The impact of uncertainties on predicted GHG emissions of dairy cow production systems

Abstract Dairy farms produce significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and are therefore a focal point for GHG-mitigation practices. To develop viable mitigation options, we need robust (insensitive to changes in model parameters and assumptions) predictions of GHG emissions. To this end, we developed a stochastic model to estimate the robustness of predictions based on input parameters (GHG emission factors and production traits) and their uncertainties. In our study we explored how sensitive predictions of GHG emissions are to three factors: (1) system boundaries of the emission model (2) the uncertainty of input parameters due to quality of data or methodological choices (epistemic uncertainty) and (3) inherent variability in input parameters (variability uncertainty). To assess the effect of system boundaries, we compared two different boundaries: the “dairy farm gate” boundary (all GHG emissions are allocated to milk) and “system expansion” (the model gives a GHG credit to beef derived from culled cows and bull, heifer and calf fattening of surplus dairy calves outside the farm). Results using the farm-gate boundary provide guidance to dairy farmers to reduce GHG emissions of milk production. The results using system expansion are important for defining GHG abatement policies for milk and beef production. We found that the choice of system boundary had the strongest impact on the level and variation of predicted GHG emissions. Model predictions were least robust for lower-yielding dairy cow production systems and when we used system expansion. We also explored which GHG-abatement strategies have the most leverage by assessing the influence of each input parameter on model predictions. Predicted GHG emissions were least sensitive to variability-related uncertainty in production traits (i.e. replacement rate, calving interval). Lower-yielding production systems had the highest variation, indicating the highest potential for GHG mitigation of all production systems studied. Variation in predicted GHG emissions increased substantially when both epistemic and variability uncertainty in emission factors and variability uncertainty in production traits were included in the model. If the system boundary was set at the farm gate, the emission factor of N 2 O from nitrogen input into the soil had the highest impact on variation in predicted GHG emissions. This variation stems from uncertainties in predicting N 2 O emissions (epistemic uncertainty) but also from inherent variability of N 2 O emissions over time and space. The uncertainty of predicted GHG emissions can be reduced by increasing the precision in predicting N 2 O emissions. However, this additional information does not reduce GHG emissions itself. Knowing site specific variability of N 2 O emissions can help reduce GHG emissions by specific management (e.g. reduce soil compaction, adopted manure management, choice of suitable crops). In case of system expansion, uncertainty in GHG emission credit for dairy beef contributed the most to increasing the variation in predicted GHG emissions. The stochastic-model approach gave important insights into the robustness of model outcomes, which is crucial in the search for cost-effective GHG-abatement options. Despite the high degree of uncertainty when using system expansion, its results help identifying global GHG mitigation options of combined milk and beef production.

[1]  Daniel Heinrich Brüggemann Anpassungsmöglichkeiten der deutschen Rindermast an die Liberalisierung der Agrarmärkte , 2011 .

[2]  M. Zehetmeier,et al.  Does increasing milk yield per cow reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A system approach. , 2012, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[3]  C. Cederberg,et al.  The interaction between milk and beef production and emissions from land use change – critical considerations in life cycle assessment and carbon footprint studies of milk , 2012 .

[4]  M. Wallace,et al.  The effect of methodology on estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from grass-based dairy systems , 2011 .

[5]  M. T. Knudsen,et al.  Effect of production system and farming strategy on greenhouse gas emissions from commercial dairy farms in a life cycle approach , 2011 .

[6]  M. D. Vries,et al.  Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments , 2010 .

[7]  James M. Gibbons,et al.  Modelling uncertainty in greenhouse gas emissions from UK agriculture at the farm level , 2006 .

[8]  David J. Pannell,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis of Normative Economic Models: Theoretical Framework and Practical Strategies , 1997 .

[9]  W. Knaus,et al.  Dairy cows trapped between performance demands and adaptability , 2009 .

[10]  P. Garnsworthy The environmental impact of fertility in dairy cows: a modelling approach to predict methane and ammonia emissions , 2004 .

[11]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis , 2013 .

[12]  Warren E. Walker,et al.  Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support , 2003 .

[13]  I.J.M. de Boer,et al.  Relating life cycle assessment indicators to gross value added for Dutch dairy farms , 2009 .

[14]  Annette Freibauer,et al.  Assessment of German nitrous oxide emissions using empirical modelling approaches , 2011, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems.

[15]  C. Cederberg,et al.  Variation in carbon footprint of milk due to management differences between Swedish dairy farms. , 2011, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[16]  Nicholas J. Hutchings,et al.  Improved national calculation procedures to assess energy requirements, nitrogen and VS excretions of dairy cows in the German emission model GAS-EM , 2009 .

[17]  G. Lanigan,et al.  A review of whole farm systems models of greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle production systems , 2011 .

[18]  F. Kelliher,et al.  Uncertainty of global warming potential for milk production on a New Zealand farm and implications for decision making , 2009 .

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

[20]  Dominic Moran,et al.  Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for UK Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions , 2011 .

[21]  D. K. Lovett,et al.  A systems approach to quantify greenhouse gas fluxes from pastoral dairy production as affected by management regime , 2006 .

[22]  Christel Cederberg,et al.  Exploring variability in methods and data sensitivity in carbon footprints of feed ingredients , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[23]  P. Cronje,et al.  Ruminant Physiology: Digestion, Metabolism, Growth and Reproduction , 2000 .

[24]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA , 1998 .

[25]  J. W. van Groenigen,et al.  Mitigation strategies for greenhouse gas emissions from animal production systems: synergy between measuring and modelling at different scales , 2008 .

[26]  Anna Björklund,et al.  Survey of approaches to improve reliability in lca , 2002 .

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

[28]  J. Bortz Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler , 2010 .

[29]  Werner Jentsch,et al.  Quantitative results for methane production of cattle in Germany , 2009 .

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

[31]  J. Hermansen,et al.  Environmental consequences of different beef production systems in the EU , 2010 .

[32]  M. Conner,et al.  Methods to quantify variable importance: implications for the analysis of noisy ecological data. , 2009, Ecology.

[33]  G. Bareth,et al.  Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural land use in Germany— a synthesis of available annual field data , 2006 .

[34]  M. Kirchgessner,et al.  Nutritional factors for the quantification of methane production. , 1995 .

[35]  Pierre-Alain Jayet,et al.  Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Agriculture in the EU: A Spatial Assessment of Sources and Abatement Costs , 2005 .

[36]  D. K. Lovett,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral based dairying systems: The effect of uncertainty and management change under two contrasting production systems , 2008 .

[37]  Jeremy Franks,et al.  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture: Avoiding trivial solutions to a global problem , 2012 .

[38]  Bruce A. McCarl,et al.  Leakage and Comparative Advantage Implications of Agricultural Participation in Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation , 2007 .

[39]  R. Cady,et al.  The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. , 2009, Journal of animal science.

[40]  N. H. Ravindranath,et al.  2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories , 2006 .

[41]  Norihiro Itsubo,et al.  Screening life cycle impact assessment with weighting methodology based on simplified damage functions , 2000 .

[42]  H. Witzke,et al.  Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors , 2011 .

[43]  Maria Henriksson,et al.  How does co-product handling affect the carbon footprint of milk? Case study of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden , 2011 .