LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

GROUP 1, SESSION A: ANIMAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
6. Life cycle assessment on dairy and beef cattle farms in France
Jean Baptiste Dollé 1,* , Armelle Gac 2 , Vincent Manneville 3 , Sindy Moreau 4 , Elise Lorinquer 2
1 Institut de l'Elevage, Building and Environment Department, F-62051 St Laurent Blangy, France, 2 Institut
de l’Elevage, Building and Environment Department, F-35652 Le Rheu, France, 3 Institut de l'Elevage,
Building and Environment Department, F-63170 Aubière, France, 4 Institut de l'Elevage, Building and Environment
Department, F-69364 Lyon, France, Corresponding author. E-mail: jean-baptiste.dolle@idele.fr
In the current environmental context, as much as political (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, preservation
of biodiversity) and social (consumer demands for information concerning food products), a need to
determine the influence of ruminant livestock on environment is incontestable. It is now crucial to quantify
precisely the environmental impacts for different ruminant livestock systems by using Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA). The French Livestock Institute has launched a work program to determine the environmental
assessment of dairy and beef cattle systems at farm scale. In this context, a methodology based on life cycle
assessment method has been built to assess many impacts which concern climate change, eutrophication,
acidification and energy consumption. This methodology has been applied to several beef and dairy cattle
systems from the French Breeding Network database (208 dairy farms and 268 beef farms) representative of
the French cattle. Five types of dairy system, defined by farm typology based on part of maize in farm and
location area, have been studied (Table 1). Milk gross carbon footprint varies from 0.8 to 1.5 kg CO2eq/kg of
milk produced and net carbon footprint vary from 0.1 to 1.4 kg CO2eq including carbon sequestration. Concerning
acidification, eutrophication and energy consumption for the five systems studied, the variation goes
respectively from 0.005 to 0.010 kg SO2eq, 0.001 to 0.0010 kg PO4eq and 1.2 to 4.0 MJ, all expressed in kg
of milk produced. Differences between systems are not very high, however the systems located in plain area
contain more than 30% maize in the diet and present a higher productivity per cow, that result in a higher
risk of eutrophication and a higher net carbon footprint than the other systems. In beef production, three specialised
suckler-cattle systems have been studied (table 2), calf-to-weanling system producing weaners (9-10
months old), calf-to-beef system producing beef steers (over 30 months old) and calf-to-beef system producing
young bulls (17 months old). French suckler cattle farm systems produce from 8.7 to 26.0 kg CO2eq/kg
of live weight. Calf-to-beef system producing beef steers, fattened on pasture, has the lower net carbon footprint
(5.9 kg CO2eq/kg of live weight) considering carbon sequestration and a lower risk of eutrophication.
The energy used is quite similar for the three systems. In most cases, the intra-system variability of environmental
footprints is higher than inter-system variability. The intra-system variability is related to technical
and practices efficiency on farms. At equivalent systems, an important difference can be observed on the
final impact between optimised and non-optimised farms. These differences are due to herd management,
cultural practices, feed and fertiliser strategies, etc. For example, in relation with the nitrous oxide emissions,
the most optimised farms, which consume less feed, less fertiliser, etc. have better nitrogen balance and
lower environmental impacts. This study show link between environmental issues and highlight the relation
between environmental issues and practices on farm, which propose some ways of mitigation adapted to the
production systems. Finally, these investigations demonstrate that numerous mitigation actions can be identified
in the livestock systems to reduce the environmental footprint of milk and beef meat at the farm gate.
Some of them concern management practices (adjustment of dietary intake, fertilisation management, etc.)
which result in substantial savings in agricultural expenses. Others require installation of new technologies
which would require additional funds to improve the production processes.
References
De Vries M., De Boer I.J.M., 2010. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of
cycle assessments. Livestock Science, 120, 1-11.
Gerber P., Vellinga T., Opio C., Steinfeld H., 2011. Productivity gains and greenhouse gas emissions intensity
in dairy systems. Livestock Science, doi: 10.1016.j.livsci.2011.03.012.
Veysset P., Lherm M., Bébin D., 2010. Energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and economic performance
assessments in French Charolais suckler cattle farms: Model-based analysis and forecasts. Agricultural
Systems, 103, 41-50.
655