Localising livestock protein feed production and the impact on land use and greenhouse gas emissions

Sasu-Boakye, Yaw; Cederberg, Christel; Wirsenius, Stefan

doi:10.1017/s1751731114001293

Cited by 56 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They concluded that feeding strategies have the potential to reduce environmental impacts. Sasu-Boakye et al (2014) found a reduction in GWP up to 4.5% and 11% for LU. Meul et al (2012) found a reduction in GWP up to 3%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…To our knowledge, no other studies aimed to assess the environmental impact of replacing SBM with RSM in finishing pig diets, although some assessed the impact of replacing SBM with locally produced protein sources such as peas, lupines and rapeseed products (Eriksson et al, 2005;Meul et al, 2012;Sasu-Boakye et al, 2014). Eriksson et al (2005) found a reduction in GWP up to 13% and in EU up to 22%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental impact of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal in diets of finishing pigs

Zanten

Bikker

Mollenhorst

et al. 2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The major impact of the livestock sector on the environment may be reduced by feeding agricultural co-products to animals. Since the last decade, co-products from biodiesel production, such as rapeseed meal (RSM), became increasingly available in Europe. Consequently, an increase in RSM content in livestock diets was observed at the expense of soybean meal (SBM) content. Cultivation of SBM is associated with high environmental impacts, especially when emissions related to land use change (LUC) are included. This study aims to assess the environmental impact of replacing SBM with RSM in finishing pig diets. As RSM has a lower nutritional value, we assessed the environmental impact of replacing SBM with RSM using scenarios that differed in handling changes in nutritional level. Scenario 1 (S1) was the basic scenario containing SBM. In scenario 2 (S2), RSM replaced SBM based on CP content, resulting in reduced energy and amino acid content, and hence an increased feed intake to realize the same growth rate. The diet of scenario 3 (S3) was identical to S2; however, we assumed that pigs were not able to increase their feed intake, leading to reduced growth performance. In scenario 4 (S4), the energy and amino acid content were increased to the same level of S1. Pig performances were simulated using a growth model. We analyzed the environmental impact of each scenario using life-cycle assessment, including processes of feed production, manure management, piglet production, enteric fermentation and housing. Results show that, expressed as per kg of BW, replacing SBM with RSM in finishing pig diets marginally decreased global warming potential (GWP) and energy use (EU) but decreased land use (LU) up to 12%. Between scenarios, S3 had the maximum potential to reduce the environmental impact, due to a lower impact per kg of feed and an increased body protein-to-lipid ratio of the pigs, resulting in a better feed conversion ratio. Optimization of the body protein-to-lipid ratio, therefore, might result in a reduced environmental impact of pig production. Furthermore, the impact of replacing SBM with RSM changed only marginally when emissions related to direct (up to 2.9%) and indirect LUC (up to 2.5%) were included. When we evaluated environmental impacts of feed production only, which implies excluding other processes along the chain as is generally found in the literature, GWP decreased up to 10%, including LUC, EU up to 5% and LU up to 16%.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental impact of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal in diets of finishing pigs

Zanten

Bikker

Mollenhorst

et al. 2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The system boundaries include land use for feed production but not land use associated with subsequent steps in the production chain. Land use requirements for feed production were based on a modified version of mainly local feed rations in Sasu-Boakye et al (2014), in which minor amounts of imported soymeal and dried beet pulp were substituted with locally sourced feed ingredients while maintaining the rations' nutritional values. The annual production of 1 kg protein in VG-dairy requires 41 m 2 of land, of which 40 % is grassland and 60 % cropland.…”

Section: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in developing regionalized characterization factors in land use impact assessment: impacts on ecosystem services in case studies of animal protein production in Sweden

Nordborg

Sasu-Boakye

Cederberg

et al. 2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has recently developed a guideline framework for land use impact assessment. This article evaluates the feasibility and highlights the challenges of applying a set of methods that adhere to this framework, and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the indicators used in these methods, for the purpose of supporting further methodological development. Methods The methods were tested in two case studies of animal protein production in Sweden: dairy milk and pork. The reference situations were defined as the potential natural vegetation. County-level characterization factors (CFs) were calculated and occupation impacts were assessed for five ecosystem services, using six ecosystem service indicators: carbon flow change, groundwater recharge, mechanical filtration capacity, physicochemical filtration capacity, soil loss, and soil organic carbon, at two geographic scales: county and biome. Strengths and weaknesses of the ecosystem service indicators were identified using an evaluation framework for selected quality characteristics: representativeness, reliability, feasibility, and transparency. Results and discussion Occupation impacts at the two geographic scales, and for the two production cases, differ both in absolute numbers, and-for mechanical and physicochemical filtration capacity-in the ranking of cases. Results at both geographic scales indicate positive effects-or lower negative impacts-in protein production from dairy milk compared to pork, due to grass production on dairy farms, and lower use of land per unit protein. However, some of the observed benefits may be exaggerated due to challenges in adequately representing the reference situations. Most indicators were assigned medium or high degrees of representativeness, feasibility, and transparency, but several were assigned low degrees of reliability, due to the weak scientific basis upon which they were selected, low degrees of accuracy, and insufficient information on how they should be assessed. Conclusions Occupation impact results should be interpreted with caution due to challenges in applying the methods and use of indicators with identified weaknesses. The most challenging part of developing regionalized CFs was finding suitable land areas from which to derive representative data to parameterize the reference situations. More research is needed to provide adequate support to life cycle assessment practitioners who wish to calculate regionalized CFs and to address the identified weaknesses.

show abstract

“…Replacing SBM with locally produced protein sources resulted in a reduction of global warming potential (GWP) up to 13% and of land use (LU) up to 11% (Eriksson et al 2005;Meul et al 2012;Sasu-Boakye et al 2014). Replacing SBM with rapeseed meal (RSM) resulted in a reduction of LU up to 12%, but did not change GWP and energy use (EU) (Van Zanten et al 2015a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attributional versus consequential life cycle assessment and feed optimization: alternative protein sources in pig diets

Zanten

Bikker

Meerburg

et al. 2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Feed production is responsible for the majority of the environmental impact of livestock production, especially for monogastric animals, such as pigs. Some feeding strategies demonstrated that replacing one ingredient with a high impact, e.g. soybean meal (SBM), with an alternative protein source, e.g. locally produced peas or rapeseed meal, has potential to reduce the environmental impact. These studies, however, used an attributional life cycle assessment (ALCA), which solely addresses the direct environmental impact of a product. A replacement of SBM with alternative protein sources, however, can also have indirect environmental consequences, which might change environmental benefits of using alternative protein sources. This study aims to explore differences in results when performing an ALCA and a CLCA to reduce the environmental impact of pig production. We illustrated this for two case studies: replacing SBM with rapeseed meal (RSM), and replacing SBM with waste-fed larvae meal in diets of finishing-pigs. Methods We used an ALCA and CLCA to assess global warming potential (GWP), energy use (EU) and land use (LU) of replacing SBM with RSM and waste-fed larvae meal, for finishing-pigs. The functional unit was 1 kg of body weight gain. Results and discussion Based on an ALCA, replacing SBM with RSM showed that GWP (3%) and EU (1%) were not changed, but LU was decreased (14%). ALCA results for replacing SBM with waste-fed larvae meal showed that EU did not change (1%), but GWP (10%) and LU (56%) were decreased. Based on a CLCA, replacing SBM with RSM showed an increased GWP (15%), EU (12%) and LU (10%). Replacing SBM with waste-fed larvae meal showed an increased GWP (60%) and EU (89%), but LU (70%) was decreased. Furthermore, the results of the sensitivity analysis showed that assumptions required to perform a CLCA, such as definition of the marginal product, have a large impact on final results but did not affect the final conclusions. Conclusions The CLCA results seem to contradict the ALCA results. CLCA results for both case studies showed that using co-products and waste-fed larvae meal currently not reduces the net environmental impact of pork production. This would have been overlooked when results were only based on ALCA. To gain insight into the environmental impact of feed, animal nutritionists can use an ALCA. If policy makers or the feed industry, however, want to assess the net environmental impact of a potential feeding strategy, it is recommended to perform a CLCA. Feed and food markets are, however, highly dynamic. Pig feed optimization is based on least cost optimization and a wide range of ingredients are available; diet compositions can, therefore, change easily, resulting in different environmental impacts. Ideally, therefore, a CLCA should include a sensitivity analysis (e.g. different feed prices or different marginal products) to provide a range of possible outcomes to make the results more robust. Responsible editor: Greg ThomaElectronic supplementary material The onlin...

show abstract

Localising livestock protein feed production and the impact on land use and greenhouse gas emissions

Cited by 56 publications

References 20 publications

Environmental impact of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal in diets of finishing pigs

Environmental impact of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal in diets of finishing pigs

Challenges in developing regionalized characterization factors in land use impact assessment: impacts on ecosystem services in case studies of animal protein production in Sweden

Attributional versus consequential life cycle assessment and feed optimization: alternative protein sources in pig diets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About