The sensitivity of comparative milk footprints from dairy\nfarm systems implementing conventional and legume-based animal diets to choice\nof allocation method was assessed in this MScCAFFS thesis, this was achieved by\ngaining an understanding of LCA, CF, allocation methods, and system expansion, the\nScottish dairy industry, legume-based animal diets, and genetics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As discussed LCA and CF are methods that allow for\nthe environmental impact of products and supply chains to investigated (Broekema et al., 2014; Dalgaard et al., 2008).\nAllocation methods are an important part in LCA. The allocation methods used were\nmass and economic allocation, the different methods of allocation can vary in results,\nso choosing the most suitable method is critical (Rice et al,. 2017). This was shown in the results as mass\nallocation had a higher EF then the economic allocation in all of the diet\ngroups. Table 7.1 shows the averages for both the control and select cows on\nthe by product diet, the mass allocation by product control group (BPC) on\naverage had an EF of 4.83kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the economic BPC had an EF\nof 1.18kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This is a difference of 3.65kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L.\nTable 7.1 also shows the product select group (BPS) on average had an EF of 4.28kg\nCO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the economic BPS had an EF of 1.04kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L.\nThis is a difference of 3.24kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. The difference in the other\nfeed groups is not a high but there is still a difference. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7.2 shows the averages for both the control and select\ncows on the high forge diet, the mass allocation high forage control group (HFC)\non average had an EF of 1.87kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the economic HFC had\nan EF of 1.31kg CO2<\/sub>-eq \/ L. This is a difference of 0.56kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L.\nThe high forage select group (HFS) on average had an EF of 1.52kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L\nwhile the economic HFS had an EF of 1.17kg CO2<\/sub>-eq \/ L. This is a\ndifference of 0.35kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7.3 shows the averages for both the control and select\ncows on the low forge diet, the mass allocation low forage control group (LFC)\non average had an EF of 1.53kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the economic LFC had\nan EF of 1.04kg CO2<\/sub>-eq \/ L. This is a difference of 0.49kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L.\nThe low forage select group (LFS) on average had an EF of 1.30kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L\nwhile the economic LFS had an EF of 0.91kg CO2<\/sub>-eq \/ L. This is a\ndifference of 0.39kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7.4 shows the averages for both the control and select\ncows on the home grown diet, the mass allocation home grown control group (HGC)\non average had an EF of 2.36kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the economic HGC had\nan EF of 1.21kg CO2<\/sub>-eq \/ L. This is a difference of 1.15kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L.\nThe home grown select group (HGS) on average had an EF of 2.18kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L\nwhile the economic HGS had an EF of 1.13kg CO2<\/sub>-eq \/ L. This is a\ndifference of 1.05kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This shows that the type of\nallocation used can have a major effect on the EF per unit of output.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reducing emissions is going to be critical for farming in\nthe future. Climate change is becoming an ever-growing concern and it is\ncausing a push to decarbonise areas such as transport, industry and\nagriculture. The agricultural sector must also find ways to reduce their\nfootprint (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2018; Rogelj\net al., 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Improving the genetic merit of dairy cows is a way that the\ndairy industries footprint can be reduced (Ross\net al., 2014; Vellinga et al., 2018). This was shown in the results in\nall the groups the select cow groups had a low EF per litre of milk then the\ncontrol cows groups. Table 7.1 shows the control and select cows on the by product\ndiet. The select cows on average had a milk yield of 545373.5 litres and an\neconomic allocation EF of 1.18kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the control cows had\nan average milk yield of 433420.5 litres and an economic allocation EF of 1.04\nkg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This is a difference of 0.14kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. The\nselect cows had a mass allocation EF of 4.28kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the\ncontrol cows had a mass allocation EF of 4.83 kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This is a\ndifference of 0.55kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7.2 shows the control and select cows on the high\nforge diet. The select cows on average had a milk yield of 433,361 litres and an\neconomic allocation EF of 1.17kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the control cows had\nan average milk yield of 405,650 litres and an economic allocation EF of 1.30kg\nCO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This is a difference of 0.13kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. The\nselect cows had a mass allocation EF of 1.52kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the\ncontrol cows had a mass allocation EF of 1.87kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This is a\ndifference of 0.35kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7.3 shows the control and select cows on the low forge\ndiet. The select cows on average had a milk yield of 533,950.2 litres and an\neconomic allocation EF of 0.91kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the control cows had\nan average milk yield of 479,329 litres and an economic allocation EF of 1.04kg\nCO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This is a difference of 0.09kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. The\nselect cows had a mass allocation EF of 1.30g CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the\ncontrol cows had a mass allocation EF of 1.53kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This is a\ndifference of 0.23kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7.4 shows the control and select cows on the low forge\ndiet. The select cows on average had a milk yield of 424,024 litres and an\neconomic allocation EF of 1.13kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the control cows had\nan average milk yield of 356,441litres and an economic allocation EF of 1.21kg\nCO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This is a difference of 0.08kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. The\nselect cows had a mass allocation EF of 2.18g CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L while the\ncontrol cows had a mass allocation EF of 2.36kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This is a\ndifference of 0.18kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This shows that improving genetics increases\nyield and in turn reduces the EF per unit of output. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The inclusion of legumes in diets could help achieve the\ngoal to reduce footprints. The results showed how different diets can cause\nmajor differences in the associated emissions. The different diets had an\neffect on the EF on each of the diets. Table 7.2 shows both the economic and\nmass allocation of the control and select cows on the high forge diet, Table 7.3\nshows both the economic and mass allocation of the control and select cows on\nthe low forge diet. The economic allocated HFC had an average EF of 1.31kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L,\nwhile the economic allocated LFC had an average EF of 1.04kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L.\nThis is a difference of 0.27kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. The mass allocated HFC had\nan average EF of 1.87kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L, while the mass allocated LFC had\nan average EF of 1.53kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This is a difference of 0.34kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L.\nThe low forge diet had lower EF then the high forge diet for both of the\nallocation methods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7.1 shows both the economic and mass allocation of the\ncontrol and select cows on the by product diet, Table 7.4 shows both the economic\nand mass allocation of the control and select cows on. The economic allocated BPC\nhad an average EF of 1.18kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L, while the economic allocated HGC\nhad an average EF of 1.21kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. This is a difference of 0.03kg\nCO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. The mass allocated BPC had an average EF of 4.83kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L,\nwhile the mass allocated HGC had an average EF of 2.36kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L.\nThis is a difference of 2.2kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L. The home grown diet had a lower\nEF then the by product diet when mass allocation was used, but the by product\ndiet has a lower EF then the home grown diet when economic allocation was used.\nThis shows that different feeds within the diet can cause changes in the EF. It\nwas expected that the BPC would have had a lower EF then the other diets as it\nincluded more legumes then the other diets, and as it name suggests it uses by\nproducts which can reduce the amount of human edible protein being included in\ndairy feed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The bar chart in Figure 7.1 and the boxplot in Figure 7.2 show\nall the cow groups together and their average EF per litre of milk (kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L).\nIt visually shows that across all of the groups mass allocation generated a higher\nfootprint then economic allocation. And it can be seen that the select cows had\nhigher milk yield then the control cows and in turn a lower Milk EF (kg CO2<\/sub>-eq\/L).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall the results show it is possible to see the difference\nallocation methods, different diets and genetic merits can have on the footprint\ngenerated in dairy systems. It also means that milk footprints can be changed\nat farm level though breeding programmes, careful management of diets and\nselecting the most suited allocation method. Breeding programmes will increase\nthe herds genetic merit and yields, careful managing diets will allow for a balance\nbetween adequate nutrition for the animals and low footprint diets. Both are\nimportant strategies to achieve the planned carbon-neutral goals being set. The purpose of this MScCCAFS thesis was to assess the sensitivity\nof comparative milk footprints from dairy farm systems implementing\nconventional and legume-based animal diets to choice of allocation method. This\npurpose was achieved by assessing the sensitivity of comparative milk\nfootprints from dairy farm systems implementing conventional and legume-based\nanimal diets to choice of allocation method. An understanding of and LCA, CF,\nallocation methods and system expansion, the Scottish dairy industry and\nlegume-based animal diets was generated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The results were as expected, EF and footprints are affected\nby different allocation methods, diets and genetics. The EF figures generated\nwere successfully examined and compared. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall it was found that milk footprints\nare sensitive to different allocation methods, diets and genetics. So understanding\nthese could allow for milk footprints to reduced as these areas can be controlled\nat farm level. Mass allocation had a higher footprint then the economic allocation\nfor all of the diet groups, the cows with high genetic merit had a lower\nfootprint, the footprints for each of the diets varied considerably across all\nthe diets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was found that managing diets and genetics,\nand selecting an allocation method can create large variance on milk\nfootprints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If this project was carried out again\nevaluating more herds, over longer periods of time and in different locations would\nallow for a more accurate and more representative result to be obtained. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The sensitivity of comparative milk footprints from dairy farm systems implementing conventional and legume-based animal diets to choice of allocation method was assessed in this MScCAFFS thesis, this was achieved… Read more »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":72,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-193","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.plantagbiosciences.org\/people\/niamh-barry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/193","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.plantagbiosciences.org\/people\/niamh-barry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.plantagbiosciences.org\/people\/niamh-barry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.plantagbiosciences.org\/people\/niamh-barry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/72"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.plantagbiosciences.org\/people\/niamh-barry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=193"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.plantagbiosciences.org\/people\/niamh-barry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/193\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":347,"href":"https:\/\/www.plantagbiosciences.org\/people\/niamh-barry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/193\/revisions\/347"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.plantagbiosciences.org\/people\/niamh-barry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion<\/h1>\n\n\n\n