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, 07100 Sassari, Italy
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»
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)
Materials and Methods Characteristics of the two production systems 2001 2011 Semi-intensive Semi-extensive Heads (number) 340 320 Stocking rate (ewes ha 1 ) 4.6 4.6 Milk total annual production (kg) 104,234 82,214 Milk pro-capite annual production (kg ewe -1 year 1 ) 307 257 Feed Unit for Lactation, UFL (UFL ewe -1 year -1 ) 478 387 Pastures grazing area (ha) 3 52 Cultivated land cereals and annual forage crops (ha) 70 18 Concentrate feed annual consumption (t) 105 98 Mineral N-fertilizer (kg ha 1 ) 72 8 Mineral P 2 O 5 -fertilizer (kg ha 1 ) 110 29 Irrigated maize (ha) 7 0 Irrigated lucerne (ha) 0 2.7 Power source Diesel generator Electricity Milk destination Cheese industry On-farm cheese manufacture
Materials and Methods Characteristics of the two production systems 2001 2011 Semi-intensive Semi-extensive Heads (number) 340 320 Stocking rate (ewes ha 1 ) 4.6 4.6 Milk total annual production (kg) 104,234 82,214 Milk pro-capite annual production (kg ewe -1 year 1 ) 307 257 Feed Unit for Lactation, UFL (UFL ewe -1 year -1 ) 478 387 Pastures grazing area (ha) 3 52 Cultivated land cereals and annual forage crops (ha) 70 18 Concentrate feed annual consumption (t) 105 98 Mineral N-fertilizer (kg ha 1 ) 72 8 Mineral P 2 O 5 -fertilizer (kg ha 1 ) 110 29 Irrigated maize (ha) 7 0 Irrigated lucerne (ha) 0 2.7 Power source Diesel generator Electricity Milk destination Cheese industry On-farm cheese manufacture
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
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 8.1.1 (PRé Consultants, 2016).
Results
Results Life Cycle Inventory of the total annual milk production for the two production systems Impact category Unit 2001 2011 Water m 3 13,410 6,595 Carbon dioxide t 115 59 Methane biogenic t 6 5 Dinitrogen monoxide kg 101 75 Phosphorus, in water kg 16 15 Phosphate kg 91 70 Sulphur dioxide kg 367 227 Nitrogen oxides kg 560 270 Occupation, arable, non-irrigated ha 21 10 Occupation, arable, irrigated ha 5 3 Occupation, grassland, natural ha 10 29
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
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
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
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
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%
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%
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/000123. Web site: www.sheeptoship.eu - 30% Contacts: info@sheeptoship.eu
THANK YOU!
Materials and Methods LCA methodological issues The impact allocation was performed on economic value basis. Products 2001 2011 Milk 72% 91% Lamb meat 12% 7% Ewe meat 0% 1% Wool 1% 1% Rams 15%
Conclusions Methane enteric emissions and the use of imported soybean meal resulted the main environmental hot spots. - 30%