Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2017, Vol. 11 Issue (3) : 12    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-017-0949-z
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Global warming potential associated with Irish milk powder production
William Finnegan1,2(), Jamie Goggins1,2,3, Aksana Chyzheuskaya4(), Xinmin Zhan1,2
1. College of Engineering and Informatics, National University of Ireland Galway, H91 HX31, Galway, Ireland
2. Ryan Institute for Environmental, Marine and Energy Research, National University of Ireland Galway, H91 DK59, Galway, Ireland
3. Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy (MaREI), H91 HX31, Galway, Ireland
4. Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit (SEMRU), National University of Ireland Galway, H91 WN80, Galway, Ireland
 Download: PDF(262 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Global warming potential of milk powder production in Ireland is assessed.

The GWP of 1 kg milk powder is 9.731 kg CO2eq.

The standard deviation for the GWP of 1 kg milk powder is 2.26 kg CO2eq.

The most significant contributor to GWP is raw milk production at 84%.

Processing of raw milk into milk powder accounts for 14% of the total GWP.

Climate change is an ever growing issue and a major concern worldwide. Both producers and processors need to address the issue now by reducing their carbon footprint. Additionally, if Ireland is to meet their climate and energy targets, as outlined in Food Harvest 2020, which outlines a range of objectives for the Irish agricultural sector, the efficient use of resources and fuels within the industry will need to be increased. In Ireland, agriculture accounts for 29.2% of the total greenhouse gas emissions (58.5 million tonnes CO2eq). Therefore, in this paper, a single agri-food product, milk powder, is examined in order to estimate the global warming potential (GWP) associated with its manufacture using life cycle assessment. A cradle-to-processing factory gate analysis, which includes raw milk production, raw milk transportation to the processing factory, its processing into each product and product packaging, is assessed in this study using data collected circa 2013. The factories surveyed processed approximately 24% of the total raw milk processed in the Republic of Ireland in 2013, which was 5.83 billion liters. The average total GWP associated with the manufacture of milk powder is 9.731 kg CO2eq·kg−1 milk powder, which has a standard deviation of 2.26 kg CO2eq·kg−1 milk powder, for the life cycle stages analyzed in this study. The most significant contributor to GWP is raw milk production (84%), followed by dairy processing (14%), with the remainder of the life cycle stages contributing approximately 2%.
Keywords Dairy      Global warming potential      Ireland      Life cycle assessment      Milk powder      Milk production     
Corresponding Author(s): William Finnegan,Jamie Goggins   
Issue Date: 24 May 2017
 Cite this article:   
William Finnegan,Jamie Goggins,Aksana Chyzheuskaya, et al. Global warming potential associated with Irish milk powder production[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(3): 12.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-017-0949-z
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2017/V11/I3/12
Fig.1  Life cycle stages and analysis system boundaries associated with the production of milk powder
life cycle stagedetailsunitmean/rangedata source
raw milk production (average dairy farm unit)annual milk productionL·cow-14662CSO [2]
fat%4.02CSO [2]
protein%3.40CSO [2]
farm sizeha55.4NFS [28]
cowsN68.3NFS [28]
cattleLU9.7NFS [28]
farm sizeha55.4NFS [28]
silage areaha19.8NFS [28]
concentratekg DM·cow-1938Finnegan et al. [8]
raw milk production (average dairy farm unit)—
on-farm fertiliser application		N fertiliserkg·ha-177.9Lalor et al. [33]
P fertiliserkg·ha-14.4Lalor et al. [33]
K fertiliserkg·ha-114.4Lalor et al. [33]
electricitykWh·cow-1253O'Brien et al. [4]
on-farm fuel consumption (diesel)L·ha-197O'Brien et al. [4]
water consumptionL·L-1 milk6.4Murphy et al. [34]
raw milk production (average dairy farm unit)—
annual gross output		total sales (Livestock, dairy and crops)€175013NFS [28]
milk sales€139095NFS [28]
raw milk transportationaverage distance per collectionkm169Finnegan et al. [16]
raw milk transportationkg·km682–1608Finnegan et al. [16]
milk powder processing (per kg milk powder)—
inputs		raw milkL5.12–9.22Finnegan et al. [16]
milk powder processing (per kg milk powder)—
energy input		electrical energy a)kWh0.27–0.56Finnegan et al. [16]
thermal energy a)kWh1.96–5.44Finnegan et al. [16]
milk powder processing (per kg milk powder)—
chemical usage		sodium hydroxideg6.6–18.7Finnegan et al. [16]
nitric acidg2.9–6.2Finnegan et al. [16]
waterL3.6–17.9Finnegan et al. [16]
milk powder processing (per kg milk powder)—
outputs		wastewater treatedL1.7–24.1Finnegan et al. [16]
solid wasteg3.2–118Finnegan et al. [16]
milk powder packagingprimary packaging materialsg13.6–14Finnegan et al. [16]
Tab.1  Summary LCI for the manufacture of milk powder in Ireland which includes raw milk production, transportation and milk powder processing for 2013
Fig.2  Breakdown of the main contributors to the GWP associated with the production of 1 kg of FPCM on an average Irish dairy farm
Fig.3  GWP associated with the life cycles stages of Irish milk powder production: raw milk production (RMP), raw milk transportation (RMT), dairy processing, packaging and distribution
life cycle stageaveragerangestandard deviation
raw milk production8.255.76–10.361.74
raw milk transportation0.130.07–0.170.05
processing1.330.66–2.340.7
packaging0.03––
total9.737.04–12.892.26
Tab.2  Estimate of the average, range and standard deviation of the GWP of Irish milk powder for 2013 (in kg CO2eq·kg-1 milk powder)
Fig.4  Comparison of the total GWP of milk powder, for the lifecycle stages addressed in this paper, with other studies with similar system boundaries
1 O’SheaR, BougardM, BreenJ, O’DonoghueC, RyanM. Greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation and technology adoption theory: extended grazing as a case study. In: 89th Annual Conference of Agricultural Economics Society, April 13–15, 2015. Warwick University, Coventry, UK: Agricultural Economics Society, 2015
2 CSO. Statistical Product- Milk Production. 2016. Available online at ( accessed February 11, 2016)
3 CaseyJ W, HoldenN M. Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from the average Irish milk production system. Agricultural Systems, 2005, 86(1): 97–114
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.09.006
4 O’BrienD, BrennanP, HumphreysJ, RuaneE, ShallooL. An appraisal of carbon footprint of milk from commercial grass-based dairy farms in Ireland according to a certified life cycle assessment methodology. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2014, 19(8): 1469–1481
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0755-9
5 O’BrienD, HennessyT, MoranB, ShallooL. Relating the carbon footprint of milk from Irish dairy farms to economic performance.Journal of Dairy Science, 2015, 98(10): 7394–7407
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9222 pmid: 26254524
6 O’BrienD, ShallooL, PattonJ, BuckleyF, GraingerC, WallaceM. A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms. Agricultural Systems, 2012, 107(0): 33–46
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.11.004
7 Irish Farm Centre. Dairy Fact SheetI F A. 2012. Available online at ( accessed November 17, 2014)
8 FinneganW, GogginsJ, CliffordE, ZhanX. Global warming potential associated with dairy products in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.025
9 FlysjöA.Greenhouse gas emissions in milk and dairy product chains. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. AIJ Foulum: Aarhus University, 2012
10 FlysjöA, ThraneM, HermansenJ E. Method to assess the carbon footprint at product level in the dairy industry. International Dairy Journal, 2014, 34(1): 86–92
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2013.07.016
11 VergéX P C, MaximeD, DyerJ A, DesjardinsR L, ArcandY, VanderzaagA. Carbon footprint of Canadian dairy products: calculations and issues.Journal of Dairy Science, 2013, 96(9): 6091–6104
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6563 pmid: 23831091
12 Eurostat. Milk and milk product statistics. 2017. Available online at ( accessed February 24, 2017)
13 Board Bia. Factsheet on the Irish Agriculture and Food & Drink Sector. 2016. Available online at ( accessed October 27, 2016)
14 WeissF, LeipA. Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: a life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2012, 149: 124–134 doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.015
15 FIL-IDF. A Common Carbon Footprint Approach for Dairy, a Guide to Standard Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for the Dairy Sector. Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation, 2010
16 FinneganW, GogginsJ, CliffordE, ZhanX. Environmental impacts of milk powder and butter manufactured in the Republic of Ireland.Science of the Total Environment, 2017, 579(579): 159–168
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.237 pmid: 27842963
17 FIL-IDF. A Common Carbon Footprint Approach for the Dairy Sector. The IDF Guide to Standard Life Cycle Assessment Methodology. Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation, 2015
18 ISO. ISO 14040: Environmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment- Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2006
19 ISO. ISO 14044: Environmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment- Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2006
20 BSI. PAS 2050: Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services.London, UK: British Standards Institute, 2011
21 SolomonS, QinD, ManningM, ChenZ, MarquisM, AverytK B, TignorM, MillerH L, eds. IPCC 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2007
22 HagelaarG J L F, van der VorstJ G A J. Environmental supply chain management: using life cycle assessment to structure supply chains. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 2001, 4(4): 399–412
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7508(02)00068-X
23 HenrikssonP J G, GuinéeJ B, KleijnR, de SnooG R. Life cycle assessment of aquaculture systems-a review of methodologies.International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2012, 17(3): 304–313
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0369-4 pmid: 26069396
24 JoshiS. Product environmental life-cycle assessment using input-output techniques. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2000, 3(2&3): 95–120
25 EuropeanCommission. Environmental LIFE CYCLE Information for Products Used Every Day in Households. Brussels, Belgium: Retail Forum for Sustainability, 2010
26 WeidemaB P, BauerC, HischierR, MutelC, NemecekT, ReinhardJ, VadenboC O, WernetG. The ecoinvent database: Overview and methodology, Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. 2013. Available online at ( accessed January 5, 2017)
27 KimD, ThomaG, NutterD, MilaniF, UlrichR, NorrisG. Life cycle assessment of cheese and whey production in the USA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2013, 18(5): 1019–1035
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0553-9
28 HanrahanK, HennessyT, KinsellaA, MoranB. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2013. Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland: Teagasc, Agricultural Economics & Farm Surveys Department, 2014
29 HynesS, FarrellyN, MurphyE, O’DonoghueC. Modelling habitat conservation and participation in agri-environmental schemes: A spatial microsimulation approach. Ecological Economics, 2008, 66(2–3): 258–269
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.02.006
30 ChyzheuskayaA, O’DonoghueC, O’NeillS. Using a farm micro-simulation model to evaluate the impact of the nitrogen reduction mitigation measures on farm income in Ireland. International Journal of Agricultural Management, 2014, 3(4): 232–242
31 HennessyT, KinsellaA, MoranB, QuinlanG. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2011. Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland: Teagasc, Agricultural Economics & Farm Surveys Department, 2012
32 HennessyT, MoranB. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2015. Athenry, Co Galway, Ireland: Teagasc, Agricultural Economics & Farm Surveys Department, 2016
33 LalorS, CoulterB, QuinlanG, ConnollyL. Survey of Fertilizer Use in Ireland from 2004–2008 for Grassland and Arable Crops. Dublin, Ireland: Teagasc, Agricultural and Food Development Authority, 2010
34 MurphyE, CurranT, HumphreysJ,UptonJ. Direct water use of Irish dairy farms. In: Teagasc Agricultural Forum 2014. Dublin, Ireland: Teagasc, 2014
35 MeliaP. Scientist backs tax on Ireland’s food processors. Dublin, Ireland: Irish Independant( 12/12/2015), 2015
[1] Bin Lu, Xiaolong Song, Jianxin Yang, Dong Yang. Comparison on End-of-Life strategies of WEEE in China based on LCA[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(5): 7-.
[2] Hyunju Jeong, Osvaldo A. Broesicke, Bob Drew, Duo Li, John C. Crittenden. Life cycle assessment of low impact development technologies combined with conventional centralized water systems for the City of Atlanta, Georgia[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(6): 1-.
[3] Yin ZHANG,Xuejing ZHENG,Huan ZHANG,Gaofeng CHEN,Xia WANG. Carbon emission analysis of a residential building in China through life cycle assessment[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(1): 150-158.
[4] Xiaolong SONG,Jianxin YANG,Bin LU,Bo LI,Guangyuan ZENG. Identification and assessment of environmental burdens of Chinese copper production from a life cycle perspective[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2014, 8(4): 580-588.
[5] WU Yuehui,WANG Guoliang,WANG Zhen,LIU Yi,GU Ping,SUN Dezhi. Comparative study on the efficiency and environmental impact of two methods of utilizing polyvinyl chloride waste based on life cycle assessments[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2014, 8(3): 451-462.
[6] Jiansu MAO, Yanchun DU, Linyu XU, Yong ZENG. Quantification of energy related industrial eco-efficiency of China[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng Chin, 2011, 5(4): 585-596.
[7] Chaoxiang LIU, Kaiqin XU, Ryuhei INAMORI, Yuhei INAMORI, Yoshitaka EBIE, Jie LIAO, . Pilot-scale studies of domestic wastewater treatment by typical constructed wetlands and their greenhouse gas emissions[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2009, 3(4): 477-482.
[8] WU Rui, LI Guangyi, ZHANG Zongyi, REN Yulong, HAN Weijian. Life cycle analysis and choice of natural gas-based automotive alternative fuels in Chongqing Municipality, China[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2007, 1(3): 292-298.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed