project Page Template
paulina letelier
paragraph
- hola
| Place your own picture / photo here |
| Cartons of milk. Photo: Name |
Hypothetical task force Report prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP)
UW-Madison Task Force Members:
Michel Wattiaux, Department of Dairy Science
Erin Silva, Department of Plant Pathology
Alfonso Morales, Urban and Regional Planning
Kathryn Anderson, Department of Sociology
Life cycle analysis (LCA) is.
Although there ar.
Eighteen years of data
Anaerobic digestion .
Social sustainability is extremely difficult to measure .
Introduction
| PLACE YOUR OWN FIGURE HERE |
| Figure 1: Figure caption here Source: Thoma et al., 2013. |
Dairy farming is one .
Thoma et al. (2013) found that milk production contributed approximately 1.9% of US GHG emission. .
There are many ways to feed, manage, and care for dairy cattle .
The goal of this research .
LCA — Life Cycle Assessment — Methodology
LCA: A literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles in which a partial LCA was conducted to estimate and compare GHG emission of milk across production systems. :
- Tier 1: A simplified method that only takes into account livestock population data by animal species/category and an "emission factor" (emission per animal per day), which varied for different regions of the world.
- Tier 2: A refined method that takes into account measurements done under specific local conditions, and scientific findings published in peer-reviewed publications.
- Tier 3: The most sophisticated method that include the use of highly technical simulation models.
There are three key components of any LCA:
- The Functional Unit is ;
- The system boundaries define .
- The co-product allocation refers to the process of.
CO2-eq per Kg of Milk
LCA of Organic vs. Conventional milk: Although there are no studies to compare the carbon footprint of organic and conventional milk in the United States (or Wisconsin), Swedish researchers (Cederberg et al., 2000) conducted an LCA focusing on the impact of feeding and management strategies.
LCA of Grazing vs. Conventional milk: The literature, however, included a number of recent studies comparing grazing systems to conventional systems. Flysjö et al. (2001) analyzed the farm-gate carbon footprint of milk for an outdoor pasture grazing system in New Zealand and an mainly indoor housing system with heavy reliance on concentrate feed in Sweden..
Table 1: Your table caption here
Source: O'Brien et al., 2014.
| Sources of Emissions (kg of CO2eq per 1000 kg of milk) |
Location | Irish Pasture |
United States Conventional |
| Methane | |||
| Enteric fermentation | On farm | 403.7 | 373.6 |
| Manure storage and spreading | On farm | 42.1 | 121.9 |
| Fertilizer production | Off farm | 1.6 | 0.4 |
| Concentrate production | Off farm | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Electricity and other inputs | Off farm | 12.9 | 15.0 |
| Nitrous Oxide | |||
| Fertilizer application | On farm | 99.6 | 16.9 |
| Manure storage and spreading | On farm | 34.5 | 153.1 |
| Manure excreted on pasture | On farm | 139.9 | 0.0 |
| Crop residues | On farm | 2.0 | 3.3 |
| Fertilizer production | Off farm | 30.9 | 4.7 |
| Concentrate production | Off farm | 7.5 | 52.2 |
| Electricity and other inputs | Off farm | 6.8 | 8.7 |
| Carbon Dioxide | |||
| Fuel combustion | On farm | 13.7 | 33.3 |
| Lime application | On farm | 1.4 | 1.2 |
| Fertilizer application | On farm | 6.7 | 1.6 |
| Carbon sequestration | On farm | -77.7 | 0.0 |
| Fertilizer production | Off farm | 43.8 | 9.4 |
| Concentrate production | Off farm | 21.4 | 52.7 |
| Land use change | Off farm | 1.8 | 0.0 |
| Electricity and other inputs | Off farm | 16.0 | 48.5 |
| Total | |||
| Carbon footprint (On farm) | 693 | 705 | |
| Carbon footprint (Off farm) | 144 | 193 | |
| Carbon footprint (total) | 837 | 898 | |
| Carbon footprint no C. Seq. | 914 | 898 |
CO2-eq per Hectare
Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial (WICST): The life cycle inventory analysis used to assess GHGs from crops in this study is built on 25 years of WICST data collection at the University of Wisconsin, Arlington Agricultural Research Station. . Specifically:
Social Dimensions: Climate as a Common Pool Resource
Tragedy of the Commons: To understand the social constraints and opportunities for reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, we begin with the framework of Common Pool Resources (CPR), as specified by Elinor Ostrom’s team in their 1999 Science article. .
Crave Brothers: Crave Brothers Farmstead cheese operates a 750,000 gallon anerobic digester at their 2,000 acres , 750 dairy cow operation in Waterloo, WI. Built in 2007, this digester received $250,000 financial incentive from Focus on Energy for its construction. It is modeled after units in Germany and today produces enough electricity to power 400 homes. The operation sells $300,000 per year worth of electricity back to the local utility company, WE Energy, in addition to the profits it makes from selling waste digester material for animal bedding and organic potting mix.
Conclusions
LCA of Organic and Conventional Milk: The research reviewed by this task force suggested that the carbon footprint of milk produced in Europe and the United States averages approximately 1.0 kg of CO2-eq per kg of milk and was not substantially different whether the milk was produced following the USDA-mandated organic practices or the "conventional" practices. .
Conventional versus Organic Cropping Systems: The integration of pasture and rotational grazing into herd feeding strategies can impact the assessment of overall emissions in both organic versus conventional dairies.
Social Dimensions: Our study of the social dimensions of organic milk exemplified by the Organic Valley Cooperative led us to conclude that the organic market serve the desires of the segment of the population concerned with a range of issues related to human health and how food is produced and processed.
Acting only on the physical or biophysical reality will limit our choices and outcomes.
Citations
Flysjö, A., M. Henriksson, C. Cederberg, S. Ledgard and J. E. Englund. 2011. The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. Agricultural Systems 104: 459-469.
O’Brien, D., J. L. Capper, P. C. Garnsworthy, C. Grainger and L. Shalloo. 2014. A case study of the carbon footprint of milk from high-performing confinement and grass-based dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 97: 1835-1851.
Thoma, G., J. Popp, D. Nutter, D. Shonnard, R. Ulrich, M. Matlock, et al. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from milk production and consumption in the United States: A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment circa 2008. International Dairy Journal 31, Supplement 1: S3-S14.