Matthias Koesling

Forsker

(+47) 943 74 616
matthias.koesling@nibio.no

Sted
Tingvoll

Besøksadresse
Gunnars veg 6, 6630 Tingvoll

Biografi

Kompetanse/stikkord:
  • Livsløpsanalyse (Life Cycle Assessment - LCA)
    • Melkeproduksjon
    • Sauehold
    • Fôrvekster og korn
    • Makroalgedyrking
    • inkludering av maskiner og bygninger
    • innføring i LCA for studenter og elever
  • FARMnor (Flow Analysis and Resource Management): vedlikehold og videreutvikling av LCA-modellen
  • Klimagassutslipp ved bruk av GWP, GWP* og GTP; vanligvis for en 100-års horisont
  • Kombinasjon av LCA og økonomisk analyse
  • Økologisk produksjon
  • Spørreundersøkelser; kvantitativ og kvalitativ
  • Forsøksarbeid; korn og fôrvekster; sorter, gjødsling, urasregulering
 
Utdanning:
  • Dr. agr. (Doctor of Agricultural Sciences) ved fakultetet for økologisk landbruk, Universität Kassel (2017).
  • Diplom-Agraringenieur (tilsvarer master of science) ved fakultetet for landbruk og ernæring, Christian Albrechts Universität Kiel (1993).
  • Fagbrev som agronom, ved Landwirtschaftskammer Schleswig-Holstein (1986).

Medlem:

Medlem av EGTOP (Expert group for technical advice on organic production) for EU-kommisjonen under direktoratet for landbruk og distriktsutvikling siden 2022.

Les mer
Til dokument

Sammendrag

Green biorefineries (GBRs) aim to reduce reliance on imported feed by extracting protein from forage. Their environmental performance depends on co-product utilization, including the pulp which contains up to 70% of the original biomass dry matter. Using a life cycle assessment approach, we compared a conventional dairy system with two GBR-integrated systems differing in land availability for forage production, where pulp fraction replaced forage in cattle diets, adjusted using the Nordic Feed Evaluation System. Both GBR-integrated systems showed higher environmental impacts per kg milk than the conventional, driven by increased concentrate feed inputs or expanded land use for forage production to maintain milk production. Impact increased by up to 7% and 8% for global warming potential and land use, respectively, while other impact categories showed similar or even higher increases. Substituting soybean meal elsewhere with GBR-produced protein concentrate partially offset these impacts but was insufficient to reduce impacts below the conventional system. In a sensitivity analysis, neither a higher feeding value for pulp nor a higher-impact assumption for the avoided soybean meal alone was enough to bring impacts below the conventional system. Only when both were combined did global warming potential and land use fall below conventional, by 5%.