ABSTRACT
Key words
INTRODUCTION
Gerber, P., T. Vellinga, K. Dietze, A. Falcucci, G. Gianni, J. Mounsey, L. Maiorano, C. Opio, D. Sironi, O. Thieme, and V. Weiler. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector—A life cycle assessment. Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
- Finkbeiner M.
Liedke, A., S. Deimling, T. Rehl, U. Bos, and C. P. Brandstetter. 2014. Feed and food databases in LCA—An example of implementation. Page 725–735 in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Life Cycle Assess. Agric. Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), San Francisco, CA. R. M. Baitz Schenck and D. Huizenga, ed. Am. Center Life Cycle Assess., Vashon, WA.
System Boundary

Functional Unit
where fat% and protein% are fat and protein percentages in milk, respectively. All processes in the system were calculated based on 1 kg of ECM. Two scenarios were considered for data collection. Model 1 was based on primary data from 5 commercial dairies located in Tulare and Kings Counties, California (
Data Sources
Feed Production
Item | Calf | Heifer | Cow | Weighted average | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Up to 6 mo | 6–12 mo | Up to calving | Close up | Lactating | Dry | ||
Ingredient (%) | |||||||
Alfalfa hay | 20.0 | 47.8 | 71.4 | 70.0 | 54.1 | ||
Oat hay | 20.5 | 30.0 | 2.58 | ||||
Pasture | 100 | 79.9 | 23.2 | ||||
Barley grains | 38.4 | 0.18 | 21.7 | 14.1 | |||
Oat grains | 26.3 | 0.459 | |||||
Beet pulp | 8.34 | 2.89 | 1.95 | ||||
Hominy feed | 12.2 | 0.236 | |||||
Linseed meal | 9.10 | 0.159 | |||||
Molasses | 2.76 | 0.054 | |||||
Urea | 0.38 | 0.007 | |||||
Wheat bran | 26.3 | 0.459 | |||||
Wheat mixed feed | 0.00 | 4.05 | 2.51 | ||||
Wheat mill run | 8.15 | 0.158 | |||||
Composition | |||||||
DMI (kg/d) | 3.61 | 15.1 | 25.4 | 24.0 | 18.8 | 15.0 | 17.8 |
Days in pen | 180 | 180 | 290 | 30 | 1,220 | 180 | |
DM (%) | 90.5 | 24.0 | 28.0 | 85.3 | 85.7 | 78.7 | 72.1 |
NDF (% of DM) | 30.3 | 51.8 | 50.0 | 41.7 | 31.9 | 47.4 | 37.5 |
ADF (% of DM) | 12.7 | 30.0 | 30.6 | 27.1 | 26.6 | 34.3 | 26.9 |
Ether extract (% of DM) | 3.50 | 3.30 | 3.00 | 2.40 | 2.10 | 2.10 | 2.45 |
CP (% of DM) | 15.7 | 21.3 | 21.2 | 16.9 | 18.6 | 17.3 | 18.8 |
Item | Calves | Heifer | Lactating | Dry | Weighted average | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Up to 12 mo | AI | Pregnant | Close up | Fresh | High | Far off | Close up | ||
Ingredient (%) | |||||||||
Alfalfa hay | 17.0 | 35.4 | 20.3 | 32.9 | 23.8 | 4.15 | 28.5 | 29.4 | 9.00 |
Wheat hay | 2.45 | 7.46 | 5.41 | 0.76 | |||||
Oat hay | 10.3 | 0.10 | |||||||
Corn silage | 8.11 | 18.6 | 38.0 | 38.3 | 27.6 | 21.0 | 37.4 | 30.7 | 23.0 |
Wheat silage | 3.67 | 0.35 | 0.43 | ||||||
Triticale silage | 0.850 | 7.44 | 0.12 | ||||||
Corn grains | 35.4 | 3.99 | 20.2 | 23.4 | 17.5 | ||||
Barley grains | 4.97 | 0.18 | |||||||
Almond hulls | 14.1 | 1.37 | 8.73 | 1.49 | |||||
Canola meal | 10.5 | 9.40 | 12.2 | 11.8 | 7.73 | 10.3 | |||
Citrus, wet | 1.97 | 1.48 | |||||||
Corn gluten meal | 7.72 | 7.78 | 5.27 | 4.71 | |||||
Cottonseed meal | 7.78 | 6.63 | 5.40 | ||||||
DDGS | 1.30 | 22.4 | 9.43 | 5.18 | 8.76 | 7.69 | 5.47 | 7.44 | |
Molasses | 6.24 | 2.07 | 0.10 | 0.35 | |||||
Soybean hulls | 1.52 | 0.06 | |||||||
Soybean meal | 2.43 | 1.65 | 1.37 | ||||||
Soybean oil | 0.305 | 0.01 | |||||||
Wheat mill run | 9.73 | 6.59 | 5.46 | ||||||
Wheat straw | 19.1 | 11.3 | 18.5 | 10.4 | |||||
Whey | 5.65 | 4.69 | 0.54 | ||||||
Composition | |||||||||
DMI (kg/d) | 4.11 | 5.76 | 11.15 | 12.07 | 22.6 | 26.2 | 12.1 | 14.1 | 18.3 |
Days in pen | 360 | 75 | 240 | 30 | 84 | 1,080 | 90 | 90 | |
DM (%) | 74.3 | 61.7 | 50.1 | 55.3 | 62.0 | 67.1 | 51.2 | 59.6 | 64.8 |
NDF (% of DM) | 25.0 | 41.9 | 49.6 | 42.5 | 36.8 | 34.3 | 48 | 34.2 | 35.6 |
ADF (% of DM) | 15.9 | 28.5 | 32.9 | 28.6 | 23.5 | 21.1 | 32.3 | 23.4 | 22.6 |
Ether extract (% of DM) | 3.65 | 4.2 | 3 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 3.66 |
CP (% of DM) | 19.1 | 17.8 | 12.2 | 16.6 | 26.1 | 20.6 | 12.9 | 14.4 | 18.8 |
Item | Calves | Heifer | Lactating | Dry | Weighted average | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Up to 12 mo | AI | Pregnant | Close up | ||||
Ingredient (%) | |||||||
Alfalfa hay | 17.0 | 35.4 | 20.3 | 32.9 | 15.8 | 25.5 | 17.32 |
Alfalfa haylage | 1.68 | 0.37 | 1.34 | ||||
Wheat hay | 2.45 | 7.46 | 0.34 | 2.55 | 1.11 | ||
Oat hay | 10.3 | 0.30 | 4.23 | 0.64 | |||
Corn silage | 8.11 | 18.6 | 38.0 | 38.3 | 18.3 | 15.5 | 19.4 |
Wheat silage | 3.67 | 3.59 | 24.1 | 4.63 | |||
Triticale silage | 0.85 | 7.44 | 0.14 | ||||
Sorghum silage | 0.72 | 3.24 | 0.78 | ||||
Pasture | 0.27 | 0.51 | 0.25 | ||||
Corn grains | 35.4 | 3.99 | 17.6 | 3.54 | 15.7 | ||
Barley grains | 4.97 | 0.34 | 0.11 | 0.47 | |||
Almond hulls | 14.09 | 8.48 | 8.15 | 7.39 | |||
Beet pulp | 0.64 | 0.14 | 0.51 | ||||
Bakery waste | 0.72 | 0.09 | 0.57 | ||||
Canola meal | 10.5 | 9.40 | 8.96 | 1.55 | 7.68 | ||
Corn gluten | 7.72 | 3.50 | 1.73 | 3.23 | |||
DDGS | 1.30 | 22.38 | 9.43 | 5.18 | 5.88 | 1.05 | 5.84 |
Fruits and vegetables | 0.99 | 1.63 | 0.89 | ||||
Cottonseed meal | 1.85 | 0.04 | 1.45 | ||||
Whole cottonseed | 4.99 | 0.13 | 3.93 | ||||
Green chop | 0.65 | 0.93 | 0.57 | ||||
Molasses | 6.24 | 2.07 | 0.30 | ||||
Soybean hulls | 1.52 | 0.91 | 0.23 | 0.80 | |||
Soybean meal | 0.62 | 0.04 | 0.49 | ||||
Soybean oil | 0.30 | 0.01 | |||||
Wheat mill run | 1.28 | 0.45 | 1.03 | ||||
Wheat straw | 19.1 | 0.40 | 4.00 | 2.11 | |||
Whey | 5.65 | 1.18 | 0.22 | 1.39 | |||
Composition | |||||||
DMI (kg/d) | 4.11 | 5.76 | 11.15 | 12.1 | 22.6 | 12.6 | 16.4 |
Days in pen | 360 | 75 | 240 | 30 | 1,164 | 180 | |
DM (%) | 74.4 | 61.7 | 50.1 | 55.3 | 62.5 | 50.6 | 62.0 |
NDF (% of DM) | 25.0 | 41.9 | 49.6 | 42.5 | 34.9 | 47.4 | 36.3 |
ADF (% of DM) | 15.9 | 28.5 | 32.9 | 28.6 | 23.1 | 32.0 | 24.0 |
Ether extract (% of DM) | 3.65 | 4.20 | 3.00 | 3.30 | 4.20 | 2.80 | 3.83 |
CP (% of DM) | 19.1 | 17.8 | 12.2 | 16.6 | 18.7 | 14.3 | 17.6 |
Crop Production
- USDA-NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service)
- Burt C.
- Howes D.
- Wilson G.
- Johnson R.
- Cody B.A.
- UC Agricultural Issues Center
- UC Agricultural Issues Center
Enteric Methane
Farm Management
Manure Management
Co-Product Allocation
Assumptions and Limitations
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
GHG Emissions

Emissions from Crop Production.
Farm Management Emissions.
Enteric Methane Emissions.
Manure Management Emissions.
Water

Land

CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Supplementary Material
REFERENCES
- Models for predicting enteric methane emissions from dairy cows in North America, Europe, and Australia and New Zealand..Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016; 22 (27148862): 3039-3056
- Prediction of drinking water intake by dairy cows..J. Dairy Sci. 2016; 99 (27320675): 7191-7205
- Characterizing California-specific cattle feed rations and improve modeling of enteric fermentation for California's greenhouse gas inventory. Accessed Jan. 23, 2020.
- Predicting manure volatile solid output of lactating dairy cows..J. Anim. Sci. 2016; 94: 567-568
- Determining seasonal greenhouse gas emissions from ground-level area sources in a dairy operation in Central Texas..J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2011; 61 (21850834): 786-795
- California agricultural water electrical energy requirements. Final Report, California Polytechnic State University. Accessed Dec. 8, 2018.www.itrc.orgDate: 2003
- Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from crop production using the farm energy analysis tool..Bioscience. 2013; 63: 263-273
- Energy usage survey of dairies in the Southwestern United States..Appl. Eng. Agric. 2010; 26: 667-675
- The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007..J. Anim. Sci. 2009; 87 (19286817): 2160-2167
- Greenhouse gas quantification methodology for the department of community services and development low-income weatherization program greenhouse gas reduction fund fiscal year 2014–15. Accessed Nov. 6, 2018.
- California's 2000–2014 greenhouse gas emission inventory technical support document. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.
- California greenhouse gas inventory for 2000–2014. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.
CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 2012. Water and land issues associated with animal agriculture: A U.S. Perspective. CAST Issue Paper 50. CAST, Ames, IA.
- Mineral concentrations in diets, water, and milk and their value in estimating on-farm excretion of manure minerals in lactating dairy cows..J. Dairy Sci. 2013; 96 (23477818): 3388-3398
- 2013 Cost of Production Annual. Accessed Dec. 30, 2018.
- 2014 Cost of Production Annual. Accessed Dec. 30, 2018.
- 2015 Cost of Production Annual. Accessed Dec. 30, 2018.
- Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments..Livest. Sci. 2010; 128: 1-11
- Prediction of methane production from dairy and beef cattle..J. Dairy Sci. 2007; 90 (17582129): 3456-3466
- Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment. Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy2016
FAO. 2016b. Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment. Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
- The international standards as the constitution of life cycle assessment: The ISO 14040 series and its offspring.in: Klöpffer W. LCA Compendium: The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. Volume 1: Background and Future Prospects in Life Cycle Assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands2014: 85-106
- Barley in Fresno country. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.
Gerber, P., T. Vellinga, K. Dietze, A. Falcucci, G. Gianni, J. Mounsey, L. Maiorano, C. Opio, D. Sironi, O. Thieme, and V. Weiler. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector—A life cycle assessment. Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
- Productivity gains and greenhouse gas emissions intensity in dairy systems..Livest. Sci. 2011; 139: 100-108
- Impacts of dietary fat level and saturation when feeding distillers grains to high producing dairy cows..J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. (Berl.). 2015; 99 (25040565): 577-590
- Corn silage and alfalfa hay for lactating dairy cows. California Agriculture, June 1967, page 5. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.
- A comparison of 1x3x30 inch wafers and baled alfalfa hay for milk production. California Agriculture, May 1967, pages 10–11. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.
International Dairy Federation. 2015. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 481/2015. The world dairy situation 2015. Int. Dairy Fed. 1–260. 10.1111/j.1471-0307.2010.00573.x.
- Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, prepared by the national greenhouse gas inventories programme. H. S. Eggleston, L. Buendia K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe, ed. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Kanegawa, Japan.
IPCC (International Panel for Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
- ISO 14040. Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland2006
- ISO 14044. Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland2006
- Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from Canadian dairy farms and mitigation options: An updated review..Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2016; 96: 306-331
- Short communication: Evaluation of nitrogen excretion equations from cattle..J. Dairy Sci. 2016; 99 (27320670): 7669-7678
- California agricultural production and irrigated water use. Congressional Research Service. Accessed Dec. 19, 2018.https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44093.pdfDate: 2015
- Dryland barley production costs in Yolo county. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.
- Model for estimating enteric methane emissions from US dairy and feedlot cattle..J. Anim. Sci. 2008; 86 (18539822): 2738-2748
- Cow of the Future: Research priorities for mitigating enteric methane emissions from dairy. Innovation Center for US Dairy, Chicago, IL2011
- Carbon emission from farm operations..Environ. Int. 2004; 30 (15196846): 981-990
- Emissions of ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide from dairy cattle housing and manure management systems..J. Environ. Qual. 2011; 40 (21869500): 1383-1394
Liedke, A., and S. Deimling. 2015. Role of specialty feed ingredients on livestock production's environmental sustainability. Final Report. PE International AG, Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany.
Liedke, A., S. Deimling, T. Rehl, U. Bos, and C. P. Brandstetter. 2014. Feed and food databases in LCA—An example of implementation. Page 725–735 in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Life Cycle Assess. Agric. Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), San Francisco, CA. R. M. Baitz Schenck and D. Huizenga, ed. Am. Center Life Cycle Assess., Vashon, WA.
- Pesticide and fertilizer use and trends in U.S. agriculture. Agricultural economic report number 717 (AER-717). United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC1995
Mead, S. W., and M. Ronning. 1961. Managing young dairy stock in California. University of Calif. Agric. Expt. Sta. Circ., 497. University of California, Davis.
- A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products..Ecosystems. 2012; 15: 401-415
- Survey of dairy housing and manure management practices in California..J. Dairy Sci. 2011; 94 (21854949): 4744-4750
- Water use and winter liquid storage needs at Central Valley dairy farms in California..Appl. Eng. Agric. 2005; 22: 121-126
- Alternative approaches to predicting methane emissions from dairy cows..J. Anim. Sci. 2003; 81 (14677870): 3141-3150
- Prediction of enteric methane emissions from cattle..Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014; 20 (24259373): 2140-2148
- A prediction equation for enteric methane emission from dairy cows for use in NorFor..Acta Agric. Scand. A. 2013; 63: 126-130
- National Climate Data Center. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/climdiv/Date: 2014
NRC. 1958. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
- Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC2001
- Effect of time of feeding concentrates and ground, pelleted alfalfa hay on milk fat percentage and fatty acid composition..J. Dairy Sci. 1964; 47: 516-520
- GaBi database and modelling principles. Accessed Feb. 5, 2018.
- Effects of rice straw versus wheat straw as ingredients in a total mixed ration on intake, digestibility and growth of Holstein heifers..Anim. Prod. Sci. 2014; 54: 1047-1055
- Effects of sodium bicarbonate and calcium magnesium carbonate supplementation on performance of high producing dairy cows..Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2012; 177: 180-193
- Predicting nitrogen excretion from cattle: Environmental impact of ruminant production..J. Dairy Sci. 2015; 98 (25747829): 3025-3035
- Variation in nutrients formulated and nutrients supplied on 5 California dairies..J. Dairy Sci. 2013; 96 (24035027): 7371-7381
- Utilization of byproducts from human food production as feedstuffs for dairy cattle and relationship to greenhouse gas emissions and environmental efficiency. Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf. Accessed Jan. 19, 2017.
Sumner, D. A., J. Medellín-Azuara, and E. Coughlin. 2015. Contributions of the California Dairy Industry to the California Economy. A Report for the California Milk Advisory Board. University of California Agricultural Issues Center, UC Davis, CA.
- Determining the optimal ratio of canola meal and high protein dried distillers grain protein in diets of high producing Holstein dairy cows..Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014; 189: 41-53
- Regional analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from USA dairy farms: A cradle to farm-gate assessment of the American dairy industry circa 2008..Int. Dairy J. 2013; 31: S29-S40
- Current cost and return studies. Accessed Feb. 5, 2018.http://coststudies.ucdavis.eduDate: 2016
US Bureau of the Census. 1967. Census of Agriculture 1964. Volume 1. United States Census of Agriculture: Statistics for the State and Counties of California.
- 2013 Farm and ranch irrigation survey. Accessed Dec. 25, 2018.
- 2012 Census of Agriculture. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.
- Summary tables: Major uses of land in the United States, 2002. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.
- Data sets: Fertilizer use and price. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.
- Crop production annual summary. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.
- Crop production: Historical track records. April. USDA-NASS, Washington, DC2011
- Quick Stats. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/2017Date: 2017
- National Resources Inventory: Soil Erosion on Cropland 2007. Accessed Jan. 12, 2019.
- Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005. USGS Circular 1344. USGS, Reston, VA2009
- Invited review: Sustainability of the U.S. dairy industry..J. Dairy Sci. 2013; 96 (23831089): 5405-5425
Article info
Publication history
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy