D. O'Brien, M. Markiewicz-Keszycka and J. Herron 2023

Resources, Environment and Sustainability 14 (2023) 100126
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Resources, Environment and Sustainability

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resenv
Environmental impact of grass-based cattle farms: A life cycle assessment of

nature-based diversification scenarios
D. O’Brien a ,∗, M. Markiewicz-Keszycka b , J. Herron c
a Teagasc, Crops, Environment and Land Use Research Centre, Johnstown Castle, Co., Wexford, Ireland
b School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
c
Teagasc, Livestock Systems Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co., Cork, Ireland
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Diversification is widely considered to positively influence the environmental sustainability of livestock
Diversify farming. Multiple options exist to diversify cattle farms, but few have been examined at a systems level for
Cattle grass-based livestock farms. Three nature-based diversification options recommended for livestock farms were
Pasture
examined in this study: mixed grass–white clover swards (GWC), organic farming (OFS) and agroforestry (AGF).
Environment
They were applied on dairy and suckler calf-to-beef farming systems common in the Republic of Ireland. Both
Sustainability
of these bovine systems were evaluated over a 3-year period (2017–2019) and were nationally representative.
The environmental impact and resource use of dairy and suckler calf-to-beef systems were modelled using life
cycle assessment (LCA). The system boundary of the LCA model extended from the extraction of raw materials
to the sale of milk and cattle from the farm, i.e. cradle to farm-gate. Six of the major environmental impacts
of cattle farming were simulated; global warming potential (GWP), non-renewable energy (NRE) depletion,
land occupation (LO), acidification potential (ACP), freshwater and marine eutrophication potential (FEP and
MEP). Impacts were scaled to the following functional units: land area, fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM)
for dairy and carcass weight (CW) for beef. The result illustrated that GWC swards reduced the GWP of milk
production by 9% and cut the GWP of beef LW by 3%. Per unit of product, this strategy decreased ACP by
4%–5%, NRE depletion by 13%–19% and LO by 6%–7%. However, it increased MEP by 5%–12% due to clover
fixing more N than it replaced. Cattle farms based on GWC were more productive than conventional farms, but
tended to increase impacts per hectare. Organic farming had the lowest environmental impacts per unit of land
and reduced GWP and NRE depletion. Without carbon sequestration, organic farming had the opposite effect
on GWP of FPCM and increased ACP and MEP per product unit. Declines in productivity in organic systems led
to the rise in these impacts per unit of product and increases in LO relative to conventional systems. Partial
conversion (10%–20%) of grassland to silvopasture decreased milk and beef output, and slightly improved
environmental performance. Carbon sequestration was greater in silvopasture than in grassland, albeit LCA
models struggle to accurately quantify the influence of management change on this process. This issue can be
overcome through more field and modelling research on sequestration. Further research is also required on
combining diversification options to optimise the environmental sustainability of cattle farming.
1. Introduction farming systems. However, the long-term sustainability of this model of

agriculture is questionable given that the global population is rapidly
In most developed countries, agricultural systems have become increasing and shifting towards a Western diet rich in animal-based
more mechanised and specialised. This has led to homogenisation of products. Global analyses by Tilman et al. (2011) and Davis et al.
rural landscapes, greater losses of nutrients to the environment, and
(2016) indicate that meeting future food demand with current farming
increases in emissions (Tilman et al., 2002; Peyraud et al., 2014),
systems will have adverse effects on the environment, even with further
particularly ammonia (NH3 ), nitrate (NO−3
) and greenhouse gas (GHG).
Simplification and intensification are the principal drivers of the un- gains in efficiency.
desirable environmental impacts of specialised agricultural systems Diversification is a nature-based agricultural strategy regularly re-
(Lemaire et al., 2014). Improvements in productivity and food security ported to have a positive influence on environmental sustainability and
compensate somewhat for the negative externalities of contemporary food security. This strategy was common on European farms prior to the
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. O’Brien).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2023.100126
Received 22 February 2023; Received in revised form 8 May 2023; Accepted 25 May 2023
Available online 29 May 2023
2666-9161/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Lishui Institute of Ecology and Environment, Nanjing University. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
D. O’Brien, M. Markiewicz-Keszycka and J. Herron Resources, Environment and Sustainability 14 (2023) 100126
green revolution in the 1960’s (Tilman et al., 2002). Many different op- 2. Materials & methods
tions exist for diversifying agricultural systems. Nature-based solutions
focus on using natural resources i.e. clean air, water and soil to tackle 2.1. Cattle farming systems
environmental challenges in an intelligent way (European Commission,
2023). They can have multiple benefits. For example, Lee et al. (2003) Table 1 summarises the characteristics of a typical Irish suckler
reported planting 16 m wide woody riparian margins, in the correct calf-to-beef production system and an average spring calving dairy
place, around corn and soybean field plots in the USA reduced surface system. The Teagasc national farm survey (NFS) was the primary
run-off and trapped over half of the incoming sediments and nutrients dataset employed to define the agricultural parameters of cattle farms.
from cropland. Jahangir et al. (2014) results indicated a mustard catch The purpose of the NFS is to monitor the viability of Irish agriculture
crop decreases the risk of marine eutrophication underneath an Irish and to supply reliable information to the farm accountancy data net-
field of spring barley by reducing groundwater nitrate levels relative to work (FADN) of the European Union (Dillon et al., 2021). The survey
a conventional barley field with no vegetative cover and mitigated an is conducted annually on 900 to 1100 farms spread throughout the
indirect source of GHG. Finn et al. (2013) showed in a continental-scale nation. The number of farms included in the survey is governed by the
field experiment that grass–legume mixtures combining four species farm population. A random sampling methodology is applied to select
outperform the best monocultures in terms of total yield in about 60% farms. Farms in the survey are weighted according to land area using
of sites, reduce weed invasion and improve resource complementarity. aggregation factors from the Irish central statistics office (CSO, 2021)
Further research on diversifying swards in New Zealand, highlighted to ensure the NFS is representative of the farm population. For dairy
that offering multi-species sward to dairy cows instead of binary mixes farms, the NFS collect data from 250–300 farms and represents 16,000
reduces N losses without decreasing milk production (Bryant et al., suppliers. With regard to beef farms, the NFS gathers activity data
2017). from 350–400 beef farms, with suckling being the dominant enterprise
Implementing diversification practices on livestock farms is there- (31,500 farms).
fore likely to enhance environmental performance, but few have been Almost all the cattle farms in the NFS sample operate grass-based
evaluated at the production system level, especially for grass-based production systems. Grass that is optimally managed is an inexpensive
cattle farms. This system of farming is important in a number of and nutritious feed capable of supporting good levels of milk and beef
global regions, especially within countries that have temperate climatic production. Ireland’s cool, moist climate and organic matter-rich soils
conditions e.g., Ireland, Britain and New Zealand (Chobtang et al.,
create conducive conditions for grass production. Most cattle farmers
2016; Markiewicz-Keszycka et al., 2023). Directly measuring multiple
try to exploit these conditions by aligning turn-out to pasture with
environmental benefits of nature-based diversification options at the
the onset of the growing season. Animals are left out to pasture once
farm-scale is complicated, time-consuming and expensive. Mathemat-
ground conditions are suitable for grazing and as soon as supply is
ical modelling is a cost-effective alternative to measurement that is
sufficient. The majority of beef and dairy cows are turned out to grass
regularly employed to evaluate livestock production systems’ economic
immediately after calving. Mean calving date for the average dairy and
and environmental sustainability. Unlike field experiments, mathemat-
suckler calf-to-beef systems were the 4th of March and 2nd of April,
ical models represent the interlinkages among many farm components
respectively (Table 1). Throughout the lactation period, dairy cows are
and processes and their interactions. In addition, they can simultane-
supplemented with concentrate feed (1,025 kg/cow), most of which
ously quantify several potential environmental impacts and thereby
is fed in early spring (February–March) and late autumn (October),
identify possible trade-offs or co-benefits.
early winter. Rotational grazing is common on dairy farms. In this
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the main method for modelling the
system, fields are divided into paddocks and grazed until a desired post-
resource use and environmental burdens of agricultural production
grazing height, e.g., 4 cm, has been reached. The herd usually spends
systems (van der Werf et al., 2020). The general principles and stages
24 to 36 h in a paddock. The rotation length ranges from 21–26 days
of the methodology are internationally standardised (ISO, 2006a,b).
between April and mid-August. Synthetic fertiliser N is spread either
The majority of LCA models of cattle farming systems follow this stan-
dard. They are often applied to compare production systems, farming after a paddock is grazed, or blanket spread across the grazing area on
practices, and new technologies. However, most LCA studies focus a monthly basis. The amount of synthetic fertiliser N applied on dairy
on indoor systems (Chobtang et al., 2016), and many are limited to farms averaged 185 kg N/hectare (ha) per year between 2017 and 2019
a single impact category e.g., global warming potential (McClelland (Table 1).
et al., 2018). The LCA method has been applied to determine the Suckler calf-to-beef farms, on average, spread 83 kg of synthetic fer-
environmental impacts of grass-based cattle farms in temperate regions tiliser N/ha (Table 1). Continuous grazing, also known as set stocking,
(Payen et al., 2020) and alpine areas (Sabia et al., 2020; Angerer is an alternative method of grassland management used on some beef
et al., 2021), but few, if any, have examined a range of diversification farms. In this grazing system, animals graze a field for several days or
practices for this type of farming system. weeks before moving to a new field. The time beef animals spend in
Two common systems of cattle farming, suckler calf-to-beef and a field is usually set arbitrarily by the herd manager, which depends
spring-calving dairy systems, were modelled according to the LCA on multiple factors such as off-farm working hours and farm fragmen-
method. Both of these bovine systems were situated in the Republic tation. The quality of pasture in this type of grazing system is often
of Ireland and were nationally representative. Ireland was selected as moderate, and yields are usually low (5–7 t DM/ha). Supplementary
the case study region for three reasons. First, grasslands make up over feedstuffs and roughage are offered to cattle during prolonged periods
90% of the utilised agricultural area (4.5 million hectares). Second, of poor grass growth. Concentrate feeds are also offered to cattle as part
cattle production is ubiquitous, taking place on 80% of farms in the of finishing diets (Teagasc, 2021b). The majority of males, 78% (CSO,
country (CSO, 2021). Third, Ireland is amongst the largest net exporters 2021) are typically finished as steers. Grass growth frequently exceeds
of bovine products in the Northern Hemisphere (DAFM, 2020). The the feed requirement of cattle in late spring and summer. When there is
principal objective of this LCA study was to assess the influence of a surplus of grass on farms, it is harvested and conserved in pits and/or
diversification options on the resource use and potential environmental made into silage or hay bales. These conserved forages are offered to
impacts of conventional grass-based cattle farming systems. Three di- the herd during the housing period.
versification options frequently recommended for livestock farms were Cattle are re-housed when ground conditions become unsuitable
examined: (1) mixed grass–white clover swards (GWC), (2) organic for grazing in late autumn or winter, i.e. October–December. Cows
farming (OFS), and (3) agroforestry (AGF). Silvopasture was tested for and replacement heifers greater than 12 months are generally housed
the agroforestry option. This type of agroforestry integrates trees with in sheds with cubicles (free-stalls) and slatted or solid floors. Beef
grassland and livestock. heifers, steers and bulls are principally kept in roofed open houses
2
Table 1
General characteristics of national average grass-based cattle farming systems in the Republic of Ireland, 2017–2019.
Farm Systemsa
Dairy Suckler Calf-to-beef
Farm
Grassland ha/year 40 (23) 34 (21)
Soil K status ≥ index 3b 46% (5%) 39% (5%)
Soil P status ≥ index 3 51% (7%) 48% (7%)
Optimal pH % soils 49% (1%) 37% (5%)
Land type moderate/good 56% (1%) 42% (1%)
Fertiliser N kg N/ha per year 185 (73) 83 (53)
Fertiliser P kg P/ha per year 12 (9) 10 (13)
Fuel consumption l/ha per year 80.9 (47.2) 51.9 (23.8)
Grass utilisation kg DM/ha per year 8.1 (2.3) 6.2 (2.1)
Herd
Cows average hdc /year 67.3 (43.2) 23.9 (17.3)
0–1 year old average hd/year 19.9 (9.1) 21.8 (17.1)
1–2 year old average hd/year 15.2 (7.6) 22.7 (2.9)
2+ year old average hd/year – 11.6 (9.4)
Replacement rate % cows 21% (13%) 18% (10%)
Age at first calving Month 24 (3) 30 (6)
Mean calving date Date 4th March (28 d) 2nd April (36 d)
Grazing season – cows days/year 236 (23) 219 (44)
Concentrate feedstuffs kg/LUd per year 1,025 (424) 299 (212)
Stocking rate LU/ha per year 2.1 (0.53) 1.6 (0.50)
Production
Heifer slaughter age Months – 25 (1.1)
Heifer carcass weight Kg/hd per year – 333 (34)
Steer slaughter age Months – 28 (1.9)
Steer carcass weight Kg/hd per year – 395 (59)
Beef carcass output kg/ha per year 113 (77) 241 (105)
Milk produced kg/cow per year 5,750 (1,021) -
Milk fat and protein kg/cow per year 439 (76) -
Note: Standard deviation in parenthesis.

a Teagasc 2027 sectoral roadmaps for dairy and beef production Teagasc (2021b).
b Soils at nutrient index 3 or 4 are considered to have good fertility levels.
c hd = Head.
d
LU = Livestock unit equivalent to 1 dairy cow/annum.
with slatted floors. Housing for calves normally contains solid floors NRE depletion and LO (e.g., Guerci et al., 2013; Leip et al., 2015). Other
and bedding material e.g., straw. Dung and urine excreted on bedding, important impacts identified in the LCA literature, i.e. biodiversity
i.e. solid manure, is collected periodically and kept in a dungstead and ecotoxicity, were excluded because of issues in capturing the
or farmyard manure (FYM) store(s). Manure with little or no waste complexity of biodiversity in LCA metrics (Crenna et al., 2020) and due
bedding (i.e. liquid manure or slurry) is stored in reinforced concrete to a lack of data on the fate of agrochemicals and heavy metals in the
tanks underneath animal houses or stored above or below ground in local environment.
uncovered or covered tanks. Cattle slurry and solid manure are recycled The boundary of the LCA models extended from the extraction and
onto grassland during the growing season. Slurry is broadcast onto acquisition of raw material to the export of milk to creameries and
fields with vacuum tankers or spread in narrow bands with trailing cattle to beef factories. Hence, both models were delimited to include
hoses or shoes. on-farm impacts from daily farming activities and pre-farm impacts
embodied in inputs, e.g. electricity. Agricultural inputs reported to have
2.2. Life cycle assessment negligible impact, e.g., medicines (Saunders and Barber, 2007), were
excluded from the analysis. Remaining inputs and agricultural outputs
The environmental performance of grass-based cattle farms was were recorded in the inventory analysis stage. Where possible, fore-
quantified using a pair of hybrid bio-economic LCA models developed ground data on resource use was collected by the NFS from cattle farms.
by Teagasc in conjunction with University partners (Herron et al., National databases and reports were used to fill gaps in foreground
2021a,b). Both adhere to the general principles of LCA defined by the data for vegetation and animals, e.g., birth weights. Secondary data
International Organization for Standardization (ISO, 2006a,b). Teagasc from Nemecek and Kägi (2007) were coupled with foreground data
beef and dairy LCA models are aligned with the United Nations Food on field operations to quantify the materials, e.g., fossil fuel consumed
and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2015) approach for large rumi- by agricultural contractors. Emissions from materials and substances
nants. They apply LCA according to the ISO (2006a) framework, which used on-farm were quantified using the factors and formulae reported
is broadly divided into four stages: (1) goal and scope definition (2) in Table 2 .
inventory analysis (3) impact assessment and (4) interpretation. The The emission factors for calculating carbon dioxide (CO2 ), methane
LCA models were adapted to determine the main potential impacts of (CH4 ), nitrous oxide (N2 O), nitrogen oxide (NOx ), NH3 , NO− 3
, phos-
cattle farming: global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential phorus (P), phosphate (PO3− 4
), and sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions
(ACP), marine and freshwater eutrophication potential (MEP and FEP), within the cattle LCA models have previously been reported in detail
non-renewable energy (NRE) depletion and land occupation (LO). The by Herron et al. (2021a,b). Briefly, GHG and ammonia emissions from
first environmental impact category selected is subject to regulation on-farm sources were computed according to the Intergovernmental
under the EU effort sharing directive (European Union, 2023) and ACP, Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2019) guidelines and national emis-
MEP and FEP are regulated by the national emission reduction directive sion inventories (Duffy et al., 2020a,b). Short-term sources of CO2
or water framework directive (European Union, 2016a,b, 2023). These were considered neutral with respect to global warming because the
impacts are frequently included in international LCA studies along with IPCC (2019) guidelines report that CO2 respired by autotrophs and
3
Table 2
Inventory analysis of on-farm sources of emissions in grass-based cattle farming systems.
Emission source CO2 a CH4 b,c N2 O–Na,c NH3 –Nd NOx –Ne NO3 –Na Pe SO2 e
(kg/kg) (kg/hd) (% of N) (% of N) (kg/kg N) (% of N) (kg/ha) (g/kg)
Livestock
Enteric fermentation
Housing: Conserved forage [DEIf × (0.096 + 0.035 × Fprpg )
−(2.298 × FLh – 1)]/55.65
Feedlot: Concentrate > 85% diet (0.04 × GEIi )/55.65
Grazing (0.063 × GEI)/55.65
Housing and manure storage
Slurry tank with crust/cover Manure volatile solids (VS) 0.5 3 0.002
× Bo × 0.67 × MCFj
Slurry tank without crust/cover Manure VS × Bo × 0.67 × MCF 0 6 0
Slurry tank under slatted unit Manure VS × Bo × 0.67 × MCF 0.2 3 0.001
Dungstead: Solid manure (>20% DM) Manure VS × Bo × 0.67 × MCF 1 21 0.004
Housing on slatted floor 17
Housing on straw bedding 2–10
Feed production
Diesel use 3.14 0.030k 2.57
Gasoline use 3.13 0.020k 0.07
CAN spreading 1.49 0.8 0.005 10
Urea spreading 2.68 0.25 15.5 0.001 10
Protected urea spreading 2.68 0.4 0.8 0.001 10
Lime application 1.61
Crop residues 1.0 0.004 10
Slurry application 1.0 16–29 0.004 10
Solid manure application 1.0 41 0.004 10
Manure excreted on pasture
Dung 0.3 4 0.001 10
Urine 1.2 4 0.004 10
Nutrient leaching 1.1l m
0.06× Fgw
Nutrient run-off 1.0l n 0.25× Fro
a Duffy et al. (2020a).
b
Yan et al. (2000).
c
IPCC (2019).
d
Duffy et al. (2020b).
e
Nemecek and Kägi (2007).
f Digestible energy intake.
g Proportion of diet forage.
h Feeding levels above maintenance.
i
Gross energy intake.
j
Methane conversion factor.
k
Per kg of fuel.
l
Percent of nitrate nitrogen loss.
m Fgw = (1 + 0.2/80 × slurry P O ).
2 5
nF
ro = (1 + 0.0025 × fertiliser P2 O5 + 0.7/80 × slurry P2 O5 + 0.005 × solid manure P2 O5 ).
heterotrophs is rapidly re-absorbed by plants during photosynthesis. the P surplus, and the amount of P applied. Phosphorus surplus was
Carbon loss and sequestration for a change in land use were assumed calculated by way of a farm-gate balance. Imports and exports of P were
to reach a steady state after 20 years of constant land use (IPCC, 2019). calculated on an annual basis and the difference was used to quantify
However, improved grassland soils in temperate climate zones have the P surplus at a farm-level. The potential loss of surplus P from index
the capacity to sequester carbon for significantly longer than 20 years 2 and 3 soils was calculated as a function of the total P application
(Leip et al., 2015; Bai and Cotrufo, 2022). Managed grasslands are rate using formulae from Nemecek and Kägi (2007; Table 2). Pre-farm
currently estimated to sequester 0.5 t C/ha per year (Byrne et al., 2018) emissions and resources embodied in purchased inputs were calculated
in Ireland. Therefore, this land use was treated as a sink for carbon. with data from national reports, where possible (Table 3). For example,
Methane from enteric fermentation, a digestive process in rumi- GHG emissions from power generation were estimated with emission
nants, was estimated as a function of gross energy intake (GEI). The values from Irish GHG inventory and energy reports (SEAI, 2020). The
percentage of GEI emitted as CH4 on pasture was reduced from 6.5% materials and environmental losses associated with inputs produced
to 6.3% (IPCC, 2019). For cattle indoors on a grass-silage based diet, the overseas were estimated using international studies and LCA databases
Ym factor remained the same, i.e. 7.8%–8.0% (Yan et al., 2000). Enteric such as Ecoinvent (2015). These emissions and resources were added
CH4 from cattle on an ad-lib concentrate diet was increased from 3% to to the on-farm inventory results and translated into environmental
4%. A new tier 2 model from the IPCC (2019) guidelines was applied to impacts in the impact assessment stage (Table 4).
estimate CH4 emissions from stored manure. Country-specific emission The 100-yr time horizon characterisation factors (without climate
factors from Teagasc (Harty et al., 2016; Krol et al., 2016) were adopted change feedback) reported by IPCC (2013) were used to calculate
for N2 O losses associated with organic manure and synthetic fertilisers. the GWP, also referred to as carbon footprint, of cattle production
Ammonia and NOx emissions from manure were quantified using the systems. The accumulated exceedance method recommended by the
mass flow approach described in the Irish informative report (Duffy European Commission (2018) was applied to determine ACP in moles
et al., 2020b). The same source was used to estimate emissions from of hydrogen ion (H+ ) equivalent (eq); (Posch et al., 2008). Potential
synthetic fertilisers. marine eutrophication was quantified in kg N eq using factors reported
Nitrate leaching from organic and inorganic N was fixed at 10% by Huijbregts et al. (2016). Freshwater eutrophication potential was
of N (Duffy et al., 2020a). Phosphorus loss was quantified based on computed with characterisation factors from the same author, but in
4
Table 3
Inventory analysis of pre-farm stage in grass-based cattle farming systems.
Item Energy use Land use CO2 CO2 LUC CH4 N2 O NH3 NOx NO3 SO2 PO4 P
(MJ) (m2 ) (kg) (kg) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g)
Electricityc , kWh 11.4 – 0.38 – 1.08 0.02 – 0.53 – 0.73 – –
Diesel, l 8.2 – 0.38 – 1.51 – – 1.13 0.01 3.45 – –
CAN, kg N 54.0 – 3.63 – 2.84 0.01 8.85 13.98 – 4.08 – –
Urea, kg N 63.9 – 1.86 – 0.01 0.24 3.49 3.21 0.01 3.13 – –
Limestone, kg 0.4 – 0.15 – 0.12 – 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.03 – –
Super phosphate, kg P2 O5 27.3 – 0.39 – 0.01 0.01 0.04 8.62 0.10 28.16 22.84 0.03
Pesticide, kg AI 212.5 – 8.40 – – – 0.04 12.14 0.13 32.92 0.37 –
Concentrate feedstuffs
Growing cattle, kg 8.3 0.5 0.11 0.00 0.28 0.22 2.13 0.98 14.78 0.73 0.22 –
Finishing cattle, kg 7.5 0.8 0.18 0.00 0.33 0.39 1.90 0.95 18.26 0.68 0.20 0.01
Grazing dairy cows, kg 5.6 0.69 0.17 0.00 0.18 0.42 2.57 0.72 20.33 0.50 0.32 –
Housed dairy cows, kg 5.2 0.75 0.17 0.35 3.06 0.45 1.59 0.76 16.90 0.61 0.40 –
a
Energy use was estimated with data from Ecoinvent (2015) and land use values for concentrate feedstuffs were obtained from Vellinga et al. (2012).
b
Carbon dioxide, CO2 from land use change (LUC), CH4 and N2 O values were taken from the Carbon Trust (2013). Sulphur dioxide, NH3 , NO3 , PO4 and P emissions values were
taken from Ecoinvent (2015).
c Carbon dioxide values for electricity generation were taken from the Irish Sustainable Energy Authority (SEAI, 2020).
Table 4
Selected environmental impacts with related units, contributing substances and characterisation factors.
Impact Category Unit Substances Characterisation factors References
Global warming potential t CO2 equivalent CO2 1 IPCC (2013)
Biogenic CH4 28
Fossil CH4 30
N2 O 265
Acidification mol H+ eq NH3 1.2 Posch et al. (2008)
NOx 0.6
NO2 0.6
SO2 1.1
Freshwater eutrophication g P equivalent PO4 0.23 Huijbregts et al. (2016)
P 0.7
Marine eutrophication kg N equivalent NH3 0.082 Huijbregts et al. (2016)
NOx 0.03
NO2 0.03
NO3 0.23
Non-renewable energy depletion (UHVa ) MJ Fossil fuels 1 Frischknecht et al. (2007)
Nuclear 1
Land occupation m2 Land 1
a UHV = Upper heating value
kg P eq. Non-renewable energy depletion was determined in MJ using 2.3. Diversification scenarios
the upper heating values from the cumulative energy demand method
(Frischknecht et al., 2007), crude oil: 45.8 MJ/kg, natural gas: 40.3 Nature-based diversification options for grass-based beef and dairy
MJ/m3 , coal: 19.1 MJ/kg, uranium: 560,000 MJ/kg and peat: 9.9 producers in temperate regions were identified via literature reviews
MJ/kg. Land occupation was quantified by aggregating the area of land (Jaramillo et al., 2021; Markiewicz-Keszycka et al., 2023). Three op-
a farm used for housing and feed production with the areas required for tions frequently recommended in these review were explored through a
purchased farm inputs, e.g., concentrate feedstuffs. scenario analysis. The diversification scenarios evaluated for both farm
Impact categories were scaled relative to the functions of beef and types were:
dairy systems. Land use was chosen as a common function for both
1. Mixed grass–white clover swards (GWC)
systems. Beef carcass weight (CW) was the primary functional unit for
2. Organic farming (OGF)
beef farms, and fat and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) was the main
3. Agroforestry (AGF)
unit for dairy. Fat and protein-corrected milk was standardised to 4%
fat and 3.3% true protein according to the approach recommended by In the GWC scenario, ryegrass pastures were converted to grass–
the International Dairy Federation (IDF, 2022). In addition to milk, white clover swards, where beef and dairy farms were predominantly
dairy cows produce meat at the end of their lifecycle and produce calves located on moderate or well-drained soils. This conversion was carried
for the beef herd. There is a strong causal relationship between feed out according to the steps in the Hennessy et al. (2021) management
demand and cattle outputs. This biophysical relationship is described guide for white clover. Briefly, 10%–15% of the farm was reseeded
in the IDF (2022) guidelines for dairy and was used to apportion the annually. Grassland was cultivated when soil temperature exceeded
environmental impacts between milk and beef CW. Economic criteria 7 ◦ C in spring. Prior to cultivation, glyphosate was applied at a rate
were used to allocate an environmental impact between agricultural of 5 l/ha, to control weeds. Grass and white clover varieties were
inputs, e.g., rolled barley grains and straw. This method divides an im- subsequently sown at a rate of 30 kg/ha and 5 kg/ha, respectively.
pact category between co-products based on their share of a production At or shortly before sowing, 40 kg of P and 90 kg of K fertiliser were
system’s annual revenue. The quantity of concentrate feed offered to applied per ha to aid establishment. In summer, synthetic fertiliser N
cattle was recorded throughout the year and fed into the LCA models was reduced to increase the share of white clover in mixed swards. The
through the NFS database. Both of the LCA models operated on a white clover content of the sward in summer and autumn ranged from
monthly basis and reported environmental impacts on an annualised 30%–40%. The amount of N fixed was estimated based on the content
basis. of white clover in the sward and the fertiliser N rate (Enriquez-Hidalgo
5
et al., 2015; Hennessy et al., 2021). White clover was also over sown and dressing percentage were used to derive LW for suckler calf-to-beef
(5 kg/ha) on about a fifth of the farm annually. Paraffinic oil was added system. Energy-corrected milk for dairy farms was determined using the
to drinking water to prevent ruminal typany. Pastures were reseeded following equation from Sjaunja et al. (1990):
after 8–10 years when white clover became unproductive.
𝑘𝑔 𝐸𝐶𝑀 = 𝑘𝑔 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑘 × (0.25 × 0.122 × 𝐹 𝑎𝑡% × 0.077 × 𝑃 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛% (1)
Clover and organic manure were the sole N inputs in the OGF
diversification scenario. Two species of clover were grown on the Concerning LCIA methods, GHG emissions were evaluated in terms
organic beef and dairy farms; trifolium repens (white) and trifolium of their 100-year global temperature potential (Table S1) using char-
pratense (red). The former was established using the same procedure acterisation factors from the IPCC (2013). Acidification potential was
described for the GWC scenario but without glyphosate. White clover quantified according to the approach of Huijbregts (1999). The method-
was primarily managed for grazing. Red clover was generally conserved ology of Heijungs et al. (1992) was employed to determine MEP and
as silage. Planting of red clover was carried out in April following field FEP in terms of NO− and PO3− , respectively. Land occupation and
3 4
preparation according to Teagasc guidelines (Conaghan and Clavin, NRE depletion were calculated according to the Recipe methodology
2017). It was sown with companion hybrid ryegrasses in a 50:50 (Goedkoop et al., 2009; Huijbregts et al., 2016). Non-renewable energy
mixture. The sowing rate for the mixture was 30 kg/ha. Red clover depletion was restricted to fossil fuels with this approach, as nuclear
was allowed to flower prior to the initial silage harvest. Two to three metals were considered under mineral depletion. The energy content
cuts of red clover silage were taken each year. Solid manure and rock of fossil fuels was in terms of their lower heating values in Recipe.
phosphate was applied on the crop at a rate of 14–20 kg P/ha. The crop Characterisation factors were in oil eq and were converted to MJ, using
also received 35 kg P/ha in the establishment phase. Silage was mowed the energy content of the reference oil resource (42 MJ/kg) to facilitate
7–8 cm above ground levels to improve the persistency of red clover. comparison with the cumulative energy demand method.
The crop was estimated to have a relatively short lifespan of 4–5 years.
Red clover fields were rotated every 5 years to reduce the build-up of 3. Results and discussion
pests and diseases.
Switching from a conventional to an organic sward did not affect 3.1. Conventional farming
turnout and housing dates. However, slatted floors in cattle houses
were partly changed to solid floors with straw bedding. In addition, The effects of conventional grass-based cattle systems on selected
the housing area was increased to comply with organic farming rules resource and environmental metrics during 2017–2019 are presented
(Teagasc, 2017). Mean calving date did not differ for the organic dairy in Table 5. On average, conventional dairy farms had a total GWP,
system, but milking frequency was reduced to once a day. This change i.e. carbon footprint of 0.82 t CO2 eq/t FPCM (SD = 0.17), and
was estimated to decrease milk volume by 36% (Teagasc, 2022). It was conventional suckler calf-to-beef farms had a total GWP of 19.5 t CO2
also assumed to increase the fat content of milk to 4.5% and increased eq/t CW (SD = 5.4). Excluding carbon sequestration, increased the total
protein content to 3.7% (Teagasc, 2022). Concentrate supplementation GWP of the average dairy system to 0.98 kg CO2 equiv/kg FPCM (SD
was decreased to 140 kg DM/dairy cow and restricted to organic = 0.18). The total GWP of the average suckler calf-to-beef system was
ingredients. For beef cows, calving pattern was the same in organic and 40% greater without carbon sequestration. On-farm sources of GHG, on
conventional systems. Calving rates, age at first calving and slaughter average, made up 82% of the total GWP of dairy production and 90%
were also unaffected by the switch to organics, but slaughter weight of the total GWP of suckler calf-to-beef production.
for steers in commercial herds was reduced from 395 kg CW/head to Similar to recent LCA studies of cattle farming systems (e.g., Asem-
an average of 373 kg CW/head (Teagasc, 2017). Organic concentrate Hiablie et al., 2019; Ledgard et al., 2020), CH4 was the largest GHG,
supplements were offered to growing and finishing cattle at a similar making up 62% of total GWP in the dairy system and 73% in the beef
rate as conventional feeds in the reference beef system. system. Enteric fermentation of feed in cattle was the principal driver
For the AGF diversification scenario, 10% of the reference dairy of CH4 emissions (Figs. 1 and 2). Nitrous oxide was the second largest
farm and 20% of the conventional suckler calf-to-beef system were GHG in terms of GWP followed by CO2 . The former accounted for
changed to silvopasture. Sycamore trees were planted in 8 × 8 m blocks 16% of total GWP in the beef system and 21% in the dairy system.
with 2-metre spacing between and within rows. Twenty-five blocks Agricultural soils and the manufacture of synthetic fertilisers were
were established per ha, which equated to 400 sycamore trees. Fences the primary sources of N2 O. Organic and synthetic fertilisers, and
and shelters were erected around the blocks to protect tree saplings. urine excreted by grazing cattle, caused the majority of N2 O loss from
Pasture was cut for silage in the establishment phase and cattle under soils. Synthetic fertilisers also were a major contributor to CO2 emis-
6 months of age grazed between the blocks. After 7 years, growing sions, along with feed imports, particularly soybean meal and on-farm
cattle under 24 months were allowed to graze silvopasture. Tree fences machinery operations.
were removed gradually as the plants matured. Shading was assumed Total GWP results for both cattle systems were considerably lower
to reduce grass yield by 25% after 10 years of agroforestry (DAERA, than the global averages estimated by Opio et al. (2013), 2.8 t CO2
2016). Thinning was undertaken to manage grass growth and the equi.v/t FPCM and 67.8 t CO2 /t CW, and similar or below the European
development of sycamore trees. This practice and carbon sequestration averages reported in the same study. The outcomes for GWP were also
was modelled with the Teagasc Forest Carbon Tool (Teagasc, 2021a). below the results reported by Leip et al. (2010) for EU and Irish cattle
Silvopasture was assumed to reduce soil moisture content and improve systems, which unlike the study of Opio et al. (2013) included carbon
infiltration based on the results of a long-term study in Northern Ireland sequestration. The different ways these studies treated sequestration
(McAdam et al., 2018). This facilitated a 3–5 week extension to the highlights the importance of considering GWP with and without carbon
grazing season for heifers below 2 years of age in the dairy system and sequestration (IDF, 2022). Additionally, these studies did not analyse
a 4–5 week extension for growing livestock in the beef system. the same production years; for example, Leip et al. (2010) quantified
the GWP of cattle production in 2004 compared to 2017–2019 in the
2.4. Sensitivity analysis present study. Productivity has improved on farms over this period,
which has led to decreases in GWP for both dairy and beef farms.
Important decisions regarding product-based functional units and Ledgard et al. (2020) observed this trend for similar dairy farming
life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods were tested in the in- systems located in the southern hemisphere and reported a 6%–8%
terpretation stage of the LCA. Live weight (LW) was selected as an lower total GWP per unit of product than the current study, despite
alternative functional unit for beef systems, and energy-corrected milk producing less than milk per cow. All year round grazing, minimal
(ECM) was chosen for the spring-calving dairy system. Carcass weight use of concentrate feed inputs and the greater stocking rate of the
6
Table 5
Annual means and standard deviations (SD, in parentheses) of on-farm and cradle to farm-gate (total) environmental impacts, at midpoint level, for national average grass-based
cattle farming systems in the Republic of Ireland, 2017–2019.
Impact Category Unit Location Dairy (n = 314) Suckler Calf-to-beef (n = 106)
Per t of FPCMa Per hectare Per t of CWb Per hectare
Global warming potential (GWP) t CO2 -equivalent On-farm 0.67 (0.13) 7.6 (1.8) 17.5 (4.4) 4.2 (1.5)
Total 0.82 (0.16) 9.4 (3.3) 19.5 (5.4) 4.7 (2.3)
GWP excluding carbon sequestration t CO2 -equivalent Total 0.98 (0.18) 11.2 (3.5) 27.2 (6.5) 6.5 (2.5)
Acidification potential (ACP) mol H+ equivalent On-farm 5.0 (1.3) 56.9 (18.9) 140.6 (43.8) 33.9 (16.2)
Total 6.1 (1.5) 69.5 (22.5) 157.2 (49.4) 37.9 (18.7)
Freshwater eutrophication potential (FEP) g P-equivalent On-farm 24.9 (5.2) 285.0 (83.7) 1,087 (289) 261.8 (115.8)
Total 42.3 (8.6) 484.7 (143.4) 1,404 (407) 338.2 (169.3)
Marine eutrophication potential (MEP) kg N-equivalent On-farm 3.8 (0.7) 43.0 (13.0) 104.1 (27.1) 25.1 (11.0)
Total 4.5 (0.8) 52.0 (15.6) 111.4 (31.3) 26.8 (13.2)
Non-renewable energy (NRE) depletion GJ On-farm 0.3 (0.2) 3.4 (1.9) 8.3 (5.9) 2.0 (1.1)
Total 2.7 (0.7) 31.2 (11.4) 51.9 (21.0) 12.5 (6.3)
Land occupation m2 On-farm 874 (365) – 41,527 (25,995) –
Total 987 (393) – 42,718 (25,513) –
a
Tonne of fat and protein corrected milk.
b Carcass weight.
Fig. 1. Contribution analysis of mid-point impact categories for an average grass-based suckler calf-to-beef production system in the Republic of Ireland. GWP = Global warming
potential, ACP = Acidification potential, FEP = Freshwater eutrophication potential, MEP = Marine eutrophication potential, NRE = Non-renewable energy depletion.
Fig. 2. Contribution analysis of mid-point impact categories for an average grass-based dairy production system in the Republic of Ireland. GWP = Global warming potential, AP
= Acidification potential, FEP = Freshwater eutrophication potential, MEP = Marine eutrophication potential, NRE = Non-renewable energy depletion.
New Zealand dairy system is likely to have caused the difference in considerable variability in AP (190–362 kg SO2 eq/t CW) and EUP (35–
total GWP along with minor divergences in the application of the LCA 393 kg PO4 eq/t CW) across LCA studies of suckler beef production. The
method. total EUP of the suckler calf-to-beef system was slightly less than 95 kg
Consistent with total GWP, ACP and eutrophication potential (EUP) PO4 equiv/t CW (SD = 25). For the average conventional grass-based
were in the lower end of the range of reported outcomes for cattle dairy system, total EUP and total ACP were lower than the averages
systems (e.g., de Vries et al., 2015; Baldini et al., 2017). Total ACP Baldini et al. (2017) reported for dairy LCA studies. Like de Vries et al.
for the suckler calf-to-beef system was 157 mol H+ /t CW (SD = 49.4, (2015), Baldini et al. (2017) showed considerable variability in the total
Table 5), which on a SO2 eq basis was similar to the minimum ACP ACP and EUP of dairy. This variability was caused by differences in
reported by de Vries et al. (2015). This review study highlighted farm productivity and LCA calculations, e.g., computation of emission
7
Fig. 3. Effect of diversification options on the potential environmental impacts related to 1 tonne of fat and protein corrected milk produced on an average grass-based dairy farm
in the Republic of Ireland, 2017–2019. The potential impacts of diversification were scaled against a conventional dairy system. Note: GWC = Mixed grass–white clover sward,
OGF = Organic farming, and AGF = Agroforestry.
factors. The latter implies that caution is required when comparing In agreement with Herron et al. (2021b) and Yan et al. (2013),
outcomes across LCA studies of agricultural systems. switching from grass-only to GWC swards reduced GWP and NRE
Eutrophication potential was further evaluated under two sub- depletion per ha and per unit of product (Figs. 3 to 6) . Grass–white
categories, marine and freshwater. The MEP and FEP of conventional clover swards decreased GHG emissions and NRE depletion by partially
cattle systems were comparable or lower than previous findings (e.g., substituting energy-intensive fertiliser N with biologically fixed N. Rhi-
Chobtang et al., 2016; Famiglietti et al., 2019; Payen et al., 2020), zobia in the root nodules of clover fixed N biologically. This organic
albeit few studies have reported these metrics for cattle systems. Nitrate form of N decreased NRE depletion by 13% in the GWC beef system
emission related to synthetic fertilisers and organic manure caused and 19% in the GWC dairy system. It had a greater mitigating impact
75%–85% of MEP in conventional beef and dairy systems (Figs. 1 and on the total GWP of dairy production than beef production, because
2). Phosphorus loss from these sources accounted for more than 60% the former production system was more reliant on synthetic fertiliser
of FEP in both production systems. Concentrate production was also N. Biological N fixation also mitigated the total ACP of conventional
an important contributor to FEP and MEP in the average conventional cattle systems by 4%–5%.
dairy system. Ammonia loss associated with cattle housing, grazing Substituting fertiliser N with biological N from white clover had
and fertilisers contributed to MEP, and was the principal acidifying little effect on the FEP of the average beef and dairy systems. However,
pollutant. The contribution of key pollutants and sources to ACP, FEP similar to Herron et al. (2021b), it increased MEP, particularly in
and MEP in the average conventional systems was largely in line with the beef system, because white clover fixed more N than it replaced.
the findings of de Vries et al. (2015), Baldini et al. (2017), Chobtang Ledgard et al. (2009) noted that white clover had a mixed effect
et al. (2016) and Payen et al. (2020). on N leaching and reported N leaching increases exponentially with
In addition, the outcomes for land occupation and NRE per tonne increasing N inputs, regardless of form, organic or synthetic. Grass–
of beef CW or FPCM were consistent with the results in the aforemen- white clover swards increased total N input for the beef and dairy
tioned studies. Improved pasture dominated land use in the average farms, which is likely to explain the rise in the total MEP of these
beef and dairy systems, making up 88%–97% of the total area. Land systems. Greater N in GWC swards tends to improve herbage quality
required for concentrate feed occupied most of the remaining area and and, thus animal performance. Clover is also more digestible than
was the second largest user of NRE (25%–32%) after N fertiliser produc- ryegrass (Ledgard et al., 2009) and Egan et al. (2016) showed that GWC
tion (41%–50%). Farm machinery was a relatively minor consumer of swards produce more herbage than ryegrass swards in the second half
NRE. Similar to most environmental impacts per ha, NRE depletion was of the growing season. Combining these production benefits for GWC
greater for milk production than beef production because dairy farmers swards in the conventional cattle systems reduced the area needed to
used more fertiliser, concentrate feed and electricity. produce a tonne of beef CW and FPCM, but increased total ACP and
total EUP on an area basis.
3.2. Grass–white clover swards
3.3. Organic farming
Incorporating white clover into ryegrass swards generally improved
the productivity and resource use efficiency of conventional cattle farm- Transforming the conventional spring-calving dairy farm to an or-
ing. Relative to the average dairy system, the legume increased milk ganic production system decreased milk output by 57% to 4062 kg
yield/cow by 7% and reduced synthetic fertiliser N by 43% to 105 kg milk/ha. Changing from conventional suckler beef production to or-
N/ha. Compared to the conventional suckler calf-to-beef system, GWC ganic production reduced beef sales from 241 to 190 kg CW/ha.
swards caused a similar relative rise in beef output/ha and lowered Extensive farming coupled with below average yields for livestock,
synthetic fertiliser N by 33 kg N/ha. Gains in beef output were mainly especially in the organic dairy system, caused the declines in milk and
due to increases in grass utilisation and stocking rate. Improvements in beef production. Unsurprisingly, extensification positively influenced
animal performance in the GWC-based cattle systems were comparable the absolute environmental impact of organic beef and dairy systems.
with Egan et al. (2018) and Moloney et al. (2018). The drop in N These farms consumed the least amount of NRE and had the lowest
fertiliser use in both systems was also in line with the findings of Egan total GWP, ACP and EUP per ha (Figs. 4 and 6). Similar to Mondelaers
et al. (2016, 2018) for grass-based ruminant systems. et al. (2009) and Tuomisto et al. (2012) meta-analyses of contemporary
8
Fig. 4. Effect of diversification options on the potential environmental impacts related to 1 hectare of land occupied by an average grass-based dairy farm in the Republic of
Ireland, 2017–2019. The potential impacts of diversification were scaled against a conventional dairy system. Note: GWC = Mixed grass–white clover sward, OGF = Organic
farming, and AGF = Agroforestry.
Fig. 5. Effect of diversification options on the potential environmental impacts related to 1 tonne of carcass weight produced on an average grass-based suckler calf-to-beef farm
in the Republic of Ireland, 2017–2019. The potential impacts of diversification were indexed against a conventional suckler calf-to-beef system. Note: GWC = Mixed grass–white
clover sward, OGF = Organic farming, and AGF = Agroforestry.
Fig. 6. Effect of diversification options on the potential environmental impacts related to 1 hectare of land occupied by an average grass-based suckler calf-to-beef farm in the
Republic of Ireland, 2017–2019. The potential impacts of diversification were indexed against a conventional suckler calf-to-beef system. Note: GWC = Mixed grass–white clover
sward, OGF = Organic farming, and AGF = Agroforestry.
agricultural systems, the principal reasons for low NRE use and absolute In contrast to environmental impacts per unit of land, organic
environmental impacts in the organic farms were: (1) no synthetic farming had a mixed effect on the resource use and environmental
fertilisers and pesticides were applied, and (2) concentrate feeding impacts of agricultural products (Figs. 3 and 5). The organic bovine
levels and stocking rates were lower than conventional systems. systems had a similar or greater total ACP, MEP, FEP and land use
9
than the average conventional farms on a product basis. Total NRE from tree thinnings. This finding agrees with Rivera Herrera et al.
depletion and total GWP per t of FPCM and per t of beef CW were (2016) results for silvopastoral dairy systems, but the approximate 1%–
lower in the organic systems than the conventional farms. Carbon 4% difference in NRE depletion between silvopastoral and conventional
sequestration in the organic beef system was 27% greater than in the bovine systems in this study was much lower than the 37% difference
conventional system on a product basis. In the organic dairy system, reported by Rivera Herrera et al. (2016). Allocating a large portion of
sequestration per unit of milk was more than double the conventional the silvopastoral bovine systems to managed pasture in this study is
system, which similar to Hörtenhuber et al. (2010) resulted in a lower likely to have caused the relative divergence.
GWP for organic milk. The rate of carbon sequestration did not differ in Regarding environmental impacts, agroforestry had little or no im-
organic and conventional bovine systems on an area basis, as there was pact on total MEP and FEP, but tended to improve ACP and GWP. Total
no local research to suggest otherwise. This assumption may have led ACP and GWP of the silvopasture beef system were 4%–12% lower than
to underestimate of the total GWP of organic products, partly because the average conventional beef farm on an area and product basis. For
carbon sequestration favours low-yielding systems (Plassmann, 2012). the silvopasture dairy system, these impacts were about 2%–4% lower
It is well known that increasing the share of concentrate in the than the average milk producer. The improvements in the ACP and
diet of cattle normally reduces CH4 emission intensity when output GWP impacts in the agroforestry systems were largely driven by the
stays the same or is improved (Hristov et al., 2013). The findings for longer grazing season. Extended grazing decreased slurry storage times,
dairy farms in this study supported this relationship, resulting in a which is consistent with Montes et al. (2013), and decreased ammonia
greater total GWP for organic milk than conventional milk when carbon and GHG losses from manure. Reducing slurry storage decreased farm
sequestration was excluded. The conventional beef system fed 6% more machinery use and related CO2 emissions. Similar to Schils et al.
concentrate supplement than the organic farm and released more CH4 (2005), a shorter storage period, negatively affected N emissions associ-
per t of CW. This result disagrees with de Vries et al. (2015) reasoning ated with grazing of cattle, but this was more than compensated for by
that supplying greater amounts of roughage in organic beef systems the reduction in housing related emissions. In addition, shortening the
increases CH4 emission intensity. The diverging findings were partly housing period reduced grass silage demand, which further decreased
caused by a larger difference in concentrate feeding rates in the organic machinery use and CO2 losses. Replacing grass silage with pasture also
and conventional beef farms evaluated by de Vries et al. (2015). Storing reduced CH4 emission, as grazed grass is generally more digestible than
solid instead of liquid manure in organic systems also contributed to silage and thus less conducive to methanogenesis.
lower CH4 emissions in this study. de Vries et al. (2015) did not report Agroforestry was calculated to sequester 0.8 t C/ha per year over
lower CH4 emissions from manure stored in organic systems but did two rotations. Carbon sequestration offset GHG emissions from sil-
show, like this study, that organic beef systems have a lower GWP per vopastoral beef and dairy systems by 32% and 18%, respectively.
unit of product than conventional farms. Switching to solid manure had The amount of carbon sequestration in agroforestry was considerably
the opposite effect on total ACP of organic dairy and beef products, greater, i.e. almost 60% more than the quantity of carbon removed in
as the change increased NH3 loss associated with manure storage and managed pasture. Extra carbon sequestration in agroforestry accounted
spreading. for over half of the decrease in the total GWP of silvopastoral beef
Organic grass-based bovine systems principally rely on nutrients and dairy systems. The modelled rate of carbon sequestration in agro-
from animal manures and N fixed by white and red clover. Matching forestry is a relatively conservative estimate. McAdam (2020) reported
organic nutrient supply with plant nutrient demand is challenging silvopasture in Northern Ireland sequesters approximately 3.2 t C/ha
because the nutrient content of organic inputs is often not well known, per year and can potentially deliver a carbon-neutral livestock system.
and the availability of organic nutrients is largely governed by unpre- Adopting the same rate of carbon removal in this study would have
dictable biophysical conditions (Clark and Tilman, 2017). Additionally, decreased the total GWP of the silvopastoral beef system by a further
the rate of nutrient release from organic inputs is slow relative to syn- 43% to 9.9 kg CO2 eq/kg beef CW and an extra 10% in the silvopastoral
thetic fertilisers. Temporal mismatches in nutrient supply and demand dairy system. Allocating a greater share of the beef and dairy farms to
resulted in low forage yields in the organic bovine systems and led to silvopasture is likely to bring both farms closer to carbon neutrality,
less efficient use of nutrients in these systems relative to conventional but this leads to inevitable trade-offs among productivity, resource use
farms. Consequently, organic beef and dairy systems required more and environmental metrics. The permanence of carbon sequestration
land than conventional farms to produce the same level of output, and in vegetation and soils is a further major challenge for this and other
similar to Tuomisto et al. (2012) and de Vries et al. (2015) had a greater diversification scenarios, as the process can be reversed through natural
EUP and MEP per unit of product. or artificial disturbances.
3.4. Agroforestry 3.5. Sensitivity tests
Silvopasture bovine systems had a minor positive effect on herbage Switching the product-based functional unit to ECM for dairy and
utilisation and livestock production. Growing beef cattle utilised 72% of to LW for beef had no effect on the order of the main impacts of the
the herbage grown in silvopasture, compared to 69% in managed pas- baseline and diversification scenarios (Fig. 7a). This change did not
ture. Comparable gains in herbage utilisation occurred in the silvopas- affect the differences between the results of the national average and
toral dairy system. In terms of output, the silvopastoral beef system diversified cattle farms. Changing the LCIA method for GHG emissions
produced 4% less CW than the national average, and the silvopastoral from GWP to GTP had no effect on the ranking of scenarios. However,
dairy yielded 2% less milk than the average, notwithstanding the it had a major effect on the relative differences between scenarios on
extra herbage utilised by cattle in silvopasture The main reason for a product basis (Fig. 7b, Tables S2–S3). For example, GHG emissions
the absence of a production benefit for the agroforestry systems was per t of CW for the agroforestry beef system was 72% lower than the
herbage yield declined on the part of the farm under silvopasture. national average on a GTP basis compared to 10% on a GWP basis.
Managed pasture and silvopasture received similar levels of synthetic For organic beef systems, the effect of changing LCIA method for GHG
fertiliser N. Thus, the herbage shortage in silvopasture was simply due emissions was particularly pronounced due to the large contribution of
to the allocation of land to sycamore trees instead of grass. This drop a short-lived GHG, i.e. CH4 , to the GWP of this system.
in herbage production also caused the silvopastoral bovine system to The GWP method integrates the warming potential of an emission
occupy more land per unit of product than the conventional system. of CH4 over a given time horizon, compared to an emission of CO2 . In
Grazing beef and dairy cattle in silvopasture instead of grassland de- contrast, GTP focuses on the potential temperature impact of a pulse
creased NRE depletion by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy of CH4 at the end of that period relative to CO2 (Collins et al., 2020).
10
Fig. 7. Sensitivity of the main environmental impacts of national average and diversified grass-based cattle farms to changes in functional units and life cycle impact assessment
(LCIA) methods. The impacts of a diversification scenario are expressed in terms of the baseline (national average) beef or dairy farm for the changed functional units (a) or LCIA
method (b) and indexed against the corresponding proportions derived with the initial LCIA methods and units (Figs. 3 and 5).
Dairy functional unit in (a) changed from fat and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) to energy-corrected milk (ECM), and beef functional unit changed from carcass weight (CW) to live
weight (LW). In (b) global warming potential (GWP) changed to global temperature potential (GTP), acidification potential (AP), marine and freshwater eutrophication potential
(MEP and FEP) were quantified using alternative methods to Posch et al. (2008) and Huijbregts et al. (2016), respectively. Non-renewable energy depletion was quantified with
lower heating values (LHV) instead of upper heating values (UHV) in (b), and land occupation was assigned weights based on type e.g., cropland and urban land, as an alternative
to the equal weighting used in the original method in (a). Note: GWC = Mixed grass–white clover sward, OGF = Organic farming, and AGF = Agroforestry.
The GTP of CH4 at 100 years is therefore the potential temperature et al. (2019). This approach, like GTP, puts a greater focus on the short-
change caused by an emission of CH4 that was released a century ago, term impacts of CH4 , but without the complications of the GTP method.
relative to an emission of CO2 released at the same time. This LCIA The GWP* metric applies GWP in a novel way by considering emission
method puts greater emphasis on the near-term impacts of short-lived rates and stocks for GHG with different atmospheric lifetimes. It puts
gases and a lesser emphasis on their long-term impact, which seems a greater emphasis on changes in emissions rates or flows than GWP,
more appropriate than the GWP method. However, the GTP approach which Cain et al. (2019) highlighted better represents the warming
is more complicated and uncertain than GWP as it considers ocean heat impact of short-lived GHG such as methane.
uptake and climate sensitivity (IPCC, 2013). A less uncertain alternative Altering the LCIA method for ACP and NRE had no effect on the
to GTP is the modified GWP approach or GWP* co-developed by Cain ranking of scenarios or the differences between them. Similarly for
11
land occupation, changing LCIA method had no effect on the order difficult modelling situations, where marginal products are themselves
of the scenarios. The relative difference in land occupation between the co-products of another system. Thus, to avoid these added complex-
the outputs of the organic and national average cattle farms varied ities and uncertainties a descriptive approach was adopted for scenario
depending on the LCIA method employed. The divergence was caused analysis.
by the weights assigned to land occupied by pasture and crops, and
the different levels of concentrate offered to cattle in the organic and 5. Conclusions
conventional systems. Regarding eutrophication potential, altering the
LCIA method had a minor influence on the MEP and FEP differences The diversification options investigated in this study were tested
between cattle farming systems. Switching to Heijungs et al. (1992) on conventional grass-based farms that are representative of common
factors resulted in the agroforestry system slightly reducing the MEP cattle production systems in Ireland. In reality, there is not a single type
of the average system, compared to a slight increase with the original of conventional cattle farm but a wide range of systems with different
method (Huijbregts et al., 2016). In addition, it resulted in organic beef management tactics. The environmental impact and resource use of
production increasing the FEP of the average farm by 14% instead of cattle farms usually depend more on producers’ management decisions
0.4%. The divergences in the results for eutrophication were primarily than their general production system. Cattle farmers that diversify
due to the characterisation factors the LCIA methods employed for N into agroforestry, organics or mixed swards may experience different
and P losses. The factors from Huijbregts et al. (2016) were specific to environmental and resource outcomes. Examining these strategies on
Ireland, whereas Heijungs et al. (1992) are global averages. Thus, for a greater number of farms with different management regimes would
a country-specific LCA of cattle production, the former methodology is provide better insight into environmental benefits and drawbacks of
more suitable for estimating MEP and FEP. diversification strategies on individual cattle farms. However, general
effects are unlikely to vary from the outcomes for typical cattle farming
4. General discussion systems. Further research is needed in relation to combining differ-
ent diversification options and carbon sequestration. Taking the best
Diversification options had contrasting effects on the resource use elements of current and future strategies and integrating them into
and environmental impacts of conventional grass-based cattle farms. cattle farming systems could overcome barriers to diversification and
Generally, diversifying into silvopasture agroforestry and organic farm- optimise environmental sustainability. Designing and developing these
ing had a positive influence on environmental impacts on an area basis, types of cattle systems should be a priority for future research.
but the latter decreased milk and beef production considerably and
increased land occupation relative to conventional agriculture. This Declaration of competing interest
finding agrees with many prior comparisons of organic and conven-
tional farming systems (Kristensen et al., 2011; de Vries et al., 2015) The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
and therefore suggests that organic farming could increase environmen- cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
tal impacts associated with dairy and beef products, as more land would influence the work reported in this paper.
be diverted into agriculture. On the other hand, this diversification
strategy reduced NRE depletion as no fertilisers and pesticides were Acknowledgements
applied on organic farms. Silvopasture also decreased reliance on fossil
fuels, and partial adoption tended to mitigate environmental impacts, The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the cli-
particularly GWP, per unit of product. Herbage and animal productivity mate change research programme of the Environmental Protection
could not be sustained when silvopastoral and conventional cattle Agency (Grant agreement number 2019-CCRP-DS20). Specials thanks
systems were combined, implying that full conversion to silvopasture to Jonathan Herron, Brian Moran and the staff of the Teagasc national
increases land occupation and compromises cattle production. farm survey for providing activity data from beef and dairy cattle farms.
A relatively simple diversification strategy, altering sward type, We are also grateful to the farmers that participated in the survey.
decreased land occupation and NRE depletion by substituting fertiliser
N with N from a legume and improved productivity. Decreases in syn- Appendix A. Supplementary data
thetic fertiliser N and productivity gains usually reduce environmental
impacts per unit of product and together facilitate sustainable intensi- Supplementary material related to this article can be found online
fication of agricultural systems (Ledgard et al., 2009; Yan et al., 2013). at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2023.100126.
Improving productivity decreases environmental losses per output unit
by diluting maintenance requirements (Capper et al., 2009) but often References
has the opposite effect when losses are evaluated on an area basis.
Angerer, V., Sabia, E., König von Borstel, U., Gauly, M., 2021. Environmental and
For example, grass–white clover swards were more productive than
biodiversity effects of different beef production systems. J. Environ. Manag. 289,
ryegrass swards in this study, which resulted in a rise in total ACP and 112523.
EUP per ha for cattle farms. Land spared by productivity improvements Asem-Hiablie, S., Battagliese, T., Stackhouse-Lawson, K.R., Alan Rotz, C., 2019. A life
could be used to restore or create wetland and woodland habitats cycle assessment of the environmental impacts of a beef system in the USA. Int. J.
that mitigate pollutants from cattle farming. These habitats can com- Life Cycle Assess. 24, 441–455.
Bai, Y., Cotrufo, M.F., 2022. Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding,
pensate for greater emissions from farmland and potentially decrease challenges, and solutions. Science 377, 603–608.
the overall environmental impact of cattle production. However, the Baldini, C., Gardoni, D., Guarino, M., 2017. A critical review of the recent evolution
effectiveness of this nature-based solution depends on the demand for of life cycle assessment applied to milk production. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 421–435.
milk and beef, which could be evaluated through a future consequential Bryant, R.H., Miller, M.E., Greenwood, S.L., Edwards, G.R., 2017. Milk yield and
nitrogen excretion of dairy cows grazing binary and multispecies pastures. Grass
life cycle analysis. This form of LCA quantifies the burdens avoided
Forage Sci. 72, 806–817.
or incurred by the change in demand for a product by expanding Byrne, K.A., Lanigan, G., Creamer, R., Brennan, F., Dobson, A.D.W., 2018. Soils and
the boundaries of a production system (Zehetmeier et al., 2012). It carbon storage. In: Creamer, L. (Ed.), Soils of Ireland. Springer International
is similar to the product substitution method and therefore requires Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 245–256.
the identification of all marginal products. Combining this type of eco- Cain, M., Lynch, J., Allen, M.R., Fuglestvedt, J.S., Frame, D.J., Macey, A.H., 2019.
Improved calculation of warming-equivalent emissions for short-lived climate
nomic modelling with LCA substantially increases data requirements pollutants. npj Clim. Atmospheric Sci. 2, 29.
and leads to more assumptions, which can result in greater uncertainty Capper, J.L., Cady, R.A., Bauman, D.E., 2009. The environmental impact of dairy
in environmental metrics (Vergé et al., 2013). It may also lead to production: 1944 compared with 2007. J. Anim. Sci. 87, 2160–2167.
12
Carbon Trust, 2013. Carbon Footprinting Software – Footprint Expert. The Carbon Trust, FAO, 2015. Environmental Performance of Large Ruminants Supply Chains: Guidelines
Dorset House, Stamfort Street, London, UK. for Assessment. Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership.
Chobtang, J., Ledgard, F.S., McLaren, S.J., Zonderland-Thomassen, M., Donaghy, J.D., United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
2016. Appraisal of environmental profiles of pasture-based milk production: a case Finn, J.A., Kirwan, L., Connolly, J., Sebastià, .M.T., Helgadottir, A., Baadshaug, O.H.,
study of dairy farms in the Waikato region, New Zealand. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. Bélanger, G., Black, A., Brophy, C., Collins, R.P., Čop, J., Dalmannsdóttir, S.,
21, 311–325. Delgado, I., Elgersma, A., Fothergill, M., Frankow-Lindberg, B.E., Ghesquiere, A.,
Clark, M., Tilman, D., 2017. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of Golinska, B., Golinski, P., Grieu, P., Gustavsson, A.-M., Höglind, M., Huguenin-
agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Elie, O., Jørgensen, M., Kadziuliene, Z., Kurki, P., Llurba, R., Lunnan, T.,
Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 064016. Porqueddu, C., Suter, M., Thumm, U., Lüscher, A., 2013. Ecosystem function
Collins, W.J., Frame, D.J., Fuglestvedt, J.S., Shine, K.P., 2020. Stable climate metrics enhanced by combining four functional types of plant species in intensively
for emissions of short and long-lived species—combining steps and pulses. Environ. managed grassland mixtures: a 3-year continental-scale field experiment. J. Appl.
Res. Lett. 15, 024018. Ecol. 50, 365–375.
Conaghan, P., Clavin, D., 2017. Red Clover – Agronomy and Management. Teagasc, Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H.J., Doka, G., Dones, R., Hischier, R.,
Crops Research Centre, Oak Park, Co. Carlow. Hellweg, S., Humbert, S., Margni, M., Nemecek, T., Spielmann, M., 2007. Imple-
Crenna, E., Marques, A., La Notte, A., Sala, S., 2020. Biodiversity assessment of mentation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. Ecoinvent Report
value chains: State of the art and emerging challenges. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
9715–9728. Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, An., Struijs, J., van Zelm, R.,
CSO, 2021. Statistical Databases and Farm Structures Surveys. Central statistics office, 2009. Recipe 2008 – A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises
Skehard Road, Mahon, Cork, Retrieved on 24 August 2021 from https://www.cso. Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level. Ministry
ie/en/databases/. of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague, Netherlands.
DAERA, 2016. Delivering Our Future, Valuing Our Soils: A Sustainable Agricultural Guerci, M., Knudsen, M.T., Bava, L., Zucali, M., Schönbach, P., Kristensen, T., 2013.
Land Management Strategy for Northern Ireland. Department of Agriculture, Parameters affecting the environmental impact of a range of dairy farming systems
Environment and Rural Affairs, Expert working group on land management, Upper in Denmark, Germany and Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 54, 133–141.
Newtownards Road, Belfast, Co. Antrim, UK. Harty, M.A., Forrestal, P.J., Watson, C.J., Mcgeough, K.L., Carolan, R., Elliot, C.,
DAFM, 2020. Annual Report – 2019. DAFM, Agriculture House, Kildare Street, Dublin Krol, D., Laughlin, R.J., Richards, K.G., Lanigan, G.J., 2016. Reducing nitrous oxide
2, Retrieved on 24th August 2021 from https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/9151a- emissions by changing N fertilizer use from calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) to
dafm-annual-reports/. urea based formulations. Sci. Total Environ. 563, 576–586.
Davis, K.F., Gephart, J.A., Emery, K.A., Leach, A.M., Galloway, J.N., D’Odorico, P., Heijungs, R., Guinee, J., Huppes, G., Lankreijer, R.M., Udo de Haes, H.A., Wagener
2016. Meeting future food demand with current agricultural resources. Global Sleeswijk, A., Ansems, A.M.M., Eggels, P.G., van Duin, R., de Goede, H.P., 1992.
Environ. Change 39, 125–132. Environmental life cycle assessment of products. In: Guide and Backgrounds.
de Vries, M., van Middelaar, C.E., de Boer, I.J.M., 2015. Comparing environmental Institute of Environmental Sciences. Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
impacts of beef production systems: A review of life cycle assessments. Livest. Sci. Hennessy, D., O’Donovan, M., Creighton, P., Egan, M., McCarthy, B., 2021. Moorepark
178, 279–288. dairy levy research update, series 38. In: Management and Establishment of
Dillon, E., Donnellan, T., Moran, B., Lennon, J., 2021. Teagasc National Farm Survey Grass-Clover Swards. Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation,
2020 Results. Teagasc, Agricultural Economics and Farm Surveys Department,, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork.
Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland. Herron, J., Curran, T.P., Moloney, A.P., McGee, M., O’Riordan, E.G., O’Brien, D., 2021a.
Duffy, P., Black, K., Fahey, D., Hyde, B., Kehoe, A., Murphy, J., Quirke, B., Ryan, A.M., Life cycle assessment of pasture-based suckler steer weanling-to-beef production
Ponzi, J., 2020a. Ireland’s National Inventory Report 2020: Greenhouse Gas systems: Effect of breed and slaughter age. Animal 15, 100247.
Emissions 1990-2018 Reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Herron, J., Hennessy, D., Curran, T., Moloney, A., O’Brien, D., 2021b. The simulated
Climate Change. Environmental Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford. environmental impact of incorporating white clover into pasture-based dairy
Duffy, P., Hyde, B., Ryan, A.M., Murphy, J., Quirke, B., Fahey, D., Kehoe, A., 2020b. production systems. J. Dairy Sci. 104, 7902–7918.
Ireland Informative Inventory Report 2020b: Air Pollutant Emissions in Ireland Hörtenhuber, S., Lindenthal, T., Amon, B., Markut, T., Kirner, L., Zollitsch, W., 2010.
1990-2018 Reported to the Secretariat of the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Greenhouse gas emissions from selected Austrian dairy production systems—model
Transboundary Air Pollution and to the European Union. Environmental Protection calculations considering the effects of land use change. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.
Agency, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford. 25, 316–329.
Ecoinvent, 2015. Ecoinvent 2.0 Database. Swiss centre for life cycle inventories, Zurich, Hristov, A.N., Oh, J., Firkins, J.L., Dijkstra, J., Kebreab, E., Waghorn, G., Makkar, H.P.S.,
Switzerland. Adesogan, A.T., Yang, W., Lee, C., Gerber, P.J., Henderson, B., Tricarico, J.M.,
Egan, M., Galvin, N., Hennessy, D., 2018. Incorporating white clover (Trifolium repens 2013. SPECIAL TOPICS — Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from
L.) into perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) swards receiving varying levels animal operations: I, a review of enteric methane mitigation options. J. Anim. Sci.
of nitrogen fertilizer: Effects on milk and herbage production. J. Dairy Sci. 101, 91, 5045–5069.
3412–3427. Huijbregts, M.A.J., 1999. Life cycle impact assessment of acidifying and eutrophying
Egan, M., Lynch, M.B., Hennessy, D., 2016. Including white clover in nitrogen fertilized air pollutants. In: Calculation of Characterisation Factors with RAINS-LCA. Depart-
perennial ryegrass swards: effects on dry matter intake and milk production of ment of Environmental Science, Faculty of Environmental Science, University of
spring calving dairy cows. J. Agric. Sci. 155, 657–668. Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Enriquez-Hidalgo, D., Gilliland, .T.J., Hennessy, D., 2015. Herbage and nitrogen yields, Huijbregts, M., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Viera, M.D.M.,
fixation and transferby white clover to companion grasses in grazed swards under Hollander, A., Zijp, M., Van Zelm, R., 2016. ReCiPe 2016 - A Harmonized
different rates of nitrogen fertilization. Grass Forage Sci. 71, 559–574. Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method At Midpoint and Endpoint Level. Report
European Commission, 2018. Product environmental footprint category rules (PEFCR) 1: Characterization. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment,
guidance document - Guidance for the development of product environmental Bilthoven, Netherlands.
footprint category rules (PEFCRs), version 6.3. Retrieved 2 February 2021 from IDF, 2022. The IDF global carbon footprint standard for the dairy sector. In: Bulletin
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/PEFCR_OEFSR_en.htm. of the International Dairy Federation, Vol. 520. Brussels, Belgium.
European Commission, 2023. Nature based solutions research policy. Retrieved 2 IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
February 2021 from https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/ Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
environment/nature-based-solutions/research-policy_en#what-are-the-benefits. Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
European Union, 2016a. Commission directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014 USA.
amending directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the council IPCC, 2019. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas
establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy text inventories. In: Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Institute for
with EEA relevance. Official Journal of EU. Global Environmental Strategies (IGES, Hayama, Japan.
European Union, 2016b. Directive 2016/2284 of the European parliament and of the ISO, 2006a. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and
council of 14 December 2016 on the reduction of national emissions of certain Framework. (ISO 14040:2006). European committee for standardization, Brussels,
atmospheric pollutants, amending directive 2003/35/EC and repealing directive Belgium.
2001/81/EC. Official Journal of EU. ISO, 2006b. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment: Requirements and
European Union, 2023. Regulation (EU) 2023/857 of the European parliament and Guidelines. (ISO 14044:2006). European committee for standardization, Brussels,
of the council of 19 April 2023 amending regulation (EU) 2018/842 on binding Belgium.
annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by member states from 2021 to 2030 Jahangir, M.M.R., Minet, E.P., Johnston, P., Premrov, A., Coxon, C.E., Hackett, R.,
contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris agreement, Richards, K.G., 2014. Mustard catch crop enhances denitrification in shallow
and regulation (EU) 2018/199. Official Journal of EU. groundwater beneath a spring barley field. Chemosphere 103, 234–239.
Famiglietti, J., Guerci, M., Proserpio, C., Ravaglia, P., Motta, M., 2019. Development Jaramillo, D.M., Sheridan, H., Soder, K., Dubeux, J.C.B., 2021. Enhancing the sustain-
and testing of the product environmental footprint milk tool: A comprehensive LCA ability of temperate pasture systems through more diverse swards. Agronomy 11
tool for dairy products. Sci. Total Environ. 648, 1614–1626. (1912).
13
Kristensen, T., Mogensen, L., Knudsen, M.T., Hermansen, J.E., 2011. Effect of produc- Plassmann, K., 2012. Accounting for carbon removals. Nature Clim. Change 2, 4–6.
tion system and farming strategy on greenhouse gas emissions from commercial Posch, M., Seppälä, J., Hettelingh, J.-P., Johansson, M., Margni, M., Jolliet, O.,
dairy farms in a life cycle approach. Livest. Sci. 140, 136–148. 2008. The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the
Krol, D.J., Carolan, R., Minet, E., McGeough, K.L., Watson, C.J., Forrestal, P.J., determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions
Lanigan, G.J., Richards, K.G., 2016. Improving and disaggregating N2O emission in LCIA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13 (477).
factors for ruminant excreta on temperate pasture soils. Sci. Total Environ. 568, Rivera Herrera, J.E., Chará Orozco, J., Barahona Rosales, R., 2016. Life cycle assessment
327–338. for the production of cattle milk in an intensive silvopastoral system and a
Ledgard, S.F., Falconer, S.J., Abercrombie, R., Philip, G., Hill, J.P., 2020. Temporal, conventional system in Colombia. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 19, 237–250.
spatial, and management variability in the carbon footprint of New Zealand milk. Sabia, E., Kühl, S., Flach, L., Lambertz, C., Gauly, M., 2020. Effect of feed concentrate
J. Dairy Sci. 103, 1031–1046. intake on the environmental impact of dairy cows in an Alpine Mountain Region
Ledgard, S., Schils, R., Eriksen, J., Luo, J., 2009. Environmental impacts of grazed including soil carbon sequestration and effect on biodiversity. Sustainability 12
clover/grass pastures. Ir. J. Agric. Food Res. 48, 209–226. (2128).
Lee, K.H., Isenhart, T.M., Schultz, R.C., 2003. Sediment and nutrient removal in an Saunders, C., Barber, A., 2007. Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions of New
established multi-species riparian buffer. J. Soil Water Conserv. 58, 1–8. Zealand’s and the UK’s Dairy Industry. Research Report No. 297, Agribusiness &
Leip, A., Billen, G., Garnier, J., Grizzetti, B., Lassaletta, L., Reis, S., Simpson, D., Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand.
Sutton, M.A., de Vries, W., Weiss, F., Westhoek, H., 2015. Impacts of European Schils, R.L.M., Verhagen, A., Aarts, H.F.M., Šebek, L.B.J., 2005. A farm level approach
livestock production: nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emis- to define successful mitigation strategies for GHG emissions from ruminant livestock
sions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, systems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 71, 163–175.
115004. SEAI, 2020. Ireland’s Energy Statistics – Electricity. Sustainable Energy Authority
Leip, A., Weiss, F., Wassenaar, T., Perez, I., Fellmann, T., Loudjani, P., Tubiello, F., of Ireland, Hatch Street, Dublin 2, Retrieved on 2nd March 2022 from https:
Grandgirard, D., Monni, S., Biala, K., 2010. Evaluation of the Livestock’s Sector //www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-statistics/electricity/.
Contribution to the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GGELS) – Final Report. Sjaunja, L.O., Baevre, L., Junkkarinen, L., Pedersen, J., Setala, J., 1990. A nordic
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra. proposal for an energy corrected milk (ECM) formula. In: Proceedings of the
Lemaire, G., Franzluebbers, A., Carvalho, P.C.d.F., Dedieu, B., 2014. Integrated crop– 27th Session of the International Commission for Breeding and Productivity of
livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production Milk Animals. 2-6 June, Paris, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the
and environmental quality. Agricult. Ecosys. Environ. 190, 4–8. Netherlands.
Markiewicz-Keszycka, M., Carter, A., O’Brien, D., Henchion, M.Macken-Walsh.A., Teagasc, 2017. Organic Farm Walks on the Farm of Tom and Gemma Dunne. Teagasc,
Mooney, S., Hynds, P., 2023. Pro-environmental diversification of pasture-based Head Office, Oak Park, Co. Carlow.
dairy and beef production in Ireland, the United Kingdom and New Zealand – A Teagasc, 2021a. Forest Carbon Tool. Forest environmental research and services (FERS)
scoping review of impacts and challenges. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 38, 1–24. Limited and Teagasc Forestry Development Department, Athenry, Co. Galway,
McAdam, J.H., 2020. Evidence base for agroforestry and potential carbon neutral Retrieved on 2nd March 2022 from https://www.teagasc.ie/crops/forestry/advice/
livestock systems: a 30 years replicated trial comparing grassland, silvopastoral environment/forest-carbon-tool/.
and woodland systems in Northern Ireland. In: DG Clima. 2nd Carbon Farming Teagasc, 2021b. 2027 Sectoral Roadmap: Beef and Dairy. Teagasc, Animal & Grassland.
RoundTable, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
Research and Innovation Centre, Grange, Co. Meath and Moorepark, Co Cork,
McAdam, J.H., Olave, R., Fornara, D., 2018. Silvopastoral agroforestry – an option
Retrieved on 23th August 2022 from https://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2020/
to support sustainable grassland intensification. In: Proceedings of 4th European
teagasc-sectoral-roadmaps-2027.php.
Agroforestry Conference. 28th-30th May, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, pp. 178–180.
Teagasc, 2022. Results of year one of the once a day dairy herd trial at Teagasc
McClelland, S.C., Arndt, C., Gordon, D.R., Thoma, G., 2018. Type and number
Moorepark. Retrieved on 2nd March 2022 from https://www.teagasc.ie/animals/
of environmental impact categories used in livestock life cycle assessment: A
dairy/labour/once-a-day-milking/.
systematic review. Livest. Sci. 209, 39–45.
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., Befort, B.L., 2011. Global food demand and the
Moloney, A.P., O’Riordan, E.G., Schmidt, O., Monahan, F.J., 2018. The fatty acid profile
sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 20260–20264.
and stable isotope ratios of C and N of muscle from cattle that grazed grass or
Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., Polasky, S., 2002. Agricultural
grass/clover pastures before slaughter and their discriminatory potential. Ir. J.
sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677.
Agric. Food Res. 57, 84–94.
Tuomisto, H.L., Hodge, I.D., Riordan, P., Macdonald, D.W., 2012. Does organic farming
Mondelaers, K., Aertsens, J., Van Huylenbroeck, G., 2009. A meta-analysis of the
reduce environmental impacts? – A meta-analysis of European research. J. Environ.
differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming.
Manag. 112, 309–320.
Br. Food J. 111, 1098–1119.
van der Werf, H.M.G., Knudsen, M.T., Cederberg, C., 2020. Towards better rep-
Montes, F., Meinen, R., Dell, C., Rotz, A., Hristov, A.N., Oh, J., Waghorn, G.,
resentation of organic agriculture in life cycle assessment. Nat. Sustain. 3,
Gerber, P.J., Henderson, B., Makkar, H.P.S., Dijkstra, J., 2013. SPECIAL TOPICS
419–425.
— Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: II,
Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, W.J., van Zeist, H., de Boer, I.J.M., 2012. Methodology Used in
a review of manure management mitigation options. J. Anim. Sci. 91, 5070–5094.
Feedprint: A Tool Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Feed Production and
Nemecek, T., Kägi, T., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Swiss and European Agricultural
Utilization. Wageningen UR, Livestock Research, Lelystad, the Netherlands.
Production Systems. Final Report Ecoinvent, Agroscope Reckenholz Taenikon Re-
Vergé, X.P.C., Maxime, D., Dyer, J.A., Desjardins, R.L., Arcand, Y., Vanderzaag, A.,
search Station ART, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf,
2013. Carbon footprint of Canadian dairy products: Calculations and issues. J. Dairy
Switzerland.
Opio, C., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., Macleod, M., Vellinga, T., Sci. 96, 6091–6104.
Henderson, B., Steinfeld, H., 2013. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ruminant Yan, T., Agnew, R.E., Gordon, F.J., Porter, M.G., 2000. Prediction of methane energy
Supply Chains - a Global Life Cycle Assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization output in dairy and beef cattle offered grass silage-based diets. Livest. Prod. Sci.
of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. 64, 253–263.
Payen, S., Falconer, S.J., Carlson, B., Yang, W., Ledgard, F.S., 2020. Eutrophication Yan, M.J., Humphreys, J., Holden, N.M., 2013. The carbon footprint of pasture-based
and climate change impacts of a case study of New Zealand beef to the European milk production: Can white clover make a difference? J. Dairy Sci. 96, 857–865.
market. Sci. Total Environ. 710, 136120. Zehetmeier, M., Baudracco, J., Hoffmann, H., Heizenhuber, A., 2012. Does increasing
Peyraud, J.-L., Taboada, M., Delaby, L., 2014. Integrated crop and livestock systems in milk yield per cow reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A system approach. Animal
Western Europe and South America: A review. Eur. J. Agron. 57, 31–42. 6, 154–166.
14

D. O'Brien, M. Markiewicz-Keszycka and J. Herron 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. O'Brien, M. Markiewicz-Keszycka and J. Herron 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. O'Brien, M. Markiewicz-Keszycka and J. Herron 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resources, Environment and Sustainability 14 (2023) 100126

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Environment and Sustainability

Environmental impact of grass-based cattle farms: A life cycle assessment of

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

1. Introduction farming systems. However, the long-term sustainability of this model of

Note: Standard deviation in parenthesis.

b Soils at nutrient index 3 or 4 are considered to have good fertility levels.

g Proportion of diet forage.

h Feeding levels above maintenance.

3.4. Agroforestry 3.5. Sensitivity tests

You might also like