Skip to main content

Identifying Sustainability Issues for Soymeal and Beef Production Chains

Abstract

The expansion of livestock production throughout the world has led to increased demand for high protein animal feed. This expansion has created economic benefits for livestock farmers and other actors in the chain, but also resulted in environmental and social side effects. This study aims to identify a set of sustainability issues that cover the environmental, economic and social dimensions of soymeal and beef production chains. The method applied combines the results of multiple studies, including a literature review and stakeholder surveys. Stakeholder surveys were conducted for three different interest groups (business, consumers, and other stakeholders) and two geographical regions (Latin America and the European Union). Our results reveal that the selection of issues in most sustainability assessment studies is a relatively arbitrary decision, while the literature also states that identifying issues is an important step in a sustainability assessment. Defining sustainability issues from a whole chain perspective is important, as issues of sustainability emerge at various stages along the production chain, and are found to vary across stakeholders’ interests. Business stakeholders, for example, perceived economic issues to be more important, whereas the majority of consumer stakeholders and other stakeholders perceived social and environmental issues, respectively, to be more important. Different education levels, knowledge, and living patterns in various geographical regions can affect the stakeholders’ perceptions. The combination of a heterogeneous group of stakeholders and the consideration of multiple chain stages constitutes a useful approach to identify sustainability issues along food chains.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Knowledge-based Sustainable vAlue-added food chains: innovative tooLs for monitoring ethical, environmental and Socio-economic impActs and implementing EU-Latin America shared strategies.

  2. 2.

    Local economy in this study refers to local value added along the chain.

  3. 3.

    These two studies were conducted for the UK chain level and not the international chain level.

References

  1. Bokkers, E. A. M., & De Boer, I. J. M. (2009). Economic, ecological, and social performance of conventional and organic broiler production in the Netherlands. British Poultry Science, 50(5), 546–557. doi:10.1080/00071660903140999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cavalett, O., & Ortega, E. (2009). Emergy, nutrients balance, and economic assessment of soybean production and industrialization in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(8), 762–771. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.11.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cederberg, C., Meyer, D., & Flysjö, A. (2009). Life cycle inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and use of land and energy in Brazilian beef production. SIK (the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg). Report: No 792, ISBN 978-91-7290-283-1.

  4. De Boer, I. J. M., & Cornelissen, A. M. G. (2001). A method using sustainability indicators to compare conventional and animal-friendly egg production systems. Poultry Science, 81(2), 173–181. doi:10.1093/ps/81.2.173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. DEFRA. (2002). The strategy for sustainable farming and food: facing the future. London: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dolman, M. A., Vrolijk, H. C. J., & De Boer, I. J. M. (2012). Exploring variation in economic, environmental and societal performance among Dutch fattening pig farms. Livestock Science, 149, 143–154. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2012.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. EEA. (2005). EEA core set of indicators. Luxemburg: European Environment Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Euclides, K. (2004). Supply chain approach to sustainable beef production from a Brazilian perspective. Livestock Production Science, 90(1), 53–61. doi:10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eurostat. (2009). Sustainable development in the European Union. 2009 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy. Luxembourg. ISBN 978-92-79-12695-6.

  10. FAO. (2012). Sustainability assessment of food and agriculture systems (SAFA). Natural Resources Management and Environment Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

  11. Grau, H., & Aide, M. (2008). Globalization and land-use transitions in Latin America. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 16. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art16.

  12. GRI (The Global Reporting Initiative). (2011). Sustainability reporting guideline, version 3.1.

  13. Hanegraaf, M. C., Biewinga, E. E., & Van Der Bijl, G. (1998). Assessing the ecological and economic sustainability of energy crops. Biomass and Bioenergy, 15(4/5), 345–355. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(98)00042-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2006). In H. S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, & K. Tanabe (Eds.), Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Program. IGES, Japan.

  15. Kemp, R., & Parto, S. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice. Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1/2), 12–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kirwan, J., Slee, B., Foster, C., & Vorley, B. (2005). Macro-level analysis of food supply chain dynamics and diversity in Europe. SUS-CHAIN project. http://www.suschain.org/results/index.htm. Accessed 10 Oct 2012.

  17. Lehuger, S., Gabrielle, B., & Gagnaire, N. (2009). Environmental impact of the substitution of imported soybean meal with locally-produced rapeseed meal in dairy cow feed. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 616–624. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.10.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. López, R. (2007). Fiscal policies in highly unequal societies: Implications for agricultural growth. The Electronic Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics, 4(1), 123–145.

  19. Meul, M., Van Passel, S., Nevens, F., Dessein, J., Rogge, E., Mulier, A., et al. (2008). MOTIFS: A monitoring tool for integrated farm sustainability. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 28, 321–332. doi:10.1051/agro:2008001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Michalopoulos, T., Hogeveen, H., Heuvelink, E., & Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M. (2013). Public multi-criteria assessment for societal concerns and gradual labelling. Food Policy, 40, 97–108. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.12.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mollenhorst, H., Berentsen, P. B. M., & De Boer, I. J. M. (2006). On-farm quantification of sustainability indicators: An application to egg production systems. British Poultry Science, 47(4), 405–417. doi:10.1080/00071660600829282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mollenhorst, H., & De Boer, I. J. M. (2004). Identifying sustainability issues using participatory SWOT analysis—A case study of egg production in the Netherlands. Outlook on Agriculture, 33(4), 267–276. doi:10.5367/0000000042664747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. OECD. (2008). OECD contribution to the united nations commission on sustainable development 16, toward sustainable agriculture (pp. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  24. Panichelli, L., Dauriat, A., & Gnansounou, E. (2009). Life cycle assessment of soybean-based biodiesel in Argentina for export. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(2), 144–159. doi:10.1007/s11367-008-0050-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Petit, J., & Van der Werf, H. M. G. (2003). Perception of the environmental impacts of current and alternative modes of pig production by stakeholder groups. Environmental Managment, 68(4), 377–386. doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00105-1.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Prudêncio da Silvaa, V., Vander Werf, H. M. G., Spies, A., & Roberto Soares, S. (2010). Variability inenvironmental impacts of Brazilian soybean according to crop production and transport scenarios. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1831–1839. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith, C. S., & McDonald, G. T. (1998). Assessing the sustainability of agriculture at the planning stage. Journal of Environmental Management, 52, 15–37. doi:10.1006/jema.1997.0162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sterman, F. J. B., & De Felíciob, P. E. (2010). Production systems—An example from Brazil. Meat Science, 84(2), 238–243. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sydorovych, O., & Wossink, A. (2008). The meaning of agricultural sustainability: Evidence from a conjoint choice survey. Agricultural Systems, 98, 10–20. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. USDA-FAS. (2010). Production, supply and distribution (PSD) online database. http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/Accessed 30/06/2013.

  31. UNECE, Eurostat, & OECD. (2013). Framework and suggested indicators to measure sustainable development. Joint UNECE/Eurostat/OECD Task Force on Measuring Sustainable Development.

  32. UNEP/SETAC. (2009). Guidlines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products United Nation Environmental Program.

  33. Van Calker, K. J., Berentsen, P. B. M., Giesen, G. W. J., & Huirne, R. B. M. (2005). Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agriculture and Human Values, 22(1), 53–63. doi:10.1004/s10460-004-7230-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Van Cauwenbergh, N., Biala, K., Bielders, C., Brouckaert, V., Franchois, L., Cidad, V., et al. (2007). SAFE—A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 120(2–4), 229–242. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.09.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vasileiou, K., & Morris, J. (2006). The sustainability of the supply chain for fresh potatoes in Britain. An International Journal Supply Chain Management, 11(4), 317–327. doi:10.1108/13598540610671761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Volk, T. A., Verwijst, Th., Tharakan, P. J., Abrahamson, L. P., & White, E. H. (2004). Growing fuel: A sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops. The Ecological Society of America, 2(8), 411–418. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0411:GFASAO]2.0.CO;2.

  37. Yakovleva, N. (2007). Measuring the sustainability of the food supply chain: A case study of the UK. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(1), 75–100. doi:10.1080/15239080701255005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is part of the SALSA project that has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement number 265927. Furthermore, we would like to thank all the respondents of the surveys. Critical comments and suggestions in statistic part of paper by Simon N’cho (PhD candidate in Business Economics group, Wageningen university) were greatly appreciated.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farahnaz Pashaei Kamali.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 58 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Description of issues

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pashaei Kamali, F., Meuwissen, M.P.M., De Boer, I.J.M. et al. Identifying Sustainability Issues for Soymeal and Beef Production Chains. J Agric Environ Ethics 27, 949–965 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9510-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sustainability
  • Environmental
  • Economic
  • Social
  • Stakeholders