item-2 at level 2: paragraph: Henrique M. N. Ribeiro-Filho, Maurício Civiero, Ermias Kebreab
item-3 at level 2: paragraph: Department of Animal Science, Un ... atarina, Lages, Santa Catarina, Brazil
item-4 at level 2: section_header: Abstract
item-5 at level 3: text: Carbon (C) footprint of dairy pr ... uce the C footprint to a small extent.
item-6 at level 2: section_header: Introduction
item-7 at level 3: text: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions f ... suitable for food crop production [4].
item-8 at level 3: text: Considering the key role of live ... anagement to mitigate the C footprint.
item-9 at level 3: text: In subtropical climate zones, co ... t in tropical pastures (e.g. [17–19]).
item-10 at level 3: text: It has been shown that dairy cow ... sions from crop and reduced DM intake.
item-11 at level 3: text: The aim of this work was to quan ... uring lactation periods was evaluated.
item-12 at level 2: section_header: Materials and methods
item-13 at level 3: text: An LCA was developed according t ... 90816 - https://www.udesc.br/cav/ceua.
item-14 at level 3: section_header: System boundary
item-15 at level 4: text: The goal of the study was to ass ... n were outside of the system boundary.
item-16 at level 4: picture
item-16 at level 5: caption: Fig 1 Overview of the milk production system boundary considered in the study.
item-17 at level 3: section_header: Functional unit
item-18 at level 4: text: The functional unit was one kilo ... tein according to NRC [20] as follows:
item-19 at level 4: text: ECM = Milk production × (0.0929 ... characteristics described in Table 1.
item-20 at level 4: table with [13x3]
item-20 at level 5: caption: Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of the herd.
item-21 at level 3: section_header: Data sources and livestock system description
item-22 at level 4: text: The individual feed requirements ... ed to the ad libitum TMR intake group.
item-23 at level 4: text: Using experimental data, three s ... med during an entire lactation period.
item-24 at level 3: section_header: Impact assessment
item-25 at level 4: text: The CO2e emissions were calculat ... 65 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively.
item-26 at level 3: section_header: Feed production
item-27 at level 4: section_header: Diets composition
item-28 at level 5: text: The DM intake of each ingredient ... collected throughout the experiments.
item-29 at level 5: table with [21x11]
item-29 at level 6: caption: Table 2 Dairy cows’ diets in different scenariosa.
item-30 at level 4: section_header: GHG emissions from crop and pasture production
item-31 at level 5: text: GHG emission factors used for of ... onsume 70% of pastures during grazing.
item-32 at level 5: table with [9x5]
item-32 at level 6: caption: Table 3 GHG emission factors for Off- and On-farm feed production.
item-33 at level 5: text: Emissions from on-farm feed prod ... factors described by Rotz et al. [42].
item-34 at level 5: table with [28x5]
item-34 at level 6: caption: Table 4 GHG emissions from On-farm feed production.
item-35 at level 3: section_header: Animal husbandry
item-36 at level 4: text: The CH4 emissions from enteric f ... 1) = 13.8 + 0.185 × NDF (% DM intake).
item-37 at level 3: section_header: Manure from confined cows and urine and dung from grazing animals
item-38 at level 4: text: The CH4 emission from manure (kg ... for dietary GE per kg of DM (MJ kg-1).
item-39 at level 4: text: The OM digestibility was estimat ... h were 31%, 26% and 46%, respectively.
item-40 at level 4: text: The N2O-N emissions from urine a ... using the IPCC [38] emission factors.
item-41 at level 3: section_header: Farm management
item-42 at level 4: text: Emissions due to farm management ... crop and pasture production’ section.
item-43 at level 4: table with [12x4]
item-43 at level 5: caption: Table 5 Factors for major resource inputs in farm management.
item-44 at level 4: text: The amount of fuel use for manur ... me that animals stayed on confinement.
item-45 at level 4: text: The emissions from fuel were est ... × kg CO2e (kg machinery mass)-1 [42].
item-46 at level 4: text: Emissions from electricity for m ... ws in naturally ventilated barns [47].
item-47 at level 3: section_header: Co-product allocation
item-48 at level 4: text: The C footprint for milk produce ... directly assigned to milk production.
item-49 at level 3: section_header: Sensitivity analysis
item-50 at level 4: text: A sensitivity index was calculat ... ses a similar change in the footprint.
item-51 at level 2: section_header: Results and discussion
item-52 at level 3: text: The study has assessed the impac ... , feed production and electricity use.
item-53 at level 3: section_header: Greenhouse gas emissions
item-54 at level 4: text: Depending on emission factors us ... more than 5% of overall GHG emissions.
item-55 at level 4: picture
item-55 at level 5: caption: Fig 2 Overall greenhouse gas emissions in dairy cattle systems under various scenarios. TMR = ad libitum TMR intake, 75TMR = 75% of ad libitum TMR intake with access to pasture, 50TMR = 50% of ad libitum TMR intake with access to pasture. (a) N2O emission factors for urine and dung from IPCC [38], feed production emission factors from Table 3 without accounting for sequestered CO2-C from perennial pasture, production of electricity = 0.73 kg CO2e kWh-1 [41]. (b) N2O emission factors for urine and dung from IPCC [38], feed production emission factors from Table 3 without accounting for sequestered CO2-C from perennial pasture, production of electricity = 0.205 kg CO2e kWh-1 [46]; (c) N2O emission factors for urine and dung from local data [37], feed production EF from Table 4 without accounting for sequestered CO2-C from perennial pasture, production of electricity = 0.205 kg CO2e kWh-1 [46]. (d) N2O emission factors for urine and dung from local data [37], feed production emission factors from Table 4 accounting for sequestered CO2-C from perennial pasture, production of electricity = 0.205 kg CO2e kWh-1 [46].
item-56 at level 4: text: Considering IPCC emission factor ... the C footprint of the dairy systems.
item-57 at level 4: text: The similarity of C footprint be ... of TMR was replaced by pasture access.
item-58 at level 4: text: The lower C footprint in scenari ... r, averaging 0.004 kg N2O-N kg-1 [37].
item-59 at level 3: section_header: Methane emissions
item-60 at level 4: text: The enteric CH4 intensity was si ... ], which did not happen in this study.
item-61 at level 4: picture
item-61 at level 5: caption: Fig 3 Sensitivity of the C footprint. Sensitivity index = percentage change in C footprint for a 10% change in the given emission source divided by 10% of. (a) N2O emission factors for urine and dung from IPCC [38], feed production emission factors from Table 3, production of electricity = 0.73 kg CO2e kWh-1 [41]. (b) N2O emission factors for urine and dung from IPCC [38], feed production emission factors from Table 3, production of electricity = 0.205 kg CO2e kWh-1 [46]; (c) N2O emission factors for urine and dung from local data [37], feed production EF from Table 4 without accounting sequestered CO2-C from perennial pasture, production of electricity = 0.205 kg CO2e kWh-1 [46]. (d) N2O emission factors for urine and dung from local data [37], feed production emission factors from Table 4 accounting sequestered CO2-C from perennial pasture, production of electricity = 0.205 kg CO2e kWh-1 [46].
item-62 at level 4: text: The lack of difference in enteri ... same scenarios as in this study [26].
item-63 at level 3: section_header: Emissions from excreta and feed production
item-64 at level 4: text: Using IPCC emission factors for ... may not be captured by microbes [65].
item-65 at level 4: picture
item-65 at level 5: caption: Fig 4 Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from manure and feed production in dairy cattle systems. TMR = ad libitum TMR intake, 75TMR = 75% of ad libitum TMR intake with access to pasture, 50TMR = 50% of ad libitum TMR intake with access to pasture. (a) N2O emission factors for urine and dung from IPCC [38]. (b) Feed production emission factors from Table 3. (c) N2O emission factors for urine and dung from local data [37]. (d) Feed production emission factors from Table 4 accounting sequestered CO2-C from perennial pasture.
item-66 at level 4: text: Using local emission factors for ... be revised for the subtropical region.
item-67 at level 4: text: Emissions for feed production de ... act, particularly in confinements [9].
item-68 at level 3: section_header: Farm management
item-69 at level 4: text: The lower impact of emissions fr ... greater than 5% of total C footprint.
item-70 at level 4: text: Emissions from farm management d ... gas and hard coal, respectively [46].
item-71 at level 3: section_header: Assumptions and limitations
item-72 at level 4: text: The milk production and composit ... ions as a function of soil management.
item-73 at level 3: section_header: Further considerations
item-74 at level 4: text: The potential for using pasture ... g ECM)-1 in case of foot lesions [72].
item-75 at level 4: text: Grazing lands may also improve b ... hange of CO2 would be negligible [76].
item-76 at level 2: section_header: Conclusions
item-77 at level 3: text: This study assessed the C footpr ... on with or without access to pastures.
item-78 at level 2: section_header: Acknowledgments
item-79 at level 3: text: Thanks to Anna Naranjo for helpf ... of the herd considered in this study.
item-80 at level 2: section_header: References
item-81 at level 3: list: group list
item-82 at level 4: list_item: IPCC. Climate Change and Land. Chapter 5: Food Security. 2019.
item-83 at level 4: list_item: HerreroM, HendersonB, HavlíkP, T ... 2016;6: 452–461. 10.1038/nclimate2925
