20 ways dairy producers can tackle net zero
Changes to diets, sward mixes and forage quality, improvements in genetics and health and better slurry management and storage all have potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in dairy production.
The dairy industry is often blamed for much of agriculture’s GHGs.
While UK dairy farmers have cut emissions associated with production by 16.1% in the past 30 years, data from the UK National Inventory shows that ruminants are responsible for 73% of GHGs from agriculture.
There is scope to reduce these emissions further, but which mitigation strategies have the greatest potential, and how do their costs compare?
See also: 3 livestock farmers’ environmental management plans for 2022
Emission reductions
Research into a range of mitigation strategies was carried out by a group of scientists for the Centre of Innovation and Excellence in Livestock (Ciel), headed by Professor Elizabeth Magowan from the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (see table, below).
Mitigation strategies to reduce GHG emissions in dairy cattle |
|||||||
Strategy |
Cost |
Ease of implementation |
State of readiness to implement |
Potential GHG mitigating effect |
Impact on carbon footprint |
Other impacts |
Accounted for in the National Inventory |
Feed |
|||||||
Higher starch content diet |
Medium |
High |
Now |
Methane reductions |
Medium |
|
Yes |
Dietary inclusion of oilseeds and increasing oil and fat content |
Medium |
High |
Now |
Methane reductions |
Medium |
 |
Yes |
Low crude protein diets |
Low |
High |
Now |
Methane and nitrous oxide reductions |
Medium |
Ammonia reductions |
Yes |
Feeding tannin- and saponin-rich forage |
Medium |
High |
Now |
Methane reductions |
Medium |
 |
No |
Feeding rumen methane inhibitors: |
|||||||
3-NOP Nitrate* Active compounds from seaweeds |
Unknown |
High |
Later |
Methane reductions |
High |
|
No |
Low |
Low/medium |
Now |
Methane reductions |
Medium |
|
No |
|
Unknown |
High |
Later |
Methane reductions |
High |
 |
No |
|
Specialised feed ingredients/additives |
Medium |
High |
Now |
Methane reductions |
Low |
 |
No |
Forage |
|||||||
Grass-legume mixtures, multi-species swards |
Low |
Medium |
Now |
Methane and nitrous oxide reductions |
Medium |
Good for biodiversity |
Yes |
Improved forage quality by early harvest, increasing grazing frequency, decreasing regrowth interval etc |
Low |
High |
Now |
Methane reductions |
Medium |
|
Yes |
Increasing maize silage proportion in diet |
Low |
Medium |
Now |
Methane reductions |
Medium |
|
Yes |
Animal |
|||||||
Genetic improvement in productivity (production, replacement rate longevity, health) |
Low |
High |
Now |
Methane and nitrous oxide reductions |
Low |
Ammonia reductions |
Yes |
Improved fertility |
Low |
Medium |
Now |
Methane and nitrous oxide reductions |
Medium |
Ammonia reductions |
Yes |
Reduced age at first calving |
Low |
Medium |
Now |
Methane and nitrous oxide reductions |
Medium |
Ammonia reductions |
Yes |
Improved animal health |
Medium |
Medium |
Now |
Methane and nitrous oxide reductions |
Medium |
Ammonia reductions |
Yes |
Manure/fertiliser |
|||||||
Covering slurry stores |
High |
Low |
Now |
Depends on what cover is made of |
Low |
Ammonia reductions |
Yes |
Anaerobic digestion |
High |
Low |
Now |
Methane reductions |
Medium |
Ammonia reductions |
Yes |
Acidification |
High |
Low |
Now |
Methane and nitrous oxide reductions |
Medium |
Ammonia reductions |
No |
Nitrification and urease inhibitors |
Medium |
High |
Now |
Nitrous oxide reductions |
Medium |
Ammonia reductions |
Yes |
Low emission slurry spreading |
High |
High |
Now |
Nitrous oxide reductions |
Low |
NH3 reductions |
Yes |
Source: Ciel *Extreme care required during incorporation to diets due to animal health concerns. Notes: 1. Impact on carbon footprint was assessed via a carbon calculator. 2. The National Inventory and inventory accounting are used by the government to measure the carbon emissions and carbon capture at a sectoral and national level. 3. Low ease of implementation = more difficult to implement. May require infrastructure or full system changes. |
The research shows, for example, that feeding diets with higher starch content would be easy to implement now at a medium-rated cost and a medium impact on carbon footprint.
By contrast, feeding specific rumen methane inhibitors has the potential to have a big impact on carbon footprint, but these are not quite ready to be implemented on a commercial scale.
This series takes as its starting point Ciel’s recent report Net Zero and Livestock: How Farmers Can Reduce Emissions
Expert view: Marco Winters, head of animal genetics, AHDB
AHDB’s Marco Winters believes genetics could be one of the most influential factors on the carbon footprint of the dairy industry.
So much so, the development board launched the EnviroCow index last autumn to express the transmissibility of key environmental credentials from a bull to his daughters.
There is also a strong correlation between traits that are good for the environment and the overall profitability index, he adds.
Below, Mr Winter talks through the practical considerations and tools available for breeding for net zero.
Genetic improvement in productivity
Commercially, productivity remains an important trait, and breeding more efficient animals also has a positive impact on the environment.
Practically, this might mean smaller animals, which require less input to be efficient, but are still capable of producing good yields.
Breeding for longevity also plays a role: the longer a cow can stay in the herd, the fewer replacements are needed.
Fewer replacements mean fewer animals emitting greenhouse gases and a lower carbon footprint.
There are breeding values available for longevity, so farmers can breed for it directly. But for underlying longevity it is important to have animals in the herd that are fertile, free from disease and productive.
This can be achieved by a combination of direct breeding and practical herd management.
A new index worth considering under the productivity umbrella is Feed Efficiency.
The less animals feed, the less fermentation and methane are produced – which will lower the emissions of the national herd.
For Holsteins, the Feed Advantage index shows which bulls are more likely to transmit good feed efficiency to their daughters, again enabling farmers to feed less.
Improved fertility
The Fertility index allows farmers to breed for improved fertility directly. They should also maintain fertility at a herd level by using techniques such as heat detection systems.
Semen fertility is an area of ongoing work. More and more farms are using sexed semen and breeding companies are doing more to ensure semen is of optimum quality to get cows in-calf.
Reduced age at first calving
First calving at 24 months (rather than when older) means less methane is emitted during the rearing stage, when animals are eating, but not producing milk.
This is not targeted directly through a breeding value, but relies on ensuring growth and weight targets are met during heifer rearing.
To target a lower first-calving age, the first step is to ensure adequate colostrum is given at birth.
This should translate into a better-performing heifer that is more likely to be capable of calving at a lower age.
Again, this has environmental and financial benefits, with a lower calving age often associated with better lifetime performance and lower rearing costs.
Dairy sector snapshot
The report by the Centre for Innovation Excellence in Livestock’s (Ciel), Net Zero and Livestock: How Farmers Can Reduce Emissions, provides a snapshot of the dairy sector:
- UK milk production was valued at £4.4bn in 2020 – 16.4% of total agricultural input
- Majority of emissions are methane – largely from the digestion of feed and slurry management – as well as nitrous oxide from the application of manure and fertiliser
- The industry has, however, made progress to reduce GHG emissions, with total emissions falling by 16.1% (1.12Mt carbon dioxide) between 1990 and 2020