Win-win or lose-win? Economic-climatic synergies and trade-offs in dual-purpose cattle systems

被引:0
|
作者
Bang, Rasmus [1 ]
Samsonstuen, Stine [2 ]
Hansen, Bjorn Gunnar [3 ]
Guajardo, Mario [1 ,4 ]
Moller, Hanne [2 ]
Sommerseth, Jon Kristian [3 ]
Goez, Julio Cesar [1 ,4 ]
Flaten, Ola [5 ]
机构
[1] NHH, Ctr Appl Res, Helleveien 30, N-5045 Bergen, Norway
[2] NORSUS Norwegian Inst Sustainabil Res, N-1671 Krakeroy, Norway
[3] Tine SA, Res & Dev Dept, NMBU, KBM, Chr Magnus Falsens Vei 18, N-1432 As, Norway
[4] NHH Norwegian Sch Econ, Helleveien 30, N-5045 Bergen, Norway
[5] Norwegian Inst Bioecon Res, Dept Food Prod & Soc, POB 115, N-1431 As, Norway
关键词
Dairy; Economics; GHG emissions; Beef; Optimization; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; CARBON FOOTPRINT; DAIRY; MITIGATION; MILK; YIELD; AGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104189
中图分类号
S [农业科学];
学科分类号
09 ;
摘要
CONTEXT: Researchers have identified numerous strategies to improve economic performance and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity in combined milk and beef production on dairy farms. However, there remains a need to better understand how the effectiveness of these strategies varies under different operational conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine how the economic and GHG emission intensity mitigation effectiveness of increased milk yield, extended longevity of dairy cows, reduced age at first calving, and intensified beef production from bulls depend on operational conditions in dual purpose cattle systems. METHOD: We present a quantitative framework to (1) economically optimize production at farm level under various constraints and (2) calculate corresponding GHG emissions. The framework is tailored for Norwegian dual-purpose cattle systems and used to assess the economic and GHG emission intensity mitigation effects of incremental adjustments in relevant decisions. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The results show that increased milk yield, extended productive life of dairy cows, reduced age at first calving, and lower slaughter age of bulls can lead to economic and climatic win-wins in terms of higher gross margins and reduced emissions per kg of protein produced. However, they may also result in lose-win and win-lose outcomes depending on the operational conditions. All four measures free up roughage production capacity, which, if used to maintain/increase milk and/or beef production, typically results in economic gains. However, if e.g., the available milk quota or space prevent this, economic losses may occur. The climate impact also depends on how the freed-up capacity is used: if it boosts production, the effects vary based on the scale and type of increase and the farm's initial setup, while unused capacity leads to reduced emission intensity. Conflicts typically arise when: 1) the extra capacity increases less climate-friendly production, raising emission intensity despite economic gains, or 2) extra capacity cannot be used, causing economic losses despite climate benefits. Our results also show that what can be labeled a win in climate terms, and to what extent, depends on the selected target metric(s). SIGNIFICANCE: Governments and societies strive to balance food production with environmental goals. In this context, it is essential to identify farm-level economic and climatic win-win and lose-win scenarios, not only for farmers but also for policymakers and the broader society. This study could inform decision-making and policy development, potentially enhancing economic and climatic performance in combined milk and meat production.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 8 条
  • [1] Win-win REDD+ approaches belie carbon-biodiversity trade-offs
    Phelps, J.
    Friess, D. A.
    Webb, E. L.
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2012, 154 : 53 - 60
  • [2] Coordinating ecosystem service trade-offs to achieve win-win outcomes: A review of the approaches
    Zheng, Hua
    Wang, Lijuan
    Wu, Tong
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, 2019, 82 : 103 - 112
  • [3] Transforming agroforestry in contested landscapes: A win-win solution to trade-offs in ecosystem services in Nepal
    Aryal, Kishor
    Maraseni, Tek
    Apan, Armando
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2022, 857
  • [4] Commitment Strategies for Sustainability: How Business Firms Can Transform Trade-Offs Into Win-Win Outcomes
    Beckmann, Markus
    Hielscher, Stefan
    Pies, Ingo
    BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2014, 23 (01) : 18 - 37
  • [5] Increasing landscape heterogeneity as a win-win solution to manage trade-offs in biological control of crop and woodland pests
    Tortosa, Axelle
    Giffard, Brice
    Sirami, Clelia
    Larrieu, Laurent
    Ladet, Sylvie
    Vialatte, Aude
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2023, 13 (01):
  • [6] The trade-offs of win-win conservation rhetoric: exploring place meanings in community conservation on the Wild Coast, South Africa
    Masterson, Vanessa A.
    Spierenburg, Marja
    Tengo, Maria
    SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE, 2019, 14 (03) : 639 - 654
  • [7] A "Win-Win" for Soil Conservation? How Indiana Row-Crop Farmers Perceive the Benefits (and Trade-offs) of No-Till Agriculture
    Kawa, Nicholas C.
    CULTURE AGRICULTURE FOOD AND ENVIRONMENT, 2021, 43 (01) : 25 - 35
  • [8] Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world
    Howe, Caroline
    Suich, Helen
    Vira, Bhaskar
    Mace, Georgina M.
    GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, 2014, 28 : 263 - 275