MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005005055 · doi:10.3168/jds.2011-5229

Life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from dairy production in Eastern Canada: A case study

2012· article· en· W2005005055 on OpenAlexaffabout
E. J. Mc Geough, Shannan Little, H. H. Janzen, Tim A. McAllister, S. M. McGinn, K. A. Beauchemin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasLife-cycle assessmentEnvironmental scienceIce calvingDairy cattleAnimal scienceAgricultureManure managementDairy farmingAgricultural scienceProduction (economics)Milk productionBiologyLactationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to conduct a life-cycle assessment (LCA) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a typical nongrazing dairy production system in Eastern Canada. Additionally, as dairying generates both milk and meat, this study assessed several methods of allocating emissions between these coproducts. An LCA was carried out for a simulated farm based on a typical nongrazing dairy production system in Quebec. The LCA was conducted over 6 yr, the typical lifespan of dairy cows in this province. The assessment considered 65 female Holstein calves, of which 60 heifers survived to first calving at 27 mo of age. These animals were subsequently retained for an average of 2.75 lactations. Progeny were also included in the analysis, with bulls and heifers in excess of replacement requirements finished as grain-fed veal (270 kg) at 6.5 mo of age. All cattle were housed indoors and fed forages and grains produced on the same farm. Pre-farm gate GHG emissions and removals were quantified using Holos, a whole-farm software model developed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and based on the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Tier 2 and 3methodologies with modifications for Canadian conditions. The LCA yielded a GHG intensity of 0.92 kg of CO(2) Eq/kg of fat- and protein-corrected milk yield. Methane (CH(4)) accounted for 56% of total emissions, with 86% originating from enteric fermentation. Nitrous oxide accounted for 40% of total GHG emissions. Lactating cows contributed 64% of total GHG emissions, whereas calves under 12 mo contributed 10% and veal calves only 3%. Allocation of GHG emissions between meat and milk were assessed as (1) 100% allocation to milk, (2) economics, (3) dairy versus veal animals, and (4) International Dairy Federation equation using feed energy demand for meat and milk production. Comparing emissions from dairy versus veal calves resulted in 97% of the emissions allocated to milk. The lowest allocation of emissions to milk (78%) was associated with the International Dairy Federation equation. This LCA showed that greatest reductions in GHG emissions would be achieved by applying mitigation strategies to reduce enteric CH(4) from the lactating cow, with minimal reductions being achievable in young stock. Choice of coproduct allocation method can also significantly affect the relative allocation of GHG emissions to milk and meat.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations139
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207