Byproduct-based concentrates in Swedish dairy cow diets – evaluation of environmental impact and feed costs

References

• Bajželj, B., Richards, K. S., Allwood, J. M., Smith, P., Dennis, J. S., Curmi, E. & Gilligan, C. A. (2014). Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change 4, 924–929. doi:10.1038/nclimate2353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BSI. (2012). PAS 2050-1:2012 Assessment of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Horticultural Products. Supplementary Requirements for the Cradle to Gate Stages of GHG Assessments of Horticultural Products Undertaken in Accordance with PAS 2050 (London: British Standards Institution).
   Google Scholar
• Berglund, M., Clason, C., Bååth Jacobsson, S., Bergström Nilsson, S. & Sund, V. (2013). Klimatavtryck av insatsvaror i jordbruket – ungnöt, smågrisar, gyltor och strömedel. Climate footprint of agricultural inputs – young cattle, piglets, gilts and litter. Rapport från Hushållningssällskapet Halland, Eldsberga, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Blonk Consultants. (2018). Agri-footprint 4.0. http://www.agri-footprint.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Castanheira, E. G. & Freire, F. (2013). Greenhouse gas assessment of soybean production: implications of land use change and different cultivation systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 54, 49–60. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cederberg, C., Henriksson, M. & Berglund, M. (2013). An LCA researcher’s wish list – data and emission models needed to improve LCA studies of animal production. Animal 7(s2), 212–219. doi:10.1017/S1751731113000785
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cederberg, C., Henriksson, M. & Rosenqvist, H. (2018). Ekonomi och ekosystemtjänster i gräsbaserad mjölk- och nötköttsproduktion. Economy and Ecosystem Services in Grass-Based Dairy and Beef Production (Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology).
   Google Scholar
• Darnhofer, I. (2014). Resilience and why it matters for farm management. European Review of Agricultural Economics 41, 461–484. doi:10.1093/erae/jbu012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, K. F., Gephart, J. A., Emery, K. A., Leach, A. M., Galloway, J. N. & D’Odorico, P. (2016). Meeting future food demand with current agricultural resources. Global Environmental Change 39, 125–132. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EDA. (2018). Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules for Dairy Products. Version 1.0.25 April 2018. The European Dairy Assoc., Bruxelles, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/PEFCR-DairyProducts_2018-04-25_V1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Eggleston, G. & Lima, I. (2015). Sustainability issues and opportunities in the sugar and sugar-bioproduct industries. Sustainability 7, 12209–12235. doi:10.3390/su70912209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisler, M. C., Lee, M. R. F., Tarlton, J. F., Martin, G. B., Beddington, J., Dungait, J. A. J., Greathead, H., Liu, J. X., Mathew, S., Miller, H., Misselbrook, T., Murray, P., Vinod, V. K., Van Saun, R. & Winter, M. (2014). Agriculture: Steps to sustainable livestock. Nature 507, 32–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EU. (1991). Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (91/676/EEC), Brussels, Belgium https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/sv/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31991L0676.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. (2016). Environmental Performance of Large Ruminant Supply Chains: Guidelines for Assessment (Rome: FAO).
   Google Scholar
• FAO. (2010). Livestock in the Balance: The State of Food and Agriculture 2009 (Rome: FAO). https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.46-5950).
   Google Scholar
• FAO. (2016). Environmental Performance of Large Ruminant Supply Chains: Guidelines for Assessment. Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership (Rome: FAO).
   Google Scholar
• Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. & Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319(5867), 1235–1238. doi:10.1126/science.1152747
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FEFAC. (2021). Feed & food 2020. https://fefac.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FF_2020_Final.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Flysjö, A., Cederberg, C. & Strid, I. (2008). LCA-databas för konventionella fodermedel - miljöpåverkan i samband med produktion. LCA Database for Conventional Feeds - Environmental Impact in Connection with Production (Gothenburg: SIK).
   Google Scholar
• Flysjö, A., Henriksson, M., Cederberg, C., Ledgard, S. & Englund, J.-E. (2011). The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. Agricultural Systems 104(6), 459–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D. & Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garnsworthy, P. C. (2004). The environmental impact of fertility in dairy cows: a modelling approach to predict methane and ammonia emissions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 112, 211–223. 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2003.10.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henriksson, M., Cederberg, C. & Swensson, C. (2014). Carbon footprint and land requirement for dairy herd rations: impacts of feed production practices and regional climate variations. Animal 8(8), 1329–1338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henriksson, M., Flysjö, A., Cederberg, C. & Swensson, C. (2011). Variation in carbon footprint of milk due to management differences between Swedish dairy farms. Animal 5(9), 1474–1484. doi:10.1017/S1751731111000437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hessle, A., Bertilsson, J., Stenberg, B., Kumm, K.-I. & Sonesson, U. (2017). Combining environmentally and economically sustainable dairy and beef production in Sweden. Agricultural Systems 156, 105–114. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hristov, A. N., Ott, T., Tricarico, J., Rotz, A., Waghorn, G., Adesogan, A., Dijkstra, J., Montes, F., Oh, J., Kebreab, E., Oosting, S. J., Gerber, P. J., Henderson, B., Makkar, H. P. S. & Firkins, J. L. (2013). Special topics – mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations. III. A review of animal management mitigation options1. Journal of Animal Science 91(11), 5095–5113. 10.2527/jas.2013-6585
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huhtanen, P., Nousiainen, J. I., Rinne, M., Kytölä, K. & Khalili, H. (2008). Utilization and partition of dietary nitrogen in dairy cows fed grass silage-based diets. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3589–3599. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1181
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, M. C., Smith, R. G., Schipanski, M. E., Atwood, L. W. & Mortensen, D. A. (2017). Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. Bioscience 67, 386–391. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hushållningssällskapet. (2017). Produktionsgrenskalkyler för Växtodling, Efterkalkyler för år 2016 – Södra Sverige. Production Calculations for Plant Cultivation, Post-Calculations for the Year 2016 – Southern Sweden (Uppsala: Hushållningssällskapet).
   Google Scholar
• IDF. (2015). A common carbon footprint approach for the dairy sector – The IDF guide to standard life cycle assessment methodology. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation. Bruxelles. https://fil-idf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Bulletin479-2015_A-common-carbon-footprint-approach-for-the-dairy-sector.CAT.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. (2006). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa K. IGES, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. (2019). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. In press.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson, J., Spörndly, R., Lindberg, M. & Holtenius, K. (2018). Replacing human-edible feed ingredients with by-products increases net food production efficiency in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 7146–7155. doi:10.3168/jds.2017-14209
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klackenberg, L. (2021). Biomethane in Sweden – market overview and policies. Swedish Gas Association, pp. 8. https://www.energigas.se/media/boujhdr1/biomethane-in-sweden-210316-slutlig.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lathuillière, M. J., Miranda, E. J., Bulle, C., Couto, E. G. & Johnson, M. S. (2017). Land occupation and transformation impacts of soybean production in Southern Amazonia, Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 149, 680–689. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maskinkalkylgruppen & HIR-Skåne. (2017). Maskinkostnader 2017, underlag och kalkylexempel för lantbruksmaskiner. Machine Costs 2017, Data and Examples for Agricultural Machines (Bjärred: Maskinkalkylgruppen).
   Google Scholar
• Mogensen, L., Knudsen, M. T., Dorca-Preda, T., Nielsen, N. I., Kristensen, I. S. & Kristensen, T. (2018). Bæredygtighedsparametre for konventionelle fodermidler til kvæg – metode og tabelværdier. Sustainability Parameters for Conventional Feeds for Cattle – Method and Table Values. DCA Rapport Nr. 116 (Aarhus: Aarhus University). https://dcapub.au.dk/djfpublikation/djfpdf/DCArapport116.pdf).
   Google Scholar
• Mottet, A., de Haan, C., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., Opio, C. & Gerber, P. (2017). Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Global Food Security 14, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001
   Google Scholar
• Muscat, A., de Olde, E. M., de Boer, I. J. M. & Ripoll-Bosch, R. (2020). The battle for biomass: A systematic review of food-feed-fuel competition. Global Food Security 25, 100330. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100330
   Google Scholar
• Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., Koch, D., Lamarque, J.-F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G., Takemura, T. & Zhang, H. (2013). Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex & P. M. Midgley (eds.) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). pp. 659–740.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, N. I., Volden, H., Åkerlind, M., Brask, M., Hellwing, A. L. F., Storlien, T. & Bertilsson, J. (2013). A prediction equation for enteric methane emission from dairy cows for use in NorFor. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 63(3), 126–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordqvist, M. (2012). Assessing phosphorus overfeeding in dairy cows. Licenciate Thesis. Report 279. Department of Animal Nutrition and Management. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Oishi, K., Kumagai, H. & Hirooka, H. (2011). Application of the modified feed formulation to optimize economic and environmental criteria in beef cattle fattening systems with food by-products. Animal Feed Science and Technology 165, 38–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PEFCR. (2018). Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) Feed for food producing animals. First public version 4.1, April 2018. Bruxelles, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/PEFCR_feed.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360(6392), 987–992. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RISE. (2013). Livscykelanalys av foder med klimatavtryck. Life Cycle Analysis of Feed with Climate Footprint (Gothenburg: RISE). https://lcadatafoder.se/).
   Google Scholar
• SEPA. (2019). Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). National Inventory Report Sweden 2019. Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories 1990-2017. Submitted under the United Nations Framework. Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Sjaunja, L. O., Baevre, L., Junkkarinen, L., Pedersen, J. & Setälä, J. (1990). A Nordic proposal for an energy corrected milk (ECM) formula, in: Performance Recording of Animals: 27th Biennial Session of the International Committee for Animal Recording. Paris, France, 156–192.
   Google Scholar
• Spörndly, R. (2003). Fodertabeller för idisslare. Feed tables for ruminants. Rapport 257. Institutionen för husdjurens utfodring och vård (Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences).
   Google Scholar
• Spörndly, R. (unpublished observations). Mål för foderkvalitet. Skördeuppskattning. Ensilering. Measures for feed quality. Crop estimates. Ensiling. https://adm.greppa.nu/download/18.28b36abe16527b8975b3a861/1545315881879/mal-for-foderkvalitet-skordeuppskattning-ensilering-rolf-sporndly-160914-15.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Board of Agriculture. (2004). Statens jordbruksverks föreskrifter om miljöhänsyn i jordbruket vad avser växtnäring; SJVFS 2004:62. Regulations on environmental considerations in agriculture with regard to plant nutrition. Jönköping, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Board of Agriculture. (2017). Jordbruksverkets statistikdatabas. Statistics. Yield per hectar Total Prod. Reg. Differ. Crop. Yrly. data 1965–2019. https//www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__JO__JO0601/SkordarL/. http://statistik.sjv.se/PXWeb/pxweb/sv/Jordbruksverketsstatistikdatabas/
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Board of Agriculture. (2019). VERA beräkningsverktyg för gårdens resurser och miljöpåverkan. Calculation tool for farm resources and environmental impact. http://www.jordbruksverket.se/amnesomraden/odling/vaxtnaring/berakningsverktygetvera.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Energy Agency. (2020). Drivmedel 2019. Redovisning av rapporterade uppgifter enligt drivmedelslagen, hållbarhetslagen och reduktionsplikten. Fuel 2019. Reported information in accordance with the fuels act, the sustainability act and the reduction obligation. ER 2020:26, pp. 18. https://energimyndigheten.a-w2m.se/Home.mvc?ResourceId=179961
   Google Scholar
• van Zanten, H. H. E., Herrero, M., van Hal, O., Röös, E., Muller, A., Garnett, T., Gerber, P. J., Schader, C. & de Boer, I. J. M. (2018). Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption. Global Change Biology 24(9), 4185–4194. doi:10.1111/gcb.14321
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Zanten, H. H. E., Mollenhorst, H., de Vries, J. W., van Middelaar, C. E., van Kernebeek, H. R. J. & de Boer, I. J. M. (2014). Assessing environmental consequences of using co-products in animal feed. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19, 79–88. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0633-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Zanten, H. H. E., Mollenhorst, H., Klootwijk, C. W., van Middelaar, C. E. & de Boer, I. J. M. (2016). Global food supply: land use efficiency of livestock systems. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21, 747–758. doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0944-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Växa Sverige. (2017). Husdjursstatistik (Uppsala: Cattle Statistics).
   Google Scholar
• Volden, H. (2011). NorFor – The Nordic Feed Evaluation System. EAAP publication No 130. Volden (Ed.). Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. doi:10.3920/978-90-8686-718-9.
   Google Scholar