Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Allocation of greenhouse gas production between wool and meat in the life cycle assessment of Australian sheep production

  • LCA FOR AGRICULTURE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Australia is the largest supplier of high-quality wool in the world. The environmental burden of sheep production must be shared between wool and meat. We examine different methods to handle these co-products and focus on proportional protein content as a basis for allocation, that is, protein mass allocation (PMA). This is the first comprehensive investigation applying PMA for calculating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for Australian sheep production, evaluating the variation in PMA across a large number of farms and locations over 20 years.

Materials and methods

Inventory data for two superfine wool Merino farms were obtained from farmer records, interviews and site visits in study 1. Livestock GHG emissions were modelled using Australian National GHG Inventory methods. A comparison was made of mass, protein mass and economic allocation and system expansion methods for handling co-production of wool and sheep meat. In study 2, typical crossbred ewe, Merino ewe and Merino wether flocks in each of the 28 locations in eight climate zones were modelled using the GrassGro/GRAZPLAN simulation model and historical climatic data to examine the variation in PMA values for different enterprise types.

Results and discussion

Different methods for handling co-products in study 1 changed allocated GHG emissions more than fourfold, highlighting the sensitivity to method choice. In study 2, enterprise, climate zone and year and their interactions had significant effects on PMA between wool and liveweight (LW) sold. The wool PMA (wool protein as proportion of total protein sold) least square means (LSM) were 0.61 ± 0.003 for wethers, 0.43 ± 0.003 for Merino ewes and 0.27 ± 0.003 for crossbred ewe enterprises. The wool PMA LSM for the main effect of Köppen climate zone varied from 0.39 to 0.46. Two zones (no dry season/warm summer and distinctively dry and hot) had significantly lower wool PMA LSM, of 0.39 and 0.41, respectively, than the four other climate zones.

Conclusions

Effects of superfine wool production on GHG emissions differed between regions in response to differences in climate and productivity. Regarding methods for handling co-production, system expansion showed the greatest contrast between the two studied flocks and highlighted the importance of meat from wool production systems. However, we also propose PMA as a simple, easily applied allocation approach for use when attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) is undertaken.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABARES (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences) (2014) Australian farm surveys report 2014. Canberra

  • Alcock DJ , Harrison MT, Rawnsley RP, Eckard RJ (2015) Can animal genetics and flock management be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also maintain productivity of wool-producing enterprises? Agric Systems 132:25–34

  • ANRA (2007) Australian Resources Atlas. Department of sustainability, environment, water, population and communities. http://www.anra.gov.au/. Accessed November 2014

  • AWI (2011) Australian wool innovation limited annual report 2010/2011. Sydney

  • Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH, Pelletier NL, Sonesson U, Scholz A (2007) Coproduct allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: review of problems and strategies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:480–487

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Biswas WK, Graham J, Kelly K, John MB (2010) Global warming contributions from wheat, sheep meat and wool production in Victoria, Australia—a life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 18:1386–1392

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • BoM (2015) Climate classification maps. Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Government. Available: http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/climate-classifications/index.jsp?maptype=kpn#maps Accessed 13 April 2015

  • Boucher O, Friedlingstein P, Collins B, Shine KP (2009) The indirect global warming potential and global temperature change potential due to methane oxidation. Environ Res Lett 4:044007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandão M, Clift R, Cowie A, Greenhalgh S (2014) The use of LCA in the support of robust (climate) policy making: comment on “using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation”. J Ind Ecol 18:461–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brock PM, Graham P, Madden P, Alcock DJ (2013) Greenhouse gas emissions profile for 1 kg of wool produced in the Yass region, New South Wales: a life cycle assessment approach. Anim Prod Sci 53:495–508

  • Browne NA, Eckard RJ, Behrendt R, Kingwell RS (2011) A comparative analysis of on-farm greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural enterprises in south eastern Australia. Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–67:641–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler R, Croker K (2006) Stubbles—their use by sheep. Farmnote 188/2006. Department of Agriculture and Food, Government of Western Australia, South Perth, WA

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey JW, Holden NM (2005) Analysis of greenhouse emissions from the average Irish milk production system. Agric Syst 86:97–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cederberg C, Stadig M (2003) System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:350–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottle DJ, Harrison M, Ghanramani A (2016) Sheep greenhouse gas emission intensities under different management practices, climate zones and enterprise types. Anim Prod Sci 55, AN15327

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronje PB (2012) Biological partitioning of environmental costs review for wool LCA. Australian Wool Innovation, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • DCCEE (2014) National inventory report 2012, vol 1, Australian national greenhouse accounts. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Canberra

  • Dong H, Mangino J, McAllister TA, Bartram D, Gibb DJ, Martin JHJ (2006) Emissions from livestock manure management. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) Intergovernmental panel on climate change guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, IGES, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  • Eady S, Carre A, Grant T (2012) Life cycle assessment modelling of complex agricultural systems with multiple food and fibre co-products. J Clean Prod 28:143–149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards-Jones G, Plassmann K, Harris IM (2009) Carbon footprinting of lamb and beef production systems: insights from an empirical analysis of farms in Wales, UK. J Agric Sci 147:707–719

  • Flysjö A, Cederberg C, Henriksson M, Ledgard S (2011) How does co-product handling affect the carbon footprint of milk? case study of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:420–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Freer M, Moore AD, Donnelly JR (1997) GRAZPLAN: decision support systems for Australian grazing enterprises - II. The animal biology model for feed intake, production and reproduction and the GrazFeed DSS. Agric Syst 58:77–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2005) The ecoinvent database: overview and methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:3–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gac A, Ledgard S, Lorinquer E, Boyes M, Le Gall A (2012) Carbon footprint of sheep farms in France and New Zealand: comparison of results and methodology analysis. In: Corson MS, van der Werf HMG (eds) 8th international conference on life cycle assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2012), Saint Malo, France. INRA, Rennes

  • Galbally IE, Meyer MCP, Wang YP, Smith CJ, Weeks IA (2010) Nitrous oxide emissions from a legume pasture and the influences of liming and urine addition. Agric Ecosyst Environ 136:262–272

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber P, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G (2013) 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 

  • Ghahramani A, Moore AD (2013) Climate change and broadacre livestock production across southern Australia. 2. Adaptation options via grassland management. Crop Past Sci 64:615–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044:2006. Int Org for Standardisation, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • JMP (2015) Fitting linear models. http://www.jmp.com/support/help/Fitting_Linear_Models.shtml. Accessed November 2015

  • Kviseth K, Tobiasson TS (2011) Pulling wool over our eyes: the dirty business of LCAs. In: KEA conference: towards sustainability in textiles and fashion industry, Copenhagen, 26th - 27th April 2011

  • Ledgard SF, Lieffering M, Coup D, O’Brien B (2011) Carbon footprinting of New Zealand lamb from the perspective of an exporting nation. Animal Front 1:27–32

  • Lieffering M, Ledgard S, Boyes M, Kemp R (2010) Beef greenhouse gas footprint. Final report. AgResearch, Hamilton, p 95

  • Life Cycle Strategies (2007) Australian unit process LCI library and methods. Version 11

  • MLA (2003) Live assessment yard book: sheep and lamb. Meat and Livestock Australia Limited, North Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore AD, Ghahramani A (2013a) Climate change and broadacre livestock production across southern Australia. 1. Impacts of climate change on pasture and livestock productivity, and on sustainable levels of profitability. Glob Chang Biol 19:1440–1455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore AD, Ghahramani A (2013b) Climate change and broadacre livestock production across southern Australia. 3. Adaptation options via livestock genetic improvement. Anim Prod Sci 54:111–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen TTH, van der Werf HMG, Eugène M, Veysset P, Devun J, Chesneau G, Doreau M (2012) Effects of type of ration and allocation methods on the environmental impacts of beef-production systems. Livest Sci 145:239–251

  • Peters GM, Wiedemann SG, Rowley HV, Tucker RW (2010) Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:311–320

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Poppi DP (1996) Predictions of food intake in ruminants from analysis of food composition. Aust J Agric Res 47:489–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:374–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebitzer G, Loerincik Y, Jolliet O (2002) Input–output life cycle assessment: from theory to applications. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:174–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripoll-Bosch R, de Boer IJM, Bernués A, Vellinga TV (2013) Accounting for multi-functionality of sheep farming in the carbon footprint of lamb: a comparison of three contrasting Mediterranean systems. Agric Syst 116:60–68

  • Sanson D, West T, Tatman W, Riley M, Judkins M, Moss G (1993) Relationship of body composition of mature ewes with condition score and body weight. J Anim Sci 71:1112–1116

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SimaPro (2012) About SimaPro. Available: https://simapro.com/about/. Accessed 3 April 2016

  • Thomassen M, Dolman M, Van Calker K, De Boer I (2009) Relating life cycle assessment indicators to gross value added for Dutch dairy farms. Ecol Econ 68:2278–2284

  • van der Werf HM, Kanyarushoki C, Corson MS (2009) An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 90:3643–3652

  • Wiedemann SG, McGahan EJ, 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, Barton

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Poad G (2012) Using life cycle assessment to quantify the environmental impact of chicken meat production. Final report, RIRDC project No PRJ-004596. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Barton

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiedemann SG, Ledgard SF, Henry BK, Yan M-J, Mao N, Russell SJ (2015a) Application of life cycle assessment to sheep production systems: investigating co-production of wool and meat using case studies from major global producers. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:463–476

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedemann SG, McGahan E, Murphy C, Yan M (2015b) Resource use and environmental impacts from beef production in eastern Australia investigated using life cycle assessment. Anim Prod Sci. doi:10.1071/AN14687

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiedemann SG, Yan M, Murphy C (2015c) Resource use and environmental impacts from Australian export lamb production: a life cycle assessment. Anim Prod Sci. doi:10.1071/AN14647

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities vol Main Report. National Resource Management Institute, Cranfield University and Defra Bedford

  • Zehetmeier M, Gandorfer M, Heibenhuber A, de Boer IJM (2012) Modelling GHG emissions of dairy cow production systems differing in milk yield and breed—the impact of uncertainty. In: 8th Int Conf on Life Cycle Assess in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2012), Saint Malo, France, 1–4 October 2012

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Steven Wiedemann, FSA, for his analyses of study 1 data and the two farm managers who supplied data to him. We also thank Dr. Afshin Ghahramani, CSIRO, for providing data generated from Grazfeed/GrassGro model runs used to calculate the PMA values in study 2 and the emission results reported in Cottle et al. (2016).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia

    David J. Cottle

  2. NSW Department of Primary Industries, Beef Industry Centre, Trevenna Road, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia

    Annette L. Cowie

Authors
  1. David J. Cottle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annette L. Cowie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. Cottle.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Niels Jungbluth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cottle, D.J., Cowie, A.L. Allocation of greenhouse gas production between wool and meat in the life cycle assessment of Australian sheep production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21, 820–830 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1054-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1054-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation