Management factors affecting the environmental impact of cereal-based dairy farms

References

• Battini F, Agostini A, Tabaglio V, Amaducci S. 2016. Environmental impacts of different dairy farming systems in the Po Valley. J. Clean Prod. 112:91–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bava L, Sandrucci A, Zucali M, Guerci M, Tamburini A. 2014. How can farming intensification affect the environmental impact of milk production? J Dairy Sci. 97(7):4579–4593.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Agr Syst. 155:33–42.
   Google Scholar
• 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(3):767–776.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berton M, Bittante G, Zendri F, Ramanzin M, Schiavon S, Sturaro E. 2020. Environmental impact and efficiency of use of resources of different mountain dairy farming systems. Agr Syst. 181:102806.
   Google Scholar
• Bittante G, Negrini R, Bergamaschi M, Cecchinato A, Toledo-Alvarado H. 2020. Pure-breeding with sexed semen and crossbreeding with semen of double-muscled sires to improve beef production from dairy herds: factors affecting heifer and cow fertility and the sex ratio. J Dairy Sci. 103(6):5246–5257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bittman S, Dedina M, Howard CM, Oenema O, Sutton MA. 2014. Options for Ammonia Mitigation: guidance from the UNECE task force on reactive nitrogen, centre for ecology and hydrology, Edinburgh, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Blonk Agri-footprint BV. 2014. Agri-Footprint – Part 2 – description of data – version D1.0. The Netherlands Gouda.
   Google Scholar
• Canavari M, Coderoni S. 2020. Consumer stated preferences for dairy products with carbon footprint labels in Italy. Agric Econ. 8(1):1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caro D, Davis SJ, Kebreab E, Mitloehner F. 2018. Land-use change emissions from Soybean feed embodied in Brazilian pork and poultry meat. J Clean Prod. 172:2646–2654.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [CML] Center of Environmental Science. 2016. CML-ia database, characterisation and normalisation factors for midpoint impact category indicators, Version 4.8. [accessed 2023 April 11]. http://www.cml.leiden.edu/software/data-cmlia.html.
   Google Scholar
• De Vries MD, Van Middelaar CE, De Boer IJM. 2015. Comparing environmental impacts of beef production systems: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest Sci. 178:279–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinuccio E, Berg W, Balsari P. 2008. Gaseous emissions from the storage of untreated slurries and the fractions obtained after mechanical separation. Atmos Environ. 42(10):2448–2459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2010. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook – General guide for Life Cycle Assessment – Detailed Guidance. Institute for Environment and Sustainability. European Commission – Joint Research Centre, Publications Office of The European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2020. Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. COM(2020) 381. European Commission, Bruxelles, Belgium.
   Google Scholar
• [EEA] European Environmental Agency. 2019. EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook – Technical Report 13/2019. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environmental Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. 2021. Cows’ milk collection and products obtained – annual data; [accessed 2021 March 15]. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/apro_mk_cola/default/table?lang=en.
   Google Scholar
• [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2020. Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) Partnership. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation; [accessed 2023 April 11]. http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/en/.
   Google Scholar
• FAOSTAT. 2019. FAOSTAT detailed trade matrix; [accessed 2021 December 10]. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TM.
   Google Scholar
• Gerber P, Vellinga T, Opio C, Henderson B, Steinfeld H. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector. A life cycle assessment. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation.
   Google Scholar
• Gerssen-Gondelach SJ, Lauwerijssen RB, Havlík P, Herrero M, Valin H, Faaij AP, Wicke B. 2017. Intensification pathways for beef and dairy cattle production systems: impacts on GHG emissions, land occupation and land use change. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 240:135–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerci M, Bava L, Zucali M, Sandrucci A, Penati C, Tamburini A. 2013. Effect of farming strategies on environmental impact of intensive dairy farms in Italy. J Dairy Res. 80(3):300–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holly MA, Larson RA, Powell JM, Ruark MD, Aguirre-Villegas H. 2017. Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from digested and separated dairy manure during storage and after land application. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 239:410–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hristov AN, Oh J, Lee C, Meinen R, Montes F, Ott T, Firkins J, Rotz A, Dell C, Adesogan A, et al. 2013. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production – a review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions. In: Gerber PJ, Henderson B, HPS Makkar, editors. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper nop. 177. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.
   Google Scholar
• [IDF] International Dairy Federation. 2015. Bulletin of the IDF No 479/2015. A Common carbon footprint approach for dairy sector. The IDF guide to standard life cycle assessment methodology. Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation.
   Google Scholar
• [INRA] Institut de la Recherce Agronomique. 2019. INRA feeding system for ruminants. 2nd edition. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2019. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories – volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use – refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
   Google Scholar
• [ISMEA] Istituto di Servizi per il Mercato Agricolo Alimentare. 2020. Settore lattiero caseario – scheda di settore. Rome, Italy: ISMEA.
   Google Scholar
• ISMEA. 2021. Carne bovina – Prezzi medi all’origine; [accessed 2022 May 15]. https://www.ismeamercati.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/723.
   Google Scholar
• [ISO] International Organisation for Standardisation. 2006. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
   Google Scholar
• Ketelaars JJMH, Van der Meer HG. 1999. Establishment of criteria for the assessment of the nitrogen content of animal manures. Report 14. Final report to ERM. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Plant Research International.
   Google Scholar
• Lebacq T, Baret PV, Stilmant D. 2015. Role of input self-sufficiency in the economic and environmental sustainability of specialised dairy farms. Animal. 9(3):544–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee C, Hristov AN, Heyler KS, Cassidy TW, Lapierre H, Varga GA, Parys C. 2012. Effects of metabolizable protein supply and amino acids supplementation on nitrogen utilization, production and ammonia emissions from manure in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 95(9):5253–5268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovarelli D, Bava L, Zucali M, D’Imporzano G, Adani F, Tamburini A, Sandrucci A. 2019. Improvements to dairy farms for environmental sustainability in Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano production systems. Ital J Anim Sci. 18(1):1035–1048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucy M. 2001. Reproductive loss in high-production dairy cattle: Where will it end? J Dairy Sci. 84(6):1277–1293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martillotti F, Bartocci S, Terramoccia S. 1996. Tavole dei valori nutritivi degli alimenti di interesse zootecnico. Rome, Italy: Istituto Nazionale Di Economia Agraria.
   Google Scholar
• Mazzetto AM, Falconer S, Ledgard S. 2022. Mapping the carbon footprint of milk production from cattle: a systematic review. J Dairy Sci. 105(12):9713–9725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moallem U. 2016. Future consequences of decreasing marginal production efficiency in the high-yielding dairy cow. J Dairy Sci. 99(4):2986–2995.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemecek T, Kägi T. 2007. Life cycle inventories for Swiss and European agricultural production system – Final report Ecoinvent no 15. Dübendorf. Switzerland: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
   Google Scholar
• [NRC] National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient requirements of Dairy Cattle (7th rev. ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pe’Er G, Zinngrebe Y, Moreira F, Sirami C, Schindler S, Müller R, Bontzorlos V, Clough D, Bezák P, Bonn A, et al. 2019. A greener path for the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Science. 365(6452):449–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piazza M, Berton M, Amalfitano N, Bittante G, Gallo L. 2023. Cull cow carcass traits and risk of culling of Holstein cows and 3-breed rotational crossbred cows from Viking Red, Montbéliarde, and Holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci. 106(1):312–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pirlo G, Lolli S. 2019. Environmental impact of milk production from samples of organic and conventional farms in Lombardy (Italy). J Clean Prod. 211:962–971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramin M, Huhtanen P. 2013. Development of equations for predicting methane emissions from ruminants. J Dairy Sci. 96(4):2476–2493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SAS. 2013. SAS 9.4. Cary. New York: SAS Institute Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Sauvant D, Perez JM, Tran G, Fish D, Sauvant JM. 2004. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials: pigs, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, horses, Perez G., (Tran. Eds). Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Schiavon S, Carraro L, Dalla Bona M, Cesaro G, Carnier P, Tagliapietra F, Sturaro E, Galassi G, Malagutti L, Trevisi E, et al. 2015. Growth performance, and carcass and raw ham quality of crossbred heavy pigs from four genetic groups fed low protein diets for dry-cured ham production. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 208:170–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder CS, Bruulsema TW, Jensen TL, Fixen PE. 2009. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 133(3–4):247–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Styles D, Gonzalez‐Mejia A, Moorby J, Foskolos A, Gibbons J. 2018. Climate mitigation by dairy intensification depends on intensive use of spared grassland. Glob Chang Biol. 24(2):681–693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Wiel BZ, Weijma J, van Middelaar CE, Kleinke M, Buisman CJN, Wichern F. 2020. Restoring nutrient circularity: a review of nutrient stock and flow analyses of local agro-food-waste systems. Resour Conserv Recycl. 160:104901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vellinga TV, De 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(1–3):185–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B. 2016. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 21(9):1218–1230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar