Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Reviews on Environmental Health

Editor-in-Chief: Carpenter, David O. / Sly, Peter

Editorial Board: Brugge, Doug / Edwards, John W. / Field, R.William / Garbisu, Carlos / Hales, Simon / Horowitz, Michal / Lawrence, Roderick / Maibach, H.I. / Shaw, Susan / Tao, Shu / Tchounwou, Paul B.


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.284

CiteScore 2017: 1.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.438
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.603

Online
ISSN
2191-0308
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 31, Issue 1

Issues

Life cycle assessment of dairy farms

Fierly Muhammad Taufiq
  • Corresponding author
  • Masters Programme of Environmental Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Jalan Ganesha No. 10 Bandung 40132, Indonesia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Tri Padmi
  • Masters Programme of Environmental Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Jalan Ganesha No. 10 Bandung 40132, Indonesia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ dan Benno Rahardyan
  • Masters Programme of Environmental Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Jalan Ganesha No. 10 Bandung 40132, Indonesia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-03-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2015-0037

Abstract

In 2013 the population of dairy cattle in Indonesia had reached 636,000 head with a 4.61% growth rate per year. The inputs were energy, water, and feed. These inputs produced outputs, such as emissions, solid waste and liquid waste. This research compared the maintenance systems in modern farms and local farms. The data were collected from 30 local farmers and one modern farm. This research used the life cycle assessment (LCA) method. LCA is based on ISO 14040. LCA consists of several stages: the goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation. This research used the cradle to gate concept and fat corrected milk (FCM) as the function unit. The impacts of these activities could generate global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), and eutrophication potential (EP). The calculations showed that the systems in local farms had the greatest emissions result over all impacts. In the case of local farms, the GWP was 2.34 kg CO2 eq/L of milk FCM, AP was 0.12 g SO2 eq/L of milk FCM, and EP was 18.28 g PO43 eq/L milk FCM. While the impact from the modern farm was GWP of 1.52 kg CO2 eq/L of milk FCM, AP of 0.02 g SO2 eq/L of milk FCM, and EP of 0.353 g PO43 eq/L of milk FCM. Based on the total-weighted result, the GWP had the greatest impact from the overall life cycle phase of milk production. The total-weighted result obtained was of 0.298 EUR/L of FCM from a local farm and 0.189 EUR/L of FCM from the modern farm. This amount could be used to remediate the global warming, acidification, and eutrophication impacts of milk production.

Keywords: dairy cattle; life cycle assessment

References

  • 1.

    Widyastuti FR. Upaya Pengelolaan Lingkungan Usaha Peternakan Sapi di Kawasan Usahatani Terpadu. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam dan Lingkungan. Pangkalpinang, 2013.Google Scholar

  • 2.

    Gerber P, Vellinga T, Opio C, Henderson B, Steinfeld H. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector, a life cycle assessment. FAO, food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy: Animal Production and Health Division, 2010.Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Permana IG, Suryahadi, Qurimansari E. Greenhouses gases emissions from dairy cattle in Indonesia. Department of Nutrition and Feed Technology, Faculty of Animal Science. IPB, 2012.Google Scholar

  • 4.

    ISO 14040. Environmental management Lifecycle Assessment-Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organization, 2006.Google Scholar

  • 5.

    IDF. A common carbon footprint approach for dairy – The IDF guide to standard life cycle assessment methodology for the dairy sector. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 445/2010, 2010.Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Achmad Firman Manajemen Agribisnis Sapi Perah Fakultas Peternakan Unpad. Bandung, 2007.Google Scholar

  • 7.

    Frischknecht, Implementation of life cycle Impact Assessment Methods. Ecoinvent report No 3, V2.0. Swiss Centre for life Cycle Inventoris, Dubendrof, 2007.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Fierly Muhammad Taufiq, Masters Programme of Environmental Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Jalan Ganesha No. 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia, E-mail:


Received: 2015-10-11

Accepted: 2015-10-13

Published Online: 2016-03-08

Published in Print: 2016-03-01


Citation Information: Reviews on Environmental Health, Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages 187–190, ISSN (Online) 2191-0308, ISSN (Print) 0048-7554, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2015-0037.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Heike Lorenz, Thorsten Reinsch, Sebastian Hess, and Friedhelm Taube
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018
[2]
Zhaozhi Zhou, Yuanjun Tang, Yong Chi, Mingjiang Ni, and Alfons Buekens
Waste Management & Research, 2017, Page 0734242X1773013

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in