LIFE BEEF CARBON: a common framework for quantifying grass and corn based beef farms’ carbon footprints

Europe’s roadmap to a low-carbon economy aims to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Beef production is an important source of GHG emissions and is expected to increase as the world population grows. LIFE BEEF CARBON is a voluntary European initiative that aims to reduce GHG emissions per unit of beef (carbon footprint) by 15% over a 10-year period on 2172 farms in four large beef-producing countries. Changes in farms beef carbon footprint are normally estimated via simulation modelling, but the methods current models apply differ. Thus, our initial goal was to develop a common modelling framework to estimate beef farms carbon footprint. The framework was developed for a diverse set of Western Europe farms located in Ireland, Spain, Italy and France. Whole farm and life cycle assessment (LCA) models were selected to quantify emissions for the different production contexts and harmonized. Carbon Audit was chosen for Ireland, Bovid-CO₂ for Spain and CAP’2ER for France and Italy. All models were tested using 20 case study farms, that is, 5 per country and quantified GHG emissions associated with on-farm live weight gain. The comparison showed the ranking of beef systems gross carbon footprint was consistent across the three models. Suckler to weaning or store systems generally had the highest carbon footprint followed by suckler to beef systems and fattening beef systems. When applied to the same farm, Carbon Audit’s footprint estimates were slightly lower than CAP’2ER, but marginally higher than Bovid-CO₂. These differences occurred because the models were adapted to a specific region’s production circumstances, which meant their emission factors for key sources; that is, methane from enteric fermentation and GHG emissions from concentrates were less accurate when used outside their target region. Thus, for the common modelling framework, region-specific LCA models were chosen to estimate beef carbon footprints instead of a single generic model. Additionally, the Carbon Audit and Bovid-CO₂ models were updated to include carbon removal by soil and other environmental metrics included in CAP’2ER, for example, acidification. This allows all models to assess the effect carbon mitigation strategies have on other potential pollutants. Several options were identified to reduce beef farms carbon footprint, for example, improving genetic merit. These options were assessed for beef systems, and a mitigation plan was created by each nation. The cumulative mitigation effect of the LIFE BEEF CARBON plan was estimated to exceed the projects reduction target (−15%).     

Sensitivity of the carbon footprint of New Zealand milk to greenhouse gas metrics

Milk production is responsible for emitting a range of greenhouse gases (GHGs), mainly carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrous oxide (N₂O) and methane (CH₄). In Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), the Global Warming Potential with a time horizon of 100 years (GWP100) is used almost universally to aggregate emissions of individual gases into so-called CO₂-equivalent emissions that are used to calculate the overall carbon footprint of milk production. However, there is growing awareness that, depending on the purpose of the LCA, metrics other than GWP100 could be justified and some would give a very different weighting for the short-lived gas CH₄ relative to the long-lived gases CO₂ and N₂O when calculating the carbon footprint. Pastoral dairy production systems at different levels of intensification differ in the balance of short- and long-lived GHGs associated with on- and off-farm emissions. Differences in the carbon footprint of different production systems could therefore be highly sensitive to the choice of GHG metric. Here we explore the extent to which alternative GHG metric choices would alter the carbon footprint of New Zealand milk production at different levels of intensification at national, regional and individual farm scales and compared to the carbon footprint of milk of selected European countries. We find that the ranking of different production systems and individual farms in terms of their carbon footprint is relatively robust against the choice of GHG metric, despite significant differences in their utilisation of pastures versus supplementary off-farm feed, fertiliser use and energy consumption at various stages of farm operations. However, there are instances where alternative GHG metric choices would fundamentally change the conclusions of LCA of different production systems, including whether a move towards higher or lower input systems would increase or decrease the average carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand. Greater transparency about the implications of alternative GHG metrics for LCA, and the often inadvertent and implicit value judgements embedded in these metrics, would help ensure that policy decisions and consumer choices based on LCA indeed deliver the climate outcomes intended by end-users.     

Does increasing milk yield per cow reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A system approach

Milk yield per cow has continuously increased in many countries over the last few decades. In addition to potential economic advantages, this is often considered an important strategy to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per kg of milk produced. However, it should be considered that milk and beef production systems are closely interlinked, as fattening of surplus calves from dairy farming and culled dairy cows play an important role in beef production in many countries. The main objective of this study was to quantify the effect of increasing milk yield per cow on GHG emissions and on other side effects. Two scenarios were modelled: constant milk production at the farm level and decreasing beef production (as co-product; Scenario 1); and both milk and beef production kept constant by compensating the decline in beef production with beef from suckler cow production (Scenario 2). Model calculations considered two types of production unit (PU): dairy cow PU and suckler cow PU. A dairy cow PU comprises not only milk output from the dairy cow, but also beef output from culled cows and the fattening system for surplus calves. The modelled dairy cow PU differed in milk yield per cow per year (6000, 8000 and 10 000 kg) and breed. Scenario 1 resulted in lower GHG emissions with increasing milk yield per cow. However, when milk and beef outputs were kept constant (Scenario 2), GHG emissions remained approximately constant with increasing milk yield from 6000 to 8000 kg/cow per year, whereas further increases in milk yield (10 000 kg milk/cow per year) resulted in slightly higher (8%) total GHG emissions. Within Scenario 2, two different allocation methods to handle co-products (surplus calves and beef from culled cows) from dairy cow production were evaluated. Results showed that using the 'economic allocation method', GHG emissions per kg milk decreased with increasing milk yield per cow per year, from 1.06 kg CO2 equivalents (CO2eq) to 0.89 kg CO2eq for the 6000 and 10 000 kg yielding dairy cow, respectively. However, emissions per kg of beef increased from 10.75 kg CO2eq to 16.24 kg CO2eq due to the inclusion of suckler cows. This study shows that the environmental impact (GHG emissions) of increasing milk yield per cow in dairy farming differs, depending upon the considered system boundaries, handling and value of co-products and the assumed ratio of milk to beef demand to be satisfied.     

Cattle feed or bioenergy? Consequential life cycle assessment of biogas feedstock options on dairy farms

On‐farm anaerobic digestion (AD) of wastes and crops can potentially avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but incurs extensive environmental effects via carbon and nitrogen cycles and substitution of multiple processes within and outside farm system boundaries. Farm models were combined with consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA) to assess plausible biogas and miscanthus heating pellet scenarios on dairy farms. On the large dairy farm, the introduction of slurry‐only AD led to reductions in global warming potential (GWP) and resource depletion burdens of 14% and 67%, respectively, but eutrophication and acidification burden increases of 9% and 10%, respectively, assuming open tank digestate storage. Marginal GWP burdens per Mg dry matter (DM) feedstock codigested with slurry ranged from –637 kg CO₂e for food waste to +509 kg CO₂e for maize. Codigestion of grass and maize led to increased imports of concentrate feed to the farm, negating the GWP benefits of grid electricity substitution. Attributing grass‐to‐arable land use change (LUC) to marginal wheat feed production led to net GWP burdens exceeding 900 kg CO₂e Mg^?1 maize DM codigested. Converting the medium‐sized dairy farm to a beef‐plus‐AD farm led to a minor reduction in GWP when grass‐to‐arable LUC was excluded, but a 38% GWP increase when such LUC was attributed to marginal maize and wheat feed required for intensive compensatory milk production. If marginal animal feed is derived from soybeans cultivated on recently converted cropland in South America, the net GWP burden increases to 4099 kg CO₂e Mg^?1 maize DM codigested – equivalent to 55 Mg CO₂e yr^?1 per hectare used for AD‐maize cultivation. We conclude that AD of slurry and food waste on dairy farms is an effective GHG mitigation option, but that the quantity of codigested crops should be strictly limited to avoid potentially large international carbon leakage via animal feed displacement.     

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

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

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

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

Livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe

The livestock sector contributes considerably to global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Here, for the year 2007 we examined GHG emissions in the EU27 livestock sector and estimated GHG emissions from production and consumption of livestock products; including imports, exports and wastage. We also reviewed available mitigation options and estimated their potential. The focus of this review is on the beef and dairy sector since these contribute 60% of all livestock production emissions. Particular attention is paid to the role of land use and land use change (LULUC) and carbon sequestration in grasslands. GHG emissions of all livestock products amount to between 630 and 863 Mt CO₂e, or 12–17% of total EU27 GHG emissions in 2007. The highest emissions aside from production, originate from LULUC, followed by emissions from wasted food. The total GHG mitigation potential from the livestock sector in Europe is between 101 and 377 Mt CO₂e equivalent to between 12 and 61% of total EU27 livestock sector emissions in 2007. A reduction in food waste and consumption of livestock products linked with reduced production, are the most effective mitigation options, and if encouraged, would also deliver environmental and human health benefits. Production of beef and dairy on grassland, as opposed to intensive grain fed production, can be associated with a reduction in GHG emissions depending on actual LULUC emissions. This could be promoted on rough grazing land where appropriate.     

GHG emissions and other environmental impacts of indirect land use change mitigation

The implementation of measures to increase productivity and resource efficiency in food and bioenergy chains as well as to more sustainably manage land use can significantly increase the biofuel production potential while limiting the risk of causing indirect land use change (ILUC). However, the application of these measures may influence the greenhouse gas (GHG) balance and other environmental impacts of agricultural and biofuel production. This study applies a novel, integrated approach to assess the environmental impacts of agricultural and biofuel production for three ILUC mitigation scenarios, representing a low, medium and high miscanthus‐based ethanol production potential, and for three agricultural intensification pathways in terms of sustainability in Lublin province in 2020. Generally, the ILUC mitigation scenarios attain lower net annual emissions compared to a baseline scenario that excludes ILUC mitigation and bioethanol production. However, the reduction potential significantly depends on the intensification pathway considered. For example, in the moderate ILUC mitigation scenario, the net annual GHG emissions in the case study are 2.3 MtCO₂‐eq yr^?1 (1.8 tCO₂‐eq ha^?1 yr^?1) for conventional intensification and ?0.8 MtCO₂‐eq yr^?1 (?0.6 tCO₂‐eq ha^?1 yr^?1) for sustainable intensification, compared to 3.0 MtCO₂‐eq yr^?1 (2.3 tCO₂‐eq ha^?1 yr^?1) in the baseline scenario. In addition, the intensification pathway is found to be more influential for the GHG balance than the ILUC mitigation scenario, indicating the importance of how agricultural intensification is implemented in practice. Furthermore, when the net emissions are included in the assessment of GHG emissions from bioenergy, the ILUC mitigation scenarios often abate GHG emissions compared to gasoline. But sustainable intensification is required to attain GHG abatement potentials of 90% or higher. A qualitative assessment of the impacts on biodiversity, water quantity and quality, soil quality and air quality also emphasizes the importance of sustainable intensification.     

Life cycle analysis of biochemical cellulosic ethanol under multiple scenarios

Cellulosic ethanol is widely believed to offer substantial environmental advantages over petroleum fuels and grain‐based ethanol, particularly in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. The environmental impacts of biofuels are largely caused by precombustion activities, feedstock production and conversion facility operations. Life cycle analysis (LCA) is required to understand these impacts. This article describes a field‐to‐blending terminal LCA of cellulosic ethanol produced by biochemical conversion (hydrolysis and fermentation) using corn stover or switchgrass as feedstock. This LCA develops unique models for most elements of the biofuel production process and assigns environmental impact to different phases of production. More than 30 scenarios are evaluated, reflecting a range of feedstock, technology and scale options for near‐term and future facilities. Cellulosic ethanol, as modeled here, has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to petroleum‐based liquid transportation fuels, though substantial uncertainty exists. Most of the conservative scenarios estimate GHG emissions of approximately 45–60 g carbon dioxide equivalent per MJ of delivered fuel (g CO₂e MJ^?1) without credit for coproducts, and 20–30 g CO₂e MJ^?1 when coproducts are considered. Under most scenarios, feedstock production, grinding and transport dominate the total GHG footprint. The most optimistic scenarios include sequestration of carbon in soil and have GHG emissions below zero g CO₂e MJ^?1, while the most pessimistic have life‐cycle GHG emissions higher than petroleum gasoline. Soil carbon changes are the greatest source of uncertainty, dominating all other sources of GHG emissions at the upper bound of their uncertainty. Many LCAs of biofuels are narrowly constrained to GHG emissions and energy; however, these narrow assessments may miss important environmental impacts. To ensure a more holistic assessment of environmental performance, a complete life cycle inventory, with over 1100 tracked material and energy flows for each scenario is provided in the online supplementary material for this article.     

Trends in greenhouse gas emissions from consumption and production of animal food products – implications for long-term climate targets

To analyse trends in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from production and consumption of animal products in Sweden, life cycle emissions were calculated for the average production of pork, chicken meat, beef, dairy and eggs in 1990 and 2005. The calculated average emissions were used together with food consumption statistics and literature data on imported products to estimate trends in per capita emissions from animal food consumption. Total life cycle emissions from the Swedish livestock production were around 8.5 Mt carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e) in 1990 and emissions decreased to 7.3 Mt CO₂e in 2005 (14% reduction). Around two-thirds of the emission cut was explained by more efficient production (less GHG emission per product unit) and one-third was due to a reduced animal production. The average GHG emissions per product unit until the farm-gate were reduced by 20% for dairy, 15% for pork and 23% for chicken meat, unchanged for eggs and increased by 10% for beef. A larger share of the average beef was produced from suckler cows in cow–calf systems in 2005 due to the decreasing dairy cow herd, which explains the increased emissions for the average beef in 2005. The overall emission cuts from the livestock sector were a result of several measures taken in farm production, for example increased milk yield per cow, lowered use of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers in grasslands, reduced losses of ammonia from manure and a switch to biofuels for heating in chicken houses. In contrast to production, total GHG emissions from the Swedish consumption of animal products increased by around 22% between 1990 and 2005. This was explained by strong growth in meat consumption based mainly on imports, where growth in beef consumption especially was responsible for most emission increase over the 15-year period. Swedish GHG emissions caused by consumption of animal products reached around 1.1 t CO₂e per capita in 2005. The emission cuts necessary for meeting a global temperature-increase target of 2° might imply a severe constraint on the long-term global consumption of animal food. Due to the relatively limited potential for reducing food-related emissions by higher productivity and technological means, structural changes in food consumption towards less emission-intensive food might be required for meeting the 2° target.     

Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates of U.S. Dietary Choices and Food Loss

Dietary behavioral choices have a strong effect on the environmental impact associated with the food system. Here, we consider the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with production of food that is lost at the retail and consumer level, as well as the potential effects on GHG emissions of a shift to dietary recommendations. Calculations are based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) food availability data set and literature meta‐analysis of emission factors for various food types. Food losses contribute 1.4 kilograms (kg) carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂‐eq) capita^?1day^?1 (28%) to the overall carbon footprint of the average U.S. diet; in total, this is equivalent to the emissions of 33 million average passenger vehicles annually. Whereas beef accounts for only 4% of the retail food supply by weight, it represents 36% of the diet‐related GHG emissions. An iso‐caloric shift from the current average U.S. diet to USDA dietary recommendations could result in a 12% increase in diet‐related GHG emissions, whereas a shift that includes a decrease in caloric intake, based on the needs of the population (assuming moderate activity), results in a small (1%) decrease in diet‐related GHG emissions. These findings emphasize the need to consider environmental costs of food production in formulating recommended food patterns.     

Impact of longevity on greenhouse gas emissions and profitability of individual dairy cows analysed with different system boundaries

Dairy production systems are often criticized as being major emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG). In this context, the extension of the length of the productive life of dairy cows is gaining interest as a potential GHG mitigation option. In the present study, we investigated cow and system GHG emission intensity and profitability based on data from 30 dairy cows of different productive lifetime fed either no or limited amounts of concentrate. Detailed information concerning productivity, feeding and individual enteric methane emissions of the individuals was available from a controlled experiment and herd book databases. A simplified GHG balance was calculated for each animal based on the milk produced at the time of the experiment and for their entire lifetime milk production. For the lifetime production, we also included the emissions arising from potential beef produced by fattening the offspring of the dairy cows. This accounted for the effect that changes in the length of productive life will affect the replacement rate and thus the number of calves that can be used for beef production. Profitability was assessed by calculating revenues and full economic costs for the cows in the data set. Both emission intensity and profitability were most favourable in cows with long productive life, whereas cows that had not finished their first lactation performed particularly unfavourably with regard to their emissions per unit of product and rearing costs were mostly not repaid. Including the potential beef production, GHG emissions in relation to total production of animal protein also decreased with age, but the overall variability was greater, as the individual cow history (lifetime milk yield, twin births, stillbirths, etc.) added further sources of variation. The present results show that increasing the length of productive life of dairy cows is a viable way to reduce the climate impact and to improve profitability of dairy production.     

Consequential Life Cycle Assessment of Pasture‐based Milk Production: A Case Study in the Waikato Region,New Zealand

Farm intensification options in pasture‐based dairy systems are generally associated with increased stocking rates coupled with the increased use of off‐farm inputs to support the additional feed demand of animals. However, as well as increasing milk production per hectare, intensification can also exacerbate adverse impacts on the environment. The objective of the present study was to investigate environmental trade‐offs associated with potential intensification methods for pasture‐based dairy farming systems in the Waikato region, New Zealand. The intensification scenarios selected were (1) increased pasture utilization efficiency (PUE scenario), (2) increased use of nitrogen (N) fertilizer to boost on‐farm pasture production (N fertilizer scenario), and (3) increased use of brought‐in feed as maize silage (MS) (MS scenario). Twelve impact categories were assessed. The PUE scenario was the environmentally preferred intensification method, and the preferred choice between the N fertilizer and MS scenarios depended upon trade‐offs between different environmental impacts. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to test the effects of choice associated with: (1) the approaches used to account for indirect land‐use change (ILUC) and (2) the competing product systems (conventional beef systems) used to handle the co‐product dairy meat for the climate change (CC) indicator. Results showed that the magnitude of the CC indicator results was influenced by the ILUC accounting approaches and the choice associated with a global marginal beef mix, but the relative CC indicator results for the three intensification scenarios remained unchanged.     

Global environmental costs of China's thirst for milk

China has an ever‐increasing thirst for milk, with a predicted 3.2‐fold increase in demand by 2050 compared to the production level in 2010. What are the environmental implications of meeting this demand, and what is the preferred pathway? We addressed these questions by using a nexus approach, to examine the interdependencies of increasing milk consumption in China by 2050 and its global impacts, under different scenarios of domestic milk production and importation. Meeting China's milk demand in a business as usual scenario will increase global dairy‐related (China and the leading milk exporting regions) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 35% (from 565 to 764 Tg CO_2eq) and land use for dairy feed production by 32% (from 84 to 111 million ha) compared to 2010, while reactive nitrogen losses from the dairy sector will increase by 48% (from 3.6 to 5.4 Tg nitrogen). Producing all additional milk in China with current technology will greatly increase animal feed import; from 1.9 to 8.5 Tg for concentrates and from 1.0 to 6.2 Tg for forage (alfalfa). In addition, it will increase domestic dairy related GHG emissions by 2.2 times compared to 2010 levels. Importing the extra milk will transfer the environmental burden from China to milk exporting countries; current dairy exporting countries may be unable to produce all additional milk due to physical limitations or environmental preferences/legislation. For example, the farmland area for cattle‐feed production in New Zealand would have to increase by more than 57% (1.3 million ha) and that in Europe by more than 39% (15 million ha), while GHG emissions and nitrogen losses would increase roughly proportionally with the increase of farmland in both regions. We propose that a more sustainable dairy future will rely on high milk demanding regions (such as China) improving their domestic milk and feed production efficiencies up to the level of leading milk producing countries. This will decrease the global dairy related GHG emissions and land use by 12% (90 Tg CO_2eq reduction) and 30% (34 million ha land reduction) compared to the business as usual scenario, respectively. However, this still represents an increase in total GHG emissions of 19% whereas land use will decrease by 8% when compared with 2010 levels, respectively.     

System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production

Background, Goal and Scope  System expansion is a method used to avoid co-product allocation. Up to this point in time it has seldom been used in LCA studies of food products, although food production systems often are characterised by closely interlinked sub-systems. One of the most important allocation problems that occurs in LCAs of agricultural products is the question of how to handle the co-product beef from milk production since almost half of the beef production in the EU is derived from co-products from the dairy sector. The purpose of this paper is to compare different methods of handling co-products when dividing the environmental burden of the milk production system between milk and the co-products meat and surplus calves. Main Features  This article presents results from an LCA of organic milk production in which different methods of handling the co-products are examined. The comparison of different methods of co-product handling is based on a Swedish LCA case study of milk production where economic allocation between milk and meat was initially used. Allocation of the co-products meat and surplus calves was avoided by expanding the milk system. LCA data were collected from another case study where the alternative way of producing meat was analysed, i.e. using a beef cow that produces one calf per annum to be raised for one and a half year. The LCA of beef production was included in the milk system. A discussion is conducted focussing on the importance of modelling and analysing milk and beef production in an integrated way when foreseeing and planning the environmental consequences of manipulating milk and beef production systems. Results  This study shows that economic allocation between milk and beef favours the product beef. When system expansion is performed, the environmental benefits of milk production due to its co-products of surplus calves and meat become obvious. This is especially connected to the impact categories that describe the potential environmental burden of biogenic emissions such as methane and ammonia and nitrogen losses due to land use and its fertilising. The reason for this is that beef production in combination with milk can be carried out with fewer animals than in sole beef production systems. Conclusion, Recommendation and Perspective  Milk and beef production systems are closely connected. Changes in milk production systems will cause alterations in beef production systems. It is concluded that in prospective LCA studies, system expansion should be performed to obtain adequate information of the environmental consequences of manipulating production systems that are interlinked to each other.     

Intensification of dairy production can increase the GHG mitigation potential of the land use sector in East Africa

Sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA) could face food shortages in the future because of its growing population. Agricultural expansion causes forest degradation in SSA through livestock grazing, reducing forest carbon (C) sinks and increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Therefore, intensification should produce more food while reducing pressure on forests. This study assessed the potential for the dairy sector in Kenya to contribute to low‐emissions development by exploring three feeding scenarios. The analyses used empirical spatially explicit data, and a simulation model to quantify milk production, agricultural emissions and forest C loss due to grazing. The scenarios explored improvements in forage quality (Fo), feed conservation (Fe) and concentrate supplementation (Co): FoCo fed high‐quality Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum), FeCo supplemented maize silage and FoFeCo a combination of Napier, silage and concentrates. Land shortages and forest C loss due to grazing were quantified with land requirements and feed availability around forests. All scenarios increased milk yields by 44%–51%, FoCo reduced GHG emission intensity from 2.4 ± 0.1 to 1.6 ± 0.1 kg CO₂eq per kg milk, FeCo reduced it to 2.2 ± 0.1, whereas FoFeCo increased it to 2.7 ± 0.2 kg CO₂eq per kg milk because of land use change emissions. Closing the yield gap of maize by increasing N fertilizer use reduced emission intensities by 17% due to reduced emissions from conversion of grazing land. FoCo was the only scenario that mitigated agricultural and forest emissions by reducing emission intensity by 33% and overall emissions by 2.5% showing that intensification of dairy in a low‐income country can increase milk yields without increasing emissions. There are, however, risks of C leakage if agricultural and forest policies are not aligned leading to loss of forest to produce concentrates. This approach will aid the assessment of the climate‐smartness of livestock production practices at the national level in East Africa.     

Using the Lashof Accounting Methodology to Assess Carbon Mitigation Projects With Life Cycle Assessment

As governments elaborate strategies to counter climate change, there is a need to compare the different options available on an environmental basis. This study proposes a life cycle assessment framework integrating the Lashof accounting methodology, which enables the assessment and comparison of different carbon mitigation projects (e.g., biofuel use, a sequestering plant, an afforestation project). The Lashof accounting methodology is chosen amid other methods of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission characterization for its relative simplicity and capability to characterize all types of carbon mitigation projects. Using the unit of megagram‐year (Mg‐year), which accounts for the mass of GHGs in the atmosphere multiplied by the time it stays there, the methodology calculates the cumulative radiative forcing caused by GHG emission within a predetermined time frame. Basically, the developed framework uses the Mg‐year as a functional unit and isolates impacts related to the climate mitigation function with system expansion. The proposed framework is demonstrated with a case study of tree ethanol pathways (maize, sugarcane, and willow). The study shows that carbon mitigation assessment through life cycle assessment is possible and that it could be a useful tool for decision makers, as it can compare different projects regardless of their original context. The case study reveals that system expansion, as well as each carbon mitigation project's efficiency at reducing carbon emissions, are critical factors that have a significant impact on the results. Also, the framework proves to be useful for treating land‐use change emissions, as they are considered through the functional unit.     

Variation in carbon footprint of milk due to management differences between Swedish dairy farms

To identify mitigation options to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from milk production (i.e. the carbon footprint (CF) of milk), this study examined the variation in GHG emissions among dairy farms using data from previous CF studies on Swedish milk. Variations between farms in these production data, which were found to have a strong influence on milk CF, were obtained from existing databases of 1051 dairy farms in Sweden in 2005. Monte Carlo (MC) analysis was used to analyse the impact of variations in seven important parameters on milk CF concerning milk yield (energy-corrected milk (ECM) produced and delivered), feed dry matter intake (DMI), enteric CH4 emissions, N content in feed DMI, N-fertiliser rate and diesel used on farm. The largest between-farm variations among the analysed production data were N-fertiliser rate (kg/ha) and diesel used (l/ha) on farm (CV = 31% to 38%). For the parameters concerning milk yield and feed DMI, the CV was approximately 11% and 8%, respectively. The smallest variation in production data was found for N content in feed DMI. According to the MC analysis, these variations in production data led to a variation in milk CF of between 0.94 and 1.33 kg CO2 equivalents (CO2e)/kg ECM, with an average value of 1.13 kg CO2e/kg ECM. We consider that this variation of ±17%, which was found to be based on the used farm data, would be even greater if all Swedish dairy farms were included, as the sample of farms in this study was not totally unbiased. The variation identified in milk CF indicates that a potential exists to reduce GHG emissions from milk production on both the national and farm levels through changes in management. As milk yield and feed DMI are two of the most influential parameters for milk CF, feed conversion efficiency (i.e. units ECM produced/unit DMI) can be used as a rough key performance indicator for predicting CF reductions. However, it must be borne in mind that feeds have different CF due to where and how they are produced.     

草原畜牧业温室气体排放现状、问题及展望

草原畜牧业生产系统是一个涉及环境、经济、社会多层面、且系统内部气候-土壤-草地-家畜-管理之间相互作用的复杂的社会生态系统。草原不仅为人类提供所需要的肉奶,也提供了多种生态系统服务。然而,草原畜牧业也是主要的温室气体排放源之一。减缓畜牧业温室气体排放的研究已成为当前气候变化科学研究关注的焦点。综述了国内外草原畜牧业温室气体排放研究现状,指出现有研究的不足主要集中在以下3个方面：（1）虽然生命周期评价方法广泛应用于草原畜牧业温室气体排放研究,但是存在诸多问题,导致目前的研究框架体系尚不完善,特别体现在以下几方面：是否考虑外部输入、是否考虑土壤有机碳、畜牧业温室气体排放强度指标的选择等;（2）缺乏单一环节减缓措施对草原畜牧业整体温室气体减排效果的研究;（3）目前对影响草原畜牧业温室气体排放强度的因素主要集中在生态系统层面的分析,忽略了社会系统的作用,无法反映社会系统与生态系统的相互反馈机制,导致机制阐释不完善。综上所述,未来仍需从以下三方面开展研究：（1）完善草原畜牧业研究框架体系及提升研究方法;（2）加强对单一环节减缓措施对草原畜牧业温室气体整体减排效果的综合评价;（3）基于社会生态系统的角度深入研究影响草原畜牧业温室气体排放强度差异的机制。一方面,这有助于深入理解草原畜牧业温室气体排放强度情况,也为低碳型草原畜牧业发展政策的制定提供思路借鉴;另一方面对于科学合理的可持续利用草场和恢复草地生态环境均具有重要意义。     

Including albedo in time‐dependent LCA of bioenergy

Albedo change during feedstock production can substantially alter the life cycle climate impact of bioenergy. Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have compared the effects of albedo and greenhouse gases (GHGs) based on global warming potential (GWP). However, using GWP leads to unequal weighting of climate forcers that act on different timescales. In this study, albedo was included in the time‐dependent LCA, which accounts for the timing of emissions and their impacts. We employed field‐measured albedo and life cycle emissions data along with time‐dependent models of radiative transfer, biogenic carbon fluxes and nitrous oxide emissions from soil. Climate impacts were expressed as global mean surface temperature change over time (?T) and as GWP. The bioenergy system analysed was heat and power production from short‐rotation willow grown on former fallow land in Sweden. We found a net cooling effect in terms of ?T per hectare (?3.8 × 10^–11 K in year 100) and GWP₁₀₀ per MJ fuel (?12.2 g CO₂e), as a result of soil carbon sequestration via high inputs of carbon from willow roots and litter. Albedo was higher under willow than fallow, contributing to the cooling effect and accounting for 34% of GWP₁₀₀, 36% of ?T in year 50 and 6% of ?T in year 100. Albedo dominated the short‐term temperature response (10–20 years) but became, in relative terms, less important over time, owing to accumulation of soil carbon under sustained production and the longer perturbation lifetime of GHGs. The timing of impacts was explicit with ?T, which improves the relevance of LCA results to climate targets. Our method can be used to quantify the first‐order radiative effect of albedo change on the global climate and relate it to the climate impact of GHG emissions in LCA of bioenergy, alternative energy sources or land uses.