IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v146y2016icp20-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Increasing energy and protein use efficiency improves opportunities to decrease land use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions from dairy production

Author

Listed:
  • White, Robin R.

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to construct a farm-scale diet optimization model to identify opportunities to reduce land use, water use, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within dairy production systems and to assess how improved energy and protein use efficiency affect opportunities to reduce these environmental impacts (EI) of dairy production systems. Non-linear programming was used to adjust monthly diets fed to 10 cattle groups to minimize EI associated with an average United States dairy farm. System boundaries extended from the inputs to the cropping system to the dairy farm gate. The effects of improved feed efficiency were modeled as a 15% decrease in maintenance energy or metabolizable protein requirements. Least-cost optimization was used as a baseline. A total of 28 scenarios were simulated which varied in objective, biological efficiency, and allowable cost increase. Objectives included minimizing land, water, or GHG emissions individually or all together. Biological efficiencies reflected either currently achieved efficiencies, improved energy efficiency, improved protein efficiency or improved energy and protein efficiency. Allowable cost increases were adjusted from 1% to 20% above baseline. Baseline land use (1.20m2/kg milk), water use (1.10m3/kg) and GHG emissions (0.70kgCO2e/kg) agreed with established values for U.S. dairies. Within the allowable cost range, EI metrics could be simultaneously reduced by 4.4 to 25.5%. When both energy and protein efficiency were improved, land use, water use, and GHG emission reductions ranged from 23.4 to 35.5%. Diminishing environmental returns to cost increases were apparent. Cost of achieving a 25% reduction in the environmental impacts considered in this study was decreased 78.9% when energy and protein efficiency improved compared with the national average production efficiency scenario. Improving energy- and protein-use efficiency of dairy cattle represents a promising way to reduce land use, water use, and GHG emissions without sacrificing profitability.

Suggested Citation

  • White, Robin R., 2016. "Increasing energy and protein use efficiency improves opportunities to decrease land use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions from dairy production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 20-29.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:146:y:2016:i:c:p:20-29
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.03.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X16300592
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.03.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael, 2014. "Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 41-49.
    2. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael & Capper, Judith L. & Johnson, Kristen A., 2014. "Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Pelletier, N., 2008. "Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 67-73, September.
    4. Tozer, P. R. & Stokes, J. R., 2001. "A multi-objective programming approach to feed ration balancing and nutrient management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 201-215, March.
    5. Thomassen, M.A. & van Calker, K.J. & Smits, M.C.J. & Iepema, G.L. & de Boer, I.J.M., 2008. "Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 95-107, March.
    6. Basset-Mens, Claudine & Ledgard, Stewart & Boyes, Mark, 2009. "Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk production in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1615-1625, April.
    7. Lovett, D.K. & Shalloo, L. & Dillon, P. & O'Mara, F.P., 2006. "A systems approach to quantify greenhouse gas fluxes from pastoral dairy production as affected by management regime," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 156-179, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Worden, David & Hailu, Getu, 2020. "Do genomic innovations enable an economic and environmental win-win in dairy production?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    2. Koesling, Matthias & Hansen, Sissel & Bleken, Marina Azzaroli, 2017. "Variations in nitrogen utilisation on conventional and organic dairy farms in Norway," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 11-21.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Van Middelaar, C.E. & Berentsen, P.B.M. & Dijkstra, J. & De Boer, I.J.M., 2013. "Evaluation of a feeding strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farming: The level of analysis matters," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 9-22.
    2. O'Brien, D. & Bohan, A. & McHugh, N. & Shalloo, L., 2016. "A life cycle assessment of the effect of intensification on the environmental impacts and resource use of grass-based sheep farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 95-104.
    3. Thomassen, M.A. & Dolman, M.A. & van Calker, K.J. & de Boer, I.J.M., 2009. "Relating life cycle assessment indicators to gross value added for Dutch dairy farms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2278-2284, June.
    4. Tiago G. Morais & Ricardo F. M. Teixeira & Nuno R. Rodrigues & Tiago Domingos, 2018. "Carbon Footprint of Milk from Pasture-Based Dairy Farms in Azores, Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, October.
    5. Leinonen, Ilkka & Williams, Adrian G. & Waller, Anthony H. & Kyriazakis, Ilias, 2013. "Comparing the environmental impacts of alternative protein crops in poultry diets: The consequences of uncertainty," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 33-42.
    6. Oishi, Kazato & Kato, Yohei & Ogino, Akifumi & Hirooka, Hiroyuki, 2013. "Economic and environmental impacts of changes in culling parity of cows and diet composition in Japanese beef cow–calf production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 95-103.
    7. Philip Shine & John Upton & Paria Sefeedpari & Michael D. Murphy, 2020. "Energy Consumption on Dairy Farms: A Review of Monitoring, Prediction Modelling, and Analyses," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-25, March.
    8. Anna Kuczuk & Janusz Pospolita, 2020. "Sustainable Agriculture – Energy and Emergy Aspects of Agricultural Production," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 1000-1018.
    9. O’Brien, Donal & Shalloo, Laurence & Patton, Joe & Buckley, Frank & Grainger, Chris & Wallace, Michael, 2012. "A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 33-46.
    10. Lambotte, Mathieu & De Cara, Stéphane & Brocas, Catherine & Bellassen, Valentin, 2021. "Carbon footprint and economic performance of dairy farms: The case of protected designation of origin farms in France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    11. Stefan Wirsenius & Fredrik Hedenus & Kristina Mohlin, 2011. "Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 159-184, September.
    12. Nigel Key & Gregoire Tallard, 2012. "Mitigating methane emissions from livestock: a global analysis of sectoral policies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 387-414, May.
    13. Hafiz Muhammad Abrar Ilyas & Majeed Safa & Alison Bailey & Sara Rauf & Marvin Pangborn, 2019. "The Carbon Footprint of Energy Consumption in Pastoral and Barn Dairy Farming Systems: A Case Study from Canterbury, New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-15, September.
    14. Nina Repar & Pierrick Jan & Thomas Nemecek & Dunja Dux & Reiner Doluschitz, 2018. "Factors Affecting Global versus Local Environmental and Economic Performance of Dairying: A Case Study of Swiss Mountain Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    15. Pelletier, Nathan & Pirog, Rich & Rasmussen, Rebecca, 2010. "Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 380-389, July.
    16. Shyian, Natalia & Kolosha, Valerii, 2020. "Формування Ціни На Молоко В Україні В Контексті Світових Тенденцій," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 6(4), December.
    17. Jongeneel, Roel & Polman, Nico & van der Ham, Corinda, 2014. "Costs and benefits associated with the externalities generated by Dutch agriculture," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Jan Willem Erisman & Allison Leach & Albert Bleeker & Brooke Atwell & Lia Cattaneo & James Galloway, 2018. "An Integrated Approach to a Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) Indicator for the Food Production–Consumption Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-29, March.
    19. Bonamigo, Andrei & Ferenhof, Helio Aisenberg & Forcellini, Fernando Antonio, 2017. "Dairy Ecosystem Barriers Exposed - A Case Study In A Family Production Unit At Western Santa Catarina, Brazil," Organizações Rurais e Agroindustriais/Rural and Agro-Industrial Organizations, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Departamento de Administracao e Economia, vol. 19(1), January.
    20. Hoffman, Eric & Cavigelli, Michel A. & Camargo, Gustavo & Ryan, Matthew & Ackroyd, Victoria J. & Richard, Tom L. & Mirsky, Steven, 2018. "Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional grain crop production: Accounting for nutrient inflows," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 89-96.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:146:y:2016:i:c:p:20-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.