Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AN > AN23352
RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)
Contents Vol 64(8)

Environmental impacts of Australian pork in 2020 and 2022 determined using lifecycle assessments

M. A. Copley https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9748-3197 A * , E. J. McGahan A , K. McCormack B and S. G. Wiedemann https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7060-0404 A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Integrity Ag, 10 Neil Street, Toowoomba City, Qld 4350, Australia.

B Present address: Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, 3 Baron-Hay Court, South Perth, WA 6151, Australia.

* Correspondence to: maryfrances.copley@integrityag.net.au

Handling Editor: Frank Dunshea

Animal Production Science 64, AN23352 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN23352
Submitted: 17 October 2023  Accepted: 26 March 2024  Published: 13 May 2024

© 2024 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

Abstract

Context

The Australian pork industry is highly efficient, with a history of ongoing productivity and environmental improvement. The introduction of economy-wide environmental targets require delivering and tracking performance improvement.

Aims

This study determined carbon footprint (greenhouse gas [GHG] and land use [LU] and direct land use change [dLUC] emissions, reported as kg CO2-e), fossil energy (MJ), freshwater consumption (L), water stress (L H2O-e), land occupation (m2) and eutrophication potential (nitrogen and phosphorus) for Australian pork for 2020 and 2022. Variability between housing, manure management systems, and regions were identified, and systems analysed to determine new options for low-impact pork.

Methods

In the largest Australian study of its kind, data for ~70% of pigs produced were collected using a stratified design. Using attributional life cycle assessment, impacts were reported per kilogram of liveweight (LW), post-processed, retail, and boneless, fat-corrected pork. Results are presented as industry averages ± 2 × s.d.

Key results

Key results were 3.0 ± 0.1 and 3.0 ± 0.1 kg CO2-e GHG, 0.4 ± 0.07 and 0.3 ± 0.03 kg CO2-e LU and dLUC, 12.9 ± 0.5 and 13.4 ± 0.5 MJ, 93.8 ± 9.6 and 52.5 ± 3.6 L, 68.4 ± 6.7 and 43.2 ± 3.3 L H2O-e, and 12.0 ± 0.9 and 12.7 ± 0.9 m2/kg LW in 2020 and 2022, respectively. Due to industry growth, total emissions were higher in 2022. Eutrophication potential for Australian pork (2.2 × 10−4 ± 3.0 × 10−5 kg phosphorus and 8.7 × 10−3 ± 3.5 × 10−4 kg nitrogen/kg LW), reported for the first time, was low compared with grazing systems and European piggeries.

Conclusions

Industry has demonstrated long-term performance improvement, though the rate slowed between 2020 and 2022. Ongoing interventions are required to return to trend. Covered pond, deep litter, and outdoor systems produce lower carbon footprint pork and can provide other environmental benefits from renewable energy, and reduced fossil energy demand.

Implications

There is potential to further reduce environmental impacts through practice change. If industry is to meet formal targets, investment and proactive policy settings are required to overcome barriers to adoption of existing technology and support the techno-economic case for novel strategies.

Keywords: agricultural systems, carbon footprint, energy, eutrophication potential, greenhouse gases, land use change, life cycle assessment, pigs, pork, water stress.

References

ABS (2021a) 7121.0 – agricultural commodities, Australia, 2019–20. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia. Available at https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/agriculture/agricultural-commodities-australia/2019-20

ABS (2021b) Water use on Australian farms, 2019–2020 – 4618.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, Australia. Available at https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/agriculture/water-use-australian-farms/

ABS (2021c) National, state and territory population, December 2020. Available at https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/dec-2020

ABS (2022a) Agricultural commodities, Australia – 2020–2021. Available at https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/agriculture/agricultural-commodities-australia/2020-21

ABS (2022b) Water use on Australian farms, 2020–2021. Available at https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/agriculture/water-use-australian-farms/latest-release

ABS (2023) National, state and territory population, December 2022. Available at https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/dec-2022

ALCAS (2017) AusLCI. Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society, Australia. Available at%20http://auslci.com.au/

Arrieta EM, González AD (2019) Energy and carbon footprints of chicken and pork from intensive production systems in Argentina. Science of The Total Environment 673, 20-28.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Arrieta EM, Cuchietti A, Cabrol D, Gonzalez AD (2018) Greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiencies for soybeans and maize cultivated in different agronomic zones: a case study of Argentina. Science of The Total Environment 625, 199-208.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Australian Pork Limited (2023) Industry facts. Available at https://www.australianpork.com.au/industry-facts

Bonesmo H, Enger EG (2021) The effects of progress in genetics and management on intensities of greenhouse gas emissions from Norwegian pork production. Livestock Science 254, 104746.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Boulay A-M, Benini L, Sala S (2019) Marginal and non-marginal approaches in characterization: how context and scale affect the selection of an adequate characterization model. The AWARE model example. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 25, 2380-2392.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Climate and Clean Air Coalition Secretariat (2022) Global methane pledge. Available at https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/

Coles Group (2022a) 2022 sustainability report. Coles Group, Melbourne.

Coles Group (2022b) 2022 annual report. Coles Group, Melbourne.

Commonwealth of Australia (2019) Carbon credits (carbon farming initiative – animal effluent management) methodology determination 2019. Commonwealth of Australia.

Commonwealth of Australia (2022) National inventory report 2020. Vol. 1. (Commonwealth of Australia). Available at https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/national-inventory-report-2020

Commonwealth of Australia (2023a) National greenhouse accounts factors. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia (2023b) National inventory report 2021. Vol. 1. (Commonwealth of Australia). Available at https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/national-inventory-report-2021

Copley MA, Wiedemann SG (2022) Environmental impacts of the Australian poultry industry. 1. Chicken meat production. Animal Production Science 63, 489-504.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Copley MA, Wiedemann SG, McGahan EJ (2023) Environmental impacts of the Australian poultry industry: 2. Egg production. Animal Production Science 63, 505-521.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Cox JW, Ashley R (2000) Water quality of gully drainage from texture-contrast soils in the Adelaide Hills in low rainfall years. Soil Research 38, 959-972.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Dai X, Sun Z, Müller D (2021) Driving factors of direct greenhouse gas emissions from China’s pig industry from 1976 to 2016. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20, 319-329.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Davis J, Koop K (2006) Eutrophication in Australian Rivers, Reservoirs and Estuaries - A Southern hemisphere perspective on the science and its implications. Hydrobiologia 559, 23-76.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

de Vries M, de Boer IJM (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science 128, 1-11.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation QG (2015) Model for Effluent Disposal Using Land Irrigation (MEDLI). Available at https://science.des.qld.gov.au/government/science-division/water-and-coastal/medli

Dong H, Mangino J, McAllister T, Hatfield J, Johnson D, Lassey K, Aparecida de Lima M, Romanovskaya A, Bartram D, Gibb D, Martin J (2006) Emissions from livestock and manure management. In ‘IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use’. (Eds S Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara, K Tanabe) pp. 10.1–10.87. (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Kanagawa, Japan)

Dorca-Preda T, Mogensen L, Kristensen T, Knudsen MT (2021) Environmental impact of Danish pork at slaughterhouse gate – a life cycle assessment following biological and technological changes over a 10-year period. Livestock Science 251, 104622.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Drewry JJ, Newham LTH, Greene RSB, Jakeman AJ, Croke BFW (2006) A review of nitrogen and phosphorus export to waterways: context for catchment modelling. Marine and Freshwater Research 57, 757-774.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Ecoinvent (2020) Ecoinvent 3.6 database. ecoinvent Centre. Available at https://www.ecoinvent.org/database/ecoinvent-36/ecoinvent-36.html

Eyre B, McKee L, Ferguson A, Gay J (1997) Ecosystem response to nutrient loading - Two northern NSW estuarine examples. In ‘Proceedings of the Coastal Nutrients Workshop’, 30–31 October 1997. (Ed. K Koop). Australian Water and Wastewater Association, Artarmon, Sydney, Australia, pp. 100–105.

Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition, Report I: Characterisation. Ministrie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer.

Greenfield H, Arcot J, Barnes JA, Cunningham J, Adorno P, Stobaus T, Tume RK, Beilken SL, Muller WJ (2009) Nutrient composition of Australian retail pork cuts 2005/2006. Food Chemistry 117, 721-730.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Harris S, Narayanaswamy V (2009) A literature review of life cycle assessment in agriculture. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Barton, Australia. Available at https://agrifutures.com.au/product/a-literature-review-of-life-cycle

ISO (2018) ISO 14067:2018 – greenhouse gases – carbon footprint of products – requirements and guidelines for quantification. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Kerr R (1994) Water Quality - Hawkesbury-Nepean River System, June 1990–June 1993. NSW Environment Protection Authority. NSW EPA report 96/35. Sydney, NSW, Australia.

McCaskill MR, Ridley AM, Okom A, White RE, Andrew MH, Michalk DL, Melland A, Johnston WH, Murphy SR (2003) SGS nutrient theme: environmental assessment of nutrient application to extensive pastures in the high rainfall zone of southern Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43, 927-944.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Morelli B, Hawkins TR, Niblick B, Henderson AD, Golden HE, Compton JE, Cooter EJ, Bare JC (2018) Critical review of eutrophication models for life cycle assessment. Environmental Science & Technology 52, 9562-9578.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Noya I, Villanueva-Rey P, González-García S, Fernandez MD, Rodriguez MR, Moreira MT (2017) Life cycle assessment of pig production: a case study in Galicia. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 4327-4338.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

OEC (2020) Where does Australia import soybean meal from? Observatory of Economic Complexity. Available at https://oec.world/en/resources/about

OEC (2023) Where does Australia import soybean meal from? (2021). Available at https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/aus/show/42304/2021/

Pexas G, Mackenzie SG, Wallace M, Kyriazakis I (2020) Environmental impacts of housing conditions and manure management in European pig production systems through a life cycle perspective: a case study in Denmark. Journal of Cleaner Production 253, 120005.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environmental Science & Technology 43, 4098-4104.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Pré-Consultants (2021) SimaPro 9.3 Software. Pré-Consultants, Amersfoort, Netherlands.

Sevenster M, Renouf M, Islam N, Cowie A, Eckard R, Hall M, Hirlam K, Laing A, Longbottom M, Longworth E, Ridoutt B, Wiedemann S (2023) A common approach to sector-level greenhouse-gas accounting for Australian agriculture methods and data guidance. CSIRO, Australia.

Skerman AG, Willis S, McGahan EJ, Borgognone MG, Batstone DJ (2016) Validation of PigBal model predictions for pig manure production. Animal Production Science 56, 1081-1090.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Stevens DP, Cox JW, Chittleborough DJ (1999) Pathways of phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon movement over and through texturally differentiated soils, South Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research 37, 679-693.
| Google Scholar |

Tallaksen J, Johnston L, Sharpe K, Reese M, Buchanan E (2020) Reducing life cycle fossil energy and greenhouse gas emissions for Midwest swine production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 246, 118998.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Tucker R (2018) National environmental guidelines for indoor piggeries. 3rd edn. Australian Pork Limited (APL), Canberra, Australia.

Tucker R, O’Keefe M, St AU, Ian AL, Rk PO, Ited IM (2013) National environmental guidelines for rotational outdoor piggeries. (Australian Pork Limited: Barton, ACT). Available at http://australianpork.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NGforOP_2013_22_lowres.pdf

Wiedemann S (2018) Analysis of resource use and greenhouse gas emissions from four Australian meat production systems, with investigation of mitigation opportunities and trade-offs. Doctoral thesis, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, New South Wales. Available at https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/75667383/Stephen_Wiedemann_Thesis.pdf

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 (LCA Food 2014)’. pp. 1512–1520. American Centre for Life Cycle Assessment. Washington, DC.

Wiedemann SG, McGahan EJ, Murphy CM (2016) Environmental impacts and resource use from Australian pork production assessed using life-cycle assessment. 1. Greenhouse gas emissions. Animal Production Science 56, 1418-1431.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wiedemann SG, McGahan EJ, Murphy CM (2017) Environmental impacts and resource use from australian pork production determined using life cycle assessment. 2. Energy, water and land occupation. Animal Production Science 58, 1153-1163.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wiedemann S, Watson K, Biggs L, McGahan E, Copley M-F (in review) Trends in the environmental impacts of the Australian pork industry. Animal Production Science. doi:10.1071/AN23361

Woolworths Group (2020) 2020 annual report. Woolworths Group, Sydney.

Woolworths Group (2022a) 2022 sustainability report. Woolworths Group, Sydney.

Woolworths Group (2022b) 2022 annual report. Woolworths Group, Sydney.

Zira S, Rydhmer L, Ivarsson E, Hoffmann R, Röös E (2021) A life cycle sustainability assessment of organic and conventional pork supply chains in Sweden. Sustainable Production and Consumption 28, 21-38.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |