Environmental consequences of a consumer shift from dairy- to soy-based products

Aaron T. Simmons; Miguel Brandão; Zita Ritchie; Guy Roth

doi:10.1071/CP23034

RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Previous Next Contents Vol 75(1)

Environmental consequences of a consumer shift from dairy- to soy-based products

Aaron T. Simmons

^A ^B ^* , Miguel Brandão ^C , Zita Ritchie ^D and Guy Roth ^E

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

^A New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, 98 Victoria Street, Taree, NSW 2430, Australia.

^B University of New England, School of Business, Elm Avenue, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.

^C KTH – Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm SE-100 44, Sweden.

^D New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, 1243 Bruxner Highway, Wollongbar, NSW 2477, Australia.

^E The University of Sydney, School of Life and Environmental Science, Sydney Institute of Agriculture, 12566 Newell Highway, Narrabri, NSW 2390, Australia.

^* Correspondence to: aaron.simmons@dpi.nsw.gov.au

Handling Editor: Brendan Cullen

Crop & Pasture Science 75, CP23034 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP23034

Submitted: 7 February 2023 Accepted: 9 August 2023 Published: 8 September 2023

© 2024 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

Abstract

Context

Climate change and water scarcity are global challenges facing humanity. Animal agriculture generates considerable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and consumes large volumes of water from rivers, streams and lakes. Reducing consumption of animal agricultural products with a relatively high carbon or water footprint, such as dairy, is often promoted as a mechanism to reduce the environmental impacts of food production. Attributionally-based footprints do not, however, assess the consequences of a change in demand for a product.

Aims

This study aimed to assess the water and climate change consequences of replacing NSW dairy production, and co-products of dairy production, with plant-based alternatives.

Methods

Process-based consequential life cycle assessment was used.

Key results

Water savings associated with the change would be limited and GHG emissions reductions would be ~86% of that as estimated by the carbon footprint of production. When NSW dairy production was replaced with soy-based alternatives and two GHG emissions reduction strategies were implemented across the industry, namely enteric methane inhibitors and flaring methane from effluent ponds, GHG emissions increased by 0.63 Mt carbon dioxide equivalent when dairy production was replaced.

Conclusions

The environmental benefits associated with replacing NSW dairy production with plant-based alternatives should not be determined by attributionally-based approaches.

Implications

Policies that aim to reduce the environmental impacts of agricultural production need to consider the market effects of a change in demand for products and not rely on estimated impacts of current production.

Keywords: climate change, consequential life cycle assessment, irrigation, land use, market effects, mitigation, water.

References

Abdul-Manan AFN (2017) Lifecycle GHG emissions of palm biodiesel: unintended market effects negate direct benefits of the Malaysian Economic Transformation Plan (ETP). Energy Policy 104, 56-65.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

ABS (2020a) 7503 – Value of agricultural commodities produced. No. 7121.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

ABS (2020b) 4610 – Water account. No. 7121.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Australian Government (2016) Carbon credits (carbon farming initiative – human induced regeneration of a permanent even aged native forest – 1.1) methodology determination variation 2016. F2016L00361. Australian Government, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Australian Government (2018a) Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM). Australian Government, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Australian Government (2018b) Australian national greenhouse accounts national inventory report 2016. Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Australian Government (2020) Requirements for using the Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM) in the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) methodology determination: carbon credits (carbon farming initiative – human induced regeneration of a permanent even aged native forest – 1.1) methodology determination variation 2013. Australian Government, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Badgery WB, Simmons AT, Murphy BM, Rawson A, Andersson KO, Lonergan VE, van de Ven R (2013) Relationship between environmental and land-use variables on soil carbon levels at the regional scale in central New South Wales, Australia. Soil Research 51, 645-656.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Badgery W, Li G, Simmons A, Wood J, Smith R, Peck D, Ingram L, Durmic Z, Cowie A, Humphries A, Hutton P, Winslow E, Vercoe P, Eckard R (2023) Reducing enteric methane of ruminants in Australian grazing systems – a review of the role for temperate legumes and herbs. Crop & Pasture Science 74, 661-679.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Berbel J, Gutiérrez-Martín C, Rodríguez-Díaz JA, Camacho E, Montesinos P (2015) Literature review on rebound effect of water saving measures and analysis of a Spanish case study. Water Resources Management 29, 663-678.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Berners-Lee M (2020) ‘How bad are bananas?: the carbon footprint of everything.’ (Profile Books: London, UK)

Boulay A-M, Bare J, Benini L, Berger M, Lathuillière MJ, Manzardo A, Margni M, Motoshita M, Núñez M, Pastor AV, Ridoutt B, Oki T, Worbe S, Pfister S (2018) The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 23, 368-378.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Brandão M, Azzi E, Novaes RML, Cowie A (2021) The modelling approach determines the carbon footprint of biofuels: the role of LCA in informing decision makers in government and industry. Cleaner Environmental Systems 2, 100027.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Coluccia B, Agnusdei GP, De Leo F, Vecchio Y, La Fata CM, Miglietta PP (2022) Assessing the carbon footprint across the supply chain: cow milk vs soy drink. Science of The Total Environment 806, 151200.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Dairy Australia (2020a) Australian dairy industry sustainability report 2020. Available at https://cdn-prod.dairyaustralia.com.au/-/media/dairy/files/sustainability/australian-dairy-sustainability-framework/2020-sustainability-report.pdf?

Eckard RJ (2020) A Greenhouse Accounting Framework for Dairy properties (D-GAF) based on the Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory methodology. Available at http://www.greenhouse.unimelb.edu.au/Tools.htm

Ercin AE, Aldaya MM, Hoekstra AY (2012) The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products. Ecological Indicators 18, 392-402.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Forster P, Storelvmo T, Armour K, Collins W, Dufresne JL, Frame D, Lunt D, Mauritsen T, Palmer M, Watanabe M, Wild M (2021) The Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity. In ‘Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change’. (Eds V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, A Pirani, SL Connors, C Péan, S Berger, N Caud, Y Chen, L Goldfarb, MI Gomis, M Huang, K Leitzell, E Lonnoy, JBR Matthews, TK Maycock, T Waterfield, O Yelekçi, R Yu, B Zhou) pp. 923–1054. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK). doi:10.1017/9781009157896.009

Garcia F, Muñoz C, Martínez-Ferrer J, Urrutia NL, Martínez ED, Saldivia M, Immig I, Kindermann M, Walker N, Ungerfeld EM (2022) 3-Nitrooxypropanol substantially decreased enteric methane emissions of dairy cows fed true protein- or urea-containing diets. Heliyon 8, e09738.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Gollnow S, Lundie S, Moore AD, McLaren J, van Buuren N, Stahle P, Christie K, Thylmann D, Rehl T (2014) Carbon footprint of milk production from dairy cows in Australia. International Dairy Journal 37, 31-38.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Grant T, Eady S, Cruypenninck H, Simmons A (2017) AusLCI methodology for developing Life Cycle Inventory for Australian agriculture. Lifecycle Strategies Pty Ltd, Collingwood, Vic., Australia.

Henriksson M, Flysjö A, Cederberg C, Swensson C (2011) Variation in carbon footprint of milk due to management differences between Swedish dairy farms. Animal 5(9), 1474-1484.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

JBS (2021) JBS and DSM partner to substantially reduce methane emissions in beef. Available at https://mediaroom.jbs.com.br/noticia/jbs-and-dsm-partner-to-substantially-reduce-methane-emissions-in-beef

Khan MMH, Deviatkin I, Havukainen J, Horttanainen M (2021) Environmental impacts of wooden, plastic, and wood-polymer composite pallet: a life cycle assessment approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26, 1607-1622.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Khorchani M, Nadal-Romero E, Lasanta T, Tague C (2021) Natural revegetation and afforestation in abandoned cropland areas: hydrological trends and changes in Mediterranean mountains. Hydrological Processes 35, e14191.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Kinnunen P, Guillaume JHA, Taka M, D’odorico P, Siebert S, Puma MJ, Jalava M, Kummu M (2020) Local food crop production can fulfil demand for less than one-third of the population. Nature Food 1, 229-237.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Kovacs B, Miller L, Heller MC, Rose D (2021) The carbon footprint of dietary guidelines around the world: a seven country modeling study. Nutrition Journal 20, 15.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Latimer C (2019) Moxey biodigester to power whole farm. FarmOnline National. Available at https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/6228869/moxey-biodigester-to-power-whole-farm/

Li B, Qiao M, Lu F (2012) Composition, nutrition, and utilization of okara (soybean residue). Food Reviews International 28, 231-252.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Loch A, Adamson D (2015) Drought and the rebound effect: a Murray–Darling Basin example. Natural Hazards 79, 1429-1449.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Longmire A, Taylor C, Pearson CJ (2015) An open-access method for targeting revegetation based on potential for emissions reduction, carbon sequestration and opportunity cost. Land Use Policy 42, 578-585.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Manfredi S, Allacker K, Pelletier N, Chomkhamsri K, de Souza DM (2012) Product environmental footprint (PEF) guide. European Commission-Joint Research Centre.

Marinova D, Bogueva D (2020) Which ‘milk’ is best for the environment? We compared dairy, nut, soy, hemp and grain milks. The Conversation, 14 October 2020. Available at https://theconversation.com/which-milk-is-best-for-the-environment-we-compared-dairy-nut-soy-hemp-and-grain-milks-147660

Nguyen QV, Wiedemann SG, Simmons A, Clarke SJ (2021) The environmental consequences of a change in Australian cotton lint production. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26, 2321-2338.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

O’Brien D, Capper JL, Garnsworthy PC, Grainger C, Shalloo L (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.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Palhares JCP, Pezzopane JRM (2015) Water footprint accounting and scarcity indicators of conventional and organic dairy production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 93, 299-307.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Perry C (2014) Water footprints: path to enlightenment, or false trail? Agricultural Water Management 134, 119-125.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Pitta DW, Indugu N, Melgar A, Hristov A, Challa K, Vecchiarelli B, Hennessy M, Narayan K, Duval S, Kindermann M, Walker N (2022) The effect of 3-nitrooxypropanol, a potent methane inhibitor, on ruminal microbial gene expression profiles in dairy cows. Microbiome 10, 146.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2013) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. Journal of Industrial Ecology 18, 73-83.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Poore J, Nemecek T (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987-992.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

PRé Sustainability (2016) Simapro v8.3.0. (PRé Sustainability: Amersfoot, Netherlands)

Rahman MM, Mat K, Ishigaki G, Akashi R (2021) A review of okara (soybean curd residue) utilization as animal feed: nutritive value and animal performance aspects. Animal Science Journal 92, e13594.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Renouf MA, Grant T, Sevenster M, Logie J, Ridoutt B, Ximenes F, Bengtsson J, Cowie A, Lane J (2015) Best practice guide for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) in Australia. Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society, Melbourne.

Ridoutt BG, Williams SRO, Baud S, Fraval S, Marks N (2010) The water footprint of dairy products: case study involving skim milk powder. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 5114-5117.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Ridoutt BG, Baird D, Hendrie GA (2021) The role of dairy foods in lower greenhouse gas emission and higher diet quality dietary patterns. European Journal of Nutrition 60, 275-285.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Roque BM, Salwen JK, Kinley R, Kebreab E (2019) Inclusion of Asparagopsis armata in lactating dairy cows’ diet reduces enteric methane emission by over 50 percent. Journal of Cleaner Production 234, 132-138.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Simmons AT, Murray A, Brock PM, Grant T, Cowie AL, Eady S, Sharma B (2019) Life cycle inventories for the Australian grains sector. Crop & Pasture Science 70, 575-584.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Simmons AT, Cowie AL, Brock PM (2020) Climate change mitigation for Australian wheat production. Science of The Total Environment 725, 138260.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Simmons AT, Perovic DJ, Roth G (2022) Making waves – are water scarcity footprints of irrigated agricultural commodities suitable to inform consumer decisions? Agricultural Water Management 268, 107689.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Smith LG, Kirk GJD, Jones PJ, Williams AG (2019) The greenhouse gas impacts of converting food production in England and Wales to organic methods. Nature Communications 10, 4641.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Song J, Guo Y, Wu P, Sun S (2018) The agricultural water rebound effect in China. Ecological Economics 146, 497-506.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Sustainable Apparel Coalition (2016) Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) Methodology. Sustainable Apparel Coalition [Accessed 30 November 2017]

Trostle R (2010) ‘Global agricultural supply and demand: factors contributing to the recent increase in food commodity prices.’ rev. edn. (DIANE Publishing)

Vasilaki V, Katsou E, Ponsá S, Colón J (2016) Water and carbon footprint of selected dairy products: a case study in Catalonia. Journal of Cleaner Production 139, 504-516.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Vendl C, Clauss M, Stewart M, Leggett K, Hummel J, Kreuzer M, Munn A (2015) Decreasing methane yield with increasing food intake keeps daily methane emissions constant in two foregut fermenting marsupials, the western grey kangaroo and red kangaroo. Journal of Experimental Biology 218, 3425-3434.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Vergé XPC, Maxime D, Dyer JA, Desjardins RL, Arcand Y, Vanderzaag A (2013) Carbon footprint of Canadian dairy products: calculations and issues. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 6091-6104.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Water Management Act 2000 No 92 (NSW)

Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo C, Wernet G (2013) The ecoinvent database: overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. (The ecoinvent Centre: St Gallen, Switzerland). Available at http://www.ecoinvent.org [Accessed 21 September 2015]

Wheeler SA, Carmody E, Grafton RQ, Kingsford RT, Zuo A (2020) The rebound effect on water extraction from subsidising irrigation infrastructure in Australia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 159, 104755.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

White RR, Hall MB (2017) Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, E10301-E10308.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wiedemann SG, Simmons A, Watson KJL, Biggs L (2019) Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 24, 848-855.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Zehetmeier M, Gandorfer M, Heibenhuber A, de Boer IJM (2012) Modelling GHG emissions of dairy cow production systems differing in milk yield and breed – the impact of uncertainty. In ‘8th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2012), 1–4 October 2012, Saint Malo, France. (INRA)

Zhang X, Chen X, Xu Y, Yang J, Du L, Li K, Zhou Y (2021a) Milk consumption and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in humans. Nutrition & Metabolism 18, 7.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Zhang X, Lark TJ, Clark CM, Yuan Y, LeDuc SD (2021b) Grassland-to-cropland conversion increased soil, nutrient, and carbon losses in the US Midwest between 2008 and 2016. Environmental Research Letters 16, 054018.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Zhang Y, Wang W, Yao H (2023) Urea-based nitrogen fertilization in agriculture: a key source of N₂O emissions and recent development in mitigating strategies. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 69, 663-678.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |