Life cycle assessment of pigmeat production: portuguese case study and proposal of improvement options

Abstract The aim of this study was to provide a detailed environmental evaluation of pigmeat production (the second most widely eaten type of meat) in Portugal, using relevant and good quality data in order to obtain representative results for this production sector. Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was used for the evaluations from a cradle-to-slaughterhouse gate perspective. The system under study was divided in three subsystems: crop and feed production (S1), pigmeat production (S2) and slaughtering (S3). The production system under study considered the Best Available Techniques (BATs) for intensive rearing of pigs. According to the results and in line with other studies, S1 was the most influential subsystem in the environmental profile (ranging from 70% to 100% depending on the impact) mainly due to agricultural activities involved in the production of feed components. Activities carried out on the pig farms (S2) were remarkable in categories such as climate change due to background processes involved in the production of electricity requirements, e.g. emissions derived from slurry management (such as CH 4 and N 2 O), and water depletion. Slaughtering-related contributions were negligible regardless of the category assessed. Different alternatives for the valorisation of animal by-products derived from the slaughterhouse were proposed for energy and feed production. A comparison with other related studies focused on pigmeat production was performed and no remarkable differences were identified. Thus, achievements and environmental hotspots identified in this specific case study for Portugal could be extended to the European production chain.

[1]  Sara González-García,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of electricity production in Italy from anaerobic co-digestion of pig slurry and energy crops , 2014 .

[2]  Ana Cláudia Dias,et al.  Environmental life cycle assessment of a dairy product: the yoghurt , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[3]  S. Korver,et al.  Livestock and Climate Policy : Less Meat or Less Carbon , 2010 .

[4]  J. Soussana,et al.  Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: The importance of getting the numbers right , 2011 .

[5]  Juha-Matti Katajajuuri,et al.  Experiences and Improvement Possibilities­LCA Case Study of Broiler Chicken Production , 2007 .

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

[7]  Annik Magerholm Fet,et al.  LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations , 2008 .

[8]  Lisbeth Mogensen,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF DANISH PORK , 2011 .

[9]  H.M.G. van der Werf,et al.  Methods and data for the environmental inventory of contrasting pig production systems , 2007 .

[10]  Takeo Shiina,et al.  A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. , 2009 .

[11]  Joachim Krieter,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of pork production: A data inventory for the case of Germany , 2013 .

[12]  G. Flachowsky,et al.  CO2-Footprints for Food of Animal Origin – Present Stage and Open Questions , 2009, Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit.

[13]  E. V. van Ierland,et al.  Protein Chains and Environmental Pressures: A Comparison of Pork and Novel Protein Foods , 2004 .

[14]  H Mollenhorst,et al.  On-farm quantification of sustainability indicators: an application to egg production systems , 2006, British poultry science.

[15]  I Traulsen,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment--methodology with special emphasis on European pork production. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[16]  Ana Cláudia Dias,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of broiler chicken production: a Portuguese case study , 2014 .

[17]  M. D. Vries,et al.  Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments , 2010 .

[18]  Zbigniew Nahorski,et al.  Greenhouse gas inventories , 2011 .

[19]  T. Garnett.  Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers , 2009 .

[20]  T. Nemecek,et al.  Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3 , 2013 .

[21]  Roland Clift,et al.  The application of Life Cycle Assessment to Integrated Solid Waste Management - Part 1 - Methodology , 2000 .

[22]  L. Arroja,et al.  The environmental performance of milk production on a typical Portuguese dairy farm , 2010 .

[23]  C. Cederberg.  Environmental assessment of future pig farming systems : quantifications of three scenarios from the FOOD 21 synthesis work , 2004 .

[24]  D. Lawlor,et al.  Agriculture and fisheries , 1997 .

[25]  T. Garnett.  Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain) , 2011 .

[26]  Sara González-García,et al.  Anaerobic digestion of different feedstocks: impact on energetic and environmental balances of biogas process. , 2013, The Science of the total environment.

[27]  John E. Hermansen,et al.  Comparative environmental assessment of three systems for organic pig production in Denmark , 2008 .

[28]  C. Basset-Mens,et al.  Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France , 2005 .

[29]  I. D. Boer,et al.  Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems , 2005 .

[30]  A. Hospido,et al.  Simplified life cycle assessment of galician milk production , 2003 .

[31]  Sara González-García,et al.  Assuring the sustainable production of biogas from anaerobic mono-digestion , 2014 .

[32]  H. Janzen,et al.  Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada: A case study , 2010 .

[33]  Ana Cláudia Dias,et al.  Using Life Cycle Assessment methodology to assess UHT milk production in Portugal. , 2013, The Science of the total environment.

[34]  I. D. Boer,et al.  Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production , 2003 .