Comparing farm-level carbon footprint calculators for dairy production with a case study of Viikki Research Farm in Finland
フィンランドViikki研究農場の事例を用いた乳製品生産向け農場レベル炭素フットプリント計算ツールの比較 (AI 翻訳)
Yajie Gao, Marja Roitto, Teng Hu, Tapani Jokiniemi, Mari Sandell, Hanna L Tuomisto
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
乳製品生産のGHG排出算定に使われる5つの農場レベルCFツールを方法論と結果の一貫性で比較。フィンランドの酪農場事例で総排出量が415〜913 t CO2eq/年と大きくばらつき、主にスコープとIPCC手法階層の違いに起因。ツールにより緩和策への感応度も異なり、方法調和の必要性を指摘。
English
This study compares five farm-level carbon footprint tools for dairy production, revealing significant variability in total GHG emissions (415-913 t CO2eq/yr) due to differences in scopes and IPCC method tiers. Tool responsiveness to mitigation scenarios varies, highlighting the need for methodological harmonization with evolving standards like PEFCR for dairy.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では農林水産省の「みどりの食料システム戦略」やJ-クレジット制度で農業排出削減が進む中、CF算定ツールの不整合は報告信頼性の課題。本比較は日本の酪農・畜産分野での算定手法選択や標準化検討に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
Globally, inconsistent carbon footprint methodologies undermine credible reporting and decision-making. This study's comparative analysis supports harmonization efforts aligned with ISSB and EU PEFCR standards, offering insights for dairy supply chain decarbonization and Scope 3 reporting.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a systematic comparison of CF tools, highlighting methodological sources of variability and sensitivity to mitigation scenarios.
🏢実務担当者:Guides dairy farms and food companies in selecting appropriate CF tools for credible reporting and mitigation planning.
🏛政策担当者:Informs policy on standardizing farm-level carbon accounting to ensure comparability and support mitigation targets.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Dairy farms are under pressure to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Various carbon footprint (CF) accounting tools have been developed for calculating GHG emissions and pinpointing hotspots to support mitigation efforts. However, inconsistent methodologies often lead to variations of their results, unclear discrepancies pose barriers to credible reporting and decision making. Five open access, farm-level CF accounting tools applicable to EU livestock production were evaluated and compared for their methodologies. They were further tested through a case study of a dairy Farm in Finland for their consistency in quantifying emissions of milk production. The sensitivity of each tool was analyzed across nine mitigation scenarios to evaluate their practical utility in guiding mitigation strategies. A significant variability in total GHG emissions was observed, ranging from 415 to 913 t CO2 eq y-1, derived mainly from differences in scopes and the adoption of varying method tiers (in IPCC 2006 or IPCC 2019). While enteric fermentation and feed production remained the primary emission sources across all tools, their contributions fluctuated based on calculation methods. Solagro and the Cool Farm Tool were most responsive to mitigation strategies regarding manure management and yield improvements, while GLEAM-i and CAP'2ER (level 1) lacked the flexibility to model specific management shifts. The lack of methodological harmony causes inconsistent results, requiring careful tool selection to align with specific goals and data availability. Methodological frameworks can be harmonized with evolving standards (Product environmental footprint category rules for dairy products), meanwhile adapting scientific advances into calculations to ensure transparency and comparability.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjag127first seen 2026-08-06 05:04:57
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。