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
View in Article
- Google Scholar
- Crosson P.
- Shalloo L.
- O’Brien D.
- Laniganc G.J.
- Foley P.A.
- Boland T.M.
- Kenny D.A.
A review of whole farm systems models of greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle production systems.
Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 2011; 166 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.001): 29-45
View in Article
Ecoinvent. 2007. Ecoinvent Centre 2007, Ecoinvent Data v2.0—Final reports Ecoinvent 2000 No. 1–15. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
View in Article
- Google Scholar
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009a. 4.B Animal husbandry and manure management GB2009 update. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-b/4-b-animal-husbandry-and-manure-management.pdf/view
View in Article
- Google Scholar
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009b. 4.D Crop production and agricultural soils. From the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. Accessed May 2012. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-d/4-d-crop-production-and-agricultural-soils.pdf/view
View in Article
- Google Scholar
- Ellis J.L.
- Kebreab E.
- Odongo N.E.
- McBride B.W.
- Okine E.K.
- France J.
Prediction of methane production from dairy and beef cattle.
J. Dairy Sci. 2007; 90: 3456-3466
View in Article
EPD (Environmental Product Declarations) 2008. SimaPro 7.7.3 PhD, Database\Professional\Methods\EPD 1.03 version. EPD, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.
View in Article
- Google Scholar
- Ewan R.C.
Predicting the energy utilization of diets and feed ingredients by pigs.
in: van der Honing Y. Close W.H. Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals. Pudoc, Wageningen, the Netherlands1989 (Pages 215–218. EAAP Publication No. 43)
View in Article
- Google Scholar
- Flysjö A.
- Henriksson M.
- Cederberg C.
- Ledgard S.
- Englund J.E.
The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden.
Agric. Syst. 2011; 104: 459-469
View in Article
- Gerber P.
- Vellinga T.
- Opio C.
- Henderson B.
- Steinfeld H.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector.
A Life Cycle Assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Animal Production and Health Division, Rome, Italy2010
View in Article
- Google Scholar
- Guerci M.
- Bava L.
- Zucali M.
- Sandrucci A.
- Penati C.
- Tamburini A.
Effect of farming strategies on environmental impact of intensive dairy farms in Italy.
J. Dairy Res. 2013; 80: 300-308
View in Article
- Haas G.
- Wetterich F.
- Köpke U.
Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001; 83: 43-53
View in Article
- Hermansen J.E.
- Kristensen T.
Management options to reduce the carbon footprint of livestock products.
Anim. Front. 2011; 1: 33-39
View in Article
Hutjens, M. F. 2007. Practical approaches to feed efficiency and applications on the farm. Penn State Dairy Cattle Nutrition Workshop, November 13–14, Grantville, PA. Accessed May 2012. http://www.dairyweb.ca/Resources/PDCNW2007/Hutjens.pdf
View in Article
- Google Scholar
IDF (International Dairy Federation).2010. A common carbon footprint approach for dairy. The IDF guide to standard lifecycle assessment methodology for the dairy sector. In the Bulletin of theIDFNo 445/2010. International Dairy Federation, Brussels, Belgium.
View in Article
- Google Scholar
INRA (Institut national de la recherche agronomique). 2007. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoins des animaux—Valeurs des aliments. Tables Inra 2007. INRA, Versaille, France.
View in Article
- Google Scholar
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf
View in Article
- Google Scholar
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006b. N₂O Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Accessed May 2012. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf
View in Article
- Google Scholar
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Direct global warming potential. In IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Accessed June 2012. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html
View in Article
- Google Scholar
ISTAT. 2012. Istituto nazionale di statistica. Accessed Dec. 2012. http://www3.istat.it/
View in Article
- Google Scholar
- Kristensen T.
- Mogensen L.
- Knudsen M.T.
- Hermansen J.E.
Effect of production system and farming strategy on greenhouse gas emissions from commercial dairy farms in a life cycle approach.
Livest. Sci. 2011; 140 (): 136-148
View in Article
- Mc Geough E.J.
- Little S.M.
- Janzen H.H.
- McAllister T.A.
- McGinn S.M.
- Beauchemin K.A.
Life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from dairy production in eastern Canada: A case study.
J. Dairy Sci. 2012; 95: 5164-5175
View in Article
- Mertens D.R.
Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds using refluxing in beakers or crucibles: Collaborative study.
J. AOAC Int. 2002; 85: 1217-1240
View in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Nemecek, T., and T. Kägi. 2007. Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural production systems. Final Report Ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a. Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, Switzerland
View in Article
- Google Scholar
Nielsen, P. H., A. M. Nielsen, B. P. Weidema, R. Dalgaard, and N. Halberg. 2003. Life Cycle Assessment food database. Accessed May 2012. http://www.lcafood.dk
- Google Scholar
- O’Brien D.
- Shalloo L.
- Patton J.
- Buckley F.
- Grainger C.
- Wallace M.
A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms.
Agric. Syst. 2012; 107: 33-46
View in Article
- Oudshoorn V.
- Sørensen C.A.G.
- de Boer I.J.M.
Economic and environmental evaluation of three goal-vision based scenarios for organic dairy farming in Denmark.
Agric. Syst. 2011; 104: 315-325
View in Article
- Patyk A.
- Reinhardt G.A.
Düngemittel- Energie- und Stoffstrohmbilanzen (Fertilizer- Energy- and Massbalances). Vieweg, Heidelberg, Germany1997
View in Article
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
- Penati C.
- Berentsen P.B.M.
- Tamburini A.
- Sandrucci A.
- de Boer I.J.M.
Effect of abandoning highland grazing on nutrient balances and economic performance of Italian Alpine dairy farms.
Livest. Sci. 2011; 139: 142-149
View in Article
PRé Consultants. 2012. SimaPro 7.3.2 PhD, LCA software. Amersfoort, the Netherlands. Accessed May 2012. http://www.pre.nl
View in Article
- Google Scholar
- Ribaudo F.
Prontuario di Agricoltura. Calderini Edagricole, Bologna, Italy2002
View in Article
- Google Scholar
- Rotz C.A.
- Montes F.
- Chianese D.S.
The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment.
J. Dairy Sci. 2010; 93: 1266-1282
View in Article
SAS Institute. 2001. User’s Guide, Version 9.0. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
View in Article
- Google Scholar
- Thomassen M.A.
- van Calker K.J.
- Smits M.C.J.
- Iepema G.L.
- de Boer I.J.M.
Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands.
Agric. Syst. 2008; 96: 95-107
View in Article
- van der Werf H.M.G.
- Kanyarushoki C.
- Corson M.S.
An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment.
J. Environ. Manage. 2009; 90: 3643-3652
View in Article
- Van Soest P.J.
- Robertson J.B.
- Lewis B.A.
Methods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition.
J. Dairy Sci. 1991; 74: 3583-3597
View in Article
- Yan M.J.
- Humphreys J.
- Holden N.M.
Life cycle assessment of milk production from commercial dairy farms: The influence of management tactics.
J. Dairy Sci. 2013; 96: 4112-4124
View in Article

Article info

Publication history

Published online: May 01, 2014

Accepted: March 16, 2014

Received: September 27, 2013

Identification

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7530

Copyright

User license

Elsevier user license |

How you can reuse Information Icon

ScienceDirect

Access this article on ScienceDirect

Toggle Thumbstrip

Property	Value
Status
Version
Ad File
Disable Ads Flag
Environment
Moat Init
Moat Ready
Contextual Ready
Contextual URL
Contextual Initial Segments
Contextual Used Segments
AdUnit
SubAdUnit
Custom Targeting
Ad Events
Invalid Ad Sizes

How can farming intensification affect the environmental impact of milk production?

Abstract

Key words

Introduction

Materials and Methods

System Description and Data Collection

Emission Estimation

Greenhouse Gas Emissions On Farm

Other Emissions On Farm

Off-Farm Processes

Impact Assessment

Statistical Analysis

Results

Environmental Impacts of Milk Unit

Interaction Between Farm Characteristics and Environmental Impact

Farming Intensity and Environmental Performances

Discussion

Environmental Impacts of Milk Unit

Interaction Between Farm Characteristics and Environmental Impact

Farming Intensity and Environmental Performances

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

References

Article info

Publication history

Identification

Copyright

User license

Permitted

For non-commercial purposes:

Not Permitted

ScienceDirect

Related Articles