Cost-effective mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from different dairy systems in the Waikato region of New Zealand

A framework for cost-effectiveness analysis of greenhouse gas mitigation measures in dairy industry with an application to dairy farms in China

The dairy industry is a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Although much effort has been directed to explore the cost-effective measures for many sectors such as electricity, building infrastructure, transportation, research on mitigation measures within dairy industry remains limited. A notable obstacle is the absence of a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) framework to guide decision-makers and practitioners in this sector. In response, we propose a comprehensive CEA framework tailored to mitigate GHG emissions in the dairy industry. Our conceptual framework consists of six steps: defining the system boundary to determine the activities generating GHG emissions; identifying GHG emission sources within the system boundary; identifying potential mitigation measures; determining methods to quantify GHG emissions; collecting data to estimate both GHG emissions and mitigation costs; and applying general econometric methodologies to analyze the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures. We further conducted a case study focusing on dairy farms in China, analyzing three categories of mitigation measures: feed, energy, and manure management. The results indicate that implementing effective feed and energy measures is a cost-saving strategy, reducing the cost per unit of milk production. Conversely, adopting effective manure management measures may lead to increased costs for dairy farms. The findings offer strategic recommendations for reducing GHG emissions from dairy production in China and provide analytical insights and strategic references applicable to other developing countries.

Benefits and Trade-Offs of Dairy System Changes Aimed at Reducing Nitrate Leaching

Simple Summary

Reducing inputs of nitrogen fertiliser and purchased feed, with an associated reduction in stocking rate on pastoral dairy farms resulted in less nitrate leaching. A co-benefit was a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The exception was the implementation of a wintering barn where nitrate leaching was reduced, but greenhouse gas emissions remained unchanged due to greater manure storage and handling. Emission reductions in the lower-input systems came at an average loss of profit of approximately NZ$100 per tonne CO₂-equivalent.

Abstract

Between 2011 and 2016, small-scale farm trials were run across three dairy regions of New Zealand (Waikato, Canterbury, Otago) to compare the performance of typical regional farm systems with farm systems implementing a combination of mitigation options most suitable to the region. The trials ran for at least three consecutive years with detailed recording of milk production and input costs. Nitrate leaching per hectare of the milking platform (where lactating cows are kept) was estimated using either measurements (suction cups), models, or soil mineral nitrogen measurements. Post-trial, detailed farm information was used in the New Zealand greenhouse gas inventory methodology to calculate the emissions from all sources; dairy platform, dairy support land used for wintering non-lactating cows (where applicable) and replacement stock, and imported supplements. Nitrate leaching was also estimated for the support land and growing of supplements imported from off-farm using the same methods as for the platform. Operating profit (NZ$/ha/year), nitrate leaching (kg N/ha/year), and greenhouse gas emissions (t CO₂-equivalent/ha/year) were all expressed per hectare of milking platform to enable comparisons across regions. Nitrate leaching mitigations adopted in lower-input (less purchased feed and nitrogen fertiliser) farm systems reduced leaching by 22 to 30 per cent, and greenhouse gas emissions by between nine and 24 per cent. The exception was the wintering barn system in Otago, where nitrate leaching was reduced by 45 per cent, but greenhouse gas emissions were unchanged due to greater manure storage and handling. Important drivers of a lower environmental footprint are reducing nitrogen fertiliser and purchased feed. Their effect is to reduce feed flow through the herd and drive down both greenhouse gas emissions and nitrate leaching. Emission reductions in the lower-input systems of Waikato and Canterbury came at an average loss of profit of approximately NZ$100/t CO₂-equivalent (three to five per cent of industry-average profit per hectare).

The Effects of System Changes in Grazed Dairy Farmlet Trials on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Simple Summary

Dairy farm system practices aimed at reducing nitrate leaching can also reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide. A study comparing ‘current’ and ‘improved’ grazed dairy system practices showed that ‘improved’ systems generally produced lower greenhouse gas emissions while milk production was maintained. The amount of feed eaten per hectare was the key driver of total greenhouse gas emissions per area, with ‘improved’ systems generally exhibiting lower total enteric methane and less N flowing through the herd.

Abstract

An important challenge facing the New Zealand (NZ) dairy industry is development of production systems that can maintain or increase production and profitability, while reducing impacts on receiving environments including water and air. Using research ‘farmlets’ in Waikato, Canterbury, and Otago (32–200 animals per herd), we assessed if system changes aimed at reducing nitrate leaching can also reduce total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (methane and nitrous oxide) and emissions intensity (kg GHG per unit of product) by comparing current and potential ‘improved’ dairy systems. Annual average GHG emissions for each system were estimated for three or four years using calculations based on the New Zealand Agricultural Inventory Methodology, but included key farmlet-specific emission factors determined from regional experiments. Total annual GHG footprints ranged between 10,800 kg and 20,600 kg CO₂e/ha, with emissions strongly related to the amount of feed eaten. Methane (CH₄) represented 75% to 84% of the total GHG footprint across all modelled systems, with enteric CH₄ from lactating cows grazing pasture being the major source. Excreta deposition onto paddocks was the largest source of nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions, representing 7–12% of the total GHG footprint for all systems. When total emissions were represented on an intensity basis, ‘improved’ systems are predicted to generally result in lower emissions intensity. The ‘improved’ systems had lower GHG footprints than the ‘current’ system, except for one of the ‘improved’ systems in Canterbury, which had a higher stocking rate. The lower feed supplies and associated lower stocking rates of the ‘improved’ systems were the key drivers of lower total GHG emissions in all three regions. ‘Improved’ systems designed to reduced N leaching generally also reduced GHG emissions.

The performance of an efficient dairy system using a combination of nitrogen leaching mitigation strategies in a variable climate

An efficient dairy system, that implemented a combination of nitrogen (N) leaching mitigation strategies including lower N fertilizer input, standing cows off pasture for part of the day in autumn and winter (stand-off), and importing limited amounts of low protein supplements was evaluated over four consecutive years of a farmlet study. This efficient system consistently demonstrated a lower measured annual N leaching of 40 to 50% compared with a baseline system representing current practice with no mitigations. To maximize return from this system fewer cows but of higher genetic merit were used resulting in an average decrease in milk production of 2% and operating profit by 5% compared with the baseline system. The magnitude of the N leaching reduction from mitigation strategies was predicted in pre-trial modelling. Using similar mechanistic models in a post-trial study, we were able to satisfactorily predict the trends in the observed N leaching data over the four years. This enabled us to use the calibrated models to explore the contributions of the different mitigation strategies to the overall leaching reduction in the efficient system. In one of the years half of the leaching reduction was achieved by the 'input' component of the strategy (less feed N flowing through the herd from lower fertilizer use, less grass grown, and low-protein supplement use), while the other half was achieved by the stand-off strategy. However, these contributions are determined by the weather of a particular year. We estimate that on average stand-off would contribute 60% and 'input' 40% to the reduction. The implication is that farmers facing nutrient loss limitations have some current and some future technologies available to them for meeting these limitations. A shift towards the mitigations described here can result in a downward trend in their own N-loss metrics. The challenge will be to negate any reductions in production and profit, and remain competitive.

Optimising the interrelationship between intake per cow and intake per hectare

Production and profit in grazed systems remain inherently constrained by the fundamental trade-off between maximising individual herbage intake and pasture utilisation. The primary objective of this paper is to investigate the trade-off between herbage intake per cow and intake per hectare, from the perspective of economic optimisation, for an intensive pasture-based dairy farm in New Zealand (NZ). A detailed optimisation model of a dairy farm is applied, to allow the complex animal–plant–supplement dynamics underlying this relationship to be explicitly considered. Model output confirmed the existence of the fundamental inverse relationship between individual cow intake and herbage utilisation, which arises from the underlying biophysical dynamics within a grazing system, in the context of pasture-based NZ dairy farms. Results indicated that profitable management relies on increasing total pasture eaten (grazing plus pasture silage harvested on farm) through the use of a relatively high stocking rate and moderate levels of pasture intake per cow. Indeed, for 450 kg liveweight cows, optimal pasture intake per cow is 5 t dry matter (DM) per cow for per hectare intakes of 12–16 t DM/ha and 4.5 t DM/cow for a per hectare intake of 17 t DM/ha. Thus, a goal to maximise both individual intake and herbage utilisation in grazing systems is misinformed; it is the latter that is principally important to farm profit. Indeed, seeking to maximise both simultaneously is not possible, and trying to maximise individual intake can impose an enormous cost. However, while high herbage utilisation increases profit, this can also be associated with greater nutrient leaching, reinforcing the importance of considering the environmental impacts of grazing management.