Carbon footprint of milk production under smallholder dairying in Anand district of Western India: a cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessmentM. R. Garg A C , B. T. Phondba A , P. L. Sherasia A and H. P. S. Makkar B
A Animal Nutrition Group, National Dairy Development Board, Anand-388 001, Gujarat, India.
B Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.
C Corresponding author. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Animal Production Science 56(3) 423-436 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15464
Submitted: 18 August 2015 Accepted: 6 November 2015 Published: 9 February 2016
In recent years, the concept of life cycle assessment (LCA) has proven to be useful because of its potential to assess the integral environmental impacts of agricultural products. Developing countries such as India are good candidates for LCA research because of the large contribution of smallholder dairy system to the production of agricultural products such as milk. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to explore the carbon footprint of milk production under the multi-functional smallholder dairy system in Anand district of Gujarat state, western India. A cradle-to-farm gate LCA was performed by covering 60 smallholder dairy farms within 12 geographically distinct villages of the district. The average farm size was 4.0 animals per farm, and the average number of each category of animal was 2.5 lactating cows, 1.4 lactating buffaloes, 1.8 replacement cows, 1.6 replacement buffaloes, 2.0 retired cows, 1.3 retired buffaloes and 1.0 ox per farm. The emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) on CO2-equivalent (CO2-eq) basis from feed production, enteric fermentation and manure management were allocated to fat- and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) on the basis of mass balance, price and digestibility. Emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O from cattle contributed 11.0%, 75.4% and 13.6%, respectively, to the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The contribution of CO2, CH4 and N2O from buffalo was 8.2%, 80.5% and 11.3%, respectively, to the total GHG emissions of farms. The average carbon footprint (CF) of cow milk was 2.3, 1.9 and 2.0 kg CO2-eq/kg FPCM on mass, economic and digestibility basis, respectively, whereas for buffalo, milk CF was 3.0, 2.5 and 2.7 kg CO2-eq/kg FPCM, respectively. On the basis of digestibility allocation, emissions from retired (>10 years of age and incapable of or ceased producing milk) cows and buffaloes were 1571.3 and 2556.1 kg CO2-eq/retirement year, respectively. Overall, the CF of milk production under the smallholder dairy system in Anand district was 2.2 kg CO2-eq/kg FPCM, which reduced to 1.7 kg CO2-eq/kg FPCM when milk, manure, finance and insurance were considered as economic functions of the smallholder system. The CF was lower by 65% and 22% for cow and buffalo milk, respectively, than were the estimates of FAO for southern Asia, and this was mainly attributed to difference in the sources of GHG emissions, manure management systems, feed digestibility and milk production data used by FAO.
Additional keywords: attributional life cycle assessment, climate change, co-product allocation, emission intensity.
ReferencesBartl K, Gomez CA, Nemecek T (2011) Life cycle assessment of milk produced in two smallholder dairy systems in the highlands and the coast of Peru. Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 1494–1505.
| Life cycle assessment of milk produced in two smallholder dairy systems in the highlands and the coast of Peru.CrossRef |
Bebe BO, Udo HMJ, Thorpe W (2002) Development of smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands. Outlook on Agriculture 31, 113–120.
| Development of smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands.CrossRef |
Behnke R, Muthami D (2011) ‘The contribution of livestock to the Kenyan economy. IGAD LPI working paper no. 03-11.’ (Intergovernmental Authority for Development: Djibouti)
Boadi D, Benchaar C, Chiquette J, Masse D (2004) Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emission from dairy cows: update review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 319–335.
| Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emission from dairy cows: update review.CrossRef |
Capper LJ, Cady RA, Bauman DE (2009) The environmental impact of dairy production: 1994 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2160–2167.
| The environmental impact of dairy production: 1994 compared with 2007.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXms1eis7o%3D&md5=3ce40cb76fa9623532ebe560a01ab185CAS |
Casey JW, Holden NM (2005) Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from the average Irish milk production system. Agricultural Systems 86, 97–114.
| Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from the average Irish milk production system.CrossRef |
de Vries M, De Boer IJM (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science 128, 1–11.
| Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments.CrossRef |
Di Palo R (1992) Milk production in buffalo with traditional diets and with employment of fatty acids. PhD Thesis, University of Naples, Italy.
Eurostat (2010) ‘Glossary: livestock unit (LSU).’ (Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission) Available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Livestock_unit_(LSU) [Verified 27 July 2015]
FAO (2000) ‘Global impact domain: methane emissions.’ Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative. Available at http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/lead/x6116e/x6116e00.htm#Contents [Verified 27 July 2015]
FAO (2010) ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector: a life cycle assessment.’ (FAO: Rome)
FAO (2012) ‘Smallholders and family farmers.’ (FAO: Rome) Available at http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Factsheet_SMALLHOLDERS.pdf [Verified 27 July 2015]
FAO (2013) ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains: a global life cycle assessment.’ (FAO: Rome)
Feedipedia (2015) ‘Feedipedia: animal feed resources information system (INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO).’ Available at http://www.feedipedia.org/ [Verified 27 July 2015]
Flysjö A, Henriksson M, Cederberg C, Ledgard S, Englund J (2011) The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. Agricultural Systems 104, 459–469.
| The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden.CrossRef |
Garg MR, Sherasia PL, Bhanderi BM, Phondba BT, Shelke SK, Makkar HPS (2013) Effect of feeding nutritionally balanced rations on animal productivity, feed conversion efficiency, feed nitrogen use efficiency, rumen microbial protein supply, parasitic load, immunity and enteric methane emissions of milking animals under field conditions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 179, 24–35.
| Effect of feeding nutritionally balanced rations on animal productivity, feed conversion efficiency, feed nitrogen use efficiency, rumen microbial protein supply, parasitic load, immunity and enteric methane emissions of milking animals under field conditions.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XhvVCktLvK&md5=ca508df476a2f06b4ad6c19af58cfb14CAS |
Gerber PJ, Vellinga T, Opio C, Steinfeld H (2011) Productivity gains and greenhouse gas emissions intensity in dairy systems. Livestock Science 139, 100–108.
| Productivity gains and greenhouse gas emissions intensity in dairy systems.CrossRef |
Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G (2013) ‘Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities.’ (FAO: Rome)
Gichangi EM, Karanja NK, Wood CW (2007) Managing manure heaps with agro-organic wastes and cover to reduce nitrogen losses during storage on smallholder farms. In ‘Advances in integrated soil fertility management in Sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and opportunities’. (Ed. A Bationo) pp. 611–618. (Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands)
GOI (2015) ‘Agriculture contingency plan for district: Anand.’ (Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India) Available at http://agricoop.nic.in/acp.html [Verified 27 July 2015]
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, 1474–1484.
| Variation in carbon footprint of milk due to management differences between Swedish dairy farms.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC38vovFSjtg%3D%3D&md5=04c046e209b698cd4881cd879d2a234cCAS | 22440294PubMed |
Herrero M, Thornton PK, Notenbaert AM, Wood S, Msangi S, Freeman HA, Bossio D, Dixon J, Peters M, van de Steeg J, Lynam J, Parthasarathy Rao P, MacMillan S, Gerard B, McDermott J, Sere C, Rosegrant M (2010) Smart investments in sustainable food production: revisiting mixed crop-livestock production. Science 327, 822–825.
| Smart investments in sustainable food production: revisiting mixed crop-livestock production.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXhslWjtbc%3D&md5=406355abe2ad95237438379b82955bcfCAS | 20150490PubMed |
IDF (2010) A common carbon footprint approach for dairy: the IDF guide to standard lifecycle assessment methodology for the dairy sector. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 445, 1–40.
IPCC (2006) ‘2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories.’ (Eds HS Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara, K Tanabe). (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Kanagawa, Japan)
IPCC (2007) ‘Climate change 2007: the physical science basis.’ Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Eds S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, M Tignor, HL Miller) pp. 129–234. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
IPCC (2013) ‘Climate change 2013: the physical science basis.’ Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Eds TF Stocker, D Qin, GK Plattner, M Tignor, SK Allen, J Boschung, A Nauels, Y Xia, V Bex, PM Midgley) pp. 649–740. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
ISO 14040 (2006) ‘Environmental management. Life cycle assessment: principle and framework.’ (International Organisation for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland)
ISO 14044 (2006) ‘Environmental management. Life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines.’ (International Organisation for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland)
Kurup MPG (2002) Smallholder dairy production and marketing in India: constraints and opportunities. In ‘Proceedings of a south–south workshop’. (Eds D Rangnekar, W Thorpe) pp. 65–87. (National Dairy Development Board: Anand, India)
Mangino J, Peterson K, Jacobs H (2003) Development of an emissions model to estimate methane from enteric fermentation in cattle. In ‘Proceedings of the 12th international emission inventory conference on emission inventories: applying new technologies’. pp. 11–21. (US EPA: San Diego, CA)
Modupeore O (2011) Environmental implications of scaling up smallholder dairying; the case of Kenya. MSc Thesis, Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Moll HAJ (2005) Costs and benefits of livestock systems and the role of market and nonmarket relationships. Agricultural Economics 32, 181–193.
| Costs and benefits of livestock systems and the role of market and nonmarket relationships.CrossRef |
Moll HAJ, Staal SJ, Ibrahim MNM (2007) Smallholder dairy production and markets: a comparison of production systems in Zambia, Kenya and Sri Lanka. Agricultural Systems 94, 593–603.
| Smallholder dairy production and markets: a comparison of production systems in Zambia, Kenya and Sri Lanka.CrossRef |
Nivasarkar AE, Vij PK, Tantia MS (Eds) (2000) ‘Animal genetic resources of India cattle and buffalo.’ (Indian Council of Agricultural Research: New Delhi)
O’Brien D, Brennan P, Humphreys J, Ruane E, Shalloo L (2014) An appraisal of carbon footprint of milk from commercial grass-based dairy farms in Ireland according to a certified life cycle assessment methodology. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19, 1469–1481.
| An appraisal of carbon footprint of milk from commercial grass-based dairy farms in Ireland according to a certified life cycle assessment methodology.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2cXhtVGru7rL&md5=38c72f1fe9293c2e187e7ec6786977acCAS |
Pathak H, Jain N, Bhatia A, Mohanty S, Gupta N (2009) Global warming mitigation potential of biogas plants in India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 157, 407–418.
| Global warming mitigation potential of biogas plants in India.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhtFGnsrvK&md5=25b5e85b642a9eebbe47de650f8d1b44CAS | 18843544PubMed |
Pennington JA, VanDevender K, Jennings JA (2009) ‘Nutrient and fertiliser value of dairy manure.’ University of Arkansas, Publication FSA4017. Available at http://www.uaex.edu [Verified 27 July 2015]
Phong LT, De Boer IJM, Udo HMJ (2011) Life cycle assessment of food production in integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems of the Mekong Delta. Livestock Science 139, 80–90.
| Life cycle assessment of food production in integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems of the Mekong Delta.CrossRef |
Ravikumar S, Reddy KVR, Sudhakar Rao B (2007) Farmer’s choice for cost recovery of veterinary services in different livestock holding systems: a case study of India. Livestock Research for Rural Development 19, 66
Ray AK, Chand P, Atteri BR (1996) Nature of changes in draught animal power in India: a state wise study. Agricultural Situation in India 53, 621–627.
Sastry NSR, Thomas CK, Singh RA (1982) ‘Farm animal management and poultry production.’ 2nd edn. (Vikas Publishing House: New Delhi, India)
Schlehe J (2008) Forms of qualitative ethnographic interviews. In ‘Methods of anthropological fieldwork’. (Ed. B Beer) pp. 119–142. (Dietrich Reimer Verlag: Berlin)
Scoones I (1992) The economic value of livestock in the communal areas of Southern Zimbabwe. Agricultural Systems 39, 339–359.
| The economic value of livestock in the communal areas of Southern Zimbabwe.CrossRef |
Shankar V, Gupta JN (1992) Restoration of degraded rangelands. In ‘Restoration of degraded lands: concepts and strategies’. (Ed. JS Singh) pp. 115–155. (Rastogi publications: Meerut, India)
Sharma S, Nema BP (2013) Applicability of biogas technology in rural development and greenhouse gas mitigation. International Journal of ChemTech Research 5, 747–752.
Singh CV, Barwal RS (2010) Buffalo breeding research and improvement strategies in India. In ‘Proceedings of the 9th world buffalo congress’. pp. 1024–1031. (IBF, AACB and ABUAR: Buenos Aires)
Singh K, Pundir RS (2002) Problems and perspectives of smallholder dairy production and marketing in South Asia: an overview. In ‘Proceedings of a south–south workshop’. (Eds D Rangnekar, W Thorpe) pp. 88–104. (National Dairy Development Board: Anand, India)
Singh S, Kushwaha BP, Nag SK, Bhattacharya S, Gupta PK, Mishra AK, Singh A (2012) Assessment of enteric methane emission of Indian livestock in different agro-ecological regions. Current Science 102, 1017–1027.
Staal SJ, Baltenweck I, Njoroge L, Patil BR, Ibrahim MNM, Kariuki E (2006) Smallholder dairy farmer access to alternative market channels in Gujarat. In ‘Proceedings of the 26th international conference of agricultural economists’. (International Association of Agricultural Economists: Brisbane)
Thirunavukkarasu D, Jothilakshmi M, Murugesan S, Doraisamy KA (2014) Transition of smallholder dairy farming system: a micro study in Tamil Nadu, India. Livestock Research for Rural Development 26, 88
Thomassen MA, van Calker KJ, Snits MCJ, Iepema GL, de Boer IJM (2008a) Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agricultural Systems 96, 95–107.
| Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands.CrossRef |
Thomassen MA, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, de Boer I (2008b) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13, 339–349.
| Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXpt1Cmsrw%3D&md5=6ae7bda908b4134a38b69bf0393043b7CAS |
Tirado R, Gopikrishna SR, Krishnan R, Smith P (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential from fertilizer manufacture and application in India. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8, 176–185.
| Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential from fertilizer manufacture and application in India.CrossRef |
Tubiello F, Salvatore M, Rossi S, Ferrara A (2012) Analysis of global emissions, carbon intensity and efficiency of food production. Energy Environment and Innovation 4, 87–93.
Valbuena D, Gerard B, Duncan A, Teufel N, Homann S, Bhatia M (2011) Trade-offs of crop residue use in smallholder mixed farming systems in Sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. In ‘Proceedings of the 5th world congress of conservation agriculture incorporating 3rd farming system design conference’. pp. 26–29. (GRDC and ACIAR: Brisbane)
Weiler V, Udo HMJ, Viets T, Crane TA, De Boer IJM (2014) Handling multi-functionality of livestock in a life cycle assessment: the case of smallholder dairying in Kenya. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8, 29–38.
| Handling multi-functionality of livestock in a life cycle assessment: the case of smallholder dairying in Kenya.CrossRef |
Wilkerson VA, Casper DP, Mertens DR, Tyrell HF (1994) Evaluation of several methane producing equations for dairy cows. In ‘Energy metabolism of farm animals’. (Ed. JF Aguilera) EAAP publication no. 76. (CSIC Publishing Service: Granada, Spain)
Woldegebriel D (2013) Life cycle assessment of milk production in Mekelle, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.