CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Sustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Environmental impacts of milk production and processing in the Eastern Alps: A “cradle-to-dairy gate” LCA approach

Open access
Berton, M., Bovolenta, S., Corazzin, M., Gallo, L., Pinterits, S., Ramanzin, M., Ressi, W., Spigarelli, C. +2 more·2021·Journal of Cleaner Production
DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127056
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the environmental footprint and feed energy conversion ratio of Alpine dairy chains in the Eastern Alps, taking into account both the milk production and dairy processing phases, and to identify farm management features useful for targeting mitigation measures in the production phase. A cradle-to-farm gate Life Cycle Assessment model that included herd and manure management, on-farm feedstuff production and purchased feedstuffs and materials (dairy farm), and production inputs and dairy outputs (dairy processing) was applied to 75 farms (10 dairies). As functional units, we used 1 kg fat- and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) and 1 m2 of agricultural land, to account for production intensity and land managed by alpine farms, respectively. Impact categories (CML-IA and CED methods, background data from Ecoinvent database) assessed were global warming (GWP), GWP plus land-use change (GWP_LUC), acidification (AP) and eutrophication (EP) potentials, cumulative energy demand (CED) and land occupation (LO). Feed energy conversion ratio (whole diet - ECR; potentially human-edible portion of the diet - HeECR) was computed as the ratio between gross energy in feeds and that in milk. Mean ECR was 6.6 ± 0.5 MJ feed/MJ milk, of which only 8% derived from potentially human-edible feedstuffs. For 1 kg of FPCM at the dairy farm, GWP averaged 1.19 kg CO2-eq, GWP_LUC 1.31 kg CO2-eq, AP 17.3 g SO2-eq and EP 6.0 g PO4-eq (coefficients of variation, CV, ranged 17–21%), whereas mean CED was 2.7 MJ and LO 2.1 m2/y (CVs: 40–46%). When dairy processing was included, the impact values for 1 kg of dairy product were from 8 to 13 times greater than those obtained for 1 kg FPCM. Based on the outcomes of a principal component analysis, the farm management features most related to impacts and feed ratios were milk yield (MY, for the impacts per unit of milk and ECR), stocking rate (SR, for the impacts per unit of area), and percentages of concentrates (C, for GWP_LUC and HeECR). Step-wise analysis evidenced that strategies aiming to decrease the environmental footprint referred to milk and managed area at the same time and to improve the feed energy conversion ratios should include MY, SR and C jointly. These issues are particularly important for the sustainability of mountain farming systems, which need to create a virtuous link with local forage resources and the territory.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127056

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Anzai, H., Wang, L., Oishi, K., Irbis, C., Li, K., Kumagai, H., Inamura, T., Hirooka, H., 2016. Estimation of nitrogen and phosphorus flows in livestock production in Dianchi Lake basin, China. Anim. Sci. J. 87 (1), 37e45. https://doi.org/10.1111/ asj.12390. · DOI
  2. Baldini, C., Gardoni, D., Guarino, M., 2017. A critical review of the recent evolution of Life Cycle Assessment applied to milk production. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 421e435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.078. · DOI
  3. Battaglini, L., Bovolenta, S., Gusmeroli, F., Salvador, S., Sturaro, E., 2014. Environ- mental sustainability of Alpine livestock farms. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 13, 431e443. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2014.3155. · DOI
  4. Bava, L., Bacenetti, J., Gislon, G., Pellegrino, L., D'Incecco, P., Sandrucci, A., Tamburini, A., Fiala, M., Zucali, M., 2018. Impact assessment of traditional food manufacturing: the case of Grana Padano cheese. Sci. Total Environ. 626, 1200e1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.143. · DOI
  5. Berton, M., Agabriel, J., Gallo, L., Lherm, M., Ramanzin, M., Sturaro, E., 2017. Envi- ronmental footprint of the integrated FranceeItaly beef production system assessed through a multi-indicator approach. Agric. Syst. 155, 33e42. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.005, 2017. · DOI · Paper page
  6. 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. Agric. Syst. 181 https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.agsy.2020.102806, 102806. · DOI
  7. Caro, D., Davis, S.J., Kebreab, E., Mitloehner, F., 2018. Land-use change emissions from soybean feed embodied in Brazilian pork and poultry meat. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 2646e2654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.146. · DOI
  8. Cocca, G., Sturaro, E., Gallo, L., Ramanzin, M., 2012. Is the abandonment of tradi- tional livestock farming systems the main driver of mountain landscape change in Alpine areas? Land Use Pol. 29 (4), 878e886. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2012.01.005. · DOI
  9. Djekic, I., Miocinovic, J., Tomasevic, I., Smigic, N., Tomic, N., 2014. Environmental life-cycle assessment of various dairy products. J. Clean. Prod. 68, 64e72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.054. · DOI
  10. Erjavec, K., Erjavec, E., 2015. Greening the CAP' e just a fashionable justification? A discourse analysis of the 2014e2020 CAP reform documents. Food Pol. 51, 53e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.006. · DOI
  11. Ertl, P., Klocker, H., H€ ortenhuber, S., Knaus, W., Zollitsch, W., 2015. The net contri- bution of dairy production to human food supply: the case of Austrian dairy farms. Agric. Syst. 137, 119e125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.04.004. · DOI
  12. Faccioni, G., Sturaro, E., Ramanzin, M., Bernu es, A., 2019. Socio-economic valuation of abandonment and intensification of Alpine agroecosystems and associated ecosystem services. Land Use Pol. 81, 453e462. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2018.10.044. · DOI
  13. Feldmann, C., Hamm, U., 2015. Consumers' perceptions and preferences for local food: a review. Food Qual. Prefer. 40, 152e164. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2014.09.014. · DOI
  14. Feucht, Y., Zander, K., 2017. Consumers' willingness to pay for climate-friendly food in European countries. Proceedings in Food System Dynamics 360e377. https:// doi.org/10.18461/pfsd.2017.1738. · DOI
  15. Finnegan, W., Yan, M., Holden, N.M., Goggins, J., 2018. A review of environmental life cycle assessment studies examining cheese production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23 (9), 1773e1787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1407-7. · DOI
  16. Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guin ee, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 91, 1e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2009.06.018. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Gerber, P., Vellinga, T., Opio, C., Steinfeld, H., 2011. Productivity gains and green- house gas emissions intensity in dairy systems. Livest. Sci. 139 (1e2), 100e108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.012. · DOI
  18. Gonz alez-García, S., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., Arroja, L., 2013. Envi- ronmental life cycle assessment of a Galician cheese: san Simon da Costa. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 253e262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.006. · DOI
  19. Guerci, M., Bava, L., Zucali, M., Tamburini, A., Sandrucci, A., 2014. Effect of summer grazing on carbon footprint of milk in Italian Alps: a sensitivity approach. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 236e244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.021. · DOI
  20. Humbert, J.Y., Dwyer, J.M., Andrey, A., Arlettaz, R., 2016. Impacts of nitrogen addi- tion on plant biodiversity in mountain grasslands depend on dose, application duration and climate: a systematic review. Global Change Biol. 22 (1), 110e120. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12986. · DOI
  21. IDF, 2015. Bulletin of the IDF No 479/2015. A Common Carbon Footprint Approach for Dairy Sector. The IDF Guide to Standard Life Cycle Assessment Methodology. International Dairy Federation (IDF), Brussels, Belgium.
  22. ISMEA, 2019. In: Rama, D. Osservatorio (Ed.), Il mercato del latte e rapporto 2018, sul mercato dei prodotti zootecnici (Cremona, Italy).
  23. Karali, E., Brunner, B., Doherty, R., Hersperger, A.M., Rounsevell, M.D., 2013. The effect of farmer attitudes and objectives on the heterogeneity of farm attributes and management in Switzerland. Hum. Ecol. 41 (6), 915e926. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10745-013-9612-x. · DOI
  24. Kiefer, L.R., Menzel, F., Bahrs, E., 2015. Integration of ecosystem services into the carbon footprint of milk of South German dairy farms. J. Environ. Manag. 152, 11e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.017. · DOI
  25. Kim, D., Thoma, G., Nutter, D., Milani, F., Ulrich, R., Norris, G., 2013. Life cycle assessment of cheese and whey production in the USA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1019e1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0553-9. · DOI
  26. Loiseau, E., Junqua, G., Roux, P., Bellon-Maurel, V., 2012. Environmental assessment of a territory: an overview of existing tools and methods. J. Environ. Manag. 112, 213e225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.024. · DOI
  27. Lorenz, H., Reinsch, T., Hess, S., Taube, F., 2019. Is low-input dairy farming more climate friendly? A meta-analysis of the carbon footprints of different pro- duction systems. J. Clean. Prod. 211, 161e170. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2018.11.113. · DOI
  28. Marini, L., Fontana, P., Klimek, S., Battisti, A., Gaston, K.J., 2009. Impact of farm size and topography on plant and insect diversity of managed grasslands in the Alps. Biol. Conserv. 142, 394e403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.034. · DOI
  29. NRC, 2001. NRC (National Research Council) Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th rev. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC (United States of America).
  30. Palmieri, N., Forleo, M.B., Salimei, E., 2017. Environmental impacts of a dairy cheese chain including whey feeding: an Italian case study. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 881e889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.185. · DOI
  31. Penati, C.A., Tamburini, A., Bava, L., Zucali, M., Sandrucci, A., 2013. Environmental impact of cow milk production in the central Italian Alps using Life Cycle Assessment. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 12 (4), e96. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2013.e96. · DOI
  32. Piermattei, S., 2013. Local farmers vs. environmental universalism: conflicts over nature conservation in the Parco Nazionale dei Monti Sibillini, Italy. Journal of Political Ecology 20 (1), 306e317. https://doi.org/10.2458/v20i1.21769. · DOI
  33. Potting, J., Hauschild, M.Z., 2006. Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment -a decade of method development to increase the environmental realism of LCIA. Int. J. LCA 11, 11e13. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.005. · DOI
  34. Ramin, M., Huhtanen, P., 2013. Development of equations for predicting methane emissions from ruminants. J. Dairy Sci. 96, 2476e2493. https://doi.org/10.3168/ jds.2012-6095. · DOI
  35. Ripoll-Bosch, R., Joy, M., Bernu es, A., 2014. Role of self-sufficiency, productivity and diversification on the economic sustainability of farming systems with autochthonous sheep breeds in less favoured areas in Southern Europe. Animal 8 (8), 1229e1237. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000529. · DOI
  36. Rivera-Ferre, M.G., L opez-i-Gelats, F., Howden, M., Smith, P., Morton, J.F., Herrero, M., 2016. Re-framing the climate change debate in the livestock sector: mitigation and adaptation options. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7 (6), 869e892. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.421. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Ross, S.A., Topp, C.F.E., Ennos, R.A., Chagunda, M.G.G., 2017. Relative emissions in- tensity of dairy production systems: employing different functional units in life-cycle assessment. Animal 11 (8), 1e8. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1751731117000052. · DOI
  38. Salvador, S., Corazzin, M., Piasentier, E., Bovolenta, S., 2016. Environmental assess- ment of small-scale dairy farms with multifunctionality in mountain areas. J. Clean. Prod. 124, 94e102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.001. · DOI
  39. Salvador, S., Corazzin, M., Romanzin, A., Bovolenta, S., 2017. Greenhouse gas balance of mountain dairy farms as affected by grassland carbon sequestration. J. Environ. Manag. 196, 644e650. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2017.03.052. SAS, 2013. SAS 9. · DOI
  40. Schmitz, C., Biewald, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., Dietrich, J.P., Bodirsky, B., Weindl, I., 2012. Trading more food: implications for land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and the food system. Global Environ. Change 22 (1), 189e209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.013. · DOI
  41. Strijker, D., 2005. Marginal lands in Europe e causes of decline. Basic Appl. Ecol. 6, 99e106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2005.01.001. · DOI · Paper page
  42. Sturaro, E., Cocca, G., Gallo, L., Mrad, M., Ramanzin, M., 2009. Livestock systems and farming styles in Eastern Italian Alps: an on-farm survey. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 8 (4), 541e554. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.541. · DOI
  43. Sturaro, E., Marchiori, E., Cocca, G., Penasa, M., Ramanzin, M., Bittante, G., 2013. Dairy systems in mountainous areas: farm animal biodiversity, milk production and destination, and land use. Livest. Sci. 158, 157e168. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.livsci.2013.09.011. · DOI
  44. Tasser, E., Walde, J., Tappeiner, U., Teutsch, A., Noggler, W., 2007. Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the eastern central Alps. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118, 115e129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.004. · DOI
  45. Tonini, D., Hamelin, L., Astrup, T.F., 2016. Environmental implications of the use of agro-industrial residues for biorefineries: application of a deterministic model for indirect land-use changes. Gcb Bioenergy 8 (4), 690e706. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/gcbb.12290. · DOI
  46. Van Hal, O., De Boer, I.J.M., Muller, A., De Vries, S., Erb, K.H., Schader, C., Van Zanten, H.H.E., 2019. Upcycling food leftovers and grass resources through livestock: impact of livestock system and productivity. J. Clean. Prod. 219, 485e496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.329. · DOI
  47. Weersink, A., Tauer, L.W., 1991. Causality between dairy farm size and productivity. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73 (4), 1138e1145. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242442. · DOI
  48. Wilkinson, J.M., Lee, M.R.F., 2018. Use of human-edible animal feeds by ruminant livestock. Animal 12 (8), 1735e1743. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S175173111700218X. · DOI
  49. Wilkinson, J.M., 2011. Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal 5, 1014e1022. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173111100005X. · DOI
  50. Zoderer, B.M., Stanghellini, P.S.L., Tasser, E., Walde, J., Wieser, H., Tappeiner, U., 2016. Exploring socio-cultural values of ecosystem service categories in the Central Alps: the influence of socio-demographic factors and landscape type. Reg. En- viron. Change 16 (7), 2033e2044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0922-y. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berton, M., Bovolenta, S., Corazzin, M., Gallo, L., Pinterits, S., Ramanzin, M., Ressi, W., Spigarelli, C., Zuliani, A., & Sturaro, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • University of Udine (IT)
Corresponding author
Berton, M.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
303
Pages
127056
ISSN
0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127056
OpenAlex
W3154988323
Cited by
58
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5
FWCI
3.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Institutional Research Information System (University of Udine) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Interreg (ITAT2009)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Keywords
dairy production, dairy processing, Eastern Alps, global warming potential, land use change, acidification, eutrophication, cumulative energy demand, land occupation, animal feed, milk yield, stocking rate, concentrates, mitigation measures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review