IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v181y2020ics0308521x19308674.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental impact and efficiency of use of resources of different mountain dairy farming systems

Author

Listed:
  • Berton, M.
  • Bittante, G.
  • Zendri, F.
  • Ramanzin, M.
  • Schiavon, S.
  • Sturaro, E.

Abstract

In the European Alps traditional, low-input dairy farming systems still coexist with modern high-input intensive systems. This study aimed at evaluating the effect of different Alpine farming systems on the environmental footprint, production efficiency (gross energy conversion ratio, ECR) and competition between feed and food (potentially human-edible gross energy conversion ratio, HeECR). Data originated from 37 dairy farms located in the Trento province (eastern Italian Alps), from which four dairy systems were derived by performing non-hierarchical cluster analysis based on farm facilities and management features (traditional, either with tie or loose stalls, and intensive, either with or without use of silages, systems). Environmental footprint was computed using a cradle-to-farm gate Life Cycle Assessment model. One kg fat- and protein-corrected Milk (FPCM) and 1 m2 of agricultural land were used as functional units. Global warming (GWP), acidification (AP) and eutrophication (EP) potentials, cumulative energy demand (CED) and land occupation (LO) were included as impact categories. System boundaries included herd and manure management, on-farm feedstuffs production and purchased feedstuffs and materials. Mean impact values per 1 kg FPCM were 1.0 ± 0.3 kg CO2-eq (GWP), 21.1 ± 4.3 g SO2-eq. (AP), 6.3 ± 1.2 g PO4-eq. (EP), 5.0 ± 2.0 MJ (CED), 1.4 ± 0.5 m2/y (LO), whereas per 1 m2 were 0.8 ± 0.3 kg CO2-eq (GWP), 16.3 ± 4.2 g SO2-eq. (AP), 4.9 ± 1.3 g PO4-eq. (EP), 3.8 ± 1.8 MJ (CED). Mean ECR was 5.17 ± 0.89 MJ/MJ, with 88% of gross energy provided by non-human edible feedstuffs. A large variability was found both between and within dairy systems, in terms of environmental footprint and production efficiency. Impact values were slightly greater per unit of product and lower per unit of area in traditional than in intensive farms, although generally without significant differences. Production efficiency of traditional farms was 17% lower in terms of ECR but 59% greater in terms of HeECR, due to a lower proportion of purchased concentrates in animal rations, with a positive contribution to food balance and diet self-sufficiency. These results indicate that the transition from traditional towards intensive systems improved only slightly the environmental footprint of dairy farming, but increased markedly its dependence on external concentrate feeds and the feed-food competition. In perspective, different aspects of mountain dairy systems, such as the conversion into food of human non edible feeds, the low impacts at the local scale, the ability to conserve grasslands under a land-sharing perspective, and in general the associated ecosystem services, should be considered when aiming to improve their environmental sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • 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," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:181:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x19308674
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102806
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X19308674
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102806?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alfons Weersink & Loren W. Tauer, 1991. "Causality between Dairy Farm Size and Productivity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1138-1145.
    2. Schiavon, Stefano & Sturaro, Enrico & Tagliapietra, Franco & Ramanzin, Maurizio & Bittante, Giovanni, 2019. "Nitrogen and phosphorus excretion on mountain farms of different dairy systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 36-47.
    3. Ertl, Paul & Klocker, Hannes & Hörtenhuber, Stefan & Knaus, Wilhelm & Zollitsch, Werner, 2015. "The net contribution of dairy production to human food supply: The case of Austrian dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 119-125.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marta Teston & Daniel Villalba & Marco Berton & Maurizio Ramanzin & Enrico Sturaro, 2020. "Relationships between Organic Beef Production and Agro-Ecosystems in Mountain Areas: The Case of Catalan Pyrenees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Jäger, Hieronymus & Peratoner, Giovanni & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Tasser, Erich, 2020. "Grassland biomass balance in the European Alps: current and future ecosystem service perspectives," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    3. Alba Vázquez-López & Manuel Marey-Perez, 2021. "Factors Affecting e-Government Adoption by Dairy Farmers: A Case Study in the North-West of Spain," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Palladini, Nicola Maria & Gislon, Giulia & Sandrucci, Anna & Zucali, Maddalena & Tamburini, Alberto & Bava, Luciana, 2024. "Assessment of food-feed competition for producing milk in cow dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    5. Diana Maria Ilie & Georgiana-Raluca Lădaru & Maria Claudia Diaconeasa & Mirela Stoian, 2021. "Consumer Choice for Milk and Dairy in Romania: Does Income Really Have an Influence?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marta Teston & Daniel Villalba & Marco Berton & Maurizio Ramanzin & Enrico Sturaro, 2020. "Relationships between Organic Beef Production and Agro-Ecosystems in Mountain Areas: The Case of Catalan Pyrenees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Smith, H. Arlen & Taylor, C. Robert, 1998. "Finite Mixture Estimation Of Size Economies And Cost Frontiers In The Face Of Multiple Production Technologies," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Yucan Liu & C. Richard Shumway & Robert Rosenman & Virgil Eldon Ball, 2011. "Productivity growth and convergence in US agriculture: new cointegration panel data results," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 91-102.
    4. Ahearn, Mary Clare & Yee, Jet & Huffman, Wallace E., 2002. "The Impact Of Government Policies On Agricultural Productivity And Structure: Preliminary Results," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19865, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Mugera, Amin W. & Langemeier, Michael R. & Featherstone, Allen M., 2012. "Labor Productivity Growth in the Kansas Farm Sector: A Tripartite Decomposition Using a Non-Parametric Approach," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Ford, Stephen A. & Shonkwiler, J. S., 1994. "The Effect of Managerial Ability on Farm Financial Success," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 150-157, October.
    7. Stefan J. Hörtenhuber & Verena Größbacher & Lisa Schanz & Werner J. Zollitsch, 2023. "Implementing IPCC 2019 Guidelines into a National Inventory: Impacts of Key Changes in Austrian Cattle and Pig Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    8. Hu, Beibei & Ding, Yang & Dong, Xianlei & Bu, Yi & Ding, Ying, 2021. "On the relationship between download and citation counts: An introduction of Granger-causality inference," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    9. Camilo Olaya, 2015. "Cows, agency, and the significance of operational thinking," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(4), pages 183-219, October.
    10. Rangalal Mohapatra & Bondona Lama, 2024. "An analysis of the determinants of productivity of Assam tea growers," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 4(12), pages 1-33, December.
    11. Huffman, Wallace E. & Evenson, Robert E., 2000. "Structural and productivity change in US agriculture, 1950-1982," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 127-147, January.
    12. Palladini, Nicola Maria & Gislon, Giulia & Sandrucci, Anna & Zucali, Maddalena & Tamburini, Alberto & Bava, Luciana, 2024. "Assessment of food-feed competition for producing milk in cow dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    13. El-Osta, Hirsham S. & Johnson, James, 1998. "Determinanats of Financial Performance of Commercial Dairy Farms," Technical Bulletins 184378, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. Martine Audibert, 1997. "Technical Inefficiency Effects Among Paddy Farmers in the Villages of the ‘Office du Niger’, Mali, West Africa," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 379-394, November.
    15. Cecilia Loza & Hannah Davis & Carsten Malisch & Freidhelm Taube & Ralf Loges & Amelia Magistrali & Gillian Butler, 2023. "Milk Fatty Acids: The Impact of Grazing Diverse Pasture and the Potential to Predict Rumen-Derived Methane," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    16. An, Henry, 2012. "Complementarities in Production Technologies: An Empirical Analysis of the Dairy Industry," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124653, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:181:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x19308674. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.