Environmental Implications of Different Production Systems in a Sardinian Dairy Sheep Farm

Transcription

1 Environmental Implications of Different Production Systems in a Sardinian Dairy Sheep Farm Antonello Franca* and Enrico Vagnoni** *CNR ISPAAM Institute for Animal Production System in Mediterranean Environment **CNR IBIMET Institute of Biometeorology Trav. La Crucca 3, Reg. Baldinca, Sassari, Italy

2 Why the assessment of the environmental implications of a dairy sheep farm is relevant? This assessment deals with the whole strategy of EU s economic development based on the principles of the «Circular Economy»

3 Aims MAIN: to fill the knowledge gap (little research with a life cycle perspective focused on dairy sheep systems) SPECIFIC: to analyze the environmental implications of a transition from a semi-intensive (2001) to a semi-extensive (2011) production system IN THE SAME FARM, with a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

4 Materials and Methods Characteristics of the two production systems Semi-intensive Semi-extensive Heads (number) Stocking rate (ewes ha 1 ) Milk total annual production (kg) 104,234 82,214 Milk pro-capite annual production (kg ewe -1 year 1 ) Feed Unit for Lactation, UFL (UFL ewe -1 year -1 ) Pastures grazing area (ha) 3 52 Cultivated land cereals and annual forage crops (ha) Concentrate feed annual consumption (t) Mineral N-fertilizer (kg ha 1 ) 72 8 Mineral P 2 O 5 -fertilizer (kg ha 1 ) Irrigated maize (ha) 7 0 Irrigated lucerne (ha) Power source Diesel generator Electricity Milk destination Cheese industry On-farm cheese manufacture

5 Materials and Methods Characteristics of the two production systems Semi-intensive Semi-extensive Heads (number) Stocking rate (ewes ha 1 ) Milk total annual production (kg) 104,234 82,214 Milk pro-capite annual production (kg ewe -1 year 1 ) Feed Unit for Lactation, UFL (UFL ewe -1 year -1 ) Pastures grazing area (ha) 3 52 Cultivated land cereals and annual forage crops (ha) Concentrate feed annual consumption (t) Mineral N-fertilizer (kg ha 1 ) 72 8 Mineral P 2 O 5 -fertilizer (kg ha 1 ) Irrigated maize (ha) 7 0 Irrigated lucerne (ha) Power source Diesel generator Electricity Milk destination Cheese industry On-farm cheese manufacture

6 Materials and Methods LCA methodological issues Functional units: 1 kg of FPCM and 1 ha of UAA System boundaries: all inputs and outputs from cradle to gate

7 Materials and Methods LCA methodological issues All data were organized into a Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), the process that quantifies energy and raw material requirements, atmospheric and waterborne emissions, solid wastes and other releases for the entire life cycle of a product Enteric methane emissions were quantified using a detailed approach (IPCC Tier 2/3) and considering the total metabolizable energy ingested with the specific animal category diet. Evaluation method: IPCC (2013) which provides estimates on greenhouse gases emitted in the life cycle of products (Carbon Footprint), expressed in kilograms of CO2-equivalents LCA calculation was made using LCA software SimaPro (PRé Consultants, 2016).

8 Results

9 Results Life Cycle Inventory of the total annual milk production for the two production systems Impact category Unit Water m 3 13,410 6,595 Carbon dioxide t Methane biogenic t 6 5 Dinitrogen monoxide kg Phosphorus, in water kg Phosphate kg Sulphur dioxide kg Nitrogen oxides kg Occupation, arable, non-irrigated ha Occupation, arable, irrigated ha 5 3 Occupation, grassland, natural ha 10 29

10 Results The Carbon Footprint of 1 kg of FPCM in 2001 = 2.99 kg CO2-eq semi-intensive in 2011 = 3.25 kg CO2-eq semi-extensive

11 Results The Carbon Footprint of 1 kg of FPCM in 2001 = 2.99 kg CO2-eq semi-intensive in 2011 = 3.25 kg CO2-eq semi-extensive

12 Results The Carbon Footprint of 1 ha of UAA in 2001 = 5.55 t CO2-eq semi-intensive in 2011 = 3.70 t CO2-eq semi-extensive

13 Results The Carbon Footprint of 1 ha of UAA in 2001 = 5.55 t CO2-eq semi-intensive in 2011 = 3.70 t CO2-eq semi-extensive

14 Conclusions The LCA study highlighted that the transition from a semi-intensive to a semi-extensive production system had a negligible effect on the Carbon Footprint of 1 kg FPCM VS. had a positive effect on the Carbon Footprint of 1 ha of UAA - 30%

15 Conclusions 1 kg FPCM 1 ha of UAA the utility is more related to product-related assessments the utility is more related to land use assessments USERS: Farmers, Sellers, Producers USERS: Policy makers, Environmental planners, Ecologists - 30%

16 Acknowledgements This study was conducted under the Project CNR-CISIA Integrated knowledge for sustainability and innovation of Italian agri-food sector. Additional support for the research was also provided by the European Union LIFE program, Climate Change Mitigation, Looking for an eco-sustainable sheep supply chain: environmental benefits and implications Project, LIFE15 CCM/IT/ Web site: % Contacts: info@sheeptoship.eu

17 THANK YOU!

18

19 Materials and Methods LCA methodological issues The impact allocation was performed on economic value basis. Products Milk 72% 91% Lamb meat 12% 7% Ewe meat 0% 1% Wool 1% 1% Rams 15%

20 Conclusions Methane enteric emissions and the use of imported soybean meal resulted the main environmental hot spots. - 30%

21