How does co-product handling affect the carbon footprint of milk? Case study of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden

PurposeThis paper investigates different methodologies of handling co-products in life cycle assessment (LCA) or carbon footprint (CF) studies. Co-product handling can have a significant effect on final LCA/CF results, and although there are guidelines on the preferred order for different methods for handling co-products, no agreed understanding on applicable methods is available. In the present study, the greenhouse gases (GHG) associated with the production of 1 kg of energy-corrected milk (ECM) at farm gate is investigated considering co-product handling.Materials and methodsTwo different milk production systems were used as case studies in the investigation of the effect of applying different methodologies in co-product handling: (1) outdoor grazing system in New Zealand and (2) mainly indoor housing system with a pronounced share of concentrate feed in Sweden. Since the cows produce milk, meat (when slaughtered), calves, manure, hides, etc., the environmental burden (here GHG emissions) must be distributed between these outputs (in the present study no emissions are attributed to hides specifically, or to manure which is recycled on-farm). Different methodologically approaches, (1) system expansion (two cases), (2) physical causality allocation, (3) economic allocation, (4) protein allocation and (5) mass allocation, are applied in the study.Results and discussionThe results show large differences in the final CF number depending on which methodology has been used for accounting co-products. Most evident is that system expansion gives a lower CF for milk than allocation methods. System expansion resulted in 63–76% of GHG emissions attributed directly to milk, while allocation resulted in 85–98%. It is stressed that meat is an important by-product from milk production and that milk and beef production is closely interlinked and therefore needs to be considered in an integrated approach.ConclusionsTo obtain valid LCA/CF numbers for milk, it is crucial to account for by-products. Moreover, if CF numbers for milk need to be compared, the same allocation procedure should be applied.

[1]  M. Saier,et al.  Climate Change, 2007 , 2007 .

[2]  N. Arsenault,et al.  Comparing the environmental impacts of pasture-based and confinement-based dairy systems in Nova Scotia (Canada) using life cycle assessment , 2009 .

[3]  Merete Høgaas Eide,et al.  Life cycle assessment (LCA) of industrial milk production , 2002 .

[4]  René Urueña.  International Dairy Federation , 2010 .

[5]  Christel Cederberg,et al.  System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production , 2003 .

[6]  Michael Jones,et al.  Generation of an Industry-specific Physico-chemical Allocation Matrix. Application in the Dairy Industry and Implications for Systems Analysis (9 pp) , 2007 .

[7]  J. Berlin.  Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard cheese , 2002 .

[8]  C. Basset-Mens,et al.  Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk production in New Zealand , 2009 .

[9]  Masson-Delmotte,et al.  The Physical Science Basis , 2007 .

[10]  I. D. Boer,et al.  Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands , 2008 .

[11]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production , 2008 .

[12]  C. Cederberg,et al.  Life cycle assessment of milk production — a comparison of conventional and organic farming , 2000 .

[13]  Almudena Hospido Quintana.  Life cycle assessment as a tool for analysing the environmental performance of key food sectors in Galicia (Spain): milk and canned tuna , 2005 .

[14]  B. Weidema.  Market information in life cycle assessment , 2003 .

[15]  Frederic P. Miller,et al.  IPCC fourth assessment report , 2009 .

[16]  H. V. D. van der Werf,et al.  An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[17]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[18]  P. Eder,et al.  Environmental Improvement Potentials of Meat and Dairy Products , 2008 .

[19]  J. Englund,et al.  The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden , 2011 .

[20]  C. Cederberg.  Life cycle inventory of 23 dairy farms in south-western Sweden , 2004 .