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

Anna Flysjö, Maria Henriksson, Christel Cederberg, Stewart Ledgard and Jan-Eric Englund

Agricultural Systems, 2011, vol. 104, issue 6, 459-469

Abstract: The carbon footprint (CF) of milk production was analysed at the farm gate for two contrasting production systems; an outdoor pasture grazing system in New Zealand (NZ) and a mainly indoor housing system with pronounced use of concentrate feed in Sweden (SE). The method used is based on the conceptual framework of lifecycle assessment (LCA), but only for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. National average data were used to model the dairy system in each country. Collection of inventory data and calculations of emissions were harmonised to the greatest extent possible for the two systems. The calculated CF for 1Â kg of energy corrected milk (ECM), including related by-products (surplus calves and culled cows), was 1.00Â kg carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) for NZ and 1.16Â kg CO2e for SE. Methane from enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide emissions from application of nitrogen (as fertiliser and as excreta dropped directly on the field) were the main contributors to the CF in both countries. The most important parameters to consider when calculating the GHG emissions were dry matter intake (DMI), emission factor (EF) for methane from enteric fermentation, amount of nitrogen applied and EF for direct nitrous oxide emissions from soils. By changing one parameter at a time within 'reasonable' limits (i.e. no extreme values assumed), the impact on the total CF was assessed and showed changes of up to 15%. In addition, the uncertainty in CF estimates due to uncertainty in EF for methane from enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide emissions (from soil and due to ammonia volatilisation) were analysed through Monte Carlo simulation. This resulted in an uncertainty distribution corresponding to 0.60-1.52Â kg CO2e kg-1 ECM for NZ and 0.83-1.56Â kg CO2e kg-1 ECM for SE (in the prediction interval 2.5-97.5%). Hence, the variation within the systems based on the main EF is relatively large compared with the difference in CF between the countries.

Keywords: CF; Lifecycle; assessment; LCA; Milk; production; Emission; factor; Uncertainties (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (19)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X11000412
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:agisys:v:104:y:2011:i:6:p:459-469

Access Statistics for this article

Agricultural Systems is currently edited by J.W. Hansen, P.K. Thornton and P.B.M. Berentsen

More articles in Agricultural Systems from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().