Abstract
Although several international carbon footprint (CF) calculation initiatives have been developed, studies that focus specifically on estimating the CF of pigmeat are rather limited. This paper describes the application of a CF methodology, based on lifecycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, for Flemish pigmeat production using the Publicly Available Specification methodology (PAS2050, BSI 2011), which is at present the most developed method and relevant within the agricultural and horticultural sector. Both primary and secondary data have been used to model the meat system through a chain approach. The results are reported using the functional unit of 1 kg of deboned pigmeat; they range from 4.8 to 6.4 kg CO2 eq. per kg of deboned pig meat. A sensitivity analysis has been executed on changes in herd and feed characteristics. The results have been compared to other studies on the CF of pigmeat in the EU and with CF studies on milk and beef production in Flanders. Furthermore, two major hotspots in the CF have been defined: 1) the composition and production of feed and 2) manure production and usage. It is important to mention that the CF is a good indicator for greenhouse gas emissions, but it is not an indicator for environmental impact in general. This article helps to fill the void in the CF literature that existed around pigmeat products and to define a benchmark for the CF of pigmeat.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
In 2010, only one-sixth of all pig manure produced in Flanders was processed and/or exported (VLM 2011b).
- 2.
A statistical sensitivity analysis was not carried out because not enough information was available to calculate the standard deviation on the secondary data used or on the final result.
References
Blonk H, Kool A, Luske B (2008a) Milieueffecten van Nederlandse consumptie van eiwitrijke producten, Gevolgen van vervanging van dierlijke eiwitten anno 2008. Edited by: Blonk Milieuadvies. Gouda
Blonk H, Luske B, Dutilh C (2008b) Greenhouse gas emissions of meat—methodological issues and establishment of an information infrastructure. Blonk Milieuadvies
Boerenbond (2012) Bedrijfseconomische boekhouding [CD-ROM]. (2009). Leuven
British Standards Institute (BSI) (2011) PAS2050 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. England
Campens V, van Gijseghem D, Bas L, van Vynckt I (2010) Klimaat en veehouderij. Departement Landbouw en Visserij, afdeling Monitoring en studie, Brussel en Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij, Aalst
Dalgaard R, Halberg N, Hermansen J (2007) Danish pork production: an environmental assessment. DJF Anim Sci 82:1–34
Dalgaard T, Olesen JE, Petersen SO, Petersen BM, Jorgensen U, Kristensen T, Hutchings NJ, Gyldenkaerne S, Hermansen JE (2011) Developments in greenhouse gas emissions and net energy use in Danish agriculture—How to achieve substantial CO(2) reductions? Environ Pollut 159(11):3193–3203
de Vries M, de Boer IJM (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Lifestock Sci 128:1–11
Ecoinvent (2011) Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) database [CD-ROM]. (1998–2013). Swiss centre for life cycle inventories, St.-Gallen, Switzerland
Environdec (2013) The international environmental product declaration (EDP®) system—a communications tool for international markets. Stockholm, Sweden
Eriksson IS, Elmquist H, Stern S, Nybrant T (2005) Environmental systems analysis of pig production—the impact of feed choice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(2):143–154
Espinoza-Orias N, Stichnothe H, Azapagic A (2011) The carbon footprint of bread. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):351–365
European Commission (2008) Livestock statistics at regional level. Eurostat
Commission European (2009) Adapting to climate change: the challenge for European agriculture and rural areas. Commission staff working document, Brussels
Eurostat (2012) Meat production and foreign trade (annual data). Last update: 11 Oct 2012
FAO (2008) World meat markets at a glance, Food outlook, global market analysis. http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/ai482e/ai482e01.htm#39
FAO (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector, a life cycle assessment. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations—animal production and health division, Italy: 98
Finkbeiner M (2009) Carbon footprinting—opportunities and threats. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(2):91–94
Flysjo A, Cederberg C, Henriksson M, Ledgard S (2011a) 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(5):420–430
Flysjo A, Henriksson M, Cederberg C, Ledgard S, Englund JE (2011b) The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. Agric Syst 104(6):459–469
GfK (2013) ConsumerScan Panel—Consumption of food in Flanders in 2010. GfK Panel Services Benelux, Division Belgium, Brussels
Hansen MN, Henriksen K, Sommer SG (2006) Observations of production and emission of greenhouse gases and ammonia during storage of solids separated from pig slurry: effects of covering. Atmos Environ 40(22):4172–4181
Hoffmann I (2011) Livestock biodiversity and sustainability. Livestock Sci 139(1–2):69–79
Hortenhuber SJ, Lindenthal T, Zollitsch W (2011) Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from feed supply chains by utilizing regionally produced protein sources: the case of Austrian dairy production. J Sci Food Agric 91(6):1118–1127
IDF (2010) A common carbon footprint approach for dairy—the IDF guide to standard life cycle assessment methodology for the dairy sector. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation, Brussel
IPCC (2006a) Intergovernmental panel on climate change [online]. Established by: United Nations environmental programme and world meteorological organization. Geneva. Switzerland. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm#.UOVJmrXLe_0. Accessed January–August 2011
IPCC (2006b) Chapter 10: emissions from livestock and manure management. In: 2006 ipcc guidelines for national greenhouse gas [online]. Geneva. Switzerland. Available from: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf. Accessed January–August 2011
IPCC (2006c) Chapter 11: emissions from managed soils, and CO2 Emissions from lime and urea application. In: 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas [online]. Geneva. Switzerland. Available from: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf. Accessed January–August 2011
IPCC (2007) Intergovernmental panel on climate change [online]. Established by: united nations environmental programme and world meteorological organization. Geneva. Switzerland. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm#.UOVJmrXLe_0. Accessed July–December 2011
Jacobsen R, Vandermeulen V, Vanhuylenbroeck G, Gellynck X (2013) The carbon footprint of pigmeat in Flanders. Int J Agric Sustain 1:1–18. DOI:10.1080/14735903.2013.798896
Johnson JMF, Franzluebbers AJ, Weyers SL, Reicosky DC (2007) Agricultural opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Pollut 150(1):107–124
Leip A, Weiss F, Wassenaar T, Perez I, Fellmann T, Loudjani P, Tubiello F, Grandgirard D, Monni S, Biala K (2010) Evaluation of the livestock sector’s contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS)—final report. European Commission, Joint Research Centre
Kramer KJ, Moll HC, Nonhebel S (1999) Total greenhouse gas emissions related to the Dutch crop production system. Agric Ecosyst Environ 72(1):9–16
Nielsen P, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, Frederiksen RH, Dalgaard R, Halberg N (2010) LCA food database [online]. Faculty of agricultural sciences, danish institute for fisheries research, Denmark. Available from: http://www.lcafood.dk/. Accessed January–August 2012
Masse DI, Masse L, Xia Y, Gilbert Y (2010) Potential of low-temperature anaerobic digestion to address current environmental concerns on swine production. J Anim Sci 88:E112–E120
Muller-Lindenlauf M, Deittert C, Kopke U (2010) Assessment of environmental effects, animal welfare and milk quality among organic dairy farms. Livestock Sci 128(1–3):140–148
Platteau J, van Gijseghem D, van Bogaert T, Maertens E (2012) Landbouwrapport 2012. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Brussels
Ridoutt BG, Sanguansri P, Harper GS (2011) Comparing carbon and water footprints for beef cattle production in Southern Australia. Sustainability 3:2443–2455
Sommer SG, Petersen SO, Sogaard HT (2000) Greenhouse gas emission from stored livestock slurry. J Environ Qual 29(3):744–751
Sonesson U, Cederberg C, Berglund M (2009) Greenhouse gas emissions in milk production: decision support for climate certification. Klimatmarkning for mat
Statistics Belgium (2010) Farm Counting, (Landbouwtelling), Brussels
Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales Mand de Haan C (2006) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. FAO
Studio LCE (2012) UN CPC 2111. Product category rules for the assessment of the environmental performance of meat of mammals. September 11th 2012. Contributed by: Siena University, COOP Italia, Assocarni. Italy
Thoma G, Popp J, Nutter D, Shonnard D, Ulrich R, Matlock M, Kim DS, Neiderman Z, Kemper N, East C, Adom F (2010) Regional analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from milk production practices in the United States. Seventh international conference on life cycle assessment in the Agri-food sector. Italy
van der Werf HMG, 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 Manage 90(11):3643–3652
van Dooren HJC, Smits MCJ (2007) Reductieopties voor ammoniak- en methaanemissies uit huisvesting voor melkvee. Rapport 80. Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen
van Liefferinge J (2011) Vlaams Actieplan voor de Varkenshouderij. Afdeling Landbouw en Visserijbeleid, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, Vlaamse Overheid, Brussel
van Wezemael L (2011) Consumer attitudes towards safety and health attributes of beef and beef technologies, Department of agricultural economics, Ghent University, Ghent
Veillette M, Girard M, Viens P, Brzezinski R, Heitz M (2012) Function and limits of biofilters for the removal of methane in exhaust gases from the pig industry. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 94(3):601–611
Verspecht A, Vandermeulen V, de Bolle S, Moeskops B, Vermang J, van den Bossche A, van Huylenbroeck G, de Neve S (2011) Integrated policy approach to mitigate soil erosion in West-Flanders. Land Degrad Dev 22(1):84–96
Verspecht A, Vandermeulen V, ter Avest E, van Huylenbroeck G (2012) Review of trade-offs and co-benefits from greenhouse gas mitigation measures in agricultural production. J Integr Environ Sci 9(1):147–157
VLM (2011a) Mestbankgegevens [CD-ROM]. (2009). Brussel
VLM (2011b) Voortgangsrapport betreffende het mestbeleid in Vlaanderen [online]. Brussel. Available from: www.vlm.be
VMM, VITO, AWAC, IBGE-BIM, Federal Public Service of Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, IRCEL-CELINE, ECONOTEC (2011) Belgium’s greenhouse gas inventory (1990–2008). National Inventory Report submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. April 2010. Belgium
Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Bedford: Cranfield University and Defra. Available from: www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk, and www.defra.gov.uk
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the Flemish Administration—Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The authors gratefully acknowledge this funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Annex
Necessary Data to Calculate the CF for Pigmeat Production on Farm Level
Data | Source |
|---|---|
Number of animals per age category | Farmers union |
Weight of animals per age category | Farmers union |
Number of sold animals | Farmers union |
Number of gets per sow and piglets per get | Farmers union |
Mortality rate per age category | Farmers union |
Replacement percentage sows | Farmers union |
Composition/usage of fodder per age category | Farmers union |
Feed conversion per age category | Farmers union |
Emission factors purchased fodder | Blonk/WUR/Eco-invent/LCA food |
Gastrointestinal fermentation | NIR Belgium |
Methane conversion factors from manure | NIR Belgium |
Nex per type of animal | NIR Belgium |
Manure storage systems | Farmers union |
Nitrogen losses from manure conversion into laughing gas | NIR Belgium/IPCC 2006 |
Manure usage for crop production | IPCC 2006/NIR Belgium/ |
Energy and water consumption | Farmers union |
Emission factors electricity and fuels | Flemish energy convenant |
Emission factor water | Ecoinvent database |
Necessary Data for Resources of Fodder
Resources | EF (kg CO2 eq/kg product) | % LUC | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
Soy meal | 3.10 | 70 | Blonk/WUR |
Soy hulls | 0.945 | 62 | Blonk/WUR |
Beet pulp | 0.108 | 0 | Ecoinvent |
Minerals, protein core and vitamins | 0.570 | 0 | Ecoinvent |
Wheat | 0.466 | 0 | Blonk/WUR |
Milk powder | 7.9 | 0 | LCA food |
Barley | 0.281 | 0 | Blonk/WUR |
Corn | 0.488 | 0 | Blonk/WUR |
Corn gluten feed | 0.424 | 0 | Blonk/WUR |
Palm kernel flakes | 1.12 | 13 | Blonk/WUR |
Wheat starch | 0.837 | 0 | Blonk/WUR |
Wheat gluten feed | 0.338 | 0 | Blonk/WUR |
Linseed flakes | 0.583 | 0 | Blonk/WUR |
Rapeseed flakes | 0.583 | 0 | Blonk/WUR |
Rapeseed meal | 0.455 | 0 | Blonk/WUR |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jacobsen, R., Vandermeulen, V., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Gellynck, X. (2014). The Carbon Footprint of Pigmeat in Flanders. In: Muthu, S. (eds) Assessment of Carbon Footprint in Different Industrial Sectors, Volume 1. EcoProduction. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-41-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-41-2_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-4560-40-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-4560-41-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)