Advertisement

Defining a functional unit for dairy production LCA that reflects the transaction between the farmer and the dairy processor

  • Paul RiceEmail author
  • Donal O’Brien
  • Laurance Shalloo
  • Nicholas M. Holden
LCA FOR AGRICULTURE
  • 296 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The two main functions of dairy farming are to produce raw milk and to generate an economic income for the farmer (Powell et al. in Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 82:107–115, 2008), both of which drive the downstream value chain. Farm profit is mainly determined by the quantity and quality of milk, and at the same time, dairy farmers have a responsibility for animal welfare and the protection of human health through milk hygiene. When dairy farmers supply milk to a processor, the payment is based on both the quantity and the quality in terms of composition (fat and protein) and hygiene (total bacterial count and somatic cell count). Somatic cell count reflects the health status of the mammary gland and contributes to reduced shelf life and reduced cheese yield and quality, whilst total bacterial count reflects herd health and farm sanitation. The objective of this work was to create a new functional unit for raw milk at the farm gate/ processor gate, which could be used to better capture the economic function of milk, while still reflecting the quality criteria captured by energy corrected milk and fat and protein corrected milk.

Materials and methods

Base price-adjusted milk (BPAM) is proposed as a functional unit to capture more of the functions of the transaction between the farmer and the processor. It expresses the volume of milk delivered as the equivalent volume at base price, such that greater milk solids increase the volume and poor hygiene decreases the volume. The BPAM was compared with energy-corrected milk and was tested using a survey of 54 farms in Ireland and eight scenarios compared with the observed values and an “ideal” scenario with no hygiene penalty imposed.

Results and discussion

It was found that kg BPAM for the sample of farms was strongly correlated with kg ECM because of the overall hygiene standard from the sample of farms available. For specific farms at specific times, the hygiene properties contributed to the economic function of the milk in a way that could not be captured using energy-corrected milk. The scenario analysis indicated that high levels of biological contamination, if captured in the raw milk functional unit, could increase carbon footprint by > 200%.

Conclusions

It was concluded that BPAM may not be a necessary functional unit for all studies, but those that focused on the farmer and processor perspectives should consider using BPAM because it captures more of the obligatory properties of raw milk than just quality expressed in terms of milk solids.

Keywords

Carbon footprint Functional unit Transaction Obligatory properties Hygiene Dairy production Dairy processor 

References

  1. Baldini C, Gardoni D, Guarino M (2016) A critical review of the recent evolution of life cycle assessment applied to milk production. J Clean Prod 140:421–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basset-Mens C, Ledgard S, Boyes B (2009) Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk production in New Zealand. Ecol Econ 68:1615–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Begly N (2008) An Evaluation of Norwegian Red and Norwegian Red x Holstein Friesian Dairy Cows Under Irish Production Conditions (Doctoral dissertation, University College Dublin)Google Scholar
  4. Berry DP, O’Brien B, O’Callaghan EJ, Sullivan KO, Meaney WJ (2006) Temporal trends in bulk tank somatic cell count and total bacterial count in Irish dairy herds during the past decade. J Dairy Sci 89:4083–4093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry DP, Shalloo L, Cromie AR, Veerkamp RF, Dillion P, Amer PR, Kearney JF, Evans RD, Wickham B (2007) The economic breeding index: a generation on. I C B F: 29–34Google Scholar
  6. Bord Bia (2017). Factsheet on the Irish agriculture and food & drink sector. http://www.bordbia.ie/industry/buyers/industryinfo/agri/pages/default.aspx. Accessed 14 May 2017
  7. Breen J (2001) A new direction for the payment of milk: technology and seasonality considerations in multiple component milk pricing of milk (liquid and manufacturing) for a diversifying dairy industry. MSc Thesis. University College Dublin, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  8. British Standards Institute (BSI) (2011) Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI British standards. ISBN, 978(0), p 580Google Scholar
  9. Brog R (1969) Quantitative analysis of seven selected milk-pricing systems. J Dairy Sci 52:1485–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruinsma J (2009) The resource outlook to 2050. In: Expert meeting on how to feed the world in 2050. pp 1–33Google Scholar
  11. Carty C, Mulligan F (2015) Low milk fat in grazing dairy cows. http://www.veterinaryirelandjournal.com/images/la_jan_2016.pdf . Accessed 20 Sept 2016
  12. Casey JW, Holden NM (2005) The relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the intensity of milk production in Ireland. J Environ Qual 34:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cederberg C, Mattsson B (2000) Life cycle assessment of milk production—a comparison of conventional and organic farming. J Clean Prod 8:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cederberg C, Stadig M (2003) System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen W, White E, Holden NM (2016) The effect of lameness on the environmental performance of milk production by rotational grazing. J Environ Manag 172:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dalgaard R, Schmidt J, Flysjö A (2014) Generic model for calculating carbon footprint of milk using four different life cycle assessment modelling approaches. J Clean Prod 73:146–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Vries M, De Boer IJM (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest Sci 128:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) (2017) Food harvest 2020: milestones for success. Available at: https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/publications/2011/FoodHarvestProgressReport260711.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  19. Dillon P, Crosse S, Stakelum G, Flynn F (1995) The effect of calving date and stocking rate on the performance of spring calving dairy cows. Grass Forage Sci 50:286–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Emmons DB, Tulloch D, Ernstrom CA (1990) Product yield pricing system. 1. Technological considerations in multiple-component pricing of milk. J Dairy Sci 73:1712–1723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. European Commission–Joint Research Centre–Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  22. FAO (2009) The state of food and agriculture—livestock in the balance. Food and Agriculture Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
  23. Flysjö A, Cederberg C, Henriksson M, Ledgard S (2011) How does co-product handling affect the carbon footprint of milk? Case study of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:420–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) (2015) Labelling. Available at: https://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/milk_and_milk_products/labelling.html. Accessed 20 Sept 2017
  25. Garrick DJ, Lopez-Villalobos N (2000) Potential for economic benefits to the producer from altering the composition of milk. In: Agnew RE, Agnew KW, Fearon AM (eds) Milk composition. Proceedings of an International Symposium organised by British Society of Animal Science. British Society of Animal Science. Occasional Publication No. 25, Belfast, pp 93–108Google Scholar
  26. Geary U, Lopez-Villalobos N, Garrick DJ, Shalloo L (2010) Development and application of a processing model for the Irish dairy industry. J Dairy Sci 93:5091–5100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Geary U, Lopez-Villalobos N, Begly N, McCoy F, O'Brien B, O'Grady L, Shalloo L (2012) Estimating the effect of mastitis on the profitability of Irish dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 95(7):3662–3673Google Scholar
  28. Geary U, Lopez-Villalobos N, O'Brien B, Garrick DJ, Shalloo L (2014) Estimating the impact of somatic cell count on the value of milk utilising parameters obtained from the published literature. J Dairy Res 81:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gerber P, Vellinga T, Opio C, Henderson B, Steinfeld H (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector. A life cycle assessment. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: Animal Production and Health Division, RomeGoogle Scholar
  30. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G (2013) Tackling climate change through livestock - A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  31. Glanbia Ingredients Ireland (2016) Milk purchasing. In: Quality and safety policy for manufacturing milk. Glanbia Ingredients Ireland, Ballyragget, Co., KilkennyGoogle Scholar
  32. Gleeson D, O’Brien B, Flynn J, O’Callaghan E, Galli F (2009) Effect of pre-milking teat preparation procedures on the microbial count on teats prior to cluster application. Ir Vet J 62:461–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gleeson D, O'Connell A, Jordan K (2013) Review of potential sources and control of thermoduric bacteria in bulk-tank milk. Irish J Agric Food Res 52:217–227Google Scholar
  34. Guerci M, Knudsen MT, Bava L, Zucali M, Schönbach P, Kristensen T (2013) Parameters affecting the environmental impact of a range of dairy farming systems in Denmark, Germany and Italy. J Clean Prod 54:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haas G, Wetterich F, Köpke U (2001) Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agric Ecosyst Environ 83:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hogeveen H, Huijps K, Halasa T, Lam TJGM (2010) ‘Mastitis costs money: What’s new?’. Mastitis Research into Practice: 5th IDF Mastitis Conference, Proceedings, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  37. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhousee gas inventories. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, JapanGoogle Scholar
  38. IPCC (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Climate change 2007: The physical basis. Contribution of working group 1 to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (Eds). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. International Dairy Federation (IDF) (2010) A common carbon footprint approach for dairy. The IDF guide to standard lifecycle assessment methodology for the dairy sector. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 445/2010. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  40. International Dairy Federation (IDF) (2015) A common carbon footprint approach for the dairy sector. The IDF guide to standard lifecycle assessment methodology. Bull Int Dairy Fed 479Google Scholar
  41. Irish Cattle Breeding Index (ICBF) (2017) Latest EBI reports now live. https://www.icbf.com/wp/?p=9183. Accessed 20 Sept. 2017
  42. Jesse E, Cropp B (2008) Basic milk pricing concepts for dairy farmers. Econ Res 180:200Google Scholar
  43. Kennedy E, O’Donovan M, Murphy J P, Delaby L, O’Mara FP (2005) The effect of early and delayed spring grazing on the milk production, grazing management and grass intake of dairy cows. In Utilisation of grazed temperate animal systems. XXth International Grassland Congress, Cork Satellite Meeting, pp 3–5Google Scholar
  44. Kiefer LR, Menzel F, Bahrs E (2015) Integration of ecosystem services into the carbon footprint of milk of South German dairy farms. J Environ Manag 152:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kokkonen T, Taponen J, Anttila T, Syrjälä-Qvist L, Delavaud C, Chilliard Y, Tuori M, Tesfa AT (2005) Effect of body fatness and glucogenic supplement on lipid and protein mobilization and plasma leptin in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 88:1127–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kristensen T, Mogensen L, Knudsen MT, Hermansen JE (2011) Effect of production system and farming strategy on greenhouse gas emissions from commercial dairy farms in a life cycle approach. Livest Sci 140:136–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leatherhead Food International (2006) The international market for functional foods. In: Functional food market report. Leatherhead Food International Publication, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Lopez-Villalobos N, Berry DP, Horan B, Buckley F, Kennedy J, O’Donovan J, Shalloo L, Dillon P (2008) Genetics of residual feed intake in Irish grazing dairy cows. Proc N Z Soc Anim Prod 68:97–100Google Scholar
  49. LTO (2017) International comparison of producer prices for milk 2016. LTO Nederland Vakgroep Melkveehouderij Bezuidenhoutseweg 225 2594 AL Den Haag, The Netherlands http://www.milkprices.nl/Reports/MPV_REPORT_2016.pdf. Accessed 1st Oct. 2017
  50. Ma Y, Ryan C, Barbano DM, Galton DM, Rudan MA, Boor KJ (2000) Effects of somatic cell count on quality and shelf-life of pasteurized fluid milk. J Dairy Sci 83:264–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Malcolm D, Hook I, Montgomerie B, Winkleman A, Sim S, Brennan G (2005) The cost of mastitis. Dairy insight research 2005/2006 final report. National Mastitis Advisory Committee, HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  52. More SJ (2009) Global trends in milk quality: implications for the Irish dairy industry. Ir Vet J 62:S5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Morgan TG (2004) Guide to good dairy farming practice. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and International Dairy Federation, RomeGoogle Scholar
  54. Muehlhoff E, Bennett A, McMahon D (2013) Milk and dairy products in human nutrition. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
  55. Murphy JJ, O’Mara F (1993) Nutritional manipulation of milk protein concentration and its impacts on the dairy industry. Livest Prod Sci 35:117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Murphy JJ, O'Brien B (1997) Quality milk for processing? The production technology. In: Proceedings of National Dairy Conference, Teagasc, Dublin, pp 54–83Google Scholar
  57. O’Brien D, Shalloo L, Grainger C, Buckley F, Horan B, Wallace M (2010) The influence of strain of Holstein–Friesian cow and feeding system on greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 93:3390–3402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Brien D, Shalloo L, Patton J, Buckley F, Grainger C, Wallace M (2012) A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms. Agric Syst 107:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. O’Brien D, Brennan P, Humphreys J, Ruane E, Shalloo L (2014) An appraisal of carbon footprint of milk from commercial grass-based dairy farms in Ireland according to a certified life cycle assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1469–1481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Brien D, Geoghegan A, McNamara K, Shalloo L (2016) How can grass-based dairy farmers reduce the carbon footprint of milk? Anim Prod Sci 56:495–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. O'Brien B, Mehra R, Connolly JF, Harrington D (1999) Seasonal variation in the composition of Irish manufacturing and retail milks: 1. Chemical composition and renneting properties. Irish J Agric Food Res 31:53–64Google Scholar
  62. Powell JM, Li Y, Wu Z, Broderick GA, Holmes BJ (2008) Rapid assessment of feed and manure nutrient management on confinement dairy farms. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 82:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Prendiville R, Pierce KM, Buckley F (2009) An evaluation of production efficiencies among lactating Holstein-Friesian, Jersey, and Jersey × Holstein-Friesian cows at pasture. J Dairy Sci 92:6176–6185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Prox M, Curran MA (2017) Consequential life cycle assessment. In: Curran AM (ed) Goal and scope definition in life cycle assessment. Springer, Netherlands, pp 145–168Google Scholar
  65. Rice P, O'Brien D, Shalloo L, Holden NM (2017) Evaluation of allocation methods for calculation of carbon footprint of grass-based dairy production. J Environ Manag 202:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ross SA, Topp CFE, Ennos RA, Chagunda MGG (2017) Relative emissions intensity of dairy production systems: employing different functional units in life-cycle assessment. Animal 11:1381–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T, Xu Q, Okadome H, Nakamura N, Shiina T (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schau EM, Fet AM (2008) LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shalloo L, Dillon P, Wallace (2008). Development of an efficient milk production profile of the Irish dairy industry. TeagascGoogle Scholar
  70. Shalloo L, Cromie A, McHugh N (2014) Effect of fertility on the economics of pasture-based dairy systems. Animal 8:222–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sjaunja LO, Baevre L, Junkkarinen L, Pedersen J, Setala J (1990) A Nordic proposal for an energy corrected milk (ECM) formula. Page 192 in 27th Session of the International Commission for Breeding and Productivity of Milk Animals, Paris. Wageningen Academic Publishers, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  72. Sneddon NW, Lopez-Villalobos N, Hickson RE, Shalloo L (2013) Review of milk payment systems to identify the component value of lactose. In Proc NZ Soc Anim Prod 73: 33–36Google Scholar
  73. Soussana JF, Tallec T, Blanfort V (2010) Mitigating the greenhouse gas balance of ruminant production systems through carbon sequestration in grasslands. Animal 4:334–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Standard (ISO) (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO/TC 207/SC 5 Life cycle assessmentGoogle Scholar
  75. Steele ML, McNab WB, Poppe C, Griffiths MW, Chen S, Degrandis SA, Fruhner LC, Larkin CA, Lynch JA, Odermeru JA (1997) Survey of Ontario bulk tank milk for foodborne pathogens. J Food Prot 60:1341–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stone MJ, Rowlands A (1952) ‘Broken’ or ‘bitty’ cream in raw and pasteurized milk. J Dairy Res 19:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stylianou KS, Heller MC, Fulgoni VL, Ernstoff AS, Keoleian GA, Jolliet O (2016) A life cycle assessment framework combining nutritional and environmental health impacts of diet: a case study on milk. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:734–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Te Giffel M T (1997) “Isolation, identification and characterization of Bacillus cereus from the dairy environment”. Thesis, Landbouwuniversiteit, Wageningen. ISBN 90-5485-694-7Google Scholar
  79. Teagasc (2010) Moorepark dairy Levy research update: breeding and management technologies to increase farm profit. http://dairyresearchireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Teagasc-Dairy-Levy-Update-No-13-Breeding-and-Management-Technologies-to-Increase-Farm-Profit-March-2010.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2017
  80. Teagasc (2015) Moorepark ‘15. Irish dairying—sustainable expansion. https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2015/Irish_Dairying-Sustainable_Expansion_Moorepark15.pdf. Accessed 16 Jun 2017
  81. Thomassen MA, De Boer IJM (2005) Evaluation of indicators to assess the environmental impact of dairy production systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 111:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thomassen MA, Dolman MA, Van Calker KJ, De Boer IJM (2009) Relating life cycle assessment indicators to gross value added for Dutch dairy farms. Ecol Econ 68:2278–2284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tukker A, Jansen B (2006) Environmental impacts of products: a detailed review of studies. J Ind Ecol 10:159–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tyrrell HF, Reid JT (1965) Prediction of the energy value of cow’s milk1, 2. J Dairy Sci 48:1215–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Van der Werf HM, Kanyarushoki C, Corson MS (2009) An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 90:3643–3652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Van Der Werf HMG, Garnett T, Corson MS, Hayashi K, Huisingh D, Cederberg C (2014) Towards eco-efficient agriculture and food systems: theory, praxis and future challenges. J Clean Prod 73:1e9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wallace M, Breen J, Crosse S, (2002) Milk pricing revisited: equity, transparency and producer incentives. Irish Grassland Assoc. Conf., Limerick. 36:106–119Google Scholar
  88. Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Cranfield University and Defra, BedfordGoogle Scholar
  89. Yan MJ, Humphreys J, Holden NM (2010) An evaluation of life cycle assessment of European milk production. J Environ Manag 92:372–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yan MJ, Humphreys J, Holden NM (2011) The carbon footprint of pasture-based milk production: can white clover make a difference? J Dairy Sci 96:857–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yan MJ, Humphreys J, Holden NM (2013) Life cycle assessment of milk production from commercial dairy farms: the influence of management tactics. J Dairy Sci 96:4112–4124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation CentreMoorepark, Fermoy, Co.CorkIreland
  2. 2.School of Biosystems and Food EngineeringUniversity College DublinDublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations