Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T10:27:13.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An LCA researcher's wish list – data and emission models needed to improve LCA studies of animal production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2013

C. Cederberg ,
M. Henriksson  and
M. Berglund
C. Cederberg*
Affiliation:
SIK, the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, PO Box 5401, SE-402 29 Gothenburg, Sweden Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, SE- 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
M. Henriksson
Affiliation:
Department of Rural Buildings and Animal Husbandry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 86, SE-23053 Alnarp, Sweden
M. Berglund
Affiliation:
SIK, the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, PO Box 5401, SE-402 29 Gothenburg, Sweden
*
E-mail: christel.cederberg@sik.se
Get access

Abstract

The last decade has seen an increase in environmental systems analysis of livestock production, resulting in a significant number of studies with a holistic approach often based on life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. The growing public interest in global warming has added to this development; guidelines for carbon footprint (CF) accounting have been developed, including for greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting of animal products.

Here we give an overview of methods for estimating GHG emissions, with emphasis on nitrous oxide, methane and carbon from land use change, presently used in LCA/CF studies of animal products. We discuss where methods and data availability for GHGs and nitrogen (N) compounds most urgently need to be improved in order to produce more accurate environmental assessments of livestock production. We conclude that the top priority is to improve models for N fluxes and emissions from soils and to implement soil carbon change models in LCA/CF studies of animal products. We also point at the need for more farm data and studies measuring emissions from soils, manure and livestock in developing countries.

Keywords

life-cycle assessmentcarbon footprintlivestock productiongreenhouse gas emissionsmethodology
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue s2: Greenhouse Gases & Animal Agriculture Conference (GGAA 2013), 23rd ‐ 26th June 2013, Dublin, Ireland , June 2013 , pp. 212 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Alemu, AW, Dijkstra, J, Bannink, A, France, J, Kebreab, E 2011. Rumen stoichiometric models and their contribution and challenges in predicting enteric methane production. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 761–778.Google Scholar
Audsley, E, Alber, S, Clift, R, Cowell, S, Crettaz, P, Gaillard, G, Hausheer, J, Jolliet, O, Kleijn, R, Mortensen, B, Pearce, D, Roger, E, Teuleon, H, Weidema, B, van Zejts, H 1997. Harmonisation of environmental life cycle assessment for agriculture. Final Report of Concerted Action AIR3-CT94-2028, Silsoe Research Institute, Bedford, UK.Google Scholar
Baumann, H, Tillman, AM 2004. The Hitch Hiker′s guide to LCA – an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Biswas, WK, Barton, L, Carter, D 2008. Global warming potential of wheat production in Western Australia: a LCA. Water and Environment Journal 22, 206–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boddey, RM, Macedo, R, Tarré, RM, Ferreira, E, de Oliveira, OC, Rezende, CP, Cantarutti, RB, Pereira, JM, Alves, BJR, Urquiaga, S 2004. Nitrogen cycling in the Brachiaria pastures: the key to understanding the process of pasture decline. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 103, 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouwman, AF, Beusen, AHW, Billen, G 2009. Human alteration of the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for period 1970–2050. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 23, 1–16.Google Scholar
Cederberg, C, Meyer, C, Flysjö, A 2009. Life cycle inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and use of land and energy in Brazilian beef production. SIK-report No 792, Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Cederberg, C, Hedenus, F, Wirsenius, S, Sonesson, U 2013. Trends in greenhouse gas emissions from consumption and production of animal products in Sweden – implications for a long-term climate target. Animal 7, 330–340.Google Scholar
Cederberg, C, Persson, M, Neovius, K, Molander, S, Clift, R 2011. Including carbon emissions from deforestation in the carbon footprint of Brazilian beef. Environmental Science & Technology 45, 1773–1779.Google Scholar
Colorado state university 2012. DayCent: Daily Century Model. Retrieved on January 10, 2013, from www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/daycent/.Google Scholar
Dalgaard, T, Halberg, N, Porter, JR 2001. A model for energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 87, 51–65.Google Scholar
DG Energy 2010. The impact of land use change on greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels and bioliquids. Literature Review. An In-house Review Conducted for DG Energy as Part of the European Commission's Analytical Work on Indirect Land Use Change.Google Scholar
Ellis, JL, Bannink, A, France, J, Kebreab, E, Dijkstra, J 2010. Evaluation of enteric methane prediction equations for dairy cows used in whole farm models. Global Change Biology 16, 3246–3256.Google Scholar
EMEP/EEA 2010. Emission Inventory Guidebook 2009. Retrieved September 30, 2012, from http://eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebookGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, WB, Shaw, BW 2008. Review of ammonia emission factors for US animal agriculture. Atmospheric Environment 42, 6567–6574.Google Scholar
Flysjö, A, Cederberg, C, Henriksson, M, Ledgard, S 2012. Interaction between milk and beef production and emissions from land use change – critical considerations in life cycle assessment and carbon footprint studies of milk. Journal of Cleaner Production 28, 132–142.Google Scholar
Flysjö, A, Henriksson, M, Cederberg, C, Ledgard, S, Englund, J-E 2011. The impact on various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk in New Zealand and Sweden. Agricultural Systems 104, 459–469.Google Scholar
Foley, JA, Ramankutty, N, Brauman, KA, Cassidy, ES, Gerber, JS, Johnston, M, Mueller, ND, O'Connell, C, Ray, DK, West, PC, Balzer, C, Bennett, EM, Carpenter, SR, Hill, J, Monfreda, C, Polasky, S, Rockström, J, Sheehan, J, Siebert, S, Tilman, D, Zaks D P, M 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 339–342.Google Scholar
Garnett, T 2011. What are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the global food system? Food Policy 36, S23–S32.Google Scholar
Goglio, P, Colnenne-David, C, Di Bene, C, Bosco, S, Laville, P, Roche, R, Ragaglini, G, Doré, T, Mazzoncini, M, Gabrielle, B, Bonari, E. 2012. Soil, climate and cropping system effects on N2O accounting in the LCA of faba bean and cereals. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector, Saint-Malo, France, pp. 155–160.Google Scholar
Gerber, P, Vellinga, TV, Opio, C, Henderson, B, Steinfeld, H 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector – a life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Beauchemin, KA 2011. Can enteric methane emissions from ruminants be lowered without lowering their production? Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 308–320.Google Scholar
Guo, LB, Gifford, M 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biology 8, 345–360.Google Scholar
Guyomard, H, Manceron, S, Peyrand, J-L 2013. Trade in feed grains, animals and animal products: current trends, future prospects and main issues. Animal Frontier 3, 14–18.Google Scholar
Henriksson, M, Flysjö, A, Cederberg, C, Swensson, C 2011. Variation in carbon footprint of milk due to management differences between Swedish dairy farms. Animal 5, 1474–1484.Google Scholar
INRA 2012. Agro-ecosystem Model CERES-EGC. Retrieved January 10, 2013, from http://www4.versailles-grignon.inra.fr/egc_eng/Productions/Softwares-Models/CERES-EGCGoogle Scholar
IPCC 2006. Emissions from livestock and manure management (chapter 10). In Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories – volume 4 agriculture, forestry and other land use (ed. HS Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara and K Tanabe), 87pp. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Program IGES, Japan.Google Scholar
IPCC 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, M Tignor and HL Miller), 996pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
ISO 2006a. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006(E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
ISO 2006b. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044:2006(E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Jentsch, W, Schweigel, M, Weissbach, F, Scholze, H, Pitroff, W, Derno, M 2007. Methane production in cattle calculated by the nutrient composition of the diet. Archives of Animal Nutrition 61, 10–19.Google Scholar
Kirchgessner, M, Windish, W, Müller, HL 1995. Nutritional factors for the quantification of methane production. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology.Google Scholar
KTH 2012. Coup Model – Coupled Heat And Mass Transfer Model for Soil-Plant-Atmosphere System. Retrieved January 10, 2013, from http://www2.lwr.kth.se/Vara%20Datorprogram/CoupModel/Google Scholar
Lane, J, Lant, P 2012. Including N2O in ozone depletion models for LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17, 252–257.Google Scholar
Legesse, G, Small, JA, Scott, SL, Crow, GH, Block, HC, Alemu, AW, Robins, CD, Kebreab, E 2011. Predictions of enteric methane emissions for various summer pasture and winter feeding strategies for cow calf production. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 678–687.Google Scholar
Morton, DC, Sales, MH, Souza, CM, Griscom, B 2011. Historic emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in Mato Grosso, Brazil: 1) source data uncertainties. Carbon Balance and Management 6, 1–13.Google Scholar
Morton, DS, DeFries, R, Shimabukuro, YE, Anderson, LO, Arai, E, del Bon Espirito-Santo, F, Freitas, R, Morisette, J 2006. Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. PNAS 103, 14637–14641.Google Scholar
Patel, M, Wredle, E, Börjesson, G, Danielsson, R, Iwaasa, AD, Spörndly, E, Bertilsson, J 2011. Enteric methane emissions from dairy cows fed different proportions of highly digestible grass silage. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section Animal Science 61, 128–136.Google Scholar
Pelletier, N, Tyedmers, P 2010. Forecasting potential environmental costs of livestock production 2000-2050. PNAS 107, 18371–18374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ravishankara, AR, Daniel, JS, Portmann, RW 2009. Nitrous oxide (N2O): the dominant ozone-depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science 326, 123–125.Google Scholar
Rees, RM, Augustin, J, Alberti, G, Ball, BC, Boeckx, P, Cantarel, A, Castaldi, S, Chirinda, N, Chojnicki, B, Giebels, M, Gordon, H, Grosz, B, Horvath, L, Juszczak, R, Klemedtsson, ÅK, Klemedtsson, L, Medinets, S, Machon, A, Mapanda, F, Nyamangara, J, Olesen, J, Reay, D, Sanchez, L, Sanz Cobena, A, Smith, KA, Sowerby, A, Sommer, M, Soussana, JF, Stenberg, M, Topp, CFE, van Cleemput, O, Vallejo, A, Watson, CA, Wuta, M 2012. Nitrous oxide emissions from European agriculture; an analysis of variability and drivers of emissions from field experiments. Biogeosciences 1, 9259–9288.Google Scholar
Rodhe, L, Abubaker, J, Ascue, J, Pell, M, Nordberg, Å 2012. Greenhouse gas emissions from pig slurry during storage and after field application in northern European conditions. Biosystems Engineering 113, 379–394.Google Scholar
Rypdal, K, Winiwarter, W 2001. Uncertainties in greenhouse gas emission inventories – evaluation, comparability and implications. Environmental Science Policy 4, 107–116.Google Scholar
Schmidt, JH, Reinhard, J, Weidema, BP 2012. A model for indirect land use change. Proceedings from 8th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector. Saint-Malo, France, pp. 245–251.Google Scholar
Smith, P 2012. Soils and climate change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4, 539–544.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M, de Haan, C 2006. Livestock′s long shadow – environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
Stockmann, U, Adams, MA, Crawford, JW, Field, DJ, Henakaarchchi, N, Jenkins, M, Budiman, Minasnya, McBratney, AB, de Remy de Courcelles, V, Singh, K, Wheelera, I, Abbott, L, Angers, DA, Baldock, J, Birde, M, Brookes, PC, Chenu, C, Jastrow, JD, Lal, R, Lehmann, J, O'Donnell, AG, Parton, WJ, Whitehead, D, Zimmermann, M 2013. The known, known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic carbon. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 164, 80–99.Google Scholar
Thoma, G, Popp, J, Shonnard, D, Nutter, D, Matlock, M, Ulrich, R, Kellogg, W, Kim, DS, Neiderman, Z, Kemper, N, Adom, F, East, C 2012. Regional analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from USA dairy farms: a cradle to farm-gate assessment of the American dairy industry circa 2008. International Dairy Journal, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2012.09.010Google Scholar
University of New Hampshire 2012. The DNDC Model. Retrieved January 10, 2013, from http://www.dndc.sr.unh.edu/Google Scholar
Van der Middelaar, CE, Cederberg, C, Vellinga, TV, Van der Werff, HMG, Boer, IJM 2013. Exploring variability in methods and data sensitivity in carbon footprints of feed ingredients. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18, 768–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vellinga, TV, Hoving, IE 2011. Maize silage for dairy cows: mitigation of methane emissions can be offset by land use change. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 89, 413–426.Google Scholar
Weiss, F, Leip, A 2012. Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sectors: a life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 149, 124–134.Google Scholar
Wirsenius, S, Hedenus, F, Mohlin, K 2011. Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Climatic change 108, 159–184.Google Scholar