IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i6p4814-d1091440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementing IPCC 2019 Guidelines into a National Inventory: Impacts of Key Changes in Austrian Cattle and Pig Farming

Author

Listed:
  • Stefan J. Hörtenhuber

    (Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Institute of Livestock Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, 1180 Vienna, Austria
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Verena Größbacher

    (Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Institute of Livestock Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, 1180 Vienna, Austria
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Lisa Schanz

    (Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Institute of Livestock Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Werner J. Zollitsch

    (Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Institute of Livestock Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

This study examined enteric and excreta emissions from cattle and pigs with a focus on effects of changed feeding practices. We assessed the impact of a revision of the Austrian Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Inventory (national method, NM), i.e., the implementation of the Tier2-method of the IPCC-2019 guidelines, to a more dynamic integration of past and present feeding practices. Cattle—in particular, dairy cows—had the highest contribution to enteric CH 4 emissions and to nitrogen (N ex ) and volatile-solid (VS ex ) excretion, independent of the assessment method (NM or IPCC-2019). These emissions as well as excreta quantities are directly associated with feeding. The most relevant changes from implementing IPCC-2019 were (i) reduced enteric CH 4 over the entire time series and (ii) increased N ex and VS ex , especially for the period from 1990 to 2005. Additionally, uncertainties in the emissions and excreta were analyzed and related to the quantities of protein consumed. From 1990 to 2020, favorable trends per unit of protein were shown due to increased performance and concomitantly reduced animal numbers. The changes were especially pronounced for CH 4 , N ex , and VS ex from dairy cows (−40% to −46%) but also substantial for other cattle (−26% to −31%), breeding pigs (−12% to −28%), and partially growing-fattening pigs (−3% to −20%). Future mitigation potential may result from reduced dietary crude-protein content, especially in pigs, and the use of feed additives. Feed additives for ruminants with enteric CH 4 -mitigating effects showed a particularly high reduction potential for the total amount of greenhouse gases from the livestock sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefan J. Hörtenhuber & Verena Größbacher & Lisa Schanz & Werner J. Zollitsch, 2023. "Implementing IPCC 2019 Guidelines into a National Inventory: Impacts of Key Changes in Austrian Cattle and Pig Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:6:p:4814-:d:1091440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/4814/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/4814/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helena Kahiluoto & Janne Kaseva, 2016. "No Evidence of Trade-Off between Farm Efficiency and Resilience: Dependence of Resource-Use Efficiency on Land-Use Diversity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, September.
    2. Richard Twine, 2021. "Emissions from Animal Agriculture—16.5% Is the New Minimum Figure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-8, June.
    3. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    4. Stefan J. Hörtenhuber & Günther Schauberger & Christian Mikovits & Martin Schönhart & Johannes Baumgartner & Knut Niebuhr & Martin Piringer & Ivonne Anders & Konrad Andre & Isabel Hennig-Pauka & Werne, 2020. "The Effect of Climate Change-Induced Temperature Increase on Performance and Environmental Impact of Intensive Pig Production Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-17, November.
    5. Nicolas Schoof & Rainer Luick & Karin Jürgens & Gwyn Jones, 2020. "Dairies in Germany: Key Factors for Grassland Conservation?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Ertl, Paul & Klocker, Hannes & Hörtenhuber, Stefan & Knaus, Wilhelm & Zollitsch, Werner, 2015. "The net contribution of dairy production to human food supply: The case of Austrian dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 119-125.
    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. Šimun Lončarević & Petar Ilinčić & Goran Šagi & Zoran Lulić, 2023. "Development of a Spatial Tier 2 Emission Inventory for Agricultural Tractors by Combining Two Large-Scale Datasets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Mohamad Issa & Adrian Ilinca & Daniel R. Rousse & Loïc Boulon & Philippe Groleau, 2023. "Renewable Energy and Decarbonization in the Canadian Mining Industry: Opportunities and Challenges," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Nelė Jurkėnaitė, 2023. "Analysis of the Nexus between Structural and Climate Changes in EU Pig Farming," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.

    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. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Yajing Shao & Xuefeng Yuan & Chaoqun Ma & Ruifang Ma & Zhaoxia Ren, 2020. "Quantifying the Spatial Association between Land Use Change and Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Marta Teston & Daniel Villalba & Marco Berton & Maurizio Ramanzin & Enrico Sturaro, 2020. "Relationships between Organic Beef Production and Agro-Ecosystems in Mountain Areas: The Case of Catalan Pyrenees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    6. Robbie Maris & Mark Holmes, 2023. "Economic Growth Theory and Natural Resource Constraints: A Stocktake and Critical Assessment," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 56(2), pages 255-268, June.
    7. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    8. Joel C. Creed & Laura Sol Aranda & Júlia Gomes de Sousa & Caio Barros Brito do Bem & Beatriz Sant’Anna Vasconcelos Marafiga Dutra & Marianna Lanari & Virgínia Eduarda de Sousa & Karine M. Magalhães & , 2023. "A Synthesis of Provision and Impact in Seagrass Ecosystem Services in the Brazilian Southwest Atlantic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Róbert Csalódi & Tímea Czvetkó & Viktor Sebestyén & János Abonyi, 2022. "Sectoral Analysis of Energy Transition Paths and Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-26, October.
    10. Wanxu Chen & Guangqing Chi & Jiangfeng Li, 2020. "Ecosystem Services and Their Driving Forces in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Urban Agglomerations, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-19, May.
    11. O'Sullivan, Jane N., 2020. "The social and environmental influences of population growth rate and demographic pressure deserve greater attention in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    12. Nicolás Ruiz, Néstor & Suárez Alonso, María Luisa & Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario, 2021. "Contributions of dry rivers to human well-being: A global review for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    13. Moreno-Llorca, R. & Vaz, A.S. & Herrero, J. & Millares, A. & Bonet-García, F.J. & Alcaraz-Segura, D., 2020. "Multi-scale evolution of ecosystem services’ supply in Sierra Nevada (Spain): An assessment over the last half-century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    14. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    15. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    16. Lau, Jacqueline D. & Hicks, Christina C. & Gurney, Georgina G. & Cinner, Joshua E., 2018. "Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities by wealth, age, and education," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 91-98.
    17. Shujun Liu & Xinzhuan Yao & Degang Zhao & Litang Lu, 2021. "Evaluation of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, using the InVEST model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7140-7155, May.
    18. Dai, Xuhuan & Li, Bo & Zheng, Hua & Yang, Yanzheng & Yang, Zihan & Peng, Chenchen, 2023. "Can sedentarization decrease the dependence of pastoral livelihoods on ecosystem services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    19. Egor Selivanov & Petra Hlaváčková, 2021. "Methods for monetary valuation of ecosystem services: A scoping review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(11), pages 499-511.
    20. Wei Jiang & Rainer Marggraf, 2021. "Making Intangibles Tangible: Identifying Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem Services in a Cultural Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:6:p:4814-:d:1091440. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.