Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T05:50:35.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Carbon Navigator: a decision support tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2013

P. Murphy ,
P. Crosson ,
D. O'Brien  and
R. P. O. Schulte
P. Murphy*
Affiliation:
Environment Knowledge Transfer Department, Environmental Research Centre, Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Wexford, Ireland
P. Crosson
Affiliation:
Animal Systems Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany Co., Meath, Ireland
D. O'Brien
Affiliation:
Animal Systems Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy Co., Cork, Ireland
R. P. O. Schulte
Affiliation:
Environment Soils and Land-Use Department, Environmental Research Centre, Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Wexford, Ireland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The Carbon Navigator has been developed to support the objective of reducing the carbon intensity of the dairy and beef sectors of Irish agriculture. The system is designed as a knowledge transfer (KT) tool aimed at supporting the realisation at farm level of the mitigation potential. The objective of this paper is to outline the potential role of KT in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the context of a growing body of science, which identifies potential mitigation. The EU policy framework for agriculture and the environment is examined in terms of its effectiveness in supporting the reduction in emission intensity of agriculture. The important role for KT in reducing agricultural emissions is highlighted. The Carbon Navigator is introduced as a potential aid to achieving improved adoption of emission-reducing technologies and practices at farm level. The paper outlines the criteria guiding the selection of mitigation technologies in Irish ruminant agriculture, describes the technologies and practices included in the system and outlines the basis for their inclusion. The approach of developing the Carbon Navigator to integrate into existing infrastructure and data systems as well as into the existing KT systems is outlined.

Keywords

knowledge transfergreenhouse gasdecision support systemcattlecarbon
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue s2: Greenhouse Gases & Animal Agriculture Conference (GGAA 2013), 23rd ‐ 26th June 2013, Dublin, Ireland , June 2013 , pp. 427 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

British Standards Institution (BSI) 2008. Publically Available Specification PAS2050 – Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services, British Standards Institution, London, England, p. 580.Google Scholar
Casey, J, Holden, N 2006. Quantification of GHG emissions from sucker-beef production in Ireland. Agricultural Systems 90, 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosson, P, McGee, M 2012. Economic appraisal of performance traits in Irish suckler beef production systems. In Suckler Cow Breeding Conference. Setting a new direction for suckler cow breeding (ed. M McGee and N McHugh), pp. 41–52. Teagasc Carlow, Ireland.Google Scholar
Crosson, P, McGee, M, Drennan, MJ 2009a. The economic impact of calving date and turnout date to pasture in spring of suckler cows. In Proceedings of the Agricultural Research Forum (ed. M Diskin), p. 68. Tullamore, County Offaly, Ireland.Google Scholar
Crosson, P, McGee, M, Drennan, MJ 2009b. The economic impact of turnout date to pasture in spring of yearling cattle on suckler beef farms. In Proceedings of the Agricultural Research Forum (ed. M Diskin), p. 77. Tullamore, County Offaly, Ireland.Google Scholar
Crosson, P, Shalloo, L, O'Brien, D, Lanigan, GJ, Foley, PA, Boland, TM, Kenny, DA 2011. A review of whole farm systems models of greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle production systems. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 29-45.Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food 2010. Food Harvest 2020. A vision for Irish agri-food and fisheries. Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Dublin, Ireland, p. 38, 41.Google Scholar
Dillon, P 2006 (ed.) Alternative options for dairying, Moorepark Dairy Levy Research update. Teagasc, Fermoy, Ireland, p. 14.Google Scholar
Dowling, C, Hyde, B, Carton, O, Curran, T, Lanigan, GJ 2013. The effects of timing and alternative land-spreading techniques on ammonia emissions from cattle slurry. Atmospheric Environment (in press).Google Scholar
Duffy, P, Hanley, E, Hyde, B, O'Brien, P, Ponzi, J, Cotter, E, Black, K 2012. Ireland National Inventory report 2012. Greenhouse gas emissions 1990–2010. Reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford, Ireland, pp. 94–107.Google Scholar
Epstein, MJ 2008. Making sustainability work: best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
European Commission 2005. Agri-environment measures: overview on general principles, types of measures, and application. In Study of the European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Unit G-4-Evaluation of Measures applied to Agriculture, March, pp. 1–23. European Commission, Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
FAO 2010. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector A Life Cycle Assessment. In Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome (ed. P Gerber, T Vellinga, C Opio, B Henderson and H Steinfeld). FAO, Italy.Google Scholar
Foley, PA, Crosson, P, Lovett, DK, Boland, TM, O'Mara, FP, Kenny, DA 2011. Whole-farm systems modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral suckler beef cow production systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 142, 222–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaudin, T, Cassingena-Harper, J, Anania, G, Cuhls, K, Downey, L, Leyten, J, Olesen, JE, Schenkel, Y, Walls, M, Raspor, P 2007. Foresighting food, rural and agri-futures. Standing Committee on Agricultural Research. European Commission.Google Scholar
IPCC 1997. Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories workbook, reporting instructions (Volume 1). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1.1–1.22.Google Scholar
Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF) 2012. Introduction to new terminal and maternal beef indices. Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, Cork, Ireland, p. 2.Google Scholar
Lalor, S, Lanigan, G 2010. The effect of application and timing on ammonia emissions from cattle slurry in Ireland. In Advances in animal biosciences (ed. BSoA Science), 72pp. Cambridge University Press, Belfast, UK.Google Scholar
Leip, A, Weiss, F, Wasenaar, T, Perez, I, Fellmann, T, Loudjami, P, Tuiello, F, Grandgirard, D, Monni, S, Biala, K 2010. Evaluation of the livestock's sector contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions – final report. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Lovett, D, Shalloo, L, Dillon, P, O'Mara, F 2006. A systems approach to quantify greenhouse gas fluxes from pastoral dairy production as affected by management regime. Agricultural Systems 88, 156–179.Google Scholar
Lovett, D, Shalloo, L, Dillon, P, O'Mara, F 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral based dairying systems: the effect of uncertainty and management change under two contrasting production systems. Livestock Science 116, 260–274.Google Scholar
National Economic and Social Council 2012. Ireland and the climate change challenge: connecting ‘How Much’ with ‘How To’. National Economic and Social Council, Dublin, Ireland, p. 6.Google Scholar
O'Brien, D, Shalloo, L, Buckley, F, Horan, B, Grainger, C, Wallace, M 2011. The effect of methodology on estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from grass-based dairy systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 141, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, D, Shalloo, L, Patton, J, Buckley, F, Grainger, C, Wallace, M 2012. Evaluation of the effect of accounting method, IPCC v. LCA, on grass-based and confinement dairy systems’ greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 6, 1512–1527.Google Scholar
O'Neill, B, Deighton, M, O'Loughlin, B, Mulligan, F, Boland, T, O'Donovan, M, Lewis, E 2011. Effects of a perennial ryegrass diet or total mixed ration diet offered to spring-calving Holstein-Friesian dairy cows on methane emissions, dry matter intake, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1941–1951.Google Scholar
Osterburg, B, Nitsch, H, Laggner, A, Wagner, S, von Thünen, JH 2008. Analysis of policy measures for greenhouse gas abatement and compliance with the Convention on Biodiversity, Document number: MEACAP WP6 D16a, Braunschweig.Google Scholar
Pachauri, RK, Reisinger, A 2007. Climate Change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva 2, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Schulte, R, Crosson, P, Donnellan, T, Farrelly, N, Finnan, J, Lalor, S, Lanigan, G, O'Brien, D, Shalloo, D, Thorne, F 2012. A marginal abatement cost curve for Irish agriculture. Teagasc, Carlow, Ireland, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Schulte, R, Lanigan, G, Donnellan, T, Crosson, P, Shalloo, L, O'Brien, D, Farrelly, N, Finnan, J, Gibson, M, Boland, A, Boyle, G, Carton, O, Caslin, B, Culleton, N, Fealy, R, Fitzgerald, J, Hanrahan, K, Humphreys, J, Hyde, T, Kelly, P, Lalor, S, Maher, P, Murphy, P, Ni Fhlatharta, N, O'Donoghue, C, O'Kiely, P, O'Mara, F, Richards, K, Ryan, M, Spink, J 2011. Irish agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change: opportunities, obstacles and proposed solutions. Teagasc (Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Emissions), Carlow, Ireland.Google Scholar
Teagasc 2013. Impact of participation in teagasc dairy discussion groups evaluation report. Teagasc, Carlow, Ireland, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
van Zeijts, H, Overmars, K, van der Bilt, W, Schulp, N, Notenboom, J, Westhoek, H, Helming, J, Terluin, Ida, Janssen, S 2011. Greening the Common Agricultural Policy: impacts on farmland biodiversity on an EU scale. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Westhoek, H, van Zeijts, H, Witmer, M, van den Berg, M, Overmars, K, van der Esch, S, van der Bilt, W 2012. Greening the CAP. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Wiedmann, T, Minx, J 2008. A definition of ‘Carbon Footprint’. In Ecological economics research trends (ed. CC Pertsova), pp. 1–11. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Wood, S, Cowie, A 2004. A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertiliser production. IEA Bioenergy Task 38, 20p.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Image

Murphy Supplementary Material

Figure S1

Download Murphy Supplementary Material(Image)
Image 99.7 KB