This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
CARBON FOOTPRINT EFFICIENCY IS THE


KEY TO LOWERING


Since the Climate Change Act of 2008, carbon foot printing has become an increasingly important benchmark of business success, but what does this mean for Holstein breeders? Kite Consulting’s Joss Fawcett explains


A


mbitious targets have been set for the next 40 years to drive change across all industries, but in the short term, agriculture needs to deliver an 11% reduction on 2008 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2020.


For dairy farmers, there’s no getting away from the fact that ruminant animals do indeed produce a large amount of these gases - about half a dairy farm’s carbon footprint comes from methane, with nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide accounting for the other fifty percent in nearly equal measures.


With the renewables boom in recent years, you could be forgiven for thinking that investment in less carbon reliant technologies might be the quick-fix way to tick the ‘carbon efficiency’ box on your farm. Unfortunately though, it really is the black and white girls in the parlour who have by far the most influence on a farm’s carbon footprint.


Enteric emissions, or cudding as it is better known, account for a huge 38% of GHG in milk production and methane from manures is responsible for another 6%. Nitrous oxide from manures and artificial fertilisers account for another 15% with fuel and electricity, in fact, only accounting for about 3% each. This is not to say that saving energy around the farm should be ignored. It’s good practice to ensure you are being as efficient as possible in every area. Technologies such as heat exchangers and LED lighting can offer good carbon and financial benefits. Similarly, where there is


LEFT Simple changes such as spreading slurry in spring maximises nitrogen availability and minimises nitrogen cycle losses.


RIGHT Everything from the quality of silage, to herd genetics and dry cow management will impact milk yields and cow health, in turn impacting a farm’s overall carbon load


94 THE JOURNAL OCTOBER 2014


PHOTOGRAPHY BY AGRIPHOTO


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136