Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T18:06:22.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Y. Sasu-Boakye ,
C. Cederberg  and
S. Wirsenius
Y. Sasu-Boakye*
Affiliation:
Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg SE-412 96, Sweden
C. Cederberg
Affiliation:
Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg SE-412 96, Sweden
S. Wirsenius
Affiliation:
Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg SE-412 96, Sweden
*
†E-mail: yaws@chalmers.se
Get access

Abstract

Livestock farmers in Sweden usually grow feed grains for livestock but import protein feed from outside Sweden. Aside from the economic implications, some environmental issues are associated with this practice. We used life cycle assessment to evaluate the impact of local protein feed production on land use and greenhouse gas emissions, compared with the use of imported protein feed, for pig meat and dairy milk produced in Sweden. Our results showed that local production reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 4.5% and 12%, respectively, for pigs and dairy cows. Land use for feed production in Sweden increased by 11% for pigs and 25% for dairy cows, but total land use decreased for pig production and increased for dairy milk production. Increased protein feed cultivation in Sweden decreased inputs needed for animal production and improved some ecological processes (e.g. nutrient recycling) of the farm systems. However, the differences in results between scenarios are relatively small and influenced to an extent by methodological choices such as co-product allocation. Moreover, it was difficult to assess the contribution of greenhouse emissions from land use change. The available accounting methods we applied did not adequately account for the potential land use changes and in some cases provided conflicting results. We conclude that local protein feed production presents an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but at a cost of increasing land occupation in Sweden for feed production.

Keywords

greenhouse gaseslivestock feedingsoya beansland useprotein feeds
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Special Issue 8: Agroecology: integrating animals in agroecosystems , August 2014 , pp. 1339 - 1348
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Audsley, E, Brander, M, Chatterton, J, Murphy-Bokern, D, Webster, C and Williams, A 2009. How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope for reduction by 2050. WWF, UK.Google Scholar
Barona, E, Ramankutty, N, Hyman, G and Coomes, OT 2010. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 5, 024002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauchemin, K, Kreuzer, M, O’Mara, F and McAllister, T 2008. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Animal Production Science 48, 21–27.Google Scholar
BSI 2012. PAS 2050-1:2012. Assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from horticultural products. Supplementary requirements for the cradle to gate stages of GHG assessments of horticultural products undertaken in accordance with PAS 2050. British Standards Institution, London, UK.Google Scholar
Canh, T, Aarnink, A, Schutte, J, Sutton, A, Langhout, D and Verstegen, M 1998. Dietary protein affects nitrogen excretion and ammonia emission from slurry of growing–finishing pigs. Livestock Production Science 56, 181–191.Google Scholar
Cederberg, C and Flysjö, A 2004. Environmental assessment of future pig farming systems – quantifications of three scenarios from the food 21 synthesis work. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Göteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Cederberg, C, Henriksson, M and Berglund, M 2013. An LCA researcher’s wish list – data and emission models needed to improve LCA studies of animal production. Animal 7, 212–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Falco, S and Perrings, C 2005. Crop biodiversity, risk management and the implications of agricultural assistance. Ecological Economics 55, 459–466.Google Scholar
Dumont, B, Fortun-Lamothe, L, Jouven, M, Thomas, M and Tichit, M 2013. Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for animal production in the 21st century. Animal 7, 1028–1043.Google Scholar
Dustan, A 2002. Review of methane and nitrous oxide emission factors for manure management in cold climates. Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Ecoinvent 2007. The ecoinvent database version 2.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Dübendorf, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Emanuelson, M, Cederberg, C, Bertilsson, J and Rietz, H 2006. Närodlat foder till mjölkkor–en kunskapsuppdatering. Svensk Mjölk, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Engström, L 2010. Nitrogen dynamics in crop sequences with winter oilseed rape and winter wheat. PhD thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden.Google Scholar
Eriksson, IS, Elmquist, H, Stern, S and Nybrant, T 2005. Environmental systems analysis of pig production-the impact of feed choice. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10, 143–154.Google Scholar
Fageria, N and Baligar, V 2005. Enhancing nitrogen use efficiency in crop plants. Advances in Agronomy 88, 97–185.Google Scholar
FAOSTAT 2014. FAO Statistics Division. Retrieved 10 February 2014, from http://faostat3.fao.org/ Google Scholar
Flysjö, A, Cederberg, C and Strid, I 2008. LCA-databas för konventionella fodermedel–miljöpåverkan i samband med produktion. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Göteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Flysjo, A, Cederberg, C, Henriksson, M and Ledgard, S 2012. The 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, 134–142.Google Scholar
Gerber, PJ, Steinfeld, H, Henderson, B, Mottet, A, Opio, C, Dijkman, J, Falcucci, A and Tempio, G 2013a. Tackling climate change through livestock – a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.Google Scholar
Gerber, PJ, Hristov, AN, Henderson, B, Makkar, H, Oh, J, Lee, C, Meinen, R, Montes, F, Ott, T, Firkins, J, Rotz, A, Dell, C, Adesogan, AT, Yang, WZ, Tricarico, JM, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Dijkstra, J and Oosting, S 2013b. Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review. Animal 7, 220–234.Google Scholar
Henriksson, M, Cederberg, C and Swensson, C 2014. Carbon footprint and land requirement for dairy herd rations: impacts of feed production practices and regional climate variations. Animal, published online 25 March 2014,doi:10.1017/S1751731114000627.Google Scholar
Hertel, TW, Golub, AA, Jones, AD, O’Hare, M, Plevin, RJ and Kammen, DM 2010. Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: estimating market-mediated responses. BioScience 60, 223–231.Google Scholar
Hortenhuber, SJ, Lindenthal, T and Zollitsch, W 2011. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from feed supply chains by utilizing regionally produced protein sources: the case of Austrian dairy production. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 91, 1118–1127.Google Scholar
IBGE 2014. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Retrieved 20 January 2014, from http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/ Google Scholar
IPCC 2006. Agriculture, forestry and other land use. In Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories (ed. HS Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara and K Tanabe), 558pp. IGES, Kanagawa, Japan.Google Scholar
IPCC 2007. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
ISO 2006. Environmental management – life cycle assessment–principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Karlsson, S and Rodhe, L 2002. Översyn av statistiska centralbyråns beräkning av ammoniakavgången i jordbruket–emissionsfaktorer för ammoniak vid lagring och spridning av stallgödsel. Institutet för jordbruks och miljöteknik, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Kirkegaard, J, Christen, O, Krupinsky, J and Layzell, D 2008. Break crop benefits in temperate wheat production. Field Crops Research 107, 185–195.Google Scholar
Lehuger, S, Gabrielle, B and Gagnaire, N 2009. Environmental impact of the substitution of imported soybean meal with locally-produced rapeseed meal in dairy cow feed. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 616–624.Google Scholar
Lesschen, JP, Velthof, GL, de Vries, W and Kros, J 2011. Differentiation of nitrous oxide emission factors for agricultural soils. Environmental Pollution 159, 3215–3222.Google Scholar
Liljeholm, M, Bertilsson, J and Strid, I 2009. Närproducerat foder till svenska mjölkkor. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
McAllister, TA, Okine, EK, Mathison, GW and Cheng, KJ 1996. Dietary, environmental and microbiological aspects of methane production in ruminants. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 76, 231–243.Google Scholar
Meul, M, Ginneberge, C, Van Middelaar, CE, de Boer, IJM, Fremaut, D and Haesaert, G 2012. Carbon footprint of five pig diets using three land use change accounting methods. Livestock Science 149, 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mogensen, L, Kristensen, T, Nguyen, TTH and Knudsen, MT 2012. Greenhouse gas emissions from production of imported and local cattle feed. In 8th International conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector (ed. MS Corson and HMG van der Werf), pp. 321–326. INRA, Rennes, France.Google Scholar
Mosnier, E, van der Werf, HMG, Boissy, J and Dourmad, JY 2011. Evaluation of the environmental implications of the incorporation of feed-use amino acids in the manufacturing of pig and broiler feeds using life cycle assessment. Animal 5, 1972–1983.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nemecek, T, von Richthofen, JS, Dubois, G, Casta, P, Charles, R and Pahl, H 2008. Environmental impacts of introducing grain legumes into European crop rotations. European Journal of Agronomy 28, 380–393.Google Scholar
SBA 2012. Riktlinjer för gödsling och kalkning 2013. Swedish Board of Agriculture, Jönköping, Sweden.Google Scholar