Carbon footprint of Canadian dairy products: Calculations and issues

Abstract

The Canadian dairy sector is a major industry with about 1 million cows. This industry emits about 20% of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the main livestock sectors (beef, dairy, swine, and poultry). In 2006, the Canadian dairy herd produced about 7.7 Mt of raw milk, resulting in about 4.4 Mt of dairy products (notably 64% fluid milk and 12% cheese). An integrated cradle-to-gate model (field to processing plant) has been developed to estimate the carbon footprint (CF) of 11 Canadian dairy products. The on-farm part of the model is the Unified Livestock Industry and Crop Emissions Estimation System (ULICEES). It considers all GHG emissions associated with livestock production but, for this study, it was run for the dairy sector specifically. Off-farm GHG emissions were estimated using the Canadian Food Carbon Footprint calculator, (cafoo)(2)-milk. It considers GHG emissions from the farm gate to the exit gate of the processing plants. The CF of the raw milk has been found lower in western provinces [0.93 kg of CO2 equivalents (CO2e)/L of milk] than in eastern provinces (1.12 kg of CO2e/L of milk) because of differences in climate conditions and dairy herd management. Most of the CF estimates of dairy products ranged between 1 and 3 kg of CO2e/kg of product. Three products were, however, significantly higher: cheese (5.3 kg of CO2e/kg), butter (7.3 kg of CO2e/kg), and milk powder (10.1 kg of CO2e/kg). The CF results depend on the milk volume needed, the co-product allocation process (based on milk solids content), and the amount of energy used to manufacture each product. The GHG emissions per kilogram of protein ranged from 13 to 40 kg of CO2e. Two products had higher values: cream and sour cream, at 83 and 78 kg of CO2e/kg, respectively. Finally, the highest CF value was for butter, at about 730 kg of CO2e/kg. This extremely high value is due to the fact that the intensity indicator per kilogram of product is high and that butter is almost exclusively fat. Protein content is often used to compare the CF of products; however, this study demonstrates that the use of a common food component is not suitable as a comparison unit in some cases. Functionality has to be considered too, but it might be insufficient for food product labeling because different reporting units (adapted to a specific food product) will be used, and the resulting confusion could lead consumers to lose confidence in such labeling. Therefore, simple units might not be ideal and a more comprehensive approach will likely have to be developed.

Global warming potential associated with dairy products in the Republic of Ireland

“…3 (a) that energy usage (electricity, natural gas and other fuel) in the processing phase is the main contributor (at 91e98%, depending on the product) to GWP for each of the 6 product groups. This is also observed with a number of other studies (Djekic et al, 2014;van Middelaar et al, 2011;Verg e et al, 2013). Therefore, the accurate surveying and modelling of energy use within the plants is vital for future studies as it should be the key focus in the reduction of GWP.…”

“…The comparison to international studies for the GWP associated with raw milk production follows a similar trend to that of the total GWP. Additionally, the GWP associated with raw milk transportation is estimated to be less than that found by other international studies (Fantin et al, 2012;Heller and Keoleian, 2011;Verg e et al, 2013).…”

“…These countries include the USA Nutter et al, 2013;Thoma et al, 2013), New Zealand (Flysjo, 2012), Canada (Verg e et al, 2013), Serbia (Djekic et al, 2014) and Portugal (Gonz alezGarcía et al, 2012, 2013c, 2013b. Furthermore, Geraghty (2011) undertook a study in order to benchmark resource efficiency in Ireland's dairy processing sector.…”

The Role of Canadian Agriculture in Meeting Increased Global Protein Demand with Low Carbon Emitting Production

“…The second limitation of this study was that it did not take into account the processing energy of any of the agricultural products considered in this paper. A full life cycle assessment of each of the commodities considered in this assessment, such as done for the Canadian dairy industry [32], would have been too involved to include in this paper. This assessment also excluded the potential non-CF risks associated with livestock in Canada [33].…”

“Eat as If You Could Save the Planet and Win!” Sustainability Integration into Nutrition for Exercise and Sport

“…A Canadian study shows that per gram of protein, GhG emissions are similar or slightly less for cheese and yogurt compared with milk. However, per kg product, milk ranks significantly lower in GhG emissions than cheese and yogurt [123]. Should an athlete need to focus on extra weight/muscle gain, casein-rich Greek yogurts appear popular before going to bed to promote protein synthesis at night [102]; however, Greek yogurt emits more GhGs than regular yogurt, because its production requires more milk [121].…”