Environmental impact of beef sourced from different production systems - focus on the slaughtering stage: input and output

Abstract The aim of the present study was to examine the environmental performance of ten Danish beef production systems covering the entire chain from the farm until the edible products and side streams leave the slaughterhouse and to explore the potential of mitigation related to the slaughtering process. The functional unit was ‘kg edible product’ including meat products and edible by-products that are used in human nutrition. Primary production accounts for a major share of the impact, leaving only a minor share to the slaughtering, where savings due to slaughterhouse by-product recovery are more than enough to offset the impact of the slaughtering process. The carbon footprint was 10–13 kg CO2-eq/kg edible product from dairy based calves and cows of all types and 30–45 kg CO2-eq/kg edible product from young animals of specialized beef breed systems. The use of non-renewable energy per kg edible product shows a relatively small variation among systems. Improving the utilization of the carcass by producing new edible products not conventionally produced represents an opportunity for reducing the environmental impact per kg edible product.

[1]  T. Kristensen,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions from beef production systems in Denmark and Sweden , 2015 .

[2]  David Pennington,et al.  Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[3]  Kenneth H. Mathews,et al.  Where's the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production , 2012 .

[4]  Ron Milo,et al.  Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Christel Cederberg,et al.  System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production , 2003 .

[6]  Maria Henriksson,et al.  How does co-product handling affect the carbon footprint of milk? Case study of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden , 2011 .

[7]  H. S. Matthews,et al.  Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  G. Petrecca,et al.  Organic solid slaughterhouse wastes: A resource of energy , 2012, International Symposium on Power Electronics Power Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion.

[9]  Henrik Wenzel,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of Slurry Management Technologies , 2009 .

[10]  J. Hermansen,et al.  Environmental consequences of different beef production systems in the EU , 2010 .

[11]  Angel D. Ramirez,et al.  Greenhouse gas life cycle assessment of products arising from the rendering of mammalian animal byproducts in the UK. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[12]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[13]  M. T. Knudsen,et al.  Effect of production system and farming strategy on greenhouse gas emissions from commercial dairy farms in a life cycle approach , 2011 .

[14]  J. Porter,et al.  A model for fossil energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming , 2001 .

[15]  B. Ahring,et al.  Methane productivity of manure, straw and solid fractions of manure , 2004 .

[16]  S. O. Petersen,et al.  Algorithms for calculating methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure management , 2004, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems.