FOR LESS GHG EMISSION AND MORE SOIL CARBON SINK IN CONTINENTAL AND

MEDITERRANEAN AGRICULTURAL AREAS

FORAGE SYSTEMS

LIFE15 CCM/IT/000039

farms

1

Every day we have signs that climate is

changing: temperatures higher than seasonal

averages, extreme events such as water

bombs and heatwaves. Agriculture is paying

the brunt of the effects of these changes, with

droughts alternating with storms, new plant

and animal diseases,

and the diffusion of

alien species.

It is well known that

global warming is

highly dependent on human activities.

Although it is energy production and use that

releases more than 80% of greenhouse gases

into the atmosphere, all production systems

can give a contribution to mitigating and

slowing climate change.

Agriculture can also play an active role in

preserving the environment and combating

climate change, which is why the LIFE

Forage4Climate project wanted to raise

awareness among dairy farms and involve

them in the implementation of concrete

actions to mitigate climate change.

Thanks to a network of dairy farmers

in the Po Valley, Sardinia and Greece,

who collaborated with researchers and

technicians from the partner group, it

was possible to demonstrate in practice how

new agricultural and management techniques

for livestock farming can lower the worming

potential associated to milk production. The

average reduction was about 10% and no

losses in farm efficiency were observed.

INTRODUCTION

Look for QR codes to get more information from the web site forage4climate.crpa.it

2

Forage4 Climate has described milk production

in continental (Po Valley) and Mediterranean

(Sardinia and Greece) climatic areas through 14

forage systems (FS), crop rotation

for the production of fodder for

livestock: on the livestock farm,

agricultural activity is in fact

functional to support the herd,

which transforms forage and grain into food

with a high biological value, such as milk.

Livestock farm and its land are a productive

cycle: the land produces biomass to feed the

animals and the animals return

effluent that restores nutrients

and organic carbon removed

by the crops. In addition,

manure improves

the physical

characteristics of the soil, which favours

carbon sequestration. Forage4Climate deals

with climate change mitigation in milk

production and therefore

considers both agricultural

production and animal

husbandry. In fact, the positive

effects on carbon sequestration

and its storage in the soil (presence of

meadows and pastures, use of animal wastes)

cannot be separated from the assessment of

greenhouse gas emissions related to milk

production. This is mainly due to forage

production and its digestive use (ruminal

fermentations), slurry and manure

present in the barn and stored,

and all energy consumption

on the farm.

FORAGE SYSTEMS

Farming to feed the herd

3

FS 12: Extensive

FS 14: Intensive farmingFS 13: Semi-extensive

FS 1: Hay forage onlyFS 2: Hay and fresh forages

FS 3: Corn silage FS 4: Winter cereal silage system FS 5: High quality forages system FS 6: Mixed system

FS 7: Sheep Lowland farms FS 8: Sheep Hilly area farms FS 9: Sheep Mountain farms

FS 10: Goat Intensive FS 11: Goat Other extensive

Sardinia 8 sheep and goat farms - 5 forage systems

Po Valley 20 cow farms - 6 forage systems

Greece 8 sheep and goat farms - 3 forage systems

4

CARBON FOOTPRINT OF MILKMilk production generates and releases

greenhouse gases (GHGs), gases that are

transparent to solar radiation but retain

infrared radiation emitted from the earth's

surface and the atmosphere, resulting in global

warming. The GHGs generated by agricultural

production are: methane (CH4), which comes

from fermentation in the digestive tract of

farm animals (enteric) and from the

transformation processes of their waste;

nitrous oxide (N2O), which comes from

nitrification-denitrification processes in the

soil and from manure management systems;

and carbon dioxide (CO2), which comes from

burning.

Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas 265 times

more potent than CO2, methane is 28 times

more potent than CO2, so these are the

multiplication factors used to convert N2O and

CH4 emissions into CO2 equivalents (CO2 eq).

This is the unit of measurement for the carbon

footprint, a synthetic indicator of the global

warming potential associated with a product

unit, for example 1 litre of milk.

To quantify the environmental impact

parameters, Forage4Climate used the

LCA - Life Cycle Assessment - methodology,

according to ISO Series 14040:2006 and

Recommendation 2013/179/EU.

The emissions associated with the inputs

that make up the global warming power

of 1 kg of milk (expressed as milk with

standard protein and fat content) were

organised in four main processes and

expressed as shown on page 6.

5

kg C

O2e

q/k

g o

f m

ilk

2016 ex-ante mitigation techniques

Crops

Purchased feed

Enteric and barn emissions

Barn energy

Crops

Purchased feed

Enteric and barn emissions

Barn energy

Crops

Purchased feed

Enteric and barn emissions

Barn energy

Contributions to GHG emissions per kg of milk produced

The LCA assesses the efects of the whole production cycle of a good, service or process on the environment and on humans. There are several categories of impact: emissions of GHG, acidifying or eutrophying pollutants, substances with ecotoxic efects on soil, etc. LCA takes into account all stages of the production process - raw materials, processing, distribution, use, recycling

and eventual disposal - in a cradle-to-grave approach. Sometimes the analysis does not include the use phases and is limited to the product at farm gate, which is the boundary of the system adopted by Forage4Climate.

6

Production processes contributing to global warming potential

Crops

Purchased feed

Enteric and barn emissions

Barn energy

All the field opera ons with machines

Produc on and transporta on of seeds, chemical fer lizers, pes cides

Emissions from chemical and organic fer lizer distribu on on fields

Produc on, processing and transporta on of purchased feed

Impact from land use change of some imported feed (e.g. soybean)

Emissions from diges ve system (mainly ruminal fermenta ons for cows, sheep and goats)

Emissions from manure/slurry in the barn and in the storage 

Emissions from energy use in the barn (e.g. ligh ng, milking)

7

Mitigation techniques are actions that counter

and slow down climate change by containing

and eliminating the factors that cause it.

Agricultural mitigation techniques aim to

reduce GHG emissions and to increase soil

carbon sequestration, in order to make the

use of resources in the field and in the barn

more efficient.

All agricultural practices that tend to preserve

and increase soil organic matter remove CO2

from atmosphere and reduce its emission.

These include crop rotations and tillage:

converting arable land to permanent crops,

such as forage crops, to reduce organic matter

decomposition and erosion, covering the soil

with cover crops between two arable crops,

mowing and burying residues after harvest,

introducing legume crops, and adopting

practices that replace deep ploughing with

minimal tillage (e.g. direct sowing).

In addition to forage production, its use

must be considered as well because another

important mitigation action is the reduction

of enteric emissions through more digestible

forage or diets that limit the action of

methane-producing ruminal micro-organisms.

The external supply of feed transfers the 'load'

of GHGs emitted for those productions, even

if made outside the livestock farm. Soybeans

from America, for example, brings emissions

related to the losses of carbon stocks due to

the conversion of forests into cropland.

Increasing feed self-sufficiency (the share of

protein and energy for animals produced on

the farm) is a valid mitigation action.

MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

8

Herd

 feedin

g an

d m

anag

em

ent

The protein level of the animals' diet is

proportional to the excretion of nitrogen in the

manure. Improving the metabolic efficiency of

dietary protein (reducing the amount ingested

and improving its biological value, increasing

ruminal protein synthesis) can reduce

excreted nitrogen.

The agricultural use of livestock manure as a

source of nitrogen for crops can be improved

through the choice of times and doses and the

use of precision technology in field distribution.

This improves the yield of organic nitrogen as a

fertiliser and significantly reduces ammonia

and N2O emissions and the release of nitrates

into water. Those practices also decrease the

use of synthetic fertilisers and the CO2

emissions associated with their production.

Other mitigation techniques are possible

for manure management, storage, energy

efficiency and the use of renewable sources

in the barn. Mitigation techniques chosen and

applied in the 36 demonstration farms of

Forage4Climate involved the 3 areas of activity

of the dairy farm.

A specific work protocol was defined for each

farm. It was designed on the situation found

with a monitoring conducted at the beginning

of the project (ex-ante situation). Results of

the innovations introduced (ex-post situation)

were evaluated for two years.

Mitigation techniques

used related to 3 areas of

farm activity

Fora

ge sys

tem Increasing UAA for legume 

crops

Abandoning monoculture and applying crop rota on

Increasing double cropping

Improving efficiency of crop conserva on

Re‐introducing meadows

Reducing chemical Nitrogen fer lizers

Use of high quality forage

Adop on of innova ve ensiling techniques 

Legume forage instead of soybean meal

Precision feeding

Op mal herd management (fer lity, welfare, diseases)

Anim

al w

aste

 man

agem

ent Storage management: 

acidifica on, covering or crus ng, no storage and direct use for biogas.

Timing of distribu on: solid‐liquid separa on for a be er use on farther fields,  ming of spreading (e.g. use on growing crops), applica on techniques and dosage (e.g. direct ground injec on)

9

Focusing on a more eicient use of resources in the ield and in the barn

10

RESULTS: SHEEP AND GOATSThe results of the mitigation

techniques used for small

ruminants are shown

in some examples.

The Ktinotrofiki Vagion farm breeds dairy

sheep in an intensive system (FS 4) in the

Boezia region of Greece. The mitigation

techniques applied were precision feeding to

improve feed efficiency (kg of milk produced

per kg of dry matter ingested),

supplementation with rumen-protected amino

acids (methionine and lysine) to increase the

biological value of the dietary protein, and

use of oilseeds (cotton) to increase and

concentrate the energy of the ration. The

carbon footprint value of Ktinitrofiki Vagion

was 2.65 kg CO2eq per kg of milk produced

(ex-ante). After the application of mitigation

techniques the value decreased by 12.5% to

2.32 kg CO2eq per kg of milk.

11

The Carale farm raises dairy sheep in a

mountainous area (FS 9) in Sardinia in the

province of Nuoro. The mitigation techniques

applied concerned a better management of

health and fertility of the flock. This was

achieved through a more accurate choice of

ewe lambs, control of the body condition and

health status of the animals, a modification of

ewes and rams ratio. The improvements

achieved through monitoring and selection

have reduced the proportion of non-productive

animals. This result and an increase in milk

production led to a 22% reduction in GHG

emissions, bringing the carbon footprint down

from 3.52 to 2.76 kg CO2eq per kg of milk.

-22%Crops

Purchased feed

Enteric and barn emissions

Barn energy

kg C

O2e

q/k

g o

f m

ilk

Crops

Purchased feed

Enteric and barn emissions

Barn energy

Contributions to GHG emissionsper kg of milk produced on the Carale farm

12

2,20

2,02-8%

Barn energy

kg C

O2e

q/k

g o

f m

ilk

Crops

Purchased feed

Enteric and barn emissions

Crops

Barn energy

Purchased feed

Enteric and barn emissions

Elias Andrianos produces goat milk in a semi-

extensive farming system (FS 13) in the

Arcadia region of Greece. Several mitigation

techniques were applied, but the main ones

concerned the reduction of the use of synthetic

nitrogen fertilisers achieved through their

replacement by animal manure, the

introduction of nitrogen-fixing legume forages,

and the use of these forages (vetch) produced

in the farm and used at early vegetative stages.

The amount of dry matter and protein available

to the animals increased. The average value of

the carbon footprint of the milk fell by about

18%, from 6.74 kg CO2eq per kg of milk to 5.47.

The Demontis Scanu farm is in Sardinia in the

province of Sassari, which produces goat's milk

in a mixed farming system, stabled with access

to pasture (FS 11). Mitigation techniques have

focused on the use of high quality forage.

Increasing the digestibility of forages and their

protein content has raised their nutritional

level, also due to more efficient storage,

achieved through the production of haylage

(chopped hay in wrapped bales). The total or

partial replacement of purchased protein feeds

(dehydrated alfalfa and commercial feed) led to

a reduction in GHG emissions of 8%, from 2.20

to 2.02 kg CO2eq per kg of milk produced.

Contributions to GHG emissions per kg of milk produced on the Demontis Scanu farm

13

There were 20 demonstration farms for cow's

milk production in the Po Valley, distributed in

the 6 forage systems. The

number of farms makes it

possible to present the results

of mitigation techniques applied

to several cases.

Increasing the area under legume crops was a

mitigation technique adopted by 9 farms, which

increased from an average area of 21% to 30% of

UAA, also by introducing soybean silage. This

path, which in the long run may also increase

the carbon stock of the soil, has already given

results in the three-year period 2016-2019 on

the reduction of the carbon footprint of the milk,

which has fallen from 1.51 to 1.36 kg CO2eq kg

(-10%). This is mainly due to the replacement of

purchased protein sources with self-produced

ones and the reduction in the use of synthetic

nitrogen fertilisers.

In Forage4Climate 12 cow farms applied

precision feeding, achieving a production

efficiency increase of 12% on average. This

resulted in an average reduction in GHG

emissions of 5%. This is a small but important

reduction because it is totally due to enteric

emissions, which alone account for an average

of 46% of the carbon footprint of cow's milk

from the project farms.

An overall assessment of the results of the

mitigation actions undertaken comes from their

organisation by forage system, thus highlighting

the strengths of each system as well as the

critical issues that still need to be worked on to

achieve further emission reductions.

RESULTS: COWS

14

kg C

O2e

q/k

g o

f m

ilk

Increase area under legume crops: 10% reduction

Precision feed:5% reduction

Crops

Purchased feed

Enteric and barn emissions

Barn energy Barn energy

Enteric and barn emissions

Purchased feed

Crops

Barn energy

Enteric and barn emissions

Purchased feed

Crops

Barn energy

Enteric and barn emissions

Purchased feed

Crops

In the forage systems FS3 (based on maize

silage, often in monoculture) and FS6 (bringing

together all the most diversified, including

organic) mitigation actions related to

agricultural production were successful.

Reduction of enteric emissions (particularly

FS3) was also achieved improving the quality

of produced forages and a more accurate

rationing. Significant mitigation due to lower

enteric emissions was achieved in all forage

systems except FS4. Rationalisation of the

fodder system has allowed the less organised

farms (FS6) to improve self-production and

greatly limit the share of purchased feed.

The mitigation technique of precision feeding is based on the increased production eiciency that can be achieved when feed intakes meet animals’ requirements. This means feeding the herd the right amount of raw materials, avoiding the excess and waste of nutrients that leads to low yield of ration and increased excretion and emissions.

Possible feeding strategies include periodic monitoring of raw material contents (analysis of forages and concentrates), control of feed consumption and periodic adjustment of rations based on actual milk production.

15

kg C

O2e

q/k

g o

f m

ilk

FS 5: High qualityforages system 

FS 4: Winter cerealsilage system 

FS 3: Corn silage

FS 6: Mixed system

FS 1: Hay forage only

FS 2: Hay andfresh forages

Crops Purchased feed Enteric and barn emissions Barn energy

The contraction of external supplies is also

present for FS4 (with winter cereals partially

replacing maize). The double-cropped forage

system, using legumes and other high-quality

silage (FS5), benefits from lower enteric

emissions on the one hand, but loses out for

the other components of the carbon footprint.

For FS1 and FS2, related to forage systems

without silage, it is important to work on

forage quality to limit enteric emissions; the

weak point is represented by the external

supply of feed (FS2), which can be mitigated

even in these cases if self-produced grains can

be used (FS1). Mitigation techniques related to

the energy uses of the barn can be useful,

although in general this item has a limited

incidence in the composition of the milk carbon

footprint.

Results of mitigation actions by forage system

16

CARBON SEQUESTRATION

While agricultural and dairy production

generates greenhouse gases, the return of

livestock waste to the soil and multiannual

crops result in the sequestration of carbon

in the soil in non-volatile forms.

The storage of carbon (C) in soils is a slow but

important process, and it is crucial for the

climate that existing reserves are preserved.

Livestock farms have the waste produced in

the barn (manure and slurry). These can return

to the soil carbon and nitrogen removed from

crops if managed and used correctly (dosage

per hectare, timing and distribution method).

For all forage systems (FS) identified by

Forage4Climate, the content of organic C stored

(stock) in the first 30 cm of soil was good.

The FS with the highest values are the extensive

Greek (FS 14) and Parmigiano Reggiano (FS1

and FS2), with large areas of permanent

meadows and multiannual forage crops. All the

FS of the Po Valley have medium-high C stocks.

In the Greek and Sardinian FSs the soil C

content is very variable, due to the presence

of marginal areas and/or highly exploited soils,

as well as high temperatures that foster C

degradation.

It is difficult to see major changes in the soil C

stock over a few years, but the observations

made in the project's FS have highlighted

some good practices that are effective

in the medium to long term.

17

Po Valley

SardiniaGreece

CARBON STOCK IN FORAGE SYSTEMS(t/ha, 0 - 30 cm layer)

18

First of all, the optimisation of the use of

animal waste, which should be managed in

the best way as an agronomic resource. If we

compare soil carbon stock for annual crops in

farms with and without animals it is possible

to see a difference of about one third in the

carbon stock, higher in soils usually

subjected to organic fertilisation (top graph).

Further improvements are also noticeable on

the livestock farm between soils for annual

crops and soils with multiannual crops and/

or permanent meadows.

In order to increase the carbon stock of soils,

manure should be distributed over the whole

area of the farm. When it exceeds a farm’s

needs, the manure could be transferred to

farms that do not have animals (relocation).

In order to make the transfer to fields

further away from storage economical,

treatments that concentrate the dry matter

of the waste are necessary. The simple

separation of the liquid and solid phases of

the slurry on the farm is useful to allocate

the more solid fractions to fields less close

to the farm centre (graph below). More deep

drying is indispensable to justify the costs of

relocation to areas far from livestock.

The results of good practices to increase the carbon stock are measurable in the medium to long term

19

Cereal farmsannual crop

Dairy farmsannual crop

Dairy farmspermanent meadows

Carbon stock (t/ha, 0‐30 cm layer)

Action 2

Action 1

Use solid phase in ields far from the farm

Use liquid phasein ields close to the farm

Carbon stock (t/ha, 0‐30 cm layer)

Distance from farm  slurry storage area

Potential increase in carbon stockObserved carbon stock

Mitigation Action 1 Move waste to cereal

farms or improve distribution over the

farm area

Mitigation action 2 Move to more

agricultural land with permanent crops

Examples of good practices for increasing the carbon stock

20

More than 200 people have worked on the implementation of Forage4Climate: first of all farmers, then

professors and researchers, technicians, students, as well as support staff for dissemination,

demonstration and technical-financial management activities, and last but not least the monitoring team.

We wish to thank all of them for the work done that LIFE15 CCM/IT/000039 entrusts to the Project

Committee who co-ordinated the activities:

Agriculture University of Athens, George Zervas and Eleni Tsiplakou

University of Milan, Anna Sandrucci and Gianni Matteo Crovetto

University of Sassari, Antonello Cannas and Alberto Stanislao Atzori

University of Turin, Giorgio Borreani and Ernesto Tabacco

Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali - CRPA SpA, Maria Teresa Pacchioli, Elena Bortolazzo and Aldo Dal Prà

CALCULATING CARBON FOOTPRINT

WORKING GROUP

Dairy farmers that want to improve environmental performance need

guidance on mitigation techniques, but also simple calculation methods.

It is essential to know what the carbon footprint value is, in association

with their milk production, what the contribution of the different

production processes is, as well as to monitor the effects of the mitigation

techniques applied.

In the set of tools that the project has developed, there are carbon footprint

calculation applications designed to be used directly by farmers and technicians.

These computerise the process of data collection and calculation, returning the

footprint values, which are stored in a database.

FORAGE4CLIMATE TOOLS

thanks!

LIFE15 CCM/IT/000039

forage4climate.crpa.it

Tex

ts ed

ited

by M

aria

Ter

esa

Pacch

ioli

Layo

ut a

nd g

raph

ics b

y G

iuse

ppe

Fatto

riPr

inte

d by

Tec

nogr

af S

rl -

Dec

embe

r 20

20