A biophysical approach to allocation of life cycle environmental burdens for fluid milk supply chain analysis

Thoma, Greg; Jolliet, Olivier; Wang, Ying

doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2012.08.012

Cited by 58 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the net energy value of feed is an empirical representation itself of the underlying relationships which govern the energy value of feed for animals (Ferrell and Oltjen 2008) and was developed in order to predict feed intake and animal performance while applying many empirical adjustments for different production stages, genotypes, etc. The principles of the IDF methodology have since been adopted in subsequent LCA studies of dairy systems (Flysjö et al 2011;Dollé and Gac 2012;Thoma et al 2013) and is now being recommended in the LEAP guidelines on carbon footprinting in small ruminant systems (FAO 2014c). Thoma et al (2013) collected data from US farms and concluded that allocation between milk and meat, based on the energy requirement to produce them, was best represented in simplified form as in Eq.…”

Section: Example 2-allocation Methodologies For Co-products From Dairmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The principles of the IDF methodology have since been adopted in subsequent LCA studies of dairy systems (Flysjö et al 2011;Dollé and Gac 2012;Thoma et al 2013) and is now being recommended in the LEAP guidelines on carbon footprinting in small ruminant systems (FAO 2014c). Thoma et al (2013) collected data from US farms and concluded that allocation between milk and meat, based on the energy requirement to produce them, was best represented in simplified form as in Eq. (2):…”

Section: Example 2-allocation Methodologies For Co-products From Dairmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, several new allocation methodologies have been proposed for LCA studies of agricultural systems based on physical relationships between co-products. These methodologies are often referred to as Bbiophysical^allocation (International Dairy Federation 2010; Eady et al 2012;Thoma et al 2013;Gac et al 2014;Van Der Werf and Nguyen 2015;Wiedemann et al 2015). Draft guidelines on carbon footprinting in livestock systems issued by the FAO have also recommended that biophysical allocation should be adopted for models of the on-farm stages of livestock production (FAO 2014a;FAO 2014c), although currently not in the feed supply chain (FAO 2014b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The need for co-product allocation in the life cycle assessment of agricultural systems—is “biophysical” allocation progress?

Mackenzie

Leinonen

Kyriazakis

2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Several new Bbiophysical^co-product allocation methodologies have been developed for LCA studies of agricultural systems based on proposed physical or causal relationships between inputs and outputs (i.e. co-products). These methodologies are thus meant to be preferable to established allocation methodologies such as economic allocation under the ISO 14044 standard. The aim here was to examine whether these methodologies really represent underlying physical relationships between the material and energy flows and the co-products in such systems, and hence are of value. Methods Two key components of agricultural LCAs which involve co-product allocation were used to provide examples of the methodological challenges which arise from adopting biophysical allocation in agricultural LCA: (1) the crop production chain and (2) the multiple co-products produced by animals. The actual Bcausal^relationships in these two systems were illustrated, the energy flows within them detailed, and the existing biophysical allocation methods, as found in literature, were critically evaluated in the context of such relationships.Results and discussion The premise of many biophysical allocation methodologies has been to define relationships which describe how the energy input to agricultural systems is partitioned between co-products. However, we described why none of the functional outputs from animal or crop production can be considered independently from the rest on the basis of the inputs to the system. Using the example of manure in livestock systems, we also showed why biophysical allocation methodologies are still sensitive to whether a system output has economic value or not. This sensitivity is a longstanding criticism of economic allocation which is not resolved by adopting a biophysical approach. Conclusions The biophysical allocation methodologies for various aspects of agricultural systems proposed to date have not adequately explained how the physical parameters chosen in each case represent causal physical mechanisms in these systems. Allocation methodologies which are based on shared (but not causal) physical properties between co-products are not preferable to allocation based on non-physical properties within the ISO hierarchy on allocation methodologies and should not be presented as such.

show abstract

Section: Example 2-allocation Methodologies For Co-products From Dairmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Example 2-allocation Methodologies For Co-products From Dairmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The need for co-product allocation in the life cycle assessment of agricultural systems—is “biophysical” allocation progress?

Mackenzie

Leinonen

Kyriazakis

2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For GWP characterization, factors of 1, 28, and 265 were used for CO 2 , biogenic CH 4 , and N 2 O, respectively, (IPCC, 2014) to sum up emissions. • Allocation module: GHG emissions are allocated to milk and live weight, using biophysical relationship allocation (Thoma et al, 2013). In the present study, emissions were not allocated to other functions of cattle (non-edible outputs or services), because the survey among dairy farms in Lembang showed cattle were predominantly kept for edible outputs (milk and meat).…”

Section: Emission Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entry Points for Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Small-Scale Dairy Farms: Looking Beyond Milk Yield Increase

Vries

Zahra

Wouters

et al. 2019

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing milk yield per cow is considered a promising climate change mitigation strategy for small-scale dairy farms in developing countries. As it can be difficult to increase cow productivity, mitigation options beyond this production strategy need to be identified. The aim of this study was to identify entry points for mitigation of GHG emissions in small-scale dairy farms in Lembang Sub-district, West Java, Indonesia. Data on herd composition, productivity, feeding, and manure management were collected in a survey of 300 randomly selected dairy farms. Characteristics of farms with the 25% lowest (<3291 kg milk/cow/y), medium 50% (3291-4975 kg milk/cow/y), and 25% highest milk yields (≥4976 kg milk/cow/y) were compared. Life cycle assessment was then performed to estimate the cradle-to-farm gate GHG emission intensity (EI) of farms. The relationship between EI and milk yield per cow for all farms was modeled and farms with an EI below and above their predicted EI were compared ("low" and "high" EI farms). Results showed that milk yield explained 57% of the variance in EI among farms. Farms with medium and high milk yields were more often specialized farms, fed more tofu waste and compound feed, and had higher feed costs than farms with low milk yields (P < 0.05). Farms with high milk yields also applied less manure on farm land than farms with low milk yields (P < 0.05). Low EI farms had fewer cows, and fed less rice straw, more cassava waste, and more compound concentrate feed (particularly the type of concentrates consisting largely of by-products from milling industries) than high EI farms (P < 0.05). In addition, low EI farms discharged more manure, stored less solid manure, used less manure for anaerobic digestion followed by daily spreading, and applied less manure N on farmland than high EI farms (P < 0.05). Some associations were affected by confounding factors. Farm management factors associated with milk yield and the residual variation in EI were considered potential entry points for GHG mitigation. Feeding less rice straw and discharging manure, however, were considered unsuitable mitigation strategies because of expected trade-offs with other environmental issues or negative impacts on food-feed competition.

show abstract

“…The mass allocation accounts only for the raw production of milk and meat, even if there is not a causal relationship between milk and beef masses and impacts (Thoma et al, 2013). On the other hand, the main disadvantage of the economic allocation is that it depends on place and time and makes the comparison difficult across regions (FAO, 2010).…”

Section: Allocation Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical review of the recent evolution of Life Cycle Assessment applied to milk production

Baldini

Gardoni

Guarino

2017

Journal of Cleaner Production

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A biophysical approach to allocation of life cycle environmental burdens for fluid milk supply chain analysis

Cited by 58 publications

References 12 publications

The need for co-product allocation in the life cycle assessment of agricultural systems—is “biophysical” allocation progress?

The need for co-product allocation in the life cycle assessment of agricultural systems—is “biophysical” allocation progress?

Entry Points for Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Small-Scale Dairy Farms: Looking Beyond Milk Yield Increase

A critical review of the recent evolution of Life Cycle Assessment applied to milk production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About