Options
Comparing outcomes of three GHG emission calculation tools applied on dairy production systems
De Vries, Marion | Wageningen Livestock Research (WLR), Wageningen, the Netherlands |
Haan, Michel H.A. | Wageningen Livestock Research (WLR), Wageningen, the Netherlands |
Hargreaves, Paul R. | Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), United Kingdom |
Verge, Xavier | Institute del’Elevage, Monvoisin, France |
Cieslak, Adam | Poznan University, Poznan, Poland |
Galama, Paul | Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands |
Vellinga, Theun V. | Wageningen Livestock Research (WLR), Wageningen, the Netherlands |
Date Issued |
---|
2022-09-05 |
no. Theatre 4
Session 37. Climate care dairy farming
ISBN: 978-90-8686-385-3 e-ISBN: 978-90-8686-937-4
The use of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission calculation tools is of increasing importance to identify effective farm strategies and policy measures for mitigating GHGs from agriculture. The aim of this study in the context of the EU project CCCfarming was to compare outcomes of three calculation tools for estimation of cradle-to-farm gate GHG emissions from dairy production systems: Agrecalc, ANCA, and CAP’2ER-level 1. Data were collected from 3 dairy farms in Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Poland. Results showed that total GHG emissions were 16 to 52% and -8 to 50% higher in ANCA than Agrecalc and CAP’2ER, respectively, and -4 to 21% higher in CAP’2ER than Agrecalc. GHG emission intensity was 8 to 44% and -4 to 73% higher in ANCA than Agrecalc and CAP’2ER, respectively, and -20 to 12% higher in CAP’2ER than Agrecalc. Differences in tool outcomes were largest for emissions embedded in imported feeds and rumen enteric fermentation, and, to a lesser extent, manure storages and soil nitrogen inputs. These processes were also the largest sources of emissions, jointly contributing to at least 72% of total emissions. Main differences in outcomes could be explained by differences in embedded emissions of purchased feedstuffs, GWP characterization factors, calculated herd feed intake and composition, and the type and detail of input data. It was concluded that, despite compliance with international standards for GHG accounting, GHG calculation tools showed large differences in outcomes. Further harmonization is needed to reduce differences between outcomes of tools.