草牧场的环境影响:基于自然的多样化情景的生命周期评估

IF 12.4 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Resources Environment and Sustainability Pub Date : 2023-05-29 DOI:10.1016/j.resenv.2023.100126
D. O’Brien , M. Markiewicz-Keszycka , J. Herron
{"title":"草牧场的环境影响:基于自然的多样化情景的生命周期评估","authors":"D. O’Brien ,&nbsp;M. Markiewicz-Keszycka ,&nbsp;J. Herron","doi":"10.1016/j.resenv.2023.100126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Diversification is widely considered to positively influence the environmental sustainability of livestock farming. Multiple options exist to diversify cattle farms, but few have been examined at a systems level for grass-based livestock farms. Three nature-based diversification options recommended for livestock farms were examined in this study: mixed grass–white clover swards (GWC), organic farming (OFS) and agroforestry (AGF). They were applied on dairy and suckler calf-to-beef farming systems common in the Republic of Ireland. Both of these bovine systems were evaluated over a 3-year period (2017–2019) and were nationally representative. The environmental impact and resource use of dairy and suckler calf-to-beef systems were modelled using life cycle assessment (LCA). The system boundary of the LCA model extended from the extraction of raw materials to the sale of milk and cattle from the farm, i.e. cradle to farm-gate. Six of the major environmental impacts of cattle farming were simulated; global warming potential (GWP), non-renewable energy (NRE) depletion, land occupation (LO), acidification potential (ACP), freshwater and marine eutrophication potential (FEP and MEP). Impacts were scaled to the following functional units: land area, fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM) for dairy and carcass weight (CW) for beef. The result illustrated that GWC swards reduced the GWP of milk production by 9% and cut the GWP of beef LW by 3%. Per unit of product, this strategy decreased ACP by 4%–5%, NRE depletion by 13%–19% and LO by 6%–7%. However, it increased MEP by 5%–12% due to clover fixing more N than it replaced. Cattle farms based on GWC were more productive than conventional farms, but tended to increase impacts per hectare. Organic farming had the lowest environmental impacts per unit of land and reduced GWP and NRE depletion. Without carbon sequestration, organic farming had the opposite effect on GWP of FPCM and increased ACP and MEP per product unit. Declines in productivity in organic systems led to the rise in these impacts per unit of product and increases in LO relative to conventional systems. Partial conversion (10%–20%) of grassland to silvopasture decreased milk and beef output, and slightly improved environmental performance. Carbon sequestration was greater in silvopasture than in grassland, albeit LCA models struggle to accurately quantify the influence of management change on this process. This issue can be overcome through more field and modelling research on sequestration. Further research is also required on combining diversification options to optimise the environmental sustainability of cattle farming.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34479,"journal":{"name":"Resources Environment and Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Environmental impact of grass-based cattle farms: A life cycle assessment of nature-based diversification scenarios\",\"authors\":\"D. O’Brien ,&nbsp;M. Markiewicz-Keszycka ,&nbsp;J. Herron\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resenv.2023.100126\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Diversification is widely considered to positively influence the environmental sustainability of livestock farming. Multiple options exist to diversify cattle farms, but few have been examined at a systems level for grass-based livestock farms. Three nature-based diversification options recommended for livestock farms were examined in this study: mixed grass–white clover swards (GWC), organic farming (OFS) and agroforestry (AGF). They were applied on dairy and suckler calf-to-beef farming systems common in the Republic of Ireland. Both of these bovine systems were evaluated over a 3-year period (2017–2019) and were nationally representative. The environmental impact and resource use of dairy and suckler calf-to-beef systems were modelled using life cycle assessment (LCA). The system boundary of the LCA model extended from the extraction of raw materials to the sale of milk and cattle from the farm, i.e. cradle to farm-gate. Six of the major environmental impacts of cattle farming were simulated; global warming potential (GWP), non-renewable energy (NRE) depletion, land occupation (LO), acidification potential (ACP), freshwater and marine eutrophication potential (FEP and MEP). Impacts were scaled to the following functional units: land area, fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM) for dairy and carcass weight (CW) for beef. The result illustrated that GWC swards reduced the GWP of milk production by 9% and cut the GWP of beef LW by 3%. Per unit of product, this strategy decreased ACP by 4%–5%, NRE depletion by 13%–19% and LO by 6%–7%. However, it increased MEP by 5%–12% due to clover fixing more N than it replaced. Cattle farms based on GWC were more productive than conventional farms, but tended to increase impacts per hectare. Organic farming had the lowest environmental impacts per unit of land and reduced GWP and NRE depletion. Without carbon sequestration, organic farming had the opposite effect on GWP of FPCM and increased ACP and MEP per product unit. Declines in productivity in organic systems led to the rise in these impacts per unit of product and increases in LO relative to conventional systems. Partial conversion (10%–20%) of grassland to silvopasture decreased milk and beef output, and slightly improved environmental performance. Carbon sequestration was greater in silvopasture than in grassland, albeit LCA models struggle to accurately quantify the influence of management change on this process. This issue can be overcome through more field and modelling research on sequestration. Further research is also required on combining diversification options to optimise the environmental sustainability of cattle farming.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resources Environment and Sustainability\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resources Environment and Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666916123000191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resources Environment and Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666916123000191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

多样化被广泛认为会对畜牧业的环境可持续性产生积极影响。有多种选择可以使养牛场多样化,但很少有人在系统层面上对草地畜牧场进行研究。本研究考察了推荐给畜牧场的三种基于自然的多样化选择:混合草-白三叶草草地(GWC)、有机农业(OFS)和农林业(AGF)。它们被应用于爱尔兰共和国常见的奶牛和乳牛养殖系统。这两种牛系统都经过了3年的评估(2017-2019),具有全国代表性。使用生命周期评估(LCA)对乳制品和乳牛与牛肉系统的环境影响和资源利用进行了建模。LCA模型的系统边界从原材料的提取延伸到农场的牛奶和牛的销售,即从摇篮到农场大门。模拟了养牛业对环境的六个主要影响;全球变暖潜能值(GWP)、不可再生能源(NRE)消耗、土地占用(LO)、酸化潜能值(ACP)、淡水和海洋富营养化潜能值(FEP和MEP)。影响按以下功能单位划分:土地面积、乳制品的脂肪和蛋白质校正乳(FPCM)和牛肉的胴体重量(CW)。结果表明,GWC切屑使牛奶产量的GWP降低了9%,使牛肉LW的GWP减少了3%。每单位产品,该策略将ACP降低4%-5%,NRE消耗降低13%-19%,LO降低6%-7%。然而,由于三叶草固定的氮比取代的氮多,它使MEP增加了5%-12%。基于GWC的养牛场比传统农场生产力更高,但往往会增加每公顷的影响。有机农业对每单位土地的环境影响最低,并减少了全球变暖潜能值和自然资源消耗。在没有碳固存的情况下,有机农业对FPCM的GWP产生了相反的影响,并增加了每产品单位的ACP和MEP。相对于传统系统,有机系统生产力的下降导致单位产品的这些影响增加,LO增加。将草原部分改为silvopaste(10%-20%)降低了牛奶和牛肉产量,环境绩效略有改善。尽管生命周期评价模型难以准确量化管理变化对这一过程的影响,但森林牧场的碳固存量大于草原。可以通过对固存进行更多的实地和建模研究来克服这一问题。还需要进一步研究将多样化选项结合起来,以优化养牛业的环境可持续性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Environmental impact of grass-based cattle farms: A life cycle assessment of nature-based diversification scenarios

Diversification is widely considered to positively influence the environmental sustainability of livestock farming. Multiple options exist to diversify cattle farms, but few have been examined at a systems level for grass-based livestock farms. Three nature-based diversification options recommended for livestock farms were examined in this study: mixed grass–white clover swards (GWC), organic farming (OFS) and agroforestry (AGF). They were applied on dairy and suckler calf-to-beef farming systems common in the Republic of Ireland. Both of these bovine systems were evaluated over a 3-year period (2017–2019) and were nationally representative. The environmental impact and resource use of dairy and suckler calf-to-beef systems were modelled using life cycle assessment (LCA). The system boundary of the LCA model extended from the extraction of raw materials to the sale of milk and cattle from the farm, i.e. cradle to farm-gate. Six of the major environmental impacts of cattle farming were simulated; global warming potential (GWP), non-renewable energy (NRE) depletion, land occupation (LO), acidification potential (ACP), freshwater and marine eutrophication potential (FEP and MEP). Impacts were scaled to the following functional units: land area, fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM) for dairy and carcass weight (CW) for beef. The result illustrated that GWC swards reduced the GWP of milk production by 9% and cut the GWP of beef LW by 3%. Per unit of product, this strategy decreased ACP by 4%–5%, NRE depletion by 13%–19% and LO by 6%–7%. However, it increased MEP by 5%–12% due to clover fixing more N than it replaced. Cattle farms based on GWC were more productive than conventional farms, but tended to increase impacts per hectare. Organic farming had the lowest environmental impacts per unit of land and reduced GWP and NRE depletion. Without carbon sequestration, organic farming had the opposite effect on GWP of FPCM and increased ACP and MEP per product unit. Declines in productivity in organic systems led to the rise in these impacts per unit of product and increases in LO relative to conventional systems. Partial conversion (10%–20%) of grassland to silvopasture decreased milk and beef output, and slightly improved environmental performance. Carbon sequestration was greater in silvopasture than in grassland, albeit LCA models struggle to accurately quantify the influence of management change on this process. This issue can be overcome through more field and modelling research on sequestration. Further research is also required on combining diversification options to optimise the environmental sustainability of cattle farming.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Resources Environment and Sustainability
Resources Environment and Sustainability Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
33 days
期刊最新文献
Unveiling driving disparities between satisfaction and equity of ecosystem services in urbanized areas Unraveling the impact of global change on glomalin and implications for soil carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems Appropriately delayed flooding before rice transplanting increases net ecosystem economic benefit in the winter green manure-rice rotation system Clubroot disease in soil: An examination of its occurrence in chemical and organic environments Based on experiment and quantum chemical calculations: a study of the co-pyrolysis mechanism of polyesterimide enameled wires with polyvinyl chloride and the catalytic effect of endogenous metal Cu
×
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