Mapping the carbon footprint of milk production from cattle: A systematic review.

Recently, many studies have assessed the carbon footprint of bovine milk production. However, due to the complexity of life cycle assessment, most studies have analyzed research farms or "representative" farms, which do not capture farm variability. Furthermore, the lack of consistency in most studies means that we can seldom compare the footprint between different countries. To address this issue, we performed a systematic review of the literature, removing inconsistencies in life cycle assessment papers, namely the functional unit, allocation to milk, and global warming potential. We analyzed papers that accounted for many farms to address the variability of production systems within the countries. We found 21 papers from 19 countries; footprint recalculations were necessary for 16 papers. New Zealand, Uruguay, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States had a footprint <1 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per kilogram of fat- and protein-corrected milk, whereas 5 countries had a footprint >2 kg CO2e·kg-1 fat- and protein-corrected milk. The change in functional unit resulted in a small effect on the final footprint, whereas the global warming potential change was dependent in on the greenhouse gas profile for each country. Countries where milk is produced mainly as a pasture-based system had most of their footprint (>50%) associated with the emission of methane from enteric fermentation, whereas other countries (especially from Europe and North America) had a significant share of emissions from manure management, feed production, and fertilizer use. This different greenhouse gas profile allow decision makers to tailor mitigation options specific for each country. The choice of the allocation method had a strong influence in the final footprint. We suggest that for future studies, authors adhere to the International Dairy Federation guidelines. When this is not possible, we suggest a set of extra information to be reported, allowing recalculations as done in this review.

Measured ammonia emissions from tropical and subtropical pastures: A comparison with 2006 IPCC, 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC, and EMEP/EEA (European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme and European Environmental Agency) inventory estimates.

Agriculture is the largest source of ammonia (NH3) emissions. As NH3 is an indirect greenhouse gas, NH3 measurements are crucial to improving greenhouse gas emission inventory estimates. Moreover, NH3 emissions have wider implications for environmental and human health. Only a few studies have measured NH3 emissions from pastures in the tropics and subtropics and none has compared emissions to inventory estimates. The objectives of this study were to (1) measure NH3 emissions from dairy pastures in tropical and subtropical regions; (2) calculate NH3 emissions factors (EF) for each campaign; and (3) compare measured EF with those based on the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 1, 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Tier 1, and the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme/European Environmental Agency (EMPE/EEA) Tier 2 inventory estimates. Pasture NH3 emissions were measured on 3 dairy farms in Costa Rica. On each dairy, NH3 emissions were measured twice during the wet season and once during the dry season using a micrometeorological integrated horizontal-flux mass-balance method. Emissions were measured from excreta (dung and urine) deposited by grazing cattle and the subsequent application of organic (slurry) or synthetic fertilizer (ammonium nitrate or urea). Measured EF for all campaigns [from grazing cattle excreta and any subsequent slurry or fertilizer application; 4.9 ± 0.9% of applied nitrogen (mean ± SE)] were similar to those of the EMEP/EEA Tier 2 approach (6.1 ± 0.9%; mean ± SE) and 4 times lower than 2006 IPCC and 2019 Refinement to 2006 IPCC Tier 1 default estimates (17.7 ± 1.4 and 18.2 ± 0.9%, respectively; mean ± SE). Measured EF for excreta deposited on pasture and excreta both deposited on pasture and slurry application [3.9 ± 2.1 and 4.2 ± 2.1% (mean ± 95% CI), respectively] were 5 times lower than default EF assumed by 2006 IPCC and 2019 Refinement to 2006 IPCC methodology (both 20 and 21%, respectively), whereas EMEP/EAA estimates were similar [6.0 and 4.6 ± 0.3% (mean ± 95% CI), respectively]. This suggests an overestimation of EF from excreta deposited on pasture and slurry applications in tropical and subtropical regions by IPCC methodologies. Furthermore, rainfall, which is not included as a parameter in the current EMEP/EEA Tier 2 methodology, appeared to reduce NH3 emissions, suggesting that accounting for this in the inventory methodologies could improve inventory estimates.

Degradation of 2.4-D herbicide by microorganisms isolated from Brazilian contaminated soil

The aim of this work was to isolate microorganisms from Brazilian soil contaminated with 2,4-D herbicide, and analyze the efficiency for 2,4D degradation, using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Serratia marcescens and Penicillium sp had never been reported as able to degrade 2,4-D. The isolated strains represent a great potential for bioremediation.

O objetivo deste trabalho foi isolar microrganismos de solo brasileiro contaminado com o herbicida 2,4-D, e analisar a eficiência da degradação por cromatografia líquida de alta eficiência (HPLC). Serratia marcescens e Penicillium sp jamais haviam sido relatadas como degradadoras de 2,4-D. As linhagens isoladas representam um grande potencial em biorremediação.