Life Cycle Assessment of Dairy Buffalo Calves in an Italian Farm

Emilio Sabia; Fabio Napolitano; Giuseppe De Rosa; Matthias Gauly; Ada Braghieri; Corrado Pacelli

doi:10.6000/1927-520X.2018.07.03.4

Authors

Emilio Sabia Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Faculty of Science and Technology, Piazza Università 5, Bolzano, 39100, Italy
Fabio Napolitano Scuola di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali, Alimentari ed Ambientali, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Via dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
Giuseppe De Rosa Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II", Via Università 133, 80055 Portici (NA), Italy
Matthias Gauly Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Faculty of Science and Technology, Piazza Università 5, Bolzano, 39100, Italy
Ada Braghieri Scuola di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali, Alimentari ed Ambientali, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Via dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
Corrado Pacelli Scuola di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali, Alimentari ed Ambientali, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Via dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6000/1927-520X.2018.07.03.4

Keywords:

Life cycle assessment, buffalo calf, global warming potential, environmental sustainability, dairy farming.

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to examine the environmental consequences of raising buffalo calves, as assessed by life cycle assessment. Life cycle assessment has been widely used to assess the environmental impact of different livestock production systems. The primary data were collected from 32 animals aged 0-90 days. Calves were allowed to uptake colostrum before separation from their mothers within 24-h after birth. After separation, the animals were kept individually (1 x 2 m) for 8 weeks and then housed in groups of 8 in straw-bedded pens (5 x 8 m). According to the results of the analysis, the contributions from all calves to global warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, non-renewable energy use was high. In particular, the impact generated from global warm potential was 7 kg CO₂– eq per day, and the impact of non-renewable energy use was 38 MJ – eq per day. Our results estimated for the first time the environmental impact generated from buffalo calves. We conclude that the strategies to mitigate the effects on the environment impact must start from the birth of the buffalo calves and then continue throughout its life cycle.

References

Sarwar M, Khan MA, Nisa M, Bhatti SA, Shahzad MA. Nutritional management for buffalo production. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci 2009; 7: 1060-68. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2009.r.09

Martin C, Morgavi DP, Doreau M. Methane mitigation in ruminants: From microbe to the farm scale. Animal 2010; 4: 351-65. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990620

Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto Protocol to the United States Framework Convention on Climate Changes 1997. Available from: (http://unfccc.int/resources/docs/convkp/kpeng.html).

O’Mara FP. The significance of livestock as a contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions today and in the near future. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2011; 166-167: 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.074

Tukker A. Huppes G. Guinée J, Heijungs R, de Koning, A, Van Oers L, Suh S, Geerken T, Van Holderbeke M, Jansen B, Nielsen P. Environmental Impacts of Products (EIPRO). Analysis of the Life Cycle Environmental Impacts Related to the Final Consumption of the EU-25. Main Report. European Commission, Joint Research Centre 2006.

Lovett DK, Shalloo L, Dillon P, O’Mara FP. Greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral based dairying systems: the effect of uncertainty and management change under two contrasting production systems. Livest Sci 2008; 116: 260-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.10.016

Cederberg C, Mattsson B. Life cycle assessment of milk production - a comparison of conventional and organic farming. J Clean Prod 2000; 8: 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(99)00311-X

Thomassen MA, Van Calker KJ, Smits MCJ, Iepema GL, De Boer IJM. Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agr Syst 2008; 96: 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2007.06.001

AIA. Associazione Italiana Allevatori. Quadro economico e relazione attività 2010.

Guinee JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Konin A, Van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Brujin H, Van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Kluwar Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 2002.

ISO. Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Principles and Framework. ISO 14040. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland 2006a.

ISO. Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Requirements and Guidelines. ISO 14044. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland 2006b.

Sabia E, Napolitano F, Claps S, De Rosa G, Braghieri A, Pacelli C, 2018a. Dairy buffalo life cycle assessment as affected by heifer rearing system. Agric Syst 2018a; 159: 42-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.010

ENAMA, Ente Nazionale per la Meccanizzazione Agricola, 2005. Prontuario dei consumi di carburante per l0impiego agevolato in agricoltura. Roma 2005. Available from:http://www.enama.it/php/pageflip.php?pdf=enama_int_prontuario.pdf&dir=/it/pdf/monografie.

IPCC. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 2006a; 4: 1-87 Chapter 10: Emissions from livestock and manure management. http://www.ipccggip.iges.or.jp/ public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf. visited March 2014

IPCC. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 2006b; 4: 1-54 Chapter 11: N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf. visited March 2014

Cóndor RD, Di Cristofaro E, De Lauretis R. Agricoltura: inventario nazionale delle emissioni e disaggregazione provinciale. Istituto superiore per la prevenzione e la ricerca ambientale, ISPRA Rapporto tecnico 85/2008. Roma, Italy 2008a.

Cóndor RD, Valli L, De Rosa G, Di Francia A, De Lauretis R. Estimation of the methane emission factor for the Italian Mediterranean buffalo. Animal 2008b; 2: 1247-53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108002292

EEA, 2009. EMEP/EEA e Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2009. Technical guidance to prepare national emission inventories. In: 4.D Crop Production and Agricultural Soils. visited April 2014. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoralguidance-chapters/4-agriculture/4-d/4-d-crop-production-and agriculturalsoils.pdf/view

Sabia E, Napolitano F, Claps S, De Rosa G, Barile VL, Braghieri A, Pacelli C. Environmental impact of dairy buffalo heifers kept on pasture or in conﬁnement. J Clean Prod 2018b; 192: 647-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.158

Zahedifar M, Castro FB, Ørskov ER. Effect of hydrolytic lignin on formation of protein–lignin complexes and protein degradation by rumen microbes. Anim Feed Sci and Tech 2002; 95: 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00305-4

Sabia E, Claps S, Napolitano F, Annicchiarico G, Bruno A, Francaviglia R, Sepe L, Aleandri R. In vivo digestibility of two different forage species inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhiza in Mediterranean red goats. Small Rum Res 2015; 123: 83-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2014.10.008

Vogt RD, Seip HM, Larssen T, Zhao DW, Xiang RJ, Xiao JS, 2006. Potential acidifying capacity of depositionexperiences from regions with high NH+4 and dry deposition in China. Sci Tot Env 2006; 367: 394-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.12.018

Arroyo J, Fortun-Lamothe L, Auvergne A, Dubois JP, Lavigne F, Bijja M, Aubin J. Environmental influence of maize substitution by sorghum and diet presentation on goose foie gras production. J Clean Prod 2013; 59: 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.051

Harrison RM. In: Pollution: Causes, Effects and Control, fourth ed. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, Great Britain 2001.

Diodato N, Fagnano M, Alberico I, Chirico GB. Mapping soil erodibility from composed data set in Sele River Basin, Italy. Nat Hazards 2011a; 58: (1) 445-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9679-2

Diodato N, Fagnano M, Alberico I. Geospatial and visual modeling for exploring sediment source areas across the Sele river landscape, Italy. Ita J of Agro 2011b; 6: 85-92. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2011.e14

Sawyer CN. Basic concepts of eutrophication. J Water Poll Control Fed 1966; 38: 737-44.

APAT, Agenzia per la protezione dell'ambiente e per i servizi tecnici, 2003. Analisi dei fattori di emissione di CO2 dal settore dei trasporti. (Rapporti 28/2003).

Cóndor RD. Agricoltura: emissioni nazionali in atmosfera dal 1990 al 2009. Istituto superiore per la protezione e la ricerca ambientale, Rapporto ISPRA 140/2011. Roma, Italy.

Zicarelli L. The Role of Ruminants on Environmental Pollution and Possible Solution to Reduce Global Warming. J Agric Sci Technol 2018; A8: 240-253. https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-6256/2018.04.007