Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T02:49:19.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Life cycle assessment of animal origin products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2016

G. Zervas  and
E. Tsiplakou
G. Zervas*
Affiliation:
Department of Nutritional Physiology and Feeding, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos 75, GR-11855, Athens, Greece
E. Tsiplakou
Affiliation:
Department of Nutritional Physiology and Feeding, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos 75, GR-11855, Athens, Greece
*
† E-mail: gzervas@aua.gr
Get access

Abstract

Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production have a major impact on the environment. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an accepted method to assess those environmental impacts associated with all stages of products life from cradle to grave, and is used to determine the carbon footprint (CF) of animal origin products. CF is just an environmental indicator to assess sustainability of livestock products, such as milk, beef, pork, chicken, eggs, etc. and is used on products packaging as a so-called carbon label to inform supply chain professionals about the relative impacts of different products and activities. From the published studies who assessed the impact of production of milk, beef, lamb, pork, chicken and eggs using LCA, it is concluded that production of 1 kg of beef used most land and energy and had highest global warming potential, followed by production of 1 kg of lamb, pork, chicken, eggs and milk. However, it should be pointed out that LCA results for livestock products do not include environmental consequences of competition for land between humans and animals, and consequences of land-use changes.

Keywords

green house gas emissionruminantsmonogastric
Type
Full Paper
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 7 , Special Issue 2: Proceedings of the EAAP-European Federation of Animal Science in association with ALPA , October 2016 , pp. 191 - 195
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bertrand, S and Barnett, J 2011. Standard method for determine the carbon footprint of dairy products reduces confusion. Animal Frontiers 1, 14–18.Google Scholar
Brouček, J and ČermáK, B 2015. Emission of harmful gases from poultry farms and possibilities of their reduction. Ekológia (Bratislava) 34, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown-Brandl, TM, Nienaber, JA, Eigenberg, RA, Hahn, GL and Freetly, H 2003. Thermoregulatory responses of feeder cattle. Journal of Thermal Biology 28, 149–157.Google Scholar
Casey, JW and Holden, NM 2005. Holistic analysis of GHG emissions from Irish livestock production systems. American Society of Agricultural Biology and Engineering. Paper No 54036. Tampa, FL, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosson, P, Shalloo, L, O’Brien, D, Lanigan, GJ, Foley, PA, Boland, TM and Kenny, DA 2011. A review of whole farm systems models of greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle production systems. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 29–45.Google Scholar
De Rensis, and Scaramuzzi, RJ 2003. Heat stress and seasonal effects on reproduction in the dairy cow – a review. Theriogenology 60, 1139–1151.Google Scholar
de Vries, M and de Boer, IJM 2010. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science 128, 1–11.Google Scholar
Dyer, JA and Desjardins, RL 2009. A review and evaluation of fossil energy and carbon dioxide emissions in Canadian agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 33, 210–228.Google Scholar
Dyer, JA, Verge, XP, Desjardins, RL and Worth, DE 2010. The protein-based GHG emission intensity for livestock products in Canada. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 34, 618–629.Google Scholar
Dyer, JA, Vergé, XPC, Kulshreshtha, SN, Desjardins, RL and McConkey, BG 2011. Areas and greenhouse gas emissions from feed crops not used in Canadian livestock production in 2001. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35, 780–803.Google Scholar
Edwards-Jones, G, Plassmann, K and Harris, IM 2009. Carbon foot printing of lamb and beef production systems: insights from an empirical analysis of farms in Wales, UK. Journal of Agricultural Science 147, 707–719.Google Scholar
FAO 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector: a life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Guinée, JB, Gorrée, M, Heijungs, R, Huppes, G, Kleijn, R, de Koning, A, van Oers, L, Wegener Sleeswijk, A, Suh, S, Udo de Haes, HA, de Bruijn, H, van Duin, R, Huijbregts, MAJ, Lindeijer, E, Roorda, AAH, van der Ven, BL and Weidema, BP (ed.) 2002. Handbook on Life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. Institute for Environmental Sciences, Leiden, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Halberg, N, Hermansen, JE, Kristensen, IS, Eriksen, J, Tvedegaard, N and Petersen, BM 2010. Impact of organic pig production systems on CO2 emission, C sequestration and nitrate pollution. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30, 721–731.Google Scholar
Katajajuuri, JM 2008. Experiences and improvement possibilities – LCA case study of broiler chicken production. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, 12–14 November, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Kristensen, T, Mogensen, L, Trydeman Knudsen, M and Hermansen, J 2011. Effect of production system and farming strategy on greenhouse gas emissions from commercial dairy farms in a life cycle approach. Livestock Science 140, 136–148.Google Scholar
Ledgard, SF, Lieffering, M, McDevitt, J, Boyes, M and Kemp, R 2010. A greenhouse gas footprint study for exported New Zealand lamb report prepared for the meat industry association. Ballance Agri-Nutrients, Landcorp and MAF. AgResearch, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Leinonen, I, Williams, AG, Wiseman, J, Guy, J and Kyriazakis, I 2012. Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: egg production systems. Poultry Science 91, 26–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, D, Matopoulos, A and Davies, P 2015. Life cycle assessment in the food supply chain: a case study. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 18, 140–154.Google Scholar
Morris, ST 2009. Economics of sheep production. Small Ruminant Research 86, 59–62.Google Scholar
Müller-Lindenlauf, M, Deittert, C and Köpke, U 2010. Assessment of environmental effects, animal welfare and milk quality among organic dairy farms. Livestock Science 128, 140–148.Google Scholar
Nardone, A, Ronchi, B, Lacetera, N, Ranieri, MS and Bernabucci, U 2010. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livestock Science 130, 57–69.Google Scholar
Nathan Pelletier, N, Ibarburu, M and Xin, H 2014. Comparison of the environmental footprint of the egg industry in the United States in 1960 and 2010. Poultry Science 93, 241–255.Google Scholar
Nguyen, TLT, Hermansen, JE and Mogensen, L 2010a. Environmental consequences of different beef production systems in the EU. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 756–766.Google Scholar
Nguyen, TLT, Hermansen, JE and Mogensen, L 2010b. Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU. Energy Policy 38, 2561–2571.Google Scholar
Peters, GM, Rowley, HV, Wiedemann, S, Tucker, R, Short, MD and Schulz, M 2010. Red meat production in Australia: life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas studies. Environmental Science and Technology 44, 1327–1332.Google Scholar
Puillet, L, Agabriel, J, Peyraud, JL and Faverdin, P 2014. Modelling cattle population as lifetime trajectories driven by management options: a way to better integrate beef and milk production in emissions assessment. Livestock Science 165, 167–180.Google Scholar
Shibata, M and Terada, F 2010. Factors affecting methane production and mitigation in ruminants. Animal Science Journal 81, 2–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomassen, MA, Dalgaard, R, Heijungs, R and de Boer, I 2008. Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13, 339–349.Google Scholar
Veysset, P, Lherm, M and Bébin, D 2010. Energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and economic performance assessments in French Charolais suckler cattle farms: model-based analysis and forecasts. Agricultural Systems 103, 41–50.Google Scholar
Williams, A, Pell, E, Webb, J, Moorhouse, E and Audsley, E 2008. Comparative life cycle assessment of food commodities procured for UK consumption through a diversity of supply chains. DEFRA Project Fo0103.Google Scholar
Zervas, G and Tsiplakou, E 2012. An assessment of GHG emissions from small ruminants in comparison with GHG emissions from large ruminants and monogastric livestock. Atmospheric Environment 49, 13–23.Google Scholar