Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Nitrogen Intensity, Gross Margin, and Land Use Occupation between Comparable Conventional and Organic Managed Dairy Farms

Kristian Hansen, M. Koesling, H. Steinshamn, Bjørn Gunnar Hansen, Tomm Dalgaard, Sissel Hansen
{"title":"Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Nitrogen Intensity, Gross Margin, and Land Use Occupation between Comparable Conventional and Organic Managed Dairy Farms","authors":"Kristian Hansen, M. Koesling, H. Steinshamn, Bjørn Gunnar Hansen, Tomm Dalgaard, Sissel Hansen","doi":"10.23986/afsci.137608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this study, 200 Norwegian dairy farms were analyzed over three years to compare greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen (N) intensity, gross margin, and land use occupation between organically and conventionally managed farms. Conventionally managed farm groups were constructed based on propensity matching, selecting the closest counterparts to organically managed farms (n=15). These groups, each containing 15 farms, were differentiated by an increasing number of matching variables. The first group was matched based on geographical location, milk quota, and milking cow units. In the second match, the proportion of milking cows in the total cattle herd was added, and in the third, the ratio of milk delivered to milk produced and concentrate usage per dairy cow were included. The analysis showed that the conventionally managed farms (n=185) had higher greenhouse gas emissions (1.42 vs 0.98 kg CO2 per 2.78 MJ of edible energy from milk and meat, calculated as GWP100-AR4) and higher N intensity (6.9 vs 5.0 kg N input per kg N output) compared to the organic farms (N=15). When comparing emissions per kg of energy-corrected milk (ECM) delivered, conventional farms also emitted more CO2 (1.07 vs 0.8 kg CO2 per kg ECM). Furthermore, conventionally managed farms showed lower gross margins both in terms of NOK per 2.78 MJ edible energy delivered (5.8 vs 6.5 NOK) and per milking cow unit (30 100 vs 34 400 NOK), and they used less land (2.9 vs 3.6 m² per 2.78 MJ edible energy delivered) compared to organic farms. No differences were observed among the three conventionally managed groups in terms of emissions, N intensity, land use occupation, and gross margin.","PeriodicalId":505227,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural and Food Science","volume":" 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural and Food Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.137608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this study, 200 Norwegian dairy farms were analyzed over three years to compare greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen (N) intensity, gross margin, and land use occupation between organically and conventionally managed farms. Conventionally managed farm groups were constructed based on propensity matching, selecting the closest counterparts to organically managed farms (n=15). These groups, each containing 15 farms, were differentiated by an increasing number of matching variables. The first group was matched based on geographical location, milk quota, and milking cow units. In the second match, the proportion of milking cows in the total cattle herd was added, and in the third, the ratio of milk delivered to milk produced and concentrate usage per dairy cow were included. The analysis showed that the conventionally managed farms (n=185) had higher greenhouse gas emissions (1.42 vs 0.98 kg CO2 per 2.78 MJ of edible energy from milk and meat, calculated as GWP100-AR4) and higher N intensity (6.9 vs 5.0 kg N input per kg N output) compared to the organic farms (N=15). When comparing emissions per kg of energy-corrected milk (ECM) delivered, conventional farms also emitted more CO2 (1.07 vs 0.8 kg CO2 per kg ECM). Furthermore, conventionally managed farms showed lower gross margins both in terms of NOK per 2.78 MJ edible energy delivered (5.8 vs 6.5 NOK) and per milking cow unit (30 100 vs 34 400 NOK), and they used less land (2.9 vs 3.6 m² per 2.78 MJ edible energy delivered) compared to organic farms. No differences were observed among the three conventionally managed groups in terms of emissions, N intensity, land use occupation, and gross margin.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
同类传统奶牛场和有机管理奶牛场的温室气体排放、氮强度、毛利率和土地使用占用情况比较
在这项研究中,对 200 个挪威奶牛场进行了为期三年的分析,以比较有机管理农场和常规管理农场的温室气体排放量、氮(N)强度、毛利率和土地使用占用情况。常规管理牧场组的构建基于倾向匹配,选择与有机管理牧场最接近的牧场(n=15)。这些组别各包含 15 个农场,根据匹配变量数量的增加进行区分。第一组根据地理位置、牛奶配额和挤奶牛单位进行匹配。在第二组匹配中,加入了挤奶牛在牛群总数中所占的比例;在第三组中,加入了每头奶牛的交奶量与产奶量之比和精料用量。分析表明,与有机农场(N=15)相比,传统管理农场(N=185)的温室气体排放量更高(每 2.78 兆焦耳牛奶和肉类可食用能源产生 1.42 对 0.98 千克二氧化碳,以 GWP100-AR4 计算),氮强度更高(每千克氮产出投入 6.9 对 5.0 千克氮)。在比较每公斤能量校正牛奶(ECM)的排放量时,常规牧场的二氧化碳排放量也更高(每公斤能量校正牛奶排放 1.07 公斤二氧化碳,有机牧场排放 0.8 公斤二氧化碳)。此外,以每 2.78 兆焦耳可食用能量(5.8 挪威克朗对 6.5 挪威克朗)和每头挤奶牛单位(30 100 挪威克朗对 34 400 挪威克朗)计算,常规管理牧场的毛利率均低于有机牧场,而且与有机牧场相比,常规管理牧场使用的土地更少(每 2.78 兆焦耳可食用能量为 2.9 平方米对 3.6 平方米)。三个常规管理组在排放量、氮强度、土地使用占用和毛利率方面没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pulp mill sludges as a solution for reducing the risk of mineral nitrogen leaching from agriculture Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Nitrogen Intensity, Gross Margin, and Land Use Occupation between Comparable Conventional and Organic Managed Dairy Farms The effect of relative humidity and the use of algae-based biostimulants on fruit set, yield and fruit size of arctic bramble (Rubus arcticus) arcticus) Root growth dynamics and biomass input of four over-wintering herbaceous crops in boreal conditions Nitrogen Enriched Organic fertilizer (NEO) elevates nitrification rates shortly after application but has no lasting effect on nitrification in agricultural soils
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1