Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano cheeses: preliminary results towards an environmental ecolabel with Life DOP project

Transcription

1 Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano cheeses: preliminary results towards an environmental ecolabel with Life DOP project Daniela Lovarelli, Luciana Bava, Anna Sandrucci, Maddalena Zucali, Giuliana D Imporzano, Alberto Tamburini Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Università degli Studi di Milano, Via G. Celoria 2, Milan, Italy

2 INTRODUCTION Parmigiano Reggiano (PR) and Grana Padano (GP) cheeses are two of the most important dairy products of Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) in the Italian agri-food context. To produce PR and GP, the environmental impacts of the milk production phase, including production of animals feed and slurry management as well as the cheese factory phase must be considered. The dairy farming is quite complex due to farm-specific variables, therefore several farms must be investigated to get statistically relevant information about the local milk production system.

3 LIFE DOP PROJECT (1) Life DOP Project aims to promote: (i) mitigation strategies for milk production and for manure/slurry management (ii) a manure-slurry exchange system among farmers to promote a circular economy system ( Manure Stock Exchange ) Farmers sell slurry and manure that are mixed in a dedicated implement and digested in anaerobic digestion plants. Then digestate is returned to farmers according to the exchange system and is spread on fields. This is in line with the European goals and challenges for low environmental impact productions.

4 LIFE DOP PROJECT (2) Given the role of PR and GP on the worldwide economy, an environmental sustainability label will be developed for certifying the commitment towards sustainable productions and resource use efficiency Improvements on the dairy farms aim to better use resources and to increase milk productivity by enhancing: resource use efficiency animal care balanced feed intake feed self-sufficiency

5 AIM OF THIS STUDY This study aims to: Evaluate by means of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), the potential environmental impact of milk production on different farms. 4 dairy farms in the province of Mantova in Northern Italy were investigated. Mitigation strategies aim to improve the environmental sustainability by improving dairy efficiency, milk productivity, animal management and feeding (promoting onfarm high-quality feed production). Such improvements involve also an increase in the economic sustainability because they also bring to a better Income Over Feed Cost (IOFC).

6 FU & SYSTEM BOUNDARY Functional Unit: 1 kg of Fat and Protein Corrected Milk (FPCM) produced by milking cows FPCM = 4% fat & 3.3% protein standard quality feature to make milk comparable Cradle-to-farm gate Attributional approach

7 LCI 4 farms surveyed with questionnaires about year 2016: Farm A and Farm B produce milk for PR cheese Farm C and Farm D produce milk for GP cheese Field Livestock

8 ALLOCATION Allocation was made following the recommended method by IDF (2015) that considers meat a co-product of milk considering, therefore, the sell/purchase of animals on farms. The Allocation Factor (AF) is calculated as: M MEAT = mass of meat annually sold M MILK = mass of milk annually produced AF = x (M MEAT /M MILK )

9 LCIA ILCD characterisation method was used with the following impact categories: Climate Change (CC, kg CO 2 eq), Particulate Matter (PM, kg PM 2.5 eq 10-4 ), Acidification (TA, molc H + eq 10-1 ), Freshwater eutrophication (FE, kg P eq 10-4 ), Marine eutrophication (ME, kg N eq 10-2 ), Land Use (LU, kg Carbon deficit 10), Mineral, fossil and renewable resources depletion (MFRD, kg Sb eq 10-5 ).

10 RESULTS (1) Lowest milk FPCM/year Lowest dry matter intake Lowest Dairy Efficiency Highest milk FPCM/year Highest number of cows Highest dry matter intake Lowest self-sufficiency Highest Dairy Efficiency Lowest number of cows Highest self-sufficiency

11 % % 100 RESULTS (2): Farm A - PR Electricity CC PM TA FE ME LU MFRD Diesel fuel Electricity Field emissions Diesel fuel Field emissions Animal emissions Animal emissions Storage emissions Storage emissions Transport Feed and bedding purchase Soybean Transport Foxtail millet Winter wheat Feed and bedding purchase Maize grain Maize silage Soybean Mixed cereals Alfalfa Foxtail millet Ryegrass Self-sufficiency: 71% Winter wheat

12 % RESULTS (3): Farm B - PR CC PM TA FE ME LU MFRD Electricity Diesel fuel Field emissions Animal emissions Storage emissions Transport Feed and bedding purchase Soybean Foxtail millet Winter wheat Maize grain Maize silage Mixed cereals Alfalfa Ryegrass Self-sufficiency: 63% Alfalfa on 83% of the land area

13 % % RESULTS (4): Farm C - GP 100 Electricity CC PM TA FE ME LU MFRD Diesel fuel Electricity Field emissions Diesel fuel Field emissions Animal emissions Animal emissions Storage emissions Storage emissions Transport Feed and bedding purchase Transport Soybean Foxtail millet Feed and bedding purchase Winter wheat Maize grain Soybean Maize silage Mixed cereals Foxtail millet Alfalfa Ryegrass Winter wheat Self-sufficiency: 55% Maize on 65% of the land area Maize grain

14 % RESULTS (5) Farm D - GP CC PM TA FE ME LU MFRD Electricity Diesel fuel Electricity Field emissions Diesel fuel Field Animal emissions Animal emissions Storage emissions Storage emissions Transport Transport Feed and bedding purchase Feed and bedding purchase Soybean Soybean Foxtail millet Winter Foxtail wheat millet Maize grain Winter wheat Maize silage Maize grain Mixed cereals Alfalfa Maize silage Ryegrass Mixed cereals Self-sufficiency: 81% Alfalfa Low feed & bedding purchase Ryegrass

15 RESULTS (6) IOFC Income Over Feed Cost (IOFC) is defined as the difference between the income due to milk production and the costs related to feed. The result is the remaining value for other costs and for the farmer s profit. IOFC = M MILK x P MILK - C FEED M MILK = mass of milk per cow per day (kg/d per cow) P MILK = price of milk ( ) C FEED = cost of feed ration per cow per day ( /d per cow)

16 Economic cost Environmental impact RESULTS (7) Final indication Suggestions for mitigation strategies Farm A: balance feeding, improve Dairy Efficiency & milk production Farm B: vary crop production & increase self-sufficiency Farm C: increase self-sufficiency Farm D: balance feeding, improve Dairy Efficiency & milk production

17 CONCLUSIONS These preliminary results refer to 4 farms but will be available for 120, plus further analyses will be performed next years. The most efficient farm shows also the lowest environmental impact per kg FPCM and a good IOFC, pointing out that farms with an efficient farming system have also good environmental performances. The introduction of an eco-label for PR and GP will represent a certificate for stakeholders for their commitment, for consumers to understand the role of environmental sustainability and its significance on the production point of view and for other producers to be driven towards the same direction.

18 Thank you for the attention