RESUMEN
Milk and beef production cause 9% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Previous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have shown that dairy intensification reduces the carbon footprint of milk by increasing animal productivity and feed conversion efficiency. None of these studies simultaneously evaluated indirect GHG effects incurred via teleconnections with expansion of feed crop production and replacement suckler-beef production. We applied consequential LCA to incorporate these effects into GHG mitigation calculations for intensification scenarios among grazing-based dairy farms in an industrialized country (UK), in which milk production shifts from average to intensive farm typologies, involving higher milk yields per cow and more maize and concentrate feed in cattle diets. Attributional LCA indicated a reduction of up to 0.10 kg CO2 e kg-1 milk following intensification, reflecting improved feed conversion efficiency. However, consequential LCA indicated that land use change associated with increased demand for maize and concentrate feed, plus additional suckler-beef production to replace reduced dairy-beef output, significantly increased GHG emissions following intensification. International displacement of replacement suckler-beef production to the "global beef frontier" in Brazil resulted in small GHG savings for the UK GHG inventory, but contributed to a net increase in international GHG emissions equivalent to 0.63 kg CO2 e kg-1 milk. Use of spared dairy grassland for intensive beef production can lead to net GHG mitigation by replacing extensive beef production, enabling afforestation on larger areas of lower quality grassland, or by avoiding expansion of international (Brazilian) beef production. We recommend that LCA boundaries are expanded when evaluating livestock intensification pathways, to avoid potentially misleading conclusions being drawn from "snapshot" carbon footprints. We conclude that dairy intensification in industrialized countries can lead to significant international carbon leakage, and only achieves GHG mitigation when spared dairy grassland is used to intensify beef production, freeing up larger areas for afforestation.
Asunto(s)
Crianza de Animales Domésticos , Bovinos/fisiología , Cambio Climático , Industria Lechera , Pradera , Alimentación Animal , Animales , Brasil , Huella de Carbono , Dieta/veterinaria , Femenino , Efecto Invernadero , LecheRESUMEN
Cultivation of wild-harvested plant species has been proposed as a way of reducing over-exploitation of wild populations but lack of technical knowledge is thought to be a barrier preventing people from cultivating a new species. Training programmes are therefore used to increase technical knowledge to encourage people to adopt cultivation. We assessed the impact of a training programme aiming to encourage cultivation of xaté (Chamaedorea ernesti-augusti), an over-harvested palm from Central America. Five years after the training programme ended, we surveyed untrained and trained individuals focusing on four potential predictors of behaviour: technical knowledge, attitudes (what individuals think about a behaviour), subjective norms (what individuals perceive others to think of a behaviour) and perceived behavioural control (self assessment of whether individuals can enact the behaviour successfully). Whilst accounting for socioeconomic variables, we investigate the influence of training upon these behavioural predictors and examine the factors that determine whether people adopt cultivation of a novel species. Those who had been trained had higher levels of technical knowledge about xaté cultivation and higher belief in their ability to cultivate it while training was not associated with differences in attitudes or subjective norms. Technical knowledge and perceived behavioural control (along with socio-economic variables such as forest ownership and age) were predictors of whether individuals cultivate xaté. We suggest that training programmes can have a long lasting effect on individuals and can change behaviour. However, in many situations other barriers to cultivation, such as access to seeds or appropriate markets, will need to be addressed.