https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2022.2017

Evaluation of the environmental impacts of suckler calf-to-beef mixed crop-livestock farms in northern Italy: A farm-based study

Vol. 17 No. 2 (2022)
Submitted: 26 November 2021
Accepted: 31 May 2022
Published: 4 July 2022
Life cycle assessment, global warming potential, farm-based study, animal productivity, farm self-sufficiency.
Abstract Views: 696
PDF: 331
Appendix: 52
HTML: 38
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

  • Dennis Bonnin Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (DISAFA), University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), Italy.
  • Francesco Ferrero • francesco.ferrero@unito.it Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (DISAFA), University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), Italy.
  • Ernesto Tabacco Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (DISAFA), University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), Italy.
  • Stefano Carena Regional Breeder Association of Piedmont (ARAP), Cuneo, Italy.
  • Giorgio Borreani Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (DISAFA), University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), Italy.

The issue of the environmental impacts of beef production has been extensively debated in recent years. However, the research on this theme has mainly been based on farm-model studies with limited attention to contribution analysis of impact categories and aspects linked to cropping systems and feed self-sufficiency in mixed crop-livestock farms. This study evaluated the cradle-tofarm gate environmental impacts of mixed-crop livestock farms rearing the Piedmontese beef breed and suckler calf-to-beef operations in Northwest Italy. Data have been collected from detailed on-farm questionnaires, field books, and invoices of 11 farms over two years (2017-2018). The environmental impacts have been evaluated in terms of land occupation (LO, m2/year), global warming potential (GWP, kg CO2-eq), acidification potential (AP, g SO2-eq) and non-renewable cumulative energy demand (CED, MJ), using life cycle assessment methodology. The functional unit considered was one kilogram of live weight produced at the farm gate. The Piedmontese beef production system showed comparable average environmental impacts with those found in other studies, even though high variability was observed in the studied farms. The GWP averaged 15.7 kg of CO2 eq/kg LW and ranged from 12.1 to 17.6 kg of CO2 eq/kg LW. The CED, LO and AP were on average 62.4 MJ/kg LW, 18.5 m2/y/kg LW and 305 g SO2 eq/kg LW, respectively. Differences in environmental impacts and GWP contribution analysis were mainly due to differences in cropping system management strategies and the consequent levels of feed self-sufficiency. A positive effect of high fertility and animal productivity was observed on the GWP (r=0.62; P<0.01), highlighting the importance of improving efficiency of these aspects for the reduction of emissions. From the contribution analysis of impact categories, the high cost of purchased feeds (in particular protein feeds), transport, and mineral fertilizers for feed production were highly relevant. However further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Highlights
- Study of 11 farms for two years.
- High relevance of purchased feeds on environmental impacts.
- Productive and reproductive performances are key points in reducing environmental impacts.
- Importance of the valorisation of farm crop surfaces to satisfy animals’ needs.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Alvarez-Hess PS, Little SM, Moate PJ, Jacobs JL, Beauchemin KA, Eckard RJ, 2019. A partial life cycle assessment of the greenhouse gas mitigation potential of feeding 3-nitrooxypropanol and nitrate to cattle. Agric. Syst. 169:14-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.008
Anaborapi, 2019. Relazione tecnica e statistiche. Available from: www.anaborapi.it
Berton M, Agabriel J, Gallo L, Lherm M, Ramanzin M, Sturaro E, 2017. Environmental footprint of the integrated France–Italy beef production system assessed through a multi-indicator approach. Agric. Syst. 155:33-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.005
Berton M, Cesaro G, Gallo L, Ramanzin M, Sturaro E, 2018. Sources of variation of the environmental impact of cereal-based intensive beef finishing herds. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 17:767-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2018.1423581
Beukes PC, Gregorini P, Romera AJ, Levy G, Waghorn GC, 2010. Improving production efficiency as a strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions on pastoral dairy farms in New Zealand. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 136:358-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.08.008
Blonk Agri-footprint BV, 2014. Agri-footprint - Part 2 - Description of Data - Version D1.0. Gouda, The Netherlands.
Bonnin D, Tabacco E, Borreani G, 2021. Variability of greenhouse gas emissions and economic performances on 10 Piedmontese beef farms in North Italy. Agric. Syst. 194:103282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103282
Borreani G, Tabacco E, Grignani C, 2003. Quantificazione dell’azotofissazione nelle leguminose foraggere. [Biological nitrogen fixation by forage legumes]. Riv. Agron. 37:21-31.
Bragaglio A, Napolitano F, Pacelli C, Pirlo G, Sabia E, Serrapica F, Serrapica M, Braghieri A, 2018. Environmental impacts of Italian beef production: a comparison between different systems. J. Clean. Prod. 172:4033-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.078
Capper JL, 2011. The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007. J. Anim. Sci. 89: 4249-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3784
Capper JL, 2012. Is the grass always greener? Comparing the environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. Animal 2:127-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2020127
Costantini M, Vázquez-Rowe I, Manzardo A, Bacenetti J, Environmental impact assessment of beef cattle production in semi-intensive systems in Paraguay. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 27:269-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.003
Crosson P, Shalloo L, O’Brien D, Lanigan GJ, Foley PA, Boland TM, Kenny DA, 2011. A review of whole farm system models of greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle production systems. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 167:29-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.001
Cullen B, Eckard R, Timms M, Phelps D, 2016. The effect of earlier mating and improving fertility on greenhouse gas emissions intensity of beef production in northern Australian herds. Rangeland J. 38:283-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ15063
Debaeke P, Pellerin S, Scopel E, 2017. Climate-smart cropping systems for temperate and tropical agriculture: mitigation, adaptation and trade-offs. Cah. Agric. 26:34002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2017028
de Boer IJM, Smits MCJ, Mollenhorst H, van Duinkerken G, Monteny GJ, 2002. Prediction of ammonia emission from dairy barns using feed characteristics. Part I: relation between feed characteristics and urinary urea concentration. J. Dairy Sci. 85:3382-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74425-1
de Boer IJM, Cederberg C, Eady S, Gollnow S, Kristensen T, Macleod M, Meul M, Nemecek T, Phong LT, Thoma G, van der Werf HMG, Williams AG, Zonderland-Thomassen MA, 2011. Greenhouse gas mitigation in animal production: Towards an integrated life cycle sustainability assessment. Curr. Opin. Envir. Sust. 3:423-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2011.08.007
de Vries M, de Boer IJM, 2010. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest. Sci. 128:1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.11.007
de Vries M, Van Middelaar C, de Boer IJM, 2015. Comparing environmental impacts of beef production systems: A review of life cycle assessments. Livest. Sci. 178: 279-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.06.020
Dumont B, Ryschawy J Duru M, Benoit M, Chatellier V, Delaby L, Donnars C, Dupraz P, Lemauviel-Lavenant S, Méda B, Vollet D, Sabatier R, 2019. Review: Associations among goods, impacts and ecosystem services provided by livestock farming. Animal 13:1773-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118002586
Ecoinvent Centre, 2015. Ecoinvent Data v3.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
FAO, 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector. A Life Cycle Assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2018. Nutrient flows and associated environmental impacts in livestock supply chain. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S, 2009. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 91:1-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Dones R, Hischier R, Hellweg S, Humbert S, Margni M, Nemecek T, Spielmann M, 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Garnett T, 2009. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers. Environ. Sci. Policy 12:491-503. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.006
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 United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
Gislon G, Ferrero F, Bava L, Borreani G, Dal Pra A, Pacchioli MT, Sandrucci A, Zucali M, Tabacco E, 2020. Forage systems and sustainability of milk production: Feed efficiency, environmental impacts and soil carbon stocks. J. Clean. Prod. 260:121012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121012
Gloria TP, Lippiatt BC, Cooper J, 2007. Life Cycle Impact Assessment Weights to Support Environmentally Preferable Purchasing in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41:7551-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/es070750+
Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R, 2009. ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterization Department of Environmental Science, Radbound University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Goss MJ, de Varennes A, Smith PS, Ferguson JA, 2002. N2 fixation by soybeans grown with different levels of mineral nitrogen, and the fertilizer replacement value for a following crop. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1:140-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/S01-003
Gourley CJP, Dougherty WJ, Weaver DM, Aarons SR, Awty IM, Gibson DM, Hannah MC, Smith AP, Peverill KI, 2012. Farm-scale nitrogen, phosphourus, potassium and sulfur balances and use efficencies on Australian dairy farms. Anim. Prod. Sci. 52:924-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/AN11337
Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira MDM, Van Zelm R, 2017. ReCiPe 2016 v1.1. A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Report I: Characterization. Department of Environmental Science, Radbound University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
INRA, 2007. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoins des animaux. Valeurs des aliments, Tables INRA 2007. Editions Quae, Paris, France.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2019a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10 in Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2019b. N2O Emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11 in Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. The Physical Science Basis.
ISO, 2006a. 14040:2006: Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-Principles and framework. European Committee for Standardization.
ISO, 2006b. 14044:2006: Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-Requirements and guidelines. European Committee for Standardization.
Lebacq T, Baret PV, Stilmant D, 2013. Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33:311-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0121-x
Legesse G, Beauchemin KA, Ominski K, McGeough E, Kroebel R, MacDonald D, Little S, McAllister T, 2016. Greenhouse gas emissions of Canadian beef production in 1981 as compared with 2011. Anim. Prod. Sci. 56:153-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15386
Lesschen JP, van den Berg M, Westhoek HJ, Witzke HP, Oenema O, 2011. Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 166:16-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.058
Lopez-Pardes J, Alenda R, Gonzalez-Redio O, 2018. Expected consequences of including methane footprint into the breeding goals in beef cattle. A Spanish Blonde d’Aquitaine population as a case of study. J. Anim. Breed Genet. 135:366-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jbg.12350
Martin G, Moraine M, Ryschawy J, Magne MA, Asai M, Sarthou JP, Duru M, Therond O, 2016. Crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36:53-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0390-x
Morel K, Farrié JP, Renon J, Manneville V, Agabriel J, Devun J, 2016. Environmental impacts of cow-calf beef systems with contrasted grassland management and production strategies in the Massif Central, France. Agric. Syst. 144:133-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.02.006
Nguyen TTH, van der Werf HMG, Eugène M, Veysset P, Devun J, Chesneau G, Doreau M, 2012. Effects of type of ration and allocation methods on the environmental impacts of beef-production systems. Livest. Sci. 145:239-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.02.010
Oenema O, Kros H, de Vries W, 2003. Approaches and uncertainties in nutrient budgets: implications for nutrient management and environmental policies. Eur. J. Agron. 20:3-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(03)00067-4
Opio C, Gerber P, Mottet A, Falcucci A, Tempio G, Macleod M, Vellinga T, Henderson B, Steinfeld H, 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains - a global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
Pelletier N, Pirog R, Rasmussen R, 2010. Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agric. Syst. 103:380-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.009
Peyraud JL, Taboadac M, Delabya L, 2014. Integrated crop and livestock systems in Western Europe and South America: a review. Eur. J. Agron. 57:31-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2014.02.005
Rotz CA, Asem-Hiablie S, Place S, Thoma G, 2019. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States. Agric. Syst. 169:1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005
Ryschawy J, Choisis N, Choisis JP, Joannon A, Gibon A, 2012. Mixed crop-livestock systems: an economic and environmental-friendly way of farming? Animal 6:1722-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112000675
Tabacco E, Comino L, Borreani G, 2018. Production efficiency, costs and environmental impacts of conventional and dynamic forage systems for dairy farms in Italy. Eur. J. Agron. 99:1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2018.06.004
Taylor RF, McGee M, Kelly A, Crosson P, 2020. Bioeconomic and greenhouse gas emissions modelling of the factors influencing technical efficiency of temperate grassland-based suckler calf-to-beef production systems. Agric. Syst. 183:102860. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102860
United Nations, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
van Amburgh ME, Collao-Saenz, EA, Higgs RJ, Ross DA, Recktenwald EB, Raffrenato E, Chase LE, Overton TR, Mills JK, Foskolos A, 2015. The Cornell net carbohydrate and protein system: updates to the model and evaluation of version 6.5. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6361-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9378
Vellinga TV, Haan MHA, Schils RLM, Evers A, van den Pol-van Dasselaar A, 2011. Implementation of GHG mitigation on intensive dairy farms: farmers’ preferences and variation in cost effectiveness. Livest. Sci. 137:185-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.11.005
Veysset P, Lherm M, Bébin D, Roulenc M, Benoit M, 2014. Variability in greenhouse gas emissions, fossil energy consumption and farm economics in suckler beef production in 59 French farms. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 188:180-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.003
Wilkinson JM, Lee MRF, 2017. Use of human-edible animal feeds by ruminant livestock. Animal 12:1735-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173111700218X

How to Cite

Bonnin, D., Ferrero, F., Tabacco, E., Carena, S., & Borreani, G. (2022). Evaluation of the environmental impacts of suckler calf-to-beef mixed crop-livestock farms in northern Italy: A farm-based study. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2022.2017
Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s) Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.