Tag: Sustainable Animal Systems

Posted on

A National Assessment of the Environmental Impacts of Beef Cattle Production

Environmental effects of cattle production and the overall sustainability of beef have become national and international concerns. Our objective was to quantify important environmental impacts of beef cattle production throughout the United States. This provides baseline information for evaluating potential benefits of alternative management practices and mitigation strategies for improving the sustainability of beef.

What did we do?

Surveys and visits of farms, ranches and feedlots were conducted throughout seven regions of the United States (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Northern Plains, Southern Plains, Northwest and Southwest) to determine common practices and characteristics of cattle production. These data along with other information sources were used to create about 150 representative production systems throughout the country, which were simulated with the Integrated Farm System Model using local soil and climate data. The simulations quantified the performance and environmental impacts of beef cattle production systems within each region. A farm-to-gate life cycle assessment was used to determine resource use and emissions for all production systems including traditional beef breeds and cull animals from the dairy industry. Regional and national totals were determined as the sum of the production system outputs multiplied by the number of cattle represented by each simulated system.

What we have learned?

Average annual greenhouse gas emission related to beef cattle production was determined as 268 ± 29 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is approximately 3.3% of the reported total U.S. emission. Fossil energy use was 539 ± 50 trillion BTU, which is less than 1% of total U.S. consumption. Non-precipitation water use was 6.2 ± 0.9 trillion gallons, which is on the order of 5% of estimated total fresh water use for the country. Finally, reactive N loss was 1.9 ± 0.15 million ton, which indicates about 15% of the gaseous emissions of reactive N for the nation are related to beef cattle production. Expressed per lb of carcass weight produced, these impacts were 21.3 ± 2.3 lb CO2,e, 21.6 ± 2.0 BTU, 0.155 ± 0.012 lb N and 244 ± 37 gal for carbon, energy, reactive N and water footprints, respectively. Many sources throughout the production system contributed to these footprints (Figure 1). The majority of most environmental impacts was associated with the cow-calf phase of production (Figure 2).

Distribution of the major sources for each environmental footprint.
Figure 1. Distribution of the major sources for each environmental footprint.
Figure 2. Distribution of the sources of each environmental impact across the three major phases in the life cycle of beef cattle production.
Figure 2. Distribution of the sources of each environmental impact across the three major phases in the life cycle of beef cattle production.

Take-home message: This study is the most detailed, yet comprehensive, study conducted to date that provides baseline measures for the sustainability of U.S. beef.

Future plans

These farm-to-gate values are being combined with sources in packing, processing, distribution, retail, consumption and waste handling to produce a full life cycle assessment of U.S. beef considering additional metrics of environmental and economic impact. Further work is ongoing to complete this full LCA and to more fully assess opportunities for mitigating environmental impacts and improving the sustainability of beef.

Authors

Alan Rotz, USDA-ARS; Senorpe Asem-Hiablie, USDA-ARS; Sara Place, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; Greg Thoma, University of Arkansas.

Additional information

Information on the Integrated Farm System Model is available in the reference manual:

Rotz, C., Corson, M., Chianese, D., Montes, F., Hafner, S., Bonifacio, H., Coiner, C., 2018. The Integrated Farm System Model, Reference Manual Version 4.4. Agricultural Research Service, USDA. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80700500/Reference%20Manual.pdf.

Further information on the national assessment of the environmental impacts of U.S. cattle production is available in:

Rotz, C. A., S. Asem-Hiablie, S. Place and G. Thoma. 2019. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States. Agric. Systems 169:1-13.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded in part by The Beef Checkoff and the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2019. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Minneapolis, MN. April 22-26, 2019. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Thermal and Electrical Energy and Water Consumption in a Midwest Dairy Parlor

The typical dairy farm uses a large amount of energy during milking activities. This is due to the frequency of milking and the energy intensive nature of harvesting milk, keeping it cool, and cleaning the equipment with hot water. Renewable energy systems generally become more economically efficient as the amount of energy used increases, making dairy farms a great place to incorporate renewable energy.

Dairy farms have not typically been set up with energy efficiency in mind and often use relatively expensive fuel sources like heating oil or propane to heat water. One of the difficulties encountered with renewable energy systems is the intermittent generation of wind and solar energy, whereas the energy load on a dairy farm is very consistent since cows are typically milked twice or three times every day (very large dairies may milk continuously). An efficient way to store energy has long been sought to tie energy production and consumption together. A dairy farm’s need for both electricity and heat provides an ideal situation to generate electrical energy on-site to meet current electrical load requirements, displace conventional thermal fuels with electrical energy, and evaluate thermal storage as a solution to the time shifting of wind and solar electrical generation.

What did we do?

The dairy operation at the University of Minnesota West Central Research and Outreach Center in Morris milks between 200 and 275 cows twice daily and is representative of a mid-size Minnesota dairy farm. The cows are split almost evenly between a conventional and a certified organic grazing herd, and all cows spend the winter outside in lots near the milking parlor. The existing dairy equipment is typical for similarly sized dairy farms and includes none of the commonly recommended energy efficiency enhancements such as a plate cooler, refrigeration heat recovery, or variable frequency drives for pump motors. The WCROC dairy provides an ideal testing opportunity to evaluate and demonstrate the effect of on-site renewable energy generation and energy efficient upgrades on fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 1).

Heat pumps, electric water heaters, and thermal storage at the University of Minnesota Morris
Figure 1. Renewable energy upgrades that include new heat pumps, electric water heaters, and thermal storage tank at the University of Minnesota WCROC Dairy in Morris, MN.

A data logger was installed in the utility room of the milking parlor in August 2013 to monitor 18 individual electric loads, 12 water flow rates, 13 water temperatures, and two air temperatures. Average values were recorded every 10 minutes for the last 4 years. The milking parlor has gas and electric meters that measure the total consumption of natural gas and electricity within the parlor. The data helped us evaluate energy and water usage of various milking appliances. Some small energy loads were not measured in unused parts of the barn, or for equipment not directly related to the milking operation. These small and miscellaneous loads were estimated by subtracting monitored energy use from the total energy use.

Baseline measurements were collected at the WCROC dairy and overall, the milking parlor currently consumes about 250 to 400 kWh in electricity and uses between 1,300 and 1,500 gallons of water per day (Figures 2 and 3). The parlor currently uses about 110,000 kWh per year (440 kWh per cow per day) in electricity and 4,500 therms per year in natural gas. A majority of the electricity (26 percent) is used for cooling milk , with ventilation, fans and heaters  utilizing 16 percent. The dairy uses about 600 gallons of hot water per day, with a majority used for cleaning and sanitizing milking equipment (57%), followed closely by cleaning the milking parlor (27%). Energy and water usage fluctuates throughout the year; the dairy calves 40 percent of the cows from September to December and 60 percent from March to May. Therefore, water and energy use escalates dramatically during April.

The first energy efficiency upgrade was the installation of a variable frequency drive for the vacuum pump in September 2013. Prior to the upgrade, the vacuum pump used 55 to 65 kWh per day. Following installation, electrical consumption by the vacuum pump decreased by 75% to just 12 kWh per day. This data provides a vivid example of the significant energy savings that can be achieved with relatively simple upgrades.

Because the dairy operates both  organic and conventional systems, two bulk tank compressors are used: one scroll and one reciprocating. The scroll compressor is the newest and uses 15 kWh per day versus 40 kWh per day for the reciprocating compressor. Based on milk production, the scroll compressor costs $0.73 per kWh per cwt. versus $1.08 per kWh per cwt. for the reciprocating compressor, indicating that the scroll compressor is more efficient. In terms of fossil fuel consumption, milk harvesting consumed more energy than feeding and maintenance.  

Pie Chart: Electrical usage by equipment component for 2016.
Figure 2. Electrical usage by equipment component for 2016.
Pie chart: Hot water usage by activity during 2016
Figure 3. Hot water usage by activity during 2016

During the fall of 2016, a TenKSolar Reflect XTG 50 kW DC array was installed. The annual production from this solar PV system was projected to be 70,000 kWh. At a total cost of $138,000 ($2.77/W) for the solar system,  a 19.7-year simple payback without incentives was predicted. Adding the “Made in Minnesota” incentives would reduce the payback period to 8.6 years.

In 2017, two 10-kW VT10 wind turbines from Ventera were installed. These turbines are a three blade, downwind turbine model, each with an annual predicted generation of 22,400 kWh. The wind system cost was $156,800 ($78,400 per tower) with a 35-year simple payback without incentives. With the 30% federal credit, each turbine would have a 24.5-year payback.

What we have learned?

Our study suggests that fossil energy use per unit of milk could be greatly reduced by replacing older equipment with new, more efficient technology or substituting renewable sources of energy into the milk harvesting process. To improve energy efficiency, begin with an audit to gather data and identify energy-saving opportunities. Some energy efficiency options that may be installed on dairy farms include refrigeration heat recovery, variable frequency drives, plate coolers, and more efficient lighting and fans. A majority of these upgrades have immediate to two- to five-year paybacks. Make all electrical loads as efficient as possible, yet practical. Consider converting all thermal loads to electricity by the use of heat pumps that allow for cooling of milk. In the future, we have plans to harvest energy from our manure lagoon and store electricity as heat by use of heat pumps. Renewable energy options also can improve energy efficiency.

Solar panels
Figure 4. 50 kW solar array at the University of Minnesota WCROC Dairy, Morris, MN

Future Plans

We will continue to monitor the WCROC dairy and make renewable energy upgrades. We have begun monitoring the two 10-kW wind turbines, and installed a new 30-kW solar array in the WCROC pastures for renewable energy production. Additionally, we will evaluate the cow cooling potential of solar systems in the grazing dairy system at the WCROC. This study is the first step toward converting fossil fuel-based vehicles used in dairy farms to clean and locally produced energy. The knowledge and information generated will be disseminated to agricultural producers, energy professionals, students, and other stakeholders.

Authors

Brad Heins, Associate Professor, Dairy Management, hein0106@umn.edu

Mike Reese, Director of Renewable Energy

Eric Buchanan, Renewable Energy Scientist

Mickey Cotter, Renewable Energy Junior Scientist

Kirsten Sharpe, Research Assistant, Dairy Management

Additional information

We have developed a Dairy Energy Efficiency Decision Tool to help provide producers a quick way to estimate possible energy and costs savings from equipment efficiency upgrades. The tool can be used to quickly see what areas of a dairy operation may provide the best return on investment. Furthermore, we have developed a U of MN Guidebook for Optimizing Energy Systems for Midwest Dairy Production. This guidebook provides additional information about the topics that were discussed in this article, as well as the decision tool. More information may be found at https://wcroc.cfans.umn.edu/energy-dairy

Acknowledgements

To complete our goals, we have secured grants from the University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment (IREE), the Minnesota Rapid Agricultural Response Fund, and the Xcel Energy RDF Fund.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2019. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Minneapolis, MN. April 22-26, 2019. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Carbon, Water, and Land Use for Pork Production when Modifying Type and Regional Sourcing of Feed Ingredients

Providing animal protein to tomorrow’s nine billion people will be a challenge given the associated environmental pressures with animal production, particularly issues such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, human health and water usage/quality. Globally, livestock production systems contribute 14.5% to the total human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases (FAO, 2013). Animal feed is a major component of these impacts with the composition of animal diets having important downstream effects (i.e. GHG emissions, animal productivity, animal health, product safety and quality and animal welfare) as well as upstream effects on water quality, GHG emissions, land use and energy consumption (Makkar, 2016). Despite these effects, feeding programs for swine largely only focus on cost minimization and productivity (Dubeau et al. 2011; Pomar et al. 2007). Finding ways to produce animal protein while reducing the environmental impacts is vital to maintaining the long-term economic viability and cultural significance of this industry.

Pork, and the meat industry in general, has downstream pressure from customers to decrease environmental impacts. Major food companies have initiated supply chain management programs to minimize their carbon footprint in response to consumer demands and societal concerns. Within pork production, feed grains and manure management are the two largest contributors to GHG emissions, water use and land use (Matlock et al., 2014; Thoma et al., 2011). However, there is high variability in agricultural production systems and the associated environmental impacts across these locations (Yang and Heijung 2016; Hellweg and Canals, 2014). There is further variability across space due to the large differences in manure management practices, climate conditions and fuel mixes employed in U.S. counties and processing facilities. While research has been done on characterizing the average environmental impacts across the U.S. (Thoma et al 2011; Macleod et al 2013), and for particular production systems on a specific farm (or on average) (Bandekar et al 2014), this substantial variability across the U.S. can significantly affect specific supply chain environmental impacts.

What did we do?

The US pork industry is not a homogenous group of producers (in location, size, or even feed inputs) and therefore providing one single LCA number for the entire industry is incomplete. To capture this variability we used the Food Systems Sustainable Supply-chain model (FoodS3) that uses county level environment impacts of corn production, rather than using a single national average estimate. We also added spatial difference in manure impacts by estimating the volatile solids excreted in manure by the three regional feeding programs using county specific manure management practices. Using these estimates, we calculated the water and land use impacts of corn feed inputs in regional pig feeding programs, as well as the GHG impacts from corn feed inputs and manure emissions. We ran these calculations for four feed programs including: 1) the use of corn distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) and 2) dehydrated retail level food waste, as approaches for recycling nutrients back into pig feed; as well as 3) the use of synthetic amino acids (AA) and 4) enzymes (i.e. phytase), as back-end diet supplementation strategies for minimizing the environmental impact of pork production.

What have we learned?

The inclusion of county level spatial environmental impact data and supply chain connections are significant to this work. Location matters, not just in regional diet mixes, but also in environmental impacts of sourcing ingredients and manure management. With the FoodS3 model is was possible to bring in modeled supply relationships in environmental impact analysis. Similarly, having food waste data nutrient analyses available to test a food waste diet added in a hypothetical “future technology” for pig food that has not been extensively studied.

We found that using the food waste feeding program resulted in the lowest corn input greenhouse gas emissions totals compared with all other feeding programs evaluated in this study. However, for all GHG emissions, the control feeding program had the lowest GHG emissions. While use of synthetic amino acids decreased excretion of volatile solids in manure, it resulted in the greatest greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions are the result of proportionally greater use corn in the synthetic amino acid diets than any other diet (more corn was required to ensure that the diet met the Nutrient Requirement for Swine (NRC, 2012) in our modeled diets). The impact of feeding program on greenhouse gas emissions also varied among geographic regions, where the Mid-West region had the least per pig emissions regardless of the type of diets used in the feeding program. This variation is primarily due to the spatially different emissions of feed ingredients estimated with our FoodS3 model. As expected, water and land use were least for the feeding program based on food waste, while using synthetic amino acids in diets resulted in the greatest water and land use per pig produced.

Future plans

While this study was an important step in bringing spatial heterogeneity to understanding the environmental impacts of pig diets, further work should consider diets with combinations of our alternative ingredients. Most commercially available pig diets already include synthetic AA and inorganic phosphorus (P), and many include DDGS. Furthermore, the diets may have regional variations in more than just corn and soy (which we accounted for), but also in some of our alternative ingredients, such as DDGS and food waste. Future research is needed to compare the environmental impacts of these diets to one that includes food waste as well as examine different rates of inclusion for food waste.

Authors

Jennifer Schmitt1*, Pedro Urriola2, Jae Cheol Jang3; Gerald Shurson4

1 Program Director and Lead Scientist, NorthStar Initiative for Sustainable Enterprise, Institute on the Environment, UMN jenniferschmitt@umn.edu

2 Research Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Science, UMN

3 Post-doctoral Associate Department of Animal Science, UMN

4 Professor-Swine Nutrition, Department of Animal Science, UMN

* Corresponding Author

Additional Information

Bandekar, P. et al., 2014. Life cycle analysis of swine management practices. San Francisco, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector.

Dubeau, F., Julien, P.-O., & Pomar, C. (2011). Formulating diets for growing pigs: economic and environmental considerations. Annals of Operations Research, 190(1), 239–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-009-0633-1

FAO. (2013). Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources—Summary Report. Rome. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf

Hellweg, S. & Canals, L., 2014. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science, 344(6188), pp. 1109-1113.

Macleod, M. et al., 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains – a global life cycle assessment, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Matlock, M., Greg Thoma, B., Eric Boles Mansoor Leh, P., Sandefur Rusty Bautista, H., & Rick Ulrich, P. (2014). A Life Cycle Analysis of Water Use in U.S. Pork Production Comprehensive Report.

Pomar, C., Dubeau, F., Létourneau-Montminy, M.-P., Boucher, C., & Julien, P.-O. (2007). Reducing phosphorus concentration in pig diets by adding an environmental objective to the traditional feed formulation algorithm. Livestock Science, 111(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.11.011

Thoma, G., Nutter, D., Ulrich, R., Charles, M., Frank, J., & East, C. (2011). National Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Study for Production of US Swine, 1–75.

Yang, Y. & Heijungs, R., 2016. A general computation structure for regional life-cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, pp. 1-9.

Acknowledgements

Funding, in part, was provided by the National Pork Checkoff.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2019. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Minneapolis, MN. April 22-26, 2019. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Impact of Animal Manure and Organic Biosolids on Properties Contributing to Soil Health

The high concentration of organic carbon (C) and plant essential nutrients in manure and organic biosolids make them excellent fertilizers. However, manure is greatly underutilized as a fertilizer; only about 22% of the manure produced worldwide is applied as fertilizer (FAO 2018). This underutilization can yield regional nutrient imbalances when inorganic fertilizers are imported to meet crop nutrient needs that locally produced fertilizers could supply. However, with this challenge comes opportunity as the campaign to improve agricultural soil health has gained momentum among conservationists and researchers worldwide. Thus, a comprehensive assemblage of outcomes from manure and soil health-related research studies is important. Particularly, the identification of knowledge gaps is an important step to direct future research that informs soil health improvement outreach programs.

What did we do?

Soil health properties included in systematic literature review related to livestock manure and organic biosolids.
Figure 1. Soil health properties included in systematic literature review related to livestock manure and organic biosolids.

We conducted a systematic literature review based on peer-reviewed studies that evaluated the effect of livestock manure and organic biosolids on soil health properties. Soil health properties included in the review are shown in Figure 1. All studies included had to be replicated field trials written in English where manure or organic biosolid application was the only differing factor between treatments. Additionally, included data had to be statistically analyzed to compare organically amended treatments to a control. A total of 163 studies met all criteria.

What have we learned?

Overall, manure and biosolid applications have the potential to improve the health of agricultural soils. These organic amendments add significant amounts of organic C to soil, which has positive effects on other soil health metrics. When compared to inorganic fertilizers, soils that have had application of livestock manure or organic biosolids have the following properties:

Physical
decreased bulk density
more resistant to compaction, especially when wet
increased water holding capacity (WHC) in fine-textured soils with no effect in course textured soils
varied effect on aggregate stability
increased saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration
Biological
increased microbial biomass C and microbial biomass N
increased bacterial and fungal populations but no effect on diversity as measured by PLFA
increased microbial respiration and potential N mineralization
no change in microarthropod population and diversity
increased earthwork population
Chemical
increased soil organic C and soil organic matter, in general
varied effect on soil NPK; depends on study methodology (application rate and timing, amendment type, etc.)
varied effect on pH; depends on initial soil pH, amendment pH, and application rate
increased cation exchange capacity due to increased soil organic C

Future Steps

The evaluation of the impact of manure and biosolids on soil health properties is difficult to do based on current literature because 1) there are inconsistent research methodologies between individual research studies, and 2) there are few comprehensive studies that have included all soil health properties. Improvements in research methodologies needs to be improved to fill substantial knowledge gaps identified with this review. Specifically, future research should: (1) quantify soil biological metrics, (2) investigate the short- and long-term effects of a single application of manure or biosolids, (3) study nutrient application balance on an annual or multi-year basis, and (4) discuss how research findings translate into management decisions relevant to agricultural crop producers.

Authors

Corresponding Author: Linda Schott, Assistant Professor/ Extension Specialist- Nutrient and Waste Management, University of Idaho, lschott@uidaho.edu

Other Authors: Amy Schmidt, Associate Professor/ Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Humberto Blanco-Canqui, Associate Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Additional Information

FAO. (2018). Nitrogen inputs to agricultural soils from livestock manure. New statistics. Integrated Crop Management (Vol. 24). Rome, Italy

More information on this project can be found at: https://soilhealthnexus.org/resources/manure-and-soil-health/

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by funding from the North Central Region Water Network and the Soil Health Institute. The authors would also like to thank Mara Zelt and Ashley Schmit for their assistance.

 

 

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2019. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Minneapolis, MN. April 22-26, 2019. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Impact of Biochar on Nitrogen Cycling: Impact of Oxidation and Application to Filter Strips

Biochar has been shown to have the ability to affect nitrogen cycling in soils. In this study, we investigated the impact of adding biochar to filter strip plots to understand the impact on nitrogen leaching, particularly in the form of nitrate. In addition, we examined additions of biochar to soil columns to determine the mechanism for reductions in leaching and to assess the impacts to nitrous oxide emissions.  

What did we do?

grass
Figure 1: Filter strip plots with vegetation receiving silage runoff with collection of surface and subsurface water samples

We conducted three studies to investigate the impact of biochar to nitrogen cycling. First, we developed filter strip plots where we added biochar to the soil matrix in three of six plots. We then applied bunker silage storage runoff ( containing nitrogen) to the plots and determined the forms and quantities of nitrogen leaching through the soil profile. Second, we oxidized biochar and completed sorption studies to determine if oxidation of biochar plays a role in nitrate sorption. Third, we conducted soil column experiments to determine if biochar impacted mineralization rates, nitrification and/or denitrification in soil systems when synthetic wastewater containing nitrogen was applied.

What have we learned?

We have found that biochar does impact nitrogen leaching. When added to filter strip plots, it reduced total nitrogen and nitrate leaching. In addition, oxidation of biochar was found to have an impact to nitrate sorption. Finally, when biochar is applied to soil columns it not only reduces nitrate leaching but also reduces nitrous oxide emissions.

Future plans

We plan to further investigate biochar applications to reduce nitrogen losses to the environment.

Authors

Rebecca A. Larson, Associate Professor, Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, rebecca.larson@wisc.edu

Joseph Sanford, Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2015-67019-23573 and 2017-67003-26055.

 

 

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2019. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Minneapolis, MN. April 22-26, 2019. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Environmental Impacts of Dairy Production Systems in the Changing Climate of the Northeast

To meet the nutritional needs of a growing population, dairy producers must increase milk production while minimizing farm environmental impacts. As we look to the future, management practices must also be adapted to maintain production under projected climate change. To plan for the future, better information is needed on practices that can reduce emissions from the farm and adapt to changes in the climate while maintaining or improving production and profitability.

What did we do?

We conducted a comprehensive assessment of the effects of climate change on both the productivity and environmental performance of farms as influenced by strategies to reduce emissions and adapt to the changing climate. Production systems were evaluated using three representative northeastern dairy farms: a 1500-cow farm in New York, a 150-cow farm in Wisconsin and a 50-cow farm in southern Pennsylvania. A cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment was conducted using farm-scale process-based modeling and climate projections for high and low emission scenarios. Environmental considerations included the carbon footprint of the milk produced and reactive N and P losses from the farms.

What we have learned?

We found that the environmental impact of the three representative dairy farms generally increased in the near future (2050) climate if no mitigation measures were taken. Overall, feed production was maintained as decreases in corn grain yield were compensated by increases in forage yields. Adaptation of the cropping system through changes in planting and harvest dates and corn variety led to a smaller reduction in corn grain yield, but the detrimental effects of climate change could not be fully negated. Considering the increased forage yield, total feed production increased except for the most severe projected climate change. Adoption of farm-specific beneficial management practices substantially reduced the greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient losses of the farms in current climate conditions and stabilized the environmental impact in future climate conditions, while maintaining feed and milk production (See Figure 1 for example results).

Figure 1. Carbon footprint, reactive nitrogen footprint and P loss in recent (2000) and future (2050) climate conditions (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) for a 1500-cow farm in New York with baseline and Best Management Practice (BMP) scenarios, with and without crop system adaptions in 2050. Error bars represent the standard deviation of IFSM simulations for 3 climate scenarios per RCP. Unadapt = not adapted cropping system. Adapt = adapted cropping system.
Figure 1. Carbon footprint, reactive nitrogen footprint and P loss in recent (2000) and future (2050) climate conditions (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) for a 1500-cow farm in New York with baseline and Best Management Practice (BMP) scenarios, with and without crop system adaptions in 2050. Error bars represent the standard deviation of IFSM simulations for 3 climate scenarios per RCP. Unadapt = not adapted cropping system. Adapt = adapted cropping system.

The take-home message is that with appropriate management changes, our dairy farms can become more sustainable under current climate and better prepared to adapt to future climate variability.

Future plans

A more comprehensive life cycle assessment is being done by linking the output of the farm model with life cycle assessment software. The process level simulation of the farm provides inventory information for an inclusive life cycle assessment with multiple environmental considerations. This integrated software will provide a more complete sustainability assessment of the potential benefits of alternative management strategies for both now and the future.

Authors

Karin Veltman, University of Michigan; C. Alan Rotz, USDA-ARS; Larry Chase, Cornell University; Joyce Cooper, Washington State University; Chris Forest, Penn State University; Pete Ingraham, Applied GeoSolutions; R. César Izaurralde, University of Maryland; Curtis D. Jones, University of Maryland; Robert Nicholas, Penn State University; Matt Ruark, University of Wisconsin; William Salas, Applied GeoSolutions; Greg Thoma, University of Arkansas; Olivier Jolliet, University of Michigan.

Additional information

Information on the Integrated Farm System Model is available in the reference manual:

Rotz, C., Corson, M., Chianese, D., Montes, F., Hafner, S., Bonifacio, H., Coiner, C., 2018. The Integrated Farm System Model, Reference Manual Version 4.4. Agricultural Research Service, USDA. Available at: https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/up-pa/pswmru/docs/integrated-farm-system-model/#Reference.

Information on the analysis of Best Management Practices on northeastern dairy farms is available in:

Veltman, K., C. A. Rotz, L. Chase, J. Cooper, P. Ingraham, R. C. Izaurralde, C. D. Jones, R. Gaillard, R. A. Larsson, M. Ruark, W. Salas, G. Thoma, and O. Jolliet. 2017. A quantitative assessment of beneficial management practices to reduce carbon and reactive nitrogen footprints and phosphorus losses of dairy farms in the Great Lakes region of the United States. Agric. Systems 166:10-25.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2013-68002-20525. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2019. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Minneapolis, MN. April 22-26, 2019. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Proudly powered by WordPress