Carbon footprint in Latin American dairy systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
José Velarde-Guillén ◽  
Claudia Arndt ◽  
Carlos A. Gómez
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Dairy Systems

scholarly journals The Carbon Footprint of Energy Consumption in Pastoral and Barn Dairy Farming Systems: A Case Study from Canterbury, New Zealand

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (17) ◽  
pp. 4809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hafiz Muhammad Abrar Ilyas ◽  
Majeed Safa ◽  
Alison Bailey ◽  
Sara Rauf ◽  
Marvin Pangborn
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Dairy Farming ◽  
Carbon Footprints ◽  
Energy Inputs ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Feed Supplements ◽  
Dairy Systems ◽  
Milk Solids ◽  
On Farm

Dairy farming is constantly evolving to more intensive systems of management, which involve more consumption of energy inputs. The consumption of these energy inputs in dairy farming contributes to climate change both with on-farm emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, and by off-farm emissions due to production of farm inputs (such as fertilizer, feed supplements). The main purpose of this research study was to evaluate energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, the carbon footprint, of pastoral and barn dairy systems located in Canterbury, New Zealand. The carbon footprints were estimated based on direct and indirect energy sources. The study results showed that, on average, the carbon footprints of pastoral and barn dairy systems were 2857 kgCO2 ha−1 and 3379 kgCO2 ha−1, respectively. For the production of one tonne of milk solids, the carbon footprint was 1920 kgCO2 tMS−1 and 2129 kgCO2 tMS−1, respectively. The carbon emission difference between the two systems indicates that the barn system has 18% and 11% higher carbon footprint than the pastoral system, both per hectare of farm area and per tonne of milk solids, respectively. The greater carbon footprint of the barn system was due to more use of imported feed supplements, machinery usage and fossil fuel (diesel and petrol) consumption for on-farm activities.

scholarly journals Effect of Nutritional Variation and LCA Methodology on the Carbon Footprint of Milk Production From Holstein Friesian Dairy Cows

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret D. March ◽  
Paul R. Hargreaves ◽  
Alasdair J. Sykes ◽  
Robert M. Rees
Keyword(s):  
Milk Production ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Crude Protein ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Climate Change Policy ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Economic Allocation ◽  
Feed Digestibility ◽  
Holstein Friesian ◽  
Dairy Systems

The UK livestock industry urgently needs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to contribute to ambitious climate change policy commitments. Achieving this requires an improved understanding of emission sources across a range of production systems to lower the burden associated with livestock products. Life cycle assessment (LCA) methods are used in this study to model milk production from two genetic merits of Holstein Friesian cows managed in two novel and two conventional UK dairy systems. Select merit cows sired by bulls with high predicted transmission for fat plus protein yield are compared with Control merit animals sired from UK average merit bulls. Cows were managed in conventional housed and grazed dairy systems with novel Byproduct and Homegrown feeding regimes. A LCA was used to quantify the effect of allocation and management of feed components on the carbon footprint of milk production. Natural variation in nutritional quality of dairy system rations was investigated to quantify uncertainty in the carbon footprint results. Novel production system data are used to assess the effect of introducing home grown legumes and co-product feeds. Control merit footprints across each of the management regimes were significantly higher (p<0.001) in comparison with a high production Select merit, on average by 15%. Livestock emissions (enteric, manure management and deposition) and embedded emissions (purchased feeds, fertiliser, and pesticides) were also significantly higher from control merit cows (p<0.01). Mass and economic allocation methods, and land use functional units, resulted in differences in performance ranking of the dairy systems, with larger footprints resulting from mass allocation. Pairwise comparisons showed GHG's from the systems to be significantly different in total and source category emissions, with significant differences in mean embedded emissions found between most management systems (p<0.05). Monte Carlo simulated system footprints considering the effect of variation in feed digestibility and crude protein also differed significantly from system footprints using standard methods (p < 0.001). Dairy system carbon footprint results should be expressed using multiple units and where possible calculations should incorporate variation in diet digestibility and crude protein content.

Making sense of methods to audit emissions – various audit methods to estimate dairy production carbon footprint

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. 2-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. O'Brien ◽  
C. Grainger ◽  
L. Shalloo
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
Dairy Production ◽  
Stocking Rate ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Dairy Systems ◽  
The Impact

A dairy farm greenhouse gas (GHG) model was applied in this study to compare the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) method and the life cycle assessment (LCA) procedure, which are the principal methods for quantifying the carbon footprint of dairy production. The objectives of this paper were to compare the auditing methods in estimating the carbon footprint of grass and confinement dairy systems and to assess the methods in estimating the footprint of grass-based dairy farms varying in cow genetic potential, stocking rate and level of concentrate feeding. The input data used to operate the model was based on published research studies. The results of the study showed that the IPCC and LCA methods ranked the carbon footprint of dairy systems differently. For example, the IPCC method found that the carbon footprint of the confinement dairy system was 8% lower than the grass system, but the LCA results show that the confinement system increased the carbon footprint by 16%. The comparison of grass-based dairy systems, differing in cow genotype, stocking rate and concentrate fed per cow also showed that the methods did not agree on the ranking of dairy systems carbon footprint. The re-ranking of dairy systems carbon footprint occurred because the IPCC method excludes emissions associated with imported goods, for example, concentrate. Thus, it is incorrect to consider only components of the dairy system relevant for policy reporting such as that used by IPCC when estimating the carbon footprint of dairy produce. Instead, holistic approaches, such as LCA, which consider on and off-farm GHG emissions should be used. Therefore, reform of the present policy framework is required to enable quantification of the impact of mitigation strategies on global emissions. The evaluation of the carbon footprint from grass-based systems differing in cow genotype also demonstrated that selecting cows solely for milk production will increase the carbon footprint of grass-based dairy systems relative to cows selected on a combination of traits, because of reduced cow fertility and thus higher emissions from replacement heifers.

Test Use in Spain, Portugal and Latin American Countries

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Muñiz ◽  
Gerardo Prieto ◽  
Leandro Almeida ◽  
Dave Bartram
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Test Construction ◽  
European Federation ◽  
Psychometric Characteristics ◽  
Testing Practices ◽  
Professional Psychologists ◽  
Test Use ◽  
Latin American Countries

Summary: The two main sources of errors in educational and psychological evaluation are the lack of adequate technical and psychometric characteristics of the tests, and especially the failure to properly implement the testing process. The main goal of the present research is to study the situation of test construction and test use in the Spanish-speaking (Spain and Latin American countries) and Portuguese-speaking (Portugal and Brazil) countries. The data were collected using a questionnaire constructed by the European Federation of Professional Psychologists Association (EFPPA) Task Force on Tests and Testing, under the direction of D. Bartram . In addition to the questionnaire, other ad hoc data were also gathered. Four main areas of psychological testing were investigated: Educational, Clinical, Forensic and Work. Key persons were identified in each country in order to provide reliable information. The main results are presented, and some measures that could be taken in order to improve the current testing practices in the countries surveyed are discussed. As most of the tests used in these countries were originally developed in other cultures, a problem that appears to be especially relevant is the translation and adaptation of tests.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document