Abstract
Understanding the environmental consequences associated with dairy cattle production systems is crucial for the implementation of targeted strategies for emission reduction. However, few studies have modelled the effect of tailored emission mitigation options across key European dairy production systems. Here, we assess the single and combined effect of six emission mitigation practises on selected case studies across Europe through the Sustainable and Integrated Management System for Dairy Production model. This semi-mechanistic model accounts for the interacting flows from a whole-farm perspective simulating the environmental losses in response to different management strategies and site-specific conditions. The results show how reducing the crude protein content of the purchased fraction of the diet was an adequate strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas and nitrogen emission intensity in all systems. Furthermore, implementing an anaerobic digestion plant reduced the greenhouse gas emissions in all tested case studies while increasing the nitrogen emissions intensity, particularly when slurry was applied using broadcast. Regarding the productivity increase, contrasting effects were observed amongst the case studies modelled. Moreover, shallow slurry injection effectively mitigated the intensity of nitrogen losses from the fields due to strong reductions in ammonia volatilisation. When substituting urea with ammonium nitrate as mineral fertiliser, site-specific conditions affected the mitigation potential observed, discouraging its application on sandy-loam soils. Rigid slurry covers effectively reduced the storage-related nitrogen emissions intensity while showing a minor effect on total greenhouse gas emission intensity. In addition, our results provide novel evidence regarding the advantages of cumulative implementation of adapted mitigation options to offset the negative trade-offs of single-option applications (i.e. slurry covers or anaerobic digestion and slurry injection). Through this study, we contribute to a better understanding of the effect of emission mitigation options across dairy production systems in Europe, thus facilitating the adoption of tailored and context-specific emission reduction strategies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Dairy cattle production systems (DPS) are a strategic food production sector for the socioeconomic development of Europe (Bórawski et al. 2020). Some of them provide strong identity and cultural heritage elements by preserving traditions, landscapes, and biodiversity (Sturaro et al. 2013). In addition, unlike other animal categories, ruminants transform fibrous biomass, inedible for humans or monogastric animals, into high-quality nutritionally concentrated products, thereby contributing to global food security (Ertl et al. 2015; Feil et al. 2020). Likewise, in addition to providing feed for the DPS, the maintenance of grasslands is presented as a way to increase carbon stocks, thus contributing to the mitigation of agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Smith et al. 2016; Whitehead 2020). However, the increasing demand for milk and dairy products, together with a shift towards production intensification, heavily affects the environmental impact, social perception, and economic performance of the sector (Salou et al. 2017; Styles et al. 2018). In this complex and challenging scenario, adapted approaches must be taken to ensure the future viability and sustainability of DPS (Díaz de Otálora et al. 2021).
GHG emissions and nitrogen (N) losses from livestock production threaten the environmental quality and human health. At the global scale, 14.5% of anthropogenic GHG emissions come from the livestock sector (Gerber et al. 2013), of which 20% are directly associated with DPS (Tricarico et al. 2020). On-farm methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) contribute the most to non-carbon dioxide emissions from DPS (UNFCCC 2023). For the year 2020, enteric fermentation and manure management CH4 emissions in the European Union of the 27 accounted for 74 Mt of CO2-eq, whereas those associated with N2O emissions (fields and manure management) reached a value of 16 Mt of CO2-eq (FAO 2023). Furthermore, N losses in the form of ammonia (NH3), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and N2O associated with manure management (fields and storage) and fertilisers are key drivers of the environmental impact of DPS (Leip et al. 2015). In this sense, at the European level, NH3 and NOx emissions contribute significantly to the total particulate matter (PM2.5) (Wyer et al. 2022). Furthermore, nitrate leaching (NO3-) into waterways could potentially increase the toxicity of water meant for animal and human consumption (Doole 2012). However, the sources and magnitude of these losses are highly dependent on management practises. Differences in feed compositions, manure management practises, or fertilisation schemes determine the emissions associated with DPS (Christie et al. 2011; Wattiaux et al. 2019). Similarly, GHG emissions and N losses are sensible to the existing pedoclimatic conditions (i.e. air temperature, soil texture, precipitation). Clear examples of this effect are the direct correlation between CH4 emission from manure and air temperature (Baldé et al. 2016) or the link between some soil texture and GHG and N emission from fertiliser application (Shakoor et al. 2021). In this context, improved animal efficiency, better slurry storage, and application practises, or the use of alternative mineral fertilisers, have been described as effective measures to reduce GHG and N emissions of DPS (Aguirre-Villegas et al. 2019; Nartey et al. 2021; Arndt et al. 2022).
To date, the individual effect of mitigation measures on single farms and specific emission sources has been widely explored in the literature. Previous studies have highlighted the positive impact of diet-oriented mitigation options on CH4 and NH3 emissions (Ouatahar et al. 2021). Substantial reductions in enteric CH4 have been reported by increasing the level of concentrates in the diet and modulating the forage-to-concentrate (F:C) ratio (Martin et al. 2010; Congio et al. 2021). In addition, modulating dietary protein content has been shown to limit N losses from DPS (Sajeev et al. 2018a). As for emissions derived from manure management, DPS represent an important source of GHG and N losses (Vangeli et al. 2022). To this end, improved manure management and slurry application techniques contribute to reducing these emissions (Owen and Silver 2015; Petersen 2018). Moreover, high-efficiency covers and anaerobic digestion (AD) plants significantly reduce NH3, CO2, and CH4 emissions, and for the latter, generate energy from alternative sources (Clemens et al. 2006; Burg et al. 2018; Kupper et al. 2020). However, scale and contextual limitations in existing studies do not allow for a comprehensive assessment of different mitigation measures on case study farms from key European regions for dairy production (Fig. 1). Thus, there is a need to better assess the individual and combined effects of adapted mitigation measures on key European DPS, facilitating the application of context-specific policies. In this context, previous works have highlighted the positive effect that the combination of mitigation options from different fields has on the reduction of the adverse effects of their individual application by promoting synergies and positive interactions (Prudhomme et al. 2020).
Amongst the wide range of methods and models available (Schils et al. 2007a; Rotz 2018; Ahmed et al. 2020; Díaz de Otálora et al. 2021), whole-farm models are presented as valuable tools to analyse the effects of mitigation options on DPS sustainability (Crosson et al. 2011). These models consider individual farm processes in a systemic manner, capturing the trade-offs between farm components (i.e. soil, crops, feed, animals, and manure) and assessing the interactions with GHG and air pollutants (Schils et al. 2007b). In this context, selecting the most appropriate modelling tool is essential to obtain meaningful results to promote the sustainability of DPS (Díaz de Otálora et al. 2021). The Sustainable and Integrated Management Systems for Dairy Production (SIMSDAIRY) integrates the major components of a dairy farm into a modelling framework with a system-based approach (Del Prado et al. 2011). In this way, interactions between farm management, climatic conditions, and environmental characteristics are assessed, and their effects on GHG and N emissions are simulated (Del Prado and Scholefield 2008; Del Prado et al. 2010, 2013b).
Given the diversity of DPS across Europe, the effectiveness and applicability of mitigation options are subject to major uncertainty (Sommer et al. 2009). Different levels of specialisation, structural characteristics, and production contexts can classify DPS into multiple typologies and largely determine their emission performances and mitigation potentials (Gonzalez-Mejia et al. 2018; Díaz de Otálora et al. 2022). In this context, there is a lack of knowledge about the effect of different emission reduction options on diverse DPS and in various pedoclimatic conditions. Since the adoption of approaches considering the particular attributes of the different farms is a much-needed prerequisite for the successful reduction of the emission on DPS, this study aims to assess the effects of selected and context-specific mitigation options on a wide range of GHG emissions and N losses of six key DPS across Europe through the SIMSDAIRY model on a 1-year period. Furthermore, the combined effects of GHG and N mitigation measures at the whole-farm level are assessed, thus paving the way for better and more adapted decision-making.
2 Material and methods
2.1 DPS description
Data for the 2020 accounting year from six case study DPS across Europe (Germany, Poland, Italy, Norway, and Ireland) was used for this study. All the DPS studied were specialised in milk production, with more than two-thirds of their economic output coming from the dairy enterprise (EUROSTAT 2015). The selected case studies represented different typologies of DPS based on their production systems, intensity, productivity, management practises, structural characteristics, and socioeconomic attributes (Díaz de Otálora et al. 2022). The required information for the modelling exercise and characterisation (i.e. herd management and production, manure and fertilisation management, production) was collected through interviews with the farmers. The monthly meteorological information was extracted from nearby weather stations to the farms for the assessed period (2020). Key attributes of the different DPS analysed are presented in Table 1.
As for the pedoclimatic characteristics, the Western European conventional intensive DPS (WCi) featured a sandy soil and a temperate humid climate, while the Western European organic semi-extensive DPS (WOs) presented a sandy loam soil with a temperate humid climate. Likewise, the Central-Eastern European conventional semi-extensive DPS (ECs) exhibited a cold humid climate with a clay loam soil texture. The Atlantic conventional semi-extensive (ACs) had the same climate as WCi but presented a loam soil texture. As for the Mediterranean European conventional intensive DPS (MCi), a temperate humid climate and sandy loam soil were noted. Lastly, the Northern European conventional semi-extensive DPS (NCs) presented a cold, humid climate, and a clay soil texture.
The size of the farms in terms of the number of animals varied from large farms in Southern Europe (MCi) to small farms in Central-Eastern Europe (ECs). However, the number of animals was not directly correlated with the size of the farm in terms of utilised agricultural area (UAA), resulting in a lower stocking rate on farms with a larger area (i.e. WOs). In addition, diet played a fundamental role in determining the productivity of the analysed DPS. Higher productivity was associated with intensive systems characterised by a more significant presence of concentrates (lower forage-to-concentrate ratio), whole plant maize in the diet, and the absence of grazing. This was the case for WCi, with 30.6 kg milk cow−1 day−1, and MCi, with 26.2 kg milk cow−1 day−1. In contrast, semi-extensive systems with greater forage in the diet (mainly grass, grass silage, or maize silage) and more grazing days present lower milk yields. This is especially notable in ACs, where production was 15.1 kg milk cow−1 day−1, or in WOs and NCs, where productivity reached 21.1 and 21.5 kg milk cow−1 day−1.
As for manure management (production, storage, and application), the evaluated farms showed significant differences in the systems present and technologies applied. All DPS, except for ECs and MCi, were characterised by the predominance of liquid slurry as a manure management system (on average, 70% slurry compared to 30% solid manure). Regarding slurry storage, a great diversity of technologies was observed. Crusted slurry tanks were the predominant typology (WCi, WOs, MCi, and ACs), followed by rigid covers (NCs and ECs). The slurry was applied as organic fertiliser using a shallow injection (WCi and ACs), band spreading (WOs), or broadcast (ECs, MCi, and NCs).
Regarding the utilised agricultural area (UAA) distribution for each case study analysed, grasslands (temporary and permanent) accounted for 100 and 86% of the area in the ACs and NCs, respectively. In the case of ECs, grasslands occupied 71% of the farm, while lower values were observed in WCi, MCi, and WOs, with 55, 46, and 44% of the UAA. As for mineral fertilisation, three were the predominant typologies observed: calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN), ammonium nitrate (AN), and urea. Mineral fertiliser was applied in all the DPS analysed, except in the system with organic production (WOs). In the case of MCi and ACs, only urea was applied as mineral fertiliser in doses of 124 and 43 kg N ha−1 of total UAA. In ECs and NCs, a combination of AN and urea was applied, reaching a total dose of mineral N of 43 and 128 kg N ha−1 of total UAA. Finally, in WCi, CAN and urea were applied with a total mineral fertiliser dose at the farm level of 85 kg N ha−1 of UAA.
2.2 Modelling environmental impacts
SIMSDAIRY is one of the existing whole-farm models specifically developed to simulate within a year the monthly interactions between farm management, climate, soil type, and the GHG emissions and N losses from DPS (Schils et al. 2007c; Del Prado et al. 2011, 2013a). A detailed description of the main characteristics and underlying principles of the model used in this manuscript (including the original and modified version used in this study) is described in Del Prado et al. (2011) and in Supplementary Material 4. SIMSDAIRY has proved its appropriateness for assessing synergies and trade-offs associated with different farming management options since it showcases the effect of various management strategies on N losses and GHG emissions from different sources (Del Prado et al. 2010).
SIMSDAIRY integrates the significant components of a dairy farm (i.e. animals, manure, fields, off-farm emissions) into a modelling framework using a system-based approach. Furthermore, the modular construction of SIMSDAIRY allows to perform calculations at different farm levels or subsystems either using already existing models (i.e. MANNER (Chambers et al. 1999) and NGAUGE (Brown et al. 2005)) or specific module developments. In this way, N flows and GHG emissions are simulated for a given combination of management strategies, soil textures, and farm characteristics (i.e. manure storage and application).
The model calculations are presented in the following sequence (Figure 9 of Supplementary Material 4). First, the dry matter (DM) yield, N per ha, and the crude protein (CP) content of forage crops in the fields are calculated based on the monthly-based NGAUGE model results that include all N inputs to the fields except for those coming from stored manure (stored manure is calculated as an internal flow in subsequent steps). Second, animal energy requirements are estimated using as input the herd management characteristics and the previously estimated nutritional values (i.e. CP) from on-farm forage. Additionally, manure emissions and a first estimation of manure characteristics (i.e. total N and ammonium N) and total volume applied to the field are also calculated based on the first animal and field calculations. At this stage, the on-farm forage surface is estimated (requirements of initial on-farm forage DM are met with DM per ha yields from the different field types). Therefore, as the third step, there is a subsequent update of DM and N yield per ha, and CP content of forage considering the fertilising effect of applied manure. Fourth, another model iteration updates the previously estimated animal energy requirements using the updated on-farm forage characteristics. In this step, CH4 from enteric fermentation, manure volatile solids, and manure CH4 and N losses are calculated. SIMSDAIRY repeats these iterations until a steady state is reached (i.e. until the forage hectares of each field type do not change significantly from one iteration to the next).
As for emission calculations, enteric CH4 is estimated following a Tier 2 approach from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) refinement to the Guidelines (Gavrilova et al. 2019). These emissions are calculated from the gross energy (GE) intake and the methane emission factor (Ym) as a function of feed quality and level of feed intensification. Animal performance and diet data are used to estimate feed intake according to animal needs. Likewise, CH4 emissions from manure are calculated using the approach from the IPCC 2019 Guidelines refinement (Gavrilova et al. 2019). In this case, volatile solid content is calculated on a monthly basis using emission factors (EF) or, in the case of slurry storage, following the approach provided in the spreadsheet model for slurry emissions from the IPCC (MCF Calculations Example Spreadsheet) (Gavrilova et al. 2019). Furthermore, excreted N by the animals is estimated by subtracting N in milk and net body change from the N ingested by each type of animal (i.e. grazing or housed). In this case, urine and dung losses are divided following the equations derived from existing trials where urine and dung N are expressed as a function of N and DM intake (Reed et al. 2015). With regard to carbon dioxide (CO2) and as described in Supplementary Material 4, SIMSDAIRY uses (DEFRA 2010) EF to estimate CO2 emissions from electricity and fuel usage. Furthermore, pre-farm emissions from purchased concentrates and inorganic fertilisers were estimated following the approach by Casey and Holden (2005). SIMSDAIRY does not consider the C balance related to the respiration/fixation and the addition of C through the concentrate.
Nitrogen losses (NH3, N2O, NO3-, and NOx) are divided into two groups: (i) manure (housing, yards, and storage) and (ii) fields and crops (fields and silage). The manure N losses and fluxes are simulated following the principles of a mass-balance approach (Webb and Misselbrook 2004). N losses are calculated from the pool of total ammoniacal nitrogen (TAN) in manure according to different EF for different manure management stages. As for housing emissions, SIMSDAIRY follows the approach and EF reported by the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP) (European Environmental Agency 2019). For this, two initial separate housing phases (yards and housing) are considered. After subtracting N losses generated during housing from the initial TAN content in manure, N losses from storage are predicted as a percentage of the remaining TAN content using EF for different storage systems (Del Prado et al. 2011).
Field and crop N losses are modelled using a semi-mechanistic approach where pedoclimatic characteristics determine the amount of inorganic N in the soil denitrified, nitrified, or lost by leaching. In this case, the NGAUGE model was applied following the iterations described above. Parameters sensitive to soil moisture and air temperature were adjusted for European diversity. Furthermore, SIMSDAIRY estimates the amount of nitrogen lost (NH3 and NOx) during silage conservation. The model considers five qualitative classes of silage management (from very good to very poor) associated with a fixed N loss (Bastiman and Altman 1985). Furthermore, SIMSDAIRY estimates the proportion of the NH3/NOx that is volatilised or NO3- that is leached based on Chapter 11 of the IPCC 2019 refinement to the guidelines as a way of estimating indirect N2O emissions.
SIMSDAIRY’s suitability for the analysis of the effect of different mitigation measures has been demonstrated in previous works (Del Prado et al. 2010). In this sense, SIMSDAIRY has demonstrated its ability to capture the system’s response towards different emission mitigation options and production optimization strategies according to a series of context-specific characteristics. Furthermore, the modular construction of SIMSDAIRY allows for the incorporation of additional models that evaluate mitigation measures not implemented in the original version (i.e. SIMSWASTE (Pardo et al. 2017)). In addition, SIMSDAIRY has also been continuously updated by incorporating updated emission factors and calculation approaches (i.e. IPCC 2019 refined Guidelines and EMEP/EAA 2019). The wide acceptance of the calculation methods included in the SIMSDAIRY, its modular construction, and the contrasted capabilities of the model allow for its application to a wide variety of systems.
Furthermore, Supplementary Material 4 provides a sensitivity analysis of the original version of the SIMSDAIRY modelling framework. In this analysis, the influence of selected numerical and categorical input variable values (i.e. days in housing, herd size, milk production, protein/fat content, dietary neutral detergent fibre content, manure application, soil texture, slurry application method) on output variables (i.e. N losses, surface area) was tested. According to the results, SIMSDAIRY was sensitive to relevant numerical and categorical variable changes.
Total GHG and N emission intensities (GHGint and Nint) were calculated with the following equation (Eq. 1):
where \({Em}_{int}\) represents the GHGint (expressed in kg CO2-eq kg milk−1) or Nint (expressed in g N kg milk−1).
In the case of the GHGint, \(\sum {Em}_{individual}\) considers all the GHG emission intensities under study (CO2, CH4, and N2O). CH4 and N2O emissions were converted to CO2-eq using the 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP-100) values of 27.2 (non-fossil fuel CH4) and 273 (N2O) according to the latest Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) from the IPCC (Forster et al. 2021). As for the Nin, \(\sum {Em}_{individual}\) represents the sum of all the emission intensities from the reactive N losses assessed (NH3, NO3-, N2O, and NOx). These losses were normalised based on their nitrogen content (NOx-N, N2O-N, NH3-N, and NO3--N).
2.3 Mitigation measures
The modelled emission reduction options were selected by the researchers and existing literature (i.e. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2015)) based on three criteria: (i) the mitigation strategies had to be implemented by modifying the user inputs required by SIMSDAIRY, (ii) the mitigation options should cover different management aspects of DPS (fields, manure, diet, animals), and (iii) the mitigation options should be tailored to the baseline characteristics of the case studies analysed. As a result, six mitigation options were identified and classified into two categories according to their scope: (i) diet management and (ii) slurry management and fertiliser application.
2.3.1 Diet management
An increase in the productive performance associated with a greater fraction of purchased feed (e.g. concentrates) (PI) was simulated. This measure has previously proven effective in reducing enteric CH4 emissions (Arndt et al. 2022) and was especially relevant in DPS typologies with high forage supply and low productivity. However, the optimal ratio of forage to concentrate in lactating dairy cows is commonly discussed in the literature. A forage-to-concentrate ratio (F:C) of 70:30 is considered a high-forage formulation, while a ratio of 30:70 is considered a low-forage diet (Jaakamo et al. 2019). In this sense, an F:C ratio of 60:40 is generally considered a good compromise regarding milk yield and emissions (Mertens 2009; Aguerre et al. 2011). To this end, in conventional dairy production systems with a ratio above 70:30, their forage ratio in the diet was reduced to 60:40. As an organic DPS that initially did not present any purchased feed, WOs was excluded from this mitigation strategy. Furthermore, reducing the forage supply has been related to increased productivity due to lower fibre content and higher diet digestibility (Ben Meir et al. 2021). In a previous study, an increase in production of close to 15% was observed when concentrates were increased in the diet (Mckay et al. 2019). As an approximation to the previously observed results, a 15% increase was applied in both DPS.
Secondly, the crude protein (CP) content of the purchased feed was reduced to minimise N excretion in the farms. This measure was proven to have a mitigating effect on NH3 emissions (Hristov et al. 2011) and was particularly suitable for DPS where the CP content of the purchased fraction of the diet was exceptionally high. While ACs presented a CP content of 14%, higher values were observed in WCi (27%), ECs (23%), MCi (20%), and NCs (18%). In the case of WOs, although the CP content was 15%, as an organic DPS that originally did not present any purchased concentrates, this DPS was excluded from this mitigation strategy. In this line, previous studies have demonstrated that reducing CP levels to around 14% in dairy cow concentrates increases the efficiency and reduces N excretion while not affecting the productive performance of the animals (Hynes et al. 2016). Consequently, the CP content of the purchased fraction of the diet was reduced to 14% in WCi, ECs, MCi, and NCs.
2.3.2 Slurry management and fertiliser application
Regarding slurry management and fertiliser application, four mitigation measures were modelled. First, the effect of high-efficiency covers on slurry storage (HESc) was evaluated as a mitigation option for reducing N losses during the storage phase (Oenema et al. 2007). The impact of rigid covers was modelled in DPS that initially presented with open or slatted storage (without a crust). This was the case of WCi, WOs, MCi, and ACs. Second, concerning the slurry application, several authors highlighted the mitigation potential of high-efficiency shallow injection (HESa) techniques compared to broadcast to reduce NH3 emissions (Duncan et al. 2017). To this end, shallow injection was implemented in DPS where slurry was applied using broadcast or band spreading (i.e. WOs, ECs, MCi, and NCs).
Urea is one of the most widely used nitrogen sources, but at the same time, it is associated with higher NH3 emissions than other mineral fertilisers (i.e. ammonium nitrate (AN)) (Del Moro et al. 2017). Therefore, substituting urea with alternative fertilisers has been reported as an effective mitigation measure to reduce NH3 emissions (Ti et al. 2019). In this case, the substitution of urea by AN was evaluated in those DPS where only urea was applied (maintaining the originally reported application rate). Likewise, it was ensured that none of the DPS where this mitigation option was applied had sandy soil texture, commonly associated with higher nitrate leaching (Witheetrirong et al. 2011). Consequently, MCi and ACs were selected for this mitigation strategy.
Finally, the effect of anaerobic digestion (AD) was modelled. The proposed AD plant only considers the slurry produced in the different DPS as substrate. Although AD plants commonly rely on crop residues, energy crops (e.g. maize), and other organic residues as substrates, this manuscript modelled the theoretical effect of slurry-based AD on the GHG and N losses. AD implementation is limited mainly by the slurry availability (Scott and Blanchard 2021). Therefore, we assumed that DPS with at least 100 livestock units (LU) and cattle staying less than two-thirds of the year at pasture qualified for this mitigation option (i.e. WCi, WOs, and MCi), as an appropriate flow of slurry is necessary to ensure the economic and technical viability of the digester (Pellerin et al. 2013; Höglund-Isaksson et al. 2016). In order to simulate the C and N transformations associated with manure processed through AD, the SIMSWASTE model was applied (Pardo et al. 2017). Flow (on a yearly basis) and basic chemical composition of manure (i.e. volatile solids, N, and TAN) were detailed as primary inputs. In addition, parameters describing operational conditions were modelled. A mesophilic temperature regime was assumed in the digester, in a covered digestion tank with residual biogas collection. The amount and composition of biogas and digestate (i.e. TAN content) were estimated as outputs of the model, as well as energy produced and gaseous emissions associated with digester leakages and biogas combustion. Avoided emissions of manure processed through AD were calculated according to IPCC guidelines (Gavrilova et al. 2019), considering covered digestate storage. Avoided emissions of biogas energy production were calculated assuming that biogas displaces electricity production from natural gas, according to an emission factor of 0.47 tCO2-eq megawatts−1 (Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories 2016). In addition, slurry derived from AD (digestate) was subsequently applied as organic fertiliser in a similar manner to the baseline scenario with untreated manure but considering the new characteristics regarding total and inorganic N content.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Baseline GHG and N emission intensity
An average GHGint of 1.1 ± 0.27 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 was obtained. As shown in Table 2, the highest values were observed in the Northern conventional semi-extensive DPS (NCs) with a GHGint of 1.6 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1, followed by the Mediterranean conventional intensive DPS (MCi) with 1.4 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1. The Atlantic conventional semi-extensive (ACs) and the Eastern-Central European conventional semi-extensive DPS (ECs) DPS accounted for 1.1 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 each. Lastly, the Western European organic semi-extensive (WOs) and the Western European conventional intensive DPS (WCi) obtained a GHGint of 0.9 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 each.
When comparing the results obtained with those reported in the literature, baseline GHGint for both German DPS aligns with previously obtained results (0.8–1.8 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1) (Zehetmeier et al. 2020). As for MCi, previous studies for Italian DPS with similar milk production showed values between 1.3 and 1.6 kg CO2-eq per unit of product (Lovarelli et al. 2019). In this context, the obtained results are consistent with the previous author’s findings. The results obtained in the NCs were similar to those observed by previous authors who, in comparable productive and geographical contexts, observed GHG emissions ranging between 1.2 and 1.6 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (Mittenzwei 2020). Lastly, concerning ACs, farms with comparable productions (5500 kg FPCM animal−1 year−1) obtained a value of total GHG emissions close to 1 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (O’Brien et al. 2015), in line with the results obtained for this study.
On average, enteric and manure CH4 and CO2 from feed purchases constituted 67% of the GHGint. Enteric CH4 emissions were the largest source of GHG in all DPS, representing 39% of the average GHGint. However, differences were observed across the analysed DPS. For instance, the percentage of GHGint associated with enteric CH4 in intensive DPS (WCi and MCi) was lower than that obtained for semi-extensive systems (WOs, ECs, NCs, and ACs) 33 ± 4.3% vs 42 ± 9.5%. These lower values were associated with the feeding strategy, predominantly based on concentrates and forage such as green maize, whose higher digestibility reduces fermentation time and enteric CH4 emissions (Hassanat et al. 2013; Lettat et al. 2013). Conversely, intensive systems showed a higher share of manure CH4 emissions over the total GHGint than those observed for semi-extensive DPS (20 ± 0.5% vs 10 ± 2.8%). As acknowledged by previous authors, intensification (i.e. animal numbers and housing time) is associated with larger direct manure-related emissions (Petersen et al. 2013). Additionally, while emissions related to feed purchase represented 11 ± 7.6% of GHGint in semi-extensive DPS, higher values were reached in the intensive systems (25 ± 0.4%). This could be due to the fact that intensive DPS are characterised by a higher reliance on off-farm feed inputs (Reinsch et al. 2021), which are commonly associated with significant off-farm GHG emissions (Battini et al. 2016). Lastly, as noted by previous authors, excretion during grazing substantially contributes to N2O emissions (Soares et al. 2023). This is confirmed by our results that showed higher N2O emissions (direct and indirect) from the fields in semi-extensive (16 ± 5.8%) than intensive (5 ± 3.0%) DPS.
Concerning the Nint, an average value of 13.5 ± 4.66 g N kg milk−1 was obtained. In this context, previously published modelling results at the European scale indicated that total N emissions per unit of dairy product ranged from 10 to 50 g N kg−1 (Leip et al. 2014). As for the individual assessment, the highest values were observed in the Atlantic and Northern European conventional semi-extensive systems (ACs and NCs) with 20.3 and 17.7 g N kg milk−1, respectively. These DPS were followed by the Mediterranean intensive conventional (MCi) (13.7 g N kg milk−1) and the Eastern-Central European conventional semi-extensive system (ECs) (11.7 g N kg milk−1). Lastly, the Western European semi-extensive organic (WOs) and Western European intensive conventional (WCi) accounted for 9.4 and 8.5 g N kg milk−1, respectively.
The breakdown of the N losses showed that, on average, 54% of the Nint was associated with NH3 emissions. To a lesser extent, NO3- losses represented 40% of the Nint, while NOx and N2O emissions accounted for 4 and 2%, respectively. The fields were the largest source of N losses, averaging 69% of the Nint. Higher values were shown in semi-extensive systems (WOs, ECs, NCs, and ACs) than in intensive DPS (WCi and MCi), with values ranging between 77 ± 5.6 and 53 ± 12.7%. Although fertilisers were applied in semi-extensive and intensive DPS, a higher deposition of excreted N in fields was noted in semi-extensive DPS. According to the literature, this is one of the key factors causing higher N emissions for this DPS typology (Gourley et al. 2012). As for the combined N losses during housing and yards, our results showed higher emissions for intensive DPS than in semi-extensive DPS (27 ± 8.9% vs 13 ± 3.3%). Similarly, N emissions from storage were higher in intensive systems (8 ± 1.0%) than in semi-extensive (3 ± 1.0%) DPS. Due to their location and production system, emissions regarding silage-making could be a concern for particular DPS. In this context, as described by previous authors, intensive farms are more inclined to use silage in addition to concentrate (Gallo et al. 2022), which results in higher emissions from this system for this N source.
3.2 Mitigated modelling
Main variations concerning the baseline modelling for each gas (i.e. CH4, N2O, CO2, NH3, NO3-, and NOx) were detailed. Complete results can be found in Supplementary Material 1 (in %) and Supplementary Material 2 (in absolute values).
3.2.1 Diet management
The productive performance (PI) increase showed contrasting effects depending on the DPS. This mitigation option decreased the Nint in ACs by 3.0 (−15%) and 2.0 (−17%) g N kg milk−1 in EC. However, contrasting effects were found for the GHGint. In this case, a reduction of 0.03 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (−3%) in ECs and an increase of 0.01 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (1%) in ACs were noted. Both enteric and manure CH4 emissions intensity were substantially mitigated in both DPS, showing reductions of 0.05 (−12%) and 0.03 (−19%) kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 in the ECs, and 0.06 (−11%) and 0.02 (−18%) in the ACs, while increasing the emission intensity from feed purchases by 107% (0.12 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1) in ECs and by 95% (0.15 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1) in the ACs. As for the N losses, it is essential to highlight the baseline characteristics of the purchased fraction of the diet in each DPS. While in the ACs the CP content was 14%, in the ECs this value was notably higher (23%). As demonstrated by previous authors, dairy cows fed with high protein content concentrates (ECs) lead to a higher N excretion (Mulligan et al. 2004). Our results confirm previous findings showing an increase in NH3 losses of 0.004 g N kg milk−1 from ECs, while in the ACs these emissions were reduced by 1.07 g N kg milk−1 (−20%). This increase in NH3 emissions directly affects indirect N2O emissions associated with manure management and fields. As indicated by previous authors, higher NH3 increases indirect N2O emissions (Nevison 2000; Martins et al. 2015). The obtained modelling outputs are consistent with these findings, showing an increase of 0.001 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 in the indirect N2O emission from manure only in the case of ECs. As for the rest of the N losses (NO3-, N2O, and NOx), reductions were observed in both DPS. According to the obtained results, the overall effectiveness of the tested mitigation options must be assessed from a holistic perspective. As mentioned by previous authors and further demonstrated by our results, the increase in concentrate supply can lead to undesirable negative trade-offs at the whole-farm scale (Wilkinson et al. 2019). Moreover, an increased supplementation of a concentrate rich in grains could lead to rumen acidosis and affect herd health (Kleefisch et al. 2018; Petri et al. 2021). This would result in higher economic costs in the long term, making this measure inadvisable if attention is not paid to concentrate composition and dosage. As an alternative, diversified, and integrated forage systems with high-quality silages have proven to be a feasible alternative to concentrates as they allow for better productivity without compromising the environmental performance of the farms, at the same time that they promote circularity and reduce food-feed competition (Gislon et al. 2020; Gaudaré et al. 2021; Díaz de Otálora et al. 2022).
Reducing the CP content of the purchased diet fraction decreased the total Nint from WCi, ECs, MCi, and NCs. The observed mitigation potential for N losses was more significant in the WCi, ECs, and MCi than in the NCs, with reductions of 2.2 (−26%), 0.7 (−6%), 2.1 (−15%), and 0.4 (−2%) g N kg milk−1. As for the GHGint, emissions were mitigated from 0.02 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 in MCi to 0.0001 kg CO2-eq kg milk-1 in NCs. N2O emissions from manure management (direct and indirect) and the fields (indirect and direct) were reduced in all DPS. In the case of the MCi, these emissions were mitigated by 0.02 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1, followed by the WCi (0.017 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1), the ECs (0.004 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1), and the NCs, (0.0001 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1). As for the Nint, the observed reduction was primarily due to the effect of CP reduction on NH3 emissions. Such values were mitigated by 1.9 (−34%), 0.8 (−14%), 1.9 (−16%), and 0.7 (−8%) g N kg milk−1 in the WCi, ECs, MCi, and NCs, respectively. Regarding other N sources, both DPS showed lower values from the yards, housing, storage, and fields. Moreover, the N2O reduction observed has been previously described as a positive synergy derived from a better N-use efficiency and lower NH3 excretion (Powell and Rotz 2015). In this sense, as described by previous authors (Niu et al. 2016; Schrade et al. 2023) and confirmed by our results, lowering the CP content mitigates NH3 emissions early in the manure management chain by reducing the amount of N supplied (Sajeev et al. 2018a). In addition to the amount of N excreted, a reduced ratio between urinary and dung N is favoured, which lowers the ratio between TAN and organic N, thus decreasing NH3 losses (Kebreab et al. 2001; Sajeev et al. 2018a, b). Furthermore, positive long-term effects of this measure include reduced lameness (Sinclair et al. 2014). However, attention should be paid to an excessive reduction of CP, as this could result in undesirable reductions in protein yields and animal productivity (Mutsvangwa et al. 2016). This requires carefully considering this measure to ensure that nutritional needs are met, and unintended consequences on production levels are avoided (Del Prado et al. 2013a). As for the suitability of this mitigation option, DPS with a higher CP content (WCi, ECs, and MCi) have a higher mitigation potential than those with a lower baseline CP content (NCs). In this sense, a comprehensive diet composition analysis is crucial to identify which DPS the reduction of CP content leads to the most significant emission reduction.
3.2.2 Slurry management and fertiliser application
Implementing high-efficiency rigid slurry storage covers (HESc) in WCi, WOs, MCi, and ACs was associated with a decrease in the N losses from storage from all DPS due to the favourable effect of rigid covers when reducing NH3 and N2O from this source (Berg et al. 2006). In this sense, our results confirm previous authors’ findings by showing reductions of N losses from storage ranging from 0.4 (−48%) in the WCi to 0.2 (−45%) g N kg milk−1 in the ACs. However, a negative trade-off was observed with field emissions, which were increased in all DPS ranging from 0.9 g N kg milk−1 in ACs to 0.1 g N kg milk−1 in the WCi and WOs. As mentioned by previous authors, covered slurry tanks are associated with lower TAN losses (Baldé et al. 2018). Therefore, higher TAN content in the slurry after storage could increase N losses in the following steps of the manure management chain (e.g. field application) (Pedersen et al. 2021). However, rigid covers are a good mitigation option for direct and indirect manure N2O emissions. These reductions ranged from 0.01 to 0.005 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 for the direct emissions and from 0.002 to 0.001 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 for the indirect N2O. These findings were associated with the relative environmental advantage of rigid covers over other options (i.e. open with crust), which is expressed in the SIMSDAIRY model by a lower EF (Del Prado et al. 2011). Lastly, no emission reductions were observed in CH4 emissions from manure. Overall, HESc is an effective option for reducing GHG and N emissions, especially during manure storage (Viguria et al. 2015; Kupper et al. 2020). Compared to permeable or semi-permeable membranes, completely sealed covers significantly reduce N losses and GHG emissions (Montes et al. 2013). Although there is no variation in CH4 emissions, several studies have attributed promising results in reducing this gas after applying this type of cover (Reis et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2021). Furthermore, the negative trade-offs observed after the application of this measure (i.e. higher field emissions) could be mitigated by the combination with additional measures during storage (e.g. acidification) by improving application techniques (e.g. injection) or by reducing the N application rate (Fangueiro et al. 2018; Pedersen et al. 2022). This would be especially advisable in those intensive systems where the production and application of slurry as organic fertiliser are more prominent (i.e. MCi) or systems with high-emitting slurry application technologies.
Shallow slurry injection (HESa), implemented in WOs, ECs, MCi, and NCs, reduced the GHGint of WOs, ECs, and MCi while marginally increasing the one from the NCs. Furthermore, the increase of direct N2O emissions ranged from 8% (0.02 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1) of NCs to 0.5% (0.001 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1) in the ECs. In contrast, indirect N2O emissions from fields were reduced in all DPS, ranging from 0.01 to 0.006 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1, presenting a greater mitigation potential in the MCi (−31%). No variations were observed for the rest of the GHG. As for Nint, reductions ranged from 2.4 (−17%) g N kg milk−1 in the MCi to 0.9 (−10%) in the WOs. The breakdown of N emissions showed mitigation of NH3 emissions in all DPS, being especially relevant in MCi with 2.9 g N kg milk−1 (−25%). In addition, this measure led to an overall increase in NO3- leaching and N2O emissions in the MCi. In contrast, all DPS reduced their N emission from the fields reaching a reduction of 2.4 g N kg milk−1 (−28%) in the case of the MCi. As described by previous studies and demonstrated by our results, HESa could be associated with lower NH3 and indirect N2O emissions but higher direct N2O emissions (Rodhe et al. 2006; Bessou et al. 2010; Langevin et al. 2015). Our results align with those described by previous authors (Herr et al. 2019), as indirect N2O emission reductions may derive from less NH3 volatilisation (Räbiger et al. 2020). Further mitigation of the field emission could be achieved through the use of nitrification inhibitors as a way to reduce both NH3 and N2O losses (Fan et al. 2022). Overall, our results indicate that it is advisable to adjust the fertiliser dose to avoid possible leaching and N2O emission in those DPS with high N input (MCi) (Min et al. 2012).
Urea substitution increased the GHGint of the MCi by 0.003 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (0.2%) while reducing by 0.003 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (−0.3%) the one in ACs. Furthermore, direct N2O emission intensity from the fields increased by 0.01 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 in MCi. In contrast, indirect N2O emissions from the fields were reduced by −3% (0.003 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1) in ACs and by −7% in MCi (0.004 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1). Regarding Nint, a positive effect was observed in both DPS, with a reduction of 0.6 g N kg milk−1 (−4%) in MCi and 0.5 g N kg milk−1 (−2%) in ACs. This mitigation option was associated with lower NH3 emissions, which were reduced by 0.6 (−6%) g N kg milk−1 in the MCi and 0.4 (−8%) g N kg milk−1 in the ACs. In contrast, N2O emission and NO3- leaching were increased more significantly in the MCi. This may be associated with the soil texture of the MCi (sandy loam) and the higher doses of N applied, thus potentially leading to higher leaching values (Zhou et al. 2006). In this context, attention should be paid to the N source used for substitution, as the effectiveness of the mitigation option could vary (Rahman and Forrestal 2021). As demonstrated by our results, nitrate-based fertilisers increased the N2O emissions compared to urea (Harty et al. 2016). This is mainly due to the higher nitrification and denitrification potential of AN (Wrage et al. 2004) and higher TAN per ha applied to the fields considering a much lower N volatilisation loss just after application. Therefore, incorporating N stabilisers or nitrification inhibitors (not considered by the current version of the model) and the optimization of fertiliser application could further decrease NH3 and N2O emissions (Wang et al. 2020, 2021; Rahman et al. 2021). Overall, the increase in field NO3- losses and N2O emissions could advise against the change to AN from a whole-farm perspective in farms with high N input and soils with a higher proportion of sand (MCi).
Lastly, implementing AD in WCi, WOs, and MCi reduced the GHGint in all DPS, with a greater mitigation potential in WCi than in MCi or WOs. In this line, the WCi showed a GHGint reduction of 0.17 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (−19%), while MCi and WOs accounted for reductions of 0.17 (−12%) and 0.09 (−10%) kg CO2-eq kg milk−1. Notable reductions were observed in manure (CH4 and N2O) and energy-related (CO2) emissions. For instance, CH4 from manure was reduced by 0.14 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (−55%) in MCi, 0.14 (−80%), and 0.07 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (−79%) in WCi and WOs, respectively. Furthermore, CO2 emission intensity related to energy use was mitigated in a range of 0.03 to 0.01 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1. As for Nint, differences in mitigation potential were observed across DPS with reductions of 0.3 g N kg milk−1 (−3%) in WCi and an increase of 0.01 (0.1%) and 0.6 g N kg milk−1 (5%) in WOs and MCi, respectively. Furthermore, an increase in field N losses was observed in all the DPS evaluated when AD was applied. In the same line as the results obtained for the HESc and the HESa, the higher content of TAN in the digestate, combined with a higher and more frequent organic fertiliser application, could derive in a N supply above crop demand (Perego et al. 2012). Likewise, the baseline technology applied (i.e. broadcast, band spreading, or injection) conditions the observed values. Nevertheless, storage N losses were lowered in all DPS due to the advantage of AD in reducing NH3 emissions, ranging from 0.6 g N kg milk−1 in WCi to 0.3 g N kg milk−1 in WOs. Overall, implementing AD plants was a valuable way of reducing manure storage emissions through biogas recovery systems, especially when covered digestion tanks are adopted, as considered in this study (Harrison and Ndegwa 2020; Kim and Karthikeyan 2021). Previous studies highlighted the potential of this technology in reducing GHG emissions from manure (Clemens et al. 2006; Scott and Blanchard 2021). Our results align with these findings and confirm AD effectiveness in various DPS. Moreover, the potential of this measure goes beyond emission reduction, as it can play an essential role in the circularity of farming systems through the generation of renewable energy (Holly et al. 2017; Stanchev et al. 2020). Nevertheless, special attention should be paid to using digestate as fertiliser as it could lead to higher N losses after application (Baldé et al. 2018; Aguirre-Villegas et al. 2019) unless rates from other N fertiliser forms (especially mineral fertiliser) are reduced accordingly. This was demonstrated as an especially relevant trade-off in those intensive systems with higher fertilisation rates (MCi). Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the emissions from a holistic perspective, assessing the possible negative interactions (i.e. pollutant swapping) associated with the single application of AD as a mitigation option.
3.2.3 Combined application
In contrast to previous studies that described the effect of individual options, the applied modelling framework considered the interactions between different measures. In this way, a particular measure’s negative or positive effects could be influenced by the combined effect of two or more mitigation options (Del Prado et al. 2010; Beukes et al. 2011). This approach enabled the assessment of the suitability of a wide range of measures in different production contexts and as supported by our results, achieved positive emission reduction results (Vellinga et al. 2011). In addition to the full application of the selected mitigation options for each case study, in those DPS where more than two mitigation options were applied, the effect of an alternative combination of mitigation options has been modelled based on their single impact on the GHGint and Nint.
Figures 2 and 3 show the single and combined effect of the selected mitigation options on each modelled DPS. For the GHG sources, enteric (CH4), manure (CH4 and direct/indirect N2O), field-related (direct/indirect N2O), and emissions from other sources (CO2 from feed purchases, energy use, and fertiliser purchases) were considered. As for the N emission sources, yards, housing, storage, fields, and silage were evaluated. Mitigation results for the entire sample (in % and absolute values) are presented in Supplementary Material 3.
The combined application of HESc, CP, and AD resulted in positive synergies that reduced the Nint by 2.3 g N kg milk−1 (−27%) and the GHGint by 0.2 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (−20%) in the WCi. Figure 2 shows that a reduction of 0.16 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (−76%) in the manure-related GHG emission (CH4 and direct and indirect N2O) was observed. Less prominent reductions were achieved for the emission intensity from other GHG sources (feed purchase, energy use, and fertiliser purchase), which were mitigated by 0.01 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (−5%). For this DPS, no variations were observed in the enteric GHG emissions. As for the N losses, those related to manure storage were reduced by 0.6 g N kg milk−1 (−83%) (due to strong reductions of N2O and NH3). In addition, emission intensity from the housing and the yards was mitigated by 0.8 (−40%) and 0.3 (−40%) g N kg milk−1. As demonstrated by our results, the joint application of the abovementioned mitigation options in Western European conventional intensive DPS resulted in significant reductions of GHGint and Nint creating positive synergies that reduced the negative effect of measures acting separately. In addition, the combined application of CP reduction and the HESC reduced by 0.02 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 GHGint (−3%). This value was significantly lower than the one observed from the application of the three options together (i.e. reduction of CP, HESc, and AD). However, this alternative combination showed better results for the Nint from the fields, which were reduced by 0.75 g N kg milk−1 (−20%) due to the avoidance of the negative effect of AD on N losses from this source. Overall, the modelled mitigation options for this DPS were adequate as no major negative trade-offs were identified, and positive synergies were enhanced (i.e. NH3 manure storage emissions).
Regarding WOs, the joint implementation of HESa, HESc, and AD decreased the GHGint by 0.1 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (−11%) and 1.1 g N kg milk−1 (−12%) the Nint. The reduction in GHGint was mainly associated with emissions from manure (CH4 and N2O) which were mitigated by 0.08 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (−72%) and the fields (N2O) with a reduction of 0.004 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (−6%). To a lesser extent, the combined action of the mitigation measures resulted in a reduction in other GHG sources, mostly associated with emissions intensity from energy use of 0.01 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (−5%). Regarding the breakdown of N emission sources, emissions from the storage were mitigated by 0.29 (−78%) g N kg milk−1. This result was expected because both mitigation measures significantly reduced N2O and NH3 emissions during the manure storage period. In addition, the combined application of HESa and HESc in the absence of AD reduced GHGint less prominently compared to the full implantation of mitigation measures (−1% or 0.01 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1) while obtaining similar results for the reduction of the Nint (−11% or 1.1 g N kg milk−1). In addition, this combination obtained better results in mitigating N losses from the fields (−13% or 0.9 g N kg milk−1). Due to the nature of organic systems, the applicability of diet-oriented measures is limited. Likewise, this same production system limits the number of improvements made at the field scale (i.e. mineral fertilisers). For this reason, the joint implementation of the proposed mitigation options is effective and feasible for semi-extensive organic systems. At the same time, future modelling exercises should explore the possibility of increasing the forage quality to enhance the milk yields.
The combined application of PI, CP, and HESa resulted in a −4% (0.04 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1) reduction of the GHGint and a −36% mitigation (4.2 g N kg milk−1) of the Nint for ECs. While enteric (CH4), manure (CH4 and N2O), and field (N2O) emissions were reduced by 0.05 (−12%), 0.03 (−20%), and 0.06 (−34%) kg CO2-eq kg milk−1, an increase in emissions from other sources (0.1 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1), mainly associated with CO2 emissions from feed purchases, was observed. Regarding the N emission sources assessed, the combined application of measures significantly reduced emissions in all sources evaluated. The results showed how the negative trade-offs associated with the single application of PI (i.e. NH3, losses from the yards and housing) were reversed by implementing, at the same time, a reduction of CP in the purchased fraction of the diet. Compared to implementing all the suggested options, increasing the share of the purchased feed and decreasing its CP content produced similar outcomes concerning the GHGint. However, a lower potential for Nint mitigation was observed in this alternative combination. This lower performance relates to the Nint from the fields, which were reduced to a lower extent by this alternative approach. Consequently, fully adopting the mitigation options demonstrates better performance (−36% or 4.2 g N kg milk−1) in reducing Nint compared to applying just two mitigation techniques (−29% or 3.4 g N kg milk−1). In the case of ECS, our results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed combined tailored application of mitigation measures preventing unwanted pollutant swapping and improving the mitigation potential. In addition, to further reduce the negative impacts of the concentrate increase, future work should address the effect of improved dietary forages to increase productivity.
Applying HESa, HESc, CP, the substitution of urea, and the AD plant resulted in reductions of the GHGint (−15%) and Nint (−31%) of MCi, accounting for 0.2 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 and 4.3 g N kg milk−1, respectively. Manure-related and external input GHG emissions (i.e. energy use) were mitigated by 0.2 (−52%) and 0.03 (−5%) kg CO2-eq kg milk−1. However, proposed mitigation options increased the direct field N2O emissions by 0.01 (15%) kg CO2-eq kg milk−1. Concerning the Nint, remarkable reductions were observed in manure storage (0.5 g N kg milk−1 (−51%)) mainly derived from the lower NH3 emissions, which were reduced by 41% (4.7 g N kg milk−1). Furthermore, the proposed mitigation measures reduced the previously noted negative trade-offs associated with the field emissions. In contrast, the applied mitigation scheme further enhanced the losses of NO3-, which were increased by 0.4 (26%) g N g milk−1, respectively. While implementing the AD plant has a significant positive effect on the GHGint, this was not accompanied by a reduction of the Nint. While the proposed combination of mitigation strategies effectively reduced the GHGint and Nint emissions, mainly from manure storage, the combined application of the proposed options resulted in a higher TAN content in the slurry and higher N2O emissions and NO3- losses, thus increasing the field N losses. Therefore, the future combination of the proposed measures with better fertilisation strategies should be explored, adjusting the N input to the crop needs. As an alternative, the application of HESa, HESc in combination with urea substitution by AN, and the reduction of the CP content of the purchased fraction of the diet was able to reduce by 4.5 g N kg milk−1 (−33%) the Nint while reducing the GHGint, by 3% and lowering the negative trade-offs in the N2O emissions and losses of NO3-.
As for NCs, the effect of HESa and CP acting in combination showed an increase in the GHGint of 0.003 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1 (0.2%) while reducing the Nint by −13% (2.3 g N kg milk−1). In terms of GHG emission sources, the manure emissions were reduced by −2% reduction (0.002 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1) while increasing the fields by 2% (0.005 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1), with no variation in the GHG emission from enteric fermentation. Concerning the Nint, emissions associated with the fields (−15%), housing (−12%), yards (−11%), and storage (−10%) were mitigated by 2.0, 0.2, 0.1, and 0.03 g N kg milk−1, respectively. In all, the adopted combination of mitigation measures proved to be effective in reducing GHG and N emissions in conventional semi-extensive Northern European DPS. According to the characteristics of the farm (significant supply of concentrate), it would be advantageous to implement quality forages (legumes) that partially replace these external inputs, thus reducing the off-farm emissions.
Lastly, as for the ACs, the combined application of PI, HESc, and urea substitution resulted in a 1% increase in GHGint (0.01 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1) and a −13% (2.6 g N kg milk−1) reduction in Nint. As for the GHG sources, significant reductions were observed in emissions intensity from enteric fermentation (−11%), the manure (−22%), and fields (−18%) with 0.06, 0.03, and 0.04 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1, respectively. However, the increased supply of concentrate in the diet led to a higher emission intensity from other sources (0.14 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1), mostly derived from CO2 emission from feed purchases. Regarding the sources of N emissions, the full adoption of the proposed mitigation measures mitigated the N emissions from the storage (−53%), the silage (37%), the housing (−14%), the yards (−13%), and the fields (−10%) by 0.2, 0.3, 0.1, 0.1, and 1.8 g N kg milk−1, respectively. Alternatively, the combination of urea substitution and the use of HESc results in a 1% increase in Nint (0.3 g N kg milk−1) with no effect on the GHGint, which was reduced by 0.3% (−0.003 kg CO2-eq kg milk−1). This is due to no increase in CO2 emissions derived from the purchased feed and no increase in Nint derived from the yards, which increases as a result of a greater share of the purchased fraction of the diet. Our results demonstrate that the increase in the concentrates supply hinders the positive effect and the synergies between the different applied measures. Therefore, the application of this mitigation measure should be subject to further consideration to evaluate to what extent this option does not negatively affect the overall emissions of the farm. In addition, using slow-release fertilisers (i.e. protected urea) could be a solution for further mitigating emissions associated with applying mineral fertilisers.
4 Conclusions
As an essential prerequisite for effectively reducing emissions on DPS, this study contributes to a better understanding of the emission reduction potentials in European farming systems for dairy production, setting the base for applying adapted concepts, strategies, and policies. The diversity of the selected farms, representing certain agronomic practises considered typical for specific parts of Europe, make the results applicable to relevant European dairy systems. Furthermore, the applied process-based modelling approach evaluated the single and combined effect of adapted emission mitigation options on intensive, semi-extensive, conventional, and organic DPS across Europe, showing the model’s capabilities to obtain meaningful results regarding emission abatement measures. In this way, our results allow the identification of the most appropriate options according to the particularities of the systems.
Reducing the CP content of the purchased fraction of the diet was an advisable option to reduce both GHG and N emissions independently of the production system. However, AD reduced GHG emissions in all cases (especially from manure storage), with undesirable trade-offs in the field N emissions due to higher TAN content on the slurry. Similarly, opting for rigid slurry covers reduced storage NH3 volatilisation while increasing N losses from the fields. Therefore, considering the whole manure management chain when implementing this option is crucial. In this sense, shallow slurry injection notably reduced N losses associated with fields, showing higher mitigation potential in intensive DPS. Regarding the substitution of urea, overall N losses were reduced while discouraging this option for systems with sandy-loam soils due to higher N2O emissions and NO3- losses. Finally, while lowering the F:C ratio can lead to an overall reduction of GHG emissions, attention should be paid to N losses associated with excreta as these may increase due to a high CP content in the concentrate. Furthermore, when combined mitigation measures are applied, our results represent a novel contribution to analysing emission mitigation potential across European DPS. Positive synergies were promoted, and negative trade-offs were eliminated by combining CP and F:C ratio reductions. In addition, the joint application of slurry covers or AD and shallow injection was a suitable combination for reducing emissions from both intensive and semi-extensive systems.
As demonstrated by our results, the future sustainability of DPS largely relies on optimising farm processes by adopting tailored combinations of mitigation measures. In this sense, emphasis is made on reducing emissions and improving efficiency by avoiding reliance on external inputs and optimising farm practises. In this context, future research and model developments should incorporate options to reflect the quality of the forages and adapted fertilisation plans. This would help reduce emissions by promoting the circularity and sustainability of dairy cattle farming systems.
Code availability
Not applicable
References
Aguerre MJ, Wattiaux MA, Powell JM et al (2011) Effect of forage-to-concentrate ratio in dairy cow diets on emission of methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia, lactation performance, and manure excretion. J Dairy Sci 94:3081–3093. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-4011
Aguirre-Villegas HA, Larson RA, Sharara MA (2019) Anaerobic digestion, solid-liquid separation, and drying of dairy manure: measuring constituents and modeling emission. Sci Total Environ 696:134059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134059
Ahmed M, Ahmad S, Waldrip HM, et al (2020) Whole farm modeling: a systems approach to understanding and managing livestock for greenhouse gas mitigation, economic viability and environmental quality. Animal Manure: Production, Characteristics, Environmental Concerns, and Management 345–371. https://doi.org/10.2134/asaspecpub67.c25
Arndt C, Hristov AN, Price WJ et al (2022) Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can help meet the 1.5 °C target by 2030 but not 2050. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 119:e2111294119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111294119
Baldé H, VanderZaag AC, Burtt SD et al (2016) Does fall removal of the dairy manure sludge in a storage tank reduce subsequent methane emissions? J Environ Qual 45:2038–2043. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2016.03.0083
Baldé H, VanderZaag AC, Burtt SD et al (2018) Ammonia emissions from liquid manure storages are affected by anaerobic digestion and solid-liquid separation. Agric For Meteorol 258:80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.01.036
Bastiman B, Altman J (1985) Silage losses on commercial farms. Res Dev Agric 2:19–25
Battini F, Agostini A, Tabaglio V, Amaducci S (2016) Environmental impacts of different dairy farming systems in the Po Valley. J Clean Prod 112:91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.062
Ben Meir YA, Nikbachat M, Portnik Y et al (2021) Effect of forage-to-concentrate ratio on production efficiency of low-efficient high-yielding lactating cows. Animal 15:100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2020.100012
Berg W, Brunsch R, Pazsiczki I (2006) Greenhouse gas emissions from covered slurry compared with uncovered during storage. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112:129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.031
Bessou C, Mary B, Léonard J et al (2010) Modelling soil compaction impacts on nitrous oxide emissions in arable fields. Eur J Soil Sci 61:348–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01243.x
Beukes PC, Gregorini P, Romera AJ (2011) Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from New Zealand dairy systems using a mechanistic whole farm model and inventory methodology. Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–167:708–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.050
Bórawski P, Pawlewicz A, Parzonko A et al (2020) Factors shaping cow’s milk production in the EU. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12010420
Brown L, Scholefield D, Jewkes EC et al (2005) NGAUGE: a decision support system to optimise N fertilisation of British grassland for economic and environmental goals. Agric Ecosyst Environ 109:20–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.021
Burg V, Bowman G, Haubensak M et al (2018) Valorization of an untapped resource: energy and greenhouse gas emissions benefits of converting manure to biogas through anaerobic digestion. Resour Conserv Recycl 136:53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.004
Casey JW, Holden NM (2005) Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from the average Irish milk production system. Agric Syst 86:97–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.09.006
Chambers BJ, Lord EI, Nicholson FA, Smith KA (1999) Predicting nitrogen availability and losses following application of organic manures to arable land: MANNER. Soil Use Manag 15:137–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.1999.tb00079.x
Christie KM, Rawnsley RP, Eckard RJ (2011) A whole farm systems analysis of greenhouse gas emissions of 60 Tasmanian dairy farms. Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–167:653–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.046
Clemens J, Trimborn M, Weiland P, Amon B (2006) Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112:171–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.016
Crosson P, Shalloo L, O’Brien D et al (2011) A review of whole farm systems models of greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle production systems. Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–167:29–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.001
de Congio GF, Bannink A, Mayorga Mogollón OL et al (2021) Enteric methane mitigation strategies for ruminant livestock systems in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a meta-analysis. J Clean Prod 312:127693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127693
DEFRA (2010) Guidelines to Defra/DECC’s greenhouse gas conversion factors for company reporting. http://www.sthc.co.uk/documents/DEFRA-guidelines-ghg-conversion-factors_2010.pdf
Del Moro SK, Sullivan DM, Horneck DA (2017) Ammonia volatilisation from broadcast urea and alternative dry nitrogen fertilisers. Soil Sci Soc Am J 81:1629–1639. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2017.06.0181
Del Prado A, Chadwick D, Cardenas L et al (2010) Exploring systems responses to mitigation of GHG in UK dairy farms. Agric Ecosyst Environ 136:318–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.09.015
Del Prado A, Crosson P, Olesen JE, Rotz CA (2013) Whole-farm models to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and their potential use for linking climate change mitigation and adaptation in temperate grassland ruminant-based farming systems. Animal 7(Suppl 2):373–385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000748
Del Prado A, Mas K, Pardo G, Gallejones P (2013) Modelling the interactions between C and N farm balances and GHG emissions from confinement dairy farms in northern Spain. Sci Total Environ 465:156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.064
Del Prado A, Misselbrook T, Chadwick D et al (2011) SIMSDAIRY: a modelling framework to identify sustainable dairy farms in the UK. Framework description and test for organic systems and N fertiliser optimisation. Sci Total Environ 409:3993–4009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.050
Del Prado A, Scholefield D (2008) Use of SIMSDAIRY modelling framework system to compare the scope on the sustainability of a dairy farm of animal and plant genetic-based improvements with management-based changes. J Agric Sci 146:195–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859608007727
Díaz de Otálora X, Del Prado A, Dragoni F et al (2021) Evaluating three-pillar sustainability modelling approaches for dairy cattle production systems. Sustainability 13:6332. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116332
Díaz de Otálora X, Dragoni F, Del Prado A et al (2022) Identification of representative dairy cattle and fodder crop production typologies at regional scale in Europe. Agron Sustain Dev 42:94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00830-3
Doole GJ (2012) Cost-effective policies for improving water quality by reducing nitrate emissions from diverse dairy farms: an abatement-cost perspective. Agric Water Manag 104:10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.11.007
Duncan EW, Dell CJ, Kleinman PJA, Beegle DB (2017) Nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions from injected and broadcast-applied dairy slurry. J Environ Qual 46:36–44. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2016.05.0171
Ertl P, Klocker H, Hörtenhuber S et al (2015) The net contribution of dairy production to human food supply: the case of Austrian dairy farms. Agric Syst 137:119–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.04.004
European Environmental Agency (2019) EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 - 3.B Manure management 2019. 1–70. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2019
EUROSTAT (2015) Portrait of the EU milk production sector. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Milk_and_dairy_production_statistics
Fan D, He W, Smith WN et al (2022) Global evaluation of inhibitor impacts on ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 28:5121–5141. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16294
Fangueiro D, Pereira JLS, Fraga I et al (2018) Band application of acidified slurry as an alternative to slurry injection in a Mediterranean double cropping system: agronomic effect and gaseous emissions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 267:87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.08.011
FAO (2023) FAOSTAT. Accessed: July 2023. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en
Feil AA, Schreiber D, Haetinger C et al (2020) Sustainability in the dairy industry: a systematic literature review. Environ Sci Poll Res 27:33527–33542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09316-9
Forster P, Storelvmo T, Armour K, et al (2021) The earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York. 923:1054 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.009.
Gallo A, Valsecchi C, Masseroni M et al (2022) An observational study to verify the influence of different nutritional corn silage-based strategies on efficient use of dietary nutrients, faecal fermentation profile, and profitability in a cohort of intensive dairy farms. Ital J Anim Sci 21:228–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2022.2025932
Gaudaré U, Pellerín S, Benoit M et al (2021) Comparing productivity and feed-use efficiency between organic and conventional livestock animals. Environ Res Lett 16:024012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd65e
Gavrilova O, Leip A, Dong H, et al (2019) Emissions from livestock and manure management. In: 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use; IPCC, Geneva. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/4_Volume4/19R_V4_Ch10_Livestock.pdf
Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, et al (2013) Tackling climate change throught livestock-a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf
Gislon G, Ferrero F, Bava L et al (2020) Forage systems and sustainability of milk production: feed efficiency, environmental impacts and soil carbon stocks. J Clean Prod 260:121012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121012
Gonzalez-Mejia A, Styles D, Wilson P, Gibbons J (2018) Metrics and methods for characterizing dairy farm intensification using farm survey data. PLoS One 13:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195286
Gourley CJP, Aarons SR, Powell JM (2012) Nitrogen use efficiency and manure management practices in contrasting dairy production systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 147:73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.011
Harrison JH, Ndegwa PM (2020) Anaerobic digestion of dairy and swine waste. Animal Man Prod Charact Environ Con Manage 67:115–127. https://doi.org/10.2134/asaspecpub67.c13
Harty MA, Forrestal PJ, Watson CJ et al (2016) Reducing nitrous oxide emissions by changing N fertiliser use from calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) to urea based formulations. Sci Total Environ 563–564:576–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.120
Hassanat F, Gervais R, Julien C et al (2013) Replacing alfalfa silage with corn silage in dairy cow diets: effects on enteric methane production, ruminal fermentation, digestion, N balance, and milk production. J Dairy Sci 96:4553–4567. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6480
Herr C, Mannheim T, Müller T, Ruser R (2019) Effect of cattle slurry application techniques on N2O and NH3 emissions from a loamy soil. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 182(6):964–979. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201800376
Höglund-Isaksson L, Winiwarter W, Purohit P, Gomez-Sanabria A (2016) Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-28 from 2005 to 2050: final GAINS reference scenario 2016 report. https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/13398/2/non_co2_methodology_report_june2016_en.pdf
Holly MA, Larson RA, Powell JM et al (2017) Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from digested and separated dairy manure during storage and after land application. Agric Ecosyst Environ 239:410–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.007
Hristov AN, Hanigan M, Cole A et al (2011) Review: ammonia emissions from dairy farms and beef feedlots. Can J Anim Sci 91:1–35. https://doi.org/10.4141/CJAS10034
Hynes DN, Stergiadis S, Gordon A, Yan T (2016) Effects of crude protein level in concentrate supplements on animal performance and nitrogen utilization of lactating dairy cows fed fresh-cut perennial grass. J Dairy Sci 99:8111–8120. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11110
International Dairy Federation (IDF) (2015) A common carbon footprint approach for the dairy sector. The IDF guide to standard life cycle assessment methodology (Bulletin 479). https://www.fil-idf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Bulletin479-2015_A-common-carbon-footprint-approach-for-the-dairy-sector.CAT.pdf
Jaakamo MJ, Luukkonen TJ, Kairenius PK et al (2019) The effect of dietary forage to concentrate ratio and forage type on milk fatty acid composition and milk fat globule size of lactating cows. J Dairy Sci 102:8825–8838. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15833
Kebreab E, France J, Beever DE, Castillo AR (2001) Nitrogen pollution by dairy cows and its mitigation by dietary manipulation. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 60:275–285. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012668109662
Kim JR, Karthikeyan KG (2021) Effects of severe pretreatment conditions and lignocellulose-derived furan byproducts on anaerobic digestion of dairy manure. Bioresour Technol 340:125632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125632
Kleefisch MT, Zebeli Q, Humer E et al (2018) Effects of feeding high-quality hay with graded amounts of concentrate on feed intake, performance and blood metabolites of cows in early lactation. Arch Anim Nutr 72:290–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2018.1474004
Kupper T, Häni C, Neftel A et al (2020) Ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from slurry storage - a review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 300:106963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106963
Langevin B, Génermont S, Basset-Mens C, Lardon L (2015) Simulation of field NH3 and N2O emissions from slurry spreading. Agron Sustain Dev 35:347–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0248-z
Leip A, Billen G, Garnier J et al (2015) Impacts of European livestock production: nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity. Environ Res Lett 10:115004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/115004
Leip A, Weiss F, Lesschen JP, Westhoek H (2014) The nitrogen footprint of food products in the European Union. J Agric Sci 152:S20–S33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859613000786
Lettat A, Hassanat F, Benchaar C (2013) Corn silage in dairy cow diets to reduce ruminal methanogenesis: effects on the rumen metabolically active microbial communities. J Dairy Sci 96:5237–5248. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6481
Lovarelli D, Bava L, Zucali M et al (2019) Improvements to dairy farms for environmental sustainability in Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano production systems. Ital J Anim Sci 18:1035–1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2019.1611389
Martin C, Morgavi DP, Doreau M (2010) Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4:351–365. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990620
Martins MR, Jantalia CP, Polidoro JC et al (2015) Nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions from N fertilisation of maize crop under no-till in a Cerrado soil. Soil Tillage Res 151:75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.03.004
Mckay ZC, Lynch MB, Mulligan FJ et al (2019) The effect of concentrate supplementation type on milk production, dry matter intake, rumen fermentation, and nitrogen excretion in late-lactation, spring-calving grazing dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 102:5042–5053. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15796
Mertens DR (2009) Maximizing forage use by dairy cows. WCDS Advances in Dairy Technology 21:303–319. https://wcds.ualberta.ca/wcds/wp-content/uploads/sites/57/wcds_archive/Archive/2009/Manuscripts/MaximizingForageUsage.pdf
Min J, Zhang H, Shi W (2012) Optimising nitrogen input to reduce nitrate leaching loss in greenhouse vegetable production. Agric Water Manag 111:53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.05.003
Mittenzwei K (2020) Greenhouse gas emissions in Norwegian agriculture: the regional and structural dimension. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12:2506. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062506
Montes F, Meinen R, Dell C et al (2013) SPECIAL TOPICS-mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: II. A review of manure management mitigation options. J Anim Sci 91:5070–5094. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6584
Mulligan FJ, Dillon P, Callan JJ et al (2004) Supplementary concentrate type affects nitrogen excretion of grazing dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 87:3451–3460. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73480-3
Mutsvangwa T, Davies KL, McKinnon JJ, Christensen DA (2016) Effects of dietary crude protein and rumen-degradable protein concentrations on urea recycling, nitrogen balance, omasal nutrient flow, and milk production in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 99:6298–6310. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-10917
Nartey OD, Liu D, Luo J et al (2021) Optimising the application of dairy farm effluent and manure to mitigate gas emission. J Soils Sedim 21:2381–2393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-021-02935-w
Nevison C (2000) Indirect N2O emissions from agriculture - IPCC good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/4_6_Indirect_N2O_Agriculture.pdf
Niu M, Appuhamy JADRN, Leytem AB, et al (2016) Effect of dietary crude protein and forage contents on enteric methane emissions and nitrogen excretion from dairy cows simultaneously. In: Animal Production Science. CSIRO, pp 312–321
O’Brien D, Hennessy T, Moran B, Shalloo L (2015) Relating the carbon footprint of milk from Irish dairy farms to economic performance. J Dairy Sci 98:7394–7407. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9222
Oenema O, Oudendag D, Velthof GL (2007) Nutrient losses from manure management in the European Union. Livest Sci 112:261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.007
Ouatahar L, Bannink A, Lanigan G, Amon B (2021) Modelling the effect of feeding management on greenhouse gas and nitrogen emissions in cattle farming systems. Sci Total Environ 776:145932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145932
Owen JJ, Silver WL (2015) Greenhouse gas emissions from dairy manure management: a review of field-based studies. Glob Chang Biol 21:550–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12687
Pardo G, Moral R, del Prado A (2017) SIMSWASTE-AD - a modelling framework for the environmental assessment of agricultural waste management strategies: anaerobic digestion. Sci Total Environ 574:806–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.096
Pedersen J, Andersson K, Feilberg A et al (2021) Effect of exposed surface area on ammonia emissions from untreated, separated, and digested cattle manure. Biosyst Eng 202:66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.12.005
Pedersen J, Feilberg A, Nyord T (2022) Effect of storage and field acidification on emissions of NH3, NMVOC, and odour from field applied slurry in winter conditions. J Environ Manage 310:114756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114756
Pellerin S, Bamière L, Angers D, et al (2013) How can French agriculture contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Abatement potential and cost of ten technical measures. Paris. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02809908/document
Perego A, Basile A, Bonfante A et al (2012) Nitrate leaching under maize cropping systems in Po Valley (Italy). Agric Ecosyst Environ 147:57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.06.014
Petersen SO (2018) Greenhouse gas emissions from liquid dairy manure: prediction and mitigation. J Dairy Sci 101:6642–6654. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13301
Petersen SO, Blanchard M, Chadwick D et al (2013) Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation. Animal 7:266–282. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000736
Petri RM, Aditya S, Humer E, Zebeli Q (2021) Effect of an intramammary lipopolysaccharide challenge on the hindgut microbial composition and fermentation of dairy cattle experiencing intermittent subacute ruminal acidosis. J Dairy Sci 104:5417–5431. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19496
Powell JM, Rotz CA (2015) Measures of nitrogen use efficiency and nitrogen loss from dairy production systems. J Environ Qual 44:336–344. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.07.0299
Prudhomme R, De PA, Dumas P et al (2020) Combining mitigation strategies to increase co-benefits for biodiversity and food security. Environ Res Lett 15(11):114005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb10a
Räbiger T, Andres M, Hegewald H et al (2020) Indirect nitrous oxide emissions from oilseed rape cropping systems by NH3 volatilisation and nitrate leaching as affected by nitrogen source, N rate and site conditions. Eur J Agron 116:126039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126039
Rahman N, Forrestal PJ (2021) Ammonium fertiliser reduces nitrous oxide emission compared to nitrate fertiliser while yielding equally in a temperate grassland. Agriculture (Switzerland) 11:1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111141
Rahman N, Richards KG, Harty MA et al (2021) Differing effects of increasing calcium ammonium nitrate, urea and urea + NBPT fertiliser rates on nitrous oxide emission factors at six temperate grassland sites in Ireland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 313:107382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107382
Reed KF, Moraes LE, Casper DP, Kebreab E (2015) Predicting nitrogen excretion from cattle. J Dairy Sci 98:3025–3035. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8397
Reinsch T, Loza C, Malisch CS et al (2021) Toward specialized or integrated systems in northwest Europe: on-farm eco-efficiency of dairy farming in Germany. Front Sustain Food Syst 5:1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.614348
Reis S, Howard C, Sutton M (2015) Cost of ammonia abatement and the climate co-benefits. Springer, London. https://springerlink.bibliotecabuap.elogim.com/book/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9722-1
Rodhe L, Pell M, Yamulki S (2006) Nitrous oxide, methane and ammonia emissions following slurry spreading on grassland. Soil Use Manag 22:229–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2006.00043.x
Rotz CA (2018) Modeling greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 101:6675–6690. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13272
Sajeev EPM, Amon B, Ammon C et al (2018) Evaluating the potential of dietary crude protein manipulation in reducing ammonia emissions from cattle and pig manure: a meta-analysis. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 110:161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-017-9893-3
Sajeev EPM, Winiwarter W, Amon B (2018) Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from different stages of liquid manure management chains: abatement options and emission interactions. J Environ Qual 47:30–41. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2017.05.0199
Salou T, Le Mouël C, van der Werf HMG (2017) Environmental impacts of dairy system intensification: the functional unit matters! J Clean Prod 140:445–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.019
Schils R, Olesen J, del Prado A, Soussana J (2007) A review of farm level modelling approaches for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant livestock systems. Livest Sci 112:240–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.005
Schils RLM, De Haan MHA, Hemmer JGA et al (2007) DairyWise, a wholes-farm dairy model. J Dairy Sci 90:5334–5346. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-842
Schrade S, Zeyer K, Mohn J, Zähner M (2023) Effect of diets with different crude protein levels on ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from a naturally ventilated dairy housing. Sci Total Environ 896:165027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165027
Scott A, Blanchard R (2021) The role of anaerobic digestion in reducing dairy farm greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052612
Shakoor A, Shakoor S, Rehman A et al (2021) Effect of animal manure, crop type, climate zone, and soil attributes on greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils—a global meta-analysis. J Clean Prod 278:124019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124019
Sinclair KD, Garnsworthy PC, Mann GE, Sinclair LA (2014) Reducing dietary protein in dairy cow diets: implications for nitrogen utilization, milk production, welfare and fertility. Animal 8(2):262–274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113002139
Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F et al (2016) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang 6:42–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2870
Soares JR, Souza BR, Mazzetto AM et al (2023) Mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions in grazing systems through nitrification inhibitors: a meta-analysis. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 125:359–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-022-10256-8
Sommer SG, Olesen J, Petersen SO et al (2009) Region-specific assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation with different manure management strategies in four agroecological zones. Glob Chang Biol 15:2825–2837. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01888.x
Stanchev P, Vasilaki V, Egas D et al (2020) Multilevel environmental assessment of the anaerobic treatment of dairy processing effluents in the context of circular economy. J Clean Prod 261:121139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121139
Sturaro E, Marchiori E, Cocca G et al (2013) Dairy systems in mountainous areas: farm animal biodiversity, milk production and destination, and land use. Livest Sci 158:157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.09.011
Styles D, Gonzalez-Mejia A, Moorby J et al (2018) Climate mitigation by dairy intensification depends on intensive use of spared grassland. Glob Chang Biol 24:681–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13868
Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories (2016) Ecoinvent® 3.3 Database
Ti C, Xia L, Chang SX, Yan X (2019) Potential for mitigating global agricultural ammonia emission: a meta-analysis. Environ Poll 245:141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.124
Tricarico JM, Kebreab E, Wattiaux MA (2020) MILK symposium review: sustainability of dairy production and consumption in low-income countries with emphasis on productivity and environmental impact. J Dairy Sci 103:9791–9802. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18269
UNFCCC (2023) Greenhouse gas inventory data. Accessed in: July 2023. https://di.unfccc.int/
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2015) Framework code for good agricultural practice for reducing ammonia emissions. https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Ammonia_SR136_28-4_HR_0.pdf
Vangeli S, Cardenas LM, Posse G et al (2022) Revisiting sampling duration to estimate N2O emission factors for manure application and cattle excreta deposition for the UK and Ireland. J Environ Manage 322:116037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116037
Vellinga TV, de Haan MHA, Schils RLM et al (2011) Implementation of GHG mitigation on intensive dairy farms: farmers’ preferences and variation in cost effectiveness. Livest Sci 137:185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.11.005
Viguria M, Sanz-Cobeña A, López DM et al (2015) Ammonia and greenhouse gases emission from impermeable covered storage and land application of cattle slurry to bare soil. Agric Ecosyst Environ 199:261–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.09.016
Wang H, Köbke S, Dittert K (2020) Use of urease and nitrification inhibitors to reduce gaseous nitrogen emissions from fertilisers containing ammonium nitrate and urea. Glob Ecol Conserv 22:e00933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00933
Wang H, Ma S, Shao G, Dittert K (2021) Use of urease and nitrification inhibitors to decrease yield-scaled N2O emissions from winter wheat and oilseed rape fields: a two-year field experiment. Agric Ecosyst Environ 319:107552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107552
Wattiaux MA, Uddin ME, Letelier P et al (2019) INVITED REVIEW: emission and mitigation of greenhouse gases from dairy farms: the cow, the manure, and the field. Appl Animal Sci 35:238–254. https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2018-01803
Webb J, Misselbrook TH (2004) A mass-flow model of ammonia emissions from UK livestock production. Atmos Environ 38:2163–2176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.01.023
Whitehead D (2020) Management of grazed landscapes to increase soil carbon stocks in temperate, dryland grasslands. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.585913
Wilkinson JM, Lee MRF, Rivero MJ, Chamberlain AT (2019) Some challenges and opportunities for grazing dairy cows on temperate pastures. Grass For Sci 75:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12458
Witheetrirong Y, Tripathi NK, Tipdecho T, Parkpian P (2011) Estimation of the effect of soil texture on nitrate-nitrogen content in groundwater using optical remote sensing. Int J Environ Res Public Health 8:3416–3436. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8083416
Wrage N, Velthof GL, Laanbroek HJ, Oenema O (2004) Nitrous oxide production in grassland soils: assessing the contribution of nitrifier denitrification. Soil Biol Biochem 36:229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2003.09.009
Wyer KE, Kelleghan DB, Blanes-Vidal V et al (2022) Ammonia emissions from agriculture and their contribution to fine particulate matter: a review of implications for human health. J Environ Manage 323:116285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116285
Zehetmeier M, Läpple D, Hoffmann H et al (2020) Is there a joint lever? Identifying and ranking factors that determine GHG emissions and profitability on dairy farms in Bavaria. Germany Agric Syst 184:102897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102897
Zhang HR, Sun KJ, Wang LF et al (2021) Methane emissions from cattle manure during short-term storage with and without a plastic cover in different seasons. J Agric Sci 159:159–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859621000423
Zhou BJ, Xi JG, Chen ZJ, Li SX (2006) Leaching and transformation of nitrogen fertilisers in soil after application of N with irrigation: a soil column method. Pedosphere 16:245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(06)60050-7
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Dominika Kroll (TEAGASC) for her contribution during the review process of the original manuscript.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study was financially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) through the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) and other National Funding Agencies through the “MilKey” project (grant no. 2819ERA08A), funded under the Joint Call 2018 ERA-GAS (grant no. 696356), SusAn (grant no. 696231), and ICT-AGRI 2 (grant no. 618123) on “Novel technologies, solutions and systems to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in animal production systems”; and the “DairyMix” project (grant no. 2822ERA15A) under the Joint Call of the Cofund ERA-Nets SusCrop (grant no. 771134), FACCE ERA-GAS (grant no. 696356), ICT-AGRI-FOOD (grant no. 862665), and SusAn (grant no. 696231). BC3-Research is supported by the Spanish Government through María de Maeztu excellence 2023–2026 (ref. no. CEX2021-001201-M, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by the Basque Government through the BERC 2022–2024 programme. Agustin del Prado is financed through the Ramon y Cajal programme by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness (RYC-2017-22143). Agustin del Prado and Guillermo Pardo receive financial support through the CircAgric-GHG project funded by the 2nd 2021 call “Programación conjunta internacional 2021” MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and Next Generation EU/PRTR (ref. no. PCI2021-122048-2A).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: XDdO, AdP, FD, and BA; methodology: XDdO and AdP; investigation: XDdO, AdP, LB, and GP; writing and original draft preparation: XDdO; writing and review and editing: XDdO, AdP, FD, LB, GP, WW, AS, GR, TK, MK, GJ, FE, and BA; supervision: AdP, FE, and BA; project administration: FD and BA; funding acquisition: BA. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team.
About this article
Cite this article
Díaz de Otálora , X., del Prado, A., Dragoni, F. et al. Modelling the effect of context-specific greenhouse gas and nitrogen emission mitigation options in key European dairy farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 44, 4 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00940-6
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00940-6