IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v11y2018i2p451-d132511.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 1: Direct Energy Requirements

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe Todde

    (Department of Agricultural Science, University of Sassari, Viale Italia 39, 07100 Sassari, Italy)

  • Lelia Murgia

    (Department of Agricultural Science, University of Sassari, Viale Italia 39, 07100 Sassari, Italy)

  • Maria Caria

    (Department of Agricultural Science, University of Sassari, Viale Italia 39, 07100 Sassari, Italy)

  • Antonio Pazzona

    (Department of Agricultural Science, University of Sassari, Viale Italia 39, 07100 Sassari, Italy)

Abstract

Dairy cattle farms are continuously developing more intensive systems of management which require higher utilization of durable and not-durable inputs. These inputs are responsible of significant direct and indirect fossil energy requirements which are related to remarkable emissions of CO 2 . This study aims to analyze direct energy requirements and the related carbon footprint of a large population of conventional dairy farms located in the south of Italy. A detailed survey of electricity, diesel and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) consumptions has been carried out among on-farm activities. The results of the analyses showed an annual average fuel consumption of 40 kg per tonne of milk, while electricity accounted for 73 kWh per tonne of milk produced. Expressing the direct energy inputs as primary energy, diesel fuel results the main resource used in on-farm activities, accounting for 72% of the total fossil primary energy requirement, while electricity represents only 27%. Moreover, larger farms were able to use more efficiently the direct energy inputs and reduce the related emissions of carbon dioxide per unit of milk produced, since the milk yield increases with the herd size. The global average farm emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent, due to all direct energy usages, accounted for 156 kg CO 2 -eq per tonne of Fat and Protein Corrected Milk (FPCM), while farms that raise more than 200 heads emitted 36% less than the average value. In this two-part series, the total energy demand (Part 1 + Part 2) per farm is mainly due to agricultural inputs and fuel consumption, which have the largest quota of the annual requirements for each milk yield class. These results also showed that large size farms held lower CO 2 -eq emissions when referred to the mass of milk produced.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe Todde & Lelia Murgia & Maria Caria & Antonio Pazzona, 2018. "A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 1: Direct Energy Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:2:p:451-:d:132511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/2/451/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/2/451/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pagani, Marco & Vittuari, Matteo & Johnson, Thomas G. & De Menna, Fabio, 2016. "An assessment of the energy footprint of dairy farms in Missouri and Emilia-Romagna," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 116-126.
    2. Kraatz, Simone, 2012. "Energy intensity in livestock operations – Modeling of dairy farming systems in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 90-106.
    3. Markus Lips & Peter Rieder, 2005. "Abolition of Raw Milk Quota in the European Union: A CGE Analysis at the Member Country Level," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Giuseppe Todde & Lelia Murgia & Maria Caria & Antonio Pazzona, 2018. "A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 2: Investigation and Modeling of Indirect Energy Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Giuseppe Todde & Maria Caria & Filippo Gambella & Antonio Pazzona, 2017. "Energy and Carbon Impact of Precision Livestock Farming Technologies Implementation in the Milk Chain: From Dairy Farm to Cheese Factory," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-11, September.
    6. Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache & Roel Jongeneel & Vincent Réquillart, 2008. "Impact of a gradual increase in milk quotas on the EU dairy sector," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(4), pages 461-491, December.
    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. Martinho, Vítor João Pereira Domingues, 2021. "Direct and indirect energy consumption in farming: Impacts from fertilizer use," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    2. Hauke F. Deeken & Alexandra Lengling & Manuel S. Krommweh & Wolfgang Büscher, 2023. "Improvement of Piglet Rearing’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Using Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers—A Two-Year Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-30, February.
    3. Honorata Sierocka & Maciej Zajkowski & Grzegorz Hołdyński & Zbigniew Sołjan, 2023. "Characteristics of Electricity Consumption on the Example of Poultry Farming in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Giuseppe Todde & Lelia Murgia & Maria Caria & Antonio Pazzona, 2018. "A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 2: Investigation and Modeling of Indirect Energy Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Philip Shine & John Upton & Paria Sefeedpari & Michael D. Murphy, 2020. "Energy Consumption on Dairy Farms: A Review of Monitoring, Prediction Modelling, and Analyses," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-25, March.
    6. Hafiz Muhammad Abrar Ilyas & Majeed Safa & Alison Bailey & Sara Rauf & Marvin Pangborn, 2019. "The Carbon Footprint of Energy Consumption in Pastoral and Barn Dairy Farming Systems: A Case Study from Canterbury, New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-15, September.
    7. Witold Jan Wardal & Kamila Ewelina Mazur & Kamil Roman & Michał Roman & Marcin Majchrzak, 2021. "Assessment of Cumulative Energy Needs for Chosen Technologies of Cattle Feeding in Barns with Conventional (CFS) and Automated Feeding Systems (AFS)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.

    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. Philip Shine & John Upton & Paria Sefeedpari & Michael D. Murphy, 2020. "Energy Consumption on Dairy Farms: A Review of Monitoring, Prediction Modelling, and Analyses," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-25, March.
    2. Fabio A. Madau & Roberto Furesi & Pietro Pulina, 2017. "Technical efficiency and total factor productivity changes in European dairy farm sectors," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. David Pérez-Neira & Marta Soler-Montiel & Rosario Gutiérrez-Peña & Yolanda Mena-Guerrero, 2018. "Energy Assessment of Pastoral Dairy Goat Husbandry from an Agroecological Economics Perspective. A Case Study in Andalusia (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Giuseppe Todde & Lelia Murgia & Maria Caria & Antonio Pazzona, 2018. "A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 2: Investigation and Modeling of Indirect Energy Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    5. O’Brien, Donal & Shalloo, Laurence & Patton, Joe & Buckley, Frank & Grainger, Chris & Wallace, Michael, 2012. "A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 33-46.
    6. Martinho, Vítor João Pereira Domingues, 2021. "Direct and indirect energy consumption in farming: Impacts from fertilizer use," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    7. Salou, Thibault & van der Werf, Hayo M.G. & Levert, Fabrice & Forslund, Agneta & Hercule, Jonathan & Le Mouël, Chantal, 2017. "Could EU dairy quota removal favour some dairy production systems over others? The case of French dairy production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-10.
    8. Giuseppe Todde & Maria Caria & Filippo Gambella & Antonio Pazzona, 2017. "Energy and Carbon Impact of Precision Livestock Farming Technologies Implementation in the Milk Chain: From Dairy Farm to Cheese Factory," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-11, September.
    9. Kempen, Markus & Witzke, Peter & Pérez Domínguez, Ignacio & Jansson, Torbjörn & Sckokai, Paolo, 2011. "Economic and environmental impacts of milk quota reform in Europe," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-52, January.
    10. Nasca, J.A. & Feldkamp, C.R. & Arroquy, J.I. & Colombatto, D., 2015. "Efficiency and stability in subtropical beef cattle grazing systems in the northwest of Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 85-96.
    11. James D. A. Millington & Hang Xiong & Steve Peterson & Jeremy Woods, 2017. "Integrating Modelling Approaches for Understanding Telecoupling: Global Food Trade and Local Land Use," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-18, August.
    12. Grau, Aaron Stephan Alexander & Hockmann, Heinrich, 2017. "Estimating oligopsony power on two vertically integrated markets," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261277, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Matthews, Alan & Salvatici, Luca & Scoppola, Margherita, 2017. "Trade Impacts of Agricultural Support in the EU," Commissioned Papers 252767, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    14. Erika Carnevale & Giovanni Molari & Matteo Vittuari, 2017. "Used Cooking Oils in the Biogas Chain: A Technical and Economic Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    15. Witold Jan Wardal & Kamila Ewelina Mazur & Kamil Roman & Michał Roman & Marcin Majchrzak, 2021. "Assessment of Cumulative Energy Needs for Chosen Technologies of Cattle Feeding in Barns with Conventional (CFS) and Automated Feeding Systems (AFS)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Lehtonen, Heikki, 2008. "Resolving the conflict between environmental damage and agricultural viability on less favoured areas," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44150, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Oleg Bazaluk & Valerii Havrysh & Mykhailo Fedorchuk & Vitalii Nitsenko, 2021. "Energy Assessment of Sorghum Cultivation in Southern Ukraine," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-22, July.
    18. Krauß, Michael & Kraatz, Simone & Drastig, Katrin & Prochnow, Annette, 2015. "The influence of dairy management strategies on water productivity of milk production," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 175-186.
    19. Kazukauskas, Andrius & Newman, Carol F. & Thorne, Fiona S., 2010. "Analysing the Effect of Decoupling on Agricultural Production: Evidence from Irish Dairy Farms using the Olley and Pakes Approach," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 59(03), pages 1-14, September.
    20. Marie Dervillé & Gilles Allaire & Élise Maigné & Éric Cahuzac, 2017. "Internal and contextual drivers of dairy restructuring: evidence from French mountainous areas and post†quota prospects," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 91-103, January.

    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:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:2:p:451-:d:132511. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.