Greenhouse-gas mitigation potential of agro-industrial by-products in the diet of dairy goats in Spain: a life-cycle perspective
G. Pardo A D , I. Martin-Garcia B , A. Arco B , D. R. Yañez-Ruiz B , R. Moral C and A. del Prado AA Basque Centre For Climate Change (BC3), Alameda Urquijo, 4, 4°-1, 48008, Bilbao, Spain.
B Estación Experimental del Zaidín (CSIC), C/Camino del Jueves s/n, 18100, Armilla, Granada, Spain.
C Miguel Hernandez University, EPS-Orihuela, Ctra Beniel Km 3.2, 03312 Orihuela, Spain.
D Corresponding author. Email: guillermo.pardo@bc3research.org
Animal Production Science 56(3) 646-654 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15620
Submitted: 16 September 2015 Accepted: 2 December 2015 Published: 9 February 2016
Abstract
Goat milk production is an important agricultural resource in the Mediterranean basin. Market demands and scarcity of pastures during drought periods has led to farms becoming more intensive and based on imported concentrate feeds. The use of alternative feedstuffs from agro-industry can help decrease dependence on external concentrates, while preventing the environmental issues associated with livestock production and by-product disposal. From a life-cycle assessment perspective, we investigated the change on greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions of replacing a conventional dairy goat diet in southern Spain with two alternative dietary strategies, including tomato waste or olive by-products silages. The effect on enteric methane emissions and milk productivity was assessed through specific feeding trials. Experimental data were integrated within a modelling framework comprising different submodels to describe the farm system and associated production chain. A new model describing carbon and nitrogen losses from solid waste was applied to estimate the emissions associated with the baseline scenarios for food by-product management. The assessment revealed that the two dietary strategies achieve GHG reductions (~12–19% per kg milk). In both cases, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions from crop production were partially reduced through the displacement of typical concentrate ingredients. An additional mitigation effect was obtained when including tomato wastes in the diet because it reduced the methane emissions from enteric fermentation. Results suggested that use of agro-industrial residues for feeding is a feasible mitigation option in this case. However, as organic by-products could have alternative uses (bioenergy, soil amendment), with different implications for land use and soil carbon stocks, a more complete overview of both scenarios is recommended. Potential trade-offs from non-GHG categories may play an important role in a decision-making process.
Additional keywords: GHG, LCA, methane, olive cake, tomato.
References
Aguilera E, Lassaletta L, Gattinger A, Gimeno BS (2013) Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: a meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 168, 25–36.| Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: a meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Arco-Pérez A, Ramos-Morales E, Yáñez-Ruiz DR, Martín-García AI (2014) Effect on milk production and composition and methane production of including tomato wastes and olive oil by-products and sunflower oil in the diet of dairy goats. In ‘Proceedings of the 30th biennial conference of the Australian Society of Animal Production’. (Eds S Hatcher, GL Krebs, BWB Holman) p. 227. (The Australian Society of Animal Production: Canberra)
Batalla I, Knudsen MT, Mogensen L, del Hierro Ó, Pinto M, Hermansen JE (2015) Carbon footprint of milk from sheep farming systems in northern Spain including soil carbon sequestration in grasslands. Journal of Cleaner Production 104, 121–129.
| Carbon footprint of milk from sheep farming systems in northern Spain including soil carbon sequestration in grasslands.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2MXovV2lsL8%3D&md5=349aa499962422b944b7a91d6c991445CAS |
Beauchemin KA, Kreuzer M, O’Mara F, McAllister TA (2008) Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 21–27.
| Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXovVGn&md5=23b38df440406cdf954ea8c1fc39bac0CAS |
Ben Salem H, Nefzaoui A (2003) Feed blocks as alternative supplements for sheep and goats. Small Ruminant Research 49, 275–288.
| Feed blocks as alternative supplements for sheep and goats.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ben Salem H, Smith T (2008) Feeding strategies to increase small ruminant production in dry environments. Small Ruminant Research 77, 174–194.
| Feeding strategies to increase small ruminant production in dry environments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Castel JM, Mena Y, Ruiz FA, Camúñez-Ruiz J, Sánchez-Rodríguez M (2011) Changes occurring in dairy goat production systems in less favoured areas of Spain. Small Ruminant Research 96, 83–92.
| Changes occurring in dairy goat production systems in less favoured areas of Spain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chedly K, Lee S (2000) Silage from by-products for smallholders. In ‘Proceedings of the FAO electronic conference on tropical silage’, Rome, Italy. (Ed. L ’tMannetje) pp. 85–96. Plant production and protection paper 2000 no. 161. (FAO: Rome)
Ecoinvent® 3.01 Database (2013) Ecoinvent® Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories. Available at http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/ecoinvent-version-3/ecoinvent-v30/ [Verified January 2015]
Edwards-Jones G, Plassmann K, Harris IM (2009) Carbon footprinting of lamb and beef production systems: insights from an empirical analysis of farms in Wales, UK. The Journal of Agricultural Science 147, 707
| Carbon footprinting of lamb and beef production systems: insights from an empirical analysis of farms in Wales, UK.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
European Landfill Directive 99/31/EC (2015) Available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html [Verified January 2015]
FAOSTAT (2015) ‘FAOSTAT.’ Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Database. Available at http//faostat3.fao.org [Verified June 2015]
Giorgi F, Lionello P (2008) Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Global and Planetary Change 63, 90–104.
| Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hristov AN, Oh JLC, Meinen R, Montes F, Ott T, Firkins J, Rotz A, Dell C, Adesogan A, Yang W, Tricarico J, Kebreab E, Waghorn G, Dijkstra J, Oosting S (2013) ‘Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production: a review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions.’ (Eds PJ Gerber, B Henderson, HPS Makkar) Animal Production and Health Paper No. 177. (FAO: Rome)
IDF (2015) ‘A common carbon footprint approach for the dairy sector.’ Bulletin of the IDF no. 479/2015. (International Dairy Federation (IDF): Brussels, Belgium)
ISO (2006a) ‘ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment: principles and framework.’ (International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland)
ISO (2006b) ‘ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines.’ (International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland)
Jones RJA, Hiederer R, Rusco E, Montanarella L (2005) Estimating organic carbon in the soils of Europe for policy support. European Journal of Soil Science 56, 655–671.
| Estimating organic carbon in the soils of Europe for policy support.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXhtFGlsbrE&md5=5b07dc85d1b7dfe160f51aae57dca611CAS |
Jones AK, Jones DL, Cross P (2014) The carbon footprint of lamb: sources of variation and opportunities for mitigation. Agricultural Systems 123, 97–107.
| The carbon footprint of lamb: sources of variation and opportunities for mitigation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
MAGRAMA (2015) ‘Anuario de estadistica.’ Available at http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/ [Verified 1 June 2015]
Michael D (2011) ‘Carbon reduction benchmarks and strategies: new animal products.’ RIRDC publication no. 11/063, RIRDC project no. PRJ-003369. (Australian Government, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation: Canberra)
Opio C, Gerber P, Mottet A, Falculli A, Tempio G, MacLeod M, Vellinga T, Henderson B, Steinfeld H (2013) ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains: a global life cycle assessment.’ (FAO: Rome)
Pardo G, Moral R, del Prado A (2013) Modelling management options of organic waste for the evaluation of synergies and trade-offs between climate change mitigation and ecosystem services. In ‘Proceedings of the 15th RAMIRAN international conference’. (Eds H Bacheley, P Cambier, N Cheviron, S Formisano, S Houot, AS Lepeuple, A Revallier, G Vallez) (INRA: Versailles, France) Available at https://colloque4.inra.fr/ramiran2013 [Verified 20 November 2015]
PRé-Consultants (2014) SimaPro software Version 8.0.2, (PRé-Consultants. Amersfoort, The Netherlands)
Pulina G, Macciotta N, Nudda A (2005) Milk composition and feeding in the Italian dairy sheep. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4, 5–14.
| Milk composition and feeding in the Italian dairy sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ripoll-Bosch R, de Boer IJM, Bernués A, Vellinga TV (2013) Accounting for multi-functionality of sheep farming in the carbon footprint of lamb: a comparison of three contrasting Mediterranean systems. Agricultural Systems 116, 60–68.
| Accounting for multi-functionality of sheep farming in the carbon footprint of lamb: a comparison of three contrasting Mediterranean systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thomassen MA, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, Boer I (2008) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13, 339–349.
| Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXpt1Cmsrw%3D&md5=6ae7bda908b4134a38b69bf0393043b7CAS |
Tufvesson LM, Lantz M, Börjesson P (2013) Environmental performance of biogas produced from industrial residues including competition with animal feed: life-cycle calculations according to different methodologies and standards. Journal of Cleaner Production 53, 214–223.
| Environmental performance of biogas produced from industrial residues including competition with animal feed: life-cycle calculations according to different methodologies and standards.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXnvVarsrc%3D&md5=54cd792f017d94f95ffdacd92b15a2d2CAS |
Vagnoni E, Franca A, Breedveld L, Porqueddu C, Ferrara R, Duce P (2015) Environmental performances of Sardinian dairy sheep production systems at different input levels. The Science of the Total Environment 502, 354–361.
| Environmental performances of Sardinian dairy sheep production systems at different input levels.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2cXhsFylt7bI&md5=5b306f8f5b4053b9f2da924a1db47a08CAS | 25265396PubMed |
Weiss F, Leip A (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: a life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 149, 124–134.
| Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: a life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XitlGiu7w%3D&md5=ff6374527e114c041a6fcffc3746af0aCAS |
Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main report. Defra research project IS0205. Bedford, UK.
Yáñez-Ruiz DR, Rufino P (2014) Rapid sustainability assessment of organic and low-input dairy goat farms in south Spain. Available at www.solidairy.eu [Verified 1 June 2015]
Zervas G, Tsiplakou E (2012) An assessment of GHG emissions from small ruminants in comparison with GHG emissions from large ruminants and monogastric livestock. Atmospheric Environment 49, 13–23.
| An assessment of GHG emissions from small ruminants in comparison with GHG emissions from large ruminants and monogastric livestock.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38Xhslehsb8%3D&md5=5d01e2addc566e3d91289f86d7f4cf08CAS |
