Environmental impacts and resource use from Australian pork production assessed using life-cycle assessment. 1. Greenhouse gas emissions
S. G. Wiedemann A B , Eugene J. McGahan A and Caoilinn M. Murphy AA FSA Consulting, PO Box 2175, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: stephen.g.wiedemann@gmail.com
Animal Production Science 56(9) 1418-1431 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15881
Submitted: 18 December 2015 Accepted: 7 March 2016 Published: 12 May 2016
Journal Compilation © CSIRO Publishing 2016 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Agricultural industries are under increasing pressure to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the supply chain. The Australian pork industry has established proactive goals to improve greenhouse-gas (GHG) performance across the industry, but while productivity indicators are benchmarked by industry, similar data have not previously been collected to determine supply chain GHG emissions. To assess total GHG emissions from Australian pork production, the present study conducted a life-cycle assessment of six case study supply chains and the national herd for the year 2010. The study aimed to determine total GHG emissions and hotspots, and to determine the mitigation potential from alternative manure treatment systems. Two functional units were used: 1 kg of pork liveweight (LW) at the farm gate, and 1 kg of wholesale pork (chilled, bone-in) ready for packaging and distribution. Mean GHG emissions from the case study supply chains ranged from 2.1 to 4.5 kg CO2-e/kg LW (excluding land-use (LU) and direct land use-change (dLUC) emissions). Emissions were lowest from the piggeries that housed grower-finisher pigs on deep litter and highest from pigs housed in conventional systems with uncovered anaerobic effluent ponds. Mean contribution from methane from effluent treatment was 64% of total GHG at the conventional piggeries. Nitrous oxide arose from both grain production and manure management, comprising 7–33% of the total emissions. The GHG emissions for the national herd were 3.6 kg CO2-e/kg LW, with the largest determining factor on total emissions being the relative proportion of pigs managed with high or low emission manure management systems. Emissions from LU and dLUC sources ranged from 0.08 to 0.7 kg CO2-e/kg LW for the case study farms, with differences associated with the inclusion rate of imported soybean meal in the ration and feed-conversion ratio. GHG intensity (excluding LU, dLUC) from the national herd was 6.36 ± 1.03 kg CO2-e/kg wholesale pork, with the emission profile dominated by methane from manure management (50%), followed by feed production (27%) and then meat processing (8%). Inclusion of LU and dLUC emissions had a minor effect on the emission profile. Scenarios testing showed that biogas capture from anaerobic digestion with combined heat and power generation resulted in a 31–64% reduction in GHG emissions. Finishing pigs on deep litter as preferred to conventional housing resulted in 38% lower GHG emissions than conventional finishing.
Additional keywords: agricultural systems, global climate change, manure, methane, nitrous oxide.
References
ABS (2009) ‘Water use on Australian farms, 2007–08.’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra)ABS (2010) ‘Water use on Australian farms, 2008–09.’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra)
ABS (2011) ‘Water use on Australian farms, 2009–10.’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra)
ABS (2012) ‘Agricultural commodities Australia: 2010–11.’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra)
ABS (2014a) ‘7218.0.55.001: Livestock and Meat, Australia, Feb 2014. Table 7. Livestock slaughtered: pigs. All series (‘000).’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra)
ABS (2014b) ‘7218.0.55.001: Livestock and Meat, Australia, Feb 2014. Table 12. Red meat produced: pig meat: all series (tonnes).’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra)
APL (2012) ‘Australian pig annual.’ (Australian Pork: Canberra)
Basset-Mens C, van der Werf HMG (2005) Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 105, 127–144.
| Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Commonwealth of Australia (2015a) Australian national greenhouse accounts: national inventory report 2013. Vol. 1. The Australian Government submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Department of the Environment, Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia (2015b) Australian national greenhouse accounts: national inventory report 2013. Vol. 2. The Australian Government submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Department of the Environment, Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia (2015c) ‘Australian greenhouse emissions information system: national greenhouse gas inventory. Kyoto Protocol classifications’ (Department of the Environment: Canberra)
Dong H, Mangino J, Mcallister TA, Hatfield JL, Johnson DE, Lassey KR, Aparecida De Lima M, Romanovskaya A, Bartram D, Gibb DJ, Martin JHJ (2006) Emissions from livestock and manure management. In ‘IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories’. (Eds S Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara, K Tanabe) pp. 10-1–10-87. (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Kanagawa, Japan)
FSA CONSULTING (2007) Reviewing ammonia emission factors for deep litter piggeries Final report prepared for Reporting Section, Environment and Sustainability, Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Australian Government. FSA Consulting, Toowoomba, Qld.
Gollnow S, Lundie S, Moore AD, Mclaren J, Van Buuren N, Stahle P, Christie K, Thylmann D, Rehl T (2014) Carbon footprint of milk production from dairy cows in Australia. International Dairy Journal 37, 31–38.
| Carbon footprint of milk production from dairy cows in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
LEAP (2014a) ‘Environmental performance of animal feed supply chains: guidelines for quantification: draft for public review.’ Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership. (FAO: Rome)
LEAP (2014b) ‘Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy demand from small ruminant supply chains: guidelines for quantification.’ Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership. (FAO: Rome)
LEAP (2015) ‘Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: guidelines for assessment. Draft for public review.’ Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership. (FAO: Rome)
Lesslie R, Mewett J (2013) ‘Land use and management: the Australian context.’ (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES): Canberra)
Life Cycle Strategies (2015) ‘Australasian LCI database 2015.’ (Life Cycle Strategies: Melbourne)
McGahan EJ, Phillips FA, Wiedemann SG, Naylor TA, Warren B, Murphy CM, Griffith DWT, Desservettaz M (2016) Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions from an Australian piggery with short and long hydraulic retention-time effluent storage. Animal Production Science 56, 1376–1389.
| Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions from an Australian piggery with short and long hydraulic retention-time effluent storage.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nguyen TLT, Hermansen JE, Mogensen L (2011) Environmental assessment of Danish pork. Internal report no. 103. Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus University, Denmark.
OEC (2015) ‘Where does Australia import soybean meal from?’ (The Observatory of Economic Complexity) Available at http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/aus/show/2304/2010/ [Verified 1 December 2015]
Pelletier N, Lammers P, Stender D, Pirog R (2010) Life cycle assessment of high- and low-profitability commodity and deep-bedded niche swine production systems in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agricultural Systems 103, 599–608.
| Life cycle assessment of high- and low-profitability commodity and deep-bedded niche swine production systems in the Upper Midwestern United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Phillips FA, Wiedemann SG, Naylor TA, McGahan EJ, Warren BR, Murphy CM, Parkes S, Wilson J (2016) Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions from pigs housed on litter and from stockpiling of spent litter. Animal Production Science 56, 1390–1403.
| Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions from pigs housed on litter and from stockpiling of spent litter.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rebitzer G, Loerincik Y, Jolliet O (2002) Input–output life cycle assessment: from theory to applications 16th discussion forum on life cycle assessment Lausanne, April 10, 2002. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 7, 174–176.
| Input–output life cycle assessment: from theory to applications 16th discussion forum on life cycle assessment Lausanne, April 10, 2002.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Reckmann K, Traulsen I, Krieter J (2012) Environmental impact assessment: methodology with special emphasis on European pork production. Journal of Environmental Management 107, 102–109.
| Environmental impact assessment: methodology with special emphasis on European pork production.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC38nktVegtw%3D%3D&md5=e3c838043db2b1b1291857b58cd80a77CAS | 22595076PubMed |
Skerman A, Willis S, Marqardt B, Mcgahan E (2014) ‘PigBal4 user manual. Version 2.4.’ (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Toowoomba, Qld)
Skerman A, Wilis S, Mcgahan E, Marquardt B (2015) ‘PigBal 4. A model for estimating piggery waste production.’ (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Toowoomba, Qld; and Australian Pork Limited)
Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Alley RB, Berntsen T, Bindoff NL, Chen A, Chidthaisong A, Gregory JM, Hegerl GC, Heimann M, Hewitson B, Hoskins B, Joos F, Juozel J, Kattsov V, Lohmann U, Matsuno T, Molina M, Nicholls N, Overpeck J, Raga G, Ramaswamy V, Ren J, Somerville R, Stocker TF, Whetten P, Wood RA, Wratt D (2007) Technical summary. 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’. (Eds S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, M Tignor, HL Miller) (Cambridge University Press: New York)
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories (2014) ‘Ecoinvent database v3.1.’ EcoInvent Centre, Zurich, Switzerland.
Tucker RW, Mcgahan E, Galloway JL, O’Keefe MF (2010) ‘National environmental guidelines for piggeries.’ 2nd edn. (Australian Pork Limited: Canberra)
Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G (2015) ‘The ecoinvent database version 3.1: overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3.’ EcoInvent Centre, Zurich, Switzerland.
Wiedemann S, Yan M (2014) Livestock meat processing: inventory data and methods for handling co-production for major livestock species and meat products. In ‘The 9th international conference of LCA of food’, 8–10 October 2014, San Francisco, CA.
Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Grist S, Grant T (2010) ‘Environmental assessment of two pork supply chains using life cycle assessment. Project no. PRJ-003176 & PRJ-004519.’ (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation: Canberra)
Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Murphy C (2012a) ‘Energy, water and greenhouse gas emissions in Australian pork supply chains: a life cycle assessment.’ (Co-operative Research Centre for an Internationally Competitive Pork Industry: Willaston, SA)
Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Poad G (2012b) Using life cycle assessment to quantify the environmental impact of chicken meat production. Final report, RIRDC project no. PRJ-004596 & PRJ-007445. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
Wiedemann S, Sullivan T, McGahan E (2014) GHG prediction methods for feedlots, poultry and pigs. Technical report for the Department of Environment Greenhouse Gas Inventory Team. Federal Department of the Environment, Canberra.
Wiedemann S, Henry BK, Mcgahan E, Grant T, Murphy C, Niethe G (2015a) Resource use and greenhouse gas intensity of Australian beef production: 1981 to 2010. Agricultural Systems 133, 109–118.
| Resource use and greenhouse gas intensity of Australian beef production: 1981 to 2010.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wiedemann S, Mcgahan E, Murphy C, Yan M-J, Henry BK, Thoma G, Ledgard S (2015b) Environmental impacts and resource use of Australian beef and lamb exported to the USA determined using life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 133, 109–118.
Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Murphy C, Yan M-J (2016a) Resource use and environmental impacts from beef production in eastern Australia investigated using life cycle assessment. Animal Production Science 56, 882–894.
| Resource use and environmental impacts from beef production in eastern Australia investigated using life cycle assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wiedemann SG, Yan M-J, Murphy CM (2016b) Resource use and environmental impacts from Australian export lamb production: a life cycle assessment. Animal Production Science 56, 1070–1080.
| Resource use and environmental impacts from Australian export lamb production: a life cycle assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
