Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems

Halberg, Niels; Werf, Hayo M.G. van der; Basset-Mens, Claudine; Dalgaard, Randi; Boer, I.J.M. de

doi:10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.013

Cited by 127 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…De Vries and De Boer (2010) and Yan et al (2013) warned that some studies consider the emissions or removals due to land use whereas others do not, and some works adopt a "cradle to grave" approach, whereas other studies use a "cradle to gate" approach. Even considering similar objects of analysis, differences in terms of the functional unit definition, allocation methods, and the characterization of the processes were observed (Halberg et al, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle assessment of beef cattle production in two typical grassland systems of southern Brazil

Dick

Silva

Dewes

2015

Journal of Cleaner Production

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe importance of animal production in the overall context of human activity is undisputed and influences food supply, job security, income producing, as well as landscape and local ecosystems conservation. This relevance enhances the charges by society as the environmental impacts of various activities, especially in relation to ruminant production amid the current problems of climate changes. In this context, we analyzed the main environmental impacts of two typical beef cattle production systems from southern Brazil, namely the extensive system (ES) and the improved system (IS), and identified the components that have the greatest environmental impacts using the life cycle assessment method. The basis of the system construction was a cattle herd that originated from 100 weaned heifers, four weaned calves, and the progeny of these cattle during their productive life (12 years), and the land areas, external inputs, and other natural resources and technologies necessary to the operations. The functional unit was the production of 1 kg of live weight. The values of greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and freshwater depletion in the ES were higher compared with those values obtained for the IS (22.52 and 9.16 kg CO 2 equivalents; 234.78 and 21.03 m 2 a; and 0.217 and 0.0949 m 3 , respectively). These variations were attributed to the permanence time of the animals in each system and to the quality and production of the pastures. The ES presented lower potential impacts than the IS on metal depletion and soil acidification (0.000519 and 0.0536 kg Fe equivalents; and 0.0028 and 0.0038 kg SO 2 equivalents, respectively) mainly due to the pasture improvement practices and the salt supply to the animals. Moreover, the values of freshwater eutrophication and fossil depletion were higher in the ES than in the IS (0.00383 and 0.00219 kg P equivalents and 0.0042 and À0.1255 kg oil equivalents, respectively). While the pasture nutrient loss from runoff and leaching defined the values of eutrophication, the introduction of legumes compensates the use of fossil fuels. The diversity of the results provides a better understanding of the environmental impacts of different production systems and of regional singularities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle assessment of beef cattle production in two typical grassland systems of southern Brazil

Dick

Silva

Dewes

2015

Journal of Cleaner Production

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More precisely, it was derived from the rule according to which the compliance with the carrying capacity of both local and global ecosystems is a prerequisite to ensure environmental sustainability [7]. This distinction was also proposed by other authors, who called for the use of different environmental performance indicator types (area-based versus product-based) depending on the scale of environmental relevance (local versus global) of the environmental issue considered (e.g., Haas et al [23]; Van der Werf and Petit [24]; De Boer [25]; Halberg et al [26]; Payraudeau and Van der Werf [27]; Blonk et al [28]; Jan et al [19]). …”

Section: Farm Global Vs Local Environmental Performancementioning

confidence: 96%

Factors Affecting Global versus Local Environmental and Economic Performance of Dairying: A Case Study of Swiss Mountain Farms

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving the sustainability of the dairy food chain requires a simultaneous improvement in global and local environmental performance, as well as in the economic performance of dairy farms. We investigated the effect of different structural, farm management, socio-demographic, technological and natural-environment-related factors on the economic and environmental performance of dairying. Our analysis relied on a case study of 56 Swiss alpine dairy farm observations, for which cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessments and farm accountancy data were combined. The data refer to the years 2006 to 2008. The effect of the selected factors on farms' economic and environmental performance was analysed by means of non-parametric statistical approaches. The results revealed the existence of some factors presenting synergies and several factors showing trade-offs in the enhancement of farm global environmental, local environmental and economic performance. More generally, the promotion of farm global environmental performance and farm economic performance was shown to be synergetic whereas the enhancement of farm global and local environmental performance turned out to be mostly antinomic. However, some factors, namely organic farming, higher agricultural education, silage-free milk production, and also, to a weaker extent, full-time farming, larger farm size and lower intensity of cattle concentrates use, showed a potential to bring simultaneous improvements in the global and local environmental performance as well as the economic performance of dairy farming. Policy-makers should be aware of the complexity of the joint improvement of farm economic and environmental performance and only promote factors capable of synergistically enhancing the environmental and economic performance of dairy farming.

show abstract

“…One study (Chen and Corson, 2014), however, was based on data from another included study (Van der Werf et al, 2009), and one study (Halberg et al, 2005) was based on multiple other included studies. These two studies were excluded, resulting in thirteen studies for the comparison.…”

Section: Dairy Cattlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two of the four studies tested for statistical differences (Basset-Mens and Van der Werf, 2005;Dourmad et al, 2014). Neither study found a significant difference in GWP between the two systems, whereas energy use was mentioned to be significantly higher (no p-value reported) in Basset-Mens and Van der Werf (2005), but no difference was found in Dourmad et al (2014).…”

Section: Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability of livestock production systems : a comparing conventional and organic livestock husbandry

Wagenberg¹,

Haas²,

Hogeveen³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analysed peer-reviewed literature comparing conventional and organic livestock production systems on sustainability indicators within the topics of economy, productivity, environment, animal welfare and public health. For many indicators, insufficient data were found to draw any conclusions on a difference. The strong points of both conventional and organic livestock production systems were used to formulate lessons learned for sustainable livestock production systems. As sustainability indicators often interact with other sustainability indicators in opposing directions, sustainable livestock production should be approached as a multi-criteria problem optimising a balanced combination of sustainability indicators in all topics.Deze studie heeft wetenschappelijke literatuur geanalyseerd, die conventionele en biologische dierlijke productiesystemen kwantitatief vergelijkt op duurzaamheidsindicatoren binnen de onderwerpen economie, productiviteit, milieu, dierenwelzijn en volksgezondheid. Voor veel indicatoren zijn onvoldoende gegevens gevonden om conclusies te trekken over een verschil. Gevonden sterke punten van zowel conventionele als biologische systemen zijn gebruikt om lessen te trekken voor duurzame veehouderij. Aangezien duurzaamheidsindicatoren vaak onderling samenhangen in tegenstrijdige richting moet een duurzame veehouderij gezien worden als een multicriteria beslissingsprobleem, waarin een gebalanceerde combinatie van indicatoren uit alle duurzaamheidsonderwerpen moet worden geoptimaliseerd.

show abstract

Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems

Cited by 127 publications

References 21 publications

Life cycle assessment of beef cattle production in two typical grassland systems of southern Brazil

Life cycle assessment of beef cattle production in two typical grassland systems of southern Brazil

Factors Affecting Global versus Local Environmental and Economic Performance of Dairying: A Case Study of Swiss Mountain Farms

Sustainability of livestock production systems : a comparing conventional and organic livestock husbandry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About