Implications of high animal by-product feed inputs in life cycle assessments of farmed Atlantic salmon
Animal by-products may be increasingly relied upon to satisfy nutritional requirements of salmonids and other fed aquaculture species as demand for fish meal outpaces supply. Previous studies of aquaculture supply chains have included either no animal by-product inputs or small inputs of poultry by-products. Australian Atlantic salmon production includes high use of feed inputs derived from poultry and mammalian by-products and provides a case study to explore the environmental implications and methodological challenges associated with these inputs.
Life cycle assessment was carried out on a vertically integrated salmon production system in Tasmania, representing approximately 40% of Australian Atlantic salmon production. The system included feed production, smolt/juvenile production, farm grow-out, processing and packaging, and distribution of head-on gutted salmon to market. Impacts from animal production were allocated to by-products on a gross chemical energy basis. Scenario analyses were conducted to determine the extent to which changes in feed conversion ratio, feed composition, and other variables affect results. Sensitivity analysis was carried out on the allocation method for fishery and animal by-products.
Results and discussion
Environmental impacts associated with Tasmanian salmon fed high quantities of animal by-products were markedly higher than those of previously assessed systems. All impacts were driven by feed production with the exception of eutrophication potential, which was driven equally by feed production and nutrient loss during grow-out. Animal by-products accounted for the majority of all impacts from feed production. Adopting a feed composition without animal by-products would result in dramatic improvements, including a 70% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. Allocation choice had a clear effect on results, with biophysical allocation methods placing much more burden from animal production on fed systems than economic or no-impact allocation methods.
The use of animal by-product inputs in aquaculture feeds has a substantial effect on the environmental profile of farmed salmon products. The magnitude of this effect is dependent on the allocation method chosen for the treatment of products and by-products in upstream systems. The high impact of such systems recognizes the environmental cost of future aquaculture production that may rely more on intensive and high-impact animal production inputs as more efficient fishery inputs become increasingly limited relative to demand.
KeywordsAnimal by-products Aquaculture Australia Feed production Life cycle assessment Salmon
RP would like to acknowledge the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Resarch Council of Canada (NSERC), and thank those producers, suppliers, and others who provided data and assistance contributing to this project.
- ASC (2012) ASC salmon standard version 1.0. Aquaculture Stewardship Council. http://www.asc-aqua.org/upload/ASC%20Salmon%20Standard_v1.0.pdf. Accessed 22 December 2015
- BSI (2012) PAS 2050-2: 2012—Assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions: supplementary requirements for the application of PAS 2050:2011 to seafood and other aquatic food products. British Standards Institution, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Driscoll J, Boyd C, Tyedmers P (2015) Life cycle assessment of the Maine and southwest Nova Scotia lobster industries. Fish Res 172: 385-400Google Scholar
- Durlinger B, Tyszler, Scholten J, Broekema R, Blonk H (2014) Agri-footprint; a life cycle inventory database covering food and feed production and processing. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector, 8–10 October, 2014, San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
- FAO (2016a) Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: guidelines for assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
- FAO (2016b) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
- FAO (2016c) Food outlook: biannual report on global food markets. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Fréon P, Avadí A, Soto W, Negrón R (2014) Environmentally extended comparison table of large- versus small- and medium-scale fisheries: the case of the Peruvian anchoveta fleet. Can J Fish Aquat 71: 1459- 1474Google Scholar
- Geisler G, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2005) Uncertainty analysis in life cycle assessment (LCA): Case study on plant-protection products and implications for decision making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10: 184-192Google Scholar
- Goedkeep M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Dr Schryver A, Stuijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonized category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Grönroos J, Seppälä J, Silvenius F, Mäkinen T (2006) Life cycle assessment of Finnish cultivated rainbow trout. Boreal Environ Res 11:401–414Google Scholar
- Guinée J (2001) Handbook on life cycle assessment—operational guide to the ISO standards. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6: 255.Google Scholar
- ISO (2006) ISO 14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Parker, RWR (2011) Measuring and characterizing the ecological footprint and life cycle environmental costs of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) products. Masters thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- PRé Consultants bv (2013) SimaPro life cycle assessment software package, version 8. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort, Netherlands.Google Scholar
- S & P Global (2017) Portworld Distance Calculator. http://www.portworld.com/map
- Savage J (2015) Australian fisheries and aquaculture statistics 2015. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation project 2016-246. ABARES, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- Shepherd C, Jackson A (2013) Global fishmeal and fish-oil supply: inputs, outputs and markets. J Fish Biol 83:1046–1066Google Scholar
- van Putten I, Farmery A, Green B, Hobday A, Lim-Camacho L, Norman-López A, Parker R (2016) The environmental impact of two Australian rock lobster fishery supply chains under a changing climate. J Ind Ecol 20: 1384-1398Google Scholar
- Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G (2013) Overview and methodology: data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent report no. 1(v3). The ecoinvent Centre, St. Gallen, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Weidemann S, McGahan E, Poad G (2012) Using life cycle assessment to quantify the environmental impact of chicken meat production. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- Weidemann S, Yan M (2014) Livestock meat processing: inventory data and methods for handling co-production for major livestock species and meat products. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector, 8–10 October, 2014, San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
- White A (2013) A comprehensive analysis of efficiency in the Tasmanian salmon industry. PhD thesis, Bond University, Gold Coast, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Winther U, Ziegler F, Hognes E, Emanuelsson A, Sund V, Ellingsen H (2009) Carbon footprint and energy use of Norwegian seafood products. SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
- World Bank (2012) Fish to 2030: prospects for fisheries and aquaculture. The World Bank, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
- World Bank (2017) World Bank commodities price data (The pink sheet). http://www.worldbank.org/commodities
- Ytrestoyl T, Aas T, Berge G, Hatlen B, Sørensen M, Ruyter B, Thomassen M, Hognes E, Ziegler F, Sund V, Åsgård T (2011) Resource utilization and eco-efficiency of Norwegian salmon farming in 2010. Nofima, Tromsø, NorwayGoogle Scholar
- Ziegler F, Nilsson P, Mattsson B, Walther Y (2003) Life cycle assessment of frozen cod fillets including fishery-specific environmental impacts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:39–47Google Scholar