Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 49–60

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Life cycle assessment of milk production — a comparison of

conventional and organic farming
a,* 1,b
Christel Cederberg , Berit Mattsson
a
Department of Applied Environmental Sciences, Göteborg University, Box 464, SE-413 90 Göteborg, Sweden
b
SIK, The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, P.O. Box 5401, SE-402 29 Göteborg, Sweden

Received 29 December 1998; received in revised form 4 September 1999; accepted 8 October 1999

Abstract

An LCA was performed on organic and conventional milk production at the farm level in Sweden. In the study, special focus
was aimed at substance flows in concentrate feed production and nutrient flows on the farms. The different feeding strategies in
the two forms of production, influence several impact categories. The import of feed by conventional dairy farms often leads to a
substantial input of phosphorus and nitrogen. Organic milk production is a way to reduce pesticide use and mineral surplus in
agriculture but this production form also requires substantially more farmland than conventional production. For Swedish conditions,
however, a large use of grassland for grazing ruminants is regarded positively since this type of arable land use promotes the
domestic environmental goals of biodiversity and aesthetic values.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: LCA; Milk production; Organic farming

1. Introduction program, and receives yearly financial support ranging

The market for organically-produced food has shown
a drastic increase during the 1990s in Sweden. Milk has
the largest sale of organic food articles and in 1998, 3%
of the milk sales were labelled organic. The prognoses
from the largest dairy industry predict that this will be
doubled in the year 2000. There is not only a consumer
interest for these products but also a political one. In
1994, the Swedish parliament decided that one environ-
mental target for Swedish agriculture was to obtain an
organic production corresponding to 10% of all arable
land by the year 2000. In a future scenario, the Swedish
EPA has designated that as much as 75% of Swedish
milk should be produced according to organic principles
by the year 2021 [1]. One important way of encouraging
this development politically is through the European
Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, which gives fin-
ancial support to a more environmentally sound agricul-
ture. In Sweden, organic farming is a key element in this
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46-35-50680; fax: +46-35-50016.
E-mail addresses: christel.cederberg@n.lrf.se (C. Cederberg),
bm@sik.se (B. Mattsson)
1
Tel.: +46-31-3355600; fax: +46-35-833782.
from 900–1600 SEK per hectare.
This article is based on two studies “Life Cycle
Assessment of Milk Production — A Comparison of
Conventional and Organic Farming” and “Life Cycle
Assessment of Conventional and Organic Consumer
Milk” which were carried out at the SIK, the Swedish
Institute for Food and Biotechnology and financed by
the Swedish Farmers Foundation for Agricultural
Research, the Swedish Farmers Union and the Swedish
Dairy Association [2,3].
2. Goal and scope definition
2.1. Purpose
The objectives of the investigation were the following:
앫 to identify the parameters which have the largest
environmental impact (hot-spots) in the systems stud-
ied, and to suggest improvements in the systems;
앫 to test the hypothesis that systems for milk production
with a relatively large input of resources in the con-
text of feed and fertilisers have a greater environmen-

0959-6526/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 9 - 6 5 2 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 3 1 1 - X
50 C. Cederberg, B. Mattsson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 49–60
tal impact than systems with a high self-supporting
capacity of fodder and plant nutrients;
앫 to collect data on the production of concentrate feed
also to be used in other life cycle assessment (LCA)
studies of animal products.
2.2. Functional unit
The functional unit (FU) was 1000 kg energy cor-
rected milk (ECM) leaving the farm gate. ECM is a cor-
rection factor generally used by the dairy industry; it
considers both the fat and the protein content of the milk.
2.3. Descriptions of systems in the study
Conventional milk production in Sweden is character-
ised by intense production and the dairy cows are among
the highest yielding in Europe. In 1996 the number of
cows was 466,625, and during the 1990s the intensity in
feeding has increased along with a rising milk yield. One
important environmental law regulating animal pro-
duction in Sweden concerns livestock density per hec-
tare. The upper limit for dairy farms is 1.6 dairy cows
per hectare.
Organic milk is produced according to the eco-label-
ling system KRAV, which is the sole environmental
labelling system for organic milk in Sweden. In 1997,
352 farms with a total of 11,259 cows produced organic
milk, and another 100 farms will be changing to this
form of production in 1998/99. Characteristics for this
form of milk production are:
앫 Concerning fodder, there are limits for the use of con-
ventionally-produced feed (maximum 5%). On a
yearly basis, 50% of fodder (DM)2 must be produced
on the farm itself. During the grazing period, pasture
must be at least half of the total feed intake;
앫 In the production of crops, no synthetic fertilisers or
pesticides are allowed;
앫 If medicines are used, the waiting-time (i.e. the time-
period between the medicine intake and the milking
of the treated cow for milk delivery) must be double
that of conventional production;
앫 The natural behaviour of the animals shall be pro-
moted and during the grazing period most of the days
shall be spent outdoors. Cows shall be able to give
birth in a private loose box and calves shall be given
non-processed natural milk for the first 10 weeks.
The demand for a large amounts of farm-produced fod-
der in organic milk production leads to lower livestock
density in this production system.
2
DM stands for dry matter.
2.4. Studied objects
Data were collected from two relatively large dairy
farms in the west of Sweden which are run by an Agric-
ulture Society and follow a current commercial pro-
duction scheme. These farms were chosen since there
were production data of very high quality (e.g. all fodder
is weighed), and because they are specialised milk pro-
ducers, which means there are no other co-products
except meat from the farms. Another important reason
for choosing two individual enterprises was that there
are no Swedish statistics available on average energy use
and land use in different milk production systems. Both
farms grow all roughage fodder for their own use which
is customary for Swedish dairy farms. The use of con-
centrate feed on the conventional farm is high but such
is the case for many Swedish conventional dairy farms
today. The use of diesel in the farms’ crop production
and the use of fertiliser on the conventional farm have
been compared with data from other farms and appear
to be within a normal range. The yield of grain and peas
on the organic farm is relatively low which probably
leads to a proportionately large use of arable land.
As roughage fodder, the conventional farm used 2267
kg DM grass silage and 687 kg DM pressed beet pulp3
per cow. The organic farm used both silage and hay as
roughage fodder, 1869 kg DM and 1355 kg respectively
per cow. The intake of pasture was 775 kg DM per
organic cow, more than double that of the conventional
farm. The grain consumption was 25% higher per cow
on the conventional farm. While the organic farm used
1000 kg peas per cow (produced on the farm and on
a neighbouring farm) and purchased concentrate feed 4
corresponding to 343 kg per cow, the conventional farm
used 1531 kg purchased concentrate feed 5 per cow. On
the conventional farm each cow produced 7.813 FU and
on the organic farm the milk production was 7.127 FU
per cow.
2.5. System boundaries and delimitations
The analysis deals with the phases of the life cycle
of milk as shown in Fig. 1, including the production of
materials and energy used. Transport is also taken into
account.
The major differences in the production scheme of
3
This was mainly super pressed pulp, which is beet pulp pressed
and mixed with molasses containing a dry matter content of 27% and
used as a substitute for grass silage.
4
Ingredients in the organic concentrate feed are principally heat-
treated rape seed meal and minor amounts of soymeal and maize gluten
meal together with minerals.
5
Ingredients in the conventional concentrate feed are dried beet
pulp, soymeal, rape seed meal, maize gluten meal, sunflower expel,
palm kernel expel, potato protein, molasses and minerals.
 C. Cederberg, B. Mattsson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 49–60 51

Fig. 1. The figure shows a flow diagram for milk production and flows considered in this study. Only the conventional farm uses fertilisers and
pesticides in its crop production and co-products from the sugar industry (italics). Peas are used as fodder only on the organic farm (underlined).
This farm also has a much smaller input of concentrate feed than the conventional farm.

conventional and organic consumer milk is thus included
in this choice of system boundaries. At the dairies, the
handling of products is identical. So far, the transport of
organic milk from farms to dairies and the distribution
of the organic milk to the stores takes longer, but this
is changing as more and more farms opt for organic pro-
duction and milk volumes increase.
The time frame is the milk production during one year
and follows the milk recording year of 1996/97
(September 1–August 31). The origin of the ingredients
in the concentrate feed reflects the international market
where the Swedish feed industry purchased their com-
modities during this period.
Buildings and machinery were excluded in the analy-
sis. Stables and farm buildings have a similar design on
the farms studied. Machinery was excluded since there
is a lack of data on machinery used in crop production
for concentrate feed outside Sweden. Including machin-
ery would give rise to a factor of uncertainty in the com-
parison, since conventional milk production to a much
greater extent depends on imported concentrate feed.
Also excluded in the study were medicines, washing
detergents and minor stable supplies such as disinfec-
tants, salt for cows, etc.
2.6. Allocation of co-products
There is a strong causality between the size and qual-
ity of the feed ration of the dairy cow and her two output
products milk and meat. The allocation between these
two products was based on this causality. Calculation
according to Swedish fodder tables [4] for the supply
of energy and protein to cover the dairy cow’s milk-
production, her maintenance and pregnancy gave an
overall allocation of 85% to milk and 15% to meat [2].
Since all manure stayed on the farms and was used as
fertiliser in the crop production this was not an output
product and therefore no allocation was needed for the
manure.
Conventional concentrate feed is made from co-pro-
ducts from the production of vegetable oils, starch and
sugar. This allocation was based on the economic value
of the products (world market price). When the co-pro-
ducts have a very small value, less than 5%, only the
direct processing and transport of the feed co-product
(e.g. the transport of palm kernel expel) were allocated
to the feed.
When calculating the area of farmland needed to pro-
duce milk, mass allocation was used. With this calcu-
52 C. Cederberg, B. Mattsson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 49–60

lation, all the sold products from one crop were con-
sidered, for example, one average hectare of Swedish
sugar beets yields 47 ton sugar beet which gives three
products: 7100 kg sugar, 2970 kg DM super pressed pulp
and 600 kg DM molasses, for a total of 10670 kg pro-
ducts. Super pressed pulp (see note 2) is used as a rough-
age fodder and can basically substitute grass/clover sil-
age on a mass basis (kg DM by kg DM). By the
allocation procedure it becomes obvious how area-
efficient the sugar beet crop is. In addition to obtaining
7100 kg sugar from one hectare of sugar beets, a rough-
age fodder is also yielded which, in practice, can substi-
tute almost 0.5 hectare of leys for silage production.
A summary of price and mass allocation for concen-
trate feed components is shown in Table 1, where the
origin of the feed ingredients is also shown.
2.7. Chosen impact categories
The environmental impact categories considered in
the study were:
앫 Resources: energy, material and land use;
앫 Human health: pesticide use;
앫 Ecological effects: global warming, acidification,
eutrophication, photo-oxidant formation and depletion
of stratospheric ozone.
The widespread use of pesticides is one of the major
impacts of agricultural production. In addition to poss-
ible human exposure, pesticide use can also cause eco-
toxicological impacts in aquatic and terrestrial systems.
Indirectly, discharges of pesticides may also contribute
to decreased biodiversity. Most of the methods for tox-
icity assessment need more elaboration which is further
discussed by Audsley et al. [5]. In this analysis, the
quantitative use of pesticides per FU is calculated and a
red-flag classification is performed. The base for the red-
flagging is pesticides which are prohibited in Swedish
agriculture.
Andersson shows that emission of cadmium from fer-
tilisers is an important hot-spot in food production sys-
tems [6]. This impact was not assessed in this work
because the conventional farm studied (like the great
majority of dairy farms in Sweden) does not use any
commercial P-fertilisers since the manure supplies an
adequate amount of P. The use of P-fertiliser in the con-
ventional milk life-cycle is instead found on the arable
farms that grow the crops for concentrate feed pro-
duction. The import of feed, which is often substantial
on a conventional milk farm, leads to a phosphorus
inflow most of which will stay on the farm and be spread
on the arable land with the farmyard manure. The input
of cadmium to the dairy farm can be traced to the feed
import and the atmospheric deposition. Similar to phos-
phorus, the lion’s share of the cadmium will remain on
the farm in the manure since the output products milk
and meat contain and remove minute amounts of heavy
metals. The Swedish data available on cadmium content
in fodder and manure are very scarce. A cadmium bal-
ance presented by Cederberg showed a large variation
in the limited data material so far available [7]. Although
no assessment of cadmium was conducted here, it seems
evident that farming systems with a large input of feed,
and which only have animal output products, run a
potential risk of accumulating heavy metals in the soil.
Examples of omitted impact categories are water use,
soil quality, eco-toxicological impacts, habitat alterations
and impacts on biological diversity.

Table 1
Mass- and price ratio of ingredients in dairy concentrate feed. Products in italics are components in the concentrate feed

Crop Origin Products Mass allocation % Price allocation %

Sugar beet Sweden, Denmark, Poland Sugar, beet pulp, molasses 66, 22, 12 83, 11, 6
Soybean Brazil Oil, meal 20, 80 31, 69
Rape seed Sweden, Germany, Denmark Oil, meal 40, 60 67, 33
Maize for starch Starch, maize gluten feed, maize
France 63, 20, 5, 7 78, 8, 10, 4
production gluten meal, germ meal
Sunflower France, Argentina Oil, meal 31, 68 63, 37
Crude palm oil, crude palm
Palm oil Malaysia 77, 10, 13 83, 14, 3
kernel oil, kernel expela
Potatoes for starch Starch, fruit water dried to No allocation due to lack
Netherlands, Belgium
productionb potato protein of data
No allocation due to lack
Sugar canec South America Sugar, molasses
of data

a
Only transport cost from Malaysia to Sweden was allocated to the feed part since this feed co-product has a very small value.
b
In Sweden, fruit water from the starch industry is used as organic fertiliser (rich in potassium and nitrogen). On the European continent, this
product is de-watered and the potato-protein is dried. No data was available for this process, energy data for drying beet pulp was used.
c
Only transport costs from South America were allocated to the feed part due to lack of data on sugar cane production and because this feed
component is only mixed by 0-3% in Swedish concentrate feed.
 C. Cederberg, B. Mattsson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 49–60 53

2.8. Data quality 2.8.5. Technological correlations

The following criteria, which are taken from the
Nordic Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment, were used
as a check-list for data quality assessment [8].
The farms studied were chosen because of their equiv-
alence in technology and processes.
3. Results

2.8.1. Acquisition method 3.1. Resources: energy, material and land

Data from the farms studied are measured data and
are related to milk production only with the exception The use of primary energy was 3550 MJ per FU in the
of electricity consumption which was divided between conventional system and 2511 MJ per FU in the organic
milk production and other activities on the farms by system. The results can, to a great extent, be explained
means of estimations. Data from the feed and oil extrac- by the difference of feeding strategy and the use of syn-
tion industry in Sweden and Norway were calculated thetic fertilisers in conventional production. The substan-
data based on measurements. Data from the oil extrac- tially greater input of concentrate feed in conventional
tion industry outside the Nordic countries were based on milk production leads to a higher energy demand. Dan-
energy use in industries with best available technique ish investigations also show lower energy requirements
(BAT). Data on emissions and use of resources in ferti- on organic dairy farms, 2160 MJ/1000 kg milk in
liser production come from a thorough inventory of the organic production and 3340 MJ/1000 kg milk in con-
most commonly used fertilisers in Sweden and Western ventional production [10].
Europe [9]. Data on cultivation of crops outside Sweden In Table 2, the systems’ use of materials is shown.
for the concentrate feed production are based on quali- Since machinery is not included in the analysis, the
fied estimates by agricultural experts and statistics. material use is very much dependent on energy and ferti-
liser consumption. The organic farm has a higher con-
2.8.2. Independence of data supplier sumption of electricity per cow and FU, which is the
The farms in this study and the Swedish feed and oil explanation for the larger use of uranium and hydro-
extraction industry are enterprises with an interest in the power. The total use of crude oil was slightly higher in
study and they have provided verified information, e.g. the conventional system but the use of diesel was sub-
through company environmental reports. Nutrient emis- stantially larger in the organic system. This is mainly
sions in Sweden were calculated with verified infor- because of a larger use of tractor diesel at the farm level
mation from public authorities. Cultivation data for crops due to a larger fodder production and lower yields on
outside Sweden were mostly given by growers’ associ- the organic farm. The considerably larger use of natural
ations. gas in the conventional system is explained by the syn-
thetic N-fertilisers. The difference in coal consumption
is due to the refining of components in the concentrate
2.8.3. Representative samples feed, mainly the drying of beet fibres which are a pri-
The data collection method of this study was to mary ingredient in concentrate feed. The use of phos-
choose a small number of enterprises (two farms) with phorus on the organic farm is mainly due to the purchase
high quality data based on continuous measurements. of mineral feed.
The fodder consumption per 1000 kg ECM has been The area of farmland needed to produce one FU per
compared to similar producers and is within a reasonable
range. The feeding system used by both farms (mixer
wagon and a whole mixed fodder) can give 5–10% Table 2
higher consumption than a system where each cow is Use of materials and hydropower, kg (MJel) per FU
fed individually. Also the loose housing system where
Inflow parameter CONV ORG
the cow can move around and exercise outdoors in an
exercise yard all year around, can contribute to a higher Coal 4.87 1.23
fodder consumption than in a tie-up cow-house. Crude oil 47.1 44.1
Natural gas 25.7 3.6
Natural uraniuma 0.00204 0.00221
2.8.4. Data age and geographical correlation Hydro powerb 0.28 0.32
All data used are of recent date, going back no further Phosphorus 2.37 0.92
than 1995. Due to an increasing interest in the pro- Potassium 2.88 0.57
duction background of the imported commodities to the Limestone 35.8 84.6
Swedish feed industry, the aim was to obtain specific a
1.0 g of natural uranium corresponds to 504 MJ heat, assumed
data on each important oil/starch crop where the co-pro- efficiency 0.35 in nuclear power.
ducts are imported for production of concentrate feeds. b
Kg el. from hydropower refers to MJel.
54 C. Cederberg, B. Mattsson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 49–60
Fig. 2. Use of arable land for the fodder-producing crops in the two
systems, m2 per FU and year.
year was 1925 m2 in the conventional system and 3464
m2 in the organic system. In Fig. 2, the arable land use
divided between the fodder-producing crops is shown.
It is obvious that the organic farm has a much greater
dependence of grassland for producing silage, hay and
pasture. This is an effect of the rules for organic pro-
duction stating that a high proportion of ruminants’ fod-
der intake must be roughage fodder. The considerably
smaller land use in the conventional system is also
explained by higher yields and the choice of concentrate
feed. Using the co-products from oil/starch/sugar pro-
ducts results in an area-efficient way of producing raw
materials for concentrate-feed production. When using
peas as the key ingredient in concentrate feed, which
was the case for the organic farm, one hectare of arable
land generates only one product, namely the pea, which
consequently has to carry the entire burden of land occu-
pation.
3.2. Pesticide use
In Table 3, a summary of pesticides used in the culti-
vation of fodder crops is shown. The red-flagging of soy-
meal is due to a number of toxic pesticides in soybean
cultivation. Monocrotofos and endosulfan are two com-
Table 3
List of pesticides (active substance) that are used in crops producing fodder
Fodder component Conventional system
Grassland for silage and hay Glyphosate, bentazon
Grains Tribenuronmetyl, propikonazol, pirimicarb
Peas Fodder component not used
Super pressed pulp, beet fibres Metamitron, fenmedifan, etofusemat, kloridazon
Glyphosate, 2,4-Da, monocrotofosa, endosulfana,
Soymeala
diflubensuron
Rape-seed meal Metazaklor, esfenvalerat, iprodion
Maize gluten meala Atrazinea, alachlor, lambda-cyhalotrin
Sunflower meal Trifuraline, fluorchlorine, fenpropimorf, deltametrin
a
Red flag classification.
monly used insecticides, both substances being highly
toxic [11]. The herbicide 2,4-D was prohibited in
Sweden in 1991 because of suspected carcinogenic
effects on workers using this pesticide. Atrazine, which
is the standard herbicide used in maize on the European
continent as well as in the US, was prohibited in Sweden
in 1992 due to its high soil mobility and persistence lead-
ing to a high risk for groundwater contamination.
The use of pesticides (as active substances) per FU
was 118 g in the conventional system and 10.8 g in the
organic system. Herbicides make up approximately 90%
of total pesticide use, while insecticides and fungicides
make up 5% each of total use. One aspect worth con-
sidering is that the intense use of chemicals in soybean
cropping has a direct impact on insecticide use in con-
ventional milk’s life cycle. Due to the large use of soy-
meal in the conventional concentrate feed, as much as
75% of the insecticide use per FU in this production
form is explained by insecticide application in soybeans.
3.3. Nutrient surplus and losses
Some of the most important ecological effects of mod-
ern agriculture, especially animal production, are related
to non-functioning nutrient cycles which entail losses of
nitrogen pollutants. Nutrient balance is a useful tool
when quantifying the flow of nutrients in food pro-
duction systems. A model for this is shown in Fig. 3;
nutrient balances were calculated for the farms studied.
The computer program STANK from the National Board
of Agriculture was used for contents of plant nutrients
in products (feed, fertilisers, milk, etc.) [12]. The bio-
logical N-fixation was estimated on the basis of the crops
and the amount of legumes [13]. N-deposition on arable
land in western Sweden was based on measurements
provided by the environmental section of the County
Board.
In Table 4a, the nutrient flows and balance of the con-
ventional farm are shown. The significance of imported
feed for this production system should be noted. It rep-
resents the entire input of phosphorous and makes up
Organic system
No pesticide use
No pesticide use
No pesticide use
Fodder component not used
Glyphosate, 2,4-Da, monocrotofosa, endosulfana,
diflubensuron
Metazaklor, esfenvalerat, iprodion
Atrazinea, alachlor, lambda-cyhalotrin
Fodder component not used
 C. Cederberg, B. Mattsson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 49–60 55

Fig. 3. Model for calculating flows of plant nutrients in agricultural systems.

Table 4 N emissions on the farms studied are shown. Nitrate

Nutrient balance on (a) a conventional farm and (b) an organic farm leaching and ammonia volatilisation were calculated
INPUT (kg N P K OUTPUT (kg N P K using recent Swedish models for N-losses, NO3–N losses
ha⫺1) ha⫺1) according to Johnsson and and Hoffman [16] and NH3–
N according to the computer program STANK [12].
(a) Conventional farm N2O–N losses were calculated using emission factors
Feed and seeds 134 19.8 46 Products 47 9.5 14 from IPCC [17]. In Table 5, the quantified losses are
Fertilisers 86
N-fixation 15 summed up. As seen, a smaller part of the N-surplus was
N-deposition 10 Nutrient surplus 198 10.3 32 found as emissions on the conventional farm.
Total 245 19.8 46 245 19.8 46 Nitrogen lost through denitrification is another
(b) Organic farm important loss of N from the agriculture system. Since
Feed and seeds 29 5.2 9 Products 20 4.1 6 N2 is a natural component of the atmosphere no environ-
Fertilisers 0
N-fixation 46 mental damage results from this loss. However, denitri-
N-deposition 10 Nutrient surplus 65 1.1 3 fication may be one explanation as to why a smaller part
Total 85 5.2 9 85 5.2 9 of the N surplus was found as emissions on the conven-
tional farm (48%). This farm has clay soils and much
larger N-flows than the organic farm and it is reasonable
the largest part of nitrogen inflow. The same calculation that the denitrification has been as high as 30–50 kg N
for the nutrient flows in the organic system is shown in ha⫺1. The organic farm in the study has lighter soils and
Table 4b. As seen when comparing Table 4a and b, the low flows of mineral-N in the soil and denitrification
nutrient surplus per hectare is much higher in the con- losses should not exceed 10 kg N ha⫺1 [18]. However,
ventional system. Also Danish and Dutch research on even when denitrification of this magnitude is added to
nutrient flows on dairy farms has shown a significantly total N-emissions there is still a share of N-surplus that
greater surplus per hectare arable land in conventional is not accounted for: 15–20% on the organic farm and
milk production [14,15]. 25–40% on the conventional farm. Input of N in the soil
Using nutrient balances only gives an indirect indi- pool could be one explanation of the discrepancy. Long-
cation of emissions and is not satisfactory for an LCA. term field experiments in Sweden show that continuous
The surplus has to be transmitted into different emis- application of farmyard manure has caused a greater
sions. This is done using models for calculating N and increase of total nitrogen in soils than other types of fer-
P emissions at the farm level. In Table 5, the calculated tilisers; as long as 35 years after application, a steady
state has not yet been reached [19]. However, it may
Table 5 well be that the N-losses are underestimated since the
Calculated N-losses, kg N ha⫺1, in relation to estimated total N-surplus different guidelines for calculating nutrient losses are
on the farms. Also shown is milk production kg ha⫺1 arable land on quite rough and in practice large individual differences
the farms may occur. When evaluating the different models used
Conventional Organic
here for calculating losses of nitrate, ammonia and
nitrous oxide, it seems likely that it is the calculations
Ammonia, NH3–N 61 24 of ammonia emissions that are the most uncertain ones
Nitrate–N, NO3–N 32 19 and probably underestimated in the conventional system.
Nitrous oxide, N2O–N 3.1 1.2 New Dutch research shows a very strong connection
Total 95 44
N surplus according to nutrient
between a high feeding intensity of protein and high
198 65 NH3-losses [20]. The use of high protein feed is much
balances; kg N ha⫺1
Share of nitrogen surplus found when greater in the conventional system. A Swedish national
48% 67%
calculating N-losses (see text) report also points out the increasing intensity in dairy
Milk production, kg ha⫺1 7415 3297 cow feeding as one cause of increasing ammonia emis-
sions in Sweden [21].
56 C. Cederberg, B. Mattsson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 49–60
Comparing the calculated nutrient losses in an LCA
study with a nutrient balance is an appropriate way to
validate the data and emission factors used in the calcu-
lations. For nitrogen, which can be found is so many
different forms in soil, air and water, it is common that
all N surplus cannot be explained as N emissions. For
example, of a total N-surplus of 190,000 tons in Swedish
agriculture, 154,000 tons are defined as losses, denitrifi-
cation and soil input and this leaves 20% unaccounted
for [22]. In the Danish N balance for 1996/97, 78,000
tons N out of a total surplus of 409,000 tons N was
unaccounted for [23]. Also in Dutch nitrogen balances,
all N output emissions cannot be accounted for, and in
balance calculations this is often added to the soil
pool [24,25].
As can be seen in Table 5, milk production per hectare
is more than twice as much on the conventional farm
compared with the organic farm. This is due to a higher
animal density, which is the result of the use of imported
feed and fertilisers. From this it follows that when the
N-losses per hectare are converted into N-losses per FU
(1000 kg milk) the difference between the two systems
of milk production is smaller, than is the case when only
studying the area-based nutrient balance.
Table 6 shows the calculated N-losses per FU on the
farms in the study but it is important to note that this
does not cover all the emissions of reactive nitrogen in
the milk’s life cycle. About 40% of the total nitrate emis-
sions in the milk’s life cycle occur outside the farm
boundary on the arable land where the purchased feed
was grown. Basically all ammonia emissions in the
milk’s life cycle take place at the farm level in close
connection with the farmyard manure. In the conven-
tional milk’s life cycle almost 50% of the nitrous oxide
emissions take place outside the farm boundary, mostly
as process emissions in fertiliser production.
3.4. Global warming
The potential contribution to global warming from
milk production was obtained by using characterisation
factors with a time frame of 100 years for direct green-
Table 6
Calculated N-losses on the farms converted to kg N ton milk ⫺1 in
relation to estimated N-surplus per ton milk (85% of surplus is allo-
cated to the milk)
Conventional Organic
Ammonia, NH3–N 6.97 6.13
Nitrate–N, NO3–N 3.62 4.85
Nitrous oxide, N2O–N 0.36 0.30
Total, kg N ton milk ⫺1 10.95 11.28
N surplus according to nutrient
22.8 16.8
balances; kg N ton milk ⫺1
Share of N-surplus found 48% 67%
house gases [26]. The results are shown in Fig. 4. It is
evident that the use of fossil fuel is only to a minor
extent connected to this impact category. Emissions of
N2O connected to the nitrogen cycle on the farms (losses
from soil) and N2O-emissions from synthetic fertiliser
production play a larger part than CO2-emissions from
the use of fossil fuel. The most important contributor to
global warming in milk production is, however, meth-
ane. Due to the feeding strategy with a larger share of
roughage fodder it is estimated that methane emissions
are 10–15% higher from cows in organic production
compared with conventional production [27,28]. There
seems, however, to be considerable variations in the
emission factors for methane from cattle. In this study,
emission data from the Swedish EPA were used, estimat-
ing methane losses of 155 kg per conventional dairy cow
and year and, because of their larger intake of roughage
fodder, 12% higher emissions for the organic cows
[27,28]. In the IPCC manual, the methane losses for high
yielding cows are estimated to be considerably lower:
118 kg methane per dairy cow and year [17].
3.5. Acidification
The potential acidification was found by using the
maximum scenario method according to Heijungs et al.
[29]. The discharges were calculated and weighted to
17.98 kg SO2-equivalents per FU in the conventional
system and 15.81 SO2-equivalents per FU in the organic
system and it is clear that ammonia is the key parameter.
Almost 90% of the total acidifying potential is due to
ammonia losses in both systems and these losses are
mostly related to ammonia evaporation from farmyard
manure.
The acidification potential is approximately 10%
lower in the organic system. As shown in the farms’
nutrient balances (Tables 4 and 5), a larger part of N-
surplus was unexplained on the conventional farm. This
may imply that ammonia losses are underestimated and
the acidifying potential could thereby be greater for the
conventional system.
Fig. 4. The potential contribution to global warming, kg CO2-equiva-
lents per FU. Time horizon is 100 years.
 C. Cederberg, B. Mattsson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 49–60
3.6. Eutrophication
The calculation of the important nutrifying substances
nitrate and ammonia was described earlier. Estimations
of P-losses are based on data with high uncertainty since
there are great variations in P-losses from arable land.
The average loss in Sweden is 0.32 kg P ha⫺1, but the
variation is as high as 0.01–2.61 kg P ha⫺1 [30]. Further-
more, there are no data on differences in P-losses
between organic and conventional farming. In this study,
P-losses were estimated to be 0.35 P kg ha⫺1 on the
conventional farm and 0.25 kg P ha⫺1 on the organic
farm. This assumption was based on the fact that both
the manure application rate and the P-surplus are higher
on the conventional farm, which lead to a higher P-
accumulation in the soils.
Although the organic farm has a lower nitrate leaching
per hectare (see Table 5), the nitrate loss per FU is
higher. There are two explanations for this. Firstly, the
overall yields are generally lower in the organic system
but the nitrate losses per hectare in this system do not
seem to be sufficiently low to compensate the lower
yields. Consequently, the nitrate loss per kg fodder for
grain and silage was higher in this system. Secondly, the
choice of concentrate feed differs. The organic farm uses
a considerable amount of peas, and nitrate leaching in
relation to yield is rather high for this feed. The conven-
tional farm, on the other hand, uses significant amounts
of purchased concentrate feed which have lower nitrate
discharges per kg feed. Since these purchased concen-
trate feeds are based on co-products from oil/starch/sugar
crops, the nitrate leaching from these crops is divided
through the allocation procedures between the main pro-
duct and the co-products.
The potential eutrophication was found by using the
maximum scenario method described by Heijungs et al.
[29] and Lindfors et al. [8]. The result is shown in Fig.
5. As previously described, the ammonia emissions
might be underestimated in the conventional system and
this uncertainty makes it hard to reach a clear-cut con-
clusion concerning the differences between the two alter-
Fig. 5. The maximum potential contribution to eutrophication, kg O2-
equivalents per FU.
57
natives. Discharges of phosphate seem to have a very
small impact on the potential eutrophication from milk
at present. However, the nutrient balance shows a larger
P-surplus in the conventional system and this can lead
to a P-leaching in the future. See further discussion on
hot-spots, Section 4.1.
3.7. Photo-oxidant formation
Due to the higher use of tractor diesel per FU on the
organic farm studied, the emissions of NOx, catalyst of
the photo-oxidant reaction, is greater. This greater diesel
consumption also results in larger emissions of CO and
hydrocarbons. Actually when classifying all emissions
that can contribute to this impact category, only hexane
discharges (from the oil extraction industry) are higher
for the conventional system. All other parameters
important for photo-oxidant formation show higher
emissions in the organic system.
3.8. Ozone depletion
Although machinery was not included in the analysis,
the cooling medias in dairy farms’ milk cooler equip-
ment are worth mentioning. On Swedish dairy farms, all
cooler tanks containing R12 have been replaced and dur-
ing 1998 cooler tanks containing R22 are to be replaced.
Compounds such as methane, nitrous oxide, carbon
monoxide can directly or indirectly influence strato-
spheric ozone depletion. Due to the complexity and the
incomplete understanding of the processes, no ODPs
were calculated for these compounds and no characteris-
ation was therefore done. But it is evident that losses of
nitrogen compounds are also vital for this impact cate-
gory; it has been estimated that doubling the concen-
tration of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere would result
in a 10% decrease in the ozone layer and this would
increase the ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth by
20% [31].
4. Discussion
4.1. Hot-spots
Hot-spots were chiefly identified from current dis-
cussions and studies on important environmental goals
for the Swedish agriculture of the future [1].
Concerning the use of materials, phosphorous should
be highlighted as being a limited resource and almost
exclusively used in agriculture as fertiliser and fodder
mineral. Long-term sustainable food production must
deal responsibly with this element. As seen in Table 2,
the use of phosphorous per FU is higher in the conven-
tional system due to fertiliser application in the feed
imported to the farm. Moreover, it should be noted that
58 C. Cederberg, B. Mattsson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 49–60
the method of dividing co-products from the cultivation
of oil/starch/sugar crops according to price allocation
puts the P-flow in the conventional system in a better
light than it is in actual practice. The P-flow is more
likely to follow the mass when it is divided between the
co-products from the crops that provide the raw material
for the feed industry. In this respect, the nutrient balance
gives more correct information on the true phosphorous
flow. As seen in Table 4, the conventional farm shows
a substantially higher P-surplus per hectare. There are
two important environmental aspects to consider in
terms of this finding. Firstly, it signifies an inefficient
use of this limited resource. Feed is exported from arable
farms to animal producing farms and P-fertiliser must
replace nutrient losses following the harvest products
from arable farms. Secondly, accumulation of plant-
available P in soil can lead to a future leaching problem.
Recent research from The Broadbalk Experiment at
Rothamstead, UK, where different fertiliser P levels
have been applied in wheat field trials for more than 100
years, shows increasing P-leaching from plots where an
excess of P in fertilisers or manure has been applied for
an extended period of time [32]. On the basis of these
findings it is probably not sufficient to assess merely the
momentary environmental effects of phosphorous losses
from agricultural systems, but also the long term effects
of P accumulation in soils should be taken into account.
Emissions of the nitrogen pollutants ammonia and
nitrate are major sources for eutrophication and acidifi-
cation, being hot-spots in both of the systems studied
and generally connected to most agricultural production,
especially the production of milk, meat and eggs.
Ammonia, being an acidifying as well as nutrifying com-
pound, is closely connected to the handling of farmyard
manure and a number of measures have been and will
be implemented to decrease ammonia emission from the
agricultural sector in Sweden. The need for these
measurements is underscored by the results of this study,
showing that the acidifying emissions due to the use of
fossil fuels are almost negligible in comparison with the
key parameter ammonia. The greater nitrate leaching per
FU in the organic system shows that a low input system
is not automatically a guarantee for a lower environmen-
tal impact. There is always a “base leaching” from agri-
cultural land and the substantially higher area needed to
produce organic milk leads to a relatively higher nitrate
loss per kg organically produced grain and peas.
The use of arable land to produce milk was substan-
tially larger on the organic farm studied. Although there
is an excess of arable land in Europe today, leading to
a set-aside program in the EU, the larger area occupancy
must be seen as a hot-spot for organic food production
systems. However, it is not sufficient to evaluate the land
resource in merely quantitative terms. A number of
environmental goals are connected to arable land use and
apart from direct impacts such as soil erosion and soil
compacting, indirect effects of land use must be con-
sidered. Indirect effects are of a more subjective nature
and contain aspects of aesthetic values such as the pres-
ervation of the beauty of scenery, open landscapes and
cultural heritage. For example, one important problem
connected to agricultural land use in Sweden today is
the lack of grazing ruminants preserving valuable
biotopes [33].
One opinion often expressed is that intense production
systems can liberate areas for growing energy crops. Had
the organic farm in this analysis followed a conventional
production scheme using N-fertilisers and more
imported feed components, Salix (willow) could have
been cultivated on the surplus area. This option, how-
ever, strongly conflicts with environmental goals for the
agriculture in this region, the conditions of which are
typical for a large part of Swedish milk production. The
farm is situated in a rural area where open landscapes
and biotopes connected to grazing ruminants are highly
valued and relinquishment of arable land is considered
a problem. Financial support according to the EU
environmental programme is given for growing leys and
grassland in order to preserve arable land in this region
[34]. In this food production system, a larger land use,
especially of grassland, actually promotes important
Swedish environmental goals.
Pesticide use is a hot-spot, and in conventional agri-
cultural production in Sweden today great efforts are
being made to reduce pesticide use and to ensure the
handling of pesticides through strict legislation. This
analysis, going to the cradle of the imported protein
feeds, shows that environmental impact from pesticide
use abroad should also be considered if the long term
goal of environment-friendly production can be fulfilled.
Emissions of the potent greenhouse gases methane
and nitrous oxide are critical parameters when assessing
agricultural production. The relations between methane
emissions and feeding strategy appear to be an important
issue requiring further investigation. From present
knowledge it can be concluded that organic milk pro-
duction should not be too extensive in terms of a large
use of roughage fodder. Emission of nitrous oxide is
closely connected to nitrogen application and nitrogen
turnover in soil. Hence the potential negative effect on
global warming is more apparent in a conventional sys-
tem due to the higher fertiliser rates. Moreover, synthetic
fertiliser production also induces N2O-emissions.
4.2. Improvement assessment
Suggested improvements in conventional production
are: changes in concentrate feed; improving the farm
nutrient flows to reduce nutrient surplus, and demands
for less use of toxic pesticides in imported concentrate
feeds. An increased use of domestic/regionally produced
rape-seed meal instead of feed ingredients imported from
 C. Cederberg, B. Mattsson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 49–60
other continents would lower both energy use and pestic-
ide use. If the self-supporting capacity of fodder could
increase on conventional farms, there would be a better
interaction between fodder production and manure appli-
cation and the P-flow would be more efficient. Large
input of high-protein concentrate feed should be avoided
to reduce nitrogen surplus and ammonia emissions.
Through its purchase of feed components, the feed
industry could promote the development of integrated
soybean cropping in which toxic pesticides could be
replaced by biological substances [35].
Suggested improvements in organic production are:
differentiation in limits of purchased feed and an
increase in the self-supporting capacity of the farm. The
life cycles of concentrate feeds and their environmental
burden should be considered when establishing the limit
for the use of conventionally produced feed in organic
production. One way is to use a differentiation and to
allow a higher limit of feed with less environmental bur-
den, of which rape-seed meal and peas are good
examples. A greater use of concentrate feed in organic
milk production (providing this feed has a relatively low
environmental burden) could also reduce emissions of
methane since these are connected to feed composition
and quality. Also organic dairy farms should endeavour
to attain a high self-supporting capacity of fodder. One
way is to reduce the replacement rate so that fewer hei-
fers have to be fed. Another way of achieving this is to
cultivate crops which can produce a great deal of fodder
on small areas. Fodder beets are such a crop. This meas-
ure could contribute to lower nitrate loss per FU on the
farm in this study, since the imported organic grain and
peas to the farm studied were responsible for a consider-
able part of the nitrate loss in the milk’s life cycle.
5. Conclusion
This study shows that a low-input agricultural system,
such as organic milk production, has obvious environ-
mental benefits. The most apparent environmental bene-
fits are the considerably reduced use of pesticides and
phosphorus. Concerning other environmental impacts,
e.g. global warming, acidification and eutrophication, it
appears that measures to reduce the potential impact
from milk production need to be implemented in both
systems analysed. It is also evident that when comparing
the environmental performance of conventional and
organic food production systems which have such differ-
ences in material and energy flows, land use must be
assessed in both quantitative and qualitative terms. The
aesthetic values and biodiversity connected to Swedish
arable land use were briefly discussed in this paper but
other important criteria of qualitative land use such as
soil erosion, soil organic matter and soil compaction
should also be addressed when evaluating the use of the
resource arable land.
59
References
[1] SNV. Det framtida jordbruket. Slutrapport från systemstudien för
ett miljöanpassat och uthålligt jordbruk (The agriculture of the
future) [in Swedish]. Report 4755. Stockholm (Sweden): The
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 1997.
[2] Cederberg C. Life cycle assessment of milk production — a com-
parison of conventional and organic farming. SIK Report No.
643. Göteborg (Sweden): SIK, The Swedish Institute for Food
and Biotechnology. 1998.
[3] Cederberg C, Stadig M. LCA av konventionell och ekologisk
mellanmjölk (LCA of conventional and organic consumer milk).
Report in preparation. Göteborg (Sweden): SIK, The Swedish
Institute for Food and Biotechnology, 1999.
[4] Spörndly R. Fodertabeller för idisslare. (Feed tables for
ruminants) [in Swedish]. Speciella skrifter No. 53. Uppsala
(Sweden): The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
1993.
[5] Audsley E, Alber S, Clift R, Cowell S, Crettaz P, Gaillard G,
Hausheer J, Jolliet O, Kleijn R, Mortensen B, Pearce D, Roger
E, Teulon H, Weidema B, van Zeijts H. Harmonisation of
environmental life cycle assessment for agriculture. Final Report
Concerted Action AIR3-CT94-2028. European Commission DG
VI Agriculture, 1997.
[6] Andersson K. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of food products and
production systems. PhD thesis. Göteborg (Sweden): School of
Environmental Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology,
1998.
[7] Cederberg C. Flöden av växtnäring och kadmium i jordbruk och
samhälle i Halmstads kommun (Flows of plant nutrients and cad-
mium in food production and consumption in the district of
Halmstad) [in Swedish]. Report 97:1. Göteborg (Sweden):
Department of Applied Environmental Science, Göteborg Univer-
sity, 1997.
[8] Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K, Hoffman L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla
V, Hanssen O-J, Rönning A, Ekwall T, Finnveden G. Nordic
guidelines on life-cycle assessment. Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen:
The Nordic Council, 1995.
[9] Davis J, Haglund C. Life cycle inventory (LCI) of fertiliser pro-
duction. Fertiliser products used in Sweden and Western Europe.
In: SIK Report No. 654. Göteborg (Sweden): SIK, The Swedish
Institute for Food and Biotechnology, 1999.
[10] Refsgaard K, Halberg N, Steen Kristensen E. Energy utilization
in crop and dairy production in organic and conventional live-
stock production systems. Agricultural Systems
1998;57(4):599–630.
[11] Ahlo C, Vieira L. Fish and wildlife resources in the Pantanal
wetlands of Brazil and potential disturbances from the release
of environmental contaminants. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 1997;6:71–4.
[12] STANK 2.1. Manure and plant nutrients in re-circulation. Com-
puter calculation program. Jönköping: The National Board of
Agriculture, 1996.
[13] Van der Werff PA, Baars A, Domen GJM. Nutrient balances and
measurements of nitrogen losses on mixed ecological farms on
sandy soils in the Netherlands. Biological Agriculture and Horti-
culture 1995;11:41–50.
[14] Dalgaard T, Halberg N, Steen Kristenssen E. Can organic farming
help to reduce N-losses? Experiences from Denmark. Nutrient
Cycling in Agrosystems 1998;52:277–87.
[15] Aarts HFM, Biewinga EE, van Keulen H. Dairy farms systems
based on efficient nutrient management. Netherlands Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 1992;40:285–99.
[16] Johnsson H, Hoffman M. Normalutlakning av kväve från svensk
åkermark 1984 och 1994 (Standard leaching of nitrogen from
Swedish arable land 1985 and 1994) [in Swedish]. Ekohydrologi
60 C. Cederberg, B. Mattsson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 49–60
No. 30. Uppsala (Sweden): Division of Water Quality Manage-
ment, The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 1997.
[17] IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Inventories: Reference
Manual, vol. 3. 1997.
[18] Claesson S, Steineck S. Plant nutrient management and the
environment. Special Report No. 41. Uppsala (Sweden): The
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 1996.
[19] Persson J, Kirchman H. Carbon and nitrogen in arable soils affec-
ted by supply of N fertilizers and organic manures. Agriculture
Ecosystems and Environment 1994;51:249–55.
[20] Smits MCI, Valk H, Elzing A, Keen A. Effects of protein
nutrition on ammonia emissions from a cubicle house for dairy
cattle. Livestock Production Science 1995;44:147–56.
[21] Jordbruksverket. Förslag till åtgärdsprogram för att reducera
ammoniakavgången i jordbruket (Plan of action how to reduce
ammonia losses in agriculture) [in Swedish]. Report 1997:16.
Jönköping (Sweden): The National Board of Agriculture, 1997.
[22] SNV. Källor till kväveutsläpp (Sources of nitrogen discharges)
[in Swedish]. Report 4736. Stockholm (Sweden): The Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency, 1997.
[23] Halberg N, Sillebak Kristensen I, Dalgaard T. Linking data
sources and models in the levels of process, farm types and
regions. Paper presented at the 2nd European Invitational Expert
Seminar on Life Cycle Assessment of Food Products, LCAnet
Food, 1999 Jan 25–26; The Hague, The Netherlands.
[24] Berentsen PB, Giesen GWJ. An environmental–economic model
at farm level to analyse institutional and technical change in dairy
farming. Agricultural Systems 1995;49:153–75.
[25] Van der Putten AHJ, Ketelaars JJMH. Ammonia volatilization
from dairy farms: experiments and model. In: Jarvis SC, Pain
BF, editors. Gaseous nitrogen emissions from grasslands. CAB
International, 1997. p. 123–30.
[26] IPCC. In: Houghton, editor. Climate change 1995. Cambridge
(UK): Cambridge University Press (published for IPCC), 1995.
[27] Murphy M. Växthusgasutsläpp från husdjur (Emissions of green-
house gases from domestic animals). In: Report 4144. Stockholm
(Sweden): The Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.
[28] Murphy M. Private communication. Uppsala (Sweden): The
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 1998.
[29] Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo De Haes
HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin
R, De Goede HP. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Pro-
ducts. Guide and Background. Leiden (The Netherlands): CML,
Leiden University, 1992.
[30] Kyllmar K, Johansson G, Hoffman M. Avrinning och växtnär-
ingsförluster från JRK:s stationsnät för agrohydrologiska året
1993/94 samt en långtidsöversikt. (Discharge and nutrient losses
from arable land 1993/94 and a long term review) [in Swedish].
Ekohydrologi No. 38. Uppsala (Sweden): Division of Water
Quality Management, The Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, 1995.
[31] Mosier A, Duxbury JM, Freney JR, Heinemeyer O, Minami K.
Assessing and mitigating N2O emissions from agricultural soils.
Climate Change 1998;40:7–38.
[32] Heckrath G, Brookes PC, Poulton PR, Goulding KWT. Phos-
phorus leaching from soils containing different phosphorus con-
centration in the Broadbalk Experiment. Journal of Environmen-
tal Quality 1995;24:904–10.
[33] Mattsson B, Cederberg C, Ljung M. Principles for environmental
assessment of land use in agriculture. SIK Report No. 642. Göte-
borg (Sweden): SIK, The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotech-
nology, 1998.
[34] Jordbruksverket. Miljöstöd 1999. (Environmental financial sup-
port 1999). EU Information. Jönköing (Sweden): The National
Board of Agriculture, 1999.
[35] Moscardi F. Soybean integrated pest management in Brazil. FAO
Plant Protection Bulletin (Rome) 1995;41(2):91–100.