Appraisal of environmental profiles of pasture-based milk production: a case study of dairy farms in the Waikato region,New Zealand

Purpose

Dairying is a relatively intensive livestock production system and contributes to a range of environmental impacts. In the southern hemisphere, dairy farming systems are based mainly on outdoor grazing of permanent pastures. The objectives of this study were to (i) assess environmental profiles and (ii) to identify environmental hotspots in a pasture-based dairy farming system.

Methods

A cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment of 53 dairy farms in the Waikato region, New Zealand, was carried out, using 1 kg of fat- and protein-corrected milk as the functional unit. Twelve environmental impact categories were assessed: climate change (CC), ozone depletion potential (ODP), cancer effects (Cancer), non-cancer effects (non-cancer), particulate matter (PM), ionizing radiation (IR), photochemical ozone formation potential (POFP), acidification potential (AP), terrestrial eutrophication potential (TEP), freshwater eutrophication potential (FEP), marine eutrophication potential (MEP) and ecotoxicity for aquatic freshwater (Ecotox). Contribution and sensitivity analyses were performed to determine key hotspots and investigate potential changes in results due to methodological choices.

Results and discussion

The on-farm stage contributed >50 % of the total result for 7 out of 12 indicators (CC, Non-cancer, PM, POFP, AP, TEP, MEP). The off-farm rearing of replacement animals contributed 11–20 % to the total result for all indicators. The production of brought-in (from off-farm) feeds for use on the dairy farms contributed >10 % to the indicator results for Non-cancer (25 %), FEP (15 %), MEP (12 %) and Ecotox (19 %). The manufacturing of agrichemicals for use on the dairy farms contributed >10 % to the indicator results for ODP (26 %), Cancer (26 %), PM (19 %), IR (46 %), FEP (25 %) and Ecotox (42 %). The transportation of off-farm inputs for use on the dairy farms contributed >10 % to the impacts on ODP (15 %), IR (21 %) and POFP (11 %). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the influence of choices associated with data sources, inventories and impact assessment models on the results.

Conclusions

The off-farm activities together contributed >50 % to 5 out of 12 impact indicator results, >45 % to a further two impact indicator results and 32 % of the CC result. Therefore, environmental improvement options should focus on both on-farm and off-farm activities. A focus on just one impact category (such as CC) risks ignoring the environmental hotspots that are revealed in a more comprehensive environmental assessment.